Solas is a story that mirrors the lives a mother and her daughter María have as both have abusive relationships. When María's father is in hospital her mother stays with her daughter in Seville and meets a man (Vecino) of her own age in the apartment block. María's friend is only interested in the sexual part of their relation and immediately insists on having an abortion when he finds out she's pregnant. Mother and daughter now have to make important decisions about their future.

The movie has a bleak and depressing atmosphere: María has an alcohol addiction, she becomes jobless after working as a cleaning lady, hospital scenes with María's not too friendly father, Seville has never looked worse. Also most color schemes are rather dark, except for the halls in the apartment block and Vecino's apartment as it is there that consolation is found by both women. The theme of abusive relationships is nowadays hot in Spanish cinema with the recent (and more centered) Te doy mis ojos. The Andalusian dialect is well done here as many people learning to speak Spanish will have trouble understanding parts of the movie.

Some symbolism is used in this movie: Vecino's dog (loyalty but also guardian) is used to remind us of the disloyalty towards the father the mother experiences when she meets Vecino. María and her father sniffing on people, also demanding dog-like loyalty. Vecino's fish is fresh at first, but is later in the freezer, as is the possibility of a relationship between Vecino and the mother. And mind the name of our main protagonist María in relation to her story; her mother and father have no name in the movie; the mother played by María Galiana. The main message seems to be that nobody can be happy alone, although the irony is of course that all are alone (or lonely) because of one abusive relationship.

Solas tells its story in a very slow pace, maybe to let us experience how slowly time flows for these unfortunate people. Its style is rather distant, so expect no cheap sentiment here. In the end the movie makes a time leap, but it feels as if that ending was rushed to leave the theater in a more uplifted mood. Also the ending feels contrived in a way. The same often happens with Mike Leigh's movies; take All or Nothing for instance, a movie and director where Solas has more in common with than meets the eye.

The director Benito Zambrano has good storytelling skills, but lacks visual imagination when it comes to the medium of film. As he is also unable to structure the story in an interesting way, he is certainly no match for Pedro Almodóvar who has better visual skills and has learned how to structure a story. I guess Zambrano would be a far better writer than director. Solas is an interesting failure and one of the first Spanish movies in a long row I disliked somewhat. But that's also a little reassuring from the country that by now makes the most interesting movies in Europe.


I saw "Solas" (called "Alone" in English) at the 2000 Portland International Film Festival. It's always good to be able to see something non-Hollywood, especially considering the subject matter here. Maria (Ana Fernandez) comes from an abusive household and seeks to get away. When the father ends up in the hospital, Maria and the mother resist the idea of going to see him, but end up going anyway to see whether or not they can make amends with him.

A major point is that the mother actually looks like someone who has been in an abusive relationship (in a Hollywood movie, she would probably look like Julia Roberts; or be played by her). It's a truly effective look at relationships and how they shape who we are.


I only just watched this film for the first time. Saw it on my laptop. I just adored this movie ...everyone in it and the way it was made. The first great thing about it was how totally simpathico I felt with the mum. The so unhollywood adorable mum. Everyone in the film reminded me of someone I know. To tell you the truth I was blubbering wreck by the end because there was so many resonances with my own life, with the relationship I have with my own daughter, with the way men behave in real life. I checked out the database for further films made by the director but there were none.???? I cant believe that after such a wonderful debut Benito Zambrano hasn't gone on to make it big in the film world. There is a gaping void out there waiting to be filled by directors of his calibre. Can I make plea for more movies in this genre please. Also on a very personal level it is a knitting movie and I am collecting them so it instantly goes into my top ten.


The way they portrayed this movie was absolutely exceptional. It was well filmed and well pieced together. In some ways it almost represented a documentary in the filming of discussions in class. Danielle Panabaker played the part of Jacey well. I could believe she was really the character she portrayed. The other characters were well written, but I saw a depth of understanding in Danielle that I didn't see in the rest, although they did a marvelous job as well. For once it wasn't a film of being pregnant, it portrayed what came next and I think that was a smart move. It was something new and different. The emotions running from this film, gave characters that people could relate too.


This was a good movie with a great story! I liked Danielle Panabaker's character in this one. She plays a mom who is still in High School and has her divorced mom takes care of her son while she's in school. In the middle of the two of them is Jacy's sister Macy who is felling the abuse of the mother/daughter relationship. The father of the baby is nowhere to be found. That is, until the middle of the movie where we see Jacy going to see him and tell him that he has a kid! He doesn't believe her and rejects her! Jane Krakowski plays a teacher that talks about teen sex and having babies. The catch is, she can't have any kids. So she goes to a Dr. that tells her she has to adopt! It's definitely a good one to watch!!


In the depression everyone had it rough. This movie follows the plight of Mia Farrows character through her troubled marriage to Danny Aiello. Her only escape from an abusive and cheating husband is the movies. At one of her matinées she starts to communicate with a character on screen. The character, played by Jeff Daniels, breaks character on screen and talks to Mia. Soon he leaves the confines of the screen and takes off with Mia. Jeff Daniels, the actor now, finds out that his character took the unprecedented action of stepping offscreen. Without the Jeff character to act with on screen, the other actors just stop the movie, sit around and wait for him to return. The studio that put out the movie are shocked and need the character back on the screen. Everyone wants Jeffs character. Mild madness ensues. The end is very Woody. It ends the same way we live...with no happy ending. But this is the only ending that could work with this movie. It is a great movie, overlooked by most, but remembered fondly by those who have seen it.


Woody Allen movies are often original or so unoriginal that they become original (Manhattan Murder Mystery' comes to mind). The Purple Rose of Cairo', a title that says nothing about the real content of the movie, belongs to the first category. It is about a woman Cecilia (Mia Farrow) who enjoys watching movies and on one day she visits the movie The Purple Rose of Cairo' and Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) suddenly steps off the screen into the theater and into the life of Cecilia. The problem is that Tom Baxter is the character of Purple Rose' and knows only things his character is supposed to know for that role. More problems occur when other Tom Baxters in other theaters want to step out of the movie as well. Of course there is also the actor who plays Tom Baxter who is named Gil Shepherd. Both Tom and Gil fall in love with Cecilia.

Like I said the movie is pretty original. The way Allen plays with the possibilities of this fiction is done in a terrific way. There is a part where Tom ends up in a whorehouse and he has no idea what the women are talking about because his character didn't need to know these kind of things. It is one of the funny parts of the movie and a perfect example of how Allen uses the situations for funny moments.

It is also the problem with the movie. Near the end we grow a little tired with the same kind of jokes over and over again. Every time we see how Tom Baxter is incapable of doing or understanding things, or the opposite, because his character has no idea of real life. Allen is a great filmmaker and therefore the movie does not get boring. When we are not entertained with the jokes anymore at least we can be entertained with originality of the story. The closing scenes are pretty standard and predictable but the ride up to that point was so interesting I was willing to forgive him that. There was probably no other way to end this entertaining and original piece of cinema.


Let's put Annie Hall and Manhattan aside. The Purple Rose of Cairo is a forgotten jewel on the history of cinema. The idea of someone getting out of the screen may sound ridiculous, but Allen wrote the script so perfectly that you can almost believe it can really happen. We can resume the entire film with one single word: Magical. When Allen was at the top of his career, he knew how to print humor, love and drama in a single movie. Points to consider when you watch this film: photography is sublime and music selection is fantastic.It's a film for romantic people and... well for everyone really. Personally, my favorite movie made by dear old Woody. I highly recommend it.


The Purple Rose Of Cairo (1985): Mia Farrow, Jeff Daniels, Danny Aiello, Stephanie Farrow, Irving Metzman, David Kieserman, Victoria Zussin, Elaine Grollman, Mark Hammond, Wade Barnes, Peter Castelloti, Tom Degidon, Edward Hermann, John Wood, Deborah Rush, Van Johnson, Eugene J. Anthony, Ebb Miller, Karen Akers, Annie Joe Edwards, Milo O'Shea, Peter McRobbie, Camille Saviola, Dianne West, Tom Kubiak, James Lynch, Sydney A. Blake....Director Woody Allen...Screenplay Woody Allen.

Among Woody Allen's best films are those in which he did not star in. His strongest talent is comedy and this film, released in 1985, is a romantic comedy with some thought-provoking and witty writing. Woody Allen's wife at the time, Mia Farrow, appeared in several of his films in the mid to late 80's and this one finds her in terrific acting shape. The time is the 30's, the Great Depression in New Jersey. Cecilia (Farrow) works as a waitress and is married to an abusive, domineering, alcoholic mess (Danny Aiello). To escape the depressing reality of her situation and that of America, she watches Hollywood movies. After repeatedly watching "The Purple Rose Of Cairo" an adventure comedy, the characters of the film (not the actors but the fictional characters they portray) come to life and the dashing minor character Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) comes off the big screen to tell Cecilia he has fallen in love with her. This provides Cecilia with a romantic dilemma. Tom is perfect but not real. Her husband is a monster but she can't seem to break free from him. Then along comes Gil Sheperd (also played by Daniels) the actor who portrays Tom Baxter who, flattered by Cecilia's admiration of his work, falls in love with her. Will she choose a perfect but fictional character who lives in perpetual celluloid fantasy over reality ? Ultimately, her decision costs her a lot and the ending, one which many critics and audiences didn't expect or care for, is one that seems to indicate we can't be happy living in fantasy or reality. This writing is the real winner here. Jeff Daniels has terrific lines, but especially as Gil Shepherd the actor who aspires to a greater career in Hollywood and not playing minor parts. The cast of characters who are in the film bicker with the fussy audiences in the theater and this is a most hilarious scene. In order for you to love this film and enjoy it, you have to suspend disbelief and forget about the absurdities of the plot. This film appears to be satirizing Hollywood and if you can laugh at that, then you're very appreciative of good subjective comedy. Rather than taking it seriously, enjoy the great writing and comedy style. Here, Woody Allen gives enough room for Mia Farrow to do her thing and Jeff Daniels, and they do have fine chemistry together. Plenty of hilarious moments. The scene in which the characters/cast on screen are arguing over the minor character's desertion ruining the rest of the movie's momentum is really good. This is also a movie about the magic of Hollywood and the glamour and romanticism/escapism of it. At the same time, it seems to be a sad social commentary on the fact we can't be happy with either too much reality or too much fantasy. But it's a light hearted movie and not nearly as "deep" or psychological as they say other Woody Allen movies are. This film doesn't explore human relationships. It is more about escapism and the allure of Old Hollywood on audiences at that time. I really enjoyed this movie for the script and for Mia Farrow who was a fine actress. And again, Woody Allen's writing and direction is also superb.


