Lima, Peru. If you ever been there you will recognize the sad truth about that city: poverty and misery all over. For a movie coming from Peru, I think it was very good, but it cannot stand with international standards: most of the actors were pathetic:) Now, don't understand me wrong, the movie is nice, and I recommend it, BUT is still far away from the Italian neo-realism (It is indeed a neo-realist film..) and WAY far away from the Taxi Driver, that many people compare it with. The streets and the atmosphere from Lima was caught very good on the screen using some black and white images alternating with colored ones, but other than this, don't expect anything spectacular.

7/10 - one of the best Peruvian movies.


I saw this at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it played for it's second year in a row. I guess since it became Peru's official nomination to the Academy Awards the Festival organizers felt they should bring it back as they feature most of the films that are official submissions to the upcoming Academy Awards. I would hope it doesn't come back for a third year at the 2007 festival. This is admittedly a low budget film but nothing in this film can get you past the fact that it is low budget. I tried to be sympathetic to young former soldiers trying to make a living back in the civilian world but except for the lead character you didn't know enough about his friends to care what happened to them. As for his plight it became predictable from the beginning. The woman who played the mother and the girl who played the little sister in small roles seemed like the only ones in this movie who could actually act. I would give this a 4.5 out of a possible 10 and not recommend it.


this movie is a clunker. Francis plays a silly British wife who goes to Paris while her husband goes off to India. She falls under the spell of an unscrupulous Latin Lover (Ricardo Cortez) and ends up involved in his murder and blackmail. Francis looks great (as always) and does a good acting job, starting out as the silly wifey and becoming a more sophisticated (she thinks) woman of the world. Paul Kavanaugh, Doris Lloyd, and Nance O'Neill (as the evil sister-in-law) are good, too. The Paris beauty salon scene where Francis must decide on the shape of her eyebrows (she settles for "plaintive") is a hoot!


This early Kay Francis vehicle is quite an enjoyable potboiler. Kay had not yet developed the sophisticated, edgy style she was so famous for later in her career. She starts out a rather naive young bride who is dumped off in Paris by her older husband while he toots off to India for a year. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out the general direction the plot will take, but Kay makes makes her metamorphosis from sweet young thing to party girl quite believable. The rest of the cast is at least adequate, but it's really Kay's movie all the way.

The plot has some clever, if improbable, twists and the timing coincidences are beyond belief even for Hollywood. Not a great film, but definitely worth a look for pre-Code aficionados and Francis fans.


Transgression is another look at a turbulent marriage during the slightly-naughty early 1930s in film. From the very beginning, we are given numerous examples of how absent minded and silly Elsie Maury (Kay Francis) is. Her husband Robert (Paul Cavanagh) is off to India without her, so she will go to Paris, which seems to be just asking for trouble in this pre-Hayes-Code flick. Paul Cavanagh had only been in movies a couple years, and would go on to do many early TV appearances and movies, including quite a few horror films. Kay Francis had her start in "Coconuts" with the Marx brothers, and was probably best known as the lead actress in Man Wanted, King of the Underworld, or Confession. While quite beautiful, Francis' sometime stares wide-eyed into the camera, trying to give the impression she is thinking quite hard. The sound quality in Transgression is pretty bad, but it was 1931. Ricardo Cortez (had a couple of leading roles in the 1920's and 1930's) plays Arturo, Elsie's Spanish lover. Also, in the opening scene, Elsie's mother is played by Nance O'Neil, who had played Mercedes in the first full length version of Count of Monte Cristo 1913 (and was a close friend of Lizzie Borden...) Interesting outdoor scenes of Spain, which probably are not authentic. There are surprises, suspense, and plot twisting within the movie that helps to keep it interesting. Starts slow and goofy, gets better as it goes along.


Sebastian is one of those movies you see once and remember for a long time. I saw it back in the seventies, and didn't get to enjoy it again until I caught it on TV in the nineties. Still, I remembered its groovy sixties-London atmosphere, its intellectually stimulating plot about codebreaking, Susannah York's breezy, mini-skirted, somewhat flighty Rebecca who is actually quite smart, Bogarde's coldly academic Sebastian with passion seething underneath, and Jerry Goldsmith's right-on soundtrack.

Like a lighter LeCarre story, you get Cold War tension, but with a post-war British self-deprecating viewpoint. They may not be the Empire they once were, but they do have a bit of expertise in cryptography that the Yanks would be willing to compensate them for. Donald Sutherland plays an NSA type at Fylingdale Moor who turns Sebastian on (literally) to the latest intercepts from a Russian satellite. He's immediately impressed when Sebastian hears the embedded signal that carries classified data piggy-back with the normal Sputnik beeps. Mixed in with this main West versus East plot is the late-sixties go-go scene, with Sebastian's former paramour a pop singer a little past her prime, with his right-hand girl a bit of a leftist sympathizer, and with his new girlfriend, Rebecca, a pre-hippy free spirit determined to pry him out of his Oxford Don shell. Susannah York's Rebecca is fun-loving but has a flame-hot temper that reacts explosively to Sebastian's unemotional pomposity. Her true depth is shone later when she quietly removes herself to care for her baby, without the assistance of its father, Sebastian, who has dropped out of her life. I feel it's the best role of York's uneven career.

What really takes the movie a step above, is Jerry Goldsmith's score. His instrumental "First Day at Work" catches just the right combination of urban excitement and spritly spirit that accompanies Rebecca and a bevy of beautiful and brainy girls as they make their way in to begin their work as cryptanalysts working in Sebastian's high-tech sweatshop. While the rest of the soundtrack is not up to his Blue Max or Wind and the Lion standards, this one tune alone puts Goldsmith's soundtrack above most movie music.

I would put this one in my list of top 100 movies for its cast, its atmosphere, its music, and its re-watchability. I hope it comes out on DVD soon.


Covers an area of espionage seldom seen in spy movies: cryptography and cryptoanalysis. The whole production is given a faint brush of the surreal and it works, especially with Dirk Bogarde's performance as the title character driven by obsessions (and often overwhelmed by them). That the film also manages to work on an occasional comedic level is an additional tribute to all concerned. Keep your eyes open for a pre-M*A*S*H appearance by Donald Sutherland.


This is a good film to watch if you like British films from the era and especially ones with Dirk Bogarde. It's made with some style but the script is a problem. Though it starts out intriguingly, in the end this espionage film is rather much ado about nothing. The main point of interest in this rarely seen movie now is the equally rarely heard Jerry Goldsmith score, which I rather like. I believe it got an LP release back in 1968, but has never been issued on CD. Perhaps one of the reasons for that, as I've recently read, is that Goldsmith didn't have a good experience doing the score and never had much to say about it or simply didn't want to discuss it at all. Unfortunate, because the score, though minor Goldsmith, does have merit. I hope someday to read just what Goldsmith's problems were with it.


I discovered this movie via my affexion for Jerry Goldsmith's innovative (for the period) score... highly recommended for its quintessential marriage of images and sounds...

The talent on view here, and the obvious affexion its cast and crew have for this film (evident in every frame) make this a must see.


Way back then I remembered that after presenting a code to solve, the head man stepped down and walked down the aisle asking "When do we go home?" to which everyone responded "When the job is done." Continuing to walk he asked "When is the job done?" The response in one word; "Never". That main room had a James Bond atmosphere about it in my mind. Especially the elevated office with vertical shades if memory serves me right. This was my first introduction to the art and science of codes, ciphers, and such. No I didn't continue in it but it is an interesting subject. I agree with a previous reviewer in that one tends to remember this movie for a long time, or at least parts of it if my memory is correct and not corrupted by time. The movie is worth the time to watch and you will watch parts of it again and again in your mind.


I first saw this movie back in the '60's on TBS. I found it to be a thoroughly delightful film. I have been looking to find a copy of it to add to my VHS/DVD collection. It appears to be out of print at this time. I hope they re-issue it soon.


I saw this movie when I was in the "game" that was played in the movie. I was with a group of men in a foreign land though, not in England with a group of women. Lord knows I would have preferred the latter. I have not seen this movie since the 70's and would love to acquire a copy of it. What does it take to get a DVD made?


I haven't seen this movie for at least 25 years so my rating is obviously a shot from the hip. I do recollect enjoying its slightly quirky idea at the time.

Featuring Dirk Bogarde, Britain's prettiest closet gay, as yet another handsome heterosexual; he gives his usual competent turn as a cryptologist-par-excellence who is so obsessed with his craft that he can't even concentrate on sexy Susannah York (though we all know the real reason).

The movie is an interesting and light-hearted take on the business of code-breaking. Bletchley Park meets swinging sixties. Groovy, baby. It's an unpretentious little relic that seems to have been largely forgotten. Which is a shame, because it deserves an airing from time to time. It makes a great contrast with the coolly laconic and rather more serious 'Ipcress File'.

Its cast is really quite amazing for such a 'lost' movie. As well as Bogarde and York there's the irreplaceable John Gielgud, Nigel Davenport, Donald Sutherland, and Ronald Fraser. Even the late Alan Freeman, one of the most enduring pirate/BBC DJ's of the late 20th century plays the part - of a DJ. What more can a movie ask?

Worth a watch, if only for such an excellent cast.


A light story about cryptographers... not an easy sell as a script, but afforded a platform for the talents of John Gielgud, Dirk Bogarde, Lilli Palmer, the spunky Susannah York and others. The tiny message about being careful when working for a classified department is more and more relevant, as Microsoft just discovered when their source code was stolen via the hijacking of an employee's computer on the air from home. When in doubt, lengthen the password...


One of my all time favorite movies about WWII. We forget that victory is gained on many fronts and not all of them involve the military. The minds that worked together to break codes are fascinating. Should be required viewing for all who love to do cryptograms.


