The lost language of cranes" is a British TV movie based on the novel by David Leavitt. The problem when you see a movie adaptation of a book you have already read -- and loved -- is that either the adaptation is not faithful and betrays the book, or it is too faithful and just looks like a summary of the story. Very rarely a movie adaptation can remain faithful to the essence of the book but not so literal that it brings nothing new to the story; unfortunately, that's the case here.

It tells the story of a family, the Benjamins, who have lots of secrets. Owen Benjamin, played by Brian Cox, is a closeted homosexual married to Rose (Eileen Atkins). Every Sunday Owen goes to a porno cinema, where he has anonymous sex with men. Owen and Rose's son, Philip (Angus MacFadyen), is also a gay man, but he has no problems with his sexuality. He's very much in love with Elliot (Corey Parker), a young American artist who was raised by a gay couple. The conflict starts when Philip decides to come out to his parents, making his father face his own desire and his mother confront her own prejudice.

The most surprising fact about this British adaptation of an American novel is how little the change of place from New York to London affects the story. Indeed, this adaptation is so faithful to the original that whole dialogs from the book appear on the screen, almost unchanged. And yet, we get to know from the bonus interviews on this DVD that the porno cinema, which plays such an important role in the story, was a real problem in the adaptation because there were no such places in London, due to their laws. So apparently the screenwriter, Sean Mathias, had to "create" a porno cinema that never existed, appropriately called "the Fantasy".

Among the sacrifices that had to be made for the sake of the length of the movie, the one I most regret is the use of the character Jerene, played by Cathy Tyson. In the novel, Jerene is a full and complex character, a black lesbian student who was rejected by her parents and develops a thesis about languages that are lost forever, like the little boy who, neglected by his mother, learned to communicate looking at the cranes from his window. In the movie, Jerene appears only to explain the title of the film and little else.

If you haven't read the novel, you will find this movie a very interesting drama about a family having to face their hidden secrets, but without ever raising their voices, which is very British! If you already know the book, however, you may feel a little disappointed.


Story about two young men in England--Philip (Angus Macfayden) and Eliot (Corey Parker)--falling in love. Philip tells his parents--his mother thinks it's a disaster--his father (Brian Cox) remains strangely quiet. It turns out HE'S gay too and his sons coming out is forcing him into a decision.

Low-key drama. I caught it on PBS (slightly edited) and then saw it complete on VHS in the early 1990s. I liked it but can't say I was too impressed. For starters the low-key aspect of the story was TOO low-key. Everything seemed muted. Macfayden and Parker were (surprisingly) terrible in their roles. I never believed these guys even liked each other, let alone love each other. So a crucial turn halfway through didn't carry the emotional weight it should have. The happy ending all around seemed too pat for me also.

Still it was brave to make a movie like this back in 1991 AND get it distributed. It was well-directed and well-written. Also Cox was excellent in his role. So, it IS interesting in terms of gay cinema--it portrays gay men in a realistic manner (especially having hunky, masculine Macfayden play one) but it just doesn't come across strongly enough. Worth a viewing but don't go out of your way.


I rented this film because of Angus MacFadyen, who did such a great job in "Cradle Will Rock." I am also very impressed with his work here. "Cranes" is a story about the many complicated facets of coming out, keeping secrets, sharing life with others, and being true to yourself. It has a richly thoughtful plot, and some of the sweetest love scenes I've seen. It's definitely a must see for gay/queer/rainbow folk, and those who want to understand a little more about coming out.


This is a compassionate, beautifully acted drama of human emotions and desires, amongst a well-educated, middle class British family and their aacquaintances. Made in 1991, produced for the BBC and WNET, and telecast in the United Kingdom on June 24, 1992, this is one tv production which deserves to and will undoubtedly last a long time.

Heading the cast is Angus MacFadyen as a sensitive young man who is well adjusted with his lifestyle, and who can express himself intelligently, and carry himself with dignity. A look at MacFadyen's career roles is surprising, with this film marking his debut. Between '91 and '00 he has played an impressive number of widely varied characters, from Orson Welles and Richard Burton to Hitler and Zeus, surely the mark of a gamely actor!

Eileen Atkins contributes a sensibly realized portrait of a knowing wife and mother, and Sean Mathias and David Leavitt's script is quite perceptive, based on Leavitt's original novel. A very well crafted tv production. ###


I had read the novel of David Leavitt which this movie is based on just before watching it. I have to say that the novel was great, very well written and full of sincere feelings. Though, the movie is terrible. I can't say if it is because of being a TV movie, because it was made in the early 90's or just bad interpretation. The actors seem all the time to be waiting for the other to give them lines. The only scene I would save is when Jerene and the guys are in the park. A scene that didn't happen in the book. You don't need to have read the book to watch it as you'll follow properly. Though, there are some stuff that you'll miss because you don't have the background explanation. All the story about their past is lost in the film. Though, I would definitely recommend reading the book before watching this so you'll realise it is a very good story but a bad production. I wished I was a cinema director so I'd do a new version. I gave the maximum mark to this because I can't be fair with this. The book is extremely good.


I would change places with the three gorgeous guys (Angus, Ben and Corey) in no special order just to kiss them. I am sure that a woody would occur. A snow ball in hell would have a better chance than I would at my age.

Although this film was made in the early 90's anyone would find it a great movie. Oh come on! All movies have flaws. Try making a perfect movie on a limited budget and limited distribution.

The title is a little misleading but the book explains it yet not detailed enough.

Purchase it! You will not be disappointed.


This gem of a TV movie has the Boris Karloff stamp all over it and together with usual atmospheric lighting and production bestowed upon a British TV thriller it makes for compelling viewing. It is nice to see that after a long and successful film career in the US that Mr Karloff decided to return to the land of his birth and make not only this film, but also others like 'Curse Of The Crimson Altar' which were shown on the big screen in the late Sixties and which are now shown regularly in Britain on television.

His performance in 'The Veil' is up to his usual standard. What is particularly interesting is the many characters he plays in this film. He tackles them all - the weird, the wise and the perfectly normal. Robert Hardy too should get a mention for an early performance which showed the promise of what was to come in British television. By the way the year is either 1963 or 1964. I used to know but cannot be sure, now.


This was a 1958 TV Series which I seemed to have missed and I must say the so-called Five(5) Spine Tingling Episodes: "Vision of Crime", "Girl On the Road","Jack The Ripper", "Summer Heat",'and" Return of Madam" were big disappointments. In some of these Episodes, Boris Karloff gives some minor performances which definitely spark your interest by his facial expressions and faces of evil which he so greatly performed for many many years. It is quite clear that having Karloff hosts these brief stories, it caused people to take an interest in viewing them on TV. In one of the stories, George Hamilton was very young and had a very brief role to perform. This is still a Classic film made in 1958 and ten years later, Boris Karloff passed away to the Higher Stage in the real Spiritual World.


I have been a fan of Michael Ende since childhood and, although this interpretation of the Neverending Story strays from the plot of the book, I still found it delightful to watch. It is beautifully shot with colourful costumes and cinematography. The cast, although young, give wonderfully natural and committed performances. There are some additional characters who add humour and romantic tension where it may have been lacking in Ende's original story. There is more of an exploration of the character of Bastian and his place in the real world, which provides a contrast with the characters in Fantastica. I believe the changes in plot are in keeping with the spirit of the world Ende created. I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys a good fairy tale, regardless of age.


It is important when watching this series that it is not meant to be a remake of the book. And I will point out that the makers of this show definitely read the book. I was reading through the book and caught mention of a character named Quana (I cannot remember the context) and thought, "flygirl." The one annoying thing is that there seem to be plot jumps. How did Fallin become employed at Coreander's? I prefer the Bastian of the show over the movies, because now he gets to be a boy. I also think the addition of a love interest was a good idea despite its inaccuracy to the book, because that wasn't the goal of the show. Overall, I liked the show although I wouldn't recommend paying money for it. If you can get it for free though, go ahead and watch it.


This is a really great twist on the story. My family and I (3 girls, 4 boys and myself) find it a nice overlapping of values and virtues for families.

The characters are well rounded and interesting. Atreyu and Bastian are really good "copies" of each other in their own worlds. It is nice to see the tie-ins from world to world and the storyline stays very straight- there's no confusion as to what is going on.

The child-like empress was a very good choice for this story. Her sister, Xayide, is all that the child-like empress is not: hateful, greedy, vain, evil, etc.

This is a great adventure!


You know you're in trouble when you constantly can't help saying to yourself: "I could act better than him, I could act better than her!" After a while I realized I could act better than any character in the entire film! The acting is that unconvincing and poor - it's beyond belief. Some other words to describe the acting talent of the performers is - cardboard, camp, dopey and annoying!

If the acting was not bad enough, the story was even worse! This film was totally devoid of any entertainment value, whatsoever, for the mind of an adult! Personally, I think most children, and certainly teens, would be bored to tears!

It's obvious to me that Tales from the NeverEnding Story - The Beginning is an attempt to make a quick buck off of The NeverEnding Story. To essentially turn a wonderful story into a commodity, like toothpaste or underarm deodorant. If you must see this godforsaken film out of curiosity, at least buy it used so you won't encourage a sequel!


What did I just watch?.....

I have no idea what I just just endured but it was not the Neverending Story. That was.... I'm not sure i can put into words but here goes nothing...

The acting was absolutely terrible... like something from a junior high theatre production. The movie seemed to drag on for days on end. This may possibly be the worst movie EVER created. This movie, if you can call it that, made me want to die.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! Save yourself from the utter brain cell annihilation that is this movie.


