What's most amazing about this film is how easily you forget you are watching a movie, and not just two friends having dinner. An eccentric theater director and old friend (whose been avoiding the dinner for years) a struggling playwright, have dinner and discuss...well just about everything. Roger Ebert called this 'the only movie without clichés", and while it's not completely true(what really could be), it does manage to invert any expectations of characterization or plot.

The conversation is NOT random either, all ideas explored here get re-integrated into the film later on, what begins with the "director" telling the details of his breakdown and bizarre attempts at spiritual and artistic fulfillment, in a cross between the most pretentious theater professor you have ever seen and the most interesting man in the world from those "Dos Euis"commercials. The play-write....don't know why I keep calling them by these titles, the characters names are their names in real life Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn (who it's nice to see in a serious role after his mad scientist Southland Tales bit)...anyway Shawn mostly listens to Andre who obviously loves attention and hearing himself speak, but later interrogates, contradicts, and adds much needed balance to Andre's new age excesses and paranoia. Not that it comes out as clearly or as neatly as Andre's monologue, Shawn is a writer, more comfortable on paper than in real life(there's an Ingmar Bergman quote about this idea early on), and you can literally see the thoughts and reactions building behind his eyes, even as he can't fully express them. Also little details about Andre abound, liberal guilt mostly (listen for how many times he compares himself to Nazi's)....but I could go on like this forever. The point is the characters are genuine and lyrical even as they trip over their words.

If you want to see some of where Richard Linklater got his sprawling conversational wit, "My Dinner With Andre" is absolutely necessary. It's rare to get a real intellectual and emotional charge out of a movie, "Before Sunris/Sunset" and "Waking Life" did it, Spalding Grey's "The Monster", comes close, but this movie explodes with life, at it's most fascinating and most banal. This is the thrilling conversation you've been waiting for.


I absolutely love movies that provoke thought, and this movies does exactly that, and then some. At first, being only 22, I was weary about renting it because it was released before I was even born, and thought that the movie could possibly be out-dated. I could not have been more wrong. I could write an entire dissertation about this movie and the aspects it raises about present day life, but instead I'll just simply state that this movie is flat-out amazing and will certainly make you reflect on the path of life you have chosen to follow. While watching this movie, I had to repeatedly rewind the movie because I would be in such deep thought about a point Andre had just made, that I would completely miss the next few minutes of the movie. Quit reading this comment, scrounge up some change, and go watch it!!!


I have seen this film several times and it continues to inspire. The rap on the movie is that it is just a conversation between two guys, Andre and Wally, in an upscale restaurant. But it is much more. The short segments with Wally talking to himself that begin and end the movie are significant contributions.

The initial scenes with Wally on the way to the dinner are cleverly done - they give us enough information about both Wally and Andre to place the dinner conversation in context. Wally is a struggling playwright trying to make ends meet. He muses to himself, "When I was ten years old I was rich. I was an aristocrat, riding around in taxis, surrounded by comfort. And all I thought about was art and music. Now I'm thirty-six and all I think about is money." Andre had been a close friend and colleague of Wally's, but now Wally was trying to avoid him. Wally had heard odd stories about Andre's weird behavior in the last several years. Just recently a mutual acquaintance had reported that he had seen Andre outside of a building weeping uncontrollably in response to the line "I could always live in my art, but never in my life," from the movie "Autumn Sonata."

Wally enters the restaurant in a state of anxiety and his line of attack to get through the evening is to ask Andre lots of questions. He did not need to ask too many questions, since Andre dominates the first half of the dinner conversation, hardly allowing Wally in. Andre is quite a story teller and regales Wally (and us) with the bizarre experiences he has had over the last several years. Many of the experiences would indicate that Andre had become a bit psychotic, what with hearing voices, picturing birds flying out of his mouth, seeing passengers on an airplane as having animal faces and, during a Catholic mass, envisioning a huge creature that is half bull, half man, with blue skin, and poppies growing out if its toenails. But Andre seems to be a recovering psychotic, since he can describe his experiences lucidly. Anyone who has questioned how he is living his life (and who hasn't) will have to identify with Andre's search for a more intensely felt existence. Andre states that he feels the world is becoming more and more upsetting and that just operating out of habit is not really living, and many of his experiences have made him feel, for the first time, what it means to be truly alive. But then later he reverses himself and says that everything he has done is horrific and he is dubious about how he has lived his life for the past few years, feeling that he has squandered his life. Andre's contradictions make him believable.

Only when Wally enters the conversation do we realize the depth and significance of this film. We are being presented with two dramatically different views of how to value life's experiences. Having been mesmerized by Andre's agile mind and storytelling ability Wally brings us down to earth. After listening to Andre I was convinced that the only way to experience life to the fullest was to seek extraordinary experiences. Listening to Andre was like listening to the prosecution's side in a court of law and saying "Yes, guilty!" only then to have Wally present the case for the defense and thinking, "Wait a minute, this decision is not obvious." Wally argues for appreciating the simple pleasures saying that you don't have to embark on a climb of Everest to feel alive. What could be more enjoyable than having a cup of coffee while reading the morning's paper?

Filming in a cozy restaurant setting adds much. Many stimulating conversations take place in intimate restaurant environments, but, most often, not ones as well structured and free flowing as this one. Like many things in life, making something appear easy, like this conversation, requires much skill and planning. I wager that if you were to record even your most passionate and eloquent conversation you would be grossly disappointed when playing it back.

How both Andre and Wally tend to ignore the restaurant staff as people illustrates the point Andre makes that we tend to react to people by the roles they play rather than as individuals. Andre comments that one of the reasons he gave up acting was because the average person is doing such a good job at it that he couldn't compete.

There is much humor here. Some of Andre's tales are so outrageous and his timing is such that you can only shake your head and laugh. When Wally is served his quail entrée he remarks quite candidly, "God, I didn't know they were so small." I found myself laughing in recognition at the truth of many of Wally's observations.

The final short segment, where Wally takes a taxi home and reminisces about things that happened to him in each of the buildings he passes puts a final punctuation mark on the persistence of his personality. His conversation with Andre has not changed him - he is getting extreme pleasure from his simple memories. And his dinner with Andre has been a high point for him, but probably not such a high point for Andre.

In the end you will probably identify either more with Andre or with Wally, but not without much vacillation along the way.


I like ImagoDei's interpretation of the last lines, though I have this faint feeling I don't really understand what s/he's saying.

Which is as of a piece with Andre's conversation, to me, a lot of which went over my head tonight (I saw the movie for the first time just 10 minutes ago) and yet left me terribly moved -- possibly like Wally Shawn's character.

The way I took the last lines -- my $.02 -- was merely how I took much of what Andre was saying: not the precise import or meaning of what he said (boy, does he talk fast) but rather the overall tone of dread and the fear of death he evinced. Everything scares him: everything reminds him of the Holocaust, of autopsy and burial, of the prisons we erect to imprison ourselves within, of direct and friendly fascism - in short, of the machines and machinations Western culture and society have emplaced to contain and impeach our fear of death.

What I took away from the movie was a sense that these were two highly self-involved individuals (not that I'm condemning self-involvement by any means: it's the American way). Whereas Andre looks more and more outside the realm of the ordinary to find, as Wally describes it, "moments of pure being" that will annihilate or ameliorate his fear of disappearing, Wally retreats more into the quotidian and finds security and comfort in the past memories he finds there. Andre believes in fate, implacability, messages from beyond borne by UFOs; and the last lines of his conversation, I think, reflect his sense that nothing remains, not even the eternal love of a wife, a son.

The conversation ends there, at least the conversation between Andre and Wally; but not the movie, nor the conversation between Wally and us. The last last thing I took away from the movie is Wally, splurging on a taxi and looking out at the city of his birth in awe and wonder. He is retreating from Andre and Andre's thanatophilea by removing himself into his past, the past of taxi cabs and buying suits with his (incredibly rich) father (could anyone forget, as I couldn't watching this, that Wallace Shawn is the son of William Shawn, the founder of the New Yorker?); he is being driven away into nostalgia. The very last line of the movie, after all, tells us that Wally will repeat the entire conversation yet again to his girlfriend, of his dinner with Andre.

What I'd like to know is what people thought of that waiter. He had a kind of doom and gloom look about him, didn't he? And why did he look at Wally so pointedly?


Former Broadway writer and now actor, whenever he can find work, Wally Shawn was very apprehensive at the news of his friend Avant-Grade director Andre Gregory inviting him for dinner that evening at a swanky upper East-Side restaurant to talk over old times. It was Andre who gave Wally his first big break on Broadway by directing a play that he wrote.

Times of late have not been kind to the two with Wally not finding anyone to accept his plays or give him work as an actor and Andre now going through a serious and almost suicidal depression. Andre dropped out of sight altogether in his own personal journey of self-discovery in his attempt in trying to find out what life is all about. In his five year journey Andre came to the conclusion that the world's a giant stage and we all are given parts, like actors and actresses, to play on it. In the end were to be judged how good or bad we were by how we preformed the parts that we were given.

At first you don't know what to make of the movie "My Dinner with Andre". The two friends just chit-chat about mundane things like latest plays opening on Broadway and what to order for dinner, roast quail with wild rice a bowl of steaming hot potato soup and a fish pate appetizer. But as they begin bringing out their innermost thought about themselves and those close to them, between gulps of wine and soup, the movie takes on a whole new and different flavor. In that the audience becomes not just an observer but a vital part of their conversation.

We, and Wally, learn from Andre that his wanting to find himself and his reason for living had lead him over the last few years to travel to a number of exotic and far flung places that opened his eyes to a world he never knew existed! From an unknown and almost mystical Polish forest to the hot and burning sands of the vast Sahara Desert and a sub-freezing and almost impassable Tibetan mountain wilderness. With Andre finally ending up in this quaint and magical little Scottish commune town called Findhorn.

Over these five years Andre says that he had a whole new emotional and educational experience that he wants to share with his friend Wally. But only in his own down beat way of telling it. This gets so hung up with the futility of life that Andre in effect turns off, instead of turning on, Wally to his new found insights. It's when both Andre and Wally begin to exchange opinions later in the movie, Andre did most of the talking during the first half, that the two make contact with each other and draw the audience into their conversation.

