One of the 2 films i manage to catch during the German film fest w my friend is The Edukators, incidentally both films has this actor Daniel Bruhl in it. The Edukators started off w 3 young adults who are very involved in protesting for their rights and opposing capitalism in their country, trying their own ways to influence the country into listening to their voices. Other than protesting on the streets, the 2 guys have another way of showing their capability in influencing the society. By breaking into rich houses and re-arranging the furnitures without taking anything and leaving a note saying 'The Days of Plenty Are Over'. One of the couple are lovers to start off with and slowly the plot reveals that the other guy acted by Daniel likes the girl too and started to involve her into their nite activities which ended in a very awkward manner: The owner came back! During this part of the film, i was getting a little bit irritated already due to the girl's clumsiness and inability to heed instructions. Then i slowly realise that actually this is the point the plot starts to become really really interesting and will end w a simply great twist. Dun really wanna reveal too much of the ending but highly recommended to watch this film for reasons like the great Germany hillside sceneries (beautiful!), cute actors (ok, towards the end of the film, i switched from liking Daniel to really liking Stipe Erceg (the chiselled-chin guy)), funny funny one-liners, and of course a fantastic ending. Overall a great German film not to be missed!


My class and i studied this film as our A-level focus film for our exam and we all loved it. all the girls thought the guys were really hot and the story line was amazing. we decided to read some reviews before posting our own and by the looks of things most people feel the same way as we do!

this has been a very interesting film to study, however the ending shouldn't of been changed for us English viewers. we have come away form the Edukators with completely different morals then the rest of the world.

can't wait to see what the exam question will ask about this film but believe me i won't be able to stop writing!


This film is excellent - just as good as Goodbye Lenin. I love the fact that Jule is facing a real dilemma and that Jan shows her a way to release that tension. I love the fact that the chemistry between the actors is good and you can believe that this is something real. I love the fact that Peter and Jan brake into the "rich" people's houses but not to steal just to move their furniture is a great idea. Makes people realize that no matter how much money you have or the hight of security that you may have gotten you can always be brought back to reality by others. I enjoyed this film so much that it made me start to learn German again. This is defiantly a must see film. Great way to show a different way of life compared to "society's" way of life.


This is a classic. Truly, one of the hottest, sexiest, steamiest movies of all time. The plot is as sensual and hot as any other from this kind.

Shannon Whirry shines through all the movie and looks at her hottest. She's truly a great actress and a sexy woman in all the sense of the word.

The sex scenes are very well done but look too 90's in my opinion. I mean, with the typical background music and "sophisticated" camera angles. But it's still a sexy movie with an unbelievable hot lead actress.

Gregory Dark does it once again and brings to us one of the best soft core sex movies in history.

This is a must see for anyone who enjoys this noble genre and it is HEAVEN for Shannon Whirry fans.


There's really only one reason why you'd be watching a film like this. This film accomplishes everything one could hope for in this genre and not much else. If you don't know why you're watching it, stop, but if you do, you'll agree it's as close to perfect as possible.


I rarely enjoy erotic films, but really loved this one. Its plot is quite basic the tale of a cop that works too hard and a wife that is neglected. Shannon Whirry as the wife is stunning and captures your attention. Its adult nature is full nudity and soft focus, with plenty of interesting outfits and people doing what is now seen as swinging. It hasn't really dated too badly, the hair is big, the g-strings high legged and the suits a bit 80s. Other than that they had kept it free of really obvious fashion or image disasters of the era.

The second film is also quite good and in the third Shannon wasn't included.

If you want intelligent eroticism then get Wild Things with Denise Richards, otherwise this will make a fun watch.


Animal Instincts has quite a cast of characters for such a trashy movie. The delectable Shannon Whirry(the camera worships every inch of her succulent, ravishing body)is the bored wife of an underpaid cop who is consumed with money and what it brings. David Carradine is a drug-dealing pimp who operates a strip club and is tired of councilman Jan Michael Vincent, on a crusade against titty bars so that he can be elected mayor. Maxwell Kaulfield is the cop husband of Whirry who catches her in bed with the cable repair man and finds that he is aroused seeing his wife having hot sex with other johns. Setting up camera equipment and recording Whirry's trysts with powerful men such as lawyer, doctors, and other prominent clientèle offers an opportunity for Kaulfield to make some easy cash, and attempts to blackmail, through Carradine, Vincent when they have him on tape screwing around with an unknown woman in a mask. Sleazy premise provides director Gregory Dark with a chance to film soft-core sex between Whirry and a host of men(..and Delia Sheppard who actually offers to take her to Paris!). We get to see her in lots of lingerie and plenty times naked. John Saxon stops by at the tail end of the movie, an attorney representing Whirry and Kaulfield, feeding the press a cock-n-bull story about a woman's case of nymphomania due to a reaction towards a prescribed drug and how her husband was actually attempting to help her with such a problem by addressing what it was that affected their sex life. Carradine seems right at home in this smut and Whirry is rather comfortable and uninhibited in front of the camera performing..for quite a jubilant audience, I presume(..unless you are bothered and/or disturbed by the naked body of a gorgeous woman). The material is quite raunchy, but photographed in such a seductive way, mainly because, in my opinion, Whirry commands your attention. And, she has this smooth voice and soft lips which can only heighten her hypnotic grasp over you if you are willing to let go, allowing her to work her magic spell. The film is told in flashback with Whirry interviewed by a journalist, as she returns us to her story's origins. Many of the sex scenes are cut rather short, not getting too explicit. Vincent and Saxon have roles that aren't that significant, with each maybe in the movie five minutes tops. Carradine, however, makes quite an impression, he's such a maleficent, poisonous creature, and has some memorably depraved dialogue, where his character speaks fondly of his profession, the kind of man he is, pride evident in how he talks about himself.


Among the first soft-porn I ever saw was the made for TV "Emmanuelle" series starring Krista Allen. It got my attention, but I had two main problems with it: 1) It looked too much like an endless series of orgies and not enough like the love story it was supposed to be; 2) I didn't see anywhere near enough gratuitous footage of Krista Allen as I would have liked in various states of undress. The second shortcoming was by far my biggest grievance.

After seeing numerous other soft-porn flicks, I gave up trying to find one that would give me what I wanted. I actually got Animal Instincts thinking it was a drama, and I almost deleted it after seeing a few scenes of ugly prostitutes in a sleazy night club. Fortunately, Shannon Whirry (Joanna) satisfied the most important criterion for the lead actress in this kind of film; i.e., she had good overall proportions and looked good in revealing attire. I especially liked her firm, well rounded derriere, although her breasts were too over-sized for my taste. That being said, she is not a bad actress either.

If you stick with this film, you may find that the plot proves to be intriguing. Far from being the laughable joke that many soft-porn flicks are, Animal Instincts exhibits dramatic irony, conflict, suspense, and even clever wit, but it still has some logical flaws. The most critical of them, beyond and doubt, is that we are supposed to imagine a young couple in love, but the relationship between Joanna and her husband (David) wasn't developed enough to even come close to achieving this end. They should have shared more intimate secrets with each other, and the emotional and psychological links between the two should have been accentuated, even when they were not together in the same room. If you want a good example, read the following spoiler.

{Begin spoiler} One day David comes home and finds Joanna in bed with another man, who he chases away. Then to our surprise, after what seemed like months of neglect, without a word Dave finally has sex with Joanna. Apparently, he was turned on by seeing her have sex with a perfect stranger. That might be true, but we are supposed to see that the relationship he shares with her is special and goes beyond a casual lay. It would have seemed more intimate if he had at first became enraged with jealousy. Then, after a passionate argument and a teary eyed moment where the two lovers kiss and make-up, finally we would enjoy a prolonged and intimate love scene. Certainly the sex between David and Joanna should have been the best in the film {End spoiler}.

To sum it all up, in the context of a fairly intriguing drama, I found a soft-porn film that does a fair job of revealing the more appealing assets of the lead female role; not a trivial point, given that this is the raison d'etre of the film. Unfortunately, I have yet to find one good skin-flick that draws a clear distinction between true love and wanton sex.


I usually have no interest in this kind of film, and if I compared it to mainstream cinema I'd give it about 2 stars. But this film is all about presenting what is truly one of the Wonders of the Modern World, Shannon Whirry.

We all have our preferences, of course, and I wouldn't expect mine to match anyone else's (although the film sold well enough to justify sequels), but for those of you with tastes like mine this is a Don't Miss It Under Any Circumstances opportunity.

I understand Ms. Whirry is doing "legit" theater now. I hope she's finding success and earning appreciation for her other talents as well. Thank you, Ms. Whirry, for being unforgettable.


I accidentally saw this in 1981, just flipping channels. It is a powerful story with excellent acting by Malcolm McDowell, and was ahead of its time on issues of disability. It starts with an injury to a young soccer player (McDowell) and then proceeds to show various stages in his mental adjustment to his permanent condition, the relationships he forms, and moves toward a powerful look at meaning and purpose in life beyond the difficulties we face, without minimizing those difficulties. It is much more than an "overcoming injury" story, of which there are many. It is drama at its best. I recommend it especially for those who work with persons with disabilities, but beyond that to anyone who enjoys great drama.


Around the same time that Malcolm McDowell became famous as Alex in "A Clockwork Orange", he also starred in "The Raging Moon" (called "Long Ago Tomorrow" in the United States). He plays Bruce Pritchard, a football player - that's soccer player to us Americans - whose legs give out and he has to live in a home for invalids. Here he meets Jill Matthews (Nanette Newman), and his relationship with her prompts him to start rebelling against the institutions mores. But there's no sugary ending here.

I would say that McDowell's role here bears some similarities to Alex in "ACO", but is obviously a totally different kind of person. Neither character really fits in with society, and they both end up confined. Of course, Alex lives a life of ultra-violence, while Bruce is a perfectly calm and reasonable individual.

