One thing about these 'newer' Poirots is that we must expect changes to the source material. Quite often I don't mind the changes if they make sense or add something to the story or if the change is accompanied by some particularly affecting performance. Unfortunately none of these things apply to the changes made to 'Taken At The Flood'. I have to confess that this was never one of my favourite Christie novels. I always found most of the characters fairly unpleasant and here the film manages to make them even more so! It's quite a slow moving story and the film does nothing to hurry it along. A very dark tone is adopted which is appropriate enough I suppose but so many of our misfit characters tip over into caricature and (unlike the vast majority of these adaptations) there are few performances to savour. Elizabeth Spriggs is fun, 'Rosaleen' is sympathetically done but the others are either creatures from pantomime (Kathy, Lionel and especially David who just needs a moustache to twirl) or a Noel Coward play (Jeremy, Frances and Lynn).

Once again those responsible for adapting this particular Christie have felt the need to cram the final denouement with as many extra revelations as they possibly can - each Cloade must have a nasty secret to be uncovered by Poirot, most of which must surely be stabs in the dark! As Rosaleen is saved in this version, the scriptwriters obviously felt that the other deaths in this tale are a little bland and so introduced the dynamite plot to set Poirot's moustaches quivering in righteous anger. I agree of course with all other reviewers who point out that making the deaths of Gordon Cloade and his household domestic murder instead of 'accident' shows a complete lack of understanding of what the book is actually about. This is one of Christie's titles which was carefully thought out and contains all the clues one needs - we are dealing first and foremost with an adventurer and opportunist! I appreciate that as this series seems firmly fixed in the thirties, a war bombing is no longer sensible but the original explanation of the gas explosion worked just as well - why make it murder? We must remember however that the film-makers are aiming to 'make the stories more relevant and accessible to a modern audience' and I suppose that that must explain everything?!?

Easily the worst of the season.


"Poirot sees things, madame; it is a habit he cannot change"

The last "Poirot" episode available for viewing up to this point (May 2008), though apparently at least 4 more are on the way. And in my opinion, a very good one. It is a fascinating mix of the new and the old: the story is told in a somewhat offbeat way, but there are also some light moments (Mrs. Leadbetter and her dog, for instance) of a kind that had been almost completely eliminated from, say, "Five Little Pigs" or "Sad Cypress". Plus, just like in "Cards on the Table", we get to see Poirot back in his London apartment - actually, a different apartment, but still on the same building, Whitehaven Mansions. The locations are not as visually striking as those in many other episodes of the series, but there are some interesting experiments with red filters for the flashbacks.

David Suchet gives an outstanding performance in this one - he can be subtly funny ("There is an unresolved indigo in your aura", a flaky lady tells him. "Yes, I know, it is a problem", he replies) or dead serious ("If God should deprive anyone of His mercy, it surely will be you"); whichever the situation calls for. The rest of the cast is typically good, with top honors going to Elliot Cowan, who gives a truly creepy edge to David Hunter.

I noticed that the script was written by Guy Andrews, the same man who adapted "The Mystery of the Blue Train" for the screen. In both cases, Agatha Christie purists have complained about changes from the original text. But I (who had read neither novel) was able to appreciate the stories for what they were: multi-character, multi-layered mysteries that are structured a bit like Chinese boxes - you unlock one and there is another one inside. In other words, I'm already interested in his next AC adaptation, which according to IMDb will be "Hallowe'en Party" (also, I find it quite funny that some people complain about lack of faithfulness to the novels BUT want Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon back in the movies, even if these characters did not appear in those novels at all!). Another point to consider is that David Suchet himself, who has read all the books in preparation for the role, has now been promoted to co-producer status and he has said that he reads and approves the scripts before filming begins.

Overall, "Taken at the Flood" may not be among the Top 5 Poirot episodes so far, but it's still better food for the brain than most of what is available out there. (***)

(Read also pajak3's excellent IMDb comment on this movie - the sentence "there is no such thing as a lighter side of crime" is particularly spot-on, especially when we're talking about murder)


From IMDb: "Hercule Poirot finds himself trying to solve the mystery of the Cloade family. Rosaleen is the young widow of Gordon Cloade who was killed in a gas explosion in his London home. Rosaleen has inherited her late husband's substantial fortune and she and her brother David Hunter are refusing to share it with other members of Gordon Cloade's family. There have been persistent rumors that Rosaleen's first husband, an intrepid explorer, is still alive and as such would nullify her marriage to Gordon. What Poirot learns however is of a far greater deception that will alter everyone's perception of what they believe to their reality."

Taken at the Flood has to be one of my very least favorite of the entire Poirot series (I disliked it so much that I didn't even bother to write my own plot synopsis). I was never a huge fan of the book, but this adaptation has some real weaknesses and problems that I just can't get past. Chief among them is that it never "feels" like an Agatha Christie story. Who decided to sauce up Christie's work with all the sex and talk of abortion? I suppose it was done in an attempt to attract the more modern viewer. What about those of us who watch these movies because they aren't filled with the same garbage you can find in every other modern movie? Beyond the bastardization of Chirsite's novel, the denouement is terribly disappointing. Poirot brings up things about a murder that happened years ago that, not only would Poirot have had no way of knowing, the audience couldn't begin to come up with the solution. Kreskin couldn't have come up with half the things Poirot reveals. And it's not as much fun when you can't play along. I realize that Christie would often spring a surprise or two during one of Poirot's final monologues, but here Poirot offers no proof. Based on the evidence, his accusations seems to be little more than wild speculation.


I think that the new episodes really betray totally the ideas of Agatha Christie and most of all became less logical. The new authors seem only interested in putting homosexuality themes, morbidity, and similar. These don't own at all to Christie. I'm not a puritan, I don't care if I see a movie with these theme in, but why put them here? They have changed lots of lines, and worst of all changed significantly the plots. In this way then the plots don't work anymore, it lacks logic, it's hard to get the motivations of the characters.

In this episode Hunter puts a bomb, Scotland Yard confirms it to Poirot, but... nobody knows it??? Scotland Yard tells it only to Poirot, on request?? Don't you think it's rather absurd? And why did he put the bomb? Because his sister didn't want to share the money with him? It wouldn't be a little more logical to kill the husband and in case next his sister to inherit from her? And why put a scar on his face? The bomb's exploding anyway, just content yourself of the wounds that you get from the explosion... Sorry, I haven't read the book, but I think anyway that the story doesn't work, it's not only a matter of nostalgia or defense of clean Christie's style. It's only, simply, totally WRONG, it's not cinematic!


The final installment of Agatha Christie's Poirot is definitely worth waiting for. Definitely made my top ten. Although criticized heavily by some die-hard fans, Taken is a very enjoyable installment to a rather dull season.

The film starts off with Poirot, played to perfection once again by David Suchet, listening to Major James Porter (Nicholas Le Prevost) telling of how he sat outside the London townhouse of Gordon Cloade as it exploded. Out of the rubble steps Gordon's young bride, Rosaleen Cloade (Eva Birthistle) and her brother, David Hunter (Elliot Cowan). Rosaleen has now inherited Gordon's fortune, much to the distaste of his family. Now the family is hitting Rosaleen up for money, but David holds her purse strings. It's a situation ripe for murder.

The directing and performances are what really make this episode spectacular. Andy Wilson once again delivers a great product. Elliot Cowan gives a disturbing performance as the evil David. Amanda Douge also does exceptionally well in such a complicated role as Lynn Marchmont. Celia Imrie is spectacular as Kathy Cloade, playing the exaggerated part without overacting. Pip Torrens and Penny Downie are quite enjoyable as Jeremy and Frances. Jenny Agutter does well as Adela, though she doesn't have much to do. Nicholas Le Prevost is pretty good as Major Porter. Patrick Baladi is superb as Rowley. Elizabeth Spriggs and Claire Hackett are delightfully comical. Richard Hope and David Yelland are also very good.

Unfortunately, Tim Pigott-Smith's talent is totally wasted, dropping him very rarely into only a few scenes. Though, the biggest disappointment of the episode was Eva Birthistle. Rosaleen was described as a stunning brunette, but Eva, though stunning, was frumped down for the role and was blonde.

The locations, however, were all exquisitely chosen, including Englefield House, Chilworth Manor, Dorchester-on-Thames and, of course, Florin Court in Charterhouse Square, the set of Poirot's stunning new flat.

Guy Andrews' screenplay could have been better. Some of the language and conversation was very uncharacteristic of the time and major liberties were taken. However, this episode doesn't sag in the middle, like some of the others. This is like the Sad Cypress of the season. Liberties were taken, but the performances and direction makes this a lasting treat.


Taken at the Flood had a bad end like Cards on the Table. When I saw After the Funeral I imagined Poirot's Movies were good again, but this last movie had changed the final.

David Hunter used a bomb??? Did he kill her sister and Gordon Cloade on the book??? Did he pretend to be an old lady to make an alibi??? I don't think so. Please don't change the finals.

I love Poirot's Movies and the books of Agatha Christie, so if the end of the book is very ingenious and good why change it?

I believe that the next movies will be good. And where are Miss Lemon, Captain Hastings and Chief-Inspector Japp? I don't think they are old and retired.


This is by far the best Poirot of late.

The fast-paced, complex plot and exciting cinematography make Taken a far more interesting film than preceding ones which were overly naturalistic and dialogue heavy. Who wants to hear the Hollow's Henrietta discuss what a complex person she is when action and interaction speak louder than words? The actors of Taken are well cast and the characters are great fun to watch. Also, the murder-hook followed by the long question-and-answer routine in many of the previous ones was too linear and formulaic, which makes you question why they were adapted from the book at all. This film mixes it up very nicely, there are no lulls or boring parts that last longer than a couple minutes. This is a film you can watch more than once.

