Though a little bit confusing at times, this movie is everything I expected from a Ringu prequel. The only reason that doesn't make this one my favorite of the series is because it couldn't exist without the others. Ringu 1 and 2 are more than a prerequisite; you have to see them to plainly enjoy this one! Of course, I love Asian horror, from Audition to The Eye to Chinese Ghost Story! What I mean is: if you're not into Asian horror films don't start with Ringu 0, you might get lost and never want to experience it again. If you're a fan of the original Ringu and other Asian ghost movies, go ahead and enjoy! You'll get to know a little better who Sadako really was before she died, how the curse was born and what makes this whole story so sad and scary at the same time. I also recommend to watch it more than once because it has nothing to do with American fastfood film-making, so there might be things that are misunderstood during the first viewing. The order I suggest to follow if you haven't seen any of the Ringu films: start with Part 1, then Part 2, then Part 0. There's another movie called Rasen which I haven't seen yet, so I can't tell you about it.


I really liked this movie!! It shows you more in depth on "the enemy" & "the villain". I actually felt sorry for Sadako. & the actress is really really pretty.

I believe compared to the other two movies of this Japanese trilogy, Ring 0 is by far the best. It shows you how Sadako came to be, the girl in the well, & the girl on TV.

Sadako is a teenager {How!? When she kills as a little girl!? Doesn't make sense? It will if you watch it.} & she is in an acting troupe to get away from her problems, & she witnesses love & fear.

You get to see the REAL side of her, & see how unfair Sadako really was treated.

Please watch this movie. It will do you good & a good change compared to all that other craptacular American horror flicks that are really comedies.

This movie will make you think & touch your heart.


Not overwhelmingly bad yet nothing all too great about this one either.

Long, dull, mundane prequel offering precious few scares. Looks like an average TV movie. There's some atmosphere oozing from it but not that much overall, has a strong amateurish feel to it as well. A few scenes may make you jump. The rest is all cold bleak stares accompanied by a silent soundtrack. Ohhh, scary.

To avoid, except for the snobby critics who'll find any foreign film "interesting" or to those that "must" see it for bragging rights. It's basically 90 mns of people starring at one another with little else going on.

Artificially slow, dull pace doesn't make a film a masterpiece by any standards, except for those with poor taste. I'd recommended Suicide Circle or Cure, way better than this. View it if you really have nothing better to do. 5/10


I haven't read other people's comments yet which will leave this opinion unbiased.

I believe RING 0 was a phenomenal film and a brilliant prequel to the first two films RINGU and RINGU 2. I noticed a different director made it and the actress who played Sadako was not in it apparently so I thought it was a director cashing in on the popularity of the first two films. How brilliantly I was proven wrong?

RING 0 seemed no different in terms of direction and the time period. It was as though all 3 films were made at the same time, I love it when there isn't a horridly noticeable gap between productions, which ruins the feeling you get from the original.

At first, RING 0 seemed to throw me off and again; I was worried that it would not be the same style as the previous two movies. However, RING 0 was directed and produced in what looks to be the perfect way for a late prequel. It gave us pretty much all the info we were left wanting from the two movies.

So apart from filling in the storyline and time gap for a prequel, how did the movie rate in terms of horror? Well horrific is one word to describe it. I'm very hard to scare but all three of the RING movies have managed to give me intense nightmares and fears of a little girl with black hair and RING 0 pretty much smashed my nerves completely with it's use of Sadako. Throughout the film they seem to make Sadako stand out in the movie like she will have in the minds of many fans and that did it for me. After the first two movies I would sometimes think I saw the shape of Sadako reflected in my TV, or in a corner. RING 0 puts those images on screen, right in front of you which shatters whatever you have left of confidence.

I genuinely found myself cowering in a sense as to what would be around the corner, what would the character see when he/she turned around. It brings the semi-realistic fears I had from RING and RING 2 to life in this movie and just makes it worse for me. Scenes where you would just see Sadako's feet walking by the camera across the screen and a character not daring to look up.

I should leave it there, to say the least this film was just as intense, perhaps surprisingly more so with the use of images of Sadako here and there such as the forest scene at the end of the movie which was just plain unnerving that she was there wherever you looked. Not attacking you, not dead, just standing there, idle Spooked me out big time.


includes SPOILERS

Well we finally we get to learn who Sadako really is. I felt sorry for Sadako after watching this film, it was really amazing to find out what really happened to her and what led her to become what she became. This is definitely the best film in the series.

You couldn't help but sympathize for Sadako after seeing how much hatred she had recieved for being different. Her tragic and horrible death at the theatre and her second death when her father throws her in the well made Ringu 0: Baadusei an incredible sad story. To only think that that young and beautiful girl was inside the well for 30 years and couldn't get out (almost) justifies everything she did afterwards.

Sadako just wanted her story to be told. A must for all the Ringu fanatics.


If you liked 'Ringu' and 'Carrie', you're gonna love this. I just saw it and I think I like it even better than Ringu (but it would be close). It's moodier and sadder than Ringu, but that 'bone cracking' sequence near the end crawled so deep under my skin that it makes me shiver just thinking about it! Great acting (the lead actress is as great as she is cute), great music, great direction.


Considering this more of a drama than a horror movie it's quite a nice ending (or beginning) of this trilogy. At the end I actually felt for Sadako as where in part I & II I found her pretty scary. The cruelty of the people is what shocked me in this one and makes it hard to watch. The ending is pretty strong and quite surprising. See it, even if you don't like drama and prefer horror!


It took me a long while to rent out this film due to the fact that I suspected it to be a "in it for the money" release. Basically, the film studios knew they had a good license here and wanted to milk it for all its worth, regardless of quality. A good example of this kind of capitalistic thinking would be the Highlander or Robocop movies. But, when after reading the credits in back of the case I realized it had been written by the same author of the first film (Ringu). This was enough justification for me to shell out my hard earned £3.75 and take a risk on it.

I had expected (in true Ring formula) , dark claustrophobic sets, classy underplayed acting, a slow forbidding plot line, intermingled with sudden jarring frights to keep you on your toes, that eventually build up to terrifying climatic end. What I didn't expect to watch was a tragic love story of the person we had all feared in the first two film encounters (sadako). Don't get me wrong, this is still a creepy film and throughout there is always a sense of dread and fatality especially with the romantic plot line. While watching I had a fear that it was just going to be a Japanese "Carrie" clone. But although there are similarities this is still very much a unique film. As a prequel should , it answers questions and fills in gaps that lead the audience perfectly into Ringu with a greater understanding of the characters and events that are to take place (George Lucas should take notes).

All in all a very well directed film with a talented cast and a great story.


Well well after the 2 first Ringu's that i enjoyed soooo much because of the scary screenplays, Ringu 0 brings us a very different prequel with this on, if you expect seeing as much scary scenes as in Ringu 1 and 2, then i hope you will read this first so at least you know that it won't, it is explains about all what you needed to know, with a end you already know but hehe it is a prequel so what else could it have been. Anyway the movie is different but good with a great acting of Yukie Nakama that play sakoma a perfect way, i mean the way she moves is like ring 1 and 2, gratz for that, she probably needed to train to walk like that all the time :) Only little thing that is a bit dissapointing in this movie is that we would perhaps would have loved to be in a bit more different places, most of the movie is in 1 very same place and start to look more like a theater then really a movie, it gets very good again once they get out of there, but until then the movie had some boring parts, otherwise great movie if you don't see it the same way as Ringu 1 and 2.


Ring O Birthday is a great prequel to the Ring series although the director is not Nakata it is a good drawback to the previously made movies. The movie includes the origin of the mysterious girl that is Sadako. If you watched the previous Ring movies this is a source of all the confusion and questions that are embedded in the movies mentioned. Unlike the Ringu and Ring 2 this has a slower pace even though the movie was short it felt long because of the pacing. It was not scary as the others compare but this is a different genre you're looking at. Ring 0 is a good movie with tremendous writing prowess shown. The cast was smooth and the directing is not sub-par to the other Ring movies which are considered one of its kind in the genre.


If you are feeling bad, I advise you, DO NOT watch this movie. Wonderfully done, I think the best comment is anothers, in that this movie 'puts the prequels of star wars to color by numbers shame'. There is so much to this, it's just breathtaking. The shooting is done well, the acting is superb, and it puts Sadako in to a TOTALLY new light, and will really force you to think a bit more about Ring and it's sequels. It's difficult for me to put this in words, but trust me, this is very much a movie to see without fail. You will enjoy it greatly, though I promise you, you will be VERY depressed by it. Then again, if you expect a happy ending from a Ring movie, you haven't watched any of the others (and I do mean ANY, though some are bittersweet, none end truly happily)


SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!!

Best one yet of the Japanese series on the technical craftsmanship side of things. Well shot, well art directed, wonderfully told with generally minimal exposition and delightful visual storytelling. Great sound edit as well except for a couple of the over the top screams in the forest. Solid ending and really a great way to get everyone on the same page at last about who the hell Sadako really is and how she actually died. Sweet. Really enjoyed the Dutch roll camera tilt during the conversation between Sadako and her "dad". And who can forget the excellent reveal of the two dead ladies and their home made instant wall flowers? Sadako is an inspiration to disco floors world wide with her crazy possessed resurrected girl two-step approach. Really something special in that girl, wonderfully portrayed by the stunning Yukie Nakama. Bonus features on the DVD are loads of fun as well, really enjoyed the bonus Sadako material.


