I don't think this movie is for everyone. But I saw it this weekend in Seattle and I thought it was so funny. I haven't laughed that hard during a movie in long time. I thought the entire cast did a great job. You will find yourself laughing from the first moment through the very last scene. I suspect some moviegoers (especially the ones who take themselves WAY too seriously) will be turned off by this brand of humor. Not me. The movie was a real surprise. And the entire theater was rolling with laughter throughout the showing I went to which makes me think that a lot of people enjoyed themselves and were happy to have a good time at the movies for a change. I cannot wait to see it again! If you're in the mood to LOL then this is for you. Funny funny funny funny!


Anyone who lived through the ages of Revenge of the Nerds and Girlpower will appreciate this film. It is one of those films that delivers everything you want in a "spring break movie" PLUS it makes fun of the college film genre. It's funny, it's got a cast to die for (Amy Pohler! Rachel Dratch!, Sophie Monk!, Parker Posey! Jane Lynch! Amber Tamblyn! Missi Pyle!) and its guaranteed to make you laugh out loud. Writer/ actor Rachel Dratch is a comic genius and Sophie Monk is such a great villain. Wilson Phillips! OMG! (I'm just repeating myself now...) It will live on with girls who like Miranda July but feel like eating ice cream and pretending they're dumb.


This isn't Masterpiece Theater. You shouldn't go into it expecting that. This is pure girl FUN with the most fantastic cast of female leads. Like someone else here said, this is the film Baby Mama was meant to be. And the only downside I see to this film is that Tina Fey was not in it- besides that it stars the smartest and brightest girls on the planet. The film is pure silliness on the surface, but if you really watch you will know it has a lot of messages and deep meaning to any of us who wish they could go back and do it all over again in life knowing then what we know now. PURE FUN and I recommend it to anyone looking for 84 minutes of great escape.


For a while I was caught in the trap where I found myself watching independent and foreign films and lying to myself that I liked them. Fatty Drives the Bus is the exception. It is the truth. It is the best "bad" movie ever.

The "badness" of this movie seems to come naturally. Halfway through Satan's opening monologue, the word "Hell" appears at the bottom of the screen. The glamorous Bridget is an unshaven man in a wig and a thrift store dress. It takes the eccentric couple that keeps trying to kill each other FOREVER to walk down the stairs. Jesus walks to a funk soundtrack.

Anyways, Fatty gives the impression that someone lost their tenure for advising a senior's film project. But it's the sincerity of how bad it is that makes it so wonderful. You get the impression the makers knew it was going to be bad, but never forced it.

Never to be duplicated in wonder, Fatty delivers. Highly highly recommended.


No, I'm not joking around. If you ever, EVER, have the chance to see this movie see it. If you need chop off your arm to see it, see it. It's worth it.

Fatty Drives The Bus is unlike any film you've ever seen. It takes trash cinema and elevates it to a work of art. While it contains poor shots, idiotic characters, bad dialogue, strange acting, and cinematography that belongs on public access in Iowa, it actually succeeds in its goal as a film. It strives to be the dumbest, strangest, most inane movie you've ever seen. And boy does it ever succeed.

I will lay out the plot for those of you who worry about such things (the filmmakers obviously didn't), but really you needn't pay too much attention because the entire film's plot is presented in a very long piece of text played before the opening credits. In any event, FDTB (as its admirers call it) is the story of a bus tour through Chicago, which is led by Satan. You see, Jesus is in town, and all the passengers on the bus are supposed to die, and all their souls would have gone to hell, except with Jesus in town, a lackey in hell calls off the job, and this angers Satan because, well he doesn't like looking like a fool in front of the guy, so he decides to get the people on the bus to sign over their souls to him directly, but he's a devil, so he needs to disguise himself, otherwise, who'd go on a tour with him right, so he disguises himself as Roger and he gets on the bus, where the driver is never referred to by name, but he is kind of fat, so I guess he's Fatty. The bus (and the riders) are on a collision course with wackiness!

Examples of some lunacy: The title repeats on the screen 3 times. I don't know why. A character appears on the bus in mid-trip without explanation or introduction, and occassionally sits next to the others, and they look at her like she doesn't belong. I don't know why. Two characters fall in love and exchange longing glances, that are really the same shots repeated over and over again. I don't know why. After Satan gives a minute long monologue about transforming into human form a title card flashes "Satan is going to transform." I don't know why. One character is a woman who is very obviously a man in drag, and is referred to by other characters as "the glamorous Bridget." I don't know why.

If there was one good thing that came out of my internship at Troma last summer it was getting my own copy of Fatty Drives The Bus.


FATTY DRIVES THE BUS is simply the funniest, most original and entertaining piece of work i have ever had the pleasure of seeing.

this movie is by no means up to Hollywood standards, or even that of a straight-to-video movie fluff comedy starring terry "hulk" hogan, in terms of camera work, editing, acting, budget, or anything else.

what this movie DOES have though, is a very original and enjoyable story, and it is obviously done by people who love making it, and the enthusiasm of the all the cast and crew really break through all its budget and acting downfalls.

this movie proves that you don't need a huge budget or decent actors to make a great film, all you need are some original ideas and some passion for what your doing.

simply the best movie ever. i don't care how you get it, rent it, order it, steal it, download it, just see this movie.

now i just hope they make a DVD version.


This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW!


What an amazingly funny and original show. The cast starting with the hysterical Julie Brown(Homecoming Queen's Got A Gun) is just perfect. Add Amy Hill(All American Girl-Grandma Kim) who plays a lesbian who is always arguing with her partner and business partner(Asian restaurant-WOK-DON"T RUN) I have laughed harder during this show than any other I have ever seen(including Newhart-one of my all time favorite shows) If you like movies like Naked Gun and Airplane- you will love this series!! One of the best moments of the show is Cindy Williams playing herself. When she snubs Tammy at the dry cleaners, Tammy finds a picture of Cindy Williams in her coat. The picture is of Cindy Williams doing an unmentionable act with a bowling pin-upside down. It is awesome to see an actress like Cindy Williams being able to play herself like this. Soap opera like with many surprise twists during its short run. I can only hope that this will someday be released on DVD with special many bonus special features. Funniest series I have ever seen!!!!


I really wonder how this show plays in the U.K. and the rest of Europe. IT IS SO SELF-LOATHING ABOUT BEING AN American(particularly white Americans). That could be a big reason for some of the venom and vitriol expressed here on this board. I love the show but it is with some reservations and I feel it took the easy way out by Spoiler Spoiler:

Crashing and burning everything at the end of the second season. Julie slammed the door shut on any hope of reviving the show unless her character lands on a haystack in the middle of some farm. Who knows? It was a funny, raunchy and on occasion, kinda scary show.


Another reason to watch this delightful movie is Florence Rice. Florence who? That was my first reaction as the opening credits ran on the screen. I soon found out who Florence Rice was, A real beauty who turns in a simply wonderful performance. As they all do in this gripping ensemble piece. From 1939, its a different time but therein lies the charm. It transports you into another world. It starts out as a light comedy but then turns very serious. Florence Rice runs the gamut from comedienne to heroine. She is absolutely delightful, at the same time strong, vulnerable evolving from a girl to a woman.Watch her facial expressions at the end of the movie. She made over forty movies, and I am going to seek out the other thirty nine. Alan Marshal is of the Flynn/Gable mode and proves a perfect match for Florence. Buddy Ebsen and Una Merkel provide some excellent comic moments, but the real star is Florence Rice. Fans of 30's/40's movies, Don't miss this one!


Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon did two movies together within two years. One is considered one of the great romantic films of all time, and the movie that made Olivier a great movie star (and gave Oberon her best performance role): WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The other is this film, made in England a year earlier. THE DIVORCE OF LADY X is a romantic comedy (as WUTHERING HEIGHTS is a romantic tragedy). Olivier is a lawyer, Everard Logan, who is a dynamic barrister, but is also a total misogynist. One night he checks into a hotel just ahead of a crowd of people. It is a very foggy night (the type of pea soup fog that London was known for up until a notorious "killer" fog in the 1950s), and the crowd (who'd been attending a party in the hotel) need beds. The management tries to get Logan to allow one or two socialite ladies to sleep on a couch and a day bed in his rooms, but he refuses. But he has not reckoned with Merle Oberon as Leslie Steele. The granddaughter of a high court judge, she manages to get into Logan's rooms and manipulates him to not only agree to her sleeping there, but appropriates his bed (he goes onto the couch - much to his discomfort).

The next day they share a breakfast, and in the smalltalk it is evident that despite his mistrust of women Logan finds Leslie very attractive. But she kittenishly refuses to tell him her name. She is determined to learn more about him, and she finds his attitude toward women infuriating. In the meantime, Logan is approached by a wealthy nobleman (Ralph Richardson as Lord Mere) as a potential client. Mere suspects his wife Lady Mere (Binnie Barnes) of having an affair. In fact, he tells Logan her Ladyship was with her lover in the hotel that Logan knows he was in on the night of the fog. Logan (naturally) jumps to the conclusion that Lady Mere was his mysterious roommate that night. I will not go into the plot any further, except to say that Leslie eventually realizes what a mistake Logan has made, and decides to use it to teach him a lesson about women.

The script has the feel of a Wodehouse novel, but is slighter. Still the performances of Olivier, Oberon, Richardson, Barnes, and Morton Selden (as Oberon's grandfather) are all splendid. It shows what a good cast can do with even the slightest of materials. Take a look at some of the minor scenes to see what I mean: Selden's first scene, complaining about his weak coffee to his butler/valet, who tells him off properly (they've been used to each other's personalities for years). Or Olivier dealing with a young clerk in his office, who is certain there were two Lady Meres in the office two minutes before (there were, but Oberon and Barnes left together), and ends up thinking the poor clerk is a simpleton. Or the waiter in the hotel who can't understand why the tenant in Olivier's room is constantly changing from a man to a woman to a man. As I said, a slight charming comedy - but it is very charming.


I have become quite fond of Laurence Olivier in the past few weeks, and was thrilled when I discovered this gem. I have always found it wonderful when I run across a film where I do not have to have my finger on the remote control in case nudity rears its ugly head.

The Divorce of Lady X is charming till the final scene, and must have been a true delight for viewers back in 1938. I only wish people today could accept and love true humor instead of the horrid trash talk people now call funny.

The Divorce of Lady X is well worth anyone's time.


This is an absolutely charming film, one of my favourite romantic comedies. It's extremely humorous and the cast is wonderful. Though Laurence Olivier is mostly associated with his Shakespearean work he shows in this film that he is by no means restricted to play only classical theatre. He manages the transition from the cynical divorce solicitor, who tries to avoid women and their traitorous ways, to the lovesick puppy that falls for Lady X played by Merle Oberon effortlessly. The dialogue is wonderfully witty and refreshing and the atmosphere enchanting. Ralph Richardson was a delight to watch as well. I highly recommend it.


Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, and Binnie Barnes star in "The Divorce of Lady X," a 1938 comedy based on a play. Olivier plays a young barrister, Everard Logan who allows Oberon to spend the night in his hotel room, when the London fog is too dense for guests at a costume ball to go home. The next day, a friend of his, Lord Mere (Richardson), announces that his wife (Barnes) spent the night with another man at the same hotel, and he wants to divorce her. Believing the woman to be Oberon, Olivier panics. Oberon, who is single and the granddaughter of a judge, pretends that she's the lady in question, Lady Mere, when she's really Leslie Steele.

