I will not write a lot about the story since so much is already said in the preceding comments. However I will tell how I came to watch it.

It was very late one weekday night and the rest of the family had gone to bed. I was dead tired and just about to turn off the TV - and there was this film, All Or Nothing, about to begin in one of the two non-commercial public service channels (which might be one explanation why it transfixed me - no interruptions with inane requests to buy anti-wrinkle cream). And I was just completely enthralled! I was dreadfully tired, my eyes were red and swollen from exhaustion but I just couldn't stop watching. When the movie was finished at around two o'clock my eyes were also red and swollen from crying - and yet I was completely sober and so unprepared for this absolutely gripping film experience with the most wonderful actors. One of the best ever!


I suppose I could rate this Indie flick differently in different areas and perhaps, its technical merit is as good as any million dollar drama.

On an entertainment level, there are some people who will be depressed by it. Why not, people of little culture, education and finance. Perhaps this is a type or urban hell we middle classes have denied?

When contrasting the life of the characters here with the Queen, one becomes angry. Could all these obese and sad people have been left behind by the selective educational tracking of the U.K.?

People such as my self watch and take from it as low as one is, there always appears a tier beneath.

The characters may be real to life, but hopeless and sad. Generally, for a good flick we need a bit more I fear.

Yes, there probably is no real message here, at least one I could easily see.

Generally speaking the flick is depressing so please kids don't watch it with a gun in the house.


"All or Nothing" shows that an individual's happiness is the direct result of his or her attitude and choices. Throughout "All or Nothing", the characters are engaged in various self-destructive and demoralizing behaviors. Specific examples of this are best captured, cinematic ally, in three particular scenes: the opening scene of Rachel in the nursing home; Penny, Phil, and Rachel(matriarch, patriarch, daughter)in the kitchen; and the closing scene. The territorial space in each of these scenes exploits the social and emotional confinement of the characters.

In the opening scene as Rachel, the ambitionless daughter, mops robotically down the long hallway,she is tightly framed by the walls. When the elderly woman walks down the hall, towards the camera, Rachel appears to be trapped within the corridor's narrow width. The colors of her skirt and smock blend in with the surrounding hue of the walls. Her fading into the background, literally, is synonymous of her life choices to take the safe, least threatening, and stable route.

Timothy Spall's portrayal of Phil is brilliant as he interpret's Leigh's English working class life. The awkward and dysfunctional dynamics of Phil's family are the direct result of his choices and approach to life. When Phil enters the apartment and walks into the kitchen, he is framed on one side by the relationship he has neglected and the other by the product of his disconnected parenting and poor mentoring. He is unable to maintain any personal space in his taxi and the viewer sees that he lacks any greater control in his home. In this scene, he is so tightly constricted that movement is not possible. Both with their back facing him, Penny and Rachel barely acknowledge Phil as he attempts to make small talk.

Without sharing too much, the closing scene is also very well directed to further underscore the storyline and theme.

"All or Nothing" similar cinematic touch is also seen in "Secrets and Lies". Leigh consistently uses 2-shots and closed forms to tell the struggles of the characters in both movies.

The theme is reiterated and simplified when Phil states to himself, "Life is too short". Each person's acceptance of their responsibility for the state of his or her life is paramount "All or Nothing's" theme. Commanding one's own destiny through employment, friends, and intimate partner choices is personal journey that everyone faces. The "every man" aspect of this film engages the viewer and creates a personal connection between the audience and characters.


I wasn't sure what to expect of this movie, but I had seen Secrets and Lies a while ago and really liked it. Suffice it to say this movie starts out excrutiatingly slow, but about halfway through character's motivations begin to reveal themselves, and things start to happen. Timothy Spall is great in the lead. He wanders around for most of the movie with a look on his face like his dog was hit by a car, but by the end you realize why. The last 20 minutes in particular are devastatingly emotional and provide the needed payoff for the slow beginning. A real movie about real people with real emotions-certainly needed in the current movie climate of idiotic chick flicks and "family friendly" entertainment. Go rent it, it's worth a look.


"All or Nothing" is a slice-of-wretched-life flick about a miserable dysfunctional working class London family. There's little arc to the story of walrus Phil Bassett and family who move sloth-like from day to day unhappy and unfulfilled. Undoubtedly an excellent film by film making standards, Mike Leigh puts the audience in the position of having to accept his characters' plaintive existence on faith by not showing the psychodynamics which perpetuate their misery and just giving us the result. In other words, we see sad people stewing in their own juices which makes the buy-in difficult and the protagonists more ignoble. Personally I was happy to see the foul mouthed fat kid keel over from heart attack though I don't think that was how Leigh intended the audience to react and I suspect many a weeping wallower was wringing tears from their hanky. Given a 2 hour run, misery throughout, and character we couldn't care less about without charity, most will find "All or Nothing" more nothing than all. (B)


It strikes me that this sort of stuff bewitches the French etc at their film festivals because they fatuously see in it a corrective to the Curtis/Grant Cool Britannia, "red London bus school" of UK film-making but in reality it's just as false and fatuous -- all that Leigh's ladelled out here is an unappetising,lardy dollop of council estate ennui, over two hours of it, with precious little action and few of the light comic touches that he usually throws in to keep us engaged. Either he doesn't have it in him anymore or he felt that keeping it unrelentingly bleak this time marks him out as a more serious film maker. Whatever,it's an unwelcome and redundant return to Mean Time territory (now over over 20 years old) that reeks of the late '70s/early '80s and,despite its pretensions has little of the flavour of modern Britain. Everything here feels laughably out-of-date -- from the tarty estate girl (who looks like a refugee from some obscure '50s British black-and-white movie) to the comedy alcoholic mum (who reminds me of the bint in the Fat Les "Vindaloo" video). Only the subject of obesity gives it any contemporary feel. And a fat lot of good that is! In short, Leigh's gone back to basics here, tried to "do a Ken Loach" and produced a real gobbler that is not worth feeding to the dog on Boxing Day. Here's the plot,such as it is -- a bunch of uninteresting, taciturn working class folk living in Bermondsey eke out a turgid existence (no sign of drugs though-hmmm,has Mike read any newspapers lately?) variously getting pantomime drunk at karaoke evenings (can't remember her name but that character was so laughably simplistic that I almost took her to be a post-modernist joke slipped in!), now and again shouting at each other, having listless sex, and barely able to conjure up a wry larf between the lot of them. Who do ya think you are,Mr Mike Leigh,with your paternalistic middle class inversely-romanticised view of working class life? Oi Leigh, NO-O-O-O! Don't you think that these people can still have fun? Geez,this is as bad as Woody Allen when he decided to "go serious" and make Bergman movies,but without any of the feeling or the skill. Here Leigh's tried to remake himself, 20 years on but forgot to look out his window and see what'd changed! Ferchrissakes,these people would have topped themselves if this was all that life had to offer them! Really you're every bit as out of touch with that class as are the poor old writers of Eastenders,who also seem to think that all their working class characters are fit for is barneying and throwing themselves at every passing bit of skirt 5 minutes after the wedding ceremony! Now,I used to be big Fan of Leigh's right back to Nuts in May and up to Life is Sweet, but it needs an aficionado not a sycophant (and nowadays Leigh's got his fair share of the latter on both sides of the Channel!) to blow the whistle on bombs like this one. Please,I implore you, forget this exists, go back to the early funny ones and don't,but don't, for pity's sake watch the vox pops from the actors without a sick bag to hand. Come in Mr Leigh your time is up!


You know, I've seen alot of excellent films in my life, but All Or Nothing is a perfect film. The story was so wonderfully moving and touching, the direction flawless, but the collected performances in this movie are the best I've ever seen....and I mean from every single member of the cast. I was completely and totally awestruck by the quality of the acting. Thirty minutes into this film, I felt the strongest identity with each of the characters and my heart actually ached for them. There is so much truth and honesty, so much clarity, that I feel gifted just to have seen this movie and I will remember it the rest of my life. Absolutely fantastic!!! If this is the only drama you will ever see, do yourself a favor and let it be All Or Nothing.


A distant companion of the rash of late 90s realist urban films set in London estates, along with the likes of Wonderland, Nil by Mouth and Intimacy. Mike Leigh's film starts, roughly speaking, from a position of tense, impecunious stability and simply slides through the misery gears. It's a very difficult, unrelentingly bleak film to watch with no humour (black or otherwise) to leaven the experience.

I suspect that the development Leigh has in mind for Phil's family is that they learn to value one another through the events of the film. The issue I have is that they seem unhappily resigned to a situation of mutual, coexistent alienation in the first place. Unlike Leigh's other films, the drama is externally applied rather than coming from one or other of the protagonists. The acting is of a high standard although the actors are, in this light, pawns rather than agents and I find the film consequently weak. 3/10


I had seen the controversial and hard-hitting Vera Drake from director Mike Leigh, and the critics liked this film, so I decided to give it a go. There was no real plot to the story for a while, just a gentle, philosophical taxi driver named Phil (Timothy Spall) who has a dry love relationship with his partner (who works in a supermarket) Penny (Lesley Manville), their daughter Rachel (Alison Garland) is an elderly people's home cleaner, and their son son Rory (James Corden) is unemployed and aggressive. It is when Rory suffers a near-fatal heart attack that the film really gets it's biggest interest (although there are moments of good chat before), and all characters are brought together to rediscover themselves. Also starring Ruth Sheen as Maureen, Marion Bailey as Carol, Paul Jesson as Ron, Sam Kelly as Sid, Kathryn Hunter as Cécile, Sally Hawkins as Samantha and Helen Coker as Donna. The actors are great, the story is human and believable, and this is just one of those films that you can't stop watching. Very good!


If you have ever been down on your luck or know someone in that capacity you will most assuredly recognize and or identify with one or more of the characters in this great film.

Acting was top notch. It moved along as if their were no three act structure. It was like a fly on the wall of a working poor family.