Underrated, gripping thriller was a big box-office failure but it deserves a second chance on home video. Tightly plotted (there's always something happening, but the complications never get too confusing) and smoothly directed, it's a movie that knows how to keep you absorbed, even though its nihilistic ending is slightly cliched. Give it a try. (***)


If you want your films to have sympathetic characters, you probably shouldn't go near this one. This is a very tough and cynical thriller, one that has no good guys, only a whole lotta bad guys and a couple of not quite as bad guys. But that's what I enjoyed about this film. It was great to see the plot unfold in unexpected ways, and to see these characters mess with one another, motivated only by greed, lust, and fear. Another aspect is the film's sleek and cold style. From the wardrobes to the apartments these characters occupy, the film is pretty stylin'. And the acting is very good. Laurence Fishburne is excellent as the amoral Crowe, Frank Langella is elegantly nasty as Grimes, and Michael Beach has a deceptively quiet role as one of Fishburne's "co-workers". A very dark film that resolves itself quite nicely in the end, and well worth seeing. But if you need a good guy to root for, this isn't the film to check out.


It's not the company you keep but the one you work for at issue here in this taut film about an ex-CIA agent who goes to work for a company that specializes in helping their corporate clients get the upper hand in any and all situations by any means necessary, but especially blackmail, as the central plot revolves around soborning a judge who has severely compromised his integrity by mounting up impressive gambling debts and extra-marital infidelity. Ellen Barkin plays the devious (bad) company recruiter who signs on ex agent Laurence Fishbourne whose 140 IQ proves no match for her physical talents. By bribing the compromised judge (David Ogden Stiers) they will rescue their client Walter Curl (Spalding Grey) from a lawsuit that claims that his company dumped cancer causing pollutants. Though the judge is a gambling philanderer, he's in nobody's pocket, and thus, after taking the bribe, votes his conscience on the case in question, and then opts out after sending his girlfriend (Gia Carides) to the Bahamas with the money. Meanwhile Barkin maneuvers Fishbourne through sex into killing company head Frank Langella, showing that IQ comes in a distant second to sex appeal. Nobody (except maybe Carides and Stiers, and to a certain extent Fishbourne) is going to win much sympathy from the audience, but the story stays on task all the way through, and the observations it casts on corportate behavior are not so far out.


I rented this because it was written by Ross Thomas, and I'm a huge fan of his novels. I wanted to see how his ideas were put on the screen. The story line and plot twists are very Thomas, but the characters seemed a little one-dimensional. He is great at building characters in his novels, but there just isn't enough time to do that in a movie. I needed to see vulnerability in each character, when all that was given was cold calculation (which even the hardest CIA agent is NOT).

The sex scenes seemed forced, and I bet that they weren't in the original script. Thomas doesn't need to use sex to relate characters to each other, but it's a quick 'gimmie' for the film.

I recommend this movie to any Ross Thomas fan, especially given that it was probably the last thing he wrote before he died. Otherwise, watch it if you're into mystery, but know that it's not very thrilling, and can move slowly at times.


Ellen Barkin and Laurence Fishburne performed wonderful acting skills, their love scenes were electricity, and the plot kept me on the edge of my seat. Barkin performed her own Basic Instinct with Frank Langella who did his best to burn up the screen, no more vampire roles for him. If you like romance and warmth, view this film.


To be honest; this is one of those movies that you can miss. It's entertaining, not bad acting. Highly on the marketing though. "A tough movie needs to have violence, sex and lots of situations where the bad guy is a good guy?" Is that true? This movie gives you an interesting cast, a nice theme but leaves you with a non-content feeling. It's ok, but there is something about it that makes it quite unnecessary ...


I won't bore you with the plot. Except to say it's not any more believable than the acting. Most of the cast seemed to be capable of acting but the juvenile script and direction make it a waste of time. This movie sucks on so many different levels it never had a chance. I was almost embarrassed to watch it. The way you would be embarrassed to see a friend make a fool of himself when he was drunk. Like seeing someone at a very low point in his or her life. After watching it I had to look up what Ebert said about it and marvel at the fact he liked it. Most movies these days are awful. I guess if you're movie reviewer you can't write bad reviews on everything. At the end I thought it might have a twist to save it somewhat. But it turned out the end was just as bad as the rest of it


I watch a lot of horror movies and lately there really is no shortage of them to see. But this was a horrible movie. The blood and violence being the only thing that made it worth while. The acting was beyond high school bad, there were a couple scenes that you could tell the actors were just improving (poorly) and I never notice costumes, but they were some of the worst I've ever seen it this movie. Googles and a face shield? What the hell? I never turn off a movie no matter how bad it is but I almost did for this one. Who ever has there name attached to this movie in any way should probably be lined up and shot.

But that's just my opinion.


This is a throwback. There was a time when horror films were gritty, exploitive, funny, nasty, and had moments so bad they were good. And boobs. They showed BOOBS! If you're not expecting Devil's Rejects or the Grudge or any other modern and slick horror, you will find Wedding Slashers watchable. "Wedding Slashers" is a direct descendant of those trashy, low budget 70s horror films. Catchy title, cute girls, nudity, blood, a big old knife on the artwork.

The movie opens with a flashback. A bride and a groom with not a nickel to rub together are heading to Vegas, running away from home to get married. They don't make it. They are exterminated by a gas mask, cloak wearing, Darth Vader sounding killer. He spouts some nonsense about love and then abruptly splits the brides head open like a watermelon. You practically see the seeds. Moving forward in time we meet another Bride. Every man she's every loved has died a mysterious death. Without ruining the end, the fate of her fiancé hangs in balance. Will the mystery be solved and will our love birds tie the knot before the bloody finale? The plot is simple. The performances are raw but more often than not, good. This production value is minimal, the technical aspects  besides a nice 5.1 surround mix, there are none. The gore is sometimes shocking, sometimes campy, and usually entertaining.

The charm in this is that a bunch of first timers (At least their previous credits don't add up to much) have made a little movie that pretty much works. You can see the missteps, but they are never boring or offensive. I would have liked to see more of the strippers at the bachelor party. Of course, it would have been nice to see more of the bride. There's a shower scene and for some reason, they don't show below her shoulders!! She's too cute to keep covered up. But despite those major drawbacks, Wedding Slashers is a keeper.


I've read on IMDb and some other sites that this movie was originally intended to be more of a comedy, but that portions were re-shot and it was edited to be more of a slasher film. I don't know if that's true, but I will say that the best portions of this film are those left over from the "comedy" version. Some of the exposition and conversations are quite (intentionally) funny. I especially like the explanation of why the groom's parents, sister, and grandmother all hate the best man. Low-key, but classic.

Other than the funny moments, there's not much here. The gore is pretty amateurish, though plentiful. The plot makes no sense. And the scenes seem to switch back and forth between different sides of the same house, which is used as a remote cabin, a church, a fellowship hall, a school, and a couple different homes. It's cheerfully cheesy.

Worth seeing if you don't have anything else available, but don't put it on your preferred list.


And you thought your significant other's family was weird? Wedding Slashers will make you think twice about ever saying "I do." It is reminiscent of past horror titles such as 'Deadly Friend' and 'Friday the 13th.' It is a classic slasher film that features characters with names like 'Sock Monkey' and 'The Mortician.' You may laugh at first but trust me, these guys will freak you out. This is a quencher for the blood-thirsty horror/slasher fan that needs to see gore, gore and more gore. It's not all slash and gash either - Wedding Slashers is chock-full-of one-liners and will give you more than just a chuckle. You're going to need to see this one to believe it.


"Tomorrow is Forever" is a typical example of the type of films that came out of the Hollywood of the 40s. This seems to have been brought to the screen as a vehicle for Claudette Colbert, one of the most admired actresses of that era. Under the direction of Irving Pichel, we get a wonderful account of a woman whose husband is killed during the last days of WWI. The music score by Max Steiner enhances the film, although it feels obtrusive, at times.

Claudette Colbert was a prolific star of all the melodramas that were tailor made for her to shine. Her Elizabeth Hamilton in this film is a typical role she, and other actresses, played during that era. "Tomorrow is Forever" is interesting because of Orson Welles' appearance as the supposedly dead husband that returns under a different disguise.

Today's audiences don't have patience to deal with what for the movie going public in the early days were able to allow in the reality department. Some negative comments to this forum express that viewpoint, but in spite of them, films like this will always be immensely rewarding for those fans that feel comfortable with the plots created for this type of movies.

Claudette Colbert makes a wonderful Elizabeth. Orson Welles was the real surprise in the dramatic role that Ms. Colbert championed for him, at a time of his life that he wasn't recognized for his genius. George Brent, a reliable actor, is seen as one of the decent men he played in films. Lucile Watson, as Aunt Jessie, is an asset. The young Richard Long plays Drew, the eldest son that has no clue who his father really is, but grows up believing the kind Lawrence is his dad. Natalie Wood as the young German girl, Margaret, showed a talent for stealing scenes from much established actors.

This is a film to be cherished by people who love the genre.


Since the first time I saw this wonderful film on late-night TV, maybe 30 years ago, it has been my sentimental favorite. Every time I've seen it since, once a year on average, it's made me weep; not many films ever have this effect on me, even once. I simply don't understand why it isn't better known, not to mention better regarded. The touching story, fine direction, good score and superb acting add up to a great experience. For me, the performances by Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles are their most effective; hers ranks with her work in "Three Came Home" and "Since You Went Away," while his is even finer than in "The Stranger." Anyone who loves a good old-fashioned love story, sob story, multi-generational saga of the type Hollywood used to make so well should give this one a try.


I am stunned to see the vast majority of commentators describe this great film as "typical," "sentimental," and "melodramatic." That is to completely overlook the various philosophical and psychological aspects of the movie. Isolationism. Pacifism. Opposition to global hegemony and tyranny. All of these are at the essence of the dialog and the story. The need for humans to deny the temptation to live in the past and to embrace the future is the core of the movie - in addition to its TITLE. Reason must overcome emotionalism.

That is made especially apparent in the scene where Kessler (Orson Welles) implicitly compares Mrs. Hamilton (Claudette Colbert) to his young charge, Margaret (Natalie Wood). While Mrs. Hamilton lost her husband on another continent, the Nazis murdered Margaret's parents right before her eyes. She is terrified by a "popper" because it causes her to "relive" the sound of bullets, the smell of gunpowder and the sight of blood - her parents' blood. Kessler gently coaxes Margaret into pulling the string on a second "popper" to prove that she doesn't need to be a victim of her fears. She can learn that it is not dangerous, but a mere "toy." She can overcome.

