This movie put director Luc Besson into the big league.

The basic story is about a drugged up vicious street punk serving a life sentence for killing a cop.She is given a second chance at freedom of sorts, by a top secret French assassination agency.The movie shows her transformation into something better then she was and the affect it has on the two men in her life that mean something to her.

This movie is amazingly well acted. Anne Parillaud, Marc Duret, Patrick Fontana are outstanding.

This is a pretty violent movie, but not just for the sake of violence,it is a necessary counter-point to Nikkita's blossoming appreciation of life.The violence is realistic and well done.

The action scene's are fast pasted and tense.

Everything about this film is top notch, I recommend it.


Nikita Taylor is not a good girl.She's a heroin addict who participates in robbing the pharmacy.It ends up badly and she's the only survivor.She's sentenced for life for shooting a policeman.But one day she finds out Nikita no longer exists and she has to work as an assassin.Things get more complicated when she falls in love with a cashier.Nikita is an action thriller directed by Luc Besson.In 1993 John Badham made an English version called Point of No Return with Bridget Fobda in the lead.In the French version Anne Parillaud does a great job as Nikita.Jean-Hugues Anglade is terrific as her boyfriend Marco.Tchéky Karyo is brilliant as Bob.Jeanne Moreau is wonderful as Amande.Jean Reno is fantastic as Victor the cleaner.We all remember his outstanding performance also as a cleaner in Leon (1994), a Luc Besson masterpiece.The restaurant sequence looks quite awesome.She has to make her first assassination on her birthday.And the job she does with Victor, and he wastes all those bullets on those men and gets shot.I wish Luc Besson could come up with stuff like this some day again.Nikita is a great representative of the action genre.


This Nikita's Too Thin

Unlike the `Nikita' (as in, former USSR premier) and, like it's leading lady, LA FEMME NIKITA is too thin to be as fully satisfying or thought provoking as it could have been. As written by Luc Besson and as played by Anne Parillaud , Nikita is a whiney, drug addicted psychopath who murders a police officer in cold blood, even though she has virtually no chance of escape. Even during incarceration, Nikita ruthlessly maims an interrogator. She is sentenced to life with no possibility of parole for 30 years.

CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD.

When Nikita finds herself being summarily executed by lethal injection, she cries out for her mama. This cowardly behavior was found repugnant in the days of Cagney and Bogart. Here, I suppose, it is suppose to arouse sympathy for Nikita. It doesn't work.

Nikita awakes to find that her execution and burial has been staged, and her new mentor, Bob (Tchéky Karyo) recruits her for work as a spy / assasin. Bob gives her one hour to choose: Either work for us or be executed for real.

Using a ruse, Nikita attacks Bob and, taking his weapon, uses Bob as a shield in an attempt to escape. When her plans are foiled, Nikita attempts suicide, but Bob has left the first chamber in his gun empty. Reclaiming his weapon, Bob shoots Nikita in the leg as a lesson. This is the first scene in the movie I actually enjoyed.

Entering training, the cruel, unruly Nikita physically injures one trainer and emotionally injures another. Bob finds out from Nikita it is her TWENTIETH birthday. Bringing Nikita a cake, he tells her she has two weeks or she'll never see 21. Visiting her `feminity' instructor (Jeanne Moreau), Nikita begins to learn to use her feminine gifts. <br /><br />After finishing her makeup, throughout which Moreau says, `You are going to be very late!' Nikita goes to celebrate her TWENTY-THIRD birthday with Bob! After three years, the only apparent changes in Nikita are that she is slightly calmer (Ritalin?) and has learn to brush her teeth, comb her hair and apply makeup (your tax francs at work)

Her birthday celebration outside the facility (which she hasn't left in three years), turns out to be an assassination in a public restaurant. This is the best action sequence in the movie (and Parillaud performs many of her own stunts). However, it seems pretty silly for an `expert' spy to leave a `novice' spy to commit this kind of mayhem in such a public place.

It gets worse. Once Nikita escapes and returns to the spy compound, making no attempt to hide her tracks, Bob tells her that she is `free' and that the organization has set her up with a cover. Right, she has just slaughtered over a half dozen people in a public place and she is free to go settle down. What, is there no police force in France (I guess Nikita killed the last cop in the beginning). Nikita then becomes domesticated and settles in with a sweet boyfriend, Marco (Jean-Hugues Anglade). Things are going swimmingly for Nikita until the `nasty organization' asks her to do a few more jobs, each one more ridiculous than the rest. One asks us believe that Nikita could shoot a woman with a high powered rifle from her motel room and have no police come to investigate. The last would have us believe that Nikita dressed as as a male diplomat could ride through the gates of an embassy with a heavily armed hit man whom looks nothing like the real ambassador's driver without being questioned. It also asks us to believe a car can crash through a solid brick wall and keep on going.

Near the end of the movie, Marco, whom has discovered whom Nikita is, debates with Bob about the moral equivalency of Nikita's assassinations of enemies of the state with her murder of the innocent cop. Some have argued this movie makes a strong statement against capital punishment. I disagree. Nikita may no longer be as rebellious, but she is every bit as dangerous at the end of the movie as she was at the beginning. She NEVER shows remorse for the cop's murder, and always seems only concerned about saving her own skin. Her only sacrifice seems to be abandoning the two men she loves. Will Nikita again become the foul, ruthless, drug-addicted `wild child' of the streets. The liberal conceit that `society made her that way' and that, "love and financial security will save her" fails to take into account the Robert Downey Juniors and O.J. Simpson's of the world. Certainly external forces DO shape us, but they don't make us whom we are. That kind of wooly-headed thinking is why so many FAVOR capital punishment. That is, in order to prevent nitwit social scientists from inflicting the same murderer on us TWICE. Besides, the organization would track down and kill Nikita to protect itself from exposure. Nikita would understand. After all, the organization would be playing by HER rules.

This movie is wrong headed from the start. Luc Besson's trademark `flying dolly' opening shot into strutting drug-addicted criminals does not work here. Drug addicts, particularly those planning to rob a store would skulk, not strut. Thin stuff, indeed.


This is one of the movies where you get into a state. State of mind, I'll never forget the first time I saw this movie. What feeling,

I think that Nikita make the movie so free that you almost believe this is happening "Live". French movie, Luc Beson this is quality.

Shes close to be a soldier who fights for integrity and for the human freedom while she claime up the stairs to respect and acknowledgement.

I don't know if it would be good with a second movie. Time have passed and it's twelve years ago, so how does she look like today comparred to 1990. Nevermind this is one of the top 10 movies at all times.

Be aware - Be prepaired - for a meeting with true actress - improvised - and timeless, a cult and one of it's kind.

Thanks for the warm a delightfull experience.


Nikita is a great French film - one of the best I have viewed. In fact, I have to do an essay on a foreign film and chose to do this one ... problem is - I can't find too much info about it ... but, I feel that this film is great for first-time foreign movie-goers as they seem a bit hesitant at first when faced with watching a foreign movie - especially students ... because of "The Assassin" I feel that the comparison between the 2 movies will help other countries gain a greater understanding for foreign movies... it's a must see!!


La Femme Nikita is one of the best action/thriller spy movies to come out in the 90's. Luc Besson became a name upon moviegoers lips from that moment.

From the films brutal introduction to nerve racking ending, this film is, in my opinion, one of the greatest commercial french films. A great deal of people believe that French films have to be boring or art house. Well this movie has adrenaline but also has a interesting imagery to it. the characters and supporting characters are all stylish with each underlining imagery that go with them.

Example. When our heroine goes on her first mission she meets her team. The team is filled with men with earings, dreadlocks and even ganger looks. These agents do not resemble the clean cut, tuxedo wearing James Bond. there is also a mixture of cultures which i find refreshing.

Even the action is stylistic. Luc Besson created the camera POV of the bullets trajectory (which was i believe was stolen by Robin Hood : Prince of thieves 1991).

La Femme Nikita is much better than its boring American remake POINT OF NO RETURN ( the movie was good enough to be shown in the States without having to be remade).

I Recommend this movie to whom ever are in the mood for a good story and a great set of action sequences.


This is a pretty good sequel for the most part that's quite entertaining, with fantastic performances, however it comes nowhere close to matching the original. All the characters are pretty cool, and the story was solid, plus Emily Perkins is simply amazing in this!. I was really disappointed that Katharine Isabelle was so wasted in this as she only has a few lines, and I thought Tatiana Maslany was brilliant as the psycho Ghost as she was really creepy and unpredictable, plus it had quite a few tense scenes. while it is good it just didn't have the magic the 1st did, and while the ending is really quite surprising, I never did care too much for it,plus Emily is able to match her amazing performance in the 1st!. It's decently made and written, and it also leaves open the possibility of another sequel which I would love to see, however like the 1st the Werewolf effects Wern't that great. There is a freaky masturbation scene, and I love the setting in the creepy hospital, plus all the characters were quite likable. This is a pretty good sequel for the most part that's quite entertaining with fantastic performances, however it comes nowhere near close to matching the original in my opinion, still I highly recommend it. The Direction is quite good!. Brett Sullivan does quite a good job here with effective camera work, solid angles, using a creepy setting, adding creepy atmosphere some good POV shots, and lots of other cool shots as well, plus he kept the film at a fast pace for the most part.

There is a bit of blood and gore. We get bloody self mutilation, bloody werewolf attacks, glimpses of pretty gory corpses, skin cut off of someone's ear, nasty transformation scenes, hammer in the head (at least I think it was), quite a bit of blood, and other minor stuff.