Perhaps it was a little too real for me at times but I didn't allow that to take away from watching this excellent work.

Real life is a struggle and the world is full of miserable people. Happiness and happy endings are very hard to come by. This film does not go the usual formulaic route and I don't know that I have ever watched anything like. I'm confident you will feel the same way. It's too bad that more American filmmakers don't have the guts to be this original.

Are you still reading? Get to the video store and get this. It's a one of a kind experience.


This is a great movie for just watching and enjoying. No overwhelming drama, no thought to guess the plot or who-done-it, just good old fashioned entertainment. Burt Lancaster shines in a way only he can. The jokes are funny, lines memorable (mamasita, what a rap she gave me... Khassein is a lump of evil smelling goat cheese) the girls are pretty and it rolls along as you "listen to the squeaking of the little mouse". Just enjoy yourself, if you miss a few minutes in the kitchen it won't throw you off the plot. It's great to see REAL actors displaying their craft in a time period when talent was more important than looks, bra size and CGI. If you want drama, go find Wuthering Heights and get your fill.


The phrase "they don't make them like this anymore" is often used in this CGI-infested age to describe extra-laden and 'authentic' Hollywood spectaculars of yesteryear but, frankly, watching this more modest, tongue-in-cheek Foreign Legion adventure, I was equally struck by just how old-fashioned (and refreshingly so) it all was  not that the sand storm sequence included here would pass muster with today's audiences! Anyhow, from the very start of the film, we have Burt Lancaster, Gilbert Roland and Kieron Moore disguised as, respectively, an Arab merchant and his two daughters!; legionnaires who are punished for daring to look twice at their Lieutenant's fiancée; an Arab chieftain who marries off his daughter to a rival Sheik to bring peace between their warring tribes and in a bid to rid their country of the 'French' infidels; the kidnapping of that same feisty daughter who, not only turns the heads of all her ten titular captors but, after several escape attempts, eventually steals the heart of tough guy Lancaster; etc. However, shot in lovely Technicolor and moving at a rapid pace, the film is an enjoyable ride through familiar territory; what was somewhat surprising, plot-wise, is that while much was made initially of the unloved Lieutenant (Stephen Bekassy) and his blonde girlfriend (Mari Blanchard), their characters virtually disappear once Lancaster's jailbird unit sets out on its mission! Despite its baffling ultra-rarity, the film is peopled by an interesting pool of talent both in front and behind the camera: Lancaster is in his third adventure flick; Gilbert Roland is his usual laid-back, womanizing Latino self; John Dehner the proverbial rotten apple in the group; George Tobias (perhaps thankfully) sacrifices himself early on; Nick Dennis and Mike Mazurki are among the rowdiest of the 'Ten'; Gerald Mohr adequately provides the required villainy; this was the second product from Norma Productions (which first partnered Lancaster with producer Harold Hecht); writer Roland Kibbee would much later go on to share directorial credit with Lancaster on THE MIDNIGHT MAN (1974; which I will be revisiting presently); associate producer Robert Aldrich would later direct Lancaster in four movies  including TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING (1977; which I'll be viewing for the first time during this ongoing Burt Lancaster tribute); and, most interestingly perhaps, this was multi-talented Willis Goldbeck's most notable directorial effort but, at least two of his screen writing credits are highly impressive indeed: Tod Browning's FREAKS (1932) and John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962; Goldbeck's last film work)! One final note: after searching high and low for this film on account of a friend of mine who is a big Burt Lancaster fan (and recalls the star's brief sojourn in Malta in the 1970s), ironically, it was he who eventually provided me with a means to catch up with it via a surprisingly well-preserved VHS-sourced copy he acquired!


Somewhere in the 1950's Hollywood discovered a simple formula for superior entertainment. Around that formula, any major star worth his salt could inspire a group of characters to create a magical memory. Thus this movie called " Ten Tall men " became a hit. Burt Lancaster, plays Sgt. Mike Kincaid, a French Foreign Legionnaire, who, while in a military stockade, learns of an impending attack on the city proper while the main garrison is away. Volunteering for what some consider a suicide mission, he and nine other prisoners ride into the desert to impede the attack for five days. During that time, the small group creates havoc among the gathering tribes to get their attention. Further they kidnap Mahla (Jody Lawrance) a tribal princess, which prevents the evil Khalif Hussein (Gerald Mohr) from caring out his attack. The entire film is fun to watch as great actors like Gilbert Roland, Kieron Moore, George Tobias, John Dehner and Mike Mazurki establish a wonderful and fun filled afternoon of creative enjoyment. A solid family offering for all ages. Easilly recommended. ****


"3 Men in White" director Willis Goldbeck's "Ten Tall Men" is a rip-snorting adventure in the Errol Flynn tradition about recklessly brave heroes and slimy villains running loose in the dunes. Basically, the Roland Kibbee & Frank Davis screenplay, based on a story by James Warner Bellah and Goldbeck, is a French Foreign Legion escapade against murderous desert tribes that want to wipe out the French. The light moments outweigh the dark moments in this nimble actioneer that looks like it is a 19th century epic until the heroes find an abandoned French supply truck in the last quarter hour. Nevertheless, this is fast, furious and frivolous nonsense with Lancaster in command at all times supported by Gilbert Roland and Kieron Moore. Lancaster fans will love this opus. He specialized in swashbucklers after he made some film noir thrillers at Universal. This Columbia Pictures release is in glorious color and the cast is first-rate.

"Ten Tall Men" opens with French Foreign Legion Sergeant Mike Kincaid (Burt Lancaster of "All My Sons") masquerading as an Arab merchant. Kincaid trudges along a desert trail with his two veiled daughters, in reality Corporals Luis Delgado (Gilbert Roland of "Camille") and Pierre Molier (Kieron Moore of "Mine Own Executioner") in disguise waiting to catch an enemy Rif warrior. They manage to catch one and they return after being gone for two weeks. Anybody who looks with lustful eyes at the new exotic dancer in town, Marie DeLatour (Mari Blanchard of "Jungle Heat"), ostensibly the sweetheart of martinet French Lieutenant Kruger (Stephen Bekassy of "Hell and High Water"), gets put in poky. Not surprisingly, while Kruger is interrogating the Rif prisoner that Sergeant Kincaid provided him, Kincaid is making time with DeLatour. Meanwhile, the savvy Rif prisoner informs on Kincaid so that he can avoid any more of Kruger's probing questions. Kruger marches a squad to DeLatour's apartment and finds Kincaid. Predictably, Kincaid winds up in the clink with his Legionnaire buddies, Londos (George Tobias of "Objective, Burma"), Mouse (Nick Dennis of "Spartacus"), and Roshko (Mike Mazurkia of "Murder, My Sweet"), and learns from the Rif prisoner that Tarfu is going to be wiped out. Kincaid tells Kruger about the enemy plans and insists that he can save the garrison as well as the town if Kruger will give him ten men. Naturally, Kruger has his doubts and cannot spare the manpower so Kincaid settles for men in the stockade.

Our heroes descend onto the enemy camp deep in the desert by an oasis. They spot what they believe is a munitions tent and decide to blow it to smithereens. Instead, they discover that the tent belongs to a beautiful girl, Mahla (Jody Lawrance of "Mask of the Avenger"), who is not only about to marry Khalif Hussein (Gerald Mohr of "Invasion, U.S.A.") but also unite two tribes intent on running the French out of Morocco. Kincaid and his men snatch Mahla and Hussein and company pursue them. Mahla tries to escape, but she cannot get away from the tenacious Sergeant Kincaid. Eventually, each earns the grudging respect of the other. Hussein means to kill Kincaid slowly, but Mahla demands that he release Kincaid or she will not wed Hussein. Reluctantly, Hussein capitulates to this demand. No sooner has Hussein freed Kincaid than he dispatches two Rif guards to kill him. Happily, the two guards are none other than Delgado and Molier in disguise again. They rescue Kincaid, spoil the marriage, rout Hussein and save the town. The commandant of the Foreign Legion orders Lieutenant Kruger to administer full honors to Kincaid after he pins on the medal. This includes the ceremonial French embrace. Kincaid gives the medal to Mahla and tells her that it belonged to his mother.

Fistfights, shoot-outs, horse chases, and more enliven this adventure film. The diminutive Frenchman who plays Lancaster's orderly is future "Hogan's Heroes" star Robert Clary making his film debut. Die-hard Lancaster fans will not his acrobat buddy Nick Cravat in the wedding scene. Forget your troubles and enjoy this movie.


"My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"-- these were the last words of Jesus on the cross, and is the translation of the title of this film.

Minimal dialogue, beautiful sounds, desolate scenery-- With all of those aspects, I found 'Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani' to be a beautiful film. The story in itself is something unique and untouched before-- an illness that drives people to suicide, the only cure being sound... Acting by Asano Tadanobu only makes the film more stunning-- he plays his usual disconnected and silent character, but it was very effective in this film, maybe more so than in his other works.

Combining the crazy guitar of 'ELECTRIC DRAGON 8000V' with the subtle beauty of 'Last Life in the Universe', I found 'Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani' to be a very interesting, enjoyable film of beauty and disconnect.

I can see where some people would not like this film-- the plot isn't very clear at times, and minutes and minutes pass by with almost no words spoken at all. A melancholic feeling is carried on throughout the entire movie-- with the slow, sorrowful piano often playing in the background, I might even call 'Eli Eli' a bit depressing. But if you're interested in artistic films that take you on a journey, then I think you should see 'Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani?'.

I doubt that this movie will ever be for sale on DVD in Europe or North America... But if you speak Japanese, definitely buy the DVD from a seller in Japan.


