Trio of stories--a popular movie gimmick in the 1950s--linked by an ocean-liner and three disparate characters on-board. James Mason is intense and snarling as a demanding ballet impresario who falls for ill-fated ballerina Moira Shearer, who, unbeknownst to him, is suffering from a bad ticker; Leslie Caron plays governess to ungrateful brat Ricky Nelson, both magically touched by the powers of Ethel Barrymore, reputed to be a witch; Kirk Douglas (as Pierre!) is a former star of the trapeze who trains suicidal Pier Angeli to be his new partner under the Big Top. The first two episodes are hurt by a weak narrative (the protagonists appear to recall information they should not be privy to), while the last chapter is hurt by miscasting (neither Douglas nor Angeli looks quite comfortable doing these gymnastic moves). However, the M-G-M production gloss is in peak form, and the picture looks good enough to eat. After a lengthy credits sequence (illustrated with the silhouette of a tree branch!), the color visuals take over, as if in a dream, and the effect is hypnotic. Not so the dialogue, which is heavy on the melodramatic flourish (Agnes Moorehead to the doctor: "Paula must dance or she will die!", to which the doctor replies gravely, "If she does...she will!"). Douglas is so mercurial in his angst that he's amusing unintentionally, while sullen Angeli is made up to look like a corpse in a silent movie. Still, one is drawn into this sumptuous bag of tricks almost against his will, and the overall results are fun for '50s connoisseurs. *** from ****


This user-comment stands as my last personal homage to director Bruno Mattei, who sadly passed away just a few weeks ago. Even though certainly wasn't the world's best horror director (he's often even referred to as the Italian Ed Wood), but his movies never failed to entertain me, and you could always tell he had great intentions. "Hell of the Living Dead" and "Rats: Nights of Terror", for example, are both terrible, yet they form essential viewing for fans of Italian horror cinema. Mattei supposedly died from a brain tumor, but after seeing "Cannibal Ferox 3", I'm beginning to suspect Arnold Swcharzenegger and John McTiernan killed him for exaggeratedly imitating their masterwork "Predator". I've seen a lot of (Italian) rip-offs of cinematic milestones, but there never was any film that shamelessly borrowed so many key-elements from one movie and repeated them blatantly. Every single memorable sequence from "Predator" is copied here (from the skinned corpses hanging upside down from trees to the mistaken killing of a wild boar instead of the enemy) and even most of the dialogs are literally re-used. (" ain't got time to bleed"). Actually, all Bruno Mattei did was replace the intergalactic hunter with a tribe of native Cannibals, and that's it! A team of heavily trained soldiers is sent into the jungle to locate and rescue a Western girl who's supposedly captured by a cannibalistic tribe. The tribe considers her to be some sort of Goddess, so even if the squad can get her out of there, the cannibals aren't likely to give up without a fight. The script also steals elements from a handful of other movies ("Aliens", "Cannibal Holocaust" ) but if you've seen "Predator", you're always several steps ahead of the screenplay. The action sequences are poorly done and there's only a disappointingly small amount of gory make-up effects to enjoy. Acting performances are weak and the total lack of sleaze is unforgivable. Cindy Jelic Matic stripped off all her clothes in "Mondo Cannibale" (which was shot back-to-back with this one), so the least she could do was show some ravishing flesh here as well. Oh well, at least these recent cannibal-exploitation movies don't feature any gratuitous animal killings, I suppose. Unfortunately, I can't give any praise to Bruno Mattei regarding this film, as it really sucks, but at least he kept the Italian horror industry running till the day he died. He directed no less than fifteen movies since the new millennium and I think all his fans should see them! Call it some kind of paying your last respects


I saw about 50 different Cannibal films. Italians cannibal films are definitely the best. And it seems like the returning of cannibals genre, really. Bruno Mattei made some really cool thrash films. And their colaboration in Dominican Republic with Aristide Massachessi was also great. With lack of money they did interesting films and found a lot of smart decisions in film-making . I really loved the special effects in this film, they show the real Italian gore old school. The story is classic, I can say! The group of call guys with arms in Amazon jungles fighting against different cannibal armies. The actors remind of Strike Commando days. So this is the last I could find from late 21st century Mattei. Great director he still managed to all the filmings in Philippines. I decided to find all the works by Mattei recently. www.myspace.com/neizvest


Ripping off big budget American films was a common practice for Italian filmmakers in the seventies and eighties with the likes of The Exorcist, Dirty Harry and Jaws being 'reinvented' several times by a host of names, which often included Bruno Mattei. By 2003, cheap exploitation cinema had become less popular in Italy; but Bruno Mattei was still making movies and apparently he didn't see any reason to stop this often practiced tradition of ripping off American movies, and saw fit to reinvent John McTiernan's Predator and splice it together with another popular American export, the cannibal movie, and what we have as the result is this film. Land of Death takes place, as you would expect, in the Amazon jungle and as was the case with Predator; we focus on a group of soldiers that have to go into the jungle on a rescue mission. They have to rescue a general's daughter who has been kidnapped by a cannibal tribe who, fascinated by her blonde hair, believe her to be some sort of goddess.

Most of the Italian rip-offs released during the seventies and eighties were a bit more subtle than this film. The order of the day was usually to rip a film off thematically and basically spin a new story around the idea used in the successful American film. But Mattei apparently couldn't be bothered to go through the time consuming process of thinking up an idea and writing a script; so what we get instead is just a re-run of Predator. And I mean that literally; whole lines of dialogue are taken, scenes are stolen almost frame for frame, the characters are the same etc. In fact if it wasn't for the fact that there is no alien, this could be a frame for frame remake of Predator (although it's more along the same lines as the fan made version of Indiana Jones quality-wise than Gus Van Sant's Psycho!). Basically, if you've seen Predator, you will know exactly what to expect here and to be honest there's not much point watching unless you're only there to see just how badly McTiernan's film has been stolen from. Mattei does at least give us some gore...but to be honest, this is shameful stuff.


Roy Rogers movies tend to be pretty lightweight, at least the ones I've been able to see within memory.

But Roy Rogers himself is endearing.

I think it was while watching "Dark Command," the John Wayne movie (though Claire Trevor gets first billing, for some reason), that I first realized Roy Rogers was really an excellent actor.

It is likely that he rose to such prominence mostly because of his winning personality and good looks, rather than the movie plots, but in studying Western movie history, I learned that when he was given his chance to be the star of his own series, he set out to be good at his job. For example, he took riding lessons, and in my opinion was one of the best riders, certainly among those who hadn't been riders since childhood (such as John Wayne and Gary Cooper).

And even late in life, he was still a good singer, having been a great one earlier.

This movie gave us Rogers in really good form: He got to do just about everything he was good at, singing, riding, and acting.

I was rather bored in the beginning, but by golly this movie takes off and becomes downright exciting.

Of course, there is a great cast, with the Sons of the Pioneers getting to stand out, and stunts and action by the great Fred Graham.

Each cast member is memorable, and I highly recommend this to everyone. Those who enjoy Hollywood history especially should watch and pay attention to the individuals performing. You'll find it fun and educational.


Swimming Pool is a first rate film from French genius François Ozon. This thriller makes best use of everything that makes cinema great, and it is therefore a delight to view. Swimming Pool follows Sarah Morton, a British author that travels to her publisher's dream home in France in order to have a rest while she works on her new book. However, her tranquillity is soon disturbed when her publisher's daughter; a sex-crazed, good time girl, turns up out of the blue and turns Morton's rest into something quite different. One criticism that could be, and has been, made of this film is that not a lot a lot happens. That, however, depends on your viewpoint; the action is stretched, but the relaxed tone of the film blends magnificently with the beautiful French scenery, and Ozon's attention to detail with the characters ensures that, although slow, Swimming Pool never descends into boredom and there's always something on offer for it's audience to enjoy. I, personally, was completely entranced from start to finish.

The casting of Charlotte Rampling as the uptight British novelist really was an inspired move. She's absolutely brilliant in the role, and you can't imagine anyone else playing that character to such a degree. Speaking of great casting choices, Ludivine Sagnier is similarly brilliant as Rampling's sexy co-star. She brings just the right amount of insecurity and lustfulness to her role, and it's not hard to see why Ozon continues to cast her in his movies. The film is very melodramatic, but never overacted; and this is a testament to the quality of acting on display. Swimming Pool benefits implicitly from a haunting soundtrack, which perfectly accents the happenings on screen, and certain points in the movie where the soundtrack is used are truly electrifying. François Ozon is truly one of cinema's greatest assets at the moment. This is only my second taste of his work (the hilariously fabulous 'Sitcom' being the other), and if his backlog and future releases match the quality of the two films I've seen from him so far; he may well become one of cinema's all time greats.


Makers of erotic thrillers need to be careful, as that is a genre that, if not handled carefully, can quickly fall prey to silliness and excess (think "Fatal Attraction"). "Swimming Pool" is a thriller in the style of "The Deep End," and more than once I was struck by similarities between the two in their respective tones and reliance on water as a recurring visual motif. Also, both films have a middle-aged female as the protagonist who becomes involved in covering up for the actions of a child (in "The Deep End" a literal child, in "Swimming Pool" a figurative one). Also, both films are completely unpredictable. Neither goes the direction in which the viewer thinks it's going to. However, "Swimming Pool" is much more abstract, and its ending leaves you wanting to watch the whole thing over immediately with an entirely different perspective on the action. This gimmick always makes for a memorable ending in movies that employ it, but too often it makes the rest of the movie seem somewhat pale in comparison, and this is the case here. "Swimming Pool" plays tricks with your perceptions, but the finale to which the film builds seems somewhat anti-climactic when it finally comes.

It's a leisurely paced film, and you'll need to have patience with it. You'll also need to have patience with the main character, played by Charlotte Rampling. Rampling gives a fine performance, but her character is really unlikable (intentionally so), and it's always a liability for any story that focuses almost solely on one person to make that person unlikable, or at least sympathetic.

