SCREWED / (2000) ***

	"Everyone gets it in the end" is the subtitle to "Screwed," the new comedy from the screenwriting team Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski ("Man on the Moon," "The People vs. Larry Flint"). Gets what in the end? Screwed, of course. That is one of the most factual taglines I have seen in a long time. Within the short running time of this comedy every last character becomes screwed in one way or another. No other commentary better fits the promotions of this production.

Former Saturday Night Live star Norm Macdonald is an unhappy chauffeur named Willard Fillmore. He is employed by his dead father's mistress, the wealthy but cruel-spirited Virginia Crock (Elaine Stritch), who owns a enormous bakery corporation and a cute little dog. Ms. Crock never grants Willard gifts, raises, nor does she compliment him for his hard and loyal services.

	Rusty P. Hayes (David Chappelle) is Willard's best friend, a pot smoking young man destined to earn minimum wage for the rest of his seemingly pitiful life. The two buddies decide they have had enough of Crock's inhumanity and are ready to get even with the witch. They plan to abduct her precious canine to hold for a million dollar ransom. With the help of a deranged morgue attendant named Grover Cleaver (Danny DeVito), the unlikely pair set out for revenge and criminal riches. As their after dark heist for Crock's pet takes place, Willard and Rusty's dim minds cannot handle the pressure. The unsuccessful seizure results in severe bleeding, a misinterpreted reimbursement note, and a crime site appearing as though a brutal murder has taken place. All of this and yet the mission's target ends up escaping the captors and finding its way back in bed next to Crock.

 Virginia Crock discovers a room in her mansion ransacked and destroyed, therefore, when she reads the ransom note regarding the assumed capture of her dog, she thinks the reading indicates Willard himself is the hostage. When Detective Tom Dewey (Daniel Benzali) becomes involved with the missing persons' case, Rusty gets an idea: instead of abducting the dog, they should agree with what the presses are addressing. Complicated chaos ensues leaving nearly every character "screwed" by the time the film's finally roles around.

 "Screwed" works mostly in part of the flawless casting choices. Danny DeVito makes the film alike in his character to his diabolic portrayal of the Penguin in "Batman Returns" with exaggerated gestures and irresistible make-up and costume. No other actress could have captured the spiteful, annoying character of aging Ms. Crock like Elaine Stritch, who gives a specific style to Crock that we love to hate. Norm Macdonald once again proves he cannot act worth a hill of beans, but he sure provokes amusing material through his character.

This production is of nothing intellectual or deeply engaging, nor is it anything thought-provoking in the least. The deadpan dialogue is bland, lacking creatively and liveliness. There are also undeveloped characters, scenes and subplots irrelevant to the story, and even some humor unworthy of a smirk. However, "Screwed" has one major element that makes it effective: the movie induces some big laughs. Many of today's comedies fail to bring about a single chuckle in an audience, and this movie frequently made me guffaw, giggle, grimace, and at certain points, laugh until it hurt. Judging "Screwed" in this method, the film is worth the watch.


Screwed will not go down in history as a landmark film; it does not have Oscar-caliber elements or even a plausible story. But, uh.... what were you expecting from a screw ball comedy? Screwed is absolutely hilarious - screw ball comedy at its best.

The great Norm MacDonald stars as Willard Fillmore, the loyal but disgruntled butler to pastry tycoon Miss Crock (played superbly by Elaine Stritch). Following his deceased father's advice ("Stick with Miss Crock, you'll get ahead") Willard has remained retained by Miss Crock despite being despised and abused ("Suddenly I realized, that, uh, I don't have a pension plan, I don't have a health plan, I don't have a dental plan...."). Finally, Willard cannot take it anymore and after a ho-ho-hellish eruption at Crock on Christmas Eve he discovers that he will be fired the next day. So Willard and his best bud, restaurant manager Rusty P. Hayes (played by the hilarious Dave Chappelle), set out to give Miss Crock the big screw: steal her beloved Pomeranian and hold him for ransom for one million dollars. But things get complicated when the dog gets away and returns home Toto-style, all the while signs of a scuffle and a ransom note ("Pay us one million dollars or he's a dead dog") are left behind, leaving Miss Crock and the police to believe that Willard was kidnapped. From here events get even more complicated and screwy.

The reason Screwed is so funny and ultimately works well as an overall film can be credited, in a very large part, to the perfect casting. Norm MacDonald and Dave Chappelle are two of my very favorite comedians and they make a great comedic team. Both are absolutely hilarious with exclusively individual comedic styles: MacDonald has a knack for delivering zany and ridiculous comedy in as dry of a way as possible and Chappelle is very loud and animated as only he can be. Plus, both MacDonald and Chappelle are just great leads, making each character their very own. MacDonald especially does a great job, I really do not buy into the idea that MacDonald is a comic who cannot act - he is incredibly expressive in this film.

The great casting does not end with MacDonald and Chappelle however. 3-time Emmy winner Elaine Stritch is excellent as the grumpy and selfish Miss Crock. Stritch is a stitch - she plays a vain old woman but does it in a hilariously bombastic way while managing to create sympathy for her mean character. Also, Danny Devito is outrageous as creepy diener Grover Cleaver and Daniel Benzali is great as the "evil Cojack" Detective Tom Dewey trying to solve the case - familiar faces Sherman Hemsley and Sarah Silverman also co-star.

The two-headed writer/directing team of Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski (writers of Ed Wood, Man On The Moon, The People vs. Larry Flint) are the force behind the film. Most of the story is implausible and most sane people would not do what most of the characters in the film do. However, Alexander and Karaszewski do create one extremely funny film with many great gags, situations, and characters. Willard and Rusty are stupid - there are no two ways about it - but the characters are so likable and funny, thanks in large part to MacDonald and Chappelle, and it is easy to go along with them for the ride.

Screwed might be a far-fetched comedy - maybe even a stupid one - but it is very funny, and what else would you want it to be?


If you're like me and don't want to waste your time on brainless comedies, you might have very well missed this nice little film. Why? Because it sure looks brainless at first. If I had had anything better to do during the first five or ten minutes of "Screwed", I'd have turned off the TV.

But I watched it long enough to realize it was actually very funny. However, it is so unashamedly and deliberately superficial that you can very easily miss its charm if you see only a couple of scenes. Each element (actors, script, direction) is weak by itself. But when they are combined, they somehow manage to conjure that rare magic which we call a good comedy.

Unfortunately, at the two-thirds mark, the film develops an additional plot which is just boring. Your cue: stop watching when DeVito starts ripping off posters from lampposts. From that moment on, the frequency of good jokes decreases dramatically.

Still, the first part of the film is a laugh fest. I recommend it to anyone looking for a good light-hearted (and slightly vulgar) comedy.


The people who knock this movie have no sense of what makes a movie funny. Screwed was indeed funny, much more so than for example, Anchorman. Actually, everyone I know was laughing constantly throughout this terrific comedy! I'm not going to give anything big away, but after Norm McDonald and Dave Chappelle realize they have failed to kidnap Mrs. Crock's dog, Chappelle let's out one of the funniest one-liners that I have ever heard. We are talking non-stop laughs throughout this move. The plot is absurd, but this seriously added to the film's overall hilarity. If you miss this movie due to negative comments made by various users, you have truly done yourself an injustice.


When i noticed this movie had not yet even been reviewed by its release date, I knew it was going to flop. I decided to see it anyways on its first showing at the local theatre with my friend. There was a total of 4 people (including us) in the theatre. Oh geez, I thought. A fan of SNL and Norm MacDonald, I figured it can't be THAT bad. Well, I'll just say as soon as the movie started, I was laughing. I never stopped laughing, honestly. It was one of the funniest movies I had seen in the theatres since The Whole Nine Yards. I could definately see that some of the immature humor would turn off some people, but if you like goofy, slapstick comedy, or are a fan of Saturday Night Live, you will probably find this movie entertaining. If not, so sue me.


Screwed is a hilarious comedy about a chauffeur named Willard who has been working for the same rich woman, Miss. Virgina Crock, for over 15 years. When he over hears a conversation about her firing him, he and his best Rusty friend decide to kidnap Crocks lovable dog for ransom. Things go awry and Crock thinks that Willard is the one who is kidnapped. As Rusty and Willard find out, they decide to up the ransom and try to make Crock pay for her bad deeds while the two friends are being pursued by the police, having to pay a crazy mortician Grover to help them in the plan, and make fake notes and videos with the kidnapper saying he'll kill Willard if he doesn't get his five million! Now this film is great! Norm is perfect as Willard and Chapelle always cracks me up with Rusty's one liners. Great jokes from the whole cast Examples: "Well he seemed a lot more ferocious when he was alive." "Feroucious, he's an old midget!", "Sweet Jesus, we kidnapped a turd.", Rusty always hits a man with a desk lamp when he is scared, Aunt Mable, Grover the mortician, "A pair of cracker jack cuff links and one crappy pie!", etc. Examples over. Now do yourself a favor and go out to get a copy of Screwed. Screwed gets the big 8, not perfect but it is a hilarious romp. You'll love it, I did. Enjoy!


I managed to rent this movie from a local Blockbuster and watch it at home a few days ago, and, while this movie wasn't a comedic masterpiece, it wasn't a bad movie either, in fact, it was actually a quite funny movie at some points. The main cast here (Dave, Norm, and Danny), do very good with the script they are given, and there were quite a few funny lines throughout the movie (Especially when Dave and Norm's characters meet Danny DeVito's character for the first time, as well as a majority of Mrs. Crock's lines.) Overall, if you happen to watch this movie, while you won't get a laugh a minute experience, you won't be disappointed with the movie either, as it's one of those good, funny movies that you could watch to waste away a boring day.


I don't know, maybe the rest of the people voting on this movie were looking for an Academy award-winning movie, but my family was just looking for what we saw in the trailer - a good, fun movie.

It's easy to beat up on a movie because some things happen in it that don't seem logical, but come on, this is a movie! A story! Let them tell it, sit back and honestly react to it. All I know is my wife, my kids, and I all laughed our butts off watching this movie. We watched it a couple of times and have purchased the DVD.

