Very well made TV movie, with 3 different stories. the first stars Roddy McDowall as a bastard nephew who kills his uncle to take his money, then is haunted by the ghost of the uncle (or so he thinks) to death. Ossie Davis also stars in this episode, and he's wonderful. This is my personal favorite of the three. Roddy is snide and sly as the nephew, and when he starts to come unhinged he's marvelous. The second stars Richard Kiel as a WWII concentration camp captain hiding in some South American city, where he becomes strangely fixated with an idyllic painting of a man fishing in a mountain lake. The painting hangs in a museum, and he spends day after day in there just staring at it and eventually feels himself drawn into the painting. It's a relief to be hounded no longer by the war crimes police when he's in the painting. But back in reality he's recognized as a Nazi who was condemned after the war, and a former camp inmate tells the police about him. Kiel runs to the museum, intent on going into the life in the painting for good. But he makes a big, big mistake and will spend eternity paying for it and his crimes against humanity. The last episode stars Joan Crawford in a pretty much one-woman play. She's a blind rich woman, living in a huge penthouse apartment in NYC, who pays a loser for his corneas so that she can have them transplanted in her eyes. The kicker is that she will only be able to see for about 8 hours, and she doesn't care a bit that the man she takes the corneas from will be blind forever. She has the operation, and when the time comes to take the bandages off, the instant she does the city is plunged into a blackout. She spends the 8 hours trying to get out of the apartment building in the dark stairwells, and finally makes it back to her apartment when the sun comes up. She finally sees the sun, but it's the last thing she does.

I love this movie; and I also loved Night Gallery, but this film has 3 different viewpoints and would appeal to a large audience. All the performances are excellent. Steven Spielberg directed the Joan Crawford segment, "Eyes"; it was one of his first director assignments.


This remarkable trio of spooky stories served as a pilot to the not-quite-so remarkable TV series of the same name, though now it is just as likely remembered as the point where two screen legends passed at opposite trajectories of their careers. Steven Spielberg's first professional directing job was segment two of this anthology, which also proved to be one of Joan Crawford's last acting efforts, certainly her last worth noting.

Conceived by another legend, the brilliant Rod Serling, the concept of the film and subsequent series was meant to be a variation on his classic "Twilight Zone" series, varying tales of supernatural horror, each tied to a grotesque painting and each introduced by Serling, acting as the gallery's curator. It was an excellent start, though the resulting series proved to be a pale imitation of "The Twilight Zone," a peculiar hodgepodge of styles and concepts, some classics and some just plain silly.

The TV movie itself stands alone, though the trio of tales unfold in descending order. The first and best is "The Cemetery," a variation on the classic ghost story. In this southern Gothic creeper, Roddy McDowall murders his wealthy uncle, but finds that enjoying his newfound inheritance is a bit difficult since a painting on the wall seems to suggest that Uncle is buried, but not dead. The story is slight, even silly, but boy, oh boy, does Roddy know how to chew the scenery. I can think of no other actor who so obviously loved to act more than McDowall and here he plays evil to the hilt. Roddy was undoubtedly one of the most intrinsically likable stars there ever was, so much so that he could play the most despicably evil characters and still make the character a delight. "The Cemetery" is nicely written by Serling and tightly directed by Boris Segal, but it is Roddy's one-man show.

But if Roddy McDowall could make loathsome characters inexplicably likable, than Joan Crawford had the knack for negating any trace of sympathy that her characters might possess. In Spielberg's "Eyes," Joan plays a ruthless millionairess who happens to be blind, but has the chance to briefly see again by buying the eyes of a living person who is in desperate need of money. It is a nice performance; hard and demanding, Crawford never asks for pity, but nevertheless earns it with the story's nifty twist ending. More a clever idea than a solid story, the tale is not particularly suspenseful; bit it does displays a cool sense of cynical irony. And never is it apparent that it is Spielberg's first crack at professional film-making, so sure is his use of the camera and setting of mood.

The third tale of the trilogy, "Escape Route," is probably the most like the classic "Twilight Zone," dark and brooding; yet least successful as a thriller. Richard Kiley is a war criminal who thinks he can escape his past by literally throwing himself into art. Rod Serling has other ideas. As the trilogy's closing act, I guess it was suppose to be the one with the most impact, the one to show off Serling's penchant for moralizing. It doesn't quite come off. I think part of the problem is that Kiley, a good actor, lacks a powerful screen presence. The best episodes of "Night Gallery," and for that matter "The Twilight Zone," featured actors with strong personalities who were not only talented, but adept at pushing their performances to the edge, flirting with going over the top, just as McDowall and Crawford do. Any short form fiction, be it on the page or on the screen, needs that heightened sense of drama, that admission that reality has been left behind.

Though it had some strong episodes at first, the "Night Gallery" TV series fell out of Serling's control and eventually became sort of a ghost story version of "Love, American Style," a crude mix of cheap jokes and heavy-handed suspense. It's a pity that it didn't stay true to this pilot; it could have been another "Twilight Zone."


Serling performs a refining act on the "Tales from the Crypt"-brand of horror with this grim triptych. Each story is a little morality tale in the style of "The Twilight Zone," but instead of that series' sense of surreal wonder, the focus is now firmly on the macabre. The plotlines follow the model of the 1950s horror pulp comics, with characters spoiling for their comeuppance: a black-sheep nephew suffers a revenge beyond the grave after murdering his rich uncle; a ruthless blind woman blackmails a surgeon into performing a transplant using the eyes of a desperate bum; a war criminal finds what he thinks is respite from his pursuers when he is miraculously transported into a museum painting. The rest is pure Serling, though, with sharply drawn characters, stylish dialogue, and his characteristic final twist of irony. The execution is first rate, with a terrific cast, good production values (music, editing, photography), and inventive visuals from directors Boris ("The Omega Man") Sagal, Barry ("Across 110th Street") Shear, and Steven Spielberg (in his maiden effort).


Any film fan knows that this is where Steven Spielberg got his start, directing the second vignette "Eyes". But NIGHT GALLERY deserves more respect and attention because of its overall creepiness than for the debut of a young "genius".

Rod Serling, creator of "The Twilight Zone", hosts this anthology TV movie that later spawned the TV series of the same name. Both the film and the series feature a multitude of guest stars that keep things interesting. Part 1: An obnoxious southern man (superbly played by Roddy McDowall) kills his uncle (George Macready) for his fortune and is later haunted by a painting of the family cemetery. Part 2: A blind woman (Joan Crawford) arranges to use a gambler's eyes (Tom Bosley) so she can see for a few hours, but things don't turn out the way she planned. Part 3: A Nazi war criminal living in South America is enchanted by a beautiful painting that reminds me of his happier past.

Of the three stories, Part 3 is easily the weakest. Part 1 and Part 2 are both amazing pieces of cinema and leave lingering memories to haunt you. But the plot and execution of Part 3 is rather boring and never really provides the viewer with memorable images or even a few chills here and there. Joan Crawford and Roddy McDowall easily take the cake as the best actors in the movie. Having always been a fan of both, I may be a bit biased, but most fans will agree with me that the two play wonderful villains, yet evoke a certain pity when they get theirs. The music in the movie is brilliant, by the way.

NIGHT GALLERY is an above-average TV movie that should be out on DVD already. The VHS is out of print, I believe, but try looking for it. My advice: watch the first two, then stop, rewind, and eject. Avoid the third installment as it will positively ruin the viewing experience.


First shown on NBC-TV in November 1969, NIGHT GALLERY, the pilot to the 1970-73 TV anthology show of the same name, was the last major work of Rod Serling, creator of what may still rank as the best TV series ever, "The Twilight Zone." Although, when the series started, Serling wasn't given the kind of creative control he felt he needed to make the series work (and not surprisingly, it was mercilessly compared to "The Twilight Zone"), on this pilot film, he was firmly in control. Adapting three stories from his 1967 collection "The Season To Be Wary", Serling came up with a thoroughly engaging anthology film that combined morality, melodrama, suspense, and the supernatural into a stunning brew not seen on television before.

Segment 1, "The Cemetery", directed by Boris Sagal, features Roddy McDowall as an unscrupulous nephew who causes the death of his uncle by exposing him to a cold wind in order to grab his hands on the old man's fortune. But as he soon learns, one of the paintings his uncle created in his last days--that of the family cemetery--keeps changing on him every time he looks at it. And soon, it seems to show his uncle coming back from the grave.

Segment 2, "Eyes", stars Joan Crawford as a ruthless, imperious blind woman who blackmails a prominent surgeon (Barry Sullivan) into giving her an ocular transplant so that she may enjoy roughly twelve hours of sight before going blind again. The operation, done with the help of an eye donation from a petty gambler, turns out to be a success--until a blackout causes Crawford to think otherwise. This episode is noted as the professional maiden directing effort for Steven Spielberg.

Segment 3, "Escape", directed by Barry Shear, stars Richard Kiley as a Nazi fugitive hiding out in Buenos Aires who becomes captivated by a painting of a fisherman in the local art museum. He dreams of becoming that fisherman and escaping from hiding, but a chance encounter with a Holocaust survivor (Sam Jaffe) will deny him that in a chilling conclusion.

Although Serling's moralizing sometimes gets a bit on the heavy-handed side, NIGHT GALLERY is still superbly conceived, with the case giving excellent and often chilling performances. The first segment is appropriately spooky; the second ingenious and unconventional (for TV); and the third, even though it is the weakest, a worthy capper on this film. Spielberg, of course, got the glory for his segment, but Sagal's and Shear's segments are nothing to sneeze at either. All in all, NIGHT GALLERY comes highly recommended.


The Night Gallery is a great series. The TV pilot film was a great one. The three story telling film starred Joan Crawford, Ossie Davis, Richard Kiley, Roddy McDowall, Barry Sullivan, Tom Bosley. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The dialog was really good. The shorts were filmed very good. The music is good. Rod Serling hosted the show well. The short films are quite interesting and they really keeps you going. Most of them are spooky! This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like classic shows like The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, The Nightstalker, and others, and classic Horror, Crime, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to go over to Amazon.com and buy this film that is also included with the complete first season on DVD today!


