Poor Cary Grant has he got a problem here. An adolescent girl played by Shirley Temple has developed a king size crush on him. And she's the sister of Judge Myrna Loy who Grant had just appeared before. Judge Myrna already has a low opinion of fast living artist Cary who's got a line for every woman and every situation.

But when Shirley goes to his apartment because Grant fed her a line about modeling for him and Myrna catches them there however innocent, it's big troubles ahead.

However Grant gets a chance to get out of trouble if he can disillusion Shirley about himself. And that's what he has to do in the rest of the Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer.

This film comes from the fertile mind of Sidney Sheldon who also had another bachelor/bobby soxer film in Susan Slept Here. But this one is far superior to Susan Slept Here. Let's just say Grant ends up with the right girl in this one.

Cary Grant does a lot of physical comedy here, almost as much as he does in Arsenic and Old Lace. In some of his films the secret of the comedy is that the sophisticated Cary does a lot of out of character physical comedy that's a couple steps up from the Keystone Kops. The whole scene involving the town picnic with Grant in a three legged race, a potato spoon race, a potato sack race, and finally an obstacle course is funny in and of itself because it's Cary Grant doing it.

Myrna Loy in this film is Nora Charles with a career. And that's a good change for her. She's always a woman with a head on her shoulders and a good brain. But it always seems to be second fiddle to her leading man's intelligence whoever it was. I liked seeing her as a professional career woman here.

Rudy Vallee also carries on in the tradition established for him by Preston Sturges's comedies. He's the District Attorney here, a snooty District Attorney as only Rudy Vallee can be snooty.

Also giving good performances are Ray Collins and Harry Davenport as Loy and Temple's uncles, Johnny Sands as Temple's would be boy friend and the one and only Veda Ann Borg as a brassy dame as only she can be brassy.

One of Cary Grant's best comedies from the Forties.


When Shirley Temple was too old for those little girl films, she was able to play enjoyable Teenagers in some classic roles and probably her best is in this one. She plays "Susan Turner" the sister of "Judge Turner" played by Myrna Loy. Poor Susan seems to fall in love whenever a guest speaker arrives in her high school and the very bachelor "Dick Nugent" Cary Grant ends up with her. Susan is deeply in love with Grant but that begins to become a "love triangle." Grant and Loy are at their best as two grownups falling in love, but trying to deny it because of Susan. This is a fun and fast paced film with characters that you love. The supporting actors are great also lead by "Lt. Tragg, oops I mean Ray Collins" playing Uncle Matt to the Turners. Memorable Dialog catches your interest especially about the one about the "man." It goes like this: "You remind me of a man! What man? The man with the power! What power? The power of whodo! Whodo? You do! What? Remind me of a man! This is one film that you will always enjoy!


This is a thoroughly enjoyable movie, with some classic rantings by Cary Grant. A first rate movie for people of any era and age.


Circumstances force a playboy and artist to date a teenager who has a crush on him. It plays like a situation comedy, which is not surprising because it was written by Sheldon, who would go on to create TV sitcoms. What is surprising is that Sheldon won an Oscar for his screenplay. While it is pleasant enough, it never rises to the level one would expect given the star presence. Grant and Loy are the main attractions here and they do what they can with characters that are not very well drawn. It is described as a screwball comedy but there aren't enough laughs. Perhaps a director like Howard Hawks could have done more with it.


It's a good screwball comedy, but the subject is too sensitive a theme in this age. A movie which has a man dating, albeit reluctantly, a teenager just wouldn't go in today's world.

I was a teenager when this came out and that's not really the way we were either. However, we were used to Hollywood's portrayal of us and just shrugged our shoulders.

Be that as it may, this is a good comedy, somewhat routine but well done and especially well written. Somehow Myrna Loy didn't seem quite right with Cary Grant as she did with William Powell, but that's okay.

The comedy was somewhat sporadic, but the picnic scene is especially hilarious. All in all, a worthwhile movie for those who enjoy screwball comedy.


This movie is good old-fashioned silly fun. I will gladly admit that this isn't one of the deeper or more sophisticated films Cary Grant ever made, but boy is it cute and enjoyable. In other words, if you're looking for a film with a message or something that will change your life, this isn't it.

Cary plays his part very broadly--and is, at times, very immature and goofy. And, it is in these moments that the film is at it's best. Well, anyways, Cary is forced into helping Myrna Loy with her younger sister (Shirley Temple--who is way too young to be Loy's sister). And, although it's pretty easy to anticipate where the movie will end, the journey there is so funny and difficult to predict that it is clearly one of Grant's better comedies. Not as good as ARSENIC AND OLD LACE, but what is?


I was getting tired with this movie in the beginning. Seemed lame, middling and far- fetched for the most part even though I like the cast. I was ready to give up on it. But I bother to make this user comment to let you know that the last third or so was very rewarding, especially the nightclub scene, which is a well written scream


A rather uninspired but harmless enough movie that goes around the world and back again to establish its goofy premise. Even for movies from this time period this one stretches the boundaries of credibility. Cary Grant gets many chances to show off his flair for physical comedy, Shirley Temple is no less grating as a young adult than she was as a child, and Myrna Loy (who I watched this for) is in the movie a lot, but never given very much to do. I've long since decided that Myrna Loy was one of the most underused actresses of her time. I'm still looking for a film that really allows her to strut her stuff ("The Thin Man" is the closest I've come to finding one).

Grant fans will probably enjoy this one because there's really nothing to dislike exactly, but fans of Loy may be disappointed.

Grade: C


Everything about it was awesome. the imagery rivals those of john woo films. the characters were great, and if you are a stereotypical adult that says cartoons are for kids, this will change your mind. you know why cartoon network imports anime (japanimation for you old schoolers)for adult swim, because there aren't that many if any American animated series like this one. this turned out better than many live action series i have seen. drama, humor and action are rolled into this one great series. the characters grow right in front of your eyes. the musical action sequences are some of the most spectacular i have ever seen and heard. American directors wish they were this good. if you no longer watch animation or are looking for something different, Cowboy Bebop is it.


The year is 2071. Earth is now but a wasteland and civilization has expanded to the further reaches of the galaxy. Unfortunately, that means there are also some of the galaxy's most feared criminals. Here's where our heroes come in. Who are our heroes, you ask? A cool as ice bounty hunter, his stoic, but paternal ex-cop partner, a sexy, sensitive con-woman and an odd little hacker named...Edward Wong Hau Peppilu Trilovsky III (A name she--yes, she--has given herself)...oh, and not to forget a little welsh corgi named Ein. This ragtag group of intergalactic misfits are off on an adventure to collect the reward of infamous criminals, with both hilarity and tragedy strewn along the way.

This is the premise of one of the best anime ever created, in a nutshell. Though it doesn't have the serious, dark overtones that typically fill the anime/manga universe, it is certainly is worth a watch. The dialogue is wonderfully witty, the dark overtones are reduced to undertones, and it has one of the best dubs ever recorded. Mary McGlynn, director and voice actress for various anime (Wolf's Rain and Naruto, to name other titles) has selected fantastic anime dubs a good name. The acting really emotes, especially Steve Blum's 'cool cat' performance of Spike. *...sigh...* Oh and the music...oh GOD, the symphony that is the music!!!

CB's music is composed by the legendary Yoko Kanno, who also composed several other big titles. Her emotional pieces are a treat for the ears (check out Wolf's Rain to prove my point) and CB is no exception. The music is as diverse as the multicultural characters that appear in CB. From whizz-bang jazz of the 'Bond' fare to whistling western flutes to acoustic guitar strains to even mid-70's 'blaxploitation' funk, it's all in here...and makes every moment believable.

Overall, the series is not the brooding anime/manga fare, as I have stated before, but a 007-esque romp that could be made into a smashing movie...which, coincidentally is due out 2011...and I PRAY it holds up to the fantastic masterpiece that is Cowboy Bebop.


Rated TV-MA for Violence and Some Sexual Content.

Cowboy Bebop is a 26 episode animated series from Japan.Now to tell you the truth, I am not a really big fan of anime, I like the fairly violent anime films and the original dragon ball series but I am not a big fan of any others...except this one of course.If you are a fan of anime, you must watch this show now! It is amazing! Excellent story,characters,humor,drama etc.The show is basically about three(later four) bounty hunters and them doing their job.There was also a film adaptation of this, which I saw before watching the series.The movie is excellent as well.If you are an anime fan, check this one out.


This is the anime that got me introduced to anime in the first place, and it is stylistically brilliant.

The story takes place in the year 2071 and follows the adventures of the crew aboard the spaceship "Bebop" as they travel the solar system. They are bounty hunters or as the slang of their era refers to them as "Cowboys". Most of the episodes are episodic but there is also a main plot arc running through the series. The "Bebop" crew consist of Spike Spiegel, a former member of the Red Dragon crime syndicate who is haunted by a past love triangle between former syndicate partner ,Vicious, and a mysterious woman named Julia. Faye Valentine, an amnesic, who was awakened from a cryogenic slumber, her past is a mystery but is slowly un raveled during the course of the series, she is also running from Debt collectors after being scammed upon being awakened from her cryogenic state. And the "Bebop" captain and founder Jet Black, a former ISSP officer who was betrayed by his long time partner. They are also joined in their exploits by a computer genius and master hacker from earth known as Edward, a wacky teenage girl, and a welsh corgi named Ein. Each episode usually revolves around the crew hunting down bounty's trying to get enough money in order to survive and to keep the ship going. Meanwhile the plot for each character develops as we find out more about their past.

