Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version.


This 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put "Peter Pan" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b/w Producers' Showcase televised version.

As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss it.


I only recently found out about this movie thanks to ITV screening it. As it was on during the early hours, I set the video to record it and was pleased I did.

A group of smugglers are 'haunting' a castle, which happens to be haunted anyway by a monk. One of the smugglers poses as this monk and frightens some of the locals. A reporter and his girlfriend decide to investigate this and discover these smugglers are importing parts to build an atomic bomb which could course great loss of life and destruction over a large area. They get arrested at the end.

This movie also gives you an idea on what life was like during the 1950's including a village fete which were popular at the time and still are today.

The nuclear jitters of the time probably spawned the movie, which was made at the height of the Atomic Age.

As well as Jimmy Hanley, it also stars Lionel Jefferies (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) and Carry On star Kenneth Conner. All play good parts. The movie has a great theme and score too.

This movie is worth watching if you get the chance as it is rather hold to get hold of.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5.


I also saw this film at The Los Angeles Film Festival, and what a joy! It made me think of the kinds of great films the Coen brothers used to make before people gave them a lot of money. An outstanding example of what a film maker can accomplish with great material, charming actors, and a cinematographer who knows how to shoot a picture, even when you're dealing with a limited budget. This film is full of gun humor without being overtly violent, and yet when it does pull the violence trigger, usually gets laughs instead of blood. Ironically this film also delivers a very real emotional punch. The best American films always deliver their heros in the end with some sort of salvation, and this film doesn't disappoint. It's not conventional, but definitely leaves you feeling good about the human condition and the possibilities that love can bring, even in the most diverse ways. A true gem, it will be a sad statement on the state of Hollywood if some company doesn't give this flick a theatrical release so audiences everywhere can embrace it.


What a pleasant surprise, to laugh oneself sore during a film festival screening of a sleeper independently produced film! This one is going to be a HUGE winner, as I'm sure the word will filter out through hipsters and sites such as "aint-it-cool-news.com" You deserve a break today... watch for, and go see "DIRT." You'll be glad you did!


I love this film. It has a meandering and unrealistic plot and was shot on a shoestring budget but, man...I love this film. It's not a perfect film, it may not even be a good film. But its gritty imperfections combine to make it even more emotionally affecting and, well, lovable. There's a dozen things to which I could point and say, "That should have been better" or "That's totally out of place" but, if I were given the option, I wouldn't change a thing (well...the orchestral swells in the last five minutes of the film make my teeth hurt. But, other than that, not a thing!). This is cinema that is authentically and movingly human. Its soul shines irresistibly through the quirky tone and budget constraints.

Come on, movie people! License this film and release it in some format so I can see it in a non-film-festival form! Not that film festivals aren't wonderful, but a much larger group of people deserve to see the wonderful human confusion that is Dirt.

I love this film.


Don't believe the rating above 4.7 ???? read the other comments this is a great little film.

It has a real deadpan pacing and a lovely dark edge, but when it came to the redemption it didn't seem t forced. Why can't more American films be like this?


North Sea Hijack is a fast paced, frequently entertaining thriller about the ingenious hijacking of a major North Sea oil rig. It features a totally off-the-wall performance by Roger Moore as an anti-terrorist expert who has some bizarre habits indeed, such as sewing, raising cats, and drinking whisky at 10a.m. Other memorable characterisations are conveyed by Anthony Perkins (the principal baddie), James Mason (a stiff upper lipped admiral), David Hedison (a stressed out oil rig official) and Faith Brooks (a strong willed lady prime minister).

The core of the action occurs at sea, with Perkins and his menacing bunch hijacking a supply ship and planting mines beneath the oil rig. Moore is brought in to thwart them, and plays a tense psychological games with his adversaries, constantly provoking them and second guessing their actions whilst trying to ascertain the most effective way to attack them aboard their vessel. There are some well delineated scenes, such as an exciting sequence in which a couple of ships crew try to poison their captors but are found out and killed. Another invigorating sequence features Moore having to sneak up on the terrorists whilst clad in a glowing red wet suit (it was the only wet suit available to him on the oil rig).

Moore's character is wonderful. He has an uncharacteristic beard and follows a series of bizarre daily routines to the letter. His savage side, especially towards women (whom he seems to hate more than terrorists) provides some amusement.

This is an under rated gem. It is the kind of film you discover by accident (it doesn't have a particularly high reputation), but by God it really moves and is enormous fun whilst on.


A gang of criminals hijack a Norwegian supply vessel for two North Sea oil rigs. After attaching limpet mines to both rigs, they demand a huge ransom from the British Government. The insurers - Lloyds of London - call in the eccentric Rufus Excalibur Ffolkes and his highly trained team to bring an end to the situation.

 First off, this is not a great film and makes no pretension to be one. It is however quite enjoyable on its level, which is that of a fairly straightforward and formulaic thriller with some dashes of humour. Roger Moore gives a pleasing performance as the woman hating, arrogant and irascible Ffolkes, who is the complete antithesis of his version of Bond. Much of the gentle humour of the film arises from his constant put downs to all around him. Anthony Perkins is the head of the gang, and plays him with typical cold blooded menace. Also James Mason turns in a nice portrayal of an exasperated Admiral.

 Director Andrew V.McLaglen keeps things moving along, and the setting is at least a bit different from the usual scenarios. The finale does seem something of a let down after the build up, but it doesn't ruin the film.

 I hadn't seen this for a few years, so I enjoyed watching it again last week when it got a screening on TV. I recorded it and watched it a couple of days later while laid low with the 'flu. Its tongue in cheek nature cheered me up, and surely that's the whole point of these types of films.


Roger Moore plays the head of a private security force specializing in matters at sea named ffolkes. He is a gruff women hating perfectionist who prefers cats to people. When Anthony Perkins leads a team of hijackers in taking two oil rigs the British government is forced to call in ffolkes.

Call me crazy, but I love this film. Its always been one of my guilty pleasures and its often a film I'll watch on a rainy do nothing sort of Sunday. Moore is allowed to actually act, granted with tongue firmly in cheek, and show that he could do more than just be James Bond. As the villain Anthony Perkins is wonderfully loopy as a man who thinks that he's gotten all of the bases covered. The plot and the action is of a solid B-movie style and it doesn't try to be anything more than be a 100 minute popcorn movie. Best of all is the humor which is knowing and right on target, as when ffolkes becomes flustered when trying to warm up what he thinks is a young man .

If you want a good film to fill an afternoon or evening, try this film. I doubt you'll be as crazy about it as I am, but I do think you'll enjoy it.


Just like "Moonraker" (1979), James Bond actor Roger Moore seemed to watch out for a new role opposite to his cool gentlemen-like 007 fame. So it's no wonder, that his role as Rufus Excalibur Ffolkes is miles away from 007, but it's still Moore. After a bunch of high-tech terrorists has taken over three oil rigs and threaten to blow them up if the British government won't pay a few million pounds, it is Moore's turn to save the western world. Leading a squad of professional anti-terrorist submarine fighters, they are planning to storm the rigs, running out of time and fighting against thunderstorms and the cleverness of the gangsters.

The cast is superb, with Anthony Perkins as gang leader, playing some kind of crossover between Norman Bates and the Bond villains. Supporting roles are played by James Mason and David Hedison, who played Bond's American CIA sidekick Felix Leiter two times. The plot is influenced by the rise of modern terrorism and the energy crisis in the seventies, but also by the Bond films and the fashionable disaster movies of its time.

The best about the film is Roger Moore's Ffolks - a cat-loving, alcohol-drinking, women-hating, bearded Englishmen without a sense of humor and gentleness. The pacing is alright, and the story keeps the film thrilling until is too-fast ending. And while James Bond is rewarded with the most beautiful girl after having saved the world, Ffolkes receives a completely different gift at the end of the film... All in all, "North Sea Hijack" is the perfect action thriller for a stormy and rainy autumn evening in front of your TV set.


The British-produced Andrew V. McLaglen actioneer "Ffolkes," based on Jack Davis' novel "Esther, Ruth and Jennifer," gives Roger Moore a refreshingly different, change-of-pace role. As Rufus Excalibur Ffolkes, Moore is both ill-tempered and egotistical. He despises women, adores cats, and prefers to drink his Scotch neat. If Ffolkes claims that he can do something, he will-by the Lord God Harrydo it! Everything about "Ffolkes" goes against the grain of the typical, well-mannered, saintly Moore image. First, the James Bond star sports a thick beard, knits when thinking, and refuse to be proved wrong. Evidently, Roger Moore had a grand time playing Ffolkes because this qualifies as his most robust, forceful portrayal in years. His face and his eyes are wildly expressive throughout all 99 minutes of this adrenalin-laced, nail-biting thriller.

Davis scripted the action from his own adventure novel. Esther is the name of the transfer ship that supplies Ruth, the oil drilling rig, and Jennifer is the gargantuan production rig. Masquerading as journalists, the villainous Lou Kramer (Anthony Perkins of "Psycho") and henchmen Harold Shulman (Michael Parks), board Esther, brandish this hardware and hijack it. Kramer's second-in-command sets explosives throughout the ship and connects them to a detonator box that can signal the destruction of not only Esther but also the charges set on Ruth and Jennifer. As it turns out, Jennifer is the largest production rig on any sea, reputed to cost over $250 million dollars! Kramer warns British authorities, including a Thatcher-like Prime Minister (Faith Brook), that they have 24 hours to pay a ransom of $25 million in five currencies. If the British Crown refuses to fork over, Kramer threatens to blast Esther, Ruth and Jennifer, along with himself and his henchmen, and more than 600 innocent people aboard the rigs and ship off the face of the earth. The entire North Sea will be polluted and the coasts ruined.