Maybe I'm the only person who even thinks this. I thought that they did a very well job with the movie. It paints not so bleak a portrait of it's town as "Kes" does, but this still doesn't look like a very pleasant setting. Certainly the convalescence home is the less desirable of the two settings within the movie. For me, the setting took precedence over Bruce and Jill's relationship. I recommend this film.

PS: was co-star Bernard Lee the same guy who played M in the James Bond movies?


The key to understand this great movie is the poem by Dylan Thomas: "in my craft or sullen art" "In my craft or sullen art Exercised in the still night When only the moon rages And the lovers lie abed With all their griefs in their arms I labour by singing light Not for ambition or bread Or the strut and trade of charms On the ivory stages But for the common wages Of their most secret heart.

Not for the proud man apart From the raging moon I write On these spindrift pages Nor for the towering dead With their nightingales and psalms But for the lovers, their arms Round the griefs of the ages, Who pay no praise or wages Nor heed my craft or art." Two works of art:the film and the poem

tadzio filippini


Known as LONG AGO TOMORROW, THE RAGING MOON is possibly the most intriguing movie in the career of young Malcolm MacDowell. It came after his breakthrough film IF, and before the films most people recall he starred in: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and O LUCKY MAN. MacDowell is nowadays established as a well known character actor who specializes in powerful or power-mad villains for the most part. On an episode of LAW AND ORDER a few years back he was a twisted version of Rupert Murdoch. He is frequently rogue CIA agents, or tycoons with secret agendas. And he is wonderful in all these roles. But except for O LUCKY MAN it is hard to find MacDowell playing a sympathetic and simple type. His salesman in O LUCKY MAN is naive and believes what line is ever given to him by his employers. But in THE RAGING MOON he was a strong, athletic young man whose future is wrecked by a physical accident that cripples him. And he has to try to fight his anger at this unfair situation and regain his self respect.

McDowell plays Bruce Prichard, a soccer/rugby player who is injured in a game - and left wheelchair bound at the age of 21. Given that sport was the key to his life, the props have been knocked out from underneath him in more than one way. He slowly develops into a determined man who is going to overcome his permanent handicap. What really turns him into a determined type is his meeting with another patient (also similarly crippled) named Jill Matthews (Nanette Newman). The two young people find they are encouraging each other's recovery. And sooner or later they begin falling in love.

It is the oddest role in MacDowell's career, and he handles very well. Basically, except for the first ten minutes of the film, he is stuck in bed or in his wheelchair. He is bitter, but fixed on getting on with his new life. Andd finally he is enchanted by his new friend, confidante, and lover Newman. In one of the most touching scenes of the film, the two lovers figure out how to embrace in their wheelchairs by turning them on parallel lines to each other, and lowering the right arms of the wheelchairs so they can surround their arms about each other's waists and chests. The viewer can see the difficulties the young people will face, but they see they will do what they can to overcome their joint disability. So that the audience ends up cheering for them.

MacDowell is not usually so sympathetic. His anti-hero in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is tormented by the state in a new process to make him an acceptable (if defenseless) citizen, and then tormented by one of his old victims. But he was a stylish but still vicious punk in most of that film. He may symbolize youthful suspicions against an antiquated establishment in IF, but he is a violent rebel in the end. And due to his crass stupidity in O LUCKY MAN he actually commits fraud. But in THE RAGING MOON he struck a different note - and it was one he rarely hit again in any films or television shows he made.

The ultimate fate of his hero and heroine, and the cruelty of the world and nature they face, enhance the film. At the conclusion he is stunned by events. So is his audience. And nobody can explain why what happened had to be final for his dreams.


I didn't know much about this movie going in, but I got a very nice surprise. The Kresten plot -- a yuppie summoned home to deal with his redneck past by the death of his father -- could have been a dull family drama, but this movie was much better than that. It turns out that he has a number of things about his past that he's kept secret from the people in his city life -- his retarded brother, the badly run-down farm he grew up on, and more. Some of his story is serious, and much is played for humor, with good taste separating the drama and humor.

The Liva plot -- a woman escaping prostitution into an honest common job -- was completely opposite the Hollywood presentation of prostitution. (Hollywood either glamorizes it, uses it as an opportunity to add gratuitous sex before switching to the gratuitous violence.) Liva's prostitution pays fairly well, but it's clearly miserable, degrading, full of fear, and sometimes danger. The movie shows why she wants out with understated drama -- instead of rubbing her misery in our faces, it shows us hints of it, but leaves room for us to imagine just how bad it is for her.

When Liva escapes prostitution with a job as Kresten's housekeeper, the her part in the movie switches from drama to comedy, in the form of funny situations and events that feel natural, rather than contrived gag situations.

The acting was very good, particular Iben Hjejle's portrayal of Liva. Anders W. Berthelsen played Kresten well, and Emil Tarding's smaller role as Liva's young brother Bjarke was also very good.

I had never heard of the Dogme film series until after seeing this movie. The only one Dogme rule that really matters to the movie was that the plot must stick to real life and avoid superficial violence. That demanded a plot where the characters and story matter, and Søren Kragh-Jacobsen delivered. The simple camera work, natural lighting, minimal set dressing, etc., didn't improve the movie. But neither did the simple movie-making detract from the quality -- they deserve praise for doing so well within their rules of simplicity. One additional benefit of the movie-making simplicity rules was that it kept the budget low, so that more good movies like this could be made.


With Mifunes sidste sang, Søren Kragh-Jakobsen continues the Danish Dogma group project (Idioterna, Festen) of providing us with original pictures from Denmark. We know the rules by now: camera on the shoulder, no added light, no added music, and all properties to be fond on location. This gets us as far as Wonderful Copenhagen -- The official slogan of the Danish capital city -- as one could come: Dogma stands for a dark realism, although the critique is more individual than social. And Mifume confirms the Dogma's ability to deal in an innovative way with as important matters as deviance, everyday's violence, or modern loneliness.


Mifune is a surprisingly easy film to watch, delightful in many respects and certainly original. The comedy is in many ways unique; nothing hits you in the cinema, but you still leave with a smile on your face. The acting is, in my view, superb, the locations fitting, and the plot; well, original and refreshing. If you need cheering up or it's a rainy day then I recommend this film. Very refreshing indeed.


I really don't think that the film has been completely planned in the strict (and too rigid sense), for this would also have taken away much of the emotional power from the film, as is the case with many too commercially calculated/that is, too strictly preplanned films from the USA. Nevertheless, the story always has to be thought out, but I really find it is an advantage of the film that many scenes are played in a very spontaneous manner (that in my opinion also is seen in the fun of the actors to play it). It's really the human and optimistic feeling of the film that counts.


I really liked the movie very much, found it really funny, even if sometimes it was addressing serious issues. I enjoy much more a film like that than a cheap US film that doesn't reinvent anything. This movie is DIFFERENT! Godt gjort Iben, Sören og Anders!


What makes "Mifune" stand out from standard Hollywood movies are the painfully real characters, who make it feel like a real-life romance between two people rather than a hypothetical story about hypothetical characters none of us is ever going to meet. And it's really funny, too!


I was really confused when I left the cinema. On one hand, I very much enjoyed the way characters felt down to earth, human, with all their faults. On the other hand, there were a few passages where the plot seemed TOTALLY unrealistic (particularly in the end), that people just can't feel and act this way in the particular situation. All that not in the glossy Hollywood way, but from the hands of European filmmakers, who usually draw very realistic plots and characters. It was a shame, as I would have remembered the film for its better traits, it wasn't for the end that spoiled much of it for me.


Most of the comments made on this movie are rather critical, and admittedly not all aspects of the film are equally satisfactory. However, it seems to me that you must judge it by what it seeks to achieve. It is not an ambitious movie in any sense and against that background I think it succeeds quite well. Both Iben Hjejle (her in particular) and Anders Berthelsen give very convincing performances and very much carry the film. This is the sort of film that makes you feel good without the shallowness and emptiness that so often mar the typical 'Feel-good' Hollywood production. For me, the pros weigh up the cons - and therefore I think it is well worth worth watching.


"Mifunes Sidste Sang" is brilliant!It's very humorous and funny and there's a good balance between irony and sadness.The acting is excellent and the direction is even better.Usually I'm not a fan of comedies but this film totally cracked me up!Gotta love especially the performance by Jesper Asholt(Rud).My highest recommendation.


"Happiness is when Mifune comes up from the basement..."

I did not expect much from Mifune. This past summer, I had gotten a chance to see Lars von Trier's Idioterne (Dogme 2) in a theater. I loved it, while so many others hated it. Then I saw Festen (Dogme 1) over Christmas. It was great. For completion, I searched out, with much pain, Dogme 3, _Mifunes sidste sang_, _Mifune_ in America. Like I said, I expected nothing. The highest rating I ever saw it receive when it was in the theaters was 3 stars, average. Good - not great. Most critics, however, scored it lower.

I finally did find it, and I sat down to watch it, slightly past 1:30 AM. At first, I was slightly surprised. Having fallen in love with Dogme 1 & 2, I expected more insanity, more daring-do. The sex scene near the beginning of the film set that up, and then the introduction of a clandestine past and a family follow up on that promise, as well as does the introduction of a prostitute. But then it goes the opposite way. Mifune actually becomes a rather relaxed family drama, and a rather satisfying one, too. The mood of the film sort of resembles the final scenes of The Unbearable Lightness of Being, where Daniel Day Lewis and Juliette Binoche retreat from the corruption of the big city to simple life on a farm.