The show is stylistic, in fact one of the reasons i was drawn to it from the first episode was because of that very stylistic nature. Watching the bar scene I was reminded of Desperado, instantly i was hooked. The show also has a great soundtrack. Thumbs way up


Cowboy Bebop is not just an anime. It's an experience. Most people might say that anime it's just for kids and things like that, but Cowboy Bebop it's life in a different time and place. If you like guns, spaceships and good music, this is for you. A group of Bounty Hunters looking for criminals, that is how you see the series the first time you watch it, but believe me: THIS IS A MUST SEE if you want to feel alive. In this anime, you'll learn about true friendship, love, loneliness, the consequences of the past, and life indeed... not to mention the super packed action scenes. You will never forget the music neither. The soundtrack is awesome and placed exactly within the series. Believe me, If you want to watch something beautifully crafted, meet unforgettable characters, laugh, think about life, cry maybe or just to watch something ULTRA COOL, It's your thing.

See you later, Space Cowboys...


"Cowboy Bebop " was one of the most interesting animated show in the last years . I'm not very much into anime ,but I think that you don't need to be a anime fan to enjoy this show . First of all ,it takes place in a futuristic society ,but with film -noir /contemporary drama elements , and you could appreciate it in the music and the visual elements . The scenery have very much details ,and are very similar to the modern cities like new York . The music it's more than appropriate with many different rhythms ,all adequate with the spirit of the show . The characters are likable and mysterious , and all have a dramatic story behind them . Of course ,there are many funny parts that work very well ,and there are gags that made me laugh a lot . Even when this series it's too short (just 26 episodes) it have very much to offer . Some people consider it the best anime ever made .And it have enough merits to deserve that title .


I'll have to say "Cowboy Bebop" is the anime with the greatest soundtrack ever(from what i've seen so far anyway)...it's all in the music...i just loved it. most anime shows have crappy music,it's not the case here :D. oh yeah, the storyline and characters are awesome as well. You'll fall in love with it from the first episode. Definitely worth watching, especially for the people who like jazz and rock (and not only).

Two thumbs up from me!

See you later space cowboy!

Well, if i think about it Gungrave has a cool soundtrack too...my bad.


Cowboy Bebop is a smart, and fairly complex show compared to many anime series I have seen. It is a good mix of comedy, drama, action and adventure. There are many things that lead me to believe it one of the best anime series of all time.

For one, the characters are well written, and you get to observe as they develop throughout the series. They each have their own distinct personalities, peculiarities and habits. This makes for interesting group dynamics, as they are each out to get something different from their shared experience on the ship. Their dialog is funny and ultimately believable

Secondly, there is the storyline. The plot is most certainly the best part of the show. It alternates between the "main" storyline involving Spike and the others, and the occasional vignette or flashback about a character in particular. The individual episodes work well on their own for the most part, yet as pieces of the whole they complement each other very well.

Third is the fantastic soundtrack. This show was the catalyst for my love affair with jazz music. The series prominently features a very bebop-style jazz song for its opening credits, and uses various other types of the music during the show. The music is so enmeshed in the series that something would be grievously wrong without it. I have heard that the creators of the show wrote the series around the music. The idea makes more and more sense as you progress through the story. Many of the episode names are even old jazz standards, or references to certain artists and albums. To top it all off, much of the music in the show are original compositions.

I recommend this series to anyone in the mood for adventure, excellent characters and a spectacular story all set to some of the best music out there.


"Cowboy Bebop" is one of the best dramas ever made. It's tight -- well-written and smart, with interesting characters and a solid story that unfolds over its 26 episodes. Outstanding direction, acting and music make "Bebop" a classic, exemplifying everything that a good drama should be.

The fact that it's animated has probably kept "Bebop" from getting the audience it deserves. If you're one who has avoided it for this reason, think again. Give Session #5, "Ballad of Fallen Angels," a look. You will find yourself pleasantly surprised.


Cowboy Bebop rocks it. Especially the last episode. After seeing

SPOILER

Spike fall and the credits roll, not only was I sad that the good guys suffered, but that it was over. Believe me, by the first few episodes I was hooked. I've read all the books and god, this is anime at it's best. The soundtrack is also one of the best I've ever heard.


Do you ever find yourself watching a TV show and thinking, "I wish that had been done differently."? Do you ever find that a show which has great characters tends to be a spine, a cover and several hundred pages short of a good story? Not Cowboy Bebop.

Something like this is hard to come by in any medium; books, films, live-action, comics, nothing I've seen has mixed such cool, well-written characters with rich character development and an intricate and complete story. Harry Potter is the only thing I can really think of, but even that let me down a bit in the final book (Ron remembered that Parseltongue? Not likely, JK.).

This show also has a vast variety of episode styles. Some episodes are childish and make you double up laughing while some are bleakly dark and adult, only the characters tell you it must be the same show. And this is the subtle way in which the story develops the characters: by putting them in completely different situations each time, you learn more about the way they feel and react to things. The character's emotions feel so real you sometimes forget it's animated.

It's difficult to pinpoint a real demographic for Bebop because each episode is so different. While I'd say it's an +11 in some episodes, others can be +15. But it's not a kid's show, and it's not for mindless teenagers either. It's a show you need to have a bit of empathy to really understand.

The dialogue is witty and fresh, none of the "Love? That's why you're weak! I'll kill you with one blow!" bull you usually get in an anime series, it's a million times more realistic than that. I personally prefer the English dub, the show seems (IMO) more American than Japanese so I think the American version works better, but both are good.

In most things I find the finale can be slightly disappointing, it leaves you thinking "well, OK, BUT...". Part 1 of a two-parter is usually absolutely brilliant, building up and up and up to something, only to nosedive in part 2 because of some deus ex machina or untied plots or just not reaching the level you thought it would (think Heroes or Doctor Who; even Battlestar Galactica let me down a little). Cowboy Bebop, however, did not disappoint. The story finishes perfectly. It could not have been better.

If you like anime, you have to watch this right now. I can't believe it was 6 years before I finally got around to trying it out. If you don't like anime, you have to watch this right up until episode 5, just so you can honestly say you don't like anime. If you value well-written characters + brilliant plot + intelligence + style and want a can of whoop ass thrown in, you should definitely give this a whirl.


Do you love Music? Or Do you love Western? Or Do you love Space fiction? If you love one of these, you will love Cowboy Bebop.

This is what an anime fan could get after a month worth of prayers. Spike, Faye, Jet, Ed and Ein (Data Dog) are the lead characters. Its about a group of Bounty hunters looking for money, they *almost* succeed in catching the big fishes but never get the money that they deserve. Spike appears to be the central character with a troubled past who joins hand with Jet, a veteran ISSP Cop. Other characters join in over time. Everyone acts on his own and no one expects others to help them in the acts.

There are some episodes that got little to do with the main story but then there are some where the main story eats up even the opening theme. Its a high action and drama anime, Highly recommended for everyone ( including people who quite never loved the "past" and "memory" based anime )

Buy it. Rent it, only if you can't buy it!

For me the movie also turned out to be above expectations. I would rate that little above the series.


This show follows the adventures of 4 different people thrown together by chance on the ship Bebop in the late 21st century. 3 of them are bounty hunters; the wet blanket-esquire ex-cop Jet, the ultra slick former mafia assassin Spike, and the headstrong Fay, a young female anachronism revived from hibernation more than a century after her time. The 4th member is child computer genius Edward, an eccentric girl to say the least. All 4 of these people have a past that confronts them during the course of the series and is resolved.

The series is short, merely 26 episodes, and the story telling is minimalist also (truly post-modern) yet each episode is complete. The way that the characters interact with each other is simple and believable. The animation is exactly what it needs to be, not overly reliant on pyrotechnics nor so bare that it looks incomplete. The action sequences rival anything Hollywood has ever done and the direction leaves nothing to be desired. The visuals of the show have an ultra-modern feel without the sense of lacking one would get from looking at other modern visual art such as an Andy Warhol painting or a skyscraper.

Special attention should be paid to the music, which is in one word incredible. Elements of jazz, blues, rock, and other various types are traceable in the show's score. Imagine Mozart but less rigid, or Wagner but more down-to-earth, and a lot more varied than either.

In summary, this show is simply excellent. Nothing is overdone or incomplete, and the score is brilliant. It is short enough for anyone to get into and interesting enough for anyone to enjoy. Truly what the post-modern movement was trying to accomplish.


SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM is competently made, with atmosphere to spare, but doesn't particularly stand out from this type of film and this, I guess, is one of the reasons why it isn't well known today. It boasts a fine cast, certainly, but they're not really inspired by the material: Atwill is merely a red herring and isn't even the lead character despite his top billing; Gloria Stuart's role is nothing compared to the one she played in THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932), though she does get to sing in this one!; Paul Lukas is an interesting hero: dapper, mature and sporting a heavy Hungarian accent a' la Bela Lugosi!; Edward Arnold's belated entrance, in my opinion, brings the film to life after a rather slow first half. As for the mystery, well, after the tale told by Atwill about what occurred in the Blue Room all those years ago, one expects an explanation by the film's end but this aspect is never properly resolved (nor is the business about the stranger who breaks into the mansion): instead, we get a 'twist' ending which had actually occurred to me as I lay watching the film but had subsequently dismissed as being too obvious! All in all, apart from some stilted dialogue (courtesy of William Hurlbut, who lated wrote BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935]!), SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM is a very entertaining little film which could have been more interestingly developed - but the main thing here is watching these wonderful actors and the Universal house-style in action.


Because it was released by the premier horror studio Universal, focuses on an old castle with a spooky room, and features horror star Lionel Atwill, SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM has been marketed as a horror film throughout the year. It's actually a whodunit with horror elements that influence but never dominate the film. But it would be close-minded to reject this film just because it's not a full-fledged chiller. SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM is an enjoyable film that projects an air of menacing mystery and efficiently moves the plot with a palpable suspense until the movie's resolution.

SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM benefits from attractive sets (leftover from THE OLD DARK HOUSE and FRANKENSTEIN) that convey an ornate yet forbidding castle milieu. Director Kurt Neumann, while no stylist in the James Whale vein, effectively utilizes the setting's atmospheric potential. He provides a suitably eerie aura with taste and restraint, avoiding obvious stunts like self-playing pianos. Such gimmicks would damage the film's mood and credibility.