"Swimming Pool," though billed as an erotic thriller, is really about the creative process (I think), and I won't say anymore about that because to do so will give away the ending. It's an interesting idea, imperfectly executed.

Grade: B


First of all: I like this type of film very much! I was surprised by many comments that talk about a 'foreign film'. As if films from other countries than the USA should have to prove themselves extra... No way! On the contrary! Living in Europe, this isn't a foreign film for me! I was brought up in the sixties, and enjoyed the film-noir genre, the character movies, the French and Italian philosophical movies, the black-and-white films, the films made by the actors, the director and the plot together. So, Swimming Pool is a film that makes me sit on the point of my chair for more than 1 hour and a half. It is an intriguing story, the entire atmosphere is inviting, makes you feel good and being with Sarah/Charlotte all at once. The interference with Sarah and Julie is ambiguous. The continuing layer of lesbian love lays upon their relation, no matter what they do to each other in the beginning of the story. It's a kind of hidden suspense... Ludivine (who plays Julie) is a beautiful, well shaped young girl, with a marvelous body, but even Charlotte Rampling is outspoken and gave herself to the film and to the director, Francois Ozon. A great movie. Just absorb what you see...


Swimming Pool contained good symbolism, acting, and especially great cinematography. The movie was really too slow for me for the first 70 mintues, however, and I kept wondering, what is the point of painting us a pictures of this dour and unhappy author's interactions with a lustful irresponsible bratty young woman? Although I admired the character portrayal and felt the movie visually artistic and even brilliant at times, I was not emotionally invested in Sarah Morton enough nor in Julie's to care. However, the ending changed all of that.

*** SPOILERS BELOW!***

The twist at the end reminded me of Fight Club and and Sixth Sense, where all of a sudden the viewer realizes he percieved everything through the wrong lens. When the twist reveals that the Julie we've seen never existed, all of a sudden everything in the story takes a deeper meaning and we can appreciate all the time it took to create a detailed character study of Sarah Morton.

I really enjoyed how literate this movie was, the symbolism very well constructed. It's funny how people either critisize or praise all the nudity and sexuality common in European film, however here nudity and sexuality were intrinsically necessary because they were such a crucial component underlying the mechanics of Sarah Morton's personality. She was so repressed! I really liked how Julie's appetite for sex, rich food, and swimming in the "dirty" pool was a mirror for just how badly Sarah lacked all of these things. I especially loved the scenes where Sarah eats yogurt and wheat germ. Here we have a woman, who although she is super wealthy and can afford any type of food, instead chooses to deprieve herself of such a basic source of pleasure as eating appetizing food.

It is a nice contradiction that Sarah is very wealthy on the outside yet starving (for good food, sexuality, a zest for living, creativity) on the inside. This movie further gives evidence to the fact that fame and wealth are not a guarantee of genuine happiness in life.

The ending to this film made it all worthwhile, however and it is very exciting when we feel we need a 2nd viewing of a movie to really absorb it all. I will watch it again and who knows? I might not find the first 70 minutes too slow after all.


The Sara Morton character is sick and tired of writing her stock-in-trade serial books, and wishes for inspiration for something NEW. She says so to her publisher, who wants to keep her writing them, and offers her a stay at his French villa for a rest and change of scenery.

Sara goes to the villa. We then see several scenes of just how much she enjoys the solitude, the sun, the quiet, the food. She breathes in deeply that fresh air, so different from the London cloudy skies, nameless crowds in the subways etc. that she came from. *** The sensuality of the landscape, the climate, even the pool, put her in a frame of mind different from the bored, fatigued frame of mind she had in London.*** (This is the key to the movie).

And, so, inspiration to write something a bit different does come: She starts writing another book, combining bits and pieces of given facts and given characters: The daughter that her publisher mentioned, appears in her manuscript as "Julie". All her attributes and behavior come from Sara's inspiration-"Julie" never actually comes to the villa. The rest is just how the book develops-and since she is an experienced writer of murder mysteries, a murder is written in too. She finishes the book, gets it published by a new publisher, takes it to her old publisher as an "I'll show you!", and this is where we see that she has never really met the daughter: A young girl with braces walks in, not recognizing Sara. That is the real-life daughter.

One scene that is quite telling of where reality stops and her inspiration starts is that of Franck-the local waiter, cleaning leaves from the pool with the net, wearing a tiny bathing suit, before he stands over the sunbathing, sleeping "Julie". The camera goes slowly over his body and his obvious arousal, in close-up-not the way he could be seen from where Sara was standing, looking out at the pool. That is BEFORE he is shown arriving at the villa with "Julie".

Well, the waiter is initially shown briefly serving Sara a drink in the village, and that's all he does. He doesn't work at the villa cleaning the pool-that is old Marcel's job. There is no other explanation about Franck suddenly being at the villa cleaning the pool, other than "that's how Sara wove the local waiter into her book".


You can see at the end that it is actually the one person who is seeing herself in two roles while she is in France - one as a nymphomaniac, fun-loving, rebellious girl that she has lost and the other, stronger personality of a frustrated, rejected, bitter woman. By the end of the movie, she has rediscovered herself as a combination of these two parts and can move on from her lover/publisher, one that will never leave his family, and start fresh as a whole woman. I think the symbolism of the murdered man is killing the man that likes the stronger personality, but cannot resist the temptation of a younger girl - just like her editor lover who cannot leave his wife but will indulge in side affairs. Killing him is getting rid of him from her life and allowing her to move on - which she does at the end when she moves to a new publisher. The daughter allowing her to write the mother's book is her giving herself permission to write about her own pain and rejection. This all comes together at the end when you meet the real daughter - the symbolism still keeps me thinking of each scene and what it actually meant.


I first saw this film on HBO in 2005 and now own it. HBO and others continue to run it. It is a very mature, engrossing film with a metaphorical plot. From the opening credits it immediately begs for your attention and once it has you in its grasp, you will find you cannot escape. A successful author of a series of mystery novels but bored with her work, Charlotte Rampling goes to the south of France for looking for fresh ideas for a new book, begins down one avenue and then changes direction. The location, photography and performances are exceptional as is the set design, replete with elegant simplicity that flows past your eyes. You are drawn in so well you can taste the wine and feel the pool's water flowing around you. The actors, especially Rampling and the actress who plays Julie, are impeccable. The Swimming Pool is a totally wonderful experience. Dive in!


I first saw the trailer for this film at Fredddy vs. Jason back in '03 and me and my friend were in hysterics at how lame it looked. He recently bought me the film on DVD as a 'joke' birthday present but ironically now sits proudly on my DVD shelf as one of my favourite films.

Although very slow moving it is beautifully shot and the soundtrack is fantastic. The characters are brilliant and the acting is flawless. It gets more complex in the second half and is quite difficult to understand the twists in the plot. It draws you in right from the very start and doesn't let you go until the end.


This film owes a great deal of gratitude to the second collaboration between Francois Ozon and his leading lady, Charlotte Rampling. They ought to team up more.

As with the previous film, Under the Sand, this is an enigmatic piece of cinema. This film, I believe, has more to do with Sarah Morton's imagination than with the actual story presented to us. There are so many hidden clues within the story that everyone will have a different take in what is presented in the film and what the actual reality is.

Francois Ozon is not a boring director. He will always present an interesting story, fully developed, with many twists to get his viewer into going in different directions trying to interpret it all.

Charlotte Rampling is magnificent as Sarah Morton, the repressed author of mystery novels. Ludivine Sagnier is very good as the mysterious Julie, the alleged daughter of Sarah's publisher, but now, is she really that person?

The ending will baffle the viewer. This is a film that will stay and haunt one's mind for days.


... Ozon lets us see his characters directly; and then through the mind of Charlotte Rampling's (as author) character. Two strands apply - the direct-to-Ozon's mind, and the indirect, via Rampling. And there the fun begins. We glimpse a gawky, immature, teeth-in-bands teenager (blonde) towards the end of the movie - Morton (the publisher's) daughter. But who has this blonde (Ludivine Sagnier) - who has she been? And how did she get to be in the house/novel/movie at all? Well now, let me see ... we learn at the beginning that Morton's daughter might well drop-in on the writer - as she is only borrowing Morton's house in the Luberon area of Provence. We 'accept' an idea of the incumbent blonde in all probability as that spoken of daughter. But she seems like a 15-year-old going on 35!!! She has an amazing amount of baggage for such a seemingly young girl. And she gets into such torrid, bizarre, and ghastly gargantuan fixes - all seem too improbable. The mix-and-match mode - as strand crosses strand, weaving a rich texture of reality versus illusion, fiction versus fact, and dream versus daylight - the enjoyment being in the management (in each viewer's mind) of the strands, understanding when the author's fiction is being played-out across the screen; and when we are back again inside the movie-director's mind (as opposed to one of his character's i.e the novelist). The local people encountered in the Luberon quickly become assimilated into Rampling's novel - their more outmodish acts being inventions of the novelist's mind (but being re-played inside an Ozon movie). And characters we might think are kith and kin of the 'real' people we encounter, are in fact nothing but kin to the fine imaginings of the typing hand. Ludivine Sagnier being the case in point - and she a cruel joke against Morton's dismissive inattentions towards our writerly heroine. The gawky, tooth-banded teenager has, in all likelihood, been in Provence all along - and in the projection of the novelist's mind - fashioned into a femme-fatale that makes the LuDIVINE we see on our screens, (and as the central protagonist of the Rampling novel, were it at hand to be read)!


This is a really fine film, by turns cultured, frightening and erotic. It's a thriller woven from the tension in the relationship between the dried up author Sarah and the nymphomaniacal publisher's daughter Julie with whom she is forced to share a villa in the Sud.

