It is almost pity that Alan Ladd made such a lasting impact in "Shane." So closely is he identified with the role that many of his other worthy efforts have been undeservedly pushed into the background.

"Branded' is a case in point. As a western it may not pique everyone's interest, but as a morality play (as most good westerns are), it is an interesting study in personal identity, lost and found.

Ladd plays one of his icy gunmen, this time a small-time bandit named "Choya" who "lives by his wits" but is reaching the age where he "figures his luck's running out." He becomes involved in a scheme to bilk a wealthy cattle rancher by posing as the long lost son who was kidnapped by bandits some 25 years earlier. All goes well until he arrives at the Lavery ranch only to meet a loving, trusting family which welcomes him with open arms. It is the kind of love and warmth he has never known and, for the first time in his life, begins to question his motives. Resolving that he cannot go through with the sham, he sets out to find the real son and return him to the family.

The film is a good showcase for Ladd whose talents are generally overlooked (unfairly) by today's audiences. He appears in almost every scene and dominates it without deliberately bringing attention to himself. But equal credit must go to the supporting players who attack their roles with vigor and enthusiasm. Charles Bickford (who never, it seems, gave a bad performance) dignifies the proceedings with his presence as Lavery, the firm but fair cattle baron. Robert Keith is scornful as Leffingwell, a weasel of a man who knows his limitations but who also knows how to survive through cunning and maleficence. Joseph Calleia excels as Rubriz, the notorious Mexican bandit and the true son's adoptive father, whose character is not entirely reprehensible and whose plight is worthy of our sympathy. And Mona Freeman is fine as the rancher's naïve but pretty daughter. She looks just angelic enough to lend credibility to Choya's reformation.

"Branded" is a beautiful film to watch. Shot in Arizona, it's colorful, sweeping landscapes and wide open spaces are a real treat for the eyes. It also, in many ways, hearkens back to the early westerns of William S. Hart which date from 1914 to 1925, when movies were still in their infancy. All the ingredients are there: from the good-badman's colorful nickname to his first glimpse of the pretty woman who sets him on the straight and narrow trail to the mutual admiration that eventually develops between the protagonist and his adversary. As in Hart westerns, the violence is minimal, serving only to advance the plot and not to provide pointless gunplay for the sake of trigger-fast action. Hart's films were the first westerns which explored adult themes (not to be confused with the later formulaic Saturday matinée fare) and are certainly worth a look. But they are silent and if silent movies do not appeal to you, "Branded" is the way to go. You can't do much better than this.


At the beginning of this movie someone asks Ladd if he has any friends, he answers "my guns" and if he has any kinfolk to which he replies "my horse". He gets involved in a plot, impersonating the kidnapped son of a rancher who was missing since he was five. However, he falls in love with Mona Freeman who was supposed to be his sister. This was an unusual role for Ladd to play, and it adds a lot to the film, because you don't quite know what to expect from him. There is here everything you can ask from a good western: an interesting story, colorful, and a lot of action. It was the first western directed by Rudolph Matte. I saw Branded when it was released in the fifties ,with crowded matinées. I enjoyed it and still enjoyed it when I saw it recently.


While on the dodge from a shooting scrape, gunfighter Alan Ladd meets up with a pair of drifters, Robert Keith and John Berkes. They want him to pose as the long lost son of a prominent Texas rancher Charles Bickford who was kidnapped as a child and never heard from again. John Berkes is a tattoo artist and he gives Alan Ladd a tattoo that looks like a birth mark the child had.

It works all too well as Ladd is welcomed into the home of Bickford and wife Selena Royle. In addition there's a sister in the home played by Mona Freeman and Ladd is not developing brotherly feelings for her.

In the end he can't go through with fleecing these decent people and Ladd sets out to set things right.

Branded was Ladd's second starring western after Whispering Smith and he proved to be equally well received here. The urban Ladd of the films Paramount put him in starting with This Gun for Hire gradually gave way to a western character and he would do more of them of varying quality over the rest of his career. The best of which was that immortal classic Shane.

In one sense though Ladd's character is very much like Raven in This Gun for Hire. Both of them were orphans with great big chips on their shoulders. Imagine Raven a little earlier than when he met up with Veronica Lake and got into the home of a couple like Bickford and Royle and you have a pretty good idea of what Ladd's character Choya is like in Branded.

Acting honors however go to the ever dependable Joseph Calleia as a Mexican bandit chief and to Robert Keith. Keith usually was a good guy in most films, a typical role for him would be the father of the Tuttle girls as he was in Young at Heart. He completely plays against type as a slime ball bottom feeder who turns out to be far more despicable than even we originally think.

Branded is a good western and Alan Ladd and the cast members should be proud of their work in this one.


Futurama is of course a great comic series. But this episode shows more than any other how it can strike a bittersweet, serious note as well with its spin on the familiar flashback of Fry's last day in the 20th century. This time, instead of seeing that Fry's coming to the future was not entirely as it appeared in the first episode, ("The Why of Fry" season 4) we get to see another aspect of his life that was left behind--his faithful dog Seymour. As the episode unfolds we learn what happened to Seymour after Fry was frozen...and what Fry decides to do when his fossilized remains are recovered in the future.

I think the song that's played in the last scene is perfectly chosen--and I came to IMDb to find out who sings it. I couldn't find that information here, but in case anybody else is wondering I found it on Wikipedia--"'I Will Wait For You' from The Umbrellas of Cherbourg as sung by Connie Francis, which writer Eric Kaplan's parents played and sang on the piano while he was a child."


I watched this episode last night. I am still crying thinking of the ending. This is, by far, one of the saddest things I have ever watched, and I don't think I could watch it again. Whoever wrote this is both a genius, and crazy. The whole episode I was so happy that Frye was going to get his friend back, and then he misinterprets everything. The last montage with the song was just terrible. It was moving in a way that I couldn't believe, and powerful. I never thought an animated show could have the power to yank at my heart and twist it in such a way. I couldn't fall asleep afterwards. It was not what I expected to watch. I had just finished watching Cold Case, which also tears me up, and wanted to watch something light and funny. I picked the wrong thing. But it will in fact go down as one of my favorite episodes, even though it was so sad.


This is one of the best episodes of Futurama. It's also SO depressing. The unconditional love that Seymour has for Fry is so real. Just like most of our dogs have for us. I kept hoping that in another episode Fry would somehow be able to see back in time and realize Seymour didn't move on to another owner. Unfortunately this didn't happen and Fry never brings his dog back to life.

The end song, as others have pointed out, is perfect. I'm not sure which is sadder. Seymour waiting his life out for Fry to return or the poor dog knowing where Fry was and Fry's parents not figuring it out despite being in the room Fry was frozen in. The dog was SO happy to see Fry in the capsule.


I love this episode. This episode needs time. While I watched it I thought I would give an 8, after finishing it I though it's a 9. Now more than two hours has passed and I think it worth a 10. It's not really funny, although there are some very good comical scenes. Like the episode 'The Luck of the Fryrish' it has a deeper message. This episode is about friendship. This episode is about the relationship between Fry and his dog Seymour. I reckon that the ones who can really appreciate this episode are the ones who has/had a dog. The last two minutes is the saddest I've seen in a cartoon since the death scene in Lion King. Futurama is a comedy show, but sometimes a serious episode makes it more interesting.


I like animated comedy, its comedy for 'our' generation. Sitcoms just don't do it anymore and implement way to many morals into the storyline.

Futurama differentiates itself enough from the other popular animated comedy series to be interesting. Animated comedy is, maybe silently, stigmatized for being to superficial. Indeed the stories don't go to deep most of the time and that is the appealing part of it, but now and then people have a need for extra emotions besides humor.

Bringing drama with a laugh, to me sounds impossible. obviously it can be done, but it almost always negates or even nullifies the drama part.

This episode was regular for almost the entire length, but it was build up to the end so ingeniously and unnoticeable that the end indeed made such an impact.

I think that if you compare this scene with the saddest scene from friends (in context) futurama wins by a land slide in sadness.


Jurassic Bark is certainly the best Futurama episode ever. I know that this has been said a million times, but this episode is also the saddest... I'm not a BIG animal lover, but it's impossible not to cry at the end, or at least be REALLY REALLY sad.I've been able to watch it completely only 1 time. There's not much to say without revealing anything, but all contribute to the unique atmosphere not present in any other episode. I can't believe that futurama didn't won the Emmy for the best animated program in 2003 by presenting "Jurassic Bark". It is a hundred time better than "Roswell that ends well".

10/10 You must watch it even if you're a big Futurama hater !


