The locations, hairstyles, costumes were superb. The top talents of all entertainment trades were used in this treasured piece . You can imagine how prized those vintage gowns are today, especially since so many were ruined in the filming of Titanic. I especially loved my mothers black drop shoulder New Years Eve gown. The best hair stylists were used, she said, and she has stills with all the major actors from that location which was filmed at the historic Ambassador hotel downtown Los Angeles. Her almost platinum blond hair was in the soft roll of the times, longer than most of the players, but she was the most glamorous of the New years revelers. She so enjoyed all the actors even though Polly Bergen tore a tiara off her head in the wardrobe trailer, citing that "she is supposed to be a floozie, not a princess!!!" It was nice that they addressed her by her real name, Susan. She said that they used lots of smoke machines and quite a few of the actors smoked on top of the machines, which made for very dry eyes and throats. She was the date of Hack Peters. It is a great mini series to curl up to and own for the actors are the best!!


In recent years there have been a number of great mini-series linking many small stories to tell the story of something much bigger. An example is "Into the West".

This approach is nothing new, but in the bad of old of the 1980s, when they were first trying to do this, what they were essentially doing is producing soap opera.

War and Remembrance tries to be the story of WWII told most through a family (and the people they are having sex with). The problem is that the acting bad, the script is bad and they jump to to other things. Telling story of Himmler, Hitler, Churchill etc, tells us what we already know and bears no relationship to other stories.

The result is a dogs breakfast, that is, a complete mess. So bad they think World War II starts with Pearl Harbor, rather than Hitler invading Poland, or more accurately Japan invading China.

This is one for soap opera fans, history buffs and coma patients.


Whoever is capable of the Austrian version of the German language (dialect) should watch this great comedy! I have laughed tears!!!


DÜRINGER's film makes an excellent introduction to Austrian film. It isn't the greatest movie ever made, but it is just offbeat enough to overcome most of its problems. The movie's ending, which is one of the most original I've ever seen, is alone worth watching.


One of the best movies of the year - and the absolute blockbuster in Austria. Except for the end this film is an absolute must-see. I wonder, however, if the subtleties of Austrian can be understood outside the country.....


Hinterholz 8 is one of the best austrian movies I've ever seen, even better than "Indien" or "Freispiel". Roland Düringer and all other actors, mostly comedists, acted at their best. A great screenplay and some really funny scenes ("Made in Japan, destroyed in Sulz im Wienerwald") made this movie adorable.


Having lived there for a while, this movie is a very accurate portrayal of the typical Austrian (yes, I know it's a generalization - there are always exceptions). For me, this movie is both a comedy as well as a critical look at the problems in Austria:

* Xenophobia - shown in the condesendence shown towards the illegal immigrant worker. This is absolutely common in Austria. * Male chauvinism - Austria still is a very conservative society when it comes to roles of males and females and who "has the pants on". * Corruption - so called "Freunderlwirtschaft"; it is not untypical in Austria to circumvent fair competition for jobs, rights of passing on apartments, etc. by preferential treatment and doing "under the table"-deals. Also, every little village in Austria seems to have their own mayor and again, there's a lot of wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes. * Parochialism ("kleinkariert") - for many Austrians, the most exotic holiday would be to go to Italy (or Mallorca, as mentioned in the movie) and end up lazing on a beach and ordering "Wiener Schnitzel" instead of local cuisine. People like the one woman who has lived all her life in the same small village and hasn't even been up the hill does exist!

Many other little things, little bits of the language, the pathetic obsession with "Schrebergarten", the reaction of the village folk to a "Wiener", round out the movie's attention to detail.

So, in summary, it's both a comedy as well as tragic in a way, but certainly well made and in particular very authentically acted! Not sure what to make of the ending, though, because up to that point, it was utterly realistic.

Apparently, there is a germanized version of it - if you can manage to understand a Viennese accent, definitely go for the original Austrian one!


Hinterholz 8 is a bad Austrian movie compared to Indien, Muttertag and Freispiel. The actors and actresses are good, but the story is poor. Some dialogs and scenes are really good but there are few. If you expect another movie typical Düringer movie like Muttertag, save your money!


It could have been worse if it was longer.

I rented this movie based on the synopsis on the back. Here is the first line: "Former Navy Seal Lamont Dixon (Eddie Griffin) thought he left his fighting days behind when he became a tugboat captain... "

Okay I really rented the movie based on my vision of the pitch someone had to give to get this movie made.

My vision of the pitch:

"Okay.... Eddie Griffin.... okay... stay with me.... Eddie griffin is a retired Navy Seal.... okay.... stay with me.... now he's a tug boat captain!.... okay stay with me.... he fights terrorists from his tug boat! HAHAHAHA... but it's not funny... okay, okay, stay with me.... "

I had to see THAT movie.

Turns out Griffin is a firefighter!???!?! WHAAAA?? I thought he was a navy seal! I wanted Navy Seal action. He's a firefighter with PTSD?!?!? Not funny, bad acting, lame action. Don't get me wrong, I am usually okay with bad movies. But I need to see some kind of over the top, outrageous, action scenes. The Transporter 2 that was a bad movie worth seeing. I would even see that again. I wanna see a jet ski chase down a bus on the freeway in every bad action movie!

The only funny part of this movie is the explanation from Breckin Meyer about why his parents named him Jamal. I'm naming my kid Jamal.

All in all unless your a HUGE Eddie Griffin fan. NEVER SEE THIS MOVIE! EVER!


I liked "Blast". You don't take an action film seriously with Eddie Griffin and Vinnie Jones. The plot is about Lamont Dixon (Griffin) who is an ex-fireman\tugboat captain. He is working on an oil rig at Christmas time when terrorists led by Michael Kittredge (Jones)hijack the crew. Kittredge has a electronic device that can destroy California. Now it's up to Dixon to save the day. Eddie Griffin was a pretty good action hero. Vivica A.Fox goes through the motions as the head FBI agent. Vinnie Jones plays the evil villain role well. No one should care that "Blast" is going direct-to-video. If you want an exciting and funny action\comedy, this is it.


Recap: Lamont Dixon is a former fire fighter that saw his best friend being killed in a fire and then switched job. Now he works as a tugboat captain and also is the custodian of Eric, his killed friends son. Now he has a job to tug an unpopular oilrig out to an oilfield off Californias coast. But things take a turn for the worst when environmentalist protesters turn out to be terrorists intent to take the rig with force.

Comments: If you have seen Under Siege with Steven Seagal you have seen this one. You need to switch the battleship with an oilrig and then it almost seems like an identical copy. However, you got to give the movie some credit as it actually recognizes this itself and makes some jokes and references about it.

Otherwise it is an average action movie. You get your fill of fighting, gunfights and explosions as well as some quick dialog delivering one-liners and jokes however how bad the situation. You don't need to think too much about it, indeed you only need to be conscious to see this one. That makes it perfect to see it an early Sunday morning, half asleep in your couch/bed as I did.


It feels like a recycling of all "die hard" movies combined with some segal flicks! of course they cant get away with that so they put in a kid.. This way they could add a family drama type background and an angsty fireman. All they needed more was a hint of sex.. Which they clumsily poured in at the end! The movie runs like a train! Which is undeniably good, the problem is the background. You shouldn't think too much, actually I advise against thinking at all. You need to accept a lot of facts. One of the harder ones is a fireman who in the end turns out to be a near superman! I also have to admit.. the whole plot really doesn't get me worried about who wins! I really didn't care enough! Or any of my friends.

Its a nice no brainer, but don't spoil too much money on it!


An interesting action film about a group of bank robber come terrorists who Hijack an oil rig from which they wish to fire an electro magnetic pulse over California to wipe out any traces of their robbery. Unfortunately for them, the tug boat captain, an ex marine happens to be around to help save the day with help from an undercover FBI agent.

Watch as the face paced action with gun fights and even hand to hand combat. There are explosions and the screen play is spot on. I recommend this to anyone.

Vinnie Jones does an excellent job in the bad boy role of terrorist group leader. Eddie Griffin as the tug boat captain is as perfect as you can be. You even get to see Shaggy in this film.

My rating 10/10


This movie was very good. I'm surprised that the discussion board is so dead, along with the votes. It deserves a lot more publicity. It had fantastic acting, special effects, action...basically everything you want from a movie. When I saw this movie, I thought that IMDb would be full of users discussing it, but I realized that it wasn't as well-known as I thought. Well, that was a shocker for me. The movie was great, way better than I had expected when I saw it on the shelf at Blockbuster. Buy it, or at least give it a chance and rent it. You wont regret it.

Go see the movie, it rocks!


i just have seen this fiasco on cable, and i need to trash it, is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen.

Eddie griffin an action hero?. my god!. the "clever" lines before and after kick some terrorist ass without even being touch were a joke, but the kind of funny stuff that doesn't supposed to be laughable. and what about griffin "im a bad-ass" faces when he does a karate posses or is spotting the bad guys?... damn, i always get the feeling that some undercover brother dumb joke was soon to occur. this is one of the most awkward movies i have ever seen, is awful. i have to change the channel in a lot of scenes... and Vivica A. Fox... my god... Vinnie Jones!!... damn... terrible career move. what and horrible movie.


This movie was simply awful. Very poorly acted, generic plot-line, and I wonder what Oil company paid the director of this movie (much like the 'Sector 6' Cigarettes in 'Thank you for Smoking') to produce this crap and put a political 'pro-oil' spin on it. The comments about Iraq (like "we did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq") were just downright insulting. I think this movie started off the same way as that scene I just mentioned in 'Thank you for Smoking.' Good to know that big corporations are still trying to mold our opinion with subtle physiological conditioning in our movies, television and magazines. The people who made this movie should be ashamed, I would never recommend this title to anyone. Don't waste your time unless you have a need to hear some pro-oil propaganda.


