This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.


Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.


I miss Dark Angel!..

I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...

I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.

THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!!


dark angel rocks! the best show i have seen in ages damn those people who took it off! me and my friends have gatherings to watch every DA episode! takes like 4 days but it is worth it! it finished before it finished what it wanted to say and that annoys the hell out of me!


It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear.


i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.


definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.

Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well.


Jessica Alba's Max and Valerie Rae Miller's Original Cindy shines in this actionpacked and atmospheric serial. Wonderfully politically incorrect. Quality varies greatly from episode to episode, but generally the standard is high and when it is not, Jessica is always worth looking at. Valerie's urban jivetalking afroamerican is occationally almost dragging Dark Angel into sitcom territory.


I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.


I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.

The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.

So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!


Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.

The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.

It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.

The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.

The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.

In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned.


This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...


Dark Angel is a futuristic sci-fi series, set in post-apocalyptic Seattle, centering on Max (Jessica Alba), a genetically enhanced young woman, on the run from her creators.

The Dark Angel universe is absorbing, (not as much as say Buffy, but absorbing nonetheless) with an interesting and believable set of characters. Certainly, it is not for everyone, but those who give it time will find themselves watching one of the most enjoyable series out there. Dark Angel is criminally overlooked, and under-rated, and was unfortunatly canceled after only 2 series. Which was a great shame, as this had the potential to become a great series, although its 42 episodes are only 10 shy of long running BBC sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. As it is Dark Angel remains unfinished, so seek it out, and if you want more, lobby Fox to make another series.


i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow!


This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.


I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.


all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched


Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by "the Pulse," it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.


I LOVE this show, it's sure to be a winner. Jessica Alba does a great job, it's about time we have a kick-ass girl who's not the cutesy type. The entire cast is wonderful and all the episopes have good plots. Everything is layed out well, and thought over. To put it together must have taken a while, because it wasn't someone in a hurry that just slapped something together. It's a GREAT show altogether.


this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today.


I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.


How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you "Dark Angel" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree?


all i have to say is if you don't like it then there is something wrong with you. plus Jessica is just all kinds of hot!!!!! the only reason you may not like it is because it is set in the future where Seattle has gone to hell. that and you my not like it cause the future they show could very well happen.


If you want mindless action, hot chicks and a post-apocalyptic view of Seattle, then this is the show for you!

The concept of Dark Angel isn't anything new (in fact, there's controversy over whether James Cameron stole the idea from a book), but I spend the entire hour watching it every Tuesday from start to finish.

Jessica Alba is smoking and Max' friends (original Cindy, Kendra) are just as hot.

The fight scenes are getting better, but the dialogues between Original Cindy and Max need to be a little bit better (the slang sounds forced and it sounds like someone living in the suburbs wrote it).

In my opinion, Dark Angel is a great guilty pleasure filled with everything an action fan could ask for, but if you're looking for hard hitting, award-winning drama, go watch "The West Wing" or something.


Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl!


A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10


This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The "sisters" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience.


This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.

This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.

I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.


Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie.


For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine.


It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.

The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny.

The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.

9/10


Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie.


Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.

"Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.

We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.

We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.

The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.

The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.

The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where.


Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with "The Mortal Storm" or "Casablanca". Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of "The Mortal Storm" and "Watch On The Rhine" are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with "Casablanca" is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in "The Lady Vanishes"), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" and Roy Earle in "High Sierra" two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure Of Sierra Madres", the writer/murder suspect in "In A Lonely Place", and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" afterward - he got it for Charley in "The African Queen"). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.

To me the film to look at with "Watch On The Rhine" is based on another play/script by Hellman, "The Searching Wind". They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. "The Searching Wind" is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while "Watch On The Rhine", set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact.

The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, "The New World has left the scene to the Old World". Hellman could write very well at times.

Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films.


Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.

Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D


An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.

Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.

Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.

The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended.


Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.

The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.

Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.

Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.

Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.

The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background.

His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.

Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.

Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.

Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca.

Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely.


Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.