Saw the episode tonight on TV, and really enjoyed it. Its just a great series isn't it, and it was really bugging me what the music/song was and wasted an hour or so on the net looking for the name of the music and ended up here! So thanks for the information on the song at the end of the episode. I knew I had heard the tune before, (but not the lyrics) but just couldn't place it! Somehow it seems more appropriate how its used here with Seymour waiting for Fry to come back for the rest of his life

"If it takes forever, I will wait for you, for a thousand summers, I will wait for you"

compared with the closing scene at the service station in 'The Umbrellas Of Cherbourg' where both of them meet again by accident and each find out that the other is married and has children. Maybe that's why there are no lyrics to the song in this scene as they only sort of 1/2 waited. Still, its a memorable scene as I haven't seen this film in almost 15 years and but I remember it and the tune.


Although I enjoy South Park, Simpsons, Drawn Together, Family Guy and American Dad more in general than Futurama... this one episode is possibly my favorite half hour of animated television of all time. Even if you have never owned a pet, if you don't cry at the end... see a doctor to get your tear ducts checked. The way they built the relationship between Fry and his dog gradually was moving and surprisingly realistic. The change of heart Bender shows towards the dog after he realizes just how much Fry loved it was inspirational. Does the fact that seeing the women wrestle in spandex turned me on more than a little bit make me disturbed? Even if you hate the show, watch this episode ASAP!!!


This Desperate Hours-type robbery/hostage number is D'Amato's spin on the Roughie genre  a crime and sex related genre piece with more than its fair share of gratuitous sexualised violence. Yet D'Amato's tale also stands as a critique of the kind of male fantasizing behind this kind of sex movie, always keeping itself self-conscious that this is some male inadequate's masturbation material.

A couple of two-bit hoods rob a convenience store on the eponymous 7th Avenue but, as with Charley Varrick's plunder, the loot turns out to be mob owned, and the felons find themselves on the run from a local gang Boss. They hide out in a nearby sex shop, and kidnap the proprietess, who happens to be the Boss' lady. In the sex shop, one of the goons  a total creep named Bob  takes a peek into a hand-held cine-viewer, salivating at a What the Butler Saw-type sexual performance by two ropey models. The rest of the film might be taken as the events which would ensue were they to be aimed at the men who shop at the 7th Street pleasure shop The goons and the proprietess plus a black con crony of the men drive to the woman's country home, where a trio of students are enjoying a vacation romp. The students are held hostage and subjected to an amount of sexual exploitation and humiliation at the hands of the goons, but by the end of their forced sojourn together, the women have paired off with the men and some satisfactory coupling has taken place. This strand of the story reaches its fulfilment in the coupling of the black man, who has taken a great deal of racist abuse from his companions, with a virgin student who has spent the bulk of her screen time masturbating over the sexual shenanigans of others. He turns out to be a thoughtful lover, introducing the nervous girl to the delights of cunnilingus and she reciprocates by giving him a handjob, as he is concerned with keeping her hymen intact! This positive view of sexual sharing is rewarded as it takes him out of the house when the mob catch up with them, giving him the opportunity to sneak back into the house, overpower the mobsters and make his escape with his buddies. The students are also rewarded by ending up with the stolen loot, just like the paid sex performers in a porn film are rewarded by their bags of (also probably mob) cash D'Amato arranges a psychologically suspect but nevertheless adept plot of sexual partnering whilst continually re-enforcing the idea that the sexual scenes are just that, sexual scene in a movie. The virgin is often seen touching herself at the sight of other couplings, yet even here the viewer is struck (unless he's an idiot, like the goons) with the knowledge that a woman masturbating over sex could be merely a male sexual fantasy (which is not to say women don't masturbate about the most un-PC scenarios, but the occasions it happens in this film remain self-consciously self-serving). It is no mistake that the virgin's sexual release in orgasm by cunnilingus is accompanied by a montage of scenes that she'd/we'd previously witnessed. It was often a plot device of 70s porn to see a woman inducted into sexual enjoyment within the story, but few directors made as much effort as D'Amato to show that the woman is a character in a male sexual fantasy. To back this up, we see the first man she saw having sex, the student Frank, reflected endlessly in a mirrored bathroom after his bout with his insatiable companion, the sexually voracious student Sue.

D'Amato's Pleasure Shop on 7th Avenue is an existential place in which fantasies can be enacted for and by the lonely men who walk the New York sidewalks. Some of the music score is eerily reminiscent of Herrmann's music for Taxi Driver, and the end credits show the movie houses and porno shops of Times Square, the market for the fantasies which D'Amato so self-consciously films in and for that Pleasure/Porno House on 7th Avenue.


The late 1980's and early 1990s were the time live in. Especially if you had cable or big dish satellite and could pick up WWOR TV New Jersey 9 out of Secaucus. Howard Stern back then unleashed his adult brand of radio and TV humor that would be recognized later from E and Howard TV OnDemand.

This version of The Howard Stern Show was on the level of Public Access. It had that cheap budget on the fly kinda feel with a bit more lean towards Party Time and Rock On all night long.

The Howard Stern Show was sponsored by Snapple Ice Tea and this helped introduce it's pitch lady Wendy Kauffman "The Snapple Lady" to the rest of the world.

Today ownership rights of the master 3/4 inch video tapes keep changing hands and there is no possibility what so ever of this show ever coming to DVD and Blu Ray Disc unless Alpha Blue or Anchorbay Entertainment gets hold of them.


This show is probably my all-time favorite episode of any television show I've ever watched. I'm a retired Marine and this episode never fails to move me to tears. The loneliness of Corporal Yost and what it has done to him is one of the reasons. When they are reading the Medal of Honor Citation and pan onto Charles Durning as he shuffles along the hallway always brings tears to my eyes. The last scene in the Sushi Bar is another one that I find touching... especially the last lines. I can't think of "Begin the Beguine" without seeing Ernie and Kate dancing. Just a marvelous piece of writing and acting. Thanks to the cast and crew for a wonderful and touching performance. It doesn't surprise me at all that the writer of this episode worked on "Moonlighting" and "Hill Street Blues". Thanks, Roger Director for a great story. Thanks, Don Bellisario... from another Marine for this episode and this show.


This was also my favorite episode of NCIS. Charles Durning does a great job, and there are some great scenes in the show. My favorite is when Tony reveals the Medal of Honor to the two Marines who snap to attention and salute. In my opinion, (and I may be prejudice since I am ex-Navy)NCIS is the best show on TV. For the most part, they get the language right (bulkhead, etc) and the customs (not saluting when your cover is off, etc) Michael Weatherly is a good actor who can go from acting goofy to serious parts (like the time, he had the plague) And of course there is Leroy Jethro Gibbs. It will be real interesting to see how the spin off does.


This moving episode of NCIS brings forth the wonderful acting of Charles Durning, and a most deserving Emmy nomination for his performance. Mr. Durning plays a World War II veteran who has been suffering in silence because he believes he killed his best friend on Okinawa in 1945. When we meet him, despite having won The Congressional Medal of Honor, he is turning himself in to Investigative Services for murder. He's elderly, drinks too much, and his memory isn't as sharp as it used to be. For these and other reasons Gibbs does not believe his story, or at the very least, believes this soldier probably acted on behalf of his fellow comrades caught in a dangerous war zone surrounded by Japanese. This episode brought tears to my eyes several times. Mr. Durning is so completely convincing as a man in agony. We hear strains of Edward Elgar in the background, and see painful images of what it must have been like for this soldier, as the Japanese slowly crawled toward the Americans on the black sand at night. Watch this for Mr. Durning, and for all the soldiers who didn't come back, for only the dead have seen the end of war.


Others have noted that the military customs and traditions were carefully observed -- not saluting uncovered, etc. -- but do not note that LCDR Coleman, in the scene where DiNozzo reveals CPL Yost's Medal of Honor, also snaps to attention but does not salute (she was not covered, being indoors; her hat was under her arm). The Marines, however, *were* covered even though they were inside since they were carrying arms on duty, hence coming to attention as well as the salute.

Subtle point but shows the care the producers have taken to get most things right in this show.

Very good series; this is an excellent and very moving episode.


Probably the most moving TV episode I have ever seen. Not only best NCIS, but the best episode of any series ever. This brought me to tears.

The last 10 minutes of the show was the most compelling I have ever seen. The reconstruction of the the battle, was moving and showing the cost of human lives in war is one never to forget. The presents of old enemies faces each other, and then sharing a drink is the best ever.

If you don't cry or feel proud of the men and women in the military you have no heart.

My favorite part also is when the Medal of Honor is shown to the two Marines who snap to attention and salute.


If you want a real movie about love and life ,WATCH THIS! I have never had a favourite movie before but now this has become it. A simple story about 3 couples but the words are the real powerhouse here. They are so powerful, intense, real, truthful that I could NOT stop watching this movie.

This movie is for people who definitely enjoy to expand their horizons, like movies that personally affect you, give you something to think about and really touches you on the inside. It was very raw and offbeat as well so you need to appreciate creativity to understand and love this movie.


