Rudolf Hoess, Kommandant Auschwitz 1940-43, is very interestingly portrayed here in my opinion. I had often wondered as to whether or not this once-devout Catholic suffered any misgivings during his reign at the well-concealed killing factory Auschwitz, and having read the majority of Herman Wouk's "War and Remembrance," recalling his reaction to the girl with the apple blossoms, was this fact or fiction? His subsequent testimony at the Nuremberg Trials revealed something of a man who could care less one way or the other, about the war or any such thing. To my understanding Hoess's residence was several miles from the actual camp, but in "Sophie's Choice" it's separated from the camp by a high wall. Frau Hoess and young Emmi appear to be as ardent Nazis as the Kommandant himself. Baldur von Schirach and Gertrud Scholz-Klink must have had a field day with Emmi, a deutsche Maedel if ever was. There seems to be genuine love and affection between Hoess and his wife, the way they seem completely at ease with one another. He also is quite civil towards Sophie, business-minded and somewhat unsure of himself. THEN all of a sudden he flips his nut. I don't think it would have mattered if Hitler was in the room instead of Sophie, with a migraine attack like that he'd have still curled up with a pillow. I am of the opinion that Hoess was probably an insomniac, although I can't say for certain. To live in such luxurious surroundings with his loving family adjacent to, well, Auschwitz-Birkenau with its most unpleasant atmosphere, would have some kind of an effect on even the most heartless ruthless bureaucratic SS-Mann.


Falconetti's performance in 'the passion of Joan Arc' IS the signature performance of the history of movies. Period. Streep gave her best performance in "sophie's choice", but I feel her performance here a little bit too proficient and pitch-perfect but coldly over-studied. Typical Streep way. I won't rank her performance in 'Sophie' above Jessica Lange's "Frances", which also came out in 82.

There are lots of great female performances that you can cite on: Masina in 'la strada' and 'night of cabiria', Watson in 'breaking the waves' (heck, how can she ever lost to Frances M in 'fargo'? Another evidence that the Academy is clueless and run by morons), Ullman, Anderson, and Thulin in Bergman movies... The list goes on and on...


Meryl Streep won best actress for giving a penetrating and complex portrayal of a woman whose guilt makes her postwar life a walking death. She is incredibly intense, occasionally inappropriately so, but always memorable. But, that intensity in combination with Kevin Kline's overplaying is hard to take at times. Add in the slow pacing and you have an unpleasant, albeit well crafted, movie-watching experience. Peter McNichol does his best to provide some irony and insights, and Josef Sommer's superb narration helps move things on a bit. If you can stick with it, you will be rewarded by the unforgettable denouement. It works as art much better than it works as entertainment.


"Sophie's Choice" is a luke warm flick with a whole lot of "toos". Too long, too obvious, too theatrical, too unbelievable, etc. Telling of a holocaust survivor in America, Sophie (Streep), and the pair of love interests she cultivates (Kline & MacNicol), this ensemble drama showcases an Oscar winning and memorable performance by Streep who gets to stretch and strut her consummate talents over a 2.5 hour run. Streep's wonderful workout is about the only reason to give this 20+ year old flick a dust off. Recommended only for Streep fans. (B)


How Meryl Streep beat out Jessica Lange for the Best Actress in 1982 is beyond me. Once again, Streep pulls out one of her phony-baloney accents with the emotional range of a stuffed tortoise. What do people see in this claptrap? Stingo was well-cast, but as usual Kevin Kline was annoying, loud, pretentious, while eating the scenery. What is with this guy?

The fact that this was even nominated shows how bad the Academy had slipped by the early 80's. Junk is junk. Streep and Kline are portrayed as intellectual fun-loving free spirits, when they're really just a couple of neurotic con artists. Forget this one! I gave this a 3 because of the cinematography and Stingo.


I agree with the previous commenter--an extremely powerful film. But I would like to add that I think this was Kevin Kline's best role in any film he has made. I especially love the part in the beginning when Sophie and Nathan are arguing on the stairwell and he finds Stingo eavesdropping. His switch to a southern drawl, the stinging quality of his words, amazed me. I've watched this movie so often I'm about to wear it out. Also the music is very well done. I STILL cry when I watch it!


If this movie only had Meryl Streep going for it it would be excellent. But the performances by Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol enhance the awesome portrayal by Ms. Streep, of a woman faced with a series of difficult choices, one of which should be unimaginable, but sadly is not. In my 40+ years of moviegoing I have not seen a finer actress than Meryl Streep. A word of warning, make sure you have your crying towel before you watch this excellent movie.


Meryl Streep has received a number of accolades and awards for her acting over the years, possibly the best being that many of the younger actresses have publicly proclaimed Meryl as their role model. But you need not see any other movie than Sophie's Choice to see why she has been so universally acclaimed. This is no doubt the best single featured acting by a female in any single movie, similar to Robert DeNiro's in Raging Bull or Taxi Driver. Meryl's Sophie is a person who is naive, jaded, innocent, guilt stricken, soft and gentle, hard as nails, loving and giving, and both practical and poetic to a fault. She is a classic tragic figure, a lesson in how to deal with the horrors of life and how not to deal with how those horrors haunt you. She is funny, soft and sweet, and you want to put your arms around her. Then you realize that underneath that childlike woman is a woman who has given up on childhood. She is a study in contradictions, speaking English, German, and Polish to survive at all costs. Then along comes Nathan, expertly portrayed by Kevin Kline (possibly one of his most challenging and multi-layered roles), and her life takes another turn. But we see all this through the wondering, innocent eyes of Stingo, and the terror, love, laughs, friendship and alienation he experiences, we experience. This is primarily due to a fantastic portrayal of Sophie by Meryl. And yes, the key scene -- The Choice of Choices -- is possibly the most painful scene ever on film, and how Meryl interprets Sophie during this scene is, by itself, worth an award! I love this movie. Someone once saw it for the first time, and commented, "I didn't think I would like it, especially because it was such a downer at times. But it was so good!" Excellent summary.


Portraying a Polish-Catholic Concentration Camp survivor now living in Brooklyn 1947, Meryl Streep admirably keeps a haunted look in her eyes--and in her forlorn smile--throughout all the fabricated histrionics of this Alan J. Pakula "prestige" picture. It's a commendable acting job, most especially because nothing else in this vehicle quite comes off. Sophie, struggling with her broken English during her initial days in New York, is 'rescued' (from despair, from hopelessness) by a combustible genius (Kevin Kline), and soon they are reading literature and poetry to each other in his bed. The details of their love-hate relationship come spilling out to a Southern writer (Peter MacNicol) who has rented a room in the same building as the couple. William Styron's book has become an embalmed actors' showcase, with the three principals each doing contemplative-turned-combative bits of character business, to little avail. There are two or three scenes that put enormous demands on Sophie (and Streep the actress), and the woman simply does not disappoint (my favorite was an early flashback scene wherein she attempts to check out a book by Emily Dickinson but doesn't have the author's name right). Still, Pakula paces the melodramatics with funereal solemnity, and the too-careful, too-rigid art direction and cinematography make the proceedings look like a waxworks museum. Kline cannot get a grip on his tortured Nathan, and for good reason: the character is a writer's contrivance (bombast conjured up out of mental illness), while MacNicol has some strong early scenes but eventually plays third-wheel (not an enviable position). Much discussion was made of Streep's letter-perfect accent and her scenes as a prisoner, and indeed she's quite remarkable; however, Sophie isn't allowed to bloom as a person. Streep makes her tremulous and lovely, nervous and chatty while also politely flustered, and there are moments when she's radiant. Unfortunately, there's nothing gripping or substantial in the writing to help the actress carry the weight of a long, heavy Oscar-contender. We understand right away that Sophie is a survivor with an enormous heart...Pakula doesn't give us anything else to ponder except romantic heartbreak tinged with masochism. ** from ****


My experience with this film was endured without knowing anything about the story ahead of time. It was a jarringly emotional experience, so to preserve that possibility for those who I hope will see it, I will tread gingerly. What I will say is that its structure is the bedrock of its effect. It begins with a pleasant atmosphere, entirely unsuspecting. Then come ominous scenes that the characters seem to pretend to forget afterwards. Then a plunge into an entirely different world indefinitely. Then the initial mood returns without having lost a shred of credibility. Then we return to deep subjectivity of the alternate one, and when we come back, no matter how unchanged the initial setting remains, we are never the same.

Note the title. Sophie's Choice. Then note that it essentially features merely three people, Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline and Peter MacNichol. One's first inclination as to what the title character's choice shall be proves to be a disquieting revelation of what little we've experienced in our lives. What do we know? Whatever the most harrowing or ecstatic of the moments through which we've lived barely scratch the surface of life's possibilities owing to the infinite extent of human nature. The relationship between two of the characters is a testament to what a person can and can't live with, and what a person can't live without. Peter MacNichol's mediating protagonist learns this, and so do we, through him.

When we are his age, we never believe people, no matter how much we respect them or love them, when they tell us that there is so much we don't understand. As the film begins, we are introduced to the two people he happens to meet when he moves to Brooklyn. In spite of our, and his, initial reaction to them, we grow to believe we know and understand them. We have no reason to believe that when they behave, speak and react, they are inventing or denying anything. Upon reflection, the last line we hear Sophie say to the impressionable young central character has no way of indicating her true reason for saying it, whether it's true or false.

All three leads are becoming, deeply realized and even unique in their performances, but Streep deserved all of her acclaim. She truly delivers one of the best portrayals I have ever seen in any dramatic medium. Where she, as I said, neither invents or denies, intimates an authentic facet of human nature's intricacies, more normal and sexy in the early scenes before showing us who Sophie really is. It is a mystery for many how someone speaks in a foreign accent, in this case pivotal to her role, and even speaks the corresponding language, without pretending or affecting, or doing an impression. There is no sign of any seams through which we can glimpse the devil who wears prada or the adventure mom in The River Wild. Without leaning into any extremes, there is hardly an emotion left untackled by Streep in this film.