Ozon has made it so much more though. It is also an erotic drama, Sarah forced to confront herself in the cast-off wake of Julie's promiscuity. The women's tacit sexual comparisons are also played out in a series of Oedipal symbols and exchanges Most striking is a gash of a red lilo that sits menacingly and yet enticingly by the pool throughout; the men that Julie brings back to the house are also pawn-like, less sexual partners than bargaining chips between the two women.

Further ghostly references are thrown into the mix with the circumstances not dissimilar to Henry James' The Turn of The Screw and a shocking allusion to Nick Roeg's Don't Look Now as the drama mounts. As much as the drama is maintained in beautifully constructed shots and careful control of the tension and pacing this film's success must be the overwhelming performance of Rampling as Sarah. It's difficult to condense one's thoughts on the studiousness, allure and sacrifice that make up a contribution as convincing as this. Sagnier's brattish but sharp Julie is no less committed and role-immersed. Mesmerising film-making 8.5/10


In London, the successful and weird middle-age writer of police and mystery novels Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling) is passing through a phase of lack of inspiration. Her publisher John Bosload (Charles Dance) invites her to spend some summertime days in his house in a small town in France, where there is inclusive a swimming pool. He also suggests her to make the experience of writing about a different theme. Sarah accepts the invitation and travels to the wonderful and lonely place. A few days later, she starts writing again, but her quiet rest is shaken with the unexpected arrival of Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), the sexy daughter of John. From that moment on, reality and dream blends in Sarah's world. I did not dislike this movie, but I believe it is indeed an excellent idea, wasted in a very disappointing conclusion. There are many unexplained subplots and the story is completely open to the most different interpretations, and of course I have mine. But without reading any information or clue from the writer and director François Ozon about his real intention, it is impossible to give a precise clarification. Europeans usually like this type of story, but in this situation, the film does not give necessary hints about the real intention of the plot, and the viewer can speculate only. Charlotte Rampling has a magnificent interpretation, Ludivine Sagnier has a very erotic performance, but to become an excellent film, many clarifications are missing. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Swimming Pool: À Beira da Piscina' (`Swimming Pool: On the Edge of the Swimming Pool')


Swimming Pool (2003)

Alluring and Deceptive, Beautifully Compact

All I had repeatedly heard before recently viewing Francois Ozon's Swimming Pool is that the lead actress, Ludivine Sagnier, was searingly sexy. Well, if that's what you want in a movie, you might agree. But it lowered my expectations, nearly to the point of not watching it. In the end, Sagnier's character, whatever her physique, is mostly coy and bratty, and her nudity, in France, around her own very private swimming pool, shouldn't really be an issue-- except maybe for the viewer. For me, there was sometimes a mismatch in my head between watching the actress and watching the character, and if this is a flaw in some movies, here, in some basic way, it ties into the intention. At least, that's how I had to look at it to give it a chance.

This is an odd starting point for watching a movie, for sure, but it is Sagnier's brazen outwardness that makes the more complex role played by Charlotte Rampling take on some interest. How else to portray the theme of a woman who uses her body and her confidence to seduce the other characters in front of an older woman who wishes she could do the same? Swimming Pool really isn't about sex, but it absolutely is about the appearances that lead to sex--of being sexy, to put it a little stupidly--and Rampling increasingly takes on the role of viewer within her own character, and I think she ends up as perplexed as we do. All to good effect.

The minimal plot is about the failure by a successful novelist to see alluring from allusion, fact from fantasy. It's about storytelling, fiction, and ultimately fear of failure. The reconstruction of the past becomes the inner confusion in the mind of the main character, a charming and effective Rampling playing a novelist who was once, by all suggestion, the very seductress suggested by the younger woman.

This is certainly a film worth watching to give it your own take. For some it will seem willfully confusing to the point of manipulation--the viewer is fooled and taken for a ride, and it feels a little confusing for the sake of confusion. For others it will seem endlessly mysterious and clever, even if requiring a kind of blindness to certain narrative conflicts (which may or may not be logically resolved by the end--I watched parts a second time to check). Right from the start there is an ingenious mismatch of facts that you start to brush off, and when things develop in ways I don't dare suggest for fear of ruining things, these clues grow in meaning. It will certainly be great for discussion, heated or not, and that's a sign (for me) of a good experience, though not necessarily a superior movie.

It is notable how economical the filming is--the setting is limited, the characters few, the range of situations reasonable and not requiring trickery or effects. And it comes down to Rampling, above all, holding the psychology together. It shows how little you need to take a good plot idea and flesh it out, sexist voyeurism or not.


If you've had enough gasoline explosions, car chases, and bang-yer-head obvious plots, here is something Completely Different.

I'm assuming you've seen the movie so if you haven't, please read no further.

Anyone who has written a fiction book all the way through (I've finished several) will recognize the writing process as embodied masterfully in this film. That is, being inspired by the oddest and most nondescript objects. Or writing entire chapters and realizing they're crap and don't fit in. Or just the opposite: finishing your story and realizing at the "end" you forgot something critical and need to go rewrite part of it...sometimes a BIG part of it. AND the tremendous satisfaction when you realize you've created something that a) was inside you that just had to come out and b) is the best work you can do and c) others will enjoy reading.

This film is complex enough that there are undoubtedly many interpretations possible. The one I find personally fulfilling, and that fits perfectly with the final twist, is a wonderfully-executed attempt to bring the abstract, weird, and sometimes outright bizarre process of fiction writing to the screen. From INSIDE the author's mind. I've only seen the movie once, but I can't remember a single scene without Sarah in it. This film was about her exclusively, from her POV, about what was going on in her mind...ultimately the creative process of writing. There were other characters, but with very few exceptions they existed as HER characters, walking the stage she created.

A simple example. Franck started as a minor character, a waiter at an outdoor café. As often happens during the writing process, his importance changes. In fact, it was the pool scene with him standing over Julie that first convinced me I was watching a depiction of the writing process. You see, the concept of Franck becoming involved with Julie was a plot possibility, a concept, an idea that became stillborn. AT THAT TIME Sarah discarded it, not wanting to take that plot path. Later, when Sarah had visited the café several times and become more familiar with Franck (real or not, it doesn't matter) she realized he could become a more important character in her story by having Julie bring him into the plot via a more fully-developed twist. And so on.

To those who thought this movie was one strange and convoluted puppy, I'll say that fiction writing is one strange and convoluted process! It's captured as well as I can imagine in this effort.

A previous reviewer perfectly interpreted the smile on Sarah's face in the last scene at John's office -- one of an author's satisfaction and pride on a job well done.

At the very end, Sarah waves to her two creations, not goodbye, but in thanks. Authors are always grateful to their characters wherever they may come from, since without them there can be no story.


Okay, I hate to give so much away but after watching the film, there's no other way to review in a way that it would make sense to the people reading the review other than to tell it like it is. Nothing is real except for Charlotte Rampling's character and her publisher. The daughter character is also real but you don't see the real person until the end of the film. When Charlotte goes on the vacation to the French countryside to clear her head, she actually enters into the world of the characters she is about to write about in her new book. The daughter, the gardener, the guy at the café are all characters in her book and she is living vicariously through them and their lives. That said, this was a very bold film. The soft porn elements were very strong but the acting on the part of Charlotte Rampling was stronger. She is a great actress of her generation and should be celebrated for such a powerful performance. I applaud her for her nude scenes and her honest portrayal of a character we see too less of in Hollywood, the sexy older woman who is not threatened by us young-ins! The film is about imagination and how the author uses it to solve her real life issues. My favourite line from the film is when Charlotte says: "Hmph! awards are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later, every arse gets them" LMAO! Classic!


`Swimming Pool' is one of the most chloroful, I mean, colorful films of the year. This ingenious unpredictable fable stars Charlotte Rampling as an impervious British mystery writer. Charlotte's web of mystery guides to her to a French villa where she inhabits for tranquility & inspiration for her next literary project. What Charlotte doesn't know is that she is about to be french fried when she discovers that the young voluptuous sex-crazed daughter of the owner of the villa has also decided to dive into the chateau. The middle-aged writer and the sexy nymph springboard into a few altercations. However, the film does take us to uncharted waters as our 2 main protagonists develop a friendship as a real life murder mystery unexpectedly develops. The villa's swimming pool is the primary centerpiece of the film's irregular occurrences. Rampling's sterling performance is head above water the best by a lead actress so far this year. However, it is Ludivine Sagnier who is the star in the making. Her screen charisma will definitely not drown yourself to boredom. Moreover, her topless swimming pool scenes are deserving of a gold medal for her incredible breaststroke competency. Director Francois Ozon explicit direction is this summer's hottest surprise. So why wait? Dive head first into the mystery and intrigue of `Swimming Pool'. ***** Excellent


Swimming Pool is a wonderfully put together and cleverly executed little film that knows a Hell of a lot more than it initially lets on. It's a film all about perspective; about how we are presented with a text, how characters within the text see the world around them and how the world around them can be re-formed and manipulated in certain ways  it's a slow-burning, thrilling and quite sexy filtering of a reality through a protagonist's sub-conscience. The film is about authors, creative writers and creative minds and the place they go when in need of a new idea or story. In Swimming Pool, writer/director François Ozon creates a physical space for this lead in this predicament, but plays with us and this location to give us something quite special.

The lead is Sarah Morton (Rampling), a successful author in the crime/detective genre who is having trouble coming up with an idea for her next novel. In order to clear her head and gain inspiration, she is transported to the South of France in the form of boss John Bosload's (Dance) large and secluded holiday home. But there's a hitch, and that is that John's young, fast and loose daughter named Julie (Sagnier) frequents it rather often thus causing friction, disagreement and general strife.

When we first meet what we later find out to be a hugely successful author with many adoring fans and numerously successful books, there is a deliberately anti-climatic sense about the character. She inhabits a very public and very familiar setting in an underground tube train, but shuns attention and dismisses claims from one passenger she is the successful author she is accused of being. I suppose this inserts an opinion into the audience of a certain aura of loneliness or a 'want' to be cut off from most people in Rampling's character, and, given the film is about the want to be on one's own as they collect their thoughts; enables us to identify with Sarah before her trip to France. It also allows us to identify the changes she goes through when put up against her opposite in Julie, and how forced interaction with this 'type' of person forces a confrontation with typical feelings and emotions.