The Acting is fantastic!. Emily Perkins is amazing as always and is amazing here, she is extremely likable, tough but vulnerable, had pretty good chemistry with Tatiana Maslany, is incredibly gorgeous, was quite intense, and you will really care for her character, she really did match her amazing performance in the 1st here, and it will be very interesting to see what her character will be like if they make a true sequel to this (full Werewolf?) (Perkins Rules!!!!!!!). Tatiana Maslany is brilliant as Ghost, she played the creepy psycho very well yet she still managed to be quite likable, she was also energetic had some good lines, had a wicked character, and was totally unpredictable, I predict big things for this young actress!. Eric Johnson is great as Tyler he was a bit of an ass and very cocky, but somehow yet still charming and quite likable I dug him for some reason, he did a good job. Janet Kidder is decent as Alice and did what she had to do adequately. Katharine Isabelle is still gorgeous as ever, but had only a few scenes was totally wasted! which was incredibly disappointing, I mean it was great to see her but I began thinking why did she even agree to make a few appearances with minimal dialog?. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall I highly recommend it. ***1/2 out of 5


So just to recap the events of the original "Ginger Snaps" (SPOILERS!!!), Ginger and Brigette are sisters ... Ginger is bitten by a werewolf ... Ginger begins to turn into a werewolf ... Brigette infects herself with Ginger's blood ... Brigette kills Ginger.

We rejoin Brigette after an undisclosed period of time. She's living in a cheap motel room in a city somewhere, shooting up on wolfsbane and keeping a chart of how long it takes for self-inflicted wounds to heal -- hoping against hope that she might never become a werewolf. Occasionally she is visited by the ghost of her dead sister, who haunts and taunts her throughout the movie (you can't have a Ginger Snaps movie without a Ginger, right?). One night she manages to overdose on wolfsbane, and she gets picked up and taken to an outreach centre where she is kept caged like an animal and deprived of the drug ... but what they don't know is that she's being hunted by another deadly werewolf, who has a strong desire to mate with her.

Ginger Snaps : Unleashed is even darker than the original, both in the metaphorical and in the literal sense of the word. It's also a lot weirder ... so if, like me, you're a big fan of weird, odds are you'll probably lap this up like a bloodthirsty wolf. There are plenty of great twists and turns in the plot, and the casting is really amazing. Eric Johnson and the young Tatiana Maslany both deliver superb performances in the two main supporting roles. In most respects, many agree that this sequel is in fact better than the first movie ... but they're both so great, I don't even feel the need to compare them.

I was a bit concerned about the fact that this wasn't written by the same team as the first movie (in fact screenwriter Megan Martin seems to have no other credits to her name), but it is actually an interesting twist on the original, written by someone who clearly understood what Ginger Snaps was all about. There are two main formulaic werewolf plots ... the first involves our hero changing into a werewolf, which will eventually lead either to finding a cure or to their death (as in the first movie), and the second is about a group of characters being stalked by a werewolf, and for an added twist perhaps the werewolf is one of them. This film incorporates both of these formulas into an excellent, engaging horror story.

Ginger Snaps is probably the first great werewolf movie to have a worthy sequel, and if that wasn't enough they had to go and do it again a third time. If you haven't seen this whole trilogy yet, you definitely should.


In the sequel to the cult horror hit "Ginger Snaps", Brigitte(Emily Perkins) finds herself transforming into the same monster that killed her sister. She has been injecting herself with too much monkshood, she o.d's, is mistaken for a junkie and wins herself a trip to the "Happier Times" rehab center. There Brigitte meets a young girl named Ghost(Tatiana Maslany)who is a very strange and curious kid and might help Brigitte with the cure. The two of them become very close, almost like sisters even, but now Brigitte has a bigger problem, another werewolf has been stalking her and now he wants to mate. I am probably the biggest fan of Ginger Snaps and I was highly anticipating the sequel. As soon as I saw the opening credits, I knew that I was in for a treat. Emily Perkins was simply amazing, the gore was beautiful and the dark humor and atmosphere were similar to the first one. The makeup was better where as the first Ginger Snaps was more emotional. Of course it wasn't as good as the first one but what sequel ever really is? Like I said, the acting and makeup was awesome and the soundtrack was great too. I also really enjoyed the short but sweet appearances by my beloved Katharine Isabelle as Ginger. The ending was very disappointing though, it kind of ruined the whole movie for me. But if I forget the last 10 minutes, this movie was excellent and almost gave me as much pleasure as the first one. I would give Ginger Snaps II:Unleashed 8/10.


I have yet to see the first Ginger snap or any other Ginger snaps movies in the series.

I saw this when it came on TV once, all i knew about this movie before I watched it, was that it had something to do with a werewolf.

Brigitte seem to be haunted by her dead sister, who a was werewolf too and she will become too but she then takes a deadly second dose of monkshood, which would stop her of changing into werewolf. Jeremy with her library books at her door and he see that she has taken drugs and then is about to take her to the hospital but is attacked.

After that She wakes up in rehab clinic for drug abusing girls. she locked up and a little girls know about this and then helps her out to get more drugs to help her not to turn into a werewolf.

This was really interesting werewolf movie, I didn't find IT boring, which i thought I would, but it was really entertaining movie,They had some really nasty bloody deaths in here too and i did like how the werewolf looked, it was little scary.

The acting from the main girl was really good, the rest of cast was just okay but the little girl acting was really poor.

I give this movie 7 out of 10


good Canadian movies are a hard jem to find ( as is any Canadian one) but this one is somewhat easier to find

after watching the first one i immediately needed to view the second and i isn't a letdown in any way to its predecessor.

the story follows Bridgette after running away from her dark past. shes completely changed except for the fact shes still a werewolf, and is now an independent woman with some "problems" but soon after passing out in a snowbank from an overdose of monkshood is taken into a drug clinic and the story begins there.

if you thought the first one was to dark, then you may have to watch this movie of an extended period of time

any wean this movie is amazing in every single way buy it NOW!!


It really makes me mad to see fellow Canadians praising such a dumb movie, especially when its as horrible as this. I don't think Ive ever seen another movie, horror or otherwise, where absolutely NOTHING happens for so long. Like the amount of boredom in this movie is actually unsettling. The entire movie is filler right from the get go. 45 minutes in and still nothing, just pointless conversation that Im guessing was supposed to be the character development? We get a girl brooding into the mirror trying to conceal her secret but yeah thats about it...for 45 MINUTES! Then we get a 3 minute chase scene, then revert to 30 more minutes of nothing. End of movie.

Acting/budget are never a factor in horror so I wont comment on them. Usually plot holes and such shouldn't be a factor but there's just so much lameness with the whole rehab clinic and so many "Im so sure" moments, they'll be constantly on your mind agitating you. (since, chances are, NOTHING will be happening on screen.) An anti-climatic ending, no scares, no jumps, no gore, no laughs, nothing. Not a single fun scene in the whole movie.

Seriously, if you want a horror with developed characters pulled off right, and with stuff actually happening, go rent the remarkable Pumpkinhead and avoid this straight to video nonsense. One of the most wildly inept horror/thriller flicks that Ive seen in recent memory, and believe me, Ive seen them all.


This sequel picks up shortly after the first film ends. We meet Brigitte in a Despair Montage. You know the sort I mean -- clips of ostensibly mundane images edited together with some heavy music, to indicate a wretched emotional state. Brigitte is alone and clearly desperate. She looks and sounds like a junkie. Which she is -- though not for your standard drugs. After an incident which is probably not hallucinatory -- but which the film leaves deliberately ambiguous, since Brigitte has just o.d.'d -- Brigitte is consigned to a rehab clinic.

Now, I don't know anything about the day-to-day realities of the Canadian public health system. But I seriously doubt that anything is as creepy and weird and unsettlingly earnest as this place. The halfway house director, Alice, is a very fine character. Played by Canadian actress Janet Kidder, Alice is surprisingly three-dimensional for her cardboard role. Kudos to Kidder. I mean, really. The Rehab Director Who Won't Believe You is kinda a feature of these sorts of films.

All right, I'm going to digress.

The most interesting thing about horror movies is the part which no-one thought about. In the creation of a horror film, the screenwriters and directors think about many things. Dialog. Cineamatography. Score. Special FX. MPAA ratings. Coolness. One of the least thought-about items in most cases is the backstory of the plot. Horror starts with a Bad Thing Happening. The audience is given a vague series of hand-waving gestures as to how the Bad Thing came to be, and that's it. It is the least important thing.

Which makes it incredibly interesting to me. What happens, see, is that the writers reach for something easy for the audience. For example. In the 1960's everything was a result of leaked radiation. In the late 1970's and early 1980's everything was caused by premarital sex and psychological obsessions. In the 1930's everything was caused by travelling to foreign places and meeting weird people.

The first causes of things in horror films are facile glosses of cultural fears. That's point one.

The second things that interests me in horror films is who the real villain is. Not the monster, or the bad guy, or the alien who eats your face. Who is the one that does the human-scale evil that leads to the ultimate disaster. The real, understandable villain. In Nightmare on Elm Street the real villain was and is always the parents who murdered Fred Krueger and who subsequently refused to aid their children in any way with the consequences of their actions. In Psycho it's Norman's mother, who twisted him so awfully. In Scream 3 (and this is stretching the point a bit -- but only a bit) it's Hollywood, for how it eats its actors alive.

The third thing that I love about horror films is the pretext for helplessness. The protagonists is always helpless for much of the film. Why? Is the villain all-powerful? Are they trapped in a spaceship? Does society refuse to believe them? Are massive corporations hiding the evidence? What strips the protagonists of their power? Or, did they have any power in the first place? (Which, box office dynamics aside, is one reason why horror films feature teens. They have agency and some power, but never, ever enough.) In terms of the things that interest me, Unleashed scores quite high. Birgitte is stripped of her power in two ways. First, she is degrading from within due to the disease. Second, her means of controlling herself is taken away by being locked in rehab. The real villain in the film I will NOT tell you. But. The entire message of the film is one of the nature of human response to internal evil.

I'll say that again.

Werewolf movies are always about how you choose to deal with your internal evil.

Which leads me to the most interesting thing about horror movies, the thoughtless choice of first causes. Yes, yes, hot werewolf chicks are cool. We all know this. Whatever. I'm not talking about that. The first film was about what happens when the powerless get power. But the parallel message of GS was that power does not grant you license to do what you darn well please. GS:U continues that second theme.