I was very impressed by the quality of the dialogues in this movie: very fresh, very deep, very intelligent. The movie is based on a play (the title is "Happy") written also by the director of the movie and this theatrical origin is very obvious and... enjoyable. I really recommend this movie to anyone interested in topics like the emptiness and disorientation of the X-geneneration (Y-generation and so on), urban love stories, conflict of genders, and, above all, human feelings and reactions. Nice movie indeed. IKEA fans and other modernity-addicts should watch it as well.


Doris Doerrie is one of those directors who leave no traces on my consciousness: when I see one of her films, I start forgetting it right away. I know I saw Men..., Happy Birthday!, Nobody Loves Me, yet I can't for the life of me remember the plots. She is far more interested in sociological analysis than in story-telling, so her stories are as flimsy as those of Godard.

Having said this, I must also say that the actors in Naked are very talented and they kept me watching this very silly story to the end. Alexandra Maria Lara is so promising; she's as impressive here as she was as Hitler's secretary in The Downfall. Her character, and Juergen Vogel's, are allowed to develop over the course of the film--we see they have stamina as a couple. Heike Makatsch, who started in TV as a VJ, showed some acting ability I didn't expect from her. Nina Hoss and Mehmet Kurtulus as the rich couple, got some acid into their performances.


I really recommend this one to everyone!

If you have ever thought that you don't understand women and felt misunderstood by them you will quickly notice that this movie is exactly about this. (and vice-versa...)

Camera operator should get an Oscar! Great movie!


This movie by German director Doris Dörrie is very weak. It's mainly the dialogue (the cinematography is as always with Ms Dörrie very good), but these people seem to live in a parallel universe which has nothing to do with any real human being living in Germany. It seems to portray some kind of Munich high society which German filmmakers love (f.ex. Rossini) but who no one else in Germany really cares about. Besides I doubt that it exists in the way they like to portray it. So what's the point then? What's the point... Good question which could sum up the experience one has by seeing this movie which is not good nor bad. And this is the worst kind of movie... A bad movie at least leaves the pleasure to make sarcastic comments... This one here... nothing...


This video was given to me by a friend who knows that I look at film not merely as entertainment, but art as well. This project with its 40-odd 50 second vignettes done by a mix of directors of varying talents and celebrity, using an antiquated camera, gives an opportunity to see snapshots of their work as pure art. All of them are at least passable, with over half being very, very good. A few of them are truly outstanding, the most notable being Andre Konchalovsky's gem on life, death, temporality and nature. David Lynch's segment is a close second. I highly recommend this to any serious student of film as art.


The film would be inherently fascinating even if it were no good, but there's actually a lot here of genuine interest. The repeated questions about why the directors make cinema and whether it's "mortal" receive predictably lame responses, but the glimpses of them at work, punctuated with their 50 second films, is mesmerizing. Many of them turn the project into a commentary on cinema in some form - Boorman films Neil Jordan at work, with the actors looking quizzically into the camera (a common device here, also used by Angelopoulos and Costa-Gavras); Lelouch has a sort of reverse version of the Vertigo kiss, designed with great panache. in which a historic parade of cameras observes the spiraling lovers; some, like Rivette, just take varied people and let them play (he's very engaging, seen protesting that the film is too short). Lynch's segment is magnificently skillful and striking, with a potted narrative of police, a 50's style family, and a bunch of space aliens holding a captive woman - it's almost as effective as the whole of Lost Highway and utterly distinctive. In all, it's a tumbling parade of cinematic images that evokes love, passion and breadth, whether the directors take a playful approach (a majority) or aim for greater seriousness (as in Handke's filming of a potted TV news bulletin).


I generally agree that the results reached by these forty directors are of wildly uneven quality.

It also appears to be a consensus that the strongest entry is David Lynch's bizarre sci-fi collage, but I'd say closely followed by:

*) Zhang Yimou's nice reversal of the "old-fashioned" setting initially presented... and one of the few pieces with any sense of humor...

*) Helma Sanders' beautiful four-dimensional 'painting with light' which makes a virtue of the film stock's limited range of contrast...

*) Claude Lelouch's vertiginous kiss as camera technology evolves in the background.

I also found some of the simpler ones quite charming, including: *) Jaco van Dormael's portrait of a kiss by a pair of special lovers, *) Peter Greenaway's floating numbers of time *) Wim Wenders' quiet and simple re-visitation of his angels *) Jerry Schatzberg's snapshot of urban scavenging and *) Bigas Luna's portrait of a nude woman nursing in a field.

However, the vast majority of the pieces are dull, redundant (couldn't those guiding the project have communicated with each filmmaker about their intentions to avoid such frequent duplication?), pretentious, and worst of all humorless.

The worst offenders are the most self-conscious pieces-- which coincidentally tend to have the most annoying soundtracks-- including Spike Lee (leading candidate for most self-obsessed father of the year), Liv Ullman (hers is the least inspired of the dozen or so camera-filming-camera pieces), and Kiju Yoshida (who pompously announces he will demonstrate the impossibility of capturing an image on film).

In short, 'Lumiere' is well worth a look, with some brilliant moments, especially for students of film and film history... but keep a grain of salt and your fast-forward button handy.


The idea to gather 40 recognized film directors to shoot a mini film of less than a minute, or what would have been the format the Lumiere brothers used in their revolutionary camera, seems a great idea in paper. Unfortunately, what comes out is an uneven film where some of the short films hold our interest and some others that don't go anywhere.

What must have been an interesting idea doesn't translate to brilliant film making in the finished product. This documentary is for fans of the medium, but will not be of any interest to a casual viewer. Some of the most enjoyable ones are the ones by David Lynch, Helma Sanders, Claude Lelouch, Jaco Van Dormael, and Bigas Luna, just to mention a few. The rest, hold some interest, but don't quite add anything new to the idea behind the project.


This film was made to celebrate one-hundred years of the first camera used by the Lumiere Brothers. Forty directors from around the world were asked to make a short film with the original camera. The rules being it lasts no longer than fifty-two seconds, only three takes allowed, and no synchronous sound. The directors are predominately French, with a few notable exceptions like David Lynch, Peter Greenaway and John Boorman. Lynch's segment is far and away the most creative and satisfactory effort. Most of the others are mainly static and ordinary. But it's a fascinating documentary with insights and comments from the all the directors, and worth seeing for Lynch's film alone. That was the prime reason I watched it.


This is a conceptually intriguing project: 40 film directors from around the world each make a 50-some second film with a restored Lumière Cinématographe. Interspersed among the short films is footage of them making the films as well as interviews with the filmmakers. One thing I found surprising was how inarticulate many of them were in responding to such essential questions as why they film, or whether film is mortal. Overall, the added material outside of the 40 films is interesting and adds further layers to the project.

I've been especially interested in the early history of motion pictures and have spent much time with the Lumière brothers' films; thus, this project becomes more rewarding for me. I suggest watching this after seeing 'The Lumière Brothers' First Films,' with narration by Bertrand Taverneir. The medium has advanced severalfold in the 100 years between today and when the Lumière brothers contributed to the invention of cinéma. One of the great advances of the Cinématographe was its light weight--providing mobility. First, the Lumière Company exploited this added mobility with the subjects of their films, with the actuality films and by taking their camera across the world. It's appropriate that this project consists of an international array of filmmakers, as the Lumière brothers were responsible for introducing motion pictures and cinéma to much of the world via their (or rather their assistants) traveling the world. The next step the Lumière Company took in exploiting this mobility was with camera movement. One of the company's filmmakers, Alexandre Promio, was, apparently, responsible for much of this innovation. These films consisted of panoramas or fixing the camera to a moving object (i.e. a boat). In his Hiroshima short, Hugh Hudson holds the camera--a "shaky cam" effect--ending with overexposing the film by pointing the camera towards the sun, which is more movement than the Lumière brothers had envisioned.

When limited to the technology of the Cinématographe, however, many of the modern filmmakers' films demonstrate little to no advancement in film grammar or insight into the medium. One of them is an updated remake; others are like something the Lumière brothers might have filmed. You can take that as a poor mark upon those modern directors, or as further good marks for the Lumière's, or both. Yet, there are exceptions in this project, such as Hudson's short. Some of the directors do use the benefit of 100 years of hindsight to expand upon those first films. Several of the films are clever in their self-reference and are interesting tributes to the Lumière brothers and film. Gabriel Axel's tracking shot of the arts and Claude Lelouch's rotating kiss with a background progression of a history of camera technology filming it are two of the more outstanding in this way.