This film is an absolutely evil and bad as I think that absolutely is not better than ever not to spread the example. These are my reasons. First: It is evil and reprehensible confuse environmentalists who are against the monstrosity of placing a tower of oil extraction off the coast of California that use of their legitimate rights are converted into manifestation of the "bad", confusing its leader with a terrible terrorist who wants to wipe out the United States simply for money. Second: Not content to makers of this absurdity is that a bomb has painted a hammer and sickle, the universal emblem of communism coincided with the former Soviet Union. As in the best times of the Cold War, and in the absence of more credible and convincing enemies have no reserves to use these despicable methods to manipulate the brains of people who have the misfortune to run into this crap that in the absence of arguments using weapons, explosions, shooting, violence absolutely free and what is worse, using the figure of a child and noble sentiments that are prostitutes to raise money.In possession of a genuine ingenuousness I wonder, how is it possible that there are people who can devote to a movie so bad? No wonder, then, that ordinary people do not go to theaters to see this movies, much less to see films such low value free of any film and ethical value.


As a connoisseur of bad movies this makes the list of bad of the bad. I had such HIGH hopes for this movie. I LOVE Vinnie Jones in his usual tough guy film (Lock Stock Two Smoking Barrels). He is a tough convincing actor in nearly everything he stars in. Even in X Men 3 he pulled off a brief good time as "Juggernaut". I don't see how he got stuck in this movie. And Eddie Griffin is a great comedic actor and was BRILLIANT in "Undercover Brother." Why he chose to star in this movie is a mystery as well.

Both Vinnie Jones and Eddie Griffin are incredibly talented actors and always a joy to watch. But together in this movie they just don't make up for the horrible writing, tired plot, and terrible supporting actors. And as much as I like both of them, I just can't see these two starring in anything together that will be good without good writing and better direction.

And come on Hollywood. The George Bush jabs are just old.


Of course Eddie Griffin is funny but no, not worth to rent and see this one, we did do that mistake.. mistake of the year, we did watch it, like 4-5 friends, and one of us was so bored that he did go sleep..and the kid actor.. his "Ow ow" was so bad.. and he was the worst actor i've ever seen, but it's just what i think.. maybe you like it, maybe not, that's just my opinion ;) Hope to see more better movies from Eddie Griffin.. he is a very funny guy, but an action "hero"? no way, he is an comedian, and that's what he only can do.. not action.. no way. the best way to watch this movie is not to watch it, just my opinion.

bye.


OK, so in my opinion this is either the most brilliant satire on the action genre done by those who write and direct in it, or it is the worst possible action piece of crap since Segal's Into the Sun.

Either way you should be laughing your ass off.

The plot is so obvious in the way action films are. All the actors appear to have taken acting lessons from Van Damme for this one (wooden as chopsticks). People have the BEST\worst lines ever with such gems as "They're using flares!" in a fearful way.

I am surprised nobody else thinks this was a straight satire where the best way to make fun of the genre is to do it without smiling. I mean, they used stock footage of Backdraft and Top Gun. This from the director of Segal's Submerged and the script writer from Street Fighter! I think people should have seen Eddie Griffin and not expect him to be a Lorenzo Lamas. His acting is as dumb and overdone as any of the greats in the action drama.

So please, consider laughing at this one instead of pissing about it being a poor action movie. ALL action moves are poor displays of cinema anyway (minus Bruce Willis films). They are great because they are cheesy, and this my friends takes the cake and kicks a grenade into it.


i saw a preview of blast today and i was not impressed. the story has been done several times before and a lot better. the acting was bad with the exception of Meyer & griffin who were cool but everyone else sucked especially Vinnie Jones who just can't act. griffin plays a former fireman who quit when his best friend died in a fire and is now a tugboat captain and is now raising the son of his friend. griffin the boy and his crew board the oil rig shortly before it is hijacked. Vinnie Jones leads the terrorist group and plans on launching an electro magnetic pulse bomb over California with plans on hacking into several banks and stealing billions of dollars and destroying the records of the transfers with the emp. Meyer is a member of the terrorist team who in fact turns out to be a federal agent who ends up helping griffin. a little comedy here and there, action sequences were okay but overall a disappointment.

3 out of 10


I rented this and i thought: "oh, this looks like a nice action flick!", as i took this from the shelf.

Damn, i was so wrong.

It's got some mediocre action scenes, annoying actors with annoying voices, a Vinnie Jones totally out of shape and A LOT of "clever" comments by just about everyone. I suggest you go and check out "Man on Fire" instead. There we have a movie that's worth mentioning, as opposed to this one.

I'm no good at writing reviews, so you'll just have to see it for yourselves. Such a mess.

4/10


A classic sadly almost ignored and forgotten probably because of it's small scale being a quite simple screen version of the popular stage play. Alec Guinness is the Cardinal arrested by the state during the Cold War, Jack Hawkins is the state inquisitor trying to break him. Ex comrades in arms, fighting in the Resistance against the Nazis; they now find themselves on opposing sides of Church and State. An intense battle of wills ensues, superb performances all round including Wilfred Lawson as the jailer. Highly recommended.


This film is often overlooked but if you can find it, it is well worth your while. Adapted from a stage play it is admittedly slow and talky, but it does challenge the intellect. Guiness and Hawkins are brilliant as a churchman consumed with self doubt and a zealot consumed with the state. Their battle of wits forms the crux of this many layered work. A rather pale love story added to the screen play simply detracts from the films power. This is a film that will challenge you to think. It requires work on the part of the viewer and, as a result, is not everyone's cup of tea. Any fan of great acting shouldn't miss it.


Alec Guinness got to repeat one of the roles he did on the London stage with the screen adaption of Bridget Boland's The Prisoner which was directed by Peter Glenville who also did the original stage production. It was one of Guinness's personal favorites among his parts because of the Catholicism of the actor.

In fact the role really hit close, maybe too close to home, because like the character he plays in the film, Guinness was a child of a prostitute mother who escaped into acting as a refuge from a really bad childhood. Just as his character the Cardinal of an unnamed Balkan country now ruled by a Marxist dictatorship went into the church as a way of rising above the station he was born in life.

Jack Hawkins plays the state inquisitor, a psychologist by training who probes and finds the weakness in Guinness and uses it to get a confession of treason out of him. Pride and vanity are the trickiest of human sins, we're all guilty of it in one way or another.

In making this film Guinness, Boland, and Glenville were all adamant about keeping the main character Catholic and not some Christian preacher of an unnamed denomination as what the producers originally wanted to do, the better for a broader appeal they reasoned. Catholicism and the special burdens and duties it places on its clergy is precisely what makes the story valid.

According to a recent biography of Alec Guinness though it was never going to be anyone else but him in the role of the Cardinal, Noel Willman had done the inquisitor part on stage. Several people like John Gielgud and Peter Bull were considered for that part before Hawkins was signed for the role.

If the subject matter does seem familiar, the role is obviously modeled on Josef Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary. And director Peter Glenville would have his greatest screen triumph in Becket, the story of another troublesome priest several centuries earlier.

Guinness does lay bare his soul in this film. For fans of Alec Guinness this film is a must.


Inspired by the plight of Catholic Cardinal Josef Mindszenty behind the Iron Curtain  already the subject of a worthwhile low-budget Hollywood film, GUILTY OF TREASON (1950; see above)  this prestigious British production (based on a Bridget Boland play, who adapts her own work for the screen) boasts two powerhouse performances by Alec Guinness (as the proud Prince of the Church) and Jack Hawkins (as the wily Interrogator). Their interaction is a beauty to behold and one cannot help but be reminded how these formidable actors had already worked together in, curiously enough, MALTA STORY (1953) and, of course, would go on to do so again under David Lean's Oscar-winning direction in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957) and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962). Although much of the running time is devoted to their rigorous one-on-one sessions (enough for it to be deemed a two-hander), the film allows (at least) another fine actor to shine: Wilfred Lawson as Guinness' jailer who grows to respect his prisoner with time. The small cast also includes Kenneth Griffith as Hawkins' eager-to-learn subordinate  incidentally, the latter also appeared in two episodes of Patrick McGoohan's later cult TV series of the same name but which bore no relation to this movie!  and Raymond Huntley as Hawkins' impatient superior. Conversely, the romantic subplot between doubting Communist Ronald Lewis and his Catholic girlfriend Jeanette Sterke seems forced and intrusive  almost like an afterthought (whereas it had been far more effectively handled in the aforementioned Hollywood treatment). But, as I said before, the film's trump card is its gradual depiction of the evolving relationship between the two leads, which really has no equivalent in GUILTY OF TREASON (where Charles Bickford's tormentors were various and generally shrouded in darkness). Although the main characters and the setting remain unnamed throughout (lending it a pretentious air of political allegory also missing from the earlier film), the controversial subject of THE PRISONER got it banned from participating in both the Cannes and Venice Film Festivals  although it did get nominated for 5 BAFTAs and, eventually, won a couple of other international awards.


This little black and white gem features Alec Guinness("Lawrence of Arabia" "Star Wars-A New Hope") and Jack Hawkins("Ben Hur") as the opposing sides in a subtle film of brainwashing and psychological torture. Guinness is the Cardinal, a cold, authoritarian leader of the church against the state. Hawkins is the specialist who must break him in a very short period of time to embarrass the church and remove it's power with the people. Both men are destined to come out of the experience changed forever.

With a fine supporting cast, the film is centered on these two very strong performances which give the cold war a brand new meaning.


This film makes a good marathon movie with other similar themes:

Inherit the wind The Prisoner TV series

It seems most movies are essentially epitomized by this film for this reason:

Persecution. Be it FOR religion or AGAINST religion. The protagonist/antagonist style which is predominant is EXPERTLY posed here with Alec Guinness playing another brilliant role. This character is the opposite of the character he played in "The man in the white suit" BUT the theme is similar.

In todays world the ethnicity is still a root persecution that leads to a lot of violence. This movie shows what should be avoided, but in recent news even the contrast in Iraq is highlighted within the controlled confines of a safe Movie environment. WE know the actors are compensated and safe... The stereotypes they portray seem to be Perennial and eternal...

The end line can be said of ANYONE anytime, anyplace, any age.

A timeless classic from a time when events moved slower. Todays movies move much faster which do not allow our children to absorb the real humanity pictures like these embody.

I am a more aware man for having seen this film, and it allows my to deal with bullies I have encountered in real life who on buses will try to play the inquisitor in a menacing fashion, even though here in America we are supposed to be free of this interaction.