Sophie's Choice appears as if it might as well be shot with a soft lens, a film whose scaffolding is its Oscar-winning star. I cannot tell you how contrary that appearance is, and how eerily relevant that deception is as analogy to the movie itself. There is a rawness that remains untouched by many filmmakers superior to he who directed this, Alan J. Pakula, who also adapted it from William Styron's novel. Pakula is sneaky. The structure of the film could easily have felt uneven. His visual choices could easily have felt alternately overdone and under. We realize later that a handful of early certain scenes which feel initially like sappy Americana are emotional red herrings. He simply knew, in spite of tried and true conventions, logic or practice, that his vision would work. And it is unqualified cinematic power.


This movie was given an 8/10 purely because of Meryl Streep's forever amazing performance. This movie is truly haunting. "...There are still some things we have yet to imagine", is the slogan of this movie. This is true because some of the things in the world are just too difficult to imagine. Sophie's Choice dares to show us those true horrors of life. Kevin Kline was also incredible with his portrayal of someone with a schizophrenic disorder before the time when that sort of thing was recognized. Peter MacNicol had an easy, but still memorable performance. This movie has a place in history, due to it's disturbing and unimaginably painful decisions and ideals it drives our minds to, and Meryl Streep has raised the bar in way that almost no one could ever surpass.


Sohpie's Choice has got to be the most heartbreaking movie I have seen in a long time. It is a tragic love story between Sophie (Meryl Streep) and Nathan (Kevin Klein) who meet an unsuccessful writer named Stingo. They become great friends and Stingo soon discovers the darkness of Nathan, and Sophie's most heart-wrenching secrets.

I'm quite surprised this movie hasn't made it to IMDb's top 250 list, because this should be a movie that is recognized as the best performance from Meryl Streep in film history. Fantastic movie, truly heartbreaking, but very well made.

10/10


While I've always thought of Meryl Streep as a great actress, she surpasses my praise in this film. To see her speak her lines, to hear the delicate phrasing of not only her Polish, but her German with a Polish accent, then later, her English with a Polish accent, an altogether brutally difficult accomplishment, leaves me breathless. Beyond that skill, there's her transference to the character, Sophie, and to the main test as an actress, the absorption of the unspeakable atmosphere of a place -- the camp at Auschwitz -- of wholesale pain, indescribable humiliation, and the final acceptance of death of her child to save another. I'm sure the author of the book wept too in seeing his creation come to life as Meryl Streep.


Although it's impossible to know what went on in the mind of Audrey Marie Hilley as she poisoned those she loved, Judith Light is pretty good in this film. This is so obviously a television movie, since the editing looks like it was done with a meat cleaver, but there are some priceless moments in this film, chiefly among them when Marie, juggling three different identities, "dies" as Robbi and comes back as her platinum-haired twin sister Teri. Introducing herself to Robbi's co-workers is deliciously unbelievable as Teri waltzes into the employee break room and shakes hands with people she already knows. To think that the real Marie Hilley actually tried to pull this off, and successfully convinced a good number of people, is a testament to her charm. Light wisely steers clear of explaining Hilley, instead playing the character straight, letting the absurdity of the story maintain the mystery of Hilley. Not bad for a t.v. movie.


while this is not a masterpiece, as another reviewer mentioned, it is an interesting and realistic portrayal of true life sociopath Audrey Marie Hilley.

For some reason, when this film was first shown, there were segments which portrayed the poisoning of Marie's mother- and that she initially lived in a trailer. Her primary goal, no matter what, was to get out of that small town in Alabama.

The daughter is well played by Kelley Overbey. She is an unknowing victim. David Dukes is excellent as the Alabama prosecutor, who follows Hilley through her latest escapades. As one detective mentions, there is an increasing level of violence, starting small, with bouncing checks, to arson, to insurance fraud and eventually murder.

David Ogden Stiers portrays Hilley's final conquest; she manipulates him from Florida to New Hampshire- he will buy her anything she wants- that is all she needs to know. It is amazing to reflect on the number of people who were taken in by Hilley, her many false identities, and stories. When she returns as Terry, Robbi's "twin" sister- it is almost too much. Apparently Hilley really did do this, and with the exception of one co-worker, everyone believed her. The husband, as played by Ogden Stiers, seemed particularly dense.

There are some amusing scenes also, such as when Hilley teaches her daughter how to parallel park, by driving through (and over) the graves at the local cemetery. This story is all the more intriguing because it is based on truth, and apparently John Homan (Hilley's beleaguered husband) was also murdered in a bizarre robbery incident in 1989. Definitely worth watching. 9/10.


Generally when somebody screws up, they go through three sets of filters in the course of attempts at correction. The first order of social control is usually the family. When Dad spots a roach clip on his son's dresser, well, they sit down and have a good talk about it. Mom may ground her daughter for not doing the chores. The second order of control is the social network the screw-up belongs to -- the friends, the peers, the community. Friends try to talk sense to the guy. The community gossips about him (or her). Among the Old Order Amish, you get "shunned" if you don't straighten up and fly right. At West Point you get the treatment. In high school nobody wants to go to the prom with you. The third order of control involves secondary institutions -- the police, psychiatrists, or, quien sabe?, the National Security Agency.

In the case of Marie/Audrey/Robbie/etc., all three systems failed for a long time, simply because it seemed so hard to believe that a woman would kill her husband and try to poison her own child for insurance that was no more than modest. And, after all, Mom HAD taken her ailing daughter to hospital after hospital. In light of all this, how could she have "done it"? Well, she was able to do it precisely because she estimated just how extensive the parameters of normal behavior would be under these conditions. Of course the insurance policies weren't exactly grand. They couldn't be -- not if she were to escape suspicion. What would the control agents think if you took out a million dollar life insurance policy on your husband and he shortly blew up? Likewise Audrey/Robbin/Holly/Mildred/Gladys/Candy HAD to take her ailing daughter to hospitals. You don't find arsenic poisoning if you're not looking for it, whereas everyone who watches Oprah knows that you can anorexize yourself to death.

What makes this story more than ordinarily interesting is the fact that Mom was able to slip past all three levels of social control with such facility. She was finally identified as a no-goodnik by secondary institutions but seems to have done not much more than dye her hair and scoot away to Florida, where she was able, without a great deal of trouble, to seduce and marry an over-sized deadhead and finagle him into moving to Vermont. ("I like snow.") THEN -- and this really bespeaks contempt for agents of social control -- she confides to friends and husband that she has an incurable blood disease and must go to Texas for treatment. She does. And "passes away". It isn't long before hubby gets a phone call from Audrey's TWIN SISTER, and then a visit from her, and then a roll in the hay too. Can you believe the arrogance of this woman? She actually believes that she can pass for her own sister? And can you believe the community in Vermont? They ACCEPT HER for what she claims to be. Even her widow/lover believes she's a twin sister, even after they begin living together! "How stupid can you get?" asks one doubting thomas who worked with Robbie, the original, one-and-only first wife. And that's what finally does Emily/Audrey/Mabel/Ginger/Xanthippe in -- the second level of social control, community gossip. Some residents of this town in Vermont (Brattleboro, nice place in the Fall) check into her story and find it full of holes. The police and FBI are notified, and that's that. Guilty as charged.

The courtroom scene only last five or ten minutes. I wish it had been longer. I'd have liked to see the prosecution build its case, and the defense too. The justice system is a secondary institution too, and it would been nice to see a shift from lying and gossip and arguing between individuals to conflict mediated by officials representing us.

The performances are okay and the direction is functional. No more than that. Judith Light, I'm afraid, isn't unattractive, or, as Randolph Scott once said about a knockout beauty in one of his Westerns, "She ain't ugly." She is, though, endowed with facial features that are uniformly sinister: a firm, wide jaw; a tall thin forehead; and two glowering eyes that seem sunk deeply into their shadowy orbital sockets. (Does she ever blink? I don't know.) She is a good enough actress to pull off some cool switcheroos, too. She's giving one of the doctors a couple of strokes, "Tulane? Why that's a fine school!", all sweetness and pecan pies, and then suddenly a bear claw, "Are you telling me I can't take my own daughter home?" A bit more law and a bit less gossip would have improved this "based on a true story" film, but it's so bizarre that it's interesting despite its weaknesses.


I was reluctant to watch this film because I have never enjoyed films about men in prison. Though brilliant , "Midnight Express" still haunts me and the repellent treatment of homosexuality in "Fortune in Men's Eyes" made me steer clear of this genre. The only other prison film with a "gay:" subtext that I have enjoyed was "Kiss of the Spider Woman" That said, this little German film, "Locked Up", was a rather tender and provocative gay love story. Filmed on video, in an apparent real prison, this film struck me as quite entertaining. The two leads are very good actors and even though it has a somewhat unbelievable ending, I liked it. WARNING SPOILER.............This film has a few graphic scenes that take it close to porn. There is a lot of male on male nudity and a real masturbation sequence. There is also a very graphic rape scene, which, if it had not been integral to the plot line, could never have been acceptable to any audience. Now that doesn't mean all viewers will appreciate this film. No this little hummer is not for the weak at heart or the homophobic. In the end it manages to be quite a charmer. The oddest thing about this film is not the bi-racial love story of the two male leads, but the hauntingly beautiful sound track, which somehow manages to be romantic, meaningful, and surprisingly "new age". The music, coupled with the hideously depressing and stark prison ambiance, raises the emotional impact of this film. It actually brightens up the story line and the romance between the two male leads. Definitely not for everyone. However, if you like the new "Gay Cinema", and enjoy film in general,this little odd duck of a movie will shock, entertain, and bring a tear to the eye as well. 31/2 out of 5 stars.....Clive2


This film is best enjoyed by fast-forwarding to the sex scenes. If you are expecting good acting, this isn't the movie for you. The acting is atrocious and unbelievable, with the exception in the movie being the mother who must have been fooled into thinking this was an actual serious movie. The rest of the cast is absolutely terrible, unless you are regarding this as a porn movie. For a porn, it's excellent. But as a serious movie for porn stars turned good, it's garbage. If you watch the added features interviews with the characters, it is hard to imagine it is even the same movie they are discussing when you watch it. To reiterate the point made earlier, fast-forward to the sex or don't watch this one.