The few changes that were made from the book are for the better, especially if you remember how disappointing the very end of the book was. My favorite things about this film is the dramatic flair of the characters and the camera movements as I stated above. A good director can make all the difference.

One minor thing that bothers me is that the home version of this film seems to be shortened. For one, the scene with Lynn and Rowley in the kitchen is missing.


This is the second Poirot I've put back in the box before finishing. The first was Sad Cypress, and the reason is the same. Both come across as overly melodramatic to me, with the romantic elements so pained that it seemed the character's heads would explode. I like my Poirot in a lighter mode, and these to episodes seem to be spoken in a different language from the rest I've seen. I can imagine people liking this sort of thing, but I find it out of character for the series.

As with someone above, I was bothered by the cuts between segments. A scene ends outside, and you're suddenly in a room and different people are talking already. I understand television breaks, but a few seconds to get you into a new setting would be appreciated. I certainly don't notice it in most Poirots, but the last 2-3 I've seen have had the same problem.

For all of you complaining about changes from the book - do you really want to know what happens next in every scene? How can you watch a mystery when there's no mystery? If I had read the books, I'd certainly want the dramatic version to have new elements to throw me off.


I found the dialogue between David Hunter and Lynn ludicrous and her "I'm just a poor woman" act cringe-worthy. The performance by the actor playing Hunter was so over the top it was from another planet. SPOILER :

So the police knew the Cloade house had been blown up by dynamite but there was no investigation? Please!! The only credit I give the production was to give Tim Pigot Smith so little to do. With an actor of his stature this nearly always means he would be the murderer. Not this time, so well done for that. Otherwise this production was so bad it makes me more annoyed the more I think of it. How can Suchet,supposedly, give approval for the book changes? I can only assume he does not appreciate the meaning of the title.


I've waded through about 50 episodes of Poirot now, from the sublime to the mediocre, but this episode lowers the bar to basement level. I've never seen such a preposterous collection of characters, few of which make a lick of sense. It seems that the producers decided that the story needed sexying up, so they sprinkled vulgar language throughout, and heated kisses at every turn.

Every Poirot has to have an antagonist, but Elliot Cowan's characterization of The World's Biggest Jerk is so far over the top that he turns menace into eye-rolling absurdity. And naturally, since the plot demands it, the most virginal female character just *must* "fall in love" with him, even though she recognizes his purely evil nature. "What am I, a poor, weak female to do?", she sighs, "I'm a slave to love (as of 5 minutes ago)".

And throughout, Poirot subverts his beloved character with hyper-emotional exposition (for no good reason, given his lack of connection to the characters), a hitherto unrevealed religiosity, and a penchant for using 50-cent words that he's never before used, while still forgetting the English words for "thank you" and "yes". Asinine.

I would warn anyone who feels affection for Poirot and the great body of his work before this absurd farce to avoid it at all costs.


I really didn't know what to expect when some friends and I hired this DVD. Denzel Washington plays Rueben James, a retired English Paratrooper, returning home to the housing estate he grew up in as a child. Here he finds that not much has changed since he left about 10 years beforehand.

 Many of Rueben's friends are still involved in 'less than legal' occupations, and the poverty and wretchedness of the estate seems even worse than when he lived there before. He needs to decide just where he fits in back home, and what direction his life will take. Despite trying to make a new life for himself, obstacles from past and present seem to always get in the way.

 While I did find this movie slow paced, it captured the dismal feel of this community excellently. It also avoided using simplistic general stereotypes (for example, police are portrayed both in a very positive and very negative light).

 I would recommend this movie if you're in the mood for a bit of gritty realism, but don't expect to feel particularly upbeat afterward!


I never intended to see the movie - in fact I'd never heard of it - but accidentally I turned on the TV just as it was beginning, I saw Denzel Washington (come on, guys, he IS gorgeous) and decided to see what it's going to be about. And jeez, I was stunned. It was Britain showed from a totally different angle that I used to know (as a tourist and an exchange student). At moments, I must admit, the picture that emerged was that negative that I started suspecting it must be very much one-sided.

But coming back to the story: a veteran (Northern Ireland and the Falklands) comes back to the part of London where he used to live only to find the world from which he tried to escape unchanged - probably even worse. His former buddies, with whom he used to get into troubles, continue to do so, only with much graver consequences. He tries to keep away from them, find a decent job, find a girlfriend, but it turns out that no one in this country needs a black war veteran. The only thing he has is his "honour and pride" from having served "his" country.

What is amazing for me in this movie was probably the inevitability of his fate. Returning home means for him returning to people who got stuck in this ghetto, since it is a kind of a ghetto, deprived of any future, of any hope for better future. Drug dealers, thieves, war veterans, their women and children - they are all thrown into the same category of common criminals, the so-called social margin, from whom it's best to keep away. The funny thing - sending the police to fight them does not really solve the problem, quite the contrary, leads to an open war. Yet this is how the problem is being dealt with in most countries.

All in all, a very good movie, one worth seeing not only because of Denzel Washington :))), but also because of the social problems mentioned... And really, is Britain such a racist country?

Just one final remark - I wonder what makes D. Washington such a good pick for roles of soldiers (and ex-soldiers). Huh?


I have to disagree with the previous commentator's opinion. Washington's accent was about as spot on for a "Yank" as was we'll say Pitt's was in "Snatch" to an Irish tinker's. The movie while obviously low-budget (no different than we'll say "My Beautiful Laundrette" or "Mona Lisa" at this particular time in UK productions), yet its concentration on the inherent drama of a confused and conflicted ex-Para in a non-empathetic society totally over-rode its budgetary limitations.

This was an above-average movie (and a rare one) of its genre and adequately displays Washington's versatility as an actor.


Before viewing this film, I watched the trailer to get a quick glimpse, and immediately I classified this film as a comedy, but after actually viewing the film I realized the seriousness of the piece. Denzel Washington startled me with his "decent" British accent and his ability to remain consistent throughout the film. I, in no way, can relate to the plight of the protagonist yet I understand the feeling of betrayal, therefore I was rooting for him all the way. The plot was definitely long-winded and I was lost a few times, but surprisingly it all came together at the end. Even though he met his demise at the end, I was happy to see one of the many antagonist (the crooked police officer) killed off (this is where the sheer delight comes in). Overall the movie was pretty good and kept my attention. However, I found certain segments of the film unnecessary. Will I view again? Probably not.


An excellent film. Reuben(DW) returns from serving two tours abroad fighting and risking his life for his country UK. He is originally from St Louisha, not sure if I have spelt that right. He can't get a job; is consistently, racially harassed by the police and goes back to an area which he tried to escape from by joining the army in the first place, hoping that on his return there would be some improvements. Alas there are none. The action starts when he decides to go on holiday with his new found girlfriend and when he trys to obtain a passport HE IS REFUSED! on the basis that since he had been away at war, his country of origin had gained independence and therefore he was not entitled to a British passport. The film is not slow moving but definitely very provocative and there are some commanding performances from all, including DW, (with the exception of his accent!) Things for people that have served in the British army have changed since and I am sure that this film played a part albeit minor.


If you are in need of a cliché ridden, stereotypical trawl through a fantasy England, then this is the film for you.

Most of my time watching the film was wondering how the writers and producers managed to convince anyone to make this tripe. Denzel Washington produces, at most times, passable, mockney accent although there are times when he lapses into American.

Apart from Denyel Washington, who I like a lot, the acting is wooden and comical. How anyone could describe this as gritty is beyond me. There is a word approximating to that which is far more valid.

From the first scene to the last the script does not disappoint as it becomes ever more bizarre in what I can only assume is an attempt to trawl the lowest common denominators.

If its a choice between watching paint dry and this, enjoy the paint.


"For Queen and Country" sticks Washington in the center of a bunch of characters as a deadpan British vet of the Falkland Islands war whose come home to find less than a hero's welcome. The film spends the first third fleshing out everyone but the centerpiece and then doesn't give him any depth as he stumbles through his thick cockney mumblings from one costar to the next. The film doesn't really begin to move until close to the end when it winds up and down in about 20 minutes with a less than desirable conclusion. Given the typically British austerity of the film, an illfocused and bleak story, an almost complete absence of passion, and what are by film standards rather sublunary events with no payoff in the end, this flick was barely tolerable. Not recommendable. (C-)

Note - I watched this film back to back with another British film "The Fourth Angel" which didn't receive rave reviews but was still head and shoulders above "For Queen and Country".


I picked this DVD off the shelf and flipped it around, looking for the tipoff that this was, indeed, a British flick, since it is called "For Queen and Country". Not surprisingly, no mention of UK was on the jacket (perhaps that hurts sales), only megastar Denzel's face. Knowing Denzel takes good roles, I rented it.

But i stopped the DVD halfway through. Although it seemed intelligent, it was boring and not believable. And everyone had a British accent, of course.

It's about a black UK paratrooper, fresh from the Falkland war, back in his old crime-ridden London neighborhood. Denzel speaks like a Brit, but his stone face reveals little emotion, and so the viewer has little reason to even like him, other than he was a soldier, I guess. He exudes very little human qualities--the character is paper thin. But we're supposed to think he's a good guy. But the first thing he does is to cover for this hoodlum, and then I was wondering why I should even continue watching it. A good writer knows how to build a sympathetic character. Just because he's Denzel Washington--doesn't cut it. I didn't really care for this guy, and he was not even intriguing.

There is no war footage. The Falkland War is filmed as a bunch of soldiers looking out the hatch of some craft (ship?) while it's pitch black outside and you hear some explosions. That's it. Probably not even a ship--just a studio prop they were in.

Denzel hooks up with this woman, who happens to be the mother of a kid who burgled his apartment. No matter! They are attracted to each other and never mention the incident again. Huh? That's not believable.

His war buddy with the crutch is stereotyped--feeling emasculated, lashing out at everyone, including his wife. Nice guy.