There are classic interactions that are highlighted and should not be missed.


I saw this film tonight at the Image Out Film Festival in Rochester and what I saw is a powerful story about both love and hate reaching across ethnic and religious boundaries.

The love is what Mario Drmec and Tarik Filipovic have for each other. Same sex couples have it bad enough there, but in this case Mario is a Moslem from Bosnia and Tarik is a Serb.

The story is told to us in flashback by Mario being interviewed by a French journalist played by Jeanne Moreau. As Yugoslavia breaks apart the various ethnic groups resume all their ancient hatreds and start killing each other with vehemence as we all read in the Nineties.

Mario in order to pass into the Christian Serbian area goes into drag. It seems as though the Christians check out the privates of all the males and if they're circumcised as Moslems have to do as well as Jews they're summarily shot. The ruse works, but the lovers have to continue the masquerade when they get to Tarik's village. Or at least until a helpful friend can obtain the necessary documents to go west to the other side of the Rhine in Europe. Of course when someone does discover the ruse there are unforeseen consequences.

Yugoslavia itself was a creation of western European fatuity. Serbia was on the Allied side of World War I and they got a kind of hegemony over a whole lot of territory formerly belonging to both the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires. At Versailles the Serb king was made monarch over the whole polyglot nation and after World War II, a very charismatic leader named Josip Broz Tito led an independent Marxist/Socialist government.

When Marshal Tito died, the country itself died. Held together by an extraordinary man the one thing Tito did not do was solve any ancient hatreds. What happens here happened all over what was Yugoslavia, only this story has gay angle to it.

Love, even same sex love can bridge all kinds of boundaries if we're open to it. The friend who is helping the lovers urges them to go west to western Europe where they can live free and prosper. All they have there is ethnic hatred.

One other very valuable lesson here is that the film does focus on the atrocities of the Serbs and the Bosnians. Remember this is now a decade where admittedly Moslems are doing some horrible things in many parts of the globe. I am glad that the villain here is not one religion, but a fanatical fundamentalist interpretation of any religion with which people can justify all kinds of barbarism.

Ahmed Imamovic the director has received death threats from all sides in the former Yugoslavia for even creating a story involving gay people there. The man has risked his life for this powerful story, buy a ticket and don't miss it.


Sad to say, the film's prediction that "they will continue to hate homosexuals" is coming true. I have just come from seeing this film at the San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. Religious leaders in the former Yugoslavia have been condemning this film, because of the same-sex love story. It's hard for me to square some of the comments of critics with the film I just saw. This film speaks to the future of humanity itself. It is not just the love story between the two men in this film that matters--and it does matter, mightily--it is also the conflict between savagery and mercy in the Serbian townspeople and the Muslim protagonist. In the midst of horrific brutality, we are reminded of the immense power of compassion, love, and even sometimes, humor. This film isn't just about war, it's also about peace. It needs to be seen around the world. I hope it will be.


This portrayal of the oppression and discrimination that existed in Bosnia-Herz... is eye opening. Not only was the lead hated and oppressed because he was Muslim, but also he was further despised because he was gay. I would rate this movie even more important than America's Brokeback Mountain. I am openly stating that this is the best movie I have ever seen at Toronto's InsideOut Film Festival throughout it's 16 year run. Congratulations to this film's creators. You had me riveted to the screen from the moment the film opened. I am waiting to find out where I can purchase this movie on DVD to add it to my personal library.


...than the ID card, at least in this time and place. Milan's ownership of one and Kenan's lack thereof fuel the plot to have Kenan disguise himself as a woman so he won't have to 'show his credentials' and get himself summarily shot.

The combination of 10% cinema and historical genocide makes for a tense and edgy ride, especially when the new 'couple' is welcomed home and a wedding is performed. Not much affection is seen between the characters as everyone is on a war-footing, with an all-pervasive fear coloring everyone's actions. The love triangle that later develops does not end well, as so few do. The lives of the characters does not improve, nor do we expect it to based on the sad and tragic history of the heirs to Yugoslavia's breakup.

Perhaps my favorite moment is when Milan's father Ljubo states that they just should get rid of the Serbs. And the Croats. And the Bosnians. So then "decent people could enjoy this beautiful country".

A pretty good watch and a great statement on peoples' rights, regardless of gender, orientation, or ethnicity.


I saw this film and discussion with regiseur at Int. Film Festival 2005 in Bratislava. There were some moments in the film especially at the beginning that confused me - I did not know if it is a comedy or tragedy... The great thing is that such film was created in BiH & Serbia. Homosexuality is not a usual topic there and I hope this film could move things forward and force people at Balcan to think and talk about tolerance with connection to homosexuals and in connection with other nationalities too. I have seen some documentaries from Belegrad about life of gays there. It was very depressing and the message was the same like in this film - go west, don't stay at Balcan. I hope that things are going to improve in Balcan countries and gay-rights will be closer to European standards or they will be at least improving that way. Tomas


Before i saw the movie i read some comments about it... stating it's condemned by several groups of people in Bosnia. I totally understand why, without spoiling anything, the overall message of the movie is shocking. Not only it gives a statement for the gay people in Bosnia, but also one for the whole population.

This movie is not for a broader range of people. In fact.. you will need to respect the way it is told in order to like it. But if you do, then it's genius......

And look for some nice metaphors which are a honor to Sergio Leone.

This movie is available on DVD in Bosnia and other Balkan countries, so if you are in that region you know you can find it.


Somebody smart once said something to the effect if there is a need for a prologue, than director did not do his job correctly. I cannot agree more. Unfortunately Go West spends first two and a half minutes on prologue, boring prologue to be precise. Completely unnecessary. From there on, the movie spends more time on unnecessary details, more voice from the off, more explanations of unnecessary details, watering down the film I am sure would mean a lot if done as it should.

It must have been hard to come up with the idea of two homosexuals running away from the Sarajevo, because Sarajevo was never eager on homosexuals. I have spent there more than half of my life and I have met only two openly gay man. Compare that to my current place of living where I know at least a dozen openly gay man. Attacking homophobia in Sarajevo is very dangerous and brave undertaking, and for that I need to congratulate Ahmed Imamovic and Enver Puska. That was brave. Unfortunately brave writers and directors do not equal a great movie. However, this one is a good movie, a bit clumsy in some areas, but overall quite watchable.

If you expect something like Queer as Folk, than you will be disappointed. No sex scenes to that level. I guess because actors and the rest of the crew were quite scared for touching the topic. Well, that would be all but Tarik Filipovic, one of two main actors, who played homosexual in another Bosnian movie, dark comedy "Dobro Ustimani Mrtvaci". I guess the fact he lives in Zagreb, Croatia gives him more freedom to take on roles that bring hate mail and death threats that could eventuate into something awful if he was living near those who wrote them.

Watching this movie will annoy you. Sometimes the characters do not act as sane people would, and everything is a bit stretched, but this movie has other good points and is important maybe not as a great movie, but as a first movie that tackles homosexual love in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


The wolf howled...and danced in the moonlight. The Raven watched...enraptured...by his grand display of gallantry.

Many winters ago, a young Winomish Indian maiden was picking wildflowers in an open thicket near her village. Suddenly, out of the corners of her magnificent brown eyes, a sudden movement caused her heart to almost cease beating. She stood motionless, shaking violently with fear, as a huge wolf with steely green-gold eyes, slowly walked within a few feet of her basket. Catching her scent on the gentle breeze, the wolf edged closer and closer. The maiden's pounding heart suddenly skipped a beat, as the wolf was abruptly distracted by a sleek black raven, who flew teasingly close, then quickly retreated to a nearby tree branch. The raven glided toward the wolf once more. She was wild and unpredictable. The wolf curiously watched her with calculating eyes. The maiden held her breath, as the wolf stretched out his long gray body upon the soft mossy grasses...and cupped his large head between his paws. The raven, unwilling to go unnoticed, fluttered brazenly close to the wolf, then gently came to rest on his soft gray shoulder, and they would lie together...wolf and raven...drawing around themselves...the sleek blackness of the raven's mystery...and the unexpected gallantry of the lone wolf.

Many winters passed, and the young maiden was now an old Indian squaw, playing in the open thicket with her only granddaughter. She would smile when she looked into the dark mysterious eyes of this half-breed child. The girl was unusually beautiful and as bewitching as the white man who had fathered her. The old woman had named her Hannah Raven, for the two cultures she espoused. Looking out onto the mossy grasses, the old woman told the girl of the Legend Of The Wolf And Raven. It was the child's favorite story. Each time she heard it, she would smile, and stare off into the forest. She knew...he would come for her...so she watched...and waited.

Dane Corvin came to Raven's Mountain unexpectedly. He was tall and handsome, exuding the appealing strength of a rugged outdoors-man. His favorite uncle had raised him, and the magnificent beauty of the Puget Sound and its breathtaking mountains and forests, had always lured Dane's lonely heart back to the roots of his childhood. The Indians took to him immediately. He fit right in with their passions and pastimes. Hannah quietly observed this gallant stranger. She was particularly fascinated with his steely green-gold eyes. She was captivated by his strength, and unexpected gallantry. Her brother was wary, even suspicious of the new-comer to the Mountain; but Hannah had recognized him immediately. He was her wolf!

The Winomish Indians had always fished the waters of The Sound. Federal laws had deemed their practices illegal, but for many moons it had been a tribal tradition. It had finally become necessary to send a Federal Game Agent to investigate the illegal poaching and selling of salmon. While Dane kept busy gathering evidence from the unsuspecting Indians, Hannah quietly observed. Dane had noticed the beautiful bohemian maiden, and was attracted to her earthy, sensual beauty, and artistic flare. Dane enjoyed being in her presence, and the mysterious, unpredictable Hannah took every opportunity to walk and talk with the handsome stranger. One night she led him to her "secret place" deep in the mountains. Away from the watchful eyes of the tribe, Dane and Hannah fell deeply in love, and began a secret and passionate love affair. When Dane's investigation suddenly turned dangerous, and Hannah's brother was arrested and sent to prison, Hannah learned that Dane was a Federal Agent. Feeling betrayed, she told him to leave, and never come back!

