Mateo Scuro, like his name, is in the dark. Both symbolically and really. With his thick-lens glasses, Mateo looks out at a world that has become distorted by progress, poor eyesight and the reality of being forgotten. A pensioner who has not seen his children in years, Mateo says goodbye to his wife in Sicily and travels to the mainland of Italy to begin a journey to see his five children. He wants to surprise them and so he does not tell them of his plans. But the real surprises are waiting for Mateo.

Traveling from one city to the next, Mateo calls on each child with great anticipation to see the meaningful impact they are having on Italian life. But life quickly hits Mateo squarely between the eyes and forces him to see clearly. Each child is hiding something from their father who does not see well. Their lives are not what they appear to be. They are unhappy working in menial jobs or with their relationships. But their real secret is the crushing blow for a doting father. The youngest son, Alvaro, has committed suicide and none of the others can bring themselves to telling their father the truth.

Toward the end of Tornatore's cinematic statement about the isolation of being forgotten, Mateo and his two surviving sons meet for dinner. His daughters, grandchildren and of course, Alvaro, are not present. This staple of Italian life and joy, the family table, now becomes Mateo's nightmare when he learns of Alvaro's death.

Tornatore is a master of the dream sequence. In the tradition of Fellini and Wertmueller, Tornatore give us insight into Mateo's deepest fears of losing his family through a dream. We see a large, black balloon, with tether ropes hanging down, descend on a beach where Mateo, his wife and children are playing years before. As this balloon descends, picks up his children and carries them away, Mateo runs to them but cannot reach them. He watches them float away into the sky. This foreshadowing of Mateo's life comes to fruition when at the film's end, Mateo is in a hospital room recovering from an episode of what can only be interpreted as the most profound disappointment of all--the loss of one's family.

Upon returning home, the camera is looking into the eyes of Mateo as he recounts to his wife the details of his trip. However as the camera pans back, we see that Mateo is speaking to the headstone of the grave where his wife is buried. As he answers his wife's imagined question of how the children are, Mateo answers, "Stanno tutti bene" (Everyone's fine).

Tornatore uses dream sequences and the symbolism of being out of focus as well as in the dark with masterful irony. These images are driven home with all the force of a sledge hammer as the director takes the viewer, through Mateo, on a journey of anticipated-joys, awakenings and ultimate disillusions.

Mateo's dreams, failing eyesight and loneliness are his steadfast companions through his remaining years. Tornatore paints a picture for the viewer of life as a deception from the most unlikeliest of sources--those we love the most. For Mateo, being in the dark is the best kind of medicine he could hope for--a world where Stanno Tutti Bene.


This film should not be missed, it's an amazing job by one of the best actors, Mr. Mastroianni has shown us what acting is all about. What a wonderful story... what a wonderful film!


Facing one's parents, the sentence mostly said from us is "everybody's fine". The grown up children don't want their older parents to worry about them, and hide their problems and sadness. Sometimes, to find the truth out may not be the best way. The movie shows us the permanent love from parents and reminds us to review the relationship with parents. Very touching and lovely movie.


I saw this film many years ago, and still think of it as one of the finest movies ever. The reason I came today to comment it is that while reviewing the comments about another film I saw yesterday, I find that that that one was among the 50 best films in IMDB. While that move was good, I could not see how this one is not even among the 250 best.

If you are a father of children who moved away, or if you are a child who moved away from your birthplace, you will appreciate this movie. It applies to Italian immigrants, or to African immigrants in Italy (there is a scene showing them sleeping in cardboard boxes that shows how human is that experience of being alone in a foreign place). you do not even have to leave your country, as this movie shows, to find yourself trying to make it alone, and trying to make your parents believe that you are OK. Of course, like in every good lie, some help from the person being lied is also needed.

If you can rent it, or if you hear of this movie being shown on your local station, please see it. It will be one of the best movies you will se in your life. It is a 10/10 for me.


STB is an Italian movie through and through - the only atypical quality being that it doesn't stink. (And that there isn't the usual amount of shouting.) This is a sort of sentimental road movie/comedy with the obligatory festival-crowd-pleasing surreal scenes, such as people freezing up at stations or a huge balloon/jelly-fish/whatever lifting up all of Mastroianni's kids up into the air. That's the sort of Felini-like stuff which IQ-starved film students go absolutely ga-ga over, regardless of whether it relates to the rest of the movie or not. "Weird stuff! Yeaaah!"

As far as I'm concerned, STB isn't dull and that's all that matters. Besides, its experimental approach (if one can call it that) never has an air of pretentious baloney about it. Perhaps we have Mastroianni to thank for that, who plays it very down-to-Earth. Even when he spits out wise words of advice to his offspring there isn't that unrealistic expectation from the viewer to gasp with shock, bewilderment and awe, something very common in so many other European movies, especially from the 60s and 70s. Too many directors think they reveal the secrets of the universe in their modest little underachieving flicks. Not the case here; at least not in annoying amounts. STB is likable and even amusing at times.

As for the "experimental approach", if every other movie that Italians (and other Continentals) release has the same type of surreal silliness going on, then it isn't really experimental anymore, is it? It becomes normal, unsurprising, stale even.

It's far easier to cobble up a script chock-full of "metaphoric" nonsense than to actually sit down and write a compact, stirring script with a beginning, middle, and end. STB leans far more heavily toward the latter.


This film is definitely different in perspective on family life compared to "Cinema Paradiso". It is not as sentimental, but very real. The viewer is able to see everything in the father's eyes, played by Marcello Mastroianni. When he sees his children, he sees them how they once were -- not as adults. Mastroianni is always excellent. It is funny though to see him as a father and a grandfather when one is so used to seeing him as a bachelor, like in "La Dolce Vita". I was able to feel the love he had for his children and also the hurt when the truth was brought out in front of him. We all want so much for our children and it is painful to see it otherwise. An excellent statement. Besides the message the film brought, it also gave the viewer a good dose of the italian countryside, Roma, and Milano. The travel scenes were an added touch. Nothing can beat "Cinema Paradiso" in tenderness, but "Stanno tutti bene" is not too far off!


Familial love and deceptions form the basis for this witty, endearing movie. Like Cinema Paradiso, from the same director, this film shows the limits of nostalgia -- and the magic of it. Heavy sentimentality.


How easy is it for desperate youngsters to become dangerous gangsters in a decaying society washed all over by the blood of war? Fairly easy indeed. Rane shows incidents, probably somewhat facts, that took place in Serbia of the war era. Things similar to what you see on this film could happen virtually everywhere, but this film gives a very Yugoslavian feeling to everything. Yugo style mafia, Yugo style murder, and all that. Revolting politicians and their greed are to blame, not only the desperate young men who lose their reasoning while trying to be someone. The film and the casting is overall successful, and it's so very Serbian. I recommend it to anyone who.. well anyone who likes a good film. But don't expect anything American style on this one, as I say it's Yugo to the bone. 9/10.


This is one of the best films ever made. But it is underrated, how come "No mans land" was so successful in the world (it even got an Oscar), and this one is not? It is very realistic and tragic film, with a little dose of humor. But this humor is not funny if you know how it was and still is there.

The last lines of Pinki, when there is no more picture, only darkness left, and he dies when he said: "A sve mi se nesto cini, da sam prosao bolje od vas" or in translation: "I still have a weird feeling, that I came through better then you." - one of the best movie endings ever. Except maybe Fight club.


This is the best gangster movie I saw since Scarface. It tells the story of two teenagers growing up in the anarchy of the post Berlin wall Eastern Europe. The movie's narration is so slick that it only proves that Dragojevic(Preety Villages, Preety Flames) is one of the best European directors.


One of those in UR face, intense, violent pieces that U won't soon forget...tells the story of three youths and how their lives are shaped by their war-torn surroundings...never had any idea that this movie was going to be so RAW...whoa...a cross between "Natural Born Killers" and "Scarface"...


Srdan Dragojevic does it again! After "We are not Angels" and "Pretty Villages, Pretty Flames" he wrote and directed another masterpiece. This is one of the best gangster movies I saw. What makes it even stronger is the fact that Beograd underworld really looked like that between 1992 and 1997. Someone who isn't familiar with the situation in Serbia during those years of sanctions might think that some things in the movie are exaggerated but they are not. This movie makes fun of everything. From former Yugoslavia to todays Serbia, from Tito to Milosevic and whole situation in Serbia during those years. Actors are great, especially Dusan Pekic (Pinki) and Milan Maric (Svaba). I hope that people across Europe and USA will get a chance to see this movie.


In this film you'll see the sort of things you see when you quick-empty a bottle of vodka and then go and start a civil war. And blow up a whole country and all that. Shocking cinema for the movie-goer, in-you-face history for the social scientist type, bad memories for those that lived through it. Kids growing up to be gangsters in the post-Yugoslav hood. Sanctions-busting crime and normal crime are their path of socialization in the new and uncharted world, where TV crime shows will give them some patterns to follow, but since they're not the faint of heart, they'll soon make their own rules.

It would be 10 out of 10 as a gangster movie, yes, but it's 10 out of 10 in many other genres as well. Cruelly satirical blends with insightfully revealing in the portrayal of the era. As our lead characters go out of control, they present you with the uncontrollable dynamics of post-Yugoslav reality, that were beyond the point of no return before most realized. There is the whole story of the former Yugoslavia in the interactions. And the film, typically for its hellishly dark style, even proposes its own very special cure that no UN-sponsored mediation training will ever teach as one to be followed, I'm sure.


This movie leaves bitter taste in my mouth and soul, like nothing else I've ever seen. This is the story of one whole generation, a kids just few years younger then me (1972), who have grown up in time and place where most of values ware lost. This is a story of one entire nation (my people) falling down to the very bottom and staying there until they lost all their hopes. This is the story about the little people behind the war and politics, as never spoken so far, since it never happened to You. And finally, this is the story about the fifteen year old boys who's biggest chance in the life was to become a criminals... and they took that chance, never regarding for it.


