I've seen the movie at the Malaga Festival, Spain. It's one of the BEST GOTHIC STORIES OF ALL TIMES. It's a peculiar mixture between The Silent of the Lambs and Sleepy Hollow or From Hell. It's more than a normal horror werewolf movie. Much more. It's a story where gothic meets romance, where horror meets love, where documentary meets fairytale. Yes. 'cause this is a TRUE STORY!!! Manuel Blanco Romasanta is one of the most intriguing serial killers of all times. He was judged in Spain in 1852. having confessed the killing of at least 13 people, he dared proclaim his innocence: he was not guilty because he was a werewolf! The thing I liked most is the way the authors introduce us in a REAL FAIRYTALE. I don't find other words to describe this story. it's fantasy and reality at the same time. It's like to be at the same time in a chapter of CSI and in the tale of Red Riding Hood. We experience this adventure from the point of view of Barbara, the woman who falls in love with Manuel Romasanta and who progressively changes her love into rage.. The arc of the character is so well developed, that the identification with her is complete. We do feel the same love and the same hatred that Barbara felt towards Manuel. Another strong point of the movie is the cast. and moreover the female roles. The actresses who play Barbara and her sister Maria are superb. I really enjoyed the way they expressed their arena. Finally, last but not least, I do suggest to keep an eye on this young director: Paco Plaza. Believe me, he's a TRUE GENIUS.


'Romasanta' tells the chilling tale of Manuel Blanco Romasanta, known murderer of 15 people (although confessing to murdering many more) and how he charms women before killing them brutally like a wolf. When we are introduced to Romasanta a wolf backs away in fear from him, and this saves the life of the heroine Bárbera. Romasanta is going with Bárbera's sister and they leave Bárbera behind to go to another town to secure a place to live and a home, running in fear of the wolves that have been killing the town folk. On the way to the new town, Romasanta kills his 'girlfriend' and her daughter and then returns to seduce Bárbera. She suspects that Romasanta has killed her sister and niece and sets out to have justice brought to him.

Julian Sands (Romasanta) is excellent in this chilling Gothic tale, portraying the character with such eerie class that makes the film as good as it is. This is no ordinary werewolf movie, it is a psychological thriller, looking at the mind-set of a man suffering from lycanthropy, making him turn mentally to a beast but making him feel the physicality of it.

All in all, an excellent Gothic tale, a new take on werewolf movies and I would say that it is better than most films involving werewolves. What's more, it is based on real events. Excellently filmed and acted, especially by Julian Sands. Definitely worth watching. From me, 9/10.

Cat §quire


If you're one of those people who quite enjoyed "La Pacte des Loups" (Brotherhood of the Wolf) a few years back but were left disappointed by some of the more ridiculous historical inaccuracies, then you might want to take a look at Romasanta.

The story of Manuel Blanco Romasanta is quite a well known one in Spain. It happened in the mid-nineteenth century, when a string of violent deaths took place which seemed in some ways like animal attacks, and in others like cold and calculated murder. Eventually a man was arrested -- Manuel Romasanta, and it was found that he used the body fat from his victims to make soap. At his trial he claimed that he became a werewolf, and that it is the nature of a wolf to kill. He was diagnosed with the psychological condition of lycanthropy, and given a life sentence rather than death.

The film itself is based largely on truth, partly on speculation and partly on pure invention for artistic purposes. It's certainly a lot closer to the truth than "Brotherhood of the Wolf" was, anyway. One character is knowingly invented, and some rather unlikely theories are put forward in the place of that which is unknown, but the question of whether or not Romasanta was actually a werewolf is left completely open. Paco Plaza appears to be a competent and innovative director, and the style of the film is really superb. It is quite slow moving, and arguably it's rather light on actual story and plot, but that's about as far as the criticism goes.

There are several great performances, but the standout comes from Julian Sands as the title character, who submerges himself in the role in the way that only outstanding actors can. John Sharian is also very good as the misguided, haunted 'partner' of Romasanta, and both Gary Piquer and David Gant are memorable in supporting roles as those who finally bring the murderer to justice. It also features Elsa Pataky as the leading heroine, who has become a huge sex symbol in Spain and it isn't hard to see why -- think along the lines of a Spanish Keira Knightley.

This is the finest historical werewolf film I've ever seen, and any self-respecting werewolf buff should take a look, but unfortunately there's not much chance of this one being a blockbuster.


An interesting story, with good acting, well told. Good direction, visually appealing, atmospheric.

However, scientifically, and/or historically literate viewers will find one nagging, glaring blunder; at one point in this story, which is supposed to be set in the mid 19th century, there is a reference to a person being controlled "by his genes". Come on! The term "gene" wasn't even proposed until half a century later, and additionally, around mid 19th century the mechanism of inheritance was entirely unknown; Mendel's work lay undiscovered until early 20th century, and even Mendel didn't use the word "gene" (so it couldn't have been a case of some exceptionally insightful scientist having discovered the term in some ).

That sort of a slip may not seem much, but for someone aware of this history, it does brake the illusion of an authentic world in which the events are set, making it harder to enjoy the movie. I'm surprised that anybody reviewing the script didn't pick up on it... but then again, the state of scientific literacy among filmmakers is often abysmal. In a movie set in a historical period, accuracy should be more of a priority though, I think.

The story proceeds almost languidly, punctuated by moments of violence and terror; perhaps too slow for most horror fans to appreciate, and those who do appreciate the subtlety are likely to be bothered by the "gene" mishap. The score is beautiful, and lighting is used to good effect; the combination makes for a visually and auditorily pleasing experience.

Perhaps because of how the movie is portrayed as a werewolf movie, the people who might best enjoy it, aren't likely to see it, and the people expecting a traditional supernatural horror movie might feel a bit let down.

In conclusion, Romasanta is a movie not as good as it could have been, and somewhat misleadingly advertised on the cover, but well worth seeing nonetheless. I was torn between 7 or 8 stars, and decided to be generous. :)


I really liked this movie. This is not a B movie, although the title is rather hokey. I like the original title better, but on the other hand it might not have piqued my interest if it hadn't had "werewolf" in the title! It is a horror story and a love story. The acting is above average and the cinematography is absolutely beautiful. The story is somewhat based on a true story about a man tried and imprisoned for 15 murders in 19th century Spain. His defense was that he was in fact, a werewolf and had no control over himself once he transformed. The murders are quite gruesome. The few scenes of animal abuse disturbed me more, but that's just me.

If you love the genre as I do, this movie is worth watching.


In 1852, in Galicia, Spain, the traveling vendor Manuel Blanco Romasanta is tried for the murder of at least fifteen persons. He claims to be the ninth son of a family and therefore a werewolf, and Queen Isabel II changes his death sentence to life. Once in prison, he dies for unknown cause.

First of all, I would like to tell that I am not writing a spoiler: most of this information is on the box of the Brazilian DVD and in many reviews. I believe the lack of mystery with the lead character, i.e., the viewer knows who is the killer before watching the film, is the greatest flaw in this screenplay. The story is great, recalling "La Pacte des Loups"; the cinematography and effects are wonderful; and Julian Sands and Elsa Pataky have excellent performances and chemistry, with the story centered in their romance first, and in the rage of Bárbara for Romasanta later. However, I have never heard about this Romasanta, and the writer used fictional and historical events to write this story, with elements of horror and romance. I believe he could have kept the mystery about Romasanta, disclosing his crimes only in the end. Anyway, this movie is original and very attractive and really worth watching. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Romasanta  A Casa da Besta" ("Romasanta  The House of the Beast")


The creature is not a large one. At first glance, it doesn't even seem to be anything more than an ordinary dog.

But then you look closer. The wolf's mouth is larger than that of an ordinary dog, the teeth packed more densely together within. The wolf's eyes gleam a sickly yellow colour, and a vicious snarl augments the drool flowing from its mouth.

The creature leaps at you with supernatural speed and strength. Its front paws knock you flat on your back, and you feel the freezing earth soaking through your shirt, the full moon gleaming down like a cruel eye, watching you.

The wolf doesn't bother with a killing wound; it just begins to tear chunks of flesh from your stomach, ignoring your agonized screams. It will be a long, long time before your body loses all feeling, and everything goes dark.

Manuel Romasanta was a traveling merchant and salesman in the mid eighteen hundreds, who, at some point, went completely and utterly insane. He believed himself to be a werewolf, a man who would assume the form of an unnaturally large and brutal wolf whenever the moon was full. Manifesting from this belief was the need to kill, and so kill he did, some sixteen or more people, chosen completely at random, no discrimination. He would slaughter them, devour them and then leave the bodies for others to find.

There have been so many movies made that have been based on the lives of serial killers- Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc. It seemed a mere matter of time until they dredged up this psychopath from the history books and immortalized him through film.

But, of course, being set in the time that it is, and under the circumstances through which the events surrounding the case unfolded, they couldn't have been content merely to make a slasher/thriller sort of thing documenting the life of a serial killer. No, they had to turn it into a werewolf movie.

And what a fantastic werewolf movie it turned out to be. I was expecting the sorts of cheesy werewolf effects that we saw in such movies as "Dog Soldiers" and "Underworld" (although to tell you the truth, I enjoyed both of those movies, solely for the action content in them). But groundless were all my fears, for as the movie progresses it becomes increasingly clear that this is not your usual, run-of-the-mill type of werewolf crap, with Romasanta assuming the form of a proper wolf when he transforms. Rather than "Dog Soldiers", it portrays itself more as being along the lines of "Ginger Snaps", with much the same sort of tragic tale at the heart of it.

As with seemingly all new-age horror movies, even those done in an older sort of style (such as this one), there is a love story at the heart of the movie. However, true to the bizarre nature of this movie, it is not a happy tale of love that unfolds, rather a twisted tragedy in which neither side comes off any better than the other. For those of you who possess something like a twisted romanticism, I tell you now not to miss this one, you'll regret it if you do.