Helma Sanders' "Tribute to Louis Cochet" shows the orchestration of lighting of a stage waterfall fountain. It shows both the beauty and limitations of the relic camera--ending with the lights turned towards the camera. Peter Greenaway also plays with the lighting and exposure of the film in one of the few multi-shot films in the series. As he says, film is a great arena for him to play with image and text. The consensus favourite, the short film by David Lynch, is also one of the most original in the program. It also contains multiple shots (and even the continuity transitions are creative, including flames, as though the negative catches fire). Lynch also provided one of the more agreeable interviews, relating that film is "a magical medium that makes you dream." Additionally, I think the final film is appropriately placed. It's by Theo Angelopoulos, who's in Athens and films a scene from Homer's "Odyssey." With a title card, Ulysses ponders: "I am lost! In which foreign country have I landed?" It clarifies and elaborates upon a few of the other short films that had people staring into the camera (which harks back to 100 years ago when people weren't familiar with movie cameras). Ulysses has landed in the foreign land of film.


I was drawn in some segments,but unfortunately,i just see half. Let a director do sth. good just in 50 seconds seems too unimaginalbe,but of course they are master,so they can make those 50 seconds produce nice cinema.


If you are looking for a slasher or a monster movie, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for a moody, humorous, beautifully-shot B movie, this is it. As in his previous film, Nadja, Michael Almereyda's "monster" has human frailties and desires. He manages to find humor in his characters' constant drunkenness (why did they come to Ireland to try to dry out!?) and conveys this drunken feeling in the way the scenes cut from one to the next. The inventive cinematography leaves several scenes etched in your memory, and the sometimes-trip-hop soundtrack is very hip and lends to the dark mood. The pacing starts out slow but becomes engrossing and heart-pumping.

In the end Trance/Eternal/Kiss of the Mummy is a fun film and merits multiple viewings. My sole complaint is that the visuals and the soundtrack really deserve and would benefit from large-screen presentation.


This movie is NOT a thrill-ride horror movie, which may be the reason many seem not to have liked it. It's slow, character-driven and moody, but I loved it.

 From the opening scene of a young girl on a spooky Irish moor to the last image of a woman in a white dress sinking down into the endless black of the sea, I found this film enthralling.

Other things I love about this movie: The opening song, with the line "And no one is afraid/Of themselves" (a key to the characters' struggle)--- The cry of anguish when a mother finds her son dead (we see it but we can only imagine the sound of it)--- Death by shards of a broken rock-and-roll album (and the cutaway to the murderess on the beach, sad but resigned to the fact of her own survival).

These are only a few of the poetic moments of this movie. Love and death. Guns and liquor. A true black-Irish sense of humour. A great horror movie for grown-ups, and for children wise beyond their years.


For the art house crowd comes this critically panned film never released theatrically in the U.S. `Nadja' director Michael Almareyda comes up with his skewed version of The Mummy, complete with hip characters, fun surprises, a great alternate music soundtrack, Christopher Walken doing a Irish accent but otherwise being his quirky old self, brilliant cinematography from Jim Denault and a flair for the unexpected.

The perfectly enjoyable heroes are Allison Elliott and Jared Harris, as a cheerfully drunken couple going to Ireland to dry out. The movie acknowledges the "alcoholic" problem by having them not deal with it or call attention to it, and it's to the movie's credit that it's never an "issue" or makes them into completely awful or unbelievably irresponsible parents (they're just normally irresponsible, like most parents.)

* * * for The Eternal, an imperfect gem.


Here we have a great horror movie, presented in a very down-to-earth manner. Reminds me of classic English movies, combined with excellent acting skills of Christopher Walken, and a story line that keeps your ass tight on a sofa till the dramatic end. For people who don't necessarily need fancy special effects, and million dollar explosions to enjoy a good movie with an idea!


This is an unusual horror movie that won't be to everyones' tastes, though I think it's probably more accessible than the same director's unusual vampire movie Nadja.

Nora and Jim travel to Ireland, so that their young son can meet the mother's ailing grandmother. Nora's uncle is caring for her, with the help of a wise young girl named Alice that he has adopted. The uncle is decidedly strange (that he's played by Christopher Walken should be a clue), and has an obsession with a mummy in the basement. The mummy is an Iron Age Druid witch who had been preserved in a peat bog.

Nora and Jim are very much in love, and love alcohol; they're a little bit like Nick and Nora Charles of The Thin Man series. Nora's been having blackouts and visions that are possibly unrelated to her drinking, but she is supposed to quit drinking anyway. Nora begins to wish she hadn't returned home to Ireland.

Among the really strong suits of the film are the excellent cinematography and locations. They can be chillingly beautiful at times, as is the soundtrack.

It has a great song by Cat Power, "Rockets," which is on at least a couple of her albums. I first learned of her from this movie, and am very glad I did. It has a great song by Varnaline, "Sweet Life" (incidentally, available in Real Audio form on their official website), which plays on the jukebox at the Irish pub. It has a great song by Episonic, "My Head Becomes the Sky," which plays over the end credits. The score is also quite effective.


A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.


This film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought "how can I wrap this up?". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back!


Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.


I always found the movie vague, as you can read in an earlier comment on the movie, although this has changed recently because I decided to watch it again for a report I had to make for religion class (I recommend you to also watch this movie if you need to make a similar report).

To agree with me on this one, you must've seen this movie several times. "Trance" is, as a matter of fact, a perfect Celtic labyrinth. It does not only provide much information about what we know of the Celtic religion; it also shows the practical side of the Celtic forces. The movie has been built up as a perfect information-providing movie and could undoubtfully be called a labyrinth. A real good source if you want to know more about the Celtic religion. Believe me, once you've discovered the labyrinth structure hidden in the movie, you'll find the movie a lot less vague.


Trance, a vague, though good movie. It isn't so that the more you see it the less vague it becomes. I really recommend watching the movie at least 2 times. Too bad Christopher Walken didn't get a role spreading out on a bigger part of the movie. If they should have had more budget? I think not for two reasons: 1) From time to time we just NEED a vague movie, and 2) If they wanted it to become better, then try to find alternatives. Take Terminator(1) for example, a low budget production, big hit, nice effects. For details concerning this, watch the extras with the T1 DVD.


The writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just "showing up" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't "bad". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott.


Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease!


This movie could have been very good, but comes up way short. Cheesy special effects and so-so acting. I could have looked past that if the story wasn't so lousy. If there was more of a background story, it would have been better. The plot centers around an evil Druid witch who is linked to this woman who gets migraines. The movie drags on and on and never clearly explains anything, it just keeps plodding on. Christopher Walken has a part, but it is completely senseless, as is most of the movie. This movie had potential, but it looks like some really bad made for TV movie. I would avoid this movie.


This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as "The Mummy" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies.


This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!


Upon concluding my viewing of "Trance," or "The Eternal," or whatever the producers are calling this film, I wondered to myself, "Out of all of the bad movies I could have seen, couldn't I have at least seen one that was entertaining?" Even if a film is not well made in terms of acting, directing, writing, or what have you, it can at least be fun, and therefore worthwhile. But not only is this film bad in artistic value, it's incredibly boring. For a plot of such thinness, it moves awfully slowly, with little dramatic tension. At the very least, in a low-brow attempt at entertainment, the deaths of the characters could have been cool and/or gory, but the creators of this dreck failed in that department as well.

What does this movie have going for it? Pretty much nothing, unless you get entertainment out of watching Christopher Walken, who is capable of being brilliant, put so little effort into his acting that he falls into self-parody mode (WHY did he decide to do this film anyway?).

I give this film 3/10, because, God help us, there actually have been worse movies made before.


This film takes what could have been a good idea, a mummified 2000 year old witch and completely destroys it. Nora and Jim are alcoholics who go to Ireland to dry-out. They go to stay with her Nan and Uncle. The uncle has discovered a 2000 year old witch preserved in the peat. He revives her and she takes the form of Nora. She cannot be killed conventionally,(more is the pity). Nora, however, works out a way to do so.

This is a Gothic horror movie that has been done on the cheap. It is a sprawling mess. I have to ask why anyone would want to make such a bad film. I am tempted to learn witchcraft in order to make it disappear.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS


A young American woman visits her Irish roots and fends off a druid witch who is out to possess her. Sounds intriguing but after an interesting start, I got lost and spent most of the time wondering where it was going. The movie seems to be dithering in two directions -- are we watching the travails of the Irish-American woman battling her alcohol problem or are we watching a straight off horror flick about an evil witch that returns from the past? The director can't seem to decide. The two doesn't seem to gel and in the end you get nowhere. This could be so much better done and the story seemed to drag towards the end. This was most boring and disappointing.


Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?

It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.

I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....

Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything.

Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.

Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?

No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.)

NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens.

Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.

In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup.

In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.

The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.

I bought it. Poor me.


I've got the feeling that somehow the director couldn't decide what kind of movie to make here: A psychodrama about the inner conflicts of a woman (concerned with her past) and/or the solving of the conflicts in a relationship *or* a simple slasher spiced up with some naive psychology. Or both.

