I've not had much luck catching up on the John Ford films I haven't seen this year, and The Fugitive is yet another in this year's run of terrible disappointments.

Visually the most strikingly beautiful of his career, it's also a horrible mawkish wail of unconvincing public piety that constantly feels like he's trying to buy his way into heaven. As if bowdlerizing the point out of Graham Greene's source material to make a plaster saint of his hero wasn't bad enough, Henry Fonda's mostly dreadful performance is the final nail in the coffin. Ford always managed to get the very least out of Fonda, and here Hank's clearly plain embarrassed by the part, proving woefully ineffective as he fails to make much of an impression for far too much of the running time. With all traces of character removed from the role, leaving him with nothing to work with, it's not until the last couple of reels that he actually becomes a remotely credible character instead of a poorly drawn walking religious icon  "Hey, look everybody, I'm suffering for your sins just like Christ!" Until then, it's up to Pedro Armendariz to hold the fort as the policeman who has replaced religion with a new faith, politics, although even his missionary faith in atheism is somewhat undermined here by Fonda's nameless priest being a sober believer rather than the drunken fallen angel of the novel. Along with Ward Bond's Gringo bank robber (bizarrely introduced with the theme from Stagecoach!), he's one of the few people Fonda encounters on his journey to martyrdom you can actually care about or believe in. Certainly Dolores Del Rio's Madonna/Whore figure is so horribly idealised that it feels like being beaten up by a posse of boxing nuns every time she appears in 'God-light.' There are a few good scenes and a strong ending, but the horrible overindulgence of much of the film  like the endless treacle of the opening baptisms  is almost enough to make the Pope convert to Judaism. Compared to this, The Passion looks subtle. Beautiful shots of horses riding, though.


There are essentially two ways in which to view this movie.

The first one is to compare and contrast this film with the novel from which it is loosely inspired, "The Power and the Glory" by Graham Greene. This would unfortunately lead to disappointment and a poor understanding of John Ford's motives in making this movie. While the characters and situation are indeed taken from the book, The Fugitive is radically different, not just in the manner in which the main characters are treated, but more importantly, in the message it carries. While Greene's masterpiece described how even the most outwardly depraved and despicable of human beings can be redeemed by their last actions of faith and sacrifice, John Ford was more concerned with showing how circumstances may transform a cowardly priest into a martyr for the faith. While these two themes may be related, they reveal a difference in their respective author's world view and understanding of faith and redemption. It may be argued that the code of those days would not have permitted the showing of an alcoholic and adulterous priest on screen, but this would be misunderstanding the fundamental philosophy of John Ford, whose relatively conservative views in matters of morality would have recoiled at such an idea.

This brings us to the second way in which this movie can be enjoyed and appreciated, namely as John Ford's labour of love and guilty pleasure. It has been said that, of all the masterpieces he created with Henry Fonda and others, and there were many, The Fugitive was one of his all-time personal favorites, even though it was never a popular, nor critical success. Ford projected in his version of the story many of his personal trips regarding his faith. Allegories, and barely subtle Christ references abound in this movie, though never in a simple, nor trite manner. Rather, it is a beautifully-made story of a man's journey from fear and doubt to a better understanding of his role, no matter how modest, in the grand affairs of the world.

The photography is truly a work of art, masterfully using light and shadows, brightness and dark, close-ups of faces distorted by anguish and halos of figures resembling statues in church alcoves. Fonda's performance, always perfect, reaches new heights here. His mastery at containing emotions, while letting them seep through the audience, undiluted, gives this particular characterization extraordinary strength and complexity. It would have been tempting to interpret the priest as an almost static character, given the subject matter. Instead, while his priest was neither alcoholic, nor adulterous, he displays an even greater weakness and flaw of character: lack of faith, profound self-doubt and abject cowardice. His fears, doubts and anguish and his gradual descent into debasement, are in many ways more disturbing since they are in direct conflict with the sacrifices and moral strength demanded of a priest during religious persecution.

Dolores del Rio is magnificent in her Mary-Magdalena characterization, as Pedro Amendariz, superb as the perennial Judas torn by love, hate, jealousy, and fear. There is very little dialogue, and unlike many of Ford's movie, very little of the usual comic relief which often balances dramatic moments. Yet, there is never a dull or unnecessary scene.

John Ford has crafted in this movie something better than a faithful rendition of "The Power and The Glory". Indeed, The Fugitive is a beautiful, heartfelt story about humanity's frailty and its struggle to find strength and redemption in times of crisis. In this sense it is after all a wonderful tribute to Graham Greene's novel.


"The Fugitive" was considered by Ford to be one of his best; most critics, including many Ford afficionados, disagree. While I wouldn't rank it up there with his best either, I think the film (like Ford's final film "Seven Women") has gotten an undeserved bad rap. Sure, the religious iconography gets way out of hand at times and the pace is a bit wobbly but there's much to offset the film's shortcomings. Most obviously - and no one will deny this - it is a beautiful film to look at. It is one of the great photographic achievements in cinema history. The moody expressionism that finally got somewhat oppressive and dull in Ford's "The Informer" is here counterbalanced by exquisite outdoor scenery of the Mexican countryside where "The Fugitive" was shot. The film also features an odd, mopey performance from Henry Fonda that works quite well within the context of the story. Although in the end it's a bit simplistic it does have an undeniable poetry in it that is in the league of the director's finest work.


When Herbert J. Yates of Republic Pictures made a deal with John Ford to produce The Quiet Man he first made Ford agree to do one of his cavalry epics with John Wayne because he wanted a surefire moneymaker before taking a chance on The Quiet Man. The cavalry picture was Rio Grande.

He must have been talking to the folks at RKO who lost their collective shirts when the public stayed away in droves from The Fugitive. It got great critical acclaim and no box office at all.

My guess is that The Fugitive was sold all wrong or was made a year or two too early. If it had been sold as an anti-Communist as opposed to a pro-Catholic film it might have done better in those beginning years of The Cold War.

The Fugitive is based on a Graham Greene novel The Power and the Glory and it is about a priest in an unnamed South American country who is a fugitive because of his calling. An anti-clerical government has taken control of the country and they are doing their best to drive the Catholic religion out of the country.

Henry Fonda turns in a good sincere performance as the cleric, but he's about as convincingly Latino as Toshiro Mifune. The other members of the cast are well suited for their roles.

The best performance in the film is from that chameleon like actor J. Carrol Naish who could play any kind of nationality on the planet. He's the informer who rats out Henry Fonda to the police. Very similar to what Akim Tamiroff did to Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bells Toll and Naish's own performance in another Gary Cooper film, Beau Geste.

This was the first of three films Pedro Armendariz did with John Ford in an effort to broaden his appeal beyond Mexican cinema. Dolores Del Rio as his estranged wife was already familiar to American audiences from the silent screen.

The original novel by Greene had the priest as somewhat less than true to all his vows. He's a drinker and a womanizer. Del Rio's character is also quite tawdry. And this from Greene who was a well known Catholic lay person. But this Hollywood in the firm grip of The Code so a lot of what Greene wrote had to be softened by Ford for the screen. It lessened the impact of the film.

And with the whitewashing of Fonda's character came some rather heavy handed symbolism of Fonda as a Christlike figure.

Still The Fugitive might be worth a look for Ford, Greene, and Fonda fans.


I saw this film theatrically in an archival print in California....what a treat! The image of Dolores Del Rio framed in the church door has never left me...this film was shot by Gabriel Figueroa, Bunuel's cinematographer on many films and one of the great masters...it is, along with Peter Fonda's The Hired Hand and Terence Malick's Days of Heaven, the most exquisitely shot movie I have ever seen in what I would call the "intimate" style, for lack of a better term...as opposed to such a film as "Lawrence of Arabia", which otherwise would have to be considered in that list. An great example of stylistic departure as a supremely successful one shot gesture; Hitchcock achieved something of the same success several times,with "The Wrong Man" and "The Trouble With Harry", although in the latter case Hitch had done comedy before...."The Wrong Man" and "The Fugitive" stand out for me as the greatest stylistic anomalies achieved by major auteurs.


You know Henry Fonda was a good actor when he can play a priest, and actually look pious. It was an odd sight to see him in this role, the patriarch of one of Hollywood's most liberal families giving the sign of the cross and other such playing-against-type Fonda gestures. It must have pained him to play this role and, with his reputation, made his character in here - watching this film for the first time in the 1990s - have no credibility. In 1947, before his kids became famous Left Wingers, Henry's role in here was more believable to audiences.

Nonetheless, the main problem with this movie isn't Fonda - it's the script. This is a boring film. It's too slow-moving. The only worthwhile aspect is seeing John Ford's direction and the cinematography by Gabriel Figueroa. It was filmed in Mexico and there are some nice photographic touches in here.

Maybe I am just not a fan of Graham Greene's overly melodramatic writing but not many other people liked this depressing tale, either. This bombed at the box office, and it's easy to see why. It's just too depressing


Move over, Harrison Ford; your namesake John got here first. While comparisons with Andrew Davis' action-packed 1993 thriller are inevitable in discussing 'The Fugitive (1947),' the two films  aside from the similarity described in their shared title  are completely unrelated, and about as different as two films could possibly be. Unlike many of the Westerns that brought director John Ford his greatest fame, 'The Fugitive' is entirely unconcerned with any form of action or dialogue; Ford's film-making is so concentrated on establishing the correct emotional atmosphere for each scene that it occasionally strays into tedium. However, it was obviously a very personal project for the Ford  who once called it "perfect"  and it's difficult to criticise a film into which the director poured so much passion and resolve. The story was adapted from Graham Greene's 1940 novel, "The Power and the Glory" {a.k.a. "The Labyrinthine Ways"} and concerns the plight of a victimised Christian priest, in an unnamed Latin American country where religion has been outlawed.