This is another of a number of post Titoist Yugoslav films that deals with tragedy of the Yugoslav Split from 1991 to 1996. In the spirit of Underground, Lepo Selo Lepo Gore, and more recently Bure Baruta; the film makers use a very dark form of humour to state their disatisfaction with the times and the system of that period in the capital of Belgrade.

Like the other films, a thorough understanding of the Serbian mentality and the background to the events of 1991-1996 is crucial in making sense of many of the themes and images seen in the film. This probably a bad facet of this film for a lack of understanding by the viewer paints the picture of the Serbs even darker than it actually is.

The viewer should also keep in mind that Belgrade is not a fair and complete reflection of Serbia and the Serbian people as would the rediculous idea that Paris is a reflection of France. This would have to be one of the biggest criticism that can be and should be aimed at the current school of Serbian producers, directors and writers.


The movie is excellent, it's a pure reality! What's more, i think that these a******s from RTS ( Serbian TV and radio broadcast ( controled by Milosevic )) didn't even knew that they were digging the grave for themselves when they have invested the money in the movie! I want to say that "The Wounds" are the best movie recorded in Yugoslavia last year, and that everything in it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God!


Since I'm quite familiar with the Serbian nation and their people, I can just paid credit to the director for a perfect direction of a perfect movie that's based on a pure reality showing every detail without any exaggeration at all. I already watched the movie several times and I'd watch it over and over again without being bored even a minute. The movie itself shows how the life was in the ex-Yu (Belgrade) and I have to give credit to Pinki's father who in my opinion was the best actor alongside Kure, for brilliantly playing the role of a redundant officer, reflecting his huge disappointment towards the government for releasing him from his duties and for never being able to enjoy "his five minutes", despite committing himself 100% to the army in his entire life. I guess that was just one of so many disappointments shown during the movie and there are so many more things which unfortunately could not be shown in the movie, apart from the battles between the Serbian and croatian forces in the short sequence that was shown on TV. That was maybe one of the reasons that the people of Serbia hardly knew what was going around their country and what their government had been up to, while the queues for buying bread were miles long... as it's shown in the movie. Once again credit to the director, crew and especially the actors for performing at the highest level possible.


The Serbian version of Scarface. The translation is accurate most of the time, however understanding the language definitely makes for a more live presentation. In my opinion it suffers somewhat from a low budget yet still manages to impress with screenplay and the gruesome reality it shows. Ulike Scarface many stories such as this one unfolded amongst Serbian youth. Even today the sings of war haven't vanished. Present is the poverty driven human mind on the look out for a better tomorrow. The same state of mind that influenced this picture is still visible on our streets. As time passes by the situation improves but our youth still grow up in ghettos, wanting out of the trap. Simply put it is a masterpiece.


You can talk about what serbs are and everything, but what people don't understand is that serbians were in almost every single war on the world. WW1 & WW2 Then in 91 with the Croatians and Bosnians. It is true that i am a Serb, but my 2 best friends are Croatian. What the world is telling me (America) is that i want to kill croatians!! But thats not true. There is however people over there. Croatians want to kill serbs, and serbs that want to kill croatians, plus bosnians don't differ. The movie rane, shows how the young generation was growing up when Milosevic was in power. That is what made my country bleed and suffer. Drugs, money,alchocol,weapons communism poisoned my country then milosevic killed it. People have to realise that, how this movie was made...its based on truth. I don't understand, seems as though today everybody hates serbs, but through all this time we are still here...thats why our people have a saying "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" which translates - "Only Faith Saves Serbs"


better than a City of god. what a movie ma man? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... what i have notice in this Serbian movies is: brother will do everything for the brother.

Croatian is the best ha ha ha - what a lover guy?! Great twist on the end! But also why they did not fu the singer? the Kurabic girl? they could? The most funny thing is when they shouting memorials at the Grey yard.. i did not get the idea? did they shout the Croatian surnames ha ha ha. Who actually has kill the Kurabic? Production is very good. English subtitles also. Actors are perfect match - no fake - that what I like in the movies.


First, let me note that there seems to be different versions of the film floating around on home video. A few reviews complain about poorly lit or dark scenes. Someone mentioned that there's a bad pan & scan version floating around. And apparently, in the early history of the film, there was a badly cut version making the rounds with the title Cars That Eat People. That may have even ended up on VHS. So make sure you get the Home Vision Entertainment DVD released in 2003. It also has director Peter Weir's film The Plumber (1979) as a bonus, plus interviews with Weir about each film, as well as trailers. More importantly, it has a pristine, original widescreen cut of The Cars That Ate Paris. As long as you have your television or monitor set up correctly, the film has remarkably crisp, frequently beautiful cinematography that looks like it could have been shot yesterday.

There also seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the film. Basically, The Cars That Ate Paris is a quirky art-house drama. Yes, it has elements of (macabre) humor, horror and many other genres, but those are not a focus. The Cars That Ate Paris is as much a western as it is a horror film, which is not to say that it doesn't have elements of the western genre--it does. But the tone is much more similar to, say, Bagdad Café (aka Out of Rosenheim, 1987) or Delicatessen (1991) (hmmm--notice the culinary metaphor motif). If you want to think of The Cars That Ate Paris as a horror film--and it is basically a surrealist nightmare--think of it as something like Maximum Overdrive (1986)/Trucks ((1997) meets Horror Hotel (aka City of the Dead, 1960), but made by David Lynch as a "realist" soap opera.

So what is the film about more literally? Well, it's best perhaps if you know as little about it before as possible, but on the other hand, it's a bit cryptic, and Peter Weir isn't exactly forthcoming with explanatory exposition--the film remains very open to interpretation to the end--so maybe a vague description won't hurt. The Paris of the title is not in France. It's instead a small, bucolic village in rural Australia. The town has quite a few "dirty secrets". The two primary secrets have to do with an automobile (part) obsession and a program of human experimentation. For the most part, they try to keep people out of the town, which has a very small population, but their twisted fetishes necessitate the occasional admission of outsiders, though in an unusual, involuntary manner. The film is centered on the story of one particular outsider, Arthur Waldo (Terry Camilleri), who manages to enter Paris relatively unscathed and who for unspecified reasons is worked into the fabric of the town. Arthur's arrival and integration roughly corresponds to a growing cleavage between generations, or at least between the status quo and a rebellious group of younger men, and he unwittingly serves as a catalyst to what amounts to a civil war.

Although in Peter Weir's video interview included on the DVD he refers to Arthur as an unsympathetic protagonist, I beg to differ. Camilleri plays Arthur as an enigmatically captivating simpleton--the most entrancing "blank" personality this side of Peter Sellers' Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (1979). For most of the film, Weir shuttles Arthur around like a pawn, enabling a metaphorical window through which to satirically examine small town (Australian) life. In this respect, The Cars That Ate Paris somewhat resembles the basic gist of Lars von Trier's Dogville (2003), except that unlike Dogville, The Cars That Ate Paris is a good film.

It's particularly funny how Arthur is shuttled into a variety of jobs, which he is assumed qualified for by a mere change of clothing (and very minor changes at that) and title. He's a doctor one moment, a parking enforcer the next. Weir works in satirical jabs towards everything from appealing to noble grand narratives about pioneer forefathers to the discrepancy between religious, private and political life, the myth of the well-adjusted nuclear family, the charade of public ceremonies, and even partakes in a slight Lord of the Flies-styled commentary on "progress".

But not everything is social critique. Weir is just as concerned with (and just as good at) imbibing in quirkiness for its own sake (although even that stuff we could read as a critique on social conventions if we wanted to) and see-sawing between a kind of community existentialist nightmare and an Our Town-like small village drama. And just in case that's too balanced, every so often he puts us in the middle of a spaghetti western, with the beginnings of mid-street showdowns. Much of the rebellious youth material can be interpreted as a western with hodge-podge automobiles, which is probably why those youths are the ones to don clothing that looks as if Weir borrowed it from the set of A Fistful of Dollars (aka Per un pugno di dollari, 1964).

The music is similarly disparate, ranging from techno-psychedelia that's something like Pink Floyd's "Time" to pensive contemporary-sounding themes, or the hilariously amateurish performance at the Paris Ball.

This is definitely not a film for all tastes. If you wouldn't typically like art-house films, you probably won't appreciate The Cars That Ate Paris, either, and even if you do typically like art-house films, you probably won't appreciate The Cars That Ate Paris unless you have a strong taste for the bizarre and macabre.


Before Peter Weir got really famous, he made this strange but worth seeing flick about a small town in Australia whose local economy centers on car wrecks, and how they draw an outsider in. "The Cars That Ate Paris" doesn't star anyone whom you would recognize, and there's no big action scenes here, but that actually gives the movie a more realistic feeling.

I should identify that this is not a movie for those with short attention spans. It's not likely to stick heavily in your memory the way that most of Peter Weir's movies do (it's certainly not my favorite of his movies). But still, it's something to check out as a historical reference if nothing else.

"I can drive!" You'll probably feel like you can too.


Peter Weir's first film and, looking back to when I originally saw this on general release, this could be described as my first exploitation movie. I always had a soft spot for it and later recognised elements from such video treats as, 2000 Maniacs. Not overlong, it still seems a little slow now at times but it's probably because unlike in the mid 70s when this was considered unique , so much else has been seen. Even so it's well worth watching and whilst in my memory this was all about dressed up cars battling it out, this is , in fact, much more a cynical view of the director's homeland. The mayor who at first seems protective and halfway decent turns out to be the 'fascist' for whom this whole enterprise is run. Paris, Australia, of course, not France although the enigmatic finale will have you guessing.


