Released in the same year as the seminal double whammy of "Crossfire" and "Out Of The Past", Mitchum cemented his burgeoning reputation with his tortured performance in this brooding psychological western directed by Raoul Walsh.

Jed Rand (Mitchum) is a man tormented by a childhood memory of traumatic violence that he can never fully grasp. Orphaned as a young boy, he is discovered cowering in a cellar by a strong minded cattle woman, "Ma" Callum (Judith Anderson), who flee's her homestead with young Jed and her own two children in tow. She brings him up as part of her own family, intent on harbouring him from the horrors of his past. Yet as years go by, Jed's restlessness and constant sense that the shadowy figures from the recesses of his mind are doggedly reaching after him slowly begin to consume their relationship. Indeed, "Ma" may hold the key to unlocking his dark secret.

Jed has a strong effect on the Callum family as they grow together. A deep love slowly blossoms between him and his step-sister, Thorley (Teresa Wright), but his step-brother Adam (John Rodney) gradually begins to deeply resent his presence; something that is twisted into something even darker and more hateful when Jed returns home a war hero. Similarly, the sinister one-armed figure of Callum kinsman, Grant (Dean Jagger), constantly lingers on the periphery of Jed's life, seemingly orchestrating his enemies against him. As the secrets and lies begin to chafe away at the bonds between them, only the inevitable violence and conflict will bring the truth crashing down upon them.

Told mostly in flashback, "Pursued" offers a twisted, noiresque vision of the west. The family turmoil plays out like a dust choked Greek tragedy; full of tragic unspoken truths, deep-rooted jealousy and hatred, sibling rivalry and an almost incestuous love between the three children. The death and violence that chases Jed throughout his life until his moment of revelation does not confront him head-on but instead through unseen rifle fire, unexpected pot-shots and shadowy figures that come to kill him in the dead of night. Even Jed's fractured memories are conveyed with flashes of light, incoherent background noise and a pair of clattering spurs seemingly dancing before the terrified childs face.

Mitchum's performance is excellent. Brooding and manly, only occasionally hinting at the vulnerability beneath. It's almost impossible to take your eyes off him at times. Judith Anderson and Teresa Wright both match him in their key scenes too whilst the ever-watchable Dean Jagger is on fine form; playing it mean to the bone throughout. In fact, of the central players, only newcomer John Rodney really struggles to hit the right notes throughout.

"Pursued" is a fine, fine film. Truly original with a tough yet poetic style, it is beautifully photographed, erotically charged and masterfully directed by the great Raoul Walsh. This is a must-see for all Mitchum fans.


Although this film was directed by the great Raoul Walsh, the story by Niven Busch is the main factor in this western. Robert Mitchum is pursued by one tragedy after another, and he seems to be hopeless and cannot understand the reason of it all. At the toss of a coin he decides the most important things in his life, and he seems resigned to accept whatever his destiny will bring up, until circumstances force him to react and face the enormous obstacles that stand between himself and the woman he loves(Theresa Wright). This is a fascinating western, and even with the photography of the famous James Wong Howe, it does not have the beautiful scenery of "The Tall Men" or "The Big Trail", also directed by Walsh, the idea was to give it a dark mood.


A correspondent suggested that PURSUED might be the first western "film noir". Intrigued, I pulled it off my shelves and ran the tape through the VCR. It surely is a "film noir" right enough, first or not. Crime from out of the past haunts the present and messes up a lot of lives. Does that sound like a Ross MacDonald plot? The mystery of what sparks Jagger's unrelenting hatred of Bob continues to the last, and enhanced with fine acting and Wong Howe's inspired photo work, makes for a fine film. The ending is not the most satisfying for my taste, seeming to negate what has gone before, but logic is not of the essence here. Emotion is.


I'm a big Robert Mitchum fan but even I couldn't sit through this one. Everyone acts as if they're asleep. They show the entire range of emotion from grim to grim.

After the first half I gave up and fast-forwarded to the unsatisfying conclusion. This is the slowest moving plot you'll ever see in your life and as near as I could tell none of any of the character's motivations was revealed until the final scene. Since all these stars have done great work elsewhere I guess the blame lies with the director and the script.

Just give this movie a pass and go watch ANY other Mitchum film.


Carolyn was my first crush as a kid! i loved this show,watched it religiously and got very upset if it was ever preempted. one of my favorite things about Skyhawks was that it was so realistic!{no magic,super-powers or talking animals!}just competent pilots with good planes that could be injured or killed if they were,nt careful. the characters were so real that i felt like i could actually fly over to San Marcos airport and actually meet them{and fall in love with one for sure!}cap was a fine leader,and all others were very professional airmen. Carolyn was pretty,brave,and man,could she fly! i have made a large collection of models of all a/c appearing in the show along with others{corporate jets,larger helicopters,and heavy jetliners}in skyhawks colors indicating"moving up in the world" and becoming a big operation. to fellow fans-some episodes can be obtained at toontracker on VHS/DVD,and i would pay a good price{in gold!}to have the entire series. one of my most cherished childhood memories,i would be proud to fly with them anytime,i still burn a warm candle in my soul for Carolyn and always will. keep em flying! AC,captain,COAir


Skyhawks was one of my favorite cartoons, though it was on all too briefly. The producers really knew their stuff, as it was quite accurate and informative for young viewers. Being an aviation nut when this show was on, I couldn't get enough of it. I really hope this show turns up on DVD soon.

Does anyone know where I can get a recording of the theme song? It really ROCKED and to this day I love it. I have a recording of the closing version of the song which I made with a cheap cassette recorder off of the even cheaper three-inch TV speaker. I'd like to find a higher fidelity version, and the version of the opening theme (which included lyrics -- the closing theme was instrumental). Can anyone help me? Thanks.


It's immensely gratifying to see someone besides me remembers these two shows (including the companion "Hot Wheels")...no one I have ever spoken to does. I particularly liked Skyhawks because most of my immediate family are/were licensed pilots (Dad, Mom, me), and it was near unbelievable to see a kids' show devoted to our passion. 35 years later, the signature songs still rings clearly in my mind. If only cartoon Channel re-ran the REAL old classics...

And while we're at it, I'll throw in a comment about "Hot Wheels." Several have commented on that show's page that the makers of the toy saw a marketing opportunity in Saturday morning television. I may well be wrong in this, but I thought the show came before the toys. I certainly don't recall any companion set of toys coming out for "Skyhawks," and according to IMDb, that show stayed on the air longer.


"An Ice Cube film"Wow, that's already big enough. Not that Ice Cube is the biggest celebrity of the planet, but he is an actor I appreciate; too much. He is honest, simple; pure. He is a rapper, a musician who writes songs for films, and is good at it, besides being a low profile artist. Plus, he is a very good actor who does what he pleases and likes to and never disappoints. With the production company he has, he could have the highest ego, but he continues on doing his job.

In 1998, he got his chance to direct his movie; his first and only up to date. He wouldn't do the stupid gangster films the other rappers do because he takes the job seriously; so seriously he wrote his own neighborhood and people story, which is unexpectedly touching in its most impressive moments. He had done that type of film before, with independent man John Singleton, among others in that film I regret not seeing yet, "Boyz N' the Hood". Whether he got inspiration from there or not, I don't care, but the screenplay is his.

In his tale, where he also allows a role for him, we meet Diana (a powerful and gripping performance by Lisa Raye), a young girl and aspiring journalist with a lot of problems that drive her towards working on a strippers club, to get money and become Diamond. In Dollar Bill's (original Bernie Mac) club, "The players club", she is not the typical stripper, dancing with all the others; she has a special number, and some clients. Every day she deals with cousin Ebony (Monica Calhoun), who lives with her and has more than two times her problems; her unfaithful boyfriend and the different people in the club, including DJ Blue (a calm portrayal by Jamie Foxx), who likes her.

Like in any other story, these are not the only ones in Cube's visionThere are lots of them and each of them has their own thing that relates to another thing. However, Cube always keeps the story focused in its center point. His gift as a director (because he could have sucked) comes with the importance he gives to the camera. He has a desperate need to show things as real as possible, even if it is a fiction story, so his camera moves like eyes most of the times, like afraid of watching what's waiting on the other side, so the impact is harder when we seed alongside the camera. It is a very effective technique.

What is also captivating and remarkable, is how much of him we can see in the film. Like directors of the league of Scorsese or Oliver Stone, Ice Cube tries to makes us see what he sees. There are a few scenes with enormous violence; glasses that break, shootings, people hurtWe feel it, and it is hard to watch. I was thinking about Spike Lee, and how personal his movies are. I was shocked with the ending of "Do the right thing", but I understood it was just Spike Lee expressing himself.

I don't know what exactly the message Lee wanted to give was, I don't know what was going through his mind at the time, just as I didn't know what was Ice Cube thinking, so he could end up showing "The players club" in flames during the first frames of his movie.


I honestly didn't know what to expect from "another stripper movie." But all in all I was quite impressed. Ice Cube has always been one of my favorite rappers, and once he got into acting he was one of my favorite actors. Players Club definitely shows that Cube also has the potential to write and direct more great films. Though I wouldn't call this a comedy/drama, there are definitely some very funny scenes, especially those involving Jamie Foxx. Definitely worth checking out.


This movie has it all. Comedy, drama, action, sex appeal and good acting. Ice Cube, as a writer, has done it again and, for the movie to be his directorial debut, it is an excellent piece of film work.


Ice Cubes writes, directs, produces, acts, makes the sandwiches and thoroughly spoils everything in this movie. If it was made by a white person it would be slated out of hand for being racist. Written in crayon, it even uses a country and western song ("Coward of The County") for the denouement of one of it's plot lines. Yes, beating up the person responsible for the rape of someone you care about really settles the score. It doesn't get more sophisticated than that. Jamie Foxx plays a character who continually denigrates the dancers in the movie until he shows tenderness to one of them at the end for no reason but " that's Hollywood, forget logic". I don't think that this movie featured heavily on his CV .


