This film is a pseudo-documentary or 'mocumentary' re-creation which parodies actual events that took place within the Quebec provincial government in Canada, and created a scandal that for several days monopolised the attention of the media within Quebec, as well as in much of the rest of Canada. The events concerned took place at a time when drastic Provincial budget cuts, designed to overcome many years of budget deficiencies, were making the life of provincial civil servants (government employees) very difficult, and the story broke with the uncovering of a pornographic movie intended to be marketed for their benefit, which had been made with Provincially owned equipment by a group employed to create publicity films for the provincial government.

In Canada this story became a nine day wonder which was given a great deal of media attention. This film, which re-creates the story, was produced commercially, initially for showing on Quebec TV, but later for release to cinemas, and eventually for sale in what appears to have been very limited quantities (possibly only in a French language version) as a VHS home video tape. Most of the tapes currently in circulation, including mine, are more likely to have been home recorded from the TV presentations. French-Canadians are noted for their very keen sense of humour, and clearly this TV production was originally made for the local (Quebec) market. The interest shown by the rest of Canada in this story probably surprised its producers, but they were quick to release a cable TV version dubbed in English. However the story is probably almost unknown outside Canada, and even here it was fairly quickly forgotten. Although there were plenty of very amusing topical references in the film which added greatly to its success at the time, the film made no serious attempt to create an independent story that would continue to remain of interest once the original events had been forgotten. I understand that the film is still occasionally screened by cable TV companies in the U.S.A.; but with no knowledge of the background to its production it would be unlikely to be greatly appreciated. It is therefore difficult to discuss this film on IMDb in the same way as most other films.

Quebec politics involve many distinct threads, most of which were quite cleverly parodied by this film. In Quebec there has always been a love-hate relationship with the federal government as well as with English speaking Canada, and for a long time public opinion in Quebec has been bitterly divided between federalists and those who support full independence. These is also an almost incestuous feeling towards France as the foundation of francophone culture, and an obsessive determination to maintain the virtually exclusive use of the french language in Quebec. Recently there have also been strong concerns expressed about the very relaxed social attitude which, what used to be a conservative Catholic society, now takes towards such social issues as nudity on TV, sex shops and striptease parlours in all major centres. The exploitation of all these attitudes provided much of the humour in this film and, to those who are aware of this, it is absurd to regard the film as little more than a piece of soft porn in its own right. When it was released, viewers who appreciated the parody in this film rated it very highly, I would have given it a rating very close to 10. But today standing on its own as a fictional story of unauthorised filming, it would be very hard to give it a rating of more than 5. The comments here by William from Seattle (who probably saw it on Canadian TV) would be typical of those to be expected from the relatively few viewers living south of the border. I have therefore compromised here and rated it at 7 for IMDb. Such a rating does not mean very much as it is an almost unique film which any individual viewer may or may not appreciate. It can perhaps be loosely compared with the U.K. film Scandal (1989), and the recent U.S. film Farenheit 9/11, where the theme is also scandal in government. But these were both associated with scandal within the government, not among its salaried staff, and involved security considerations which were much more serious. These films were therefore much closer to true documentaries than the 'mocumentary' style used for Scandale.

Hopefully the brief notes above will provide sufficient background to help anyone seeing this film who is unaware of its background to enjoy it; but it can never again have as much appeal as it first did for those who were aware of the original story.


This film portrays the famous Parisian cemetery of Père Lachaise through the stories of a dozen of its visitors. Thought there is no actual plot to the movie as a whole, the stories of the visitors provide a moving background to some of the graves.

The film focuses on some famous graves (Chopin, Proust, Maria Callas amongst others) as well as paying attention to some "ordinary" graves. In all cases, a portrait of someone connected to that grave is given, ranging from the Japanese girl who loves the music of Chopin so much she moved to Paris to study the piano, to the woman who at 54 found the love of her life, only to lose it again when her husband died unexpectedly.

The stories are supported by footage of the private life of the visitors, and also by beautiful views of the cemetery and the graves.

Remember this is a documentary, so there's no plot, no acting, let alone explosions and effects. What you get is a couple of beautiful filmed, moving portraits of people who mourn a loved one. In the end, the film is about love more than anything else.


I have just seen 'Forever' at the Palm Springs Film Festival, and Pere Lachaise is not only a special place in Paris, but a monumental place on Earth. This film allows us to see both the direct and indirect connections that Life and Death provide us, should we choose to see them and respect them. We are Art, but most times the relics of our corporeal selves is better represented by our stories, all informed by our incredibly particular experiences. By balancing the extraordinarily noteworthy inhabitants of Pere Lachaise with the simply extraordinary (and those of us left behind who acknowledge and respect them) 'Forever' reminds us that the democracy of death has startling and profound connections to all who live - you are alive if you feel pain, joy, inspiration, and love. And perhaps Death's best attribute given back to the living is Love.


Forever (2006), directed by Heddy Honigmann, is an unusual documentary about the famous Père-Lachaise cemetery in Paris. The cemetery contains the graves of many famous artists (Ingres), singers (Piaf, Callas), and writers (Proust). Most notably for U.S. tourists, Jim Morrison is buried in Lachaise. (Someone asks how to find Morrison's grave. The answer is, "Follow the signs." Morrison fans have written "To Jim" with arrows on other tombs to guide people to the grave site.)

Honigmann does much more than guide us through the cemetery. She interviews people who are visiting. Some have come to pay homage to the famous artists. Most, however, are visiting the graves of loved ones. Honigmann speaks to them in a friendly, non-invasive way, and they respond in kind. She's not afraid to let the camera linger while people think and consider. Often, after a while, they share their thoughts with her and with us.

The director takes a surprising and interesting detour during the film. A young Japanese pianist--Yoshino Kimura--visits Fredric Chopin's grave at Lachaise. Honigmann takes us to Kimura's studio, where Kimura plays a lovely Chopin piece. Although physically apart from the cemetery, this scene works because the calmness of the artist and the beauty of the music remind us of the calmness and beauty of Chopin's grave and of the Lachaise itself.

We saw this film at Rochester's wonderful Dryden Theatre. I think it would work well on DVD. It's probably hard to find, but it's worth seeking out.


That it is possible to find so much signs of life in a cemetery is something striking in the carefully composed film of Heddy Honigmann. And so much consolation in beauty is also something I'll never forget from seeing the film. Beauty in the form of art, but also in the form of mementos left for the beloved death ones. Human voices telling stories are in this film sometimes as beautiful as a piece of music by Chopin!! Most of the characters in the film are very special and at the same time you feel a connection with almost all of them, as if they were your friends telling you a personal story while you're sitting with them in a park. Forever should be in the cinema for a long time, as long as all my friends can see it, and as long as they can tell their friends to see it and so on and so on...


This is a loving study on the importance of love,life,death & art. Forever is a Dutch produced documentary,shot in & around the famed 'Pere Laichaise',the famed cemetery where the likes of Chopin, Oscar Wilde,Simone Signoret,Marcel Proust,and yes...Jim Morrison are buried. Despite the somewhat potential grim nature of it's subject matter,this is not a death obsessed film,but an affirmation of life & how temporary it is. This is a fine,loving film for open minded folk who are passionate about life & art (action/adventure fanciers need not bother--it's not going to be your cup of Budweiser). A bit of searching out will be a pre requisite for this one, as distribution is somewhat limited to art cinemas only (I guess the subtitles will be the biggest tip off).


If you have ever visited a cemetery and thought about the life story behind a particular gravestone or wondered what was going on inside the minds of visitors, Heddy Honigmann's haunting documentary Forever may shed some light. Honigmann is not a name that comes immediately to mind when we think of the world's great documentarians, but this work by the obscure Dutch director may place her in that elite category. Shot at the world famous Pere-Lachaise cemetery, the largest in Paris, the film explores the thoughts and feelings of those who have come to the gravesites to pay tribute to famous people such as Chopin, Modigliani, Apollonaire, Balzac, Proust, and Oscar Wilde as well as ordinary folks who lived and loved and have been remembered. It is a moving experience that engages both the mind and the heart.

The film opens with the story of pianist Yoshino Kimura, a young Asian woman who performs the work of Frederic Chopin as a means of connecting with her deceased father who loved his music. Scenes of Ms. Kimura playing the pensive melodies of Chopin's Nocturnes in concert are shown as the camera offers loving close ups of the pianist, the emotion revealed in her eyes. Another segment is about an Iranian taxi driver who tends to the grave of Persian poet Sadegh Hedayat. Quoting from Hedayat's "The Blind Owl", he says that he left home because of he was weary with his life in Iran and now aspires to be a singer of Persian classical songs, though he drives a taxi to stay alive.

Persuaded by Honigmann to sing before the camera, the man provides a tune based on the poetry of Hafez and the mournful melody seems to embody all the sadness in the history of Pére-Lachaise. Although some connect with the work of great artists like Modigliani, stories of ordinary people are shown as well. An elderly Spanish woman speaks at the gravesite of her husband, telling how she and her husband fled Spain because of Franco and his murderous priests. A young man from Korea explains how he came to appreciate the novels of Marcel Proust but can only tell us what they mean to him in his native Korean language. An older woman talks about her husband's death from a bee sting and how their three years together were the happiest of her life.

One of the most moving sequences is that devoted to an obscure poet named Elisa Mercouer whose story is told by Bertrand Beyern, a guide who leads tours through Pére-Lachaise. When Mercouer died in 1835 at the age of 26, her mother had her poems imprinted on her gravestone, yet now the letters have faded and with it Elisa's claim on immortality. Although the stories weave a web of nostalgia and loss, Forever is not a depressing film but a celebration of life, a poignant tribute to the people who lie buried beneath its exquisite grounds and an appreciative paean to the enduring power of art.