Perhaps the film's greatest weakness, from my reasoning at least, is that it is so concerned with painting each character as an icon or ideal (few characters are afforded names, and are instead credited with indefinite articles; "a fugitive," "a lieutenant of police," "an Indian woman") that it's hard to sympathise with them. Fortunately, while consistently attempting to maintain each character as a "timeless" figure in the film's ageless story, Dudley Nichols's screenplay avoids the usual stereotypes to which most amateur filmmakers would inevitably resort. The Fugitive (Henry Fonda) is not a courageous, humble pillar of human decency, but a misguided clergy driven by an unconscious self-pride; his adversary, the Lieutenant of Police (Pedro Armendáriz), loves his country and its people deeply, but, guided by a fierce blind patriotism and an illogical hatred of religion, he is often misled towards acts of sheer barbarity. The Police Informer (J. Carrol Naish) is a Judas-like character, betraying The Fugitive to the authorities, and becoming inescapably repentant at the thought of his inhumanity.

Despite not being particularly religious myself, I was sufficiently moved by Christianity's noble plight for survival, though I wasn't overly fond of the film's ultimate assertion that the lieutenant's hatred of religion stems directly from his secretly believing in God but being unwilling to admit it. Nevertheless, if you're going to watch 'The Fugitive,' it will most certainly be for the photography, which is, captured by Mexican cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, indescribably breathtaking. The opening sequence, in which The Fugitive returns to his former church, the light streaking through the windows as though God himself is reaching into the forsaken depths of the building, is spellbinding in its beauty. While Armendáriz is charismatic, and even slightly sympathetic, in his role of the antagonist, Henry Fonda largely looks awkward in the lead role (though you could argue that this uneasiness is integral to his character), and most of the other players  perhaps due to a language barrier  are similarly stilted. A visual masterpiece this film may be, and certainly an overall interesting watch, but 'The Fugitive' remains inferior Ford.


Ford shoots for the stars in this uneven parable, but mostly fails.

You know you're in for some heavy-handedness when, near the beginning, Henry Fonda's priest (none of the characters are named, as in a fable) opens the doors to an abandoned church and the camera lovingly lingers on his shadow, which forms a crucifix in the dusty doorway.

It doesn't get better from there. Soon the viewer is introduced to the pious Dolores del Rio, a Madonna/Whore bathed in glowing nimbus and Pedro Armendariz, a Pilate-like jack-booted thug with the attire of Himmler but the philosophy of Lenin.

J. Carrol Naish's informant/Judas character is the principle racial stereotype, though such stereotypes abound with an abundance of serape and sombrero clad extras mugging the camera throughout. Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, obviously influenced by this film, recreates the dusty revolutionary Mexican village with more authority and authenticity.

Perhaps expected to be a spiritual successor of Tom Joad, Fonda is badly miscast; his dour, pseudo-Hispanic performance is greatly reminiscent of the later The Wrong Man. It isn't until the end of the film that he's able to give a speech worthy of his natural humanity, but it comes too little, too late.

John Ford, working at the top of his technical game, supplies beautiful compositions and Gabriel Figueroa's lush lensing is the highlight of the film, and for that reason alone it is recommended.


It's been written somewhere that the cruelest thing you can say to an artist is that his work is flawless. John Ford thought of the Fugitive as, despite not being a box-office success, a perfect film and one of his very favorites. It's perhaps more than prudent then to point out some of the criticisms one would have of the film (which, perhaps, is moot since he's been dead for decades). As a fan of the Ford work I've seen there are some times when he's touched perfection (Grapes of Wrath and the Searchers are it for me), and sometimes not so much, which goes without saying he directed many films. With the Fugitive it's recognizable to me why it's split its audience: some hail it as being totally underrated and a brilliant depiction of religious allegory and suffering, and some say that it's a total crock for being far too heavy-handed and acted over-the-top.

Both sides have their right points; it is an underrated picture, if only for its technical feats of cinematography (Gabriel Figueroa is just right for this kind of material for Ford) and Ford's usual talents as a basic storyteller with a tendency for pure cinema expression (i.e. lack of dialog is a plus with the emotion expressed through the camera and actors. But it is also not well-acted in a couple of instances, notably the beautiful but overbearing Delores Del-Rio as the woman living in the town who's baby is baptized by the Priest played by Henry Fonda. For Fonda, it should be said, he at least gives all he can for a performance that possibly other actors could have played with more magnificence. In fact it's for him that some of the picture is most watchable, as he flexes his emotional chops for a scene where it's required for complexity like when he misses the boat and is asked to bless someone dying only to realize there is no wine and must go to ask from a vulgarian for wine (which, as it turns out, is drunken with brandy and all by him).

While it might not be the Fonda we all know and love from Grapes of Wrath or My Darling Clementine he does what he can with the part, and it's a tribute to him and Ford that they make it engrossing on a very simple level that carries some complex connotations. When focusing on the actual chase and flight from the Mexican police it works very well (particularly with a hammy but effective informer played by J. Carrol Nash). It's just when Ford over-indulges in the spiritual aspect of the picture, which is only made clearer towards the end, that it loses its footing. Indeed the start of the picture kind of threw me off for a little bit as Fonda comes in with the Christ-like symbolism highlighted on the wall, and the townspeople come in with tears in their eyes and a somber song to sing and Fonda blesses and baptizes others. I wondered: is this a little TOO much in the way of what Ford does best, which is telling the story? He can be brilliant in throwing in his deep-rooted Catholic ideas as pure visions on the screen, and once or twice in the Fugitive he does... and then other times it falls flat or goes too high where it starts to become a full-blown religious picture as opposed to a societal thriller.

Should Ford fans see it? Of course; even a lessor Ford picture will have something interesting. Will everyone like it? Surely not. Yet it is usually fine, traditional work and shouldn't be completely dismissed.


This excellent and dramatic movie, a co-production US-Mexican, is based on Graham Greene novel and written by Dudley Nichols. It starts when a priest(Henry Fonda) attempting to flee from a Centroamerican country, because Christianity being pursued by a totalitarian govern. He encounters help by an Indian woman(Dolores Del Rio)with a baby. She gives him direction to port where he could embark towards freedom. Meanwhile, he finds a mean countryman(J Carrol Naish) craving reward and is pursued by an authoritarian officer(Pedro Armendariz). Furthermore, his existence runs parallel a banks robber, The Gringo(War Bond) also relentlessly pursued .

Magnificent movie featuring awesome performances by complete casting. The film develops some John Ford's usual themes, as the sentimental nostalgia, sense of camaraderie, religion, and abound touching scenes. Henry Fonda in a larger-than-life role as good priest is top notch, Pedro Armendariz as nasty general is perfect and War Bond as outlaw wanted by totalitarian police is cool. Fonda(Grapes of wrath, Drums along the Mohawk, Young Mr. Lincoln) and Pedro Armendariz(3 Godfathers, Fort Apache)played several films for John Ford. Besides appear habitual Ford's friends, someone uncredited, such as Jack Pennick, Rodolfo Acosta, John Qualen, Fortunio Bonanova, J Carrol Naish, and Ward Bond . Luxurious cinematography with lights and darks by Gabriel Figueroa( usual of director Emilio Fernandez, here also producer). Enjoyable musical score by Richard Hageman, adding Mexican songs with emotive dance included in charge of Dolores Del Rio. The picture shot in Mexico, was produced by Ford's Argosy Production Company, RKO pictures and Merian C. Cooper. Rating: Better than average, well worth seeing for John Ford enthusiastic.


RKO RADIO Pictures presents An ARGOSY PICTURES/PRODUCTA MEX DESCONCIDA Production, THE FUGITIVE, Directed by John Ford, Written by Dudley Nichols, Based on the Novel "The Power and the Glory" by Graham Greene. Produced by John Ford, Merrion C. Cooper & Emilio Fernandez. Starring Henry Fonda, Dolores Del Rio and Pedro Armendariz. With: J. Carroll Nash, Leo Carillo, Ward Bond, Robert Armstrong, John Qualen, Fortunio Bonanova, Chris-Pin Martin, Miguel Indclan, Fernando Fernandez, Rodolfo Acosta, Mel Ferrer, Jack Pennick, Jose Torvay.

It's always a great experience to "find" a hereto for unknown film, that is a title that we know very little about, if even of it's existence. Somehow or other we had never come across it, then suddenly, SHAZAM!, it's there! Such a film is this John Ford production of THE FUGITIVE.

It happened about a year or two ago. There was a full blown outbreak of Insomnia in our household. This had to be on the overnight time between Fri-Sat or Sat-Sun. During those two late night periods, our ABC TV Affiliate shows old movies under the banner of Late Night Movie and Insomniac Theatre. The vast majority of films have been in their library since about ca. 1958.

The bulk are from 1930's to the early 1950's RKO RADIO Pictures output. They had been released to the Television market as a huge package deal. And they were assembled under the umbrella title of "Movietime USA". (A lot of stations must still be exhibiting these films, which usually have "Movietime USA Presents" title cards replacing the RKO Radio Pictures traditional opening with the Trade Mark broadcasting Radio Tower.)

Well, this movie came on and made us glad that we couldn't sleep. From its very beginning, the beautiful B&W Cinematography of some of the most beautiful locations, just grabs you in keeps you interest, piquing it all the while that its story is unfolded. And the scenario is not an original, made for screen play, being an adaptation of the Graham Greene novel, "The Power and the Glory".

In the novel, the locale is described as a mythical Latin American country. But, Mr. Greene, without being explicit, leaves no doubt that the real location is in Mexico. And the screen version follows the lead, and makes it everything that is Mexican, but without a name.

The tense, ever tense story starts out with a unit of Mounted Police, entering a village of mostly peasants, in search of an outlawed Catholic Priest, believed to be in the area. This is set in a time when the Church was designated as an illegal, outlawed organization and was persecuted mercilessly. The commanding Police Lieutennant(Pedro Armendariz), seems particularly driven, even to the point of being fanatically determined to capture and see each and every Priest in his State* executed by the firing squad.

The story, as one may expect, portrays the degradation and hardships that the unnamed Padre (Mr. Fonda) endures in order to evade capture, imprisonment and a certain terminal rendezvous with the firing squad. And everywhere, complications enter the picture; a treacherous stool pigeon (J. Carroll Nash), a desperate, but beautiful Indian Lady (Dolores Del Rio), a Yankee Desperado/un Ladrone Yanquis(Ward Bond) all get wrapped up in complicating the safety of the Priest.

