First I need to point out that I have NEVER seen the British Forsyte series, so I cannot possibly compare this movie to it. I have heard that the British series is better and fuller, but I just have no idea if this is true.

Second, this movie has among the strangest casting I have seen in some time! Errol Flynn, well-known as a party-animal and womanizer, is cast as the incredibly dull and loveless Soames Forsyte! And, oddly, Walter Pidgeon plays the nice Jolyon Forsyte. Logically, Flynn SHOULD have played the other role and vice-versa, but perhaps the powers that be at MGM couldn't allow "Mr. Miniver" and "Mrs. Miniver" to have a loveless marriage (roles that Pidgeon and Garson were very famous for). Regardless of the reasoning, it actually worked pretty well.

As far as Flynn goes, this casting was probably a good decision, as his role was by far the most interesting and enigmatic in the film. While Garson and Pidgeon play likable people and Robert Young plays an ardent suitor, Flynn must play a very cold and cynical man. The expression "he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing" is a great description of him--a fool who might be rich but can't appreciate love or things cash can't buy him. It must have been tough for the dashing Flynn to play such an overly restrained type of character and it was one of the best roles of the later half of his career.

Greer Garson essentially plays the stereotypical "Greer Garson" role--you know, the nice and sweet lady you naturally love. And Pidgeon plays essentially the same nice guy role he usually played in the 1940s as well. As far as Robert Young and Janet Leigh, they were important to the plot, but their characters weren't really all that important to the plot--they just helped the story along.

Essentially, the story is about very rich and boring old Soames Forsyte (Flynn) pursuing Irene (Garson) very, very ardently. However, his passion and love seems to completely vanish once he marries her--almost like she's a financial acquisition, not a loving wife. Later, Irene meets her niece's boyfriend (Young) and they somehow fall in love. In some ways this is very, very unconvincing--after all, Irene is nice and the idea of her stealing her niece's beau is a bit hard to swallow. But, considering what a cold fish Soames is, I could certainly understand her jumping at the first chance for passion. I just would have liked the movie a little more if the object of her affection were better defined or if this infatuation seemed a bit more believable.

Anyways, what exactly happens next, I'll not explore further, as I don't want to spoil the film. So how all this is resolved is just going to have to wait until you see the film. However, I will say that the very best line in the movie was the final one given by Irene. Speaking of now ex-husband Soames, she says "I feel sorry for him,...he's a very poor man". What a fantastic line--a marvelous way to wrap up this excellent film.

PS--On a sad note, you might want to compare the Errol Flynn in this film to the same man in movies from just three or so years earlier. I saw this movie as well as OBJECTIVE, BURMA! (1945) and NEVER SAY GOODBYE (1946) all a day or so apart. Despite being made about the same time, Flynn was a lot fatter and puffier in THAT FORSYTE WOMAN due to the effects of alcoholism. Sure he was supposed to be older in this film, but the effects I am talking about were not created by the makeup department. His drinking had finally taken its toll and he looks at least 15 years older just in three years! It's very depressing, really, that he did this to himself--going from a very handsome leading man to a bloated soon-to-be has-been (his films of the 1950s were, for the most part, third-rate messes).


This film was cited as one of the ones that Errol Flynn felt he gave a good performance in, and that assessment is certainly true. He completely played against type in this role as an emotionally restricted man of property and did a fine job. The problem is not in his playing but in the heavily edited screenplay and miscasting. Robert Young is laughable as the "young" architect and Greer Garson too genteel by half for the role of the scheming adulteress Irene who freezes Soames out-Eleanor Parker would have been ideal for this role,but one gets the feeling MGM couldn't allow Garson to be the adventuress the role demanded because of her image. Also,the film's lack of the pivotal rape scene that ends the marriage in the novel undermines the reason why Irene detests Soames so much. Flynn portrays Soames well enough that he could have followed through in such a scene in good form. He did a great job with this character's motivations and was still quite handsome. An underrated performance in a so-so adaptation of a classic novel.


Because there is (for the most part) a sense of fun and adventure in the best of Errol Flynn's movies movie lovers tend not to see that he could perform well in dramatic fashion. I can site two examples: 1) In DAWN PATROL he starts cracking up under the stress and strain of his command position; 2) In THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON, Flynn senses that he is going to probably die on his last military mission (as does his wife Olivia de Havilland). But they kid and joke together about how they'll retire and grow fat together once the campaign is over.

So he could act very well indeed. But the hijinks that were part of his films usually covered his abilities to act. Then there was Jack Warner. He rarely agreed to let Flynn do "straight" dramatic or comic roles. In Flynn's early career he did do films like GREEN LIGHT, FOUR'S A CROWD, and THE SISTERS with mediocre results (the comedy FOUR'S A CROWD is the best of this bunch), but Warner knew how the public liked certain actors as dramatic players and certain ones in particular grooves. He rarely gave Flynn a non-adventure part after 1940. The murder mystery FOOTSTEPS IN THE DARK, the all star romp THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS, and the interesting French war drama UNCERTAIN GLORY were exceptions

I suspect this treatment began to bug Flynn after the rape case in 1944, when Warner's was determined (for damage control) to try to retain Flynn's hero image at all costs, and to make his sexuality a type of joke. Then, his contract with Warners ended and he went to M.G.M. He was able to do THAT FORSYTE WOMAN with Greer Garson, Walter Pigeon, and Robert Young. Here, he hoped, he would demonstrate his abilities as a straight actor as never before.

THAT FORSYTE WOMAN is based on THE FORSYTE SAGA's first novel, THE MAN OF PROPERTY (with a bit of the second novel IN CHANCERY thrown in). Written by John Galsworthy in the teens and twenties, the nine novels and numerous short stories and "interludes" about members of his rich, upper middle class family remain a favorite series of tales about the period of England from 1880 to 1929 (Galsworthy died in 1933). They won him the Nobel Prize in Literature. Unfortunately, the stories' appeal has led to them being used for television twice, the last time only four years ago. The best version is either that recent one, or the 1960s version starring Kenneth More, Eric Porter, Nyree Dawn Porter, Martin Jarvis, Susan Hampshire, Nicholas Pennell, and (introducing) Michael York. I say unfortunately because the television versions (being multiple episodes) allowed the screenwriters more opportunity to dramatize more of the stories. Whole plot lines, jettisoned or condensed in a single film (even of a single novel) were expanded more comprehensibly. Also, as the 1960s version was going through the first six novels in 26 hour episodes, characters were given a chance to develop. In particular Soames Forsyte, the character played by Flynn in the movie.

In the 1960s version Soames was played by Eric Porter. Now it is an odd balance here. Porter had no great film career - he did not become the film icon that Flynn did. But on television he certainly was quite effective in several programs (he was a memorable Nevil Chamberlain in WINSTON CHURCHILL: THE WILDERNESS YEARS). His version of Soames was a wonderful full blooded characterization. Instead of just being a stuffed - shirt solicitor and art collector, Porter showed the demons that drive Soames to the mad act that blights his home life (Soames sexually attacks an unwilling Irene - his wife - when she refused to fulfill her wifely duties). Later his stuffiness actually stands out in rather good contrast to the anti-Victorian backlash that follows the First World War. He becomes a grand old curmudgeon.

Flynn could not do this. Indeed the entire rape issue in the novel was totally played down in the film (MGM brass could not bring up the idea of rape with Flynn, even though he had won the 1944 case brought against him on that charge). Instead they emphasized the other unattractive side of Soames. Committed to property, in his art collecting, his accumulation of wealth, and his home (and his future house being built by Philip Bossiney (Robert Young)), the movie Soames considers Irene (Greer Garson) his possession. In the novel this theme is brought out by Galsworthy (typical of the mindset of Victorian England - even in it's laws). Irene tries to escape with Bossiney (who is engaged to Soames cousin June (Janet Leigh)), but the latter dies under violent circumstances. However, Irene does leave Soames, and ends up marrying Soames other cousin Jolyon (Pidgeon).

With the total affect of the novel cut due to the mores of 1949 and the history of it's male leading man, the story was weakened. To his credit Flynn did give a good performance. He is a totally unlikeable Victorian pompous ass who happens to have no sense of humor (which is Soames' character, before his marriage problems) who likes to collect things. Problem is, even with his money it is hard to understand why anyone would be willing to marry such a man. Irene (in the novel) is the daughter of a professor who has died, and is living with her step-mother (whom she can't stand). If this was developed (as it was in the 1960s series) the problem of her marrying Soames would be understood. Here it wasn't.

As the story was done so superbly by Porter and his co-stars in the 1960s, Flynn's good performance in such a mediocre version is distinctly minor. However, out of respect for Errol's attempt to show what he could do (and his personal results) I'll give the film a "7" as a better than average try.


I made an awful mistake. I thought that because Greer Garson was such a great actress, all of her films had to be just as great. Oh, what a fool I was! I was so disappointed with this film. I'd purchased several of Ms. Garson's films at one time and settled in this past weekend for a Greer Garson film festival. "That Forsyte Woman" was the third film watched and I found myself wiggling and blowing from boredom. Mr. Flynn was a handsome diversion, but Greer's love interest, Robert Young, just didn't fit the bill. The story was just all together weak. There were some decent performances, but the story lacked and lacked a lot. As a matter of fact, I was waiting for the thick of the plot and the credits started to roll. How infuriating!!! I'm very proud of my library of movies and I rarely take away from them, but I'm almost embarrassed to have this one on display. I'd steer clear of this one.


This is one of the most silly and, worse, much worse, boring pictures of its time. I need to write about it to exorcise it, delete it from my mind completely.