I have seen this film several times, and watched it today (on TCM) solely because of Geraldine Fitzgerald. She is a much underrated actress and I have to admit I have had a crush on her since I first saw her (probably in "Wuthering Heights" 40 or more years ago). The real star in this movie, however, is Paul Lukas, and he deserved all the accolades he got. He makes it clear, whether we like it or not, that the end justifies the means. Naziism had to be stopped, and anything that helped do it was good. He gave his children a line about being bad, and that they should not be bad, but as he said earlier when conversing with adults, he would do this sort of thing again without hesitation. Lukas did give an excellent portrayal of a man caught in this situation, and made it clear that what he did was a very hard thing to do.

Some people think his victim was a Nazi, but I don't think so - I think he was only after the money. His Nazi associates knew this and that is why they did not have much use for him.

One interesting point in the film, and presumably also in the play, is the fact that Muller (Lucas) is a German. While the anti German hysteria of WWI was not repeated in WWII, there was considerable anti-German sentiment and some Germans were interred similar to what happened in California with people of Japanese ancestry. It was something of an act of bravery for Hellman to write a play about good Germans at this time (maybe she thought they were the ones who signed the Nazi-Soviet pact!). After all, the US and British air forces were bombing German cities and having no qualms about killing innocent civilians. I think, however, that the Dresden bombing and firestorm happened later, after "Watch on the Rhine" was released.

The title is something of a play on words, as the "watch" is looking west, from Germany. In fact, Watch am Rhein was a German army marching song - used in WWII, but the Nazis had their own marching song that was used as well. But Muller IS a German and he is engaged in his own "Wach am Rhein".

All the other actors did an excellent job here; although Bodo was too much there are children like him. I am surprised he did not give his father's secret away. In real life, he may very well have done so.


Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.

I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.

I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.

I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.


"A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something."--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of "Watch on the Rhine" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in "Destination Tokyo" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in "The Sound of Music" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in "It Happened Here" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that "Watch" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and "enough" didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher "the Butcher" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. "Watch on the Rhine" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.


Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.


This movie was nominated for best picture but lost out to Casablanca but Paul Lukas beat out Humphrey Bogart for best actor. I don't see why Lucile Watson was nominated for best supporting actor, i just don't think she did a very good job. Bette Davis and Paul Lukas and their three kids are leaving Mexico and coming into the United States in the first scene of the movie. They are going by train to Davis's relatives house. Davis and Lukas were in the underground to stop the Nazis so they are very tired and need rest. But when they arrive home, their is a Nazi living there and their's not much either can do about it. It turns out the Nazi only cares about money and is willing to make a deal with Lukas. Their is more to the plot but you can find that out for yourself.


I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.


Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.

To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."

In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.

Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.

Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.

A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.

Geoff


A message movie, but a rather good one. Outstanding cast, top to bottom. Interesting in that Bette Davis's plot line is essentially back story! The extremely negative reviews (name throwing at the screenplay/playwright, associating this somehow with extremely negative comments about 'Angles in America', etc. etc.) object to the movie being too preachy about Germany in WWII. Gosh, that is just a bit too sophisticated an understanding of morality for me.

Theatrical and movie-making, and acting styles vary over time and of course 70 years later this particular movie would not be made in this way. Yes Casablanca is a better movie (I guess), but although made in the same year and both having Nazis in them, Casablanca is primarily a love story. The love story in this movie takes second seat to the spy plot--more of a thriller. Both have a rather large number of somewhat cheesy accents and wonderful character actors. The children ARE a bit tedious and could have been edited


This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there?

The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen.

It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1.

That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.

The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team.

Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!


I nominate this and BABYLON 5 as the best television sci-fi series made. Both stand out in my mind because unlike early STAR TREK series, there is a consistent evolution of plots and characters. If you look at the original STAR TREK and STAR TREK:TNG, they were fine shows, but there was no overall theme or plot that connected all the episodes. In many ways, you could usually watch the shows totally out of sequence with no difficulty understanding what is occurring. This was less the case with DEEP SPACE 9 (with its giant battles that took up all of the final season) and the other TREK shows, as there was more of a larger story that unified them. This coherence seems to have developed as a concept with BABYLON 5 and saw this to an even greater extent with SG-1. The bottom line is that in many ways this series was like watching a family or a long novel slowly take form. Sure, there were a few "throwaway" episodes that were not connected to the rest, but these were very few and far between and were also usually pretty funny.

