I don't know how people with no sense of humour can try and write reviews of a comedy show. Anyone who doesn't recognize the humour and the talent of the COmedy Inc crew is simply brain-dead.

Did you see the one where they do Osama Bin Laden? Brilliant! Keep up the good work guys, and don't pay any attention to the morons with no funny bone, and IQ's too low to understand satire.

The Comedy Network has lucked out, and putting Comedy Inc. right before The Daily Show is good news too, and will surely increase increase the audience.

If you miss Kids in the Hall and Codco, tune in to COmedy Inc.


I totally enjoyed this movie. The scenes have an appealing fantasy element, while at the same time, the plot manages to explore true-to-life human situations such as bullying of those who are different.

The music is incredible, and mostly consists of original scores. It includes gospel, rock and classical, seamlessly integrated in a new way that works extremely well.

The plot is somewhat predictable and possibly a little "sappy", but those elements are easily overcome by the moment-to-moment execution of the story. Think of a modernized "Oliver" with Robin Williams as Fagin to a group of homeless, musically talented kids...plus extra elements of romance and intrigue, and you will have a bit of an idea about this movie.

The three main characters are all physically "beautiful" people who manage to convey the story with a minimum of dialog. Additional characters, including Terrence Howard as the social worker, Jamia Simone Nash as the young girl in the church choir, and Leon G. Thomas as the young boy who befriends the musical prodigy, contribute strong performances and pizazz.

Someone sitting near me stated it is impossible for even a prodigy to learn music so quickly and at such a young age... However, this is not true. Check out Jay Greenberg, a young music student currently studying at Julliard. In the end, this movie is at least an endorsement and celebration of the significance of music in our lives and at most a transcendent, fun experience to watch.

I rarely like to see any movie more than once, but definitely want to see this again. Take the familythis is for children, teens and adults. Don't miss it is my recommendation!


This is an urban fairy tale. If you go to AUGUST RUSH with the intention of poking holes in it, you can find little glitches and logic flaws. On the other hand, if you are looking for a movie that will sing to your soul (and show you some beautiful eye candy as a bonus), look no farther. The casting director and cinematographer should each get an award. This gem of a movie takes us on a journey, and the people we meet along the way are well worth the ticket price.

A trio of beautiful performances form the heart of this film, although the secondary characters are also crisply compelling. A day after seeing it, I find that specific shots of their faces still glow in mind like pieces of a mosaic. And the music is a genuine addition, as it should be in a film of this kind. I was genuinely moved.


This is a fantastic movie. Well done. During our screening at a particularly tough part for the title character, I heard people in the theater say "No, no..." The level of "buy in" and suspension of disbelief is high.

Even the dissonance of Wizard and Lila's father was handled superbly. Robin Williams hit just the right note in his portrayal of Wizard. The actors playing Agust Rush/Evan Taylor and his mother and father were amazingly well cast.

This is truly a symphony of a film. You'll enjoy it, your children will enjoy it, and you will walk out of the theater knowing that, for once, your ticket money was well spent.


If you love it, you'll LOVE it. If not, then the most you'll probably give it is an 'ok'. The movie requires the audience to have a somewhat willful suspension of reality as there are some slightly mystic themes interwoven in the storyline. But as the movie is basically centered on the power of music, the mystic elements make sense. It's completely about belief and faith in the intangible.

Personally, I loved the story. And the music was amazing. I had goosebumps throughout the entire movie. In fact, there was probably so much emphasis on the music that there was less character development than a lot of people would like. I liked this element of the movie, though, as it requires you to read between the lines. Not even the ending is handed to you nicely wrapped and on a platter. There's no wrap-up dialogue or epilogue sequence, just the audience's own inferences. Hence, if you don't have an imagination, you should stay home.


I saw a sneak preview tonight, not knowing anything about this film. If you still have an inner child, and an imagination that has not been beaten out of you by the "practical and mature" world, then you will love this movie. I wish I had taken my daughter. The only people that I have seen complain about this movie are people that probably consider playing music "hard work and self-sacrifice". If you don't play the cello, you are not going to notice how bad she fakes it. During certain scenes, I found myself sitting way back in my recliner, with my eyes closed, soaking up the sounds that inspired this young man. Not since "Strictly Ballroom" have I been so moved by a film.


This movie "August Rush" really touched my soul. I was an orphan and identified with this child's yearning and searching for his parents. Near the end of the movie, I started to cry like a baby. "August Rush" touched something tender buried deep inside my soul seventy-six years ago.

My father was killed in a car accident three days before I would have celebrated my third birthday. My father was also Irish and looked a lot like August Rush's father. It was during the Great Depression and my mother gave me up to the county's foster care agency.

I am now seventy-nine years of age. How I yearned down through the years for my parents, especially my Irish father. My mother was French. I met her many years later in New York City when I was in my early twenties. She was cold and rejecting towards me. I could not understand why. I was abandoned a second time by one of my parents.

The movie "August Rush" was healing to my soul wounded since early childhood;and again, in my early twenties. I knew where he was coming from as he longed for his parents. Instead of music, I used my talent of writing to deal with the lost of my parents.

"August Rush" made me fantasize during the movie that my yearning and searching for my parents were like this remarkable child.


I absolutely loved this movie during the free screening in San Francisco this evening. At its end, the film received claps, cheers and shouts of approval by the majority of the audience. The child actors were terrific, especially Freddie Highmore whose facial expressions alone carried more emotion than any screenwriter's words could. The music was amazing...the guitar work, incredible singing by young Leon G. Thomas III, and the gospel singers (especially Jamia Simone Nash). The blending of classical, rock and street-sounds music was phenomenal. The movie was funny, poignant and a tear jerker. Heck with realism...I'm more than ready for a little bit of magic in my entertainment these days! Great film for families with teenage children. Younger ones might be a bit frightened by, as someone else said, the Fagan-like character played by Robin Williams and the intro bullying. So this may be a film to rent on DVD to show the younger ones so parents can discuss scenes with them or provide parental oversight for your particular child. But no bad language, no visible sex scenes (although we do know it occurred), and overall a delightful film. I rarely if ever buy DVDs except for old classics but this will be one of the exceptions. Also, the soundtrack should be terrific. When can I see this again?


"August Rush" is sort of a feel good, modern day fairy tale involving a parent/child separation and a boy's unrelenting search to be reunited with his parents. But the primary theme is Music as a healing force in the Universe that draws us all together. The film stars Freddie Highmore, as the orphaned musical prodigy; Keri Russell, as the sheltered cellist from Juliard; Jonathan Rhys Meyers, as the Irish singer/songwriter/guitarist; Robin Williams as Wizard, the street performer who takes August under his wing; and Terrence Howard as the social worker who works with the orphan boy and his mother.

The acting was superb. There's not much dialogue in this movie. So the majority of the story is told through the emotional expressions of the actors and via the music. Although, Robin Williams does have a great monologue where he talks about Music being the tie that binds all of us together. Freddie Highmore (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) is the cream of the crop as far as child actors go. He amazed me in this film. I can't wait to see more from him.

"August Rush" was perfectly directed and co-written by Kristen Sheridan (In Amercia). It is so wonderful to see a work like this from a female film maker for a change. Beautiful cinematography! The opening scene in the wheat field is just breathtaking. The score is fabulous. Let's face it, in a movie like this, you've got to have great music to pull it off.

There are some exceptional musical performances, especially from relative newcomers, Jamia Simone Nash who sings up a storm and Leon Thomas who croons and plays guitar. But the most impressive thing about this movie is that all of the actors really played these instruments themselves. Meyers did his own singing as well. Highmore plays the guitar in an unusual slap-harmonics style that reminded me of Michael Hedges.

I enjoyed "August Rush" so much. I haven't been moved to tears like this by a film in a long time. The story was very inspiring and the boy's unyielding faith and will to never give up on his dream to find his family really hit me. Kudos to the writers and director for ending the film the way they did. Instead of a sappy reunion scene that would've ruined the tone of the movie, they ended it beautifully with the crescendo of the music and just the close-up on August as he sees his parents standing there for the first time. Add August Rush to your must see list for the holidays. It is well worth the price of a ticket on to see it on the big screen.


I never comment on movies here, usually I just use this website to get an idea of what I am about to watch but I saw this movie last night and loved it.

This movie is a fairytale set in real life circumstances. I really like that the film was never advertised as an Oliver Twist take, but I loved all of the allusions to it. It was a very creative take on the classic story. The poor orphan boy who wants nothing more than to be loved.

My favorite aspect of the movie was how infused music actually was in the movie. I am a musician and I liked the touches that the filmmakers went into to make the film seem as credible as a fairytale can be. I also like how it brought together modern rock, classic symphonic music, and modern symphonic music. It didn't really glamorize the life's of everyday musicians. I like all of the extra little things that were thrown into the movie that only a musician would get. There were some errors but for the most part I applaud the film makers for the attention to the musical details.

Yes the movie was a bit bit corny, and a little over the top, but for the most part I loved it and suggested it to every one.


This was an absolutely brilliant movie. I saw it at the special premiere to the Grammy Recording Academy members a the WB studios in Burbank. It's an absolutely amazing story with a brilliant cast and a soundtrack that will blow you away. Apparently, both Freddie Highmore, keri russell,Jonathan Rhys Meyers learned most of the songs and played/sang them themselves, which is very impressive once you see the movie. John from five for fighting wrote a few songs on the soundtrack as well. Music is the common thread that keeps the entire movie together and completes it into the masterpiece of a movie that it is. Although at times, there may seem like there are gaps in the story line/character development, the point of this is that the music is what communicates those hidden details of the movie.Overall, this film is a masterpiece that should be cherished by music-lovers everywhere.


Firstly, being a fan of Jonathan Rhys Meyers I had been hearing about this project for a while and I couldn't figure out how they'd make sense out of it. It does end up making sense even if it's a little far-fetched. It's about a son and his parents who all have to find each other, but my problem was that I couldn't figure out a way they could have gotten so separated in the first place. But luckily the writers did. It's pretty sappy and sentimental but if you're not that kind of person, I can't imagine you'd be interested in something like this anyway. It's the type of story that always comes out around this time of year, which is also the most sentimental time of the year. It gives you warm fuzzies so if you like something like 'Mr. Holland's Opus' or 'About a Boy' or 'Love Actually' you'd more than likely enjoy it.

