"Jaguar Lives" is very slow and plodding entertainment, despite a tip-top cast being associated. The action (well that's when it gets around to it) is too little and unexciting martial arts... because we have to wait through long dry spells of talk. The climax battle is the only thing worth waiting around for. Not helping is that the twists in the story are plain easy to pick up on and it doesn't make too much sense. Wow, just look at the names! The main reason I decided to give it a look. The likes of Christopher Lee, Donald Pleasence and Barbara Bach are simply wasted, and Joe Lewis is just too deadpan in the lead role. Fun this is not. No wonder why it's not too well known, as it's largely dismissible.


they turn milady into a ninja sorceress, for no apparent reason. the ensuing special effects are lame. lackluster wirework, sword fights few and far between. some of the actors are pretty (boys and girls, with character) but there is no real chemistry nor, alas--and this is the real kicker--any 'panache'. a long, humorless, horribly misguided waste.

there really isn't anything more to say of any importance. they retain much of the outline of dumas' story, but it is perfunctory, and disposed of as quickly as possible in order to move on to pointless development of the devil sorceress "plot".

also, us DVD release of this movie is dubbed, badly, with no option to view with original soundtrack.


When reading the novels by Alexandre Dumas as a twelve year old kid, the impression I got from The Three Musketeers was completely different from what I had seen on the movies. Where the books had been quite dark, the white screen presented comedies and "jolly old chap" sentiments, the only exception being the Richard Lester excellent versions of 1973/74 (although made with love and humor, it was not even close to being reduced to a "d'Artagnan and the Merry Olde Musketeers" level...). With this new French movies (two parts, just like Lester's) I can really recognize the Dumas spirit. I can not say that this version is superior in terms of corresponding better with the books from a word-by-word perspective, but the over all impression certainly is. Some people might disapprove with Emanuelle Béart's interpretation of Milady, but I think this is where the Dumas' feeling really shines through... Béart makes Milady not only evil, but diabolic.


This film along with Milady with Arielle Dombasle are the two best musketeer movies of the Millennium. I'm so glad there was so much more to offer in the way of Musketeer films especially since I wasted money going to see that horrible loosely based adaptation of The Three Musketeers called the Musketeer (2001). The acting performances were topnotch in this production. Vincent Elbaz was a fine D'Artagnan the right physical type just a little too tall and a little too mature but he gave an excellent performance.D'Artagnan in the novel was very polite,sensitive but brave and would not back down from any duel. When D'Artagnan met Rochefort character in the novel (a character not in this version of the story) he was mad at Rochefort for making insulting comments about his horse.Vincent Elbaz D'Artagnan unfortunately was a little on the obnoxious side.Porthos was a little too short but he pulled the part off just fine. Emmanuelle Beart's Milady de Winter gave a fine performance but I only wish they would have made this film ten to fifteen years before. I mean she was pushing 40 but she did look great and Arielle Dombasle who was in her late 40's also looked pretty good in the rival production Milady. I guess there is some truth to 40 being the new thirty and 50 being the new 40. Emmanuelle Beart was Milady who had to be reckoned with. She had the Devil in her alright. Heino Ferch's Athos was true to the Athos character and I appreciated that this film showed Athos hanging her which is accurate in the book. What I didn't care for about the production was young D'Artagnan seeing the episode in the woods. In the book Athos and D'Artagnan first saw each other in Monsieur de Treville's office and also in the book D'Artagnan was a Gascon (Basque) from the Southern part of France and Athos,the Count de le Fere came from a region not far from Paris. Karyo's Cardinal Richelieu is in tune with the character. German Actress Diana Amft is good Constance Bonancieux but not great. The Actor playing Aramis turned in a fine performance as did the actress playing Anne of Austria.The Duke of Buckingham was as in the novel a goodlooking man but by no means mild mannered.Buckingham had a temper was a womanizer,socialclimber and ambitious and by no means a coward. I also appreciate that this film retained many of the minor characters in the book.Great sets and scenery. Some of the problems with this version are:There is no Chevalier or Count de Rochefort and no Lord de Winter a big mistake as far as the character of Rochefort goes. Milady in this had no fleur-de-lis instead she has a serpentine Mark of the Devil which appeared on her skin after the Devil resurrected her after Athos had hanged her. Milady and Athos did not have a child together and she did not sacrifice her child to the Devil in exchange for her soul. Milady's son was by her marriage to her second husband Lord de Winter and his name was John de Winter aka Mordaunt and a "worthy" descendant of Milady de Winter he was an assassin and spy also and had his mother's appetite for revenge especially against his Uncle,his mother's executioner and the 4 Musketeers for depriving him of a mother.For more on Mordaunt read the novel and sequel The Twenty Years After and try to get a decent movie version of the novel.French and Russian versions of the Twenty Years After are the best and so is the BBC version.Richard Lester gave the Mordaunt character a sex change in his version and the Italian version is very loosely based.D'Artagnan was the shortest of the Musketeers and was olive skinned read the very first chapter of the novel and he was eighteen years old Aramis and Porthos were in their 20's and Athos in his early thirties. For physical descriptions of the Musketeers they were fair and handsome men read the first part of the novel and the chapter the Antechamber of Monsieur de Treville. Milady de Winter was 16 years old not twenty when she married Athos and Athos was 25 read the chapter in the novel Three Musketeers called the wife of Athos. When D'Artagnan first sees Milady in the beginning of the novel which started in the year 1625 and ended in 1628 Milady was twenty to twenty two years old and towards the end of the novel Athos in the chapter called How Athos found his outfit Athos when he finds out that his wife is still alive describes her as beautiful,tall,well-made,blue-eyed with a strange look to them (which might have inspired the screenwriter of this adaptation to make it appear that Milady was a demon possessed secret Satanist) and blonde who would be 26 to 28 years of age. Milady de Winter was not some small framed delicate little woman like Emmanuelle Beart or even Faye Dunaway who by far at least to movie critics and Dumas fans alike gave the best performance of the character to date in the 1973/1974 Richard Lester films,followed in the best performance categories Mary Peach of the 1966 BBC version and Mylene Demongeot of the French 1961 and not to forget Lana Turner in the 1948 MGM version. In my opinion this version is good but in no way compares with the more faithful versions of The Three Musketeers : Milady (2004),D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers (1978) Russian film, The Three Musketeers (1999) video stage play,Bernard Borderie's 1961 2 pt Franco-Italian production,The 1966 BBC Production,1953 Andre Hunebelle version and the 1948 MGM production. A film that should be owned by any Musketeer fan and I can only hope that the new Three Musketeers trilogy which includes a prequel on the Musketeers and Milady's lives before D'Artagnan that will be coming to the big screen in 2011 will be worthy of such a great novel.


Much better than Hollywood versions. Excellent timing. No time wasted on accessory adventures or hiper-detailed beginnings and clumsy and too keep with budget. This film spends viewer time on what's important. Sign of the times, perhaps, lots of «kung fu» and «buffy the vampire slayer».. Some people like to re-invent the wheel.. but the book is all adventure anyway and we can't blame Dumas for not having thought of everything, can we?! The taste of the 21st century spectator is as much reflected in this film as that of the 19th reader is satisfied in the book. To the dread of the purist, this movie may in fact remain true to the original; certainly not in «form», but in «logic». All in all a good movie and among best of the several (though not all) of «Les Trois Mousquetaires» that I have seen so far. The «garde robe» is exquisite and it's historic accuracy (or at least the look of it) marks the different to Hollywood amateurism in these more serious aspects of show-business. If they colored the story, these people at least new what they were filming about. Last, but not least, the cast: Awesome babes! I mean.. I'd buy that soul if I could afford it. :-)

Rui Duarte


First things, I find this one of the best movies about the great story of Alexandre Dumas, and luckily it sticks quite true. Quite, but not totally. I understand minor changes like Porthos not being the shallow, large framed guy described in the book (I always will love Depardieu from Man in the iron mask in this role) or d'Artagnan witnessing the hanging of Mylady de Winter, even the "with a rowboat across the channel" thing, but.....

WHY ON EARTH DID THEY HAVE TO PUT DEMONS IN IT?

I think Mylady de Winter would be as interesting and rewarding role to get? Why does she suddenly have to have Superpowers? This is the only real issue I have with this movie.

The rest of the movie is splendid. Except for Porthos, who's actor does a fine job after all, all the cast is close enough to the book as possible. Especially Elbaz plays d'Artagnan with that vibe and risk-loving panache he appears to have in the book. This is one of the few movies which does not alter or skip the musketeers' dealings with Buckingham, in fact it sticks to the novel with the sole exception mentioned above.

As to the ongoing discussion of Beart being too old: a) She looks gorgeous as ever. b) Mylady de Winter is described in the book as a Lady in her late thirties...so why the fuzz. After all, she married athos at age 20, got hanged after a year, became the Cardinal's (a great Karyo) top spy in the meantime, married Winter's brother, killed him ....you see she was quite busy all the time.

So I can sum up: A great rendition of the musketeers' legend with just a bitter pinch of story liberty.

8/10


"The 4 Musketeers" is a terrible movie. Three painful hours of utter crap. Milady is a ninja and made a pact with the Devil, who gave her magic powers. These powers consist of Sci-Fi level special effects, and zooming in on her eyes a lot. Oh, and D'Artagnan has a magic white hawk, who follows him around and saves the day. I think that's what gave him the power to row across the English channel within the space of only a few hours. And have I mentioned the really bad dubbing from the original French? (There was no option to watch it in French with English subtitles). Anyway, what I really wanted to say was, Stay away from this movie... it's three hours of your life that you'll never get back.


Always enjoy Tom Selleck, (Will Cubanks) films and in this picture he plays a rather low key person who loves studying a dictionary and was a former ex-cowboy who has a good friend and sidekick, J D Reed, (Jerry Reed). These two guys decide to travel to Hollywood and they wind up in a freight car which takes them to Nashville, Tenn. where they meet up with many Country Western Music Stars, like Claude Akins, Barbara Mandrell and Roy Acuff which are all cameos. However, Barbara Mandrell had a few lines more than the rest of her other actors. There is plenty of humor and slapstick and Morgan Fairchild, (Kate) gives a great supporting role and also a double role to perfection. If you like to see a very young Tom Selleck, you will enjoy a completely different acting by Tom. Enjoy.