And speaking of funny, I loved that SG-1 kept the mood light from time to time and wasn't so dreadfully serious. In this way, I actually enjoyed it more than BABYLON 5. Jack O'Neill was a great character with his sarcasm and love of Homer Simpson--it's really too bad he slowly faded from the series in later seasons.

To truly appreciate SG-1, you should watch it from the beginning and see how intricately the plots work. This coherence gives the show exceptional staying power. And, if you don't like SG-1 after giving it a fair chance, then sci-fi is probably NOT the genre for you.


I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10!

The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief!

From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!

Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!

Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series.


I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.

though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!


I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...

I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.

The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.

The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.

After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.

EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.


I enjoyed this show for two reasons 1. Richard Dean Anderson 2. Amanda Tapping. These two performers carried the show with able support from the regulars and recurring actors. The replacement of RDA in seasons 9-10 was enough to take the heart out of the show.

The chemistry between all the main characters is just tremendous. You get the feeling that the actors like to pal around after the camera stops rolling. This relationship carries over into the program we get to see.

RDA gives his 'O'Neill' character believable personality. He never knows when to give the wiseass in him a rest. You watch the others roll their eyes in dismay at some of his utterances. Still, they know that he is the man to have around when the situation is perilous.

There is a lot going on between 'Carter' and 'O'Neill' under the surface. They manage to keep the lid on, but often just barely. The episode 'Solitudes' in season 1 had some of the best drama ever seen on television. The love between the two made the prospect of dying bearable because they faced it together.

'Carter' and 'Jackson' often have to smooth over some of the turbulence created by 'O'Neill'. Yet 'O'Neill's' tactical instincts always seem sound. He understands what to do without having to think about the matter. The team has several times been placed in jeopardy by the others not listening to his orders.

The quality declined markedly in seasons 9 and 10. The original story arc was mostly used up and the new villains never really caught my interest. Ben Browder was far inferior to RDA in carrying the show. He had his rare moments with Claudia Black, but that was all. Amanda Tapping was phoning in her performances these two seasons. You could see her greatly changed appearance after having a baby. She was probably thinking more about the child than the show.

The spin-off 'Stargate Atlantis' has a few moments, but is mostly a weaker effort. The major characters lack the chemistry of the cast of the original. The villains (Wraiths) are so improbable as to be ludicrous. Maybe Amanda Tapping can breathe some life into the program or it won't last beyond the fourth season.

There has always been a problem for me in the special effects for the show. To have spaceships shaped as pyramids is a design monstrosity seldom equaled in Sci-Fi. The use of torches for illumination in these ships is just as bad. The campy use of decor from ancient Egypt concealing ultra-modern technology is just as hard to accept.

I wondered about some of the continuity on the show too. In the season 2 opener, 'Daniel Jackson' is shot up and his uniform has a gaping hole where he was wounded. He crawls into a sarcophagus and it heals his body and restores his uniform like it just came off the rack in the wardrobe closet. The episode 'Hathor' has a sarcophagus fall into the hands of the SGC, yet it is never mentioned again. This device could have been used in several later episodes on 'Daniel', 'O'Neill', and 'Dr. Frasier'.


My rating refers to the first 4 Seasons of Stargate SG-1 which are wonderfully fresh, creative and addicting. When the cast stepped through the gate, you never knew what lay on the other side! Starting around Season 5, the show took a different focus - still good, but different.

The series follows the adventures of a team of humans (and one alien) who regularly venture into a planetary transport device called the "Stargate". The backstory of the series is based on the characters and events of the movie "Stargate" in which the device is discovered during an archaeological dig in Egypt.

The episodes are light (innocent and easy to watch) and very creative. Many of the inventive stories could easily have been made into great sci-fi movies of their own. What happens next was always unpredictable.

The characters on which the show rests are also well-defined and brilliantly performed. Their tone is serious, but the dialog is flowered with incredible wit and humor. They are simply fun to watch.