This truly odd and eccentric black comedy is especially worth checking out in order to notice how drastically Peter Weir's filming style changed from dared and out-of-the-ordinary cult in the 1970's to dull and politically correct rubbish in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. No matter how popular and acclaimed films like "Dead Poets Society", "Master & Commander" and "The Truman Show" are, they're blunt compared to the uniqueness and virility of "The Cars that Ate Paris". At least this film doesn't feature tiresome morality speeches and here the dialogues are, in fact, surprisingly controversial most of the time. For example; when explaining to total strangers that you accidentally killed a old man by accidentally running your car over him, do you expect them to reply with: "Yeah, those old pedestrians are a real problem, aren't they?" Welcome to Paris; a remote little outback Australian town where the people go to church, love their families and where the economy entirely thrives on one thing: car crashes! The whole town assists in deliberately causing accidents and then use the parts and accessories as currency to buy stuff in the shops. The outsiders from the accidents either end up in the graveyard, as medical guinea pigs in the local hospital or  as in protagonist Arthur Waldo's case  as brand new residents of Paris and close friends to the mayor. It's truly close to brilliant how Peter Weir manages to sustain the friendly and nonthreatening tone throughout the whole movie. All members of the community are basically insane psychopaths, yet you symphatize with them a lot more because the "hero" (Arthur) is such an antipathetic loser and the young generation (that eventually revolts against the town's ancient habits) are boisterous and uncanny freaks. Even the mayor, who's really the evil mastermind, is portrayed like a jolly figure with whom you'd love to chat. I know that most people wish to forget their viewing of "The Cars that Ate Paris" because it moves slow and looks dark, but the basic premise really is one of the best horror ideas ever coming from Australian cinema. And that WV Beetle covered in spikes is a highly memorable piece of scenery!


A camp horror classic and Weir's feature debut. It's smart, gross, cheeky, macabre and just great.

Don't watch it if you think low budget is the same as being 'amateurish' because it's not. And if you're not used to Australian English, well, try not to panic. Doesn't matter if you don't get every word - just go with it!

This is the kind of film you don't see much any more, perhaps a product of its era. They weren't thinking much about marketing or target demographics - these filmmakers were just having a lot of fun, experimenting and coming up with something unique. Genre crossing, challenging and freaky, it also taps into some big themes about Australian identity and paranoia.


Arthur survives a car crash, but his brother was not so lucky. When he finally comes around he finds out he's in small country town called Parris and the local mayor tries to get Arthur to become a citizen. Strangely there some offbeat things going on in Paris and when the traumatised Arthur tries to leave he realises that he's trapped in this hell of a town. But what becomes a shock to Arthur is when he discovers the main source of income is that of salvaging parts of passing motorist's car after causing them to have a car accident.

Peter Weir's first feature is a kooky, low-budgeted flick that I saw quite awhile back, but I did not remember too much about it, other than the devilishly looking sliver Volkswagen covered with spikes. I actually managed to record it off TV only couple nights ago and I just finally got around to seeing it again. This cult film I still find to be one tasty dark comedy that has a biting satirical edge about it. It ain't a perfect production and the film is highly incoherent, but damn the novelty behind it is far from generic, which made it such an engrossing and energetic exercise. Weir went onto make some prime films in the 70s with "Picnic at Hanging Rock" being his most vintage of his work in the period. "The Cars that Ate Paris" was a learning step in that right direction and a chance to find his feet. While the enigmatic story leaves many things up in the air with it's odd assortment of characters and ironic turns, but it's Weir's creative style and sly humour that shines through. Some of the satirical comments worked into the picture is that of Australia's obsession with automobiles to that of rebellion with the younger generation disrespecting their elders' terms. Weir is able to poke fun at these points with such nice balance of black humour and the smirking tone of it all really does stick to you without losing its way. There's some unbelievably humorous quotes in the dialogue too. But I actually found some disturbing scenes in the way how this car fetish lifestyle (a guilty sin waiting to break out) has become part of everyday life for the town that the harshness devoted on unexpected motorists is simply part of the parcel. It's a dog eat dog world in Paris. The actual feel of the film towards it deterioration of the town and menacingly, designed cars you could say goes on to find its way into the Mad Max films. Even a little homage of a spaghetti western standoff creeps in. There's not much in a way of suspense and it lumbers about in patches, but when the mayhem escalates it's plain devastating in its terrorising short bursts. The violence on the other hand isn't shy either with being well conceived and there's one memorable aftermath. The rural location and inhabitants of the town are simply alienating in their welcoming vibe and also with an eerie score that gives out a groovy twang that works up the mood rather effectively. There's just something essentially, whimsical about Bruce Smeaton's variety of tunes. The relax performances are adequate even though the characters are pretty much vacant shells, since most of the effort went into the look and thick atmosphere. John Meillon is great as the self-righteous Mayor and Terry Camilleri was solid as the timid Arthur who I actually sympathised for. The manipulative relationship between the Mayor who basically adopts Arthur as a son is an interesting set-up. Another recognizable performance that stood out was Bruce Spence as the very loopy Charlie. Simply a fun movie that's hardly dull, because it rambles along with many awkward situations and black humour.

It's not for everyone, but people who are interested in Weir's work or that of odd premises should give it a go.


Peter Weir made his directorial debut with this truly bizarre and unique blackly humorous multi-genre pastiche that's a compellingly novel and singular blend of horror, Western and sci-fi conventions mixed together into a jarringly offbeat whole.

A pleasant, mild-mannered American tourist (a sweetly amiable performance by Terry Camilleri) finds himself trapped in a remote backwoods Australian hamlet after he narrowly survives a car crash. The naive, gullible yank soon discovers that things are not exactly quite right and okay in the deceptively sleepy burg. For starters, that car crash wasn't an accident; it was deliberately staged by the resourceful and enterprising townspeople who eke out a living by salvaging car parts from wrecked vehicles. Then there's a resident mad scientist who's fond of experimenting on car crash survivors, turning the hapless folks into mute lobotomized imbeciles called "veggies." And the local drag-racing teenage hooligans are getting increasingly out of control, carousing about in their lethal, garishly made-up cars (one sports spikes all along its body like a porcupine!) until the wee hours of the morning and making a real nuisance of themselves. The town's friendly, but ineffectual mayor (winningly played by John Mellion) offers Camilleri the plum job of parking superintendent in a desperate attempt to restore law and order.

The quirky, imaginative script by Weir, Keith Gow and Piers David ingeniously uses the oddball premise as an ideal springboard for barbed social commentary on the perils of cross country traveling, the very modern dangers the automobile poses to quiet everyday life, how isolated communities cut off from the rest of civilization can easily degenerate into barbarism and lawlessness, the extreme measures impoverished people will resort to in order to get by in life, and even a wacky generation gap conflict pitting uptight, disciplined, morally rigid adults against rowdy, uninhibited nihilist youth. Weirs' direction is precariously pitched between the grimly horrific and the darkly facetious, boldly maintaining an uneasy tone which keeps the viewer constantly off guard and gives the irregular proceedings a potently unsettling weirded-out edge. John McLean's grainy, luridly grungy cinematography allows the Australian outback to take on a scary, nightmarishly surreal aura while Bruce Smeaton's sometimes dissonant, more often strangely jaunty rock-tinged score adds substantially to the pervasively unnerving nuttiness. An authentically grotesque and intriguing one-of-a-kind curio.


Weir's first film is hardly a milestone in the history of cinema. The title is misleading inasmuch that it promises or at least suggests light-hearted goofiness. It's supposed to be a satire of some sort, but you won't find any laughs here. There is a weird feel to the whole film. It's about a small town of people who make car accidents happen so that they can loot and what not. For some reason Weir draws a clear line between the town's youth and the town's older folk; the youth is out of control and relishes the violence, while the older citizens are calm, collected, and regard the whole thing as merely business. This distinction between generations is what Weir was trying to get at. Right? But what exactly his point was, I'm not sure.

If you want early Weir, ignore this, and watch "Picnic At Hanging Rock" instead: his best movie.


In this movie, Paris is basically a typical Third World nation in microcosm: You have a charismatic dictator (the Mayor) surrounded by yes-men and flunkies, an economy that has no real industry as such and forced to take "foreign aid" any way it can, a populace who is so dependent on the dictator's policies that it will support them whatever the moral cost--and not challenge him when times go bad, and the army (the kids with the hot rod cars) who do the dirty work but don't share the benefits and have no future. There is a perversion of civil society, law and order, and moral justice that is acceptable to the "Parisians" but wouldn't be acceptable in a "free" society.

The protagonist comes to Paris as a refugee, accepts the situation, and witnesses the chaos when the moral cost of the Mayor's racket hits a tipping point and people start voting with their gas pedals. The monsters in this movie are the ones we breed in our own societies when those in power do what they want (even if they believe it is for the greater good) and enact unethical policies.


This is my all-time favorite movie. It might seem a pretty strange film at a distance of 30 years; perhaps you had to be living in Australia in 1972 to appreciate it. Peter Weir made 'The Cars That Ate Paris' about the same time as 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' (which was much more successful at the box office and won a lot more critical acclaim). One top film critic at the time commented that 'Picnic' with all its ethereal mystery was Weir's take on sci-fi movies, while 'Cars' was an allegory of the vampire movie. Vampire films are meant to be gory and crass with low-budget special effects; so is 'Cars'. It resonates perfectly with the 1970's Australian shock-horror tabloid culture about road accidents, violence, bikie gangs, rebellion, drugs and guilty pleasures. The understated menace of the small-town violence is brilliant, a precursor of modern Australian horror films like 'Wolf Creek'. The pathetic impotence of the older generation is also a classic 1970's theme. The intentionally low budget production style is another hallmark of Australian creativity. To me this film encapsulates and satirises everything that happened in 1970's Australia, and I cherish it.


Plot Summary: Man crashes car in weird town that causes car crashes for profit.

"The Cars That Ate Paris" has the death knell label of 'cult' film. So it is a very much love it or hate it affair. But unlike the main contenders of that ilk such as Rocky Horror, you can't tell from the first fifteen minutes which camp you are going to fall into. The start could be called conventional; the film could easily regress into a quirky drama about a man who is injured in a car crash and has to get used to the day to day living in a town full of oddballs.