Brigitte simply refuses to give in to everything she wants, though she knows it's hopeless. Though she is attacked from inside her own self. Attacked by what she wants more than anything in the world. Her own desires are her enemy.

So why make a movie with this theme? I think that once a theme is identified in a horror film, all one has to do to answer why is look around at the culture. I don't really know what Canadian anxieties are right now. So my guess is that this film is playing off of societal fears of Canada being infected by the cultural madness of the US, which fosters some of people's secret worst desires and makes them something to be proud of. Religious zealotry and intolerance, xenophobia, and warmongering disguised as patriotism are all things I think Canadians are culturally nervous about. As well as a fear/pride ambivalence -- they think they are strong enough to withstand our cultural imperialism, but are a little afraid that maybe, secretly, they'll like it and give in.

Infected with a disease that forces you to revel in everything you hate in yourself. Sounds like a werewolf flick to me.


In the long history of cinema, not many sequels have been of the highest quality. And while "Ginger Snaps II" is not better than the original, I'm proud to have it as a sequel to one of my favorite horror movies of all time. And as a Canadian, I'm very proud that our filmmakers are capable of making a horror franchise that maintains not only the scare-factor, but also a lot of much-needed dignity.

SPOILERS

Brigitte is on the run from the events of the first movie. The monkshood drug that saved Jason in the first movie is apparently not permanently effective, and she has to take it repeatedly to stop the transformation. A werewolf is searching for her (presumably Jason from the first movie transformed from not taking more monskhood), and wants to mate with her. When Brigitte is found unconscious on the street carrying syringes and monskhood, she's taken to a rehab clinic for drug-abusers.

This movie is very different from the first one. Brigitte's transformation is very different from Ginger's. She keeps having visions of Ginger, who tries to tell her that the inevitable is, in fact, inevitable. The strong characters remain in this entry. Ghost could not be creepier, and Tyler could not be more of a jerk. But what impressed me about this movie was that it still managed to be scary. Very close, in fact, to the first movie. The suspense is strong, and the use of dead silence is perfectly executed. And, like the first movie, I was happy not to see a drop of CGI throughout the whole thing.

END OF SPOILERS

I was lucky enough to win free passes to see this movie two days earlier than everyone else, and boy am I glad. I can't say I have any real problem with this movie. It's quite excellent. The first movie is better because...it's the first one. That's all I can say.

8/10


This movie was absolutely the best werewolf movie ever made! It was so good, that, if I didn't have a short attention span, I would watch it back-to-back every day!

First of all, the acting, once again, was superb. Emily Perkins does a wonderful job as Brigitte, and the new character, Ghost, was perfect, although her lines seemed a little too rehearsed.

I really like the dark humor in it, once again. I like movies that can be dramatic, somewhat scary, and funny all at once (all movies should be!). I don't know how people can say that they don't like this movie. I do!

The ending, where Ghost traps the transforming Brigitte in her cellar, and then welcomes her grandma home, is perfectly dark. I kinda think it's mean that she wants to hurt her grandma, but it goes with the plot. I especially like the very end, when she's reading the comic, and she says something like, "And off she went on her reign of terror, to vanquish her mortal enemies, of which there were many."

I don't know why I like it so much, it's just perfect.


Title: Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed

Director: Brett Sullivan

Cast: Emily Perkins, Katherine Isabelle, Tatiana Maslany, Eric Johnson

Tagline: It only dies if you do

Review: After having enjoyed the first Ginger Snaps immensely I decided to check out the sequel which had the same to actresses who played sisters on the last film. Did it live up to the coolness of the original? Well no, to be honest.

The story follows Bridgette who after being bitten by her own sister on the last film is now also suffering the painful and slow process of becoming a werewolf. She uses a drug to help slow down the process, but how long will it last? Not a lot of time passes until she ends up in a rehab center and befriends a bunch of messed up junkie girls. The authorities believe that Bridgette is just a junkie in need of some serious rehabilitation. The girls she meets in the center are similar to the group of screwed up kids seen in Nightmare on Elm Street III: The Dream Warriors.

What I liked about the movie was its look. It was well shot and had some stylish camera angles...also some of the characters were very very likable. Like for example the little girl who plays "ghost" she was an interesting character and one of the coolest things about the movie. She quickly befriends Bridgette due to the fact that she doest have many friends. I liked her right of the bat just cause she reads and constantly quotes her horror comics. The character of Ghost is the only thing original that this movie has to offer, aside from her and the sub plot with her grandmother, there's nothing new in Ginger Snaps 2.

The problem with the movie is that for the longest time it just draaaags. The whole movie is just about one thing. Teasing you. You keep thinking that eventually your going to see Bridgette transform. Many times through out the film she is found in exactly the same situation...just seconds away from transforming...but then she takes that drug and everything goes back to normal. Its like watching an episode of the Hulk in which Bruce Banner never transforms into the hulking beast. For a long time...nothing really happens. The movie just stretches to the point of boredom. Until the last 15 minutes of course.

This is supposed to be a werewolf movie, yet there's hardly any werewolf action. We only get to see one werewolf and hes hidden in shadows and quick cuts. I wished we could have seen more of the creature we came to see. Could it be that the director is afraid of showing his low budget creature? Hmm..at leas the first one showed the werewolf even if it wasn't the best looking one, it was there.

Sadly we only get to see katherine Isabelle in a small cameo, she was a huge part in what made the first one so much fun, here shes just a watcher, a character who really does nothing except comment on what she sees and torments Bridgette. The chemistry between the two sisters which was in a large part what made the first one so enjoyable is completely gone! That sucked big time for me.

In conclusion this movie had some good characters, a monster that wouldn't show and some nice camera shots. Gone is the chemistry between Bridgette and Ginger and the punch that the first movie had. I don't get whey there's so many positive reviews for this film it was alright, but sadly not as good as the first.

Rating: 21/2 out of 5


I thought this movie was brilliant. I am a huge fan of the Ginger Snaps series and I think this one is amazing. This film is mainly about Brigitte, as the first one was mainly about Ginger. Although Ginger does appear for a few minutes in some bits of the movie, Brigitte has the majority of the movie. Some may be disappointed as Ginger is gone, but Brigitte is very good in her role which makes up for Ginger's absence. Emily Perkins, in my opinion, plays Brigitte Fitzgerald far better in this movie than the first. For one, she has real hair now. Secondly, Brigitte has a huge contrast to the other character in the movie, which attracts you to her dark personality more. One of those attracted is the comic book obsessed Ghost, who is fascinated by the mysterious sister and wants to know more about her. But Brigitte being Brigitte, she's become very anti-social. Ghost is a strange girl. She doesn't seem to be able to divide the comic book world from the real world, which can make her annoying as she seems to go on about darkness and such. She's a chatterbox, and is constantly pestering Brigitte, wondering what she is hiding from everyone. The werewolves in Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed were far better than the original Ginger Snaps movie. These werewolves have developed from the weird pink things they were before and now have fur, proper fangs and scary yellow eyes! I would recommend this movie to whoever liked the first one. It's got a bit less gore and more sexual references, but the darkness of Brigitte's role and the weird Ghost makes this film amazing. *10*


The original Ginger Snaps was a refreshing take on the werewolf story - the way that it blended the similarities in the story with the puberty of teenage girls was both amusing and original and it proved that there was still some originality left in the genre. This first sequel isn't quite as good as the original, but there's still much to like about it. The story follows Brigitte, the more weird and less sexy of the two sisters from the first film who is now changing into a werewolf herself. For some reason that is never properly explained, she has infected herself with the curse via Ginger's blood and has gotten herself addicted to the cure, the plant; monkshood, in order to stop herself changing into a werewolf like her sister did. However, all is not so simple, as another werewolf is on the rampage and is stalking Brigitte because it wants to...ahem, mate with her. After surviving an attack from it, Brigitte is picked up by the police and taken to a rehabilitation clinic where she meets a whole host of new characters, including, most notably, a young weirdo called Ghost.

Making a welcome return from the first film is the parallels that are drawn between turning into a werewolf and being a teenager. It's not put forward as forcefully as it was in the original and it seems to concentrate more on the drug taking tearaway side of being a teenager as opposed to the more normal side. There is significantly less humour in this outing, as the parents that delivered most of it last time round have been dropped, but one thing I did find rather amusing was the way that the film used the wolf that wants to mate with Brigitte: probably a commentary on hormonal young men. Unfortunately, Katherine Isabelle who played Ginger in the original film isn't in this film as much as most viewers would like, and she serves the plot in more of an advisory capacity (much like the ghost in American Werewolf in London) and this doesn't allow her much screen time (although this will hopefully be rectified in the prequel; Ginger Snaps Back). One thing that this film definitely has over the original is the werewolf effects; they were terrible in the first film and really let it down, but here they seem to have taken influence from Dog Soldiers and look much better for it.

The new cast of characters don't make up for the relative loss of Ginger, but nevertheless; they're largely well done. Ginger's "replacement" is the aforementioned young girl, known as 'Ghost'. Ghost is an interesting character, and despite being a child; doesn't manage to become annoying, which is rare. The other two main characters are a male nurse, and a drugs councillor, both of which serve as metaphors for different roles in teenage life. What sets this film apart from many modern day horror films of this nature is that it's story driven, and rather restrained in the gore department. The film also has an atmosphere of tragedy throughout. This is one of the things I liked best about the original; the dark and morbidity of what's happening on screen consolidates with the characters, and are almost an extension of those characters; which also serves in giving the film a degree of intelligence.

The tragedy of the first film was brought to a head by way of it's brilliant and heartbreaking ending, and this film would have to work hard if it was even going to attempt at topping it. It didn't top it - the ending here, although good, and very imaginative isn't as well done as the idea suggests it could have been; and that's a shame. Other than that, however; this is one of the best horror sequels in a long time, and comes with the highest recommendation.


