I watched this show once in mid 90s on Discovery because I saw Connections before this and liked Burke as the narrator. He has the nag to compress data without watering it down or adding pointless drama to it. I remembered only the end and figured if global warming was to happen, Baltic would become the new tropics. This win-win situation helped me a lot.

A while ago I saw new Discovery show "Project Earth" with lamebrain ideas to stop global warming and prognoses that anyone can question. Because of their expansive (and none cost-efficient) impractical ideas that I remembered Burkes documentary and decided to review it. Oddly it was for free on YouTube and it was worth it.

The first part is based on history before 1990. It may not be perfect but it is worth to watch. I never thought that because of natural temperature change historical events happen. Temperature rise in 300BC melted the Alps for Rome to exploit all year round and then in 450AD it got colder and we got the dark ages. Vikings were dumb and proud to freeze to death rather than plant trees, adapt and survive. I didn't even know that ink could freeze and effect economy of the time. And I really underestimated the chimney. Who knows what you may discover form this show.

The only bad side is the second part with speculations about the future. Though after 20 years much was wrong, some thing did come true. Now everyone are consumers, overpopulation is a problem and oil prices went up creating wars for it. And now oil crisis helps make more efficient cars. The rest helps support against global warming speculations. Obviously many things did not happen and we shouldn't be scared by every bad prognosis.

The show isn't perfect but it has a lot of real science in it as well as simple cheap alternatives to the problem. I still couldn't figure out why not dump salt in the north of Atlantic to artificially regulate temperature? My favorite part is the ad where parents drive their kids to the dump so not to leave it up to them. I may not be perfect but its old stuff like this that made me more ecofriendly and I recommend this show to you and your kids.


More depth, and 20 years earlier than "An Inconvenient Truth" warning. Aired on public television, and hard to find these days. It should be on DVD and circulated to all environmentalists so they can share with their families and friend so they can help prevent a devastating future climate changes. Burke uses early computer enhanced predictions. Hypothasises How, Where and Whats of global warming. Will not make sense to those who refuse to believe in Greenhouse Effects, Ocean Warming, and pollution. Does not paint a rosy picture that would sell his film. It is a little bit more far reaching than the current "An Inconvenient Truth." I.M.H.O.


By 1932, the California Tiffany studios had been hard-hit by the depression's increasing damper on the motion picture industry, and had most recently been taken over by the troika of Burt Kelly, Sam Bischoff and William Saal, producing under the achronym K.B.S.

One of the talented individuals attracted to K.B.S. during this turbulent period was Robert Florey, who had directed THE COCOANUTS, in which the Marx Brothers made their film debut, and co-authored the script of FRANKENSTEIN, then adapting and directing MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE.

A STUDY IN SCARLET was Florey's third project at Tiffany, and he was again scheduled to both write and direct--his preferred mode of working. While producer Bischoff had purchased the motion picture rights to the title of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel for only a small sum, Florey was told to compose a new scenario to co-star Anna May Wong opposite Sherlock Holmes.

A cause for the alteration of the original plot is that producers may have felt the title exceeded the worth of the actual story. Conan Doyle's original, written in 1887, was a vehicle for a denunciation of the contemporary Mormon practice of polygamy, which for American movie makers may have aroused concerns of censorship and regional distribution difficulties--just the type of difficulty a small, independent company like K.B.S. could not afford to risk. As well, half the narrative consisted of a lengthy confession, with Holmes only present in the prelude, which would have surely disappointed most filmgoers. While A Study in Scarlet was the first Holmes mystery Conan Doyle wrote, it had been filmed only twice before, with an English feature and an American short both appearing in 1914. Not until 1968 was the subject tackled again, this time by the BBC in a fifty-minute television presentation.

Given a week to come up with a narrative to fit the picture's title and Wong's presence, Florey collaborated with his friend Reginald Owen, who had been chosen to portray Holmes, and split the $1,000 script payment. They collaborated on the continuity in consultation with Art Director Ralph DeLacy in order to utilize as many standing sets as possible, economies always being especially important at a studio like Tiffany, even on as significant a project as A STUDY IN SCARLET.

At this point Florey left, having received the offer of a long-term contract from Warner Bros. on condition that he leave immediately to direct their comedic mystery GIRL MISSING. Bischoff allowed Florey to leave, with both agreeing that his replacement as director on A STUDY IN SCARLET should be Edwin L. Marin. Marin, age 33, previously had helmed only one movie on his own, a low budget item entitled THE DEATH KISS (1932). At K.B.S. he had just finished assisting Florey on THE MAN CALLED BACK and THOSE WE LOVE, "waiting for such a break."

Although the Florey-Owen script contained no similarities to the novel, their plot did demonstrate a familiarity with the world Conan Doyle created for Sherlock Holmes. Elements are present from other Holmes stories, especially The Sign of Four, "The Red-Headed League" and "The Five Orange Pips." There are many of the typical clues, devices, and mannerisms.

The title is incorporated to refer to a very exclusive organization called "the Scarlet Ring," a group of eccentric and highly ambiguous characters so suspicious of one another that they are afraid to even walk together. Upon the death of any member, his property is divided among the remaining survivors; suddenly they begin to die at an alarming pace under strange circumstances. This group of individuals were personified by an unusual group of actors, including J.M. Kerrigan, Halliwell Hobbes, Wyndham Standing, Tetsu Komai, and Cecil Reynolds.

Some critics have pointed out the movie's similarity to And Then There Were None / Ten Little Indians, with suspects killed one by one and their murder announced by a nursery rhyme. But if anything, the influence was the other way around, since Agatha Christie's novel was not published until 1939.

The script of A STUDY IN SCARLET was extremely polished and well-constructed, developing at just the right pace while carefully building the appropriate mood and environment. The movie breathes life into the classically eerie atmosphere of the British mystery, creating a pervasive feeling of fear in the fog-bound studio streets of the Limehouse section of London. Strange gatherings, arranged by secret codes, take place in abandoned, out-of-the-way buildings; dark and oppressive dead-end streets are places of isolation and terror; fog and shadows hide murderers and their victims.

Suspense is heightened by a number of devices. For instance, the killer is kept unseen, while at the same time menace is suggested by having the crimes viewed through the murderer's eyes using a subjective camera. The silhouette of a giant shadow appears on a wall as the victim stares at the audience and screams "It can't be you," followed by a close-up of a hand checking off the name of one more member of the Scarlet Ring who has been killed. The climax of this technique comes in a long-take with the still-unknown murderer visiting the crooked lawyer played by Alan Dinehart: the camera completely adopts the viewpoint of the killer as Dinehart opens the door and the unknown individual is offered a cigarette, puffs of smoke ascending in front of the lens.

The sense of locale was enhanced by the use of a nearly all-British cast, something unusual for a Hollywood-made Sherlock Holmes picture. Reginald Owen in particular was given the necessary latitude to offer a different interpretation of the Holmes personality. Owen portrays a much more human, less remote man, more akin to the personification offered by William Gillette in his stage play, to whom Owen even bore a certain physical resemblance.

By the time A STUDY IN SCARLET was released, in mid-1933, K.B.S. and World-Wide had folded, with Fox handling the distribution. The picture opened to an excellent critical reception.


An interesting movie and a worthy part of the Sherlock Holmes tradition. The most interesting part for was the use of the count down notes as the members of the organization died. It even included a red herring note. If the viewer is paying attention, it is a clue to the actual murderer.

Agatha Christie, the well known English mystery writer who also has had many books made into movies, used a similar motif in her book, Ten Little Indians. The most fascinating part, though, is that this movie was made in 1933 and Ten Little Indians was published in 1939.

Christie may have borrowed from this movie for her plot.


There were a few Sherlock Holmes - Reginald Owen wasn't the best one. "A Study in Scarlet" boasts an impressive cast - even down to Hobart Cavanaugh in an uncredited bit as Innkeeper Thompson. The plot does seem to have more in common with Agatha Christie's book "And Then There Were None" but that wasn't published until 1939. Even though it was filmed at the California Tiffany studios it certainly had an authentic English feel to it. The amazing thing is how the cast (most of them American actors) came up with very creditable English accents. You didn't even get that in A productions let alone the cheaper films.

Reginald Owen had played Dr. Watson to Clive Brooks' Sherlock Holmes in the 1932 film of that name but in this film he played Sherlock Holmes.

A body is discovered in a railway carriage pulling into Victoria Station. A code containing the words scarlet and Limehouse is printed in the paper. He is the second member of a secret society (of which Alan Dinehart is the head) to die. They divide up the money but decide not to give any to the victim's widow, Mrs Murphy (Doris Lloyd). She then goes to Sherlock Holmes with a rhyme she found among her husband's things. After the meeting another member is shot through the heart. Sherlock Holmes talks to the widow Mrs. Pike. Played by Anna May Wong with a very creditable English accent. Even though she is given top billing she is not given much to do - she does look very exotic though. The members are killed off one by one - each one receiving a little poem before hand. It is clear that Thaddeus Merrydew is the master mind behind all the murders but the actual murderer was a surprise.

June Clyde plays the heroine Eileen Forrester. She made a little splash in early musicals ie "The Cuckoos" (1930), "Hit the Deck" (1930) then in 1932 she was named a Wampus Baby Star. That kept her career going until the end of the 30s. Allan Dinehart, that oily villain of so many 30s movies plays Thaddeus Merrydew. Billy Bevan, an old silent comic, has a part as a helpful patron at the inn.

Recommended.


This is a poor and bizarre Sherlock Holmes movie. It's poor because the story has very little to do with the original Conan Doyle story. Heck, they even included a bunch of characters that weren't in this tale! It's bizarre because Reginald Owen seemed a very odd choice for the lead--seeming much more suited to the role of Watson than Holmes. Much of this is just tradition--actors famous for playing this same role repeatedly were William Gillette, Arthur Wontner, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were all thin guys and bore some similarity to each other. Owen just looked nothing like them and this took some getting used to. This isn't a bad thing--just an odd thing.