Tom Selleck and Jerry Reed are utterly engaging as rascally, penniless, down-on-their-luck cowboy drifters Will and J.D., who find themselves stuck in Nashville, Tennesse. A lovely young woman (the gorgeous Morgan Fairchild) mistakes the pair for private detectives and hires the affable duo to find her missing sister. Pretty soon both Will and J.D. are neck deep in all kinds of trouble. Briskly directed by Burt Kennedy, with a slight, inane cookie cutter script by Jimmy Sangster, crude cinematography by Victor Salzis and Alan Stensvold, a jaunty hillbilly bluegrass country score by Reed (who also sings the rousing theme song "Breakin' Loose") and the expected copious slapstick fist fights and wacky car chases, this totally inconsequential piece of made-for-TV piffle makes for a perfectly enjoyable diversion. The loose'n'wiggy chemistry between Selleck and Reed is a treat to watch. Solid supporting turns by Claude Akins as a famous country singer/songwriter, Gene Evans as a gruff police lieutenant, Lucille Benson as a stern, but friendly whorehouse madam, and Grace Zabriskie as a wax museum worker are likewise delightful. Special guest appearances by country stars Roy Acuff, Ray Stevens and Barbara Mandrell as themselves further add to the goofy fun. A likably silly timewaster.


I loved the illustrations for each chapter of the flick, I was just annoyed it never listed who did them...

This hokey country & mystery was really Jerry Reed's show, he had a Top 5 hit in the 70's "When You're Hot, You're Hot (When You're Not, You're Not)" that even became a popular catchphrase T-shirt, Tom Selleck either pre-Magnum or same time and hedging his bets played the studious and mostly quiet itinerant rancher.

The plot had some pinholes but not really obvious as Jerry Reed wove his spell of brash down-home-isms and Tom Selleck playing the puller of butts from frying pans & fires.

The pilot-debut pulled out a good set of stops to hit the ground running; invite Roy Acuff, Barbra Mandrell and Ray Stevens to do cameos as themselves.

There were chase-scenes and there were sex, lies & Nashville but Selleck's character summed up Jerry Reed the best in two quotes from the film, "You'll either be rich or in jail," along with "J. D. Reed, I swear, you start with a toothpick and end up with a lumber yard." Selleck's character provided the know-how in not knowing how city slickers do their dirty deeds and helped in his slow, quiet manner to not only use his love of encyclopaedias to avoid arrest, but to tie up loose ends in an alleged murder.

Claude "Movin' On/Sheriff Lobo" Akins also plays a mover and shaker in the Nashville music scene, I believe this picture was meant to have a sort of Lite commentary on the other Nashville, as in that film which Keith Carradine played in back in 1975 - but (A) considering it's supposed to be a comedy, this was hardly the time and place for that, and (B) there was not enough time to do such type of editorialising justice, so the amateur sleuthing won out, thank God!

http://tinyurl.com/3464k


The movie was worth watching just to see Jerry Reed and Tom Selleck ham it up with such a great supporting cast of characters, many of whom are no longer with us. The plot was contrived, but who cares! Jerry Reed, as usual, stole the show! Now that he has passed on, Concrete Cowboys is a tribute to the fact Reed's appearance rescued the movie.

The plot includes the usual car bomb, shoot-out, cop-car chase, and bad guy fight scenes that keeps the action moving, but just to see so many great artists in their prime is worth watching the film. Also interesting is the set decor, costumes, vintage cars, and those tame nightclub dance moves.

Best of all: there was no filthy language, sleazy sex scenes, or female meat-market pandering! This is a good movie to watch with your kids and not have to censor the kind of disgusting garbage vomited out of Hollywood today. Although "Hollywood" has long been morally bankrupt, we can thank God we still have some old and timeless classics, and some B movies worth watching like this one.


I must say this is one of the best movies to have come out in 2008. I wouldn't want to compare it with Tare Zameen Par because it deserves to be a unique film in its own aspect."Jodhaa Akbar" was truly beyond my expectations !!!!. I saw the 3hrs 40mins film on Saturday but still its lovely characters and the setting has left me amazed !!!!.

The film began on a very slow and rather boring note though Amitabh Bachchan's powerful role as the narrator was worth appreciating. The first half-an-hour had some war sequences which were shot wonderfully but got kind of stretching-too-long after a while. After the entry of Hrithik as Emperor Akbar, the true story was beginning to form. With his muscled look and the mustache, Hrithik looked every bit like a true hero. I was completely awestruck by his power-packed performance as the stern yet kind-hearted Akbar. An alliance between the Rajput King and Akbar took place, which said that Akbar would protect the Rajput kingdom and the King in return would give his daughter Jodhaa's hand in marriage to Akbar.

This was the turning point in the film, after which it took off beautifully. Aishwarya was the best choice for the film and no one could have done as much justice to the role as much as her. She looked amazing and I was completely mesmerized by her beauty. She looked like a true defiant Rajput princess with the heavy jewellery laden look complete with long hair and lovely dialogues.

The setting of the film was something-to-watch out for. The Agra Palace and the setting for the war sequences were shot at the Nitin Desay Studios At Karjat apart from some other fabulous locations. The setting is something that one HAS to go to a cinema hall and watch.....it is something you just can't capture or experience on your normal TV at home.

Apart from the lead actors, Punam Sinha , Sonu Sood , Ila Arun and the child actor (Parth Dave) have delivered superb performances.

I don't want to spoil your mood by telling you the whole story but I must say this movie deserves to be seen and appreciated. I don't know whether the movie might be a hit or a flop but one thing's for sure.....it will definitely be remembered as one of the finest films ever made in Bollywood.

Like "Mumbai Mirror" (a newspaper) said...."this film is worth every rupee of your multiplex ticket".....LOVELY !!!!!! :) :) 3 cheers for the cast and crew of the film !!!!!!!!!


Swades was released in December 2004 and since then, this project was said to be considered by the director, Ashutosh Gowariker. The director of movies such as "Laagan" and "Swades," has once again left no stones unturned and proved that he is also capable of directing a movie related the colossal personality - Akbar the Great, also known as "Jalaludin Mohammed Akbar." A young Akbar, sets out to conquer Kingdoms and those who don't join him, are brutally executed but after a while he begins to pardon them and that's when many of his opponents begin to realise that they had and have, misunderstood him. One particular Rajput Raja Bharmal, instead of facing the Moghul's mighty army, decides that it would be better that his daughter, Raj Kumari Jodhaa Bai, who is be throned to another Rajput Prince, marries Akbar. The couple do unite in marriage but only after Akbar agrees to the two conditions which the Rajput Princess has put forward. At the same time, he has to win her heart as well as to look after the interest of his public.

Jodhaa Akbar, which stars Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Khulbhushan Kharbanda, Suhasini Mulay, Digvijay Purchit and Punam S. Sinha, is a romantic, biographical and historical movie, which is set in a era of revolt, conspiracies and war. It also deals with intercaste marriage, which at the time was not heard off due to the fact that when the Mughals invaded India, the Rajput Princesses and Queens became Sati when their husbands, the Kings were killed in battle so as not to be captured and, or, forced to live with the Invaders.

Hrithik Roshan, son of the director and producer, Rakesh Roshan and nephew of the music director Rajesh Roshan, was offered this role as the director, Ashutosh Gowariker, who had seen him in "Koi Mil Gaya." believed that he was capable of doing justice to this part and also because of his physique. His natural choice for the lead of "Jodhaa Bai" was Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, not only just because of her beauty but talent as well. He has proved to be correct with the cast - brilliant as they have done justice to their respective parts.

This is a well written story by Haider Ali, and co written, directed and produced by Ashutosh Gowariker, which has gone into great details with research and choosing sites for filming. The cinematography, by Kiran Deohams, is excellent and some cases breath taking. The music, by A.R. Rehman, is pleasant and suits the genre movie and the songs, though a few, are good as well and especially the wedding night song. The costumes and jewellery, which I am sure that a lot of the members of the audience, will be looking out for, designed by the famous Neeta Lulla, is elegant. The stunts and the fight sequences, which are well timed, and though they look dangerous at times, are worthwhile watching. In one scene, where Akbar is seen fighting an elephant, actor Hrithik Roshan did get injured but continued with the filming. His injuries were related to those of when he was filming for "Krissh." But really pushes the fight and stunt sequences, is the special effects by Pankaj Khandpur, which are worth to watch.

Conclusion: This movie has all the ingredients to become a classic, epic movie in the future, even though it is three and a half hours in duration. It is worth it.

For those interested in a bit of gossip. Hrithik Roshan, who has been offered to work in some Hollywood movies, may not have to go over to in at least one of them. The reason being is that actress Penelope Cruz, may be working with him in a yet untitled Bollywood movie, which is said to be directed by his father, Rakesh Roshan. Could it be that this is just the beginning of a merger between Hollywood and Bollywood? I wonder! Elsewhere, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, is soon to be working in a movie with the "Mahatama," Ben Kingsley, with whom she has worked with before, in an English version of "Taj Mahal." It seems like that she can't keep away from the family.


There are good movies. And then there are great movies.But very few are truly epics. I can very confidently say that Jodhaa Akbar is going to be an epic.

Do not be daunted by the 195 minutes runtime of the movie. At no point in the movie will you be aware of the time. The performances put in by Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai,along with the ethereal music provided by A.R.Rahman and the stunning costumes by Neeta Lulla are going to blow your breath away.

No Indian cinema has ever evoked such a strong mixture of emotions in the audience as this one. Each and every frame of the movie is a treat to the eyes. There is richness and grandeur in every aspect of the film.