But, danger is part of the job, reasons the Priest, who returns to the scene of his "Crimes", in order to serve his congregation. The story begs the question to the Priest and, indeed to all of us; would we do the "right thing", if we were put into such a position.

Truly, THE FUGITIVE presents us with a John Ford Film of the greatest magnitude. It has none of the humor of the human race as portrayed in THE QUIET MAN, RIO GRANDE, THE LAST HURRAH or even THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. But it does give us a full view of Humanity from a most serious perspective, much in the manner of his 1935 Oscar winning THE INFORMER.

It indeed is a one of a kind movie. We can not think of any movie to which this could be categorized or classified. The power of the scenes, the rapidity of scene shifting and the power of the acting all keep our interest beginning to end. As a matter of fact, the great scenes are so animated and unsubtly done, with such greater than life, even operatic style as to render it a candidate for a silent version. Just watch it and see super-animated scene after scene.

And much like Mr. Charles Chaplin, Pappy Ford renders his tale even more universal by designated titles, rather than names. Other than James Calvert, aka 'el Gringo'(Ward Bond) and Father Sierra (Jose Ferrer), there are no names. And this, Schultz, qualifies this as being described as being "Chaplinesque."

The film ends up by, at first, seemingly in tragedy; but there is a sudden about face with a hopeful (if not exactly totally happy) ending.

This is a great example of Film being made with love, care, purpose and a Spiritual Wish for a brighter future for all.

NOTE * The term of State is used here as in our United States of America; for in our own Western Hemisphere, we have 2 other countries' that use this "State" as we do. In South America we have The United States of Brazil and just below our Southern Border, we have The United States of Mexico. Honestly!


This underappreciated film was one of many great movies from the team of John Ford and Henry Fonda. It is one of the most beautiful and moving films I've ever seen. Fonda plays a Catholic priest in a small Mexican town at a time when Christians were being persecuted by the Government.

SPOILERS: He is forced to go on the run and later finds sanctuary, but is tracked down by a man he had come across before. The man tells him about a thief named El Gringo (Ward Bond) who is dying and wants to make a confession. It turns out to be a trick, as the man is a police informant. The police lieutenant who had bragged earlier, "the last priest was shot 6 months ago", has a child with a woman that helped Fonda, who baptized the child. He offers to save Fonda if he will renounce his faith, which he will not do. On the way to the firing squad, the man who betrayed Fonda asks for his blessing. The lieutenat is shaken when he hears the gunshot. Soon, a new priest arrives to comfort the crowd of mourners gathered at the church.


For 5 years beginning in 1926, the Republic of Mexico waged all out war against Catholic armies in several states in Mexico until 1931. The movie made by John Ford, follows the massive effect this Catholic repression had on Mexicans and their society over this time period. The baptisms, the hostage taking, the executions, the effect this repression had on all classes of Mexican society, were part of this understated but brilliant depiction of Mexico during the Cristero Rebellion.

The fact that John Ford used the creme of the creme of Mexican films; Emiliano "El Indio" Fernandez, an iconic figure in Mexico's Golden Age of Cinema, as an associate producer, Fernando Fernandez, an accomplished singer in Mexican cinema, Miguel Inclan (the hostage), who would go on to achieve fame as the blind man in Bunuel's "Los Olvidados", Gabriel Figueroa, by far the most accomplished Mexican cinematographer of all time, Delores Del Rio and Pedro Armendariz, two of the top stars of Mexican films, to support one of America's finest movie stars Henry Fonda, speaks volumes on John Ford's efforts to craft a movie for the ages.

This film has the angst found in German films, the methodical cadence characterizing films from Great Britian, the lights and shadows of Mexico, with a good helping of an American western, thanks to another great tough guy performance by Ward Bond. The lighting, camera angles, scenic shots; Gabriel used Mexico's two most important and sacred mountains in his scenery, Popocatepetl, and Iztaccihuatl.

In closing, for all you film buffs, there is a triangle relationship between this film and one of the greatest films (if not the greatest) of all times, Citizen Kane. Everyone knows that Delores Del Rio was having a relationship with Orsen Wells, during the filming of Citizen Kane. The cinematographer of Citizen Kane, Gregg Toland, was a mentor for Gabriel Figueroa in Hollywood during the 1930's!


Henry Fonda plays a priest on the run from the government after brainwashing people into believing god exists, in fact he actually believe he is right. this has to be the worst John Ford movie ever. it had absolutely nothing going for it. boring crap all the way. the religious glorification made me sick to my stomach. i usually don't react that way too those kinds of movies. but this one was just barfing out loads of holiness and made the priest look like the messiah or some crap. avoid at all costs! especially if you like john Ford's movies, because this film was so beneath him that i suspect he was brain damaged by alcohol during the shoot. ignore the ghastly reviews that says this is a so called masterpiece. IT'S NOT!!!


John Ford made this another great film classic for future generations and a great learning film. Henry Fonda(Priest/and Fugitive) gave a wonderful performance along with Dolores del Rio (An Indian Woman). This black and white film made the horrors of prison life very real and uncomfortable. J.Carrol Naish(Police Informer) ran after Fonda throughout the entire picture. Leo Carrillo(Chief of Police)(famous for his acting in the Cisco Kid Movies) ruled his corrupt jail with an iron fist. Ward Bond had to make an appearance as (El Gringo) and if you look real fast, you will see Mel Ferrer as Father Serra) All of John Ford's films were great in the 30's and 40's and will always remain so.


This is not one of the more famous (author) John Grisham based-movies and it's a bit talky for my normal tastes, but it was interesting. You can thank Chris O'Donnell and Gene Hackman for two excellent acting performances which helped make this so entertaining in spots.

O'Donnell plays young attorney "Adam Hall" (shades of Matt Damon's character in another Grisham movie, "The Rainmaker"). Meanwhile, it's no surprise that Hackman gives us another fascinating performance, this time as the attorney's brutally racist grandfather, "Sam Cayhall." He's been imprisoned for a murder and O'Donnell is trying to release him from a death sentence. Hackman's performance elevates from a "fair" to a "good" movie. While O'Donnell is trying to do his job, a few revelations occur considering his Klansman grandpa. Faye Dunaway also is in here and has a memorable scene with "Sam."

Yes, the critics were right in that this could have been better but they were off base blasting this film. It's still an entertaining film, and they forget the value of that.


For me, this is the best role of Hackman's career, and one of Oscar's most overlooked roles. His character was as revolting, cold, and repugnantly racist as a human being could be, but Hackman played Sam Cayhall as a person with a surprising depth and emotion that, although you couldn't exactly like him, you find yourself quietly hoping his death penalty will be overturned as he plumbs the depths of his evil deeds and confronts his past.

The scene when Fay Dunaway's Lee Cayhall Bowen comes to see Sam in the hours before his execution is as good as it gets. Lee asks if Sam would have killed Joe Lincoln when she was young had she spoken up, Sam tells her yes. You KNOW, you SEE, that he wouldn't have, but in seeing the toll that the guilt of a lifetime of believing it was her fault had exacted from his daughter, Sam lied. Sam redeemed her sanity in that lie, gave her life the peace she never had and, in many ways, redeemed himself.

Although Dunaway is only 11 years younger than Hackman, she handily pulls off the role of Cayhall's emotional, conflicted and alcoholic daughter Lee. She has spent her life hiding from whom she is, both from the community and herself, the crimes of her father, and the stigma it has brought.

Chris O'Donnell is just as good as Sam's grandson, Adam Hall, who is now a lawyer. Hall's father had changed the family surname to also escape the stigma of being the son of the murdering Klansman Cayhall. Apparently by design, Hall works for the firm who handles his grandfather's case, although he keeps his grandfather's identity a secret until he requests to take on the final death penalty appeal. Along the way, Hall learns the unpleasant reality of who he is, the bitter hate and ugliness bred into his grandfather, and insight into the truth of why his father had committed suicide when Hall was a young boy.

This film, although unpleasant in theme, is full of stellar performances and by far the most nuanced and conflicted character Gene Hackman has ever played. If you haven't seen The Chamber, get it, it's worth the watch.


I just finished watching this after I just finished hearing about it. I'll say it's not great, but its definitely worth the time to watch.

You have a very dramatic story of a murdering bigot's grandson (who's a lawyer) trying to save his grandfather (Gene Hackman) from his execution in 28 days. Just from their you know the plot is going to thicken.

When I saw this movie had Gene Hackman and Faye Dunaway I said "great I love those actors". It's also got Chris O'Donnell, OK not a bad actor (but does he remind anyone else of Matthew Perry?), and it's even got Bo Jackson.

I was surprised by a few things. One was that, Bo Jackson, despite not having many lines, was quite good at acting. Another less pleasant was that, as much as I love her, Faye Dunaway did not do an overly impressive performance. Watch her in "Bonnie and Clyde" and then compare her to THIS role... you're not even on the same chart. Playing a rich Southern Bell is maybe more difficult for her, but she did have a few good scene's playing a drunk. One thing that didn't surprise me was Gene Hackman. Mr. Hackman is undoubtedly a great actor, is this movie he made no exception. He definitely needs to give thanks to his make up crew, but he certainly delivered the punches. The emotions he showed seemed so powerful, like he's really ready to join in a lynching. But he's also prepared, not ready, but prepared to forgive.

Really i think that the only problem with this movies was the scenes without Gene Hackman. The rest of the scenes made everything seem more like a "Made for TV movie". The chemistry between Adam Hall (Chris O'Donnell) and Nora Stark (Lela Rochon) was played off of more when they WEREN'T together. With better acting this could have been a much better film. But still it was not bad.

Kudos to John Grisham for the novel, It's a good idea, it wasn't played out as well as it could have... But still, it's still worth while watching.


Chris O'Donnell and Gene Hackman are true to the roles that they are portraying. At least they have every appearance of how I would see those kind of people in a trial. I have seen trials in person and in the media too. The K.K.K. own south and a man or a murderer. O'Donell is adamant and totally focused. The hatred is furious and blinding, as these not-so-good-Ole' boys gather, fight and even kill, under the belief of ' Racial purification '. But Samuel Kayhill (Hackman) is not what he appears to be. But as his time in Prison is coming to an end, the big 'ending', death, his grandson Adam Hall ( Chris O' Donell ) is running in fast motion to try and bring about an appeal, from the Govn. or a 'Stay' of execution.