I've already told you basically all you need to know about the story of this movie, and I'm not going to ruin all the twists and turns of the movie so as to spoil your viewing enjoyment. Just be sure not to miss this one, especially if you liked "Ginger Snaps".


The Spanish countryside is being plagued by a series of gruesome killings, which gives rise to the legend of The Werewolf of Allariz. Local officials decide to pay for all wolves in the area to be culled, but this doesn't stop the killings. Barbara (Elsa Pataky) a beautiful young girl, begins to suspect her sister's lover. Romasanta (Julian Sands) might be the culprit, only problem is there is a raging sexual chemistry between them, but after her sister and niece disappear, Barbara decides she must act. Romasanta comes clean before a court, that he is in fact a wolf who takes the guise of a man to seduce his victims, is he a wolf or just a psychotic killer? Romasanta is a beautifully filmed period drama, that explores more the myth of the killings than lycantrophy. Those expecting wolf men will be disappointed, but those who like a good story and terrors that are for the most part only alluded to, will enjoy this one. In that regard its very much in the vein of Pacte de Loups. Sands is cleverly cast, his lupine looks adding to the myth, Pataky also provides some nice eye candy.


Is this a horror or a psychological thriller? To me this is a curious study of lust, betrayal and death. The "true story" is often abused term in movie-making. Only, this time there is no abuse, just artistic freedom. Enjoy amazing scenery of a Spain in 1800's and the symbolic details that all have their meaning: the hands, the birds, the nails. The horror is there but in a subtle form and the visuals are very delicate. However, it seems to me that a lot of horror fans are put off by the fact that this movie is a slow-paced one. Yes, it might not scare you even once but it doesn't matter. This time you will be absorbed by the story with amazing visuals and strong cast that turn this movie into a work of art. If you want something unique as an underrated horror movie worth using for studies of photography look no further. Based on that fact alone it's worth 9 out of 10.


I'm a sucker for werewolf movies and when I saw the DVD cover of Werewolf Hunter; that and its' title had me picking it up ASAP! I read the back and knew then that it wasn't a straight up werewolf movie but it still sounded interesting so I got it.

The movie is based on true events of a serial killer named Romasanta. He was caught tried for killing 15 people in 1852. He claimed to have hunted them down as a wolf (werewolf) and had hunted many times with a man called Anonia who was also a werewolf. Blah, blah, blah, he was sentence to life instead of death and died in captivity.

Now the movie takes a different approach to the the above events but most of the characters are there... Romasanta and Anonia. I was afraid the movie would try to trick you into thinking he was really a werewolf or leave you with questions but it didn't. It took you through a nice recreation of the original events with some decent added story.

If you like horror thrillers...not a bad rent!


A wolf becomes man to seduce and kill female victims in Allariz. Romasanta(Julian Sands)goes on record in front of a jury of his peers and the court proclaiming himself a werewolf. Almost all of Romasanta's conquests were not of anything remotely human until he falls in love with Bárbara(Elsa Pataky, a stunning beauty), the sister of his wife and mute child. When Romasanta kills his wife, María(Maru Valdivielso)and mute child Teresa(Luna McGill), Bárbara seeks him out after being seduced herself by him. Joining forces with DA Bastida(Bary Piquer)they are on the hunt to find him before more and more lives are taken by the wolf. With help by Antonio(John Sharian), someone bitten and controlled by Romasanta, they might just be able to find him. Professor Philips(David Grant is a persuasive doctor who proclaims that Romasanta is not responsible for the killer impulses the wolf brings out.

Handsome production and great photography help the flick which doesn't produce the goods in werewolf transformations, instead opting for being a historical document on a serial killer stating on record he is a werewolf who can not help but kill when the beast comes out to play. The acting is adequate and there are a few brief moments of violence, but many viewers wanting a full-fledged creature feature with gory attacks will be disappointed, perhaps even bored. But, the film is well made and visually sumptuous. Just don't expect blood and guts.


I was really disappointed by this film. Having seen Julian Sands' name on the box, I thought 'OK, well, he's been in some pretty bad films (Arachnophobia, Boxing Helena etc.), but he's also been good in things, so I'll give it a go'. Plus it was screened at last year's Frightfest, which is usually a guide to a film's quality. Having a Spanish director also sounded good, given that it was set in Spain...

But whilst the setting, costumes etc. were all amazing, and the script was pretty good, the actors really let it down, particularly Mr Sands, the lead actress and the professor - I couldn't take any of his scenes seriously! Probably worth seeing if you haven't got anything better to do, but don't expect a masterpiece or quality acting (with the exception of Antonio, who was well worth the cost of rental).


The story of Romasanta is interesting because it is based on true historical events. The movie interpretion however doesn't quite capture the excitement of the Wolfman killings.

Pacing of the story is poorly synchronized: everything happens way too slow in the first half of the movie. And suddenly all the way from the capture of Romasanta the pace quickens considerably and the movie is over before my curiosity on the Romasanta character is completely satisfied: Who was he? Why did he do these things? This movie doesn't answer or even ask these questions well enough. Quite contrary, just when I became intrigued by Romasanta, he is swept away and the movie ends. To be truthful, I think in the end it gives quite a neutral and rather dull view on Manuel Romasanta. But on defensive side I must say that the cinematography, settings and props look all wonderful.

Short summary: Romasanta is magnificently set movie with pure Gothic feeling, but it unfortunately lacks somewhat in the script and pacing. You can watch it once or twice without any serious pain, but the lost possibilities do bother me. If I weren't so curious about the real Romasanta, this movie might have seen even worse in my eyes. This could have been truly great historical werewolf/horror movie. Now it manages to be only barely average.

I'm a little bit disappointed in the results considering the raw potential of the plot. Oh well, nice try.


The misleadingly titled Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt is a disappointing pile of slow, plodding period serial killer rubbish. There are no real werewolves, only that which goes on within the title character's head, and because it's based on true events the movie is incredibly dry and uninventive in the story department. Add to this the fact that it's punctuated with moments of unnecessary tasteless violence, and you have a fairly unsatisfying product.

I can't really understand why Romasanta's gone down so well with people. Yes, I admit it is at times atmospheric, and the actors are very good in it, but the honest truth is despite this, it's dull, boring and at times deeply unpleasant. I really could have lived without seeing a deaf child caught in a bear trap, then systematically have her eyes gouged out. Even in a GOOD movie, such a scene would force me to seriously question what the director was attempting to accomplish, but in a movie so ineffectual as this it just seems pointless, tasteless and sensational.

Still, as I have stated, I could have stomached the violence given my history of watching a lot of violent movies, were the movie in any way enthralling, but Romasanta is like cinematic wallpaper. With the exception of Romasanta's horrific acts, which you never see him caught in the act of anyway, Romasanta really left me with the impression that nothing happened. Romasanta isn't at all sympathetic as a character, given that he kills and robs indiscriminately with immense cruelty throughout the entire film, so his pleas that he is insane toward the end of the movie, obviously supposed to be an emotional high point pass without event or interest, and without this the movie is robbed of any sense of climax.

To be honest, I expected very little from Romasanta, but I did expect a werewolf, which it didn't produce, and I expected a plot with high and low points and obvious progression, which it didn't produce either. If you have to see this RENT it, don't buy it, and I'd recommend you don't waste your time either way anyhow.


I watched this movie like months ago and have remembered it ever since I began to try and hunt down the actor that played Manuel! I love this kind of stuff and thought that this movie was awesome. I don't get why people don't like it. Is it because it's not gory? Is it because there no real insight to the killing? Or is it because it's based on a true story? I dunno... I must give this movie a 10 because it's just one of the best werewolf movies I've seen... and I've seen a lot! I love the sensuality of the movie... and the way Teresa's sister finally gets her head on straight and realizes that he must be killed, although I was a little sad. I also loved how the movie just went smoothly, never contradicting itself like many movies do. This movie may not explain werewolves, but it does do the race some justice after movies like American Werewolf or American Werewolf in Paris (or something like that) really gave a bad and false view of them. One of the bests I've seen so far! =)


Sorta kinda spoilers in here but if you've read the other reviews on IMDb there's nothing new. Most aren't familiar with the Manuel Romasanta story (no reason why they should) and when they see the DVD case (I'm not familiar with theatrical hype), they are quite justified in picking it up expecting a werewolf film. They are also quite justified in being disappointed. They are victims of sleight of hand marketing. Don't know where the decision was made but "whoever" even chose to present the blurb "...in the tradition of The Howling". Nope. In the tradition of "Gothic", maybe. I enjoyed this movie but I think I enjoyed because when I learned it was coming, and being the curious person I am, I dug into the story of Manuel Romasanta. This is my suggestion to those who have not seen this movie: 1) Light up your internet and put "Manuel Romasanta" into your favorite search engine. Ignore all hits that pertain to this movie and collect a little history about a real life, and seminal, serial killer. 2) Rent the movie understanding it is not "in the tradition of The Howling", watch it and decide how these folks handled a murky historical incident involving clinical lycanthropy.

I think they did a nice job.


As a lover of horror films, and a particularly keen fan of werewolves, even I found this film to be a total piece of crap. Not even slightly scary. I have never been less scared while watching a "horror" film than this. Seriously, Ghostbusters seems like The Exorcist compared to this load of tripe. And Julian sands has got to be the worst bad guy ever. I reckon he's just reading lines off a prompter; that's what it actually sounds like. The only good thing about this film was seeing Elsa Patasky's breasts, everything else was totally shite.It is even more of a shame because the idea has potential. Based on a real life, self confessed "werewolf" (well, a dude suffering from lycanthropy), Romasanta had the potential to be seriously creepy, especially with the dark forests of the area and the quaint little villages so horribly afraid of a big bad wolf. Total waste of time. And coming from me, this movie must be poor -I like pretty much every piece of crap ever made.