The climactic scene between Kessler and Mrs. Hamilton is equally fabulous. The tension steadily mounts as Mrs. Hamilton presses Kessler to admit that he is her husband. Until his direct denial, the dialog is so sublime that it makes sense whether delivered by the woman's lost husband or by "Mr. Kessler." But it is not sentimental. To the contrary, Kessler's powerful philosophical arguments and psychological insights compel Mrs. Hamilton to reassess her life and come to the realization that it has been, is, and promises to be good. To throw that away for a memory would be sheer sentimental folly. "Embrace the good life you have" is the very clear message.

This movie has layers upon layers. It contains paradoxes and ironies that are profound enough for real reflection. The characters provide profound contrasts in philosophy and psychology. The device of having a husband apparently die (but in actuality refuse to return home because of his "broken" condition) provides ample opportunity for sentimentality. But that device is merely the springboard for a much richer exploration of the meaning of life and our place in the world. To fail to recognize this is to minimize this fabulous film and miss its point.

Generally the acting is superb, however, in particular this is possibly Orson Welles' finest performance. There are no obvious double-takes or overly-long stares that are dead give-aways in most films that deal with a character with a hidden identity. This is a fabulously subtle performance. Welles' makeup is a little obvious and theatrical, but is not a distraction.

In an incredible - and incredibly overlooked - performance, Natalie Wood convincingly portrays a young Austrian girl who speaks German as her native tongue, has lost both parents to Nazi violence and is suddenly thrust into a strange new country. Her performance is one of the best juvenile performances in all American cinema.

The Max Steiner score is also very good, although I wish it had been a little more sub rosa. Just turning down the volume of the score to make it a little more subtle would have improved the film a little. However, it beautifully captures the mood of each scene.


Rather unsung, but worthwhile, this tear-jerking wartime drama will entrance some viewers while unintentionally amusing others. Colbert plays a young newlywed whose husband (Welles) goes off to fight in WWI. He is severely injured, refuses to come home to her (or even give his name to authorities) and is presumed dead. Pregnant and alone, she relies on her employer (Brent) and his aunt (Watson) and before long agrees to wed Brent, who is very much in love with her. Flash-forward twenty years and Colbert and Brent have two sons, the first one actually Welles', though this is kept secret. Welles, crippled, aged, bearded, wearing thick glasses and sporting an even thicker accent comes to town to work for Brent, never dreaming that his former wife is now Brent's spouse. Just as Colbert has finally found a degree of happiness and has nearly forgotten Welles, whom she loved deeply, WWII threatens to break out and her eldest son (Long) is eager to go and fight! The film details the questions, mysteries and miseries of Welles and Colbert as they encounter each other again after two decades. Unabashedly sentimental and heart-tugging, it is likely to please fans of tear-jerkers while causing the eyes of pragmatists to roll feverishly. Colbert is lovely and exceedingly good in her role. It's always distracting, in hindsight, to view Colbert's films and observe the way she refuses to allow herself to be shot from her right side, but she's not as bad about that here as in some other films. Welles is mercilessly hammy and is buried under some truly horrendous age makeup. He goes way overboard in virtually every area, yet somehow it works to the film's benefit! Brent, already one of the most wooden of actors, is made even more so by the presence of Welles, but it's a nice contrast. Long has a particularly good early role (even if he hadn't quite grown into his nose at this point!) He is given a strong, sizable role for an actor his age. The always-reliable and entertaining Watson gives solid support. One of the greatest things about the film, however, is the utterly adorable and memorably adept presence of Wood as Welles' adopted daughter. Impossibly articulate, inhumanly precious and achingly touching in her role as a war orphan, she is a thorough delight. It was her first major role and she handles it with surprising poise and assurance. Her older sister instructed her on how to cry during the film, suggesting that she recall a ghastly accident she had witnessed involving her dog being hit by a car. It's very poignant to see her dainty little fingers helping Welles unbutton his vest, knowing that her life would later end so tragically. Working alongside Welles no doubt helped prep her for her famed role opposite Edmund Gwenn in "Miracle of 34th Street" one year later.


What a powerful story! So powerful to me, at least, that I have only watched it one other time and have little desire to see it again.....even though it's a fine movie. It's too frustrating a story for me, frankly. I could NOT have done what Orson Welles' character did in this film. Welles, by the way, is outstanding in here. He, Claudette Colbert, George Brent and Richard Long provide some wonderful acting.

Long, playing the elder son, presents a tremendous contrast of how a young man acted back in the 1940s compared to nowadays in terms of of respect and manners. The little girl in here is played by Natalie Wood. I wouldn't have known it was her had she not been mentioned on the back of the video box. She has blonde hair and is about five or six years old, and does an impressive job speaking German.

This is a real heart-rendering story. The only drawback is the credibility of Colbert's character, "Elizabeth Hamilton," the wife of Welles. A supposed war victim and gone for years after his marriage to her, Wells - despite now having a beard and aging a bit - would still be recognizable (at the least, audibly) to his former wife. It was asking a bit much to believe she wouldn't realize it was him, but it's still good storytelling and a film that hits you deeply. Speaking about the last point, if you liked 1942's "Random Harvest," you probably would like this, too.


WWI newlyweds Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles meet heartbreak when he goes missing in action and is written off as dead. Pregnant with Welles' child, she ultimately marries her boss, industrialist George Brent. Twenty years pass; war clouds are once more gathering over Europe. Brent brings over to work in his firm a Viennese chemist who turns out to be -- Orson Welles, bringing in tow a blonde, very young (her debut, in fact) Natalie Wood, speaking German.

Ever the gemutlich gentleman, Welles keeps his cards close to his vest, even when talking about the "situation overseas" with the strapping lad he now realizes is his son, who wants to enlist in the Canadian Air Force. Colbert, however, is deeply conflicted. She comes to resent Welles' presence while nonetheless suspecting that he may in fact be....

Tomorrow Is Forever addresses the dislocations and disruptions of wartime in a manner unusual for American movies of this era. Somewhat far-fetched and sentimental, it's a well cast topical weeper that manages, paradoxically, to maintain a tone of high seriousness while nevertheless skirting most of the issues it raises. Long on emotion, it falls short of real insight.


It's interesting to compare the hero's sacrifice in Tomorrow is Forever with the hero's in Casablanca. Rick (Bogart) leaves Ilsa in Casablanca to her husband for the good of the world, and for a cause he believes in (fighting the Nazis) -- a cause he will participate in. But John/Erik (Welles), while he leaves Elizabeth for the good of the same cause he fervently believes in, can not participate. He is crippled and sickly from the First World War (he is probably emasculated, as well). Unlike Rick, he can neither reveal his identity or his love for the woman he left behind -- even though she may know it. He only says openly that the cause is all. But, unlike Rick, he is lying within himself. Elizabeth is the abiding passion in his life, his only possibility of emotional fulfillment. Yet, even so, the world comes first. And he sacrifices for this cause to the point of his own non-existence. It is truly the greater sacrifice. It is a wonderfully acted film, which makes the lost love of John and Elizabeth the most poignant I have ever shared as a movie viewer.


"Tomorrow Is Forever" is a great movie. I think Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles are great together. And even though Orson Welles rarely played the romantic lead, he's wonderful. I cried during most of the movie the first time I saw it. There are also wonderful performances by George Brent and young Natalie Wood. "Tomorrow Is Forever" is a movie you need to see at least once! It's great!


Director Irving Pichel got so much out of Orson Welles and Claudette Colbert in this movie. Colbert's character is not only believable but strong yet vulnerable, too. I never figured Orson Welles would do well in a part like this, but he exceeded very convincingly by pulling off one of his better roles. This movie was the debut for Richard Long(19), and he was the right person for the role as Claudette Colbert's son. Natalie Wood (8) plays a fine adopted daughter from Europe with an Austrian accent that is quite believable. Two things which really hold this movie together are Irving Pichel's excellent tight directing and Max Steiner's musical score. Pichel is an expert at timing, drama, and suspense. During the final scene, there is no possible way you will leave the screen. Max Steiner always comes up with the right style for his movies, and this movie is definitely a showcase for his sensitive score. His use of strings and wind instruments are so well-placed at the right time, and his music provides a thread which enhances the drama and keeps us on track.


This is a deeply moving story with superb acting although I didn't reach for the Kleenex. I would call it a very difficult lesson in life to be learned, about letting go of the past and thinking of present values and the future instead - reaching forward to the positive in life and releasing the past - something not everyone is prepared to do.

It is of a young couple, Elizabeth and John (Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles), who are abruptly parted by the duty of John's service in the First War. He is injured badly, and while wrapped in facial bandages in hospital he makes the decision not to notify next of kin and drop out of his young wife's life because he feels he could never be the same man again, at least to her. So he is presumed dead. Meanwhile back home she has been notified of this tragic news and manages to deal with it bravely even though she is going to have his child. Lawrence (George Brent) steps into her life to assist then eventually they marry and create a reasonably happy life together.

A weakness in the film that challenges us is that John's features were not altered so very much in the movie after his war injuries and the required facial surgery. I think more could have been done on this point to give the film greater credibility. Basically a beard was added and graying hair to camouflage his appearance but ... I mean, if you've known someone so well, it's well-nigh impossible to mistake their tone of voice or expression of the eyes ... so I had trouble getting over this shortcoming.

Twenty years later in the unfolding story it becomes indeed a razor's edge on which to tread when former wife Elizabeth again encounters John, who is now known as Erik Kessler, middle aged, graying, and has difficulty getting around. He has re-entered her life as an Austrian chemist brought to America to advise the firm which her husband operates! Small world at times, no? However, that's the story.

There is a great deal of reminiscing done by Elizabeth as she recalls touching moments from her time with John, and shows us how easy it is to look back longingly at memories of the past. But now, after nineteen years of their estrangement, reality has set in for both: Elizabeth has a family to care for, a present obligation which takes precedence, and John too has the responsibility of a young adopted daughter, Margaret (Natalie Wood).