Respectable, even impressive follow-up to the sharp-witted Canadian horror indie. This one doesn't have the sustained thematic focus of the first, but all in all it's as twisted, watchable, and occasionally amusing as fans of the series would hope. If Emily Perkins's performance doesn't blow us away as it did in `Ginger Snaps,' that's only because it's not as much of a surprise this time around, and Tatiana Maslany's Ghost makes a goofy but plausible addition to the films' world. As I said, it's not the out-and-out allegory that the first film was, but there are rich satiric moments, flashes of wit (Brigitte's discovery of her hairy palms comes to mind), and nice nods to werewolf-movie convention, with the finale taking place in a remote cabin in the snowy woods. There are a few problems too--a weak, TV-ish performance by Eric Johnson, completely unnecessary cameos by Ginger herself, and worst of all an unfair and somewhat sad shift of focus at the end. But these things don't really diminish `Ginger Snaps 2's' accomplishments, and it remains an entertaining and original new horror film--a very rare thing these days. 7.5 out of 10.


Wow. What a great flick. I daresay it may even be better than the original. I say may, because the final scenes are a bit of an unnecessary letdown considering the buildup. While at first I thought I would miss Ginger, I realized her parts in this were pretty superfluous and could've been left out, since Bridgette was very capable of handling the film on her own. Of course then you couldn't have matching DVD covers. Atmosphere is way ramped up on this one (even the opening credits gave me the creeps, ugh) and the soundtrack definitely adds to the dread. A few nice scares and gore shots. This one was much more depressing than the first, which in my book is never a bad thing.


Loving "Ginger Snaps", a film which if you're like me felt left too many unanswered questions, coming into "Ginger Snaps 2" I was eager to see not only how they answered the unanswered questions, but seeing if they could keep the name Ginger Snaps still alive. Well I suppose they did but only in spirit, but it could have been worse. If you're reading this I'm assuming you've seen "Ginger Snaps 1" if not, goodbye thanks for reading. Anyways, I loved how the film was pretty much all about Bridgette, not that hated Ginger it's just I really didn't want to deal with one of the problems with Ginger Snaps 1 again which was the constant deal of: I'm okay, no I'm a wolf, No I'm okay, I hate you, now I don't, Now I do! You know, it gets old fast, so therefore having a on woman show with Bridgette I liked. Overall Ginger Snaps 2 isn't exactly a bad sequel, it's just an attempt that was just a little too safe. Ginger Snaps took a risk, after just recovering from the Columbine Massacre and other uproars in teen violence, Ginger Snaps 1 could have been more appropriate, but they weren't and it worked. Here with Ginger Snaps 2 there is no risk visible, and in the end this is probably how Ginger Snap 1 would have been if it had been safe. Sure I'll admit a sequel to a cult classics like Ginger Snaps is a challenge enough, but as a sequel I think it should want to be better, but here it feels more like they don't want to offend anybody (being the fans) so they play it safe. I loved how for the beginning they truly focus on the aftermath of part 1 (which is the funnest part of sequels, just getting to say "Hey I was there I saw that with you!" is fun), because it's fun to continue with the story from part 1. However as it descends from that it just becomes boring, and just like any other face in the crowd, and doesn't really have anything newer or anything to make it stand out like Ginger Snaps did. Perhaps the main thing is how they make certain characters bigger characters than they truly need to be. Ghost being the biggest example, she was annoying, to desperate, and honestly needed to die. Pretty much after Bridgette and Ghost escape the hospital is where it gets bad. All in all it's not exactly a bad movie it's just it's nothing special, even if it weren't a preceded sequel to Ginger Snaps, and like I said it's very safe. Besides even still as a sequel there are still too many unanswered questions, and don't even get me started on that ending. If you're a fan of Ginger Snaps, I'd see this one only too say you saw it.


I am a die hard fan of the original Ginger Snaps, and this sequel is like having to use Windows 3.1 my whole life. I tried to allow for the curse of high expectations. What I did not expect was that this movie would raise them by starting with an excellent, original story concept, good music, an edgy atmosphere and a solid gold performance by Emily Perkins. Those are the only things I can recommend about this film, however, and half of those are thrown out midway through the story.

The film's downfall is the screenplay, which was written by Megan Martin, who apparently had no previous screen writing experience. True, Karen Walton, who wrote the original (with director John Fawcett) also had no experience, but she also worked on that script for four years. It is harder to write for somebody else's character creations. For a sequel to a successful movie with a fan base, only chintziness could explain hiring a first-time writer for the sequel.

So, with practically no help from the dialog, Perkins carries the entire first half of the film as the lonely, doomed Brigitte, bereft of Ginger, and bitterly fighting her own animalistic changes. The difference in Brigitte's character after the traumas she suffered in the first movie are both believably sad and shocking, showing that Perkins is an actress of the highest caliber. When Brigitte is found unconscious on a street with needle and cut marks on her arms, authorities assume she is a junkie and put her into a teen rehab center. It turned out that monkshood did not cure the curse, it simply delays it. So, she is trapped and can't prevent her transformation in a place where she endangers many people, and, of course, the staff doesn't believe her.

From this mind-blowing story-concept we go to tedium, as the movie puts 75 minutes of material into 90 minutes. Midway through, it comes to life briefly, and then changes directions giving up everything it had going for it. Martin had written Brigitte into a corner, and so changed subject. I must admit here that I did not like the approach of dooming Brigitte from the beginning, and the twist at the end made me want to shoot the DVD as a traitor.

Martin has made Brigitte far too restrained, including with people who would turn a Quaker homicidal. She only partially loses her temper once, and as a character noted, it was measured. Brundel's law as it applies to werewolves is, there are no such thing as pacifist werewolves, or rather, any werewolf movie depicting them is a bomb. While Perkins does her best, in the many pauses in the dialog, depicting Brigitte as holding back her fury, it simply does not work in a werewolf movie, or in a horror movie. If the audience is asked to believe that a werewolf could be that restrained, they begin to doubt it is even a problem.

Katharine Isabelle continues her role as Ginger, who is dead of course, and who only Brigitte can see. Isabelle only has about fifteen lines, though. These are the sorts of lines that can only be delivered in the sleepiest way possible, and it can't be called dialog because usually Brigitte doesn't answer. Isabelle's part is almost all commentary and adds nothing to the plot. Her role seems half contractual obligation, half trailer-bait material. Mostly she just taunts Brigitte's about her futile efforts to fight the curse. Of all people, Brigitte and Ginger should still have a lot to say to each other. This is a huge waste of an actress who showed her mettle in the original.

No, instead, the movie is wrecked by Martin's new character. Tatiana Maslani as "Ghost" does a good job as a mentally ill young girl, obsessed with comics. It's a good character concept, really, and Maslani does do an excellent job. Even so, putting Ghost in and making her a major character respectively required an unbelievable explanation and an idiot plot. I felt like she belonged in her own movie and was just an intruder here. Worse, she crowded out a larger part for Katharine Isabelle, and the movie is called "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed," right?

Finally, I have to point out the werewolf makeup is BAD in this film. I never knew werewolves had sow's ears and third-degree burns on their lips. At one point, they make Perkins look like Keith Richards, and by the end, she looks like an orc with an immobile mask so embarrassing that would have looked cheesy in the '60s. Except for the mask at the end, this is probably not the make-up artist's fault. The makeup actually looks better on the DVD extras and in the publicity photos than it does in the movie. This suggests the problem was with the Lighting, the Director of Photography, or the Director.

Nevertheless, the movie does get the special effects right for the fully animalized werewolf.

Other fans of the original seem to like this movie, but I can't help but see it as a major disappointment, though not a disaster. There was a much better story to be told here. Unlike the original, this did not have Karen Walton and four years of work on the screenplay. It fails on its own promise, too, and not only by the standards the original set for it.


I don't really need to say anything about the excellence in Emily's performance as Brigitte, do i, Katherine is also great as ever, in her best role, only rivaled by her little part in Freddy vs. Jason.

but i wanted to talk a little about 'Ghost', played by 'young' Tatiana Maslany, i have written young in lines because when i watched the movie i thought, about 11 up to 14, not older, no way, but she was 19 at the time, unbelievable!!! but she was so very good as the little innocent girl ghost pretended to be and she kinda really looks like a little cute teenage girl, the kind you normally call friend of your little sister or some sort of that.

and the twist at the end with ghost was just brilliant, because you always believed Tatiana her role, but there are a lot of clues earlier.

There are some nice Gore effects in the werewolf victims, but it's never on a 'Braindead' level, so it always looks realistic, while Bridgets transformation is as great as Gingers in the first 1, kinda reminding of The Fly, not the original but the gory remake.

overall together with the first one my favorite part, i mean normally i'm not a fan of little girls in movies, and i hate it most if the director wants to force you into still liking her after she killed humanity or some sort of that, like the children in 28 Weeks later who have just wiped out our world and humanity, hated them right from the beginning, while i even liked Ghost after we learned about her, i mean it's quite a feat playing at the end a little murder girl and still appearing genuinely innocent, but i think it's the way her illness makes her into believing what she does.

overall a great horror movie, with just enough suspense and gore to never get into the way of the story, at the beginning i thought, not a movie like Halloween 2 (great movie)again, were they just systematically wipe out some sort of hospital, but then she escapes and the story goes on and on, just good old story-telling like it should be.

TAKE THAT Saw 3-5 (part 1 and 2 had good stories, but from part 3 onwards only Gore because they hadn't really much of a story to tell.


Brigitte (Emily Perkins) destroyed the werewolf that was her sister at the end of the first movie. Now she's infected with the same virus that's slowly turning her, and she senses that another werewolf is on the prowl for her. After an encounter with the thing, she collapses in a snow bank to find herself awakening in and confined to a rehab clinic. And the werewolf is naturally still after her, while she continuously injects herself with monkshood to stave off her inevitable transformation.