First of all our friend Mike is absolutely right about Elsa. I definitely recommend it, even if just to watch this goddess. :D

Nevertheless I think you (Mike) should try to watch it again. Preferently not during Frightfest. The photography is quite good, and the landscape and historic placement are very good. The script is not really dense. But I think great films are made out of details and photography, and not out of phenomenal scripts.

My "8" may be overvalued. I couldn't help. I love Galicia. I'm just disappointed with the fact the film is not spoken in Galego, but rather in English. I would give it "7". The bonus is for encouragement.

If you liked this try to watch this short: "I'll see you in my dreams".

Até à próxima.


Werewolf Hunter is an elegant Gothic horror film that hearkens back to the days of Hammer, but with the production capabilities of today. The film is not an action packed mixture of violence and CGI transformations like many werewolf films of today have degenerated into but an actual leisurely paced film that takes the time to develop its characters. At no time during the film is the viewer ever told that yes this is real or no it is not. It is up to the viewer to make their own decision. The film deals with the true story of Manuel Blanco Romasanta, a man arrested in 1851 for the murder of more than 13 people in rural Spain. He became known as the Werewolf Of Allariz because his defense against these charges was that he could not control his animal urges since he was in fact a werewolf. Some liberties are taken with the case. One character in the film, Antonio, was never actually proved to have existed since he was never found. Also, the ending merely provides a possible explanation since the truth of the matter is unknown to anyone. Paco Plaza has crafted a truly special film that is unfortunately hampered with a dreadful direct to video title but you should get past that and give this one a shot.


In the forest of Asturias, some horrible killings have altered the quiet existence of the zone inhabitants. Manuel works as a seller and he is used to walk through this dangerous paths. Anyway, he seems to keep a deep secret in relation to the deaths. This movie claims to be based upon reals things, (a lycantrop that lived at the end of XIX century, and maybe due to this reason it is not as much exaggerated as much other terror films that are usually made. Curiously it is quite loyal to the truth, which is unusual in this kind of film. Anyway, despite the feeling of a sick atmosphere is quite well done, neither the actors nor the history have the thrilling emotion that this kind of movies should have to be interesting. Sometimes boring, it is not one of the best films I've seen lately. It has a good setting (a curious plot and a well scenario), but the directing is not as good as it should, be, which is bad for the film in the whole.


Sometimes I ask myself why do I watch any given movie which has had bad reviews, and if I should begin to listen to the critics (especially when the opinion is unanimous). So, I met Paco Plaza's work through his first movie ("The Second Name"), sort of a satanic-thriller, made in Spain but played by foreign actors and in English. It was an effective and dark film; it wasn't the most original movie I'd ever watched, but it was OK, I had a nice and entertaining time (mission accomplished). And now I go and watch this "Romasanta", waiting for some excitement, even though the cast wasn't that good (Elsa Pataky, Julian Sands). And what do I get? A story about wolf-men that never seems to begin, flat like a valley, and without a real climax. The aesthetic has reminded me of "The Pact Of The Wolves" (a recent french movie), and the technical aspects such as the photography or the special effects are just great. Anyway, for me a movie is an story, and a nice movie MUST have a nice story, and it has to be well told. Maybe the story in "Romasanta" is attractive , but Mr. Plaza hasn't found a way to tell it in a right way.

I hope that Plaza's third film will be as good as "The Second Name", so we can count on him to make nice fantastic-terror movies (just like Amenábar or Balagueró do). The three of them have demonstrated that it's possible to make good thrillers in Spain.

My rate: 4/10


The original version based on the same story, El Bosque del lobo was a little spanish masterpiece but this movie is a pathetic waste. Bad acting (The lead female actress was last seen in another bad spanish production, Beyond Re- animator, a terrible sequel to the cult classic from the 80´s)and direction (take a look to his terrible boring first film, Second name), and more than dissapointing visuals, this film is good for one thing: curing insomnia. I will like to know why this Elsa pataky is a big new sex symbol in Spain. She´s petty but that´s it really. Her acting is one of the worst ever. And Julian Sands, who does remember him? Exactly. Where is John Landis when you need him? 2 out of 10.


First off, I must say that this is a fun game show. Also, I haven't if I've seen every episode. However, I do know the show fairly well. Every time I've watched it, I've had a lot of fun playing along and watch. The thing I like most about it are the questions. Despite the fact that I don't know that many answers, I still have fun playing along. I hope the Game Show Network keeps it on so I can play along and watch again. If that happens, I will be really happy. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever. Now, in conclusion, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.


"Win Ben Stein's Money" was one of the best shows that aired on Comedy Central when "South Park" and "The Daily Show" were rather new. It was highly creative and almost always witty and funny. Ben Stein, best known as a character actor and commercial spokesperson with a monotone voice and tweed sweater, comes to life as both host and contestant. He and co-host Jimmy Kimmell had an excellent chemistry, and their exchanges of jokes and insults were among Comedy Central's finest moments. Very few of the questions were dumbed down for mass consumption, and the show's entertaining and quick pace made it a welcome contrast to the dull and ridiculous "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." The show did suffer a bit when Nancy Pimental took over as co-host, as she lacked Jimmy's chemistry (he later went on to co-host the insipid "Man Show"), but she was fairly competent as a comedian. Ben showed his true talent as an entertainer here, and it resulted in his short-lived spin-off, "Turn Ben Stein On." If your cable providers offer The Game Show Network, due yourselves a favor a catch a rerun of "Win Ben Stein's Money" if you're not too busy. You won't regret it.


Best detective show ever. Tony Shalhoub is impeccable as the compulsive detective. He is able to solve crimes based on the thinest (and believable) threads of evidence. He is also able to draw you into the plot with ease - like an old friend who brings you into his trust you wait on every word.

Mr. Shalhoub is an enormously talented actor. Anything he has a role in is worth watching just to see him in it. You must watch this great program. 10+/10

-Zafoid

PS: ...sorry - I got so involved in Mr. Shalhoub's acting ability that I forgot - major kudos to the writers and supporting cast and the crew. :)

-Z


I love this series. I hope that it has a good, long run. Tony Shalhoub is awesome in this role, the writing is great, Bitty Schram is excellent as Monk's nurse. More and more of my friends are getting hip to this series and love it too. This is the only show on TV that I consistently watch and tape every week.


This show is awesome..I love the way it is acted out, and how out of the ordinary Monk is. I don't know if I could put up with him (the detective) irl, but its one of the most interesting shows that has been aired recently. This show has its own quirks, and is worth watching if you enjoy reading Robert Parker books. Please, watch this show so it can stay on the air.


In my opinion, Monk is one of the best shows I have seen in a long time. The main characters, detective Adrian Monk (Tony Shalhoub), and his friend and personal assistant, Sharona Fleming (the very talented yet underrated Bitty Schram) are very likeable and well-drawn. More importantly, the episodes are very well-written and highly amusing. I definitely recommend it.


Adrian Monk has OCD in the same way Superman has an allergy to Kryptonite. I LOVE Monk, and this new series underscores how what may seem a "disability" can really be a whole new, wider way of looking at the world. Naturally, he'll need a LOT of help with the disabling aspects, however.

Tony Shalhoub is perfect in this -- every nuance, every moment, every choice is 100%. His empathy with the character is profound, and rather than some quirky stereotype, his Monk is a beautiful, poetic character that will live for a longtime after the petty series characters of modern "hit" television fade away.

Bitty Schram's Sharona is a lovely, warm act of faith, and everyone -- literally everyone -- is perfectly cast.

And along with all this warmth, this is the funniest show to come along in many years.

Ignore the naysayers...watch it.


I've seen most of "Monk" episodes, although I didn't begin to watch until sometime after it began. I believe I've now seen nearly all of the earlier episodes via reruns, but for some reason had never seen this initial episode before.

This is my favorite program on current TV, and with the plethora of mindless reality shows and silliness such a "Deal or No Deal" and "1 vs. 100" and other "game" efforts, it is truly the proverbial "breath of fresh air."

I like seeing Gail O'Grady - anytime and in anything - and the story here was a good one with which to begin.

The really good shows seem to improve with age, even where they begin strongly, and it is true of "Monk." I, for one, am extremely grateful that they don't use the close-up filming as they did here, a distracting element detracting rather than adding to the presentation. I also like the way they have "fine tuned" the characters and their interactions in the ensuing years, and while enjoying Bitty Schram, I personally prefer Traylor Howard.

But the best indication of the real quality of this series is that, despite the many improvements made in the successive seasons, this initial effort was better than 99%+ of anything else on the tube, then or now.


This first episode of "Monk" and the next ("Part 2," originally released together with it as "MONK: The Premiere Movie") are essentially everything that television should be. As close to perfection as I have ever seen on American TV.

From here, the show could have gone up ever so slightly to be one of the greatest television series in the airwaves' history. Heck, I'll nominate it for that honor on Season One's merits alone. Alas, "Mr. Monk and the Candidate" is still the show's best episode. Directly after it comes "The Psychic," a huge step down. From there the series rose again for most of it's first season, but never as high as at its inception.

Season Two was still amiably enjoyable, but hardly great. Season Three pained me to watch. I am, of course, being harsh; but in fairness, I am being so out of the tremendous expectations this fine mystery-cop-comedy show gave me. But I can still most heartily recommend Season One to anyone I meet, and most particularly recommend this fantastic episode. It should be required viewing for anyone desiring the title 'well-rounded human being.'