Andrew V. McLaglen, who helmed "Ffolkes," is a seasoned professional at making adventure epics. He began his career as a television director, making episodes of "Rawhide" with Clint Eastwood. Afterward, he graduated to feature films and made a string of rough & tumble John Wayne westerns, starting with "McClintock!" Among the others were "The Undefeated," "Chism," and "Cahill, U.S. Marshal." Between the Wayne oaters and "Ffolkes," McLaglen helmed the gritty Charlton Heston & James Coburn western "The Last Hard Men as well as two other Roger Moore yarns "The Wild Geese" and "The Sea Wolves." Most of "Ffolkes" was lensed on location in the North Sea where the story takes place. McLaglen seems to improve with his material. His war movies were exciting, suspenseful, and clever. They move at an incredibly fast pace and are no-nonsensical. Of course, believability is optional in the Davies' script. McLaglen and Davis both know that superior thrillers follow a formula in which things go from bad to worse before the finale. And our stiff-upper lipped hero doesn't have an easy time thwarting the nefarious, loud-mouthed Kramer.

As for Ffolkes' nemesis Kramer, Anthony Perkins shouts and waves his pistol with his sinister, steely-eyed glare that is enhanced by his lean, ascetic features and dark, close-cropped hair. He is a man not to be trifled with. Audacious greed motivates Kramer and his cohorts to hijack the ship and hold the rigs for ransom. Ingenious, conceited, and menacing as Kramer is, Perkins doesn't have as much to work with in his characterization as Moore.

As the British Admiral forced to deal with Kramer and company, James Mason turns in a crusty performance. Mason's Admiral Sir Francis Brindsen is a stalwart, career naval officer whose contempt for Ffolkes and the man's unconventional methods is matched only by his deep, abiding mistrust of anything that is neither military nor naval. Michael Parks, late of TV's "Then Came Bronson," is Kramer's second-in-command. His characterization is confined to his thick-lensed spectacles, a pistol, and a tan trench coat.

Ffolkes runs a small but efficient group of mercenaries that he trains ruthlessly to perform miracles under the worst conditions. He concocts a plan that hinges on split-second timing and calculated risks. The only quibbles that I had with this movie is that it's miniatures stand out more on the small screen than on the big-screen. Michael J. Lewis provides a stirring orchestral score that ramps up the suspense. Nevertheless, "Ffolkes" ranks as a first-class, crackerjack thriller.


I have seen this movie about 20 times in the past 10 years and love it everytime. Roger Moore did this movie in between "Moonraker" and "For you eyes Only" and it was a nice departure from the Bond character. Anthony Perkins is convincing as the hijack leader and also fittingly comical. James Mason is a bonus and charming as usual.

The story centers around Rufus Excalibur (Moore); a heavy drinking, confident, cocky and intelligent specialist. He is like the equivalent of an ex-Navy seal of some sort. He leads a team that focuses on water dives, stealth and ship recovery tactics. Rufus is the best, of course, and expects a lot from his Men. He is never satisfied but that is some of the humor as well. Rufus also dislikes Women, is crazy for Cats and has a lot of money.

Basically a hijack team overtakes a boat and its crew and holds 2 large oil rigs, Ruth and Jennifer, for ransom via bombs attached to them. Rufus is called in to lead the recovery and the story fluctuates between the hijackers and the crew and Rufus' life, preparation and style. The rest is primarily climactic and the adventure, action and humor all fall into place the last hour of the movie.

If you are a Roger Moore fan, see this movie solely for that. You will be pleasantly surprised. Also, see it because it is still a solid movie after 22 years and I still am entertained after 20+ viewings.

Unfortunately there is no DVD version, but it is for sale and possibly for rent. Give it a shot!

10 of 10 mainly because of Roger Moore, but can still stand on its own.


The best thing about this film is Roger Moore's main character, the misogynistic cat lover Rufus Excalibur ffolkes. Despite a seemingly low budget and predictable 'action' sequences, it's worth seeing this film just to listen to the great lines Moore delivers. From beginning to end, ffolkes just rules. He has a huge chip on his shoulder, he has all the answers, and he drinks scotch "..........the way it should be drunk, neat." The story isn't too bad, a prelude to the big budget action films which followed it. Some bad guys hijack a multi-million dollar oil rig and proceed to hold the British government to ransom for it. Who you gonna call??? ffolkes, two small f's, Rufus Excalibur ffolkes, a british version of a Navy Seal, with an IQ seemingly two high to measure.

The exchanges between ffolkes and the supporting cast are priceless. There is also a veiled suggestion of homosexuality between the two boss hijackers whom ffolkes is called upon to dispatch, which makes you wonder if Anthony Perkins, who plays one of them, had anything to do with working that into the script. If you can find it, which isn't easy these days, it's worth a look.


Roger Moore sure shows his versatility as an actor in this film, He play a character though not very unlike his James Bond "persona" physically and intellectually , but quite different than his soave debonair character typical of the bond films.

In Ffolkes he plays an eccentric former British Navy diver who is called upon to swart a terrorist attack on the North sea oil platforms. Anthony Perkins also gives an excellent performance as the head of a group of terrorist who forcibly takes control of a supply ship and threaten to blow up some oil platforms in the North Sea.

Moore's character is what make the entire film worth watching. He's an eccentric tough guy, who loves cats and a good shot of whiskey, he's also highly opinionated. To the point that drives some to dislike him.

Watch this film, It's non-stop action, and excellent dialoge.


This has to be one of my all time greats despite its cheekiness and poor model reproductions of oil rigs! Its still captives me every time after having seen it possibly more than 30 times, if anyone reading this could explain the scene to me where Harald (cramers No.2 guy) says that it feels like the last minute and asks about the escape plan. I would be grateful as I have never understood this scene. The film on the whole is tailor made for Roger Moore and he fits into the quirky character like a glove and it is also very ironic that he buddies up with the American "Mr. King" who plays the production platform offshore installation manager as Moore also stars with the same actor in many of his James Bond movies. I think the part of Cramer (Anthony Perkins) was played brilliantly with special focus on the "flip outs" that he performs when he begins to realise that his master plan isn't exactly going to plan. All in all a top movie despite what most of my friends say!


Well, it doesn´t make much sense and Anthony Perkins in his post-"Psycho"-mood is as one-note as a standard-villain can get. But Roger Moore - then still the reigning James Bond - as a women bashing, cold-blooded and bearded anti-terrorist expert does not just save the day but runs away with every scene he is in and eventually with the movie itself. Nothing to spoil a great evening with your closest friends for, but a pleasant joyride in case you´ve nothing better to do.


"You really don't like women, do you?" ffolkes is asked. Rufus Excalibur ffolkes (Roger Moore) is an eccentric, misanthropic ex-British Army officer who has his own team of highly trained underwater commandos, ffolkes' fusiliers. He specializes in hostage rescue and anti- terrorism action, all immaculately planned and decisively executed. The bearded, curmudgeonly ffolkes favors Edwardian suits, does petit point and loves Scotch and cats. He's on a North Sea oil platform where Lou Kramer, a clever criminal (Anthony Perkins) who has hijacked the supply boat Esther which is moored below, has demanded 25 million British pounds or he'll blow the rig sky high. ffolkes got there because the British government could think of no one else who had a chance of thwarting Kramer's plan. If Jennifer, the production platform, and Ruth, a nearby drilling platform, which Kramer has mined are destroyed, a good deal of British North Sea oil production will go up in smoke with them. The plot is ingenious. But then, so is ffolkes. And he's prepared to be just as ruthless as the criminals. folkes has one advantage. His plans never go wrong. Almost never.

But back to ffolkes and women. "I do not!" ffolkes answers. "You see, I together with my five elder sisters was raised by my maiden aunt. Both my parents died tragically in childbirth. Until the age of ten I was forced to wear my sisters' hand-me-downs. Then when I married I discovered to my horror that my wife also had five sisters, all unmarried and all expecting my support. I find cats a far superior breed."

This clever, exciting adventure did only modest business when it was released, and was quickly forgotten by most. Too bad, because it's a well-made film which generates tension, has an unusual setting in the cold, stormy waters of the North Sea, and has some fine actors. Among the standouts are Anthony Perkins as the vicious, confident, and, of course, unstable Lou Kramer; James Mason as Admiral Sir Francis Brindsen, a stock figure at first but who, thanks to Mason's skill, turns into a character of barely noticed wry humor; and Michael Parks as Kramer's key henchman, possible lover and explosives expert.

Most of all, the movie depends on Roger Moore, and he delivers a dynamic and amusing performance of a man of action who'd be much happier in an earlier age. His complete self- confidence in his planning and his talents would be irritating if it weren't so well acted and expressed in lines so well written. "I suppose you're one of those fellows who does the Times' crossword puzzle in 10 minutes," says an irritated Admiral Brindsen after ffolkes offhandedly explained the meaning of a coded message the Admiral had just received from London. "I have never taken 10 minutes!" says ffolkes indignantly. Moore is perhaps underrated nowadays, but I think he was expert in light comedy and in amusing adventures. In my opinion, he is the second best by far of the James Bonds. (I haven't seen Daniel Craig.) Even aging a bit in the last couple, be brought style and insouciance to a franchise that was slowly going off the tracks. And yes, I'm a fan of A View to a Kill. Moore made this picture between Bond films and he plays against type.

The movie ends, as it began, with ffolkes clearly happy with his favorite companions. We had earlier met Mary, his tortoiseshell tabby. We leave ffolkes with an award from the British government, delivered to him in Scotland by the Prime Minister herself...three white kittens named Esther, Ruth and Jennifer.

For those unsure how to pronounce ffolkes, we may have to dig deep into Hitchcock. "I don't get the double 'F'," says American reporter Johnny Jones to Scott ffolliot, a man he's just met as they speed down a Dutch lane after an assassin. "They're at the beginning," says ffolliot. "Both small 'F's." "They can't be at the beginning," says Johnny. Says ffolliot, "One of my ancestors was beheaded by Henry VIII. His wife dropped the capital letter to commemorate it." "How do you say it, like a stutter?" asks Johnny. "Just a straight 'fuh'."

Fuholkes is a well made, amusing adventure.