The TV guide described THE PLAYERS CLUB as " Gritty drama about an aspiring journalist who takes a job in a strip club to make ends meet " which had me thinking I'd be watching something like STRIPTEASE without any of the campness but I found myself being more and more puzzled at what sort of film Ice Cube was trying to make here . It might be gritty but only because characters say things like " Ah'm thru wid chew you motherf--kin' ho " while the drama elements never come to the fore . In fact there's little in the way of character focus . The aspiring journalist Diane Armstrong gets a job at the strip club but the story centres around other character subplots for a couple of minutes that don't really lead anywhere and one can't help thinking the character of Diane is used to set up the story just so writer/director Ice Cube can use the location to play a soundtrack that is composed of mainly Ice Cube tracks . Oh yes this is a very cynical ploy of selling a few records and left me thinking this was the only function of the movie which apart from the beautiful Lisa Raye who spends much of the movie either topless or dressed in a bikini is mainly a waste of time


This movie is straight pimp. Guns, chicks, chicks with guns, hoes, players, white cops getting spanked by black chicks who carry guns, deals, dopes, drive-bys, cripples and just about everything you want in a movie. Pure visceral fun. If you aren't down for the thrill of this movie go rent a Jimmy Stewart flick and bring your Wonderbread.


I'm not to sure if this was supposed to be serious, or a comedy There was a lot of funny stuff in it. But, there were also a lot of things that seemed to me were supposed to be scary.

It is a story about an innocent girl who is working as a stripper trying to put herself through school, and all the drama and headaches that comes along with her job. Not a bad story. It has some heartfelt events. The dialog wasn't very good at all. The acting was hit or miss. The way Ice Cube told the story was pretty flawed. Things were pretty misplaced, which makes it hard to follow at times.

Wasn't a bad flick. Something I would recommend solely for entertainment purposes, and only if you like cheesy "being bullied" type movies. 95% of the characters were either being bullied by someone, bullying someone else, or both


This was by far, the worst movie I was ever conned into watching. This movie is degrading to such classics as Baller Blockin', The Monkey Hustle, and I'm Gonna Get You Sucka. It makes our people appear as if we were pale. This was obviously an attempt by the man to keep us down. I do suppose, in the end, we all have to dance to the man's music. Shout out to my wardies, Tre-B and Mookie. Check out that new janx from State Property ... "Still Public Enemy No. 1 Mixtape" You will then have a better understanding of what we actually endure. You see, da thang is this...The acting was awful...you could tell that it was not written by those of blessed with color. Anyways, Check me out wardie...im out.


I was bitterly disappointed in this film. It's one of the worst-made movies I've ever seen. I'm a great fan of Cube as a hip-hop artist; he should stick to that and not attempt to make movies. The plot was absurd, the acting terrible, and the dialogue was wooden and artificial. Save your 99 cents and rent something else.


-the plot of the movie is very similar to the jokes we've heard about strippers in which they have to dance in order to pay off their college loans. this movie is exactly about that and as an added twist the main character has a son. at first she works at a shoe store but then meets two girls that convince her to work in a strip bar and whiles there she has to deal with overzealous customers and lesbian co-worker that wants to perform the baby making process with her.

-more than a bad movie this is just bad film-making period. I have friends that could make a better movie with a $2000 budget and just 1 week to shoot the movie. they put the camera in places that doesn't let you know what the hell is going on and the timing between the actors is completely off. Instead of smoothly starting a line after someone is done the actors just stand there and wait for about 3 seconds before speaking. That kind of crap my fly well in a theater play or even a parody but in a movie like this that tries to be serious it just flat out fails. Of all the D level actors in the movie the only one that stands out and the only B level actor in the movie is Bernie Mac who is just flat out hilarious in this movie. it's a little hard to understand what he's say at times but when you do it's just pure magic. All the other actors are horrible as expected. They almost seem like the acting you find on the parodies they have at "Mad TV".

-"Striptease" may have sucked but at least it actually had stripping and nudity in it, this movie on the other hand shows no skin what so ever and none of the girls are the least bit hot. Lisa Ray is attractive but she is not someone that I would want to have inappropriate relations with. I've never been to a strip club before *cough* but if the girls there are as bleh as the ones in this BS movie then I'll just stick to watching my neighbors strip down thanks to the hidden camera I installed in her bathroom.

-Bernie Mac will make you laugh like crazy but apart from him there's nothing about this movie that's done right. not to mention none of the girls made me horny even once, but then again it was pretty cold in the apartment when I was watching it.


This short, nominated for an Academy Award, (I'm surprised it lost, though I've never seen the winner, as far as I know) is a funny, sad, sweet look at life through the eyes of a child growing up in Canada. An excellent adaptation (by the author) of a story by Mordecai Richter and yet another feather in the NFBC's cap. Caroline Leaf is a marvelous director and this is one of her best. Most recommended.


Just watched this Oscar-nominated animated short by Caroline Leaf on the National Film Board of Canada blog as linked from Warren Leonhardt's blog. It's basically an autobiographical look at the childhood of the writer, Mordecai Richler, as he relates the last days of his grandmother's life and his mother's devotion to her. Except for what his sister mentions what possibly happens when someone is hanging, this might be a good educational experience for an under-12 to watch with a parent if that child wanted to know what dying was like. The watercolor images on glass are really compelling here. So on that note, I highly recommend Caroline Leaf's The Street.


Thanks to a well-told story, believable characters, and a highly unusual look, I can certainly recommend this solid Canadian short. If you're looking for Disney-like animation, you will be sorely disappointed, but the crude paintings fit the film well, and the story moved along at a fast enough pace to keep me interested. This isn't one of the National Film Board's best features, but it was still enjoyable, and it is worth a look if you ever come across it.


This short film financed by The Canadian Film Board was about, I assume, the writer's childhood and his recollection about his grandmother and her eventual death. While I'm sure many will find this film profound, I was left feeling a bit disappointed. Instead of meaning, the movie left me with the opposite, as instead of celebrating the life of the grandmother, she seemed to be more of a burden than anything else to everyone in the family but her devoted daughter. Perhaps others ascribed more meaning to it than this, but this left me very sad. In this sense, the film was good but certainly far from a "feel good film"! As far as the technical merits go, I liked the style of the narration but found the animation itself not all that interesting. A decent film but that's really about all.


I must wonder to tell you the truth because when it comes to a night out with the great (Marilyn Monroe), and a chance to kiss her too ..HHHHOOO this is wild man..Very wild.. So when they made it as something which's less enjoyable than the ordinary life.. I've got to veto and in a hard way too !

But come to think of it, as the movie's point of view is so interesting : the friendship with humans lives longer than the other with the stars, as reality is more honest and amusing than movies.. Hmmm... Try to imagine that !.

The boy here discovered that the cinematic dream, even if it was as incredibly fantastic as (Marilyn) herself, is just a dream. So all the rest of our silly, foolish, and risky actual life is more fantastic because we actually lived it. Even if it contained some nightmares already ! Hence the jam in the phone booth with a girl you want becomes eventually more important than a lively fantasy you may live like the movie fulfills indeed - with your own calendar girl.

This movie made too many regards which are truly full of love and longing to a lot of things : the adolescence's folly, the friendship's coolest memories, the pure fondness of a movie star, the fiery sexy yet innocent days of the late 1950s and the early 1960s, the good old Hollywood, and lastly the utmost sex icon ..The shiniest star yet.. (Marilyn Monroe). She was portrayed here as sad lonely woman, missing what these young men already have : the friendship, who dies with the beauty of that era and the end of those guys' minority too; as if this time was the adolescence's climax of America itself before Vietnam, the series of assassinations, the hippie revelation.. etc.

I loved the whole deal : the nice comedy, the good characterization, the performance from all the young bunch, the bright cinematography, and the atmosphere which was in low budget but so solid, look at the details to know how it's a sincere adorer movie for what it speaks about (the clever wicked opening credits, the bits of Marilyn's movies or photos, the soundtrack's songs.. etc). It got a "real" sentimental script and directing.

Although the face of (Stéphanie Anderson) as (Marilyn) didn't appear on screen like a high too glaring to watch phantasm, but truly she delivered by her voice and body a fine performance. Still the part of the kiss is such a magical cinematic moment and one of the most immortal kisses I've ever seen as well, not only because its achievement of what any fan of (Marilyn) dreamed of (getting a special kiss from her) but also because it was one unforgettable hot kiss in so colorfully sensual close up. In brief it was as madly sexy as any of Marilyn's kisses yet more emotional and a bit lamentably moving.

It's one comic so passionate movie which has no shame in presenting this obligatory phase of life when you've got to know your dream so consequently your fact !, and what a lessen the movie gives softly through its gentle manifesto : viva the 1950s, (Marilyn), the boyhood, the fictional world, and the most of all : viva the genius experiment of factual LIFE.


Almost nobody's seen this movie, but it's secretly a great film. Funny all the way through. One of Jason Priestly's early films and he's great as in everything he does. (No not all of his films are good, but he's good in all of them). It's a movie you don't think you'll want to watch and 15 minutes in, you want to watch the whole thing. Enjoyable, very quotable, and about what every man dreams of-meeting Marilyn Monroe.


Jason Priestley as box office draw? Get real! If his "career" hadn't already been dead, this "effort" definitely would have killed it.

The story here is that of three childhood buddies and their infatuation with Marilyn Monroe, told in flash backs. Nice 1950s & 60s "Americana", complete with golden oldie tunes, fashions, movie clips, cars and other period gimmicks. Other than the "time travel" perks, there's not much to see.