GEFANGEN (LOCKED UP) is a testy little German film that dares to push the envelope of NR rating, and given the concept of the story and the background of the writer/director Jörg Andreas making his first legitimate (ie non-porn) movie, it succeeds despite some technical shortcomings. No, it is not a film for those with issues concerning same-sex films, but for the target gay audience and for that audience eager to see innovative independent film-making adventures, LOCKED UP is well worth watching! The setting is a prison somewhere in Germany and the story begins with the handcuffed young credit card fraud 'criminal' Dennis (Marcel Schlutt) encountering his first entry into a prison. The tone of the film is set at the induction desk where Dennis is stripped and zealously 'inspected!' by the eager prison guards. He is then placed in a cell and begins his two-year prison term. Naturally the other prisoners (all body builders) on his bloc intimidate him into submission to their rules of the house. Through his cell window Dennis gazes on a fellow inmate, an African American hunk named Mike (Mile Sale), in prison for a fifteen-year sentence for the murder of his wife, digging trenches. They make eye contact and there is a mutual interest. Gradually the two meet under the rigid time frames for the prisoners, talk, share coffee in Mike's room, and eventually respond to their mutual attraction. During one interlude they are observed by a guard envious of Mike's attention and affection for Dennis. And as the routine prison dramas go, the inmates polarize over the two men's connection. Dennis is brutally raped, talked into cooperating with the drug ring, but Dennis' growing love for Mike is stronger than the resistance of both inmates and prison officials and they are eventually able to share a cell.

Dennis' mother visits her son, encourages him, and arranges for a lawyer to gain a shortened term for Dennis, a favor that Dennis greets with mixed emotions, as he does not want to leave his lover Mike as others have done. But in a tender scene Mike convinces Dennis that he is young and should accept the early release, an act of love that Dennis finally accepts. Dennis is released, but continues to visit Mike whom he loves and his love is reciprocated. The manner in which the film ends is yet another act of sacrifice and love and is best left unsaid.

Both Marcel Schlutt and Mike Sale are handsome of face and body and spirit and the story benefits from their on-screen chemistry. In an extended Feature on the DVD each actor (both openly gay) discusses his approach to making the film, and as in the movie itself, these dialogues are in both German and English. The men speak frankly and bravely about their participation in gay porn movies, stating the sex scenes in the film are real-time and not simulated. People will argue about the propriety of this but keep in mind the story and the director's background and perhaps the film will be more readily viewed as an experimental genre. This is a different kind of love story and I think it works! Grady Harp


I found this movie appealing despite its flaws. Whether you can forgive the flaws depends greatly on what you find hot. Some people find the whole men-behind-bars, dominance/submission, "young pup manhandled by older, bigger dudes" scenario highly erotic. Others will be bored during the long stretches between the explicit sex scenes, and probably shouldn't bother watching. These are the critics who complain about porn with pretensions. What they don't understand is that for some viewers, the pretensions -- the attempts at character development -- are part of the porn.

The flaws are many and serious, lol. This is a low-budget movie rife with silly stereotypes, bad acting and unintentional humor. Oh, and the music is terrible. But the two stars, Marcel Schlutt and Mike Sale, are a pleasure to look at, there are some very hot scenes, and there are also some surprisingly good non-sexual moments. And Schlutt, considering his inexperience and lack of training, is not a bad actor! He's at least twice as good as Keanu Reeves, though admittedly that's not saying much, and is absolutely adorable in the role of the shy, blushing ingénue. (Watch the cast interview afterwards and you can see he was definitely acting.) Also, in the rape scene, he's disturbingly convincing.

Unfortunately, Schlutt's co-star, Mike Sale, can't act to save his life, God bless him. It doesn't help that he's supposed to be American and has a British accent, but in a low-budget movie you can overlook things like that. What you can't overlook is a lead actor who reads his lines woodenly, occasionally glancing at the camera, and who's supposed to be the toughest thug in a maximum-security prison but comes across as cuddly and effete. It's kind of cute in a way, lol. I guess there aren't many black actors to choose from in Germany. To be fair, though, he is attractive, and pleasing to watch during the sex scenes.

I won't catalog all the things about the movie that are silly, as other critics have covered that in excruciating detail. I will say I couldn't help noticing that the sole African-American character is portrayed as the toughest, most dominant guy in the whole prison, he's the best basketball player, etc., and uses the word m-----f----- once or twice (with a British accent). Personally, I found this rather cute and quaint. It's like a little slice of sociology, seeing how African-American men appear (exotic! feared! revered!) through German eyes.

I'll just mention two scenes that surprised me. One is the scene in which Schlutt's character, Dennis, returns to his cell after being outed as having an affair with a black man. The other prisoners chant "N----- Whore" over and over again as he's marched down the cell block. It's actually a little scary. And the scene in which the Letarsky character comforts Schlutt's character after the rape is rather touching. Some critics seem to have found that scene funny, so maybe I'm just under-critical or something, but it moved me.

So, to summarize: It's undeniably bad in a lot of ways, but I watched it three times, so am giving it 7 out of 10 stars. (I would so never admit to that if I were posting under my real name!)


Not really knowing anything about this movie other than the summary, I went into watching it without any expectation or prejudice. While the subject matter certainly could be interesting, the storyline and directing really left much to be desired. I even think the character played by Marcel Schlutt (who is a total hottie) has some acting potential, but that is unfortunately not exploited by the film's director. There are too many awkward moments in which nothing is happening, and the characters are quite wooden and quite lackluster. Unlike the other post here, I felt that the English translations, while at times good for colloquialisms, left a bit to be desired.

On the other hand, I did think the idea of using real sex scenes is a novel concept, and certainly made for more convincing 'acting'. I wish the reality of the sex moments could have been translated to other parts of the film (or at least make the sex scenes longer :) It certainly doesn't come across as a 'porn film' other than the quality of the (non sexual) acting at times.

I can't say I recommend this as a need to watch, but if you just can't find anything else to put in your netflix cue, it might be entertaining, at least from certain angles.


This film proves to be one of the most amateur gay film I ever encountered. The storyline in overall is standard and should be acceptable. It's about a struggle of a new prisonner along with his completely new love with a black prisonner.

Perhaps the resources (budget) in making this film is so low that it only can hire 2-3 prisonners guard with poorly arranged in-door location. The choice of having Mike Scale is also a very poor choice. Not only that he is unfamiliar with his role as being notorious black prisonner - instead he is appearing as this shy,loving,undecided black prisonner.

This movie is in overall very painful to watch. The love development between two real prisonners are only evident when Dennis saw Mike just saw each other two times - that's all. Most of the moment they have together is only spent on the sex-scene/kiss-scene/or nude scene. There seemingly to be no real touching, romantic moment where audience could believe that they're truly in love.

Regardless that Marcel Schlutt (Dennis) has a lot of talent to bring in this film, it seems that he himself can't help the whole scheme catastrophe. This film fails in nearly all aspects, and it seems only appropriate to be called soft porn movies rather than a real movie.

Unworthy of watching.


I saw "Gefangen" yesterday. I generally don't give much regard to what others may say about a film before I've seen it. Yes, it's true, some of the acting may not be 'world class,' but the film still has a story to tell and, even without the sex scenes, I believe they did just fine. I did enjoy the sex scenes.....and, with all the heterosexual sex scenes in todays films, I would hardly consider this movie "porn." Erotic sexual scenes do not a porn film make. So, if you see this flick without any preconceived expectations and just follow the story, enjoy what you will...I think you will come to the same conclusion as I: It was fine; I enjoyed it. And then move on.


I really can't add much to the already illustrative comments that have been posted on this site but I have to say that this movie was SO BAD!! that I actually found myself laughing out loud many times, particularly when both leads were locked up under "arrest" in adjoining cells and touched hands through their respective windows -- now that is cinema!! You should by all means watch this movie if you want a good laugh!!! It appears that low budget was the rule here and I agree with another comment on the site and EVERYONE in the prison was obviously gay, even the staff. This truly is subject matter for gay porn but to have a chance at some believability it helps to cast the film well. Or it could be that the cast worked for free or next to nothing on this project.


Found this in a bargain bin for $1, and thought it was porn, and was highly disappointed. My favourite part of the film was the closing credits. It is a complete copy of 'Shawshank Redemption' (not). Does anyone know where I can buy the soundtrack? I'm glad I can fast forward at 16 times normal play speed, because it got used often. Should make a good drink coaster. "Get to it, undress" One more time... Found this in a bargain bin for $1, and thought it was porn, and was highly disappointed. My favourite part of the film was the closing credits. It is a complete copy of 'Shawshank Redemption' (not). Does anyone know where I can buy the soundtrack? I'm glad I can fast forward at 16 times normal play speed, because it got used often. Should make a good drink coaster. "Get to it, undress"


This film is about the life of a young gay man who has been sentenced to prison for credit card fraud. In prison, he meets the love of his life and strives to maintain the relationship.

The film obviously has a very low budget. From the state of the set, the number of actors, lack of cinematography and soundtrack shows the incredibly low budget.

The plot is so unbelievable. I know it is an erotic fantasy, but still it is laughably unrealistic. Everyone in the prison, including the guards are gay! Prison guards spying on the inmates' gay sex...that's not very likely to happen in the real world.

The dialog is bad. The acting is bad, apart from the lead actor Marcel Schlutt. He is the only one who showed acting skills in the whole movie. All other characters are unable to handle more than 2 lines of script.

The film tries not to be viewed as porn, so it has no hardcore sex scenes. However, it is filled with various fantasies, including spit, power and submission. Oh there was conveniently a scene of a man pissing down the toilet. It is a scene which could have been cut out, and was not because of the sexual appeal.

Though the thought of a gay romance story in the prison is appealing and even a turn on for some people, this film fails to ignite in any aspect.