Saw this film when it came out, more than a quarter century ago. Nothing spectacular, but a good, enjoyable thriller, about a British team (led by Roger Moore, slightly out of character as a serious, sober and somewhat eccentric government agent) trying to overtake an oil platform in the North Sea that has been hijacked by a band of terrorists (led by the late, unforgettable Anthony Perkins, in one of his nervous, unsettling performances). The great James Mason also appears as one of the top admirals of the British navy. A good, solid thriller overall. A female prime minister (an obvious stand-in for then premier Margaret Thatcher) congratulates Bond (er, Roger Moore) at the end.


North Sea Hijack, or "ffolkes" as it is know in America, is a very solid thriller. It is the story of a group of extortionists who threaten to destroy an off-shore drilling rig and production platform in the North Sea unless they are paid an exorbitant sum of money. The half-dozen or so bad guys led by Anthony Perkins hijack a Norwegian supply ship and use it to plant mines beneath the two targets. The British government is the largest shareholder in these oil producing structures, and rather than pay the bad guys off, they hire a private mercenary (Moore) and his team to dispose of them. The film plays out somewhat realistically and ends in a very tense conclusion.

Roger Moore, hiding under a beard, plays Rufus Excalibur ffolkes. He is quite a man's man. The guy lives in a castle with his team of mercs and several cats. He allows no women anywhere near him. ffolks appears to be a very wealthy and intelligent man who is never far from a bottle of Scotch. Luckily for the British government, Lloyd's of London had already recruited ffolkes to devise a plan to overcome just this type of situation five months before the incident occurs. The Prime Minister agrees to use him, and before you know it, Ffolkes is out on the oil platform ready to dispose of the extortionists.

The bad guys are led by Anthony Perkins who wildly overplays as Lou Kramer. This is not the timid mamma's boy Perkins played as Norman Bates. His Kramer is a boisterous, loud, and violently paranoid creep who will kill anyone who even looks at him wrong. He only shares two scenes with Moore, and in both of them he tells him menacingly, "I don't like your face." Also on the team is an explosives expert played by Tarantino/Rodriguez regular Michael Parks. You may have to look twice to recognize him as he's hiding under a pair of the thickest glasses you've ever seen. All of the villains on this team are creepy and trigger happy jerks, and you'll be glad to see them go. Also on board is James Mason as a crusty admiral sent out with ffolkes to see things through. You tell me this guy was a pacifist in real life??? Come on! Roger Moore's ffolkes is quite an enigma, and certainly the opposite of his James Bond character in many ways. His hatred for women and love of felines is something this critic has never seen before in a movie character. In a scene very near the end, he is escorting a young woman to a shower to warm her up after she has saved his life and helped his team. For an instant we may suspect ffolkes will even give her a kiss as she turns and smiles at him. Alas, he merely thanks her and walks away. It makes one wonder what might be going on behind those castle walls between ffolkes and his team of mercs once the day's training is finished. Overall this is a very good and somewhat overlooked film. Check it out if you'd like to see what Moore was up to between Bond films. 8 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


Roger Moore's turn as Rufus Excalibur ffolkes is one of his best performances. He made the film in between Bonds (Moonraker & For Your Eyes Only) and wow - what a film! Anthony Perkins is great as the creepy terrorist Lou Kramer and he is very odd indeed - a great role for him! The whole North Sea idea is cool and I just cannot comment enough on how great this film is. You even get James Mason as a salty British Captain who assists in stopping the hijackers of an oil rig! Great cast - great effects - great everything! I highly recommend this film as it changed my life when I saw it as a boy! And that's why I wanted to work on an oil rig - cuz of ffolkes!!! A++++++++++++++++++++++++


Roger Moore takes a break from his more famous action character, James Bond, to play Rufus Excalibur ffolkes, an expert in underwater infiltration. He is approached to plan how to defeat anybody how attempted to seize an oil rig in the North Sea. Of course it isn't long before he has to put his ideas to the test as a group of criminals hijack a Norwegian supply vessel, plant bombs on two rigs then demand a ransom of twenty five million pounds within twenty four hours.

ffolkes is a very different character to James Bond, he is somewhat eccentric and can't stand women but likes cats. The action also seems more realistic than most films, a no point do our heroes go in all guns blazing instead they negotiate with the criminals until they are ready to go in stealthily.

The acting is solid enough especially from the stars Roger Moore, Anthony Perkins as the criminal leader and James Mason as the head of the navy. The only character I wasn't keen on was Perkin's deputy who would cackle like a pantomime villain at each of his boss's threats. While this isn't a great film, I'm sure it was never meant to be, it is good solid entertainment which doesn't contain excessive gore or bad language that so many films these days seen to contain.


After playing such suave and sophisticated folks as James Bond and Simon Templar, Roger Moore went in for a real change of pace in North Sea Hijack. I'm guessing that's what attracted him to the role of Rufus Excalibur Ffolkes, because though North Sea Hijack is a nice action, adventure film, it's nothing out of the ordinary.

Mr. Ffolkes is a fellow who despises women is only wanting companionship of those of the feline persuasion and is a singularly short tempered and quite arrogant individual. He also knows his business thoroughly as the head of a mercenary team for hire.

Her Majesty's government has hired him to do a nasty job on some people who have hijacked an offshore oil rig in the North Sea and are threatening to blow it up. The environmental and economic consequences would be catastrophic to say the least. Here in America we well remember the Exxon Valdez and the results of that oil spill off the Alaska shores.

The hijackers led by Anthony Perkins are not political terrorists in any way. They're just a gang of extortionists who think they've found a way to make money. Still the results of their actions would be the same.

Perkins gives a nice performance in an unusual role for him. He was forever identified throughout his life with psychotic killer Norman Bates, and his role as chief hijacker is anything, but the mama dominated schizophrenic Bates. One of the interesting things here is we never do learn just what the escape plan for the hijackers is. It's just possible that Perkins really does just want things to go boom.

North Sea Hijack is a nicely paced action film that has a lot of suspense to it. Also check it out for nice performances by James Mason as an admiral in the Royal Navy and Faith Brook as a British Prime Minister who looks and acts suspiciously like Margaret Thatcher.


Oh come on! Am I seeing the same film to everyone else? It's a TERRIBLE film - my dad's in it, and I still have to say it. It's nearly as predictable as 'Pearl Harbour' (don't get me started), the story line's a hash of many other - better - films, and the script lacks both imagination and realism.


the only possible reason for watching this tripe is to see Mr Moore playing the completely improbable lead character. When this went out recently on tv I actually thought the scene with Moore addressing his troops was a clip from a Python movie that I had missed out on... if you think movies have not improved since the eighties have a good look at this turkey....


Umberto Lenzi has almost always been one of Italy's better "B-movie" directors, delivering consistently entertaining films throughout his career right up to the mid 80's. Ironmaster was a bit of a turning point, with Lenzi working with smaller and smaller budgets and with lesser and lesser known actors.

With this dead-serious caveman adventure, we have most of the old regulars from Lenzi's crime films like Nello Pazzafini, Giovanni Cianfriglia, Ottaviano Dell'Acqua, and Riccardo Petrazzi (most of whom were primarily stunt men)... a couple other familiar faces like William Berger (KEOMA), George Eastman (KING DAVID), Danilo Mattei and Walter Lucchini (both from CANNIBAL FEROX) and that kid with the wounded leg in NIGHTMARE CITY. But who did Lenzi's producer Luciano Martino cast as the lead? The answer is the pretty mysterious case of bodybuilder Sam Pasco, who seem to have appeared out of nowhere and then disappeared (having never acted in a film since) even though he really isn't bad at all in this movie.

Anyway, the whole thing is a pretty obvious parable of WW2 with Eastman's character Vood as basically Hitler's caveman equivalent, though he goes around smashing things while his lady friend does all the talking for him. It's actually not a bad plotline either, aided by some sumptuous photography, decent special effects, some really energetic editing, and one of Guido and Maurizio De Angelis's best forgotten scores (omitting the really lame title theme). The movie's main weakness is the heavy-handedness of everything, with morals being pitched left and right when the movie is really too low budget and silly to be taken seriously.

Almost universally, this film is trashed as one of the all-time worst but it really isn't that bad at all. Much like Bruno Mattei's much-maligned ROBOWAR and Sergio Martino's SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD (which this film recycles some music from) IRONMASTER really would have been given a lot more credit had the producers put a little more money into it. It's still quite a lot of fun, and pretty far from boring to say the least.


Right you are commenter's that Ironmaster is low-brow and or low-budget but I really like this kind of sword and sandal, cave dwellers, Hercules, and or Tarzan movies that are no longer made except very rarely. Morality and a keeping of the body in this case Sam Pasco as Ela and others though less so are entertaining, inspiring, and for me hope giving in life. With the comments of some others I read I think Sam Pasco nor any of the cast were bad at all. In fact they're quite good including Vood, the women, and their followers on both sides. Much thanks to whomever inspired the making of this film. It is not a waste in the slightest.

Good afternoon or late night escapism that does not need thinking.


he problem with movies like the Umberto Lenzi film "Iron Master" is that Lenzi and company have to observe certain rituals about making film palatable to audiences. In other words, although this outdoor adventure film is set during the early days of man, nobody is bald and the women far too gorgeous. Obviously, everybody had to don a wig and they look slightly ridiculous running around in them. The women have to wear lipstick and rouge and they look more like models on holiday than the hard-working dames of the past. Indeed, most women in early tribal villages did not conceal their breasts, but for the purpose of modesty the dames here but cover up their racks. Despite this problem and an awful looking fake lion head that the villainous George Eastman wears, "Iron Master" isn't as egregious as you might imagine for a low-budget Italian exploitation epic.

First, director Umberto Lenzi, who has made some genuine skull crushers as "Make Them Die Slowly" and "Cannibal Ferox," keeps the action simple, straightforward and serious. No, "Iron Master" is no tits and ass camp. The dialogue is far too sophisticated, but otherwise it would be laughable. The performances are acceptable and nobody looks that goofy. The theme that weaponry can set mankind free as well as imprison them is good stuff. The chief villain Vood (George Eastman of "Ben and Charlie") wants to be the leader of the tribe, but the leader rebuffs him. During a raid on a village, Vood attacks and kills the chieftain. The villagers believe that Vood is too treacherous to remain among them so they expel him from of the village. Everybody freaks out when a nearby volcano erupts and Vuud is around when a chunk of steel is vomited out of the mountain in the shape of a sword. Okay, it is terribly convenient, but it does not slow down the plot. Vood uses this iron stick as a weapon and takes control of the village and attacks Ela (Sam Pasco, a stud muffin with more quivering six-pack muscles than you can count) with his new weapon. Ela manages to get away but he has an ugly looking wound in his side. He runs into a beautiful babe and she nurses him back to health and takes him to her village where there are no weapons.