Also, I am really confused by the film because although it bears almost no similarity to "A Study in Scarlet", the film is very similar to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (a.k.a. "The 10 Little Indians" and another title which I can't use because I doubt if IMDb would allow me to use the original title due to political correctness). However, Christie's novel did not appear until the late 1930s, so it appears that perhaps she lifted the plot from this 1933 film or at least was strongly inspired by it. I am really surprised there wasn't a lot of uproar about the similarities.

If you ignore all these aspects, you still have a poor film because the film had such poor production values. There was no incidental music, lousy dialog, the acting was often VERY poor and the whole thing simply had no energy. As a result, instead of being engaging, the whole thing was mind-numbingly dull and I can't recommend you see it.


The Long Voyage Home is a compilation film of four one act plays by Eugene O'Neill who some will argue is America's greatest dramatist. The man who did the stitching together of O'Neill's work about the crew of the S.S. Glencairn is Dudley Nichols and presiding over it all is the direction of John Ford.

Mr. Ford is usually someone who really puts an individual stamp on one of his movies. But the usual Ford trademarks are noticeably absent from The Long Voyage Home. Probably in mood and style the film of Ford's this comes closest to is The Informer. In fact J.M. Kerrigan is playing almost the same part in this as he did in The Informer.

One thing Ford always did was use the right kind of music to set the tone for a film. Those 19th century ballads like I Dream of Jeannie that work so well in something like Stagecoach are substituted for Harbor Lights. That song expresses so well the longing of a whole bunch of rootless men to find some kind of stability in their lives.

Eugene O'Neill spent many years at sea and the characters of these men on the S.S. Glencairn are drawn from his own youthful experience. Most of our planet is covered by water and no country owns it. It's just called the high seas and the seamen on it are an international fraternity, like the S.S. Glencairn crew. I've always felt that O'Neill was trying to say that if there's any salvation to be had in this old world, it's to be found on the salt water. It's the only place where all kinds of people really work for a common goal, stay alive and make the trip.

The original plays had a World War I background, but it has been updated for World War II. Especially in the part when the crew becomes convinced that Ian Hunter is some kind of spy. Certainly the second World War in 1940 gave the audiences some real interest. Ian Hunter may have given his career performance in this as Smitty. Turns out he's far from what everyone suspects.

Hard to believe that John Wayne would be in a film by one of our greatest dramatists. But the Duke holds his own in the ensemble. It's the only time he ever attempted some kind of accent and he pulls it off. But I'm sure he thought once was enough.

Wayne as Olsen is the innocent of the group, maybe the only time he's ever been that on the screen. The rest of the crew makes every effort to see he does in fact get home to Sweden. It turns out to cost one of them his life ultimately.

If you're any kind of depressed, The Long Voyage Home or any Eugene O'Neill is not good for your mental health. He's one pessimistic fellow that O'Neill. But his insights into our character and soul are always penetrating as they are in The Long Voyage Home.


Reportedly, John Ford's film of The Long Voyage Home was Eugene O'Neill's favorite of all filmed versions of his plays, and it is no task to see why. The worlds of Ford and O'Neill overlap in their use of sentiment, tragicomedy, and the sons of old Ireland. This episodic collection of stories, taken from several short plays written by O'Neill and based on his own seafaring life, does what both O'Neill and Ford do best--unveil the poetry and tragedy of simple men. Granted, Ford outsentimentalizes O'Neill, who can be far darker than Ford ever dared, but he comes by it honestly--no Capra-corn here. The photography and sound bring a hyper-reality to this tale of merchant sailors, fearful for their lives, argumentative yet loving, full of weakness but capable of strength and honor. The performances are uniformly splendid. John Wayne, in a supporting role, does quite well with an unusual part, a lonely Swedish sailor, and his accent is much better than he is usually given credit for. But this is no star vehicle. The ship is the star, and the lives of its men resound with meaning and melancholy. An extraordinary film experience, especially for the patient and thoughtful among us.


The Long Voyage home is not a typical film from this period. It differs in that it focuses on an ensemble cast instead of on a star. That's common nowadays, but not back then. Ford's Stagecoach, made the previous year, had quite an ensemble cast, but the film was always focused on Ringo and Dallas. Here, John Wayne is just one of the stars. Thomas Mitchell, who played Doc Washburn in Stagecoach, has a role that's as big as Wayne's in Voyage. Others are as prominent.

The plot is also pretty tenuous and episodic. And, unlike most films of the time, the focus was not on a goal, but just on the events and lives of the seaman aboard the Glencairn. We see them sail through the war-torn Atlantic, between the U.S. and Europe. They have fun, they fight, they talk about home. It's all rather gentle and beautiful, very subtle. The script is great, which is probably due to Eugene O'Neil, for of whose plays this film is based on (they are blended together seamlessly).

The actors are marvelous. Mitchell and Wayne are probably the best known, but there are also Ian Hunter, Barry Fitzgerald, John Qualen, Ward Bond, Mildred Natwick, and many other great character actors. John Wayne was probably the draw, considering how popular Stagecoach had made him, but, as I said, his role is not out in the front. In fact, he doesn't have many lines. His schtick is that he is a Swede who can't speak English well, so he is generally pretty quiet (Wayne can't muster the best Swedish accent, either, so that's kind of a good thing!). He has one great scene where he has some long bits of dialogue. But even without the dialogue, he emotes so well in his face. I knew his character intimately by the end of the film. We don't often think of Wayne as a great actor, but he certainly was. Although The Searchers probably contains his best role, The Long Voyage Home would certainly be worth a major mention when talking about his career.

If you could say that there is a single "star" of this film, that would have to be Greg Tolland. Of course, he photographed Citizen Kane in the next year, as well as Ford's Best Picture winning How Green Was My Valley and The Grapes of Wrath. The cinematography is some of the most impressive to be found in the American cinema. John Ford himself is just as much the star of The Long Voyage Home. He definitely put his heart into this one. The direction is beautiful, artful. It is as good here as it is in The Grapes of Wrath, My Darling Clementine, and The Searchers, that is, it is one of his very best films, if not THE best. To date, it's the only Ford film that made me shed tears. 10/10.


It's strange that the best performance John Wayne ever gave on film was one that was not in a western, where he was not in the lead, and where he did not play, essentially, himself. Ask someone what Wayne's best work as an actor was; they look at you strangely, shrug, and walk away. Whenever he tried an accent or a bunch of makeup, he flopped. Here, though, as the Swede sailor Ole, he fits perfectly. His tired face becomes poignant, his tall, forceful presence paints him as a gentle giant, rather than as the salt-of-the-earth cowboy he is best known for.

If the opening shots -- the haunting island music, the wind making everything sway in the night air, the island women flirting with the sailors, the sailors flirting back -- doesn't hook you through the sheer force of ambiance alone, you probably won't like "The Long Voyage Home." If you're expecting an exciting sea adventure with the joe average John Ford job of direction, you'll be disappointed. If you're in the mood for something of a nautical mood piece; the adventures of merchant sailors from bar to bar, the tragedy of being affiliated with the wrong ship, naval warfare in the early twentieth century, etc., check this out.


This expresses a great sadness about the lives of men at sea. Some are doomed to stay forever. One of the goals of the movie is to finally get John Wayne, an innocent Swedish man, off the boats and home to his old mother. It paints such a bleak picture you really root for him, even with Wayne's horrible performance. It goes right for the heartstrings. There's a great performance by Ian Hunter as the fellow who mainly keeps to himself. He has a secret past, and they suspect he's a spy. This one of John Ford's least self-conscious movies, there's no heavy Americana to deal with and he directs you to the heart of the story and the often drunken emotions of the sailors. **** out of ****


This film is all that a film should be for it dictates that the human condition is in itself dramatic and tragic enough without exaggerated theatrics. This sea tragedy needs no iceberg. What it does contain is excellent cinematography by Gregg Toland, superb direction by John Ford and a superior script based on the plays of Eugene O'Neill. The drama developes simply from a ship being in the war zone during World War Two with a full cargo of ammunition and no escort or weapon for protection--just a twenty-five percent bonus for the crew. The acting is about as good as acting can be: Arthur Shields (as Donkey Man) and Thomas Mitchell (as Aloysius Driscoll) never waver in the characters they portray. They are, without question, so realistic that they live beyond the movie. In effect, they are more than characters on film, they are universal humans trying to make order out of chaos, even if they must create chaos to do so. The main character is the "Glencairn" itself, the ship in the film. Like Greek tragedy, it is the chorus about which the dramatic action occurs. The long voyage home for some of the characters goes on and on, but the long voyage for the "Glencairn" continues like so many other rust buckets. In World War Two, constant danger and possible disaster waited just outside every harbor.


An expressionistic classic featuring John Wayne as a Swede? Can it be?

"The Long Voyage Home" may fall just short of classic status, but it is one of Hollywood's most visually expressionistic films, a tone poem of shadow and light presented by director John Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland. That is indeed the Duke himself, John Wayne, playing a Swedish hayseed named Ole Olsen who the other sailors aboard his ship want to see safely en route to home. He's not Meryl Streep as it turns out, but you will want to see this powerhouse example of Hollywood art anyway for Toland's camera-work, the ensemble acting, and Dudley Nichols' seamless adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's four one-act plays.

O'Neill's sea yarns are transported to the then-present. World War II is underway, and the Glencairn transports ammunition to England for the fight against Hitler. Will Ole return home? What is the secret behind quiet English sailor Smitty (Ian Hunter)? Why are women bearing baskets of fruit not to be trusted? Why is Driscoll (Thomas Mitchell) so suspicious of that bartender?

Pauline Kael once wrote up "Long Voyage Home" by way of addressing another film shot by Gregg Toland the following year, "Citizen Kane." Both Ford and "Kane" director Orson Welles took the unusual step of sharing their titles card with Toland, a show of respect for what Toland's eye brought to their films. I'd say Toland brought more to "Long Voyage Home" than he did to "Kane," as every shot seems suffused with a tenseness and mood that at the very least speaks as eloquently to the drama on screen as any line of dialogue or actor's performance.

That's true from the opening shot, a wordless pan shot of the Glencairn drifting across the water as women in the foreground gyrate sensuously to an unseen music. The images are contrasted with those of Glencairn sailors looking pent-up and frustrated. Are the women really there on the shore, or just being imagined by the crew? It's a classic bit of expressionist ambiguity that, once established, carries through for the rest of the film.