"Night Gallery" was brilliant TV writer Rod Serling's follow-up to his cult hit "The Twilight Zone". These comments refer to the pilot episode, a feature-length anthology film with big-name stars directed by young directors (one of whom, Steven Spielberg, certainly ended up making a splash on the horror circuit and beyond). These stories are filmed in a quality color process and are all variations on a theme of painting and perception generally speaking.

The first story concerns a young upstart nephew (Roddy McDowall) who stands to inherit a fortune from his artist uncle (George Macready) and decides to help him a little along the way. Ossie Davis provides some very good support as "Porter Foy", the old man's reliable manservant. This vignette deals with the fragile hold of sanity on the conscious mind. I really enjoyed the performances of the lead actors in this one and it was my favorite in the film.

The second story features star Joan Crawford and was the one directed by Spielberg. It concerns a wealthy evil old woman who is willing to blackmail her doctor (Barry Sullivan) into performing an operation that will give her vision for 12 hours, but deprive another human being of his vision for the rest of his life. She finds a suitably desperate man with a gambling debt to do this. This story is very remarkable, somewhat sad in a way. I thought it was a bit too obvious in a way though.

The final story is relatively inconsequential, dealing with a nazi war criminal who is hiding in South America and is identified because of his association with a particular picture in a gallery. This portion of the film went on too long for what it's story was worth and the entire part with the prostitute could have been excised without anyone noticing.

All in all, this is a very entertaining piece of TV film-making that classic movie fans will enjoy discovering because of the classic stars who all give solid performances.


I was there when Night Gallery first appeared, in my early teens. And I was into Theatre at the time and knew a few things about production. Nihgt Gallery was instantly a classic. Rod Serling would introduce the segments with paintings which led into the plot. One had Roddy McDowell playing his usual malevolent character to the max, in an ordinary tale made better by acting and production. Another segment dealt with the rich buying happiness in a very unique and creative way. It wasn't a mind blower, but the most reminiscent of the Twilight Zone series. The third was the true classic, with Richard Kiley giving a masterfully performance of a vicious horrible creature, a Nazi war criminal who thinks he merits leniency after years on the run. He feels he can escape into a picture at a gallery in which men are fishing at a serene lake. This episode alone is better than any Twilight Zone series, and that is not easy to do. This was easily the creme de la creme, the Mona Lisa of Rod Serling's career, undeniably. If you haven't seen it, you must watch it! You will be enthralled! There were later episodes that also had great suspense, and terror that modern gore films can only fantasize about producing. The famous "Earwick" episode, the super scary "Robert the Bruce" episode. It's easy to see why studios won't release these again, for the same reason they don't release the other great classics of the past (Bronco, Sugarfoot, Laredo, The Untouchables-it's even hard to find some everyone knows about-Gilligan, the Hillbillies, Big Valley), because they want to make audiences think the old classics were the ho hum shows they air today so they won't lose audiences from new show. You will be pleasantly surprised by NIGHT GALLERY


As a collection of three stories, The Night Gallery stands as one of the best horror anthologies ever filmed. The first of the three stories is the best. Roddy McDowell and Ozzie Davis are fantastic in this eerie little piece about greed, deception, and revenge. The second story is also the second best. Joan Crawford is excellent as the heartless, sightless woman who will sacrifice anyone to be able to see the world around her. The last story is the least of the three. Although Sam Jaffe is very good as the survivor of a Nazi prison camp, Richard Kiley just doesn't do enough with his role as the former Nazi haunted by his monstrous past. All in all, this is one of the premier made-for-TV movies produced in the late sixties/early seventies era. With a few notable exceptions, the TV series which followed never really lived up to this auspicious beginning. If you've never seen this movie, it's definitely worth a look--if for no other reason than to see and hear Rod Serling introduce each episode.


"What's it going to be like when it's midnight all the time and nobody's paid the electric bill?" This is a delightful little anthology that tells three tales of terror surrounding three paintings (hence the original title of Night Gallery). I gather that this was the pilot to the television series that followed.

The first tale involved that of a young man (Roddy McDowell) who kills his uncle to inherit his fortune, only to find himself haunted by a painting that hangs in the house. Excellent performances by Roddy McDowell and Ossie Davis along with a great story make this segment a very entertaining part of the whole.

In the second segment, Joan Crawford plays a blind woman who receives her sight back briefly when she pays a debtor to donate his eyes to her. But she doesn't get quite what she had expected from the bargain. While this part of the movie was okay, it was definitely not as enjoyable as the first part.

The last segment tells the tale of a Nazi war criminal, played by Richard Kiley, hiding out in South America to avoid prosecution who encounters a holocaust survivor and is affected by a fascinating painting in a museum. This segment takes a more serious tone than the others and I cannot decide whether I like this segment or the first story the best. This one is creepier and leaves a more lasting impression, but Roddy McDowell's performance in the first part is more striking.

Overall, this was a fun, if not terribly serious, made for television movie that did what it set out to do-entertain the viewer. I generally like anthologies as I think the short story is the right length for horror both in print and on film. This one is worth watching if you get the chance.


In "The Cemetery"(..directed by Boris Sagal), a loathsome money-hungry nephew, Jeremy Evans(Roddy McDowell, playing him as a really slimy scumbag) ready and willing to horde on his Uncle's inheritance, just waiting for the old timer,William Hendricks(George Macready) crippled and ravaged by a stroke that has taken his means of movement and communication, to croak. His Uncle was once a painter obsessed with death..his works often evoke that. Osmond Portifoy(Ossie Davis)has been under employ to the old man for many years and Jeremy relishes in reminding the butler who will be dipping their hands in the money jar. To show you just how virulent Jeremy can be, he points out to Portifoy(..and for extra slander, he uses "Portifoy" nearly every sentence with a sneer)how his mother worked her fingers to the bone without ever asking Uncle for a dime and that he always desired to live the good life, but needed the means to do so. McDowell is in command carrying this heavy smell of pomp and greed("I'm a black sheep nephew with an itch")..you just love to hate him. Jeremy finds out that he'll receive his Uncle's inheritance due to the fact that his mother is dead and her share will go to him thanks to a clause in Hendrick's will. So Jeremy locks his Uncle's wheelchair next to an open window allowing the draft to kill him(..while also letting his Uncle peer at the family graveyard as a reminder of where the old man is about be heading). Oh, but you know Jeremy's got his comeuppance coming to him, yes sir! Jeremy notices a painting on the wall(Hendrick's portraits line the wall of the stairwell) and the freshly dug grave where dear dead Uncle was buried begins to change every time he looks at it. Watch as Jeremy slowly unravels as he sees Uncle's casket appear, then open, then show someone rising slowly walking to the front door of the manor. But, all is not what it seems. I do think McDowell's tour-de-force performance approaches high camp but I just enjoyed it immensely..he's such a blood-sucking leech, a real weasel. Watching Jeremy squirm and ultimately become frightened out of his wits was a ton of fun.The ending is a bit silly(..and rather logically unsound), pointing out another schemer out for a payday, but overall I think it's fun, if derivative somewhat. The idea of the ever-changing portrait is a cool idea, I thought.

The second tale, "Eyes"(..directed by Steven Spielberg)stars Joan Crawford as an acid-tongued, rich, blind woman, Claudia(who has built her own apartment complex in New York and lives as it's only tenant), who blackmails a surgeon, Dr. Frank Heatherton(Barry Sullivan)into performing a dangerous and unorthodox grafting procedure transplanting the central optic nerves of an obsessive gambler's eyes, Sidney(Tom Bosley of "Happy Days" fame) needing 9 grand to pay off a debt from a bookie threatening his life. Although the procedure will only grant her 11 hours of sight, she's willing to have that for just the precious moments to see color and objects always darkened to her. But, in a nasty bit of irony to match her own behavior towards others like Heatherton, New York City goes through a black out ridding her of those precious moments she has so longed for. This tale has that Rod Serling intellectual banter between characters you remember from stage-like episodes of "Twilight Zone" as fates are contemplated and discussions are batted around. This also has the "coming out" stylistics of a future filmmaker.

The third tale, "The Escape Route"(..directed by Barry Shear) follows a Nazi named Strobe(Richard Kiley, with a scar covering one eye for extra impact)hiding away in South Africa, haunted by memories of his war crimes and constantly looking over his shoulder worried about being caught by agents who specialize in hunting "his kind" out. He becomes pre-occupied/transfixed with a museum painting of some fisherman on a mountain lake..his desire is to enter the painting as a means of escape from the torments of running. He tries to shake an old Jew, Bleum(the marvelous Sam Jaffe, whose frail, wrinkled body, offers a terrifying example of what torture, imprisonment & death can do to one who had seen it all)who seems to recognize him. A creepy crucifixion painting depicting one's suffering leads us into Strobe and Bleum's first meeting..and, for a reason you'll find later, is as important to this tale as the fisherman painting. A chilling exploration of a tired monster with few escape routes whose wish is granted..just not the way he thinks.

As expected(considering the title)each episode features within it's plot the importance of a portrait. All three tales bear Rod Serling's distinctive writing style with the usual "gotcha!" twisting irony one grows to expect. I guess the first one is closest to the "Night Gallery" series, but this film is much better than what comes after it because of Serling's strong involvement in every tale presented. He is also the host introducing us to each macabre tale.


This ninety-minute TV movie, which served as the pilot for what would turn out to be a vastly inferior series, is first-rate Rod Serling: a little preachy, very unsettling, and preoccupied with the themes of human desperation and ugliness. The first segment, 'The Cemetery', is terrific; Roddy McDowall and Ossie Davis play off one another wonderfully, and it's a pleasure to see Roddy's nasty little character get his comeuppance. 'Eyes' is not as good; Steven Spielberg's direction is a little conspicuous and the entire thing basically consists of Joan Crawford just ranting for half an hour. Serling returns to form, though, with 'Escape Route', the story of a Nazi war criminal (Richard Kiley) running from his brutal past. This one would have worked beautifully on "The Twilight Zone" :) Serling turned out the occasional gem on the series (Emmy-nominated 'They're Tearing Down Tim Riley's Bar'; 'The Waiting Room'; and 'Cool Air', based on a story by H.P. Lovecraft), but the "Night Gallery" pilot film was really his last hurrah on network television. The paintings by Jaroslav Gebr are great, too, as is the theme music (this theme was done by William Goldenberg, and is much creepier than the one used for the series). Recommended.