Mifune is slow, in that it allows its characters to develop, and they blossom into a great depth. And we see the relationships between the characters bloom. Kresten has not seen his retarded brother, Rud, for some time. Now he has a chance to get reacquainted. They seemed to have been friends when they were younger, but Kresten had moved, and was determined to erase all traces of his family (in fact, the reason he must go home when his father dies is to make sure his brother is not harmed). He finds himself unable to leave; if he does, his brother may be committed to an asylum. Through a very amusing incident, they are able to afford a much-needed housekeeper to help them, Liva, the prostitute we met a short time earlier in Copenhagen. I have heard her character described as a one-dimensional, typical character, the Hooker with the Heart of Gold. This is untrue. She is not that kind of character, nor is she the opposite, the cheating, lying, thieving, I've-done-it-all-and-you-can't-change-me hooker. She seems like a normal human being who may not have made the right choices in life. She doesn't exactly regret the choices that she made. It is not as if she ever laments in the film being a prostitute. She leaves Copenhagen not to change her life, but to get away from some possible harm that may potentially come from a stalker who has been harassing her on the telephone. It's just that, when she gets to Kresten's and Rud's home, she does not expect to develop feelings for them (hey, they're both great guys! It's difficult not to like them). Eventually, she invites her brother, Bjarke, to live with them for a while, too. Although a rebellious teen, he quickly feels at home at the house.

The plot is never thick, nor should it be. For the longest time, the characters just develop before our eyes. The problems seem like those that anyone might face in their life.

Everything develops beautifully, the plot points are completely unforced. They feel real when they happen, and they brought me along with their emotions. The film takes a big misstep at the end, though. Actually, two. A character, Gerner, who exists during the whole film, but never seems to belong, attacks the peaceful household. His character is completely unnecessary. And then there is this weird attack on the house, especially on Kresten, on the same day as Gerner has attacked, by an entire brothel of prostitutes, Liva's friends from Copenhagen. What they are doing in Lolland and at the house is a mystery to me. The attack is utterly silly, they pin Kresten down and pour alcohol down his throat until he passes out. The very end of the film is also a little weak. I kind of wish it was a little more drawn-out. I would have likes some sort of exposition, instead of a bunch of unconvincing events.

One more thing: Iben Hjejle. She is a great actress. I saw her in High Fidelity earlier in 2000, and thought she was good. Here, where her part is much more substantial, she shines. The other actors are all great here, too, but she is wonderful. I predict that she will be a pretty big star in the US one day. She is unconventionally beautiful, yet beautiful all the same. If I ever meet her, I will have to say, "Hey, I thought you were great in Mifune." I give the film a 9/10, one of the best films released in the US in the year 2000.


Mifune was an entertaining movie. I thought the acting was well done especially Jesper Asholt as Rud. Some aspects of the story were confusing to me like the lottery tickets. Did they win or what? Plus I'm not sure of the ending. I might have read more into it then was expected but maybe that was the goal. Unless you are familiar with Seven Samurai the significance of the pot and gloves is lost. Overall a good movie worth a watch.


I was pleased to find this film on cable here in the US. I understand why it got little notice in American theaters. Its welcomed unAmerican flavor, like a unPasteurized blue cheese, was delightful, but not box office unfortunately. Kresten, the lead male character, is a modern urban male in a global sense. Cell phones are commonplace in the film. However, the dynamic between him and Liva, the female lead, who is a prostitute hired as a domestic, illustrates some basic differences between American and Danish cultures. The sexuality in the film is very real, even though it is fleeting. The moronic brother, perhaps overplayed, seems an anachronism in comparison to American mental hygiene standards, anywhere outside of the Ozarks. I was particularly fascinated by the sharp dichotomy between city and country in a highly developed nation the size of some American states. The world's oldest profession was also portrayed without all the typical American barbs. It just seemed like a job. Finally, the credits are probably the most stunning I have seen in years. They are done as multimedia paintings on film, complete with flies crawling around them. Brilliant and beautiful. I highly recommend this film.


A fantastic satire in the vein of Spinal Tap, only more clever. A wonderful supporting cast, great locations and an air of spontaneity all add to the wonderful acting jobs turned in by Tony Markes, and in his own Woody Allen-esque way, Adam Rifkin. This film is a "10".


I can tell you right now that was a very funny film. It was funny and for anyone thats in the industry, you know how accurate it was. Just the casting sessions and the way they conduct them was so real. Exaggerated a little but real. When he went for that baywatch job as the by-stander and met everyone I just felt for the guy so much. When he was in the make-up chair and he met Carmen Electra I just couldn't watch and that fu*#in smile he had the whole way through the film just killed me. The look on his face every time he was around someone important to him was gold! "Two thumbs up!"


I saw this movie at 1:30 AM one night, and couldn't turn it off. I'm a bit of an obscure movie buff, and I turned this on just as it started - so I didn't know the premise. Well, within a few minutes, I was dying to see how it turned out. Because I had NO clue what was going on, I really thought this was a documentary about the now-known fake Nick Decker. I really felt bad for this guy, because he was a putrid, horrible actor. However, the actor playing Nick was convincing me that this guy was a really bad actor, while when he was not in auditions was what I consider a GREAT performance. He really made me think this guy was real, his struggles were genuine, and his angers real. He seemed like a young, naive, honest guy from the midwest trying to make it in a killer type of acting atmosphere. The best scene in the movie is when Angie finds out he's been lying to her.

What had captured my attention was when I heard the name Adam Rifkin...who I had heard of, but wasn't quite familiar with. Well, I think he did a terrific job with this movie! Sometimes the "normal" way of doing things gets old, and this was very refreshing. It also goes to show how hard it is to get work in Hollywood.

What the big surprise of this movie was lies with that of the red-headed vixen Angie Everheart. I REALLY THOUGHT THIS HAD happened, with the fake press clips, newspapers clips, etc. She was fantastic!!! Look at her career before this movie, and you will see like 6 jobs in 5 years in movies. Since this movie, she's had like 15 jobs in 3 years! Angie has really matured as an actress...I also like how the "angie" character was sincere and genuine, it really made me like the personality of her and want to know more about her....overall, very entertaining..surprisingly good performances when you find out afterwards it's fake (but based on someone else's story)


This is the kind of movie that you can't wait for the success of the protagonist. The protagonist, looking for the success, has a lot of difficulties, expending money, time, energy, and all is a disaster. All the people in the movie is great. All is so real, so well acted, that the first time you are seeing the movie, you really think all is true. All the actors who want fame and glory, should see this movie. Sometimes this movie works as drama, sometimes as comedy. But in the end, you really think you are working and trying with Nick, giving strong to his determination, and is so terrible the karma, you feel sad. Great, 10 points.


Over the years when nothing else is on I watch Bustin' Loose from time to time, it is such a good feel good movie. Neat story which has Richard Pryor as con man Joe Braxton who is maneuvered into taking a group of disturbed kids from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania along with their teacher Cicely Tyson to a farm in Washington state owned by the aunt and uncle of Cicely Tyson. This movie is a great journey of respect and friendship it shows just how that no matter how different people are they can become friends and learn to care and respect one another. This is not typical Richard Pryor you don't find much strong language but Pryor is plenty enough his comical and funny self to make this film a winner. So if you haven't seen this give it a watch it shows from time to time on cable. Probably one of the better movies of Richard Pryor.


This is one of those movies that, unless you have too many expectations, turn out to be quite entertaining. It stars Richard Pryor as an ex-con who agrees to transport a teacher (Cicely Tyson) and eight misfit children from Philadelphia to Washington, as part of his probation. Richard Pryor is known for his abilities in physical comedy. Surprisingly enough, the best part of the film are the more emotional scenes, where he gets to interact with the children. However, there are some other scenes, clearly going for the big laughs, that are not as successful, like the one with the KKK or the ones in the bank near the end of the film, and they threaten to spoil the fun. "Bustin' loose" is a good comedy, although it would have been even better if the script had relied more on Pryor's relationship with the children than on the physical comedy parts. It is definitely not a masterpiece, but if you need an evening of relaxation in front of the TV, then this film is for you.

Rating: 7/10, or B1


Let's face it, Cicely Tyson and Richard Pryor play an unlikely pair. Cicely plays a good-hearted social worker who is determined to transport a school bus-load of abandoned orphans across the country to a farm with animals. She gets Richard Pryor's character who plays an ex-con who redeems himself in this film. Of course, Tyson and Pryor are quite simply marvelous in roles that would have otherwise failed. I know if I wanted somebody that would be Cicely who plays Vivian Perry whose heart and mind are always in the right place. While Pryor's character feels like a failure, she and the kids inspire him as well he inspires them. It's not a wholesome after-school special but it's touching at moments to see the outcasts look and treat upon each other as friends and family because they could have treated this film like silly film but it's a serious film about serious problems and they do it admirably.


I watched this movie often as a kid growing up in the 80's and it was and still is one of my favorite movies. It's one of those movies where when it ends, you actually feel better than when it began. You go on a journey with these people and actually find out a few things about yourself along the way. I'm thinking that most people can relate to at least one of the characters in the movie and even though it is similar to an after school special, it's so much better than that due to the acting of both Richard Pryor and Cicely Tyson. The children are great as well, when needed. I LIKED the music score. There were some scenes that I could have done without, particularly in the last 30 minutes of the movie, but overall I could watch this movie on a Sunday afternoon, before Goonies and after The Toy.


When a movie can make you laugh and cry, it's a rare quality. Many people don't have a high tolerance for adults, but are suckers for kids. I am proud to say that I fall into this category, as does Richard Pryor's character Joe Braxton in this film. He plays a foul-mouthed, ill-mannered ex-con, who is, let's face it, a bum. For some reason, though, he is likable. Maybe it's because he still has an optimistic outlook about his life. His biggest strength, which almost proves to be his undoing, is that he is willing to do more for others than he is for himself. This is what I felt made "Bustin' Loose" such a touching movie.

Joe Braxton is a parolee who has been given a second chance to rebuild his life. His only problem is, he can't really seem to find a purpose on the outside, and just doesn't know how to make it. In a hilarious courtroom scene where he is about to be sent back to prison for larceny, in violation of his parole, he is given ten years probation by the judge.