Cecilia, an unhappily married woman living in the depression era, escapes the brutality of the real world by watching movies. Then one day, one of the movie characters comes off the screen and into her world.

This is a wonderfully made movie and supposedly one of Woody's own favorites. It's also one that can be enjoyed even by people who aren't fans of Woody Allen as he doesn't act in it, so if you caught it on TV you probably wouldn't even know it's one of his movies until the end credits rolled. While I wouldn't rate this among his absolute best, it certainly is an enjoyable experience that I would recommend to just about anybody.


I find this film and what I consider its companion piece RADIO DAYS to be two simply sublime films. I used to run them as a double feature at my seaside cinema in the 80s and they always were attended by a growing number of appreciative fans who often brought new admirers along....great word of mouth successes. in Australia most Woody Allen films of the 70s and 80s were quite popular (until the terrible SHADOWS AND FOG and the stupid MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY and don't get me started on the mind numbing drivel of his latest London effort with Scarlet Johanssen: SCOOP............) and in the 80s at Orion Pictures he seemed to strike a new high in critical and popular successes. I am very surprised to research here and find that this film was 'obscure'... as it is not in Australia. This film and RADIO DAYS were big hits, so I am pleased to say I did my bit as a cinema owner then to help this happen. CAIRO really is a valentine to the moviegoer, and with Mia Farrow perfect as the downtrodden unhappy Cecelia, in a location and town so perfectly realised as well... a bittersweet reality bite with a hilarious RKO society adventure as the pivotal picture at the lovely little Jewel Theatre. If you see the 1932 RKO film MUMMY'S BOYS you will get the PURPLE ROSE for real, even if that film is a very silly comedy with Wheeler and Wolseley. In CAIRO the atmosphere and characters are quite well realised for my affectionate tastes but the real stars of the film to me are the production designers and Allen's hilarious and sad storyline. The idea of the film talking back itself and the movie actors noticing the audience... hilarious! and the chaos that ensues.... all of it is just ideal for my tastes. Along with RADIO DAYS and SWEET AND LOWDOWN and possibly MATCH POINT, CAIRO makes a perfect set of films. The scene with Cecelia looking wistful at the Astaire Rogers film is perhaps one of the great acting moments on film. Her face subtly changing from sad bewilderment to becoming absorbed in the new film is an emotional high only bettered by the fact that she puts her ukulele on the seat next to her; she realises she isn't going anywhere and this new film might just be all right anyway. I think I just sob every time I see that scene. Perfect. I also laughed for about 3 years at this exchange between audience and screen: Man in audience to Old Dame on screen: Hey you can't talk to my wife like that! ..............Old Dame on screen: I 'm a Duchess and I'm loaded so I can say what I like and if that's your wife she's a tub of guts"


There's something appealing about those few Woody Allen films in which he doesn't act, as they give us a chance to catch a glimpse of his amazing talent from a different angle. The Purple Rose of Cairo is, if I'm not mistaken, the second time in his career he'd stayed behind the camera (the previous one was Interiors), and much like he would again in the 90's with Everyone Says I Love You and Sweet & Lowdown, Woody has taken the opportunity to examine film and entertainment from a different angle, and not use the kind of sly dialog and dry humor that usually character his starring roles.

These films, of course, don't quite have the depth of his earlier, more personal works - namely and especially, Annie Hall and Manhattan. Nor is it as daringly original like 1983's underrated masterpiece Zelig. The Purple Rose of Cairo is closer to it's predecessor of the previous year, Broadway Danny Rose, and like that film it's, on most levels, entertainment as pure in form as Woody has ever made. Still, what both these movies have in abundances is charm and atmosphere, and in my opinion, Purple Rose is the better of the two. In Purple Rose Allen revisits his great love-hate relationship with Hollywood, and he creates a charming ode to Hollywood of the 30's while never neglecting to point out how naive and out of context it really was. Clearly, there's no room for a Manhattenite Woody Allen character in there - he gracefully gives center stage to his spouse and muse Mia Farrow, who gives one of her most powerful performances in an Allen film. She's supported by a lovely young Jeff Daniels and a fantastic Danny Aiello, who both highlight the huge gaps between Hollywood life, small town life and the movies during the Great Depression.

The Purple Rose of Cairo is neither deep or particularly involving; the characters and relationships are, for the most part, stereotypical and symbolic and lack any real intense exploration. What Allen does succeed in creating in it, and wonderfully so, is atmosphere, an amazing atmosphere that manages to capture the viewers and transport them. And so, even if it's neither extremely important nor extremely funny, Purple Rose is grabbing and entertaining all the way through, and it manages to blend the comedy, romance and fantasy elements into a perfectly charming piece of cinema. Purple Rose is a pleasure, recommended for viewing with a loved one, in a darkened living room, on a big screen TV, with a big bowl of popcorn.


I remember when this film was being filmed in my hometown which seemed so long ago. Woody Allen and his crew came to my town for a couple of days and shot the diner scenes in South Amboy at this old fashioned diner. Unfortunately, the business was moved to New York but anyway I remember the newspaper that covered it. I never saw the film until years later. I recognized the diner and I remember eating there once. but besides that, the film is quite entertaining about life and wanting to live inside the movies. Jeff Daniels does a superb job in making us believe that a movie character can leave the screen. Of course, we know it's not possible. Mia Farrow does a superb job in the role as Cecilia, the unhappy waitress and wife. The story was well-written but not Woody's genius.


Even from the opening credits, there is something uniquely different about The Purple Rose of Cairo. Allen's familiar white on black text reveals the film's cast and crew, but the music strikes another familiarity, Allen aside.

The song is "Cheek to Cheek," a number made famous by the singing/dancing/acting duo Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in the popular RKO production Top Hat (1935). But what is a song that was made popular in a film doing in another film made 50 years later?

The answer lies in Cairo's plot. Cecilia, played marvelously by Mia Farrow, is a waitress struggling to get by in the midst of the depression. As if the constant nagging of her frustrated boss isn't enough, she goes home to a physically and emotionally abusive husband who is out of work and doing nothing about it.

Cecilia's only escape from her drudging life is the theater that she frequents. She finds solace in the romance and happy endings that films typify. These films become the only true loves of her life, but who says films can't love you back?

Upon one of Cecilia's numerous viewings of a new film, also titled The Purple Rose of Cairo, the main character, Tom Baxter, played by Jeff Daniels, walks right out of the big screen and into the real world. Chaos ensues as the fictional world is irreversibly altered and the film's production team tries to save not only its reputation but also that of Gil Shepherd, the actor who played Tom Baxter, also played by Jeff Daniels. A love triangle is born, as Cecilia must choose between the perfect but fictional Tom Baxter and the not-so-perfect but real life Gil Shepherd.

Few people but Woody Allen could have pulled off such an ambitious plot that still held on to its messageand its humor. Not a stranger to comedy, romance, drama or fantasy, Allen has successfully mixed a few if not all of these genres in many of his previous films.

In the same vein as Love and Death, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy and Stardust Memories, Cairo is a surreal comedy with something to say. It addresses both the important role stories, in particular film, have on providing an escape for real-life and the danger of becoming so wrapped up in fiction that it is hard to face reality.

Given Allen's intensive filmography, directing nearly a film a year for almost 20 years upon Cairo's release, it is hard not to assume the film is at least semi-autobiographical. Allen himself seems to be entranced by the fictional world to the same degree Cecilia is.

While a meaningfully deep comedy, Cairo is still a comedy, and a great one. Baxter's ignorance to the real world gives way to some hilarious scenes, in particular when a whore unknowingly leads him to a brothel.

Especially funny is how quickly the characters of the film get over the bizarre circumstances and begin to worry about themselves, particularly Shepherd's quick transition from disbelief that his character has entered the real world to anxiety about his reputation. Similarly, there is a classic scene in which the audience members in the theater and the fictional characters on screen bicker back and forth and even end up insulting each other.

As Allen's 13th directorial release, The Purple Rose of Cairo proves to be one of his greatest achievements, and also his self-proclaimed favorite film to date. As the opening song cues, it is a movie about movies made by a guy who lives his life through movies. As only the second film in which he is not in, Cairo can even appeal to non-Allen fans. While not gracing his presence in the film, it is quintessentially Allen in every other way, and rightfully so.


My film lecturer said Woody Allen had inspired him with this 1985 film to believe in the magic and complex tapestry of the art of fantasy film-making by interweaving it with false realities, and I must say, I agree. This film blurs those two elements to charming delight by playing not only on imaginative fictional dream material but also acting as a commentary satire on how how audiences (not just in America) react to film and the relationships and escapades they share as a result of its influence and their chimera or more derogatorily, the ignis fatuus effect on their very subsistence. Never done in film till that point, the plot is as original as it was and still is today, a sheer whimsical reverie to say the least, and is thus very entertaining, much the way you'd assume Allen Konigsborg wanted his films to function- as an imaginative escape from the hum drum banality of this world. That fiction drives the film and the very plot of having a leading actor (a dashing Jeff Daniels pre-Dumb & Dumber- we can understand how Michael Keaton got the boot from Woody, seriously) walk off the screen literally and romanticize an ordinary down-trodden, abused waitress in depression era New Jersey (played elegantly by Mia Farrow pre documentary expose- we can't understand how Soon Yi got the loot from Woody, seriously) is simply spell-binding as a plot line. Moreover, one starts to realize that the technical splendor that emanated out of editing this film to ensure the figments came out all jazz and tangible also stand as an attestation to its quality even upon current viewing. The pacing is rhythmic, almost keeping time with the lilting and jazzy soundtrack of 'Charleston-esque' swing, which for me, really kept the filming dancing 'Cheek to Cheek', with a highlight peaking at the scene where Farrow enters the phantom world of 'the movie within a movie' in a montage of apparition proportions.