On the whole, performances are good. The actors and actresses provide believable characterizations that help propel the plot. Particularly impressive are Lionel Atwill as the castle owner troubled by his estate's secrets and Edward Arnold as a detective who handles the castle's mysteries in a domineering, no-nonsense manner. Elizabeth Patterson is mildly annoying as a terrified maid, but fortunately her performance doesn't affect BLUE ROOM's atmosphere.

Curiously, a few of the plot's riddles remain unexplained at the film's end. It would have been logical for Universal to provide a sequel with the same fine cast in order to resolve everything. Instead, the studio chose to remake the film twice with different performers. But BLUE ROOM's minor plot holes shouldn't detract one from enjoying this well-made mystery.


This classic is rarely seen on TV. Old Dark House scenario with a murder mystery to solve. Lionel Atwill, a 1930s Universal Studio staple, is terrific--just mysterious enough to keep you guessing. Elizabeth Patterson does her best Una O'Connor imitation as the frightened old maid type, and the youthful Gloria Stuart sings. Edward Albert is a standout later in the film as the investigator of the mysterious goings on. Due to the short running time, this little thriller catches steam rapidly and comes to a satisfactory conclusion. Remade several times, including once as a musical. This film has terrific atmosphere, due to the relatively elaborate sets, considering the "B" film status.


Three men all in love with the same woman decide to spend the night in the cursed "blue" room where tragedy strikes who ever spends the night. Of course tragedy again strikes and the police are called into solve the crime.

Grand Universal mystery thriller suffers from having been remade both officially and unofficially over the years. The film itself is a remake of an earlier German film so I guess turn about is fair play.

Feeling more like an old friend rather than a griping thriller this film is a good little mystery. Odds are you'll know whats going on, but you won't mind since the cast is the real reason to see this. Paul Lukas is a dashing military man, Lionel Atwill is the owner of the cursed house, Gloria Stewart is the woman in question and Edward Arnold is the detective called in to solve the crime. They are all aided by a strong supporting cast of Universal studio regulars.

This is one to make an effort to see especially if you're a fan of good, if familiar, mysteries.

7 out of 10 due to the passage of time and the multiple remakes.


This film remains one of the gems of Yugoslav cinema  and one of the most under-appreciated. It is a strange mix of horror and comedy, hilarious, bizarre, unsettling and not for everyone's tastes.

The plot kicks off with the narrator explaining that Belgrade cannot yet claim to be a world metropolis. It is, as the calm female voice informs us, missing a vital ingredient: a master criminal! Petty hoodlums aside, Belgrade is about to get the king of criminals: a Strangler (and as the title suggests, not one but two).

The strangler is the overweight, middle-aged Pera Mitic (Tasko Nacic), still living with his mother and earning a meagre living by selling carnations. Tragically, at the time our story is set, carnations are out of fashion and Pera's flowers are often refused by women, sometimes rudely. To get his revenge, Pera begins strangling beautiful women - especially the ones with a dislike for carnations. The futile investigations of the Belgrade police force are led by the competent (but mentally fragile) inspector Ognjen Strahinjic (Nikola Simic). His prime suspect is a dissatisfied youth named Spiridon Kopicl (Srdjan Saper), whose rock band rides the controversy by releasing the hit single 'Come here baby, so I could strangle you'.

As the above paragraph suggests, the plot is utterly ridiculous. However, the movie (and especially the earnest voice-over) is played absolutely straight, giving this film a touch of comedy genius. Moreover, as the increasingly bizarre events unfold, the film takes on a distinctly unsettling path, with the conclusion being almost out and out horror. The laughs are still there, but they take on a slightly nervous quality.

Most of the actors are at the top of their game. Tasko Nacic is funny and at the same time disturbing as the monster-man-child, talking to his customers, his mother and his victims in the same plaintive, whiny voice. Srdjan Saper is not as effective, but adequate as the deeply confused, talented but quite stupid young man. Nikola Simic is absolutely hilarious as the put-upon inspector, growing increasingly more manic and unhinged during the course of the film, often acting far crazier than the supposed madmen he is supposed to be pursuing. Arguably, the standout is Rahela Ferari, who, as Pera's mother, essentially offers a glimpse at what Mrs. Bates might have been like in her livelier days.

This is also one of the only films I have ever seen where a voice-over narration is used effectively. Delivered in a deadly earnest, reporter style voice, the narration manages to add to the overall mood and also provides some of the funniest moments, including the excellent conclusion.

It is difficult to know who to recommend this film to, as I can think of nothing I can compare it with. Maybe if the Monty Python guys decided to remake Psycho the results might have been similar. Or maybe it was a product of its time and place and we will never see anything like it again. Watch it and find out.


When it comes to Serbian (Yugoslavian) horror movies, only masterpieces can be found. They all have unique stories, great actors, excellent camera, good pace and very odd twists in stories.

"Davitelj" have cult status in Serbia. It is a story about real people in real situations. Scariest thing is fact that serial killer can be your neighbor, or you can be killed 'cose you wearing pants and dislike flowers! When you watching "Davitelj" you laugh, then you scream, and so on. And you scream very loud. And laugh too.

The movie that you will watch again and again and again,...

And you'll be infected by very good soundtrack.


Strangler's handling of deadpan, grotesque cruelty and black humour is somewhat similar to the mixture Alex de la Iglesia would perfect in his movies a decade later. The tonal shifts from horror to humour and back again are done well, with only an occasional unevenness, but the film's artificiality (voiceover narration, intertitles, grotesque exaggeration, etc.) may alienate some viewers. Sijan is to be commended for his courage in parodying a genre that has never been too popular with Serbian moviegoers in the first place. Strangler's thematic and stylistic subversiveness was part of the fresh air in Serbian cinema at the time, inspired by the New Wave movement: a wide front of artists and critics based around Belgrade's Student Cultural Center, involved in alternative rock'n'roll, literature, arts and the movies.

The picture was shown at the San Francisco International Film Festival in the mid-'80s, and I was surprised to meet an American poet there who could recite memorable lines from Strangler a full twenty years later (some of them in Serbian!). It is a testament to this film's lasting power which, unfortunately, remains limited only to Serbian filmgoers since an English-dubbed DVD is still nowhere in sight.


What makes city a city? What makes it different than a village? Is it the traffic jam? The people who live there? Or is it something else?

According to this movie, the criminals and gangsters define the city. While London has Jack the Ripper, Belgrade has his "davitelj", i.e. the strangler. That's how begins an interesting movie, "Davitelj protiv davitelja" a mix of comedy and horror. It is a story about a guy, flower seller, who turns into a mad man, and commits a series of crimes. Also, we have a police inspector who is trying to stop him. The inspector is getting a lot of help and "help" from a young rock singer and a girl working in a local radio-station. To make the picture complete, there is also a strangler's mother, a character inspired by the Hitchcock's Psycho.

The movie is amusing, I liked it, but people expecting an exceptional movie, like "Ko to tamo peva" or "Maratonci trce pocasni krug", director's earlier works, will be disappointed.


This movie is so perfect! The story, acting, scenery and general attention to detail are wonderful. Kristin's character is complex, as are the others- there are no flat characters here, no "he's the good guy and he's the bad guy." The plot is also rich and is a refreshing contrast to so many of the predictable, clichéd flicks playing at the mall theaters.

I have to give it a 10. It is flawless and fascinating. If I could, I would give it bonus points for having such unique subject matter, as well. After all, films about medieval Norway don't come out every day- especially not from the perspective of a young, strong, female character.


I really like this film more each time I view it.

One of the rare films I know which takes their time to tell the story ... NO MTV-cut-style-frantic-cutting but lovingly dwelling on faces, persons, landscape etc.

Yes, maybe some of the costumes aren't 100% correct, maybe some parts of the soundtrack do irritate with their loudness, but that to me are minor flaws!

I really think they captured the "big picture" of Kristin's early life and her getting to know Erlend Nikulausson perfectly - in tone at least, even if some smaller episodes of course are missing from the film. And even the odd additions here and there I think do make sense in the context of the film!

I just hope there WILL someday be someone who with equal skill and pacing takes the other two novels to the silver screen too!

In short: one of my favorite films right now!


I don't speak Norwegian..not a single word...but I didn't read half the subtitles of this movie, I was so engrossed in the visuals. When I watched it again, I read the subtitles...and realized that I had understood the entire thing despite the lack of paying attention to language. That said...this movie was stunning. It was quite long, and there were a few bits that dragged a bit, but the good made up for the not-as-good ten times. The photography of the Norwegian landscape is astounding, and the acting is subtle and completely believable. The dialog is more sparse than most movies that I've seen, but adding a single word more would become verbose. This is the story of a young woman in medieval Europe who rebells against what she is expected to do and lives to get what she wants, and deals with the consequences which run deep. (The church-burning scene had me in tears)


A beautifully directed, well acted, and consistently faithful adaptation of the first of Sigrid Undset's Nobel Prize-winning novels about her fourteenth-century fictitious heroine, Kristin Lavransdatter. The movie perfectly captures the genius of the novel(s), the external and internal drama of a young woman's struggle with pride and sin, her rebellion against the good and yet her longing for it. Kristin's religious milieu, sympathetically but not sentimentally portrayed in the movie, forms a powerful backdrop against which this drama plays out. My only regret is that they did not make sequels out of the second and third Lavransdatter novels to complete the trilogy, since, indeed, the ending of the movie and of the first novel leave you hungering for more.


I absolutely agree with your assessment, ladyscarlet18705 and can't for the life of me fathom the low score that this film has garnered.

LIV ULMANN and UNDSET have done a marvelous job adapting the novel to the screen. The script is sensational, melding Middle-Age pagan beliefs with an awareness of supernatural powers lording over men's lives, an awareness of the hold unseen forces have over men's lives.

The actors, esp. ELIZABETH MATHESON in the title role bring an honesty and such transparency in their performances -- the emotions are raw and heartfelt.