The broken hearted wolf reacted to his pain by retreating from Raven's Mountain for twenty long winters. When he finally returned to be with his dying uncle, he is faced with the fall-out of his love, and the passionate moments he shared with the beautiful Hannah Raven. Dane now has to deal with...hidden revelations...of all that has happened during...All The Winters That Have Been.

Richard Chamberlain and Karen Allen starred in this sensual and passionate love story. Karen Allen was brilliant as the bohemian artist, and his beautiful, earthy love interest. The character of Dane Corvin was a perfect fit for Richard Chamberlain. It was as if he slipped into a very real part of himself. I found this character to be unusually calm, centered, and most captivating. It was difficult to decipher where Richard Chamberlain the actor began, and Dane Corvin the character ended. I believe that is called...magnificent acting. He and Karen Allen had dazzling on-screen chemistry, and the sexual tension was electrifying! Martin Rabbett brilliantly directed this magnificent film, slowly and visually capturing his audience's attention and interest. After reading the novel, which I felt was somewhat trite, the film was even more impressive. It was amazing to see the depths, to which the director, and actors took this poignant love story. This was an extraordinary achievement for Martin Rabbett, and definitely one of Richard Chamberlain's finest performances ever!!


I've seen this movie many times and I love it more and more. I guess I'm just a sucker for long lost loves and for Richard Chamberlain. This was a well cast movie with beautiful scenery and it gave you more than the love story to think about. I think this movie reaches many people at different levels & leaves you realizing that everything in life isn't just black & white. I would like to have more movies like this.


All The Winters That Have Been is a compelling story , based on the novel written by Evan Maxwell. It is divided in two parts, each containing a strong message. In the first part, agent Dane Corvin (Richard Chamberlain) is posing as a businessman interested in buying fish illegally caught by members of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. A law passed to limit fishing and protect fish resources in the area makes it impossible for this community to continue living from their traditional salmon and shellfish fisheries anymore if they do not resort to poaching . So although it is true that the Swinomish violate the law on fishing, this law does not take into account the fact that they have always made a living out of fishing and cannot survive without. Dane Corvin, who falls in love with the half Swinomish and half Irish Hannah ( Karen Allen), understands the plight of the Swinomish but fails to postpone the operation. The arrest of Hannah 's brother puts an end to Dane's and Hannah's relationship leaving both characters deeply hurt. The second part starts when 20 years later Dane Corvin comes back to the area to visit his dying uncle (Hal Holbrook) whose last wish is to bring Dane and Hannah together again. Dane who has been hurting and missing Hannah for 20 years has taken refuge in his loneliness that keeps him most of the time in Alaska for preservation campaigns in favor of bears and wolves. Hannah who has become an important artist and whose art contributes to the development and wellbeing of the Swinomish community, has moved on with her life and her secret. Hannah unconsciously has forgiven Dane but circumstances prevent her from verbalizing her forgiveness. She has to meet Dane again in order to listen to her heart, accept her love for him and tell him her secret. It is now Dane's turn to find in his heart and soul how to reconcile all the elements of his shattered life and so make forgiveness and love the main messages of the second part of the movie.

The great director, Lamont Johnson, ( who directed Richard Chamberlain in several episodes of Dr Kildare in the early 60s and in Wallenberg in 1985) succeeds in making a movie with a quick sequence of scenes that follow each other very smoothly but allows at the same time the actors to make great performances and fully take advantage of the dialog that sounds in some instances like a theater play... Richard Chamberlain, Karen Allen and Hal Holbrook are magnificent, sober intensity is the key word for their acting in a movie that allies hard facts of life with tenderness, romance, love and forgiveness. Beautiful locations in British Columbia, excellent lighting and photography - you really feel the cutting touch of the crisp air blowing from the bright blue sea and you smell the fresh fragrance of the dark green spruces - are added reason why I like to watch and re-watch this movie. The sunset light that embraces with its magic aura Dane standing on the porch briefly reminds a scene of Marcel Camus renowned Orfeo Negro of 1959.


I completely agree with all of your comments. However, did you have any idea that the director is Richard Chamberlain's long-time partner? Do you think it may have been extremely difficult for Mr. Rabbett to direct his lover of over 25-years with an opposite sex partner? Do you think that it must be difficult for Mr. Chamberlain to act with an opposite-sex partner on-screen in front of his very own partner who is directing him in a movie? Perhaps this is why he chooses these types of romantic roles - because he is such a superior actor and is so comfortable in the role of an attractive, sexy, leading male (and always has going back to his Dr. Kildare years). Perhaps this just goes to prove what a truly wonderful and skilled actor that Richard Chamberlain is in the entire scope of reality. When you take into consideration that this man hid his homosexuality for over thirty years, giving no clues of such to his fans while taking on very macho, leading male, and romantic roles in Hollywood, it proves what a truly remarkable, gifted, and wonderful performer Richard Chamberlain is and what a true inspiration he is to the acting community. He should be commended for his lifetime achievements and for coming out of the closet. His book "Shattered Love" written at the age of 69 is a candid discussion of his anguish of hiding his sexuality to protect his image during his long career in Hollywood.


Renoir was still a master and had definitely not lost his touch when he made this saga about a year in the life of a desperately poor farming family trying to make it. The only thing that mars it, keeping it from rating a 10, are the cutesy-poo children and the saccharine music on the soundtrack, making it perfectly clear exactly how you were supposed to feel at any given moment. I suppose these were necessary nods to Hollywood conventions of the time. Kudos must go to Zachary Scott for the courage of his performance in the lead. An underrated actor, Scott was nearly always cast playing lounge lizards and other assorted slimeballs. Here he appears without his mustache and is almost unrecognizable. Given that Scott aspired to a career as a Gable-type leading man, this role was not a good career move. But it is definitely the performance of his career, and along with the equally outstanding performance of Betty Field, makes the film. Incidentally, I could have done without the over the top performance of Beulah Bondi as Granny; throughout the film I kept hoping Scott would strangle her.


I saw this film on a Saturday morning and loved it. It's about a man, his wife, their two children and the grouchy grandma, who are dirt poor (and I mean that literally) farmers. It's based on the book by George Sessions Perry called "Hold Autumn in Your Hand," but the movie and the book are completely different in style and manner. I personally like the movie more, as it showed the family's togetherness much better than the book. A wonderful Renoir film (I think my favourite of all his) and definitely a must see. The courage of the family is really touching. I gave it a...10/10.


I have a copy of this movie and have watched it several times. Most of my family has as well. My father has a speaking part in the movie. His name is Isadore J. Blanco and is the 17 year old that is featured while working out in the field. My father passed away On Veterans Day November 12, 1996. He was a wonderful human being and it's a joy to be able to see and hear him speak as a teenager.

Many of the younger generation do not know of the lives of these poor field working families. Many of the older children did not complete elementary school because working to put food on the table was much more important. Survival was what drove these families. Many young men later enlisted in the military to better their lives.


THE SOUTHERNER is notable for giving ZACHARY SCOTT his first real chance to shine as a promising new movie actor headed for stardom, teaming him with the always reliable BETTY FIELD as the wife of a dirt poor farmer in this Depression-era saga, uplifting despite the adversity of their situation due to Jean Renoir's fine direction.

"Grow your own crop," Scott, a Texas farmer, is told by his dying uncle. He struggles with his family to do just that--and THE SOUTHERNER becomes a tale of survival against the cruel twists and turns of nature. BEULAH BONDI is the stubborn Granny whose bark is worse than her bite, but she does tend to get annoying in her whining ways.

Working the land and making farmland self-supporting is never an easy matter and it gets plenty of negative treatment here with the odds against the struggling family at every turn. J. CARROLL NAISH and NORMAN LLOYD as hard-nosed neighbors make themselves utterly unlikeable (but believable) as Scott's uncooperative neighbors, unwilling to spare some milk for him when his son is ill. PERCY KILBRIDE comes to his rescue with a rented cow and later becomes his father-in-law, marrying BLANCHE YURKA.

But there are still hardships ahead, including a severe storm that destroys all the crops, serving to emphasize the man against nature theme of the entire story. Everything is destroyed but the human spirit.

Scott, Field and Bondi give heartfelt performances, with Bondi a bit over-the-top as Granny. It's not in the same class with THE GRAPES OF WRATH but it does create a sympathetic portrait of farmers who work the land.

Based on a novel called "Hold Autumn in Your Hand", it stands the test of time largely because of the performances.


Beautifully shot, absorbing film about the close-knit Tucker clan - Sam (Zachary Scott), the handsome dad who loves being a farmer, Nona (Betty Field), a good wife and mother who always seems to look well-groomed in spite of her hard work, two really cute kids, and then there's ornery old Granny (Beulah Bondi), she of the sharp tongue and stubborn will. In a gorgeously photographed scene where they are working for hire in the bright, sunlit fields picking cotton - the couple watches as their Uncle dies in the fields saying in his last breath "Grow your own crops", and they decide to do just that. Soon they have rented a property where they can raise cotton and be their own masters, so to speak - well, the house turns out to be nothing but a broken-down, ramshackle shack, the whole place needs loads and loads of work - but one good thing" it has "good earth". Troubles ensue - trouble with the neighbors, trouble getting food, sickness troubles, weather troubles, oh brother!

Well, this is an excellent, heartfelt, and well photographed film done in an unusual, distinctive style. The actors who play the Tucker family do a good job in making this actually seem like a real family and make you want to root for them - but it is Beulah Bondi as cantankerous Granny who really steals this film for me - I really enjoyed her scenes and thought they added a little spice to this! The hardships this clan has to go through can be hard to watch sometimes, but the story is involving and the film is quite memorable.


"The Southerner" is a very good film starring Zachary Scott, Betty Field, Beulah Bondi, Norman Lloyd, J. Carrol Naish, and Blanche Yurka. It's the story of a man, Sam Tucker, working as a cotton picker along with his wife and parents. As his father lays dying in the field, he tells his son to own his own land. Sam quits his job and makes arrangements to work the land of his former boss, with the goal of ownership. He's not welcome by his closest neighbor (Naish) and the house on the land is nothing but a shack. The family nearly starves during the winter; the daughter can't go to school because she doesn't have a coat; his son falls ill with "spring sickness" (probably rickets). Nevertheless, Sam and Nona (Field) keep working, Sam knowing that working the land and feeling the sun is the only way he can live.