Very esoteric at times but never at all boring or confusing "My Dinner with Andre" is a two hour talk between two friends about a whole list of subjects. Their conversation keeps you glued, and listening, to the screen about how were losing our souls and identities to a both modern and indifferent, to the individual, world.

In the end both Wally and Andre even though they have different opinions on how man can find his way back to nature as well as recovering his long lost sense of reality. Both Andre and Wally agree that opening up one's mind by letting out what one feels deep down inside of him, or her, and not being afraid or embarrassed in doing it is the bases of man going forward and improving the broken society that we all now, in the 1980's, lives in.

The two diners, Andre & Wally, philosophical sparring on issues like life and death and what existence is all about gets a bit redundant at times in them trying to find fault in on how valid or false they are. But as they each get to see how their views on the many different subjects they discuss start to coincide with each other they, and we that are watching, realize that their on the same wavelength.

The two end their dinner not just quenching their appetites but their minds as well by exchanging ideas and opinions and coming to an incisive and thought-provoking conclusion about almost everything there is to know about themselves and those around them. The very interesting film ends on an optimistic note as a now less skeptical and far more optimistic Wally says it, on a cab ride back home as the movie ends, from what he learned from "My Dinner with Andre".


This movie was a true chore to watch. I don't know why it is seen by some as an artistic film--unless "artistic" means painfully dull and uninteresting.

The entire plot is about two uninteresting people having dinner. The less annoying one (Wallace Shawn) is in awe of how brilliant Andre is, while I felt that Andre was mostly full of crap. Andre was a pseudo-intellectual character that delights in his own importance. If I had wanted to see such an obnoxious and self-important people, I would have watched an episode of Frasier--at least he and Niles are funny as well.

My advice to Andre is STOP talking. Please for the love of God, stop talking!


This incredibly original film by Louis Malle has the ability to challenge the viewer into contemplation of the way they go about living their lives. Virtually the entire film consists of a seemingly recreated real life dinner conversation between two friends, and yet somehow there's not moment that fails to keep the interest of the viewer. The film deals with questions of the nature of life and the nature of the world we live in, but beyond that it captures a moment of true intimacy between the two friends in a world where people rarely really talk to each other.

Some dismiss 'Dinner' as heady and intellectual, clearly its not a film everyone would enjoy. Still for those who realize what they're getting into (yes the whole film really is two people talking over dinner) the conversation can be truly absorbing. 'My dinner with Andre' is one of those rare films that really can impact the way a person thinks about their life.


Wally has a girlfriend, not a wife. This was a fantastic movie - not for the film budget or special effects or anything - but for the verbal content. Andre's stories make you think about how mundane life really can be. Though his cures for the mundane are quite exotic and unrealistic, they make you wonder what you can do different each day to appreciate the world around you. They make you think about ways to look at things differently. If you're an artist of any kind, some of these thoughts are priceless. I would recommend this movie to those who are interested in performance art, unconventional and experimental theatre, philosophers, intellects, etc.


When I first saw My Dinner with Andre, I didn't like it. It was the opposite of what I thought a movie should be. It seemed to be all talk and little action or movement (the formula for pure cinema is just the opposite). However, something about it stuck with me, and I was lucky enough to catch it again. The second viewing of this film really paid off. I had my bearings and could follow the conversation as it flowed back and forth from the transcendental and almost mystical explorations of Andre to the simple, practical, everyday appreciations of Wally. It suddenly occurred to me that what was happening was much more than just an unusual dinner conversation--it was a back and forth between the two great viewpoints of life. There is something wonderfully exciting and courageous about Andre's search for the truth and reality of things as he travels to mountains and deserts to find it. But there is equally something as exciting and brilliant in Wally's ability to see the miracle of a quiet evening at home (even reading the autobiography of Charlton Heston) or doing his errands and crossing them off the list. Both men are wonderful, and one realizes that this is not just a lot of talk and no action; as with many great artworks, everything is going on just under the surface--all the action is in the realm of ideas, not in physical motion. At the end, like Wally, we come away from the dinner with Andre quite changed for the better. Somehow the world is a little more beautiful, a little more alive, and we are a little more able to see its beauty and appreciate the miracle of it all.


I remember a couple of years ago when IFC or Sundance was running this film on an endless loop.At first I avoided it like the plague because I'd heard so many negative things like "it's boring" Or "all they do is talk"--but then I watched it anyway and saw that the great Wallace Shawn was one of the actors.How can I not watch a movie with him in it?And the other guy-I forget his name-was the evil bishop in Ladyhawke!(I think--I could be wrong and anyway he looks just like him... If you aren't sure who W.S is remember Princess Bride? He's the little dude who tries to poison Wesley. Sure they talk their heads off in this movie but they talk about interesting things.I can't right now recall the exact tenor of the conversations but... Anyway anyone who expects at least one car crash per scene will not enjoy this movie.And no naked chicks,either.No hip hop music and no people falling down just to have someone fall down. I'm sorry to say but this movie requires a bit of intelligence and an attention span. I rate it four arty New Yowk stars!


The monotony of the scene got to me, but I think that is because I am a product of my generation. Move, fast fast fast. And THEY thought life was fast in this movie. I was 6 when this movie was made, and I just saw it today. There were periods in the movie where I wanted to cry because the content is SO TRUE. I related to this in a way I never thought I could. I went into this movie having NO IDEA what it was about. I was all sorts of happy when I realized it was based in NYC, although in reality, it wasn't :-( I was wondering what messed up signals I was sending to my child. This movie made me think harder than I have thought in a long time. I pride myself on thinking, seeing what is right in front of one's face, yet not seen. Guess I'm not all that. This truly is a movie that if you are really watching and LISTENING, will change your life.


I saw this movie as a boy and it lingers after nearly fifty years as a haunting memory. It may be what we now call noir, but the twinkle in Welles' eye also lingers, suggesting a gris texture. That twinkle is the same that Harry Lime (cine verde?) flashed to Holly Martin in the alley scene of The Third Man (which was also made in Europe in 1949).

Cagliostro was a brilliant montebank, alchemist,poseur and rascal of the first order. Welles gave him credibility, perhaps recognizing a kindred spirit down the centuries. I still remember the dark, cobbled streets and slick rainy roof tops of eighteenth century European cities -- scenes also not unlike the ones in The Third Man. The ending, I remember, was also bitter sweet.

I wish that those who produce lesser know classics for DVD restoration might see this "foreign" movie; it is obviously available somewhere since there have been other reviewers. If they chose it I could have my childhood Madeleine experience, and others would have another Welles film to compare with the finite now available.


I just watched the video of BLACK MAGIC again tonight and was once again impressed with it. Orson Welles turns in one of his finest performances. I was also impressed by the quality of the production considering it wasn't a Hollywood studio production (although it was released by United Artists). Elaborate costumes and sets and tons of extras. Interesting plot and photography. It has a nice film noir look to it. But the best part of BLACK MAGIC is Welles.


The trite dialogue, Ed Wood style special effects and ridiculous plot of this film creates a beautiful "cult" charm. Orson Welles plays a highly entertaining Gypsy and even directed a few of his scenes. Matching, and sometimes even topping Welles's fiendish performance is Akim Tamiroff, the sideman actor that played in many of Welles's films from Don Quixote to The Trial. This film is a bit tragic but most certainly charming. There are so many close up shots of Welles's black eyes mesmerizing the audience against a spine tingling score whispering lines like, "you will submit" that it makes me wonder why this film hasn't been re-released and put in the "cult classic" section of video stores. Good luck finding it.


A curious, little-seen oddity based on an Alexander Dumas tale, it adapts the story of Cagliostro, played by Orson Welles, an 18th century magician and charlatan who has strange hypnotic powers and becomes involved in a plot to overthrow the French monarchy in order to revenge himself on the aristocrat who was responsible for the execution of his parents.

In black and white, it makes use of dark scenes, shadows, close ups and other film noir techniques to accentuate the pseudo-magical qualities of Orson Welles' character. Akim Tamiroff as Welles' gypsy friend is rather good, but Nancy Guild in the dual role of Marie Antoinette and Lorenza, the woman who Cagliostro first rescues, then manipulates, is not outstanding. There is some sword-play and many elaborate costumes are on display in the court episodes, and the early scenes showing Cagliosto's gypsy boyhood when he falls foul of the aristocrat who hangs his father and mother and sentences the boy to be whipped and blinded are strong stuff for the time.

The film seems to have been made in Rome for United Artists and although the plot is somewhat bizarre it is strangely watchable.


Would like to see this film on TCL channel. As a Wells admirer, it will always be a classic. My husband was a stage hypnotist, in the 1950's, having studied psychology at The Detroit Institute of Technology in Detroit Michigan. (several stories in local papers) He appeared on stage along with the showing of Black Magic,(Vanity Theatre) in Windsor Ontario Canada while a student to demonstrate hypnosis. As a result, he traveled to several cities giving demonstrations. At one time he had his own by- line in a Michigan paper in which he discussed hypnosis, Father Stan Murphy (Asumption College Windsor, Ontario Canada) had him on The Christian Culture Series, and demonstrations for the Canadian Police. His picture and stories were carried along with the movies credits in the media. (Have clippings for anyone interested)


Based on a true story, this television drama was filmed along Canada's west coast, in winter. The cast and crew worked in icy waters and freezing rain. It was a miserable "shoot" but so was the horror of the real people involved. You will notice a very young and green Matt Leblanc in a roll years before "Friends". Robert Conrad was very strong and real...a true professional.

Richard Long


I lived in Juneau, Alaska in 1978-79, the winter that this originally happened to the family in the film. A friend read a newspaper article about it to me and I cringed. The accident happened during the worst February we had had since I could remember, and I was born and raised there. They were actually stranded for the entire month, not a few days or a couple weeks, and the fact that they survived amazed me. I don't know of anyone in these dire circumstances that would NOT "whine" a bit.