The challenge to bring a homosexual love story to the big screen, which ends out being interesting and catchy, for not only a limited gay audience, is a task no many production companies can lift; "Locked Up" is no exception.

Already from the beginning, when Dennis (Marcell Schlutt) arrives in prison, the border between drama and porn is crossed - he has to undress in front of two uniformed macho men. Standing in nothing but his low boxers, one of the guards command him to take "It all" off - so he does, and it leaves you with the question "Am I watching a gay porn movie from Germany?" But before you can crab the DVD-cassette to find out, something that seems like a social realistic story starts; or does it?

Dennis' inmates are quickly introduced; they are all standing in groups in the hallway outside their cells, looking like "We have to talk about something and be rough". The so-called leader presents himself to Dennis, giving him a small lecture in behavior and the must of having a toned masculine body.

The love story between Dennis and Mark (Mike Sale), who by mysterious reason is digging dirt outside Dennis' window, does not work at all. Their "coffee-love-sex" sessions in the prison breaks are both ridiculous and stupid. At no point you get the feeling of attraction; it's simply laughable - especially the scenes where we see them live together in a double cell with carpet, curtains and toilet.

To sum up; more then one hour of stupidity, bad acting and soft gay porn cinematography. The only plus, so to speak, is the extremely funny interview with the to actors.

A random German gay porn movie - just without visible sex.


C'mon, this film is ridiculous. Lots of full frontal nudity but very light on the plot. I guess they hope you don't notice that the actors can't act (lots of long pause, think bad porn), that the plot is non-existent and the ending doesn't make sense. Cazzo Productions is the producer of hard core gay porn for All Worlds Video in the U.S. They've been making porn for so long that the idea of a straight boy in prison falling head over heels in love with the first guy he meets makes sense. And the language thing (jumping from English to German and back in the same conversation) shows very bad direction and made things even less believable. Skip this film. Rent regular gay porn where you know you get bad acting but real sex. Catch up on your reading or sleeping. Watch Oz. But whatever you do, don't watch this piece of trash.


Alongside Molinaro's "La Mort de Belle", the best adaptation of a Simenon story for the big screen.

Helmer Delannoy proves a past master at creating a stifling atmosphere ( night scenes, a hot stormy weather, a heady melody pervading the story ), managing to make the tension rise and swell regularly until it explodes in a triple climax ( Maurice's interrogation, the confrontation of Maurice's wife and mother, the final attempt to murder Mauricette ). So, when the rain finally starts falling in the final seconds of the movie, it does as much good to bulky, weary Gabin as it does to the tense viewer.

Of course, the film benefits from a great interpretation : Jean Gabin gives life to his determined-shrewd-exhausted "commissaire" while Jean Desailly shines as the poor but dangerous Maurice whose boyhood has been prolonged by the misguided love of his mother ( Lucienne Bogaërt, perfect ). And Annie Girardot plays subtly and with welcome restraint the loving wife of a monster.

Sure, Misraki's music and song are haunting and the camera-work is sleek, but what actually makes this film a major work is that the authors( R.M.Arlaud, Delannoy and Audiard ) are true to the spirit of Simenon : disillusioned with human nature but sympathetic with those who are its victims, however monstrous they may appear to society.


Despite his occasional appearance in the films of major directors like Max Ophuls, Jacques Becker and Jean Renoir, from the 1950s onwards Jean Gabin seemed content to rely simply on his effortlessly charismatic screen persona and elevate an apparently interminable succession of old-fashioned potboilers which, while undeniably enjoyable in themselves, now seem like a regrettable waste of this monumental French film star. Nevertheless, I try not to miss any of his films when they crop up on Italian or French Cable TV channels and, for what it's worth, I've always been on the look-out for at least two of his late 50s films - Claude Autant-Lara's LOVE IS MY PROFESSION (1958; with Brigitte Bardot) and the film under review here.

Anyway, Gabin is perfectly cast as the world-weary Police Inspector who is pondering retirement when the re-emergence of an old nemesis - a serial-killer who stabs lonely brunettes coming home late at night - taunts him back into action with a supremely clever plan to trap the killer, hence the film's title. The film also features in a supporting role the actor who, for all intents and purposes, replaced Gabin in French filmgoers' minds as the brooding action hero, Lino Ventura, but it's Annie Girardot (as a neglected but ultimately self-sacrificing wife) and Jean Desailly (as her impotent, mother-fixated artist husband) who leave the best impression in the crowded supporting cast.

Jean Gabin would go on to appear as Inspector Maigret in 2 subsequent films - MAIGRET ET L' AFFAIRE SAINT-FIACRE (1959; which I've caught up with a couple of years ago) and MAIGRET VOIS ROUGE (1963) - and work a further 5 times with director Delannoy (including the afore-mentioned second Maigret film); interestingly enough, Delannoy himself would abandon his own artistic aspirations shown earlier in two major French films of the 1940s - L'ETERNEL RETOUR (1943) and LA SYMPHONIE PASTORALE (1946) - to concentrate on modest genre offerings (of which MAIGRET SETS A TRAP is the best-known and probably best overall as well) for the rest of his career.

Inspector Maigret is celebrated French pulp writer Georges Simenon's most famous literary creation and had previously been portrayed on the screen by Pierre Renoir in one of his brother Jean's most elusive films, NIGHT AT THE CROSSROADS (1932), and also by the great Charles Laughton in Burgess Meredith's intriguing directorial outing, THE MAN IN THE EIFFEL TOWER (1950) - neither of which I've watched alas - and would go on to be impersonated by a variety of formidable character actors among them Rupert Davies, Gino Cervi and Michael Gambon for TV!


Jean Delannoy stands as one of the best (if not simply the best)Simenon adapters.In the short space of two years he made two gems ,while the nouvelle vague was insulting him ,and these two gems should not be missed:"Maigret tend un piège" and "Maigret et l'affaire Saint-Fiacre" (1959),both absorbing,both featuring a top-notch cast,both packing a real wallop.The first one is an urban psychological thriller,the second one takes place in the country,in the castle of old aristocrats.

"Maigret tend un piège" is at first sight a serial killer story ,but Simenon is too subtle a writer to be content with that.And I'm sure that Jean Delannoy had seen Julien Duvivier's sensational film noir "voici le temps des assassins "(1956):not only he casts Jean Gabin as Maigret,Gabin who was the hero of Duvivier's movie,but he also uses Lucienne Bogaert ,who was his ex-wife in the same movie.Bogaert portrayed a drug addict abominable criminal in 1956;in Delannoy's film,she is an over possessive mother,proud of his son who could have been a sculptor,a painter,an artist,a genius,had they not thwarted his outstanding gifts.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS This son is a very complex character masterfully played by Jean Desailly,who probably found his lifetime part here:he's so intense that he will leave you ill-at-ease.He cries,screams ,begs,almost never stops twitching,and his tragic strength is absolutely incredible."Be a man!!!" Gabin shouts ,whereas he's an impotent little boy ,under his mother's thumb.From the very beginning,-and what I write is not really a spoiler- we know he's the killer,Simenon did not write a whodunit,he's more interested in his poor man's psychology whom his mother and his wife -an excellent Annie Girardot- will try to save ,stopping at nothing for that.

The film begins slowly ,but when it hits its stride,after about thirty minutes ,it grabs you till the very end ,with more and more verbal violence.

No,Jean Delannoy is not the mediocre director the nouvelle vague used to despise.


Maigret is looking after a women killer in Paris. It's the occasion to see some places from the old Paris. Jean Gabin is really fit for the role of Maigret. Hopefully it's not a movie where the whole action takes place in a police office. In that film you can also see a young beginner named Lino Ventura.


As always, this film occurs in Paris, there happen a murders series. One the night of the killing a butcher is the suspect, detective Maigret(the great Jean Gavin) becomes involved into investigation and pulls off a cat and mouse game with the killer. Maigret leaving false clues and a false murderer. Meanwhile is developed a pursuit through the Paris slums, in order to chase the killer, getting a button. Appear new suspects, as a strange woman(Annie Girardot, one of the most known French actress of the 60s) and her spouse(Jean Desailly, recently deceased). Maigret is helped by his underlings(Lino Ventura, in very secondary role , among them). The obstinate inspector winds up pitting rival against each other in order to destroy him in a stirring interrogation.

The picture displays thriller,tension, twists plots and is quite entertaining , though some moments is slow moving. Interesting and exciting battle of wits between intelligent detective and quirky villain. The story explores the dynamics of pathological behaviour and very much in the style of psychoanalytic descriptions fitting fairly to George Simenon novels. Casting is frankly outstanding. Jean Gavin as stubborn detective is top-notch, Jean Desailly as maniac-depressive husband is magnificent, he's tremendously affected into the deeps of human desperation. Annie Girardot as a predatory and manipulating beauty woman and Lino Ventura who was one of the best French actors from the 60s and 70s. Awesome cinematography by Page who reflects splendidly the Paris streets, though mostly made in studios. The motion picture is rightly directed by Jean Delannoy. The film is based on George Simenon legendary detective who is adapted at several cinematic rendition and TV series. As Maigret was played by Basil Sidney( The lost life,TV, 59) Gino Cervi(Maigret in Pigalle,67), Rupert Davies(series from 60s), Richard Harris(TV, 1988), Michael Gambon(TV,1993), Sergio Castellitto(2004). But specially by Jean Gavin who also played 'Maigret and the St Fiacre case(59)'. In Hollywood(1949) was realized by Burguess Meredith 'The man on the Eiffel tower'with Charles Laughton as Maigret. Rating : Good and worth watch checking out. The movie will like to Jean Gabin fans and intrigue lovers but contains a highly suspenseful.


