I'm a history student of second grade of a french canadian university. So, in a history point of view, I can assure you that this movie is simply amazing. The story is about a jesuite priest who wants to bring catholic faith to the Indians of the french colony Nouvelle-France (New France, the future Quebec of Canada) in the seventeen century. In fact, there was a lot of jesuite doing that by that time. The priest and his young translator ask the Algonquins natives to guide them to the Hurons natives. That is also exactly correct! But in their quest,they had some problems with the Iroquois natives. And that is exactly right! At the end, the priest reach the Hurons. The chief of the tribe tells that if they accept the god of the priest, they will become weak and their ennemies will kill them. And that's what's gonna happen! In fact, the Hurons were the first Indians of New France to accept catholic religion. I saw the movie with the french dubbing. The Indians of that time didn't knew how to prononce R. So, in the movie, they say : obe noie, instead of Robe Noire (Black Robe). I don't know if they said black obe in the English version. In one scence, the priest tells the Indian sorcerer that he is reading a breviaire (book of prayers). And the sorcerer said: beviaire, witout the R. The way the natives are dressed and wears their hairs is also very exact in an historical view. This is not only a great movie, but an amazing reconstitution. Natives actors are great, with August Schlleberg, the always good Tantoo Cardinal and the charming young Sandrine Holt. Lothaire Blutheau is one of the best french canadian actor (see him in Jesus of Montreal). This is absolutely a superb piece of work ! And some kind of perfect history book.


I noted that this movie was being compared to Dances with Wolves and Last of the Mohicans,aside from the fact that they all three involved native Americans there is little comparison.Windwalker would be a better comparison. This movie is more about this character who is being driven by a fierce passion to save a people and culture he doesn't understand and doesn't want to. It's Man vs. Nature. God vs. Nature. It draws a far more fierce and savage picture of Native Americans than most films dare to in an effort to stay PC which sometimes means pretending a victim or minority is without fault. This character,this "Black Robe",is most certainly flawed, but his courage in the face of savagery is inspiring. Also the native Americans in this film seem far more human and less a Hollywood caricature of native Americans. I plead with every movie lover out there SEE THIS FILM. I felt I was truly transported back in time. So, if you are avoiding this film because you hated Dances with Wolves and fell asleep every time you tried to watch Last of the Mohicans, try this film instead.


When averaging, extreme scores skew the result. So I wonder at the motives of those who voted "1" for this film. Sabotage?

"Black Robe" invites comparison with "Aguirre, the Wrath of God," another masterpiece. Two great directors project their vision of two different men who do something we in this "civilized" culture can hardly imagine: plunge into a vast, unknown, alien world. And ultimately into oblivion.

The motivation, the source of courage, is faith, on one hand, and hubris on the other. Watch both examples. Though we can easily discern the noble from the base, we experience equally powerful stories. Here is a chance to see juxtaposed two profoundly different outlooks subjected to a common ordeal. What a wonderful, terrifying, soul-shaking thing to witness!


This film is brilliant, because it defies conventional stereotypes of European settlers and American Indians. This movie strives and succeeds in its portrayal of Indians and whites as human beings, rather than as villains or saints. Those who feel this movie would show the Indians as noble savages will be gravelly disappointed. The Indians in "Black Robe" can be cruel, and have sexual mores that would disgust the more prudish viewers. The affect of the Jesuit missionaries among the Indians of Quebec is not romanticized or glossed over, nor are the Jesuits shown as evil white devils. All humans in this movie have their flaws and weaknesses and all act "morally" according to their own cultures' expectations. Beresford has crafted a marvelous film that ought to be required viewing in college history courses across the country.

The cinematography is beautiful, whether we are watching the gilded altars of the cathedrals of Renaissance France, the iridescent glow of a fire at an Indian village, the cramped quarters of an Indian longhouse, or the awesome and heavenly magnificence of the Canadian woodlands and what appears to be the St. Lawrance River. This movie does feature explicit sexual acts and gruesome violence, so I would not recommend this movie at all for very young children. I think most teenagers can handle this film. I suppose this film is very hard to find at your local video rental store, but do yourselves a favor and find it. Your efforts will be amply rewarded.


As a retired Christian minister, I have perhaps a different view of the movie than some of the other reviewers.

I felt that Laforgue,the Jesuit Priest, showed amazing courage to undertake his mission under the most difficult of circumstances.

Director Bruce Beresford has addressed the issues of clashing cultures in several of his other films: Driving Miss Daisy, Mr. Johnson for example. And he presents the complexities of culture anew in this film.

I was struck by the absolute beauty of Québec and the film's cinematography.

Back to Laforgue for a moment: here is a protagonist that accomplishes his mission with wisdom, intellegence, prayer, dependence upon his faith, lack of violence, and persverance.


This film made major concessions to political correctness in its portrayal of the Indians, who are depicted in a considerably more flattering light here than they are in Brian Moore's novel. This could also be considered the romanticizing "Dances With Wolves" effect. The novel drew some (unjust) criticism here in Canada for its uncompromising approach.

The actual history is fairly readily available. "The Jesuits in North America in the 17th Century" by the great American historian Francis Parkman is the standard 19th c. work on the proselytizing efforts of the French Récollet and Jesuit fathers.

Still, if you are not very familiar with the subject, this film is a strong, and quite gruesome, introduction. I'm not aware of a lot of films about the colonial period which are as tough. Not "Last of the Mohicans", or the adult westerns from the '50's, in my opinion. "Little Big Man", perhaps. Or possibly "A Man Called Horse", which I haven't seen. The priest in the story is a composite of actual missionaries, and the impact of this historical adventure thriller is heightened for me knowing that everything in this film happened, and often a whole lot worse.

The rights and wrongs, the pros and cons, of the cultural collision of Europeans with the autochthonous peoples are still too contentious, so I would rather not get into them. There is a lot here to brood about afterwards, and chances are good that you'll seek out a copy of the novel -- it's not very long, and a lot easier to read than James Fenimore Cooper. If you're American or Canadian, this is an important part of our shared past.

"Black Robe" is one of the very best Canadian feature films, with a solid cast led by Lothaire Bluteau with August Schellenberg and Tantoo Cardinal in support. The presence of an Australian director, Bruce Beresford, perhaps kept the film from turning into a well-meaning but dry Canadian history lesson.


"Black Robe" is a film I have seen at least a dozen times and it continues to cause utter astonishment. The highest quality that any art can have is the ability to arrest the mind of the viewer. Days later imagery is still flooding back to you -- feelings -- ideas -- and of course questions... But questions that properly have no easy answers. The first time I saw this film was about 15 years ago when it was first released. I watched it in a Toronto cinema and afterward emerged into a warm and noisy downtown night, crowded with people, signs, lights cars taxis subways et cetera. Immediately, I was in culture shock. The movie had so taken me into the world of 17th century Canada that I could not adjust to the reality of 20th century Canada. It still has that effect. Astonishing.


I saw this movie when it first came out and I loved it. Each scene is as beautiful as a painting. It really evokes a mood that stays with you. Everything about it is perfect, costumes, photography, writing, etc. The soundtrack is great, majestic, moving. I caught it a few times on TV, and it captured me again. It really does transport you to another time and place, you can feel the cold, and smell the air. Lothaire Bluteau is so sad, seems lost, but believes he is doing the right thing. The Indian sex scenes are interesting, that is something that is not often depicted, the freedom of their sexuality. This is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. I highly recommend it.


This film is often compared with Dances With Wolves, which is certainly understandable, but personally I feel that Black Robe is the better film, both in terms of art and fidelity to historical fact. I am a history graduate student in New York currently teaching an undergraduate class in the Bronx on early U.S. history, and Black Robe is just about the only film I have no hesitation showing to my students.

As a portrait of life in New France (now Eastern Canada) in the early to mid-1600s--when Samuel de Champlain was the leader of the tiny French outpost of Quebec--this film is virtually flawless. The complex relations between ordinary French colonists (almost all male), French Jesuit priests, and Native American tribes in the region (primarily Algonquian, which is a very broad category encompassing many distinct tribes) are rendered with a wonderful degree of accuracy, at least in my opinion. Colonists in New France generally took greater care than other Europeans--particularly the Spanish and the English--to have amicable relations with native people's they encountered. This is evident from the film but is not overemphasized, as we see the obvious conflicts between the French and their nominal Indian allies.

Black Robe's take on religion during this time period is smart, and illustrates some of the similarities between native and European beliefs while demonstrating the latter's contempt for native religion (the main character--"Black Robe," a term many Algonquians used both in the movie and in historical fact to describe the French Jesuit priests--is the primary example here). The Native Americans we encounter in this film are not portrayed in some idealized, pre-historic fashion, but rather as complex, violence-prone tribes as was actually the case. This does not diminish our sympathy for them and the difficulties they face as a result of the arrival of Europeans--as it should not--and instead actually shows the great extent to which Native Americans in early colonial history had power and affected the course of events.

I write this review mainly as a student of history, but in terms of the art of cinema I think Black Robe is also excellent. The film is beautifully shot, and the characters are drawn with a fair amount of complexity. It is a very "un-Hollywood" film (being Canadian) which probably partially explains why it succeeds. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this period (the "American" colonies during the 1600s) or anyone who was intrigued by films like Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans. This film has no big stars or Hollywood-style love story (such as the one that made Last of the Mohicans essentially unbearable to watch) but it does a great job presenting the complex dynamic between Native Americans and Europeans during the colonial period. Serious students of history (including teachers looking to show a film about Native-European relations) will find much to appreciate in Black Robe, and I think anyone who likes an interesting film even if it does not have famous actors in it will as well.


While living abroad several years ago, I bought this DVD to watch and to remind myself of Canada. I have travelled to all of the places depicted, sometimes by canoe. The film wanders inaccurately to locales in the wrong direction and as a historian at Ste-Marie among the Hurons (in Midland, Ontario) once explained to me, 'Black Robe' is at best an imprecise amalgam of the trips of different people over different years. Does this matter?