Granted, this film took some poetic license as all films based on true stories do. I felt that Matt LeBlanc was a poor choice for the son. He looked nothing like the rest of the family. But in spite of that, I was impressed with the performances and the way the family clung together. This is not a film for the weak hearted. The reality of it was all too real for me, as I knew first hand the sub-zero temperatures and high gale winds that were present at the time of this accident. Only true Alaskans would ever have survived this experience and my heart goes out to the family to this day.

All in all, the film was excellent at portraying the harsh circumstances the family faced. That was not made up. The relationships that they shared were also well portrayed. I have often wondered how they all were today, what, if any, lasting affects the experience had on them. As far as films based in Alaska, this was perhaps the most true to life of any I have seen. Excellent film.


this film moved me in ways people cant imagine Matt Le blanc gives his best appearance to date (with exception to friends series 2 episode 11). i feel it is my duty to inform other IMDb'Er's of the shere perfection of this picture. my favourite part has to be where the girls have to eat seaweed for their fight for survival. because of this i can now thoroughly enjoy seaweed from the Chinese, along with my fond memories. this film is certainly more than a 'one watch film' (not the official quote) in reply to the previous comment. i myself have watched it numerous times and have always been reduced to tears, impressed by the outstanding direction and above most this film has taught me how to...survive.


The Movie "Anything to Survive" IS a real interesting movie for entertainment! please do NOT view this movie as being true! I personally knew the family depicted in this movie and as most things from Hollywood it has been modified to make it more entertaining. the places named in the movie are real but the Family was going from Craig Alaska to Ketchikan Alaska and had nothing to do with Prince Rupert British Colombia!!! Having Lived in that Part of Alaska for 30 years I am very familiar with the weather and conditions that one can find there. One last point to be made. That part of Alaska is not considered "the Arctic" it is almost 1000 miles from the Arctic.


Too many movies about being lost in the Arctic are Disneyized views of playing in the snow, waiting for the inevitable rescue. This movie shows the real dangers of hypothermia, dehydration, frostbite and isolation, and the hopelessness of waiting for rescue if no one knows you're lost.


The film was dire in the extreme, filled with bad acting, bad writing and a poorly structured plot. Lines such as 'But you're the only healthy one left!' fail to stand out when written down; yet when combined with the delivery in the film they are poor enough to induce laughter. Fortunately this film managed to achieve the so bad it's good category, one reserved for films which are enjoyable solely through the realisation that although you yourself may not be able to do better, you certainly would bury any attempt this bad deep underground to prevent the embarrassment of having the general public see it.

If you enjoy a bad film and have enough people round to mock it, then see the film. In all other circumstances avoid it.


Why this film has recieved an average of 6.5 is a total mystery! I can only agree with some of the other commentators: see it, as if it was a parody! Just wait for the finishing line: "Come on girls, Daddy is here - it´s time to go home!" Rip your hair out, cry - or laugh your brains out... your choice!


As I was reading through some of the other user comments - it brought back some memories of phrases I hadn't thought about in years.

It seems he was a staple of many Canadian kids on Saturday mornings during the 70's (especially if you didn't have cable!). I do remember Bimbo the clown and those cone puppets, but the thing that always comes to mind when I think of Uncle Bobby is that magician that would come on and perform some trick - Uncle Bobby would help him out, and more often than not the trick would sort of come together and they would both kind of singsong the phrase "iiiit's maaagic"! I thought I was the only one who remembered this show - and the fact that I do believe he would get more and more soused as the show went on! But hey - that was the 70's for ya...


Uncle Bobby started out as a short, wiry little man with a hawk-nose and British accent, but ended up being a less mobile, pulpy-nosed, long white-haired old man, less of a British accent and with a huge stomach. I believe the show featured cartoons and kid's features, including a regular visit from a safety cop from the Toronto police corps. Off the program, he did like his "wee drams." I read somewhere that Uncle Bobby and CTV sportscaster Pat Marsden used to close some bars in downtown Toronto back in the late 1960s, early 1970s.

Bimbo the clown and the birthday puppets deserve some mention here, also. What was it about hosts of kids shows in this era and their cardigan sweaters? Is there some symbolism here that is escaping me? One thing I remember that at some point, the show stopped taking itself so seriously and laughed at itself quite regularly, as the rest of us were doing. These cheap little shows were so bad, they were truly great!

The Uncle Bobby Show was an institution here in Canada and more should be made of this talented man who came to entertain us in our living rooms every weekday.


Would love to see them release the show to a DVD set!!!!! I was told I actually had my name pulled from Bimbo's pocket and announced on television. I would love to relive those times when I was young and show my nephews and nieces what we use to watch as children. Plus us older adults would love a good laugh. I think they should release the show to a DVD set, look at all the other shows that are being released. I'm sure other people that had their names pulled from the hat would appreciate the chance to hear/see that happen again. Uncle Bobby was an awesome show and I watched it daily when I was young! I can't get the Bimbo the Birthday Clown song out of my head.


If you`ve no interest in war movies THE RED BERET may just appear to be yet another B movie about the war . It contains all the old cliches like dying soldiers making a speech just before they draw their last breath and as soon as someone is tasked to do something dangerous they`ll do it in a completely blase manner then die in a blackly comical famous last words scene .There`s some corny dialogue from the American characters like " Holy cow , check out those crazy beefeaters " while the Brits are all stiff upper lipped . It should also be pointed out that the " location filming " in North Africa was obviously carried out somewhere else , my guess would be the Highlands of Scotland with its peat bogs and rolling hills . But despite these flaws I can remember seeing this film from my childhood where it retains a soft spot and watched it again for the first time in something like 30 years.

Despite the somewhat patchy production standards I wasn`t really disappointed with this movie and as an adult I was able to notice a few interesting points . One point is that it`s very very similar to SHANE . Both star Alan Ladd and he plays a very similar character in both , in this case a North American called McKendrick who has a guilty past . Also if you look at the production credits you`ll notice that the producer , screenwriter and director would almost 10 years later go on to make DR NO * a movie that changed the face of British cinema . In many ways THE RED BERET is much more enjoyable than most of the British war movies at the time probably down to the fact that it`s made in glorious technicolor rather than monochrome and I`ll probably be accused of being a heretic by saying that it`s more enjoyable than the depressing BAND OF BROTHERS a mini series that has a lot in common with THE RED BERET

* Watch the scene where Major Snow walks into the office and throws his hat onto a hat stand . Sean Connery also does this in the Terence Young directed Bond movies . No doubt a director trade mark


In real life, Alan Ladd was scared to death of flying (he preferred trains), but you'd never know it in this exciting action adventure set in early World War II.

The old English method of training paratroopers by jumping from balloons is accurately depicted, as is the result of landing with an unopened parachute (the British, like the German airborne, eschewed the use of reserve parachutes).

It's actually a pretty standard war movie, though the score is exciting and memorable, and the combat scenes, though dated now, are pretty well done, considering this movie was shot in 1953.

Definitely worth watching!


Somehow 'The Red Beret,' by no measure a fine film, remains one of my sentimental favorites, perhaps because in my teens it aired often on late night TV, under its U.S. title 'Paratrooper.' Alan Ladd, even when he wasn't acting, appeared as the sexy strong stoical silent type, and here he again fills that bill. I also love this film because it's one of the many that carved out for Harry Andrews his reputation for playing tough-tender sergeants and sergeant majors; in 'The Red Beret' his last-words line, "Pity the man who hears the pipes and was na born in Scotland," has stuck pleasantly with me into my sixth decade; he also gives a lovely little take when the red berets are issued to him and his men and his character must part with his beloved regimental headgear. Also very sexy here, in his own astute, urbane way - quite different from Ladd's, is Leo Genn (who, in my experience, never gave a poor screen performance, and who was very good as the psychiatrist in 'The Snake Pit' and as Mr. Starbuck in John Huston's adaptation of 'Moby Dick'). Pert, pretty Susan Stephen - in a curls-and-frizz hairdo that was fifteen years ahead of its time! - doesn't act very well here, but I still find her effort affecting as Ladd's character's love interest.

I suppose my affection for 'The Red Beret' is one more proof that "There's no accounting for taste." Which helps to explain, if not to excuse, most of the rubbish studios churn out nowadays for uncritical mass consumption. I wish 'The Red Beret' would release on disc so that once, and many times over, in the wee hours I could snuggle down on the sofa and enjoy it as I did when I was a teenager.


This is the thinly disguised story of real life hero John Frost. Portrayed in this film by Leo Genn and called Maj. Snow (I said the disguise was thin).

Lt Col John Frost led the small group of paratroopers who actually got to the bridge in A Bridge Too Far (1977) (where he was played by Anthony Hopkins). Despite only having a few hundred men instead of the whole brigade that they expected to get there, they still held out for four days against an S.S. Panzer group. John Frost got his knees damaged by a mortar bomb so spent the rest of the war in a P.O.W. camp. In this film Maj. Snow gets wounded in the legs by a grenade but is carried to safety by his men.

But Arnhem was just the final move in an amazing wartime career. Frost was one of the earliest volunteers in the newly formed parachute regiment at the start of the war. As a Major, he led the successful raid on the German radar station at Bruneval where radar specialist Sgt Cox (Sgt Box in this film) dismantled the German unit and brought it back to Britain along with some of the operators so that the British could understand the limits of the German radar system. This happened in a very similar way to the raid portrayed in the first part of the film.

The next raid Frost led was on an airfield in Tunisia, just like the second raid in the film. In real life, as in the film, the raid on the airfield was a success but they had some problems getting back to their own lines.

Frost then led the parachute drop on Sicily and a further raid in Italy before his wartime career finished at Arnhem.

This film is quite well made and adapts the story well to fit Alan Ladd in without making it too obvious that he's only there to attract an American audience. The real heroes of this story are John Frost and the men of the Parachute Regiment.


Don't know why this movie appeals to me this much except for the excellent Leo Genn who makes any movie better. It is one of those that I can watch over and over. I think it is that there are so many great British character actors and Allan Ladd isn't bad but his usual self. The story line is simple but then I was a small child at the beginning of the war and all the movies were very simplistic. I think that is what I enjoy. Not a lot of side drama, just a straight forward telling of men at war in the old idealized style.