Requiem is a good ending to season 7 with a few things I would have preferred a little different. I like the idea of returning to the case of Billy Miles and reminiscing a little on the Pilot episode. As I watch the episode I can't help but think about all the things that Mulder and Scully have learned in the past seven years about the alien race. It especially hit when they began talking about having seen the toxic blood before as if it were old news and Scully explains it to Billy. I put myself in Billy's shoes and wonder if they knew that last time I saw them or if they've learned about it since then. I also was very glad to see Marita Covarubias and Alex Krycek again. I love that scene when Mulder, Skinner and these two are in Mulder's office and he tries to attack Krycek and then they are standing around talking when Scully walks in. Her face says "what the hey is going on here Mulder?" Anyway probably the one thing that I don't really like is how they put the whole thing in one episode. I wish they could have done it as a two parter. But oh well. Chris Carter mentions in the special features that he didn't even write the end of the episode until they were almost done filming to avoid letting out any spoilers. I respect him for that. I give this episode a 8/10.


Back to the beginning! It is cool to see the agents go back to where everything began in Requiem.

An inconsistency pops up in the teaser. We see Miles' watch spinning backwards?!?What's up with that? In previous episodes, when UFOs are involved, watches stop, not spin backwards, indicating a loss of time. Are they implying that time went backwards? I don't think so. I suppose it's a writing oversight.

Poor Krycek. He winds up in the craziest places. Missile silos in South Dakota, prisons in Tunisia. Marita would've preferred to leave him there. I guess the spark is gone, even though they shared the steamiest kiss in the entire series.

It was cool to see the audit. I'm quite surprised it hasn't happened earlier. I like Scully's smile when Mulder mentions assaulting the auditor. I think because she wishes she would have done it herself. The one problem I have with the audit though is that the auditor questions what Mulder and Scully are still investigating if they have solved everything. Why would a financial guy care about things like that? You'd think he'd just worry about the money aspect of things. Perhaps, it's just a way of combining a couple of characters in one; an auditor to run over their expenses and someone to question the authenticity of their work.

Another inconsistency is when it shows the Cigarette Smoking Man(CSM) dying. Jeremiah Smith healed him of his lung cancer. I understand that the brain surgery he had is killing him but that shouldn't affect his throat, and having to smoke through it as if he still had lung cancer.

The first deleted scene for this episode gives out a lot more information. It's too bad they cut it.

I like how Chris Carter leaves clues throughout the episode of Scully being pregnant. She's holding the baby with a look in her eyes. She's sick throughout the episode. It still comes as a big shock if you don't catch the clues.

Requiem is full of nostalgia. The Lone Gunmen return, albeit for a pretty useless cameo. It's cool to see the return of the Alien Bounty Hunter. A question I have is when he impersonates the personalities of the people, like Det. Miles. Then other times he doesn't, like Ray, Theresa's husband. I find it inconsistent how he acts when impersonating other people.

The wiggling effect is cool when Gary and Scully encounter the UFO. It looks like they borrowed that effect from 'Rush' earlier in the season. However, I don't think that could have been good for Scully's baby.

I found it interesting how Marita Covarrubias refers to CSM as Cancer Man to Mulder, as if it's common knowledge that is what he should be called.

I like the music towards the end. Good job, Mark Snow.

I don't like using pregnancy as a plot device. But, on the other hand, Scully's been longing for children most of the series. So it does fit the yearnings of her character. It's just sad to see the show start in the "baby" direction.

The inconsistencies in the episode are a bit annoying. I mean, come on, Chris Carter wrote this stuff to begin with, and he ignores it in this episode for cool shots. That's the only reason those things I mentioned are like that, for cool scenes. Chris Carter should have stuck with the original ideas. For that, Requiem doesn't receive full marks.

Chris Carter wrote Requiem not knowing whether or not the series would end after this episode. Like, I said before, this episode is full of nostalgia and most of the main recurring characters are brought in for a (seemingly) last hurrah. This would have made a nice end to the series, leaving the fate of Mulder in doubt, in true X-Files fashion.


**Possible Spoilers** Requiem is probably my personal favorite season finale. Unsure if the production would continue for more seasons, this finale was written in such a way that it could act as the series finale. Facing financial cuts of the department, Mulder and Scully are obligated to go back to square one 7 years from the beginning of the X-Files, to Oregon. Running into familiar faces strange things pick up with a double twist in both their parts. The last 5 minutes are worth the entire list price for the season set. Mark Snow's score for this stands out beautifully and Scully's last words are also worth the time (and money) spent watching every episode from the season one to this instant from start to finish.


For lots of people, Requiem is essentially the spiritual ending for the X Files and it's certainly far more rewarding and powerful then The Truth. And as far as going back to your roots is concerned, this is a very well plotted and executed episode.

The teaser itself is more of a pace setter and establisher rather than a shocker and a stunner. There's nothing new, although the return of Detective Miles comes as a shock, and it's shot brilliantly. You just know we're in for a hell of a ride.

I must profess to loving the fact that the issue of expenses over Mulder and Scully's investigation was left untouched until what at the time was considered the final episode. And the only thing I love more than Mulder beating the crap out of Chesty Short is Scully's amusement when told. For Billy Miles of all people to phone them up out the blue is a real surprise. As is Krycek's stint in a Tunisian penal colony being ended by Marita Covarrubias, last seen looking like a toilet brush in One Son. As a side note, that is one hell of a recovery, both physically and mentally. Kudos Marita C. Turns out that CSM, now dying, has summoned them for one final attempt at rekindling the conspiracy. Inevitably these two events are linked.

That would because an alien craft has crashed outside Bellefleur, and is now sitting under a cloaking device. Mulder n' Scully meet Billy, exchange some reminiscing, and we quickly establish that his father has not come out well from his encounter with the alien. The twist that he's in fact the Bounty Hunter might not come as a big shock, making the pretty cool car trunk shot less effective, but it's not blatant. It turns out that the alien craft was on a salvage hunt for abductees, and while Mulder and Scully visit Theresa Hoese (nee Nemman, her of the nosebleed), one of the local UFO geeks is sucked into the ship's shields. Used twice in this episode, the shaking shot I reckon looks brilliant. All the while Krycek pokes his nose around looking for the craft (the sum of which is sitting in his car on the phone).

Marita and CSM share some pretty insightful conversations, and it's credit to Laurie Holden that you can see her hatred for him burning while she maintains a veneer of cold, emotionless efficiency. Scully meanwhile begins suffering from sudden nausea, the cause of which will come up later. You have a wonderful scene where Mulder tries to comfort her and states for the first time his wish for her to leave him behind and try and have a better life as a result. Whether this is lucky strike number 2 for Mulder isn't clear, although I believe it is.

With their backs turned, Theresa is taken from her home, her screaming baby just metres away, and the friend of shaky boy confirms Billy's suspicions over his father. While Billy returns home to confront him, Mulder and Scully go into the woods and the latter is subjected to the same forcefield rejection. Dismissed as another episode, Mulder and Scully ultimately return to D.C with nothing when Billy is taken by the Bounty Hunter, who had finally convinced him that he was who he said he was. The scene where Billy demands to know why his father never believed him is oddly touching, and stems back to pilot clearly.

As a result, we have what I reckon is one of the best X Files moments ever, when a hesitant Skinner leads Krycek and Marita into Mulder's office. It seems they've had the same lack of luck, and are willing to sign up with M&S at the expense of the CSM. We get a scene from the Lone Gunmen and another example of Mulder trying to stop Scully from joining him at the potential ground zero. This time he succeeds, and while Scully discovers that the alien DNA means Mulder is at risk, Mulder and Skinner travel to the site and the inevitable happens. Mulder walks into the forcefield, ignoring the calls of Skinner, and joins the gathered abductees as the Bounty Hunter walks up to him and smiles vindictively. Skinner almost cries, and then another bombshell: Scully's pregnant.

Ultimately, it's always going to be the return to the beginning aspect of Requiem that will win us over, and does it must be said. There's a feeling of coming full circle that is both excellent and slight depressing (despite what they've seen and done, Mulder and Scully haven't really gone anywhere). Also, the double headed plot which utilises both Abductions and the Conspiracy is generally well handled.

The main issue is that as a one parter, it has holes where they couldn't afford time to use. Krycek and Marita's methods to find the craft aren't clear, and neither is CSM's logic behind rebuilding the project with a single crashed UFO. Mulder and Scully just seem to give up on the case after Billy disappears too. So it's far from perfect.

However, it does deliver and is an emotional, powerful episode that could well have ended the show. Scenes such as Mulder watching Scully with the baby, the bedroom scene and Skinner getting emotional are stunning, and we have the satisfaction of seeing Krycek shove Cigarette Smoking Man down the stairs. The revelation that Scully is pregnant is jaw dropping.

So basically, Requiem isn't perfect; it's uneven, and slightly constricted by the single episode it was given to resolve the story. However, there is genuine emotion, wonderful recognition of the show's roots, and a great plot and story. The music from Mark Snow is brilliant even by his standards. If Season 7 was all about closure and wrapping up, Requiem does it in spades. Powerful viewing.


I'll never look at a juke box the same way- this lively film tells the story of a juke box that attracts roaches-- and are they in for a surprise!


The acting ensemble here is totally wasted. They walk through. I've never seen a really bad performance from Patrick Stewart until tonight, and while it's possible he was doing what was asked of him - the result is something between a train wreck and paint drying.

The special effects are worse than can be believed in this day (I do better on my laptop, and I'm NOT a pro!). Certainly not as good as Harryhousen's version.

