Why? Well, where do we start? - The people known as "snapphanar" called themselves "Friskyttar", meaning Free Shooters - snapphane was the degrading expression used by The Swedish.

- The Costune designer should be put in jail, or at least in historical style education, for using typical 18th century clothing, which is a mistake often seen by role playing amateurs with no money and little knowledge of history, but this was supposed to be SVT's huge expensive great big mega Xmas project...? Hello??!

- The script is a disaster, the plot is ridiculously easily foreseen and the dialog is embarrassingly bad.

- There are so many historical errors and anachronisms that lining them all up here would probably crash the IMDb's disc space. artistically I 'm OK with anachronism, but the production team should always be aware of what they do and why. Seems like Snapphanar was made by a bunch of teenagers whose sole historical knowledge comes from many a late night playing dungeons and dragons... which is a wonderful way of starting an interest in history but it just won't do as full education.

- Dramatically there are also a lot of errors in continuity as well as in credibility. Example: The soldiers guarding the coach with the royal treasure chest seem to be totally unaware of the noise and flickering fire lights coming from the village where the rebels have started a riot.

- And Svart-Stina, what can you say...? Her outfit on the royal ball is not exactly what one would call discreet. *sigh*

- Snapphanar is of course to be regarded as a fantasy, a fictitious tale woven and embroidered upon the cloth of authentic history. But it has been done by people lacking too much knowledge.

- A non-Swede would probably not notice, but the use of Scanian accent in this project is unfortunately, and as many times before, a total disgrace to its audiences. The only actors who actually knows how to speak Scanian - Harald Leander, Per Lasson, to mention some - use accents from a totally different area, but at least they know how to speak it and unlike Jörgen Persson they also know acting. The leading actors, however, André Sjöberg and Malin Morgan (former Larsson), well educated and all, doesn't seem to have had very much time to learn their character's way of talking, there are loads of mal-functious pronunciations that really hurt the ear and is very hard to understand also for a Scanian. Those Scanians living in the Göinge area must feel totally lost and quite embarrassed - I don't think they recognize much. For once it's easy to understand those otherwise pompous Stockholmers who claim that they possibly just cannot understand Scanian Sw3edish. I think not even Scanians understand the gibberish urging from the mouths of Svart-Stina and Nils Getting. Sad.

- According to SVT ( Swedish Television)'s homepage the shooting of the entire miniseries took 47 days. That's quite fast for such a prestigious project. Especially considering the fact that the directors have worked 2 and a half years on creating the series. Seems like 90% of the time and financial resources have been spent on special effects. They're quite nice. But nothing that we haven't already seen in films like LOTR, Gladiator, Braveheart a.s.o.

- The same thing could be said about the music that, stuffed like a plum pudding with movie score clichés and with some small exceptions sounds like a total ripoff from anything produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Very Where Eagles Dare, very U.S. Marine Corps, very Hollywood, very full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Pity.


This is a poor series when it comes to the script. The filming is OK, but the dialogue is really just a waste of time. The characters are just repeating themselves and talking about what to do instead of actually doing it (but perhaps that's pretty accurate when it comes to portraying swedes?).

I can't see why there should be a problem to create a great story on the subject, with all the necessary ingredients. It seems no time at all was spent on doing research. I do NOT want Sweden to go down the road of "nevermind historical correctness, just give the audience a story" when it comes to movies based on actual historic events or periods of time.

The potential was there, but this production blew it.


Worst +"#%¤ ever! Great photo/editing but dialog and the story is awful. Historically there are so many errors it might as well be a fantasy story. Seems like the directors wanted copy cool action scenes from other action films in the hope that would be enough for the viewer regardless logic in the story. The most disturbing fact is that it's financed by tax money that could be spent on really talented scriptwriters and directors. All the good reviews of this movie must be from their production people,in Swedish papers the audience and critics cuts them by the ankles. Compared with Danish TV/film which is hugely successful right now it seems that their Swedish counterpart have plummeted in to a deep black hole!


But alas, mind you, this could have been a very good movie..

What this film suffers from, and so many other Swedish contemporary films, are the lack of individuality. The glances towards Hollywood are obvious especially in the editing and the cliché's in manuscript. The script is the biggest flaw here. The historical angle (even though a bit resculpted) works fine, but the dialog is absolutely horrible. And as mentioned the cliché's and straight forward plot could have (and has been) stolen from many American adventurefilms. The camera work are very good, the mis-en-scene works fine as well even though the budget was low. Some of the wholeness and flow is disrupted and destroyed from the editing, especially in the fighting scenes. It seems that sometimes the producer has stepped in and said "Too little action here boys, fix that!" The result is just bad version of Matrix crosscutting. Sound works fine as well, works fine on surround. The music tends to be a bit repetitive though. The last twenty minutes plays the same "tick-tock" inspired music that has been in every Swedish TV- production since times beginning. (A pedagogical way to show the viewer that time is of essence. Feel free to get stressed.)

All in all it works as a film made for TV. There are some good actors here but they often get nowhere with their twodimensional characters and lousy dialog.

Biggest plus: A daring try to make film out of Swedish history. Biggest minus: The scriptwriter should be flogged.

4/10


Another year, another Swedish public-service Christmas spectacle. Every year around Christmas SVT has a new "big" production to show, and every year it feels at least a little bit disappointing. And as far as these go, "Snapphanar" has to be one of the worst in recent years.

What shocks me most about this production is undoubtedly the incredibly low level of ambition. It's always easier for me to forgive a movie when it aims for the stars and fail. "Snapphanar" barely aims for the tree-line it seems, and still it disappoints. Maybe it's a sign of extremely low self-esteem in Swedish public-service?

The strange thing is that on the surface this production is not that bad. The visuals are pretty good, the production values are not bad for a (in international perspective) low-budget production. But under the cracks in the surface you can see how shallow it is. Here we see the low ambition that i mentioned earlier. Historical facts are fabricated, changed or just simply ignored. And the script seems to be written by a ten-year-old. The plot is simplistic, the "twists" can be seen a mile away and the story itself is uninteresting and bland. As a theme the story about "Snapphanar" could be interesting. It's (as far as i know) a rather unique thing in Swedish history. A partisan group wanting to make the shire "Skåne" part of Denmark instead of Sweden, fighting armed battle for their cause. But the whole premise is squandered here by poor writing and non-existent regard for historical facts. Also the fact that these partisan rebels seem to be a gang completely inane idiots doesn't help. They are portrayed like a bunch of stumbling do-gooders completely without fighting skill, making it very clear why Skåne is still Swedish today.

Well, how about entertainment value? Sometimes a decent entertainment value on the surface can save even the most shallow movie. Not in this case though i'm afraid. There are just too many things to be annoyed about even if you don't think to closely about what you're watching. The incomprehensible accents (sounding like the Skåne-dialect mixed with Danish and a tinge of retardation), the "Le Pacte des loups"-inspired fighting scenes that lack energy, and the names and dialog that makes you laugh at the most inappropriate moments. Directors Mårlind and Stein have a distinctive Hollywood-complex that also shines through in a disturbing way.

I don't know how much "Snapphanar" cost to produce. It looks more expensive than most standard Swedish TV-fare but since it was made in Estonia it was probably quite cheap. No matter though since this was definitely a case of very little bang for your buck. I just wonder when Swedish TV and film-makers will understand that a good and solid script is the base in every good movie. When they understand that and hire someone decent to write the script (instead of burning their money on fight-scenes filmed from three angles), then maybe this could be entertainment rather than just a bland and boring waste of money and time.


This is by far one of Swedens best efforts ever in the historical epic genre. It looks excellent and expensive, thanks to the effort of the superb cinematographer and Stein/Mårlind. In addition to the highly accomplished look of the film, the story is also fast-paced and holds together to the end, the acting is uniformly excellent as well. I admit to being somewhat biased in my review, as I have been connected to the production as a composer/arranger, alongside the main composer. I have written the orchestral arrangements and composed some additional horror/ambient music cues which has been put to great use and adds a nice flavour to the overall score, I think. Fun that another commenter noticed the music. Sadly, many people couldn't just accept this on its own terms, as a fun action film, and just saw the historical inaccuracies. Funny that many people enjoy western films although they seldom have anything to do with reality.


The series is awful and is full of historical inaccuracies and shouldn't be allowed to be marketed at all. Heck, even Mell Gibson could have done a better job with this.

Even those who lives in Skane don't understand what the farmers are saying without translations. If you want a more accurate story about Snapphanar see the movie with Edward Persson.

And Svart-Stina is some sort of Swedish version of Xena. I was waiting for her to draw two swords at one time or another and kill every Swedish soldier in sight and then begin chanting some spells.

Only good thing in this fiasco is Tuva Novotny that actually tries to act her way out of the mess she is in


Mårlind/Stein already prove themselves as a couple of genuine pioneers for Swedish film when they created their previous film 'Storm'. They do the same with 'Snapphanar', it's a Swedish Braveheart/The Patriot/Gladiator. The acting is fair, the sets and costumes are great. As for the historical accuracy, I can't be the one who tells how much of it is based on facts. But there's no need to make a historical correct film, when you're trying to tell a spectacular story about the war between Denmark and Sweden. We've got a bloody history, that much is a fact. The film is a great piece of work and a new huge step for Swedish film making. This has hopefully opened up the door for new exciting Swedish epics.


Sorry, must have missed it as a mini. You do mean mini as a min-series on TV don't you? I only saw it as a 2h40m movie of DVD and it was superb. I have alway envisioned Snapphanar as the ultimate freedom-fighters even though I'm a Swede to the death. This movie puts my priorities to shame when you see what atrocities the Swedish army condoned to get the job done, the job being showing the farmers of Skåne what would happen if they supported the Danish army and the Swedes would win the war war. To all you non-swedes, this movie is a cross between The Patriot and Sleepy Hollow, aka Time Well Spent. Of course there is no Gibson or Depp in this one, and it's in a foreign language, but hey!, you might enjoy it anyway =)


Historically wrong, but the plot is great. Even if the historical facts are wrong the movie is quite good. The movie tells the story of Snapphanarna in Skåne (the southest "state" of Sweden") and the war between Sweden and Denmark during the 17 th century when Skåne became a part of Sweden instead of Denmark. Snapphanarna was a "movement" amongst the citizens of Skåne that were against the swedes overtaking their land and on occasion forcing them to swear their oath to the Swedish king instead of the danish. Party brutal scenes, but probably not the way things happened back during the 17 th century.