'Jashn-e-bahara' and 'Khwaja mere Khwaja' are superbly shot and executed songs. And then 'Azeem oh Shan Shahenshah' is one song that will remain etched in your memory long after you leave the theater.

The scenes where the Emperor Akbar tames the wild elephant and the sword fight between the royal couple are truly memorable. The battle sequences are captured very well.

The initial mistrust between Akbar and Jodha bai and the subsequent budding romance are handled brilliantly.

Hrithik is superb as the Emperor Akbar and I doubt if any actor of his generation could have handled this role as well. And Aishwarya Rai as usual looks stunningly beautiful.

All in all, a tremendous movie and I am going to strongly recommend this to all my friends.

Thank you Ashutosh for Jodhaa Akbar.


Jodha-Akbar is a motley of exceptional love,Terrific Action,Soulful music and splendid cinematography.It is one of the most uncommon films and a must see one if you want to witness something special.The film got combative stunts and it has everything to please everyone.But on the other side,the film is slow and lengthy.The first half of the film lasts more than 2 hrs yet the twists and turns will glue the audience to the cinema.Hrithik was awesome as Akbar and Aishwarya was majestic as Jodha.Direction was at the best.Ashutosh proved yet another blockbuster which falls in the same line of Lagaan and Swades.May be he need to concentrate on the duration of the film by chopping off few scenes.Jodha Akbar is basically a love story instead of calling it as a War based film.The film lacks pace and slow narration of few scenes and the frequent usage of Urdu language made the audience ambiguous and also boring.But at the other end,even though the film lasts for more than 3.30 min,it is gripping enough and very much bearable.The Director need to edit the film and make it as a 3 hrs film so that the audience will like this film even more.The huge star-cast of Hrithik-Ash playing as Akbar and Jodha might have evoked a lot of curiosity among the audience before the release but i must admit the film almost lived up to the expectations.The love part was dealt exceptionally well and it is the forte for the film.The film depicted the Legacy of Akbar.The film also shown that Akbar did lot good for Hindus. I don't feel,the film will hurt any religion sentiments.The director did an excellent job in maintaining the balance.A R Rahman's background score was very good and music is freshy.And adding to that,the picturisation of the songs is spectacular.Especially Azeem-O-Shaanshahensha,it is definitely one of the best ever pictured songs in the history of Indian Cinema.Overall, a film worth watching.


A timeless classic. Full marks to the director and the cast.

Hrithik is perfection personified as usual. This would be Ash's best performance till date as she does not giggle needlessly or overact at any point.

The supporting cast has done a great job too - especially Punam Sinha and Nikitin. A slight regret is that Sonu Sood should have had a stronger personality for his background, but it is does not impact the movie in any way.

The music is endearing. It will catch up on you as you listen to it a couple of times.

Avoid watching pirated online versions and go watch it in a theater. A pirated version simply cannot capture the grandeur of this movie.


Ashutosh Gowariker's "Jodhaa Akbar" is the most ambitious film to emerge from Bollywood's stables in quite a while. Based on the historical alliance between India's greatest Mughal emperor and a Rajput Hindu princess, Gowariker models his film on the Shakespearean mould of palace intrigue with its collection of warring power brokers, plotting princes, distant queen mothers, bitchy but loyal eunuchs, and concubines galore. It's also something of a gamble: Gowariker has never treaded the historical epic in his earlier features, especially one about India's first attempt at religious pluralism. The results are mixed but laudable, largely because the script adheres to the golden rule about bringing historical episodes to film: know the history, but print the legend.

Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Pocahontas were all real people whose life stories have been told and retold in popular Hollywood films, each retelling adding and embellishing elements of the story which have helped the stories attain the status of pseudoreligious myth. India certainly has a rich history of quasi-historical legends: Anarkali, Heer-Ranjha, Umrao Jaan, Devdas, and now Jodhaa-Akbar.

Let there be no doubt: this is not a documentary nor do the filmmakers make any overt attempt at a documentary characterization of Akbar. History tells us that he was a unique and even megalomaniacal emperor: he had many wives and untold numbers of concubines in a harem which (depending on which account you believe) included a few male lovers, invented his own religion in which he was divine, and held court with atheists, Jews, and Jesuits, a practice which would become decidedly less common with future emperors.

Hrithik Roshan puts up what is probably his best performance as Akbar, though he is hindered by the sheer volume of activity making up the plot: an absent queen mother, sinister foster mother, devious brothers, and, above all, a reluctant wife, all demand his attention. Roshan is at his best when Akbar is wooing a banished Jodhaa and when he ventures off into his kingdom; in many ways, Akbar remains a symbol of tolerance and benign authoritarianism throughoutdespite the fact that he is the one who sets much of the narrative's action into play, surprisingly few scenes give us insight into his inner workings; the opposite is true for Jodhaa.

In the last decade since Aishwariya Rai was introduced to movie-going audiences, she has grown tremendously as an actress. "Jodhaa Akbar" is not her best work, but it offers ample evidence of her growth along the spectrum of Paro-type roles she has enacted since Bhansalli's "Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam" : Nandini of "HDDCS," Paro of "Devdas," the eponymous Umrao Jaan, and now Jodhaa are essentially different interpretations of the same feminine archetype: a Lady Beloved of the Legends, who, having been robbed of all agency because of her gender, comes to embody beauty, suffering, fidelity, and, of course, love.

Nandini was a flighty romantic, Umrao Jaan a forlorn romantic, and Paro a languishing fool who settled for survival when love literally slashed her away. Jodhaa is decidedly not romantic, being that she is an emblem of her family's honor. She is given away as a peace offering to an emperor who demands alliance and submission only to find that he wants to become her ally in love.

Rai plays Jodhaa as a torn victim, but she is not without her own inner steel: she sets her own conditions for marriage, challenges palace customs, and steps on more than few royal toes along the way, notably those of the unforgiving Maham Anga. She's not as wishy-washy as Paro or as flirty as Nandini, but she is undoubtedly cut from the same cloth. And speaking of cutting, she's first rate in the five-minute sword fight between Jodhaa and Akbar, a scene which goes from swordplay to foreplay.

Rai is slated to play Anarkali opposite Ben Kingsley's Shah Jahan in an upcoming film and has yet another role as the pining courtesan in Bhansalli's next, "Bajirao Mastani." Normally, I would accuse her of self-typecasting, but it seems that filmmakers themselves are unwilling or unable to see her differently. Jag Mundhara did with "Provoked," extracting an emotionally naked performance from her which is without question her finest work to date. Will others be as daring to cast her in similar light? Probably not.

The film works best when the narrative focuses on the interaction between its two leads who are more similar than they perhaps ought to be: both are icons of physical beauty, sexuality, and glamour, but thankfully this has been tampered down by Gowariker's interpretation of the characters. True, Akbar probably didn't have Roshan's sinewy physique, and Jodhaa (whose existence continues to be challenged in certain historical readings) probably couldn't write in Arabic and likely never set foot in a kitchen. But such considerations are immaterial when you're telling a love story.

The other striking thing about the film is that for non-native Hindi and Urdu speakers, the dialogue is virtually incomprehensible without the subtitles. The old fashioned Urdu recitations are especially difficult to ascertain, though sometimes the subtitles only further your confusion. One line in "In Lamhon Ke Daman Mein" which is literally translated as "Beauty is imbibed in cherished blandishments." What???

Gowariker makes a valiant attempt at a film that is war epic, love story, and costume drama all in one, but never does "Jodhaa Akbar" approach the charm or finesse of "Lagaan." The main flaw with the film is that it is overly ambitious: Akbar may have been a polymath, but there's no way a single film could encompass all of his endeavors. Gowariker's script strays into too many quarters looking for the historical Akbar and ends up offering what is an unfortunately shallow characterization. Jodhaa, conversely, has less to occupy her and is more clearly defined.

And so in the end it turns out that "Akbar the Great" is, in celluloid terms at least, "Akbar the Pretty Good."


I can't digest that people would protest this amazing film. People need to respect that there are alternate versions of history, and the director states that in the credits from the beginning. If people had some sense, they would respect the integrity of a person committed to bringing history to film with utmost dignity and respect. Those people clashing an protesting the film are idiotic!

The 3 hours flew by because the story was captivating. The actors were amazing, especially Ila Arun...Sonu is also a revelation. Aishwarya was just right! A talent that needs to be recognized, Ash showed how amazing an actor she really is. Hrithik was equally amazing as Aishwarya. I don't understand why there is such sexism in Hindi cinema, the males always get their critiques or praises first and then the females. Well Aishwarya is first here! The music was simply well suited and appropriate. I want A R Rehman to continue being brilliant! That's an order! The director has proved himself yet again that he is simply the best there is in the world of cinema...HE makes South Asians Proud!

I would recommend this film to anyone.


The movie is made on the scale of a classic, but it falls short of the mark because it needs crisper editing. On the whole, it surely leaves a mark! No doubt.

I am not a historian, so I cannot mention how accurately history was depicted in the movie; but the feel of the movie  ah, the feel!  is surely something that takes you to that Era. The clothes, the sets, the jewellery! Let me get rid of the flaws first: Ashutosh Gowariker is not an action director, so the battle scenes and even the action sequences lack panache  when they could have been executed brilliantly  especially since Hrithik Roshan can do action fabulously well. The first battle scenes are reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings, down to the swinging of the swords in linear movement, much like the Elves did when the Orcs attack. The march of the elephants is much like the Mumakil that come out to crunch the riders of Rohan in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Some of the lesser character actors have terrible dialogue delivery. And in most cases, the dialogues themselves get weighed down by verbosity  and surprisingly, the characters who speak Hindi sound more uncomfortable with it then the ones who have to deal with Urdu diction.

Sonu Sood who plays Sujamal, Jodhaa's cousin, enacts his part with restraint and he kept reminding me of a young Amitabh Bachchan. Suhasini Mulay as Jodhaa's mother, Padmavati, is apt for the role, in fact, her stature was wasted in Lagaan and Ashutosh finally casts her perfectly. Kulbhushan Kharbanda as Jodhaa's father, Raja Bharmal, does what he did in Lagaan. This felt like an offshoot of the same character he played there.