His parole officer, however, is amused, but not at all fooled by the courtroom shenanigans. So, as a favor, his parole officers needs a favor. A group of disadvantaged Philadelphia youths have had their school closed as a result of budget cuts. Cicely Tyson, who portrays her character brilliantly, plays their supervisor who is also the girlfriend of Joe's parole officer. She and the kids need to be driven across country to her family's Washington state farm to start over. Joe is asked to drive the bus and return in 15 days.

This is where the movie takes a wonderful turn for the better and gives some pleasant surprises. It could have been a silly Disney-like movie with cute, fake dialog that cuts corners and makes you want to throw up at the end (like Dead Poet's Society). Instead of all that nonsense and garbage, we heard words of truth, and witness some convincing changes.

At first, Joe sees this as a chore and the kids as nothing but a bunch of losers. Later though, he begins to bond with the kids and discovers, as does the kids, that he actually really does care about them because he doesn't want what happened to him to happen to them. He finds a purpose, and a reason to be happy. He becomes a pleasant, and is actually a warm person after all who just needed the right people to bring out the goodness in him. Perhaps this is because his love for the kids makes him forget about his problems and worry about their well-being.

There are some tough scenes, too. There is boy who has experienced a tragedy, not intentionally, but because of a problem he cannot help. Another one of the youths solicits prostitution to Joe. There are also about whether the kids will be able to keep their new home, or if Joe can actually make it on the outside. All of these scenes show reality and how people find the courage to deal with their own lives. Richard Pryor plays these scenes with a quiet, subtle brilliance. He is not just a funny comedian, he is also a good actor.

The only flaw the movie has is that it seems to lack some little scenes to make Prior's character develop his relationship and bond together with the kids and Cicely Tyson's character. Don't get me wrong, it's usually better to keep an audience wanting more than to drag a movie out, but I think this one may have benefited from more running time. The transition from con to nice guy seemed just a little bit too quick, and I think this could have been the difference between making this a great movie instead of a good one. It's as though the screenwriter didn't sit down and rewrite quite thoroughly enough. That, however, is easily forgiven and forgotten.

I will not give away what happens, I will say only this: I was pleasantly surprised because this movie wasn't just a comedy. There are a lot of serious scenes, too, and the ending is very perceptive about human behavior. Bustin' Loose is not a masterpiece, but it is an entertaining, convincing movie, and it works because of the performances. If you pay attention, you'll be surprised at how moved you are at the end of this delightful comedy, and you might even shed a tear.


This combination of comedy, drama, and adventure were the three main ingredients of this movie. Richard Pryor(who also produced the movie) stars as an ex-con who is given a second chance to redeem himself. He's hired to transport a bus load of kids and their teacher to Seattle for a better life. At first, Joe doesn't like the kids at all, but slowly begins to develop a friendship between them. Richard Pryor came up with the idea probably for the audience to see a different side of him and not the usual foul-mouthed comic we're used to. He does his best to keep the profanity to a minimum, but there's still adult language in it, but nothing inappropriate. The sudden change from comedy to drama is kind of jarring, since you don't know what's going to happen next. The music score, however, is amazing. Its use of piano synthesizers fits well with the non-comedy sequences. This is one of Richard Pryor's underrated movies and is definitely worth a look.


Set Two contains the following episodes: "A Delicate Balance," "Childsplay," "Stolen Lives," "Burning Bridges," Secrecy," and "In Arcadia."

Perhaps another fan can tell us which episodes to look for, to hope for the DVD release of.

My wife and I are enjoying all three sets so much. I was able to read Russell Baker's script of his introductions to series two on the Masterpiece Theatre website.

Can anyone suggest where I might find more material on "Doctor Finlay"?

I'd love to see a website devoted to "Doctor Finlay" as good as the one for "Foyle's War."


This is an excellent series. The actors are well cast and do a great job. The scripts are well written, although the episode endings are occasionally unfinished or hard to understand. The one problem I have with the series is that David Rintoul sometimes plays Doctor Finlay as stiffly as he played Mr. Darcy. He really needs to loosen up a bit. I have a question. Does anyone out there know where I can get a copy of the last episode in season four called "Doctor Finlay Snowbound"? I think it may have been broadcast at a later date that year as a special. It's not included in "Doctor Finlay Days Of Grace" which is the last series available for purchase.


The 1990's version of Dr.Finlay was filmed in my home town of Auchtermuchty. A great number of residents were cast as extras which was a great opportunity (not to mention £58 a day for not doing very much!!!). The cast members were delightful, especially the very charming and humble David Rintoul. The crew were equally fantastic and great to see again in the village over the 4 years the series was filmed. However not all the scenes were filmed in Auchtermuchty (Arden House for instance was elsewhere). As a teen on location it inspired me to take an interest and go on to study Television production at college.


This is the story of a man nick named Animal. Baddest of the bad, Animal was the head of a crew in ghetto neighborhood he lived in. One day he's arrested and sent to jail leaving behind a wife and child. While in jail for years he continues his violent ways, at the same time his son takes after his old man and becomes known as "Little Animal". With the help of a fellow prisoner Animal changes his way and is eventually paroled. Back at home he now must struggle with carving a out a new life while trying to figure out out how to save his son from ending up like him, or worse.

I stumbled upon this film by accident and I'm glad I did. Animal is a brutal, heartfelt look at life in the "hood", how nothing ever changes, and what it takes to change things. Its a well told story that has some of the best performances of the year in any film. Every one in this movie is excellent from Ving Rhames on down. The acting alone is reason enough to see this film, however there is a very real story being told. It will move you and break your heart.

Forgive me I finished the film not long ago and I still feel the effects of this wonderful movie.Its left me with a loss of words. I think all I can really say is see this film and be moved too.


This a real movie about thug life and the inescapable revolving door trap that is so hard to break. Ving Rhames plays the animal which is not an accurate name for his character ,since his character is no different than a mob boss or a drug cartel kingpin.... this is how you have to be to survive on the streets.. excellent acting by Jim Brown who in real life is a PEACE ACTIVIST.. Ving Rhames does an excellent performance ,, who i think is worthy of an academy award nomination....Chazz Palminteri also performed well as a supporting actor.... this is a must see movie for Kids going down the wrong path in life,, since it shows the consequences of a leading a violent lifestyle....


James Allen (Animal) goes to prison for armed robbery for almost a decade while leaving behind a legacy as a cold-blooded killer. But more importantly he leaves behind his young son (Terrence Howard) who follows his father's footsteps. When James returns after becoming enlightened by an old black revolutionary, he attempts to instill his new beliefs in his son. The conflict between Rhames and Howard relates to the way many African-Americans perceive themselves and their places in society after centuries of slavery/oppression. This is a powerful film with a terrific story and superb acting, especially by Terrence Howard. He gives another astounding performance that will prove to people why this guy is one of the most underrated actors working today. If you want to see realism portrayed at its best, check this one out.


... rushed execution and obviously not a lot of production value(s). You could live with the latter, but the performances aren't the best either. Of course it's nice to see Ving Rhames in a lead role, but it'd be even better, if the script got sharpened too, so it would match his performance skills too.

The title of the movie gives you the main character and you also know, from the (V) behind the movies name here at IMDb, that it is directly produced for Video/DVD use. Terence Malick does elevate the movie too, but not as much as you'd think he would! The story (if you really want to know it before you watch it, read it here somewhere on the IMDb page) has been done before, so you might be used to see better movies, than this one on this particular topic ...


This was not the best movie; but it did not have the run of the mill concept in the storyline or the acting. Good job by Ving Rhames, Jim Brown and Terence Howard. I love the message this movie embodies; it sends out an inspiring message to the disillusioned and the ignorant. It's a positive message that can change lives if people learn from the message and apply the wisdom attained. Honestly, I love what Jim said to Ving about the ignorant killing each other, and about being smart instead of tough in the streets. Kudos to the people who worked on this project; there needs to be more movies made with the same or similar practices and ideas. There was a movie named " Saving God One Soul At A Time " Ving Rhames stars in this movie also which I've found to have a similar message. If anyone enjoys this movie you will definitely like " Saving One Soul At A Time " as well.


This movie was the best movie i ever seen. All the action and fighting that was going on made it to be a movie thats in real life and its not like there is magic making it a fake movie. I hated it at first and then until i really watched it i fell in love with it. I even went out to get the second movie. You cant watch one without the other. Ving Rhames really played the part and played the part well. I cant wait to see of there is going to be a part 3. Anyone that has not seen the movie i would suggest that they do. What Ving Rhames did in prison to defend himself was amazing. The wise man that he met that changed his life really added to the movie well.


This movie had a good message but it was lost in a story where the characters continued to blame their problems on others. It appeared that the "white man" was accused of causing the characters life of crime. Every time the characters were seen selling drugs, it was to a white man with short hair, a long sleeve shirt with a tie. No street level dealer would sell to such a person. He would more likely be shot.

Jim Brown's character says he was convicted of murder as if he was framed but admits to killing people at home. And Animal is only sent to prison because the police framed him.

Such denial won't solve the problem.


Being my first time to watch Rhames in a lead role, I was impressed. Howard and Palminteri were brilliant and Studi, as always, was great!..though not the type of role he usually plays either. Great to see Jim brown after so long and I really liked his portrayal of Berwell. I'd like to see more of him in the future because despite his years, he still has a lot to offer. Listen up Hollywood! On the negative side (for fussy duds like me), we have the factual errors all-too-common in movies which mislead people on points of historical importance. I refer to the Willie Lynch Speech on slavery, which figures prominently in this movie. Berwell tells Animal that the term "lynching" is also attributed to the same author. Not true! This practice is more generally believed to be the invention of Captain William Lynch of Virginia, author of "Lynch's Law". As for Willie's speech, evidence now suggests it was written in the mid-to-late 20th century. Curious, no? Anyway, despite the foregoing, the movie has a good message and the overall acting is way better than good! Definitely a movie worth watching!