This is a very absorbing film. You not only see, but feel the struggles of the family and how hard they work no matter the odds, with strength and determination.

Betty Field was a good choice as Nona - she's plain and tired-looking, with a bright smile. The devotion she has to Sam and he to her is very touching. As a couple, she and Scott are very effective. Beulah Bondi is very good as the irascible, annoying, wizened grandmother either complaining or predicting doom and gloom. Naish gives an excellent performance as a jealous and unhelpful neighbor, and Norman Lloyd is appropriately slimy as his worker. It's always hard to relate the skinny Lloyd, who usually played villains, with the older, revered Dr. Auschlander in "St. Elsewhere" - he's had quite a career. As of this writing, he's 93 and still working.

Zachary Scott is okay as Sam but it's not a comfortable fit. The part required more warmth, more depth, and more internal grit; it's a Henry Fonda role. Still, for not being Scott's normal type of sophisticated or villainous part, he handles it well.

A good film, beautifully directed by Jean Renoir, who was nominated for an Oscar. There are some stunning cinematic moments as well. Worth watching for sure.


The opening shot amounts to a wonderfully compelling hymnal to the land and those who toil there, while the rest of the movie attempts to follow through with that noble theme. There's no doubt that this is one of the most laudable movie projects to come out of the decade. But for all the earnest concern, there's still too much of the theatrical for my liking. I know, the film is generally hailed by critics, and there's much to be said for its consistent down-and-dirty look at the plight of the southern share-cropper. But there's also a staginess to many of the characters and scenes that blemishes director Renoir's naturalistic approach.

Consider Beulah Bondi's over-the-top turn as Granny. She's supposed to offer amusingly caustic comments on events as relief from the rigors of the plot. The trouble is that both she and the camera rub our nose in the role. They just as well have hung a sign around her neck saying "crusty old woman". The bad make-up job doesn't help either and serves as a constant reminder that the Tuckers are after all only a make-believe family. Since she's a central character, the flaws in her wild eye-rolling performance are hard to ignore.

The other acting is fine, especially from Scott in the lead role as Sam. However, both he and wife Nona (Field) are more stereotypes than multi-dimensional people. He's the noble, tireless worker, and so is she. Together, they are unwavering in their support of each other and the farm. And when Sam does waver after the flood, it's Nona providing the strength to persevere. Thus, it's the whole family and not just Sam plowing the field that will make the farm a success. That's a good point for the script to make. The trouble is that Sam and Nona are simply too good to be believable in the face of all the adversity. At least one breakdown scene where the emotional toll of the wrenching burdens is expressed would have added a more human dimension. Writer Renoir is simply too insistent on the nobility of the two characters, turning them more into symbols than complex real people.

On the other hand, the hostile neighbor Devers (Naish) is the most interesting of the characters. His dark resentful nature would appear to come from uncredited co-writer William Faulkner who specialized in such Gothic personalities. The real agonizing story of what it means to start up a farm is told by the embittered old man in what I take to be the movie's central scene. He's made a success, but that success has made him hard and mean, and now he lives in fear of anyone rising above him. I wish the screenplay had not betrayed that dark impact for the price of a big fish in what strikes me as a very implausible turn- around scene on the riverbank.

The film's virtues are pretty obvious. There's a real effort at showing rural poverty and its effects on people, never a Hollywood biggie. When little Daisy lovingly puts on the crude blanket-coat, I was reminded of a world so easily passed over in a nation of commercialized malls. Ditto the well-done possum feast, where the simple act of eating means so much more. And especially when the family and we gather around the little hearth fire to peer into the glow through eyes much more ancient than our own. These are indelible scenes that transcend the movie screen and alone are worth the price of the movie.

Maybe it took a European auteur outside the usual studio framework to want to deal as honestly as possible with such a non-commercial theme. But the location shooting and insistence on the unglamorous, even down to the very unHollywood barfly, add up to what looks like an effort at honest depiction. Of course, Renoir's well-known humanism and rollicking humor show up in the party scene in what amounts to a folk celebration of life and community. Then too, there's that telling scene between Sam and Tim (Kemper) where each comes to appreciate the contributions of the other in supplying the community's needs. Whatever the film's regrettable flaws, the message remains a powerful one that needs constant retelling, especially in our own cynical times. Too bad Renoir didn't stay on this side of the Atlantic. His influence on our own movie-makers would have pushed them in a much needed direction.


An employee named Sam Tucker (Zachary Scott)frequently working for others is hired some land and he decides along with his family, -his wife (Betty Field), granny (Beulah Bondi)and two sons - attempt farming for themselves. The family finds hardships on their way and they'll have to fight against the elements,ills, poorness, distresses and a selfish neighbor (J. Carroll Naish) living with his daughter (Nash) and niece (Norman Lloyd) .

This is a rural drama about a survival fight amid all disgraces and terrible elements. It's a naturalistic drama splendidly played and magnificently staged. From the tale 'Hold Autumn in your hand' by George Sessions Perry and writing by William Faulkner though he appears uncredited. It's proceeded in similar style to ¨Grapes of wrath¨ by John Ford based on John Steinbeck novel . First rate performances by all star cast. Special mention to Belulah Bondi as sympathetic and and grumpy granny. And Norman Lloyd as roguish nephew, he's a veteran player still acting , who joined the original company of Orson Welles-John Houseman Mercury Theatre and after that he was hired to Hollywood to play as secondary actor in Alfred Hitchcock movie and other ones and made him an associate producer. Neo-realist and evocative cinematography by Lucien Andriot. Sensible and imaginative musical score by Werner Janssen.

The flick is excellently directed by Jean Renoir. He said about 'The Southerner' gave him more pleasure than any of his other Hollywood work. Renoir was voted the 12th greatest director of all time . Furthermore, Orson Welles frequently cited him as the greatest movie director of all time. He was son of the famous impressionist painter Auguste Renoir. After his French classics (Rules of game 1939, Human beast 38, La Marseillase 36, A day in the country 36, Boudu saved from drowning 32), he was brought to USA by American producers, directing awesome films in Hollywood (Woman on the beach 1947 , The diary of a chambermaid 46, The Southerner , The land is mine 43, Swamp water 1941). Later on, he returned to France , going on film-making classic movies (Elusive corporal 1962, Picnic on the grass 59, Testament of Dr Cordelier 59, Golden coach 52, The river 1951). Rating : Better than average, well worth watching.


After seeing THE SOUTHERNER for the first time, I had a number of reactions:

(1) The title was a desperate marketing ploy by United Artists to find an audience for a film that must have been a severe marketing challenge. The film (and the novel, HOLD AUTUMN IN YOUR HAND, by George Sessions Perry, on which the movie was based) actually is set in Texas, which is not the same place as Alabama or North Carolina; but "THE SOUTHERNER" has a chauvinistic appeal that must have attracted some regional viewers.

(2) I recalled a critic's remark about a later legendary film (in an entirely different way), HEAVEN'S GATE -- to paraphrase: In Hollywood, the poor are more virtuous than the rich because they're more photogenic.

(3) The conclusion of the film is quite as artificial as the tacked-on ending of John Ford's THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1941), but without Ma Joad's conviction. Where is Jane Darwell when you need her?

(4) A couple of Hispanics (Texas, right?) but not a single African-American in this South? Somewhere, Jesse Helms is smiling.

THE SOUTHERNER was widely praised when it came out in 1945 (and continues to earn admirers) because it was so different from Hollywood's traditional portrayal of "the South" and played on the liberal, proletarian sympathies of certain audiences and critics. Hollywood had tried to address the plight of Southern cotton croppers before (Michael Curtiz's CABIN IN THE COTTON, 1932, and Ford's TOBACCO ROAD, 1941) but THE SOUTHERNER does so without drowning in CABIN'S sociological balance or Ford's forced humor. The earnestness of the film is a large part of its appeal.

The reputation of Jean Renoir also is responsible for the high marks this film receives. Renoir had made a "southern" film earlier -- SWAMP WATER, in 1941 -- and perhaps he found the region interesting. No doubt he found the human drama of the Tucker family a fitting subject, but the results don't show any special insight to time and place. (Renoir apparently rewrote Hugo Butler's original script, from Perry's novel, and two Southern-born writers, William Faulkner and Nunnally Johnson, apparently had some input into the screenplay as well.) My biggest problem with the film is simply that the people are too pretty and the story too pat. I don't know that Joel McCrea or any Hollywood leading man of that era would have been more appropriate than Zachary Scott in the role of Sam Tucker, but Scott and the entire cast are just not convincing. One can't get over the impression that these are well-meaning actors rather than real people. J. Carrol Naish, usually a very convincing actor, comes closest to nailing his character, but playing the S.O.B. is usually easier than portraying the S.O.E. (Salt Of the Earth). Beulah Bondi and Norman Lloyd are wasted caricatures.

In the end, THE SOUTHERNER fails to convince because the filmmakers failed to deal with the real dilemma of the family whose cotton crop has been destroyed by a flood. I wanted to know how these people were going to survive the loss of a year's hard work. These people are in real trouble! Instead, we get an inspirational "keep on keepin' on" message that mutes the tragedy of this family's loss. It's rather insulting, really, to both the audience and to the real croppers who had to deal with such a precarious existence, year in and year out.

I don't know that there's ever been a film that's effectively dealt with this aspect of American life and culture, but if you really want to know about the people that THE SOUTHERNER purports to portray, make the time to read James Agee's classic rumination, LET US NOW PRAISE FAMOUS MEN, which includes the moving photographs by Walker Evans.

ADDENDUM: June 19, 2009: I've recently read HOLD AUTUMN IN YOUR HAND, on which THE SOUTHERNER is based, and the book only reinforces my view that the film is Hollywood proletarian schmaltz -- well-meaning, but a slick and sanitized portrayal of this culture. The book itself ends a bit abruptly, with a "happy" ending that's only a little less contrived than the film's. If you are interested in this aspect of American culture, however, it's a decent and quick read; and there's a better movie to be made from HOLD AUTUMN IN YOUR HAND.