Monk is my favorite TV show. I wait for it all week until it's on Friday pm. Is it on any other network besides USA? I will watch the same shows over and over if they're on. I love the all day marathons. I spent the entire day New Years Day watching the Monk Marathon! Tony Shaloub is wonderful and so are all the other characters on the show. I love Capt. Stottlemeier, Lt. Disher, Natalee, Sherona, Dr. Kroeger---all of them. They are a perfect cast. I think I'm a "MONK" addict. My son's mother-in-law who lives out in Oergon also watches every Monk episode. She and I both try to arrange our lives around Monk, so we will be sure to see every episode. I like Tony Shaloub in any role he plays. He was excellent in "Wings" Every time I see something he's playing in I watch it. Joyce Lowery


Not only is monk the most hilarious mystery television show out there, it puts up a great mystery....television will never be the same, now that monk is on weekly. Monk (played by Tony Shalhoub) suffers from an extreme case of obsessive-compulsive Behavior and is also an extreme germaphobic. Monk is an ex-cop whose wife died about 5 or 6 years earlier, in a car bombing. because of that Adrian Monk suffered a complete breakdown. Ever since then his nurse Sharona Fleming,(played by Bitty Schram) has been taking care of him..... I give this TV series TWO THUMBS UP! For those who are looking for a good mystery series thats mostly clean,low profanity, funny, and most of all an intriguing series. don't miss it! 10/10


first, i was aiming to say few words about this amazing series in the forum..afterwards,i decided that such a still in made masterpiece must have the gratitude..which-believe me- it deserve. adrian monk..a detective who is suffering from a very mild obsessive compulsive actions but they develop to a disorder that made him on a medical suspension right after the murder of his wife...the reason that lead monk to such complications is that he is certain that he was the target of the bombing that lead to his wife's death..and guilt distorted his vision that even his genius mind can't concentrate when it comes to his wife's case... monks methods accompanied by his disorder is giving a great flavor to that amazing series..especially that sherlock holmes and Agatha christy made it very hard for others to show us more characters in the world of crimes and mystery...but monk came from nowhere with the help of the talent of tony shalhoub( or should i say mr.monk).. and no doubt that all characters -either guests or permanent- were amazing and participated very helpfully in that work... just to save you time to go and order the whole series i would like to tell you one word that describes this masterpiece.....

FLawLESS


I think he is just super! I enjoyed him as "Antonio" on WINGS, he was so funny in Galaxy Quest, and in his more dramatic roles, he also shines. His latest offering of Monk is a pure delight to watch. Congratulations on his recent Golden Globe win, and hoping he will no longer be overlooked as a serious actor endeavoring to perfect his craft and the range with which he does so. Keep up the good work Mr. Shalhoub and may God bless you and yours.


Genuinely one of the best and most original Pilot movies in recent years. Tony Shalhoub is a fabulous actor but in the charactor of Adrian Monk he has truly outdone himself, making Adrian come to life before our eyes. I can't say enough good things about this pilot movie, (or about the TV series which followed). See it and fall in love with Adrian's world. I did. enjoy!!


Tony is incredible! It was so nice to see someone as deserving as him win the Emmy for Lead Actor in a comedy series. The man is just plain brilliant! I hope this one has a long run! This is 'must see' television. Way to go USA Network!


My wife and I watch this show religiously every week. We love the character development and the comedy is right up our alley. We can't wait for this seasons new episodes! Monk is hillarious with his obsessive/compulsive behavior. All of the other characters all fit together great. I hope this show really takes off!


This show is a wonderful oasis in the wasteland that is television today. Well written and well acted. The lead characters are amazingly well-developed, and I honestly enjoy each episode. Well worth watching!


This show is far better than Diagnosis Murder,Colombo and Murder She Wrote ever could be! It is just hilarious! Absolutely A Must See Show!!!!!!


This is currently my favorite TV show. I can very much relate to Adrian as I too have the same disorder! Though most of us don't have it quite as severe as him.

He notices little things. Very little things. That's what makes him such a great detective, and comedian. I highly recommend you watch this. So far from what I've seen I think this is a great family show.


The Monk television series is one of the most original, refreshing, and well-cast shows I have ever seen. Monk and Sherona are terrific together; excellent chemistry. I do not know if new shows are being filmed and aired, but I certainly hope so. I stay up late on Friday nights to catch "Monk" on USA and enjoy it tremendously. Last night's episode about the murderous marathon runner was fantastic, and I laughed out loud at Monk's antics on the jogging trail while he tries out the new running shoes given to him by his "guru." I love the show, including the whole cast. Thank you!


Coral Reef Adventure: 3 out of 10: Do you like pretty pictures? Do you hate Global Warming (boo hiss)? Do you like the music of Crosby Stills and Nash? Let me repeat that last question again because this is very very important.... Do you really like Crosby Stills and Nash music? Even if it is remixed and sung by starving children to a Peter Gabriel back up band? Then you might enjoy Global Reef Adventure. Everyone else above 12 should check there eyeballs before watching, as rolling them this much could cause permanent damage.

This is the story of a husband and wife team who investigate the death of a village’s reef in Fiji. It turns out the villain was.... Hold on before I give away the big surprise let me explain a few things. My girlfriend and I had just finished watching John Hurt in Michael Radford’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and I put this documentary on because I thought a nice short colorful coral reef film might be nice after such a grey depressing movie. (Plus a piece of coral was a feature object in the former drab film so I was going for a subtle synergy).

Little did I know I was putting on a piece of propaganda so heavy handed that Big Brother himself would have blushed. Look no matter how you feel about global warming the villain in this piece was clearly those nice Fijians who were logging and overfishing and killed their own damn reef. The movie clearly shows this and then completely ignores its own findings to declare global warming the boogey man (Though in this particular case it was obviously innocent. As local reefs not near the GIANT SILT RUNNOFF and not located IN THE FISHING GROUNDS were thriving.) But the Fijians can’t be guilty of course cause the look so cute in their Sunday best and they have quite a haunting rendition of Marrakesh Express. Such propaganda, no matter how well intentioned, needs to be called to the carpet. In particular when it is aimed towards children.

The film has other faults as well. It is over produced by half with wipes and sound effects that look like they belong in a Disney Ducktales movie. Top billed Liam Neeson narrates for all of a minute and top billed Jean-Michel Cousteau appears for about as long.

It probably isn’t that bad a film with the mute on. For one thing you would miss the appeal at the end to support politicians who hate global warming (boo hiss). Apparently 2 plus 2 does sometimes equal 5.


This film has beautiful images to share. The movie was well produced with a great use of music with the different shots. The movie did get a little "environmental", but it was to be expected. I also think they could have chosen better music than Crosby, Stills and Nash. Overall I would highly recommend seeing it if you have the opportunity. It is educational and breathtaking.


This show deserves to be a hit! It blends the best of reality with the best of comedy. Who knew Tori Spelling had this much talent??? The first time I saw the show, it was just for fun - to see just how bad it was going to be. I was shocked! I laughed out loud at the incredibly well crafted show and Tori's powerful self-deprecating humor. Loni Anderson is a delight, turning in performances that remind us why we fell in love with her years ago in WKRP in Cincinnati.

Tori Spelling is showing far more talent and comic genius than anyone could have suspected. She has certainly won my respect. Though it has been reported they were estranged at the time of his death, I have no doubt her daddy is looking down from heaven and is mighty proud of his little princess. So am I.


No, this is not another Pearl Harbor epic, though it comes as almost as big a surprise. This is, in fact, the show that I hoped "Fat Actress" and "The Comeback" might be and deserves equal footing with "Entourage." It's often laugh-out-loud funny, mixing sophisticated sarcasm with broad physical comedy. Who knew Tori Spelling could be an accomplished comic actor, with a major gift for impeccable timing and dead-pan delivery (actually, I've seen her do dead-pan delivery before, but never to such great and intentional comic effect). That she can even participate in such a dead-on send up of her industry in general and her self and her family in particular earns her great, noisy props!


Immediately became one of my must-see's.

A blend of comedic timing, good acting and writing together with enough truism's of real life-and the hint of reality-thrown in.

Ms. Spelling is not afraid to surround herself with talented actors and share the spotlight.

She pokes fun at every aspect of herself, her life and past experience, but the genius is that at the same times she's broken out of the typecast...

She has proved, thus far, that she can be a strong part of the creative process that yields great television.

Surprised? Yes. Now an admirer? Yes. Keep the laughs coming, Greg


This is the greatest scripted, live action comedy to hit TV in years. The timing, the stories, the delivery and yes the TORI are all spot on and perfect. Special mention should go to the genuine report Anthony Quinto (Sassan) and Tori have together... it's so realistic it's scary. This show should be viewed and praised by the masses. Loni Anderson has never been involved with a better project. This show is relentlessly hysterical. Tori Spelling is a goddess and a brilliant actress and this is all stuff I never thought would escape my lips. Swithc it to VH1 every Sunday and get your long hot doses of Ms.Spelling and the gang poking fun at everyone and everything to go through Hollywood. -Tori turn down your nipples so I can hear you!- Love SO NOTORIOUS!!!!!


This was absolutely ridiculous! I watched it and couldn't believe someone spent money to make this! It was an attempt to create a cross between reality and sitcom, but failed miserably! I hope it is canceled quickly, no one needs to subject themselves to this crap. Tori Spelling, playing herself and was horrid. The plot didn't make sense and was simply to stupid. No one should watch it! VH1 sinks to lower and lower levels with each show. From dead chicken to over dramatic freak outs by Tori. another surprise for me was the guest spot by whoppi Goldberg. Why whoppi wanted to be involved in such crap is beyond me. Whoopi is so funny, she must have been hurting for money because I think that would be the only reason someone like her would do this crappy show.


An extraordinarily vibrant and engaging Neo-Realist film in truly magnificent color (Ferraniacolor!). Pontecorvo's first feature is an emotionally powerful film, driven by his usual, but earnest political and sociological motivations. Yves Montand's fisherman Squarciù is an obstinate and sometimes inflexible soul, yet the passion of his convictions and his love and concerns for his family, redeem him in the end.

LA GRANDE STRADA AZZURRA - THE WIDE BLUE ROAD, is soon to be released on DVD by Milestone Films and Video, thanks especially to Jonathan Demme and Dustin Hoffman who absolutely love this film and helped to finance its restoration for theatrical American release.