Nikitin Dheer who plays Mirza Shariffuddin Hussain has done a good job for a newcomer and he suits the role of a solid warrior who thinks Akbar unfit to rule. Mrs. Punam S. Sinha, who plays Akbar's mother, surprisingly carries off the role with poise  despite a strong accent in her voice that interferes with the use of the Urdu dialect. But Ila Arun performing the role of Maham Anga is someone to watch out for. Her intensity vibrates from the screen as she plays power games with the new woman in Akbar's life. The jealousy she exudes is almost tangible and the pathos of the character's end is touching indeed  she truly deserves a reputable mention.

Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan is  well, Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan. She fits the role because she is usually stiff and aloof. If anyone was to play a queen she would be it  so her role was well-cast. She has worn brown contact lenses for the role, which shows that Indian film-makers are now thinking of certain details that need to be thought about.

Though I am a fan of Hrithik Roshan, I felt that the role of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar did not suit him to a tee  like say, for instance, a Krish or an Aryan Singh. I cannot pinpoint the reason for this, maybe it was the bad moustache sitting above his lips, or maybe because I never pictured Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar to have such a beautiful body. Maybe. But I did say, 'did not suit him to a tee'  which leaves me room to add further, that he tried his best and that shows in his acting. Also the director's vision was to show the Mughal Emperor as a sensitive soul and that is what Hrithik evocatively brings about either in the vulnerability he portrays, while apologising to Maham Anga, or the passion tinged with restraint he exhibits when dealing with his distant wife.

The cinematography by Kiran Deohans is fabulous. The scope of most shots is all-encompassing  but somehow the feel of an epic lags behind. The feeling that one gets is something that closes inward rather than something that opens outward. And in some scenes, the lighting could have vastly been improved upon. Neeta Lulla's costumes are fabulous, too  and the jewellery provided by Tanishq is awe-inspiring. They, combined, bring about the look and feel of the movie more than what actually should be created by the story, the actors and the director.

What touched me most within the entire movie was the picturisation of the song "Khwaja Mere Khwaja". It was completely surreal - the melody and rhythm in this Sufi song mixed with the pristine costumes and depiction of the scene completely enraptured me. Much like the character of Akbar, I felt like standing up and joining the singers in this moment of rhapsody! Truly a delight! Apart from this, I cannot say for certain, I liked this part of the movie or that part. They are parts which have been put into a whole and made coherent, somehow; but yet, I will go back to see this movie one more time. I feel it is a movie that needs to be viewed more than once in order to grasp the different nuances that are spread throughout. It ebbs and flows with its own life and at places, the creators of the movie themselves lost control over it, and that is noticeable. But one cannot blame them for that for that is the wont of any creative process. Although perfection comes when restraint is used over unnecessary unravelling and digression.

In a way, I am glad that the director hasn't used much restraint within the movie, because it would kill this feeling of 'je ne sais quoi' that flows through my enjoyment of this movie.


Period films, when well made are a visual treat. Right from the likes of Mughal-E-Azam till the recent Jodhaa Akbar, these flicks have the power to transport one back in time to relive those ages. What might disconcert many viewers of this genre is the excessive directorial license used by some movie makers to blur lines between fact and fiction. Nevertheless, I would still say that Jodha Akbar is a great effort and a well made film!

Based on the popular folklore, the story is about young Mughal Emperor Jalaluddin Mohammed (Hrithik) getting wedded to the princess of Amer Jodha (Aishwarya), a match arranged for political gain. But, little do both know that this marriage would spark off a fiery romance in the backdrop of young Jalal metamorphosing into an all powerful Emperor Akbar thwarting pressures from family,religious heads & administrative issues.

As such, the story neither has a beginning nor an end that any average moviegoer would look for. In fact, there is a little bit of everything. You can find romance, action including both human and animal duels, large scale wars, songs, great looking lead pair, and most importantly, the opulence and glorification of Akbar’s reign. But, it wouldn’t qualify as a documentary either, since the concept of Jodha in Akbar’s life is in itself fictitious.

The highlight however, is one man who stands out the most in the movie, Hrithik Roshan who has once again proved his star prowess. His talent and hard work is visible in every frame that he is in, be it romancing Jodha or on the battlefield. You would really believe him to be Shahenshah-E-Hindustan (Emperor of India). His shirtless scene with the sword and the sparring contest between the lead pair are extremely praiseworthy.

The Hrithik-Ash chemistry seen in Dhoom 2 has not just been continued here but has taken to a different level altogether. Aishwarya made a great choice to play a proud and defiant princess. The chemistry and the directorial genius can be seen in scenes where Akbar acknowledges his ignorance to read and write, his confusion when offered arati, the sparring and scenes when the couple have their private moments.

With a three and a half hour runtime and lots of sub-plots, Jodha Akbar at times, seems dragged. A tighter script chopping off at least half hour from the film could have helped. The songs, Jashn-E-Bahaara, Azeem-O-Shaan Shahenshah and the sufi Khwaja mere Khwaja stand out. If not a blockbuster, the movie will definitely go down in history as a well made movie. Recommended for a very patient audience only!


Greatest movie ever seen on the big screen!!The performances are nothing short of fantastic .Hrithik Roshan becomes Akbar and not once do you feel you are watching Hrithik on the screen. He is beyond brilliant and carries the film on his broad shoulders throughout. The way he emotes and delivers his lines shows that he is a super performer. This easily has to rank as the best performance of his career.

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan matches Hrithik and delivers a wonderful performance as well. she looks ethereal  a compliment she has heard a trillion times before. What's new in that? But watch her emote in this film. Although she does not have as many lines to deliver or have as much screen time, she still makes you sit up and take notice of her through her extremely expressive eyes. She emotes superbly with them and it only enhances her performance. This will go down as one of her career best performances. Also, the Hrithik and Aishwarya chemistry is as flawless as ever. They sizzle every scene they are in together.

My advice to the audience is to not miss Jodhaa Akbar because doing so would be a huge mistake. It is a masterpiece and a definite must see. Don't miss it!


I am sure you would be wondering why I am reviewing a movie which was released more than 1 1/2 years ago...truth be told, I was not much inclined to watch this mega-budget, megastar portrayal of the legendary love story of Emperor Akbar & Jodha...the reason behind this is that neither Hrithik Roshan, nor Aishwarya Rai feature on my list of watchable actors...I attribute their success more to their good looks, shrewd career moves and a healthy dose of sheer good luck...

I did not have much of a choice when my brother-in-law bought a CD of this movie home & my wife insisted that we should view it as a family...I have been hearing rave reviews till now & so was just a little bit intrigued...however after sitting through the entire movie, I am wondering what the hype was all about...without doubt, this is an above-average film and has been made with a lot of care & effort....however does it deserve all the accolades heaped on it...can I, for once, cry out "The Emperor has no clothes"? Let's take a look at the various reasons why I am panning this movie - 1) Hrithik, with his chocolate boy good looks & razor-sharp features is Bollywood star material...however he does not fit in the stereotype of a powerful Mughal Emperor...when you think about Akbar, a powerfully built, swarthy & regal figure springs to mind and Hrithik is anything but...with his soft, melting eyes he looks more like the poster boy of movies such as Dhoom 2 & Krish...

Instead an unknown actor with a commanding presence would have better suited this role...I think Hrithik would be more suited to play the part of Jehangir, in a historic movie, as Jehangir was known to be a typical ladies man...

2) Aishwarya Rai as a Rajput princess is a joke...same as Hrithik, she lacks the stature to play such a part...she is pure eye candy...her voice is weak & she sounds absurd delivering her lines...my choice to play this part would have been Sushmita Sen...

3) The plot of this movie is 2/3rds pure fantasy...Akbar did not have a wife by the name of Jodha...he married a Rajput princess called Hira Kunwar, who promptly converted to Islam and was called Mariam-ul-zamani...she was one of Akbar's many wives and bore him his heir apparent Jehangir...

4) It is not evident whether the director meant for this film to be a love saga or a political drama...too many sub-plots spring out throughout the length of the movie, but get resolved quickly & conveniently...it seems the director wanted to pack in as much masala as possible, culminating in an unnecessary fight scene...

5) Akbar's birth name was Badruddin Mohammed Akbar, after his grandfather Shaikh Ali Akbar and "Akbar" was not a title conferred on him...

5) Akbar was better known as a master strategian & shrewd administrator, not for his chiseled physique...he was also not monogamous as is depicted in the movie, but like other emperors of his time had innumerable wives & concubines...though he has been painted as being broad-minded & liberal as compared to other Mughals, Akbar was far from the benign & forgiving monarch portrayed here...he was responsible for slaughtering thousands of men, women & children, destroying hundreds of temples & ransacking scores of towns & villages...finally no Indian emperor would be fool hardy enough to challenge his adversary to single combat & stake his entire kingdom on the outcome of the fight...

6) The battle scenes are evidently inspired by (read - copied from) Hollywood movies such as Troy & Alexander...however after watching the realistic, gruesome wars depicted in the latter, these appear as tame, watered down versions...the climatic confrontation in this movie reminds too much of the awe-inspiring stand off between Hector & Achilles in Troy...

I admired Ashutosh Gowarikar for his original & entertaining Lagaan and also for his thought-provoking, soul stirring Swades...Aamir & Shahrukh Khan managed to get in the skin of the characters they were playing to such an extent that after watching these movies, you do not remember the stars, you only remember Bhuvan & Mohan Bhargav...here, you are only watching Hrithik who has played romantic lead in several other movies...seems like Ashutosh has succumbed to the practice of making politically correct, commercially successful movies...

However, to give the devil his due & end on a positive note, several events in the movie are portrayed accurately...the look of the movie is grand...Mughal & Rajput cultures are depicted in royal splendour...dialogues are well written...some of the characters seem to have walked out of a history text book page...weapons & jewellery used have a very realistic look...