The biggest flaw with this film probably is that many try to characterize it or compare it against "Woody Allen's" scale chart: constantly ranking it amongst other Allen films;weighing it against 'Annie Hall' or 'Crimes and Misdemeanours'. The reality is that it was a film that served its own purpose, like each film by Allen would and does. In this case, I personally feel it was to function as a subliminal parody cum satire of film audiences and a unique look into the relationships between them and films- the latter taking on a symbolic 'life' of its own with characters that felt and 'lived' according to their fictional world, and explores the incubus of what would happen if existing coevally with Farrow's world (representing us, the real audiences)becomes possible. It feeds and thrives on a fantasy moment that many audiences actually have dreamed of at some stage of their lives watching films, providing them with that escape from reality. In the film, Farrow's character does just that, and it is a story about how as a movie about a movie (as Time Magazine called it in 1985), it told us how empty fantasies were, how fleeting they were and how perhaps, cocooned we are to escape our realities only through film as our source of hope. Moreover, in my view, several scenes in the film actually point to the satire existing deliberately and purportedly for the purpose of suggesting that industry of film and its captive audiences were being parodied. Perhaps Allen was taking a jibe at cynical, double standard wielding critics or audiences who needed to wizen up? We will never know I suppose. Nonetheless, there are some clear references, with the main pastiche being that all the RKO producers, agents and executives actually went along with the preposterous story of their actor jumping off screen and thus they had to get him back! There are tons of other references including Daniels' Baxter character comparing the Producers and Writers of his film to the divine; an heiress complaining about her role; a member of the audience marching out claiming 'the film's not the way it was last week and I want it that way' (delusion); etc.

Essentially, Allen is taking a burlesque view of the whole thing in my opinion. If a viewer of the film can't see the aforementioned points, its then that the film might end up being looked upon as a one off fluffy piece. Having said that, it is still generally more sweet content than deep and complicated satire- in fact it's just like the popcorn that Daniels' character Tom Baxter first tastes- brittle, the stuff is sweet, and like Baxter says, 'gets annoying when you keep chewing on it'. Similarly, Allen's Purple Rose is good for a one off viewing but one would be hard pressed to chew again unless you really were fond of the the original fantasy, or in this case, the satire of audiences and film.

By Stephen Thanabalan


This film explores a common fantasy theme; the idea that fictional characters can take on a life of their own and interact with the real world. (Pirandello's play "Six Characters in Search of an Author" is a good literary example). It is set in New Jersey at the height of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The main character, Cecilia, is a young woman trapped in an unhappy life. Her husband, Monk (a name presumably chosen as an ironic joke), is violent, abusive and unfaithful; he is unemployed, but still manages to find enough money to drink and gamble. At the diner where she works as a waitress she is bullied by her unpleasant boss.

Cecilia's main distraction from her troubles is the cinema,either going to watch films or obsessively discussing the private lives of the stars with her friend. She has been several times to see the film currently playing at her local cinema, a romantic comedy called "The Purple Rose of Cairo". Despite its title it has little to do with Egypt but is mostly set among the wealthy members of New York's high society. During one of the performances of this film Tom Baxter, one of the characters in the film, steps down from the screen and addresses Cecilia, saying that he has seen her come to watch him several times and declaring that he has fallen in love with her. The film then chronicles the romance between the fictional Tom and the real Cecilia and the complications which ensue. The film production company are unhappy that a character from one of their film has escaped, and send Gil Shepherd, the actor who originally played Tom, to New Jersey to try and persuade his creation to return to the screen. Cecilia finds herself falling in love with both Tom and Gil.

When Tom comes down from the screen, he discovers that the real world is very different from the one that he inhabits, and much of the humour in the film arises from his discovery of this strange new world. He is only aware of those matters which exist in his fictional world or which have been written into his character, so he has no idea that poverty or unemployment exist until Cecilia enlightens him. Through a misunderstanding he finds himself in a brothel, but totally fails to realise the nature of the establishment, because sex was never mentioned in the light comedies of the era. ("The Purple Rose of Cairo" seems to have been an influence on a more recent comedy, "Pleasantville", which also featured the interaction between the real world and a fictional one with curiously naïve inhabitants).

This plot might seem like mere fantasy, but behind it lies a point of genuine philosophical, even theological, interest; is it better to live in an imperfect world and to have free will or to live in a perfect one and to lack it? Cecilia envies the characters she sees on the screen because they are rich, beautiful and seemingly happy. Tom, on the other hand, envies the inhabitants of the real world because they are free to make their own choices and do not have to go on repeating the same scenario ad infinitum. Cecilia is devoutly religious, but Tom has no knowledge of God, because religion does not feature in the plot of his film; when Cecilia explains the concept to him, Tom conceives of God as having the same relation to the real world as the scriptwriter does to his fictional one. (Perhaps the implication is that even in the real world people are not free, but merely acting out a script written by God or fate).

Although the film has a downbeat ending, when Cecilia has to confront the difference between her world and Tom's (where there is always a happy ending), the general tone is light and amusing, a tone set by the acting, especially that of Jeff Daniels in the dual role of Tom and Gil, who have quite different characters. Tom is naïve and innocent, but also gentlemanly, generous and sincere; Gil is more cynical, worldly-wise and self-centred. Daniels is able to convey the contrasting aspects of their characters, while giving the "real" Gil a greater sense of solidity than the "unreal" Tom. Although their association may have ended unhappily, Mia Farrow did much of her best work with Woody Allen, and her Cecilia is an endearing heroine. Danny Aiello is convincingly thuggish as Monk. The film as a whole is partly light-hearted fantasy, part touching love-story and part philosophical speculation; one of Allen's best films.


Without a doubt this is Woody Allen's best effort. It is funny, has great pace, clever story line, and a surprise ending. In fact I can't think of anything I didn't like. Like all of Woody's films the photography, and sound are first rate, and as usual technically very good. It is a must see for any movie fan.


Cairo is one of the lesser known films among non-Allenophiles. That is a shame. It is a gem of a film. Rated PG, it is accessible to audiences of many ages, asks provoking questions about auteurship, and is a visually inventive piece of film making.

Woody has left a bad taste in my mouth in the past with his ironic casting (hmm...Muriel Hemmingway as his ravishingly beautiful 17 year old lover in Manhattan...almost unbelievable until he goes and hooks up with Sun-Yee Previn, his beautiful, then 19 year-old, stepdaughter). Here, his casting is spot on. Both Jeff Daniels, in his well carried dual-role and Mia Farrow, as the stars-in-her-eyes Cecilia, display a great mix of comic timing and sentimentality.

For all those post-modernists, Woody brings us nagging meta narrative questions...what is reality? How can art be said to live on in the viewer? What animates fantasy? How do the characters relate to each other and film?

While giving us food for thought, Mr. Allen also gives us a feast for the eyes with his conceptions of depression-era film making amidst the dreary backdrop of industrial New Jersey. His use of color, darkly lit interiors and location shots (the abandoned amusement park at Bertrand Island, NJ) creates a memorable cinematic realm.

This is a nice departure for those sick of Hollywood schlock or overly pretentious art house fare. A sweet film to share with any movie fan. Definitely worth the 90 minutes of your life it will take to view.


"Purple Rose of Cairo" is my favorite Woody Allen movie. Anything can and does happen in this magical story. Mia Farrow plays an excellent ukelele - it's inspirational. Woody Allen portrays colorful characters amidst a dingy grey background of the Depression in New York.


When I saw this movie, I was so involved with the drama and the suffering of Cecilia, that I felt outraged at the end of the movie. My feelings were so hard against Mr Allen that I decided at that moment not to see another movie by him anymore.

He is a wonderful director, perhaps a genius, and I'm sure that the rest of his movies, which I have not seen, are works of art. It's only that this one affected me so much.


There's sometimes a tendency to take for granted what Woody Allen can do when he makes films "outside the box". Usually, the box for Allen is considered to be tragic-comic takes on neurotic personalities in modern Manhattan. But a film like the Purple Rose of Cairo displays his gifts at spinning stories that are unexpected and, actually, really delightful. Years before he made Everyone Says I Love You, which was also a big 30's Hollywood homage, Purple Rose of Cairo was a nifty take on the separation between fantasy and reality (or as one of my friends calls 'magic realism') and how it relates to the depression and the escapism inherent in those fluffy romantic adventures. Cecille (Mia Farrow) is the one who takes the full trip down the movie-hole, so to speak, when she meets Tom (Jeff Daniels)- except that Tom is a movie character, who's seen Cecille so many times seeing him in the movie that he walks off the screen and falls in love with her. But things are complicated by two things- Cecille's brutish, one-track-minded husband (Danny Aiello), and the actor who's really playing Tom, Gil, who also falls for Cecille when he comes to town to rectify the situation. Meanwhile, the Purple Rose of Cairo's characters, on the screen I mean, seem to be completely unable to function.

What Allen has best of all in this film is a deft ability to mix sensibilities all within a wonderfully fantastical backdrop. If anything else it also reminded me of was the recent Pan's Labyrinth, where a little girl left the dire problems of the real world, also with a brutish figure of ugly masculinity, and when in the fantasy world, even a flawed fantasy world, it's much more inviting than what the real world has to offer. But the question comes for Cecille, as it did for Ofelia in the other picture, how to balance the two, and what really should not be taken for granted. Can Tom really provide true love for Cecille, or Gil, or her real husband? Probably none completely, which makes up the sadder part of the picture. But Allen also has too much warmth going on, in humor as well as his affection for the up-front plastic appeal of 30s movie characters and atmosphere, to make things sour for too long. Farrow's totally empathetic as the waitress-turned-apple-of-Tom/Gil's-eyes, who brings out a really touching feeling in a viewer during the last minutes of the film, as she looks up at the screen and provides what Allen claimed *was* his happy ending. Daniels is also excellent in one of his best turns as a figurehead of innocence (i.e. when Tom's invited to the whorehouse) as well as Hollywood pragmatism that gets peeled away slightly. And Aiello, in his minutes on screen, adds that perfect level of crushing realism needed for the period.