Sitting at a café after seeing this film, I overheard the conversation of some hip thirty- somethings who had apparently been to the same session: " figured it would be a typical Japanese film with long superfluous shots of someone smoking a cigarette and all that ". I can't say that I've ever seen a Japanese movie with such a scene but there is certainly a pervasive sense of Zen in a great deal of Japanese high-culture"high" to distinguish it from the distinctly un-Zen Anglophile pop-culture. Whether it's shakuhachi music, Akira Kurosawa or Noh theatre, silence and ostensibly unimportant details are given as much credence and gravitas as the explosions and plate-smashing we take for real drama. There is a very persuasive argument to be made for such expansion of time because it is in these gaps of technical information that the audience's imagination is engaged and given the space to roamand few things are more vital if the art is to be successful. So, what about Eli Eli Lema Sabachthani? Let's set the scene first. The year is 2015 and Lemming Syndrome is gripping the world. The Syndrome's symptom is suicidal tendencies. The film spends blissfully little time on the sci-fi technicalities of such an illness. What it does spend a lot of time on is music. You see, it seems that two post-punk-experimental musos from the band Stepin Fetchit, may be able to cure people using their ardently noisy music. If you like the idea of constructing a musical instrument out of recycled piping, an umbrella and the motor of a portable fan, then you're going to like this film no matter what. Indeed, the film refuses to run a completely predictable episodic course and, even at the moments of greatest tension, we could well be taken to some distant crag of Japanese coastline in order to record the sound of something obscure. The musicians and their art are lovingly portrayedthe film might well be seen as a paean to the concerted artist. The original music, the grand scale of the cinematography and the touching simplicity of the characters are the film's greatest strengths. Nevertheless, the film fails to fully capitalise on its originality of vision. There are hints of cuteness and confusion that take away from the emotional impact of the story and from the intellectual scope of the content (in a world where suicide is an illness, how can you discern a 'real' suicide?). Still, whether you're a music-geek or a Japan-freak the film deserves to be seen.


Little prepares the average US film watcher for this one. Is it Japanese over the top violence? No. Is it Japanese S & M sex perversions? No. Is it just general Japanese cultural stuff that doesn't translate well? Not really. What is it?

The only thing I knew about the film was that it was about two musicians making found object music after some major crisis in the near future. What sort of music? I knew what a lot of found object music sounds like but the two musicians featured here were totally unknown to me. The first real clue was a prominently displayed "Borbetomagus" sticker. If you don't know who that is, look them up, "art noise" is a generous description. The musicians (and some will question that) are given large amounts of time where they perform their noise generation (including guitars and synthesizers). I have an appreciation for this type of sound experimenting and was involved with the US art noise scene in it's infancy in the late 1970's and early 80's. Unfortunately the performances in the film are dull except for the final extended solo which is excellent. To have such a well made film revolving around this type of sound would be unheard of in the US.

The plot is simply that the only people infected with the "Lemming Syndrome" who survive have attended concerts by the two musicians. A wealthy man tries to convince the musicians to cure his suicidal daughter. That's about it.

Slowly paced but extremely beautiful. A wonderful music track when the noise is not happening. Subdued but good performances from everyone. A couple of scenes were baffling to me and I don't understand the Biblical reference or why the music group is named "Stepin Fetchit".

This review is a recommendation and a warning.


I happen to think Shinji Aoyama is one of the best film makers working today. I was virtually dragged to see Eureka by my boyfriend who knew nothing about the film, but loved the idea that it was 4 hours long and Japanese: I found myself totally entranced by one of the most absorbing, intensely human films I've ever seen. A couple of years later I ran into Desert Moon and was again bowled over (it took me a moment to realise it was the same director).

As you can imagine I had (very) high expectations of this movie: the bible's most devastating phrase for a title and mass suicide the theme (and believe me, Shinji Aoyama is a master at drawing immense hope out of the deepest despair)... and, well, it wasn't that great. It's still a good film - beautiful to look at, interesting themes intelligently developed, plenty of room given for good acting, and some very lovely music, but it just lacked the depth I was expecting. At some points it even started to resemble a music video...

Maybe I'm being harder on this film than it deserves - it's still more worthwhile than a lot of the films I've seen over the past year - but Shinji Aoyama is capable of genius and simply doesn't deliver it here...


Thought it was beautiful and absolutely amazing from beginning to end. With rare dialog (but what's there is hilarious), the main focus is the beautiful cinematography, the sparse and understated performances of everyone, and the NOISE!!! Yes, the noise aspect of the film is what really got me interested in it, but the film as a whole is definitely some kind of minor masterpiece apart from that.

All the beach shots... the shots of the characters walking around making noises.... shots of people sitting, wordless.... shots of people watching the rain. A very slow, VERY minimal art film. I was just in love.

An extremely interesting, unique, moving film... but only about 1 out of every billion people will enjoy it.


I consider myself a cinephil; not a cinema freak but at least a person who does not sleep when watching movies other than Hollywood bang-gang-do-sex things; I am outrageous (!!!) not with the director (every one has the right of his "artistic" opinion, provided that there are fellows eager to waste their time and money) but with the sado-masochists programming this film for the 5th Cluj-Napoca TIFF. The most unfairly 107 minutes spent in my life Zero-Zero-Zero

P.S. I am rating with one but if the webmaster decide to make the mistake to watch this movie the voting will include the zero value too in the future layouts


Douglas Sirk is renowned for injecting his subversive criticism of American society of the fifties in his glossy and glamorous melodramas. What made this palatable to the public, who flocked in droves, was the fact that the families involved were showbiz families ("Imitation of Life"), filthy rich oil magnates ("Written in the Wind") or highly idealized to the point of caricature ("All that Heaven Allows", "Magnificent Obsession"), far from the average movie goers own social milieu. And of course up there on the screen were the glamorous stars, Rock Hudson, Lana Turner, Lauren Bacall, Dorothy Malone, etc. Movie fans will recall the aforementioned movies when the topic of Sirk's movies arises. It is highly unlikely that "There's Always Tomorrow" will get a mention. "There's Always Tomorrow" has barely any gloss or glamour. The social criticism is completely without disguise. The family in question is one that the vast majority of movie goers could very easily identify with. Its stars (Fred MacMurray and a not so young Barbara Stanwyk) are not glamorous. While audiences left the cinema entranced by the glorious melodrama of "Imitation of Life" and "Written on the Wind", they would have left "There's Always Tomorrow" feeling a lot less secure about their own lives, since it's a film that touches on a fair amount of "dangerous" territory, calling into question the very foundations of the American family. Douglas Sirk's sense of irony has never been sharper. The title brims with optimism and the film opens with the script, "Once Upon a Time in Sunny California". But what unfolds is a bleak, pessimistic depiction of middle class family life.

While Sirk's films have often been branded "woman's pictures", "There's Always Tomorrow" is indeed very much a man's picture. It takes a hard and deep look at the role of the male breadwinner and the picture it comes up with is not a pretty one. What we are shown is a man who when young, courted the prettiest girl, married, had children and worked hard to build up a successful business. He is now middle aged and having achieved it all, begins to feel himself taken for granted by his wife and children. His needs are completely neglected. His wife has little interest in him sexually being totally wrapped up in fulfilling the unending needs of their self centered ungrateful children. It's a scenario all too familiar to millions of men. Fred MacMurrays's Clifford Groves has become a robot similar to the one his successful toy manufacturer has created. No wonder that Norma Vale's (Stanwyk) reappearance in his life presents an opportunity to regain his lost dreams. She's an independent career woman, who sees his situation as somewhat idyllic from the outside. But with the usual intelligence of a Stanwyk character, she has no illusions as to a possible future with him. Despite the brief and obligatory conciliatory ending, Clifford Groves' future does not bode well. It should come as no surprise that the film was not well received at the box office.

"There's Always Tomorrow" has many of the hallmarks of Sirk's craftsmanship. The studio refused to grant him his request for the film to be shot in color, despite having provided Universal with some of its highest grossing pictures of the decade. At least his demand for his favorite cameraman Russell Metty was granted. Metty as always, was the perfect partner in realising Sirk's vision. His interior filming in particular is a lesson in cinematography. He had a penchant for shooting characters behind banisters, framed in mirrors and caged behind fences to enhance the sense of their being trapped. MacMurray and Stanwyk are constantly gliding through dark shadow and bright light reflecting the inherent brightness and darkness in their lives.

At this point of writing "There's Always Tomorrow" has not been released in any format and rarely gets a showing on television. It's a gross injustice to an extremely important director and a wonderfully made, moving piece of cinema.


This film is one of the great Hollywood films yet so few have ever heard of. Not only does it rate with Douglas Sirk's better known films ("Magnificent Obsession," "All that Heaven Allows," and "Imitation of Life), but is as much a devastating a critique of the American Dream as other fifties movies like "Bigger Than Life." And unlike many melodramas which center on the emotional isolation and turmoil of the central female character, this one analyzes the pain of the main male figure (Fred MacMurray). The film's acting, direction, and script have a precision so well thought out that the effect--both at any given moment and overall --is absolutely astonishing. An incredible film crying out to be rediscovered.


So much for that well-known 'woman's intuition'; we, the audience, can see inside reel #1 that Fred McMurray is disappointed in his domestic life which consists of self-centered children and a wife who indulges them even if it means neglecting the husband/bread-winner yet the wife in question, Joan Bennett is serenely oblivious to what amount to McMurray's cries for help. He is portrayed as a husband to die for, thoughtfully preparing a surprise for his wife's birthday which is more or less thrown in his face because the selfish needs of the children come first. McMurray is a toy manufacturer and Sirk gets lots of mileage out of the metaphor; McMurray toys with the idea of leaving wife and family, as does the 'other woman', Norma Vale (Barbara Stanwyck), who turns up out of the blue and past respectively just when McMurray is at his most vulnerable yet ultimately Norma merely toys with his feelings. It's difficult to believe that Sirk made this soft-hitting soap back-to-back with the hard hitting Written On The Wind and it is perhaps understandable that this one got lost in the shuffle. Like McMurray it has been unfairly neglected and is well worth seeking out.