The editing is a bit choppy in places and the old blue screen is obvious in odd places but "Sorry for the man who hears the pipes and was na born in Scotland."


It is very interesting to learn about this serious illness. People should really take the time to read of this illness. It is like many other illnesses. it is either overlooked and many times it goes untreated until ther is a serious accident that could lead to injury, suicide or many other tragic accidents. Some may look at this illness as the person is "crazy." Not true there are many people that suffer from this illness are brilliant. It is sad to see anyone go through this pain and suffering and still on the other hand can so intelligent. This is a true that we can't have everything and we should be thankful for what we do have. Even if it is just a little. Nancy McKeon played this part to a T.


This is a good attempt to show some of the symptoms and family issues which occur when a member develops the illness. A very good movie considering that it was made for television. This film is better than most of the stuff shown on lifetime movie network. Not a great film but one worth watching. Some useful information can be learned from it. I believe the progression of the illness, when it occurred and the effect is had on her family was fairly accurate. It seems as though some critic expect this film to be on the level of " A Beautiful Mind". That just is not realistic. The film was made years ago and for much less money. Yes it is a shame that money has such an effect on film production but it does. I disagree with other reviewers who are too hard on the film. Considering the "Made for TV" budget constraints on actors, script and direction I think the total package is good.


Ok this movie was interesting slow at first but then picked up of course I had a hard time even looking away from the screen because of Nancy Mckeon being the main character even crazy she looks cute :o) The movie is about a woman who seems normal then starts to hear voices she has schizophrenia.


Another tender and moving direct for t.v. movie starring John Stamos. In the likes of "A Match Made In Heaven"; this movie displays the perfect, funny, tender relationship between Walter Matthau and John Stamos. I really dug how well they got along. Their were a very charismatic on-screen duo.

The relationship between Stamos and Polo is also very good. Polo is incredibly beautiful and has a unique charm. Also, when they have the "big" difficulty you can't help but feel touched.

Matthau steals the show once again with a moving performance. The man can say a lot of things with his eyes... In memoriam. A truly great, great actor.


Walter Matthau and John Stamos are good together. John really holds the movie, quite successfully I should add and excuse me for being surprised. Though some of his and others' lines are older than Matthau. The plot also isn't most original but manages to avoid the obvious pot holes. Small, nice, comfortable tv movie. Based on a play and directed by Matthau's son. Burnett is fine as Matthau's younger love interest. Teri Polo is bearable in a terrible blond. So- John and Matthau beat Teri and some used up lame lines.


Frank (Walter Matthau) has just lost his beloved wife of 40 years. His son Robert (John Stamos), always closer to his father than the other two sons, is there to help him through the hard moments. However, Robert is very distrustful of marriage and has remained a bachelor, despite having a way with the ladies. This changes when a beautiful woman is transferred to work in the same NY accounting firm as Robert. Susan (Teri Polo) has just been separated from her husband in Wisconsin but, nevertheless, responds to Robert's advances. At the same time, Frank goes to a Hawaiian-themed party for the over 60 crowd and meets a wonderful woman named Florence (Carol Burnett). Florence is such an attractive and nice lady that Frank, despite his initial hesitation, decides to get close to her. Robert is thrown for a loop, not only because of his own need for Susan, but because he thinks his father is rushing things. Can Robert allow Frank to live his own life? This is a lovely film, very honest and true to life. Matthau, in one of his last roles, is great as the widower trying to navigate in very strange waters. Burnett, too, gives a nice performance as a woman with a very big heart. As for Stamos and Polo, they are two very attractive people who give their characters the needed depth suitable for two souls who have been unlucky in love and are uncertain which way to turn. If you have lost a parent and are struggling with the idea of your mother or dad finding a new partner, this is definitely the film for you. It has some great messages about the brevity of life and the importance of living every day to the fullest. But, even if you are not dealing with the loss of a loved one, this movie is an entertaining couple of hours. Don't be foolish and pass this film by.


Walter Matthau and Carol Burnett are beloved icons of American film, each of whom has given us countless hours of wonderful entertainment over an expanse of numerous decades. Their extraordinary performances in 1998's "Love After Death" lift this story to a higher plane. Watch them achieve the same in 1972's bitter-sweet comedy "Pete 'n Tillie." They have such great chemistry that it's really too bad they didn't work together more often over the years. Watching their portrayals as widowed senior citizens who find love is a moving experience. Burnett deserved the American Comedy Award she won for this film, but Matthau should have been honored as well.


This film has a script so terrible that I reluctantly sat through the entire thing (which is mercifully brief) merely to see how it would play out.

SPOILERS ABOUND!

The film opens with a shot of a manzanita pine overlooking the ocean that immediately establishes the Monterey, California setting and calls to mind the 1961 Marlon Brando film ONE-EYED JACKS, a film with a very similar storyline that was also set near Monterey. We then see Jay Turner (Sterling Hayden) and Max Reno (Ted de Corsia) riding horses along the surf and learn they are fleeing from a robbery. They go into a cave that Reno calls a perfect hideout. Presumably the entrance to the cave is hidden when the tide is up. However, anyone looking for the men shouldn't have too much trouble finding their horses outside. Morever, Turner builds a fire inside the cave. Don't they worry about the smoke giving them away? (For my part, I'd worry about being drowned inside the cave during high tide.)

The men talk and we learn that they've only recently met. They are very different types: Turner is satisfied with the $5,000 he's getting from the heist and wants to give up crime, but Reno wants to continue their partnership and is miffed by Turner's retirement. When Turner goes out to the surf to get a pot of water (What's the water for? Is he intending to use seawater for coffee?) Reno follows him and shoots him in the back. He then takes both horses and flees. This scene stunned me. Why didn't Reno shoot Turner inside the cave, where he could have retrieved the $5,000 and left Turner's body better hidden? Since he seemed not to have retried the money, what was the point of shooting Turner?

The next ONE-EYED JACKS element in the film is the appearance of a beautiful young Mexican woman, Maria Salvador (Pamela Duncan), who likes hanging out at the beach alone. Maria drags Turner out of the surf and somehow gets him to her home, where she nurses him back to health. Predictably, Maria and Turner fall in love. Turner is mellowing but is also obsessed with tracking Reno down and returning him to Monterey, where he can be hanged for murder (i.e., murdering Turner). Maria disapproves, but Turner leaves, vowing to return.

Meanwhile, Max Reno manages to set himself up nicely, under his own name, in a town called Delrey. It wasn't clear where Delrey is, but it seems to be in or near Texas. A long way from Monterey, California, but it makes some sense, as Reno doesn't appear to be worried about being caught by the law.

We first see Reno when he is playing cards in a saloon and winning big. He's obviously cheating, and even the sheriff suggests as much, but he nevertheless wins a huge amount from the saloon's owner. (Would a real saloon owner ever play a complete stranger in a high-stakes poker game?) In a back-room scene, the saloon owner signs over half-interest in his place to Reno, who happens to have a ready-to-sign contract in his jacket pocket. Reno then shoots the man dead and gets away with claiming that the man drew on him. Playing a primitive version of DEADWOOD's Al Swearengen, Reno transforms the formerly tame Delrey saloon into a happening place with fast women, a piano player, and dishonest card dealers.

If Delrey really is in Texas, it's a mystery how Turner finds the place, but he does. He makes a dramatic entrance in Reno's saloon and confidently pretends to be "John York" from El Paso when Reno confronts him. It's been a year since Reno has seen Turner, and he never knew Turner well to begin with, so he's not completely sure that York is Turner. He tries a few lame schemes to discover York's true identity. If Reno were Swearengen, he'd simply have York killed to be on the safe side. Eventually, he tries to do just that, but his schemes backfire. Turner ends up as deputy sheriff. Then, as acting sheriff, Turner saves Reno from a lynch mob and takes him back to Monterey. After Turner and Reno leave town, there is a curious sequence in which it becomes unclear what Turner's intentions are. Is he really taking Reno back to Monterey? Does he plan to kill Reno himself? Is he reverting to crime, with Reno as his partner? The answer is (a), and Turner delivers Reno to Monterey sheriff. He then rides back to the beach where he first encountered Maria and finds her pottering around the surf. They fall into each other's arms, but Maria is upset to learn what Turner has done to Reno. Despite the fact that Reno shot Turner in the back and later made several more attempts to have him killed, Maria thinks it wrong to have Reno tried for a murder that didn't take place. Seems like nitpicking, if you ask me. Turner asks Maria if she will love him, no matter what. She says yes, and we next see Turner being put in the same jail cell with Reno.

Talk about a movie that doesn't deliver ... there is NO gun battle at Monterey! However, one of the film's few strengths is its ambiguous ending. I expected to see a scene in which Turner is let off the hook for being reformed, but that doesn't happen either. Instead, Reno welcomes Turner into his cell with open arms, forgives him "for everything that you've done to me." The film ends with Turner punching Reno out, as the credits begin to roll. Considering how heavy-handed everything in the script has subtle note. Will Is Turner be prosecuted? Will Reno be hanged? We can only guess. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if the naive Maria goes back to the beach to pick up more men.