The word Snapphane was an insult word, snappa in English snatch, and was used as a word of abuse. There were different categories of Snapphanar, normally we count three different, highwaymen, free shooters working for the danish army and many of these were thieves and robbers.


This is one of the best Swedish Movies i ever seen. If you like Vikings/crossbows and swords see it! Denmark attacks scone, no mans land. Sweden defends their self and attacks the Danish troops, they doesn't want Denmark in scone. They might want more land then that. Swedish troops from middle of Sweden, Stockholm does not like people living in scone (skåningar) and they burn and kill those who refuse to fight against Denmark.

Rebel groups called "Snapphanar" is growing up to take the fight against the Swedish troops that is burning their villages and killing their wife's and children.

I live in Sweden, and i love Sweden. I have never liked Skane, but Swedes was pigs in this movie and i my hate against them growth stronger and stronger during the film. Go Snapphanar, go go go!


Forget Meg Ryan, forget Julia Roberts...This is romantic comedy at its best! Juliette Binoche and Jean Reno are outstanding. The plot is more than original and, better, convincing. I fell in love with the story but even more with the characters and their lives. Nothing in them seems "plastic". Although one knows that the end will be a happy one, the plot is so convincing that the end does not come as if was predicted. Each scene is so natural and revealing that it keeps you asking for more. I seriously do not understand the poor reviews it has gotten here. Could it be a little bit of jealousy because it is a foreign film from a country with no tradition in this genre but that nonetheless achieves what most American romantic comedies don't? I cannot explain it otherwise.


French films are characterized by dialog and this film is no exception. The setting is clever - not really a modern adaptation of The VIP's, but on that order (and more down to earth). The situation is funny and, in the cell phone era, one to which we might all relate. (Of course, I assume not many people lose their cell phones à la Juliette Binoche.)

A fan of both Binoche and Reno, I find both charming and the chemistry between them very real. Binoche's beautician is also far more interesting, and less stereotypified, than American film portrayals (Fran Drescher, Dolly Parton, Jennifer Coolidge...)

Not one of the great French films by any means, but I still give this one 8/10.


How could you star Julliet Binochet and Jean Reno in a light romantic comedy version of Before Sunrise and not have one of the best light romantic comedies of all time? You can't. Two people meet under hectic circumstances, to say the least. They make every mistake. Do everything wrong. Even Paris is against them. But, somehow, love finds a way. Julliet Binochet, almost unrecognizable during the first half of the film because she is buried under makeup and an odd hair style, is totally delightful and stunning, especially when she finally appears with no makeup and wet hair. That she does so well with comedy should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen her work. Jean Reno, who is like a French Clint Eastwood, is even better at comedy than he is doing action or drama, and he excels at both. If you've been longing for some romantic comedy, especially good romantic comedy, check out Jet Lag. I loved it.


I can see how this movie would be an easy target for criticism. It might appear fluffy and without depth, sort of easy and implausible.

But I think it's better than that. First of course, are the performances. Both actors are terrific and both have long been favorites of mine. A special call-out, though, has to go to Binoche, who just couldn't be any more delightful. An absolutely fantastic actress. She's so wonderful, the only problem in the movie is why doesn't he fall in love with her any faster?

Second is the basic intelligence of the dialog. The conversations are very engaging, occasionally wry, sometimes sweet, with some sharpness along the way.

Finally, there is a meditation in here on film in general, and romantic comedies in particular. The movie is able to move back a bit, consider itself, and resist the temptation to be cynical.


"Décalage Horaire" or "Jet Lag" premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in September 2002.

 Danielle Thompson's "Decalage Horaire" is a simple, yet not necessarily simplistic, ode to love. The story concerns two opposites who meet at Charles de Gaulle Airport during a strike. They are constantly thrown together by fate ending up spending a night together (sex does not enter the equation) and during the course of their wait realising they have more in common than they thought.

 Félix (Jean Reno) is a French man living in the US. He is chasing after a woman he belives he still loves. Rose (Juliette Binoche) is a Beautician who has a one-way ticket to Mexico, she is desperately running away from a man she no longer loves.

 As Félix, Reno gives a sullen performance as a man on the edge, caught between the chronic boredom of his life and the disappointment of a failed romance. His chemistry with Binoche is magnetic, and surprising, it's so much stronger than the Binoche-Depp pairing of Chocolat.

 The revelation of the film however is Juliette Binoche' terrific turn as Rose. The beautician who hides behind a mask of colouful makeup and only becomes truly beautiful the day she removes it.

 Binoche in her first successful comic role (in Chocolat afterall she was a more tragic figure) succeeds in creating a wonderfully funny and charming young woman, with an endearingly vunerable side. Time after time Reno feeds her the lines and she returns with the best moments of the film. Two parts which stand out are when Felix assumes Rose is a prostitute and when she discusses her make-up routine with him. Binoche will probably be César nominated for her role, and because this is such a change in direction for her she may even win.

 The best thing about "Décalage Horaire" is that it is not merely sentimental, it's ironic tone is winning and much more interesting. Thompson's assured directon shows signs of maturity since "La buche", while her writing is as astute as ever.

 The ending in mexico to the strains of Macy Gray's redoubtable "I try" is a memorable ending, for it's immediacy and it's pure sheer pleasure.

 Viva la Binoche!


No one seems to have noticed that this is a French romantic comedy meditating on Hollywood. It's pretty explicit, it seems to me, when we start with a reference to Pretty Woman and end with the theme from Midnight Cowboy. I think that Jean Reno is doing a pretty witty Dustin Hoffman, while Juliette Binoche is Julia Roberts as Midnight Cowgirl.

What makes this movie stay with me is that the Jean Reno character is not only an inspired chef, he is all sensuality when he eats. And Juliette Binoche is not just a makeup artist, she is the determined maker of the scenes she finds herself appearing in.

We all want to fall in love. We are all frightened that the moment it happens is just another emotional trap. This movie says yes to both, and grab it while you can.


This delicious, light, romantic comedy is full of surprises and subtleties.

Witfully written and superbly acted, it shows why Juliette Binoche is such a great asset to modern cinema. Outstanding chemistry with Reno makes this theatrical play made into a movie a rewarding experience to be treasured. Juliette Binoche shows her talent in a totally different role to most of the ones she has played before, she is a common girl with many problems and yet her nobility and class shine through. If you like Binoche you will love Jet lag. Don't miss it.


Jet Lag is a romantic comedy. It follows all the usual routes, but offers great acting and good humour all the way.

Juliette Binoche is Rose, a thirtysomething who is finally taking control of her life and leaving her abusive boyfriend Sergio (Sergi Lopez).

Jean Reno is Felix. A frazzled businessman on his way to re-kindle his romance with an old flame.

However when a strike and fog halt all flights in Charles de Gaulle the two meet cute and end up spending the evening together. Of course we know they are made for each other, but thats not the point. Its not where they end up its how they get there.

Jet Lag opens with huge energy and a real sense of airport chaos. It then focuses in on the duo in on a hotel room as they spend time together trading insults and exchanging banter. The dialogue is sparkling and the performances spot on.

Then ineveitably their planes take off and they go their seperate ways... or do they?

Thompsons film is a breath of fresh air with Juliette Binoche a revelation in a totally "un-binoche" role. She is cheap and common with a heart of gold. Reno is very much her comic foil, and glerefully allows her the lime light.

Jet Lag is a refreshing take on an old format. It will not suffer on the small screen either so catch it on DVD!


Impressive how Juliette Binoche isn't aware of the film crew at the movie set!I'll explain: it's not,like,ignoring them: technicians nor the Director, the folks in the film making process. It's just the ability of "entering into the character's skin" and tottaly ignore that she is an actress at a shooting set!Feeling the anguishies and disappointments etc...! Only an artist with rare intelligence and such sensibility can do it! and Juliette Binoche is allthese things... In my opinion she is one of the best actress of the last two decades that came along in the international cinematographic arts.To asseverate my statement note the difference of interpretation in the movies directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski. Whilst Mme.Binoche shows through her "facial mask" the interior anguish that overcome her role. In this movie the difference is simply gigantic: how her physiognonic aspect change: all the frivolity,shallowness are sent out by her expressions! As to the movie, it is a soft comedy,tasty and easy to taste,as the french people can do so well! In a scale one to ten, I give it nine, so much for the masterly interpretation of Mme. Binoche as for Jean Renó's.


Please don't try to compare this to anything from Hollywood. They stopped making good movies a long time ago. Here in New Zealand we don't have a lot of contact with the French character but I have just had the pleasure of hosting a young French lady who is a top line hairdresser. While I was watching this movie I only had to close my eyes and I could see Cèline, my guest. In other hands this would have been a minor movie but in the hands of the two principals it was to say the least delightful. The story was very simple and at every turn I knew what was to come but in every way I was wrong. I have not seen very much of Luliette Binoche but now I'm a fan. In the beginning Jean Reno was a most unlikely partner but by the finish you could actually like him. Beilliant.


I really enjoyed this movie. The film starts off a bit slow, but it is so true to real life and real people.

I like Jean Reno and Juliette Binoche very much, although they both looked very different physically from their usual selves. I didn't even know it was Juliette till the credits came up.

It was nice to see Jean in a non-action film.

I highly recommend this movie to any romantics out there!


For reasons to which I am not privy and which may be no more than pure chance the bulk of Daniele Thompson's screenplays feature ensemble casts and she is a Past Master at the multiple-character, multi-layered storyline. It was not surprising therefore than when she turned to directing she did so with her own screenplay La Buche which centered on three sisters and their disparate lives but also offered strong roles to four semi-leads with a handful of cameos (Isabelle Carre's neurotic wife, for example) for good measure. Thompson returned to the multi-character format in her third (and so far last)writer-director stint, the brilliant Fauteuils d'Orchestre but in between, as if to prove her versatility, she came up with this, essentially two-hander which exploits brilliantly the talents of Juliette Binoche and Jean Reno. Not that she ignores the bigger picture, she does, after all, set her story in an airport and an adjacent hotel allowing a mere five minutes or so of non-airport/hotel screen time at the very end.