Frances Gray Patton wrote this beloved novel of a small-town spinster. She is a determined woman, one who turned a wrecked life and an enormous family debt into a reason to teach generations of New England young people the virtues of going-through-the-pain to get the gain. The theme of this film is the positive effect of her rough-hewn self-assertiveness training on her students. Jennifer Jones plays the schoolteacher, from youth to old-age, and very winningly. The film was directed by veteran Henry Koster. Others in the very large and amiably charming cast include Robert Stack, fine actor Robert Douglas, Kipp Hamilton, charismatic Peggy Knudsen, Chuck Connors, Jerry Paris, Mary Wickes, Leslie Bradley, Marshall Thompson, Biff Elliott, Richard Deacon and many more. What happens in the story is that Miss Dove falls ill one day during class and has to be carried from her students and taken to the hospital. The town's generations, all taught by this remarkable woman, react; some come from far away or start stopping by the hospital for news; and this leads to a flashback of how her life's course was changed by her father's money problems and the desertion of her by her erstwhile suitor; how she then vowed to pay back every cent of her father's debt, though she was not personally responsible; and how she began teaching school and has gone on doing so. This intelligent, heart-warming and thought-provoking story has a climax in her medical crisis and a happy ending; it is not perhaps a great film, but Miss Dove is very probably a great character, and one many can learn from long after the film has ended. Every element here is well-crafted and contributes to a surprisingly entertaining and most-believable presentation. Music is by Leigh Harline, cinematography by Leon Shamroy with contributions by Lyle Wheeler and many others. Cool and beautiful, and as fascinating as is the lady herself


"Good morning, Miss Dove" was a major and pleasant surprise to me. I expected an over- sentimental, although well-made, movie. On the contrary, I discovered that there is a subtext of sense of humor, and the many psychological subtleties and finesses are even more relevant than sentimentalism. Of course, I do not deny that I was deeply touched by this extraordinary, wonderful woman, Miss Dove.

Miss Dove is the essence of the movie, and even the sense of humor is based on her. Her pride, her aloofness, her deep conviction to be always right, her refined, elegant and slightly ironic way of talking that never weavers, not even in dire straits, make Miss Dove a comic character, in some sense. And we see that she looks at her own over-the-top strictness with a dose of self-irony.

Miss Dove's mission as a teacher is based on a steel principle: all her pupils are equal. Any partiality is just inconceivable. Actually, she cannot help to have a particular love for some of them, especially for Bill. When, after his service in the Marine Corps, the grown-up Bill says to Miss Dove that he wants to use his saved money to complete his studies, she plainly hides her inner joy. Why? Clear: to show joy, even much time after the school-years, would mean to be partial toward her "William" (a delightful, even poetic subtlety is that Miss Dove never calls the kids by nick-name). However, at the hospital she finally affords herself to show a preference. She asks all her flowers to be distributed to the other patients, and she just takes in her room the flowers sent by her beloved, favorite "son" Bill.

Miss Dove is a genius of psychology. The equal-for-all discipline is the canvas where she paints with masterly touches. She never preaches, her own behavior shows the right way. When she sees that the little Jewish Maurice is ill-used by the other kids, she doesn't utter a (probably useless) sermon on xenophobia. She just asks Maurice to accompany her, helping to bring her books, thus showing to everybody how much she cares for the little stranger. Then it's up to the kids to understand the lesson. This episode is related to a beautiful finesse of the movie. We see Mr. Levine, Maurice's father, terribly upset and worried at Miss Dove's illness. Thus we get that, less fortunate than his son, Mr. Levine has long experimented the horrors of anti-Semitism in Europe. So he is fully aware of and grateful for Miss Dove's precious job, even more than his son.

Another great psychological job is the way Miss Dove, talking with Bill, praises Billie Jean's skills and humanity as a nurse. That's enough for Bill to learn the lesson, that is to overcome his prejudices (which coincide with her own prejudices; so, after all, even Miss Dove has something to learn). Particularly poignant is the shy, humble admiration and love paid by Billie Jean to her former teacher. That is mirrored by the nurse's naive attempts to imitate Miss Dove's elegant talk and perfect poise, which give rise both to fun and to emotion.

Some characters are conventional, others are not fully convincing, like that of the gangster Makepeace. However, this guy is instrumental in showing that Miss Dove never condemns the human being. The film is permeated with positive messages: patriotism, dignity, respect, honor, love for learning, sense of community, gratitude. I will be the very last to be displeased by that. Sometimes the sentimentalism is far-fetched. I consider it a minor fault of the movie.

Jennifer Jones as Miss Dove is just sensational. The remainder of the cast works very well, especially Peggy Knudsen as Billie Jean, in my opinion.

Let me conclude remarking a great poetic image. The little girl, from the top of the tree she has climbed (a wonderful symbol of innocence and freedom), stares with a stunned look at Miss Dove carried away by the priest and the doctor. What's up? The indestructible teacher has something wrong? Impossible...

Like the people of Liberty Hill, we all love Miss Dove, this wonderful woman, this mother of one thousand children. To enjoy this extraordinary character, I strongly recommend "Good morning, Miss Dove".


We all had teachers who inspired us. Those who made us think and those who showed us acts of kindness. They were strict but memorable as is the case with 1955's Good Morning, Miss Dove.

A small-town teacher who devoted her life to the education of children, Jennifer Jones turned in an absolutely brilliant performance in the title role.

Of course, the town is unaware of Miss Dove's secret. As president of the bank, her father embezzled funds. To avoid a scandal when the father dies suddenly, Dove becomes a teacher to pay off the debt. Not only does she educate children in a stern way, her relationship with the town is memorable. Her saving of the town bank during a run on it, and her never ending criticism of people annoys many, but it is realized that she has done such good.

When she falls ill with a tumor at the base of the spine, the town is in crisis. A former student, played by Robert Stack, operates.

The effective use of flash-back is well used in this picture. It shows the life of the teacher and the effects she had on this town. The cop who adores her, her nurse who idolizes her, a Broadway playwright, who she guided when he was fresh out of Poland,and a former student, Freddie Makepiece, a jailbird, brings comic relief as well.

Miss Dove deserved to be honored as teacher of the year in my book. The film deserves an accolade as well. The film is so good because it depicts what schools are supposed to be. To provide religious understanding and tolerance, our heroine brings her class to a Passover seder. This fine film is a testament to inculcating our value system. Jennifer Jones was absolutely superb here in her treatment of the beloved, strict but understanding Dove. In 1955, the same year this great film was made, Jennifer Jones was Oscar nominated for "Love is A Many Splendored Thing," she should have been nominated for 'Dove' instead. The picture must also be valued for the cohesiveness among the people of the town. What fine support Jones received. Robert Stack is wonderful as the doctor, her former student, who operates on her; as well as Peggy Knudsen, a fine practical nurse who adores her and at the same time harbors a secret; Chuck Connors, as the police officer, who Dove helped mold despite his poor background, only to reject Knudsen when he discovers her secret. Under the fine direction of Henry Koster, Miss Dove succeeds because it's a slice out of Americana.


I can't understand why this movie was never put on DVD or at least video. I haven't even seen it on the TV for years, but I have seen it a couple of times years ago. It is a touching story about a dedicated schoolteacher with a passion for teaching. Miss Dove is played by Jennifer Jones. A young Robert Stack is in the movie and there are some very touching moments.

Too bad it wasn't on DVD. If you see it listed on TV. jump at the chance to watch it if you like classics, because this is one good classic. Keep a hanky handy.


This wonderful film contains a warm, nostalgic look back at the life of an ailing school teacher. As time and her illness progresses, Miss Dove, best known to the small town as a rigid and stiff disciplinarian, realizes the positive effects she has had on the people around her, and their love for her. Never married, childless Miss Dove finds purpose and contentment in her duty -- to repay her father's debt and thereby avoid a scandal, by working as a teacher, instead of marrying the man she loved.

The film has especially fine direction, performances, and an intelligent, multi-layered script. While Miss Dove appears a one-dimensional, humorless snob at the beginning of the film, the many layers of her story and personality are revealed throughout the course of the film. By the end, you realize why everyone is so fond of her.

Thinking back over this film, I was struck by the image in my mind of an America that seems to no longer exist. Healthy, proud, and affluent small towns, the belief in following one's duty in life instead of whims, and the sense of personal responsibility among these characters are so unusual to see in a modern film -- or modern life. There was a scene in which Miss Dove helped a bank avoid closing, a selfless, altruistic act that seemed so different than anything that could have occurred in the recent banking crisis.

Growing up in the 1980s, I think I was seeing the last of this generation fade away. Perhaps I still am. I remember writing a fan letter to Jennifer Jones years ago. I loved her then as I still do. I never considered it odd that she did not reply. She was a symbol of the grace and dignity of a long gone era. Noticing that she just passed away, I can't help but feel she passed away with the unfortunate changing of our culture, to the violent, seedy, and irresponsible. But what an enduring, magical film legacy she left behind.


Good Morning, Miss Dove is a property that I'm surprised Frank Capra didn't think to direct. It's entirely possible that Capra was a male chauvinist who only thought in terms of men who sacrifice like George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life. In many ways Jennifer Jones is the superior of Capra's George Bailey.

Jennifer's crisis comes real early in the beginning, she's the daughter of a well bred and prominent family whose father has just died. She thinks she's come into it, but she finds she's inherited debts beyond belief because dad was borrowing and living well beyond his means. To keep his good name, she gives up the life she expected like George Bailey and in the process becomes the moral center of her small town.

Her road was much harder than Jimmy Stewart's because Miss Dove never married, she instead devoted her life to teaching history and geography and never getting to see the faraway places with strange sounding names that she only read about. That song could have been written for her. George Bailey did have Mary Bailey and the kids, that was denied to Miss Dove.

That's just one of the flashbacks in a film that has many. In fact the current story is the fact this rock of the community is undergoing a health crisis and is admitted to the hospital. As she deals with her health issues and the many people who wish her well, her mind reflects on just how much influence she's had on generations of kids passing through her class.

She's a severe woman Ms. Dove, having denied herself a personal life. But she's also a kind and caring one and that comes through with all the people we see her interact with.

Despite a fine cast of players, Jennifer Jones dominates this film in a fine portrayal of what is essentially an unglamorous part. It's the kind of role you might see someone like Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn do, but Jones is just fine in it.

If you're not a fan of Jennifer Jones, you will be after seeing Good Morning, Miss Dove.


While not a big film, director Henry Koster again crafts a small gem of a person who shapes the lives of generations of students in her small town. Along with "Goodbye Mr. Chips" and Mr. Hollands Opus" this film is one of a handful of films that comes along once in a generation that leaves you feeling good and yet touched by the affection in the film. Under a stern and crusty exterior Miss Dove reflects on the course of her life as a teacher, when she is rushed to the hospital. Students come from everywhere to celebrate her and out of concern for her. It is the happy ending, like that in "Mr. Holland's Opus" and the mixture of humor and gentle drama of "Goodbye Mr. Chips" revisited and done well. I hope that it will eventually be available on DVD. I give it two thumbs up.


I only discovered this movie about 18 months ago when I saw it on TV. I really enjoyed it and have seen it a couple of times since. it is sentimental and very simple in its construction. That is not to say it is not emotionally effective. I am an ex-teacher who always had a good relationship with the kids I taught (though not as authoritarian as the Miss Dove of the title. Each time I see it I find myself more affected than the last time, to the extent of blubbing like a baby at every emotional scene!! It is a very dated movie and the performances, though honest and direct, are not Oscar-winning. I was surprised to see Chuck Connors do justice to his part as a hardworking cop who dragged himself up from poverty-stricken childhood to upstanding adulthood. Jennifer Jones, as the star of this film acquits herself well as Miss Dove, a fearsome and legendary primary school teacher. She is respected and loved by the people of the town (as she has taught most of them or their children). She is taken ill and through flashbacks we learn about her life, career and relationships. Movie-making as it used to be- not a blockbuster but a solid story well told.


American small towns don't come much cosier than Liberty Hill, the setting for this very old-fashioned weepie. Peyton Place it ain't. Jennifer Jones is the spinsterish school ma rm who rules with a rod of iron but who has a heart of gold and the movie tells us, in flashbacks, how she got that way. As an old lady, Jones is stiff and awkward and you hope that in the flashbacks she might be given the chance to blossom but this is a one-dimensional performance and she's as bad as an only half-decent actress can be when cast against type.

As to the film itself, it's a handsome looking picture thanks largely to Leon Shamroy's excellent wide-screen photography but it's directed by that leaden ham Henry Koster. Koster's idea of movie-making was to make sure his characters remained in frame and remembered their lines. Fifteen minutes into this highly sentimental film you know the entire plot. Whether you want to hang around for the next ninety or so minutes will depend on your propensity for sucrose.


As a proud White American I must say that this movie is a powerful structure that requires a tremendous amount of understanding for another culture while swallowing a little pride of my own.

For those who think this movie is racist only proves that more movies like this one need to be made. You can't tell a race of people to just move forward if they are not sure where they come from. You can't just say, "Slavery is over! Now go out and be successful," without understanding the conditioning slavery left behind. Economically and internally. Not to mention when African Americans try to reconnect with their past they are constantly bombarded by some of the same Whites who at times, seem a little bit too concerned with keeping this connection at bay, as if it were a threat of some sort. Meanwhile our toddlers are at school learning about their distant past great leaders like Caesar. Thus, encouraging them to be great leaders. While the black toddlers are learning about slavery and their minor, more modern American accomplishments like the creation of peanut butter or the civil rights movement, making their steps of stride smaller, surviving from day to day, check to check, with hopes of purchasing an apartment or a car as a major accomplishment.

Why are we afraid for African Americans to learn they're history? Is it because there were some Black leaders greater than Whites. Is it because most of our history might be tainted with a lot of lies and cover up? If we Whites really want to be Equal (and not just announce it all the time) then we will encourage more Blacks to become one with their distant past. And if it puts some of Europeans most powerful parts in history to the background then so what? We didn't have a problem when we where in the forefront, so why would it matter now if we're in the background? If we truly aren't racist, it shouldn't matter at all. One thing Hollywood and our school system shows us is that Europeans have done great things. But not all great things. And maybe, not even the greatest. But that in itself proposes a powerful question. What if Africans have done greater things, would we be willing to accept that? The truth is, we all know we won't. Does the psychological scar of racism really cuts that deep?


I believe this film was made w/ its creators knowing that it would be shot down by various "types" of people who'll just simply refuse to look at it objectively. In my opinion, it is a "must see" for everyone aimed particularly at the Black bourgeois. I like the fact that not only does the DROP Squad address the problems of Blacks self-exploiting racial stereotypes for personal financial gain, it also questions the tactics that must be enacted to solve these problems. The aim of the DROP Squad is very provocative but I especially like the human aspect whereas the "Rocky" character debates w/ "XB" and "Garvey" on how to deal w/ the captive individuals to be "dropped." Rocky has a more diplomatic approach that seems to have been more effective back in earlier times around when the group was founded. Seemingly as time has passed and the situation has evolved to crazier proportions, XB and Garvey have resorted to more drastic tactics in order to "get their attention first." I believe what many people fail to realize is that this picture is asking the question "Which, if any, of these methods are more appropriate to addressing this problem?" The tone of the film gets "crazier" as time moves on and the problem gets worse, thus developing the drama where the Squad questions itself altogether. Whether you like this movie or not, you've got to admit that it serves its purpose and that's to "incite dialogue" and not racism.


I'll admit that I didn't know of this films existence until a critically acclaimed movie critic went on a rant against it(hint: the same critic that gave Speed 2 a thumbs up). That was enough to make me go out and get it. Drop Squad will not be accepted by the keepers of Status Quo and their token friends but it will most likely be accepted by those that can see past their nose.

The story is simple enough: the Drop Squad(Drop is an acronym for Deprogramming and Restoration Of Pride) is group that kidnap ignorant sellout blacks and force them to reconnect with their culture while getting them to realize what they're doing to their people is wrong. Rocky Seavers(Vondie Curtis-Hall) is the leader and has questions about some of the methods that the Drop Squad use on sellouts and begins to bump heads with one of his comrades, Garvey(Ving Rhames) about the methods used. They end up kidnapping corporate clown by the name of Bruford Jamison(Eriq La Salle). From then on Bruford gets flashbacks on all the times he sold out and recalls a crucial moment when he screwed over his own brother Flip(Afemo Omilami)by refusing to come help him out when he tried to get a job at his workplace. The acting is great. Eriq La Salle, Vondie Curtis-Hall and Ving Rhames all turn in some good performances. I like the message of the movie and felt that the scene where Flip confronts Bruford was a touching scene as well as the scene where Rocky talks to Bruford. Closing comments: Drop Squad is a necessary requirement for everybody thats into movies with substance. If the Drop Squad really did exist then I'm glad they did but if they didn't I couldn't be more disappointed especially since we need them now more than ever! Two Thumbs Way Up.


Although a little heavy handed at times with the central theme, "Drop Squad" is an excellent movie. The characters are developed in a way that uses stereotypes to highlight major issues in the black community with identity and the moral responsibility of its members. It is a well directed film and well worth watching.

My only strong criticism of this film is that it requires an active viewer. It is doing a lot and sends a lot of messages. Minor characters are not explained more than brief sound bites and quick flashes on the screen. You have to make an effort to keep up and if you don't pay attention to the details you are going to get lost. I wish the director had spent a little more time developing these characters, especially since it is clear that they are meant to represent elements of the community he means to and does criticize. If the characters were important enough to recap at the end, then they were important enough to explain in the first place.


Many top name actors appear in this film. A must see film for all people! Definitely makes one think about and analyze your own values. Race is a very strong determining factor in American society and this movie speaks to what it means to be true to yourself.


Having just seen Bamboozled, this movie came to mind. Comparing the two, I think this one was more effective. The similarities are striking. In both movies, there are blacks that made it in the establishment, one as an advertisement professional and in the other as a television writer producer. And in both roles, they are enmeshed in producing something for the black audience. The advertisement professional is soon black listed by his family for having made television advertisements that use stereotypes such as fried chickens and malt liquor, and other parodies of which the family relatives are ashamed and hint of an Al Sharpton's "genocide". The television production in Bamboozled is protested by Al Sharpton (playing himself). The sponsors of the televion series show ads of fashion clothing, malt liquor ("The Bomb"). While Bamboozled ends in violence, Drop Squad ends with the uppity black returning to his true self, reminded of his own "blackness". In Bamboozled, reflecting the interested by white teenagers in Hip Hop, one member of the rap group is white and is the only survivor of a police shootout ("why me? why me? kill me too!"), and in the followers of the television series is a "Sicilian Nigger", an italo-american that covered his face with blackface and wants to act "black". Or is it "blak", since we don't need the "C", as one of the rapsters suggests.


I only got this movie because I collect movies that are related to the beer and brewing business as part of my breweriana collection. The connection (involving the "Mumblin' Jack Malt Liquor) turned out to be very weak (although I would like one of the 64 oz bottles used as props for my collection).

What I got instead was a picture that was a little too real to have you believe it was an attempt at fiction, but too "fake" to have you believe it was real. It was just out there in no man's land.

Let's face it, whether it is alcohol and fast food or facial tissue, advertising transcends sex, religion and race and targets (exploits?) some group the product is aimed at. It is not the advertisers fault that certain groups tend to buy more of certain products. It's called exploiting a market and that's their job.

Bottom line - this is a confusing movie and I would strongly recommend giving it a "pass." unless you are a huge fan of one of the actors.


You know, I want to like Lee. One of the great things about movies and literature is the ability to shock people. It's a childish impulse at heart, but great when you're deconstructing philosophies. In satirical cases, the childish impulse is justified by the purpose of the deconstruction. The need to expose the hypocrisy is much more than the jollies of the person doing the ripping.