Meanwhile, Vood and his men make and equip themselves with iron swords from the volcano and decimate the local infestation of man-sized chimps. Think 2001 because the primates resemble those from the Kubrick film. Eventually, Vood and his men decide to rule the world and they attack one village after another until Vood learns that Ela is in one village. Ela has a treat in store for his sworn enemy. It is a weapon that makes his army the equal of Vood's sword wielding horde. The ending looks like something out of an Italian film of the era. Okay, it is corny at points, but you have to compel yourself to over look some stuff so that you can get something out of it. The most extraordinary thing about this French and Italian co-production is that they lensed some of the story on location at the Custer Park and those buffalo are the genuine thing.


That sounded so good, I'm going to repeat it : A saucy spaghetti romp through 1,000,000 BC, Planet of the Apes and Ator. I have recently seen a few Italian "imports". Jewels such as Super Fuzz, Raiders from Atlantis and 2020 : Texas Gladiators. This movie is part of that same prime lineage.

We start this masterpiece with some rhythmic chanting. Feel free to join in. It's quite easy to do (hum hum hhaa hum hhaa hum hum). This chanting happens a few times during the movie. You should probably create a game out of it; like doing shots or chugging beers at the beginning, chant along, and then do some more drinking (or whatever your drug of choice is) at the end. This will keep everyone from hurting themselves or anyone else. It is also a good way to keep from getting into a coma or deriving some enjoyment from a really bad movie. This movie is not that bad, I merely state this as public service announcement. So if a bad movie happens to you, you'll know what to do.

After the chanting is done, we get a narrator telling us whats going on. We are somewhere in prehistory, and there's this tribe. They seem friendly enough. They're no cannibals or anything. Actually they're in a bit of a crisis for food. During the ensuing hunt, the leader is murdered by his son (and soon to be announced heir), Vood (the infamous George Eastman - think of a white Wilt Chamberlin). You may remember George from such classics as the Barbarian Brothers or 2019 : After the Fall of New York. At the leader's funeral Vood is exposed as a murderer by Ela (the very sweaty and buff Sam Pasco). Vood is banished. This leads into the longest and most painful scene of the entire movie : the erupting volcano scene.

In this scene Vood is walking around in exile, around volcanic mountains (that coincidentally looks like my baking soda and vinegar mountain from my 8th grade science project). We get some stock footage of volcanic eruptions and lava flow from what looks like a 1969 collegiate project. Lava is on the ground and lightning strikes it. This somehow creates iron. The thing that is formed looks like a giant stick, or a really, really amateurish looking sword. Vood goes ape and starts breaking stuff with his new rock staff. On the way out he encounters and kills a lion. Lith (the very attractive Pamela Prati, a.k.a Pamela Field) then shows up and gives him the idea to conquer. Vood shows up back at his tribe wearing the most ridiculous lion suit he made out of the beast he killed. There's this giant lion head he wears. For reference, remember Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons except this is much sillier (the episode with the greyhounds, where he sings the "wear my vest" song). Vood and Ela fight. Vood wounds Ela and banishes him to what looks like the Planet of the Apes. He then takes over and begins the war effort. This is Lith's ultimate scene. She goes into this tirade that had me laughing for 2 full minutes. The only way I can describe it is if you think of Valaria's way of speaking from Robot Holocaust.

I call the next scene the forging scene. Somehow they figure out how to melt the rocks, create molds for the molten iron, and a hammer to further shape the rock. Apparently they "guessed" all this in the missing scene the director cut out. Ela then meets Isa (the other hottie in the movie, Elvire Audray). The first time she said her name, all I could say is "Her name is Pizza ?". Strangely enough in this Italian exploitation movie, both attractive female leads never bare it all.

This all leads to an eventual conflict between Vood & Ela. I won't spoil it. This must be seen to believe. It is nice that they used the same choreographer from 2020:Texas Gladiators. Unfortunately, that man flunked out of the William Shatner School for Acting and Stunts.

The movie has some nice footnotes :

1) Nice use of roaming buffalo throughout the Dakotas. This included making the actors run through the pack.

2) Almost a total rip of the bone smashing scene from 2001, except with George Eastman in fur leggings and a club.

3) Anatomically correct shot of a lion - twigs and berry shot.

4) Prehistoric leper clowns.

5) George Eastman discovers a new way to get high : eating volcanic rock.

6) Numerous homo-erotic imagery.

7) Ela runs and sits quite daintily for a caveman.

8) These cavemen sure look good. They must work out in the cave's gym. They also wear these adorable rabbit slippers throughout the movie.

9) Mad lib dialog. Vood (verb of motion).

10) RUNNING !!! and MORE RUNNING !! There's a lot of running in this movie. I haven't seen so much running since Run Lola Run, however, in that movie there was a purpose to all that running. All this running is reminiscent to all the driving in Manos, the Hands of Fate.

This movie is terrible on all fronts. It is so bad, that it has actually become one of my favorite Italian exploitation movies. Try not to watch this movie alone or if you are in a bad mood. I could not control my laughter or disbelief. This is definitely great for the disaster watcher.


Lenzi has done excellent action thrillers and great gialli, but here, there's nothing worth losing 90 minutes over. Even George eastman isn't very good. And the plot ? An outcast from his tribe discovers the sword ; a beefy hero (steroids were already invented ?) discovers the bow and arrow (though he looks like he wouldn't invent his way out of a paper crate) and defeats him. The end. That's it. No more time too waste on this one. See Lenzi's seventies thrillers with Thomas Milian (one of the most under-rated actors of all time)


This is the most awful movie of all time. No movie surpasses this movie in horrible horrible badness. Nothing can even come close to the story of Vudd discovering I-ron. I will call this "I-RON". From a superheated volcanic eruption... minutes later giant metal shard... hiding underneath rocks. He touches it and its hot so he hits it with a rock and its cool. Cmon, really. Then he kills the national geographic lion and when he stabs it is paper mache. I'm not even going to get into the monkey men and the katanas he forges near the end of the movie. Where did he get the knowledge on how to forge master crafted samurai swords? And the cover has NOTHING to do with movie at all.

THE END


Big joke! Not even bad enough to be interesting.


This movie was the worst acted piece of trash I've seen in a long time. For that matter, it was also the worst written piece of trash I've seen in a long time. It amazes me how people can watch this and not cringe at the terribly clichéd and horribly misguided attempts at imitating some of the most well-known figures of the past 50 years. Sure, some of the story may have been accurate, I'll give it that much, but if you're searching for accuracy, and accuracy alone, watch a documentary. The script completely over dramaticised so many events, most notably, any scene between John Lennon and Brian Epstein. Here's a question, did no one find it odd how much of an emphasis they put on John Lennon's supposed hatred of gays? I say supposed because I've never heard of any instance of John Lennon being toted as homophobic, but this movie seemed to have a lot of that. I could go on, but I'd rather not waste any more of my time on it. I will say this, if you want to see a good movie, stay away from this.


I don't know about all you people saying, "oh this was so accurate", because i watched the first part of this movie. It was awful. Now i know its a TV movie, so its gonna suck. Thats the nature of TV movies (They Suck). For one, with all The Beatles impersonators out there the John and Paul they got were awful. At no point did I believe it was Lennon. At no point did it show the very very dark side of John where he was pretty much a bastard, and I say that as a musician and critic who very much loves the genius of John Winston (not Yoko) Lennon. DID ANYONE SEE THIS MOVIE? Little hints at songs like Strawberry Fields. At no point as a teenager did John come up with the title or concept Strawberry Fields. Yes it was the Orphanage. But he didn't come up with calling it Fields not Field until 1967 when he wrote the song. Same goes with Eleanor Rigby. THAT WAS THE DUMBEST THING EVER. For one Paul wrote the song, but in the movie John and some kid see the tombstone. I'm sorry taking two British people and saying "hey this is John Lennon and this is Paul McCartney" doesn't make it an accurate portrayal. If I could give it a 0 I would.


This movie is a real treat for Beatles fans mainly because it was filmed entirely in Liverpool. All the historic sites written about over the years are shown -- the house where John Lennon grew up with his Aunt Mimi on Menlove Ave. (now a part of the National Trust), the Woolton Parish (where John and Paul McCartney first met), Penny Lane, Quarry Bank School for Boys, etc.

It's hard to condense several years of information into a 90-minute film, but this one manages to do it seamlessly. I especially like the importance the film puts on the Marketing and PR brilliance of Brian Epstein as the Beatles' manager.

This is a great "introduction to" film for new Beatles fans, and a great walk down memory lane for older ones.


This is a helluva little movie. Yeah, it's so much better than 'Backbeat.' I know the train spotters will quibble with some of the shortcuts they had to take to jam 6 years into 90 minutes but this movie has integrity and they tried to do it right. The music is accurate and well-done and all the actual locations were used. They guy playing Lennon is not a dead-ringer but he grows on you and in the end you do get a sense of how complicated, angry, insecure and talented John Lennon was. If this movie had been on HBO it would have won Emmys. It really smokes on DVD.


Much better than 'Backbeat' this is a real treat for Fab Four fans. Filmed at all the actual Liverpool locations (including John Lennon's house, The Cavern, Strawberry Field, etc.) this is a rocking, realistic look at the young Lennon, warts and all.


Despite the reviews to the contrary I thought the film superb. It did capture very well the atmosphere of the time, when Britain emerged from monochrome into colour during the late 50's and early 60's. I know because I was there! The portrayal of The Beatles was incredible, why can I ask have these actors not gone on to better things? The capturing of Lennons early years was a masterpiece, in fact the actor should have gotten some kind of award, that is how Lennon was, a very talented rebel, who helped change the world, and would perhaps have made it a lot better place if that lunatic had not killed him.