The performances are gripping and powerful and the directing is detailed and well crafted.

I recommend this prison drama for drama and racial issues and a superb story. (****)


I realize that I am late to watching this movie and that I watched and edited version on AMC but after just listening to the entire book on CD I want to know that the heck happened!? There are so many things that were in the movie that were not in the book and things that were critical to the book that were left out of the movie. Just an example, Sam's daughter Lee(Faye Dunaway) never visits her father before he dies in the book, but yet in the movie they have her visiting him. Second, there is no bomb in Adam's hotel room. Lastly, and the part of the movie that really irritated me was that they never catch Wedge, even when he does visit Sam in prison. There was no direct confrontation between Adam and Wedge. Why do screen writers and directors feel the need to mess with a good thing? READ THE BOOK!!!


On the surface "The Chamber" is about a young lawyer named Adam Hall (Chris O'Donnell) who is trying to save his grandfather (Gene Hackman) from the death penalty. But really the movie is about breaking the cycle of racism, hatred, and bigotry that got his grandfather put on death row to begin with.

Although not one of Grisham's best, he still deserves credit for daringly going into a dark and despised part of American history. This movie may have stirred many people the wrong way and touched a nerve with others. I saw an excellent depiction of a torn young man desiring to help his grandfather in spite of his and everyone else's despise of that same man.

The movie was compelling. Just one tale about the troubled history of Mississippi. As the character Nora Stark (Lela Rochon) said..."Mississippi has bodies buried everywhere."


If the title, "The Chamber", is meant to be a pun, it's a pretty good one. There's the judge's "chamber" where decisions are made, and, at the other end, the gas "chamber" where those plans are executed along with the inmate to whom those judgments were passed down.

In some ways, the title is the niftiest part of the movie. For John Gresham, whose intentions are always benign, it's a pretty weak story. (It shouldn't be, with William Goldman doing the adaptation.) It's Gresham's most pedantic. Condemned are both racist violence and the death penalty, the former more so than the latter.

That's the bothersome part of the plot. Okay, Gene Hackman does his best with the role of the lifetime KKK bomber who takes the rap for the real killer of the two Jewish children. But he's miscast. Hackman is not an unreflective, defiant, redneck racist and murderer. JAMES WOODS is that character. Hackman is absolutely first-rate (without being a bravura actor) when he gets the right role, whether it's villainous or heroic, but he's never been good with accents and, man, does this role call for one.

At that, he gives the strongest performance in the film, with support from a couple of seasoned players like Harve Presnell. Gresham's relatively innocent young idealist, Chris O'Donnell, does not convince. He looks the part alright but his voice and gestures suggest a weakness that the character shouldn't have. And he's the main man. Some of the supporting players, like Bo Jackson as Sergeant Packer, can't seem to act at all.

The climax involves one of those detailed execution scenes I've come to loathe. I don't understand why they're there. In a short cinematic exercise in the early 1940s, Orson Welles used the first-person camera to guide the viewer into a gas chamber. Then, in the mid-50s, there was a detailed execution of Susan Hayward in "I Want to Live." Then there was a hiatus for another twenty years or so before these tasteless scenes came back with a vengeance. Here we get to see Gene Hackman gassed to death, the foamy spittle dripping from his mouth as he expires. But what does this tell us? That execution is horrifying and painful? What else is new? So what do these scenes tell us that we don't already know? I understand some TV channels are negotiating with Texas to film executions for broadcast. (How long before the opportunity to pull the switch is auctioned on eBay?) What kind of audience do the writers and directors think they're addressing?

The musical score is by Carter Burwell and it's fairly conventional, full of deep and ominous chords. He's a talented composer who has done quirkier work in better films like "Fargo" and "The Spanish Prisoner." Judging from the movies that are based on his novels, John Gresham is in the not-uncommon position of being at odds with the values of the society he grew up in. A lot of other marginalized writers have also been prompted to explain the sins of their culture's past to the rest of us, beginning maybe with Nathaniel Hawthorne and running through the Southern giants of American literature and playwriting -- Tennessee Williams, Faulkner, and the rest. Gresham fits the mold and his work is interesting, but this is a failed effort. The legal aspects are confusing, the characters a bit muddled, and the story itself either too simple or too complex, depending on how you look at it.


I have read the book by John grisham and i was not greatly impressed by his work . But the book was a worth read, it had some nice moments and the mood throughout the book was good. I expected a good adaptation of the book in this movie even though the rating was below 6. But what i saw was the opposite. Right from the start there has been many changes in the plot. I do understand the movie would have been more boring if adam and sam had been just talking most of the time but it made sense in the book and the movie is senseless. A few characters in the book were totally missing here and some new characters have sprung up from nowhere which r not in the book. I didn't like the casting of sam as well.

If u liked the book, so be it, don watch this movie.. Even if u din like the book, don watch it..It is no way near the book..


I have not read the novel this movie is based on, but judging the movie by itself, when the credits rolled, I was thinking: "Uh, so that was it??" The plot is shallow, and the acting is so-so. Quite possibly this is partly due to the fact that many of the character's motivations either remain obscure or are difficult to believe. Hackman turns in a decent performance, as he usually does, he has a good scene with Dunaway, and a number of good lines with O'Donnell. On the whole, Dunaway's character is paper-thin, and not terribly useful to the story. O'Donnell does not have the range to pull off his part, which probably adds to the monotone of the story.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW But the weakest part is the story. As told in the movie, it is without any surprises whatsoever. Obviously, since it's a Grisham movie, we assume that nothing is quite the way it seems, but ultimately it is pretty much the way it seemed from the beginning, with a few additional details that had been swept under the rug by the powers that be, for obvious and totally unsurprising reasons. No drama, no suspense, no surprising plot twists, nothing. The grandson of the bad guy is digging around in some old files (including the sneaking-into-the-archive/library/storage scene, which in this movie passes without any tenseness whatsoever), connects a few dots that provide a little bit of background to the crime in question, but that's about it. There is a faint hint at larger-scale intrigue, but it is not elaborated, and remains entirely inconsequential to the viewer or the characters (well, except perhaps the guy on death row).

Watch it on a Sunday afternoon for Hackman, and perhaps Lela Rochon (as yet another useless character) as eye candy.


The movie did not portray most of the characters in a believably authentic manner, although the Hackman character for the first 90% of the picture was fascinating. Breaking into the State Sovereignty Commission's files was gratuitous,unrealistic and added nothing more to the plot that a straightforward, legal examination of the files would have added. Fulfilling the death-row Last Meal request of Hackman for a bowl of Eskimo Pies by giving him Eskimo Pie ice cream pops, instead of the (nearly ) unique traditional Eskimo Pie seemed to underline what seemed like a lack of authenticity found throughout the movie. Very disappointing.


I did not read the book, I haven't read a Grisham novel since the nineties (when I was in High School)...That being said, I have enjoyed hiss film adaptations in the past--particularly Runaway Jury, The Rainmaker, and A Time to Kill.

I just saw The Chamber last night on AMC and I have to admit it was incredibly weak. The acting was awful--Chris O'Donnell did not carry the lead well at all, and Faye Dunaway and Gene Hackman were also a great disappointment. In Dunaway and Hackamn's last scene together when Hackman starts crying I almost started laughing. This movie was completely unable to spur any sympathy in me for Cahall (Hackman).

The screenplay was extremely cliché and boring. I have to agree with other posters on this site about the ridiculousness of the concept that the State of Mississippi sponsored murders in the 1960s. And Bo Jackson as the token black guy who sees the good in an old racist and proves that the old man can like black people is just stupid.

This movie wouldn't have been cutting edge even if it came out in the seventies or maybe early eighties...sadly the clichés of racism and family dysfunction together with mediocre acting and writing makes this movie a snoozer.


This does for the German occupation of France what "Life Is Beautiful" did for that of Italy. It's a wonderfully warm and even humourous story set against the horror of the holocaust. The characters are well drawn and the camera sees the German occupation through decidedly French eyes. No propaganda. No punches pulled. No attempt to deny that many French collaborated with the Nazis. And no false heroics. M. Batignole is a timid hero indeed but a genuine hero nonetheless. A refreshing new perspective on the war years with much to praise and nothing to criticise.


Probably the best film I have seen so far this year. We recently screened it for our Film Festival Selection Committee and the response was near-unanimous - four stars. The previous commenter's accusations of "terminal cuteness" baffle me - this is the best good-old-fashioned solid three-act structure Hollywood movie I have seen in a long time - and it was made in France. The distributor claims that they cannot find an American distributor who will meet their terms - therefore, there are no plans for American release. If you can find it playing at your local Jewish Film Festival (about the only place you are likely to find it in the US - a shame, really, since it is not a film only for Jews)by all means buy your ticket and go.


Both an entertaining and a sincere movie. Jules Sitruk definitely did a very good job in here. The story had indeed some emotional involvements and was above the average. I liked the way Gerard Jugnot and Jules interacted with each other. Sometimes it was a bit oversubscribed and unrealistic - I'm thinking of the gorgeous sequence with the German soldier who had his knee dislocated - but nonetheless it didn't minimize the movie's natural charm. The historical background adds a significant amount of authenticity to the whole plot and grants the movie additional quality. Solid acting, entertaining experience. Recommended.


In 1942, in an occupied Paris, the apolitical grocer Edmond Batignole (Gérard Jugnot) lives with his wife and daughter in a small apartment in the building of his grocery. When his future son-in-law and collaborator of the German Pierre-Jean Lamour (Jean-Paul Rouve) calls the Nazis to arrest the Jewish Bernstein family, they move to the confiscated apartment. Some days later, the young Simon Bernstein (Jules Sitruk) escapes from the Germans and comes to his former home. When Batignole finds him, he feels sorry for the boy and lodges him, hiding Simon from Pierre-Jean and also from his wife. Later, two cousins of Simon meet him in the cellar of the grocery. When Pierre-Jean finds the children, Batignole decides to travel with the children to Switzerland.