In a clear nod to the Hollywood epitomized by Billy Wilder she employs a meet-cute to bring the characters together and from then on it's downhill all the way with Thompson's sparkling dialogue slaloming its way to a brilliant finale. Both leads are a revelation and more than up to the task of working outside their 'image' (Binoche is not noted for comedy, Reno for romantic leads) and the obvious chemistry between them is confirmed by the outtakes that come with the DVD. There's a nice line in scenery chewing from Sergio Lopez in a well-placed cameo as the abusive lover from whom Binoche is fleeing and the sure-footedness of the other speaking roles is merely the bow on the ribbon with which Thompson ties her wonderful bauble. Sheer delight.


A simple film done simply superbly. I like a film that doesn't waste words, doesn't waste pouts and does exactly what it is meant to do without fuss. I like a film that adds a little magic and leaves the spirit happier than before. Not all the time, but it makes a change.

It also makes a change from the empty hopeless modern romances that litter the screen trying to be charming, trying to be sincere, and falling flat on their collective scripts...

This film has charm, intelligence, humour, pathos and a fine romance.

Jean Reno gets better with every year and shows a range that few directors have had the courage to exploit. His only moment of madness was choosing to take part in the Da Vinci Code...he should give his salary to the American Writers Guild in the hope that they may start finding the next Preston Sturges...

Juliette Binoche could act underwater and always brings something new to her roles. I would love to be her English Patient...

The great actresses and films of the 30s may have long since disappeared, but surely someone can provide fine romantic/comedy scriptwriting...at least before we get to Bridget Jones 12...


I was a little bit afraid, I can't really take yet another sugar-filled love story on the airplane, but this movie was really different. What I liked best was that unhollywoodish feeling when the movie don't try to tell me "they love one another very much" for 10 heavy minutes, or "it's really sweet that they meet again" for another 10 minutes, they just flash 10-20 seconds of nicely shot moments which is just enough for a moviegoer with above minimal intelligence to get the point. I don't like things over-explained.

I liked the acting as well, I almost smell the lack of comfort when Felix meet the girl from time to time, and lots of closeups made me always feel that these persons are in fact real, and not acting on an average story thread. There were funny moments (flushing the phone made everyone 'AWWW!') but overall the film was rather serious.

It was very interesting to see the "low-budgetness" of the movie: there wasn't really anything more than acting, dialogs; if that's good, it makes a really good movie. And the acting is good.

After the last horrible piece of this genre I've seen - Bounce(2000) - this was a relieving experience.


Juliette Binoche is an actress capable of deep and moving performances in the finest movies of our times. Her work with Kieslowski, Carax, Téchiné and now Leconte, Haneke and Boorman has given us the modern cinematic equivalent of Garbo - a melancholic enigma.

 So it was a huge surprise to see her in a French language Romantic comedy with Jean Reno. The result? Well Decalage Horaire or Jet Lag will never be mentioned with her finest movies, it is not a 'great' contribution to cinema, but it is an expertly crafted and performed piece of fluff with Binoche playing against type as a cheap and tarty beautician with winning results. In this 'movie star' mode she could give Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan a run for their money. As Rose she is funny and touching, while Reno as Felix provides all the right ingredients for her to bounce off, and their> chemistry is extremely successful. the film has its limits and at times it is a tad over the top, but with a mega watt movie star in her film Thompson can not go wrong.

 I hope Binoche will return to what she does best, daring, difficult and complex portrayals of modern women, but in the meantime Jet Lag is a welcome distraction...


I caught this movie quite by accident one night while watching someone else's satellite TV. Had never heard of it, so I was able to view it with no preconceptions. I was completely charmed.

Jean Reno and Juliette Binoche have an effortless chemistry that's completely believable. Their two characters find themselves uneasily sharing a hotel room for one night, waiting for transportation snafus to be cleared up. Her Rose is a little ditsy but not offensively stupid, and his Felix is self-absorbed but not enough to make him unlikable.

The peeling away of defenses is a predictable plot device; but the dialog, along with the grace and skill of the leads, nonetheless kept me interested. It helps that they're so easy to watch: she's gorgeous with or without makeup, and he is far sexier than his less-than- classic-looks would have led me to believe. A bonus is the always-excellent Sergi Lopez in a small, typically sinister role.

Most of the French films I've seen have struck me as self-important and/or one-dimensional; I have no such objections to this one. I characterize Jet Lag as cotton-candy entertainment: utterly unsubstantial, yet fluffy and tasty enough to leave me wanting more.


Rose (Juliette Binoche) is at the airport, trying to go to Mexico. Something is amiss, as she is talking incessantly on her cellphone and looking distressed. As bad luck turns worse, she drops her phone into a running commode and that's that. Needing to continue her conversation, she turns to Felix (Jean Reno), who has been likewise speaking into his mobile. Felix is a chef about to launch a new line of frozen meals and he has been making several critical phone calls as well. The two of them share his phone, to the point where calls are coming in for both of them and getting entangled. Felix learns that Rose is perhaps running away from her abusive boyfriend, Sergio, and is startled when the arrogant flame actually comes to the airport for an encounter with Rose, which goes badly. As the airport is experiencing massive problems, Felix invites Rose to stay with him, as friends only, in the hotel room he has been given for the night. Can the beautiful, but heavily made-up beauty consultant/masseuse, Rose, with her excitable personality and the staid, business-oriented chef really strike up something more than friendship? This films starts off nicely, with an intriguing concept and two great stars in Binoche and Reno. Viewers may be startled to see Binoche done up as a Barbie-type glamor girl but things can change, yes. Reno, too, seems miscast as a romantic lead but sometimes the quiet ones can sneak up on one, too, right? With a film that sports good sets, costumes, and photography, one might expect the movie to succeed without hesitation. But, after the initial half hour, things get a bit bogged down, especially since most of the remainder is a dialogue between Rose and Felix and in a hotel room. Even so, the stars make things work, as they inspire the viewer to want to discover if opposites not only attract but fall in love. If you love romantic drama and can handle a film with subtitles or dubbing, you might like to try Jet Lag as a choice for an evening's entertainment.


"Décalage horaire" (2002) aka "Jet Lag" was the third film written/directed by Daniele Thompson that I've seen. It may not be as marvelous as La Bûche (1999), her directorial debut or charming and delightful as Fauteuils d'orchestre (2006), her latest film but it is definitely worth seeing for the wonderful acting by two fine French actors, Juliette Binoche and Jean Reno who both played against their types. Binoche does not appear often in the comedies and Reno is not well known as a romantic lead but they were pleasure to watch in the light romantic dramedy that takes place in the famous Paris Charles de Gaulle airport one long rainy night when all flights were grounded by weather and a baggage strike. Two strangers meet by chance, when Rose (Binoche) who had accidentally flushed her cell phone in a toilet, asks a perfect stranger, Felix (Reno), to use his phone. They are both professionally successful. He is a chef who made a fortune in the frozen-food business, and she has won a golden brush, the equivalent of Pulitzer Prize for the make-up artists. Their personal lives are the mess. Each has the problems, disappointments, unsatisfying or unfinished relationships by the time of their first encounter. She flees from her abusive boyfriend of 12 years (Sergio Lopes is memorably scary in a tiny cameo). He still can't recover from his previous relationship and suffers from anxiety attacks. Perhaps, 81 minutes is not enough to convince us that these two flawed and insecure individuals will overcome their past and live happily ever after but Binoche and Reno masterfully and elegantly created on the screen the possibility of love and readiness to accept it.


Here we have an excellent example of a sweet film that takes a simple idea  man and woman meet at an airport during flight delays and have mistakes and chemistry bring them together  and gradually adds real DEPTH to the story and its characters through lots of dialogue. It ends up a cute little film that feels very real on every level.

While there is a distinct lack of action and even events in the film, Décalage Horaire succeeds in holding your interest at all times through other means  it is one of those very talkative romantic comedies (Like Before Sunrise) with both insight and humour in its dialogue. You can't help but smile at times. Two of the biggest French actors, Jean Reno and Juliet Binoche, are fantastically dynamic as the lead roles and their chemistry feels real and appropriate.

Although Décalage Horaire is definitely quirky, it is not desperately quirky (Amélie) except maybe when it comes to Reno's character Félix who, quite frankly, seems to be a genuinely disturbed obsessive compulsive. Even though Binoche is supposed to be his polar opposite in the film, she, too, is pretty off-beat but likable.

To be fair, this film is hardly landmark in either Reno's or Binoche's careers, nor does it leave a very lasting impression, and it is increasingly fluffy toward the end. Yet for a romantic comedy, it sure is a sweet ode to love. 8/10


Daniele Thomson (gerard oury's daughter) is writing and directing a deja vu comedy, very very very slow and boring; you can guess what is going on from the start everything is so obvious! though two french stars(reno binoche) are trying to make their character genuine, their presence don't make a good story, you even wonder what sergi Lopez cameo's appearance is doing in this story?jean reno as a international business man is not very convincing and Juliette binoche plays as in a loreal commercial endorsement, after 20 minutes the intrigue is gone, and everything is just not believable if you like the plot you'd rather watch Philippe Lioret very good "airport" movie "Tombés du ciel" with jean rochefort


Talky, predictable and totally unimaginative, this is not what we've come to expect from French "cineastes." Admittedly a tongue-in-cheek replica of Hollywood romantic comedies of yesteryear it's more like a quickie TV movie or a self-indulgent Off-Broadway playlet. Binoche and Reno are utterly wasted as they talk, talk, talk their night away. The best that can be said is that it's a great commercial for Hilton Hotels, Air France and Aeroports de Paris, all of which, if they paid for the exposure, got their Euro's worth. Most moviegoers, on the other hand, are not going to feel the same way.


You know you're in trouble when a song starts in the middle of a movie and the story stops developing for a while: They do so here because they want to stay faithful to the romcom genre and Décalage horaire / Jet Lag is a French take on a distinct American genre. This fails for several reasons, one of them being that the character and conversation-driven French movie is at odds with the light and caricature-driven American romcom-genre.