I am trying to complete my ten lines but is does get difficult when has said all one wants to say, is that enough yet??


I came across "In His Life: The John Lennon Story" on TV a few nights ago. While not quite attaining the quality of "Backbeat", it certainly gives one a feeling of growing up in Liverpool in the 1950s. One can understand the teenage John Lennon's attitude towards society, especially since his love of rock 'n' roll fueled his political views. I'll probably never be able to understand how terrible it must have been for him to lose his mother so young (Paul also lost his mother young, and Ringo knew only his mother; George was the only Beatle who spent his whole childhood with both parents). I think that I might have heard about Brian Epstein's homosexuality, but I never knew that he was basically smitten with John.

All in all, this is certainly worth seeing, if you can find it. Not a masterpiece, but it sure made me wish that I could have been in Liverpool in the '50s. There will just never be anything else like the Beatles in our lifetimes.


If you are familiar with John Lennon's early life, including the development of his various bands, and the evolution of the Beatles through Germany and the Liverpool scene, then this movie doesn't offer much in the way of history. The history is accurate by most accounts. The actors portraying the Beatles a relatively similar in looks. The music is good, they recreate scenes from the Quarrymen, the German era, and the Cavern Club performances. It is also interesting to note that many of the scenes were filmed on location in Liverpool, so you get to see the actual quarry, Strawberry Fields, etc. I would at least recommend watching this once if your a fan of early rock and roll, and would even purchase it if you are a fan of the Beatles and/or John Lennon.


"In His Life: The John Lennon Story" was a great movie, but it could have been a little bit better. I was really impressed with how accurate it was. I thought it was a good drama of the beginning of the Beatles.

However, the movie was supposed to be a John Lennon Story, not the story of the Beatles. All this movie was was a quick story of how Paul met John, how John grew up, la dee dah. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was absolutely wonderful that they actually showed all these important events in John's life, but they didn't outline any of his later years. I suppose the directors of this movie wanted to do something a little bit different then the 80s "John and Yoko: A Love Story."

Besides that minor detail, I LOVED this movie. I thought it was well acted out, a treat to all audiences. It was on the nose accurate! And the actors who performed in it were absolutely wonderful. It almost made me feel like I was watching the REAL Beatles.


i was interested in this one since i dont' know a lot about John Lennon's early life, and now that the Beatles are all hype again, i made it a point to see this. i was amazed at how little i really did know about John Lennon's life. i didn't entirely know how he treated his wife Cynthia and the birth of his son Julian. i didn't know about Paul McCartney's role in the band from the beginning and how he was actually stuck on drums first. i didn't know they actually started out pretty much in Germany. i didn't know John Lennon was such a homophobe too!

anyway the scenes with him and his mother are just so sweet that i don't know how he was able to pull himself so together after she died. he was definitely the man with the plan. i just wish now there is a continuing story! it ends just when the Beatles finally go to the States.

i loved the actors - philip mcquillan, christine kavanagh, gillian kearney, daniel mcgowan...make the continuing story! :)


I have just recently stumbled across this movie on a cable TV channel here in Thailand. As I have always been interested in the Beatles, I was curious to see how John Lennon's early life panned out. I have to say I really enjoyed the film. The performances of most of the cast were excellent. Notably, Phillip McQuillan as John, but especially Jamie Glover as Brian Epstein. I thought his portrayal of a man battling his career and sexual orientation in those times was outstanding. It was not a sycophantic opinion of John Lennon. It showed him as a lovable rogue and many times just as a rogue. The movie moved along at a brisk pace, which kept the interest high. For me it was a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon well spent.


Great directing, editing, photography and acting! It's difficult to make a movie about someone as well known as John Lennon and tell us something new, but the writer and his collaborators do just that. Phillip McQuillan is really exceptional, capturing the heady mix of hurt, anger and brilliance that John Lennon possessed. He has moments that are so right they're eerie. Christine Kavanagh, Blair Brown and Jamie Glover also shine. The mood of the early Beatles performances are captured perfectly by the hand-held camerawork and stylish, edgy cutting.


While I was on Thanksgiving Vacation visiting my relatives in America. I saw the film "In his Life" The John Lennon Story. Being a big Beatle fan I enjoyed it alot.

I was impressed with the Dramatic performances from Irish Actor

Phillip McQuillan. I thought he represented Lennons esscence quite well in this movie. What I would like to know is when is he making a Sequel?


It's easy to see why the Beatles has always been such a phenomenon. For a person like me who is born in the late 80s actually, I am do aware how huge the four lads from Liverpool are.

As this is about the life of John Lennon, from his early days to the time he was with the Beatles, the TV movie is more focused about him and his life. The time when Beatlemania is everywhere, it was not ignored in the TV movie as well.

Given I am only aware of the Beatles' success, so much of what's happening in the TV movie is an eye-opener for someone like me.

It's quite an insight.


I thought this movie was very well done. I am not a Lennon historian so I can not comment on the accuracy, but based on other comments it was pretty good. Speaking of other comments, I realize that there is no way to verify what users post here, and maybe I am REALLY out of touch, but did anyone else think the person who billed themselves as a "15 year old Beatle fan" was WAY too articulate. I am not sure why someone would pose as a 15 year old, or maybe they had someone else write the review for them, but I can not picture someone that old expressing themselves so well.

Being a huge Beatle fan rapidly approaching 50 years old, I am not questioning the fact that someone 15 can be a fan of the Beatles. Their music is timeless and I expect there will be Beatles fans for decades to come. Hopefully this person is that intelligent and can express themselves that well! I would be very happy to see that. I don't think any harm was done if there is something fishy here, but I just felt it was worth pointing out.


I seen this at the video store but passed it by because I thought it was the typical Sarah Michelle-Melissa Joan-Freddie Prinze-Katie Holmes type of romantic comedy. I didn't realize it was a British movie(otherwise I might have given it a second look at the video store) and caught it on cable. I was pleasantly surprised by the acting. I liked the fact that it didn't go the typical sex route, although I didn't think about that until the movie was over. I was pleasantly surprised that it was a British film, it seemed more in the Hollywood vein, not as dark and gritty as a lot of British cinema. The mood of the film was cheerful, upbeat and somewhat witty. I particularly liked the technique of going back in the story to fill in the gaps of the storyline. It reminded me of an old fashioned type of movie; and I have to admit the lead actress did remind me of a Julia Roberts type. Very entertaining.


I saw this film with the title "The Very Thought of You" and think that "Martha, Meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence" is far more apropos and distinctive, although a bit of a mouthful to casually mention the film to friends. I expect that far too few persons will see this delightful film. I was particularly charmed by Laurence's description of the "perfect woman" and even more charmed when (as if I might have missed it) it was replayed! The film is worthy of smiles and laughs throughout, with an especially funny moment which rippled through the audience in laughter for many moments into the next scene. It is artistically directed and edited, intelligently written, and well acted (except when Monica Potter seemed to sound like Julia Roberts -- I can't imagine why she would want to do that). Interestingly, Joseph Finnes is also outstanding in one of the films that I believe is among the best of the decade: "Shakespeare in Love." I find the implausibility of this is irrelevant -- it's an 83-minute movie that sets out to capture a mood, tell a story, and entertain. I expect that many will easily brush this film off as "cute and sweet" but I personally would love to see more films that are as well-constructed and intelligent.


Martha (Monica Potter) is single, sexy and she's so sick of her life she's off to London with the last of her money.

Daniel (Tom Hollander) is single, successful and after one look at Martha he thinks he's in love. Frank (Rufus Sewell) is one of Daniel's friends, despite the fact he is always trying to get one up on him. Lawrence (Joseph Fiennes) is another of Daniel's friends, and he is always caught between Frank and Daniel as they jostle for supremacy.

The casing and script are both strong, and the feel of the movie is nice and original, even with the usual clichés in the romance element. It's funny, it's romantic and it has sex appeal for both men and ladies, so obviously its worth a watch; if you don't try it, you'll never know.

7/10


This was a great British film that deserves a good pat on the back. Not only did the film put together such a wonderfully presented cast that went together so realistically, so precise(including the sexy Joseph Fiennes), but it was a fantastic film with an original and laughable plot (which is better than seeing the same story over and over again). A great film that I enjoyed immensely.


I don't really know why I've written that this movie is useless. I think it's obvious that it won't change your mind or your life, won't make you cry or laugh (OK, you can smile sometimes), won't be successful, won't be anything. It's just a movie, an ordinary movie in such a competitive world.

Here in Brazil, a competitive place too, I went to one multiplex (I hope that's the name for these theatres with 7, 8, 9 (...) screens there) to watch "Teaching Mrs. Tingle" (I'm really embarrassed now). Unfortunately, the movie was sold-out, I had already watched "The Sixth Sense" twice, I really didn't want to watch "Bowfinger", the teen-trash "American Pie" again, the horrible "End of Days", and the most horrible "Letters from a killer". So, I tried the unique "watch-able" movie there, the unique romance, the unique that still had some tickets in that competitive world: "Martha, Meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence".

The Brazilian name, "Mero Acaso" (in a free translation, Mere Chance or Pure Fate) is one good summary for this movie about one American woman that moves to England and, by fate, develop three relationships with three guys. These three guys are friends but they don't know that they're seeing the same woman. Interesting? Not very much.

In fact, the original title tells the story. I watched it without knowing that she would meet the three, so really enjoyed. It was relaxing, fast, cute, romantic but like films made for television. No big plot, no big camera moves, no big cast, no big musics, no big budget... (although some of the best movies I've ever seen were very cheap). And it had some awful stereotypes: the American girl was blond, feminist, modern, on (bad) fashion, colored, with a huge suitcase. The British guy was shy, out of fashion, polite, bla, bla, bla. It's perfect to watch at your house eating popcorn.

The truth is that I'm lucky. This movie is much better that "Teaching Mrs. Tingle", at least. Thanks God that we live in a competitive world!