It's too bad this film is always being compared with John Ford's production of "The Grapes of Wrath." While they both cover general ground, they are quite different structurally. "The Southerner" is almost plot less, relying on slices of early American life as homesteaders struggle to keep their farms intact.

Apparently the critics are divided on this one, many calling it one of Jean Renior's greatest achievements, while others feel it only slightly above average. Admittedly, attention to innovative stark realism is paired with some rather predictable stock situations. All in all though for me, it's an engrossing film, and an honest one.

A great point of interest is Zachary Scott, in his second screen role. Minus his characteristic mustache and playing a simple "tiller of the soil," he seemed strangely cast. We're so used to his ultra-slick, amoral roles, that seeing him in this film is rather startling. Not to say he wasn't good at it. There's just something about his angular face and sharp, thin nose, that suggests he ought to be more in a tailored tux than wrinkly overalls.

Reading Scott's bio was informative: not a particularly happy life and career, despite his impressive seventy total credits. I got the feeling that Warner Bros. simply didn't know what to do with him, following "Mildred Pierce" and "Flamingo Road." Maybe they felt he was so convincing in these sinister roles that the public wouldn't buy him as other types. Whatever the case, his private life seemed rather glum and lacking vitality. (Could also be his first name may have been a downer in the long run.) The supporting cast of "The Southerner" is fine, and the film remains a strong depiction of early rural life in America.


A poor farmer struggles to keep his family fed after leaving the security of working as a farmhand to develop his own farm. Renoir tells his tale in a simple, realistic style that is very effective; it is impressive that despite being a Frenchman he is able to capture the spirit of the American South. As the farmer, Scott gives a very natural and nuanced performance; it is unfortunate that he was not able to parlay this role into a better career. Field is terrific as the devoted wife who tirelessly works the field alongside her husband, while Bondi is amusing as the eccentric granny. Other notables in the cast are Naish as a grumpy neighbor and Kemper as Scott's city buddy.


I saw this movie a long time ago and as I remember it, it was pretty depressing. It was about this family during the great depression who struggle with farm life. I think that there is a grandmother in this movie who gets left behind on the top of the car in the rain. That wasn't very nice and I think she refused to go inside. It reminded me of that scene in "National Lampoons vacation." I remember laughing at it when I was younger but now that I think about it, it just seems depressing.

The family was living in this house where there were leaks in the ceiling, they worked for little money but stayed together. It wasn't such a bad movie, it was just sad.


I bought "Frightmare" for six bucks at Circuit City thinking that it was the early 80's version. Imagine my surprise when I pop in the DVD and find a straight to video horror film from the year 2000! I'm a fan of said independent films, so I wasn't upset. I decided to give the film its due diligence.

The Good:

- Some pretty good scares in this movie. A lot of them are "jump scares" and "loud music tomfoolery," but this film should give you a jump or two, at any rate.

- Some decent atmospheric elements. The Haunted House is pretty cool. Some of the "stalking" scenes (the one at the beginning and the one in the middle) are suitably creepy and fairly well done.

- The two main actresses are actually decent actors. The rest of the cast, however, are not very good at all. Said actresses also provide ample "eye candy," if you like tight outfits, leather pants, etc. =) - The killer's outfit/mask/demeanor is also suitably creepy.

The Bad:

- Really bad editing. The movie jumps around a lot. Some of the editing tricks are neat, but overall, it pulls you out of the movie. The editing also makes the plot confusing at times.

- Soundtrack is suspect. The "creepy music" is good, but the soundtrack often relies on a drum machine/bad techno score to fill in the quiet parts. It doesn't work very well.

- The "twist" at the end had the ultimate potential for coolness, but the aforementioned bad editing made it fall flat. This is the wasted potential I'm referring to.

- Sub par acting. As I mentioned earlier, the two main actresses are good, but the rest of the cast comes off like a bad high school play.

Other notes:

Note the names of the main characters...Freddy, Jason, Norman, Michael and Hellraiser. Subtle.

You can see a lot of "Scream" influence in this film. It's interesting to see what is inspiring the next generation of filmmakers.

Overall:

I give it a 4 out of 10. Lots of wasted potential here, but the movie is very watchable if you enjoy these types of low budget, independent films. I don't regret spending the six bucks at all.


I found this at a Newbury Comics in the used section for under $10. I regret spending this. The only thing this movie has going for it is the creepy music. Plot holes and random behavior in this movie destroy the film. For instance, Rebecca Simmons (that's Simmons, not Falls) is never mentioned throughout the rest of the film, nor is she even credited. Also the kill scenes are also very sub-par and not scary, and the acting and editing was horrendous and haphazard. Worst of all is that many questions are left unanswered. No wonder none of the actors never acted in many films after. The saving grace of this film is the Silver mask the Conscience Killer wears. The best thing this film is for is either a coaster or a cheesy movie night with a couple of friends.


sniff, sniff...what's that you smell? oh, look. it's a steaming pile of frightmare. this painfully inadequate attempt of a movie is truly terrible. usually, if a movie is really really awful...as bad as "ax 'em" (2002) per say, then i find something redeeming about the fact that it is absurdly lacking any quality that might suggest an iota of professionalism. however, unlike those gems, frightmare had a budget of more that 50 dollars. it has the quality of any made for tv movie (lights, a decent camera, etc), however the acting made me want to poke out my eyes in an oedipal act of anguish. and maybe the fact that it follows the plot to 'scream' so predictably, yet attempts to come off seriously, was what really got under my skin. it simply shouts mediocre louder than any movie i have ever seen.


I don't expect much out of low budget horror flicks so I was pleasantly surprised by some of the elements of this obviously low budget movie. First, the two female leads held their own. Especially when you consider the dialogue they had to work with. Second, the mask was really cool. Third, I enjoyed the 3D haunted house sequences. Lastly, the chase scenes were done pretty well. Now for the bad news. The script was very predictable and too familiar. The writer clearly ripped off a lot of his material from movies that were big in that genre at the time. Aka - Scream. The sound was bad in certain scenes and the low budget was obvious throughout the movie as far as quality. Some of the other actors were down right horrible. I still don't quite understand the ending of this film. Overall, I wouldn't watch it again but it was fine entertainment for one night. Like I said, I didn't expect much so I wasn't disappointed. I've definitely seen a lot worse.


How many movies are going to use "Frightmare" as a title? And why do they all suck? This low-budget horror flick was poorly shot, likely on digital, with bad acting, dialog and plot. I wish there was something nice I could say, but...

****SPOILER****

Anyway, a serial killer shows up in a small town and terrorizes a highschool senior class. One of the students is a journalist who has studied the killer's exploits. Of course, the police don't buy their story, so the students are forced to try and survive on their own--inside a school-sanctioned haunted house.

The story is lame, the acting is lame, the story is lame...did I say that? Well, it's true.


A very cheap movie made in order to try and capitalize on the success of recent horror movies such as "Scream." The beauty of no budget, independent films are that the makers of such movies are forced to be creative and use their imaginations to make up for the lack of money. This is not the case here. Someone wanted to make money with a small investment, and in return they crapped out "Frightmare." At least Ed Wood loved what he did and, in his mind, tried his best.


I am in Blockbuster the other day looking for a good slasher flick to watch and saw this one with cool looking video. So I checked out the back and a story about the teens of Sugar Hill High really interested me, as I was interested in seeing another high school one. Small spoilers follow, but nothing that'll give it away.

The opening in the gym looked extremely promising and I was just getting ready to watch when only 5 minutes in they go to the abandoned house and it went downhill from there. The dialogue reeked, the acting sucked, the camera work stunk and even at times appeared like a cheap porn, and there was now real clear story to it. You knew from the start who did it, but they continued to try to screw with our heads even after the killer was dead.

I wouldn't even recommend watching this movie, as I have seen better done by a high school class.


Needless to say, this wasn't the best horror flick I have paid good money to see. However, the film's one saving grace was the beautiful and talented lead actress. Actually, the two lead actresses weren't half bad they were just given a MISERABLE script to work with. They were the ONLY reason I spent 90 minutes watching this movie. Where is the originality? I felt the movie had potential in certain scenes, but unfortunately not enough to make this a cult favorite. The mask was cool and the haunted house had potential to be cool. I actually found myself a little scared during the chases scenes. Would I see it again...no...but I didn't mind checking it out once. I blame the writer/director for the film's demise.


It looks more like a series of moments thrown in without any sense of storytelling. What is the killer's relationship with cockroaches ? Who cares, it looks good ! What it this "article" everybody suddenly mentions ? No idea. Even the title is unappropriated, since there is no peculiar paranoid in this movie.

When revealed in a lame sequence, the "killer" barely has the built of the murderer we saw before. And the incoherent ending scores ten on the "Huh ?" meter. This is not just bad, it's also a cheat.

Rent something else unless you are in the mood for a real bad movie !


I'm a huge horror film fan, so I picked this one. Thank GOD I didn't have to pay money for this crap (I have a summer job at a video store). It lost me the second one of the character's said "Hello? We're a bunch of high school kids, and our car is broke down..." I would think that this movie should have just a little bit of creativity, but it didn't... negative 10


I found this movie today for a whopping $3 Australian (About a dollar fifty American), and I must say, it was well worth it.

Sure, the story sucks.. The acting sucks.. The dialoge sucks.. The blood and other effects suck.. And almost everything else sucks.. But my friend and I thoroughly enjoyed it, mostly due to the laughter at the movies expense.

It is always good to go out with a quote, so I will quote the killer from this top-grade horror movie... "I'M NOT TRYING TO WIN AN OSCAR!!!" That's good; you've got no chance.