But, as the film progresses it is clear there are more sinister themes; however up to the climax the film never looses its light hearted atmosphere that makes it so enjoyable, for me anyway. In the climax the film changes tone somewhat; the younger generation of the town take to their bizarre contraptions made of salvaged car parts, included a pincushion VW Beetle, and set about destroying the town as a result of the older generations treatment of them. Some scenes during the final ten minutes may make you wonder if you should be laughing or crying; the end scene where the Mayor forces Arthur to keep ramming one of the attackers with the rear of his Cadillac for example.

The film has other plus points, mainly in the shape of Australian cult icon Bruce Spence of "Road Warrior" fame, and the direction of Peter Wier. Wier has gone on to be more commercial in Hollywood, his most notable output there being "The Truman Show" and "Master and Commander". If you dig deep enough you could maybe find some similarities between the dark comedy nature of Cars and Truman, but otherwise Cars is in a different world to his Hollywood work.

Overall this seems like a silly, quirky low budget film but there are some dark undercurrents that reward if you can decipher them. Worth a look, but still a love or hate affair. But I'm pleased to say I'm one of the lovers.


A 1970's Australian angst-crash apocalyptic pre-"Mad Max" delight, highlighting the dangers of insularity and resistance to outsiders (even the U.S-style corporation cabriolet kids at the beginning) in the midst of economic low times. Starting Peter Weir's central theme of "closed" or alienated sections of society ( see later "Witness","Mosquito Coast", "Dead Poets Society", "The Truman Show"), the Parisiens resorting to darkly humourous lengths in protecting their perceived ideal pioneer township is handled in typical Weir dreamlike fashion. Weird cars (and you thought the new VW Beetle was different!), great eclectic soundtrack, an underlying sense of menace, and a key early movie in the creation of a recognisable Australian film movement.


This is an Aussie black comedy from the 70's and its also one of Peter Weirs first films. The film is a classic because it cambium's humor ,action & horror all in the same film. John Meillon's performance alone makes this film worth watching.A nutty mayor who is willing to do anything to keep people in the town and that includes killing them! the film is also worth watching for the performances of Bruce Spence & Chris Haywood because these actors are still working ! Its not the greatest film but it a film that will make you watch from start to finish because you never know what will happen next! Terry Camilleri's performance is very good for his first acting experience!


This is Peter Weir's first feature film and a fantastic comment on small town culture in Australia. Like almost all of Peter Weir's films this is compulsory viewing for anyone interested in Australian film. The story goes: In the fictional township of Paris (Australia not France) live a group of ragtag characters that set up traps for drivers nearby. They then salvage the car and possessions of the killed drivers. One day a man named Arthur gets injured by a trap. But he is the only outsider to survive in the town. What will they do with him? The movie is great and well shot with a funny and tense script. Very unique and like a lot of Peter Weir's films, deal with technology and itsbattle with mankind.


Until this week I hadn't seen this film for 15 years. Back then I wondered (like others) about the title, the plot & what it was all about. Having just watched it again though...

I guess it is a little dated and rough around the edges, and of course it's not about a man-eating VW(!) Whether or not it's a study of quirky small town life a la "Twin Peaks" is debatable. It's more a clever allegory of society in general. A society keen to disassociate itself from its primitive origins but being forced into an uneasy alliance with them. One that sees itself as being morally superior but one which tuns fertile land into desert, depletes the ocean of marine life and makes the Earth more uninhabitable (The society that ate itself?) A society which burdens it's youth with strict rules and regulations, while forcing them to take menial 9 to 5 jobs, or go to war in a far away land.

Note the Mayor's hypocrisy in his attitude towards the Bruce Spence character for causing an accident, while patting Arthur on the back for ramming one of the hoons (anti-war protesters?) who was using his car to rebel against the repressive society - one that refuses to allow him or anyone else to leave or "drop out". Also the Mayor's forcing the townsfolk to tow the line and make believe that the towns' activities are somehow "legitimate" and "necessary".

"Paris" is also a society that depends on newcomers (accident victims/immigrants) for its' survival, but insists they keep quiet about where they came from and denies them any rights in "affairs of state". The final scene of this film could be seen as representative of huge social upheaval (like that of the '50's & 60's) which frees (in theory at least) the people from the bonds which have held them down (conformity) and lets them step out of their humdrum existence and the discover the world. Whew, heavy stuff!

Apart from this, "The Cars That Ate Paris" is full of wonderful comic moments for those who like their humour a little black and extra-extra dry. Arthur being ceremoniously ordained as a parking officer then having a showdown with the local hoons (with a spaghetti western-ish soundtrack in the background). John Meillon holding his garden Aboriginal forlornly after having his front garden attacked. The odd facial expressions of Max Gillies, and the incredible gauchness of the annual ball. All in all a very insightful and thought provoking film.


Peter Weir is a legend of film making. Partly because he can create movies that have good solid plots yet is able to transcend those plots to give us something else.

So you want to see where he started see "The cars that ate Paris." I saw this on TV from a very bad print, I hope a better version has since been released.

In outback Australia there is a small town whose financial crisis has meant they have resorted to causing car accidents, salvaging the cars and selling the parts to make some money.

When one of the victims survives an accident and they decide to keep him we are given a witness into the fall of Paris as it destroys itself over the car.

A cult movie that has been turned into theatre in I believe the town of Lismore in Austrlia, it is haunting, quirky and perhaps a movie of its time and location.

But you see for Peter Weir the story is told not with characters, plot and dialogue, rather it is in the total flow of the movie. Here in his first movie the flow is at the forefront, in later movies it achieves a balance with the plot, finally taking second place in his later works.

The cars that do the eating (in a metaphorical manner) include a VW beetle covered in spikes. This is a favourite of fans, but personally I think it sucks.

What I really want to know is what Max Gillies (a comedian known to many Australians) is doing waggling his trademark eyebrows in this movie.

There is one reason to see this movie, it is you may hate it or you may love it. That is justification enough to take the risk and see it.


My memories of seeing The Cars That Ate Paris were dark ones. The horrific pan and scan video print that we all grew up with seemed to be a succession of dank and dreary night scenes, and poorly composed night scenes at that. Now that the film is fully restored on DVD, however, viewers can truly appreciate this masterpiece of the macabre. Filled with sunshine brilliant shots of a beautiful Australian town and buoyed by Peter Weir's magnificent screenplay, this is an outsider classic about a bizarre cargo cult in the middle of an otherwise 'civilized' country. Amongst a raft full of fine performances, John Meillon stands out as the town mayor, and, as accident victim Arthur Waldo, Terry Camilleri (most recently seen in, God forbid, Gigli) effortlessly channels the spirit of Dudley Moore's down in the dumps Stanley Moon from the original version of Bedazzled. There's also a magnificent score by Bruce Smeaton that deftly blends the romanticism of Nino Rota with the majestic sweep of Morricone's best work and adds a dash of electronic dissonance for good measure. Viewers anticipating a film about real man-eating cars are best advised to avoid Peter Weir's freshman feature. All others, you're in for a treat.


After enjoying The Plumber by Peter Weir,i hoped that this would be as good (or better) then that movie,sadly it came nowhere near being that. The plot:

In Paris (Australia),a man who had a while a go,accidentally run-down an old man,car breaks down in a small town.While there,the memories of his brother (who has died in a crash)come back.The man finds out,while staying in a local hospital that the towns people use the crashed cars in a strange ways... View on the film:

While there are some interesting set-pieces (the derby-style crash,the psychiatrist identifying items scene).The rest of the film feels painfully slow,with the third-act feeling a bit rushed.Weir does a very good job with some of the small set-pieces,but makes the rest of the film to slow. Final view on the film: Good to see if nothing else is on,or if you want to see Weires films,by film-to-film.


I really wish that the cars had hurried up and eaten Paris like 10 minutes in, so I wouldn't have to sit through this boring waste of time. The poor lighting and budget really show here and make this movie painful to watch. This movie is so devoid of any action and is so frustratingly paced that I barely made it through without fast forwarding. In fact I showed this movie to a friend with major parts fast forwarded and he didn't miss any of the plot. Watching this movie in fast forward (my 2nd viewing) shows just how many scenes were totally worthless and just add to the boredom. I have seen other Weir movies before, and understand that his pacing is really slow and doesn't follow conventional plots, but this movie was very unappealing. Picnic At Hanging Rock is a vastly superior Weir film if you are at all interested in the director. That movie creates an interesting mode and the mysterious circumstances are inticing, here there is no inticement. This movie is recommended only to those who are either Austrailian and have an interest in some black humor (which is greatly lost on anyone who isn't austrialian) or those who like to watch MST3k quality movies, minus the commentary.

Zoopansick


This movie was recommeded to me by a friend, who, by the way, is no longer a reliable source for movie recommendations. I was expecting to see cars, Awesome cars with huge motors tearing up the lamest place on the planet "Paris" with extreme prejudice. I ended up sitting through a snore fest, and I can't even tell you what it was about because my attention span stops after 5 minutes when there isn't a violent murder. I was expecting something like Death Race 2000 meeets the Roadwarrior and got Mister Rogers in rehabilitation, Do not watch this movie, there was a VW bug with rubber spikes on it, thats all I remember, and it did nothing. They didn't even drop a thermo-nuclear bomb on the eiffel tower, what a horrible film.


after hearing about this film since the 80s, i finally got the chance to see it and was seriously disappointed. it's only slightly unusual and not at all funny. i was under the impression that mysterious possessed cars attack a town in a campy hysterical "attack of the killer tomatos" style.

the cars are just human driven customs and very little actually happens in the film. there's one or two chuckles, but there are many more wierder and/or funnier b-movies out there more deserving of a "rep" than this one.

it's like a watered down "present day" version of "the road warrior" without any of that film's charm. it may have been the influence for it though as the "helicopter jockey" plays a small part in this film.

worth seeing if you have to see every cult film ever made, but not if you need to stay awake.

4 out of 10 overrated as a classic b-movie.


Thoroughly bizarre, poorly-lit, misnamed. An experience not to be missed, for anyone into cult films. It does sort of compare to 'Twin Peaks', but has none of the laid-back weirdness of the aforementioned film. This is a film you should be drunk to truly appreciate, and watch it in a darkened room. The actors really become secondary to the setting, as does the plot. Everything in this movie really seems to be an excuse to have things happen WHERE they happen. Recommended, but not for teetotallers.