Take the case of Smitty, a fellow who no one can much figure out as he keeps to himself, at least until he is finally fingered as a likely German spy in a sequence that might appear contrived had not Nichols, Toland, and Hunter made it quite diabolically real. Ian Hunter is not a well-known actor today, but he carries the film as long as he's around, especially while confronted with his apparent treachery. Watching him grimace and shake with fury as his secret is slowly, gut-wrenchingly exposed is the strongest scene in this very strong film, and once the film moves beyond Smitty, it never quite recovers. Hunter also appears in "Adventures Of Robin Hood" as a similar figure of dual identities, and I won't make the mistake of underestimating him again.

I only wish Thomas Mitchell, the Oscar winner from Ford's "Stagecoach" the previous year, had brought some of that performance's restraint to his playing of Driscoll here. Barry Fitzgerald and John Qualen, Ford vets both, seem to catch his overacting bug. It's not pretty, especially to those of us who have seen all three give better work.

Wayne, however, is effective despite his dodgy accent, and it's interesting to see him in a film, just a year after his breakthrough in "Stagecoach," where he is presented to us as one of the gang, something of a follower and not a lone-wolf leader. I don't normally associate Wayne with amiable go-alongness, but he carries it here.

John Ford is pretty much the Shakespeare of cinema, effortlessly moving from comedy to tragedy within a single scene, and "Long Voyage Home," while not perfect, makes a strong case for his visionary mastery.


The talented cast act this excellent screen rendition of Eugene O'Neill's play (it's adapted from three of his one-act plays)about crew sailors aboard a freighter steamer called Glencairn carrying charge containing war-smuggling,TNT, explosives from US to England, at the beginning WWII. The crew talk and contend each other but also save each other from bombing and risks. At the ending terminates with epilogue saying :'Some men like Ole and the Driscolls come a and go and the others live and die and the Yanks and Smittys leave their memories- but for the others the long voyage never ends'.

This dramatic film is a classic Ford displaying his usual themes as strong factor in many films, as emotionalism, partnership, friendship and unlovable camaraderie between the sailors. However looks over-melodramatic during the reading letters from Smittys.The sailors show a nostalgic longing for things past and old values and own home: Sweden,Ireland, England. Straightforward acting by John Wayne as a Swedish sailor named Ole , he was to star habitually for Ford after the director rose his career from B Western in Poverty Row productions, with his greatest hit, 'Stagecoach'. There's magnificent secondary cast playing the seamen, as Thomas Mitchell as a sympathetic sailor, Ian Hunter as the drunk and unbalanced Smittys, Barry Fitzgerald as the humorous cooker,Mildred Natwick as a swindler prostitute, Rafaela Ottiano as a tropical woman, Jack Pennick, a Ford's usual, among others. Descriptive, evocative black-and-white cinematography by Gregg Toland(Citizen Kane) plenty of lights and dark, reflecting loneliness, suspicion,frightening from crew and the smoky, greasy, sweaty atmosphere from merchant ship. The picture belongs period when John Ford(1895-1973) made a rich variety of stories and his reputation rightly rests on his work in the 1940s, as ¨Grapes of wrath,How green was my valley,Fugitive,They were expendable, My darling Clementine¨and the Cavalry trilogy: ¨Fort Apache, She wore a yellow ribbon, Rio Grande¨. Rating : Awesome, above average, a major triumph for Ford and Wayne.It's a must see from John Ford enthusiastic and John Wayne fans.


John Ford directed a very interesting film with all kinds of suspense along with the story written by the famous Eugene O'Neill. This story takes place on a freighter, "Glencairn", along with a great cast of veteran actors who are all individuals with many years of sailing experiences and some are just plain rough and tough and others keep to themselves. John Wayne, (Ole Olsen) plays the role of a Swedish seaman who wants to make this voyage on the Glencairn his last, because he wants to go home to his mother's farm near Stockholm, Sweden. Wayne does not play a very big role in this film in spite of the fact he has star billing. Thomas Mitchell, (Aloysuis Driscoll) plays the role as the senior man and gives a great supporting role. Even Ward Bond appears and has a relatively short role in this picture. This picture takes place during WW II and the Glencairn has hidden on board lots of ammunition to support the war effort in England and could be destroyed by German planes or submarines. Nice film, but not what I expected to see.


I came to this movie expecting a peek into the genius of Gregg Toland, having been a long time fan of Citizen Kane. I was not disappointed at all, the cinematography is excellent throughout, even if the pacing of the movie and its subject make it quite dull. The main problem is that Hollywood had little experience with focusing on a group rather than on a single character, so Ford's attempt is indeed laudable. A year later in Stagecoach he tried something similar but the action was much more focused on the Ringo-Dallas story. In The Grapes of Wrath the story is much more coherent, having been made after a novel not after a series of plays (even if splendidly adapted by Dudley Nichols). Much of the story seems to be too contrived, I mean how lonesome did those seafarers did get at sea that they behaved so erratically when they were ashore? I think for a modern audience the best things in the movie come from Toland (the movie really looks good, the guy truly had the eye of a painter) and for Wayne who is not necessarily great in his impersonation of a Sweede as he ain't holdin' a gun in his hand and he ain't chassin' no Apache or Comanche but he's doing a good job still.

My favorite images are near the end when the sailors are drunk and they're looking for Ole, the lighting and camera angles produce an uncanny atmosphere that combines very well with the puzzling state the drunken men must be in. The first shot of the movie is also brilliant and if it wouldn't have been directed by Ford I could have imagined something surreal about it. Much of the movie actually reminded me of Querelle, Fassbinder's last film, a surreal story about the hardships of sailing.


A group of sailors experience all sorts of events while on the SS Glencairn. John Wayne stars in this film as Ole, a Swedish sailor who has not seen his family in over 10 years. It was interesting seeing John Wayne in a movie where he is not a cowboy because that's what he is mostly know for. The festivities began when a group of Spanish women board the ship and bring fruit and smuggle rum for the sailors. This showed how lonely these sailors became while on board for such an extended period of time. The mood of the movie did change a few times. It changed once when the Spanish girls came on board and again when they finally reached land and were able to get drunk. The sailors began acting crazy and got drunk very quickly. The Spanish girls started resisting them and soon a riot broke out. Sailors began hitting each other and one sailor even took a broken rum bottle and stabbed a fellow sailor. You can easily tell how bored sailors become because of how they acted when the Spanish girls cam on board. The officers caught the Spanish girls bringing rum on the ship and did not pay them. The music plays a big role in setting the mood in the movie. The music has a lot of string instruments to give it a lonely slow paced feeling. When guys look out at sea, the music is slow and fairly depressing. One quote that caught my attention was when a sailor said, "When a man goes out to sea, he should give up thinking about shoreLand don't want him no more." To me I think he was saying that there is no point feeling sad about not being able to be on land because there is nothing you can do to change where you are. Each sailor who survived had to wait just as long as the next man to reach land. This movie exhibits how life as a sailor could change. Two sailors, Smitty and Yank died while on board of Glencairn and Drisk died at the end when he was aboard Amindra and it got torpedoed. You feel bad for the lives they live because they go through the same routine for such a long time and they see the same people everyday without seeing their loved ones. To me, it would become really frustrating because I would get frustrated doing the same things and seeing the same people. The sailors show their boredom by looking for conflict. They have suspicion that Smitty is a spy and search through his belongings and tie him up. He was falsely accused after Drisk reads the letters he received and realizes he was wrong the entire time. Soon after a storm hits and kills Yank, an air attack takes the life of Smitty. It was strange how he died because he was on a row boat hanging on the side of the ship, and when he got shot, the tarp just covered him and nobody really knew when he died. During the air attack, the fighter planes dropped bombs that didn't hit the ship, but the machine guns did and took the life of Smitty. The way he dies all by himself was similar to the lonely feelings the sailors often felt. Ole, the Swedish sailor also expresses his loneliness when they arrive on land and he tells the woman at the bar about how he hasn't seen his family in almost 10 years. He was the only one out of the crew members that was going to board the Amindra ship. His drunk shipmates pulled him off the ship before it left, but again one man was left out of their crew after he was knocked unconscious. A sailor at the end of the movie read a headline in the newspaper that read "AMINDRA TORPEDOED" and so it ended another lonesome sailor died.


This is just an average John Ford film and he made a lot better movies than this one. This was made in the same year as The Grapes Of Wrath and it's hard to believe this was nominated for best picture. This movie has a great cast that stars John Wayne, Thomas Mitchell, Ward Bond and Barry Fitzgerald. This movie came out one year after Stagecoach, which made Wayne a star but he didn't become a big star until Red River eight years later. This is set in England during World War II and they are on a boat that is about to dock. Their really isn't a plot to the movie and it's just a bunch of little segments. It's just an OK Ford film but he made some better ones then this one.


Ford is at his peak here, and so is cinematographer Toland. The interiors of the ship are claustrophobic, and the cast is excellent. Wayne is first billed, but the cast is mostly ensemble. The first half drags here and there, but the final twist is so sad you forget the few faults. I give this voyage a 9.


Director John Ford gathers friends as writer Dudley Nichol distills four classic Eugene O'Neill one-act plays into a very interesting tale of men at sea. A tightly knit crew aboard a merchant ship has different reasons to be on the sea. Some just for the money; some to try and forget memories and some to avoid trouble on dry land. The shipmates grumble when they realize they will dock to take aboard wartime ammunitions. John Wayne plays Ole, a young Swede that decides to take his pay and sail home to his family's farm. Part of the crew try to keep Ole sober on shore leave, so he can buy that ticket for home. Otherwise the seamen will get stinking drunk before signing on for another long voyage. Photographed beautifully in black and white; with a well crafted original score. The cast is a who's who featuring: Barry Fitzgerald, Thomas Mitchell, Ward Bond, John Qualen, Ian Hunter and Joe Sawyer.