A man's relentless drive toward self-destruction is the tenor plot in this film, but the surrounding study of human nature, and of what can be the ultimate values in life fill out the canvas. Squarcio, the hero, has through good fortune escaped detection long enough to establish a comfortable life for his family and loving wife. Other fishermen, who have reason enough to detest him, consistently show him compassion - their basic good natures prevailing. Squarcio, though, like a "Sturm und Drang" character, relentlessly pursues a path his logic - and wife and children - tell him he should abandon. He is offered other choices; he sees other charismatic characters uselessly die - yet his actions are emotionally driven.

At mid-film, the local coast guard commander chooses to retire, to quit service before having to witness the death or imprisonment of his childhood friend. I, the viewer, felt likewise - very much like abandoning the theater before the inevitable. Yet I stayed on, hoping for some early hint of a happy end to come.

But for me, the most memorable moments in this film were certain sea scenes set to challenge the most beautiful and intriguing of any painting of the old Venetian school - sepia sails, emerald seas, white and green (?) hulls, and old fortresses in the background - all looking a bit unreal, like a child's playthings, almost too perfect, too harmonic. Squarcio, of course, wasn't part of such scenes - he was off on his own, individualist but misguided path.


This film is highly reminiscent of another film, LA TERRA TREMA. Both might be considered Italian Neo-realist films, though LA GRAND STRADA AZZURA does feature a big-name actor in the lead (Yves Montand) and a big budget--somethings that a Neo-realist film cannot have to be technically this type of film. However, I am apparently one of the few reviewers on IMDb that really disliked LA TERRA TREMA--because the acting was so incredibly amateurish as well as the lousy camera-work. Instead, LA GRAND STRADA is beautifully filmed in color and Montand is the centerpiece around which all the non-professional actors are anchored.

The film itself is also a little more exciting because it deals not just with a family of fishermen like the other film, but a family that illegally uses homemade dynamite to fish!! And the negative impact on the fishing industry and the other fishermen makes for some great tension. While this certainly isn't a great film, it's a very, very good one and has an excellent ending to wrap it all together.

By the way, do not get the idea that I dislike Neo-realist films and prefer big-name actors and budgets. No, I actually love movies such as UMBERTO D, MIRACLE IN MILAN and THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING US (all by Vittorio De Sica)--it's just that there are also a couple truly awful and amateurishly made Neo-realist films as well that I really hate--and apart from STOMBOLI, LA TERRA TREMA is probably the most boring and unwatchable Neo-realist film I have seen. You are MUCH better off just watching this film--it's very similar but interesting--and avoid LA TERRA TREMA unless you are a masochist and you actually like very slow and miserable films.


This is not the most intellectually stimulating film ever made. Nor is it the most believable plot - but it is funny, whimsical and charming, and occasionally surreal. If you want a film to brighten up your life, this fits the bill just nicely. The supporting cast are also very engaging, being far more than just a backdrop to Moore and Hannah. I like it a lot.


This is just one of those movies that you can just enjoy. A very pleasing movie with a ton of memorable lines. If only advertising was really like this. See "The Freak", this movie will not only scare you, it will f**k you up for life! A classic.


This is in my opinion Dudley Moore's funniest movie. However, the cast of characters in this movie also aid in helping with the laugh's. Of course the advertisement's (Designed to be brutally honest about products/services) that are created by these members of a mental hospital are the highlight of this film. Even though the advertisement's probably would not work in real life and would probably cause consumer outrage in this politically correct society we live in today,(e.g., Visit New York it's not as filthy as you think), it makes for some good laughs. I highly recommend this movie for those that enjoy a good comedy.


I would just like to know where to buy this movie, without having to purchase it online. I have looked everywhere for this movie to purchase but a lot of people have never heard of it. They don't know what they are missing!! This is a keeper! I bet I come up with and use lines from this movie at least once or twice a week. The Hello song is one of my favorite ones. Working for a telephone answering service fits right in with the Hello song! I ask a lot of people about this movie and they look at me as if I'm crazy! They say they have never seen, let alone heard of it and think I need to be committed! I would love to buy this movie, I just don't have the luxury of purchasing things online. If anyone can help me, please advise. I would be most grateful!


The premise of this movie is simple and hilarious. Moore play an advertising executive who experiences a minor nervous breakdown. Unlike 'Reginald Perrin', who fakes his suicide, Moore's character has a falling-out with deceit. He begins composing advertisements that tell the truth.

And this is where the comedy really takes off. Moore's character is confined to an institution, but in the meantime his spoof adverts are accidentally sent to press. As things turn out; the truth has more appeal than lies (why do ad-men and politicians find that so hard to accept?). In the asylum, the plot enters its 'second phase', as we are introduced to a bunch of people with all manner of comic and tragic conditions. It is they who take up the thread of humour in this part.

It is also here that things go awry. A romantic sub-plot is farcically attempted by the introduction Of Darly Hannah as a love interest for Moore. Like him; she has also been committed for some reason.

The story then struggles between these two digressing strands and the whole plot is stretched too thin to cover them. Dudley Moore was 55 by the time he worked this movie, and much too old to play a romantic lead with a 20-something inmate. Their relationship begins to look uncomfortably like abuse. Darly Hannah has a wonderful face and figure, but not much else. Her coy-and-vulnerable-beauty is a role she would reprise to the letter in 'Splash' with Tom Hanks.

There is a happy ending as you would expect; but by then, so many wheels have come off that you no longer take the joke seriously any more. It's a pity John Guilgud wasn't used instead of Ms Hannah. He could have been an insane politician turned philosophical mentor, or some such thing. The plot would have stayed on-track and the gags could have kept on coming. The pairing had already been shown to be a winning formula in 'Arthur'. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby demonstrated that such a franchise could work in the longer-term with their 'Road To...' series.

For the most part, this is well worth a watch. Just be ready to make some coffee or get a beer or something when the maudlin and implausible romance takes over. Unless you're a fan of Ms Hannah's physical charms, that is.

This was pretty well Dudley Moore's last Hollywood outing. If he'd been 20 years younger I think he would have made the ideal candidate for 'Splash'. But the studios needed a younger vulnerable-funny-guy, and Tom Hanks seems to have been Moore's natural successor. He wasn't as funny, but he wasn't so short and had youth on his side. He was also a yank.

If you think this is good, then try 'Bedazzled'. You'll see Cuddly Dudley both at his most endearing, and at the high point of his pairing with Peter Cook.


I picked up this movie some years ago and watched it twice, just to get all of the gags. At 1130PM I called my friends over to watch, and again laughed and laughed. The ads are a great part of the show, but the characters are (almost) representative of the ad biz. Having dealt with ad folks in my career, I often thought many of them either belonged in a "home" or had just been released from one. How I wish we could see some of that "truth in advertising" these days, especially in the political campaigns. It is by far one of my favourite movies, one that I replay at least once yearly. Agree with others it was Moore's funniest and finest performance.


Dudley Moore, a man, left short again. Unfortunately for Dud, the writers didn't lose much sleep drafting some of the patchy story lines, in this average advertising/mental home comedy romp (is it still safe to say that? lol).

However there are many redeemable appearances, most notably from, Mr George Cartelli.

Hello. Hello how you doin? His expertly delivered catchphrases will live on, in my life, and the lives of my many future grandchildren. And how could they not. The man who has said nothing but Hello since 1977, comes alive in what is without question, the funniest 'crazy' character to come out of the silver screen, .er...ever. Are the rumours of TV networks fighting over Cartelli's pilot sitcom true?


i wanted to like this movie,and i really tied.but in the end,i just couldn't justify it.it's billed as a comedy,except it's not funny.or even amusing.i will say that the two lead actors,Daryl Hannah and Dudley Moore are appealing,as are their characters.but the movie is just too slow and talky for my tastes.and there's also too much swearing for no good reason.it doesn't add anything to the movie,and it doesn't really have any relevance.the movie has an ensemble cast of well knowns from the time period(in this case,1990),but they can't save this movie.it's not quite horrible,but it certainly isn't very good,either.for me,Crazy people is a 3.5/10


This film analyzes the creative impulse for advertising & finds it in a asylum...

Don't worry: it is not a psychological study but a comedy. The only problem is that I don't laugh often: maybe with the taglines of the ads, the performance of David "Hello" Paymer...

How much the leading actor (Dudley Moore), the endless casting of J.T. Walsh as a bad guy, or a bad script (I didn't see much insanity from the patients) have to do with my dozing, it's hard to tell.

In conclusion, an average movie where the only flavors are its 80's spirit in America and Hannah in a romantic character.


I made the mistake of buying the film off Amazon.com. Please do NOT do so. The film is not gated correctly and 1/3rd of the image is cut off, plus there is no soundtrack. This is probably the reason this film is rated so poorly by IMDb reviewers here. I rate it 10 because it deserves a 10 artistically and creatively as a film.

The version to get of The Peach Girl is sold off the San Francisco Silent Film Festival website with the Donald Sosin soundtrack, a lovely one, though for some reason toward the end it sounds a bit warped in spots; I don't know why. This print is gated correctly, though still a bit rough going in terms of visuals; the print has a lot of wear. However if you are the kind of person who can see the diamond here hiding underneath the rough, and wish to see one of the most beautiful Chinese silent films ever made, then don't miss The Peach Girl.

Lingyu Ruan was so beautiful and evocative as the peasant girl whose life is symbolic of the peach trees in the countryside where she lives. She falls in love with the son of the rich woman who owns the property she and her father and mother toil on, but is betrayed by him when she gets pregnant out of wedlock. Yan Jin gives an incredible performance as the son; his face was expressive and emotional and brings depth to his role. You feel his agony as his mother locks him in his room for months so that he cannot go find his lost love and make it right by her.