With a few unforgettable Allen moments, like when Cecille herself goes into the movie (and one character's self-realization after discovering the wonders of, gasp, improvisation), or when Tom can't pay for a meal cause he has 'movie-money', Purple Rose of Cairo is one of those fuzzy but rare treats in the movies where we're reminded why we go to the movies in the first place. It's a fable that's also rare for the filmmaker to take on, but as a sort of challenge he makes it one of his most charming and well-crafted films.


Mia Farrow stars in Woody Allen's "The Purple Rose of Cairo," a 1985 film also starring Jeff Daniels, Danny Aiello, John Wood, Zoe Caldwell, Van Johnson, and Milo O'Shea.

Farrow is Cecilia, a waitress in New Jersey during the Depression who escapes from the reality of a dull job and an abusive, cheating husband (Aiello) by going to the movies. When a character, Tom Baxter, in the film, "The Purple Rose of Cairo" that she's seen many times recognizes her as a frequent patron, he steps off of the screen. He's sick of being in the movie and wants to be in the real world, and he declares his great love for Cecilia. When word reaches Hollywood that a character has walked off the screen, the actor who plays him, Gil Shepherd, comes to New Jersey to try to convince him to continue with the film. He, too, meets and falls for Cecilia. She has to decide which one she wants, the fantasy or the reality.

This is a funny, romantic, bittersweet film about a lonely and unhappy woman. The film "The Purple Rose of Cairo" has some great New York stage actors in it, including John Wood and Zoe Caldwell, as well as Van Johnson and Deborah Rush. It's delightful. Farrow does a wonderful job as a vulnerable and frail Cecilia, who wants adventure and yet fears it at the same time.

Some beautiful scenes in this very lyrical Woody Allen film.


In the "Purple Rose of Cairo," Woody Allen finally stays behind the camera for the first time since 1978's "Interiors," stepping away from constantly playing these neurotic show- biz/writer characters to brings us more of a romantic comedy that celebrates film as a form of escapism rather than a form of art. It's a delightful breath of fresh air for those that love his films but are tired of seeing Woody do his same old shtick.

Allen's muse of the 1980s, Mia Farrow, stars as Cecilia, a Depression-era New Jersey waitress with an abusive husband who spends nearly every day at the movies, seeing the same pictures over and over again. The latest movie, "The Purple Rose of Cairo" stars the charming Gil Shepherd as the naive and optimistic Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels). Cecilia is charmed by his performance and returns again and again, until suddenly the character Tom Baxter walks out of the screen and into her life, creating a crisis at the theater and flipping Cecilia's world upside-down.

This odd fantasy element is intriguing in concept, but it's rather jarring in the film to start with. Allen must quickly establish that it's only the character Tom, not the actor Gil, coming out of the screen, that it's just this one theater in New Jersey and all these other details to get us to subscribe to his imaginative idea. After awhile, however, it all makes sense and it works brilliantly to create a conflict of fiction versus reality.

Farrow is great as this stammering, broken and hopeless romantic who struggles with her convictions and her drive to go where her heart leads her. She ends up in a conundrum as what was only an escapist fantasy becomes a tangible part of her life. She can either choose to live out her fantasies despite them not being real or live a real life.

Allen challenges us to understand the lines between fiction and reality, to grasp why it is we go to the movies, what it is we seek there. "The Purple Rose of Cairo" does this in a silly, satirical way, but occasionally a line will be spoken that is quite poignant (as Allen does well more overtly in his other films).

"Purple Rose of Cairo" is a really nice change of pace for Allen, the type of film that will still challenge his audience but also give them the escapist romantic fantasy that we so yearn for when we go to the theater.


"Operation-Annihilate" is the final episode of the first season. It is an interesting episode for a variety of reasons. I liked how the show takes time to explore Kirk's personal life outside the Federation. More important, the program explores how personal feelings affect commanding choices. Kirk goes bunkers when he finds out his brother was killed by some strange looking creatures. I wished the story would have spent more time on Kirk and his family (his nephew comes aboard the Enterprise) but the original TV series never showed much enthusiasm for that kind of thing. But there are enough glimpses of Kirk's life outside the Enterprise to make the program interesting. A big part of the episode was filmed outside soundstages and the open spaces are a nice touch.


Call them the flying pizza-things from hell. Or the rubbery suckers from another galaxy. But, whatever you do, don't let one of them attach to your back, sticking you with its alien stinger - you'd be in for some painful days. The final episode of the first season is a straight-out action adventure, a crackerjack alien invasion thriller. It starts out strong, with some ominous mystery on the nature of the threat, escalating to far-out alien monster attack mode. Though hampered by the standard cheesy TV SFX of the sixties, you gotta give the storyline some props for coming up with an unusual alien invader: it's basically a huge brain, but each cell is not physically connected - each cell flies about on its own, causing havoc. The low budget was also unable to show thousands of these things flying around, but that's what must have happened on this colony of Deneva (an actual futuristic city on display here, not just a matte painting - zowie!).

There are some clumsy moments in the script and direction as the story jumps along. In one instance, after the landing party hears a woman's scream, Kirk orders everyone to 'fan out!' - but they run grouped close together. But, this is minor compared to some serious lapses in logic later in the episode. Spock, McCoy and everyone in the dozen science labs aboard the starship can't figure out a way to damage these alien suckers after hours of testing, despite being given a great clue by way of the sun; then Kirk idly latches on to a way at the last minute - maybe he was the only one being objective? Then they rush Spock into another test, with Kirk in full agreement, and blind him seconds before McCoy finds out it wasn't necessary. Kirk gives McCoy a 'if-looks-can-kill' stare and stomps out. Incompetence is really spread around in this episode. The writers tried to capitalize on the main trio's established relationship to create some extra tension, but it doesn't really ring true. Even Nurse Chapel becomes uncharacteristically testy during an operation, questioning McCoy on his methods. Well, she did become a doctor herself by the time of "Star Trek-the Motion Picture"(1979).

In a way, the most fitting aspect about this being the last episode of the 1st season is that we're given the only glimpse of Kirk's real family (and its demise), outside the Enterprise. It's not much - Sam Kirk's only appearance is as a corpse and Kirk's sister-in-law dies soon after. Meanwhile, Kirk's nephew remains unconscious the whole time. It would have been nice to see them reunite at the end instead of the now-silly repartee on the bridge, as if Kirk doesn't even remember his dead relatives by this point (contrast this with the superbly grim ending of "The City on the Edge of Forever"). As mentioned, this is strictly alien invasion thrills, no more. Spock ends up with the best scenes, exerting Vulcan control over the obviously intense pain he suffers. I believe this was the only time Shatner played a character other than Jim Kirk or a Kirk-android or a Kirk impostor during this series. Even though the part was very brief, only as a corpse, he seemed to put every actor's effort into the part.


The Enterprise is going to investigate what appears to be a very slow-moving viral form of mass-hysteria which has, over centuries, brought several thriving civilizations on many different planets down. Spock reviews the epidemiology of the phenomenon at the beginning of the episode, revealing that the trajectory of the epidemic places a Federation colony directly in its path. Sam Kirk, his wife and their son, live in this colony.

Captain Kirk is directly affected by his family's involvement in all of this, and Shatner does a very nice job of portraying a captain whose professionalism and rational judgment are threatened, and whose usual rational support structure (Spock) is also imperiled and unavailable. In a scene which was, unfortunately underexploited by the mediocre script, Dr. McCoy rises to the occasion and, surprisingly, fills both his usual role and that of the great first officer.

Herschel Daugherty directs this memorable episode of TOS, and does an admirable job with a somewhat weak script. The Stephen Carabatsos script creates some problems for the acting (particularly Nimoy, Barrett and Kelley), and - like his previous effort "Court Martial" - makes the pace a bit inconsistent. Kelley and Shatner are truly remarkable despite these challenges.

The episode also uses setting very nicely, with a very minimal use of backdrops and carefully chosen locations for rare open air shots. Additionally, Spock's character is very nicely examined, the developing rivalry and friendship between McCoy and Spock is enhanced, and the powerful - though unresolved - relationship between Christine Chapel and Spock begins. Finally, this (and the great earlier City on the Edge of Forever)is one of the first episodes to exploit the (unfortunately largely overlooked and unrecognized) subtlety of William Shatner's acting ability by placing Kirk's personal life in the way of his professional practice. This became a major theme as the series continued into its 2nd and 3rd seasons.


This was always one of my favorite episodes as a kid: The Enterprise crew investigates an epidemic of "space madness" and traces the latest outbreak to a local human colony that just happens to be where Kirk's identical twin brother has been assigned as a research scientist. The fun really begins when it becomes apparent what the alien menace is, which are an invasion of flying interstellar space pancakes that make up a collective gestalt creature looking to spread it's way across the galaxy. It needs humanoids who can fly space ships to spread from colony to colony, and Kirk has to face the decision of his career when choosing between whether or not to just go back to the Sulaco and nuke them all from orbit. It's the only way to be sure ...

Just kidding. This was one of our favorite Star Trek adventures to act out when we were kids because you could use a bean bag as the pretend space pancake and smack each other on the back, beaming it with your wooden shop class phaser to save each other. The architecture in the city is also pretty rad, looks a lot like the State University at Albany campus I used to study at, which lo and behold was built at about the same time that the actual location (some sort of aerospace company's campus center) was made. It's a great episode for Spock and McCoy fans too, they have more to do than usual which may have been the result of Leonard Nimoy's surprise popularity with fans writing in -- much to the chagrin of William Shatner, who considered himself the focus of the show and resented any major actions that didn't center on Captain Kirk.

This one doesn't, and so it sort of sticks out. One of the best of the "overlooked episodes", and actually rather violent & filled with more physical suffering than usual for Star Trek.


The Enterprise approach a Denova and are surprised that they can't hail anyone--the planet just seems dead. So, they beam down and find most of the people either dead or insane--with an overwhelming desire to kill. It turns out that there are alien creatures who look like plastic barf you buy from novelty stores and it's responsible. This flying barf, once it hits you, takes over your mind and uses pain to motivate you to do evil. Kirk's brother and his family are among the victims and this aspect of the show didn't seem all that convincing. A short time later, Spock is hit by this flying barf and he is infected! So, they use Spock to test out various ways to kill the creatures and everyone is saved. Oddly, you do wonder why the Enterprise could figure all this out so quickly and yet the folks on the planet were totally screwed!

This is an episode that seems to be aired less often than average--perhaps because it is a pretty weak one with a lot of plot problems. The creatures were pretty cheesy and the plot not terribly exciting, but probably the biggest shortcoming of the show is the gimmicky way they resolved the ending of the film when Spock was blinded when trying to kill off the space barf that had infested him. Having it all just work out fine after all seemed very contrived. For devoted fans, this is worth seeing but for everyone else, it's quite skip-able.


"Flight Command" was shown as part of the TCM Memorial Day series, and it deserves to be remembered for its excellent performances by the leads and all the supporting players, as well as the air scenes of single-engine planes flown by the squadron of Navy pilots. There is a lesson in their comraderie which is all the more moving when one considers the 1940 date and the skilful stuntwork of the planes for its time. Walter Pidgeon gives a classic performance, both strong and vulnerable, for which he will become better known in later films, and Ruth Hussey, usually in a secondary role, puts in a sensitive and generous performance as the "skipper's" stalwart wife in a part that could have been given to Myrna Loy. I am not a fan of Robert Taylor, but I felt he gave one of the more honest of his performances, and his good looks did not for once detract. Ruth's brother in the film, Shepperd Strudwick, hardly a known name, was well-cast as the outgoing, daring inventor working on a fog-navigating device. Between Pidgeon's Apollonian personality and Taylor's Dyonisian charm, Strudwick's relaxed and interestingly handsome face reminded me of Joseph Cotton in having a natural sense of gravitas in his manner.

Even though the plot was not a complex one, the different character relationships, whether between the pilots themselves, or of the perceived triangle of Taylor, Hussey and Pidgeon, was sensitively handled, and the several tricky maneuvers demanded of the pilots kept me glued to the screen. Credit should be given to the director, Frank Borzage, for coaxing such balanced performances from the cast. As for the supporting roles, Paul Kelley and Red Skelton (apparently in his first film appearance) both deserve mention, as do the script writers. The situations and dialogue appear routine, but nothing that is said or done is hackneyed or banal.

Of four ****, I would give it a highly recommended three***.


The Hell Cats, a group of Navy pilots are the subject of the film. These men showed a tremendous amount of courage in those early days of aviation before WWII. It's amazing what they could do, given the state of the technology. Basically, the film shows how the cliquishness of the more experienced pilots do to a newly arrived ace whose presence threatened the way they did things up to the time when Alan Drake, aka, Pensacola joins the group.

The director, Frank Barzage, did marvelous things with what must have been a difficult task to photograph some of the scenes from the planes commanded by the Hell Cats. For having been made in 1940, the film must have been a ground breaker in showing some incredible stunts, like the landing in the aircraft carrier in formation is seen from one of the landing planes.

The film showcases Alan Drake, an eager young pilot who joins the squadron. In joining the unit, he almost dies and has to eject from the plane he is commanding. That is when he meets Lorna Gary, who unknown to him is married to the base commander. "Pensacola", as he is known to the other men in the base, proves to be popular until his best friend dies trying to perfect a technique not approved by the Navy. The company sensing he and Lorna are having an affair quickly join ranks against him.

Robert Taylor makes a good contribution as Drake. Ruth Hussey is wonderful with her Lorna Gary. Walter Pigeon plays her adoring husband Bill. Paul Kelly, Shepperd Strudwick and Red Skelton also make good appearances as some of the pilots.

"Flight Command", although dated, proves to be a pleasant time at the movies.


I gave this movie a look during TCM's Memorial Day Weekend marathon. I'm not sorry. There's nothing new in the plot: it's a typical "cocky kid screws up but finally proves himself" story with one interesting twist -- among the kid's (Robert Taylor, in a decent performance) many screw-ups is a friendship with his boss' wife which others perceive the wrong way.

By the way, the "boss" in question is his CO -- did I mention the "cocky kid" has just become a Navy Hellcat? -- and the "others" are his fellow officers.

The flying footage -- and there's a lot of it -- is okay but somewhat pedestrian since it's mostly training and search-and-rescue stuff. The movie was made in 1940 and several references are made to the war in Europe, but America had not yet joined in, so there's no combat flying. Still, there are interesting moments including a training and competition mission where the new pilot compounds an error and ends up tangled in a cloth target sleeve which nearly causes him to crash yet another plane.

Taylor is okay as the new pilot, although I'm not one of his biggest fans. The first couple of scenes between Pigeon (the CO) and Ruth Hussey (the CO's wife) seem a little awkward and the banter seems forced, but they get better. Pigeon excels in playing "nice guy without a clue about women" roles, whether he's the father or the husband. I wasn't familiar with Hussey before but will correct that mistake as she turned in a very nice performance. Likewise the performance of Shepperd Strudwick as her unfortunate brother -- inventor of a navigational device he hopes will enable planes to land in fog. Red Skelton's role as "Mugger" seemed artificial and forced -- unusual, I thought, as he usually seems very relaxed in front of the camera, but I have heard this was his first movie.

It won't win any awards, but it's a fun way to spend a couple of hours, with a likable story & performances.


Aviation buffs will love Flight Command. The special effects are outstanding for 1940, very much like Howard Hughes's classic Hell's Angels.

If this were made at 20th Century Fox, Tyrone Power would have been cast as the lead. Power had a patent on hero/heel types over at that studio. Robert Taylor who plays the lead here usually played straight up heroes in his films. Taylor played hero/heels, but not as often as Power did. Taylor debuted in that kind of part at MGM with A Yank at Oxford and wouldn't play one again until his classic Johnny Eager.

Taylor is a wiseacre fresh naval cadet straight out of the flying school at Pensacola, hence the nickname the others give him. Because of deaths an opening occurs at the elite Hellcats fighter squadron and Taylor is brash enough to think they requested him personally.

His attitude doesn't make him too many friends, among them being the squadron leader Walter Pigeon, his wife Ruth Hussey, and her brother Sheppard Strudwick. Strudwick is working on an instrument that will enable planes to land in fog, but gets killed trying to test fly it.

That opens all kinds of complications and misunderstandings among the men of the squadron and Taylor gets to feel mighty unwelcome. But he gets a chance to redeem himself in the end.

A few days earlier I did a review of another aviation picture Ceiling Zero and commented how Warner Brothers played on the cheap with the special effects. MGM did just the opposite, Flight Command got two Oscar nominations for visual special effects and sound, both well deserved.

Carrier based aircraft was still an unproven tactic for war, although aircraft carriers had been developed since the early twenties. But it hadn't yet been shown to be effective in war. It's almost quaint to watch the cast using ancient World War I era biplanes as training vehicles. But that's what the United States Navy had available back then. It was two years until the battle of Midway and less than two years until Pearl Harbor when Flight Command came out. A whole lot of aviation progress was made in that period, it had to be.

Flight Command out of necessity has to be dated, but it is still a good film to watch bearing in mind what these men were training for.


Hackneyed war drama about a hot shot naval pilot(Robert Taylor) being assigned to one of the Navy's most prestigious squadrons. He must prove his worth and fit into the elite group at the same time live down the assumption he has had an affair with his Commanding Officer's(Walter Pidgeon)wife(Ruth Hussey). For the time period the special effects are above par. The script seems lacking. Interesting supporting cast includes:Paul Kelly, Nat Pendleton and Red Skelton.


For service in World War II, brash Robert Taylor (as Alan "Pensacola" Drake) is assigned a "Flight Command" role, with the squadron of Navy fliers known as the "Hell Cats". At first, Mr. Taylor's confident cockiness rubs everyone the wrong way; but, he earns his comrades' respect, through charm and ability. Taylor also catches the eye of otherwise happily married Ruth Hussey (as Lorna Gary), wife of "Hell Cat" commander Walter Pidgeon (as William "Billy" Gray). Will their "love triangle" be consummated?

Ordinary flag-waving film, ostensibly about Taylor fitting in with his squadron; however, the war sacrifices Ms. Hussey makes become the film's main focus. The supporting players outperform the leads; in particular, Shepperd Strudwick (as Jerry Banning) and Paul Kelly (as Dusty Rhodes). Mr. Strudwick's "fog device" provides an interesting sub-plot. The inter-cut "fog device" visual is an example of one of the film's irritants. Frank Borzage (direction) and Harold Rosson (photography) make some scenes look nice.


Gee! I remember how I watched this movie as a kid before 20 years in cinema and had fun like never before! Since then I tried hard to get any possible copy of it and now it is available on DVD... now, after 20 years, I think this is truly one of the silliest martial art flicks I've ever seen - and I've seen tons of them. This one has it all - from bizarre realization to insane look, feel and really memorable stunts and action that sometimes goes truly over the top - especially in great finale that comes with so insane fights that you must watch it to believe!

Truly recommended as a pure fun movie which value is in stupid dub, silly dialogs, trashy look, great action with obvious usage of dummies and wires... And after 20 years it just got better than the first time I watched it!

And dad! I still want that leather knife case! :)))

10/10 from me!


I am a huge fan of anime and manga, and my second fav genre is Chinese martial arts films. Over the years, I have watched hundreds of Chinese martial arts movies, and I've seen many good ones, but Mafia vs Ninja comes out on top.

One of the things you gotta love in Chinese martial arts movies is their low budget, since it is the reason behind funny special effects. This is one of the funniest movies I have seen, I really enjoy it every time I see it.