The bottom line is this movie HAS a story and if you actually WATCH all of it the majority of you will laugh at it. Norm Macdonald's other movie `Dirty Work' is good, but NOT worth buying for about $20 - this movie IS worth buying, and therefore is better (in my opinion, better movies are worth buying). In the very least it is worth renting for $2 to see if you want to buy it - if you like Norm Macdonald's style of humor, I think you will like this movie a lot!

If, however, you are a stuck-up movie critic wannabe, stay away from this movie - you'll hate it!


It starts out as a simple kidnap that Norm MacDonald kidnaps his bosses dog, but then the dog escapes and the police think that Norm got kidnapped. Then one thing leads to another, and the whole story flips around. I would recommend this to anyone who likes comedies.


I liked this movie, despite the dis from the review by that other guy. I like all norm films, and i liked this one. i am angered that someone could write so poorly of this. Any way, I thought it was a funny movie(u want a movie to walk out on, guy? try keeping the faith. Any way, i liked this, and found it to be funny like the rest of mr. mcDonald's movies. but then, i liked Mystery Men. Bye now.


When I went to the theater to see screwed I knew it would be a good film, with Dave Chappelle and Danny Devito, I also knew that since Norms previous feature film (Dirty Work) was hilarious and very well-written that this movie could not live up to it, and it doesn't but it is still a wonderful piece of work. Casting Sherman Hemsley gave this movie a little more life than it would have without him, going back to the whole Dirty Work thing, this movie recycles ideas from Dirty Work, the whole Revenge thing, but a whole new plot, which could've been funnier if only Danny Devito would've worked to his potential, which we have seen recently in such critically acclaimed but movies that bombed such as Man on the Moon.


pleasantly surprised. Okay, it wasn't the greatest movie. In fact, it was a movie that I "settled on" (after I saw the line for Gladiator). I went in expecting the worst, but the more I expected to cringe, I couldn't help but to chuckle. The only scene I could really complain about was the kidnapping of the dog where it got painful. (That poor dog). You have to admit, it is fun seeing Norm weasel out of tough situations. Danny DeVito is excellent...the master genius of funny. Well, the type of humor might not be for everyone.

So, my suggestion is to wait for the video if you are not sure. But try to make it a point to see this movie...on some rainy day when you have nothing better to do.


So far, with Norm McDonald movies you really cannot go wrong. There is of course the suspension of disbelief, but the laughs carry the movie beyond this. Screwed also has work by other good actors/actresses (like Danny Devito), who plays an auspiciously named mortician whom never ceases to find (and use) discusting things out of the bowls of his corpses. While the performance is a little discusting, the overall character is really funny. Through Grover Clever, the filmmakers manage to work in clipping of "Voyage into Space", "Glen or Glenda", and the very important "Hawaii Five-O". Now who can really argue with a movie that manages to work in Ed Wood without totally Screwing itself and while still being good?

Unfortunately, there was a lack of publicity for this movie and the trailers don't look all that great. BUT--> I do Hope you take a voyage and enjoy "Screwed". Any Norm or Ed Wood fan would enjoy it.


I don't know why other people think this movie isn't great, but I think it's amazing!!! I love Dave Chappelle and Norm Macdonald. I just laughed through this entire movie. I think everyone should give this movie a chance, but I still can't see how people don't love it. I wish I could go back and watch it again for the very first time.


Before i saw screwed i had seen some poor reviews & i noticed it had only 7 million in takings at the box office. Well anyone thinking about seeing this movie should discount anything they've heard about it being bad because it is a super ,energertic original film. Norm mcdonald is a superb lead & he carries the film throughout. He has good support from his other actors especially miss Crock.

The film starts with norm as a unappreciated butler who finds a way out of his predicament by stealing miss crock's dog but the dog escapes & He has to think up more ways of making his plan come to fruition. Endless gags ensue & each one hits the mark especially where he is attacked in the park & when Danny devito finds his face plastered around the city.

This was a masterpiece. Don't miss out on it & one more good thing about it was it didn't feature the actor in the last film I saw Mel Gibson who would best be screwed out of his career.


As far as Norm McDonald vehicles go, Screwed is better than Dirty Work. Depending on your tastes, that might not be saying much. However, I'm proud to announce that Screwed can stand on its own legs, away from the shadow of Mr. McDonald, as a genuinely funny movie.

Having read the reviews for Screwed, I was amazed; nearly every critic was thoroughly reaming this film. They blasted the plot; in response, I ask you, readers, who watches a Norm McDonald movie for its plot? They blasted the acting; in response, I ask you...well, you get the picture.

What I'm trying to say is, this movie is hilarious. McDonald, Chapelle, Devito, Sherman Hemsley, et. al. are there to make you laugh, not to court the Academy for their respective Oscars, and they succeed marvellously. Screwed's pace is just perfect; the laughs are fast and frequent, although you are given a slight breather just before the next joke hits. Some of the jokes don't work, as in any comedy, but more often than not, they hit the mark flawlessly. Yes, gore, innuendo, vulgarity, all of it appealed to the 18 year old author of this review and got him laughing.

In conclusion, this movie rules, and I'm ashamed that the critics millions of Americans put their trust in have condemned Screwed. Apparently they were just to highbrow for it, and forgot how much fun a good, vulgar comedy can be if one leaves his inhibitions at the door and stops trying to be the art-aristocrat he *thinks* he is.


Not that it didn't have its moments, but this is definitely one that should have gone directly to video. It just seems very poorly made. This movie also has Sherman Hemslely in a rather large role so once I saw that flash on the screen, I knew the film would be kind of generic. Still I like Norm MacDonald and he does his best, though he doesn't have much to work with. This movie has a butler who kidnaps his boss's dog, but the dog goes away. The police find a ransom note and Norm's blood everywhere and think he is the one who was kidnapped. There is a twist at the end anyone will see a mile away and there are some humorous scenes with Danny DeVito, but for the most part I wouldn't look too hard to find this movie.


It's a little film that really tries to be funny but ends being more like silly or stupid than funny. The plot isn't really a novelty but that's even not the big deal, the real problems are at the acting and the jokes. Some of the jokes are funny, OK, but the major part is so ridiculous that the fun is completely lost! I was induced to watch this movie by some comments I saw here on IMDb, saying it's hilarious and a good movie, but I must disagree. I laughed at many parts of the movie and I was entertained for 1h18 (even here the film is short), I cannot deny it, but at the end I found this film more silly/pathetic than funny. I score it 4/10.


I'm a little disappointed with this movie because I thought that it would be better. I expected more from this one. Plot is fine and best performance is delivered by Danny DeVito in a small role. He should be more in this movie. Norm MacDonald and Dave Chappelle can make that stupid face and they are OK each in their roles. But only DeVito and Elaine Stritch managed to do something with their characters.

This movie is not bad but it isn't good too. It's somewhere in the middle. It starts good but in the middle of the movie gets boring. I don't know on what scenes other people laughed at. It's not that funny and most of scenes I've seen before in other movies. Small, little comedy but just don't expect too much. And take a look on Danny DeVito's performance.


This has got to be one of the "screwiest" movies to appear in a long time. A chauffeur fed up with working for a mean and nasty old and rich businesswoman decides to kidnap her dog and hold him ransom for $1,000,000. From there the story moves - not always logically or comprehensibly, but - hey - this is a crazy comedy after all!

It has a lot of flaws, though. First off is that the acting is not very good. The actors seem to put enough effort and energy into their parts, but it just doesn't come across in the end. I suppose this is to be expected in this type of movie, but they seemed more interested in wild exaggeration than in good acting. Second is that the humour just isn't that funny. There are a few good laughs, but it's very inconsistent. There's no attempt at all at realism. The scene in which the dog, trying to fight off the kidnappers, gets hold of Willard's hand and shreds it, spraying blood all over the room is just plain stupid. It looks like a long wig attached to Norm MacDonald's (Willard's) arm. And, given the amount of blood that appeared in the scene, it's hard to explain why there isn't even a mark on Willard's hand the next time we see him! A miracle cure for dog bites? I mean, I don't expect perfection from this kind of movie, but it would be nice if there were at least some effort put into continuity. How much would it have cost to put a bandage on Willard's hand?

Most of the performances are sub-par. MacDonald seemed quite artificial most of the way through. Sherman Hemsley as Chip was a disaster. Elaine Stritch was certainly crotchety, but also not especially funny as Miss Crock. There was a decent performance from Daniel Benzali as Detective Dewey, who did exactly what this kind of movie demanded: he played it absolutely straight, and was quite funny as a result. The best performance was undoubtedly David Chappelle as Rusty Hayes, Willard's partner in crime. The biggest disappointment in my opinion was Danny DeVito. I usually enjoy him, and think he is a fine comedic actor, but his performance in Screwed was not good. He seemed too forced and didn't look as though he were enjoying himself playing Grover Cleaver.

Hey, take it for what it's worth. It's not great, but it has a few laughs in it, and a totally crazy storyline. And, at 1:21, it doesn't take much commitment to see it through.

I gave it 4/10.


first of all i'd like to say disregard all negative comments about this film. i'm not saying go by just what i say, but at least give it a chance and rent it. yeah it's not the greatest film but it is nevertheless dominant in its amusing nature. it features dave chapelle who is just about the funniest dominator in history. he builds on his conceptual nature in other films such as blue streak in which he was the always dominating tulley and in, who could ever forget, half baked. danny devito is great in his supporting role and norm macdonald is funny as always. a great film if you like insane comedy that isn't necessarily complex and extremely thought out.


This movie fast became one of my favorite comedies I had ever seen. I literally fell out of my chair while watching it in the theater. If you want laughs, Norm and Dave Chapelle deliver them in bucket loads. Don't look for any great directing or Oscar worthy acting, but this movie without a doubt received ten stars from me. Devito does a great job in a hilarious supporting role. The movie takes you through a lot of twists and turns but it delivers.