The title cards are in Chinese and English, and many have decorative backgrounds, always a plus for me when I watch silent films. It adds visual interest to the story.

The Peach Girl (1931) and The Goddess (1934) are the easiest available silent films showcasing the loveliness of "the Chinese Garbo", Lingyu Ruan, and both are worthy of your time and interest. It is so tragic that she committed suicide so young. What wonderful performances we were deprived of!


A tragic silent-film romance, in which the handsome landlady's son King The-en(Raymond King / Yan Jin) falls in love with Miss Lim (Lily Yuen / Lingyu Ruan) the beautiful daughter of a brave tenant farmer. The mother spurns Lim, sending her home when she visits the town, but The-en instead takes her to his apartment, where she stays, happily, until her father comes to take her home to her mother's deathbed. Lim's father and The-en's mother quarrelthey're both proudbut it turns out badly for the girl's family. The mother dies, the family has to move, the father is blinded defending the Kings' cattle from thieves even after he's been fired. Meanwhile Mrs. King prevents Theen from going to Lim. He's more than a little pusillanimous, really, though the parent-child bond is incredibly strong in Confucian China. He fails to break free until Lim, racked by poverty, lies dying. He takes their child and swears to live for her. Throughout the story there's a regular motif of peach blossoms: Lim's parents plant a peach tree at her birth; peach petals and tears have the same consistency; the sight of a blossoming tree prevents Lim from prostituting herself. The settings are traditional, as are the costumes, but with some westernizing. The-en has a western haircut, some of the women wear wristwatches, and there's a market scene in which the crowds wear Chinese clothes and western hats. The film is wonderful as a source for pre-revolutionary China, though the pastoral scenes are mostly pretty much idealized. And Lingyu Ruan is not only very beautiful, but she has an extraordinarily expressive face, especially when she's happy, when she looks a little like 21st-century model Vivian Hsu. She's the best thing this movie has to offer.


A great, absorbing silent film about a boy and girl who meet as adults and are attracted to each other. The man (Teh-en) is of a higher station than Miss Lim, played by the beautiful, gone way too soon Lily Yuen. You see the sweetness in her eyes and fall in love with her. His mom does not approve, since she is just a country girl, so the love becomes forbidden love. To be sure, films like this have been done since film began, but this is a great one. You just want these two to be happy. It is tragic, but also sweet and so well put together that it is absorbing and eminently watchable. If you thought you couldn't watch a silent film (much less one with subtitles), try this out. I saw it on TCM, but it is available on DVD. Really, its great.


When many first see this film, they will be surprised when they notice that it is a silent film even though made in 1931. While Hollywood had just about completely switched over to talkies by 1929, several nations still produced silents well into the 1930s--among them France, Japan and China. You really can't hold this against the film, as the studios in China simply didn't have the equipment, money or know-how to make a talking picture.

The story of the Peach Girl is rather familiar and I've seen several movies with very similar plots. A rich man falls for a poor girl but their marriage is forbidden. Despite this, the lovers consummate their love and the girl is soon pregnant. When discovered, she is cast out and the young man behaves horribly--only trying to correct his error when it is too late.

Because the story is rather familiar (I have seen several variations on this story made in both Japan and China), it is very competently and beautifully done. In addition to lovely cinematography, the recent restoration features an exceptionally nice piano score that really suits the film well. A lovely late silent film.


Made for television movies can never escape the feeling they we're made for television even if they go to the trouble of sticking it in a glossy video box trying their best to mold it as a stand alone product it usually doesn't work. Once your start watching it'll be there -- the taste, the sight and the scent. Ah it's a made for television movie. Now Tom Clancy's Netforce was originally a two part television movie... how little did I know. In fact it's all still somewhat a wash to me. Let me break it down for you.

Flash forward to 2005 when the internet has become so powerful and potentially dangerous that the US government sets up a division within the FBI entitled "Netforce" to preside and protect over it from the evil people of the world who look to exploit it for their corrupt plans. Personally I seriously disbelieve the internet holds the future of the world in it's hands, but that doesn't matter because even if it did, the people at Netforce couldn't protect it if they had to.

Upon meeting the major characters we realize they're roles we've all seen before. Like the tough male main character who's strong and dresses well. The rest of the cast fit typical molds as you can guess. I especially liked how a certain character's ex-wife is a news reporter who at one point becomes a key piece in the story. Everyone is so linked together. Realistic? No. Then again none of the characters have any real in-depth characterization. They're just names and faces.

Making things worse... outside of the main players there's just way too many needless minor secondary characters being thrown around. They add very little if nothing to the story except padding and viewer confusion. It gets hard remembering twenty characters throughout a two and a 1/2 hour movie. Which further shows the weak structure of the story's narrative when the movie spends too much time on them. I want to give the movie credit for trying an attempt at making us care about those insignificant minor characters too, but it even fails at that. We know they'll get whacked sooner or later.

Sticking with the cast... I expected more from such an acting ensemble. Scott Bakula gets to look smart in suit -- the key word being "look". This project could have benefited from someone with more clout than Bakula. He's sufficient, but that's about it. Meanwhile Kris Kristofferson gets the cliché elder role and good 'ol Brian Dennehy has been given the plum role as the President's Chief Of Staff. That means him popping up occasionally spewing 'How his ass is on the line' or 'the President's p***ed at him'. OK... so good actors sometimes appear in bad movies and even good actors can't save a bad script. That's a fact. What really bothers me is this product had Tom Clancy's name written all over it yet it isn't anywhere near the quality of his past outings like "Patriot Games" or "Clear and Present Danger". It's a real disservice. Some of the blame has to fall straight into the writer's lap too. I say this because I find it hard to see this as an adaptation project that started well. It was bad from the get-go. The story stinks. It's like amateur hour. Especially considering how much they squeeze into too little of a time frame. Would more time have had helped? I'm hesitant to say. Even with over two hours they still came back with this slop. Frankly 160 minutes is a long time. It's length is precisely what leads to it's failing because there isn't enough depth to sustain a person's interest or the holding of disbelief for such an amount of time. With no real depth behind the characters and a long, boring and downright confusing story, it all becomes just scenes connected together because people that we're in the last scene are in the next.

It can't even take itself seriously. Like Judge Reinhold playing the 'evil multi-billion dollar software tycoon looking to control the world' role or how unrealistic and corny it is to have FBI agents point loaded weapons in the faces of innocent cabdrivers. It's things like these that help to make Netforce such a bore. There's absolutely no atmosphere here. Honestly for a film dealing so heavily with computers and the internet, they sure went skimpy enough on the technical aspects too. I guess they didn't want to lose their biggest viewing demographic... computer inept coach potatoes and patriotic Tom Clancy fans.

For the movie it's trying to be there is very little (if any) paranoia, suspense or "edge of your seat excitement" as so called critics would say. I don't know what you'd classify this movie. Definitely not action, nowheres near a thriller, so where does that leave us? Drama, maybe? I don't know. Drama's tend to draw upon a variety of emotions from viewers. This one draws nothing but boredom and in the land of movies that's not exactly new territory.

Last thing too. A golden rule of movies. If they don't find a body 95% of the time that's a clear signal the person ain't dead. That's a fact.


When this TVM was made in 1999 I was still somewhat ignorant of the internet . Certainly I'd heard of it but being something of a Luddite I failed to see why more and more people were becoming interested in it and it wasn't until August 2001 that I become connected to the world wide web . One thing I did notice about NETFORCE is that if I remained ignorant about the internet this TVM wouldn't have appeared so bad to me

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

One thing that really irritated me is how the writers seem to have confused computer technology with an all encompassing thing called " the internet " . For example the bad guys are able to gain access to the security systems of a maximum security prison via the internet . What you mean the computerised door locking system must connected to the internet in some way ? We see umpteen examples of this ridiculous thinking that because something is computerised it must be connected to the internet in someway ! No . No . No . Computerised systems and the internet are not the one and the same . For example if the internet collapsed tomorrow computers would still work even if it means you can't send emails or write reviews at the IMDb . I could still use my computer as a word processor or play computer games etc the world wouldn't suddenly revert to the stone age because the internet failed

There's also several other blunders which led me to believe that the writers are nowhere near as being smart as their audience . If a computer hacker is deleting his system this can be jammed by sticking a floppy disk in the hard drive ! What a floppy disk ? It's never explained why this stops the system being deleted , perhaps the good guys were carrying a back up copy of the villains system ? We're also told to believe that some real hot internet systems can't be traced because they don't use cookies ! As for the VR sex - WTF !

There's also a ridiculous aspect to the team known as " Netforce " . Each member is a computer wizard and a crack secret agent . In effect they're a combination of a computer geek and a Delta Force member . Is this logical or realistic ? Why does a member have to be both a computer expert AND an elite law enforcement agent ? Why can't the organisation employ computer wizards to track down rogue computer operators and then send a crack team of commandos to round up the bad guys ?

The whole feel of this TVM screams " TV pilot " and I don't believe for a moment that Tom Clancey and co didn't toy with the idea that this would end up as a long running series but the flaws are instantly obvious . There's only a certain amount of plots in any genre and this techno thriller lasting three hours has used up all potential plots in one go . Be honest , just how long could you tolerate Scott Bakula as an action hero who spends 50% of an episode typing on a computer , 40% of an episode flirting with his female colleague and 10% of an episode shooting bad guys ?


The story started off well enough, but after just a bit, the FBI's NetForce started looking like a bunch of nerds playing in cyber-space. Trying to bust someone in a VR environment just wouldn't work. They TOLD the guy, and he just logged off! <sighs> Oh, well... then they went on to imply that the Internet was actually controllable... and could be shut off by someone attacking hardlines, satellites, or fiber optic lines... as if the users could actually tell what medium was being used for the transmission of their signals. <shakes his head> It could have been better, but I couldn't rate it too low, after all, it DID have a very good twist at the end (no spoiler here!), but even that part wasn't played out very well.