-keeperman42


Many people seem to regard this film as important simply because it is a living testament to Alfred Lunt and Lynne Fontaine's acting. After all, it is the only preserved sound performance in which they have starring roles. In reality, however, the film is not only historically important because of the legends in it; it is one of the most fresh and funny films to emerge from the pre-Code period. The story is irresistible: a vain acting couple constantly insult and tease one another. In order to test his wife's fidelity after a bout, the Actor (Lunt) disguises himself as a foreign guardsman, goes out of his way to meet his wife in disguise, and furthermore goes on to try and seduce her. After he succeeds, he reveals himself, furious at her perfidious attitude. The Actress (Fontaine) begins laughing, claiming that she knew all along. At first dubious, the Actor is eventually convinced that his wife was playing along with him, and the two romantically embrace. The Actress looks at the camera and gives the most priceless look, letting the audience know that she may not have really known all along... Lunt and Fontanne make this film come to life. There dominating presence creates a satirical and realistic portrait of what an egomaniacal acting couple's life might really be like.

In addition, there are some priceless supporting roles: Maude Ebourne as a sarcastic maid, Zasu Pitts as a strange (to say the least) servant, Roland Young, and always-reliable Herman Bing as "a creditor." Sidney Franklin, perhaps the most unjustly forgotten of all screen directors (his classics include Private Lives, Smilin' Through, The Good Earth, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, and The Dark Angel), adroitly guides the ensemble, allowing the acting to take center-stage but never neglecting the details so important to cinema. In all, this short, fast-paced romp with two bona fide legends of American stage history is an essential lesson in screen comedy and romance. Although the Lunts, when asked to do later film work, replied "We can be bought but we can't be bored!" there is absolutely no sign of unenthusiasm on screen here. Each earned an Oscar nomination for their performance in The Guardsman, and they left their indelible stamp, albeit only for a short eighty some-odd minutes, on American motion picture history.


Real life husband and wife duo Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne play famous married theater performers (named in the credits only as The Actor and The Actress). The Actor is so convinced that his wife would be unfaithful to him if given the chance, he dresses up like a Russian officer to try and seduce her. The Guardsman remains the only sound film that either Lunt or Fontanne ever did, which is a damn shame. Both actors achieve a natural quality on screen rarely equaled in thirties films. Lunt especially gives a knockout comedic performance, not only as the whining, conceited, jealous husband, but also as the brash and passionate Guardsman. The rest of the cast play their parts perfectly as well, doing justice to the delightfully witty script. It looses some momentum in the second half, as the film slowly works its way to the conclusion you know is coming. They definitely could have played with the scenario a bit more. Nonetheless, it makes for a very enjoyable comedy.


I first saw this movie on TCM, and I became enamored of this fabulous acting couple. I won't repeat the fabulous reviews of this film, but I hounded TCM to reschedule the movie, but alas. Then thanks to an amazon.com seller, I bought the video. I have watched it over and over. What fun to see Lunt running around in disguise and thinking he was putting something over on his wife. And Zasu Pitts as the maid, she's priceless!

The Guardsman has also put me in touch with their biographies, what wonderful lives they led. They were Broadway stars, Lunt and Fontanne, they have a Broadway theater named for them.

And 77 years later, the Guardsman still brings laughs to us. Thank goodness for them!


The Guardsman is now one of my 10 favorite films. Thanks to Turner Classic Movies audiences can continue to see the brilliant performances of Lunt and Fontanne in this hilarious play made into a film. The performances of the support cast are excellent, especially that of Roland Young.

The Guardsman does what a good comedy should do. It should make us laugh, give us insights into the human condition, and keep us wondering what will happen next to characters that we care about.

I laughed out loud and watched the unpredictable plot move through scenes of witty, fast paced dialog that led to an ending that lived up to everything that preceded it. If you carefully watch Fontanne in the ending, you will be certain of the meaning of her character's smile.


Alfred Lunt and Lynne Fontanne won Oscar nominations for their roles as bickering theater stars in this sly film. In their only starring film together, Lunt and Fontanne are superb. He masquerades as a Russian count and woos her to see if she is a faithful wife. Maybe show knows and maybe she does not. It's all part of the game. Fontanne (who was 44) coos and smiles as the Actress, while Lunt (39) plays the dolt who never knows if his wife his faithful. Great fun. Stylish. But maybe a tad stagy. Lunt lost the Oscar to a tie between Wallace Beery and Fredric March, while Fontanne lost to Helen Hayes (Marie Dressler was also nominated). Zasu Pitts is fun as the dim maid; Herman Bing is good as the creditor. Roland Young shines as the friend and Maude Eburne is super as "mama." Terrific acting and "chemistry" between the biggest theater stars of the early 20th century: Lunt and Fontanne. Both had done a few silent films, this one starring vehicle, and a a guest appearance in "Stage Door Canteen" in 1943. What a pity. They were greats stars and terrific actors. And "The Guardsman" is a must for any film buff.


The Guardsman is the only play of the famous stage couple that was remade for the screen. In fact, Lunt and Fontanne appear together in only four movies that I'm aware of, two of which are silent; the other sound movie being Hollywood Canteen, where they briefly appear as themselves.

For students of stage history, and admirers of a truly great thespian couple, this movie is a treat.


MUTATOR aka TIME OF THE BEAST (1989) & PROJECT: METALBEAST aka METALBEAST (1995).

Two *very* similar B-movies. A dubious choice for this double feature, perhaps. But I know I'm most definitely not the only one around here who would voluntarily watch rubbish like...

-----

I had no idea I already saw "Mutator" before, once upon a full moon, until I started watching it. Yes, it's that forgettable. Brion James plays an unlikely character (for his likes, at least): A friendly ex-scientist turned custodian who at the end, saves the day. The creature costume is mildly amusing (with some parts of it having developed more cat-like features and others still human). But the creature action is severely lacking in this tedious film. Only film to my knowledge to ever feature a Humanoid Cat-Beast Mutant.

Yes, "Time Of The Beast" (or if you want to call it "Mutator", fine) is a pretty bad movie, but actually, it's not bad enough. You can't even make fun of it, because it's just dull. The only thing you could watch it for, is seeing Brion James do nothing, really. And for the titular beast, of course, which doesn't do much either, except for killing people off-screen (except for one girl who gets her head smashed against a grid - nothing special).

Funny thing is, in the plot they mention 'the offspring' numerous times, indicating there's more than one cat-beast running around. Only you never get to see more than one. It's just the same guy in the same monster-suit appearing on screen every time.

But the most important thing still is that I forgot I'd already seen it. To my knowledge, this is the only time that ever happened to me. I was even confusing a few specific scenes of it, to be in "Metalbeast". It's like "Time Of The Beast" tries to make you forget it ever existed after you've seen it. An amnesia-inducing flick. That's a first one.

And where's that good bit of female nudity when you need some? Oh, right, yes, this was not a crappy slasher movie. Sorry, my bad. It's about some humanoid cat-beast thing, right? Well then, where's Natassja Kinski when you need her?

-----

Level of Appreciation: Subpar/Moderate


Mutator is a rather disappointing entry in the mutant monster on the loose genre. The creatures appear to be bipedal, muscular, slime-dripping cat creatures, but they're never shown very clearly. The only notable thing about this film is that one of its characters is (coincidentally) named Kevin Murphy, appropriate since Mystery Science Theater 3000's Tom Servo is voiced by an actor sharing that name.


To me, there are two types of poor film. The first type are those that you fall asleep watching. Yet this is not one of those. This film is of the type that is supposed to be a horror and yet it makes you laugh and cringe at how bad it is. But here is the weird thing with poor horror's. You sit there, usually until the end laughing at how bad the "scary" bits are. And this film is the undisputed king of "tacky horror" - a genre that is supposed to be horror and yet turns out to be a comedy. Would I recommend this film? Not to a person who loves to be scared by a film. Not to those who would turn off a film because its so poor (and this film is by no means an exception) But to people who thought that The Exorcist was more of a comedy than a horror and who watch it because of this reason - this IS the ultimate movie for you.

Terrible in one sense - Sensational in another!!!


Sometimes this gave me and my friend Andrea a real scare (it 's VERY suspenseful), it's always pitch black outside and you never know when someone might pop out at you! There are many puzzles and they're pretty tough but so I found the built in hints VERY useful! I fully recommend the Pandora Directive, but don't think that it's something quick and easy! It has 6 CD's for a good reason... It's long! :)


I think that this is the best computer game ever made. It was very hard to stop playing this game when once started. Really liked this game because of the great story. This is absolutly a game for people who like mystery and adventure. A lot of great puzzles also, so you have to use your brain very much.

You play as a P.I named Tex Murphy in the year 2042(or something like that). You're hired to find a man named Thomas Malloy... but that is just the beginning...everything becomes more complicated than that...


I wasn't sure at first what to expect from director Enzo G. Castellari. I saw his film 1990: Bronx Warriors and it was a lot of fun, but in that way that comes with knowing a man made a no-holds-barred exploitation rip-off on the Warriors that, truth be told, was barely even shot in the Bronx. But, of course, movie-PHD Quentin Tarantino held up this man's work, particularly this film, to such high esteem he took the title (if not the skeleton of the subject matter) for his latest opus. Why not give a late 70s war movie a shot featuring Fred "The Hammer" Williamson, one of those unsung bad-asses, and Bo Svenson, an underrated actor-cum-star, a shot? Turns out, the shot was a big surprise. In the best possible way.

Inglorious Bastards is made by a real professional, not by some slacker just looking to slap together some used sets and flunky character folk for roles. This is the real deal; if it's not one of the very best war films, it's certainly one that is one of the best you haven't heard of (least until recently thanks to the aforementioned PHD-in-film-incarnate). It's one of those "guys-on-a-mission" movies where it features a tag-line "Whatever the Dirty Dozen did  they do DIRTIER!" and with, from the looks of the trailer, either very good or very shoddy fx and a lot of ammo. Basically, a bunch of US soldiers, on their way for court-martial/execution, somehow, escape after an incident, and go on the run... only to find themselves getting embroiled in a mission involving a train, a whole s***load of Nazi's, and perhaps a few casualties here and there  few dozen to few hundred give or take.

There's barely a line wasted in this flick, barely a scene that doesn't actually try and provide its actors like Svenson and Williamson  also other very good players like Peter Hooten and Jackie Basehart and Ian Bannen as the tricky Colonel Buckner  some good meaty dialog to chew on when they're not blowing stuff up to bits (written, and I was even more surprised by this than you, by five writers). Oh, sure, you could argue that it's violent, maybe needlessly so. But that is part of the point. It actually doesn't go *too* over-the-top, not as far as I expected given its Italian-cult credibility and that of Castellari's speckled career.