Ruben Galindo is one of those sneaky Mexican exploitation directors who makes quickie-movies for the the American market. The cast is filled with fresh American faces and premise as well as atmosphere are typically US high school-like. Only... the production is entirely Mexican! This technique saves the makers a few extra bucks and the fans of this type of cinema mostly don't notice the difference anyway. However, what you can't but notice about "Don't Panic" is the amateurism. The screenplay makes no sense at all as it attempts to blend the mysteries of the occult (an Ouija-board) with an ordinary high school slasher plot. A group of brainless friends summon a demon (named Virgil...not exactly a petrifying name, if you ask me) and this demon soon after possesses one of the kids. How did this Virgil ended up inside the body of the kid?? Who knows... Why does he think it's necessary to butcher everyone who joined the Ouija game?? Not explained, neither... There's no tension and no sense of humor to detect anywhere in the script. Well...at least not intended humor, because the stupidity and incompetence definitely will make you chuckle more than once! Also, if you plan to watch this film, you're better not allergic to atrocious acting. No matter how hard these teen-actors try, they have no acting skills at all. The best part about "Don't Panic" is  as usual  the gore! Screaming Mad George went nuts again and literally stuffed this film with repulsive massacre and entire buckets of blood. I'm not an expert but I sincerely doubt that an average human body contains so much blood. Oh well, if it wasn't for these gory moments, "Don't Panic" would be completely worthless. In conclusion: this probably is one of the only films ever that feature the hero (supposedly 17 years old) battling evil whilst wearing a ridiculous and utterly childish pajamas. Respect!


I thought this supernatural slasher wasn't too bad. There were a few effective bits, and even a few suspenseful moments. The killings with the dagger are cool, and the bit where Michael is being stalked around the hospital are good. I also got a scare from the part where Virgil suddenly appears at the back window of the car. There are too many boring parts however to make this a good slasher film. If they had used more shots of Virgil stalking Michael and added some more gore, it would have been quite good. The ending is rather cheesy.

Still it's better than many slasher films I have seen so if you're a die-hard slasher fan then seek this one out.


Nice guy Michael (winningly played by the affable Jon-Michael Bischof) gets an Ouija board as a gift for his 18th birthday from his smartaleck best buddy Tony (the solid Juan Ignacio Aranda). Michael summons the lethal and evil spirit of Virgil, who takes possession of Tony's body and starts bumping off Michael's friends. Writer/director Ruben Galindo, Jr. trots out all the expected endearingly hokey 80's teen fright feature clichés: we've got a couple of false scares, a corny lovey dovey montage set to infectiously bouncy 80's rock music, a generic spooky'n'shuddery ominous score by Pedro Plascencia Salinas, a tasteful make-out scene, and even the always amusing psycho in the back seat of a car bit. Moreover, the basic plot blatantly emulates the second "A Nightmare on Elm Street" movie, the pace really kicks into gear and rarely lets up after the rather leisurely opening third, the 80's clothes and hairstyles are hilariously hideous (Michael's silly blue pajamas are especially sidesplitting!), and Galindo, Jr. gleefully pours on the blood by the gallon with several pleasingly brutal murder set pieces. Additional accolades are in order for the mostly sound acting from the personable cast. The stunningly gorgeous and adorable Gabriela Hassle in particular impresses with her warm and charming performance as Michael's sweet gal pal Alexandra. Screaming Mad George's funky special effects and the reasonably polished cinematography by Miguel Arana and Daniel Lopez both hit the spot as well. A fun little flick.


I don't think you could accuse this one of being a particularly good film, but it is fun for the genre. Slasher films have experimented with supernatural villainy with varying success and in this cheery and cheesy item, a ouija board unleashes an evil being, who proceeds to kill in reasonably bloody ways. Although this one is hard to take seriously, with a muddled script,nondescript performances and a general feeling of badness, it is enjoyable. Virgil makes for a pretty cool killer, the ending is unexpected and the gore, though cheap and occasionally of the squirt gun blood variety is fun to watch and ace in a couple of places. Basically, this is a good bad slasher that won't blow anyones mind, but is worth a look for slasher movie hounds, who are likely to be the only folk interested in this anyway.


I'm reviewing this movie for the 2nd. time. After many years, I caught this movie on Mexican cable and I'm glad that I liked it better than the first time I watched it. As a kid, I hated this movie because it trashed my favorite slasher characters, Freddy and Jason.

Anywways, this is a Mexican version of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" part 1 and II and has some elements from the "Friday the 13th" sequels. Also, some little influences by "The Evil Dead".

The story follows Michael and his friends, who after Michael's birthday party decide to play with the ouija board. Unfortunately to them, an evil spirit named Virgil possesses one of them and starts a killing spree taking revenge on everyone who played with the board. Virgil makes a late appearance in the movie but manages to dispatch his victims one by one... until only Alex and Michael are left.

Could Michael stop Virgil? How is he going to use the "magic" dagger against him? (In the style of "Jason Goes To Hell"). Could it be that Virgil is really more dangerous than Freddy and Jason? Watch "Don't Panic" with low expectations and you might surprise yourself.

The movie is very cheesy, but not in a negative way. It's cheesy in an 80's manner! We get plenty of gore, some nasty death scenes, a "cool" score (I love the "Don't Panic!" song), and some creepy scenes. RYes, the "Nightmare On Elm Street" influenecs are present through all the movie. Especially from Part II: Freddy's Revenge. Michael's character is very similar to Jesse. He even has a friend who is killed in front of him and can't do anything but escape from some stupid cops. Also, Michael has this wimpy attitude but manages to confront Virgil and beware all of his friends.

The movie has this 80's feeling that we all love. This is the typical slasher flick from the 80's that spent more budget on the visuals. The f/x are cheesy but worked for me. The gore is great! (Check out a death scene similar from Dario Argento's "Opera").

The acting is way all over the top but still works for this kind of movie. Bishof delivers a good performance, Gaby Hassle delivers a cute, solid performance. She's way too pretty to be around all the gore. Virgil is a mix of looks; he has the looks of possessed Ash from "Evil Dead II", but the make-up of his face is almost the same as Freddy Krueger! Although he isn't as annoying as Freddy. He just keeps repeating "Do You believe in Satan?!". But it isn't as annoying as Krueger's one liners. His demise is very gory and great. Lots of blood through his mouth!

One of the cheesiest scenes in slasher history is when Michael goes to Alex's house, becomes mad, and starts shooting! Horrible acting in that scene by the way. I liked the ending which is very "moving" and has an extremely cheesy line that references one love scene: "As long as love exists between you two the rose shall never wither.". The scene happens when Alex is in the graveyard...

This movie took the right influences and ripped them off in almost a cynical way but still this movie is cheese for the please. Watch it if you can find it, although it will be very hard , as far as I know, it's currently out of print. Or maybe you can find it with the title "Dimensiones Ocultas". "Don't Panic" is a pleasant surprise and deserves a chance. Probably one of Mèxico's best Horror/Fantasy movies. Yes, this is quality here but still is entertaining!


Don't Panic (a confusing title which means absolutely nothing by the way) starts by introducing us to Micheal Smith (Jon Micheal Bishof) who recently moved to Mexico with his alcoholic Mother (Helena Rojo). It's the night of Micheal's birthday & the last few guests are leaving his party, or so he thinks. Some of his friends have stayed behind including his best friend Tony (Juan Ignacio Aranda) & a girl from school whom he has the hots for named Alexandra (Gabriela Hassle). Tony, being an idiot, suggests that they hold a séance with a Ouija board he just happens to have, after some goading everyone agrees & the séance begins. Tony talks about a spirit named Virgil & asks him some stupid questions, everyone goes home & that's about that or so everyone thinks... The next day Micheal is late for class but everything is fine. However that night as Micheal is trying to sleep he has a vision, a vision of one of his friends named Debbie (Cecilia Tijerina) who was at the séance, being brutally stabbed to death by an unknown assailant. Oh, & for some unexplained reason Micheal's eye's turn red. At first Micheal thinks that it was just a hallucination but when he hears about Debbie's death & that of another one of his friends at the séance Peter (Mario Ivan Martinez) on the news he becomes convinced that his vision was real. While at school Micheal receives a warning in the shape of yet another vision, a warning which tells him Christy (Melinda McCallum) will be the next to die, Micheal must try & save Christy & his remaining friends who were present at the séance before this unknown source of evil kills all of them...

This Mexican American co-production was written & directed by Ruben Galindo as Ruben Galindo Jr. & is one seriously bad film. The script tries to cross supernatural thriller with stalk 'n' slash horror & it predictably turned out to be a complete mess. Don't Panic is a painfully slow & tedious film to watch with only two murders for well over an hour of it's running time & lots of boring exposition & unnecessary character development for the rest of it. The dialogue is pretty bad, the acting is very bad & the character's are awful. The film tries to conceal the killer's identity & to be fair it might work, unfortunately the version I saw revealed the killer on the back of the video box so I knew who it was all along, I doubt it would be that much of a surprise though. No explanation is given to who Virgil is, what he want's, why he's killing these specific teenagers or how he is able to possess people's bodies. Virgil is just 'there' & we have to accept it. The character's are all stupid, the situations Don't Panic depicts are all stupid & as a whole the film lacks any sort of fore-thought or intelligence behind what's going on. The ending is awful as well, both how Virgil is defeated & that sickening & tacky 'this rose will never wilt as long as there is love between us' scene. Despite what you may have read there is actually very little on screen gore, two people are stabbed which Don't Panic depicts by having blood splash over the floor & on the victims clothes, there is a fairly decent slit throat even if I wouldn't just sit impassively in a car as someone stuck their hand in through the window & sliced my throat open with a knife & a scene in which a knife (it's the same knife in all the murder's actually) is stuck into someones chin & it protrudes from their mouth. All the kill scenes are dull with virtually no build up & director Galindo fails to inject any tension, scares or atmosphere into them just like the rest of the film in fact. There isn't even any nudity either, in fact when Micheal & Alexandra have sex it is squeaky clean stuff, Galindo merely shows them kissing each other on the lips while in bed. As mentioned already in other comments the sight of Micheal running around in his babyish pyjama's is both bizarre & very silly looking. Don't Panic is technically average, the cinematography is static & flat as are the production values in general & the horrible music seems very out of place. There are a couple of scenes where a face pokes out of the TV which is quite an impressive effect. Overall there is very little I can recommend Don't Panic by as it's a pretty terrible film all round really, maybe it's good for a few laughs & a decent slit throat but that's it. One to avoid unless it's VERY cheap & your VERY bored.