In 1943, in Warsaw, the Jews Alek (Lambert Wilson) and Fryda (Julie Delpy), escape from the ghetto through the sewer tunnels. Alek leaves his wife Fryda in a church and looks for help. Stephania (Hanna Schygulla), a German Christian woman of about forty years old living alone, gives shelter and food for Alek. In the night, they have an affair, and Alek, wanting to keep the protection of Stephania, lies to her. He say that Fryda would be his little sister, and Stephania brings her from the church and lodges both of them at her home. Fryda becomes jealous with the situation and performs all sort of betrayal and cruelties against Stephania. Her final revenge leads the trio to a tragic end. This movie is a tragic drama about choices in life for surviving, supported by the outstanding performance of Julie Delpy, Lambert Wilson and Hanna Schygulla and the magnificent direction of Janusz Kijovwki. Stephania chooses for helping the Jews Alek and Fryda in an occupied Poland. Alek chooses for not telling the truth about Fryda to Stephania. Fryda chooses to double-cross Stephania and Alek. Stephania chooses to have a baby. Alek chooses Stephania. In the end, he chooses for risking his life for Fryda. Julie Delpy highlights with a character very mean, blinded by the feeling of revenge. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Varsóvia  Ano 5703' (`Warsaw - Year 5703')


This European co production recounts the lives of three people who tragically collide in an explosive threesome of oppression, forbidden passion, betrayal and revenge. Though at times hard to watch, the film is ultimately a provocative exploration of the human condition under great duress. Another reason to watch is to see its three now very well known stars, 9 years younger than they are now. This includes a teenage looking Julie Delpy, and a sexy, (speaking excellent French) fortyish Hanna Schygulla, in her last turn as a sexy beauty (albeit the older woman, but still stunning). Rent it. The NTSC Video is unfortunately not listed at Amazon.com (hint, hint, list it..), but I recently bought it in Canada, where the English subtitled version is available through Alliance-Atlantis/MCA Home Video. This is not a commercial plug, just a service to IMDb users like myself, who had heard about this unreleased film in the US and most of South America (though it was in Argentina), and may want to gain access to it. Watch it if you like a good psycho drama, in a historic context, with three of Europe's best actors.


A very good movie. Not terribly well-known or important but good nonetheless. It doesn't measure up to "Schindler's List" or "Uprising" but it's still a relatively good piece of work. Julie Delpy is really a very good actress and I have new respect for her after seeing this--I thought she would be forever typecast as the blonde nymphet. If you can manage to get your hands on a copy of "Warszawa", I would recommend watching it.


Good indeed but little seen...

The horrors of theses times are haunting the picture but the confined atmosphere of the apartment muffles a little the sound of the outside. This is a movie on dilemmas : The dilemma of the loss of identity versus the almost certain loss of life is in Alec young wife. The dilema of acceptable but full of compromision life versus hardship and bad food is in Steffania. The dilema of a new love taking the place of a previous one is in Alec.

Making choices was hard, nobody was spared. The inspiration of Huis Clos by Sartre is real but the film retains a fabulous originality and shows very good actors. A must see.


If you like a sexy psycho drama in historic context, with big European star power, this film is for you. The lives of three people tragically clash in this story of oppression, forbidden passion, betrayal and revenge, all this in the face of death. This is an unusually good exploration of the human condition under duress. It also offers us the opportunity to see three of Europe's super stars being and looking 10 years younger. This includes a teenage looking Julie Delpy, and a sexy Hanna Schygulla in her last role as a seductress (albeit as the older woman of the threesome, about forty years old). Available in NTSC English subtitled video, at least in Canada. Check it out.


Pulling all my punches would still brutalize this film to no end. The mere breath of common sense causes this film to topple, whimper, and crumble to dust.

This film lacks nearly every quality a decent movie requires. Scene transition, dialogue, music, chemistry, convincing actors and characters, a budget.

This movie cost a mere $100k to make, which would be fine, I love independents and low budget films - if they have any redeeming qualities, but The Vault does not.

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes had more convincing character development and dialogue, and I do mean the tomatoes. I just hope the filmmakers can come up with a better script because this formulaic an d amateur film lacked in so many areas. I truly felt my IQ lowering the longer I watched it.


This looks like it was made by film school dropouts if that film school was in kindergarten. Bas Rutten is the only reason I would check this out and even then I was embarrassed for him to be associated with such incompetence. I expected some decent martial arts action since Bas Rutten is an all-time great fighter (Pancrase, the Ultimate Fighting Championship) and Insonato is also a martial artist herself but this movie can't even deliver that. If you like Rutten do him a favor and don't watch this! Anyone who gives this a good review obviously did not watch it or was involved with the production of it because no sane person who is familiar with television or film could find this at all acceptable to spend their money or time on.


Let me start by saying this is a really, really bad movie. How bad you might ask? Bad enough that the only positive reviews the films got were from the stunt coordinator - and his team. Come on guys you can't go on about how great your movie is while pretending to by just some unbiased fans - that's absolutely pathetic. One of them even had the nerve to compliment the stunt team and say he can't wait to see what they do next - wow! Who's going to write the next rave reviews, the director or producer, or is it going to be left to the caterer staff and grip departments to save the day. Kind of makes you wonder about any future positive reviews doesn't it.

CORRECTION - SINCE WRITING THIS REVIEW MOST OF THE CREW PULLED THEIR "UNBIASED" REVIEWS/THE REMAINING ONES JUST CHANGED THEIR IMDb NAMES. ABOUT TIME GUYS!

All I've heard from the few defending crew and cast members is that the movie was low budget, shot for around a 100k. Come on that's not going to cut it. We've all seen much better films done for much less. Bas Rutten and Diana Inosanto - run for your live, these kind of films will be the death of your career. The producers and directors of this flick have a lot to own up for, all these crew members, and actors worked their collective tails off for this pile of garbage and for what - nothing, it was a huge waste of their time. This movie was an absolute joke -Terrible, EDITING, DIRECTING, WRITING AND YES IN MOST CASES ACTING. Everything these other negative / genuine reviewers have written is right on the mark - this movie is absolutely pathetic!!!!


Okay where do I start! This hunk of crap only runs 84 minutes, yet I feel I have lost months of my life! It actually took 3 hours to get though because I kept scanning back in disbelief to make sure I actually saw what I saw. Despite the obviously low budget for a thriller, a 4 year old child with a video camera could stage and direct more dynamic action sequences. I mean seriously, how the hell did the DP make Super 16 look like my cousins wedding video...it looked awful. The opening shots of the Russian gunship's flying in for their "raid" looked as if they had been stolen right off an intro for a video game. Is this why the "news chopper/Russian gunship" they blew up later in the "film" with their "high tech visual effects" rocket launcher looked so strikingly similar. I was so embarrassed for the poor "actress" that had to pretend she was shooting that mailing tube at the cartoon circling above. Is there a shortage of straight to video movies or what. Who buys this crap. Speaking of the "talent"... How can these "filmmakers" think they can use nothing but non actors to carry their "movie", it was just offensive. As if three hours wasn't enough time for me to waste, I absolutely had to watch the gripping behind the scenes footage! At one point I heard the director say "Quiet on the set!! WHY!! SO THEY CAN CONCENTRATE!! I almost passed out from laughing so hard...Whoa! we wouldn't want to loose focus while trying to shape and mold this masterpiece. These people had schedules, deadlines the whole nine yards! Like it was a real job or something! One guy in the interviews had the audacity to say what they were accomplishing was truly amazing...looking back, I have to agree!

For any of you who think I'm just being mean...rent it and tell me I'm wrong.


Ouch! This movie is painful to watch. The SAG should require a warning on the movie box saying "This movie could be hazardous to your eyes". This is the retarded mans "Die Hard". The cast consist of two juice heads, a few nerds and a semi-hot stripper/actress. All of which can not act their way out of a wet paper bag. Salt is thrown into the wound by a special effects display that appears to be done by Corky with a $100 budget. And to top it all off, we don't even get any T&A shots from the chick:o( All the so called actors/actresses need to either go back to acting school or go back to waiting tables. As far as the movie production quality, I have seen better writing and production value in porno movies. I give this movie 2 thumbs and a soggy Oscar-Meyer hot-dog DOWN!


I'm a fan of bas rutten, action men, action dolls, ufc and all other actionized kindred spirits. . . but this movie was absolutely dreadful. From the wooden acting, pathetically stupid fight scenes, mis-timed action in general, and don't even get me started on the weapons. The 'flash' leaving the gun was highly comical at first in an obscure kinda way. But soon became tiresome, and oft, again mistimed. The sound man in charge of syncing the ''action'' with the sound must have been ill on the day of the final cut. If die hard has a rating of say . . . 1000, i would give this film. . . . 57 points, and thats only because ruttens in it as opposed to it being any good. If your going to watch this, don't forget your pillow.


OK, who the hell is this Scott Dupont guy? You either worked on the film or you are on crack. If somebody watches the film because of your great review, they should have the right to slice you with razor blades and pour alcohol all over you. This film was horrible, I can't think of a better way to describe it. It amazes me that this crap gets made in Hollywood, you would think there would be better projects out there. I am sure there are worse movies out there, but I pray I never see them. The only thing that stopped me from slicing my own wrists was the occasional laugh I had. Those laughs were me making fun of the horrible dialogue or the God awful script. I could go on and on about bad it was, but I think you all get the point. Don't ever watch this movie and if somebody suggests it, they either worked on it or are on crack, or both. So instead of spending that 5 dollar rental fee and watching the film, give yourself an enema it would be more enjoyable.


I challenge anyone over the age of 5 to actually allege that they enjoyed this movie. I am generally not critical of people who have a different opinion than I, however, anyone who liked this turkey is either stupid or mentally challenged. This movie actually hurt to sit through. I hated hated hated hated this movie. If anyone is reading this post before actually seeing this film, run away from "The Vault." Watch reruns of UFC and PRIDE and see Bas before he became involved in embarrassing films such as this one.

Spoiler (like anyone cares) Note: My favorite scene in this disaster of a film was when the bad girl gets blown up. She jumps in pain about two full seconds before the bomb actually goes off. Don't you love unintentional comedy?