The action is shot and edited with the great ferocity possible when a crew gets enough money and enough verve to push buttons. It does get bloody, and there's a pile of bodies that reaches up to a small skyscraper. But it's also a lot of fun to watch it, and it even goes beyond being a guilty pleasure into being just plain awesome. You lose yourself with these guys on their mission, with Williamson gritting and showing off why he is "The Hammer", or how Svenson could be such a persuadable star in good hands. And, yes, it probably does crib from the likes of the Great Escape (motorcycle jumps, anyone) and Bridge on the River Kwai (bridge blow-up, anyone), and at the same time it holds its own as a legitimate effort.

I imagine that's what Tarantino saw in it, its own sense of paying tribute to so many other war pictures while holding its own for a bunch of dudes watching a bunch of dudes go to extreme in Nazi-occupied France. It's surprisingly tense, terrific genre film-making that doesn't force the Platoon treatment  it just asks you go just a little "Dirtier" with the flow of the average war flick, like Sam Fuller with a face full of pasta yelling out orders.


Here's one the lightest, most fun Italian war movies I've come across. It features a top notch cast and some great action scenes.

Bo Svenson stars as an American officer who's thrown into a prison convoy with a murderer, Tony (Peter Hooten), Fred (Fred Williamson), a thief, Nick (Michael Pergolani), and a coward, Berle (Jackie Basehart). The convoy comes under attack by the Germans and the men escape across the French countryside. They enventually become wrapped up in an important Allied mission headed by Colonel Buckner (Ian Bannen).

The movie features a top notch cast. Peter Hooten is especially memorable as the bigot, Tony and Fred Williamson turns in a great performance. Bo Svenson, himself a renegade, still tries to do the decent job as an officer and keep these boys in line. Michael Pergolani has little to do in his role as the hippie/thief; he does have one great motorcycle stunt scene, though, a la Steve McQueen in THE GREAT ESCAPE. Watch for Michel Constantin (THE DIRTY HEROES) as a partisan leader; Donald O'Brien as a German officer and Enzo Castellari himself as a German officer.

The movie has some stunning action scenes; there are plenty of shootouts and explosions. The big gun battle amidst ruined German and American trucks and halftracks is especially impressive. The Partisan raid on the train near the end is well filmed, but features many repeated shots of the same action happening over and over again. The miniature work is not the greatest, but is much better than the later BATTLE OF THE EAGLES.

The plot is basically a combination of THE DIRTY DOZEN and BATTLE OF THE COMMANDOS, but it's so fast-paced that you won't really care. Castellari lets only a few minutes go by before something important happens. He really develops his lead characters, which is another important feature we don't get to see much of in typical Italian war films.

Despite all of the good stuff, this movie has a few rough spots. For one thing, it's got a very needless love story sub-plot that never goes anywhere and has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Another complaint: there are some lengthy conversations between the German characters that weren't dubbed. It's impossible to understand what they're saying.

The movie is not for young kids. It features graphic violence, plenty of profanity and even *full* female nudity in one scene.

The version I saw was from Lightning Video, entitled DEADLY MISSION. The source print was of top quality, with fresh picture and good sound. The opening and closing titles, however, were apparently new material and feature some music that isn't heard anywhere else in the feature.

Overall, this is a fun-to-watch Italian adventure piece. For the great cast, production values and action scenes, I'll give a 6/10.


For my 1,000th user-comment on IMDb, I wanted to write about something that I not only enjoyed, but something that summed up or represented my feelings about and tastes in movies. You know, something that has my name written all over it. I considered a number of films  some bad  some good - but in the end, I decided to go with The Inglorious Bastards. Not only is it a great example of the kind of movie I go for, but I've been wanting to write something about it for a while now. And with Tarantino's re-imaging set to open this year, I definitely wanted to get my user comment written beforehand. So here it is, #1,000.

As the film opens, a group of WWII era soldiers are being transferred to a military prison to await decision on the many crimes they've committed. Murder, theft, robbery  these aren't your typical, clean-cut, all-American GIs. On the way, the MP convoy is attacked by a German plane and a band of five prisoners escapes. They immediately decide to head to neutral Switzerland and the freedom it offers. On the way, they have plenty of opportunities to kill and maim Nazis. But when they accidentally shoot a group of American paratroopers disguised as German soldiers, the Bastards decide to stand in and complete their compatriots' mission. And what a mission it is  steal a train carrying a V2 rocket.

If director Enzo G. Castellari is known for anything, it's action. And in The Inglorious Bastards, he outdoes himself. It's a testosterone injected ride from start to finish! Gun battles, explosions, vehicle wrecks, fights, falls off castle walls, motorcycle stunts  if it involves action, you'll find it here. Castellari somehow manages to keep the film well paced throughout. While the action does admittedly slow a tad in the second act, the film never bogs down and is always enjoyable. The Inglorious Bastards also features some really nice miniature work. The film's finale is especially memorable on that front. The cast is first rate. Fred "the Hammer" Williamson may be third billed, but he's the real star. Williamson's character is appropriately named Fred. Appropriate because he's pretty much playing himself  a cigar-chomping, one-line spewing, gun-toting badass. Surprising to me is that Bo Svenson is able to match Williamson scene for scene. I've never thought much of his other work that I've seen, but here, Svenson is very believable as the in control leader of the Bastards. The rest of the cast provide equally enjoyable performances. It's an excellent job by all involved.

While I can see why The Inglorious Bastards might not appeal to everyone, for me, it's a near perfect movie. I've seen some reviews nit-pick the lack of realism. Relax, this was never intended to be a documentary. It's about having a good time and enjoying yourself. Just go with it and quit being so uptight. As for those who complain about the dialogue or the editing, you're obviously not familiar with Euro movie making from the 60s and 70s. Again, just go with it. Like I said, it's almost perfect to me. In fact, I've got no problem at all rating The Inglorious Bastards a 9/10, verging on a 10/10.

So here's to 1,000 user comments. For those of you who have read and maybe even enjoyed some of what I've written, I say thanks. And look forward to more to come. On to 1,001!


An entertaining action-war movie. I remember i bought this movie the in a video-store back in 1986-87. It was an old English video-version from the early 80's (from that time when video-stores in my country imported video-movies direct from England without giving them subtitles)

The movie have some similarity's with "The Dirty Dozen" and it's obvious that the film-makers got much inspiration from this great hit from the 60's. Acting and plot is not the greatest in history, but it's still a very exiting film. Not so much indifferent action-scenes here, like there are in many other movies of this type.

8 out of 10


The Italian industry from the 50's to the late 70's thrived by imitating big Hollywood box office hits and even though The Inglorious Bastards came a good 10 years after the WWII action cycle of the 60's, it's still a welcome addition to the genre. Two years after his spaghetti western masterpiece Keoma, director Enzo G. Castellari gathers a cast of b-movie stalwarts spearheaded by Bo Svenson and Fred Williamson, a couple hundred disposable extras in Nazi uniforms and unleashes hell.

There's no sophistication or Spielberg-ian schmaltz here. It's an action-er through and through with a comedic touch and lots of gunplay. Castellari is no hack though and you can see flashes of his directorial brilliance in the slow-motion intercutting shots in the train, which rival anything Sam Peckinpah has done with the same technique. He knows he's not doing Citizen Kane though so he doesn't let his "artistry" get in the way of making an entertaining picture. Not a masterpiece by any means and it will probably seem outdated to anyone used to modern CGI work and Matrix stunts. This is old school action.

Tarantino is preparing a remake of sorts for 2009 but The Inglorious Bastards has enough going for it to warrant a watch not just so you can brag to your friends on opening day that you've seen the original. Action fans will get a kick out of it.


I wonder if a movie can possibly offer more adrenalin-rushing entertainment and genuine thrills than "The Inglorious Bastards" does. It's very, very doubtful. This movie  basically a blunt imitation of "The Dirty Dozen" but who really cares  is an unceasingly exciting and outrageously badass gem of an exploitation flick, with a tremendous ensemble cast and explosive testosterone-laden action. My mate and I watched this movie in a series of War movies but deliberately saved it for last because we presumed it would turn out the most fun one to behold. And we were right, too! "The Inglorious Bastards" centers on a handful of American misfit soldiers who are gathered together to get shipped off and face court martial for a variety of crimes and desertion. During a German Luftwaffe attack, however, the quintet escapes and together they decide to flee to neutral Switzerland on foot. They encounter a series of obstacles along the way, but then they accidentally kill a squadron of American soldiers dressed in Nazi uniforms for a specific mission. Tired of running away, the crazed band of bastard brothers decide to take over the mission that exists of preventing a train, with destructive of missile and a whole bunch of Nazis on board, from reaching its destination. The action in "The Inglorious Bastards" is plentiful and far out! Straight from the beginning, with the fabulously energetic music playing throughout the opening credits, you just know this will become a non-stop smörgåsbord of violence, excitation and sheer kicks! This is Z-Grade/exploitation heaven, with specialist director Castellari shamelessly borrowing elements from the greatest war movies ever made (the motorcycle stunt near the end seem to come straight out of "The Great Escape") but also adding a lot of his very own and creative ideas and humorist elements. The main characters are stupendous and impossible not to cheer for. Bo Svenson as the ultra-cool leader, Fred Williamson as the cigar-chewing killing machine and Michael Pergolani as the kleptomaniac hippie  You hate to love them all, and vice versa! The film is fast-paced from start to finish and actually an unbreakable chain of extravagant and impressively staged action stunts. Particularly the entire climax in and near the train station and the escape from the Nazi occupied château are brilliant; period! In spite of the reasonably low budget, the film contains some very adequate special effects and detailed miniature sets that explode into little pieces quite wondrously! And just when you think the movie you are watching have practically everything except gratuitous female nudity, the characters stumble upon an assemblage of skinny-dipping German chicks with machine guns! Is this movie the total definition of perfection, or what? No wonder Quinten Tarantino is an avid fan and even working on some sort of remake/tribute.