A perpetually cigarette-smoking, baby-faced Priestly becomes annoying. The "tough guy" image of his character reminds us of the equally unbelievable Prince in "Purple Rain". This is no "Stand By Me", so be prepared for a disappointment.


they make this film seem as in its just an art-house good college try for martin scorsese, who'd become one of the best directors (who has never yet gotten an oscar) of our time - but i think this film is fantastic on its own. i really can't explain it much except that watching this movie is like reading kerouac, you'll either love it (get it) or hate it (not understand it)...


a definite must for all scorsese fans. runs much like a student film. Use of music is still very ruff in this film. Not nearly as effective as in mean streets. Many of the same ideas scorsese will later work out in mean streets. Harvey Keitel's performance is powerful. Filmed mostly on Elizabeth St where scorsese grew up and his childhood apartment. highly recommended


The promise in crafting an independent feature film in America were richly and passionately exemplified by Who's That Knocking at My Door?, the very first feature directed by great Martin Scorsese. In 1967, whether or not anyone was ready for its individualism, it most certainly declared the onset of an essential new director of great consequence. Without a doubt, Scorsese's ardor-stained debut is at times too stylistically obvious, and it has clear flaws in form, however not a soul who feels real affection for cinema trusts that a perfect one will ever come. What we look forward to in its place are minute rewards of our fulfillment of dreams, love, humor and drama. Scorsese would move on to make Mean Streets, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, GoodFellas, and several other movies that double, triple and demolish the impact this first work, completed with greatly impatient urgency when he was 25, but as with most independent debuts, nearly all of which overstep the bounds of self-indulgence anyway, which has yet to prove a problem for Scorsese, one must be objective with its flaws and not water down its lack of guile. The movies, in their urge to be fashionable, too repeatedly give us a false depiction of corrupt youth and juvenile delinquency and young romance, especially around the time of this film. In Who's That Knocking, Scorsese takes in hand the testosterone overpump of young men on a much more truthful level.

Harvey Keitel plays J.R., a classic Italian-American on the streets. When he gets caught up with a resident girl, he fixes on settling down with her, except when he finds out that she was once raped, he cannot come to grips with it. More overtly associated with Catholic guilt than Scorsese's latter pieces, we see what materializes when Keitel's devout guilt complex pulls alongside him.

As the movie opens, we cross the threshold into a society of young Italian-Americans in New York's Lower East Side who twiddle their thumbs and hang around and wonder without direction about where the action is. Sometimes they convene at someone's apartment to get drunk, watch Charlie Chan in a dazed state of bemusement and notice one of them who says he knows a couple of girls whom he could call. In this culture, still clearly under a suppressive ethical convention, there are only expected to be two kinds of girls: nice ones and sluts. You try to score with the sluts and you identify the nice girls on an unattainable, romanticized platform.

The Harvey Keitel character of Who's That Knocking hails from this world but is not wholeheartedly of it. One day on the Staten Island ferry, he encounters a pleasant, polite blonde girl. They slip into a conversation that ranges John Wayne, reading French, and each other's aspirations. It is an excellently acted scene, a great deal of it shot in one take to keep hold of time as the two survive their awkwardness and agree upon a date.

We steadily grasp that they come from dissimilar environments. She is a college student, reads a lot, lives on her own, and doesn't have a TV set. He is hugely nonetheless a part of the neighborhood bunch of hooligans. And then, eventually, when she tells him she isn't a virgin, he is unable to cope with this and he breaks it off. It is a very real concept, a guy not cultivated enough to break from the repressive reigns of his environment even in the face of love.

Scorsese has always been skilled at directing delicate scenes, but this early he had certain difficulty with the more conspicuous moments. A scene late in the film, when Keitel goes to a church and kisses a nail on a crucifix and blood drips, is clumsily unnatural. For another absurdly incongruous scene, on the other hand, Scorsese does not merit fault. In order to acquire distribution for his film, he was expected to shoot and slot in a nudie scene to give the film a leg up from the sexploitation approach, therefore he shot a what could I suppose be described as a dream sequence, exhibiting his fantasy encounters with prostitutes. It has the very opposite of anything that could be remotely considered structural function in the movie, save for its acknowledged stylistic competence.

Like most Scorsese pictures, this character study which in some sense follows the pattern of John Cassavetes's work, is in effect a director's film. Scorsese has come a long way since, having honed his craft to a point where he is able to engross his audience in a story without hiding, and the go-for-broke energy of his style is actually what makes his films so ceaselessly enthralling.


Although he is best known for his collaborations with Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese has also worked to great effect with Harvey Keitel. In fact, Keitel was there from the very beginning, playing the lead in Marty's first feature, Who's That Knocking at My Door.

Shot in black and white on the streets of New York that have an important role in the director's filmography, Knocking doesn't have a real plot, at least not that well defined. It is more of a series of moments involving main character J.R. (Keitel) and his relationship with a girl: they discuss movies, they decide to get married, he discovers she was once raped and loses it. All these scenes are linked by association rather than real coherence, even if the editing by Thelma Schoonmaker (who for some reason didn't work with Marty again until Raging Bull) does a good job in keeping the film together.

Who's That Knocking at My Door fascinates at once for its seductive images, proving that Scorsese had an eye for visuals right from the start, and the black-and-white cinematography gives it an extra touch of beauty. If there is a defect to find here, it would be the lack of real narrative, as J.R.'s faith-driven struggles (a topic that Marty dealt with much better in the mesmerizing Mean Streets) serve as little more than an excuse to show random episodes of his everyday life. Another proof of the inconsistent storytelling is the presence of a quite pointless dream sequence involving prostitutes, its presence having been encouraged by Scorsese's mentor Roger Corman for sheer marketing purposes (nudity sells, you know).

On the flip-side, Keitel's performance is solid and eye-catching for the entire running time, hinting, alongside the intelligent choices of music, at future cinematic glories. It doesn't prevent Who's That Knocking from feeling and looking like a student picture, but fans of Marty, and the American film industry in general, ought to check it out.


This is a hard movie to review because it's essentially an amalgam of several different shorter student films, and some work better than others.

That said, at the crux of "Who's That Knocking at My Door" (the final mass-released version) is a complex character-study laden with Catholic guilt and burdened by all the inherent stigmas and traditions of growing up Italian-American.

Obviously Scorsece knew his source material very well. More than half of the players and virtually all the locations come straight from his own life. What's really cool about the film, though, is how honestly he portrays these sociological nuances. He doesn't tell you Keitel's character's views and attitudes are good or bad, they just "are" --- and it's obvious how the character developed them from a peek into his everyday world.

This bracing honesty is the most appealing thing about the film, along with some drop-dead gorgeous camera work and editing featured here. The first scene where Keitel meets Bethune on the ferry has got to be one of the most imaginatively-shot and enthrallingly staged boy-meets-girl moments on celluloid. Throughout the film, Scorcese overlays soundless scenes from the past and future, creating interesting juxtapositions, always engaging and challenging your perceptions.

With a lot of debuts there are missteps. I don't think that fairly characterizes this movie however. There are definitely parts that drag and don't work well but seen in the context of a shorter film, they would have been more effective. As they're all blended together here, the pacing sometimes suffers.

It's hard to imagine any of the fans of Scorsece's later works, which rely so heavily on hyper-real camera-work and tightly-structured story lines, to have the patience for "Who's That Knocking." But for those who really enjoy the thoughtfulness, subversiveness, and subtext of Scorcese's films, it's a treat to see their origins so prominently displayed.


This was one of Scorcese's earlier works,, and well i just had a very hard time following this one,, for the most part it was well kinda weird,, some of the music is great like the end by the doors,, the you had this god awful chanting music that was horrible,, Martin what were you thinking,, this movie follows a character named J.R. who falls for this girl,, and well that's about as much as i gather,, story say's she was raped,, they show that scene,, there are very few outside shots,, the movie is in all b/w. which ain't bad,, i guess i'm used to lots of action , gunplay,, something,, although there is a lot of good ole fashioned nudity in here, i just i would call this movie very disjointed at times and that is being kind, this movie took a few years to make,, and now i think i see why.


I recently read the book "Scorsese by Ebert", in which the great critic examines the body of work of the great director through reviews, interviews, new conversations, and so forth. One of the more interesting bits in the book was the topic of Scorsese's first film, "Who's That Knocking At My Door?", which I had picked up a few months ago at a used DVD place but had not actually watched. So, inspired by Ebert's view and by Scorsese's own thoughts, I sat down to view this movie as a curiosity piece at the very least.

I must say, it was much better than I imagined. First some context: this started as a short film in 1967 that was to be called "Bring On The Dancing Girls", about a bunch of guys and their typical guy experiences in and around New York. Then, the idea became to splice in a love story between one of the guys (J.R., played by Harvey Keitel) and a girl he meets on the Staten Island Ferry (Zina Bethune) and title it "I Call First". Then an exploitation distributor offered to distribute the film if there was some sex and nudity added to it, which Scorsese did, and changed the title again.

Despite being cobbled together out of many disparate parts, Scorsese and his assistant Mardik Martin manage to weave a coherent and interesting narrative throughout. One of the most startling things is that, at the young age of 25, Scorsese already showed the technical command and a number of future hallmarks that would make him one of the most celebrated American directors ever. For example, the scene in which J.R. and The Girl first meet on the ferry is nearly done in one take, with only two or three cuts (an effective overheard shot as Keitel changes positions being the best) while the camera pans back and forth as they have their conversation on the films of John Wayne, French magazines and language, and so forth. The dialogue in the scene is also wonderful, and not at all plot-oriented - arguably because there was no semblance of a plot yet but also because both Keitel and Bethune speak and act naturally, as two people who are simply interested in what the other has to say.