I don't know if this qualifies as a musical but it should. It had lots of music in it although people didn't burst into fits of singing dialogue. The songs were normal songs, mostly original, and they were great. The young people involved were very talented, especially Jamia Simone Nash and Leon G. Thomas. Robin Willams and Terrence Howard had smaller supporting roles. (I've been saying that Williams and Bono resemble each other for 20 years so I'm glad he put the hat on and finally proved me right.) JRM and Keri Russell are co-stars who do their jobs well. But the star of the movie is Freddie Highmore. He's a good actor and I believe this was the first thing I've seen him in. I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominated for this.

I actually think this movie would be good for kids. I think there is maybe one bad word in it and maybe the way he came into the world might bother the extreme conservatives. But it's uplifting and a story about belief, especially belief in yourself. And I expect that'd be good for anyone to see, except maybe those who really hate too much sentimentality.


Reviewed by Elliot V. Kotek (from HATCHfest 2007 in Bozeman, Montana)

Director: Kirsten Sheridan Starring: Freddie Highmore, Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Jamia Simone Nash, Marian Seldes, Robin Williams.

If you've ever questioned the impact of music on emotion, August Rush is a must-see that will bury any doubt for all time. Featuring Jonathan Rhys Meyers as rock-star Louis and Keri Russell as New York Philharmonic cellist Layla, and starring Finding Neverland's heartbreak kid, Freddie Highmore, Rush delivers an experience that borders on the sublime and somewhat sentimental in a manner that rivals Neverland and would be reminiscent of Titanic if that ship had not sunk. A stirring performance here by Russell will definitely remind end-of-year voters of her work in Waitress and should serve to solidify her chances for an Oscar-nom.

The premise: A promising musician (Russell) is impregnated by a brooding but romantic Irishman (Rhys Meyers) in a one-night affair overlooking Washington Square Park that will change the course of their lives. Despite splinters of wooden dialogue and the obvious, yet ultimately satisfying, use of the music of Van Morrison early in the proceedings, the movie moves past both and bowls audiences over with poignant performances and stunning visuals in a first-class production. Layla's protective father falsely informs his daughter that her love-child did not survive birth, and delivers the boy, Evan, to the State, where the influence of all sounds great and small fill the boy with musical ambition and intuition.

In addition to the above-the-liners already singled out, Robin Williams wows in a blinding turn as Wizard, a menacing Fagin whose Oliver Twists are young, homeless musical prodigies and whose milk-cart careers he manages in exchange for their daily take and a fancy stage name. Onto the young Evan, he bestows the moniker August Rush (inspired by a passing grocery van). Director Sheridan (Jim's daughter, Kirsten) keeps the reins on her comic Wizard, and Williams seems to subtly straddle the line between sympathetic and psychotic. Also more than merely noteworthy is Jamia Nash, an 11-year-old with some of the best lines of the flick, who boasts a healthy dose of moxie that provides the perfect counterbalance to some of the heavier themes that accompany a film about an orphan searching for parents he isn't sure exist.

While the genesis of the film may have started with producer Richard Barton Lewis's vision of his then-newborn son's little digits directing his own symphony in a Santa Monica delivery room, the screening of this film is sure to inspire many more digits to pick up and pick at a six-string just to see what happens. Here's hoping studio support for the film will see screens increase after opening to take advantage of what should be great word of mouth. With screenings set for the upcoming Heartland FIlm Festival (where the film has been branded with a Crystal Heart Award), the Rome Film Festival and elsewhere, this moving tale is sure to find itself a fixture with families worldwide.


OK, so I was ready for this movie to be schmaltzy. I wanted it to be schmaltzy. And schmaltzy it was... but it lacked any of the character development or dramatic arc to make an audience care enough to embrace the schmaltz and let it move them. I was actually angered by the quality of this film.

The basic premise, as some have commented, has potential. I'm an actor and the friend I saw it with is a musician. We both love music and I'll be right there cheering anything that heralds the transformative power of art. Unless said piece of art was itself crap. This was.

I don't think the director, writers, or editor knew what exactly they wanted this film to be. Is it three stories (of prodigy, mother, and father) which we watch simultaneously and see them drawn together? Is it the story of this child's genius? Is it a story of the power of music? It is attempting to be all of these, without ever succeeding. The primary problem is the script, which perhaps (to give screenwriters credit) was edited severely. Nothing is ever shown, it's told to you. We don't see the magical night Lila and Louis spend together, we merely here her say "It was the best night of my life." We see no backstory on Evan/August's life at this orphanage--we're just made to believe that his educational and social development was put on hold for 11 years. Really, he's NEVER seen a music staff before? Strange that an orphanage that lacking could afford to dress him so well. What finally made him decide to run away? Nothing had changed for him, nothing had changed with his parents to "draw" him to them. He did it, you know, just cause. I don't want to give anything away, in case for some insane reason you want to see it, so I'll only go into the story problems in the first 15 minutes.

The actors were trying their hearts out--except Robin Williams, whom I normally love but found false and unsatisfying--and in some cases were able to overcome the material and give fairly good performances(Terence Howard, Kerri Russell). Freddie Highmore is cute, but is really called upon to do little more than look glowingly happy while playing music and sad while thinking about his parents. The kid's pretty talented, how about we give him a freaking CHARACTER to play rather than an amalgam of heart-warming looks.

The attempt is noble, I suppose, but unfortunately my recommendation is to stay far, far away.


This is the worst movie I've seen since "The Love Guru"! Ridiculously laughable story, hammy, bad acting, sub par music, zero chemistry between the two romantic leads, sticky sweet, implausible plot are only a few of the ways I can describe this incredibly bad movie. Robin Williams certainly did nothing for his career with this flop, and he really needs a hit movie badly. This movie is terrible on every conceivable level and it makes me wonder how thinking people could come up with a dud like this one. The fact that some people liked this movie only confirms how stupid the average American is becoming! It's no wonder it went to video so quickly!


I was more-than-willing to give this a good shot and enjoy a nice feel-good film starring the likable Freddie Highmore ("Charlie," of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" fame). However, when I start hearing 10- year-old uneducated street urchins talking with vocabularies like college professors and saying things that no little kid would say, I get turned off. Add to that more Hollywood politically-correctness and low morality.....and so much for the nice, feel-good story.

The sweet-looking "good girl" of the story meets a guy on the roof of a building, sleeps with 20 minutes later. They agree to meet somewhere the next day but her parents whisk her back to where she came from, and the two don't connect. Nine months later the baby arrives right when the mother has a car accident. The father says the kid died but really he had given the boy to child services.

Meanwhile, the boy - now 11 and living in an orphanage - runs off to New York City somehow figuring that magically, through hearing music, he'll meet his parents. Sound a little far out? Yeah, it is, and even more so as you see if play out.

It's a nice message of young boy never losing faith that he would meet his parents some day but the way he eventually does is so ridiculous, so far out, so unrealistic.....that it insults your intelligence. This turns out to be an Oliver Twist wannabe that isn't even close to the latter in quality and believability. Robin Williams as a "wizard" ("Fagin" in "Oliver Twist") ought to tell you something.

Meanwhile, "Evan" (Highmore) meets up with this street kid ("Arthur," played by Leon Thomas) is verbally annoying as hell...and things progress from there. There are so many plot holes and contrivances in this film, you couldn't count them all. Examples? Well, the kid learns about sheet music one day and two hours later he's written compositions that would make Beethoven proud. Later, he gets accepted to the Julliard School of Music despite the fact he has no credentials or background on who he is and where he's from!!

If you have any brain at all, this movie is a slap-in-the-face to you.


I really feel a bit ill after watching this drivel. I am a singer in a cover band and a film buff and this hit me on both levels. I could not stop picking it apart as to its complete lack of reality. First and foremost the music sucks, everything sounds so fake and arranged, they could not get those sounds out of battery powered amps and pig noses.

He plays perfectly and invents a new way to play the guitar the first time he touches it???

When he's playing on the bridge his first time out it's so awful, a rhythm part is being played while he has both hands on the upper neck of the guitar??? Quite impossible.

He just starts composing after a little girl gives him a one minute piano lesson?? Then starts playing a very complicated church organ on his first sitting, which takes years to master?? This is the equivalent of speaking perfect French after someone said bonjour to you for the first time. Even Mozart's father trained him for years.

Why does he even need to go to Julliard since he knows everything already? He's in school for a week, composes a symphony and has it played in Central park as the headliner? Where in the history of music has this happened? Then in another week he's conducting, another skill that takes years to learn.

When he's playing in the park with his father, why is there so much sound, sustain and reverb coming out of acoustic guitars? I want me one of them magic super guitars!

Then August, whose only been in NYC for a little while is able to run through subway systems, find his way to Central Park and get access to back stage where they have a tux and tails waiting for him even though he was not supposed to show.

This was so obviously directed by a woman, full of "oh it doesn't matter if it's real as long as it's beautiful" crap. And you would think as a woman she would have had a little more respect for her lead female character as to give her enough brains to ask what happened to her child? Are you saying she gave birth to a baby in a US hospital, did not have to sign one form to have it given away even though she is over 18, not one nurse or doctor said anything about the baby's health or showed it to her and there was no funeral for a supposed dead baby???

This movie is a steaming pile of excrement. I always heard you couldn't polish a turd and this one proved it right.


(*Spoilers*) Famous concert cellist Lyla has a one night stand with rocker Louis that produces a son Evan (aka August) who is surreptitiously sent to an orphanage by Lyla's controlling father because he believes the child may harm Lyla's career. After these opening scenes we rejoin the story when August is about twelve. Then the separate paths of the three protagonists are traced until their inevitable reunion. It would take more than a thousand words to detail all the preposterous story lines. Let's just consider a few. August is a musical genius who would easily put Mozart to shame: he becomes a skilled guitarist within the first hour of exposure to a guitar; he starts composing and notating a symphony immediately after being shown the basic scales; he can play an organ, complete with pedals and stops, on a first try; he is skilled enough to conduct the New York Philharmonic; in the final scene we come to understand he has a certain level of extrasensory perception. There are some equally absurd things that could be said about Lyla's story.

