The story behind this film is sound: A town is submerged to keep a fiendish demon from taking over the world. Two kids unwittingly release this evil & 40 years later it's ready to rampage over the earth. Unfortunately, the story is thrown off kilter by awful acting and characters you just can't care about.

You have the mother/reporter who looks like she's only a couple of years older than her daughter & whose overt indifference to her daughter makes it impossible to care what happens to this character.

The character of the daughter is not quite so irksome but ruined by awful acting on the part of actress Charlotte Salt.

Mordecai Salas, the demon-type character, is wonderfully creepy but feels slightly like a ripoff of the Reverend Kane character from the Poltergeist trilogy.

The creature/makeup effects are excellent - the non-supernatural effects are dreadful. The green screen technology is obvious, painfully so during the diving scenes and the divers appear as large as the roof of a house. Forced perspective can work fine--just look at Lord of the Rings, but it's very sloppy in this film.

Watch the trailer and that should suffice.


The first thing that will strike you about this movie is how totally fake the accents are! In fact, there are probably only TWO people who sounded at all convincing! That said, even though a lot of people have totally slated this movie for other aspects of it, I have to say that I still really enjoyed this as a movie! For those of you who have followed Brian Yuzna's work, you will know that he usually makes very low budget movies, so you expect that the special effects are not necessarily lifelike and more '80's horror' plastic looking, but once again, the movies were so addictive to watch, that it never really spoiled them one bit! They just kinda leave your eyes glued to the screen! (and this movie's certainly no exception!) So please don't be discouraged if you're a Yuzna fan, and you've read any of the negative comments about this movie! I absolutely loved it! especially the ending! But the other reviews are totally right when they say about the actors sounding dubbed! I'm not sure if that actually was the case, but certainly those accents were not realistic one bit! and if anything will annoy you about the movie, that'll probably be what does it! Indeed the Fear Factory movies he's made have slipped a bit, but on the other hand, a lot of his first works were originally taken from H.P.Lovecraft novels, (so just imagine quite what a task it would be to even try to beat those!) Although I must say that just before I had watched 'Beneath Still Waters' I'd just finished watching 'The Darkness' (which he produced). Unfortunately, 'The Darkness' was the first of his movies to truly disappoint me! (and it did it BIGTIME!) but after watching 'Beneath Still Waters', all was quickly forgiven! Yuzna's style was back, and his magic was truly working once again! Don't be fooled by a few bad reviews, it's well worth judging for yourself! ;)


"Beneath still waters" is'nt comparable to some of the masterpieces in which Yuzna has been involved as a director ("Society") or producer ("Re-animator"). It has some serious flaw too, like the quite predictable script (with some really terrible line in the dialogues). But it's worth watching, if only for the spirit of the operation: low-budget euro-horror made with love and care. Plus very good locations and suggestive underwater shots, a right amount of gore, a perfect villain and a final orgy that cannot fail to remind "Society"'s finale. The entertainment is not missing.

I think it's a kind of cinema that should be supported.


Beneath Still Waters starts in 'Northern Spain 1965' as two young boys Teo & Luis trespass in a town that is being flooded by the creation of a dam, they run wild throughout it's streets but hear screaming coming from the local Church, upon investigation they find several people in the basement chained up including the evil dabbler in black magic Mordecai Salas (Patrick Gordon) whom Teo unwisely sets free as Teo is killed by Salas but Luis runs off... Jump forward '40 Years Later' & photojournalist Dan Quarry (Michael McKell) wants to do a story on the now completely submerged town & the upcoming celebrations by the town that was built nearby in place of it, however the preparations for the celebrations aren't going too well as a boy named Antonio drowns in the lake created by the dam. There is something alive & evil under the water still living in the submerged town & it's come back to claim the living...

This Spanish production was produced & directed by Brian Yuzna who was once a great maker of genre films but he has definitely lost his touch with his last two Spanish films, this & the equally disappointing Rottweiler (2004). The script by Mike Hostench & Angel Sala was based on a novel by Matthew Costello & one has to say it's a bit of a mess which is a shame because the basic story of a ghostly underwater town is something different & had lots of potential but sadly this is what we ended up with. The character's are dull & clichéd, a journalist, a bratty teenage kid, a TV news reporter, the guy who knows everything & tries to warn everyone but no one will believe him, the police captain with a bad attitude, the local mayor who doesn't care about an impending disaster but only about his towns celebrations & a dull villain who gets to walk around in a black suit & look menacing yet without actually doing much. The things which happen almost seem at random, zombies start to pop up everywhere but there's no real explanation of how or why & then there's this black slimy stuff which is mentioned on a couple of occasions but no more & then there's the villains lame motives, as far as I could gather all he wanted was to take the new town as his own which hardly gets the pulse racing. The story goes nowhere, it's all a bit slow, a bit fragmented & it felt like a collection of ideas that were haphazardly thrown into one script without much regard for narrative or continuity. One more thing, what was up with the dude who had the slug crawling down his forehead & a goldfish bowl full of maggots?

Dirctor Yuzna is losing it, Beneath Still Waters feels like a dour made-for-TV film at times with dull cinematography & bland Spanish locations. Then there's the annoying accents, I'm sorry but it's difficult to understand what some of these people are saying. The CGI computer effects are poor, the miniature model shots are poor although the special make-up effects fare much better. There's some decent gore here, there's some really cool looking rotting zombies, there are decapitated heads & severed limbs, the main villain like to rip peoples heads in half, someone chest bursts open, someone saws their own legs & hand off & there are also various other minor bits of blood & gore throughout although the murder of Luis seemed cut as there are noticeable jumps in the audio & too many 'reaction' shots of Teresa & Dan even though seemingly nothing has happened.

Technically the film is alright but nothing special, it looks OK but doesn't really have any style or atmosphere & it's definitely not scary. The acting isn't great.

Beneath Still Waters is a pretty poor film, it had potential & an original & intriguing premise but it makes nothing of it. Another disappointment from Yuzna & is it any surprise or coincidence he hasn't directed a film since this & Rottweiler?


Spain 1965, two young boys dare each other to go and check out a deserted town, before its flooded into a man-made lake. But they weren't alone and discover something quite horrific about those people who have been left to drown. Foolishly one of the lads unleashes the evil. We travel 40 years into the present, and the town is celebrating its damn's anniversary, but the evil that had plagued its community many decades ago is back lurking in the waters. So it's up to a local TV reporter and out-of-town photographer to stop this evil from resurfacing.

If it wasn't for the name Brian Yuzna being tagged to the project, I probably wouldn't have bothered. Well, after watching it. It didn't matter either way. Has Yuzna hit rock bottom after the dreadful "Rottweiler" and incredibly bland "Beneath Still Waters"? I hope not, as his been apart of a few greatly creative horror flicks and lets hope the next Re-animator film doesn't follow the same suit of his latest two.

The main problem with the Spanish production "Beneath Still Waters" is that the script is insipidly one-note and the ploddingly colourless screenplay (which is taken off Matthew Costello's novel) just doesn't know what its wants to be and goes in so many different directions without any sort of gelling chemistry. The dark concept is a compellingly spooky one, but they tried for something too ambitious here and never captured the tenor that would've made it worked. What starts off like an atmospherically stimulating and morbidly eerie opening few minutes, eventually falls into a systematically mundane and just plain silly outing that loses it ominous air and brooding suspense it began with. The mysterious story starts to feel secondary and becomes convoluted, when the lousily questionable digital effects (poorly staged underwater scenes) and competently unpleasant gore fx and grotesque special make-up effects take over. These profound latter moments are fine and all in well, but when it keeps you waiting around with drably uninteresting characters and a confusing parade of predictable (though there "one" moment that's not-so) ideas. From this format it can just lead to a complete and utter drag for most part, because of too little action. Gladly it does spice up things in the perversely shocking, but horrendously ridiculous latter half. Throwing gratuitous gore, violence, skin and lust. Maybe it comes to late?

Yuzna does stamp his trademark directorial style. Even then it can't hide how unevenly lumpy his execution is. Sometimes he can go over-the-top, but suddenly fall into a lethargic puddle. But he does stage few imaginative and effective set-pieces with nice brushes in lighting composition. The film is actually technically good and Johnny Yebra's handsomely shot cinematography and the pristinely haunting and saturated Spanish locations do come through. The routine musical score is basically non-existent in creating any sense of mood and falls flat. The acting (mostly a Spanish cast) is either elastically ripe or lackadaisical. Raquel Merono looks stunning, but won't win anything for her humdrum performance and English actor Michael Mckell is acceptably so-so in the leading parts. Patrick Gordon's mishandled performance as supernatural entity just doesn't seem to reek of any uncomfortable menace and takes up too much screen time to be effective any shape. Diana Peñalver (from "Braindead") shows up in a small part.

In the long run this cheaply produced b-flick by Fantastic Factory simply bites off more than it could chew. I don't think this picture is completely deadbeat, but the bad points do seem to outweigh the good.


The criticisms of this movie may be a bit harsh. The plot is a little thin but it meanders along well enough for a "B" movie, which is exactly what this is, a "B" horror flick. Nothing fantastic happens here nothing horrible happens either. There are some good special effects, not great but fun anyway. I enjoyed the diving scenes and the underwater cinematography, which I'm sure was CGI, was kind of cool. The villain was pretty creepy, the Alistair Crowley connection was kind of fun. Here again nothing fantastic but kind of fun. Not for kids by the way. The movie displays the usual naked debauchery of your normal portal of hell stories. In other words plenty of bare breasts, I really found the gal smashing her breasts into the cake funny. You know your town is under the influence of satanic forces when that happens! I'm not exactly ready to recommend this movie but I have seen much worse.


A warlock, Mordecai Salas(Patrick Gordon)buried, with his chained flock inside a chamber within a devil-worshiping church, under water thanks to a mayor who was able to sink the village of Marienbad with developing deals promising a brighter future for the landscape. 40 years later, after the mayor's death, Mordecai threatens a grand return. The mayor's granddaughter, Clara(Charlotte Salt)is the one Mordecai has his eyes on, while also infecting the townspeople nearby with a type of mental sickness, and others with a black sludge-like substance derived from the muddy soil of the water covering Marienbad. Mordecai needs Clara's submission while also awaiting the collapse of the poorly structured dam, built hastily 40 years prior, giving way to a massive crack running down it.Standing in Mordecai's way are Clara's mother, Teresa(Raquel Meroño), a would-be reporter returning home after a stint in London, and a recently arrived photo-journalist, Dan Quarry(Michael McKell) who is haunted by the death of his son. Dan is on assignment covering a story on Marienbad's history and Teresa is looking for a hot story. Both will find much more than they bargained for.