This western begins with a robbery masterminded by Max Reno (Ted de Corsia) aided by his new partner, gun expert Jay Turner. Turner asks for his share from the voluble Max, who pays him off then shoots him in the back. He is saved by Maria Salvador. Reno plays cards in Del Rey; breaking the house, then he forces a partnership onto the saloon's owner, planning to import "soiled doves", build a stage, cheapen the place. When the other objects, Reno shoots him and Kirby (Lee Van Cleef), becomes his new aide; the sheriff, a reformed drunk, goes along with Reno for the money. Maria, (Pamela Duncan) nurses Jay, and falls in love with him;. He thinks only of revenge and rides off, searching every town. Finding Reno's new place, he sees Reno's gunhands dragging bundles of the latest issue of a newspaper; the editor objects but Van Cleef hurls him into the dust. Hayden rescues him and introduces himself as John York. Reno knew him so short a time, he cannot be sure if he is Jay Turner when he enters the saloon. Reno says he is saving half this place for his partner, but York still plays dumb and takes a room. Cleo, his smartest girl, beloved by Kirby, is sent to find out about the man; She sees the scars in his back. But he says, "Tell him I'm York". She does. Reno lets Kirby, who fancies himself a gunhand, try to kill him. York plays cards, badly, to show he is not the expert card player Turner was; then Kirby challenges him. York beats Kirby up. When he goes for a gun, he disarms him. Reno disowns him, so Kirby goes for Reno and is pistol whipped. York drags him through the town to the lockup. The crowd has the Sheriff make him deputy. Reno's men abduct York to kill him. York digs his grave under two guns, but the two men drink so he is able to clobber both. Soon he finds Kirby has killed the drunken sheriff. Kirby could go with Cleo but he heads for the saloon, to kill Reno. York enters, and by a fast draw, kills Kirby, then talks the mob out of a hanging. The Editor backs him, reminding them they want Reno gone. York promises he will take him to hang. Reno is furious when he hears the real plan later --Turner is taking him back to Monterey to die--for the murder of his partner! That night, Reno tries to kill him with a rock; Turner sends him into the desert and picks him up later. giving him just enough water to go on. "It's a long way to Monterey", Reno sneers. In Monterey, Turner turns Reno over to the law. Reno tries to say York is Jay Turner; but this is the sheriff who had found his bullet-riddled jacket. Turner goes to Maria. She tells him when he explains his action, that what he has done is wrong, that they cannot build a life together on such a lie. He finally understands, turns himself in to the sheriff and joins Reno in a cell. Reno says "I forgive you for everything." "You're a big man, Reno," Turner says. "And smart too," Reno insists. He notes he would have had the girl turn them in--for the reward! Turner laughs with him, then slugs him on the jaw and settles in, to serve his sentence and return to Maria.

Cinematography for this attractive B/W western was done by Harry Neumann; the directors were Sidney Franklin and Carl L. Hittleman. The script was by Jack Leonard and Lawrence Reisner. Robert Wiley Miller did music with "Shenandoah" as the main theme, with art direction by David Milton, sets by Joseph Kish. Sterling Hayden is strong, but Ted de Corsia, radio's most versatile actor, does award-level work as Reno. Young Lee Van Cleef is handsome as Kirby. Mary Beth Hughes makes the most of her role as Cleo; Pamela Duncan is sincere as Maria. Charles Cane as the drunken sheriff, Fred Sherman as the murdered saloon owner, I. Stanford Jolley, Mauritz Hugo, Pat Comiskey, and Byron Foulger all do fine work. Tight, memorable, a satisfying narrative by my lights, the makers can be proud of this film.


This movie came on the Western Channel last night after two very good, if not great westerns. The contrast was huge. I couldn't make it half way this one it was so bad. Don't watch this movie unless you have a weird sense of humor.

This is one of the worst western movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave it a 2/10 because I save a one for bad and evil. This didn't qualify in the evil category, just bad, bad, bad. Cheap and bad is probably more accurate

Sterling Hayden is much better than this. I can't believe his poor performance. I expected much more from this actor. Lee Van Clief was no better.

This movie must have been made over a long weekend. The beach scenes didn't work, but they were probably cheap. A surf western?

Bad directing.

Bad camera.

Bad music.

Bad bad, bad and cheap surf western movie.


You know that a westernor any movie for that matteris in trouble when its title has nothing whatsoever to do with its storyline. "Gun Battle at Monterey" qualifies as an uneven, below-average oater about revenge that never delivers its titular fireworks. Ostensibly, this low-budget, black & white, Allied Artists' western turns out to be a lesson in good citizenship. You see, the hero changes his mind in the end about the fate of a two-timing outlaw because his pretty girlfriend persuades him not to sink to the outlaw's level. Not only is "Gun Battle at Monterey" unconvincing in its reversal ending, but also co-directors Sidney Franklin, Jr., and Carl K. Hittleman of the abysmal "Kentucky Rifle" leave out important scenes that would have bolstered the quality of their western. Sterling Hayden, Ted de Corsia, and Lee Van Cleef deserved a better script than the one that Jack ("The Narrow Margin") Leonard and TV western scribe Lawrence Resner contrived.

This lackluster western opens with bearded Max Reno (Ted de Corsia of "Captain Pirate") and Jay Turner (Sterling Hayden of "Top Gun") riding off the beaten trail down onto the beach at Monterey to hide out in a cave with the loot that they have stolen from the Monterey Express Company. Incredibly, we never learn how much they hauled off from the hold-up. Reno boasts about his foresight in having found the cave a month before the robbery. Nevertheless, Jay isn't impressed by Reno. According to the Leonard & Resner screenplay, Max met a penniless Turner in Monterey and offered him $5-thousand dollars to help him rob the express company. Early on directors Franklin and Hittleman establish Jay as a decent sort of fellow who strayed onto the wrong side of the law through circumstances not entirely of his own making. When Jay demands his money and refuses later to stick on as Max's partner, Max puts three bullets in his back. Jay plunges into the ocean and washes up on the beach long after Max has hightailed it with the loot to greater pastures. A Mexican girl, Maria Salvador (seasoned television actress Pamela Duncan), takes pity on poor bullet-riddled Jay and nurses him back to health despite her father's fears about Jay. Meanwhile, Monterey authorities find Jay's vest with two bullet holes in it on the beach (yes, the two bullet holes don't match the three shots fired) and they add murder to Max's robbery charge.

Four weeks or thereabouts elapse before Jay recuperates sufficiently to hit the trail after Max, and it takes our determined protagonist around a year to locate the double-crossing dastard. During that time, Max has done well for himself. He rides into Del Ray and wins ownership of a saloon when its proprietor, Abbot (Fred Sherman of "The Left-Handed Gun"),cannot pay off his gambling losses. Reluctantly, Abbot agrees to take Max on as a partner, but they quarrel over importing dancehall girls. Abbot complains that he won't lower his standards. Abbot's right-hand gunman, Kirby (Lee Van Cleef of "Barquero"), stands by and watches Max badger Abbot into a gunfight. The town sheriff Claude Mundy (Charles Cane of "No Name on a Bullet") accepts Max's plea that he shot Abbot down in self-defense. By the time that Jay rides into Del Ray masquerading as somebody else entirely, Max has the town in his hip pocket. Max is initially suspicious when Jay appears and takes sides with the downtrodden citizens, especially a crusading journalist that Kirby had earlier beaten up. Max sends one of his girls, Cleo (Mary Beth Hughes of "Design for Scandal"), to see if she can root the truth out about Jay. Eventually, Jay beats up Kirby and throws him in the hoosegow. The honest citizens of Del Ray hire him as their deputy sheriff but are shocked when he refuses to let them lynch Max. Instead, Jay takes Max back to Monterey to pick up the reward on him, and watch him hang for his murder. Nobody ever got a solid description of Jay during the robbery so he can ride confidently into town and turn Max over to law without any worry. The interval between the time that they leave Del Ray and reach Monterey is a pre-journey of hardship in the tradition of Sergio Leone's later "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Finally, once Jay has turned in Max, he rides back to Maria. She convinces him that he is doing the wrong thing, so he goes back to town and gives himself up. Maria assured him that she would wait for him. Max roars with laughter at Jay's decision to turn himself in and forgives him for his deception. Angrily, Jay punches out Max and the movie ends.

"Gun Battle at Monterey" suffers from the use of obvious back projection that undercuts a romantic scene on the beach between Jay and Maria. Presumably, the thunderous sounds of the tide crashing on the shore must have drowned out every attempt to record the dialogue on the location, so the filmmakers repaired to the quiet confines of the studio. When Franklin and Hittleman venture out onto the actual desert or beach locations, this oater looks both scenic and rugged. Unfortunately, the villains aren't much of a challenge as Jay gets all too easily out of a scrape with two gunman who have him digging his own grave. This otherwise disposable 69-minute western earns some points for its scenes along the Monterey beach that anticipated similar scenes in Marlon Brando's later revenge western "One-Eyed Jacks." Lee Van Cleef gives a persuasively pugnacious performance as Max's right-hand gunman, while Ted de Corsia is given enough evil things to do to qualify as a thorough-going villain.


Hayden made a number of cheap Westerns at a time (late '50's) when Drive-in's were a booming business and in need of fare. Unfortunately, none are very good, including this one, though a number of talented people were involved in each. As could be expected, most suffered from poor production values and sub-standard scripts, leaving the talent little to work with. That's very much the case here. As others point out, only Van Cleef looks motivated. And too bad that great bad girl Mary Beth Hughes (Cleo) is not given more to work with.

No need to repeat negative points made by others, except for two observations. Note that the film has two directors listed. According to IMDb, this was Franklin's only directorial effort, which suggests producer Hittleman didn't like what he saw and so took over the directing himself. Thus the film lacks an experienced director's hand. Also, the ending is indeed startling for a picture of this type. It's so abrupt and unexpected, it's almost like the company suddenly ran out of film and had to wrap up immediately. Certainly, nothing else in the production shows the kind of imagination or nerve that would produce such a startling break with convention. Too bad this remains the only good reason to stick around for this surf-to-turf oater.


Don't watch this. Honest, you'll be bored.

I saw it because the description of the plot on my guide grabbed me by the lapels and shook me awake. Something like, "A thief is shot by his partner who runs off with the loot. Saved by a Mexican girl, he sets out for revenge." "Gun Battle in Monterey"? It sounded like "One-Eyed Jacks." But it's not. "One-Eyed Jacks" may have had its longeurs but they were nothing compared to this one, a standard-typical Western into which no one involved seems to have put the least effort.

Yes, Sterling Hayden is betrayed and left for dead by his cowardly partner, Ted DeCorsia, and plots revenge but is saved by the moralistic preaching of his Mexican girlfriend. That's about where the similarity ends.

Hayden must have done this for the money. He was an actor of limited range but no one ever asked him to deliver very much except Stanley Kubrick. Hayden brought a touch of real pathos to the role of the delusional General Jack D. Ripper in "Doctor Strangelove." Here he doesn't give an inch. He was a much better writer and sailor than a Western hero. Ted DeCorsia is simply Ted DeCorsia, more of a coward than a sadist. The women are perfunctory. Possibly the best performance is given by Lee Van Cleef, a really shifty looking heavy with a strong baritone. The script also gives him one or two lines suggesting he's human a little as well as feral a lot.