Though certainly truer to Verne's book than previous versions I've seen, it's really not worth watching for three hours, even on 'free' TV. It might be good when edited to a 90 minute special.


Picture a pirate captain (NOT Long John Silver) with really long hair and a constant 1 day stubble of beard. Now make him try to talk like the most famous pirate ever (played by Robert Newton) and have him do it very badly.

Picture beautiful Thailand with lush vegetation. Now superimpose cheesy giant CGI critters that look like they were thrown together in an afternoon of programming while playing the original "DOOM!" game.

Picture Jules Verne rolling over. And over. And over. Which he undoubtedly did during the writing of a script that ignores both the ideas and the spirit of his masterful book. I'm accustomed to seeing novels hacked at to transition them from print to film, but this is the very epitome of a hatchet job. Necessary characters are dropped completely, and unnecessary characters are added. The plot has been changed in not-so-subtle ways. And while I have great respect for Patrick Stewart and his talent this movie even makes him look bad.

The kids may enjoy this simply because they are kids, but this is not something I would recommend for a serious fan of Jules Verne. They might hurt themselves while they are kicking the TV.


Knowing that several of the actors in this movie have turned in remarkable roles in other films and television shows, I have come to suspect that the massive performance deficiencies displayed in this film are the result of what appears to be nonexistent direction. When I look at the performances given here, I can only picture director Russell Mulcahy standing behind the camera giving the same direction that Bob MacKenzie (Rick Moranis) was given by his brother Doug in Strange Brew ("PSST!! Act! Act!!").

I am familiar with a good portion of the work of Jules Verne, as well as the astonishing and disappointing creative liberties that are so often taken with his work (it still blows my mind completely that they added a DUCK to the 1959 adaptation of Journey to the Center of the Earth), but I have not read Mysterious Island so I don't know how faithful the film is to the original story. In any case, there is not a single passable performance in the movie, the direction is completely witless, and the special effects are deplorable. A 15-year-old with an outdated copy of After Effects could do better than this.

Besides all that, I will be perfectly happy to live out the rest of my life and never again see a movie in which someone washes up onto a beach, sleeping soundly, and then coughs once or twice before getting up to go exploring. Are the giant insects not enough reason for suspension of disbelief? And don't even get me started on the pirates, my god what a joke. First of all, not only do our heroes react with hostility and violence when they finally encounter other normal human beings of the non-gigantic-man-eating-insect variety on the island, but after inviting them over to their humble Robinson Crusoe home, complete with dinner table, place settings for ten, goblets, eating utensils, candles, and the like, but once convinced of the defected pirates' trustworthiness, they give one of them - a caveman looking sort from years surviving on the island  a total celebrity makeover, shave, haircut, gel, new clothes, etc. I guess they forgot that they are surviving, too.

The worst thing that the movie does, besides the deplorable performances and ridiculous screenplay (I can even forgive awful direction as long as the effort is there), is that it tries to create dramatic and intense situations when there is no reason for it. The captain jumps maybe 15 feet into the water to lighten the load on the hot air balloon, and everyone freaks out as though he jumped out of a plane. Other humans are greeted with suspicion as though anyone has any reason to be afraid for their lives. At one point, the eagle-eyed Neb, played by Omar Gooding, uses a telescope to spot a massive, four-masted pirate ship maybe a hundred yards off shore. He calls to the captain and explains that he has spotted a pirate ship and hands him the telescope, somehow intuitively knowing that the captain will not be able to see Old Ironsides blotting out the horizon without it.

I'll go right ahead and admit that I had extremely low expectations for the show, it's made-for-TV, first of all, and I've yet to see a single competently made Jules Verne film adaptation, but I've seen better acting in an elementary school drama class, and the script could not possibly be dumber. Who thought it would be a good idea to have the good guys sneak up on the pirate ship behind a floating log, for God's sake?? Come on guys, let's just swim right out to the ship, no one will notice!

Wow. Miss this one.


I was looking forward to watch this film when I knew the local TV station was going to air it because I liked the book. Then I was a bit confused when the 'mother and daughter' tagged along and Gideon and Herbert were nowhere to be seen. Then I couldn't stand it anymore when Pencroft and LeMay ( <--who is this?? ) encountered a giant grasshopper just as they arrived. I turned the TV off. The only similarities to the novel are the title, some of the characters, and the main plot. I do not recommend this film at all. And as I remember there were no 'treasures' or 'monsters' in the island? Lovers of the book would not be satisfied with this adaptation as it is just so different. And I also think that the quality of the acting is not as satisfactory as I would have expected it to be. The novel is turned into a fantasy adventure in this film with all the treasures and monsters ( and not to mention the corny opening. )


What the devil is this? It's your typical TV-movie garbage... poor story (Not Verne's fault, it isn't even his original story but an adaptation randomly written by 12 monkeys) poor acting (who would have thought it, with Patrick Stewart and Kyle McLachlan's names being in it.) horrible lighting, horrible directing (And it's Highlander and The Shadow's Russel Mulcahy!!), unrealistic, fake and below-average TV-cgi.

There's only one plus for this movie. If you are a Dune fan, you get to see again Paul Atreides and Gurney Halleck together again. But it's curious. It seems Stewart hasn't aged as much as Kyle has since the eighties. It's fun and nostalgic to see them together again. Unfortunately this nostalgia alone can't compensate for the silliness that reeks from every single scene.

Patrick Stewart, as Nemo, is forced to wear a turban that doesn't really fit at all with his occidental complexion. He's also visibly embarrassed and stiff wearing it, and the result is not very convincing. You almost expect Stewart to say 'computer: end simulation' as Picard did every time he left the Holodeck in ST:TNG. It's too bad that the script was so lame because Nemo seems like the kind of character Stewart could have had a lot of fun with. Very similar to Ahab in many ways. A great man gone wrong. Unfortunately the script misses the mark, and he's displayed as a grumpy and slightly moronic host who couldn't find his shoes without his 'multipurpose butler'... a butler who doubles as cook, psychologist, physician---- I mean, this guy is incredible!

Kyle's character is as alive as a chunk of wood. He's also inexplicably hostile towards Nemo without any good reason. He comes across as having horrible manners towards his host, no gratitude at all, and a recurring tendency to awkward reactions. There's a scene when he's dining with Nemo, in which there's a giant crab pincer served as main dish, and he seems completely oblivious to it. Only when Nemo warns him that the island is dangerous due to giant creatures, does he react with surprise and disbelief... well what's that in front of your face then you dummy???

The rest of the characters are either cardboard cutouts or cannon fodder for the cheap CGI monster of the moment.

Speaking of the monsters, one of the worst has got to be the giant rat, because in certain scenes instead of running, it almost looks like it's hovering over the grass.

I won't even comment on the pirates, because they are uncomfortably childish.

I'm a huge Patrick Stewart fan. I've seen some things I didn't necessarily enjoy just because of him being in them. but this is a true test of fan loyalty... Being in the X-men movies I wouldn't have thought he'd be that pressed for money. Because, as judging from my fellow reviewer's opinions, I agree 100% that he can't have thought this was decent material.

My advice.. skip it. It's not even bad or pathetic in a good way. You won't have fun ripping it to shreds, because you'll probably be asleep or disturbed for most of it's duration.


Don't waste your time with this. If I had known that this was a made for TV movie, with fade outs for commercials, and a "to be continued" pause in the middle of the DVD, I would not have rented it. It was a waste of 2 hrs & 45 minutes of my time. I do believe that the special effects were supposed to be cheesy, as if to imitate the 1961 original film. If that was the case, they didn't even match up to that and that movie is 45 years old for crying out loud! But go rent the original. It was much better. Even Jason and the Argonaut movies hands down had 100 times better effects than this movie. Patrick Stewart, one of my favorite actors of today and the main reason that I rented it, was fair at best. You could tell that he was just walking through this role and suffering along with the rest of us. And he sure was not at all interested in vying for an Oscar or Emmy. Yikes!! Oh, and did I mention that this was a totally useless movie? Stay away......a galaxy far, far away!


It looked good on the trailer, I keyed in a reminder on my Digi Box, it came on, It was rubbish.

Patrick Stewart an actor I admire- is he short of work?

Also was this in 1863?

Nemo said he had been on the island for 10 years, lost his family in the 'Indian Revolution' so that would have been 1853..

Only I think he was vaguely referring to the Indian Mutiny, which happened in 1857..

Confused, I was.

also why were the pirates right off the set of 'Prates of the Caribbean??

Who wrote this, a bunch of 9 year olds?


This is drek. Kyle McClanahan, Patrick Stewart in the Jules Verne story? How could it go wrong? Hallmark is not what it was. They used to do, at worst, a Cliff Notes version of stories that leaned toward the sappy, So I thought their version of "MI" would at least be fun here and there...

The rewrite that began as one story got rewritten and raked over.

I watched about 45 minutes of a 2 part movie?...and it was obvious that when they shot it the story was in flux. Vernes' story is completely hollowed out and subverted into the most shameful of cash-cows. I think that if the 3 well known stars in this new what a mess it would turn into they would not have been in it. It tries to make hay from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" popularity and add some bad pirates in worse costumes searching for treasure-where else but on the Mysterious Island. I just couldn't stand more than I saw when the "pirates of the pop-scene" came aboard so malevolently. Any resemblance to Vernes work is minimal and the writers of this junk should be marooned on an island somewhere! Fay-Wah! (Mandarin for "Nonsense!" I think)


Jules Verne might have been one of the best storytellers of his time, but a century later, he doesn't stand up.

The movie keeps faithful by using much of J.V.'s dialogs, but makes SIGNIFICANT changes in order to make for "good TV" (adding characters, making the pirates buffoonish, etc). I cant help but think that if they were going to make broad changes, they would have been positive ones.

Aside from the liberties taken with the story (too complicated to detail)there were so many BAD special effects and continuity goofs that I found a clipboard and started keeping track.

HUMOROUS MISTAKES:

-Two longboats of pirates attack the protagonists on the beach. Clearly there are only two boats and a total of 14 pirates. The good guys use rifles (and one arrow), to shoot down 12 pirates. Sensing defeat, the Captain rallies his sailors back to the longboats. SEVEN men return to the boats! 14 minus 12 should have made that one damn lonely boat ride back...