I have shown 'Black Robe' to foreigners abroad but in my experience, something goes missing in the translation. The film seems too simple, too boring or too brutal. But to foreigners who visit Canada and see the space and the distance (rocks and trees!), the film presents a dimension of the country, in fact the continent, that is hard to fathom otherwise. 'Black Robe' is an honest attempt, accurate I think, to portray the initial meeting of two civilizations in a place without people. It is much more accurate, in my opinion, than 'Dances With Wolves' or even 'The Mission'. My advice? If you are not American, watch this film either before or after a trip to the wilds of North America. If you're a prof, show this film to students but lead a discussion before and after with care.

Lastly, two scenes I liked in particular: 1) Lothaire Bluteau forlornly taking a crap off the side of a canoe (very tough to do) and 2) the comparison of the spires of trees and the spires of church columns. We all should feel small, and the quietude, abandoned in a North American forest, or a European cathedral.


There are basically no big compromises made in "Black Robe," a source of great disappointment to most reviewers. There are interesting characters, a variety of messages, lots of visualized information but no reduction to something easy to accept. No personable characters for whom we can forgive any deed or word, no overarching stirring message, no overblown hope. In fact, how did the film get so much complex reality in?

While the clash of cultures is presented, so are the clashes within cultures -- notably among the first nations but covering conflicts among Europeans as well. The film does not reduce the lives of its characters to any simple clash, theme, or plot.

The reductionist aspect to the film is the undercutting of the way that people structure their lives around traits, values, kin, enemies -- these meanings are shown, by contrast among cultures and by plot development, to be insufficient and misleading. We cannot identify with the characters because their loves and ideas are shown to be misguided.

I felt invigorated and depressed when I saw it on the screen and again on TV. Unlike the morbid European art films of the 60s that showed the meaningless of life by inventing meaningless lives, "Black Robe" shows people immersed in rich lives -- hard, beautiful, complex, compelling. While the plot may be slow, each scene draws you into a ton of immediate new reality, so you sense you are learning a lot about how people lived and believed and felt. By letting the characters glimpse the error of their constructions -- the insufficiency of love, the limits of faith, the death of kin, the hollowness of stoicism -- the director erodes our own hope for that most human of activities, giving meaning to life.

I think this is among the best films ever made. Certainly something like Citizen Kane is childish by comparison.


Brian Moore is certainly a great and gifted writer. Black Robe which flowed from his pen onto the silver screen is a spiritual journey through the wilderness. On screen the wild beauty of unsettled North America is breath taking.

Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) is a French Jesuit dispatched to New France (Canada; Northern NY) to bring the gospel to North Americans.

Why? asks LaForgue of his superiors. The importance of the mission is underscored by an older priest who admonishes Laforgue that Christianity must be brought by the French to the unchurched North Americans just as the French had once brought it to Europeans less civilised than the French. On LaForgue's trek through the wilderness to the Jesuit mission to the Hurons LaForgue's companion the courier du bois Daniel (Aden Young) also ponders the same question. "These North Americans," Daniel tells Father LaForgue, "are the real Christians; they live for each other and share everything; so they don't believe that in heaven you float on a cloud."

What will LaForgue learn of life and faith on his journey through the hostile forbidding wilderness? Cheers!


Brian Moore grew up in Northern Ireland and considered joining the priesthood before he moved to Canada and abandoned his Catholic religion later in life. I've not read this nor any of his other novels, but I am told that on several occasions he explored the idea of a priest losing his faith, and I wonder if perhaps, in spite of his outward angst against the Irish clergy, he wasn't in fact (like so many ex-Christian writers) struggling to cast of his guilt and to justify abandoning his own vocation.

In "Black Robe," for which Moore wrote the script as well as the book, he has chosen not to inject overtly anti-clerical themes. Perhaps he preferred to let the times speak for themselves: the French clergy in North America did most certainly believe in their mission to convert the Natives to Christianity, and no one believed in any sort of philosophical or cultural relativism. To the modern, deracinated and denatured man, this is offensive in and of itself and there would be no need to add the demonising of clerics so ubiquitous to contemporary cinema.

But to those who dare question the modern liberal conscience, this film is done accurately enough to sympathise with and appreciate the Jesuit's mission. The French are portrayed as sympathetic but imperfect: the clerics are naïve and occasionally condescending in their dealings with the Natives, but as we watch their efforts unfold Moore, whether he meant to or not, shows that they truly wanted and tried to understand and relate to these poor souls they ministered to.

And to pray for the salvation of these "poor, savage souls" was hardly condescending, and not only from a Catholic standpoint. For the Natives, life was short, violent and fearsome; death was always around the corner. Their religious beliefs were tightly wound with their daily routine and way of life (as they are in all pre-"Enlightened" societies, including those of Europe and European North America) and with life so tenebrous they feared anything innovative would completely destroy them. "We have accepted the gifts of the French, and we have come to depend on them. That will be the end of us." This is evident in Chomina's gradual coming to grips with Christianity and with the Abbé Laforgue (known to the Natives as "Black Robe"), but his unwillingness to let go and accept Baptism even on his deathbed. The Huron sense that the transformative power of the Baptismal water is so profound that they will "cease to be Huron," that their enemies, the Iroquois, will sense their weakness and destroy them.

And yet, Moore has so successfully replicated the brutish world of the Native American that the viewer who can overcome modern Political Correctness will indeed find himself wishing not for their destruction but that they and their enemies could, in one sense, cease to be Huron, cease to be Iroquois, for their own sake and for each other's, before it is too late! And they, too, understand this: as Abbé Laforgue reminds his young companion, "These people are gifted with intelligence." It is significant that Abbé Laforgue himself is perceptive enough to realise that fact, even though their intelligence is one that he can never understand. The movie ends on an apparently hopeful note and then reveals--through text--something utterly depressing about the near future, reflecting perhaps Moore's reluctance to show a happy triumphant Christian ending. But Moore neglects to tell us the complete story or to allow us to see hints of the ultimate triumph.

Romanticists will be sorely disappointed by "Black Robe," demolishing as it does that nice little myth of the Noble Savage, which has never amounted to anything more than a childish fairy tale. Leftists, too, many not appreciate it, for though it depicts the characters from their own and from each other's perspectives, the reality is that pre-colonial Native American culture was often excruciatingly cruel: as Chomina himself confesses, he is as selfish and sinful as any white man. There is neither postmodern white guilt complex here, nor the crass Cowboy and Indian games of old Westerners. In fact, there is very little in this film with which to sympathise from the standpoint of the modern "Enlightened" liberal conscience, and thank God for that! At last we have a movie about real human beings defined by their own time. The cinematography, moreover, is stunning: one truly feels the profoundity of the loneliness in the vast empty continent of North America. One complaint, though: if Moore went to this much trouble to portray the Natives speaking their own languages and Abbé Laforgue praying in Latin, couldn't the French have spoken to each other in FRENCH and not English??


Black Robe (1991)

Released with poor timing in the aftermath of a similar themed film - Kevin Costner's Dances with Wolves - Black Robe largely got lost in the shuffle. That's a shame, because the film is actually quite remarkable. Not to say that it hasn't had influence on other films however. Black Robe certainly must have had quite an influence on Terrence Malick and his The New World. The title credits are clearly inspired by those in Black Robe, and other aspects are familiar as well.

Set in 17th century Quebec, the film follows a young Jesuit priest, Father Lafourgue (Bluteau), referred to as Black Robe by the natives. He travels with a band Algonquins lead by Chomina (Schellenberg). With Father Lafourgue is Daniel, a young Frenchman, who is in love with Chomina's daughter. The young priest soon begins to inspire fears that he is some sort of demon, and many in the band wish to leave him behind, or possibly even kill him and his companion.

Their travels meet turmoil among other hostile native tribes, leading not only a struggle between peoples, but a struggle between faiths. Beresford creates a very bleak atmosphere, using the cold Quebec landscape as an intimidating, but still beautiful backdrop. The weather feels cold, the air crisp. It's really quite a beautiful film to look at.

Bruce Moore, who wrote the screenplay and the novel it was based on, went to great lengths in research to accurately portray this period in time. Many have praised the film for its accuracies, while a number of others have however complained that it shows natives as savages. I have to disagree. Neither side is shown as total bad guys, nor total good guys. The film gives everyone a fair shake. Both sides have/had their reasons, and both sides committed terrible acts. Certainly, not all Natives were all about peace and love, which is not a slight to them in the least. Their history is a noble one, and they had every right to fear and be hostile in the face of Europeans. That said, I'm probably overcompensating for the film, because it really doesn't show Natives as savages at all, especially not the Algonquins. Moore claimed, in fact, that he actually toned down the violence of the Natives compared to what he found in his research. That said, what he found in his research was most likely overstated to begin with.

Black Robe certainly is a bleak picture. The naturalistic photography and tone adds to the depressed atmosphere. This is not a story of joys, but of sorrows. When the film ends, we are told what history has already told us - the Natives were slaughtered and the Jesuit's mission by and large was a futile failure.

Though the film sticks to its own dark history, this is more than just a very well done history lesson. Black Robe is a parable of the horrifying results that come from misunderstanding, miscommunication, and ignorance. While the Jesuit mission was well intentioned, it was more a product of Eurocentric ignorance than anything else. The Native people had their own religious beliefs, and the film shows that. The lessons in Black Robe are transferable to any number of modern day conflicts. We have not learned our lesson, and by removing the gloss and glamour off the period epics of old, Black Robe serves as a reminder. Such a shame its so overlooked.