I swear I love Norm Macdonald I think he is a great comedic talent. Right up there with Denis Leary,but this movie (I will not call it a Film) was horrible. This was one of those movies like "Joe Dirt" where they had maybe one or two funny ideas and they built a whole movie around it. I really hope his next effort will be more thought out.


holy cow, what an awful movie! i'm a dave chapelle fan, and i like danny devito too, in most of the comedies he's played in. norm macdonald is a gifted stand-up comedian. but in this movie, chapelle's reduced to playing the silly black sidekick, danny devito is given NOTHING to work with, and macdonald is so unfunny i found myself thinking about cleaning house while the video was on. yikes. i wouldn't even recommend renting this movie with a free rental coupon.


Dont bother, dont even rent it. Terrible. Every bit of humor could have been condensed into a 10 minutes skit, and even that might not have gotten a laugh. If you really want to see this one, please wait for it to be on video, and even then have a back up plan, as I doubt you will want to sit thru the whole thing.


This is not Norm Macdonald funny, this is not even Carrotop funny. Every gag fails, the movie is shot in dark, depressing colors which only drive the "sad, very sad" message straight to the subconscious. This movie is a shining of example on how not to make a slapstick meets a crazy twisting plot movie.


I honestly don't understand what was going through Scott Alexander and Larry Kawazinky's heads when they wrote and directed this piece of drivel. The plot is convoluted as are the characters. Very little is funny other than scene stealing Danny DeVito. What is funny is brilliant, but there is very little if anything to recomend this film.

I expect more from these guys. The two of them brought us the screenplays for such thought provoking and emotional films as Ed Wood, The People Vs Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon. This is one disapointing directorial debut.


In honor of today being Election Day and having previously seen both Betty Boop for President and Olive Oyl for President, I just went to the Misce-Looney-ous site to watch Daffy Duck for President which it linked from YouTube. Originally storyboarded by Chuck Jones and turned into a book before his untimely death, this latter-day Warner Bros. cartoon was another entertaining lesson on American customs which Jones had previously done with Porky Pig on Old Glory back in 1939. Daffy decides to run as the Commander-In-Chief thinking he'll be able to make a law abolishing rabbits. Bugs tells him that the president can only enact laws so Daffy runs for Congress in order to get rabbit season to occur "12 months of the year". Turns out he's the only supporter of that bill! Basically this was a good way to get children to learn the Constitution and the three branches of government involving two beloved cartoon characters. Joe Alaskey was a fine pick in continuing the familiar voices created by the late Mel Blanc. And kudos for the two directors, Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone, for doing Mr. Jones proud with their pacing of the animation scenes as well as printing a dedication to his memory. My favorite punchline came from Bugs, "At least you're not a lame duck!" This short is available on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume 2 DVD set.


I really happened to like Daffy Duck For President, I believe this is the greatest Looney Tune short done in the last decade at least. The short stars Daffy and Bugs Bunny in a debate about what the president really does and why. While the short goes on Daffy attempts to become the next president trying pass a law for rabbit season to last twelve months a year. This law is of course ridiculous and shows why the president can never really pass such ridiculous things, because of the system. Throughout this educational cartoon we are given a true example of why we have this system. At the end of the short Bugs breaks it down for us, telling about the three branches of Congress and how it works. Great Job A+, If I could give an A++ I would...............Maybe I would even give it an A+++.....if I could.


Daffy Duck is elected into congress. Seem the perfect opportunity for hilarious madcap hijiks to ensue, but alas they don't. Nope, this is an educational short to tell the young ones about the three branches of government. It pretty much fails at saying anything more then what those three branches are and leaves it at that. Not really that educational at all when you think about it. And as such it doesn't warrant multiple viewing, heck I'd be hard pressed to say that it even warrants one viewing. This recent animated short can be seen as an extra on Disc 3 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.

My Grade: D


Interesting that the two previous 'comments' for this film are from 'film fans' who have opinions about no other films! The complaints mentioned--that the film is based on 'biased' science, and that the spokesperson for the Vinyl Institute was extremely convincing--don't outweigh the considerable evidence on display here. To set the record straight: Judith Helfand DID interview two scientists associated with Greenpeace. She also interviewed a scientist, previously employed by the vinyl industry, who agreed with the contention that, yes, PVC is a potential toxin. There are also interviews with an Italian scientist, other American scientists, and a plethora of PVC victims who became seriously ill after exposure in the workplace to PVC. On a less contentious note, this is one of the most enjoyable 'doomsday' docs out there, and Ms. Helfand is a delightful and entertaining host, even as she points out the obvious: big money will always trump public health and environmental safety.


Here be spoilers to some degree. In an informative piece such as this movie I don't think it matters too much, but you've been warned.

I know most of you out there don't have PVC on your big list of killers, and that's OK. It's a pretty obscure and boring subject.

When I was flipping around and saw this title on HBO the first thing I thought was "ohh... blue vinyl" and thought I might see some skin. Instead, after a few seconds, I realized this was a documentary. Me, being the glutton for boring subject matter, decided to watch it.

While it is a little one sided, it gives an overall impression of the positives of convenience and the negatives of PVC and gives both opposing arguments from the industry and activists- ranging from the "end user" (her parents) to the ultra-hippie to the corporate exec. While the narrator does give an impression of her own view, it isn't to the point that disallows the viewer to still disagree easily; and that's a nice thing to have.

I loved the shots of people concerned with this issue going out and testing the air themselves, I liked how all involved were calm and overall respectful, and I most liked the opposition between the narrator and her parents. It really brings it down to home- the cost issues and unavailability of other materials was slightly anti-climatic, but gave a good feeling of what really goes on.

Good documentary. 7/10- Maybe not ready for mainstream, but demonstrates excellent promise. A more famous "documentary" maker could learn a thing or two from this girl.


Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold have created a wonderful documentary in Blue Vinyl. Judith's parents have put light blue vinyl siding on her house... but Judith suspects there are serious dangers from vinyl to humans... during its manufacture, if it burns, when its disposed of. Having lost her uterus from DES poisoning, she shares a bond with the cancer victims who work in and live in the shadow of the vinyl and PVC factories. Judith has this gravelly high voice, a quirky sense of humor, and a vulnerability in the face of corporate America that makes her irresistible. Blue Vinyl is also beautifully and imaginatively shot... I saw this at Sundance (2002) and Daniel Gold won the prize for documentary cinematography. There is also wonderful use of music and animation. Highly recommended.


Although made on a lower budget than some of the more popular documentaries of late, "Blue Vinyl" is an excellent film. This investigative work of environmental journalism does a great job of telling the story in an informative, accessible way. It is difficult to appropriately incorporate humor into a documentary about toxic chemicals. It is equally difficult to make a documentary about plastic interesting to watch. But, Helfand and Gold achieve both of these feats. While the story is told from Judith Helfand's perspective, she is not the focus of the film. As a result, the viewer has a character to latch onto without distracting from the story. If you enjoy documentaries, or you're just curious about the topic, this is a great film to watch.


Interesting and engaging as far as documentaries go, but maybe that's because I'm interested in the topic. Overall, I thought the message was overly dramatized. Trying to link vinyl chloride monomer, the stuff that's reacted to form PVC, and allegedly poor manufacturing processes from 30 yrs ago to DES, a pharmaceutical that was created specifically to interact with and was prescribed to people was a bit of a stretch. And to try and say that burning PVC is the most dangerous thing about a fire is completely ridiculous. This inability to rank risk is why we spend soooo much time and money focusing on small issues while completely ignoring the big picture. Don't get me wrong, the manufacturing industry, and the chemical industry in particular, had and has issues. But to continue to think that they operate with a 1970s mentality and technology is wrong. We need to recognize the progress that's been made and continue to partner with industry to drive further improvements in safety while acknowledging that the products of chemistry have had a vast influence on making our everyday lives better. And that includes PVC, a versatile, affordable product that's had a positive impact for a whole lot of people.


This documentary is fairly well done. It tells an interesting story about a product many of us are relatively familiar with. The basic techniques were adequate and I had little qualms with the overall product.

I guess if there was a problem with the movie was the overall message. Don't get me wrong, I can totally buy that there may be some harmful materials in vinyl, I am just not sure I found a reasonable solution within the film. It seems to me that sometimes addressing a problem is only a first step and this movie did little other than to wag its finger for 90 minutes.

Finally, while I can understand that there may be some repercussions from vinyl use, I am not sure if I totally buy every lurid detail I was fed. Afterall, the movie started out with a woman looking for a problem... and found one


This film, already four years old, (successfully I think) explores the toxic potentiality of only one everyday item. There are scores of other contaminants out there, with the growing problem of e-waste something that will impact on everyone sooner or later. There is even a black market in e-waste disposal that sends discarded high-tech components to the developing world for crude deconstruction. One commentator referred to "Blue Vinyl" as "lefty." Actually, he or she should take note: the filmmaker notes that adult toys might contain carcinogens. This could be a big boost for the right, who generally don't approve of such items: scores of vibrators having to be discarded or recalled.


Though I did enjoy this movie especially how Judith Helfand went all out to find out information that worried her. However, the only problem I have is that the majority of the people she used for her scientific information were Green Peace scientist.

Now, even though these are legitimate researchers, Green Peace has an agenda and they want complete protection of the environment. I feel that this actually hurts her attempt to prove her point. This just makes the movie extremely bias.

By talking to these scientist the only thing she does is raise her own anxiety while making her movie a Green Peace Platform thats message will most likely be ignored.

My tip, next time stay away from biased scientist all together. Other than that the movie was very good, very well thought out and shot.


This is one of those documentaries where folks have a knee jerk reaction and start thinking how horrible this is and we must save the environment and I'm so glad this was brought to my attention.