So while every ensuing meeting brings them closer to the truth of their former relationship, it is a very thin line indeed that separates them from the possibility of true recognition of each other and the memories of bygone days. Each encounter seems to bring more remembrance that neither of them can fully accept but for different reasons.

I found the dialog most intriguing on several levels. It reminded me of the scales of Justice which are finely weighed for both sides yet never truly balanced. John, now known as the elderly Erik Kessler, talked of the future's promise that lay ahead for Elizabeth, of how she had a good life in the present and was needed by others. Here again he nobly steps aside so that she will have a more fulfilling life although he won't be part of it as he has so little to offer, or so he reasons. He points out to her that the memories of the past she holds are really of the good times and can never be recreated in the present for life has changed them both. Interestingly, it really does show us that living in the past is somehow a negative phase which never can be changed, and that we must take hold of Life in the present and look to the future where there is promise - for tomorrow is "forever", the past is "never".

This film expresses some very fine sentiments. Have ordered the book and hope to gain more by giving it a serious reading as well.


On the brink of World War II, a man believed killed in World War I returns in "Tomorrow is Forever," directed by Irving Pichel and starring Claudette Colbert, Orson Welles, George Brent, Richard Long, and Natalie Wood. After her husband John's death in the first world war, Elizabeth (Colbert) finds out she's pregnant. She ultimately makes a new life for herself with Lawrence (Brent), and together they have a daughter. Lawrence raises the son (Long) as his own. When "Dr. Kessler" (Welles), a scientist working with her husband, first appears at their home, Elizabeth doesn't realize it's John, who never returned to the U.S. because of his crippling, debilitating war wounds. He has a young child with him, Margaret (Wood), who it turns out is the child of his late doctor and his wife.

This is a beautifully done movie in every respect, including Max Steiner's music (though a little strong at times), and holds the viewer's interest throughout. Colbert is lovely as a tormented woman who has to deal with the prospect of her son going off to war as his father did - and perhaps never returning. Her scene as she comes downstairs and sees Dr. Kessler for the first time is wonderful. Something about him startles and unnerves her immediately, and it's apparent on her face. Two young actors who died too young - Richard Long and Natalie Wood - also appear in the "Tomorrow is Forever." Handsome Long, who would find success in television, makes a good impression in his first film. Wood, a blond here, is absolutely adorable and very accomplished, speaking German and then English with a German accent.

Orson Welles is an actor whose magnificent presence, acting technique, and voice allowed him to basically phone in most roles - his whole purpose in movie acting was to make money for his film projects - but obviously Irving Pinchot didn't accept a phone-in from him. Welles gives a very touching and believable performance as both young John and the older, ill Dr. Kessler. "Living in the past will not bring back what you had," he tells Elizabeth, "only destroy what you have." A wonderful, wonderful movie. Have a box of tissues nearby.


If anyone wants to see what film acting is all about, watch Claudette Colbert's performance in this movie. She imprints life and humanity onto the movie screen in a timeless performance.

Orson Welles is somehow able to tone down his larger-than-life persona and give a good performance, although the makeup job he wears is not very good. George Brent proves that there is a place for his much-maligned type of acting which is fine for this type of role. Natalie Wood delivers a great child-actor performance. The orchestrated musical score is lush, dignified, old-fashioned, and appropriate.

Forget any reservations you may have about black-and-white, age of the film, or any other concerns. The sincerity of everyone involved is impressive, and rare in movies of any era.


Tomorrow Is Forever finds Orson Welles and Claudette Colbert as a pair of young marrieds during World War I when Orson announces he's enlisted in the American Expeditionary Force. The young wife sees her gallant young husband off to war, not knowing that she's pregnant. When he's reported missing in action, Claudette's all at sea. Fortunately she's got a most sympathetic boss who has an eye for her in any event. Claudette marries George Brent and they raise the son she has by Welles and they also have a son of their own.

Although as the romantic young husband John MacDonald, Welles doesn't quite cut it, as Erik Kessler, the German refugee who in reality is John MacDonald, Welles just shines. With a heavy beard, makeup, a German accent and a shambling gait courtesy of the last war, Welles totally succeeds in recreating himself on the screen. He's so totally different you can't blame Claudette for not recognizing him, I could barely.

On the eve of World War II, Brent who is now a big time industrialist meets Welles who is now in his Kessler persona. He brings him home and while there's something eerily familiar to Claudette he becomes an adjunct family member.

Watching Tomorrow Is Forever I have no doubt that director Irving Pichel gave Welles total command of his character. Most likely Welles even directed some of the scenes he was involved with.

Orson Welles throughout his life appeared in a lot of garbage using his actor's salary to continue financing his own projects. Though he's a bit weak as the young husband, as the old refugee chemist it's a brilliant characterization. Orson gets good support from Claudette Colbert, George Brent and the rest of the cast.

Too bad he didn't get to do the whole film, direct as well as act.


Despite a seemingly extreme requirement for suspension of disbelief at times, this film should rank much higher within its category. The story is sound and intricate, and certainly tight enough for the day. Where it is over-told, it only reflects convention. No one should miss Welles' performance, or Natalie Wood's first turn on screen. She is already mesmerizing, and her ability with languages amazing. I saw her name in the credits, but without calculating age, expected a teenager. But the second time she appeared, and smiled, I recognized her immediately and was stunned with her performance (compare most modern child performances on diction, delivery and command of emotion).

Colbert seems able to anchor any movie. She isn't a character actress and lacks the range of a Bette Davis, certainly, but her effortless portrayal of her own humanity always grounds the story, and she seems to catalyze and enhance the other performances (a rare and subtle talent).

Rather than retell the story or cover similar ground, I will comment on a couple of points.

I did feel that Colbert was convinced at the end by Welles that he was not her husband John, my only doubt being the denouement when her possession of his daughter, Natalie Wood, and her exit, is so perfunctory. But even then, she shows no curiosity whatsoever about the apartment, where we know the proof exists. And this is a relatively rare example of a multiply-ending film in the 40's (could have logically ended 3 or 4 times). Each of the final scenes would necessarily be succinct--BUT would deliver any important information. And her knowing at the end would turn this drama into a melodrama, because it would have shoved her back into her grief through the end, which is I believe not the intention.

But most significantly, if the writer or director intended that she knew, it would have been telegraphed in those days. In fact, there was nothing at all in Colbert's performance to indicate she was maintaining secret knowledge after their conversation.

Colbert not recognizing Welles is answered by the technical conventions of the day. The complaints here really are saying that WE cannot see a drastic difference in appearance, which we could expect now. Without extreme makeup or even digital effects (a la Forrest Gump), audiences of that day would have simply accepted having been told he was horribly disfigured (theater convention). They would thereafter assume it as fact and imagine it. In the hospital in Austria, the dialog between the doctor and Welles solidly informs us that he is injured beyond recognition. The doctor even mentions plastic surgery, almost science fiction for that time.

Overall, though the plot and theme may seem hackneyed today--and if remade would certainly leave more on the editing floor--the story is skillfully structured, acted and directed and for sure worth a watch by anyone interested in classic movies.


The plot of the film has been used in others in different ways, however one must acknowledge that acting of Orson Welles and Claudette Colbert added another quality to this drama. At present Black and white films are not much wanted, particularly by new generations, but the present can be well accepted by them. It goes step by step with an acting of Welles simply extraordinary, the way he moves the way he talks and argues in the film is nearly normal. The end was logic and obviously tragic. We would need more materials like these, i.e. with less violence and good humanistic messages.


This movie is a testament to the power of love. Orson Welles portrays a WWII vet who will not allow himself to ruin his wife's new life. As I watched the scene where he denies his true identity, I was awestruck by the sacrifice he made. The scene in which he met and spoke with his son was so touching!! This is an awesome must-see for Orson Welles fans. Also the casting of a young Richard Long and a very young Natalie Wood was a stroke of genius!!


The greatest and most poignant anguish we conscious beings experience is our recognition of the irretrievability of the past. All else we endure could be easily borne. The background strains of music as Orson Welles first recognizes Claudette Colbert haunts me still. She experienced a fragmentary nuance of remembrance that did not reach the level of her conscious recall.


Enjoyed this great classic film from 1946 starring Claudette Colbert as Elizabeth Hamilton who was a young woman very much in love with her husband, Orson Wells, (John MacDonald/Erik Kessler). John MacDonald decides to go into the Army and fight in World War II and is killed in action and his wife Elizabeth is completely heart broken. However, she finds a man, Lawrence Hamilton, (George Brent) who loves her very much because she works for his father's firm and he asks her to marry him after many years. Elizabeth has a son from her first husband and then a second from Lawrence. It just so happens that Elizabeth's first husband is not killed and has been severally wounded and finally returns to America with a little girl named Margaret Ludwig, (Natalie Wood). As you can see this story gets very complicated and there are many secrets that are finally revealed which turn this love story into a great masterpiece with all great actors. Enjoy.


This is an astoundingly good movie.

I'm neither a big Claudette Colbert fan nor one of Orson Welles -- I find her usually too cloying and chick-flickish and him too morose and self-important -- but they are fabulous together in this wonderful film. The characters treat each other with great respect and dignity, the dialog is marvelous, sensitive subject matter like war is dealt with honestly and non-ideologically.

The "triangle" of Welles, Colbert and Brent is very good. Added bonus: Jarrod Barkley from Big Valley in his first role (he looks exactly the same 20 years earlier).

I don't know why TCM gave this only two stars. Perhaps it's not trashy enough for their devolving ethos...

Ten Stars!


This excellent 1946 vehicle provides Orson Welles with a role that he is most sympathetic with. Married to Claudette Colbert in this film, he is soon declared missing and dead. Colbert quickly remarries a wealthy gentleman who is most sympathetic when this apparent tragedy strikes.