I hope to see more like it (but with better technical advice/support).


I was impressed with the modern gadgets.

I think that the premise that in the future the internet will have to be policed is a compelling idea. The movie did lack character development in some areas, but the acting and action was well done. I also thought that Scott Bakula did a really wonderful job, as always.

I have never read the Tom Clancy novel, 'Netforce', but perhaps that was for the best. Usually movies made using novels as the basis end up feeling like tin foil. Seeing this movie without having read the novel I felt the story was complete. The storyline was interesting and without holes.


I read the book long before I heard about the movie, and given past history with books being translated into movies, I expected NetForce to suck but hoped it didn't. Well, it sucks big time. I was hoping for something remotely close to the book, which it is... for about 10 minutes or so, until Steve Day is assassinated. Then, after that, it bears no resemblance to the book. I was disappointed, but based on my expectations, not THAT disappointed. 3 out of 10


This movie is actually pretty watchable if you are a bit technical and don't mind viewing a film to laugh at its inherent badness. The script repeatedly uses networking lingo out of context and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of networking principles. My favorite scene is when they're searching logs for traces of a computer break-in and the hero exclaims when no traces are found "There's not even a cookie?!?". I expect even a non-tech should be able to find a couple of laughs about the overwhelming lack of technical advisement. Some understanding of distributed attacks and viruses might have helped, but I guess the idea of two hackers trying to out type each other works better for Hollywood. The cinematography is low-average for a made for TV. I liked Judge Reinhold's acting, and Kris Kristofferson, Bakula I found to be often flat or alternately overacted. Conclusion: Don't rent it unless you're into bad movies, worth catching on Cable on a slow day.


Being a fan of cyberflics like Hackers and The Net, and having a thing for movies based on Tom Clancy novels, I thought this movie was sure to be a winner. Too bad it turned out to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen; the kind that gives me a new-found respect for movies that I thought were bad before. Seriously. This movie is quite possibly the worst movie ever.

Where do I start? Let's go with plot. It's unbelievably boring, from start to finish. Not only that, but it's hopelessly confusing, with new characters being introduced every 2 seconds, so you can't keep all of them straight. Plus, the plot is so unrealistic and cheezy, I found myself frequently rolling my eyes. The endless baricade of cliches doesn't help any. I could guess what was coming next at almost every part of the movie.

The acting was just plain awful. Everyone did a terrible job of portraying emotions, or lack thereof. It was often hard to tell if they were even trying to do a good job.

I wanted to kick the man in charge of filming the movie nearly every other scene. Nearly 75% of the movie is shot with what appears to be an 8mm videocamera rather than movie film. This is probably the biggest mistake, as it only adds to the shoddy atmosphere, making it look like a home movie rather than a commercial production.

I never turn off a movie before it is finished, even if it is really bad. This is because there is always the possibility that the movie will suddenly get good, and I fall in love with it (which has happened before quite a few times). Actually, the final action scene was almost half-good. However, it was too little, too late. If the producers of this film expected one semi-decent scene to make up for 3 hours of crap, they are utterly mistaken.

Fortunately, some good things can come from this movie. It makes a nifty doorstop, paperweight, and doggy chew toy.

I recommend this movie to.. absolutely no one. If you come across a Netforce tape, drop it onto the floor and smash it by jumping on it repeatedly. Afterwards, be sure to grind your heel into it.

I give this movie a 1 out of 10.


This enactment of Tom Clancy's book is pretty accurate to content of book aside from a little over dramatization of the "Bill Gates" character and his evil empire/web browser.

It's still not as dramatic as reading the book. I wish the pretty assassin had played a more prominent roll as well as... but, I don't want to ruin the story line for anyone.

Read the book first and you will enjoy the movie more.


Scott Bakula (Quantum Leap's Sam Beckett) and Kris Kristofersson (Blade, Pat Garett and Billy the Kid) star in this below average TV movie. It seems quite a lot of money (for a TV movie) has been thrown at this but the pace at times is down to a crawl and Bakula's character seems to have become head of Netforce with a total lack of any computer knowledge. It's dated fairly badly but all movies about computers do that look at Wargames or Tron! But it's main problems are down to a flabby script, pedestrian direction and lack of tension as for the ending i'm not even going to go there! Let's just say it ain't great, I gave this film a 4/10 as it's not a total lost cause but i cant recommend spending 2+hours watching this when there are better films out there. If you want a hacker movie War Games (Mathew Broderick) or Sneakers (Robert Redford, River Phoenix) are better movies in the same sort of area or for a more MTV friendly teen hacker movie then go for Hackers (Angelina Jolie & Tommy Lee Miller).

4/10 - If there's nothing better on a rainy Sunday it might pass the time but thats about all, we can only hope the Quantum Leap movie gets off the ground to save Scott Bakula!


Like many people, I rented this movie as a Clancy fan. I had previously read his book, "NetForce", and was eager to see it on the tube. I now deeply regret my decision to see it at all.

Not only was the movie a complete waste of time, but its plot was filled with more holes than a bullet-riddled SUV on an A-10 target range, and held about as much water. If somebody asks you where some important aspect of a workable plot went, you could simply reply, "it fell into a plot hole," and that would be the end of it.

The entire movie was packed to the gills with bad acting and painfully extreme deviations from what had been the good storyline of the book. Both the original storyline and all the cool action scenes fell into some of the movie's gaping plot holes somewhere in the process of production, and Clancy's interesting and intelligent characters were also conspicuously missing. Neither the plot nor the ending resembled those of the book in any way, and the ever present boredom and disgust of the movie left you emotionally drained to the point where you'd wish all the shallow, no-can-act characters would just hurry up and die.

I don't write this review to simply be critical of this piece of poorly-conceived garbage, but rather as a warning to all the Clancy fans out there still considering seeing this movie. So here's your warning: To the Clancy fan: whether you've read the book or not, if are given the opportunity to watch this movie, don't even think about it. You turn around and you RUN AWAY. Run for your life, and don't look back, or you are likely regret it for the rest of your days.


We're here! Where's my videophone? This movie is not as bad as some of the critics here say. It is reasonably entertaining, if you can get past the first 15 minutes. It is Tom Clancy, so there is some twists and turns to the plot, which keeps it interesting. I think it is best to compare it to some of the lamer James Bond movies; on that score it looks reasonably good.

What was going through my mind as I watched it was that I bet the computer security folks have watched the movie as a warning of what could happen, sort of, if they don't do their job. And I bet some of the hackers watch it with dreams of glory.

Obviously, the problems with the Internet described in the movie haven't happened, for the most part, so the movie looks a bit foolish. Actually, I see from the book review that while the novel was written in 1999, it was set in 2010. But we have been learning in the past year or so about the dangers of spyware that abound. In that sense, the premise was remarkably prescient. Corporations just love to get their hands on all sorts of information about you, without your knowledge. And the government is not so different; often they work hand in hand, as in the airline passenger data collection. So the movie, as science fiction, is not entirely far fetched.

I'm a fan of Scott Bakula and his great work on Quanum Leap. Frankly, the TV show had better writing, not to mention better cinematography. And the critics who bemoan all the boilerplate about asschewing are right. Another point that bothers me, especially given Clancy's general penchant for veracity, is the absurdity of they guy's wife covering him on the news. No reputable news organization would allow this incest, except perhaps FOX.

But the ending is interesting enough to make it all worthwhile.

Fans of Ayn Rand should find this movie especially interesting. It follows the same theme as Rand McNally Shrugged. And the quality of writing is about equal.

Who is Steve Day???


I have never seen such an atrocious pathetic attempt at a crime thriller. The complete ignorance to the truth of the way computers and the internet work was only one of the poor elements of this film, but it managed to disappoint in every other aspect as well. The story was contrived and uninteresting. The characters were plastic and unconvincing. The manufactured suspense was nothing more than frustrating and annoying. Had there been any research done on the factual basis of this story, there may have been some interesting thread, but as any intelligent person who has even the slightest understanding of how technology or the internet works, this movie is an obvious farce. Even with only the expectation of an average fictional "techno-phobic" type story, I was disappointed by the lack of any real original content. Of all my experience of Tom Clancy's work, this is the worst and most disappointing example I have ever encountered. Even on the larger scale, this movie is one of the worst, hopeless, disgraceful, and offensive efforts I have ever had the misfortune to witness and endure. The worst 2 dollars I have ever spent.


Though lacking in character development, Tom Clancy novels are superb for their plot intricacies and fervent attention to detail. The Hunt for Red October -- the best film adaptation of the Jack Ryan series thus far -- still stands as my favorite film of all time.

Like any writer sensing opportunity, Clancy decided to franchise his name to such series as Op Center and Net Force. Op Center was actually a surprisingly "OK" TV mini-series, thanks to the efforts of Harry Hamlin and Lindsay Frost. Net Force, however, is a total disaster.

It's difficult even to establish blame. While the notion of an Internet investigations division of the FBI sounds appealing (isn't the Secret Service in fact charged with this responsibility?), everything in Op Center is ludicrous. The sophomoric romantic storyline of Bakula and Going, the uber Bill Gates villain played by Judge Reinhold, and the Kris Kristofferson (Can you believe he was in fact a Rhodes Scholar and former Army pilot??) dead mentor with a secret -- all of this just defies conventional wisdom or reality.

Without belaboring the point, Net Force is just plain not entertaining.


I've read many Netforce books, and watchin the movie after reading them, gives the main characters more depth than portrayed in the movie.The plot has some weak points and sometimes it seems almost rediculous, but in all a very entertaining movie


This movie alternated between captivating wine drama and formulaic romance.

The wine drama part was held together by the Bill Pullman and Freddy Rodriguez, both excellent. It had beautiful scenery, a love triangle with a pretty girl, an immigrant story, and maybe half a dozen colorful side characters. All ingredients of a good movie.