This intense and gruesome sequel is a worthy follow-up to the superb Canadian werewolf picture "Ginger Snaps". While it may not be completely satisfactory for viewers craving a high body count, it still piles on a fair bit of gore for prime visceral impact. It's got some decent chase scenes and constantly creates a feeling of utter gloom. It's not that there isn't humor, but it's largely of the dark variety, and the film-makers and cast play out their material with total conviction.

What certainly helps is that the film looks as if it was filmed during an actual Canadian winter. Knowing full well just how cold and forbidding they can get, I believe it adds to the unrelenting atmosphere of the piece. The cinematography seems to deliberately shy away from most bright colors, and the tension is increased by the low-key but effective music score.

There are some standout sequences. Life is clearly not easy for Brigitte; she finds that living life on her terms will come to be difficult and that she will have to make deals to get what she needs. Her late sister Ginger (the lovely Katharine Isabelle makes a welcome return appearance) appears in visions. The intelligent script draws the comparison between the curse of the werewolf and other ills of the young female demographic, and allows the film to refrain from being predictable. It gives Brigitte an offbeat young companion named "Ghost" (Tatiana Maslany) with whom she can share dialog and compare her own bleak world view; "Ghost" is a comic book addict and sees the werewolf persona as an appropriate antihero for a world beset by problems.

One will also notice that with the possible exception of minor characters, not a single male individual on hand is sympathetic, thereby accenting the need for females to rely on each other.

Co-starring are Janet Kidder (Margots' niece), Brendan Fletcher, and Eric Johnson, with each putting in a solid effort.

The ending is an intriguing surprise and worth waiting for, and the film is overall a good entry in its series and a respectable addition to the canon of werewolf films.

8/10


Another two hours of my life that I've wasted and will never get back! How did Bridgette jump from the 1700's to the 21st century? That was never even hinted at. Poorly written, plot was obvious and predictable. Who was the male werewolf following her? Other than it wanting to mate with her "WHY" was it following her? The masturbating clip was trash and needless! The only good parts to the movie was when Grandma got nervous anytime Ghost got near her. Couldn't the mental health personnel able to tell that Ghost was a seriously sick individual? How is Ghost going to deal with a werewolf in her cellar? The first Ginger was better written!


I've never seen the 1st one but this movie blows, I'm having a hard time finding something positive about this movie, well no, i will say good job on the special effects and the werewolf costume and head, whoever made those is good. now onto the crap, the two main characters Bridget and ghost. the whole time i watched this i seriously wanted to punch both of them, if it was possible i would have. especially Ghost, whom is a little too crazy for my taste, not to mention one of those people who hope will get what they deserve, in which this movie does not give. so thats a huge mistake. i was hoping shed get it for all the crap she did. o well. and whats up with the sequel, a prequel set in the 19th century with two sisters who happened to have the same names and look just like th girls in the 1st movie LIKE O M G WHAT ARE THE ODDS!!!! geeeze its like they didn't even try.


My children and I truly enjoyed this delightful movie. Even though the story line is a little predictable, the actors made it fun to watch. This is a "kid" movie. They loved the slapstick, and the predictability. The scene with Joey on the porch talking to his "dad" was my favorite. It brought tears to my eyes. That boy was very natural and sincere. My children and I thought it was cute,and a lot of fun for family entertainment.


Movie left me feeling that the accomplishments of anyone can affect everyone. Not a bad thing to teach our kids. Some critics will naysay this film, saying that it is childish and puerile. True, but it wasn't made for adults. 'Nuff said.


This man (mr. Schuch) is definitely out of character - ALL the time!

He is well known in his hometown, The same town of Orson Wells, Don Ameche and more His humour is almost legendary as well as his compassion. And ACT, he can do this out brown paper bag. In costume he changes and then he changes back.

But it seems that every time we see he is going to have that one chance - then snap- there goes the cutting room floor.

I pray someday Christopher Guest sees him and make a movie just for him. For those of you unfamiliar - you are on IMDb - they have it all

He is just like Mr. Guest in every way.


I found this to be an enjoyable and entertaining movie. As a schoolteacher, I am always glad to find something I can show my students that does not use profanity, have excessive violence, sexual content, or have other things that might be labeled objectionable. The acting is quite good, despite the fact that most of the actors are not well known. They are believable and none of them are show stealers. Particularly interesting is the way in which Joey's nemesis, Reese, goes back and forth in his views of Joey. There are enough interesting sub-plots like this to keep the viewer interested. Movies of this type seem to be increasingly difficult to come by. "One Young Hero" is truly "family-oriented" and entertains without being sugary.


This movie probably won't win any awards for acting of script but it is an excellent movie for parents to watch with their kids. It is very clean and has has a moral lesson to it. The plot is predictable but I found myself pulling for the little hero in his battle with the bad guys. This movie won't embarras you with offensive language and sexual themes. Put a bag of popcorn in the microwave and get ready for a couple of quality hours with your kids or grandkids rooting on One Small Hero.


No kid can take on twice his size...come on! I just didn't get it.The kid actually manages to save everyone from a bad guy. Normally, bad guys aren't so dumb. The way Hutch hits Baby is so fake! It was a touching movie but i didn't think it was all that if you know what I mean. I see why the kid actors haven't acted in anything else. Everyone I know hates this movie. It's hard to believe it actually made it on the air. Although I said this movie is terrible, it's not as bad as From Justin to Kelly. That was bad. I have to agree with someone else on this. The songs and hand-clapping games were nice touches. For all the future watchers of this movie, change the channel after you see a blonde kid with a baseball cap that he's wearing backwards. This is where its starts to turn terrible.


I can't understand how someone can do such thing. I don't know if it was independent movie or what. But I never saw so bad image (like every scene was "blur" or something)in a movie, even in independent ones. The script is predictable, the actors are bad acting, trying to make scenes funny. Instead they have come ridiculous. So, why did I watch it, someone can ask: because my kids (11 and 13yo) asked us to watch any movie in the TV with them. Then I suggested them to choose one. And they did! But even they didn't like it. It should be better if they had chosen other films at Nickelodeon or Disney channel that are re-run several times a week. My time wouldn't be so wasted as it was. And this movie was played at prime time on HBO Family!!!!!


I was really looking forward to seeing this one: the trailer I'd seen promised much. Even the music sounded good. Sigh. With the exception(s) of two very lyrical dream sequences, there's absolutely nothing to recommend here. HAKAIDER calls to mind the American version of the GUYVER manganime, by way of ROBOCOP (which was itself nothing more than a thinly-veiled rip-off of the 2000 A.D. strip, JUDGE DREDD). Unlike ZEIRAM (or ZEIRAM 2) or TETSUO or any of a number of other well-done live-action anime, HAKAIDER offers nothing more than the aforementioned dream sequences; the rest is sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. A major disappointment.


This movie is a must see for any fan of "Tonkatsu" (Reflective to real life) style cinema as well as Science-fiction/action. Comparitively this movie is an unsung classic in "Tonkatsu" it has such compelling elements similar to work from Kurosawa's "Ran" and "Rashomon".As some would complain that this film is not a visual masterpiece, I would in turn ask them how much of it they have seen. There are very dynamic characters and excellent plot formation and culmination. The storyline is a very insightful view on humanity and socio-economic divisions and struggles therein. While touching these points and making an impact at doing so, the movie's elements of action and drama are of such quality that anyone can enjoy the film without struggling to get it's deeper meaning. Missing this film is an injustice to anyone who enjoys science-fiction, action, drama, and intriguing storyline. Enjoy this excellent film.


Don't get me wrong, there have been great westerns to come before Deadwood, but none of them really got it right. There is just a reality that some people aren't willing to deal that after 50 years of our history being whitewashed through film and TV, we're finally starting to see the truth. David Milch has done his research and discovered the wonderfully bizarre contradiction of languages used in the old west. Watching the cast of Deadwood converse with a combination of old world English laced with profanity straight from the gutter is incredible and feels right for the first time. Where do people think our language came from? People always want to think that they were the first to do something, when things like profanity, substance abuse and prostitution have been around since before man walked erect.

Along with the incredible dialog and storytelling, David Milch has introduced possibly the greatest character to ever come to TV or film...Al Swearengen. Ian McShane plays Al with the same intense conviction and truth that the character himself lives by. In Al's world things are black and white and never apologizes for a second for living his life by a strict code of morals of his own making. I don't think we've ever seen a character go from crying after a mercy killing to watching a murder he orchestrated stone faced.

This is indeed a special show that is continuing to pave the way for the facts of our history to finally be told with truth...Instead of the whitewashing we've seen our whole lives to make us feel better about ourselves.


After executing his last legally ordained job as a Montana marshal, Seth Bullock moves to a gold-mining camp known as Deadwood, where he and his partner Sol Star strike a deal with Al Swearengen, on a lot for their hardware store

While suspicions arise that 'road agents' may have been the true perpetrators of the killing of an entire family on the Spearfish road, competition arrives for Swearengen in the form of the Bella Union, a new joint from Chicago operated by Cy Tolliver

Deadwooda town without any laws or courtsis the center of a gold rush and is presided over by Al Swearengen, a saloon owner, and a brothel operator His showing makes two different things between the coward and the lapse of momentary fear Let him doubt those he's trusted, this camp will run red with blood

The show centers on Seth Bullock, a young man with a powerful temper who got a lot of Hickok's qualities But being a man with an active conscience Bullock declines to accept the horrors around him

We are rapidly introduced to most of the other important characters:

Wild Bill Hickokan asset to any saloon, and any joint he frequentscomes to look for business opportunity and sits there, losing at poker He is the fastest gun around While his respect for Bullock grows, he commissions 'Montana' to do a review of the Garret claim...