I suppose this would all be well and good if this were clearly presented as fantasy, but as far as I could tell we are expected to ascribe some element of belief to the happenings. There is a serious problem with this--such stories advance the "you can be anything you want to be" philosophy without any discussion of how that can frustrate kids when they realize that it's simply not true. Young people who watch this movie could be led to believe that accomplishments occur without the long hard work required, no matter how talented they are.

Freddy Highmar (as August) has a winning screen presence and an infectious smile, but I am not sure his acting ability is beyond that of the charming kid next door.

The most infuriating thing is that there is the kernel of a good movie here. The scenes illustrating August's sensitivity to all manner of sounds is well done. I'm sure that this is true of most musicians and I would liked to have seen that explored in more detail. Some of the guitar work is excellent and I think there must have been someone behind the scenes with a developed musical sense, it's too bad that that person (or persons) was not given more free reign.

This is an unfortunate misfire.


This movie was not really worth my time. The previews made it look significantly more coherent and put together, but the plot lines in this movie are all over the place, and the weak music score does little to tie it all together. Meant to be inspirational, the movie comes off as silly and contrived, and in parts laughable. Too many characters, back stories, and side stories are introduced and left unattended. The love story between Lyla (Kerri Russel) and Louis (Jonathan Rys Myers) is passionless and boring. Freddy Highmore, as the title character, is frankly creepy throughout much of the movie. And since the movie revolves around music and the fact that August is a "prodigy", more effort should have been put into teaching the kid to look like he knew anything about music or conducting. The score for the movie is merely adequate, as is the entire movie itself.


And this is why my will should be more highly regarded. What to say, other than that this is the kind of sappy, melodramatic garbage that's more fit for Sunday afternoon viewing on the Hallmark channel? Let's begin with the plot, which actually doesn't exist. The movie simply rambles aimlessly from one episode to the next, shamelessly invoking deus ex machina when needed. In some ways it feels like something Terry Gilliam might have made in his absolute nadir after downing bottles of fluoxetine.

I suppose you could call this movie character driven, but those characters are depressingly shallow. Some of them, such as the one played by Robin Williams, are severely irritating and detract from little the movie has going for it. There is no point in going into too much detail here, but this brings me to the Robin Williams corollary; the man hasn't been involved in an above-average movie in over a decade. It stands to mention that only a small minority of the past decades' films featuring Williams are even actually average.

So in summary; I want my money back. In fact, I want more than my money back; I considered my time watching this movie as working. It was a truly herculean effort not to walk out. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that?


I am writing this as an alternate viewpoint to the praise heaped on this film over these pages. Bottom line, the film is inoffensive, but really not very substantive entertainment-wise or message-wise. It starts with a CGI treatment of a wheat field on the opening credits, which looks distractingly silly. It weakly conveys that the main character (a boy named Evan Taylor) believes he has some kind of control over the field, but it falls short of the intended correlation to his sensation of "music everywhere" which is better illustrated later in the film. The story set up is VERY slow and heavy-handed in establishing Evan's beliefs about one day finding his parents. Only half way through the film does there begin to be any appreciable progress with regard to the plot. Sure, things happen to the characters, but nothing really connects the audience to their emotion.

On the positive side, Robin Williams appears in this film in a role that is suited for him and that he plays in a restrained and powerful way. His character is the least trite, although you can somewhat "see him coming" from the moment he enters. Another highlight is the character of "Arthur X" a child musician who basically drives the plot forward all on his own for most of the second act. One senses that this actor Leon G. Thomas is capable of much more than the "official black ghetto kid" dialog he is given. Terrence Howard turns in an elegant performance with his portrayal of a caring social worker. Overall, the film doesn't require a *little* imagination or suspension of disbelief, it requires whole re-calibrations of reality from scene to scene. Not that you would think it's true-to-life, but it doesn't even make sense within its own parameters. Lastly, the music is all over the place thematically, stylistically and not cohesively or meaningfully - although there are some great players performing. An interesting concept for a film, but I found nothing to take away from it. If you want to see a feel-good film in this genre done correctly, check out Serendipity.


At the beginning I was kind of bored. But that soon changed. From the beginning to the end I was on the edge of my seat! i was extremely excited because of the amazing coincidences the story shows. of course it's a fictional movies so some parts are unbelievable, but it's a great story and will have you on the edge of your seat. The movie has amazing performances and great actors! It's a must see! The whole family will enjoy this spectacular thrill ride. Don't listen to the critics, it's fake but that's what puts the fun in going to the movies, escaping reality. Definitely a good buy on DVD! This story will inspire you and lift your spirits! Go out and see!


August Rush is a modern-themed story about the power of a life force flowing through all of us and how synchronicity, faith and self-assuredness guarantee that each of us can personally fulfill our destiny. Although this film plays well to a broad audience, it is very mystical and based on simple, yet emotional themes that will play flat to some movie-goers.

If you have strong parental feelings or enjoy movies centered on the power of human love and attraction, this story will move you like few films ever have. Great for families- it's completely devoid of explicit scenes that make parents squirm and carries a positive message. Similarly, if you prefer uplifting stories championing the resilience of the human spirit, you'll love it. I gave the film a 10 for that reason- it will remain a personal favorite for years to come. However, if you are easily bored with themes that are lacking in danger and suspense or prefer gritty true-to-life movies, this one may come off as a disappointment.

The screenplay seems written as a spiritual message intimating that there is an energy field that connects all of life, and music is one of the domains available to any who care to experience it.

The plot is simple but deep in implication- an orphaned boy wants to reunite with his parents and feels that his inherited musical genius can somehow guarantee their return. Meanwhile, both parents languish in separation, fate having split them as quickly as it united them in parenthood. Neither know they are parents (see movie for explanation). The film itself was accomplished with imaginative directing and is studded with vivid imagery that punctuates the emotional ebb and flow of the story.

I liked the music, which was richly textured in genre, ranging from classical elements to a folksy modern collection of songs that were tastefully presented by some of the leading cast members. Music is the center-piece of this film, and it works.

I thought the casting was excellent, although none of characters really stood out from the others. Robin Williams plays an antagonistic role, delivering a smashing performance as an orphaned street-wise survivor of enormous depth and understanding, but tragically maligned by a life of rejection. This is a midrange performance by Williams, not the quiet and subdued moodiness of Good Will Hunting, nor the over-animated Morky style. He gives interesting color and charm to a darker figure synchronistically woven into the lives of his fellow cast members. Bravo! Young Freddie Highmore is sharp and charming, though narrow in expression. Just as expected, his natural charisma shines through in a most refreshing manner. Parents Keri Russell and Johnathan Rhys Meyers each lend flawless performances in captivating resonance with the other actors and the film itself. They are interesting and believable. Terrence Howard plays a small but significant part and underacts as well as Kingsly or Gielgud. Excellent! Leon G. Thomas III and Jamia Simone Nash (children) both earn honorable mention. This movie treads on every heartstring. I loved its invitation to believe in the extraordinary miracles of everyday life. Take your kids, your significant other, your parents, or any friend. It is August and will give you a very pleasant Rush. Sit back, breath deep, and get riveted!


August Rush may have the happiest ending in movie history. See it and judge for yourself.

While far from a perfect movie, it is perfectly entertaining for folks like me who don't mind getting lost in the film's world.

The script goes beyond belief at almost every turn but when we're talking about the world's greatest young orphan musician being reunited with his parents- who cares? The only distress I felt was the dreadful appearance of Robin Williams, I think it has gotten to the point where the only character he can plausibly play is himself.

I almost never see films twice but will definitely see this one again (maybe even again today) as it is about the music and the spirit, not the plot or the performances.


Some movie reviewers just don't get it. One calls August Rush, "a piece of shameless hokum..."; another calls it "the sort of movie that requires you not only to suspend disbelief, but to check your sanity at the ticket counter." That same reviewer said the movie Babel was a "towering dramatic achievement"; I thought it was lumbering and tedious with scenes arguably pedophilic. As one Yahoo user said about it, "Please let's not confuse art with egothe sensationalism of seeing the naked girl or the masturbating boy was only necessary to compensateTHERE IS NO STORY HERE." How often do we see reviewers totally out of touch with the opinions of the movie-going public? Back to August Rush. This movie went right over many critics' heads. I believe these are the elements they least understood: August Rush is a story of hope that teaches hope, determination, perseverance, and to never give up on your dream. It gracefully defines the benefits of listening. It takes us to another realm where we can witness there is more to us than our mortal bodies, brains, and intellects. Aha! It teaches things of the spirit, things unseen, things beyond our human understanding, and it does so through a child who is full of joy when there seems to be no reason for him to have any! But, he is a prodigy with a talent kindling in him and he can do things for which there is no logical reason.

My own son, Greg, was reading and doing math beyond a second grade level well before he began kindergarten. Neither his father nor I taught him these things; he just "knew" them. His pediatrician suggested tests when he seemed to her to be intelligent beyond his years. The evaluators gave their academic conclusions: Some kids just seem to get these things "out of the air" and he was one of them. Honest to God, that was the expression they used.

Numerous other marvelous instances of a "miraculous" vein have occurred in my own family's life's experiences. I submit to you, why do the Stephen Kings et al who present almost exclusively the darkside have the corner on the supernatural market? It's okay by today's standards to have the bejeebers scared out of us by the macabre, but to be encouraged by the extraordinary powers of our Creator? Why, that's just "shameless hokum." Do you know that each and every one of us has glorious potential within us if we'd just listen to the still small voice within? And that ain't "hokum," folks! My heart truly goes out to those people who are of such a cynical, worldly nature that they cannot set aside their cerebral traits long enough to fathom the positive spiritual potentials of God.