Joseph Fiennes acts unbelievably badly in this movie, it was really painful to watch. His brother Ralph must be appalled! He wasn't quite as bad in Shakespeare in Love. It could have been an OK piece of fluff to watch on the couch if it weren't for his acting. At least he's really good looking which gives a slight compensation! Rest of the cast range from bad to ordinary acting- wise, and the characters are all quite irritating - especially Rufus Sewell's character. The character of the neighbor was OK. Monica Potter was reasonable. Production values were fine - it looks like a regular film with an OK budget, and the camera work etc. were all fine for a B movie. The plot wasn't in any way credible and despite the premise that three guys are attracted to one girl there didn't seem to be any chemistry between anybody at all. I didn't feel that I cared in the slightest about what happened to anybody. I really disliked this movie, in case you can't tell already!


Four British actors in pursuit of the increasingly evanescent formula that gave us four weddings. It's made enjoyable by the elan of the actors who are, in general, used to doing more weighty things.

The big surprise is Ray Winstone, a foggy character who fulfils the role of a shrink, listening to Joe Fiennes whining. Nick Hamm keeps it moving along though, weaving the relationship threads together competently enough whilst Hollander and Sewell give pat representations of their character-tropes. Joe Fiennes is rather good in this sort of genre but I liked Monica Potter best of all, the American chick stuck on the end of the hook for the big US theatre going fish. Unremarkable but inoffensive. 4/10


I cannot believe how some people viewed this film. Peter Morgan is a brilliant writer. Do we really expect a "predictable" love story from such a great writer? No way. Monica, as usual, is incredible to look at and watch. In my opinion, she's the next Julia Roberts. Rufus Sewell can obviously play any sort of character. I have seen him in "Tristan and Isolde," "Uncorked," and now this film. I am in love with his eyes and well everything he does is superior to most British actors today. Everything about this film was delightful. Tom Hollander is also very versatile. Thank you, Peter, for giving us a movie with love, life-long decision-making, style and wit. This film is pure genius! Joseph is slowly becoming the actor his brother Ralph has become. Good movie which has to be taken the right way, or it will fly right over the average movie-goers' heads!


AKA: The Very Thought Of You

This has been done many times before. You take a basic fish-out-of-water story, and try to put your own spin to it, in an attempt to make it seem like a "fresh" idea, and hope no one notices.

I'm happy to say that this time, it worked. Tom Hollander and Monica Potter are delightful as the would-be couple. Monica Potter is the fish out of water, as an ex-Minnesota resident cum Londoner.

This is delightful, and quite smart in places, giving this production an overall slick execution, while not pushing the envelope so hard, as to detract from the work.

This is quite enjoyable, in spite of the cliché level of the base premise. The two key performances are quite endearing and sweet. This one grabbed me, and pulled me in, in spite of myself.

It rates a 7.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This is a well written piece by Peter Morgan, author of Stephen Frears' and Helen Mirren's The Queen currently making the rounds of the theatres. Director Nick Hamm is certainly not without a CV either. One unfortunate aspect of it all is the absolutely terrible title given the film in the US - truly there is no excuse and it belies the mentality in that country.

As a romantic comedy - of a sort - it beats anything that ghost town Hollywood be capable of; there are elements here which won't be obvious to you on first viewing and that's to your advantage.

Joey Fiennes: he talks like Shakespeare! There's a least one scene where you expect him to blurt out 'oh I am fortune's fool'.

This is refreshing and highly original and well worth a view. Ourselves we saw it on the telly, so we'll have to hunt it down as a rental or a purchase to benefit fully by it.

The charisma between Fiennes and Potter is palpable. As many say, Potter seems the blonde Roberts, but she's very much a match in talent as well. The conceit of this film - a girl who has her back to the wall and nowhere to go and simply gets on a plane to go somewhere, anywhere - has very much the feel of other movies in the genre such as French Kiss. It's a cathartic setup that works well and frankly Joey Fiennes has something his brother will never have.

Definitely worth the view and possibly the purchase.


This film was a disappointment, my cable provider described it as a witty comedy, but it was awful. The cast proved that light romantic comedy is harder than it looks. Avoid this movie it's not very funny and doesn't make any sense.The script from Peter Morgan (The Queen, Last King of Scotland) was weak, the plot feeble and you didn't really care about any of the characters.

Martha (Monica Potter)is an American woman on the rebound. She escapes from a failed romance in Minnesota and hops on a cheap flight to London. At the airport she meets Daniel (Tom Hollander), a short but successful music executive. Everyday he meets attractive women but falls in love with Potter at their first encounter. Martha does not reciprocate Daniel's advances but because she only has $35 to her name she accepts his hospitality. Martha meets Laurence (Joseph Fiennes) and promptly falls in love with him. Fiennes and Hollander are best friends. The series of coincidences and chance meetings defy credibility.


"The Very Thought of You" tells the tale of one woman who encounters three men individually while starting her life over in the UK. Curiously, the three men happen to be best friends...the crux which launches this charming and amusing little romantic comedy. Low on schmaltz, fresh and fun, "TVToY" is a three star flick worth a watch for anyone into this genre.


This is a sweet, charming romantic comedy with a playfully self-referential plot knitted together in flashbacks from different characters' points of view: David Lodge's 'Small World' meets Hal Hartley's 'Flirt'.

A woman comes to London to start a new life, and bumps into three very different men who all fall for her. She doesn't know that they're friends; they don't know that she's met all of them. She thinks she's lost the one she's fallen head-over-heels in love with, he thinks he's lost her. But we know that it'll all come out right in the end, because it's that kind of film.

Furthermore it has Joseph Fiennes looking soulful, and Rufus Sewell in a part he wanted "because I got to smoke cigarettes and say 'f*ck!' a lot". Definitely one for a girls' night in.


I just watched the video of this film (it wasn't released widely in theaters) and I think it was well worth seeing. I think if the distributors had marketed it for the people who enjoyed "Notting Hill" it could have done well in theaters.

The basic plot is of three boyhood friends in London who all meet an American girl. Eventhough the outcome is fairly predictable, the plot takes several twists to arrive there.

If you like romantic comedies, give this one a chance. You won't be disappointed.


Monica Potter is a wasted talent. She is charming, engaging, and has great comic timing. There are so many awful romantic comedies out there that I actually ignored this film on that basis alone for years.

Then, one particularly uninspiring evening a friend lent a copy of it to me and I skeptically watched it. I was shocked, but in a good way. This movie is very intelligently written, has sharp, realistic dialogue, and allows you to escape with Marta (Monica Potter) as she searches for a new life in England.

She ends up meeting three very different men.You are introduced to a grotesque, and creepy, self-loathing Rufus Sewell, a short,needy, and very badly dressed Tom Hollander.I was wondering what was going to happen if she ended up with either of them. Then you meet totally gorgeous Joseph Fiennes of (Shakespeare's In Love) fame.Hello?.

Thankfully, these two have genuine chemistry. A weak point in many romantic comedies. The story has many clever plot twists, and the ending is satisfying, but not overly sweet. On the basis of it's stars lack of Hollywood status this film will never reach a full audience, but good word of mouth might get it some due notice.

Check it out, I know you won't be disappointed, it's funny.


It was a beautiful movie. I truly adored it. And my older brother,who doesn't quiet like any romantic movie, liked it too. So ... if you haven't seen this movie yet, then, ... what are you waiting for??? The structure of the movie is original, so you won't get bored. And if you're still not convinced, then you're a very weird person! Well, anyway, for everyone else, if it's a rainy day, you're bored, you don't know what to do, or you're a bit lonely, then just go out and rent this movie, because I'm pretty sure that you'll love it. Watch out if you don't see it! It might just give you bad luck...

Love,

me


This movie is touching, the plot is built nicely... The way we go back to see what happened with each of the charachter...

Soundtrack has some nice songs in it too...

A movie to watch with your girlfriend.

8 of 10. For the nice time watching this film.


I had the opportunity to watch this movie by means of a VHS that I have gotten in Spain, and I can really say that I like it a lot, it really entertained very much me. It is a pity that this movie has not been seen in my country, Argentina, and according to my thought, in any other country of Latin America. Precisely alone in Spain. But well, I had the opportunity to see it and I am not sorry. The movie begins when Lawrence (Joseph Fiennes) takes a psycological session where he talk about he, his two friends and a person that they have in common. Martha (Monica Potter), an American young girl, travels to London to make her new life. There, in the same flight, she will know Daniel (Tom Hollander), a young man that will fall in love at first sight of her. Then, Martha will know in a park to Frank (Rufus Sewell), an actor with bad luck in the love, that also will fall in love of her. But Martha doesn't like to both. Alone she will fall in love at first sight with Lawrence, to who she will know accidentally in the airport. Lawrence, a young man serious but a little clumsy, will also fall in love with her. But Martha doesn't know that three guys that she met at same time are friends. How will react when she know the truth??? This movie has a resemblance to the typical American romantic comedies, being in fact an English movie. But I really recommend it for anyone. It is such a simple movie that it will catch you from the beginning until the end. It should not really allow it to happen. The performances of Potter, Fiennes, Hollander and Sewell are brilliant, but I have heard many complaints with that the character of Potter could have been interpret better by Julia Roberts. For my, Potter is quite well in this movie. It is a pity, but this movie should really have been watched here in Argentina and Latin America of Spanish Language. My opinion: A great movie, Really if you have the opportunity to see it, it doesn't waste it, will see it. Amusing, pleasant, funny, a great romantic comedy. Don't get lost it.


Martha flies from Minnesota to London to escape a failed romance and a boring life. She meets 3 different guys who become intrigued with her. One is a music producer who's rahter shallow, one is an actor who gets caught up in rivalry with the music producer, and the other is a nice quiet guy. Cleverly told from all participants' points of view.