Cochranthe town doctor who takes heat from Al Swearengen every time one of the whores is poorly sickwas full of opinion and took the most comprehensive view when he treated the bright widow Now he doesn't feel at such perfect liberty to opine on her husband's case as he did on hers

E.B. FarnumJudas Goat looking fellow, coyote-moving typeis Swearengen's water boy, the innkeeper of a thousand faces staring straight at extinction

Brom Garretthe naïve city investor who had to go all his $20,000 to turn Farnum away and purchase a gold claimpursues his remedies in some other fashion

Sophiathe little survivorcould settle who killed her people, road agents or Sioux

Jewelborn with difficulties and hardships that got no curewants the doctor to brace her leg so her dragging it doesn't drive Swearengen crazy

Charlie Utterwho considers himself an important hand at the freight business plays a man too loyal and honest for his own good

Whitney Ellsworthwho saw something he shouldn't have, a man pushed off from a ridgeseemed very competent and trustworthy

Mr. Wuthe only source of opium in the campfinds a common language with Searengen when an opium theft occurs

Smiththe Reverend who has a distinct, clear set of moralsknows from past experience that it's a solace having friends

Ian McShane is a joy to watch He gives a first-class performance as Al Swearengen, the oppressive boss who can order the execution of any man in the settlement with just a word McShane who runs his Gem with the help of his cronies, emits power in every order he gives

While McShane is a marvelous villain who generates a palpable menace, Boothe is maniacally evil as Cy exuding despicable charm  Well dressed Cy is the gentleman on the outside while more cruel as Swearengen in beating, kicking, and killing

Such a performer was found with Timothy Olyphant, very effective as a formal marshal who understands the danger of his own temperament Seth Bullock stood before Alma Garret as a married man to his brother's widow after he was killed He took their five-year-old boy as his own son

The 4 show women that are trapped in a man's world are: Molly Parker as Mrs. Garret, the beautiful addict wife who suspects foul play She inevitably feels she's had some part in what befalls her husband; Kim Dickens as Joanie Stubbs, the very attractive solitary woman who uses to make Cy warm; Paula Malcomson as Trixie, the prostitute who must've done some fancy to keep Al from Killing her She tries to help Alma with the orphaned child while keeping her master in the dark; Robin Weigert as Calamity Jane, the sewer mouth that follows Hickok around When she confronts the greasy-haired dangerous man who pulls all the strings, she fell apart, broken and weak

There's something powerful and moving about 'Deadwood' It's truly a drama of memorable characters, dark and ultra-violent If you love Westerns, don't miss it!


The performance of Ian McShane was unequalled in ANY category of film or stage. The fact that the Emmy's ignored his great work is ludicrous. If you haven't seen it, buy the DVD when it's released, and I'll guarantee that you'll love every single moment. This show kicks the Soprano's to the curb. Even if you don't like Westerns per se, this show will engross you. Every character is unique in their performance. David Milch has actually outdone himself here. If the language and violence are not your cup of tea, then it would be best to stay away. Otherwise, the show is one of the best productions in years. Magnificent.


Deadwood is the finest Television program of all time in my opinion. This is high praise, considering West Wing, Hill Street Blues, and LAPD Blue. Everything about this series is top notch. The sets, the lighting, the lack of music to lead your emotions with only timely exceptions. The acting is outstanding across the board. But it is the writing that puts it in the stratosphere. David Milch combines the profane with an Elizabethan, Shakespearian, dialog that defies description. It is almost otherworldly in its beauty and deep meaning. Nowhere, in TV or movies, have I found writing and characters this good. It was truly a pleasure to see where each new episode was going.

I was deeply saddened when this show was canceled, as it seemed there should have been one or two more years left to finish the story of Deadwood and these remarkable characters. We may never see this rich a collection of both characters and actors again.

Well done everyone involved.


Like "Six Feet Under" and "The Sopranos" before it, Deadwood is emblematic of the fact that long form, done "right," provides a far broader palette for art than dinky old "cinema" ever could. (Sorry, cinema, you were my first love, but... that was before I knew!) The depths of character, the unremitting beauty and profundity of the dialogue... This show is Shakespeare/Dickens on TV, week after week. People will CLEARly still be watching Deadwood in a hundred years -- probably still in a THOUSAND, if the species lasts that long. They will be teaching it in high school. This show never ceases to explore and challenge its vast interpersonal landscape. It shines constant and ever brightening light into the murky depths of the human soul. Watching it, the jaw drops and only continues to plummet as the seasons roll all too quickly by.


I am very disappointed that I watched all the seasons of Deadwood. Not because the show was disappointing, but because the show ended. This was a show that was 360 degrees of amazing. A show that hit that gritty side of life in a way that leaves you feeling satisfied with its honesty.

I really feel unsatisfied with the way HBO finished Deadwood. I am not foolish enough to think that it is all about me, but after reading the web Blog's and feeling other viewers comments I know that I am not alone.

When and if HBO ever does anything about this I will be there to pick up where Deadwood left me...


I have really enjoyed Deadwood, so much I bought the three seasons on DVD and I don't buy many DVDs. I do believe it to be the best made series ever, all aspects are spot on, and the attention to detail is fantastic. The use of language of the period is amazing, being Dickensian at moments. The acting is superb and the sets are fantastic. I don't think I have seen busier streets anywhere. It is all enthralling - BUT it just stops.

Two more feature length shows are 'talked about' but HBO don't seem to be doing anything other than saying 'they will not be easy or cheap to make'. If you are a fan of the show please see http://savedeadwood.net/ for info on how and where to apply pressure.


When we all thought that the western had lost its appeal in our modern day and age, HBO came with a title that definitely proves otherwise. With the stunning visual imagery of a Sergio Leone flick and the sex, intrigues and violence of ''The Sopranos'', they make the genre come to live as never before.

''Deadwood'' tells the distinctive story of a little village that strives to stay a free haven for mobsters and corruption. Big corporations, hoodlums and authority figures all want a piece of it, but local mob leader Al Sweregan ( Ian McShane ) is stopping them with his cunning tactics and violent methods. And then there is local lawman Seth Bullock ( Timothy Olyphant ) being as idealistic as bendable towards the law. Others are the emotionally damaged Calamity Jane, the sweet natured Charlie Utter, the Jewish friend of Bullock Sol Star, grieving widow with a drug addiction Alma Garret, and the whores Trixie and Joannie Stubbs. This is just a small grasp of the colorful bunch of characters that this show has to offer.

I adore this show for being painfully raw and oddly sensitive at the same time. People aren't exactly nice to each other, but that doesn't stop unusual friendships and relationships from occurring. People are neither good or bad. Their choices are all based on the need to get things done, even if it has a negative effect on the lives of others. And sometimes there is no other option than to be cruel. This show really portrays our ambiguous nature as human beings.

Thanks HBO, for another great show that became one of my favorites!


Absolutely superb. I don't think I've ever given anything a 10/10 before, but for a TV show, Deadwood is excellent - and given the crap we're generally subjected to on the box, absolutely outstanding. The sets, the research, the directing, the characters, the acting - all shine. And without wanting to sound gushy, the script is close to Shakespearian in its prosaic yet pragmatic tone. The juxtaposition of the grit and dirt and blood of the real 'Wild West' with formal Victorian language is genius. Even the opening credits are beautiful. It may not be everyone's cup of tea (the language and content can be a little 'strong' although entirely appropriate and in context) but anyone who's a fan of quality entertainment, shouldn't go past it.


David Milch wrote DEADWOOD like nobody else writes anything: Dictated, open-source and interactive; just-in-time inventory created nearly on-the-spot so actors and crew could barely get it executed. Nearly everyone who can read has been subjected to lessons in civics and history in which glowing images of founding fathers and inspired visionaries brought forth upon this continent a new nation...

I think DEADWOOD is an antidote for all manner of propaganda, because it was pointedly intended to illustrate the evolution of orderly society from anarchy. It might have been set 2000 years ago at the conclusion of Republican Rome, but HBO already had something similar scheduled. So Milch turned to a more contemporary point in time in which thousands of imaginations snapped toward The Black Hills, impassioned by an American Dream of personal wealth (The Golden Rule) and beat an amoral path to get (and keep) theirs' first, in yet another time of violent transition. Custer died the day the telephone was first publicly demonstrated. Odd.

Ironically, the rule of gold and the search for color drew damaged, self-serving anarchists together in a bizarre perversion of selfishness that came to strongly resemble civic pride and benevolent altruism. At least, that's what DEADWOOD presents to me in the form of a truly fascinating entertainment that also unmakes the familiar, laconic Hollywood Western hero, who was the self-censored product of 30s Hollywood moguls' anticipatory auto-antisemitism.

About a year ago, David Milch presented many of his DEADWOOD intentions to an audience at M.I.T., in the form of a riveting interview. More clearly than in two seasons of DVD commentaries, he justifies his use of profanity in the series, explains his resistance to modern settings, and places the responsibility for understanding the DEADWOOD phenomenon on the audience, because the networks can't be bothered to re-educate anybody. In This class, there will be no yawning.

Please check it out. Just drop "Milch MIT" into a search engine, and you'll be streaming the 83minute free interview in no time.


Even if your not a western fan this show might still be for you. A tale of the South Dakota gold rush, but thats only a mere background for the story. You will watch characters your grandfather always told you about like Wild Bill Hickok and Calamity Jane as well as Seth Bullock. Ian McShane who stars as Al Swearengen. After watching 3-4 episodes Ian McShane immediately rocketed to my top 5 actors merely for his role on this show. Yes this show does have a few "goofs" as you call them in vocabulary, but who cares, why be nit picky. If continuous drinking, gambling, cursing, or prostitution may offend you, then this show is definitely not for you. Give Deadwood a shot and you will be hooked, the worst part is waiting until next week for another episode. HBO has yet again created another great show.


A lifetime regimen of television westerns has left me tired of the genre, sick of the directing, bored by the low budget sets, nauseated by the trite plots and appalled by the goodie two shoes language chosen in their screenplays.

Deadwood is something altogether different, and though, by the admission of it's director, short of being an historical treatise it is nevertheless an historical perspective I have never seen before. Instead it is more of a treatment of an historical era lent to a respect for authenticity without compromising entertainment value.