The ideas of Catholic guilt, the nature of sin and redemption, and the Madonna-Whore Complex figure heavily in nearly all of Scorsese's films. Consider Mean Streets, which is entirely about Charlie trying to reconcile his lifestyle with his sense of guilt and protect Johnny Boy from certain destruction as a form of redeeming himself. Or Jake LaMotta's inability to deal with Vickie on any normal terms. There is an early scene in this film when J.R. and The Girl are making out, passionately, and suddenly he stops. "What's wrong?", she asks. He tries to find the words to explain but can't, and mumbles about being old-fashioned, and not ready yet. However, Scorsese keeps showing us an image of the Virgin Mary on his dresser and alludes to what is really going on - she is still the Madonna, and J.R. doesn't want her to become The Whore. Another great, simple scene shows the two together at the table, and she lights a holy candle. "You don't do that with a holy candle!", he says. She just thought it would be nice. "What am I going to do with you?", he laments, smiling.

She doesn't understand, but we do. The scene is performed breezily but there is a small undercurrent of tension due to J.R.'s religious principles. Immediately afterwards, Scorsese presents us with the crux of the whole movie - the girl tells J.R. that she was raped one night by a guy she used to drive around with, as we see a remarkably edited flashback of the event. His reaction is anger, and notice he blames her as a gut reaction? He cannot handle the fact that her Madonna image is now shattered for him. He tries to deal with it by getting drunk with the boys, but to no avail.

I haven't mentioned J.R.'s friends much; their clowning around is very real; we all know people like this. If it seems sometimes that they are from another movie, well in point of fact they are. But they do help to establish J.R.'s character, and that's really all that matters. Michael Scala is particularly good as the leader of this crew, constantly irritated and harassing the others but in a good-natured way.

Finally, in the movie's last scenes, J.R. drunkenly stumbles up to The Girl's apartment to talk to her. She is unexpectedly kind to him despite his earlier rejection, and they profess their love for one other. Then J.R. makes a huge mistake; he says he "forgives her" and will marry her anyway. "You forgive me...?", she says, bewildered. She knows it still bothers him and when she confronts him, he admits as much. Then she tells him it's not enough to just love her, but cannot explain to him why. Now it is HE who doesn't understand that there is nothing to forgive. Zina Bethune is phenomenal here; I hope to see more of her work. Crucially, the film does not end with J.R. realizing his error and marrying the girl, as we think it might, but with him trying to find solace at the the church confessional as Scorsese cross cuts with Christian imagery. Appropriate, if a little heavy-handed.

All in all, this is a significant film, despite it's fractured history. It announces the work of a true talent distinctly with his own voice, and focuses on many themes that remain central to Scorsese's work. It is no masterpiece - there is too much fat, some unnecessary nudity (for the distributor) and the pace is far too languid, but as a starting point for examining the scope of Martin Scorsese's art it is invaluable.


The man has created some of the most remarkable American films of all time (obviously). These movies include RAGING BULL, TAXI DRIVER, MEAN STREETS, GOODFELLAS... The list goes on. However, there is so much to cherish about WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, and it lingers in the memory long afterward, to such an extent that I wonder if it's my favorite of his work.

I realize that it's a rough-edged, ultra low budget movie. That in itself fails to hinder its impact. In fact, the evident workmanship on display serves to heighten its effectiveness, since the visible seams lend a sense of unease and unpredictability that accentuates the central character's uncertainty about his personal values, which is the key subject at hand.

Keitel's performance is exceptional. It's his first film, but his emotional range was already astounding. Others have mentioned that his mannerisms and speech patterns are reminiscent of Scorsese's own public image, and I couldn't agree more. It's a very personal movie from a man who, particularly in the early years of his career, openly explored his own morality.

Zina Bethune, as The Girl, is a bit stilted at times but still manages to deliver a fine performance. Her role is so well written that it would be almost impossible for her to have failed at creating an interesting character.

Scorsese's visual style here is kinetic, experimental and compelling. Much of it owes a great deal to the French New Wave films that were popular throughout the 60s, and it also pays homage to the films of John Cassavetes, SHADOWS in particular. A good deal of the acting appears to be semi-improvised, and it works beautifully.

WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR will prove to be a challenge for a lot of viewers. The narrative structure reminded me a lot of Fellini's I VITELLONI, with a series of character-building vignettes that appear to step away from the central plot (not unlike MEAN STREETS in that regard), and I'm sure that many fans of Scorsese's later work will be annoyed by this. A shame, because it's the type of storytelling that I sorely miss and that has been largely absent in cinema since the early 70s. His use of music here is also very interesting, and the songs he chose - most of it consisting of hits from Scorsese's youth - are inspired, to say the least.

If you're a fan of character driven dramas, I highly urge you to see this picture. Also, if you're an aspiring filmmaker, this is an absolute must-see. With any luck, the newly restored DVD (which looks amazing) will inspire some up-and-coming directors to kick their careers off with a similarly personal and interesting feature debut.


This early film, issued under many titles and at varying lengths, is best seen as WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, full length, where its profundity and richness comes out in its entirety. Harvey Keitel and Zina Bethune are both outstanding, Keitel over-stated and Bethune under- stated to the perfect degree. The film-making is astonishingly avant garde despite this film working as a mainstream movie, with its magnificent and shocking, but successful, camera angles, its bold editing, and all the rage and pain of youth going to create a raw classic. It is often almost too painful to watch. Maybe Scorsese is a masochist, but he conveys the sadness of immaturity which he must have experienced himself in a searing indictment of the unthinking callousness of youth. Zina Bethune delivered one of the most sensitive performances of the 1960s in this film. The blood flows from this study of being young just as it does from the Saviour's wounds shown with such savage sarcasm in the montage of the Catholic iconography at the end. This must be the most personal of Scorsese's films, and the one he dreams of at night. Often it is the raw youthful testaments, like this, which tell us most about a great artist like Scorsese. To paraphrase a certain politician: 'He may grow up, but he can't hide.'


This film should cement in anyone's mind why Martin Scorcese is one of the best directors of all time. The greatness is apparent right out of the gate with his very first feature film; all the classic Scorsese elements are already firmly in place, even if the film is not quite as compelling as later works. It wouldn't be long before Scorsese could spin a plot that was up to the par of his technical skills; Mean Streets (1973) is in the same league as later efforts like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, and it's a great showcase for a much younger De Niro (who was on point right from the start of his relationship with ol' Marty). Similarly, Harvey Keitel delivers powerfully in his first collaboration with Scorsese, but the plot and dramatic impact of the script were just not quite up to snuff yet. But it's not bad in those departments by any means, and in terms of the photography, dialog, and acting, as well as some very memorable isolated scenes, it's all classic Scorsese, bearing his unmistakable stylistic fingerprints.


If nothing else, "I Call First" (retitled "Who's That Knocking at My Door") is a before-they-were-famous relic for Martin Scorsese and Harvey Keitel. The somewhat convoluted plot has young J.R. (Keitel) feeling that he has to take charge when he learns what happened to his hubby (Zina Bethune). This is one of those movies taking a rather gritty look at the world of Italian-Americans, before it became a cliché.

So, overall this isn't a masterpiece, but Scorsese was definitely showing the sensibility that he brought to his later movies. I'd recommend it.

Not that this is really related, but why has Martin Scorsese still not won an Oscar?!


Anyone who wonders how Scorcese and Keitel got their start needs to watch this wonderful odd little film. All the classic Scorcese themes are there- whores and tough guys, double edged morality and brutality between men and women. Keitel is just stunning in his first film, clearly this is the work of a great talent. I'm surprised more people haven't seen this film, they always start with Mean Streets, which is obviously a much better film but this is the one that started it all. Well worth your time.


The fact is, Who's That Knocking at My Door put Martin Scorsese on the map. Sure his big breakthrough was with Mean Streets (look at the tagline), but this film is a stunner for which Scorsese deserves (and gets) big props. The film has a typical Italian-American guy named JR (Harvey Keitel, also his first film along with Scorsese's) who falls in love with a nice girl (Zina Bethune), and the film shows they're relationship, while JR hangs with his friends, contemplating his life. Simple plot which actually gets tangled sometimes, but this if the only minor flaw this film has.

It is a triumph of style over substance, though the substance comes damn near close to the style of Scorsese's direction that is later seen in his other triumphs (you get the feeling you've seen every type of shot before in this film if you've seen other Scorsese pictures). A must see. Extra note: in the scenes with sex and violence (crude for that time, but still a little suggestive) have little or no sound of the people actually saying anything; music takes over the scene just like in Mean Streets, GoodFellas and Casino (by the way, the sex scene is one of the most exhilarating scenes I've seen in a movie). That's Scorsese's mother in the beginning. A


Who's That Knocking at My Door is a very good extension of Martin Scorsesee's student film. Harvey Keitel, in his first role, is very good as a man who falls into a doomed relationship with a girl he meets on the Long Island Ferry. I bought this movie as part of the The Scorsesee Collection because I wanted Goodfellas and Mean Streets. I figured the other movies were bonuses. Who's That Knocking at My Door is the surprise of the bunch. Although the movie makes very little sense going from one scene to another, it is still engrossing to watch. You could probably see this movie today as a rough draft for the far superior Mean Streets. Still it is interesting to watch and you should get it with The Scorsesee Collection to see how a gifted filmmaker grew from this film to Goodfellas, arguably his best film (though a legitimate case could be Raging Bull, but you need to buy another collection to get that one).


Well this is a movie from the classroom but still better than the other 1000 coming out of the same class room. Never knew Harvey was such a decent actor.The buddy scenes keep reminding me of some movies but cant recollect which ones.The actress Bethune puts up a marvelous performance. The character names are like hand picked (J.R,gaga,...) The guy who plays Joey looks a familiar character in the Italian American movies.Some tries to provide some comic relief ...... Overall a movie which can show the progress of a great director.... The DVD I bought had a documentary on how the movie was done and school projects during 1962,that was a bit interesting. Overall a 7/10.....