Unfortunately for Lee, satire requires a deft touch. Being too coy and the satire fails as a justification for the subject of the satire in the first place. Being too blunt and the satire comes off as preachy and self-serving. Lee and his work fall into the latter; he does not have the touch to do effective satire because he is too close to the subject matter. Lee has some valuable insight into matters of race (in that he never fails to remind us) and we take him at his word. Sadly, he is so bitterly one-sided that his preaching. Given his lust to bash all sides as a battle between him and THE WORLD, his movies often come off as diatribes that are disconnected from reality. The power of cinema is to put a person in a differing standpoint through prospective, and Lee doesn't grasp that. To him, it's a bigger stage for his ego and himself and we are 'fortunate' enough to pay only a meager fee to finance his house to hear this Great Oracle of the Nike Commercials speak his wisdom..which is about as intelligent as a thirteen-year old Goth girl talking about death and cutting herself.

The racial politics behind Drop Squad are so pathetic--rich equals white and poor equals black--is that it makes a mockery out of Lee's MLK love. Lee never really grasps the idea of racism has a solid element of class-ism behind it. If you're black, you're poor yet humble. If you're white, you're rich and morally bankrupt. And if you're black and rich, then you're white and need to be knocked back down into being black. And with this, Lee's world of racism is complete according to this movie. And that idea is so self-hating and overly simplified that it defies logic. Are we watching an examination of race relations, or are we watching a poor little rich boy deal with his unresolved racial/class issues by endorsing the same idea of Crab Theory--see "The Corner" for more on this in a much more mature way then Lee could ever imagine or wants to--that tortured him as he was growing up? In fact, why doesn't Lee grow up and make movies a bit more textured instead of playing the game he was forced to as he was growing up? In short, Lee's "Do the Right Thing" was the alpha and omega of his career. He would never show the same maturity or grow above it ever again. In a sense, he sold out himself, and the world is lesser for it.


In a sense everything the original poster says is correct but ironically their judgment is guilty of the same short sighted-sightedness as the movie. Race, identity, culture and politics are deeply complex sensitive issues. Most works of art (or general comments like these) can only address a handful of those issues from a single perspective. The "great" artists and their works are able to encompass the multiplicity of views rendering the complex simple enough to digest yet learn from (for the converted choir and the alienated masses).

Unfortunenately Drop Sqaud is not one of these works of arts. Yet I do not believe its content should be dismissed with such an easy wave of the hand. For me I found something valuable from this movie yet I completely see the original poster's comments. I am writing this comment/rebuttal not to debate or argue the worth of Drop Sqaud but to urge those of you interested in this movie to give it a chance knowing that their is "something" there even if it's buried in a bunch of "nothing".

peace


Drop Squad is ostensibly about a black man being brought back in touch with his roots through de-programming. However it's the audience who feels it has been kidnapped and forced to endure torture. There is yelling, screaming, and endless diatribes and it all feels aimed at the audience. I saw this movie at the theatre and everyone (about 25 people) walked out within the first half hour. Unfortunately for me I stayed the entire time. The film only got worse.


Shortly after the early Kinetoscope experiment "Leonard-Cushing Fight", featuring the two boxers Jack Cushing and Mike Leonard in a boxing match, this movie got made at the Thomas Edison's Black Maria Studios, featuring two cats, fully equipped with boxing gloves, having a go at each other. So perhaps with some imagination you can call this movie the first ever made spoof and it certainly is the first ever done comical subject at the Thomas Edison's Black Maria Studios.

The subject of Professor Welton (exactly what was he a professor in I wonder?) Vaudeville's act of two boxing cats is sort of amusing and cute. No doubt that animal right organizations now days would do anything to ban this movie from being shown was it made today but truth is that this is a pretty harmless act. The gloves take away a lot of the blow, so no cats got harmed during the making of this motion picture and actually seeing cats fight on the streets with their claws is of course something far more violent and violent looking, even though it's just nature, unlike obviously putting gloves on a couple of cats and let them fight in a small boxing ring.

Henry Welton himself (the professor from this movie its title) sets the cats up against each other and he can be seen picking them up toward each other. These two cats obviously had no grudge toward each other but were put up to it to fight. Perhaps not the most kind thing to do but you also have to remember that this was 1894 when these sort of animal vaudeville acts were very common and part of everyday's life.

The camera is pretty close up to the fight but it covers the entire fighting area. It's not entirely symmetric, since it only shows one side of the ring. Nevertheless it's an effective composition, since it shows everything that needs to be seen and apart from its shaking images, it's perfect. The same can be said about the quality of the movie. Hardly any grain here in this one.

A nice little comical turn from the boys at the Edison Manufacturing Company.

8/10


This is one of the coolest shorts I have seen in my goddamn, freaking life! One of the best things that I REALLY like about this short are obviously the boxing cats and I am just wondering: In real life, the cats are not intelligent, like us, humans. But, the question is: in the film, how did the cats wrestle each other and became trained? Was it, like, a special effect or, nah, I am just freaking curious. Later on, I hope I have a complete answer of how the cats were intelligent by boxing each other in the film.

Besides that, I actually enjoy this short: I give this short: Duhhh! ~ Obvious!!! - a 10 out of 10 because the real life cats were boxing and it was really awesome!!!


You thought Charlie Chaplin invented slapstick? Pfah! How typical. I bet your favorite show is MTV as well, isn't it? And you listen to 50 Cent? Kids these days.

This Edison short is hilarious, although you have to be very tired when watching it. Exhausted, in fact. But it will get a laugh out of anyone who enjoys silly comedy in the vein of Dumb and Dumber, Monthy Python, etc.

10/10. The first, and one of the funniest, comedies I've ever seen. Great sight gags and the film doesn't go on so long it wears out its welcome.(r#11)


Stanwyck plays a kept woman for a married politician. Out of her sheer devotion to him she decides not to cause a scandal when she falls pregnant. Instead, she disappears, but no sooner does the politician track her down and the film gets swept away by the melodrama of a soap opera. But what a fine melodrama this is. Capra managed to take the fat out of the story and move through time in great leaps and bounds. This film is full of surprises and never sells out to the moral crusaders of the time. Further more, the characters are human, playful, you feel for them as the story slowly sucks you in until you have no choice but to go along with the melodramatic symphony that plays with your heart and mind.


"Forbidden" is no doubt pure melodrama. Frank Capra, its director expressed in his autobiography, that he " should have stood in bed". Fortunately he didn't because although the story is "soggy and 99.44% pure soap opera", using his own words, it still retains powerful moments and excellent interpretations from its main actors: Barbara Stanwyck and Adolphe Menjou. Their first meeting at a cruise to Havana, with Menjou so drunk that he ends in a wrong cabin (number 66 instead of 99) where Stanwyck, bored and happy to encounter somebody, is one of many moments where Capra's talent is evident. Raplh Bellamy is also fine as the managing editor of a newspaper, where gossip is always welcome. No doubt that this early talkie, with some flaws or doubtful situations, still partially conceals that behind the camera there is one of the masters of cinema: Frank Capra. I clearly recommend not to miss this imperfect but valuable movie.


I kept in mind the technology available to the filmmakers in 1932, and was thoroughly impressed by the tale Capra manages to tell here. Stanwyck's character just needed a little thrill and found it on a boat trip to Havana, beginning a love affair that will test her discretion and tact throughout her life. Like a responsive car, the script follows each turn precisely and truthfully, our heroine responding to each new crisis the way we would hope she does. This is what makes the film so impressive; for such an early picture the characters all ring true and there are undeniable moments of early brilliance - my favorite being Stanwyck gunning down her husband to protect her lover's secret. A lot of Capra's favorite character actors he would use again and again in films to come show up here, making it a nice watch for fans of his work. Despite it's age, 'Forbidden' is still an impressive piece of work.


Are the cab ride early on as Bob tries to convince Lulu that the affair can work. She is near hysterics, inconsolable and bolts the cab on into an absolute deluge of rain. He follows, literally begging her to reconsider. She's adamant, won't be swayed and leaves Bob on a park bench (thoroughly vanquished) in the rain, as it rivets down the bill of his hat and onto his overcoat. And get this: the scene stays tracked as Lulu retreats into the rain and disappears. Capra holds it steady, seconds pass, how many? More than enough for me. Lulu returns out of the mist, returns to Bob and the tragedy advances.

The second scene for me is the scene where Lulu murders her husband (Bellamy) in cold blood. All the frustrations wrought upon Lulu, all the settling, all the denial, all the hatred (for marrying him) is loosed upon Bellamy here. The first two shots (mid chest height) surely kill this man, the fact that Lulu goes ahead and empties the pistol into him to requisite clicks on empty chambers with that look of utter contempt only Stanwyck could display exposes the wounded Lulu in bitter truth.

It reminds one of the ending scene in "The Last Gangster" where Edward G. Robinson stops his adversary's stated vow to ruin Robinson's sons bright future thru scandalous charges. Robinson simply counters this stoic threat with the words: "no you won't" and proceeds to empty a pistol into him.


Very melodramatic soap opera about a lonely small town gal named Lulu (called "old lady four eyes" by a couple of local boys) who longs for romance, so takes her savings and sails for a two-week vacation in Havana. She soon meets a drunken Adolphe Menjou who has ended up in her stateroom by mistake - romance ensues. Now here's the rub - it is quite awhile after she has been seeing this man (and they have fallen in love) that she finds out he has given her a fake name - and is married! A baby, plus many more twists and turns to follow.

Well, this is a well-done film, with absorbing plot - plus Barbara Stanwyck gives a real star performance here as Lulu - acting up a storm, she's just great and really helps make this film a good one. Now, there's some things in this film that seem a little nonsensical or odd to me - Lulu is first seen as a sort of librarian/spinster type - but quickly changes into a smartly dressed, attractive lady when she leaves on her trip, and never changes back (the original plot element abandoned). The wife, described as an "invalid" who Menjou is forced to stay with and care for, is first introduced using a cane (just barely) - but she is at all times seen as completely strong and capable (hardly an invalid). And the biggest thing of all is that I really question some of the decisions and sacrifices Lulu is willing to go through all for the sake of this one man - mainly the fact that she seems so ready, willing, and able to leave her child and abandon her role as the child's mother so extremely easily! All in all, though, I found this to be a fine film, well worth seeing.


(There are Spoilers) Heart wrenchingly effective 1930's tear-jerker that grabs you right from the start and never lets go until the ending credits. With you hoping some way that for once, no matter how corny and unbelievable, that there will be a Hollywood-style happy ending. 25 year-old Barbara Stanwyck plays the young librarian Lulu Smith who just had enough of the dull and boring country life that she's been leading and decides to take her life savings, $1,200.00,and go on a Caribbean cruise.

Meeting this middle-aged man Bob Grover, Adolphe Menjou, when he got his cabin room mixed up with hers Lulu ends up spending her vacation time in Havana with Bob who together paint the town red. Back in the states the two fall madly in love with each other but when it comes to tie the knot Bob has a confession to make to Lulu. The fact is that he's not only married but involved in the states politics where leaving his crippled and loving wife Helen, Dorothy Peterson, would destroy his political career. In one of the most amazing and explosive scenes involving a breakup of a couple Lulu practically throws Bob out of her apartment as he, knowing that he's the guilty party, pleads for forgiveness telling an hurt and outraged Lulu that his door will always be opened to her.

Time marches on as Bob becomes the states elected Attorney General. Lulu alone and almost homeless has Bob's baby, Roberta, whom she at first refuses to see in the maternity ward because the child reminds her of him. Still holding a flame for Lulu Bob tracks her down and finds out that she's alone, living with her and his three year-old daughter Roberta. He then continues his secret and illicit affair with her where at the same time puts on a false face, to the public, that he's a happily married man.

The bottom falls out of both Bob and Lulu's secret relationship when the sleaze-ball editor of that yellow rag "The Record" Al Holland, Ralph Bellamy, spots little Roberta with Lulu. Bob who's political career, for some reason or another, Holland's determined to destroy and smells, with the rat-like instincts that he has, a big and provocative story at Bob Grover's expense. Being told by Lulu, whom the creep secretly has the hots for, that she's the governess of Roberta who's Bob and Helen's adopted daughter Holland go back to his office to get the truth about just who little Reborta is. This has her real mother Lulu, who get a job at the paper as it's lovelorn communists, go check out the mothers background which just happens to be herself!

In the end the you know what hits the fan with Bob, even though he's dying from an incurable and unnamed illness, getting elected governor of the state. Holland whom Lulu married, in order to keep the slime ball from exposing her and her and Bob's 19 year-old daughter Roberta, gets the official hospital records that his wife Lulu is both Roberta's mother and that Bob is her dad. Even more explosive Roberta was the results of an illicit affair between the two! Instead of acting like a normal and feeling human being and keeping it all quite Holland runs out as if his pants were on fire to get the big story to hit the streets, via his paper, that morning. Instead the lowlife creep gets blasted by his now totally hysterical, from him beating her up and about to expose Roberta, wife Lulu.

Really touching final with a dying governor Bob Grover pardoning his lover and mother of his daughter Lulu from a life-sentence, for gunning down Al Holland, and leaving half of his estate in her name. Lulu now old and with her deciding to keep the truth from Roberta, as well as the widowed Mrs. Grover, to herself and alone in the world does whats best for everyone. Not wanting to destroy Bob's reputation, by him being a man who cheated on his wife, Lulu both honorably and unselfishly tears up Bob's hand written last will and testament, throwing it in a city garbage can as he movie ends.

Schmaltzy yet powerful film about a love that wasn't meant to be. In the end it showed those involved in it, Lulu & Bob, that the truth as painful as it would be, like Castor or Cod Liver oil, would have been the best medicine to cure it. The truth in the end would have saved both their lives, and ironically even Bob's wife Helen, from the destruction that was to later engulf them by keeping it a secret.


In the creation of Forbidden Frank Capra candidly admitted that the story was ripped off from Fanny Hurst's Back Street. Too bad he couldn't get to do the real thing.

Forbidden was made at a time when Frank Capra was involved with both Lucille Reyburn who eventually he married and his star Barbara Stanwyck. Capra had just directed Stanwyck in The Miracle Woman and had hopes for this venture which he had the original story idea which was scripted by Jo Swerling.

As for Stanwyck according to a biography about her, she was involved with Capra because of her abusive and jealous first husband Frank Fay who literally terrorized her on the set of his film. I'm sure his presence must have been a distraction.

But I would venture to say that even if things were on an even keel for Stanwyck and Capra, I don't think that would have saved this film. It's melodramatic corn which I think today's audiences would find laughable. Stanwyck plays a spinster librarian who decides to take her savings and splurge them on a cruise to Havana. There she meets Adolphe Menjou who is also on vacation and traveling incognito.

He's looking for a little frolic himself. In this rather frank film before The Code, Menjou hasn't been getting any kanoodling from wife Dorothy Peterson who was injured in an automobile accident. He and Stanwyck have a daughter together and to save his and her reputation, the daughter is adopted by her real father and Peterson.

In the meantime and on the rebound Stanwyck marries her boss on the newspaper she works for, Ralph Bellamy. Bellamy is not in a typical Ralph Bellamy goof role, he's got a streak of jealousy in him as well. It doesn't go really good for anybody.

Everyone tries their best, but the film lays there like a melodramatic lump. Even the best directors turn out a clinker now and then and Capra was learning both his craft and his message at this time.

And juggling two women as well, what a guy.


For a 1932 film, this had a lot of good moments. I thought the scenes with Roberta as a baby were wonderful -- very good direction. But then, it's Frank Capra.

What I couldn't really follow was the point of the first five minutes of the movie. We know she's going on a vacation with her life savings, but why set her up as a small town librarian and then never make reference to that part of her life again in the movie? Seemed unnecessary and a little confusing. And who names their daughter Lulu? But the best part of the movie -- the best worst part -- is how old everybody gets after only about sixteen years. Stanwyck's character is probably only about 40 at the end of the movie, but 40 in 1932 is like 70, clearly, so they pile on the make-up and give her a grey wig. At least she's not wearing a shawl and walking with a cane. She actually carries off those scenes well, and she looks gorgeous. I really enjoyed it.


I love most so-called "Pre-Code" movies. They were called this because during a period before 1935 or so, the Hollywood Production Code either didn't exist or was pretty much ignored. Many Pre-Code films were pretty indistinguishable with later films, but some dared to show nudity, extreme violence, foul language and very "adult" topics--such as adultery or promiscuity. Because of these topics, they are a fascinating window into a little-known period of creative film making. FORBIDDEN is definitely a case of an adult Pre-Code film because its main themes are adultery and an illegitimate baby. This COULD have been an exciting or at least interesting film, but unfortunately it was not. Instead of being titillating or innovative, the film was just dreadfully dull, uninvolving and so melodramatic and campy that I would almost rather eat a live rat than see this film again! It truly was awful and unfortunately--and not even interesting as a sleazy or exploitation film!

The film starred Barbara Stanwyck and Adolph Menjou. Neither one of them was particularly interesting or realistic. As for Barbara, she played a woman with such low self-esteem that she made me want to slap her! She began having a sexual affair with a married man (Menjou) without realizing he was married. Her resulting pregnancy and the revelation that he was a District Attorney COULD have been a great topic, but it wasn't explored in any meaningful way. Instead of Ms. Stanwyck either going on the offensive to get this dog of a man to take responsibility for his actions OR just leaving and starting a new life and considering this a learning experience, she runs away very briefly and then returns to "business as usual". Talk about being a doormat! And then, when they are caught together by the press, Barbara agrees to pretend to be the governess and the baby is brought home to Menjou's wife as their new adopted kid! The plan is for the "governess" to stick around and continue the affair, but when the wife doesn't like Barbara, Ms. Stanwyck just wanders off and leaves the baby in Menjou's care!!! This is MEGA-doormat time and Babs was just too stupid to care about in any way. Plus, Menjou seemed to have no problem stealing away Barbara's child and giving to his wife--what a total creep! So, we now know that Barbara has zero self-esteem and is stupid. Menjou is a faithless jerk. So WHO exactly are we to care about in the film other than the poor child and the wronged wife?!

Now so far the film has been about stupid people, but towards the end it morphs into a phony tear-jerker that just seems totally contrived and silly. Eventually after MANY years of self-sacrifice, Barbara marries newspaperman, Ralph Bellamy. She really doesn't love him, but does this to protect Menjou and her daughter (duh). But, only a short time later, she shoots Bellamy when he learns the truth about the baby and Menjou (who is now the governor). THEN, Menjou becomes ill and pardons Stanwyck after she's already spent a year or so in prison for the murder!!! Talk about a silly, convoluted and impossible to believe mess! This truly was one of Miss Stanwyck's worst films and she deserved so much better. As for Menjou, he later did THE GOLDWYN FOLLIES, which proves that he WAS perfectly suited to acting in FORBIDDEN!

By the way, I noticed that the reviews on IMDb were generally positive for this movie. Considering this was one of the least believable and contrived films I have ever seen, I just don't get it.


This is one of the most beautiful westerns you will ever see. It's a true masterpiece and arguably Corbucci's finest.

Sergio Leone will always be the name everyone associates with spaghetti westerns but Sergio Corbucci's contribution to the genre deserves great recognition. People usually always mention Django and The Great Silence when talking about Corbucci's westerns but Companeros is perhaps his best work.

Companeros is a much lighter film than the aforementioned. Like most Corbucci westerns there is a political undertone to the film and the plot revolves around the Mexican revolution (similar to A Professional Gun which Corbucci directed 2 years earlier). Che Guevara look-a-like Thomas Milian is superb as the comical revolutionary Vasco and Corbucci regular Franco Nero is excellent as his ultra-cool Swedish mercenary partner. Add to the mix a marijuana-smoking psychopath played by Jack Palance and you have one explosive concoction of a western. Pulling all this together is another masterful score by the legendary Ennio Morricone. I guarantee you will still be singing the theme tune a week later!

I rate this as one of the best Westerns of all time. It's a really fun film and an absolute must for fans of the Spaghetti genre.