This is a serious piece of film. Ving Rhames is one of the really under-rated actors out there right now....and Jim Brown is rock solid as the man who finally forces Animal to take a look at himself. The thing is: Brown's character makes Animal realize that while he's the way he is as a result of the Black Experience in America, he doesn't have to stay that way. There is a way out, you just have take the responsibility for finding it for yourself. I love the historical references in the movie, and the hard look it takes at how we are sometimes our own worst enemies, based on a silly concepts like skin tone. Beautiful, powerful film.


Wow. I was glad I rented this movie. Actually it just so happens that my teen boys and I sat down and watched this movie together. We don't do that often, but "Animal" gave us a lot to think about. Ving Rhames' performance was his best, thus far! I like the fact that we see the side of the criminal that most films don't show, a person who really truly wants to change from what he used to be and into what his true purpose is in life. Terrence Howard, of course, always breaths life and realness into his characters. I felt sorry for his character as, again, we see the reality that young African-American men, although urged to grow up real fast in the face of taking the big responsibility of heading the household (forgive the run-ons), still have this little kid inside of them who thirsts/screams to be a young child, held and loved. All of the actors were great, the script was great, and Ving Rhames'crying scene in which he goes back into his childhood, is superb. I know my sons were so effected by "Animal" because we talked about 20 minutes after the movie ended about the Willie Lynch letter and the boys asked questions and I answered as best I could. I was so impressed with "Animal that weeks later I searched to buy a VHS version for at least one hour at a local movie rental house. I was disappointed I couldn't find it on VHS. Go see Animal, it's great.


I'm shocked that this movie and it's cast didn't get more recognition or get nominated for Academy Awards. Terrence Howard, was magnificent in his roll as Darius. He showed TRUE emotions as James' son in this flick. Terrence was so REAL. Hunter Howard who played young Darius in the beginning of the movie -- Is he Terrence Howard's real life son? I believe Terrence has a son named Hunter, and this young man sure did look just like his Daddy. I loved this movie. I'm so stoked to see Terrence Howard finally get the respect and attention he's having now in Hollywood. Terrence deserves an Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal as DJay in Hustle & Flow. If they had nominated him as Best Supporting Actor in Animal, he would have had a good chance of winning it as well.


I just saw a screening of this one. I was very happy with how the movie was. I love prison movies and love seeing how they live. Ving Rhames plays The Animal (James) a gangster who kills just for fun and ends up in prison for armed robbery and attempted murder. His son grows up to be just like his father. The Animal is a strong and true story about one man's choice and to have the guts to take it.

I liked this movie. I am a Ving Rhames fan and he did it again. If you like Ving Rhames and like prison movies and gangster movies I think you will like this one.

8/10 Stars in my book


I saw the movie in class and I have to right a paper on how I perceived it. I have taken the time to read a lot of your comments and a lot of you are right, it is an excellent movie. The part that got me is that a lot of people don't understand why things happen the way they do. You have the right to say that the upper collar worker doesn't go to the inner cities to buy drugs. I would have to disagree with you. I am from the city and see it everyday. I have lost so many friends to the streets. It is sad to say the least. But, the true sad part is this way of life is called "survival" where I come from. This film is to show us that it starts at home, to want better for yourself and your children.


Ving Rhames has made a very important movie that needs a much wider audience than it has received thus far. The story is that of a man who is living a life on a road to nowhere, with a wife and son (Terrence Howard) but without a clue how to be a husband or father. He ends up in jail, and meets a man (Jim Brown) who changes how he sees himself, those around him, and life itself. He returns only to find that his son has become the very man he once was, and is now trying to forget. What follows is a moving tale about how a father does all he can to make life better for the next generation.

Rhames and Howard are excellent in their lead roles while Chazz Palminteri and Jim Brown are solid support. Though not of the highest cinematic quality, the film serves its purpose well and delivers a message to a young generation in desperate need of guidance. If you want to be moved and provoked to think critically, this movie is the perfect recipe.


Ving Rhames plays "animal" the toughest guy on the street. Naturally he ends up in prison where he meets an old con, Berwell, played by football great Jim Brown. Berwell tries to make him understand that all the hate in society is part of a conspiracy led by the rich and powerful to keep the poor and middle class fighting among themselves. Divide and conquer. THEY want us to hate blacks and whites and hispanics. And hate homeless and homosexuals and convicts. And hate muslims and jews and catholics. If we're busy doing that, then we won't hate the rich and powerful - the ones we should hate.

Anyway, he explains this to animal and i'll let you watch the movie to see how much impact it has. I really liked this show but then, i like most prison movies.


This was a highly entertaining sleeper about a naval ship that happens to go through a time warp and end up at Pearl Harbor just hours before the attack in 1941. Realistic acting, special effects and air scenes really make this movie stand out from other similar movies. I'm really surprised that this film is not more popular, because this was a very unique and fascinating concept for a movie, especially back in 1980. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good science-fiction film. I'm also surprised that it has such a low rating, I was expecting it to be rated at least a 7. Ill give it an 8 out of 10. Well worth viewing.


This film is one of the great ones. Having served on an aircraft carrier for 2.5 years, I'm familiar with aircraft carrier excitement. But the movie was more than just wonderful shots of the U.S. Nimitz. The cast was top drawer, and their acting was as good as it gets. Standing above all the great performances was a Japanese actor portraying a shot-down, highly competent, captured Japanese Zero pilot. While racism understandably raises its ugly head during wartime, with epithets and insults hurled in both directions, in fact this Japanese actor portrayed a Japanese warrior at his finest--someone whom Japanese viewers would be proud of. Played equally well were American military personnel, including some Marines. One of the candid themes of the movie is the tragedy of such fine people going to war against each other, whatever their race.

The film is undeniably top drawer, far more mature than than "Top Gun," with even better flying scenes. So I've often wondered why it isn't widely known and not kept in stock in widescreen format. Perhaps the answer is today's wimpy trend towards "politically correct" dialog. In one scene, Kirk Douglas refers to the captured Japanese pilot as a "yellow bastard." In the video version, this was sanitized. However, sanitized or not, the original racial comment, by itself, may have doomed the film from greater video distribution.

I saw the film when it came out in wide-screen format and saw it several times before it left town. Thereafter, the only other versions available in video were "fit-to-TV-screen" size. That was tragic! Though still exciting in "box" format, the widescreen original was breathtaking. I cannot imagine why producers haven't released this in DVD in original wide-screen format. It makes a huge difference with this film! (Aircraft carriers are huge!)

One interesting comment to add about the F-14 flying scenes. I was awed by one particular F-14 maneuver, which I didn't think airplanes were capable of doing. A couple of years later, I talked with a Navy fighter pilot and brought this up. He was very familiar with that scene and personally knew the pilot who flew the F-14 in the movie. He told me that the F-14 almost crashed in that scene, stalling while trying to fly too slow, diving for the ocean to pick up speed, and barely recovering just above the wave tops. This near-accident was caught on film and added immensely to the exhibition of flying skill. An exception had been granted to the Navy's policy of not allowing "dissimilar aircraft" to fly together in movie scenes. The result of that granted exception was almost the loss of an F-14.

This is an incredibly good drama. I found that the various twists and turns, and particularly the call-it-off ending, all contributed to the drama and moral dilemmas. This is a fine, great movie. Like others who commented here, it seems tragic that this film is not available in widescreen DVD format. Everyone I've shown it to loves it, male and female. Feminism and romance are included, along with a collie dog for the kids.


I love this movie. Every time I hit it channel-surfing I think I'll watch it for just a minute and I end up watching the whole damn thing. Some of the best movies take one or two freak things and then play them out absolutely straight (e.g., Big, Back to the Future, Groundhog Day). Modern aircraft carrier encounters bizarre storm and finds itself between the Japanese fleet and Pearl Harbor a day before the infamous attack. What to do, what to do... What happens (which isn't actually much) takes a back seat to 1) an Oscar-caliber performance by Kirk Douglas as ship captain, and also fine performances by Sheen, Durning and others; and 2) the wonder of tactical operations on a modern carrier. For war buffs just the idea of the U.S.S. Nimitz prowling near the Jap fleet with Douglas at the helm is enough. Enchanting musical score and satisfying wrap. 10 out of 10


Making a military movie without official cooperation can be difficult. If the story doesn't require major air or naval assets, a script disapproved of by the top brass can be convincingly brought to the screen. Two examples - both true stories that the Pentagon didn't want to support - are "Men of Honor" reflecting the epidemic racism of the not-that-long-ago Navy and "Sgt. Bilko," a film portraying what some noncoms do to earn extra income (trust me, it's a true story: a real Sgt. Bilko worked (officially but not actually) for me when I was an Army officer.

But when you need lots of planes and ships, you gotta have official help. And few movies have gotten more assistance than the producer, director and cast of "The Final Countdown," now available on DVD,a sci-fi recruiting spectacular that features - on loan at taxpayer expense - the huge carrier U.S.S. Nimitz complete with crew. Now that's cooperation!

Kirk Douglas skippers the supercarrier which is on Pacific Fleet maneuvers. On board as some sort of efficiency consultant is a young Martin Sheen, not yet ready for the West Wing. A mysterious and never explained weather phenomenon grips the mighty floating air base and to the unfolding amazement of captain, officers and crew dawns the realization that the Nimitz in sailing not that far from Pearl Harbor on 6 December 1941.

Meanwhile a U.S. senator, played by one of Hollywood's deservedly decorated war heroes, Charles Durning, is enjoying his yacht, also near Pearl, while dictating to his lovely secretary, Katharine Ross. A brace of Japanese Zeroes sink the yacht, killing two passengers which then prompts the carrier C.O. to order trailing F-14 Tomcats to "splash" the "enemy." Durning and Ross are rescued. Without a word, this talented actor's face does a comical double-take when introduced to the ship's executive officer who just happens to be black (in 1941 a black navy man could only serve as a steward in the officers mess. That was it. Period.)