The scripting, casts, direction and sets are astounding. It is the first television miniseries (save for the Sopranos) that leaves me wanting for more and truly sad to see a season's ending. If only they could do something to improve new season turnaround!


For some reason television has been pretty damn good recently, with CSI, The Shield, Sopranos, etc raising the bar. Yet Deadwood goes beyond all of these. The acting is amazing, the sets are realistic...but most importantly the writing is brilliant. The dialogue is unlike any on television, and because of this the show seems more realistic and engaging than any Western movie or series ever before. Ian MacShane's Swearengen is beyond brilliance...for sheer violence he is more vicious than Tony Soprano or Vic Mackey, yet Swearengen has an intelligence and foresight they both lack. The show is violent, profane...and so is life. Come on HBO, bring Deadwood back...or at least hasten the taping of the new specials.


Im a big fan of the western genre and so bias but that said Deadwood is the greatest thing since moving pictures were invented. Over the top perhaps but after a seeing a review on Charlie Brookers screenwipe I immediately bought the dvds and instantly became addicted. My only problem I have with this program is that it caused me and my friends to neglect our Uni exams. It is without doubt the most realistic portrayal of the West and sometimes this can be annoying, for instance when Wild Bill Hickock is shot dead I was furious at how easily it was done but that would be how it was. Sometimes I wish Calamity Jane was more tough as she always appears 'all talk' to me but this further adds to the complexity of each character no matter how minor. The most moving moments to me are a toss up between the confrontation between Dan Dority and doc Cochran over Sofia Metz or one single moment when Swearengen watches Reverand Smith mad ranting from the balcony with a tear in his eye. These moments for me show the versatility and complexity of Deadwood and its characters.

Watch it! From the start!!


Deadwood makes a real stab at the real life harshness of the western life on the fringes of community. A settlement which in it's own right is an illegal venture in Native Territory; be prepared for some really BAD things to happen.

Ian McShane makes a groundbreaking performance in this series, depicting the real life bad guy that is Al Swearengen in astonishing style, he truly is a nasty piece of work in this series.

Not forgetting Robin Weigert as Calamity Jane, this is perhaps one of the best depictions of the "rootin' tooting'" gal. She is far more realistic in this series as a hard-hitting butch woman, unlike in previous inaccurate depictions from the glossy western of the "stunning blonde".

This has a quality of "Tombstone" (1993 - Cosmatos) mixed with "Fistful of Dollars" (1964 - Leone) mixed with "Open Range" (2005 - Costner), but with a far more darker side to it which is perhaps only seen in "The Missing" (2003 - Ron Howard) and it goes even further into that. Random acts of violence are not rare in this series and the community is non-stop. This is perhaps the finest example of how much trouble happens when the Odyssey runs the community.

Conventions Followed: Framing Shots, Idea's of Odyssey and Community, Guns Saddle and Horse, an "other" (in this case the Sioux).

Conventions Broken: Women are depicted as a tool, to be used by the Deadwood community such as prostitutes or like Calamity Jane. (slightly more realistic to the life in 19th Century Western America), Community dominated by the odyssey Character, Nothing Pre-lapsarian, Almost entirely based in the community, foul language used in it's full context, immoral characters "get-away with it".

Prepare for some Protagonist vs. Antagonist Action.


Ah, Deadwood. Not so much a television series as an opera without music, Deadwood is painted on a very broad canvas. Is it Swearengen's soliloquies to the severed head in a box? What about E. B. and his eloquent rants at fate or the bone deep brutality of Tolliver? Perhaps it's the earthy, pragmatic Trixie or Calamity Jane, who manages to be both world-weary and innocent. Maybe it's David Milch's Shakespearean language. Whatever it is, Deadwood ranks as one of the best and most unusual series in television history.

If you are a fan of great character actors or just excellent acting in general, this is the series for you because Deadwood is all about the people. That may sound obvious, but Deadwood's brilliance comes entirely from its characters and what they have to say. You could set them on the moon and they would still fascinate.

Noting a few of my favorites, Ian McShane has always been fabulous but what fun to see him as the foul-mouthed Al Swearengen. He dominates the town by sheer force of personality. Of course, Al is also very intelligent and frequently finds himself surrounded by idiots - a couple of said idiots wonderfully played by William Sanderson and W. Earl Brown. Powers Boothe, who excels at charismatic villains (anyone remember him as Jim Jones?) has fun with Cy Tolliver. A couple of (to me) unknowns who turn in great work are Robin Weigert as Jane and Paula Malcomson as Trixie. And then there's the Doc; Brad Dourif in a long overdue role. Garret Dillahunt, so creepy as Wolcott, needs to be careful he doesn't get type-cast  unless he really is that bent???? And John Hawkes and Gerald McRaney and Titus Welliver and . . . and . . . ! The whole cast is just wonderful.

If you love acting and intelligent dialog and you can tolerate some of the foulest language you'll hear on television, rent the DVDs and watch this series. It is truly one of a kind.


It goes without saying now (but of course I will say) that I and many others don't merely enjoy, "love", are engrossed by, adore, are awestruck and stunned by, etc. etc. etc., the writing, the directing, the staging, the performance, the concept, the amazing dialogue and soliloquies by Al, Bullock, Jane, Doc, Farnum, Utter, et al., and on and on. If you haven't seen "Deadwood" (I find it hard to believe that anyone who has come to this site hasn't) you MUST.

The comparisons to Shakespeare are accurate, and "Deadwood" is in the nature of that era's play cycles. The spicy, descriptive, and even florid speech is accurate in its spirit, as was Shakespeare's in his day. I am old enough to have had, and been intimidated by at close quarters for many years, a quite "proper" great-grandmother who lived and taught English on the frontier (in Nebraska in her case) - born 1867, died 1956. Her (and my genteel grandmother's, and my refined mother's) frequently used expletives included the likes of "Judas Priest"  indicating that the most dire and terrifying consequences were impending. Other invectives and exclamations similarly invoked the deity, or were inspired by classical literature, the Bible, and popular song, and are now incomprehensible to us. These have simply been "translated" for us, where necessary, or conveyed to us "as is" when they still make scatological sense today.

This could easily be one of, if not THE, greatest accomplishment in Modern American Theatre (it IS theatrical), and even in contemporary Literature. (I predict the scripts and performances will be studied in future college-level English Lit, Theatre/Drama, and Humanities classes.) But "Deadwood" will go out with a whimper, flawed and disappointingly ended due to HBO's (and Milch's) failure to see it through as projected and called-for by its very Art.

Though "Deadwood" has become probably the greatest experiment (note the "ex" in that word!) in TV, it will unfortunately soon pass into the world of "might have been" without a satisfactory and worthy end. As most of you likely know, the sets have been struck, and the cast and crew will not be returning (at least as of this date) for a fourth season, as had been promised and anticipated in order to bring the cycle to an appropriate close. While as a portrayal of a moment in time, time and the world continue after the show ends, no matter when that is, the end of this third season will conclude with only the vague prospect of maybe (and that's a BIG maybe!) a 2-hour movie, or maybe 2 2-hour movies, sometime in the uncommitted future.

If you care, please register your protest with HBO. You might even look up "Save 'Deadwood'" to see what's up. Enough from minuscule me; just watch, appreciate and try to save the incredible, always amazing, phenomenon (and justly so) that is "Deadwood". Please, please, please.


This series (mini? ) is hands down the best show ever on TV. I loved "Winds of War"," War and Remembrance" , "thorn Birds" etc. But none can match this one. I have watched Season one and two twice on DVD and season three over twice as it shows in HD. I did not watch this when it started as it seemed to be vulgar and violent in the first few episodes in the bits and pieces I saw. Then in June 2006 I rented two disks from season one and I was hooked. I searched near and far to rent the shows and Then ordered the Dvds.

By the 4th episode you are part of the story and even starting to love the "bad Guys". I do believe if a wider audience could have been exposed to this show It would be recognized for the unparalleled cinema it is. I can not imagine many of the actors being able to top this. I recommend investing in the Dvds as it will be something to watch every year or so as it is an experience not a show.


Many thanks for the producers of this show for providing intelligent adult entertainment for adults. The language is harsh but funny and for most people it will add to the enjoyment. If you have an open mind you will enjoy the bad language as part of the show (watch the scene between Al & Mr. Wu "discussing" the stolen drugs which had me roaring with laughter). Great scripts and great acting make for great entertainment and the camera work is also excellent. I have just finished watching the first series on DVD and it is easily one of the best TV series I have ever seen. Great stories all the way though. Can't wait to catch up on Series 2 & 3 on DVD.


Deadwood was a lawless mining town founded around the 1870's and located near the Black Hills of South Dakota. It played host to such legends as Calamity Jane and Wild Bill Hickok. It was a hell of a place to make your fortune. Deadwood, the HBO series, is the half-truth/half-fictional account of this town and more importantly, its rough inhabitants. Deadwood is a satisfying breath of fresh air into the neglected Western genre. Season 1 of this great series contains 12 one-hour shows and each one features compelling plots that build off each other, strong characters that look the part, and dirty locations and scenery that are spot on. Though this may be a TV show, nothing is held back! The language is obscenely vulgar (which seems to be historically accurate), violence is shocking and graphic, and the gritty atmosphere feels realistic and true to the times. That's not to say that the show doesn't have its lighter moments thoughin fact, it provides plenty of amusement. Anyway, the acting here must be acknowledged. From Timothy Olyphant as the no-nonsense Seth Bullock, to Robin Weigert as the fowl-mouthed Calamity Jane, to Ian McShane's Al Swearengen, the vicious saloon owner who more or less runs the town, they're all fantastic! Do yourself a favor, drink a few shots of whiskey and check out this enthralling, entertaining Western saga.