What a delightful movie this "Monsieur Batignole" is! The story is realistic, balancing dramatic situations with some funny scenes, like, for example, when Batignole is called in the train station to help a German soldier with a twisted knee. Another interesting and quite original aspect is the unusual number of French collaborators, since it is very difficult to see a movie that recognizes that they did exist in times of war. Further, Monsieur Batignole is not the usual hero, but a man driven by the reality to have a heroic action instead. The boy Jules Sitruk steals the movie with his attitudes, and Gérard Jugnot and Jean-Paul Rouve are fantastic. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Herói Por Acaso" ("Hero by Chance")


This movie suffers from terminal cuteness.. Even treating such a horrible subject, Gérard Jugnot does what he's been doing for over 20 years : playing and directing average french citizens facing not so ordinary situations(of unemployment in Une epoque formidable, of the sects in Fallait Pas, of being a father of a famous actress in Meilleur espoir Féminin...etc.,etc.). Treating in a comic way a serious subject.

This flick is plain silly...a long road to clichéness with an ability to open doors that have already been opened 50 years ago. The germans are bad, sex-crazed people.Deportation is horrible. Every french citizen was pro-german during the war and pro-De Gaulle in 1945. Daaah? The best part is when he's taking the 3 jewish children nearby the swiss border. The french people living there are supposed to have a strong accent (as the kids). But all the adults don't. It is simply both stupid and hilarious (but unintentionally, of course).

Because it wants to tell us about a tragic event and deliver a message of hope we're supposed to love the movie? Nah. It just falls flat on every level : ludicrous dialogues, comedy, drama, war, suspense (ooooohhhh, are the poor children going the get caught by the nasty nazi??? Nah.)...everything is over-demonstrative and SO predictable. This tearjerker is a huge success in France where most of the official critics just love that sense of cuteness. It is beyond redemption, really. This movie deserves a slap in the face to wake it up a bit...but no...terminal cuteness indeed.

And not even an accurate use of the Scope A.R to higher the note a bit. Pfff.

Superwonderscope says : 1


'Ma mère' is a film on the edge. Director Christophe Honoré (who gave us the little jewel 'Closer to Leo') has adapted a tough book by Georges Bataille that explores incest, sadomasochism, love, family dysfunction, and nebulous moral values of conflicted adolescents caught in the web of sexual investigation. It is filled with difficult scenes and ideas and certainly is not a film for the faint of heart or spirit, but at the same time it is a brave film depicting the dissociative state of sexual mind to which we've come after the influences of such thinkers as Bataille, Foucault, Derida, Gide, and others. Christophe Honoré captures an impossible story extremely well on the screen! 17-year-old Pierre (Louis Garrel of 'The Dreamers') is a spiritually challenged adolescent home from his Catholic school to be with his mother Hélène (Isabelle Huppert) whom he idolizes and loves and see his father (Philippe Duclos) who is distant in every sense. Hélène finds it necessary to inform Pierre of her background (her husband raped her when she was very young, causing such anguish that she has become addicted to a life of immorality as a means of escape), a means of warning him of what close association with her could mean. Pierre is blind to all things negative about Hélène and with the news of his father's death, he demands to be included in the wild sexual life of Hélène and her female lover Réa (Joana Preiss). Hélène is sexually attracted to Pierre and elects to include him in her games of voyeurism (watching Pierre during intercourse with Réa, introducing him to the shallow and compulsive Hansi (Emma de Caunes), mutilation, and all forms of debauchery.

The group goes to the sunny islands off Spain where Pierre falls in love with the dangerous Hansi and follows her lead in learning about his mother's strange and dangerous proclivities, sexual acts which include the involvement of young Loulou (Jean-Baptiste Montagut), a young man whom they torture for the sake of sexual satisfaction. All the while that Pierre is being introduced into Hélène's bizarre world he is conflicted by his superego in the form of the Catholic Church: he is seen reciting catechism in the desert surrounded by a silent, nude Greek chorus a la Fellini. Ultimately the 'vacation' is over and Pierre returns home with Hélène and the ultimate incestuous aspect of the Oedipus complex plays out in a completely bizarre and very dark way. To say more would destroy the impact of the ending.

Isabelle Huppert is brilliant as always, her quiet outwardly plain demeanor disguising the profoundly ill soul inside. Likewise Louis Garrel makes the fragile, gullible, needy and severely conflicted Pierre understandable: we may not agree with his choices as he wades through the strange waters of perversion, but we never lose sight of his vulnerability and passionate need to be loved. There is a lot of graphic sex in this film, but this particular story could not be told without it. Christophe Honoré manages this strange tale by letting the story take us into the realm of the unreal and he never for a moment loses our interest.

Even the music scoring is substantive, using Samuel Barber's own setting of his famous 'Adagio for Strings' for the choral 'Agnus Dei', most appropriately heard when Pierre is mentally visiting his spiritual conflicts with his corporal deeds. This is clearly not a film for everyone, but for those who admire the French cinema history of uncovering strange tales, this is a fine example. In French with English subtitles. Grady Harp


As I watched the movie, I felt (probably like many others) somehow shocked by the powerful and explicit images. Yet it can't be said that this is merely done to make a controversial film. The viewer gets a slowly developing picture of the relationship between mother and son, or more correctly of the adaptation of mother's lifestyle by her son. Finally everybody is invited to morally judge the relations, actions and sayings of the main characters. But as most viewers are likely to enjoy the "forbidden" relationships or explicit scenes, who are we to give criticism? This film puts a whole new dimension in the concept of what is normal, allowed or understood as morally acceptable. It's sometimes almost revolting, and yet when you've seen the story-lines that led to these scenes, you may find the actions acceptable (or maybe I've a twisted mind). I would like to call the attention to the beautifully chosen soundtrack and the abrupt ending, which leaves the viewer a little bit disturbed.


It is my opinion that Isabelle Huppert is the finest actress to ever step infront of a camera. Beautiful, unusual, talented beyond reason and able to convey more with a simple look than most actors can communicate in an entire film. In short, she is brilliant. Even when her films lag -- she shines.

Her interest in exploring the darker sides of humanity have created some of the most memorable performances put to the screen. The Piano Teacher shines as her best work thus far.

I am always quite excited whenever one of her films makes it to the states. I was thrilled when I was able to secure a DVD copy of Ma Mere (yes, it was legally obtained!) prior to its release in the states. The film is just bad. From the production values to the editing to the screenplay. The actors are all quite good and do their best with what they are given --- and, that isn't much.

Critics have shaken their fingers at Huppert for "finally going too far" in her exploration of transgressive characters, but I found this film to be more silly and comical than dark and shocking. In addition, Huppert is not even on the screen all that much. Which is really a lucky break for her! This is one of those films which makes me want to ask the film maker, his producers and his actors why they bothered at all.

Tasteless, tacky, slow moving, un-erotic, dull and uncomfortable for all the wrong reasons - this film fails on almost every level other than the performances given by the actors. Being a French film, I do not think it was the intention of the director to create irony by his odd choice of playing "Happy Together" by the Turtles at the film's end when we see the son masturbating next to the dead body of his mother. However, I am hard pressed to think what else could have been meant by this choice. On the DVD there is an interview with this seemingly untalented artist in which he says that he used that selection of music because the mother and son could only be happy when they were together, but this makes no sense given the plot and ultimate outcome.

Interestingly, the DVD also contains an alternate ending which would have been a "better" way to go, in my opinion. Rather telling, a bit of this alternate ending is used in the middle of the film ---- in the context of the mid-point of the film this scene made no sense. This leaves me to think the Honre hadn't a clue as to how he planned on putting this mess together.

Perhaps the reason Huppert made this film was to spend some time on the Cannery Islands -- she would have done better to just take a vacation and should have skipped this film altogether. The choice of updating the novel from which this film is somewhat based to modern times and shifting it to these islands is odd. In fact, much of the film seems to be making a negative statement about tourists and their impact on nature. Fine, but how does this fit into the film? Answer: it doesn't.

Ma Mere should not be dismissed pretentious, perverse and morally off-track. Instead, one can simply call Ma Mere a very bad cinematic mistake. But, why did Isabelle Huppert appear in this waste of good film stock? Sad.


Firstly, let me make it perfectly clear that, unlike 9 out of 10 negative reviews for this atrocity, my objection to the film is not a moral one.

Undoubtedly, you have read dozens of comments about how this is an amoral, pernicious insult to human decency. The crux of this review is to say that this would be to give the film far too much credit.

'Ma Mere' just smacks of this self-conscious effort to be disturbing, to be offensive, to be shocking. It failed to disturb, offend or shock me, for the simple reason that I could not find any reason whatsoever for anything that happened in this film.

In a nutshell, Louis Garrel discovers that his father was a philandering scumbag. Daddy then dies, and little Louis finds out that his mother is basically a hooker. He doesn't really seem the least bit perturbed by this, and happily goes off with Mummy to indulge in the same debauchery as she does. She treats him like s h i t, her "friends" treat him like s h i t, yet - for reasons known only to screenwriter, director and pretentious tw*t extraordinaire Christophe Honore - he still hangs out with them all. What, pray tell, is the point of the film? That the human condition is foulsome, depressing, self-destructive and disgusting? Well, duh!

As I have said, this film seems to go out of its way to be offensive, under the guise of a film that is merely observing offensive people. I watched the film on DVD and was particularly amused by Honore and the formerly lovely Emma de Caunes trying to convince me in a supplementary interview that "none of the sex is gratuitous" and that "every sex scene serves a purpose". Give me a break! 'Last Tango in Paris' (which, for the record, I think is a stunning film) had a point, but this!?! Among my favourite examples of how self-consciously foulsome this dollop is, are the scene where one of Mere's friends sticks her finger up Garrel's arse and then Mummy dutifully sniffs it, and the scene where Emma de Caunes sticks her hand up her "still dripping" womanhood and wipes it onto Garrel's chest.

"Wow! That's, like, so profound", I hear you say. My sentiments precisely.