Now isn't my summary awfully confusing?! How can a somewhat dull film STILL be worth seeing? Well, believe it or not, the problem is that the plot isn't all that compelling but the characters are so well-crafted that the film is still outstanding!! Sure, some of them seem an awful lot like stereotypical clichés--especially John Qualen's performance as a Norwegian, by Yimminy!! In fact, he says "by yimminy" about 60 times during the film--somewhat typical for a Qualen performance in a Ford film, actually!! But apart from this, there are a lot of great characters such as the Yank (Ward Bond), Drisk (Thomas Mitchell) and Smitty (Ian Hunter). The one person in the film I really DID have trouble categorizing is Ole Olsen (John Wayne). It seems Ole is a Swede and I really had trouble seeing Wayne as a Swede!!! Probably this is because since this film he's become so type-cast. I really don't think his accent was that bad--I just kept waiting for John to shoot an Indian or walk with the usual John Wayne walk, but it wasn't to be.


This is a powerful piece from John Ford, and a masterpiece of cinematography from Gregg Toland. Though it drags at times, the characters on the ship make the wait worthwhile. While Wayne IS a central figure in the story, it is his shipmates that carry the film. Wayne is merely the focal point of their dilemma. While there are a few misfires (such as the patriotic image of the British flag after an Englishman's heroic death), it is all-in-all a fabulous picture, a rugged tale of friendship, durability, disappointment and resignation.


One of Ford's better (and lesser known) films, notable for the restraint exercised towards the characters and story. It is about a ship traveling through dangerous waters to bring war supplies to besieged England, and centers on the conflicts, dreams and sufferings of the sailors who inhabit the ship. Wayne does a good job as the big Swede, mostly by not talking much. Ward Bond does a great job with his death scene. It was cool how Ford allowed the audience to become more and more annoyed and frustrated as the situation at the film's climax reaches its conclusion.

Not market with the overbearing sentiment that hobbles so much of Ford's output (IMHO).


At the beginning of WWII Churchill said we've tools, but very brave American sailors have brought England weapons and many other War-material. She have risk and given life and all for us, European. The best 'Non Western Movie' with John Wayne. Everyone who is against The U.S. must see him.


Spaghetti Westerns are Clint Eastwood to the average dork like me. Apparently they also meant high camp comedy to many in Europe. The DVD information says this movie took more lira in Italy than 'The Good Bad and Ugly'. The comedy spaghetti was family fare apparently. What a flight of whimsical ideas this one turned out to be. The spaghetti western era ended with this one. An idea that had travelled so far that it had finally arrived backwards and inside-out. Very strange.

Klaus Kinski gets dubbed out of earshot and Terence Hill has the voice of a girl with the blue-eyed, doe-eyed smile of an angel. No wonder Patrick McGoohan dug deep in his own character-filled pockets for an inspired way to project his cavalry h'Officer. Yes, he came up with the, possibly, historically accurate idea of a Thomas Meagher...."I am an American". He looks dreadfully sun burnt too. Location filming in Monument Valley did his Celtic skin no good at all. This movie can only be viewed as episodic, a series of set-pieces. I am sometimes annoyed by McGoohan's accents as they blur his diction and my enjoyment of his delivery. This time, his accent is SO inspired, SO unpredicted, why, it's Genius !!


It is an honor to speak about the documentary of this life story that is bigger than life. I had had only 2hrs sleep for 2 nights in a row and was so afraid I would nod off (regardless of the film I was about to see) that I brought a whole thermos of espresso and a chocolate bar. But I found myself riveted to my seat while being raised to a higher level of humanity and basking in the glow of this beautiful, brilliant, dramatic woman overflowing with pride, grace, indefatigability, anger, compassion, and clear-eyed philosophy --and prone to outrageous laughter.

 I never opened the thermos or the wrapper--what I needed was a hanky or a tighter belt (so as not to bust a seam laughing) for this moving portrayal of Ms. Richards exemplary life of activism and art and pluck. Though some may mainly remember her portrayal of the mother of Sidney Poitier's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", this is truly a life story crying to be heard and we are so fortunate for Ms. Hamilton's sensitive portrayal. Quite fortunate indeed, as tragically, this film was almost not made. The project was begun only a year before Ms. Richard's sole defeat in life--to emphysema at the age of 80. Prior to that was a string of victories that would not be denied. Virtually any aspect of life or art Mr. Richards set her sights on was reached. At only 17 years of age, and from humble origins in Vicksburg, Mississippi, she composed one of the most moving poetic tributes you're ever likely to hear--to the legendary Paul Robeson--and she had the opportunity to read it to him when they met years later.

 After seeing one of her first recognized virtuoso acting performances in New York, Marlon Brando was quoted as saying "I should tear up my [acting] equity card--that woman is a genius!" And only days before she died, Ms. Richards received her 3rd Emmy award for a role in the TV series "The Practice."

 And yet for me, the most powerful, tour de force performance was Beah Richards as... Beah Richards. Don't be fooled by the appearance of an nearly bed-bound 80-year old woman with oxygen tubing under her nose; this woman is a lion, ready to roar to life in her vivid recollections, a fierce poet-warrior staking out sharp, penetrating assertions and a wizened shaman revealing wisdoms and twinkling sly insights gleaned from a life fully realized.

 This is one of the most moving pieces of filmmaking I can think of, made all the more impressive by the fact that the most memorable scenes are just Mr. Richards facing off against her invisible audience behind the camera--from her bed, tethered to oxygen tanks, and reaching through the screen, grabbing you by your collar and with one deft "360-degree phrase"--electrifying your mind with her spirit... infusing hope into your heart... and breathing life into your very soul....

 Unforgettable.


It is an honor to speak about the documentary of this life story that is bigger than life. I had had only 2hrs sleep ! for 2 nights in a row and was so afraid I would nod off (regardless of the film I was about to see) that I brought a whole thermos of espresso and a chocolate bar. But I found myself riveted to my seat while being raised to a higher level of humanity and basking in the glow of this beautiful, brilliant, dramatic woman overflowing with pride, grace, indefatigability, anger, compassion, and clear-eyed philosophy --and prone to outrageous laughter.

I never opened the thermos or the wrapper--what I needed was a hanky or a tighter belt (so as not to bust a seam laughing) for this moving portrayal of Ms. Richards exemplary life of activism and art and pluck. Though some may mainly remember her portrayal of the mother of Sidney Poitier's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", this is truly a life story crying to be heard and we are so fortunate for Ms. Hamilton's sensitive portrayal. Quite fortunate indeed, as tragically, this film was almost not made. The project was begun less than a year before Ms. Richard's sole defeat in life--to emphysema at the age of 80. Prior to that was a string of victories that would not be denied. Virtually any aspect of life or art Mr. Richards set her sights on was reached. At only 17 years of age, and from humble origins in Vicksburg, Mississippi, she composed one of the most moving poetic tributes you're ever likely to hear--to the legendary Paul Robeson--and she had the opportunity to read it to him when they met years later.

After seeing one of her first recognized virtuoso acting performances in New York, Marlon Brando was quoted as saying "I should tear up my [acting] equity card--that woman is a genius!" And only days before she died, Ms. Richards received her 3rd Emmy award for a role in the TV series "The Practice."

And yet for me, the most powerful, tour de force performance was Beah Richards as... Beah Richards. Don't be fooled by the appearance of a nearly bed-bound 80-year old woman with oxygen tubing under her nose; this woman is a lion, ready to roar to life in her vivid recollections, a fierce poet-warrior staking out sharp, penetrating assertions and a wizened shaman revealing wisdoms and twinkling sly insights gleaned from a life fully realized.

This is one of the most moving pieces of filmmaking I can think of, made all the more impressive by the fact that the most memorable scenes are just Ms. Richards facing off against her invisible audience behind the camera--from her bed, tethered to oxygen tanks, and reaching through the screen, grabbing you by your collar and with one mighty "360-degree phrase"--electrifying your mind with her spirit... infusing hope into your heart... and breathing life into your very soul.

Unforgettable...


The Elephant Man is without a doubt the 'finest' movie david lynch has made, in a sense it doesn't provoke with violence or odd things like Lynch's movies often do, but with pure emotions in a touching drama about the man who just wanted to 'live a normal life', whatever that is.

You really feel for John Merrick, and unless your heart is made of stone you will get your eyes wet in the powerful end scenes with Barber's Adagio playing...this is how great movies are made, ones that wake you up, and make you think.

Should be all-round education for everybody. 8/10


The Elephant Man is one of my favorite films. The film's main highlight is the incredible performance by John Hurt. It is heartbreaking and touching at the

same time. Some of the scenes in the film are incredibly hard to watch, when the worst of humankind is shown being as cruel as possible. As a result you may

find The Elephant Man depressing, however, I see it on the contrary. I find the film to be a brilliant, touching work portraying a man desperately trying to be accepted in a prejudiced society. Watch it and make up your own mind.

Oh, by the way, don't mind the fact that Mel Brooks produced. He actually had his name removed from the credits, fearing that the public would not take the movie seriously if his name was there. It is NOT a Mel Brooks- type movie.


There is no words I can use to describe this movie. It is simply moviemaking at its best. Watch it, You'll be changed forever. I was. This is my #1 Movie. I cried 5 times the last time I saw it. You will be so troubled and disturbed afterward but so uplifted. You will never forget The Elephant Man.


Story of the life of John Merrick (John Hurt), a man suffering from extreme deformities in 19th century England. He is taken by a doctor (Anthony Hopkins) to a hospital, where it is discovered that he is an intelligent human being. Beautifully shot, with two of the best performances of the decade by Hopkins and Hurt, this movie is a true masterpiece, managing to be moving without being sappy, and offering a message about human nature without being too heavy handed.


I think even I fell in love with the elephant man. To be so disfigured and yet so kind. I cried when the Jerk let his friends "view" the elephant man at night when they picked him up and twirled him around and threw liquor down his throat. And yet he never defended himself. John Hurt was magnificent as John Merrick (elephant man), and Anthony Hopkins played his normal, calm, cool, and collected role as the Dr. I also like the head nurse, because although she wasn't thrilled about him at first, she grew to care for him a great deal, a must see movie.


I've loved this movie ever since I saw it when it came out. I have a tape, which is deteriorating, copied off Encore. In general, the film translates well to tape--the biggest loss are car scenes where two-shots become alternating one-shots, and the squabble outside the diner, a three shot in the theater (inscrutable dude leaning against store shutters), now mostly a two-shot, which really removes a lot of the dry wit. I'm writing this because I see that the DVD has been released on September 28 for $4.95, but I haven't found any information on who released it, where I can get it, or anything else. Does someone out there know the answer? I'd like to buy a replacement for my old tape and copies for my friends. Letterbox would be great! But I won't hold my breath.


Why isn't there a video of this hilarious film, which is seldom shown on television. One of many priceless snatches of dialogue -- PANDORA (ecstatic) Mother, last night I had my first orgasm. MOTHER: Orgasm? In my day, we didn't have them.


I haven't seen this film since it came out in 1971; my mouth dropped open. One of your reviewers said it is a virtual gem but that's wrong--nothing virtual about it, it's a REAL gem! Maybe the funniest, most intelligent, poignant, true-to-life film I've ever seen. Just a couple of scenes...

As the film opens, Joseph Bologna is graduating from Brooklyn College (I think) and is standing, in gown and mortarboard, with his two proud, obviously much less educated Italian-American parents. Being a proud, prickly adolescent, he idiotically uses this joyous landmark family occasion to start a nasty argument in which he rants against his baffled parents, warning them of what is going to happen to people like them when people like him righteously rise up to end the wrongs they have been enduring. The topper is that the viewer notices he is wearing, under his gown, a necklace of shark's teeth, a la Black Panther terrorists (remember them?).

Then we meet his girlfriend, Renee Taylor (in real life, co-writer and long-time wife). She is this neurotic, psychoanalytically-oriented, minimally talented, would-be actress. Also a pushy Jewish Brooklyn girl who is Bologna's greatest booster--and would-be wife. She has developed a high-concept (she thinks) act we see her perform in a smoky, low-ceiling Brooklyn dump of a night club. The act is a series of impersonations. Her gimmick is that at the beginning of each, she coyly asks the audience "Who am I?" After each impersonation she asks the audience who the subject was. No one knows the right answer. But, unaware of the magnitude of the disaster, she bravely soldiers on. It is riotously funny yet as painful as Chaplin's dinner in "The Gold Rush" in which, as the evening wears on, it becomes clear that his lovely female guests won't show up.

Does anyone know how to buy a DVD of this extraordinary film by two geniuses?


Really nice to read all of the comments and know that the film was appreciated. I first saw the film in NYC as a sneak preview before 2001 Space Odyssey. My companion and I agreed that there was no reason to stay after Made For Each Other. I searched for that film in every TV schedule for more than ten years...it must have been practically every day, because when I did find it(and made my copy!)i never saw it again. Always the other movie of the same name with James Stewart. I found these comments because I was trying to find a copy of the DVD online, so if anyone hears of of how to find it...share!! the copy of my copy is getting old! the french would love this movie even now.


I saw this film once when it can out in 1971 and it has been in the back of my mind all these years. A super comedy that is all the more funny because it deals with real people like you and I. No fancy settings or beautiful people, two "misfits" careen through life tied together by the bonds of love, surviving all that the world can dish out. A real jewel of a film, wish it were on VHS.


I first saw this movie on late night TV and was captured by the really funny lines and characters...all of them. This film probably appeals to a more mature adult who can recall the ethnic differences of our friends and lovers that made life both difficult and, in retrospect, humorous at the same time.

I asked Joe Bologna after a recent stage performance why this film was not on video and his response was, "You'll have to ask 20th Century F0X."

It's unfortunate for those of us who think this film should be the real "classic" shown yearly. It is an underappreciated gem.


In the early hours of this morning, I couldn't sleep so I surfed the several HBO channels and there it was. One of my favorite movies. There was Pandora in all of her nutty glory. The scene in the Italian home where they were eating just made me nuts! Okay, Olympia Dukakis and Paul Sorvino were miscast, they were obviously as old as the two stars. But funny and adorable! The scene under the Brooklyn Bridge where they finally admitted, in all of their angst, that they loved each other. An autobiographical movie, obviously.

With regards to Renee Taylor, I have a copy of a book that she wrote several years ago "My Life On A Diet." The writing is just as wonderful as the writer, just a wonderful piece of comedy, just like her.

I would just like an explanation as to why this movie isn't available to the millions of fans of these wonderful people.


Firstly, this is a film that is really about more than just raising awareness of the need to vote.

It comes across as a film about the right to protest, the right to object, the right to meet, and the right to live in a democracy.

Whatever your political persuasion a good society needs its Michael Moore's, he's a voice of conscience, a voice that says what needs to be said when no-one else will do. He is doing what MLK and Bob Dylan did in the 1960s, what Democrates did in the Agora in Ancient Greece... Michael Moore is the voice of the underdog for a new generation - who genuinely cares that the excluded, the poor, the workers, and the unemployed are Americans too.

Even if you hate MM, and really disagree with everything he's ever made, you should still agree that his films are a voice that is allowed to be heard.

The documentary itself is without a doubt good propaganda for the Democratic vote, but it also pretty good entertainment - it is very funny, and very, very poignant in places...

....And the students love him.

Pretty stirring in places, with some good live music thrown in, MM is an excellent orator - let's just hope he never becomes a politician - even though he's got the chops for it - because he is the living proof that to hope is to be an American. And that one person can by getting off his or her slacker behind remind us what is means to care for We, the People rather than just Me...

Definitely worth the free download...


This is a documentary of the nationwide tour by Michael Moore to resurrect a failing Democratic election campaign. The intention of the tour was to get the people who normally don't (the "slackers") to get out and vote This is an entertaining and at times fascinating documentary, but whether you will enjoy it will entirely depend on whether you like Michael Moore.

The documentary takes place not just during the final phase of the election, but when American emotions over the Iraq war were in flux. This documentary puts you in the middle of that emotion.

Michael Moore said in the introducing this movie at the Toronto International Film Festival that he usually tries not to just preach to the converted, but with this movie he openly admits he did. So this is a documentary that has a one-dimensional viewpoint: Democrats are for free speech and care about the poor and Republications are religious fanatics. It is frightening to see in this documentary Americans, in supposedly the country that invented individual freedom, being perfectly happy to not allow or to even actively prevent any beliefs other than their own. And there is tremendous value exposing those people and Moore does it by simply letting them talk, which of course is what they would not allow him. However, the possibility that there are Democrats who may also be intolerant isn't considered here.

I think this documentary also shows, unintentionally, why they ultimately failed. It ends by stating that their tour succeeded with young voters, but older voters went with Bush. Anti- Bush sentiment was largely due to the Iraq war and not other social issues. Rosanne Barr's rant at the end of the documentary might appeal to some, but it would have completely alienated older and middle-America.

As with all Moore documentaries it's utterly watchable.


I'm glad this was free to download or made about as cheap as a film from a major filmmaker (and say what you will, like him or hate him, it's your right either way, he is a major filmmaker now in America), because it is a lessor effort. Since I am a Michael Moore fan and admire his "big" movies greatly (Roger & Me, Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine) it was easy for me to decide to want to watch this. But this does also fall, even for fans, into that category akin to The Big One, which was, as this is, a travelogue of Moore going around on a tour to promote something with him as the focus really instead of something else like guns or GM in Flynt. The only little difference is that Moore is on the road to promote voting- for Kerry in 04 of course- and tries his best to rally up support, even in Utah where a businessman pays 25 grand to *not* have him speak at a school- which is, any way you look at it, commendable.

Now, it goes without saying that people hate Michael Moore. And when I mean hate I mean that he has to have at least one bodyguard, or more depending on the city, in the hopefully unlikely event that he could be attacked or shot or whatever. He is such a strong target for the right and even moderates and a handful of liberals that he still remains a potent poster child for spreading lies and propaganda. This can be argued this way and that, but Moore makes a point more than once during his time traveling around and giving the occasional press conference that he is just one guy making films, and the media has/had a responsibility during the lead up to the Iraq war. He is a target, but not one to stand down. It's hard to at least not respect that. And as for the other side, he gives them some screen time in Slacker Uprising: at least 15 minutes of the film shows how many republicans (obviously the majority but with some vocal power) and bible-thumpers came to protest outside and inside during Moore's speeches. He gives them their just do to speak. And also makes sure to offer them military enrollment forms as they are Bush supporters. He may be many things, but Moore's got balls.

So watching some of these ups and downs throughout the 62 city tour, of both the highs of speaking to tens of thousands of people in venues that are swing states, and some of the controversy stirred due to Moore's polarizing nature, are interesting. The only problem really comes with the fact that, stylistically, Moore goes simple for this one. The musical choices, the actual score, is repetitive and doesn't do much to add to the picture, which is a shame since Moore is usually creative and inspired with his choice in music, and only some moments of his brand of "gotcha" humor creeps in. The actual musical performances from guests Eddie Vedder and Tom Morello and Steve Earle are fantastic though, with Roseane Barr and the other musician in Tennessee just OK (Viggo Mortensen is a nice surprise).

It's not any triumph of film-making, wont win any awards, and it certainly shouldn't be paid much for. It's the right choice to offer it up online for free or as cheap as possible on DVD, since those who want it can get it and those who definitely don't can pass on by... unless their curiosity is peaked somehow. It's good for one watch, even for those who want it right away, and then to move on along as it's now four plus years gone anyway. For what it's worth, on its own basic and unpretentious terms, it's not too bad at all.


Michael Moore is a genius. This movie's amazing. Unfortunately USA have had problems with Bush administration these 8 years, and I really like Americans like Michael, smart. He really woke up and he is trying to wake up all the Americans. Also, I don't know how this grade could be so bad, maybe because there's a lot of republicans here. Michael knows how to put together in a movie information and comedy. The part that he's praying with republicans, and your answers ("and I think that someone has stolen their sense of humor" - about the Republicans who tried to take him to the tribunals) to them are really amazing. Hope that Michael make more movies like it.


I voted against Bush in 2004, but the film was actually pretty boring and didn't bring anything new to the table. He had promised he'd throw his next documentary online, maybe he threw out this stuff because he didn't want to skimp out on the earning potential of an actual decent documentary he's making.

I had thought he was making a documentary showing all the things corporations have been getting away with in the last four years, but actually it's about Michael Moore's tours around the country for the 2004 elections. Literally it's just footage of his speeches to different universities and local press conferences when he toured several cities in swing states. Moore didn't present anything new we hadn't been hearing for the last 8 years and he said absolutely nothing about the 2008 candidates.

The format of the video was depressing. Moore says bring back the troops, kick out bush for a while to a cheering audience, it shows a random musical guest or celebrity then it shows a news caster talking about what the polls show to give a little time effect. While there's nothing particularly wrong with format, that's all there is to this film, it just repeats over and over as he tours different cities.

What the heck just happened? The blip.TV embed does not allow seeking so I couldn't just skip to the end to see if he had something more aggressive or interesting up his sleeve. Moore is know for stirring up controversy and attacking what he feels are the "bad guys" straight-on. There was no face-to-face talks and interviews, only speeches to loving supporters and in a few instances, quips to the opposition that also showed up. He should have made a real documentary or at least critical review of the 2008 candidates, the slacker uprising could have been a DVD extra at best. Edited footage of him as super hero almost changing the tide in the swing states will only gain support from the hardcore Michael Moore fans. Moore brags in the film about how 30 - 40% of republicans that watched Fahrenheit 911 ended up liking it. The same cannot be said for this film. There is no investigative journalism like his previous documentaries. It's Moore talking to his supporters and registered democrats in addition to having the benefit of editing his "best of" moments.

Republicans that watch it will only get annoyed. The film starts by saying Kerry was in the lead until the Bush admin ran an unfair smear campaign on Kerry. Kerry did nothing and his popularity dropped among veterans. Moore countered this pretty well in the movie, but he didn't counter the footage of Kerry saying he would have voted for the war even if he knew the intelligence was false at the time. A few moments in the film would drive zealous republicans crazy like: allowing a guest to sing the Finland national anthem to a confused crowd that wasn't properly told why, his comments on immigration, some of Roseanne's over the top jokes, and finally Moore insanely accepted, I believe it was, a bronze star that belonged to the grand father of one of the people in an event. Literally a guy went up and offered a family war metal from a deceased relative. I cringed as Moore seem to give as little humility to it as someone offering to pay for his dinner, "Really are you sure? Wow thanks." It's a waste. People fight to defend their country but more so to defend their family. You just can't take something so personal to someone's family history when its completely meaningless to yours. Democrats who watch this movie will get bored, since it's the same rhetoric we've already heard. Go watch several of Obama's speeches or check his website instead of watching this movie. Republicans who watch it will get annoyed and have more to complain about, further outlining the divisions between the parties that we should instead work to break.


i heard that michael moore had a new movie out, and that it was available on the internet. so i downloaded and watched it for free.

i am a fan of his movies and love his other documentaries including his tour documentary "The Big One". "The Big One" was very well produced and included interviews with people who had lost their jobs. radio show interviews, moore talking with corporations and lots of footage of moore running around signing books.

sorry to say, but this movie is just poorly edited. there is at least 20 minutes of applause footage. short clips of moore giving speeches, a few celebrity interviews. some footage of moore traveling and going to call centers. opposite of his other films, there is very little outside footage.

most of the movie turned out to be: short speech - applause - short speech - applause - speech - etc.

don't waste your time with this movie. watch 'the big one' or 'canadian bacon' instead. or 'roger and me' if you want to see moore in action, and not just giving speeches.


This film just feels like one long anti-bush rally, it is quite literally his city-to-city tour with no new revelations or any attempt to even break up the rally footage. There's tonnes of long performances by singers I'm not too familiar with and liking these singers is the only time I can see someone liking this film. After the first 15 minutes you'll see why this film is free. The timing seems convenient too, I was wondering why he held onto this film for a full term but it seems apparent that he's trying to use it to influence the 2008 election. If you're an American voter that's already anti-bush then you may enjoy this but it has 0 entertainment value.


I use to be a big fan of Michael Moore in his early documentary days. He has now turned into a Socialist nut case. So nothing has happened good in the eight years of the Bush administration? Nothing!?!?!? For a man that flies first class on his trips, America has worked out nice for him.

How could anyone vote for a party that wants to "Spread the wealth around"

If everyone had to wake up at 6 in the morning and put in 8 hours of work, let's go "Spread the wealth around" When I and maybe 30 million people like I go to work on a Friday that has to hold up this economy, while a majority of the rest of the country sits on their butts and does nothing and has more children. Yeah, America is pretty fair, play by the rules and you get screwed.

Hey Michael, put down the taco too.


The last installment in the Dracula 2000 series is definitely well worth the wait. We are finally spared the ultra-hip, too-pretty young characters who, one by one, turn into short-lived vampires. For once, we get right down to the nitty gritty... classic Dracula. Although I was disappointed that Stephen Billington was merely a flashback in this movie (Dracula's face keeps changing, so we are constantly being reminded), the final and least attractive Dracula shows us just how evil his nature truly is. Before he was seductive, inviting, and almost a sympathetic character. You couldn't help but feel sort of sorry for old Judas Iscariot being cursed by God for all eternity for simply fulfilling prophecy. But we don't feel sorry for him anymore, not when he has human minions kidnapping Romanian villagers for his private suckfest, or the fact that he keeps a pathetic "harem" of vampire women constantly feeding on local girls, of which he has thrust poor Elizabeth into.

The best part is definitely Jason Scott Lee as ex-Father Uffizi, the mortal vampire killer infected with the Nosferatu virus. His character actually gets a love interest, an EBC reporter played by Alexandra Westcourt. Their flirtation is rather cute, almost like puppy love, especially when Uffizi cracks his rock-hard face to smile at her. The relationship between Luke and Elizabeth at the end is just as touching. Although Lizzie is now a vampire, she is amazed at how devoted Luke has been to her throughout the whole ordeal.

All in all, an excellent film. Far too good to be a direct-to-video/cable movie.


I enjoyed the last installment of the Dracula 2000 series. The real Romania as the landscape for the story was awesome, it added to the sinister aspect of the plot. The Romanian actors in the movie were also a bonus (in the opening scene of the movie). There were a lot to like in this movie. I am proud that the entire series did not fall into vampire movie cliché. The series remain unique in this way.

I do understand this is a "B" flick movie (not worthy enough to be shown in theaters across the nation), but it is superb B flick.

I had reservations about Rutger Hauer playing Dracula simply because the actors used to portray the previous Draculas in the first two movies were hip and hot. But he did pretty well, he does a good villain.

My favorite scenes are the "suckfest" at Dracula's place, the opening scene, and the end scene.

This was a well done movie - the script, the directing, the acting. The Amercian actors did an excellent job. The Romanian actors stood out to me. I particularly like the ending of the story.


Dracula: Legacy is the third and final installment to Dracula series. I saw the first one and liked the whole storyline but it was poorly executed. I saw the second one..........I adored Stephen Billinton as Dracula. One of the finest Dracula acting jobs I've seen yet. But the second Dracula made no sense with the first one....so I didn't really like that one. Then for old times sake I thought to myself "why not!" So I rented the last one. I just recently spent 2 weeks in Romania and found the interpretation of Romania to be offensive. This country had it's revolution in 89 and is becoming much more powerful....it's finding it's place and regaining it's footing. In some area's it's very poor but it's not creepy. But, the Hollywood Romania will always be there so "c'est la vie!" There are some pros and cons to this movie. A pro is it's shot in the mother country that created spookiness. I have to say some Gypsy Clans are really creepy there. I really enjoyed Jason London as Luke. He is a very comedic actor but can relay very deep levels of emotion. I loved it in the end when he kills Elizabeth. Oh yes...Jason Scott Lee....oh Jason Scott Lee....why must you ruin every scene you're in. Lee seems liked a very nice man but he makes Orlando Bloom looked like an Academy Award Winner. The character it's self it pretty cool....don't get me wrong....he has some good points but overall weak performance. The character of Julie really bugged me at first. But Westcourt really proved herself in her death scene. Diane Neal was terrible in Dracula 2....but she really proves herself in Dracula 3 to be a good actress. She looked very sensual. Hauer was OK, he wasn't good and he wasn't bad. He seemed to babble a lot through this movie, from what I heard he improvised a lot of his lines..which would explain that. Also, I think my favorite character was that random guy that collected girls for Dracula to feed on. He was unintentionally really funny. He reminded me a lot of that child kidnapper from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I was really drawn to him for some strange reason. Now, I think one of my favorite scenes in this whole movie is strangely the vampire pit. It was so vulgar and primal that you just had to love it. I also liked that the writers touched immortality and it's toll. That Dracula once handsome and alluring, now takes a worn out and gaunt look. They could have shown and explained it much better though. And what was up with those stupid TVs??? It was so confusing.

Another scene I really liked was the circus vampires attacked Lee in the street. It was really creepy and cool. Then......I loved the ending. It really proved it's self in the end. Good and evil....black and white....and the grey lines in between were touched beautifully in the end. When I look back on this movie I think it was a pretty good straight to DVD kinda movie.


As part of the Dracula series of recent, I think this is a most worthy enter to the series so far. It started with (for those who don't know):

Dracula 2000. Dracula 2: Ascension. Dracula 3: Legacy.

I don't find either part of the series to be average or even dire. Each has their own good points I suppose but none more so than the sequels that the 2000 movie was responsible for. In fact the only disappointment to the series is that Midnight Syndicate didn't do the score for any of them. These are the guys I would get to do the score of every vampire movie made, now and in the future. As their orchestrated Gothic horror music is quite simply second to none. They are "The Grand Dukes Of Hell" for horror music.

The music in this installment of the series was pretty good it suited the atmosphere well, almost as much as Midnight Syndicate would have done.

The whole feel to the movie was that of a good one, I mean it makes me feel (at times) like I am watching the Subspecies movies. Which reminds me, the first vampire woman you see in the movie. She was in Subspecies: The Awakening, and also the spin off movie of the Subspecies series "Vampire Journals". Those movies and also this one make you feel like you are stuck in a time warp of sorts, due to them being filmed in Romania. Which to me is the best place to film a vampire movie because of the whole vibe that place gives off. It is all modern and yet it still feels like a 19th/20th century run country (in parts of it anyway).

The castle used in this movie was the exact same one used in all of the Subspecies vampire movies. It is used in a lot of other vampire movies too and as far as I know it is used in the up and coming Bloodrayne movie too. Here's hoping it will be even remotely decent (I have my doubts due to who is making it, but I give every movie a chance at least once anyway).

Jason London is my favourite character in parts 2 and 3 of this series. Jason Scott Lee did an excellent job as well, Kudos to both actors in their performances. The woman Jason London was looking for in his cross country journey during this movie, and who was a part of the second movie "Elizabeth Blaine" played by actress Diane Neal. I think she is really stunning especially in the red dress we see her in, near the end of the movie. She could bite me anytime when she was in vampire form or not lol.

The story for this movie was good, but it wasn't the best of stories I have to admit, but I was more than pleased with the movie as a whole. It kept it's pace I didn't find any moment a dull moment during the whole charade, so no complaints there. I would give the storyline an 8 out of 10.

I for one would like to see more movies like this one. I Love the whole vampire apocalypse or even the whole zombie apocalypse thing to be my favourite kind of storyline. This movie wasn't exactly like that, but it wasn't too far from it either.

When watching the movie I got the feeling that during the trip across Romania, it was only Jason London and Jason Scott Lee and not so many other humans left, to do battle with "The Dark Ones" like they were the only ones in a ghost town called Romania. It was as if they (the creatures of the night) were multiplying and at an accelerating rate as well all across the country of Romania and no one could stop them.

I think this movie keeps the standard of the others in the series, script is OK, excellent atmosphere, gore is pretty good too.

Rating for Jason London - 9/10. Rating for Jason Scott Lee - 8.5/10. Rating for Diane Neal - 9.5/10. Rating for the movie as a whole (excellent atmosphere included of course) - 9/10.

Well done!.

I recommend this to those who liked the two Dracula movies before it. I don't think it will win over any new fans, as the storyline needs to be followed from the first part to truly understand everything that is happening.

A good all round vampire movie, well done to those who made it.

Well done indeed!.


One of the biggest cinematic disappointments of last year was BLADE: TRINITY, the final chapter in the BLADE trilogy. It wasn't a bad film by any means, but it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been considering it featured Dracula, the baddest vampire of all time. Dracula III: LEGACY is more like what BLADE: TRINITY should have been: a fast-paced, rousing action flick full of well written character and fleshed out plot lines. One really has to hand it to Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier for their good screen writing. One also has to admire Patrick Lussier's directing. While his directing in Dracula 2000 and Dracula II: ASCENSION was admirable, his directing here made me a fan. He's a man who definitely knows how to direct a vampire film. This baby oozes with style not seen in a vampire flick since 1998's VAMPIRES, one of my top ten favorite vampire pictures of all time. Like VAMPIRES, 'LEGACY' is filled with cool gory bits, well done special effects, and a kick-ass main character (played by Jason Scott Lee). I really don't have any complaints about Dracula III: LEGACY. It's not a perfect film, but it is a fun ride and possibly the best direct-to-video movie ever. I understand why Dimension didn't give it a theatrical release. It wouldn't make sense to give this a theatrical release when Dracula II: ASCENSION went direct-to-video although it certainly did deserve a theatrical release. Because both Dracula II: ASCENSION and Dracula III: LEGACY went direct-to-video, I don't think that they will ever find the audience that they deserve to. My rating: 7/10


I've just seen "Dracula III: Legacy" on my computer and I absolutely liked it. I don't understand why they gave this movie such a bad rating.

The effects are good, the fighting scenes are convincing. Jason Scott Lee and Jason London actually made a really good team. I'm really hoping for a sequel.

The filming locations in Romania were good also, they had a good guide, they choose perfect places to represent a Romania affected by a vampire war. They showed mostly old castles and small villages, not so civilized or modern as the rest of Romania. The Mogosoaia Castle was again shown, with a more beautiful view. (The place were Father Uffizi talked to his superior and gave up his priesthood). The path to the Dambovicioara Cave was nice, I'm proud I have been there only a few weeks back.

In this movie, Dracula was old and hideous, that's the only part I have hated. They should have choose a younger and good-looking actor.

I also love the fact that the three movies are different from one another. The first was Van Helsing themed and then they made up another character, Father Uffizi. Interesting character that he is. The second movie was about humans discovering the concept of vampirism and the third was about vampires on lose in Romania.

All in all, I am content with this "Dracula 2000" sequels.


I am a Romanian guy (although I do not live in Transilvania or near Bran :)) and I live in Bucharest. Even if living in my country is not like living in Germany or UK or USA, we are not beggars... this movie is nothing but bad taste: bad directing (if you look close you will see the same old car filmed twice - for example), bad script and above all... bad acting. I do not even know what is the most disgusting thing: the offense brought to Romania and to its people or the stupidity of the story. Of course, they go hand in hand, but what can we expect from this kind of movie/actors/stuff. And for who wonders: I found the movie on a friend's DVD containing other important stuff and only curiosity led me to the end of this movie. As I said, a strong 1, because I can not note it bellow...


I've got to admit i wasn't sure if i was going to like this film because they had yet again changed the actor for Dracula. I was though pleasantly surprised not only was it a good film but Dracula was amazing.I was glad to see that they had kept most of the same cast as they all are amazingly talented actors and actresses.I was glad to see DG (I cant spell his actual name) back and as brooding as ever, he is defiantly my favourite character in the film and has been ever since i saw ascension. It Made Me Laugh and It Made Me Cry. Which to be honest is exactly what i have come to expect from these films. This film is exactly what Blade Trinity should have been instead of the crap that it has become.

I highly recommend it to any fan of vampire films. It is well worth watching :).


I'm amazed , one of the worst movies ever. Rutger plays like he drink-ed to much in the night clubs of Bucharest , the main actor is just another Blade , a vampire who is also a day walker. But Romania in a civil war , with rebels , with desert and , let's take the hypothetical scenario and believe it. Rebeles with crossbows armed ? I understand that the filming is more cheap in Ro but to play this bad and to mock the history and present of a country in a lousy movie? I wonder how much this film costed. The original things and new in it , were the vampire turned from a circus , a new weapon for the vampire slayer also combined with a bad whip.

For those who know i must say one thing. Don't watch .. this ain't worth s**t .


I started watching this with no idea of what i was going to get. And what i ended up getting left me very unimpressed.

It seemed a disjointed mess stuck together with scotch tape and staples. And it was like one of those typical European productions where the storyline would obsess about inconsequentials and make sure lots and lots and lots of screen time was spent on those inconsequentials. And then the actual story would get next to zilch screen time.

About the only thing worthwhile to this was the performance of Jason London who gave it his sincerity as a dedicated vampire hunter. He was kind of cartoony, but then vampires aren't exactly the most realistic of movie subjects.

The movie had some good points like the terrific landscapes and the romanian baddies kidnapping people for the vampires.

Hauer as Dracula? I thought he was spoofing it at first like Nielson in Dracula: Dead and Loving It. Hauer was outstanding in The Hitcher and Blind Fury, but Dracula he ain't.

Dracula movies have become such dreck. Hacks get a hold of the idea and then make a big cheesy awful mess of it. Blade 3 had an interesting and rather chilling version of Dracula, but the movie was kind of disappointingly stupidified into shlock. The last "Dracula" movie that i can recall seeing that left me satisfied as being worthy of the genre was Fright Night, and that was made over 20 years ago.

Is this actually worth seeing? Well, i have absolutely no intention to ever watch it again. Let that be your guide. And consider that i've watched Fright Night probably at least 10 or 15 times already and will probably do so again another 10 or 15 times. While Fright Night is more than a little tongue-in-cheek (or neck), it had its chilling moments. Oh hell, why waste your time on this turkey... Rent Fright Night instead. Or the original with Bela Lugosi who WAS Dracula like no one else could ever do as well.


After having watched this movie Dracula III i thought that they should have kept Stephen Billington as the one and only Dracula in the third movie because he gave it that, how do you say?, mystery and yet at the same time he keeps you on the edge of your seat, your heart rate fast and makes you anticipate his beautifully exotic voice. I also thought that they could have put a little more romance into it between Elizabethand Dracula and instead of what happened they could have kept him in alive. I mean if everybody wants vampires dead than why the fascination with them? Well, I think it because they're thought of by all as mysterious and sensuously alluring, but then again that's just me or do other people feel the same too. And by the way Rutger Hauer was a very bad pick to play the role of Dracula for this movie.


this is another brilliant movie from the "Golden Shi* Collection". Same boring story told over and over again. the action of the film is rather dull and boring, it does not come with something new and, what pis*ed me off the most, puts Romania in a bad light. We are not a country of blood thirsty animals, we are poor but not as it is shown in the movie, we are not savages! What we are is a country full of history, with beautiful landscapes, and a lot of stupid people who would sell their own country for some American currency. anyway, i derailed, that is an 1 for this movie! :)oh, by the way i read in the guidelines that i have to write about the title: i hate it!


Let me start by saying I was not a fan of Dracula 2000, but was a huge fan of Dracula 2: The Acension. I waited for this film with baited breath. What would become of Elizabeth? Would Luke continue on as Uffizi's sidekick? What kind of final conflict would Uffizi and the fantastic Darcula (Stephen Billington) have? I was stoked. Then I rented the DVD moments after my store removed it from the distrubtor's packing. Well like my title says, it seems number 2 was a fluke. This film has none of the charm or cleverness of The Acension and more importantly doesn't feature Stephen Billington as Darcula, but Rutger Hauer (To his credit he appears to be having fun with the role). The direction is scattered and the ending is predictable and smacks of hopes for a Darcula 4. Elizabeth is all but an afterthought in this movie and has only a couple of scenes. There is a bright light in this, and that is Jason London. His character glides through this film with a dark humour that would make Joss Whedon proud. The DVD does have one other high point, a rather long but interesting "treatment" section that shows what Lussier and Soisson intended. It would have made, in my opinion, a much better film. Also, watch Alexandra Westcourt carefully, she isn't bad in her effectively useless role and with the right script could become an actual star in the future. This all said about the film, your mileage may vary.