The supporting players, aside from Byron Fulger who should know better, are sadly unendowed with talent. Not a believable line from any of them. And the director adds absolutely nothing to the Grade-B shenanigans we see on the screen.

This could have been a John Wayne western from Poverty Row in 1935. One of those masterpieces where Wayne rides full tilt after the stagecoach along a dusty road lined with telephone poles, past parked trucks. The budget for this movie must have been nearly non-existent and the shooting schedule, I would guess, ran somewhere around 2 hours and 13 minutes.

Pathetic.


This movie wastes the talents of Sterling Hayden (who obviously made this movie to fund his famous off-screen pursuits) and Ted de Corsia, who was a great Western villain. A movie about two bank robbers who escape, but one Reno, played by de Corsia, betrays and shoots Hayden's character. Hayden's character is rescued, recovers, and seeks vengeance. It was cheaply made in the coastal California area, and has beautiful scenery, but the script is horrible, and wastes the talents of everyone involved, including Lee Van Cleef, who is an additionally villain. This is a grade-Z Western. Don't watch unless you want a laugh.


In the age of Matrix, I Robot, A.I., Minority Report, etcetera. ain't easy to find adventure-movies made in the old style: the good guy, the very bad guy, the girl, and a happy ending ... Well, this is what Hidalgo offers us.

Viggo Mortensen's character is a cowboy specializing in long distance horse races, he and his horse (Hidalgo, a Mustang) are just unbeatable. So some arabian skeikh (Omar Sharif) sends for him to take part in the biggest horse race in the world (4.800km long, through the Arabian desert) to prove that Mortensen's non-thoroughbred horse is not as good and resistant as arabian horses. That's the starting point. And from that moment on we will witness a marvelous adventure through the desert in which the starring will have to face all kind of difficulties and traps. As I've said: and old style adventure movie. No absurd and meaningless special effects, no absurd and unbelievable plots, and no pretensions but to make the audience have a good time. And no doubt Joe Johnston achieves that: the movie is 136 minutes long but you don't feel tired nor boring in any moment. The rhythm is just great and well measured. The photography and the landscapes are just astonishing; and the work of Mortensen is so remarkable. He seems to be the perfect heir to those actors specializing in adventure movies just like Harrison Ford, though Mortensen's characters (Hidalgo, LOTR) usually are a little more darker than Ford's.

My rate: 8/10


An excellent, epic tale. This is not a fast-paced film; rather, think of it as story unfolding before your eyes, so sit back and enjoy the ride. There's plenty of adventure along the way, and I shed a few tears as well. It is a moving narrative.

Viggo Mortensen plays the lead character, Frank T. Hopkins, with aplomb, humor, humility, and spunk. Hidalgo, his painted mustang, plays his part well, also! Hopkins is a cowboy/Pony Express rider with a heritage that he holds to himself and is revealed in time. Especially heart-wrenching is the Battle of Wounded Knee. More massacre than battle, it had a profound and personal impact on Hopkins' life.

In the legendary 3,000-mile Ocean of Fire race across the sands of the Arabian desert, Hopkins and his horse must face treachery and the cruel desert elements in an endurance race that pushes man and beast to their limits. If you like horses, adventure, and epic films, this is a movie for you.

Expect moments of triumph and humor that make you laugh and cheer, as well as moments of tragedy. It is a story beautifully told and carefully crafted, though not without mistakes.

A few scenes could have been edited to preserve the epic feel while maintaining the film's pace. At certain points it was natural for the film to slow down, but it should not have been allowed to slow down to the point of stalling. However, in defense of the filmmakers, they were successful in capturing the tedium, beauty and peril of crossing a desert in a 3,000-mile race, and it gave viewers a real feeling for what it might be like to make such a journey.

The relationship Frank T. Hopkins has with his horse in this movie is especially touching, and is perhaps the highlight of the film.

Supporting roles by the rest of the cast were outstanding. Omar Sharif was amazing as always. Even the smallest actors shone in their parts.

Mr. Mortensen's diverse talents, including his aptitude for learning languages (Lakota/Sioux in this case), his own horseback riding skills, and his versatility as an actor made him a perfect fit for this part. Mr. Mortensen's book, Miyelo, which sprang from this movie, is a fine choice for anyone who wants to see a sampling of Mr. Mortensen's outstanding photography.

Frank T. Hopkins remained a staunch advocate of the wild Mustang horse until his death. Keep in mind that the real Frank T. Hopkins was known for his weaving of tall tales; thus, the "legendary" Ocean of Fire race.

A highly recommended movie.


OK: so what makes a film a "10"? For me, every scene has to work. Would I take out any scenes? If so, then the flick isn't a 10. Also, does each scene move the story forward? If this is seamlessly done, then all the better. "Hidalgo" not only does this; but it does so easily, and unobtrusivesly, with the sense that the lead actor (Vigo Mortensen) is the vehicle for an ongoing, and interesting, story ... and what a story it is! Just as with the film Apollo 13, the fact that the story is based on real history and fact makes the story-telling more than a good tale. It tells us something worth remembering.

Did I mention that this is a rippingly good story? Did I mention that all of the actors are compellingly good ... including the horse (Hidalgo)? Did I mention that this movie transcends facile categorization (Western, Adventure, Drama, etc.?) This is just a damned good, under-appreciated movie.

The bonus material on the DVD is worthy of inclusion in a course on Western Civilization (a course that I've taught several times)? See this for yourself. I doubt that you'll be disappointed. In fact, I think that you'll recognize this as equal to such under-appreciated films such as "King of Hearts" and "Kasper Hauser" ... films that you'll be proud to own and to show to your friends.


Here's an "epic" movie that reminded me of those that were made in the mid 1960s such as Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence Of Arabia. Interesting to note that Omar Sharif was in this modern-day movie and Dr. Zhivago. The only problem is the Liberal bias in here, which is brutal.

Several younger friends that saw this film told me they were very disappointed because, thanks to the previews, they thought it would be an action-packed adventure story such as "The Mummy." Well, it wasn't and it was way too slow for them.

Frankly, I thought the "slow" parts were the best and overall, thought the film had just the right amount of action, instead of overdoing it as the recent Mummy pictures did. Another big plus was the cinematography. This is a beautifully filmed movie, stunning in some parts. Another good point is the language: hardly a swear word.

On the negative side, there was the usual political correctness, a la Dances With Wolves in which viewers are reminded several times of the massacre at Wounded Knee and soldiers are portrayed as the bad guys. The horse race had some credibility problems, too, as "Hidalgo" came back from the dead not once but twice to race like Secretariat!

Anyway, if you are looking for a modern-day adventure story with old-fashioned storytelling and no language problems, this film is for you and the rest of the family.


I just wanted to state that this movie is very enjoyable, no matter how many times I watch it. I am impressed in how the filmmaker portrayed the very sensitive topic of the Wounded Knee Massacre! It was handled tactfully and with sincere empathy! Additionally this film shows an American traveling overseas! He learns of new customs and great differences in cultures. No matter what situation he finds himself in, he is courteous, polite and he accepts that these are the customs of these people! He doesn't try to change the people or push his ways on them, he knows he is a guest in this country and as that, he is downright charming! It is refreshing to see people carry themselves well and with honor, rather than being the "wild Americans" foreign countries have come to expect us to be! Well done Viggo, Joe Johnston and John Fusco!


A great action/adventure movie! I was surprised at just how good it was, as it has received so little attention. Viggo Mortensen of Lord of the Rings plays Frank Hopkins, a real-life cowboy, although probably much fictionalized in this movie. He is a half-breed, part Native American and part white. In the film's prologue, he works for the cavalry and witnesses the massacre of his people at Wounded Knee. The event scars him and he becomes a lush. For some easy money, he and his horse, Hidalgo, enter Buffalo Bill's roadshow. Hidalgo is so famous that a sheik has sent a servant to invite him to participate in a race across the Arabian desert, which he accepts, it being a better alternative to the humiliating performances. It's really a classical adventure movie, with princesses and scimitars and sandstorms and swarms of locusts. Omar Sharif co-stars as the sheik. Its nice to see a movie like this made with care. It never gets stupid, and, while it moves quickly, it isn't too fast, either. The director is Joe Johnston, whom I think is an undervalued filmmaker who specializes in these kinds of enjoyable yarns. His previous films include Jurassic Park 3, which is my favorite of that series, Jumanji, The Rocketeer, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, as well as episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I loved in my tween years. He also made October Sky, which I haven't seen, but has been recommended. The film also features good performances from Zuleikha Robinson, soon to be a star, I'm sure, Louise Lombard, and Adam Alexi-Malle, one of my favorite character actors (he was the guy who wrote Chubby Rain in the movie Bowfinger). 8/10.


Hidalgo is one of those movies that comes along once in a blue moon. This is a movie NOT to be missed.

Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of a gentle, laid-back cowboy hearkens back to the golden age of cinema and would make the likes of Gary Cooper proud! His subtle blend of virtue such as honor, honest and pride - without being the least bit preachy, make watching his performance an utter joy.

All of the actors are brilliant in their roles, especially the one in the title role! Hidalgo is clever and entertaining without being unbelievable as many animal movies are these days. You won't find him standing on his hind legs and doing the hokey-pokey, but his talents are very evident and he becomes a hero that we all love before the end of the movie.

One of the best parts of this movie is the fact that it is a movie by grownups for grownups, although it carries enough action and suspense that kids will probably like it to. Absent, however is the sickeningly sweet "kids scenes" that we simply cannot get away from in movies today. No charming close ups of dimple-faced waifs. No little wise-mouthed child prodigies - nothing but good old fashioned grown-up fun! How refreshing.

You will be happy to know that the ending isn't as predictable as it could have been. Although falling into the "happy" category (of course), there are poignant moments and you might shed a tear.

One other aspect of this film which I found intriguing is the issue of examining and accepting who we are. It was very well done and meaningful.