Virtually unknown among Sirk's catalog, which is reasonably when you consider his classic films like 'All That Heaven Allows' and 'Imitation of Life.' But for a film this good to have not seen a DVD release is criminal. I had the good fortune of being able to see this gem at a public screening this week. This is easily one of the best films to come out of the studio era. The film concerns Clifford Grove (Fred MacMurray) a toy developer, whose family neglects him. His wife bails out on their plans constantly, for the children, and the children pay no attention to their loving father. Clifford runs into an old flame, who is back in town and begins to innocently spend some time with her while she's in town. But his sneaky children become suspicious of his activities and start to follow him, his son begins to convince his siblings that their father is having in affair. Their begin to psychological torment their father and ultimately drive him to desire leaving his family. It's painfully dark, and Fred MacMurray is brilliant. The psychological effect on the viewer is tremendous. It's dark and hopeless. If children were shown this on the advent of puberty, no one would ever get married. The stark black and white cinematography is always telling more than the story, with sneaky, sweeping pans and dollies the film keeps you guessing the duration. It's the kind of backhanded studio film, that was rarely produced, where the director gives the audience only ambiguities for resolution, cyclical images void of hope for Clifford, but ambiguous enough to get by censors at the studio, enough to imply that maybe things turned out for old Clifford. This is studio-era cinema at it's best. If you get a chance to catch a screening of it on the new 35mm that is, supposedly, circulating art-house cinemas around the U.S., go. It's a shame that it is not more widely available, a radiant film from the 50s (though troubled and moderately sexist, symptomatic of the time period, but not so blatant that it can't be overlooked in the same way that critics can overlook the racism in 'Birth of a Nation').


It's always a pleasant surprise to encounter an 'oldie' movie such as this. As for first impressions, I have the feeling it's an idealist's wished-for 'dream of a perfect world and perfect people' that never quite comes true, unfortunately, for many in real life. At times the story seemed a bit too melodramatic and predictable at every turn yet even so I enjoyed it

Barbara Stanwyck as Norma is always able to carry a dramatic role superbly. Fred MacMurray as Clifford certainly does give a true rendering of a situation many married men find themselves in sooner or later, of facing middle age and the feeling of being boxed in on all sides.

Well worth adding this one to your collection.


Coming,in Sirk's career ,just after "All that Heaven allows" ,it looks like its twin movie.Unlike "Written on the wind" or "Imitation of life" or "Magnificent obsession" ,it's not melodrama.It's closer to realistic psychological drama.More than the lingering charm of a romantic past (Blue Moon/You saw me standing alone/Without a love of my own),Sirk focuses on the selfishness of the children.Remember in "All that Heaven..." how the son and the daughter could not admit that their mother (of the upper class) should fall in love with a gardener and how they bought her a TV set where she only could see the reflection of her loneliness.Here the boy's attitude is not far from that: a spoiled child -as his sisters are- ,only concerned by his studies and his love affair,he does not care if his papa has become a nine-to-five man ,useful only for the dough he brings home,a life no more exciting than that of the toy robot he sells.Barbara Stanwyck 's role recalls the 1953 effort "all I desire" : the return of the woman,be she legitimate or a former flame.But in "there's always tomorrow",one can notice one of the permanent features of melodrama though: the woman who turns her back on love and becomes a successful businesswoman (or star) (see also the end of "written on the wind" "imitation of life" or Stahl's "only yesterday")


Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck reunite after "Double Indemnity" and "Remember the Night" to star in this great unknown film, which is another Ross Hunter-produced and Douglas Sirk-directed picture.

Joan Bennett is Fred's wife and mother of his three children. But he is missing something, because her children are her world and they are in their own world, always taking. So when old friend Babs shows up, he spends time with her, only to fall in too deep. Unbeknownst to them, his oldest son joins him on a business trip. But, his client cancelled, leaving only Babs there to entertain Fred (who, yes, just happens to be there). The son sees them together laughing and jumps to conclusions. He promptly leaves not telling his father what he's seen. But, nothing ever happened! But the son, played by an actor I don't know, goes ballistic.

The only problem I have is that the actor seems to get a little over-the-top. But, then again it is his strong reaction which is the catapult of all that happens later in the film.

What makes this exceptional is a well-written and intelligent script and Fred and Babs' credible acting and chemistry. Man, that Stanwyck could act! She could act the arms off a chair! The scene where she chews the children out and the scene where she tells Fred that they could never be, are highlights. This film makes me want to watch nothing but Stanwyck's movies for a month!

The title is a little misleading, though. It's obvious they mean that in "another time, another place" it could have happened and he and Babs could have been together. But with Fred a family man, the viewer is expecting him not only to stay with his family, but to really want to and not feel miserable doing for them.

That notwithstanding, if you've never heard of this movie, you need to find it immediately, which may be a feat. But, you won't regret it. We always have Stanwyck.

(This is coming out on a Stanwyck DVD collection in late April of 2010! But, this is the best of the lot, others being average or formulaic. But then again with Stanwyck anything is good!)


Cliff Groves (Fred MacMurray), a toy manufacturer, has been married for about twenty years to Marian (Joan Bennett), who now takes him for granted and gives most of her attention to their demanding children, leaving Cliff feeling unloved and unappreciated and ripe for an affair with old flame Norma Vale (Barbara Stanwyck), a successful fashion designer.

I really enjoyed this movie, despite its somewhat heavy-handed depiction of Fred MacMurray's unhappy home life, and the casting of the awful Joan Bennett. Joan Bennett seemed near-comatose in every film I ever saw her in, with no more facial or vocal expression than a turtle. How did she ever get even one acting job? Barbara Stanwyck looked great, and Fred MacMurray was as attractive as ever. Ever notice what a good build he had? He was very athletic in his youth, and stayed in good shape. Joan Bennett, however, was the dullest actress in movie history. I don't approve of adultery, but I felt so sorry for Cliff, having that boring, dim-witted lump for a wife, and those thankless brats for children, that I wouldn't have blamed him if he had ditched them all for the glamorous yet down-to-earth Norma Vale. Marian lives only for her children, and when Cliff tries to talk to her about his loneliness and hurt at always taking second place to the kids, she makes light of his feelings with some condescending and witless comments that made me want to choke her.

The scene where Cliff tries to get Norma to run away with him is well-written and believable. Norma, distraught, tells him they have to face reality, that he'll still want to see Marian (although why he would ever want to see Marian again escapes me), and that if he marries Norma, he would shame his family, be alienated from his children, etc., etc. The ending of this movie is very unsatisfying. Norma goes back to New York to her life and career, and we see her sitting alone on the plane, heartbroken & crying. Cliff gazes up from his living room window at Norma's plane flying overhead, then turns and walks away, at which point Marian materializes beside him and takes his arm, saying something like, "You haven't been yourself lately", to which Cliff replies, "I'm all right now". Then he tells Marian fondly, "You know me better than I know myself". WHAT??? Marian has been ignoring the poor man for years and is patronizing and totally insensitive to his feelings, but now we're supposed to believe that good ol' Cliff has come to his senses and all is well. I taped this movie off of AMC about ten years ago, and I remember the host of the show saying that originally, the movie did not include this preposterous, tacked-on ending. The emotional scene where Norma forces Cliff to face reality about the hopelessness of their situation was originally supposed to be the final scene, if I remember correctly. Norma flees, and Cliff is left standing alone and dejected in his office workshop, while in the foreground we see "Rex the Walkie-Talkie Robot Man" walking to the end of the table and falling off the end. Rex was the obvious symbol for Cliff. This ending was deemed too depressing, or something, so the writers were forced to add the ridiculous and false scene with Marian.

Watch this movie when you get a chance, but try to picture somebody else in the Joan Bennett role.


It's weird how the writer/director of such exciting blockbusters such as ID4 and The Patriot could create such a strange film. I'll try my hardest to recount the plot.

Two ultra-cheap filmmakers (art reflects life) have a great idea for a movie and rope in an unwilling but attractive starlet and make up a Muppet-like monster based on the photographs of a long-dead grandfather's butler. A rival studio producer wants to blow up the grandfather's house as the climax to his big budget movie so the butler's ghost comes back to possess the Muppet doll to lead them to hidden billions in the cellar.

It's not a bad film, by no means, it's quite cringe-worthy in places but inconsistently entertaining. There are no big name stars or SFX but that is made up for with bizarre plotting and storyline.

This film is more in the style of Roland Emmerich in his Making Contact/Moon 44 days. But if he had the budget he gets these days who knows what this film might have ended up as. I give it 6/10 for weirdness, plot and defying convention.


I was over at the local used book/CD/movie store the other day when my friend came up to me showing me this movie for sale for $2.50. He told me he was going to buy it because it looked really bad. "NO!" I said. "I'm the one who collects bad movies, I should be the one buying it!" He with held from my torment for a while, until I showed him where the Godzilla movies were. THEN he gave it up in favor of Godzilla vs. Mothra. "Haha!" I exclaimed, holding the movie over my head. "I have won!" Little did I know that this movie was the one who REALLY won.

If you are reading this, it probably means you have rented or bought this movie, and you should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you support this movie with your hard earned money! The basis of this movie should have told you right away that this movie was a piece of crap. A group of film makers are struggling with production, when one of the kids (I mean "kids" literally, because these actors look as if they were only 17 or 18-years-old. None of them should be living on their own, making movies. They should be in high school.) gets called to the reading of a family will. He gets a bunch of junk left to him by his great grandfather. One piece of junk was an old clock that turns out to be housing the spirit of an old servant of the kid's great grandfather. And every time the clock struck 1:00 am, the spirit left the clock to roam his surrounding area. What I didn't get was why this spirit didn't do the same all of the other hundreds of nights he was locked away in that trunk. Well, the director of the films sees the ghost, and immediately after he wakes up, begins to construct a bunch of things that resemble what he saw when the spirit came into his room. He makes puppet about two feet tall, a scale model of a huge house, and writes a script for a movie based on his vision. My question, where did he get the money, and the know-how to make such detailed objects. The puppet is shown to have radio controlled eyes. What kind of a technological high school drop wizard is this guy who knows how to rig up remote sensor appendages? I don't know... On to the next "important" thing!