Beyond this, none of the characters make any sense, least of all our main protagonist. Garrel is treated like crap but still loves (yes, loves) his mother. He fires their servants for *no reason what-so-ever*, he dupes some poor German kid into being hogtied and whipped for *no reason what-so-ever*, he falls in love with Emma de Caunes for *no reason what-so-ever*. It's just completely ludicrous. It's as if a ten year old with a boner wrote the script. This is the kind of film that Beavis & Butthead would enjoy.

I ask you, Honore, who am I supposed to identify with? Failing that, in whom am I supposed to invest any emotional interest? I simply did not give a hoot about anyone in this movie and, thus, could not have cared less about anything that was happening. Didn't they teach you that in film school? I know the French New Wave threw the book out of the window, but surely some of the rules still stand? Apparently not...

I repeat, I have no moral objection to this pile of steaming cinematic turd, but I simply could not find a point to any of it. My wife found it "intensely boring", which I felt was unfair to boredom and intensity.

Indeed, it does not relent form trying to be shocking/poignant long enough for it to get boring. I actually held the faith - right until the final frame, when Garrel falls to the ground beside his mother's coffin and starts masturbating - I held the faith that the point of the past two hours would be revealed. Then the credits rolled.

All this film does that is of any note is to go so far up its own arse that is almost comes off as parody. It's a shame Honore didn't realise that before releasing the film, or we could have been looking at the funniest film since 'Airplane'.

Sadly, instead we are looking at the most pretentious (and I hardly ever use that word) film since someone handed Asia Argento a camera.


I enjoyed the film so much I read the book. The book itself is unfinished and has two snippets at the very end that are disconnected from the rest of the work. It must have been very difficult to write a feature-length screenplay from this book. Not only is the book relatively short (200 pages about the size of a standard paperback with relatively large type), but there's very little "action." The book is all from Pierre's point of view, obviously (the title Ma Mère means My Mother), and it's mostly what he thinks about situations. The only characters in the book are the father, Pierre, Hélène, Réa, Hansi, and Loulou. (The grandparents are mentioned, just as they are in the film.) While the book addresses homosexuality, it only looks at the lesbian side of things because in the book Loulou is a woman. Nearly all the book content made it into the film, but there's much of the film that isn't part of the novel.


This movie stole 2 hours of my life and I want them back! I kept watching, hoping against hope, that something would happen in the film to redeem itself, but alas, it was not to be. Watching this movie is the cinematic equivalent of a root canal. And for a movie so full of sex, this is about the least erotic thing I can imagine.

While Isabelle Huppert is an undeniably talented and beautiful actress, I can not comprehend what would possess her to star in a film like this. This movie is full of unpleasant people doing unpleasant things, for no discernible reason other than to annoy the viewer. None of the characters are remotely realistic, and their actions and motivations make no sense. In a real world, Isabelle Huppert's character would have been imprisoned and/or institutionalized.

The basic story is this: boy goes to live with his parents, dad dies, son pees all over his dad's stuff and masturbates, mom sniffs her son's butt, mom decides to introduce son to a world of sexual deviance and perversion (including participating in group sex with him), mom decides she should leave before the two of them actually have sex (but she conveniently leaves a whore behind for son to fall in love with), mom continues her career as a prostitute, son and whore whip the local restaurateur and cry, mom comes home to cause more trouble, and then mom dies and son masturbates at her coffin.

There, I just saved you two hours and quite a few brain cells.


This is the worst film I've seen since Gigli. Little or no indication is given of why the male protagonist involves himself in all the sexual depravity his mother introduces him to, which makes all the explicit and unpleasant sex scenes gratuitous and pornographic. The script is uninteresting and unfunny, and the camera-work is nothing to write home about. The film's only redeeming feature is the gorgeous love interest, called Hansie I think, played by Antoine off Eurotrash's daughter. I didn't like Isabelle Huppert's other bad-sex movie, La Pianiste (The Piano Teacher), but Ma Mere easily trumps it for complete badness by making all the sex, befoulment, incest and masturbation over coffins entirely gratuitous. If this is the best these people can produce, then they shouldn't have been making films, and George Bataille should have stuck to being a librarian. This is a dire film, right up there with Ishtar, but too unpleasant for the 'so bad it's good' market. Avoid, avoid, avoid.


I love Isabelle Huppert, she is fearless and great, but my god, what a disaster, not an interesting one, but simply embarrassing. There have been parodies about bad french sex movies for years based on decades of really bad french sex movies. So not sure what the point of this movie is/was, it sure wasn't funny so strike the parody and it wasn't in the least interesting, or even very shocking. The mother's death at the end was a bore, left me cold, and the boy trying to masturbate in front of her mother's corpse was already done very badly by Philipp Roth in Sabbath's Theater. I suppose the deep story here is that if your parents are incredibly warped, indolent and irresponsible, weird things will happen. The US death row is filled with people who were destroyed by their upbringing. These stories have potential, not the vapid musings and bored actions of wealthy euro-trash who do not have enough sense not to s**t where they eat.


Actors Isabelle Hupert and Louis Garrel are what drew me to this French film. However, had I known the inexplicable mess this film would turn out to be, I might have passed altogether. The director updates a novel set in turn-of-the-century brothels to modern day Canary Islands - presumably equating the European tourist's penchant for holiday sex with Victorian appetites. But everything that goes smugly unsaid in this film only serves to confuse the viewer and cloud the filmmaker's viewpoint (whatever it may be). Sex scenes of blatant perversion are piled onto an unclear narrative giving them a gratuitous feeling despite the air of self-importance that pervades the proceedings. Though we know the ill-fated Mother/Son attraction must end tragically, I wasn't quite prepared for the borderline absurd fade-out scored to The Turtles' "Happy Together" featuring a morgue masturbation. The DVD goes as far as to provide an 'alternate' ending that is just as ridiculous but ten times more confusing. Oh, mommy. This is more merde than mere.


Remarkably evocative and accurate portrayal of a work by Geroge Bataille. Not having read the particular book it was based on yet it certainly ties in the imagery and methodologies used in other novels of his I have read. Challenging, stylish and original. Probably the most successful adaptation I have seen of a challenging work (with the proviso of not having read the actual work and citing familiarity with his oeuvre). Arguably some of the sex in the middle of the film is superfluous but it soon gets darker and touches upon some of Bataille's more extreme ideas re: religion, sex and death. If an attempt were to be made to film Story of the Eye, the same production team would seem like the ideal choice. Indeed, maybe this will start a trend in filming the fiction /screenplays based on the ideas of others like Foucault / Barthes, etc. That could prove very interesting.


Usually the French are much better at tackling "taboo" subjects, but the way this film was done was AWFUL. I appreciate the works of Louis Garrel and Isabelle Huppert, which was the only draw for me to watch Ma Mère. I hadn't read the book the film was adapted from, but the hype was too much to ignore so I watched it. BAD CHOICE. Louis Garrel was decent, as decent as he could be in such an awful film. Isabelle Huppert's performance was not her best, a lot of long pauses and dramatic painful-staring-off-into-the-world stares that just got annoying after awhile. The film did a bad job at establishing the characters. At some parts, I felt as if the characters did things for no reason without ever providing much background to why they act that way and other characters just felt really unnecessary to the story. You leave the film feeling like you don't understand any of the characters, why they do the things they do, even worse you leave not feeling a single emotion of sympathy or hate or ANYTHING for the characters. I also found myself lost at a few parts due to two reasons. 1.) The way the movie was filmed was very distracting, as if someone with a hand-held home video camera kept zooming in and out of the actors faces and 2.) some shots were very dark which made it difficult to understand what was going on (especially at the end). I felt like the film strayed a bit from actually telling an unique story, and became more about nude shots and unusual sex scenes to seem more "daring" and "edgy." I didn't feel like I took anything from the film, or the point of the film. If you want to watch a good Christophe Honoré film, I would advise you to skip this and pick up Les Chansons d'Amour starring Garrel as well.


A mother (Huppert) and son (Garrel) are living a hedonistic life on some exotic island. They both fool around with the same women. Sounds like a situation with interesting, if twisted, possibilities. But the director has some other agenda - actually several agendas as he is all over the place, unsure what kind of movie he is making. One moment characters are engaging in sexual activities, the next they are spewing pretentious dialog, and then they do something totally unexpected that is seemingly from another movie. The film has no rhyme or rhythm. Some of the scenes are absolutely gross. Although the entire film is incomprehensible, the ending makes no sense whatsoever. Another annoying thing is the director's obsession with graphic male nudity. And what's with Garrel? First he plays a guy who carries on with his sister in "Dreamers," then with his mother in this. A family man.


I saw this at the London Film Festival - having seen "A Hole in My Heart" (Ett hâl i mitt hjärta) the previous evening I was prepared to be disturbed ... not sure which was more difficult - probably the Swedish film.

During Ma Mere, the usual trickle of audience members left throughout the film as they found various scenes too hard to take (or hadn't read the programme), but what was really weird was that at times the depravity in the film was so ridiculous that people just laughed ! This was the film's 3rd screening, and it was the last day of the festival, so I guess that the audience weren't committed fans.

At the end of the film, with the soothing music, there was a general amusement amongst the viewers - I don't think we took it very seriously !


In an age when sex scenes are deleted from movies by American studios trying for a dumbed-down R rating, it's refreshing to see foreign movies that do their own thing. Ma Mere is one such movie.

The young guy's girlfriend is a real looker, especially in bed, where she looks like women actually look when they're having sex ... naked ... as opposed to American movies where the characters somehow manage to make love fully clothed.

There's a little bit of twisted French dementia in this movie, as can be expected from the French; they have a bad case of ennui, apparently. But overall this is a good film. And check out that chick taking the 'leading role' with her boyfriend!


As someone who has watched 1000's of films and actually likes foreign films, this was one of the most whacked-out movies I have ever watched. I fully appreciate that the subject matter is unconventional, and that people who get into such weird mental places do not have pedestrial social behavior. Also, most French films tend to take on unusualy subject manner and are much more direct in approach than US films when it comes to sex and sexuality. However, I feel like I was being thrown against a wall with one morally disgusting scene after another. I suppose it doesn't help when you instantly hate the main character, wonder if any of the adults act like adults (much less who isn't sexually overcharged), wonder why none of the teens have any common sense, and it just keeps going. You gain sympathy for certain characters and you realize the reason none of the adults act like adults is because...well..they have real problems. I will say it is beautifully shot and the direction just adds to the intensity, but thats about I can come up with in terms of redeeming qualities in what is one big mess!