Overall this film is easily a 10+. Please see it


The picture talks upon Frank Hopkins(Viggo Mortensen)a real cowboy who participated with a horse called ¨Hidalgo¨ in an extraordinary racehorses : ¨ Oceans of fire¨, a 3.000 mile survival race across the risky Arabian desert. He'll take on ominous Arab riders and many dangers. The confrontation will be terrible and he'll face off imposing winds,locust plague, quicksands... though he'll love to Arab princess(Zuleikha Robinson),a Sheik's daughter(Omar Shariff)too. The film is based on historic deeds and famous people, thus : the ¨Wounded Knee slaughter¨(1890), besides appear: Buffalo Bill Cody (J.K.Simmons),Annie Oakley(Elizabeth Berridge) and Indian chiefs: Eagle Horn(Floyd Red Crow Westerman),Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Big Foot. The final duel amongst the horsemen is breathtaking and overwhelming.

The motion picture blends adventures,action, a love story, emotions and is pretty amusing. From the beginning to the end the adventure-action is unstoppable , it's fast moving and for that reason packs a lot of entertainment . Sets and production design are spellbound and the Oriental landscapes are mesmerizing. Special effects(FX) by Industrial Light Magic (property of George Lucas) are top notch , as especially the impressible digital storm . The movie is correctly directed by Joe Johnston , including a riveting Shelly Johnson cinematography and fascinating James Newton Howard musical score. The film obtained success at the box office of all the world and in United States was number one . The flick will appeal to Oriental adventure enthusiasts and Viggo Mortensen fans. Rating: Very good, well worth watching .


I usually do not go for westerns, but this one looked rather good on the trailers so I gave it a try. It exceeded expectations and was a good movie to me. I thought it could have cut a few scenes here and there, but all in all it was very entertaining. Though I highly doubt all the things that happened in the movie happened in real life as claimed by the makers of the film, I think the guy this movie is based on was probably a good story teller. This one has a cowboy whose specialty is long distance races going to the Middle East to race there because they do not like the claim that he is the best long distance racer there is. Which is fair enough considering it does not look like there is all that much desert terrain in the United States. This race is very dangerous and it makes you thirsty just to watch it. Of course there are many trials and obstacles along the way including his fellow racers who hate the idea of a Mustang horse competing in the race. Though you know a Mustang has to be a rather fast and strong horse because they named a rather good car after it. All in all a very good action movie that the entire family can enjoy.


I agree with the last comment posted: this movie is far more than what Touchstone promoted it as and more layered than what even the good reviews give it credit for. Themes of prejudice, equality, sexism, and human perseverance quietly lay a foundation for the rousing action and adventure that is being advertised.

Man and horse in a survival conflict with nature is what hits one on a visceral level, and Viggo Mortensen and his remarkable mount draw you in. King Aragorn is now the Lord of the Reins.

Looking forward to the DVD and hoping for good extra features, but this one has to be seen on the big screen to experience.


I finally got to see this film last night - the previews looked great and overall I wasn't disappointed. The film - though a bit slow at times - was a unique blend of a Western and a 1001 Arabian Nights.

(possible spoilers) This was the first time that the events at Wounded Knee were depicted on film (at least, as far as I know). Other films have mentioned the events, but nothing more. Custer made his last stand at Little Bighorn in 1876 ... the Indians made their last stand at Wounded Knee in 1890. If DANCES WITH WOLVES would ever have a sequel, I would imagine it would pick up where the first film left off and end at Wounded Knee.

For the film HIDALGO, the old West was only looked upon briefly. Most of the film was spent in Arabia. It is very interesting how the film's release is timed - while the US is still in Iraq. The film shows that the Middle East had feelings of ill-will toward America in the 1890's as much as they did in the 1990's.

Viggo Mortensen made for a very convincing cowboy. It is good to see that he is finally receiving top billings in movies, something that is perhaps overdue. We saw him briefly in WITNESS, but I do not remember seeing him again until CRIMSON TIDE which was 10 years later. His performance in that film made me believe he was finally receiving recognition.

The film has powerful overtones along with a basic plot. Overall, it made for a great adventure film that I plan to watch again. Its ending was certainly bittersweet - if you love something, set it free...


As an admirer of wild horses and a female who happens to love westerns it was great to have a movie with those qualities.

Not having to worry about the language or subject matter was awesome just hearing some of the children in the theater comment on things happening on the screen was incredible they were actually watching the movie not up running around. They made a joyous noise. A real family movie so make it a family date, don't forget the popcorn.

This movie prompted me to learn more about history not just of the west but of the wild horses especially HIDALGO and the meaning behind it. It is a great search but I'll leave that up to you.


I found this movie to be one of the most inspirational that I have seen in a long time. The filming was exceptional. The riding that Viggo Mortensen did was awesome and the horse that was Hidalgo was quite an actor. I was riveted throughout and it should be considered an epic. This movie shows so much about this particular piece of our past and how we started and what happened to the Native American Indians and to the Mustangs. We don't have enough of this kind of movie now. There are children that don't know about these things. There were many messages in this movie that were courageously and sensitively put forth. Viggo Mortensen was perfect in every way as was the horse. I found all of the actors wonderful, the scenery so different from just a western and the horsemanship outstanding. What a movie. I loved it. I will see it again, in the movie theater, and I will buy it when available.


I've seen Hidalgo twice and will go again (and again) and I will buy the DVD. I hope that people will not listen to the critics and will give this movie a chance for success. It doesn't matter if Frank Hopkins did these things or not. If he didn't, he gave us a rousing story. Viggo is perfect in this role as the "cowboy" and rides Hidalgo like the wind. The Arabian desert is frightening and beautiful. The horses are beautiful. Some don't like what seems like stereotypes, however, it takes place in 1890 and Native Americans were killed, then played for sport in "shows". Africans were enslaved and women wore (wear) veils. The movie is right with the times. The music is enjoyable. I'll look for the soundtrack on CD. See it and decide for yourself.


One of the best movies so far of 2004 and that I have ever seen is Hidalgo. I loved it so much. The story was great and the acting and everything. Ever since I was 6 years old (now i'm 15) I loved Viggo Mortensen as an actor, poetry writer, etc..... and i still do love him. I think he is incredible at everything he does or at least tries. What I liked about Hidalgo was the bond Frank T. Hopkins had with his horse Hidalgo. I also liked the humor here and there. I think no one else could of played Frank T. Hopkins like Viggo can. This movie is one I will recommend for everyone to see. It is just great. Hidalgo has also given me a love for horses more than I had before. For any one who loves racing or horses this is the movie for you to see.


A wonderful movie of the horse and it special relationship with the human being. A complex plot interwoven, beautifully, with the simple story of winning a horse race. We shoud all learn from such a movie that to preserve and protect the wild horse, and all wild animals returns such rewards and meaning to us human beings. The movie is beautifully acted and a wonderful treat is to see Omar Sharif in a supporting role. It is, also, a wholesome story of honest and self-less love and concern for each other. This is a great movie for all ages. It is a must movie for lovers of horses. Viggo Mortensen must be one of the more interesting and least known great actor.


I enjoyed the movie.A few years ago I saw a documentary on F.T.Hopkins. Viggo is a favorite.It was good to see Omar Shariff.My sister's three kids are going to love the story of this.I do recommend it to any-one who likes westerns,horse riding and just general good fun.I liked the sand dunes.The different horses,land scape veiws.It shows what I thought to be more side of the Native American Indian.Beautiful colours in the horses.I think Viggos love and admiration for the horse shows in this film.It also shows an older part of amercia. I felt you can learn something from the film.There is a very good shot of the statue of liberty when he leaves his country for the race.Laurel


Picked up this movie because the trailer's looked good and was not disappointed. Maybe just a little long, but the movie flows well - the lead character is likable and you care what happens to him and Hidalgo. Strange that they don't flesh out the other racers before the start though. We were interested in the story and did a little research - the basic facts appear true (he did indeed take part in this race) although there is a liberal amount of poetic license, of course.

Thought Omar Shariff played a very good part and the rest of the cast gave good support.

All in all, a good movie to curl up and enjoy with your chosen loved one !


Don't wait for this film to come out on DVD. It needs a really big screen and a full 2.35 aspect ratio. Viggo Mortenson gives a strong if albeit muted performance, Omar Shariff has more charisma than any man deserves, a beautiful score by James Newton Howard, and a magical movie moment in the last few minutes of the picture made this a must see flick. Too bad it was overshadowed by the Gibson picture, hopefully it will make it back in home video. If you ever craved adventure without it resorting to comic book formula, this is your picture - at least for now. 8/10 downgraded for some pasteboard bad guys. Kudos to Joe Johnston for his best directorial effort.


There were some aspects of this movie I really enjoyed. The cinematography was excellent, ranging from the clanking steam train couplngs to shimmering desert panoramas, to the moving and simple effects at Wounded Knee. Viggo Mortensen did a good job as the lead Frank Hopkins, bringing his characteristic sincerity to his role. It was nice to see Omar Sharif and his front teeth again. The horse, Hidalgo, almost outdid Viggo. And here we find one of the great catches of the movie. The man-and-animal-sidekick relationship which works really well here.

Sadly, I found the script quite wanting. The lines attributed to the Arabs and Bedouins were banal and one-dimensional. Their characters (and the Brits) were stereotyped. I felt that the scriptwriters did well in the US, but foundered in some of their own quicksand in the Middle East. I also found myself scratching my head at historical timings. Was Iraq called Iraq back then? When _was_ then?

If you are prepared to ignore the "based on a real..." horse dung, you will enjoy this rollicking adventure, cast much in the same genre as the ripsnorting and politically incorrect cowboy and indian movies of the 50's . To modernise, we move it to 1900's middle east and turn the Indians into Arabs. But what more to expect from Hollywood?

Viggo and his horse make a great pair and between them and the cameras, make this film worth seeing.


When a movie proclaims it is "based on a true story", this sets a Pavlovian response in many people to get them to believe that what they are about to see is what really happened. I see it as the marketing ploy it is. Sure I believe there was a Frank Hopkins and that he was renowned for long-distance horse racing. But that doesn't mean he ran in a 1000-mile race over in Arabia for lucre.