-During the pirate attack, two pirates start to scale a cliff face.

One pirate wears a Gray shirt and one wears an orange one:

Kyle McLauchlan shoots one of the pirates (the one in the Gray shirt,

the one in orange has magically disappeared) then he reloads, aims,

and shoots THE SAME GREY SHIRT PIRATE off the cliff again!

There are many more, but those were the most glaring...

I don't recommend the movie for conventional entertainment, but a "spot the flub-up" drinking game might be ripe for development!


The movie has almost nothing in common with Jules Verne's novel. For example, for some strange reason the script writer depicted Pencroff as a foolish b***ard. Also leaving behind a wounded Blake (Tom Mison) destroys the spirit of Verne's novel. A lot of charming details from the novel lost in the movie, being replaced with giant bugs and other crap. Actor's play is very bad including Patrick Stewart. His character (Captain Nemo) looks absolutely unconvincing and pitiful. Looks like this time Patrick only wished to visit Thailand and he was not really interested in quality. Maybe, he could do it in a cheaper way - just purchase a tour. So the viewers would not be mislead by his name in the cast.


Hallmark entertainment should leave these Jules Vern films alone. They did a bad job on filming,20,000 leagues under the sea,which was around a 3 hour bore,now,their version of Mysterious Island,again another bore which lasts about 3 hours. The special effects were bad,a bunch of relatively unknown actors,do not waste your time with this one. If possible,go to your video store or purchase a copy of the 1961 version which is far superior than this one. The 1961 version has well known British and American actors,good special effects that were outstanding for that year,even today they stand out,this film also has a Bernard Herrmann music score.


There is one thing that was really funny about this movie: Some of the effects or rather some of the sets where probably originally from the mi of the 20th century. It reminded me of monster movies from the 60ies. Overall though it was a really bad movie - especially since the reference to the badly arranged sets of 1960'es B movies was probably unintentional. This one can't be good for the reputation of Patrick Steward! I liked him a lot in other roles but even he could not save this film from dwindling in the meaninglessness of a remake of a remake of a movie made from a originally very good book. Actually - the original story seemed to have been lost during this remaking-process, since This was merely a cheap action flick with no much meaning and props that looked so much plastic that it could be debated if the company bought them actually at a toy store.


This film ranks amongst those that are so bad, they're almost amusing. Almost.

Vinnie Jones turns in the worst performance as pirate, Bob Harvey. He was so amazingly bad (eclipsed only by the obviously artificial wig, that looks like it was last worn by a member of Motley Crue) that we couldn't contain our laughter while he was on screen.

My favourite scene was where Patrick Stewart (Nemo) confronts the castaways just as there is an earthquake. I'm guessing that this whole scene was shot in a studio somewhere (on completely solid ground) and stock footage of an island with a big rumbling mountain was stuck on later. Anyway, as Stewart delivers his lines, the pro that he is, he stumbles and shakes as the eruptions and tremors go on all around. Then we cut back to the rest of the cast all standing still with cow-like expressions. Either they were wondering whether Stewart had lost his marbles or they were filmed in a completely different studio way before Nemo's lines went into the can. It's hilarious though...

...doesn't save the film in the slightest, mind.


Terrible, simply terrible. A disgrace to the works of Jules Vern. The movie bears very little resemblance to Vern's book and destroys or abandons all the best elements of the story. If you are interested in Mysterious Island rent one of previous productions. This isn't worth watching even if it is free on TV.

There is no excuse for having CG this bad in a movie made in 2005. Even in a low budget movie made overseas. I could produce better CG in my garage on my Mac.

The Dune reunion is what initially caught my attention. Patrick Stewart and Kyle MacLachlan seem to by trying, but they can't save this disgrace.


First I read the book "The Mysterious Island" when I was very little and it gave me wonderful time of dreams and adventures. I was so excited during reading it. Last year I finally found the book and bought it and until now I've read it many times and I think it's one the greatest books ever written.

I started watching this movie with some hope to see the journey and life of my heroes from the book, but I couldn't even stand to watch half an hour of it, because it has nothing to do with the book and it's made so so bad. The actors, the play...are awful! Lots of the scenes and special effects makes me wonder how is it possible this movie to be made in 2005 when they're so ridiculous and cheap.

To all of you who respect the author and the book - you can leave this movie behind and believe me you're doing good.


A very mediocre adaption of Jules Verne indeed, even if it appears to include bits from every story Verne ever wrote. Although obviously enjoying the Thai sunshine, the cast do little to help the inane script along. Patrick Stewart valiantly tries, but sadly looking an Arabian Dress Up Party as the sinister Captain Nemo, Kyle MacLachlan does his usual Twin Peaks wooden routine, while the Pirate Captain gives a terrible impersonation of Robert Newton's Long John Silver. Add to this some dismal animation of huge bugs, spiders, snakes and birds that look like they are made of plastic and escaped from an Insect Spray Commercial. The scale was awkward to say the best of it, the original King Kong had smoother animation than this lot. We deserve much better after 70 years and digital technology. Verne seems to adapt best to the screen with some Spielberg like tongue in cheek attitude, which is sadly lacking in this film. The whole thing plods along to its obvious conclusion, without any credit to anyone involved. Main mystery is why they made it, but possibly inspired by the success of the TV series LOST.


The only thing the movie had in common with the book was the title, and a few of the characters. They were walking around in sand and dirt and their clothes were always cleaned and pressed. One scene the girl was attacked by a large bird and had what looked like a large cut on one shoulder. She also had blood on her blouse. The next scene all the blood was gone and the cut was completely healed. They had Captain Nemo living in a large house on the Island with a servant. I Don't remember any servant or large house in the book. The also had pirates going after a treasure chest I don't remember any treasure chest in the book. They had Captain Nemo making firearms I always thought Nemo was against war. The bomb he was making looked like it was made of machine made parts.


I read Mysterious Island as a child many years ago and I remember being fascinated by it. This version might be OK as a family evening to pass the time -- there is no foul language, no nudity, barely a hint of a romantic relationship with one kiss.

However as entertainment for adults it fails on every level. As many have mentioned, the special effects are not special at all, the dialogue is stilted, the acting for most of the cast is charitably mediocre, and the plot elements come across as contrived. And it is long, without good timing.

Apparently the director decided that this timeless classic novel needed a major rewrite to pass muster in the new millennium. Two woman are thrown in as major characters; the younger manages a new wardrobe almost daily, and neither have so much as their hair mussed for more than five minutes, despite fighting off pirates, giant ants, sea monsters and what have you. They manage to build a house inside a nice clean cave with amenities that probably rival those available to a typical country cottage in the 30s. I was almost surprised that they didn't manage a washing machine. Smokeless fires conveniently illuminate the giant cave better than track lighting. Everyone in the main party manages to be fresh scrubbed and well groomed at all times.

The pirates are like the Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyworld, highly stereotyped caricatures. At least the Pirate Captain is entertainingly bombastic, but realism has definitely been left marooned on the shore somewhere.

Nothing even approaches being frightening, or intriguing. For a movie for those interested in Verne's work or a well told adventure tale, this is a waste of time.


Did anyone else notice that Patrick Stewart was not actually on location in Thailand with the rest of the cast. All his scenes were in a studio or against a 'Blue' screen, even when appearing to be in scenes with other actors - probably the best Special Effect in this film. Perhaps he did not realise how bad the film really was as he was not really there.

Special effects reminded me of Jason and the Argonauts (1963), although not as realistic.

It's difficult to rate the film out of 10. If you take it as a serious film it rates very low, but if you think of it as a comedy then it could be rated quite highly.


Its hard to think this was made in 2005. Its obvious that there wasn't much money spent on special effects. The film was actually so bad that it was quite funny (unintentionally!). The balloon ride and the giant rat were effects that one would expect to see in a 1960 movie. Patrick Stewart must have been hard up for money to add his name to this rubbish! The story was weak and didn't stick to the original book. The acting was wooden with the actors merely going through their paces. Vinny Jones looked and sounded like he had just stepped off a Birds Eye ad with a thoroughly clichéd interpretation of a pirate captain. This film tried to cash in on the success of The Pirates of the Caribbean but guys without spending some money - leave it to the professionals.


Just don't bother, it's rubbish, I have no idea why Patrick Stewart and Kyle MacLachlan felt the need to do this, I cant understand why respected actors put themselves through this, It's supposed to be cheesy, it's not even funny, not cute, I feel embarrassed for the the people I'm watching, waiting for the train crash, I cant watch much more of this

The effects are appalling, I remember some really bad blue screen stuff in the eighties, but it was like going back in time, cheap is the only word.

The supporting actors are so wooden and the effects so plastic, I really cant find any endearing about this movie. My saving grace that it is a 2 part mini series, so I don't have to watch part 2. I have not read the book, so I cant comment on any or no similarities, all I can say that do what the others have said, read the book and or rent or buy the original.

and please, what was with Vinnie Jones' accent.. I know now that life is too short.


...however, I will admit - I WAS warned. I've had the dubious pleasure of having watched several Hallmark movies in my time and I have to say there is a single common thread that seems to bind every one of them. They were absolute c***! Not only do these movies contain some of the worst acting known to man, but they excel in completely spoiling every plot and story they come across - be it good or bad. Of course, Mysterious Island is no exception!

The sole exclusion is Patrick Stewart whose rendition of Nemo is tolerable at best. (I KNOW Patrick Stewart can do a lot better, but my guess is even HIS talents can't stand up to such a sub par plot.)

The graphics were called more brilliant than those of "Jurassic Park" and "King Kong" by a reviewer which was the ONLY reason I decided to try watching this flick. Thanks A lot! There's 2,5 hours of my life wasted. How can ANYONE call a giant mouse with 'traction problems' (one of the most monumental graphical flaws I've ever seen!) good animation? Not to mention the tragic blending of the CG with the environment and actors...