Problem is what exactly was brought to our attention. This "documentary" had a conclusion first and then set out to prove it. She asks folks what they think, they tell her and she then presents this as fact. When she interviews folks who have an opposite viewpoint she misrepresents what they say and then mocks it. There is a scene in this show where she goes to a convention for the makers of vinyl one of the folks mentions that two of the components in PVC are sodium and chloride which are the components that make table salt, she then says that chemical compounds such as PVC are made up of common elements. Right after this our narrator says that she was just told that PVC is safe as table salt which is absolutely not what she was told. Later on she wants to get an expert opinion on if PVC is dangerous or not, so she has two "scientists" from Greenpeace come. Gee...we know this will be a fair evaluation. Basically the rest of this show is the same way and I think you can get the idea.

Stay away from this program as it's more harmful than good.


Visually, Tom and Huck is eye-pleasing, and Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro make a good pair as Tom and Huck. Other cast members fit their parts.

That the film did not strictly follow Mark Twain is no problem if you let the film story stand on its own. It is entertaining just for what it is.

Tom and Huck is an interesting enough film, but the transformation of Eric Schweig in his portrayal of Injun Joe compared to his characterization of Uncas in The Last of the Mohicans, is the most fascinating thing about it. In the body of his films, he seems to be able to alternate between utterly noble and utterly disgusting (e.g., Missing). Great acting.


Director Peter Hewitt captured the essence of friendship in this family friendly film. Set in southern Missouri in the early 1800's, Tom (Jonathon Taylor Thomas) and Huck (Brad Renfro)reunite and have some very interesting adventures together. While trying to get rid of warts in the graveyard, they witness a murder at the hands of Injun Joe (Eric Schweig). They swear an oath not to tell and sign in blood, for fear of Injun Joe coming after them. Tom has doubts about their oath, however, when an innocent man, Tom's friend, is accused of the murder. Tom has to make a very hard decision, friendship or an innocent man's death? In the mix is an ancient treasure and an important map, making this a movie to remember. This is an action-packed adventure kids will love and parents will approve of.


This movie had some humor in it!! After I saw it i went out to buy it!! The movie had a really good story to it! Although showing the graveyard scene is a little much but the rest is very good!! Becky wasn't a very good Becky. In my opinion Tom Sawyer could have done a lot better!! The movie for me kinda goes to fast but i liked it very much!! It is a great family film but for Jonathan Taylor Thomas it is no Home Improvements but it is the closest thing to it! Besides it is set up in the 1800s and Tom Sawyer and Randy Taylor dress totally different! If you are a J.T.T you will like this and if your not it is still a good movie!!


Tom and Huck is a 1995 movie released by Walt Disney Pictures starring Jonathan Taylor Thomas (T.V.'s "Home Improvement", "The Lion King")and Brad Renfro. It is based from Mark Twain's Novel about two mischievous boys Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn who, after witnessing the murder of Doc Robinson, the town's undertaker by the evil, knife-throwing Injun Joe (who will remind you of Indiana Jones if you've seen it), they must sware in blood not to tell anyone. If they don't, they will remain alive and not die; but, if they do tell anyone it was Injun Joe, he will kill them. The morning after the murder was committed, Injun Joe blames the whole thing on the town drunk, Muff Potter, saying that Muff committed the murder when Tom knows it was Injun Joe. I first saw this movie when I was a kid and recently, I have viewed it over and over again because it is one of my favorite movies. It has everything a good movie (like I have stated in reviews of other movies) should have: awesome music score composed by Stephen Endelman ("The Hunt for Murrell's Map" is a theme that fits the movie perfectly) amazing climax (being set in a huge scary cave, it makes one of the best you'll ever see), and a lesson for both boys; "When a friend's in trouble, you don't run away." One of my favorite parts in the movie is when Tom says "Last week Aunt Polly whipped me for swiping a pie, but it wasn't me. Figured it was Sid." Then Huck replies "He wanted it, but I beat em' to it." Then Tom says "I ought to punch you in the nose." Huck answers "You're welcome to try." Then Tom's says "Maybe later." The only reason I didn't give the film a 10 is because the accents could have been a little bit more country. Other than that, this film was great family fun. Rating: 9/10!


D-Yikes is definitely one of the stronger episodes of season 11, funny, imaginative and intelligent, as always it's hilarious and extremely enjoyable to watch. The episode revolves around Mrs. Garrison, at the beginning she is aggravated that her date blew off, because she was asked if she used to be a man. Later on she becomes friends with Allison, and is invited to her local bar "LesBos", and proceeds to find out "LesBos" is actually a lesbian bar. It is at this point South Park start to mock the film "300". Persians attempt to buy out "lesBos", a reference to the Persians attacking the Spartans. Garrison kicks a Persian in the balls, a reference to when Leonidas kicks a Persian messenger down a hole, and ans many more. The episode is full of "300" style special effects, and is still remains hilarious. The dialogue is funny, written very well and just a well rounded good episode in my opinion.

I give it 8/10


Usually around this time in the South Park run, the episodes get a little stale. However, I felt that D-Yikes was, while nothing special in the South Park spectrum, a well done episode.

Herbert Garrison (now Janet) has been the shows most diverse character. He started as a straight man with a talking puppet (Mr. Hat) who hated gays, but eventually found he was gay (and in this process Mr. Hat disappeared). Garrison stayed gay for several seasons, providing some great story points (Death Camp of Tolerance). In season 9, he was unfortunately made into a woman (or so he thought), and eventually forced to stay. The Garrison character stopped being very funny, and now is actually amusing again. Now she's a lesbian.

Garrison, after being dumped again, meets a fellow female at Curves who brings her to the bar Les Bos (see the pun?), a lesbian bar. Garrison discovers "scissoring," in the most graphic sex scene on South Park since Dawkins made love to Garrison last season.

Then the show turns into a 300 spoof. I have to admit my feelings on this are very mixed. 300 is a rather easy target, and the jokes they make are fairly predictable. However, it is still funny to see how they dramatize things. Several times a character does something meaningless (like bite a chip) and the whole sequence slows down to emphasize the action. Garrison making coffee is probably the most inspired use, making fun of how 300 constantly goes to slow-mo for its action scenes.

The whole Persian thing was a bit forced, but then I have to admit I didn't get the Persian joke (where they came from or what group they were making fun of, if any). I won't speculate too long, but when Xerxes and Garrison scissor, it's one of the funnier and more graphic scenes I've seen.

Very little is seen of the four boys, except when they hire Mexicans to help do their homework at write essays. The Mexicans think they mean Eses (I'm not sure how spell that, but the latino slang for friend) and is one of the funnier moments of the episode. Otherwise the episode isn't anything special.

It rises above the lice episode simply because it once again reinvents Garrison for the better this time (the Mayor's reaction, "You're a lesbian now," is priceless). Garrison is one of the most conceited characters to walk South Park's screen, almost as bad as Cartman. Hopefully episode 7 will whet our appetites for what will come again in the future. We can only hope.


I thought D-Yikes was a pretty decent South Park episode.It has Mr Garrison changing once again.It's really funny, at the beginning of the series he started off as a straight(maybe in the closet) male, then he comes out of the closet as a homosexual male, then he got a sex change operation and became a straight female, then in this episode, she becomes a lesbian! After she becomes a lesbian, she visits a bar where lesbians hang out called "LesBos".But it is being bought by Persians and as a spoof of the movie "300", the lesbians fight the persians while Garrison finds a secret of her own about the persian leader.It's alright but not the best South Park episode.


A great Episode of South Park once again, Mr/Mrs Garrison decides that she is a lesbian, going from a straight man, to a homosexual man, to a straight woman, Garrison has got to the sexual preference of lesbian.

The episode is a spoof of the film 300. cartman gets his friends to get their homework done by some Mexican immigrants which goes wrong.

Once Garrison becomes a lesbian she goes to the "girl Bar" with her "friend" she met at the gym. They join with all the other girls to try and save there bar from being bought out

Quite disturbing ending.

My favourite quote "scissor me timbers".

10/10


The 1947 mystery-thriller,"The Two Mrs.Carrolls"is considered by many critics to be a tepid,unrealistic film and one of Humphrey Bogart's lesser works. This couldn't be more false. The film contains brilliant performances by Bogart and Barbara Stanwyck,a great deal of eerie suspense,and delicious bits of English humor. The plot of the film is similar to that of Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" and "Suspicion",but has a uniqueness all it's own. It tells the story of Geoffrey Carroll(Bogart),a struggling artist who marries a wealthy woman,Sally(Stanwyck), after his supposed invalid wife dies. Life is normal for them,until Sally begins to feel ill and restless quite often.A doctor says she's suffering from nothing more than a nerve condition,and she believes that's all it is. She is, unfortunately, in for a big surprise.She learns from Geoffrey's precocious,young daughter,Bea(Ann Carter),some things about his previous wife.For starters,she was not an invalid and only got sick the last few weeks of her life.Geoffrey gave her milk at night to make her feel relaxed.This is exactly what he does for Sally.She also learns that a painting of his former wife,called "The Angel of Death",was done while she was sick. Hearing this,Sally comes to the realization that she is Geoffrey's next victim of a well-planned crime.Stanwyck has never been better as a panic-stricken wife,trying to survive her husband's evil doings.Bogart gives a highly underrated performance as a psychopath,who gets brutal when his murder plot doesn't go according to plan.His presence on screen is often frightening.The ending is wonderfully witty and comical.While not in the same league as "The Maltese Falcon"or "Key Largo",this is still a highly entertaining Bogart film,that will not disappoint. I give it a strong 8 1/2 out of 10.


This noir thriller has two of the biggest names in Hollywood in the 1940s and they are paired here in an interesting, if not too exciting, film. Humphrey Bogart, for all of the heroic roles during this stage of his career, is cast against type, and Barbara Stanwyck, always the femme fatale, is now a damsel in distress as matters spiral beyond her control as grave danger closes in on her. The role-reversals of the stars works well and the byplay between them is good. They are supported by Alexis Smith, quite stunning as the other woman who comes along to complicate matters for artist Bogart, who is, of course, hopelessly smitten with her. The remaining cast is good, as is Franz Waxman's somber music accompaniment. The camera work is also first-rate.


Of all the Humphery Bogart movies I have seen, The Two Mrs Carrolls proved he could make a good, creepy villain.