I'm no snob when it comes to low-budget action films: just a few days ago, I watched "Blast!" (2004), a straight-to-video Die-Hard-On-An-Oil-Rig, and I liked it more than "Die Hard 4". But "The Vault" is just awful by any standards. Lousy, disorienting editing, pathetic "special effects", sloppy, illogical script, bloodless gunshots, and obscenely bad acting (Laci Szabo makes Jean Claude Van Damme look like Laurence Olivier) all contribute to making this possibly the worst action movie "inspired" by "Die Hard" ever - if there is a worse one out there, I don't want to see it. There is a half-decent fight between Szabo and Rutten at the end - if you have stuck with the movie for that long. Diana Lee Inosanto shows brief glimpses of fighting talent; Brynn Lucas (as the hero's daughter) is hot; I wouldn't mind seeing either of them again, in something better - which essentially means, in anything else.


Holy cow. I thought the Poseidon Adventure was the worst movie ever made, but that was up until I saw this bad boy. This could have been a decent movie if they'd cast a single actor in it. However, not a person in this film is an actor or actress. The story was actually pretty decent, with the requisite suspense and action. The screenplay is even pretty fair. I believe this film was directed about as well as it could be. So it all comes down to the "acting". The acting in this film is awful - just bloody awful. The plot is that of a treasure in a museum sought after by two different characters. The characters are both thieves. One is very subtle, the other is brutal and takes the bull in the china shop approach. Both are in the museum at the same time and the bad dude manages to take over the museum. The subtle thief ends up almost playing the Bruce Willis from Die Hard role. He has to save his daughter and the Police Chief's son. See, it could have been good. But, unfortunately, there's that acting thing that gets in the way. Avoid this stinker. It ain't worth your time.


This movie is pure, unadulterated cinematic genius. The only reason that I did not give it a 10 was that it did not surpass the greatness of Bas's previous movie, The Eliminator. First of all, I would like to address all you people who gave this movie any lower than 3 stars, which was a surprising amount of you. You are all bad people. And ugly. Probably. Many of you commented on how "fake" the scenes of vault gears, rocket launchers, etc looked like. Well, let me ask you this. Have you actually been inside the workings of a fully functional vault door? Have you actually been staring down the barrel of a rocket launcher as it fired its missile at you? Have you actually seen a helicopter explode as its blades landed not 2 feet in front of you? Have any of you actually experienced the blast of a C4 detonation? For all we know, the blast could be so strong that it effects its immediate surroundings seconds before it actually combusts. Those of you "critics" out there should really think about experiencing these things before you actually go out and condemn this movie for its faults.

As for the movie, it is cinema at its finest. The lead character Kennedy Kaludes, played by Laci Szabo, is a thief, a hero, but most importantly, a loving father. I love how you are able to identify with the character, since right off the bat he give us some vital information about himself. It was once said that you never really know someone until you know their favorite food and color. I was really very surprised to hear that his favorite things are, respectively ***SPOILER*** Philly Cheese Steaks (although we later learn that he likes those big New York pretzels) and purple ***END SPOILER*** His daughter Milla, played by Brynn Lucas, is a naive, young girl who wants to love her father, despite him not really knowing her. It is very touching during the ending of the movie, when we learn that her favorite food and color is ***SPOILER*** Clams and also purple ***END SPOILER***. Bas Rutten plays General Matos, an antagonist with a sense of humor. This role fits him very well, because he is a very funny guy behind the scenes, as said by his fellow crew, and can do one hell of a British accent. Paul Logan plays Matos's right hand man, Frix. Oh, Frix. Grace, played by Diana Lee Inosanto is a fabulous actress with the fighting skills to back it up. She beat up those inept security guards like no one else could. In all, this movie is one that the whole family can enjoy. Thank you Bas. Keep 'em coming.


If you are a film buff and the type that likes serious action and great fight scenes, then this is a movie well worth renting! This is the second indie film that I have seen starring Bas Rutten and this guy has a great screen presence. I would compare him to being a cross between Arnold Schwartzeneger and Vin Diesel. I heard this movie was low budget (less than a million $), but it did not look low budget at all. They must have put every penny up on the screen. I would give it 4 out of 5 stars. It is available at just about any video store. I can not wait to see their next film... hopefully they will have another movie out within the next year!


I thought this was a very good action piece the guys from triton north star have done it again. Bas Rutten makes a great bad guy, and as for Diana Lee Inosanto she can beat me with a police baton any day. All in all this was solid action movie with some well thought out action set pieces. And Paul Logan gives a solid performance. I thing a lot of these straight to video movies good take some lessons form these guys. And watching some of the extras it really seems like everyone had fun making this movie. I can't wait to see what these guys will make next each one of their productions they seem to raise the bar. Once again I think this movie was just a lot of fun and that is what it's all about.


Perhaps I am a little late with my writeup of this, a favoured movie in my specially selected permanent collection. I have read the other reviews, however I cannot agree, because this is a BIG hearted not light hearted comedy drama, and there is PLENTY of chemistry between the stars Annabella Sciorra and Matt Dillon. She is just lovely to look at, beautiful and totally believable. Mary Louise Parker is also delicious, the acting is great, the storyline very likable, timeless, then and now. Mr Minghella became famous with the recent Breaking and Entering, The English Patient, The Talented Mr Ripley but I like this one very much. Others in the cast warmly supportive, include William Hurt and Dan Hedaya. James Gandolfini has a simple non violent role, Vincent D'Onofrio is absolutely wonderful in his adoring song to Ms Sciorra. His performance jumps out at you, Oh Vincent... your eyes will water. You have the price of the movie in that one scene. If you are into relationships, you will appreciate it... falling in love, being in love, two people living together, then drifting apart, you just want them to get back together again. It's a romantic fantasy for adults. Take my advice, rent it, buy it. Comment from Malcolm in Toronto 30th June 2007


I expected this movie to bore me within the first five minutes, but I had an afternoon to kill and there was a rerun of a home improvement show I could watch. I got a pleasant surprise and never did check into ways to repaint the kitchen. I found the plot to be original because of Dillon's machinations to get another guy the girl. He's not much of a matchmaker, but he seems to sincerely want hi ex-wife to be happy. The end was predictable, but Sciorra and Dillon are convincing as angry ex- spouses who have gone in different directions and the numerous character actors fill in the occasional boring spots, especially Dan Hedeya - I like anything he does though, so I am biased.


Okay so this is not Oscar material, but it is a sweet film just the same. I count this as one of my favorite movies, although let me state I have about 1,000 favorites! Coming from an Italian family I feel like I know these characters so well- Matt Dillon is adorable and very believable as Gus, the guy who needs to stop paying alimony to his ex-wife Lee so he can go into a business opportunity with his friends. Gus realizes the only thing to do is find Lee a new husband...a Mr. Wonderful! This of course leads to some very funny situations- The supporting cast is also great with Vincent Dinofrio (Law & Order-Criminal Intent)in one of his early roles. A terrific romantic comedy!


Wonderful comic acting, well-played....it perfectly meets the expectations you'd have of a pure entertainment romantic comedy. Matt Dillon is especially good and displays a depth to his acting that had yet to be seen when this was first released. A little gem that deserves to be seen.


This is a very pleasant romantic comedy with a good cast, lots of good performances. Look for James Gandolfini in an earlier role as a shy lover.. .The premise is very believable. Matt Dillon's character is divorced, has killer alimony payments, but would like to invest in a bowling alley with his buddies. He has a girlfriend with a child, but hasn't quite committed. He has minor quarrels with his ex-wife, and it truly looks like there is no love lost between them! The plan is to find her a husband, a Mr. Wonderful, so he won't have to pay alimony any more, but when she finds one, he discovers he wants her back, says the video jacket. Matt Dillon puts in a very convincing performance as a working man, "fix-it" kind of guy who doesn't understand his more intellectual ex-wife; Annabella Sciorra is wonderful as his ex-wife, going to college and working with plants; William Hurt puts in a great performance as her married professor and lover; and Vincent D'Onofrio is excellent as the pharmacist who remembers her from high school. But I didn't feel that the ending was convincing, unlike other great romantic comedies, like "You've Got Mail", "While You Were Sleeping", or "Sleepless in Seattle".


this is a passive movie by ace director anthony minghella, the movie has an awesome star cast and they all give competent performances early in their careers.

the movie does not have much of a plot and though the story seems veers to a cliched and predictable end, there are enough minor twists that abound in the movie, making it quite an enjoyable watch. the standout features of the movie include its tight script, terrific lines and smart performances.

the plot in itself is no great shakes but this movie is a fun watch for a relaxed evening.

an enjoyable and pleasant 7!


It's true, this is not a well cast movie. Matt Dillon seems to schlump through it, and has very little chemistry with Annabella Sciorra- HOWEVER! The supporting roles are delightful. Mary Louise Parker, so good in Naked in New York and Fried Green Tamales, shines here and makes you wish she'd played the lead. As does Vincent D'Onofrio. The guy who directed The English Patient made this many years before, and he's obviously become a much better film maker. This is a remake of a foreign film, I think from Brazil, but it doesn't really come together.


POSSESSED (1947) is a somewhat underrated Warner Bros.noir. With an excellent central performance from its star Joan Crawford this highly charged drama should be better thought of than it is and deserving of much more exposure. It is one of Crawford's best pictures so this overdue release on DVD is something of an event!

Crawford, fresh from winning an Acadamy Award for "Mildred Pierce" looked as if she was trying for another one here with her well measured portrayal of a neurotic private nurse in the employ of Raymond Massey. But she is unable to deal with the intensity and frustration of her unrequited love for a young engineer (Van Heflin). It all gets too much for her and she finally snaps culminating in a tragic final reel!

Crawford gives one of her great wide-eyed antagonistic performances with fine support from Van Heflin, Raymond Massey (in one of his more amiable roles), the ill-fated Geraldine Brookes (whose previous film for Warners just before this was as Errol Flynn's younger sister in "Cry Wolf") and Stanley Ridges as Crawford's psychiatrist.