Have to agree with "Monumental's" rave out of Blighty, but the consensual 9.3, in view of much more "substantial" flicks and maybe even some teleseries, seems to me effusive. This David Milch oeuvre merits same, certainly, for setting and costume and the casting and acting are nonpareil throughout. But, at heart, this too is a "fable" of unrelenting stance and style and occasionally eyebrow-raising discomfitures of character and/or situation. The cussing becomes ho-hum, as intended?, but it's the facile morphings of Swearingen and Bullock from scary villain to almost-lovable reprobate and stalwart no-nonsense hero to acquiescent second-banana. In this view, Brad Dourif's "Doc" is the most consistent and audience-friendly of the lot, even if he's almost too worldly and wise, it would seem, for both period and locale. At bottom, the series is a direct peel-off from the late, great "Hill Street Blues" template, from ensemble characterizations to the true-blue "realisms" of the respective subjects and themes. Still, none of this takes away from the incredibly maintained mise-en-scene that would do credit to any filmmaker, much less mere teleseries wonks. What?, the latter are making monkeys out of the former nowadays. Oh, minor quibbles: meseems poor Calamity Jane has been overworked for comic relief sometimes, and, I would be curious for the historic citations for the likes of Mr. Wu and his pigpen. Nice designated pinch hitter though, for exotic "color"? The game's underfoot, Watson.

Addendum: After turning cartwheels for the likes of Season 1, and even extending into Season 2, I, personally, revise my reactions halfway through the Season 3 episodes. There can be no question about the polished savvy of the creators here, indeed, their accomplishments seem all that more astonishing. But, to me, the fact of the matter is that by Season 3, "Deadwood" had become almost a parody of itself, which is to say, "high camp." I can't quite take seriously the evolutions herein, including the Earp brothers as Blackwater types, even as seasoned vets like Gerald McRaney and Brian Cox, and even Gale Harold, make you sit up and take notice despite your askance. ALL sustaining members of the ensemble cast continue to maintain their individual "roles," even Robin Weigard's? late-blooming lesbian, albeit the writers and directors have a hard time making it convincing. Someone has posted here the claim that this "Deadwood" is a dead ringer for the historic one, coming from a resident there it should matter, but, skeptic that I remain, I have to believe that it can only be "half" the "tale," entertaining and theatrical as it is. And, finally, I personally find two "racial" elements that fail to ring my bell, to wit, the characterizations of the Negro mama and stable owner, and, more to the point, that of Wu. In that last case, the writers DID ring in the verity of "heng-dai," but assembled 150 "Chinese" between Cheyenne and Deadwood? Oh, well, this IS a fable, no? And a damnably satisfying one at that. But, to me, its "history"city falls considerably short of that of its fellow stablemate telesries, "Rome," which evinces ALL the strengths and glories and less of the stagings and asides.


David Milch has done such an amazing job with Deadwood in every way. The cast is a who's who of veteran character actors that, led by Ian McShane and Kieth Caradine, are truly superior in expression and delivery. The writing is top notch (Milch may be the best dialog writer going), and weaves the facts of the real history of Deadwood Gulch (one of the last American gold rush towns) with a few imagined characters amongst the many based on actual personages to craft and pace the storytelling properly. Milch has said that the underlying theme of Deadwood is the development of order in a culture where laws do not yet exist (Deadwood is in Indian territory, and hence outside of the U.S. proper). It is set in 1877, two weeks have passed since Custer's defeat, and the new town that sprung up on the back of the gold rush is chockablock with foul mouthed characters of all types, either looking to prospect, or service those who are finding the gold. This is by far the best western I've ever encountered. There is a lot of swearing, and the violence that occurs is fairly disturbing, but in my opinion, are necessary to the authenticity of the show. 10 out of 10


It is understandable that DEADWOOD is not for every viewer, the treatment of women, children and men - regardless of size, shape and color - is often violent or at the least brutal, heartlessness abounds and a pretty picture it does not make. The only thing is, it is done so well you are impelled to watch some more, the characters so convincingly portrayed that even though a great deal of fictional license is taken in portraying historical figures, the feel and sense of the place and the people who lived there seem real. The entire production is of the highest quality no matter what aspect might be considered. And because we intuitively know that this phase of America's history is based on violence and brutality, lawlessness and heartlessness did abound and this does not fit well into the self-image that the so-called Heartland so cherishes. Despite some stiff competition, from Sopranos to Six Feet Under, there is probably no show on television which shows Americans and their sense of family and community better than Deadwood. Hopefully HBO will continue to produce such quality writing.


Western have always been a popular stable of American culture, from pulp fiction stories, to films like The Searchers, the Man With No Name Trilogy, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven and The Assassination of Jesse James. HBO has also produced some of the best television ever made, The Sopranos, Oz, Rome. Deadwood is a fine addition to that list.

Set in the years 1876 to 1878, Deadwood is set in the town of Deadwood, South Dakota. Deadwood starts off as a small camp and slowly becomes a town through the course of the show. Deadwood is a growing town with gold prospers and becomes a area of interest for businesses, politicians and criminals. The show focuses on a number of characters, the town sheriff Seth Bullock (Timothy Olyphant), his deputy Sol Star (John Hawkes), salon owner Al Swearengen (Ian McShane) and prospector/mine owner Alma Garret (Molly Parker), as well as many key supporting characters throughout the series. The series focuses conflicts within the town. In the first series the main focus the conflict between Swearengen and Bullock over Garret's gold claim, one wants to protect her, the other wants to take it off her. The second is about Deadwood's attempt to become a part of South Deadwood and with outside interests wanting to take over people's gold claims from under them. The final series is about the conflict between Deadwood's citizens with the evil George Hearst (Gerald McRaney) who wants to take control of the town, using his thugs to gain it.

The show is bold, focusing on themes about growth of law and order, the Untied States and Democracy in a small time. Deadwood and people change with the wider world. They are looks at industrialization process with minor themes about trade unionism, the growth of politics and the benefits and disadvantages of joining the union. The show also takes an new look of the west, it was not a glamorous world, but also looks at the influence of big business and not just individuals. The show looks at crime within the town, looking at drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and gang wars. This makes for interesting and entertaining viewing. This is a refreshing look at the west, almost like the Sopranos of the nineteenth century. There are subplots, from youth crime, to homosexuality to a very good one about a psychopathic serial killer. Deadwood is the closer America has come to making a costumer drama.

The series has excellent characters and actors playing them. Swearengen is easily the best and Ian McShane made the role and Powers Boothe as his rival. There are good guest stars like Brain Cox who plays an over the top characters and Gerald McRaney as the quiet villain. I really like Garret Dillahunt as the villainous psycho. There are good supporting characters such as Mr. Wu, the leader of the Chinese and has some great comical moments with Swearengen and Joanne Stubbs, a prostitute who questions herself.

The show is good for the most part but it is not perfect. The first is that in the show there are so many subplots that they end up unresolved and sometimes hard to follow. It takes away a compelling viewing. The second is the main character Bullock and the actor who plays him. The character is stiff and wooden compared to most of the other characters in the series and he is too righteous for his own good. He isn't interesting. Timothy Olyphant is a very wooden, a very dull actor. The character Alma also suffer from a similar problem, but Molly Parker is a pretty decent actress.


I just finished watching all 3 seasons and for the most part I thought it was good, season 1 was great, then season 2 introduced the George Hearst situation which after building up for 2 seasons I felt was a really crap finale: I mean Hearst hired 50+ Pinkertons whilst finally getting Mrs Ellsworth to sign over her claim, so Al Swearengen sent off for reinforcements, (Mr Wu's men and Hawkeye's men) but then Hearst just up and left!!!?? I mean all that build-up, all those Pinkertons, and they just left without a single gun-shot!!!??? I feel almost cheated!! Additionally, we never did hear the results of the elections!! And was anyone else curious why they turned Wyatt Earp and his brother Morgan into total morons!? And the way Wild Bill Hickok died; with his back turned, playing Poker? What the hell? Could have made that a bit more interesting!! And the relationship between Bullock and Mrs Ellsworth, that needs resolving!! And what happened about Mrs Ellsworth's offer to E.B Farnum to buy his hotel? She didn't seem at all bothered that he didn't sell to her but did sell to Mr Hearst!? And to be honest, was all the swearing really necessary? They need to make a 4 season to answer these problems!


Deadwood is an amazing show. The only knock I could have against it is that you have to be really careful who you let watch it because it is not for family/children viewing at all. There is more swearing than I think in any other show I have ever seen, also there is nudity, sex, etc. Of course there is violence as well. The performances in this show are amazing whoever did the casting for this show hit the nail on the head with every single character they cast for. The actors are all totally believable in every role on this show. The writing is also very good it is simply a great show that mature audiences will probably really enjoy as long as they don't mind all the swearing etc. Not for everyone but great for those who can stomach the violence, swearing and so forth.


Yeah, it is sad when a show you watch ends.....but it is very different when something like this ends. Deadwood is not a TV show. Deadwood was an experience, my roommate watched an episode with me one night and he was INSTANTLY hooked.

And he loves it just as much as I do.

Every aspect of the series was perfect. From the setting, cast, acting, writing, and just the entire idea of what this show is. I think most people who have had the opportunity to enjoy this show would say this is maybe the most beautifully written drama since Shakespeare. The words used were just beautiful to listen to and their meaning was........full. I don't know how else to describe it. Every piece of dialogue meant something. There was no wasted chit chat, just to pass the time like other shows do (a lot). Character and plot were in constant development and ever-changing.

Of course, the star of the show is Ian McShane. Maybe the best acting ever, easily for a Cable TV Show. OK, a brilliant lead actor, what else? Well, everyone else was superb also. I really cannot think of one bad performance. IMO the worst was Steve the Drunk, but I would still give his acting an "A".

I love Timothy Olyphant and his character, Seth Bullock. It was not nearly as good as Ian McShane, but the character was not supposed to be that way. Olyphant did a good job because he was calm, yet you could feel the fury and rage burning inside him. It was given to the viewer, and every episode you waited for him to explode........that is drama.