Knew nothing of this film when I put it in the player, except that Goldie Hawn was central to it. I see the original film ran over 120 minutes, my disc says 96. It should have been even less. The plot is predictable - Italian male professional, married with family has to leave town because of a family crisis. When he can't persuade a woman with whom he had an affair a year previously to come with him on his trip, he takes in her place an American woman (played by Hawn) who happens to be staying with the first woman. The story is an attempt to develop the relationship between Hawn and Giannini.

Some of the element of unbelievability comes from the unbelievable boorishness of the latter. Some of it is contributed by the jumps in continuity. And the poor color control of my disc did not help. Oh, and did I mention the dubbing? There were some interesting insights into Italian family life, and there were some revelations in the last quarter of the movie that in a better director's hands would have portrayed some aspects of Italian family life to much greater effect. The funeral becomes a very interesting occasion.

There is brief nudity near the start and near the end of the film.


As a huge Goldie Hawn fan, I collect all her films. I spotted this DVD for $4.99 brand new and thought it was a bargain. I have never heard of this title and now I know why. Set in Italy, many of the actor's voices(sans Goldie) are dubbed to English. The plot is lame, the acting is horrible, and only Goldie Hawn gives a good performance(I have yet to see a movie in which Goldie wasn't good). But even the talents of Goldie Hawn cannot save this horrible excuse for a film. If you are a Goldie fan, and feel you need to have this in your collection, don't expect anything special from this 1970's era film. If you are not a Goldie fan, avoid this!


I used to think that 'Gimme Shelter' was the end all, be all of Rolling Stones documentaries. The Maysles' film is undeniably heroic, but its shine and polish, its squeaky clean view of the Stones as consummate professionals utterly belies the fact that road life with the skinny brits did involve a good deal of sex, drugs, and a bit of rock and roll too. Filmed during a tour to promote my personal favorite Stones record, 'Exile on Main St,' 'Cocksucker Blues' is a grimy, sordid foray in the behind the scenes workings of the Rolling Stones machine.

Gloriously filmed in both color and black and white super 8, and artfully presented with a strong focus on non-diagetic audio tracks, 'Cocksucker Blues' is no simple document of events, but a solid work of art in its own right. The haphazard filming style during performances is more kinetic and subjective than the Maysles' lens and suits the jarring, hell-bent nature of the music.

The craziness of tour life is captured in some particularly amazing and unforgettable scenes. The kook, nearly suicidal fan, whose baby's been taken away due to mom's acid habit, the primitive and forceful disrobing of women on the plane while the band cooks up a beat to go with it, and the junky sound man all create a subterrainian truthful texture to the Stones experience that was most likely not available to the Maysles brothers.


For me, an admittedly huge Stones fan, this documentary was the stuff of legend. I could not believe it when I saw this in an independent music store. I had read quite a bit about this movie, but to actually see and hear it was awesome.

The Stones, after an incredible run of great albums, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Streeet, tour America in 1972. This tour is generally considered to be one of the most decadent, excess filled tours in rock n roll history. They hired Robert Greenfield to write a book, and Robert Frank to film it. Given nearly unlimited access, Frank tries to convey what it's like on a rock tour of this magnitude. I have read that some of the scenes were manufactured, such as Keith and Bobby Keyes tossing the TV out the window, the famous groupie scene on the plane, among them.

Some of the scenes are a bit much. Heroin induced rants, rambling naked groupies, shooting up, all by the large entourage of hangers on that the Stones took around America with them. The Stones are in very few of these scenes, sub-titles on who these people are would have been nice. Some scenes are just bad, like the shot of what looks like Mick from the waist down, fondling himself, then you see Mick holding a camera, to supposedly make you wonder if that was Mick fondling himself. Was that supposed to be artsy?

Sometimes Frank does break through on what touring can be. Keith trying to order a fruit plate from room service, or being having to sign autographs as he checks out of a hotel. Playing cards. Charlie morosely sitting in front of a TV.

The excess as it takes it's toll. While Mick discusses business with Ahmet Ertegum, Keith is in the next room nodding off in the arms of some groupie, who also nods off, leaving them in a tangled mess. Chgarlie has said this tour is when the bulls..t level reached its highest point, particularly when Truman Capote and Princess Radish show up. That scene made me squirm, as these ancient, boring old farts glom onto the tour.

Then there is the reason for the tour. THE MUSIC. The music f...ing rocks. The Stones play their tails off. From the moment Mick pops thru the curtain as it rises, and the band is blasting out Brown Sugar, till the encore when Mick leads out Stevie Wonder and his band,(the opening act)to do a killer medley of Uptight and Satisfaction, the music kicks. Watch Mick as he get his rocks off during All Down the Line, as he pushes Charlie to kick it out even harder. Mick Taylor playing beautiful, fluid, perfect lead guitar. I have about 6 bootlegs from this era of the Stones, and he amazes every time, musically the Stones at their best, yet watching him on stage, I can see why he left. Bill Wyman is a whirling dervish in comparison. Ron Wood couldn't carry his guitar case as a player, but I can see why Ronnie's personality has helped keep the band together.

There is lots of other great stuff, Keith playing some very nice piano. Listening to a single of Happy, wondering if it should be in mono. Playing pool in a bar down south with a bunch of brothers.

This is a great documentary of rock n roll on tour in the early 70's. I personally think the Maysles Brothers, who did Gimme Shelter, would have done a better job, and the shelved double album with the Stones and Stevie Wonder should definitely be brought out of the vault.

I would recommend this to as essential viewing for all fans of rock n roll.


I saw a screening of this last year at the Tate modern, i had heard a lot of the rumours surrounding this film... Was Robert Frank going to be there, was it the only screening that year... Well no on both points, it was however the only time it was likely to be shown in London this decade. But it did contain some of the most legendary and amazing rock and roll images that exist.. there were groupies having mass orgies on private jets, TV's thrown over balconies, awesome drug taking, celebrities, and sheer backstage boredom. Half way through, however, i did think, this is rubbish, its just full of rock clichés. But then i thought, actually no. This is where the clichés come from, they were the first people to do these things... And that is what you have to remember when watching this film, it is truly a snapshot in to the creation of rock and roll. If you get a chance to see an authorised screening of this film... Don't miss out. If that never happens, there are always copies floating about....

Joe


Like a handful of Rolling Stones fans, I found the film C***sucker Blues through bootlegging. There was just no other way around it; there has been so much written about how this was the 'unreleased' Stones documentary, that it was much too controversial and shocking to be released- had actual sex and drugs really depicted hardcore without a flinching camera lid- and that it was even suppressed by Mick Jagger and the Stones. Having now seen the film, it becomes clear that it isn't unfair to figure on why it never seen the official light of public day. It is pretty graphic with the sex (chiefly on a plane we see some groupies getting it on with some members of the Stones crew, I don't think they were the Stones themselves having the sex, although they were hilariously shaking tambourines and beating drums like some tribal ritual), casual with pornographic detail in the nudity, and the drug use- primarily coke and heroin but also a little grass- is all real and done almost like it's nothing at all.

So, to play devil's advocate, there is a reason for the Stones why something like this wouldn't be good for their 'image', whatever that might be, as opposed to Gimme Shelter which despite the Altamont nightmare was crafted by true masters of the documentary craft (the Maysles brothers), where as director Robert Frank crafted a scatter-shot, collage-like assemblage of footage, veering between avant-garde and home movie. Maybe it could have gotten a release in a true underground level, but the fact was, and remains, that they are one of the biggest bands ever, regardless of their notorious times.

And yet, there is also another argument, and this even more-so could be said for today, that C***sucker Blues, in revealing what's shocking mixed with the banal dealings of hotel rooms and the fly-on-the-wall style on back-stage, is important in retrospect. This way of rock and roll life simply doesn't exist anymore, with the BIG press being Dick Cavett and the sex and drugs and groupies just there, and the attitudes so casual. It's seeing life on the road and life in the hotel rooms and life on the stage and in little private moments with this band and those around them, and on a pure rock and roll movie level it's definitely the most primitive in construction. Artistry, however brief (i.e. slow-motion shots of a Exile on Main Street billboard), gives way to Frank just being there and getting everything he can, however mundane it might seem to be. Why not let today's audiences, more than three decades later, take a view into the unfiltered time capsule?

Granted, as mentioned, Frank is no Maysles, so the camera-work sometimes looks amateurish (the sound guys occasionally tap the microphone just so that the editor probably knew where to cut) and, sadly, it's probably not too much of a wonder why he didn't work again outside of the lowest of low-budget art-house pictures and shorts. But he does manage to capture, for those Stones fans who would be so dedicated to seek out the film (or, for that matter, be one of the two dozen more or less that get to see it at private screenings commissioned by the Stones each year) not just some of the finest/craziest moments in Stones history (i.e. Richards and friends, in now as a cliché today, throwing the TV out the hotel room window), but just rock in general.

Contrary to what Jagger said in a recent interview about one of the reasons he clashed with Frank, that there wasn't enough live music footage, there's a good plenty of live performances, if maybe not as many as some fans might expect. There's awesome cuts of Brown Sugar, half of an intense Midnight Rambler, Happy, Street Fighting Man. But probably most joyous of all is seeing, almost as a total surprise, Stevie Wonder playing a kind of medley with the Stones, starting with Uptight (Everything is Alright) and going into Satisfaction. This is pure musical ecstasy, of people going full-throttle to put on a show for the crowds, but also just digging the music so much that it looks like nothing else matters. If only for scenes like that, amid the masses of footage of the randomness and fun and down time of touring, is C***sucker Blues an achievement worth seeking this dangerous, crude piece of non-fiction. 8.5/10


As an artifact of rock n' roll in the 70's this film is hard to beat. . The movie demystifies the band - Mick, Keith etc. seem extremely ordinary going about the day to day drudgery of being on tour. As far as the music goes this was the band at their peak both live and on record. I didn't realize what a good country/blues piano player Keith is. There are also a couple of interesting moments showing both Jagger and Richards composing. Visually, director Frank's purpose seems to be to re-create the pictorial equivalent of a heroin trip. The film is an at times almost unwatchable series of grainy images, disembodied voices muttering banalities, and freakish distorted faces. The in-famous sex/rape (?) of the groupies on the plane accompanied by the Stones playing cabalistic percussion says a lot about the attitude the group took to the various women who flocked to them. It is disgusting/haunting/ and comical all at the same time. Tough viewing but essential for any fan of rock music.