This movie was the darkest movie (besides Christine) that I have ever seen. I would not recommend either of them. Although the cars were pretty cool. The movie was, well, evil.


This is the biggest piece of crap i've ever watched, There's no real story to it and has some of the worst acting i've ever seen....Pity i can't give this shite any lower than a 1. its driving me mad just thinking bout it. The director should be shot for unleashing such a monstrosity upon us. But its not only the directors fault, the dam writers are to blame also. I'd get a better story off my daughter and shes only 4. Now i don't want to be insulting the Australians but they ain't the most talented people wen it comes to movies r acting, except for a few actors. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPP


Not a good movie indeed. Far too much talking, and not enough cars eating Paris. Wait, what am I talking about? THERE WERE NO CARS EATING PARIS!!! What kind of a stupid title is that?!? How can you call a movie something it is not?! There was no eating, and there definately was no Paris like I imagined. I did not imagine a rinky dink little town in Australia that ran cars off the road in order to build more cars... This movie had no plot connections, no likeable characters, and where did that growl come from?!?! AUGGHHHH!!! Do not watch this movie, even if it's because people say not to. It's just that bad.


As an avid and self-declared "Car Chase Movie" fanatic, I found this film totally lacking in anything redeeming.


This has an odd introduction as we see a stuttering "Petunia Pink" being introduced as a new star for Looney Tunes. She doesn't do well, let's just leave it at that. After that minute bit with her, the opening credits suddenly appear.

Then we see an obviously-in-love Porky buying diamond rings, candy, flowers, etc., and we hear a great song "I Want to Woo" or something with great lyrics. Pay attention to them and you'll get some laughs. Poor Porky isn't laughing, however, after he arrives at Petunia's door and gets the brush-off.

The shallow Petunia glances at Porky walking away and sees the big box of candy, runs and snatches that and Porky back to her house. She then pigs out, big-time, on the candy. Poor Porky can't share in that because Petunia's dog "Fluffnins" growls each time he reaches for a piece (of candy). Not only is Petunia bad news, so is her trained dog. In no time, heartbroken Porky is out the door while the sadistic girl he loves laughs at him. This is pretty cruel stuff.

The last half is not unusual in old cartoons: the main character has a dream where he sees the future and finds out losing his girl wasn't so bad, after all! The only funny part of this entire cartoon, frankly, was the very end when Porky gives his two cents to the dog, too. Otherwise, there isn't much to this.


Who would have thought an 8-minute cartoon could produce such emotions? At first I was sad and really felt the depression when sweet little Porky's heart is broken. Porky takes some drastic measures, and ends up dreaming about his life with the girl he wants to marry, but doesn't want to marry him. It is funny, and then heartbreaking if anyone's life would turn out like his dream. Porky then wakes up to decide whether he still wants his dream girl. I truly felt sad for Porky and understood his decisions. I was angry at the girl, Petunia Pig, for she was only using Porky and breaking his fragile heart. The cartoon, in only 8 minutes, makes the viewer think about his/her own life and suggests that you think about big decisions in your life before making them. Perhaps the sweetest moment in cartoon/film history is when Porky goes to see his dream girl and she laughs at him. He walks off her front porch only to first turn around and kiss a plate with her name written on it that is displayed by her front door. Porky then walks off heartbroken. What a greatly sad moment.


Frank Tashlin's 'Porky's Romance' opens with a special pre-credits announcement: "Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing Leon Schlesinger's new Looney Tunes star, Petunia Pig". Petunia introduces herself in a routine not dissimilar to the nerve-wracked recital that shot Porky Pig to fame in 'I Haven't Got a Hat'. Just how seriously the studio took Petunia's potential is unclear but, if she was intended to be a new cartoon superstar they didn't give her much of an opportunity to endear herself to the audience. In 'Porky's Romance', Petunia is cruel, selfish, idle and greedy and, while this may not have been beneficial for the character's longevity, it is extremely beneficial for the cartoon. 'Porky's Romance' is a great and handsome piece of work in which Porky goes through an emotional roller coaster which even includes a suicide attempt when his proposal to Petunia is turned down. While Porky spends most of the cartoon being dumped on by everyone, he finally gets the last laugh in one of the most satisfying final moments in any cartoon. 'Porky's Romance' is a film that aims to make audiences laugh, cry and wince in equal measure as we empathise with the nightmare of Porky's heartbreak and then the even more horrific glimpse at the possibilities of married life (a slightly sexist representation by today's standard but this was the 30s!). Tashlin's talents as storyteller and crafter of characters is much in evidence but, despite turning up in a few more cartoons, Petunia never got to be that new cartoon star. That title was snatched from her just two cartoons after 'Porky's Romance' when Tex Avery's 'Porky's Duck Hunt' introduced a certain little black duck with a penchant for scene-stealing.


Using the life of Mark 'Gator' Ragowski as the thread, director Helen Stickler tracks the rise of skateboarding from underground pastime to cultural phenomenon. As corporate America jumped all over the sport, the proponents got richer and the sport of skateboarding more mainstream, but some of the players weren't equipped for the fame and money - Gator amongst them.

With a great soundtrack, excellent original resources and unparralleled access to the sports biggest names (many of whom skated with Gator and are now owners of Skateboard companies), Stoked is as much a look at the Eighties and the gluttony of the times; some made it through unscathed, some profited nicely, and one at least is going to be in jail for some time to come!

Stoked is a great documentary, for fans of skateboarding and pop culture junkies alike


This film NAILS it by juxtaposing the fast rise and rocky descent of 80's counter-culture commercialism with the tragic story of Gator and his victim. We get to know Gator as a wild punk, arrogant jock, immature romantic, and finally, a violent and dangerous man. He was made for stardom, but the path to skater stardom was even younger than its pioneers... he was the era's most notable fallen angel.

I haven't yet seen a more vivid reflection on the style and attitude of California in the 1980s. It's very easy to get lost in this one; it's a sad, enlightening, and socially significant piece of journalistic film-making. Kudos to the filmmakers.


I think Stickler's documentary, "Stoked: The Rise and Fall of Gator" gave us an interesting look at the character of Mark Anthony Rogowski through the comments of those who knew him. It was as objective as it could have been. It certainly didn't glorify him as the demigod he seemed to think he was during the peak of his career. I learned a lot from this movie about the skateboarding culture and how it affected the participants and the fans. There was a lot of hype given to Gator's abilities and personality during the 80's. As talented as he may have been, I'm sure there were other skaters just as talented who were not being promoted with the same enthusiasm. It was clearly Gator's reckless regard for his own well being that put him in the limelight in the first place. Would Stickler or any other director in the industry have wanted to do a documentary on this troubled youth if he hadn't turned his fame into notoriety by brutally raping and murdering an innocent young lady who had the misfortune of crossing his path? It gives one cause for pause. I think it's sad that the victim, Jessica Bergsten, like most other victims of violent crimes, became nothing more than a segment of Gator's seedy past. It's almost as if Jessica's death was merely a springboard to more publicity for Gator, long after he deserved it. He even said it himself over the phone from prison in this documentary: "Since 1991 I thought about this over and over...They say the past does not define the future but it'll always be a part of who I am. I know that." Not that he'll regret for the rest of his life killing someone who was no threat to him, but that it tainted his reputation permanently. He'll never be able to live it down. In his mind, it's still about Gator, even after ten years in prison. He hasn't changed his perspective at all. Chilling! It was a story worth telling, and my praises to Helen Stickler and everyone who had a hand in this production for telling it.


This film doubles as a peerless document of skateboarding as a legitimate American phenomenon *and* an unflinching look into the dark and doomed life of Mark Rogowski.

Ms. Stickler deftly handles the thrill of Rogowski's career triumphs and the chilling fall from grace that no one could have anticipated or, sadly, prevented.

'Stoked' stands bravely as neither celebratory nor exploitive; nor does it presume to answer 'Why?'. Instead, like the Maysles brothers' finest work, this film presents a 'fly on the wall' look at the Who, What, Where, and How with the precision and objectivity of a postmortem exam.

It's tough to successfully reconcile the duality this film presents to its audience - the great retrospective fun of high octane 80s culture sits uncomfortably next to what is essentially a grim and unsettling story. Viewers have to sort out for themselves if Rogowski's doom was a product of his huge fame and subsequent & abrupt fall from the top, or if it was, sadly, bound to happen anyway.

Rogowski could have been one of those elementary school teachers or office workers or Home Depot employees gone bad in what would have been an otherwise anonymous American murder story - but he wasn't: he was Gator. And as the authorities & families involved (and perhaps most tellingly, the friends & skaters in the periphery) in this dark tale will tell you, that may have made all the difference in the world.


As a former skater back in the day, I knew the names and board designs of everyone in the flick. It was a great documentary for those of us who used to skate and now just hang around. I was out of skating and SoCal before Gator's downfall and never heard about it. It is quite a tragic story. However, people should pay close attention to a real hero in the story, Tony Hawk. Tony has always been an inspiration and a role model. He is a masterful businessman, an unbelievable athlete, and someone totally uncorrupted by fame and fortune (as far as I know). Seeing Lance and Christian et al, was also awesome.

...and for Gator, I have no sympathy...unless of course you want to blame his father. NOT.


As reflected in its subtitle, "Stoked" is not an original idea about a talented individual attaining success then losing it. A formula for a different time place that works: during the 1980s skateboarding scene. Long before Tony Hawk reached the pinnacle of skateboarding prominence to become synonymous with the sport, there was Mark "Gator" Rogowski. Hawk, who is an interviewee, rolled in similar circles with Gator. They, and others like them, were at work in an era before the Gravity and X-Games were established, eventually becoming permanent TV offerings.

