Just dreadful movie. Something about Dr. Durea (J. Carrol Naish sadly) helping Dracula revive Frankenstein (for some reason) and searching for some new blood serum...or something.

To be totally honest the plot makes little sense! I saw this on TV multiple times when I was little--loved it then. I just saw the new DVD put out a few years ago. My childhood memories have been destroyed! This is pretty horrid. The camera-work is dreadful and the blood and gore (which looked cool when I was little) is laughably fake now. Dracula played by the immortal Zandor Vorkov (actually Roger Engel) has a silly goatee, silly fake fangs and his voice is constantly echoing. Frankenstein (John Bloom) just looks like he has a severe case of the mumps. Naish actually gives a good performance--quite a feat considering his lines make no sense. Sadly this was his last role. Also the last role for Lon Chaney who plays a hulking, mute axe murderer. Also Regina Carrol (the directors wife) is mixed up in this and Anthony Eisley (who's not bad) playing a VERY old hippy.

This is worth a peek for horror fans and it does have hysterically bad dialogue and a plot that will keep you guessing (what it's about). This was made over the course of a couple of years and the story kept changing--that's evident in the final product.

On one hand I think this is worth seeing for camp value. On the other hand it's embarrassing to watch Naish and Chaney reduced to this. Proceed at your own risk.


I bought "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein" on DVD under the Troma digitally remastered release of some of Al Adamson's "classics" (such as "Satan's Sadists" and "The Blood of Ghastly Horror"). I'm somewhat of a fan of B-quality horror pictures if -- and only if -- they are entertaining (like Ed Wood's work). This one is pretty entertaining... but makes up for itself in way of how astonishingly brain-numbing the storyline is (or lack thereof). Inept? Yes. Continuity gaps galore? Yep. Uneven and absurd? Oh, yeah! I haven't seen the movie in a couple of years, so I can't do too good of a job explaining the storyline... then again, even if I saw it ten seconds ago, I don't think I could explain it. If you're thinking this movie is a battle of two great Universal Studio monsters, well... you're wrong. Dracula looks EXACTLY like Screech off of Saved by the Bell and Frankenstein looks like a hybrid mixture of a Cabbage Patch Doll and an actual farm cabbage.

The epic battle of monsters isn't until the end of the film, which wasn't even worth the long, long wait. Simply put, the battle goes as follows: Dracula and Frankenstein are in the woods. Dracula easily pulls off Frankenstein's arms as if they were bolted on with Legos. Then, if memory serves me right, Dracula pulls off Frankenstein's head just as easily. Dracula realizes the sun is about to rise and he makes a fruity run to his castle... but before he can even make it to the door, he's fried by daylight right on his welcome mat! So, basically, the ending is a cinematic train wreck.

The movie is amazingly uneven and often feels like a different sci-fi or horror movie every 10 minutes. The first 7/8 of the movie really isn't about anything other than a couple of people running away from Dracula and his magical death lighting bolt ring which lights people on fire... And there's some sort of weird-science thing at a Coney Island haunted house ride that involves a midget getting killed by an ax, some strange scientist and a couple naked women.

I dunno... I don't get it.

Funny movie, but I don't think anyone will really like it unless they're a fan of schlock.

3/10


---WARNING--- ---SPOILER ALERT!--- This movie is horrible. not only horrible...it sucks. The death scenes suck so bad. One second the people are alive..the next...their head is on the ground. What the heck is this crap? I'll tell you. A waste of money any way you slice it. rent or buy it's not worth it. except for when the midget gets axed in the mellon or when Arabula(arab-dracula) Shoots that stupid hippy with his ring.

Now the biggest upset of the film. I thought Dracula and Frankenstein would actually possibly be the stars of this movie (but it's these stupid hippies) and fight for like half an hour or something...Boy was I ever wrong. they fight for 3 minutes in a forest and it's so predictible what's going to happen its annoying. The sun is coming up and the Monster doesn't want drac to kill the girl (who sucks by the way) so he puts up a fight. next thing you know they're in the woods "fighting" or in other words grabbing each other and hurling their bodies around. The lighting in this scene sucks so bad the DP is probably living in a cardboard box now. anyhow, Dracula rips frank's head off (cheesy) and as he's running back to the castle, the sun kills him and turns him into a skull with gray hair. It pissed me off so bad that I spent so much money on this movie... now I think I may go kill myself or something.


A bad script, bad actors and a Dracula in beard are more evidence that the US vampire movies of the 1970s simply cannot match the UK's Hammer productions of the 1950s and 1960s. Plot holes and silly special effects only add to the confusion of a movie that only the most ardent fans could appreciate. Zandor Vorkov as Dracula looks pale compared to Christopher Lee.


This movie really reminded me of an Z-movie from the '50's. Only difference is that this movie doesn't even have a camp value. In other words, this movie is just plain bad!

It's extremely odd to see how this movie tries to mix the '70's hippie culture with classic horror movie characters. I still don't understand why Dracula and the Frankenstein monster were even in this movie. On top of that, the two of them never looked worse in a movie. Their characters add nothing to the story and it seems like they were only used to get good advertisement for the movie but I seriously doubt that it worked though.

Real 'monster' of the movie is Groton played by Lon Chaney Jr. It's sad that this role had to be his last. Not a worthy ending for a wonderful career in horror-movies.

The movie looks like it had a $100 budget and the computer effects looked like the 'Super Mario' games.

Regina Carrol is absolutely horrible as an actress and I'm sure that they cast her only because of her two, more talented screen fillers. Jim Davis isn't a bad actor but what was exactly the point of his character? The movie is filled with some other more needless characters and the movie is filled with some pointless moments that adds very little to the story.

Basically the movie is just very poorly made. Poorly directed and poorly edited at times and most certainly poorly acted. I kind of liked the 'James Bond' like opening credits and music though!

2/10


They say that "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is the worst movie ever made. Sorry, but I think after viewing this, there's no doubt that Ed Wood should have ranked up there with Steven Speilberg for one of the greatest directors who ever breathed.

I'm not kidding. This film is that bad.

Imagine Lon Chaney, Jr. in his final role weilding an axe and hacking people for no real apparent reason. Imagine J. Carrol Naish as an insane doctor with dentures so fake the rattle with every word that comes out of his mouth. Now, if you're still with me, picture Dracula, who only appears in about fifteen minutes of the film, with a goatee and an afro looking a lot like a youthful Al Gore, and Frankenstein's monster, who appears even less, with face that looks like an overgrown raisin with eyes.

Okay, now, if you're not aghast yet, imagine a subplot about a pretty lady out to find her missing sister, only to find out she has gotten into drugs with a group of bikers, who are now after her sister's best friend.

Somehow, incomprehesibly, this all ties in. Or maybe it doesn't. Shoot, I don't know. I was so embarrassed that I had spent ten dollars to buy this thing, I was slamming my head up against the wall screaming, "WHY!" I could have bought four Big Macs with that money!

And then there's the fight at the end. Well, Dracula wins. Or does he really? Maybe Frankenstein just outsmarted Dracula and let the Count kill him, to keep him out till the sun comes out, thus frying him. I'm not sure what that is all about, or why Dracula, in an attempt to get to his coffin to escape the rays of the sun, just didn't turn into a bat and fly (can you say..."no budget.") And how did Dracula destroy the Monster so easily, tearing him limb from limb, after the Monster demonstrated he has superior strength by punching through several walls and tearing a car door from its hinges. You're guess is as good as mine. Let's call the fight a draw.

There has been at least two other attempts to pit the two princes of darkness against each other. All of them were stupid and unwatchable, but the others seemed to have an interesting camp value to them, making them so bad that they were good. This one was just so bad, it's bad. Al Adamson, the director, does nothing to help the situation. I think he knew he was making a bad movie, and since it generally took him years and years to finish his films, by the time this one was near completion, he just didn't care anymore and wanted to finish it up. Or at least, that's the impression I got. In the meantime, he isn't quite sure what to make of this film. It's uneven and choppy. I mean, someone tell me please, what is this film about? Is it a biker movie, a mad scientist movie, a mystery, a Dracula vs. Frankenstin movie, or a movie about a man who carries around puppies in one hand and a large axe in the other?

Somewhere at the heart of this crud, there's almost a plotline....Actually, a fairly desent one about Dracula trading the body of the original Frankenstein monster to the last descendent of Dr. Frankenstein in return for a syrum that will enable him to take over the world. Somewhere. It's discussed for three minutes, but the acting is so terrible in that scene, you don't even recognize the plot, and it doesn't compensate for the other eighty-seven minutes of trash.

Of all the films ever made, this is the worst I have ever seen. Please, avoid it. There's absolutely no reason to watch it. In fact, I'm surprised I'm even reviewing it, except to blow off steam.

Negative googol-plex out of ten.


I didn't seem to think of this as being the unintentional laugh riot that many others acclaim it to be. Despite a few humorous and borderline surreal moments, it was very slow moving and actually depressing. I've never been a massive fan of Al Adamson's films, as in addition to being mean-spirited, they're kind of generic. Plus, he always filled them up with once great stars who were obviously way past their prime. Both J. Carrol Naish and Lon Chaney Jr look like absolute wrecks in this one. If you remember them in the 40s and than watch this, you'll probably become extremely depressed. In addition to those stars, Adamson manages to pick the most wooden and untalented actors for other roles. Sure, some of the fun of watching bad movies derives from the horrible acting, but eventually the lack of any remote skill becomes tiresome instead of amusing. Its pretty obvious that Regina Carrol was cast only because she was Mrs. Adamson, and Zandor Vorkov may well be the most uninspired Dracula ever on screen. Even the final monster mash is a bit of a let-down, as its too dark to really see whats happening on screen.