This film adaptation was depressing. I am not sure what the screenwriters were thinking--did they even read Michael Ende's fabulous story? If you watch "Behind the Scenes" on the first installment of this painfully cheesy and uninspired series, you'll hear the writers and actors waxing philosophical about how this movie is all about imagination, the struggle of good vs. evil, and how we can use the power of great stories to help us work through our own real life difficulties. And yes, that is what the book was about. But the book told a story that was truly creative without heavy handed moralizing. Watching this film was like being battered with the heavy club of self-righteous anti-modernity: Smash that game boy and read a book! I like computer games too, but come on. We *get* it--reading is good; OK, stop shouting at us through your filmaking. Oh, lest I forget--the most frightening thing about the book and the old movie-- The Nothing: a powerful, disintigrating force that dissolves all life and matter, that grows in virility as lies and disinterest spread-- is recreated as this weird green stuff that comes out of a jar and sucks all the color out of your face. Michael Ende found a cool, truly scary was of talking about apathy and dishonesty; this movie goes and twists that into some lousy B-movie green goop.

Even if you've never read Ende's book or seen the iconic 1984 version, this new film adaptation is just stupid. The effects suck, the acting is awful, and the plot is beleaguered with confusing side stories that make no sense, even if you have read the book.

I could go on and on... I guess the most important thing to say is that I bought this disk for $2.50 at Kmart. I should have known better.

Be forewarned! See the 1984 version, or better yet, read the book.


This movie is an utter perversion of Ende's Fantastica. I'm just glad that he didn't live to see this piece of horrible junk. I, unfortunately got this as a gift and after about ten minutes of watching it I was ticked off. The people who made this show, obviously, never even looked at the book. The fans of the book and the movies already went through enough with the creation of The Neverending Story III so we didn't need this blow to the gut. I don't know who in the world thought that doing this show would be a good idea. And I can't fathom how some people like this. Read the book people and you'll see my point. My advice to everyone is beware this show, DO NOT watch it. This show gets an F-.


This series truly is awful. The scripts are tedious and repetitive. After hearing the phrase "the child-like princess" over and over and over again you feel a desperate need to start throwing things at the TV. You would applaud this level of performance in a school play but in anything else it's pretty unacceptable. The special effects are not too hot either, but if the scripts were better, the plots less predictable, the acting less bad and direction less clunky you would forgive any shortcomings in the level of production. It's sad to see all this effort wasted. And it's very sad to see a production cashing in on the "Neverending Story" name to scam a few bucks off a duped audience. With any luck I might get my money back by selling this pack of dogs on eBay.


If i was to sum it up in one word it would be 'hilarious'

I bought this DVD expecting it to be just live performances and stuff but it was filled with much more! Mike and Joe show us their artworks, we see Chester's tattoos (very amusing!) and we have 4 of their video clips, plus much more! Mike, Chester, Phoenix, Joe, Brad and Rob are just as funny as they are entertaining! We get to see the guys doing things they would normally be doing. It also includes the making of 'In the End,' two extra songs which aren't on their albums and 'Crawling' sung by Bryson Jones and the Sweethearts of the rodeo all-star band. This DVD is a must have for all Linkin Park fans, and fans will not be disappointed!


When you look at the title of this DVD you think its a live DVD. However you will be very surprised. It contains interviews from the band members the videos from one step closer, crawling, paper cut and in the end. It gives you a great insight into life inside Linkin Park. It also has some interesting extras like Chester Bennington's Tattoos and what they represent and some audio only tracks like high voltage and my December. It also goes in great detail about the making of the in the end video. The only negative about this DVD is that although there are quite a few topics in the DVD they don't go in a lot of detail about them. Viewing wise if you like linkin park its worth a watch if your not a linkin park fan its probably not for you.


The first time I bought this DVD and the first time I watched it, I was cracking up so hard all the way through. Linkin Park has always been my favorite band and this DVD is another highlight of their remarkable career. Its too funny. Whoever didn't rate this movie 10 out of 10, has to get to know LP more, or needs to loosen up cause this movie is the bomb. It also has their videos from back in the day. And you can watch a secret thing where they're in London, and Mike breaks the table. I was laughing my butt off. You really really have to watch this DVD because its one of the funniest you will ever watch I Love LP Frat Party at the Pancake Festival


There have been better DVD's from other bands, but this is enjoyable. This is mostly interviews with the band and a lot of talking. But it is entertaining, seeing all their music videos is a lot of fun, in my opinion Crawling was the best video out of all of them. The Making Of In The End is interesting, terrible music video but nice to see how they made it. Watching them on tour is nice, i just wish we could of seen full length songs live instead of just clips, like from their ozzfest days. One of the cool things is that toward the end we got to see the making of the tune Somewhere I Belong, which wouldn't be released until 2 years later.

Overall, i think they could of put more music and live concert songs on the DVD, but if you're a fan of LP, this is for you.


Oh my gosh this DVD is amazing. I have only recently became a huge fan of the band. There are some parts that I will watch over and over again. In fact I can't stop watching it full stop. My fave parts are all the interviews, the crazy stuff about the room service, how many times Brad says " like". All the footage of the band when they're on tour is so good. The pranks at midnight in one of the hidden features are just hilarious. The guys just seem so lovely, down to earth and it has to be said very attractive. I am now determined to get every DVD going about them. The other parts I love are the making of the In the End video featurette which is fab as it shows how everything is put together. The DVD is as fab as Mike Shinoda is gorgeous.


Linkin Park has been my favorite band since I was about 10. From the moment I heard their music I knew, that I was going to stand by their side forever. I'm proud to be one of their biggest fans!

When I saw the DVD in the store I just had to buy it! I mean, it was LP, and I had searched for something like that for years!!! So two minutes later it was mine. (My friend bought it too)I was expecting some live performances and videos, but when I first saw it I realized it was so much more! It was kinda like "behind the scenes" stuff and it just cracked me up!It's like, every time I see it I feel like I know these guys better and better. I didn't know those guys were that funny! I was exited to see how my heroes were like, and I didn't get disappointed! :D

A must-have for all LP fans!


Over the years, I have listened to a lot of bands that I have claimed to be my "favorite" band. Lately, though, my attention has been turned toward an Illinois band- Linkin Park.

Now, I admit it, Linkin Park isn't necessarily the most wholesome band listen to; with lyrics like "I've lied to you the same way I always do" (Pushing Me Away) and "You love the things I say I'll do- the way I'll hurt myself again just to get back at you..." (Points of Authority), many people have dismissed LP as just another angst-laden band who will never make a real impact. Well, what about Runaway, with its lyrics like "I want to know the truth instead of wondering why..." and With You, which proclaims "The sound of your voice brings up all my memories, even if you're not with me I'm with you..."?

Now for the actual review: Linkin Park has produced a DVD of one of their concert performances. They sing some of their hit songs from Hybrid Theory, like Crawling, In the End, and Papercut. The extras are cool, as they contain behind-the-scenes footage and more concert stuff not on the first DVD.

I am proud to say that I am a fan of Linkin Park and will forever be.

Signing off, Andy Olson


Generally thought to be the first official Laurel and Hardy release(although PUTTING PANTS ON PHILLIP is also put in this bracket),the boys don't wear their Bowler hats and have their heads shaved,but are very much a team in this early effort,more so than PPOP where they play against each other rather than for.There's plenty of amusing incident and situations(especially when they attempt to escape the jail as painters);one slight quibble is that as convicts,the characters they have to play here have a very slightly more unpleasing edge than they would be establishing only a few films later in the partnership.Still funny though,and Jimmy Finlayson's double take and fade away is worth a few more laughs as well here;in early publicity material the boys were sometimes billed as 'Hardy and Laurel' in this film;that soon changed.


THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Two jail birds (Laurel and Hardy) escape from custody and assume the identities of French dignitaries who turn out to be prison inspectors (Otto Fries and Bob O'Conor) on their way to the very jail from which L&H have just escaped! Havoc ensues.

One of the best of L&H's silent comedies, and certainly their best collaboration with director Fred Guiol. This one features a full range of amusing set-pieces, including an inspired sequence in which The Boys elude a nosey cop by pretending to be painters (only to end up painting everything in sight, including someone's car!), and the lengthy scene in which they're mistaken for visiting VIP's and received at the prison as guests of honor by warden James Finlayson, only to cause chaos at the dinner table. The escalation of comic incidents is entirely believable throughout. However, the film also contains an offensive sight gag, when L&H accidentally slap white paint all over the face of an African-American passer-by.


If you read the comments for the '95 version, many people seem to say (in more or less words) that THAT version has been sadly overlooked. But even sadder, here's a version ('86) that is far better, and few people know it exists. (Just read some professional reviews on the internet, and they'll only mention two ones--the '39 and '95). Perhaps that's because quite a few haven't read the novel, or just because it's a classic, dismiss it as "boring" and "irrelevant" to today's society. But for those of us who have read the novel and loved it, this is by far the best movie of "The Little Princess" made. It doesn't rely on special effect interludes, like the '95 one, or cute little song and dance sessions like movie of '39. Here we just get the story as it is with all the characters presented in exactly the way the novel depicts them. Amelia Shankley did a wonderful job as Sara Crewe. She looked dark, thin and solemn, just as described in the novel, and acted quiet and wise as well. In fact, all the actors and actresses did a good job. Even if Lottie didn't look quite the way as described, she acted it out so well that it didn't matter at all. And that goes for everybody else who's in this. I watched this with my mother and she agreed that it was very well done, and that all the children were quite appealing. As well, the sets and costumes were not too bold, like in the '95 version (can you tell I didn't like that one?). Sara's surroundings are SUPPOSED to look drab and grey. If you've never seen a version of "The Little Princess" or read the book--obviously read the novel first, then see this one. But if the thought of Frances Hodgson Burnett's lovely story doesn't appeal to you, then by all means, see the others. In general, I love BBC productions of novels, because of their faithfulness to the original stories, and because of their length. (My favourite BBC miniseries of a novel would have to be the 1978 "Wuthering Heights"--exactly like the novel, to the T. Make every possible effort to see that if you've read the book).