A really great movie with beautiful scenery, reminding one of the natural splendor of early North America. Black Robe is the story of a journey up a river in canoes with an impending winter in wilderness Canada. A French Jesuit priest is transported far up river by Algonquin Indians. The movie uses the journey to contrast the cultures of the French, the Algonquin, and the Iroquois. The movie is not judgmental with any of these cultures. Excellent performances, especially by the young man playing the Jesuit priest. This movie is very touching and is very successful at making you care about the characters. Finally, Black Robe is a good adventure movie, with graphic violence and brutality. All in all a tremendous movie that should not be missed.


It is rare that a film makes you feel that you are actually witnessing history (rather than the "Hollywood Version"), but "Black Robe" accomplishes that and more. What I love about this film (that I have watched over a dozen times and will watch many more times) is that it doesn't take a point-of-view regarding the European colonization of the New World and the native American culture. Both cultures are seen as slightly insane world-views that are, ironically, valid in their own way, yet futile at the end of the day.

It concentrates on one Jesuit priest and his journey to the New World. The film demonstrates how difficult his journey was and his passionate commitment to his faith. But it also shows how nutty these priests were to try to preach to the unconverted. It also presents several native American tribes (such as the Hurons and Mohawks) and how truly savage they could be.

This is one of the great films of recent (perhaps all) time. I am suspicious as to why it has been ignored. I think that future generations will find a lot to enjoy here--beyond the beautiful scenery, the accurate historical information and the love of the natural world that appears throughout this truly amazing film...


This film manages to tell the story of European imperialism among Native Americans without glorifying or demonizing any of its subjects or characters. There are no clear cut good guys or bad guys and the only real demon here is misguided faith. The genius of this movie is that it makes it easy for us to view the story from both the Native American and the French Jesuit point of view. The lack of Hollywood stereotypes and minimalist dialogue help make the characters seem more real, making the climax subtle, yet surprisingly powerful. The incredible landscape and the excellent score only add to the proceedings. If you are looking to gain a better understanding about one of the more tragic and overlooked chapters in American history, skip Dances With Wolves and go with Black Robe instead.


This movie is a must see.

I would like to say that I enjoyed reading the excellent comments of others about this movie. I was just as moved by this movie as most of you. I would like join you in my praise for this movie.

I was awe struck throughout this movie. Watching Black Robe, was like actually being there. It was as if I had heard about this place and these people but now I was transported in time. This may sound trivial but it is the best way to express my reaction. Througout the movie I strained to see every detail in every scene. I tried to catch every nuance. It seemed so real that I expected to smell the smoke, the water, roasted meat etc.

The cinematagraphy was incredible. It is refreshing to see a movie that does not rely 100% on special effects for its 'cinematagraphy'. The scenes from altitude showing the line of canoes paddling through the vast wilderness were awesome. The sound track was powerful. The camera was able to create sensations of fear, abandonment, helplessness that were so vivid.

The dialog was superbly realistic. Facial expressions were used more than words to convey thoughts. What little was said was in such simple short sentences that got to the point. It is just what I would expect from the no non-sense Indians interacting with an idealistic priest.

I am not a history or anthropology expert but I feel that the movie was highly accurate. The director portrayed both cultures bias free (a rash statement to make). The director allowed the viewer to condemn or extol either culture. In the end I felt like the young Frenchman- I could see both cultures for what they were - not good and not bad but coping with the situation at hand.

The importance of religion (both Christain and Indian) in everyday life is very well depicted. The Catholic religion is portrayed on equal footing with Indian religion. To White man and Indian alike, both appeared mystical beyond comprehension. The dilemma of which culture, which religion to choose was well depicted with the young Frenchman. However the same dilemma existed for the Indians. Everyone had to choose and each choice took them in a different direction. It seems that in order to survive it is best to be able to switch back and forth at will.

I feel that the movie McCabe & Mrs. Miller in some ways addresses the same sort of issues. A California gold rush mining town advances toward 'civilization' when a whore house and a church arrive at the same time. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoyed Black Robe. It is one of an extremely few Hollywood movies that I could recommend.


This is one of the most genuinely multicultural, or cross-cultural, works of film art I have ever seen. There are quite a few films of course that show another culture's point of view -- and no lack of films showing an idealized Indian point of view. But this one shows two very different cultures in early contact with each other -- and for the most part manages to show us each culture, Great Lakes Algonquin and Huron on the one hand, and French/European Canadian missionary colonizers on the other, from EACH OTHER's point of view.

It is the most successful example of that I have ever seen.

And it does all this within a serviceable plot. Not great, but serviceable -- and apparently true, so far as the basic outlines are concerned at least. As was said above, the early parts of the movie drag too much. The whole movie, in fact, is rather slow. But that tends to be the nature of these sorts of films. Their emphasis is on cultural understanding. It does a pretty amazing job of that.

Unlike most films of this sort, the AmerIndians are NOT idealized. (As for instance they are pretty unreservedly in Dances with Wolves and Little Big Man.) The special and central brutality of some of their customs is amply demonstrated, especially towards the end. The Hurons are prepared to skin the rival chief they have captured literally alive, after killing and then burning alive his children one by one, essentially to make a political point. It does not look like an easy life, and I imagine far fewer people would leave this movie thinking they would have wanted to be Indians, or live among them, than feel that way after films such as Dances with Wolves. It was such a hard life.

And yet many spiritual and wonderful things about the native culture come through without question. The centrality of dream visions in their spiritual world is given real power, and we can feel it. We can see how they see the French, and the supposed best of the French, the Black Robes. It is very much how one feels when one can understand two mutually exclusive belief systems. I suppose in a sense the point of view is closest to that of the young French companion and guide for the Priest. He falls in love with a beautiful and very young Indian chief's daughter, and tries to join their group -- and yet he also understands the priest, and is attracted to his spirituality. He sees both sides --- and so do we.

It is an interesting movie for those who are historically or anthropologically interested. It is probably a bit slow if you are just looking for action in a colorful setting. It doesn't have the pace of Last of the Mohegans, for example. But that movie is mostly about settler and British military life on the Indian frontier -- but bridging understand of the native cultures they are in conflict with and among, to some extent, through the "half breed" hero. This one is mostly about Indian life at first contact with the Whites. Fascinating, if you like this sort of thing at all. I certainly do.


Gorgeous movie. My only real problem is the screen at the end claiming that the Indians got wiped out after they converted. They did, ... but there was also this little thing called the French and Indian War.

And in that war, these Indians happened to side with the French.

The F&I War was pretty dang big, cost enough money to cause the American Revolution a few years later, and ended in a gargantuan battle where the British won because the kill ratio was 3 dead French/allies for every 2 British/allies.

So yeah, the movie's a little disingenuous there.

Also, what's with this stupid 10-line minimum?


The two things that are most striking about this film are its unqualified realism and the beauty of its wilderness photography.

The story takes place in the 17th century in what was to be Canada; it concerns a Jesuit priest (Father Laforgue) from an upper class family in France who comes to Quebec City and is tasked with traveling through the wilderness some 1,500 miles west to work at the Huron Mission there. Laforgue is accompanied on his journey by a party of Algonquin Indians as well as by Daniel, a young French interpreter who is primarily just up for the adventure.

As the journey proceeds and the seasons move from fall into a harsh winter the mood of the film becomes ever more bleak. The continuing culture clashes between the Algonqins and Laforgue are sometimes humorous but are ultimately sad in their revealing insights into how difficult it is for one culture to understand another. One scene has Laforgue transcribing a brief story told by the Algonquin chief and then having Daniel take the transcription some distance and read it back to another tribesman. Laforgue is trying to show the Indians that he has much to teach them, but their interpretation of the incident is that he must be some sort of demon. When the party meets up with some members of another tribe and they see Laforgue dressed in his black robe and ask if he is intelligent, the Algonquin chief quickly answers, "No." On the other hand Laforgue views the Indians in their current unenlightened state as savages.

Not all is love and harmony between the various Indian tribes. When the Lafourgue party encounters a band of Iroquois there are some scenes of violence and torture where the squeamish may want to avert their eyes.

Daniel, speaking the Algonquin language and having taken up with the chief's daughter, begins to have some understanding of the Indians and their ways. One interesting exchange between Daniel and Lagorgue is:

Daniel: They believe that in the forest at night the dead can see.

Laforgue: It's childish Daniel.

Daniel: Is it harder to believe than in men of paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God?

Laforgue's most singular personal characteristic is his unwavering faith. His reaction to sexual temptation is confession of sin and self flogging. He sincerely believes that Christianity can bring salvation to the Indians, but the Indians have their own gods and view Laforgue with incomprehension. The film's success in making us understand both of these positions gives the ultimate conclusion a dimension of tragedy.


A Catholic missionary goes into the Canadian wilderness to find a lost mission and the journey challenges his most ardent convictions. The film is wonderfully photographed and has an air of cultural realism that has rarely been equaled. Awe and danger linger over nearly every scene, as the priest (Lothaire Bluteau) and his young European assistant (Aden Young) are accompanied by an increasingly disillusioned band of Huron Indians led by Chomina (August Schellenberg) whose daughter (Sandrine Holt) takes an interest in Daniel (Young) and in the process arouses strong sexual feelings in the celibate Father Laforgue(Bluteau) when he discovers them one evening making love. Faced with his sexual desire, he flogs himself, while in the meantime he's trying to convince the skeptical Hurons to convert. They can't understand him and his strange views or why in his Christian heaven there is no sex or tobacco. In the end, it earns him their deep mistrust. On finding the lost mission, a miracle considering all the dangers involved, he converts the inhabitants of the village, only to have them all killed by the non-believing Iriquois. Part a critique of the missionary movement, but more so a look at Laforgue's fight with his own faith and conviction, and a glorious picture of the cold and beautiful Canadian wilderness as it might have looked in the mid 17th century.


