Let's get it out of the way first thing: The critics of the 80s like Leonard Maltin and Siskel/Ebert who sadistically maligned DEF-CON 4 as a wretched exercise in scum & sleaze were WRONG. I agree with another comment stating that this movie was unfairly dismissed at the time of original release. Yes it's tacky, low budget and amoral -- perhaps one of the most amoral movies of the Reagan years of home video rental. For that reason alone it actually stood out from the pack by actually daring to present it's viewers with exactly that which it aspired to. Unlike the Mad Max films or even the Italian ripoffs of the genre Max created, DEF-CON 4 has no presumptions about being a parable, having any kind of a message or examining some sort of social phenomenon. It is about nuclear war and the resultant breakdown of our North American collective society, and like those prospects it isn't pretty, easy to stomach or even make sense of.

In actuality there are actually two B movies in one here: A pretty taught little SNEAKERS/WARGAMES ripoff about a nuclear war triggered by "accident" after Lybians hijack a shipment of cruise missiles and shoot one into Russia. It doesn't detonate but manages to push east/west tensions to the breaking point, the Russians nuke America and the Americans retaliate. Instant global apocalypse, and a demonstration of one of the prevailing nightmares of the Cold War. This sequence of events is ingeniously staged by having the three person crew of a secret orbiting weapons platform observe the exchange and agonize over how to react. Should they launch? Should they go back to earth? Eventually their satellite's computer is hijacked by an unseen entity who prompts an impromptu landing somewhere near the coast of Canada, sparking the second of the two B movie scenarios that becomes a post apocalyptic thriller centered around a makeshift totalitarian regime dominated by the prep school brat of an Army general who recruits other brats, arms them with machine guns, and herds the surviving populace into a ramshackle town comprised mostly of junk.

One of the astronauts encounters a survivalist hilariously played over the top by veteran character actor Maury Chaykin, who steals all of his scenes with a blase attitude ("Just get in your rocket ship and fly off to Central America."), his home made converted front end loader tank contraption, and a kilt. He also has a teenage schoolgirl boarded up in his basement, the less said about which the better. His character is the only one in the film who emerges as an actual person, and when the story shifts it's emphasis away from his fate it looses that central core of interest. In any event the astronaut strikes up a deal with the survivalist for the space capsule's food supply and the female astronaut still on board, leading to their capture by the renegades and a series of bizarre scenes of social chaos that seem to have been inspired by Spaghetti Westerns.

I will admit that the film is a bit of a mish-mash, and hard to keep track of because it changes gears so quickly. At one minute it's a high tech space thriller, the next a grim survivalist tale, then social satire and finally a big, stupid shootout. But in all fairness it's only the final twenty minutes or so that loose their footing in absurdity, with the main detraction being the role of the Army brat dictator kid, who's grip on the surviving populace is never fully explained. Why are the others following his lead? Since nobody bothers to tell the audience, the kid remains a caricature rather than a character, and the final conflict between the astronaut and him remains something of a contrivance rather than a believable series of events. The ending is also annoyingly empty of any kind of meaning at all, with the movie more or less simply being over at some point. You know, whatever.

But if anything the movie has actually gotten more poignant over the decades since it's creation: We now live in a world where middle eastern fanatics do indeed shape global events & have shown themselves capable of inflicting apocalyptic events. We've also seen events like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where social order has completely broken down, resulting in the kind of mind boggling escapades depicted in the latter part of the film. It's no longer just an escapist nightmare/fantasy to suggest that what is being depicted in the film might actually happen, and the filmmakers should indeed be congratulated for pretty much getting the look of the apocalypse right ... though I do think that people would have found more opportunities to wash their faces & would think that ammunition for firearms would be a bit more of a rarity.

The long and short of it is that DEF-CON 4 is not the unwatchable disaster that many might have potential viewers believe. It's a grim, grimy, somewhat distasteful endeavor for sure, but then again so was the prospect nuclear combat toe to toe with the Ruskies. Don't knock the film for having more or less gotten the aspect of what that might mean correctly.

7/10


Def Con 4 starts off well, but then digresses into a boring plot line with forgettable characters. Fortunately, it's only 85 minutes long, although those last 45 minutes may seem like an eternity. Anyone else wonder what ever happened to those crazies living out in the woods?


Absolutely my favorite film. It bombed, but I loved it.. People who rip on this film have no imagination what so ever. Im glad they wasted there time seeing this movie, hell it got watched didnt it? If you know back in 1985 if you saw this movie in the theater i want to hear your comments about the day you saw it, what night, location, and how people reacted to it. If you saw a TV ad or newspaper for this film, Im interesed in knowing any facts you may have. Keep in mind, your personal thoughts about it are already stated here at IMDB, I already know how you feel. Thanks -pete


I have seen many movies on the Third World war and the apocalyptic future that waits for us. And as interested party in the topic, I decided to see this movie. Fat mistake. Friends, do not see a movie for reading simply the synopsis.

Originally, the treatment of the astronauts (that they look like truckers) directing a space station with nuclear weapons in orbit it is an interesting idea. Even when the war begins it is original enough that put it from the point of view of the three enclosed in the station.

But later, when they come to the devastated Earth, everything changes. There is no society in reconstruction, not even the radioactivity looks like a problem for the survivors. Not. What matters is that a teenager has an army of teenagers who has dominated the population of a village. And they are wicked and blablabla and some Mad Max' aesthetic and more blabla. Mediocre action, absurd script. Bad lighting. Horrible.


In 1985 I went to see this at a theater based on the impressively cool artwork used in the ad. There was nothing in the story that resembled the poster image. An absolute failure on every level, Def-Con 4 is the antithesis of entertainment. My precious _soul_ was damaged by this cinematic monstrosity.


Is Def-Con 4 the worst movie ever made? It's very possible. Whenever you decide to venture into the Science Fiction section of your video store, steer clear of this film. It has a deceptive cover aimed at drawing the uninformed video renter into picking it up. But whatever you do, DO NOT BE FOOLED! The sad thing is that 10 people actually gave this movie a 10 right here at the Internet Movie Database. Here's a much more realistic vote: 1 (only because that's as low as it goes here at the IMDB).


It is always a shame to see a movie that starts off with such a great storyline, but then falls apart at the end. The first half of this film, involving scientists in a Reagan-ear Star Wars Nuclear space station, is intriguing and suspenseful. But the second half of the film about the scientists adventures in a post-apocalyptic world is dull and sloppy. Maybe lack of money or loss of interest by the director caused the plot to go way out into left field, and they sped up production just to get the film out as soon as possible. Watch if you must, but prepare to be disappointed! The best thing about this movie is the creative box cover.


Formula: A Woman in Love with One Man Marries Another + Insidious Japanese Attack on American Territory + A Surgical Theater's Romantic But Unconsummated Menage a Trois=A Movie That Can't Decide What It's About.

*****

The Japanese December 1941 invasion of the Philippines, culminating in the surrender by General Wainwright of all forces under his command in early 1942, is still America's greatest military catastrophe. The defense and ultimate loss of the obsolete island fortress of Corregidor, here immortalized (less rather than more) in the film of the same name was, with the fall of the archipelago, a far more serious geo-strategic blow to America than Pearl Harbor.

In 1943 veteran director William Nigh, a man who successfully transitioned from the silents to the talkies and who directed dozens of mostly forgettable films, made "Corregidor." His three stars were successful screen actors. Playing a doctor, Dr. Royce Lee Stockman, Elissa Landi, once a beauty, brought some depth to the story of a woman who traveled to the Philippines to marry one doctor while carrying a bright torch for another, an army medico named Michael who just happened to be stationed in the territory. She weds Dr. Jan Stockman (Otto Kruger, playing a nice guy for a change) the night before the Japanese air attack that presaged the invasion.

Together with ragtag army troops, the couple reaches Corregidor where Michael is encountered. The trek through the backlot jungle provides a preview of some of the most unrealistic war scenes filmed anytime between 1939 and 1945.

Idealistic Jan recognizes his bride's undiminished love for Michael and almost like a quintessential (but probably rare) English gentleman he urges her to go to him. This being 1943, no intimacy is shown or suggested.

In any event, history takes its course and Corregidor falls but not before some of the women, including Royce are flown out (in reality, American army nurses were captured by the Japanese and while they were spared the horrors of the Bataan Death March, they didn't exactly have a nice time for the next three years either).

The film is stolidly preachy about the virtues of democracy with declamations by the actors having the "Now for a message from our government" tone. The use of stock military footage reaches the asinine with no attempt to make planes uniform. A monoplane begins a bombing run that is concluded by a biplane. No excuse for that. Also, apparently to save time and money, the same shots of Japanese soldiers falling dead to the ground are recycled at several points.

One historical curiosity: Royce's maid, killed at the beginning of the movie, is Ruby Dandridge, mother of Dorothy.

Much more could have been done with this story and its experienced lead cast.

4/10


Pants, baggy, sweaty pants. Not even good for the WWII 'pump up the home front so they buy bonds' circuit. It seems like a combination of two scripts, neither of them very good. Is it a love story? Maybe for the first few minutes. Is it a war movie? Sort of, in that there are guys getting shot in a cartoon fashion. This movie doesn't seem to know what it wants to do.

An attempt is made to show the fall of Corregidor but somebody wanted to add an element of a love triangle. It didn't work then and it didn't work for Pearl Harbor. At least Pearl took a lot of time to try to make both sides work. Corregidor didn't even bother to make one side work. I cared more about Hey Dutch and Pinky than I cared about any of the three main characters.