I first encountered this version of A Little Princess, by far the best, on a PBS station in the Pacific Northwest. It must have been new then.

It was shown during a holiday season station fund-raiser and promoted by ghastly comments by an attractive  physically  woman who made the sorts of comments I would expect a rather silly grandmother to make to someone else's grandchild.

I was somewhat insulted, but when the film began settled for enchantment which was sufficiently strong to keep me around when the second installment (I think there were only two, but this was 20-odd years ago) came along next night, when I also learned that the picture would be replayed throughout the promo which allowed me to make a tape of it.

Although the script does not slavishly repeat every bit of the Burnett novel, it completely mirrors it, changing some situations and condensing in some areas. Most of the minor deviations from the plot I assumed  still do  were because Sara had to be shown growing up and the story had to fit within length restrictions. Amelia Shankley was superb as was her nemesis, played by Maureen Lippman. Seldom mentioned is her companion, scullery maid Becky, or many other fine characterizations.

Parts of the film are sad and, because we (viewers) have become fond of Sara, a little frightening at times. We wish, sometimes, that Sara in her times of trial would be more defiant but realize, too, that she must submit to survive and also to protect her friends.

As intended, Sara comes across  this mood is set even before the situations are defined  as a true heroine, when adversity befalls her. She remains compassionate toward and grateful to those who are her friends, including Melchizedek (you have to know the story) toward whom she is also a benefactor.

Shankley, the costumers and makeup artists, surmount the challenges of a growing and changing girl who eventually displays some signs of illness (scurvy perhaps?).

Sara and her story remain compelling and attractive after a lapse of more than 100 years and this filmed version remains so after 20 years, but can we not find so compelling a version of what is perhaps Francs Hodgson Burnett's finest tale childhood?


Take heart, fans of this very true-to-the-novel movie version, the new American channel Pax TV shows this movie sometimes, but unfortunately has cut about 50 minutes from it, making it about an hour and 45 minutes long. Still, it is heartening that this detailed version is faithful to the novel's setting of 1880s London, and the premise that Sarah's father has truly died, altho his "dear friend" finally finds the long-lost Sarah in the end. I would have liked more exterior scenes, but good acting by all.

An interesting note - the novel started as a short story called "Sarah Crewe, or What Happened at Miss Minchin's" in the 1880s, serialized for a magazine. Response was so positive, that after the author Frances Burnett had adapted it for the stage at the turn of the century and called it "A Little Princess," she re-wrote the book version, adding length and detail, and calling it "Little Princess" as well. The latter is what most know about and what you will find in the bookstores, but both versions are available on the internet to compare texts.


This is one of the best adaptations of a book ever done. Amelia Shankley captures the character of Sara with a marvelous performance. She maintains her dignity and her natural kindness in spite of the most difficult circumstances. Maureen Lipmann's performance as the selfish, conceited head mistress is also very good. In fact, all of the performances are really very good. And best of all, for once the writers of the screenplay did not feel compelled to significantly change any of the story. The scene with the starving little girl in front of the bun shop is very well done and true to the book. This is a wonderful movie and I am hoping that it will soon be available on DVD.


This is definitely the best version of "A Little Princess" that I've ever personally seen. Unlike that crappy 1995 one set in New York or the one with Shirley Temple making me want to slap her, the PBS version had a Sara who looked like Sara as she was described in the book. Not only that, she *acted* like the Sara in the book, not like a whiny, boring little snot. All the acting was very good, especially Miss Minchin's sister (Miriam Margolyes) and the other schoolgirls. The screenplay was excellent. Without relying on copying the actual words and phrases of the book (although crucial plot moments were often almost word-for-word), it was very true to the spirit and intention of the book and didn't offend people who have loved and re-read the story. This is unusual for a movie based on a book. Also, the cinematography showed the dreariness of Sara's life and world very clearly with its rainy, muted colors.

All in all this was a completely wonderful movie. See it if you possibly can, although since it was broadcast on PBS at least ten years ago it's probably hard to find .


I have to admit it: I watched this over and over when I was a little girl. It's not often that a story with such a clear moral message is this entertaining. Anyone out there who has kids, especially girls, should find this series and get it for them, they'll love it. The Shirley Temple version can't hold a candle to this one, if you were wondering. The realism is striking, especially in scenes which depict illness or poverty, and the tenderness in the relationships between the characters (or the harshness in some cases) is a feat not often achieved in family television drama. I'd recommend this series to anyone who likes Harry Potter, Pollyanna, Annie, Heidi, Anne of Green Gables, The Secret Garden, Labyrinth, Gilliam's Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen or pretty much anything by Hayao Miyazaki. The protagonist of "The Little Princess" is a heroine in the tradition of the girls in all of these stories -- imaginative, patient, courageous and self-sacrificing. You'll love her, and your daughters will too.


Frances Hodgson Burnett's "A Little Princess" is one of the most fascinating and beautiful tales I have ever read;every scene has been wrought to delicately add meaning to the story and brings us to a deep appreciation and understanding of that unique character Sara Crewe whom we follow during her sojourn at Miss Minchin's Select Seminary for Young Ladies,in 1880s London.

For nearly four years Sara Crewe was distinguished as the "show pupil" at Miss Minchin's,a time in which she was materially provided for with the finest extravagances, as she had been accustomed to in India.Having lost his wife during his child's birth, the wealthy Captain Crewe had prodigiously indulged his daughter, affording her a life of luxury.Despite her awareness as to her station,Sara was kind and generous,ever considerate to those less fortunate than herself.She was quick to befriend Ermengarde,a pariah amongst the other pupils because of her academic dullness, Lottie,the spoilt baby of the classroom for whom she became a surrogate mamma,and the ill-treated scullery maid Becky,who had never been shown a drop of kindness in her wretched life.Then,on her eleventh birthday, the fateful news arrived that her father had died,having lost his entire fortune in a speculative investment.Bereft of her only family and almost all her possessions,Sara found herself reduced from being the privileged pupil to an ill-used skivvy at the seminary.Nevertheless,she strived to bear her hardships and remain a princess on the inside.

As a complement to the book I recommend the 1986 TV-adaptation, which visually brought to life the characters of the story and the feeling of the epoch.The cinematography pictured plainly but effectively the conditions of living in Victorian London,depicting the crowded marketplace and murky lanes littered with paupers and street urchins who spoke cockney and scraped a living off the streets, in stark contrast to the higher society whose children rode in carriages and promenaded in the parks on clear days. And even details such as the houses, the seminary, and the view from the garret window,whence the howling of the bitter winter wind on the rooftops could be heard,were quite as described in the book.The screenplay also followed the book closely, adding new details,leaving out many others, but most importantly,never contradicting the story and nature of the characters as portrayed by Burnett.

The casting was picked to match,as closely as possible, the characters' descriptions in the book. Amelia Shankley was absolutely wonderful as the dark haired,contemplative Sara Crewe:not only did she look like Sara,but interpreted the part with such conviction, as if she were truly living the character, enduring her adversities with the complexity of a myriad of emotions that swelled in her young heart and pictured clearly on her sore-plagued face.But her eyes lit up immediately when she was approached by Lottie or Ermengarde,or any one she thought a kind soul, partly out of the comfort it gave her, partly because her proud little spirit would refuse to have it otherwise, but mostly because of her consideration towards others' feelings:she knew, because of her own craving for it, what the warmth of a kindly smile could do to kindle and cheer a lonely heart, and thus she afforded them with a conscious good will.

Maureen Lipman as the unaffectionate Miss Minchin was excellent as well-I couldn't have envisioned a better interpretation.Her authoritative nature,absolute conviction in herself, business-like mind, made her the unchallenged captain of her ship; she was a born leader, and relished conducting her crew with the correctitude she deemed right.She would ceremoniously give a speech to "her young ladies", as on Sara's birthday or before the Christmas dispersal of the pupils, and characteristically clear her throat when effectuating what she considered a rather jocular statement intended for the younger girls, as she did before announcing in an incidental manner her message from Father Christmas.A great touch that I thought went just right with her character.

My commendations go the rest of the cast as well,who did a wonderful job.All I can say is that I wish you share my good fortune in being able to experience for yourself this enchanting adaptation of one of the most inspiring,heart-warming classics.

Sara Crewe is a singular character, rare as one can imagine,yet close to all of our inner beings;I recognise in my childhood-self her musings as to chance being responsible for who we are, her notions of inanimate objects having feelings of their own, her wistful conceptions of the thoughts of others -strangers she viewed during her daily outdoor errands to whom she gave descriptive names and mentally befriended. She was extremely intelligent,haughtily aware of her superiority though she never behaved in a condescending manner which would manifest her superior status -rather,she assumed it as a responsibility.She was ever judgemental of her own actions lest they should hurt another's feelings.A proud little soul, during her tribulations we repeatedly read in the pages of the book how her determined mind curbs a fit of pique, or accommodates her bodily wants and her emotional grievances through fanciful imaginings of better possibilities, so that destitute as she is she still gives freely from her heart , even if all she has to give are dreams and reveries, as we see in the successive visits she receives from Lottie and Ermengarde in her garret.It is the least a princess can do. She swallows her pride when Guy Clarence(actually Donald)offers her his sixpence out of charity, so convinced is he that it will provide for her forevermore; she gives a beggar girl most of her buns when she herself is weak with hunger, for she sees in her a poor waif -one of the populace- hungrier and colder than herself; she worries about the suffering of the Indian Gentleman nextdoor and prays for his well-being, despite her own forlorn situation. And she wishes for his sake that the father of the Large Family, on his way to Moscow, finds the little lost girl.And her wish came true.


I've always supported this movie all my life as the most faithful production. The Brits really are the best when it comes to "cinematic reproductions of literary masterpieces",(as I like to call them). If you're looking for this movie I suggest either ordering it through amazon.com or check out your local library. I've owned this movie ever since I was a little girl. It was the first movie I ever owned and so I am greatly attached to it.


This movie is the only one that is true to the real story that I've seen. It's not really fancy but the story is so good and it has an awesome message


I rented this movie at least 10 times when we had it at our local library. It was wonderful! Unfortunately, it is listed as "lost" now. Wish I was the one it was "lost" to. I was disappointed in the newer version, it wasn't true to the book and while visually beautiful didn't have the depth that this version has. The only very little complaint I have is that Amelia Shankley seems older than the Sara I imagined. This is excusable because Sara was supposed to seem quiet and older than she really was. I haven't seen this movie in years but it has stuck with me for more than 10 years. The only place I've been able to find it is eBay and Amazon. I'm not sure if you can buy it new but I really would love for Wonderworks (or whoever they are now) to re-release it on DVD.


I have seen the 1995, 1986, 1973 and 1939 versions of A Little Princess and, of all of them, this is my favorite. The acting is much better than in the more recent 1995 version and I appreciate how closely this adaptation sticks to the book. Amelia Shankley puts in a commendable performance as a most convincing Sara, and Nigel Havers supurbly portrays the festering guilt of the "Indian gentleman". Glowing supporting cast performances, particularly the heartwarming rendition of Ram Dass, played by Tariq Alibai round out this WonderWorks production. The lavish Victorian sets and costumes provide an authentic backdrop. Like the previous reviewer, I can't wait until this one comes out on DVD!


I have seen the 1995 version and it is no comparison to this version. strangely this one is not as well known, and took me a long time to find any information about it. now I have found it, I am going to try to add it to my collection. since I saw it almost 20 years ago, the memory of it is not very clear, but I do remember that the characters to be more developed than the movie version, and therefore getting me more attached to them. I also remember the little Sarah a real good actress at her young age. I can't wait to see it again, but who knows, now that it has been 20 years, I may have different feeling to it. maybe I should come back to write my comment after I see it.


It was nice that this version followed so close to the actual book; Warner Brother's version didn't. I love this book and it was through the reading of this book that I realized "reading is fun". If you are going to adapt a classic I think you should be true to it and not mess with a good thing. This film does that and captures the heart of what the author wrote. I introduced my daughters to the movie first and later I read them the book; they didn't notice many differences except possibly the age of Sarah in the beginning. I would love to see this adaptation redone again on film instead of video so as to make it more lifelike (able to lose yourself in it without remembering you are watching a movie)and allow a new generation of children to try their hand at making Sarah Crew's story come alive. Also I look forward to the day it is released on DVD so that I can add it to my collection.


A British widower living in India with his daughter invests 100,000 pounds in a diamond mine with an old friend. He sends his daughter Sara to a British boarding school for girls after they tour Europe. When he returns to India, he gets a letter from his friend saying the diamond mine was a bust, and soon succumbs to a fever. With her father dead, and no longer having money, Sara becomes a slave to the headmistress's whims. However, she refuses to give in to others who are not kind to her.

This is a very underrated drama based on the book by Frances Hodgson Burnett. It was originally shown on PBS in three parts of 55 minutes each. It may not have the quick pace of a 90 minute film, but it more than satisfies in terms of story and characterization.

Amelia Shankley of the movie Dreamchild portrays Sara, in an excellent performance. The supporting cast is good too. It should be noted that although there is a Jessica Simpson in the cast, this is not the notorious singer.


Thank God I recorded this film when PBS broadcasted in 1987. I did this for my two girls, then 5 and 7, they absolutely loved this movie. They are now 27 and 25 and this VHS cassette tape is now my treasured possession...

About 2 months ago, a cable station broadcasted a 1995 version of 'A Little Princess' which I have never seen before, I watched it and thought the content was a little different; therefore, I took out my recorded copy from PBS and wanted to compare the difference. It was 20 years ago that I watched this film. Twenty years of busy life will make anyone forget certain details about any movie, but one thing I remember vividly is that Sara's father was not alive at the end.

Yesterday was a rainy day in California so I decided to watch this movie while my memory of the 1995 production is still fresh. I have to say this to the readers, if you haven't seen the 1986 version yet, you are missing a lot! I was in tears for at least 3 to 4 times. I have not read the book nor seen the Shirley Temple version. I do not intent to because I have already seen the best; but will read the book when I find time so to confirm what everyone have said.

My comment to writer 'hhy203': I strongly recommend you watching this movie again (after 20 years). I am sure you will agree with what I wrote. I am, like everyone else, longing for the DVD to come out and will be disappointed if it does not. I sincerely hope that the comment 'Linda' wrote about the splicing of the scenes will not be repeated on the DVD production. I am glad to have at least a completely perfect version to watch because I dubbed it from the PBS broadcast, but VHS will not last forever and I would like to own a DVD copy for my grandchildren someday...


I have mixed feelings about this particular DVD release. I have watched this particular version of A Little Princess every Christmas for 10 years, so I know it by heart. It's my adult guilty pleasure. Originally, I had a cherished, recorded-from-the-TV version in 3 parts, and then a few years ago I bought a second-hand copy of the VHS. The only difference was that there were no recaps at the start of each chapter, like on my original recorded version. (I admit that I sort of missed them.. )

I was thrilled to discover that this childhood favourite was FINALLY on DVD. I ordered it as soon as it was available, thinking I could finally replace my worn out VHS copy. Imagine my surprise when scenes I had never seen before began to appear in this DVD version. I thought it must be the original version as broadcast in 1986, as it was in 6 parts instead of 3. I was very excited at getting to see new material of this wonderful classic - until I realized to my dismay that some scenes were also cut out! For example, the scene where Sarah tells Lottie about heaven. Removed. And the scene where young Donald Carmichael goes to cheer up Carrisford, and the latter offers him some orange cordial. Gone. I know that it's only 30 or so seconds here and there, but those were two of my favourite scenes. And even though they've added new scenes that change the storyline slightly here and there, the scenes that they cut out would not have conflicted with the "new" material at all!

Even the dialogue is ever so slightly different in places. No, it's not brand new voice-overs, it's like they originally recorded two versions of some scenes and aired one set on TV, but used the other set for this DVD. The DVD somehow seems... less British. Example: Ermengarde asks about Sarah's "playroom". In my VHS version, she asks about Sarah's "sitting room". Not to mention that the ending is changed quite a bit.. there is no longer any mention of the Ralph Crewe home for waifs and strays.

Why would they chop stuff out and change it like this? I guess I'll have to continue hanging on to my old used VHS copy and occasionally watch this new version and see if I grow to accept it too. I hope another DVD is released with the version I know and love. One with these unfamiliar scenes added in bonus features.. or if this IS the original, then please put back the removed scenes as bonus features!

To sum up: Hurray it's out on DVD. Hurray for new scenes that add more depth to my experience of this version of A Little Princess (though I would have preferred them as bonus features). Boooo to cutting out some really charming scenes and changing the dialogue for perhaps a more American audience (i.e. for no apparent reason).


Let me first say that I like "The Little Princess". I adore both the 1939 and 1995 versions, but this one was just too long. They could have cut out much of it and still been faithful to the book. Nothing much seemed to happen, it was so long! Most, but not every actor was convincing (Nigel Havers and Amelia Shankley were excellent). Shirley Temple, Liesel Matthews and Amelia Shankley (this version) are all convincing as the kind-hearted but strong-willed Sara, which was exactly what Sara was. Forget the separate nuances, that Shirley Temple was too "cute" or snotty (she was never that). No movie has to be "completely" faithful to its book. But if you feel it has to be, you'll be disappointed more often than satisfied, and that's unnecessary. But too much length is bad for any movie. The film was well-executed, and the sets were realistic but mostly unattractive. I would have given it a much higher rating if it wasn't so long. 4/10


This film was, obviously, made during the era when communists were considered to be the major threat to the security of the USA. If the viewer watches the film strictly to indulge in approximately 85 minutes of escapism it can provide some low key entertainment. The story moves pretty fast and never bogs down with any over-emphasis on character development or plot.

I had never seen this film prior to my viewing it on Turner Classic Movies. I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of Elliott Reed. I have seen him in several movies and, in all of the others, he portrays, basically, the same type of character, that is, a slightly officious mid level executive, a spurned suitor, etc. I really enjoyed seeing him, in this film, actually portray a romantic, leading man hero, type of character. Yes, this film is strictly fluff. But, it can provide enjoyment and, IMHO, is notable, for the casting of Mr. Reed as the "star".


The man who directed and designed this film, William Cameron Menzies, was one of the great unheralded geniuses in the history of film. More than almost anyone he raised set and production design to the level of art; and his sets for the silent Fairbanks Thief Of Baghdad are still eye-popping. Menzies will probably be best-remembered as production designer of Gone With the Wind, a film he largely molded visually, and whose best scenes bear his unmistakable stamp. Alas, Menzies was never a good director, though his films are often interesting to look at. A good example is his 1953 Invaders From Mars. The Whip Hand, though, is just awful; dreadful script, poor acting, no pace; and it doesn't even have the Menzies 'look'. Yet as a period piece it is not without interest. It starts beautifully, in a studio-designed rustic setting (and the best set in the film); and then a rainstorm soaks a vacationing fisherman, who proceeds to go into the local town and ask for help in getting treatment for a head injury he sustained when he fell against a rock. The townfolk turn out to be even harder than the rock he hit his head against. They refuse to be more than perfunctorily friendly (with the exception of a superficially outgoing and jokey Raymond Burr), and are continually contradicting one another. It seems that there are strange doings on a lodge across the lake; and nocturnal visits to the lodge by the doctor, who doesn't want to talk about it. As things turn out, Communists have taken over this Minnesota town and turned it into a center for the study of germ warfare!

This movie could have been so good. I was rooting for it all the way; hoping against hope that it would get its act together and finally work,--dramatically, logically, thespically. But it never did. The heavy hand of Howard Hughes had a good deal to do with ruining what slight chance this movie had of being good, as it was originally supposed to be about Nazis, and he decided, as studio chief, that he knew better, so he ordered much of the film re-shot to make the villains Russian agents instead. I'm surprised he didn't put Jane Russell in it as well. Lang, Hitchcock or even Siodmak might have worked wonders with the material. Menzies himself might have done better had his employer showed better taste and judgment. The movie's worth seeing if only for the spectacle of gifted people making asses of themselves both in front of and behind the camera, as there are flashes of real talent here and there.


A photo-journalist on vacation arrives at a small town in Mid America to relax and do a little fishing. First, he finds that all the fish have died. Next he finds the residents all paranoid and secretive, especially the owner of the local lodge. When he accidentally trespasses on lodge property, he is attacked by guard dogs, and threatened by armed guards.

None of the local townsfolk will talk to him except the doctor's sister (read love interest) and the crusty old storekeeper. Little by little he comes to realize that the entire town is on a mission to develop germ and bacteria weapons which they intend to use to cripple America. I know - the plot is preposterous. But you ain't heard nothing yet. In the original story, all the bad guys were Nazi's and they even had Adolf Hitler hidden away at the lodge, but this movie was released in 1951 at the height of the McCarthy hearings and the Commie scare. So - all the bad guys became Communists.

Only in the movies.


Atrocious. The first 20 minutes or so are competent, establishing the normally reliable premise of a curious stranger stumbling upon a paranoid, hostile town. But "Bad Day At Black Rock" this isn't. At a certain point, the viewer develops the queasy feeling that the producers gave up and said "Oh to hell with it. We don't know what we're doing here. What do you say we just try to wrap things up and go bowling?" Bad performances abound, especially from "leading man" Elliott Reid (sort of a poor man's Farley Granger) who does everything except raise his eyebrow and stroke his chin whenever he puts together another piece of the puzzle. Whoever plays the pitiful old shopkeeper rather embarrassingly seems to break character a couple times. The only person who leaves any kind of favorable impression is Raymond Burr (playing a sleazy local). He hams it up entertainingly, undoubtedly aware of how awful the whole thing is.

There is one incredibly weak exchange during a supposedly suspenseful chase towards the end. Reid and his cardboard love interest are trying to escape and he inquires "Are you wearing a watch?" She answers in the affirmative. His matter of fact reply? "Good." I half expected her to fire back with "Yes. Did you comb your hair?" At another point the love interest is in a reflective mode. "I can't believe my brother's a Communist" she states sadly. I want to say that Reid responds with "Yeah, tough break huh?" but it's hard to recall. I had lost a number of brain cells by that point.

The last ten minutes of this sorry excuse for a motion picture have to be seen to be believed. Just goes to show that clunkers were indeed made back then as well. Then again it is quite unintentionally funny if one watches it in the right frame of mind.


I hope that noted set designer William Cameron Menzies who occasionally did direct such classics as Things To Come, had Howard Hughes's check already clearing the bank before embarking on The Whip Hand. Such a film could only have come out of the paranoid years of the beginning of the Cold War. If Joe McCarthy could say there were 205 or 81 or 57 card carrying Communists in the State Department, than why couldn't the Red Menace takeover a town in the Land of a Thousand Lakes, Minnesota.

Magazine feature writer Elliott Reid gone to Minnesota for a fishing vacation goes to the town of Winnoga and finds all the fish in the lake are dead and most of the town gone. New people have arrived in the area and are very protective about their privacy. Of course Reid's reporter's instincts are aroused and pretty soon he's like Kevin McCarthy trying to get of the area before the Pod People get him.

Just like in Shack Out On 101 where the Communists have set up shop in a hash house near the atomic testing site, the Commies have set up in Minnesota. Reid's only friends are elderly Frank Darien and Carla Ballenda, the sister of one of the scientists working in a laboratory on an island in the middle of the lake.

From the fevered mind of Howard Hughes came this warning to the American movie-going public that not only do we have to worry about the Reds conducting germ warfare on Americans, but they're also polluting our streams. I'm sure the Sierra Club was grateful for this film.

Raymond Burr is one of the Communist thugs along with his sister Lurene Tuttle. Burr and Tuttle being the professionals they are play it completely straight.

All I can say is, WOW.


A romantic farce with complications. The movie loves its over-50 characters yet presents them behaving ridiculously in outrageous situations.

Core to "Never Again" is the perspective and experience of liberated, divorced, over-50 women with sexual relationships. These are presumed and exemplified without being examined. Under 25 women, even the heroine's daughter, show themselves to be inert, callow dolts. Their parents live vivid lives with humor and pain, joy and despair, wit and incredulity, dignity and abnegation. So the generational roles are reversed from the usual teenage romantic comedy; that will keep a lot of viewers away. Additionally, the movie frankly talks and pictures frank abundant and diverse sex, which will keep a lot of over-25 women away.

The movie's topic, two individuals in a romantic relationship, interests woman most, but structurally the movie is presented as symmetrical among the genders, with an early alternation between the lives and concerns of its male and female leads. Further, both have friends who are core to the movie: the other half of a jazz duet in the case of Christopher and two close gabbies for Grace. In the end, though, "women do more of everything," as Christopher's buddy says, and our hero confesses to Grace that "you were right about everything," so we are back to women-centric starting place.

Curiously, the words do not match the deeds portrayed. While Grace complains (and we are supposed to agree) that Christopher has a standard Madonna/whore complex about women, nothing of the sort is pictured. Rather, the relationship starts in sex, and he comes to love and appreciate her fully through what is revealed in sex and develops as part of sex. Again, while Christopher supposedly fears intimacy, no fear is actually shown -- he relishes intimacy and honesty (and has a male friendship exemplifying these) and the under 25 women bore him because they offer neither. Instead, threats to the relationship come from the constraints of social context -- the daughter, the friends, and the social demands to be insincere and superficial. When these press in, Christopher starts having second thoughts.

Claybaugh is outstanding -- I haven't laughed so hard in years as I did at her strap-on scene. What would the part look like performed with less skill and charm? Unpleasant, perhaps. Grace carelessly injures her daughter, her friends, and her boyfriend whenever things don't go exactly her way. The farce, the happy ending, the acting, and the perspective all move attention away from the heroine's actual problems. She is brave, inventive and winsome, and we over-50 males are happy to fall in love with her.


For once a real love story that involves real people. Middle aged, overweight and wringled. Great writing and great acting. Everyone over the age of 49 ought to be required to watch this film. Jill is great.


I am totally enthralled with this film. Not only is the script, acting (for the most part), and the directing superb-- it has a plot that is not seen in ever other love film known to man! I would have given the movie a 10 out of 10, but I have an issue with a handful of aspects about it. I didn't like a lot of the soundtrack; the songs just did not seem to fit the mood of the film in the beginning. Also, there is a cheese factor towards the end. However, if that is all that can be wrong with a film, then it is near perfection in my book. This film deals with real life issues, underneath the humor, and is so well written from both the male and female aspects of things that I kept wondering if two people had written it. (Imagine my surprise when a man had done it. He's got us down pat, ladies!) Plus, it isn't afraid to show a sexual side to humanity beyond 35-- a triumph for this day and age. Currently, this movie is my favorite of all time, and in my opinion, is a masterpiece that everyone should take the time to watch.


While most movies are geared toward the younger crowd, this one tickled the funny bones of the 40+ generation. What a nice change! The language was surprising, but the antics were refreshing. There were some memorable moments, and some visuals you wish you could get out of your mind (Michael McKean to be exact). All in all...it was a fun-filled comedy.


Thoroughly charming! Jill Clayburgh masterfully plays another savvy, divorced woman attempting to date again, and though some viewers may say she has mined this territory before, Clayburgh absolutely nails the love/hate relationship fifty-somethings have with getting back into the swing of things (sometimes it's much more enticing to just sit home and mope). After a blind date goes south, Jill unintentionally winds up in a gay bar with her girlfriends and they decide to make a night of it; luckily, exterminator/part-time jazz musician Jeffrey Tambor has also wandered in and the two singles 'meet cute' (he tells her he's open to "experimenting" and thinks she's a transsexual, she finds the situation amusing). Writer-director Eric Schaeffer loves a good cliché, and he doesn't mind playing up the storybook aspects of this wacky romance, however the film does fall into a predictable pattern (they meet, they fall in love, they fight, etc.). Still, when the writing is this delicious, and the cast is so attuned to the straight-forward, occasionally barbed material, the results can be joyous. While Clayburgh mixes her playful, feisty bit with a more serious, defensive undercurrent (and succeeds beautifully), Jeffrey Tambor is the revelation here. Too often cast in sitcoms as a dunderhead or buffoon, Tambor displays wonderfully dry comic timing--and the embittered quality of his character is never off-putting (we can sympathize). Tambor seems to have no notion of what a handsome lug he is, and his aw-shucks shuffling and nervous body language is that much more appealing because of it. He's thoughtful and deep (and troubled), but also an old-fashioned romantic at heart, and Clayburgh's salty, sneaky wit brings out the best in him (he's dry, she's wry). Despite some comically 'shocking' scenes, the film isn't about sexual humiliation (thank God), and Schaeffer wants these two to be together as much as we do. It's a hip, sassy affair that should resonate with a lot of folks over forty. *** from ****


I have loved this film for years. There are some unforgettably hysterical moments in this movie that will have your friends in stitches when you recount them. This move also shows us the vulnerability of people negotiating a relationship which is rarely seen on screen. It portrays people and a romance that is real. The actors and characters are not the fit-firm-20- somethings with perfect hair, clothes, and make-up. They are people who are average and flawed. The story line reflects the difficulty of finding a mate who is genuinely a good match. It also addresses the reality of life after divorce in our culture. The relationship between the main characters (and others) is honest and I really appreciate that. The movie accurately portrays some of the milestones of building a truly loving relationship. Trust, love, and commitment are developed when we are tested and choose one another again and again, through good times and bad. I continue to love this movie, I think I'll watch it tonight.


First off. I would like to state I have never written a review in my life, let alone, one for IMDb. I watched this movie and felt so strongly that it needed a fair review on this site. There will be no major spoilers.

The movie centers on Christopher and Grace. Both of whom are in their early fifties and love lorn, even though they won't admit it. Through a series of strange events (Chris's botched attempt to have a new sexual experience, to Grace's attempt to blind date) bringing both together at a gay bar.

What's great about the film is the writing, first and foremost. Some may be put off by it's candidness. Some may also find it heartless at who it pokes fun at. I can assure you that the writer/director Eric Schaeffer gives everyone a chance to be the butt end of a joke. His characters tend to have imperfect qualities. Especially his lead male characters (i.e. Starved or Mind the Gap). He gives such respect to the sexuality of an older man and woman that has never been represented in Hollywood. They are portrayed as sexual, feeling creatures. He shows them as human beings looking for love and tenderness. Not just the typical older man/woman who can't let go of their ex or their kid who went off to college and that's what their life is about. The forever the parent without an identity of their own. These people go on with their life... like real people do. Outside of the writer/director are the performers. The characters are given direct, BS free dialogue. They are very open at any given moment to asking for what they want from each other. Which what I'd imagine ones demeanor to be when reaching their age. This especially comes out when dealing with their sexuality. Jeffrey Tambors portrayal as a disaffected bachelor is a quiet, sweet performance, but one that also has these moments of assertive strength that you are not used to seeing out of him as an actor. He's usually used as a goof or some weaselly character. As a lead, the man shines. Jill Clayburgh is wonderful as Grace, the spurned, icy divorcée that is ready to open up and love again. There is not much I know of her work, but her willingness to give herself to the role is something you don't expect on face value. Bill Duke is absolutely great in this film as Chris best friend and music partner. He there to give Chris' levity and does so in a very endearing way. While the rest of cast does a fine job, the last person that really stood out was Micheal McKean . I won't spoil where and how he shows up, but let's just say it's twelve hours since I watched it and my ribs still feel a little sore from laughing.

The movie is sad. The movie is funny. The movie is touching. Is the movie sappy? Yes. But not in the way you'd expect. The movie has this Hollywood like ending but is justified because it's completely with the realm of the characters, and not forced. The movie makes you believe that getting older doesn't preclude the loss of desire and sexuality. Everyone should watch this movie. Teenagers, adults, senior citizens, they should all watch to see that being older doesn't mean your dead from the waist down.


Judging by the user ratings, which generally seem to me to reflect a very young taste, this movie should have an age warning. However, as a person over 50, I found it delightful, charming, and touching. Jeffrey Tambor is a brave and always interesting actor, and Jill Clayburgh is one of the best American screen actresses - and still sexy at 54. Bill Duke is as cool as it gets, and Sandy Duncan leads a solid supporting cast. The film is better when it plays it straight than when it goes for laughs (the final scene is a bit strained), but there is one extended bit where Clayburgh attacks a dildo - which is hilarious.

 If you're, say, 35 or over - see this! Otherwise, tell your parents to see it.


Hilarious and touching in equal measure, this romantic comedy stars Jill Clayburgh in a comeback that really deserves that overworked word and Jeffrey Tambor in a leading role that redefines the definition of a leading man. The direction and writing by Eric Schaeffer is wonderful, there is a supporting performance by Bill Duke that soars, and for dessert there is the single funniest slapstick comedy sequence since the days of silent films. Jill Clayburgh the second coming of Buster Keaton??? Sounds unlikely...sounds incredible...but it's true.


Jeffrey Tambor plays a middle-aged man who plays jazz in the evenings. His relationships (so typical of guys like this!) are sex-only with 25-year-old bimbos and jazz groupies. Then, when he loses interest (Hello, you have nothing to talk to them about) and has a disturbing dream, he decides he might be gay, and goes to a gay bar by accident. I'd dismiss this as slapstick absurdity, but the truth is that I've met too many guys like this, and Tambor is 100% right on the mark. Bill Duke is excellent as his jazz-playing buddy. He also has a poignant scene with Michael McKean as a lonely transsexual. When he meets Jill Clayburgh (in the gay bar by mistake with girlfriends Sandy Duncan and Caroline Aaron), he thinks she is a transvestite or transsexual. She is so amazed at what an ass this guy is, she decides to give him enough rope to hang himself, and winds up, much to her surprise, enjoying his company, and thus, the romance begins.

To say much mire would spoil it, but their chemistry is magnificent, and despite a few unnecessary slapsticky moments with Tambor's mother in the film, most of it is refreshing and enchanting. If you're over 40, and especially if you've ever been a single woman dating in a big city, watch and enjoy!


"Never Again" tells of a single middle aged man (Tambor) and woman (Clayburgh) who find each other, have good sex, and then begin to wrestle with issues as they search warily for deeper meaning. The film jerks from the outlandish to the sublime and back again making for an unpredictably bumpy ride while conjuring moments of hilarity and warmth. "Never Again" is another Schaeffer love it or hate it flick which is the work of a creative genius or sexually obsessed hack depending on who you talk to. Given its middle aged focus and explicit sexual content, "Never Again" will play best with more mature audiences who can handle vulgar language, absurd comic relief, and still appreciate the sentimental and poignant moments without rationalization. (B)


Eric Schaeffer's film was a detour from all the thrillers that opened in the summertime. This "small" picture proves that with the right ingredients, an enjoyable movie could be made.

It was a pleasant surprise to see the great Jill Clayburgh return to film, after being away for a while, in a starring role. She makes this woman believable and it's a pleasure to watch her fall in love with a man who is real and not a stereotype. Jeffrey Tambor, is right up to the challenge to make this man the object of Ms Clayburgh's affections.

This is a very "NewYorkish" type of film. We have known people like the girlfriends that push Ms. Clayburgh to take a chance in dating. Also, Jeffrey Tambor's world is easy to believe. He's the ugly duckling who has a lot to offer underneath his plain facade.

Life in this film seems to begin late in the life of the main characters. It was a joy to have seen this movie.


It was refreshing to see a funny movie for the 40+ crowd. If profuse profanity and graphic sex conversations bother you, don't see this movie. No doubt some of the scenes are over the top. Mother's vulgar language was way out of line. In fact, it should have been cut and laid out on the editor's floor. But the midlife relationship crisis', I thought, were pretty accurate for the most part. Things look and are so different in ones mind when you reach 50 yrs on God's green earth. But I want a comedy to be first, funny in a real life way, which this is, and secondly entertaining, which this definitely was. After all was said and done, I came away from this movie feeling good and that's what its all about.


we just laughed soooo hard...nearly passed out from lack of air....sure feels good to laugh. I'm so glad i was born with "Happy Genes" . Exciting movie of mid-life divorcees . recommend to watch..will not be disappointed


Unlike other other comments I have read about this movie, I enjoyed the film. It started out slow, and I was somewhat sceptical for the first half hour, but it turn out to be a hilarious very well acted movie. Give this one the benefit of the doubt.


I'm not one to get excited about romantic comedies, but I found "Never Again" to be a real gem of a film. The acting in general is superb, and the film manages to be both terribly funny and genuinely poignant at once. Though a few stretches of the story drag slightly, the overall effect of this film is true-to-life charm. I recommend it highly.


After watching this film, and I did watch it to the end, I immediately figured out its origins. The writer/director glommed onto the title, Never Again, then decided what a great movie title that would be and wrote (I use the word loosely) a movie around the title, using obvious setups. The opening scenes strain credulity for their "meeting cute" -- what normal straight guy decides he may be gay because he can't commit. Remember, I said normal. The leads are the mandatory emotionally damaged 54-year-old male and female. They bare their souls, and vow "never again" will they put themselves through the horror of falling in love but, oh, by the way, sex is permitted. She immediately has a "delayed" orgasm (only that piece of fiction could be written by a clueless male fixated on a fantasy that doesn't exist in real life), after which they suddenly decide they are in love and oh, by the way, it is six months later all of a sudden because it has been established for the sake of the story that he is so neurotic that he can't remain in a relationship longer than, what is it? oh yeah, nine months. Not three months, not 14 months, but nine months. (But that was with women half his age or less, so what's up with that?) So naturally, he leaves because he looked at his watch and by golly, it's been nine months. Then he gets run over by a horse, almost dies. She puts on a costume that brings him out of a coma and all live happily ever after, or so you are supposed to think.

The script, direction, and production values are to laugh at. The acting is good, as has been mentioned in other comments, but it must have taken heroic efforts on the parts of the cast to deliver with this lame material.


It wasn't wretched, but it just wasn't that funny and I'm a geezer with a gray beard. Sure there are amusing parts, but the two characters had the chemistry of a pebble and tepid tap water. I think Jeffrey Tambor is a fine actor, but Jill's character tries to make us believe he's rather desirable when he's rather overweight, with jowls like Droopy the dog (yes! I'm that old) and Eeyore's demeanor. Charming, I thought he might be. I also think Jill is a great actor, but was she's looking pretty anorexic these days. She was so thin in some scenes that it occurred to me that when do you see fashionable really thin women like her dating lumps of dung like him? Ah, not so much. I like seeing men of his age, dating women of her age, but these two went together like tobacco and peanut butter. Wha-wha-what? Yeah, his mother was a hoot and Earl was a nice foil, but I didn't buy Christopher being anything but a schlep. He fit the running a pest spray company well, but the jazz musician? Again, not so much.

I mean I'm near their age, and I found much of the dialog, plot and characters required me to suspend all belief in the law of physics. Say it ain't true Earl? Is it worth a buck a day rental for hearing Sandy Duncan curse? Talk of sex like a whore? See! Its a stretch.


While on some levels it was very nice to see this genre take an older audience and characters as opposed to twenty-somethings, I think it was a little too much gush and not enough substantial script. It was amusing to hear a 54 year-old woman talk graphically about sex and get in amusing situations that are normally reserved for "American Pie" types, but it was too sappy and WAY too over-the top. In one scene, they are discovered by her college age daughter as they are in the middle of coupling. In another, she is trying on a "device" when Christopher and his mother come over to visit. I do not fit into what I imagine is the target audience in age. I did, however, go with some people who were: They liked it even less than me. While sweet and comedic. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. Sorry, try again. Wait. Never try... Never try again...


The dialogue is lost, random and illogical. The situations are humiliating, gratuitous and implausible. The movie is entertaining only because it is ridiculous. The acting presented is very good, but nothing the actors could do could ever save this movie.


I looked at this as simply a good story, a solid drama that happened to have the sport of boxing figure into it. "Boxing movies." if people insist on labeling this under that category, were particularly popular around the time of this film. Many of them had similar stories about a good guy being told to take a dive or else. Yes, that was in here, too, but it wasn't anywhere near the central part of the story. This film was more of an earlier "Raging Bull"-type tale in that it concentrated on the friends, family, freeloaders, criminals and women surrounding the main male character.

This was more of a story about a decent man who gets carried away with success and with the power and money that goes with it. As good as the lead actor, John Garfield, was in here - and he was good - I was more intrigued with the supporting characters.

Lilly Palmer looked and sounded the part of a refined sweet, pretty French girl (whatever that means) and was a good contrast to the uneducated and quick tempered brute (Garfield). As in so many stories, she wasn't fully appreciated by her man until the end. Anne Revere, as Garfield's mom (she seemed to always play the lead character's mother in 1940s films) was fascinating as she always was and kudos to Joseph Peveny as "Shorty" and Lloyd Gough a "Roberts." Both added a lot to the film. Wlliam Conrad and Hazel Brooks added some great film noir-- type dialog, berating each other once in a while.

These actors, and the photography of James Wong Howe, make this a cut above most if not all the so-called "boxing films."


If Jake LaMotta, the real life raging bull, ever went to the movies, he must have seen BODY AND SOUL a hundred times. It practically predicts the course of his career and the world of sports cinema, specifically boxing films. Robert Rossen's 1947 black and white boiler is clearly an influence on ROCKY and RAGING BULL, along with countless other rags-to-riches sports stories with a hint of corruption. John Garfield, an actor I feel serves an audience more with his mere screen presence than his acting skills, is stunning as "Charley Davis", the kid from New York who wants a shot at the title.

Notice Garfield's prudent girlfriend. Remind you of Adrian? (ROCKY) How about the mob boss who wants 50 percent of Garfield's winnings? Remind you of Nicholas Colasanto from RAGING BULL? Of course. BODY AND SOUL is the altar of origin from which these films worshiped. Garfield dabbled in boxing off-screen until his untimely death in 1952 and appears like LaMotta, or De Niro, in many scenes. His temper can fly quickly and without warning. CHAMPION with Kirk Douglas and SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME with Paul Newman have taken some licks from this sensational film that roared like most of the best films of the 1940's.

Boxing is the ultimate sport to depict in film because such interesting character studies can come out of them. A boxer is, for the most part, alone. Other sport films seem to suffer because more has to be captured and the sport itself is usually portrayed poorly and unrealistic. Boxing takes place in a small ring, as does the life of most boxers (or so it seems). Director Robert Rossen is also a master at creating pictures where a flawed main character creates his own suffering and pain and has a fundamental misunderstanding of women. Just see Broderick Crawford in ALL THE KING'S MEN or Paul Newman in THE HUSTLER.

No fight scene captures your attention until the pivotal final championship defense by "Charley Davis". Will he throw it for the easy bucks or win it for pride and the adulation of his simple New York roots? It is very unapparent and hard to see coming. The authenticity of the climactic fight is made all the more powerful with its newsreel look and in-your-face photography and makeup. Credit cinematographer James Wong Howe for the realistic look and credit the blood and sweat of Garfield, writer Abraham Polonsky, and director Rossen to bring such a captivating story of corruption and glory to the screen.


In many ways, 'Body and Soul' is a very typical Hollywood story. It has the 'local boy makes it big', the 'vamp and the virgin', the 'corrupt businessmen' and of course the final moral fight. However, James Wong Howe's brilliant cinematography and John Garfield's solid acting lift this movie above the norm. Every emotion is heart-felt, and the tension at the end is perfectly presented. One of the best boxing movies.


When considering the factors that contributed to making this movie one of truly great cinema classics, such as the story, the direction, the dialogue, the pathos, the conflicts, the supporting cast, the one factor that most directly contributed to making this movie great was that of it's star, John Garfield. Here, Garfield plays Charlie Davis, a brooding, moody, cynical, angry young man traumatized by his father's untimely and violent death and determined to literally fight his way out of poverty, no matter what it takes. Yet, Charlie Davis is likable, for despite the hardened exterior, he is still fundamentally a good man who is struggling to do what is right despite the pressure to cave in to those who merely want to use him. And although Charlie weakens, he never breaks, and when put to the test, his basic honesty and strength shine through, which makes him a hero and which transforms this movie from just another boxing movie into a true cinematic classic.


John Garfield delivers a worthy Oscar nominated performance in the story of "Body and Soul."

Poor and from a tough neighborhood, Garfield sees boxing as a way out of his current existence.

As usual, veteran pro, Anne Revere, was called upon to play Garfield's mom. This terrific Oscar winning actress (1944 for National Velvet, in a supporting role) played just about everyone's mom in Hollywood during the 1940s. "Mom" to Gregory Peck in "Gentleman's Agreement," Linda Darnell's mother in "Forever Amber,"Montgomery Clift's mom in "A Place in the Sun" and Jennifer Jones'mother in "The Song of Bernadette." To me, Miss Revere, who was a descendant from Paul Revere, delivers a memorable line in the movie. To paraphrase, she states: "I want you to be respected. I want you to be a teacher." Sure, in 1947, the teaching profession was looked up to-to use a pun, it was revered.

Unfortunately, this great line has been overshadowed by the line, "Everybody dies." Must we always be true to life?

A hard-nosed, gripping film dealing not only with human emotions, but the fighting ring as well along with its corruption. A film exhibiting one wallop of a punch.


This movie is the spiritual ancestor of so many later boxing film, including the great 'Raging Bull,' but its story is too by-the-numbers for it to be a true classic, in my opinion. It's still an effective movie, however. Similar observations could be made about its star, John Garfield, as well. For a fight film, not that much action takes place inside the ring. This is not inappropriate, since the focus is on Charley Davis' (Garfield) struggles outside the arena, both to win the woman he loves and against the mobster who wants to control him. The last fight sequence, however, is handled particularly well. Director Robert Rossen and cinematographer James Wong Howe can be thanked for that.


The great lightweight champion of the 1920's Benny Leonard (true name: Benjamin Leiner) was the model for Charley Davis. Leonard's closeness to his mother was played up in the sporting press of the time. She wanted her son to play the violin, not box. Leonard reminded her in telegrams after each victory that he was "bringing home the bacon"--earning far more with his fists than he ever could as a fiddler.

Sadly, Leonard lost all his money in the stock market crash and was forced to make an ill- advised comeback. When he retired as a boxer for keeps, he was given referee work. After officiating at six bouts on a hot New York night, Leonard suffered a heart attack and died in the ring.

By today's standards this picture is oversentimental, lacking in subtlety and full of clichés. What hoists it is the gritty intensity of John Garfield. Due in large part to his early death, John Garfield's movies enjoy a cult following which time has not diminished.

Garfield's pictures, even back in the 'thirties, often included black actors. This was unusual for the time, marking him out as politically liberal and perhaps helping make him a target for congressional red-baiters.


This boxing picture deals with the seedier side of the business; (is there any other?). It helps that it was written by Abraham Polonsky whose script is suitably cynical and hard-boiled. John Garfield is the pugnacious fighter easily swayed by the prospects of easy money and not adverse to taking a dive. It's a fine, hard-nosed performance. Garfield was always at his best in roles that required him to battle with his conscience.

The whole movie is well cast. The under-rated Lilli Palmer is fine as the 'nice' girl who loves him as is Hazel Brooks as the 'bad' girl who seduces him while the villains are ably taken care of by Lloyd Gough and William Conrad. Best of all there is Anne Revere as Garfield's mother. (Did Revere play everybody's mother movies?). It's another of her no-nonsense roles. Revere was one tough cookie who kept her heart of gold well-hidden. The climatic fight scene is very well staged and Robert Parrish and Frances Lyon's editing won the Oscar while James Wong Howe's cinematography adds considerably to the realism.


Great film, and was any Hollywood actor in the 1940's more magnetic than John Garfield? It is the boxing movie on which all other boxing movies have drawn elements from ever since- the poor kid made good by his talent for boxing yet who is exploited by corrupt fight managers and his own material greed, the faithful girlfriend/wife out of the ring, the scenes showing the lure of riches and the moral decay it brings.

The film opens with Garfield waking from a troubled dream, calling out for "Ben!". In the middle of the night he rushes to his mother's (Ann Revere) apartment where his faithful girlfriend Lilli Palmer burst into tears upon seeing him. Revere tells Garfield to go. We soon find out, through flashback, just what has happened to Garfield and his body has been used at the expense of his soul.

While the film may seem formulaic now...let's remember it started the boxing formula! Great performances all round. Garfield is intense and charismatic, Palmer is sympathetic and warm yet also keenly intelligent and aware and Canada Lee gets a striking role as Ben, the role being a major move forward for the portrayal of African-Americans on-screen. The film is well-written (Polonsky would make the excellent Force Of Evil with Garfield in the following year) and contains many memorable scenes, and the editing in that final fight scene is top-notch. Compulsive and compulsory viewing.


This has been my favorite movie ever since I saw it in the late 1940's. As a boxing movie it stands on top alongside "Champion," "The Harder They Fall," "Rocky" and "Raging Bull." Everything in this film works. Garfield's acting(he should have won the Oscar) is superb. The supporting cast, Ann Revere, Lloyd Gough, Joseph Pevney, Canada Lee all do a wonderful job. The dialogue is terrific. I have never forgotten the scene when Mary Currier(The welfare worker) comes to the house to interview Ann Revere and Garfield throws her out, and Garfield and Revere have words and she tells him better you should buy a gun then become a fighter and he says to her,"You need money to buy a gun." Just about every scene works in this movie. The flashback, the incidental music, the photography, especially the fight scenes, done by the incomprable James Wong Howe. Robert Rossen's direction is right on target, as well as Abe Polansky's screenplay. The black and white filming of the movie only adds more to the fight scenes, especially the final bout. And while most people would agree it seems to have a happy ending, it is possible the ending could be somewhat different after the final dialogue between Garfield and Lloyd Gough where Garfield says, "What are you gonna do, kill me, everybody dies." This picture definitely belongs on a top ten list or top one hundred list even though you never see it on any list. This movie should be seen by every film buff of every age.


******SPOILERS****** A powerful film about a man who uses his body to achieve fame and fortune beyond his wildest dreams and almost loses his soul doing it.

Not being able to sleep before the big champion fight Charlie Davis, John Garfield, drives down to his old neighborhood where he finds out that his mother, girlfriend and all of the people who knew him there don't want anything to do with him. Back in his dressing room before the fight Charlie's reminded by the matchmaker Roberts, Lloyd Gough,that the fight with his opponent Marlow is to go the distance and the decision will be against him. The inside talk is that the good money is on Marlow. Charlie, trying to calm down his nerves before the fight, lays down to get some sleep and slowly his past comes back to haunt him in a dream.

Being brought up in a poor and tough neighborhood Charlie takes to boxing as a young boy in the Golden Gloves. With his mother Anna, Anne Revere, being against him boxing Charlie tries to find a new line of employment Later when Charlie's father David, Art Smith, is killed in a bombing of his candy store by some mobsters, who mistook it for a rival speakeasy, and then with no money to pay the bills Charlie decides that boxing is the only way for him and his family to get out of poverty.

Turning pro Charlie runs up a string of 21 wins in the ring and Roberts the top matchmaker in the state sets up a match between Charlie and the champ Ben Chaplin, Canada Lee, for the title. Ben has a dangerous blood clot in his brain and his manager wants Charlie to be told to go easy with Ben in the fight. Roberts doesn't tell Charlie of Ben's condition and in the championship fight Charlie hits Ben with a number of hard shots to the head that leaves Ben on the mat unconscious.

Shocked after the fight to find out that Ben was in no condition to fight Charlie feels that his title, in knocking the already brain-damaged Ben, is tainted. Putting Ben on his payroll as his trainer, because he feels that he owes Ben something after what he did to him, Charlie defends his title a number of times but now he's up against a much younger and more formidable opponent then those he fought, Marlow. Marlow has been going around claiming that Charlie been ducking him for two years because he's "yellow".

With Charlie set to defend his title he's told by Roberts not to try to knock Marlow out but to go the distance with him knowing that would mean that the decision would go against Charlie. Charlie at first agrees knowing that there a big pay-off for him in the fight. With betting his share of the money that he'll get for the fight, $60,000.00, against himself and with the odds 2 to 1 on Marlow Charlie can triple his money and retire from boxing a rich man.

Telling his mom and girlfriend Peggy, Lilli Palmer, and all his friends to bet against him shocked them. Throwing the fight is wrong and dishonest he's told which in return, not realizing what he's planning to do, shocks Charlie. Charlie tells them that they aren't smart to know what the real things in life are and that's why he's successful and their not and he's the one who's been supporting them, his family & friends, all these years because he doesn't think like they do. With a huff Charlie leaves for his training camp in the country to get ready for the fight with Marlow.

At the camp Roberts tell Charlie to fire his trainer Ben feeling that Ben is having a bad influence on Charlie. Ben's making him have second thoughts about throwing the fight. Ben angry and agitated at Roberts, whom he never liked in the first place, goes into a fit. Swinging his arms wildly like he was back in the boxing ring Ben loses his balance and falls on his head killing himself; and with that Charlie wakes up from his sleep.

In the ring the fight goes into the late rounds with Charlie carrying Marlow for the first fourteen rounds with only one round left for him to throw and lose the fight to Marlow. Charlie, just three minutes away from losing the fight to Marlow, has a sudden change of heart. After what happened to Ben and and how bad he acted to his mom girlfriend and all of his friends who were counting on him to do his best in the fight, win lose or draw, he realizes just what a heel he's been. Charlie also realizes what a jerk he's turned in now getting his brains beat out in order to enrich a bunch of gangsters who'll use him for as long as he's is still useful to them and when he isn't they'll drop him just like they did Ben.

Charlie with a sudden and explosive flurry of fists and leather opens up on Marlow and clobbers him to the mat where he's counted out, Charlie retains his title. Leaving the boxing arena with the crowd cheering, and his girlfriend back by his side, Roberts and some of his goons confront Charlie and tell him that he'll be sorry for what he did. Charlie Davis ends the movie with it's most famous line in it: " What are you going to do to me? kill me? everyone dies".


John Garfield is a fighter taken over "Body and Soul" in this 1947 Faustian drama about a man who becomes too heady with success and too greedy, eventually signing on with a crooked fight promoter. Garfield is supported here by Lilli Palmer, Anne Revere, Hazel Brooks, William Conrad, Canada Lee and Lloyd Gough.

American filmmakers love boxing movies, and why not? It's a one on one brutal action sport that has inherent in it good drama because of what is at stake for people who most likely came from nothing and used their fists on the street. "Body and Soul" is no different in this regard, but it's one of the best of its kind. It also boasts an unusual and exceptionally talented cast.

The film is loaded with conflict for Charlie Davis (Garfield) - his mother (Revere) doesn't want him to fight; he's in love with Peg (Palmer) and wants to marry her but is talked into delaying it when he signs on with a new and corrupt promoter, Roberts (Gough). This will be the first of Charlie's concessions and unfortunately not the last. He fights Ben (Lee), but isn't told that the man has a blood clot and he needs to coast through only a few rounds. Instead, he pulverizes Ben, causing further brain damage, and takes him on as a trainer out of guilt. Then he's seduced by a money-hungry babe named Alice (Brooks). And on and on, until Roberts bets against him and orders him to take a dive in the championship fight he's been waiting for. (With all the films done about taking dives, anyone who bets on a fight is nuts.) Something about this movie - maybe it's the theme song, which is one of my favorites - swept me away. It's one of Garfield' most colorful performances, and the beautiful, classy Palmer is a perfect juxtaposition not only to the streetwise Charlie but the trashy Alice.

The truly transcendent role and performance is essayed by Canada Lee, a wonderful actor who died too young and had too few opportunities in film. His performance as the volatile, ill Ben was Oscar-worthy. Like Ben Carter in "Crash Dive," the fact that Lee is black does not enter into the script at all, and he is treated as an equal. For all the rotten stereotyping done in films at that time, there were a few scripts that defied it. Lee was blackballed and died, almost literally, of a broken heart in 1952 (the same year that John Garfield died), leaving a legacy of five films and some wonderful stage work, including Orson Welles' all-black Macbeth. He was 45. Cast members Garfield, Lee, Anne Revere, Lloyd Gough, Art Smith, Shimen Ruskin, scriptwriter Abraham Polonsky and producer Bob Roberts would all find themselves blacklisted, and director Rossen would be threatened but admit to being a Communist and name names.

Magnificently photographed in black and white by James Wong Howe and with top direction by Robert Rossen, "Body and Soul" is an example of how wonderful film can be.


Iloved this movie at the time. it seemed to be about real life in the USA and there weren't many movies like it at that time. The leads;Garfield and Palmer were superb,the former a graduate of Yiddish theatre, the latter a refugee from Hitler's Europe. the melodramatic roots were there from which 'the method' later grew, with performers like Brando, Dean and Poitier portraying the wounded and suffering hero.(Did Mel see this movie?} it also anteceded 'Marty' the quintessential realist U.S.struggling migrant antihero movie Where are you Paddy Chayevsky now that we need you? Perhaps what was most striking were the heroes who spoke articulately using words of more than two syllables, reaching its acme in 'Streetcar named desire' where Brando's character refers to 'The Napoleonic code' when he rages about his sister-in-law's possessions. Was the subversive element the depiction of working class heroes who could reason? and whose language had a poetic,almost Shakespearian ring to it? No longer the inarticulate (Tarzanic brute) but someone who could debate issues in the corridors of power: a noble and sexually attractive savage?


Egads! For years and years I thought that RAGING BULL was the greatest boxing movie.

The grit, grime, dirt, blood and guts which I thought was the trademark of Scorsese owes every ounce of its famous success to this film and to the riveting performance of one of the most fabulous actors in Hollywood history:

JOHN GARFIELD.

Not only did this movie explain just what it felt to live in the underbelly of the boxing world in those days, it was blessed with one of the most alarmingly charismatic actors ever:

JOHN GARFIELD.

The direction in the two important fights, first with the fabulous African-American actor and former pugilist, CANADA LEE and then the final fight, were so well wrought, filmed and edited that it utterly destroys any movie made before or after which dealt with boxing. Now I know from what source Scorsese was inspired to direct the utter realism in his Oscar-winning movie. I don't want to take anything away from Scorsese. He's a master at his craft. But this movie had something else more precious and now legendary. It had a hard-nosed, smoldering, somber, street-wise, troubled, vulnerable and yes, lovable actor. It had:

JOHN GARFIELD.