I would definitely recommend this film, if not for its cutely romantic outlook, or its refreshingly talented stars, I'd give it a thumbs-up just because it's English. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot of British television or film, but it seems that everything I have seen has been either outlandishly funny or suicidally dramatic. English romance always seems to fall under the second, and sometimes numbingly depressing, idea. How wonderful, then, that I should run into this quiet little movie, which, although I will admit that Boise, Idaho is not the largest outlet for foreign film, I don't remember ever being released in my area. I remembered Mr. Sewell vaguely from "Hamlet," and have longed to see Mr. Fiennes in a film since "Shakespeare in Love," but never remember seeing Ms. Potter in anything, and I am sure that I never seen Mr. Hollander before. While I would not lie and say that this is a profound film and that there is anything to be learned from it or much to be thought of after seeing it, it would be only natural to praise it for its pure movie-like, feel-good quality, a small escape from the everyday. It resembles little, other than the highly implausible plot, of a Hollywood film. American romantic comedies seem built according to specifications designed only to provoke that slightly nervous, overly sweet feeling in the majority of female audience members. They usually have all the weight of a Twinkie, and leave one wondering how something so simple could be so utterly manufactured. This movie is more like a Wheat Thin, possibly underrated, certainly rather bland looking, but somehow much more satisfying and although it comes salty or in low sodium flavors, is surprisingly sweet without a trace of gooeyness. Hope yet for slightly awkward American girls.


I would definitely recommend this film, if not for its cutely romantic outlook, or its refreshingly talented stars, I'd give it a thumbs-up just because it's English. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot of British television or film, but it seems that everything I have seen has been either outlandishly funny or suicidally dramatic. English romance always seems to fall under the second, and sometimes numbingly depressing, idea. How wonderful, then, that I should run into this quiet little movie, which, although I will admit that Boise, Idaho is not the largest outlet for foreign film, I don't remember ever being released in my area. I remembered Mr. Sewell vaguely from "Hamlet," and have longed to see Mr. Fiennes in a film since "Shakespeare in Love," but never remember seeing Ms. Potter in anything, and I am sure that I never seen Mr. Hollander before. While I would not lie and say that this is a profound film and that there is anything to be learned from it or much to be thought of after seeing it, it would be only natural to praise it for its pure movie-like, feel-good quality, a small escape from the everyday. It resembles little, other than the highly implausible plot, of a Hollywood film. American romantic comedies seem built according to specifications designed only to provoke that slightly nervous, overly sweet feeling in the majority of female audience members. They usually have all the weight of a Twinkie, and leave one wondering how something so simple could be so utterly manufactured. This movie is more like a Wheat Thin, possibly underrated, certainly rather bland looking, but somehow much more satisfying and although it comes salty or in low sodium flavors, is surprisingly sweet without a trace of gooeyness.


Sometimes I'm a sucker for a romantic movie, more rarely, when the black mood takes me, I want to rip out the protagonists innards and dance on them. Yesterday was such a day. I finished watching this movie which I'd started watching a few days ago, back when I was of the opinion that romantic movies were just lovely. I have two major bones to pick with the entire oevre and they both relate to the same basic concept, the indoctrination of helpless saps like me with bullshit romantic shite like this.

1. Being a helpless girlie who's just a little bit crazy and whines about how hard her life is will not cause all men within a hundred foot radius to fall in love with you no matter how perky your nose/breasts are.

2. That thing! That thing with the meeting and the moon eyes and the first date sex and the brief comedy misunderstanding leading to the immediate reunion and forgiveness cause you're just both so much in tune. It doesn't happen! And if it does why does it never happen to me!? I hate to be a cynic but I am one of those people that thinks if Romeo and Juliet hadn't offed themselves they probably wouldn't have lasted a year.

It's not that I want to believe that. I wasn't born cynical, I was turned. I am a bitter romantic. I went out into the world all doe-eyed and hopeful and offered myself up on the bloody alter of love and rather unsurprisingly, I got butchered. I wasn't prepared. They should make you watch Witness and that Jennifer Connelly movie with the double ended dildo and The Ice Storm before you hit puberty instead of crap like this.


I saw this movie last night on Lifetime movies and it is getting ready to come on again in a hour or so. The movie kind of reminded me of my crush I had on a coach, although I was in college and nothing like that happened. I can honestly feel the frustrations on the "feelings" she had and even his. Although it was all together wrong. I am married to an older man, but I was already in my late 20s when it started. One thing if this guy was "in love" with her, he should of divorced his wife and waited until she was of age. However he was just sick minded and wanted a young piece and needed help. He should of backed away when she said she wanted it over. He, being an adult and a teacher should of been the mature one and not let this crush get to him. Crushes happen all the time with students towards their teachers. I had crushes on teachers in Jr. High (and then later to a coach but like I said, in college), but thank God none of them took advantage of me like that. Teachers and coaches and other adults should expect this, and know where the line is drawn. Great movie and the actors did a great job!


I sometimes watch movies on Lifetime and this is one of the best. It's about Amy who starts high school and has goals and dreams. She thinks that the football coach, Peter Nash, is in love with her but she's only thirteen years old. They have an affair and it's just so wrong and disturbing to watch. Amy thinks that it's all about love but Peter Nash is controlling her. He calls her and calls her and then says that he cannot live without her. Amy is a young woman and for this creep to come along and do this to his students is sick. It made my stomach turn when Coach Nash was in jail for raping her and he asks someone to give her a love letter. The acting was well played out because Amy looked so innocent and Coach Nash was just a loser who was only controlling her. I'd probably watch it again if it was on.


It really sheds some bright light on predators in the school system. Great Movie. I first watched this movie when I was like 12. I have always liked movies like this. Lifetime Movies are the best thing ever. The scene where Nicole and Gary are in the locker room I think is well done. You can really feel the emotion from the two actors. I wish this movie was played more often. Movies like this don't come around often. Nicole Tom gives a great performance, and GARY Cole does great also. Where has Nicole Tom been? I haven't seen her in ages. I also love her brother and Older sister(the young and the restless). I definitely recommend this movies to viewers of all ages. 10 stars


This is my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE of Nicholle Tom's movies. Nicholle was the perfect choice to play Amy Dustin and her acting is superior! I think Nicholle should have won an Academy Award for her performance in this movie. When Amy is forced to by Pete have sex with him you can clearly see the fear in her eyes. I have seen this movie several time and I am still impressed and deeply touched by the way the movie tells the story of Amy Dustin. It is a tragic tale of how a young girl can be abused by a older man. I think everyone (and not just Nicholle fans) should see this movie.


This movie was filmed at my high school my junior year!!! I remember it was so much fun filming! I am even in the class room scene...I am the girl that looks up at the clock when the bell rings...hehehe! The female leads were all really mean to us (they called us "Well-Fare Peasants") but, hey what can I say that was like 10 years ago, we were all a litter meaner in high school! I even had to make out with my boyfriend at the time on the front lawn of the school....good times!!! I will always be able to watch this movie and remember high school! PS: Two teachers were fired for doing the same thing "Coach Nash" did a few years later...talk about "art imitating life" this was "Life imitating Art!"


Any adult male who preys on minors should be - literally - whipped to within the proverbial "inch" of his life. And if this individual also is a teacher doing so with a student, salt and iodine should be added liberally to the resulting wounds.

However, I don't think we have to praise what we feel is a mediocre presentation simply because it addresses a serious problem. I couldn't disagree more with those who have proclaimed this a strong movie about this important situation.

The parents here, along with their victimized daughter, all moved more slowly than postal workers on Valium for the first 1 hour and 50 minutes -- then screamed like Banshees on "Speed" for the final 10. Gary Cole, as the villainous - and thoroughly vacuous and unctuous - teacher, is a very credible actor. But here his performance and character sounded like Jethro from "The Beverly Hillbillies" displaying a "dark side."

Even though this film was made a few years ago, and this problem is perhaps a little more evident today, the principal's speeches about teachers and school officials hugging and touching students to make them feel good, etc., was incredibly stupid and naive on the part of the writers. Anybody with even minimal intelligence knows that in the workplace, school - or anywhere else, males should avoid even the most cursory of physical contact. There are many, many scenarios where even the most innocent physical contact can be misrepresented by one of parties involved, or by someone observing. And even the most tentative addressing by one of the parties will find attorneys gathered as if there were a chemical plant explosion or a group of ambulances (to "chase") at a massive freeway pileup.

All-in-all, this is a serious subject deserving of a much better approach than this flick provided.


I think as long as we agree that 99.9% of the "movies" that are shown on the Lifetime Movie Network (LMN) are broad brush cinema cousins to paperback trash novels, everything's fine.

"For My Daughter's Honor" is no exception. As usual, it's "based on a true story"; there's little real character development, but there are plenty of implausible actions. Amy succumbs so easily to the coach's advances that her character should have been made to be six years old instead of thirteen, and even then, a 6 yr old would've run like crazy.

As is LMN's credo, all men must be either idiots or perverts, so Amy's Dad is too wrapped up in his struggling business to notice anything amiss...too bad, Amy! Amy's moronic friends think the coach is great since he buys them wine and lets them drive his truck...too bad, Amy! The principal of Amy's school can't/won't do anything, since he's a limp noodle who doesn't want to get crosswise with the popular coach, and since the football team is more important than any girl who's being traumatized by a teacher....too bad, Amy!

The coach's wife must sleep like a hibernating bear, since the coach wanders his house at midnight and leads poor Amy off to some empty bedroom for some "extra credit". Really too simple-minded to be taken seriously.

Oh yes, eventually the coach goes to the slammer. But who gets blamed? Yikes, it's Amy!

LMN movies are like salted peanuts: tasty, bad for you, and somewhat addictive. I admit I'll watch one now and then just to see how far the story will wander off into the surreal. But LMN truly believes it's performing some sort of service by running these preachy, poorly written monstrosities. They do take on serious subjects, but always bail out when it comes to quality acting and directing, and then go for the "Men are Evil" conclusion.

This movie could have been A LOT better, since the subject deserves a better rendering.


I just saw the Ralph Lauren car exhibit at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. In the gift shop they had this movie on a loop. I'm ashamed to say I paid close to thirty dollars for a 9 minute DVD but that's a testament to how amazing this film is. Who cares if the car doesn't get into all 5 gears or that it isn't going as fast as it seems. It's still an amazing piece of film footage. Once you see it you'll know where they got some of the inspiration for the video games GTA and Midnight Club. I swear I've seen imitations of some of the footage in those games. This film should have been one of the ones mentioned at the beginning of 'The Player' where the security guy is talking about long single takes in movies during the long opening shot. I'm going to go watch it again.