As you can see, I am not a fan of this film or Adamson's works in general. Unlike Ed Wood, Phil Tucker, or H.G. Lewis, his bad films aren't usually "good" bad films. They'll have their moments for sure but overall will be very inconsistent. The only film by him I can legitimately say I enjoyed was "Satan's Sadists". Not to be confused with Paul Naschy's even worse "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein" from 1969 or a later Jess Franco film. (2/10)


This is not a review of the film.This is a spoiler.Haha.To begin with...well,let me just say that Dracula can't beat Frankenstein's Monster.The original monster has the combined strength of a 100 men and,as we all know,he's INDESTRUCTIBLE!But Al didn't know that and obviously he was a Dracula fan.So,the monster became an "artificially created man" which was torn apart in the end by Dracula.If Boris Karloff was in that forest,in which the "final battle" takes place,he would have pounded them BOTH into oblivion.But fear not Frankenstein fans!There are other films(not to mention comic books)in which the monster defeats the "lord of the manner of Corpathia".If you are a Dracula fan,then enjoy this.You will never see Dracula defeating the "monster" again.But If you are a Frankenstein fan,then please avoid it.


Unlike John Ford's celebrated cavalry Westerns, there's no humor or sentimentality in this film. It shows the grim situations and less than stellar personnel that cavalry commanders often faced. The interplay between Sergeant Vinson, Private McGurney, and Scout Pawnee is interesting and incisive. McGurney shows how a miscreant within a unit can be as great a menace as the enemy. The cinematography is excellent, paricularly during riding and water hole sequences. Worth looking at, especially for Western fans interested in the cavalry.


It has been years since I have seen this movie and I have been looking for it for a long time. I still remember moments in the movie as if I just saw it yesterday because of its gripping mature story line and deep rich character portrayals. I still get goosebumps when I think about it. The plot development was powerful with what I found to be a shocking conclusion. I find classic story telling with intense character portrayals to be much more interesting than some of the movie gimmicks used by most of the industry today. This movie is not shy on realism or story. I guess that some of that which makes up the high quality depth of this motion picture story simply goes over the head of some people, (based on some of the other reviews I have read about this film). I believe this is an absolute must see for McCrea or Russell fans.


Unlike John Ford's celebrated cavalry Westerns, there's no humor or sentimentality in this film. It shows the grim situations and less than stellar personnel that cavalry commanders often faced. The interplay between Sergeant Vinson, Private McGurney, and Scout Pawnee is interesting and incisive. McGurney shows how a miscreant within a unit can be as great a menace as the enemy. The cinematography is excellent, particularly during riding and water hole sequences. Worth looking at, especially for Western fans interested in the cavalry.


The patrol movie has been a staple of cinema since its very early days and has cut across many genres including the war movie and ,as in this case,the Western.The setting is New Mexico in the late 1870's and a platoon of the US Cavalry is trying to make its way back to base under less than auspicious circumstances .Its officers are all dead ,killed in action by the Apache,and its leader,by default is Sergeant Vinson (Joel McCrae -cast in a rare unsympathetic role).Vinson is neither liked nor trusted by his men who believe that he is so embittered by the death of his wife at the hands of the Apache that his judgement is flawed and that he will risk their lives for his own revenge .His bellicose attitude seems to reinforce this belief as he orders an attack on a superior force of the enemy as they camp by a waterhole ,with heavy loss of life.This is not the only encounter with the enemy as he and his men take shelter at a seemingly abandoned adobe dwelling where he is besieged by the Apache.

Shot wholly on location by the estimable Carl Guthrie this a tight ,taut movie that moves with pace and efficiency .The acting is excellent with special praise to MacRae ,John Russell as an educated drifter turned soldier Travis ,who becomes a confidante to Vinson ,Forrest Tucker as Irish born trooper McGurney (the role Andrew McClaglen usually played in John Ford pictures)and Anthony Caruso as the Native scout Pawnee .McRae in particular shows us that he could play morally complex and driven characters every bit as well as did James Stewart in his movies for Anthony Mann .Vinson is an angry and bitter man ,qualities the actor brings out well Joseph M Newman directs briskly and stages some lively action sequences in what is a predictable but highly entertaining minor Western


This is quite a western, that reminds one more of war films like Robert Aldrich's "Attack"(1956). During practically the whole film we are in doubt if Sgt. Vinson (Joel McCrea) is placing his personal feelings of hatred for the Apaches, who killed his wife, above the interests of his military mission and his men. Pvt. Travis (John Russel) is a man totally undecided about what to do with his life and also how to judge Vinson, but he is aware of his shortcomings and we identify with him. Pvt McGurney (Forrest Tucker) does not have doubts about Vinson. To him he is willing to kill them all just to get even with the Apaches. Joseph M Newman directed some routine westerns like "Pony Soldier" and "Gunfight at Dodge City", but he did well with "Outcasts Of Poker Flat" and this film.


Joel McCrea stars as tough US Cavalry Sergeant Vinson, who has to take command of C Troop when the senior officers are killed during an Apache attack. But what drives Vinson on? And is he the right man to lead the remaining members of the Troop? Directed by Joseph Newman, the films photography comes from Carl Guthrie, screenplay is courtesy of Martin Goldsmith, it's filmed in CinemaScope with De Luxe colour and the co-star list contains Forrest Tucker, John Russell, George N. Neise & Susan Cabot.

A moody and tough psychological Western that showcases the truly good side of the "B" Western splinter. Thematically strong with its anti-racist core, and really tightly written by Goldsmith, it's also notable for containing a wonderful performance from McCrea. Tho his Western output was very hit and miss {the brilliant Peckinpah film Ride The High Country was to come 4 years later} McCrea was always value for money in even the tardiest of Oater's. Here he gets to really grizzle for all his worth, his Vinson is a bitter man, blinded by hate, yet still capable of softening up if engaged in the right conversation. McCrea is first rate in the role, never over doing the hard-nosed side of the character and garnering believable sympathy when his guard is down.

More known for being the director of This Island Earth, Joseph Newman is hardly the name one links to the direction of a psychological Western. Yet he does a surprisingly good job with the action sequences and rightly lets his actors just tell the story. There's a small complaint that the final battle is all too brief, but that's a touch offset by a hillside C Troop/Apache battle that takes place in the first third of the film. Briskly constructed and with no saggy male posturing to weigh it down, the battle shows Newman to be quite adept at crafting a good old fashioned fight to the death between two very old fashioned foes. The film also looks terrific. Tho sadly not having a DVD release and therefore not getting a remastered work over, the current print of the film available to television networks is still a treat in this High Definition age. Where once the print was apparently murky, you now should be able to adjust and reap the benefit of what is on offer. Filmed at three locations, Gallup-New Mexico, Red Rock State Park-New Mexico & Kanab-Utah, Carl Guthrie's photography really utilises these locations, one moment it be a beautiful sprawling landscape, the next the rocks are enveloping the characters to portray the tension and confinement of their emotional and physical journey. All given the De Luxe sheen as the browns, reds and uniform blues come vividly to life.

Fort Massacre is little known and certainly under seen, thus its reputation has been founded by the casual Western viewer entering into it unaware of what type of character driven film it is. It's hoped that it can now find a newer and more appreciative audience because it's one of the better B Westerns of the late 1950s. 8/10


The best thing about this film is that there is no humor in it, unlike some westerns like the searchers. The plot has Joel McCrea in charge since all the officers have been killed and the men don't trust McCrea since he has such a deep hatred of the Indians, who killed his wife and kid. This is a lot like The Lost Patrol when which not too many are going to make it out alive.


First time director, allegedly ... first movie, allegedly ... ridiculously small budget, allegedly ... Either someone thinks I am very gullible or movie-makers all over the world should think about making church on Sundays a regular practice ... alternatively, they should spare themselves countless hours in AA further down the line (when directors and their movies like this become common practice) and quit now!!

We live in a particularly distressing age of movie making where the most basic aspect of any movie, THE STORY, has fallen to the wayside. Nowadays stories (when they are not biographic or lifted directly from already successful books) are unimpressive at best. Montage is either stroboscopic or lethargic and cinematography is either "periodic" or over zealously "hand-held". Let us just say disenchantment with the silver screen has set in. However, I am always optimistic and sometimes it pays off and that pay off in 2005 came in the form of Thomas Ikimi's "Limbo". A conceptually and literally dark and pensive, quasi-thriller, which unselfishly and also uncompromisingly dives head first into moral debates on life, human nature, free will and religion. Rather than risk going so far into how impressed I was with Thomas Ikimi's "FIRST" cinematic effort and end up looking like a groupie ... all I will say is I am counting the days until the release of his next feature and with Ikimi's discovery of a rare diamond in Joe Holt, the wait for his next offering also seems endless. !!! BRAVO !!!


Watching this movie, you would never guess that it was made with a budget of under $10,000 or that this is writer/director Thomas Ikimi's first film. It's a truly artistic expression in film that is metaphysical, existential, and flat out brilliant. The sombre mood is consistent throughout, there are many memorable performances, and the plot takes many unpredictable twists and turns.

Limbo takes the concept of being trapped in a single hour, and how the lines between right and wrong, good and evil, begin to blur when there are no consequences to ones actions. It is a film worthy of great praise and it is strongest in the areas that matter most; the story.

Limbo seems to have been influenced by film noir, Hitchcock, Memento, Usual Suspects, Unbreakable, Fight Club, The Man Who Wasn't There, The Matrix and the original Twilight Zone. Limbo manages to match the quality of story telling of all of these. It simultaneously reminds one of so many films and yet it is so remarkably unique.

Anyone who enjoys the titles I mentioned should give Limbo a chance, it is a decision you will not regret.


One of the most mind-bending and thought provoking films of recent years. I have to start my review with some kind of reasoning for why I have given this movie an 8 out of 10, as i will proceed to give it a raving review... Its the directors first film, and as his first film I have reserved the 9 out of 10 and 10 out of 10 for his next two films (pending he keeps putting the same amount of passion into his future work).

The films strength comes from a strong plot, elegant directing, and solid acting. Be forewarned, "Limbo" is not film for weak-minded people, nor will you be able to even comprehend the plot if you are brain-dead; however, if you value a film that does not need excessive movie additives (i.e. naked women, sex, huge explosions, and car chases), in order to be extremely engaging "Limbo" is dead on point, and not to worry, you will still get your fix.

I await future films and applaud Ikimi's work.