It tells the story of Rose (Juliette Binoche) and Félix (Jean Reno) in a not too obvious way: Their background, problems and dreams come out one by one. Both have marriage troubles, a troubled relation with one of their parents and both have unfulfilled dreams. Rose is having terrible make-up on but seems to be excellent in make-up; Félix has set up a company of deep-frozen food he sells to supermarkets while his unfulfilled dream is it to become a star-studded chef. Rose and Félix regularly meet at the airport waiting for a plane to leave, a metaphor of their lives stuck by bad decisions (and mild criticism of the French public service always on strike). In the end they make relevant decisions, also about their relation to each other (with the genre in mind we all know what that means).

The story is told in bits and pieces and it works as a means to keep us interested about their life stories. Also, the meetings they have don't shy away from being assertive, offensive or intrusive as they expect it is their only meeting. From the airport hotel on the movie goes off the genre track, and arrives in the usual French habit of long and uninteresting conversations. French people have a tendency for long and deep conversations about not too offensive and personal subjects as a way of courtesy and care for one's private life, so this is rather challenging stuff I guess.

Most actors try comedy in their careers at least once. Most fail, so Binoche and Reno have nothing to be ashamed of. Décalage horaire is a failed attempt at light-hearted French comedy.


I caught this on French TV about 2 months ago, with high hopes because it features Jean Reno, but I was very disappointed. It's a romantic comedy so by definition you expect to forgive some contrived story-telling, but in return you expect some kind of narrative sleight of hand to distract you from the mechanics. Unlike fast-moving classic chick-flick When Harry Met Sally, this film is all talk and no action and it moves at a snail's pace, forcing you to deliberate over every drawn-out narrative twist.

Jean Reno plays an uptight, very private celebrity chef who is obsessively clean. Co-star Juliette Binoche is a Bohemian middle aged beautician who lives behind a mask of makeup, constantly calling her mother and trapped in a destructive relationship. The film asks us to believe that because he loans her his phone and tries to pass on a message, then meets her unpleasant boyfriend, he will offer to share his hotel room when their flights are cancelled due to a strike and that they will both begin to open up emotionally.

The performances are so subtle that they barely register, and the inevitability of the rom-com structure makes waiting through the minutiae of their developing relationship a challenge rather than a joy.


Jean Reno. Has he ever done a portrayal I wouldn't like? Probably, but so far, I haven't seen it. With longer hair, he even looks attractive - in between "fits". Well, speaking of fits, he and Juliette Binoche fit quite well here. Well done, well done, well done, Jean et Juliette.

Unlike the users whose reviews I just browsed through, I am not a Juliette Binoche fan AT ALL. In the "Unbearable Lightness of Being", she did the most godawful concept of a female orgasm ever. I got the distinct impression she had never been present when a woman had ever climaxed. In "Chocolat" I kept looking at my lady love with a quizzical look of "Are you kidding?", and she reciprocated with a "My god, this is the most overrated movie of the year". And her part in "The English Patient" was a non-part, at least as she portrayed it.

All that bashing over, FINALLY here is a part where all the hoopla about her shows some meat behind it. That it happens in a Rock Hudson-Doris Day type movie that could have been done in 1955 (not counting the movie's Best Supporting Actor candidate - Reno's cell phone) is remarkable. Maybe Binoche is an actress out of her time, who knows? Most folks apparently would disagree with me on that, but that IS my story, and I am sticking to it, come hell or high water - or French air traffic controllers on strike.

I recommend this flic for a really good time at the movies, albeit showing on the small screen at your local living room. I call it a French flic rather than the usual "film", because it seems more American than French. I give it 7 stars out of 10, Reno a 9 and Binoche a 9. -2 for the flic due to fluff, but some of the best fluff out there. Normal flic fluff gets a -5!


The idea behind this film sounds like the stuff good comedies are made of: two very different people, man and woman are forced to share a hotel room because their flights are cancelled. The first problem with this film is that both people are fairly screwed up and are more annoying than interesting. The film then hovers uncertainly between being a comedy (unfortunately it's not very funny), a drama (not particularly interesting) and typical French pseudo-intellectual film where people sit and talk. And they talk a lot. Some scenes are mildly entertaining but about 30 minutes into the film you begin to wonder why you should bother finishing it since it's just not interesting.


I love Juliette Binoche. I have seen every movie that she has made that has been available in the U.S. While the trailer for this movie didn't sound like something I would be interested in, I had to give it a try. I should have stuck with my instincts.

The performances by Binoche and Jean Reno were good, there wasn't enough in the storyline for them to do anything with. It is a story of two miserable people to have a chance meeting at an airport and start a relationship. Neither character had any appeal to me, nor did there appear to be any chemistry between the two actors.

In short, this movie had very little in the way of a plot. It was supposed to be a romantic comedy, but nowhere in this movie did I even chuckle.

While this isn't a terrible movie, it is without substance. I would have to recommend staying away from this one.


Well, one would have thought that a movie made by Danièle Thompson (who has written a lot of great screenplays in the past, like "La Grande Vadrouille" "Le Corniau" "The Mad Adventures Of Rabbi Jacob" "The Brain") and played by two of the greatest french actors, Jean Reno and Juliette Binoche, and whose music was composed by one of the greatest movie-music compositor of France, Eric Serra (RXRA), should be a good movie. Instead of that you assist, when watching the movie, to the burial of the careers of Jean Reno and Juliette Binoche. Maybe the English version of the film is ok but the original version (in french) has no taste, no colors, no shape... it is a sad movie, because you see the end of great actors and you see how somebody who could act very well now seems to be reading a text in front of the camera without entering neither the story nor the character. I hope Mr.Reno, Mrs. Binoche, Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Serra are going to continue like before and forget this movie (if you can call it a movie...). I prefer to watch my aunt's vacation diaporamas as to watch this movie. And so is the meaning of the people living in my city, says a statistic on this movie... no wonder that American Movies (even without a story) can earn more money!!!! Let's hope they will get over this and start from a new start soon.


I don't know very much about French cinema. I know I like quite alot of the movies I see from there, but for all I know they make garbage (like everywhere and everyone else) and send only the good ones to the USA.

I mention this only because it seems as though this movie made it here on star power alone. I love Binoche very much and since she doesn't exactly make six movies a year, I'm glad when I can see her at all. When the actors you really love make a movie, you see it. Daniel Day-Lewis falls into that category for me, too. Ever since "The English Patient" and her unexpected but deserved Oscar, I've been mildly obsessed w/her.

So while I am glad I saw it, its far beneath her ability and talent, and ditto Jean Reno. It doesn't help that the settings are an airport lounge (at least in that other airport-lounge movie, "The V.I.P.'s", you had Margaret Rutherford and her pill-popping to enjoy) and a hotel room, and that's it. They just talk talk talk talk talk and none of it is even remotely interesting. 3/10.


MAN OF A THOUSAND FACES is one of Hollywood's better films about Hollywood! Produced by Universal International in 1957 it recounts the life and times of one of the silent screens most formidable icons - Lon Chaney. From an excellent Oscar nominated screenplay by R.Wright Cambell, Ben Roberts and Ivan Goff it was skillfully directed by Joseph Pevney. Peveny, himself a useful supporting player in such movies as "Body And Soul" (1947) and Fox's "Street With No Name (1948) directed some of Universal's biggest productions i.e. "Away All Boats" (1956), "Tammy & The Bachelor" (1957) and one of Erroll Flynn's last efforts "Istanbul" (1957). Playing the leading role in this marvellous biopic is James Cagney who gives an outstanding measured performance as Lon Chaney the strange tortured character actor of silent pictures who, ironically, died from throat cancer with the advent of the talkies.

Crisply photographed in black & white Cinemascope by the great Russell Metty ("Touch Of Evil") the picture conveys a strong sense of time and place. Expertly evoked is Vaudeville in the early part of the 20th Century where Chaney began as a song and dance man (Cagney delighting us with his special brand of hoofing) and early Hollywood where he became an extra at Universal Studios. Then with the help of his make-up box and his uncanny facility to alter his appearance - sometimes resulting in great pain - he soon became known as The Man Of A 1000 Faces.

Notable reconstructions of Chaney's creations are quite brilliantly achieved in the picture. Cagney excels as the cripple being cured in a reworking of Chaney's famous scene from "The Miracle Man" (1919)and the phantom being unmasked in "Phantom Of The Opera" (1925). But especially noteworthy is a re-staging of Chaney's "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" (1923). Here Cagney is totally unrecognizable as he replicates Chaney's interpretation of Quasimodo being whipped on the punishment wheel in the village square. It is an intense moment in the picture and a remarkable achievement for Cagney the consummate actor! Little wonder that the great Orson Welles in the seventies declared that the screen's greatest actor was James Cagney!

Others in the cast of this splendid film are Dorothy Malone giving an excellent performance as the singer and Chaney's first wife Cleva Creighton, Jane Greer as his second wife, Jim Backus as his press agent and Robert Evens as the boy wonder of the motion picture business Irving Thalberg.

The picture also boasts a terrific music score by the underrated and now wholly forgotten film composer Frank Skinner (1897/1968). Skinner was composer in residence at Universal for many years and composed the music for some of their most prestigious productions such as "Tap Roots" (1948), "Magnificent Obsession" (1954), "Madame X" (1965) and "Shenandoah" (1965). "Man Of A 1000 Faces" was, however, his finest achievement! A soundtrack album of his music from the film - issued at the time of the picture's release - is now a much sought after recording!

A wonderful movie on DVD presented in a sharp black & white widescreen format that every collector will want to own if only for Cagney's amazing performance. His Lon Chaney is just as powerful and just as memorable as his George M. Cohan, Cody Jarret or Marty "The Gimp" Snyder!


I just this afternoon watched Man of 1000 Faces starring the magnificent!! James Cagney.... what a talent he was... & this is a fine film bio of another screen great, Lon Chaney, Sr.../ Cagney is wonderful and gives a tour de force performance... why he wasn't Oscar nominated for this I'll never Know???? I do not know how accurate a film bio this is... but its entertaining and moving.. Cagney is the reason for seeing this film,,,he is ably supported by Dorothy Malone, (who sometimes tends to overemote but is effective in this), Jane Greer, looks and acts wonderfully, Jim Backus, and a very young Roger Smith... Good makeup, interesting plot, and Cagney's at top form... (maybe his least appreciated role) My parents introduced me to movies early on... Dad favored Warner Bros. Mom, MGM, but what treats and talents I inherited fom both...Warners gave us Bogey, Bette,and Cagney....MGM, Garbo, Gable & Crawford,), we will never see talents such as these again... rent or buy Man of 1000 Faces 1957 !