Add in really lousy stock footage of various US planes being passed off as Japanese planes and this thing screams mass production. It also whispers silent movie, like the one part where the Doc goes in to do some surgery and there's no more gloves. It's all pantomimed, like a silent. Except this is 1943! If this had been made in the 30s I could forgive a lot of the flaws but this pig was made well into the 40s and there's just no excuse other than being a cheap knock off. Frankly I find it insulting to the men and women of Corregidor. It should have a real remake except most everybody that was there is probably dead by now so all you'd get is more Hollyworld hogwash.

2/10


While the United States and Japan duke it out during World War II, doctors Otto Kruger (as Jan), Elissa Landi (as Royce), and Donald Woods (as Michael) must sort out their "love triangle." On the strategically located Philippine island of "Corregidor", the good doctors get to see some of the war action. Stock footage is flown in. Of course, Ms. Landi, being a "lady doctor", is protected from viewing "mutilated" corpses. Right. Although it isn't enough to recommend the film, Rick Vallin (as Pinky Mason) and Wanda McKay (as Hey Dutch) are relatively entertaining.

"Dedicated to the United States and Philippine Armed Services"


Recently distributed in DVD, this movie was a disappointment. It takes a unique tact to bring noncombatants into a war film; an idea that should have been a basis for a great story. The missionary doctor and the brave bride hardly get any character development throughout the film. The story is one of a dedicated missionary doctor in the Philippines, who is surprised by the arrival of a former lover. On 6 December, 1941, she has followed the missionary doctor to marry him. He is surprised as he had disregarded the letter, being busy in his research. But, her real love is an Army doctor, currently stationed at Corrigidor. The Japanese attack happens at the close of the wedding ceremony. That begins a 600 miles journey through the jungle, with terribly directed combat scenes and with poorly dramatized suffering. Although we expect some period gloss over suffering and combat, the scenes are very poorly presented. At Corrigidor, the battle progresses, the three friends/lovers are reunited, and the devastating losses mount. I'll leave the ending to the viewer, but it is convincing neither in tone nor emotion. In 1943, there were probably not many technical advisers on the last scenes at Corrigidor, but suffice it to say, the last departees were not leaving on C-47s. I appreciate period pieces, and allow for the oversights, glamorization of the 1940's scripts and productions. And the patriotic message was both expected and deserved by the men and women who struggled on Corrigidor and throughout the Philippines. But, this is just poorly done, and loses all its punch. Too bad for a potentially great story line, in an honestly heroic setting. Having visited Corrigidor, I was hopeful for a powerful, though period based piece. The film was disappointing on all counts.


This film is supposed to be a fictionalised account of the ultimately unsuccessful British underwater raid on that mighty German battleship, the Tirpitz. All I can say on it is the acting is absurdly staged, the script is about as hackneyed and unbelievable as they get, and the characterisation is terribly shallow and stereotypical; as well it is wildly historically inaccurate even allowing for the inevitable artistic licence taken in making films on historical subjects.

All in all, it is hard to believe that this flick was made in the late 60s (1968) and I agree with another contributor here that it seems to be the sort of film that they made twenty-five years earlier, i.e. actually during the war. Some twenty-three years after the end of the Second World War, Submarine X-1 is still ludicrously and woodenly propagandist. Even the action is unbelievable with German paratrooper raids on the naval base etc.

I realise that it is only a war movie, doubtlessly made for a young male viewing audience, and it is silly to take such films seriously, and I don't; however, Submarine X-1 even as a time-killer for boys on rainy weekend afternoons is 'orrible.

Fortunately for the viewing public, James Caan, who is a really excellent actor, went on to much bigger and better things straight after Submarine X-1. Who could ever forget his stellar, though uncredited, performances in 1969 as Rupert of Rathskeller in the "To Sire With Love" episodes of Get Smart? Brilliant! And from there on his career really forged ahead.


Yes, I agree with the average 4/10 rating. This is another marginally watchable, below average mid-60s fare, worth your time only if you have absolutely nothing else to do with your time. Not horrible, but nothing remarkable either. Little in the way of character development, no memorable dialogue, and a plodding, straightforward plot (if you can call it that).

If you make it all the way through, follow the crew's example, and break out the brandy; after that, you deserve one.


"Submarine X-1" is just another of several WWII films that rolled out of Oakmont Productions in the late 1960s. Like "Attack on the Iron Coast" and "Mosquito Squadron", this flick lacks innovation, flair and plays like an extended episode of "Black Sheep Squadron". Movies like this were never meant for the big screen. Director Graham had worked almost solely on made-for-TV films up until this point, and it's no surprise that he went back to that medium. His attempt at making a war film is a big disaster.

The rather boring script is written by John C. Champion, who takes the X raid on the German pocket battleship Tirpitz and turns it into what should be a rousing tale of heroism and courage. It's not. Surprised? Lt. Cmdr. Bolton (James Caan, "A Bridge too Far") loses his submarine in the North Atlantic and his men blame him for the ship's destruction and death of 50 crewmen. Well, he's cleared of guilt and re-assigned to train crews of experimental midget submarines - and, what a shock - some of his distrusting former crewmembers wind up in the squad he's too train! I don't know where to start with a film like this. It's not particularly bad. It's just... well... not good. The sets, including some marvelous Scottish scenery and great submarine interiors, look beautiful and Ron Goodwin's music score is rousing as usual, these are the only good things about this movie. James Caan is a great actor; watch "The Godfather" series and try to say he's a poor actor. It's not that he can't act in this movie. He's never given an opportunity to act! He just mumbles occasional, witless dialogue and gives everyone around him strange facial expressions. The supporting cast don't make much of an impact, either. Everyone simply goes through their paces, carries out the mission and in 90 minutes, we've learned nothing about them and can't care less when some of them get killed. Interestingly enough, most of the supporting cast is comprised of English television-actors, which just adds to the "made-for-TV" look and feel of this film.

It's also important to note that everything about this movie is a pure cliché.. Bolton's character and those around him are built around our expectations based on other war films like "The Devil's Brigade". Bolton is simply a stereotype, and not even a two-dimensional one at that. The German characters range from stupid to stupider, from the parachutists that attack the secret submarine base and talk with terrible accents, to the Navy officers who question prisoners and yell a lot but never appear particularly menacing. They waste their time with interrogations about a surviving submarine, rather than doing something practical  such as sending one of dozens of E-Boats out to search for the sneaky enemy vessel! This film couldn't get anymore clichéd if it tried; all it lacks is a sappy love interest. Interestingly enough, there is one blond bombshell  but she only gets once scene and then is forgotten rather abruptly. The nuts and bolts of a good film are all present, but never developed.

The special effects are pretty poor, as is the case with every other Oakmont Production to emerge in its understandably short existence. The underwater photography is fantastic, but every time Graham takes his camera above the water, viewers are treated to shots of obvious toy ships being blown to pieces. The miniatures look like they came out of a Japanese monster movie  not a war movie! The camera-work in the talky scenes is unoriginal and flat and the film just looks boring.

When watching a movie like this, one has to take into account the time period in which it was made. "Submarine X-1" and every other film of its kind belonged on the small screen or, better yet, on the big screen as propaganda films during 1943 or 1944. As a late-60s "action" piece, this one ultimately fails despite some obviously good intentions.


James Caan plays a marine captain, who just lost his submarine and crew of fifty men during WW2. He is assigned to supervise a training mission in Scotland for a new type of submarine, to be used against the Germans.

I can't say that SUBMARINE X-1 is entirely un-watchable: it has a good pace and isn't too long either. But who wrote this "story" and why is James Caan in it? I just can't believe why they make such films, without a point and without a story. There isn't a person in this film with a decent line. It's not only enough that there isn't much of a story(training, training and a brief encounter with the Germans), the film is also filled with silly dialogue and stupidity all along. A total waste of time! 4/10


Lorenzo Lamas returns in his last go around as Soldier, this time the renegade cop takes on a gang of bikers who have caused trouble for suburban families. This time he's aided by Minor Mustain nicknamed "The Cowboy" This one is easily the weakest of the series, only because there isn't enough of the crazy ridiculousness of parts # 1 and 2. There are some shootouts but these are generally one sided and the bikers provide lame fodder for the vigilante and his Cowboy partner. Although the film starts of blissfully stupid enough, with Lorenzo Lamas pretending to be a robber, while another guy robs some place. (I think it was a store) Of course this then gives way to a moronic story with bikers doing things that only the wimpiest bikers do. Indeed if you want a good biker flick, check out Stone Cold for sheer fun ridiculousness. Snake Eater III:His Law is a sub par effort which is as terrible as what you would come to expect from Lorenzo Lamas.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)


This one had more and better action then the first 2, and better acting and plot.

The bad guys were cool, and I liked the way everything was done in this. There was better characters, not to mention more then in the first.

This time, Soldier used a shotgun. Excellent choice for using against a bunch of evil bikers. The special effects seemed ok, and the action sequences were great. this was obviously done on a bigger budget then the first one, and I think they tried harder to make this then they did in the inferior predicessors.

I honestly think they should remake the SnakeEater movies.

I give SnakeEater III an 8 out of 10


Well Soldier Kelly is out and back working as a detective (we have to use our imagination to figure out how)for the first 10 minutes at least. Then of course he is on suspension again and working with an ex-biker PI to bring justice to a raped college student. He gets in the most unbelievable situations but always seems to make you believe them. This time he has a real love interest and she broadens the character nicely. Like us she falls for his line every time but circumstances are beginning to make her question her ability to stay involved with him. Great martial arts scenes(one where he is out matched)and the tongue in cheek humor these movies are noted for. There is only one problem with this movie.Sadly, it was the last.


Standard Operating Procedure is a very disturbing documentary. The music and the images allow us to understand the prison and to see what went on in the prison. The clear context of the crimes against humanity that is so off putting and mainly off camera is contrasted with inviting film work that draws us into this story. There are very interesting images and techniques that are used that must be seen again for the simplicity and elegance of them. It is therefore a bit unsettling. Questions are asked and answered, but in doing so other questions arise. We find ourselves again asking for more information and questioning the truthfulness of everyone interviewed. Where are the commanders that ordered this to happen? Where are the political leaders that legitimated these behaviors? They are in the background. They seem to have run away to hide from the story and from history. Without pictures would we have been unable to see the abuses reported? Are we yet, with pictures, unable to see the real abuses? The aberrant seems to be the Standard Operating Procedure. We find ourselves questioning our own beliefs and wrestling with our own culpability.


In 2004 the media was full of accounts of the abuse, torture, and even murder of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison by Military Police. Photographs surfaced depicting prisoners naked and wearing cloth hoods, and being forced to masturbate, stand on boxes for fear of electrocution, and forming human pyramids. Twelve soldiers were convicted, and the commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel. Errol Morris' documentary Standard Operating Procedure attempts to examine the atmosphere surrounding the abuse, the people involved, and whether it was all down to a few "bad apples", or if it was reflective of the American military as a whole.

Morris keeps his authorial influence to a minimum, instead allowing his subjects to speak for themselves. He has interviewed several of the soldiers involved, including Lynndie England, who can be seen in many of the photographs smiling, pointing, giving a thumbs up. She and the other soldiers interviewed describe, with remarkable candour, what it was like living in Abu Ghraib prison, their relationships with each other and the prisoners, and the events and tensions surrounding those incidents depicted in the photographs. It all paints a picture of the prison as a dark and stifling environment, one just waiting to bring out the worst in people.

The real centrepiece of the film, though, are the photographs. Even four years after they dominated every front page and bulletin, they have lost none of their power to appal and disgust. Some, like the picture of a man forced to stand, arms outstretched, on a box with a cloth bag on his head, are surreal. Others, like a photograph of Sabrina Harman giving a thumbs up over a dead prisoner, are simply disturbing.

And hovering above all of this are the OGA, or Other Government Agencies, an often used euphemism for the CIA. It was during the CIA-led interrogations that the most heinous of human rights infractions were most likely carried out. But there are no photographs of these incidents. Standard Operating Procedure raises the point that it is these individuals who should have received the full brunt of the punishment, but it was simpler to lay the blame on lower ranking officers like England and Harman.

It is here that the main point of contention with Standard Operating Procedure arises. It is true that no one above the rank of Staff Sergeant was convicted. And it is true that this should not be the case, that those higher-ranking officers who let this abuse play out under their noses should be held accountable. But Morris tries to divert too much of the blame away from those who were convicted. While England, Harman and the others were just following orders and living in a deeply affecting environment, they are also human beings endowed with free will. They could have said no at any time, and just walked away.

That Standard Operating Procedure raises these arguments means that it is worthy of our time. It presents the facts as perceived by those involved, never itself commenting or judging. It leaves that to us, so that we can make up our own minds. So that perhaps we can learn from the mistakes made by others, and prevent them from happening again.


The well-known documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, who received an Oscar for his 2003 study of Robert McNamara and Vietnam 'The Fog of War,' has put the Abu Ghraib scandal under a microscope, but the result is too limited a picture of events.

Morris' film describes and shows the humiliations, the nude prisoners cuffed in stress positions or forced to masturbate or pile on top of each other with bags or women's underpants on their heads; the man they called "Gilligan" in the fringed blanket with the conical hat standing on a box with fake electrical wiring to his fingers; the howling dogs terrifying a squatting naked man and biting another's leg; the corpse of a man beaten to death packed in bags of ice.

The images, both stills and some fragments of videotapes, have a dramatic and quickly sickening effect. The circumstances of their taking is thoroughly explained. But the result is disappointingly narrow and obsessive, because Morris has allowed the low-ranking Americans implicated by the pictures, the majority of them concerned only with their own fates and future, to be the dominant voices of the film. The exceptions are a crude but more experienced interrogator, a precise but morally numb military investigator, and the angry general Janis Karpinski who was scapegoated because she was commander of the MPs.

Rory Kennedy's 'The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib,' produced for HBO last year, has already presented all this information about the photo scandal--together with the larger context Morris has left out. Alex Gibney's 'Taxi to the Dark Side' thoroughly explored the larger implications--the responsibilities that go all the way up, the distribution of prison abuses throughout Afghanistan, Iran and Guantánamo, the violations of international law and the inadequacy of torture as an interrogation device. By specifically focusing on the beating and death of the taxi driver named Dilawar at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan Gibney showed much more detail than Morris about the specifics of one prisoner and the full extent of the physical brutality of US interrogators and guards. Anyone coming to Morris' film from Kennedy's and Gibney's will find it incomplete.

'Standard Operating Procedure' doesn't follow up on any Iraqis. Perhaps because Morris' mostly unheard questions were aggressive, his talking heads are always on the defensive, repeating that they were only "softening up" the prisoners as instructed. Lynndie England protests that she was in love with her boss, Charles Graner, and just did what he said. They do admit their process included sleep deprivation, hypothermia, loud noises, and also, when they lost patience or just felt like it, random physical abuse. We learn from the more experienced interrogator that his young associates were useless with high value prisoners. We also learn that no worthwhile information came out of interrogations at the prison. Karpinski explains how heavily overpopulated her prisons became, any suspects once held hard to release.

Morris commits several serious stylistic errors. He introduces fake basement-tape video reenactments (a device he has used before) to augment the visuals of the Abu Ghraib abuses--close-ups of "prisoners'" bodies, blood dripping on a uniform, keys going into a lock--so that after a while you aren't sure what is real and what is fake. The genuine images needed no enhancement, and this confusion is a terrible mistake. The score by Danny Elfman with its heavy-handed drumbeat sounds introduces frantic melodrama, also superfluous and in bad taste.

In fact Morris' material, which ought to have been allowed to speak for itself, is permeated by the banality of evil. The words of the MPs, including Megan Ambuhl, Javal Davis, and Jeremy Sivitz, as well as, most notably in this context, the two women amateur photographers, Lynndie England and Sabrina Harman, are notable for their lack of affect. There is no drama about them. Apart for one or two shaky expressions of doubt, awareness that all this wasn't right, especially on the part of Sabrina Harmon, writing to her "wife" Katie back home, they tend to speak as people going about what they believed to be their jobs; doing what others did and what everybody knew was being done at Abu Ghraib. Except, it seems, General Karpinski, because she was traveling from one prison to another, and says the ugliness was hidden from her. Perhaps it was. There's not much effort to question or puncture any of this testimony.

The film's title refers to the army investigator's conclusion that the majority of the photographed humiliations and punishments were "Standard Operating Procedure" and only certain scenes of physical injury could be classified as documenting crimes. This indulgence is something Morris does not explore further, however. 'Taxi to the Dark Side' goes much more thoroughly into the issue of torture. The distinction between torture and humiliation Morris alludes to seems less important than how the whole pattern of sordid conduct at the prisons get started, a topic 'Standard Operating Procedure' doesn't investigate. We have just had President Bush's admission that he knew and approved high-level meetings inside the White House on harsh interrogation tactics. Morris does not set the Abu Ghraib scandal within this larger framework.

We do hear that children were imprisoned and that there were children raped by prisoners and the prisoners were beaten and injured for that. We're briefly told that methods were transferred to Abu Ghraib from Guantánamo. It's all prefaced by a description of what a disgusting place Abu Ghraib was when the MPs and other American staff came to live there--with constant bombardment, because, in violation of international law (but we are not told that) Abu Ghraib was not behind the lines. This is presented elsewhere by some as mitigating circumstance. The low-ranking Abu Ghraib scandal scapegoats were not only just following orders (or "S.O.P."); they were under stress. Stuff happens. Here again, Morris doesn't connect the dots. Some will like that. The much admired, often awarded Morris is a sacred cow. But this time his result seems more repulsive than effective.


As someone who spent the majority of his adult life in the military, this documentary was especially disturbing.

It's not as it there is anything new here. I saw Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, a better picture, and I am sure that I will see some of this again in Taxi to the Dark Side, or at least I am told I will. It is not that this is new or surprising, but that it needs to be seen and remembered as much as the Holocaust.

That is not to say the murder of six million Jews stands equal to the abuses by our soldiers in Iraq, but that we need to remember this and make sure that we do everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

The professionals will tell you that there is no useful information that can be obtained from tortured prisoners. They will say anything to make you quit. So, there is no excuse for what happened here. It was just people reverting to their animal instincts.

The biggest shame, of course, if that no one above the rank of SSgt went to prison. That is just the way it happens. The troops are scapegoated and the officers are reassigned.

The method used by director Errol Morris in telling this story was unique and really added to the film. It needs to be seen by everyone.


"Standard Operating Procedure" is without a doubt one of the most terrifying films to come out in the last few years. It is a bold documentary which may be at times too gut-wrenching for some people to watch, not that this should ever prevent anybody from seeing it. It was a good decision to look at the events at Abu Gharib mainly through the eyes of the convicted military officers; and of course the photographs speak for themselves. Apart from the depth of the material, the filmmakers have done an outstanding job with the enactments, the visuals and the brilliant music by Danny Elfman. Although the documentary does point out and emphasize that high-ranking officers were never imprisoned for the depicted crimes, in my opinion, the film does fail to ask many essential questions that I feel should have been included in this documentary. Such as: Why do we insist seeing these events as more of an embarrassment on the part of the U.S. than an insult on the Iraqi prisoners? Since the soldiers frequently mention that they are "just following orders", who exactly are these orders coming from? Why will the U.S. Military not allow Charles Graner to be interviewed? What kind of a system is this that can categorize a completely naked "detainee" handcuffed backwards to his bed or another prisoner made to stand for a long time in a difficult position by the fear of being electrocuted as "standard operating procedure"? I am aware that the answers to these questions would stretch the format the director has chosen for this documentary, but I still believe that Errol Morris should have looked more openly into these territories in order to have made an even bolder film; and bold, courageous and very well made this film certainly is.


Respectful silence from the audience throughout. Not a word spoken by anyone exiting the theatre afterwards. Standard Operating Procedure is the film no one is talking about.

Errol Morris' documentary on the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison is smart and informative. While talking head interviews with the people directly and indirectly involved provide the backbone, cinematic reconstructions of 2003s grizzly events coupled with the well known photographs taken by soldiers work successfully at pulling an emotional response from the viewer.

Though intriguing, SOP doesn't really benefit from the big screen treatment and would probably have just as much impact if viewed on TV.

Dark and depressing, shocking and enlightening: SOP is 2008's must see documentary.


When looking at almost any photograph it is natural to wonder about the back-story, about the context in which it was taken. I think that was the motivation for this documentary, based on the infamous photos taken in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

While the investigations into the back-story of the photos out of Abu Ghraib reveal valuable insights into the horrors of that place, it is seen that extrapolating a back-story from a picture can often be misleading. For example, perhaps the most famous photo form Abu Ghraib of the guy standing on a box wearing a tattered shawl with wires dangling from his outstretched hands appears to have been staged primarily *for* the photo. He was provided the shawl since it was cold and shortly after the photos were taken the wires, which were never connected to any power source, were removed. Upon review by an investigator this procedure was viewed as "Standard Operating Procedure."

What does a photo of a bloodstained floor say? Is it evidence of some horrible torture having taken place, or perhaps the blood of an insane man who was butting his head against a wall, or maybe the blood of a U.S. soldier who was shot by a prisoner using a smuggled gun? Lynndie England, the smiling young woman in so many of the photos, (like the one with her leading a prisoner on a leash) points out that the leash was slack and she was not dragging the guy and she was doing this to satisfy the desires of her lover. After seeing this film you might be more hesitant to draw conclusions based on certain photos.

Of course most of the photos, such as the ones of the pyramids of nude prisoners, or the sequence of photos of the corpse of al-Jamadi, document atrocities that can hardly be explained away by any imaginable context, and such practices were indeed judged as criminal. Prison sentences were meted out to many of the soldiers involved. But the documentary makes it quite clear that only low-level soldiers were ever sentenced while it was evident that their antics were known and passed over by higher level people.

I think the film succeeds in its narrow focus of trying to understand how the photos came to be and who was involved in taking them. The bulk of the documentary consists of interviews with the people most directly involved. Of course each of those people tried to put the best light on their behavior, with varying degrees of success. I felt the most successful person in this regard was Sabrina Harman whose letters home documented what she was experiencing at the time and indicated a sympathetic personality. The fact that she got sucked into this morass is disturbing. She said, "I don't know what else I could have done," and expressed regret for ever having joined the military.

Director Morris lets his interviewees just talk without interjecting comments or questions. I was struck by the fact that none of them expressed any great regret or terrible guilt about what they had done, but maybe they were so traumatized by it that it was too soon for them to address that. Or maybe the environment they were operating in permitted them to rationalize that what they were doing was all right, and they have carried that attitude forward? Or maybe they were indeed uncaring jerks. But the film tries to convince you, and I think succeeds, that they were not monsters. Some of the interviewees do give evidence of having been stuck in a hell--being at the bottom of the food chain, bucking the system was not an easy option and going along with the accepted procedures was.

What you seem to have had there was a bunch of young people who were in no way trained or equipped to handle what was happening. The real culprits were the interrogators who were doing the tortures and those who were establishing the procedures, and those people were not filmed. As was pointed out, if the Abu Ghraib photos had never come to light, nobody outside those involved would ever have known about this. Makes you nervous about how much we don't know.

Most of the interviews are not continuous sequences but are pieced together from segments. This has he distracting effect of having the talking heads pop up at different locations on the screen during an interview. I am sure Morris could have minimized this, so I am puzzled by this decision.

I have some qualms about the reenactments, but it is pretty clear what is real and what is staged. You may or may not find the ponderous musical score effective.

This is a rare instance where I found the director's commentary track to be illuminating and well worth sitting through. Usually you just get things like, "It was cold the day when we shot this," or "We had to get up at 4 AM that day." Morris' commentary expands on the issues of the film and he tells what he was trying to accomplish in many of the scenes, and what he wanted to accomplish with the film in general. Also he points out things that you may have missed on first viewing. If Morris is to be believed, the tragedy of Abu Ghraib was that no valuable intelligence was extracted from any of the prisoners in this sorry affair. Saddam was apprehended by soldiers on the ground, not by intelligence.

I came away from this with a different outlook than what I went in with. What more can you ask of a film?


We're all familiar with the images that began flowing out of Abu Ghraib Prison in the spring of 2004 - photos showing detainees (some terrorists, others undoubtedly not) hooded and stripped, forced to assume painful and/or humiliating positions, often for hours on end, with American soldiers posing gleefully nearby, smiling and flashing thumbs-up signs for the camera. Once the pictures went viral, they came to symbolize not only the botched operation that was the Iraq war, but the fundamental failure of the U.S. military to win friends and influence people in a land the Bush administration claimed vehemently to be "liberating."

In "Standard Operating Procedure," famed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris ("The Thin Blue Line") attempts to uncover the truth behind those photographs, mainly by allowing those who were most closely involved with the scandal to tell the story in their own words (including Private First Class Lynndie England, who, whether fairly or unfairly, emerged as the one clearly identifiable "face" and household name from the scandal). Morris provides no voice-over narration to accompany the interviews, just re-enactments of the incidents done in a quasi-surrealistic style, using slow motion photography and artsy graphics.

Through his discussions with the principal players in the drama, Morris provides a probing study of the effects of war time stress on the human psyche. The film offers no easy answers as to exactly why the events at Abu Ghraib unfolded as they did; yet, while it doesn't turn the individuals involved into easy-to-blame villains, it doesn't completely exonerate them either. In fact, it is the seeming "normalcy" of these people, as they attempt to make their case for the camera, that renders their actions all the more unsettling. Morris also makes it clear that these low level individuals - many of whom have served time in prison for their crimes - were most certainly used as scapegoats for higher-ups in the military who managed to successfully deflect any personal culpability for the events that took place there.

In a true journalistic coup, Morris was able to obtain grainy home movies shot at the same time that the pictures were being taken. As a result, we're able to witness the step-by-step process by which that infamous shot of the naked men stacked in a pyramid formation ultimately came about.

"Standard Operating Procedure" doesn't successfully address all the questions it sets out to answer, but that is hardly a weakness of the film, since it is dealing with a complex, messy situation involving complex, messy people caught up in a complex, messy war. One doesn't leave "Standard Operating Procedure" necessarily more enlightened that when one went in - just more well-informed. And that's perhaps the best one could reasonably hope for under the circumstances.


As is obvious in the complex responses to both the book and the film by Errol Morris and Philip Gourevitch, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE places in our faces some facts we would rather shield than discuss. The story of the period of between September 2003 and February 2004 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is so well known not only from the news media but also from the Internet blogging sites that it need not be outlined in a review of this film. The facts documented by photographs taken by those who participated and observed the inhuman treatment of prisoners are indisputable: seeing them on the screen in full frame and in close-up shots is almost more than the compassionate eye can tolerate. But there it is and yes, we do need to witness the abuse and humiliation that describes the US prisoner treatment in Iraq, no matter who is to blame - enlisted personnel, MI, high ranking military officials, the White House. The fact that it occurred as such a gross abuse of human rights should awaken in all of us a more complete awareness that war makes humans do such things. It is ugly to watch, difficult to digest, and extremely trying on our set of beliefs that man's inhumanity to man has and does exist despite our need to believe otherwise.

Given the atrocities documented by this film, the style of the film as a work of cinema deserves to be addressed also. The flow of the documentary with the interplay of interview pieces by those infamous young people upon whose shoulders the blame was placed in what appears to be a diversionary technique to avoid deeper probing of the true guilt, along with the images of the prison itself - stark lines of cellblocks and living conditions so foul they seem to actually smell on the screen - is well conceived and beautifully/creatively captured by cinematographers Robert Chappell and Robert Richardson and enhanced by a strangely appropriate musical scoring by Danny Elfman. The film may be about things ugly, but the technique used to tell the story is high quality art.

Abu Ghraib, along with Guantanamo, will always be a scar on the conscience of America, even beyond the time that this ugly Iraq war is over. We should all look at this film with the hope that with seeing actual footage of a nightmare may help prevent recurrences in the future. Grady Harp


I'm a proud American despite all the people going on vacation saying their Canadian. (grow up take some responsibility & know at least SOME of what's going on in the world huh? Unless your teenager because you are terribly self-centered and can't really help it, thanks hormones!) Anyway this is just another example of the 2 sides to a story and how the lowest rank are always the ones that take the fall. Nobody above a Staff Sargent was ever charged, that's non-commissioned officer's. Imagine that?! This is a very revealing portrait that shows just how screwed up the military can be in times of war & in general. The investigator made a couple outstanding points: 1. if there were never any pictures, we never would have heard of this. 2. The Colonels/Generals can be extremely intimidating to a young 18 year old just out of his parents house for the 1st time. Hell you don't have to have a High School education to get in the military anymore, so these kids don't really have an understanding that a hardened military man has who has seen everything. I don't care what anyone says, this is a pretty good look & is pretty fair in it's portrayal of everything & everyone involved. The people seemed to be puppets more than anything & the higher ranks KNEW what was happening. When people are going to learn that TORTURE DOESN'T WORK is beyond me. People will say anything under the right condition to get out of the pain they are being in. This is interesting documentary & maybe it will keep a few from getting involved in things that are beyond there comprehension or capability. I'm not a politician nor want to be, (they make me sick) but getting out of the war is going to be mess just like every other war & it is going to be a no-win issue no matter what we do which is really sad. Give this doc a try & try not be moved by the issues.


Errol Morris's documentary isn't still another Bush-bashing fiesta. Like the photos of the Abu Ghraib prisoners being abused, the pictures that form its central subject, the scope of the film is limited to an examination of how the pictures came to be, who participated in the acts, and who held the cameras. It's not even political in nature, so much as psychological and, more generally, philosophical.

Susan Sonntag, author of the influential essay "On Photography", would have had a field day as a talking head, though I'm not sure she could have done better in presenting us with an interpretation of the pics than some of the more level-headed interviewees do. One of them blames the photos for the entire scandal. If the photos had never been taken, they could never have been disclosed, and the whole thing would never have happened. "It would just crawl under a rock." Another authority I'd like to call to the witness stand would be Anna Freud, Siggy's daughter, who was a famous psychologist in her own right. Anna laid out a list of "ego defense mechanisms" -- ways of thinking that protect us from feeling guilt or remorse for things we've done. The same MP who blames the photos claims that he lost it because a female MP had been hit in the face with a brick during a prison riot. That's why he had inmates spread-eagled on the floor and stomped their fingers with his boots.

Most of these low-tier enlisted people, some of whom spent three years in jail, like Lynndie Englund, the face we've all come to know, or like another MP, were sentenced to ten years, have a simpler explanation. The explanation is phrased in different ways but when the broth is reduced it comes down to, "I was just following orders." I'm not sure how Anna Freud would classify that.

One prisoner was to be subject to a medieval torture technique called the strappado, hoisted by his handcuffed wrists off the floor. The MPs lifted him from the floor and hoisted him. An interviewee observes that the jump suit bound his crotch to a point that would have caused an outcry, not to mention that the MPs were waiting for his shoulders to "pop" at any moment. Only then did they discover he was dead. One of the female MPs was charged with mistreatment of prisoners for taking a photo of the corpse. It's such a genuine tragedy that it's completely ridiculous.

According to one of the guards, when the pictures were made public there was a thirty-day amnesty period, during which a frenzy of shredding and other forms of cover-up went on. Too bad. One wonders how high up the chain of command more evidence might have led investigators. Of course, wherever the permission originated it must have been implied. Nobody ever said, "Torture the prisoners and have a ball." But of course no one has to because of the effect of "command pressure." That's when you know what the boss wants done without his or her having to tell you explicitly. ("Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?") When General Ric Sancheze pokes his finger in your chest over and over and exclaims, "I want Saddam Hussein!", you don't have to have second sight to interpret his statement. And in Sanchez's book, he describes Secretary Rumsfeld's response to a report on enhanced interrogation techniques. One of the techniques is standing upright for three straight hours. Rumsfeld objected and asked why only three hours? He himself spends all day on his feet.

One of the more interesting facts to emerge from this film. I suppose we've all seen the photo of the inmate standing on a wooden box. He's facing the camera. He's wearing a kind of poncho with a shredded hem, and there is a black hood over his head. His arms are outstretched and there seem to be metal wires attached to his fingers. The wires seemed to serve no purpose since they were attached to nothing. Here we learn that the prisoner had been told that he must stand on the box for hours on end, that the wires were electrodes, and that if he stepped down to the floor or fell off the box, he would be electrocuted. A casual glance at the photo wouldn't tell us that, and, of course, the prisoner himself was entirely wrong about the wires.

For all that sensationalistic stuff, the film is a bit of a bore. Most of the interviewees, once we've heard them say a few things, are uninterestingly ordinary. None seems evil. Few show remorse. Reenactments are minimal, which is all to the good as far as I'm concerned. Unlike Morris's earlier documentaries on an animal cemetery or a Texas murder case, none of the speakers really holds the camera in thrall. It could have been half an hour shorter and been more effective.


I recommend this film for viewing. The film maker was able to obtain direct interviews with some of the soldiers involved in this chapter of American history. I don't think it's unfair to say that it is an important record concerning the events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the American occupation. As such, it should be viewed by anyone interested in this subject.

I credit the film maker with allowing the soldiers involved to present some part of their story and also allowing one soldier to point out that only soldiers at lower levels would suffer prosecution.

The film would be better if it addressed the White House's views on torture and the legal documents giving rise to the same. Also, the film should have presented more opinions from the legal community regarding accepted standards of care for prisoners, prisoners of war, enemy combatants and the like.

Nonetheless, I found the film informative. I would not classify most documentaries as objective, and therefore, I don't mind the slanted view on the screen, but as far as film goes, the film maker did try to give the soldiers some opportunity to tell their story -- and their side of the story (that superiors were responsible for the policy) has some merit.

I'm saddened that these events were committed by Americans. As one of the soldiers pointed out  others actions have occurred that are more troubling  but nobody took pictures.

We as citizens of the US rely on our elected representatives to direct the foreign affairs of our country. Our Congress has oversight authority concerning these matters. Don't give up on the American system.

I did chuckle at the score during the human pyramid scene  truly stuporous.


What a crashing bore of a movie on a topic that deserved a much better treatment. Morris displays his customary heavy handedness in driving home the trivial and obvious points with excess, unneeded imagery. If you want to see a compelling story on this issue, told with much more flare and skill, see Taxi to the Dark Side. Don't waste your time on this, unless you need a good snooze. On display are Morris's usual techniques, employed to similar head-scratching ends as in Fog of War. At least there, we had an interesting character at the heart of the story and Morris lucked out with some poignant on-screen moments from McNamara. Here, he demonstrates that he has no intellectual or critical filter with which to sift facts. So, when one interviewee mentions the three cameras used to take the pictures at Abu G, we get a special effects image of each camera model floating in space as if this were some revelatory moment. When it is revealed that during an amnesty period after the Abu G scandal was revealed many photos and other documents were handed in a shredded, we get, not just a slow mo of shredded paper falling through the air, we get also get an entire cell block filled with bits of paper. In other words, every moment is punctuated with Morris's subtext: you're just too dumb to get what you just heard and I'm so enthralled with my movie making skills that I'm going to beat you over the head with this. This is not documentary film-making. This is rampant narcissism.


Errol Morris's new documentary "Standard Operating Procedure" attempts to challenge the very medium of photography and bring to light the injustices at Abu Ghraib. The film somewhat succeeds in the first respect but fumbles its way through the second. Documentaries are inherently subjective and set out to portray a certain angle; that being said what Director Errol Morris says are his intentions and what appears on the screen are two totally different things. The film stumbles through the events at Abu Ghraib but fails to retain any real emotion, fluidity or energy throughout the work.

Let's look at the good first. Errol Morris takes an interesting stance by constantly asking the viewers "What's outside the frame?" In a sense he's questioning the very medium he is using. This questioned is answered somewhat through testimonies but also quite literally by showing viewers photographs before they were cropped, such as the infamous leach photograph. Errol using some interesting techniques, most noticeably the use of the interotron. The interotron is a screen, similar to a TelePrompTer, that allows the interviewee to look directly into the camera, allowing for a more genuine first person feel to the film.

However, for everything Errol Morris does right, there are a myriad of things done wrong here. While the cinematography of the film interviews via the interotron is interesting, the editing that pieces it together is awful. The film will cut different angles of the same person talking with gaps of black transition that last for almost two seconds. These pauses of black beg you to question "Is the film over?" which is always no. The film clocks in at 117 minutes, but it might as well be four hours long, because that's what it feels like. You can only watch people talk at you for so long. Morris attempts to spice up the picture by using grainy, melodramatic, slow motion sequences that serve little purpose other than to pad an already long film's running time and to flesh out images of his imagination in an attempt to sway the audience to his kind of thinking.

Errol Morris has stated on several occasions that "Standard Operating Procedure" is not a political film. It sure feels like one. Morris paints himself as a detective, similarly to the way he did in "The Thin Blue Line", attempting to bring those truly responsible to justice. Those in the picture are responsible, but he wants to go after those higher up, who ordered the interrogation techniques and knew what was going on. The film merely graces that aspect, pointing a broad finger towards higher command and Bush administration. instead, the film indulges in the American atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, while sympathizing with those who were jailed. Morris also blatantly hints towards the fact that every cell block in every prison in Iraq is performing this sort of torture to this degree. Why no photographs of any other cell block have not leaked, you can decide.

"Standard Operating Procedure" is a failed documentary in that it attempts to be investigative but is so subjective in it's material that it just comes off as a fumbling clump of information. Nothing is truly resolved and more questions are asked than answered. It does give slightly more insight to the happenings at Abu Ghraib, but at almost two hours, S.O.P. is self aggrandizing and indulgent. Morris's political beliefs cloud his objectivity; the way he paints it, President Bush and Rumsfeld were fully aware from the beginning and actively trying to cover it up. Why would Morris take this approach? Because large government conspiracies are a whole lot more interesting than isolated incidents. In the end, there isn't a whole lot of reporting going on here as much as speculating.


It sounds like some sort of cheap sex farce, but this wonderful gem from MGM is actually a very sophisticated work. At its heart are the brilliant performances of five shining stars. Myrna Loy, her miraculously beautiful face subtlely registering her consumption by the green eyed monster. Clark Gable, exhaustingly energetic and effortlessly charming. May Robson, worldly wise and utterly compassionate. James Stewart, in an early supporting role displays the sincere simplicity that was to become his trademark. And Jean Harlow, luminous and intelligent - with a practical notion of love - but playing temptation better than any actor I've ever seen. Watch that scene where she takes off Gable's shoes. So sad that she died only a year after this film was made.

At the helm of this under-rated film is the great Clarence Brown, one of the great stylists of the cinema, who was able to take a simple story and give it depth - watch the gossip and the prejudice of the observers that slowly manipulate Loy, Gable and Harlow into distrusting themselves. Magnificent production and costume designs and great music flesh out the film, and make it a memorable experience. And it's very sexy for its time too! If it weren't for the slightly forced happy ending this film would be perfection itself.


It goes without saying that the best Myrna Loy movies have William Powell - but this movie has enough cast that it can virtually throw away Jimmy Stewart and still carry you along with the strength of the character performances. Clark "Big Ears" Gable is not my favorite star, but he plays the role of the loving but thoughtless husband perfectly. He believably pulls off being shrewd in business, but naive enough of his personal life to be almost innocent while looking completely guilty.

 Actually, it is the pair of leading ladies that makes this movie so great - Myrna Loy and Jean Harlow. Myrna is great in everything she does - and so is Harlow. Harlow is proof that the original is nearly always the best. Anyone who has ever enjoyed a Marilyn Monroe movie is simply watching second best - Harlow was the original "blonde bombshell" - and is still the best. Her usual forte is comedy, but she nails this light dramatic role perfectly. There are times when you don't know who to cheer for - the Wife or the Secretary - and that's the movie. The whole tension rides on which of these two ladies Gable chooses - or, rather, which one the audience wants him to choose. Myrna may have been the only actress who could have given Harlow a run for her money - and Harlow may have been the only one who could challenge Myrna Loy.

 Myrna Loy and Jean Harlow teamed up in another movie - "Libeled Lady" - another tour de force of casting with William Powell and Spencer Tracy along for the ride. "Lady" is a very good movie; a comedy with both drawing room and slapstick elements. This type of comedy is usually more my cup of tea, but as good as "Lady" is, "Wife vs. Secretary" is better - mainly because "Lady" doesn't let Harlow bust loose until the end of the movie.

 The light touch that these two great actresses bring to "Wife vs. Secretary" offsets one of the fundamental conflicts and tragedies of life - that though we are often presented with two paths in life, we can only choose one - knowing that we will always wonder about the other....


Jean Harlow is the secretary no wife wants her husband to have in "Wife vs. Secretary" starring Clark Gable, Myrna Loy, and Harlow, with an early appearance by James Stewart. It's hard to believe, looking at this film, that Jean Harlow would be dead a year later. Less blonde than in some earlier films, and far more subdued, she plays the indispensable, smart, and efficient secretary of Clark Gable. Gable is a high-pressured businessman happily married to Myrna Loy. All is well until her mother-in-law advises her to make Gable get rid of that good-looking assistant. Slowly, Loy begins to realize that everyone in their circle is assuming an affair, which up to that point hadn't crossed her mind. It does now.

Harlow is involved with James Stewart, and he doesn't want her to work after they get married. Her job, he feels, is too exciting and important and will threaten their marriage. Harlow is half in love with Gable and refuses to quit. Stewart is adorable and gives a hint of what will be truly be one of the great screen personas.

The cast is splendid. Gable is his usual charming self; Loy and Harlow are perfect casting as unique women who are complete opposites. Their final scene together consists of only a long look. It's very effective, as is the acting of both women throughout. Loy's scene with her mother-in-law is heartbreaking.

This is a dated film but very satisfying. Although it's wonderful to see these stars together, it's sad to realize they're all gone now, and that young Harlow has been gone for 68 years. Quite a loss.


This is a perfect little film, absolutely well-rounded and exquisite. Beautifully scripted, intelligently directed, ebulliently acted.

Clark Gable is the successful publisher, newly married to society lady Myrna Loy who, although very modern and not jealously disposed, begins to suspect that he is carrying on an affair with his bleach-blonde secretary, Jean Harlow. As Gable's mother states, laconically of her son, "You wouldn't blame a boy for stealing a piece of candy".

All fluff, right? Light as air, unsubstantial? Of course it is, it takes masters of their craft to make this plot stick, to make the movie plain unforgettable. Gable was never better, he seems to relish every second he is on screen, and there is none of the masculine stiffness about him that his worst performances have. He is a joy to watch with the always delightful Loy, their scenes together bristle and self-combust, and they are a really sweet, engaging couple. Loy has to be the most sophisticated creature ever to be filmed, she is SO cool and contemporary ("I'm the best, aren't I?", she says with just the slightest sardonic hint.) Harlow isn't given as much to work with, and she has to downplay her sassy sexiness in order not to tip the scales. But she is still almost all Harlow, and they go as far as they possibly could under the Production Code. The scene with Harlow and Gable in the Havana hotel room is all about sex, as we are left in no doubt.

So, watch it and love it. It is as perfect a piece of 30's film-making as you are likely to see.


I treasure this film for Jean Harlow's performance, capped by a magnificent, simple line reading: "You are a fool. For which I am grateful."

She had amazing range for an actress who died at 26. Howard Hughes presented her in "Hell's Angels" (1930) as an amoral menace to civilization. (When she slips into "something comfortable" she actually puts on clothes.) It would be charitable to call her appearance in that picture acting. Yet within a couple of years she could dominate the screen by the force of genuine talent.

Her starring career blazed briefly, but with almost no wasted roles. Here she gets to behave like a normal working class woman--not a débutante, nor a tenement dweller, nor a criminal's moll, nor a voracious mantrap, nor a comic banshee, nor an adventuress working the China Seas or Malay docksides.

Clark Gable and Myrna Loy have more customary roles. A part this quiet remains a rarity for the winsome, brilliant, and doomed Harlow.


Myrna Loy vs. Jean Harlow, and when the man in question is Clark Gable in his prime, I'd fight over him too. A typical situation comedy with the usual misunderstandings, plot contrivances, and double entendres, is made delightful from the magnificent cast from top to bottom. Fast-paced and frantic, this is one to lie back, prop your feet up, and enjoy.


Jean Harlow and Clark Gable do share chemistry. You can check it in any of the films they were together, but in this one it is so subtle and exquisite... From here on, it contains definitely spoilers: I've read that this is the typical story with a typical happy ending. I don't agree with that, in fact I strongly disagree. It is obvious that the secretary is attracted to the boss, just look at her staring at him in his bedroom, and she doesn't seem so drunk as he is. It is a story of sacrifice, a story about a non confident wife, an immature husband and a good girl who prefers to end up attached to one boy of her kind who doesn't want her to work and prefers her at home having lots of babies. Where is the happy ending???


In this wonderful comedy/drama, all three major stars go against their stereotyped roles. Clark Gable, for example, plays devoted husband and businessman instead of a tough guy like he usually does. Jean Harlow plays a hard working, good natured secretary, who doesn't seem to know just how damn sexy and gorgeous she is, and no wise cracks! Then there is the lovely Myrna Loy, who plays an extremely sexy wife (in contrast to her other wife roles). This could have been another formulaic, predictable film but the stars  Loy, Harlow and Gable  shine in their roles and make this a truly funny, magical film.

The conflict starts when Linda Stanhope's (a gorgeous Myrna Loy) mother in law makes a careless comment about how nice her son's (a dashing Clark Gable)  Linda's Husband - secretary (played by Jean Harlow) is. From there, a usually non-jealous Linda becomes increasingly suspicious to her husbands actions. Many things seem to point to the conclusion that Van is having an affair. Hm!

It's rather tragic that this brilliant piece of comedy is not that well known, as it should be. All three stars are exquisite and really entertaining to watch and raises above the boring, run of the mill comedy/dramas. Wife Vs. Secretary is a great movie - I thoroughly enjoyed it.


Honestly from the cover you could guess that this wasn't going to be something special. But still I had some small glamors of hope that it could prove better than it looks. Glamors that were soon diminished by countless problems regarding both plot and direction.

The "Yakuza Way" is a low budget action/crime flick starring the ever cool Riki Takeuchi as a yakuza member who has traveled to the U.S. for a drug deal. Hoping, after that he can start a new life. Suffice to say, events don't go his way and Takeuchi's character is forced to fight corrupt cops, and gangsters for revenge.

Director Shundo Ohkawa's attempt to make a Heroic Bloodshed film, backfires. This is neither heroic nor bloody. Yes the budget was small and it is understandable if some parts of the film looked a bit weak but the problem is that practically everything here is in fact, weak. Aside from Takeuchi who is his usual cool self, the acting from the support cast is bad and over the top. The cinematography is no good either, with a lot of unneeded overlong shots of cars driving by. They actually take a good portion of the film while not offering anything else in return. Choreography is another part that is poorly done. Several scenes come in mind where character movements are awkward and unrealistic to the films's supposed genre and overall feel.

There is really no reason to see "Yakuza Way" if you're not a Takeuchi fan. But even if you are, if you take besides the large amounts of unintential gags, you'll have trouble grasping any other form of entertainment from this poorly done crime flick.


The best example of cliche ridden "rules of action cinema" catch all coverage with more cliches thrown in to boot. For example, the Japanese speak English when no one is around to overhear. The token strip joint. The filler footage that doesn't support mood, story or entertainment value. The back story of dead loves lost and revenge owed to pretty much everyone anyone seems to encounter anywhere. This film is so wonderfully god awful, like Dukes of Hazard with Yakuza in LA, I'm lead to believe that York Entertainment may transcend even the likes of Full Moon and Troma for attaining levels of sheer cheese. Too bad York Entertainment didn't see fit to include gore or booty to make up for the deep hurting their product otherwise supplies.


Oh No... Why was this film made? I've seen some bad films in my time, but this is by far the worst!

The acting is terrible, and even though the film is only 1hr 15 mins long they keep reminding you with awful pieces of dialogue about what happened a few minutes ago. There certainly aren't any subliminal messages in this film!

The morality is fantastic - the cops just allow them to get away with murder and drug dealing because its "the Yakuza way"!!

Oh well, I suppose it gave some actors a little work for a while...

If you do watch it (and it's worth a laugh at least!) Check out the shoulder pads on the main character, and the shadow of the sound boom visible after the "yakuza" is given a necklace by his sister. Brilliant!! ....and I thought Robin Hood, Men in Tights was bad!


Shown at the MIFF as 'The Bridge in the Rain' (why? I dunno).

I almost didn't see this film as it sounded as if it could easily have been another of those 'mundane' foreign films but no, it was excellent.

Gustav, who originally intended to go to the Tokyo monastery, is the type who gets lost in supermarkets. The other brother, Uwe, ends up going along after drowning his sorrows when his wife leaves him. Unfortunately, Uwe seems to fit right in with the strict monastery life, much to Gustav's torment! He even copes better than his brother when they get lost and separated in Tokyo. They both have personal torment and sibling rivalry which is equally engaging and funny.

The monastery is in quiet, idyll surroundings out of Tokyo. A memorable line which hits home if you live in a big city comes in the form of a saying about 'hate' and anger - but I won't give it away.

I thought that the story could have gone in any number of possible directions with equally enjoyable results.

I also think that filming this on video and using footage from the video camera in the film enhanced the realism. A very memorable film.


This movie is really quite a feast. It shows two German brothers on a trip to Japan to visit a Zen monastery. Both brothers face personal questions: one has just been left by his wife, and the other, well, that comes too late in the film for me to discuss here.

Upon arriving in Tokyo, they settle in a comfortable hotel and go out for a night on the town. Problem: where is the hotel? At first this seems comical, but it quickly becomes a serious crisis.

They sleep in cardboard boxes on the street.

The brothers' ability to deal with these problems and their other problems are examined in the light of the daily mundane tasks they take upon themselves when they arrive at the monastery.

The movie handles religion very well. It shows the value of their meditation without getting overly preachy. It shows the brothers, especially Uwe, the one whose wife left him, trying very hard to find a meaning in what they do.

The movie is about people and the deep problems people have. Some viewers might find this boring, but I found it compelling. There is no one thing I can point to, but the whole feel of the movie and the characters seemed right.


"Enlightenment Guaranteed" is a wonderful film. Funny, visually interesting and intelligent. However, education about Buddhism is required, I think, for real appreciation of the film's layers of story telling. The independent film feeling was really charming. Ochsenknecht and Wohler work well as a comic team. The monastery scenes were fascinating and fun. There is a whole self consciousness of the play as a play that I really liked. It seemed more like small, alternative theater than film at times. I don't think this could be a commercial hit, simply because it takes a certain level of education and understanding of philosophy to get many of the jokes. The small audience, with whom I saw the film, were split down the middle. Half of them seemed as delighted as I was. Half seemed bored and restless. The German speakers near me were laughing as often and as loudly as I was. My own education in Buddhist practices was a major source of my appreciation for the film, I think. Well worth seeing, if you can find it.


I adored this movie; it was sweet, funny, honest, beautiful, and poetic; I was smitten. As a friend of mine (a film critic) wrote to me, "I've rarely seen anything that matches form to content in such an easy and really loving way."


If you want to see a little of the real Japan then watch this movie rather than "Lost in Translation" (which would have been better if it was filmed in New York so the director knew what she was talking about). Yes, it is a bit slow in some parts but anyone who has been on a self-finding journey will relate, and laugh even more at the funny situations they get into. Germans and Japanese have a lot in common so that makes the misunderstandings real rather than the usual "foreigners in Japan trying to make the Japanese seem like savage aliens".

In this time of reality TV and home-movies being used on various TV shows, the hand-held camera shots are very real. Also interesting is that the characters names are the actors real names so it adds to the effect.


Enlightenment Guaranteed may seem funny at first but in fact it's very serious and explicitly Buddhist, since it involves two German brothers and their adventures in getting into and out of Japan's Monzen Buddhist monastery. Unfortunately the only format in which it has been released in North America is German VHS with English Subtitled which is somehow disappointing but the beauty of the movie almost makes you forget this little problem, The more interesting fact is that the actors actually had to live the monastery life during the shooting: for two weeks they and the crew never left the Monzen grounds!


Though I haven't seen a lot of John Casavetes' work, apart from

that, this is one of the best modern (read: 1985-present) uses of

8mm film that I've ever seen. This is one of those films you just

have to throw yourself into. I'm not drawing a parallel between the

two--at all!--but people who have seen 'Neon Genesis Evangelion'

will recall how by the end of the first episode you had no idea what

was going on, right alongside the principle character. This movie

has a similar feel--It's unsettling at first, but ultimately presents

itself as a curiously wonderful juxtaposition of warmth and

coldness; interrelation and alienation. Very few films are capable

of doing this well. Oh, and as a side note -- this is NOT one of

those aimlessly meandering art films hell-bent on using 8mm to

generate indie/underground credibility. In sum: a thoughtfully

rewarding film about two very different German brothers lost in

Japan and discovering a fine gray line dividing the point of no

return from the point just before it and overcoming that dualism.


Doris Dorrie has got the uncanny knack of rendering us speechless with her serious comic sagas which depict mundane human foibles.Erleuchtung Garantiert recounts a few mirthful episodes in the lives of its "crazy about spirituality" protagonists Uwe and Gustav.Uwe has never meditated in his life but still believes that it would help him in lessening his conjugal distress.The problems arise for them as they foolishly spend all their money in Tokyo.Things come to such a pass that they are forced to spend a few restless nights on the streets.Uwe and Gustav seem to have lost themselves completely in a metropolis like Tokyo where everyone is busy chatting on their mobile phones.The path to enlightenment is tricky for them but they happily tolerate all inconveniences in order to find spiritual bliss.They finally reach the Monzen monastery where they comprehend their innate strengths and weaknesses.Uwe overcomes the agony arising out of his failed marriage.Gustav realizes that he was never happy leading the life as a heterosexual male.He grasps that he has always been a homosexual person.Even though Erleuchtung Garantiert has been shot on Digital Video,it still manages to retain its ineffable charm. Erleuchtung Garantiert's biggest positive feature is that it reveals how one should move away from the hustle and bustle of a materialistic society in order to gain inner happiness.


Warning, slight spoilers within To me, this was a fascinating Movie, about two Germans, leaving their (more or less)slowly eroding lives in Germany, and managing to live in Japan, a country they no pretty much nothing about (which surprised me concerning Gustav, a Zen Buddhist - I think it to be pretty much impossible to understand a religion without any knowledge about its cultural background). In Japan itself, they find two different worlds, the fast-paced metropolis of Tokyo, and the buddhist Temple, where time seems to stand still. All this leads to a huge amount of cultural "clashes", but of course, this is a comedy, so it doesn't end in prison. I really enjoyed these last two hours- but I was the perfect audience, so to say: As a German with huge interest in Japanese culture, a basic knowledge both of Japanese language and traditions(though in both I still have lots to learn) - I can understand many jokes which are often unnoticed. It was really entertaining to see how I myself would have reacted to being in Japan only two years ago. Therefore, much of the joy I had watching this movie may very well be coming from being proud of my own progress - which of course will not happen to most other viewers. Therefore I recommend this one to those who know a bit about Japan, knowledge about Germany might increase the fun, but isn't really necessary. Without knowing either country, this one is just a German comedy with fascinating pictures of a Japanese temple and an "artsy" touch - which isn't a bad thing, but not more than 7/10. For me though, i give 9/10.


This is a funny movie and an interesting perspective on culture shock (Germans in Japan) and, generally, of coming to terms with one's life. It is at least not as superficial as many other movies I've seen, and that's not because the dialog is in German or because it is mostly shot with a hand-held camera. It's just a different movie.

Don't expect, however, that a movie will give you the answers to everything, or that a movie, any movie, will depict Japan or Zen philosophy in their entirety and in detail. This movie, and any movie, will necessarily have loose ends and inconsistencies. Do expect to be amused for a couple of hours, what else can you ask for?