My AP US History teacher recommended this film to my class and I think it was an exceptional work of art. I was compelled throughout the whole film, watching every single scene with interest. Bluteau does a great job with his character as a Jesuit Priest and I believe that watching this will boost my knowledge of the Jesuits and will help me later on with the AP History test. I feel that this film should have been more acknowledged amongst the "society" because it shows what a film really should be made of. Not all films are supposed to be action-packed, whereas this film touches the mind and maybe the soul of those who believe in the Native American spirits. I recommend this film to all who are interested in North American history or just want to watch a good movie. If you feel against this, email me for a good argument. =)


i thought this movie was an excellent representation of the misconceptions of other people and other cultures. throughout the movie we see that even though the Jesuits could communicate with the Natives and vice versa there was still a great amount of misunderstanding. though this movie may not be an exact historical time-line of events it was refreshing to see a story that wasn't so one sided, at least in my opinion. it showed how the Jesuits convinced the Hurons in the end to be baptized by convincing them that they would be healed of their sickness if they accepted God and also it showed how the Jesuits did not claim the responsibility of the foreign diseases brought over from the Old World but blamed it on the Native's lack of Christianity. this film also showed how both sides thought the other was stupid, the Native's believed the Jesuits God was the clock and didn't understand the whole concept or for instance when the Black robe was lost and the Native's were directing him- they didn't understand how or why these foreign people didn't know anything about working with the land. all in all i did enjoy this movie and i do recommend it. it has a lot of interesting and thought provoking concepts. being of partially Native decent i have encourage many of my friends to watch it and all them have been enlightened.


This film which I just saw is extremely powerful. I, myself am a

Catholic so I found this film of special interest since it is about a

Jesuit Priest. The priest is a brave but flawed man. The theology

of the time was also extremely flawed. Especially the reasons for

converting people. But the film is all about the ending. SPOILER

ALERT: When the Native Americans tell the priest baptize them

because he loves them and not because baptizes them for their

conversion or because they believe it is a magical ritual that would

cure them. This almost moved me to tears. This is what

conversion and baptism should be about.


In addition to being a great story about a little-depicted part of North America's history, Black Robe portrays with stark effect the wide gap in the way that white Europeans thought and acted compared to the way that native Americans thought and acted in the 17th Century.


I didn't expect much from this movie at all. Boy, was I surprised to see the most eye-opening story of early colonization of North America! Yes, the movie is rife with small flaws throughout. Sometimes they can be distracting (for example, you lose the illusion that a movie should create and instead you get the feeling that there are production people behind the camera) but still, the story and some of the characters depictions are so strong that you are still left with a haunting and depressing feeling long after the end credits.

The best side of this movie is that it shows the life in those times to be as brutal and unappealing as it probably really was. It makes you think twice before you might think: I would like to have lived then! Well, I don't think so now!

Unlike DANCES WITH WOLVES, this movie does not have Hollywood, dreamlike romantic qualities. It punches brutal reality right in your face. All the characters are human beings, they are vulnerable, weak, selfish and not even likeable. But somehow you still feel for them.

So, would I recommend it? Absolutely, despite the flaws. The story will stay with you for a while. Rating it 8 out of 10.


My movie watching days go back to the 1940's. I rate movies by several factors: Entertainment value; Information; Acting; Story; Honesty; and total Impact.

Ive kept a top ten list since the 60's. 'Gone With the Wind' has been on top of that list since I first saw it, in 1949.

Black Robe took second place when I first saw it, 2 nights ago. This film provides an extremely good picture of the rigors and difficulties encountered in the early days, in The North. The pristine quality of the earth, and its majesty come through crystal clear in this film . I will remember Black Robe and its characters as long as I live. Its one of those stories that makes you not want to get up to go the bathroom.


This is a film that for most of its running time has no other players than the three adult leads and a child. The players had better be good for this one. Fortunately they are and Rachel and the Stranger has a good quiet charm about it.

The title role is played by Loretta Young. She was a year past her Oscar winning performance in The Farmer's Daughter and really at the top of her game. Rachel is a bondservant who is bought by widower William Holden to help out at the family farm, bring back a feminine touch to the place and help raise his son, Gary Gray. Rachel is bought for "eighteen dollars and owing four" by Holden, but frontier proprieties being what they were, Holden has to marry her.

But she's no wife, she's bought and paid for help, until Holden's friend Robert Mitchum shows up and starts looking at her as a desirable woman. Now Holden starts thinking along those lines and the fun begins.

Holden and Mitchum both do very well in typical roles for both at the time. Bill Holden called this his "smiling jim" period which ended with Sunset Boulevard a year later.

Mitchum gets to sing in Rachel and the Stranger and even cut a couple of records of the songs he sings from the film. Not bad for Bob, among the many accomplishments of that complex and talented man was as a singer and songwriter. He didn't do it often enough in movies.

But the movie really turns on Loretta Young's performance. She strikes just the right note as the bondwoman who helps make the whole lot of them a family again.

The movie is also a good depiction of frontier Ohio. An Indian attack is part of the problems the quartet faces and the Shawnees were very active there until the Battle of Fallen Timbers which took place in 1795. Figure the action to be taking place slightly before that.

A nice entertaining film.


"Big" Davey Harvey(William Holden) a widower, and his only son Davey live in the mountains of Ohio during the Pioneer days. Big Davey increasingly frustrated at the influence of his fur hunter friend Jim Fairways(Robert Mitchum) decides his son needs a woman's influence around the house and sets off to the local stockade to find a wife much to the protestations of little Davey who doesn't want anyone to replace his recently deceased mother.Big Davey is recommended a bonds girl Rachel(Loretta Young )who is surplus to requirements and he buys her for 18 dollars.Both of the Harveys are cold and distant towards their new family member and treat her as the slave she is, until that is the charismatic Jim Fairways arrives and treats her like a queen,they hit it off straight away much to the jealousy of Big Davey who is just not ready for love yet. this triggers a battle of wills to win the heart of Racheland just to add to their problems the film is set against a backdrop of continuing raids by rogue Shawnee Indians on the local homesteads.This is truly a forgotten western classic that still feels very fresh today,Rachel and the Stranger is very very charming film,that is also very funny and has a simple but intelligent script,on top of that add three truly Epic performances by the three leads and an action packed finale and you have a wonderful film.

PS.Mitchum never ceases to amaze me, a true giant of the Cinema and a really good singer too


This is a WONDERFUL movie. Why it wasn't released for home video....Its a beautiful story of a widower (Holden) and his son who feel they need a woman around the house. A neighbor recommends a bond slave (Young) and after persuasion, he reluctantly marries her. She moves in but finds there is not a welcome wagon from the boy or Holden! She is just a housekeeper to them. A wily bachelor friend (Mitchum) shows up unexpectedly and has eyes for Young! Holden doesn't know what to think. He hasn't gotten over the death of his wife yet and can't love Young, but with Mitchum's arrival he starts to get jealous! Simple but deep, touching story with nice filming and awesome performance by all. Especially Mitchum as the lonely bachelor trying to steal Young. Catch it on the classic movie channel.


At its most basic, "Rachel and the Stranger" is a domestic comedy set in the wilderness of 18th century Ohio. Director Norman Foster manages to pack more charm into each five minutes than most films have during their entire running length.

At its most ambitious, "Rachel and the Stranger" is an allegorical story about the impact of a catalyst into a seemingly stable dynamic. In this case the stranger in the title, Jim (Robert Mitchum), visits the isolated farm of long-time friend David Harvey (William Holden), his young son Davey (Gary Gray), and their bond servant Rachel (Loretta Young). David bought Rachel (who is working off her late father's debts) after his wife died, needing a replacement to help raise Davey. He married her out of respect for social convention but has no intention of consummating the marriage.

While David treats Rachel with respect and consideration, his son is openly resentful of the substitute mother. After some initial progress the threesome settles into a distanced existence, a rut from which there is little chance they will be able to escape on their own. But things quickly change when Jim stops by on his way to town. For the first time Rachel has someone who actively engages her. Jim's attentions build up Rachel's status in Davey's eyes while causing David to see her obvious attractions for the first time. But Foster doesn't limit things to this predictable interplay; he builds on it by having Rachel quickly come out of her guarded shell in response to Jim's interest. Even the makeup people get into the act as Young goes from the look of a plain pioneer woman to a subtle radiance.

All four stars are excellent. It was probably Holden's best performance as he provides most of the humor with his growing attraction to Rachel and his increasing irritation with the attention Jim is paying to her.

Young was about 10 years too old for her 25 year-old character but this is not really a factor as the age of the character is unimportant; you wonder why they did not simply change the one reference to her age after casting Young for the part. Young's acting tends to be underrated because of her later work as a television hostess but even her film work as a teenager was extraordinary. She was an especially good casting choice because the repressed Rachel needs to subtly convey a depth and dimensionality early in the film to make her later transformation plausible.

Mitchum gives perhaps his liveliest performance as he seems to be having a lot of fun with his part. Gray is solid as always, one of those rare child actors who were not irritating after a few minutes on the screen.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I don't know why some people have to look for deep "inner or psychological meanings in movies. Fortunately, I just love the movies and accept them for what they are - sheer entertainment! And if you are the same, then you need to see this one. Loretta Young, William Holden and Robert Mitchum are absolutely WONDERFUL in their roles. It is a great story with just the right hint of comedy and romance. So, if you love the movies, and love entertainment, you will truly enjoy this wonderful classic, "RACHEL AND THE STRANGER"!


I too became a fan of this movie (thank you American Movie Classics). What at first appeared to be a run-of-the-mill frontier cabin story turned into an absorbing, well-written, well-acted human interest story with four engaging characters, a beautiful locale (the movie would have benefited from color), and a fine score to boot. The concept of a bonded (indentured) servant added an interesting historical facet. The cast, of course, is top notch. Mitchum and Holden work particularly well together. The film should be a lot better known than it is, and is well worth a see.


This film is often overlooked despite the presence of Loretta Young, Robert Mitchum and William Holden in the cast. It's a well-done frontier story with plenty of action and romance. Loretta Young has never looked more fetching and the Mitchum/Holden combo is a knock out.