All in all, if you have 2,5 hours to waste and absolutely NO alternative form of entertainment you can watch this... but seriously you'd better be stranded on an Island with only a TV and a DVD-player and this single film for it to even be conceivably worth it.


In 2003, Adam Armus and Kay Foster tried to develop an entirely new version of MYSTERIOUS ISLAND as a three hour Hallmark telefilm premiered on September 10, 2005. However, the Armus-Foster concept was entirely too dependent on the 1961 version, and other clichés of the 1990s, to provide a fresh framework.

The screenwriters, noting the vast scope of the novel, and the fact that Nemo only appeared briefly in the end, decided to eliminate "the secret of the island" from the outset to provide continuous interaction between Nemo and the castaways. As well, Armus and Foster sought to bypass the more mundane episodes of survival and developing a life on the island, to add more action.

Nemo and the castaways clash from the outside, eventually existing separately on the island, until the final crisis of the pirates and the eruption bring them together. As a result, there are two rival groups of inhabitants of the island, enacted and told in different form, On one level is Patrick Stewart as Nemo, with Roy Marsden as his assistant, with whom he has almost a brotherly relationship, both enacted with professionalism and conviction. As in the 1974 version, Nemo's major role, and his motivations and loyalties, are as Verne presented, although his nationality is changed to an Englishman who has adopted India, given the casting of Stewart.

Ironically, while in 2002, THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMAN finally cast an Indian as Nemo, but changed his motivation to a "pirate," here he returns to the James Mason-Herbert Lom European style of casting, but retaining his actual beliefs, if not his ethnicity. Given a choice, I prefer Stewart's configuration and enactment of the role to the others more recent.

By contrast, the larger story of the castaways is enacted in an entirely perfunctory manner by lesser talents, in a narrative that offers little opportunity for more than minimal characterization. The balloon escape brings together a slightly different group of castaways than Verne imagined. For the first time, in a Hollywood version of MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, Cyrus is correctly surnamed Smith, and Pencroff (not, as in the Cyrus Harding translations, Pencroft) becomes a Confederate Colonel desirous of the gold the pirates seek, as played by Kyle MacLachlan and Jason Durr, respectively. Spillet is here given the name Jane (Gabrielle Anwar), a nurse in the Confederate prison, instead of the war correspondent, and Harbart is replaced by her daughter, Helen, Danielle Calvert. She is saved from a giant bird (a la Les Enfants du Capitaine Grant) by Atherton (Chris Larkin) in place of Ayrton. Marooned on the island 8 years, he is here the brother of Bob Harvey (Vinnie Jones). Omar Gooding is Neb, rather in a more modern and assertive vein than the novel's characterization.

The tale itself is like a serial, dependant on repetitious thrills to fill the running time. Filmed in Krabi, Thailand, over 61 days, in 2004, the tropical island is inhabited with more of the giant creatures that were the highlight of the 1961 version, so many that here they become the norm. Instead of sporadic threat, the giant bugs, rat, and bird appear in such a relentless pace that it destroys any novelty or surprise they might have. As a result, the suspense they provide is minimal under Russell Mulcahy's direction. The derivative nature of this device, despite the use of material from the Verne novel, classifies the 2005 version as more of a remake of the 1961 version rather than an original adaptation in its own right, a choice that diminishes the film's possibilities from the outset.

The principal subplot, occupying even more of the film than Nemo, are the pirates. As told in an opening voice-over appearing during an aerial view of the island, Patrick Stewart tells how the island is uncharted but regularly visited, for men know that beyond the menacing creatures is a cursed treasure. One group of pirates provide the opening scene of the film, before cutting to the Confederate prison in Virginia. Later, Bob Harvey's pirates return to the island, providing a secondary source of danger. They, too, are menaced by the omnivorous creatures.

Further clichés are presented as Nemo inhabits an island compound, to keep out the giant creatures, with an electrified fence, an idea unimaginatively redolent of JURASSIC PARK, and, to a lesser degree, H.G. Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau. Only in the Indian design and architecture of Nemo's home amidst the caves is there some originality. The Nautilus itself again is rather too closely modeled on the one found in the 1961 version.

A new element is added with Nemo seeking to end war by building a weapon so powerful that it could destroy a city. He hopes that this would dissuade humanity from armed struggle, but Cyrus refuses to assist him, saying instead every nation will want one. The secret ingredient of his bomb, found only on the island, is what makes the animals so abnormally large. Like the 1961 version, Nemo warns the castaways of the volcanic eruption, who escape in a small boat, while he remains behind to gather his notes, but is trapped in the grotto as the Nautilus is crushed in the rocks and lava.


This has got to be one of the lousiest special-effects movies I've ever seen. It reminds me of B-grade '50s movies. It is unforgivable that the production was so lazy in this era of realistic CGI effects. The most atrocious part of the film was the attack in the cave of spiders. They looked like limited-animation cutouts. The poor effects throughout the film spoiled any experience of it.

Aerial shots were obviously filmed in front of a green screen. The balloon moved unrealistically against a backdrop of sky.

Time scale is wrong. How did these guys travel from the Eastern US to the Pacific in one night? It seemed they fitted out the limestone cave in a day and night, etc. Totally lazy effort.

How did top actors like Patrick Stewart and Vinnie Jones get roped into this mess? I love Stewart but this role forces him to sleep-walk. The best part of the movie was Jones' accent and attitude.


MYESTERIOUS ISLAND, more like JOKE ISLAND there is no excuse for such poor special effects in this day and age it was very poor quality total rubbish, so unbelievable, the animals were a joke, i was expecting it to be quite good with it being a modern film, and a pretty good cast, the scenery is beautiful, but totally spoilt by the poor effects, look out for the cast away guy he has a hair cut and his hair appear blond were,as it was dark brown before, and the crow was pathetic, i have seen better effects in movies from the 70s, over all it was a very disappointing film wish i had not bothered, i can not rate it more than 1 point totally laughable


My Take: Bad adaptation of a terrific Jules Verne novel.

The video cover forced me to buy this "adaptation" of Jules Verne's continuation of his 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. This one didn't actually apply a Jules Verne-style fantasy adventure. Video covers are among the things that force you to buy a movie, so don't always fall for such tricks. But "Mysterious Island" isn't totally a horrible movie, but it is a bad one no doubt about it. The CG effects are lame and sloppily made. I prefer Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion monsters (who animated them on the original adaptation in the 1960's) any day. The acting lacks energy, which is an essential if you are making an adventure movie, made-for-TV or otherwise.

Anyway, your better off reading the book again.

TV movie rating: * out of 5.


Judging from this movie, truly really very bad.

I never ceases to amaze me that people think they can better an classic book by an extremely good author.

Based on this movie the screenwriters probably spent under five minutes to read the actual book, after that they probably told the core story to their kids and asked what would be like really cool, so in come giant insects, pirates and whatever.

This movie has close to nothing to do with the original book and as a movie it's poorly acted, poorly scripted, poorly done effects and horribly directed.

What a waste of time.


I think this movie should rate at least FOUR Oscars!! OK now that the same drugs that apparently the director was on when he produced this 'stinky fish' have worn off all I can say is: "How can a good cook take such excellent ingredients for making a fine dish (film) and combine them so badly??"

I am a fan of Patrick Stuart but he must have been doing some penance for past evil transgressions to actually have allowed himself to be cast in the role of Nemo so badly.

I do not REALLY need to get into discussing the pirates do I?

Shane


I'm watching this movie for the first time on Sky One, and am trying really hard to feel surprised at the twist and turns of the (yawn) action!I read all of uncle Jules' books as a boy, and saw all the action movies of the 50s and 60s. I'm sure it's a childhood thing and these stories don't appeal much to me now. One of the previous comments mentions there are women in this movie, and there was none in the original book. This is mainly because our author lived in the days when men wrote about other men as adventurers, and left all the romantic stuff to women authors!So there is room for a little poetic license, or the film would be made exactly like the original! My thoughts drift back to "Of Mice And Men'when George told Lennie his story about the farm they were going to live on and Lennie knew exactly how the story went, but insisted on hearing it anyway! This movie is the kind that attracts the fantasy fan, but I'm watching it all the way through, despite the urge to fall asleep and dream it better for myself! So far I give it 2 out of 10, but this could all change in an hour or so!

0 for 4, better than 2001! Keep 'em coming!


It's good and well worth seeing if you have some free time. The special effects wasn't the best, but were quite good in places. The acting of the main villain wasn't good and was sort of letting the rest of the film down. He was trying to do an accent but wren't pulling it off at all. I liked this because it has a goo story and the acting of Patric Stuart was superb, he was the real hero of the show. I think that the show is let down by the advertising, I saw it as a two-part mini series what what used to fill the time slot. It deserves more than that as it is good, but sadly not everyone thinks so.

It's a good story and well worth watching, even though it was mildly let down by the acting. I fully recommend it and you should look out for the brilliant acting of Patric Stwart.


I watched Beverly Hills 90210 since I was in elementary school it has always been my favorite show. It deals with ups and downs you go through in life. My favorite moments were the first four years when Brenda and Dylan were the couple! When Dylan had to choose between Brenda or Kelly! Brenda, Brandon, Dylan, Kelly, Steve, David, Donna, Aundria,are the best! I miss the old cast the further I get into the seasons, the old cast is what made the show so great I believe even without them the show is good but the old cast had the better times and the most memories.I own all 10 seasons and I am still working my way through to the end.


I think I started to watch the show when I was 11 or 12 years old (I am now 15). I thought it was great back then. A friend and I talked about it all the time. If I hadn't seen it the day before, she would tell me every detail about it, and vice versa.

At that time I would have given it 10 - no questions asked. Now I'm more like 7. For to reasons. It became to unreal. (I mean, how many has 4-6 friends who have all been drug-addicts, and who have all been dating each other?)I also think that the actors, the screenplays and the plot in each episode became worse and worse, the longer we got towards the ending of the show.

Still it brings up happy memories when I see an episode once in a while. So happy 7 from me:)


The show started out promising but quickly deteriorated after Shannen Doherty left the show. After she left, it became soap-operish and melodramatic. I really liked watching it in the beginning because the characters seemed real but after Doherty left, everything fell apart. The characters became rampid wild sex machines who only cared about themselves.