Across town, another film maker (this one in his 30's) hears about the will reading, and orders a spy to steal the clock. The ghost appears again, scaring away the spy, and this time, he inhabits the puppet made by the director guy. This leads the ghost (I think his name is Lewis) to speak of the great grandfather and how he had lots of money, but he never gave it to anybody, rather put it in the basement of some house. So the kids spend the night roaming Hollywood in search of some house, trying to jog Lewis's memory along the way, because Lewis is a moron and can't remember where the house was.

Well, they finally find the house after a girl recognizes the house in one of the older movie maker's movies, only to find out that the older guy is going to blow it up for the grand finale of some movie. They sneak into the closed set, end up in the basement of the house and are about to break into a wall, when the ghost of the great grandfather shows up, inhibits a suit of armor, and begins battling the kids. One blow and the armor falls apart though, but it somehow reassembles itself, and begins to exact it's revenge. It puts the director kid on a bed of spikes, entraps the great grandson behind bars, and does something to Lewis, but Lewis can still talk, and he tells the director kid that the only way to defeat the great grandfather's ghost is to destroy the clock. So he does it and the house blows up with the kids inside it. They find the fortune, the director kid is upset because he lost Lewis, the old director is bankrupted because the kids exploit a fraud he committed back a few years ago, and to end the movie, they drive away in a limo with guess who driving?... Awww... it's Lewis... Everybody with me, Awwwww... Lewis is still alive. DAMN YOU LEWIS!!! Damn you back to the pits of despair you came from!!! And as you're on your way down, don't hang onto me for support, because I'm not giving any! Lewis doesn't deserve it!! This movie doesn't deserve it! The actors don't deserve it! Nobody related to this movie deserves it!

All in all, this movie wasn't all that bad. The ending was what killed it though. I never liked Lewis. I wanted him to stay dead, and when I saw him driving that limo, I wanted to punch a hole through a wall. By far, the WORST ending I have ever seen. That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Good day gentlemen...


This film is BAD. All the ingredients that add up to make a good film are lacking here, the script - terrible, the acting? - worse. And if you can find a worse director doing (financially) well in Hollywood, I applaud you.


This is a must see movie. Werner Peters and all the other cast members deliver superb performances. It has got an ensemble of top german character actors playing together on the same high level as we are used to get from the best of Preston Sturges' movies.

The photography of Robert Baberske is a sheer delight, both lighting and framing are masterly done.

If you have enjoyed Fritz Lang's "M" than you certainly will enjoy this one. The appeal of the story and characters may a bit more specific german, but the moral and "message" is timeless and is true to all western societies.

Comedic film jewels like this are not made anymore - this makes it even less understandable that there is no DVD version around yet. (I know for certain that a top notch flawless negative for a digital transfer exists !!!)


Sharply satirical, hilariously funny, intelligent, but also in terms terribly dated comedy about the stupidity, lack of heroism and relentless worship of the German emperor united in the title character, a lazy student. Superb cast delivers right-on-target-performances and the direction is to a point flawless. One of the most influential all-time-classics of German cinema.


Like Der blaue Engel from 1930, Der Untertan is made after a famous novel by Heinrich Mann, the elder and politically more interested of the two German writer brothers. Here as there, the film is about the criticism for a social characteristic which is regarded as typical for the German background: the Philistine who is fixated on authority and blindly tumbles into war and downfall.

The film tells in episodes about the life story of Diederich Heßling (Werner Peters), youth and university days of the son of a factory owner and his gradual rise into better circles of the Prussian small town Netzig in the 80s of the 19th century; Germany is already an empire with Wilhelm II. being in power. During his studies and his time in the military service, Heßling learns how to be subject to superiors, to endure humiliation, to denounce and to enjoy the power over inferiors to the full. He takes over the father's factory, joins the conservative-nationalist party and a war club and marries a rich heiress. The height of his career is the opening of a warrior monument in Netzig; he appears as the official speaker and baths in the patriotic phrases of national authorities when a thunderstorm interrupts the ceremony and clears the whole place.

The alarming final shot of the monumental emperor, Wilhelm II., is a direct reference to the nation's dark future, WWI and WWII which both - from the perspective of the film - arose from the Prussian way of ruling and the servile attitude of the subjects, the German people. The incidental music to this last take is a repulsive potpourri of "Die Wacht am Rhein", an anti-French national song, the "Horst-Wessel-Song", a martyr anthem of the Nazis and the fanfares which introduced "Die Wochenschau", a weekly propagandistic newsreel that was shown in the cinemas of the Third Reich.

Without reservation, this film can be accepted as a work of art about a weighty epoch in German history, the Wilhelminian era. The characters precisely personify the important and guiding institutions like school, university, military and government. The film succeeds in picturing the fatal relation between philistinism and war enthusiasm, whereas the camera excellently describes the subject's point of view and position: Heßling looks bottom-up to the authority. Next to the acting brilliance of Werner Peters, it's those camera looks which outfits the film with an outstandingly analytical and aesthetic quality.


"Der Untertan" (1951), directed by star-director Wolfgang Staudte, is based on a novel by Heinrich Mann (1871-1950) as "Der Blaue Engel" (1930), directed by Josef Von Sternberg, is. While in "Der Blaue Engel", the protagonist is a person who cannot adapt to the world around him, and when he tries, shamefully stumbles and at the end pays his attempts with his life, the main figure in "Der Untertan" is so-to-say the complimentary character: Although born in an aristocratic, high-class family, surrounded by the world-literature and regular house-concerts and thus widely detached from bourgeoisie, he finds out that he may make carrier by breaking out of this status-group isolation in trying to meddle with politics. He also finds out that for him, the best way is to put hand over hand along the rope that leads upwards while kicking the ones who are coming below him. The result is, however, that he blunders not only in public but often also in his private life. The film has an interesting, yet totalitarian and typical GDR-end which kind of disturbs the otherwise excellently crafted master-piece for which Werner Peters in the role of Dr. Hessling and the director of the film got the Great GDR-State Price.

This movie and an extremely impressive list of some hundreds of titles more, meanwhile practically the collected works of the DEFA, the state film company of the former GDR or DDR, we owe to the Department of German Studies of the University of Massachusets at Amherst that has obviously taken over the legacy to maintain and foster the gigantic film work of the "other" Germany which has ceased to exist in 1990.


It's not all that often that toadies get what's coming to them. Too often, when their political toadying days wind down, they join important New York law firms or become Washington "consultants," toadying in only a slightly different milieu, and able now to directly afford their bespoke suits and strip steak dinners at The Capital Grille.

But then we have Diederich Hessling. The place is Germany and the time is before the turn of the century. Diederich (Werner Peters) is a superior toady in this superior East German satire from 1951. Hessling is an unlikable, pudgy little man, with a small, soft mouth. He is a perfect bourgeois, inwardly anxious and outwardly pompous. He was a fearful child, frightened of his father's cane and his mother's stories. Tattling on others at school was his satisfaction. He was attracted, while at university, to the shy Agnes, but when warned off by her family's boarder one evening, he hurriedly left her home. He joined with pride the Neo Teutons to drink beer with careful rituals and fearfully gained a dueling scar. As a cadet in the Kaiser's army he realized, we are told, that "the whole military set-up was aimed to reduce one's dignity to a minimum. This impressed him. Despite his misery he was filled with respect." Alas, his flat foot hurt, he said, and soon he was released with dramatic tales to tell. Then he must manage his family's factory when his father dies, lording it over the workers and nuzzling the town's leaders. He also manages to seduce the loving Agnes, who, having acquiesced is now of course unworthy of a man of his stature. His self-importance is as prominent as his newly up-turned moustache, identical to the Kaiser's.

And now this pompous little man, Diederich Hessling, respected factory owner, leads us into a satire which is not all that amusing, with workers abused, Jewish blood gossiped about and patriotic Germanic delusions flowering with pride. We have self-satisfied town councilors, careful church leaders and elderly military men, toadies all in Diederich's stultifying middle class. His factory, which appears to make huge piles of rags from huge piles of rags, prospers. Dietrich has found a place for his self-importance and for his inner fearfulness. The Kaiser becomes his grail and patriotic nationalism strengthens his easily-led tattling proclivities. He is so proud of Germany, German power and his German Kaiser, that at his wedding to a plump and wealthy woman he introduces his guests to the latest German innovation from his factory, toilet paper. But good things, even toilet paper, never last. The obsequious Diederich Hessling finds himself over his head in a game of anxious brown nosing more complex than simply tattling on schoolmates. We may not know what Dietrich's fate is, but the movie gives us, with heavy Teutonic irony, a vivid look at what Germany's will be.

The Kaiser's Lackey is sharp, good fun as long as it focuses on the fears and behavior we can find so amusingly contemptible in Diederich. But then the film moves into a more heavy- handed satire of complacent bourgeois German nationalism and society. The Kaiser's Lackey is amusing, but eventually moves into tedious irony. Still, if for nothing more than the satire of a smug society and a weak protagonist, as well as for Werner Peter's skilled toadying throughout, the movie is worth the time spent.

The director, Wolfgang Staudte, had an unlikely career in films. He started out in the movie business under the Nazi's, eager as a young man to protect his film deferment to escape being sent to the front. He directed the first German movie after WWII, The Murderers Are Among Us, in 1946 with Ernst Borcert and Hildegard Kneff. It is probably the best movie he ever made, filmed amidst the miles of rubble in Berlin. It remains a powerful statement of guilt, redemption and hope. He directed films in East Germany, then West Germany, then a unified Germany. Staudte's life itself might make a good film.