The dilemma facing Douglas, of course, is a classic time-travel conundrum. To interfere with the course of history (the carrier's air wing can make instant teriyaki of the six Japanese carriers) or to let events take their known and disastrous course.

A chaste incipient romance between the nearly drowned damsel and the carrier's Commander Air Group competes with the white knuckle decision-making struggle of the C.O.

So much for the plot. What is on offer here is a demonstration of every aircraft type, fixed-wing and rotary, deployed on the vessel as well as demonstrations of shipboard activities ranging from retrieving a damaged jet to going to General Quarters to...you name it. The technical advisers knew they had a film crew pliant to every suggestion. The result is a genuinely exciting show- a great warship going through its paces. And, unlike "Tora Tora Tora" it doesn't appear that any genuine sailors were harmed in the making of the movie.

There's one big problem. A science fiction story is usually utterly improbable, indeed impossible, but its internal logic is vital: it must be consistent. Spielberg understands that very well. Watch the first couple of minutes when Sheen is greeted by his employer's lackey and the last minutes when he debarks from the Nimitz. Something is very, very off-kilter. Could the CEO of a great military-industrial conglomerate have used top secret technology to send the carrier back to 1941 for...

So what. This is a beautifully filmed adventure story, not a great film. The cast probably relished taking over the carrier for a while and the real captain, never shown, surely wished that the Navy hadn't banned hard spirits from our ships in World War I. But all emerge unscathed in a genuinely entertaining romp through time.

8/10


I saw this film before I joined the Navy and again before I served on Nimitz (CVN 68). Kind of a nice feather in my cap experiencing the world's largest 'time machine' in person!

 On to the movie... A very interesting premise which should have merited a more detailed analysis! Executed well enough for 1980, but could be remade into one hell of a motion picture today! I'd love to see it.

 One thing the story does well is get one thinking about the 'what-if' scenario having the most modern carrier in the today's fleet taking on the Japanese Navy almost 40 years prior... Hmm. What a mismatch that would be in much the same way that **** SPOILER ALERT **** Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Tomcats rendered the 'Zeroes ' splashed handily! But, the very nature of Paradoxes would have rendered intervention potentially destructive to Nimitz and all aboard! (Which would have made profound changes to MY naval career as well.) And that was the dilemma faced; Do we change history because we feel a conscious duty to tilt the war in our favor (At least in the short term.)? Or do we choose to let nature take its course knowing full well the outcome if nothing is done? 4 more years of war and millions of lives? Or win a decisive victory and save all of the agony yet to come at the possible expense of destroying the fabric of space/time... or at the very least causing the U.S. and the Allies to lose in the long run because the U.S. would have delayed entering the war? Thorny, eh? As it turns out, history in this film was changed in a minor way but then again... was it? Possible predestination paradox, meaning events were supposed to happen the way they did.

 ***SPOILER ALERT*** If the Nimitz had stayed to fight, logistically it would have been possible... for a short time. Without access to spare parts, jet fuel and other means of support, the ship would have been nearly useless. True, this vessel class can steam for over 20 years on a fresh set of plutonium rods, but jets can't fly without fuel or spare parts! And just imagine trying to provision that ship with its crew of 5000 plus with 1940's technology! This ignores what the U.S. Government would have done once they got their hands on Nimitz and her technology back then! The debriefing would never end for those people! And imagine the changes to history then! (Could be a whole other movie!)

 All in all, I think it was a great piece of science fiction and a very enjoyable 'what if'... I recommend anyone see it who can! It has its flaws and is dated but the concept is still very valid. The movie's big strength is not so much what is said, but what is not. The important stuff is left to the viewer's imagination, and this is what makes it very entertaining and provocative!

 This is the movie that made the USS Nimitz a household word and I am very proud to have served on a piece of science fiction history (no pun intended)! The ship is very distinguished and far more impressive 'in the steel' than she is on film.

 I give this film a 7.9/10. Mostly for the powerful premise.


A man takes a strange trip with an aircraft carrier and lives an amazing nightmare with a bizarre twist. Time travel, moral sensibilities and harmful consequences are explored when the crew is confronted with a chance to change history. Trying to control the political impact of altering history, the captain makes a painful decision that ultimately leads to a happy ending. This one has sadness, irony and moments where ones wants to say, "how stupid can they get?" Overall, just a great Sci-Fi Thriller that will leave an impression.


This is a really great fun film that deals with some of the aspects of time travel into the past. If one does anything to alter the past while there, what will be the effects on the future you knew? No hint of an explanation is give as to what could have caused the, I guess you could call it, 'time storm.' But the film does have has some very interesting twists and a cool ending. Not only that, but the flight sequences of the F-15s and the dogfights between them and Mitsubishi Zeros are just plain fun (from a modern day American perspective). Someone said that they are the best shots of an F-15 in action prior to Top Gun. Ever since I was a youngster, I wondered what would happen if you could transport a battleship or aircraft carrier back to say, the Revolutionary War era. Final Countdown comes about as close to playing with that idea as I expect to see.


This movie deals with time-travel on a large scale... And like most sci-fi films, it is easy to pick their theories apart (especially after almost 25 years). I think that many of us have a tendency to over-analyze these types of movies, when, in fact, we should just sit back and enjoy the experience.

I first saw this movie at a drive-in (remember those?!?!), and during one scene in particular, the entire crowd actually cheered. This is not a reaction I'd expect from a large crowd during a "bad" movie. If you like sci-fi, aircraft, and time-travel movies, then ignore the nay-sayers and watch this movie! It's one of my all-time favorites.


I have enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in 1980. Just wish the laser disc or the video where still available. Also if you can find the paperback the last two chapters will clear things up for you or will confuse you even more.Check it out. If someone has any knowledge of where to obtain a laser disc or vhs video PLEASE post the place on the message board.


The movie is very believable and the cast does a fantastic job. It is a wonderful blend of sci-fi and reality. This is a must film for anyone that enjoys history as well as possible future ventures through space!


It was wonderful!! The acting was great and the idea very believeable. It was historical and entertaining combined and I enjoyed watching it with my teenage children.


There are a few problems with 'The Final Countdown,' the main one being that it's too real. Let me explain. The film was shot almost entirely on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz with the Navy's full cooperation. Now one might think that was quite a coup for the filmmakers, but on viewing the finished product, it seems very constrictive. Sure, there is plenty of footage of navy jets taking off and landing that's fun to watch, in and of itself. But too often such footage seems to be at the expense of the movie itself, and its plot, and having anything really interesting happen. For instance, early on, one of the jets returning to the carrier reports trouble with its landing hook, which is supposed to grab a tether when it lands on deck. So the order is given to raise the emergency barrier to prevent the plane from going off the other end of the deck into the ocean. This is done and the jet lands safely. That's it. It has nothing to do with any part of the plot. In fact, it's like watching a training film for navy recruits. Far too much of 'The Final Countdown' IS like watching a navy training film, unfortunately. The actors and the film's story seem like intruders aboard the Nimitz. Many scenes are unambitiously cut short. The reality of the ship sinks the believability of the story. We never for one minute believe Kirk Douglas is really the captain of the Nimitz. It's obvious too, that many of the ship's crew were used as extras. Here the problem is just the opposite. They have zero screen presence. One of the reasons you hire professional actors for movies is they ARE professionals and have spent a great deal of time learning their skills at projecting a character and speaking lines of dialogue effectively. Whoever it is that says, "Captain on bridge," and "Captain off bridge" about thirty times has obviously never acted in his life. A shame too, since the story idea is a good one, albeit one straight out of Time Travel 101. What if a modern day aircraft carrier was somehow transported back in time to the day before the Pearl Harbor attack? Even though it's not a terribly original premise, there are so many ways one can have fun with the idea, so many possibilities. But all 'The Final Countdown' can do is nibble around the edges. The requisite questions are asked: What if I meet my own grandfather and he dies? Or, what if someone who was meant to die, survives? What if the captain warns Washington? What if the Nimitz attacks and defeats the Japanese fleet? Unfortunately, again, the questions as phrased above are about as far as 'The Final Countdown' gets in playing with any of the tantalizing might-have-beens. One begins wishing for even a long, drawn-out conversation between two of the characters about those various possibilities. But the screenwriters cannot so much as bring themselves to do that, and such scenes are cut short as well. The brutal truth is that nothing much of anything happens in this movie and at the end, one is left with a huge 'so what?' kind of feeling. 'The Final Countdown' should have been titled 'The Final Letdown.'


The title of the movie might be that of a super-cheesy song, with that highly catchy chorus by the band Europe in the 80s. Forget it because this came first, nor does it submit to cheese/silliness in what could've been a nonsensical premise. Gladly it doesn't, however for a fantasy / Sci-fi film that's impressively ambitious, and grand in scope. Talk about a cop-out for an ending! Or was it? The novelty of the concept flourishes with intelligence and vision, but it felt like something you would find in an episode of "The Twilight Zone". Maybe it would've been better suited so. The story begins with a freak storm transporting a modern American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier back to 1941, just before the Japanese fleet bombed Pearl Harbour. Now the question is should they get involved, and fear changing the face of history. Tough call. Too bad the film doesn't really take up that challenging stance with much aplomb, and somewhat takes an easy way out.

On an ethical note, the question raised is do we really have the right to change what has already happened. The paradox brings up many interesting possibilities, and drums up unimaginable suspense. It's an anxious waiting game for the decision, and that's what its all about. After deciding, it suddenly changes and leaves you hanging there with what could've been. The final note to me, made it all the forgettable. The material might not have been wholly satisfying, but technically it mainly came off with dazzling results. What was spectacularly done was the work they managed to get while filming on the actual U.S.S Nimitz. It feels, and looks authentic because it is. They filmed at sea on the boat, at certain intervals. The background features at times seemed to be more interesting, than the actual story. Watching the crew going through their manoeuvres was magnetically displayed. Also the aircraft scenes were remarkably done, and excitingly high powered. The special effects are dated, but managed to be atmospherically eerie and moodily colourful.