Well, I explained the synopsis to the best of my ability, but director Brian Yuzna often abandons story logic in favor of bizarre gore and supernatural violence. Unrestrained, Yuzna doesn't seem obligated to tell a cohesive narrative instead taking Mordecai and allowing him to use his dark powers to torment and destroy through mind control while we see the black sludge turning citizens into creepy blob monsters. There's a jam-packed climax which includes the bridge showing signs of crumbling, the earth trembling, a festival commemorating the 40th anniversary of the dam's building which turns into a crazed orgy of sexual deviancy and Dan, quite a skilled scuba-diver, who finds the chamber where Mordecai and his followers' monstrous remains are awakened(..while also holding a book of black magic spells Mordecai used to summon his dark powers)under the sea. I think a history lesson told to Teresa and Dan by a survivor from the past, Luis(Manuel Manquiña)who saw his childhood pal Teo murdered after releasing Mordecai from his roped hands, helps the viewer out somewhat, but Yuzna's been around long enough that he ought to be able to use such an interesting premise(..an underwater village housing an evil presence which rises to terrorize)and make a better film than what we wind up getting on screen. And, I can not understand why Yuzna just won't make a Spanish horror film using the language of the cast. Why try to make a foreign cast, in a foreign setting, speak a language they are not accustomed to? There's enough gory insanity to perhaps please some horror fans(an infected policemen chops off his limbs, one poor soul is "sludged", one victim gets his face ripped apart from the mouth), but the film could've been a sleeper and instead comes away a sad disappointment.


First off, I am a big fan of Brian Yuzna's work, as well as frequent partner Stuart Gordon. I felt this film, was way better then Rottweiler, or Faust, which suffered greatly from a miscast lead. I'll get the negative stuff out of the way first. There were a couple underwater shots, that didn't quite measure up to the rest of the film, and being that the actors had different nationalities, some of the performances came off as uneven, due to the language barrier. Most of this was shot in English from what I could tell, although the boys' in the opening sequence may have been dubbed. Now on to the overwhelming majority, which was good. The villain was creepy, and the actor gave a spectacular performance. The story was fascinating, and the sets, and makeup effects were the stuff of horror classics. There was a time, after the excellent opening, that I was leaning more towards putting this film in the interesting, but deeply flawed category Rottweiler and Faust are in, but ultimately for me the good far outweighed the bad. The bizarre finale, really reminded me of Yuzna's work in the unheralded classic Society. My advice, stick with it, it's not quite a great film, but it's a very good one.


This movie wanted to be so much more than it turned out to be. A lot of potential in the story, but some rather poor director's work never made it come alive.

The movie itself is enjoyable to watch, if you can punch through the Spanish actors struggling with their English, and the sometimes laughable B-movie effects (although in other places the effects are once again quite good). The acting in many cases is amateuristic and very, very poor for all the people that are not main actors.

Some good make-up and special effects are a plus again however, but overall it leaves much to be desired. Your mileage may vary on this one, as it has its strong points and weak points. Some nice diving work and underwater camera-work. The atmosphere is there too, which makes for a nice setting despite the weak acting.


I didn't get it. It was a film I saw as a teenager and I remember how bad it was.

It seems that everyone was enjoying an hedonistic lifestyle, the upshot being, however, that you ended up dying because of it.

My lasting memory is of Richard Todd (what was he thinking) walking quite happily to the firing squad, just to impress the girl.

Plan 9 from outer space might be a bad film, but this is so much worse. This will never have the cult following of Plan 9 and I hope, in a perverse sort of way, that this film gets deleted and is never seen again.


With 2002's Sum of All Fears in close 2nd, this one remains the best of all 4: it has Harrison Ford as Ryan, solid sub-plots (the one involving Dafoe as John Clark [Liv Schreiber in SOAF]being the best!) and moral dimension, especially in the ambiguous sense toward the end. I've read many of Clancy's books, and many are very good (well, the early Ryan series are great but after Debt of Honor they went downhill!), however they are all VERY long (mostly 800p +), detailed and complex, so adapting them into 120p screenplays must be a nightmare, but Clancy actually participated in the writing of this one - along with Steve Zallian (Schindler's List) and John Millius, no less! - so it turns out we get a decent enough one. In all fairness, the script is great, featuring a slightly different ending than the book. If you add good actors and tight direction (Noyce knows Jack Ryan and Ford, since he already directed Patriot Games) you can not go wrong, and this flies high. Smart, tight, utterly convincing and believable and well executed, this is that rare brainy "action" film that does get you involved and hanging on the edge of your seat.


I have to say that ALL of the Clancy novels that were made into films, with the exception of "The Sum of All Fears" were brought to life as great films. Harrison Ford reprises his role as Dr. Jack Ryan, who is forced in this film to step into the shoes of Admiral Greer, who is dying. While there is a lot of each characters personal lives carefully inserted into the film, it NEVER ceases to be clever and interesting. It's much better to watch than any senseless action picture with Bruce Willis or your wimpy little Ben Affleckish character. The film is perfectly balanced so that there is not a single boring scene in the picture. The wheels are constantly turning to make sure something dramatic is happening to really draw you further into the picture. I recommend this movie as well as it's two predecessors, "The Hunt for Red October", and "Patriot Games". Both of which are equally brilliant.


Harrison Ford returns as "Jack Ryan," star of the very well-done "Patriot Games," the film adaption off the best-selling Tom Clancy novels. Also returning are Anne Archer and James Earl Jones.

THE BAD - This isn't as intense, especially in the first half hour, as Patriot Games and the ending was a little disappointing with a action-scene credibility problem. Once again - it's getting to be a tired Hollywood theme - top U.S. government officials, going all the way to the President, are corrupt people, liars not to be trusted.

THE GOOD - It's nice to see Willem Dafoe finally play a good guy. The villains in here are deceptively interesting, actors such as Joaquim De Almeida, Harris Yulin and Henry Czerny and Miguel Sandoval - not big names but recognizable and good actors. The violence is not overdone in here and when the action does occur, the sound is terrific. The best action scene was shootout in the streets with snipers firing at cars below.

The positives are far more than the negatives, making this a solid thriller.


I have read some quite negative reviews of this film, with many being upset by the lack of coherence with the book despite taking it's characterisations etc...I agree that the film does not follow the book particularly well but it is a film, for film watchers, not a book or a film for book readers so stop criticising it on that level. This film is entertaining from start to finish with a surprisingly clever plot considering the genre and credit must go to Ford for starring and excelling in yet another blockbuster. People may say he's not the most versatile actor in the world and I'm not going to disagree, but he does what he does brilliantly and those who don't enjoy this movie really do need a good talking to. Along with Patriot Games, this is part of an impressive set of movies which are far more entertaining than the books (perhaps thats because I'm not an avid reader) and shall keep all you viewers out there happy, if only for a short while.


The makers of this movie are to be congratulated for turning a Tom Clancy doorstop into a tense, tightly woven international thriller with a top notch cast and believeable plot. Where the previous two Jack Ryan movies depended on stunts and quite unbelieveable plot twists this film concentrates on a grubby little military/political incident (more the domain of intelligence men) and the men of honour and integrity (Ford and an under used Dafoe) trapped in the middle of it.

I also like this movie for its subtle dig at the American establishment and how it assumes it can coerce the weak into doing its bidding.

The Clark character in Clancy's fiction is an interesting one and deserves to be further developed. Casting Willem Dafoe in the part was actually a stroke of genius, and I could easily imagine his character in Platoon doing this kind of work if he had survived Vietnam. The fact that Dafoe is one of THE most underrated actors in Hollywood also means I like this.


Clancy is sometimes critiqued for being so unapologetically pro-American and specifically pro-Military. He is fond of show-casing all aspects of the US defense machinery operating at peak efficiency; a piece of information is gathered by some technical tool of spying, analyzed quickly and accurately by smart dedicated analysts, put in the hands of policy makers who make sound judgments for follow up by unfailingly courageous and outstandingly trained US military personnel, who strike with pinpoint accuracy.

It is almost always a "best case" scenario of how US defense and security operations are supposed to work.

This movie stands out for acknowledging some of the dark side of this, and explicitly rejecting the thinking behind operations like Iran-Contra, which are done outside of constitutional and legal frameworks solely on the say-so of a President or some of his subordinates. However highly Clancy may think of the US military, he demonstrates his rejection of theories of extreme Presidential powers to conduct any and all operations deemed to be for "national defense." Further, he acknowledges how ambitious officials up to and including the President can misuse the vast powers of the US military and intelligence agencies for personal and political gain while ignoring vital checks and balances of the US system.

Speaking as one who enjoys Clancy's writing and his meticulous research into specific details of how these technologies and agencies operate, I also feel sometimes that it is simply too idealistic and overstates the utility and necessity of the vast US defense budget. So it is nice to see Clancy still respecting the core democratic values of the US system unlike so many in today's political environment who believe in essentially unlimited and illimitable Presidential authority, and that America can do no wrong.


Harrison Ford. Willem Dafoe. Anne Archer. James Earl Jones. Benjamin Bratt. Henry Czerny, Harris Yulin as a 'heavy' (National Security Adviser : James Cutter ) and Dean Jones. They have a cast of old school heavies and new talent all together. I hadn't seen Dean Jones in a while and he was fantastic! There is a 'chilling weight', that scores the film visually from the onset. The director Phillip Noyce, uses broad scenery (from what I can tell) it brings out a feeling of grandness, vast and encompassing. It just sort of takes control of the mind and vision.