"Rachel and the Stranger" is a pleasant film that combines two genres to great advantage. On the one hand, it has the feel of a western, but it is also a tender love story. Pictures like this one were made in the Hollywood of the post-war when all the men were back and happier times seemed just on the horizon. The film reflects the hope of those years as it gave its viewers a good time for the prize of admission.

The story is simple enough. A lonely widower, David Harris, with a young son can't cope running their farm without the help of a woman. The solution is to go into the near settlement where no one knows his wife has died to try to get a woman that could come and help with the farm work. He has to resort to buy a servant woman, Rachel, for a ridiculous sum and heads back to his place. There is a best friend who takes only one look at Rachel to realize she's a diamond in the rough. Through Jim's interest in Racehl, David comes to realize what this woman is worth after she walks out on him and the farm. David will come to his senses and will realize he has loved Rachel all along.

The film unites three stars in their own right: William Holden, Loretta Young and Robert Mitchum, something that would be prohibitive by today's salaries and egos. RKO scored big with the casting alone. Norman Foster directed with his own easy style. The three principals do an excellent job in creating characters that the viewer will like.

"Rachel and the Stranger" is a good way to spend an evening when there is nothing else to do.


This film is a Western, but combines a number of strange bedfellows - the romantic comedies of Hawks (two men fight over a woman treated as a slave); melodrama (the film is brilliant at visualising the limited options open to Rachel, from the proscenium curtains looking out at a world she has no freedom in and the metronome ticking away her life, to the overall claustrophobic setting (a small farm) and limited dramatis personae), and even psychological thriller (like REBECCA, Rachel is a second wife living in the shadow of a perfect predecessor; both films share a cathartic conflagration). The unsophisticated characters conceal a complex film about family and gender, in which the usual Indian threat is more of a psychological displacement.


"Rachel and the Stranger" has been one of my favorite "little" films over the years. I only say little because my mother and I are the only two fans of it that I actually know of, but I'm sure there are hundreds of fans out there who love "Rachel and the Stranger" as much as we do. TCM runs it two or three times a year and I try not to miss it. I guess it was a big hit in its time even though it's not as well known today, but my advice is to watch it if you ever get the chance. At about 90 minutes it doesn't wear out its welcome and seems to be over as fast as it began. And with three great stars like Loretta Young (WOW!), William Holden and Robert Mitchum, you really can't go wrong. All three are perfect in their roles. The film is a traditional Western in many ways, but what I like most about it is the humor that's woven in throughout. One sequence even develops into slapstick, but it works. Overall, a really wonderful and enjoyable movie. This is the kind of film that you just end up counting among your favorites even though it's likely that no one you know has ever seen it. And it's the kind of film that you want everyone to see so you can strike up a conversation about how much you love it! Watch it and enjoy!


In time of colonization of America, the widower David Harvey (William Holden) lives in an isolated farm in the woods with his son Davey (Gary Grey). Father and son miss their wife and mother Susan, who has recently died, and David concludes that he needs a woman to educate his son properly and to cook and clean the house. David decides to travel with Davey to the nearby fort to seek a woman and the reverend proposes the bond servant Rachel (Loretta Young) for him. David buys Rachel, and Davey overhears the negotiation; but the reverend demands that they should marry to each other to have a decent life in the same house. The trio travels back to the farm and David and Davey treat Rachel like a slave without any respect or affection. When David's drifter friend Jim Fairways (Robert Mitchum) visits them, he stays for a couple of days with the family and treats Rachel respectfully like a lady. Then Jim courts Rachel, and David feels jealous and realizes how important she is for him.

"Rachel and the Stranger" is an adorable romance and I loved this western. I did not know the concept of indentured servant in America, and the humiliating situation of Rachel is heartbreaking, fruit of the unpaid debts of her father. Loretta Young has a fantastic performance and William Holden and Robert Mitchum have hilarious moments with their witty lines. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Rachel e o Estranho" ("Rachel and the Stranger")


I loved this movie. I thought the banter between Holden and Mitchum were subtly hilarious. The facial expressions were spot on from Holden. Young was formidable in this part as well. I think it takes a strong cast to make a movie that revolves around four sole characters. It was a great romantic comedy. I liked the chemistry between Mitchum and Young on screen. I also thought that Gary Gray added the right amount of drama/comedy to the whole show. I loved the scenes in the woods with Mitchum and Holden bickering and making their pleas to Young. All in all, I think this is a good movie, and definitely worth the time of watching.


This is an all time favorite, with endearing characters that take on issues such as the plight of women in the 1800s, bond servants, in essence a summary of a way of pioneer life, showing the reliance on one another in order to survive. In a lighter mode, there is humor, music, danger and intrigue and a growing love between a man and woman who come together out of necessity. I cannot understand why it isn't on home video!? This is a USA made movie, and it's only available on DVD in Spanish with English subtitles from Spain. I give this movie an excellent rating because it captures not only a way of life, but also great acting by well-known celebrities whose characterizations bring the story a sense of reality. I highly recommend this movie to any one who enjoys a dramatic love story, conveying all the emotions without today's graphic gore as a backdrop.


This film plays out as a sort of western Rebecca (1940. Rachel (Lorreta Young) lives in the shadow of Big Davy's (William Holden)first wife when she is 'bought' to keep house and educate the young son. The film essentially follows Rachel's efforts to gain acceptance and prove herself a worthy acquisition.

Young is good in her role, adequately conveying Rachel's disappointment with married life and her relationships with two men, Holden and Mitchum. Holden and Mitchum in a sense both occupy the stranger tag of the title. Young marries Holden as a stranger, and he remains a stranger even in marriage. Mitchum is the stranger who appears and seems to offer Rachel a chance at salvation. Both men suit their roles. Holden, at first a grief-stricken widower, cold and unwelcoming, begins to open up to Rachel and appreciate her as a wife and companion, not a slave. Mitchum sings and provides a lighter presence. Gary Gray gives strong support as the child who learns to love Rachel as a mother figure after his initial mistreatment of her.

There are some interesting themes here, particularly the idea of female servitude. 'Rachel And The Stranger' poignantly questions the role of women in society and also the portrayal of women in western films. It looks at the gun myth in western films- guns allow Rachel to assert herself in a 'male' aspect. It hints at Rachel's dissatisfaction with the lack of sexual relations in her marriage. the Both central male figures are worth close analysis- Mitchum claims to love and appreciate Rachel more than Holden's character, yet he too only thinks of Rachel in monetary terms when he offers to 'buy' Rachel from Holden.

'Rachel And The Stranger', in haunting black-and-white cinematography, is a real little gem of a film. It's simple, yet powerful themes and efficient running length mean that the film does not stray into long-winded sequences that detract from the original premise of Rachel's struggle as a 'replacement bride'.


This excellent film is one of William Holden's best earlier roles...not all that far from the major stardom that was to come.

This was also a nice change of pace for Robert Mitchum. It was another sturdy performance by Loretta Young. I find it entertaining, honest and well made.

I do wish Warner Home video would see fit to release it on DVD. It's a good 'family' movie, and I believe it would be popular.

Considering it was one of RKO's biggest hits in the late 1940's, I guess the public back then saw it the same way I see it....as a terrific film.


I have a pet peeve and before I begin I want to say a few words about it. I have done a huge number of reviews and am constantly noticing that even the most mediocre films get scores of 10 from some reviewers. While this is definitely a better than average film, no sane person could say it deserves a score akin to that of GONE WITH THE WIND or THE GODFATHER. I think it's great to love a film, but over-scoring it doesn't lend much credence to your review. Just my two cents worth and I'm sure I'll catch heck for saying it.

As for this movie, it's a nice little family film that benefits from being very unique and having several wonderful performances. In this slice of pioneer life film, William Holden and his son are left alone after the death of his wife. Needing a mother for the boy and someone to help out around their frontier homestead, he travels to the nearby fort to find a wife. There, he buys an indentured servant (Loretta Young) and brings her back home after marrying her. Not exactly a romance, I know! Unfortunately, there never really is any romance, as Holden and son treat her more like a hired hand and after a while it's obvious she resents this--especially after she works herself to the bone caring for them. Into this very unhappy situation comes "the stranger" (Robert Mitchum)--who immediately realizes the problem and proposes to take Rachel away from this drudgery--and pay Holden for her! While there is a lot more to the film, this certainly made for an unusual flick.

The performances all around are excellent and the film ended on a very good and not especially sappy note. Well worth your time and I have no serious complaints--other than the writer who indicated that Miss Young was playing a lady who was 25 (yeah, right!!). In actuality she was a decade older and she wasn't fooling anyone--but still a lovely woman regardless of the age difference.


Lightweight, predictable fare that's nothing to write home about, but a really enjoyable movie nonetheless that I gladly watch anytime it's on TCM.

William Holden plays a recent widower who realizes his son needs a mother. He goes into town and "buys" a wife (Loretta Young), whom he treats with respect (he's a gentleman) but also quite aloofly (he's still deeply in love with his dearly departed wife and is not ready to move on). Predictably, the boy resents the presence of this new woman and isn't ready for her or anyone else to take his mother's place. (You just know the boy and Holden are gonna come around by the end of the flick and the three of them are gonna be one big happy family.) Add in charming, wandering, singing-and-guitar-playing rogue Robert Mitchum and you've got quite an enjoyable story. Mitchum appreciates Young and strikes up a friendship with her, which piques Holden's curiosity over this woman he's previously overlooked.

Loretta Young is supposedly lovely in this film -- if you like her, that is. Personally, she's never caught my fancy and I've never understood her appeal, though I never let her presence in a movie keep me from watching it; that would be a shame and I'd miss some good flicks if I did! (OK, so ding this review if you're a LY fan and I dissed your lady, sorry! :)

William Holden is ... well, um, drool, pant, sigh ... absolutely gorgeous in this movie. He is reason alone to watch it! Robert Mitchum isn't too bad either, and has a surprisingly nice singing voice (yes that's actually him doing all that singing).