Simply put, there's nothing to be gained from watching "Homebodies". It's not funny, it's not believable for a minute, it's not entertaining, and it moves (fittingly perhaps?) at the pace of a funeral. The blind guy is creepy, though. (*1/2)


Imagine that you look like a grandfather in real life. Imagine that your right palm has been amputated but you play a violin with a bow strapped to the maimed arm. Imagine a director wanting to use you as a lead actor in a feature film. Imagine you win a Cannes Film Festival Best Actor prize for the "Un Certain Regard" section of the festival for the role. It's not a dream--it happened to Mexican actor Don Angel Tavira in the Mexican film "El Violin" or the Violin, directed by Francisco Vargas.

I caught up with this film at the on-going International Film Festival of Kerala, India, where it won the Silver Crow Pheasant, an award for the best competition entry chosen by the delegates (in contrast to the jury). The award was bestowed on the basis of votes from 6200 delegates attending the festival.

I do not know how Tavira lost his palm but I learned that the director made the film keeping the future actor in mind. Tavira looks like Charles Vanel in his later years. He exudes a sincerity that touches the viewer and is not easily forgettable. He mixes sincerity with the wizened touch of an old fox.

The film is similar to Irish filmmaker Ken Loach's "The wind that shakes the barley" in many ways. Only "The violin" is shot in black and white while Ken Loach shot his film in lush color. The photography is in no way amateurish. Both films are about the poor fighting mighty oppressors--in the case of "El Violin" poor villagers fighting a cruel Mexican army.

Finer points of the film include a marvelous dialog between grandfather and grandson that speaks highly of the director screenplay writer's Vargas' writing capability. Yet he has only made four films.

As one might have guessed the violin case and violin player are key to the development of the film. Music is a great leveler--the brutes and the aesthetes both appreciate good music.

Vargas choice to film in black and white is commendable. The violence and rape that launches the film is not extended into the film as other directors would have been tempted to do. Interestingly the strength of the film is that it does not show violence at later stages--something that Ken Loach could not restrain himself from. Violence for Vargas is not gratuitous--it is to provide the focal point. The rest of the violence is only for the viewer to imagine. Now that's good cinema.

This time Vargas had a great actor. Can he make equally good films without such innate talent of Don Tavira? My guess is that he can repeat this feat with others too. Vargas has an eye for talent, for good photography and a flair for good scriptwriting.


An old grandfather, Don Plutarco plays the violin and his son plays the guitar, while the child grandson collects some pennies in a rural poor town.

But this small peasant Indian family has double activity and face a life or death situation. And don Plutarco has a risky idea to help his son, with the only things he has, his violin, courage, and ultimately, dignity.

However the film opens with some violent scenes, the rest of the movie saves this by showing the struggle of don Plutarco to aide his family, while the Mexican army occupies the nearby hills in a mean way. It shows the conditions in which this family and its community live. And a glimpse of how perhaps the mainstream Mexican society makes business with its Indians in time of need.

To people used to graphic and loud drama, this film perhaps will not be easy to appreciate while watching it. Shot in black and white, the only music in the film is the violin of don Plutarco.

But it is the story and the superb character of don Plutarco (Angel Tavira)that make the cornerstone of the movie. This character cannot be played in a more authentic way than this. Anyone who visits any Mexican town will find a don Plutarco and his grandson in the corner or every plaza, with Tavira's humble eyes, mixed with strength and sincerity.

The film tries to show what is ignored (puposedly or not) mostly by the majority of urban Mexicans. And the decisions made and feelings that the old violinist transmits, go beyond and make this film a universal and moving story.


The film starts with a horrifying scene where uniformed soldiers tortures a group of villagers. In the following minutes however, we do not come across with the same violent scenes. It is a very good way of creating a gripping storyline and that is the most important asset of the director and film's itself. After seeing the beginning, we think that something is bound to happen to one of the main characters.

The Violin is a black and white movie and it gives the audience an impression of a documentary film from time to time. The main three characters the old man Plucarto, his son and grandson all excellent. But of course, the old man should have the biggest slice of the compliments.

We congratulate the director for creating an amazing movie with such brilliant cast. **** out of *****


My hat's off to this little,but powerful film from Mexico. 'El Violin' (or as it's being called in it's U.S. release,'The Violin')is a powerful political potboiler about an unnamed Latin American village, being bullied by government troops (sound only too familiar?),against an elderly musician,minus one hand, who still manages to play violin by tying the bow to the stump of his missing hand. This film is being compared to Ken Loach's 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley', but reminds me more of certain unpleasant events that took place in Central America back in the 1980's (does El Salvador strike a familiar chord?). The film is shot in black & white, giving it a look that may remind you of some of the classic Italian dramas (post realist) of post WWII (hint: DeSica's 'Bitter Grapes'). Although the film was completed in 2005, it is just now getting something resembling distribution. A film that is well worth seeking out.


That little black and white film is in a way fascinating because it is not for us, its western audience, attached to Mexico only but to any south American country where the presence of Indians is important and where these Indians are systematically victimized and pressurized by the conservative if not reactionary governments and their armed forces. This film may explain why so many of these countries have lately voted for popular candidates against their establishments. Yet the film is in a way very passé, and even irritating. We have seen and heard too much about these brutalities. They exist but what is the film trying to do ? To make us feel guilty and cry, and then open our purses and give ? Probably. But time has passed and too many of these gifts of ours have ended who knows where, but not on the table of the poor. Time has also ripened and finally, at least through ballots and ballot-boxes, these people have decided to recapture their destinies and to repossess their riches that had been confiscated, maybe with a commercial contract signed by a powerless insect in front of the all-powerful business vultures coming from the West. Finally these people seem to have decided to do what they have to do to be free and then to make the profit of their work stay in their country and help their people, their children. Salvador Allende has finally resurrected from his quasi-execution by Pinochet. El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido. The film though shows how tricky things may be. The grandfather thinks he is getting the mickey out of the officer with his violin and his cornfield. In fact the officer is playing cat and mouse with him, as revealed when the violin disappears from the grandfather's ammunitions hole in the cornfield and reappears in the hands of that officer. Then the grandfather understands he has to face this situation, confront it and hence to die, since anyway all the leaders of the revolutionary armed group is was part of are prisoners and will soon be dead. This reveals that the guard who gave the grandfather a weapon twice pretending it was a taco for the road must have had an equivalent spy on the other side since the military forces knew every intention of the revolutionary forces. The real sad note is the end, with the grandson playing his father's guitar but this time not to cover up some plotting, but only to survive and feed himself. In other words military action is never the right solution because it creates human suffering and it changes nothing : it seems that military action always leads to the victory of the most conservative and reactionary.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


Although it flirts with agitprop and its stereotypes, The Violin is ultimately a small, moving, human drama centered on the perseverance, against a ruthless military government, of a poor, frail, self-effacing grandfather and his family. The late Ángel Tavira is excellent as the grandfather -- the human face of an underground resistance -- whose weapon of choice is a violin. The long shots, in black-and-white, of Tavira on his borrowed mule reminded me of the scene in The Grapes of Wrath where Tom Joad leads his family of Dust Bowl émigrés across the ridge of a California hill or the panoramic shots of Sicilian hillsides in Godfather II. It's man in nature, man against a heavily armed nature, and tragically nature wins. Good independent film.


The lives of peasants living in a remote Mexico village are examined in this marvelous film by director Francisco Vargas. The situation parallels, in a way, the conflict in that country that has been in the news for a few years.

As the film opens one can see a prisoner being tortured by a soldier. The scene changes to a bucolic setting in which an old man, his son, and grandson are seen boarding a makeshift truck transporting them to a nearby town. The older man, Plutarco, is a violinist and his son, Genaro, plays the guitar. They play for patrons at a restaurant for tips which the grandson, Lucio collects. With their meager earnings they get to eat. One thing is established, Genaro is part of the rebels that are fighting in the mountains nearby.

The story changes quite drastically as the men go back to their village. There are soldiers everywhere setting their town on fire. Genaro, who is involved with the rebels flees to a safer place, leaving the older man and his son to fend for themselves. Plutarco wants to help his son but because he must travel through the soldier's camp in order to go to his small piece of land, he becomes the object of curiosity as the fiddler who becomes a figure of amusement for the commander of the troop. Plutarco's violin will become key to the story, as is his relationship with the top army man will be put to a test. Plutarco and Genaro will be together at the end. These men, like most of their friends and neighbors seem doomed because the unfair way life dealt with them.

"El violin" is an unique film in which poverty and necessity have made the peasants take things into their own hands trying to get rid of the oppressing and ruthless soldiers that keep them down. It seems that the poor men one sees are part of people that are kept in poverty throughout different generations. The peasants get our admiration for being noble and having to put up with conditions no human being should have to face.

The acting is excellent in general. Best of all, Angel Tavira, who is seen as the proud and stoic Plutarco. One can see in this man's eyes a distinct hatred for the men that keep him down, yet, he makes a fatal mistake that will prove fatal. Gerardo Taracena has some good moments as Genaro and Gilberto Palacios appears as the commander.

One of the best achievements in the film is the crisp black and white cinematography of Martin Boege and Oscar Hijuelos. This is a major triumph for Francisco Vargas who has created a satisfying story about the oppressed people from Mexico.


This low-key film brings to life the struggle between the army and rebellious peasants in 1970's Mexico through the words and actions of an unlikely hero, the elderly, diminutive Don Plutarco Hidalgo (played by Angel Tavira, a real-life violinist).

Plutarco, owner of the eponymous violin, is seen early on in the film playing his instrument to earn a living and to give expression to the feelings of himself and his companions. In the city he scratches a living from busking with the assistance of his son and grandson, but later his instrument offers consolation and catharsis to his fellow-villagers when they are uprooted from their homes by brutal Mexican soldiers in search of rebels harboured in the rural community.