After the death of his first wife by poisoning her with milk he had spiked, Bogie, who plays a psychopathic artist meets another woman and marries her and he intends to do the same with her as he is having an affair with someone else. The second Mrs Carroll gradually gets suspicious of his behaviour and eventually finds out what he did to his first wife and manages to call the police. She refuses to drink a glass of milk he gives her and the police then arrive and he is arrested at the end, keeping calm despite this.

Although Bogie only appeared in one horror movie, The Return of Doctor X, The Two Mrs Carrolls certainly has horror elements.

Joining Bogie in the cast are Barbara Stanwyck, Dr Watson himself Nigel Bruce (appropiantly as a doctor and a very similar role to Watson too) and Alexis Smith. Excellent parts from all.

The Two Mrs Carrolls is a must for all Bogie fans and is certainly worth the £1.50 I paid for it. Excellent stuff.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.


This is a rather enjoyable movie that is nothing too impressive but is a good watch nevertheless.

The movie begins slow and dull because it's mostly just so formulaic. From the beginning on it isn't clear which approach the movie picks and what the movie is all about. Really no thriller elements in the first halve, just some formulaic drama and romance. Only halve way through the movie the movie starts to become interesting when the thriller elements of the movie start to appear in to the story. The movie is more thriller than it's film-noir really, which might be a surprising thing, considering the time the year was made in. So yes, in a way the movie is quite original, despite being formulaic. It has a typical thriller build up that builds up that leads to the unavoidable ending. The movie has some good genre moments, which mostly works out due to the fine cast and suitable atmosphere of the movie.

How often do we get to see Humphrey Bogart in the role of a psycho really? That is quite awesome! The supporting cast is also one to die for. Barbara Stanwyck was one of THE leading ladies at the time and Alexis Smith was also quite popular. Nigel Bruce, who everyone knows as THE Dr. Watson from the Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone, also plays a quite amusing small role in the movie.

Despite its genre clichés, this is still a rather well made movie. It's effectively directed and the story flows well, despite being quite silly at times. It's an above average movie due to how professionally it's made and how well the actors handle the script and its more silly (clichés) and unbelievable moments.

Perfectly watchable movie, especially for the Bogart fans, who want to see him in a role that is different.

7/10


Film Noir at its best and Bogy better than his best that I've ever seen. Certainly this vehicle gives him play to develop his moods and attitudes which served him so well when it came time for him to work as Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" (1954). A much more than cameo appearance by Basil Rathbone's Dr. Watson, meaning Nigel Bruce, adds to the country-bumpkin rural nature of the plot. Alexis Smith is elegant while Barbara Stanwyck exudes just the right combination of believability to carry off a difficult role brilliantly. One will readily recognize actress Isobel Elsom from her later, excellent roles in "My Fair Lady" and "Love Is A Many Splendored Thing". This is a Bogart masterpiece which, until after you've seen it, will leave you with a deficient attitude towards Bogart's greatness as one of the most versatile actors Hollywood ever produced.


The Two Mrs. Carrolls is a fine example of a film that could have been better. There are a number of very good elements in this film, but they serve only to highlight the enormous potential that it had and unfortunately didn't quite live up to.

It begins as an odd little thriller, with Bogart's subdued, quiet nature made sinister by some frankly stifling atmospheric music. At first it almost seems as though the film follows a non-linear narrative; we find out later that this is not the case. What it is, however, is a complex and twisting little tale that gradually unravels itself until the climax.

One problem is that there is an enormous amount of subtlety employed in its unravelling. In fact I would say there is a little too much subtlety, to the point where the details that are supposed to be underplayed to maximise the mystery and suspense do not seem to be underplayed at all, but rather they appear to have simply been ommitted. It's the same as watching a very badly edited film, where all of a sudden we jump to the next sequence in the story, without any explanation of why, or what has gone on in between. The difference is that in this case, the intermittent gaps are in the story rather than the action.

The second little problem is with Bogart's character. He's the centre of this story, a mentally disturbed and jealous painter who, it would appear, murdered his first wife (the first Mrs. Carroll) in order to marry the second, played very well by the beautiful Barbara Stanwyck.

But we're not really given any insight into his character until very late in the film. At first he appears to be just like your stereotypical artist; insular, unpleasant, cynical. But we know, or at least assume, that he has actual psychotic tendencies underneath that eccentric, but nonetheless ordinary exterior. We don't really see them though until the final twenty minutes of the film, and Bogart doesn't really get a chance to act until that point either. What this makes for is a thrilling and genuinely frightening conclusion to the film, but a rather dull experience for the rest of the time.

That said, this film is worth seeing if only for that last twenty minutes. It's very interesting to see Bogart do insane, as it is to see Stanwyck do helpless damsel, after her stirling work as femme fatale in Wilder's Double Indemnity. And, as with so many good conclusions, it wouldn't actually work without the preceding 80 minutes.

So all in all it is a film worth seeing. While there are occasional flaws which stop it from being better, they are definitely, although not overwhelmingly, outstripped by the positive elements of this exciting film-noir. **** / *****


I only saw this from half way through but it was easy to pick the storyline up. Also, this was the first movie I saw Barbara Stanwyck in and she's an amazing actress. Humphrey Bogart gives an amazing performance as a bizarre killer. Bogart plays a artist who's wife dies a mysterious death after he painted her as the Angel Of Death. He marries Sally (Barbara Stanwyck) and as the same strange urge to paint her the angel of death. As bizarre and strange as it may sound, it's very entertaining and most definitely held my attention while I was watching. Even my mother, who doesn't really like Mr. Bogart, sat down and watched it. Although at times you feel Barbara Stanwyck's character is completely hopeless (she doesn't put up any fight, quite weak), that doesn't mean that you don't care about what happens to her. You really do, and you feel a sense of triumph as she grabs the gun. I think the ending would have been much better if she actually put up a fight (how I would love to see Stanwyck kicking Bogart in the groin!! Then punching him before saying a witty line). Just my opinion. I would pay to see that!

Anyway, I think The Two Mrs. Carrolls is a very much underrated film. I liked it, it's quite exciting at times. Nice to see Mr. Bogart playing a different role - the villain. I'm getting this on DVD!


"The Two Mrs. Carrolls" is the second screen pairing of Humphrey Bogart and Alexis Smith, and oddly, it's Smith's character who's the 'other woman' in both films. It occurred the first time in 1945's "Conflict", but in that picture, it was Bogey's character who did the pursuing, while here, it's Cecily Latham (Smith) who intrudes on Geoffrey Carroll's marriage to the second Mrs. Carroll of the title. By that time though, Sally Morton (Barbara Stanwyck) had already been the 'other woman' to the first Mrs.C., who we only know by the 'Angel of Death' painting. Taking a chapter from "Bluebeard", Bogey's character is an artist who paints his victims before they succumb to a spiked milk cocktail.

It's never made clear how chemist Blagdon (Barry Bernard) figures out that Mr. Carroll is the customer who signs for his prescriptions as Fleming. But if he was that sharp, he should also have concluded that if Carroll was deranged enough to kill his first wife by poisoning, then knocking off a druggist wouldn't be much of a stretch. Too bad, he turned the screws just a little too tight for his own good.

Nigel Bruce is quite adequate depicting a country doctor who looks in on the Carroll's, you might call his performance right as rain. It's Dr. Tuttle's single minded obsession with an Ashton burglar and a Yorkshire strangler that gives Mr.C the idea for his farewell plans for wife number two. If only he'd have cut the phone line a minute sooner.

Perhaps the surprise performance in this tale belongs to the actress portraying daughter Bea, an unusually precocious Ann Carter. Watching her, it was almost impossible to believe that a child could converse with the language she used. It was somewhat irritating though to see how compliant she was with every single idea her father advanced, especially going away to school. I think she could have done some damage once the fireworks started.

Bogart and Stanwyck are genuinely competent in their roles; Stanwyck in particular turning things up a notch when it becomes clear that she could wind up a murder victim. The pair had generally good chemistry together, and seemed to be a better match than the intruder Cecily might have been with Mr. Carroll. Chalk that up to a fine performance by Alexis Smith, as this viewer found it hard to warm up to her character. Bogart fans might have some fun comparing his performance here against his similar character in the aforementioned "Conflict", a film which for my two cents is the stronger of the two.


Whoever claimed "The Two Mrs Carrolls" was Bogie at his worst in terms of movie making is nuts; Bogie's worst film is either "Swing Your Lady" or "The Return of Doctor X." Them films were horrid and I can barely sit through them.. I found "Carrolls" quite interesting and somewhat freaky...

I do admit, as far as explaining Bogie's character (Geofrey Carroll) with being mentally ill, the story is vague there... Their really is no reason or explanation as to why he tires of his wife / wives and decides to kill them off one by one after painting a morbid portrait of them....

Anyway, regardless of what critics think of this film effort from 1947, I think Bogie, Stanwyck, Alexis Smith and Nigel Bruce made a good cast and crew... Even the young Ann Carter was good as Bogie's daughter 'Beatrice' in the movie....

I have noticed that the excellent network TCM rarely ever shows this picture...... I myself had to wait for over a year to finally record and obtain it for my collection here recently.... I rate the film a 7 out of a possible 10 points...... I never hand out 10s, either..... 9 is usually my top digit number given..... Cheerio....

MR.BILL Raleigh


The summary line says it all.

Bogie as a kinda sexy guy, a la Casablanca, at first, but becoming more unhinged as time passes. (And a great nod to Casablanca's closing line.)

An English country house with tea parties and hybrid rose gardens. Snooty neighbors and an eccentric housekeeper.

A parish church with bells that chime at propitious moments.

A glowing glass of poisoned milk (although not a glowy as in Suspicion).

Kind of a fun movie, as it turns out.


The Two Mrs. Carrolls was one of a handful of motion pictures done by Warner Brothers which were released to the Armed Forces overseas first and then to the general public. Saratoga Trunk was another. As if our fighting men didn't have enough to contend with.