This is a movie which I saw two years ago (I am a man) with a woman who suggested we'd watch it while in intimate circumstances. As I do not intend nor feel the need to give details, I will only say I did not see that French girl again. I hardly watched it; just remembered Isabelle Huppert was in the cast.

My curiosity -or boredom- was strong last night, and I rented it to see what I'd missed. As I don't understand French I could not even have a gist of what the plot was, but I could last night: a very poor attempt to glamorise perversion and diss catholicism. I am a little bit of a pervert and a feeble religious observant, so I may not be accused of being biased or discriminating European art films.

Now I know why I did not feel the need to call her again.


Pierre (Louis Garrel) is a seventeen-year-old who lives with his grandmother, and visits his parents in the summer. His dad (Philippe Duclos), is sickly, prematurely aged, and has never taken much interest in him. His mom, Hélène (Isabelle Huppert), is a prostitute who works the streets afternoons. Dad dies unexpectedly. By way of making up for her past neglect, Hélène decides to help get Pierre sexually initiated. Pierre and Hélène share a female lover, one of Hélène's colleagues. That leads up to an incestuous affair between Pierre and Hélène.

The rest is a combination of porn and disrespectful imitation of Fellini. If orgy scenes with participants of indeterminate gender, as well as the visibly aging body of Ms. Huppert, are of interest, then so is this film. One must see this, to believe that she could be in a film this bad. ("Ma Mère," to be sure, is nothing like Louis Malle's "Murmur of the Heart.")


People have sex for many reasons, one reason being that for however fleeting sex can give us a sense of unboundedness, without time. That fleeting chase to orgasm which we take again again takes us to God and we feel whole--for so terribly a brief time, but whole. People masturbate for many reasons, some people masturbate a lot because it is the best they know of to the truly transcendent moment from which we come and to which we go. An orgasm, any orgasm, is a "petit mort" and only in death do we get to hold the Divine Presence in fullness. The human soul is sadly unattended to in our contemporary culture because of the moral bankruptcy of the conventional religious institutions. People have no where to turn, they have no tutors, no credible religious mentors, so they undertake the journey on their own and end up with loveless sex and the inevitable next step, a slow, but certain, death. When the young man masturbates on his dead fathers porn he does the only thing he can do in his state of spiritual abandonment. The adults in his life live in a world without sin and hence no salvation. The desperate and painful masturbation is his recognition that his father could not love anything or anyone.


this is a very disgusting movie. i would refrain from watching it unless you are into mother and son sexual perversion relationships, molestation and bondage.

i was bitterly disgusted. there are ways to film such scenes showing everything! the closeups of penises are uncalled for. the script is confusing.. the movie is a waste of time, unless of course you're into these perversions, in which case i would suggest surfing the net for the material.

oh and on a technical note, the camera work is jerky and pans/zooms way too fast (like 70s cheap flicks). seems as though they only had one camera to work with..

ma mere, ma trash

Kristine


This was the first in a series of erotic films which were made possible by the increasingly liberal moral climate of the seventies and eighties and which enjoyed a success de scandale. The main character, Emmanuelle herself, is the attractive young wife of Jean, an older French diplomat in Bangkok, and the film chronicles her various sexual escapades. There is not, in fact, any real plot. Emmanuelle is seen having sex with her husband, with other men and, even more, with other women; lesbianism is, along with swimming, squash and cocktail parties, one of the main diversions of the bored ladies of Bangkok's French expatriate community.

Although this was one of the first productions of the mainstream cinema to deal with erotic subject-matter frankly, it is not particularly explicit. Much of the sexual action is implied, and what is shown directly is often shot from a distance. The eroticism of the film is softened by the way it is photographed. Outdoor scenes are shot in a blurry soft focus against a background of brilliant sunshine; indoor ones, by contrast, are generally dark or dimly lit. The leading actress, Sylvia Kristel, with her slim, boyish figure and the gentle beauty of her features, seems perfectly at home in this soft, unreal-seeming atmosphere. Nevertheless, there are still scenes that seem shocking even thirty years on. One of Emmanuelle's lovers, Marie-Ange, is a teenage girl only dubiously of the age of consent, something that seems to have caused less consternation in the seventies than it would do today. (The actress who played her was in fact eighteen, but the intention seems to have been to make the pigtailed, lollipop-sucking Marie-Ange a bisexual Lolita figure). Emmanuelle's Thai houseboy, aroused by the sight of her and her husband making love, pursues and has sex with one of the housemaids. It is never made clear whether or not this is an act of rape; the boundary between consensual and non-consensual sex is blurred in a manner which I found distasteful.

Like certain other Continental erotic films of this period, the 'Emmanuelle' series is marked by a certain pseudo-intellectual pretentiousness. This is particularly apparent in the second half of this film when the heroine, after being jilted by one of her lesbian lovers (the oddly named Bee), takes up with the elderly Mario, a man who, despite his grey hair and advancing years, fancies himself both as a lover and as a thinker. The rest of the film is frequently punctuated by Mario's thoughts on the meaning of life, carefully enunciated in a deep, gravelly voice, somewhere between an Old Testament prophet and an Orson Welles sherry commercial, which gives them the air of oracular pronouncements. Sex, in Mario's philosophy, ceases to be a taboo and becomes a duty. One owes it to oneself, and indeed to the world in general, to experience physical pleasure in as many ways as possible, with as many partners as possible, and to liberate oneself from all ways of thinking that might hinder one from this aim. The consequence of not doing so is that one will fail in one's solemn and sacred duty to Live Life To The Full.

It is this sort of Existentialism-Lite, Sartre meets Hugh Hefner, that makes the film seem so dated today, far more than do trivial period details such as Jean's sideburns or the garish lime-green paintwork of his sports car. This sort of cod-philosophy became one of the first casualties of the AIDS epidemic. If we watch 'Emmanuelle' today, it is not as an erotic experience, despite the undoubted charm of its heroine, and certainly not as an intellectual one, but as a slight, inadvertently amusing period piece. 4/10


Whether you like it or not this is a milestone in the history of cinema. Like the James Bond movie Thunderball set new standards for violence in mainstream cinema, Emmanuel set new standards for sexual content.

Certainly the film was an amazing hit and box office records quickly tumbled. It is the most seen French film of all time and holds the record for the longest run at a single non-multiplex cinema (18 months in Paris, France). After this film sex on film was a completely different beast and many directors (new and old) used part of the template.

Anyone one wanting a dirty movie will be sadly disappointed. Here sex is treated as natural, rarely earth shattering and almost matter-of-fact. The bedroom is only one of the locations where the act takes place - in fact I am surprised the participants weren't arrested!

Sylvia Kristel plays a newly married wife of 22 (19 in reality) with no previous film experience (this is no accident). Previously she had only appeared in commercials. She is the innocent who becomes corrupted, but it is a journey of corruption she is happy to take. Her nice-but-cold older husband is also all for it. The circumstances behind their marriage are not even touched upon - but maybe it was a marriage of convenience as he is a world travelling diplomat?

For a film aimed at men, men are rarely shown in a great light. Emmanuel finds she is bisexual and looks happier with women than with men - who commonly treat her as a sex object. If she appeared brighter she could even be viewed as a feminist icon, but even the high queen of feminism Germaine Greer says she is a "bimbo."

Lot of things are dated in this movie. The view of casual unprotected sex certainly. There is even a casual rape. But its use of third-world locations is a treat on the eye (on the big screen especially) and there is nothing substandard about the production. Even the music is first class and still does the rounds on its own.

The photography is as good as you would see in a big budget epic. The film moves along at a slow but steady pace and you do look forward to finding out what happens next or how a situation is resolved.

The film is nothing but a study of an open marriage from the female perspective. The fact that she yields to the experiences and becomes more sexual bold is clearly pleasing to the male viewer. No doubt this was a date movie for males those that wanted their partners to follow her lead.

This is a clever erotic movie. It stays in the mind long after seeing it and Kristel looks comfortable with or without her clothes. She is far from a great actress, but she does have poise and dignity. The sequels that followed are nothing more than attempts to extract more money from a franchise and are merely routine entertainment.


"Emmanuelle" is an elegant, excellently photographed movie, but too often rolls in a syrupy pretension

It is about a young, French woman who joins her husband in Bangkok There much of Emmanuelle's allure is that she isn't shy about her body, or even afraid to engage in sexual activity in semipublic places

There are a number of rousing, lesbian meetings very typical of French cinema, coupled with encounters with handsome, sensitive men who enjoy superficial lovemaking The film really deals in sensual images and an over-blown, continuous repeating of its erotic philosophy There is sensual intimacy between Emmanuelle and the other women that is rare in the cinema

My favorite moment when teen-ager Christine Boisson comes upon the nude Sylvia Kristel asleep Without embarrassment, she leans forward and unusually caresses gently and affectionately Emmanuelle's breast with her finger


Emmanuelle was the first adult film I ever viewed and it delighted me. It was erotic, but it had the added element of sensuality. I believe the element of sensuality is what made it so good.... For a woman, sensuality is an important factor. The fact that Emmanuelle wasn't hardcore, nor was it nasty made for better viewing. Nor was it harsh or ugly as many porn films tend to be. Too many of the films made today lack sensuality, they are cold and obviously put on. Although,I found the story was a bit odd, it was exotic. Exotic in the setting, exotic with it's use of dim lighting. Sylvia Kristel was beautiful and natural in this film. In the world of erotica, it's definitely a classic and worth seeing.