Errol Flynn is cast against type as the stiff and correct Forsyte of the rick and powerful Forsyte dynasty of successful business competing with the old Victorian aristocracy. His brother, played by Walter Pigeon in the part one might have envisaged for Flynn himself, is the dashing black sheep of the family, and they are both in love with sultry redheaded Greer Garson, only Flynn gets to marry her for reasons that were never quite clear to me. Of course, Garson is also loved by the prospective husband, Robert Young, of Flynn's daughter, the young Janet Leigh. Don't ask ...

Be that as it may, if only told with a sense of style or acted in a way that made some sort of psychological sense of this mumbo jumbo, 'That Forsyte Woman' might, just might, have worked. But it is so inexcusably heavy-handed and one-dimensional that I now wonder why I bothered to watch it until the end.

Behind the cold and uncharacteristic crispiness it is obvious that Errol Flynn, although visibly aged, is still the gorgeous sexual animal that made him an exhilarating screen presence, but he is given nothing to work with here. Garson has her moments, but is mostly just coerced into looking lovely and misty-eyed.

It his movie is ever shown on a screen near you, and TCM does make a point of that, be forewarned: don't watch it, do something else with your time, if you know what's good for you.


Found this film quite unbelievable because of the fact that so many men seemed to be attracted to Greer Garson,(Irene Forsyte) first met a very rich man named Soames Forsyte, (Errol Flynn) and Soames falls immediately in love with Irene and he keeps asking Irene to marry him and after many years of trying, Irene decided to say yes to marriage, however, she told him she does not love him. Irene finds it very difficult to join the family named Forsyte who were a very close family who thought Irene was just a gold digger since she was not a very wealthy woman at all. Through out this picture Irene is hit on by many men who fall in love with her, namely: Philip Bosinney,(Robert Young); Young Jolyon Forsyte, (Walter Pidgeon) , all these men want to marry Irene and do not care if she is married or not. Irene even breaks up a marriage between June Forsyte, (Janet Leigh) who was going to marry Philip Bosinney. It is very hard to understand just who Irene really falls in love with, and you will never see the men going to bed with her since this film was made in 1949.


i first saw this in 1992 and was amazed how this series captured what can happen in real life. the past few years i have tried to get a copy of it with out much luck till recently, it cost me a lot but it will always take pride of place in my movie collection.I think the combination of Sam Neil and Peter Strauss was in part the making of this mini series, they are both fine actors and played their parts to perfection, my partner would not have even considered watching something like this normally but sat through it because i had raved about it for so long and when it had finished he had tears in his eyes and said DAM BRILLIANT,he enjoyed it, and was glad that he had taken the time to watch it.


The last time I watched this movie was ten years ago. I have been trying since then to watch it again, but i could not get a copy. Thats why why joined this website in order to watch this movie again, so How do I get to download this movie into my PC. I have been trying and trying very hard to look and searching for this movie for a long time, but I could not find it. I was searching in the inter net when suddenly I saw it and then your website came up, so I decided to log in and sign in as a member. I want to thank your website for answering my prayer because I finally has found the movie I have been looking for, so please once again could your kind office send information on how I can download or get a copy of this movie into my PC. I will be waiting for your reply. Thankk you.

member


I seen the mini series when aired on British TV and i enjoyed it very much.

Sam Neill was brilliant as William Lowell Kane my mother would have to disagree as she liked Peter Strauss as Abel Rosnovski as she had a soft spot for him as an actor.

I have now bought volume 1 & 2 on VHS.

But i can not find the volume 3on VHS any where if anyone knows where i can obtain it i would love to hear from you.

I would also like to find the 3 volumes on DVD also.

As the videos are for my mum who also loved the mini series.

And watch it once again.


It must be more than ten years ago that I saw this mini-series. Probably a period that I loved very dramatic films and books. But I can never forget this series. It was film so 'smooth' and 'rich' and especially the music was dramatic. I'm really curious what I would experience if I would see it these days. It's funny that the bible-borrowed title of the series announces that the clash between Kane and Abel will be very dramatic. That's very smart of the creators, I think.


This movie is at best a mediocre mini-series. It oftentimes leaves major holes in the plot. For instance, we never see William and Kate get married or have children, and suddenly they have a 12 year old son at St. Paul's. You never realize that many years have passed before Abel and Zaphia are divorced, but it only takes one scene for the movie to do it. Very few characters are really in line with how Archer's book portrays them. The only accurate portrayal in this movie was that of Davis Leroy. Fred Gywnn nailed that part the way Bob Vila nails studs together. Overall though, the film is a disappointing show.


A huge still from this film on a book of my father's on Epic movies had long intrigued me but when I had tried to watch it one afternoon several years ago (almost to the day) on Italian TV, I was put off by its utter daftness. Now that I'm on a mini-marathon of filmed epics in time for Good Friday, I thought I'd give this celebrated Italian wartime spectacle another look.

And what a look it turned out to be: this must certainly belong among the most sumptuous and ornately mounted fantasies ever put on film and, in hindsight, it's interesting that each major country involved in the ongoing struggle up to that time invested in a splendidly escapist (but not apolitical) extravaganza - the others being, of course, England's THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1940) and Germany's MUNCHHAUSEN (1943), which I had rewatched last year.

Anyway, the plot is a convoluted mix of The Nibelungen (its Teutonic visuals), William Tell (the protagonists' prowess with weapons), Macbeth (the doom-laden prophecies of a soothsayer in the forest) and even Tarzan (the son of a slain king, abandoned in the woods as a child, is eventually raised by lions and reappears after many years donning a loincloth!) but, thankfully, it moves at such a lightning pace that what one remembers most is not the court machinations but the splendid pageantry and impressively-staged action and crowd scenes, never more so than during the remarkable, extended jousting sequence.

The performers are also notable: Massimo Girotti as the afore-mentioned "Tarzan" figure (who is also prone to giant leaps a' la The Incredible Hulk!), Elisa Cegani (as a princess imprisoned in her own castle by her despotic father), Osvaldo Valenti (as a seemingly unbeatable knight at the joust whose winner will take the princess for his wife), Rina Morelli as the omnipresent soothsayer, famed wrestler Primo Carnera as a long-suffering he-man and, most of all, the larger-than-life villainy of Gino Cervi (as the illegitimate ruler, having killed his own brother to claim the throne, and calls everyone around him "beast"!) and Luisa Ferida (as Tundra, a sort of blood-thirsty Jungle Girl who is eventually reformed by her love for Girotti); it's worth noting here that the three leads each have dual roles playing the parent of the character they portray later on in the film.

Surprisingly enough for such a commercial (if undoubtedly artistically valid) venture, the film emerged the winner of the Venice Film Festival where, ironically, it was greeted with contempt by the guest of honor, the Nazi Propaganda Minister Dr. Josef Goebbels! Incidentally, another person who was unimpressed with the film was director Riccardo Freda - who should know a thing or two about fantasy film-making, being the helmer of several "sword-and-sandal" epics in his time.

Director Blasetti would go on to make another celebrated milestone of Italian cinema, the even more elaborate FABIOLA (1949) and, unfortunately, given their considerable reputation, both of these marvelous films are as yet unavailable on DVD even in Italy - although, the same can be said of several other little-seen but equally outstanding Italian epics including LA NAVE DELLE DONNE MALEDETTE (1953) and VIVA L'ITALIA! (1961)...


The Iron Crown is a wonderful fantasy film that carries on the great traditions of Italian pepla such as Cabiria. There are hints that the filmmakers had seen Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but The Iron Crown also anticipates---and establishes the blueprint for---films as disparate as Shrek, The Princess Bride, and many of the renewed pepla cycle of the 60s. The film is also echoed by Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, though it is certainly a lighter hearted affair. Wrestler Primo Carnera is on hand as a loyal strong man, adding interest for fans of the squared circle. Skillfully blending comedy, romance, and action, this is not to be missed.


Bravo Blassetti ! Bravo Massimo Girotti ! What a surprise from Italy! An Epic saga..Mythological & religious...Sort of an Italian Star Wars meets Robin Hood meets Ben Hur ! Action ! Lust ! Mythological settings ! Forests, loincloths ,moats,chariots, swords, jousting & a story line which never loses your interest!!What a Spectacle !! predates most of our great spectacular films of the 1950s by many yrs (Ok, we had silent films King of Kings & 10 Commandments & some other De Mille Films, Sign of the Cross etc) but this mythological setting was unusual for the times... Cant wait to see again.. Massimo Girotti whose work I know from Senso & later Medea is excellent... rest of cast were not known to me & also not aware of director, Blassetti.... now I am !Will look forward to viewing The Iron Crown again,.and other films by Blassetti..Thanks again TCM !!


I saw this film on TV several times as a boy in the early or mid-1950s. At that age, it was a genuine sword and sorcerer fantasy. The weird part was years later when I'd try to explain the plot to someone. It was too complex and didn't make a whole lot of sense. When videotapes became available I tracked it down, bought it and watched it. It was just as strange as I'd remembered. It was also just as absorbing as it had been at the age of 10. An earlier comment about the quality of the movie on tape was accurate. It appeared to be taken from a damaged print and the subtitles are often unreadable. Still this is an interesting piece of film history. It's not for everyone, but for those interested in Italian film, epic blockbusters, etc., it can be fun. I'd like to see a good DVD version.


I recently went into a blockbuster looking for a movie to rent. The girl working at the counter would sometimes recommend movies to me if I couldn't decided. She suggested a movie titled WALTZING ANNA. She said it is a small independent film but it seems to be catching interest. So I rented it. I must say I thought that this was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It was a funny emotional film filled with great performances. The 2 leads Emmanuelle Chriqui and Robert Capelli Jr did a wonderful job. Emmanuelle gave a strong performance as a nurse who worked in the nursing home and Robert Capelli Jr. displayed the range and emotion of a solid leading man, giving an unyielding performance. Rounding out the cast was Pat Hingle, who's performance of a broken down man living in the home brought me to tears. It is an inde film so the quality is not as good as a 100 million dollar budget film, but its heart is in the right place and accomplishes to do what movies should do, entertain.