Oh, I liked this movie. It got me to thinking about how my tolerance level for accuracy varies from movie to movie. For "Hidalgo", what annoyed me was Viggo Mortensen's blue eyes in the head of Frank Hopkins, supposedly the son of an Indian chief's daughter. Whenever I was taught about dominant/recessive genes, the example always used was that brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes. Frank Hopkins couldn't have had blue eyes.

On the other hand, I didn't care if the scenes in Arabia were mainly figment's of the writer's imagination. For all I know, Arabia may have been much more brutish in the 1890's than was depicted in the film as it was still under the thumb of a decaying Ottoman Empire. The film depicts a race in Arabia so we have to see many Arab characters. One scene showed Omar Sharif as Sheik Riyadh reading a dime novel about the Wild West. That's what the moviemakers have made here as well.

The once scene this American would demand complete accuracy for is the massacre at Wounded Knee. What they showed there better have actually happened.

Despite Mr. Mortensen's blue eyes, he is believable as a laconic cowboy. Zuleikha Robinson as the sheik's daughter is beautiful and Omar is fun. And let's not forget the horse. It gets plenty of screen time and close ups to earn its title billing.

Good adventure.


and a throwback to the time of John Wayne Westerns, where people did what they did for the right reasons and not for power and glory.

This movie has just a hint of darkness, as in the conversation between Bill Cody and the Chief who asked Cody to rescue the mustangs. But for the most part, it was full of light. A story of personal redemption for a man who felt more than guilty for seeing the wrongs that were happening yet chose to say and do nothing.

Only one thing bothered me about the film -- I think at times Hildalgo looks at Hopkins with eyes that were perhaps computer-effected.

I know that the story was an exaggeration, but it did not matter. It reminded me of the Tall Tales of Paul Bunyan, or Davy Crockett, or Daniel Boone. Did we ever question their "truthfulness."

I am tired of the cynical sophisticates who takes all joy out of life in the name of art and reallity. Is reallity television more real than Hidalgo. The reallity is that we need stories and myths to give power and meaning to our lives. When Hopkins accepted that truth, he was empowered and strengthened enough to finish the race.

In choosing to accept the reallity of Hidalgo, I am accepting although temporarily that myth has power and meaning.


Although I wanted to see something else, my niece wanted to see

"Hidalgo," and I'm glad we did. It's a good three-star film. We all enjoyed ourselves, Viggo is a down-to-earth hero, and the horse himself is adorable.

I really expected to see Rachel Weisz or Brendan Fraser to pop out at some point. (Brendan would have been great as the lead.) After watching "The Mummy" twenty times, Arabia now seems both exotic and happily familiar. The photography is well seen and often flat-out beautiful. As with the LOTR, the "modified to fit your screen" video wont't do it justice. Yet my favorite shot was the one of the locust staring into Viggo's eyeballs. Funny!

I wish "Hidalgo" had swept me away like "The Mummy" did. Somehow, despite the great sets and action sequences, the characters remained a bit wooden (except for the Sheik's daughter) and didn't grab my heart.

That said, this movie is about personal character, finding depth to overcome obstacles, and the value of keeping promises. And those are still important lessons to learn; they're as ageless as the sands.


I've watched this movie I found it was excellent. First of all, I love animals! I hate it when I saw the guy who lost the race killed his horse just because his horse couldn't take it anymore! I even get more sad when I thought Viggo is about to kill Hidalgo.

I think personally Hidalgo is a very good and loyal horse and shouldn't be killed by his owner. However luckily Hidalgo stood up soon after that. :) About Viggo always trying to pretend to be tired, I think it's due to the hot and dry weather during the journey. I do pity the horse who actually do all the walking. I think on the overall, this movie is worth watching!


Much has been written about whether the events in the movie Hidalgo are true or even feasible. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant as this is a movie made for entertainment. The cast and crew of Hidalgo have done a tremendous job of creating an entertaining and enjoyable film that is respectful of western, Sioux and Arabic cultures. The characterization of Frank Hopkins in this film is one of the best depictions of cowboy behavior in recent history. Cowboys are respectful, courteous, loyal, hard-working and yet, they do play hard. Inclusion of Lakota Sioux and Arabic dialects with large and easy-to-read English subtitles did not detract from the flow of the film. Some reviewers have commented that Mortensen mumbles too many of his lines. One that is accustomed to listening to Native American dialects might find that the softness, quietness and blending of the sounds is characteristic of this native language. The director did an excellent job in casting this diverse group of actors and each brings distinctive touches to their performance. The cinematographer should be commended for capturing the beauty of each locale, and the scenery is gorgeous. Hidalgo delivers the story of a valiant horse who happened to be owned by a man that stumbled, fell and yet through arduous effort regained his sense of self and place in the world.


I do not know much about the real Hidalgo but this movie would make me want to find out more. Because it is hollywood, I was not surprised as were so many of the reviewers to see a good deal of artistic license taken with this movie. Usually the facts are greater than the fiction or more boring. In this case I would not be to surprised to find the former rather than the latter. In any event, this movie was a great break from reality and reminded me of Raiders or some of the cliff hanger adventures of old. I do not think that Muslims were treated badly in this movie, in fact just the opposite; I think Omar Sherif's character has a regalness and a curiosity reminiscent of Sean Connery's character in The Wind and The Lion; by the way these are both great classically trained actors in roles as strong Muslim leaders. The bad guys are bad of course, and the good guys are good! This is not reality, it's a movie!


Having read a few tepid reviews of this film I hoped seeing it wouldn't be a disappointment. Instead, I found it quietly enthralling, leaving me wondering just who writes reviews and whether they can appreciate or understand anything but boobs, bombs, and special effects.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the plot is factually based, which is irrelevant to the quality of the film, it is a terrific portrait of the encounter between a quiet, self-reliant American and Arab culture. Self-taught rather than "book-learned," Frank Hopkins is free of cultural prejudices and willing to meet the Arabs on their own terms. He reminds me of rural great-uncles and aunts long dead now, products of the 19th century, whose unpretentious outlook, practical energy, and egalitarian respect for the perspective and dignity of others (including animals) made them universally liked and respected. I've never seen another film character that so fully embodies this 19th century American mentality. Read Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance and you'll get the general idea.

It's also a horse-lovers' film in a big way, from the mutually supportive working relationship between Frank and his paint horse, Hidalgo, to his use of the prize money from the race to save the Dakota mustangs from U.S. government extermination. As a mixed breed himself, Frank has a personal perspective on the issue of "breeding," whether in horses or humans, and the film demonstrates in many ways, without ever making an issue of it, how irrelevant race, parentage or culture are to the value of an individual. There are "goodies" and "baddies" on every side. Frank and Hidalgo overcome the initial hostility of Arabs to his cultural "strangeness" with integrity, fortitude, and a love of horses that transcends cultural barriers and touches their human commonality.

Take the kids to see this one, a thought provoking story with minimal violence and an excellent, overall non-sentimental respect for the natural world as well as the humans and animals that inhabit it. They'll be thinking about it and asking you tough questions long after the popcorn is gone.


My family loved this film. Not only was it breathtakingly beautiful but the dominant message - that the underdog can triumph against all odds and in the process of trying, learn more about him/herself than in all the preceeding years of his/her life makes this an outstanding film. The Maroc scenery was a visual treat. My father lived there in the early 60's and still waxes poetic about the landscape and wonderful people he met there.

The negativity that a few have expressed about Hidalgo puzzles me and smacks of ulterior motives. I went to the theater expecting to see a "movie" with a positive message. I came out of the "movie" with so much more. But then, anyone who gives it an ounce of thought, can understand that the phrase "based on a true story" is not the same as "non-fiction". I would have stayed home and watched PBS for a documentary if that's what I expected.

We are going to revisit Hidalgo and look forward to Mr. Fusco's next project.


Today I watched "Hidalgo"... that's how I needed to start because for me it was a real event. I haven't seen such "touching" movie for a long time. I said "touching" in the meaning that something in it - humour, breathtaking adventures, worth of respect friendship of man and horse, magic of arabian desert and idea of will, both human and animal, that is the reason for success - all these are mixed in unique brew, called "Hidalgo". I would recommend this movie to all people of all ages, whose hearts are still alive and able to sympathize. Take your kids or go alone - anyway manage somehow to watch this movie. It is so pure and mood lifting,so I can compare it in its influence on viewer only with "Big Fish". I'm not a critic and I won't talk about "actors' play, plot", etc etc etc. I'm just telling about my own experience and feelings that this movie put in me. Wish you the same good movie-evening :)))


This movie was good, but wasn't that exciting. It was a little to long and the acting in the beginning wasn't that great but it picked up towards the end. Very predictable of how the ending was going to be. The two tigers that attacked the horses in the movie could not have been any more fake. The coolest character was the slave to the Muslim princess who was beatin' the crap out of maybe ten guys with swords. The sand storm was really sick and believable and a close call for Viggo when he was running from it. There were a few people who p****d me off throughout the movie, like the guy who kept trying to sabotage Viggo's character. Overall, the movie was good, but I wouldn't want to watch it again.


This interesting documentary of Warhol superstar Berlin (aka Brigid Polk) traces her life from the beginnings as the wealthy daughter of a Hearst employer and his socialite wife Honey. Berlin's life-long struggles with dieting and with her parents and siblings are detailed here. Clips from 'Bike Boy', 'The Chelsea Girls', and 'Imitation of Christ' are shown. Berlin's daily telephone conversations with Andy Warhol were taped by her and we're treated to several bits of these here. It is also interesting that she claims to have been filmed for three hours talking about vacuuming her George Washington apartment. We see her walk into the Chelsea Hotel's lobby. The weight issue with Berlin is monumental. Her cravings of key lime pie is sated only after two whole pies are consumed. She also has a 'c**k book' that is composed of her famous friends' renderings of the male organ. She talks about the impact of the Manson murders, Warhol's death, Max's Kansas City, and her annual chest x-rays. She is also renown for her 'tit paintings', which are created by smearing paint on her chest and pressing down on paper. Now 60 years of age, Berlin is in many ways the same rebellious person she was in her teens.