'Cocksucker Blues' is a cinema-verite style time capsule, filmed by American photographer Robert Frank, who functions as a sort of fly on the dressing room wall, so to speak. As such, comparisons to any other existing "rockumentary" are pointless.

The film is essentially a collection of real life situations captured during the Rolling Stones' infamous 1972 U.S. tour, when their celebrity status had reached critical mass. Viewers are sucked into the band's fishbowl existence, travelling from jet to hotel to venue, spending time, in many cases, in a surprisingly un-glamorous fashion.

If nothing else, the film lets the fan into the eye of the storm; the band's onstage performances are repeatedly set in contrast with their travelling constraints, while around them both the media and the public continually orbit in a veritable feeding frenzy.

The viewers' realization of what is the general event-less reality of a rock band's actual offstage touring experience--even more pointed, given the Stones' worldwide notoriety--makes the live musical highlights all the more impressive, and reveals insight into why no hotel room t.v. is safe from any rock band who can (or, sometimes, can't) pay for what they destroy.

The band's treadmill lifestyle, coupled with the fact that the group is all but isolated from their fans lends perspective to why touring bands tend to indulge in random acts of destruction, self and otherwise. Possibly the most inane segment of the film is the backstage presence of seriously unwelcome hangers on such as writer Truman Capote and Princess Lee Radziwill, tabloid-style jet setters for whom the Stones are merely the Flavour of the Week, their dressing room another place to be "seen".

Obviously, a tour film's main appeal is to the fans of the group. In the case of the Rolling Stones, their inner sanctum is harder to reach than almost any other, and considering the mythology that has built up around the band over the last 30 years, they deserve credit for having the courage to reveal their private world, warts and all.

Anyone who has seen the film can understand why it has never seen official release, and probably never will. And that just makes 'Cocksucker Blues' an even bigger treat for true fans of the Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band in the World. See it if you can; regardless of its' flaws, it's still an amazing document of yet another turbulent period in the amazing lifespan of this remarkably resilient band.


An "infamous" film, if you will - never released, but not exactly difficult to get your hands on if you are persistent.

I eagerly anticipated all of the "controversial" moments, awaiting a festival of groupie abuse and substance indulgence. To my surprise, these bits proved to be dull and tiresome, the real gem in this film being the excellent live performances by The Stones.

Years of such consistent, excellent music makes it all but impossible to refer to any Stones era as being "their prime", but the concert footage here shows them well and truly on form and, if you will, on song. It is almost criminal that performances with Tina Turner and Stevie Wonder have all but been buried and forgotten about owing to this film being buried.

I hope one day that this gets a legal, cleaned up release. Edit out all the non-music stuff and just release the concert footage if nothing else, for the sake of all music lovers!


Watched this on my Ipod on a holiday flight as a real dyed in the wool Stones fan. However, the copy I saw had obvious editing problems and may have been a rough-cut, but then again maybe not...

John Lennon once likened the madness around the Beatles mid-60's tours as like Fellini's Satyricon, well here it's certainly made flesh as we get a more candid than candid fly-on-the-wall insight into life on the road with the Rolling Stones around the time of their 1972 US tour. It's not an edifying sight, with groupies being treated as casual sex-objects to the amusement of the leering male entourage, drugs openly ingested by needle and inhalation and of course the classic "rock-star" cliché of Keith Richard ceremoniously dumping a TV out of the band's high-storey hotel window.

In between these scenes of madness are odd shots of, or sequences with celebrity hangers-on like Truman Capote and Dick Cavett, as well as star support turns Tina Turner and Stevie Wonder and endless static non-shots of Mick and a gap-toothed Keith (Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor and Charlie Watts barely get a look-in) and other grainy shots of producer Jimmy Miller well on his way to his early drug-overdose death, if the footage here is any guide. At times in fact the whole sometimes looks like some cheap, almost "snuff"-type exploitation movie.

Somehow though, the endless boozing and schmoozing doesn't affect the band on stage and they look like the great louche rockers they were by this point. Thus there's the odd occasional musical interlude where the "film" flickers to life (an exciting encore of Stevie's "Uptight" spliced with the Stones' "Satisfaction") and a rollicking "Happy" but watching this monument to decadence, hedonism and self-indulgence left me at the end actually liking the Stones a less, certainly as people. No, for me the whole sex and drugs and rock roll mystique is shot to bits here and I can only hope that the Stones themselves are a bit older and wiser now.

To paraphrase John Lennon again, you shouldn't ought to have been there!


I really liked this movie, I think it works on many levels, and the fact that it has many levels is itself interesting. It neither analyzes, glamorizes, or de-glamorizes anyone. It's a fly-on-the-wall. It's nonlinear and linear. Linear in the sense that it follows both the tour and playlist, at the same time. Non-linear in that no storyline is imposed and no agenda or imposed concept. And the editing is phenomenal, interweaving color and b/w, and sound from one scene into and out of another. The sound editing especially, the switch from the mayhem outside the concert to the silence of walking across the tarmac to border the plane was great.

I would have loved to hear more about what happened in Montreal and what happened to Leroy, but that would have destroyed the basic idea of the film, and I'm sure there must have been more stories worthy of expansion.

This film, to me, is not some much about the Rolling Stones, but more about a phenomena, and the real people that live it through.


The entire film is miserable. It is the Rolling Stones at their absolute lowest point. The footage is almost unwatchable and for the most part, the band was too toxic to perform. They sound bad, very bad. I have nothing good to say about this movie. I am a huge Stones Fan if that shocks anyone. If you're a true fan, pass this one up like a bad dose of heroin. Yes it does show the cooking, drawing and shooting of smack. Then an immature Keith throws a television out of the hotel window, while being egged on by his professional entourage. Let's don't even talk about their skanky choice of women. If you own a copy of this do the stones a favor and destroy it.


The film is excellent, is uncensored, but with good breeding. That was the real life not only of the Rolling Stones, but of 90% of hippies in that period. In this film you can see the Glory of those golden years! Rolling Stones was not release this film officially, easy to figure out why! All rock stars are doing the same thing backstage, not only the Rolling Stones; When you're bored, Sex, drugs & Rock'N'Roll is the solution... The Rolling Stones had enough courage to put it on film! After seeing this movie, I've been thinking at "Fire and Loathing in Las Vegas" :) "Cocksucker Blues" was the title of a song Mick Jagger wrote to be the Stones' final single for Decca Records, as per their contract, but the track was refused by Decca and only released later on a West German compilation in 1983, although the compilation was discontinued and re-released without the song. You can find the lyrics of this track on the Internet, and you will see why Decca Records refused it... Of all the tours the Rolling Stones have made across North America, the 1972 tour is still remembered as the most outrageous, most provocative, most inventive musical outing the fab five from London ever performed. The film was shot cinéma vérité, with several cameras, making it a real masterpiece of those times. If you like real music, you must see this !


It's curious that Buster Keaton, whose training was in a knockabout vaudeville act and slapstick comedy shorts, was so good at playing pampered, effete young millionaires. He just happened to be one of nature's aristocrats. Buster appreciated the comic possibilities of this characterstarting out so helpless allowed plenty of room for dramatic development--and the role also suited his innate gentleness and quiet dignity.

Buster played wealthy idlers in several of his movies, including The Navigator, but he was never more placidly twitty than in Battling Butler. For the first half of the movie he looks like a 1920s fashion plate, exquisitely groomed, demonstrating What the Well-Dressed Man Will Wear for hunting, fishing, etc. He is Alfred Butler, whose tycoon father, annoyed by his son's languid existence, sends him an a camping expedition to toughen him up. In the mountains, he sleeps in a vast tent complete with bed, wardrobe and tiger rug; his faithful valet lays out his clothes, draws his bath, and serves his meals on silver dishes. This is my idea of roughing it! While attempting to hunt (obliviously missing every animal in the forest) and fish (capsizing his boat in pursuit of a bobbing duck), Alfred encounters a pretty "mountain girl" (Sally O'Neil.) They fall in love, but her family won't accept this sissy as an in-law until Alfred's valet tells them that his employer is actually Alfred "Battling" Butler, a boxer contending for the lightweight title.

Alfred goes along with the ruse for the sake of the girl. Then he encounters the real "Battling" Butler, and after a misunderstanding involving the boxer's wife, "Battling" tells Alfred that HE can fight the title bout with the "Alabama Murderer"or he'll blow his cover. The rest of the film follows Alfred's difficulties as the trainers try to turn the playboy into a fighter. Along with the athletic sequences in his later movie College, these scenes offer the most sustained focus on Buster's extraordinary physique and what he could do with it.

With his small stature, Buster could convincingly portray a milquetoast as long as he kept his clothes on, but once he strips down to boxing shorts it's all too obvious how exceptionally fit he was. In the opening shot of the training sequence, he's obviously supposed to look puny and defenseless; instead he looks like he could easily be a boxer. Despite his sculpted body, Buster plays these scenes with a realism that renders them almost painful to watch. He reacts the way any normal, soft-bellied human being would to being mercilessly pummeled. He shows hurt and exhaustion, and displays his own nearly limitless endurance of both. Buster had, it must be said, an unhealthy capacity to take punishment. It wasn't masochism, just that his pride in his physical abilities and the authenticity of his stuntwork outweighed any concern for his own well-being. He must have been used to pain: as the star of an act renowned as the roughest in vaudeville, he'd been "taking it like a man" ever since he was a toddler.