The movie is about the lives of Jack Doe and Charlie Wu, two sewage workers who want a better future, and luck is on their side. They later become bodyguards to William Chung, the wise and fatherly leader of the "good" mafia of Shanghai, by a mere stroke of luck, as I said. This "good" mafia protects the people of Shanghai and does nothing wrong, and they're the only thing that stops the Japanese from taking over the city.

As always in Chinese film, the Japanese are the bad guys, and in this movie, they are a clan of drug-dealing Shinobi who also run whorehouses and gambling centers. Their goal is to kill Mr. Chung to be able to seize the city. They manage to kill him by hiring 4 deadly hit men, and Jack and Charlie vow to get their revenge.

Then the movie shows how Jack and Charlie kill the hit men one by one, to avenge their fallen master. There are so many fun scenes in this movie, the action and laughing is non-stop. The special effects are typical for a Kung-Fu movie, you can see lots of editing cuts, the strings that hold the actors, dummies getting punched, funny fake blood and bruises, and the punch and kick sound fx we all love.

The fights choreography is excellent and the action scenes are very good. The music is good and fits the scenes' mood accordingly. The characters are enjoyable, specially when you see their powers or their KungFu. KungFu is the center of the movie, and the Japanese have even their special version, the Ninja KungFu! The movie is dubbed in English, but it's Chinese voice actors speaking English! This results in an incredibly hilarious voice acting! You will never find better quotes or voices in another KungFu movie! "I'm gonna kill ya, bastard!!"

Nothing in this movie is wasted, and though it is low-budget, it is an awesome film, every Chinese film fan I know love it, and I am no exception. It's my fav KungFu movie, I first saw it back in 1993 and taped it when I got the chance...but I lost it. It is so good, that I spent years searching it on the web and I finally found the home video on Ebay and bought it!

There is so much fun in this movie, lots of great action scenes, great characters, incredibly funny voice acting, and a great storyline...Obviously, this is not Citizen Kane, but it is the best KungFu movie ever, and I really doubt there will ever be a better martial arts movie than Mafia vs Ninja. Fantastic and endlessly enjoyable.

The best of the genre, unsurpassably good, 1000 out of 1000!


I don't understand all the bad reviews for mafia vs. ninja. I mean, sure the dubbing, action, acting and plot are amateurish, but this is a kung fu movie, which means a new set of criteria needs to be used from which to judge it. A lot of IMDb users make this crucial mistake, and go looking for Shakespeare in everything they watch. Something like Mafia Vs Ninja needs to be reviewed with these potential qualities in mind: humor (intentional or otherwise), creative fighting styles/ gimmicks, quirkiness, and overall effect. I'd say it fares well in these respects. The film had me laughing throughout, like when the two main characters (who dress like oi punks, which added to my enjoyment) trash an establishment owned by a white bigot in the middle of the film for no reason (the scene seemed to be randomly thrown in), the ninjas at the end who turn into clumps of grass and either teleport or travel underground and then take their normal ninja shape again, the special team called in by the ninjas to fight the mafia (who are the protagonists) which includes an italian (i think?) knife thrower with a huge ridiculous scar on his face (who is an expert at throwing knives into apples suspended by wires in mid air), a Chinese swordsman, a Japanese ninja, and an African American fellow from detroit who as far as i could tell didn't know any actual kung fu, so just rolled around a lot and sort of threw people. and who can forget the sex scene which contains no nudity, but then is immediately followed by a still shot on what appears to be a painting of our hero's girlfriend in the nude. and even though none of the fighting in this film is too well done, the setups are creative, and the grittyness of them helps make them entertaining. overall a decent flick, and one kung fu fans should dig, especially if you liked fantasy mission force or any other of jackie chan's more bizarre films (half a loaf, the original drunken master, etc)


This is simply one of the best movies ever made because it's so funny and the creators didn't intend for it to be. It is an instant cult classic along with the Turkish Star Wars and Turkish Star Trek.

I remember the first time I saw this movie the year was 1996 and I just couldn't stop laughing at the fake ninja tree fight scene. The next time it aired on TV I had the VCR at the ready. I must have watched it a good 10 times and showed it to all my friends and they pretty much had the same reaction as me. I literally freaked out when my dad taped a football game over it.

I needed to find this movie again!! After 10 years of searching I finally found it through the magic of the interweb.

I was expecting it to loose some of its luster over the years and all the hype my friends put it through back in the day but it didn't. It still made me laugh just as hard as when I first watched it.


Mafia Vs Ninja is a cool film. I saw it today, and i think that it was entertaining. It included ninjas, kung fu fighters, opponents from all over the world, a good gang and a bad gang, a false love story and so on. In fact, its climate had a great ninja scene.

The story is about a new guy who arrives at town, and this new guy is a great kung fu fighter. Later on, he is adopted by a good Chinese gang whose leader is killed due to his disagreements with the Japanese gang that sells heroin and so on. Therefore, the new guy goes to revenge the bad who have killed the leader of his Chinese group.

Mafia Vs Ninja has many fights, but no monks, no temples, no pupils nor masters, while there is a fair share of ninja attacks and kung fu fights that aren't always cheesy. In a nutshell, I recommend that fans of ninja cinema and kung fu cinema check this film out, it can provide you with an hour and a half of entertainment 7/10


I honestly don't know if this movie was intentionally this bad, but my gut tells me it wasn't. As an action flick it's really quite horrible but once you watch it you'll be rolling on the floor with your sides splitting from laughter! It's hilarious! Some of the worst stunts and effects EVER, not to mention a ridiculous plot. A must rent for anyone looking to poke fun at one of the few genuinely serious movies that can be so bad it's good.


I can't tell if this movie was meant to be a comedy or not, but it sure turned out that way. Thsi movie is utterly hilarious. Take every cliche about kung-fu movies and multiply it by ten. Gallons of fake blood, evil Japanese stereotype, the "soul brother" black guy, it's all there, plus things I've NEVER seen in a kung-fu movie. Tree-fu, SAPLING-FU, and spitting water instead of blood, for instance. It's only because everything is SO bad in this movie that makes it so entertaining. I especially LOVE the Boss-ninja's black mask with the crooked eye- holes.

It's a toss-up between The Story of Ricky and this one as my all time favorite (unintentionally) funny kung-fu movie, but this one I think takes the prize.


This movie was made to be a film about a war between the Japanese mafia and a group of ninja's and the two yard servants who get in the middle to save their boss, the highest man in the mafia. The fight scenes were filmed slowly, for example when an actor through a punch he made his fist move slowly as if going to pet a strange dog. The editor later added sound effects and speeded up the film to give the illusion of extremely fast fighting. The novice camera tricks in this movie give it a hilarious touch. Wires used in fight scenes made me laugh for hours. When you finally meet the ninja warriors in the end, you'll stare in awe as they use "ninja invisibility" in the fight. It's one of my favorites.


You immediately know that you're in for a fun ride here when, in the very first minute or so of the films running time, an impromptu fight breaks out between our hero, played by the always superb Alexander Lou, and a somewhat gaunt looking chap who appears to be wielding what at first sight looks like a piece of guttering!

As it turns out the attacker is also ostensibly rather thick as, after being given a quick pasting, he reveals that the reason for his decidedly anti-sociable behaviour was that he had in fact resorted to a spot of DIY justice in response to the rape of a number of women down the alley in question. Obviously, seeing our hero walk down the same alley he put two and two together and made about fifty, automatically assuming that he must therefore logically be the culprit of the said crimes!

Still apparently anyone can make such a simple, honest mistake and in no time at all, the two protagonists are the best of buddies! Okaaay.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, our hero and his new found pal next wind up working together at a sewage works, during which time they manage to save the life of a local mafia boss (a strangely benevolent chap at that) when he is attacked by his own cronies who are attempting to overthrow him.

Several savage beatings later at the hands of our hero, the bruised miscreants run off to lick their wounds and resolve to team up with a Japanese crime organisation which is headed by a rather rotund looking fellow who has a disturbing propensity for beating up his own sister! As it turns out, this organisation is rather more malevolent than the one the traitorous crooks formerly belonged to and even comprises a small army of ninja! In addition, just for good measure the organisation also enlist the aid of four experts in various martial arts fields; a master swordsman who bears an uncanny likeness to the late, great Oliver Hardy (!), an Italian knife throwing expert (and gambling addict to boot), a stereotypical, jive talking, 1970's styled Afro-Caribbean kickboxer (played by Alexander Lou's regular co star Eugene Thomas and finally a young ninja master.

Inevitably, this motley bunch manage to kill the strangely affable old Chinese mob boss which prompts our hero's to swear an oath of revenge.

From here on, the rest of the movie has our good guys challenging and defeating each of the assassins in turn before working their way up to the big boss himself.

Just to confuse matters somewhat, there is a sub plot involving Lou's character having a love affair with the evil Japanese boss's sister who also happens to be a ninja..hmmmm what a tangled web eh?

Also of note are a number of scenes that don't exactly go to further the plot (nor make much sense for that matter) but are included presumably to beef out the movies running time. One such particularly humorous and frankly baffling scene has our heroes marching into an elite social club whose members appear to be made up solely of bigoted (and disturbingly unattractive!) Europeans. Needless to say a fight inevitably breaks out during which our heroes give the clubs patrons a jolly good beat down before leaving calmly.

As is often the case with this type of movie, and especially the ninja genre in particular, much of the enjoyment to be derived from them is from the unintentional laughs to be gleaned from the on screen antics. The irony is that the actors seem to be approaching the material with deadly straight faced seriousness which only serves to heighten the hilarity considering the sheer stupidity of the proceedings.

Probably the funniest factor in this is the actual ninja antics especially as demonstrated in the final, climatic battle.

During this duel, our hero finds himself besieged by a group of speeding grass clump ninja! Yes, you read that correctly.you really have not lived until you have witnessed the astonishing sight of a large clump of grass whizzing across a neatly kept lawn at high speed! And how does our man combat such a terrifying menace you might ask? Well the only way possible against this deadly art - he uproots a sapling and proceeds to beat the ninja senseless with it!