Fast forward 20 years. By chance, Colbert comes across Welles in a new disguise. This is all coming about as World War 11 will envelop Europe. It appears that Welles was not killed off during World War 1, but merely was missing and apparently suffering from amnesia.

The film becomes a heartbreak after this. Both Colbert and Welles really are conflicted here. She suspects that he realizes his true identity now and he realizes that the son she bore is his.

Both Colbert and Welles put on some very fine acting here in this film where you had better have plenty of handkerchiers available.


Despite the movie's Harlequin-level romance novel title, the unlikely pairing of classic Hollywood leading lady Claudette Colbert and resident bad-boy Orson Welles actually works in this intriguing albeit far-fetched 1946 melodrama directed by the relatively undistinguished Irving Pichel. Written by Lenore J. Coffee, the plot concentrates initially on newly married John and Elizabeth McDonald, who are suddenly separated when he enlists for combat duty during WWI. Just as she discovers she is pregnant, Elizabeth receives word that John is dead, but the truth is that he is so badly injured that he doesn't want to return to her as a cripple. Once recovered, he takes on the guise of an Austrian scientist named Erik Kessler. Twenty years elapse, and Elizabeth has remarried to businessman Larry Hamilton, who has coincidentally recruited Kessler to test the company's new product formula. Elizabeth meets Kessler but does not recognize him to be her long lost John due to plastic surgery. However, John knows her, and they become intertwined again when their son Drew decides to enlist in the RAF years before the U.S. enters WWII.

The story sounds preposterous on paper, but it is quite compelling to see the movie evolve toward its inevitable resolution. Colbert is her naturally effervescent self, though she is well into her forties here and a mite too mature for the early scenes when she is playing a blushing newlywed to the twelve-years younger Welles. Nonetheless, she provides surprising bite to the scenes where Elizabeth confronts her own prejudices about war. In the juiciest role, Welles has a field day as the crippled, defeated Kessler as he keeps his naturally grandiose manner in check. Perennial also-ran George Brent is wooden as expected as Hamilton, but a couple of familiar faces shine as the children - Richard Long as the grown Drew and an eight-year old Natalie Wood, blonde and sporting a convincing Austrian accent, as Kessler's adopted daughter Margaret. There are some lapses in credibility beginning with Elizabeth's inability to recognize John and ending with her rather sudden resignation that John is right in his perspective on the past. Regardless, it's a surprisingly involving movie with a mature perspective on love and war, a curio sadly forgotten today and well worth a look now.


I found this accidentally on cable -- never heard of it before, somehow. This is one of Orson Welles' finest portrayals, better than Citizen Kane, I believe (Kane's role, after all, was more bluster than acting, no matter how fine the movie is). It is hard to find anything to criticize...the acting all around is superb, the casting was perfect, and the direction was impeccable. Natalie Wood's VERY early portrayal of a native-speaking Austrian girl is rather remarkable for her age, too.

The very unusual plot lines are woven together quite well, and right up to the end you cannot be sure just what is going to happen to resolve -- maybe -- everything. This is such a tremendous piece that now I must go try to find the original book.

This is truly an undiscovered gem, and I cannot understand why it is not better known. It deserves to be.


This is one of the finest films I have seen. The story and dialogue are riveting and the work of Colbert, Welles and Brent is superb. The cast achieves the cohesiveness of a fine Broadway production. This film could easily have been nominated for multiple oscars, for Colbert, Welles, and Brent, screen play, and direction. The cinematography and script as well as the overall attention to detail in the dialogue led me to suspect that Welles might have been responsible for more than just his own role. I saw the film once and had to have the video.


This movie in not just another sentimental movie.

It's a movie about heroism at a personal level. It's about great motives like the defense of freedom and the importance of personal choice in times where values have to be defended, even with your life. It's about personal decisions and living after with the consequences.

Great acting by that giant actor/director, Mr. Orson Wells and a very moving performance by Claudette Colbert, in a very difficult role.

This film has all the elements of a good psychological thriller: someone coming back from the dead, a past that comes to haunt you after 20 years, exile in your own land, fighting the Nazis, and finally, leaving the past behind to join the living in the present.

A great 1946 movie by Irving Pichel. Don't miss it if you see it late at night in the TV. You will be surprised by it's quality.

As a bonus, the third performance in film, by the then 8 year old Natalie Wood, as an adorable little blond Austrian exile girl.


Sharp, well-produced variation on the frequently filmed "Enoch Arden" plot. Herein, Claudette Colbert (as Elizabeth MacDonald) is informed that husband Orson Welles (as John Andrew MacDonald) is a Great War causality. Ms. Colbert is devastated, and pregnant with his son, who grows up to be Richard Long (as John "Drew" Andrew). Colbert marries comforting boss George Brent (as Lawrence "Larry" Hamilton); and, they have a happy life. But, first husband Welles really didn't die -- he was only badly wounded. After two decades, Welles goes home -- but, he has a surgically altered face, and walks with a limp.

Directed by Irving Pichel, Colbert and Welles are great fun to watch; with their fine performances, you can read some ambiguity into the film's ultimately flawed storyline (which has to do with recognition). Mr. Long is quite impressive, in his film debut; he had a long, successful, and far too under-appreciated television career. Eight-year-old Natalie Wood is cute as Welles' foster daughter "Margaret".

If only it were more plausible...


I tried to see this film before because I remember the very beginning, but I guess I was interrupted. This time I saw it through and realized I was watching greatness. This film has outstanding dialog and a very nuanced script. Oh if people today could only write like that....it is no wonder I watch old movies. This film is a clinic on dialog.

The acting was great across the board but the direction, story, script and casting were especially good. It was a tightly woven story and an unusual one at that.

Wells put in his best performance. Could it have been better, maybe but the way he delivered those heart rending lines...........well maybe it couldn't have been much better. His deep rich voice together with the tenderness, wisdom, and compassion. Well it doesn't get much better. People who didn't appreciate that have not actually experienced life yet. Do not miss this when it comes around again, I know I won't.

How good was it? Well this is the first time I felt compelled to comment on any films here.


This movie is sad beyond words, beyond tears. Of course,the unstated truth is that Elizabeth is right, by joining the RAF, Drew is probably sealing his fate. A different but equally sad truth is stated when Elizabeth accuses Erik of being, perhaps, the one who killed John and he concurs because he did kill John rather than returning a lesser, perhaps unmanned, husband. The horror of war and the fact that it is sometimes necessary for us to go on. Sad beyond words, beyond tears and beyond bearing. Some historians believe that war is man's natural state of being and that would give this old movie currency beyond the coincidence of whether a big war is happening when the movie is viewed. It is always true and always sad, sad beyond words.


Orson Welles falls in to a kind of archaic theatrical acting style in this wonderful, tear-jerker of a film. As "Erik Kessler," a man who returns under an assumed identity to the wife who has remarried because she though he was dead, he's heavily made-up and talks with a corny and contrived sounding German accent. Of course, that's the point, he doesn't want his wife to recognize him, but one can't help thinking that his wife Elizabeth (Claudette Colbert) is better off with the smooth and sophisticated Lawrence Hamilton (George Brent). What if they switched roles? What if Brent played Kessler and Welles played Hamilton? Now that would put Elizabeth in a really tough position. As it is, Kessler's so unattractive (in woman's film terms) that the female audience knows there's no way she's going to leave Hamilton. As it is, Elizabeth gets the best of all possible worlds. Her first (problematic) husband disappears during the war; she gets a rich and handsome second husband who's only shortcoming seems to be that he's not truly attentive to her sons from her first marriage. Fortunately for her, husband number one comes back just in the nick of time to save their son from a foolish decision. And then he just as conveniently dies, an unopened letter beside him that Elizabeth and Lawrence somehow fail to see. And they get an adorable new little adopted daughter in the process. This little girl will take away the pain that we've learned Elizabeth is going to feel as her boys go off into the world. So it's a perfect ending for Elizabeth--her unattractive, preachy first husband is now permanently out of the way and she can look forward to a more satisfying marriage with the handsome and agreeable Lawrence.


This is a true classic starring Orson Wells in one of his best performances probably only surpassed by his classic "Citizen Kane. The end is a real tear-jerker no matter how many times you watch it and this is one to keep in your permanent.

The story is classic (man goes to war and returns later to find his wife re-married)but there are twists and turns leaving you to discuss later what you might have done or wanted.

This is a great movie without having to rely on special effects, vulgar language, computer generated whatevers, it has survived all these years on the quality of the actors, story line and the ability to keep the viewer interested through the last scene.

Highly recommended.


This films preaches, and how, that if you sacrifice your child as cannon fodder, no matter how strong your entirely reasonable native instincts against doing so, your seduced spouse will continue to be able to wallow in mink coats, so long as you burn the only evidence refuting her as the property of a munitions monger.

All the glowing praise for the histrionic "performances" in the other reviews here ignore the message force fed a war weary population who knew well at the time, however much their heirs have forgotten, that European wars, if not all war, is nothing but procurement profiteering by peerage, the scenario presented so gushingly positive in this poisonous treacle.

This mainstream filth opens with a celebration of Armistice in a chemical munitions plant's corporate headquarters. That tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers died or were maimed in WWI from such lucrative insanity, not least because such munitions never yield victory, only battlefront stalemate by temporarily denying enemy troops disputed territory, is lauded ever so abstractly as contribution of the homefront.

Urging parents to rush underage children to the fray is the closing message, a necessary strategic goal in the late stages of WWII when this recruitment vehicle was released in 1946.

There is nothing redeeming about this cinematic crime against democratic U.S. citizenry. Orson Welles prostituted himself as grandly as ever, and the remaining caste were never more than complacent geisha careerists.

Thank fate for the 1970s when Hollywood finally got a social conscience that has yet to be fully interred for the sake of the interests of the National Security State myth.


Two zany scam artists find it's all HIPS, HIPS, HOORAY! when they meet the curvaceous owner of Maiden America Beauty Products and her lovely female employees.