I disagree and even more importantly Humphrey Bogart disagrees with another reviewer who said this was Bogart's worst film. Bogart reserved that honor for Swing Your Lady. But you would think that in a once only teaming with him and Barbara Stanwyck they would have given him a better property. For instance I could easily see Stanwyck playing Mary Astor's part in The Maltese Falcon. But the Brothers Warner thought otherwise.

By the way either before or after Stanwyck did a film at Warners, Christmas in Connecticut an infinitely better film.

Bogart here is a psychopathic painter whose modus operandi is woo 'em, wed 'em, paint 'em and kill 'em. He's done that with one wife and Stanwyck is wife two. He's now got his eye on Alexis Smith and Stanwyck is being slowly poisoned.

What bothered me most about this is that there seems no reasons for Bogart's psychosis. Hopefully someone who might have seen the original play by Martin Vale could inform us if that was something left out in the movie.

If not, then it's a bad movie taken from a bad play.


You've got Humphrey Bogart, Barbara Stanwyck and Alexis Smith in a film and yet it stinks. Where did this film go wrong?

Bogart stars as a crazed killer who has already murdered his first unseen wife and is well on his way to do in wife #2 played by Barbara Stanwyck. In a way, I thought Miss Stanwyck was using this film as a dress rehearsal for her Oscar nominated performance in the following year for "Sorry, Wrong Number."

Ann Carter stars as Bea, Bogart's daughter from his first marriage. The child is precocious. She sounds like a 40 year old rather than a child of 8 or 9 which she is supposed to be.

Nigel Bruce is somewhat effective as the doctor to Stanwyck who loves his "occasional" drink and obsessive talking about the burglar-strangler on the loose.

The heavy rain and dark atmosphere adds to eeriness of the production. Problem is that the plot can be figured out in about 10 minutes.


This is a film that is very much overlooked by most Bogart fans, not because of his acting, but the story line may have been great in 1947, but is not very thrilling today. Humphrey Bogart,(Geoffrey Carroll),"Dead End",'37, plays a struggling artist and also a man who loves the ladies. Barbara Stanwyk,(Sally Morton Carroll), "Sorry,Wrong Number",'48 plays the wife and begins to become very uncomfortable living with her husband. Geoffrey hands Sally a drink of milk before going to bed and she gets all upset and throws the milk out a stain glassed window. Alexis Smith,(Cecily Latham),"The Eternal Sea",'55 gets herself involved with Geoffrey and they have fun as told in the days of 1947 with no sleeping in bed together was allowed. Geoffrey works on a painting of his wife and has it under lock and key and eventually she opens the door and finds a great big surprise. Even Nigel Bruce (Dr. Tuttle), "Dressed to Kill",'46 appears in the picture and gives a great supporting role as the family doctor. If you are a Bogart fan, you will want to see his performance and especially his facial expressions, something like the "Caine Mutiny"54.


Bogey plays a tortured artist(!) who needs to kill every wife once she serves no artistic inspirational purpose to him anymore. It sounds far-fetched and isn't exactly the most credible motive for murder, but I've seen worse. Stanwyck plays his crooked-nosed second wife, who eventually gets bombarded by clues that Bogey's first wife was poisoned and that he has the same in store for her. Stanwyck gets about a zillion clues - enough circumstantial evidence to convict O.J. Simpson in front of a sex-starved black female jury - yet she still has doubts. Ah, love... Eventually common sense prevails and she doesn't drink that forbidding-looking glass of milk that Bogey is so keen on serving his wives. She is saved by her ex-beau in the last minute. We also have here Bogey's daughter from the first marriage; this girl is given dialog that would make a forty year-old woman sound too adult. We are supposed to believe that this girl's coolness regarding all the goings-on, as well as her articulate manners and speech, are a result of her not socializing with other kids! The girl's character is sometimes so over-the-top that it becomes unintentionally comical. Filmed in rather nice black&white. The dialog in the opening scenes is on a dime-novel level. If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.


I'll let you know now, I've seen better thrillers. But "Borderline" is definitely worth the watch. I am a huge fan of the hot Sean Patrick Flannery(one of the world's most under rated actors), the beautiful Gina Gershan(again, very under rated), and the handsome Michael Biehn(he's a good actor; no comment). So, when I saw the cover to this movie, I was immediately excited to see such fine actors together. The story is about a woman who is fighting for custody of her two daughters and looses them to her ex-husband due to her jail-psychiatrist job that every in-mate admires her for. When her ex-husband and his fiancée' are murdered the night that she looses her children to him, things look suspicious obviously. She wanted her kids, she was still the one to take it all in her ex's will, and that she wanted him out of her and her kid's lives. Sean Patrick's role comes in as a former in-mate who is completely obsessed with Gina's character. He wants to be with her and her family, but Gina insists that he is the murderer of her ex and his fiancée'. Will Gina be proved innocent with the help of her supposed-to-be-not-because-they-work-together boyfriend, Michael Biehn, or will Sean slip up and confess his dark secrets? You'll just have to find out.

8/10


Here's a little nugget made for cable that revolves around a psychiatrist played by Gina Gershon. Her ex husband is murdered the day he's granted custody of the children. The lead investigator on the case played by Michael Biehn is her boyfriend. One of the suspects is a former patient played by Sean Patrick Flanery. The movie leaves enough unsaid to conclude what you will & develops gradually in a matter fitting to aid the suspense. The acting is top notch with great directing as well.


I like this movie a lot. It doesn't have the most original plot in the world but what it does with it is dynamite. This reminds me a lot of those old movies they call "filmes noir" nowadays, the ones with the weary cynical cop, played by someone like Mark Stevens or William Lundigan or Dana Andrews who gets mixed up with the dangerous dame who may or may not be a killer. And there's the likable but menacing loony (William Bendix, Elisha Cook), is he the guilty one? This is a real whodunit, folks, & it had me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. The three principals are terrific. Gershon is a pure pulp lusty female, right off the cover of an old Signet paperback. Michael Biehn has grizzled nicely since Terminator. Maybe he'll morph into today's Sterling Hayden. And Sean Patrick Flanery is fine as the charming psycho who evokes Michael J. Fox as Hannibal Lechter. It's a great-looking film, never static, with lots of dynamic camera work, great pace and good writing. A very professional and satisfying film. In a way it is what The Man Who Wasn't There should have been.


In the movie the man who murders the people has Borderline Personlity Disorder. I myself have this. It give us a stigma that we are dangerous. I suggest all to look it up on the net. Yes, it is Fiction, but people do not get the real idea about the illnesses. Borderline people get lonely and depressed and more likely to hurt themselves along with Bipolar and Depression.

Borderline Personality Disorder DSM IV Criteria

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsive beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.

3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.

4. impulsive in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating

5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or self-mutilating behavior

6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).

7. chronic feelings of emptiness


The psychiatrist Dr. Lila Colleti (Gina Gershon) works in a penitentiary, where the prisoners like her, and is divorced. Her ex-husband Paul (Nick Boraine) and she are disputing the custody of their two daughters in court, and Paul wins the dispute of the girls. Paul moves the daughters to his place and Lila becomes depressive and upset, goes to a bar and uses drugs with alcohol, having a blackout. In the night, Paul and her mate are murdered, and Lila becomes the prime suspect of the crime. She accuses her manipulative patient Ed Baikman (Sean Patrick Flanery) to her boyfriend, Det. Macy Kobacek (Michael Biehn), but he is not sure of who is the assassin. "Borderline" is a good low budget thriller, having some flaws in the screenplay, but holding the attention of the viewer until the last scene. The forty years old Gina Gershon is still a very sexy woman and is another attraction in this above-average film. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Distúrbio Mortal" ('Mortal Disturbance")


Although this was a good movie with a decent storyline, they made a large flaw, I could not overlook.

Her boyfriend which is part of the Police Department, and working on the case, is trying to keep her from being arrested and accused of this crime. Half way through the movie, he takes her to the scene of the crime, because the evidence keeps mounting against her. While there he tells her how they believe things happened. According to him, they believe that her ex was tied and bleeding to death, while he laid there and witnessed his soon to be new wife's rape and murder. Read that last sentence carefully. Does the word RAPE stand out at all. This is a woman who RAPED and left semen behind, after she over came her ex, with the other woman present. Ties and left him bleeding to death, and then went to work raping the other woman, and then killing her.

Something just a tad bid wrong with this whole picture, don't ya think?


A little bit of a let down. Personal opinion, this was a movie with much more potential that was never allowed to reach that. Sean Patrick Flanery has good moments in the movie, but as a whole his performance doesn't come close to some of his other movies like Powder and Boondock Saints. This is the first movie I saw of Gina Gershon, I definitely want to see more movies, not because she was so good in this one, but because it seems as if she is capable of so much more. Many components could have been put together so much better. The music for instance doesn't always seem to suit the situation, A+ for effort, but it just wasn't there yet. There were all the ingredients for a good thriller, just not enough of everything, so instead of a cake, you got a cupcake. Unfortunately, masterpiece is not the first word that jumps to mind. It's a good storyline, not predictable. It is an interesting storyline, Some good actors, great potential, but something didn't quite work. not a movie to rent out, but if you can't sleep and it happens to be on the television, go ahead.


No other film version of "Jane Eyre" can touch this one for fidelity to the book and excellence of performance. Michael Jayston is the perfect Mr. Rochester - he looks the part, attractive yet not too pretty, and able to convince us of his hidden good qualities under a rough and abrasive exterior. Sorcha Cusack is wonderful as Jane - exactly what Charlotte Bronte set out to create, a plain, retiring heroine whose personality blazes through and captivates us. This version gives us the ENTIRE story, from Jane's deprived childhood and years at Lowood School to her life at Thornfield with Mr. Rochester. It even treats seriously the interlude with her cousins, St. John Rivers and his sisters, something film versions of the novel usually try to minimize or alter completely. Paradoxically, this actually works and makes sense, although it is an interruption in the more interesting Jane-Rochester story. The dialogue and narration are often taken directly from the novel, with just some abbreviation. I wish this version would appear on video - it is FAR superior to any of the others made for TV or the big screen. If you see it being broadcast (it turns up on Canadian TV sometimes) don't miss it.