From a cracking screenplay by Silvia Richards and Ranald McDougall (who also wrote "Mildred Pierce") the picture turned out to be a splendidly absorbing drama thanks to the smooth and solid direction by Curtiz Bernhardt, the stylish and sharp monochrome cinematography of Joseph Valentine, an effective score by the great Franz Waxman (featuring Schumann's rhapsodic "Carnaval - Opus 9" "played" by Van Heflin) and most of all to the outstanding performance of Miss Joan Crawford.

A nice package - extras include a ten minute featurette on the noir aspects of "Possessed", a good commentary by film historian Drew Casper and an excellent trailer.


Obssessive love affairs have been a Hollywood staple for years upon years now with varying degrees of success, and here the formula wins. Joan Crawford, fresh out of her Oscar win in MILDRED PIERCE, acts the hell out of her role as the ill-fated Louise Howell, a former nurse who has collapsed in the middle of a street moaning "David... David.... " The thing is, she is an unknown person in a strange town and a team of psychiatrists try to find out the reason behind her madness.

POSSESSED is a good, soapy yarn told in flashback with some nice twists and turns, directed quite well by Curtis Bernhardt who gives the movie a moody noir feel, and while at times Louise's character can be quite unsympathetic, going from possessive to manic to moody (and more so once "David," played by Van Heflin, re-enters her life), there's a certain sorrowfulness about her inability to start again with her own life as a married woman, and thankfully Crawford is able to convey this perfectly. One powerful sequence which shows how great an actress (as opposed to star) she would have become if given true roles and a chance to emote while expressing little is the fantasy sequence where she imagines she has killed her step-daughter (Geraldine Brooks). Brooks has been going steady with Heflin and Crawford, not over him yet, is seething. When she confronts her, there is a struggle, secrets are revealed, and down the stairs goes Brooks. Then Crawford realizes this never happened, but to see her cruel eyes staring out from a face that looks tortured and evil and demented all at once as she waits for Brooks is chilling and the best thing in the movie.

The only flaw in the film is the need to explain Crawford's descent into schizophrenia at the end: it recalls the same procedure Hitchcock would adopt for PSYCHO. Madness is always best when left undiagnosed, but then it was deemed necessary, and this robs the film of what might have been a perfect ending: Crawford screaming "David! David! David...!" over and over again. Definitely one to seek and watch.


"Possessed" is one of the marvelous genre hybrids that appeared in the late 40s and early 50s. It is both Film Noir (admittedly, an "invented" genre) and woman's picture. Elements of the latter genre include a female main character and her obsession with a lover who has moved on. The Noir elements (flashback, dark, moody photography, and a sinister, fatalistic edge to the proceedings) raise this melodrama to nearly tragic heights. It should not be dismissed as a throwaway Crawford vehicle, or overgrown B picture.

Curtis Bernhardt directs the film with a compelling assurance. This movie knows where it's going and it takes you along for the ride. Many scenes have an enthralling dramatic appeal. Early in the film, for example, Louise is overwhelmed by the Van Heflin character playing a section from Schumann's "Carnaval" on the piano. There is a terrific admixture of closeups of Crawford's face with the music. This music will play a subtle leitmotivic role in the rest of the film. Worthy of note as well is Franz Waxman's intense, not too-romanticized score. And this film contains what must be an early use of electronic voice distortion to convey Louise's gradual descent toward a nervous breakdown.

All actors--Raymond Massey, Van Heflin, Geraldine Brooks--are good and bring more than a touch of conviction to their roles. But Joan Crawford is at the center of the picture, and she gives here what may be her very best screen performance. It is not surprising to learn that Crawford was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award for this detailed, gradated portrayal of a woman travelling through a private hell. So convincing and inspired is this performance, that it is universal in its appeal.

"Possessed" could form a "trilogy" with "Born to Kill" (1947, with Claire Trevor and Lawrence Tierney) and "No Man of Her Own" (1950, with Barbara Stanwyck and Lyle Bettger): all immensely entertaining journeys through dark emotional landscapes of obsession, betrayal and desperation.


Never underestimate a woman in love. Such seems to be the message of "Possessed", a film that was obviously tailor made for its star, Joan Crawford. As directed by Curtis Bernhardt, this film will not bore the fans of the genre, or its star.

If you haven't seen the film, maybe you should stop reading here.

"Possessed" presents us Louise Howell, a nurse, for the ailing Mrs. Graham, a wealthy recluse. Louise's charge is a woman from hell. When this woman dies under mysterious circumstances, it appears to herald the end of Louise's employment. Prior to that, we see Louise during a tryst with a neighbor of the Grahams, David Sutton. They have had an affair and David decides to end it, much to Louise's chagrin.

Dean Graham, the rich widower, asks Louise to stay after his wife's death. Will a marriage proposal be too far behind? Well, Dean proposes and Louise accepts. Her life is transformed from mediocrity into a life of luxury. The only sour point in Louise's new found happiness is Carol Graham, the daughter of the dead woman who blames Louise for the accident and death of her mother.

Will Louise find happiness with Dean? Will David see how much Louise loves him and come back to her? Will Carol and Louise ever be friends? Those are the questions that will be answered in the movie, not by this observer. The film is involving, although having seen some of these melodramas prepares us for all possible answers.

Joan Crawford does an impressive job as Louise. This woman gave the star one of her best characters ever. She goes through a range of emotions right before our eyes. Van Heflin, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have been the obvious choice for David, although he was an excellent actor, but in this movie doesn't have much to do. Raymond Massey, as Dean, is enormously appealing. He shows us a Dean who is a generous man. A young Geraldine Brooks makes a good impression as Carol the girl that is deprived of her mother at an early age.

"Possessed" is a wonderful film. It will not disappoint the fans of this genre.


This movie takes the smoldering talents of Joan Crawford and lets them burn the screen down, right before your eyes...she's utterly convincing as a fairly demented "possessed" lover, torn to pieces by hideous dysfunction. The lowest of lows, and not many highs...

Mildred Pierce laid the template down; Possessed fills the template and makes it its own. What I personally love is the "Hollywood Gothic" aspect, the redolence of that: every frame is steeped in it, every moment is cradled in its embrace. One of those movies that you watch, mouth agape, and whisper to yourself, "Christ, the aesthetics...was the world ever really like that?" Apparently so.

Oh, and for the record - it was a better world.


For the young Joan Crawford, MGM was the perfect studio. All that gloss, rags to riches, Gable, and gowns. But MGM had a hard time with actresses as they aged and the old formulas weren't working anymore - Shearer, Garbo, and Crawford being three such examples. The other two quit, but Joan went over to Warner Brothers and revived her career.

It was a good move. I love the Crawford films at Warner's. They were grand potboilers enlivened by her presence.

Possessed is post-war, and after the war, the new rage was psychology. This movie is full of it. I'm not sure the diagnosis and terminology is correct in the film, but in layman's term, Crawford plays a total whack job. As her story unfolds to a doctor, she's a nurse taking care of Raymond Massey's wife, and she's seeing Van Heflin on a casual basis. When she falls in love with him, Heflin announces he's restless because of the war and is taking off. And that's when Joan takes off - emotionally. She becomes completely obsessed with him, and this leads to hallucinations, hysteria, and finally a psychotic break. She has able assistance by Heflin, who pops in and out and gets involved with Crawford's stepdaughter (Crawford is now married to the widower Massey). When the movie begins, she's wandering the street saying "David," which is Heflin's name in the movie.

One of the posters suggested Tyrone Power for this role. I'm all for him in any movie, and it's true, the presence of a big star as David would have elevated the film to a grander status. As it is, it's an excellent vehicle for Crawford, who runs the gamut of emotions.

Raymond Massey is stoic and solid as Crawford's new husband, and the lovely Geraldine Brooks, who died too soon, plays the stepdaughter. Her youthful vivacity is in sharp contrast to Crawford's borderline insanity and makes for great watching. Heflin, as the object of all the possession obsession, is smooth and detached.

But make no mistake about it. This is Joan Crawford's show and she makes the most of it. The script will keep you interested, and you won't be able to take your eyes off of Joan descending into madness.


Another coup for Joan Crawford, 1947's Possessed (Joan co-starred with Clark Gable in a 1938 film of the same name), sees the star in a great vehicle in which to show off her many dramatic talents.

The hospital scenes are a bit over the top, and Stanley Ridges plays the psychiatric doctor a bit too eagerly. I half expected him to start wringing his hands with an Igor-type `yes, master  I think it's working, master' look on his face every time one of the drugs he gave Joan Crawford began taking effect. Ridges' performance is earnest, but his approach made me giggle more than once.

What's good about the film is its insight into issues regarding mental illness and its compassionate, non-exploitative exploration of the subject matter. This is accomplished in spite of Ridges' misguided portrayal of Dr. Willard, and due in large part to Crawford's brave, unglamorous portrayal of patient Louise Graham.

On the whole, Possessed is a very entertaining film that left me wanting to know what would happen next.

I think the death of Dean Graham's first wife is rushed and a bit muddled. Her character should have been actually introduced (even in one brief scene) rather than merely heard or talked about in flashback. Instead, there is just a big jump right into the marriage of Dean and Louise. This lack of transition really annoys me, although I can't exactly pinpoint why  I guess the whole thing just feels rushed.

Conveniently appearing and re-appearing on the scene is architect David Sutton, always around to throw Louise into a tizzy, as she cannot seem to get over the fact that he has broken off their relationship. It's difficult to understand David's appeal, as his character is extremely smarmy and smug, and he has no socially redeeming values whatsoever. To illustrate this, he shows up un-invited to Dean and Louise's wedding reception for the free food and drink. Ultimately, Dean's daughter Carol falls for him. Why, ladies??

If one can get past this implausible plot thread and take the story at face value, this is when the film really takes off, and Crawford's neurosis/psychosis picks up speed. The film improves greatly from here, and the plot advances nicely.

CAST/PERFORMANCES: Joan Crawford (Louise Howell Graham)  Crawford's transformation from personally neurotic, yet mild, unobtrusive caregiver to scheming, paranoid, jealous, unstable woman scorned is fairly believable, given the plot. I adore her voice, and the circumstances of the script, her role, and therefore her dialog really allow Crawford to express herself well, and she is a treat to hear as well as watch, as usual.