I saw a sneak preview of WALTZING ANNA and I truly feel this was one of the most enjoyable films I have ever seen. It was a breath of fresh air compared to what the studios are putting out. I can't remember the last time I cried in a theater and was so touched by a motion picture. I was moved by every performance and cared for every character. Robert Capelli Jr and Emmanuelle Chriqui, who co-star in the film, had excellent chemistry. The give and take between the two reminded me Tracey and Hapburn of years past. Pat Hingle, who plays a resident at the Nursing Home, gives a performance of a lifetime. He should be nominated for a Best Supporting Oscar.

WALTZING ANNA, a heartwarming tale of a doctor who is sent to an old age home to work on his bedside manner, was a true delight. The first half of the movie was light hearted and touches on subjects that we deal with on the surface. But the second half was the pay off. Midway through you are captivated by the story line and find yourself caring for every character. The subject manner was deep and emotionally driven. The payoff was truly honorable. I found myself walking away from the theater feeling better than I ever felt when exiting the film . I am glad to see filmmakers touching on topics that deal with elderly care. It sounds cliché but you'll laugh, you'll cry, and walk away with a smile on your face. It was a beautiful movie and hope it gets the attention it deserves.


Just saw the film, and it had its ups and downs...It was a very predictable, but extremely cute film. There were some technical problems, but overall the film moved nicely. If you like feel good movies about the elderly, then I would recommend this film. The supporting cast was hands down the best part of the film, all of the older actors really pulled out the audience's emotion...Pat Hingle really did an amazing job portraying the feisty old man in the nursing home who kept trying to escape. The topic of corrupt nursing homes is one that should be touched upon more in contemporary media and film making. Overall, I enjoyed the film for what it was: a low to medium budget independent film with a nice heartwarming story that the film makers seem to have cared greatly about.


While following the tales of local filmmakers, its usually fun to find Jersey films in Jersey theaters. Not this time. I read the "user comments" that have preceded mine and I noticed something odd. The positive reviews all came before the movie opened. Were these privileged viewers part of the "premiere" screening. If so, its likely they were part of the crowd that made this misfire. This film was average at best because of the fantastic, underused supporting cast. The always real Pat Hingle, the subtle Betsy Palmer, the hilarious Grant Shaud, the gorgeous and steady Emmanuelle Chriqui, the rock Marcella Lowery...and the list goes on. You could see the editors trying desperately to hide the blemish - Robert Capelli, Jr. They would obviously cut away from him often, leave him out of focus, dub his lines. Nothing worked. I notice this guy's done 3 movies in which he is the lead! I also notice he is either the producer or director on all of those films. Coincidence? He's either really wealthy, or a really good salesman. Give him credit for continuing to try. I admit I'm jealous. I'd love to have others financing my quest for fame. Hey, don't take our word for it-Check out Village Voice, Daily News, NY Post, Cinematical, etc. Can they all be wrong?


I'd like to support indie filmmakers as much as the next film fan, but let's be honest please. The Good: Great supporting cast - Pat Hingle, Betsy Palmer, Emmanuelle Chriqui, George Morfogen, etc. The Bad: Average story, a formula weeper, underdeveloped "romance", Not enough Artie Lange. The Ugly: A Harvard Doctor that can't pronounce "Alzheimer's." Whose fault is this? I can't believe with 2 directors, they could both let that slide. They are as much to blame as the "star". "Convincing" is hardly the word I'd use to describe this performance. It was a nice try, I bet they all cared deeply about this serious subject, but when the lead can't lead, or even follow, he should stay out of the way. 4, out of ten, for effort.


It seems Mr Capelli is the lead because he is banking the project. He is perhaps the worst actor living today and I have been unable to find anything about him other than he's from Hobokon and becomes an executive producer out of nowhere. Mob money? who knows? The fact is the movie is really bad and for the most part because of him. I rented the "film" due to the fact that Emmanuelle Chriqui was in it. She's one of the most beautiful actresses working today and generally good in everything she's in - with what she has to work with here she's OK. Artie Lange, in his brief appearance, is good and his acting skills appear godlike compared to the clownish Capelli.


Despite my girlfriend dragging me to its advanced screening in NYC, I was most pleasantly surprised with "Waltzing Anna." Sure, it is a great chick flick, but it was actually more than that. It turned out to be a very well-written comedy with a nice dramatic edge. Artie Lange, Howard Stern's side kick, was hysterical and played well with the female lead who I immediately recognized from "Entourage" as E's girlfriend. The male lead was very convincing as an ethically challenged Doctor. I'm sure we'll be hearing more from him very soon with his top notch performance. With appearances by J. Eddie Peck from "All My Children" and the old Judge from the Clint Eastwood spaghetti-westerns, the cast was of great support to a funny script that was well shot. If you enjoyed "Hitch," you will most certainly find "Waltzing Anna" well worth your while. It will remind you of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" meets "Patch Adams!"


Just got back from an advanced screening of this film and was compelled to write this with the hope who ever reads this will take my advice and go see this film immediately. For several reasons:the first being the acting and casting. Emmanuelle Chrioui (I am a big "Entourage" fan) and new comer Robert Capeli were fantastic together. And Pat Hingle should get a nomination for his role. Artie Lange couldn't of been funnier (I am a bigger Stern fan). I also liked the way they cast soap star J. Eddie Peck as a villain. And Grant Shaud from "Murphy Brown" fame was stellar. His last scene made me laugh out loud. The second was the story, I don't want to spoil it for you let me just type you will not be disappointed. I concur with the other posting's that this is a must see.....


Two couples, upper middle class and no financial problems: four friends. They marry at about the same time, each have two kids, they spend a lot of time together, *best* friends... And then, one of them split up.

The movie, by the way of dialogs, shows how each of the four's world is shaken up, as their unspoken contract, namely, to raise their kids together, to grow old together, is broken. Questions: Whose fault is the breakup, husband's or wife's? Which couple has it right: those, who stick to marriage or those who break out of the rut? Who has the right to judge: those who keep to their marriage vows, or those who acknowledge that their relationship has been a lie? Can we demand that our friends always tell us the truth? How do we react when our closest friends question the unspoken foundations of our lives? The movie follows the actions and reactions of our characters in this situation. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. In a way, everybody is right. That is what makes the movie interesting. The men act the way men act, and the women act the way women act. The questions are not really answered, they are debated, and the movie shows that completely grown-up people are really unable to answer them.

I liked the performances of the actors. Andie McDowell was as beautiful as she always is. I also liked the two guys. The environment, the camera, etc. seemed just right. But the most interesting were the dialogs. So, if you like movies in which people investigate themselves, their lives, and their relationships, without giving you a definite answer what to do, you may enjoy this movie.


This movie is really about Gabe and Karen (Quaid and MacDowell) - how they tackle life as a couple. The movie begins with the collapse of Tom and Beth's (Kinnear and Collette) marriage, and proceeds to show the reason. Tom and Beth are no different from any other couple who eventually drift apart after years of marriage, but the real focus here is Gabe and Karen's hand in their inevitable parting.

We learn from a flashback that Tom and Beth were initially best friends of Gabe and Karen's respectively. They were set up to fall for each other. The setting was perfect - a beach house, a sunset, and both were in the thirties and ripe for marriage. Later however, we gather the truth about each person, and why the marriage was foredoomed to failure. What is impressive though, is that despite the unravelling of each person's flaws, we don't despise the characters. The flaws are realistic and it's easy for us to find them in our friends and perhaps in ourselves.

Tom and Beth are full of resentment, towards each other and towards Gabe and Karen. They have recently realized that they were not meant for each other, and they were just products of Gabe and Karen's subconscious manipulations. They had fallen into Gabe and Karen's perfect setting - having their best friends fall in love with each other and living out the rest of their lives together as a foursome. Tom and Beth even have two daughters as a foil to Gabe and Karen's two sons!

The movie reveals something I've noticed in many friendships. There is a dominant personality and there is a submissive one. The dominant friend has a dream of how his life should be and his submissive friend falls agreeably into the role created for him in that dream. It is like a script the dominant friend has written. He naturally writes himself into the Lead Actor role and he proceeds to create the role of Supporting Actor for his submissive friend.

Gabe and Karen's script involved growing old together as a foursome. The plot of their story had been written for four actors. Unfortunately they hadn't counted on Tom and Beth's withdrawal from their roles as supporting actors. Deprived of their backboard, Gabe and Karen are suddenly alone, and they realize that they have no idea how to handle their encroaching middle-age years without their four-way script beneath them. More importantly, they realize that they haven't had the need to communicate solely with each other until now and they have no idea how to do it.

The ending of the movie doesn't tell you if they wind up solving their problem. It just shows you how they tackle it - they begin to rewrite the script. However this time, there are no supporting actor roles as fallbacks. They have to learn to just rely upon each other as they grow old together.

My rating: 10/10


TV may be mostly a wasteland these days, but every once in a while, a fine original film shows up on the tube. `Dinner With Friends' is certainly in that category. It takes the viewer deeply into the relationship between two couples and within each. They were best friends until one of the marriages hits the rocks. We see each side of that split and how it affects the other couple. Initially, sides seem to be taken along gender lines, but that reverses as each member of the separating couple finds new relationships. Is it fatal to the other marriage? Watch and see.


Having seen Donald Margulies' play when it opened in New York, I was interested in what Norman Jewison, the director, had done with it for the screen version. It helps that Mr. Margulies did his own adaptation, although, it appears to this viewer, the stage version was more satisfying. Not that there's anything wrong with the film, it's just that the cast in the play was far superior than these well intentioned actors we see in the movie. Mr. Margulies has tried to open his play, but it just doesn't go anywhere.

The basic premise, and a caveat to good friends, is to stay away from "fixing up" prospective marriage partners, as things in life are a bit more complicated than a good ending in a book, a play, a movie, or human relations.

Karen and Gabe are happily married. They conjure to arrange a meeting with Beth, a painter, and Tom, a lawyer. Basically, the idea of having mutual friends meet one another, might not be bad, but in reality things should be let alone and let nature takes its course. The bright idea back fires on Karen, who, upon hearing at the beginning of the film that her best friend, Beth, is divorcing Tom, is visibly upset. She feels betrayed by these two people she was instrumental in bringing together.

It's hard for both, Gabe and Karen, to think where they went wrong in their match making roles. They never take into consideration that Beth is totally wrong for Tom, and vice versa. The problem is that this couple don't think that Beth and Tom have found new partners in what appears to be a much solid relationships than what they had together. Karen and Gabe are crushed, but in reality, not everything is perfect in their own marriage. We get hints that yes, they are not completely happy, but they have decided to stay in the marriage out of decency and out of duty to their two boys, which is what Beth and Tom have failed to do. Call them old fashioned, but one has to give Karen and Gabe a lot of credit for at least trying to stay together as a family.

Andie MacDowell is Karen; she is a beautiful woman. In the movie, Ms. MacDowell appears a bit distant. She loved to bring people together and resents their friends separation. Ms. MacDowell's Karen comes across as a hard and judgmental person. Dennis Quaid tries hard to give Gabe warmth. Perhaps he comes across as the best of the four principals. Toni Collette's Beth is an enigma until her confrontation with Karen at the restaurant, then, we see a woman that is not shy in telling her best friend off as she embarks in a new relationship. Greg Kinnear is Tom. He is perhaps the weakest link in the quartet, as he is perhaps, not treated fairly by Karen, or Gabe.

The movie remains a bit theatrical, but Norman Jewison has done wonders with the material.


I happen to be someone who does like to watch the credits roll in when a movie ends. I know it's one of those silliest things a person can do after watching a movie but then when I saw the final credit, it's a made-for-TV movie from HBO. I was pretty impressed.

Gabe and Karen (Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell respectively) are food critics. They had been happily married for 12 years and have two sons as well. When one day their friend Beth (Toni Collette) was being invited over for dinner with her two sons in tow, Beth broke the news that she and her husband Tom are being separated because he was having an affair outside of the family. Given Tom is Gabe's friend and Beth is Karen's friend, married couple Gabe and Karen started to defend over what each of their best friend had did.

The way Tom questioned his wife over whatever happened at Gabe and Karen's house when she was there with the kids was a little, kind of scary. But maybe given he is a lawyer, it's just like that.

The movie even had scenes of flashback, showing the happier times between the four friends themselves. It was definitely really sweet to see those scenes.

Sometimes, the lines are not always being drawn clearly when it come to the marriage of someone you know or maybe your own's when something starts to happen. The grey area is there. Now maybe I am not of marriageable age yet, but then standing up to whatever your friend had did is one thing I am clearly aware about.

My final say? Like what I had mentioned on the title for this review.


Dinner With Friends is perhaps one of the best written plays about marriage & the reaction of one couple when there best friends split up.

 Dennis Quaid & Andie Mc Dowell are a happily (even tho they squabble a lot) married couple. Dave Kineer & Toni Collete are there best friends who are going to get a divorce. We find out all about why this is occuring & the reactions of each couple as they go there separate ways, The acting is near flawless. Norman Jewison directed, & he always gets the best out of him performers. Since this is an adult comedy drama, it is not recommended for youngsters, it has no action & is too mature for them. The only others in the cast are the couples children & they are nicely portrayed. a **** rating from me. This is on HBO only, at the present time, & is another winner from them

as always Jay Harris


Dinner With Friends is an ambitious project. It is an interesting look as the bond of marriage, and its complexities when its all said and done. Two couples, Gabe and Karen (Quaid and McDowell) and Tom and Beth (Kinnear and Collete) have been friends forever. When Gabe and Karen invite their friends over to try a new recipe, Beth says that her and Tom are divorcing. This affects Karen a lot since she thinks of them highly. Gabe has trouble putting it into perspective and tries to remember the good times they had. Things start to change for everyone.

Both marriages are volatile and ready to explode. Gabe and Karen's marriage always rides the thin line (She is constantly nitpicky and he backs down from deep conversation about their marriage), but Tom and Beth's marriage impolded from the outset (They were never right for each other). Deep down Gabe and Karen love each other, but Tom and Beth always saw their marriage as just another thing everyone expected him to go through.

The message is simple: nothing is guaranteed. Marriage is always a developing process. My mom and dad have been married for years, but still learn from it. Then there are marriages I know of that falter after like thirty years because there was just was nothing left.

The performances were good. It is what you come to expect from experienced actors. I did have some problems with Kinnear since he still looks fairly young (He's 40) and not like someone who had been married for years (the painted on gray temples didn't help much lol), but it does beat watching him in Auto Focus (solid perfomance, but not entirely factual).

Near the end, the story begins to bottom out and fall flat. It is still an entertaining movie, but the four actors are more capable than the script allows them to be.


After having seen this movie about four times I have to say that this movie is a biting look into the life of 4 friends that may make you uncomfortable, or hit you right where it hurts. Quaid and MacDowell and Kinnear and Collette are two married couples who have been friends, shared lives, stories and the raising of their families for 12 years. Collette drops the bomb, alone, on Quaid and MacDowell, that Kinnear is leaving her. The movie unravels the friendships by exposing that neither Quaid or MacDowell like Kinnear and Collette very much,individually, after their secrets and lies are exposed. I think true friends overcome, and real friends fall by the wayside, as in this movie.

Great acting, dialog, direction, etc..But a intense, deeply emotional film that may cause you to look at your friends and your spouse differently. And ask the question: Could it all fall apart?


I've lived few a number of long term relationships and the marriages of the two couples here rang true to me. Particularly the realization that when a marriage evolves into one dealing with day-to-day responsibilities of bringing up children and the daily business of our lives, the marriage seems to suffer.... but, the difference between the two couples is that one decides to stay together and cope with the realities of life, while the other couple looks elsewhere to recapture the adventurous feelings of new love with a new partner. The question becomes: Do you stay for the long haul and have the day-to-day routine become part of a richer tapestry, or do you leave to find fresher new stimulus each time the honeymoon phase is over?


For those who have seen the above mentioned movie, it was about the wedding: how can you be sure that the promised one is the perfect one?

With "Dinner with friends", the married life analysis goes on and this time, it's about the time effect: after years, children, does love is still there or is-it extinguished and we must start it all over again?

On the contrary of "Sex, lies ", Andie is now surrounded by a terrific cast. I am really surprised by the performance of Dennis Quaid, because he was more in action movie for me but he shows there a lot of deepness.

The couples are really opposite to each other: the one that dissolves becomes happy while the one that rejoices becomes sad. It's like the split of their friends gave proof to their inner fear and they start to break up even thought they have all the reason to be happy!

A good movie! I got only one deception: as it is a indoor drama, I am still wondering if there is poor people or working class in America, because the houses or the families are always top! No way for a cheap accommodation in those movies! I would take this as a contempt for common people!


What an unsuspecting surprise. It was a Friday evening and after a long working week, I threw myself on the lounge with my wife and switched on the television for some brain numbing trashy entertainment. After channel surfing for a while - and an elbow from the wife who took charge of the remote control - we settled on this film, DINNER WITH FRIENDS.

At first I thought it was a horror film about friends and divorces. I cringed at certain parts that were related to our lives, and most of all, I understood the pain of it all. There were times when I just wanted to get up and lose myself in the WWW of my computer, but I had to see this movie out.

Apart from the film trying hard not to be too stage orientated, it was thought provoking cinema. In my world the dialog was precise. The acting, classic new age Hollywood bravado mixed with the old school! And the direction, very unobtrusive and it just got on with the story.

At the end of it all, you know the film succeeded when it creates discussions and heated debates with your partner. We haven't talked about a film like this since EYES WIDE SHUT (you can see my review for this film @ /www.imdb.com/title/tt0120663/usercomments-509).


An HBO original presentation directed by Norman Jewison deals with not so blissful marriage. Two couples(Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell, Greg Kinnear and Toni Collette)have been friends for a dozen years--sharing summer vacations, talking about their children and gourmet food. One couple decides to call it quits and the other is put in the crossfire trying not to take sides. On a whole, this movie gets real abrasive quick. Your attitude toward the characters gets to the point...who gives a s*^t. Collette is so pathetic it hurts to watch her. And I still don't know who ever told MacDowell she could act. People may consider this a triumph for Jewison and HBO; I'm sorry, I was really hoping for better.


Dinner with Friends is a very thoughtful investigation of the relationships among friends and how little we really know about the people whom we love. Two couples have been best friends for many years; Gabe and Karen introduced Tom and Beth to each other. Now, twelve years after their marriage, Tom and Beth are divorcing. The film studies all of the possible interrelationships: the men, the women, the opposite gender spouses and the couples, before and during the breakup, and hints at the probable situation afterward. The acting is superb all around. It is obviously a stage play done as a movie but, being predominantly a dialogue movie, it works well.


Dinner With Friends is the perfect movie for those who felt that Notting Hill was a little too action-packed. The story involves two post-yuppie couples, one of whom split up, and how it affects all of their lives. The film mainly consists of the four of them discussing relationships with each other - and I'm talking about ninety percent conversation here, so be warned - while occasionally interrupted with people looking emotional.

This would be a great film for those interested in the psychology behind modern relationships. For the rest of us, it's a potential cure for insomnia.


This movie to me is great because it shows the true ups and downs in marriage and friendships. Gabe and Karen are like real couples. They argue, settle, cook, clean,raise kids and have meaningful friendships. Tom and Beth are also semi-normal because she cheated on him early in the marriage and he found out, but they stayed together for the kids, like most parents do. Gabe and Karen are like me and my Husband, so that is really great to see. When Gabe and Tom are having lunch and Gabe tells Tom that the four of them were to grow old together, watch each others kids grow up and cry at their weddings, now that is friendship. Karen and Beth are oddly different, Beth stated that she tried to be more like Karen, but no matter how much she stirred her soup still stuck to the pot. Karen would have never said that to Beth, Karen longed for family and friendships, she stated that if she could make her friends her family and that it what it is all about. All the Dinners, the countless hours of video tapes, all those vacations we spent on the Vineyard. 12 years, two kids, He wants a divorce. This is a must buy movie that you can watch over and over and never get tired of.

JM


I have heard so many people complain about the ending of this film. Now that I have seen it I am dismayed by what their comments reveal about the general lack of depth in society. Anyone who doesn't get it has either never been in a loving long term relationship or is just another person waiting for something on-screen to explode. Obviously, it is meant for a viewing audience over the age of consent. Definitely thought provoking and defintely worth watching.


I hated the stage play. So static and talky. But being an immense fan of Margulies' other work, I decided to give the movie a shot. WOW! Maybe it was the chemistry, direction and the ability to have multiple locations, but for some reason, everything fell together and I truly appreciated Margulies' dialogue.


This movie is a Big Chill wannabe. But, it fails to achieve that noble status through insipid dialogue and contrived plot. I kept thinking...who cares!! Do these people work?...are they productive?, or do they just wallow, wallow, wallow in self-centered pitiful auto-examination? I was amazed that the script was written by a man, because the male leading actors talk like women. What guy follows another guy into a public restroom and talk about masturbation?! And so much attention to detail of sets, yet these wimps slug Heineken from the bottle and I could see it was plain water...probably Poland Springs. And Andy McDowell chopping garlic... the professional cookbook writer chopping the garlic skins with the garlic?! Good actors after a bad script and worthless story. Sorry, not even worth a rental.


These four actors have brilliant talent, so I asked myself, what are they doing in a movie like this? I mainly saw this to watch Toni Collette and I can honestly say I was rather dissappointed with this movie as a whole. I didn't get enough background on this relationship between the couples, and although they talk quite a bit about all their "vacations and years together" we only witness one occasion in a 1988 flashback. One minute I was sympathizing with one character, the next minute disliking them. I hate that type of back-and-forth thing because it's tiring to keep up with who you're supposed to like and hate. The ending is kind of...this is the end. Finis. So what is that? Did the writers just forget to finish the script? If more effort had been put in this movie (not by the actors, they were finaminal in their roles) then perhaps this movie would've been more than just an HBO run-by. Not even a huge fan of any of these four can honestly love it...Sorry Toni.


One could see these people , especially as the main problem in the movie revealed itself, exposed down to their raw inner selves. I could relate so much to different aspects of each of the characters--either myself, my significant other(s), and people I have known through out my life. It was almost taken, in bits and pieces, out of my own life and my own values, thoughts, beliefs, etc., mixed into a different order and made into a movie. I expect others feel the same when watching it. I almost felt nakedly exposed during certain parts. It was great.

It was riveting as it unfolded, tho not without a few light hearted moments, and not with out a subtle humour to it. The person of my family who likes action movies wasn't especially interested, but my 16 yr. old daughter ,who appreciates the interplay of relationships and people (as I do) even if going thru a breakdown, found it as fascinating as I did.

Well worth watching, even more than once. Sort of an insightful primer on friendships, relationships, and marriage---not spelled out, but played out thru the dialog. Perhaps should be required watching for couples, and friends. Congrats to the author of this fine piece, as well as to the actors who brought it to life for us.


This is the type of four-person drama that hardly makes it to the big screen anymore, and indeed this 2001 movie originally aired as an HBO film. Adapted by Donald Margulies from his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play, the film documents the unraveling relationships among two married couples who have been best friends for twelve years - Gabe and Karen, a perceived model of professional success (as renowned food writers) and domestic stability; and the other, Tom and Beth, in a state of irreparable collapse. Veteran filmmaker Norman Jewison (whose last successful film was probably 1987's "Moonstruck", his Italian-American valentine to improbable romance) has a proved track record for allowing actors to inhabit characters realistically in difficult situations. This movie proves he is still in peak form in this regard.

The story begins with Beth breaking the news to Gabe and Karen that Tom has left her. Gabe and Karen immediately take sides and start to question the stability of their own relationship. In the meantime, Tom is basking in the happiness of his new relationship with a younger woman, even as his best friends have become judgmental about what they see as a vainglorious, selfish act from a husband and father of two. Beth also goes on to find a new lover but also faces similar disapproval for moving on too fast. Although the film goes into an extended flashback sequence to have us understand the genesis of their long-standing friendship, the movie pushes forward the individual revelations of each principal in superbly executed scenes driven by Marguiles' perceptive, sometimes clever dialogue. There are unexpected comedy elements as well, for example, when a post-meltdown Beth blows her nose in the expensive placemat Karen bought for her in Italy.

The actors shine most unexpectedly. I always thought of Andie MacDowell as a rather flat but obviously lucky presence on the screen. Here she finally seems closer in proximity to a real, flawed human being as Karen. Her character is the picture of image-conscious perfection unable to tolerate, much less accept, disruptions to her controlling existence. MacDowell is still not a great actress, but at least she bravely reveals the unattractive underside of a character genuinely at a loss to deal with her best friends' break-up. As usual, Toni Collette nails her part perfectly as Beth, showing dimensions of the wronged wife that are both surprising and viscerally honest. The real surprises in the cast, however, are the men. As Tom, Greg Kinnear adds substantive depth to his standard happy-go-lucky guy and does not come across as his usual likable scamp at the least. The standout may be Dennis Quaid as Gabe, an assured performance from an actor who has not shown this much introspection on screen before. In fact, he brings an almost fey quality to the early scenes and then gains more heft as the uncomfortable situation comes closer to home.

The most affecting scenes are the ones involving two of the characters at a time in revealing exchanges - Karen and Beth discussing Beth's new lover over lunch, Tom facing Gabe's resentment and jealousy at the bar, Gabe and Karen revealing their tactics to avoid intimacy as they prepare for bed. Given that Quaid and MacDowell play die-hard foodies, there are plenty of shots of luxuriant food that any lover of the Food Network will savor. The film is beautifully shot by cinematographer Roger Deakins, who uses effective burnished amber tones for the flashback sequence. This is not for everyone, but the maturity of the drama and the top-notch performances make this one most worthwhile.


Enjoyable film, though more like a play, examining relationships between two married couples. Scores highly with me for an excellent script. The main players give full-blooded self-indulgent and self centred performances. One message from the movie is, if you want to make a marriage,it takes hard work; more importantly the film suggests some of us are not suited for that institution. I thought the ending was a bit too cosy, but on the whole the writing and directing gives this film an 8 out of 10 from me.


My wife and I were bored. Maybe we were expecting too much: our best married-couple friends had seen the play here in NYC and raved about it. They had also just raved about "Wit", and we loved it. But "Dinner with Friends" had neither the fun nor the insights to do it for us. Certainly, if you're already an HBO subscriber, you ought to give this a shot. But do NOT subscribe because of DWT, and don't rent a tape if it's offered. You've been warned. -SB


Some movies can be adapted from stage-plays successfully, but this one is a good example that even if a play wins a Pulitzer, some stories need a stage.

I was pleased when I found this Kinnear/Quaid movie on the Sundance channel, but that didn't last long. Their acting is solid, but their characters are far too effeminate and unbelievable. This must have worked better on a stage, but it doesn't work in this movie. I don't need them to be tough macho guys, but during key conversations, these two straight men discuss life, marriage, and cheating in a manner that is wimpy and boring. The dialog, gestures, and comments like "If you were really my friend you would just listen", could all have been performed more believably by two women, two gay men, or one of each. When they discuss sex & needing even simple physical affection, Quaid pulls a pillow to his lap. Later, when Kinnear tells Quaid about great sex, Quaid's character asks whether they ever talk. These aren't believable men with wives and established families.

The sloppy production quality was distracting too: non-wet coat after coming in from a downpour, children who sleep through screaming arguments, bad hair-aging on Kinnear, and ... was that water in the beer bottles? Halfway through, the turmoil is side-tracked by a long 15-minute flashback which includes a bandaging device as a flimsy transition for two incompatible people to warm to each other.

Due to the weak men, two women who are often cold, snotty, and unlikeable, and several talking scenes that merely provide information without advancing the character arcs or plot ... I doubt that many people agree with the high rating it receives on IMDb.


To begin with the positive, I'm quite willing to concede that the performances in this movie (by Dennis Quaid, Andie McDowell, Greg Kinnear and Toni Collette) were pretty convincing. Unfortunately, good performances just didn't make up for what I thought was an unpleasant and uninteresting movie about marital breakups and mid-life crises, and how they affect the relationship between friends caught in the middle. Kudos for the fact that the sympathetic characters in the movie (played by Quaid and McDowell) were actually suggesting that marriage problems need to be fought through and marriage held on to rather than thrown away, but still, frankly, I thought this thing would never end, and the ending, when it finally did arrive, was entirely forgettable. A waste of time in my opinion.

3/10.


Excellent portrayal of two couples as best friends - you can notice the comfortable interaction between the couples in the present vs their interaction and awkwardness when they were getting to know each other. I found the lessons in the movie to be quite thought provoking. If you are married with kids, this movie is for you - it is not only for people who have been around a divorce.


This movie never went anywhere. There was little point to this movie. The dialog was painfully boring. Andie McDowell was the only good thing in the movie. Her character seemed more natural and less forced. Dennis Quaid's character had annoying mannerisms and an irritating way of talking. Greg Kinner's character was all over the place. There was little or no cohesiveness to the character. Toni Colette who I LOVE was basically a non-entity in the movie. Her best dialog and acting came within the first 15 minutes of the movie. It sucked me in and made me want to see what happened...but NOTHING really ever happened. The movie also jumped back and forth between current time and 1988. This was supposed to show the beginning and end of the relationship. But there was very little explanation, and didn't even help move the movie forward. I wouldn't suggest wasting your time on this movie.


The MacDowell/Quaid marriage seems like it is already on the rocks from the beginning. Quaid seems to make an attempt but MacDowell never does give her husband any softness except during the final scene when she asks him to talk to her.

Collet and Kinnear are doomed from the beginning.

The film doesn't seem like the give and take of marriage but a good example of two people, especially MacDowell, who are judgemental.

I hoped the plot would pick up and lead somewhere as suggested, but it failed. MacDowell has always been "cold" in her films. The other three would have a chance to give better performances with a better screenplay. Having Jewison attached made me want to see it more. I was disappointed.


I'm pretty open minded and can watch just about anything. This piece of garbage however has to be the worst thing i've had the displeasure to watch for years. It was so bad it made my eyes hurt.

The acting is pathetic, the plot is simple (but in the right hands good have being acceptable), the special effects are dire and the monster suit - lord have mercy, the rabbit suit on Donnie Darko looks better.

The director tries to be clever and uses flash filming to try and "enhance" the scene but in fact it's so annoying and unnecessary, it'll probably give people elliptic fits as well. The same scene is also used multiple times for different situations. For example the beast kills some one rips open their stomach and chows down on their intestines. The beast then tries to get the other prisoners but can't due to the bars either side of him. The film then loops back to the beast ripping up the mans stomach again and chowing down on his intestines!!!!!!!! This is not a rare occurrence either it must have happened about 4 times and the films only on 80 minutes! There's so much wrong with this film that I could write a 1000 word essay on it. The comments above were either made by studio plants of Stevie Wonder. Avoid at all costs!


The SciFi channel has apparently fallen head over heels in love with their "original productions". Whether or not "Shapeshifter" is a SciFi original or not, it is representative of a bothersome trend...instead of trying to compete with other channels showing "classic" films or recent releases that are actually of some quality, give the viewer "original" garbage.

Along with this trend, SciFi has decided that their original movies should be R-rated, but since they want to be sensitive to the concerns of parents, they block out anything titillating (bare breasts, giving someone the finger, etc.) and leave uncut the disembowelment, chewing, decapitations, and spewing blood. Check out "Rest Stop" or "Haunted Prison" or some of their other recent flicks.

With that said, what can we say about "Shapeshifter"? I think that one thing in the script sums it all up: the screenwriter(s) actually think that the gas chambers used in executions use natural gas. That's right. They think that natural gas piped in through the usual cast iron pipes is pumped into the execution chamber.

Enough already...let's have some intelligent plotting and scripts.


I don't believe I have ever seen a worse film in my life. Everything about this movie is the lowest of the low, it is putrid. (And that may be its good point!) Seriously, it is THAT BAD.

Shapeshifter is set in some remote prison with guards who have the mentality of a middle-school dropout both in intelligence and training. They walk around the facility with nothing of substance to say or do. There is nothing of quality in this movie, there is no story, no value, no reason to watch. The Shapeshifter appears to be some Russian immigrant prisoner who is able to transform himself into a flesh-eating monster. He starts by biting on his arm until it bleeds, with some terrible music and special effects that will make anyone watching prone to seizures, does some metamorphosis dancing, which takes about 5 minutes for him to change, than becomes this monster, The Shapshifter. The Shapreshifter than eats the flesh of the people at the prison. I didn't even get that far into the movie, but other reviewers have said that he does the same thing EVERY TIME.

I cannot think of one positive thing to say about this movie, not one. Terrible camera angles, annoying rap music that has no place or reason to be in any of the scenes, and rapidly changing movements of the director going from shot to shot add up to garbage. This movie is beyond bad.

What is even worse, is that some films that are bad at least have some unintentional humor to make them what some industry people call, "Golden Turkeys" The type of movies that are so bad, they are good, because they are corny. Shapeshifter can't even save itself from even the smallest bit of intentional humor to give it any redeeming qualities at all. How did this trash even get made? Shame on The Chiller Channel for showing this garbage, and any other stations that may air it for that matter.

This movie should be pulled from distribution and destroyed. If that happened, I guarantee you that whoever had to sit through this moronic film would celebrate. Please don't waste your time with this film. It's an insult to all viewers that this crap was even made. I feel sick and angry just from watching it. I have no idea what the cast and crew were smoking when they made this hideous picture.


The film has a good premise, a Romanian prisoner, sent on revenge mission, who can transform from human to beast and back again.

Yes, the survival film in a confined space has been done before. But what's different is that you're never really sure when the beast is going to be monster and when it's going to be human.

The cast is pretty good, particularly Marat Glazer and AJ Hammond. Jennifer Wiggins runs a bit hot and cold (it feels like she got more direction in some scenes and less in others), but it's great to see a female action lead who can throw a punch and not look ridiculous.

The Beast design was well conceived. The Shapeshifter has this strange ancient quality to him. The horns, the four fingered hands, the nasty teeth - it's particularly effective when he gets good and bloodied up.

The sound mix sounded great on our system. The music is good, although it gets a bit monotonous at times and at other times seems oddly absent.

There's quite a bit of gore, although certainly not nearly as much as Dead Men Walking, another Asylum film which was clearly shot at the same location as Shapeshifter.

Typical of film in this budget range, there are some parts that work and some that don't. Still, the good outweighs the bad and the whole thing adds up to a fun low budget thriller.


I will be starting this review by saying that this is an EXCELLENT movie.

Miike, THE Auteur of the 21st century, is producing films at such an alarming rate that its almost impossible to keep up with the man. Yet he manages to keep producing films of an extremely high standard AND creating different and interesting techniques. Izo is another fine example of this.

The broken structure is far more complex than Nolan's 'Memento' and far more effective as it allows you to experience the agony that Izo is constantly feeling.

The constant metaphors that keep popping up throughout the non-stop carnage bring more layers to the film than any 'shock' movie yet Miike still manages to throw in a few gallons of blood and a very interesting place to hide a sword (ladies) for good measure.

So in summary a very poignant anti-war piece with some fine visual styles and some very brutal action. And a great guitarist.

Go see. And take the whole family.

Cinema at its best.


IZO (4+ outta 5 stars) Well, this movie gets only 2 kinds of ratings... either really low or really high. There's no way around it... you will have to see it for yourself to figure out which it deserves. I found the movie a bit confounding at first... but it definitely makes more sense after a second and third viewing. There really isn't much of a plot. Izo, a dead warrior, is flung arbitrarily through time. He kills everyone he comes into contact with... good, bad, he makes no distinctions. The movie is director Takashi Miike's attempt at some kind of philosophical dissertation on violence and religion. Pretentious? Well, of course! When you get right down to it, ALL philosophy is pretentious! But, is the movie entertaining? Yes. Does it provoke thought? Yes. (Even if most people's thoughts will be along the lines of "What the f*** is going on???") Imaginatively-staged action sequences are piled on non-stop, one after the other. Occasionally the action stops for some rousing acoustic guitar and wild folk-singing from Kazuki Tomakawa... who will either have you covering your ears or desperately searching for his records online. Extremely violent movie, very powerful at times ... similar in style to Jodorowsky's "El Topo". If you think you will like this movie based on the descriptions you read, you probably will. If you think it sounds like boring twaddle... well, you better go watch something else.


This review will probably not help anyone and only confuse matters, but its the only way I can explain it.

You will either find this to be a philosophical tour de force or you will find it a load of dingos kidneys. You will either sit in rapt attention of storm off wondering how stupid you were to spend money on it.

Its that sort of a movie and then some.

The film effectively begins as Izo is crucified and speared to death(?) and then for the next two hours he runs around killing people and being or being the subject of "deep" discussions in various times and places. How you react to this film will be your tolerance for blood, gore, pretentious twaddle, real philosophy, deadly seriousness, and knowing silliness.

A cosmic comic blood bath journey of a soul in the afterlife? Who knows? I'm convinced that this is the film that Takashi Miike intended to make and that he is both very serious about what it says and having a laugh at the expense of everyone who sees it. (The problem is he's not giving many clues as to what he's trying to say)

Think of it as Jodorowsky's El Topo combined with his Holy Mountain, then turned into a time traveling samurai flick as filtered through the mind of a genius prankster.

If you love film, especially film that is so off the beaten track as to be in a universe three doors down see this film. If you love the potential for a film of ideas, but with lots of blood thrown in see this film.

If you're looking for a normal linear film with no heavy ideas stay away. (Miles away)

I think its a brilliant, but too long (by half an hour) mind trip. I have no idea what it all means but it was interesting seeing the sites.


This is Izo:

Izo is about a character who represents the unacceptable in society. The good and the bad parts simultaneously: He is the progressive spirit that rains righteous wrath upon the corruption in religion, government and the world of finance, freeing man from oppressive rulers. And he is the barbarism of which the human animal is capable when running unchecked and uncontrolled; unrestrained. He represents these aspects of the human spirit up through history, and must finally end his existence when man has attained the purity to cast off oppression for good and eradicate his own barbaric tendencies through moral discipline and self-control. Izo is humanity's anger, righteous and frustrated; resolute and indignant, leading us towards utopia while cutting a swath through the sadly ignorant masses that would oppose him.

Izo is a movie loaded with symbolism, and every drop of blood is artistically justified. Even so, it is nowhere near as clear as it could have been, and the entertainment value is merely so-so. Generally a cool movie, not overly pleasant, but certainly a radical artistic statement of solid integrity.

My rating: 8 out of 10.


Izo is the sort of movie-thing that straddles the line between awesomeness, pretentiousness, and an as of yet unidentified third sector that cannot be described with human language.

So this time-traveling samurai dude kills a ton of people, and along the way this other dude sings nonsensical things for ten minutes at a time while sounding like he's just eaten a cat who was itself gargling nails. There's also some possibly gratuitous nudity and some certainly gratuitous scenes of swords appearing from places where they should probably not appear from.

I only have about half of an idea what Izo is about, but I think it means that Takashi Miike hates everything except slimy grown men being forced out of tiny female orifices at the ends of movies. And personally, I love him for it.


After owning this film for nearly a year, I finally found the opportunity to watch it without my girlfriend being in the same room with me (She couldn't get past Kazuki Tomokawa's first ballad). Did it help with my viewing enjoyment? That would be a definite yes. Did it help me gain a better understanding of the story?

That's a very good question...

I view Izo as Miike's personal views of what Society has become. Facets of every class, organization and subculture within has grown apathetic, and there seems to be no hope. Izo is the manifestation of a great anger, given birth by a world that he realizes is no longer in need of his services. Upon his death Izo is forever damned to travel the Earth, constantly dragged through space and time and forced to face either those who are out to destroy him or those who, like him, are seeking answers to questions which can rarely be answered. In the rare instance an answer is available, sometimes it's not the one we want to hear. Even if the answer in inevitable, it does not matter. Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to anything that happens in the world, and Izo is filled with such rage over being betrayed and cast away, that the line between logic and irrationality becomes blurred. In the end everyone's a victim, yet they're all guilty in some shape or form. Izo is forced to face that realization for all eternity, which may make some viewers debate over who the true protagonist of the movie is-Izo or the World (The answer should be obvious, but...).

Most people I've spoken to say they could not "get into" this film. Every one I've spoken to have compared it to Koroshiya 1 or Odishon, which is a mistake. This is not a film about the Yakuza, and it certainly is not a movie that makes Fatal Attraction look like Sixteen Candles. This is a political film; a piece of bloody eye candy with a congealed shell, but political nonetheless. Still, it's definitely worth watching. Make no mistake, this is still "A Takashi Miike Film". All the trademarks that accompany the bulk of his work are present. If you've seen enough of his films (Or at least one), you won't be disappointed. Just don't read too much into it. Try to enjoy it for the great piece of work it is.

10/10


In the distant past, a great samurai warrior named Izo was put to death in a most heinous manner. But his spirit does not rest, and he now wanders the earth, traveling through time, killing (almost) every living thing he comes across. While most of this film is just pure slaughter (which many fans will enjoy), watch for the deeper messages and symbolism.

The acting all around was wonderful. As usual, unless you're a big fan of Japanese cinema, you'll probably only recognize Takeshi Kitano. This makes it far easier for me to comment on the acting, not having to make running jokes on an actor's past career. Takeshi is pretty much flawless in his film choices, so you should already know this will be good when you see his name (not to mention it's a Takeshi Miike film, which is great).

My expectations for this film were mixed. As stated, Miike and Kitano are a great pair, but I was told this was something of an action film and less of a horror film. And I suppose that's true, although horror fans are going to get more than their share of blood and questionable perversity (incest, anyone?). I came out liking this film a lot more than I had thought I would, thinking there's no way it could out-do "Visitor Q" or even "Audition". But I think it very well may have.

The blood is what's going to attract most people. Izo kills school children, an old warrior with a voice box, businessmen and everyone else. It sprays a lot, and the swordplay is enjoyable. The variety of things killed makes up for the fact that the plot doesn't really have much to offer (besides countless stabbings, slashings and beheadings).

What hooked me was the philosophy and symbolism. We have Izo, who is consumed with rage, slowly turning into a demon as he kills (what appears to be a Japanese oni, though my grasp of Japanese mythology is limited). We have a troubadour who follows him around singing songs (some of them up to seven minutes in length). Is he the narrator, or Izo's soul crying out? We have the snake creature, the mother of all humanity and a board of directors for some big corporation. And, most interestingly, a teacher teaching students about "democracy" and what a "nation" is in the most abstract of terms. Like what John Searle or Richard Rorty would say. And if Izo is killing everyone, we are left to wonder why there remain a few -- very few -- people he leaves alive.

Come for the blood and stay for the symbols. You'll need to watch this one two or three times to really begin to understand and appreciate it. In all fairness, it may be boring for some people (how many times can you stab someone) but I think it's art in the purest, most animalistic of forms. You like "Audition" or "Ichi the Killer"? Give this one a shot.


Takashi Miike is really a paradox; he can be right in your face and at the same time be pensive. "Izo" is perhaps most representative of this paradox. No doubt, "Izo" is extremely violent and brutal, yet one sees a message lurking in the blood. I have read multiple interpretations on this film, and I myself see it as a "search for God" and humanity getting in the way of it. Others have seen it as an anti-war film. You may find a completely different interpretation. In these multiple interpretations lies the brilliance of the film. You must also watch the movie in a very abstract level, as opposed to the "standard" plot, with the characters and places as symbols. Those who are used to the dark humor and inventive violence of Miike's previous films like "Audition" and "Ichi the Killer" won't find it here--the violence is pretty straight forward (but still graphic), and there is no humor here. Miike probably made his most serious film to date with this film.


Before watching this film, I was aware of a great deal of negativity (hence the low rating), and so I sat down to watch "Izo" with a great deal of trepidation. But what a film! I just didn't see how the majority of the negativity could be justified. Certainly, "Izo" is highly incomprehensible with little or no plot. It is also sickeningly violent in places. However, this is a Takashi Miike film we're talking about, not some "safe", conventional film. Therefore, when people sit down to watch one of his films, surely it is a given that it is not going to be an easy ride? And yet the negativity comes from professed fans of his films...

As I was watching the film it occurred to me that this film maker, famed for the violent and bizarre content of his films and who seems keen on shocking his audience, must have increasing difficulties shocking anyone, as more fans follow his work. How many more bodily fluids can he drown his films in, after the taboo smashing "Visitor Q"? How more "out there" can he become after the bizarre "Gozu"? Is it any wonder that "Izu" is so bizarre? You can't blame the guy for pushing at the boundaries.

Repetitive? Of course. Izo kills some people for about two hours, and then the film ends. But the film is about a journey, seemingly through the afterlife, not a neat Beginning, Middle and End style of story. Like other "journey" films (LOTR, for example) it is episodic - Izo goes somewhere and does something, then goes somewhere else and does something else. I for one, found this much less tedious than LOTR - is two hours really that long when compared with Peter Jackson's slow-mo fantasy epic?? And are we really so conditioned by Hollywood's 90 minute limit that an extra half an hour is that much of a struggle?! There was certainly a huge gap between the trailer and the actual film. The trailer made "Izo" seem to be an out-and-out action film to get the heart pounding, and yet it is so much more than this, as it gets the head pounding with unusual, inventive, symbolic visuals and philosophical discussions. And a folk singer (One user hinted that the lingering shots of the singer were far beyond the boundaries of human tolerance. He's singing a song! I like listening to songs!).

Throw in some cheeky (possible) references to other films - an upside down(!)wedding massacre (Kill Bill), bullet time tomfoolery (Matrix), wire work that defies the laws of physics (hmm, too many to mention), a chase through a bamboo forest (House of Flying Daggers), a scene that reminded by of the lake scene in Hero, and probably many more that I've missed. Add some bizarre visuals - a giant caterpillar and butterflies emerging from a dead body and Izo travelling across and destroying Infinity - and you've got a pretty engaging film at worst, and a great film (my opinion) at best.

One of Miike's best, and a film I will be watching again.


First of all, this film is a sequel to Hitokiri (1969). Thats one of the classic Samurai swordfighting films with very fast action scenes thats still better than much we get to see today.

"Izo" starts where the first film ended. The protagonist is crucified for his crimes that he committed as a hired terrorist in the service of those who tried to restore the old regime.

But he finds himself alive again, at first not understanding that he has taken on a demonic existence because his soul cannot rest and he must descend through the layers of hell in full consciousness.

Following his motto from the first film, "Divine punishment", he sets out to take revenge on the world and on the gods for getting him into this whole mess.

This film may be another blood bath, but the philosophical content is also enormous. Miike film-making at its very best, another no-budget production whose profundity may give the watcher stuff to think about for years.


Miike has slowly amassed international recognition for his shockingly extreme violence and absurd sexual perversions. Many of his films contain explicit and lurid bloodshed, often in an outlandish, ridiculous way. This particular action fantasy of his seems to have proved less accessible to anyone other than art-house audiences and fans of extreme cinema. I have yet to understand why. This bizarre massacre is full of symbolisms and simultaneously provokes both metaphysical complexities and suspension of disbelief. But so it goes with Miike.

There is a vast world of difference between a self-indulgent affectation of symbolism zig- zagging intellectual pretension and a film by Takashi Miike in which he decides to offer some substance. There should not be some sort of barrier between the film and its audience. There is a remarkably unique atmosphere to this film, a dark, drug-like visual fusion of grunge and everything foreign to the viewer. We begin when the Shogunate is on its last legs, but still capable of punishing its enemies. The one we see is Izo, an assassin in the service of a warlord. After killing countless Shogun men, Izo is crucified and repeatedly speared. Instead of being passing on into an afterlife or ceasing to exist, his rage propels him through the space-time continuum, which races by through stock footage of World War II, to present-day Tokyo, where he finds himself on the streets and one with the city's destitute. Here Izo kills everyone in sight, no matter where time and space spontaneously and indefinitely throw him, his spirit still full of rage from his treatment in his past life, seemingly slicing and dicing timelessly till he can finally reach the karmic powers-that-be, one allegorical character played by the great minimalist actor-director Beat Takeshi, whose predecessors put him to death.

Miike's depiction of the title character, or more exactly his phantom life force, exceeds reality, time and space as a surrealist rendering of Izo's extraordinarily and endlessly gory yet philosophical confrontations in a literal infinity drenched by symbolic imagery and characterizations, and accompanied by the fascinating, hilarious, disturbing acid-folk singer Kazuki Tomokawa on guitar.

He is not stuffing these elements and images with profundity. He is actually telling the story as directly as one could. By symbolic imagery, I do not mean Bergmanesque questions of identity and metaphors that lie too deep for words or many other forms of reaction. I mean we actually at a couple of points see Izo running laps around a computer-generated infinity symbol. Different instances like the scene in which flowers gossip about and laugh at him, a woman pulling a sword from her vagina, Izo fully clad in samurai apparel and spattered with blood walking through an incidental modern office of cubicles. These are all very direct illustrations of surrealism, basic features of the element of surprise and startling juxtapositions.

Really, in spite of this supernatural bloodbath's abstract implications, it is an explosion of rage and psychosis, endlessly violent, with a body count significantly higher than the Kill Bill films or even other gorefests by Miike himself. It is massive entertainment in the sense that a violent video game is, relieving your tensions by reflecting every ounce of aggression you may feel. My experience seeing it was refreshingly rich.


First and foremost, the only reason I didn't give Izo a perfect or near perfect score is because of the production value. To be blunt, the production value in the first hour is hideous, but it gets a little better as the film goes on. The story itself is pretty amazing, intelligent, but not necessarily original or as weird as people are saying when you understand it. More on that in a moment.

I'm sick of movies (such as Donnie Darko and Oldboy) that think they're so utterly intelligent when in reality they just rehash old clichés that have been done in movies exactly just like them time and time again. To say it's been a while since I've seen a movie that was actually as intelligent as it thinks it is an understatement. Izo, to my surprise, actually had something somewhat new and practical to say and was never pretentious about it. One of the best lines of the movie is, "He thinks he can find answers by just asking questions! Let's laugh at him!" which can be interpreted as Miike telling the audience he's not the egotistical moron like the other "intelligent" wannabe directors.

Izo, for people who are having a hard time understanding, is a straightforward journey of a dead man's soul questioning everything that brought us as a society to the place we are. Family, sex, love, God, patriotism, governmentMiike questions it all, and really leaves the answer up to the viewer. In a way, it almost reminded me of that biblical Proverb that claims everything under the sun is meaningless. In another way, it reminded me of a Greek morality play. Still, despite the things it reminded me of, it was never once just the same old questions you've always heardthey're presented in new, cool, modern ways.

But before you start thinking Izo is just filmed literature, Miike ties all this together with an insane bloody body count. There is very little graphic gore, but there is a lot of blood splatter and kills that kept me interested through the entire movie. Even then, Miike backs up the killing with the statement: "History is built on bloody events, so why wouldn't I kill to find answers?" It has a really cool pulp literary feel that pleases both the 12-year-old boy who likes blood and action and pleases the old man who likes deep thoughts. What more could you ask from a film like this? Overall, Izo is a must see if you consider yourself an intellectual person or if you consider yourself a fan of hardcore violence. It's not run-of-the-mill in any way shape or form, and borders on originality through the entire movie. If only there was better production value . . .

8/10


It's hard to be familiar with the movies of Takashi Miike. Despite seeing the majority of his films released in America (and even a few that have yet to be released here...), it's hard not to feel like I've lost something in translation. I can appreciate the humor, the violence, the plots, etc... but there are usually parts that seem to lose me, and his movies typically require repeated viewings. It's not that I'm particularly new to the films he creates or the films of Japanese directors in general -- the point I'm trying to illustrate is that you have to WANT to appreciate his films. You have to work hard sometimes to get into what he's doing, because he often throws conventional plot points, "hooks" that grab you, and structure, out the window. Even his most fairly straightforward films take many detours into the bizarre (see the tank randomly showing up in "Family" or the rocket launcher that comes out on nowhere in at least two of his films!).

So, it's not surprising that this is one of Miike's works that hasn't gotten quite the attention of the immediately-gratifying "Ichi the Killer" or "Audition". Using the "hook" of a sword fighting epic initially gets people interested in this film, but seeing no conventional plot line or point to what is happening turns most people off, it seems. This confuses me -- though I definitely didn't grasp everything upon the first viewing of this, I was still instantly amazed at what Miike has set up here: A journey through one man's tortured soul. Even if you don't feel like you understand everything that's happening, you still realize this film is genius -- maybe you just haven't figured out why yet.

Upon repeated viewings, however, I figured out why. You have to kind of look in between the lines on this one. This film is powerful, epic, emotional, and even darkly comedic. Yes, on the surface this film is basically just a journey through someone's afterlife. However, beyond that, the film pours on the flashy imagery, ultraviolence, and powerful emotions to an almost suffocating degree. In a lot of ways, this film reminds me of "El Topo" -- a movie that is disguised as a genre effort (El Topo being a Western, this being a samurai swordfighting film) that uses the basic genre outlines but explores topics deeper than have ever been covered in the genre before...

I think those who overlook this film simply were expecting a straightforward swordfighting movie, which this film clearly isn't. It's way better than that, and it's honestly probably the best film to come out in the last decade. It's one of the few films that have ever "moved" me. It is somewhat challenging cinema, and you might need a decent background in Japanese culture/mysticism/forces to totally understand everything in this movie. Unfortunately, most people won't bother. But for those who like to think a little bit, remember that this film REQUIRES repeated viewings.

A masterpiece and easily proves Miike's talent more so than any of his other films so far.


Well everybody knows what we are expecting when we see a Miike film. He is one of the very few surrealist horror director in the world. This movie is everything El Topo,Terminator, Judge Dread, Rambo,Gothic & Roman Epics put into one. The story is supposed to be of a warrior who has returned to earth for revenge. The torture scenes will make you flinch, the various episodes will make you scratch your head and with all those crazy things you will still appreciate Miike's effort. The characters, the crazy ways they kill him, Izo's flawless performance, the music, the editing, the camera angle's everything is special. Its more like Miike has donned the cap of a psychotic philosopher who goes to preach the world with blood. Its really difficult to get a DVD version, but I think if you are a Miike fan you should definitely give this movie a shot. Having seen more weird things in his movies than in my whole life I can safely say you will not be disappointed. I rate this one 7/10


Izo- My Takashi Miike run ends with Izo, the story of one of Japans most legendary and bloody assassins, at the beginning of the film he is crucified and pierced repeatedly with spears, he spends the rest of the film warping through time and space at random, having ethical and metaphysical discussions with and then killing virtually everyone he crosses, including Buddah and mother earth herself as he searches for a reason for his curse, which renders him unkillable and unable to control his location. This is easily the most violent film I've ever seen, not in grisliness, but sheer body count, but around the endless slashing, is a portrait of modern Japan symbolized by the reoccurring Powers-That-Be characters who represent Society/Reality/Order(often shown meeting around a board room table and discussing how to destroy Izo), and the Buddhist Hells which serve to purify souls through pain thereby readying them for reincarnation. Of all the Takashi miike stuff I've seen this is one of best executed, feeling more like a film than an experiment. Not to mention the great songs by Japanese folk singer Kazuki Tomokawa also known as "The Screaming Philosopher", due to his somewhat gruff vocal stylings. These songs may seem strange but they really do help break up the monotony of the endless waves of violence, and oblique dialog, as well as more often then not mirroring and adding emotional depth to the actions of the at turns stoic and demonic Izo(who was based on an actual samurai Lord, who was known for his violence). This is one of my favorite Takashi Miike films, while it might not be for everyone it is a must see for fans of the auteur, and those who think film can be aesthetic object as opposed to just a linear story. It's SlaughterHouse 5 except Billy Pilgrim's out to destroy the world one image at a time.


Only Takashi Miike could make a film like that. This movie is very symbolic, and bizarre. Izo is story about an evil spirit, who once was an assassin, who travel trough time and realms, to avenge his death. Miike have expressed his feelings in a very unnatural way. The question is what is "Izo"?, there are many answers to the question, my personal opinion is that, Izo is the Japanese part of the second world war, and japan in war situation trough the history, and the cruelty of the human nature, he is the dark side of every person. Miike show you clues pretty clear in the movie. When he kills his first victim he ask him, are you so brutal because you are human or human because you are brutal?(cruelty of the human nature). He shows also how religion can be misused, in personal interest and how hypocritical it can be. In the scene where he kills his own mother is also an symbolic example, his mother says "killing me is like killing yourself Izo", when a population corrupts and destroy there country they destroy there own system...they destroy themselves. The whole thing start to make sense if we relate it to the second world war. In the beginning Izo looks like an ordinary person ,cool, but later on he becomes more fierce, he even kills children and innocent people, civilian people are those who suffer the most in a war. With other words the war from the Japanese side didn't look like bad thing, but later on they saw the cruelty of the war. In the end Izo do look like a monster, with a mask, evolution... changes of war how it changes in a negative way, mask is an accessory, just like the army used armored weapon in later wars.

Izo is brilliant movie, I'm not saying that everyone going to like it, because entertainment for everyone does not exist. A must for Miike fans ;)


A warrior travels through time and space and thoroughly butchers, in spectacular grand guignol fashion, almost everybody he runs into. Miike's "El Topo-like action-fantasy is a strange, stylish, confused melange of energy and anger, a poem to retribution, the sins of history, self-abasement and bloody ambition. High production values dominate and the action set pieces are quite beautifully filmed and choreographed. The blood spurts in glorious geysers and the theatrical stylings give the entire affair a kabuki feel. Unfortunately, the lengthy running time tests tolerance levels because there is little emotional weight between the sprockets. "Izo" is a cold film, a distancing film, but it has an intensity that is engaging and a sense of anarchy about it that recalls Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers". Although my favorite Miike films are "Visitor Q" and "Ichi The Killer", I enjoyed "Izo" in spurts (bloody ones, of course).