But then the master craftsmen in charge of this masterpiece added the final ingredient -- namely the entire catalog of Hollywood romantic-adventure-drama-comedy cliché's. Something like Coyote Ugly, but in wine country.

That's it in a nutshell. With a few bottles it becomes fun movie, but not quite film festival worthy. Don't know what they were thinking at Sundance, I'm giving it a 4 (BYOB).


Sorry folks, but I had some real problems with the movie. I thought the cinematography and audio were great. However, I was not happy with the writing and directing. I didn't find Bill Pullman's character very believable. They just tried too hard to make him look like a character and in the end, I only had disbelief (not suspended). The character of Bo Barrett was meant to be a sympathetic character, but didn't come across as one to me. The love triangle in the movie just seemed old fashioned. Why must the white guy always end up with the white girl? There was good reason to fall in love with Gustavo, he made good wine and he exhibited heart. But I saw little reason for her to fall in love with Bo. At one point she tells him (and us) that Bo has heart, but I didn't see much of it. Near the end, it looks like he's trying harder, but it just seemed so contrived. Bo came across as an empty-headed, blonde for the first half of the movie and it was hard to believe that he developed passion in the end.

In the end, I was also not happy about how the actual competition was portrayed. Why would any substantial French wine experts attend the first year of a competition setup by an ex-patriot Brit wine seller with no customers? If there was a good reason, it was never presented. It just didn't seem credible.

This is a movie that should be remade. I like the story and I'd like to see it done right.


This is not a good moviefor many reasons: poor script, bad conception, spotty acting, incompetent technical delivery, etc. etc. We only saw this turkey because there was a mix-up (oops! on IMDb) in the theatre schedule which meant we would have to wait an additional half hour for our desired film (to remain nameless). We should have waited. There is so much wrong with this film, it is hard to know where to start. Let me turn this around then and begin with what I liked: Alan Rickman's performance, especially in his strange little talks with Dennis Farina in the former's wine shop. That's all.

A few specifics in the bad film department: Most of the other acting was ho-hum or worse, including Chris Pine (too much time on screen) and his so-called romantic interest played by Rachael Taylor. To be fair to the latter, her character was a walking cliché who, instead of developing a relationship with the Freddie Rodriguez role, which might have been interesting, falls inevitably into the arms of Mr. Pine. Did I mention racism as another problem? So Rodriguez is wasted, as well as Ms. Dushku, who seems to exist primarily as an obvious and lame plot mechanism.

Writing this is making me angry all over again, so for our collective health, I will end this by lighting into the cinematography, which was lazy and badly staged (my viewing mate spent the film counting technical mistakes because it was so poorly made), giving us little sense of the actual locations where the main action was taking place. The characters could have been anywhere  and wound up nowhere, just like the viewing audience who hated it as much as I did.


Unfortunately, this movie falls prey to an overwrought treatment of what many would consider to be a still esoteric, but increasingly popular, subject. With its formulaic and simplistic narrative of California's burgeoning wine culture, the characters are stereotypical; and were portrayed in a manner that we would expect from the more industrial-minded aspects of Hollywood.

Despite these faults, it was pleasurable to watch Rickman portray Mr. Spurrier, whose work today within the wine world is often admirable. For those reviewers that did not see the film, such as fellow reviewer Luisinho Biker (who made a reference to a war  I am uncertain what this has to do with anything), the importance of the Judgment of Paris was more than just beneficial to American vintners. It also showed that French winemakers may have been resting on their laurels, and had not reevaluated how they had been producing wine. Many nations, including the United States, realized that winemaking could be approached using new techniques while still adhering to terroir and tradition. Of course, there is not a best wine. A better movie may show that wine is a deeply faceted staple that can be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps the up-coming Judgment of Paris will highlight the depth of oenology and those that enjoy its fruits.


This movie unfortunately has not one iota to compare with Sideways in case anyone is telling you such bull...

the script is slow, trite and only has one part that is fairly interesting which is the fact about the blind tasting in Paris, and the directing is so amateurish TV style that it screams Movie of the week!

The father/son relationship doesn't work, the over done helicopter shots make you dizzy like its a glossy infomercial for Gallo wine, and the sunlight thru the pepsi ad commercial barn house feels like directing of a Michael Bay-wanna be, and how on earth did they pick these horrible young actors that are way 'too pretty to be anything but a TV soap star or model' Even the bartender has glossy lipstick that makes her look like a Coyote Ugly girl rather than some 70s hippie bar chick. And how many times can they cut to the father/son boxing each other..

But it all comes down to a boring script that just drags along instead of someone editing half the movie out..and moving forward past the Paris contest.. which is sad because this story could have been so much more but as they always say.. it's the script, script, script... and this one sticks with no connection to the characters it is so flat.

I almost walked out if it had it not been for the brief moments of the Paris moments with Rickman/Farina.. yet the California ones were unbearable.. and im a wine lover that thought perhaps they would create some decent moments but nothing... And poor Bill Pullman did the best he could but these young actors should go back to soap operas and stay away from film and the director stick to TV directing or commercials.

I gave it a 1 because i had to buy my friend a glass of wine to revive him after falling asleep halfway thru the movie after yet another car breaks down to create some suspense.. yawwwwwnnnnnn!!!!

Oh and how about the girl watering down the tackle... yeah.. real nice sexist wanna be playboy soft porn... truly embarrassing!


I stuck with this movie because (1) I hoped to learn more about wine making (2) the photography was A+ and as a travelogue it was was enlightening.

But almost every scene in California seemed to have been written by a teen-ager who knew only cute. Or perhaps someone wearing pink lensed glasses. Sweet is the word for this movie. Overly sweet. Saccharine.

Ramshackle cars and trucks on their last legs trucks predominate, showing us that everyone is on their last nickle. A young girl-intern lives in a cabin right out of Hans Christian Anderson. The art director and whoever built the cabin must have been living out a childhood fairy tale. It was a perfect cabin, perched on a little hill-top, in the midst of miles of grape vines, under the heavenly blue sky usually seen on Hallmark greeting cards. Only Toto was missing.

On the other hand the moment that Alan Rickman and Denis Farina get to work, I felt like they brought their own writer. Funny, intelligent, and engaging, most of their scenes were fine. Although someone thought that Farina wasn't quite enough of a character so he was constantly dressed in very noisy sport jackets, ones that may have been cut from some surplus horse blankets. -- More cuteness, I guess. Also, he's given an Elvis pompadour to wear -- Farina is a strong enough character on his own, he doesn't need any props to make him more than he is on his own. maybe the director is insecure or never learned that less is more.

Everything in this movie is too cute and over sugared. There is the usual father-son conflict. There is actually a boxing ring set up on the verge of the vineyard so that Dad and son can go to it in the ring.I know you don't believe me--but you'll see it when you get to this film.

The writers and directors must have been classmates at the California College of Cliché.


Life holds much promise as Victoria (Ginger Rogers) stands beautifully gowned in her wedding dress next to her chosen mate for the big moment of saying "I do." But to her dismay the words just never do come out and she runs off down the aisle leaving mayhem behind her. This disaster occurs three times, a year apart, in the end leaving her and everyone else exasperated.

Enter prospective groom No. 4 named Oliver and she's determined to see it through this time no matter what. However, Fate steps in with a most peculiar fantasy figure (of her imagination it seems) she names George (Cornel Wilde), who creates compromising situations in her life yet gradually points the way out for her bewilderment.

When she recalls an old sweetheart from childhood days, Johnny, who is now a fireman (also played by Cornel Wilde), she realizes he's the one for her but there are many tangled threads to set aright.

The beginning of the movie is amusing but picks up momentum as it progresses and becomes downright hilarious. I found it very funny where Victoria bursts out in confusion, "But I'm going to marry Oliver," (or words to that effect) as if trying to convince herself. It reminds me of that saying, "The heart has reasons that reason does not understand."

It's an enjoyable movie with a surprising twist to the ending. I too wish the video was available; was lucky to see it on tv.


This was a great movie and was a lot of fun. Ginger Rogers was fantastic as usual and Cornel Wilde was a hunk!. I would like them to make this film available on video. I want to add it to my collection. If only the movie stations would play these classics more often!


Ginger Rogers stars as a pending bride who's noted for leaving her suitor(s) at the altar. But this time, she's sure of her decision...until a new suitor, literally, shows up in her dreams.

Although I don't believe something like this could REALLY happen, I was in the mood for something light and I ended up watching this. I've never been a big fan of the old movies, but I saw "Chicago" with Gere, Zellweger, and Zeta-Jones and then saw the film "Roxie Hart" (1927) with Ginger Rogers, and kind of liked the campy comedy that this film portrayed, so I keep an eye out for her on TCM and whenever I stumble across one of her films, I try and watch them. As I said, I don't believe the premise of the film could ever happen, but the way Ginger looks at Cornel Wilde is believable and, although it's probably with more infatuation than love, I know every guy wishes for a girl to look at him that way.

The story won't necessarily keep you enthralled, but your wondering how they're gonna get out of this predicament will! 8 out of 10 stars!


Starring Ginger Rogers. - "It Had to be You" opens with Victoria Stafford (Rogers) ditching numerous grooms at the altar. (and don't you just LOVE that veil and halo getup when she ALMOST marries Atherton Huntley??) Mom is played by silly but knowledgeable Spring Buyington. (It HAD to be either her or Billie Burke.) The groom's dad suggests that Victoria go off and decide whether she is really ready to be married to his son. Of course, there is a dream sequence which starts to get downright silly, and that takes the film in a weird direction, involving psychological issues. Then more dreams, involving long hallways, a Native American, (the dashing Cornel Wilde) swimming. Misunderstandings. Got a little weird for me, but I guess if you don't look too closely, you can just go along for the ride. This was one of Ginger's comedies, like Stage Door, Monkey Business. The 2000 film version seems to be kind of a remake of this film, but has a different plot direction.