This wicked satire of imperialistic Germany during reign of Wilhem 11 was made in East Germany.

It is from a Heinrich Mann novel, Written by Fritz Staudte and directed by Wolfgang Staudte,

These last 2 gentleman gave us, a few years prior the heavy dramas, ROTATION and MURDERERS ARE Among US.

This 1951 movie is a pleasant change of pace.

The pace is fast & furious as all satires are supposed to be. There are a few songs at the beginning,I think I would have liked a few more.

The acting by all is first rate & all production values are equally good.

Ratings: *** (out of4 )82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)


This was a great show which only lasted a few short episodes in the late 1990s. I have been trying to figure out if it was an act of Lane's-- namely getting a "better offer" in a Broadway show (his IMDb biography shows he did mostly children's films those years) or the fickle finger of network fate that did this show in. I keep wishing someone would release it on DVD-- especially with Nathan Lane's rising fame after coups like "The Producers" (and even Lion King), but it hasn't come out yet... great performances and typical sharp Lane humor. A rare gem in modern TV, it's a shame it is no longer available. This show is a particular delight for those who have been bitten by the acting bug... or anyone living with someone who has. Until it is released on DVD, look into another great show about the Nobel Profession: "Slings and Arrows," a great British show available from the BBC.


Well, I've seen it twice now. I'm sure that says something. The one thing that I told myself as I went into the theater was "This isn't the game". Too many people were expecting Mark Hammil, or Biff from Back to the Future, and were miffed that the movie didn't include them, or anyone that looked like them. So far, I haven't heard anyone say complain that Val Kilmer or George Clooney didn't LOOK like Michael Keaton; the portrayal of their character is a different story...

I'll admit, the movie had a cookie-cutter plot. Young guy doesn't realize his potential, young guy is mocked, best friend stands up for him, young guy saves the day. That, and the standard "Have someone how loves and loses, and someone who falls in love at the end." But, then again, how many movies have been made that have a cookie cutter plot?

I was quite impressed with the acting. I'll admit, I haven't been a big fan of the teen slasher movies, so this was my first experience at seeing a lot of these guys. The young Blair was portrayed exactly as I would have expected, not too sure of himself, too willing to scurry into a corner rather than face confrontation. Maniac was great; much better than the poor portrayal in the last 3 iterations of the video game. I mean, let's face it, Maniac's character was completely re-done in WC3, to make him exactly like Biff. And Paladin was excellent. Not anything like the Paladin of the games (it took a while to get used to a non-scottish Paladin), but a very good, dark, but fatherly figure.

The effects were incredible, especially when you consider the (relatively) meager budget the film was done on. Yeah, the NavCom looked like a car battery, and the Kilrathi were lacking. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the original intent was to NOT show the Kilrathi at all; someone decided this would be too artistic of a move, and created some cheesy looking aliens at the last minute.

My favorite aspect of the movie, though, was how it abandons the standard "Everything is bright and pretty and technological in Sci-Fi". The ships were beat on. The cruisers looked like they had to be held together with bailing wire. The bridges of the vessels were dark, cramped, and simple. The ships shot bullets, rather giving us bright and technical laser beams. Also, humanity wasn't portrayed as being perfect; there were factions, and racism, and everything else that we experience on earth today.

I'm just waiting for the DVD...


First of all, the games in the Wing Commander series are some of the best video games I've ever played. Technology has gotten to the point where these games look dated and the full motion video seems impractical, but the story lines and combat sequences are amazing. If anyone has the opportunity to play these games and hasn't do yourself a favor and do it. That said...

This movie is ridiculous and the storyline might just as well be from a 1950's B movie. The dialogue is awful, the acting worse, and the supposedly futuristic spacecraft looked like they were bought from a studio auctioning off props from old World War II movies. The director, who happens to have designed the games, apparently thought that it would be cool to throw his story lines from the games out the window in favor of some World War II allegory. If I wanted to see World War II, I would've put in my "Saving Private Ryan" DVD and not watched this crap on basic cable.

The characters are extremely well crafted in the game series, well, for a video game series anyway. Here, they come off as a bunch of tired clichés. Also, I take issue with the fact that Blair, the main character, is some kind of chosen one with special powers. The Wing Commander games gave us characters who were normal people forced into an extraordinary situation, something direly lacking in the genre of science fiction. In other words, there were no mythical "Pilgrims" or other hocus pocus like there are in the movie. I wouldn't mind if it was well done but it just feels tacked on for no good reason.

Speaking of the Kilrathi, its not even discussed in the film why the Humans are at war with them or what they are. Instead of the ten foot tall, menacing, tiger creatures from the games they look like hamsters on steroids. Also, one of the best characters from the games, the evil kilrathi prince thrakath (in the games Thrakath is a cross between hanibal lectar and josef stalin), is not in the movie, leaving it without a strong villain.

Now, of course, as a fan of the games I'm a little bitter that this movie is one of the worst that I've ever seen. But I know a horrible movie when I see one, and this movie is pretty much unwatchable whether you've played the games or not. Honestly, if you're in the mood for sci fi and if you see it anywhere, just ignore it and watch Star Wars again.


I know this guy who works at a multiplex and is a movie maniac. He insists that "Wing Commander" is the worst movie ever made, so when I saw that SciFi Channel was going to air it this week, I thought, "Oh, good! I will get to see it for free and see if it's everything my friend promises it is, because I've got a perverse obsession with bad movies!"

I will tell you how much I... well, I suppose the word is "enjoyed"... "Wing Commander" by describing my favorite part of the movie for you.

The setting is a big war in outer space between Earthlings and some aliens called the Kilrathi (more about them later), and most of the action we are chiefly concerned with takes place on a big spaceship that is something like an aircraft carrier. The hero's annoying best friend and his sort-of-girlfriend have disobeyed the leader of their team and, thanks to Cosmic Revenge, the sort-of-girlfriend dies when she crashes her little spaceship into the landing pad thing on the big ship. Now, this is supposed to be the big, dramatic sad part. We cut from a scene where the hero's annoying best friend is crying and begging to save his sort-of-girlfriend, to a scene where the sort-of-girlfriend's ship is being pushed by a little snowplow off the runway thing of the big ship.

In the middle of Outer Space.

In Zero Gravity.

I suppose there's some B.S. about there being big magnets or something lining the runway so that the ships can't just float away. But, you know, that's something that's supposed to be the screenplay writers' responsibility to tell us.

My second favorite part is when we finally see the Kilrathi for the first time. At about the forty-five minute mark, it occurred to me that we don't even know who or what the Kilrathi are. We only know that they're at war with Earth and that they hate humans. But for the first full hour and a half or so, we don't even know what a Kilrathi looks like.

Well, the Kilrathi end up being something like an anthropomorphic Mr. Bigglesworth.

And they really like fog machines. When the hero and his buddies invade the Kilrathi ship, the whole place is choked with green fog.

Oh, and for all this, we never find out why they hate humans.

I came up with a theory. The Kilrathi are the descendants of a bunch of hairless cats who were sent in a probe many years ago to a strange planet. This planet was highly irradiated, and the cats were sent there to see if Earthlings could survive on it. Well, the radiation made the cats evolve very quickly, and eventually their descendants began to look more and more humanoid. They built some spaceships and went to war against humanity, to avenge the fact that the humans never remembered to clean out their grandparents' litter boxes. As for the green fog, that's to remind all the Kilrathi of the awful stench their ancestors had to suffer when their litter was left unchanged.

But, again, this is the screenwriter's job.

And I'm not even going to start on the whole "Pilgrim" thing.

"Wing Commander" gets a three, because of it's parody value and because it isn't as bad as my friend promised but it's close. VERY close. Essentially, this is the kind of movie that "Starship Troopers", as a *very* small part of it's agenda, set out to parody. Go watch that movie instead. It's a great date movie.


Have you ever heard the expression "so stupid it is brilliant"? Well, you will see plenty of stupidity on offer here. So much of it, in fact, that you will begin to understand where the expression "so bad that it is awesome" comes from. Forget about Mortal Kombat, or even Resident Evil: Apocalypse. This is the film that video game adaptations get their reputation from. Every error of film-making you can think of, and even some you can't, is committed here. So many acting careers die here that the film should have been called Career Holocaust. You can bet that many members of the support cast neglect to mention this effort when discussing their CVs. About the only cast member who seems to have recovered from being in this abomination is Tchéky Karyo, and I am sure even he would rather forget this one. Incidentally, since when do you cast an actor with a French accent as thick as pea soup to play a character who was known in the early video games for having a Scottish accent so broad that it cemented the games reputation as a collection of stereotypes. Incidentally, Angel was supposed to be the French accent.

But this is all pure digression. The cast's collective heart was in it, and the crew did the best job they could, but the direction is so weak that the film winds up looking like it was intended to form the cutscenes of a video game. No explanation for the technology on show is offered. No reference to the time in which the film takes place is offered. Many references place the film in the time just after the declaration of war against the Kilrathi. But the scenario being depicted shows the Kilrathi imminently approaching Earth, which was one of the available scenarios in the third video game, which in turn is set decades into the war. Not to mention the stealth technology, which is introduced some years into the war, and yet the most prominent fighters of the Terran confederation look like rejected designs for World War II aircraft with shower nozzles stuck to their fronts.

The spacecraft design leads me to believe that members of the crew might be at least half right when they say that the problem with this film is the budget. In a time when science-fiction theatre was costing upwards of a hundred million per film, a miniscule thirty million was spent on this production. It shows. Shots of the main enemy in anything other than spacecraft form are rare, and when we do finally get to see the Kilrathi, they look more like big turds than humanoid cats. In one memorable sequence, we get to see a wrecked space fighter, with its pilot still within, pushed off the runway by a futuristic bulldozer that seems to grip the tarmac using the traditional wheel arrangement. In zero gravity, mind you. Of course, the runway could have gravity wells, or the bulldozer could have magnetically-charged wheels, but this is something the director or the screenwriter is supposed to explain to the audience. Very little explanation of anything, even why the Pilgrims are so space-savvy, is offered. There is basically a whole lot of tell and very little show.

Speaking of the Pilgrims, a subplot is added to this film that states the original Human explorers of space were a group dubbed the Pilgrims, who began to renounce their Human qualities. Apparently, a war started between the Pilgrims and the rest of Humanity, with the present Terran Confederation beset by a severe prejudice against Pilgrims. This is all well and fine, but it adds nothing to the actual plot, and only muddies the waters as to what the Humans are fighting about. All it really serves to do is give our central hero a Luke Skywalker sort of quality, and not a very convincing one at that. The idiotic game the Terran pilots play that dead pilots basically never existed flies right in the face of every convention set in the original video games. And it isn't like the crew have the excuse of not having played the games, because the director is the same guy who oversaw their creation. All this turns out to be is a very stupid attempt at a creative plot arc that, like the Pilgrim element, has no bearing upon the story whatsoever.

Unlike most of the rotten films I have commented about lately, I gave Wing Commander a one out of ten. Watching the cast, respectable otherwise or no, trying to chew their way through boot-like dialogue is pure comedy gold. Realising that the director expects us to feel scared of these gigantic turd monsters he calls the Kilrathi is even funnier. Therefore, Wing Commander is not just so bad it is good. It is so stupid it is utterly brilliant.


The film has been critically panned and it bombed at the cinemas. But it's actually a pretty good film. Yes it isn't technically the best, nor is it scientifically plausible. And for devotees of the games it kinda screws with history, but for all that it is a good ride. You watch it and appreciate it. Saffron Burrows is great. David Warner and David Suchet excel in their (small) roles. It's a shame John Rhys-Davis and Mark Hamill don't reprise their roles, but their replacements do well enough.

You get caught up in the story, and the visual effects are fantastic, aided by good acting with the actors working well together.

So overall I would recommend this film. Don't expect it to be fantastic, but just enjoy it. It's a fun film and a worthy addition to Wing Commander lore.


Wing Commander is not the best game-made-movie to be produced, nor is it even meant to be. It has some noticeable performances by some otherwise unknown actors, it has top-of-the-line special effects, and you don't need to be a genius to figure out the plot. So why is almost everyone dumping on it so much?

When you look at it, WC is a pretty good film, especially considering the budget it was made on. Sure, the Kilrathi looked pretty dumb at times, but it was better than not seeing them at all, which was what they had originally planned, and yes, bullets in space does sound a little strange at first, but for me, it's a welcome change from the old Star Wars/Star Trek clichés out there; laser blasters, photon torpedos, all that bull. And WC does perfectly fine without any of it. The acting is not top-notch, but it's still pretty damn good, especially Tcheky Karyo's performance as Paladin. Now THAT's good acting for you!

The overall plot is the low point of the film, that I will admit. It basically consists of the team stopping the Kilrathi from snatching a "Nav-Com" unit that will enable them to target destinations when jumping through wormholes, and thus enable them to hitch a ride to Earth. The idea of naming those gravity wells after the two monsters from the Odyssey is definitely a nice touch. The idea of the discrimination against the Pilgrims, and thus the hostility Chris Blair faces, adds an emotional side of film, along with the idea of not acknowledging one's existence after they've died. It adds where the story lacks.

Yes, there is some cheesiness factor, and yes, it could have been better. Besides, it isn't meant to please everyone. No movie is, for that matter. I suppose this is just one of those films where hard-core sci-fi fans are looking for true refinement. You won't find it in WC. For those of you with simple tastes, like me, for instance, will find yourselves a completely enjoyable movie for all intents and purposes.

If you're a sci-fi fan who isn't looking for perfection in anything he sees, try Wing Commander. You may just like it.

My only question is, why did almost everyone in the film speak with some kind of foreign accent?


I have to say i liked it a lot. The environment is well created, so are the dialogs and the ships. The special effects are pretty good, the dark atmosphere gives the movie a "grim and dark future" look.

The only negative thing is the fighting scenes, they look just unreal and penalize the whole movie.

The plot is simple, they travel through quasars to save the earth from a Killrathi invasion, these aliens look like big cats wielding some technologically advanced sticks. The cameras are always centered on Lt. Blair, so the shape of the Killrathi is shrouded in mystery until the third quarter of the movie.

Overall it's a really good movie, with a great atmosphere that will make you say "Ok, i didn't waste these two hours".


Apparently early space travelers is allot like what happened on Earth. They left to escape religious persecution and these pilgrims are hated for some strange reason. Bigotry is not to be tolerated by any means, race, creed, religion or style. It's just wrong and the main problem is this subplot of everyone hating this guy just because he's a "pilgram" decent. It's just wrong, now I don't know anything about the game series this movie is based on. I really don't. I can only judge by the movie. The effects are good, the Kirathi are cool, the story for the most part works. I know enough of the game that they got the first person outside the ship view and that's cool. It's cool. I give it...8 STARS


I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The graphics weren't up to say Episode1 standards, but were convincing enough (and I loved the raspy engine noise for the Rapiers). The acting was what I've come to expect from these younger American actors (as in good).

I'd say from an objective view point it's a good film. A bit lacking in certain areas, but certainly enjoyable.

I say "objective" simply because I have never been exposed to the hugely popular game series, so I was seeing this as a film, not as a spin off (in which case I'm sure it would come across worse, simply because when you're used to one set of actors portraying your favourite characters a new team will never fit the bill).

Overall not a bad way to spend my Wednesday evening.


First of all, I avoided this movie when it was first released because of the bad reviews. I never played the game so I had no idea what to expect.

I should know better...

I saw this movie for the first time on DVD, sat down with a low expectation, and cranked up my Dolby Digital 5.1 sound system. Was I ever BLOWN away! It was more than I expected and the characters were not as "forgettable" as some critics said. I found the performances of Tcheky Kanyo (Paladin) and David Warner (Admiral Tolwyn) were memorable. Saffron Burrows (Angel) was great, except that she handled her "crisis" at the end rather badly. But overall the movie was a treat. I would recommend it for anyone to at least rent this and check it out!


This movie certainly lives out many of its expectations. Freddie Prinze does an excellent job as Blair and the boy with the so-called 'Force'. Saffron Burrows also does well as the commander of the fighters. I also like the fact that the movie is interpreted more like today's naval battleships and uses torpedos and gun fire as opposed to Lasers of most sci-fi movies. The 'Tigerclaw' also appears more like reality as a naval ship with the submarine 'look' of today's standards too.

Another good thing would the constant action and lack of dead time this movie provides. As a viewer one does not have time to get bored. The special effects are not lacking either as it meets today's standards. But the score is wonderful, and as a fan of good movie scores this one is up their with the best.

Don't listen to those critics who put this movie way down..this movie goes beyond all expectations. Remember its based on the book


People are way too hard on this movie. The acting is better than average and action is awesome. This alone makes up for the weak plot and so so special effects. And it moves at such a pace that it is impossible to be bored unlike Star Wars Episode 1 where I sat through that entire pod race scene wondering when it was going to end. I'm not saying that this is better than Star Wars but I could watch this movie over and over which is something I couldn't say for Star Wars. (***/****)


I have seen the movie twice and i agree that it's not at great movie with brilliant script or tricks but.....

I have played all the WC games and i loved them - and the movie has the same sense of surprise and plot that the games have. An outcast who ends to be the hero and a little crush on the senior in command actually the movie is much more scientific correct than ex. Star Wars. The spaceships are using bullets and there is a little Einstein with time/space theories. The movie is NOT i repeat NOT for anyone else than non space combat sci-fi nerds which means - no girl- or best friends, parents and ....- but my son (11 years) loved it - as i did


I liked the acting. There were no top class actors and I really missed Mark Hamill and Malcom McDowell. But there were a lot of actors I like.

As a fan of the original games, especially part 3, this movie could've been a bit more than the games, casting the original actors and such. And instead of the fighting more story development would've been quite nice. I remember the ending of WC3 as being gloomy, with the Kilrathi home world being destroyed by mankind. A story like that... ah, this movie would be great. Instead we have a cheesy standard action plot. We are at war, the enemy stole a plot device and is threatening our whole race. Yawn.

Well, the potential was out there, the movie didn't catch it. Sad, sad. But they still managed to make a decent SF movie. There are definitely worse movies than WC.


This film is miles better than you might expect from the video cover (a bunch of impossibly young good looking kids - I thought 'Star Trek' rip-off, but no, it's better than that, even if it did come from a video game) (or so I am told..) Freddie Prinze jnr is a bit wooden, but the other actors more than make up for it. The marvelous Tcheky Karyo is a standout, and so is David Suchet, popping up quite unexpectedly, as the too short-lived Captain of the Tiger Claw. The women are excellent as well, Saffron Burrows as Angel Devereaux and Ginny Holder as Rosie Forbes. The story has depths and I wanted to learn more about the Pilgrims, and the war against them... The international cast is a great strength, how refreshing to hear a mix of voices and accent for a film set in 2654 (?).


Are you sure Malcolm McDowell was in this? I know David warner David Warner is and maybe someone might mistake them for being the same person, but I didn't see Malcolm McDowell.

Having never seen the film, I bought the DVD for 6 dollars. I wasn't expecting much, because the back of the DVD shows are not at all representative of the film. Anyway, I'm a fan of sci-fi, so I decided to give it a chance.

I have to honestly say, I was surprised at how well done this film is. The plot is surprisingly developed, and there were some twists and turns along the way to maintain the interest of the viewer. Some of the lines could be considered cheesy, but these moments were isolated and were mild compared to the culture of one-liners and insincere babble that the mainstream audiences accept out of the Hollywood trend setters.