Starting somewhere around Season 5, the series started to evolve into a continuing storyline based on fighting a single foe (the Goa'uld, then the Ori). The plots become more complex (a lot more political/strategic oriented) and interdependent. The characters were still as great as ever but the show was different in nature.

One thing that must be mentioned is to watch the episodes that commemorated the 100th and 200th episodes. They are simply can't-miss shows. They exhibit the creative and wildly humorous genius that carried the series through 10 seasons.

If you are a sci-fi fan, watch a few episodes of the first 4 Seasons and you'll likely be hooked. If you like evolving story lines between two opposing sides, you have 10 seasons of shows to look forward to.


I haven't always been a fan, but the show grew on me. It wasn't until after season 5 that I started to see the richness of the show. They finally brought Daniel Jackson's search for his wife to an end and finally most of the Go,ould System Lords were killed by rival Lords, SG-1 or others.

Towards Season 5, Stargate SG-1, was beginning to become stale. With the new writers and the close attention by Produer Peter Deleuise, the show became more and more solid.

The characters had become stale as well. Colonel Jack O'Neill was the stereotypical hero with emotional baggage. After his son Charlie was killed in a shooting accident with O'Neill's weapon, he had decided to end his own life by going to Abydos in order to face off with the Go'ould RA. The character offers little growth for any actor and actor Richard Dean Anderson chose to play him straight raising emotional barriers to protect himself. only allowing his close friends in.

Amanda Tapping joined the cast as Captain Samantha Carter. She was a feminist on the edge, ready to battle any man who would doubt her ability to do her job. Though this character had little area to grow, Tapping has done a great job of concentrating on Carter's strengths. She has taken the time to get a basic understanding of some of the things Carter talks about in order that she can present the character intelligently.

Christopher Judge joined the cast playing the alien Teal'c. Teal'c was an alien called the Jaffa. Infant Go'ould, (snake like creatures) would embed themselves into the Jaffa until they had grown to the point when it would be inserted into another life form. The Jaffa would die. Teal'c was the First Prime of Apophis' army. Knowing that Apophis was not a god like Go'ould pretend, he realized the genocide that their armies had wreaked on the galaxy. Finally, having had enough, he and Jack O'Neill freed their team along with quite a few innocent people. After arriving on Earth, he realized that Earth was the planet he was looking for, who would help him fight the Go'ould. Christopher Judge has done quite a bit with a limited character. Teal'c is a wise warrior, much of which he learned was from his teacher Master Bra'tac. The show would not be complete without Master Bra'tac played by Tony Amandola. He is also a rock. In the end, he became adviser to most of SG-1, especially Daniel Jackson.

Don S. Davil was there from the beginning playing Major General George Hammand. Davis has done an incredible job with Hammond making him sympathetic and normal. He does his job, has a wife, sons and daughters and grandchildren. You can really say, he is the anchor of the base. Simply, I would die for that man. If not allowed by his superiors to provide troops to support teams off world. He will go himself. He doesn't leave anyone behind.

I saved Dr. Daniel Jackson for last, because this character, I believe has grown the most in the ten or eleven years it has been on. In choosing Shanks I don't think the producer realized how strong Shanks would be and now when people talk about Jackson, they don't talk about Spader, they talk about Shanks. In the early years, the Jackson character came off as a whiner. That's why I probably wasn't a fan. As the seasons pasted, the character became stronger. This gave him confidence. In the end, as of season 10, the Jackson character has matured to the point that he has become a self sacrificing hero. He still monitors the groups ethics. He still is lead at providing information that can move any mission forward. Acheaology, History, Culture and Exploration are part of his very being. He is determined. Though a man of peace, he has matured to the point that using his weapons may be the only way to solve a disagreement.

Other characters include, most recently: Vala Mal Doran(Claudia Black) and Colonel Cameron Mitchell(Ben Browder), new lead of SG-1. Both actors come from a series called Farscape and why they were put together is any bodies guess. I see little difference between Mitchell and Crichton (Farscape character). Black's character is simply off the wall. Definitely different from her soldier like character Arin Soon.


This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.

One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.

I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's.


"The Last Big Thing" is a wonderful satirical film that sardonically whips pop culture to the point of humorous self-desctruction. The characters are so interesting and fun to laugh at/sympathize with. Which brings me to an introduction to the characters I liked best...

Simon Geist is a man in his late 30s/early 40s who creates a pop-culture driven editorial magazine called "The Next Big Thing". Thing is, this magazine doesnt really exist, and it is only an excuse for Simon to get close to actors by interviewing them, only to bitch-slap them silly, insulting their way of buying into pop culture. His live-in female friend, Darla, is also writing a magazine (which is real), which mainly has to do with her and Simon, as well as her and her father. Darla is a genuinely loveable (or loathable) character, depending on how you view her muted neurotic behavior. Magda is a prostitute, the character i liked the best. Brent is a flat character with not much to him, as is Tedra, the music-video queen for a bunch of B-rated rock bands. Still, these characters weave a very interesting web together. And this movie questions all the motivations that people have for what they do and why they do it. Its a wonderful film and I suggest you see it if you're in the indie/art house crowd. Mark my words!


I consider this film to be the best one about Mike Hammer, with Biff Elliott's performance the definitive Mike Hammer. Harry Essex's script is excellent and contains many improvements on Mickey Spillane's novel. His direction is strong and imaginative, and he makes fine use of light and shadow. The camera work by John Alton is top-notch, as is the score by Franz Waxman. The cast includes many veteran players, as well as Peggie Castle in her memorable performance as Charlotte Manning. All in all, this is one of the finest private eye films ever made. Biff Elliott and Haary Essex should have received more opportunities. I have always treasured this film.


I love this film. The noir imagery combined with Spillane's no nonsense character Mike Hammer works marvellously to create a mood and feel seldom found in low budget detective films of the early fifties. It may not be 'The Maltese Falcon' but this film makes it's own solid contribution to the genre. Spillane is often criticised for alleged misogyny etc, but his 'dames' are way above their male counterparts in terms of cunning and intelligence. Poor old Mike Hammer, as effectively played by Biff Elliott, is blinded by the beauty of the mysterious psychiatrist whom he meets when investigating the death of an army buddy. When the penny finally drops his face is a picture. Good to see that 50s censorship did not force the film makers to omit the famous last line. A bona fide low budget classic.


I found this movie to be charming. I thought the characters were developed since as I watched, I found myself caring about these people. This is a period piece that I believe took place during the depression. A single mother, who is known as the town recluse (she has reason to be), puts an ad in the paper for "a Husband". Christopher Reeve plays a ex-con who happens into town looking for work. He sees the ad and he goes out to see her. She hires him. I really had some chuckles as their relationship progresses because I found it easy to put myself in their shoes. Everything went on so matter of fact. He needs the work so he doesn't want to upset her. And she needing his help, but doesn't want him to get the upper hand. They dance around the fact that they begin to really need each other. Things start warming up until ......the big blowup. I won't spoil it by telling you what happens. But the point of resolution is perfectly wonderful. I found the story to be very believable for the time it's taking place. I think this is one of the better "relationship" stories out there. Maybe the younger generation won't "get it" but if you are over 40 I think you'll like it. And if you liked Christopher Reeve in "Somewhere in Time" you'll like him in this one also.


Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.

I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.

This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far to old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.

Lastly, the musical score is excellent.


A simple movie in the beginning, a simple movie in the end. It does have that un-ending and pretending cliche, but, most tv movies have that any ways.

Christopher Reeve does a good job as being an ex-con/drifter. The marriage between her and the woman he works for, I feel is a bit queer, but, I believe for the time period it is set in, that it is believable none-the-less.

Now, I saw the edited 'tv' version, even tho the movie was made and showed on 'tv', I find that a bit queer as well. But, I feel if I saw the entirety of the piece, I would give it more-in-likely the same rating.

J.T. Walsh does a nice job, not his best role, but, still....a nice job.

7/10


Enjoyable movie although I think it had the potential to be even better if it had more depth to it. It is a mystery halfway through the film as to knowing why Elly is such a recluse. Then, when we are finally given an explanation going back to her childhood there still isn't much detail. Perhaps had they shown flashbacks or something.