Usually I'm the first person to label this sort of movie. Look at it, you'd think it was bad. It's got the usual assortment of action movie clichés and conventions. The John Woo directed action scenes stretch over the top at times, there's the mentally unstable talkative nemesis and yes even one of those bombs that graces us with a digital readout. All prerequisites for movies of this type and saying all that I'd usually be complaining by now. Yet for one reason I can't. This movie entertained me. It finds a way to come together in a really enjoyably manner and I'm happy with what I got. I can't bad mouth it.

Nothing got in my way of everlasting enjoyment of seeing people die, bombs going off and the baritone guitar instrumental. It just all clicks from the get-go. If your reading this you don't need me to recycle the plot summary. It's of a trivial nature. Good action, decent cast and a fun atmosphere go a long way with Travolta ultimately holding it all together. He plays his role over-the-top and delivers some fantastic lines. It doesn't hurt that him and Slater tango well neither. If Travolta attempted this movie now instead of when he did - it wouldn't work. He's done too many goody-goody roles to come back down to this. Laws of nature will not allow him to make another good movie where he plays a bad guy. Chances are anyone else than Travolta in Broken Arrow and you'd be reading a completely different review right now too. A guilty pleasure if there ever was one.


If you want an action film in which the hero has a personality, and the bad guy has an even better personality, take a look at Broken Arrow. John Woo's choreographed action is not as dramatic as the Matrix-clone films that are so common today. He is great at creating interesting relationships between heroes and villains, and this film is a good example.

John Travolta is terrific. Christian Slater breaks typecast by playing a nice, sane soldier doing his duty. The love interest isn't an idiotic supermodel playing a nuclear scientist or something, but a park ranger, also doing her duty. She is cute, earthy, and actually believable.

If you want a film that will repeat every aspect of every other military adventure film you have ever seen, you will be disappointed. If dialog bores you, skip this film. If you like action movies filmed entirely in parking garages and spooky allies, then you will not appreciate the settings in this film in America's majestic West.


After "Terminator 2" this is one of the best directed action thrillers I have seen and it finds for ever a place in my best of DVD collection. There are two masters for action movies for me: John Woo and James Cameron. The stunts were great and all very real executed. I mean there doesn't exist any cartoonish scenes as we see today in the cinema at times. John Travolta did perhaps after "Face Off" one of the best jobs in his career. If you liked it I highly recommend the other broken arrow film called "The Sum of All Fears". "Broken Arrow" is incredibly underrated and should be classified as T2. For all action fans a must see, you won´t be disappointed.

My wife and I vote 9.5/10.


a madman has stolen two nuclear warheads and threatens to detonate them over a populated area if his demand for money is not met.that's the gist of the story.it stars John Travolta,Christian Slater,Samantha Mathis and Delroy Lindo,to name a few.it's a pulse pounding thriller from John Woo(mission Impossible 2).there's obviously a lot of action,and suspense,and the movie goes right down to the wire.John Travolta is good,as is Christian Slater,but i really liked Samantha Mathis,who i feel is and underrated actress.the action scenes are are exhilarating,though admittedly over the top.but for thrills,you can't beat it.for me,Broken Arrow is an 8/10


John Woo, after his many Hong Kong efforts, came to America and made Hard Target (1993), which due to studio interference and bad taking of direction by Jean Claude Van Damme, wasn't as good as it could have been. Woo got a bad reputation due to his conflicts with both the MPAA and Universal, and it took him awhile to get this one off of the ground. Woo had never worked with special effects, so he was treading into new territory. Luckily, he got two great leads, Christian Slater (soon to be in Windtalkers), and John Travolta (Face/Off). They take his direction well, and each gives a good performance. As the traditional villain's henchman, which I like to call Indestructable Villain Sidekick, Howie Long gives a good performance, and dies a good death too. I never appreciated this movie that much until watching it tonight, and I realized, this is probably the most action-packed movie in a long time. It takes only about 6 minutes to get going, and then, boom! boom! boom! Action sequence after the other, no let-down in between. This movie has plently of shootouts, explosions, and great innovative twists (kicking the rear blade of a helicopter to knock a gun out of one's hand) to make a action movie good. John Woo's cinematography, the great shared moments (the 20 dollar bill and whatnot) are what makes this one a great action movie. Another thing that makes this flick great is that it gave Woo the power to get Face/Off, his best Hollywood outing, the greenlight. I'm looking forward to Windtalkers and love all of Woo's movies.

9 outta 10.


Broken Arrow is a solid action film with equally impressive performances from both John Travolta and Christian Slater. The film is directed by John Woo. He's a popular Hong Kong director the man behind films like Face/Off, Paycheck, and Mission Impossible 2. John Travolta and Christian Slater are great in their roles as Deakins and Hale two friends turned adversaries after a training exercise goes awry. Travolta is terrific as the villain and Slater makes for a believable hero. Their scenes together are worth seeing it alone. The rest of the supporting cast including Samantha Mathis as Park Ranger Terry Carmichael, Delroy Lindo as Colonel Max Wilkins, and everyone else in the film are good in their roles. With the plenty of action, drama, suspense, thrills, and some humor Broken Arrow is an entertaining thrill ride with great performances by it's lead actors. A well made action thriller thats sure to please any fan of the genre.


Now you know when a film has you and is entertaining. Usually for me the indications are....1) I'm not bored 2) I'm not yawning 3) i don't have to make an excuse to goto to the toilet even when I don't need to. This film did not have me doing any of these things.

John Woo during the early to mid 90's had a range of good films in Hollywood before he went stupid during the 2000's. This along with Hard Target, Face/Off, Once a Thief and Mission Impossible 2 was one of them.

From the get go this movie had Woo written all over it....the slow motion shots, the double guns, John Travolta, and the Mexican stand off - although this time with a gun and a knife. From the opening boxing match, to the underground nuclear explosion and the climax on the train this movie thrilled.

Admittedley, as other commentators have pointed out...this is a run of the mill action movie which is elevated by John Woo, Travolta and Slater to above average. I hate to say this but I could watch this a second time and still not get bored with it.

Overall, this movie did do it for me. Great to have a pizza and a six pack on a Saturday night DVD fest with the guys.


Okay, so I've seen a lot of rated R movies before this and well before I turned 18. But I remember seeing the previews on TV, but not being able to see it in theaters because I was too young, so when it came out on video, I would ride my bike down to the video store to rent it countless times a month. Surprisingly, the folks liked it too and didn't mind me watching it over and over. At first I thought it was over the top, but I really liked the soundtrack(by Hans Zimmer, one of my favorite composers), and as I watched it more for the soundtrack, the over all experience of the movie grew on me. The theme for Travolta's character just made him the badass his character needed to be. Slaters unlikely role as the scrawny hero worked out for the betterment of the film and his character. Long's only good film appearance as the muscular right hand man fit him to the T. John Woo's affinity for action movies is exemplified in this film. Mathis's role as the female element was believable(she didn't come off as a dit and one could see her has a park ranger because her proportions weren't medically exaggerated). The shootout in the mine, the Humvee chase, the Helicopter pursuit of slater and Mathis, the opening scene with a fight in the cockpit of the stealth bomber, and the climatic train sequence made this a cool movie. So what if it wasn't Oscar material, not every movie is, and the ones that aren't are the most entertaining. I now attribute this movie as my start into movie loving and becoming a connoisseur.


My Take: Mindless, balls-to-the-wall action thriller. Grab on to that chair.

BROKEN ARROW may be required to take a deep long breath, because when it starts, it's a ripping action-packed joy ride complete with guns, explosions, action heroes, great baddies, helicopters, jeeps, chases and all under the great helm of Hong Kong action god John Woo, here having a filed day with special effects, stunts and style. It may be off on implausibility, but you won't need much to think about once the theater gets dark. And when the theater does get dark, and the film starts, the action just keeps pouring in. Woo delivers style over substance (there's more action here than plot), but what style! This is one of the finest piece of action escapism in years, it's also one of the most stylish ones.

John Travolta and Christian Slater star as two military pilots who volunteers to transport two nuclear warheads via Stealth Bomber jet. Turns out, the true reason is Maj. Deakins (Travolta), who is still in a grudge after being passed from promotion for a long time, is out to steal the two bombs and hold the for ransom. When he ejects his partner Capt. Riley Hale (Slater) and crashes the jet in the middle of the desert, Hale is out to stop his old partner from detonating the nuclear bombs if his demands of a large amount of cash is met. Samantha Mathis co-stars as a local sheriff Terry Carmichael who gets caught up in the entire mess, and ends up helping Hale out to stop Deakins from going ballistic (there are very few romantic in-turns between the two, just for the good of it).

The film runs at 108 minutes, and Woo doesn't let things up. There's action here and action there. It's wall-to-wall full of action and less plot in comparison. The film's plot resembles that of the previous year's hit SPEED, which may due to the writer being Graham Yost, who also wrote that recent blockbuster hit. But who cares, both films take liberty from the DIE HARD films, and they both turned up well. In the matter of execution, this derivative affair is brought with style and pure wall-to-wall action and thrills. And, under Woo's hands, the action is done with style and freshness.

Although with a large amount of violence, Woo is the kind of action who treats them like paint in his canvas. Action fans will be pleased by how who treats the heart-pounding excitement and pure action as his ballet . It's action filmdom as a form of art. Highly recommended!

Rating: **** out of 5.