The story of a Cartel from Columbia taking 'Liberties' on a family that wound up unbeknown to Escabedo (the Cartel scumbag) being friends of the President of The United States of America. Violent liberties that have become deadly serious. A Cali Cartel. A decision, that the President discusses with his defense secretary. A course of action that he (The President) can't suggest, is exactly what he is suggesting, behind closed doors. Being inside the White House in a Tom Clancy /Phillip Noyce film always seems very real for me, as I watch the government employees walk and talk and what ever else.

This has to be one of the highest Clancy novel/ movies that I have seen, just above " Patriot Games ".

Czerny is so good at being maligned. He is the one you don't want to be in a face-off with in a CIA office. He truly brings out a roundly compelling performance as Deputy Director of the C.I.A. ' Robert Ritter' .

Deception, is all around. like a sort of wall-papering. Who can Jack trust when he must? This is a powerful story and a dramatic and strong ending that completes the story from start to middle and ending. I was very enthusiastic and impressed, by the directing performance, photography and music score. The film crew that worked on 'Patriot Games' (1992) was retained for this one too. I saw an inside interview about the production of 'Clear and present danger' and the Producer stated that Harrison Ford performed his driving stunt, during the ambush!! And in regard to that beautiful drug dealer home in the country, get this...it was not 'CGI' special effects, they actually blew the house to bits!!!! Yes, it was real too. Now thats how to make a top-end action adventure/ thriller, in my book. Can you believe this, of all the Ten and twenty million dollar salaries that Ford makes in his work, he barely got paid one-million for this body of work.

This is a keeper. Recommended again and again. (*****)


My Take: The best of the Tom Clancy adaptations.

Harrison Ford is Jack Ryan, and you better believe it. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is the third adaptation of yet another Tom Clancy bestseller, spawned by the success of the previous Clancy adaptations THE HUNT FOR RED October and PATRIOT GAMES. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, like the previous films, successfully thrills their audiences with exciting sequences that, also, manages to stay plausible and never too unbelievably silly. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER may not have succeeded to become a total thrill-ride, but in the end it delivers its political message well. It's a slightly long, but thrilling and exciting Clancy adaptation.

Once again, Ford returns as Jack Ryan, who is appointed acting CIA Deputy Director of Intelligence, when CIA Deputy James Greer (James Earl Jones) is ill with cancer. His first mission: To investigate the death of one of the President's closest friends, who has connections with drug cartels. Ryan, once again, fights for what he believes is the truth, unknown to him that the National Security Adviser (Harris Yulin) has already dispatched mercenary elite troops, led by field operator John Clark (Willem Dafoe), on a covert operation in Columbia.

But even if you don't get involved with the story or haven't read any of Tom Clancy's bestselling techno-thrillers (like myself), you must admit how exciting, edgy and believable this film is. Once more, it's also well-written on the screen and don't get wasted. When the film doesn't stun you with its action sequences devised by director Phillip Noyce and his crew of cinematographers and stunt directors, it involves you in the political situations made real and plausible by the adapted script by Donald Stewart, John Millius and Steven Zallian. Honestly, the sequences that involves Ryan arguing with the President of the United States are just as good to watch as the films more exciting sequences (The memorable ambush sequence and the RAMBO-esquire finale are the first to come to mind).

Even if the film isn't exactly the total "keeps you on the edge of your seat" action thriller, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER delivers its political message as well as thrilling excitement all in the same show.

Rating: ***** out of 5.


In the 1980s, the United States, as well as many of its neighboring Latin American nations, began to feel the affects of the Columbian drug trade. Columbia was home to the Medellín and Cali drug cartels, both of which were deeply involved in the production and distribution of cocaine. The nation profited from the drug trade, as the cartels made lucrative gains by means of its unofficial protection from the Columbian government. The United States was especially accessible to the Columbian drug trade, as both coasts could be reached with relative ease. While the United States infiltrated Central American nations in attempts to tinker with the regional politics, there is no documented evidence of American presidents authorizing covert entries and operations into Columbia The action film Clear and Present Danger, deals with the issue of the American war on drugs, however, a large portion of the plot action takes place in Columbia. The film begins aboard a large white yacht with the death of an American family. The paterfamilias of the deceased family happens to be a close friend of the President of the United States. At this point, viewers are introduced to the hero, CIA analyst and family man Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford), who has been promoted to the position of Deputy Director of Intelligence, a position he inherits from his Agency mentor, Admiral James Greer (James Earl Jones). The film then moves to the Presidents issuing of an order to assemble a team of elite Hispanic commandos to infiltrate Columbia and wage a silent war on drugs. Here the audience first meets John Clark (Willem Dafoe), a mysterious black ops veteran who will train and lead the team of soldiers in Columbia. His soldiers are later dropped into the Columbian jungle where they begin their campaign with Dafoe running as their control officer from the city, reporting back to Bob Ritter, CIA's Deputy Director of Operations.

The plot twist comes in the form of a man named Felix Cortez, a Cuban intelligence officer turned mercenary who serves as the intelligence officer for the cartel in the film. After a cartel meeting is bombed by an American jet, Cortez travels to the United States, where he begins to extract information through an illicit affair with the head of the FBI's secretary, Moira Wolfe. While on a romantic weekend trip, he discovers that the United States bombed the meeting, thus ending his need for the woman. He kills her and proceeds to blackmail the National Security Adviser, James Cutter, into cutting communications with the American soldiers. Jack Ryan discovers the whole operation while at the CIA, confronts Ritter, and then goes to Columbia to save them. When he arrives, he meets up with John Clark, who, under the belief that Ryan discontinued the communications, ties him up and nearly kills him. The two men then embark on a journey to find the soldiers, and eventually find Ding Chavez, hiding alone near a jungle stream since his comrades have all been shot or captured. These three then storm Cortez' compound to rescue the other soldiers and make their subsequent escape.

While Clear and Present Danger is an entertaining film, it wildly strays from the novel on which it is based. Tom Clancy's storyline is much more in depth then the plot line of the movie. Some stark differences between the two include the deaths of Dan Murray and Moira Wolfe. In the film, Dan Murray is killed on a trip to Columbia that nearly results in the death of Jack Ryan as well. Dan Murray, according to Clancy's novel, is simply an up-and-coming FBI agent and friend of Ryan's. The FBI personality murdered in Columbia in the novel is Emil Jacobs, Director of the FBI. In the movie, Moira Wolfe's apparent death violently betrays the novel, for not only does she live, the novel ends with Ms. Wolfe traveling to Guantanamo Bay to see her "lover" Cortez, being escorted into the prison gates and eventually handed over to Cuban authorities.


Clear and Present Danger is an exciting addition to the world of Jack Ryan, delving deep into the world of international politics. Nail-biting suspense and explosive action sequences add to the movie, with some truly awesome military special operations added to the mix as well. The inner conflict between acting CIA Deputy Director Jack Ryan and Robert Ritter is extremely entertaining, Harrison Ford and Henry Czerny play their parts impeccably, as do Willem Dafoe as John Clark, James Earl Jones as Admiral James Greer and Raymond Cruz as cool soldier Domingo Chavez. Do not miss this top-notch political thriller!


Far more cynical and sophisticated then its predecessor, "Patriot Games", Clear and Present danger dares to suggest that the world isn't made up of good guys and bad guys, but just a whole lot of people out for their own conflicting and selfish interests.

Jack Ryan is also more interesting in this movie. Although he does do a bit of action-hero stuff, most of the time he is shown using his head not his muscles.

In this regard, it is both deeper and realer then the movie it sequels. Its a toss up which is the smarter: this or Red October, but for its convoluted political and moral landscape, I give this one my vote as best of the original trilogy.


Clear and present danger is a simply amazing combination of old school spy thriller and action movie rolled into one. The pace is simply intelligent and the film avoids clichés.

We open with the Coast Guard tracking a boat that had strayed off course. After stopping, boarding, and arresting the "pirates" aboard the ship, they stumble upon a crime scene.

The murder victim isn't just your average citizen, he is a friend of one of the most powerful men in the world, the president of the United States, played to a statesmen effect by Donald Moffett.

Spurred by the need of revenge, the plot is planned by two white house staff members, James Cutter (played by legendary character actor Harris Yulin), and Robert Ritter (played by Henry Czerny, who plays the role with the perfect blend of ruthlessness and coldness) James Earl Jones reprises his role as Adm. Greer, and Harrison Ford the role of Jack Ryan, the straight edged hero who sees the world in right and wrong. Both are simply spectacular in the roles. The film also has a good amount of name actors in supporting roles, such as Benjamin Bratt, Ann Magnuson, Williem DeFoe, Thora Birch, Joaquim De Almeida (from Despardo fame), and the late Hope Lange.

As the plot unfolds, Ryan is pulled into a world that he's not completely ready to handle. He seems completely shocked that such corruption can come from the White House.

On the surface, you can somewhat identify with President Bennett's need for revenge. One his best friends, along with the man's wife, and young son and daughter, who brutally murdered and tossed overboard into the sea. However, the means to which he goes borderlines on the obsessive and dangerous. His actions may lead to the deaths of several drug dealers and their counterparts, but it also leads to the deaths of several women and young children. The underlining question becomes, does the person seeking revenge become just as evil as those they seek revenge on.

As Ryan is pulled into this twisted world of revenge he finds himself pushed to his own boundaries. He's nearly killed in an assassination attempt. He's caught in the middle of a coupe between a drug lord and his underlings. And he soon learns that he is as much responsible for the deaths of US Troops as those who sent them on the mission. For once, his moral view of right and wrong has led to someone's death.

I think the franchise dropped off without Harrison Ford in the role of Jack Ryan. He seemed to bring the most to the table. Simply put, he was more believable in the role then the other actors who've tackled the role. Of all the Jack Ryan films, I think Patriot Games and it's sequel, Clear and Present Danger remain the best in terms of storyline, character development, and overall direction. I think that some viewers will be left at the end, wondering what will happen to Ryan, as he's testifying at the end of the film about the activities that had taken place. FRom the open to the close, the movie pulls you in, and even at slightly over two hours, the film never overstays its welcome. 10 out of 10!!!


The third installment in the cinematic series based on Tom Clancy's CIA analyst Jack Ryan, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is a long but engrossing political action thriller that once again puts Harrison Ford, the thinking man's action film actor, in the role of Ryan. This time around, Ford investigates the murder of a close friend of the President (Donald Moffatt) by Colombian drug cartel hit men. When his mentor (James Earl Jones) falls ill due to pancreatic cancer, Ford is suddenly put in charge as deputy director of the CIA. He continues his investigation of the murders and ties them in with one particular drug cartel leader (Miguel Sandoval) with whom the murdered man had a little issue with ill-gotten money,.... But what Ford doesn't know is that, on orders from the revenge-minded Moffatt, his second deputy (Henry Czerny) and the president's national security adviser (Harris Yulin) have ordered a rogue officer named Clark (Willem Dafoe) in with a covert military team to put a huge dent in the cartel's activities. Dafoe and his team are successful at what they do, but the cartels retaliate with deadly results on Ford's friends in the FBI during a visit to Bogota. And when Ford finds out about the operation, he finds himself going down to Colombia a second time to help spirit Dafoe and the covert team out of harm's way. Ably directed, once more, by Phillip Noyce (DEAD CALM; PATRIOT GAMES), CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER gives Ford another chance to prove his mettle in the action genre. The suspense and CIA intrigue are all laid out exceptionally well by Noyce and his first-rate cadre of screenwriters, Donald Stewart, Steven Zaillian, and John Milius. Jones is at his usual best as the now-dying Admiral Greer, and Anne Archer returns as Ford's wife. But a performance really worth noting here is Czerny's as the unconsciously corrupt CIA deputy director Robert Ritter. About as uncouth and conniving a heavy as there has ever been in the movies, his performance is absolutely chilling and believable. It makes the whole notion of our government going beyond reasonable bounds even more credible than it already is. Some will object to the film not pandering to Clancy's right-wing political points of view or his gung-ho pro-military stance, but that isn't necessarily what this movie is about. It does not condemn covert military action, but it does question the wisdom of sending men into a war zone where the risks are extreme, the reasons for such actions are vague at best, and there is no clear exit strategy. Such points are made extremely well in this film's action format; and for those reasons, it gets the highest marks.


Wow i'm vote no 5000 a lot of people must love this movie too. Harrison Ford has played some great characters over the last 25 years but Jack Ryan rocks. As far as Tom Clancy stories go the Jack Ryan ones are the greatest. I just hope that more Ryan movies are made, they deserve to be... I rated this as a 10/10 movie only because the chart does not have any higher scores.


This is an excellent film. Parts of it are slow but there is action in it. I really enjoyed this film you will probably to if you enjoyed Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games and Tom Clancy novels (netforce, executive orders) I give it a 10.


I fully understand that people who read the book don't appreciate this movie, I believe it's true for 90 % of book adaptations.

Anyway, it's the sort of movie I like, clean, all scenes are meaningful, Harisson plays the cool fish, but he's the extreme of the heroism played by Dafoe.

Fun part of this movie is how the computer kid solved the password in 5 seconds during the first part of the movie, while he was given all the personal "paper" data on the people involved and then was challenged with a serious job at the end. The voice recognition session made me laugh too.

Why don't we have these sort of programs at home?

Anyway, good action, entertainment, swift changes, it's never dull. Open a bottle of Muscadet, nicely cooled, sit back and enjoy.


It's not hard to see why Tom Clancy doesn't give his approval to the movie that are based on his books. There isn't a single plot line in the book that the movie doesn't butcher.

The cast is good, and if the movie had actually followed the book, the movie could have been great. I hate to criticize Harrison Ford movies, but this one disappointed me.


If you have read the book and then look the film, you think that it isn´t the same. I think the book is better, but you can´t realize all things in the book. In the book Ritter is a nice guy and not so bad as in the film.


The book was great. I realize that rarely does a movie cover a book well, but this was absolutely ridiculous! Half the scenes in the movie were completely fabricated from the screenwriter's imagination, and bore no resemblance to the events portrayed in the book. Furthermore, the casting was awful. Willem DaFoe as Clark? Give me a break! DaFoe is a great actor, but horribly miscast here. All in all, it was disgraceful. Even as a stand-alone movie, it stunk.


This movie is so boring that I turned it of after watching it for 45 minutes. It tells the story of: Friends of the president who are murdered aboard their yacht in the Caribbean and Jack Ryan has to solve the murder and that leads to a dangerous confrontation with the Colombian drug cartel. This could be a really great movie and exciting movie, but it turns out in a boring movie, I had to read the IMDb.com plot summary to really understand the story. The movie couldn't get my attention so I turned it of after 45 minutes and that's sad because it has some fine actors in it Like: Ford, Dafoe, Anne Archer, Thora Birch and Hope Lange. It has a great story but the whole movie is very boring.


First of all: it takes place in the 60s The soundtrack could be made of all parts of music from that era (e.g. the doors, Jefferson airplane, the Beatles, etc.)

Second: The beginning part was one of the best parts of any Tom Clancy book i've read, save rainbow 6, it could account for the drama, romance section of the book

Third: The middle to ending could be like a strategic Platoon when Clark is doing operations in Vietnam.

Who to play Clark? Dafoe is too old and even make-up can't hide that, maybe some rugged young actor, can't think of any


Jack Ryan III confirms why he can't be a James Bond for the nineties - he's just too boring, although Ford does try his hardest.


I think this is the best of the four Jack Ryan films. After seeing Clear and Present Danger, it is clear and present to me that director Phillip Noyce learned from his few mistakes in Patriot Games. This movie is faster, stronger, and more interesting. Harrison Ford gives another solid performance. There is less of a character to Ryan in this screenplay, but he also strikes me as more heroic. We end up rooting for him rather than just watching him. So far we have seen Ryan take on the Soviet Navy and the IRA, this time he gets involved with a Columbian drug lord.

There is one potential problem with Clear and Present Danger. The movie requires just as much from the audience as it gives them. There is entertainment to be had here, but only if you pay close attention. The plot is complex, and fairly easy to get lost in. I personally don't see what is so hard about paying attention to a film, but with the action genre, I think people prefer to be entertained in a mindless eye candy kind of way rather than a thought provoking-thriller kind of way (but that's just my bias).

Clear and Present Danger is still a good movie. Whether you are into the Jack Ryan novels or not, I'd recommend it.


Harrison Ford proved in "Patriot Games" and this film that he's the best Jack Ryan. Sadly, this was his last turn as Jack. This film topped the others in intensity, scope and story. Involving Jack and the Government with Colombian drug cartels. Kudos also to Tom Clancy, director Phillip Noyce, James Horner's fine music score and the fine cast. Veteran actors made up a terrific supporting cast: James Earl Jones as Greer in a sad scene, Willem Dafoe, Benjamin Bratt and Raymond Cruz as the U.S. military mercenaries, a quartet of despicable villains: Henry Czerny, Harris Yulin, Joaquim de Almeida, Miguel Sandoval and Donald Moffat as the President and Anne Archer as Jack's loving, understandable and supportive wife. It will be difficult to match the quality of this production in future Jack Ryan films.


Someone once said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. That saying is the theme at the heart of Clear And Present Danger, the third film in the Jack Ryan film series. With a near perfect combination of acting, action, music and script it is also a thriller of the highest quality.

Harrison Ford takes his performance of Jack Ryan up to a new level with this film. His performance as the principled Ryan stays int eh front seat at all times as Ryan confronts those in the film, especially in the final scenes of the film. Ford is also at the top of his game in the action sequences of the film as well proving yet again that Ford is both a fine actor and a fine action hero as well.

The rest of the cast is good as well. Willem Dafoe makes a welcomed good guy appearance as Clark, the mysterious CIA operative leading the secret war. Anne Archer makes a welcomed return as Cathy Ryan though she is underused sadly. There's also Henry Czerny and Harris Yulin as the me leading the war of behalf of their President (played expertly by Donald Moffat) plus there's Joaquin De Almeida, Miguel Sandoval, Raymond Cruz, Tim Grimm and of course James Earl Jones. In truth the whole cast is good enough to mention if there was enough space.

Of course there's the action sequences of the film. Of special mention is the signature ambush sequence that easily belongs amongst the best action sequences ever dedicated on a frame of film. While that sequence alone is excellent one can't forget about the many other (and smaller) sequences in the film that are no less impressive. Overall though it is unfair to call this an action film by any means.

If anything can this describe this film it is the words "thriller of the highest quality". The screenwriters took Tom Clancy's superb novel, trimmed down to film length, but kept many of the novel's key points. The result is, when put together with Phillip Noyce's direction and the superb score of James Hormer, an intelligent thrill ride where the corruption of absolute power leads to a secret war with lives and the reputations of nations at stakes where enemies are both within and without with only one man capable of unraveling it all.

Clear And Present Danger is a thriller of the most unusual kind. It is a thriller that (in the words of Jack Ryan) sees the world not in black and white but as right and wrong. With its tale of a secret war and hidden agendas, the film is all the better for it. It may even be the best of the Jack Ryan films made so far but don't take my word for it. Go see the film for your self.


The Plot: (Harrison Ford) Returns as intrepid CIA agent Jack Ryan in this critically acclaimed box-office smash from the producers of Patriot Games. When his mentor Admiral James Greer (James Earl Jones) becomes gravely ill, Ryan is appointed acting CIA Deputy Director of Intelligence. His first assignment: Investigate the murders of one of the president's friends, a prominent U.S. businessman with secret ties to Colombian drug cartels. Unbeknownst to Ryan, the CIA has already dispatched a deadly field operative (Willem Dafoe) to lead a paramilitary strike force against the Colombian drug lords. Caught in the crossfire, Ryan takes matters into his own hands, risking his career and life for the only cause he still believes in - the truth.

My Spiel: This is my favorite of the Tom Clancy style war books turned to movies. Granted I like Hunt for the Red October. But the style of this is something else. This in my eyes is a true classic, of a man getting caught in a situation way bigger then he can explain at first. In the styles of the Patriot Games. This has a major one up on that. When the strike force team move in to Colombian territories commanded by Willem Dafoe's character. Also to the character Jack Ryan getting thrown / Betrayed into a conspiracy to send troops to stop the drug trafficking and cartel, and then uncovers the truth, and wants nothing more then to get those troops out after they were sold out. This is a action packed movie from beginning to end with the assault on the Suburban scene and every scene with the paramilitary strike force team. Love the acting between Harrison Ford and Willem Dafoe truly something to be admired, favorite scene when Ford goes to get the helicopter for Dafoe.

Clear and Present Danger (1994) Review: 8/10


'Clear and Present Danger' is full of great scenes which never really come together to make a great movie. It's trying to tell too many different stories and so, even with nearly two and half hours screen time, each story feels too short and incomplete. There are at least a half-dozen major plot threads running concurrently; give the director credit for at least TRYING to fit everything that matters in from another of Tom Clancy's super-fat bestsellers. The other problem though is Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford). He is not the action hero of 'Patriot Games.' Here, he is a dupe at first, then a decoy at the end, and in between sort of a standard-issue government official (albeit a rare honest one). John Clark (Willem Defoe) is the closest thing to a 'hero' present. There is a large ensemble cast, everyone has a role to play, and Ryan frankly is reduced to being just another member of that ensemble. In short, the US President orders (without stating so explicitly, to cover his own butt) a covert military operation against drug cartels in Colombia. Clark heads up a small, elite squad that then begins going around blowing up labs and generally disrupting the drug business. In apparent retaliation, the FBI director and his entourage are killed in their motorcade while on a visit to Bogota. A Cuban intelligence expert working for one of the drug lords approaches National Security Adviser Cutter (the president's right-hand man) for a truce, and a deal-in exchange for his cutting drug exports to the US in half, he wants the inserted military team cut off and abandoned, so he can kill them. As mentioned, there are several other side-plots (Admiral Greer has terminal cancer, an FBI secretary is seduced by the Cuban intelligence agent and murdered) so there is a lot of jumping back and forth among the various players and situations. Among the best scenes is the ambush of the FBI director's motorcade in Colombia; very well-staged and realistic, it's a real nail-biter of a sequence. But there are several other good action set-pieces as well. 'Clear and Present Danger' does not seem as long as it is. It's just too bad the director, Philip Noyce, and the trio of screenwriters couldn't make the film a more cohesive package and found better ways to pump up Ford's role. After 'The Hunt for Red October' and 'Patriot Games,' we have certainly come to expect more from the Jack Ryan character than to be a fall-guy for a slippery Prez and his corrupt underlings, even if he belatedly turns the tables on them.


Third installment of the Agent Jack Ryan with lots of gun-rattling action, suspense and intrigue. Ryan is a high officer from CIA ,married(Anne Archer) and with sons(Thora Birch).After death a closed friend by Colombian drugs Cali cartel(Miguel Sandoval,Joaquin De Almeida) , the President(Donald Moffat) himself sanctions a covert operation against the drug barons by sending crack soldiers into the Colombia country under the command of mercenaries(Willem Dafoe,Benjamin Bratt, Raymond Cruz). Harrison Ford's Jack Ryan contracted into White House's staff(Harris Yulin, Henry Czerny,Dean Jones) investigates the events. Ryan thinks he's still after Colombian connections to the dead man's money.

This blockbuster is an excellent adaptation of the novel by Tom Clancy , companion to ¨The hunt for Red October¨ with Ford taking over the role of Ryan from Alec Baldwin and second part ¨Patriot games¨ again with Harrison Ford , who's becoming the king of trilogies . Extraordinaries nail-biting action scenes, specially when Ryan and his partners are trapped by machine-gunners in a network of narrows streets and posteriorly parodied by Leslie Nielsen. Interesting screenplay plenty of twists and thrills by John Milius and Steve Zaillian. Spectacular musical score fitting to action and suspense by James Horner. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Donald McAlpine. The picture is well directed by Phillip Noyce, an action movies expert, but he directed ¨Blind fury, The Saint, The Bone Collectors and Patriot games¨ among others. Rating: Above average, the film will like to Harrison Ford fans and Jack Ryan novels followers.


"Clear and Present Danger" is the second adaptation of a Tom Clancy novel to feature Harrison Ford as CIA agent Jack Ryan. This film involves a murder which is linked to drug cartels in Colombia and the subsequent efforts to take action against the cartels.

Harrison Ford proves again that he is well-suited to the role of Jack Ryan and more appropriate than Alec Baldwin and Ben Affleck for the role. There are some great supporting performances as well, particularly from James Earl Jones, Willem Dafoe and Henry Czerny. Henry Czerny developed an interesting character and the rivalry between him and Jack Ryan was excellent.

The story of this film is better developed than that of "Patriot Games" (1992), which is why I prefer this film. It goes beyond a simple "Jack Ryan combats criminals" story. There is not a lot of intrigue per se, but some interesting turns and friction between Ryan and officials within the United States government. There are also some well-made action sequences in the film to supplement the story. The film's ending was interesting and appropriate. "Clear and Present Danger" proved to be more interesting than its predecessor film, "Patriot Games" (1992).


The "Clear and Present Danger" of the title is the danger posed by the influx of drugs coming into the USA. This third installment of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series is an exciting adventure of intrigue.

We pick up Ryan a couple of years after "Patriot Games" where he is living happily after with his wife Cathy (Anne Archer) a successful doctor, and his two kids, Sally (Thora Birch) and a new son Jack Jr. (Alexander Lester). Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones), Ryan's mentor is suddenly taken ill and appoints Ryan as his replacement as Deputy Director of National Security.

Meanwhile, friends of President Bennett (Donald Moffat) have been murdered and connected to the drug lords of Columbia. The President's National Security Adviser, James Cutter (Harris Yulin) and his assistant Ritter (Henry Czerny) arrange to have a group of US Army snipers under the direction of agent John Clark (Willem Dafoe)infiltrate Columbian territory and disrupt the drug trade by destroying drug shipments.

Drug lord Ernesto Escobedo (Miquel Sandoval) becomes alarmed and assigns his security chief Felix Cortez (Joaquim de Almeida) to find out who is responsible. Cortez gains the confidence of the secretary of the FBI Director, Moira Wolfson (Ann Magnuson) and learns that Director Jacobs (Tom Tammi) will been sent to Columbia on a secret mission by the President. Ryan already in Columbia, will join the party.

Cortez, who has ambitions of his own, sees this as his chance to take over and attacks the convoy carrying the FBI Director and Ryan. Director Jacobs and Ryan's friend, FBI agent Dan Murray (Tim Grimm) are killed.

Back in Washington, Ryan continues his investigation and begins to suspect Ritter and Cutter. Cortez having no further use for Moira, murders her the same day that her boss is killed, which alerts Ryan to his involvement.

Ryan learns that Cortez plans to overthrow Escobedo and take over. Cutter and Ritter panic and close down Clark's operation trapping his men in the Columbian jungle. Ryan, realizing that he has been set up by the politicians, goes to Columbia once more and enlists Clark's help to rescue the survivors. As Ryan negotiates for their release things suddenly go wrong and...........................

Director Philip Noyce gives us plenty of explosive action among the deceit and double crossing. Harrison Ford again turns in an excellent performance as Ryan, who at times seems to be a fish out of water in his new job. Czerny and Yulin make slimy villains and Moffat a believable President. Willem Dafoe as the abandoned Clark has some good moments as well. Anne Archer has little to do (pity) in this one but to be there for Jack.

Watch for Benjamin Bratt as the chief of the commandos, Dean Jones as Ryan's boss and Hope Lange as Senator Mayo who grills Ryan on his budget proposal.

Followed by "The Sum of All Fears" (2002) in which a much younger Ben Affleck takes over as Jack Ryan....go figure.


This sequel to the 1994 actioner "No Contest" (which I enjoyed much more than I expected to) is a much inferior film. The fight scenes are not badly choreographed, but all the rest is just SO stereotypical and familiar. Shannon Tweed still is up to the game, but Lance Henriksen does his usual "psychotic villain" number, and we're not impressed anymore. (*1/2)


Shannon Tweed is back fighting terrorists, but this time Lance Henrikson fills in for both Rowdy Roddy Piper and Andrew Dice Clay. I prefer the first one, even though I like Henrikson as an actor. This one is tedious to sit through and not nearly as fun as the film that preceded it. The fights are put together in such a haphazard way that those are boring as well. Giving a casual glance to both the writers on this film, I shouldn't be surprised at how bad it was, as neither writer has done ANYthing even remotely good. Skip the snooze-fest. Rent the original instead, or better yet just watch the vastly superior Die Hard for the upturn time.

My Grade:D-


In one scene, the good guys all turn into "MacGyvers" when hiding in a room from the bad guys, the manage to create a smoke bomb out of a tin can as well as make a poisonous dart from a darts playing dart and blowing it through a pipe they happen to find. 2/10


This got to be on of the worst movies ever. The plot was terrible, the action scenes boring and the whole thing totally crap. Good action films makes you forget that some things are unrealistic, like having 100 bullets in a gun. This movie is not like that at all. Here it just seems silly. And the ending is crap as well.

The only good thing is Lance Hendriksen who can actually act, otherwise do not waste your time on this movie.


This film turned out to be a happy finding. The creators of this Mexican movie seemed well attuned to the modern way of life in the big city. Not having a clue as to what to expect, it turned out to be a good way to spend an evening in which all other film prospects didn't seem interesting enough.

Susana and Carlos have been married for a while. They have two children and both work. Carlos, whose job involves long hours, hardly has time for his family. As the film starts, everything comes to a head when he arrives home late one night. No sooner is he in, when his cellular phone rings. It's his boss calling. Susana, who feels Carlos spends too much of his time at home talking to his boss, takes his phone away from him. As things get uglier, Carlos agrees to leave. It appears that as a couple, they have come to a dead end because Carlos believes his job is too important.

Carlos, who has taken a small house, realizes he can't do anything on his own. Most of the work at home is done by Susana. Carlos is assigned a new assistant who evidently thinks she can take him to bed. Susana, on the other hand, is encouraged by her colleague at work to see other men. When she agrees to do so, it turns out that the man she has chosen is gay. Both Carlos and Susana come to realize, that in spite of their differences, they were meant for each other.

Rafael Montero, the director of "Cilantro y Peregil" did a marvelous job with this quick paced comedy. The writing is by Cecilia Perez Grovas and Carolina Rivera, two women that have an ear for the way people live in these frantic times.

Damian Bichir, who we had admired in other Mexican films, does an excellent job as Carlos, the harried executive whose life is altered when Susana asks him to leave their home. Arcelia Ramirez makes a wonderful Susana. She is a resourceful actress with a dark beauty that matches her character. Rodolfo Dehesa appears as a psychiatrist who speaks to the camera about modern relationships with humor and it shows he can't even help himself.

Rafael Montero shows a talent for his direction of this sunny comedy.


The film Cilantro y Perejil is a good example of a film that has more to it than meets the eye. Although the film is full of clichés that could possibly happen throughout many people's lives, the way in which the film is presented has a funny twist to it that sets it apart from most of films about marriage and monogamy. In Cilantro y Perejil the main character's sister, Nora, is constantly interviewing people for a project, therefore making it a film within a film. She catches many moments that would not usually be in a typical romantic comedy that adds a very different element to the film.

Also, there is a psychiatrist in the film that throughout the scenes gives his commentary and professional advice about love, marriage and monogamy. His wording and personality add as a comic relief to the film and keep things interesting for the viewer. The director does a great job of making the viewer experience the same emotions as the characters through all of the down to earth and awkward situations that happen in day to day life.

The film is worth seeing for anyone who has a sense of humor and an interest in seeing the dynamics of a less than perfect marriage, and all that goes along with it.


The film "Cilantro y Perejil" falls under the romantic comedy genre. The title of the film suggest the theme of the story so similar but yet so different. This is a comedy about couples and their definition of what love is and the believe that there is that right person just for you. We begin the story with an interview that Susana is having with Nora about what love is and what does a person feel when he or she sees their other half, for a school project that she is putting together. As Susana states all these things about what a person should feel, Nora asks her if she feels that for Carlos her husband. Susana Replies with a no. The story starts to develop when Susana divorces her husband Carlos. After the divorce they try to rebuild their own love life. They date different people through work, friends and a singles club that Nora sights them up for; to find out that they have nothing in common with the people they date. After all of that at the end they realize that they always had what they were looking for.

As the film develops it touches in many social issues throughout the documentary that Nora is filming for her school project or on the film itself. Family life is put to question and the problems that the children face after their parents split up. The complication of love and romance and how globalization has changed it is also one of the issues that are being address in the film. Over all the director did a great job on bringing the different issues together on the film. In combination with the smooth editing and the technique of a film within a film.

Bottom line is a great film to watch


The movie Cilantro y Perejil follows the ups and downs of a relationship among a few couples. However, the entire movie is supposed to be a documentary about relationships which is filmed by the main character's sister, Nora. The aspect of using a character as almost a director was an interesting technique, because we were able to view the story through the eyes of Nora, thus we are able to witness both the good and the bad. This technique also helped the viewer to relate to the characters because we were able to see their desperation to appear "normal" (by begging Nora not to show arguments in the documentary), and normality is a quality everyone seeks in a relationship. The use of the psychiatrist commentary also helped to break up the monotony of the film by adding comic relief and a professional opinion. Plus, it was interesting to see how the children of the main characters Susana and Carlos were affected by their parent's problems, and how, for instance, the daughter often felt abandoned as if her mother was too busy dating to be with her. This also helped the movie move along, as it was nice to take the focus off the main characters every once in a while. However, I must say, that overall the movie is mundane, and seems to go on forever. There was no true climax, and the end was extremely predicable. The main idea of the movie was just too cliché, which made me loose interest and not appreciate the film as much. Overall, it lacked originality.


"Cilantro y Perejil" is, in a way, your typical romantic comedy, but it is so in a very Mexican, light, fun and entertaining way, which is rare in cinema from this country. It might be predictable and not-too-bright, but what it lacks in depth, this film compensates in spice, humor and the sense transmitted through the screen that the people who made it actually tried to do a good movie, and enjoyed it. German Dehesa's interventions are delightful, and lower the saccharine factor in the love stories. The stories complement each other nicely, and each of them is represented by the most famous faces in the new Mexican Cinema. It really is worth seeing just as an accomplishment at its time and a precursor of films like "Sexo, Pudor y Lágrimas".


Maybe fans of 'fresa' humor will enjoy this. But other than a few sarcastic bits, it is just a lame sitcom with annoying characters who go through boring situations, with a documentary-within-a-movie splitting up episodes. The documentary bits are sometimes interesting, and sometimes just as lame as everything else. This does not fall in the school of daring, cutting-edge, realistic, sarcastic Latin American cinema. Instead it falls in the same group of movies that sound like they were written by the same people who write telenovelas and latino sitcoms, thinking that they are funny, just because somebody in Televisa likes this crap and wants to keep Mexican people ignorant, so that they do not rebel against the governing status quo. Alright, this sounds far too revolutionary and almost makes the movie sound like it had anything to do with politics or social commentary. It is merely a lame sitcom, stretched out.

Not horrible, but not worth your time.


Kay Francis stars as a minor actress who wants to make it on Broadway. She meets a bored architect (Ian Hunter) who has always wanted to produce a play. She has one. They team up and she becomes the toast of the Great White Way. But Hunter also has a partner (George Brent)and it's love at first sight. But he has a grasping wife (Gloria Dickson)....

Fast-paced with a lot of one liners, this little Warners film is fun from the getgo. Francis is, as always, a delight to watch. Brent and Hunter are solid. Dickson is suitably vile as the shrew wife. Isabel Jeans is very funny as Marion, playing a combination of Alice Brady and Eric Blore. The 2 secretaries are nicely played by Dennie Moore and Penny Singleton.

This was one of Kay's final film for Warners, and you'll note they had already demoted her to first billing but beneath the title. Her legal battles with the studio were front-page news in the late 30s. The studio put her in B films and then blamed her for slipping at the box office. Still, Francis had the last laugh; she turned in great performances even in the drek Warners gave her (while handing the plums to the new Warners queen, Bette Davis).


Kay Francis must have had some interesting secrets in the way she had two men chasing her in Secrets Of An Actress. Beauty, talent, and that little something extra that makes one a star.

In Secrets Of An Actress, Kay is the daughter of a famous stage actor who has tried to match that career. But all she gets is road company tours in various classics. She wants to be a hit on Broadway and in a role created for her. As it happens she has a play that she wrote with just that in mind. To find a producer is the key.

Enter Ian Hunter who is a successful architect and pretty well fixed financially. A chance meeting in a bar with Francis and he's literally swept off his feet. Hunter has a younger associate in his firm played by George Brent who is likewise smitten with Francis, but he's just a little bit married to Gloria Dickson, one real piece of work.

If you're a fan of Thirties screen comedies I think you'll know where this one is going. Doesn't mean the ride isn't pleasant. The script is a witty, sophisticated one and the cast performs it well.

Look for a brilliant performance by Isabel Jeans as Francis's best friend, an old time actress with a little drinking problem. She plays it like a combination of Eve Arden and Zasu Pitts. In her case the old Latin phrase in vino veritas rings true as she has some really good observations, especially with a drink or two.

A few years down the road, I think someone would have recognized Diana Barrymore for the model of Francis's character. Secrets Of An Actress, though from the Warner B picture unit is a bright comedy, very typical of its time.


A rather benign 70 minute production where Kay Francis, the daughter of a famous actor, will not tour the country, but rather insists upon making the Broadway scene.

Whoever made up Miss Francis for this film did a terrible job. She looks just awful. For someone becoming a starlet on Broadway, she certainly does not look the part.

I never saw someone become a star so fast. Her play "Springboard" is never shown. We just see Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, etc. and people applauding.

The real good acting here goes to Gloria Dickson and Isabel Jeans, especially the latter, who is absolutely hilarious as the pal of Francis.

In the male roles, George Brent and Ian Hunter are appealing, but the film is so predictable and is ruined by the real lack of emotion here. The culprit is the bad writing.


Dazzled by the BRIGHT LIGHTS of Broadway success, a burlesque actor is blinded as to what's really most important in life.

The film career of Joe E. Brown, Warner's rubber-faced comedian, essentially reached its zenith in this very enjoyable little comedy/drama obviously tailored for Joe's considerable skills. All too soon a change of studios would sidetrack Brown into cheaply made movies which would inevitably dim his celebrity. But here, in this backstage show biz story, his talents may still be enjoyed at full throttle.

Although the movie was directed by Busby Berkeley, it includes none of his celebrated dance extravaganzas, focusing instead on personality rather than pulchritude. The film is fortunate in that Brown, presented as a Broadway star, is genuinely funny when engaging in his slapstick humor. Whether dangerously balancing on a balcony rail as part of his stage act, using his tremendous mouth to great advantage while telling a party story about a 'little mousie,' or engaging in impressive nightclub acrobatic stunts with The Maxellos, Joe is never less than hilarious.

Although the focus is firmly on Brown, he is given able support from the rest of the cast: Ann Dvorak as his patient, long-suffering wife; Joseph Cawthorn as a fatherly theatrical troupe manager; William Gargan as an energetic press agent; and lovely Patricia Ellis as a stage bound heiress. William Demarest appears for a few seconds as a determined detective. Best of all is Arthur Treacher, wonderful as Brown's impeccable new valet.

Movie mavens will recognize sour faced Clarence Wilson as a train station clerk.


Brown was a big comedy star of the 1930s, not as well remembered today as he should be. His career slowed down after WW II and he's best remembered now for his co-starring role in Some Like It Hot. But in the 30s he was big. Too bad he made all those sports comedies like Alibi Ike and Polo Joe. They all blur together because of their sameness.

Bright Lights (1935) is perhaps Brown's most physical comedy. The former circus player uses his great acrobatic skills (even at age 43) in this movie about the heartbreaks of show business. He plays a small-time burlesque player teamed with his wife (Ann Dvorak) who gets discovered because of a runaway heiress (Patricia Ellis). They get into a big Broadway show but at the last minuted Dvorak is out and Ellis (big headlines) is in. Familiar plot.

But what is so special about Bright Lights is that Brown is just plain excellent. The burlesque routine is hilarious and extremely well acted and directed (Busby Berkley), even to the point that the audiences are good. Their reactions are great. Brown's likable persona is used well in this film. The acrobat sequence with the Maxellos is so spontaneous and funny you'd never think it was ever rehearsed! Along with Brown, Dvorak and Ellis also turn is nice performances. Ellis was a minor leading lady who never got anything to do in Hollywood. Here she is bright and funny and a good singer (she also looks great); Dvorak is remembered as a B drama queen, but she started in the chorus (Free and Easy with Buster Keaton) and gets to sing and dance here. Dvorak should have been a bigger star. The chemistry between Dvorak and Brown is great.

Good supporting cast includes William Gargan as the press agent, Henry O'Neill as the verbose director, Joseph Cawthorne as the burlesque director, Clarence Wilson as the ticket seller, Grace Hayle as the plane passenger, Arthur Treacher as the valet, Gordon Westcott as the pill, and William Demarest in a real bit part as the detective.

Lots of fun, good performances, plus the song "The Acrobat's Daughter."


I can try to be articulate. I can try to be witty. I can try to be funny. All of these things are usually easy for me. I've never known what it was like to be so attached to another world through a television show, much less what it was like to feel so empty after it was all said and done. This was, by immeasurable standards, the greatest show on television.

The last episode started like any other. If anybody tuned in, not knowing it was the last, they likely wouldn't have noticed. The last ten minutes tied off the loose ends in an ominous, but casual way. I was able to hold myself together until the very last scene. I'm not going to spoil anything for anyone, but those who have followed the show and developed the same attachment to the characters that I have will also find themselves with watering eyes.

It is now Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the show ended. It truly is an empty feeling. Anyone can identify with the show. Things about it hit so close to home because they are things that all of us have to deal with on a daily basis. It's not an emergency room, it's not a desert trench, and it's certainly not a plastic surgeon's office. It discusses real issues with real scenarios, and even more real (if not terrifying) resolutions.

But more than all of this it reminds all of us that the people we elect to office are only human. They make mistakes just like the rest of us. They are haunted by memories and demons just like we are, yet they keep on because they know more than anything that the minute details of their day to day doings affect millions.

There is a saying they are sure to throw around just enough that it is remembered.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." I'd vote for Jed Bartlet.


My only regret and disappointment on the finale was that NBC did not pay the proper homage to this landmark show. A winner of three Emmy's for Best Dramatic Show, and countless other Emmy statues for individual and group excellence The West Wing showed us the inner workings, frailties of character, and gut wrenching decisions that go on every day. I am sure many Republicans and Conservatives are none too upset at the end of this Democratic administration. I'm sure their collective scorn reached epic heights when the underdog Democrat, Mathew Santos, edged out stalwart Republican Senator Arnold Vinick in the general election. However, an objective viewer such as myself found purity, brilliance, hope, and yes...sometimes a different slant on things as this show developed over the years.

I thought the writers showed remarkable restraint from doing the typical Hollywood ending which would have had us seeing Josh and Donna getting married, Charley and Zoe together, Will and Kate hand in hand, Sam in a reunion with Mallory etc. etc. etc. Realism won the day and for that I was glad. Even when Bartlett took his final goodbye walk through the staff he made it personal but dignified. There were no screams and tears, no excessive hugging, just stoic thanks to a staff that served him well for two terms.

What NBC did not do, and my only regret, was a show such as this deserved a two hour finale. As we all know a one hour show is but a mere 42-43 minutes and that was not a long enough goodbye. Many more things could have been embellished in the storyline with some flashback scenes thrown in for the characters there throughout. I would have also liked to have seen a small brief tribute to John Spencer for the style in which he brought two great NBC characters to the screen.(Leo McGarry & Tommy Mullaney-LA Law).


In the opening scene to the last episode of The West Wing, Mrs. Bartlett asks the President who had the dumb idea of having an outdoor event in January... meaning the Inauguration of the President-Elect Matt Santos. The brilliant writing staff has President Bartlett answer: "I don't know... Washington? Jefferson? Maybe Adams?"

This is coming from a President with an I.Q. in the 150 range. The problem is the Inauguration was always held on March the 4th, that is until they changed the law in 1933, when the Inauguration was changed to be on January the 20th, so that there could be a quicker change of office.

Back in 1789, they needed the extra time to make sure that ALL the votes across the country were counted, then delivered by horse, and then they needed to set up for the actual Electors to cast their ballots to finalize the Presidential Election.

In the heady days of 1933, telephones and telegraphs eliminated the need for all that extra time. Although Gore would have loved to get the 2000 Inauguration pushed back to March.

It was a REAL surprise to me, that this normally superior writing staff would make that kind of mistake.

kaveman7@msn.com


From frame one, she is EVIL! I totally cracked up because everyone else is dressed and lit adequately,but in each shot, each frig-gin' shot, Joan is in fantastic gowns, jewels, lit fabulously and with just that HINT of gauze, Vaseline over the lens. Same year as Female on the Beach. Go Joan! She chews through scenery like a wood chipper. However her character, originally from Chicago, is intimidated by a southern family..I don't think so. I realized she is the prototype of characters like Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction". The scene where she dares her husband to divorce her is shark-like.Glamorous from start to finish.And poor Betsy Palmer....


Joan Crawford is in her element here! As a deceitful, manipulative woman with the Medusa touch she's in her glory. You get the feeling she's enjoying herself immensely. Hell, you even get the feeling she's enjoying the costumes! She tears into the part of Eva Phillips as if it were her last meal, and takes the rest of the cast along for the ride. They don't make movies like this anymore and it's a shame. It's good, clean, sinister fun with Joan in control every step of the way.


I could rave about the fantastic acting and directing. But every scene is like waking up in a real Hades. I mean, these people seem locked into the never-ending strain of having to live with each other, and even worse, with themselves.

I disagree with another posted comment which said none of the acting was good except for Joan Crawford. They were all superbly on cue, dynamically intertwined, and their interactions were so genuine I kept thinking I was in the room with these miserable rich people.

I kept getting ulcers, and feeling angry, depressed, or panicky with each character interaction. Now and then the sweet-natured visiting cousin, Jenifer, offers a fresh breeze of hope, but wow, how she gets caught up in their poisonous existence. You never know if she is going to save this wretched family, or destroy them; you can't quite figure what she is about.

There is plenty of movement, dynamic interplay, psychological warfare and symbolism, and smooth continuity. Every actor surprises you with revelations of their inner selves which they are not afraid to expose, which in every scene stirs up more conflict to work out.

I also slightly disagree with the posted comment that the ending was tacked on. In a way it could seem so, but the events leading up to it keep you wondering... was the freshly budding resolution of all their sorrows real? Or just a lot of fake premise that never got to full light? We will never know. But after seeing this otherwise well produced movie,I am determined to live as good a life as I can, if this is what Hell is like! And these poor people are in Hell.


If you love Joan, like I love Joan, you have to see this movie. The script, costumes, acting, and music are all A++++. This has to be the baddest girl that Joan has ever played, and the part suits her well; Mildred Pearce pales in comparison to this role. Barry Sullivan is terrific too. Somehow, I get the impression that during the whole picture that Joan is thinking, "I'll show that Bette how to play a southern vixen!" This movie is the reason that I like old movies; they spent money on this one - the scenery, furnishings, costumes, and jewelry were all "old school" and to die for. If you see the DVD, the original trailer is a hoot! I fell out laughing looking at the trailer after watching the movie. They show way too much of the plot in the trailer, so don't watch the trailer before watching the movie.


A guilty pleasure if I ever saw one. Directect by Ranald McDougall, even his name reads like a misspell, he was the writer of Mildred Pierce and clearly Crawford trusted him. Look at her entrance, from a distance, a subtle and no so subtle game of light and music. The turgid tale of evil and deception suffers from holes in every angle but this is not the sort of picture that can afford that kind of scrutiny. This is a showcase for the late term Crawford die hard fans. You wont be able to help but admire her devastating self confidence. She knew every trick in the book as an actress as well as a character. Queen Bee goes bye fast very fast and the moral compass is determined by Lucy Marlow when in fact it needed a sort of Anne Baxter or someone with a bit more gravitas. To be seen with a bunch of like minded friends and laugh out loud.


I really think that Ms. Crawford ("Eva Phillips") kept a bunch of writers on-salary to write these movies particularly for her. Randall MacDougall certainly was one of those ! Can't you see her deciding which lines to "keep" and which ones to "ditch" ?? "Avery Phillips" (Barry Sullivan) was truly good in his alcoholic role - didn't you know the end of the movie would involve a car-accident when he picked up "Eva's" keys from his desk? I really didn't understand why the niece committed suicide - it was plain to me that "Eva" had hitched-up with every male in The South. John Ireland ("Judson Prentiss") was good in his role, as were Betsy Palmer and all the rest.

The star of the show, of course, is the wardrobe Ms. Crawford wears. I recall the TV-appeal they had her to do for poor people all around the world, some time ago. Everyone in the world could have, at that time, been fed if they just hocked the necklace she was wearing. True Crawford ! "Poor people, but keep you hands off my necklace !"

Yeah, the drag-queens really got some fodder for their acts, especially the fabulous Charles Pearce, who did an act about a bitch-fight between Bette Davis and Crawford, just by turning his wig around......but by using his own material. For those of you who didn't have the privilege of seeing Pearce perform, you missed some great talent....almost as famous as the ladies he mimicked.

You weren't aware that the lighting for this movie were designed to highlight Crawford's eyes - thick brows, or not ?

I think this film was a story of Crawford's real life - her own daughter couldn't sit through it. I loved "Queen Bee", because it made me laugh at such meanness, although I've known a lot of those people, too. You gotta admit one thing: NO ONE does "queen of mean" like Crawford did. Today's actresses don't have it in them to be mean AND glamorous - younger people may not realize that movies, in those days, ALWAYS had lines in them to say "how beautiful" the leading lady was.

I'm not a hard-core fan of hers, but I truly enjoyed Crawford in "Queen Bee". Bravo to all!


Few things are more amusing to me than the Hollywood myth that Joan Crawford, especially in middle age (she was 50 when this movie was made), was the most intensely sexy, desirable woman who ever lived. That myth finds no more fervent expression than in this movie. Wow. The story is all carefully crafted to rotate around the myth rather like a vast conglomeration of space debris and dust rotating around a giant, frozen planet.

And it works...if you like Joan Crawford melodramas. I've never seen a better one. The plot is absurd, which is to say that it's perfect. The supporting cast is also right on the money: the willowy niece, the bitter, alcoholic husband, the emotionally destroyed belle, the suave neighbor and his unstable sister. All of the actors (except maybe the children) easily outperform Crawford (in terms of creating genuine, believable characters), which is exactly what this kind of movie needs. She's the (tragi-)comic center; everyone else provides the contrast.

The plot is about as subtle as an atomic bomb, with explosions dropped in at regular intervals ("No, I'm going to shoot this dog") to move the plot forward in roughly the same way that a bulldozer shoves a house off its foundation. Which is perfect. This is melodrama. Subtlety is not of the essence. Keep the atomic bombs coming.

The movie's greatest strength, though, is the overall production. The costumes and the sets and the superb, creepy lighting are of the very highest caliber. Forceful but not completely ridiculous. Just when you think the stark, interior scenes with deep shadows have become too much, they switch to a bright, airy outdoor scene.

The ending is predictable and "tragic" and yet "happy" at the same time, which is to say, melodramatic and chuckle-inducing. But it didn't leave me feeling annoyed, as some of Crawford's movies do. Instead, it made me resolve to put this movie on my DVD wish list. I definitely want to see it again.


This was one of Joan Crawford's last Glamour Queen movie roles, before she started doing horror films and TV, and this part itself is transitional, as she plays a legendary beauty, pathological in her manipulations of the people around her. Despite the huge 1950s eyebrows that could be seen on Joan, Audrey Hepburn, Kim Novak, and others during this period, and the weird heart shaped hairdo, Joan remains both a beauty and a really compelling and totally invested actress. This was after Joan did POSSESSED and proved she could both underplay and play full tilt. Here she plays a woman so deeply dishonest that she is unconvincing in every emotion  we don't even know if she believes any of this herself.

The real stand out performance of this film is Barry Sullivan as Joan's physically and emotionally scarred husband. He is completely believable in a roller coaster role. The prototype of the sexy damaged man.

The film itself is average, the script is soap opera predictable, and the biggest mystery (how he got scar) is never revealed, only hinted at. Despite Joan's title character and her entrance-making Jean Louis wardrobe, this really is an ensemble piece, and everyone does a good solid job in this Southern Gothic potboiler. The "town and country" set of this film feels both ostentatiously grand and a little too cramped and small, and that is a good way of describing the whole thing.


I love a good drama and this one left nothing to be desired. Ms. Crawford was in rare form. Her tongue was that of a wasp (Stinging and painful). Her wardrobe was fit for a queen and her performance was royal. The southern accents needed a little work, but all in all, Queen Bee was very good.


Every time I see "Queen Bee" it's as if a gigantic black hole has opened and I'm pulled inexorably into the vortex known as Joan Crawford. Probably the last of La Crawford's great diva roles, her Eva Phillips gnaws through every last shred of scenery until John Ireland wisely decides to put all of us out of Joan's misery via car accident. Although there is a credited director, Ranald MacDougall (whoever that was), it is apparent that he was either missing in action or was afraid of Joan, who stomps through her scenes like a bull in a china shop, obviously directing herself. This is a performance shaped by psychosis, featuring some of the campiest dialog ever committed to celluloid. Joan juicily delivers "Any man's my man...if I want it that way" and the howler "...did you see him? He actually trembled when he spoke to me. You'd think he'd never seen a beautiful woman before". You go, Joan! Still, it is John Ireland who's given the best line in this steamy pile of Southern comfort, spitting out his opinion of Joan's character: "I don't know what you are, Eva, but whatever it is..it's on wheels!" Priceless. Joan was reputed to have sashayed away with the very real and very expensive Paris couture she wears in the movie, as if anyone could have stopped her. Sadly, she was never again to be so sublimely bitchy and was ultimately fated to throwing rubber lizards at a monkey-man in "Trog" only fifteen years after "Queen Bee", in a drunken last performance. Sad Joan. Still, this relic from 1955 deserves to be seen for what it is, the last gasp of great glamor from La Crawford. We'll never see her like again.


Young innocent Jennifer Stewart (Lucy Marlow) goes to visit her cousin Eva Phillips (Joan Crawford). She meets Eva's alcoholic husband Avery (Barry Sullivan), brow beaten daughter Carol Lee (Betsy Palmer) and handyman Judson Prentice (John Ireland). She slowly comes to realize that Eva cruelly manipulates the lives of all around her.

Not well known Crawford film which is a shame because it's one of her best. Crawford pulls out all stops and goes full force as a totally evil vicious woman. She's quite obviously enjoying herself and her incredible performance saves what otherwise is a pretty routine drama. The plot is pretty predictable and all the other characters pale next to Crawford. Marlow isn't that good and Sullivan and Ireland are downright terrible but Palmer was very good and seeing her so young is pretty amusing (she's now best known as Jason's mother from the "Friday the 13th" movies). Worth seeing just for Crawford alone. I don't think she ever played such a cruel character before or after this one. Purportedly (according to Christina Crawford) she was playing herself! I give this an 8.


Joan Crawford's best role since 1952's "Sudden Fear." In "Queen Bee" she is a manipulative woman who has caused misery to husband Barry Sullivan.

Inviting her cousin to her home, the cousin soon discovers that everyone in the house is just miserable as they are in the orbit of a vicious Crawford.

John Ireland, who works for Sullivan, loves his sister, a very good Betsy Palmer here. Unfortunately, the Queen Bee was once a love interest of Ireland and right before the wedding, she tells this to Carol (Palmer) causing her to commit suicide.

Crawford's young children with Sullivan are miserable as well and how can you blame them with a mother like this?

When John Ireland discovers what Barry Sullivan has planned for Crawford, he takes matters in his own hand. Change partners and kill?


Joan Crawford is an ageing Southern socialite (by marriage) who revels in dominating her extended family - like a "Queen Bee". As the film opens, cousin Lucy Marlow (as Jennifer Stewart) arrives; providing Ms. Crawford (as Eva Phillips) with a new victim - and viewers the opportunity to see "Queen Bee" Crawford bring another person into her hive. Drones include boozy husband Barry Sullivan (as Avery) and lady-killer John Ireland (as Jud). Betsy Palmer is very good as nice niece Carol.

Crawford creates an astonishing character, and the film is very well-photographed. The supporting players really operate in Crawford's shadow, which is to be expected. The film's weakness is a story that lacks depth in its characterizations, and doesn't live up to their potential. In the end, the film wastes its leading actress' effort, with a story lacking substance.

******* Queen Bee (1955) Ranald MacDougall ~ Joan Crawford, Barry Sullivan, Betsy Palmer


Young innocent from Chicago travels down South to stay with her wealthy cousin, a society shark with an alcoholic husband who is planning on busting up the engagement between her former lover and a terrified girl who also lives in the mansion. Though based on a novel, "Queen Bee" looks and sounds like a stage play (sub-Tennessee Williams), with arch overacting by everyone and only a smidgen of really memorable lines. Joan Crawford wear some fancy gowns, but this isn't an attractive role for her. The character interaction is drowsy and sluggish, and the plot-turns are occasionally confounding, outdated or hoary. There's an interesting plot-thread involving a cruel nanny who gives Crawford's Queen a run for her money, but she inexplicably vanishes. The film is drawing-room bitchery, yet with only minimal camp appeal; still, it's hardly enjoyable even on that level since nobody here appears to be having any fun. ** from ****


Another Joan Crawford movie. You know, there are these actors and actresses who, once they appear on screen, they manage to control everything and have everyone focus on them and only them, and Crawford is one example of such people. Now I don't mean this in a bad way. In fact, it's rather admirable that one can have so much charisma as to be the center of attention all the time, but one side effect to this is that the people around such characters often don't get the attention that they deserve.

This happened to me with QUEEN BEE. It was a Crawford movie, indeed, but it was also an ensemble cast- the characters, Eva, Avery, Judd, Jen, and Carol were all part of one story. But strangely enough, I can only remember Joan Crawford after the end. I should tell you that this Crawford's presence in this movie is very strong, but perhaps that is not even news for all those who have seen GRAND HOTEL, in which she had the same strong presence even alongside Greta Garbo, who is known to have such centralizing effects herself.

It is true however, that Crawford is the focus of the story. The movie centers around her character: everything happens because of her and everything doesn't happen because of her. I can't say that I understood Eva completely, but I did try to sympathize with her and I do. She was a "bitch," yes, but not wholly. After all, she wanted her husband's love like any other normal woman. She just wanted to be loved, didn't like being lonely, and went to great measures to get what she wanted but as we all know, it doesn't quite work out as we had planned, and that's the story of Eva Philipps, the Queen Bee.

This film is tense, with all of the characters engaged in nervousness, bitterness and hate. It starts out light enough but the atmosphere changes soon enough. It won't be your simple "cup of tea" and it's the type of movie that makes you think. I like movies that make me think, and I recommend this movie to anyone who has the same taste as me.


The quintessential Joan Crawford film for true fans. She's wonderfully evil, self-centered and conniving. Whether she's telling her sister-in-law about her "tacky" riding clothes, or taking a fireplace poker to rearrange a room, she's at her best. What more could one ask for?


Joan Crawford's least likable character could be the one she played in this film, as a controlling and vindictive woman of wealth who runs and ruins (or nearly ruins) the lives of all those whom she has relationships with in her large southern plantation mansion. Apparently the relationships come out of her money and their lack of it, as well as the level of her misdirected intelligence and lack of empathy for others, none of which gets explained very fully. Even to her own children, the product of her marriage to heavy drinking philosophizing character played by Barry Sullivan, she shows a cold disregard, especially the choice of a nanny, who's even meaner than Joan. Into this dysfunction comes Jennifer Stewart as a young cousin from Chicago who upsets the strange family chemistry that has been developing over the years, befriending the poor kids, and catching a lot of eyes. John Ireland seems a natural as the one guy who can and does (in some well done scenes) stand up to Queen Bee Joan, presenting his usual suppressed aversion to injustice while also straddling the fence. It's worth sticking with for the ending.