I have seen many versions of Jane Eyre, and this version is at the top of my list. When I get the urge for some terrific acting and a bit of romance, I pop in the videotape and sit back to enjoy. Michael Jayston gives an incredible performance as Mr. Rochester, just amazing. Sorcha Cusack and the rest of the cast turn in equally good performances, but I felt that Jayston was the best Rochester I have ever seen! It is a lengthly production, but the length is needed to tell the story--other productions, 2 hour movies, have not been able to do nearly as good a job. But again, Michael Jayston's masterful performance is the best part of this already first-rate production!


This is probably the best treatment of Jane Eyre I've seen. A novel this rich does not adapt well to a two hour film, and this five hour production allows for a more than adequate treatment of the depth and scope of Bronte's work. The narration by Jane herself is a unique approach that I found very interesting and added to the depth of not only Jane herself but also to the other characters about whom she continually muses. Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston are excellently paired and are, in my opinion, the finest Jane and Rochester I've seen, both in terms of characterization and looks. Finally a Jane and Rochester who aren't too beautiful!


Despite the fact that this movie was filmed long ago, that the costumes were rather strangely chosen (at least for today's viewer), and that the supporting cast is not always at its best, this is by far the best Jane Eyre adaptation in my view: it manages the perfect note for the two main characters' development, for their chemistry, and for their reason of actions. Jayston plays wonderfully the role: all the attributes that Bronte wrote about her hero are well argued by Jayston's fine, subtle and clever acting: tortured spirit, sometimes stern and abrupt, sometimes kind and genial, eccentric, good story-teller, full of passion, masterful, yet submissive in Jane's presence, with deep and mellow voice, and playing a cat-mouse game with Jane. Jayston managed to bring the character to life as none before of after him has managed; the viewer never has the feeling that he "plays", that he is artificial; he really becomes Rochester while on screen and looks like he feels any line and any movement he is acting. Nothing over-elaborate as it was with Hurt's Rochester (96 version), nothing theatrical or bombastic as in the case of Dalton's Rochester (83 version), nothing staring or predatory like Welles's Rochester ('44 version), and definitely nothing unpleasant or out-of-range (or rage) as with Hinds's Rochester.


I was delighted to read the positive reviews of this wonderful adaptation of Jane Eyre. I agree wholeheartedly with all the comments listed. I remember watching this series on BBC 2 in the early 1970s and was absolutely captivated. It brought the novel to life in the most magical way. At that time I was studying Jane Eyre as a text for 'O' level English Literature and it made studying the novel a real pleasure. I have never seen a better Mr Rochester or Jane Eyre and the sexual chemistry between Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack was electrifying to watch. I have not seen this series since that original broadcast and to the best of my knowledge it was never repeated. It was pre video recorders in our household so we have no copy of it. I would dearly love to view it again and have tried in vain to obtain a copy. The BBC have released later and in my opinion inferior versions but apparently have no plans to release this one. It is testimony to the power of those wonderful performances of more than 30 years ago that I can still remember how superb they were. Here's hoping that the BBC have a change of heart.


I first saw this mini series back in 1973 when it was broadcast on the BBC and thought it was wonderful. I immediately read the book and couldn't believe how true to the book the adaptation was. Also what I loved about it was it wasn't a glitzy Hollywood version, it completely captured the atmosphere of the book. All the cast gave brilliant performances. Sorcha Cusack was a perfect Jane but Michael Jayston's performance was just astounding. He managed to portray all the complexities of the character with a touch of dry wit, and the chemistry between Rochester and Jane is just amazing. I'm afraid the 1983 Dalton version just doesn't do anything for me. Dalton is an excellent actor but once you've read the book he doesn't really fit the part the way Michael Jayston does. It is fantastic that the powers that be have come to their senses and decided to re-release it after all these years. It is an exceptional adaptation. Don't miss it!


This BBC TV miniseries version is, without a doubt, the best screen adaptation of the timeless novel. The storyline is as close to the book as could be expected, without major omissions. The language is carefully preserved, and when spoken by the excellent actors Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston, the book does come alive. What a tribute to Charlotte Bronte! Why, oh why, has it still not been released on video?!


Have to say I liked the 1983 version until I saw this one. Wow! Where has it been hiding all these years. Michael Jayston is amazing as Rochester. His acting is superb and he is wonderfully witty in the part. Most actors who have portrayed Rochester have managed to portray some aspects of the character well, but somehow Jayston manages to get everything right. Sorcha Cusack is excellent as Jane, a really moving performance. Rochester and Jane just look right together in this adaptation, you can really believe in the characters. My only quibble with this adaptation is that it is not long enough, I could have done with a lot more of the same. My recommendation is make sure that you don't miss this 1973 version, it's a joy to watch.


The '73 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston is a decent adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel but it pales in comparison to the outstanding BBC production of '83 in several respects. Firstly, the '73 version has the weaker script, which very often stays too close to the novel for is own good, yet at times diverts unnecessarily from the literary model. It may sound paradoxical that a production of Jane Eyre can stay too close to the novel, but so it is. The long dialogues between Rochester and Jane are a joy to read, but when they are transferred to the screen in nearly their full length as in this production, their complexity and very unusualness create an impression of artificiality and staginess. The '83 version, on the contrary, shows how superbly these dialogues can be adapted to the screen. There, scriptwriter Alexander Baron did not keep all the lines, but infallibly picked the core lines which are essential to characterize the protagonists and convey the essence of the scenes. Faithful as the long conversation are rendered in the '73 version, they appeal to the intellect rather than the heart, they are interesting, but not captivating, and they lack the focus and also the intensity of the scenes between Rochester and Jane in the '83 version.

Another negative point is the more than frequent use of Jane's voice-overs. Nearly all versions make use of that technique and with just reason, but in this adaptation it is driven to absurd extremes. Jane's inner voice constantly interrupts even the dialogues between her and Rochester, only to inform the audience about what is already blatantly obvious and what could have been shown as effectively by plain good acting. Alas, Sorcha Cusack's acting abilities are limited  at least in this role. She either raises her eyebrows or wears an amused, know-all smile, which is simply not enough to render the character of the novel's heroine. But then her whole concept of Jane is wrong. She plays Jane as a self-confident, sophisticated and worldly-wise young woman, who is right from the beginning on terms of equality with Mr Rochester. She completely misses Jane's guardedness, her shyness, modesty and inexperience. Her Jane is even snappish and pert at times. But the misrepresentation of Jane's character is not Cusack's fault alone but partly also due to the script, which brings me back to my first point of criticism: Since the script is overall so faithful to the novel, the viewer naturally concludes that each word uttered in this version must come straight from the novel  but such is not the case. A very attentive reader of the novel will have noticed that they frequently put repartees and remarks in Jane's mouth which she does not utter in the novel and which give her a sophistication, shrewdness and boldness the young and inexperienced Jane of the novel does not possess. And getting Jane wrong they also got the relationship between her and Rochester wrong. She constantly has the final say during their conversations, she dominates and lectures Rochester instead of being lectured by him.

With such a Jane there is little Michael Jayston as Rochester can do. Jayston is an admirable, subtle actor, who speaks his many lines well and who is really the highlight of this version, but unfortunately he lacks that charisma, that great overpowering presence and natural authority which are necessary to play Rochester and which for example make Orson Welles a more convincing Rochester in the '44 movie, although he has much less screen time than Jayston and does not possess the latter's subtlety. Jayston is superb at playing the eloquent and refined gentleman, but simply cannot portray Rochester' imperious and dark side, and his outbursts of anger and temperament seem unnatural and forced. In the '83 version all sides of Rochester's character are rendered in equal perfection by Timothy Dalton, who combines magnetism and a great acting range and who is furthermore unrivalled in his incredible delivery of Charlotte Brontë' unusual language. Unfortunately there is also little chemistry between Jayston and Cusack: their interplay is amusing but it lacks feeling and their love scenes are passionless and dry.

As regards the plot most of the novel's important scenes are faithfully shown in this version  although the part between Jane's flight from Thornfield and her arrival at Moor House is cut out  but two scenes are altered and to their disadvantage. The first is the gypsy scene. In this version Jane guesses who the gypsy woman really is even before she sees her. Rochester can only say a few sentences before Jane makes him stop the masquerade. In the novel this scene is an admirable means of characterizing both Rochester and Jane  here it only serves to make Jane look very smart and Rochester like a fool. Better to leave out that scene than to mutilate it in that fashion. The second is the parting scene after the aborted wedding. This scene would have benefited if they had stayed closer to the novel, but for some reason they considerably shortened it and consequently that scene conveys next to none of the heartbreak and despair of the scene of the novel. Again, both these scenes are done to perfection in the '83 version.

Let me conclude by saying that despite all my points of criticism I still think that this version in its overall great faithfulness to the novel is miles above nearly all other Jane Eyre adaptation, and I would invite all true lovers of the novel  and using that term I exclude all those who earnestly affirm that the silly 2006 perversion of Jane Eyre is true to the novel or to the spirit of the novel  to watch both the productions of '73 and '83 and to form their own opinion. For my part I have found the definitive Jane Eyre in the '83 adaptation.


I watched this when they first showed the series on TV. At the time I was studying Jane Eyre for O Level English literature exam.

This became a favourite book of mine for all time and I have read it many times since.

I loved this series. The characters were just as I imagine and they followed the original text very closely. Knowing it well, I was able to quote sections along with the actors.

I always remember enjoying this production and would love to own it on Video or DVD. I have not enjoyed another production of Jane Eyre as much as this.


Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is one of my all time favorite books in all the English Literature. It was a required reading in my college in Taiwan where I grew up. I have read the book at least 10 times and have memorized many of the written conversations between Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. When I saw the TV series by Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston, I was immediately impressed how true the entire series was to the book, even the conversations were taken directly from the book. The performance of both Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester by Ms Cusack and Mr Jayston was astounding. I have seen several versions of Jane Eyre over the years, including the one by Timothy Dalton, but none was nearly as good as this one. I believe if the series was done in the U S it would have won a number of Emmy Awards, certainly Michael Jayston would have won the best actor in the drama role . It was the best adaptation of the book I've ever watched.