The little-known and underrated Steven Mackintosh stars in this ambitious and complex British thriller which keeps you right on the edge of your seat until the end.

Sadly, the end is a little bit disappointing but when you watch this endlessly twisting conspiracy story you'll soon come to realise that it is just too clever for its own good. And while that's not exactly a compliment, at least this low budget attempt at North by Northwest proves first-time writer/director Julian Simpson is not given to compromise.

The story begins late at night in a Soho bar where unassuming thirtysomething musician Jasper (Mackintosh) is drinking alone until he's joined by stunning blonde, Sarah, played by Natasha Little. She seems very keen to go back to his place, crack open a bottle of vodka and spend the night doing whatever two broad-minded and drunk adults like to do. But at 2am there's a knock at the door and suddenly the pace of The Criminal picks up as Jasper gets a smack in the face and wakes up to find the blonde had been slashed to ribbons and he is the number one murder suspect.

Up steps Bernard Hill as a hard-bitten copper who effs and blinds his way confidently through some fairly ropey dialogue. Unable to come up with substantive evidence, he lets Jasper back on the street (pursued by bumbling police, naturally) and our hero immediately begins to unravel the very murky story behind the murder. Be prepared to pay attention very closely from this point onwards because The Criminal is not a movie for those suffering post-MTV attention deficit disorder.

Mackintosh, whose character probably seemed pretty flat on paper, is onscreen almost constantly and thankfully he's up to the job, rescuing what might otherwise be a celluloid disaster. You might not know his name, but if you've seen Lock Stock, Blue Juice or The Buddha of Suburbia, you'll know the face. There's a good role for Soldier Soldier star Holly Aird as Hill's sidekick but unwarranted top billing goes to stand-up comic Eddie Izzard, who pops up fairly unconvincingly for about ten minutes of screen time in a role that's perhaps a little too vital for someone so inexperienced. Comedy lovers should also watch out for Red Dwarf co-star Norman Lovett in a very brief cameo.

Pick it apart and The Criminal doesn't hold much water. But despite its faults (of which there are a fair few) you are going to find it very hard to switch off without finding out what happens in the end.


This film is really just something to watch when you are bored. It's by no means the worst film on the world, but it could have been so much better.

There are some funny moments, and parts where you do wonder just what the hells going on. You can decide for yourself whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

I did enjoy the beginning, the way it kind of gave you a false sense of security; how it gave you the impression that the film might be something that was completely different from what it turned out to be. But it did go down hill from there on end.


'The Criminal' is an overlooked gem that I hadn't heard of prior to it showing up on cable. It captures classic noir in a modern framework with all the appropriate darkness and unsympathetic characters. The British have a knack for such crime drama, and I cringed throughout imagining what the Hollywood version would be like. (I'm surprised filming hasn't already begun.) The cast is brilliant from the top to the bottom of the credits, and the lead, Steven Mackintosh, is particularly outstanding as the trapped innocent attempting to piece together what he's fallen into. When it comes time to pull together the plot elements, writer/director Simpson makes a long stretch and comes up with something outrageous and a bit too easy, and some of the concluding twists feel somewhat contrived, but by this time, it really doesn't matter. The film's fast pace, great acting, and dark cinematography have already succeeded in making it a thoroughly entertaining noir.


I'd like to be kind as this was the director's first film. The trouble is there just isn't anything particularly good to say about it.

Well, I'll take that back just a little. The beginning looks good, the musician picking up a gal, and then her getting murdered. But that's about it. From there on, it's a downhill slide of contrived complications, red herrings, swearing inspectors. The swearing in this film was something else again like the British are trying to prove that they can be as foul mouthed as Americans.

I won't urge you to skip this. You might have reasons of your own to see it and if you do, all I can say is good luck.


The premise of this film isn't exactly original, but a story like this has great potential both for a psychological thriller and for a fun horror flick...but unfortunately, Or Unknown Origin doesn't quite manage to excel at being either. The focus is more on the battle between man and rat than providing the sort of schlocky horror that the eighties produced so prolifically, which is fine; but it never probes too deep into the psyche of the central character, and the film plays out like a movie that should be fun, but largely isn't. That's not to say that it's a bad film, however, as there are a lot of good ideas on display, and the film also features what may be a career best performance from Peter Weller. The plot sees a man who recently completed the rebuilding of a house being left alone when his wife and child go on holiday. He stays behind to try and win a promotion, but he doesn't count on an onslaught of torture when it turns out that the house he put together has become infested by a rat. What follows is an all out war between man and one of the world's most notorious pests.

Rats are one of horror cinema's most popular animals, and it's not hard to see why. There is a scene in this film that sees the central character make a case against rats, and it really makes you realise the reason why these animals are so often feared. Of Unknown Origin starts out slowly, but builds some momentum half way through when our hero begins his personal war against nature. I wasn't expecting much after the first half hour, but the film surprised me somewhat by the way it eventually comes together, climaxing with an exciting sequence that sees the central character really go off the rails. Peter Weller really is superb in the lead role, and I wouldn't be surprised if this film was the reason he went on to take the lead role in the classic Sci-Fi thriller 'Robocop'. It's a shame that director George P. Cosmatos doesn't seem too keen to get fully inside the character's head, as the potential for a great psychological thriller is definitely there. This film may have been better if it was handled by someone like David Lynch, but despite its imperfections; Of Unknown Origin is still worth seeing.


Peter Weller anchors a cast of Canadian actors in this entertaining low budget thriller directed by George Cosmatos. Plenty of action and a good through line of how an obsessively detailed individual would battle a threat to his environment. Louis "Seeing Things" Del Grande is very good as the helpful janitor next door to Weller's yuppie palace. Features rising Canadian actors Kenneth Welsh, Jennifer Dale and a slimmer Maury Chaykin. The Canadian Tax Credit system helped put this film in Montreal, doubling as New York. With little to work with in terms of sets and exteriors, Cosmatos shows his chops as a director who tries to make each shot pay off in a particular way. The overhead shot of Weller looking out over the "human" rat race crossing the street draws an interesting parallel with the main story. More than a couple of 'homages' to Jaws, which Cosmatos admits was one of his favourite movies.A bit repetitive at times but better than 'Willard'. Worth a look.


Take a "B" movie idea and put it together with clever cinematography, good acting and a reasonable budget, and you will have one of the finest movies of this genre ever made. Peter Weller basically does a one man job on this movie. I have a new found respect for him after this. In this move he plays a straight arrow guy, generally normal, likes to research before making a move. A pretty normal guy however, in this movie we get to enjoy the breakdown of his being while he has to come to terms with the forces of nature (or the Super Natural or Xeno Nature). For everyone who has ever gotten frustrated by a hellish problem or works in a job that should have more cathartic releases, see this movie!


I give this one a ten. How? Well, if you love rats, you will hate me. Let me just start off by saying I have never written a public comment, so do be gentle. I am also rather desensitized to horror films. Salo, Irreversible, and others I am ashamed to mention, hardly phase me. I've seen other rat films. Older rat films, and new ones haven't bothered me. I had purchased this film with about 20 others, and it looked silly, was inexpensive, so why not? I find myself awake this morning at 4:30 am, and in need of mild entertainment. Here is where my horrific morning begins.

I am a 24 year old female, so to all you guys reading this, never show a woman this movie. Show her Cannibal Holocaust, not this. I slap in my DVD of this film, pull my covers back and wait for 90 minutes to pass. 10 minutes later I am screaming like a wild woman being attacked by the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This movie is INSANE! I own 1000 horror movies, and I thought I had built up enough tolerance and desensitization to endure any form of human torture. Wrong! This is one evil, hideous, demon possessed rat. By the time an hour had passed I was clutching on to my baseball bat, and wouldn't you know? A shadow from my ceiling fan caused a sharp movement on the floor., and I was running down my hall in a terrified frenzy. It may be that girls like me just can't cope with a rat, but it might just be that this movie is hell bent on preying on everyone's natural dislike for these foul little beasts. I sat and hoped that WHAT I KNEW WOULD HAPPENwould not. It did. I was so happy when this movie was over, but ever happier I gave it a chance. It is rare I feel fear, and this was a great reminder. It isn't Citizen Kane, sure, but it is more entertaining. It is my worst fear, realized. Except for that whole broom in girlie prison thing. I digress.

I know you guys are tough! I know you ARE THE MAN! BUT! If you can make it through this movie without jumping in your seat, well, you should join the Navy Seals. Or better yet.you would make a great executioner. This is a nerve wrecking modern spin on MAN VS. MONSTER. No kidding!

This movie gets a ten from me. After sitting through 1000 movies that people say are scary, I find this fabulous little gem, and come to realize just why I love horror. This is horror. Nobody gets tortured, raped, or beheaded. That is fine, considering how brilliantly the film makers took a simple fear and found a way to torture the audience, and not one lesbian bimbo vampire was skinned alive. I was impressed.

I wish I was so well versed and I could give you the most complex analysis of the technical specifics. I am not. Peter did a great job in being convincing, and some of the camera work is great I think. The camera often acts as the eyes of this evil monstrosity. The mans wife in this movie is really pretty, and you see her boobs. So, you guys might like that if nothing else. I think the film was very well done, and most effective at making it's point. I would tell you all about the shocks, but that would ruin them for you. Some must be seen to be believed.

I'm a girlie girl, sure. I bet you can't make it through this movie, in the dark, without your baseball bat either. If you are on the fence and wondering if you want to give it go, do it. But, remember, it can bring out your feminine side. Isn't that the definition of scary for you boys?

Either way, for my own sanity,I am adopting a cat today.


Bart Hughes (Peter Weller, in a likable, creditable starring debut) is a Manhattan yuppie who lives in a nice, re-furbished brownstone. As wife Meg (the gorgeous Shannon Tweed, in her feature film debut) and son Peter leave to spend some time with her father, Barts' orderly, structured life takes a turn for the worse, and at a very inopportune time, as a major project is going down at work. A relentless and seemingly indestructible rat has invaded his domicile and makes his life a living hell.