When Plutarco has his violin confiscated by the local military commander and is forced to play for the latter's edification this eloquently communicates the way in which simple rural folk had their voices suppressed and their livelihoods taken away by army cruelty. Whilst Plutarco cunningly works to aid the rebels against the military there are shocking scenes of military brutality, which presage a bleak ending for the protagonists; by the end of this film I was among several members of the audience biting their nails with concern.

This is quite a short film (a little over an hour and a half) but its characters are powerfully portrayed and enlivened by well-written and sometimes witty dialogue. A special mention must be made for the black-and-white cinematography: the film looks superb.


In a scene that can only be described as a piece of virtuoistic movie-making: the past, present, and future of a vanquished people are conjured up by visual means with one unbroken pass of the camera. Late in the night, Don Plutarco(Angel Tavira) answers his grandson's question about returning home with a story that spans the breadth of time. It's a campfire tale not meant for roasting marshmallows; a homespun creation myth rendered by the elder which coincides with the sudden departure of the grandfather as the scene's focal point, when the camera tilts down, then passes slowly across an expanse of fire and grassland. Moving to the right, moving away from the human subjects, the distance between the disembodied voice and its physical source creates a spatial chasm that denotes fluid time, as the grandfather narrates about an epoch in the future which he might not live to see. The old man's expiration is represented by a tree, as the camera's ongoing verticality then turns towards the heavens, at the moon, which transforms Don Plutarco into a memory, a voice-over. From deep space, what transpires around the campfire(the smoke billowing off the ground has a prehistoric look) is the past, after all.

Near the end of "El Violin", Don Plutarco tells the captain(Dagoberto Gama), "The music is over," and closes his violin case, at gunpoint. As he makes eye-contact with the captured resistance fighters(his son included) being escorted by force into a holding cell, the violinist realizes that he had become a collaborator for the enemy against his own volition. Earlier in the film, the Hidalgo men(Plutarco and Cenaro, played by Gerardo Taracena) perform as a guitar and violin combo to disinterested locals who ignore the third Hidalgo, Don Plutarco's grandson, in his approachment for spare change. Although the violinist helps the resistance in an auxiliary capacity, he's a performer first, who succumbs to the lure of a captive audience, as in the scene when the old man puts on an outdoor recital for the laxing soldiers. Even worse, Plutarco is delighted by the captain's purported love for music, perhaps reminding him of his own son, as both blood relative and blood-shedder both use wartime as an excuse to pursue this exalted abstract language of melodious sound. For awhile, the violinist forgets his agenda, and smiles, in the midst of their affable exchange. The two men clearly enjoy each other's company. The captain never suspects that Don Plutarco has political ties to the local militia.

But lest the grandfather forget, the captain puts on his helmet before he takes leave, rupturing this temporality of common ground, propagated by the universal human need for art. With his military regalia completed by the finishing headgear, Don Plutarco's friend has the look of institutionalized murder, but he grants the old man permission to check on his crops; the cornstalk fortress that holds a secret stash of ammunition. To make room for the bullets, the old man removes his violin and lays it to rest in the pinebox crate. It's a fitting gesture, this burial, since the violin, once symbolizing the music of the tyrannized, now epitomizes the music of collusion. Don Plutarco realizes this, after the vanishing act in the cornfield(on his return trip to retrieve the violin), when the captain emerges from the compound with his stolen instrument in the autocrat's clutches. Through no fault of his own, the intelligence he acquired about the military's propsed ambush on the resistance fighters had arrived too late, but in spite of his innocence, Don Plutarco feels the weight of perceived traitorship bearing down on him, as his son and brothers-in-arms file past the disgraced musician. That's because his innocence has an egregious technicality; he had fiddled for the enemy, and liked it.


Ist this really it? The one we've been waiting for? The worst movie of all times?

Well, let's say it could be very well it! To be honest, even if I am usually more toward "good" movies, I very much enjoy a good comedy once in a while. Like American Pie or most of the Farrelly Movies.

Being a guy - what can I say - I even more enjoy a comedy with pretty girls and even some nice b**bs in it. I'm only human ...

But not even the bared breasts which are shown throughout the movie, without any reason I might add, can be reason enough to live through the torture of this brainless, heartless, meaningless piece of youknowwhat.

My advice? Don't, Don't! DON'T !!!!!


I liked Pretty Cool one a lot more, had some great comedy, this one didn't seem to have a plot or story, the best actress was the science girl, she has potential to be a good actress I think. And I also noticed one of the actresses was the only one to run around with her top off all of the time displaying her silicon all of the time (perhaps that's all she could do to get the part & that's as far as her acting skills go) pretty sad, this guys other movies look a lot better. to top it off the DVD froze toward the end, it was the only one available at blockbuster, guess they only carry one copy at a time. I see this guy's next movie will star Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards, that one looks like it will be one worth watching in theatres, not just because of the talented actresses but because it sounds like it has a great plot and story. I suggest you all check that one out as well and pass on this one if you haven't already.


Pretty Cool Too made me laugh. It's campy comedy with nudity. That's a winning formula in my book. Plenty of babes run wild on camera. Many of them are head turners. My favorite was Jennifer Day. She is the cat's meow. If I ever saw director Rolfe Kanefsky in a bar I would buy them a beer and say I was a fan. Once again my GF complained that Pretty Cool Too was mindless nudity in a plot less movie. She has poor taste in movies. She thought Animal House was stupid. Pretty Cool Too has plenty of laughs and nudity if you are in to that sort of thing l am. Rolfe Kanefsky wasn't trying to make Ghandi. This is a great rent when you want to tune in and tune out without having to think to much.


This is the type of goofy, sexy romp Cinemax used to show on weekends in the 80's (before they switched to soft porn). It's not going to rank up there with Dr. Strangelove or Tootsie, but it's good for some silly fun. The lead actress Julia Lehman is very cute, and I hope to see more of her. If you enjoyed the teen comedies of the 80s like Weird Science, Screwballs, HOTS, and Loose Screws, this is a movie for you. It's a bit short; they could have added some more scenes away from the primary two locations and spent more time at the webcast house. I would recommend it for a weekend rental. If you like silly laughs to counter all the serious dramas flooding the market and to take the edge off the rat race, this is a good movie.


Big relief here that Bates's modern classic has not only survived its transition to the big screen but has actually been enhanced by it. It's difficult to find anything in this made-for-television adaptation that is at odds with the book of the same name. The characters are well cast, in particular David Jason as Pop Larkin and Pam Ferris as Ma, who live life with abandonment and cavalier disregard for society's expectations. The conversion of Charlie, a most challenging task in story and film, is accomplished with care and precision, Catherine Zeta Jones as Mariette providing the required enticement. This is a highly entertaining and deeply satisfying adaptation, and richly captures the life of post-war Britain. Perfick!


I love this series, it's such a feelgood programme. I really wish life could always turn out Perfick, like it does for the Larkins! What I love about them, especially Pop, is their irrepressible joy in life and ability to see the best in every situation. Pop can turn a wet miserable weekend into a joyous romp by sheer force of personality. Wonderful.

(Someone from USA said this on this comments page; "We saw an episode on TV the other day and Peter Jackson got a director credit, but I don't see him listed here or this series listed on Jackson's page. The credits show several directors and it seems to be common practice to have guest directors." I think they're thinking of a different Peter Jackson, the well-known director. The cinematography on this series was done by a Peter Jackson, which is a pretty common name I suppose.)


There's something very endearing about The Darling Buds of May. The bright English country side coupled with bright and life filled characters made this show very heart warming and easy to watch. I remember watching it with great interest as an adolescent and it's something that's stayed with me into my adulthood.

For it's time, The Darling Buds of May was showing a different side of British society. Although the Larkins weren't nessicarilly "wealthy" they were happy and they were very supportive as family. It's a breath of fresh air to watch such characters and the situations they get into.

I recommend watching this show, it's heartfelt, touching, the characters are very real and the scenery is breath taking.


Just viewed the DVDs. If ever one wants to see a series that makes one feel good at the end, hire these.

I wish I could own the series.

Catherine Zita Jones is absolutely one of the most beautiful British actresses out of UK, and also a good actress also.

I loved the context of the series. And Pop and Mum were great, never got married etc., and Mum a little heavy after giving birth to what 'seven kids' was a great cook etc.

I challenge anyone who watches this series not to feel hungry watching them all enjoy eating, even if they have to kill the goose etc.

A great British produced series, wish there were more!


I will make a confession to start off with-: I haven't read any of the books, and I really would like to. Putting that aside, The Darling Buds of May is a perfect piece of escapism for a weekend evening. It is endearing. It is funny. And it is easy to like. I see it with my grandmother and she loves it too. Here, there is something for everybody of all ages, humour, charm, fun and maybe even nostalgia.

One definite plus is how the show is filmed. The camera work is so fluid and beautiful, and the lighting so bright and perfect. Those images of the English countryside gives a real sense of warmth and endearment to the proceedings, and the scenery in general is breath taking. The main theme is memorable and relaxing to the ears, and the accompanying themes are just as delightful for anybody who watches.

The humour in Darling Buds of May is just right. It is never overdone or underplayed-it is just right, and doesn't spoil the show's appeal at all. And the Larkin family! Where do I start? What wonderful, completely likable characters. While not wealthy, they are happy together and supportive of one another and that was a true delight to see. I will admit, I really wanted to be part of the Larkin family.

It isn't just the quality of the script that makes the show so much fun. It is also some truly priceless scenes like the cat fight at the strawberry picking and any other situation that the Larkins get into. They live in abandonment and are disregarded by society, yet all of them are such lovable characters, and some of the run ins with the secondary characters are just hilarious.

The acting is exceptional from all involved. I am a big fan of David Jason, who has proved himself a talented, funny and versatile actor. He is a sheer delight here as Pop, a character that makes a dull day enormously satisfying just like that. I love Pam Ferris too, and she gives yet another strong performance as Ma. Then you have Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones at her loveliest, and Phillip Franks as Charlie, whose conversion is taken with unusual care and precision.