Why, when mentions are made of productions of 'Jane Eyre', is this production never mentioned? I saw it when I was 11 years old, and fell desperately in love with Rochester (Michael Jayston). I then read the novel, my first ever classic novel. One thing led to another, and ten years later there I was with a degree in English literature. This production sparked an interest that never died. For years I have been hoping it would be released on video, and now at last I am the proud owner of a DVD copy. Yes, it has dated, the production values are those of the 1970's. But the performances are compelling, luring the viewer into the world of passion and suppression. The script is very faithful to the novel, the most faithful I have seen, with plenty of time for the childhood scenes so necessary to explain the adult Jane, and the relationship with St John Rivers fully explored. I was always amazed that Sorcha Cusack (Jane) seemed to disappear from the screen for many years, she is very talented and makes a sympathetic Jane. As for Michael Jayston, words fail me... I am still in love with him!!!


What can I say that hasn't already been said? Michael Jayston is a god. Sorcha Cusack the first Jane I can imagine Rochester falling in love with. Both are at once fascinating and very human and their chemistry is extraordinary.

Even minor characters such as Adele, Helen Burns and Mr Briggs are spot on - showing the care that was taken over this production. The direction manages to make Jane and Rochester's lengthy tete-a-tetes interesting - more than it ever did in the 1983 version - and the production values, for the time, are pretty good (a lovely touch - the wisps of smoke Rochester passes through after the fire).

I've watched it over five times now and each time find something new in it to like. Only the novel itself has done this to me. Highly recommended.


I was just a lad of ten when I saw this 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" for the first time. Michael Jayston and, above all, Sorcha Cusack made an everlasting impression on me. After all these years, to be able to see her again as Jane is... all joy!

To acknowledge how well both these actors did portray their respective characters from Robin Chapman's fine script and under Joan Craft's competent direction, allow to remind you here the following excerpts from Charlotte Brontë's immortal novel: - from chapter XIV (Jane about Rochester): "(...) he rose from his chair (...)"; - and from chapter XXVII (Rochester to/about Jane): "(...) You entered the room (...)" In these two passages of her novel, Charlotte Brontë gave to all readers a crystal-clear synthesis of how she imagined Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester; and it is exactly this we have the exquisite privilege to contemplate in the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre".

Please, believe me: in no other production you will find these characters portrayed so faithfully to the novel and so perfectly on screen as in this one! Michael Jayston is a great, truly great Rochester; Sorcha Cusack, with that beautiful round face, those lovely eyes and that velvet voice, is a Jane from the other world; and the connection between them is genuine empathy - just like the connection there is between their respective characters.

The portrayal of the secondary characters is made in much the same way. The performances of Isabelle Rosin as Adèle, of Megs Jenkins as Mrs. Fairfax, of Stephanie Beecham as Blanche Ingram, and of Geoffrey Whitehead as St. John Rivers, are all very good and quite close to what can we read in "Jane Eyre".

The real marrow of Charlotte Brontë's novel: this is what one can get from this, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Nothing of real importance is missing here - above all, God. The final lines said by Sorcha Cusack, taken out of the last chapter of novel (sadly missing in all the other TV and movie versions), are a sort of resume of Charlotte Brontë's faith in God: after helping both Jane and Rochester going through their ordeals, God blesses her supremely and judges him with mercy; so, there is reason to believe in God.

Just like the novel, this TV production is a story told by Jane's own point of view: it's a "flash-back". The use of narration through Jane's "inner-voice" is as effective here as it is old in the History of English Theatre: it harks back to William Shakespeare, who used to make his characters turn to the audiences and speak out their intimate thoughts.

Drama and humor, suspense and surprise are all very finely balanced in this BBC production of "Jane Eyre". As for the humor, I don't mean to be rude to those reviewers whom have written elsewhere criticizing Sorcha Cusack's performance, but I'm afraid they simply don't grasp British humor - particularly, the "understatement", which is present in almost every line of many of the intimate dialogs between Jane and Rochester (both in the novel and in this production).

It should be noted that this is neither a "romantic" nor a "Gothic" production of Charlotte Brontë's novel. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Jane Eyre" is a true romantic or a true Gothic novel. As far as I remember, it was Jorge Luis Borges who stated that it could be classified as one of the predecessors of the so-called "Magic Realism" in Literature. Indeed, between "Romanticism", "Gothicism" and "Magic Realism", I personally find "Jane Eyre" much closer to the latter...

To my mind, in a scale of 1 to 10, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" deserves 9.9. It would get a clear 10 out of me if it had (as it should!) at least fifteen episodes; but, since it was a "low budget" production, it has only five - and, because of that, the "gipsy scene" had to be pruned up to the point of becoming just a hilarious scene, and the character of Rosamond Oliver had to be simply tossed off.

Nevertheless, it is the best of all screen versions there are of "Jane Eyre": the most faithful to novel, superbly tight and paced, very well put up together, with first class performances and Elgar's Introduction and Allegro for strings, Opus 47 (1904-05), as the musical background.

In short, it is a sublime piece of Art. Don't miss it!...


This is the only version of Jane Eyre that I've seen yet. I am reading the book now and the very dialogue of the movie is from the book. It does skip over her childhood, but if they included that it would be way too long. I wish that I could get it on video. My dad made a recording of it when it was on Masterpeice Theater on KQED a long time ago, but the tape is very bad now. I'd absolutely LOVE it if they could release it on video. The whole cast is excellent.


I first read Jane Eyre the novel many years ago and have since watched various adaptations of it but never really found one that I thought captured the essence of the book and portrayed the characters as I imagined them. That was until I was lucky enough to see the 1973 version. This one is perfect, exactly what I had been looking for. The 2 main characters are wonderful, Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack simply are Rochester and Jane. They bring the novel alive and every scene they are in sizzles! There is so much to enjoy in every scene, you never tire of watching it. This is far, far superior to the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton, it goes to show that newer versions are not always better. It's simply a classic!


Both leads are perfect in their roles and the chemistry between them is breathtaking. Best romantic scene is when Rochester thanks Jane for saving him from the bedroom fire - as Rochester holds onto Jane's hands, the glances they exchange and when Rochester says 'Jane' after a silent pause as she walks out of his room - speaks volumes. The funniest scene is the gypsy scene which I had not seen in the film version in 1996 and was a welcome surprise. Both are also average-looking rather than gorgeous which makes the story more believable although Sorcha is beautiful in a classic way. Both leads are the best Jane and Rochester.


I would agree with most of the reviewers that this is overall one of the best adaptations of "Jane Eyre" ever. It is one of my favorite British novels -- I bought my house because of Jane Eyre's love of window seats. Rochester is most aptly portrayed herein, even though I love Ciaran Hinds! However, I think Miss Cusack is and looks too old to play plain but not wholly unattractive "Jane Eyre". The long periods of verbal jousting may be too much for some but I enjoyed it. The production values are uneven. One one hand using what seemed to be actual houses; yet on the other, staged set pieces. While talking, the two main characters are in a beautiful outdoor setting then go onto what see obviously a staged outdoor setting. Very jarring!


I saw this version as a child, and fell in love with Rochester and with Michael Jayston, whose performance is very winning, witty, and believable. That production introduced me to the book, which I have read many times and loved my whole life. I can't believe I was so young when I saw it, because it made such a deep impression on me and I understood it so clearly, even at a young age.

Seeing it again on DVD, some of the early scenes made me laugh because the acting is rather wooden, and the production values are very 1970s. However, when we get to the interaction between Jane and Rochester, it comes alive and I forgot the datedness of the production. The dialogue is straight out of the book, and in some places this makes it unrealistic and cumbersome, but the narration in Jane's voice is wonderful, because it lets us know what she in thinking. Other productions have not done this, and sometimes it's useful to know why she acts as she does. The developing love between Jane and Rochester and the enduring nature of that love is the central theme and that is beautifully done.

Sorcha Cusack conveys Jane's determination and intelligence very well, even though she looks too old for the part, and Michael Jayston is the best Rochester ever. This is a must see for Jane Eyre fans!


The many efforts to recreate Jane Eyre for TV or Cinema attest to the ongoing satisfaction readers have with this author and this book. This version lifts the dialog, in many cases, word- for-word from the book, and avoids changing the storyline "for dramatic impact." As such, it is the most satisfying of all reproductions to date. The acting is excellent and the characters well- matched, dramatically. It is a relief to see the story less amputated than is necessary when confining it to a two-hour presentation.

Negatives include: Sorcha Cusak (Jane) does not look 19 years old, Michael Jayston (Mr. Rochester) is far too handsome, and the Seventies filming style is dated, especially in the transitions from scene to scene.

None of these objections, however, interfere with the thrill and wonder of hearing Jane Austen's own dialog, wry humor, and clever repartee brought to life by such a talented cast!


I came across this version on DVD not having been previously aware of its existence; before this I favoured the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version made ten years later as definitive.

But this version is surprisingly good and quite charming. It keeps closely to the book both in characterisation and in text, and has a likable pair of leads in Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston.

Cusack at first did not make me think of Jane Eyre, as I found her a little too quizzical, too mocking. However, as the drama progressed I found myself becoming absorbed in her performance and in her interactions with Jayston's sardonic Rochester. You can believe that these two have an attraction that, at first, perhaps neither of them can define or understand. It is a connection of souls, not based on looks or on any standard form of affection.

The French pupil, Adele, is also full of energy and very much like the little girl in the book. No pretence here that she is anything other than the master of the house's illegitimate daughter, as Jane is made aware of this very early on.

Even though in its production values its age is showing, this version of Jane Eyre is impressive and well deserving of a new generation of viewers in its new format. It sits well alongside the many other versions and, I think, is the equal of the 1983 version if not, in some respects, slightly better.