Initially, London is shot in the manner you might expect from a Frenchman, what with shots of Big Ben, the London Eye and the Houses of Parliment but I think the inclusion of these things is more about getting across the sense of the familiar; of the everyday and, ultimately, of the mundane. This is clashed with the manner in which Ozon shoots France, as this wonderfully warm, calm and colourful rural patch of land in which Sarah will spend her time. But the jump, again, is substantial enough in the sense this new and strange place Sarah is inhabiting is not only her physical place of rest but acts as an enclave within her mind; a place in which ideas and fantasies are allowed to cook up and play out. The character of Julie acts as an interesting but ever so-vital piece to the text. The film feigns as if it is a battle of young vs. old; of tradition vs. 'new wave' or any other such contemporary term you might like to apply to Julie. One is a lot younger, more energetic and very much enjoys company, specifically of the male variety and specifically for the length of a single evening. Sarah can only look on in a very mixed, but very well put across via Rampling, sense of confusion, despair and disgust.

Onto Sarah's 'look' in the film, something Ozon pays specific attention to when Julie is engaging in what makes her what she is. There is a point, early on, in which Julie swims naked but the film does not offer a reaction shot on Sarah's behalf thus defusing any gaze. Later on, when she makes love to one of a few random men she finds during her nights out, Sarah cannot hep but become interested and observes in the same composition before later still, there actually is a reaction shot from Sarah, during another sex act in the house's swimming pool from which the title derives. The events could have two implications, but going into specifics would spoil the piece. Needless to say, it may be a coming to terms with one's identity but additionally a sort of perverted escalation as Sarah lets loose her mind and envisages fantasies as her writer's block is lifted.

The film progresses into a final act that genuinely caught me unawares, specifically due to the way in which it branched out into a murder plot, something that Sarah herself is used to writing so successfully, only this time we do not see things play out from a detective's point of view. Swimming Pool is very articulate in its approach, giving us this somewhat downbeat lead and having them undergo an odyssey that might not quite be reality as we know it but almost certainly plays out on some level, psychological or physical otherwise.


François Ozon revisits the pairing of a young woman with an older one of his brilliant and haunting Regarde la mer (1997) n a whimsical parody of a serial detective writer , Charlotte Rampling as Sarah, an Agathe Christi like authoress, you know, in whose pages the bodies pile up like cordwood but no one is really hurt, attempting to find lost inspiration for yet another iteration. Her interlude in, where else, the south of France, is interrupted by a brash and slightly overripe nymphet, Ludivine Sagnier as Julie, daughter of Sarah's publisher and owner of the villa, and the prim and disciplined Sarah. who lives in London with her father, engage in a intergeneration game of dare, with Julie subtly drawing Sarah, lulled by the warmth and French cuisine, into activities she normally would eschew. Sarah's muse is roused and she happily pecks away on her laptop, expanding her scope with the journal she pinched from Julie's knapsack. At this point the plot becomes so far-fetched I began to believe we had entered the reality of Sarah's incipient novel. But this is more Claire Denis than Ozon, who seems to adhere to a linear narrative in his films, so the whimsy theory took hold. Viewed in that light, the film is entertaining.


I was just an ordinary guy who had no special interest in cinema. This film first shook me with its great music, which I later realized as being a classic move by Ozon, then with its setting and ending. These were things that you can't find in standard Hollywood products.

I have a special place in my heart for this film, and I know that it is not possibly a 10/10 quality film, which is the "Seventh Seal" of Bergman for me, but "Swimming Pool" is a really good place to start your journey into the real world of cinema. You will understand what a "lost teenager/generation" means and how this term is dramatically different from the standard youth in American films.

It also doesn't contain the weird storytelling that many French films have. This means that you will watch an actual story where things really proceed. If you want to see what I mean, you can try another Ozon film, "Under the Sand", after this one. Charlotte Rampling is also present in that one but I can honestly say that actually nothing "happens" in the film.


An engaging film about a British murder mystery writer who spends a summer at the French country house of her publisher and gets involved in a murder mystery. Sagnier plays the publisher's daughter and her perky attributes are often on display as she lounges about the swimming pool. Rampling gives a good performance as the writer and, despite pushing sixty, she has the guts to go full frontal. Ozon unfolds the story at a very deliberate pace, showing us what a writer goes through in creating a book. The success of movies like this, where there is a slow buildup to something, really hinges on what that something is. In this case, it is interesting if somewhat unsatisfying.


Mildly depressed,cynical and burned-out author of mysteries Sarah Morton(Charlotte Rampling,seamless if unlikable here)is advised by her literary agent and lover John(Charles Dance) to spend some away time at his château in the south of France. She takes him up on it,moves in and proceeds to right away fall in love with the breathtaking scenery,the sunny,warm,quiet atmosphere of the area(contrasted by the gray,noisy and perceivably cold dank of London,shown at the beginning). Things seem nice and copascetic until John's daughter Julia(Ludvignie Sagnier,stunningly beautiful and vibrant)shows up,partying until the we hours and bringing boyfriends with her to create plenty of noise and distraction for Sarah. The two reach a truce at some point,and they both discover that they may have more in common that they either one thought.

Director Francois Ozon steers this movie toward being more "image-heavy",meaning that the stuff we see here:the swimming pool,the interior of the house,the village,the physical appearance and demeanor of the characters,particularly SArah and Julia are all very important to how we view and understand the film. There are plenty of long,slow and silent moments where the movie is maybe testing more pedestrian audiences to see if they can hang with a film that is relatively low in action and where the suspense is mostly implied until the last quarter of the film. Its strength really IS its sensuality:not just Ms.Sagnier's sexiness,but also the feel of two people who are experiencing the same house with different attitudes and different reactions. The suspense part of this film--and I don't think I'm really giving anything away here by prefacing this--slowly builds,which may seem a little unusual for American audiences,since film here in the U.S. that are considered "Suspense" usually want to set the stage and tension as fast as possible to not lose the audience. Having said that,I'd say that I'm probably more comfortable in the latter type of film than the former,but this movie is still a nice change of pace where that's concerned.

If the storyline or incidents in the film confuse you(or you just want to see Miss Sagnier again,and I know I did on both counts),you may need or want to give this a re-watch. This movie is definitely worth a look.


It seems to me that the "european" way of telling story is very difficult to understand for the American audience. therefore, I'll try to explain some things that might seem confusing:

there is no indication why any of the persons in this film should not be real. The plot is a bit laughable (f. ex. why does the wealthy writer stay in the house with the girl? she has enough money to rent a house herself), but the story is told in a very straight way.

It is clearly told that Julie is the daughter of the publisher and a french woman, whom he had left, because he did want to stay with his wife and children in England. Julie lies twice: she says, her mother lived in Nizza (in reality, she is dead, but of course Julie likes to imagine that her mother is still alive); she says, her mother had burnt the novel she has written (which she did not, because Julie gives the manuscript to Sarah, the writer > the book that Sarah gives to her publisher at the end of the film is the copied manuscript of Julies mother (we see her copying it at her computer).

Julie indeed killed Franck, because he resisted her attempts to seduce him. And because she is a mentally very disturbed character, she can't control her feelings anymore. Her self- esteem is reduced to nothing when she has no sexual power. And it is very clear that she got raped by her father when she was 13, although it isn't said (the scar on Julies stomach indicates a cesarean section/ she lost her virginity when she was 13/her father is the "king of orgies")

The publishers "english daughter", named Julia, is french Julies child. Her name is Julia because she was named by her mother, Julie, not by the publisher. And even if it was him who chose the name: for him the girl might have been a second incarnation of his elder daughter.


This is one Europeon movie I have really enjoyed. Here you have a successful, yet pompous British author who goes to France to unwind, who however, gets to be roommates with the boss' daughter. Sarah Morton(Charlotte Rampling) is very successful, yet she is unhappy. Why's that? The stress? Maybe. The money? Could be. Being successful isn't always for everyone. Yet, one must accept what they have accomplished and must not delve into the darkness of success. So when Sarah goes to France, she stays a house that her boss owns, and later in the evening, his daughter comes in very unexpectedly. Julie(Ludivine Sagnier), is taking a break from work, and has a very high sexual appetite. Lots of sex, and intrigue which made the movie very interesting. And the murder of the waiter was disturbing as well. Covering up was easy, and the part where Sarah flashing the gardener, was a way she opened up. This movie was very intriguing, yet very disturbing at the same time. The title was great, and the swimming scenes lets out the sexual energy as well. A very interesting movie still! Ooh! La La! 5 stars!


Slow, but intensely fascinating and erotic story about a typical female English (if there is such a thing...) crime novelist.

Bored with her usual crime-fiction character and jealous of the upcoming new writers her publisher offers her a vacation in his peaceful french summer vacation cottage in the idyllic french countryside (close to the ruin of the house of Marquis De Sade!).

The publishers very free spirited (some would say nymphomaniac) daughter also visits at the same time (or does she?!) and the two slowly begins to merge leading to the inspiration of a new kind of crime-novel which is eventually published by another firm. Exquisitely acted french film-noir with layers that increases at the second viewing ;-).


Note: This first paragraph is spoiler free.

Swimming Pool is about the author Sarah Morton played by Charlotte Rampling, and her run in with the daughter of her publisher named Julie played by Ludivine Sagnier, while Sarah stays are her publishers house to get settled into to writing a new book. Rampling is terrific as a secluded author who finds both disgust and intrigue into Julie. Sagnier is decent as the publishers wild daughter who is promiscuous and is defensive against a scolding Sarah. Eventually they come together, even finding things they have in common, on the way toward Sarah helping Julie out after something terrible happens. Sarah's main motive in all of this seems to be to write a book, but there's authentic interest, especially in her stares on Julie which neither seem scolding nor approving. I liked the dynamic between the two characters, even as a certain major event seems quite unlikely.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILERS BELLOW The movie ends with an extraordinary twist and I think I understand it. I will say this twist didn't make me like the movie more, and may of even made me like it less, but whatever one thinks about it it certainly is different. You can't compare the twist to The Sixth Sense or Fight Club, or The Crying Game, and so on, because those twists made you simply look at events in a different light; they did not change what had actually occurred (though I guess Fight Club did change events to an extent). My theory is this. The real daughter Julia actually stayed with her, but the movie was representing her imagination of a more attractive and delinquent daughter named Julie. At the end Sarah says to her publisher that there were things he kept from her, and that was one of the reasons she decided to go to another publisher; something she found out was hidden from her, and the real daughter could be that. The cross replacement thing would make sense with a Julia as she would far more likely be religious than someone like Julie. The theory of Julie being a real illegitimate daughter of another mother has one flaw, almost fatal, and that's she does not look surprised at the end when she see's Julia and her father. That makes it seem that either she never met one of his daughters, or did in fact meet that one. And just an imagination Julie and nothing else does not explain what she meant by her publisher hiding things from her. Also the very end with the wave sequences of both Julia and Julie shows the first as it really happened, and the second as she imagined it. I can't say this theory is certain, and maybe there's no one certain answer, but I think it holds water more than the others.


What can I add to the eloquent and comprehensive praise that this film has garnered from fellow reviewers? Not much more than to add my voice in agreement. Swimming Pool is a fabulous film. Not for everyone, sure, but for those of us who love intelligent, beautifully acted films with wonderfully unpredictable plot lines, it's a gem.

I loved Under The Sand and 8 Women. Swimming Pool combines the best elements of both. The lead actresses are equally superb just as they each were in the aforementioned. And I would go so far as to recommend any film by this director. He exhibits a unique talent and is definitely one to watch.


i really liked the movie. although there is one thing that i still don't understand very well. my question is about the end so if you haven't seen it don't read this.... alright everything that involved Julie was her imagination just the story for the book. but she met Julie right. so how come in the end when she passes by Julie they don't even look at each other as if they haven't met..... if someone could explain me it would be very helpful. my other interpretation is that she didn't even go to France and everything including the space (house and the swimming pool) was created by her. but that doesn't make much sense. thanks


From reading some of the reviews on IMDb, it appears some people understood this movie and some didn't.

I caught Swimming Pool by chance. Flipping through the cable channels one evening I came across this movie and immediately became captivated by the beauty of Ludivine Sagnier and the intriguing nature of the storyline. The movie was fairly easy to follow and was obviously about a frustrated writer of serial novels, called Sarah Morton, who took the advice of her publisher, John Bosload, to come up with a fresh idea for a new book while vacationing at the publishers villa in France. Little did Bosload know that the idea for this new book would be hatched from Sarah Morton's imaginative use of the publishers daughter as the main character and involve the publishers own vacation hideaway. The twists and turns that take place in the film are expressive of Sarah Morton's desperation to end a serious creative block.

This was an interesting and entertaining movie. Good acting and a decent plot. I enjoyed watching it.


In this Chabrolesque psychological thriller, Francois Ozon, poses some difficult questions about the nature of the creative process through the character of successful English crime writer Sarah Morton,played brilliantly by Charlotte Rampling. Unable to find sufficient motivation to pen her latest crime book, her editor and ex-lover, John Bosload (Charles Dance) leases his French country house to her in the Luberon region to reignite her creative urges.

At first the change of scenery does Sarah good until John's unknown French daughter, Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), rudely interrupts the idyllic atmosphere. The film then explores the tense relationship between the uptight Englishwoman and the free-floating but sex-mad Julie but things are never quite what they seem. We are constantly lulled by the seductive scenery and the sly camera-work sometimes suggests a hidden agenda is at play - well not so hidden in Franck's case!

The film is nearly perfect. The acting is excellent and the music is haunting and evocative. Unfortunately, the film loses focus in the last third where a convoluted "murder" disrupts proceedings.

Although the end might be a shock for many it was, in my opinion, an audacious turn on Ozon's behalf rather than a cop-out. I can understand it might annoy many viewers but the film's teasing scenarios, I believe, predetermined the ending and any careful viewer would not have felt robbed by the fact Julie was not real after all.

The end, though, throws more questions than the film answers. If there is a puzzle to be solved, I do not think repeated viewings would achieve this; rather, it feels like an open-ended mystery. A mystery to savor rather than solve.


I select films that I do not think I have seen before. I have no idea who made them who is in them or what they are about. I just use them to fill an hour or so. Many I never watch to the end. I thought this was just another made in Hollywood movie. Instead it was the movie equivalent of the book I was unable to put down. No one, not the director, the actors or the crew imposed their message on me ( I saw the Irish pub theatre version of Alexander last week, that movie tattoos it's message on your eyeballs). This movie was peopled by personalities, pictures and places. It was a piece of Anglo French (or the other way round)excellence. My personal thanks to all those who made the movie for making me feel I had not wasted at least this time in my life. Smashing!!!!!!


Wow! This is a really cute, fun, entertaining, and educational show. I said that because I watch this on Nickelodeon and Noggin with my 19-month-old nephew from time to time. It's hard to say which show on Nickelodeon and Noggin is the best. Still it's really cute, fun, entertaining, and educational. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that the people at Nickelodeon and Noggin really know how to reach a toddler's developing mind. Now, in conclusion, if you have children, nieces, or nephews, I strongly recommend this really cute, fun, entertaining, and educational show. I guarantee you that they will enjoy it.


We have only recently discovered this lovely children's show and I am very disappointed to find out it was canceled. What a perfect show for children, I am surprised it hasn't won more awards or acclaim. All the colors and animations are simply and brightly colored. The characters are gentle and well spoken. The world they inhabit is imaginative. The music is perfect. Oswald, the main character, is a large octopus much possessed of patience and kindness.

My three year old retains so much from this show I was surprised. She even remained her favorite toy "Catrina" after the baby butterfly. She normally doesn't pay much attention to many shows. If you are looking for a quiet, kind show for your child, I can't recommend it enough.


Geraldine Page and a lively script lift this otherwise b-grade film to the status of cult classic. With her unique voice and mannered style of method acting, Page has never disappointed me in any of her many performances. And in this thriller, Theodore Apstein's clever screenplay gives the inimitable Page ample opportunity to portray a woman who, although inwardly venomous, amuses viewers in a stylized, aristocratic sort of way. In a major support role, feisty Ruth Gordon adds spunk. All of which adds up to 101 minutes of viewing fun, despite a grating, fingernails-on-the-blackboard music score, and dubious production values which, toward the film's end, have a black Lincoln turning yellow, then black, then yellow again, and back to black, in the span of 43 seconds. Charming.


Not-so-grieving widow Claire Marrable is horrified to hear that her supposedly wealthy husband has apparently left her penniless. But, being a practical (and resourceful) type, she hits on a scheme to keep her in the comfort to which she wishes to become accustomed. Relocating to the Arizona desert, she hires elderly housekeepers with no known relatives (but tidy nest eggs) and sends them to their rewards a bit sooner than they planned. And their remains become mulch for the widow's growing garden as each is buried under a quickly flourishing sapling. This later entry in the "horror hag" sweepstakes features absolutely wonderful performances from Geraldine Page, who has a high old time as the haughty, demented and thoroughly relentless Mrs. Marrable, and Ruth Gordon, as Alice Dimmock, her new housekeeper, who isn't quite what she seems to be. On the sidelines are Rosemary Forsyth, herself a (young) widow with a nephew, Robert Fuller as Miss Gordon's nephew, and Joan Huntington as the scheming wife of Page's nephew. With a cast made up of widows and nephews, how scary can "Aunt Alice" be? Not very. But it's a delicious black comedy which allows Page and Gordon the opportunity to give the performances of their lives. There's also a neat cameo from Mildred Dunnock ("Death Of A Salesman") as the luckless servant who precedes Miss Gordon. One of the best "Grand Guignol" films ever made!


What's a poor widow to do when her husband dies and leaves her penniless? Move to the Arizona desert, start a pine tree garden, and fertilize it with human mulch? Well.wouldn't you?? Geraldine Page has quite the green thumb as Mrs. Claire Marrable--the wicked widow with the pine tree fetish--in the chilling thriller "Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?"

Grand dame Bette Davis once quipped: "Fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy night!" Bette, you are so right! If you remember Geraldine Page as the sweet li'l ol' lady from `Trip to Bountiful'.FUGETABOWTIT! Page does a 180 as she transmogrifies from helpless Southern widow to cool, calculating murderess with money and murder on the brain--and a means to achieve both. Page hits the bulls-eye with each scene. All of her nervous ticks are appropriately timed. She is at her best when putting on airs and verbally sparring with unarmed opponents. What a stellar performance! Geraldine, girlfriend, you is flawless!!

Many deliciously diabolical scenes abound, like when pesky canine Chloe threatens to dig up the dirt on her murderous past-time, Page as Marrable barks back: "I have not taken loving and diligent care of my garden to have it wrecked by this vagrant bitch!" Page's character is equally disenchanted with her new next door neighbor, Ms. Vaughn, whom she refers to as "crabgrass, never really quelled, only cropping up secretly and victoriously in another spot". The only one Page can stomach is Ruth Gordon as the inquisitive Aunt Alice--an undercover housekeeper on a mission to get to the root (haha) of all evil and discover the whereabouts of a friend last seen in Page's employ. But when she's tardy serving up cocktails, an impatient Geraldine rips her a new one: `Punctuality is essential to a gracious way of life, which I do not intend to give up on account of you.' Ruth returns fire: `If you wanna live like some Dutchess of Maharati, you better learn how to behave like one!' Geraldine shakes furiously from head to toe after a fiesty Ruth flat-out inquires: "How MANY women have you killed?" Try to suppress a snicker as you watch a pint-sized Ruthie scamper away from Page, who smugly stalks her throughout her secluded desert home to the beat of bongos and a psychotic musical score. Page's wicked laughter is sprinkled spuriously throughout the film to the backdrop of swaying pine trees-how ingenious! Not even Bette Davis cackled with such nefarious mirth as Baby Jane Hudson!

Praise be the master of psycho-shrews on film, Robert Aldrich--who directed the cult smash "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"--for producing this special gem, and a hearty kudos to Lee Katzin for his superlative directing skills. This movie will make you bow down and pray to the Church of Geraldine Page. So what are you waiting for? Rent it tonight.and START PRAYING!!


Hey now, this is one of my favorite movies. A woman living in an isolated house near the desert (in Arizona) is having trouble with housekeepers. None of them seem to stay very long. But every time a housekeeper leaves, a new tree gets planted along the driveway? Hmm. Well, along comes Ruth Gordon, who seems to have lost one of her friends somewhere along the way and this house is the last place of residence. So Ruth goes "undercover" as a feisty and weird housekeeper to Geraldine Paige (who fancies herself to be quite the goddess, I reckon, expecting the housekeeper to light her smokes and fix her drinks). Ruth though, is in cahoots with her nephew, the dude that played a doctor on Emergency eons ago. So while she's sticking her neck out, he's got her covered. Or does he? Hmm. Anyway, this is a VERY well done and awesome whodunnit, with more than a few creepy overtones. Anyone that enjoys the late Ruth Gordon will delight in this. Highly recommended!


Claire Marrable has just lost her husband, her fortune, and her rich and refined way of life. What is a spoiled, wealthy, egotistical woman to do? Why pack up and move to Arizona to be near your nephew, and begin killing housekeepers/live-in companions for their life savings of course. Aunt Claire seemingly has a green thumb as she transplants her housekeepers to the ground and plants a pine tree over them. As we see in the first part of the film, there are at least three pine trees before we see the first woman bashed in the head with a rock and then planted. We then see another housekeeper, Edna Tinsley, killed in similar fashion with a shovel. Now, five pine trees in the desert. Enter Mrs. Dimmock, a woman in disguise as a housekeeper out to find out what happened to her long-time friend Edna. This cat and mouse relationship between Claire and Mrs. Dimmock serves as the basis of the film. This film was produced by Robert Aldrich, who was responsible for bringing us films like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and Hush..Hush, Sweet Charlotte. Aldrich made films that had older female protagonists popular in the sixties by giving these starring roles to ladies that were a bit aged and considered passe. Geraldine Page stars in this film as Aunt Claire, and if you had any doubts about her talent as an actress prior to seeing this film, no doubts should have remained afterward. Page is simply stunning. She has an aura and charm about her. She has a wonderfully sadistic and maniacal laugh. She has an ability to take dialogue which would not work for any one else and make it sound meaningful. Her portrayal of this wicked, cruel, greedy woman is one of the best I have seen for roles of this ilk. Aiding Ms. Page is Ruth Gordon. Ms. Gordon gives a very good performance as Mrs. Dimmock out to find the truth no matter what the cost might be. Gordon and Page act and interact very well together, and it is their relationship which really makes this film work. The rest of the cast is okay and the direction is okay, but everything is brought up a notch by the two outstanding performances of these two incredible actresses. After seeing this film twice in two days, I am still stunned at the magnificent performance given by Geraldine Page. WOW!


This is a fun little black comedy from television director Lee Katzin. Playing off the title of "Whatver Happened to Baby Jane", it is not ruined by its television look and feel because of a particularly memorable performance by Geraldine Page.

Page plays an older women who has essentially been driven mad with rage after her husband dies and leaves her only his debts and .the contents of his briefcase. She moves to the desert and lives very comfortably by dispatching a series of live-in housekeepers who have turned over their life savings to her. Katzin tells the story mostly from the POV of Page's character so that after a while the audience is actually identifying with her.

Ruth Gordon is essentially wasted in a very straight role. Rosemary Forsyth and Robert Fuller make an appealing couple but are very minor to story.

Page is absolutely brilliant and plays the ironic twist at the end of the film beautifully (recently reprised in "The Upside of Anger"). At the same time that she is found out, she finds out that her husband actually made a provision for her to live comfortably after his death. She plays this final scene in such a way that we understand that discovering he actually loved her is far more important to her than getting away with murder.


This might have been an ad that Mrs. Marrable ran in the local papers. But prospective applicants would have been better off applying for work as stable hands! This was an independent film. Although it wasn't one of ABC's television movies, it quickly became a favorite on the the 'Movie of the Week' line-up because of its suspense factor. It still creeps me out to this day. Nobody can play disturbed female characters like Geraldine Page! She even starred in an episode of Rod Serling's 'Night Gallery'.

The irony of the film is her finding out that she didn't have to go through all that trouble to keep living comfortably. Turns out that her late husband's stamp collection - that she used to bribe the next door neighbor's son - was a lot more valuable than she thought. I absolutely loved this movie!


The Grand Guignol/Grande Dame sub-genre of suspense in its decadent phase (though that might sound redundant). Lacking the cinematic iconography of waning Hollywood movie queens like Joan Crawford or Bette Davis, Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon (and Mildred Dunnock, in a featured part) compensate for it with Method histrionics -- and a thrilling confrontation scene to boot -- rising above the stale directing and prosaic mise-en-scenes. Indeed, Page's manic looniness largely carries the contrived but entertaining script (based on "The Forbidden Garden" by Ursula Curtiss), nicely matched by the perpetually plucky Gordon, both wearing bad fright wigs. A respectable entry in the pantheon of menopausal malevolence and, certainly, the type of film they don't make any more. The movie pretty much just runs out of steam, however, unfortunately lacking a satisfactory end, its hair-raising climax coming too early. Gerald Fried's score is expressive and stirring, and certainly a plus.


Claire Marrable (Geraldine Page) is shocked to learn that her late husband has left her with nothing but debts. How is she to live in the style she's grown accustomed? To solve her problem, she comes up with a fiendish plot. What if she were to hire a servant/companion with a small life savings, dupe her out of the money, and then kill her? Well, that's exactly what Claire does. She disposes of the bodies under pine trees growing in her garden. All is going well for Claire until Alice Dimmock (Ruth Gordon) shows up at her door looking for a job. Claire doesn't realize it but the nosey Alice is no ordinary employee. Can Alice discover Claire's secret before another pine tree is planted?

What a wonderful movie! In short, What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? is a deliciously twisted tale of greed and murder filled with plenty of suspense, real atmosphere, rock solid acting, witty writing, and some of the darkest humor put on film. It's a real winner from start to finish. And while I'm sure I could go on and on praising the film, it's the acting that sets it apart from similar movies. To call Geraldine Page's performance brilliant would be a gross understatement. The gleeful menace in her voice and on her face as she goes about psychologically torturing (and killing) those see sees as beneath her is amazing to watch. And if her presence wasn't enough, along comes Ruth Gordon. She's feisty, fun, and every bit the equal of Page in her role as the titular Aunt Alice. Watching these two spar when all the film's secrets have been revealed is one of those moments I won't soon forget. These are the screen moments that keep me searching out new movies.

Nobody asked, but if I had to come up with one flaw, I suppose it would be the supporting cast. None of the other actors does anything to stand out. But how could they? Compared with Page and Gordon . . . well, there's really no comparison.

Finally, from the outside some 40 years after the movie was made, I'd bet the actors had a blast making What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? I can just imagine Page and Gordon having a good long laugh after shooting some of their scenes together. Then again, maybe it's just me. All I know is that I had a great time watching them work together. An 8/10 seems about right to me.


This film was better than I expected. Just a delightful film. The acting was top notch. Aunt Claire was a demented, unhappy lady that was left with very little after her husband passed on. Perhaps the most unlikely demographic for a serial killer.. The rules were changed. Along came Aunt Alice. Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon as Aunt Claire and Aunt Alice respectfully, had a chess match for most of the film that was simply brilliant. In the style of Hitchcock this film flowed from start to finish. The intensity through out this film was constant. Twists upon twists, made for an energetic, entertaining film , that one had to pay close attention. The side characters were OK for the most part; Make no mistake , Page and Gordon were the whole film. There was a wonderful dog in this film that truly was an important cog. Overall, a very good film but housekeepers might want to watch their backs.


Geraldine Page is left nothing of value by the passing of her husband and she has to fend for herself. Fast forward, she goes to live near her only blood kin, a nephew in Arizona. We see her at night in her garden digging a hole with her new companion/nursemaid. She is planting a new pine tree and then all of a sudden she hits her friend over the head. In the morning, there is a new pine tree planted firmly in the ground, in line with the others. Enter Mildred Dunnock, her new companion. There seems to be a pattern here.

I, and other Geraldine Page fans, have already died and gone to heaven, as we are shown Miss Page's dark side and another tour-de-force performance. If all you know of Miss Page is "The Trip to Bountiful," "Sweet Bird of Youth," and "Summer and Smoke," then you're in for a treat. There's even a twist in the ending that keen observers will know is coming, even from the beginning. (By the way, if you didn't know, she would provide the voice of Madame Medusa in Disney's "The Rescuers.")

Ruth Gordon shows up applying for the position and gives Miss Page a run for her money, who is also a joy to watch. Also starring Rosemary Forsyth, this is one offbeat tale that shouldn't be missed. If you're a fan of "Baby Jane" and "Sweet Charlotte," then move over for Geraldine Page. Better yet, stay out of her way!


A definite film of the macabre again proving that there was no one like Geraldine Page for these neurotic, vicious parts.

In this one, Ruth Gordon takes a job as a maid in Page's home under false pretenses. It seems that Gordon had a disagreement with her long time domestic, played by Mildred Dunnock. In a huff, Dunnock walked out and went to work for Page.

Seems that Page has quite a history. Once she finds out that her maids have no family, she does them in quite neatly.

Throughout the film you constantly are hearing Page yelling Mrs. Dimmock to maid Gordon, as she begins to suspect that Gordon is no usual maid.

The film takes place in the desert of Arizona which seems to place a peculiar and effective aura to the film.

The ending is an absolute knockout.


Shrewd, resourceful and formidable old battleaxe Claire Marrable (superbly played to the icy hilt by Geraldine Page) loses both her husband and her affluent lifestyle. Ms. Marrable moves to Arizona, starts a pine tree garden, and begins bumping off her elderly housekeepers for their life savings so she can continue living high on the hog. Ms. Marrable meets her match in her new housekeeper Alice Dimmock (a terrific performance by the wondrous Ruth Gordon), a cheery, smart and resilient little firecracker who suspects that something is amiss. Director Lee H. Katzin and screenwriter Theodore Apstein expertly create a deliciously sinister atmosphere, relate the engrossing story at a steady pace, and top everything off with a wickedly funny sense of pitch-black humor. This movie further benefits from fine acting from an excellent cast: Page really sinks her teeth into her juicy evil old bat role, Gordon projects her usual winningly spunky charm as the endearingly feisty Ms. Dimmock, plus there are sturdy supporting contributions from Rosemary Forsyth as sweet young widow neighbor Harriet Vaughn, Robert Fuller as the dashing Mike Darrah, Mildred Dunnock as the timid Edna Tinsley, Joan Huntington as Ms. Marrable's bitchy niece Julia Lawson, and Peter Brandon as Julia's conniving stockbroker husband George. The very ending offers one doozy of a marvelously ironic surprise plot twist while the arid desert setting adds to the overall creepy tone. Joseph Biroc's lush, vibrant cinematography makes neat occasional elegant use of fades and dissolves. Gerald Fried's moody, shivery, string-laden score likewise hits the spooky spot. Best of all, it's a total treat to watch Page and Gordon bounce off each other as they engage in a deadly game of wit and wills. A hugely enjoyable fright feature.


In 1962, director Robert Aldrich delivered, to an unprepared world, the amazing spectacle of aged Bette Davis and Joan Crawford going at each other and chewing up the scenery in "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" Two years later, Aldrich followed up with "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte," with Davis, Agnes Moorehead and Olivia de Havilland engaged in similar nasty hijinks. And in 1969, Aldrich handed the directing reins (producing only this time) to Lee H. Katzin, for what may be viewed as the third in a loose trilogy of films dealing with geriatric battleaxes (or aging gargoyles, as my buddy Rob prefers to call them) having at each other with no quarter given. In "What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?," Geraldine Page plays Claire Marrable, who moves to Tucson after her husband dies and leaves her penniless. What's a poor aging biddy to do...except knock off a succession of equally aged housekeeper-companions, steal their cash and plant their remains in the garden? But Claire may have met her match with her next job applicant, Alice Dimmock, played by the forever feisty Ruth Gordon.... As regards those killings, they are almost completely bloodless, and any comparisons that may have been made to 1944's "Arsenic and Old Lace" may be fair ones. But this is hardly a comedy (well, maybe a very black one), and it really is something to see Page and Gordon ripping into each other like two frenzied berserkers. The film makes excellent use of its desert locale, and Gerald Fried's bizarro score keeps the tension ratcheted fairly high throughout. The picture concludes rather realistically, albeit tamely, I feel; how much more satisfying would it have been to see Claire really go up against the vicious tramp dog, Chloe? No telling WHO would've prevailed in that bitch fight!


I first saw this movie when I was about eight or nine, about thirty years ago, on morning television. Oddly, I still remember it quite well; it is one movie no one would be liable to forget, if only for the deranged character of Mrs. Marrable, and the pesky Aunt Alice, who is out to uncover the murky truth about her mistress.

While the basic plot and characterization are dark, the movie deflected from the darkness, with comedic situations (such as Aunt Alice serving cocktails, or Chloe the dog digging at Mrs. Marrable's fine pine trees, or the Mexican gardener quipping "Oh, Mrs. Marrable! I tawt eet was somtheeng bad," and an adolescent boy smoking his first stick). Ironies also abound.

You can be assured though, that you will not get the shock of your life, or that you will spend a sleepless night out of fright. Nope. As a matter of fact, I, as a child of eight or nine, had a jolly good time; I had to laugh at times. It was entertaining. Never mind the TV feel of the movie, or the undefinable color quality that seems to typify other movies of the period. Don't think too much of the improbable plot. Never mind if it passes the litmus test of critics.

I assure you that for the acting of Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon, and the throughly wicked Mrs. Marrable, plus your desire to be entertained, the movie is worth watching. After a bit of browsing, I am not very surprised that Ms. Page (1985) and Ms. Gordon (1968) were both Academy Award winners. Such excellent actresses! What you waiting for? Have a jolly good time! Get out and borrow the movie! RRCS


"What Ever Happened To Aunt Alice?" is a fairly unknown, but amazing and amusing little thriller from the late 1960s that still holds up very well to this day. The story revolves around Claire Marrable (Geraldine Page), an older affluent widow who lives in a luxurious Tucson home located in the middle of the desert. After her husband's death, she discovers that he didn't leave her nearly as much as she thought he would have. So, Claire begins to hire housekeepers with no known or remaining family, and kills them to appropriate all of their savings for herself - but not before burying them in her beloved garden and promptly planting pine trees over the graves. After a close friend, Edna (Mildred Dunnock) goes to work for Ms. Marrable and mysteriously vanishes, Alice Dimmock (Ruth Gordon) signs up for the job to investigate, and ends up working for Ms. Marrable herself in an attempt to uncover what is going on at her remote desert estate.

I was pleasantly surprised with how great this film was, and how it still, nearly forty years later, holds up well and is just as effective. Based upon a novel called "The Forbidden Garden", "What Ever Happened To Aunt Alice?" is a consistent and entertaining movie that is sadly little-know and/or long forgotten in modern days, which is really too bad because this is an excellent film. Produced by Robert Aldrich (who also produced "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane"), it's pretty easy to see where the derivative title originated. The film's storyline is wonderfully original, I haven't seen a movie like this ever. The only minor complaint I have with the story is the unnecessary love-subplot between Alice's nephew and Ms. Marrable's new neighbor. The problem with it is that it brings nothing new to the story - if all of those scenes had been removed, the film would have worked just as perfectly, and it wouldn't have slowed it down. Fortunately there isn't a whole lot of time spent developing this subplot, but even if there had been, the rest of the film is so good that it would be easily forgivable.

The film has some really nice imagery and a great atmosphere as well, with an Arizona desert backdrop, and a lot of late '60s/early '70s set pieces and costumes. The entire movie had a really great feel to it. The score is frantic but effective as well, somewhat reminiscent of Bernard Herrman's work in "Psycho". The acting in this film is just about as good as it gets. Legendary actress Geraldine Page plays the diabolical Claire, and is completely flawless in her role. Everything about her character is perfected in her performance - her mannerisms, facial expressions, delivery - and, we can't forget about her eerie cackling. Ruth Gordon, fresh from winning an Oscar for her role in "Rosemary's Baby", plays the secondary protagonist - her character is empathetic and nice, but determined to find out what Claire has been doing to her housekeepers. She is also wonderful in her role. The rest of the cast is also good, but most of them aren't the big-name stars that these two leading ladies were. The film's ending is short but fitting, and while I felt it may have been lacking a bit, it's also forgivable when you take into consideration the rest of the film's quality.

Overall, "What Ever Happened To Aunt Alice?" is an excellent late '60s horror/thriller that is definitely worth seeing. It's a little dated, but it holds up very well. The shock factor is nearly diminished for modern audiences, but this film is nonetheless very spooky and very enjoyable - it surprises me that more people haven't heard of this film. I have a feeling this movie is going to become a new favorite of mine. 10/10.


Really just another attempt to squeeze some juice out of the aging-diva-as-murderous-nut-job genre, this one gets quite a sizable lift from two memorable actresses. Ruth Gordon doing her patented, deceptively off-center, crazy-like-a-fox character, and making the most of it. She's delightful.

And the extraordinary Geraldine Page giving conviction and ultimately a scary poignancy to the role of the murderess. Her last scene could have been so easily overplayed by another actress, but she gives it an unsettling aura of truth. Page never had quite the film career one would have hoped for, but here she gives you a taste of what she was capable of, for those who never got to see one of her legendary stage performances.

Worth a look for those interested in the genre and in the two star performances. Gordon had won her Oscar for "Rosemary's Baby" the year before, and Page would ultimately win one for "The Trip to Bountiful."


I was recently at a friend's home and he screened the last 1200' of this feature. Having always been a fan of Geraldine Page, I wanted to see the odd reel.

If the whole movie had been available I would have loved to watch it from beginning to end again. This is one thrilling and suspense filled conclusion, and the movie deserves an award for the color, camera work and the writing.

Geraldine, though no longer with us, probably got a crown in heaven for her role in this forgotten thriller.


This movie is a favorite of mine. I haven't seen it in years and would love to own it in my video collection but have not been able to find it anywhere :( I loved Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon. What actresses they are! I especially loved the scene where Ruth Gordon's character is trying to call for help and catches the wrath of Geraldine Page's character!! It's been so long since I've seen it I can't even remember the names of the characters. The scenes showing the pine trees blowing in the wind are creeeeeeepy! Does anyone else love it as much as me?


What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? was a very good thriller! I mean if you like thrillers. Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon were excellent actresses in this film. Story about a woman who kills people who cross her....like her maids for instance. She started off liking her second housekeeper Mrs Dimmick, even thought she would make a good companion as well as a good housekeeper, but soon found out that Mrs Dimmick was crossing her by trying to find out information about the former maid. You see, the former maid, Mrs Tinsel, used to work for Mrs Dimmick and she was upset with her and left and moved and started working for Mrs Marable. Mrs Dimmick worried and wanted Mrs Tinsel to come back went to find her. Mrs Tinsel had written her a letter so she went there to Mrs Marable"s house and saw that her former housekeeper was no where to be found. Mrs Dimmick asked Mrs Marable about Mrs Tinsel and said "where is she"??? Made Mrs Marable hot!!! Until she did away with poor Mrs Dimmick. Smart as Mrs Marable was, she was caught! A real honest-to- goodness thriller!! An 9 indeed!


Pairing permanently-loony Geraldine Page with feisty, spunky Ruth Gordon might've resulted in a darkly comic masterpiece of suspense--but "Alice" isn't it. Without giving too much away, I can only say that Gordon is given the shaft in such a way that I think the screenwriter was as crazy as Page. The film sets up a decent premise, but the tone seems off from the start: is this supposed to be a no-holds-barred thriller or is meant to be a little campy? I just found it ugly, and the desert locales aren't well captured (maybe it was the brackish color?). Page isn't really in character here (not that there's much of one), she's just relying on shtick. As for Gordon, she comes on loaded for bear, but the filmmakers have no idea what to do with her and the viewer's expectations are dashed. Any hopes of screen fireworks from these dueling divas fizzles out due to the weak, crude, basic writing. It's a star-pairing which proves to be a wasted affair. *1/2 from ****


This movie is swimming in 1970's economy humor, there's never enough money for everything. Bills can't get paid, and a radio announcer says with relief in his voice that the cost of living went up ONLY 2%.

The humor may date it for some and make it fly over people's heads that were too young to remember the economic malaise of the late 70's (I barely remember it, my being a kid back then).

But if you get past that, what you have here is a smart and entertaining caper film where the people pulling the caper are all female. June Curtain, Jessica Lange and Susan Saint James make up the team that conspires to make a heist.

Dabney Coleman proves he can actually play a sweet guy with his turn as a Police man which falls for Jane Curtain's character. Richard Benjimin has some great one-liners playing Jessica Lange's animal doctor husband. Garrett Morris has a great cameo.

I saw this at the movies when it first came out and found it to be very funny and enjoyable. Years later I sought it out and found that it has been out of print on video for a number of years. Finally, I found a copy to rent. You should try to find a copy too. It's a fun film


This picture opened in theaters on August 21 1980 in New York City starring Susan Saint James as Jane, Jane Curtain as Elaine and Jessica Lange as Louise. Jane and Robert waking up in the back of Jane's station wagon. The reason there sleeping in the station wagon is the Jane's kids think that Robert is there Uncle and how do you explaining sleeping with the kids uncle. Jane states to Robert that she wants to talk to him about getting married. Robert replies that he can't get married until old man Willard dies and he gets the store. Meanwhile Louise shows up at here husbands veterinarian office looking for her husband. Louise and Albert have been married for nine years and she needs Albert to write her a check for one thousand dollars for the merchandise that she bought for here antique store. Meanwhile Jane has arrived at her home with bags of clothes that she bought and takes them upstairs to the bedroom. While she starts to undress, she turns on the answering machine where she hears a message from her husband. On the machine is her husband trying to explain to her that he's leaving her. Elaine goes to the closet to find his things gone so she smashes the machine and throws her wedding ring outside. Elaine goes to the bank and finds out that her husband beat her there, by cleaning out there account selling all her jewelry and leaving Elaine with just $480.00 dollars in her Christmas fund. The next day Albert is in his office with the IRS and after going over his books, Albert is told that the IRS owes him $11.19. However, the IRS wants to know about the 36,000 dollars that he gave Louise for her antique store. Albert states the antique store is a business but the IRS states that it's a hobby so now unless Albert can prove it's a business he will owe the IRS taxes on the $36,000 plus penalties. Meanwhile Jane's ex comes to pickup the kids and she hits him up for more child support in which her ex replies that he can't. Meanwhile after having a few drinks at the local tavern Elaine gets into car to leave. She pulls out crossing lanes and then goes right through a stop sign. Sitting at that stop sign is a police officer who turns his lights on and goes after her and finally pulling her over. Elaine is talking to the officer and finds out that he's married. So Elaine starts hitting the officer with her purse and the officers tells her that if she hits him once more he'll arrest her. She states that if he does the first phone call she makes will bee to his wife. Now some thoughts of my own on this movie. I love this movie because it caught my attention through the entire picture. I give Jane Curtin 6 stars because she wasn't bad in her movie debut. I thought that Jessica Lange was even better in her role as the doctor's wife. However, I bought this movie for two reasons. The first was Susan Saint James who looked great in jeans and everything else she wore. The second reason, Sybil Danning who was Albert receptionist and was excellent at it. Because of those two reasons, I give this movie 10 weasel stars.


I was not alive when this movie was made but i LOVED IT!! I admit, it was "old acting" but they casted great women for the lead rolls. They REALLY under rated it though. My friends agree with me b/c of "Jane Curtin's" striptease. Susan's characters was not as good as Jane Curtin and Jessica Lange's. Susans character was very ditsy most of the time. WHO brings their kids to a robbery!!!!! Jessica Lange's character was the smart one and Jane Curtin's Charator was clever. I recommend this movie to people who can deal with chick flicks. Its not very chick flicky but a lot of it was about romance. The beginning was boring but it got better as it got into it. You should really rent this movie!


Believe it or not, this movie actually has some resemblance with Jules Dassin's famous heist classic. OK, it's not Paris, France here. But Eugene, Oregon is a nice place, too. People who are familiar with the town probably will have a few extra laughs. The actual heist in a shopping mall is really well filmed and not entirely implausible. Contrary to the men's rififi the women work their way up from below, but I do not want do disclose more.

How to Beat the High Co$t of Living is based on quite a good and easily digestible script, although some of the jokes are predictable or fall a little flat. The first part of the movie deals with the individual reasons of the three women of different social backgrounds to plan and execute the heist. This gives some insight in the economic situation in the USA in the late 1970s.

Jane Curtin is great in the leading role, she has a terrific screen presence and can bare her teeth like no one else. Her job during the heist is to divert the attention of the crowd from the treasure while it is taken away and she really has some wonderful scenes. I also liked Richard Benjamin, Eddie Albert and Dabney Coleman as male support.

I can recommend this movie as a light yet insightful entertainment.


Funnier than all the movies from Adam Sandler Freddie Prince or David Spade! This movie has lots of laugh out loud moments that are sadly missing from todays movies! The story is simple 3 women are broke. One her husband has left her and has taken everything! Another is she is a single mother of 2! The last her husband is suing her. All friends and they are all broke. Now there going to rob the mall! This is great caper comedy! What happens is a mad cap comedy! Critics didn't like this movie! A Filmways release! Not available on Home Video for years however it returned on DVD! The movie developed a loyal following when it started running on cable! Its time for the critics to review this movie again! Jane Curtin later co-stared with Susan St James in the TV Show Kate & Allie. She also co-stared with Dabney Colemen in "Maybe Baby".


This is a then-topical lightweight comedy about the perils of inflation. Not terrible but nothing special, either. It reminds me of other comedies from that era like Harper valley, PTA, which must've looked good on paper. The cast is game and an opportunity to see Jessica Lange's incredible beauty is always welcome.


Three likable and spirited actresses are stuck with weak material here. The film sags in the first hour because there is too much exposition (and some attempts at social-drama undertones), and it doesn't much improve when the actual heist begins. There is not much fun to be had here. Don't bother watching this. (**)


Three likable leads (Susan Saint James, Jane Curtin, and Jessica Lange) are pretty much wasted in gloppy, colorless comedy about suburban housewives--put-upon and desperate!!--scheming to rob a shopping mall of its contest booty. Too few visual gags and a stale script rob this movie of its charm, with the actresses struggling not to look like caustic harpies. Robert Scheerer directs as if he were working for television, with a cramped budget that makes the whole thing look junky. Good supporting cast (Dabney Coleman, Richard Benjamin) is given little to do, and the ingenuity of the women is passed over for dumbed down slapstick and a T&A shot. *1/2 from ****


I was fortunate enough to get to see this film a couple weeks back at one of my favorite theaters (the Rialto in Pasadena) and the ambiance of the venue really added to my experience (the Rialto is a grand and spooky place - you can feel the ghosts that surely live there). My only wish is that more people turned out for I can only imagine how much fun it would be to see "Spectres" with a big audience.

Having read about the movie in advance, I knew it was not going to be a horror film. Still, there were several moments in the movie made me jump and based on the reaction of the rest of the audience I was not alone. Also I was surprised at how funny the movie is. It's a good thing too because if this film had taken itself - or its philosophical/spiritual ideas - too seriously, it could have been a disaster. Instead, it wears its heart on its sleeve without shoving anything down your throat. And because the filmmakers don't violate the rules they've created in this world, you walk away at the end, maybe not believing, but thinking it'd be really cool if the ideas expressed were true.

If people come to this film for any reason other than the supernatural elements, of course, they'll be coming for the cast of recognizable sci-fi veterans (so amazing to see David Hedison again - he looks FANTASTIC). It certainly is fun to see so many good actors playing against type. Still, it is the young actress who plays "Kelly" that steals the show. She IS the movie and that's no knock on the other performers, who all do really good work.

Technically, the film is somewhat of a mixed bag in that there's some choppy camera work and the music is often that of a TV Movie. Some of the effects are cool, some are barely serviceable. According to the filmmakers, the movie was shot in high definition, and it has a really unique look to it that seems to fit the mood. Also, the sound effects and design do a lot to add to the spooky and emotionally haunting atmosphere.

Still, technical flaws aside, this is clearly a modest-budgeted picture with huge ideas and an even bigger heart and as such I really hope it finds wide acclaim and success.