While this effective little tale delivers the good shocks and suspense required for a tried-and-true horror story, it operates on more than one level, as it equates Barts' drive for success in his professional life with his need to prove his superiority to this upstart rodent. He ultimately will have to get in touch with his inner primitive nature in order to come out on top. Not only that, he has to struggle to hold on to his sanity as the rat seems to be making all the better moves.

Underscored by Ken Wannbergs' solid and spooky music, the film features some great animal action. Lots of repellent closeups of the rodent performers helps to maintain the creepiness factor of the picture, and there are some great sequences as the rat runs amok throughout the place (the moment when the infernal thing pops up out of the toilet was a fantastically orchestrated shock!). Director George P. Cosmatos keeps the tension at a high level and the action moving at a steady pace.

Weller anchors the film nicely with his believable performance, ably supported by such fine actors as Lawrence Dane, Kenneth Welsh, Louis Del Grande, Jennifer Dale, and Maury Chaykin.

Filmed in Montreal, filling in adequately for New York City, with an intelligent script by Brian Taggert based on the novel "The Visitor" by Chauncey G. Parker III.

8/10


If you hate rats, you'll hate Of Unknown Origin. It gave me rat nightmares. I kept imagining rats swimming through pipes into a toilet and gnawing throuch my rectum and out my peehole. There's lots of rat damage in this film as they squirm through unexpected places and bite the hell out of things and cause general mayhem. I personally liked it.

Peter Weller (Robocop, Naked Lunch) turns in a memorable performance as a corporate shirt who obsesses over rats in his home. To protect his family, he wilds out with steel traps, poison, a nasty looking homemade bludgeon and more. I would have had a lot of respect if he doused his entire house with gasoline and then tossed a cigarette in there and said "Yippy Ki-yay, motherf--ers!" That was really what I thought was gonna happen at one point but sadly it didn't.

If you are a fan of rats (or LAWYERS who are the next best thing, hahaha, OK I'm shutting up now), I would highly recommend watching Of Unknown Origin. Even if you're not a rat enthusiast see it anyways so you can say you did. Recommended 7.5/10.


You know that one guy who'd do anything to get you fired, destroy your house, alienate you from your friends and family, chew through your surge protector? You know, the usual. Well, imagine if that guy was a poodle-sized sewer rat.

I wondered going into this movie why Peter Weller would agree to star in what is essentially the rat-equivalent of Jaws: The Revenge. I got my answer about twenty seconds into the film, where it opens on a shot of Shannon Tweed, playing Weller's wife here, showering. Umm, okay.

She leaves, along with Weller's extremely dimwitted kid to stay at a hotel (only to pop up later in the movie scantily-clad back in her hotel or in a dream sequence in order to meet some strange 80s boob quota I suppose).

Weller is doing fine by himself, (staying behind to finish some work), until the dishwasher overflows, eventually upsetting a rat who decides to move into his apartment. Its hard to gauge just how big this thing is supposed to be until it decides to crawl up under the covers in Weller's bed later, apparently he's the size of a tomcat.

Weller does his best to get rid of the rat, upgrading from normal rat traps to (what are basically) miniature bear traps. When the medieval rat traps don't work or come back gnawed on he decides to get a cat, which also comes back gnawed on (or replaced with a cheap stuffed animal that resembles his cat). When he decides to ignore the rat he chews on on his surge protector, fuse box, and therein cutting off the power.

Weller runs around the house, bashing holes into walls in search of the rat, is plagued by nightmares of birthday parties where the giant rat jumps out of a sheet cake (?), and where his dimwitted kid ends up mixing in various rat poisons in with his cereal. The finale brought to mind Arachnophobia as it ended in a dank basement; the film ending maybe twelve seconds after the rat's been dispatched as Weller brushes himself off as if the last two hours hadn't just happened just in time to greet his wife and kid at the front door. I'm sure they won't notice the completely demolished apartment.


Bert Hughes is home alone in his Manhattan apartment,trying to work out a major change in his trust company when a noisy rat starts scratching around his periphery and he becomes obsessed with exterminating it.By the time Hughes is through,his whole apartment is nearly exterminated-and his friends are keeping their distance due to his rat-mania.Pretty suspenseful and effective rat invasion flick with terrific central performance of Peter Weller.Several memorable moments were the diner table discussion turned to rats and everyone felt uncomfortable;and the end battle with the rat.There are also some very effective jump scenes that were finding the cat on top of the refrigerator and the toilet scene.Overall,"Of Unknown Origin" is a fine animal attack film that deserves rediscovery.8 out of 10.


This little movie is hardly a must-see. People who got excited by this forgettable mediocrity have probably seen far too few (good) horror films, or are huge Weller fans.

I didn't have a problem with a mere rat being such a challenge for what seemed to be an intelligent man, i.e. the absurdity of the premise is acceptable because this is a horror film. However, the only way this film should have been done was to do it as an all-out comedy. Though, even then it would have probably gotten dull sooner rather than later due to its one-joke premise.

Maybe if they had made the rat out to be much larger, or if they had gotten him to look like Martin Sheen... Though, admittedly, if we had a Sheen rat we could never believe that he could be that intelligent.

Perhaps if it looked like Barbra Streisand...? A Barbra rat would be just as dull-witted as a Sheen rat but at least its nose would have scared everyone - including me. Brrrr!


...and its still one of my favorites. The title doesn't really give an indication of what the movie is about. Tho the strangely preternatural rat co-star is indeed of 'UNKNOWN ORIGIN', it sounds more like a sci-fi title than a movie about Peter Weller being driven insane by an escalating rat problem in his house. Not just an ordinary rat problem, this rat is an advanced tactical model which manages to stay one step ahead of his human antagonist like some darkside Tom and Jerry cartoon.

I even liked this better than the mother of all 'rat' movies, WILLARD. Weller can do no wrong in my book, hes consistently good and in fine 'Peter Weller' form here. Cant say I ever saw a theatrical release on this, possibly was direct to video. I have a copy somewhere that I recorded off HBO or something way back then. I didn't realize it was out on DVD, I'll have to track down a copy.


A not completely lousy movie from George Cosmatos! That said, the promise this movie has is never fulfilled. What could have been a Lewtonesque study of a man's breakdown degenerates into a silly sub par horror film. Peter Weller plays a career obsessed banker who finds himself becoming even more obsessed with getting rid of a pesky rat that's invaded his swank brownstone (actually more of a mod pad with a castle-like facade). Director Cosmatos, never one known for showing much tact, keeps the game of cat and mouse interesting for a good while until it just gets boring. Frankly, this is the type of movie with a "less is more approach" would need a star far more compelling than Weller. He's not bad, but he is dull and his jokey dialog doesn't help. Shannon Tweed plays his wife and looks dynamite, but really has nothing to do. Jennifer Dale is OK as Weller's smitten co-worker. Judged next to other Cosmatos fare (anyone for COBRA?), it's a masterwork.


This "movie" is a pretty pathetic waste of time. Outside of a chilling (but predictable) performance by Thomas Gibson as The Devil, this movie really stinks. All the major horror clichés are stolen from ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE OMEN- there is NOTHING the viewer won't see coming as any sort of shock or surprise. Good performers like Matthew Lillard and Kim Delaney don't add anything. For a supernatural tale, there's really nothing in the way of special effects. The script is terrible, and the direction barely adequate. It blows me away that anyone connected with this film would waste time and money to create this piece of trash, even for something concocted for TV.


Did I just watch a late 90's, made-for-TV thriller starring Kim Delaney? Boy, I must either be really bored or completely out of other material to watch because it's generally known that Miss Delaney has yet to deliver a decent film. To refer to this "Devil's Child" as being just mediocre would be a huge understatement, as this is a totally unoriginal and amateurish attempt to tell a religious horror story in the tradition of "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Omen". Delaney stars as a 30-something and single photographer. At age 10, she survived a deadly fall of a rooftop thanks to her mother, who made a pact with Satan himself (apparently, the Dark Prince didn't have anything better to do then to stroll around in hospitals) and, to return the favor, Nikki, after a life of infertility, will give birth to the Antichrist! And indeed, shortly after moving to a new apartment with a dubious reputation, Nikki meets a handsome and seemly sophisticated man who quickly turns out to be the devil in disguise. The plot is full of stupid little holes and it's particularly funny how Nikki "coincidentally" gets into contact with Alex (the devil). First she inherits a large sum of money, which allows her to move to the apartment complex where He and his accomplices live, then a poor dog has to die and then finally, she has to be rescued from a running wild car old-timer! The total lack of blood, sleaze and gruesome make-up effects is acceptable, since it's a made-for-TV horror film, but what about that totally ridiculous and pathetic ending?!? Dig this: (HUGE SPOILER!!!) They're about to baptize his son, the newly born Antichrist for Pete's sake, and all the Prince of Darkness does to prevent this from happening is produce a little bit of wind???? And then when Nikki walks out of the church with her baby, He just stands there and WALKS away?! He WALKS AWAY, like a little boy that didn't get what he wanted! They call that an ending? Delaney's performance is quite bad, but Oscar material compared with the work of her supportive colleagues, including Matthew Lillard; who would reach somewhat of a star-status later with the utterly retarded "Scooby-Doo" movies. There is ONE remotely interesting sequence in this film, though, and that's inside the auditorium where Mr. Satan gives a lecture about good and evil.


Another example of Kim Delaney making a poor script believable. More Catholic bashing and supernatural happenings. Unfortunately, the producers decided to kill off Larry Holden early...an interesting character actor who could have added life to this otherwise dull film. At least Kim has a recurring television role to sustain her. Sigh.


I watched this more out of morbid curiosity than from any real desire to see what happened next. Every cliche in the book is here, plus red herrings that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot that seem to be pursued way too far.

I loved their casting of Alex, though. He's a total dreamboat -- powerfully magnetic, sensual, articulate, and just wicked enough to hold the attention. Stole every scene he was in, which wasn't too hard considering nobody else was even vaguely sympathetic. It's too bad the heroine wasn't more sympathetic.. it was hard to care about her at all (or see why anybody else cared about her), she was so rude, self-obsessed, almost abusive, and brittle.

I also really disliked the directing -- every trick in the book is employed, or rather overemployed, such as ominous music, sudden noises, and excessive foreshadowing. Basically, this was just a very non-thrilling thriller that said nothing new at all.


A woman's mother makes a deal with the devil to save the daughter from dying. 20 years later the devil returns to claim retribution. Sounds compelling but in reality, this is a dull, listless show with little originality. Kim Delaney adds some semblance of good acting but what grates me is that the plot is a pure rip-off from previous movies. Thomas Gibson is too straight faced and nice looking to be evil. The Devil's Child lacks any new ideas and whichever way the story moves, you know you've seen it before. The finale is as close to any mediocre B-grade horror movie you can find.


I'll never understand, what with the literal thousands of other types of beings/creatures of shadow/darkness, film producers and screenwriters always lean on the old crutch of Christianity when conjuring their creations into being.

This movie was a ninety-minute (or there abouts) sermon; nothing more.

Sorry guys, but if I wanted to be repeatedly hit over the head by dogmatic Christianity, I would let the fundys in when they knock on my door.

If you're into that kind of masochism though, then this is definitely your movie.

Almost killed as a child, Nicky's mother promises her daughter's soul to the Devil to keep her from dying, thereby sealing her fate. Or did she? I don't know. This movie can't seem to decide.

This is a movie of the Christian heresy of Satanism and is therefore, not my cup of tea, but it seems as if it can not make up its mind. I think perhaps the director suffers from ADHD, or some such malady, as he wants to do a Satanic movie, but then again, Satan does not have the power to do anything...?...I don't know. This is basically just a convoluted mess centered around dogmatic Christian belief and peppered throughout with Catholic doctrines, used here and there whenever convenient, but otherwise ignored.

A complete waste of film, if you ask me.

It rates a 3.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Avenging Eagle is the story of a man Chi Ming-sing (Ti Lung) who after years of killing for a brutal gang decides to leave and seek revenge against them and their leader. The gang, know as the Iron Boat Clan and in particular the men he raided with the 13 Eagles. All were raised from birth by Yoh Xi-hung (Ku Feng) to be brutal killers to obey his every command. Each with his own hand made eagle medallion and weapon. Now the 12 reaming eagles are sent out to find Chi Ming-sing and either kill him or to bring him back. Chi Ming-Sing soon runs into a wanderer Cheuk Yi-fan (Fu Sheng) who does not reveal himself at first, but decides to crusade against the clan together. As they head towards the clans base they are attacked in waves by the Eagles and defeat them one by one. As the movie goes on Chi Min sing tells his story of how he saw the light after being forced to kill a pregnant woman and betrayed the clan. In the final battle of the movie with Yoh Xi-hung, it's revealed that his companion is actually his worst enemy, the husband of the woman he killed and the man he swore to die by. In one of the great battles of Kung Fu cinema they combine forces to defeat there common foe. Chi Ming sing then forces Cheuk Yi-fan to kill him allowing his wife's spirit to rest in peace.

Avenging Eagle is easily one of the greatest films the Shaw Brothers ever created. The story is great, played out with a solid cast of familiar A list Kung Fu actors from the Shaw's studio at the time. As with most Shaw Brothers films the action is non stop and choreographed well. Fans of the violent fights often seen in Shaw Brothers Kung Fu films will not be disappointed in the level of action and brutal fights in this film. The costumes worn by the actors were very unique. The "Eagles" each have a unique outfit with a primary color and medallion that matches their outfit. Also each member of the gang is usually equipped with a different or unique weapon. Ti Lung uses the 3 section staff and Fu Sheng uses a pair of hidden knives for what he would become know by, "the double blade." Among other interesting weapons would be Yien Lin's (Johnny Wang Lung-wei) brass ring and of course Yoh Xi-hung' iron claw gloves.

Overall this is a masterpiece from the great Shaw Brothers. Compared to non Kung Fu films I'm sure most would find it stupid. But to fans of the Shaw's and Kung Fu films this is one of the great ones and not just your average Kung Fu flick. This isn't just action and killing but great story as well. Without a doubt this gets a big ten out of ten stars. Truly a classic.


I love this movie more for the truisms it presents regarding the heart of a man as well as for the wonderful kung fu it represents. The main character displays a depth of emotion that is not often seen in this genre managing to convey in word and memory induced vignettes the tragedy of his life, the wrongs he has committed to survive and his sorrow at what he has become. The man he has wronged is also compelling in that instead of exacting quick revenge as we see with other martial arts films he wants to know his families murderer to find out why he killed them. The ultimate protagonist and leader of the Eagles is also good but more in line with other kung fu baddies than as a truly original character. I would recommend this movie because it manages to tell a story of vengeance and human frailty without sacrificing either of them.


Sun Chung's AVENGING EAGLE is a martial arts film that transcends the genre; it boasts a superior script and characterization, and achieves a tragic quality of its own.

The Shaw Bros. studio churned out a lot of martial arts films in its 25 year heyday. AVENGING EAGLE is one of the most memorable that I have seen. The script takes the viewer back and forth in time, the flashbacks allow the viewer to discover more and more about its two protagonists (played by TI LUNG and Alexander FU SHENG). So interwined are their pasts that it is quickly obvious that they should actually be each other's enemy. But the logic is such that we can also readily accept that they put aside their differences, eliminate as many of the Iron Boat clan sent in pursuit of TI LUNG's character, and finally, take on the evil leader of the clan (KU FENG).

I found the dialogue especially good and satisfying, and I am sure that others who have seen the film, can think of at least four or five instances, whether the dialogue demonstrates wonderful irony, quiet sadness, and ensures the two heroes display real qualities of heroism.

SUN CHUNG and his crew show a wonderful eye for their locations, the exotic and distinctive costuming and weaponry (of the heroes, and also the thirteen Eagles, and of course, their leader).

With the opening shot, it was obvious this film was photographed away from the usual locations. That, the initial meeting of the two leads, their first skirmish with the Iron Boat gang, and much later, the remote inn that they 'rent' for a month to set up an elaborate ambush, and lastly, the lair of the gang, where SUN builds up to and sustains a lengthy climax, demonstrates a lot of imagination.

Even the music is effective, despite the mono sound of the Region 3 IVL/Celestial Pictures DVD, and is largely 'original'> This film is so good that I have not even broached the subject of its martial arts. And that alone, I believe, is reason enough that I consider AVENGING EAGLE one of the best martial arts films I have seen.

(PS: Consider a quarter century later the Japanese were making films along the same line, ie. AZUMI, which surely lacks the economy of this film, running almost an hour longer).

(PSS: I enjoyed the other contributors' comments on AVENGING EAGLE, surely more confirmation, this film deserves repeated viewing).

(PSSS: If you enjoyed this film, please take the time to track down and watch KILLER CONSTABLE).


With a plot more resembling a Japanese production than your usual kung fu film and excellent cinematography, Avenging Eagle is a very good lesser-known martial art movie. The main actors do their usual good job and the fight scenes are very well done. The whole film has the feel of a good B grade western.

The director, Sun Cheung, has a style apart from the other more well known Shaw directors and he handles the fight scenes with finesse as well as the rest of the movie. HIs movie output is hard to find and guessing from the lack of reviews on IMDb many of his films never made it into the U.S..

I recommend this film for anyone familiar with Liu Chia Liang or Chen Cheh's work. The movie is a change of pace from the baroque and brutal plot lines of Chen Cheh and the elaborate hi-jinx of Liu Chia Liang.


François Ozon is a rare director, one who takes a simple story, places it in the eyes and bodies of his cast, and simply lets the tale tell itself. SOUS LE SABLE (UNDER THE SAND) is an unforgettable film experience that probes deeply into our psyches, hearts, and reason: how do we cope with sudden death? Opening quietly in the French countryside, a loving middle-aged couple begins a brief vacation in a family house, quietly and lovingly going about removing dustcovers, opening shuttered windows - settling in for a time of being alone together. Marie (Charlotte Rampling) is a professor of English in Paris (her specialty is Virginia Woolf) and Jean (Bruno Cremer) is her retired husband. Their long-term love is palpable: Ozon provides almost no dialogue, as none is needed to establish this special relationship, so powerful is the non-verbal communication between Rampling and Cremer. They visit the beach the next day and while Marie is sunbathing, Jean goes for a swim - and never returns. Marie searches for him, engages lifeguards, and ultimately returns to Paris, trembling but intact. Months later, while Jean is never found, we see Marie reacting as though he still exists. She visualizes him in various situations and the two actors (yes, Jean is present in these scenes) interact as though nothing has changed. But Marie's friends note with great concern that she is 'delusional' and make various attempts for her to seek professional and emotional help. When news eventually arrives that Jean's body has been found, she internally denies this possibility but eventually returns to the vacation house town to identify the bloated corpse. Even at this point, though obviously in shock, she denies that the corpse is that of her beloved Jean. She walks back to the site where she last saw Jean and in the distance a figure rekindles her hope...

Charlotte Rampling delivers a performance wholly committed. She communicates the spectrum of feelings of this challenged strong woman with her eyes, her gazes in the mirror, her interaction with her class of students, her friends, her admirer with such power that makes her Marie a wholly credible creature stricken by loss yet surviving in her chosen manner. It is one of the great performances of cinema. The entire small cast of this film is perfection. Ozon is a magical director and continues to prove he is one of the most honest and quietly powerful figures in today's cinema. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp