I pre-ordered this game in January this year and got my copy 2 days before the official release date, and i wasn't disappointed.

I can't credit John Williams and CO enough for the superb sound and music, you really feel like you're in the middle of a Star Wars film, blasting Stormtoopers or Saber Fighting a Sith Lord.

The story is a bit predicable, but if you're a Star Wars fan, you won't care!

The saber fighting is superb in single player mode, fast paced and very Episode I and II like! The force powers are well done, divided into 3 levels, level 1 a basic version of that force power and level 3 the most powerful version of that force power.

You can also live your Darth Vader dream and grip an opponent and throw him off an edge or just crush'em!

The movie cut scenes are a bit blocky but they're well enough done to get jist of it.

Multiplayer Saber physics are changed in the multiplayer mode, the saber fights are slowed down considerably due to the lag factor, you'll find out what I mean when you play it.

But all in all a fantastic game, one which any Star Wars fan should have! It should also appeal to Star Trek Elite Force fans too, with the same game engine and the nice guns you get in the game.

Rating 9 out of 10


Following up to the first Jedi Knight was not going to be easy. It had it all, and it was all very accomplished. This does an amazing job, even if it doesn't reach it all the way(what could?). The plot is pretty good, if perhaps not the *most* original ever, and it features something of an inconsistency(another reviewer comments on this, too) with Star Wars canon. There are many different areas in the SW universe, all rather nicely done. Level design/LOD are great, if not quite as expertly done as that of the first, but there are definitely some marvelous things to be found... these include switches and such that you activate with your Force Powers, a vehicle or two(not spoiling the surprise in this review), and more. Difficulty settings are fairly well-done, if parts of the game seem overly challenging regardless of which you play on. The boss enemies are fun, for one immediately obvious reason, but the explanation behind them(and thus, how compelling a presence they are) just doesn't measure up to that of the first... even if there are far, far more of them. Graphics(the engine is a modified version of that of Quake III) are absolutely *gorgeous*. Blaster fire, the levels, the *Lightsabers*... oh my. This helps make the fact that the cut-scenes are now(as opposed to the live-action of the first) almost entirely engine-based(supplemented with a handful of CGI-sequences) easier to accept, as does the reasonable cinematography and range of animations, and the flawless programming of both. AI is magnificent, enemies behave realistically throughout, if the range could have been better. Sound and music are excellent, throughout, wide range of both and the quality is top-notch all the way. The game-play is entertaining, and that is an(but not the only one) aspect where this really lives up to the first(and at times surpasses it... although there are parts of this that are surpassed by the first). Both as a straight FPS and as third-person-action, the game is an *enormously* fun time in the SW galaxy. The Single Player portion is of adequate length, and is of high quality throughout, nothing seems tacked on. Almost everything in the game is fully developed. The Lightsaber is almost perfect. The power of it, the deflection... in this game, their appearance closer resemble those of the new trilogy of films, at least in part due to the release of the first of them having been to the theaters when they were making it. The swings are also far more effective and fast(again, with the release of Episode 1). I'm still not a fan of the throwing(and it gets to be downright common, here), but they kind of had to have it, after it appeared in Mysteries of the Sith. This time around(in Single Player), more of the game passes before you get your saber, and, well, let's just say, it wasn't by accident the demo(which is very much worth playing, by the way, and not just to see if you'll like the full game, either) had you starting out with it(although the level where you get it is... worth fighting your way to). The saber duelling... that's a tough one. Allow me to make a deduction, based on what I've seen of it in games(which, admittedly, is not that much, but maybe there just isn't all that much of it)... fencing, sword-fighting, in games that aren't exclusively dedicated to it, has to somewhat decide between which it's going to be more of... freedom, fun and swift movements, or strategy, effectiveness and, to a degree, realism. The latter group is, for example, the first two Prince of Persia games, and both this and the third game(where the focus still laid largely laid in the second of the two categories) of that series attempt for a mix... in the case of both, the result is that you can hack and slash away effortlessly and, more by chance than anything else, take out boss enemies and other players. In this game, there is still an unmistakable requirement of skill, if nothing or nowhere else, then when you face multi-player foes that are superior, and possibly a boss enemy or two, as well. But it won't look like those scenes in the films. In every other case, the Lightsaber, and just about everything in the entire game, does look right, however. One or two things don't look exactly right, but that's it. The weapons are another success story. Unlike that of the first, where it was more or less of a sporadic nature which did and which didn't, here, *every* weapon has an alternate fire mode. Said secondary fire tends to be remarkably useful, too. Not all from the first game return, but I'm not sure there's a single FPS armory need that isn't covered. Nothing gets phoned in this. Multiplayer is... what can I say? 'Addictive' may be the word(and bot supported). In addition to the main ones(FFA, Team FFA and CTF), there are some interesting(and entertaining!) playing modes... Duel, Holocron FFA and Jedi Master. The first one is self-explanatory... saber fights, one on one, in kind of a tournament. The second is FFA, Free For All, but with all the Force Powers in Holocrons(cubes you can pick up) in the level, and every player starts without any. Last, but by no means least... Jedi Master. There's a Lightsaber at one point in the level. Pick it up, and you're Jedi Master. Full level of every Force Power, and the saber as your only weapon. Only the Master can earn points, and killing him releases the Jedi weapon of choice for other players to pick up. The Force Powers really rival said blade in joy-bringing... they're awesome, well-done, well-rounded, with little to no exception. They get more powerful as the game progresses, in set order and pace, but this works well. You also get to use both sides, in SP. I recommend this to fans of Star Wars, action games and FPS. 7/10


Star Wars Jedi Outcast follows the ex-Jedi Kyle Katarn and the never ending battle between good and evil. I picked up this game a couple of months ago because I had played Dark Forces and Academy. As you can probably expect I had high expectations.

In terms of game play it wasn't that bad but some of the characters can get on your nerves. There isn't the freedom as there was in academy as you don't get to choose which force powers you want and don't. In true Star Wars fashion however there are loads of cheats and hints available on the internet. Some missions can be somewhat repetitive at times but you can be sure than many of them will have you tearing at the gums because you can't find your way. The graphics in the game aren't that bad but not as good as some i'm currently playing.


While the gameplay of Jedi Knight II is far superior to Jedi Knight, I think the game is a bit of a dissapointment in other areas. For one thing, I much prefer the live action cutscenes in JK1 to the ones rendered with the game engine in JK2. The live action cutscenes really brought the story to life in JK1. Since the acting in JK2 is done by Quake 3 models, the cutscenes lack any sign of life. They look especially lifeless and flat where there are supposed to be emotional scenes, such as Jan and Kyle kissing.

I have played JK1 many times and I always watch the cutscenes fully. I even go back sometimes just to watch the cutscenes because they are done so well. When I play JK2 again, I'll probably just skip the cutscenes because I think they look very amateurish. It's almost as if the cutscenes are an afterthought to join the levels together, not as a part of the overall story as in Jedi Knight.

*Spoilers below*

Now we come to the story. While JK2's story is ok, it is no where near as good as JK1. In the beginning of the game we find out that Kyle has given up his force abilities. He and Jan now operate as mercenaries for the New Republic. After several levels fighting imperials, it appears as if Jan is killed by a Dark Jedi called Desann. Kyle then goes to Luke Skywalker to get his lightsaber and force abilities back so he can avenge Jan's death.

Now here is the really odd part about this story. It doesn't seem to bother Luke that Kyle wants to regain his force powers so he can get revenge. If I understand Star Wars correctly, revenge along with fear, hate, agression, etc... will lead to the Dark side! Don't you think Luke would try to object to this a bit more? The rest of it is pretty average "kill the bad guy and get the girl" type stuff.

*Spoilers end*

Overall, Raven have done an excellent job with the gameplay and level design, but the story is pretty average and I REALLY WANT PROPER CUTSCENES!!!

I gave it 8/10 though because the game is a lot of fun to play and the multiplayer is excellent. If it wasn't for the excellent gameplay, I would have only given it 5/10.


The Quake 3 engine is used to excellent effect here by Raven. The game plays excellently, the first levels play nicely, presenting a nicely challenging first person shooter. Once you acquire the lightsabre about a third of the way through the game you begin to increase your force powers and the game, unfortunately, becomes laughably easy. The lightsabre deflects just about every single weapon blast, and simply standing in a corner will often clear a room for you. It's not until the later levels with the appearance of more lightsabre equipped enemies that it becomes more challenging again.

However in Multiplayer the game really begins to shine, it has the standard Deathmatch, Capture the Flag and some specific and unusual game modes. But essentially it's Quake 3 with lightsabres. There is a true 'honour' community amongst players, bowing to each other, not attacking when a guys sabre is deactivated (means I wish to talk) and other such courtesy. I've never had so much fun when fragging.


I highly recommend this game if you like star wars then you will like this game. Good graphics good detail the light saber animations are awesome if you have a high speed processor and videocard like I do the yavin level is visually stunning especially with all resources maxed out you can see the rain fizzle out on the light saber. Definatly a must.


This is a little gem for those wanting a bit of relaxed entertainment. Unfortunately it came in a period when Kelly/Donen were setting a new standard for big production and very rapid pacing, so it was out of fashion and ignored. Everyone is charming; Marge and Gower Champion are at their peak, Bob Fosse is just hitting his stride (amusing that his screen persona was so charmingly little-boyish, in contrast to the dark angular sexiness of his later stage choreographies), and Debbie Reynolds is pixie-ish as ever. Helen Wood was not a great actress, but she was necessary to provide an additional dance flavor (see below).

To differ from another reviewer, I think that Kurt Kaznar was perfect for the Leo Belney part, at least as it was written. He carries off being totally suggestible, changing opinion instantly, and having an equal conviction in each new attitude.

Though they don't make a big deal about it, the film was mirroring a real conundrum facing Broadway directors at that period: what kind of dance to use? Tap was still around but on its way out; a kind of jazz-ballet blend was becoming mainstream; the avant-garde was a more dramatic and angular "modern" dance. Which would the public go for in the next show?


Another movie I had never heard of before I saw it on TCM. Robert Osborne pointed out afterwards the amusing anecdote about Mrs. Ira Gershwin saying to her husband after seeing the rushes of this film: "If you've got any MGM stock sell it!" He also said that MGM too had no faith in this movie and underdistributed it shamefully. That's probably why I never heard of it before. But this is scandalous! It's a brilliant and iconic and wonderful movie and needs to be talked about whenever the good old days of MGM musicals are discussed. Imagine all those talented dancers, choreographers and directors all there together in one movie: The Champions, Fosse, Robbins, Donen, Burton Lane, Ira Gershwin, etc. (Brilliant lyrics! "Our united state,""house full of cute representatives" etc, etc: brother George would have been proud!) Helen Wood's brilliant dancing made we wonder whatever became of her. A movie which combined venerable genres (the inside Broadway genre: 42nd Street, Lullaby of Broadway; the psychoanalytic dream sequence/vignette genre: Lady in the Dark, Oklahoma, Tales of Manhattan, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, etc; career vs family genres: The Red Shoes) with things yet to come (The Turning Point). But the bottom line is: such dancing! To the Astaire and Kelly movies should be added this Champion/Fosse/Donen movie. So sad there weren't more of them!


This movie that originally was going to include Fred Astaire, Gene Kelley, Judy Garland and Ann Miller was left with some great dancers such as Gower/Marge Champion and Bob Fosse.

Some people insist that this is a gem - this fanatic of great musicals (flicks that include great dancing, singing and acting), this is just an innocuous adventure of entertainment performed by talented dancers.

The Gower/Marge Champion numbers seemed to be the recipient of more time and money with more well-thought out production values. The Bob Fosse numbers seem surprisingly off-kilter that only suggests the great work that he will be doing in the future.

One could attribute this to Gower's good fortune of dancing with a great dance partner that he can personally bond with. It was fun seeing a dance partnership providing some of the best highlights of the film. The Bob Fosse/Debbie Reynolds seem to suffer because Debbie couldn't fully realize the moves that Fosse was giving her - especially since she was much younger than him. (Note: Interesting seeing a "perky" choreographed dance numbers, especially considering the sharp/edgy/sexily-tinged/jazzy moves that Fosse give to the world).

In addition, Stanley Donen didn't do Fosse any favors with the "backward" footage that looks "out-of-placed" and/or awkward - good ideas that didn't quite produce the desired effects.

Note: Bob Fosse is not a singer - though he tries hard. His best works can be found in much of his latter work and/or in films where he's dancing with Dan Dailey, Gene Kelley and many others.

It's too bad that Bob Fosse and Gower Champion couldn't get along - hence denied the general public of what would be created with these immensely talented dancer/choreographers. A dance showdown between Fred Astaire/Gene Kelley (seen in "The Great Ziegfield") and the team of Fosse/Champion would have been great to experience!! Wouldn't it be fascinating discovering why there were serious fractions that eventually had Bob Fosse/Stanley Donen vs. Gower Champion/Marge Champion/Debbie Reynolds.

fyi: George Chakiris (of "West Side Story" fame) can also be seen in the movie btw: MGM didn't even release this film in New York, that demonstrated their "faith" in this flick. One can only imagine what would have resulted if this $2M film (a big amount for that time) had the originally intended cast of Gene Kelly, Fed Astaire, Judy Garland and Ann Miller - what can only have dream the magic from the Burton Lane/Ira Gershwin songs?!?!


While certainly not one of MGM's "classic" musicals, GIVE A GIRL A BREAK has its moments of fun and suspense. Of the three girls auditioning for a role in a musical, which one will land it. The audition itself is quite strange in that each of the three girls just dances a couple of minutes and all three do a different number. Shouldn't they be doing the same one? Also, this is supposed to be a musical revue, yet no one is asked to sing or do a scene. Aside from that, there are many moments of real entertainment, especially be two soon-to-be Broadway choreographers, Bob Fossee and Gower Champion. Debbie Reynolds is in there doing her usual perky singing and dancing to good effect. The unknown Helen Wood, while not very convincing in her acting scenes, is one hell of a dancer. Reminds one of Cyd Charisse, but with a warmer quality. GIVE A GIRL A BREAK is part of the Warner Archive collection with a fairly good disc pressing. For those who enjoy the "old style" musicals with a weakish plot but great musical numbers, this is one to see.


Hesitantly I went to this movie after reading an interesting review on a local freebie. As I expected we were about 10 people watching this film at peak time (Friday night) in a major art-films theater. It didn't matter because this is perhaps one of the best films I have seen this year. This a fully realized piece with extraordinary performances, excellent photography, superb set design/atmosphere, music, certainly the work of a great director. The story of two people who get together in a dead end relationship becomes fascinating the longer one watches them walk the road towards its logical conclusion. I personally didn't care about their "motivations" or their "backgrounds" as I have ceased to expect any logic from life. I took each second the way it came, each surprising turn, each new wrinkle in an apparently plotless movie. The ending is absolutely perfect as anyone will interpret it the way he/she wants. For me it brought up the power of memories/dreams/fantasies that don't let go, where pale and boring reality can't compete, even if one is aware that a fantasy is a fantasy. This film is much better than anything that has come out of Sundance and could have had a good shot at Cannes.

A must see if you like Bergman films: I was a thoroughly depressed individual when I walked out, and very happy to be one.


Noticed this on cable last night and wasn't sure I was going to watch the entire film; there was another movie starting in about half an hour that I was thinking of switching to...but by the time the reminder for that film came on my screen, I knew I was in for the duration.

Praise lures you in with the shockingly gnarly realism of its sex-crazed female protagonist Cynthia, portrayed with beyond-fearless, jaw-dropping commitment by Sacha Horler. Cynthia is RAW, literally, and she lives for only one thing: physical pleasure. She's an animal, basically, an primal being totally devoid of any domestication, a wildebeast in perpetual heat, and our 'hero' Gordon is both repulsed and attracted (as we are) by Cynthia's blatancy - she's everything he's not, and eventually he submits to her warped energy, her whirlwind of over-indulgence (and of course her sexuality), and for a short while his life has meaning.

You realize going in that this film will not turn into yer basic "and-they-lived-happily-ever-after" number, so we're not surprised when -=- MINOR SPOILER -=- Gordo finally has had enough; this damsel of the deranged has literally drained him dry and he has to cut her loose. The most poignant part of the movie, for me, takes place at the end, when, quite simply, Cynthia isn't there anymore, and we feel her absence just as profoundly as Gordon does.


Storywise, this film is perfect. Seriously, this is more or less the exact story i wish movies told. I don't know why there aren't more movies like it, really. Not only is it by far my favorite "twentysomething mopey slacker" movie (the only good one, really), but it ranks up there in the tragic love story department as well. Unfortunately, in terms of actual "filmmaking" the story isn't really done justice, although it's not so bad that it really weakens the film significantly. The cinematography and so on is competent but never really inspired. Pretty bland (some nice lighting though at parts). And the pace and tone are somewhat uneven, particularly towards the beginning. The film starts pretty choppy, narratively speaking, and at first it goes way too fast. Eventually it settles into a good groove though and towards the later part of the film the pace has adjusted itself comfortably. It also focuses tone-wise as the film progresses. At first the tone is a little haphazard and there are some attempts at cuteness and quirkiness that don't go over so well. The soul of the film is clearly a drama and not a comedy, and the director seemed to realize this part of the way through. But it's safe to say that overall the moments of greatness far outweigh the few awkward, misdirected moments. And in any case, i like the story enough that it can carry almost anything.


"Praise" is a slice-of-misery Aussie flick which looks into the waxing and waning of a relationship between a sexually obsessed woman and her taciturn and less experienced boyfriend while both languish in a life of self indulgence, sex, indolence, sex, drugs, sex and more sex. "Praise" is one of those films which slip between the cracks of public consciousness for want of broad market appeal and entertainment value while garnering critical and industry acclaim for its ability to faithfully portray difficult human issues. A good flick for adult cinema devotees who are as interested in execution as in content.


Loved the book, I've read it many times, but the movie did leave out much of the plot. The book was more sexually charged, less depressing with greater depth. Had some great dark comedic moments though probably greatly exaggerated from McGahan's own experiences.

I lived in Brisbane during the early 90's with my girlfriend at a boarding house in inner city Windsor. A few old alcoholics lived in the rooms above. We were poor uni students so the book takes me back to that time. I can relate to those wasted days of drugs, alcohol, sex and strange nights out in The Valley.

I'd say a lot of Andrew McGahan's novel would be autobiographical as he went to The University of Queensland though dropped out before finishing his Arts Degree. He probably worked at one of the local bottle shops like the RE, Regatta or the Cri, had a sex crazy girlfriend and drank a lot of alcohol and experimented with drugs as you do.

This is a coming of age story that I believe many could relate to from their youth. You must read the novel, it's great.


"Praise" is definitely not a promotion for Brisbane, as it's a very contemporary "Days of Wine and Roses" where booze is only part of the couple's addictions and power plays in a weird but very compelling very, very, very frank co-dependency relationship.

Be prepared for a lot of nudity of a body covered in eczema rashes.

The script is by the author of the book it's based on, so I guess he meant for the ending to just trail off where about the only thing the main character achieves is a hair cut. And boy did I keep wanting to tell him to clean up that room!

The only other people in the audience were a noisy couple in front of me who came to see it for its Scrabble sub-text and when bored otherwise kept stretching their arms up right in front of my face.

(originally written 7/6/2000)


Like the previous reviewer I read about "Praise's" appearance in our local art theatre (may have been the same showing) and came down to check it out. Like great writing, great film-making successfully journals the trials of everyday human conditions, rather than stringing together cinematic cliches. "Praise" accomplishes this as we immediately believe there are no actors, only we the audience feeling rather voyueristic and nodding with every move Gordon & Cynthia make as if we would have done the same. Unlike many directors, John Curran leaves much to his audience's judgement. I knew I'd watched the great telling of a great story, but also had a sincere appreciation for Curran's respect of our integrity as viewers. I'm left wondering why it took two years for "Praise" to reach Hollywood. Did someone in Australia put it in a bottle and throw it in the ocean toward the United States, drifting toward North America while we were plagued with "Gone in 60 Seconds" and "Mission Impossible 2"? Thank you!


"Praise" broadens my appreciation of Australian film and Australians. It is a fascinating departure from the well explored Australian themes of brusque humor and drinking gags. Australians have feelings too. Who knew? The realism of the film is gritty and smells genuine. The story's core is profoundly basic and human. The camera work is wonderful. Fenton and Horler have faces and bodies that are treated like landscapes, initially jarring for their distinctive and atypical attributes and eventually becoming familiar elements of the story itself. Brilliant realism. The supporting cast contributes wonderfully. It is a diverse collection of characters, some outstanding and others quite gray. I will have to see this film again. I know it will bring another enhanced experience. For now, however, it has left me full and still digesting.


What a bore this film was , why is it that when Australians make films about grotty dirty people with no zest for life and basically are dull , people stand and praise these films. Wake up these sort of films are not original and not even good story telling , Australia has made a many better films then this one, lets hope this vanishes into that wilderness of forgotten dull Aussie films.


Reviewed at its 3rd & final screening Sat. Sept 16, 2006 at the Varsity 3 cinema during the Toronto International Film Festival. The film had world premiered earlier during the fest on Sept 9 at the Isabel Bader Theatre.

This road movie with touches of dark comedy was a pleasure to see and touched the heart many times. It is story of a "Kurdish Mozart" (as imagined by the director - a fictional living legend Kurdish composer/musician with a whole orchestra of sons and daughters) and his struggle to get to a major music festival in Iraqi Kurdistan from Irani Kurdistan. It was fascinating and life-affirming.

Even as the film had several moments of desperation and despair on the way the whole thing was lightened by touches like a comedic bus driver, various moments of interaction between the father and his sometimes reluctant or rebellious sons and the resilience of a young woman named Papooli (Butterfly) who was born with the name Niwe mung (Half Moon).

Director Bahman Ghobadi was an enthusiastic show-up for the 3rd screening and gave many interesting tidbits during his Q&A such as info on the banning of female singing and musicians in present day Iran for the past 28 years, that his self-censorship on the film did not help it to get past Irani censors so that he may re-cut the film for the later general international release now anyway (restoring more scenes of female singing & playing) and that the whole 7 months of seeking for travel permits subplot in this film was a nod to the struggles he had to get his earlier "Turtles Can Fly" film made.

This film was 1 of 7 in TIFF 2006's Mozart - A New Crowned Hope series which is a sneak peek at the series before it screens at the Vienna Mozart Year Festival in December 2006.

Highly recommended and a worthy successor to the director's previous films.


Half Moon is a road movie with a difference. An elderly man Moma (portrayed with great range and nuance by Ismail Ghaffari), a celebrity singer in his native Iraqi Kurdistan, sets out by bus from Iran with an entourage of his musician sons to his homeland to perform in a large public concert. With seven months of rehearsals, official permits and visas carefully arranged, nothing could go wrong, right? Well, this is border country between bitter enemies Iran, Iraq and the highly marginalised Kurds who are basically a dispossessed people without a country and held in contempt by both countries as well as Turkey. This film illustrates what can go wrong.

While beautifully filmed in some beautifully stark landscapes, the real richness of Half Moon - like most Iranian films screened here - is in the simplicity of the story and the attention to detail to the struggles of seemingly mundane activities. The cultural aspects are especially fascinating. The authority of Moma as the family patriarch is evident; his middle aged sons all hold him in high esteem and cower before him. Not unexpectedly,as Iran does not allow women to sing in public, there are specific issues with involving a woman in such a cultural endeavour.

The family and social dynamics depicted breathe life into this little gem of a film. Music is a universal language that binds people, so when contempt is shown by the Iranian border guards, it has a powerful effect on the audience. My in-laws are similarly musicians of a dispossessed people (Pontians, Greek orthodox who once lived in Turkey), so I could relate well to the scenario in the film.

It was interesting to see the advancement of technologies such as cell phones and wireless internet laptops creeping into these otherwise isolated communities. The film is full of beautifully understated performances and naturalistic humour and drama. I highly recommend it, and like most Iranian films I have seen, is something I would take my six year old son to see (were it to get a theatrical release).


Half Moon begins amidst a frenetic atmosphere as a pair of fighting cocks scrap in a room packed full of jostling, shouting men. But from this boisterous opening there emerges a slow-paced road movie in which a group of Kurdish musicians undertake a bus journey to perform at a concert in Iraqi Kurdistan. Their trek takes us through some stunningly bleak scenery, from dull-brown dusty plains to snow-capped peaks and towns clinging to mountainsides.

The most striking scene in the film features a town full of hundreds of exiled female singers, who line the street and tops of buildings as the travelling musicians retrieve a fellow performer for the concert. The absurdity of this acts as a clever commentary on the banning of female musicians in Islamic Iran and there are countless further insights into the lives of Kurdish people throughout Half Moon. The nerve-wracking confrontations with border guards testify to the great difficulties faced by the Kurds in being divided across four countries and treated frequently as second-class citizens. Somewhat strangely for a film about travelling musicians the film does not afford a great deal of attention to the music of the people whom it portrays, but there are nevertheless some very interesting sounds to be heard here.

Engaging with the storyline can be difficult at times due the contrasting moods and a tendency to jump back and forth in time. Although not often laugh-out-loud in nature, there are many moments of warm-hearted humour during the film. On the other hand, dark omens abound throughout and create a growing sense of foreboding. The combination of these elements seems incongruous on occasion but they are drawn together in a moving climax. I found parts of the film falling into place long after I left my seat in the cinema and I regard that as a rare and valuable thing.


Also known as Half Moon this film is a road movie in which a number of Kurdish musicians living in Iran plan to travel to Iraqi-Kurdistan to give a concert. It starts with gathering the players of the band in a small town in Iran and then travels on by bus through the battered lands.

As expected from a road movie a number of things happens to the travelers and there is a nice balance between some mild comedy and some drama. Nothing of what happens is entirely out of touch and with that the film (or better said, the bus) rolls on with the gentle speed of a backwater river.

All in all, a pleasant but slow way to spend an evening, watching the adventures of a band of elder musicians on their way through life.

7 out of 10 faithful musicians


This movie is poetry in action. It has elements of the humorous, dark, ridiculous, sublime, mysterious, evocative all rolled in. The actual events shown somehow faded from the overall sense of poetic experience at the end of the movie. The music ranges from tragic to enchanting and it's a primary component of the movie. It is shown to have powers to bring back the dead. The landscapes shown are also stunning and stark. Its almost like the natural environment is designed for expression of grief  which reflects the political situation in the region. The final product is powerful. I would like to watch more from this Director  he definitely has a keen eye for the subtle. He has intelligently showcased optimism for life with its incumbent struggles and sometimes futility.


Being tired of watching U.S. detective and spy movies, with all their over used cliches (the spy who falls in love and must not, as in "The Saint", the nice looking hero who saves the free world, the Russians as being always the evil guys and sort of) all I can say about this one is that it recaptures the original meaning of detective movies, and shows us at the same time a new perspective (the troubles by keeping the detective job secret from the family, the unusual emotional ties between the assassin and a journalist, the passive role of the government in the crime, etc).

A very well time-paced movie with a intelligent and mature plot rarely seen in detective and action movies this days. I strongly recommend it.


This is an excellent film with high production values and the two leading actors are superb. Don't be put off by the subtitles, a lot of it is in English with Michael Kitchen doing all his own speaking in English, so no captions for these scenes. I knew nothing about this political killing, but was gripped from start to finish. It's also one of those films that benefits from being watched more than once. Mikael Piersbrandt is terrific as the policeman who believes he knows what's going on, but can't make his superiors listen, while Michael Kitchen as the hired British hitman, provides a splendid contrast as he sets about his task in a cool, professional and frighteningly unemotional way. I was hooked right up to the last moment, and had to keep reminding myself that this wasn't necessarily what really happened. However, it's a very believable hypothesis, and gripping entertainment. Don't miss it, a real little gem!


A brilliant movie, with a standard but good and complex plot that changes all the time. (Even better than any of the Swedish Hamiton and also the Beck movies where the main actor Mikael Persbrandt plays a main support role.)


A brilliant movie, with a standard but good and complex plot that changes all the time. (Even better than any of the Swedish Hamilton and also the Beck movies where the main actor Mikael Persbrandt plays a main support role.) The plot is built upon the assasination of Prime Minster Olof Palme. One pregnant error in the script concerns the Swedish political party EAP which is used as one of the scape goats. It never was a right-wing nazi party as shown in the movie. Still, the movie is one of the best thrillers I have seen in a bout one year. It is better than the best US movies, such as "Enemy of the State" due to the higher complexity and the high social realism which is more typical of European movies.


On 28 February 1986, the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme, was assassinated in Stockholm. The assassin has never been found. This movie tells the story of how the killing _might_ have happened, without pointing any fingers at who were pulling the threads. Swedish policeman Roger Nyman is promoted to the Special Branch/Secret police. He stumbles across the information that an international hitman is in Sweden. What is he up to? As Nyman uncovers the chilling truth, his investigation is ignored, if not directly hampered by his superiors.

The movie shows an interesting and vivid account of Sweden in the mid-eighties, and in a way accuses the Swedish general public of allowing an atmosphere to arise, in which the assassination became possible. But it also works as an exciting thriller, even if you have never heard the name Olof Palme before. A cross between "The Day of the Jackal" and Oliver Stone's "JFK" springs to mind. This movie deserves a larger audience than, as a Swedish film, it is probably going to get.


Much has been written and speculated about this sad part of Swedish history. This movie presents an interesting view on how things may have unfolded. Almost 20 years and numerous investigations and commissions later still the whole truth has not come to see the light of day.

If you enjoy historical thrillers then this is a movie for you.


Who was behind the murder of progressive Swedish leader Olof Palme in 1986? More than twenty years after the deed, the crime remains unsolved. This movie avoids naming real names behind the murder, but it suggests an international right wing conspiracy. The movie is shot as a thriller and the main characters are a Swedish police officer who suspects something big and ominous is going to happen in his country and tries unsuccessfully to prevent it, a mysterious but strangely charming British contract killer ready to pull the trigger, and a beautiful Swedish journalist whose choice of lover ends quite badly for her. I found this movie quite interesting, even though I'm not Swedish and I don't know a lot about Swedish politics.


This film could've been made only by someone with a deep love of cinema : an homage to movies, coming from the heart. It's just too bad that Colin McKenzie didn't live to see his work being appreciated ...

Come to tink of it: it's just too bad that Colin didn't live at all. What a loss!


Peter Jackson and Costa Boeates decided to make this great mockumentary about a man called Colin McKenzie, a man who invented such things as color film, audio film and above all, made the first full length feature movie.

Apparently it was quite a successful hoax in New Zealand, people really did buy it. And I really can't blame them, as most of the fabricated film material really looks like almost hundred years old, almost destroyed film.

And there are some very convincing famous film people, like Sam Neil, telling their knowledge of this McKenzie.

Even the tone of the film isn't actually very funny, even thought there are some things in it that are so absurd, that they make you laugh.

Over all well made mockumentary.


When I first saw this on Spanish TV years ago, I didn't know it was fake. In fact I didn't find out for some time, even after I had taped it and rewatched over and over and marvelled at this amazing story and even retold it with childlike enthusiasm and wonder to my less cinephile friends. It was such an overwhelming tragedy, a story that just went upwards in emotion all the time and ended with an inimaginable bang. And I couldn't help myself but think "My God, why didn't Peter Jackson make a movie with this material, instead of just a documentary? There's a drama of epic proportions here just waiting to be filmed!"

And then, months afterwards, I found out. It was too good a story to be true, of course. But I was still thankful to Jackson and Botes for making me believe it and making me feel that fascination. I'm sure Spinal Tap must be a lot funnier and Blair Witch a lot scarier if you watch them not knowing they are fake.

I still treasure Forgotten Silver in my video collection as the best documentary I have ever seen. Even if what it tells is not true.


Documentary is all about taking real life and shaping it into a story. 'Forgotten Silver' suggests that real part doesn't even have to be real, as long as the story's good.

I watched this again tonight - probably the 4th or 5th time I've seen it since it was first screened as an (allegedly) true doco back in 1996. Despite knowing the whole thing was cod, I was quite surprised to find tears in my eyes as NZ pioneer film-maker Colin McKenzie accidentally filmed his own death in Spain, so drawn was I into the story.

Once you strip away the hype over the hoax factor, what's left is just a great story about a struggling film maker facing and almost overcoming insurmountable obstacles to create a work of mad genius. Anyone expecting belly laughs from 'Forgotten Silver' is probably going to be disappointed, because viewed as a story, this isn't a comedy - it's a tragedy. It's no wonder so many people were sucked into believing it when it first screened - the Colin McKenzie saga has an emotional depth which is heartbreaking.

Bonus points for a brilliant musical score, some superb technical effects (especially the corroded, bubbling, self-destructing nitrate film; most filmmakers would have settled for a couple of cliché tramlines to make the footage look old), and the gorgeous Thomas Robbins as Colin McKenzie.


After the notorious splatter period and of course massively praised "Heavenly creatures" - his very first motion picture with a slightly more serious look and feel, the insane New Zealander Peter Jackson directed "Forgotten silver" with Costa Botes. So far it is definitely one of the most ingenious projects of his whole career.

"Forgotten silver" (just like Woody Allen's classic "Zelig") is filled with silly, senseless and absurd ideas and details to make it all sound a bit too suspicious to be actually true but not enough to make it completely unbelievable either. Actually I've seen real-life documentaries that are even harder to swallow than this. The big joke is that even if it sounds unbelievable it's a documentary and you have to believe it because documentaries always tells you the truth. If you can't trust a documentary then what is there left to trust in the world?

So Peter Jackson once again did something highly forbidden and un-ethical and made a documentary that's only a one big, dirty lie. The dedication Jackson and Botes had just to tell a story of a fictional person is certainly something incredible and respectable. Swindle it may be, but nevertheless from the opening scene when Peter Jackson tells about his amazing discovery of Colin McKenzie's lost film footage to that last picture of McKenzie filming himself using a mirror "Forgotten silver" is a terrific and fascinating story and truly a first-rate documentary. 10/10.


I vividly remember the first time I watched this movie. The lead up to the finding of the old films was without any obvious clues, so it wasn't 'til the Richard Pearse footage that we became seriously suspicious. My husband is a forensic photographer so the digital imaging to get the date off the newspaper was a dead giveaway to us. The eleventy seven dozen eggs was another big pointer. From then on we treated the whole thing as a lark and just revelled in the imagination that is Peter Jackson's trade mark.

We were of course, greatly impressed with the enormity of the project and could only surmise that the actors in the "Salome" movie were also conned into thinking they were filming a real movie and didn't know the truth until the 'doco' came out. Either that or Peter Jackson has a loyal entourage that kept a secret which could never have survived in any Hollywood arena.

I look forward to even more of Peters work.....


Peter Jackson is amazing. I know mockumetaries have been done before but never has one fooled so many so easily. I swear 80% of NZ fell for it, and I admit it, I fell for this one hard and fast too. It really makes you take a look at this country . This was such a clever way to laugh the ways of New Zealander's and the blind belief in documentary:

Kiwi's are obsessed at being best and first at as many things as possible. This may be due to the fact we have less worldwide status and we desire to be recognised for something.

Documentary is a strange genre because we are told to believe something, often without real evidence (or with altered and misconstrued evidence). Jackson captures this unfounded faith in the documentary by making you believe something completely false. It teaches you to take everything in film and television that is supposedly 'real', with a big grain of salt.

Overall, very provocative


Jackson pull this one great! It is not so believeable as some other mockumentaries (like "Curse of the Blair Witch") but this one is so funny and soo well done !

Some scenes are obviously fake but made me laugh well :) and some are so impressive especially fake silent movies that really looks like 90 years old copies (Jackson himself can be seen as extra in some scenes in "Saloma" oD )! They really did excelent job - I admire all efforts that was put to shoot it.

Relly great and funny movie that just must be seen!

10/10


Peter Jackson has a big heart, I think. Even for all the gore and grossness of his films (i.e.; Dead Alive aka Braindead) he always has a very heartfelt moment of sentiment. In this film, it's the loving way McKenzie is treated and the seriousness of his death scene, captured on film. While much of the film has very tongue in cheek chuckles, this part is played very seriously.

Also, as someone who works every day with "forgotten silver", I admire his treatment of the whole subject. For, while McKenzie and his films may be bogus, the plight of old movies is not. I'm amazed at how much footage shows up in attics and basements and garden sheds every year. In just the eight months so far of 1999, we have received at least 30 "new" films; rare and unique items all. And we have films done by people very much like Colin McKenzie. Private, personal projects, most of which never saw the light of day or vanished quickly after their initial release. So much "forgotten silver."


****Warning, Spoilers*******

Hopefully the success of Lord of the Rings will encourage more people to seek out this wonderful 1995 mockumentary. This short film not only showcases Peter Jackson's versatility as a director, but also acts as a tribute to the early pioneers of cimema. Yes, the whole thing is one big lie, but it's a lie which may just get casual viewers interested in the work of the likes of D.W. Griffith and the Lumiere brothers, who are regularly namechecked in the film.

At first sight, the story of New Zealand film pioneer Colin McKenzie is completely convincing. Details of his life are intercut with real historical events such as the First World War and the Spanish Civil War. The footage from McKenzie's films looks authentically degraded, just as if it had been shot on primitive cameras a century ago. Peter Jackson and co narrate the story in a completely straight, documentary style, while the inclusion of interviews with real life industry figures such as Harvey Weinstein, Leonard Maltin and Sam Neil lends the film an air of absolute authenticity (so much so that, as the DVD making-of reveals, for 24 hours after the initial showing of the film on TV, New Zealand thought it had discovered a lost national hero). But then little doubts start to creep in, and this is where much of the humour is. To say any more would be to spoil it, but needless to say much of the fun in Forgotten Silver comes from the fact that Peter Jackson and Costa Botes were so successful in pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while at the same time including absolutely outrageous details in McKenzie's life.

As a side note, it's interesting to note the similarities between McKenzie's epic production of Salome and Peter Jackson's real life epic of The Lord of the Rings, which was four years away from filming at the time of Forgotten Silver's release. Salome, the production of which makes the shooting of Apocalypse Now seem like the filming of an average episode of Friends, took it's creator five years to film, featured epic battle sequences and required a huge cast and the construction of massive sets in the New Zealand country side. Sound familiar? If nothing else, this is a spooky foreshadowing of Jackson's later career in one of his own films. Then again, maybe Jackson had always wanted to make an epic, but at that stage in his career had to settle for a fake one.

Either way, Forgotten Silver is an utterly delightful, charming hoax which surely deserves a wider audience.

Rating - 8/10


I'm reminded seeing Forgotten Silver- of course after knowing that it was all a 'hoax' and that there is no filmmaker Colin MacKenzie- of a film where another hoax was played but with real filmmakers, Incident at Loch Ness. In both films the the ones making the film put themselves in the film, and the stories within the film within the films are fantastical and ambitious turns (in Loch Ness, a documentary by Werner Herzog about the search for Nessie, and in Silver, Peter Jackson's search for the elusive location and film cans of the first un-finished feature-length film made in New Zealand). In Forgotten Silver, however, the satire isn't really on high about how a film gets made from start to finish, although it does include that as part of it. It's really out to mock what was so delightful and absurd about the lengths to which filmmakers in the silent era looked to be further and further with their innovations and wild dreams of ambitious epics, but usually succumbed to the easiest thing- making people laugh.

Colin MacKenzie, the "pinoeer" presented in this mockumentary by Jackson and his collaborator Costa Botes, is such a filmmaker, and his up & downs type story is chronicled and inter-cut with the search for the missing film he took twenty years to make and had to hide away as to not have it taken away by the Russians &/or Italian mob. It's also done in a seemingly straightforward documentary way, like seeing one of the PBS specials or something (I'm also reminded of the recent mock-doc Confederate States of America). It ends up not being a laugh a minute really, and I found myself chuckling more than getting full gut-busting laughs like with some of Jackson's more twisted comedies like Meet the Feebles or Dead/Alive. What's amusing more-so to me is that the 'secret' of Colin MacKenzie- and that so many in New Zealand ended up thinking he was for real and did really film his friend beating the Wright brothers to flight by several months and things like that- came under the package of a Peter Jackson product, who before making this had three of his four works as some of the most absurd, low-budget pieces of work to ever come from that corner of the world.

But once that passes, and the idea that the hoax ends up working in showing what is great about the whole evolution and history of careers with directors in movies, as well as the kind of precision in restoring film, while at the same time putting some good touches to lampoon it. This comes out clearest in the actual silent footage itself, where MacKenzie breaks through first with color, but because he (unintentionally) shoots topless natives in the shot, he's thrown in jail after the judges deliberate long enough to watch the footage repeatedly. There's also MacKenzie's bread & butter as he tries to finance his pet project, Salome (the film Jackson and his team are sort of after in present-day), which are the random silent comedies of Stan the Man (Peter Corrigan in hilarious make-up), who goes about hitting people un-suspecting pies, as he figures that attacks that are on the innocent (which happens after he strikes a child in one of his early comedies) could work well, that is, until the Prime Minister is on the scene. And the actual footage shown of Salome is an extraordinarily mix of both goofy and sincere technical feats, as Jackson and Botes go in a fine style at the way the old epics from the likes of Griffith and De Mille, but with the bizarre touches Jackson's best at like with the main female star chopping off a character's head and playing around with it.

All of this is great fun, even if in-between there's a lot of actual sincere stuff put in, also in part fun in being a dead-pan examination of the the ups for MacKenzie (his ill-begotten but always accomplished feats of invention and creation) and downs too (i.e. losing his wife and child during filming his epic, and subsequently dying in world war 1). Stranger still with the picture is that Jackson and Botes almost have a kind of affection for the MacKenzie character- and as the former later displayed with his brawny popcorn epics- that even makes the material not too shallow in terms of approach for the viewer. It also might add frustration, I'd guess, if one didn't know that it was a big gag in the guise of professional historical research. But it ends up working better than I expected, and there's even a gut-bustlingly funny bit at the end as Harvey Weinstein expresses his confidence with his recently trimmed version of Salome, cutting out an hour out of the restored print.

For film buffs, Forgotten Silver is a weird kind of satirical keep-sake only Jackson and his Wingnut people could cook up.


This is a short little "mockumentary" done by Peter Jackson for NZ TV, I guess, about the life of film maker Colin McKenzie, who was a pioneer in many ways in early film making, including talkies, color, and smut. This has a very dry humor to it for the most part and I found it to be wonderful from start to finish. This begins with Peter Jackson talking about how he was asked by McKenzie's widow if he'd be interested in a bunch of old films in a trunk in her garden shed. So Jackson takes the films to a historical archive where they are quite amazed at the contents. According to this, McKenzie filmed the first airplane flight, which preceded that of the Wright Brothers by 9 months. He also filmed the first 'talkie', which was a failure because all the actors were speaking Chinese. He was also the pioneer in color film, because he went to Tahiti to get some special berries that could be used in the creation of color, and when he was using the resulting film to capture images, topless and curious Tahitian women wandered into the picture, resulting in his arrest for portraying smut on film. This also chronicles the creation of the never-finished film "Salome", for which McKenzie built an entire city somewhere on the est coast of NZ. This is a film that suffered numerous setbacks including financial problems and WW1. At the time McKenzie partnered up with a comedian, Stan the Man, who's big claim to fame was throwing pies in people's faces, but it paid the bills. Too bad at one point he didn't recognize the Prime Minster, after which he was beaten by cops. Of course McKenzie had that all on film too, and Leonard Matlin, in one of his usual over-excited commentaries, compares it to the filming of the Rodney King beating. Forgotten Silver is vastly entertaining and the humor is wonderful and droll. It's too bad it's only an hour but I suppose that's better than overstaying its welcome. 9 out of 10 stars.


I channel-flicked onto Forgotten Silver just as it started at about 11:00 one weeknight a long time ago. Although totally exhausted from a day at the salt mines, I still couldn't turn off the TV. The story was compelling and convincing with enough irrelevant detail to give it the ring of truth. I was fascinated as fact after fact fell into place with the unmistakable rightness of truth.

It was only the next day, after bemusedly watching a workmate fold over laughing when I related the latest proof that a kiwi had beaten the Wright brothers to it and demanding explanation, that I discovered the whole thing was a complete fabrication. One of the few times since leaving kindergarten I have been completely taken for a ride and the only time I remember enjoying the trip.

If you appreciate a prank on the grand scale then you have to see Forgotten Silver or, better yet, see it with an unsuspecting friend.


Well I was sucked in. I'm a New Zealander, and even though I have a fairly good handle on my country's history, I found what I watched to be quite believable. This must be the premier hoax documentary of all time.

When Peter Jackson (yes, of LOTR fame) discovers "lost" old movie footage and then arranges restoration of same, he finds a historic record of work by one of the country's pioneer movie makers - film that shows, among other gems, proof that Richard Pearse achieved powered flight before the Wright Brothers.

What's really clever is that you are never actually told the whole thing is a hoax. In fact, when it first screened in NZ it caused an uproar because it was assumed to be fact. Once you know it's fiction, you can look back and see just how incredibly ridiculous the whole thing is. Really, the whole thing is just so far fetched, yet that is the film's great achievement because when you watch it, you actually believe it (at least I did!) Appearances by genuine movie industry people like Leonard Maltin of course add to the realism.

Having said all this, I guess this review has spoiled it for you readers...


It took me the first 10-15 minutes before I realised that this wasn't a documentary, but was in fact a mockumentary. In other words it's all fiction. I loved that fact that the comments by Sam Neill, Leonard Maltin etc made it all seem so real. What a hoot. Well thought out, and well acted. Just love it.


SPOILER ALERT You, reading this site, know that this film is a MOCKumentary. I liked this film a lot, and really enjoyed seeing it with someone who assumed it was all true... or at least he didn't begin to question until well into the film.

Tell them after if you must, but I think I would have liked it even more if I hadn't known!


This documentary was shown, with very little hype, on a week night a few years ago. In it was proof that Richard Pearse flew a plane before the Wright brothers, among others. And we believed it for a day . Until we found out it was a hoax. Peter Jackson had conned the whole country. Perhaps it was too good to be true. But We liked to believe it.


I guess it's unfair that every "mockumentary" evokes comparisons with Spinal Tap, but this one is so very well done that it actually transcends its inspiration. While FORGOTTEN SILVER provides its share of hilarious moments (the Stan-The-Man sub-plot is a stroke of pure comedic genius,) it's the poignancy of Jackson's film that makes it special. If you find yourself shedding a tear by the movie's end, it's a testament to the quirkily gifted Jackson that, even with a lark of a project, he can deliver an unexpected masterpiece.

Amazing.


This documentary is a hoax that does not reveal itself as such.

To say that it is well done is an understatement.

It flows and has credibility throughout and could be compared to the Sting.

If you are a New Zealander and see this without knowing it is a hoax then you will be bitterly disappointed to find out later.


Colin Mckenzie was a brilliant New Zealand filmmaker who FINALLY got his due from Peter Jackson's brilliant documentary, "Forgotten Silver". Mckenzie seems to have inspired Jackson quite amusingly, because you can totally see some of the elements used from his 'Salome', (Which I attended the world premiere of it's restoration) in his Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. In Forgotten Silver, Jackson intertwines footage from Griffiths' early movies and his masterpiece Salome, with interviews and a fascinating trek into New Zealand wilderness to try to find the sets used in 'Salome'. It's all quite interesting and absorbing. I admire Jackson for unearthing this silent movie master (which actually I knew about before this movie came out), and await when Salome comes out on DVD!

ps Yes, I did get the joke ;)


This life of a forgotten New Zealander at the dawn of movies is very knowing and loving. Its weirdly right on target with the way things were done by the maverick film makers of the day. Its also very funny and touching and a really good way to spend 53 minutes. I'm baffled that people actually thought this was real since there are numerous clues, nay, out right examples of why this couldn't be real, how the young film maker made movies years before anyone else is actually quite silly.

If can see this on the DVD since the extras add to the magic of the film. Chief among them is the making of documentary that tells you and shows you how they did what they did. In strange way thats even better than the film itself.

That said this is probably a renter rather than a keeper, but it should be on the must see list especially f you love old movies and movie history.


I first saw MOST of this film on a flight from New Zealand to Australia, but missed the ending when the flight ended before the film. Because I was engrossed with the fine meal and service on NZAir I was suckered into this film up to my neck.

Hints abound throughout the film that things are not as they seem. The digital enhancement of the date on a newspaper is one of the early clues, but you get dragged along by the sheer magnitude and perfection of the deception. Director Jackson did not think small! His project, like Colin Mackenzie's, was of Biblical proportions!

The Lord of the Rings trilogy may make Jackson a household name the way Star Wars made George Lucas. But this will be my evil little secret, my IQ test for unwitting friends who think they are So Darn Smart.


Maybe i have become a biased Peter Jackson fan. The LOTR movies i consider the greatest achievement in the history of film. But this little gem is just so well crafted. I was lucky to just stumble upon it while zapping through the channels some 8-9 years ago. Thinking this was an interesting documentary about a person i had never heard of before (always been a great fan of documentaries). I guess this is an unlikely, but perfect, situation to watch it in. Thinking it is for real. As the movie went along, i frequently was going "incredible - why have i not heard of this man before" .. and a few times i went "this cant be true". But at exactly those moments a famous person (like Sam Neil) pops up and explain about this person as if he did exist, which kept me believe the story. I have to admit .. i believed the story till the very end. This was one of the great moments in my movie watching "career". I was lucky i saw it as if it was real. Knowing that it is fake i guess makes it at lot less interesting.


At first I thought Forgotten Silver was a joke, but I changed my mind when I saw that one of the greatest of contemporary film historians and critics, Leonard Maltin, had contributed his insights to the story of film pioneer Colin McKenzie. It's an amazing story of how an inspired and dedicated film genius, located in New Zealand, anticipated and invented so many of the film techniques we take for granted now. It's hard to comprehend how this one man gave us such things as steam-powered projection systems, the first tracking shot, the first example of a talking movie, the first color film, the first close-up. He was naive, yes, but with the naiveté of the innocent. The first talking movie, for instance, featured Chinese day laborers speaking their native tongue. Mr. McKenzie, regrettably, neglected to provide sub-titles. While New Zealand movie goers stayed away in droves, the purity of his intent is beyond question.

He was an unsung genius who had the courage of his beliefs. He was there filming man's first heavier-than-air flight. He invented a small motion picture camera which, in partnership with Stan the Man, anticipated the spontaneous hilarity of Candid Camera. For those, like me, who had never heard of Stan the Man, Stan was an inspired silent comic who specialized in attacking the unsuspecting. His pie in the face gag featuring the New Zealand prime minister resulted in Mr. McKenzie's filmed reaction of the prime minister's police escort, which was the forebear of the Rodney King cinema verite.

McKenzie's superlative creative achievement, of course, was his three-hour film of Salome. He built a vast city in the jungles of New Zealand (which was newly discovered and is being excavated). It took him years to achieve the financing and it resulted in a deep, permanent personal tragedy. Yet the film, newly restored, reaffirmed not only Mr. McKenzie's vision, but also strengthened so many of our feelings about silent films. Harvey Weinstein, then chairman of Miramax, reaffirmed Mr. McKenzie's genius and emphasized how happy Mr. McKenzie would be that Mr. Weinstein himself insisted that an hour be cut from the restored film.

Colin McKenzie was an unsung genius who periodically would disappear, then reemerge with new inventions and passions to over-awe those of us who now are familiar with his extraordinary accomplishments. Yet no one really knew him. His inventions never led to acclaim or fortune. His disappointments were great. His legacy, in fact, was accidentally found in a locked chest in an old shed at the bottom of his widow's garden. There, two young filmmakers, Peter Jackson and Costa Botes, found reel after reel of film, stored and long forgotten in rusting containers. If it hadn't been for this chance discovery, we might never have learned of Mr. McKenzie's transforming impact on film making.

Mr. McKenzie died tragically during the Spanish Civil War, shot while trying to rescue a wounded soldier. How deeply inspiring it would be if those of us who love film could watch, and re-watch, and watch again, D. W. Griffith, Alfred Hitchcock, Louis B. Mayer or F. W. Murnau as they died. Thanks to the foresight of Mr. McKenzie, who set up his camera to film his rescue attempt, we can with this New Zealand...no, this world...genius of film. He died as he lived...with his sprockets turning.

Despite the deteriorated condition of so much of Mr. McKenzie's film record, Jackson and Botes have put together a compelling documentary. They wisely intersperse contemporary evaluations of Mr. McKenzie's achievements and the recollections of his widow with many examples of Mr. McKenzie's pioneering work.

But what of the young filmmakers themselves, who brought us the McKenzie story? Little is known of Botes. Jackson, however, can be founded occasionally working on the fringes of film-making. His innovative use of New Zealand middle school students to film a fantasy about middle earth was well received by the students' parents. Unfortunately, his attempt to use advanced technology to solve the problem of filming a story featuring a gorilla which had been fed football steroids met with mixed results. Holding a magnifying glass in front of his camera lens while photographing a chimpanzee and pretending it was a giant ape was too advanced a leap for most movie ticket buyers.


I saw this movie after reading about it in a magazine 4 years ago. It seems like a documentary in every way, and I think if I would not have known it was a mockumentary I would have believed it. It has a lot of funny moments.

I must admit I am not a fan of Peter Jackson, I really hated The Frighteners and LOTR and Kong was bad in every way but the technical, but this one was quite entertaining and(fortunately) short. It looks as if it would have been a 60 minute documentary and those archive films are very realistic.

All in all it is a great mockumentary and I can understand why people got angry.


This is a wonderfully entertaining "mocku-u-mentary" by Peter Jackson (of LOTR and King Kong fame) and his friend Costa Botes.

It is the story of a imaginary New Zeeland filmmaker named Colin McKenzie who, within the content of the movie, predated many of the cinematic history's great achievements.

I understand this movie, when it aired on New Zeeland television, caused quite the commotion for being "false-thruth" proving how easily people can be misled by a convincing presentation and a documentary format.

Not saying that the new Zealand audience in particular is easily misled, i think any nationality would have been fooled. I have even seen worse examples here in Sweden

Though one factual error actually caught my attention, when Colin is filming the first airplane flight they use "digital-enhancement" to check the date on the mans newspaper.

In any case it is a highly interesting film featuring many impressing names sharing the hoax and i would recommend it to anyone with a interest in either movies or Peter Jacksons Pre-LOTR career in particular.

That sort of digital enhancement would be, to my knowledge, impossible with a film of that age.


To me, it is really a mystery why this one isn't more widely known. I admin, I got it via P2P. But after watching it I went searching for a retailer. None of the native retailer I know sold this one. Amazon of course did.

This 'movie' is really a absurd venture into the movements of some movie-maker, who, by some force in the world, misses numerous chances at world fame by just utter bad luck. For me, it left me chuckling for weeks. Really brilliant.

I can't recall anything quite like this. A must-see for anyone interested in deeper backgrounds of making a documentary without any notion or adherence to facts.


This movie was originally made for New Zealand TV. The idea behind this movie was basically to fool the whole nation! Peter Jackson and his fellow companions planned out that they should try to make up a story about a formerly unknown New Zealandic film creator. The plot was that they had found some "lost" tapes containing loads of material which the unknown film creator had made. Jackson and his crew started to create the scenes which the film creator supposedly had made back in as early as around year 1900. The rest of the story around this man was brilliantly made up, and they even got Harvey Weinstein (a infamous Hollywood producer) and actor Sam Neill to participate in the movie, understating the fact that this formerly unknown film creator was a true genius and a undiscovered talent of a world class! The plot, the setting and everything is so well made and funny, I couldn't believe I had been neglecting this jewel of a film for so many years! Eventually, when it was aired in 1995, everyone thought it was a sensation. No one asked themselves if it actually was possible that such a "big name" had remained unknown. History books were about to be changed! But then Jackson and his companions told the secret. The result was tremendous! Jackson became the most hated man on New Zealand.

Despite of all this, it's a great movie that show you that everything is possible. Peter Jackson's directing in this movie is really good, as well as the script is very, very good. Without a doubt a movie that deserves a place in history as one of the greatest ever!


I simply don't care if this is "only" a MOCKumentary, it's by far the greatest DOCumentary I've ever seen! Superbly well done, and very touching. I remember watching this movie on TV when they first showed it in Sweden, I think it was in 2002. I was fascinated! I thought it was the most amazing incredible story I had ever heard or seen. I could not believe why I had never heard about this Colin McKenzie before, nor the movies he created. I NEVER thought of it as a possible hoax. I did'nt sleep that night, all I could think about was this movie, and all the suffering that Colin McKenzie got through. The next day I told all my friends about this incredible movie, and NO ONE asked if it could been a hoax. It took me over three years before I finally found out that it was a mockumentary. Ambarassing at first, then, when I saw that it was a Peter Jackson movie, I could only laugh. I watch this movie often- It strikes me every time as the most amazing story ever CREATED.

Congratulations Mr Jackson- You got me completely fooled!


I had never heard about this "documentary" before, so I saw it with an open mind.. So when the footage of the first flight around 31 of mars 1903 came, I thought; "Wow, is this for real, is what I was thought in school just bull"... Then I remembered that the documentary was made in 1995, and this I would have heard of... Anyway, it is a mindblower in a way, it makes ppl think how much you are influenced by these socalled serious documentaries..

Allways remember that movies, news and documentaries are made in the eyes of it`s maker..


Few who aren't students of the history of airpower today recognize the name of William "Billy" Mitchell. An early pilot in the U.S. Army's fledgling Air Corps, he served in World War I when no American-produced plane saw action above the trenches of France. Notwithstanding the Wright brother's initial breathtaking powered flight, by 1914 England, France and Germany were far ahead of us in not only aircraft design but also in fashioning tactics for a new kind of warfare.

Mitchell returned from the war not only a convert to the future of airpower but as a zealot advocating his prophecy to all who would listen (and to very many who didn't want to). The post-war Army suffered massive cutbacks. Mitchell reverted from brigadier general to his permanent rank of colonel, a more gentle demotion than many others experienced.

The Army's first postwar chief of staff was the only man ever to hold the rank of General of the Armies, John J. "Black Jack" Pershing. Pershing actually appreciated aviation's potential to a real degree but he faced a budget-cutting congress while leading an army with too many senior officers who dimly recalled fighting Indians from the saddle.

Mitchell was given the opportunity to sink the German war prize battleship "Ostfriesland." A rather foolish cabinet member offered to watch the aerial bombing from the warship's deck, so certain was he that the vessel couldn't be destroyed from the air. Fortunately for him his offer was not taken up.

Gary Cooper turns in a quietly passionate role as the Air Corps leader who did sink the "Ostfriesland." In the film he's shown disobeying war game rules and using one-ton bombs not approved for the exercise. That never happened. He went by the rules (that time). His and his pilots' achievements were dismissed, however, by battleship-loving admirals who claimed that the test was meaningless since the ship wasn't defending itself. Some Japanese observers were less sure that this was a valid analysis.

Gary Cooper's Billy Mitchell, despite deviations from the real story, is a remarkably accurate picture of a dedicated officer with unrestrained hubris whose public and volatile denunciations of Army and Navy superiors for numerous fatal crashes led to his then highly-publicized court-martial.

Ralph Bellamy as Congressman Frank Reid is Mitchell's chief counsel. A blistering but unreal cross-examination by the young Rod Steiger as MAJ Allan Gullion is the the dramatic high point of the film. It's something we expect from the courtroom genre. Mitchell is convicted of, in essence, disobedience, and is placed on a long-term suspended status (in reality the effective and actual termination of his military career without the continuing public interest that incarceration would have brought).

Cooper is strongly expressive while exuding a powerful sense of personal morality and duty as Mitchell defined that quality. That largely matches the real Mitchell.

As defense witnesses we see the young H.H. Arnold (to achieve five-star rank in World War II) and Carl Spaatz, a four-star architect of strategic bombing in the next war. These officers persevered in their dedication to birthing a powerful air force and they did it without losing their careers and thus their effectiveness (in that regard they mirrored young field grade officers such as George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower in their crusade to take the Army from the horse to the tank).

Cooper walks out of the film in civilian clothing, a slightly confused expression on his face. He should have been confused. For the remainder of his life, which ended before the war he predicted, he was essentially marginalized as aviation expanded and America slowly recognized the need to build a world class air force.

Overall, for historical accuracy "The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell" is solid on the central story and fictional on the margins.

This DVD transfer, however, borders on dreadful. Colors are washed out and voice levels shift slightly over and over. But it's well worth watching.

7/10.


In 1925 the U.S. Naval Air Force's major new piece of military hardware was a zeppelin that had been built in Germany at the end of the First World War, which was given to the U.S as a reparation, and renamed the U.S.S. Shenandoah. The craft had a crack team running it, and it had an excellent head, Commander Zachary Landowne. It was in fair demand around the country, for most people believed that the future of long distance air travel would be in airships, not airplanes. So the Navy brass frequently sent the Shenandoah on public relations flights, rather than using it for military purposes or long distance flights.

It was sent to Ohio where local politicians wanted to use the zeppelin to impress voters. Unfortunately, there was a storm front with heavy thundershowers in the path of the zeppelin, and the zeppelin had recently had some damage to a fin on it's tale. There had been no time to repair the damage. So when the zeppelin crossed into the storm front, the zeppelin was ripped apart by the winds and crashed killing Landsdowne and fourteen men.

Landsdowne's close friend, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell was exceptionally critical of the disaster. He blamed the politicians and military brass who ordered the flight. As Mitchell had been long a thorn in the side of these two groups, as he tried to push his views on air power and the need for a unified, strong air force, he was charged with insubordination and ordered to be court martial-ed.

Gary Cooper plays Mitchell well, as an honest, honorable man, who realizes that the future will be only safe for those who have a strong air arm. He is fighting old fashion ideas, mouthed by old fashioned army leaders like Fred Clark. He does have allies like his lawyer, a Congressman played by Ralph Bellamy, and like one of the judges (General Douglas MacArthur - who was the only one to vote for acquittal). But the issue goes down to the Mitchell's insubordination. And this leads to the dramatic high point, when Cooper is cross-examined by the malicious and clever Rod Steiger. Steiger is able to get Cooper to not only reveal his lack of respect for the brass but to reveal his mistrust of the Japanese. That he is correct in the long run does not save him - he is found guilty and suspended without pay from the army for five years.

Mitchell died in 1936, not in time to see his vindication five years later. But he is remembered now as the real founder of the modern American Air Force. The film is a pretty good retelling of his story, and reminds us how frequently a prophet is despised and rejected in his or her time.


Too add to the comments already made in this database I would like to point out that viewers seem to forget that the testimony in the film by Major Hap Arnold, Captain Eddie Rickenbaker, Major Karl Spatz and Fiorello LaGuardia substantiated Colonel Mitchell's facts.

As for whether the court-martial did what it intended to do, obviously it did not in Pearl Harbor's case, however, it may have helped development of better aircraft and aircraft carriers during the 30's, especially when one considers this was during a depression.

What could have been brought to light was the complacency of the public at the time, roaring 20's, etc.. Also the public's isolationist outlook.

At any rate, General Mitchell will always be a hero to airmen, along with General Hap Arnold and others.


Otto Preminger was perhaps honing his skills as a director, because this film seems to be a dress rehearsal for his greatest achievement, "Anatomy of a Murder", which is a classic of the courtroom drama genre.

The movie is interesting in that it presents a man of honor, Billy Mitchell, who not only was an aviation pioneer, but a visionary that pointed out to the future in uncanny ways. He realized that wars were going to be fought in the air, and that soon the world would shrink thanks to faster planes than the primitive two engine jobs he was flying during WWI.

Billy Mitchell was an outcast, rejected by the same people that were too obtuse to realize the upcoming revolution in aeronautics. In trying to prove a point, Billy is found guilty and tried for disobeying orders. It's a sad story in which a highly developed mind, like Billy's has to contend with the ignorance of his peers. Testimony from other leading figures of the time, such as Eddie Rickenbacker, and others speak volumes about Mitchell's incredible insight on the new technology and how vulnerable America was from air raids by enemies.

Gary Cooper's approach to the role doesn't clarify much about the real life Mitchell. He is not quite as effective as in many of his most outstanding films. Somehow we don't get any passion out of his character, where perhaps another actor would have run away with the role. Mr. Cooper's take on Mitchell, or perhaps Otto Preminger's direction, doesn't shed much insight in the character.

The best thing in the movie is Rod Steiger as Allan Gullion, who is brought to the trial to help the main prosecution officer. He steals the picture in his short time in front of the camera. Mr Steiger brings a different concept to this officer; he stands out against all the other people around him. What a presence he had! In contrast with Mr. Cooper's stoic presence, Mr. Steiger was ready to smolder the screen if given the chance.

The rest of the cast is outstanding. Charles Bickford, Ralph Bellamy, Elizabeth Montgomery, Jack Lord, James Daly, Fred Clark, among others, enhance this movie.

The only problem with the copy I saw, is the horrible coloring that tends to give a fading images. This is a film in need of restoration.


Otto Preminger put together a real good cast to tell the story of The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell, considered by many to be the spiritual founder of the American Air Force. Gary Cooper was only a few years older than Billy Mitchell when he chose to publicly criticize the existing services and invite a court martial and fits the part as right as he did when playing Lou Gehrig.

What to do and who would control the airplane as a strategic weapon was a running debate even before World War I. By the time that Mitchell court martial took place in the mid Twenties, nearly every other country with the means had founded a separate Air Force. America would not have a separate Air Force until 1947 when the Army and Navy were put under one Department of Defense and an Air Force created from those members of the Army Air Corps who wished to join.

No one ever doubted the airplane had some value in war time. Those like the general Charles Bickford played who is an amalgamation of many in the service that Gary Cooper unsuccessfully dealt with, saw it as a thing for scouting, maybe transportation. Billy Mitchell saw it as far more than that.

Mitchell fought hard for money that to further develop airplanes that the Army and Navy wouldn't even ask Congress for if Congress were so disposed to give it back then. After several fliers were killed in some planes that were little more than kites with motors, Mitchell lambasted both services and got his court martial.

Military historians from then till now still debate the value of the airplane in war. The best that can be determined is that air superiority can give one an edge in a close contest. It can't win a war all by itself. If it could Great Britain would have surrendered after the blitz or Germany would have been pounded into submission by Army Air Force and RAF bombing of the place for three years, starting even before one American soldier was in ground combat.

My favorite analogy has always been the difference between the landings at Salerno in 1943 and in Normandy in 1944. In The Longest Day there's a famous scene where two airplanes take off and make a strafing run on one of the beaches and then fly away. That was the sole contribution of the Luftwaffe, by then they had no more contribution to make.

A year before at Salerno, the battle took three weeks with planes from the Allies and the Axis engaged before Allies were established. It was a close run thing as the Duke of Wellington said about another battle a century earlier. Planes do make a difference, but they're not the whole ballgame.

Billy Mitchell chose a course that finished his career in the U.S. Army. He knew it would end this way and he did it anyway. The military as an institution is resistant to change as most everyone agrees. Mitchell fought for air power and airplane development as a civilian as long as his health permitted.

Besides Cooper and Bickford the most noteworthy two performances in the film are Ralph Bellamy as Republican Congressman Frank R. Reid from Illinois who served as Mitchell's civilian defense counsel in the trial and Rod Steiger who played the hired gun from the Judge Advocate General's office who conducts a devastating cross examination of Cooper on the witness stand.

The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell is a good dramatization of one of the great criminal trials of the last century. And it's a wonderful story about sacrificing one self for an idea you believe in.


I cannot improve on or add much to the very fine reviews already on this thred. One aspect of the film I found very interesting and perhaps crucial to its impact: did Colonel (ex-general) Mitchell accomplish what he set out to do? He persisted in martyring himself to bring to light the lack of support for flyers and to promote the air "force" as a new and integrated branch of military defense. Clearly the defense lawyer was brilliantly pursuing a course that forced the tribunal to cut their losses and restore Billy's rank, if he'd recant part or all of his accusations. He had an out. But, like Billy Budd, he chose the victim path, and, while maintaining his love and devotion to the army, made himself a scapegoat. At one point it did appear that Rod Steiger's lawyer (a wonderful bit of acting) had him on the ropes about setting himself (Billy) up a better than and morally superior to his peers and his superiors--even the army itself. Last-minute heroism ensued: Billy, sick in body and spirit **spoiler** persisted in his suit with a fairly standard speech (I though acted appropriately with weakened voice and manner because the man was sick) about doing the right thing for the greatest number, and that his country ranked even higher thn himself and all the generals present. He couldn't NOT pursue his cause and be a good man and soldier. I was satisfied by his argument; but I did not feel that the issue was resolved. He did break ranks; he did call in the press; he did undermine his fellow officers to some degree. I thought it weakened his argument and the film (unless I'm off base) to bring in all the material about jet aircraft--not that it might not have been true, and not that the prosecutor didn't make logical and effective use of these "fantasies"==but that it seemed sort of overweighted to make Billy appear a misunderstood prophet, rather than just a good experienced soldier and flyer. A wonderful film, and I thought a strong performance by Cooper (almost especially when he appeared weak and beaten.) A courtroom drama with brains and brawn. Seven-plus from jaime.


This movie portrays a riveting historical account that tells the story of a visionary of his era who was wrongfully convicted of speaking his mind and not obeying military policy and procedure of the time. After the movie ended, I was immediately compelled to "google" Colonel Billy Mitchell and learn more about his court-martial. Movies like this are intriguing due to the fact that most people of the modern day do not remember, nor have ever been schooled in military history. Billy Mitchell's accounts and rationale for putting himself in the "hot seat" for the good of out country, despite having the knowledge that in doing so he'd undergo a court-martial, are commendable and honorable. Historically, time has told the truth and validated and, in my mind, vindicated Colonel Mitchell. His vision has led to the creation of the greatest Air Force the world will ever know.


This is a decent film, for the most part a very watchable telling of a good true story which is worth knowing about. Gary Cooper is solid in the title role (albeit he is apparently nothing like the real-life Mitchell) and the drama moves along at a reasonable pace.

But for 17 minutes towards the end it rises above that and becomes mesmerising. What makes the difference? Two words: Rod Steiger. The cross-examination scene, where he goads and scorns Cooper mercilessly, is one of those very rare moments in cinema when a performance holds the screen and burns itself into your memory. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I always spend the first hour or so relishing this particular scene. And I am never disappointed.

So watch the film for two reasons: it is good in its own right. A well-played, thoughtful and dignified film about a good man who was ahead of his time. But whatever you do, make sure you don't miss the last half-hour!


Gary Cooper plays the title role in "The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell," a 1955 film based on the real-life court martial of former Brigadier General William Mitchell, who was demoted in rank after violating orders and later court-martialed for criticizing the Armed Forces in the press.

Besides also starring Ralph Bellamy, Charles Bickford, and Rod Steiger, the film also features some later TV stars - Elizabeth Montgomery, Jack Lord, John Daly, Darren McGavin and Peter Graves.

Apparently the film takes some liberties with the true facts, but Mitchell believed in the power of the airplane in war and wanted an upgrade in air power for the U.S. as well as the creation of an Air Force. Much of what he said about air power came to pass, and eventually the Air Force was formed, of which he is considered the father. However, at the time, the services were faced with budget cuts and narrow thinking. They weren't convinced of Mitchell's arguments. Mitchell (in the film) disobeys orders about the size of the bomb he's carrying, using one-ton bombs to destroy the Ostfriesland, which was an World War I prize from Germany. He is demoted in rank and sent to work in Texas. When a friend of his is killed in a "death trap" flier called The Shenendoah, Billy sets himself up for a court martial so that he can bring his cause to the American public.

This is a good movie which holds one's interest. I have a confession, which is that I am not always impressed with the acting of Gary Cooper, though I do love him, and this was one of those times. One of the posters suggested that James Cagney would have been a better choice given the real-life character of Mitchell. Possibly. Cooper is passionate in a quiet way but a little too one-dimensional in his performance. There are strong performances from everyone, most especially Rod Steiger. He doesn't chew up the scenery; instead, he uses his voice like a knife. He's very effective.

Definitely recommended though it's not Cooper's best work.


Don't look for for exacting factual screenplay here, rather enjoy Gary Cooper's sensitive acting. I agree it runs more like a play and in that sense is done very well and all the actors perform well. Half the fun of this movie is watching the younger supporting cast and identifying the future stars of Hawaii FiveO, Bewitched, The Nightstalker, and a few others I haven't figured out yet. You'll see better than half the supporting cast on the situational comedies of the 1950's. The cross examination scene with Rod Steiger and Gary Cooper is pretty good too. As much as I like Gary Cooper it would have been interesting, and probably a better movie, to see Cagney as Mitchell.


While Gary Cooper was not anything like Billy Mitchell in the film that really does not matter. What does matter is that in his time he was fighting for an Air Force that would be able to defend America. He was right that at the time the armed services use of air power and the safety of the pilots was criminal, the number of Air Forces bases named for the people that died during this time can attest to that. He was also correct that the armed forces would depend on air power, a fact the armed forces ignored until nearly 1939 when Hitler proved what a modern air force could do. If it were not for the fact that private companies like Boeing were developing planes before the military were asking for them would could have been fighting the first year of WWII in biplanes.

While many of Billy Mitchell's claims may have seemed absurd at the time the showed quite an insight of how air power would develop over the next 50 years.

That being said do catch this film. The cast is top notch and their performances leave you feeling sorry for Cooper and hating Rod Stieger! This is one of my top 20 films not only for the cast and crew but for the subject matter.


I first saw this movie at a young age and it had a great impression on me. In this movie I saw where a man was willing to sacrifice himself for the common good, and the laws of democracy eventually prevailed. Also, years later, this one man's stand and dire predictions for the future all proved true. There was one time in the movie where the Army's top brass retired to the briefing room. In this room, it was discussed about whether or not to exclude certain testimony given in this trial. One of the commanding officers spoke up and declared that our legal system, even our society, is based on the fundamental right of a man to have the ability to prove his innocence.

I am sure that there are some in the military that would challenge this movie because of the "going against orders" thinking. I have been in law enforcement for twenty (21) years and I know the importance of taking and giving orders. However, there is a time and place where questioning or going against orders to save someone else's life, or many lives, is appropriate. In closing, this movie hits this topic head on, deals with sacrifice and honor, and I think that any youngster twelve (12) and older needs to watch it.


Having fought heroically in World War I, Gen. Billy Mitchell (Gary Cooper) tried to get his superiors to establish an Air Force. When they refused, he disobeyed orders and was sent to Fort Sam Houston, demoted to the rank of colonel. After there are two fatal crashes in which the planes were not properly equipped, Mitchell denounces his superiors and is put on trial for insubordination. While the prosecution tries to prove that he made the statements, Mitchell does everything possible to show that the statements were justified.

The movie seems to have even more relevance today, with the story about the Humvees in Iraq that lacked sufficient armor. The army brass could really use some advice from Billy Mitchell.

As a side note, it was interesting seeing Elizabeth Montgomery (as the widow of Mitchell's friend who gets killed in one of the crashes) before she starred on "Bewitched".


This is a very technically good film, with interesting casting and scripting, but it is far from the truth historically. Being from the Milwaukee Wisconsin area, I did some research into the history of this man, and found it very different from the Hollywood depiction.

The Generals insubordination was more about his arrogance and ego than any caring about the future. He was a spoiled rich brat who always had things his way. The changes that came in aviation would have came without his infamous courtroom case. He was the exact opposite of the Gary Cooper portrayal, being short and angry in nature.

He sacrificed his military career because he cared so much about the fliers? Questionable at best. This rich kid was tired of playing soldier, so went on a public opinion campaign, that was somewhat successful in giving him a role in the history of aviation.

He was very effective at alienating everyone around him. There are numerous histories of this man, polarized either in the he was a visionary versus a pompous self righteous jerk, all making good reading.


For a film about the armed forces with virtually no action, no love interest and over half its running time set in a court room this is strangely effective. Prior to Jack Lemmon's emergence on the scene in the early 50s no one did 'decency' as well as Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper and that being the case Cooper could have phoned this one in had he put his mind to it. Although meaningless liberties have been taken with this true story - what possible difference, for example, could it have made to acknowledge that Mitchell was married rather than imply bachelor status - it still grips in an understated way. Essentially Mitchell distinguished himself as a pilot in the First World War but grew appalled at the indifference if not bias in favour of the Army and Navy in peacetime - there was, in fact, no Air Force - and having exhausted every avenue in an attempt to address this problem he called a press conference and accused the General Staff of incompetence. His purpose, of course, was to get the army to court martial him and use this as a forum to sue for recognition and the formation of a third armed force. For his pains he died in virtual obscurity prior to the second World War he had foreseen. Cooper is solid as the dedicated army man, Rod Steiger showboats in the flashiest role in the film as Prosecuting Attorney and the support is largely out of the right bottle. On the low-key side for an Otto Preminger film but none the worse for that.


Terry Moore stars in this tripe about a rich kid who fakes his own kidnapping in order to get attention from Mummy and Daddykins. But Terry Moore remains the only reason to watch. Let's see, what else?

There are some cool Mercedes-Benzes..... um..... the palm trees in Beverly Hills are very pretty..... uh..... *zzzzzzz* - oh, sorry!

Did I mention Terry Moore?! - yeah, I did. Well, that's about it. Let's review, shall we? The reasons to watch this movie are:

1. Terry Moore, 2. cool Mercedes-Benzes, 3. pretty palm trees

There. We're done. That wasn't so bad, was it? A bit of advice, though. If you are planning on watching this, get totally blitzed first. At least then you won't be able to remember it the next day.


Peter Billingsly plays a young man who arranges his own kipnapping only to realise that his parents don't miss him. This is a dreary, laughless satire that completely misses its target.