I liked the movie because I love the actors in it. I think this movie represents true acting. In the early days of movies they didn't have all those special effects that movies today rely upon. Given the method of filming available at the time, the movie is outstanding. Watching the characters, knowing they are using all the acting skills they have available, makes me feel that many actors today couldn't compare.


Happened upon this on AMC one morning when home sick with a cold. Cagney immediately hooked me. It was interesting seeing such a powerful actor, who usually portrays physically powerful and often violent characters, in scenes of gentleness and sensitivity. Cagney apologizing; Cagney saying he was afraid; Cagney tenderly holding a child; Cagney dressed as a clown; as a woman. These are not the roles or behavior one expects when tuning in one of his movies. In the same way, physical violence was not a primary plot device in the movie; a refreshing change. To me Jim Baccus has always been Mr. McGoo. It was nice to see him throughout the movie in a good supporting role. I get the feeling his work as McGoo prevented him from getting solid roles. He appears as though he had more to offer. Does anyone else see a resemblance between Dorothy Malone in this movie and Sharon Stone today? I thought even her voice sounded like Stone's once or twice (or rather, Stone's sounds like Malone!). Malone did a good job, but I think Greer was even better. Greer's performance here makes me want to see more of her. All the important supporting roles are well played. Occasionally the film editing and/or writing jumps too quickly across too many years, but it is still able to be followed. I think the film succeeds because it made the "thousand faces" the backdrop to the life of the man and the difficulties he faced. The characters are real and you care about them. Today, Hollywood would probably do it the other way around, making the make-up the story and giving short-shrift to the people. This picture gives the viewer a marvelous bonus. We watch to learn about Chaney, and end up, underneath it all, getting Cagney, too!


I read an other comment on this film about the life of Lon Chaney and I agree that it is a terrible biography about the great actor, but what was neglected was to say that this film was a showcase for James Cagney. Cagney had become typecast in his gangster roles and wanted to show his other talents and that is exactly what this film does. Although the acting is undeniably Cagney it still shows a range not possible in his hoodlum roles. Like some of his other "breakout" films like Yankee Doodle Dandy, Cagney shows his range of emotion, mimicry and skill.

I originally saw this as a kid who was in love with the old horror classics of my day and this film did inspire me to search out and see the older films. The black and white silent films where actors had to act to convey the story. They had to overplay their parts to make up for the lack of words. That is what you see from Cagney in the short sequences meant to recreate the filming of those great silent Chaney films. I highly recommend it to any film lover.


Saw this on the late show when I was 12 or 13: I was moved, even scared, by scenes with Miracle Man, Christmas dinner, Quasimodo, & especially with the legless man in the alley ("Pick me up & knock me down again!") We know now that LC, Sr., was less than pleasant to be around & that LC, Jr., grew up to be miserable. But this was an early introduction to what I'd heard of as "vaudeville," & the transitional sequences with Cagney as a film lot extra (with a real silent flick star Marjorie Rambeau, as Gert) were fast-paced & convincing. It was a fair cultural shock to see Jim Backus (as agent Locan) in a dramatic role, since until then I'd seen him only on sitcoms & as Mister Magoo.

I have it on tape & watch it maybe once a year & have seen Cagney & co-stars in other vehicles since then: especially Jane Greer in her unsavory "Out of the Past" role. Dorothy Malone (whom I knew only from "Peyton Place") was a great, underrated actress.

Yes, the ending is slow & shmaltzy, & it was hard to imagine even back then (I'd already seen scary LC, Jr., in the teleplay, The Ballad of Jubal Pickett) that Jr. was ever as handsome as Roger Smith. But if nothing else you can get a fictional behind-the-scenes account of the making of two great silents & cultural icons: Phantom of the Opera & Hunchback of Notre Dame.


From "DwightFry" Well, I'm afraid I've found the lemon.

Let's be honest: This is not a really bad movie. But only because of Cagney. His performance is a real tour-de-force, with him getting back to his roots as a dancer. We get to see the man we think of as Cody Jarrett and Tom Powers, doing funny clown routines, dancing, impersonating an old woman, and showing his warmer side. However, this is both good and bad, as Cagney does a great Cagney, but he never becomes the person he is supposed to be, that is, the legendary Lon Chaney. Apart from the the true facts of Chaney's life being ignored (a common thing in biopics), the terrible script, surprisingly Oscar-nominated, is standard soap opera at its worst, with too much melodrama and too little of what made Chaney great. "We get no insight on how he prepared his makeup, or on how painful to wear it frequently was." Given that, it's surprising a Chaney biopic was ever green-lighted, as his life, unlike that of so many movie stars, was mostly secretive to public opinion, and the few interesting anecdotes of him are not in the movie (Creighton being born half dead, and Lon getting him into icy water to revive him). And, even worse, a person that watches this movie without having seen any of Chaney's films, will dismiss these as phony and corny, and the makeups silly and badly done. The reconstructions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera look like cheap Halloween masks made by a kid, which is in itself an insult to Chaney's meticulous makeup, and evidences only that short, broad Cagney didn't look like tall, thin Chaney the slightest, not even under heavy makeup (or masked, or whatever). Cagney is only Cagney, he's the Man of a Single Face, and a very recognizable one. If you're gonna make the mistake of casting a big star to play a well-known figure (another common biopic error, that way you only see the star and not the character), at least cast a big star who resembles said figure. Casting Cagney as Chaney is like casting Danny De Vito as James Stewart.

We DO get an insight as to his use of makeup and the pain it caused him. His instant creation of the Lascar's makeup is proof of that. And his portrayal of the deformed man in "The Miracle" and Quasimodo in "Hunchback" are proof of the pain. As far as the makeup is concerned they do not look cheap unless you try to compare them to current day makeup. And as far as Cagney being too short to play Chaney Lon was 5 ft 8 in and Cagney was 5 ft 7 in, not much of a difference at all.

Again if you are going to review at least get your facts straight!!!!! 10 of 10 for Jimmy and the movie -10 of 10 for DwightFry's poor critique!


Man of a Thousand Faces is a film that positively reeks of Hollywood sap. It is quite obviously that the screenwriter took a look at a time line of Chaney's life and took out the major events only to write his own story. Jim Cagney stars as Lon Chaney,the man of a thousand faces. Chaney was a slender and tall man and Cagney was short and stubby.

Is the film accurate? No not at all. The screenwriters obviously took a look at main events in Chaney's life and fabricated it to match a story. Cagney is a legend but he is not right at all for the role. Chaney was a tall and slender man and Cagney is short and stubby.Lon Chaney Jr was not born in a hospital,he was born prematurely in Chaney's cabin in Oklahoma. The doctors were afraid the boy was still born,Chaney took his Axe and rushed Lon Jr to the lake,cut a hole in the winter ice and dunked him under. Cleva was 17 years old when Lon Jr was born.Chaney and his first wife Cleva had trouble finding work and were forced to travel the country with various theater groups searching for a job. Lonchaney.com's bio claims Lon Jr would steal sandwiches and money when the audience was not looking.The whole plot about Chaney having conflicts with his wife is silly. Lon Jr never left and he very much loved his father and would tour with him. Chaney had work but it was not until he starred in the Hunchback of Notre Dame did he gain the success he had. The make-up job was fantastic for the time and the uninformed movie goers thought that was Chaney's actual face. Also the movie glamorized his time at Universal,yes his two major films were produced there but most of his films were made for MGM. In fact Universal fired Chaney because he thought he deserved more money.The ending is the part that gets me the most. Yes Chaney was sick but he died in his sleep.He never would let his illness get to him,in fact he was planning on making a huge come back and moving into the talkies.Chaney Sr hated the idea of Lon Jr becoming an actor. He thought he needed a man's job and forced him to seek various odd jobs. Chaney Jr became an actor because he had a family to feed and he thought he could get work because he was Lon's son.

The life of a legend is poked and pulled at until it was turned into this. The Soundtrack is horrible as well,the music that plays when Chaney's mute parents are on screen is subtle racism to the deaf in my book. The movie is pathetic positively pathetic. Jim Cagney is an outstanding actor,but he should have never been offered this role. Chaney died at age 47,Cagney was all ready 57 years old when he began making the film.If you do the math the movie begins in 1905 when Chaney was 24 years old.We can't expect historical accuracy with every movie but as a fan of Chaney I felt insulted watching this piece of crap.You know Lon Chaney would suffer for his art,we need more people like him and less people who want to milk a story for a dollar


Cagney plays Lon Chaney in this film about the great imitator's life. Chaney himself was a very private person, preferring the quiet of hearth and home to the wild Hollywood night life. Hollywood was where he worked, not a way of life. In this way both he and the man who plays him (James Cagney) have much in common.

Cagney and Chaney looked totally different, yet Cagney makes this role work. In Cagney's biography "Cagney on Cagney", he admits that the story takes certain liberties with Chaney's life as most biopics do, but there are many actual events in Chaney's life that are in the movie. Chaney was indeed the child of two deaf mute parents - he got his gift for pantomime in communicating with them. His first marriage was a rocky one, just as the film portrays. Whether the trouble started over his first wife believing that their child would be deaf and being horrified by the possibility as is portrayed in the film I don't know, but given early 20th century attitudes toward disability it is entirely possible.

The film whether accurate or not, was a loving tribute to Chaney that was instrumental in a revival of interest in his films. I consider this to be possibly Cagney's best performance in a mature role with maybe the exception of 1956's "These Wilder Years", which is seldom televised nor on VHS or DVD.


Sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s, Lon Chaney Jr. made an appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. During the interview, Johnny asked about the accuracy of this flick. Lon replied, (agreeing with Johnny),'close enough'. Johnny also asked about Lon Jrs. favorite film role. Lon asked,'what do you think'? Johnny replied,'I would think, Of Mice and Men'. Lon Jr. replied,'thank you'. He was getting along in years at this time. I would like to think that Of Mice and Men was his favorite role. My late father, who didn't particularly care for actors, loved movies. He said that Lon Jr. was FANTASTIC in the role of Lenny. My dad saw it as a first run, back in the days.


In spite of playing fast and loose with fact, this is a beautifully acted and touching film. The Lon Chaney character gives Cagney an opportunity to show his range, and the depth of his talent. There is a core of truth in the script in that Chaney used make up brilliantly, but beyond the make up, he was a fine actor. He made the outcasts he played richly human people for whom the audience learned to care. That Cagney could convey, through his performance, the power of Chaney's art is a tribute to both.


What were the members of the Motion Picture Academy thinking when James Cagney was not nominated for his outstanding performance as Lon Chaney in 1957's "Man of A Thousand Faces."?

Cagney was at his best portraying the masquerade man whose personal life was such a heartbreak. This was certainly an outstanding follow-up after the wonderful "Love Me or Leave Me" two years before.

Fresh from her Oscar win for "Written on the Wind," Dorothy Malone pulled off another great performance.

Cagney's acting toward his deaf mute parents was a sight to behold. Celia Lovsky, a veteran Hollywood matron, was his loving mother. Her bold eyes spoke of the love that she could not blurt out due to deafness. Always a sympathetic woman, Lovsky was the real life live in girlfriend of actor Peter Lorre.

Who can forget Cagney during his terminal cancer scenes? Unbelievable.


This is a favorite movie of mine. Mostly, because I am a fan of James Cagney's and thought his performance in this movie was excellent. In his autobiography, "Cagney By Cagney" Mr. Cagney told of many actual events in Mr. Chaney's life that were used in the picture and one in particular that was so sad they decided not to include it. Although loosely based on the life of Lon Chaney, Sr. I still felt the producers used enough actual events in Mr. Chaney's life to convey to the viewers what a truly talented man he was. Also, the tremendous challenges he faced being the son of deaf and mute parents. This is an excellent movie that stands up well through the years.


Loving (and fictional) tribute to Lon Chaney--actor and makeup artist who was in such classics as "Phantom of the Opera" and the "Hunchback of Notre Dame".

There are plenty of things wrong with this movie--James Cagney looks NOTHING like Lon Chaney--Chaney was tall and kind of mean-looking with a thin face; Cagney is short, pleasant-looking with a round face; GREAT liberties were taken with Chaney's real-life story (he was not the saint this movie paints him to be); the recreations of Phantom and Notre Dame just look silly; every show business cliché imaginable is shoe-horned into this and they totally ignore the fact that Chaney was actually pretty abusive to his son.

That aside...this IS a good movie.

It's well done and beautifully shot in wide screen and black and white; Dorothy Malone does wonders with an underwritten role; ditto for Jane Greer; the movies moves fairly quickly and is always absorbing (I was never bored) and Cagney is just great! His performance is flawless--very well-acted, convincing and sympathetic. He does try to recreate Chaney's roles--he's good but the guy is buried under tons of makeup and is VERY uncomfortable (it shows).

Still for a Hollywood biography this is pretty damn good. Just don't accept it for a minute as the gospel truth.

I'd love to know what Lon Chaney Jr. thought of this--or if he ever saw it!


This is the biography of famous actor Lon Chaney, portrayed by the more- famous James Cagney. Normally, I like biographies and I am a big, big fan of Cagney....but this film turned me off fairly quickly, and I wish the "Yankee Doodle" man had turned down this role.

Dorothy Malone plays an awful, selfish woman who was Chaney's first wife. She is so annoying I lost interest in this story. The scenes where Malone freaked out over Lon's parents being deaf and dumb, and her subsequent tirades, plus Chaney apologizing for his parent's physical handicaps - come on!! - totally turned me off.

It also looked strange to see Cagney in his mid '50s playing a guy in his early '20s. Give me a break! That was poor casting if I ever saw it. What a disaster this film turned out to be. I prefer to remember Mr. Cagney for his great roles in the 1930s and 1940s.....not stinkers like this.


for the performance of James Cagney, and Dorothy Malone, alone. It is a trite saying, but they really don't make movies like this nowadays...Which is probably why everyone who has any interest in any decent film MUST have cable (or TCM, at least); This film was made in 1957, and has that un-pretentious quality to it, the sadness in Lon Chaney's real life, and his determination to be a Hollywood film actor.

While a previous reviewer has aptly pointed out, the make-up is amateurish, the details of Cagney's life are left out(especially with reference to his son, Creighton) this is still a good film which manifests the life of a struggling actor, and there is an amusing cameo with a young Robert Evans as Irving Thalberg, studio genius.

When I watch films like this, I wish we could go back in time to these days, the times of our parents and grandparents, it reminded of the premise behind Redford's "Quiz Show"-there is a genuine feeling to it; The Hollywood studios were money-oriented, but the public was not bombarded with PR and tabloid trash; it seemed a romantic era where film stars would never consider doing TV commercials for Geritol or McDonald's.


Robbie Williams said he grew up listening to this music and it has always been his dream to perform, and what better place to perform these songs then in the Albert Hall. This is a great tribute to the Rat Pack (Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr. and Dean Martin) and Robbie shows us is amazing voice along with a style of music which hasn't been seen from him before. I definetly recommend this to anyone (you can buy it on DVD or VHS) even if your not a Sinatra fan, you'll still love it 10/10


This is simply one of the best performances ever done by an artist and I highly recommend it. You will be amazed on how great Robbie sings the music that was made popular by the Rat Pack. I just couldn't figure out why he didn't it make big in the U.S. Maybe the American audiences are not just ready yet...


hey folks,

this is the best show Robbie has ever given, his voice as gentle as can be, entertainment at its best.

I've been a Robbie fan since the beginning, even when he was with take that, he was born to be a entertainer, he's got the talent from his dad, who's a well-known comedian in england.Robbie's comedic talent, his gestures, his voice, the whole charisma, has made him to what he is now: THE mega star!

if you aren't a fan of Robbie yet, you will become after watching the show! you need to watch this! it's a kick in the head, as Robbie would say.

kind regards, his no 1 fan


This show is simply the best ever given by Robbie Williams. It's even better than Live at Slane Castle. If you didn't seen this show. You should be. Just perfect. As you can hear: I'm glad he made this show. It was my best TV-evening ever!!


I saw this on my birthday....and what an experience! It was as if you were in the Royal Albert Hall that night. Robbie Williams sings all the classic songs from the great performers of the 50's such as 'Sammy Davis Jnr', 'Dean Martin' and of course 'Frank Sinatra' in a style which befits their songs. He throws himself completely into their shoes, delivering each song as if he were singing in that era, whilst poking fun at himself and encouraging the audience to have a good time. Robbie also pays homage to those great singers, never attempting to steal any of their thunder, but merely wanting to present these songs to a new generation. Also, the audience isn't a mob of screaming teenagers, but a host of mature adults in tuxedos and elegant evening wear. The music backing Robbie isn't a small band, but a magnificent orchestra, and Robbie himself wears the trademark 50s tux, complete with a lose tie. Though be warned....during the breaks between the songs he reverts to his regular persona and there is some strong language (only 4 or 5 times) which may offend, but don't let that put you off. The singing is what counts and it will get you swinging!!


This is the kind of tribute rat pack fans can do without. I find it insulting that someone with such little talent as RW, feels he can make a record and movie of this nature.

One can only hope that this kind of thing does not reappear when the next lucky, totally over rated boy band member attempts the same thing. Be sure it will happen. God help us.

The thing that really makes this film annoying is, of course that William's' voice is not up to scratch, some would argue the man sounds bad enough when he churns out his usual brand of soulless pop rubbish, let alone try and match the vocal talents of the the original artist. Do your self a favour, bin this and seek out some footage of the real rat pack.


This was one of the best shows I have seen on TV. The actors were really good and the writers were brilliant.I can't count the number of times I almost fell of my chair while watching Two Guys And A Girl.It's very sad that they canceled it :'( .By the way the last episode was kind a silly.They could have made another were everybody chooses a different path like in Friends. I think in some ways Two Guys And A Girl is better than Friends and I can't understand why Friends got 10 seasons and Two Guys And A Girl only 4.It's just not fair.I want to thanks every single one who worked in that show and it will not be the same without you!


"TWO GUYS, A GIRL AND A PIZZA PLACE," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure if I've seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred. I always laughed at that. Despite the fact that it was a short-lived series, it was nice that all of the main characters had stayed with the show throughout its entire run. It seems that no one stays with a show throughout its entire run. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope someone brings it back on the air for fans of the show to see.


This is one of the most underrated sitcoms ever. Ryan Reynolds is a comedy genius. It has Nathan "Cpt Mal Reynolds" Fillion in it. The story lines are interesting, like the characters, and the comedy is intelligent.

The way Pete and Berg play off one another, and the relationship that they have is brilliant. My room mate and I have taped the series' off Trouble, and not a week goes by when we don't watch it.

Every episode makes me laugh. Deserved at least a 5th season, but i guess thats how the idiot networks do things these days.

I don't really need to plug it anymore, as it does that itself. Watch it, and you'll see what I mean.


When i first saw this i thought it would be a bit samey, like any other sitcom or teen show but it wasn't, it's very funny.

It's not nauseating like Friends but a likable scenario of three ex-college pals embarking on their careers and love lives. The friendship between these three is the best part, it isn't a contrived friendship, it's very real. Sharon is tough, bossy and one of the guys but she does have a girlie side too, Berg is witty but a bit childish, Pete is on the quest for true love, never really finding it and then later we get Johnny, lovable but tight. Ashley, sarcastic and strong and Irene, crazy cat lover who has a crush on Pete.

Pete is my favourite, everyone loves Berg, but Pete had the depth and his extremeness to find the perfect mate was funny, charming and cute. he also has a great singing voice! He and Ashley were better suited than Berg and Ashley.

I think it was a shame it got cancelled and left us on a cliffhanger, normally i'm all for endings that make you think but this was just unfair! Love the episodes later on, the one with no dialogue (Silent movie) the one which shows us the characters lives linking together throughout one day, the writers were original with material, the halloween episodes were fun and love Mr. Bower's tall tales (the ones from movies) Overall a decent four series which deserved more time on the air.