Taheehee Chimps


This dark psychological film noir is one of the best debut feature films I've ever seen. Made impressively for less than ten thousand dollars, writer/director Thomas Ikimi managed to craft a unique gem of a movie filled with deep philosophical aspects held strongly together by an intriguing and eventful story that never stops surprising.

Whilst working on a very important case involving mobsters and federal agents, lawyer Adam Moses (Christopher M. Russo) finds himself stuck in Limbo where he is essentially trapped in the same hour of time for an eternity. Although the film is in black and white, which adds to its classic film noir style, Adam interacts with some very colourful characters such as Lasloe The Great (Joe Holt) on his journey to try and find a mysterious assassin known only as Ouroboros.

Although the actors do a wonderful job in bringing this incredible story to life, they are aided immensely by Andrew David Daniels's score which perfectly accompanies both the film noir style and the eerie darkness that comes with the protagonist's struggle.

As I watched the thought provoking opening sequence of Limbo I knew I was about to watch a film the likes of which I'd never seen before. Limbo is a well made, smart movie that grabs the audience's attention from its opening and manages to hold it throughout. Although on the surface Limbo may appear to share similarities with Groundhog Day, the only real thing they have in common is a plot which sees their protagonists trapped in time and the fact that they are both great movies.


Limbos a great picture. And I must say the special edition DVD is well worth a purchase. The movie, while being fairly lofty in content, is nonetheless very accessible given the the audiences predisposition to honest engagement and unbiased scrutiny. I say this because it is well known on the circuit that this is Mr Ikimi's first picture. Therefore a less sympathetic viewer may approach it with certain preconceptions.

How good could it be? As I say, well worth a purchase. A moody feature with a serious message. Not meant for the pretentious art-house regulars but, as I said earlier, an honest viewer. If you fancy a bit of a mind massage and the odd giddy heart fluctuation, try this one on for size. Respectfully made and diligently executed Limbo will not leave you disappointed. At a disciplined 93 mins approx, Limbo hits hard and true. With the chilling score by the acclaimed maestro Anthony Daniels constantly urging one through Limbo's relentless mind trip, you will be left asking yourself; 'Where has Thomas Ikimi been all my Life'?

The Final Soldier.


Limbo are one of those seldom little qualities that one is lucky they found. The film just has such a gripping storyline that leaves allows one to interpret it in so many numerous ways. Then the black and white look that keeps you edgy through the whole movie is truly excellent and the score by Andy Daniels is incredible in my opinion. This really is a film that everybody needs to own, ESPECIALLY, aspiring filmmakers. I still find it outstanding, being a filmmaker myself, that Ikimi managed to assemble a crew this good to produce such excellence for a meagre $9,000. I just hope that it can come out soon on DVD so that I can watch it again as I am really desperate to do so.

Hopefully, those 'directors' in Hollywood can take note of the brilliance of Limbo. It really is a great effort by the whole crew that was assembled. Well done


In a time when movies like Primer and The Man From Earth are showing us that great films can be made on a shoestring budget, Limbo acts as a cautionary tale that small films can still be terrible.

The story is derivative of a series of derivative films. Clearly taken from Groundhog Day, which was taken from the film 12:01, which was based on the incredible independent short 12:01, Limbo offers nothing new to the story beyond a tacked-on attempt at a film noir mystery.

The acting is poor, flat and unengaging. The cinematography is pretentious with the DP constantly attempting to do something with film that is far beyond his reach. The music is sad, sounding like the incidental music one would hear in a 90's interactive cd-rom title. The dialog is simply laughable from the first line spoken to the end, both in writing and delivery.

This film is by no means a masterpiece, it's not even passable. Comparing this to films like Momento and Fight Club is like comparing Lord Of The Rings to fanfics. Feels like a student film by someone who is minoring in film studies at the University of Nevada. And a C- film at that.

All and all, normally I would have given this film 3 stars as it's a step above some youtube videos I've seen lately. However as I feel the average rating should reflect the quality of the film I am sending in a 1 star review to try to balance the score against these bizarrely skewed priors (I am seriously suspicious that they were written by friends and family of cast and crew).

To sum up, Limbo is an example that, even in an age where anyone is capable of making a film, you should really think twice about whether your passion for film isn't overshadowed by your lack of talent and vision. Skip this dog.


I get such a kick out of all the comments that mention how beautiful Jennifer Connelly is. Basically because in this movie that's all Josie's ever heard... how she's such a great piece of a$$ ("the town tease"), and the redundancy of these comments she's encountered up to now has her almost proud of that fact. "... I never tease..." But the truth is, nobody cares who she is as a person (including you the viewer), and that kills her. Those that have criticized and commented on the movie are actually characters IN the movie. As we comment on how beautiful Connelly is, we in turn become a part of Josie's past, and we are responsible for who she is now. Add the issues of her father, who only threatens her (and the cop) with abuse and attempts of control. Josie is physically beautiful, but that is her main problem. She's a really f'ed up chick. She is a temporary trophy, until something better comes along. And being that negative attention is better than no attention at all, you can understand what brought her to the store in the first place. When Jim tells Josie of his dream of her, she instantly thinks "sex"... cause up until this point in her life, that all she has to offer anyone. She is instantly caught off guard when Jim suggests a simple dance, one that he's been dreaming of since the 7th grade. And of all the people Josie has ever been with, Jim is the first gentleman she's ever met. And for the first time in both of their lives, a true connection is made. Yes, the Home Alone skits are below average, but for me, the problem is that they take away from the connection that the two leads are making. The best part of this whole movie is the unspoken dialogue between Connelly and Whaley, as they tried desperately to comfort each other in this time of chaos. Whaley has most of the creative dialogue, but Connelly's character is the one of interest (and issues). This is a much more psychological romance than most give it credit for.


Okay, so this one never did (and never will) win any awards. But pound for pound, John Hughes was never better and never will be again, most likely. Yes, I know, I know. "Ferris B." is a more coherent, cohesive film. And "Breakfast Club" has all the lines. And "Pretty in Pink" has all the pathos, plus Ducky. But this one's got Jim Dodge (F. Whaley). Easily one of my favorite film creations ever. You can't not love this guy. Even in the usually dumb montages that plagues MTV-ish films of this nature, he's charming (wearing a veil and cow-boxers and rollerskating, for instance). And then there's Jennifer "Eternally Easy on the Eyes" Connelly who, yes, has her usual charms (both of them), but who manages to bring a degree of wit, grace and sincerity to the "girl next door anyone would die to get with" role that's rarely been matched since. This film's full of terrific lines and memorable moments. Jim's "Jimget" fantasy. John Candy's entire cameo. "Could I get this uniform washed, it...smells a little like Darnell." "You mean you've never heard of sashimi?" "The subsonic tummy bump..." The list is endless. The bad part: yes, the last 15 or so minutes are plagued by a lack of money and a lack of laughs (money as in it looks like they ran out and decided to end the film...now). But the two leads are terrific together and the idea of them hashing out their high school trials and tribs in this particular setting is quite effective, really. Sweet, simple, goofy and funny, this one deserves another look, despite the "run out of steam in the last stretch of the race" factor.


This could of been a Hughes all time classic, I enjoyed it right up to the part Whaley stopped parading around in his underwear, (oh this sick mind of mine.) I'll say it loud and clear to everyone who has failed to realize it, " Whaley Rules! ". I think this movie loses what ever it had going for it, when a straight forward plot, which leads to lotsa dead writing, and a film that seems rushed together to make air time. This could have been a wonderful impromptu, since Whaley is a natural riot, and Connely can hold her own. But instead we get a lesson in bad writing, crippled production, and wasted casts. Oh what this could have been.


Writer John Hughes, Perhaps better known for his popular yet overrated 'Home Alone' series scores here with a charming and delightful romantic comedy starring clever comedian Frank Whaley. When the town liar Jim ( Whaley ) loses his umpteenth job in comical fashion. His father lays down an ultimatum. If Jim loses one more job he will be kicked out of the house. Where Jim has already confessed that he loves living at home since the accommodations are four star. Having burned most of his bridges with the local businessmen through his incompetence Jim has few options left. And we find our hero as 'Night clean up boy' at none other than the local 'Target' store. Well this leads to all types of mishaps and hilarious situations which are executed nicely, by the clumsy and exaggerating yet imminently likable Jim. Enter the crush interest, portrayed by the fabulous Jennifer Conelly. Josie is the daughter of a local bigwig, yet she seems disenchanted by what life in the small North Carolina Town has to offer. She is the apple of Jim's eye, and just about every other male's eye within the range of vision. Conelly really looked beautiful in this role. It was before she had dieted down to where she now has two pool cues for legs. Nowadays Conelly looks as if she's had two crackers a day for the last three years. And the nose job which makes her face seem sharper and pointier does not become her. But she looks amazing here as Whaley discovers after they've locked him inside the store for the night, to look after things and tidy up. Josie, you see, in an act of rebellion has locked herself inside the store in a botched shoplift attempt. And it turns out her and Jim are the only two people in the building. The dialogue between Jim and Josie is refreshing even if it isn't realistic. Jim is incredulously surprised when Josie identifies him as the town liar. Even though she doesn't mean it as an insult. But Jim does treat her like a person instead of a sex object and this is something that Josie is not used to. The two share TV Dinners in front of the electronics presentation and even a slow dance. And you can relate to the way Jim would feel in the presence of such a gorgeous creature. He does not want the Sun to come up. It's not perfect of course. Anyone would have a hard time believing that beauty Queen Josie would fall for the twerpish bullshitting Jim. And the actors are being too serious for comedic license. But the thing is, you want to believe it, and that only adds to the film's charm. Eventually, the whole thing starts to unravel and the film degenerates into the Hughes tradition of bungling burglars and other stupid nonsense, and the magic is lost. But for a brief time the suspension of disbelief makes us exist in this modest oasis of romance, and there's no red blooded American male who didn't imagine himself there with Conelly. But between the capable antics of the sidesplitting Whaley and the remarkable beauty of the breathtaking Conelly. They are more than enough to carry a film that definitely has some top moments. Credit Hughes for coming up with a good premise than finding the perfect actors to make it work. A very enjoyable and original romantic comedy. 7 out of a possible 10 T.H.