But the movie is still pretty impressive with great performances overall (especially by Allison Elliot - that woman has got more talent in her little finger than a lot of big stars do, and Richard Harris' son is great,too), an effective score which includes some cool songs (too bad there is not CD out - how canI get hold of "Rockets" or the song played during the end credits?) and interesting/atmospheric and very well done direction. But the Irish background of it all seems to be a little bit forced.

Anyway, don't expect some kind of standard horror flick or you will be disappointed!


I thought that I was never going to find a horror movie as bad as "The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but this film compete with it.

I´m not a person that get asleep when watching a movie, but I did it 15 minutes after the Trance started. I woke up, and started to watching it agian. Why did I deserve that? All the movie was a torture, I have to use fast forward to watch it complete.

I can´t stand why one of my favourites actors of all time (MR. WALKEN) could done this thing. I have to think that he made the director a favor, or he was really in the need of money, because film after film he is doing, he is ruining himself; and so fast...

What about the movie? it´s not scary, stupid plot, characters are awful (but I really liked the one played by Jared Harris), effects are very poor, lack of deaths & blood, etc; in three words, it has anything. And I mean it. Can´t stand how a director can make a film like this.

Anyway, When I got more disappointed was when I saw in the video cover, that the film was presented by "Stephen King", I think he could never present this crap, no? (I rented it in Argentina). I not recommend it in a million years.

I rate this movie with a 2 out of 10. (As I say in my "Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" review, there will be always a worse movies, thats why it don´t deserves a 1 out of 10)


This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet?


1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.


Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows.

Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.

In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.


Sang-soo Hong has done it again: he has made another controversial film that deals with the in-depth investigation of human sexuality, this time focusing solely on it from the perspective of two old friends meeting up again, one a successful college professor and the other a struggling film-maker.

From beginning to end, Hong lures you into the film by showing provocative sexual scenes and events, and really laying before us just how chaotic and disturbing sex can be, as well as how fulfilling it is. In between comical exchanges between the main characters, there lies a great deal of tragedy. Like many Korean films, it bended genres.

The acting was always as realistic as Hong aimed for in previous films like Power of Kangwon Province, and the story just as equally real -- focusing on very real dialog and very real occurrences. One can feel a close relationship to every character in the movie from start to finish. The mood is very real, and the soundtrack that accompanies it was very appropriate.

A uniquely artistic film that encourages the viewer to connect the dots, and a very real 'slice-of-life' film, I would recommend this to anybody who enjoys artistic film in general, or who has an interest in tackling some major issues about sexuality. It was another well-done piece by Hong, and I look forward to seeing more work by him in the future.


It's been a while since I watched the amusingly titled "Woman is the Future of Man" at the Quad. More than a year and 2 Hong Sang-Soo films later it remains among my favorite films.

While it's always refreshing and welcome to see films depart from the pyrotechnics of the Hollywood school of film-making, some films' subtlety and quietness are rather oppressive (Tsai Ming-Liang immediately comes to mind). I think I have a longer attention span than the average film-goer, however, I have to admit that I can't sit through all kinds of slow films. Some are worth the challenge, others end up embodying the stereotype of the inaccessible art film. Hong's film would've looked like art house snobbery in action if not for the fact that it's made in a very straightforward manner focusing mainly on the most basic of emotions (and the complicated situations emanating from them). The style of film-making is so cinema verite, so unobtrusive, it's a joy to go beyond being a member of the audience and feel like an actual passerby. The best, most memorable celluloid stories stay in your mind as films but "Woman" is a story so well-told it feels more like snippets from somebody's life told by a close friend.

Hong Sang-soo's "Woman is the Future of Man" is yet another great addition to the impressive national cinema of South Korea and one that pushes me to continue exploring more of this body of work. It's raw, naked jealousy, regret, love, lust, and longing. It's a bittersweet reminder for anyone who's ever experienced romantic love and its many variations and deviations. This is it how it happens and somehow Mr. Hong has captured it through the magic of cinema.


A story has a beginning, a middle, and an end: This comes from Aristotle, and it splendidly describes a great many stories from the European narrative tradition, but it doesn't describe all stories. It is very Western to stress the end, on where the story goes, the destination. It means progression or change in time, but when removing yourself to observe the composition of a story, what if interims and languid moments between characters, or one character, equipped it with its expression?

There are two basic kinds of good movies. One is a movie where you leave saying, "I don't under, wait, yeah, of course, now I understand! What a masterpiece! Let's go find a party," and by the time you wake up the next day, it is possible you are no longer thinking of it at all. Then, there is a movie that is upsetting or intricate or unusual, and you leave unsure, but you think about it the next day, or off and on for a week, or off and on forever. That is because that kind of film, which for instance aside from this film includes Nil By Mouth, No Country For Old Men, Brick, or any given John Cassavetes movie, is not clean or neat. There is something about it that comes purely from the heart, and so, it goes to the heart.

The story orbits droopily roundabouts two old pals, a university art teacher played by Yu Ji- Tae, who was the delightfully unusual villain in Oldboy, and Kim Tae-Boo playing a graduate from an American film school who has recently returned to his home country. As they have dinner in a restaurant, and Hong Sang-soo directs these two actors so that the painful awkwardness between them is realistically implacable, Tae-Boo talks Ji-Tae into fixing up a reunion between them and his old girlfriend, Seong Hyeon-ah. But, unbeknownst to Tae-Boo, Ji-Tae had grown to be drawn into a relationship with her following Tae-Boo's career-driven exodus to the US. Unlike the two men, she has no buried intention to compensate for or hold on to days gone by, not just for the reason that it's upsetting, but also because she is altogether here and now. The three shortly gather for a night of drinking, although ultimately, the film doesn't show any emotional culmination or yet still arrive at an apparent close. But that's your call when you see it.

The film was screened alongside another South Korean film, a magnificent one, Oldboy, at Cannes, marking the first time that two films from the country were in the competition simultaneously. Unlike Oldboy, Woman Is the Future of Man did not win any of the awards and reportedly met with an indifferent reception, which to me is strange. I don't find it to be a discouraging element to making the decision to see a movie, because that is a reaction that is highly unusual. It is not a sign that this is a bad film or that it's a profoundly brilliant film, because really it's neither. What it means to me is that it's from the mind of a filmmaker who is either ahead of the pack, or has gone on an entirely different path than the pack from the very beginning.

Perhaps it's the feeling of maudlin defeat that filters through this curious experiment in which reminiscence, longing and crude egotism clank versus each other with tenderness. Sang-soo has an unobtrusive, fragile technique and averts from theatrical accompaniments or dignified monologues. In fact the characters are quite ineloquent. There is a number of scenes of ungainly sex, perhaps because of a forlorn lack of communication. Really, whether Sang-soo intended the outcome to be this way, every viewer will have a different reaction. To me, though I was not blown away by the movie, I still had a lot of reaction to it, ultimately that Sang-soo's elegantly broken storytelling reflects that our reminiscences can bring not much solace.


I admit I was expecting more after Scorsese's introduction. Still ,the film captivates the viewers emotions. At times, it seems a character study of Hyeon-gon, the painter/college professor, or a neutral view of the object of attraction, Seon-hwa holds on both male leads. Initially, Mun-ho and Hyeon-gon, old friends meet for a drink. Mun-ho has just returned from film school in the United States. Both decide to visit their shared love interest, Seon-hwa. The movie is intercut with flashbacks and Hyeon-gon's interactions with his students. Mun-ho and Seon-hwa were together until he left for film school. Later she has an affair with Hyeon-gon. Seon-hwa is the unconditional ever-loving person, Mun-ho is the man with deep love but not very sure of himself, while Hyeon-gon is the man who's love is cheap but somehow appreciated. This view of the film might remind some men of the dictum, "nice guys finish last". Mun-ho and Seon-hwa are together. She is raped under odd circumstances by an earlier flame. The film doesn't explain why she decided to go to a motel with him, even when he seemed violent and over-assertive. I'm not sure if this is common in Korean culture or if female obedience is encouraged, or if Seon-hwa is simply weak-willed. Later Mun-ho bathes and cleanses her of impurity, followed by sexual intercourse and the professing of his true love for her. After he leaves, she starts an affair with Hyeon-gon. While he seems attracted to her, he comes off as a selfish character who only thinks of his own needs. In the present, while he is married, he claims to have no love for his wife. He also engages in an affair with one of his students. Oddly enough, Seon-hwa holds no ill will towards him, reserving her anger for Mun-ho. At their reunion, Mun-ho reveals his guilt over abandoning Seon-hwa, while she berates him for the pain he caused her. All characters feel a sense of loss for what they once had. This is comparable to having coffee with a woman whom you deeply loved several years back but for whom you don't feel anything anymore.