Overall, at 17 I adore the Darling Buds of May. It is perfect for anybody. It is so easy to like, and really relaxing to watch, as well as richly detailing post-war Britain. This is in no way a criticism, but if anything I do wish the show lasted longer. It is perfect entertainment for a dull day or a free weekend evening. Nothing else really to say, other than a must-watch! 10/10 Bethany Cox


I would gladly give this show a 9 except that I can't stand the Ulles.

This show is a masterpiece, traveling the globe, hitting as many fun points as they can pack in to a small TV segment. Watching it in HD makes you feel like you're there and makes me want to travel so much more.

However, the husband/wife team that have been selected to follow leaves something to be desired. While I'm pretty sure they were selected to represent the "typical" traveler, that's not entertaining on TV. I want my hosts to have some incite, some fun facts, interesting stories, deep reflection. The Ulles just think everything is "amazing" or "cool" or "wow". And the wife is afraid of heights, yet about half the things they do require heights and she just exclaims how scared she is every time...and how happy she was she ignored it after they're done. Ugh. After the first 10 times you'd think she'd learn.

Ditch the boring unlovable couple and keep hitting amazing destinations.


If I was a foreigner and I heard that Americans were coming to visit my city, I would cringe if I had seen this show beforehand. The wife is not bad at all, however the husband... is an idiot. Representing America in a foreign country you should be the epitome of manners and etiquette. Instead, I see on the show when the idiot asks for more hot sauce in Mexico there was no please and no thank you, just an assumption and very little effort put in to speak the native language. It is great to see many of these places that I may one day visit but now, I have to make up for the ignorance and feigned appreciation of the Americans who ventured there first? Thanks... appreciate it. I would really like it more if 1) The husband at least was replaced... ugh how can she stand him; 2) The couple or maybe even single person.... yeah that would be nice studied up on the local culture and customs and language prior to visiting anywhere. And for anyone that doesn't know, # 2 above is an unspoken requirement for traveling to any foreign land. It is about respect for the people and the culture and the understanding that there is MUCH MUCH more beyond the borders of our country that is has a depth of history and culture much greater than ours. We are babies in the eyes of the world and I find that often, the uneducated traveler behaves as one as well.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way about this show. It had lots of potential, but is ultimately ruined by the vapid hosts. There's nothing wrong with having a "normal everyday" couple to host a travel show like this, but if you're going to do that, its best to not have the couple upfront and center the whole time.

Every place they go to is "the best place I've ever been", each and every hotel they go to is "the best hotel I've ever stayed at", etc. At the end of each episode, the guy and the girl get to say a few words about the place they just visited, and its always the exact same boring crap they said about the last place, but with a different place name. Couldn't the producers have just written something for them to say? As much as I'd like to say this show is great with the exception of thew boring hosts, I can't. The hosts infest this show. They absolutely ruin it.


This series had a lot of potential and I sat through 3 episodes of it. The hosts completely ruined it as they are so ignorant of travel and have nothing interesting to say other than a place being "incredible" or "awesome". They keep trying to justify the fact they are now "travellers" as they get an all expenses paid TV series around the world, and clearly had never stepped outside of their state back in America.

For backpackers this series is a real turn off since everything they do is dependent on a guide and with 5 star luxuries from the hotels to the activities they do that most travellers would not afford (or care for). There is no sense of adventure or excitement here! They seriously need to go and do some travelling independently and really see the world!


What starts out as a possibly great opportunity to see some of the 1000 places turns out to be mostly a boring home video of two very boring people, the Ulles, Melanie and Albin. If you like to listen to interesting comments, like WOW, gee, cool, like oh my god or oh my gosh, amazing, and to top it off, incredible, etc., etc., then this is for you.

If you want to actually learn something about the places they visit, forget it. I would estimate that there may be 15 minutes at best, of actual footage that would inform you about these normally interesting places. The rest is the boring home movie of Melanie and Albin. In fact this should have been titled: Melanie and Albin's Unincredible Adventure.

If you have to watch this I would suggest you TiVo it so you can just fast forward through the Ulles adventures in banality in order to pick out the 15 minutes or so of what you tuned in for in the first place.


I looked forward to viewing the DVD that included Peru, South Africa and India. Unfortunately, it became clear that adventure for the featured traveling couple, and the producers of the show was tepid at best. They stay in the poshest hotels, take first class trains and dine in four star restaurants. While a massage at an infinity pool must be nice, one doesn't need to travel across the world for a spa treatment. The people you'll meet in luxury hotels, trains and restaurants are wealthy travelers. With that as a mainstay, why would your experience be any different in India or South America? You will likely miss the opportunity of absorbing the color, sounds, flavor and spirit of the country. Melanie and Albin brought nothing to the show; their conversations and reactions which lack insight, reflection or intelligence was baffling. "Wow! Awesome! This is so beautiful! That was so fun!" If the show was created to inspire or educate, it was woefully unsuccessful.


Formidable film built on an original scenario, Two men in the city is a load against the death penalty and a dark report on the incapacity of the Republic to grant one second chance to that which made an error. But it is also, quite simply, the tragic history of a man. Four years after their Clan of the siciliens, José Giovanni again joins together the couple, Gabin/Delon in a film . It calls also upon one of known leading man , with dishevelling Michel Bouquet in relentless police , Bernard Giraudeau who plays the son of the teacher Cazeneuve, the presenter Christine Fabréga, his wife, Cecile Vassort ,his daughter.Victor Lanoux , Gerard Depardieu and Gabrille Briand three mafias, One could say, in a certain manner, which we all are of Gino Strabliggi..... that's a simple existence transfers with the drama. What is striking, it is to see the life gradually escaping the character literally from film. A combination of circumstances: a mourning which pushes to start again elsewhere, the chance which puts to you in the presence of harmful characters, voluntarily or involuntarily, the feeling of injustice in justice.

The interpretation of Alain Delon one of his best in his career. One will never say enough the importance of the glances in this film. Delon deploys a varied and sensitive "pallet" . Jean Gabin, to his practice, brings a considerable appreciation to the interest of film. Narrator and the pilot main thing of the drama, it systematically replaces the pseudo truths in their true contradiction with the owner of the printing works which employs Gino Strabliggi, humanity in a terribly mechanical and cold landscape.

It is necessary to have seen the two almost dumb scenes in which the two actors exchange glances, that of the visiting room and that of the execution. Into the latter, Gino Strabliggi slips to Germain Cazeneuve "- I am afraid" like that of a son to his father.

last word ,the original music of Philippe Sarde, perfectly adapted to film; light and sad old story... like the destiny.


Two Men in Town/Deux Hommes dans la Ville is a surprisingly good drama from Jose Giovanni, whose own prison experiences were the basis of Jacques Becker's Le Trou. The same sense of working from first-hand knowledge is omnipresent in this drama about Alain Delon's paroled convict trying to start a new life with the help of prison educator Jean Gabin and almost making a go of it until Michel Bouquet's local flic goes all Inspector Javert on him and does everything in his power to engineer his return to crime. Despite some hairspray style slo-mo montages and some awkward construction in the middle, the film manages to make it's potentially clichéd story both involving and convincing, not least because of Giovanni's great sense of place and motion, with his fluid camera-work particularly striking.

Gabin is more engaged by the material than usual at this stage in his career and Delon is surprisingly good, especially in his all too convincing final scene, while a young Gerard Depardieu turns up in a couple of scenes offering three generations of iconic Gallic cinematic losers in one film. The crusading tone of the last third is a tad heavy, but the ending - both ritually stylised and yet realistically performed - makes its point far better than the courtroom speeches.


I love Alain Delon and Jean Gabin and french cinema. So I was high on expectations when i began this film. It's good. It's a simple story, that moves organically and is well photographed and acted....it is not a typical film....and hence needs a bit of time to get into the mood of the film. But it's a stirring story and gradually you understand and get emotionally involved in the characters. And you feel Oh my God....this is dangerous, tragic. I hate comments that reveal the complete story....no...but i loved the character of the vindictive cop. A guy i hated... The end of the film reminded me of Kieslowski's A short film about killing. For those seeking entertainment, watch the Alain Delon thrillers featured in the DVD extras. This is a serious film but it's eminently watchable and has a powerful underplayed drama.

The actors are a treat to watch. I love Jean Gabin, though i must confess, i've only seen him play the old man.

He'd have been as stupendous when young. His face is a landscape of stories.

The ideal double bill would be this film, followed by Henri Vernuil's Any number can win...with the same principle cast.

Since i'm from India, I must add here that we have our own Alain Delon here....Saif Ali Khan. A handsome intense actor who is right now very happening.

Not a date movie for sure but a good film nevertheless.


Germaine Cazeneuve (Jean Gabin) is an educator of delinquents and state prisoners, his job is to help them reform and adjust to a new life outside of prison. He pleads for leniency in the case of safe cracker Gino Strabliggi (Alain Delon) who is up for parole after 10 years inside, against their better judgement the parole board agrees to Cazeneuve's request on condition that he takes responsibility for Strabliggi. Gino, as an ex con, is forced by French law to take residence anywhere but in a city and so he settles with his young wife in the country, where fate turns against him, as first his wife is killed, then he is hounded by his former crime gang to return to his former lifestyle and also one of the arresting officers from his case years previously, the now chief inspector Goitreau is in charge of the area and has a grudge against him and becomes even more suspicious when he finds out Gino's new girlfriend Lucie is working in the local bank With the help of his now good friend Cazeuenve and his new girlfriend Lucie (Mimsy Farmer) he tries to battle his demons and fight against the troublesome cop.