Frank Whaley plays Jim Dodge (Frank Whaley), a thoroughly annoying smart-mouthed wise-ass waste-of-space with a dead end job as a night janitor in a supermarket. Jennifer Connelly plays Josie McClellan (Jennifer Connelly), a poor little rich girl desperate to get away from her millionaire daddy (who beats her). When Josie chickens out of shoplifting at the last minute, she is locked in the shop for the night and meets Jim (as he roller-skates down an aisle in his boxers and a wedding veil!). Together they do a bit of collective soul-searching, swap sob stories and decide to run away together. However, their plans are interrupted somewhat when a couple of gun wielding thieves break into the store...

Despite being written by top teen-movie maker John Hughes and featuring a pretty decent cast (John Candy has a cameo and the two leads are both capable actors), Career Opportunities (AKA One Wild Night), is a rather weak comedy with irritating characters and very few laughs.

I, like most males who have reviewed this movie on IMDb, do agree, however, that it is worth viewing if you are a fan of Jennifer Connelly and her very impressive curves. The delectable JC looks stunning in a tight white vest and standout scenes include her rollerskating through the shop, and rocking slowly back and forth on a supermarket horse ride (a moment guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of all heterosexual men).

But of course, Ms. Connelly looking damn fine doesn't make this a great piece of film-making (just great eye-candy), and ultimately this is a rather desperate 'comedy' that comes nowhere near to the matching the quality of Hughes' 80s output.


Spoilers

The phrase Jennifer Connelly Wow can be found all over the internet. Hollywood had never seen the likes of Jennifer Connelly before. She is an incredible beauty. I write this 18 years after this movie came out and she still is the hottest woman in Hollywood.

The movie depicts a boring guy played well by Frank Whaley who becomes an all night store clerk. During his first night in the store, he meets a beautiful woman who also has some boredom issues coupled with anger at her father. They get locked in the store, for the night. Along the way we find out that he tells tall tales about himself to make himself feel important. He is known around town as the "Town Liar". A couple little kids follow him around, because they think he's important. She knows all of this because of the rumors about him. Then she tells him he can change his life. She suggests running away together.

Enter a couple robbers, one of whom is played by Dermott Mulrooney. The robbers hold these two captive and attempt to plunder the store. Frank Whaley's character comes through with a plan and foils and captures these robbers. Then he leaves town with Jennifer's character, but not before he stops in town to show off the woman he's leaving with. The little kids who had been following Frank character around, also say "WOW" when they see her.


Explain to me why after this Frank Whaley did not turn into a huge star? This is as good a turn as Matthew Broderick's in Ferris Bueller. Whaley carries this film with a swagger that defies belief. We've all known total BS artists post-high school like this. The opening scene alone is worth the price of admission. Definitely one of John Hughes underrated gems. Add to that the fact this will remind you of how hot Jennifer Connelly used to be before she got all stick figure on us in her adulthood. The violence I think really we could have done without. It seems a crutch many American flicks fall back on. I mean, how many comedies seem to want to put guns in them? Sorry, but how often does the average person actually see a gun pulled in their lifetime? It was really unnecessary to have the whole trapped in the store after hours and then have Connelly and Whaley held hostage.


Yikes.

I can't believe I'm saying this about a film with Jennifer Connelly in it. I mean, issues of People magazine with her in it have more purpose.

But not Career Opportunities. These actors have done amazing work like Requiem for a Dream, Once upon a Time in America, A midnight Clear and Pulp Fiction, but skip this one. It is not in the same league. I'm fine with top actors doing a 'fun film' (Joe Pesci in Home alone e.g.) but fun doesn't need to = poorly directed.

It's jaw droppingly pointless, not funny and a waste of even a Netflix evening.


GREAT MOVIE!!!!

I liked it movie because of the situation where the personages are involved, Jim and Josie, prisoners in a supermarket. It has many funny and marked scenes as when Jim, with bride clothes and walking of skids sees Josie and falls after that. Good film


Ok, yes it was silly...but very cute. Who wouldn't watch Jennifer Connelly?! And Dermot Mulrooney as the robber was HYSTERICAL. The scene on the skates with the veil, and the scene where Jennifer Connelly is riding on the kids horsey ride and Dermot tries to get on the back. Those will stick in my head forever!


A very well done, humorous teenage love story that every "not so popular" guy who was passed over in high school can appreciate. Funny, awkward, and lighthearted, this movie has something for everyone. This was the first movie I saw Jennifer Connelly in and just like the main character, immediately fell in love with her. What an outstanding actress, although this is perhaps not her best performance. All together this is a great "Order in on Saturday night and have a few laughs with the wife/girlfriend" kind of feel good romantic romp.


Career Oppertunities is not one of John Hughes best films, but it's not one of his worst either. I like it because i can relate to the main characters, Jim and Josie. Jim is lost in his own world and makes up stories, I used to do that a lot when I was younger. I like how he is admired by the little kids of the town, while everyone else knows he is full of crap. The cast is full of notable names. Frank Whaley is known for some of the smaller films, but he is probably best remembered as Brett from Pulp Fiction. Jennifer Connelly has been in several films I've seen. The movies top veterans are Barry Corbin and Noble Winningham. I like the exchange of lines they make throughout the film. Even though this one is so-so, it still has some character.


Best line of the movie, " Well, according to you I'm a lying monk with an oedipus complex and an appetite for home cookin'." Oh, I love it !!!


"Career Opportunities" starts off promising enough, but after an hour it slips into "Home Alone" territory and becomes silly. The cast are very good in their parts, especially Frank Whaley, who's a very funny and charismatic lead and the gorgeous Jennifer Connelly. It also has a slick directing job by Bryan Gordon and a fun cameo by John Candy. I enjoyed the film's first half, which is really funny and clever. It's the films last half, which is a bummer. When the two robbers come in, the film loses mosts of its laughs and becomes pointless and silly. It seems as if John Hughes just ran out of ideas and ripped off his "Home Alone" concept, like all of his '90's family movies. Overall, its a failed, but entertaining and sometimes funny attempt for Hughes to make a comeback at teen movies.


I must say that any John Hughes movie I have ever seen, I loved! Every character and plot line rocked. He is by far the best. Only being born in the 80's I am still able to appreciate his work. Any movie of his, was quickly repeated to watch over and over. Even the music is excellent!! How can anyone dislike him?! I would love to one day shake that mans hand for his fine creations. Mr. Hughes is a talented man to write several movies within a few days. If they sucked, then you tell me why they are being sold in the stores! My current favorite is Career Opportunities. It goes back and forth from Pretty In Pink to The Breakfast, and then there is Sixteen Candles. Those are the top four.


Career Opportunities is puerile, sophomoric, unfunny, clumsy and, at a mere 80 minutes, astoundingly dull. Of the 2000 or so movies I watched in the nineties, it's the absolute worst.


This is far and away the worst of Hughes' teen movies. Poor casting and a weak plot doom it. Don't let the appearance of John Candy in this turkey fool you. He is only in the film for a few minutes. Avoid this one at all costs.


(spoilers)

I thought Hot Spot sucked. Until I came upon this movie. I really like most of Jenn's movies, but this one. Besides her nice shapely figure (which was the only draw) this movie was just utterly wasted. It could have been a lot longer. I've never seen such a short film. The movie has about an hour of flab..... The last 20 some minutes is where the crooks come in. Sheesh. It was totally bizarre. Nothing fit right. The acting was okay, but the story was a complete mess. Spy Kids is better than this crap.

3/10

Quality: 1/10 Entertainment: 4/10 Replayable: 4/10


We've all had problems with our jobs, but how a job can relate to relationship problems is something else. In "Career Opportunities", they develop that to an interesting degree. In this case, janitor Frank Whaley and popular girl Jennifer Connelly accidentally get locked in a department store overnight, and thus have to reassess their lives (especially when some thugs break in).

Knowing that John Hughes was involved in this movie, we may expect it to be another "Breakfast Club" or "Home Alone". "Career Opportunities" is far superior to either of those. More than an excuse to look cool or cute, this movie dissects the characters' lives: he's the guy who no one ever thought could make something of himself, she's the pampered teenager primed for a world of excesses. And it's up to them how they deal with this sticky situation.

Anyway, this isn't a masterpiece, but I still recommend it. Also starring Dermor Mulroney, and John Candy in a bit part.


I don't know what was up with that other guys comment. It's intellectual rants like that which were the cause of him probably spending most of his high school life stuffed in a locker. Anyways... What's so great about this movie is the characters. I was in love with Jennifer Connely long before this movie, but this movie made her go to my top 5 beautiful woman of all time list. She looks so good in this movie. The main character is so believable, sometimes the dialog seems a little too set up. Every guy who grew up in the late 80s or grew up in a similar type town can relate to this movie. Anyone who has worked in a store after hours has either done or thought of doing what happened in this movie. Also Hughes does a good job of living out every young mans fantasy of being locked in a place with a beautiful woman. Or having a chance to get with the hottest girl from school or in town. There's so many things to this movie it would take me forever to write it all. The music goes along with the movie perfectly. It also really adds to scenes that would be kind of boring otherwise. John Candy is great, the janitor is awesome, he does a great job for having such a small part. Mcdermot is pretty weird in the movie, it's hard to believe it's even him. A totally contrast from his characters in recent movies. The whole idea and story of the movie is well told and played out. I think the movie is entertaining from beginning to end. Anyone who had a hard time dealing with having to grow up will be able to relate to this movie.