Woman Is the Future of Man is one of director Hong Sang Su's films, appearing in 2004. After seeing the majority of his output, I think it's fair to say that director Hong likes to make variations on the same movie over and over again. Most of them feature a two male competition for one woman, cynical insight into the minds of its characters and a rather strongly ironic sense of humor, taking apart the characters' follies and vices equally. Woman is the Future of Man pretty much follows all these traditions and yet somehow, like most of Song's films, manages to remain interesting the whole way through.

This film mostly follows two old friends as they get together again. It's clear from the start that these guys are both similar: manipulative nice guys who are overwhelmingly interested in sex. We see some flashbacks dealing with a mutual acquaintance of theirs and these two proceed to try to track her down. But plot isn't the point of most of Hong's films, rather, they focus in on the characters and it's quite amusing watching these two artists try to be friends while at the same time trying to one up each other and get with the figurative or actual girl.

Furthermore, these characters are always self-sincere--they actually buy their own hype--and consequently, when they get caught in the act or if become aware of their own bluster and ruse, it becomes very awkward and it's really surprising how naturally the awkwardness keeps showing up.

In terms of the art of the film, it's very Hongian, with a French New Wave-ish type shooting mentality. The camera's usually set and has a tendency to wander, catching side conversations and the cuts don't follow traditional means of "setting up" two shots and such. Rather, Hong has a tendency to shoot everyone in long-shot so that you can follow the characters reacting to each other.

All the actors do a great job in this semi-improvisational format, with the men doing wonderful versions of each other. The women are played only slightly less clueless and do a good job of supporting the scenes.

I suppose my primary issue with Woman is that, because of its rambling nature, it doesn't fully cohere in the end, especially with a coda that spins out of the original setup and while I'd be surprised with any sort of total closure in a Hong film, the strands thematically go a little far out, leaving the viewer is left grasping for more strongly tied together story.

Still, there are some genuine zingers in the tale and the insights are still just as compelling as they are in other Hong films. With that, Woman just continues showing how well this prolific director has mastered his own style. Another decent effort; recommended to art-house film lovers. 7/10.


This was a thoroughly engrossing film. Superb acting, believable characters, and a story that holds your interest. That said, you could dismiss the story as just another slice-of-life piece because it does boil down to a simple tale of two old friends getting together for a visit. Still, we care about what happens to everyone involved.

For this viewer, the major failing is that I wanted to see more of everyone's stories. I felt the film finished one story at exactly the right moment with the final scene, but I wanted to hear more about the other stories. I wouldn't have minded more of the well-ended tale, either, but I could accept that any more would require another full movie.


A classic film that should be seen by everyone. Okay I'm a little biased since I was an extra in the film. You can see my glorious side profile and backside walk behind the two main actors during the airport scene. Director Hong Sang Soo is a genius and this movie is as good if not better than the Turning gate and Oh Soyoung. The ending scene was perfect if you were one of the few that paid attention to the movie. I was amazed by Korean audiences that after seeing the final scene sighed a collective "Huh?" It was of course a failure in Korea because despite some good films coming from that country most Koreans enjoy formulaic sappy love comedies. Let's hope that Hong Sang Soo doesn't take this commercial failure to heart. He is a great director and a true genius.


I admit it -- I like "The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo." And I don't consider myself a fan of lowbrow TV. I hate stuff like "The Dukes of Hazzard" and "Baywatch," and I don't watch wrestling. "Lobo" was the show critics loved to hate when it was on the air. And since then, the word "Lobo" itself has become synonymous with bad TV.

But it's not a bad show. First, the cast had a genuine chemistry. Claude Akins and Mills Watson had a terrific rapport. If they had been on any other show, critics would have praised them as a terrific comic team. They really clicked. (On any other show, Watson would have become a superstar.) The rest of the cast was solid, and the show had good guest stars, including Pat Paulsen, Sid Caesar, and Larry Storch.

And while it wasn't Shakespeare, the writing was much better than the critics would have you believe. Unlike "The Dukes of Hazzard," the show did have different story lines. It wasn't the same show every week, like the Dukes. (And it didn't have anywhere near as many chases as the Dukes.)

I believe that the "Dukes" connection is the main reason critics hated the show. "Lobo" came along at the same time as the Dukes, it was also set in the South, it also had car chases, and it also had scantily-clad women. It was easy to dismiss "Lobo" as a Dukes clone because of some similarities on the surface.

But look closer, and you'll see the two shows were very different. "Lobo" had better scripts, better performances, better production values, etc.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying "Lobo" is a great show; I'm not suggesting it didn't have problems. There were too many car crashes. The show's writing could have been sharper. It should have made more of an attempt to SATIRIZE police shows. And the move to Atlanta in the second season was a mistake. It was much better in Orly County.

But it's not junk, as some critics would have you believe. It's better than most of the stuff on TV today. And I'll say it again: Akins and Watson were a terrific team.

And the first season theme song -- sung by Frankie Laine -- was fantastic. I'd love to hear it on a TV theme song CD.


i was probably around 6 when this show came out but my family watched it every week and i have very fond memories of it. i knew even back then that it was a spin off of bj and the bear. the weird thing is that in bj and the bear, sheriff lobo was a badguy in the boss hog vein. when he got his own show, suddenly hes a good guy.

my main memories of the show are it being similar to dukes of hazard. small, out of the way hick town constantly being bombarded by various city slicker bad guys. sheriff lobo would clean up the town with his bumbling deputy perkins(who i thought was way funnier than rosco p. coltraine). i remember there being two hot chick sidekicks with cool cars. i think one may have been a corvette.

for whatever reason, pieces of the theme song are still clear in my head, even though i haven't seen this show since about 1981. being a huge simpsons fan, i delight in all of their pop culture references and this show was referenced close to a half dozen times. its worth checking out for that reason alone, i think.


I was 11 years old when this show came on the air. I thought it was appropriately funny for anyone - I was 11 give me a break- but looking back now yes i would watch it again. The interactions within the cast were very good. Sheriff Lobo ( Claude Akins ) was a little crooked. In case you could not tell he was crooked you merely had to wonder why a Sheriff is driving a brand new CADILLAC SEVILLE???? This was the most expensive personal car in the Cadillac Line of cars $15,000 msrp give or take, and that is in 1979 dollars. Imagine being pulled over by a Cadillac Police car in 2007 Wouldn't you feel nervous ??? The 2007 Cadillac Seville now called simply "STS" is in the starting price range of $50,000. Can anyone say " I need a lawyer, and not a local public defender either". LOL Deputy Perkins (Mills Watson) was so funny also, he was practically joined at the hip to Lobo-LOL I guess he should since they were brothers-in-law. "I'll show you college boy" was always his favorite line when speaking to deputy "Birdie" Birdwell Hawkins (Brian Kerwin)the Mayors son, who was college educated. This usually had me ready to pee my pants, because you just knew whatever he was going to do would blow up in his face. (This is akin to watching Wiley Coyote purchasing Acme products to catch Roadrunner- LOL) In the first season Lobo and the usual gang of crooked outlying county Sheriffs were kings in the fiefdoms of their counties. They all new the others were just as crooked; but don't mess with mine and I wont mess with yours seemed to rule. The show was a spin off from BJ and The Bear (about a Vietnam War soldier saved by a chimp while a POW ) he brings the chimp home to the US. The chimp is his friend -pet and he becomes an owner-operator long haul trucker. In an episode he runs into Orly county and is given the usual harassment money making tickets for being over-weight, speeding etc etc. This gives us an understanding of Orly County politics and policing. All the usual parodies on what we assume crooked cops to be. In one remarkable episode, BJ actually hauls goods for Lobo. Then after off loading and driving out of town, Perkins asks him "are we just gonna let him go sheriff ?" Lobo replies " let him get just outside of town, then give him a ticket for speeding" LOL


I haven't seen this show in years, but I saw the old intro on youtube.com. I originally saw this show when I was a little kid and I think it came on Tuesday nights on NBC. I never realized that Sheriff Lobo was originally a spin off of BJ and the Bear nor that Lobo himself was originally a villain. From what others have said, ole Elroy P. Lobo was a corrupt Sheriff but on his own series, he was a Protagonist who was corrupt, but not evil like he was when he debuted as BJ McKay's major adversary. I liked Claude Akins and felt he did very well as the comically corrupt Sheriff Lobo. Mills Watson was the funniest one of all as Deputy Perkins who had a battle axe for a wife named Rose. I've recently seen Mills Watson in a couple of episodes of the Six Million Dollar Man in bad guy roles and as a sheriff in the second Incredible Hulk TV movie as kind of a pre Perkins role. But I remember he was unbearably funny as Perkins. And then there's Birdwell Hawkins (or Birdie as he was best known). The only competent cop on the Orly County Police Force. He was the true blue good guy and had the sex appeal to attract the women. I liked Birdie and he was who I wanted to be like when I watched the show.