Raymond Massey (Dean Graham)  Massey is such a natural actor that I always adore his performances, and here is just wonderful. I love the scene where he dances with Crawford  watch as he forgets himself and sticks his tongue partway out with the effort of the dance. That, his quoting Bugs Bunny and his very tender, heartfelt scenes with Joan (his Dean Graham character is so sweet and patient) are a standout. I think it was a good casting choice to go with Massey, as his self-effacing nature is perfect for this role.

Van Heflin (David Sutton)  Despite the character's flaws (a very difficult role to play), in the actor's capable hands, it is done well. In his inimitable style and voice inflection, Heflin has the best line in the film, which he delivers offhandedly while pacing the floor: `I'm sorry, Louise  I seldom hit a woman, but if you don't leave me alone, I'll wind up kicking babies.'

Geraldine Brooks (Carol Graham)  a lovely actress, who I am sure I've seen in other films, as her name sounds familiar. Shes very good as Carol, and gives a lively and strong performance as Massey's daughter. Her reaction to her mom's death and to Crawford's motives for marrying her father are very believable.

A good cast, interesting plot, and decent execution make for a fine film noir.


This movie has nothing to do with the 1931 version that also Joan Crawford. It's more along the lines of The Snake Pit. It stars out with Joan Crawford walking the streets in a trance-like state and she keeps on repeating the name David. She's sent to the mental ward at the hospital and the movie goes in flashback to show how she ended up like this. The flashback stars with Joan Crawford wanting to marry Van Heflin but he just wants to break the relationship off. She never gets over it and goes to work as a nurse taking care of Raymond Massey's wife. Pretty soon, they find his wife's body in the lake but they don't know if it was an accident or suicide. Raymond Massey asks Crawford to marry him but she's still in love with Heflin, who is working with Massey. She agrees but Massey's daughter doesn't like her and she slowly stars to go insane. I guess this is one of the first movies that deals with mental illness.


i love this movie. it's classic film-noir. the storyline is superb. all of the characters are compelling to watch. Joan Crawford truly does an excellent job in the role. there is a darkness in many of the scenes that adds to the feel of the movie;you feel as if you're right there on the scene. Joan's performance was academy-award worthy.the movie gives you the feel of the 1940's...the dress, the furniture, the cars; even the hospital-medical atmosphere and thinking of the times. the architecture of the homes and waterfront cabin speak of a time when things were built with detail, style, and authentic woods. the movie totally takes you back in time, and i know i can watch it again and again.this movie should always be kept available. as good a performance as Mildred pierce; in the film-noir aspect possessed exceeds Mildred pierce; for film-noir, story and acting it get,s a 10! you just have to believe that she eventually recovers from her illness and goes on happily married to that gem of a husband she had.


Before "Play Misty For Me" (1971) and "Fatal Attraction" (1987), comes this story of a nurse (Joan Crawford) who's attached to a man (Van Heflin), who eventually finds her too possessive and breaks it off, but she can not let him go. When they meet again at her employer's (Raymond Massey) residence, she wants to resume the relationship, saying its awful for a woman to lie down at night and not be able to sleep, but he still won't take her back. She eventually accepts widower Massey's marriage proposal, explaining that it's terrible for a woman to be unwanted, although she's not in love with him. Eventually, Massey's daughter Geraldine Brooks starts to date Heflin, further complicating matters, and putting Crawford over the edge. Script, photography, direction, music are exemplary, the 4 leads are memorable, but Crawford is particularly riveting. Her first breakdown (at Massey's waterfront mansion) with Heflin might be considered over-the-top 40s style acting (pre-Method), but she delivers it beautifully, her face and expressions a towering display of emotion and angst. It's a performance that Crawford must have pulled from her own life experiences to achieve such rising momentum. No wonder actor Cliff Robertson (her co-star in "Autumn Leaves - 1956) once stated in a documentary that she's "a damned good actress."


****SPOILERS**** Looking like a combination homeless bag lady and something that the cat dragged in Louise Howell,Joan Crawford, aimlessly walks the streets of Los Angeles asking and looking for just one thing, the only word that comes out of her mouth, David! Taken to the city's municipal hospital Louise, admitted as a Jane Doe, is declared by the head of psychiatry Dr. Harvey Willard, Stanley Ridge, as suffering from a complete mental breakdown and put under strong medication to bring her both mind and memory back to normal.

It's when Louise is being treated with mind altering and psychotic drugs that she remembers what brought her to this state of insanity and it had to do with her former lover confirmed bachelor and swinging construction engineer and part time piano player David Sutton,Van Heflin, the David that Louis was asking for at the beginning of the movie. Louise and David had a hot and sizzling relationship going between them but David felt that it was getting a bit out of hand and wanted to put the breaks on it. This decision on David's part has Louise go off her nut to the point of almost losing both her composer, when David was around, and her ability to look after her and Davids employers Dean Graham's, Raymond Massey, very ill wife Pauline whom Louise, a licensed nurse, was taking care off.

Davids hold on Louise is so strong that it totally warps her mind having the love sick woman go into fits of anger and self pity over his treatment of her by wanting to have nothing to do with Louise. It's during this time that Pauline ends up jumping into a nearby lake drowning herself with a mind numbed and guilty conscience Louise feeling responsible for Pauline's death or suicide. while Louise is so stuck up on David she doesn't realize that her boss Mr. Graham has fallen madly in love with her and out of the clear blue sky proposes marriage to a totally surprised Louise.

You would have thought that Dean Graham marrying Louise, who grudgingly accepted his proposal, would have straightened her out but it only has the reversed effects with Louise's step daughter Carol, Gerldine Brooks, coming into the picture and into her life. At first Carol was anything but affectionate to her step-mother Louise feeling that she was having an affair with her father Dean Graham behind her mothers back which lead her to kill herself. It took Carol's father Dean to straighten her out on her mothers, and his wife's, tragic death in him being present when she took that one step beyond off the rock and into the lake drowning herself. Louise at the time was nowhere in sight being that it was her day off from her job as Pauline's nurse. It's also told by Carol's father that Pauline was very sick and what she thought or said, about him and Louise having an affair, was just wild and unfounded thoughts that she conjured up in her both sick and confused mind.

It's just when it seemed that Louise had her life straightened out with David gone out of it and Carol accepting her as her mother that things really took a downward turn with David unexpectedly showing up again. Stung by the love bug David, back from his job for Mr. Graham in Canada,has gotten really hot for Carol, some 15 years is Junior, and this is something that Louise just wont take lying down or standing up. Louise in trying to split Carol up from David has her turn against her with Carol and David scheduled to tie the knot as soon as possible to just stick it to her intrusive and annoying step-mother.

Getting nowhere with Carol in trying to maligned David in what a two-timing rat he is, which is a total lie, Lousie then goes on to confront David threatening to blow him away, with her handgun, if he goes through with his marriage to Carol. David a bit too sure of himself and thinking that Louise won't go through with it calls Louise's bluff which turned out to be the very last thing that he ever did!

Back to the present and in the hospital Louise is now in a total vegetable with her mind completely gone. Dean summoned to his wife's bedside can only hope that she'll recover even if she has to face justice in David's untimely death which she'll very probably get off on an insanity defense. Dr. Willard tells a grieving Dean Graham that his wife has a very good chance to recover and that he'll take a personal interest in seeing to it and do everything possible to make it happen.

We can only hope with the great advances in mental therapy, since 1947 when the movie "Possessed" was made, and psychiatric studies that what Dr. Willard told Dean Graham turned out to be true.


Classified by many as film noir, this one plays more like an overly dramatic melodrama and soap opera IMHO. Joan Crawford plays an unstable woman who slowly slips into madness after being rejected by Van Heflin. To make matters worse, Heflin is now dating Crawford's step daughter following Joan's rebound marriage to Raymond Massey. Sounds pretty sappy, and, it really is.

I did like the performances of both Heflin and Massey but for whatever reason, I couldn't really take Crawford seriously in this one and found her role to be hammy and over the top. A lot of folks praise this movie and Joan's work but it must have slipped right by me. I didn't find it all that entertaining but it definitely was atmospheric in spots.


With a title like Possessed and a plot line concerning a woman's obsessive unrequited love for an aloof man, it is understandable if one does not expect much. But Possessed is actually a riveting psychological drama about the delicate nature of emotions and how they are often abused or taken for granted. Surely, not everyone would go to the extent Crawford goes in this film, but, as a woman working as a nurse to an invalid, she nor anyone who knows her would ever have expected her to. Emotional security can safely be said to provide one's equilibrium. Possessed is about someone who is deprived completely of it, at first by the man with whom she is in love, who loathes her smothering obsession with him and ends the relationship and goes so far as to leave the area, and furthermore by her own self for no reason other than that she is simply following her heart.

When the invalid dies suddenly, Crawford remains to care for the invalid's children. Time carries on, stopping for no one, and her object of affection re-emerges, having taken a job with the deceased's husband. He is startled to find Crawford on the scene. Even now fixated on him, she makes an advance and is swiftly rejected. When the widowed husband of her dead patient proposes to her, she says yes to salvage her pride. Note that this happens literally just moments later. Her new fiancé's daughter is keen on to her true love, much to the debilitating alarm of Crawford, who endeavors to deter her from beginning a relationship with him. Her mind spirals sadly into deterioration with her mania over her unrequited love: She hears voices, hallucinates, and believes her husband's first wife, the invalid, to still be alive. As tensions mount, Crawford begins to believe that everyone is scheming to be rid of her.

While Van Heflin gives an applaudably callous performance as the insensitive focus of obsession, partially because I cannot understand why such an incredibly ugly man like him so often plays roles of confidently unavailable loners after whom beautiful women obsess, Joan Crawford gives one of those tremendous performances that is almost like a throwback to ancient Greek theater when the protagonist was such an abundant function of the story to the extent that he had to portray every other character and even sometimes the props as well. She does in fact possess this movie with her brimming, affecting intensity and staggering beauty.