Very funny movie about a simple minded young man who's simply afraid to move out of his parents house because he doesnt want to be alone.To make up for his lack of an interesting life, he constantly lies to the only people who he can let his imaginative frustrations run wild with - the neighborhood kids,who idolize him.Does he realize this ? Of course not ! Will he ever learn ? ....Maybe.. Frank Whaley is hilarious as the inept but good hearted Jim Dodge,delusional liar and big dreamer.Jennifer Connelly is absolutely beautiful as the rich,understood Josie McClellan.John Hughes is brilliant once again,and this smart quirky story shows he truly understands what it was like to be young.Those who were in their twenties in the nineties will laugh their head off ( as well as wish they were and were not Jim Dodge at different points in the movie. ) If you liked Mannequin you should get a kick out of this as well.


i just happened to catch this recently on a rainy sunday while eating breakfast.i thought i would warn anyone thinking of renting this (i saw it on cable) that there are literally only two items worth checking out this lame movie.

the first is John Candy's hilarious cameo. the second is Jennifer Connelly's absolutely stunning and perfectly proportioned body. (the scene in which she's riding the coin operated horse is a particularly good scene in this respect.) she also possesses one of the best faces of any actress in hollywood. BUT since this is a PG-13 movie don't expect any nudity.

lame and not funny, it's amazing this movie did as well as it did when it originally came out.

rating:3


An excellent documentary containing tons of archival films of early inventions. People trying to fly with wings strapped to their arms, flying cars, failed parachute experiments, cooking utensils, and much much more. During a visit to Ripley's Odditorium I saw some footage such as is on this film, and I spent nearly a year trying to find it on DVD. This is by far the best, and possibly the only, documentary on such subjects. I was actually in awe of many of the inventions contained in this film, why aren't some of these things available today? Oh,,, how our vision of the future lets us down....

This runs at about 76 minutes long, and it is non-stop entertainment. It also contains many physical experiments as well, such as a woman swinging through New York by gripping a rope with her teeth. Very dangerous acts, human cannonballs and men getting hit in the stomach with sledge-hammers. There is nothing like this film anywhere else, it is truly inspiring, bringing out the creative spirit in all of us.


One of the great documentaries of the 1970s . Manages to be both extremely amusing and fascinating thanks to an excellent collection of archival film clips ,a fine narration and some truly inspired original music. The message is clear - i.e. don't knock the guy who comes up with some crazy invention.... his next attempt at the same gadget could sell a million ! A landmark production which all students of documentary making should see . Just one slight "downer" .... the home video release of this title seems to be shorter than the TV version. I can remember several scenes from the original which definitely weren't on the video. A truly memorable and positive viewing experience.


Gizmo is a tribute to humankind's pursuit of progress and the inventive spirit. "Invention" in this film is a pretty loose term - you see strange contraptions, and you also see people doing amazing (and odd) things with their bodies. Most of the footage is in black and white and looks like it was gathered from old newsreels. Unforgettable sequences include flying machines complete with flapping wings, "human flies" climbing skyscrapers without ropes, a whiskey distillery that ages whiskey "100 million times faster than nature", and the topper is a woman who has rediscovered what she calls the "ancient greek cosmic laws of flight". This film is pure magic - I have watched it countless times and I laugh just thinking about some of the scenes. So many of the people in this film should have tried their inventions out before calling the newspaper out to film them. Some of the failures are just spectacular! Also definitely worth mentioning is the soundtrack which is fantastic. Almost every segment of the film is accompanied by a great song which helps to set the mood and really adds to its replay value. If you come across a copy of Gizmo, definitely check it out - adults and children will both really enjoy it.


I saw this film in the 70's (on PBS i believe) and remember laughing out loud at the unlikely inventions offered up with earnestness and enthusiasm by their slightly delusional inventors(before watching them go wrong, horribly wrong). Great b/w vintage footage. Its like America's Funniest Home Video's for The New Yorker readers.


The images are amazing! Clearly, the filmed clips were taken at the time the events were ready to 'take off,' and the devices were at the final stage of development. Imagine how many similar concoctions never reached this stage, or took place without being filmed. The patience of editor Howard Smith for reviewing so many sources is being rewarded here. Some of the ideas inspired (or were inspired by) scenes in contemporary Hollywood movies, i.e., the building climbing, or survive as photo post cards. What we see here was a sampling of unusual and compulsive behavior popular in the film age. A question: was the TV presenter the young David Letterman?


Neil Rosengarden is the composer of We Don't Make 'Em Anymore. Not Nicholas Hollander.

Would someone who knows how to change this and has the time to do it take care of this please? It's so complicated. I am Neil Rosengarden and am the 100% composer of We Don't Make 'Em Anymore, and if you want to verify it, check it at BMI. Thank You!!!! Okay, I'll add more lines of text. What kind of text would you like? Yellow rose of text as? Text the A train? I need to get off the computer now. I have to write some more songs, okay. Don't make me come back here ever again. Thanks, it's really been fun.


Gizmo! is a documentary centered around man's creative instinct. Some of the world's most way out inventions ( black and white) have been included here. The score is really original and watching it gives you a rich sense of satisfaction. It really left me with a feel good feeling.

I watched this 20 years ago...haven;t seen it till today. It was one of my inspirations growing up. It basically caters to an inquisitive mind so if you're into education...this is a great movie to show the kids.

There are multifarious inventions shown throughout the film. Some were successful some were not. All had the common effect of making you think "hey I can do that too !" There was inventions about flying, tumbling down a mountain side inside a giant wheel, making musical instruments with paper cups....all in all a very interesting watch. ps : I was addicted to this program for years in my childhood. Hope to see it soon again.


It had to happen someday: a movie about people who DIDN'T succeed with their ideas.

At least they got their fifteen minutes of fame.

In "Gizmo", the excitement and virtue of creativity is embraced in full as a multitude of inventions from a ways back are shown, via newsreels. Some are pretty viable (indestructable head gear) while others are just plain silly (inummerable flying machines) but all show a lot of imagination behind the madness.

You have to hand it to the inventors, though: they were trying to better mankind. At least it wasn't through weapons of war.

All in all, "Gizmo" is a lot of fun, for the whole family, even. If you can find it, rent it, or even catch it on TV, watch it. Especially if none of your ideas ever succeed.

You'll feel better.

Ten stars. Let's hear it for the entreprenurial spirit!


I've heard a lot of things about this film -- it generally gets low reviews, is described as "unBergmanesque", and the fact that its so difficult to find led me have very low expectations for the film. I expected something between the atypical Bergman plot of "The Serpent's Egg" and the disturbing social violence of "From the Life of the Marionettes." I finally tracked down a copy, poor in quality, and expected mediocrity at best when I put it in.

After having just finished watching it, I can say I was very pleasantly surprised with the film. A lot of the things said about it are just plain false -- the plot is very much in keeping with Bergman's other material. A married woman, Karin (Anderson), falls in love with a disturbed architect, David (Gould), and the two begin an emotionally confused love affair. Karin is caught between her happy bourgeois life with her husband (Sydow) and children, and her passionate, unconventional relationship with David. Acting in bad faith, Karen refuses to choose between her two lives, though both David and her husband eventually push the decision on her. Like most Bergman films, its a psychological roller coaster and a bleak portrayal of the coarseness of human relationships.

Bibi Anderson does a wonderful job in a very difficult role, and Max von Sydow plays the part of the honest and good intentioned husband very well, playing hard on the viewer's sympathies. The stiff performance of Gould echoes that of Carradine in "The Serpent's Egg," so it must unfortunately be attributed to Bergman's struggle with directing in English, not on Gould himself. If I recall, the film was made in both Swedish and English, both versions filmed at once, which poses obvious production difficulties which might account from the some times mechanical treatment of the script.

The film has an excellent pace to it, and moves very swiftly and smoothly, wonderfully shot by Nykvist in a way very similar to "The Passion of Anna." Unlike a lot of Bergman's depressing work in the 1970s, I felt good about the film when it was over.

I don't know why this film has such a poor reputation -- I'm very much baffled after having seen it. My guess is the obvious mistake of having made it in English accounts for most of this.

Its seems a lot like Bergman's other work in this period. Very Good.


...and I think part of the reason for that is, aside from some notable uses of symbolism (some subtle, some not so subtle, in part due to the photography), the story is rather simple. This gives Bergman room to try and get us to understand these characters. In lessor hands (or rather, hands not as proficient in the soul-searching drama as Bergman is) this could be almost a TV melodrama. But I would disagree with some critics- notably with Ebert- that Bergman has lost his tone with this picture. In some ways it is more modernly set than some of his other films (and that it is in English sets it apart from some of his trademark Svensk Filmindustri pictures), however it doesn't hurt it terribly so. There were times while watching the film, mostly in the first fifty minutes, that I thought this was one of Bergman's best, by giving his control somewhat over to the actors, who are all sensational. While it doesn't quite live up towards the end, and feels abruptly finished, the climax doesn't feel too compromised. The Touch is like the Adrian Lyne film (which draws itself from a Chabrol film) Unfaithful, only this film seems a little more steeped in reality than outright sexuality.

Karin (Bibi Andersson, one of Bergman's key actresses) lives a rather calm, routine life with her husband Andreas (Max von Sydow) and their two children. After her mother dies (which I suppose sets up her emotional indecisiveness for the film), she meets David (Elliot Gould), and the two slowly begin an affair. But David is not the most stable of people, and it shakes Karin up at first. Soon they fall in love, but are separated, the sort of usual machinations with an infidelity story begin to unfold, and yet not losing the emotions from before. The three key actors of the film, Andersson, Von Sydow, and Gould, seem to live in these characters, and especially Gould (for whom this would be his only role with the director) conveys a sort of double nature that is also within Karin. His performance is one that I would put in a list of his best- you can tell everything he wants and fears in his face and actions, within the careful framing, this is a man on the edge. Bergman had once described Gould as a "difficult" actor to work with, but that tension came out the right way on screen, at least from my perspective.

As I mentioned, in lessor hands this could become a further melodrama, and part of the films refusal to subvert to that category is a credit to not only Bergman, but to cinematographer Sven Nykvist. Whenever I see a film with their collaboration (or even if it's Nykvist with, perhaps, a lessor director), I always watch for how Nykvist moves the camera. How seamlessly he follows these characters, and in their darkest recesses he lights them like the light and control on their faces is part of the writing. A lot of times (appropriately so) one may not even feel the presence of the camera, as if Nykvist doesn't even have a technique. But it is here where not only does he and Bergman go with their touches of light and dark, they also go for a documentary feel in the production.