The first season was truly the best, but I will admit when the show changed its title to Lobo and the characters moved to Atlanta Georgia to be country cops in the big city, that sucked, but I still watched them. I was amazed to see a slightly smaller and slightly pudgy Nell Carter on that series (Pre Gimme a Break)as well as character actor, Nicholas Coaster as the Chief Carson and I vaguely remember two very hot looking but snobbish undercover cops named Peaches and Brandy. I also recall the hot, sexy Heather Thomas appearing on this show once or twice.

As far as I'm concerned, Sheriff Lobo was a copycat of the Dukes of Hazzard in terms of corrupt, but comically inept police. I love the Dukes of Hazzard and Sheriff Lobo was more like the Dukes than BJ and the Bear was. I wish this show would air on TV Land or be released on DVD. I would also like to see BJ and the Bear as well.


I'm not going to bother to decide if this deserves a 3 out of 10, or a four, or even a 2. It was bad, so I'm leaving this comment at a 1.

Horror fans don't mind if their films aren't original, as long as it's done well. The genre is full of conventions, and originality occurs only with the smallest of twists on them. Fair enough.

The fact that the poster for this one has a big picture of Vinnie Jones on it - when in fact he's not the lead - if forgivable. Vinnie is always fun to watch anyway. However, just about everything else is poor, very poor.

Where to start? It's a film set in Ireland (outside Dublin) that has, as one would expect, a bunch of Irish people in it. And then there's the cockney "hunter", Vinnie Jones - along along with three Americans for good measure. One of the Americans is an evil property developer, building houses on the Bog.

Anyway, Bog Men can, apparently, be reconstituted when dipped into water. Okay, I can live with that as a horror fan. What i can't live with is the fact that the Bog Man make-up consists entirely of a set of bad teeth and a grunt. He wears an old kit from Giant Haystacks (if you're old enough to remember some classic wrestlers from yesteryear.

The film tries to tie up why these people are doomed to die, but it's never tied into the Bog story. Vinnie's character is one-dimensional and he's cruising through the roll. They (badly) CGI some flames at the end.

It's all so..... bad. The main thing it does wrong is that it's not even funny. It has sprinkles of humour in it that don't really work. It's not entertaining.... I was strained at the leash to tear myself away from the remote to turn this off.

Pity but this is a stinker, really poor. Oh well.


No...seriously...this is just plain boring. I have a fondness for watching Vinnie Jones in just about anything which seems to be both a blessing and a curse. He was great in Snatch, hilarious in Eurotrip, and awesome in Midnight Meat Train (despite having only one line in the whole movie...that's how cool he is). He may just be one of the most distinctly British actors in the history of cinema...when the dude's on screen you can't help but think "holy crap, that guy is British". But the blandness of Legend of The Bog is just plain inexcusable, Jones or not.

This movie doesn't really seem to know where it wants to go from the start. Is it a zombie movie? Kind of, but not really. There's people rising from the dead, but they're not zombies in the typical sense. There's pretty much nothing in the way of explanation. You're just meant to accept that 2,000 year old bog bodies are rising from their graves (or lack thereof) looking surprisingly alive and free from decomposition. Period. To be perfectly honest, this movie reminded me (often painfully) of that old episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 where they showed "Eegah". It's so similar in parts that it seriously makes me question the future of just about anyone appearing this movie. As I watched this movie I was fighting sleep from about 30 minutes in and briefly succumbed right near the end, nodding off momentarily. That's how boring it is...in a HORROR MOVIE, during the CLIMAX, when everything's supposed to go all to hell and be the most entertaining, I briefly nodded off. I didn't miss anything important, though at that point I wouldn't have cared if I had. Oh...and no violence? Seriously? All of the kills are done off screen which is just a huge party foul for a horror movie. Whatever...I think even writing this is giving this film more than it deserves. Skip it and watch something...anything...else.


I am a big movie consumer and I'm very tolerant with bad ones. I believe there is something good in almost any movie: maybe a good actor, a good scenario, a nice landscape, nice FX... something! Legend of the bog? I don't know... I couldn't find something like that! Bad acting, bad plot, bad scenario, bad effects... Oh, there is something! A nice forest and an interesting landscape... I mean the bog itself!

A movie without beginning, without ending and between... a very confusing, stupid and boring action, made out of unbound pieces of amateur theatrical performance! I've watched this movie with my 12 years old son, him too a "movie-man", and after about 30 minutes he asked me: "Do you like this movie? I think is as bad as Centipede! You said to me this is a horror movie!". Well... no comment! Still, we've watched till the end, only to see what happens in the end. And it happened... nothing!

So... it simply doesn't worth, watching the sky would be more productive!


OK, to start with ,don't be baffled by Vinnie being in this movie cause the plot is so thin that u wouldn't even know is there.The acting is bellow par and besides this the actors look like they wanna get the hell outta there and take a break. How should i say it ?......if u survive the first minutes of the film ,which for a movie start are horrible, then u would waste 90 minutes of your life. This movie makes Far Cry look like an Oscar nominee , so no don't watch even if is free. The only guy who made me laugh is the one who plays the so called mummy who looks like acting for him is running , slashing , tearing everything apart and trying to look as dumb as ever. Too bad Vinnie is in the movie , i was expecting a lot more from both.


This film's main contribution must be that it constitutes irrefutable evidence against creationist notions of an intelligent designer of mankind. A truly intelligent designer would not just have provided us with eyelids to avoid watching this kind of rubbish, he would have given us earlids as well to protect our brains against the utterly inane and imbecille dialogue. Fortunately, we have legs, so at least one can walk away from what must be one of the worst movies ever made. It has NO redeeming features. It is not even bad in such a way as to be amusing or entertaining. It is just plain BAD. Inane, idiotic, imbecille, illogical, inconsistent...


Not bad for a lower-budget fantasy drama. Actually written to be a comedy of sorts, LEGEND OF THE BOG has a 2,000 year old warrior washing up perfectly preserved in a rural Irish peat bog. A greedy real estate developer orders the 'bog-body' to be secretly disposed of. He rises from the dead and goes on a rampage. The developer, an archaeologist , their drivers and a young couple of girls find themselves lost and taking refuge in the rustic home of a hunter. They all have independent dark secrets that the 'bog-body' by legend seeks vengeance on their secret past misgivings.

I can't imagine this not going straight to DVD. Also starring are: Jason Barry, Adam Fogerty and Shelly Goldstein. If this was shown in a theater it would have to compete with the refreshments.


(* pun intended)

The only good thing about Legend Of The Bog is some good Irish scenery. Other than that there's pretty much nothing else to recommend.

It starts off looking like it's going to be a fairly entertaining zombie type movie with Vinnie Jones doing an impersonation of Rupert Everett in Cemetery Man (or is it Dellamorte Dellamore?) but it goes downhill pretty fast when we meet the rest of the cast.

The characters are mostly obnoxious. We've got the ugly American and her driver, a despicable b---h she is, an idiot he; the pretty American and her pal, nothing more than kill fodder; the egghead archaeologist and college student, first she hates, him then she loves him, then she accidentally stabs him with a sharp stick; last we have the hunter, a character who's motives are pretty much a mystery, a one-dimensional cardboard cutout played by Vinnie Jones. They all get stranded through various mishaps in Jones' hunting shack near the bog.

Speaking of Jones, why isn't this guy in better movies? He virtually stole the show in The Condemned a few years back. I thought it was going to be a springboard to better things. Maybe he's difficult or something.

Anyway, the bog creature is really just a prehistoric oaf, acting a bit like the titular character from Eegah!, reanimated through some means never explained.

Also never explained is what all these people having killed someone beforehand has to do with the rest of the movie.(If you haven' seen this yet, don't ask.) It's hinted that it has something to do with what's happening but never elaborated on.

If you make it to the end, please fast forward through the college girl's vomit inducing story and flashback. Then again maybe you like incest and stillborn inbred babies but it made me a bit queasy! Yuck!


So, so bad. I'll be honest, I didn't watch the whole movie; I simply couldn't put myself through the whole thing. It was that bad.

The acting is horrendous. The dialogue is simple minded. The effects are definitely not of a 2009 film, even a low budget one.

The attempt at humor was insultingly bad. There was one scene where a brute bog monster made fur slippers out of 2 dogs. Why the dogs were tied up in the middle of the road is beyond my comprehension. Why a mindless monster cares about footwear is another puzzle to the logical mind.

Take my advice and do not watch this movie; you will only hate yourself if you do.