I love french movies what can I say. This one is really good as well. Interesting story I'd never really thought about. I was worried it would be old and bad you know like many period films are but this one is pretty well done. The acting is up to scratch and especially moments when the captives are in the prison and they really are feeling the pain and torture and still managing to resist the urge to stop it. Very few weaknesses as well. Lucie is really beautiful as well a pleasure to watch. Very desparate film which is well resolved. Overall worth a watch. I gave it 8.


Engaging story and performances involving members of the French resistance during World War II. Although I have not yet read the account on which it is based, I have no reason to believe the film takes too many liberties with the truth. The locations and sets seem very authentic, and the dialogue is evocative of the way people spoke at the time. Something exceptional is presented by way of action sequences, in fact, where attempts at re-enacting simple events on film often fail; namely, the interdiction of a convoy carrying prisoners and a particularly realistic execution scene. High marks are due the production crew for this one. The overall history of the French resistance is an extremely complicated tale to be retold for purposes of explaining just how this story resonates. Young viewers need to educate themselves in that history in order to appreciate fully this film's merits.


This film is an excellent tribute to the bravery of the men and women of the French Resistance during the Second World War. The film revolves around Lucie and her attempts to rescue her husband, after he is arrested by the Gestapo at a Resistance meeting. This film is indeed a testimony to Lucie and Raymond's relationship, but in my mind, the film serves equally as an insight into France during the occupation and the political state at the time. An excellent film. - Jonno


This is a rather small and quiet WWII film. While the film excels at its realistic portrayal of the French Resistance, it is a film that would be "box office poison" in America because its commercial marketability is pretty limited. This is NOT a film that teens or many prospective viewers would rush to the theaters to see! There are few explosions and the nudity isn't the least bit gratuitous. Because of this, it would only have been made abroad or by an independent film maker and so it wasn't surprising that this film was shown on the Sundance Channel.

The story purports to be about a real couple who worked for the resistance movement. When the husband (Daniel Auteuil) is taken by the Nazis, his devoted wife (Carole Bouquet) tries desperately to free him. Both actors are pretty recognizable to American audiences, as Auteuil has appeared in tons of films--playing a sort of "everyman" character and Bouquet played the female lead in one of the Bond films (FOR YOUR EYES ONLY), though she's done plenty of films as well. For a 40 year-old lady, Bouquet is amazingly beautiful and sensuous--way to go, girl! The action is very low-key but tense and the film is a very enjoyable history lesson designed for an adult and discriminating audience.


"Lucie Aubrac" tells a slightly tweaked version of the true story of one woman's heroic struggle as a member of the underground Resistance in WWII occupied France. Though artistically and technically excellent, many will find this story only marginally interesting as it lacks the usual suspense, action, and other excesses which the public, especially the young theater-going audiences, expect of such films. Nonetheless, just watching two fine French actors (Bouquet & Auteuil) at work telling a story not oft told in film will be sufficient for many, especially those into Europics who don't mind subtitles.


Lucy Aubrac (Carole Bouquet) is a woman in love with her husband Raymond (Daniel Auteuil). He is an important member of the French resistance and arrested with his friends in a meeting after being betrayed. Lucy will try to rescue him from the Gestapo prison using all the possible ways. A beautiful romance in the Second World War, based on a true story. A correct direction and good performances of the cast make this movie a worthwhile entertainment. My vote is seven.


Especially, if you like WWII movies, you will enjoy this well done film. I happened to catch it late night tonight on HBO. I first fell in love with Caroline Brouquet in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, which is my favorite Bond flick, btw. Wow, not only is she a goddess and still looked great 10+ years after FYO, but she is a riveting actress. This is the first movie, I can recall being about the French resistance also. I highly recommend this film.

The color and the lighting and the overall cinematography in this movie was especially pleasing, also. Reminicent of the movie, AMEN, another good WWII emotional film. The movie is in subtitles, which is fine by me, since many of my favorite war movies are foreign (i.e. STALINGRAD). Even the supporting cast did an amazing job, acting-wise in the movie!

p.s. If you liked the movie, SHINING THROUGH and MAX, you will like this movie, also.


I have just returned from a special advance showing of "All Or Nothing" at my local UGC and I must say, this film exceeded my expectations enormously.

The film is about the lives of one family in a council estate and how each member interacts with the community. The Father, Phil Bassett (Timothy Spall) works as a Taxi driver while his wife Penny (Lesley Manville) is a checkout operator at a local supermarket. They are unmarried but have two children Rachel and Rory, the former being an angst-ridden, overweight layabout who is key to the film.

Acting is superb. It is that simple. All but one performance is utterly convincing, especially Timothy Spall with his constant bemused grimace which sets the mood of both his character and the film. The one exception is Donna played by Helen Coker. Her role is played up too much and seems rather forced. Now if by any chance you're reading Helen, please don't be disheartened; I merely saw you as the "least best" of an excellent bunch and I have to criticise something!

The script is authentic, witty and full of emotion while not being repetitive (barring the word "alright"!).

"All Or Nothing" is one of the greatest portrayals of what it is REALLY like to be part of a down-on-your-luck working class family. I even believe the film ended too soon; there were a few ideas that could have been developed further. I mention this not as a criticism but as a tribute to Mike Leigh who actually made we wish this 2hr 28 minute film would go on!

Fantastic! Eight out of ten!!!


Mike Leigh, in my opinion, is the greatest director ever! He needs no animations, CGI, big named stars or million dollar budgets to produce films of pure, simple genius. All or Nothing is no exception and is proving that as he ages his films have gotten better and better.

All or Nothing reminds me of life on a council estate as I remember it when I was a kid. There used to be flats on our estate that, although not the same in appearance, where practically the same in their inhabitants: the drunk family, the quiet family (Phil's and Penny's family), the druggie families, the slightly odd kid, the angry violent boyfriend, the single mum with foul-mouth daughter. They were all there. Anyone who knows life on an estate like this would wonder how Mike Leigh can put together such an accurate snapshot into the lives of these families.

Mike's films are totally captivating. To some, it might appear like nothing really happens in them, but what I see in them is a reality that is like nothing else on film. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes so almost unwatchably painful but never, ever dull or predictable.

Once you're a Mike Leigh fan you're taken to a different level. I just can't take American movies seriously anymore.


"All or nothing" was typical Mike Leigh. The acting was superb and the characters were realistic. His movies are more like a documentary than a screenplay. I become involved with the characters and I continue to think about them and their lives for a long time afterwards. The characters in this movie led bleak, sad lives. The small amount of happiness at the end of the movie isn't enough to overcome the bleakness of the story. I can't see how these people in the surroundings they live in and associating with the types of people portrayed in the movie could work their way out of their plight. Rory and Rachel are doomed to live in this bleak place. See, I get all involved with these characters. I think they are real. That is the power of Mike Leigh's films. This is a sad movie, an affecting movie. Ruth Sheen was the one bright spot, plus she has a lovely voice.


Mike Leigh makes this movie as a sociological study because he wants us to be confronted with the state of mind of the working class of now. There is more poverty in the slums nowadays than say twenty years ago! Family-life is disrupted and children have many problems: overweight, sexual harassment, abortion (?). How will the rent be paid? And the loan of the taxi? What is going on in the mind of our son who does only look television and eat until he becomes fat? Why is my woman unhappy, do we still talk to each other? We are proud of our daughter who is a nurse for elderly people, but what is happening with our son? Even the dialogues in the taxi are splendid!


"All or Nothing" certainly isn't a movie for the masses and I'm sure that many people will never see it or even think about seeing it and that is a shame. It's true that it is a rather depressing movie, at first sight, when you don't look closer and don't get involved in the story. When you take the time to dig deeper, you'll not only see the misery, but also a beautiful thing called love.

In this movie we mostly follow Phil, a gentle guy who works as a taxi-driver and who lives together with his wife and two children in some social housing complex in London. His daughter works in a retirement home, his son hasn't got a job and his wife works on the checkout at a supermarket. They have the biggest problems to make both ends meet every month, but that's not Phil's biggest concern. He doesn't care much for life anymore, because his wife no longer loves him. But than something terrible happens to the family, bringing them all together again, as close or perhaps even closer as they have ever been...

This movie is very realistic, hard and dark, but in the same time it is also very heart-warming. This certainly isn't a sugar sweet love story like we get too often from the big Hollywood studio's. This is what real life is like for many people. It has a social engagement (showing that even in biggest misery, people still care for each other and help each other), that probably will never be found in a Hollywood production.

I guess it will be understand and loved more by people who like realistic movies in general and socially engaged movies in particular. I might even say that it will be loved more by the people who are used to watch other European movies (Scandinavian, Spanish, French,... movies often have a deeper meaning included). Personally I liked what I saw and that's why I give this movie a 7.5/10.


Hollywood needs to take notes - this movie was great. Excellent plot, dialogue, acting, a perfect blend. This movie is about the lives of 3 families living in an apartment complex. Right off the bat, you can tell they are all unhappy - merely surviving and going along with their daily tasks. **SPOILER** When the son suffers a heart attack, it transforms the relationship within the family unit and also tightens the bond with the neighbours/friends.

This movie was an emotional rollercoaster - laughter, compassion, happiness - life's twists and turns.

The ending was perfect - it was not the average hollywood 'Happily Ever After' scenario, but you just had that feeling that they would be okay. I especially loved the fact that there were not too many characters, but we got to understand them and were able to laugh and sympathize with them.

Great - I loved Neville! 'Don't give me sheckels!'


I'm a huge fan of Mike Leigh and his latest does not disappoint. It is a typically well-acted working-class human drama. It has all of the elements you would expect from his films: the preoccupation with the effect of socio-economic conditions on the mental health & family/romantic relationships of working-class people, the theatrical exaggeration of certain characteristics almost to the point of making the protagonists into caricatures and of course the perfectly judged score which hits just the right note in setting the mood of the piece.