Basically, this is an experiment for Bergman, as it is for his fans to endure. He's experimenting with a genre done hundreds of times, he experiments with music (unlike some of his dramas, which includes Bach or Mozart, here it's kind of pop-sounding for the period), and he experiments with his cast this time around. Is it as powerful and awe-inspiring as his "trilogy" or his other great works? Probably not. But it is unfortunately panned down as a lessor work of his, which isn't necessarily true. The film also needs to be seen by more people of today, as it is virtually impossible to buy on video or DVD. A-


In a small town in Sweden, Karin Vergerus (Bibi Andersson) is a middle-class housewife, married with Dr. Andreas Vergerus (Max von Sydow) and having a son and a daughter. She meets the disturbed German-American Jewish architect David Kovac (Elliott Gould), who is restoring a church in her town, and has recently become friend of her husband. David has drinking and smoking problems and after a dinner party at the Vergerus's home, he confesses his infatuation for Karin to her. This declaration revives her sensuality and femininity, which were forgotten after fifteen years of stable and loyal marriage. Karin has an affair with David, tearing apart her world: in one side, she has the stability and safety of her boring marriage and bourgeois life, and in the other side, she has the freedom of the relationship with her lover. She has lots of difficulties to decide the course of her life. This magnificent open end film is another wonderful work of Ingmar Bergman, his first English spoken movie. Bibi Andersson, Max von Sydow and Elliott Gould have again outstanding performances in a touching story about a thirty-four years woman divided in two possible lives and without knowing how to decide the way to be followed. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): `A Hora do Amor' (`The Hour of the Love')


It's the story of a married woman falling in love with another man. The married couple - Max von Sydow and Bibi Andersson - does live in fine rapport, their personalities matching well. Both are quiet, contemplative, and very rational persons, not liable to act spontaneous. The intruder - Elliott Gould - on the idyll which they embody together with their teenaged daughter is in contrast an impetuous man, uncompromising, overbearing, and tormented by inner contradictions and compulsions. Andersson tells him at one point that he hates himself. The two clandestine lovers aren't appropriate for each other. They have difficulties to accept the other's social behaviour and stance and don't like it to lie to their environments. But soon they cannot live without each other anymore.

The point of the film cannot be to show how two contrary characters complement each other, as Andersson was even more happy with von Sydow before and because it's all told in such a detached manner. The portrait of a love would like to involve the spectators to convey the joy and pain of it. Instead the question why Andersson turns away from von Sydow toward Gould seems intentionally perplexing. The dialogues and acting of the lovers is cerebral and cold, as if they were reciting dazedly on a stage, astounding themselves with their actions and feelings. As if they were actuating on an impulse isolate from their personalities. This impulse or drive is not eros, as especially at the beginning of their affaire sex is more a problem than a fulfilment to these two diffident lovers. Maybe love or the need to feel and give love is itself such a drive, an autonomous thing asserting itself regardless of the circumstances and the characters involved.

The central metaphor of the film is a medieval wooden statue of Mary, recently excavated after being buried for centuries - like Gould's and Andersson's potential to be lovers or man and woman. But with the disinterment of the Mary there also come alive insect larvae inside her, corroding her from within. Before they meet Gould attempted suicide and Andersson was reduced to a wife. They flower in their new love and it destroys their lives.

Civilization means in many ways the domestication of our impulses. Therefore Andersson realizes that she must not harm lastingly her family and Gould's hidden wife/sister. This is true. But Gould is telling her that she is lying to herself by not eloping with him and he's right, too.


My wife and I just saw Elliott Gould's private copy of "The Touch" at a film festival. We both thought it was a fantastic movie. Scenes were so realistic and true to life. I also thought that the cinematography was a work that I would rate very high. I have discussed this movie with friends and it seems that quite a few of us could relate to a few of the characters in our own lives. The movie was directed superbly in my opinion. The intensity throughout the movie was an emotional roller-coaster to me. I found that afterwards I had sweated profusely but this was a good thing. Elliott said that this movie was not available to buy or rent. I would be interested in knowing if anyone out there knows of its availability. Thanks


Ingmar Bergman certainly ranks among the elite of film directors, yet missteps with this, his first (of two) English language film. The Bergman regulars, Bibi Andersson and Max von Sydow star as an upscale Swedish married couple whose lives are altered by the seemingly mysterious appearance of American Elliot Gould. After a series of (not so) discreet passes, Andersson finds herself falling for the moody, unpredictable Gould.Sven Nykvist's cinematography and one surprisingly tender love scene nearly save this, but, the film is unable to overcome two glaring flaws: the awkwardness of the dialogue (written by Bergman) and the poor performance by Elliot Gould. Gould, I suppose, can be an engaging actor, but is way out of his league; this film is, ultimately, only for completists.


First I must take issue with the reviewer who found this film boring because he classed it as a disaster movie, and felt there was not the suspense necessary for a good disaster movie. Personally I would question whether disaster movies really comprise a distinct category - they are dramas in the thriller category where the more usual dramatic excitement of violent action is replaced by the tension of waiting to see whether or not the impending disaster can be staved off. To maintain this tension, such a movie has to be based on a fictional story. By contrast, films of real events can be full documentaries which were filmed only in advance or concurrently; or semi-documentaries in which some of the essential scenes have had to be fictionally, but as accurately as possible, reconstructed and filmed after the event. St. Helens clearly fits this latter category. Such films should have a sufficiently dramatic story to retain the viewers interest throughout, but they also have a very important role to play in conveying to the general public in dramatic terms the actual impact of the event in question on the lives of the ordinary people who were affected. We judge the success of semi-documentaries from the extent to which they succeed in satisfying these two objectives. In my view St. Helens meets both objectives well, and was artistically a most successful film.

	Volcanic eruptions are not rare events, but the eruption in North America of a volcano generally regarded by the public as extinct, attracted enormous public attention as events unfolded day by day. Millions in North America experienced dull skies and falling ash over a period of several days, and those of us who are old enough remember the story very well. Ultimately this eruption cost fifty nine lives, but two of these in particular provided the media with ongoing human interest stories and later provided the core story for this movie. One was the young geologist from the U.S. Geological Survey who allowed his enthusiasm to run away with him to such an extent that he was conducting monitoring in an area very close to the mountain when the eruption took place. He saw it happen, and had time to report it by telephone before he was overwhelmed by the escaping gases or falling rocks. The other was the elderly retired man living alone in a cabin on Spirit Lake very close to the volcano who consistently refused to be evacuated until too late. These are the principal characters in this semi-documentary, and both are portrayed very sympathetically so that their self destructive behaviour becomes quite understandable. I would rate this as a very good film - I also have an 'official' full documentary account of this eruption on videotape, it provides many interesting facts about the scientific impact on the area; but this dramatised semi-documentary with its human interest stories is the one which will bear watching repeatedly, and it is commendably careful not to seriously distort any of the facts in the interests of artistic licence. We may never be near a volcano that is threatening to erupt, but we read about such eruptions each year and this film helps to give us a better understanding of what one is really like.


This film is pretty good for emotion and drama. I've been to St. Helens and love the region. It's largely grown back and is green and fertile again, dominated by the stark gray gutted monolith of the mountain. In a way, it's a tombstone of granite and pumice, still steaming and hot despite more than two decades of slumber. Very somber and impressive sight. I liked the movie the first time I saw it probably about 20 years ago on TV. It was cut a bit for commercials so I probably saw about 75 minutes so there were a few plot holes, but nothing to worry about. After all, it's a fictionalized docudrama. The only real characters? Harry Truman (Carney in a real departure from Ed Norton), the crusty old soldier who won't do what he don't want to. He's earned the right to die on his own land. And David Jackson (Huffman) who is based on the late David Johnston who died on the mountain in the eruption. He's portrayed as the antithesis of Truman, a calm dreamer who hates stupidity and bureaucracy (one and the same) in the local businessmen and NGS officials. He and Harry hit it off despite their differences and find common ground in the love of the mountain about to destroy everything. I rather liked Tim Thomerson, the sheriff, who's out of his usual stand-up routine but a 'stand up guy' in the local community, as he tries to keep peace as the drama unfolds. The Huffman/Yates love interest? Probably untrue, and in my opinion, unnecessary in the film. A bit of country-western 'local yokels' in the bar, getting to know one another is a decent way of helping us like the town and the folks, but one wonder something. For instance, why does Cassie Yates and her son, who have a car, get a helicopter ride out of danger? And when the news report of the eruption comes on, the first thing they say is that Harry Truman was at his lodge and David Jackson, the 'Young Geologist' was on the face of the mountain when it erupted. Fast work. The end theme, "Here's to You, Harry Truman," is a pretty good ballad, and catchy, even if old Harry himself would probably have scoffed at the overly maudlin lyrics. "Sounds like pigs being murdered." The film of the eruption and the later destruction are impressive and gut-wrenching. It was a huge disaster which flattened thousands of acres of forest and wilderness. Yet, if you go up to St. Helens, the thing you'll be most surprised by is the roadside attractions. "ST. HELENS: FEEL THE ERUPTION! EXPERIENCE THE DESTRUCTION, THE QUAKE, THE POWER, from the comfort of a chair. All over the place, you can see movies, buy lava chunks and explore houses buried under ash. What a country.


Call me an immature little boy, but i've had a more profound experience just watching a documentary on Mount St. Helens. To that end, there was actually some real footage of the eruption mixed in there somewhere. Now that was good, about all that actually was good in this dumb movie. (some people might think of this as a spoiler) The actor who plays Harry Truman is. Way. Too. Young. Truman was probably in his seventies, the actor looks like he's barely out of his fifties.

This movie runs about ninety minutes. Am I ever thankful for that, ninety minutes of sheer torture magnified by the fact that they swear (i'm talking S-words here) like it's 1999 just all the time. they must swear at least three times every scene. I'm telling you, it's out of control.

The only good line in the whole movie is "Ahh, hayte bahg pypes!" oh, sorry, translated version: "I hate bagpipes!" That line has become legendary around my house.