We've seen this plot or variations thereof dozens of time. With this cast, it's delightful. I mean, Richardson and Olivier? Olivier and Oberon, that great team in Wuthering Heights? Pretty special. Olivier is devastatingly handsome and does a great job with the comedy as he portrays the uptight, nervous barrister. Oberon gives her role the right light touch. She looks extremely young here, fuller in the face, with Jean Harlow eyebrows and a very different hairdo for her. She wears some beautiful street clothes, though her first gown looks like a birthday cake, and in one gown she tries on, with that hair-do, she's ready to play Snow White. Binnie Barnes is delightful as the real Lady Mere.

The color in this is a mess, and as others have mentioned, it could really use a restoration. Definitely worth seeing.


An incredible little English film for so many reasons. First it's a rare look a Laurence Olivier in a light comedy. While his performance is not up the standard he would latter set as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century, he is perfectly believable as the hoodwinked barrister. Historically this film is of great interest because of both where and when it was shoot. Being English it didn't have the big budget of the Hollywood films of the same era and it often shows, but more interesting is the fact this movie filmed just prior to the war and shows an England that would soon be gone. When we watch it today we think in terms of modern morality and over look the fact that this movie and its closest American counter part `It Happened One Night' were in their day as risqué as `Fatal Instinct' was in our time. But after watching and enjoying this movie the first time I can't help but feel sadness when I watch it today. With half of film shoot before 1950 gone, saving the remaining films means hard choices, and unfortunately films like this are often passed over to save movies that we all consider important. The color shifting, lack of contrast, and generally poor quality of the print most often seen is heartbreaking. This movie along with `It Happened One Night' are perfect to curl up with a love one under a blanket on cool a cool evening and watch, or better yet why not a double feature.


A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up.


I had really only been exposed to Olivier's dramatic performances, and those were mostly much later films than *Divorce*. In this film, he is disarmed of his pomp and overconfidence by sassy Merle Oberon, and plays the flustered divorce attorney with great charm.


Obviously written for the stage. Lightweight but worthwhile. How can you go wrong with Ralph Richardson, Olivier and Merle Oberon.


It's a cooking competition show, Americanized. It's not going to be the Japanese version.

The show is great. I could care less about cooking but this show is just entertaining to watch... From the intensity put into the dishes by the chef to the goofy chairman. Truly a good way to spend some time watching TV.

You could critique the show for having guests like Marc Ecko as a judge... But... Meh. It's entertaining enough to watch and generally the winner deserves the prize.

Oh yeah and I'm bitter John Besh isn't the new Iron Chef...

Ala Cuisine!


With all of the violence on TV and in the local news, it is refreshing to have a show that has no violence or adult language, yet is still entertaining. My children look forward to watching with us every week. Each of us have a favorite chef and favorite judges. We all enjoy Elton Brown. We enjoy learning about the background of the main ingredient, unique vegetables and seasonings. We play along at home to guess who the winner will be.

It is a great hour of entertainment, as well as informational. Best of all in our hussle, bussle life, it is an hour the family spends together.


I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour.


What a night. Perry Mason then Have Gun, Will Travel followed by Gunsmoke (when it was a half hour) and finally at 10:30PM came 'Sea Hunt' with its wonderful opening theme music and Mike's boat sailing off to a new adventure. Terrific.. Regardless of the story it was the lead character (played by Lloyd Bridges), strong, honest, sincere. A Man's Man and a Boy's Man. This brought on an interest in boats that lasted for years. Why they don't show on cable or make it available on video, no idea.. Too bad.


I loved watching ''Sea Hunt '' back in the day , I was in grammar school and would get home do my homework and by 4:30 would be ready to watch ''Sea Hunt '' and Mike Nelson in his underwater adventures .I loved it ! He took to you a place not very accessible at that time , under the great blue sea . Pre ''Thunderball '' or even before Cousteau became common , there was Mike Nelson sparking the imagination of kids .I'd be willing to wager that more than a few kids developed their passion for oceanography or biology or one of the sciences from watching this show .Underwater photography also progressed , the fascination for exploration is easily stimulated thru watching this show . Watch and enjoy !!!


Lloyd Bridges as Mike Nelson and his boat were all the stars of this series. What made it so good to me when I watched it was the real feel of going underwater. The show exhibits a youthful energy energy for exploration under water which is infectious.

The show was educational as well showing the viewer things about scuba diving from someone who appeared to be a consummate pro, Mike Nelson. There were excellent shows, and the program always appeared to be well produced. Granted, the drama in the scripts sometimes hit the same notes in more than 1 episode but each show holds it's own with any other show produced during this era, the infancy of American television.


The freedom of having your own Sea Going Power Boat, the excitement of going on underwater adventures a rugged,an's man of an adventurer and lovely(and so well endowed!) assistants in fine Bikinis were all definite selling points for "SEA HUNT"(1958-61).

Just what was the reason for producing a sort of sea going "gun for hire"* series. Let's look closely now. There must be a some clues around.

If we were to look back just a little, we see the RKO Radio Pictures production of UNDERWATER! (1955). It starred Jane Russell, Gilbert Roland, Richard Egan and Lori Nelson as a quartet of very attractive Scuba Diving Adventurers working on salvage in the Carribbean, including a Pre-Fidel Cuba. The film was moderately successful and was memorable not necessarily for its story as for the looks of the principals in swimming suits. Fine, shapely Women Folk in some really keen 2 piece bathing suits (Woo, woo, woo, woo!) are always a plus for the Guys; and the presence of rugged, athletic men folk displaying their best beefcake "poses" is equally pleasing to the Gals.

And there is one element that is a true legacy of this old RKO Feature. It is on the Soundtrack contained in between the musical queues and themes. It is the Recording of "It's Cherry Pink and Apple Blossom White", written by Louiguy and Jacques LaRue and performed by Damaso Perez Prado and His Orchestra.

Anyone who hears this Insturmental or Song (with Lyrics)will not soon forget it. Its Carribbean Beat is so very lively and its rich use of the Brass Section of the Orchestra is Powerful and instantly renders instant impression and memory. The 45 RPM Record of this Song made it to the Top 10 most Popular Songs of the Week for many Saturday Evenings on NBC TV's "YOUR HIT PARADE". We can't remember just how many weeks nor just how high it got. (Maybe some one can fill us in on that one item, please!) So, we got back to "SEA HUNT" and its own odyssey in getting on "the Tube". The public had taken to UNDERWATER! all right, but would they go for a TV Series.

ZIV TV Productions was getting a reputation for putting out a type of product that, for the most part, didn't get signed on by the Networks for the multi-station hook-up treatment. But they had been having some great successes with Television Syndication.** By that we mean, offering a Series for Stations for showings on a one to a TV Station per each Market Area. (Much like the various Newspaper Syndicates "sell" Comic Strips to various Papers around the Country, and World, even.

So, we got 'Mike Nelson', himself, in the physical presence of Lloyd Bridges. Mr. Bridges had been around for approximately 15 years or so and had turned in some very memorable performances in mostly supporting and highly varying roles in a couple of Boston Blackie movies (with Chester Morris)to THEY STOOGE TO CONGA (3 Stooges 1943), SAHARA (also 1943), HOME OF THE BRAVE (1949) and THE WHISTLE AT EATON FALLS(1951).

Lloyd brought a very convincing manner to his characterization, along with a fine, convincingly athletic physique, having the look of a guy who makes his living with his physical abilities. He took very well as the Diver's Diver, whether it's performing duties on board ship, or fathoms beneath the Sea.

And Lloyd did take to the role quickly, but contrary to a lot of misinformation out there, he was not familiar with S.C.U.B.A.*** prior to landing this Mike Nelson gig. But the Athletic Mr. Bridges proved to be a quick learner, as so many of the close-up shots underwater revealed that there was no doubt about it, that it was Lloyd with the mask, the bubbler(air tank) and the flipper fins.

Stories almost always involved the helping-out some client for pay, much like a Private Detective would. So what if the client was a lovely Lady who looked good in the Bathing Suit, all the better.

Like so many of the other ZIV/UNITED ARTISTS TV Productions,"SEA HUNT" possessed a fine, haunting Opening Theme and Closing, along with some original incidental music and queues.

At one time, I believe that "SEA HUNT" was the top syndicated TV Series, a success that ZIV Series had known before with the likes of "SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE"and "HIGHWAY PATROL". As far as the showing venue for this underwater saga, here in Chicago it was shown late night (after 10:30 P.M.) on WNBQ TV, Channel 5 (our NBC Affiliate, now known as WMAQ TV).

And I can remember just who was the original sponsor in this particular market was. And there were even on scene commercials done by the Star! How well we can remember and visualize Lloyd as Mike Nelson, riding on his Power Boat. And as we were being invited to return the next week and watch ".....another adventure of "SEA HUNT", sponsored by the G. Heileman Brewing Company of LaCrosse, Wisconsin' the makers of Old Style Lager Beer!", all while Mike was toasting us, raising an Old Style Bottle. (Shame on you, Mike! Drinking Beer on your moving Boat! We're tellin' the Coast Guard!) Then, the Boat would leave the dock, accompanied by the Sea Hunt Theme and rolling the Credits.

NOTE: * More figuratively than literal, Mike was for hire and things ran very much like a Deterctive Story.

NOTE: ** ZIV's Syndicated successes included "SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE", "WEST POINT"(and its clone "MEN OF ANNAPOLIS"), "SEA HUNT" and "HIGHWAY PATROL".

NOTE*** And of course, SCUBA is a acronym for Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus.


I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it.


This one tends to get slighted by a lot of critics and Kurosawa fans, but I thought it was wonderful. It's an episodic multi-character study of Tokyo's poorest, who live in a city literally made from garbage. Though it looks like an A-Bomb just hit, the film has a sort of serene beauty thanks to the glorious use of Technicolor. The title comes from the sound made by the insane young man who drives an imaginary trolley through the slum. All the characters were wonderful and all the stories engrossing, but perhaps the most tragic concerns the man and his young son who live in an abandoned car. When not searching for food, they spend their spare time using their imagination to build their dream house. An emotionally moving and beautiful film.


In 1970, after a five year absence, Kurosawa made what would be his first film in color. Dodes' Ka-Den is a film that centers around many intertwining stories that go on in a small Tokyo slum.

The title comes from the sound a mentally retarded boy makes as he imagines he is operating a train. We slowly get to know more of the people in the small community, the two drunks who trade wives because they are not happy with the ones they have. The old man who is the center of the town who helps out a burglar that tries to rob him. The very poor father and son that cannot ever afford a house, so they imagine one up of their own. By the end of the film, the stories all come full circle, some turn out happy, others sad.

Since this was Kurosawa's first color film you can see that he uses it to his advantage and it shows. Maybe too much. This movie goes in many different directions and it's hard to settle down and get into it. But don't get me wrong, Dodes' Ka-Den may not be Kurosawa's best, but coming from the greatest director of all time, it's much better than 99% of today's films.


Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience.


If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the "four knights" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.

The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.

There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.

Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily "lighter"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.

With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality.


"Dô desu ka den" is the first colored movie of Master Akira Kurosawa, and surprisingly is not about samurais, ronins, warlords or battlefields. It is inside a very poor community in a slum in Tokyo, where the dwellers are homeless drunkards, beggars, tramps, abused women, losers. I do not know the reason why Kurosawa selected this tragic theme and environment to put colors, but indeed they are very sad stories, some of them heart-breaking. I personally like the touching story of the boy and his father that dream with a house of their own and built by them; the story of the retarded boy that believes he pilots a train; the story of the man that raises five children as if they were their own sons and daughters; and the story of the young woman abused by her stepfather. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Dodeskaden  O Caminho da Vida" ("Dodeskaden  The Way of the Life")


Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film.

Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons.

DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways).

I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema.


This is one of the weirder movies I have recently watched. That's because it seems less like a movie and more like an experimental film. Kurasawa's experiment was to take a variety of individuals who live at a garbage dump and weave their experiences into a tapestry that offers glimpses of their generally harsh existences. Not every episode is depressing and harsh, but overall this is definitely the tone. Let's see,...we have a case of incest/rape, attempted murder, wife swapping, alcoholism, infidelity, death of a little boy after eating tainted fish, a man with severe depression (he never talks during the movie and looks very scary), a hopeless dreamer who would probably be diagnosed with schizophrenia, a mentally retarded young man who thinks he is a street car conductor and spends all his waking moments "driving" his street car through paths among the garbage piles, a man married to a total shrew (I think I liked her character even less than the incestuous rapist!), etc., etc. In fact, it is depressing enough that it seemed almost like an Ingmar Bergman movie set in Japan, as Bergman made MANY movies that tended to deal with mental illness and the hopelessness of life. Is it any wonder that after making this film Kurasawa tried to kill himself?! So, did I like it? No. It was not a fun experience. But, it was a very well-made movie that definitely kept my attention and as a result, I really wanted to see what happened to these people. It was sort of like watching a train wreck--you don't WANT to see all the carnage but you can't help but watch! Of all the vignettes, I think that the older man who tended to look out for everyone and who didn't really seem to fit in (he was too well-adjusted and wise to be living in a garbage dump) was perhaps meant to represent Kurasawa himself. Maybe. I dunno.

If you've seen a variety of Kurasawa films and have a high tolerance for strange art films, give this one a watch. However, do NOT make this your first experience watching his movies--it's sure to scare away many viewers!


The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.

There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.

There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10.


The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.

First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.

Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.

Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.

Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces.


The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema.


I first saw this movie as a pre-teen, about the age when kids start to think through their identity. I was greatly affected by the scene of the man and the children who he raises as his own. The eldest boy has been taunted that his mother is a prostitute and none of his siblings have the same biological father (which Kurosawa makes obvious by having children who look nothing like each other). The man still persuades tho boy that he is their father by the only definition that counts. The man is acclaimed to be father by all of the children but one, who still prefers her brother.

Each of the vignettes are likewise compelling for their own stories and conclusions.

It's a great film, even if it is not the greatest Kurosawa film.


This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.

This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house").

Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance.


Kurosawa is a proved humanitarian. This movie is totally about people living in poverty. You will see nothing but angry in this movie. It makes you feel bad but still worth. All those who's too comfortable with materialization should spend 2.5 hours with this movie.


Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.

Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by.


I loved this movie! It's truly bizarre, extremely funny, morbid, witty... It makes no sense to tell about the contents of the movie, because then I'd be giving out the outcome! You have to see it without knowing what is it about! Everything is connected and has its why & because. It starts subtly and then the things start rolling faster and faster until they culminate in the most insane outburst you can imagine! It's even more fun to watch the movie the second time, once you know all the "tricks". The actors are excellent, especially Ivan Trojan, whose final scenes are a real master piece! I highly recommend this film, it's one of the most original ones I've ever seen!


This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.

It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.

Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing.


Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own.


It helps if you understand Czech and can see this in the original language and understand the Czechs obsession with 'The Professionals', but if not, 'Jedna ruka netlaska' is yet another great Czech film. It is funny, dark and extremely enjoyable. The highest compliment I can pay it is that you never know quite what is going to happen next and even keep that feeling well into the second and third viewing.

For a small country the Czech Republic has produced an amazing amount of world class film and literature, from Hrabal, Hasek and Kundera to the films of Menzel, Sverak and numerous others. Czech humour by its very nature is dark and often uncompromising, but often with a naive and warm sentiment behind it. This film is just that, it is unkind and deals with the less lovable sides of human beings, but underneath it all there is a beautiful story full of promise, good intent and optimism.

I highly recommend this and most other projects Trojan and Machacek are involved in. Enjoy it, it's a film made for just that reason - anyway, it's as close as the Czechs will ever come to writing a truly happy ending...


The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.

Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.

While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!

Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.

I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Peliky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema.


I like this movie much, it's special type of humor by Ondricek and Machacek... I think it's better then Samotari (Loners).. Maybe it's difficult to understand when you are not Czech. If you are not watching that movie, just enjoy it, don't mind about anything else.. just relax !!


If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.

The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.

Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.

Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance.


"La Bête" by Walerian Borowczyk is based on the short story "Lokis" written by Prosper Merimée.Lucy Broadhurst(Lisabeth Hummel),an American heiress betrothed to the son of an impoverished Marquis,arrives at the family's crumbling château and learns of a mythical ursine beast purported to prowl the nearby forest.It is fabled that a former lady of the house(Sirpa Lane)once engaged in perverse sex with the creature and Lucy finds herself consumed by dreams of the incident. "The Beast" is an art-house mix of surreal horror,explicit sleaze and porno.There's implied bestiality,assault and perversion in the priesthood,copious fake ejaculate smeared on bared breasts,masturbation with a rose and, most graphic of all,the eponymous beast toying with incredibly big phallus.Still this genuinely erotic film is wonderfully photographed and tasteless.The women here are stunningly beautiful and they are naked most of the time.Overall "La Bête" is a visual feast.Whether it be from the fetishistic attention to detail,or the visual motifs pregnant with information,Borowczyk's masterpiece should be watched with care and attention.A must-see for fans of European cult cinema.


OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does "pick up"...

The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see "THE BEAST", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's "attention" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A "shocking" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...

THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10


Polish film maker Walerian Borowczyk's La Bête (French, 1975, aka The Beast) is among the most controversial and brave films ever made and a very excellent one too. This film tells everything that's generally been hidden and denied about our nature and our sexual nature in particular with the symbolism and silence of its images. The images may look wild, perverse, "sick" or exciting, but they are all in relation with the lastly mentioned. Sex, desire and death are very strong and primary things and dominate all the flesh that has a human soul inside it. They interest and temptate us so powerfully (and by our nature) that they are considered scary, unacceptable and something too wild to be true.

 A sophisticated young woman travels with her mother to a French countryside to meet her soon-to-become husband whom with she has had a letter affair of some kind. All are very exciting and each others' parents and relatives wait impatiently to see the new people arriving to their families. The innocence of the young bride shines through and no one knows what can happen and wake up inside the walls of the big and beautiful French mansion, with all its humans and animals, and a mysterious "la bête" that turns out to be something that the characters, nor most of the film's audience, could have never imagined to be real and (in front of) them.

The film is about the same theme as Canadian David Cronenberg's debyt feature Shivers (1975), which happens inside a huge luxury building in which destructive and gory parasites spread from human to human by sexual contact and make people act furiously and violently in their lust for pleasure and fulfilment of instincts. Human has instincts that can be and are stronger than his will and that is why those instincts can be as dangerous and powerful as the instincts of some other animal, a beast, be it a lust for blood, revenge or sex and carnal pleasure. Humans are only animals that have intelligence and tools to convey it but because we are also animals, that intelligence is not always used too much as can be seen anywhere around us. The film opens greatly, and very shockingly for most hypocritic attitudes, showing a horny male horse raging in fury as he waits to get inside the mare and continue the race, but the rage and visible lust we see from his eyes and violent movements are the key elements of that beginning and why it is there, not the close-ups of organs as could be so easily claimed. The horse is a beast that battles in an almost unbearable heat, in heat that's much stronger than his will as he doesn't have any control at that point anymore. The power of the instinct makes an animal a beast.

After the memorable beginning, the characters get introduced, and the film fantastically has all the necessary age groups inside it from the little innocent children waiting to grow up and develop to their blossom, to the adults and elders that all represent their own part of the lifespan, creating the face of human life on screen. A film doesn't necessarily need more characters this way as all the important ones are already there and represent the whole race, including the urban and countryside inhabitants, and both sexes. The mansion makes the protagonist girl's sexuality wake as she saws the horses coupling and acting like she obviously has never thought of. For the first time she sees something unique and something that excites and feels almost vital for her and her body, like getting water when you're very thirsty. The transformation of the girl is a very important element in the film as she has lived unaware of these things inside her, with his mother and camera and a letter-boyfriend, even though the things have just waited for the moment to burst out. Flesh desires flesh and that belongs to being a humanimal, but still those things are not so easily admitted everywhere and films like these trying to depict it get banned for decades? Man's stupidity and unwillingness to interpret images must not be an argument for a film being banned or otherwise violated.

The film's last 30 minutes are also as important as the beginning, and once again show how powerful cinema is without needless words and talk. As the girl and audience realizes what her body starts to feel and desire, she starts to have dreams about the mysterious beast that turns out to be none other than the undressed form of ourselves, having lived in the woods without other people/beasts near him. The dream sequence is the one that causes and caused most of the controversy alongside the film's overall straight and honest attitude, and the images are so easy to be judged as "perverse" and "pornographic", without a courage to go deeper into them, character reactions and thoughts behind what we see. The images are exciting in her dream and also eventually inside the dream for the dream's (more) human character, and Borowczyk forces us to admit it with the images that are so close to a "normal" sexual act between a man and a female, which is a beautiful thing and expression of love, another human need. Also the numerous, and cleverly blackly humorous love making scenes inside the mansion, between the young mother and the black servant, get interrupted many times as someone screams for the servant, for example, and there's no doubt that the sensual image of two young human bodies being together and being interrupted with an angry shout at least doesn't become any more pleasant by the interruption. Borowczyk has managed to paint his images so beautiful and "sensitive" that his message is almost impossible to be misunderstood, but nothing seems to be impossible for our cultures and minds that criticize art. He uses dialogue only when it's necessary, otherwise the images do the job and make the film powerful.

Death is also there, as flesh dies sooner or later, after years of life and instincts, it dies. The ending is inevitable but the meaning of the dream sequence could have also been as powerful without the kind of dramatic and "revealing" ending too. Another blackly humorous element comes when we see the shocked city women running out of the place in which they saw a little more than they were looking for! They visited the mansion of truth about flesh, us and them. The film reminds me of French writer Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye with its same themes about eroticism, death and how they both are always connected to the nature of our flesh. The book is well written and fantastic as well as this film, and naturally both have been blamed for their "too explicit" content and other equally noteworthy shallow comments.