With Gator as the focus, viewers get a back-story of when Extreme Sports was in its in infancy. Rogowski was among a capable few who took a hobby of countless teenagers to become a well paid performer. He earned money through merchandising and lucrative endorsement deals. Just as he reached the top, he slowly declined--personally and professionally--surpassed by an evolving skateboard landscape which beckoned higher skills.

Viewers need not be skateboarding aficionados to be engrossed inside this dramatic profile, with an all too tragic conclusion. Too bad for the uninitiated, Mark Anthony Rogowski couldn't have been introduced under better circumstances.


I have another question about a song in the movie. Right about the time they're talking about Gator punching the cop and showing pictures of him skating when he was a teen, a really awesome punk song is playing in the background and I have no idea who it is. To this date I have downloaded and listened to "Laurie's Lament" by the Vidiots, & "I don't know" by Naked Raygun and neither song is the right one. I'm also familiar with "Space Age Love Song" and that's definitely not it. I think "Surf Beat" by Agent Orange is just an instrumental and this song definitely had lyrics.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.


I had never knew this film existed. Although I have been such a fan of skateboarding and skateboarders for such a long time - I love to watch any skateboarding event on TV or street skateboarders just skate! I was also amazed at how popular "Gator" was all through the '80s and I had absolutely no clue who he was - that is until I seen this film. This is a brilliant film and it is also brilliantly made. So much to this on DVD - there is an enormous 3 full hours of footage! This is the story of a young professional vertical skateboarder named Mark Rogowski - who went on to earn the nickname "Gator" after inventing a skate-style move all his own - the "Gaite - Aire" And then , later still dropping his last name Rogowski - which he was quoted as saying that the name itself belonged to his father , who was not present in his life. So then he was "Gator" Mark Anthony , which are his birth first and middle names. Gator had become pro at the age of 14, after winning a championship skate in Canada. He was then promoted by many large name skateboard & parts companies. Gator worked his butt off to stay in the lead. He was in the spotlight from 1985 to 1989 - performing in many championships , demonstration videos , music videos and even stunt work on a particular movie.( i wont say which movie - because , for whatever the reason - even IMDb doesn't have him listed as being part of it!) He was also seen in almost every issue of Thrasher magazine either in an ad , doing his skateboarding thing or conducting his own interview. This film shows the big picture of who Gator started out as and what he became - as many began to believe he had forgotten about all he stood for and just commercially sold out. This film also shows people that knew him , people who wanted to be like him and many of the jobs that he did which attributed to the skateboarding profession in the '80s. Before Tony Hawk - There was Gator..... Or should I say , when Tony Hawk was a newbie - Gator was pro. Unfortunately though - not unlike many pros at their profession - being so young , being so popular , feeling so "untouchable" - there is always a downside.... Gator's fame and fortune quickly caught up to him. In the early 90's , vertical skating became yesterdays news - and street skating was now becoming all the rage. ...Which actually left Gator in the dust , based on the fact that try as he did - he just could not get the hang of it. He tried hard to acquire this new skill - but to no avail. This to top off all the other issues that were bringing him down to a very dark place in his life. All these pressures sent him to a place no one would have ever guessed. Gator fell HARD. Such a sad , unfortunate result to such a high-flying persona.... :(


I guess maybe I'd have been interested in this film if I knew anything about skateboarding or the history it documents.

However, I didn't, and I was bored. This movie did nothing to encourage my interest; I didn't care about the characters or anything that was happening. Furthermore, the stunts weren't even at all impressive (except a few shots of modern trick skateboarders at the very end, and even that was just impressive by comparison).

Don't go see this film unless you know you're already interested. At least it's short.


Originally intended for Madonna (who can't act & would have definitely STUNK!), this was an excellent role for Geena Davis. "Angie" is a film about an Italian/American woman from the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn, N.Y. Her mom left her when she was a child & because of this she has a romanticized notion of her mother & a deep fear of abandonment. She wants more out of life than her working class plumber boyfriend (and father of her child) can offer her so she falls in love with a lawyer from Ireland while pregnant(someone as far removed from her Brooklyn world as possible!) After the baby is born, the lawyer dumps her & she also feels rejected by her son (you'll have to see the movie to find out why) so she heads off to Texas to finally face her mom for some type of closure. Yes, this character's angst & situations can be overwhelming , but real life can be like that too sometimes. The musical score, by Jerry Goldsmith, is excellent (particularly "Angie's Theme") & compliments the movie wonderfully. The movie also has a knack for capturing the New York Italian/American experience authentically. At times, "Angie" feels like a hybrid of other films ("Working Girl", "Beaches", "Saturday Night Fever", "Moonstruck" & "Pretty Woman") but it works. (This film is based on the novel "Angie, I Says" by Avra Wing. In the book the main character's name is Tina Scacciapensiari & her best friend's name is Angie. The first names of these characters were switched for the film).


Gina is a wonderful actress and she is marvelous in this realistic portrayal of life in New York City. In all her moods her personality rings true. The film leaves some unanswered questions but so does life.


Though Geena Davis is a great actress, good at playing particularly strong-willed women, the screenplay for "Angie" just meanders all over the place, from light comedy to the staunchest of melodramas.

I mean, what kind of a movie has a woman go into labor while gyrating in a Santa Claus suit then show her give birth to a one-armed baby, get abandoned by her married lover, watch as her stepmother breast-feeds the one-armed baby, abandons said baby, finds her long-lost mother (who it turns out is a schizophrenic), learns that one-armed baby is in a coma... all in about 15 minutes.

This was one of the most uneven films I've ever seen. Turturro's particularly good in it as the best friend, yet her character is left out of the final half hour, though she's a central character, and never returned to. Rea and Gandolfini's potentials are completely wasted in a movie that just doesn't seem to know what to do with itself.


Comedy-drama from talented if erratic director Martha Coolidge concerns a modern Italian-American working woman in Brooklyn, pregnant and unmarried, finding herself curious about the mother who abandoned her and her father years before. Begins brightly, with Geena Davis seemingly well-cast in the lead, but it quickly becomes mired in colorless sub-plots (including the woman's resentful best friend and her abusive husband, a schizophrenic mother, a needy stepmother, a malformed infant, and a married boyfriend!). By the midway point, Davis begins to struggle in her role, pushing her pivotal moments too hard and losing her innate likability. Worse, this scenario is far too neat and tidy--and when the actors aren't being overly 'cute', they're screaming senselessly at each other. Sadly, "Angie" bombs out. *1/2 from ****


When Lucille Ball was an acclaimed, but not very widely known B picture actress, Joan Davis was winning a lot more acclaim for her own brand of goofy physical humor on radio and on film. She was a mainstay of support to a lot of the glamor girls and guys at 20th Century Fox.

A long term extra marital affair with Eddie Cantor helped push her career along as Cantor featured her on radio and had her co-star in two of his films.

Like so many players when the motion picture studios started cutting down production and leaving people out of work, Davis turned to television. Unfortunately one year too late to get credit for originality.

Lucille Ball and her real life husband beat her to the tube by a year. They put on a very successful situation comedy about a wacky wife with an exasperated husband that we all know about.

So when Joan Davis debuted I Married Joan in 1952 she was accused of copying Lucy. Not so as any viewing of her films will so demonstrate.

But Lucy was there first and got the deserved credit.

I Married Joan was a very funny show that trailed in the wake of I Love Lucy. It ended in 1955 because her TV husband Jim Backus quit the show. As Judge Bradley J. Stevens, he was her exasperated straight man of a husband. He'd get to show his comic flair later on in Gilligan's Island.

Sad that Joan Davis was never able to develop another television show to show her talent before she died.

A very funny lady, with a very funny show.


while the show certainly has a dated feel (it does have an annoying laugh track), the jokes were often clever and Joan Davis was brilliant. no, she was not stealing her schtick from Lucille ball (who i also love). Joan was a ditsy, goofy character long before she made it to television. i believe her physical comedy was actually better and more natural (see the movie HOLD THAT GHOST for a brilliant example.) did they steal plot lines from Lucy? well, having not seen this show in a while (i don't believe this show was ever on nick at nite. it was on cbn, of all places.) but i will say that Lucy's plots were not exactly original either, and being that both shows were on at the same time, it's difficult to say who came first (if it even matters). the thing is everyone has seen Lucy for years and just assumes she did it all first.

Joan Davis deserves her place in entertainment history along side Lucy, gale storm, Imogene coca and Gracie Allen.


Clever man meets mermaid comedy with Hanks fitting the bill as a lonely New York bachelor who falls in love with winsome mermaid Hannah. Candy is also delightful as Hanks' irresponsible brother. The script is very funny and director Howard has a wonderful eye for the sentimental and satiric.


I happen to enjoy romantic comedies and through the years have seen some great ones(Dirty Dancing, Toosie, Pretty Woman to name a few.) But Splash is probably my all time favorite. I saw it in the there shortly after it came out, fell in love with it and through the years have watched it more times then I can remember.

First off, the plot itself is delightful-man falls in love with a mermaid. Then there's the combination of Hanks and Hanna on screen. They happen to be utterly and completely adorable on screen and one of my all time favorite pairings.

The movie itself is an enthralling fairytale. Daryl shines as the ethereal Madison and her scenes with Hanks are as sweet as cotton candy. The characters are all unforgettable and the underwater scenes will put you into a trance, their gloriously stunning. The movie combines romance, wit and charm with an enchanting story and captivating visuals and characters. It's the kind of movie that one knows as their watching it, will someday be a classic.

Splash never gets tiresome no matter how much you see it. The movie is a classic and, though, some people maybe skeptical of a 10 of 10 rating I think it deserves nothing less. If anyone reading this has NOT seen it-your missing one of the best and sweetest romantic comedies ever made.


If you grew up in the 80's, you can see why this movie still is a great classic! Great acting from Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah and a story line that can be taken funny as well as seriously. If you didn't see this movie in the 80's you probably won't appreciate it that much. I would rank it with other greats such as Teen Wolf, Heathers, etc. "Behold, the mermaid!"..lol..