I found this sitcom to be pretty funny. Thats mostly because of Berg who is just funny as hell. The rest of the cast was OK and Sharon was hot. What I really didn't like was Pete. I found the character really annoying and I noticed a serious contrast between his behaviour in some episodes than in the rest of them. Also I thought that the actor Richard Ruccolo was clearly overacting, thus making his role less realistic. I enjoyed watching the show especially the 2nd season which filled my boring hours during summer. Its not as good as friends but its a good choice and should be watched by anyone who likes standard funny sitcoms


after watching a couple of episodes... i was totaly hooked! man this is one of these shows that no matter how much you watch, you just can't have enaugh. the characters are simple, but every single character has a certain something that makes them interesting, plus you don't just have one type of comedy in the characters, physical comedy and jokes are writen all over the place, from wannabe snobbish to down right hilarious. Overall i advise anybody to watch it.


I only saw one episode of this train wreck, and never seeing it again will not be enough to erase it from my memory.

I could not believe how poorly written this show was. Some shows have a feel that they were produced on the first draft of a script; this one felt like the scripts were taken from rejected ideas.

The plot of the episode I saw involved one of the guys and his nervousness of getting committed to his girlfriend. As tired and worn out as this cliché is, the climax of this plot was the girlfriend surprising him by moving into his apartment building in order to strengthen their commitment. Not his apartment, mind you -- his apartment BUILDING. Has this actually happened to anybody you know? I was aghast at how stupidly the dialog played out. I could write better stuff half asleep under the influence of pain medication.

Aside from this lame story, nothing in the show made any real sense. Why a pizza place? It added no comedy to the show and was a pretty mundane idea. With Seinfeld they always met in an ordinary coffee shop. But the background there was irrelevant; the acting and dialog were superb. Here the pizza place was a distraction from the horrible lines being said, only, there was nothing noteworthy about the pizza place.

Notice the years this show ran, from 1998 - 2001. This is when reality shows started to take off. Shows like this made viewers switch.


Just shy of seeming like a big time MGM musical. I'm happy to settle for this short black & white Gene Autry sagebrush saga. A very talented group assembled to appear in one of Autry's best. Gene comes home to Torpedo, Arizona and is declared honorary sheriff during a Frontier Days Celebration. He does have enough authority to clean up the town and rid Torpedo of some of the worst law breakers in the Old West. Gene gets to sing the title tune "Melody Ranch" as well as "Call of the Canyon" and a very likable "We Never Dream the Same Dream Twice".

This round up of talent features: Ann Miller, Jimmy Durante, Horace McMahon and 'Gabby' Hayes as Pop Laramie and Barbara Jo Allen as 'Vera Vague'.


In Miami, four smalltime thieves leaded by Ski (Brandon Hardin) decide to rob a bank in the small town of Maysville. The lord Hustle (E-40) demands a 10% commission and sends his experienced bodyguard Ackson (D.J. Naylor) to help the gang in their plan. He goes to the target bank to check the security system, but Ski decides to anticipate the plan for that afternoon. They succeed in the heist, but Deputy Kate (T-Love) activates the alarm and one of the criminals shoots Deputy Duff. When the bank is under siege of the police force, they are attacked by weird creatures. The former government agent Hunter (Big Daddy Kane) comes to the bank and tells that the vampire zombies had been contaminated by an experimental virus developed by the government through the subjects that have escaped from the laboratory, attacking people in the New Moon to feed themselves. The group joins force to survive to the massive attack of the creatures.

The trash and gore "Dead Heist" is watchable without anything special. The story about a deadly heist in a wrong night is not original and should be better developed; the acting is flat, and the dialogs do not help the cast; and the special effects are only reasonable. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Noite Infernal" ("Hell Night")


There are two kinds of b movies out there, the ones that are jammed together in the most cynical fashion to wrench out a few bucks and nothing more. then there's movies like 'Dead Heist' where you can just tell that people with little to no budget got together for love of making movies and had a great time in the process. The dialogue is foul and quite hilarious for it, and while the plot is meager at best, there is something infectious (truly no pun intended) about the way everyone involved gives it their all. The small town locations are put to good use, and the violence is never anything but comic book bloody. This movie is nothing but fun and that is all it was ever meant to be. By the way, Zach Hanner rocks.


A bank heist goes horribly bad when (what else) the dead come in for food.

As far as recent Urban Zombie movies go, "Dead Heist" is better than "Zombiez," but worse than "Hood of the Living Dead" and "Gangs of the Dead." That's not saying much, especially when you consider the fact that "Hood" and "Gangs" are bad movies too.

The dead here are cut from the same cloth as the speedy zombies from the "Dawn of The Dead" remake and the infected from "28 Days Later" and it's sequel, only generic instead of interesting or frightening. The gore is nothing new, though the fact that the dead can only be killed by being shot in the heart (and you're to blame...) is a poor attempt at trying something different.

As far as acting goes, Big Daddy Kane does the best job. He's not good, mind you, but he does the best job. Amusingly, while Bone Crusher and E-40 are advertised as staring in it, yet they aren't in the movie for very long-Bone Crusher appears in the beginning as a patron in a strip club so tame it could have passed for MTV's "The Grind", then disappears. Meanwhile, E-40 has less than 5 minutes of screen time as a porn director, and gives a "alright, where's my paycheck already" level performance. The rest of the cast ranges from a dead ringer for Vin Diesel to the white female cop, a white businessman thinking of joining the Nation of Islam (ha ha), and plenty of stereotypical gang banger characters.

While not the worst recent Urban horror movie, there's still nothing worth recommending here. I have no idea whether or not the fact that this reminded me of the "Attack of the Street Pimps" bit from "Hollywood Shuffle" is a good thing or a bad thing. It's probably a bad thing.


George Romero himself (the man whose take on zombies has helped redefine the fright film for the past four decades) put it best: "It's not about the ZOMBIES, man!" Filmmakers who don't grasp whereof he spoke make movies like DEAD HEIST- movies that usually boast some impressive, though often no-budget fx (or even- as in this case- some great zombie "crowd" scenes), but very little in the way of character or story upon which to, say, hang a review. The internet, at present, boasts a veritable plethora of such shorts. In fact, there are five "winners" (picked by Romero himself) included among the DIARY OF THE DEAD extras. Like GANGS OF THE DEAD, DEAD HEIST has its moments (including some decent actors trying to make the most of bad writing, as well as some sometimes surprisingly competent direction), but the one thing both movies have in common is a lack of character(s). Let this be a lesson to those of you who would follow in Romero's footsteps: It ain't about the ZOMBIES, man!


A fun little B-movie Zombie romp, about bank-robbers that pick the wrong night/town to rob a bank...as long as you keep in mind-it is what it is-it's enjoyable, especially if you are a fan of cheesy B-movies and/or horror...the acting is so-so(no Oscars will be handed out but I have seen much, much worse), the effects are OK(not on par with any of the Romero or big-budget horror movies...but I'm guessing they weren't working with a ton of money to begin with), and the plot/story is passable(in a movie like this logic pretty much goes out of the window and suspension of disbelief is the order of the day...or you can just laugh it up-you choose). There are quite a few hip-hop artists in the movie(Big Daddy Kane, BoneCrusher, E40...)if you are a fan of the genre;if not, there inclusion will be transparent to you.Shut off brain, eat popcorn, enjoy:)


Zombies, our times jack-of-all-trades movie monsters return once more to plague a bunch of gangsters who happen to pull off a heist in the wrong night.

That's more or less the complete storyline. Not that I protest too loudly, because most b-grade zombie flicks don't offer much more in the line of storytelling. Alas, Dead Heist, while at least struggling to patch some back-story onto the main characters in the first half, totally abandons anything but pointless dialog in the second and forgets more or less what the heck is the point of a storyline anyway.

The cast of course is not exactly 1st class material: Big Daddy Kane is okay, Brandon Hardin manages to pull off quite an okay performance while D. J. Naylor seems way too nice to be the battle-hardened veteran and Traci Dinwiddie  dunno, she mouths the gun-blasts in the final battle, as if to dub them ... meh. And the zombie extras  we'll get back to them. Director Bo Webb at least manages to do some nice shots and the movie's picture quality is better than others in this class of film-making.

The first thing that is somewhat dolorous in Dead Heist is that the zombies are nicely introduced while rolling the front credits, but then forgotten for about an hour  and when they are brought back you'd wish the wait would have been worth it. You are wrong. Overall, the zombies were in fact the biggest problem in this flick. That is because Anghus Houvouras (the writer) seems to fancy himself imaginative when he makes them a hybrid from the "fast dead" (as seen in 28 Days Later) and vampires (they drink blood). So far, so yawn  but what's with the "you have to shoot them in the heart to kill them"? Headshots are overdone or what? Surely, zombies usually need a good 12-gauge to the head to keel over  but while it has been of course done a hundred times it is a far more "believable" than killing them with a shot through the heart. But maybe the guys were out for virgin soil or whatever. Then again, the back-story of the "governmental experiments gone awry" sounds somewhat familiar ... but who cares? Nobody but Kane's character as it seems  which is total bull if you follow the background story of them vile undead (or whatever they are): they move south for some time, killing their way through the US of A. Yeah. And nobody knows. Good zombie cinema usually is themed the Zombie Apocalypse way (i.e. the world is overrun by them)  but here all is quiet and the hordes of undead are traveling unmolested far and wide. Makes no sense. That they burrow into the ground for the day (as far as the explanation from the zombie-hunter goes) doesn't help. All this of course wouldn't have troubled the seasoned b-grade movie-fan if not for the total swizz the zombies turn out to be when they finally make their appearance. Not only did they get astonishing numbers of bad extras for the zombies (many stumble around like straw-puppets not sure what to do), they are also totally not frightening and not able to kill four people who are armed with knifes when coming at them at a 25:1 ratio.