Wheeler & Woolsey (Bert Wheeler is the short guy with curly hair; Robert Woolsey is the bespectacled fellow with the cigar) star in this often hilarious film. The Boys were a perfect comedy duo and their movies are always great fun to watch (here they try to promote flavored lipsticks and get involved in a cross-country auto race, while keeping one jump ahead of the law ). It is indeed a pity that these very talented comics are all but forgotten now.

Cute little Dorothy Lee returns as Wheeler's perennial love interest. The beautiful & tragic Thelma Todd, a very gifted comedienne in her own right, puts the spark in Woolsey's eye.

Movie mavens will spot an unbilled Bobby Watson, who gets one funny line as a Dance Director.

Director Mark Sandrich keeps the plot moving at a frantic pace throughout. Some of the sights & situations push the borders of good taste in this pre-Production Code movie.

The Boys, Miss Lee & Hot Toddy do a wild burlesque of Diaghilev during their performance of `Just Keep On Doing What You're Doing'. Singer Ruth Etting drops by long enough to trill `Keep Romance Alive' at a radio broadcast featuring ungarmented bathing models.

And, yes, those really are frogs climbing out of the race car's radiator...


Con artists Dr. Dudley and his naive partner Andy Williams decide to team up w/ the Frisby cosmetic company to save that company with the Dr.'s invention of flavored lipsticks. The boys get in trouble when they mistake a satchel of securities for their supply of lipsticks and are hunted down by a pair of detectives, while Ms. Frisby's manager is planning to ruin the boys by turning over the securities as well as Ms. Frisby by sabotaging her entry in the transcontinental race. The film has its moments but it is just the same plot devices in all of the other Wheeler & Woolsey films. Wheeler falls for Dorothy Lee, Woolsey for the woman he thinks has money. The opening scene of the musical number featuring many unclad bathing beauties probably marks this film from other W&W films. Funniest scene for me is the pool game w/ the two detectives, barely ahead of an overzealous girl wanting to test her lipstick. Rating, 4.


Being a fan of comedians such as Laurel and Hardy, Marx Brothers, and various other comics from that era...I watched this film wanting to give Wheeler and Woolsey a chance to prove to me they belong among the aforementioned. I found their style of humor very dull, the jokes were lame and the accompanied antics similar to that seen from a hyperactive pre-teen. The storyline was somewhat inventive, and would have worked much better with a more talented duo. The sole reason to watch this film would be to see Thelma Todd, and Dorothy Lee. Perhaps I need to watch a couple more Wheeler and Woolsey films before I cast them aside, but I can almost bet the other offerings would be simply more of the same.


It was made to a formula and revolves around most of the cliches in the Western handbook but it was hard not to enjoy this film.

It is based on the life of the famous Texan John Wesley Hardin. His youth was shaped by the Civil War and by his preacher father. When his father forbids him to practise shooting young Wes reckons its about time to leave home and seek his fortune. Almost immediately he kills a local gunslinger and plunges into the life of a rootin tootin cowboy, gambler and outlaw.

It has a classic opening a dignified man walking out of the prison gates, shaking hands with the warden and sniffing the air of freedom. It has an equally recognisable ending, back at the ranch to see how his wife and family have managed during the long years of incarceration.

The final scenes of the film are lovely, it won't spoil the film to say he learned from his experiences and lived a long and happy life.

There is nothing new in this film. Although it claims to be an autobiography, it is one of countless 1950's Westerns with a theme of a young man seeking adventure and finding redemption. The real strength of the movie is its star Rock Hudson, barrel chested and manly, who shoots, rides, kisses, gambles and drinks as well as any of his contemporaries. One of the baddies is a young Lee Van Cleef who easily steals scenes from his fellow wrong-doers.

It won't change your life, the way "Shane" might have done but it won't hurt you to watch it, and to remember Rock Hudson in the way he should be remembered.


The Lawless Breed, a western very loosely based on the life of John Wesley Hardin, was a milestone film for young Rock Hudson. Rock was 28 when he made this film for Universal and for the first time he was given first billing in a film. Universal also gave him veteran action director Raoul Walsh and a supporting cast that knew its way around the set of a western.

John Wesley Hardin(1853-1895), one of the most notorious of bad men in the old west was also one of the few who actually got to put his story down for posterity. The film that you see is based somewhat on some of the incidents in Hardin's life. He was not as noble a character as The Lawless Breed would have you believe, but a whole lot of things attributed to him were probably pure hokum. The dime novels of the day worked their way into the popular culture for just about every character of the old west, good and bad.

As shown here, the real John Wesley Hardin was shot in the back in a saloon after his release from prison. But the story goes that during a preview of the film, the audience reaction was so negative to seeing Rock Hudson shot down like a dirty dog that Universal felt compelled to tack on a happy ending. The film was really supposed to end with him dying on the floor of the saloon telling his son played by Race Gentry not to follow in his footsteps. What was added on was a scene with wife Julie Adams and Gentry loading the wounded Rock on the back of a buckboard and after a bit of dialog they ride off in the sunset.

So one western legend got scrapped to start the career of a movie legend. Only in Hollywood.

John McIntire has a nice dual performance as Hudson's circuit riding preacher father and as his uncle, a cattle rancher. And there was a gang of brothers that Hudson kept tangling with the entire film, the Hanleys played by such western familiars as Lee Van Cleef, Michael Ansara, Hugh O'Brian, and Glenn Strange.

It's not a bad film despite the obviously tacked on happy ending for Rock's fans. John Wesley Hardin probably would have liked how it came out.


I am a descendant of John Wesley Hardin, of whom this movie was made. My great grandmother was his niece. I think this movie was a marvelous tribute because John Wesley was an educated, cultural person. He just didn't have a lot of patience when it came to certain factors. Like shooting a man for snoring. I am honored that the Hollywood "factor" would cast Rock Hudson as John Wesley, as John W was a very handsome man according to the tintographs I have of him from my g-grandmother. This is an under-rated movie worth watching and the female lead is indeed an actress under-rated - she is lovely and supportive. A grand western! AMB


"The Lawless Breed" attempts to tell the life story of John Wesley Hardin, the misunderstood gunfighter, from his point of view.

The story begins with Hardin (Rock Hudson) being released from prison after serving 16 of 25 years for murder. He goes to the local newspaper and presents the editor with a hand written story of his life. The film then flashes back to his youth where young "Wes" is practicing his fast draw. His father, Preacher J.G. Hardin (John McIntyre) takes a whip to him, condemning his life style. Wes decides to leave home and pursue his dream of earning enough money to buy a small horse ranch for himself and his sweetheart Jane Brown (Mary Castle).

The rest of the film can be summed up with the phrase, "I never killed anyone who didn't try to kill me first". He is forced to gun down gambler Gus Handley (Michael Ansara) which brings upon him the wrath of his three brothers, Ike (Hugh O'Brian), Dirk (Lee Van Cleef) and Ben (Glenn Strange).

While trying to escape a posse, Hardin hides out with his uncle John Clements (McIntyre again) and his sons Jim (Dennis Weaver) and Joe (Richard Garland). When he returns home to fetch Jane, she is killed during his escape from the farm. Hardin takes solace in the arms of "saloon girl" Rosie (Julia Adams) whom he later marries.

Ready to surrender to the law after his planned marriage, Hardin is double-crossed and...........................................

Rock Hudson, on the verge of becoming a super star, turns in an excellent performance as the troubled Hardin. He plays the character over a 20 year period. This was one of his first starring roles. He benefited greatly from the direction of the veteran director Raoul Walsh who managed to expose his real talent for the first time.

As in most of Universal's fast paced little eighty minute color westerns, there is plenty of action and beautiful Technicolor photography. It also had the benefit of a cast of recognizable supporting players, most of whom had appeared in countless "B" westerns. In addition to those already mentioned above, Steve Darrell appears as Sheriff Jenkins, Robert Anderson as Wild Bill Hickcock, Dick Wessel, Emory Parnell and I. Stanford Jolley as various bartenders, Francis Ford (brother of John) as a saloon sweeper and George Wallace as a saloon bully.

An entertaining western.


Formulaic western casts Rock Hudson in a movie that tries somehow to garner sympathy and understanding for one of the most sadistic and ruthless desperadoes of all time. John Wesley Hardin was an ugly and unrepentant mass murderer but Hollywood paints him as misunderstood and well-meaning. Historical silliness aside, the movie is fast-moving and well acted, just dumb.


Chronologically situated between The World in his Arms and Blackbeard the Pirate, and a year after the fine adventure Distant Drums (1951), this is a Raoul Walsh minor but right western, play by soft Rock Hudson and beautiful Julie Adams. Correct, ascetic, vivacious -like the majority of Walsh movies- it tell us the lawless John W. Hardin story based on his autobiography. A entertaining film with no problems or pomp. Nimble. It has got efficacious supporting actors.


Forget the awful series. Forget the even worse Hollywood remake 'The Assassin'. Remember Luc Besson's La Femme Nikita.

This has got to be one of the most stylish, moody and gripping films in existence. Luc Besson's direction is refreshing whilst the cinematography is simply stunning, particuarly the scene in the hotel where Nikita gets her first assignment. The soundtrack by Eric Serra is simply genius and actually adds something to the film...soundtracks usually seem to be an afterthought but refreshingly; not in this case.

The beautiful Anne Parillaud is perfect in the lead role (unlike Bridget Fonda) and the subtle romance between her and Tcheky Karyo is pure eloquence. The hugely talented Jean-Hughes Anglade (of Betty Blue fame) shines in this film but of all the male roles, Jean Reno (also fabulous in Luc Besson's Leon)is outstanding as the completely unbalanced Victor The Cleaner. Jeanne Moreau as Amande makes a notable appearence following years of contributions in countless films.

Luc Besson established himself as one of the leading innovative directors with this film and you can easily see why. This movie certainly rates among the top 10 films of all time.

I could pontificate about this film all day and all night but the best thing is for you to watch it yourself as a matter of priority...it is a 'must see'.

I'm off now to pursue a career in international assassinations.


Anne Parillaud is phenomenal as a terrifyingly vulnerable, beautiful and human young anti-hero with an incredible talent for violence. A drug-addict murderous teen is given a second chance by a government agency looking to exploit her penchant for conscience-less killing. Mentored by a man whose compassion for her is only matched by his ambition and Machiavellian sadism, Nikita ventures on a roller-coaster ride leading a double-life as assassin and clean-living young woman in love. Her passionate affair with Marco and the clarity of her un-drugged consciousness, combine to promote the development of a conscience - a dangerous thing in her line of work. Nikita is, nevertheless, a victim of her circumstances, and like the rest of the characters on both sides, seems stuck in a very bad situation. In addition to the artistry with which this story is told, this film has a very nihilistic sense of justice and not-so-subtly points out the fact that state authorized murder is still murder.

Jean Reno fans will enjoy his brief typecast cameo as "the cleaner".

This is one of the best, if not the best, of Besson's films. It is extremely well paced, starkly and beautifully shot, and features some of the best acting and writing of the entire action genre. The script is just a little better in French than English. Nikita does not have the feel of an action film, but rather, feels like a fatalistic drama riddled with almost continuous tragedy and heartbreak, and spiced with just a tad of hope. Parillaud's multi-layered and complex construction of her character is so mesmerizing that it is frankly difficult to think of anything else while attempting to reflect on this film.


This 1989 French film was justifiably so popular that an American re-make followed later and then a cable television series followed after that.

In this - the original - you see "Nikita" at its beginning and, most people agree, at her best. Anne Parillaud, an actress I've always found fascinating, is riveting as the lead character. Jean-Huges Anglade, Tcheky Karyo and Jean Reno provide a very strong supporting cast.

The characters were believable and it was refreshing to see a no-nonsense approach to a murder story, meaning if someone had to be killed, they were shot quickly with no questions asked. Some of the action scenes are brutal.

Parillaud's character is memorable. She can change appearances, from a hard- nosed hysterical animal to a real lady. It's also interesting to see Reno in a familiar role as a "cleaner," a role he made famous four years later in "Leon: The Professional."

The DVD provides either easy-to-read subtitles or a well-done dubbed version. If sound is important to you, you'll hear better stereo with the subtitled version.


I fell in love with this film from the moment I first saw a brief clip of it on an entertainment program. At first I was drawn to the action elements (being young and somewhat immature in my dramatic tastes), but I was blown away by the romance and character interplay. I loved the composition of the scenes, the noirish lighting, and the quirky humor. This movie, along with Pedro Almodovar's films, really opened my eyes to European films, particularly those with a signature style.

The performances are great across the board. Anne Parillaud plays all facets of Nikita well, from her rebellious, drug-hazed beginning, to her growing confidence, and her near breakdown as her mission falls apart. Tcheky Karyo made a huge impression, mostly through his body language and his eyes. He says more with an expression than most actors do with dialogue. Jeanne Moraeu is a treasure, a truly beautiful woman in appearance and spirit. Jean-Hughues Anglade has the harder part, the "normal" guy who Nikita falls for. He is adept at comedy, but is tender in the love scenes. He carries himself well in his face-off with Bob. Finally, the actor who really stands out in memory, Jean Reno. Reno oozes charisma and talent, even in bad films. He steals the film the moment he enters.

Luc Besson is a tremendous stylist. His films are beautiful, even when the story is a bit obtuse. He is adept at using light to portray and enhance emotion and his compositions are stunning. His main fault is that he lets style overtake story, but he gets away with it because the style is always interesting. He is a fine writer, although more care seems to go into the scripts he directs than those he has written for others.

Finally, one can't discuss the films of Besson without discussing the music of Eric Serra. Serra creates an atmosphere that is much a part of the setting as the lighting or set decoration. His compositions convey mood and emotion, adding another layer to the story. His signature bass and percussion gets your heart pumping during action sequences, while the melodies bring a softness to intimate moments. He demonstrates the proper way to use synthesizers, to transform the music, rather than make up for lack of an orchestra (or talent). Serra's soundtracks were the first that I bought for instrumental music, rather than for pop songs used in the film.

This is a film that appeals to many audiences. There is plenty of action and intrigue for thrillseekers, unique character studies, quirky humor, and above all, romance. It has spawned many imitations (Point of No Return, Black Cat, Nikita TV series) but has never been equaled. If you are a fan of film noir, action/espionage, character drama, or romance, you should see this film; then you should own this film. You'll want to watch it again and again.


The convicted cop-killer is "kidnapped" by a government agency to be given one new chance. Only this time she is to become a trained spy and assassin.

Luc Besson sure know how to fill a film with passion, humanity and action. This is a truly beautiful movie. It is a rather slow movie compared to your typical Hollywood movie, but then again the story and characters are also stronger. You get hooked and the movie is finished before you know it.

The story is strong. It's cool, original and intriguing, yet it's simple and not hard to keep track of. You really get caught up with it. It has elements of all genre. It's got action, love and passion, drama, thriller and even some comedy in it. It's kind of a dark story, yet there are lot of funny elements to light it up a bit. Not much, just as much as it needs.

The actors are great. Anne Parillaud does a great job as Nikita. She makes a psycho-like character that you, in the beginning, don't really like much, but through out the movie her real personality is revealed. At the end you won't let go of her. The rest of the cast is also truly great. Jean Reno has a small, yet very nice part. I found his character really funny. The way he just barge into the story.

Eric Serra has given the movie a nice score. It supports the story, but may seem a little late 80's every now and then, but never the less it sounds good. It is passionate when needed and suspense when called for.

You won't get disappointed of cinematography. It's simply beautiful. You can just sit back and enjoy the shots. Nice contrasts and nice composition and the use of wide angle lenses are really cool. The lightning is good as well. It's all really enjoyable.

This movie has something for everyone. It's not a guy movie or a girl movie. It's not a adult movie or a teenage movie. This is simply a movie for everyone who enjoys good movies! I can, with no doubt, give this movie my recommendations.


Luc Besson was on a hot streak in the late 80s/early 90s, and La Femme Nikita (or just Nikita for short) is almost as good as he got at putting his own distinctive stamp on a genre that many auteurs have trouble molding. The spy thriller is great for blockbuster audiences, but to make it into a strong romantic drama is always tricky, as there's the chance for too much one-dimensional theatrics or more attention paid to the plot convolutions than actual human emotions. Nikita squares this problem away just with the protagonist: a young punk (Anne Parillaud, in her most recognizable, near star-making performance) who kills a cop in the midst of a shoot-out is sentenced to life, but then sort of resurrected following the lead of a member of a covert spy organization, and given an ultimatum: become a spy/assassin, or die. She complies, and in a few years time turns into Josephine, who gets orders on the outside from time to time to do tasks like dress up in a maid's outfit to serve potential targets, or to ready herself to kill someone long-range at a moment's notice.

Besson crafts his main story by creating a sort of love triangle between Nikita/Josephine/Marie, her boss Bob, and her conventional lover Marco, a grocery store cashier who doesn't know what she really does. Besson tools with the elements for a much more conventional thriller, and from time to time it could appear like La Femme Nikita will veer into that realm and not return. But Besson is smart; he crafts the first hour like a kind of 'Taming of the Shrew' saga (or 'Taming of a Shrill Bad-ass'), filled with juicy, dark humor ranging from the ultra-violent (pencil in the hand anyone?) to the silly and playful (training with karate instructors). And as pure director of action sequences Besson shows himself as one of the more distinct masters; it's succinctly fresh and tense while holding the ingredients for what mainstream audiences crave, chiefly in that centerpiece as she is told to kill someone on the night of a seemingly hot date with Bob. Even in the little things, like the scene where she watches the spy put together the concoction for the target in the hotel, works on the purest technical terms.

But La Femme Nikita, for the most part, also works on emotional levels too. Besson won't be above throwing in a hard-boiled killer in the midst (Jean Reno's Victor, my favorite supporting character if only for a few pivotal scenes, and a precursor to Leon), but he'll also subvert it just a tinge for good measure. I loved seeing when Josephine has to take out the woman in Venice, her shot in sight, and is moved to tears through the words that Marco speaks to her, truthfully, not in any terms that deem him as the boring "safe" character, but as her kind of salvation from a life that she's been forced into as a final alternative. As happens often in Besson's work, in fact, the female character is put into a realm of personal chaos that is created by or leads to murder and, at the least, harrowing times with the one she cares for or about (i.e. Portman in Leon, Leeloo in Fifth Element, Joan of Arc, even Angela in Angel-A). It's not simply a gimmick in having the character be a woman- it's essential to Besson's track as a filmmaker, and Praillaud is excellent for the sort of ups and downs the character goes through, sometimes in the same scene!

This isn't to say there are a few minor liabilities, if only from my perspective: the music is usually effective in that early electronic-techno beat style for a modern thriller, yet sometimes it's also a cross between a soft-core porn and Weather channel muzak; the ending felt abrupt, or at least on a first viewing (albeit it's hard to top the scene at the ambassador's HQ); and, as a minor criticism, what happened to showing how Nikita learns how to smile? (Seems a little crucial as something of her personality that's skipped over, when made to seem like a big stepping stone by Jeanne Moreau's enigmatic character.) Otherwise, a must-see, and one of Besson's best films.


Until I watched this film many years ago I'd always associated foreign language films with more talky arty films, this showed that there are top quality action films made outside Hollywood too.

The film opens with a group of drug addicts breaking into a pharmacy to steal drugs, things go wrong and most of them are shot and killed by the police. Nikita however survives but she is captured and jailed for the murder of a police officer. She doesn't end up in jail though she is taken in by a government agency and given the choice of working for them or being killed. She chooses to work for them and spends three years being trained in a variety of skills that will enable her to work as an assassin. On her twenty third birthday Bob, her handler, takes her out of the training facility for the first time. She thinks it is just for a meal but ends up having to kill somebody and then fight her way out of the restaurant. This is her final test before being allowed to leave the facility and make a life for herself. She isn't totally free though, whenever the agency calls she must drop whatever she is doing and perform a mission. This is complicated by the fact that she now has a fiancé who does not know what she does.

The action scenes are all very stylishly executed and the acting seemed good, although not speaking French I had to rely on the subtitles to understand what was being said. I'd certainly recommend this to anybody who likes action films, especially to people who liked Luc Besson's later film Leon, the main character of which is based on Victor, the cleaner, in Nikita.


Nikita lived in my mind as an action movie with lots of blood, aggression, fear, all kinds of things I'm not very fond of to watch in a cinema. But I have seen this film more than ten years ago and things change and now Nikita is not that cruel movie anymore.

I came back to re-watch Nikita after a lecture I heard about spontaneity and creativity. The speaker cited Nikita as an example for spontaneity. He told about the scene when Nikita gets the guns in the red box as a present and is told to kill a man behind her in the restaurant, run out of the room, look for the men's toilet, check the last cabinet and climb out on the small window there with place only for a women of her size to get through; the car is waiting for her for 5 minutes outside. Nikita does as told, shoots, runs, searches, opens the window - but then the windows is walled. And here starts spontaneity - what to do now? In fact, I watched the entire movie to see this scene - wow I learned again something!

Otherwise, Nikita is rather a 'sweet action movie' by my standards of today. The storyline is interesting, the playing is OK, just the whole is unpolished and a bit rough to me. However, no question, back then, this movie was the starter for a whole series of story lines and Luc Besson merits credit for his originality. 7/10


This is the most violent film I have ever seen. I don't particularly like violent films, I'm not a huge action fan, and I dislike thrillers. But I was completely spellbound by this film.

I've never left another theater and found myself walking with my back to the wall.

There are other films with more blood and gore, more dead bodies, more gunshots, and more action. But for sheer cold violence - Victor, Nettoyer - nothing comes close to La Femme Nikita.* And the violence doesn't stop at the physical - it continues down burrowing down into the psychology.

But the reasons it is so good are not so easy to identify.

There may be clues in the many spin-offs and remakes may provide some clues - because none of them are remotely close. So it can't be purely the story, or the premise. And other actors with arguably more experience haven't delivered on the role, so it's not solely the acting (or actors).

And there are some aspects of the production that are distinctly unpromising - in particular the fact that the director created the film purely as a vehicle to allow (girlfriend?) Parillaud to break out of the stereotype straight-jacket she was sewn into by her prior roles. There's no doubt Peraud is attractively packaged, and for males at least the role could create a fatal fascination with the female spider. But dropping other attractive actresses into hot roles is usually a guarantee of mediocrity or comic-strip soft porn.

Perhaps the foreign language helps to make the other world both more exotic, yet more believable at the same time? But there must be far more to it than that.

So often directors, writers, actors and studios set out to make a 'great' film, and despite all the money, talent and attention, it goes nowhere special.

Yet on some less promising evening, all the stars and planets align on cue: The story may be discomforting, the violence offensive, actors and directors you have never heard of, in a language you cannot understand - but you are absolutely transfixed.

There are some weak points to the film, particularly in the early going, where belief is stretched too thin before you are drawn down into another world. It is unfortunate because these probably could have been avoided, and the film would have approached perfection. It would be nice to give it a 10, but it's not there.

But even as it is, I find it amazing that a film can be so good as to make me love something I don't like.

You may not enjoy this film. You may not approve of this film. You might not sleep easily after this film. But you will feel as though you have seen truly great cinema.

The downside? Films like this make run-of-the-mill TV and movies impossible to waste your time watching.

*Except perhaps Pulp Fiction, but the spider's web there was more coarsely spun.


When I first set out to try and use film to help me with learning French, it was a completely uncharted territory except for one title I had heard of previously: La Femme Nikita. This film was such a success that it went on to fare well in the U.K. and the States, which is always an achievement for a subtitled film, was later remade in Hollywood as Point of No Return and then finally as a TV series.

It starts very suddenly with a girl, we will come to know as Nikita, involved in a drugged-out store robbery that lands her in jail. Probably from the fact that she has nothing to lose, she is chosen to be removed from prison and entered into training as an assassin for the French DGSE (think CIA). As she goes from drug-addicted street trash to secret agent, we watch her remain steadfastly defiant in her original style until her handler reaches through to her and she begins to accept her new life and allows herself to be tamed. The central theme of the movie is Nikita and her reactions to her continually changing fortunes, so this tamed peace rapidly transitions across rejection, freedom, love, manipulation, terror and eventually selfless sacrifice (I've given away nothing!). Throughout her experience, a common thread in many of these phases, and often the catalyst for them, her handler, is the source of her most complex relationship. Their interactions carry tones of unrequited and forbidden love which drive him to cruelty toward her to punish himself and drive her to frigidness and rebellion against him. In many ways, the cloak-and-dagger moves, secret organizations and gun battles are just window dressings for that relationship. Thankfully, there is much more in relationships and "window dressing" to keep us riveted and thinking throughout this movie.


One of the hallmarks of a good European film is that it gets to be re-made in Hollywood. Director/Producer/Writer Luc Besson has received this dubious honour twice, firstly with a remake of "Nikita" and more recently with one of "Taxi".

I can't comment on the American version of "Taxi", but the remake of "Nikita", known as "Point of No Return" or "The Assassin", isn't a patch on the original.

"Nikita" made me feel sympathy for the central characters, to the extent that I was almost in tears at times. The story is a simple one of love and longing to be free, interspersed with Besson's trademark economical-yet-bloody action scenes.

"Nikita" proves that there is more to Cinema than Hollywood.


... Let's get the basics out of the way, first. "Nikita" is a good film; with all of the visual flourishes and compelling mood that it seems can be found in the bulk of Besson's work. If you are coming to this review BEFORE having seen "Leon" ("The Professional") then my best advice is just to disregard the rest of what follows and take "Nikita" on its own terms. Hope you enjoy it!

* (COMPARISON WITH 'LEON' - RISK OF SPOILERS FOR BOTH FILMS!) ... I know there is some debate amongst film fans over which constitutes the most satisfying experience. Personally; I'd have to pick "Leon". Disregarding the sex of the character, "Leon" as an enterprise is like a more 'plush' version of Besson's 1990 assassin effort. It's like a before and after snapshot; Leon's pretty much 'compartmentalized' his life - Nikita's struggling to get a grip on hers...

Perhaps "Leon" represents the evolution of Besson's 'paternal' instinct; as he watches his own children grow. There is certainly a greater degree of patience shown from outside influences in Mathilda's case, as opposed to Nikita... The original street kid is the quintessential animal; and although we are shown what instigates her partial transformation, her support system is never quite as convincingly 'solid' as that provided by Leon and Tony...

I suppose the tension bubbling under the surface does provide a comedic highlight; as Marco lies dreamily on the bed and coos to his supposedly 'docile' mate that he didn't know what he'd come across when he first met her - cut to our heroine assembling a gun in the bathroom... Guess what, mate; you STILL don't... !

Having more 'rounded' characters with less rough edges DID make it easier for me to become 'emotionally involved', though. Would Leon have opened the door for Mathilda if he hadn't been schooled by someone with perhaps similar thought processes to Bob?? In Leon we see the individual that "Nikita" would like to become by obtaining her freedom...

Those who prefer to dispassionately study people and their actions from a distance might just retain a softer spot for "Nikita". It's certainly interesting to speculate on what motivated the changes in his later work, though... !


On paper, Nikita doesn't sound to promising. In the wrong hands, the idea of a criminal being trained to become a top assassin sounds like a story that would be campy, ridiculous, and over-the-top, almost comic book like. Luckily, Nikita was in the right hands as the end result is way better than expected. The script is well written, the cinematography is beautiful, and the directing is exciting more often than not. That said, what ultimately makes Nikita work as well as it does is lead Anne Parillaud as Nikita. Parillaud doesn't have much dialogue in the first act. This leaves her to do most of her acting with facial expressions. With a lesser actress, this could have been disastrous. However, Parillaud is a strong actress and is able to pull the role off well. Perhaps it is due to her lack of dialogue that I find the first half of the picture far superior to the second half.

Once Nikita's relationship with Marco begins, the film loses the same momentum it once had. This shift in tone is necessary to some extent in order to show Nikita is able to love and be human. At the same time, the result makes the film feel a bit uneven. The romance-filled middle almost feels like it belongs in another movie altogether. The romance is helped by the good performances, but the tone isn't quite right. It's a problem that probably could have been fixed in the editing process. It would be fascinating to see another cut of Nikita, one where the romance is drastically edited with scenes rearranged and maybe a few minutes taken out. For me, that would be a better version. I'm sure there are people who find the romantic segments the best part of Nikita. I am not one of them.

There was never a sequel to Nikita, but the ending leaves room for one. Obviously too much time has gone by for a sequel to be made now, though I can picture one that begins right as Nikita ends. The perfect ending provides enough closure for the audience to be satisfied and just enough room for more. The ending is often the most important part in any storytelling medium, be it literature, theater, or film. The wrong ending can leave an audience frustrated. The wrong ending can even ruin the entire experience for an audience. With Nikita, Luc Besson has given the audience the most suitable ending, one that is completely satisfying. Nikita may not be perfect, though the material in the beginning and the end is so strong that only middle section prevents it from being a perfect movie.


This is probably one of the best spy/action dramas ever made. It tells the history of a heroin junkie who has incredible killing capacities and fakes her death for becoming a government assassin. Luc Besson's Nikita has all: It has action, it has drama, tragedy, and even black humor (Victor the cleaner says it all) It is with a good script (few holes) a very good direction, excellent performances in everyone, thrilling music. It's the thing that James Bond never did Classic

Just one of the best. This shows while it then had an American version, but it's not worth it. The character of Nikita is golden build, as the others, and the performance by the leading actress is amazing.

Nikita

Just Nikita