It has to be said that the fight choreography throughout is for the most part superb (if sadly sped up in parts) and certainly adds immensely to the films entertainment value.

In fact, as it happens the fight scenes themselves seem to make up the bulk of the films running time with barely a minute seeming to go by without a fight breaking out for seemingly any given reason whatsoever!

Added to this we have some real gems of god awful dialogue which certainly had me laughing out loud throughout.

What can I say?  This film is a true classic of its genre and a must see for fans of B-Movies in general! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a rather pesky ninja infestation in my lawn to take care of..


A friend of mine from college showed me this movie. He told me it was really bad, but not in my wildest dreams would I have thought it would be the way it came off as. Imagine every single cliche in a kung fu film and every terrible effect you've seen in a movie...it's all here!!! You know it's gonna be bad when the first two lines are: "My friend, what are you doing?", "If you really wanna know, I'm gonna kill you, bastard!" A technical mess for sure, but I haven't seen a movie that has entertained me as much as this one in a long time. If you like crap cinema, CHECK THIS ONE OUT!!!


I noticed that about half the voters gave "Mafia vs. Ninja" a 10. I sincerely hope this has nothing to do with quality (that's what we're supposed to vote on, right? :-D)

Fake blood, horrible video effects, and strings holding up the fighters all are featured. Ridiculously choreographed ninja battles reign supreme in one of the worst movies ever. It's also the movie that's made me laugh the most (except maybe Sinbad and the Seven Seas), for hours on end. You must see this movie at least once, and see how a real ninja movie is done!


What a very disappointing sequel! The first movie, "White Fang," was an outstanding adventure story. It is one of the best Disney movies made during their "slump" period of the '80s to the early '90s. This movie is one of the worst movies they ever made. It abandoned all the good ingredients the first film had just to get in its politically-correct nonsense. Yes, this is the beginnings of the PC period which is going full force now.

White Fang had an adult appeal to it; it was not a movie just for kids. With that in mind, they can zap 'em with their anti-Christian bias by showing a minister in an evil light for 99 percent of the film. In the end, the guy is shown to be someone in disguise; not really a minister....but Disney's mission is accomplished. Under that ploy - and don't be naive not to think this was the idea - kids got a bad view of a minister for almost the entire time. At the same time, they get told and shown how valid all the Native American superstitions are! This, too, is an old Disney ploy, but rarely exhibited as blatantly as in this film. Add to that simply a dumb story and you have a real poor sequel, a real loser of a film.


The original "White Fang" had heart and balanced one young man's story of trying to find himself and understand his father with the story of his friendship of a wolf, who is somewhat like him. This time around, the charismatic Ethan Hawke is gone. In fact, his appearance in the opening scene is probably the most satisfying moment of this movie. Scott Bairstow ("Wild America") holds his own as Jack's friend Henry Casey, and his acting is the only decent performance in the movie. Now, this film plays like a mix between "Air Bud" (look at White Fang save the day again and again) and a 106-minute infomercial about Native Americans' beliefs, and why you should believe in them. The movie is plagued by this heavy-handedness, horrendous supporting performances, a flat script, characters written by cartoons, and this really strange Indian mysticism propaganda as fact. Really unlike the original, and outside of the opening sequence and the fact that it's set in Alaska, the "White Fang" name is somewhat out of place. They basically took the final scenes of the original White Fang's elements (White Fang is a hero of a friend) and turned into a whole movie, mixed with Native American beliefs and a sloppy love story. Ironic is that this lamebrain sequel got a better DVD presentation from Disney than the original (which is pan & scan only). For a better Bairstow movie, watch "Wild America." This White Fang II is just bad.


I saw this movie as a 15 year old when it came out. I remember it was a Saturday night and none of my friends were around. My parents didn't have any plans either and asked if I would like to go to a movie with them. Although spending a Saturday night with ones' parents couldn't be more uncool for a teenage boy, I agreed. The story and performances sucked me in from the beginning and held me there while the unbearable sadness of the final scene tore my heart out. Of course teenage boys aren't supposed to be that sentimental so it took all my strength to hold back this tidal wave of grief that cut through me. As we walked out of the theatre and through the parking lot and got into the car I said nothing. After a few minutes my mother said, "Mark, you're awfully quiet". I shot back at her "leave me alone", which she did. I didn't want reality to intrude upon the profoundly deep feelings I was experiencing. That feeling stayed with me for months. Only decades later did I realize that the movie touched on a very personal sadness in my life that as a teenage boy I couldn't begin to grapple with. Micks' mothers inability to express love for her mirrored a similar void in my relationship with my father. During a particularly depressed part of my adulthood, while I was grappling with the reality of having an unloving father, one day I found myself thinking about this movie. Oh! That's why the movie had such a devastating effect on me! It brought to the surface all of the sadness, isolation and loneliness I suppressed as a child who wasn't loved for who he was! That's the definition of a true work of art. This movie had the ability to allow me to feel what I was unable to as a child and only years later would I be able to understand the reason for the overwhelming sadness I felt then.


There is no doubt about it, but when Hollywood decides to make a cinematic masterpiece, and at the same time draws upon indigenous American social and cultural mores, as exemplified by a writer of the talent of Carson McCullers, the result can be both breath-taking and almost overwhelming. It is partly their very `Americaness' that makes films like THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER so unique and special to someone like myself who is not American. And this film in particular shows a side of the American psyche which is all too often neglected and unacknowledged in movies. The novel on which it is based is, sadly perhaps, too complex and long to adapt to the screen without sacrificing some aspect of the many subplots it contains, and although I regret the loss of the radical political dimension, the subtle and heart-wrenching way loneliness, racism, impoverishment, snobbery, and disadvantage are conveyed are so powerfully treated that the end result is a film of almost unbearable sadness and melancholy... and yet... And yet there is an element of tremendous hope also at work; of the human spirit overcoming huge odds and learning life's lessons as the various characters go along and work out their individual destinies. Superb ensemble acting from all concerned, and technical credits of the highest order make this one of the most deeply satisfying films I have ever seen in my life. A masterpiece, and one that could only have been made in the USA.


I'm 55, and have seen countless movies in my day, from silents to computerized re-makes of classics. I won't repeat all the wonderful things said about this movie by others, but only endorse their views and feelings: The filming, the setting, the story, the casting, the music....combined they add up to make this movie stand out a bit above all others. I saw "Lonely Hunter" when it came out, and perhaps 2 or 3 times since then, and it has certainly stood the test of time. I don't see how you could find a more moving, sensitive, and thought-provoking production. Only recently have I read the book, and, despite one viewer's comments, believe the film to be a wonderfully compact and visual interpretation of same; a joy to behold, and one that has positively influenced my life in many ways. Would just like to add that the latest movie to have such an effect on me, although not necessarily for the positive(!), has been "American Beauty". "The Heart" surely rates a 10/10!


I will not forget this movie for the rest of my life! Although the direction is excellent with a very good script and good production values, the performances are the standout aspect of this remarkable film. Alan Arkin and Sondra Locke make the film work and were both nominated for Oscars for their work here. Their scenes are magic, but Arkin is easily the stronger performance of the two. The supporting cast is very good, but Chuck McCann deserves special mention here. A comedian who's work has mainly been very lighthearted, he plays a straight dramatic role here and does a excellent job. A very human, very touching, very emotional film, the last 15-20 minutes will stay with you a very long time. Turner Classic Movies runs this on occasion and it is currently in print. Most highly recommended.


This was one of the first movies I bought for my VHS collection and would like to see it brought out in DVD with additional commentary.

A story of one man's isolation from others by the fact of being a deaf-mute individual with apparently only one true friend (another deaf-mute whom he love's like a brother). In spite of this physical disability he becomes an important part of all the other characters involved by being a confidant and sounding board for their lives. His patience and quiet concern and attention allows them to sort through their own motives and problems and come to an understanding of them.

Unfortunately because of this disability he remains isolated from being able to take comfort from them when he needs it most. The HEART of the story. To be able to give so much and yet still be denied the love and understanding of the very people you have helped so much. In that respect many of us are Lonely Hunters.

A wonderful and introspective movie about feelings and motivations. View it if you can.


This is, as promoted, simply a nice story about a really good guy: a deaf mute who helps some people and, in the end, desperately needed someone to help him.

Alan Arkin is memorable as the deaf mute and Sondra Locke, in her first screen role, also shines as the second lead. A pity Locke was never given roles this meaty since then. Percy Rodriguez also is memorable here.

Since this is good storytelling, from a best-selling book by Carson McCullers, all the characters here stand out. It's not a fast-moving film yet it is an involving story in which the viewer winds up caring about these people. Yes, the ending is sad and shocking but, in this case, a good ending because it makes you reflect more on what perhaps you and I neglect to do: to remember that everyone needs encouragement from time to time, even the encouragers.

This movie a throwback to some of the nice films of the 1940s, except that, despite being rated "G," there were several instances of profanity in here, including one usage of the Lord's name in vain. Still one for the whole family.


I love this movie, it is one of my all time favorites. I saw this movie for the first time when I was 12. My mother and I would stay up to the wee hours of the morning watching classic movies, and this was one of them. Not only was this a well acted movie, but it made such an impact on me even at a young age. No matter what your background, your ability or disability, race or age, all the characters of this film seemed to find each other despite all that. This film took on the prejudices against race, the disabled and confronted them with true human emotion. I highly recommend this film, especially to young people, I promise this film is not out dated it is timeless and it's lessons are as well!


I cannot forget the theme music of "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter" by Dave Grusin. There's a certain pervading peacefulness listening to its strains. Watching the film again on cable reminded me how impressed I was when I first saw it. Ever since, I kept an eye on movies with Alan Arkin in it -- his performance as John Singer, a deaf-mute, was sensitively delivered and commanded respect. It was Sondra Locke's debut appearance. She was young and slim, perfect for the role of "Mick", who learned to accept his disability and was able to share her love of music with him.