Sincerely, Marylynn Stults


I saw this movie last night when it opened. I am a musician with 18 years of training and currently still finishing my training on the collegiate level. I thought this movie brought across some of the most wonderful aspects of music. Including the ability to produce music without knowledge of the standard conventions typically used. This is how I broke into music just by improvisation without any knowledge or technical skills yet making what I felt into music. The soundtrack is phenomenal as well and mixes new music with the standards of the classical and romantic music eras. I absolutely agree with Robin William's quote " Music is the harmonic connection between all living beings"


I loved this movie! It was like watching my own life as a boy and as I still am, with imagination and the integrity to stand up for what you believe in and not let anyone take you down!

A boy is separated from his family believing that some one cares about him and there are people trying to track him down, both the good ones and the bad!

About the movie: Very fun and entertaining! Mild, VERY mild! content that might offend some people, but based upon what I see in most movies these days if a movie could even be rated as "G", this one should!

Please remember that August says that he can hear the MUSIC which is every sound that he hears! (everything he can understand!!) This is important to get the meaning of this movie and get the best feeling out of the climax!!!!


This movie is very enjoyable. I loved every minute of it. The story line is very interesting. They bring the fantasy to a very believable state and the acting is great. Loved this movie. Freddie Highmore did a great job as August Rush and made every second of the movie enjoyable. Once you sit and watch this movie you will get hooked and wont be able to get up. As it goes back and forth from the past to present it is very understandable. It makes you understand why the actors are doing what they're doing. When I went to see the movie, the theater was packed. The movie was 100% unpredictable. It is a very good movie and I would recommend it to anyone!


A very special film with unique qualities, "August Rush" wins your heart with strong performances from adorable Freddie Highmore as the orphan with the puppy-dog eyes and massive talent, charismatic Jonathan Rhys Meyers and gorgeous Keri Russell as the lovers torn apart by circumstances. An utterly original modern-day fable with elements of "Oliver Twist," the plot normally would be considered totally implausible, but director Kirsten Sheridan makes it work -- because you root for these characters. And who doesn't want to believe in happily ever after, especially when you become so emotionally invested? With its emphasis on music as both a life-changing element and a lifeline, the film uses its excellent soundtrack as dialogue. The rhythms of everyday life become part of the score, and the eclectic mix of songs works well. Mark Mancina provided original music. The performers are perfect for their roles. Russell, so good as TV's "Felicity," brings a classiness and intelligence to every part she plays. Dublin-born Meyers, who channeled the young vibrant Elvis in a CBS mini-series a few years ago, winning a Golden Globe, is always interesting on screen. And Highmore, who first came to prominence in "Finding Neverland" and then starred as the lead in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," is one of the most gifted child actors around. The cast also includes Terrence Howard as a sympathetic child services worker, pint-sized Jamia Simone Nash as a powerhouse vocalist, Mykelti Williams as a kind minister, and Alex O'Loughlin of TV's "Moonlight" as Lewis' brother Marshall. An interesting note, Meyers' real brother, Jamie O'Keefe, plays drums in the Connellys band. (Meyers used his mother's maiden name when he became an actor instead of O'Keefe). Kirsten Sheridan, daughter of the famed director Jim Sheridan, knows how to build suspense but the payoff might not fit everyone's idea of a good movie. She also co-wrote the outstanding "In America," and has a knack for working with kids and finding the lyricism in storytelling. Music can change your life. And because it's the driving force of the film, the sound is exceptional, as is the film's lush look. "August Rush" is very uplifting, and rich with metaphors about the simplicity and beauty of music. If you believe, just go with the flow, and you'll be smiling while your eyes mist up, for it's a hopeful and heartwarming story that you don't find too often in our jaded, cynical world.


"August Rush" is a masterpiece! It is a journey of life, loss, music, miracles and love. From the very beginning I new this film was going to be great.

The storyline was beautiful in many different ways. The composed music is amazing. The acting is superb. The camera work is right on key. And the direction was flawless. When I left this film a still had tears in my eyes. I am truly touched.

This is a film for all sexes, ages, and races if you have any love in your heart. I am a musician so I was extra moved by this film!

I give it 10 out of 10 stars. This is a film that is very close to my heart. I will remember it forever!!


Words cannot express how absolutely horrible this movie was. Not only was it overly sentimental pablum, but considering the huge role that music plays in the movie, you might assume that the writer could write believable dialogue about music... but you would be wrong. Now, I don't expect them to know the intricacies of music theory or the ins and outs of the world of classical music, and I understand the dramatic concept of "willful suspension of disbelief," but when a character says (and this is pretty much a verbatim quote), "The New York Philharmonic wants you to play again. I got the invite today," it pretty much ruins any sort of illusion that this bears any resemblance to the real world.

The only redeeming quality is the fact that the guy playing Jonathan Rhys Meyers's brother looks like an Irish version of Jermey Piven. On second thought... that's not a good thing.


Just saw this yesterday and it was my favorite kind of indie film-low budget and charming! Crispin Glover was terrific in it, nice to see his range in a 'normal', everyday-guy role and he he really pulled it off! Tatum O'Neal was impressive, despite her addiction problems, she still has the talent. She and Glover made a great screen pairing, they really had great chemistry and worked well together. Jane Spencer really assembled a great group of talented actors, there wasn't one bad performance among them. Too bad a lot of them haven't been heard from since this 12 year-old film. There were some really creative filming, camera decisions made and I can see why this was nominated for a Sundance Grand Jury prize. The only complaint I have is that the film was also low-budget when it came to sound quality, and a lot of the dialogue was hard to decipher. I give this film a 7/10.


Little Noises is the tale of a self proclaimed writer (Crispin Glover) who actually hasn't written anything and lacks the talent to do so. Glover envies the glamorous world of the writer and would do anything to be included in that world even forget the ones who love him for him. Glover is soon given the works of a mute friend and passes them as his own. "His" works are published, he is paid handsomely and introduced to the world of the writer. In the process he breaks his relationship with his girlfriend (Tatum O'Neil), turns his back on his only friend and the mute who gave him his poetry.

Little Noises is a dreary tale of greed, the thirst for power and wealth rolled up into a disturbing melancholy mesh. Crispin Glover, one of my favourite actors shines in the lead role with great performances from Tatum O'Neil and Matthew Hutton as the mute. You'll probably find this movie in the "Comedy" section of your local video store, but it's out of place with movies like "The Jerk" and "There's Something About Mary." Little Noises offers moments that leave the viewer saddened rather than laughing. The finale of the film is one you won't be able to get out of your head. Leaving the viewer with a glimpse of the past or what the future could have held. Check it out, but don't expect a comedy and the same quirky Crispin we all know and love.


Borrowed as the title of Nicholas Christopher's study of film noir and the American city, Somewhere In The Night remains a movie less familiar than Laura or The Big Sleep or Out of the Past. But it's almost in their class  an atmospheric and at times archetypal noir, the first directorial effort of Joseph L. Mankiewicz and the first major post-war feature to use the device of amnesia-as-metaphor: How vets survived global cataclysm only to have to construct new lives in a homeland that had, in their absence, turned into alien territory.

Drifting up out of coma in a military hospital, John Hodiak can't figure out why everybody calls him George Taylor. Only two letters offer clues to who he is, one from a vindictive girl he ditched, the other apparently from an old pal, Larry Cravat. Without much to go on, he heads to Los Angeles to track down Cravat and thus himself. But as he skulks though the city's dark demimonde (Turkish baths, mobbed-up nightclubs, phony spiritualist parlors, insane asylums), he's quick to learn that other people don't want Cravat found. Yet he finds allies in club canary Nancy Guild, her boss Richard Conte, and police detective Lloyd Nolan. He also finds that the reason for all the violence unleashed against and around him is $2-million in Nazi money (which disappeared in 1942, the year he joined the Marines). Cravat proves both elusive and uncomfortably close....

Somewhere In The Night boasts a strong cast in supporting (Conte, Nolan, Fritz Kortner) and even tertiary roles (Sheldon Leonard, Whit Bissell, Henry Morgan, with special mention to Josephine Hutchinson, who plays a poignant largo midway though the movie). Where it offers scant measure is in its principals. 20th-Century Fox was grooming Guild as its answer to Warners' sultry sensation Lauren Bacall, failing to grasp that Guild's appeal was less romantic than matey  the gal pal (like a couple of other Nancys from that era, Olson and Davis).

Hodiak's more problematic. He enjoyed a few years in the Hollywood limelight (Lifeboat, Marriage Is A Private Affair, Desert Fury, Command Decision) before his untimely death in 1955. But he never brought the illumination  the star quality  to his work that would elevate it from the competent to the classic. So he stays generic through his picaresque ordeals, without the specific anguish that distinguished, for example, John Payne or even Gordon MacRae and Edmond O'Brien as they underwent theirs (in, respectively, The Crooked Way, Backfire and D.O.A.).

Mankiewicz' first go as director comes as a surprise. Most vividly remembered as writer/director of A Letter To Three Wives and the immortal All About Eve (movies whose sparkling scripts camouflaged their lack of visual interest), he generates a menacing look in his nightscapes for the City of Angels, camping out in Bunker Hill walk-ups and on Skid Row. The storyline's almost as complicated as The Big Sleep's, and as murky, but then clockwork plots never sat well in film noir  the universe it dwells in stays random, volatile, unfathomable.


SOMEWHERE IN THE NIGHT is not only a pleasure in terms of plot and atmosphere, it is filled with terrific supporting actors: Lloyd Nolan, Jeff Corey, Whit Bissell, Sheldon Leonard, Henry Morgan, Fritz Kortner, and the superb, virtually ignored Josephine Hutchinson, who has the emotional center of the film as a lonely victim of the murderous scheme. Some may remember Hutchinson as the android babysitter from The Twilight Zone episode "I Sing the Body Electric". And when are Corey, Bissell, Morgan and Nolan not welcome? Only Nancy Guild fails to equal her surrounding players, but she gets to deliver a few wry observations.

Not much can be said about Richard Conte, without spoiling the plot, but this is another one of the infallible actor's memorable characterizations.

John Hodiak probably never had enough opportunities to play lead in good films. We are fortunate to have here his extremely convincing amnesiac veteran: in a sense, the ultimate existential noir protagonist. A voice credit has been given to John Ireland, but it certainly sounds like Hodiak during the nightmarish opening sequence.

This was the second film Mankiewicz directed, and it's a big improvement over DRAGONWYCK. SOMEWHERE IN THE NIGHT belongs in the canon of compulsory Film Noir. Go out of your way to see it.


Mankiewicz could really turn out good product and this neglected film is absolutely worth a look! An unusual hybrid of THE MALTESE FALCON and TOTAL RECALL, SOMEWHERE IN THE NIGHT was ahead of its time and has aged better than most amnesiac fare. One could argue that TOTAL RECALL owes quite a debt to this movie regarding its twist bad guy identity revelation. There's some excellent dialogue and once you overlook some whopper implausibilities, the plot works well, as does the oddball cast of supporting characters, including the opportunist police lieutenant and the rogues gallery of ne'er do wells hoping to cash in on the amnesiac's memories. The movie doesn't hold up to close scrutiny (how did the money hanging under a pier not rot from three years' worth of salt water for one) but it is highly entertaining and noir fans should definitely take a look. Hodiak, Nolan and Conte are all solid in their respective roles. Enjoy!


This is one of my favorite mystery movies. Not only does "Somewhere in the Night" have a great supporting cast, but John Hodiak's performance as one suffering from amnesia has you with him every step of the way on his search for his true identity, missing money, and the reason he is being pursued by others. This plot has so many twists and turns you will not be bored!

Look for an uncanny resemblance between John Hodiak and a very young Martin Landau of "Mission Impossible" fame.

I saw this movie four times and rate it SUPERB!


This is not good. It's some sort of generic, B-movie, noir epic ...with all of those ideas in conflict. Twenty "developments" get teased out, to no discernible entertainment value. It's a very, very long movie trying hard to believe it has peaks and structure, but the meaninglessness begins piling up quite early. The actors drift, because Mankewicz isn't doing anything to shape the movie. It ain't deep, so why is it the length of an opera? I'll give you twenty minutes to detect the big twist. You'll still be ahead of the characters by 80 or 90 minutes. The script is overdeveloped, and can't bear inspection for its two hour length. The cast of characters is rather extended. It's just a mess, going through the noir motions, and a uniform texture of tedium. It's uninvolving in the extreme.

Hodiak has leading man looks but very little presence. He's exactly the same from scene to scene; inexpressive, diffuse. He's like a prop that can talk.

Eddie Muller seems silently aware of the problems, and doesn't even bother with any framing remarks in his glib, unhelpful commentary. He just starts describing things on the screen. If Eddie Muller can't help you find the merit in a noir, you're in for a long ride. I can't think of a single reason you should watch this. This and 'The Big Knife' are the two most tedious movies I've seen in the last ten years. Not recommended.


This was directed and co-written by Joseph Mankiewicz. The cast includes John Hodiak and Richard Conte. Almost all the scenes are shot at night around Los Angeles and on the lot. It ought to be good but in fact it's no more than routine.

Let's recall John Huston's superb "The Maltese Falcon," in which the hero, Sam Spade, is hired to find a fabulously expensive statue of a bird whose trip through time has left a trail of dead bodies behind. Spade searches for the statue, discovering a little more about it each time he runs into the colorful and quirky figures that are associated with its pursuit. The Fat Man, the Gay Levantine, the dame with the past, the Gunsel -- they come crawling out of the woodwork, enough of them to make a minion. In the climactic scene they are all brought together in Spade's apartment, where all is explained. And they leave, only to have Spade ring up the police and clue them in, except for the Ambiguous Dame who is revealed as the chief villain.

I suspect "The Maltese Falcon" must have provided the model for this dark mystery, though enough cosmetic surgery has been performed to disguise the features of the original mold. Instead of the mysterious "black bird", John Hodiak, the man with no memory, pursues his own past and the two million dollars hidden somewhere within it. He runs into a gang of colorful and quirky characters. The Fat Man here is just a guy with a sinister face and a German accent and a classy phraseology. The Gunsel is a huge "tub of lard" who is barely able to string three sentences together. There's no Gay Levantine, but a few other characters make up for his absence. The Ambiguous Dame is split into her two constituents -- the louche broad who slings around French clichés and the honest, brave Nancy Guild who falls in love with Hodiak (and vice versa) two minutes after they meet. Hodiak is beaten up by the hoods, just as Spade was. At the end, he demands a "fall guy" for the police, just as Spade did. The hoodlum gang, instead of leaving, just shrug and their leader tells them philosophically that "the jig is up." The friend turns out to be the real scheming murderer -- Spade's Ambiguous Dame there, a secondary but likable character here.

The direction is okay. Mankiewicz was no slouch. And some of the writing is passable, as is Hodiak's performance as George Taylor and, especially, Lloyd Nolan's as the police lieutenant. The rest are pallid facsimiles. There are, in fact, too many quirky and colorful characters and none of them could act. Neither could Nancy Guild, although she was attractive enough.

Hodiak's pursuit of his own identity, his pal Larry Cravat, and the two million bucks grows tiresome -- and confusing too. There are too many leads, too many red herrings. We watch Hodiak travel from place to place, mostly meeting with hostility from people who don't even know him, garnering little scraps of information which may lead somewhere, or maybe not. The musical score has no lilt to it. And the characters have only one note on their instruments, except for Nolan who delivers sarcasm and irony with effortless aplomb.

Mankiewicz was to do much better, later on. These semi-noir mysteries were not his forte, though he made another one of them and that one, "No Way Out," was pretty damned good.


Hodiak is a WWII Marine vet, suffering amnesia and searching for his true identity. He returns to Los Angeles and becomes involved in two million dollars of missing Nazi loot. Look for many familiar faces in small supporting roles. While watching this one, I kept thinking what a great vehicle it would have been for John Ireland...then I checked the IMDB and found that Ireland did the voice-over narration.......Freudian???


I love film noir. And this was new to me, amazingly. So I definitely enjoyed it.

However, it is not good. The plot has red herrings and scenes unrelated to anything else more than any other movie by a major director hat I can think of.

OK. It doesn't make much sense. The narrative logic is filled with holes.

Still, it is enjoyable.

First off, my hat is off to Nancy Guild. I swear I had never heard of her before this. But, even at age 19, she's very good. She beautiful -- a little like Alexis Smith and even more like one of my great favorites Patricia Neal. She is no Duse but she does an excellent job in a pivotal role.

John Hodiak is good, though perhaps encouraged to overdo the vacant looks even when the amnesia plot seems to have been forgotten.

Margo Woode, with what looks like a bird's nest on her head, is lots of fun as a bad girl. And Josephine Hutchinson is very poignant in a small scene that doesn't seem to me to make sense in the overall plot but has an exciting payoff: Her scream through a window saves our hero from being run over.

The others are good, of course. Lloyd Nolan always was. Ditto Richard Conte. Lou Nova is strangely affecting in a small role.

This is a sprawling big-studio noir from the forties. The short, cheaply made ones are often better. And often they aren't. One never knows on the street of dreams.


Somewhere in the Night (1948)

This has all the gloomy, alienating, nighttime elements of the best film noirs, and it's smack in the central Post War best of it. It even has a director, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, known for handling dramatic, emotional situations with both delicacy and power. And it all pays off. Somewhere in the Night follows a man just out of the army suffering amnesia, and he encounters a sordid past of crime he didn't know he had anything to do with.

The dilemma of American soldiers coming home changed men, and to a home country so changed it was like a foreign country, is the crux of most noir films, and this one plays into it straighter than most. The twist of true amnesia only makes the crisis of George Taylor more stark. The role is played with subtlety, and some stiffness, by John Hodiak, I think because he is meant to be eternally confused by events (since he remembers nothing) and yet can't show his confusion, so he draws up a blank face. Mankiewicz works this inner problem out on the screen well, though choosing to keep the camera at a distance, as if filming a play sometimes, not a recommended film noir method for style, but it does emphasize the psychology more discretely.

The camera-work is stiff, too, as if constrained as much as Taylor is in his amnesia. You won't see many sharp angles up or down, no tilted (dutch angle) frames, little moving camera, and little of the easiest of 1940s camera effects, extreme close ups. All of this makes for a dry look, and for my money, with a plot this sensational, a dull one. This cinematography, by Norbert Brodine sets the tone for the whole movie, and I assume it is at Mankiewicz's request, and it just doesn't compare well to other noirs, to Orson Welles, or to any number of Warner gangster films with similar shadowy subjects. Maybe the most extreme example of this is the long dialog over the crystal ball, where the camera just sits and watches.

The lighting and the sets, in general, are dynamic, however, and the acting generally solid. And it has all the hallmarks (not quite clichés) of the genre--thugs at the bar, a nightclub singer with a big heart, a good guy who turns out to be a bad guy, and a cop who is clever and peripheral, like a sentry always ready. The movie is, truly, interesting, and doesn't let up as you have to figure out the puzzle of who did what and why. It won't sweep you off your feet or blow you away, but it will be worth settling quietly into.


Few actresses jump from a thespic nowhere into a star role. You might count them on the fingers of one hand. But it happened to Nancy Guild. Signed to a Fox contract when casting director, Rufus Le Maire, spotted her picture in a 1946 Life magazine lay-out of current college girl dress fashions, Nancy jumped straight from Fox's dramatic school (where she spent "a few months as the star pupil") to the lead feminine role in Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Somewhere in the Night (1946). And she does well too. Extremely well by a rather difficult role. Is she a good girl, or one of the villains? Nancy plays it cool, which is a perfect choice, especially when surrounded by consummate scene-stealers like Richard Conte, Lloyd Nolan, John Hodiak and Fritz Kortner. But her debut proved to be the high point of her motion picture career. Next cast in a Fox "B", The Brasher Doubloon (1947) opposite George Montgomery's Philip Marlowe, she followed with a minor Dan Dailey 1948 musical, Give My Regards to Broadway. Fox then dropped her. At this stage, Orson Welles came to her rescue by offering her the part of Marie Antoinette in Black Magic (1949) in which Gregory Ratoff fronted for him as producer and director. (Ratoff actually did direct half the movie, but Welles handled all his own scenes and wrote some of his own dialogue). Although this United Artists release was anything but a success, Universal offered Miss Guild a contract. She played the main feminine role in Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951) and was then third-billed (Mark Stevens and Rhonda Fleming were the stars featured on all the posters) in Little Egypt (1951). Fourth billing in Francis Covers the Big Town (1953) and a minor role in Otto Preminger's 1971 Such Good Friends completed her motion picture career. Eight film roles, only one of which (her first) is of any importance. What a waste!

Getting back to the rivetingly noir, Somewhere in the Night, this movie is not just an actor's heyday (which it is  you'll probably miss the clever way one of the players signals the plot to the audience in the first 15 minutes, so watch for it on a second view), but a photographer's and set designer's paradise as well. Mankiewicz keeps a firm control of both acting and atmosphere. This exceedingly well-produced movie always enjoyed a considerable cult reputation, which, for once, was thoroughly deserved. Full marks for a really solid script on which none other than leading novelist W. Somerset Maugham worked with Lee Strasberg (later to gain fame with his Actors Studio).


No one could say Mank didn't have a checkered career: In the 1930s he was castigated for daring to re-write Scott Fitzgerald (in his capacity as Producer on Three Comrades, Scott's only solo writing credit, he felt obliged to 'tidy' up several sequences) and in the 1960s he was the guy brought in to re-write and 'salvage' Cleopatra but in between he initially wrote then wrote and directed some very tasty fare indeed culminating in his two magnum opii A Letter To Three Wives And All About Eve. Somewhere In the Night dates from 1946, the same year his second directorial effort Dragonwyck was released and it's well up to snuff. A lot of 'amnesiac' films are, by definition, forgettable, but not this one. Mank assembled as tasty a supporting cast as had ever been shoehorned into one film ranging from Whit Bissell through Harry Morgan, Jeff Corey to the standout Josephine Hutchinson. Leading from the front are the slightly wooden John Hodiak - marriage to Ann Baxter didn't improve his acting -, newcomer Nancy Guild, Lloyd Nolan and Richard Conte and Mank keeps the balls spinning in the air leaving little time for awkward questions - like why would Conte - who'd got away with murder for three years, introduce Hodiak to a detective friend (Nolan) knowing that Hodiak was trying to get to to bottom of the very murder for which he, Conte, was responsible. This the kind of movie, popular at the time, in which a protagonist who is possibly a murderer is befriended by a girl/woman who's never met him before - for example Alad Ladd and Veronica Lake in The Blue Dahlia and/or in which a street-wise gal like Guild here, has to have the expressions 'private eye' and 'shamus' explained to her. None of this detracts from an enjoyable ride and it's one to add to your Blockbuster shopping list.


John Hodiak is a war vet with amnesia who searches for his identity and possible complicity in a crime "Somewhere in the Night," a 1946 film also starring Nancy Guild, Richard Conte, and Lloyd Nolan. The film is directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, and he also co-wrote the screenplay with Howard Dimsdale.

Severely wounded in the war, Hodiak's character, George Taylor, has had to have facial reconstruction. His recovery is slow, and he can't remember anything. He has a partial letter on his person telling him that he's despicable, and when he picks up his belongings, he finds a letter from one Larry Cravat. Investigating Cravat leads him to murder, stolen money, and some unsavory characters who are after him.

This is a muddled movie that still manages to be absorbing, probably because of the talent behind and in front of the camera. Nancy Guild plays a singer in a club owned by Richard Conte. She becomes interested in Taylor and tries to help him. Guild is attractive and looks like a noir heroine in the Bacall-Raines genre, but she delivers her lines in a very flat manner. Lloyd Nolan as a police detective is terrific as always, and Conte gives a smooth performance.

You have to pay attention to "Somewhere in the Night" or you'll get lost - sort of like the hero does at points in the movie. Still, it's worth seeing.


If you want to be hypercritical about it and you delight in pointing out plot holes, you may give this movie a bad review, while at the same time flaunting your critical chops. That's anyone's privilege.

But if you're just looking for an enjoyable film, you can't go wrong with this one. The performances are good, the settings suggestive, the script often clever and funny and the whole experience quite entertaining. Can't quite figure out the plot? Well, that won't matter. The characters on the screen seem to understand it and that's enough.

By all means, catch it on cable or rent it. It's fun. And it will remind you why you find film noir so entertaining. So it isn't the Maltese Falcon. So what?


John Hodiak stars in this piece of Film-Noir. George Taylor(Hodiak)is a bitter WWII veteran Marine with amnesia. He returns to Los Angeles with hopes of rediscovering his identity. He has only two clues linked to his past: a vicious letter of woe from a woman that hates him and another mysterious note from a "Larry Cravat". George in search of Cravat becomes involved with a winsome lounge singer(Nancy Guild)and her boss(Richard Conte). Police investigator Kendall(Lloyd Nolan)informs the three that Cravat is wanted for murder and the robbery of two million dollars. But what is Taylor's connection? For all he knows, since thugs are chasing him...hell, he himself may be the mysterious Cravat.

Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz co-writes the screenplay with Howard Dinsdale. Hodiak is a passive leading man, while the attractive Guild almost steals the movie from him. Nolan plays the copper with a dry humor. Also in the cast: Sheldon Leonard, Fritz Kortner and Lou Nova.


This is such a lousy film that putting it in the tradition of the 1940's film noir is an insult to that film genre.

Total confusion reigns here as John Hodiak plays an injured war vet in the throws of amnesia. How he could fool a hospital that he didn't have this tells you a lot about hospital care as well as this very muddled film.

Finding items in his wallet, money deposited for him along the way, suspicion that he is a killer, becoming mixed up with seedy people and finally finding out who he is has no value in this plodding film.

Richard Conte, as the owner of the bar, is up to his usual no good ways in films. That's Conte and that comes as no surprise. Lloyd Nolan explains to us why the police always wear their hats. Isn't that wonderful? By the time, you hear that, you're more than satisfied that this miserably scripted film is over.


I wanted to like Somewhere in the Night and at first was impressed by the off kilter style of the opening in the WWII field hospital with the heavily bandaged amnesia victim played by John Hodiak, but when it switched to its stateside development I soon realized it was derived from several predecessors and didn't really have a clue where to go itself. Hodiak and leading lady Nancy Guild, while meant to evoke Bogey and Bacall, are about as interesting as watching paint dry in this overlong derivative production. Supporting cast is the high point with Richard Conte, Lloyd Nolan, and several other familiar faces doing their small parts to make the movie memorable. Eddie Muller's commentary on the Fox DVD is fun. Only recommended for noir completists.


I will just make a few comments about this film.

This is a highly irrational and illogical film noir. It's something quite rare I must say that, but in a good way? The answer to that is more or less yes. A lot of it was genius but some of it was quite poor.

It was also way too sarcastic. Felt like they tried to make a joke about, well just about everything. I did laugh a few times though, but it didn't fit! This wasn't a black comedy though it could have been one hell of a genius black comedy if they changed a few things.

It's both unexpected in some parts yet quite predictable in others.

I love Mankiewicz and his direction was fabulous, that must be said! But I'm not so sure about the story.

I will say this though. It is good! See it if you have a chance! I won't directly recommend it since I only like to recommend films I love but yeah it is a nice little film!


Very enjoyable and involving noir. John Hodiak plays a WW2 veteran struggling with insomnia and not many clues to go on. It's captivating stuff and the pace is just right as we struggle, as does he, to work out what has gone on. As more people become involved, the plot really thickens and we are in the familiar territory of seedy clubs, ruthless hoods, car 'accidents', clairvoyance, a sanatorium and a wonderfully evocative dark and dirty dockside. Great dialogue throughout and witty too. Nancy Guild is by no means stunning as the co-star helping Hodiak in his desperate race and I understand that Mankiewicz had to coach her individually to help her with the delivery of her lines. Despite this and because the story is so good her slightly faltering performance can take nothing from this thriller.


If you like a mystery full of shadows and moody lighting, you'll quite enjoy this rambling yarn. John Hodiak (who looks here like a classic co-respondent in a divorce case), is an amnesiac, who wanders from clue to clue, from character actor to supporting player, in a sort of bemused trance as he tries to piece together who he is and why a certain Larry Cravat wrote him a mysterious note. The mystery holds for a while, then this viewer became a bit tired of scene after scene of talky explanations, and not much cinematic action. Fortunately Hodiak meets a nice girl, played by the charming Nancy Guild, and things looked up (for me). Nancy falls for John, for some reason, and believes in him, although he is becoming convinced that he may be a killer. On he rambles, trying to unravel, in murky apartments, the docks, an insane asylum, etc. There's Nazi loot and a nightclub, and Lloyd Nolan as a chummy cop, and lots of quirky characters (including one of my favourites, Housely Stevenson), who are there mainly to distract you, because Hodiak's character is so passive that he isn't even in the final scene - a cheery wash-up reminiscent of a mild sitcom.


but it's not supposed to be. This one is just a mess, the plot is ... well, where IS the plot? Nancy Guild (rhymes with wild) does a very bad Bacall impression, Hodiak not quite handsome enough to pull off movie leads, Conte and Nolan dependable as always. Fritz and Margo make good impressions in bad parts.

The best part of the 2005 version of the DVD is the commentary by Eddie Muller; as a noir expert, he's not afraid to call a turkey a turkey and he has a lot of fun poking fun at the movie and (surprisingly, since Fox paid him) calling it out for what it is. So watch the movie just to get it over with, then sit back and enjoy Muller's critique. It's like a noir MST3000!


I love this hilarious sitcom and catch it on re runs whenever I chance upon it. I think it is one of the funniest family comedy series ever, with some entertaining and unusual character portrayals.

The series revolves around the Keaton family, with liberal parents Steven (a TV station manager) and Elyse (an architect). The couple have three children...a financially savvy, politically conservative son Alex, his shopaholic teenage sister Mallory, and a younger tomboy sister, Jennifer. Later Elyse gives birth to a fourth child, baby Andrew. Along the way, Alex develops love interests, first in the form of Ellen (played by the actor's future wife, Tracy Pollan) and later, Lauren, a psychology major. Mallory acquires a boyfriend herself, the motorcycle riding high school drop out, Nick, who incurs the disapproval of her parents and of course especially brother Alex.

The acting is stellar with Meredith Baxter and Michael Gross portraying the parents and Tina Yothers the kid sister, Jennifer. However, it is really Michael J. Fox's show with his hilarious depiction of Alex P. Keaton, who has a tendency to wear shirt & tie everyday around the house and introduces little brother Andrew to the Wall Street Journal while he's still in diapers! My personal favourite is Mallory (charmingly played by Justine Bateman); she is so amusing and endearing as his dim witted, academically slack, clothes obsessed sister who cannot get enough of the mall and talking about cute boys. Of course her contrast with the smart, serious, & focused Alex could hardly be greater.

It's a reverse generational tale to the expected. Normally the parents are the conservative ones, with the teenage offspring liberal rebels and rabble rousers. However, the Keaton parents are the left wing family members, former political activists back in their college heyday. Son Alex, on the other hand, is a die-hard and very vocal card carrying Republican who eventually finds his niche on Wall Street. The sparring between Alex and his parents (as well as with Mallory) makes for some wonderful comedy in this warm hearted family sitcom.


I get nostalgic about television shows like Family Ties. It was based around two parents who graduated University of California at Berkeley in the sixties. It was wise to have their eldest son, Alex P., to be on the opposite fence of politics. ALex with his tie and pictures of Ronald Reagan and Nixon. His younger sister, Mallory, played well by Justine Bateman cares more about fashion than grades or Alex's politics. It's great watching these two in action. The younger sister, Jennifer, develops from a young girl to an independent adolescent. There were always two story lines going on in every episode. Marc Price's SKippy is priceless for a thankless job. Scott valentine plays Mallory's boyfriend, Nick, a painter who never finished high school. Some of the best moments in this series happens after Nick enters the Keatons lives and his relationship with them. The mixture of great characters with witty dialogue. You can't stop laughing when Mr. Keaton tries to apologize to Nick in a ladies' shoe store. He comes across as a former gay lover than the father of Mallory but it's full of laughs. Despite the witty dialogues, this was a believable family who introduced Andrew, the youngest and fourth child. What do the children think when they find out. "I was talking about closet space" Mallory says to Alex. Oh, this is truly a family show for everybody. I can't say how I miss a family centered show on such a wonderful family like the Keatons.


"Family Ties" creator Gary Goldberg didn't like Michael J. Fox on his first audition, thought he played Alex a little too smart-assish. But on his second try, Fox approached it a different way and won the part that shot him to stardom. He quickly became the focal point of the show as the money obsessed teenager Alex P. Keaton. You could understand Meredith Baxter-Birney's disappointment, as the show was to be geared toward her character as the mother. But she and the rest of the cast pretty much faded into the background behind Fox. Not that he wasn't supported by a great group of performers. Michael Gross as the easy going father, Justine Bateman as the typical phone hogging, boy troubled teenage daughter, and Tina Yothers as the tomboyish younger sister. In later years some nice additions were Scott Valentine as Bateman's weirdo boyfriend, and making numerous appearances over the years was Marc Price as the nerdy next door neighbor, Skippy. High point episodes over the years were the Alex turns 18 one, the Alex rents out the rooms of the house one, and also the 4(!) part heartattack episode with the focus being on Michael Gross' father character, Steven. Shows major misstep occured during their final year when they tried to become too socially concious. Episodes dealing with book banning, oil spills, toxic fumes from household products, and racism seemed a bit out of place and more importantly, took away from the comedy. The last hurrah was a decent episode that saw Alex move to New York to be an investment banker. But most recommended from the series would be the shows middle years, where the writing was at its best. Show also must of set some sort of record with at least 6 or 7(!) of those flashback type episodes featuring clips of the past stories. But no harm done.


Re-watching it on DVD I was amazed that Family Ties really stood the test of time. What makes it stand out is the constant high quality of the writing. On the one hand Family Ties always tackles serious issues on a personal level (death, trust, love, sexual harassment) but also on a social/ political level. I find it absolutely amazing that the writers always manage to avoid the trap of becoming sentimental or moralizing but always keep a healthy distance. Politically Family Ties is the great liberal voice of 80s television and from that point of view plays in a different league from its arch rival at the time, The Cosby show. What I also find amazing is that they manage to pack a satisfying story in the fairly short format of less then 30 minutes. The cast of course is perfect. Michael Gross stands out for me because he has the best one-liners in the show and his delivery as naive Steve Keaton is incredibly funny. Michael Fox is Michael Fox (as always) but Meredith Baxter is a great and underrated comedienne (and actually hellishly attractive...). Pity Tina Yothers stopped acting as it is amazing what a quantity and quality of dialogue she delivered at a very young age (though the jury is still out on her real age). And let's not forget Justine Bateman as airhead Mallory but who can act a fine line between comedy and drama (see Give uncle Arthur a kiss.)


I'm so thrilled that FAMILY TIES is finally out on DVD. To me, this was the best sitcom of the 80's. Even today, its themes are still relevant. I always thought it was great that the kids were allowed their own ideas, the parents weren't divorced, and that they were an imperfect family just doing their best. Unlike the Cosby Show, which was all about the dad, Family Ties let each character deal with their own issues in a very real way. I just watched the episode where a family friend makes a pass at Mallory, and that is something that some young people have to deal with. It dealt with racism, alcoholism, rape, politics, and a host of other things that kids are exposed to. It's still funny and is a great show that kids and parents can watch together and not be embarrassed.


This was one of the best shows of its kind when it was running.

A classic 1980's situation comedy.

I cant believe it ran for that many episodes. I also cant believe that it finished that long ago.

Michael J Fox really made the show, and the show was based on him, and the family he was a member of.

Or though the episodes were only 30 minutes long, the comedy it provided was excellent.

I hope the series can come out on DVD very soon.

This series deserves to be seen by future generations.


"FAMILY TIES," in my opinion, is a pure definition of must-see TV! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoyed it. My favorite one is the one where Elyse's (Meredith Baxter Birney) brother, Ned (Tom Hanks), comes to town. You'll have to have seen it for yourself if you want to know how any why. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. I also loved the theme song. It's called "Without Us," and it's performed by Johnny Mathis and Deniece Williams. Before I wrap this up, I hope that all you die-hard fans of the show will always have it live on in syndication. In conclusion, even though it can also be seen on Nick at Nite now, I strongly recommend you catch it before it goes off the air for good.


In the spirit of minimalism stage, Alex Keaton's struggle with the loss of a friend has an impact even today. Flipping through TV Land at 3AM one night I watched both parts of this pivotal episode and was still astounded.

Alex's entire life is controlled by him. Suddenly he is forced to deal with something way beyond his control-death. It forces him to evaluate himself, and adds some funny stuff in with the flashbacks too. My favorite is Alex being upset because "mommy, my favorite president is being impeached!" (Nixon). The laughs thrown in are in no way offensive, nor take away from the seriousness of the episode.

These two episodes never cease to amaze me, and I always felt represented what this show really was-about family, coping with change and loving someone even if they are the polar opposite of you-the contrast in political beliefs of Alex versus his parents provided laughs and tender understanding.

If you never have watched the show, I suggest these two episodes.


The best sitcoms ever are only counted on one hand reaching to 5, 1) Sceinfeld, 2) Family Ties, 3) Perfect Strangers, 4) Married with Children, 5) Dream On. There are other good shows like The Nany, Friends, Taxi, According to Jim, Mind your language,Everybody loves Raymond, Becker, and few others but don't stand up to category "best". Family Ties being among the best gives the credit to Michael J. Fox (Alex P. Keaton) and only who watched the show know why. The other characters, however, were also funny but not as Alex. There were Skippy, Malory and Michael Gross probably the funniest next to Michael J. Fox. As for the rest they weren't as funny but they completed the set.

The show was so smart and original compared to other family based sitcoms. Contrary to Married with children (which is also an extremely funny and smart show), it depicted the ethics that most of the families miss today - ethical parents, democrats, charity loving and enjoy the bonds they have and though they play it so safe during the whole show, they still got you laughing in a joyous way. Alex was so funny in almost all the episodes with a lovely contradictive character. Though he seemed to be so materialistic, a big fan of Nixon, womanizer, always making fun of his naive sister(Malory), he had so depth and wasn't really a happy character all the way. There was this episode when his friend dies in a car accident and Alex was supposed to be with him but lucked out because of his selfishness. In this episode, Alex reveals so much depth of a character, he exhibits regret for not going with his friend, realization of the useless meaning of being ambitious while everything is going to end one day and at the same time he gets you laughing while he is visiting a shrink for help and the latter turns out to be a Grant College graduate, same college where Malory is studying and Alex always makes fun of it. He also tells the shrink that when he was a kid he was just as normal as any kid playing with toys and stock market. He could also identify the coin's value from the sound after they used to cover his eyes and toss the coin for him to guess. In other episodes we also see Alex so romantic in love with Elen and later hurt because she leaves him for dancing scholarship to France and then he falls in love with Lauren (Courtney Cox). That was another funny and memorable episode because she is a psychology student and interviewing Alex to study high achievers. Definitely, an unforgettable show!


Even if you weren't born when this series aired, you have to see it.

Watch is all. It's the gold standard...Period.

There is no equal when it come to sophistication, timeliness or relevance. Mary Yyler Moore is genius...just watch and you'll agree. It's not that she invented the genre, giving that credit to Lucille Ball, but she embodied it like no one did and no on one has ever since. The characters are so much more defined and dimensional than any that have been written since; not that there haven't been some able attempts (Murpy Brown and Designing Women come to mind).

Mary, Valerie Harper and Chloris Leachman top them all....week after week, consistently superlative (credit to the writing staff as well as the actors who embody the scrips.)


I never caught MTM when it was originally on. I didn't watch much television and the idea of a sitcom about a single woman had no interest to me. Then, after it was cancelled, a local TV station started showing two shows a night, back to back, and I started watching. At first I wasn't impressed. The early 70s fashions and hairstyles were horrific, the acting uneven, the topics dated and Moore occasionally overacted. But, as the series progressed, the writing got better, the cast got more comfortable with their roles and Moore toned it down a little. I still don't like the first season too much. It does introduce us to all the characters but it just seemed kind of forced. Also it was somewhat sexist. At one point Moore actually does Lou Grants' laundry! OK OK--his wife had left him but still... After the first season though the series picked up speed and just got better and better. It also showed a single woman living alone and liking it--a rarity for TV on those days. It even hinted that she had an off screen sex life. It also found humor in some taboo subjects. When Chuckles the Clown is inadvertently killed in one episode they actually made his death seem funny! Supposedly (according to Moores' autobiography)no one wanted to do it and some crew people were "sick" the week it was filmed. That episode went on the win a few Emmys and is considered a true classic. Also Moores' character got more liberated--especially during the last season. She got a steady boyfriend (Ted Bessell) and, at one point, gives him a long passionate kiss right in front of Lou Grant, Ted Baxter and Murray Slaughter. It all ends perfectly in the last episode. No one was killed but everybody (except for Ted Baxter) is fired and they all leave the office singing! A true classic of TV. Well worth seeing.


Seriously! 30+ years later you still have to reference this show when discussing the Great American Sitcom. And, this is it. After all of these years, there is nothing quite Mary as Mary. No show has ever been better casted than this one. Each and every character was nailed to a tee by the actor/actress chosen for his/her role. Could Mary been played by anyone other than Mary Tyler Moore? Ted Baxter by anyone other than the late Ted Knight? Lou Grant! By anyone other than the oh-so-perfect Ed Asner? Murray? Gavin MacLeod pre-Love Boat! Rhoda!!!! Could anyone have nailed this better? Thank you Valerie Harper. No other faux-Jew could have matched you.


I saw the first episode when it first aired in prime time back in September of 1970 when I was nine years old. And I remember really enjoying it.

At the very end, I thought the MTM cat was the most amazingly clever thing I had ever seen (as a kid, knowing it was a take-off of the MGM lion). I kind of fell in love with Mary (of course we all did) especially as the series and episodes went on. Like I said, I truly believe that this was one of THE greatest shows ever on television (very likely the best). Everything clicked: the acting, the choice of actors for the show,the characters they were chosen to play, and most evidently and importantly, the incredible writing. And what wonderful, sophisticated writing it was. I really can't remember anything "dumb" or silly in this show. It never once insulted my intelligence (or attempted to insult anyone's).

The characters in the cast became very much like old friends to me, and I guess to most people. Almost like family. Why couldn't we know people or work with people like this?

An episode of special note regarding exceptional writing and direction: The one where Mary is so tired of trying to find a suitable man to date or have a relationship with, that on Georgette's advice, she asks Lou Grant out on a date. This was the next to the last episode of the series, by the way. I believe that most people who remember this episode will agree with me that it was one the best ones of the entire show.

Unfortunately, there aren't any more sitcoms on prime time T.V. today that can compare to this comedic gem.

And Mary, you'll always turn the world on with your smile!!


Mary Tyler Moore - a great comedic actress & a great long running sitcom. This show was incredible. The writing always seemed to set up funny situations. The pace of the show was just perfect.

Where & how did they get so much talent in one cast? Besides Mary, there is Gavin McCloud who is brilliant as Murray Slaughter. Ed Asner is the same as Lou Grant, Mary's boss. Where did they find Ted Knight? Ted Baxter is one of the great send-up characters of all sit-Com's & Knight played him brilliantly. Knight made it big with this series, went on to his own series, Too Close For Comfort, & also scored big in the original CADDYSHACK.

Then, the is Rhoda & Phyllis who spun from here into their own series. While their series were not as good as this one, they definitely contributed to this one. Let's not forget Betty White as the indomitable Sue Ann Niven. This show was good enough to her, & she played her character brilliantly. This was her springboard for Golden Girls later. She is even better than this.

Not only did Mary turn the world on with her smile, she widened the world a lot by introducing a lot of great character actors in their best career roles. This show could be touching & sentimental at times as well. This show has it all.


"The Mary Tyler Moore Show" was a classic sitcom about single 30s something Mary Richards,moving to new town Minneapolis,when her relationship breaks down,she gets an apartment through old friend Phyllis(Chloris Leachman)at the start,causing friction with Rhoda(Valerie Harper)from upstairs,the friendship of Mary and Rhoda becoming one of the backbones of the series until Valerie Harper spun off to her own spin off success "Rhoda",after four seasons. Mary gets a job at WJM-TV,the local news station with the lowest ratings but warmest people,she meets gruff but caring Lou Grant(Ed Asner)the classic moments in the series would be when Lou would say "come into my office Mary". Murray Slaughter(Gavin MacLeod)was the married man,who loved Mary without any sinister meaning,Ted Baxter(Ted Knight)was the stupid vain anchor man as the seasons went on,he got funnier and funnier and his character got some depth later with the introduction of a girlfriend,later wife,Georgette,played by the hilarious Georgia Engel. Betty White was a welcome addition in season 4 as man hungry "Happy Homemaker",Sue-Ann Nivens,the episode when she has an affair with Phyllis'unseen husband Lars in "The Lars Affair" was a classic,Sue Anne helping fill the void as "the blond darling" when Phyllis left after season 5 for her own spin off series "Phyllis". Amongst all the laughs there were touching,"real" moments of life like retirement or "The Lou and Edie Story" when Lou's wife Edie leaves him or "Chuckles Bites The Dust",the best known episode of TMTMS when the station's clown,Chuckles,dies in a bizarre elephant crushing,Mary is disgusted at the sick jokes until she gets the giggles at the funeral,then there is a debate about people's reactions to death,all very deep indeed. The show ended after a seven year run with the news gang all being sacked apart from Ted,ironically the one worst at the job,Rhoda and Phyllis returned to support Mary and Lou Grant was launched as a dramatic spin off and was another big success. A real joy of a series,the catchy theme "You're Gonna Make It After All" and Mary throwing her hat in the air,never fails to please!


Mary Tyler Moore was such a nice sweet woman. She was always thinking about others and trying to please others. She was naive, but she succeeded in a man's World. She started out as a secretary, but made it as a television producer. The pilot episode is a classic. She meets her new boss, Lou Grant, a complete grump from the traditional manly, man World. He is fierce, crude, and brutally honest. At first you are terrified of Lou Grant. Once you get to know him, he is really a nice guy. Don't say that to his face, though. Ted Knight makes the show. His character Ted Baxter is a lovable, pretentious, dolt, who thinks that he is actually competent. Then there is Rhoda. She is obviously from out East, and is more vocal than the average Midwesterner. I really think that this show was one that showed a woman making it in the man's World, but doing it with a lot of class. Perhaps the best episode was when Betty White's character was cheating with Cloris Leachman's character's husband. Betty White's character insists on continuing the affair, so Mary Tyler Mary says that she will let everybody know about what she is doing. That ended that.


Valerie Harper is my favorite actress ever, but everybody in this show, including that sweetheart with the Betty Boop lips, Georgia Engel, is delightful and funny. To make a sitcom great, not everybody has to be funny. On I Love Lucy, Desi Arnaz was not really funny. On Seinfeld, Jerry and Elaine were not often funny. On Rhoda, David Groh was not funny, but he had three brilliant comediennes and Carlton the Doorman to be funny around him. The Mary Tyler Moore Show is that rare sitcom that allows everybody to be funny (The Golden Girls is another one.) The Rhoda show may be the best show ever but The Mary Tyler Moore Show is not far behind its greatness!


This is a classic, one of my favourite television series of all time and surely one of the best sitcoms ever. Mary Tyler Moore is absolutely brilliant in her portrayal of the vulnerable and incredibly endearing Mary Richards, who embarks upon a career as an associate news producer in a small Minneapolis TV newsroom. Of course she was so compelling that it became difficult for her to shake the part and embark upon other roles. To most viewers, Ordinary People and other ventures notwithstanding, Mary Tyler Moore will always be Mary Richards.

Mary's relationships with the other employees in the newsroom and also her apartment neighbours make the series. The assorted newsroom characters include her gruff & cynical but lovable boss, Lou Grant, the friendly & witty news writer, Murray Slaughter (with whom Mary enjoys a genuine camaraderie), and the absurdly vain & egotistical news anchor Ted Baxter, who cannot pronounce anything properly and invariably makes a complete fool of himself both on TV and off. The banter between Mary and her boss, Mr. Grant, is especially hilarious and the mutual respect & affection touching.

Ed Asner masterfully portrays the news room boss, Lou Grant, with Gavin MacLeod playing the likable Murray Slaughter and Ted Knight the idiotic Ted Baxter. Later regulars include Georgette, Ted's friendly but naive blonde wife, and Sue Anne Nivens (Betty White), the annoying, man hunting domestic diva and star of the TV station's cooking program.

Mary longs for romance but meanwhile has close, dependable friendships not just at her job but also at home. She has an adorable bachelor apartment with a sunken living room. Upstairs in the attic apartment of this Victorian style house is the colourful, wise cracking Rhoda Morgenstern, played to perfection by Valerie Harper. The dialogue between the two is always priceless. Daring but cynical, Rhoda is the exact polar opposite to the more timid but always cheerfully optimistic Mary. Downstairs is the overbearing, irritating Phylis Lindstrom, played by Cloris Leachman.

Mary was something of a role model for the independent single career woman of that era. She had her trials and insecurities but invariably managed to cope on her own. Not only that, but she's always such a genuine lady. This series with its focus on friendship as opposed to romance is infinitely superior to the programming of today where the plot lines of the young career women tend to revolve around sex, often with a different man practically every night. These screenwriters could learn a little something from the Mary Tyler Moore Show writers about class, humour, character development, and relationship portrayal.