The final battle is one of the great anti-climaxes of the year. Not only do the movie-makers want us to believe that  as it seems  the whole small town in which the heist takes place is turned into undead morons (which of course nobody seems to pay mind  the place is all but deserted apart for the zombies), but also that the "great plan to eradicate them all" of Mr. Kane's character is, well, to shoot them all with handguns and stab them with knifes. In one of the most silly fights in zombie-flick history they of course succeed (with small back-story interplay and demise of the zombie hunter) and then walk away in the morning sun. Not that anyone in the outside world would have had noticed the nocturnal undead massacre or maybe the missing neighbors.

If that final folly would not have been that paining  and the zombies would have been more than totally harmless duds  the movie would have been much better. The undead were never that toothless as here. And that's sad.

All in all an underwhelming gangster flick, but a total washout when it comes to being zombie horror. Zombie-maniacs might sit through this one, but they will be disappointed. People who like gangster-movies will more likely stick to it, as the part without the zombies is the better one. This one doesn't hurt, but rather leaves you with a stale taste.

(And what's it again with the "Dead" in the title? Any damn zombie flick now more features it, or the equivalent "... of the Dead". Show some imagination, lads.)


I rate movies on how they perform compared to what they are supposed to be. For instance, Jason X is almost a 10, because it is bad and intended to mock the Friday the 13th movies. So that being said, this gets a solid 8. That is an 8 out of 10 for B Zombie movies.

SO when I saw the title and the description on my cable system, I had to watch. I said to my girlfriend, "I have to watch this. It has Zombies and bank robbery. Two great movie themes in one. What could be better?" Well, the titles started and I realized this was a Ghetto,Zombie Bank Heist movie. OMFG, it just got better. Kinda like Dead Presidents with Zombies.

When I saw this, I then said to my GF, "This could only get better if there was a spy or secret agent or something." Well, halfway into the movie we are introduced to a government agent character whose job it is to kill the zombies. PERFECT! So yeah, this is a B movie. But, as was said before by others, you can tell they tried. This is a fun romp. The acting is weak, but not terrible. Some of the characters are engaging, but not the ones that are intended to be.

The camera work is pretty good and the movie flows. It follows the formula for a zombie movie, but that is the point. This isn't avant garde, this is a zombie movie.

It is good for a laugh with some zombie loving friends.


This movie's plot was so simple and easy, that it's a wonder how the filmmakers could mess it up. I understand that these people didn't have the biggest budget in the world, but they had everything they needed to make (at best) a mediocre movie, and failed MISERABLY.

The first half of the movie explains all of the character's motivations...and it works. Asides from some dialog, I enjoyed the first half. I wasn't expecting to relate with any of the characters or even like them, but I did. Some of the characters were really interesting and you could understand why they'd want to leave 'the life' behind. Then comes the 2nd half of the movie.

The 2nd half of the movie throws out all of the character development out the window and we just can't wait for these people to die. It's as if the writer of the 1st half let his little nephew still in Junior High School finish the script. Some parts are damn near insulting of one's intelligence towards the end.

Even though I hung my head down in shame in some parts that could have been gold, I give the filmmakers respect for some of the visuals in this movie. The filmmakers had all the right tools to make a decent flick, but in the end, it's missing something that is supposed to make a movie watchable...a decent script.

3/10


I love this movie. Okay, so maybe it looks like just a cheap, italian porn flick but there's so much more to it. There is something vaguely disturbing and sinister about this film that it makes it that much more erotic. Basically, its the story of a paper-back writer who goes undercover as a prostitute to research for her steamy new novel. Along the way, she has sex with lots of greasy, italian men, degrades herself in front of assorted perverts and turns a gay man straight. If anybody could straighten out a gay man it would be Jessica Moore(or whatever her real name is). The sleazy, new orleans ambience of this film is terrific as you can almost feel the heat, humidity and sex. There are some striking, disturbing visuals, like when Moore does some kinky posing with mannequins for a photographer. There are some clowns thrown in, which always gives a film a sinister edge, and lots of homoerotic undertones(or is that overtones?). Anyway, go out and get this movie and wallow in its sleaze and perversity.


this film has been made by joe d'amato aka Aristide Massaccesi with kind of european sense of social life and interpreted by my favour actress Luciana Ottaviani aka Jessica Moore that she plays a role as top model and in reality she is a writer with the role of Sarah Asproon that Aristide Massaccesi ( Joe d'Amato) wrote in the different names one of is Sarah Asproon it is a very nice film and deserves an excellent as reward. unfortunately it is very sad that Aristide Massaccesi is dead otherwise he would direct other film to let the people to applause his talented trick of magic


An erotic love story.

Big Joe used his usual plot devices here.

Prostitution ring disguised as a modeling agency services wealthy clients of all types. I couldn't tell if this was filmed in the U.S. or Europe. But wherever it was filmed, it looked great.

Seeing Mark Shannon play a cowboy was actually funny. But do cowboys really call every woman they meet 'filly?'

Laura (Goddess Supreme) Gemser matures in her roles and actually plays the boss of women instead of just a rebel. I hated the fact that she cut her hair. She looked better with it loooooooong. She's still a Goddess however.

The sub-plot about the young lad dealing with potential homosexuality was a tad weird.

But the lass in the lead looked GREAT. Her massage scene with the Turk left me gasping.


In the mid-1980s Joe D'Amato made largely soft pornos and this is one of the better ones, despite being filmed in the US (his Italian films tend to be better). Following the commercial success of "11 days, 11 nights", this was marketed as a sequel, but it is rather more like a remake, and it is a slight improvement on the original. Both films were clearly inspired by "9 and a half weeks" (there is also a nod to Zulawski's Femme Publique) but D'Amato changed the story by putting the woman in control, a modification which works very well. No cinematic masterpiece, but a superior example of the genre.


I saw this movie in Sri Lanka in 1997 and I loved it. But most of the scenes were censored and no body could not enjoy it that well in the cinema. Most of the sex scenes were cut for no reason. Does anyone know how to get the uncut version of this film on VCD/DVD. Please let me know.


''Untamed'' surprised & delighted me, in the way, that I've never seen Joan play such a sassy, upbeat role before...... It's totally different from all her other roles, and I don't think, she played another similar part after...... Joan plays her part ''Bingo'', so charmingly & adorably...... (in a way, naive & innocent) It's really not something, Joan fans are used to watching...... This proves again, Joan's versatility, and her capability to do comedy...... Even though, certain parts in ''Untamed'' were silly & offbeat...... I really didn't seem to care, or really noticed it...... Because, Joan & Robert Montgomery had such marvelous chemistry together..... (It's always a refreshing & fun experience watching them every time) They had so much give and take, in their scenes together....... ''Untamed'' is obviously dated, but in a classy, old fashioned way...... What ''Untamed'' has, that other same genre movie lacks today is, ''classy romance''....... I recommend Joan & Robert Montgomery fans to check out this movie...... Really wished Joan & Robert could've made movies together...... They're simply superb, each time they team together......


"Bingo" is exactly the word! This film hits all the right spots and its not all about Joan Crawford, who simply sparkles. I fell totally in love with her character!

It is not by accident that IMDb lists 107 films by Director Jack Conway between 1912 and 1948. This was his 72nd film according to that chronology and his expertise shows. I found it thoroughly engrossing and continuously entertaining. I laughed aloud often -- some really great gags and a fine early sit-com.

I don't know much about the writer Charles E. Scoggins, but co-writer Sivia Thalberg is credited with 15 films and is the sister of Irving Thalberg. That ought to tell you this film deserves close attention. Don't allow yourself to think of it as "cornball" and just engross yourself in it. You won't be disappointed.


The funniest parts in this movie are 1) Joan Crawfords painfully obvious underarm SWEAT STAINS!!!!!I mean obvious...this movie was apparently done before Joan's unpublicized sweat gland operations(just kidding)...... 2)The scene where Robert Montgomery has a boxing match in the living room during a party. He looks absolutely juvenile in his little tank top and his childlike rabbit punches. He was, of course, a married man by this, albeit a puny one. He obviously didn't possess a home gym. I recommend this movie.... Great example of an early talkie. Crawford was one of the few silent stars to make the transition to talkies and thrived. Montgomery was one of those actors recruited after the change from silents. Men who could speak while they gnawed at the scenery.......


One of the first MGM soundies full of music, dance, drama and Joan Crawford! The early Crawford personality emerges as a feisty, likable, love-of-life character and she is wonderful! She is so different from her later 50's and 60's roles. If you have not viewed any of Crawford's silent movies or the early soundies, you should consider it. You can see the emergence of her acting abilities and even peg some of her acting characteristics that she carried with her throughout her entire 50 year career. Ernest Torrence is an engaging father figure, a marvelous character actor. Robert Montgomery (who appeared with JC six times) is the love interest torn between culture and animal. Lloyd Ingraham appears as the Crawford character's father early on. A must-see for film lovers interested in viewing early sound films.


Untamed is famous for being Joan Crawford's first talkie, a curiosity. I had heard it was only a mediocre film by both fans of Crawford and those who really do not care for her. I was surprised that I liked it so much considering these reviews; Untamed is a good quality early talkie and a bright spot in Crawford's early career.

Crawford plays "Bingo," an untamed girl from the jungles of South America whose father dies, leaving her with a large oil inheritance. Some old friends of the family escort her to New York where she is to live in luxury, but they are startled when she abruptly falls in love with Robert Montgomery. They convince her that there are hundred of men like him in New York; she goes there to find that she yearns for him more than ever. She finds that he misses her too and the two plan to get married, until Crawford's uncle meddles again. The end of this film is quite shocking, and there are plenty of moments to entertain throughout.

Unlike her later 1930s films, Crawford is wild and free here, sort of like a Trilby yet to find her Svengali. Her personality is radiant and she acts much more like a savage than a society girl. This pre-code film has her kicking her legs up to throw up her skirt, sleeping in a man's room, seeing him before he is dressed, drinking large quantities of alcohol during Prohibition, and condoning violence, an unladylike characteristic. Montgomery is terribly handsome in this film, a great romantic lead for Crawford. Perhaps this is the reason they starred in several other films together. The two sing several times here; neither has an outstanding voice, but the music helps add some realism and entertainment to the screen.

Overall, this is not only a curiosity, but a great early film. It does not suffer from the slow pacing, static camera, wordy dialogue, and loud silences that other early talkies did. Be sure to give it a proper chance.