Along this life's journey of Singer, his friends included Chuck McCann as the plump fellow deaf-mute, who's playful and loved chocolates; Stacy Keach as the recovering alcoholic and new found chess mate; Percy Rodriguez as the self-righteous black Doctor who has his strife and discords with his daughter Portia, portrayed by a young Cicely Tyson. Lessons in diversity and tolerance are subtly evident as the story progresses. The ending is certainly not of Hollywood standard. Cinematographer James Wong Howe certainly tied in hope through his lens on the final shot with Mick (Sondra Locke) in it.

This film about reaching out and touching someone, irrespective of one's ability to verbally communicate or via signs, of one's race, color, or background, still rings true.


Reading the book is giving me an incredible introduction to the substance of the story. I am seeing some profound insights to individuals that gives understanding to people I know. Especially religious people are portrayed so I understand the religious mind so much better. One element of the movie that is missing in the reviews I've read so far is the musical score. Composed by Dave Grusin the theme sends a chill into my psyche when I hear it years after viewing the movie. Mick seems to be a surprisingly deep person; considering her environment. Her love of classical music exposes a mind that rises well above her simple life. This is the nature of genius and is probably part of Carson McCuller's own persona. I would believe she writes from memories of her own childhood.


This movie was filmed in Selma, Alabama in 1968. Selma still looks very much like it did in this movie - it is a town that takes you back in time... and it was the perfect setting for the film. The last scene in the movie where Mick is at Singer's grave was filmed in the beautiful old Live Oak Cemetery in the heart of the town. I used to work with a lady who had a small part in the movie when she was a preteen.... in the birthday party scene she is wearing the yellow dress. I try to go down to Selma every now and then and I always think about this beautiful story and film - and all of the wonderfully real characters... the story is so touching and melancholy. Alan Arkin and Sondra Locke were perfectly cast... as were all the supporting actors... I'm kind of glad it remains little known... such a gem I can call my own! I rank this one up there with "To Kill A Mockingbird".


now i would like to say this is one of the best movies i have ever seen. and in being the best, it is also the saddest. I would like to say i cried for an hour at least on this movie, and not how my life relates to it, but on the actually movie and how bad I felt about their lives. and i cried hard. not cried.. i wept.. i wept like a baby. i wept so much and hard that my stomach muscles hurt me. wow. good movie. go see it.


A wonderful book and the film captures much of the beauty and culture, although some side-stories are given short-shrift (Portia and her father). This is my favorite film of '68 and Alan Arkin should have Won gold. His John Singer, a thoughtful and attentive man who realizes the plight of humanity's basic selfishness too far down the road is a complete character. Sondra Locke's debut was marvellous and Chuck McCann was also brilliant.

A 9 out of 10. Best performance = A. Arkin. Stacy Keach's film debut. I wish Cicely Tyson had more scenes to play with Percy Rodriguez as we are left in the cold about much of their situation. Highly recommended film!


This was the best movie ever made!!!! I just saw it in my Sign Language class. They need to make more movies like this now. You can see yourself in the characters. It teaches you a lot about life. John Singer lives in all of us!!!!


I took my girlfriend to see this movie in 1968. At the end, I was sobbing. I didn't stop crying until we had driven a mile or so from the movie theatre. She looked at me as if I was out of my mind.

This week I bought the movie, to see how it would affect me 30 years later. Not quite the same emotional impact (well, I knew the ending), but still a very powerful movie.

Recently I heard a director say that the most important things conveyed in movies are not the words that are said, but the words that are not said.

This movie is filled with words not said. The protagonist, John Singer, is an emotional cipher. Alan Arkin had the good sense to underplay him. You can pour all of your own feelings into him.

I could quibble about some elements now, but this is, at essence, a story of the heart. Thirty years after first seeing this movie, it still stands up, and still touches my heart in a way few movies have.


You can read the many fine comments already made to appreciate why this is a superb movie that simply deserves to be seen. If you appreciate the story and want to see how actors and directors and the rest of the cast that make a film are there to tell the story, this is a good choice.

It is evidence that Hollywood can make significant art, brilliant storytelling, and impacting entertainment.

Alan Arkin and the whole film delivered. I saw this movie on an afternoon by chance on AMC or TCM and have never forgotten it. I might never forget this film.


Alan Arkin stars in what may be his finest hour on screen, playing a deaf mute in a small Georgia town who befriends the daughter of his boarder (Sondra Locke), a young girl just coming of age. Thomas C. Ryan adapted the novel by Carson McCullers, and his passages with these two sensitive, interesting people forms the lovely centerpiece of the picture. Director Robert Ellis Miller handles Arkin and Locke just right, but unfortunately there's a subplot shoehorned in about racial tensions in the town which plays like irrational soap opera (and just gets in the way). Miller's finale feels truncated, chopped short, so the feelings we have for the characters are not quite resolved, and the heart of the story doesn't completely reach us. *** from ****


Great performances by Arkin, Locke, Rodriguez, Tyson, and Keach. John Singer is a mirror in which the characters see the truth about themselves; truth they had sought to deny. Without a single word, he helps them accept and move on.


Alan Arkin is John Singer, a deaf mute who takes an interest in practically everything and everyone around him. He wants to be the legal guardian for the mentally disabled Chuck McMann, who is first seen breaking the window of a pastry shop so he can eat the displays. To be near McMann (who is committed for observation), Arkin rents a room from physically disabled Biff McGuire and his tired wife, Laurinda Barrett, and slowly becomes friends with their lonely teen-aged daughter (Sondra Locke). He also befriends drifter Stacy Keach, whom he first meets while Keach is causing a drunken disturbance in a greasy spoon. When black doctor Percy Rodriguez refuses to take care of the injured drunken Keach, Arkin begins to work on him. Rodriguez, who is angry both at white people, as well as blacks who don't try to rise above their station in life, at first resists Arkin's intrusion in his life. His daughter (the brilliant Cicely Tyson) has married a man he refers to as an "Uncle Tom". Later, she tells him basically that he acts more white than white people do after he refuses to help her husband out of a disastrous situation that results in catastrophe. It is only through compassionate Arkin that the two are able to come to an eventual understanding. At his boarding house, Arkin wins Locke's trust by using her love of classical music to win her trust. It is through his upbeat look at life that seems to bring the people around him (including the surprisingly wise and kind drifter Keach) any sense of hope.

It appears that Arkin's disability is a metaphor for the emotional disabilities that all these people are hiding from the world. Locke is initially hateful towards Arkin, but grows to trust him as her parents become more distant because of their own growing bitterness's. McGuire (in the type of role that Arkin might have later played) is quietly understated as the injured father whose inability to work has caused the family financial hardship. Barrett's fall from tired, hard working wife to slightly embittered mother who wants her daughter to drop out of school and work full time (while taking night classes), is also nicely subtle. Their characters reminded me a bit of the parents in "Breaking Away". Rodriguez is outstanding as the embittered black doctor who only treats Keach because of his pity towards deaf Arkin. The scene where he admits how ironic it is that at this point in his life, it is a white man to whom he can confide his deepest feelings, is so quietly powerful. Ms. Tyson, of course, is excellent; Already a stage veteran, she makes her character quite believable and the love for her husband most admirable.

Stacy Keach is only in the film briefly in the first half, but makes a nice impression as the multi-layered drifter who has become a social outcast that only Arkin understands. As for Chuck McCann, as Arkin's child-like friend, he seems to really become this character. It is apparent that Arkin would never be able to take care of him, revealed in a powerful scene where Arkin uses a box of Whitman's chocolates to lure the sweets loving McMann away from a cake to get him to a court hearing. Arkin's good intentions are more than admirable, but ultimately leads to a tragic conclusion that will rip your heart out.

Sondra Locke, best known in the 70's as Clint Eastwood's on and off screen partner in movies like "The Gauntlet" and "Every Which Way But Loose", has her best role as the teen-aged Mick. As I looked more closely at her, I was stunned by her resemblance to Allison Arngrim ("Little House on the Prairie's" Nellie Olsen) in both looks and facial expressions. She greatly deserved the Oscar Nomination she received, because she makes what could have been an annoying character really quite likable. She's not movie star beautiful, but there is something very unique in her that makes her quite special here.

Without a doubt, there is no other word to describe Alan Arkin's performance than amazing. He really studied this character inside and out to get every niche of him down. There is no moment of unbelievability in his portrayal. While he lost the Oscar to Cliff Robertson's equally brilliant performance in "Charly", it must have been a really close race. "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" is a much better film that unlike "Charly" and many other films of the 60's doesn't add a strange "mod" feeling into it that makes no sense.

There are some terrific moral lessons to be learned from films like "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter". The biggest for me, based upon the tragic ending, is that in life, it is not only what people do in their lifetime that makes them special, but what they add to the lives of others around them (particularly strangers) that matters. We can give all the kindness in the world to our family, friends and partners, but if we ignore the opportunity to help someone we haven't brought into our lives, it takes away from our importance while here on this earth. The ending may have been tragic, but what lessons that other characters learned from Arkin's John Singer would change their lives eternally. Something tells me that Mick (Locke) would end up in social services helping disabled people, and that the black doctor (Rodriguez) would never again distrust all white people and be open to helping everybody who came to him.


This was a very touching movie. This movie made me cry upon thinking of it the next day. Very few movies have done that to me. I was particularly struck by what a sweet and pure performance that Sondra Locke gave as Mick. And the loneliness that Alan Arkin portrayed as John Singer really resonated with me. I really liked how Mick dealt with this and the snobbery too. Why no one received an Oscar for this movie is beyond me.

My only criticism with this film is that is seemed to try to hit too many emotional chords in too short a span of time. It tried to do too much all at once and I noticed myself being left with a slight disappointment and rushed feeling that points were left undeveloped. The loneliness and snobbery were quite enough to deal with without all the racism too. It seemed like a whole other movie was somehow lurking in the background. Perhaps this is the fault of the book. I plan to read it since I think it will develop these points much better.

Although all the racism had a definite impact, I can't help thinking that the movie would have been simpler and sweeter without it. I suppose longing for a simple and sweet melancholy resolution and being left with an unsettled feeling was what Carson McCullers may have been after.

Still a great and timeless movie!