Also, it's not believable that Denzel comes home, and his old crime buddies are very interested in having him around. Denzel treats them like they have a disease, but they still knock on his door. You would think they would not trust a guy who's so obviously cleaned up his act. Not these guys. Makes no sense.

The film was dry, boring, unconvincing, slow and obviously low budget. And yes,it has annoying British vernacular which can be incomprehensible to other English-speakers. Avoid by all means.


I love action-packed games, and I love James Bond movies. "Agent Under Fire" is the first (to my knowledge) James Bond game that isn't based on one of the movies. It's entirely original. The character of James Bond also isn't based on Pierce Brosnan or any other Bond. He's entirely his own character in this. This is great!

One thing I love about this game is the sound. It's amazing. I turn the volume up whenever I play high-intensity levels, and it's like I'm watching DVD. I can't get enough of it.

I guess the only thing that disappoints me in this game is that it's a bit too short. Only twelve levels. But on the upside, some of the levels are divided into three or even four sections, so a level can feel like it's more than one.

Because of this game, I'm now really looking forward to "Nightfire", the new, completely original James Bond game coming out this fall. If it's any better than "Agent Under Fire", then I'm sold.


When i first got this game i was most pleased with it. But soon after i found it to easy and completed it in three days. Also a number of things let it down for example: The two twins you see on Cold Reception you are expecting to fight them, however you do not. But it is an unwritten rule that on a Bond film the person who introduces Bond to the Prime villian always ends up fighting him, however on Agent under fire you do not. Another thing is that Carla the Jackal appears quite deadly however when you fight she fights worse than a............. well Carla the Jackal. Another thing that was a let down was the AI intelligence and the fact that the bodies disappear, even perfect dark can handle that and thats on the n64. (Which has less memory) Also the multiplayer was a let down the legs on the players moved to fast for the speed that they were going! And the fact that you can only get three AI bots, Perfect Dark can manage eight. Overall not bad but alot of room for improvement.


This bond game is pretty good because: The mission's are pretty good they are most of the time fun and sometimes hard and challenging to complete that can be fun sometimes. The cars in this game are good the car mission's are pretty fun to do. The voice over actors are good. The way bond looks is pretty good but would have been better if they made bond look like one of the actors but who cares it is still fun to play. It also has lots of action in it and the graphics are pretty good as well. This game is really fun so rent it or buy it some time because it is pretty fun to play.

Overall score ******* out of **********


Good to play as a game but not very interesting storyline. Fun to play but if you want a fun storyline with great graphics and gameplay then you need 007: nightfire. Its weird because you don't get to meet the characters or know their personalities or anything. its just oh hello *bang* *bang* *drive* *drive* *kill* *kill*. nothing pretty much to do. its very easy as well. like when you have to defeat a weird clone you jut have to shoot him 2 times if you have a shotgun or "frinensi". The driving is weird too. its like you have all these weird gadgets which don't help you out at all with you mission. its like they are there for decoration. When i first bought this game it was a million miles from where i lived and so i brought it home and tryed to play it but wouldn't work and i couldn't go and take it back either. so i was stuck with it and so today when i bought it i played through the first mission and i was so excited because i thought that it would be like that for the entire first level but no it completely changed the level after. so i say if you wan to waste your money go right ahead but if yuor looking for a good game steer away from this one.


Agent Under Fire is the best 1st Person Shoot I've ever played! Graphics are awesome, gameplay is intuitive and there are so many features and it's so much fun you just don't get bored! Each time I play each level it becomes even more fun and I always discover something new every time! Definitely buy this game!!!


One of my best-remembered shows as a kid. What set this show apart from its predecessors was in drawing respect from the audience for the firefighters it portrays; for the first time the paramedics, doctors and firefighters didn't arrive to wave a magic wand putting the fire out and saving the patient. The range of (at the time) operating medical and CB radio procedures and terminology, the open identification with real-time Los Angeles and the range of rescue situations faced by Station 51 and their paramedics showed how thorough Jack Webb's research and commitment to authenticity was, pushing the benefits of the paramedic program in the face of a skeptical California state government; as a concerned West Coast citizen with an eye on the Big One he probably knew this was an important step forward in public health that would save many, many lives when that day inevitably arrived. Rescue 911, ER, Law & Order, Third Watch, Cops; the entire medical and police reality television genre can trace their origins to Emergency! and once a compatible DVD box set for Australian players arrives I'll have it to reminisce with too.


The beginning of the show, in the Wedsworth-Townsend Act, everything is quiet, your seeing the fire trucks, then you go up the pole, see all of the fireman and then, breaking the silence, the big loud fire alarm blasts waking not only you but also the fireman up. The fire trucks race to the scene and you can sense what the show is like from there. Johnny and Roy are one of the most memorable characters from the jokes to the rescues and then to serious matters, you can always know that they are ready for anything. The hospital always packs all kinds of scenarios from a lady getting stuck to a toilet seat to a doctor in Rampart Emergency dieing of a heart attack, the hospital always has something either unusual or something serious to show you. When squad 51 goes out on a rescue Johnny and Roy immediately start to provide the best medical care, they flip open the biophone, they get the information and they administer the drugs. After watching a couple of episodes of Emergency, you will never want to stop watching it. Buying Emergency! on DVD would be one of the greatest investments you ever made.


In a way, Jack Webb cloned his Adam-12 success with this series in 1972. The setting & cast are different, I mean how can anyone with a colorful name like Randolph Mantooth fail? The regulars on this series provided some spark for sure as like the Adam-12 team they provided some of the spark for this show too.

Another similar thing is the action. Being set in a fire house & on the streets often on calls, Emergency has it's fair share of action sequences. Most of them are very well done too. One difference between this & Adam-12 is that it is set in a 60 minute format so the stories could be bigger & more extensive.

This had to be an easy sell to NBC execs, as you have the experienced Jack Webb production team who seems to endlessly come up with good action stories & endlessly keeps finding cast members that play off each other well. This show was a very good show.

Once again, rerun heaven for it might be established once it is released on DVD, as it might pick up some fans.


This show was a staple of my childhood and I find that I still connect to the humour and drama, even if the medicine is out-of-date. The characters were so well-developed that I still find myself hooked to their trials, tribulations, and triumphs. I've especially developed a great appreciation for the supporting actors, which I didn't take much notice of back when I was a kid.

I regularly watch the episodes on VHS so I'm happy Universal is releasing them on DVD. Anyone know when Season 3 and beyond is due out? They seem to have stopped releasing them for some unknown reason, yet you can get "He Man" on DVD; go figure :)


This show was always a favorite. And now I'm collecting the DVDs. I would much rather watch reruns of this show on the DVDs than most of the garbage that is on the tube now! The realism in the show during the rescues really made you feel like you were there, and the combination of drama and comedy was handled really well. It is so interesting to watch the show as it developed over the years. This show was definitely the basis for the better dramas that came later, and I am sure it convinced many people to become paramedics. If I have one complaint about the show, it would be the lack money spent on many of the special effects, but that is understandable considering the budgets for TV shows at the time.


i love emergency because the program i record in TV it is my favorite show in the world and i never miss it. I would like to see more Emergency in DVD. And now for Christmas this year i have it and i can't wait to see it Next Monday Christmas Day and i will get the whole season of Emergency. Emergency(1972) that is the Year i was born that's why i love Emergency and engine 51 because i love the engine 51 and Fire Engine 51 also. I love Emergency. I love it. And the stars of Emergency was so cool and Awesome! I love it so much. I hope Emergency(1972) be back for the season 3 in DVD so i get it also. I love Dr. Brakket because he was the coolest. And Also the Cast of Engine 51 was also cool and awesome too! I love the Emergency(1972) i love it so much. Keep put the Emergency in DVD for ever and ever. In short i love the DVD of the first season of Emergency. I have this for Christmas this year and now i very much wanted this Program in my home i love this. Emergency(1972) this is a very excellent program for adults. and i love them too. Emergency (1972)is a very excellent 10 in my book.


I love Randolph Mantooth. What a HUNK! I have the show on DVD. :-) I Love the show :-) I love to watch the show over and over and over again.

It is the best show I have ever seen. :-) I wish they would put the show back on TV.

I highly recommend the show to everyone.

I have never enjoyed a show soooooo much.

I have had a crush on Randolph Mantooth since I was a teenager. :-) I would love to meet Randolph Mantooth in person. :-) I give this show an A+ EMERGENCY RULES!!! :-)


I remember watching it back in the 70's. Never missed an episode. Along with the exciting rescues, there were also some amusing situations. There was the call they got for a guy who got his big toe stuck in the tub faucet. Another was for a guy who was building a ship model and accidentally super-glued his hands to the model. He wouldn't let them cut the model from his hands, so they bring him into the hospital with the ship still attached to his hands as nautical music played in the background. Another was the one where they responded to a toilet on fire. When they arrived, they went to use their fire hose, but the hose caught on fire. Meanwhile, outside, a man threw a cigarette on a lawn where a sprinkler was going. The lawn caught fire. They figured out that the gas and water lines got crossed at a work site.

But you could always count on a huge incident to climax each show. I seem to remember one episode where they were responding to a house fire, and while they were working that fire, a house across the street also caught fire. Another was a man who climbed out to the end of the crossarm of a 100 ft tall construction tower to commit suicide. He changed his mind, but then was afraid to move.

When I heard about the new NBC show "Trauma", I was so hoping it would be much the same, however Trauma concentrated too much on the everyday lives of the characters and not enough on exciting rescues. Also, instead of the camaraderie and humor that the station 51 crew on Emergency had, Trauma's crew seemed to be conflicted and at odds with each other. The first episode of Trauma was the most exciting, but after that, things seemed to go downhill. I hear that Trauma has been canceled. I wish it would have worked. TV needs another show with the excitement and humor of Emergency!