After the events in "Ascension", Dracula returns to home sweet home Romania with the beautiful Elizabeth being one of his new bloodsucking brides. The country is torn apart by war, Dracuala's minions are everywhere and yet Father Uffizi and his comic relief sidekick Luke are determined to reach the vampire's castle and to destroy him once and for all. Uffizi has become so obsessed with his mission that he even stepped back as a priest. Patrick Lussier somewhat pleasantly surprised horror fans with his original "Dracula 2000", but why the hell did he ruin this by making two unrelated and entirely redundant sequels? "Legacy" has little to offer, apart from some nice gore and an ingenious sequence featuring circus-vampires on stilts. Admittedly, that was pretty cool to look at. The rest of the movie is an unexciting mess with bad acting performances and a severe lack of continuity. The set pieces and filming locations appear to nice, but the lousy camera-work and under-exposure makes it impossible to be sure. Throughout the whole movie, everybody is driveling about how almighty Dracula is, but when he finally makes an appearance (in the shape of B-movie veteran Rutger Hauer), he turns out to be a lame philosopher who prefers to plea instead of to kill. Yawn!


I've just sat through all three movies and I have to say that the Dracula 2000-series' best before date was... well the year 2000.

I chose to comment on the last movie since it's the one not deserving the rating it has here. My guess is it will go down quite a bit as more people actually have seen it.

The first movie, although it did contain some really bad and ridiculous elements, still was pretty entertaining imo. The second movie was... decent at least. This was well below the line of what is acceptable. The story was rather dull and pointless and also full of clichés - bad one's that is.

Furthermore, the movie never scared me. Well, there was one point where I wasn't prepared, but that was it. Isn't this still supposed to be a horror movie? I guess they tried to make sort of a surreal feel to the movie with the amusement park vampires and the setting in the ending with the blood hoses and that "orgie", but it all came out rather cheesy and silly to me - not frightening as intended.

Also, the whole background story about a civil war (or whatever) in Romania and the resistance movement was totally ridiculous! And unnecessary. A simple straightforward we're-going-to-Dracula's-castle-to-finish-him-off-once-and-for-all approach would have sufficed actually. The focus of the movie was flawed in other words.

... and who casted Rutger Hauer as Dracula??? Oh my god... And how did Dracula suddenly get so old after a couple of years? Compared to the second movie that is. The should have kept the same guy throughout the series instead.

3/10


This is a joke... First of all it has nothing to do with Dracula. Dracula was the nickname of one and only person in this world! Not to a lot of vampires like it was said in this movie... Dracula was the nickname of Voievod Vlad Tepes (Voevod Vlad The Impaller). And Vlad was only one person. So i guess in the next Dracula movie the new Vlad Tepes will gonna be an Asian... hahaha!! I didn't knew we Romanians are asians... Ohhh by the way! Who is gonna see this movie will think that Romania is a primitive African tribe or something. I MEAN OHHH MY GOD!!! I don't know who give them permission to make fun of Romania (my country) in such way!!! If its up to this movie we don't even have electricity or cars... Jesus Christ... The acting is also a stink and you can see that the sword of the so called "Dracula" (that has nothing to do with the real Dracula at all) is made out of plastic or something weak. You can clearly see that the sword is not made from metal. You can notice that part when "Dracula" puts his "sword" on Uffizi's neck and say "You can still save her you know, have all you've been denied, but are you worthy?" Look at the sword how it creases/bows. Its completely elastic. LOL Well I hope the next Dracula movie will revive Vlad The Impaller somehow and regain some sense and fame.. and most of all i hope they will stop mocking Romania like that!


I cannot believe this film. The acting was laughable and the characters were so shallow that I could not have care less about them. I was hoping the vampires would swoop in and end this painfully weak flick. Jason Lee is a bad rip-off of Wesley Snipe's Blade character. Jason London was just plain terrible. His attempts of being the "humorous" character fell flat. I was surprised that such a seasoned actor as Roy Schrieder would even appear in this movie. I was looking forward so much in seeing Rutgar Hauer as Dracula, needless to say I was also disappointed. Not at his acting itself (it was probably the only decent acting worth noting)but to wait until the end to see him, and his 10 -15 minutes of screen time was not worth sitting the previous torturous 70 minutes to get to him. He had a certain kind a Jack Palance thing going for him, but it worked for me.

My best advise is to stay away from this bomb. It's a waste of 90 minutes when they're so much other things to do with one's time. This series should have ended after the second movie, it did not bring any closure for me. It just made me want to go and get Blade 3 and forget this bad movie.


Everybody knows that Dracula is just a character, nothing real. Just the same, this film is pure fiction. First of all, it is not a war-zone, there are no peace-keeping forces stationed in the country. It looks more like Afganistan than Romania. Horrifying image.. Secondly, we do have roads, security cameras where the traffic is intense, internet, cable TV, cars.. like in which junkyard did they find those heaps? Besides, people here are not scared of vampires.. they are part of our folklore therefore people are not easily frightened. and providing that there was a real vampire called Dracula and he came to Romania as the one in the film did, he would have been dead long ago :) No more comments


The movie starts out with "flashback" scenes from Dracula 2: Ascension... then has them on a quest searching for Dracula and Elizabeth ... Luke's beloved.. and the priests immortal enemy.

I really didn't like this movie and am amazed I sat through it.. I really don't believe there will be a Dracula 4.. but if there is I can only hope it will be better than before.

To basically sum up the movie it goes as this..

The Priest and Luke travel to Romania to find Dracula and Elizabeth (Erzabet) along the way they get into trouble.. The priest finds a love interest... but eventually they find Dracula's castle (more like Luke gets thrown into the feeding pit) Luke finds Elizabeth thanks to Dracula throwing him down some stairs. The priest finds his love interest dieing. Dracula and the priest fight.. Elizabeth helps "save the day" and then begs her love Luke to kill her.. I really hated the ending of this movie and thought it was complete B.S

That and if Dracula's face changes after every regeneration (im guessing every time he's roasted,toasted, and burnt to a crisp .. then WHERE the heck did this guy come from? shouldn't it still be Stephen Billington?)

Dracula is dead... now the priest has turned his back on god and is the new "king" of the undead.. along with his beloved Julia.. and Luke.. well poor Luke is just alone in the world without a dime to his name..

I give this a 2... I'm really disappointed in Wes craven... I expected more from him given his other movie projects


First off no offense to anyone that did the movie, actors rocked and other things. And secondly, this is my opinion of the movie, as opinions are ALWAYS different please keep an open mind when reading this review, thank you. I have nothing against the actors, nor do I have anything against the crew, I think they did an amazing job. BUT... I just can't get over how bad the writing was, don't get me wrong, the writing was great the dialogue at least, but the plot lacked. You think a movie being about the Dark Prince would have more of him in it, well it didn't. There was little. Your imagination could do better than what this movie did. So if you wanna add more to #2 and don't really wanna see #3 I suggest get a paper and pen and then write down what you think would've happened, what you would've done differently in either #3 or both of the movies. Maybe what they should've done was had it through Draculas' eyes. Would've been better that way. I suggest also for people who like the story of Dracula to read Bram Stokers' novel, "Dracula" and read anything else you can about vampires, please also read Kim Harrison, Anne Rice, and Laurell K. Hamilton. Like I said my opinion on the movie, and some suggestions, the plot really did lack. But thank you for reading, I really do appreciate it. Gave it a 4 'cause I thought the acting was good, but other than that... you know the rest.


An excellent example of when film-makers get tired of a project half way through, and rather than create a quality project, simply go through the motions.

Dracula's plot and motivations as a villain are nonsensical, as he turns from this God hating hedonist that we had become familiar with in the first movie (and was not contradicted during his non-role in the sequel) into some Dr. Doom-ish would be conquerer of Romania.

I could forgive the stretching of Dracula's role from lusty blood sucker into world conquerer were the rest of the film's writing not so empty. I'm not sure which is more of a cliché, Jason Scott Lee's action movie quips and brooding, or Jason London's I-wish-I-were-written-by-Joss-Whedon attempts at witty banter. Every part of this movie reeks of banality, as the movie chugs along from points A to B to C solely to fulfill the trilogy. The movie diverges from the derivative plot once in a while just to throw the audience tidbits of gore or sexuality, all of which are pretty lack luster, and will fail to thrill experienced horror watchers.

What is most bothersome of this film, like the one before it, is that continuity is thrown completely out the window. In the first film, it was revealed that Dracula was Judas cursed with undeath, unable to bear the light of the sun. The second movie totally ignored the end of the first one, and wrote out the entire human cast. Dracula in part two was a new actor, but one still fairly young and seductive looking, and able to appear menacing. For part three, not only is Dracula replaced by the much older Rutger Hauer, but he is now 'the embodiment of evil' reaching back as far as ancient Egypt. When did Dracula become X-men's Apocalypse? I'm unsure, but I am very sure that the writer of each of the two sequels in this series did not watch the prior installment.

Boring and poorly achieved in nearly every regard, this tepid movie can be avoided. I only hope you don't get sucked into the same vortex that I did, obligated to watch this film, only to complete the cliffhanger ending left by part 2.


I'm sure this was supposed to be a horror movie, or something like that? But no..it's not a horror movie about vampires...in fact, if you see this movie, you'll probably laugh the entire time, due to bad acting, and really really bad jokes, even Blade can do better cliché jokes. I think the gore parts are the only thing good about this movie, but I guess the director wasn't planning to make a gore movie. But heck, I really don't know what the director was trying to do..and I'm sure he was completely high when he hired those actors, specially Rutge Hauer, for the bloodsucking, Count Dracula. A old hag like that shouldn't have teeth at all. And please...the whole movie is a big cliché, nothing different, even the gore parts are hideous. The only reason I saw the entire movie, was because I wanted to make sure the film was bad until the end. And you better believe it was. Even the fight between the Chinese American priest vampire hero and Dracula, was awful. It looked like a handy cap match.. I'll be sure to lock the memories of this movie, in some dark corner of my brain.

Warning: If you really like vampire movies, this one will go to the bottom of your list.