Allen Bauer is a responsible guy,the very opposite of his brother Freddie Bauer, who only thinks about women and to spend money. Allen feels lonely sometimes, but he never really fell in love with any women he already have dated or stayed. One day, Allen decides to go to Cape Cod to enjoy the sea, a place where he feels mysteriously good, but he falls into the sea by accident and since he doesn't know how to swim, is saved by a mysterious and beautiful woman,who runs away soon after Allen recovers his conscience. The beautiful woman stayed with Allen's documents, and decides to search him in New York after some days. Once they met, they fall in love and Allen finally do whatever it takes to stay near a woman. The only thing he doesn't know yet, is that the beautiful and mysterious woman named Madison,is part of his childhood and also has a nature different from the human.

Ps: Daryl Hannah is really beautiful in this movie! Tom Hanks as well! ps2:This is the first time I see Eugene Levy in the role of the bad guy.

aka "Splash-Uma sereia em minha vida" - Brazil


I used to watch this movie as a kid and occasionally when I was in my teens but I watched it again now (im 24) and I must say its an excellent movie, which also has a very good story line, and one you can relate to if you have been in a relationship where your asking yourself many questions about the person your with and things that do which don't make sense! Not that we are dating mermaids, but it is a movie that has Alan (Tom Hanks) in a very real situation of been in love with someone who he is trying to figure out who she is but she wont give the answers or really open up. Its a movie of great comedy also!! John Candy and Eugene Levy are hilarious!!!! As is Tom Hanks! Some of the one liners and scenes in this movie will have you in stitches!!! This for me is a movie that could have been released today and still do very very well. A great movie which I can watch over and over!


Splash is a really well-made Hollywood fantasy comedy, with early Tom Hanks already developing into the charismatic everyman and Darryl Hannah and John Candy at their best. But under the comedy and sweetness I have always thought there was a disturbing undertone of extreme pessimism--just what kind of ugly and cruel society do we live in, in which the mermaid Madison's only prospect is that she will be tortured, from which Hanks' character ultimately has to flee, never to see his beloved brother again? (The same dark undertone is even more pronounced, I think, in Ron Howard's next big hit Cocoon, where the old folks willingly escape an earth and families that don't seem to offer them anything anymore.)


I thought this movie was absolutely wonderful. It was so very cute and fairly funny at times! Very different from most movies with the whole mermaid thing. See men dig fish! Remember that! You know what I really enjoyed about it? The fact that you had this nutty guy going around trying to prove she was a mermaid, yet looking completely stupid and insane while doing so.. Oh man he was so funny. I remember growing up watching this movie.I loved it then and still do. It's a classic, a must see. If you haven't seen it already, I suggest you rent it! Enjoy it! Tell me how it goes, but I bet you will love it just as much as I do! ;)


This film brings out the best of three genres: Fantasy, Romance, and Comedy. Brilliantly done in all regards! The User named Kimta noted that she wishes there was a Splash II, but that it would have to be film completely underwater. Well... there is a Splash 2, but it didn't go in that direction! I wish it had, but they used a different cast and a different idea. It is still worth a look, but not near this film is style and class. This film gets a 10!


Here's a true piece of Hollywood Candy, a sweet as they come! An 8-year old boy falls off of a tour boat at Cape Cod and is saved from drowning by what appears to be a little girl mermaid. The boy never forgets about what happened that day, although everyone insists he was hallucinating.

Years later, now a man (and played by Tom Hanks), another trip to Cape Cod brings dejavu: Hanks falls off of a tour boat and is rescued by an all grown mermaid (played by Daryl Hannah). Could it be the same mermaid that saved him when he was a boy? -- The mermaid has normal legs when kept dry, but once splashed with water, the legs turn into fish fins. Hannah is able to conceal her true identity, until a "bad guy" exposes her. There are complications, but eventually everything comes up roses.

One great scene is where the grown up mermaid spends 6 hours in the electronics department of a store, and learns the English language fluently by watching TV non-stop. Cute! -- This film is very entertaining and helps us feel compassion for anyone who is somehow different from what society considers the norm. The somewhat predictable ending is beautiful! Highly recommended, especially to the hopelessly romantic cinema enthusiasts out there!


Well, here's another outing for the tissue-tribe. One of the many utterly talentless casting-couch queens of the 1980's, Daryl Hannah, plays her predictable screen persona as the vulnerable naiveté in a hu-man's world (check-out 'Crazy People'). This movie doesn't contain clichés; it is a cliché.

Strangely popular one-dimensional Tom Hanks plays it straight against various odd-ball individuals including his huckster brother, acted by the continuously upstaging John Candy, with a little pythonesque humour supplied by a female employee who has had a bump on the head and is now in the habit of wearing her clothes out of synch. Then later, he's up against a marine-biologist with a fascist turn, attempting to expose Ms Hannah's fishy secret, of which he - Hanks - is as yet unaware (she's a mermaid, you see).

It would appear that on dry land, her fishy lower-half turns into a human and most excellent pair of pins with the sundry anatomy between -so long as they stay dry. But that if they don't get a regular soaking, they'll remain as legs forever, and she will be forced to stay on land. Or something like that.

Candy can be hilarious in the right scenario - check-out 'Planes,Trains & Automobiles'. Hanks? I can only conclude that he spent some time on a very influential casting-couch as well.

Darly Hannah has the face and figure to have most unemancipated males -or most males, in other words - embarrassed by the scale of their spontaneous erections. She is definitely the stuff of an evolutionary 'trophy' wife. And we get to see a great deal of her meat in this movie.

Then, of course, she gets to do most anything she likes, whether it be wandering about stark naked, going on a buying spree at another's expense, or destroying a shop full of TV sets. She gets to do this because she's 'pretty' and 'vulnerable' and 'naive'. Yawn.

Some people see it as a 'romance'. But I offer this bi-line: Ms Hannah's character - or Madison, as she calls herself - is a mermaid, and therefor not only a different species but also a supposedly dangerous one of ancient folklore. And we learn that she has been stalking Hanks's character like some paedophilic pariah ever since he was a child. Naturally, she has waited until he is adult before taking her pursuit onto dry land, but the implication is self-evident. She uses sex to ensnare him (and a great deal of it, as the dialogue makes clear) in order to subvert him to her way of life. It's a life of immortality but from which he can never, ever escape (though he doesn't yet know it whilst he's submitting to her therapy).

Am I the only one who can see the parallels with 'Dracula' in that resume? I put this to any viewer: would the scenario be quite so 'romantic' if the seducer were male? Because then the parallel with 'Dracula' would be complete.

Only at the last moment, on the dockside, when she has won him over and he has cravenly agreed to join her in her oceanic world, does she spring on him the deadly caveat that there will be no going back; when he joins her, it is for ever.

I suspect that if the gender-tables were turned, any male would be regarded as the most consummate manipulator and fraud under the same circumstances.

However; if paedophilia, bestiality, and betrayal are your idea of the ingredients for a good romance, then keep taking the tissues.


...all of the characters in this astounding book/movie were as good or as unimportant as viewers/readers found them to be, simply because William Styron developed them that way: Stingo WAS an unexperienced nerd, having lived an idyllic life in the South with nothing happening in his life, yet aspired to write the Great American Novel; how perfect for a virginous male to so fortunate to live with people who educate him what a horrendous journey life can be. McNichols was perfect for this role, because he was the opposite of Sophie. Nathan was mad and KNEW he was mad, longing with all his soul to be otherwise; a little madness drives people to do astounding things. Kline was perfect; what a shame he has never found another role as good. Sophie was the haunted lady whose life made her that way; Styron's development of her character is masterful. I read an interview in which he was asked how he felt his novel was presented in the film. His reply, "I took the money and ran." He could foresee there would be controversy over his work.

Some viewers, especially the younger ones, cannot appreciate how actresses have developed over the life-time of movie-making. They should watch some of the "silent" films to learn that mime was the only way to express an emotion. Mellodrama, intentionally so - yet, look at the entire work of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford as examples of contrived performances. They were, at last, able to confront one another in "Baby Jane" - attempting to "out-drama" one another made it the wonderful film it is.

There is simply no other actress, that we know of, who is more talented a performer than Streep. Unlike Davis and Crawford, she is not concerned about her "star-power". She becomes whatever character she is playing, no matter if we like them or not. SO WHAT if "Sophie's Choice" was a vehicle to demonstrate her power? Please write another !! William Styron, stand forth ! Because of her absorption into her characters and the many nuances she developed in "Choice", take a look at "The Deer Hunter" to see how powerfully she played an un-extraordinarily plain woman perfectly. Under-playing a character, to make you believe people are actually like that, is the mark of a great actress.

I ardently pray there will be another role for Ms. Streep - even in her older years - that will allow us to become totally engrossed, to get outside of our own lives, to become completely destroyed, delirious, shattered just for a couple of hours, to realize there is still such talent in the world - THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO WATCH, at least.....thank heavens for this magical film.....


Although achingly literary at times, moments of true emotional power are rendered by fluid storytelling, Nestor Almendros's haunting cinematography, Marvin Hamlisch's quietly effecting score, a touching performance by Peter MacNichol, and a seminal performance by Meryl Streep; one that Kim Stanley (the celebrated actress/teacher and Oscar nominated mother to Jessica Lange in 'Frances' of the same year) proclaimed, "the titanic portrayal of her generation."

No matter what your initial feelings about this film, I encourage you to go back and take in Streep's dark dance of loss, madness and, finally, sorrowful redemption.


Arguably Meryl Streep's most compelling performance...and lord knows the woman has turned in a few during her career! I found myself delighted, beguiled, enchanted, crushed and ultimately reduced to a drained and empty shell by the film's end; it took several days thereafter to fully recover. Her vulnerability and honesty are as inescapable as her demons. And you cannot help but be drawn into such a real sense of both conflict & compassion, duty and despair...this film completely melted my face off while cementing an admiration and awe I rarely experience from an actor's performance. All due respect to both Kline & MacNichol for their fine portrayals, but really the movie begins and ends with Streep's haunting, brilliant and enormously human turn as Sophie! This is a "must see" film albeit a gut wrenching experience!!! Totally amazing!!!