Having Vinnie Jones star in this movie was indeed the one and only redeeming quality of this one. But even he could not save this film...and I use the term film loosely. Should go with cartoon! I'm a huge Vinnie Jones fan and his character didn't disappoint, but everything else did. Movie was about Vinnie vs "Baby Ruth" man from the Goonies! So lame, we laughed like it was a good Seth Rogan flick! Vinnie just couldn't carry the lameness of the Baby Ruth guy. You just couldn't take the protagonist seriously at all. Please don't disappoint us again Jones. Also we were robbed out of a boob shot with the hot chic in the shower, and thats just not cool at all. Every horror/suspense flick is required to have a boob shot of a hot chic! It's just a manditory thing.


Not badly acted, but it almost seems like you had moments where there were three different movies going on here, and they inadvertently intersected.

Essentially, an evil Real Estate woman unearths a bog body and orders it dumped instead of reporting it to the authorities. Well, when the Bog Body comes back to life by being put in water (are they like "Sea Monkeys"?) it starts wandering around modern Ireland looking for people (and yappy dogs) to kill. Meanwhile, our six main characters gather at the house of a "hunter".

We find out all the main characters killed someone and dumped them in the bog. So the Bog was finding revenge. Maybe. Don't know, because half of them are killed by accidents, while the Bog Man is killing innocent bystanders in the nearby town.

The thing is a truly convoluted mess, and I'm not even sure what the point is...


I actually liked the film. I see that it isn't quite popular around here but for me it was fresh, hilariously Irish and darn entertaining. The taxi driver was my absolute hero with this horrible accent and honest, stupid face. I loved the merry soundtrack, the muddy scenery and all the nice ladies dying in a mockingly nasty way. Not to mention the 'thanks' waving of the crippled zombie or the furry cocker-spaniel hand-made shoes of the warrior. There wasn't much of an explanation why these Bronze Age bodies resurrect but I didn't need such: they do, that's all. Meet the consequences. As a matter of fact, the not-so-dead primitive warrior looked a little bit like the Bulgarian Prime Minister, so I really enjoyed the movie in the company of two beers. It gets ten out of ten from me. Sheer amusement. Of course, the movie isn't as good as, say, 'Event Horizon' but it's still good enough.


"Why Vinnie Jones, why would you star in such a crappy movie? I've seen your movies do so well up to this point, even your performance in X-men 3 was better than this!"

This was my very first and last reactions to this flop of a production. The creators of "Legend of the Bog" must be stoned out of their minds! If you manage to obtain any copy of this movie, dispose of it immediately!

I've gotta say, I have seen better acting in a porno. I'd expect this kind of production from a high school independent films class, but come on, this is supposed to be the big leagues... STEP IT UP A BIT!


Tut, tut, tut, oh Vinny what rubbish have you got yourself into now?

Well first off, I would just like to say that Vinny Jones does not deserve all of the harsh comments directed at this film (well let's face it he's not the sharpest tool in the box is he?), but I definitely think he should have said no to this little stinker.

The film started with a couple of ideas that weren't too bad, but ideas can't save a film with no story. Also choosing Vinny Jones to be the lead in you're movie, doesn't exactly spring Multi-million pound film to mind does it?

I liked the fact the movie was filmed in the place it was actually supposed to be set in, this is something you don't see enough today (Plus Ireland does have some lovely scenery).

The Bogman (if that's the right term) wasn't at all scary, though he might have been a good idea for a kids movie. The actors were surprisingly good (too good for this film anyway), but us as the audience didn't really empathise with the characters they played (probably because most of the characters had the annoying factor, this was probably their intention, but that only works for likable B movies i'm afraid), which is kind of important in a film like this.

Using English, American and Irish actors in the film was quite a clever move, they probably thought this would make it more appealable to all audiences and therefore make more money off it. Having the characters come together gradually was also clever, I like it when films do this, because it shows that all the characters had a life before the event, and not just the main character.

Although the ending was predictable and just added to the pointlessness of the film, I thought it could have been worse.

To summarise, the film was awful and judging by some of the reviews on this site alone, you'd have to go a long way to find someone to disagree with you on that.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

There seems to be a Breach of the Trade Descriptions Act going on with a lot of these straight to video action films, where the cover gives the wrong impression of what sort of movie it's going to be and even puts a lead star on the front cover that doesn't actually have that much screen time. Vinnie Jones does end up getting a bit more coverage than it first looks like he will, but he's still missing for quite a bit of it and certainly doesn't feel like the main player in it all. And while it looks from the cover like another one of his straight to DVD action films, it's actually more of a messy, jumbled horror/comedy sort of film that goes to both extremes with each genre.

Actually, this is Jones's second collaboration with, and the second feature film of director Brendan Foley, following his equally disastrous debut The Riddle, where Jones was also the lead. But here everything's really lumpen, with truly cheap looking production values, an incomprehensible, incoherent plot and Jones doing his usual silent, grumpy hard man act with some really flat dialogue to chew off. All this and a big, ogre some killer going around bumping everyone off.

I'm really not sure what anyone was trying to get at with this one. Jones should try and get back in theatres and Foley should think about packing it in. *


After watching this film, I had to ask someone else what genre it was supposed to be. It's really unclear. My gut reaction was horror, but the music, locations, and "creature" aren't scary. In fact, the music works to diffuse any tension that might have been accidentally created. This movie feels like the filmmakers meant for this to be a drama and at the last minute decided to play up some horror aspects since that genre is popular right now. Either way, Vinnie Jones doesn't deserve to be in this film, and with the exception of a few moments when the cinematography is pretty well done, this film doesn't lend itself to a single viewing. I believe the people at the helm of this one need more practice.


Let me start by saying "I love Vinnie Jones." That being said, this movie is not up to his regular standards. The bog histories, if they were true, were interesting. The concept of people from thousands of years ago being killed and buried in the bogs was interesting. Them reanimating just out of the blue and seeking out a specific kind of person, that's a little iffy. Also the fact that all of these people just happen to converge on this same cottage on the same day is just too much coincidence as is not having phone service when they were apparently only about three miles from a road. I did not like the little love connection they felt needed to be in the movie. It added nothing to the story. This is in no way a horror movie. It is more something that is based on a false lore that has been told for years. Seeing Vinnie Jones was it's only redeeming feature.


Fine, entertaining movie of the famous sea battle between 3 smaller British warships versus the great German Pocket Battleship "Graf Spee". Tremendous sea scenes , aided by the fact that most of the original ships which fought the actual battle are used in the movie. Well acted all-round with Peter Finch doing a fine job as Captain Langsdorf.


I love this movie. Peter Finch stars as Capt. Langsdorf of the German "pocket" battleship Admiral Graf Spee. He is perfect; from the almost swashbuckly entrance and dialogue with Capt. Dove, a merchant captain whose ship they've just sunk, to the trance-like confusion at the end of the film. There are so many great actors in this film its almost like "the Longest Day," except these guys act. Christopher Lee as Manolo, the jealous bar owner; Anthony Quayle as Commodore Harwood; Anthony Newly as a sailor with about three lines that he still manages to over-act; and John Gregson, who plays Capt. Bell of the British cruiser Exeter. Well known, and often quirky co-directors and writers, Emeric Pressburger and Michael Powell bring together spectacular shots of many of the actual ships involved in the battle with an almost ensemble-like feeling in the cast. From the British Ambassador with the no-nonsense, sharped-tongued secretary to the goofy-gaucho interpreter for the reporter, Mike Fowler, these powerfully presented characters intensify the real drama of this battle. It wasn't just a sea battle, it was political, involving sailors, spies, and bad cafe singing.


At the beginning of World War 2 the German navy positioned the pocket battleship Graf Spee, ready and waiting to prey on allied shipping, which it did with deadly efficiency. Following a major sea battle with a British task force the Graf Spee was forced to seek refuge in a south American port to make repairs. The cameras of the world's press focused on Montevideo as the German ship struggled to regain its fighting ability while the Royal Navy converged to attack when it was, inevitably, forced to leave. A brilliant espionage operation convinced Captain Hans Langsdorff that 1/2 the British navy was waiting for him, so he scuttled the ship in the harbor and subsequently shot himself. Those are the facts and they're wonderfully re-created in this riveting film. Powell and Pressburger paid meticulous attention to detail and it shows throughout. I really admired their honesty in showing the battle and what happened later as objectively as it could be, whilst still (always) remaining good entertainment. Peter Finch gave a fantastic, intense performance as the doomed Captain. The real Langsdorff was a man of the highest intelligence and integrity, a tragic example of a fine man who found himself forced to serve an evil regime, and Finch truly conveyed the battle Langsdorff must have been fighting within himself; conscience versus duty. In the end his conscience won. Captain Langsdorff took his own life in a hotel room, lying on an old "imperial" German navy flag, a calculated insult to Hitler. I'm glad the Graf Spee was destroyed but sad that Langsdorff was one of SO many victims of this terrible war. The Battle Of The River Plate is an excellent portrayal of this true-life drama. Well worth seeing.