1 star is way too many. if given a choice i'd give it 0.00000001 stars. Watch a Mount St. Helens documentary instead.


This is considered to be the weakest story of series two and it's not very difficult to see why . Coming after a couple of stories , one of which is considered to be a modern classic ( The Impossible Planat/Satan Pit ) while the other ( Love And Monsters ) is one of the most radical pieces of television produced Fear Her was never going to be all that well received , but its Luke warm reception is to do mainly with the fact it's a very dull predictable story

If you watched the " next time " trailer from the previous week then you'll know in advance as to what the story is about and therefore there's no suspense . You also can't help notice that because the plot was one of those written on the back of a cigarette packet efforts then there's so much padding centered around on dysfunctional family issues , in this case single parenthood . Really I often think some of the writers would be more at home working on EASTENDERS or CORONATION STREET . All this is bad enough but we've got a bloody stupid sequence of the Doctor carrying the Olympic torch ! It shows had badly constructed the episode was when you've got to include crap like that


I didn't want to fear her. I wanted to grab that pick-axe and smash her a good one in her stupid sass-talking gob.

The only fun things about this episode were the Doctor's obsession with those edible ball-bearings, the way he first parks the Tardis, and Roses's "Council" conversation with the tarmac chap.

But...ewwwwww, more scary scribbling beasties, squabbling neighbors, "spooky" window silhouettes, put-on Exorcist voices, ripped-off Poltergeist closets et al. Someone lacking in creativity was trying to revive Rod Serling's infinitely more talented corpse on this one but they wrote a retardisode instead.

Moreover this was a terribly-crafted product placementy goodwill 'love' letter to the games of the 2012 Olympiad...literally.

*PUKE*


Now, the trailer for this didn't worry me in the slightest. A little girl who can make her drawings move? Ha! But good God, was I wrong. This episode is an incredibly clever piece of writing that actually quite surprised me.

With the benefit of hindsight, there's not a single thing mentioned in this entire episode that doesn't count towards the final outcome. The attention to detail is perfect - the '09' and '61' numberplates on the cars, the news ticker on the bottom of the TV - nothing at all gets missed. Billie Piper is outstanding as she shows just how good a sidekick Rose is, both Chloe and her mother play their parts perfectly, and David Tennant is brilliant as usual.

The idea behind the whole story is genius, and the way it pans out even had me, a hardened Resident Evil fan, feeling tense a couple of times. I'd say this is probably one of the best episodes of the series - although, to be honest, still not even a patch on The Girl in the Fireplace, which is easily the best since the show was revived.


Is it just me or are people a tad too fussy these days? OK, so Fear Her isn't on such a big scale as the rest of the series, but that still doesn't make it a bad episode.

The Doctor and Rose land in 2012, at the time of the London Olympics, but children are vanishing from an ordinary street and a mother is trying to hide her daughter Chloe's powers.

The plot is good, the acting is good, and it also has a rather sinister part - a half-living drawing of Chloe's dead father is lurking in her wardrobe and says "I'm coming to hurt you". Overall I think it's a pretty good Doctor Who episode, and I don't know what the fuss is about.


This was a clever piece of writing and was full of imagination (something I always like.) Billie Piper and David Tennant did another fantastic way of making everything so believable and real. The thing I liked most about this episode was the way they finished it. Usually the only way to stop a monster is by shooting it, or finding a code that'll make them have their emotions back, where as this one was just taking away the nightmare with a song.

This episode also proved what a strong character Rose really is, and how far she has come from being just an ordinary young girl to being the doctor's side kick.

That's all I am gonna say on this, but I just want to ask, has anyone else noticed that the inside of the tardis looks a bit like the outside of a dalek?.....


There is little denying that "Fear Her" is a bad egg - it is insignificant in the series, a bit laughable, and not exactly dark or terrifying. But saying that, it was interesting. It had me hooked - I've always loved the premise of drawings coming to life, and this episode uses that to good advantage. The Doctor and Rose finally have some purpose in the story this time round, and the idea to have this set in 2012 on the dawn of the Olympics is another stroke of genius. Of course, something like this would never happen then, but it was immensely riveting to see thousands of people disappear because of a drawing on some kid's wall. The next thing - she was drawing the Earth on her wall - need I say any more? I personally found this riveting because it was a fun ride, and nowhere near as stupid or pathetic as "Love and Monsters". The ending was suitably thrilling and strange - the Doctor once again saves the day, though, but the last words of this episode leave us waiting for the conclusion of this series which promises to be suitably dark and mysterious. Whereas "Love and Monsters" was just boring, "Fear Her" was an interesting episode that at least inspired me to keep watching - no naked monsters chasing people through the streets and no badly-written romance ensure this is a slice of Doctor Who that will prove fun. 7/10


"Two" was a show on TV during the mid-90s. It was on the air, at the same time as several other late-night adventure-dramas. In fact, I thought that the 90s seemed to be the last great era of TV adventure shows. Don't know why, but I suspect folks just don't find the adventure show genre as appealing as they once did. Who knows?? I watched "Two" on a local syndicated station every Saturday night, and it came on after the 11:00 news. It starred hunky Michael Easton as the main character, named Gus McClain. Gus McClain was an earnest, milquetoast college professor, who led a nice, tame life.

Everything was great for Gus, until he found his wife had been suddenly murdered one day. This show had the exact same premise as the "Fugitive" series. Instead of chasing a one-armed culprit, Gus McClain finds that his own evil twin brother, Booth, had committed his wife's murder. And Gus vows to capture Booth, and bring him to justice.

There's just one hitch though-the FBI thinks Gus committed the crime, since they've no way of knowing that Gus has a twin brother. It gets even more complicated, when Booth kills one of the pursuing FBI agent's partner. This FBI agent then becomes insanely obsessed with capturing Gus. And she almost does, on more than one occasion during the series run. But Gus always manages to slip through her proverbial 'grasp'.

Basically the whole series is based on Gus capturing Booth, before the FBI can get Gus. Nothing new about this type of cat-and-mouse scenario. Anyone who watches TV with any frequency, has seen it all before. I'd say the only reason to watch "Two", is if you happen to be a Michael Easton fan. Otherwise, "Two" is, at best, a mediocre adventure show.


Chances are, if you are only casually aware of the world that you live in, your life imitates that of the Finzi-Continis, one of two families depicted in this film.

The beginning of de Sica's film follows the state of affairs in Italy shortly after the Fascist government of Mussolini has declared the ordinary tennis clubs off limits for Italian Jews-just the beginning for the Government's separatist stance. The Jews in town react in various ways: Giorgio, who is in love with the daughter of the Finzi-Continis, is enraged; his father his philosophical; Giorgio's brother is upset only after being sent to France to study, and later, finding out to his horror about the German concentration camps. To the Finzi-Continis, though, it doesn't really matter. They're different from the other Jews because wealth and privilege have bred them into a family as proud as it is vulnerable. They hardly seem to know, or even care, about the fact that their rights are slowly being taken away. It seems that years of prestige and social status have put them above the laws of the land.

The walled garden of the Finzi-Continis is a symbol for the false security that people retain, unaware that problems on the outside may force them into reality. The garden of the film seems to promise that nothing will change and that everything will remain the same. Interestingly, de Sica films the garden in a way that enforces this theme of false security. He never orients us visually with the rest of the city, so we can never tell how big or how small the garden is. Have you ever felt uneasy being somewhere not knowing the exact dimensions of your boundary? That's the feeling we get here with shots of the garden that seem to stretch on forever.

The Garden of the Finzi-Continis is a great film for many reasons, one of which is how it forces us to take a proactive stance regarding the world that we live in. There's nothing wrong with feeling secure but it's important to try to take an objective stance with reference to the world that we live in. And you certainly don't want to be on the outside looking in to those who have realized it already.


This was probably Vittorio DeSica's last excellent film before his death in 1974 and it took me about 20 years to view it a second time. I certainly understand it more this time than the first time I viewed it. Story is set in the late 1930's in Ferrara, Italy with the impending war looming on the horizon. The family of the Finzi-Continis are rich and Jewish and live in a huge manor behind locked gates and they love to have friends over for picnics and tennis. One of the friends is Giorgio (Lino Capolicchio) and he is in love with Micol Finzi-Contini (Dominique Sanda) and they have known each other since they both were kids but Micol does not love Giorgio. He's persistent in his affections but Micol lives in an isolated world hidden behind the gates and her demeanor is very cold and malicious. Meanwhile, Giorgio's father (Romolo Valle) seems to be oblivious to what is happening in the world and utters "It's not that bad". Mussolini has enacted laws that forbid Jews from going to school, entering the library and other restrictions. One night Giorgio discovers Micol having an affair with his more Fascist friend Bruno (Fabio Testi) and Micol notices him in the window but seems not to care.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

While DeSica somewhat abandoned his neo-realism approach later in his career this does have an aura of those wonderful films like "The Bicycle Thief" and "Umberto D". DeSica still wanted to show the world what it was like in Italy during the darker times and even though he had a larger budget and professional actors in his films his attitude never really shifted. This film is primarily about the two lead characters played by Capolicchio and Sanda. Even with war upon them they both seemed to be in their own world. Giorgio became a very angry and heartbroken man and even with soldiers walking around his city he seemed to only care about Micol's rejection of him. But late in the film he did snap out of it and escaped. He didn't allow what happened to him to get the better of him. Unfortunately, Micol and her family waited too long and were rounded up to be sent to camps. There are instances in this film that I thought Micol was awaiting to be taken by the Fascists and Nazi's. It's one of the reasons she slept with Bruno and seemed unperturbed by the events around her. Remember what Giorgio's father told him? He said, "In life, in order to understand, to really understand the world, you must die at least once. So it's better to die young, when there's still time left to recover and live again". After viewing this thought provoking film once again, maybe DeSica was showing us that Micol needed to get out of her haven and understand the world about her.