Jose Giovanni (born Joseph Damiani) is perhaps best known as a writer of some renown in France, in films like Melvilles Le Deuxième soufflé, and Classe tous risques (1960) his writings usually centering on crime, an area he knew only too well, as he was on death row in France from 1948-1956 before gaining a Presidential pardon. While inside he penned the script for Le Trou, French slang for prison literally meaning "The Hole", a script that would gain him one of his first steps into the film industry, when it was filmed by Jacques Becker, who turned out one of the best prison films ever made. Deux hommes dans la ville is a film that was obviously close to his heart as it doesn't reveal its true motives until the end, where we are treated to an emotional climax on death row, with the usual last minute wait on a pardon. The film itself is an excellent character study, made all the better by two fine performances by the Gabin and Delon. Gabin giving us a truly world weary performance, his voice-over at times heartbreaking, as he comes to terms with the injustices he encounters on a daily basis. Delon portrays the truly reformed character Gino, struggling against the injustice of a criminal and legal system that still lives in the dark ages with a deliciously watchable class. The film struggles at times, especially early on to keep cohesion, Giovanni seemingly trying to fit to many characters and too much plot into a short time span, its almost like this film should have had a running time of 4 hours and he struggled to leave out areas that were obviously dear to his heart. Still though it's a classy film, beautifully filmed and with a truly epic and emotive score by Philippe Sarde. Giallo queen Farmer is also pretty good and there a very charismatic cameo from Gerard Depardieu as a cocky young criminal, who's not that impressed by Gino's past glories.


(SPOILERS) This is the story of a man (Delon) who commits a mistake (a bank robbery) and, although being an excellent person, is never given a second chance by so-called justice. The film is slow (but certainly not boring) as we assist to the development of the character; we see him recovering from 10 years of prison after the bank assault. We also see his love for a first woman, who dies in a car crash (note that nobody actually goes to jail for that "accident" -it was during a car race, and Delon and his wife find themselves right into it without not even knowing it-). After that, he recovers and moves to Montpellier, always under the assistance of his protector (and narrator of the film), where he finds a good job and falls in love with a wonderful girl who happens to work in a bank. Misluck follows then. A "fair" cop who was in his first arrest ten years ago finds him in Montpellier and immediately believes that he is running after mischief. As the cop harasses him (and his wife and his friends) more and more, and tries to link him with another Bank robbery that he has definitely not committed, Delon founds himself hopelessly trapped in the net of justice. Exhasperated, Delon finally kills the cop in the wave of rage (quite understandably) and predictably he is sent to jail and sentenced to death. Death sequence that follows (operated by the all-times star french guillotine) is tactful and strikingly hard, and (thankfully) rather short. The film is quite surprising and the sequence of acts matches like an infernal machine of doom: he main character cannot escape but can see it approaching (so can we). All in all is a perfect rebuke to the hypocrisy of the so-called Justice. A must watch.


There are only two reasons to see this film: 1. Jean Gabin and 2. An almost flawless example of a certain zeitgeist of the early 70:s. There has been several films made in several countries around the basic theme: in an evil system it's the oppressors that are responsible for creating criminals, who are actually themselves victims of a faulty society, therefore criminals should be set free and the system overturn - a new, better system shall come in which, by default, there will be no crime because we won't have any cause for it. All based on a Marxist conception of criminality in modern society that, by the way, still after 40 years rules among most criminologists in western Europe. All this is handed down to us by an extremely heavy-handed director (Giovanni is responsible for writing some of the best scripts in French cinema and should have left directing to directors), complete with lines such as "People will march on the streets!" and Gabin's final judgment on society "It's a killing machine". An utterly unbelievable criminal-turned-angel Delon tries to go straight after a 10-year sentence but the effort is shattered by an utterly unbelievably evil police detective. All this is witnessed by an elderly parole officer (Gabin) with a heart of gold. The plot is predictable, the end inevitable, and only the worst Hollywood-moralizing studio efforts are better at hammering a message down your throat. Here the message seems to be political while in Hollywood it's often rather religious, but the technique is the same, and strangely, you can hardly miss the Devil and God working around a hapless Man even here. Unless you're a fan of the great Jean Gabin, it's a waste of time.


"The Gypsy Moths" is divided into a series of vignettes that explore a plethora of interesting characters. The slow-burn narrative allows a very good cast to shine. It's not a great movie, but it is well-directed and well-written, and it does present a variety of issues with honesty and taste. I was glad to see Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr together again (they starred in the 1953 classic "From Here To Eternity"). In fact, Lancaster and Kerr perform a steamy nude sex scene that is a bit more candid than their famous 'beach scene' from the 1953 - it is rare to see a mature couple do these kinds of scenes and I applaud all people involved for handling it in a tasteful manner. Gene Hackman appears in a supporting role. If you are a fan of any of these actors or you just want to see a good drama, I recommend you to give the film a chance.


When action scenes for "Gypsy Moths" were about to be shot, mostly at the Benton,Kansas airfield, I was 18 and living in Wichita. Due to my interest in acting, mainly in High School productions, I, along with my five brothers and sisters and Mother who was a bit of a ham herself, answered a "cattle call" for crowd scenes at Benton Airfield. Because I was Burt Lancaster's general height and build and was the same size, 42 Long, I was upgraded to Stand-in for him and ended up standing in for all the principle male characters except Gene Hackman who used his brother. There was a scene in a park in El Dorado, KS where Deborah Kerr and Burt Lancaster sit on a merry-go-round and talk. He then stands up and leans in rather closely to Ms. Kerr. The director wanted to change the lighting on that particular shot to compensate for Mr. Lancaster's new position. He called for the "Seconds" to take the actors' places while they fine tuned the lighting. At that moment Deborah's stand-in was over by the swings, in the process of losing the greasy chili which had been catered that night and couldn't answer the call. John Frankenheimer was upset by her failure to report and acted like he was about to fire her, but, always the gracious lady, Ms. Kerr said she was fine just sitting there and would stand in for herself. The scene required that Burt Lancaster lean in to the point that their faces are mere inches apart. There she was, the consummate professional and I, standing in for Mr. Lancaster, was face to face with an actress I had loved ever since seeing her in such films as "From Here to Eternity" and "The King and I". It's understating my uneasiness by saying I was sweating bullets and worrying about my breath. She sensed my discomfort and proceeded to ask me questions like what I aspired to be (she didn't say 'when I grew up', which was, to me, just more evidence of her class) to set me at ease. At the time I was very interested in an acting career and she said that if I ever got to Hollywood to look her up and she would get me an appointment with her agent. What amazed me about the exchange was that I realized she was serious and would very probably have taken the time out of her busy schedule to do just that. My esteem for her grew many fold that night. Although I understand she now lives in Switzerland, I have often thought that even though I am in my 50's and gave up the thought of acting professionally years ago, it would be great if she still lived in Hollywood and I was able contact her. I would remind her of what she said 36 years ago and ask when she would be able to take me to see her agent. At 85 years old, I wouldn't be surprised if she said, "Give me a couple of minutes and we'll go over right now." Deborah Kerr, I still love you and I always will.


Being an aviation enthusiast, but not a jumper - I was drawn to this movie. Burt Lancaster plays "Mike Rettig" in the sort of role he is best at, plenty of action, with an eye for a pretty face. The pretty face in this case being Deborah Kerr. Miss Kerr was approaching 50 years of age when this movie was made, but was able to been seen close-up and naked with Burt Lancaster in what what must be one of the few (if the only) scenes where Miss Kerr reveals all. A far cry from the many Nuns she has played in her career. Compare her in this with "Heaven knows, Mr Allison" with Robert Mitchum. Gene Hackman provides good support as the reckless carefree "Joe Browdy", seeking out the local haunts for loose women. William Windom brilliantly plays Kerr's isolated and betrayed husband. A good film that happily TCM repeats regularly - thank goodness!


Directed by John Frankenheimer, best known for his political thrillers, this is one of the few films to take a serious look at the increasingly popular thrill sport of sky diving. Burt Lancaster, Gene Hackman and Scott Wilson represent three different points of view of sport parachuting. For Hackman it is a business, for Wilson it is about escape and acceptance, for Lancaster it is something more personal. Seven gifted amateur sky divers did over 2000 jumps to create the stunt work in this film. Between uncooperative winds and rain and with settings in parts of seven different Kansas locations they managed to pull together this film, which will have you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Excellent supporting turns are put in my Debra Kerr and William Windom


Like most films about individual type sports i.e. skiing, surfing, scuba diving etc. it helps if you've tried the sport at least once to be able to relate to what the picture is about. A small three man parachuting team barnstorms their way from town to town putting on a skydiving show. They roll out of one town into another and rather than stay at a hotel they are taken in by a couple who are related to one of the skydivers. Kind of like sailors on liberty the three are looking for a good time and after an uneasy dinner with the couple strike out in search of female companionship. They eventually all find some and the film even has an extramarital affair between Lancaster and Kerr. Some unexpected events at the subsequent air show twist things around and the hard to figure out scenes of a high school band practicing finally comes in to perspective. Good skydiving scenes, a little romance, a little sex not a bad film to see especially if you've ever taken the plunge out of a perfectly good airplane.


John Frankenheimer's drama of itinerant skydivers intersecting with small town doldrums is heavy on atmosphere but frustratingly ambiguous in its storytelling.

Not having read James Drought's source novel, it's hard to say just what went wrong here. Perhaps in an attempt to avoid conventional melodramatics, adapter William Hanley's script was kept as low-key and naturalistic as possible, to the extent that all of the silences and unspoken words end up conveying practically nothing of the characters' motivations beyond a kind of inchoate yearning. Usually I'm all for scripts that don't shout and scream, that rather rely on subtlety and restraint, but this one is so elliptical that its own best intentions are undermined. The ending seems flat and pointless. Yes, a death has occurred, but has anyone in the story really changed?

It's particularly frustrating given the talent involved. Stars Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr, with support from younger players like Scott Wilson, Gene Hackman, and Bonnie Bedelia, give strong and convincing portrayals. Add to that some remarkable aerial photography of skydiving derring-do -- plus a love scene which features the beautiful Ms. Kerr's bare breasts -- and you probably won't feel you've wasted 2 hours. But if only there were more.

Not a 'lost treasure' of Frankenheimer's, Lancaster's and Kerr's careers, but an intriguing, minor footnote.