At the end of the movie, "Battling" attacks Alfred viciously, and finally Alfred retaliates and beats the boxer unconscious. Many people dislike this fight, feeling it's uncharacteristic for Buster to triumph through brute force, sheer slugging, rather than ingenuity or pluck. The fight was Keaton's own addition to the play that was the source for the movie. The original ending simply let Alfred off the hook without having to fight, which Buster felt was dramatically unsatisfying. Pushed too far, humiliated too deeply, his meek character finally responds with fury and violence. It is uncharacteristic, but maybe he liked it for just that reason. Off-screen, Buster had a troubling passivity, especially in his unhappy married life, and he must have enjoyed playing a character who effectively fights back.

Still, I prefer the first half of the movie, with its gentle pace, low-key jokes and elegant touches. Alfred's valet is played by Snitz Edwards, a tiny actor (he makes Buster look imposing) with a goblin face and a delicate performing style. Cute as a button, Sally O'Neil makes one of Buster's most effective leading ladies. In a sweet image typical of Keaton's sophisticated film-making style, when Alfred parts from his wife, as he drives away her face remains framed, like a cameo, in the oval window at the back of the car.

Battling Butler was one of Keaton's most successful movies when it was released. Like Seven Chances and College, it lacks the otherworldly originality of his best work, but I've always liked it better than the other two and considered it a handsome, mature and underrated work. Lacking any large-scale set-pieces, this film rests almost entirely on Buster's performance. "Do you think you could learn to love me?" he asks Sally O'Neil. She replies, as I would: "I have."


This is a very good Buster Keaton film. However, some might be put off by the scarcity of pratfalls and belly laughs compared to many of his other efforts. That's because this film is much more plot driven and character driven than most silent comedies--and that works well for me, though you might miss the more acrobatic and violent character he plays in his shorts and in some of his full-length ones.

Buster plays a spoiled rich young man who really needs to be toughened up--so his dad tells him to go camping. The next segment is probably the funniest, as it cuts to a "wilderness" scene--complete with a butler, tub, poster bed, and all the other modern conveniences (that's the way I'd like to camp!). While "camping" he meets a nice girl and he is smitten. Instead of Buster going to propose, he sends his butler--who immediately knows her dad will say "no" because he wants a virile, more "studly" son-in-law. So, the butler panics and says that Buster is the famous boxer Alfred "Battling" Butler! Now, the two men do have the same name and are roughly the same size--but that's about the only similarity. Daddy gives his hearty approval and Buster is married. But, when the real Butler wins the title, Buster has a hard time pretending any longer. Later, the real Butler retires and Buster takes his place--going to training camp and working for a title defense! You'll have to tune in to see what happens next, as this only takes you through about half the film--watch it and enjoy.


Neither the prospect of eighty minutes of biting headwind nor snow showers has been able to keep me from the National Film Theatre over the three weeks so far of its Buster Keaton season, and every time the films have yet to disappoint: "Battling Butler" is no exception! I'd instantly give this a 9 if only I could justify it relative to the early scenes; despite the pitch of enthusiasm I'd reached by the end of the film, I'm still not quite sure in all fairness that I can.

It definitely takes a while to get up to speed (at the start, I took the father to be a doctor giving his sickly son only three months to live!) and for the initial reel or so it depends largely on a single extended gag -- the elegant fop's complete unsuitability for an outdoor environment. Alfred's elaborate al-fresco living arrangements echo Keaton's trademark fascination with complicated contrivances, and there's one very typical bit of misdirection where we wait for the shotgun's recoil to knock Alfred backwards into the water, only for a somewhat different turn of events to prove his downfall; but this film doesn't come properly to life until its hero engages our sympathy as well as being a walking joke. In "The General", we engage with Johnnie Gray almost immediately -- in "Battling Butler", Alfred remained a cipher for me until the moment when he nervously rehearses "Beatrice Faircatch"'s newspaper advice on making a proposal, with such an earnest air: it's funny, but it's also touching, and it's no coincidence that it is with his subsequent first steps towards standing on his own two feet -- tearing up and throwing aside the useless newspaper column -- that Alfred Butler may finally be said to have progressed beyond a simple one-dimensional character, and the film can really begin.

From here on the picture becomes a Keaton classic, sweeping the hapless hero further and further from the cushioned normality of his life with a series of escalating and plausible coincidences. Ultimately the worm will turn, of course -- but not in the time and manner that we are expecting. And Keaton acts here not just with that famous face but with every line of his whole body: triumph, exhaustion, despair, apprehension, indignation, timidity, pugnacity... and finally, in the last scene, sublime confidence in his own skin, modelling a costume so incongruous that only Buster Keaton could carry it off with such genuine elegance!

The scenes of Alfred's ordeal are hilarious and moving by degrees -- it's almost impossible to analyse Keaton's appeal. 'Sweet' is quite definitely the wrong word, as is 'lovable': Buster is no Little Tramp. 'Bittersweet' might be closer to the mark... or 'poignant'; the metaphor of the man who gets knocked down but keeps on trying has never been more apt. There is a brief vivid moment when Alfred, bewildered and worn out, turns his face aside into the arms of his second with such a hopeless little air that instead of a laugh, it raised a murmur of pity from the auditorium. But Keaton never allows himself to milk the audience for sympathy -- the best of his films may mingle laughter through tears, but he never falls into the trap of sentimentality.

I'm not sure if this is among the best of Keaton's films... but it's certainly one of those I've ultimately enjoyed the most so far. I've changed my mind: I'll give it a 9 after all, and say I'm dropping a mark down instead from a 10! :-)


One of the best paced of all Keaton films, `Battling Butler' is not uproariously funny but is consistently amusing and entertaining. Being mistaken for an up-and-coming boxer, Alfred Butler (Keaton) falls in love and marries on the basis of this mistaken identity. Trying to keep his wife from finding out creates the needed comic situation to allow the humor to emerge. His leading lady, Sally O'Neil, sparkles in her supporting role. Snitz Edwards, humorous in his own right, is a delight as Keaton's valet. The final scene is a gem!


The entire set up sequence which runs for a third of the film has more gags and is more fun than the latter two thirds set at the training camp. The sheer lunacy of "roughing it" with all the comforts of home, including one's own butler, is inspired. This sequence in the wilds contains all of the best gags: wildfowl all around but unobserved by our hero; the duck who keeps ducking under the boat when Buster is trying to get organized to shoot it; the dinner table slowly sinking in the mud; the heroine walking a lost Buster back to his camp after he has gallantly walked her home.

In contrast the rest of the film has only the eight mile run dupe and Buster combating with the fighting ring ropes to make us chuckle. That's a lot of film time with nothing amusing happening. Buster seems to have become uninspired once the pathos of the mistaken identity narrative take over. Still it's worth seeing the film for the first sequence.

KINO's print is crisp and clear and the music accompanying their print is made up of player organ, drums, violin and triangle.


Although robbed of its delightful songs by Douglas Furber (lyrics) and Philip Brabham (music), "Battling Butler" more than makes up for this unavoidable lapse by casting one of our favorite character players, Snitz Edwards, in a major role. He is wonderful; and it's to Keaton's credit, both as a fellow comic and as the director, that he allows Snitz to steal many of his scenes. In fact, Keaton and Edwards make a great comedy team. Except for one or two sequences, they don't play against each other, they play with each othera feat that is more difficult to bring off successfully.

Following the construction of the stage musical, the film splits neatly into two halves. Tom Wilson's harassed trainer, who expertly pits himself against the seemingly hopeless Keaton, supplies much of the comedy in the second half until the star unexpectedly turns the tables in a grand climax especially written for the film. In the play, the McDonald character simply drops out and doesn't return at all. It could be said that the stage musical actually ends on rather a limp note plot-wise, but this problem has now been neatly licked.

Doubtless due to the fact that comic fight scenes have been done to death by just about every comedian you could name in sound films, "Battling Butler" is not wholly prized among Keaton addicts, but I regard it as one of his best outings.


This is kind of a typical Buster Keaton story, except in reverse: the girl comes along earlier in the movie, the men are impressed with him earlier on, everything works out for him earlier on, and then the rest of the movie is him trying to maintain his luck versus trying to get the girl against all the forces of bad luck. It also goes in a couple surprising directions, which are noteworthy.

I notice through the evolution of Keaton's movies that he did more and more acting and less and less physical comedy, with the exception of course of The Saphead, which was his first feature-length that was mostly drama-based, not slapstick-based. By now, 1926, Keaton knows what he's doing and knows where he's going, and thus this is a pretty clean and well-put together movie.

Still, the stuff he does in the training-ring scene is amazingly original and marvelous. When watching this movie, one expects something more along the lines of Chaplin's moment in City Lights, where he dodges around limberly and almost succeeds. Not the case, this was more real and brutal. Marvelous stuff, really, and surprising in its own right.

--PolarisDiB


First of all, I don't quite understand why all these people have been saying this is a "lesser" film by Keaton! I think it's a fast energetic and hilarious film, that shows Keaton to be in fine form! Now, when I called this film my favorite by Keaton some might agrue, that's not the "correct" choice. One MUST say they love "The General" or "Sherlock Jr." While I do think both films are great and funny. But there's something about this one that I enjoy just a bit more. I like the film's spirit. As everyone mentions there are several funny moments in this film. If your a Keaton fan, you should definitely see this one. If you've never seen a Keaton film, I personally think this is a wonderful place to start. **** out of ****


The first 30 minutes of this Buster Keaton film are some of the stupidest he ever made, at least from what I've seen. I don't blame him; this is the film world where even since this period - around 1920 - marriage is always trivialized and people are always lying. Why was that so frequent in classic movies, in particular? It's disgusting. Here Alfred "Battling" Butler, a spoiled rich young man - in order to keep his girl - lies about being the lightweight boxing champion of the world, because that guy, who has the same name as him, is a hero and he wants to impress her and her big brother and big father. He wants to marry her right away because she's pretty and she consents as soon as she hears he's a big shot. Boy, those are great reasons for marriage!