Borowczyk's film is also very beautiful visually alongside its raw honesty, and the nature and forest have rarely looked so bright and shining as they do in this film. The sun shines through the trees, and to everyplace where humans live, and the beauty of it is always there, but so is the ugliness that originates by the inhabitants of the world. To every innocent white sheep there's a selfish, evil and horrible beast in our world and that is why the intelligence we have been given never fully seems to overcome the power of our bad instincts and the other side of the sheep, present inside every human soul. It is about how many manages to keep the dark side passive and not active. The fulfilment of some of our instincts is not a bad thing, and by using this intelligence and seeing which of the instincts are good and which bad, they can be satisfied without exploitation, violence and the lethal and destructive circle created by it. Human is not more than an animal with intelligence, intelligence that is so easy to be forgotten and eaten to the background by things that feel better and more satisfying at each and perhaps sudden moment. Borowczyk's film is a masterpiece, unforgettable and clever piece of magical cinema with ageless theme and also an example of how much can be achieved, expressed and given by a film maker, who is also only a human.


Youth, sexuality, and the French countryside -- one of the more unique films you're ever going to see. If you can see it that is, no mean feat considering how hard it is to find copies of it (a combination of scarcity and censorship.) It's sometimes erotic, sometimes disgusting, and occasionally funny. A trifle boring also in the middle, but all in all you can't call yourself an aficionado of bizarre film until you've seen this one at least once.


Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it.

Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality.

Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods.

But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more!

Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals.

Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one.


Peter Falk is a diverse and accomplished actor. The movie is well written and the acting seems like real life. For all lovers of Columbo this is a superior piece of work. Because it shows what a talent Peter Falk is. He doesn't play a detective he plays a retired carpet salesman. By the time the credits begin to role you already want to watch it again. The interesting part of the movie is that the message will apply to every person that watches it; the depth of its' pertinence will be the only thing that varies. It is a shame that the liberals in Hollywood only promote smut and skin because this is the type of movie that the people in the business should be proud of. This would be a great movie to turn into a live stage play.


This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it.


Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here.


Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.

Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.

Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp


I won't go into too much detail about the plot of this movie as other reviewers have covered pretty much the same ground.

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the film very much. Peter Falk's performance alone is reason enough to watch the film.

A small scale 'road trip' movie with Falk & Paul Reiser in upstate NY in the fall is the setting for most of the action in the film.

Very well written with an adult target audience in mind. Plenty of reality based humor & some well played drama give the film a feeling that it could be your own family.

Really can't say enough about this film except that it's a damn shame that a lovely movie like this doesn't get more exposure while other trashy junk out there does.

It's great to see Falk with a big leading man role again & he makes the most of it. It proves that his famous friend & writer/director John Casavettes was right in casting Falk in many of his ground breaking films of the 60s & 70s.


Paul Reiser is one of my favorite people in show business. I have read both of his books and think that he is great. Peter Faulk can deliver a punch line with the best of them. The combination of the two is magic.

This is a story about a family really getting to know each other. Through a road trip a father and son connect for the first time in their lives in the midts of a family crisis. They do all the things that fathers and sons are suppose to do in life...they are just doing them much later in life. The situations are very funny, but have the feeling that they could actually happen to people in real life (not obsurdly over the top or cartoonish). This is the first time that I watch Paul Reiser and fully believed every emotion that was portrayed. At times, his eyes look so sad.

Gret movie and great story and plot. It has comedy and emotion but an uplifting message...Olympia Dukakas does a great job also :)


It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.

Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.

Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more.

Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.

Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made.


The movie gets to the guts of the tension between a son and a father.

The brilliant dialog, lovely scenery and great acting serve as an excellent way to present the onion that keeps peeling back layers.

The core issues of parenting, communication and manhood are explored indirectly.

In fun ways the curtain is pulled back, the masks slip off a little and truths are exposed.

All of this happens amidst a road trip format. The backdrop is rural New York state in the early fall just as the trees are changing colors. WOW!


Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.

Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.

The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.

The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.

We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.

The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change.


This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: "Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does..." Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk.

The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!

This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.

This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:"Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it..." ...and I ended up just loving it!


Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?

I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.

Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.

Nicely done, Paul and Peter!


I enjoyed this film, perhaps because I had not seen any reviews, etc. It was delightful and a little bit of a 'romp'. I don't know why it didn't make more of a splash than it did. As far as the story goes, I could relate to some aspects of the Paul Reiser character, and I could "see my dad" in Falk's character. Made me remember a lot of past times when I was a kid and listening to my grandparents, too. If you enjoyed movies like Grumpy Old Men or On Golden Pond, this is your movie. A "sleeper", in my opinion, and one of those feel-good stories. Peter Falk and Paul Reiser had many wonderful verbal tussles, yet nothing was overdone. I would say it rates at least an 8, perhaps higher.


This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I feel greatly touched by the theme the movie intends to convey. One sentence that keeps coming up on my mind is that "history repeats itself". Life is what it is shown in the movie: when people are young, they seem not to understand their parents, their own spouses; people have every excuse for not sharing the dearest time with their children until too late; people always have to work hard to support the whole family but are just liable to neglect the subtle feeling of their partners; people always change their perspectives at different stages of their lives; people can always be forgiven if their heart is full of love for their beloved; nothing is more important than the blood relation people share in this world, and one is never too late to talk with their folks about what they feel at the bottom of their heart so as to achieve a better understanding between themselves, so that when life has to end some day, people should not feel sorry or regretful since they have kept their words and there is always hope ---a new life. The actors and actresses are fantastic. They have understood the director's intention perfectly. The movie's charm lies in, to me, the effect of bringing a skillful and splendid fusion of cheers and tears to the audience.


The movie was very moving. It was tender, and funny at the same time. The scenery was absolutely beautiful! Peter Faulk and Paul Reiser gave award winning performances. Olympia Dukakis was great. I understand due to the story line her part had to be brief, but I did wish I could have seen more of her-she is a true pro.You will be able to recall experiences from your own life , hopefully in a positive way after seeing this movie. We were fortunate to see Paul Reiser at a Q and A after the viewing. He is a wonderful man, clever, eloquent and a "real Person". It was truly an enjoyable night out!This is a must see movie. You will be so grateful you went.


I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of "adult" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.

Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.

This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television.


The Thing About My Folks is a wonderful film about relationships - first and foremost an adult son and his father, but also that son with his wife, his sisters and his mother. Paul Reiser has written a semi-autobiographical movie about his relationship with his father. The movie is funny, poignant and thought-provoking. It led me to re-evaluate my own relationship with both my now-deceased father and my adult son. Peter Falk is excellent as Paul's father - the role could not have been better cast. I hope that both Mr. Falk and Mr. Reiser are recognized in next year's movie awards for their efforts - Falk for his performance and Reiser for his script.


Oscar-caliber performance by Peter Falk in an Oscar-caliber-written role. I loved the nuanced, balanced exploration of a long-time marriage - how often do we get that in films, where usually the movie ends when boy & girl get together? This is a movie for adults, a complex view through the eyes of all parties - husband, wife, son - how each have adapted to each other in the past and grow during the story. On top of that, it gave me about 10 major belly laughs, and I'm one of those people who usually sits unamused when the rest of an audience is laughing. This was one of the few truly funny movies I've seen. Great, original jokes.


Who wouldn't want to go on road trip with Peter Falk? That guy's right eye has more character than most actors today. This is the kind of funny and touching movie we are all looking for as a counterbalance to all the bombastic special effects bores. Women are going to love it for all the wake-up romance advice for men, and men will love it for its spot-on father/son character study--one great little scene after another. And it has just enough of an edge to be a true indie find. Obviously this is a labor of love for Paul Reiser who understands what it's like to be both a father and a son, as well as to have both laughter and tears as you move through life. The most fun part, though, was watching Reiser watch Falk. You could tell it was both his character coming to a new appreciation of his father and a fellow actor really enjoying Peter Falk's special craft. Really delightful. Let's hope this film makes it into theaters around the country sometime soon so everyone can have a chance to laugh and cry with Paul Reiser and folks.


saw this in preview- great movie- wonderful characterizations- witty and intelligent dialog- actors were fantastic- Peter Falk will be up for an Oscar- Paul Reiser was charming- photography was marvelous Reiser was at the theater when we saw the film, and he gave a vivid account about the making of the film- it had been a long dream of his to write a semi-autobiographical account of relationships between sons and fathers, and more specifically between him and his father- this was achieved in a dramatic and entertaining fashion- the supporting cast was well chosen and gave the film a feeling of family- i recommend this film to anyone who is longing to see intelligent drama and wonderful performances


Paul Reiser did a spectacular job in writing this movie. Peter Falk gives the performance of his life. It is worthy of an Academy Award. This was one of the most poignant and funny movies of the year. Reiser's wit is fantastic and he is as good as it gets and as he was in his long running TV sitcom "Mad about You". Peter Falk did a masterful job as his dad, and Peter who is now 78 years young made us laugh and cry at the same time. The supporting cast was equal to the task especially the gorgeous gorgeous Elizabeth Perkins. It is a must see movie for 2005. We bet that everyone across all ages and religions will love this movie and somehow relate to it in one way or another. We have mothers and fathers and siblings like these in the movie. We have all had the good and bad times together and wish things were the same but different.


Murder in Mesopotamia, I have always considered one of the better Poirot books, as it is very creepy and has an ingenious ending. There is no doubt that the TV adaptation is visually striking, with some lovely photography and a very haunting music score. As always David Suchet is impeccable as Hercule Poirot, the comedic highlight of the episode being Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night, and Hugh Fraser is good as the rather naive Captain Hastings. The remainder of the cast turn in decent performances, but are careful not to overshadow the two leads, a danger in some Christie adaptations. Some of the episode was quite creepy, a juxtaposition of an episode as tragic as Five Little Pigs, an episode that I enjoyed a lot more than this one. What made it creepy in particular, putting aside the music was when Louise Leidner sees the ghostly face through the window. About the adaptation, it was fairly faithful to the book, but I will say that there were three things I didn't like. The main problem was the pacing, it is rather slow, and there are some scenes where very little happens. I didn't like the fact also that they made Joseph Mercado a murderer. In the book, I see him as a rather nervous character, but the intervention of the idea of making him a murderer, and under-developing that, made him a less appealing character, though I am glad they didn't miss his drug addiction. (I also noticed that the writers left out the fact that Mrs Mercado in the book falls into hysteria when she believes she is the murderer's next victim.) The other thing that wasn't so impressive was that I felt that it may have been more effective if the adaptation had been in the viewpoint of Amy Leatheran, like it was in the book, Amy somehow seemed less sensitive in the adaptation. On the whole, despite some misjudgements on the writers' behalf, I liked Murder in Mesopotamia. 7/10 Bethany Cox.


"Bleak House" is hands down the finest adaptation of a Charles Dickens Novel ever put on screen. Alway one of My favorite novels,I was exteremely pleased with this Television Mini Series. The late, great Denholm Elliot was perfectly cast as the noble John Jardyce and Diana Rigg was sheer perfection as the doomed Ladty Dedlock. The film captures the essence of Dickens era and is extremely faithful to the book,oly making minor plot cuts that do not effect the story. over all a brilliant,moving and atmosphereic film.


This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.

Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was "a ass" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.

But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it.


I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.

Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh!


I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...

I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation.


I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.

The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.

The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.

I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.

A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. ("Humbug!" or "The law is a ass.") Not here. "Bleak" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian "ideal types" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.

My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.

Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow.