I can't believe how much this kind of movie impressed me. They don't make this kind of movies these days...right from the start till the very end it's all full-throttle action...and the thing that gets you is this : you don't expect much of it when you see the title and info, thinking "yeaahhh...another dumbass kids movie"...and though it has a few aspects that defy a realistic movie, but man, it becomes more and more engaging by the minute and keeps you focused with its breathtaking scenes and intensity...I mean, damn...this is a well-built movie people, good acting, good plot, strong moral values...and it's all done by simple means and lines, not like the majority of the movies you see now with great actors, boring scenarios and pathetic lines. I saw almost all the movies in the top 250 and much more, and I'm telling you, this one definitely belongs to the top. If you want the best true friendship based adventure movie of the moment, forget about the "Indy and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" category, which by the way is a disgrace to its kind, and give this one a go....satisfaction guaranteed ;)


I watched the movie The Flyboys in Mesquite Nv. where part of the film was made. I truly enjoyed the entire movie. The humor, adventure,family settings where wonderful. First movie I have seen for awhile that I didn't get bored by the same plot,same outcome as so many movies and TV series have set themselves in. Wonderful exciting,and down to earth without the sex and horrors of so many movies out there. Get this movie out to the public and you'll see why I think it will be a best sell. The boys show maturity in their relationships with each other as their adventure unfolds, their honesty to each other and their courage to win over their fears was done so well.


I saw this film last year at a film festival in Livermore CA and I would like to show it to my grandchildren (with proper guidance about the fight scenes). How do I acquire a copy or a download? I brought my husband to see it since he has a non-commercial pilot's license. We very seldom go to the theater and he loved the film. I hope that others would be able to enjoy this adventure flick. There really are people out there that will support a film without graphic sex. Everyone can remember a time in their youth that they unwittingly ended up in a pickle. This is a pretty good film for youth, especially boys. If anyone knows if this film is going to be picked up in the future, let me know.


Look at the number of film festival awards "The Fly Boys" has received. It is obvious that audiences connect with, and are entertained by, this movie. Why then have the studios taken a pass on distributing a film which, in my opinion, would not only be commercially successful, but critically praised as well? America is eager for this kind of family entertainment. I recently saw the movie at Bend Film 2008, where it won the Audience Award. It is well made, well written and well acted at a cost of only $2 million. While it might be better served with a few nips and tucks through editing and in structure, it is a hell of a ride for two hours and an incredible first time effort for its director. How rare it is to find an action movie with an interesting story and well drawn characters that have heart. You will find yourself laughing, crying, gasping and on the edge of your seat with action scenes that are truly breathtaking. It is a movie that both genders and all ages will find entertaining and heartwarming. I know...I know...these are descriptions that are an instant turn off to many cold hearted movie executives who are only looking for a return on their investment. I just don't understand why (other than the fact that it doesn't have major star power), the studio brass don't realize that it could be a major hit and enthusiastically received by movie audiences around the world who are hungry for this type of entertainment. What a pity! I feel fortunate to have seen "The Fly Boys" on the big screen. I only hope that you have the same chance.


A standout at the 2008 Daytona Beach Film Festival, ''The Flyboys'' deserves to be seen.

Here's the review from Film Critic Jeff Farance:

''The Flyboys'' 5 (of 5 stars)

This is the sort of discovery that film festivals live for. As do festival audiences.

To say it's a family film is to take nothing away from its maturity, its urgency and its adventure as two boys with a love of all things airborne become entwined in a mob plot to rip off a casino's cash haul by crashing the plane carrying it and its guards.

A sprinkling of familiar faces (Stephen Baldwin, Tom Sizemore, Robert Costanzo) accent the fine performances by stars Jesse James and Reiley McClendon.

But what's amazing is the total professionalism, including some palm-sweat-inducing aerial acrobatics and ground chase scenes, along with outstanding special effects. ''The Flyboys'' simply soars, and takes its audience along into the clouds for a breathtaking ride.


I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck Michigan.

The Flyboys is a wonderful adventure film starring two young talented actors Jesse James and Reiley McClendon. Kyle (McClendon) is the new kid in town and after a little trouble on his first day of school, he befriends Jason (James). Jason's uncle works on and flies small airplanes, and after Jason and Kyle get a little taste of flying in planes, they want more.

Soon, Jason and Kyle unexpectedly get on board a plane that is carrying a bomb. This is just the set up of the very entertaining film. The whole cast is great, Tom Sizemore and Stephen Baldwin are great together, and the side characters are also very impressive. There were also some very exhilarating moments throughout, even a simple scene involving kids being chased by a bully was made into a thrilling moments. The score is perfect in the film adding to the acting and excitement. And I particularly loved the use of sound during the final action sequence in the film.

After having seen over a dozen films at the Waterfront Film Festival, this was the final film I saw and it was definitely my favorite one. The entire audience was having a blast watching it. There were numerous bursts of applause for many scenes and a lot of laughs throughout. Everyone had a great time.

The Flyboys is sure to please everyone, it's fun, funny, and an overall great picture. Be sure to check this one out. See this film then spread the word.


I had the pleasure of seeing this movie twice. Once while attending the Garden State Film Festival and a second time in my home town in the Connecticut Film Festival. Normally I would never Pay to see a movie twice.

This action adventure thrill ride is near and dear to any guy/girl who is young at heart. The story combined with thrills made the movie easy to relate to. The Flyboys is definitely the best adventure movie I have scene ever, and that is coming from a film major who sees movies all the time. The story had the viewers demanding for what came next and on the edge through out the entire movie.

The way that this movie connects to you, is how you can relate to it. The characters and choice of the characters was great and they worked together amazingly well as if they knew each other their entire life. Most times after you see a independent film there is always one character that stands out due to bad acting. This did not exist, and let the viewer instantly connect with the characters as if they were sitting next to them.

With out spoiling the movie I need to Jump to the Creator Rocco DeVilliers. Rocco has created a movie that looks like it required 100 million but only done with two million. He has made a film that was made over the course of 7 years. His movie has beaten all the other independent films at the festivals I have been to. I walked out of all the other movies saying that was good but not as good as "The Flyboys".

The question remains why hasn't the movie been released in theaters every where? The answer is "LA won't take it" . After hearing Rocco say this at both film festivals the audience was instantly appalled and began to boo.

The best thing that you can do after reading this review is to watch "The Flyboys". With out spoiling the movie I could not give a in depth review to prove to you how well this film was made, but at least now you know what you can do to help the progress of this wonderful film.

PS. the guy who said this would be better than the new Indiana Jones, he was absolutely right.


This movie is by far the most original kids adventure film I have ever seen, and you don't have to be a kid to enjoy it! It's fresh and entertaining. Boys did an amazing job performing in this film. The plot contains elements we have all seen before: bullies, Italian mafia, single waitress mom trying to raise a boy; but it all comes together in a unique plot for an amazing adventure, during which our young heroes bond and grow together. I really admire the risks that the script writers took on, trusting these young boys to land an airplane and having them win the heart of a mafia boss. Nowdays, we are so busy overprotecting children, placing warning signs on anything and everything, we forget how capable kids really are. These brave protagonists leave no room for skepticism. I applaud the movie, the actors, and the makers.


I saw this film at the Palm Beach International Film Festival; Cobb Cinema, Jupiter, Florida. Really enjoyed this film and thought the acting was very good. It was family fare which would appeal to male and female tween agers as well as others. It is the type of movie I'd like to take my grandchildren to see. It is adventuresome and thrilling without being fantasy. It had me laughing at some points, inhaling sharp breaths when on the edge of my seat, and nearly crying at other times.

I'm hoping it comes to the Ft. Lauderdale Film Festival so I can take my granddaughter to see it and encourage my friends to go. Otherwise we'll have to wait for it to be released in theaters. Thanks for a really good movie. Ginny


With a creative story that lends itself to plenty of mischief and awesomely unfathomable action, The Flyboys breaks away from all the rules governing kids' films and becomes a boldly original adventure that proves the genre doesn't have to play it safe. Exceptional performances from the two young leads and intriguing characters by Sizemore and Baldwin, coupled with delirious amounts of adventurous fun, culminates in a wholly satisfying high-flying experience.

When new kid in town Kyle (Reiley McClendon) saves Jason (Jesse James) from a group of school bullies, an unlikely friendship forms. The two spend their time at an airplane hangar maintained by Jason's Uncle Ed (Dallen Gettling) and end up on the ride of their lives (and a ride for their lives) when they unintentionally ruin the scheming of dangerous mob misfit Silvio (Stephen Baldwin).

What begins as a very typical new-kid-trying-to-adjust-in-school premise drastically changes when we discover that said new kid Kyle is a total badass. Standing up for bullied loner Jason, both in school and after, Kyle rescues his new friend from multiple classmate antagonists and then goes on to beat up the older brothers of the attackers. A dizzying car chase and daring extreme stunts follow, and it's abundantly clear that The Flyboys is anything but your typical kids' film. And did I mention that Kyle is a total badass? The most enjoyable aspects of the film are derived from multiple resolutions between characters and events that end exactly the way we hope they will, which is something we'd rarely expect to actually see. A plethora of movies utilize the same formula of witnessing the protagonist being beaten in the beginning, only to come back at the conclusion for the ultimate victory. Not so with The Flyboys. Here, we get to see the protagonists win and keep on winning, and the unpredictability is refreshingly gratifying.

The Flyboys is a rare film that unabashedly delivers action, most often just for action's sake, and once you invest in the unbelievably wild adventure you can fully enjoy the ride without questioning the absence of realism. Harrowing car chases, aerial stunts, crash landings, and more abound in The Flyboys, and as each scene of action attempts to outdo the previous one, we realize caution has been thrown to the wind - and then caught, beaten, and thrown out again. But Flyboys embraces the fun and in turn it's easy to appreciate the nonstop, over-the-top mayhem, especially when generous bouts of unexpectedly dark comedy break up the sinister action.

Almost like a James Bond movie for kids, The Flyboys devotes itself to action first, realism and morals second. However, it's refreshing to see such commitment to adventure in a kids' film, and paired with a uniquely winding story of friendship and courage, DeVillier's rousting thrill ride never falters. In a crowing twist of unexpectedness, The Flyboys dares to show us in its brazen characters what we didn't think we'd ever get to  which is supremely satisfying.

- Joel Massie


Just saw this movie at The Garden State Film Festival in Asbury Park, New Jersey. I feel so lucky to have caught it. It is such a complete film. It has everything: young boys skipping school and getting into trouble, bullies, good guys, bad guys, handsome hero, car chase and more. The photography is great and all the stunts are real! The audience was cheering and clapping throughout the film. It's a masterpiece. It has a timeless quality about it. Classic movie score was perfect. This is a miracle movie that only cost $2,000,000 to make. I don't think another dollar could have made a better movie. In fact, I can't figure out how they did some of the stunts on that budget!


This was an action-filled movie that my boys (ages 8 and 11) loved! They related well to the two boys in the movie. The boys were believable and authentic. They especially like that there was no "lovey-dovey stuff" in it. I was a little concerned with the occasional swearing and violence. But, it wasn't the young boys that swore, so that helped. It is far better than "Stand By Me" since the boys in this movie are better role-models. Yet, this movie still shows the themes of the struggles of growing up and making choices. Also, the adults in the movie (for the most part) are not shown as stupid or oblivious people. The best part is that the theme of loyalty and friendship comes through with "flying colors"!


Whoever passed this film in Hollywood should lose their job. This film has it all and keeps you engaged with brilliantly unexpected events. The first hour was spent with a smile on my face. The kid actors were very charismatic, and still kids. Some beautiful scenery shot in Arizona. I couldn't imagine another plane in the picture, it really worked. The storyline was not "a gimme". You don't know where it's going with a couple twists. The audience at the film festival was 'ohing' and clapping. With the exception of two words, and only one gun, this film can be thoroughly enjoyed by 10-110 year olds. Glad the title was changed from Sky Kids. Nothing but good things to say about this inspiring movie of a return to entertainment. Great job, Rocco!!!


Today I had the pleasure of screening this film for an upcoming film fest. We are in the proses of picking films and I have watched many duds. This one I through in with no idea what I was watching and was amazed. The story was a lot of fun. The characters very natural and well acted. The script also natural and witty. The Directing was great. The production value was better than most Hollywood family films. A lot of people will compare this to such films as spy kids or catch that kid but this one has far more real characters. It is not a totally clean G rated film it defiantly hits a PG mark but in the same way that Second hand lions did for some realistic fist fights as well as a few people shot. If I have my why this will head up the family portion of our festival.


I saw this movie today and WOW! This film is one of those rare good films that you don't see anymore now this day and age. First off it's amazing how a film with such a low budget, came out AMAZING!!!! I laughed, I cried, and fell in love with the characters! This movie is not only GREAT for adults but kids as well! It can reach all ages. This film is truly original, no computer graphics, and it doesn't need any either! I am so encouraging you to see this movie! I don't even like plane movies and I can't stop raving about it! Rocco has directed a truly fantastic film worth seeing! Also fantastic acting! I will definitely be getting this movie on DVD!


This film tugs on every heart string imaginable. I loved each charter in the movie for having such heart. There were 2 moments in the film. which I will not spoil, that had tears streaming down my cheeks. The other great part of this film is the action is amazing. It is a throwback to the wonderful blockbusters in the eighties where a single seat wasn't empty in the theater. This is a special film. Made by a special director and cast. I love this film. It is a failure by Hollywood not to release this film. These are the films needed. Stop recycling old ideas. Realize Sky Kids / Flyboys is a special film. I have no other connection to this film other than being blessed to have seen at the Garden State Film Festival. If you get a chance to see this movie, don't pass it up.


This film is a Great movie with real good plot that is continuous and keeps you involved. Its a good family film that you can take you kids too and adults will enjoy as well. There isn't much in the film that would justify a PG-13 rating and it appeals to adolescents, teenager's, and little kids will enjoy it as well. This will be a hit when it gets released soon as it is a feel good film. I saw this film preleased a couple of years ago on a Mexico cruise in the ships main theater. THere aren't a lot of good films these days like there were 20-30 years ago. Rocco did a good job thinking out his plot and story line and is a undiscovered talent that good make it big if he can get his films noticed.


I viewed this movie tonight at the Daytona Beach Film Festival and was pleasantly surprised. This film had it all, adventure, action and great characters. The breathtaking aerial shots, fast paced action scenes, and character development all came together to create a truly entertaining film. In a Q&A with the director, I was amazed to learn that this movie was filmed with a 2 million dollar budget. I initially thought this was going to be a kids movie. However, the characters quickly drew me into their lives and the storyline touched not only my adult mentality but also took me back to my childhood sense of wonder. The relationship between the characters spanned all ages and reminded me the importance of friendship and family. Hats off to Rocco. I hope to see more of your work in the future. Thank you for making this film and for putting your heart and soul into it!!!


I really thought this movie was great. I took my grandparents to it as it was released to the cinemas. I am not sure if it has been released publicly or just because it was filmed where I presently live. It cracks me up that with all the phenomenal scenery - it was attributed to Arizona. (It was actually filmed in Southern Utah(Hurricane) - I went to the school they attended - its been torn down since) I was fascinated by the fact I had never HEARD of this movie.It was outstanding. Action packed - thrilling - touching - and yet realistic. It was awesome to see the reaction of children in the theater as well - they seem to feel along with the boys! THis was perfect for all ages - young to old - and impressive from start to finish. This may have been one of the best movies I have seen all year!


This is the best film adaptation of Dickens' best novel. You can't go wrong with this one.

The production is low budget, but that actually works in its favor. The film has a grittiness that is entirely appropriate.

The script is first-rate and the actors are virtuosos across the board. There is not a note in it anywhere that rings false.

If you're tired of the sentimentalism and cartoonish characters usually associated with Dickens, you will be pleasantly surprised. There is none of that here. This is a story about real people. There are no saints, except for Rachel and she's a minor character, and no devils. Even the ostensible villain, Bounderby, is humanized.

Dickens on film doesn't get better than this.


Looking at the typical Dickens Novel like "Bleak House" or "David Copperfield" or "Our Mutual Friend", the size is usually about 800 - 900 pages. Only three of his novels escape this gigantism. "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Great Expectations" are about 500 - 600 pages each. But most surprising is "Hard Times For These Times" (better known as "Hard Times") which is about 350 to 400 pages.

At the time he wrote "Hard Times" (1854 - 55) Dickens' position as the leading British novelist was pretty secure. "Copperfield" and "Bleak House" had determined that. But he was trying to demonstrate that he was also a great magazine editor. His first magazine was entitled "Household Words", and while publishing it he decided to enhance it's readership by writing a novel. Like all of his novels it was published piecemeal, but hitherto Dickens was the author working with other editors - so he was able to get them to accept his prolonged novels with tons of subplots and episodes. Now he was an editor himself, and he realized that he had to trim off the fat. The result was a four part serialized novel, regarding the industrial revolution in the midlands, and possibly (to his millions of fans) the least Dickens-like novel of them all. The proof of this is that, despite it's brief length being a plus for modern readers turned off by 800 - 900 page novels, more people know Dickens for "Copperfield" or "Pickwick" or "Oliver Twist" than are aware of "Hard Times".

As pointed out in some of the other reviews here, Dickens is taking a close and skeptical view of the wonderful industrial revolution. His real hero in the novel is Stephen Blackpool, a hard working laborer in the industrial city of Coketown. Blackpool is overworked and underpaid. He has drunken shrew for a wife. He can't find any type of hope in this God - forsaken city. The so - called Labor Unions are of little use (George Orwell notes in his essay on Dickens that they are little better than a protection racket). In the course of the story we watch the tragedy of Blackpool unfold - and how it is impossible to stop it.

The villains of the novel include Thomas Gradgrind, an educator and industrialist who is determined to raise a generation of realists. "Teach these children facts...nothing but facts!!", he rails at the start of the novel, and dooms his son and daughter (among others) into a bleak, colorless, joyless existence. He does get his daughter Louisa married to Josiah Bounderby (the second villain), an ironmonger and "self-made man", who won't hear of coddling the workers (the Stephen Blackpools, if you will) of the world - he keeps using a ridiculous metaphor of the workers wanting to drink turtle soup out of silver tureens. Louisa is soon bored by this man, and falls for the blandishments of Mr. James Harthouse, a Member of Parliament and the third villain in the novel. Will she give in to the advances of this cad, or will she be saved by her maid (and friend) Sissy Jupe? The B.B.C. series did pretty well in delineating Dicken's attack on inhuman education and inhuman economics, with a fine cast led by Timothy West as Bounderby, Edward Fox as Harthouse, Jacqueline Tong (Daisy on UPSTAIRS/DOWNSTAIRS) as Louisa, and Rosalie Crutchley as Mrs. Sparskit, Bounderby's housekeeper (who was once an aristocrat - her husband was a Powler we are reminded several times) and who has a secret yen for Josiah.

I do have one regret - and if you want to read the novel first do not go beyond this point below: SUPER SPOILER COMING UP: In the novel, Mrs. Sparskit is jealous of Louisa marrying Josiah, and when Louisa has her affair with Harthouse she spies on her. Her intention is to eventually reveal all to Bounderby, who will divorce Louisa and (hopefully) marry Mrs. Sparskit. But while noting Louisa's trysts with Harthouse, Mrs.Sparskit also notes a mysterious elderly woman who is constantly coming to see Josiah. After awhile, she is annoyed at not knowing who this is, and Bounderby's reticence about the matter. Finally, at the conclusion of the novel, she does meet the lady (much to Bounderby's discomfort). It is his mother. Now Bounderby talks with a lower class accent throughout the novel, and Mrs. Sparskit's amorous interest in him is based on the idea that he's low born and wealthy, and she is poor but aristocratic - they are meant for each other because she can raise him properly to his social sphere. Now she finds out that Mrs. Bounderby is not lowly at all - Josiah came from the upper class (just as Mrs. Sparskit did). He just pretended he was self-made for effect in dealing with others. Mrs. Sparskit's scorn for Josiah at the conclusion of the novel was very funny. Unfortunately it was not included in this version of the novel.


'Hard Times' is one of Dickens' lesser known novels, but is extremely worthy for all that.

It is short and set in the north of England at a time when the industrial revolution has brought sudden wealth to the nouveu-riche of common but fortunate entrepreneurs. These people have no family precedent or history and must make a reputation for themselves. Which they often do with a contemptuous ruthlessness for those of equal birth but far less good fortune.

Aptly named Mr Bounderby is just such a man. 'The bully of humility', you can't tell him anything. He got where he is today by sheer exertion and determination. There has never been a hardship to which he was never a stranger. He's rich, a humbug, and a consummate liar.

Stephen Blackpool is his alter-ego. Working-class like him, but going nowhere. He's an employee who falls foul of his alcoholic wife, his nascent trade-union, and eventually Bounderby himself. 'It aw' a muddle', is his summation of life.

Thomas Gradgrind is very much of Bounderby's way of thinking. They are friends insofar as two people devoid of any human sympathy can be. He's a man of facts. FACTS - and nothing else.

It's a simpler and more severe indictment of social-climbing than his much more popular Great Expectations. Comical individuals are few and far between. Heroes are non-existent.

Patrick Allen and Timothy West have the leads to perfection. At the same time, every other role is played to a tee by a sprinkling of worthy character actors.

This drama is wonderfully realised with an excellent mix of studio and location shooting. The original script is a perfect adaptation. All of the relevant social and personal issues raised by Dickens are included. This is as good as it gets.

Modern dramatisations of Dickens are more lavish, expensive and utterly devoid of that essential magic of the Master. This 4-piece work dates from a time when realizing Dickens' ideas was just as important as creating a detailed drama.


A rather strange, slow-moving story about a writer (Hutton) working on a screenplay based on the exploits of a stripper (Burke) he has fallen for. There's more going on behind the scenes, involving his financially desperate buddy (Joe P.) who needs the screenplay written or his kneecaps may be forfeit. But in the end this plot goes nowhere in particular. I'm not at all sure why this was made. I certainly wouldn't have greenlighted it, except maybe as a Skinemax midnight movie with the addition of a lot more skin showing. Burke is reasonably sultry as the tell-all bad girl, who is perhaps a bit too attractive to be who she claims, and Hutton is his usual befuddled self. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He plays befuddled well. In fact, if you look up the word in the dictionary, you will see his face next to it. But the story here all goes for naught. The climax is -- shall we say -- anticlimactic. You may safely skip it.


First of all, I love kinda movies like this one and I consider myself lucky of having watched it last weekend in my former girlfriend's flat because she has always been a b-movies freak and so."The last word" is for me a deep story about cranks, a worn femme-fatale and the dummies of Hollywood.The resentful and witty character of Doc, a close friend of the main character that Timothy Hutton hides more than shows, stands out in a so powerful way that at the end, you realize that you was taken in about him.The girl is beautiful and confused -Michelle Burke acts sensitive and finally splendid compounding her Sara/Caprice character.Althought Hutton triumphs in his mission revealing the ambiguous talented guy, corrupted gleefully by Hollywood, Joe Pantoliano -incredible actor- offers a new dimension sticking behind Hutton every time he appears in scene, stealing the whole film. He is the ultimate anti-hero and villain, slave of his own contradictions, master in dupe business, putting up with his proper suffering, rejected by the woman of his partner(probably Sara is also the woman of his dreams)in this game of personality mirrors which deserves a warm and cautious approaching as well as passionate comprehension.


It´s a fantastic vision of Hollywood's backstage,painful elationships,violence,and different points of view from the three main characters: Timothy Hutton, Michelle Burke and the great dark character that Joe Pantoliano develops here. A mad function that celebrates confusion of life and cinema, not even a bit of fun in the middle of the way.


This movie, starring Michelle Burke of "Little Men" TV series, is about a journalist with connections to the mob who falls for a stripper with a dark past. His best friend then drags him to L.A. with the intent of becoming actors.

The movie sounds like an interesting story, but the plot just drags on and on and on with no ending it sight. There is lack of emotion, suspense and intrigue-no surprises and no twists. What is strange about this movie is that we have big stars like Cybill Shepherd, Richard Dreyfuss and Jimmy Smits appear as extras in the movie, next to lesser known actors who are the leads. Plus, the movie poster depicts Dreyfuss's picture as the largest, yet, he only has about 4 min of screen time.

I was bored one night and decided to watch this film, as I enjoy watching some TV works by Michelle Burke and Roma Downey of "Touched by an Angel" TV series; they both appear in this movie. But, this movie sure hits rock bottom. Just plain mediocre and boring.

So, if you want to watch this movie, drink lots of coffee. This movie nearly put me to sleep.

Grade F


Watching this movie at classiccinemaonline.com is probably not the best way to see it, but it beats the heck out of not seeing it.

My connection (DSL) created some jumpiness, but there was still a lot of quality visible, from a story by the great Oliver Drake, to directing by the equally great Joseph Kane.

Of course the Three Mesquiteers, the almost original threesome (Terhune, Corrigan, Livingston), are nearly always watchable, so the ingredients are there for a very good movie.

To be honest, I rated it higher than I felt what I saw deserved, with my jumpy connection and the abysmal attempts at "comedy," but, still, it's the Mesquiteers and Drake and Kane, and some great stunt work (the unsurpassed Yakima Canutt) and great camera angles, and what was apparently great stock footage in spots, and an exciting score by the great Raoul Kraushaar.

With all that, it is definitely a must-see for western fans, for Republic fans, and for Mesquiteers fans. And for Kraushaar fans, including me.


Pretty funny-bad Western here, which feature that all-time famous (sarcasm) trio, The Three Mesquiteers, as they help people who have just escaped a flood (which caused DESOLATION, PESTILATION and FAMINE, (so say the cue cards). They are offered ranch land in Arizona by a unscrupulous shyster, and it's up to the three to make sure Justice Is Served! So in less in an hour, we have laughably bad fights, a joke of a song, scary stunt handling, a guy doing a non-stop comedy routine with a dummy, and rather offensive jibes at stuttering people. All this, and this rather curious confusion with the 1930's wardrobe mixed in with western drag. Highly strange, but not really worth your time.


This games cover made it look like an extremely well done game. Add to that a nice opening sequence as invaders have come to destroy earth and some of earth's mightiest heroes have already fallen. In the end it disappoints with to much focus on the Imperfects and not enough on the marvel characters especially in the end. I like to be able to play a game without inviting the gang over to play and as a single player game this one will keep you entertained for a bit, but not over the long haul. The fighting is easy to pick up and I love the fact that the characters are not the same strength, but why such a limited number of characters? Sure we get Spider-man, Wolverine, Venom, Daredevil and more to choose from, however the marvel universe is so expansive you could have had twice the number of marvel characters and still had the three they choose to knock out of action early. This game could have won me over also with multiple endings, but it doesn't go the only route that could have saved it. Instead the ending rushes at you with one lame character you have to win with...why not have it so you decide who win's the game and save the day? That would have given this game so much more reply value. In the end an okay fighter with some of your favorite marvel characters and some new characters who often mirror one of the marvel ones.


Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects is fantastic in many ways, it's got non stop action, destroyable arenas and some of the best Marvel Characters to play as. There could of been a few more but I'm happy with the Characters they chose, being a fan of Marvel this is one of the best games I've played. The story is about New York being invaded by mysterious aliens called the Imperfects that are lead by an Alien Scientist that wan'ts to capture the Marvel heroes for his Army but the Marvel heroes are going to try and stop them.

The game play is easy to pick up since their isn't any combos instead you press one button to punch and another for a different attack, Story mode has you playing as the Marvel heroes doing a number of missions. The missions have you destroying a bunch of Imperfect robots sometimes with a limit, destroying a number of environments or confronting an Alterted Marvel hero or Imperfect.

The Marvel Characters are:

Spider-Man,Venom, Iron-Man,Daredevil, Eleckta, Wolverine, Storm, Magneto, The Thing, Human Torch

The Imperfects are:

Johnny Ohm, Hazmat, The Wink, Fault Zone, Solaris, Brigade, Paragon, Niles Von Roekel

For Marvel fans and Beat em up fans Marvel Nemesis is one of the best to go for. 10/10


I knew very little from this movie before seeing it and was very pleasantly surprised. The actors and the direction are great, while the art direction is stunning. There are two disappointing cases of main characters having the stupid but apart from that the scenario is pretty solid too.

I'm pretty disappointed not to be hearing about this movie a little more because it definitely deserves more recognition than it is getting now.

Overall this movie is a great blend of drama and awesome action scenes while also having a fair bit of humor, and I would heartily recommend it to any movie-goer. It's also nice to see Guy Lecluyse getting some scenes for those who've heard about him, I thought he was great in that role.


This movie rocks. It is best to watch it in French with subtitles as the voice artists for the English language version ham it up a bit. This is an excellently directed, hard hitting and atmospheric sci-fi cop movie. Set I'm guessing about twenty years in the future. Teenage girls are being murdered and disappearing. The movie opens on back to back, shock you into the movie scenes, that set up the parallel stories that will be played out.

The cast is great. Albert Dupontel as David Hoffman is a total bad ass, grim and tough as hell. There seems to be an ocean of emotion behind his stoic tough facade. Marthe Keller is also a stand out. Just an incredible actress to watch. None of the relationships in this movie are predicable, which makes it very intriguing and though all these characters are familiar to this genre, all of them come off as totally believable people. This is something that lacks in most American versions of the genre.

The fight scenes rock. Simple staging no wire work. It's just tough sons of bitches beating the crap out of each other in some brutal future martial art. There are twists and great scenes throughout. And though I've watched it twice and am still not sure of exactly all that happened, I don't care. I'm going to buy the DVD. Julien Leclercq is a Director and Writer to watch. I hope to see more from him.

And a word of advice to the Director. Don't move to Hollywood. They would just ruin you. Look what happened to John Woo.

Great Movie.

Peace.


All connoisseurs and other snobs know that between 1960 and 1980 French cinema was miles ahead of Hollywood. Directors like Melville knew that they could not compete on special effects etcetera because of the smaller budgets. They took the only possible course: do what Hollywood doesn't dare to do. Chrysalis breaks the Hollywood conventions as well and still stands firm in the French tradition. The pale colours remind us of classics like Le Samourai; the Hoffmann character could have been played by Alain Delon in his heydays. Dialogues are minimalistic and therefor highly effective. The two story lines first are independent and gradually merge. Montage between the two is brilliant; every scene makes you longing for the next one. Only halfway the meaning of the opening scene is partly revealed; only near the end you will understand it fully. So some patience and a bigger attention span than average is demanded - and rewarded. The movie has two weak points. First of all there is the plot. Probably I am not fair, but I find it hard to accept the plots of Robocop and Terminator as well. Never will movies like that get more than 8 stars. Second I find the Hoffmann character not that convincing anymore after his "accident". Don't take my criticism too hard. Deviating from the Hollywood norm involves risks so should be praised. Chrysalis is highly entertaining and intriguing, unless you prefer the standard, brainless and predictable stuff. And never I have seen such cold scenery.


A by-the-numbers cop movie with sci-fi elements, this French policier felt very tired than being the fresh, slick thriller it so wanted to be. Loud gunshots, car crashes and fist fights are utilized as an attempt to break up the monotony of the script by Leclerq, Nicolas Peufaillit, Franck Philippon , and Aude Py (yes, it took four people to write this film when it felt like one person could have written it in their sleep).

Plugging into the generic lead role this time out are Albert Dupontel as David Hoffman, the take-no-prisoners cop who'd rather get the job done right than follow procedure. Hoffman looses not only his partner in the opening gun battle but his wife as well. Now it's personaltimes deux. He's partnered with the well-meaning newbie Marie Becker (Marie Guillard) and the two work to find the truth behind a series of deaths. Of course, these murders are ultimately tied back to the fateful opening gunfight and to the plot of Doctor Brugen (Marthe Keller) helping her daughter regain her memories after a tragic auto accident.

The large, gleaming neon sign points out the insidious mucky-muck plot device of a terrible weapon that's fallen into the wrong hands. Think "Project Janus" of JUDGE DREDD or any other number of government-funded weapons that have gone awry. This time it's a set of head gear that can download, erase, or implant memories into a subject. As government stooge Patrick Bachau (producer of CHRYSALIS) explains to his niece, Marie, the Chrysalis machine could be used to implant the memory of a fervent jihadist into innocent minds to create an army of terror killers. Likewise, a powerful business man could go on living forever by putting his mind into a younger body. If you just thought of FREEJACK, you're not alone.

The only scene missing from CHRYSALIS is the rewriting of Hoffman's memories and his struggle to maintain his identity. (That might not be in the film but the scene of him handing over his gun and his badge is!) Rather, Hoffman's mind is wiped. This may actually be a good thing as it removes the demons of his haunted past and allows Maria the chance to be the weak protagonist for a while. Things shake out just as you know they will. There's even a "the media will love this" scene with Guillard and Bachau at the end.

CHRYSALIS isn't a bad film so much as it's misleading. It's a light snack that pretends to be a three course meal.


This is a stylish french sci-fi movie. After a murder, a policemen has his memory where his wife gets killed. Unfortunately another investigation leads him to the same killer. Another parallel story is one of a young women you is locked in a hospital and gets some odd treatment to get some memory erased.

The story has some rough edges although the global plot is quite interesting. Most actors do a great job, although some are a little too frenchy. The most interesting part of the movie is the directions and all details. Fighting scenes are gripping, and the futuristic details give a great sense of realism. You really buy his 2025 Paris, the futuristic operations at the hospital.

Despite details of the story, this movie is very entertaining and has style.


This movie comes out of France, with French sensibilities, a steady camera style and some solid emotional acting. The story is set a little bit in the future with some future tech embedded into the details of the visuals in such a way that the future tech is just there, utilized and passed on without remarks or fanfare.

Exactly WHAT the crime is can be somewhat obscure and will take some replaying of the dialogue to piece together, but the story has it's own cohesive logic. Why the director made everything BLUE, I don't understand, though I'll ride with it. But be sure that this future is NOT dystopian-- it's just. . .Blue.

If you watch it in English, you will notice times when the lips and the dialogue don't quite synch and that can be annoying, although I wager that French speaking viewers will have a more rewarding time of it. Still. . .This movie is thoughtful and different. And thank GOD there's no Shaky Camera here. Also the usual Hollywood Non-Stop Running, Car-chase, Helicopter Raging Gun-battles are missing here-- again because of the different sensibilities. But that makes you pay more attention to the Story about the Crime.

Oddly enough, I rate this Sci-Fi movie as "Girlfriend Friendly" for a quiet Saturday Night. Have some Cheesesteaks and Fries ready to go with it.


Scifi action film about a cop investigating murders tied to the death of his partner. All roads lead to a weird institute where weird experiments involving memory are taking place.

Its a been there and done that sort of a film, especially if you watch any number of dystopian scifi films. What strikes me as kind of sad was that the film often feels like its standing in front of you waving at you in a pathetic attempt to make you think you haven't seen this before. The film's case cover mentions that the action sequences were from the person responsible for the action in the Bourne films, and that maybe the case but the director doesn't shoot it with any sense of Bourne's style and the result is further boredom.

Not worth your time.


Watching this movie to the end was such a real torture for multiple reasons that I had to share about my pain and frustration from this horrible experience. First, the story is so empty, dull and finally stupid that it could have been told in 15 minutes max. But much worst is the directing style that is terribly boring. It starts nicely visually like for an advertising for any high end contemporary luxury product; as if it was the only intention of the director, to prove that he could do it nicely (with tons of cash). But having to watch this commercial for more than 30 secs but a full hour and a half becomes very painful after just 15 minutes. The directing is terribly boring with endless very useless slow camera moves on cold architecture, useless moving cars, actors walking in or out for 20 secs or elevators elevating for a good 20 or 30 secs. What the hell?!? Mixed with fistfights with no visual interest, a very dumb and not plausible shooting while running scene where one cannot shoot another from 2 meters, and endless slow paced and useless scenes that should have been cut out or not even be shot to start with. Very soon, it all appears very pretentious. Because when they finally talk, foreigners might not hear it but the tone is often horribly false, especially with the German accent of the blond actress. Her tone is SO wrong. It becomes a torture like with very bad amateur karaoke singers. I do not understand how a director cannot hear it when editing. like a musician without hears. Dupontel who I usually always love despite very strange (bad) career choices has no lines here and is only one color tinted, making his character totally dull and boring after 20 minutes. Melanie Thierry is not bad but a bit transparent here despite extraordinary facial features. No characters has any interesting point besides the villain just because he remains a bit mysterious but we'll quickly discover that besides his strange eastern accent he has nothing more to deliver than pure brute stupid violence. Sublime former French model Estelle Lefébure took an honorable chance to show some of her unknown acting talents and truly did not fall in many traps and delivers as much emotion as the script allows her to; maybe even a bit more. But of course there was not much to deliver from the script and to remember particularly to start with. Overall I had to push "2x" faster button many many (too many) times to not fall asleep for a third time. This movie can only be an excellent "berceuse", something to go to sleep in 10-15 minutes if you don't mind having to start over the next day to this where it goes. And there is no spoil here in telling that it leads NOWHERE. Good Luck. pass your way. PS: On this same SciFi topic of memory manipulation, I just watched Paycheck from P.K. Dick and John Woo and that was way much better even if really not good neither. Mandchurian Candidate seems to keep staying one good reference.


This could have been an outstanding science fiction/crime thriller. But there was simply no passion here. Everyone seemed dispassionate about any and every thing that was happening or had happened or toward each other. Editing was another problem. There were several disconnects and very little seemed to add or subtract from the story. Even by the time everything comes together, there was still no desire to care about any of these characters or the idea behind the movie.

In short, the movie came across like a dry reenactment of a crime with far reaching repercussions. Remember how interesting U.S. History was in High School? Well, there you go.

Great story. Positively wooden acting. But by the end of the film, who cares? Actually, this would have made for an excellent Japanese anime. At least they would have gotten you to care about these people.


This is a sloppy piece of whatever it's supposed to be. It's terrible in so many ways it's embarrassing to all involved. The script is utter nonsense that won't make a lick of sense either. I don't know who OK'd this script or how exactly it was even sold. I can see the pitch saying, here is the script I doesn't make sense now but we will work on it in post. Yeah it didn't happen. Please do not bother this terrible drivel. Worse than anything is that it actually looks pretty decent, but it just goes to show if you don't have a decent script that makes at least A LITTLE bit of sense it won't matter. That acting is wooden & somebody thought they were making something good, because it seems like there was some care in the making of it. I understand just about all movies, but you won't have a clue what is actually happening until at least 45 minutes to an hour in, if you even make that far which most of you won't.


I know most of Sergiu Nicolaesu's work and somehow in my early childhood back in Romania I enjoyed it. There were mainly war movies going all the way from The Romans and Dacians till The Second World War battles. But this one is a caricature of a flick... No substance, bad acting, no camera movement just to name a few... The actors are incredible dull and shallow and the plot... but what the hack... there is no plot, just a narcissistic character with some gushy women orbiting around him. It seems as it was intended to be a C movie from the start and hopefully it does. So save your ticket and popcorn money for something more interesting.


I've seen this movie, and it is great. The actors are some of the best, but Sergiu Nicolaescu wanted to do something different, so he brought in some new ones.

I have seen most of Sergiu Nicolaescu's movies, and THERE IS NO COMUNIST PROPAGANDA IN THEM WHATSOEVER!!! I do not know what absolute idiot chose to comment this movie first...but it is obvious that he did not understand anything from it....probably his intellect is to low...

He said that Nicolaescu's movies are o no quality...but that proves that he is an imbecile... Sergiu Nicolaescu is one of the greatest directors, and many people agree that he is the greatest "battle scene director" in the world.

His movies are filled with "patriotism" because they have a history based topic. It is obvious that these high quality movies are not for idiots...

Orient Express is an extraordinary movie...a MUST SEE for anyone who can understand it.


... This movie is made for people who use their brains, and is seeking some answers to the world main questions.If you are wild about action, guns, sf or horror i assure you that you won't find these elements in it but instead it is a great psychological trip in a personal view.And I could say that the movie is more than a personal introspection into the character's body, is made to satisfy all categories of ages and is trying to measure what is worthing to do in life.It is a great gift that has been given by a great mind, Sergiu Nicolaescu. Take it as it is and please have at least a little more respect for someone who sacrificed his life on cinematography's altar. Thank you for reading this, Mihnea


I have seen the movie, and I think it's the renaissance of the Romanian cinematography. I liked it, I've always liked the aristocrat movies, and I think the director Sergiu Nicolaescu has proved once more that he is the most famous Romanian movie director ever. The Romanian cinematography has had a crack-up after the 1989-revolution which demolished communism, but now I think it started to come back again. It was a very nice surprise watching this movie and it gave me confidence for the future Romanian movies. I want to invite everyone to see it and then judge. I felt very sorry seeing some negative comments from some users, and mostly because they were Romanians... It's strange how some people like to pull down every good thing which happens in this country...


I have recently watched Orient Express on DVD (one of the very few Romanian DVDs/VHS provided with English subtitles !), and wish to provide IMDb's readers with a few comments.

The film is not that bad as some might believe. Directorial effort by Sergiu Nicolaescu, screen-writing, and casting with some flaws. Sergiu Nicolaescu is known well for pictures such as: "Michael the Brave" (1970), "With Clean Hands" (1972), "The Immortals" (1974), "The Doom" (1976). "William the Conqueror" (1982), "The Mirror" (1993), "Cry of Redemption" (1996), many of them action and war films. I dare say "Orient Express" (2004) is one of his few attempts at making a "character" film, and he does better than with the his previous attempt: "The Last Night of Love" (1979) based on the novel bearing the same title by Romanian 20th century writer Camil Petrescu.

It is an interesting story, and I assume the novel by Tudor Teodorescu-Braniste upon which the script is based is even better, meaning more fully developed.

Good shooting and editing, good acting. For interior and exterior shooting nice choosing of the Moruzeni Castle located in the always very beautiful and fully forested Moldova.

At first glance it looks like Sergiu Nicolaescu as old prince Morudzi performs rather flat, however the character he plays is supposed to be flat with few emotional variations. Dan Bittman (a Romanian rock star) does well as young prince Morudzi. I liked Imola Kezdi ("Holtvágány 1973) as Ana Criveanu, who falls in love for the prince, and later on kills herself when rejected by the prince, although I had the feeling she did not look exactly like a 20 years old girl, as the script requires. Maia Morgenstern ("The Oak" - 1992, "Betrayal" - 1993, "Ulysses' Gaze" - 1995, Procust's Bed"  2001, "The Passion of Christ" 2004) is excellent as Amalia Frunzetti, the prince companion and mistress, though she does not look like 30 (Maia was 42 in 2004 when the film was made). Ioana Moldovan is an attractive woman, and perform well as Isabelle Benny, the prince's love interest while wondering as a young man in Paris, however, she looks more like a tramp, instead of the supposedly poor and simply dressed French girl.

In my opinion director and writer Sergiu Nicolaescu tag teaming with the screen writers (Ioan Carmazan, Corneliu Dragomirescu should have worked more at showing what else prince Morudzi did throughout his life besides traveling and gambling in Paris. It is not unthinkable, however, are playboy attitude, good look, and highly cultivate language enough for so many women to fall for him right away ? I would have also liked to see more about the neighborhood, the places and people living around the castle, which is something that would have allowed the viewer to get a better feel of the time (pre WW1). Last but not least, much more of that Moldavian (Romanian) mesmerizing music.

About the DVD release: rather effective (mostly true to the original Romanian script) and easy to follow English subtitles, however, the person who did the translation seemed to have used some kind of "didactic", Romanian-English Dictionary  based equivalents for many Romanian idioms. A more "down-to-earth" British and American English was within reach.

Last, but not least: some viewers have a problem with Sergiu Nicolaescu having been a well-connected individual for a long time, and also with his currently being a Senator in the Romanian Parliament. How about the Mikhalkov brothers (Nikita and Andrej Michalkow-Kontschalowski), the famous Russian theater and film directors ? Very well-connected artists, whose father, Sergei Mikhalkov wrote the lyrics for National Anthem of the USSR, now the Russian Federation ! They did outstanding work.


This is a great movie, worthy to compete against American movies from Hollywood. Sergiu Nicolaescu is one the greatest Romanian Director and even actor! Now he is old but he written history with his achievements and he will always be remembered as the first greatest Romanian actor and movie director! The new actors and directors are jokes! He is the only one that remains true! This movie was very touchy and realistic! The story was very good and if you're not Romanian you should search for a subtitle in your language then look at the movie! I rated the movie at maximum because it really worths!

P.S. If you're looking for a great Drama, Romance movie, here it is, if you want something else, this is not a good place to look...


"Orient Express" is a very good Romanian version of the classic movie "Il Gattorpardo" ("The Leopard" - en.). Unfortunately, like other Romanian movies, it's not a universal movie, it's a Romanian movie - difficult to understand for other culture. Of course, there is a difference between Nicolaescu and Burt Lancaster, but as director Sergiu Nicolaescu did a great movie. A bad element is that some romantic moments can be remarked as a little bit artificial, but we must not forget the environment, the circumstances of those years (between first and second word war)with a snobbery society. I also appreciated very much the music.

For me it's a "must see movie".


The old communist Sergiu Nicolaescu, nowadays senator in a communist leftover party , who used to swallow every dime the poor, state owned movie industry Romania at the time had allocated for movies(usually one or two per year)has made patriotic/historical/war movies for all his communist party sponsored career. His movies were pretty much all "entertainment" Romanians had in a time when the dictator Ceausescu cut the only TV program to just two hours a day, between 20 and 22 o'clock(and this in black and white).

As a result, this communist front liner made more than 20 communist propaganda filled, with unbelievable and pathetic characters(usually members of the communist party, or involved in the communist struggle against the "rotten capitalism"), dialog and stories(always patriotic) accompanied by an incredibly bad sound (Romanian Mono they called it).

The movies this big communist era leftover makes today are of even worse quality than his earlier communist ideology infested flicks.


Sergiu Niculescu is indeed quite a famous Romanian director. He actually got most of his fame by shooting war movies during the Ceaucescu area and he seems to have been quite good at it. He is now a controversial old man, a Senator and his word is key in funding Romanian movies with public money.

In Orient Express his character is played by two actors (himself) and Dan Bitman (the younger character) who is a well-know rock-star in Romania. The all plot is just an amazing example of self-praise and narcissism. No less than 4 women are actually in love with the Niculescu-character. The dialogs and shooting are flat and static. Barely any camera moves except for one or two traveling.

The film fails to capture the audience. When I watched it, the public laugh during the most pathetic/romantic moments...

The film recalls the spirit of a Niculescu earlier film: Ultima Noapte de Dragoste, shot in 1979.

The only interesting part is the lovely Miclauseni castle located closed to Iasi (North-Est Romania) where part of the movie has been shot.


I saw it and I loved it! I think this could be one of the best films of Nicolaescu's! Great directing, a great script and great acting are the high points of this movie. I also love the filming locations: those places are fascinating! There is nothing wrong with this movie. Of course it could have been better. But, in this case, "better" means "the best!". I'm so proud because "Orient Express" is great! It makes me feel so good being a Romanian. :)

I recommend this to all: it's a romance/drama very, very deep and cool! You'll love this picture!

9/10


This movie is a metaphor for the life of a person seeking spiritual liberation, meditating in retreat, and finally overcoming his ego and uniting his soul with God (or his supreme self, Atman).

The old man is the ego. The girl is the soul. The ocean is the world. The boat is the physical body. The guests that come fishing are the thoughts. The bow is the consciousness. The young man is the supreme Self, Atman.

The act of shooting the arrow from the bow is the act of meditation, an act where the consciousness is perfected, united and becomes an unstoppable power.

The dual functions of the bow - as a weapon that has an overwhelming power yet it is also an instrument of art and beauty - represent the two aspects of the consciousness - Cit and Ananda, Cit = consciousness (arrow) and Ananda = beatitude (music).

The way the old man was protecting the girl is the fight of the mind to keep the soul pure and intact. The visitors (impure thoughts) were attempting to spoil the purity of his soul while he was protecting it with the bow (his focused consciousness, or could be by a state of meditation, because in a meditation the mind becomes as focused as the arrow shot from a bow).

The fortunetelling is a meditation where the soul is providing answers to mind. The answers first appear in the soul, in a state of meditation (the shooting of the bow). Then the soul (the girl) shows the mind the answer.

The moment when the girl was rejecting the old man's hand at night is the moment when the ego is alone, separate from his soul, in a dark night of suffering that is necessary for it to understand his mistakes.

The old man's attempt to stop the girl leaving by sacrificing his life is the sacrifice of the ego that is necessary for the soul to become free. Only after the ego completely sacrifices itself, can the soul become free to discover the supreme self, Atman.

The death of the old man was the death of the dual mind and ego. The girl's orgasm is the ecstatic expansion of the soul and that marks the moment of supreme Liberation. The arrow plays the role of the consciousness that penetrates the soul and makes it expand with infinite joy into a state of union with the supreme Self - represented here by the young boy who was holding the girl.

The sinking of the boat represents the death of the physical body. The girl leaving together with the boy represents the life after the supreme Liberation, where the soul is together with the supreme Self (or with God).


I must confess I am a huge Kim Ki-Duk fan, and have loved every one of his films. In my opinion Ki-Duk has directed 4 absolute masterpieces of modern cinema, Bad Guy, 3 Iron, The Isle, and Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring. Each of these films has gone some way to changing the shape, scope, style or accepted boundaries of modern cinema.

The Bow, however does not go to these lengths, but instead falls into the category of Ki-Duk's more eclectic and arguably more mainstream works like the Birdcage Inn or Samaria. This is by no means a bad thing as these are also great films in their own right.

Much like 3 Iron, the Bow has very little dialog, and much of the emotion is conveyed solely by glances, gestures or actions. This makes the film both more and less commercially acceptable to western audiences.

The Bow has re-confirmed Kim Ki-Duk as a modern cinematic maverick, an uncompromisingly original and visionary director.


An old man and a teenage girl live on an anchored boat somewhere out to sea. He plans to marry her at her 17th birthday. While he occasionally leaves their floating home to fetch fishing tourists she never does. Only the visitors seem to think there is something strange about the situation. The man and the girl seem happy. At first. A handsome young man who visits the boat gradually makes her question her situation, to the increasing dismay of the old man.

To me Hwal seem to be a metaphor of possessive love and moving on. On the dramatic level some things don't make sense. On the metaphorical level they do, to a greater extent anyway. When the old man shoots arrows at men who flirts or tries to paw the girl there is no police investigation or vindictive victims. This is just a way to show that jealousy makes you do stupid things that potentially can hurt others. When the boat where the old man and the girl used to live follows the boat on which the girl tries to leave with the young man, it doesn't matter that the engine is broken or that no one is driving it. Old relationships are hard to leave behind.

The downward spiral of jealousy and possessiveness are gut wrenching to watch. You just know something bad is about to happen. Love, or rather the risk of loosing it, makes you hurt each other. Accepting the loss, accepting the pain and letting go is a way out.

Just like other Kim Ki-Duk movies the pace here is tranquil, the photography is beautiful, and the main characters manage the express all the emotions they need using few or no words.

I really liked Hwal but perhaps it's not the best Kim Ki-Duk movie I've seen. The ending is a bit confusing and the theme of possessive love and the setting of a floating home are also explored in the superior Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (2003).


The story centers around a man in his sixties who has been raising a young girl since childhood on a ship that floats unanchored off Korea's western coast. Though the borders of her world are obviously quite limited, she seems happy, and the old man plans to marry her the day she reaches legal age. The two make their living by hosting fishermen aboard the boat, and also tell fortunes in a rather bizarre and dangerous fashion, by shooting arrows whizzing past the girl's head into a Buddhist painting on the side of the boat. (This method of fortune-telling appears to have been invented by Kim, though possibly inspired by the common practice of dropping a dart onto a spinning disc)

The film opens in striking fashion with a shot of the weapon that inspired the film's title. When fitted with an additional piece, the bow becomes a stringed instrument. Sadly, however, the instrument doesn't fit into the film's plot beyond providing for occasional mood music. The bow is utilized more often as a means of fending off lecherous fisherman from the young girl, who braves the dead of winter in a flimsy dress, and who (like all the women in Kim's films) is pretty gorgeous. Soon, however, a sensitive male college student shows up on board, and the old man discovers he's going to need more than a bow if he wants to keep the delectable young thing for himself.

One of Kim's most common approaches to storytelling is to set up an isolated or marginalized world (usually a physical space, but sometimes a way of life like in 3-Iron) that operates by its own elaborate set of rules and customs. Examples include the red-light district in Bad Guy, the lake in The Isle, the motel in Birdcage Inn, or the floating temple in Spring, Summer, etc... Part of the pleasure in watching his films comes in exploring and coming to understand these worlds and how they operate. For example, in The Bow we are shown how the girl and the old man defend themselves in a series of repeated scenes. First we are shown the man's skill with the bow, then we see how the girl's spatial knowledge of the boat and archery skills can serve as a second layer of defense. These scenes don't really add much depth to the human characters, but they characterize the "society" of the boat itself.

This is compounded by the fact that the two main characters do not speak to each other. It's true that one of Kim's strengths is to be able to tell stories using very little dialogue. The lack of dialogue between the leads in The Isle and 3-Iron worked well because these couples could communicate with each other emotionally, and the absence of words only accentuated their strange bond. However, in The Bow the old man and the girl spend much of the film growing emotionally more detached. Since they don't talk, the only way left for them to communicate is to trade angry stares, which they do, over and over and over again. In this way, the lack of dialogue comes across feeling more like a gimmick than an integral part of the film.


Ki-Duk Kim is one of my favorite directors. In this movie, we see reflections of Samaria and Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom. The old man is preparing the girl for the real world. Fishermen that come to boat blame the old man for keeping her in the boat for 10 years and that he wants to marry her and use her for his sexual needs. Even the girl thinks that way and starts stopping the old man from grabbing her arm in bed. But the old man knows what everybody else doesn't. He is waiting for the right time to free her. The right time is her 17th birthday. With the involvement of the young boy, old man rips the calendar pages off deciding to execute his plan earlier. Old man's spirit having sex with the girl is a part of the preparation for freedom. He frees her from her virginity.

In Samaria, father cannot stop her daughter from early age sex, gives up trying to win and protect her and leaves the daughter on her own. In Hwal, old man is successful. Ki-Duk is against early age sex but he is also against the taboo of virginity. The boat and the bow protects the girl from dangers outside just lake the house on the lake in Bom yeoreum.

In Bom Yeoreum, the student monk leaves the lake before the preparation is complete. And he returns with anger, hopelessness and blood in his hands.

In Hwal, old man does everything to stop that from happening. He scares the fishermen with his bow, stops them from touching her and finally stops the girl and the young boy from leaving before the preparation is complete by tying the rope around his neck with the other end on the moving boat.


This story is about a fisherman who lives on a somewhat dilapidated fishing boat with his beautiful "grandaughter". The film pretty much takes place solely on the boat, they are never on dry land. The old man and the girl (they are never named and utter sounds but don't speak) have a special relationship, which you learn more about as the movie chugs along. The girl, who in the film is 16, is played by Yeo-reum Han who, when she smiles, is extremely beautiful. Its no wonder the few other characters, all men who pay to fish on the boat, are drawn to her. The film is good as a minimalist piece. That also means, of course, its also a little slow. I was somewhat intrigued, and the film is brave for being so focused in one place. As you see from the 7 rating, its not a great film. If you don't like minimalist films, do not watch this. I have never seen Yeo-reum Han in a film before, so I'll need to see her to see whether she is a very good actress. She is good here, as is the old man, played by Seong-hwang Jeon. You won't love it, but it will keep your interest.


While most hardcore Kim Ki-Duk fans will hate on this for being too 'mainstream', simple, or even over-dramatic, "The Bow" is, as expected from this director, nothing short of genius. Comparisons between this and past KKD films like "3-Iron" or "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring" made by narrow-minded critics is a little unfair, and it's a damn shame.

A film set entirely on a lonely fishing boat, "The Bow" is about a 60-year-old man who takes a young, lost, 7-year-old girl in as his own, raises her like a daughter, and makes big plans to marry her when she turns 17. As the day of her 17th birthday approaches, the more and more our naive, young, mute nubile is groped, attacked, and drooled-over by visiting men there to fish. The old man, to protect the girl, wards the men off with his bow, a weapon that is also used as a kind of hypnotic musical instrument (based on the Er-hu) many times throughout the film. The bow protects and soothes her as the boat distances her from outside evils. Despite it's odd moments, life is perfect and simple for our couple, until a young man our heroine's age boards the ship and intrigues her with his caring disposition, his kind face, and his knowledge of the modern world outside of the boat. What is to come is a suspenseful tale of jealousy, trust, possessive love, and innocence.

Nothing can describe the confusing mix of emotions I felt watching "The Bow" very late at night/early in the morning this week. A story of an aging man raising a young girl to be his future wife is kind of hollow, with little depth, thanks to it's use of very little dialogue, but Kim Ki-Duk's masterful story-telling makes up for it, relying heavily on subtle, yet convincing physical expression, and some help by a great soundtrack, and breath-taking cinematography. With absolutely no spoken dialogue between our two main characters and a series of bizarre incidents (see the way the old man and his girl read fortunes), I was left out to sea to piece "The Bow's" puzzle together on my own, no one or nothing to help guide me wrap my head around this mysterious couple, experiencing ever-changing and intense feelings of anger, disgust, wonder, and, ultimately, sadness. As you can see, this is really no different from what's expected of Mr. Kim Ki-Duk, as he reminds us how confusing and cruel both love and life are, and we can never be able to entirely control either one.

The ending to "The Bow" makes some unexpectedly touches on the super-natural briefly, which may throw some viewers into a quirky loop, but our director pulls it off most gracefully, without being too over-the-top. The old man decides to set his girl free in the most shocking way one could imagine, leaving us to question his seemingly selfish motives.


From the award winning director, Kim Ki-duk, that gave us 'The Isle', 'Address Unknown', 'Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring', 'Samaritan Girl', '3-Iron'.

In this film 'The Bow: Hwal', the old man, the young girl and the young guy all do not have names. However the film still breezes through without identity crisis or confusion. With absolutely NO lines from the old man and the young girl, all we hear from these two characters were whispers to people's ears, laughter and crying. However, it was a masterpiece of absent dialogue. With subtle facial expressions and actions (such as aiming of the bow, striking off calendar dates, holding the girl's hand during sleep, re-construction of bed), it spoke much much louder than words. A favourite cinematic style by Kim Ki-duk.

The director, Kim Ki-duk, has also done a good job in creating unbearable suspense on what the old man whispered to the 'fortune seeking' people. I wonder if the Korean DVD will reveal these tidbits.

The music used in the film is simple yet moving. I believe the musical instrument used was Er-hu, an ancient Chinese 'violin'.

< MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD > < MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD >

In my opinion, the last 10 minutes destroyed the film. It was almost a masterpiece from Kim Ki-duk. The idea of supernatural elements and the old man's spirit having sex with the girl is too much to accept. After having sex, the old man spirit allows the girl and the guy to go back to shore while he sinks together with his ship. It was a great film without a great ending. In comparison, '3-Iron' had a stronger ending than 'The Bow'.

Mao points: 9/10


Simply put one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. I adore the first three minutes of the film and have just watched them several times now. I adore the music and will have to see if I can run down a CD of it.

The plot concerns an old man who lives on a derelict boat in the middle of the sea. He ferries people to and from it so they can fish. Living with him is a young girl who came to the boat when she was seven. The old man intends to marry the young girl when she turns 17. All is fine until one day a young man the girls age shows up and begins to awaken her curiosity about the outside world.

Ultimately more fable than real life this is a very good film. The odd dynamic between the old man and the young girl may upset some people but it flows naturally out of the situation. Its also a film that doesn't play to expectations, so much so that I really will have to sit down and watch the film again, there are a couple of things that happen that seem odd or out of place on first viewing that may not be that way once you reach the end. I'm not sure what I make of it all, however I do know the film still haunts me and on some level colored everything I watched after that.


Having seen almost all of Kim Ki-Duk's movies, I will say that this one is easily among his weakest. What goes wrong then? I'll start with the good. The old man's acting is pretty fine-- the girl's acting is a bit more capricious, but usually not annoyingly so. The cinematography is passable, but nothing fancy. The part where the old man plays his bow/ violin on the roof of the boat, however, belongs in a tourism video promoting the wonders of South-Korea, not a Kim Ki-Duk film. The music is cheesy. It's never a good decision to have an actor play a rugged instrument on screen and simultaneously play polished, incredibly melodramatic music on the sound track.

With the technicalities out of the way, let's focus on the story. As far as Kim Ki-Duk goes, the main idea could've been workable. Now it just takes some elements from 'The Isle,' adds some painfully obvious and overdone symbolism plus some magical realism at the end that makes me think that Kim Ki-Duk is having a laugh at my expense. The bow as a symbol of love-- acceptable, sure. It shoots arrows, too = love hurts. It can be used to play the most touching music = love is beautiful. You can use it to predict future events = love is mysterious?? Not to mention, the thing with the rooster and the hen. The type of symbolism the film contains I might expect from a romantic novelist, not a renowned director. The ending is a story in itself, but I honestly felt embarrassed for Kim Ki-Duk while I watched it. Should it have ended with the old man diving in the sea, I would've probably viewed the film in a much more positive light.

Sure there are some classic Kim Ki-Duk moments like the scene with the old man and the rope and even the wedding, but overall this is very sub-par. It's still probably worth watching-- one reason being: to see what kind of sap a talented artist is able to produce apparently without flinching an eye.


First off, people need to stop ranking every Kim Ki Duk movie relative to others. It's not like you see a Stanley Kubrick film, and then say it is OK but is not as good as Doctor Strangelove.

This film delves into some of the basic themes he raises in his other movies, jealousy, male desire, etc...

The basic plot is that an old man has raised a baby girl until she is about to sexually develop, so she is now a teenager. He has raised her on his boat. He takes people out on fishing trips, needless to say the guys out on the trips take a liking to her, finally a young man comes who she seems to fancy.

The basic question is then whether the old man will be able to prevent her from falling in love with this young guy. The name "The Bow" comes from a bow he uses to ward off her potential suitors.

Think of that scene in James Dean's "Rebel Without a Cause" where the father of Dean's love interest becomes angry when she still wants to have close physical affection with him, you can tell that buried beneath he has desires for his daughter, and hence he becomes easily angry and strikes out at her.

So this is the basic psychoanalytical insight of attraction between father and daughter and the taboo at acts to prevent it from going any further.

There is also the age aspect. This old man still desires, but it's plainly obvious that the girl is much to young for him, and that he cannot compete with younger men. So there is a love triangle, affection between daughter and father, the weakness of age, and other foundational themes.

This movie will be a appreciated by Kim Ki Duk fans, and anyone who approaches it with an open and non-judgmental mind.


Well. I am south Korean, now I am staying in Sweden. I watched this film with some native Swedish students and other exchange students from Western part.

Actually I was wondering that why this Korean director is so that famous especially in western countries than South Korea. It doesn't mean that this director and his films are unnamed in South Korea. He is famous as a kind of art film director, and his films are also not that failed but still his name is popular but his films are not that much, I think.

I think the reason why he is so that famous in western part of the world is that in a rough way he uses the oriental-ism.


Ten years or so ago an old man kidnapped a seven-year-old girl and took her to sea. On his small boat the old man provided the girl with food, clothing, and care, but he never allowed her to leave the boat. Although at first the old man might seem like a kindly, albeit creepy, grandfatherly figure, the man's plans for the girl are not so pure because he plans to marry her on her seventeenth birthday.

The old man and the girl live isolated from society, but in order to provide for himself and his young "fiancé," the old man allows weekend warriors to fish on his boat. Also, the couple is able to predict the future through an odd divination in which the girl swings in a swing attached to the boat in front of an image of the Buddha while the man shoots three arrows into the Buddha. The girl then removes the three arrows, whispers her fortune to the old man, and then the old man whispers the fortune to his patron.

Because the girl has spent more than half of her life on the boat she is incredibly naïve and trusting. Dressed in thin dresses, even in the bitter cold, the girl is not hesitant to sit close to the fishermen and because she has grown into a stunning young woman, many of the fishermen try to take advantage of her simple nature. However, the old man is always on guard and shoots arrows at anyone whose hands become a bit too adventuresome.

Ignorant of the world, the girl seems content to live with the old man even allowing him to bathe her every night, however, one day a teenage boy is amongst those who come to fish on the old man's boats and the young girl feels a stirring in her heart that she has not felt before. After this meeting, the girl tries to grow distant from the old man and refuses his affection. However, can she truly escape her watery prison and does she really want to escape? Being that The Bow is my first introduction to the films of Kim Ki-duk I am a little at a disadvantage to understand the themes of his films, but I can say that I truly enjoyed watching the film. The music sounds a bit like a New Age recording, but it is quite enjoyable and it fits the solitary nature of the film. This is definitely a film that I need to watch again; along with other Kim Ki-duk films, in order to truly appreciate it. Although the dialogue is at the bare minimum, I believe this film has a deeper meaning that words cannot convey.


Like L'ATALANTE, THE BOW is seagoing fare of the first order... except for the ending, which harks back in some ways to films like WARM WATER UNDER A RED BRIDGE. The absence of dialogue between the two principals (everything that needs saying being conveyed in whispers) was an interesting way to go and the look of the movie is (as usual, for this particular director) beautiful... but the surreal ending, which on the face of it seems to have no reason for being whatsoever, undermines much of what has come before. The aforementioned WARM WATER UNDER A RED BRIDGE is likewise down-to-earth realistic for the most part, but it also includes clearly fantastic elements that make it more akin to the live-action fantasy born of anime than "straight" drama. Slightly uneven because of this seemingly last-minute inclusion, THE BOW is nonetheless worth a look.


Kim Ki-Duk's twelfth film, The Bow is a minimalist film that manages to be beautiful, creepy, heart-wrenching, and a little silly all at the same time.

An Sixty year old man lives on a fishing boat in the middle of the sea with a young girl (Both characters are never named) who he has taken care of since she was six, and will soon turn sixteen. On her sixteenth birthday, the old man plans to marry her. Everything seems to be going the fine for the couple, until one day a young boy steps on the fishing boat and changes their lives forever.

Those familiar with Kim Ki-Duk's films will no doubt find this to be true to his directing form; Slow pacing, subtle performances, first class cinematography, a simplistic story, and very little dialog. In fact, the old man and the young girl never say a audible word for the entire length of the film. Kim Ki-Duk's films often rely on facial expressions and gestures to convey the emotions of his characters, rather than loads of dialog. That being said, some accuse The Bow of being one of the Director's more commercial films, I agree with this thesis, but only up until a point(without giving anything away), the ending of The Bow is kinda bizarre and will seem almost silly to some viewers.

One of the films big strengths is the score. Enchanting piano and strings help set The Bow's moods and are crucial to the film. The film's score is so prominent that the music itself is almost as important a character as the actor's.

And in terms of acting, it's strong performances all around. As I mentioned there is not a lot of dialog in the film, the little of it coming from the young boy. Even though there's no speaking parts for two major characters, the film's acting does not suffer. One of Kim Ki-Duk's biggest attributes as a director, is that he is able to elicit more emotion from his actor's performances with a subtle glance or a mild gesture, than most filmmakers can get with ten minutes of dialog.

I will caution that some viewers may feel a little disgusted by the films story of the relationship between the young girl and the old man. I found it to be a tad creepy at times but I also felt deep sorrow for the old man, as the introduction of the young boy to the boat pushes the two-who were once so close-apart. The old man is forced to watch helplessly as the ten year relationship he built with the young girl deteriorates. Ultimately, only in the end is the viewer able to see that the old man's love for the young girl was deeper than any type of weird pedophilia urge. Resulting in a tragically beautiful ending that straddles the line between being haunting and a bit silly (Some viewers will find the ending to be a silly, but once you wrap your brain around it, it makes perfect sense).

Bottom Line- Fans of Kim Ki-Duk will not be disappointed but neither should the uninitiated. The Bow is a great film to show someone if you want to introduce them to Asian films, as the story is easy to follow and is not shocking and stomach turning like some Asian cinema films are.


I must confess I don't get a lot of his films but I adored "Spring, Summer Fall, Winter and Spring again". Now I see that this man just comes from a different place with his stories. He is not trying to be commercial. He is brave enough to make some weird stuff but without formulaic endings and feel good clichés. The man is stretching the boundaries of our perception and disturbing our sensibilities enough to make us remember what we just saw whether we liked it or not. For that I give him his due.

Hwal is another zen story in my eyes but with a bit of Shamanism as well. The imagery is once again luscious with Buddhism and nature with beautiful Korean traditional wedding costumes also. The old man and young girl thing disturbed me to no end but that was the intent. There was something sincerely loving between them even though one's moral sensibilities are assaulted from the get go. As the young man enters the picture in what would seem a more appropriate love interest the conflict begins. Just as things start to seem to turn normal the magic begins and the spiritual enters the mundane like an old Korean fairy tale.


An old man living on a boat together with a nubile teenage girl, is bound to set tongues wagging. There's nothing dirty about the relationship. He picked her up when she was 10, and looked after her onboard ever since. She has never left the boat; the outside world is unknown to her.

Making a living by ferrying anglers to fish on board his boat in the deep blue sea, the old man is jealously guards his lover from potential lechers. It's a difficult thing to do, considering the girl prances around the ship in skimpy flimsy dresses. Sideline income stems from his ability to tell fortunes in a bizarre manner, well, actually it's the girl who tells the fortunes. Riding a swing at the side of the boat, she smiles sweetly at the old man, while he, from afar in another boat, fires 3 arrows onto a picture of Buddha. She interprets from the position of the arrows (which always narrowly miss her), and whispers the fortune into the old man's ear, who in turn, whispers into the ear of the person who wants his fortune told.

As such, we do not hear the man or the girl speak at all in the film, expressing themselves through body language, eye contact, smiles and touch. The bow in the title refers to the weapon, which is used primarily to fend off, or purposely drive away, lustful men, and in quieter moments, it is adapted by the old man into a stringed musical instrument, to serenade the night away. The girl too uses the bow (and arrows) as a means of self defence.

However, things start to change when a young man joins a group of anglers to fish on board the old man's boat. Taken by the girl's beauty, and the girl by never seeing a young teenage lad, they get smitten with each other and a friendship begins, much to the distraught of the old man. He had plans to marry the girl when she turns 17, and hurriedly brings forward his plan, while driving the young man away.

Undetered, the young man seeks to discover the origins of the young girl, and plans to leave with her. The old man naturally goes into a fit and the relationship between him and the girl deteriorates badly into hissy tantrums from both sides.

The ending is an interesting one, as with most of Kim Ki-duk's movies. Realising that their lives are so intertwined about each other and more, the old man and the young girl consummate their union in one of the most unreal circumstances filled with ambiguous metaphors which will raise eyebrows from the audience, and the young man mirrors the reaction from any viewer, as if Ki-duk expected and saw it coming.

This was the closing film to Singapore's first Korean Film Festival, so for those interested to follow Ki-duk's movies, add this to your list. It's beautiful, though quirky, and the ending scene, quite explainable and left open to your interpretation.


Of the films I've managed to get a look at, Kim Ki-Duk has made at least three that are powerfully evocative. "The Bow" isn't one of them. After the principal theme (if you could call it that) was presented, I kept waiting for something else, something compelling, or, if nothing else, some odd tangent that would take the film somewhere else.

Instead, all that happens is repetition - the old man and his bow taking pot-shots at fishermen leering at his teen-aged captive grew tedious. How could he stay in business if he kept threatening his clientèle? And isn't it slightly illegal to assault people with a deadly weapon? Ah, but it's only a metaphor! But even a metaphor needs some consummation, which the viewer (and the old man) never gets. Even the erotic aspect of the story is insufficiently explored. Compare this film with Polanski's "Knife in the Water" and it comes up terribly short.


Well, if kiddie porn could be insipid, this would be it. An older pervert holds a missing girl hostage on his boat & counts off the days til he can legally marry her. Ostensibly to earn money he invites fishers on to the boat to fish, which creates conflict. That actually sounds like it could be a good movie, but "knife in the water" this is not. Think of a music video for John Tesh set in South Korea w/ a virginal 16 yr. old often dressed in white swinging back & forth off the bough of the ship & older men oggling her endlessly, interrupted periodically by scenes of a man old enough to be her grandfather shooting arrows at them because he's jealous. This movie has the emotional complexity of Cinderella and the sub-par acting isn't awful enough to be laughable. The plot is about as unoriginal as it gets and since there's virtually no dialogue, the director has to torture you with excruciatingly insipid new age music for the entire duration of the movie. Getting shot at by real arrows would be a lot less painful than sitting through this one.


First of all this movie was made for television. Plot-wise it has a cheap movie of the week feel. The acting isn't bad. In fact the leads are all quite good and in some cases stellar. Any weaknesses in performances have more to do with really bad makeup. The ageing is horribly done and not very convincing.

At one point "Rock" says, "some poor woman is missing her makeup kit" and it led me to wonder if the "poor woman" was in fact the film's makeup director. Dreadful stuff.

A few others have commented on the accuracy of the characterizations -- I believe they're alluding to whether Rock Hudson gave Mark Christian AIDS without telling him he had it -- perhaps the most damning (and criminal) thing in the film. I'm not sure anyone knows other than the principles. George Nader is missing from the entire film.

There are some serious gaps in this film. Massive gaps actually. The film presents the picture that Hudson's career was over by the mid 1960s and he retired from acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The film omits the SEVEN seasons Rock Hudson played the lead in McMillan & Wife -- the popular detective series of the 1970s. For many of us it was our first introduction to Hudson.

The other gap is the unbelievable prudishness in presenting Hudson's relationships. No kisses and very little tenderness. It is deceptive and a lie to present his relationships this way.

There's a better film out there demanding to be made.


It would have been interesting to see more about his movie career and non -sex personal life. Nevertheless it was an interesting movie and the cast performed well. Marc Christian was painted in a more favorable light than the press did at the time of Hudson's death and the lawsuit. George Nader, who received most of his estate according to some accounts, was not in the movie at all.


Its hard to believe that its been ten years since Brandon, Brenda, Dylan, Kelly, Steve, Andrea, Donna and David graduated High School. Its even harder to believe that there was actually a 10 year reunion organised, considering all the rumours of tantrums and infighting between cast members, mainly surrounding Shannon Doherty. That was the main reason I watched this special, to see if any of this came up, but naturally the question about Shannon's behaviour never did, perhaps it wasnt allowed too. I was shocked that Shannon even decided to do this show, seeing as I remember reading an interview with her a few years ago saying that she wouldnt want to do any reunion thing with the rest of the cast. I also remember reading an article about Jennie Garth where she stated that she didnt like Shannon. After viewing the reunion I do believe the latter. At the beginning when they all hugged each other, Shannon and Jennie didnt seem all that friendly towards each other, they hugged, but I think it was more for the cameras. Then when they all sat down Luke Perry sat in the middle of Shannon and Jennie and they barely said anything directly to one another.

I was also surprised that Tori Spelling and Brian Austin Green didnt appear on the show, especially Tori seeing as her father did the show and she stayed on it right to the end. I found that a little odd, they should have all been there. It was nice to see the actors who played Mr and Mrs Walsh and Nat turn up right at the end as well.

There wasnt that much in the episode, the actors discussed their favourite episodes and moments, what fame was like and some off screen antics like Shannon taking Ian's on screen Corvette for a ride and having a little accident, and Luke accidently running over Jennie with a jet ski, knocking her unconcious. It was nice to see some of the old fashions back in the early 90s as well, oh it was awful.

Overall it was good to see the majority of the original cast back, unfortunately it didnt talk about what I and probably what most people wanted to hear about - was there any bad blood between the cast when Shannon walked out 10 years ago and was it all as bad as the magazines portrayed. I think they completely avoided asking these questions, and some of the friendliness was shown just for the cameras IMO. I hardly think that these guys would actually see each other anymore, its obvious that they hadnt seen each other for quite a long time so I doubt they would have remained close friends over the years.


Hey do any of you know where i can watch this online.

if you do know i would greatly appreciate it if you would let me know. i started watching b.h.90210 on the soap-net after the new one just came out and i haven't been able to stop watching it. its a really good show for the 90's. i get a little tired of it but thats cause i watch it twice a day 5 days a week. i haven't missed an episode. i don't like that you have to type 10 lines i really didn't want to i just wanted to ask where i could watch this episode online. once again it would be greatly appreciated if you would let me know.

Please help.

thanks :]


Obviously the purpose was for Fox to cash in by doing very little. So what does that mean for the gang of Beverly Hills 90210? Grab a few of them, put them on a set, and let them ramble on and on about stupid things like inside jokes and who had the worst hair. Ten years after one of Fox's most popular television show, I thought they'd have put more effort into paying tribute to the old days.

Some of the cast members weren't there such as Tori Spelling and that gorgeous Brian Austin Green. The Walsh parents showed up at the very last second to remark how James Eckhouse lost his hair and to bellow how everyone grew up (like they didn't already know it since half the cast is still bumming around in showbiz). And the producers and I think the director came in at the last minute as well, to break up the mundane discussions among the silly bunch of kids. There was absolutely no direction here, like what was it about the 10 years that they wanted to emphasize or find to be most significant to remark on? And they had 60 minutes to do it. But it seemed like they just invited everyone out, threw them in a room, and filmed the results. And that was it. There were a few clips, but really nothing remotely interesting. The cast spent most of the time yapping about nothing and laughing at each other.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Reunion shows never seemed to have much to say. I guess people just like to see what people look like years after seeing them on their favorite show. But that's about it.