I first heard a radio adaptation from the Garden of the Finzi Contini and afer that read the book. I thought it would be difficult to make an adaptation to cinema. Indeed, the book is above all psychological (or romantic in the literary meaning of the 19th century)i.e the narrator describing his inner world and his sufferings...

However, Vittorio de Sica succeeded in expressing this without using monologue, without making a too slow picture... The music is very good too... the images are wonderful...

I must correct some commentaries Malnate, Micol's lover is not a fascist but a communist... There is also a difference with the book : in the book we do not know for sure that Micol and Malnate were lovers, it is an assumption whereas it is an evidence in the film...

In spite of this differences, this picture deserves a 10 out of 10!


The Italian people probably felt a moral degradation knowing that their government had participated in exterminating Jews during WWII. "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis" was probably their way of showing that they were atoning for it. It tells of the Jewish Finzi-Contini family in Ferrara in the 1930s. They are a very well off family (with a false sense of security), and many of the people within the family are falling for each other. Unfortunately for them, not even their social status can protect them from the doom that awaits them.

Much like in "The Bicycle Thief" over 20 years earlier, Vittorio De Sica shows the desperate existences of a few people, surrounded by what many incorrectly assumed to be a joyful world. Wonderful.


While undeniably not for the shallow or those who expect their movies to lay every detail out for them amid plenty of "action," THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINIS (a parable on a latter day "Eden" of doomed innocence?) remains after more than a quarter century one of the most perfect reflections of the gradual process by which the Holocaust could have happened in a Europe which believed itself civilized.

The tragic love story allows us into the garden. Only our own action - or blind ignorance - can allow us out.

Not a lot need be added to the perceptive comments already examining the details of this beautiful and moving film - but Americans, especially those of my fellow Republicans who are able to objectively look at their own country and leaders, should seriously examine the politicians who use fear and nebulous "enemies" to gain and hold power in the light of this film. The realization is inescapable that the world of the Finzi-Continis is not that far removed from our own. A question of degree not of kind.

The garden is still seductively attractive, the country around it still relatively free, but will we follow the course the Finzi-Continis took or will we come actively out of our garden while there is time?


`The Garden of the Finzi-Continis' stands out from the scores of films about the Fascist persecution of Jews due, in no small part, to director Vittorio De Sica. His veteran hands crafting an excellent story into a masterpiece.

The story focuses on a young Italian-Jew and his interaction and quest for romance with the daughter of a wealthy Jewish aristocrat. The trials of their relationship coming during the growth of Fascism in Italy in the late-1930s. Even the viewer can feel the segregation closing on the two young people and their families.

But even the superb drama of the film cannot hold a candle to the awesome cinematography of beautiful scenery that adds vitality to the film. The acting is good, mostly from the supporting cast, but occasional spouts of brilliance come from all directions.

Exceptional. 9/10 stars.


I just watched the DVD and had not seen the movie in many years. I found it every bit as moving as I had remembered from my first viewing. This included the Prayer For the Dead (El Moleh Rachamim) magnificently sung as the final credits rolled. I am not Jewish so I had to do some "googling" to learn that El Moleh...is indeed a prayer for the dead. What moved me so apart from the singer's mournfully beautiful voice were the names Aushwitz, Maidenek, Treblinka et. al. interpolated into the text. It reminded me of the penultimate paragraph in Andre Schwartz-Bart's extraordinary novel of the Holacaust, The Last Of The Just where the names of the death camps are artfully placed among the repeated words "And praised Be The Lord". Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.


"Nostalgia is self destruction."  Adrienne Rich

One of the greatest Holocaust films ever made, "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis" takes place, not in Nazi Germany, but fascist Italy during the reign of Mussolini. World War 2 is on the horizon and already racial laws are being implemented. Italian Jews are forbidden from using servants, are banned from marrying non Jews, are removed from public schools, have no phone listings, no library privileges, no obituaries, and are subject to strict curfews. Gradually the rights of Jews are eradicated, even the wealthiest Jewish families reduced to third class citizens.

Against this landscape is told the story of two Jewish families, the affluent and aristocratic Finzi-Contini family and the middle class Bassani family. The Finzi-Continis live a cloistered existence within the walls of their palatial estate. Surrounded by tall walls and a vast garden, the family lives in a dream world, believing that fascism will leave their lavish lives untouched. Director Vittorio de Sica uses overexposed images and white clothing to suggest that these wealthy Jews are magnificent angels, dancing in luxury, bicycling through their estate like gliding deities. When the family hosts tennis games for friends and family, de Sica shoots them like innocent forest nymphs, playing in their idyllic Eden.

Of course, outside the stone walls of the Finzi-Contini estate, trouble brews. The Bassani family adjusts to Mussolini's racist laws with success at first, their father stating that despite their new limitations they can still live a reasonably secure existence. Their daughter will simply have to be home schooled, their maid will have to be smuggled in and their son, Giorgio, will simply have to use the private libraries of friends. No big deal. They can adjust.

So already we see how complacent everyone is. It's not just a question of non-Jews ignoring these racist laws, but of Jews accepting these laws outright for fear of rocking the boat. The Bassani's submit and the Finzi-Contini's ignore. But even if they wanted to challenge Mussolini's racist segregation policies, how would they go about doing so? During one scene, in which Giorgio is kicked out of a public library, de Sica makes it clear that when the world begins to collapse, it's never anyone's fault. Power is fragmented and everyone is fearfully following orders, obeying rules that somebody else devised. The system runs because everything is compartmentalised, everyone is in charge of their own section of the pie. To fight an organised system would take organisation and rebellion on a fast array of fronts.

And so Jews and Gentiles submit to the racist laws. The war will be over soon, they hope, and Italy and Germany will soon emerge victorious. Just abide and hope that things change. Big mistake.

The later half of the film focuses on the romance between Giorgio Bassani and Micol Finzi-Contini. Despite Micol's wealth and beauty, Giorgio loves her primarily for the sense of tranquillity she represents. He knew her during her childhood, and so begins to see her as a nostalgic symbol. She represents a snapshot in time, a personification of Europe before things went bad. Many have complained that Micol is a cipher in the film. That she prowls her estate like a zombie and that she never gives a reason for rejecting Giorgio's advances. But this is the very point. Micol is an idealized vision of the world, simultaneously deluding herself and representative of mass denial. She is a ghost of the past, and Giorgio cannot attain her because she has long turned her back to the living world.

The romance thus abstracts many of the themes that take place in the film. Firstly, it illustrates the false belief held by both Gentiles and Jews that if they isolate themselves and mind their own business, they may be spared the horrors of this hostile political climate. Secondly, it shows that no amount of wealth, prestige and education can defend you against mindless, irrational bigotry. Finally, it highlights the dangers of Jewish ethnocentricity. Judaism can accurately be described as a cultural fortresses that keeps outsiders out and insiders in (the degree to which Jewish communities are isolated from their host cultures is even reflected at the genetic level). Of course, one should not have to assimilate to avoid persecution, but this ethnocentricity is largely the reason that their entire history is one of spectacular success and growth followed by persecution and slaughter. A cycle which plays out repeatedly from the Egyptian Exodus to the Holocaust.

9/10  Quieter Holocaust pictures like "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis", "Seven Beauties", "The Boat is Full" and "The Shop On Main Street" are important in countering the myths of the Holocaust. Hollywood film's like "Schindler's List" have colonised our minds with a very "American view" of the Holocaust. They present us with false iconography, rich with their own set of visual signifiers. But the Holocaust was not a horror movie. It did not happen in black and white and with shaky documentary footage. It unfolded with the banality of everyday life, in bright colours, ordinary day to day activities rarely upset. There was nothing alien about the Holocaust. The world didn't break down or erupt into violence. Instead it stood back with a serene, far more chilling acceptance. Perhaps this is why, today, documentary footage of Hitler relaxing with his family in the Bavarian Alps is far more horrific than any of his loud mouthed speeches.

Worth two viewings.


Much like Louis Malle's similarly themed film from 1987 AU REVOIR, LES ENFANTS, Vittorio daSica's THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINI's is a meditative piece on the relatively safe haven of a group of people -- in this case, an entire family of wealthy Jews who enjoy a life of privilege as the horrors of World War II and anti-Semitism rages on. The Finzi-Contini's, however, believe that their position of wealth and their very home will shield them from being touched, and they move on, oblivious to the world outside, in a frozen period of time and space that seems, for a moment, to spare them, until it becomes rather clear that the walls that so protected them are beginning to crumble and that they are headed towards an inevitable train wreck which will destroy all that they know. As their rights and the rights of the Jewish people are stripped away from them, they find themselves suddenly awake into a reality they cannot understand, but must move into. DaSica's movie is a slow-moving lyrical poem which differs from his earlier Neo-Realist work, and captures in its running time this illusionary reality as if all this were a dream that the Finzi-Continis were having. The filtered lens only maximizes the almost enchanted beauty that pours through from the screen and onto the viewers' eyes; indeed, this is nostalgia for a time gone by, a trip down memory lane and a subtle incursion into a denouncement of the horrors of war which never rears its ugly head but whose presence ultimately swallows a family, whole.


In its own quiet way this Vittorio de Sica gem is as gripping and powerful as such more graphic Holocaust films as "Schindler's List" and "Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom." It deals with a wealthy Italian Jewish family living in a secluded estate in the city of Ferrara. The Finzi-Continis are almost completely assimilated and have little in common with their fellow Jews, but once Mussolini's racial laws begin to take effect they open their gardens to young Jews from the neighborhood. The movie depicts the fatal passivity of people who think they're safe, that monstrous social upheavals won't touch them. Slowly but surely the Jews of Italy have their freedom taken away from them; before they know what's happening they're headed for Auschwitz. The movie leaves the fate of the Finzi-Continis unresolved, but we know from the novel by Giorgio Bassani that none of them survived. This film is beautifully photographed with the visual opulence one has come to expect from Italian cinema, with a haunting score and memorable performances, especially by the ravishing Dominique Sanda, quite possibly the most beautiful woman to ever appear on film. This is a movie everyone should see, since it drives home only too clearly the lesson that freedom can never be taken for granted, that what happened in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy could happen here too. No one is safe.