I gave this movie a very solid 10. Streep's performance is perfection at its best, there is not one flaw made by her in the entire movie. Bringing together scenes of both romance, passion for life, misery, and joy, she allows this movie to get a hold of you and not let go until the end, as all great films should. Other performances are equally great, but it is Streep as the 'very believable' Sophie that will take you by storm. Without a doubt one of the best films of the 80's. Watch it!


This movie is almost perfect, if there is such a thing. Meryl Streep gives her finest performance ever as Sophie. In fact, her performance here is quite possibly the best movie acting that I have ever seen. (It's really that good.) Plus there's even more--the music, the directing, the writing, the supporting actors--are all excellent. Be warned that this movie is very moving and tragic, but it is extremely well done. It will make you cry and laugh--it will fill you with hope and despair--it will make you appreciate life and understand sorrow.


Director Alan Pakula must have been falling over himself with delight at the presence of his three main actors. Each give impressive performances, but it is Streep's that takes the breath away. So much has been written already about her flawless depiction of Sophie, who has to be the most heartbreaking character ever seen on film; I can only add my support to the view that Streep here gives the best performance ever seen by an actor.

Additionally, I agree that the Academy should look at this performance as the watermark of the Best Actress Oscar. Inevitably, no one will ever match it, but to think Gwyneth Paltrow won the same award for her role in "Shakespeare in Love" is laughable.

Kevin Kline is brilliant as the chilling yet endearing Nathan, whilst Peter MacNicol is the character whose superb narration and acting transmits us into the movie.

I noticed that the morose Pauline Kael, the most ludicrously over-respected film critic of all time, once again shows her cynicism in finding much fault with the movie: I will have none of it: it is utterly moving, without having to resort to cliché or overloud, haunting music to influence our emotions. Quite simply, the subject matter - Sophie's tragic life and (in)ability to come to terms with what has happened to her - is enough to do this on its own.

The final frame is to me, perhaps the most beautiful I have ever seen, and the film will stay with the viewer long after.


"Sophie's Choice" is set in Brooklyn in the late 1940s, soon after the end of the Second World War. The three main characters are Stingo, a young writer from the Deep South, and Nathan and Sophie, the couple who befriend him. Nathan is a Jewish New Yorker who tells Stingo that he is a research biologist for a pharmaceutical company. Sophie is a Polish gentile immigrant who has survived imprisonment in Auschwitz by the Nazis. At first the atmosphere is relatively light, one of love, friendship and fun. This part of the film is shot in brilliant colour in a summer setting, and the affluent suburbs of New York seem a safe haven from the horrors of the war that has recently ravaged Europe.

Gradually, however, the tone darkens as we become aware that the gentle, beautiful Sophie is hiding a dark secret. We learn that her beloved father was not, as she claimed, an anti-Nazi intellectual, but was actually a rabid anti-Semite and admirer of Nazism whom the Germans murdered by mistake. Nathan originally seems eccentric but vivacious and likable, but as the film progresses he begins to show signs of disturbance, insulting Stingo whom he has previously treated as a friend, and unreasonably suspecting Sophie of being unfaithful to him. We, and Stingo, learn from Nathan's brother that he is in fact suffering from mental illness and that he is only employed by the pharmaceutical company in a lowly clerical position, not as a research scientist, although Sophie remains unaware of these facts.

In 1982 there had been many films made about the Second World War, but relatively few about the Holocaust, which seemed to daunt film-makers by its very enormity. Alan Pakula was therefore breaking new ground, particularly as he approached the subject from a controversial angle, tackling the question of war guilt- not the legal and moral guilt of those who perpetrated the Holocaust, but the psychological guilt of those who survived it. After liberation from the camps, many survivors such as Sophie experienced feelings of guilt that they had survived whereas many others, including friends and family members, had died. Sophie's feelings of guilt are exacerbated by her knowledge of her father's odious political views and by the fact that she had attempted to exploit her father's reputation and her fluent knowledge of German in an attempt to ingratiate herself with Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, whose secretary she became. Sophie's most agonising secret, however, is the "choice" of the film's title- the fact that she was forced by a brutal Nazi officer to choose which of her two children should live and which should die. Her love for the Jewish Nathan, whom she clings to despite his mistreatment of her, may be a way of atoning for her guilt feelings.

There are a few weaknesses in the film. During the first half the action can be too slow, and Stingo, as played by Peter MacNichol, seems a fairly weak figure. The scene of his sexual encounter with a girl who talks like a whore and acts like a prude would be funny in a comedy but is out of place in a serious film like this one. Despite these weaknesses, however, this is a film which more than justifies its ambitious theme. Meryl Streep is one of the greatest film actresses of all time, and certainly the best of the early eighties, and this is possibly her best-ever role. She demonstrated her famed linguistic talents, playing the Auschwitz scenes in excellent German and the English-language scenes with a Polish accent, but (contrary to what some hostile critics have sometimes claimed) there is more to her acting than a collection of foreign accents. One criticism that is sometimes made of Streep is that she is too intellectual an actress, self-consciously thinking her way into a part rather than trying to live it emotionally, but in this case at least this seems to be the right approach. It is difficult to see how the "Method" could cope with a role like Sophie, whose emotional experiences are so far beyond those of any actress likely to be called upon to play her. Certainly, I found this one of the most affecting performances I have seen. Never can the "Best Actress" Oscar have been better deserved. Kevin Kline was unlucky not to have been nominated for his part as the tormented and tragic Nathan. This is a dark, sombre film but one of high quality and great emotional power. 8/10


Director Alan J. Pakula's film, a departure from his conspiracy and suspense dramas, is an adaptation of William Styron's best-selling novel of the same name. The story itself is based on his experiences as a southerner living in Brooklyn in 1947.

Pakula essentially preserves the structure of Styron's novel as it begins with the arrival of Stingo, an aspiring young writer, in post - WWII Brooklyn. After settling into a boarding house, he meets a unique couple that offers him alternating support and heartbreak.

He befriends the Jewish biologist, Nathan (Kevin Kline), and his girlfriend, Sophie Zawistowska (Meryl Streep), a Polish refugee and Auschwitz survivor. But their relationship is clouded by Nathan's violent behaviour, his uncontrollable jealousy, and Sophie's unexpressed but troubling memories of war. Her stories about her life during the war begin to unravel, exposing her as a liar and adding a tone of mystery to the relationship between Nathan, Stingo, and herself.

The film culminates in a flashback, reflecting the horrors of the war and the true cause of Sophie's insufferable pain and the bitter choice she had to make

Streep deservedly won an Oscar and a Golden Globe for Best Actress, bringing on the tears, playing both a naive girl and a worldly woman, transforming herself into a Holocaust victim and survivor. Speaking flawlessly in a Polish accent and acceptable German, she basically became Sophie Zawistowska.

And while Streep is undoubtedly the star, both Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol deserve credit for making 'Sophie's Choice' work as well as it does.

While overall this is Stingo's coming of age story, at its central core we get drawn into Sophie's saga. Pakula uses an Emily Dickinson poem to frame her story:

Ample make this bed.Make this bed with awe; In it wait till judgment break excellent and fair. Be its mattress straight, be its pillow round; Let no sunrise' yellow noise interrupt this ground.

The reference to the bed is the key to understanding Sophie's persona. She relies on Nathan's physical love, even as he abuses her, to cope with her Auschwitz ghosts.

Nestor Almendros' delicately lit cinematography, with its complex levels of saturation and subtle impositions of shadow, has often been meticulously replicated. The flesh tones are perfect, the image is solid and the colours, when in full bloom, are exquisitely formed. Equally effective is the use of music created by Marvin Hamlisch. Two themes are effectively intertwined throughout the story  both melancholic.

Though the film deals with the Holocaust, it doesn't graphically show Nazi horrors, but rather refers to them abstractly, making it more effective. 'Sophie's Choice' provides the emotional core of the horror and shows what devastating experiences the survivors must deal with. For Pakula, the film was an artistic highpoint and his most deeply felt work. Undoubtedly, 'Sophie's Choice' remains his most powerful, highly distinctive drama.


I already knew that Meryl Streep was a phenomenal actress even before watching what many consider her greatest performance as Sophie. I have developed deep admiration for her brilliant portrayals of unforgettable characters like Karen Blixen, Francesca Johnson, and Joanna Kramer, to name some of my favorites. I am already a devoted fan, notwithstanding that the film I had so much wanted to watch kept eluding me. Until that day came when I finally watched her blew me away in what I dubbed as a magnificently explosive performance. Sophie's Choice has elevated my admiration to Streep to levels no other obsession of mine can ever reach.

There's no way this class of artistry will be outrank. Streep is peerless.


Having a new, big screen, home theater system is giving me the chance to watch some of my old favorite films and see how they have held up over time. I was recently surprised at how strange the story in Manhattan seemed 26 years later. I wondered how Sophie's Choice might have aged. I remember being so moved by Meryl Streep's performance and by the story. I still feel the same urgency to be reminded of the Holocaust. Especially with the horrors and torture still so prevalent we still need to recall what happened not so long ago. Sophie's Choice is still as great as I remember it. Streep's performance is the greatest I have ever seen. The DVD comes with a "Making of" documentary which is so enlightening. This was an important project for everyone involved, from the author, the screenwriter, the director, the cinematographer, to the actors all cared about what they were doing in this film.


Meryl Streep is fantastic, always convincing as a Polish survivor of a concentration camp. Rest of the movie is at turns silly, grating, and maudlin. Seems inappropriate to make the real life outrages of the Holocaust fodder for a sappy southern boy's bildungsroman. "Stingo" is an annoying Thomas Wolfe stereotype of the sensitive genius writer; unfortunately we are subjected to examples of his overwrought purple prose in voiceovers that sound lifted from The Waltons. If we only could have been spared the confession that his climatic tryst with Sophie was the end of his virginity; I had bad flashbacks to "Summer of 42". Still gets four stars because Streep is just so good.