Going into this film, the only thing that I was really worried about was that it might be boring. It's not that I particularly have anything against pornography; but what's taboo now and what was taboo over three decades ago are different things, and besides that; you can only watch people having sex for so long before it begins to get dull. However, I was wrong; the film isn't boring, and while the focus is usually on sex; there actually is a story, and it actually is quite interesting! The film is unlikely to appeal to people that are interested in the more perverted side of sex as the film doesn't feature anything above lesbian sex, but the tender way that the story is presented as well as the French style give it a very erotic feel throughout. The plot, as you might expect, focuses on the character 'Emmanuelle', a young woman that lives with her husband; an older man, in Bangkok. They share a sort of teacher-pupil relationship, and they're also very liberal where adultery is concerned, as neither one cares too much about the other's antics with other people.

This film inspired a barrage of slightly less tasteful sequels, as well as a range of Italian films, many of which were directed by sleaze God Joe D'Amato. I don't think the filmmakers intended Emmanuelle to be associated so closely with sleaze, and actually at times; it doesn't really feel like a porn film; more of a drama with sex. I've got no idea how many taboos this film broke upon it's release over three decades ago, but the fact that it doesn't really break many today does it a favour where class is concerned as the film never feels too dirty, and this bodes well with the high class of the lead characters and setting. Sylvia Kristel takes the lead role, and is believable as a sexually naive young woman. She is joined by a number of eye-pleasing actresses, including Christine Boisson and Marika Green, and all get to take their clothes off in several scenes. The settings in which it all takes place are pleasing also, and the film is of a much higher class than a lot of nowadays porn. I'm surprised that Emmanuelle still has a notorious reputation, as it's only soft-core at best; but it's definitely worth seeing, if only to see how much things have changed!


A classic in its genre. I remember seeing the "Emmanuelle" films (in the days before video or cable TV) at the infamous midnight movies. I just watched it from the DVD in French w/English subtitles. I recommend this format whenever possible on foreign-language films. You can at least hear the actors own voices and the inflections that are often lost with poor dubbing. The acting seemed pretty decent, much better than this sort of film today. Grade: B


Yes Emmanuelle is an x rated movie, yes the story and plot development was razor thin, but compared to all other x rated movies it is a big winner, plus Emmanuelle is erotic as hell in parts. Take it for what it is a great x movie.


If you were a child in the 70's - the film industry was doing some remarkable things. The old "studio" system was out, women were starting to get into executive levels in film. The marketing was more exciting than today because you could easily determine what was 'forbidden', you picked up on and couldn't wait to be old enough to see these films for yourself.

Well the "grown up" part came in the 80's when I was old enough to experience the VHS boom and live on my own. The Los Angeles based "Z" Channel solved all those "grown up" problems for me and here's another one of their "Night Owl Films" I got to see. I was just out of my teens and just experiencing 'the world' when I first saw this original film Emmanuelle. Yeah, my mouth hung open in shock during my first watch of this. I NEVER saw or heard of nice women doing ANYTHING like this even though it was 10 years old when I saw it for the first time. Yes, this was the "world of porno" to me. But it was also the world of 'memory'.

I grew up in New York/Philadelphia/New Jersey areas and before political correctness in marketing, the radio station WABC in New York ran advertisements for almost ALL movies opening or playing in New York City. There are ones I remember so vividly because they were done SO well such as "Midnight Cowboy", "M*A*S*H", "The Lords of Flatbush", "Myra Breckenridge", "The Exorcist", "Jaws"...and yes even: "Deep Throat", "The Story of O", and "Emmanuelle"! In these radio ads, you could TELL something was going on and you wanted to SEE them. (Well, as a child you're curious to see ANYTHING like this!) The ads were regular ads, but the voice over was more sexy, deep and at the end the announcer stresses: "...rated X for mature adults only. Now playing..." Kinda interesting for a 9/10 year old. But I wanted to see these films. As time marched on, I sorta forgot about some of these but thanks to moving to Los Angeles and the "Z" channel 10 years later... I did.

After the initial shock of seeing this 'soft porn' (I can call it soft porn now since I've seen regular adult movies/X rated porn against this!), I watched it on the Z Channel and every time it came on (maybe 2 or 3 times) -- and it hit me: Emmanuelle WAS the 70's. And in conversations with others about these soft core films of the 70's Emmanuelle was film's answer to the freedom of sexual expression for women.

Emmanuelle was the "poster woman" of the 70's - young, pretty, married a rich older man -- and was bored out of her skull. She got into a journey of sexual expression without consequence that - at that time - women may have wanted to do, but Emmanuelle ... did. This was not so much a titillating soft-porn movie for men ... as it was a film of showing sexual liberation for the housewives (and not prostitution like 'Belle du Jour') of the 70's who presented freedom as more than just equal pay for equal work. Women fantasized for equality in the bedroom exploits just like men too. Of course they didn't all rush out to do it then, but Emmanuelle did.

Nowadays Emmanuelle's life is a commonplace for many women (except for the conservatives who want to ignore it) and before the onset of real sexual diseases as one of the consequences without protection. But again, this is a film - a film of liberating and freedom for women of the 70's who were just finding their voices as the world was changing to see them as a viable and equal part of it.


Sylvia Kristel is the wife in an 'open relationship' with her husband, this film takes us through her amorous adventures in the Orient, pretty tame by todays standards, although back in an era of censorship, in many countries in the mid-seventies, one can certainly imagine this film raising an eyebrow or two...if little else!


Although not quite as good as it's sequel, "Emmanuelle: Joys of A Woman," this film made Dutch actress/model Sylvia Kristel an international star, and changed the way sex was presented in mainstream film forever after. Filmed in exotic Thailand, this is the engaging story of a beautiful young woman's sexual awakening, (or sexual corruption, depending on how you look at it.) Emmanuelle is the 19 year old wife of a wealthy diplomat, a man older than her, and with much more worldly experience than his innocent young bride. Jean is proud to claim that Emmanuelle is not his possession, and that he would like nothing more than for her to be free to explore her own sexuality. However when Emmanuelle falls in love and runs off with a female friend, her husband doesn't deal with it as well as he thought. Emmanuelle, played by the exquisite Sylvia Kristel, is surrounded by people eager to teach her all about eroticism and sensuality. There are the bored, jet set wives who spend their days lounging by the pool in tiny swimsuits and gigantic 70's sunglasses. There is the young girl, Marie-Ange, forever sucking lolli-pops, who teaches Emmanuelle not to be ashamed of masturbation, (in a very hot scene,). There is the bitchy Arianne, forever trying to seduce the younger Emmanuelle. And finally there is the older man, Mario, who is the catalyst, the man who "breaks" Emmanuelle, through a series of sometimes disturbing sexual games, re-inventing her into the sexually liberated woman that we see in the numerous sequels. And for those only familiar with the sequels, this is an important one to see, as this is where Emmanuelle comes into being. It is quite fascinating to watch this character develop from a wide eyed innocent, into a free-thinking sexual being, a woman not afraid to enjoy what men have enjoyed since the dawn of time. The erotic scenes are tasteful, and never go beyond soft-core. "Emmanuelle" is an erotic film with a lot of class and style. There is a particular scene which has been cut from many new DVD releases; a violent rape scene in an opium den. The scene is important, as it is a pivotal scene in Emmanuelle's "education." It is the scene that breaks her, and makes her realize that sex is not something to be feared. In the scene directly following that rape, she is brought to a Thai boxing match, where her body is the prize for the winning fighter. This sexual encounter could have been a rape also, but because she is not afraid, there is no rape, just a consensual act that she derives great pleasure from. Classic 70's theme, more controversial today than it was then. This is a must for fans of cult and erotic films. And if you enjoy this, seek out "Emmanuelle 2;" it's even better!


This film is loosely based on the erotic art novel by Emmanuelle Arsan.

The fact that it was directed by Just Jaeckin means that it is the best of the Emmanuelle series, and makes the others look like mere skin flicks, which I think they probably are anyway.

Sadly, in Britain, the censors, in an effort to save the British public from themselves, have hacked a few scenes out of it, including a "smoking" scene in a nightclub and a rape scene towards the end of the film.

Sylvia Kristel seems ideally cast as the protagoniste. Others have called her innocent, but this is not the case: she is not so innocent, but becomes even less so, as her adventures increase her learning and experience.

Compared with the novel, the sam-lo scenes are not so well done, and the Mario character is a bit tacky, otherwise the film is well done. Emmanuelle's encounter with Bee is better than the book. Not so good are one or two of the simulated sex scenes; they look pretty phony.

This film was exceedingly popular at the time it was released, and has lasted the test of time, even if some of the clothes have not.


This is the finest example of soft core movie-making I have watched yet, with a great title song and melodious instrumental accompaniment that gives it all a sensuous and alluring ambiance, very effective slightly hazy photography that makes the bodies even more desirable, and a sweet/ingénue character in the superb shape of angelic-looking Sylvia Kristel who gives you an erection in no time. The upshot is that it makes for a spiritual and physical experience that requires you to take yourself in hand.

I had always thought that once you had watched one erotic or more explicit film you had basically watched them all but there is a persistent charm about Emmanuelle that keeps me retrieving it from the cupboard and falling in lust with Sylvia and her nubile female company over and over.

It is no longer the shocker that it was in 1974, and anyway I have never been able to watch the 105' French version... so this film has also been a kind of Holy Grail to me, and I am still hoping to watch the full original.

There is only one aspect that I regret about this otherwise marvellous erotic experience: That I never got to caress, pore over, and do Sylvia Kristel's ins and outs. But many a mark on my mattress, sofas, carpets, towels, and other items bore evidence in my youth of the indelibly sensual impression this film -- and Sylvia in particular -- left on me. May you enjoy it as much as I have!


this is an erotic but unpretentious x movie. exotic locations, great music, beautiful costumes and the debut of then 22 years old sylvia krystel pursuing sex joy before the dawn of aids fear. need to say more? a real classic that has stand the test of time. no wonder it has been shown in french cinema for 10 years and still shown in film festivals. it is also exported to 86 countries, sold more copies than "titanic". just watch and admire. they don't make such decent x movie anymore.


The movie that made Sylvia Kristel famous. Although the movie is steeped in sex, director Just Jaekin develops and portrays the love for another woman by Emmanuelle very tenderly and sensitively depicts their eventual breakup. Movie is notable for all the sequels that followed it and all the Emmanuelle series it spawned.