After the quickie marriage, Buster heads off for training camp for his supposed title defense against the "Alabama Murderer." Later, the real "Battling Butler," to do the impostor a favor and save his marriage, lets him be the real thing and fight while he retires.

The training - and the first real laugh of the film - isn't until 47-minute mark when Buster begins training and can't get over the ropes. He is helpless outside and inside the ring as it turns out.

The training escalates as Buster begins roadwork the next day.....but he isn't up to training or fighting or any of this. Fortunately, a big twist occurs late in the movie which saves Buster from going into the ring, although the little man does save his honor after he fights the real "Battling Butler."

I would agree with the critics on this one: it's far from Buster's best work.


I always like playing a good adventure game, and this one is absolutely among the top three ones ever made according to me and a lot of others.. This game is really the top of the cream and will be for a long time because there hasn't been any game like this before..at least not as good.

The sad thing though, is that it hasn't been really integrated and didn't have a chance to be. But if You ever liked ANY adventure game, play this.


This game is a true gem -- gorgeous graphics, extremely engaging and entrancing story. The puzzles are not too difficult, but are fun and fit well into the story. I'd encourage EVERYONE to play this game -- yeah, I'm talking to YOU! There's philosophy and humor, excitement and mystery, and most of all -- well, ADVENTURE. It's fun. It's interesting. You'll love it.


This game is proof that games, like movies and books, can be considered works of art. The characters are amazing. Each and every one of them seems real. There are so many of them. They are all unique. The settings are so imaginative. The story is compelling. I've never played a game where I really cared about what was happening, until I played this. Played is too unflattering of a word. Experienced would be better. The voice acting is incredible. It's an epic game. The Wizard of Oz of games. The game has been around for over a year now. It should be available really cheap. I highly recommend tracking it down. You won't be sorry.


Undisputably the best adventure game I've ever played.

Right from the start you are drawn into the adventure like a moth to a light - your alter-ego April Ryan has an intriguing, wondrous dream that sets the pace for everything to come.

Stark and Arcadia, the worlds you will travel through in the course of the game, are beautiful and memorable in every way. Stark portrays the world as we know it perfectly, while in Arcadia is a mystical right out of fairy-tales - so amazing yet believable.

You will come to both know and love April Ryan as she discovers her role in the Balance and interacts with both friend and foe. In fact, all the characters in the game are well-developed and add a sense of depth lacking in so many games today. The diary she keeps is attractively written, lending colour to her life as it subtly guides you into her thoughts about her past, present and future.

As for the technical aspects, the background art is simply breathtaking. Every scene is lovingly rendered and brought to life. Although the 3D models themselves are a bit lacking, you will still be wowed at the lip-synching. The voice acting is just as good as any animated film, with Sarah Hamilton doing an impeccable job as the lovable heroine. The soundtrack is awe-inspiring - if only they sold it separately!

As far as i can see there are no drawbacks to this game. I'm running out of adjectives so here's the bottom line -

If you have given up on adventure games you obviously haven't played The Longest Journey yet. If you like adventure games, this is a must-buy. If you don't like adventure games, you'll become a fan once you've played this through!


If this game had been released a little earlier in the United States it most likely would have faired better, but by the year 2000 the 3D graphics were quite dated.

That said, this game was one of my most memorable gaming experiences, right up there with the first time I played Zork, Myst, and Half Life.

The puzzles are mostly logic based, and while some require inventory items that can be a little non-logical to come by, it didn't takeaway from the experience, but rather enhanced it for the most part.


The Longest Journey is a cross between a traditional point-and-click adventure game and a computer-animated novel. Story, character and environment are much more important than you'd expect, and it's here that most of the innovation is to be found - the puzzles are quite old-fashioned and occasionally a bit silly, and the technology doesn't push any envelopes.

Ragnar Tornquist's script, though, is hugely ambitious, and mostly successful; it has a superb premise - essentially a pair of worlds, one futuristic, the other a place of post-Tolkeinish fantasy, and with a heroine (April Ryan) who finds herself shifting, at first unwillingly, between the two. There are some problems - a few too many genre clichés, and the script is needlessly verbose in places where less would have been more. Most of the vocal performances are excellent, however, especially from the lead characters, and visually the design, especially of the environments through which April moves, is superbly evocative. This gives TLJ a narrative range and emotional resonance that's very rarely found in games - if you have the patience to operate at its meditative pace. Even if there'll never be a mass market for this kind of thing, I hope it is another step along the way to the development of the computer game as a genuine art form.


First-rate, outstanding, amazing storytelling & dialogs. What i dislike. 1.There were some plot inconsistencies as for me, mostly about languages they speak between races. (Well it's forgivable in the world of magic. And what a wonderful world!) 2.April is sometimes stupid and i didn't really like her as much as Zoe from sequel. 3.Resolution is obsolete (640x480?) even for 2000. 4.People you talk to are usually too forgetful. One example. Just half-a-minute ago the receptionist said i should disappear 'cause i'm not allowed in here, now he really believes April's a pizza-girl and lets me in... Strange. Then what i like. Well i like everything else. This is really a different story. No stupid narnias. I've found some references to World War II here. Dialogs are superb. Voices are perfect. Design is all well done. Sound is involving. Gameplay is non-active, but thanks to the story very interesting. I could run Journey all day long. We have the great ability of "skipping time" here. If you don't want to waste your precious time or fall asleep upon watching your April getting from one side of screen to another you just press escape several times and she gets where she's going in a few (real-time) seconds. This is one of my favorite fantasy worlds & stories: Ragnar Tornquist's world is inferior only to J.R.R. Tolkien's. And surely one of my favorite adventure games behind Grim Fandango (of course) and (i really love TLJ's sequel) Dreamfall: The Longest Journey.


The Longest Journey attempts to return to the roots of the adventure game genre and does manage to do a half-decent job. The game's story combines elements of science fiction and fantasy to create its own interesting universe but one still heavily reliant on a number of clichés. The main characters are alright but not stellar by any means.

The game uses 3D character models against pre-rendered backgrounds. The models are alright if low-poly and the backgrounds are rather stunning. However the combination of the two is not seamless or even very clean for that matter. Also some of the character animations are just lacking in any kind of depth. On the whole I hated the pre-rendered cut-scenes which in my view were just plain ugly.

Audio wise the game was very competent, the voice-cast is nice and memorable. The soundtrack was appropriate but not particularly great.

One of the most annoying aspects of this game are the insane amounts of dialogue that one has to bare. If this wasn't bad enough much of the dialogue doesn't really have to do with anything relevant so skipping a piece here and there undoubtedly will not hinder your gaming experience to a great degree. The main character also doesn't say anything relevant for much of the games. Running to a walkthrough is hardly uncommon with adventure-games but thanks to the utter lack of information in the game itself, this tends to happen with Longest Journey a lot more than it should.

Additionally the skip-feature is also annoying since it not only skips actions but dialogue as well and the feature should have been implemented a lot better.

In all, The Longest Journey is not a stand-out game in the genre. It's an okay adventure with a fairly good plot, but has enough irks to make me not want to even bother with the sequel.


Hey, this game is great! Nice graphics, great sound, good puzzles, etc. The only thing that I did not like that much was, that you sometimes have to move through up to 3 screens without any contents. Well, there are nice graphics but nothing that would do anything. They don't even contain red herrings : But this game was still lot's of fun!


TLJ really raised the bar for the QUALITY of adventure games. This game adds nothing new in terms of gameplay or even cinematics. It's still a point-and-click fest and use-the-weird-object-with-the-other-weird-object-to-make-a-tool-so-you-can-m ove-on extravaganza, but at least you don't have to go pixel-hunting. Spread over 4 discs, TLJ offers twice as much playtime as the standard graphic adventure.

This is a European title, so I don't know what differences in dialogue, etc. were made before the two English audio versions were made, but the American cast seemed above par for computer voice acting. This has been the third best cast I have heard in a game after Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Father and The Curse of Monkey Island, two of the greatest games ever made.

The story does taper off towards the end, and sadly, like most games in this genre, the ending feels tacked on. If they had a few less cinematics near the end, they might have been able to improve the ending. However, as it stands, this has been the last good adventure game to come out since Monkey Island 3.


Chow Yun Fat, toothpick in mouth, a gun in each hand. That's all of the plot you need to know. Hard Boiled was my first John Woo movie and, in my opinion, his best. No other action movie comes close to this. In fact, this is THE best pure action epic ever filmed. Upon viewing it, I immediately fell in love with Woo's style and his star. It's full of the most stylized gunfights ever seen and Chow Yun Fat is the definition of cool. The full blown finale defies description. Someone once called it an action fan's wet dream. There's not much more I can say because actions speak louder than words. So go see the movie.


"Hey!" Chow Yun Fat says, covering a baby's eyes. "X-Rated action!" He's not wrong: Hard Boiled is a film clearly not afraid to embrace its genre's excesses. While most modern action films (Smokin' Aces for one) aspire to some sort of grand intelligence while providing shoot-outs and explosions, this film is a reminder of times when action films suffered no such pretensions.

Crowds of people are gunned down without explanation and the smallest things explode for little or no reason. The bad guys are massively exaggerated cutthroat caricatures and the good guys never miss. Scenes of Fat and Leung running down corridors are inexplicably shot in slow motion. And, for all of these reasons, it is amazing. It's fast, it's exciting, and it never lets up.

Hard Boiled is loud, exciting, and, thanks to quite terrible dubbing and a ludicrous early 90's soundtrack, often unintentionally hilarious. It is a film that places entertainment firmly ahead of plausibility and logic, and is quite frankly awesome for it.