The film centres around the family unit of cab driver Phil (the always excellent Timothy Spall), his wife (Lesley Manville) who makes up for his deficiencies in providing for his family by working in a mundane supermarket job and their 2 overweight children marooned in an insular existence with little chance of escape. The main focus is on their relationships, inabilities to communicate and articulate, and their individual outlooks. All or Nothing is extremely successful at conveying all of these aspects.

Of course Leigh being Leigh also extends his portrayal to take in other dysfunctional characters living in the same demoralising high-rise housing flats. These include alcoholics, abusive partners in relationships and a young woman who uses her sexuality as a tool to escape the grim reality of her environment/ family situation.

His bleakest since Naked but perhaps better realised and more coherent. There are (thankfully!) some moments of hope and optimism which are characteristic ingredients of his films but the abiding impression is one of hopelessness in the face of grinding poverty and ruined lives. A brave piece of work and an absolute must-see.


Every single character is either fat, stupid, unable to communicate, unable to enjoy life or a combination of the afore mentioned. This movie goes out of its way to rub in the ways in which communication can fail and it tries a lot to be supposedly different to Hollywood garbage.

Yet I can't help thinking that this is a great movie for people who hate people and really quite enjoy a feeling of superiority to all the idiocy and misery in this movie.

There are 2 ways of escaping the fact you are boring, fat and stupid: Watch action movies or watch movies about even more boring, fat and stupid people.

Most of the characters are very clichéd. There's this French lady with her unconvincing broken English who happens to use only French words that any half-schooled supposedly intelligent and irony-understanding genius who likes films like this will understand.

Having said all that - I wish there was some kind of miracle and a year in which only movies like this were released worldwide and people would be so p..ed off... Especially in the Land of unlimited opportunities. Better yet, have them be films with some wit like "Happiness".


I really like some of Mike Leigh's films - 'Nuts In May' and 'Abigail's Party' are classics. Sadly, although the themes of insightful portrayal into class-ridden British society are present, 'All Or Nothing' lacks any of the vitality or wit of the earlier films. As is well-documented, the film centres on the lives of three similar families living on a wretched council estate in London. The estate is a grim urban wasteland that could reasonably be mistaken for a run-down area of Poland. Their family relationships are broken and unhappy; their love lives abject failures; what work they do is soul-destroying and banal; sex is violent and dirty. Nothing ever relieves the misery, save the occasional wry laugh in the face of it all. And, as if the themes, setting and plot don't ram home the message hard enough, the film is soundtracked by a constant weeping of violins and woodwind. Be in no doubt: this film tells us to Pity The Working Classes. Yet this film is made by, marketed to, acted by and watched by middle class people. They only show this at arthouse cinemas. This film simply caricatures people in order to give the angst-ridden middle classes a chance to feel a little more authentic. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols once sang of 'a cheap holiday in other people's misery'. That's what this film is.


A drama about the working poor in London highlighting the kinds of problems a lot of people with limited resources face, such as alcoholism, obesity, and teen pregnancies. It takes the viewer down a pretty dismal path but does so in powerful and touching scenes. Timothy Spall, as the taxi driver and father of two overweight adult children, is a complete natural in his performance, looking like he's beaten down, but inside carrying a lot of human warmth that just needs an opportunity to show itself. The film has plenty of drama and courage, giving us the unglamorous characters with the kind of lives that would challenge anyone to locate the positive.


In the beginning, while watching this film, I was alternately disgusted and infuriated. I was looking at the characters thinking things like "get a job", "say something" or "take a bath!". Needless to say, I ended up being humbled and deeply moved. We glimpse each character's inner world, revealing their pain, faults and strength. And it literally turned the tables on me and got me to examine myself--my capacity for understanding and love. This is truly a great film.


I really love those British movies. Unlike most American movies, the people aren't all models who've just done a nosejob or two but ordinary people with just as many shortages as you and I. The story shows the life of some families living in the same governmentapartment building. All poor people who need to do stupid jobs to earn just enough to keep alive. And just when it seems that life sucks bad forever, everyone realizes who they love and what they live for when they almost lose one of their own. Great movies seldom have brilliant stories, but just like this one the beauty is within the characters, hitting you as if they were real people, living next door to you. Well, to me anyway.


i'll be quite concise ... i never imagined that there's a director who dared to develop psychological profiles of every character of his film to the smallest detail! pure perfection!


I've just read some of the other comments on this film and am now engaged in a bout with writers block because in no way will I begin to shed a better light on our subject film than the engaging analyses already posted on this site. This tale about a lower working class South London family in a nondescript housing project is one that simultaneously depresses and uplifts the spirit. You'll find no plastic yuppie rich boy/girl "wannabee" hot shots roaming about the screen, spewing ostentatious insipidities in this film. These are people on the low end of the economic ladder who make no pretensions or excuses for their situation in life.

Mike Leigh and company totally hit the proverbial nail on the head in this one. Suffice it to say that Tim Spall and Lesley Manville each rendered riveting performances in their portrayals of the unmarried couple with two grown kids. The realistic "mise en scene" and the accompanying dialog/story line were grittily absorbing works of art, especially the long scene toward the film's conclusion. I may as well bestow kudos to the rest of the cast as well because their contributions, both individually and collectively, greatly augmented the story line as a whole. This modern gem, in its ambient unpretentiousness, so capably underscores the unmitigated power of love, acceptance, and triumph of the spirit no matter how grim the situation.


I had been warned about Mike Leigh's 'All or Nothing', by a friend, and so approached it with trepidation. However there is a lot here to be admired. Yes, it's a depressing tale at times, and this is lent a lot by two cracking performances from a wonderfully hang dog and passive Timothy Spall, and a cast-against-type turn from Lesley Manville as his shrewish wife. There is a scene when Spall repays his wife some money he has borrowed from her that just perfectly encapsulates the pain at the heart of their relationship. There is also some fantastic actressing around the edges here: Marion Bailey gives probably the most realistic portrayal of an alcoholic that I have ever seen on film, Alison Garland underplays perfectly in the aching role of the quiet sibling (that seems to have become a staple of Mike Leigh's dramas), and the wonderful Ruth Sheen gifts us a counterbalance in an optimistic role as the neighbour who refuses the be pummelled into submission by her daughter's foul mouth, responding with a smile and humour. Sally Hawkins also impresses as Bailey's gum chewing daughter, and makes for interesting viewing if you have already seen 'Happy-go-Lucky'. There are also some wonderful little comedy moments that punctuate this film if you can get your head round the bleakness. But Mike Leigh's forte has always been human relationships and he doesn't disappoint here. And around the hospital bed in the final scene Leigh gives us that slight taste of hope that has made the journey worthwhile. It's superior stuff.


this is typical late mike leigh -- a portrait of people so burdened by poverty and listlessness they have become cruel almost despite their notice: cruelty is the only way they seem to know how to interact with one another. this makes the film difficult to watch, and unpleasant, but as usual in leigh's film, the acting is superb, with many Leigh regulars showing up. Ruth Sheen gives a marvelous performance, as usual, as a single-mother neighbor who seems to be a little bit of ahead of everyone else, and her no-nonsense kindness and empathy leaven the movie's general despair. Finally, something very human and touching is achieved. One just has to sit through two hours of sad nastiness to get there.


A lot of films about subject of alienation were made. I imagine there is this kind of film that would be overtly depressing and boring for first 80% of the time on purpose, just to caliberate audience's mind-set, similiar to cleaning the palate, so the final 20% would really make some impression.

Most of them failed. However for "all or nothing", after almost 2 hours of watching indifferently, near the end of the film I was crying with my whole body shaking (good thing it's an afternoon showing and only 10 ppl in the theatre). I cry like this only once 2 or 3 years, I think last time was in 1999. Yeah, I got chocked up every now and then, but not like this, this is weeping. And afterwards I felt as relax as just had s3x.

The film was unfocused for quite a while, I personally think the teenager love stories can be cut at least by half. But again I am not sure since without the seemly depressing wandering "distractions", I might not be touched as deeply as I was.

Your enjoyment is greatly depend on your experience, I suspect. To me some of the dialog is just like taken out of my family conversation when I was a kid. People worry about money and job and kids, so much so that they forgot each other's feelings.


There's no question that this film is back in line with what Mike Leigh is known for, excellent portrayals of British working class life. There is no question that much of the two hours is very heavy and somewhat depressing but the character studies and the the focus on the details of the characters' everyday life is stunning. The housing estate in south-east London is not represented in anything other than a realistic way, as is the life of a minicab driver.

I highly recommend this film as being worth the effort of watching it.


Having been a Mike Leigh fan for along time I always look forward to a new film. I was disappointed with "Topsy Turvey" as it was very unlike his previous films, and you expect, perhaps unfairly, something out of the ordinary from him. I was pleased this was back to his usual style, and it is extraordinary. The quality of acting is unbelievable, the misery and pain of real life never been better shown on screen. It also had many moments of humour that made watching more of a delight than a hardship. Apart from the music being a little too mawkish than was really necessary, this is another Mike Leigh classic to add to his ever growing reputation as Britain's finest film-maker. (9/10)


I won some free passes to see Mike Leigh's latest film, All or Nothing (2002) last night and so off we went. This film played at the Toronto International Film Festival this past September but I gave it a miss, since I'd heard that Ken Loach's Sweet Sixteen (2002) was mining the same turf more effectively. Having seen both films now, I'd have to say that I agree with that assessment.

Leigh mainstay Timothy Spall plays the aptly-named Phil Bassett, a man who could teach "hangdog" to a Bassett Hound. Though I love him as an actor, in this film he plays such a monotonously sad character that it's hard to sympathize with him. He's so disconnected from his wife and children, and they're so disconnected from each other, that the film is unrelentingly bleak. Though a crisis toward the end of the film revives some hope, it's almost too little too late for this bunch.

The characters in Sweet Sixteen had so much more fire inside that it made you root for them, even when they made the wrong choices. Unfortunately, the title All or Nothing doesn't seem to describe the characters in the film at all. Mostly, they're just muddling along.