I just got the Season 1 DVD set! For the most part, it's great. There was one problem with disk 2, side 2, 2nd episode "Publicity Hound". When it got to the scene near the end when they are bringing the child up the ladder, it sticks then cuts out to the menu. There are only 4 scene selection options, the last starts before that rescue. The problem continued with the beginning of the 3rd episode, "Wierd Wednesday". After a bit of the beginning, it skipped to the opening credits. I missed the first rescue, something about a parachutist stuck in a tree.

Now that Comcast is in the process of buying NBC/Universal, I hope they add this show to their On Demand TV Shows section.


The Planet of the Apes movies interested me very much as a young child. I was (and still am) very into the monster/sci-fi genre.

When this series came out, my friends and I would always be tuned in. In the special "Behind the Planet of the Apes" it references this series as being 13 shows long. It also mentions that the show was up against 2 very popular TV sitcoms at the time, Sanford & Son and Chico & the Man. I wasn't a fan of either of these other shows so I guess I was in the minority in watching "Apes".

I remember commenting back around that time that the Planet of the Apes TV series looked like Starsky and Hutch vs the apes and I still feel that way when I see clips of the old ape TV show. The 2 human stars bear an uncanny resemblance to the 2 stars of the popular 70s TV cop show (which came out in 1975). There was much merchandising back then, and we collected ape trading cards and ape dolls. I also had the ape model kits. I remember getting a few of the dolls for Christmas but the "ape house" set that came with it was too expensive and a neighbor kid had got that so we 'combined' the items for play.

In 1981 the ape TV shows were combined and renamed "Return to the Planet of the Apes" among other titles.


'Battle For The Planet Of The Apes' in 1973 was the last in the series of motion pictures inspired by Pierre Boulle's novel 'Monkey Planet'. Arthur P.Jacobs, the producer, had been planning a spin-off show for some time, but his sad death that year meant the idea had to be bequeathed to others.

The series begins much in the same manner as the first movie. A spacecraft containing three American astronauts - only Alan Virdon ( Ron Harper ) and Pete Burke ( James Naughton ) survive - has crash landed on Earth in the far future. Apes have taken over and Man has been reduced to a slave workforce. Dr.Zaius ( Booth Colman ) fears the humans are a threat to Ape civilisation and wants them dead. A curious chimpanzee named Galen ( Roddy McDowall ) assists the astronauts to escape the clutches of vicious General Urko and his gorilla army, but in doing so inadvertently causes a death and so has to go on the run with them.

'Apes' had little of the meaningful social commentary of the movies, playing more like David Janssen's 'The Fugitive'. Each week, our heroes arrived in a different community, got involved in a local difficulty, solved it, and moved on, all the time struggling to stay one step ahead of Urko ( 'The Incredible Hulk' series with Bill Bixby also utilised this format ).

This show was my introduction to the 'Planet Of The Apes' universe. None of the movies had been seen on British television prior to the series. I.T.V. gave it a network showing on Sunday evenings, something the British-made 'Space: 1999' was not able to achieve.

The performances were good, with Roddy McDowall's lovable 'Galen' capturing the hearts of millions. Like a good little boy, I dutifully bought the bubblegum cards, the Marvel Comics weekly, and proudly wore a 'Planet Of The Apes' T-shirt around town. You couldn't escape from the Apes in 1974.

The show boasted a classic title sequence in which the premise was ingeniously spelt out in a few seconds.

Imagine my horror when I learnt that it had been cancelled after only fourteen episodes! How did it end, I wondered, did Virdon and Burke ever get back to their own time?

Had the show depended on British ratings for its survival, it would have lasted years. Only when I saw the movies years later did I realise how inferior the series was by comparison. Still, it occupies a special place in my heart. Compared to the Tim Burton fiasco, it is a towering work of genius!


This was a really good show that should have given Apes fans more episodes to enjoy. It is a shame that only 14 or so were produced. Each episode had an interesting story line that provided the viewer insight to the ape culture. The two main leads were very likable and had flaws that required the help or encouragement of the other. Roddy McDowall did a fine job playing the sympathetic ape, Galen. The show did not try to mimic the films but created it's own story lines in an ape setting that was set apart from the films. I would have liked to have seen more stories involving this trio and perhaps even some type of resolution/conclusion to Allen and Burke's continual evasion from the apes.


Planet of the Apes was a pretty good show. I have seen a few episodes and for the most part I liked it. I think the plot works and the acting is good. I think that it works that there are two guys stranded on the planet rather than one. Roddy Mcdowell being in the series really helps A LOT. He is a great underrated actor and was key to the Planet of the Apes series. So him being a character in this series is awesome. WIthout him I really do not think this show would have been as good. Often when a film tries to become a television series they do not bring along one of the key actors from that film but in this case they do. So this is a pretty good show, it only lasted one season, and it is definitely worth watching.


The series is kind of like Starsky and Hutch meets Planet of the Apes. Two astronauts end up on earth in the future (I hope this does not count as a spoiler) and befriend a chimpanzee. One of the astronauts is the young wise cracking guy, the other one the more serious and considerate older guy. This means of course that the overall feeling of doom which the films had is not really present here. The sets are quite decent as is the make up which is of course because they used sets and props from the films. Overall, it's actually fairly entertaining and well made, certainly much better than the last two installments of the film franchise. However, there is a limit as to how far you can stretch the underlying storyline and therefore it tends to be a bit repetitive. There is only so much you can do with one idea. But by and large it's well made entertainment, worth watching.


What a shame this didn't catch on in the US the way it did in the UK.

That it didn't is something of a surprise, even all these years later, given the enduring popularity of the films. Still, in the brutal world of TV ratings, you have to be a hit straight away and this one just didn't cut it where and when it mattered.

The series works all the same, even now. The characters are its main strength, but there are others. An excellent title sequence helps, particularly as the stories it introduces are generally interesting and sometimes moving. Music and scripts are of a high standard and the photography borders on inspired in some episodes.

So, why didn't it catch on in the US? Well, here's my theory: it is very low key in tone and approach. Unless you happened to notice it was in the schedule, there was little to catch the eye.

One side note: Many fans of the series have puzzled over the identity of the individual who "played" the dead Jonesy in the first episode. Well, since he's not even listed on the IMDb, that seems likely to remain a mystery!

Rating: 7/10.


I was in the 4th grade when this series came out. I bought the "planet of the apes" magazine every month and read it cover to cover... I was very, very much a Planet of the Apes (POTA) fanatic. I remember learning that POTA was coming to TV and was beside myself with joy. It was the greatest TV event of all time as far as I was concerned. But even at that young age, I was only half way through that first episode when I realized that it was really, really bad. The idea that I was going to be able to have POTA on TV...at home!...was amazing to me. I wanted to like it and was willing to forgive all sorts of junk, but I couldn't do it. I watched each episode, but it really felt like work to sit through. It was just bad, bad mid-70's TV that had people in ape suits. I would compare it to a Starsky and Hutch sort of thing, but that was a much better show!


I had no idea what to expect when I saw this film. Cast of (relative) unknowns and the title doesn't give much away either. But...it's a treat. If you like a film that defies genre, that was made outside the mainstream and asks you to think a little then you could do worse than take a look. On the surface it looks a standard sci-fi thriller, two military officers arrive at a remote arctic station to investigate a distress signal sent by a scientist believed missing and wanted for crimes against humanity. As soon as they arrive the sci-fi trimmings vanish and it becomes an intricate and very human psychological game of cat and mouse. Shot with panache and directed with flair it's a little rough around the edges no doubt as a result of a probably low budget and WARNING! it does contain a healthy dose of male and female nudity. Trinity went to work on me long after I saw it and some of the images achieved on a relatively low budget stick with you long after the titles have faded. If you want an action fest don't bother but if you want to be challenged, surprised and in one particularly poignant moment actually moved then check it out. It's worth 80 mins of anybody's time.


If your tastes run to movies requiring attention and thought to unravel, Trinity may be for you. If you want car chases and explosions, go elsewhere. Even when there is an explosion during Trinity, we see it indirectly, reflected in the eyes of one of the characters.

Set in an alternative present or near future, Trinity's world looks like ours but it isn't. Trinity deals with the aftermath of genetic experiments directed by a Dr Clerval, an aftermath resulting in the deaths of people followed by the disappearance of Clerval.

"Clerval" is the name of a friend of Dr Victor Frankenstein in the original novel.

Agents Brach and Schiller are sent to investigate a distress signal sent from the arctic research station formerly operated by Clerval. They find one person there, a man who looks like Clerval but who claims to be his clone, not Clerval but "of him", possessing some of his memories, but not all. But is cloneClerval telling the truth? Nearly the whole of the movie deals with the interaction of these characters. Bach and Schiller both have personal agendas beyond assigned duty. It is difficult to know who and what to believe. All three characters carry emotional burdens involving the others, bringing them into constant and sometimes violent conflict with one another. The isolation of the research station creates a claustrophobic atmosphere that none of them can readily escape.

Elsewhere, Trinity is listed as having a run time of 120 minutes instead of the nearly 80 minutes as released in Holland in autumn 2004. Trinity is known to have several different versions. It would be interesting to know just what was omitted in the present release, and how the other versions differed. It would also be interesting to know why the movie was completed in 2001 but not released until 3 years later, and then only in Belgium and Holland.

9 double helices out of 10


Movies like this... I don't know. Usually I don't watch this kind of movies (ahem... I have a few more odd movies in my collection), except when an actor that I like is in it. Just like this one. Tom McCamus is a very talented actor, and in a few weeks of hanging around on the internet with Tom McCamus fans, it's hard not to become one yourself. So, I'm game.

They say that this is the movie that got Tom McCamus his role as Mason Eckhart in Mutant X. Tom McCamus plays Dr. Clerval. According to me a mixture of Adam Kane (because of his arrogance) and Mason Eckhart (just.. the voice, the glare, the movements... wow).

The lightning is great, the acting is magnificent, especially by Tom McCamus. That man can do a lot with just one look or the tone of his voice. The 2 other actors, Lucy Akhurst and Stephen Moyer are so and so. Stephen Moyer's character is just... annoying and Lucy Akhurst plays the role of the tormented and lost Schiller well. The soundtrack is neat, and the movie shows that you can do a lot with one subject only.

It got me on the edge of my seat all the time. I loved it.

The weird thing is that the movie hasn't been released on DVD overseas, but in a small country like Holland (and Belgium). (Come on Fireworks! Release it already the proper way!)


This may not be the most polished film ever made nor is it the most exciting but I really liked it. The slow pacing will probably irritate a lot of people but that's where it scores. True it is one big tease from start to finish but I couldn't help watching just to see where it was going to end up and I for one wasn't disappointed. They obviously didn't have much money but they covered it up well and for a cheapie it looks great. It's directed well and the performances are uniformly very good, particularly Tom McCamus. Nice music, good editing all add up to a very moody piece and the film is different, maybe too different for most people because it's tough to get a handle on what it is. I'd give it 10 for effort and 7 for attainment. If you're in the mood for something quiet and disturbing then have a look. If you want a big bang then i'd forget it.


Nicely shot, well lit and great music. I'd love to write some more positives, but I'm struggling to find them. I think the script is mainly at fault - it disobeys most of the screenwriting rules (fair enough if the final product works, not if it bores you to tears) and doesn't offer the viewer enough to hold their interest. At the end of the day, there aren't many films you can return to after taking a leak and not realise that's it's still paused for 10 seconds.


Trinity is a curious movie for several reasons. On a practical level, it's curious because, although it was completed in 2001, it has yet to achieve a wide release either at the cinemas or on DVD. On the level of content, it is even more of a mystery.

The film has many of the elements of a stage play: closed, intimate setting; a few characters who we get to know in great depth; concentration on dialogue; and intense performances from each of its three central cast members (Tom McCamus, Stephen Moyer, and Lucy Akhurst). However, its look is nothing that could ever be achieved on stage. Despite the low budget and limited locations, Trinity still looks and feels like a work of art.

In some ways it reminded me of the archetypal low-budget success story Cube, with its atmospheric changes of lighting, claustrophobic rooms, and sense of mystery. Trinity, however, is a much more personal, internal film. There is no external challenge to be faced, no race to get out of the Cube or to survive. The challenges the characters face are their personal demons, and their reasons for being there in the first place.

Although personal demons are not generally the most cinematic or visually interesting subjects of film, each of the three actors convincingly portrays the many sides of their characters. Akhurst is full of tormented rage, and McCamus dangerously quiet. Moyer in some ways has the thankless role of the piece, attempting to insert a voice of reason and normalcy into the situation, until he too is revealed as more than was initially suspected.

Trinity offers no easy answers, and much of the film serves to continually question the characters and their motives, rather than to resolve any issues. However, it is very much a film that begs to be examined more closely, rather than given up out of frustration. Hopefully it will soon get a wider release, and be given the attention and critical respect it merits.


Typical slow, boring, badly written and acted movie that idiots will over-praise because they confuse dull with intellectual. The "psychological cat and mouse game" consists of endlessly boring, repetitive dialog and people acting one way and then another for no reason.

"You were in love with him" "No, I wasn't" "Yes, you were." "No, I wasn't" "Yes, you were"

That's the level of the supposed "mind games" being played here.

In the end, the whole movie ends up being just another example of the disgusting sexist cliché about a woman falling in love with her rapist.


This was a strange little film. I say 'little', but it seemed much longer than its 72 minutes. I repeatedly fast-forwarded through bits of it, the pacing dragged so unnecessarily. As is typical in Japanese productions, the script was trite and under-written, and numerous sequences and characters were superfluous and annoying.

It did, however, have moments of brilliance. Some of the animation was quite nice, and the art was really lovely in several sequences. The music wasn't bad, either. The final scenes concerning the Little Match Girl might actually have been longer ( and welcomely at the expense of some of the irritating comedic portions ).

This, again, was a $1 DVD from Wal-Mart, and the transfer to the DVD was often blurry. I'm wondering if it was 'digitally trashed' like so many animated dvds.


My father-in-law bought this on DVD for our young boys to watch, (aged 4 & 2, as I write). I believe this DVD version was released under the title "Cartoon Classic" and it probably cost $1! The first time I saw the film, I saw the "trippy" opening titles and a little of the film some way through, (where Hans gives his father the red leather that ends up being the princess' shoes) and found Uncle Olie a little freaky. On a second viewing, (all the way through, this time), the Uncle Olie character is not so freaky, and the whole film is very nicely done, though the sound quality is a little off and the opening titles are still very trippy.


Awful anime. The animation is even more limited than the stuff Rankin Bass would turn out years later. Its dubbed by Chuck McCann and friends for the Hal Roach Studios and its awful. I can't tell if the source was bad or the English dub, but its bad. Ten minutes and I was screaming, "no no no" while reaching for a bottle of rat poison... for the cartoon rat on screen, not me. I can't believe I've had this compared to the films of Disney, I don't think Disney ever made a movie this bad, or if they did they certainly didn't release it for the public to see. Not worth the time effort or money to see it.

Avoid it if at all possible


I saw this film on TV back in the early '80's. The fantasy-ography about the childhood of Hans Christian Anderson is a work done with the same level of attention that one would see in the works done by Walt Disney.

The adventures and stories of the young boy are the only things that transcend the animation in this work. The film blends some of the story elements of Anderson's works with his childhood -- specifically THE RED SHOES -- and the selfish daughter of the town mayor. The score of this film is wonderfully moving -- equal to that of a genuine opera. The boy's telling of the final sequence -- THE LITTLE MATCH GIRL -- was so emotionally moving, that it brought tears to my eyes. Of all the films about Hans Christian Anderson, this one is without question, one of the best. It puts the Danny Kay version to shame by comparison.

AT LAST! It's on DVD/video.


"Master and Margarita", the book and the movie:

I have read "Master and Margarita" three times, and I am sure that I will read it again. I was very lucky because all three times I read it in Russian, and even the best translation can not compare to the original. Every time, I found something new in the book; it would turn to me by different facets. "Master and Margarita" is incredibly beautiful, deep, sophisticated yet playful and sparkling book with unforgettable characters. In fact, it is not one novel but three. First, about the adventures of Devil and his company in the 1920-th Moscow; second, about Pontius Pilatus and Jesus in Jerusalem of the first century, and the third one, about the Master, the writer who wrote the second novel, and his eternal and true love, Margarita. The story of Master and Margarita is the story of Bulgakov and his wife and muse, Elena. All three stories are connected and intertwine. All three of them end with the exactly same phrase, "...the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the equestrian Pontius Pilate."

So, what is the book about? Good, evil, betrayal, talent, love, forgiveness? Yes, it is. But it is so much more.

I had a lot of doubts before watching the film because as much as I wanted to see "Master and Margarita" on the screen I was not sure that it was possible to adapt it and not to lose anything important - which is everything.

I am pleasantly surprised - the film is very good. It is respectful, thoughtful and as close to the spirit of the greatest Russian novel of the last century as possible.

The movie is not perfect (and I don't think that the perfect transfer is possible) but the choice of actors, the music score, the visual palette that change as we enter the different eras, places, and dimensions are outstanding. I was initially surprised by some names but almost every actor proved him/herself very capable in bringing to the screen well known and beloved characters. I would say that some of special effects could be ...well, more special - for example, the mischievous talking cat Behemoth could be done more interestingly. I also don't see the exact reason for creating a new character, the man in uniform with the glasses and very recognizable accent who is in charge of investigating the "crimes of the band of powerful hypnotists" - how they call Woland and his entourage. One can argue that the titular couple, the tragic lovers, Master and Margarita are weaker and their story seems pale in the comparison to one of Pilat (bravo to 80 year old stage and screen legend, Kirill Lavrov who can be remembered as Ivan Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov (1969) and Ieshua Ha-Notsri (incredible performance by the young bright star, Sergei Bezrukov of "Bragada"'s fame, almost unrecognizable as Ieshua). I think no one can deny that Oleg Basilashvili as powerful, cynical and eternally wise Woland, the part of Power " Which wills forever evil Yet does forever good" IS the true Master of the film. My fascination and admiration belong to Alexander Abdulov on whom I as a young girl had a huge crush in his early film "Obyknovennoye Chudo" . For many years he had been the Russian sex symbol but his enormous comical talent found its match in the part of Woland's assistant/ translator, Koroviev. His and Behemoth's adventures in Moscow are screamingly funny. I think that the film is a successful and enjoyable adaptation of the beloved cult novel and I recommend seeing it. I am going to order the sound track. As I mentioned, the music by Igor Kornelyuk is one of the film's treasures.

P.S. I used to work on the street where the last home of Mikhail Bulgakov was. He was taken to the cemetery from there.

The famous "Pashkov's House" with the rotunda on the top where Woland and his team gathered together before they left Moscow forever, was in walking distance from my work, and I remember, once, I almost got hit by the car -I walked and looked at that music in stone and could not take my eyes off it.


"Master and Margareth" has always been my favorite book. I have read a lot of books, and none of them had captivated and haunted me in such a way that I would read it again and again and again. It is one of the most unusual and mysterious books ever written in the 20th century. And, finally, there is a movie which is as close to the original as possible. To be honest, there is a lot of really bad movies made in Russia, and most of them are so dreadful that it should be made illegal to pocess them! "Master and Margareth" is a pleasant and distinguished exemption from the endless flood of utterly horrible junk which is called Russian film-making. I really loved the movie. The actors are great, digital photography and the special effects aren't so bad either. Of course, it could have always been better but Russian films never have the same budget as an average Hollywood flick. I enjoyed the way the movie turns from B&W to color and opposite. And the soundtrack is amazing. They should release it separately on a CD.

This long awaited version does not mean that you don't need to read the book. No matter how perfect the adaptation is (it is far above excellent in this case), it can never replace the original. If you've never read it, do yourself a favor and do it as soon as possible. If you had read it before, it is really worth giving it another go. If you do it once every 5-10 years, you will definitely find something new in it.

Finally, it has been released with English subtitles. It would not be really fair to all English speaking scholars, researchers and Bulgakov's lovers who otherwise wouldn't have been able to watch this masterpiece.


The advertising campaign for this series was something to behold in its own right, and it's about the only thing the people behind this film did right. Allegedly, it had decent budget which is nowhere in evidence. And M&M is the kind of film that requires special effects; in the film they are what you'd call bargain basement if you're feeling generous. Bortko followed the book faithfully enough but still removed some crucial scenes and added a ridiculous character played by Valentin Gaft made up to look like Beria. Bulgakov was never that direct. Also, Bortko shot most of the 1930s Moscow in sepia-like colors to contrast it with Woland's and Master's colorful scenes. I think it was a big mistake but it was unavoidable given that Bortko has no feel for the macabre and the bizarre. He has very a pedestrian imagination. Bulgakov's Moscow was devilish in its own right, and Bortko turned it into a bland depiction of a regular city. In the book, Woland came to the city that felt as if it belonged to him already. Here, he comes on a tour of a gray and uninteresting Moscow with nothing to distinguish it from any other city. Which shows that Bortko also has zero grasp of the philosophical and religious issues of the book.

I wasn't particularly annoyed by most of the casting excluding Margarita. Anna Kovalchuk is beautiful but she couldn't act to save her life. Bortko must be fond of casting people who look right without any regard for their acting abilities (he did the same casting Lidya Velezheva as Nastasya Filippovna in The Idiot). On the whole, 3 out of 10.


I watched this mini on a DVD so my perception wasn't as fragmented as it perhaps would have been if I watched one episode a day on TV. I read 'Master and Margarita' at least ten times so I know it pretty much by heart. It came as a relief that Bortko followed the original text so closely and didn't turn it in one of Hollywood 'junk' adaptations. There's no point in getting hysterical about the fact that this film is not as good as the book  it could never be. I agree with other comments here that many dialogues are 'still born' because the text was transferred from the book too literally with no dramatic adaptation, particularly when Bulgakov's 'author's' commentaries were used in the dialogues. Abdulov and Basilashvili were the best. To my mind, Basilashvili, in particular, added to my previous perception of Woland and expanded this character if that's at all possible. The main complains are Begemot all of whose personifications failed miserably and Gaft's character who was completely out of context and rather weird. Gaft already played Beria in another movie and his appearance here looked like a piece cut out from that movie and pasted into this one. However this is all minor and generally I enjoyed the film. I was only really disappointed with Bortko's interpretation of the Ball. Having followed the book so maniacally to the last letter he suddenly deviated off track and not in a good way. In Bulgakov's book the Ball is an explosion of colour, light and music with walls of flowers and rainbow fountains. Whether it was a poor budget to blame or inability to use decent special effects but Bortko created some grey depressing place in the middle of nowhere which looked rather bizarre. Bulgakov featured Margarita flying through the ball halls in shoes made of rose petals and wearing nothing except heavy pendant over her neck whereas Bortko dressed her in torture chains and pinned her to the ground. It all looked a bit sado-masochistic and I doubt Bulgakov saw it that way. I'm surprised no one here commented on it. All in all I think it's not a bad attempt, certainly for a mini. I was expecting something much worse having seem some of the rubbish produced my Russian movie makers these days. To those who say it's awful, I think you should calm down and accept that Bulgakov's book and this movie are completely separate entities and the film can't be as deep because it can't reproduce all the philosophical richness of the literary work. It could try but then it won't appeal to a wider audience which prefers easily digestible adaptations.


The series are mediocre. Director's work is just invisible - good actors play well and not-so-good actors play not-so-well. Camera is static, special effects are cheap. The Cat Behemot is just a joke. Rimsky is not supposed to be a clown as shown. New character played by Gaft is added for a very obvious reason - to educate new generations who cannot read between lines in the book. But what is more important - the series are missing Bulgakov's spirit and sour sense of humor. Only scenes that are supposed to be serious and sad look attractive. Clearly the series are made for people who have never read the book. I agree with the previous reviewer - very disappointing.


Unfortunately I have to acknowledge that this movie is horrible. I believe that everyone who ever read the Book will agree that whoever tries to make a movie based on this Book must be of equal talent as writer himself. In this case Bortko who not only directed but also wrote the script is not up to the task. He simply took all (almost all) dialogs from the Book and incorporated them into the script except as everyone already mentioned by adding new character played by Gaft, which is not even natural to the Book. I do sincerely believe that screenwriter and/or director have all rights to adapt book to the screen and there is no way that book can be made into adaptation as simple illustration and regarded as Art. And this is the case in this adaptation, it is mere illustration and is made for people who don't have time to read or simply don't want to read. For those folks this mini series is a heaven. It gave them to hear almost word for word all dialogs from the Book but leaves real philosophical ideas Book raises behind. It is made in bad Hollywood traditions as we can find a lot of really good adaptations made there, more over Russia has reach tradition in movie adaptations especially big philosophical novels such as 'Hamlet' and 'King Lear' by Kozintsev or 'Brothers Karamazov' by Pyryev. There not even single artist up to the task to play characters from the Book, except Abdulov. I also would like to add couple of more things. First is that original music is so resembles music by Carl Orff 'Carmina Burana' it is striking to the heart. It is better if Bortko used it instead of music by Kornelyuk. Second, everyone already mentioned that special effects are lowest points of the movie but how come there are so many talented programmers in Russia and none of them could be invited to make computerized special effects? And the last but now least, incursions made by director by using old black and white newsreels are not providing any good to show up Moscow of the 1930th.


OK i read this book and was curious to see the movie to see what they would.

I had seen many Russian series before this and was generally unimpressed as i think they spent all the money on the cars and not anything else.

Furthermore Goblin and a few other reviewers and critics i read were generally so so on it.

So i was incredibly surprised to find how well they pulled this off. Its not an issue of "accuracy" (even though an acquaintances mother who is a teacher of literature in Russia and read this 20 times cover to cover was very satisfied) it is an issue of originality. The black and white to color switches, the acting, the actors, the music i found it really well done as well it should be since it is so well loved in Russia.

Really they put in the effort and i was generally pleased with the result. Again not due to "accuracy" or inaccuracy, as that is impossible to do with certain films but with the originality and what i thought was quality film making.

Btw, when Kot Begemot turned into the guy who plays Stira in ShtrafBat, my jaw dropped seeing as that was the person with the "cat eyes" who i pictured when i read Master and Bulgakov described him.

10 stars is an understatement.


Most actors act horribly, the entire satire and humour from the book have been cut. It is blasphemy to make movie from a masterpiece like Bulgakov's m&m like this. The computer effects are even present when they are absolutely not necessary and look terribly. Behemot, the cat, as if it was from some kindergraden theatre, Lavrov is too old for Bulgakov's procurator, Abdulov (Koroviev), the oh-so-expensive-superstar seemingly just reads his text down without playing anything. This all is surprising, since the budget present was high. However, Basilashvili, Alexander Galibin and Filipenko (Azazello, master and Voland) are playing surprisingly good. These are the only ones. Do not watch this piece of junk before reading the book!


This TV-series of 10 episodes, broadcast at the end of 2005 on the Russian Telekanal Rossiia, scored unprecedented ratings.

It was the second attempt of director Vladimir Bortko to film Bulgakov's masterpiece. In 2000 he had already been solicited by the Kino-Most film studio, associated with the competing channel NTV, but at the last moment the company did not succeed to come to an agreement with Sergei Shilovsky, grandson of Bulgakov's third wife, and owner of the copyrights. This time, with Rossiia, it worked. And it did not pass unnoticed.

This TV-epopee of more than 8 hours was heavily criticized, or at least regarded with much skepticism, before it was shown on screen. Sometimes it was sincere and well-grounded concern about the authenticity, but sometimes it seemed as if the Bulgakov die-hards behaved like modern Latunsky's by reproaching a movie they hadn't seen yet with sacrilege. Or maybe it was because of the gigantic publicity campaign that was launched to promote the series, and that could give reasons to fear an ambitious, but superficial Hollywood-ish production. But fortunately it wasn't the case.

In contrast with the earlier screen adaptation of Aleksandar Petrovic in 1972, director Vladimire Bortko (° Moscow, 1946) followed the book meticulously. If you have 10 times 52 minutes available for it, it is of course, easier than when you're supposed to deliver a 90 minutes movie picture. The setting of a TV-series appeared to be an ideal format to elaborate the complicated, multidimensional work with many different characters. Bortko had already shown his talent with his TV-adaptation of Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot in 2003. Besides, he already filmed another novel of Bulgakov before: "Heart of a Dog", in 1988. He followed the dialogues almost word for word because, so he said, Bulgakov wrote the novel almost like a screenplay.

Ik was skeptical too when I saw the DVD at дом книги (Dom Knigi or "House of Books") in Moscow. But curiosity was stronger than skepticism and, frankly speaking, I was pleasantly surprised from the first images. Woland's meeting with Ivan and Berlioz, and the first confrontation of Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Notsri are not only beautifully portrayed and well performed, but in addition they matched remarkably well with the images that I had in mind when I first read the book.

The three layers of the novel are reflected more than well, with a well manipulated alternation of colour and black-and-white. The actors are casted accurately and they play the characters faithfully to the novel's intentions that even the most convinced skeptics shut their mouths, despite the huge success  on December 29, 2005 more than 80 million people were watching.

Must I find demerits? Well... maybe the depiction of Behemoth then. With the existing technologies it could have been done better, but after all I can only conclude that, even though it is "only" TV, this series doesn't disenchant and its main merit is probably the the fact that Bulgakov now found a much bigger audience than he ever could have had with his books.


Good job on all accounts. I do agree Kovalchuk was the weakest link in this production - she is just too young and inexperienced to play such a difficult part. Galibin was amazing as Master, his voice and movements are captivating. The rest of the cast was comprised of experienced and great performers, and they all worked very hard on the roles they were entrusted with. Dubbing instead of the recording during the shoot is actually an old technique used by great filmmakers in the past. It is very tedious and hard on actors but it ensures the best tone and intonation the actor can deliver for the particular moment and lines. It has nothing to do with Soviet era movies. If it sounds unnatural, it means the actor is not experienced in this craft and is not a good actor. Unfortunately, Ms. Kovalchuk completely failed that part, her tone and voice sounded very dull and unnatural. Other than that, I enjoyed watching this movie. Even my non-Russian speaking American husband watched the movie with a great deal of interest.


For English speaking viewers: If you can get past the subtitle problems, you're in for a real treat.

The subtitles are 2 or 3 seconds late-synched for the first 65 or so minutes of Disc 1 making it very difficult to watch. After that they come back into synch and are merely bad, a problem with many foreign titles.

Even with the subtitle problems, you'll be thoroughly entertained by a great adaptation of a most engaging novel. The 8-hour length allows Bortko to remain faithful to Bulgakov, and it's amazing to see how the novel works cinematically; decapitations, flying naked witches and crucifixions to name just some of the striking imagery. One can quibble with less-than-optimal special effects, but I'd rather see second-rate CGI in service of a good story than the tens of millions of dollars wasted on overblown blockbuster drivel. And if you see complaints about this or that actor, take it with a grain of salt and realize that Russians especially take characters from their literary heritage as seriously as anyone on earth.


They say Bortko has already established himself as a talented re-teller of greatest masterpieces. He has "Idiot" and "Sobachye Serdtse" to his credit, which have received positive critique of the audiences, their statuses notwithstanding. "Master i Margarita", however, is so far the highlight of his directing career. Yes, it is a TV version and one usually does not expect much from TV serials. But tell me - how is one supposed to fit in a masterpiece into two-three hours of screen time? How can one do this when literally every page of the book contains some new information, an unexpected development, an interesting dialog, or a crazy combination of all three? I can only commend Bortko for doing such a great job of bringing to screen the all time classic of Russian literature (and thank him for not doing the same that some of the Western countries do to their own classics).

Now, on to the version itself. The cast was superb and I shall not get tired of stating this. Galibin as Master and Kovalchuk as Margarita match their characters so perfectly it is uncanny even. Galibin truly brings out his talent in this role - the role that is not a very playable one as the character does not go through much action or much visible change. The play here is deeper and had the actor been less talented, the Master would have turned out apathetic and insipid. But that does not happen here and we have a Master we see broken. And we feel his pain, just as well as we feel Margarita's pain and overwhelming desire to do anything to get her life back to happiness it once contained.

Woland. If you expect him to be a stylized and sleek version of evil as some of the movies aestheticizing violence show their villains - you will be disappointed. Basilashvili's Woland is monumental and without a shed of light in him. He is not an entertainer, he does not make lighthearted jokes or give out histrionic retorts. He does not lick his lips or give dirty looks as most of villains are stereotyped to do. Woland in this version is the Master of the novel and the planet. He is slightly tired of people's silliness but behind his seeming exhaustion immense power is hidden. Well, what did you expect - he's the Satan himself. Woland's companions match him perfectly as well. Koroviev is dream come true in Abdulov's interpretation, whereas Azazello shows how demons can try to be nice and come out rather fatherly at that. Unfortunately, the naughtiest of the clique, Begemot, is the only weakness of the TV version. He is voiced by one of the talented actors of the new generation of Russian acting school, but the puppet and the cat costume they use for Begemot most of the time seriously leaves much to be desired.

Overall, this film deserves a strong 8, and had it had a good animated Begemot, I would have given it 9 as well. The only thing that does not allow me to give it a full 10 is the CGI failure of the film. Where the actors play their roles superbly, the special effects threatened to ruin the impression from the film. Thankfully, the actor performances did not allow for getting distracted with the CGI too much. That, already, does say a bit about the level of acting in the film, no?


I know the book by heart, and this mini-series is incredibly close, it's practically word-for-word; they've omitted several small non-essential scenes, made a couple beautiful, logical additions, and otherwise changed perhaps a dozen words or so.

Almost all the scenes are exactly as I had always imagined them; casting is incredible (except for the awful, miserable Pilate - regret of a small, cowardly man is never as tragic as that of a strong man). Joshua is beyond words - seeing... Him gives you shivers, never before has there been such a portrayal of Jesus in cinema. Woland is breathtaking, down to the voice. The final scene of Woland contemplating the city from above is like a Goya painting.


I recommend the series to everyone interested in Russian culture and literature. Myself I have been waiting for such a masterpiece for a long time! The characters and the atmosphere created exactly like in the book -exactly how I wanted to see them! Apart from everything visible you can read more between the lines, specially if you are familiar with Russian history and the social relations in the past.Reality is not shown too clearly - but it is all on purpose because the author's and the director's idea was to show a grotesque,rather than a document. Every detail has a meaning here,so...open your mind!


I have given the 9 to this series, and I think I would vote with the 10 in case it was a traditional movie. On the day of the Russian TV release of "Master i Margarita" I watched a talk show with the director Vladimir Bortko who commented on this film saying it was a life necessity to create mini series rather than movie. The work is all too good to be mini, though.

As has already been said, the plot summary for this movie is so oversimplified that it appears to be missing the essence of both the book by Bulgakov and the efforts of Bortko. Master and his passionately loved one, Margarita, have found what I would not call "the love." Their relationship, depicted by Bulgakov with his brilliant talent, broke the social borders, and so these people stood in line with "Woland's evil." They say that Master and Margarita are Faustian alter ego.

The story told in this movie shows how those who are in love, who are free, and who are spiritual are able to (no matter with the help of Satan or not) see the "light." The idea of the light and the "rest" is a central point in the movie. Master and Margarita were in fact killed by a Woland's ally Azazello, and they were given the rest, but not in paradise... Bulgakov did not give them the light, but it was impossible for them to live in this world too. To me, it was rather painful to follow the love story of the two beloved through the series. Bulgakov is a brilliant dramatist.

What about the characters? I liked all characters and I liked Begemot. Speaking about Margarita, I feel that Kovalchuk played not very well.

The computer generated effects were very simple. :)

In the end, I just want to add that if that mini series was a movie, the impression from it would be deeper. "Master i Margarita" is for everyone to watch. It is even more to be discussed by everyone.


I love the book, Master and Margarita by Michail Bulgakov, and I was pleased to see that this series did not spoil the spirit of the book. The actors are brilliant. Anna Kovalchuk performed very well. The part of Margarita is a very difficult to play. Vladimir Bortko again showed himself as a very talented director. Everybody expected a lot from him after his last brilliant work on the Idiot by Dostoevsky (his previous miniseries). What I did not particularly like was the cat, Begemot. I wish they could do better. The same could be said about some of the special effects which looked very primitive. But, in general, very good job!


This mini series, which is based on the brilliant novel of Bulgakov, is NOTHING like the plot summery! The summery is just a disgrace for the plot! Woland (Satan) and his entourage are not shown as evil beings whose main purpose is to come between the Artists and Margaritas love. On the contrary, their main goal is to put some sense into corrupted human minds. In any case, the book himself is a wonderful book which gives you something to think about. And the series presents the book with wonderful actors and a plot which is one-in-one to the book (except, of course, for the little things that are not according to the book. But what can you do? No movie is exactly what the book says). I give it 10! 10 for the book, and 10 for the series!


This film showed the arrival of Laura Dern, one of the most gifted actresses of her generation, to full realization. Under Joyce Chopra's direction, Ms. Dern proved she could carry this picture, as well as any other, just on the strength of her portrayal of Connie, the rebellious California teen ager, who experiences life and cruelty in ways she never expected.

If anything, the film might send some viewers to read some of Joyce Carol Oates novels for she is an original and important voice in American letters. Ms. Joyce is a prolific and generous writer who shows a sensibility toward young women in trouble, as it was the case with her magnificent "We Were the Mulvaneys", among other novels.

When we first meet Connie, she seems to be a careless teen ager from rural California, hanging in the local mall with her best friends Jill and Laura. There is trouble at home. Connie is a rebel and her relationship with her mother, Katherine, is not exactly the best. Connie is seen with Laura experiencing with local boys the rituals of flirting.

Connie gets much more than what she bargains for, when the mysterious Arnold Friend keeps turning at the hamburger joint where she hangs out with Laura. Arnold is a creepy individual who, being older, and more experienced man in matters of sex, shows up one Sunday, while her family is away, to entice the young girl with his "smooth talk". This long sequence shows Connie as the vulnerable young woman she is, accosted by a young man intent in getting what he wants.

To say that Laura Dern is perfect in the film, is not to do her justice. She is the whole movie. Her expressions, her reactions, are nothing short of what one would expect from a young woman in the same situation. Treat Williams makes a great appearance as the menacing Arnold. Mary Kay Place, as the mother is also good, as well as the rest of the ensemble playing cast.

Joyce Chopra shows she is a director who likes to takes risks by creating an original film out of Ms. Oates short story.


Adapted from the short story, "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been", by Joyce Carol Oates; this slow paced and moody film is for those who like introspective stories where you spend a lot of the viewing time in self-analysis rather than character identification. The mood is complemented by a lot of James Taylor on the soundtrack with "Handyman" repeated several times.

It is also one of those "axe to grind" films where fans of the short story feel compelled to whine about the adaptation not being faithful to their interpretation of the book, although Oates endorses it without reservation on her website. Any non-readers considering viewing "Smooth Talk" would be wise to remember the source when reading negative comments from this group.

To reach feature length it was necessary to expand on the short story and to dramatically depict events that are just briefly mentioned in the original version. Everything is still told from the point-of-view of 15-year-old Connie, increasingly estranged from her mother and marveling at her new-found attractiveness to boys. Fans of Laura Dern who have not seen this should seek it out as she gives an remarkable performance, arguably her all time best. Perfectly cast physically as a gangly coming of age teenager Dern plays Connie with such restraint and awkward hesitancy that anyone with acting for the camera aspirations should view this simply as a perfect example of the power that can be produced by underplaying a character.

The ending is restrained as well, making it unexpectedly powerful and haunting. They go out with Connie and her sister slowly dancing to "Handyman", leaving the viewer to process what has been shown and what has been implied.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Since I read Joyce Carol Oates' short story "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" many years ago as a teenager myself (many Oates' works were translated to Russian - she was and I hope still is very popular there), I've been fascinated by it. I've read many Oates's stories and some of her novels but the 10 pages long story of 15 years old Connie, "shallow, vain, silly, hopeful, doomed but capable nonetheless of an unexpected gesture of heroism at the story's end" has stuck in my memory and I could never forget it. When I found out that the story was adapted to the screen, I tried to find the movie, "Smooth Talk" (1985) directed by Joyce Chopra and I saw it finally last weekend. A disturbing coming of age drama, the winner of The Grand Jury Prize at 1986 features 18 years-old Laura Dern who appears innocent, gawky, and provocative all at once. Laura owns the film as a sultry woman-child who just began to realize the power of her sexual attractiveness during one long summer that would change her life forever. It does not surprise me a bit that Dern's next movie would be David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" where she played sweet and innocent Sandy and in a few years she would play her best role, Lula Fortune in his "Wild at Heart" (1990). The more I think of Laura, the more I see her as one of the most talented actresses of her generation. She is fearless in taking sometimes unflattering roles and she never lost that aura of innocence wrapped in irresistible sexuality that made her Connie in "Smooth Talk" so alive and unforgettable.

The links to the full text of the story and to the Oates' article about adapting it to the film are posted on the movie's message board. I was shocked to find out what the real story behind the fictional was.


I give this film a ten because it was very entertaining and thought provoking. For years I have been trying to remember the name of it so I could order the video to watch again. I saw it 20 years ago. I don't remember all the details but I remember how much it touched me.

It was quite frightening, even at the age of 23. I never forgot the strength of Laura Dern's performance. It was incredible, defining. I have followed her career ever since. Treat Williams was also excellent. I don't want to risk a spoiler so I will just say he was a very convincing character.

I also believe it would be as meaningful today as it was in 1985. The relevance of this film is timeless.


This movie was actually shown on PBS when it first came out, and many schools also utilize it in English class.

It is an interesting drama revolving around Connie (Laura Dern), her friends, and adolescent life in rural Northern California, or any other average American small-town.

Basically, Connie is attempting to escape her stifling everyday life; she and her mother are constantly at odds (well played by Mary Kay Place); and she spends most of her time at the mall; just like many kids, she has no direction, but enjoys meeting other kids at the local hamburger stand; eventually, after several encounters, she meets Treat Williams, who is a little different than most boys.....

The short story by Oates was actually based on the true story of a serial killer in Tucson AZ, who was nicknamed the "Pied Piper of Tucson". The story takes off into more tension from there; you should read the short story, as you will get the meaning of Arnold Friend/Treat Williams a lot better; the character is well portrayed by Treat Williams; suave, smooth and dangerous.....just what most young girls are attracted to.

All in all, a very good movie; and Laura Dern was good in the role, very vulnerable and impressionable; the novel projected the impression of a more standard beauty for the times....perhaps an actress like Jenny Garth or Mira Sorvino.


A terrific lesser-known film that deserves a better rating than the one given it here at IMDb.

Based on a short story by Joyce Carol Oates called "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?", "Smooth Talk" stars Laura Dern as a bored and restless adolescent who thinks she's more in control of her sexual allure, and more capable of handling the attention she receives for it, than she is. In a deeply unsettling and slightly surreal scene, a hunky stranger (Treat Williams) comes calling for her, and she realizes that she's not as mature as she thinks. The film captures the same other-worldly quality of the short story (the scene with Treat Williams plays out almost like a feverish dream), while ably adapting it to the very different needs of a feature length film.

Dern gives a wonderful performance, one of the many given by this underrated actress. And another lovely performance comes from Mary Kay Place, who plays Dern's mother. One of the most memorable scenes for me came when mother and daughter are in separate rooms of the house, but unbeknownst to each other are both privately dancing to the same song playing on the radio. I can never hear James Taylor's "Handyman" without thinking of this movie.

Grade: A


This is one of the most unusual coming-of-age dramas I've seen; a fascinating exploration of a teenager on the brink of discovering her own sexuality. Laura Dern is fantastic as a 15-year-old Californian girl who is becoming aware that she is no longer a kid. She starts experiencing all kinds of emotions, when a mysterious stranger, who goes by the name of "Arnold Friend" (Treat Williams), decides to take advantage of the situation. At this point, the movie takes a deliciously bizarre turn. If we are to take the last third of the story in a literal manner, the conclusion is both creepy and confusing. But I chose to see Williams' character as a symbol, not as a real person, so the ending struck me as being reflective and very, very interesting. Figuratively speaking, "Friend" seems to be a representation of Dern's transition from childhood to womanhood, not a real person. Anyhow, it is a well-crafted movie, and an excellent showcase for Dern's skills as an actress. Beautifully realized by director Chopra, and highly recommended.


Ok. Almost nothing actually happens in this film, but that does not mean it isn't tense, exciting, interesting, and very sexy.

Laura Dern could start forest fires just by standing too close to the trees. Everything about this film reflects the quality and talent that went into making it.


Laura Dern's character, Connie, is a spoiled, rebellious, selfish teen who has nothing on her mind but boys and fun. Her attitude alienates her from homelife and family which leads her straight into trouble. This was a good portrayal of how young people fritter away their time chasing after their own useless future when they could be preparing for a better life. Connie is a victim of her own parents apathy, just as they were victimized by their parents inability to guide and prepare children. Very good film.


Remember this show ? It was a great show about a kid who had downs syndrome and the difficulties he had to deal with.

It also talked about other real life problems like aids, teenagers in general and things that had a lot of depth and meaning. Yet it was very entertaining.

All the actors were excellent and gave their characters layers.

Fast forward to today, all we get are superficial shows like Lost,Prison Break and DS !! They are all about special affects and no substance.

What happened to American TV series ? I haven't like one single TV series that has come out the last 10 years from USA. And the shows I liked in the 90s has gone down the hill big time the last couple of years.

I doubt I will ever like an American TV series again(or a Hollywood movie for that matter)


Growing up I used to watch this show, nearly every Sunday night. I still remember trying to finish up last-minute stuff, have my shower and get ready for school the next day in time to watch "Life Goes On" (and on many occasions, "America's Funniest Home Videos" after that) Often I would be running late, and would watch "Life Goes On" in my parents bedroom, practically still dripping wet, wearing a bathrobe, with my hair wrapped up turban-style in a towel to air-dry as my dad ironed his work clothes, and I watched the show.

I have LOVED "Life Goes On" for its entire run! It is a poignant and touching family drama, starring Bill Smitrovich and Patti LuPone as "Drew" (Smitrovich) and "Libby" (LuPone) Thatcher, a middle working-class couple, who are dealing with the issue of "mainstreaming" their 18 year old son, Charles "Corky" who has Downs Syndrome into a regular, public high school as a freshman, and all the challenges and trials, tribulations, and triumphs that go along with it.

Drew and Libby have their hands full, raising Corky and their 2 other children, twenty-something Paige (Monique Lanier in Season 1, Tracey Needham in Season 2-4) who is Drew's child from a previous marriage, and 14 or 15 year old Rebecca "Becca" while trying to make ends meet on Drew's construction worker salary, and Libby's income as a secretary/clerical worker in an advertising agency.

Towards the end of the first season, Drew buys a diner, and quits his back-breaking construction work to run the restaurant, and things start looking up for the Thatchers.

Growing up I LOVED watching "Life Goes On", especially because of Kellie Martin, and Monique Lanier. Though I liked Tracey Needham, I was IMMENSELY disappointed when Monique left, and the role of Paige was recast with Tracey. Because up until then, I LOVED Paige best, and then Becca. After Monique left and Tracey assumed the role, it changed and I LOVED Becca best.

This is a BEAUTIFUL series, and one of the many nostalgic highlights of my childhood and adolescence.

When I think of my childhood and preteen years, I think of shows like "Punky Brewster", "Life Goes On", "Perfect Strangers", "Who's the Boss?", "Head of the Class" and many more! But "Life Goes On" (and a few very select others), had and still does have a very special place in my heart! I CAN'T WAIT until the other 3 seasons are released on DVD! BRING ON SEASONS 2, 3 & 4!!!!!!!!!


I, too, wish that there were re-runs of this wonderful program (but on one of the broadcast TV channels, since I don't have cable). There were so many episodes that brought tears to my eyes, just because they portrayed what were so true-to-life happenings. I never missed an episode and would purposely stay at home between 6:30-7:00 PM on Sunday nights so that I could watch it. My very favorite episode was the one where Corky hides quite a large pig in the house, attempting to save it from being slaughtered (I think). That was hilarious. Showing how much a person (namely Corky) with Down Syndrome can accomplish, was a real ground-breaker for TV. Also, Chad Lowe, who portrayed a young man who was HIV positive, was wonderful, for the same reason.

"Life Goes On", but unfortunately, no longer on TV - at least not here in Minneapolis.