Best movie ever! That's what I'd say if I'd never seen a horror film. My God "The Dark, Crocodile, The Lamp (AKA: The Outing)" and hell even "Blue Monkey" did a better job trying to get a good scare! This one well, anyone who made this movie should take to the wood shied and put to rest! And I hope that the Director of Photography didn't get paid much. Look's like he lite it with two Mag lights in some parts and work lights in others. And now lets talk about unibrow girl... shave it! During the sex sceen you just want to tie her down and shave it off! And isn't a montage usually place toward the end... not in the first 20 min? Now for the story, there is none! Looks like they sat down one weekend and said "Hey, I have a 35mm camera for the weekend. Lets make a movie by Monday." I'm not kidding! The sound was not recorded at all for the set... ALL ADR! The only good thing is the make-up effects and death scenes. They are stylish and fun to watch. Just wish they could have been in a better movie.


OF COURSE most viewers will track this one down for the first screen appearance of stage comedienne nonpareil, Bea Lillie, and Lady Peel gives an absolutely beautiful performance (pretty enough to win an English Lord, as the actress did in real life, yet able to walk a perfect comedic tight rope between insouciant self-confidence and nagging insecurity), but there is even more to recommend this charming backstage comedy than the star performance.

Set (and beautifully observed) deep into the tour of one of those third tier "acting" companies (heavy on the melodramatic programming and light on competent management) that lived on "the road" and which helped bring about first the rise of powerful central booking agencies and ultimately the formation of Actors' Equity, the film seems to say these are a memory of the past even in 1926 . . . but what a lovingly recalled memory!

Bottom of the pecking order within the company is Voilet (Ms. Lillie), who plays maids and cares for the costumes and longs to play "vampire" leads (we're talking 20's vamps, not Anne Rice territory). She's even below the juvenile/character man (last billed featured player Franklin Pangborn, who's later lavender camp personality is still not locked in stone here, though his comic and dramatic talents are), but when she manages to get a handsome young drifter (little she knows!) hired on as the company juvenile, she shows her real acting talents saving him from himself without ever letting him suspect - or suspect that she longs to be more than a friend.

Mary Pickford's younger brother, second billed Jack Pickford, plays the young thespian, Jimmy, very nicely in a rare appearance. Though he lacked a certain "star" quality, his acting was fine and it's a pity his career seemed to wither in the face of his personal demons and more famous sibling. He didn't survive his 30's.

The print being shown these days on Turner Classic Movies has a nicely varied but occasionally too lush score by contest winner Linda Martinez, but it serves the quiet moments (and there are many) beautifully. Director Sam Taylor undercuts playwright Marc Connelly's story at a number of points (given scant hours to prepare Jimmy for his big tryout, does Violet grab a script to get him up on the lines he's never heard? No, they adjourn to a neighboring farm yard to rehearse "cute"), but otherwise the details of on- and back-stage life of the touring company are captured with something close to perfection, and the detail appreciating cinematography and acting from all concerned is a joy from start to finish.

Anyone who loves Lillie's later work (all the way to her Mrs. Meers in 1967's THOROUGHILY MODERN MILLIE - a mere 41 years later but there are some surprising moments of foreshadowing for that role here!) shouldn't miss this one. It captures their girl at the peak of her powers when she could do more with a raised eyebrow than pages of dialogue.

Anyone who loved the early scenes in any of the SHOWBOAT films that gave them their name or who howled at Michael Frayn's hilarious stage farce and fun film, NOISES OFF, will also feel right at home with this deft predecessor.


"Smile tho' your heart is breaking"--that's the motto of the theatre, where on-stage appearances and illusions are essential to creating the audience's experienced reality. Sam Taylor's "Exit Smiling" is an insightful commentary on the theatrical life, behind the make-up and costumes and between the grueling roadshow performances. It fittingly features Beatrice Lillie, renowned as a Broadway performer, in her first film role, alongside a supporting cast of colorful, but certainly less than marquee-status players. The very fact that MGM did not employ its bevy of famous names in this picture seems a testament to the overall sense of *ordinariness* that "Exit Smiling" conveys. For the world of this traveling theatrical troupe is not one of glamour and glitz with elaborate sets and costumes, but rather one of cramped dressing rooms and boxcars, lonely train depots, and rural barnyards.

In this midst of all this stands Lillie herself, who, as Violet, the drudge of the troupe, responsible for every menial task, spends her spare moments dreaming of the roles she could play if only given the chance. Lillie has a physical presence that is mesmerizing; her face is not traditionally beautiful, or even traditionally feminine (an aspect which is exploited in the story)--yet she is all the more striking as a result. Her reactions to the goings-on around her are quite subtle--you need to watch closely in order to pick up on her considerable abilities as a comedienne.

If, however, you come to this film (as I did) expecting a rip-roaring comedy (whether of the slapstick or the screwball variety), you may be disappointed. For me at least, this film rises above the ordinary not as a comedy, but as a reflection on the kinds of people in society it portrays through Lillie's character. For Violet toils away behind-the-scenes, both in her job and in her intervention on others' behalf, yet never receives the credit or rewards she deserves. Such is the nature of life, and Taylor seems to suggest that we might do well to transfer the empathy we feel by the end of the film for Violet to those other "Violets" in our own lives--to those who make things happen, who make the performances seem effortless.


In her only silent film and only one of 7 or 8 films, Lillie is wonderful as the lousy actress in a travelling troupe playing "Flaming Women." She gets involved with a runaway bank employee (Jack Pickford) who joins the company as the leading man. Subtle little comedy about the theatre and young love, Lillie could have had a major career in films but never felt comfortable in from of a camera. A consummate stage actress, Lillie worked for decades with an occasional film appearance, and like pal Gertrude Lawrence, never quite got the hang of film acting. Exit Smiling is not a major film but it is interesting to see the young Lillie at her prime. Billed as the "funniest woman in the world," Lillie enchanted generations of theatre goers. Jack Pickford seems a little pale and shaky, Doris Lloyd is good as the vamp, and Franklin Pangborn is fun as the swishy actor. Lillie is best remembered for her 40s film, On Approval, and her 60s hit, Thoroughly Modern Millie (as Mrs. Meers). Exit Smiling is certainly worth seeing.


Beatrice Lillie was totally captivating.

I have just finished watching this movie for the first time on TCM. I loved it. The realistic depiction of life in a traveling troupe of actors is great. The filming was light years beyond my expectations for a 1926 film. The cast is really great. But what makes the movie is the performance of the fabulous Beatrice Lillie, unknown to me before now.

The plot is thin, but provides enough tension through a couple of subplots to maintain interest at a high level. However, Ms. Lillie glows with such beauty, charm and charisma that she could easily maintain your interest through a much lesser film. Her acting style will knock you out. Perhaps due to her stage training, her acting is so nuanced and subtle you might think that she was an actress from the last half of the 20th century instead of the first half. I roared with laughter, and yet I felt her character's yearning - both for the love of her life and for the elusive acting opportunity. When life hands her the great opportunity that the stage has denied, she seizes it with abandon. Here the slapstick is hilarious and never clichéd. Yet this film is much more than slapstick. Other humor and irony abound.

But the film is not just a comedy, either. Several scenes are not comical, but serve to advance what is a dramatic plot underlying the comedy. And Ms. Lillie shows a wide range of emotions. While the ending may not fulfill some viewer's wishes, it is also far from the pat ending that might be expected in a pure comedy. Even though it strikes a different emotional chord from the comic character of most of the film, clear ground work has been laid for the ending; so it is not really unpredictable or a great plot twist. I suspect audiences in 1926 would have preferred a pat ending, but modern movie-goers are more likely to embrace this one.

The greatest of clowns, such as Chaplin, give us characters that are not merely funny, but also are filled with pathos. Beatrice Lillie has this gift. She shows us the soul of her comic character so that we see her longings and disappointments - her angst. That is why we root for her poor troupe flunky, are delighted by this wonderful gem of a movie, and find ourselves feeling very ambivalent about the ending. I feel blessed for having finally been introduced to this incredible actress, and I regret that she did not leave a legacy of many more films for us to enjoy today.


I loved the ended of this movie.

Beatrice Lilly had such a screen presence, her eyes seem to jump off the screen. It's easy to see why Rudolph Valentino had a romantic interest in her. It's a shame she only made 8 movies in her career. TCM said that it was because movie making lacked the audience interaction she so much loved. And didn't care to make movies with out knowing instantly how the audience was reacting.

Sure the ended may have shocked some audience goers and it wasn't what they wanted but, I kinda liked that. It was in the times with today to have twist and turns in the plot.

The updated musical score probably adds more to this movie than we'll ever know without hearing the original. It was simply suburb!!

I would imagine with a few edits and very little re-write this movie would have moderate success today.


Greatly enjoyed this great classic 1926 silent film comedy and was amazed at the great performance that Beatrice Lillie portrayed on the screen as Violet. Violet worked as a stage hand for a theatrical company that traveled by railroad all through the small towns of America. Violet would serve meals, clean up, mend clothing, iron and washed the actors and actresses clothes, besides, acting a small role in their play as a maid. Violet meets up with a young man named Jimmy Marsh (Jack Pickford) who needs a job and she manages to get him into this theatrical group and falls in love with him. However, Jimmy Marsh is suspected of stealing money in his home town and has some dark secrets he is hiding from everyone. There is plenty of comedy performed by Franklin Pangborn,(Cecil Lovelace) who plays a big sissy and has people laughing in stitches. Jack Picford is the brother to Mary Pickford who found a career in Hollywood, but had a very short life. Great Classic Silent film. Enjoy


Beatrice Lillie plays a somewhat dim but likable lady who works for a traveling repertory company. She does all the grunt work and occasionally fills in for small roles. Although she envisions playing the lead (the "vamp"), in truth she's not very competent and has a hard enough time with her own job.

A bit later, a nice young man (Jack Pickford) joins the company and Beatrice is smitten. He likes her as well, but for her it's "love at first sight". The reason Jack joined them is that he was framed--accused of embezzling money from the bank in which he worked. Later, when the company goes to the town where Jack was from, he hides because he doesn't want to get caught. And Beatrice gives it her all to prove Jack's innocence.

The film is a light comedy-romance, though it is much more a comedy--with Beatrice sometimes hamming it up and other times doing a good job of playing this ditsy character. It's pretty likable but also rather insignificant--worth seeing, but not a film you should rush to see.

A few observations about several of the actors. This is Franklin Pangborn's first movie and he plays a very effeminate wimp who also happens to play the rugged hero in the company. The film was shown as part of Turner Classic Movie's salute to gay images in film. He's pretty good in this role and I doubt if gay people would be particularly offended by his role. Also, this is Jack Pickford's second to last film. This ill-fated screw-up was the brother of Mary Pickford and by the early 30s and had a significant career in acting, although a combination of hard living, alcohol and STDs brought his life to an early end. What a shame. Also, while Beatrice Lillie had a long and remarkable career on stage, she made very, very few films so this is a rare opportunity to see her in action.


The ending was just right and somewhat in the Chaplinesque vein. I was really amazed at the little sight gags that appeared here and there and can not fathom why we have not seen more of this movie, and why we didn't get more of Bea to enjoy! We hear a lot about Thelma Todd, Mabel Normand, and numerous other movie comediennes of note, but here is someone for whom comedy was natural and timeless, and it's a shame to see her as a relative unknown even to buffs. I did see it on TCM and although the theme was indeed on homophobia and the like in movies over the years, I hated seeing her glossed over in the commentary afterward. Even the little bit with the actor taking all the ham, and how Bea deals with him, was more than just a throwaway. I can't imagine actresses of today who can handle this sort of thing. It's a lost art...at least in most modern movies. Bea had touches not only of Chaplin, but of Lloyd; some broad, some subtle. She and the director crafted some wonderful moments. The "onstage" stand-in scene and the vamping were just classic. Period.


MGM used to be known as "retake valley" between the 20s' and the 30s' because the studio used to res-hot and/or reedit their films until they were good enough in order to turn out a profit.

"Exit Smiling" is a rare case. The film probably flopped in 1926 simply because they probably did not change it at all. The major flaw of this production is its finale which is quite frustrating and out of tone, especially after Beatrice Lillie probed to be a delightful personality and you cared about her.

Its impressive that Irving Thalberg did not perceive what was wrong with this picture and was unable to made the necessary corrections to make it a success.

As it is, the film is quite a charming despite its ending. Linda Martínez score, for its TCM presentation, is very good.


Whit Stillman's movies are dialogue driven, which is not everyone's cup of tea. This is the first of a trilogy, all of which take a slice of life of young people coming of age, but in the cusp of a dying culture, with a new order and new responsibilities baring down on them. Here it's the prep and prom culture of New York's Upper East Side, sometime in the 70's. The participants dutifully go through the rights of Christmas Balls and 'orgy' week, act sophisticated, and generally do things and say things which are expected of them. An outsider, Tom, with radical social and intellectual ideas, enters their midst and becomes a catalyst of change here as a romance develops with Audrey. Tom, idealistic, insensitive and naive is embraced by Audrey, emotionally more mature but more vulnerable, accepting his sometimes preposterous social and literary speculation as a sign of substance in comparison to the increasingly jaded and cynical world of her preppy friends. A friendship develops also between Tom and Nick, the most cynical and pessimistic, but also the most aware and responsible, of the group. The conversations are lively and filled with insights into character and maturity. Nothing much happens in this film, but the intricate interplay of characters, dialogue and ambiance make for a fascinating and penetrating look at these young people's lives. It unfolds like a ballet. This is a fine film which doesn't rely on angst or melodrama-- and maintains a humor, poignancy and charm which makes it a rare achievement for the genre. Stillman's other two films in the trilogy are also highly recommended.


I saw "Metropolitan" a couple of months ago, was fairly impressed with it on its own talky, cerebral terms, and took it back to the video store. Since then, it's grown on me to the point where I have to place its script up there with the best of Chekhov and "The Big Chill." Concerning the Manhattan prep and deb season of some unspecified year past, "Metropolitan" transports your mind into a social order that exists just beyond our consciousness: where young socialites discuss Fourier without conviction, Jane Austen without having read her work, and love without never having really been in it. It's sweet, smart and touching all at the same time. The characters are flawed and doomed -- though, as one character notes, not doomed to failure, but just doomed to a normal, boring lifestyle -- and we can't help but love them for it. Go to Blockbuster and rent it tonight; if you can't find it there, go to Amazon, order it, and allow 1-2 weeks for delivery. It's that good. This was Whit Stillman's first of three similarly themed films; the second, "Barcelona," is subpar, but "The Last Days of Disco" closes the trilogy with a delicious return to form.


After reviewing some of the comments written by other contributors I felt I needed to clarify some issues raised.

This was an independently produced film made with relatively unknown actors and a limited budget.

That being said, the writing is a cut above most films put out to the public and the art direction (utilizing real apartments and settings) captures nicely the buffered world of New York City's Upper East Side.

The acting style though it may appear to be arch and affected actually captures quite well the voice patterns and intonations of those people it portrays.

The film is truly a small gem. The audience gets a glimpse into the lives of a privileged set of college aged "preppy" Manhattan-ites. Lots of fun music helps keep the scenes jaunty and most of the actors are well cast.

The film while intellectual in bent, plays most of the scenes decidedly tongue in cheek which keeps the movie from feeling pretentious.

The movie is a baby Hannah and Her Sisters if you will. I also enjoyed the director/writer's two other films to date, Barcelona and The Last Days of Disco.


I can say this film has staying power as I've seen it about half a dozen times in the 12 years since it came out; the most recent occasion was a week ago, and it still holds up, like a great play. It's all in the dialogue and acting: Stillman's idea of an action scene is someone opening a champagne bottle a little over-enthusiastically.

The characters are beautifully drawn, none of them perfect, none of them without some redeeming features. They seem very believable to an outsider from England. The dialogue is a never-ending delight, full of great one-liners, yes, but also some equally cherishable, marvellously pompous sermonising and theorising from these slightly preposterous yet strangely loveable people (particularly Charlie Black). It's not exactly a comedy, but I laughed out loud a lot more than I have in some films that have been trying desperately hard to make me titter.

For me the great mystery is this: whatever happened to this fine young cast?? Edward Clements has done virtually nothing since this film, ditto Carolyn Farina (apart from a small part in Age of Innocence); likewise Eigeman and Nichols, although the former seems to have racked up a few more credits, and the latter was in Boiler Room, although I didn't realise it was him until the credits rolled.

If you need action and plot, this film probably isn't for you. But anyone else can dive in and and enjoy a genuinely independent film that shows what can be done on limited resources. This film is worth more in my heart than the combined works of Joel Schumacher, Don Simpson and their tiresome, overblown ilk.


A wonderful, marvelous, funny movie that I watch at least once a year. A true gem-the writing is great, the cast is perfect, and the arch, somewhat affected performances more than do the trick-that's who these people are! Arch, affected, wanna be know it all rich kid snobs whose currency in life is their intellect and class standing. The fact that the action takes place in a few small apartments only heightens the genius of this film-these locations represent the small world in which these young people's lives intersect, in how they dole out their verbiage, how much belonging to a small group of people can dictate the every day thoughts of each member of the gang. The kids have not yet lived enough to be fully forming the opinions they insist upon shoving down each others throats, and the comedy comes from their own inexperience and total lack of thinking other wise. This is like a high brow Breakfast Club, smarter and much more fun for those of us not into stereotype titillation. With out a doubt on of my favorites.


The film is compelling not because of a riveting story, special effects, or manufactured suspense, but because of sharply written characters whose personalities drive the story, rather than vice versa, extensive knowledge of its subject, and beautifully written dialogue.

The dialogue, by the way, is great not only for its intelligence and wit, but also because it instantly identifies a proudly unique writer. We can tell Mamet, because of his fractured phrases and rhythmic line readings. We know Smith because of his rapid-fire, fiery and profane writing, as well as his sensitivity. Tarantino is recognizable because of his pop-culture references. Whit Stillman writes characters who talk, often defiantly, in complete sentences, and say exactly what they mean, whether they're expressing their emotions, or shooting to kill.

Whit Stillman was nominated for an Academy Award for his screenplay for "Metropolitan" in 1991, and with "Barcelona" and "The Last Days of Disco", he's on a winning streak.


METROPOLITAN has really aged well - I first saw this when it was released, and watching again a few days ago, it really stands up as something unique. Episodic and without much real plot - the only real forward motion in the film is to be found in the ending, which feels a little contrived, and is my only real gripe with this film.

At my first viewing, I didn't really want to like these characters, who all seem from another world - rich, young and good looking, carrying on through elaborate, banal, pseudo-intellectual conversations with a deadly confidence about their place in the world. But over the course of the film it becomes apparent that their secure perch in the upper echelons of the American elite isn't 100% set in stone, as an outsider is able to penetrate this rarefied universe, and manages to hold his own quite well, arousing suspicions (and battling shame over his own proletarian roots, and his battle between his own free-thinking idealism and his aggressive social climbing ambitions), but also making genuine friends among the cute young blue-bloods. Of course he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and neither is anyone else in here, and they all know it even when behaving otherwise, which greatly humanizes these otherwise not-exactly-pleasant characters. On the strength of the dialog, METROPOLITAN has become something of a cult classic, and deservedly so.

In a strange way, METROPOLITAN is almost a companion piece to the surreal and disturbing documentary GREY GARDENS - both are centered upon characters from the well-bred, wealthy elite of American old-$ society. As METROPOLITAN insinuated that the security, intellect, status and wealth of its' characters isn't as rock-solid as the characters would like everyone to think, GREY GARDENS illustrates, in lurid detail just how psychologically destabilizing a precipitous fall from such a lofty, but artificial world would be - you could easily see an aged variant of one of METROPOLITAN's character's ending up like the Edies from GREY GARDENS.

The probable best from the very non-prolific Stilman, I strongly recommend.


Brilliantly written. Stillman's first in his trilogy, this sets the standard for the offbeat banter and dialogue of the two films that followed, "Barcelona," and "The Last Days of Disco." Surprisingly great acting, I think, as well--from a cast of, at the time at least, relative no names. As talkfests go, this is a keeper.


I guess I have seen three or four hundred 'first films' of young American directors in the last couple of decades. None has given me such a sense of euphoria that Metropolitan did. It stands in a very high position in that much neglected and un-nameable genre that presents us with a bunch of totally unlovable characters and then proceeds to make us love them.

That may have started with La Regle du Jeu, but Stillman handles this so well, he should not blush at the reference.


I though I could familiarize myself with Whit Stillman's oeuvre easily over the course of a long weekend. I was wrong. After foraging in three video stores and a library, I had only a copy of Metropolitan to show for it, which was initially unfortunate for me--I had been gunning for The Last Day of Disco (that's right: let's blame Yo La Tengo on this pursuit of mine). I'm not so sure my only finding Metropolitan was such bad luck: It's a fantastic film and, because I've watched it four times since Thursday, I probably would have had to return Last Days of Disco or Barcelona to the video store before watching them anyway.

Nominated for a writing academy award, Metropolitan is a literate and witty film--a comedy of manners not unlike those penned by Wycherly or Wilde--that leaves its audience with a cadre of rich kids during the débutante season one New York winter. Precocious and pretentious and sometimes arrogant, these college-aged lads and lasses are nevertheless incredibly likable and real. They speak of Trilling and Tolstoy and the urban haute- bourgeoisie; they philosophize; they gossip. In other words, they behave like my friends and I did during our undergraduate years (the difference being, of course, these kids are actually part of the urban haute bourgeoisie; my friends and I were plotting their overthrow).

They also fall in love. In a way, there's nothing new in the central affaire d'amour. Audrey loves Tom; Tom loves Serena; Serena doesn't appear to love anyone. It's a triangle whose hypotenuse and legs we all know well, yet Stillman imbues it with a freshness through deft wordplay and real feeling for his characters. As I said, we have all seen this story many times before, but we have not seen it done through words. Tom wins Audrey with wit, intelligence, and a daunting vocabulary; Audrey piques Tom's interest with her adulation of Austen. They fall in love, ultimately, through their conversations, which is, after all, how we all fall in love. There's no meet-cute here and no physical passion. It's not unlike Before Sunrise in that respect. Moreover, Tom and Audrey are really very wonderful people (though Tom has several faults).

I'm making an ensemble piece sound like a love story. Though the tale of Tom and Audrey holds center stage, in terms of the narrative, there are others to encounter and enjoy. Charlie philosophizes about the decline and fall of the UHB and pines for ideals that fell out of fashion after World War I; Nick despises titled aristocracy, believing them to be the scum of the earth; and Rick, a baron, is incredibly slimy, giving credence to Nick's assertion. There are also the women, who, unfortunately, do not leave much of an impression (aside from Audrey, of course).

Metropolitan is also blessed with one of the most realistic representations of New York I've encountered. Like Taxi Driver or After Hours or Manhattan, Metropolitan makes its audience feel like it is walking the streets of the city. It doesn't rely on cheap establishing shots of notable buildings. I really only know the City from the ground and this film's exterior milieu is one I know from my travels. Metropolitan's interiors are also interesting, especially Tom's family's apartment, which is cramped and claustrophobic, befitting his middle class background.

Overall, this film, an exploration of human, group mentality and love, is a very warm, charming gem.


Ever so glad I saw a trailer for this in a Blockbuster rental tape, this movie was quickly one of my favorites. Nobody cares how the movie ends, since the dialog is the key to this film. I had never paid attention to a director's or producers name until METROPOLITAN. I will watch any Whit Stillman movie that comes out.

If you enjoy this movie, watch BARCELONA, then LAST DAYS OF DISCO. There are some interesting 'ties' between the three, though not important to any of the individual stories by any means at all.

Read all of the other people's comments to learn what it is about. I just give it thumbs up with each hand.

Not full of belly laughs, but quite a few "I wish I could say that in real life", or better yet, "I wish I could think of things like that in real life to say to my friends, and even to strangers".


This is a gentle subtle film that makes you feel as though you have spent an evening with charming, intelligent dinner companions. It is basically about a series of parties attended by a group of friends during the Christmas season in New York. The dialogue is incredible and led to screenwriting Oscar nomination for Stillman. I think this is best of his films. He is truly a Hollywood radical because he argues for good old fashioned virtues in his movies like friendship and chastity. What could be more revolutionary in todays entertainment climate. Rent this one if you like interesting characters and snappy banter and you will be treated to some laugh out loud zingers and sweet lover story. A winner all round.


This movie glistens like a piece of old Belleek. Whether in the subtle gold of an off the shoulder evening gown, or in the vast expanse of a deep, plush, ivory colored carpet, nearly every frame shimmers with champagne like iridescence.

And gold is an apt visual metaphor, particularly when juxtaposed against the black satin of a tuxedo lapel or the wintry Manhattan night scape, for a world seemingly vanishing right before our eyes--a world too sleek, too soigné, too genteel to survive the steam roller of galloping blue-jeaned egalitarianism.

That the denizens of this vanishing breed, as depicted in the film, are themselves, insecure late adolescents, make its departure all the more poignant.

"This is probably the last Deb season..." one of them observes resignedly, "...because of the stock market, the economy, Everything..." Yes, everything...the huge smothering subject that hovers all around the plot itself and from which its characters are only temporarily insulated.

In particular, the focus here is on a group of privileged Eastern Seaboard collegians enjoying the Christmas holidays in a series of Park Avenue, "after dance parties," in which they loll about and ruefully anticipate the disappearance of their youth, their success, and their kind.

That they are one at the same time cerebral, immature, literate, prankish, frightened, polished, well educated but vulnerable and inexperienced, puts them well outside the troglodyte teens that inhabit the deconstructionist zoo in most post 1970 films, (with the exception of a unfortunate and mis-placed "strip poker" sequence which violates the picture's otherwise overall mood.)

Indeed, they seem to exist outside their own time, belonging rather to that group Cecil Beaton dubbed "the smart young things" from the 1920's, in his "The Glass of Fashion." Certainly, one imagines them far more comfortable with Ivor Novello than Mick Jagger. And like many "smart sets" they seem rather a closed corporation.

Until that is, into their number unexpectedly arrives a young man of reduced circumstances, Tom Townsend, (Edward Clements) who by virtue of his sincerity and intelligence, is invited to "sup at their table--on a borrowed pass" so to speak. His romantic misadventures with the beguiling Audrey Rouget(Carolyn Farina)forms the cynosure of the charmingly fragile plot.

Audrey and Tom stand out from the pack, in their earnestess and integrity, though it is assuredly Nick, (Christopher Eigeman) their figurehead and chief quip master who is the groups' un-elected leader. As interpreted by Mr. Eigeman, Nick is the embodiment of the cocktail fueled, cigarette wielding bon vivant--trenchant, self absorbed, far from virtuous, and with a ready verbal arrow that never misses its target. He is George Sander's heir presumptive.

Nick's observations are worth the whole price of admission as they say, whether it be bemoaning the Protestant Reformation, the social climbing Surrealists, or the scarcity of detachable collars.

Since the film's short, bouffant,cocktail dresses and automobiles unmistakably place the film in very late modernity--the Reagan era in fact, and long after the Ray Anthony's Orchestra, top hatted milieu it depicts, we cannot fail to miss the film's core observation--the parallel evanescence of the groups' own social connections, as placed against the simultaneous collapse of civilized life as we once knew it.

As the Christmas season ends, so do the nightly gatherings, and each character is forced to come to terms with impermanence--their own and everything else's. In a melancholy bar scene, an older man warns the youngsters of disappointment ahead, "I'm not destitute but...it's all so mediocre."

That Producer/Director Whit Stillman manages to fuse the personal with the sociological in such and intriguing and entrancing way is a testament to the penetration of his vision.

And, lest we miss the point, he includes a cunning shot of a significant book left on bedside table--none other than Spengler's "Decline of the West."


While every other social and ethnic group is deemed off-limits to filmmakers, one remains a target for cheap laughs: Preppies. From "Animal House" and "Caddyshack" ("the slobs versus the snobs") to John Hughes and Savage Steve Holland, to more serious fare like "Six Degrees Of Separation," filmmakers have availed themselves of this last group of people they can target with a broad brush of easy scorn.

Which is one reason why Whit Stillman's debut film, "Metropolitan," is so refreshing. By taking a more sympathetic, inside look at a group of affluent East Side Manhattanites home from college, Stillman makes a case for an underlying core of goodness beneath the Thurston-and-Lovey veneers.

Making the foray into their world for us is Tom Townsend (Edward Clements), literally and figuratively a red-headed stepchild in this world of privilege, having little money (his big secret, which he guards carefully with the help of mass transit, is that he lives on the West Side) and a defensiveness about his place in high society he manifests by adopting the stance of a disapproving socialist, though in reality he is more than a little too shallow to feel anything that deeply.

The truth of Townsend is immediately obvious to members of an upscale social set that call themselves the Sally Fowler Rat Pack, but they take him in anyway because he knows their world and seems like a good audience. Running the group is Nick Smith, who you can call a snob, as well as sexist, obnoxious, and of late, rather weird. Just don't call him tiresome, or you'll get an argument.

Nick is also a good guy beneath his preppie bluster, a fellow who champions Tom and breaks down Tom's highminded resistance to joining their circle with snarky logic ("You'd rather stay at home and worry about the less fortunate, but has it ever occurred to you you ARE the less fortunate?") He also has real values he honors, sometimes at no small risk to his nose. Chris Eigeman plays him with such panache you understand why Stillman kept using him in his movies; Eigeman's delivery is a thing of wonder, especially with lines that sound a mite too polished for instant expression. He can speak of his stepmother as "a woman of untrammeled malevolence" and make it sound like the most natural phrase in the world.

Another familiar face from Stillman's movies is Taylor Nichols, who plays Charlie Black, who when we first see him is stumbling through an explanation of why he believes in God and you do, too, even if you don't know it, and later on offers his own alternative definition of the preppie elite as the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie, i.e. the UHB. "Is our language so impoverished that we have to resort to acronyms of French phrases?" a woman asks.

Charlie's more of a preppie snob in his dislike for Tom, though as Tom trifles mildly with the affections of a woman in their circle, Audrey Rouget (Carolyn Farina), we understand Charlie's attitude. The movie is most fun as a platform for Eigeman and Nichols' pithy one-liners, and there are many great ones, but the complex relationship between Audrey and Tom is what gives the movie its plot and much of its interest.

It's bizarre how Clements and Farina vanished from the movie scene right after making their accomplished twin debuts. Farina, with her fetching dark eyes and wry, timid smile reminds one of Molly Ringwald at her pre-"Pretty In Pink" peak. Clements is good as a character that guards himself closely, with a scholarly front that falls apart fast.

Pressed on why he doesn't like Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park," Tom admits he hasn't read it, just that he doesn't like it from reading critical essays about it by Lionel Trilling: "I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism - that way you get both the novelists' ideas and the critics' thinking." "Metropolitan" is full of quotes like that, the product of young people who think they know more than they do but aren't quite bad beneath their smugness. It's not a film of great depth or revelation; Stillman isn't so interested in dissecting his creations as he is in giving them room to express their ideas, goofy and grand. His first film does exactly that, pulling off the twin feat of having cinematic fun and giving a preppie an even break.


I saw "Metropolitan" around the early nineties. Reviews were very good comparing it to Woody Allen's work. I found it talky and the characters irritating. I then saw it around ten years on and found it truly captivating. It is a very intelligent piece of writing with a slightly Chekhovian feel. You warm to the characters gradually and by the end I really connected with the 'will they won't they' scenario of Audrey and Tom. Most of the actors in this film are making their debut and they are all surprisingly strong especially Chris Eigmann as Nick -- he is very funny and really energises the scenes he is in. Whit Stillman's screenplay is warm, witty, sensitive and memorable -- a gem!


People who like this film may feel smug for doing so and who could blame them. This is that rarest of rare things, an American romantic comedy about young people that could have been directed by Eric Rohmer. It's full of talk and it's all highly intelligent, at times almost unbearably so, but the young writer/director Whit Stillman has a wonderful ear for a bon mot and he doesn't take things seriously. He lampoons these smart young New Yorkers but he doesn't despise them; the comedy is gentle and affectionate.

It's set among the well-heeled New York débutante set as they embark on a roundelay of parties over the Christmas period. It owes a considerable debt to Jane Austen and acknowledges this by referencing her as often as it can. Another reference point, of course, is Woody Allen when Allen was writing and directing genuinely smart New York comedies. It's even got a nerdy Woody Allen character in the form of Taylor Nichols' pseudo-intellectual.

Indeed if it has a weakness it's that the boys are far better developed as characters than the girls and in a good, fine, unknown young cast the best performances come from Edward Clements as the hero from the wrong side of the tracks, or in this case, the wrong side of the city and from Chris Eigeman as the handsome, verbose rich boy who befriends him, (think "Emma" with the sexes changed). A little gem of a movie.


"Metropolitan" is like a little piece of jewelry which is beautiful and a bit ornate, and still unpretentious (maybe someone else described it this way too--I don't mean to plagiarize!). It might not sound like the most entertaining movie to watch, but for me its very enjoyable. It has lots and lots of talk, which isn't everyone's cup of tea, but its also a refreshing change from so many movies which bang you over the head with loudness, violence and graphic sex. And many of its characters are very likable. People like me whose idea of a good time includes an evening with friends playing board games would feel a close kinship with the kids portrayed here.

One of Whit Stillman's many strengths is that he goes against today's Hollywood stereotype of showing all rich people as evil, idiotic or guilt-ridden. From what I've read about him, he is very familiar with the world of the American wealthy, and so he knows what he's talking about. More importantly, he's also very good at showing human nature in general. In his movies, people with lots of money include nice people and jerks, and that's how it is, of course, in all classes of people.

One funny segment shows the big hurdles that the characters Tom and Charley have to overcome when they try to drive from Manhattan to Long Island--most of us wouldn't have as much trouble, but because of Tom and Charley's privileged background they don't have an easy time of it. Yet Stillman doesn't belittle them or turn them into caricatures. They come across as fully human and people with whom we can empathize.

Stillman also includes moral messages in his movies, but thankfully they are unlike the heavy-handed, politically-correct and dreary messages in so many other movies. I don't know if he is a Christian or not, but he shows subtle respect in all three movies for Christian values, which has been a rarity during the past few decades in Hollywood. I doubt, though, whether Pat Robertson would be likely to recommend his films, as they show a wide variety of human virtues and vices without simple black-and-white messages.

In addition to a sort of mini-epic storyline involving Tom, Charley and Audrey, there are several little entertaining side-shows throughout the movie, often consisting of get-togethers amongst a circle of friends. The slightly eccentric character of Nick is especially funny and appealing throughout, and helps tie things together. Charley, Tom and Audrey are good portrayals of nice, bright but awkward adolescents, and although they move in rich Manhattan circles, they go through much of the teenage angst that other less fortunate kids experience, and they serve as sort of "Everyman" characters.

"Metropolitan" isn't as polished as Stillman's other two excellent movies, "Barcelona" and "The Last Days of Disco," but its my favorite of the three because of its characters. There is humor throughout, and lots of poignancy.


A film about ultra-privileged young contemporary Manhattanites romanticising themselves in the doomed spirit of Scott Fitzgerald may sound unbearable, especially as this is a very talky movie. But 'Metropolitan' is actually quite delightful, in fact because of the very quality of the dialogue - the characters are elegant show-offs, which gives the writer the freedom to indulge them with clever lines. And clever in both senses - the characters are themselves clever, but the writing is cleverer, as the protagonists inadvertently give themselves and their absurdities away in spite of their intelligence. However much you may want to hate these people, it's simply a delight to hear them talk. In fact, my main criticism is that the screenplay falls too much in love with its own creations - as it reveals the failings and absurdities of the characters, it starts to forgive them, which is probably more than they deserve. A final kick at the end to remind us (and them) of the nature of real life might have made this great, as opposed to merely good.


This is a movie that amused me the first time around, delighted me on further viewings, and continues to grow in my esteem. The script's light tone hides depths that surprise. Stillman strikes just the right note in a story that touches on pains and fears that are genuinely daunting (divorce of parents, love unrequited, etc) as well as the comic value of his characters' earnestness and foibles, keeping just the right distance so that comedy keeps just ahead; all leading to the modest but charming triumph of the shy and virtuous protagonists.

The link to Mansfield Park (the book, not the movie) has been noted by some observers, with a story centered on the mischief some young people get up to while their parents are absent, and the trials this brings for the young protagonists. But this isn't Austen's story, not really. Stillman has done something like what Austen might have wanted to do, had she been a filmmaker in our time. But with his own story, his own times and mores, his own world, his own delightful touch. Considering the budget Stillman had to work with, this is a masterpiece.


The majority of critics ADORED this movie and the screenplay was nominated for an Academy Award, so I figured it was a fairly safe bet. You can't win 'em all. This film was Mumblecore before Mumblecore (a genre which critics initially poured far too much praise upon). Of course, these characters don't mumble as much as simply drone on and on about their fear of eventual failure that would apparently bring more emptiness to their Park Avenue lives. Bringing us into this world has the potential to keep an audience's interest for a short period of time, but the film never progresses behind exploring this youthful angst. It's not a plot issue. A filmmaker can afford to have 90 minutes where not much happens in terms of plot, provided he or she creates characters and situations that are so compelling, you want to continue watching (not much happens in Hal Ashby's "The Last Detail" either, but try looking away from Nicolson and company in that film). Alas, that is not the case here. Yet, like Mumblecore (which is thankfully dying a rapid death), this film revolves around post- (or mid-) college, white, upper middle class, awkward youngsters who can't seem to shake their general sense of malaise. The film itself appears to be shot on a shoestring budget, and considering that, the cinematography is quite impressive. However, the acting is often painful to watch (with the exception of Carolyn Farina), and though there are no pyrotechnics, there's barely a plausible moment in the film. None of the characters speak or behave in a way that is even remotely believable. It's one pseudo-intellectual diatribe after another with no hint of a natural segue. The actors all seem to be standing around, with no sense of true life or action, waiting to spew out or be the recipient of the next unmotivated monologue. Aside from a truth-or-dare type party game that involves burning cigarettes through a napkin, there's not one conversation that feels authentic. One scene finds an apparently sober middle-aged man at a local bar pouring his heart out to our pair of 19-year old protagonists for no apparent reason except possibly that the author wanted to squeeze in another monologue. This scene could have worked with a different character if it were more skillfully setup. Finally, the final scene at the beach house is "groan-worthy" in its attempt to manufacture misplaced drama, but winds up looking like a bad student film with the poor actors looking completely lost as how to try and make the scene look realistic. However, this was Stillman's first film, so I'd be interested in checking out his other 2 films to see where he went from here.


Blah... Blah Blah Blah... Blah Blah Blaaaaa....!

This film is so boring that It makes Groundhog Day appear realistic and interesting. Blah Blah...

Bitch Bitch Bitch about random people who will never make a difference and spend thirty seconds deciding on what words you are going to respond with so they sound smart.

What's with the top hats? Is it 1932 or 1990?

I grew up in this neighborhood and believe me, this film is a load of s**t.

Yeah, woo hoof... They used real apartments. Well, the taste of the apartments is that of a drunk white trash bible thumper that stole the coin jar from their local church... Ew!

I think this is the first film I have seen where they didn't purposely cast a homo.

I think fire crotch is going to be serial killer...

And now.. I have witnessed the flooding of St. Pats.

I'm out, and destroying this DVD...


Although Metropolitan's production values are nothing to write home about, at least it enjoyed the distinction of perhaps the most awful acting ever. Someone should have told Stillman that a film so dependent on its carefully crafted dialogue might also depend on the performance of said dialogue. If only it had been a short story, I might have enjoyed the read.

Once upon a time, while reviewing a director's reel, an agency creative laughingly remarked, "My God, it's like porno dialogue!" Metropolitan seemed to go out of its way to prove that bad delivery needs no nudity to make it to the screen. Such stilted performances could only come from one of two places: the actors' first time in front of a camera, or incredibly bad direction. Metropolitan must have had both ingredients.

I hope the comparatively enormous budget of Barcelona, Stillman's next film, healed the wounds he must have suffered in viewing this one. At least the folks responsible for Metropolitan's lighting and art direction were kind to his first effort.

After enduring what seemed hours of such stagey performances, I was sure that somewhere out in the world, the writer was still hunting down Metropolitan's director, with murder as his sole intent. Then I learned that the writer directed it. That explains everything.


I found this movie extremely disappointing; having been referred to it after IMMENSELY enjoying Noah Baumbach's "Kicking and Screaming" and, to a lesser extent, "Mr. Jealousy." This, however, was unadulterated crap. Essentially a handful of obnoxious pretentious snobs, the lot of them investing their meaningless little lives with melodrama, since they seem to have no real problems to speak of. The only even remotely likeable character is that of Chris Eigeman--and I'm probably simply confusing the actor with the character, as I like Eigeman quite a lot. The character of Charlie Black, on the other hand, made me want to hurt him violently nearly every time he spoke, the arrogant little turd. I confess that much of the dialogue of the movie I found incomprehensible--not in terminology, but the semantics behind it seemed to lack any real logic or sense...almost as if they were speaking a foreign language. Perhaps it's because I'm a 'lower-class Midwesterner' and not from the GLORIOUS city of New York...gah.

So, if you want entertainment, and you're NOT an elitist New Yorker...look elsewhere.


The hallmark of a professional actor IMHO is to hide behind a mask. It is jarring if the mask slips, and the actor's true personality does not match the intended persona. This is chiefly what makes school and most amateur theatricals so trying.

Metropolitan is witty, intelligently filmed and directed, pleasing to the eye, but the actors seem like high school amateurs - and like many high school plays, the male actors are unable to conceal their epicene nature - I don't have a problem with who they really are, I just want to have it concealed to ease my suspension of disbelief. As much as I liked this film, it seemed so stagey, the actors just did not convince me as they meaninglessly mouthed the director/author's acid epigrams.

I will probably rent this again. And I will enjoy it again. But I will also mutter "So fake" as the puppets go through their paces.


One might be tempted to compare this movie, with its face to face dialogue and "complex" charaterizations, with DINER or THE BIG CHILL, but that would be unfair to those who are the professionals in the craft of acting. I have no idea what the director of this film was thinking (if there WAS a director), other than a desire to give some out of work actors a chance to show why they ARE out of work. They mumbled their way through the dialogue like even THEY can't wait till the movie is over. There is absolutely NO expressions on their faces when delivering their lines, and the camera roams around the room as if its hunting for a place to rest, further diminishing from what could have been a decent putting forth, had the material been put into the hands of a TALENTED cast and crew. Honestly, it would have been more understandable to have 4th or 5th graders in front of the camera reading the lines from their script pages. I have refrained from being MORE direct lest one of the actors from the movie (probably STILL out of work) stumble upon this review. TWO LOUD YAWNS!!


This leaden effort is about life in the Waspy social circles of N.Y. (I think it was N.Y.; I was too bored to remember). The critics went ape over this dog, but the endless, pointless, droning, fatuous conversations among people we don't give a fig about were to me a kind of torture by dialogue. Maybe that was the point, I dunno, but they should have put a warning label on this one. The movie to me gave a whole new meaning to the word "sleeper".


It may be unfair to judge this film based on only watching the first 3/4 of it, but we could only take so much punishment as an audience. The film presented itself as possessing intelligent dialogue that was radical and thought-provoking. Well, it was thought-provoking. My thought was, what is this *&%$? The characters were intelligent and their dialogue and conversations were coherent. Dialogue was striking as somewhere in the neighborhood of graduate students discussing and philosophizing all types of different issues. Such would seem to be a foundation for a stimulating dialogue-driven film. In a word: No.

Here are my principle complaints:

Plot: None discernable. People are just sitting around philosophizing about ontology, pop culture, and a variety of other subjects. Mind you, it's just philosophizing with clever little comments about what so-and-so said or so-and-so thought. A movie doesn't really need a plot, but it's quite beneficial if -something- does happen.

Characters: Annoying. Well-educated, but they are the type of people who sit around and solve the worlds problems instead of doing something to solve the worlds problems. They are all well-educated, but no one seems to have a soul or any real existential reason for existing. Their lives seem to hold no real purpose. Striking as a bit spoiled and lazy. No character struck me as possessing any humanity. No soul, no spark of life, just a bunch of people talking about things that they really don't care about. Extreme deconstructrionism seemed to rule their existence. I.e., they didn't seem to feel that the world had any meaning. I found no characters to elicit any sort of empathy from me and I can be very clinical at times.

Basic deal: If you want to catch the essence of what this film could have been, secretly videotape a close-knit group of first year college grad students toegether that are studying the humanities and you'll have something more interesting than this film. These people have created radical theses that no normal person would conceive and supported them logically numerous times in numerous papers. The world has little meaning to them. The humor completely failed when it was attempted as the affect of the actors was so flat. Deconstructionism as an idea is worthwhile, but watching a movie with characters that are seemingly obsessed with the notion and seemingly no emotion is not my idea of a good time. I may have missed some of their colorful allusions and jokes about famous cultural figures, but ultimately, the problem of flat affect and character ennui bored me half to death. I've stopped two movies because they were so awful. This movie, and Captain Ron. I'm a reasonably well-educated, open-minded person that appreciates good dialogue. I've enjoyed countless films that focused primarily on dialogue and enjoy classic literature as well. Movies included Secrets and Lies, Gosford Park, Sneakers, Sense and Sensibility, and Howard's End. This movie struck me as being a pretender to such a genre. It was not as well acted or written as any of these other films, nor did I find it remotely interesting.

It seems to be hit or miss, but watch out people, this film is all about dialogue without any other focus and if you don't like a bunch of self-absorbed, spoiled philosophizers talking about how nothing means anything, then this movie may have as little meaning for you as it did for me.


I had watched years ago some older films of Aggelopoulos and i was expecting a slow movie, with minimal dialogues, many symbolisms, weak plot and superb photography. I got exactly what i expected and something more: i left the theatre with an extreme satisfaction.

The film: Greece roughly between 1920 and 1950 (but it is so current and contemporary because it deals with global, recurring themes). The life of the nation through events: national catastrophes, refugees, social and political unrest, world and civil wars. The life of the person through emotions: love, lust, pride, hope, love, desperation, ambition, love, death. And many symbolisms and extremely powerful and beautiful scenes with references from ancient myths to current international affairs. And rain, lots of rain :-) The plot and the development of the characters may appear weak. We are used to ready meals from the business of cinema, which overwhelm us with fast dialogues, "strong" performances and "exciting" situations. And that's fine. But cinema and people need also the approach of Aggelopoulos, we need some space and time, to reflect and realise our existence. "To Livadi pou dakryzei" gives more freedom and time to the viewer to participate with his feelings and memories and thoughts. That's exactly interactive art.

These are some of my interpretations of some scenes: village flooding (Climate Change and the forces of Nature), immigration/separation (departure of my girlfriend), mother crying over her soldier sons dead bodies (this is a real war scene, not the computer games style). You will identify with other scenes (everyone has an opinion, right ?) and you will feel alive.

I am grateful to Aggelopoulos for giving me the chance to look inside myself, remember, sigh, think.


Theo Angelopolous, the Greek director, undertakes the colossal task of putting in a film some thirty years of history in his country. The director has a poetical way to present his story, which was written in collaboration with some of the best minds of the business, namely, Tonino Guerra, Giorgio Silvani and Petros Markaris, one of our own favorite Greek writers.

The result is a complex canvas in which Mr. Angelopolous paints for us, the viewer, in dark colors that gives us an idea of what the country went through during that period. In a way, the director seems to be taking an outside position in recounting the tragedy his country lived by photographing in long shots almost every frame of the film. Of course, this being his style, it suits the poetical way in which he conceives the basic idea.

There are lots of moments in the film that take the viewer's breath away by the beauty of the composition of a particular scene. It's clear the director uses a lot of symbolism in trying to get his point across. The opening scene with the returning people from the Odessa massacre being one of the most effective things in the film. The rowing boats carrying people affected by the flood is another. The many white sheets waving in the wind, are just the highlights of the story, the way Mr. Angelopolous conceives it.

The actors act as an ensemble. Alexandra Aidini, who plays Eleni, the woman at the center of the tragedy, makes quite an impression. The excellent fading cinematography by Andreas Sinanos gives a rich texture to the film, as well as the music score by Eleni Karaindrou, that greatly enhances the mood of it.

While this film is definitely for a general public, it shows great moments of brilliance created by Theo Angelopolous working at his best.


Angelopoulos' films are definitely an acquired taste. His style eschews mainstream conventions, resulting in his films being perceived as nearly the antithesis of Hollywood's films, with which most people are familiar. So familiar, that they cannot imagine a different cinematographic approach to cinema. To Hollywood's rapid cuts and furious pacing Angelopoulos opposes through long takes, leisurely pacing, and composed tableaux. He uses long shots, which de-emphasizes individual performances, unlike Hollywood's close-ups and star system. Hollywood tries to emotionally seduce its audience, while Angelopoulos looks for means to occasionally distance his viewers from their emotional responses. Angelopoulos forces his audience to participate in his films. In the case of the acting, he presents his characters "from the outside," his intent being to compel his audience to study and explore their identities.

"The Weeping Meadow" is the first film of "The Trilogy," Angelopoulos' latest and most ambitious project. The story proceeds in a straight-forward, linear fashion, unusual for Angelopoulos' treatment of time, which is often somewhat convoluted, and covers from 1919 until the end of the Greek Civil War, in 1949. The central character of a film, Eleni, is interpreted by Alexandra Aidini, in her screen appearance debut. Her acting shows unusual maturity for an unseasoned actress. Alexis' role is entrusted also to a first-time actor, Nikos Poursanidis, whose performance is convincing. Giorgos Armenis, as Nikos, is most touching in his portraying of a stoic character, full of humanity and compassion. Atypical for Angelopoulos, there are some expository dialogues in the earliest scenes, but they appear a little gauche. However, in keeping with his unique style, dialogues are sparse, without any monologues or exchanges during which his characters exteriorize their inner conflicts, doubts, or feelings. The action, as in the classic Greek theater, takes place offstage and is described not by the chorus, but by some of the different characters functioning, in turn, as the chorus.

Angelopoulos' productions are always filmed on location in remote areas, using the available decor, with minimal construction. But this film required the massive constructions of a whole city neighborhood of some two hundred, 1920-style stone houses, in the Thessaloniki's harbor section, which will eventually be burnt down, and of a whole village at the edge of Lake Kerkini, some distance north of the city, which will be submerged for the purpose of the plot when the lake rises up naturally about two meters.

Andreas Sinanos, Giorgos Arvanitis' assistant from 1975 until 1983, was the cinematographer. The whole film is shot under covered skies, threatening or rainy weather, and misty Greek landscapes in dark colors of grays, blues, and greens. Red appears briefly on three occasions. The colors, the characters and their costumes, the usual decors of the familial tales are all represented in tableaux and plans-sequences of an Angelopoulos who has totally reverted to the aesthetics of his first films. Angelopoulos' films contain many image references and lines of dialogues from his previous films, and this film is no exception, which makes it a delight for Angelopoulos' aficionados.

The story is based on a short story by Italian screenwriter, old friend and close collaborator, Tonino Guerra, with the participation of Petros Markaris, and Giorgio Silvagni. The music is by Angelopoulos' long time collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou. Her music is not a background accompaniment, but a dramatic element, a living component of the story, an actor adding some words that had not been spoken.

In "The Trilogy," Angelopoulos plans to recall his country's history, from the early years of the last century to the present, as seen through the eyes of a woman, Eleni, as she lives her life. Her story has, as principal theme, the exile of the Greek people, and the displacement of the people in general, at the whim of History. Angelopoulos tackles his themes as he would in a Greek tragedy, and as in all Greek tragedies, a single primordial mistake leads to an unstoppable chain of events, one that crushes inexorably the main character.

In the present film, History is relegated to the background over which Eleni's story is told. Eleni, whose very name evokes Greece, becomes a metaphor for the Greek nation and its people. She is the Greek mythological mother who laments the sacrifices of her fathers, brothers, and sons. But she is also the modern heroine, as women everywhere throughout the ages, who bend and stagger under the weight of adversity. Furthermore, Angelopoulos' treatment of History in "The Weeping Meadow" is certainly different from that in "The Travelling Players." In the latter film, Angelopoulos' views contradict the "official" Greek history and constitute a fundamental revision of history in which the Left, in general, and the Communist Party of Greece in particular, are given their proper places, and are not depicted as the moral threat to Greek democracy. In "The Weeping Meadow," History is simply there, absolute, and not open to interpretations.

Since we became familiar with the cinema of Angelopoulos, we know his fascination with the Greek myths, that they are eternal, and that History repeats itself. In this particular film, there are references to the Theban cycle of the Lavdakides family -- "Oedipus," "The Seven against Thebes," and "Antigone." There is also a reference to Homer's Penelope in the departure scene to America, where Alexis unwinds Eleni's unfinished knitted sweater. Or is it Ariadne's thread, which allowed Theseus's exit from the labyrinth? But in the present film, the thread broke and Alexis-Theseus never came back. All these allusions to Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Homer are only here because they make the poet Angelopoulos dream.

Angelopoulos' work is an uncompromising devotion to cinema as poetry. His films are elegant, powerful, and eloquent. They are also long and demanding on the part of the spectator, but always well worth the effort. Angelopoulos' films have something of melancholic, but they are not pessimistic. The melancholy that one feels is the dignity of the heart confronted with the defeat of a vision.


Theo Angelopoulos is one of the greatest directors working in films today. His last film, Eternity and a day proved that. This film is,likewise, a masterpiece. It begins in 1919 as a band of refugees returns to Greece from exile in Odessa. There are sepia colored photographs , and in this section of the film, the interiors are also sepia colored. The film then proceeds very elegantly for about the first third of its running time. He uses mostly long pans and tracking shots, and then may stop to focus on a scene as he gradually pulls the camera in closer, but almost never to a close up. His sense of mise en scene is superb, but even more he evokes a very specific time and place. His cinematography is superb, and often highly gorgeous. There is a superb scene at jusr about the end of the first third, where Eleni,the film's principal character, wants to leave and walks down to the water. She is suddenly surrounded by a group of men who begin to dance with her. That scene and the music in it are quite intoxicating. it reminds me a little of Fellini. The film then darkens drastically, becomes more political, and also somewhat fantastical, non linear, and rather mythic in tone. There are some beautiful, truly remarkable images here--the streets, the slaughtered sheep hanging from the trees, and a funeral procession in the water with the funeral party on a raft, surrounded by fishing boats all lite by lanterns. Then there is the final third of the film which takes us to WW2, but the style is quite abstract and elliptical, and where it is very difficult to pinpoint time. By the end her family is destroyed, and she becomes a figure of true Euripidean tragedy. It's devastating, and suddenly not only mythic but timeless.


Angelopoulos again makes the most of an intellectual way of cinema, which is though full of poetry and with the stain of compassion. History and human relationships are emphasized through the symbolic order of ancient Greek tragedy and that is what makes the film have a more "heavy" character, which makes it a little harder to follow than a usual Hollywood production- do not misjudge me, I love it too. As long as it concerns the scenario the modern history of Greece becomes only the environment in which the man wrecks along with his fate. Angelopoulos recons the mechanizations of History upon man and tries to make a clear statement upon it. The film itself is the most mature of the Greek director and has all his personal characteristics bound together in an excellent work!


What a spectacular film. If you don't have a good 162min free of your time, then make it a priority to change it. This movie was full of sensational scenery and the director had taken a photographer's approach in catching the atmosphere at hand. Coming from a Greek background and taking my 65 year old father to see this film, as he was resorted to tears, I came to realise that this is not just a fictional film, but that reality was close to home and to the heart for many Greek refugees who were forced to flee their country. It was full of nostalgia, music (inspiration by each instrument) and dedicated actors (Eleni as a mother, weeping from the loss of her children). The only thing I didn't like, was that the film was too long to fit on a tape and the movie was interrupted when the tape ran out, half way through. A 5min interval was then in place, as which many lost their passion and thought the movie was finished. However, once again, this movie made me so emotional, and gave me lots of empathy to humanity. It is so unfortunate that we were only shown the film as a "ONE OFF" in Australia at the world film festival. (both sessions sold out before time) Well done Angelopoulos!! Can't wait till it hits our shores, so it can be bought on DVD (that's if it ever gets here). I recommend it, go on, I dare you too to!


THE WEEPING MEADOW ('Trilogia I: To Livadi pou dakryzei') is writer/director Theodoros Angelopoulos (with influences from Tonino Guerra plus assistance from Petros Markaris and Giorgio Silvagni) creating a personal vision of the 20th century. The incredibly gifted Greek poet of a filmmaker mirrored the life and death of his own mother whose time on earth spanned a century and elected to capture the 100 years of sadness in a trilogy of films: The Weeping Meadow is Part I and details the years 1919 through 1949. It is a masterwork.

The film opens with what will be the trademark look of the movie - vistas of lonely people in a nearly monochromatic color space that uses water, both from rain and the collected results of rain. A group of refugees from Odessa have landed by a river in Thessaloniki where they must attempt to reconstruct their lives. Among them is a family - a wife and husband with their young son and a three-year-old orphan Eleni they have protected. The entire movie seems to be in slow motion, but that is just the studied, unhurried rhythm of Angelopoulos' direction. As time passes we find that Eleni at a very early age has just given birth to twin boys while she has been sent away for the family's appearances: the father is the young son of the family. The story progresses through the World Wars, the civil wars, the influence of Hitler and Mussolini, the natural disasters of floods and disease, the social disparities of class, the rise of unions, the fall of democracy - all mirrored in the family that is trying to make the chaos of living in Greece resemble some sort of order. The young man is a musician and once he and Eleni have reunited with their twin boys, he decides he will go to America, the land of Promise for poverty stricken refugees, to work and make enough money to bring Eleni and the twins to America. But in his absence the progressive civil unrest and poverty the three endure in his absence results in the ultimate dissolution of the family.

The story is less important than the moods evoked. The cinematography by Andreas Sinanos is a long gallery of miraculously composed, beautiful images: the cortège on the river, the flapping white sheets behind which we discover musicians, the constant vistas of the ocean and the river, the village and the battlegrounds burn themselves onto our visual fields and into memory. The gorgeous music that accompanies this symphonic work is by Eleni Karaindrou, mixing folksongs with wondrous symphonic moments. The cast is superb: they manage to create very specific people despite the fact that we rarely see them up close. But in the end this visual treasure is the extraordinary work of Theodoros Angelopoulos. If this is Part I of a Trilogy (at almost three hours running time), we can only imagine the power that will follow in the Parts II and III. Experiencing THE WEEPING MEADOW takes patience and a long uninterrupted period of time; the rewards are immeasurably fine. In Greek with English subtitles. Grady Harp