Figure heads Kirk Douglas (in a durably solid turn), Martin Sheen and at a lesser extent Charles Dunning give the film some stalwart class. Also showing up in the profound cast were Katherine Ross, James Farentino and Ron O'Neal. John Scott's heavy handed music score, was hit-and-miss, but Victor J. Kemper's expansive cinematography was professionally executed. Don Taylor's direction feels automatic, but breezy.

This boy's own adventure is an enjoyably, attention-grabbing "what if" predicament.


Lets forget the "how" the ship got to where (or when) it was. The story here is of the conflicts that arise as the evidence mounts that for whatever reason, a modern aircraft carrier has found itself 280 miles from Hawaii in the afternoon of December 6th 1941! Will the captain order his men to attack the incoming Japanese force and thus change the course of history, or if not, what then? Have they already changed history by their actions presiding the decision to attack or not. Lets face it, if this could have happened, WWII would have essentially been over in about 20 minutes. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride. Make sure to stay with it to the end for the surprise twist at the very end.


An aircraft carrier, (in an unconvincingly contrived way), goes back in time to the day just before the Pearl Harbour attack and does.... Er very little really?

Other than a few people getting killed, (most of who nobody seems overly bothered about), one man from the future being left behind and a dog getting sent forward in time absolutely nothing of any consequence happens here at all.

Now a film, (or more usefully), a series, where the ship doesn't go home but instead stops the attack and then deals with a crew that has to come to terms with living in a past where their irrevocably rewriting history... now that would be worth watching.

Imagine the issues to deal with...

How would the Roosevelt Government come to terms with this new found asset on their doorstep.

What issues would it's Nuclear Arsenal have on both ending the war and effecting the balance of power afterwards.

What interaction would 1000 navy servicemen with a knowledge of a possible future have on the world their parents/grandparents are growing up in.

Altogether a far more interesting premise than the rather pointless one the film finally opts for.


The Final Countdown is a great Aircraft Carrier movie. I really like Kirk Douglas as an actor. Imagining F-14 Tomcats shooting down Japanese Zeroes shows that America is still grouchy about the surprise attack at Pearl Harbour. Well it turns out that I have some Japanese DNA and that makes me neutral on the Battle of Pearl Harbour.

Imagine if the day after President Jack Kennedy was supposed to have been assassinated, on November 23, 1963 when Captain Morrison took command of the Bonhomme Richard aircraft carrier it was really a still alive President Jack Kennedy. In 1963 the Boney carried nuclear weapons. I am sure that JFK had a super cruise. Then in 1964 according to the book Who Shot JFK? President Jack Kennedy was spotted at author Truman Capotes birthday Party still alive. No word of a lie it turns out that President Jack F Kennedy is my Great Uncle. A big hi to Clive Cussler in the bunker. I heard that the Secret Service agents had to carry you to the transportation. Now you know that my Great Uncle the American Shadow President Jack F Kennedy like lifeguarding like former President Reagan. I hope you are coping with the fact that we Democrats saved your republican behind. Remember that freedom of speech still exists so have fun writing or don't if you choose that course of action. It is rumored that the original creator of the Universe reads your books and is in our Solar system.

If you look at the names Ki and Et aliens you can get the word kite, like they are someones kite, but do not be misled, the Care Rank Ki and others are highly likely to be some of the top sentient species in the Universe. If they encountered other aliens, the thought that they were someones kite might give the other guy a moment of pause. The other movies of Kirk Douglas are also good.


The USS Nimitz and her crew find themselves flung for no apparent reason whatsoever into the past, D-Day to be precise. It's good for what it is, which is a pure escapist popcorn B-movie. Martin Sheen can't help but pale in comparsion to REAL men like Kirk Douglas and especially Charles Durning. Furthermore Martin shouldn't be able to be in any movie that the military is involved with, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, the movie is enjoyable enough, the ending was so very disappointing though.

Blue Underground Limited Edition DVD Extras: Disk 1)Audio commentary with cinematographer Victor J. Kemper and David Gregory; 2 theatrical trailers; Teaser trailer ; 2 TV spots Disk 2) "Starring the Jolly Rogers: Interviews with The Jolly Rogers F-14 Fighter Squadron" -documentary (31 minutes) ; "Lloyd Kaufman Goes Hollywood: Interview with Associate Producer Lloyd Kaufman" -featurette (14 minutes) ; Poster & still galleries: Kirk Douglas Bio

DVD-ROM: Zero Pilot's Journal

My Grade: B-


When I first heard of this movie I thought it was goingto be an awesome time-traveling movie with lots off dogfighting featuring WW2 Japanese planes on American jet action!But do I get that? HARDLY! I found this movie boring and unimaginative. I mean, fantastic, COME ON! I could pull more fantastic sh!t outta my @$$ with less material! It has a good premise but doesn't strecth the limits of imagination. I'm not saying this is the worst part, but this movie isn't really that great. It could never sdtand up to time traveling greats like Back To The Future or H.G. Well's The Time Machine. In my opinion, go with The Philly Experiment, It looks, and feels more interesting...


I think the first time I saw this movie was when it first made the cable circuit, I think I was seven or eight at the time. My father was an ex-navy carrier rat and loved any movie with planes and boats. I enjoyed them too, but not as much as he did, I was a sci-fi geek. So imagine my reaction when my father was goading me into watching another Navy movie. "Sure dad, yes dad, I'll watch your movie with you because you say it's gonna be cool." My attitude changed drastically after the storm swept them back to December6,1941! There it was the ultimate father son bonding experience. He got his boats and planes, and I got my sci-fi.

The acting was top notch, with brilliant performances by Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen. The dog fight scenes between tomcats and zeros was excellent, although if I remember right the Zero's were actually dressed up T-6's LOL! But it all paled in comparison to the story and the history of those days just before the attack. The moral, and ethical dilemmas facing a captain of the most powerful destructive force in 1941 just hours before the sneak attack. Should he stop it and save Pearl Harbor and all of those lives that will surely be lost, and possibly negate his own existence? Or simply ignore it and let history take it's course? All these years later this is still one of my favorite movies, and I will drop everything I'm doing at the moment just to watch it whenever it is on. I watch, remember, and smile. Thanks dad!


I saw this movie several years ago, and it is one of the few that has 'stuck'. I would recommend this to anyone interested in a different type of plot to the normal 'run of the mill' stuff.

The technical effects are awesome, considering that the movie was produced in the early 1980's.


I saw this movie a few times in the theater in 1980, when I was 12, and at the time it was pretty much utterly awesome. However, as we are forced to face again and again, what is awesome when one is 12 is not the same as what is awesome when one is over 30.

This movie forces us to look inside ourselves and ask: "What would happen if a state-of-the-art (for 1980) aircraft carrier were transported back in time to the eve of Pearl Harbor?" Then there are all the regular questions about the Prime Directive, the ethics of using advance knowledge and advanced technology, blah blah blah. The situation is the hook of the movie, a pretty good one. Unfortunately, it's also the only thing the movie has to offer.

After some exposition that gets top military whiner Martin Sheen on the boat, and some unrelated techo-fetishism about the way those sweet F-14s land, a mysterious storm that looks a lot like a laser and a fog machine appears in the sky and causes the sailors to hold their heads. When it goes away, they are in 1941 (the year, not the movie), and they have to grapple with many philosophical questions about whether they should whup the Japs' asses but good.

A good 35% of the movie is just flat-out recruiting-film military techno fetishism. It's kind of cool for a while, as you watch planes swoosh and dive, and it reminds you of the days when the prospect of going into the military meant you were going to fly cool planes and do cool things instead of simply being sent to a desert to be killed. But it gets tiresome after awhile, though it does remain quite visible, so you can fast-forward without fear of missing anything.

There's a small bit of derisive laughter as the crew (during the LONG period in which they are coming to accept that they have traveled back in time) compare a photo that was apparently taken an hour ago by one of their planes to a photo that was taken 40 years previously by another plane. The cast bravely pretends not to notice that they are THE EXACT SAME PHOTO. Amazing coincidence! There's another movie right there.

The performances fit the material. Kirk Douglas is actually quite charming as the captain. He projects authority, yet is warm and approachable, and isn't afraid to say he doesn't know what's going on. Martin Sheen appears to be on hand simply to deliver speeches about how very morally complex it all is. Former Superfly Ron O'Neal is around as eye candy for me. Katherine Ross is in full "do I have to do anything except stand around and be dewy?" mode, but she will always get props from me for ensnaring gravelly man-hunk Sam Elliott in her wicked web.

This movie is a bit like those alternative history novels, which are usually about "what if the South won the Civil War," which translates as;"what if we'd kept the blacks in their place." This one, I think, is about redressing the perceived imbalance that occurred when the US was caught unawares. But how could we be caught unawares we're the United States! I think the enjoyment of this movie for some people is in floating the fantasy that we could show them Japs once and for all.

This movie is also notable as a likely influence on 80s rock group Europe's cheesy hit of the same title.

SPOILERS>>> The end of this movie cops out by having the mysterious storm appear at the PRECISE moment that the US is just about to attack the Japanese fleet. The aircraft carrier is transported back to the same time it left, everyone shrugs and goes "Huh," and they go about their average workday. It makes the movie somewhat unsatisfying at the end, but you know not any more unsatisfying than it was up until that point.

--- Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website devoted to bad and cheesy movies. You can get the url from my email address above...


this is one of the best time travel movies i have seen.it's vaguely similar to the Philadelphia Experiment but on a much larger scale.i also think it's a much better movie.for one thing,there's way more tension and suspense and you really can sense the fear and desperation of the ship's crew.this one will have you on the edge of your seat.the acting here is very strong all around.there's no weak link in the bunch.there no slow spots either.the movie flows at a nice steady pace,and keeps you interested right to the end.i'd highly recommend it as a rental at the very least.i purchased a copy which was more than worth it.for me,The Final Countdown is an 8.7/10


I hadn't seen this film for a long time so when it was on television recently I decided to watch it again. I expected it to be cheesy with some fairly ropey special effects... I was wrong, the story was good enough and what special effects there were were decent enough. The real highlight though was the lack of CGI, this means we get to see a wide range of real US Navy aircraft.

The plot about the USS Nimitz, a modern nuclear powered US aircraft carrier, going through a strange storm which leaves it back in 1941 on the eve of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. A pair of the carrier's F-14s intercept and shoot down a pair of Japanese Zeroes which have strafed an American boat which happened to have a Senator on board. A rescue helicopter picks up the senator, his aide and one of the Japanese pilots, all of whom are shocked at the technology they see.

The senator is adamant that they must warn Pearl of the imminent attack and the Japanese pilot; who has managed to grab a gun and take a hostage wants to warn his fleet. The captain and senior officers must decide whether they should intervene and change history or stay out of the fight and leave history to take its course.

The action is pretty exciting and seeing all of those Navy jets would have been enough to get anybody who likes military aircraft watching. The acting was good enough with Kirk Douglas putting in a good performance as the captain of the Nimitz. I think it is a shame that there was less discussion about what the consequences of stopping the attack might be; both good and bad, still it was a pretty good film; a must see to any fan of military aircraft.


This is not a war-movie, but a movie about traveling through time. And the best of its kind in my opinion.

So other recommendations should rather be sci-fi movies of the same kind, and not just war movies.

The great thing about this one in the genre of time travel, is that its made in a so epic and serious way.

I know first time seeing it on the screen and it looked to be a huge drama, action-thriller or something in the beginning, and then suddenly the most unexpected thing happens. It was awesome.

I never get tired of this movie. Only wish there had been much more of it.


Unfortunately even though there is plenty of air action, one is left flat with this film. The build up is great, however as the movie comes to a close and the viewer realizes the final outcome, one cannot help but feel cheated.

The paradox at the end is good. Kirk Douglas is (as always)a great presence. Marting Sheen's acting on the other hand, has a lot to be desired. Katharine Ross is adequate, but I would have liked to see more involvement with her character. Charles Durning's character was very good, if not a little over the top.

This movie really had a lot of potential. It's unfortunate that the writers didn't work up a better ending.


I recently saw this film for the first time since seeing it many years ago. In addition to its being entertaining, enjoyed seeing Kirk Douglas, who although in his mid-60's, still looked vigorous and hale.

The USS Nimitz is a nuclear aircraft carrier, sailing in the Pacific, on a routine assignment contemporary to the making of this film, in 1980. At the beginning, a civilian, played by Martin Sheen, has been assigned aboard as an observer for training exercises. His boss, a Mr. Tideman, observes his departure from a limo. Anyone who has ever heard the word "foreshadow," knows that this scene will have some effect by the film's end, that Mr. Tideman's not being shown on-screen at this point is significant, and that the fact Sheen has not ever seen his boss face-to-face also portends something significant later, and is likely essential to the development of the plot. Sheen's position as an observer is of some minor disturbance to the ship's air wing commander, James Farentino, worrying about disruption to operations, but we know that there will be some sort of dramatic aspect in subsequent "operations" involving them with one another.

The ship is destined to "time travel," sailing through a vortex, a shrouded fog, which transports it from the present (1980) back to early December, 1941. They encounter Japanes aircraft, fighter craft in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack force, and all are initially nonplussed by their mint condition, whereas they should be 40-year-old relics. Captain Kirk (Douglas, not Spock's boss) dispatches three jet aircraft, one to Pearl, the others to fend-off the Japanese planes. The Japanese attack and sink the nearby yacht of an important U. S. Senator (Charles Durning), his assistant (Katherine Ross), her pet dog, and another companion. The Senator, Ross and the dog dive to safety, the other passenger is killed. This indicated hostility, and intent of same towards the naval vessel, necessitates the carrier's craft to blast the two enemies - one is destroyed by missile, the other shot down with bullets, allowing the pilot of the latter to survive (along with the two humans and one canine from the sunken yacht).

The prisoner/Japanese pilot is rescued by a helicopter, and the Senator/Durning, his comely assistant and the cute doggy are rescued by another, and all taken on-board.

There is a lot going on in this film. The plane sent to Pearl Harbor returns with photos. Farentino recognizes one is the same he has in-file for a book he is preparing - showing the port as it was, in-tact, just prior to the December 7th sneak attack. The Senator, an important, informed senior politico expert on all matters military, is obviously nonplussed by the jet aircraft and all other aspects of the carrier and everything else, beyond the contemporary hardware with which he is familiar.

The crux of all these "time travel" stories, whether an inexpensive 22 minutes within a half-hour TV presentation, or an expensive, A-list big-screen offering like this one, presents the same dilemma -- whether to use the ability now at-hand to stifle some occurrence and save lives, etc., but alter the future in so doing? Might changing things - such as precluding the terrible events at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41, make things worse than they became for future generations, or even in the relatively near term? Sheen even recalls previously reading about the Senator's loss, missing at sea, in 1941. If he survives now, he might well become the one who would succeed FDR in 1945, having supplanted Harry Truman on the party slate in 1944. What paths might he have taken differently from HST, towards using the A-bomb, ending the Pacific war, in Korea, etc., etc?

All the while Kirk has to be the one to decide on the basic question regarding the impending Japanese squadrons, and the viewer knows that at some point the ship probably will return to present (at filming) time. But when? In the middle of what? To what avail?

Suffice to say, in my opinion, this story has handled an often-used theme in a clever, engaging way, with fine performances. Also, the picture is just plain entertaining - something I think we sometimes overlook in our analyses.

The end is clever, and the transportation of some folks back to the 40's, and their subsequent fates is done as "logically" as possible within science fiction. Without revealing the end, one 1980 character stays back in the 40's but reappears again (older) in the 80's. Another original 40's person also appears in the present at the end. And the doggy, who even if young and destined to a long life, would have originally made it at best to, say, 1954 or so, remains in the 1980's, is still young at the flick's end, and participates in the happy aspects of the story's conclusion


I've enjoyed this film in the theater and on TV and recently acquired it on DVD. One of the nice extras is a commentary track by the film's director of photography. He provides fascinating details about the actual shooting such as the fact that all the shipboard scenes were filmed on board the Nimitz during a brief layover and a week-long training exercise. The technical aspects of the DVD are well done.

Some story elements may have been overlooked or perhaps altered in the editing. The Nimitz' strategic policy was initially nonintervention and self-preservation. The F-14's were ordered to shoot down the Zeros, not in reprisal for their attack on the yacht, but in order to stop them from finding the carrier with its armament-laden deck. The decision to engage the invading force came about only when attack was imminent. When the captain learned that the time vortex was actively pursuing the ship and escape was impossible, he recalled his men in order to avoid stranding them in time. The only time-altering consequence of the whole scenario was to deposit Commander Owens in a situation where he could affect the future. The reason for that action and the nature of the intelligence behind it is left to the imagination.

If you enjoyed Final Countdown, check out the recent anime series Zipang. It's an alternate telling and role-reversal of this story. A modern Aegis vessel from the Japanese Self Defense Force is transported back to the Battle of Midway and presented with the opportunity to alter the outcome of that engagement. It's a well told story with realistic animation, unlike typical Saturday morning action cartoons.


Any time I get a couple hours, I pull out the now well worn videotape and enjoy myself. God I am so glad that a DVD is now available. Anyway I wanted to comment on the idea that Tideman/Owens CAUSED the event. I saw a couple references to additional information in the book form, but as for the movie what I got was not that Tideman/Owens CAUSED the event but rather that once the chain of events was initiated he was obligated to made sure that Laskey got on the ship at exactly the right time. (" Our departure was delayed two days at the request of your mysterious Mr. Tideman.") See where I'm going with this? We don't know if we're seeing the first incident, the second, or the hundredth. Once it started it must occur as before. In order for the events to unfold correctly (from Tidemans viewpoint) he must delay the ship or (speculating now)the ship would go back to December 4th 1941, they would miss the rondeview with the survivors of Sen. Chapman's yacht, and he would miss meeting Miss Scott. If they left later, then the attack force would have reached Pearl Harbor in time and messed up history. Meting Laural would certainly be motivation in itself, cuz Kate Ross was still a doll at the time of the movies' production. Sorry if this has been discussed before, I did look.


The movie is based on the idea of time-travelling. There were lots of such movies and novels, but this one is somewhat different. There is USS Nimitz, nuclear carrier, equipped in jets, reconnaissance planes, marines, and so on, everything that is needed in modern warfare. Somehow Nimitz is taken back to 1941, just before Pearl Harbour battle. Now it is a super-weapon that can change history and alone destroy all the Japanese fleet.

One interesting question is if it is possible to change history. The crew are soldiers and want to participate the battle. In movies such "Back to the Future" characters were able to change history, in more "real", like "Twelve Monkeys" -- they were creating it. Is Nimitz able to win the battle that was lost? What would happen to people who lived then? With some senator, who is going to win presidential elections, but was "missing" after the battle? Will he survive it and lead his nation after the war? The main question is not "will Nimitz finally go back to its time" but "will Nimitz join the battle". One does not think about future but about soldier's duty.

The movie consists nice photo shots. The carrier itself, its planes, dogfights between Japanese motor-planes and modern F14. Even if it is not even a candidate for the Oscar, I think it is always a good SF and war movie.