I'd like to add, now that I've seen Ronin I know where Frankenheimer got some of his inspiration.


The most famous motoring footage of all time, or more perhaps infamous. A breathtakingly insane sprint across Paris in a Ferrari. Claude Lelouch has gone for the minimalist approach in the documentation of 'the bet' as legend puts it. No dialogue, no plot, just the sights and sounds of a headlight's eye view of Paris early in the morning as Lelouch tries desperately to traverse the Paris CBD in under 8 minutes. The boy racer in everyone will enjoy the enthralling ride - equal to any racecam footage modern motorsport provides - the roar of a 60's Ferrari - to the enthusiast a sound now made mechanically impossible by noise regulations. While Lelouch desperate flinging of the car through Paris is a joy, half the fun is the reactions of pedestrians, animals and other vehicles as Lelouch thunders through.


According to rumor, it's the famous racecar driver Jaques Lafitte who drives this car as it speeds insanely through the near empty streets of Paris at 200km/h one early morning. Veering for cars and buses, almost hitting pedestrians and pigeons on every corner, this is as close to a real snuff movie you'll ever get. Very little is known about the car and it's driver. But I can assure you this: It was in no way sanctioned or produced with the cooperation of the police. It's far too risky for that. But what a ride! An absolute must see for any film or racing fan. Brilliant!


A fun short film, some crazy manoevres, but not as fast as it makes you believe.

On the Champs Elysee the car is (according to the soundtrack) running close to max revs in 5th gear which means it should be doing about 150mph, yet it takes 67 seconds to cover 2 kilometres which puts its average speed at 67mph on a dead straight road with supposedly almost constant full throttle.

By taking the 'racing line' through corners, mounting the camera close to the road and dubbing the sound it gives a good impression of speed, but other cars pass by too slowly and most of the pedestrians barely notice what is supposed to be a 4 litre V12 Ferrari bellowing through a city at full chat.

What C'etait un Rendezvous aspires to, Getaway in Stockholm achieves.


The title may be a bold claim for a movie that lasts less than 10 minutes, but while most movies last for 90 minutes, they can seem to be slightly boring in some parts, Rendezvous is not. Steeped in mystery for almost 30 years, the movie has been underground for most of this time, but thanks to modern technology, Cetait Un Rendezvous is back to enthrall a new generation of petrolheads. With no edits or special effects, meaning that everything you see was real, the movie seems all the more astonishing.

Starting off with a beating heart, the movie cuts to a rasping exhaust note of an unknown car, all taken from a camera mounted on the front of it, capturing the sights and sounds of 70's Paris, while the driver (who's face is never shown) extracts every ounce of performance out of said car. After 8 minutes of near misses, speeding through red lights and that intoxicating engine noise, a surprise is revealed.

The movie leaves all sorts of questions unanswered: What was the car? Who was the driver? How fast was he going? And how the hell did he do it? This next bit contains spoilers.

The car in the movie is believed to be the director's own Ferrari 275 GTB, while the driver is said to be either an F1 driver or the director himself. The speed of the car is said to be over 150mph. However, thanks to the way Rendezvous has left so many questions unanswered, these have been guesses. However, the sad truth is, Claude Lelouch, the director, explained that the car he was driving was actually a Mercedes, with the Ferrari exhaust note added to give the viewer a greater sense of speed, he also confirmed that he drove the car himself.

After people who simply watched the movie and admitted on how amazing it was, the previous truths may have burst a big bubble for them. However, who's to say that Lelouch was telling the truth this time? Couldn't it be possible for someone who never told the whole story for 30 years, is simply lying once more? Perhaps not, but the truth is, you never know, because you weren't there at that time.

Yet, while on the surface the film appears to be a reckless, brainless car movie for petrolheads only, the underlying notion the movie exudes is love: Think about the location Paris, the most romantic city in the world. Then think about the car engine note, a Ferrari, the car marque most often used with passion and love. Then think to the beginning of the movie, the beating heart. Why is it beating? Beating for the sheer excitement of traversing Paris at breakneck speed? Or beating for desire to spend time with the woman the driver loves, whom he meets at the end (the surprise ending, thus explaining the name of Cetait Un Rendezvous). Now think why he drove the way he did. Was it reckless? Stupid? Irresponsible? Yes. Why do it? Out of love and desire. The love of his woman, the desire to want to be with her so much that he would risk everything, just to spend one moment with her. In a world where everything has become fast paced and politically correct, the driver applies the fast-paced principle to the driving world, in order to relax and spend time with his girlfriend. Could it be that we spend so much time doing what we have to do, that we run out of time to do what we want to do? This is the true genius of Rendezvous: It appeals to so many by the action on screen, that it displays profound thinking that you never expect to find when you look deep into it's soul. You find something wonderful where you least expect it. On the surface, Rendezvous is one of the greatest car movies ever made, yet under the surface, it is also one of the most intriguing. A real shame that so few people have seen this tiny slice of cinema heaven, if you look hard enough, you will find Cetait Un Rendezvous, watch it and be amazed. Likewise, if you try to focus on the underlying theme in Rendezvous, you will be simply amazed by what you find.

Miss this amazing film at your own cost, for it is far greater than you would imagine it, in more ways than one.


On second and subsequent viewings Lelouch's famous blast through Paris throws up more questions than even the reviewers here have come up with. It's obvious by the time taken to reach landmarks that the camera vehicle never exceeds the magic 100mph. Having experienced a similar drive through the streets of Sydney back in the 1960s (in a then just released Mini Cooper S) I know how fast one seems to be traveling when close to road level.

The speed or lack of it isn't the point of the film, though. It's the combination of Paris circa 1976 and the masterful soundtrack which to my way of thinking wasn't dubbed as some would have you believe. The exhaust note and a few missed gear changes seem to indicate that all is on the up and up; the Ferrari has such a torquey engine that it would have been possible to carry out the drive in top gear. Only in a few spots does the engine really rev high and it's always in the lower gears.

Rather than look for faults, better to just sit back and be treated to the best 9 minutes combination of sight and sound you may ever experience.

What I'd like to know, though, are there other films of this nature around?


Forget Bullitt The French Connection etc. Believe the hype! Knowing this is for real makes it gripping, no dialogue, 2 actors, on screen for 5 seconds. 10 minutes of pure high Octane exitement in a classic Ferrari on the streets of 1970's Paris. Excellent


In the opening credits, it says the movie without speeding up or "trucage" which is best translated as manipulation.

However, internet research reveals, the movie was shot with a fixed automatic camera on the bumper of a heavy but very fast Mercedes S-class (the hard ride of a genuine sports car would have ruined the equipment).

So as a matter of fact, the legend about Ferrari plus racing driver, the engine noise and the gear change sounds are all fake - and pretty much "trucage", indeed.

Nevertheless, the drive is hilarious to watch. Until recently, there was a synchronized show of the movie and a drawing of the route on a map on the Internet - unfortunately, this didn't work the last times I tried to watch.


The streets of Paris on a quiet Sunday morning. The shrill scream of a Ferrari going through the gears. A camera strapped to the hood. Blasting through red lights at breakneck speed and using pedestrians as apex cones. The best 7 minutes of real tv I have ever seen. Worth every penny for those car nuts and race fans. This film was "out of print" two years ago. I have been looking for this film since I first saw it in 1989.


No comments necessary! You must see it! A must for all racing lovers. Joyful for cineasts! Only boring for boring people. Hard to find though. I wish I had a drivers license myself. Notice the garbage trucks and the pigeons. An anarchistic exclamation also.


Jump into your Ferrari and sail through the streets of Paris at high speeds early in the morning. The amazing thing about this movie, other than the fact that no one was ran over making it, is the fact that it was shot in one take. No cuts, fancy special effects or editing...just one man and a really fast car heading for a rendezvous with his woman. Seen on a big screen television with surround will put you in the driver's seat of one of the world's fastest production cars for a 12 minutes of "sitting on the edge of your seat" action. This is one of the best film shorts that I have ever seen and recommend it to everyone that I know.


It's a typical take by Lelouch: the magic of cinema, surprises in the end, a "how they do this with a camera?"... If you have seen the Lelouch's short for "Lumiere & Co." it's the same thing always, it's a magician of nothing, but all that "nothing" is "brillant" in the way that he show it on the screen. A lot of thing, maybe it's not good at all, but we can't stop to see this movie, it's amazing, we are part of all the movie like in a "camera car" or "camera moto" (for me it's a moto) of Formula 1... I would like so much to see this short in a big screen, projected...

I think it's pure cinema.


It was Claude lelouch driving Himself ! He was driving a Mercedes

http://www.axe-net.be/rdv/presentation.php

He never pass 180 km/h, & was 3 inside of the car

Watch the movie & see itinéraire on http://www.axe-net.be/rdv/

You will find all official information over this short movie. Who was driving, the way he used for movie.

And also leave comments :d But all in French ! English Version will come soon.

You will not be sad to have loose you're time watch my website ! We are not official website, but we speak about us on official lelouch website !


Lelouche's "Rendezvous" movie is IMHO an overrated joke.

I watched an AVI, and figured out the timed needed to drive down the Champs Elysees from Arc de Triomphe (timecode 1:32) to Place de la Concorde (2:48): about 70 seconds in a straight line. By measuring the distance on a map of Paris (about 2000m), you'll get the average speed: about 64 mph or 102 km/h, AFAIR.

Certainly not a Ferrari at full speed, but probably an ordinary car driven somewhat faster than allowed.

In twistier parts of the city, the sound often goes through all gears into 5th, while the visual speeds don't change much. For example at around 05:40, when he is forced to pass a parked truck slowly. It's hard to believe that people get fooled by that.

At the beginning, it is stated that "the film was produced without photographic tricks nor changes in camera speed". That is IMHO true. The film is right, but the sound is fake.

IMHO, everyone could produce such a flick by recording a normal trip through the village on video, and then adding some exciting sounds generated by a computer racing game.