Much of the dialogue was actually plausible, and well delivered by a competent cast. Freddie Prinze, Jr. looked like he was still shaking off the remnants of a trendy teenage mindset, but he was adequate. In fact, he's a new cadet. It's no wonder he would still be somewhat immature. Mathew Lillard's character is somewhat unlikable, but well-acted, and has some redeeming qualities at the same time. I think that was the while point.

Tchéky Karyo delivers a brilliant, emotional performance. I wasn't familiar with this actor before but he is amazing.

As far as the mechanics of the film, it presents space fighting and space scenarios in a deep and intriguing manner. The good special effects helped to make it believable. The solid plot was garnished by some tense moments that seemed almost influenced by Wolfgang Peterson's landmark Das Boot. Throughout the film, Roberts brought about quite a bit of philosophical and historical content. This material was quite expertly woven throughout the film, and is tied tightly with the ending of the film as well. For that, he deserves many points. Because it's something that mainstream Hollywood seems to not be able to get right after all these years of practice.

Overall, I would recommend this for any sci-fi fan. Sadly, good sci-fi films are always underrated by the mainstream audiences. Even more sad is that there aren't enough quality films in this exceptional genre. We're handed these silly, insulting films something like The Day Robots Pummeled the Earth. Or else films that are completely tethered by poor special effects. Or we're handed a world that is set up in a very deliberate, expert manner, then expected to accept the fact that anything goes, no matter how ridiculous or silly the film unfolds after the halfway point, like in Event Horizon. Those types of film give the genre a terrible reputation, and Wing Commander certainly stands out as a superior film amongst all the garbage producers try to pass off as sci-fi. It's a definite recommend for sci-fi fans. 8/10 as a film.


Well, i must say that Matthew Lillard played a great role. The dirrecting was well done and for once i dont think Freddy's character was top on my list Lol. I feel that this movie should have gotten better reviews but i am still happy with it. i have seen it more then a dosen times and it was worth every minut. i would reccomend EVERYONE see it at least once.

CHRISTY


Being a fan of the games WCIII and WCIV, I couldn't wait to see this film version. I had since Freddie Prinze Jr try to act before, and wouldn't exactly call myself a big fan of his, so I was slightly weary as to whether or not this film would be any good.

The plot isn't all that original, and the script doesn't break any new grounds either. But I've given this film 10/10 because it is so damn entertaining. The action scenes are cool, the special effects are brilliant, and the characters are worth watching. Prinze Jr is excellent as the young Blair, Matthew Lillard is, as always, scene-stealing as Maniac, and the rest of the support cast are equally impressive. Also, listen out for Mark Hamill, who does the voice of Merlin, Blair's ships computer.

If you're a fan of the game, you'll probably love this as much as me. Anyone else will like this film if they don't mind watching quality entertainment rather than some three hour epic. Top class entertainment.


This movie had an excellent story line. The actors were great and the choice of Matthew Lillard as Manic was genius. Lillard built upon his earlier "Scream" success playing a crazy. Saffron Burrows' portrayal of Angel was genuine and she sizzled as the Wing Commander! Special effects were very good. In my opinion, the movie was much better than I expected it to be. I recommend this movie to everyone, but especially Wing Commander fans.


I can see why movie critics destroy this game, opps, i mean movie! It isn't done the way a Ridley Scott would insist! But, it is cool to see the names, and faces of our heroes and enemies! We liked the game, played it alot back in the day and were built up for years with the idea of a movie someday. The game is self has been history for years, so I think it came out late to capitalize on the game players addiction.

The movie is done on budget, and with budget actors, with the excepton of Jurgen. I am not sure why the famous "U-Boat" commander did this movie, perhaps he was a game player to. The famous German actor hardly needed to do this movie, but did anyway. He does do a nice job of commanding the loading, and firing of TORPEDOS, as no one else could do it! In fact, his line there was identical to DAS BOAT. The guy is awesome! To bad he could not persuade more famed actors to bring notoriety to the movie. As it is, the actors chosen, play the computer game roles well, and are what I expected, especially MANIAC! Long Live the TIGER CLAW!


The problems was not that the movie was awful (apart from the typically wooden performance by Freddy Prinze, Jr. -- and why the heck has Matthew Lillard, who can actually ACT -- see "SLC Punk if you don't believe me -- spent so much of his career playing second banana to that meat-head?), but rather that the last three games are better MOVIES than the movie: they had better casts, better stories, better dialogue, even better visual effects (in the cut scenes, at least) and better musical scores! (I can still hum the main theme to "Heart of the Tiger," some six years after I last played it, and it still sends chills down my spine.) While Tcheky Karyo and David Warner put in fine performances as James "Paladin" Taggart and Admiral Sir Geoffrey Tolwyn, they could never match the terrific work of John Rhys-Davies and Malcolm MacDowell, who played Taggart and Tolwyn in the games. Nothing in the uninspired script compares with Tolwyn's sneering "Well, colonel, what would you aim for if you had the biggest gun in the universe?" Prince Thrakhath's "Heart of the Tiger" speech, or the not-so-friendly banter between Mark Hamill's Christopher Blair and Tom Wilson's "Maniac" Marshall. It might be worth a rental, if you love military SF, but if you're looking for something worth buying, get the games instead.


** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Blair (Prinze Jr) and Marshall (Lillard) are fighter pilots transferred to the Tiger Claw aboard the freighter Diligent, captained by Taggart (Karyo). They are given crucial information and orders that must reach the Tiger Claw quickly. The Kilrathi has captured a Navcom AI, and can now "jump" to the Sol-system and threaten Earth itself. And the human fleet is not in position to defend it. The Tiger Claw must find out what the Kilrathi plans are and delay them before they can jump into the Sol-system. Marshall and Blair, and their squadron of fighters led by Devereaux (Burrows), are central in the Tiger Claw's operations, but they are out-gunned and outnumbered by Kilrathi forces. Some non-conventional methods and tactics must be used and Blairs heritage may be a crucial part of them.

A good sci-fi action with a nice sense in their battles. The myth of the story is nicely involved in the plot and the special effects are mostly good. However, there are a lot of plot holes and/or goofs (many concerning gravity or what should be the absence of gravity). The actors and actresses are good but not stellar, but Karyo however is very good as Taggart. Unfortunately, one must try to ignore all the goofs to enjoy this movie, and it is not all that easy, because there are so many of them. But in my opinion, it was very enjoyable.

7/10


I had been a big fan of the video games when I was younger, and considering how good Wing Commander 3 had been, you could only expect that the movie would be decent.

Right?

Wrong. Replacing veteran actors like John Rhys Davies, Malcom McDowell and Mark Hamill was a veritable who's who of the worst actors in Hollywood. Freddy Prinze Jr. delivers a role of a caliber only a cardboard cut-out of himself could duplicate (not that this is out of the ordinary for him). Matthew Lillard proves once again that he's only good in a role where a complete lack of skill as an actor goes unnoticed.

Beyond this, the story is ludicrous. If the two leading actors don't irritate you just with their presence, or lack of screen presence, the boring, paper thin plot will. The fighters, far removed from the sleek, lethal looking fighters of the video game are replaced by clunky, clumsy looking ones. I remember hearing the creators of the movie wanted the movie to have the feel of old school WW2, Korean War dogfights, but they not only failed in that, they gave us fighters that nobody would actually want to fly in the game.

I remember this being the first movie I ever felt like walking out on, and only stayed because I figured at the time that there had to be some redeeming value to it. Wow, was I ever wrong. And the worst part of this disaster? It derailed a possible franchise before it even got started. I remember thinking that Wing Commander 3 would have made a great movie (even though the video game was among the first video games to have a full cast of actors and sets). Well, it probably would have, though this was not it. Save yourself the time and effort, don't even catch a rerun on SciFi.

1/10, and only because Saffron Burrows is good looking enough to fool you into stopping if you channel surf by.


anyone who played the wing commander series from start to finish will recognise the characters in the film, especially wing commander:prophecy. The plot itself is simple yet easy to follow. Matthew Lillard is up to his usual standard, and is perfectly cast as "maniac". Anyone who watches bbc's Holby city may recognise a few members of the crew also. all in all it could have been better, but then it could have been a lot worse.


First and foremost, this movie is based on one of the most successful video game franchises in history. The games are wonderfully created and each one gets better than the last. I was excited when I heard this movie was coming out, because I am a fan of the games. I was unable to see it in the theater, so I had to rent it. It was a little upsetting to see Freddie Prinze Jr and Matthew Lillard as Maverick and Maniac. I do not feel that these two were able to capture the true spirit of these characters completely, although Lillard is close. I would have preferred Mark Hamill and Tom Wilson in this movie to stay true to the games, who knows the movie may have been more successful. At any rate, if anyone sees this movie and has NOT played the games, please don't be harsh. The movie was surprisingly close to the game in most areas. Granted the technology was greater in the game, but you can do more with that format. All in all this was a good movie with a very strong story, albeit subpar acting at times, but good nonetheless. My challenge to anyone who has seen and badmouthed this movie is to compare this movie to every other movie-based-on-a-videogame. I'm certain that this one will be in the top ten of anybody's list.


"Three Strangers" has long been a favorite film of mine, with its fascinating reference to the statue of the goddess Kwan Yin, who, in Chinese legend, opens her eyes and grants a wish to three strangers on the Chinese New Year. Geraldine Fitzgerald, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre are the above-mentioned strangers, each with an agenda that can be easily pursued by money. So the wish is that their sweepstakes ticket win, and the agreement is that it then be entered into the horse race that follows.

Geraldine Fitzgerald's character seems sympathetic, but she reveals herself as quite obsessive and delusional as the film progresses. Greenstreet plays a crooked solicitor, and Lorre portrays a small time criminal - he's the most sympathetic character and, to my mind, gives the most memorable performance.

The film asks the question - did the meeting of the three strangers change their lives, or did events proceed as they would have? This is an unusual, absorbing, and entertaining film. I highly recommend it.