However, this is not one of those star vehicles that couldn't work without its star. Director Curtis Bernhardt makes harrowing set pieces out of Crawford's paranoia and psychological descent. A hallucinatory scene wherein we join in her wildly vindictive feelings seems at the outset so entirely real that it is not only Crawford's performance that connects with us. The script itself is very effective in its undeviating sense of classic structure, which portrays the nuance, expression and feeling of its main character as directly as one ever could.


I guess you're supposed to pick up on Crawford's delusional psychosis during a few scenes in the film, but it's never very firmly established. The tension, however, between her and Van Heflin is pretty good; he's an up and coming engineer and certainly not going to commit himself to her, a clinging neurotic who's a nurse for the suicidal wife of Heflin's employer played by Raymond Massey. When they fish Massey's wife's body (you never see her, but here her voice on the intercom) out of the lake the film hits a dramatic point, and Louise (Crawford) is confronted with Heflin's presence in several great scenes that are full of tension. Things come to an emotionally exciting culmination when Heflin decides to marry Crawford's step daughter played by Geraldine Brooks, which is the last straw for Crawford. It's hard to buy into her being completely crazy and stumbling around in LA and locked up in a psycho ward, especially if you saw the smile on her face when she pulled the trigger not once, but two times in a chilling scene.


Crawford plays a woman who slowly begins to go mad when Van Heflin breaks up with her. She marries rich Raymond Massey to "punish" him only to find Massey's daughter (Geraldine Brooks) falling for Heflin...and pushing Joan to the brink.

Exceptional movie...one of Joan's best. This was one of the few Hollywood films of the 1940s to treat mental illness (somewhat) seriously. The director uses sound effects, music and weird camera effects when Crawford's grip on reality starts to loosen. But she slips in and out of madness so quickly that she (and the audience) never knows what's real or not. Crawford is just superb--one of her best performances. Brooks is just great in her film debut. Heflin though, I never liked. He's unattractive and generally cruel--I wondered what Crawford sees in him. And Massey is stone-faced through the proceedings. Still, well worth catching. Love that lake house!

The TV print of this is in pretty poor condition. This film needs serious restoration.


"Possessed" offers a fascinating combination of noir themes and "weepy" melodramatics. Joan Crawford plays an emotionally disturbed woman who tells the story of her life to a group of doctors working in a mental ward. Flashbacks allow the viewers to see the events that led to the woman's mental deterioration. It has all the elements that are associated with postwar film noir, but it also has the gloss one expects from the "women's pictures". I was quite surprised to see how well the movie deals with a person on the edge of sanity. Crawford's performance is simply brilliant; she captures with uncanny precision the mood swings, ups and downs of a person who is battling a mental illness. She deservedly received an Oscar nomination for her role here and I think she should have won the award. Interestingly, the film was written for Bette Davis but her pregnancy allowed Crawford to grab one of her most interesting roles. Director Bernhardt demonstrates here that he was a truly gifted director. He has a flair for visuals, not what I expect from non-auteurs. Joseph A. Valentine's brooding b/w cinematography is an asset. And you have to love those sets (they look as magnificent as Crawford's damn shoulder pads). A terrific addition to the noir canon, and a great film for Crawford devotees.


"Possessed" (1947) is one of Joan Crawford's last great outings as the grand dame of Warner Brothers, in a film so deeply disturbing that even today it tends to hold an audience spellbound in its neurotic tension. After a woman is found wandering the streets and collapses inside a diner, muttering the name 'David' she is rushed to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. Of course, you just know this is going to end sadly.

Crawford plays Louise Howell, nurse to an ailing wealthy recluse. At the same time, she's taken up romantically with the neighbor, David Sutton (Van Helfin). But David recognizes something odd about Louise, something tragic and flawed and oh, so mentally unstable that it scares him into calling the whole affair off  much to Louise's dismay and chagrin. When Louise's elderly charge suddenly dies under mysterious circumstances, Dean Graham (Raymond Massey), the rich widower, asks her to stay on. This, of course, eventually leads to Louise becoming Dean's wife. However, Louise's happiness as the newly christened socialite of the realm is threatened by Dean's daughter, Carol (Geraldine Brooks) who blames  or perhaps intuitively suspects that the death of her mother was no accident.

What is particularly shocking about this film is the way in which director, Curtis Bernhardt baits his audience with snippets of murderous intent that are played out for maximum effect and then, later exposed as merely the ravenously dangerous thoughts of the film's protagonist. Yet, if Louise can't discern between what is real and what she imagines out of thin air, then how can we, as an audience? Crawford's performance as Louise is impressive to say the very least. Most convincingly she deteriorates from a congenial heroine to dangerous psychotic before our very eyes.

Warner's DVD transfer is not up to snuff. The gray scale has been rendered with deep solid blacks and the maximum amount of detail presented even in the darkest scenes. But there's way too much film grain in many scenes and some severe water damage about 48 minutes into the film (that lasts for less than a minute but gives the illusion of a cluster of fire flies darting about the screen). The audio is mono but cleaned up. Extras include Drew Casper's audio commentary that is spooky in its own right, as well as a featurette proclaiming "Possessed" as the quintessential film noir  the latter is a bone of contention for this reviewer. Although "Possessed" is a fine example of film noir story-telling, it pales to "Mildred Pierce" as far as Crawford film noir vehicles go.


Having become quite the aficionado of film-noir over the past couple of years, I have had the pleasure of watching dozens of films in that fascinating genre. 'Possessed' is yet another great entry in this genre that has captured my attention during this period of time.

'Possessed' is not your usual film noir. First, there is no brooding male narration, as one might expect from their typical film noir. Second, the picture almost entirely revolves itself around a lead female character, and this character is neither menaced (e.g. Laura), nor is she a femme fatale (a la Barbara Stanwyck in 'Double Indemnity'). Finally, there are quite a number of perfectly rational and sympathetic characters in the film, something you come to *not* expect from your typical film noir.

Joan Crawford plays Louise Graham, a nurse who is introduced to us at the beginning as an extremely distraught and disoriented woman, calling for a man named 'David'. Soon, she falls into a coma induced by psychosis, but is drawn out of this stupor by a sympathetic psychiatrist who wants to discover the source of her illness. Louise recalls her story, which mostly revolves around her unrequited love for a particularly callous man named David Sutton (played marvelously by Van Heflin). When her relationship with Sutton dissolves, she throws herself entirely into her work as a nurse for a certain Mrs. Graham, the mentally ill wife of a very wealthy man. Louise eventually steps into the role of 'Mrs. Graham' after the first Mrs. Graham commits suicide. Unfortunately, Louise's unrequited passion for David, along with her guilt over the death of her patient, cause her to fall into an ever worsening spiral of psychosis.

Joan Crawford is quite marvelous as Louise. She plays her role to the hilt, adding a touch of melodramatic flair that really works in this film. Oddly enough, I did not enjoy Joan Crawford much in 'Mildred Pierce', which I found to be an utterly inferior film. She should have won her Oscar for *this* performance. Van Heflin, as the self-absorbed and emotionally brutish playboy David Sutton, is perfect in this movie. Some of his lines, as insensitive and clumsy as they seem, are downright hilarious...it's all in the delivery. Raymond Massey and Geraldine Brooks provide very nice supporting performances as well. The mood of this film is rather well set by the very much underrated director Curtis Bernhardt.

Finally, it must be said that this film is rather instructive and insightful in its depiction of the horrors of schizophrenia. In that regard, it may very well be a film well before its time.

Please check it out!


There are movies that are better than the story they are based on. I think this is the case here, thanks to a good director, I suppose. I read several books about German émigré directors in Hollywood. In those accounts Curtis Bernhardt for some reason is right up there with more famous people like Fritz Lang and Robert Siodmak. Possessed gave me an idea why this is so. Bernhardt shot a stylish, dark movie that is technically of the highest quality. Furthermore he got great performances out of Crawford, Heflin and Brooks. For once Joan Crawford is not quite in the center but part of a triangle, and the mise en scene beautifully takes account of that; her usual overacting is generally held in check by the performances of Heflin, Brooks and, to a lesser extent, of reliable character actor Raymond Massey.

I would not be surprised had Van Heflin ranked this performance one of the best in his career. At first sight he seems an odd choice for this basically urbane character, but he acquits himself very well indeed and gives him a multi-layered personality. And it is a really interesting character, probably one of the most interesting in the noir cycle. Cultured (plays Schumann on the piano), suave but also a rugged individual in the best sense of the word (an engineer who invents a new girder and is sent to remote Canada to get things going). Crawford's character has a psychotic fixation on him. He deals with that in a manner I would call simply decent - well, maybe with a shot of cynicism. (It's also somewhat surprising how tall that actor is, he really towers over Crawford) Detached and calm  but underneath insecure and aimless -, he tries to reason with the woman he'd rather not like to meet again and who is becoming a living nightmare for him. At the same time he conveys the insight, that this business is decidedly too big for him to handle. It really looks like fate comes to him.

Geraldine Brooks plays the Crawford character's stepdaughter and rival. The relationship between the two women undergoes several sharp changes during the movie which I find entirely convincing. They hate each other in the beginning, become friends later and are estranged again. With the innocence of her young character Brooks brings some specks of light in this basically dark movie that is badly needed.

The term schizophrenia also plays a big role in Possessed. Very early in the movie the Crafword character's state is diagnosed as such. She is aimlessly wandering the streets of Los Angeles in a confused state and is duly delivered to a hospital (great POV sequence as the patient is rolled along the corridors). The medics comment freely about the schizos" that are coming in in large numbers. From the hospital bed the story is told in long flashback sequences. It's like a confession, with the psychiatrist in the role of the priest. The movie also ends with Crafword prostrate and desperate in an aseptic cell of an institution. As unlikely as it may sound; it is meant to be a happy ending! Her mental state is presented as an illness that can be cured like a physical ailment, once it is properly detected, and the heroine is just about to be sent on the road to a guaranteed recovery. I guess in the period Possessed was made this could be nothing but electronic shock treatment. Those were the days of almost unlimited trust in progress and science.


Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, Raymond Massey and Geraldine Brooks give outstanding performances in a movie that is well ahead of its time. It's the story of what happens after a woman suffers from psychosis. However, it's not the portrayal of a yowling inmate but a normal-appearing woman whose insanity comes upon her slowly but inevitably.

Miss Crawford portrays Louise Howell, nurse to the neurotic wife of oil tycoon (BEFORE we became dependent on Middle Eastern oil) Dean Graham. We never see Mrs. Graham but we hear her, constantly accusing her husband(played by Mr. Massey) of having an affair with Louise.

Louise is having an affair alright but it's not with Mr. Graham. Instead, it's with architect David Sutton, played so well by Van Heflin. For David, his relationship with Louise is little more than a lark - a good time was had by all - but he isn't ready to settle down. He tries to explain that to Louise but she gets bent out of shape and becomes possessive about and obsessed with him. Finally, however, David accepts a job FAR AWAY,with Mr. Graham's oil firm. After David leaves and Mrs. Graham dies (is it murder or suicide? Louise, in the beginnings of her confusion, isn't sure which), Louise decides to marry the lonely widower even though she tells him she's not in love with him and even though his daughter Carol (played so well by Gerladine Brooks) dislikes her intensely.

Later, in a cruel bit of irony, David comes home, meets Carol and the two fall in love. This time, David wants to get married but to Carol and not to Louise. Louise tries to talk her out of it but Carol becomes more determined than ever to marry the older, oafish architect. Things get pretty dicey after that and this is when Miss Crawford's performance goes from good to brilliant. If she wasn't nominated for an Academy Award, she should have been; in fact, she should have gotten it for her role in this movie. It's not easy playing a woman going slowly insane because it's not the obvious signs of insanity she has to convey; it's the slow insanity that results from years of inevitable tortures she must express. That's not easy but an actress of Miss Crawford's obvious brilliance was able to pull it off beautifully. This is a marvelous "woman's picture" and I highly recommend it. It's one of my all-time favorites and one of Miss Crawford's best pictures.


During the 1940s, there were several films about mental illness and most that I have seen are psychological mumbo-jumbo--filled with nonsense and portraying insanity in the most ridiculous ways. One of the most famous and seriously flawed of these film is SPELLBOUND. Despite being directed by Hitchcock and having a good reputation, most of what occurs in the film has nothing to do with mental illness and the way the therapist (Ingrid Bergman) behaves in the film is not only unethical but downright stupid. Thank goodness for films like POSSESSED that proved that Hollywood was capable of producing a reasonably good psychological drama. Unlike POSSESSED, this film seems like they actually consulted with real therapists and the way the story was written was a bit hard to believe but actually plausible. When therapists talked about the mental illness Ms. Crawford's character had, they really were reasonable in their diagnosis and the terminology they used was correct for that day. Hats off for this aspect of the film.

Now the plot of this story is in many ways pure soap opera--with more twists and turns than you'd see in any other genre. The combination of the four main characters and their many problems sure gives the audience of entertainment for the cost of admission. Now the father (Raymond Massey) and his daughter (Geraldine Brooks) are relatively "normal" in the film. However, Van Heflin plays a somewhat sociopathic creep--a guy with little depth but a lot of charm. He's unwilling to commit to a serious relationship with Joan at the beginning of the film, but later he sweeps a much younger lady (Joan's step-daughter) off her feet and when confronted admits that much of her appeal is her money! Joan Crawford's character, however, is the main focus of the film and wow does she have a lot going on psychologically! In the beginning, she seems normal enough but when rejected by Heflin, she shows that there is a strong streak of obsession and delusion about her--and she comes off sounding like a crazed stalker. This is only the beginning, however, as throughout the course of the film, it's apparent that her problems run much deeper as she paints an amazingly accurate portrait of a woman sinking into the depths of schizophrenia (with paranoid and catatonic features). While some portrayals of this illness have been better in recent years, Ms. Crawford, the director and the writers did an amazing job for the time--an image that would still hold true today. No mumbo-jumbo here--just an accurate picture of what it would be like to slip into madness and eventually into catatonia. The only obviously wrong aspect of this is the amazing results they got using drugs to break through her unresponsive state--this just isn't possible. However, considering how this set up the film and was necessary for the narrative, this can easily be overlooked.

Okay, so if you're not a psychotherapist or psychology teacher, is the film worth seeing? Absolutely. Apart from the psychological truths in the film, there is some dandy romance, lots of unexpected twists and turns and darn fine acting throughout. Apparently this plum role was first offered to Bette Davis (who also apparently foolishly turned down the lead in MILDRED PIERCE) but Ms. Davis was about to go on maternity leave. Frankly, though I adore Ms. Davis as an actress, Crawford was so good here that I don't mind at all--she had a great knack for playing playing characters on the edge of sanity.

See this film. About the only reason it didn't score it a 9 is that towards the end Van Heflin's reaction to Crawford didn't make much sense. It was obvious Crawford was dangerous and unbalanced--yet he foolishly taunted her. Everyone knows you DON'T dare a crazy person to shoot you--they usually DO!!! Duh.


"Possessed" is good for the performance of Joan Crawford as Louise, a nurse who falls in love for a sadistic and self-centered David (Van Heflin). Some reviewers say that it's Joan's best performance, and she sure does good things, but it's hard to believe a woman would fall in love so madly for a man who finds such visible fun in despising her completely, and the plot is always menaced by an overdose of kitsch. The photography is marvelous and the movie shows many signs of the talent of the director, Curtis Bernardt, but are there too many psychiatric explanations and they spoil the whole, leaving little for the imagination of the spectator. They're the worst default in the whole movie.


Poor Joan has been turned into a freakish cartoon in recent years, but every now and then you stumble upon a movie that only Joan could play, and play well. In "Possessed," she even dares to wear very little make up in the opening scene. She must have taken a page from Bette's book while at Warner's. The only problem I have with the movie is that it's rather long. I kept looking at my watch and wondering when is this going to be over? You have to accept the bubblegum psychology this movie spews out but it might have been something of a groundbreaking film when it came out. Despite some of these flaws, this movie is still fun to watch as Joan becomes more delusional in each scene. And what's a Joan Crawford movie without her packing heat in her purse?


"Possessed" released in 1947, gives Joan Crawford one of her best performances at the height of her popularity at Warner Brothers. Crawford had won an Oscar just the year before for "Mildred Pierce" so she was red-hot when she made this film. Crawford stars as Louise, a seemingly cool, detached nurse who cares for an ill woman (whom we never see) who is married to a wealthy man named Dean (Raymond Massey). Louise has also just been dumped by her lover David (Van Heflin) whom she was very much in love with. Louise becomes infatuated with David, seeming to almost stalk him. On the rebound, she marries Dean (whose wife is now dead), much to the dismay of his adult daughter Carol (Geraldine Brooks). Gradually, Carol and Louise become friends. Louise then almost snaps when she learns Carol and David are seeing one another; her odd behavior becomes even odder, telling lies, imagining she was involved in the death of Dean's first wife, etc. This is where the movie veers off course: Louise confronts David about his relationship with Carol, shoots him, and then ends up wandering the streets and then in the psychiatric ward of a hospital. The film just explains it all away as psychoses and nothing more -- although in the real world of 1947 psychiatry that probably wasn't uncommon. The film is uneven at time, and the script slightly lacking, but the performances are first rate. Van Heflin has one of his better roles as a callous, arrogant playboy, and Geraldine Brooks is fine as Carol. Raymond Massey is his usual reliable self, playing the long-suffering husband role quite well. But make no mistake: this is Joan Crawford's show, and she dominates and fascinates throughout.


I agree with other viewers that the Louise character is neurotic at best. However, one must consider the era in which the film is set. World War II has ended, and older single women like Louise would like to find Mr. Right and settle down. Enter David, portrayed by Van Heflin, whose ambition is hidden by an exterior that alternates between (1) warm and romantic and (2) cool and aloof. He obviously has strung Louise along for some purpose, and he dumps her when she presses him for a commitment. Like most women of the era, Louise probably has been reared to be emotionally and financially dependent on men, whom she and her contemporaries see as "strong, secure, brilliant and perfect." Whenever a relationship in that era did not work out, society would blame the woman for the failure, never recognizing that men can have flaws, bad motives, and other shortcomings. Hence, there is the neurotic or psychotic condition to which Louise succumbs.

It seems obvious to me that David already had staked out a certain business owned by Dean Graham, portrayed by Raymond Massey, and that David was using Louise (Mrs. Graham's nurse) to worm his way into the business and lives of the Graham family and cash in on the goods. Dean, being a kind and well-meaning individual, was blind to David's true ambition to marry Dean's naive and gullible daughter Carol and eventually get control of the business and family fortune. (Of course, once the mission was accomplished, David would use and abandon Carol just as he had used and abandoned Louise). David even brags about his objective to marry Carol and spend the family fortune just before Louise shoots and kills him. However, Louise has her own motives, having internalized the reason for David's abandoning her, and she cannot see the whole picture of David's plot. Inadvertently Louise delivers poetic justice by ending David's ambition and saving the Graham family and fortune.


The mental illness portrayed in "Possessed" is what the Victorians called hysteria. It consists of being a woman and being treated very badly by a socially and sexually superior man.

David Sutton (Van Heflin) is an unthinking cad who wanted casual sex with a vulnerable, lonely employee from a nearby holiday house. Being his social inferior, Louise (Joan Crawford) thought she could improve herself by going all the way with him (a big deal back then because birth control was so primitive). This rash move causes her to get desperate when she senses David's coolness, and then deeply wounded and enraged when he callously ends their affair.

Although the movie attributes it all to "love", it is her sexual betrayal by David, and the casual arrogance of his superior social status, that unbalance her. Moreover, things go wrong at her residence, where she works as a servant or nurse to a married woman who falsely accuses her of involvement with her husband, an accusation that is echoed by the returning daughter. This further injustice by her social superiors drives her unhinged.

The story is told in flashback after she goes into a "hysterical" trance on the streets of downtown Los Angeles. There's a lot of psychiatric lingo around her treatment and confession, but the illness is no "hysteria", it is frustrated outrage against social and gender injustice --- only Hollywood can never tell it that way.