SVEN NYKVIST's cinematography is superlative in every sense of the term and it succeeds in making alive even the most inanimate of objects, thus showing us that there may be life in all things. The movie almost seems like a WATERHOUSE painting come alive. It's the height of romanticism for a love story as grand and poignant as the mythical tale of the knight TRISTAN and the maiden ISEULT (ISOLDE).

The most important, of course, is how ULMANN was able to show that each action in time will have its repercussions in the future. Each of these characters are bound by fate, by the will of unseen deities, and to a greater degree -- by their own free will, live down the consequences of their choices in life and here, most of these said choices revolve around emotional attachments to a beloved, attachments that may erode in time. Thus, the core of the relationship between two people is examined, and the betrayals and regrets that come once love is gone and a new one has come to take its place are shown to be part of the cycle, the cycle that is love -- a force as synonymous with birth, healing, and life as it is with destruction.


As an American of Norwegian ancestry I honestly approached this movie with an open mind. I was anxious to see how Norwegians lived in the 13th century. In a love story, it's vital to have actors who have chemistry on screen and make the audience feel their pain at not being able to be together. That did not happen in this movie. I simply could not get past the advanced age of all the actors. Talk about wrinkles! What made it worse was all those close up camera shots! Whoa! Back up the camera or use a filtered lens, please!

The actor who played Kristen's love interest Erlend was 45 years old when the movie was made in 1995. Did people even live that long in the 13th century? Couldn't they find someone more visually appealing like Norwegian actor Dennis Storhoi (The 13th Warrior)? Even Simon, Kristen's betrothed who was cast by the wayside was younger and more appealing than Erlend. I was kind of turned off by the fact that a worn out, middle aged man was pursuing a much younger woman (although she looked about 10 years older than her character's age). I was unable to believe the passion between them because of their huge age difference. In contrast, the actress who played Erlend's former love interest Eline was a very beautiful actress closer in age to Erlend, and she had very little screen time, yet the actress who played Kristen was very, very plain and in virtually every scene. Once I saw Eline on the screen, I could not imagine that Erlend would leave such a beautiful woman for the plain, uninteresting farm girl Kristen. Another strange thing was the creepy grin that Erlend's sidekick Ulv always had on his face. He reminded me of a pervert.

My next complaint is that the story moves along at a snail's pace at three hours. This story could have easily wrapped up in only one hour. It is claimed that at the time this movie was released in Norway, half the country went to see it. I wish I knew how many Norwegian were as disappointed as I after they paid money to see it. While I understand that there are Norwegians who loved this movie and are very proud of their hometown girl, director Liv Ullmann, they are surely a bit biased. They can't expect everyone else to share their passion for this waste of time. Liv claims to have spent one year preparing for this movie. It certainly doesn't show. Maybe she should have spend a bigger part of that year auditioning better actors instead of clearing out the local retirement home at the last minute before everyone died. This was a very disappointing film and watching grass grow may prove to be a faster and more rewarding endeavor if you have a lot of extra time on your hands.


It follows the first book in the trilogy very faithfully. Many scenes were actually just as I had imagined them while reading the books.

The photography is breathtaking and the sets amazing. According to scholars of fourteenth century Norway, the attention to detail in depicting every day life and customs is very authentic.

The costumes are beautiful and the actors, without exception, perfect for the parts. We were riveted!

Buy the DVD with the uncut version and extras. Definitely worthwhile watching more than once... or twice... or thrice....!!!

I hope Liv Ullmann will film the other two books as well. And soon!

Don't miss this remarkable movie.


If I had seen this film before reading the book first, I still would not have liked it very much. However, as I had read the book, I cannot write this review without comparing the two.

Compared to the book, this film was horrible. Not merely because the pace was slow, or because of the pointless changes they made to the plot in places.

No, what ruined it for me was the choice of actors. There is not a one, I think, who completely fit their character, but more so for the main characters. Take Kristin, for example; in the book, she is, at the oldest, about 18. And yet the actress looked 28. Kristin is described as being incredibly beautiful; and yet, the actress was, if not directly ugly, certainly not pretty or attractive in any way. Kristin is supposed to be sweet, innocent and mild of manner--in every way the epitome of the the gentle young virgin. And yet I saw few such characteristics in the way the actress portrayed her.

And Erlend. Erlend was supposed to be handsome, dashing, sweeping her off her feet. The very Romeo to her Juliet. The actor looked retarded half of the time, his mouth hanging open; the other half was nothing special.

And then there are the pointless changes in the other characters. Kristin's bedmate, Ingebjørg (and she was the ONLY bedmate...Helga was very little involved with anything in the book) was supposed to be blonde and very fat. Kristin's father was supposed to be very fair and knightly. Likewise, her almost-fiancé was supposed to be plump and talkative, too. And her sister was supposed to be about 6 years her younger; NOT the same age.

Possibly petty complaints: but actors make the film. Choose actors that cannot play their part, and you have a bad film. It's as simple as that. If you want to adapt a book to the screen, please do so as accurately as possible. Truth be told, I couldn't make myself watch the last half an hour of the film, it was annoying me so much. In the book, in liked Kristin; I had sympathy for her cause. In the film, I did not, at all.


Whether or not you like this movie will probably depend on whether you like seeing movies where the leading characters aren't particularly bright or likable. If you can get past this, you'll probably be a person who would rate this movie higher than a 2.

Kristen seems like a normal and decent sort of person for the first 1/4 of the film. In fact, at times, she physically looks a lot like the director, Liv Ullmann. However, rather inexplicably, she is swept away by a rogue. WHY she loves him exactly is never clear--it just seems like a case of infatuation. BUT, here's where the dumb part of the film occurs. First, despite there being little to base such a strong attraction on, Kirsten sleeps with the man and pledges her life to him--even after she finds out he already has a mistress (who, left her own husband to be with him). Then, despite finding out more and more and more awful things about the guy (he's a real pig), she steadfastly refuses to back away from him---hurting her parents and her fiancé in the process. Think about it--a woman sacrifices everything for a man she barely knows and what so does know about him is really bad stuff!! I hate films about dumb people.

By the way, IF the film had been the same up until she met the jerk and then fell in love with a WORTHY man, then this could have been a wonderful film about a young lady choosing an arranged marriage or listening to her own needs. But, as she is just a horny idiot, this was an opportunity lost.


This film must be the most boring film I've ever seen in my entire life. I'm actually embarrassed to say that I've seen it. It could be used as a substitute for the electrical chair for death sentences. Personally I would feed Liv Ullmann the mastertape together with ketchup and roasted tomatoes.


I found this movie to be interesting and thoughtful, skillfully combining investigative reporting with art criticism and human interest. It was atmospheric and, perhaps most successfully of all, captured something of the allure that draws us to works of art and that then makes some people steal them--the latter a sort of perverse commentary on the intangible something about great art that makes us value it so highly.

By concentrating on the fascination that all the characters in the movie had with these paintings, the movie thus, for me, extended itself beyond the requirements of who stole the goods and how they did it (the theme, after all, of many tedious heist movies) and became an extended meditation on what it means to possess and be possessed by an image. Looked at this way, the movie grows in the imagination long after one or many viewings, and deepens very satisfyingly. Highly recommended.


"Stolen" is a fascinating film: it's partly a thriller, partly a tale of obsession, and partly an unstuffy art history seminar. It's also a portrait of an independent woman of means at the turn of the twentieth century who has strong ideas about what a masterpiece isand how it should be seen by the world. As this absorbing and accomplished film unfolds, from the audacious heist of numerous masterworks from Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, including Vermeer's "The Concert," to the efforts of art detective Harold Smith to find them, the viewer is utterly drawn in. Will the mystery callers come up with hard leads for Smith to follow? Did the Irish Republican Army (IRA) play a role in the theft? Are the stolen paintings closer than we think? Why does Vermeer's art seem to have such power over us? And what does it mean if a beloved work of art is never seen again?

"Stolen" is unfurled through a varied and variable cast of characters: writers, scholars, ex- cons, not quite reliable informants (are they charlatans?), and a loquacious, captivating museum guard. All are eminently watchable as they spin out theories of human nature, the criminal mind, and what compels people to obsess about art. The film is rich on many levels and its weaving together of themes and personas is achieved with style and grace. Will the paintings be found? Will Mrs. Gardner's dream for her personal museum be restored? You'll be eager to see how the film's central mystery is resolved. But "Stolen" also explores many other questions about the nature of art and of life. These you'll likely ponder long after the film ends. After watching "Stolen," you may never look at a piece of art, or a lover of art, the same way again.


I loved Stolen! As someone who tends to shy away from documentaries, Stolen kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time! The Producer and Director did a beautiful job interpreting their very lengthy and detailed investigation on film -- I really got it and I wanted to find the thief myself. It makes you appreciate fine art and the emotions that humans attach to its presence. Stolen plays like a feature, where the suspects and the informants are all characters -- with the sweetness and brilliance of Harold Smith, to the hilariousness of the suspects from abroad -- Stolen is a true "masterpiece". It's no wonder it's been successful all over the country. It engages viewers who are not from the Boston area and deserves all the accolades and kudos it receives. I say, "Well done!".


STOLEN was one of the most disappointing film experiences I've had in a long time, more so because it had so much squandered potential.

The story was intriguing: in 1990, thieves dressed as Boston Police stolen several paintings from the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum, and their heist included "The Concert" by Vermeer, and is considered the most valuable painting ever stolen. If you don't think you're familiar with Vermeer, thing "Girl with a Pearl Earring." The story unfolds with thieves, politics, the mob, and all sorts of shady characters being tracked by a renowned art recovery expert, Harold Smith, a character in himself. And that's not even mentioning Isabella Stewart Gardner and her art museum.

What should have been a fascinating tale was one of the most haphazard and boring documentaries I've seen in years, and reeked of attention deficit disorder, from disorienting and senseless shots, to the sudden direction changes and long silences.

It would touch on elements, and then discard them, and when it did explore them, it was so superficial it was like hearing a good joke told by someone with no timing. And being from Boston, I know elements touched on in the piece that really could have been developed to make it more interesting and coherent.

It really could have been an incredible documentary, but it failed.


Few documentaries about the art world capture the essence of great art, how a painting can hold us rapt, challenge our perceptions, or transform our lives. "Stolen" is the rare film that allows us to linger in the still silence of the museum. As viewers, we feel as though we are truly standing in front of "The Music Lesson," observing the intricately crafted world in the frame and contemplating how the work, so many years later, still connects us to its mysterious creator.

Of course, that painting, along with 11 other works of art, was stolen out of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990. Dreyfus' film investigates this never-solved crime, introducing all manner of quirky and intriguing characters connected to the paintings. Vermeer's work was the crowning point in Gardner's collection, and as we learn more about this fascinating woman, we yearn for its reappearance in the museum. But rather than handing us a linear path back to the recovered art, Dreyfus gives us a profound meditation on the things we value and the losses we inevitably endure.


One of the most famous of all Bugs Bunnies, in which our hero believes he's a shoo-in for a Best Actor Oscar. Behind the comedy is a laceratingly cruel satire.

The film opens with a traditional Voice of God introduction to the Oscars, as our narrator shows us the Hollywood sights before showing us the hotel where the event will take place, the crowds awaiting their favourite stars. Already Hollywood, the entity, the myth is reduced to a series of recognisable signs - the Hollywood Bowl, the Troccadero, the Chinese Restaurant etc.; the stars who exist only as their popular image, cemented in a ghostly pair of feet on some footpath.

Bugs is convinced that he will win because he can do impressions of all the stars. This is a stunningly versatile monologue as Bugs mocks everyone from Jimmy Cagney to Bing Crosby, but surely it's an insolence to think that mere mimicry can be as worthy as a great performance? But Bugs' point is precisely this - the Awards pretentiously think that they are rewarding high art, when these great actors are locked in stereotype and received image. They are the sums of their persona. Bugs IS greater than them because he can do an impression of Cagney AND Crosby; they can only do impressions of themselves. A list of Oscar winners from the period proves Bugs unerringly right (MRS. MINIVER, according to Oscar, is a far greater film than CITIZEN KANE.)

As a further treat we are shown a clip from Bugs' LITTLE HAIWATHA, in which a bathing Bugs realises that he is about to become rabbit-meat for a placid Indian/Elmer Fudd. This remarkable clip, stunningly self-reflexive about Hollywood ideology and racism, reveals Bugs' true worth, but for the Academy to reward him would be to admit their own worthlessness and fraudulence. So they stone him. He is awarded, however, the first Raspberry, moulded in his own image, which comes to life and kisses him. This is Hollywood's ultimate insult, but it's eventual proof of Bugs' superiority, his versatility, his embracing of fragmentation and metamorphosis at the expense of rigid, conservative, stereotypical, wholeness.

As animation, the short isn't as fleet-footed, violent or versatile as the great Tex Avery masterpieces, but there's a belligerent gaudiness of colour that suits the subject admirably.


This is a very good Bugs Bunny episode which is banned because it has some racial references to Native Americans. I have seen this in other things which have not been banned, so I personally think it was rather silly to ban this. And anyway, in those days, people did not realise it was racist, they thought it was all right, but now we realize that shorts like this (which include a great deal of others which are way more racist) can insult other cultures. Personally I am very much agaisnt rascism, but I can watch it in an old cartoon.

Aside from all this chatter, "What's Cookin' Doc" is a clever, hilarious and well-animated episode. It also includes some old live-action clips of Hollywood (because of this I recommend this short to people who are interested in history). A voice announces the viewers to enter the place where Oscars will be awarded. We go in and the scene turns to cartoon. Bugs Bunny waits excitedly behind a curtain, absolutely certain that he will win the Oscar. When it is awarded to James Cagney, Bugs Bunny is shocked and insulted. He immediately shows the watching crowd something he has starred in, which is a short short film about him and Hiawatha (the racist part). What I find very interesting is that the rabbit we meet first has more modern animation, the type in Robert Clampett Bugs Bunny shorts and in the short film with Hiawatha, Bugs Bunny is done in his older animation. Personally I prefer the first style of animation to Bugs. Will Bugs win the Oscar..?

I recommend this to anyone who does not mind rascism (at all) in a cartoon and people who love Bugs Bunny. Enjoy "What's Cookin' Doc?"! :-)


I found this cartoon under the heading "banned cartoons" on Youtube. Now if it's true that Warner Brothers DID pull this from circulation because it might be seen as culturally insensitive, then the people responsible for this are total idiots. While SOME older cartoons are truly insulting and awful in how they depict minorities (particularly awful films featuring the character "Black Sambo"), this one can only be seen as insulting to someone so devoid of a sense of humor and so politically correct that practically nothing is funny to them and everything is offensive. Sure, this is an Indian (the American-type, not the Apu-type) in the cartoon, but he's the basic Bugs Bunny foil--nothing more and nothing less. Does this mean that ANY depiction of Indians is forbidden in cartoons unless they are Earth-loving and noble like the film POCAHONTAS--which, by the way, was highly inaccurate and silly in how it portrayed the natives.

As for the cartoon itself, I saw this one several times over the years and it's a darn clever one that features an obnoxious Bugs Bunny trying to convince the Oscar people (A.M.P.A.S., by the way) to give him the award for Best Actor. While I wasn't thrilled with its use of a clip from a previous film, the odd style where Bugs appears in the real world with real people is pretty interesting and worth a look.

Don't believe the hypersensitive. This is a good cartoon and it probably won't offend the average sane viewer.


Bob Clampett's 'What's Cookin', Doc?' is a brilliant cartoon with one major flaw. The premise here is that Bugs Bunny is attending the Oscars, confident that he will win a statuette for best performance. When the honour is instead bestowed upon James Cagney, Bugs blows his top and attempts to convince the voters to change their mind by showing a clip of one of his previous performances. This is where the problem comes in. Up to this point, 'What's Cookin', Doc?' has been a cartoon bursting with Clampett's trademark energy. The clip Bugs shows to the audience, however, is a poorly chosen extract from Friz Freleng's 'Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt' in which very little happens. While this perverse choice was likely an in-joke of some kind, the segment from Freleng's cartoon severely slows 'What's Cookin', Doc?' down.

This little niggle aside, 'What's Cookin', Doc?' is a marvellous short. After the success of Chuck Jones's one character Daffy Duck cartoon 'Duck Amuck', a few attempts were made to create a solo vehicle for Bugs, resulting in the lacklustre 'Rabbit Rampage' and 'Baton Bunny'. This was entirely unnecessary since Clampett had already made the great one-bunny show with 'What's Cookin', Doc?'. While other characters are seen in silhouette or heard off screen, Bugs carries the bulk of 'What's Cookin', Doc?' entirely by himself with a remarkably energetic, shape-shifting performance. He impersonates Hollywood stars and pantomimes various acting styles, he shifts from smug, laidback nonchalance to disbelieving, ego-driven frenzy. Clampett makes this all characteristically beautiful. Bugs looks amazing here and snaps from one pose to another with breathtaking smoothness. Clampett tosses in a few of his trademark dirty gags too, one of which is the closing joke of the cartoon. 'What's Cookin', Doc?' is, in part, a masterpiece but its partial brilliance makes the unfortunate interruption from Freleng's uneventful excerpt positively infuriating.


Bugs Bunny thinks he's gonna win the 'best actor' oscar but is snubbed in favor of James Cagney. He tries to convince the audience of his point while doing some impressions and showing a clip from Haiwatha's Rabbit Hunt.

Self-indulgent to the extend and not a funny moment in this 8 minute short. It may try to make some points on Hollywood and the Oscars, as a previous reviewer stated, but what it really tries to say is unclear.

The movie is banned from tv nowadays because of some racist-related links and impressions, but nothing to get too excited about.

Dull. 3/10.


Who else but Franco Zeffirelli could make what is the best opera movie ever? He has made several of them. After all, his productions at La Scala in the '50s catapulted that opera house once again to reign among the world's best, and preceded his move into film making. Known for lush period costume dramas, Zeffirelli surely doesn't disappoint in that department. In fact, visually, LA TRAVIATA ranks among his best work. Controversial innovations, luxurious locations, and superb casting make LA TRAVIATA even more unique. His editing down of several (repetitive) arias, and visual depiction of many of the arias' contents through flashbacks caused much controversy in Europe where I first saw it in its 1982 premiere. However, the controversy was generated by opera purists, since from a purely artistic viewpoint, not to mention a strictly cinematic one, LA TRAVIATA has never been so well expressed, in fact no opera has. The cinematic enhancements and cutting a few minutes off the running time to make the work more accessible only made opera more attractive to all. The beautiful actual locations of the Seine, old Paris, the French countryside, and opulent palaces are a treat to watch as the wonderful music, conducted by the Met's legendary James Levine is played. Neither is pushed back to the background. Both elements blend into an unforgettable whole. If one wants to see pure opera, one can buy several versions of LA TRAVIATA especially filmed live at an opera house, and watch the musicians in the orchestra pit play, the conductor's gestures, and hear the superb voices of the usually out of character (physically and age-wise) singers on stage. The performances are usually longer as many arias are repeated several times, something film can avoid through its unique advantages. In this case the performance on film runs 1 hour 45 minutes, without the elimination of any arias (just avoiding the repetition described above). In contrast, the opera house experience, including two intermissions usually runs twice that length, if not longer. This version of LA TRAVIATA is not only fine movie-making, but showcases the superb voices and musical excellence of the best of the classical recordings. With the sublime Teresa Stratas in the title role, and the now legendary Placido Domingo as her love interest, one cannot ask for better leads. They are also of believable age, and display great chemistry together. The young Domingo's fiery Latin emotions with his imposing looks, and the very slender and also young Stratas' passionate interpretation (especially in her facial gestures) are totally convincing and captivating, as are, needless to say, their vocal talents, among the greatest of the century. Added touches such as subtle shots focusing on the period's social customs, and a knock-out ballet sequence in a party scene are among the final master touches to this unique production. One simply cannot compare, say, the "classical" version released two years later featuring Dame Joan Sutherland (possibly the greatest soprano ever, but at the end of her incredible career)and Luciano Pavorotti (to whom comparable comments also apply). But two extremely overweight leads pushing sixty portraying young lovers obviously lend a different perspective of this great opera. Placido Domingo and Zeffirelli have since made more opera movies, and they are all excellent. But here, Domingo is in his prime, and looks the part. (He has obviously aged as consequent opera films were made, up to ten years later in fact.) And Zeffirelli here is still at the stage designing grand opera productions around the world, while still in his creative prime as a film maker. As for Stratas, her Violeta (la traviata, the woman led stray) is, for me, the highlight of many highlights. She combines compelling acting, unforgettable vocal agility, and (almost unheard of in opera) a very thin, attractive physique. It is almost to good to be true. Many viewers who are not opera buffs do in fact think she is a dramatic actress dubbed by a great soprano. An incredible package indeed, and this applies to the entire production. Definitely a 10. Someone should put pressure on Universal (who is still selling the same 16 year old video) to restore this gem, and re-release it on video and DVD. I just bought another VHS, and was disappointed it was still the original version. With DVD's growth, I'm sure that will soon change if it isn't already happening. Don't miss it in any version you can get your hands on.