Above all, women could not be told the truth about their condition after World War Two, when they had to be driven out of the factories where they had worked beside men and back into the home to be consumer housewives.

This is really a Victorian throw-back morality tale: it was exactly the kind of case with which the Sigmund Freuds made their name by locking up troubled wives and daughters in Imperial Austria. That said, it's a well-told yarn with great studio sets and a strong central performance. Note the cameo scene at the bar between Geraldine Brooks and Van Heflin. When he takes his eyes off her to ogle the cigarette girl, Geraldine says: "That's so American, wanting more than you've got!" Yes, this film fails to get to grips with the underlying issues, but it's enjoyable "noir" fiction nonetheless.


Joan Crawford was a star. She was not so much an actress, but a star. She didn't have the craft down to an art form, but boy could she command the screen. In fact, often her larger-than-life persona was too big for the limitations of the movie theatre. And this was especially true during her mid-40s to mid-50s heyday - perfectly coiffed hair, exaggerated eyebrows and all. And Joan was never better than when she was a woman in peril ("Autumn Leaves", "Sudden Fear") or a woman-on-the-verge. And this brings us to "Possessed". Not only was Joan-on-the verge in this film. She goes over-the-edge and somersaults all the way down to the bottom with sheer, unadulterated gusto.

In "Possessed", Joan is in love with Van Heflin. Van doesn't love Joan the same way and makes this quite clear from the beginning. However, Joan is not able to let go him that easily. She continues to pine away for him even after being rebuffed over and over. Meanwhile, Joan tries to stay busy as the caretaker for the ill wife of Raymond Massey. When the wife dies, Joan and Raymond come together. He wants to be with her so he is not alone. And she wants to be with him hoping that the marriage will lead her down a normal path and steer her clear from her obsessive ways. Once Van Helfin re-enters the scene as the new love interest of Joan's stepdaughter, her delusions and obsessive tendencies once again come to fruition.

Joan is great as this woman unraveling at the seams. And Geraldine Brooks is very good in her first major film role as the bitchy stepdaughter who eventually warms up to Joan. However, the men are mediocre. They make you wonder why Joan is even tangled up with them at all. This is excellent film noir. The opening with its thunderous classical piano stylings give way to a smart, stylish film which never slows down. Sure there are better movies about mental illness. "The Snake Pit" which stars Olivia De Havilland is a realistic look at the disease. And "Leave Her To Heaven" with Gene Tierney is a true noir classic in which Gene goes even more nutso than Joan could dream of. However, "Possessed" is a great vehicle for Joan at the top of her game and a solid entry into this classic genre.


This is Citizen Kane of the melodrama genre. Its has love triangles, obsessive woman, older husband, suspected wife murder, abusive lover, bitchy step-daughter and a psychiatrist that tries to make sense of all this. Its over the top but you'll be so into it you'll think you're viewing a documentary. Watch for the line: "The mathematical chances of you killing me are very slim...". It doesn't get better than this! By the way, the entire story is told with the help of truth serum.


An intriguing, compelling script on mental illness keeps the audience guessing, with "Possessed", starring Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, and Raymond Massey....not exactly a cast made up of sublimely beautiful people. :)

I thought this film more realistic compared to "The Snake Pit" and other similar films exploring this topic, since the story builds so slowly here, and Joan's character appears normal in the beginning. A brief love affair with Heflin's character, who unceremoniously drops her when he gets bored with her, is the catalyst that puts her obsessive schizophrenia in gear. Back and forth she goes between reality and fantasy, until a crime of murder is committed and she becomes catatonic.

Joan Crawford stated she had to work harder on this film than on any other, but with what we know about her personal life today, we really have to wonder if she DID have to work that hard at all. She did seem to me to be an obsessive, jealous personality in real life, so how was this part a big stretch for her?

A word on Heflin. What a cad he played in this film; Joan's character was almost justified in doing what she did to him, because it was obvious he was going to marry her step-daughter out of spite and greed. It doesn't matter that Heflin wasn't the best looking fellow in the world, but he played his part expertly here, and had some of the best lines in the picture.

I am not a big fan of Joan Crawford, but found myself hooked watching this film after about 20 minutes. A multi-layered, memorable performance from the Queen of the Hangers.


Although this is a classically executed Film-Noir, it is a slow-moving and ultimately disappointing film. Indeed, Joan Crawford has never been better. Van Heflin has a great role as the man she desires. The cinematography is more than perfect. However, the story of a woman slowly going insane is not well constructed and takes forever to get going. I gather that psychiatry was just beginning to be fully embraced by the public as a cause for criminal behavior, hence the "psychiatry for dummies" explanation of Joan's behavior during the story. The film finally comes alive near the end and gets more interesting after Joan gets more crazy. But everything ends in a thud when the resolution of the film is nothing more than the doctors agreeing she is crazy and that's what caused her to murder.


Friends at Life Is A Dream Productions, I have now viewed your film, Cast in Gray, many times. To me this film is, indeed, a dream (it has one character). A man at wit's end finds his new self in a dream which was sparked by a close brush with death by suicidal thoughts and action. In this dream he is visited by an angel and a god (dog spelled backwards, unconditional love; interesting that we find the dog's name, Bibo in the credits, if that's a long "i" it sounds a lot like bible). In this dream the man finds his own dream fulfilled, that is, his old life is gone, and now he will pursue his dream, perhaps his passion, for acting. Money, machine (car, cell phone), and the unhappy institutions of employment and marriage have let him down; he may return to his marriage ultimately, but it will be under completely different understandings. He has to nurture the unconditional love that is now in his life ON A DAILY BASIS; he will be focused, and his priorities appear to have been totally rearranged (he sacrificed his old self for atonement and redemption of the new). In the struggle within his many selves there emerges a sense of direction, and he crosses the necessary bridge to his new life. The dream was indeed spiritual; I couldn't find the spiritual symbolism of the triangle other than the typical Christian trinity, but this film goes much deeper than Christianity. There is the storm metaphor beautifully played out, and there are the spiritual symbols of the water and other elements, wine, bread and nutrients, incense, chalice(s), prayer, ethical reflection and "sin" language around suicide, and certainly hope (even the tree of promised life??). There is sensuality/sexuality all over the place...cup is symbolically (in classical literature) female organs and container (enclosed in the car) is the womb; cigars (about six to eight inches long); failed marriage; sensuous eyes of what I call the "angel" and of the dog. And the sounds are sensuous...rain, birds, composition, etc. Breath is important... one man's deep breathing contrasted with shallow breathing of the man "on the run." Certainly there is death/resurrection, redemption and change. The new man will breathe differently. The full moon has some significance that I'll figure out sometime. The film is clearly about the formation of a new man. The director, I. Michael Toth, telling us at the Festival that he "dreamed the story, including the prayer" and the Life Is A Dream in the production title are both consistent with my understanding of the film. The acting/directing/editing are brilliant. The title: Cast in Gray...the gray zone, the in-between time, life between the parentheses??? Certainly the weather, season, tones, etc in the film are gray, but the title is deeper than that, I think. The selves within this man are trapped, one by his choices, one by his freedom -- What to do with the trap? - face your truth, become who you really are, and be grateful for the people, the pain and suffering, your history, etc. which have made "the new you" possible. The spiritual self had good important messages for the man at the wheel, he just needed to position himself in such a way that he could hear..."okay," "maybe I can help you," "let's pray," "have some faith," and "the dog stays with you...feed him once a day." Earth, air, fire, and water unite to bring the quadrants together in this man's life, or as Elizabeth Kubler-Ross would say, the physical, spiritual, intellectual and emotional quadrants were moving toward integration by the man claiming his I-ness, his true self -- a self that only The Other could see and bring out. Now it's a time to improvise, to go with the flow, grow through it, whatever 'it' is. This is a marvelous film; I recommend it to everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (questions: would the birds be singing in the rain and would the cows be leisurely eating during a storm???) William Killian, actor.


"Cast in Gray" is like the best of French cinema in lyricism and pacing. It addresses larger issues, however, than the usual French fare. The subjects of existential angst and "faith" or lack thereof are treated with a light touch in combination with masterful patience. The lush photography and the sound of the rain make the film a sensual pleasure without even considering the script. I might guess that there is something Eastern European and slightly dark in conception which is lightened by Michael Toth's sense of the magical. The script is spare. The acting is superb. The use of the dog is a brilliant and comic touch. This is a rare gem. I hope to see more of this filmmaker's work. It is just a beautiful film.


It is the most patient film I have ever seen!

Very deliberate, which makes the viewer have to use his imagination rather than have others tell her how to feel, think, etc.

I kept waiting for the dialogue, acting, scenery, whatever, to create my next feeling or thought and then I realized that I was doing so on my own. That was remarkable.

The mystery of the hitchhiker and his dog still bewitches me. So many meanings that all seem right.

The driver; he is all of us at one time or another.

I recommend this short to everyone.


I first saw this film during a one year term as festival director for the Golden Film Festival. I knew the minute I saw it that it was an award winner. I. Michael Toth has created a visually beautiful and thought provoking work that successfully combines the elements of cinematography and drama. The piece is well, conceived, written, acted and directed - imaginative and unpredictable while relatively straight-forward and highly engaging. I am very confident that this film will experience great success, and that I. Michael Toth will go on to make a significant mark in American cinema. If you love independent film, this is one that you definitely want in your collection.


I was swept away by the vision and the overall mood of the film. Stephen Angus' slightly sinister, slightly angelic performance literally sent chills up my spine! Timothy Burke was very believable as the man who had nothing to lose. The acting of the Dog, played by Bibo, was stunning, especially when you know that she has received NO formal training whatsoever (and she did indeed act, not react!). It is a shame that this film is not feature length, and therefore not available to a wider audience. I have heard that this is actually one segment of a trilogy that would be made into a feature-length film, and am eager to see what is to become of this. All in all, I'd say that everyone involved with this piece should be proud of what they have accomplished with it.