What glorious music! What Glorious singing! A story bigger than life. Production values that do justice to Verdi's opera. This is grand opera at its grandest. In a scale from 1 to 19, this is a 20.

Generally in opera, the singing is the thing. One puts up with elephantine singers, make believe props, bad acting, and other shortcomings to enjoy the music, and especially, the singing. In this film, none of this annoyances takes place. Teresa Stratas looks beautiful as Violeta should. She sings gloriously as Teresa should. Ditto with Placido Domingo. Unlike some opera singers, both of them can act. The sets are sumptuous, the lighting excellent, the cinematography nonpareil. The direction and editing propel the story without flagging for any moment. This film is as close to perfection as humans can achieve.


A filmed version of Guiseppe Verdi's opera. It's about a love affair between beautiful Violetta Valery (Teresa Stratas) and Alfredo Germont (Placido Domingo). Their love for each other is torn apart by his father--but she still loves him. It all leads to a tragic end.

I saw this in a theatre back in 1982. They tried to play it like an opera. When I walked in the screen was covered by a red curtain (back in those days some of the older theaters still had curtains). As the lights went down the curtain parted and the film began. When the film ended, the curtains pulled back together and the lights came up. My audience applauded even after the lights were up. It gave the feeling of being at a live opera. That can't be recreated at your home but this film is still well worth seeing.

Director Franco Zeffirelli wisely did not film the opera as it is staged. He opened it up--this was set up for a film. Sequences take place outside and the inside sets are way too elaborate for an actual opera.

The costumes are beautiful and the sets are just stunning--full of color and light. Every moment of this picture is filled with beautiful imagery. It matches perfectly with the singing and the music which are just incredible. There's even a show-stopping matador dance half-way through! I've never seen the opera but I've heard this is very faithful and Stratas and Domingo have beautiful voices and also can act! The only negative here is that Domingo is way too old for his role...but that can be forgiven whenever he sings.

This was actually a sizable hit back in 1982. The same team got together a few years later and filmed "Othello". Surprisingly that was TERRIBLE and is a textbook example of how NOT to do an opera! But this one is just great and a must-see. I give it a 10.


A path of education...

Art of high achievement influences many eternally and profoundly. Maybe he was not as accomplished as his good old dad, Alexandra Dumas Fils made his own work a classic household name which is well-remembered and appreciated.

I first heard about "Cha Fa Nui" (Camille) from the mouth of my mother when I was still an upper primary school girl. To a young Chinese girl, this meant nothing at all but I went to the public library and found that there were many copies with this title translated by Taiwanese. I never finished reading it because the names are too long and the Chinese is too literary, I was bored to death by it. The only thing I remembered was that it was a French novel. Dropped, the book, but not the name.

A few years later in the early 80's, Franco Zeffirelli's operatic movie with Chinese title as "Cha Fa Nui" was on show in one and only one movie house, "Palace" at Causeway Bay (demolished!). At that time, this prestigious cinema showed mostly western movies of big names like Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Dr. Zhivago and so "La Traviata" was one of them.

Hong Kong Chinese were then not very familiar with Western culture, the cinema staff had even misplaced Plácido Domingo's name as "Domingo Plácido" on the billboard. I, as a teenager, was a little intimidated by the movie house by its reputation and grandeur. Yet, out of curiosity, in those fearless, carefree and innocent days, imitating the adults with good taste, I bought a ticket to see this movie. And it was a WOW, what an eye-opening experience!

The vision, the music, the powerful opera singing, the acting and the poetic cinematography, the wondrous costumes and hairdo, it was an educational adventure to a young life. (So, until now I still don't understand how come the man at one row before me could be sleeping and snoring so annoyingly while his girlfriend/wife/sister was staring hard on the screen without moving her head.) Everything is unforgettable about this movie. The happy time of the lovers that Violetta once fell off into a shallow brook from the narrow wood plank. The histrionic and comical fit of Alfredo when he was struggle to open that fateful letter from Violetta. And the most excruciating of all, I can still feel the deafening horror that the deserted and seriously ill Violetta was standing desertedly in the cruelly empty and stripped big house, letting out piercing shriek of pain.

The subsequent episode is an educational search for me: I looked for abridged version of "Cha Fa Nui" in English "Camille" and found out that the names of the original protagonists were Marguerite Gautier and Armand Duval but not those in the operatic adaptation as Violetta Valery and Alfredo Germont. Furthermore, the book inspired Giuseppe Verdi first to make it into an opera but not Franco Zeffirelli's movie.

And five years later, I learned some French and so, dared to touched the original "La Dame aux Camélias". Later, I learnt from an Italian lady that the name of Verdi's opera "La Traviata" was derived from an Italian verb "traviare" which means "to mislead", "to lead astray", or "to corrupt". Thus, a "corrupted man" is a "traviato" and so "the fallen woman" or "the corrupted woman" is "La Traviata". And the book has inspired every generation's film-makers or TV producers, so far there are more than forty adaptations. Well, well, well, what a job all through the years.

What's more interesting, I once read from an oddly-enough page about the Brits' Prince Charles. It is reported that his favourite opera is "La Traviata", and my eyebrows arched. Of course, his loved one is named "Camilla", and strictly speaking by royal standard, she is a "fallen" (committed adultery + divorced) woman.


Verdi outdid himself when he penned La Traviata. The cast of singers for this production is superb. The cinematography is appropriately both beautiful and colorful, particularly at the Villa outside Paris.

Stratas is excellent and poignant as Violetta. Domingo makes a most passionate Alfredo. Cornell MacNeil is a splendid Giorgio Germont. Alan Monk is a fine Baron. The cinematography is particularly fine.

All in all this is one of the finest productions of La Traviata ever.

I believe that I have it on both laser disc and DVD.


Director Franco Zefferelli, Stars Placido Domingo, Teresa Stratas, Cornell McNeil, Conductor James Levine and the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, 1982 The forces behind this masterpiece are responsible for its greatness- Italian director and designer Franco Zefferelli, tenor Placido Domingo, soprano Teresa Stratas and baritone Cornell McNeil. The singers are at the top of their game, Domingo is a young, sexy Alfredo and Teresa Stratas IS Violetta Valery in a performance that even Maria Callas would envy. Zefferelli, who has long claimed he had a friendship with her and in truth he had been behind various opera productions of hers, had Maria Callas in mind when he cast Teresa Stratas. Like Callas, Stratas has a Greek background through her parents though she was Canadian born, has similar looks, has the same type of dramatic voice and she is in Zefferelli's own words "an electrifying actress and soprano of the lyric entertainment". The Callas connection is most obvious when Stratas appears in a black veiled gown in Act 2 at Flora's party where even her hair is similar to Callas' infamous 50's performances.

Released in 1982, Zefferelli sought to "convert" people into opera lovers through the lush visual seduction of the cinema. This is exactly what he did. The cinematography of this film kills you with excessive beauty. The opening credits roll as we see scenes of Paris in the Notre Dame Cathedral area and surrounding residential district by the Seine river. The interior of Violetta Valery's mansion, where she hosts the Act 1 party, is luxurious and Zefferelli allows us to be dizzied with the sheer opulence of the house- gilded mirrors, portraits of Violetta, curtains, chandeliers etc. Visually on film we are able to tell things about the characters that stage performances do not, for example as the guests depart from Act 1's party, an old woman steals a silver box from Violetta proving to us that Violetta is not among real friends, these are only fair-weathered friends and bad ones at that. They were not even there for her when she was dying in the finale. Also noteworthy is the cruel trick one has to catch on early on. Violetta and Alfredo are never reunited, as in the opera, but instead his return is a hallucination and she dies alone in her apartment.

The beginning of the film has Violetta reminiscing about the better days as a desirable and wealthy courtesan who partied all the time. She is deathly ill and already her house is sold and men are moving her things out. The country scenes are incredibly beautiful as Violetta and Alfredo live happily in seclusion. Alfredo rides his horse and Violetta picks flowers for her greenhouse and feeds her white doves in their big cage. Cornell McNeil's bombastic but fatherly Giorgio Germont is a great support to the refined performances of Domingo and Stratas. The Flora's party scene is exceptional with even more visual beauty as Gypsies and bullfighters dance seductively and professional gamblers enjoy themselves. The closing ensemble is not to be missed and neither is the melancholy and tragic ending. This is the greatest and ultimate version of La Traviata ever made. It is a must have for opera fans and for curious non-opera lovers.


If one considers the love stories of all times, beside the undeniable classics by greatest playwrights, inevitably comes to mind the name of Alexandre Dumas (fils) who, in 1852, wrote a novel THE LADY OF THE CAMELLIAS. Since then, the endless love story set in the 19th century Paris has inspired both opera writers and movie directors. Consequently, the power of the tale embedded in the libretto by Francesco Maria Piave prompted opera maestro Giuseppe Verdi to write one of his most famous operas LA TRAVIATA basing his content entirely on the story about a deathly ill courtesan who, though does not have long to live due to tuberculosis, finds the true love of her life. What came out was a greatly successful work where only characters were renamed but where the audiences were provided with something special and timeless: glorious music.

However, lots of modern viewers skip those classics easily reducing their knowledge to films only. More to say, the commercial nature of cinema hardly promotes any of this high rank entertainment. As a result, the question appears: is it possible to captivate, amaze and enthuse a pop corn generation's viewer with the staff of this sort? The Italian director Franco Zeffirelli managed to prove it possible through this production with some of his personal "additions" and, most importantly, with the magnificent leads: marvelous tenor Placido Domingo and astounding soprano Teresa Stratas. Though LA TRAVIATA has been staged and filmed several times so far, this version occurs to be the best one. Why?

The first aspect that addresses the viewers, both opera buffs and modern genres' lovers, the aspect that highlights the very core of their emotions and experiences, are the visuals of the movie. From the very credits with the view of the Notre Dame Cathedral and the surroundings of the Seine River when the sounds of larks and pigeons mix with the sounds of crows, it all appears to be, as if, a moving work of art that you look at in perfect admiration and astonishment. The wardrobes together with sets and decorations of interiors are stunning to the very essence of visual feast. This effort taken in providing the viewer with vision's awe is magnificently executed throughout. There are plenty of moments one could enumerate praising their pearls and uniqueness but for me, personally, there are two sequences of greatest interest: the lavish party as a flashback of Violetta's delirious mind and her visit to the countryside where the nature seems to praise the sincere love as no one and nothing else. This goes with sublime music by Verdi, which is practically much more memorable for the viewers and their enthusiasm for the entire work of art. Opera is promoted by modern means. Therefore, some of the commentators are right saying "paradoxically" that this is an opera movie for people who hate opera.

Besides, the whole cast fit very well to their roles. This refers both to the lead I have mentioned before as well as to the supporting cast. Placido Domingo as Alfredo Germont and Teresa Stratas as Violetta Valery were a perfect choice for the couple because of their attractiveness and the desirable chemistry. Cornell McNeil is excellent as Giorgio Germont the authoritative parent who, supposedly, cares for his son's future. The three memorably reach the "top notch" performances at the end when emotions are riding to the highest degrees... The supporting male and female roles, including a bunch of beautiful young maidens are easily recognizable and leave a personal impression in viewers.

So to say, LA TRAVIATA is a true work of art, a mysteriously beautiful and subtly exquisite screen work that anyone should see. Referring to the words of Vincent Canby in New York Times who called this film "triumph" and found it "dazzling," I heartily recommend this masterpiece! Perhaps one of the greatest operas of all times and one of the very best productions by Franco Zeffirelli.


This version of the famous tearjerker La Traviata was just wonderful from beginning to end. The cinematography was stunning, and just as luscious were the costumes and locations, especially the villa outside Paris. The music by Verdi is just superb, no wonder it is one of the most performed operas today, from the prelude of Act 1, Brindisi(which I am sure everybody knows even if they're not into opera), Sempre Libra, to the heart-rending ending, it is just delightful, and is bound to bring tears to people's eyes like it did to me. The plot, based on the book by Alexandre Dumas Junior, is not too complicated and easy to follow. The performances are astonishing. Placido Domingo, not only looks the part of Alfredo, but sang and acted a dream, easily up there with Alfredo Krauss, as one of the best tenors playing that particular character. Teresa Stratus was perfection as Violetta. I did worry that her performance was going to leave me cold, but her beautiful voice and outstanding acting ability equalled a real tearjerker of a performance, that was poignant and understated. Cornell MacNeill is not a name I am familiar with, but he certainly shone as Germont, with a fine baritone voice, and good stage presence. Overall, a perfect opera film, that is a real tearjerker. 10/10 Bethany Cox


I remember reading the book Jewels a long time ago. I was going through a Danielle Steel faze and fell in love with this book.

So I was thrilled when they made a movie about it.

I have to admit, I loved the first part of the movie best. The romance between Sarah and William was my favorite part in the book and in the movie.

My other favorite aspect of the movie was Anthony Andrews as William. I love this actor, ever since I saw him as a kid in two movies I loved, Ivanhoe and The Scarlett Pimpernel. Casting him in the role of William Whitfield lent the TV melodrama a real sense of legitimacy. He is a great actor, and the perfect choice to play the Duke. Not only is he devastatingly handsome, he has a great sense of humor. You first saw it in The Scarlet Pimpernel, and was very important for this movie.

I say that hesitantly though because I have to say that I was very disappointed that almost all of the humor shared between William and Sarah was taken out of the movie. I remember when I read the book, I had tears rolling down my cheeks because I was laughing so hard. And I was horrified to hear only one or two lines from the book shared between both characters.

While I loved Anthony Andrews as William, I was not as certain about the actress playing Sarah. I like Annette O'Toole, I really do, but I didn't in this movie. I felt her acting was too over the top in some scenes and she was described much differently in the book and maybe I was too influenced by that description to really enjoy the performance. I found Annette's shaking her head from side to side to be too distracting.

Like the book, I lost interest during the Nazi invasion, and there was another major change. In the book, the character of Philip actually loved the character of Joachim Von Mannheim, the Nazi who had taken over the château during the war, but in the movie, he hated him.

The rest of the story involving the children interested me even less. With the exception of the brothers all being cute, the last part of the movie was very boring. Typical spoiled brats all making huge mistakes, hurting their mother.

Spoiler:

The ending was the dumbest I have ever seen for a miniseries. The idea that Julian would associate not only with his brother, but his ex-wife, who left Julian for Philip, and gave him their son, without caring a thing about it was ludicrous. There was the whole family, at a christening, including Philip and Julian's ex-wife, standing next to her son, and everyone is happily smiling at one another. Please!

This ending did not happen in the book, and I was very disappointed by it.

This is really the Jewel in the crown of all Danielle Steel novels made into a TV movie. But for anyone who read the book and loved it like me, there are some big disappointments.

Still a good watch, very romantic in many places.


I really love this show - mainly due to the brilliant acting of Anthony Andrews who I believe was cast perfectly for this role. He played the role of the charming William perfectly... in my opinion his performance really makes Jewels a success. I liked Annette O'Toole also, but found her performance a little grating - especially in the labour scene which I thought was a little over the top. I preferred the first half of the series to the second half. I think that it turned into a bit of a soap opera to me with all their wayward children and their love lives :) I could watch the first half where William and Sarah first meet over and over though. Anthony's performance makes Jewels worth watching.


i am in love with this movie, it is the best, granted its long and some parts are long and tedius and not needed but its amazing, the love between sarah and william is amazing, everytime i watch it, i am astounded by the passion the film. i love robert wagners appearence in the end as well, that chemistry is great too. all in all its great..i will always watch this movie and think how wonderful it is an how wonderful the storyline is. I love the actors in the film, i never have seen annette otoole in anything until this, and she is an amazing actress. and anthony andrews is great too. all of them are absolutly a joy to see on screen. i will always watch this.


And I know that I'll be the only one... but this is from my favorite Comic Book writer (Stan Lee) and is an interesting show to watch... even after the Premiere! Fat Momma cracks me up, Cell Phone Girl scares me, and all the other heroes in training have something about them that makes you love them. The only problem I have with this is that some of the heroes are actors or actresses... so they have already been on TV... they should have gone with the American Idol approach and made it average people that you can find on the streets. In conclusion, I love this show and hopes it gets more a few more seasons. If you appreciate Stan Lee's work and have 6 free weeks, watch this show and you will be pleasantly surprised. I am disappointed that the third place finisher got eliminated though...


Let's face it, reality TV is anything but. They, typically, are the lowest denominator of television and entertainment. There are exceptions to this, of course. Mostly these shows run more as talent shows than as anything else, though (such as American Idol, Fight For Fame and Last Comic Standing), but beyond them there are very few that can even count themselves as decent, let alone good. Somehow this show, with it's costumed heroes, dynamic rescuers and dark avengers, is a far more real show than those "reality" shows that are more fake than most scripted entertainment.

As I have said, this show has heart. There is a soul to it, a morality. This is epitomized in Stan Lee's statement to The Iron Enforcer, "Superheroes don't kill people, they save them". Every elimination thus far has not been one of popularity, appearance or even of ability. It's been about choices, about the core of the person's being and the choices that they made. The Toy Man was eliminated for his shallow vanity and greed, while Nitro G was eliminated for his callous dis-concern for the little girl he was supposed to save.

To watch this show is a rare joy. I can't remember the last time that I laughed so hard. To watch these ordinary people live out their deepest fantasy is an absolute sight to behold. To watch them play the part of the hero, to be what they've always idolized, is actually inspiring, and nothing so much that the costume doesn't make them how they are. It merely draws attention to them and their acts.

Any one of these people would make excellent superheroes. Even the two I felt were the most ridiculous ideas (Fat Momma and Cell Phone Girl) have made me think twice about them after seeing them both in action. Major Victory portrays a powerful old-school hero persona, The Iron Enforcer shows a very dark Modern hero (His comments about deploying himself into Iraq struck a chord) and Monkey Girl, despite her laughable name, has a tenderness about her that rips at a person's heart.

People who will like this show will be fans of superheroes first and foremost. It doesn't matter what denomination of hero you belong to (Bat Man, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman, Green Lanturn, etc...), you will enjoy this show and the fantasy that anybody can be a super-hero. Also, fans of reality TV should also enjoy this show, being one itself.

But, like I said, this show has heart. And on TV today, this is a very very rare treat to behold.


The only thing that keeps me from giving this show a ten is the fact that some of the contestants on the show are already actors. I think the chosen contestants should have been pure comic book geeks who really wanted to be a superhero and featured in a comic book, not just actors looking for a gig. I do love the show though, and it's great entertainment! The challenges are appropriate to the show's format, and I think it's cute how the "contestants" rarely break character. It also gives that superhero "feel" that Stan Lee never appears in person, just on a television screen. I also like the interesting plot twists and surprises I've seen so far!


Well the first time I saw this my first thought was... "Oh god no...". But as I watched it, it slowly became quite enjoyable. Even though I do feel like Stan's philosophies are a tad outdated and his idea of what a superhero is can get a bit one-dimensional, his challenges on the show do seem to bring out the best and worst qualities in the contestants. I really liked a lot of the twists and elimination results as the show progressed. The challenges too were original and entertaining. I found Stan's performance as a paternalistic guiding host very enjoyable. The contestants too just seem like really nice and entertaining people (although some of them are a bit dorky, or obviously trying to score some acting points on their resumes, and half of them probably wouldn't make the cut for narcissistic reality shows like A. Idol or Real World). I think the only part I didn't like (aside from the corniness, bad music, "reality" acting, and weirdness of the cast.) about the show was the costume remake. Sci-fi should have spent a bit more money on those costumes. It really says something that some of the originals looked better than what was given to them on the show. It gives the production values a real blow when you can't even afford a decent costume designer.

Don't get me wrong though I liked the show, saw most of it in one night when Sci-Fi aired a bunch of episodes straight. (um... don't ask me why I was watching sci-fi... I um... was channel surfing)


*this comment may contain spoilers*

Who wants to be a superhero is a reality show that seems to be far from reality. I saw a few ads for the show and was mildly interested but never actually got around to watch it. Then while being stuck and bored in my hotel I decided to give it a try. I loved it.

I like superheroes so I was interested of course, but you don't have to to like the show. Stan challenges the type of person they are on the inside. Sometimes it can be very goofy and funny and other times you feel for the characters. It surprised me, and I couldn't stop talking about it. The eliminations are based off of what happens and not on appearance or popularity ,it's real, unlike many other reality shows. My mother watched one episode with me after I told her about it and now she can't wait for the new episode. It may look weird but it's a good show.


If you're turned off by the backbiting and Macchiavellian manipulation on such shows as Survivor or Big Brother, but the idea of a group of people competing for a big prize appeals to you, then you really should try this program. Hosted by comic book legend Stan Lee, this show challenges people to behave like superheroes.

Of course, there's much more to "behaving like superheroes" than dressing up in a colorful spandex costume and going into death-defying missions to save the day. That part just makes the contest fun. The tasks presented actually challenge the contestants, and in turn us in the audience, to be better people: courageous, kind, honest, helpful, attentive, friendly, cooperative, decisive, and willing to face our fears and become community leaders. Contestants actually score points (so to speak) for helping each other to perform better! Nearly every episode I've seen thus far has had some little lesson I could apply in my own life to make myself a better person.

Whatever "cheese" the show has, whether you consider it fun or not, that is what good drama, whether scripted or true-life, really should be about.


Stan Lee was the host of this show and that alone is enough reason to pay homage to it.

The best thing about this reality show is that people don't vote each other off. The producers vote them off. Other reality shows where they vote each other off is pretty unfair at times. In this they are judged on how much they live up to the characteristics of a superhero.

Many people auditioned but the finalist were: Fat Momma, Feedback, Levity, MonkeyWoman, Iron Enforcer, Lemuria, Tyveculus, Major victory, Creature, Feedback.

Its no secret that most the people on this show are actors. But theses days in Hollywood, who isn't? It doesn't make it more staged. This show is definitely a must see.


Like a lot of reality shows that I intend to stay far away from, Who Wants to Be a Superhero sucked me in like a Hoover last season. At times, it was like watching a horrific scene, trying not to look. At others, it was genuinely sweet, and had an admittedly good message.

After watching Feedback cry and hearing about Major Victory's history as a stripper in almost every episode last year, I didn't think I could stomach another season.

And again, I was wrong.

It's hard not to be drawn to this show, simply for the curiosity of watching grown people act serious in sparkly capes and tights. Add in the ridiculous challenges and Stan Lee's deep analysis of their every move, and you've got attention-grabbing TV.

You got to get a load of Mr. Mitzvah and The Parthenon and...Well, all of them. It's kind of endearing to watch these guys so earnestly vie for first place while chasing imaginary bad guys and saving planted characters around the city.

I can't think of what would make this show better, but if the finale is as sweet as last season's, it'll be worth following this one.


At first I winced when I heard this show has the tag-line of banality, namely "A Sci-Fi Channel Original". Yet when I saw the concept I had hope. When I saw Stan Lee, comic book guru and personal idol that he is, would be involved, I knew I had to check out this show! However, despite some interesting facets, the stench of "Sci-Fi Channel Original" still has managed to permeate this show.

Stan Lee is unquestionably the high point. He has a great presence on screen and adds drama. He also is THE person to be in such a show. The other potential high point of this show is (or at least would have been) is the entertainment value of seeing people express their creativity and dress up as their fantasy super-hero creations!

This is where it falls flat. Instead of multiple NEW super-hero candidates each week, it appears we are stuck with the SAME dwindling group of heroes in the typical reality-show "vote 'em off" formula. Seeing new heroes and new personalities could have been quite amusing for some time to come. I can't imagine the appeal in seeing the SAME characters in new and lame reality-show style competitions and being overly melodramatic at the end when someone gets voted off.

Another serious problem with this show is that it appears to be overly contrived. I could not believe in any of these characters. They seemed scripted and unreal parodies. Most of the contestants are established actors.

Sorry - but even the legend of Stan Lee can't quite rescue this show from the "Sci-Fi Original" tag of low quality programming. If the creators had dared to be ORIGINAL in concept and not follow the tired, banal, worn-out reality show format, they might have had a show which was at least very amusing and humorous.


When I watched this movie, I steeled myself for a traumatic experience, based on every review I'd ever read of it, which usually include phrases like "don't watch this if you're suicidal." Instead, if I had to pick a single word to sum up the movie I saw, it would probably be 'beautiful'.

Certainly it was sad, and arguably depressing, but I've read this movie compared with 'Saving Private Ryan'. That's ridiculous. 'Grave of the Fireflies' is gentle and poetic more often than it's violent, and it's remarkably restrained in its anti-war message. It simply tells a story : there's very little at all in the way of moralizing or polemics. Why would a story like this need such heavy-handed tactics?

I've also read it argued that the movie is robbed of any suspense or impact when it's revealed in the opening scene that the main characters are dead. I have a quite different view of that device.

Firstly. the beginning of 'Fireflies' is, for all intents and purposes, a 'happy ending'. This is such a non-linear plot development that you could fail to notice it, and thereby only see the movie's gloom. The moment where the ghostly Seita takes the ghostly Setsuko's hand and nods to her is not only a happy moment, it signifies that the suffering - which is yet to come, as far as the viewer is concerned - is over, and they are together again (albeit still without parents).

As for a character revealing that he is dead in the first line of the movie, this is a device which has been used in centuries if not Milena. The crucial thing here is that 'Fireflies' isn't _about_ tension. It tells a story whose ultimate conclusion you already know (a legitimate narrative approach), and everything which happens during that story is emotionally infused with a foreknowledge of its ending. You find yourself hoping that things will go right now for Setsuko and Seita, and then the knowledge that ultimately it won't undercuts you with real emotional power. You know the characters are going to die, but you hope things won't be so bad in the meantime. It doesn't take much of an effort to make that an analogy for our own lives, which makes us all fireflies.

Perhaps what might make someone feel disappointed or cheated by this film is simply that it's so damn honest. I mean that: it's one of the most honest, artifice-free movies I've ever seen. It doesn't even really try to ram an anti-war message down your throat there is very little overt violence, and if there are some scenes of corpses and suffering, it's never gratuitous, and it's over quickly. Compare this with 'Private Ryan', where you have to suffer through 40 minutes of the most horrific blood and guts, only to reach a conclusion which, after much blood and thunder, signifies very little.

'Fireflies', OTOH, has far more beauty than gore. This is what really surprised me about it. Probably two thirds of the movie takes place in gorgeously drawn, tranquil rural or urban settings, with an almost pleasant dreamlike quality - even when the American bombers are flying overhead at one point there is a surreal, almost serene sense to it - and there are plenty of moments of happiness to offset the undeniably sadness and frustration of other scenes.

Perhaps best of all, Setsuko is one of the very, very few (if not the only) animated 4 year-old I've ever seen who actually _behaves_ like a four year old. I'm so sick of seeing preternaturally smart, sassy, sophisticated and precocious children in Hollywood movies. Setsuko's emotion and behaviors are _exactly_ right for a completely normal four year-old, and recognizing this lends many scenes incredible poignancy. Similarly, Seita is a teenage boy who behaves with the sort of mixture of pride, compassion and hubris which you'd expect of someone his age. He still believes that Japan will win the war he thinks it's up to him to take care of his sister with their mother gone and father who knows where. This leads him to make mistakes: possibly the most obvious one being where he fails to take the farmer's advice, swallow his pride and ask his nasty aunt to take them back in again. You would probably have to say his decision not to even try - to go it alone instead, was a very bad one, but - hello, people - here is a character who makes mistakes because he's actually human: a believable teenage boy in an extraordinary situation, who doesn't miraculously save the day, because his best judgment just isn't good enough.

Of course, his aunt may well have knocked them back anyway. Who knows?

Don't go into the film expecting tension, drama or even a tirade against war. It's a movie about the beauty and fragility of life and youth. If you think Japanese animation is all giant robots and superhuman schoolgirls, this could be the film which changes your mind. It's slow, poetic, beautiful and sad, and extraordinarily honest.

I must be the only person who didn't cry during this film (and I mean, I get choked up during some Disney movies). Yes, it is sad, but its beauty and honesty is what I'll remember.

NB: this review refers to the subtitled version of the film.