Anyway, it is still a good movie that I'd watch again. 7/10


Never having seen this movie, based on the entertaining novel by Nicholas Katzenbach, and taking into consideration the first rate cast assembled for the production, we decided to take a look. "Just Cause", while not a horrible film, takes too many liberties with the original material that Jeb Stuart didn't quite succeed in his treatment. Arne Glimcher directed.

The first thing we think when a young black man is hauled to the local precinct for interrogation is police brutality. After all, sheriff Tanny Brown, and police officer Wilcox, show no mercy in beating Bobby Earl, who is accused of killing a young white girl. We feel horrified by what the officers do to the prisoner.

Then, the scene changes. Evangeline, Bobby Earl's grandmother is sent north to ask a distinguished Harvard professor, a retired lawyer, the young man wants Paul Armstrong to defend him. She old woman is convincing enough for Armstrong to take a look at the case. He is also convinced of the young man's innocence.

Things are not exactly what we thought they were. When Blair Sullivan, a man who is serving time in the same facility as Bobby Earl, comes forward to tell about how he is connected to the young girl's murder, and changes the dynamics of the case. The way it plays in the movie, it serves to confuse the viewer and distract Armstrong from arriving at the truth.

This thriller is made enjoyable by Sean Connery, who plays Armstrong. Laurence Fishburne, an intense actor, makes a fine impression as the Sheriff who, as far as we can see, is guilty of abusing his prisoner. Ed Harris has a wonderful opportunity to show why he is one of our best actors. Blair Underwood, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee and the young Scarlett Johansson are seen in supporting roles.

The film, even with its faults, will not disappoint.


This movie really is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the story and concept of the movie are really good, tense and have some nice plot twists in it. But than again on the other hand, it all is told very slow, without style and uninvolved. Still I regard "Just Cause" as an above average thriller simply because of the fine cast.

Maybe Sean Connery was miscast in his role. I mean, he isn't really that believable as a the main 'hero' and father of a young daughter (played by a still very young Scarlett Johansson by the way) and husband of Kate Capshaw. I feel that he simply was too old for the role to be really credible in it. However Sean Connerey is of course a great actor and that is the only reason why he is still able to carry the movie as good as he does. But he of course is helped by a very solid supporting cast that consists out of actors like Laurence Fishburne, Blair Underwood, Ned Beatty, Hope Lange, Lynne Thigpen and Ed Harris. All actors are really good but some of them are highly underused at the same time, which is a real shame, as well as a missed opportunity. Especially Ed Harris is just totally great in his role as a psychopathic serial killer. He's truly chilling and acting superbly. Normally he doesn't play this ruthless, chilling sort of roles in movies, so he really surprises with his role in this one. His performance alone is already more than enough reason to watch this movie. However due to the fact that the story is told without much style and too formulaic, none of the characters in the movie really work out well because it feels all too distant.

It really is the way of storytelling that kills all the movie its fine potential. Arne Glimcher directs the movie with little style and keeps the pace too low at times. Because of this, we as viewers, never really get involved with the story or any of it's characters.

It really is too bad, for "Just Cause" had more than enough potential. A fine cast and a slick story with some unexpected twists and turns in it in which nothing is what it seems. The cast and story are the only reason why this movie is still an above average thriller, that will probably still please the fan of the genre. It however is an eternal shame that the movie is lacking in its story telling and style, or else this movie could had been a real classic in its genre.

7/10


A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States

Just Cause

Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.

A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.


Just Cause takes some of the best parts of three films, Cape Fear, A Touch of Evil and Silence of the Lambs and mixes it together to come up with a good thriller of a film.

Sean Connery is a liberal law professor, married to a former Assistant District Attorney, Kate Capshaw and he's a crusader against capital punishment. Blair Underwood's grandmother Ruby Dee buttonholes Connery at a conference and persuades him to handle her grandson's appeal. He's sitting on death row for the murder of a young girl.

When Connery arrives in this rural Florida county he's up against a tough sheriff played by Laurence Fishburne who's about as ruthless in his crime solving as Orson Welles was in Touch of Evil.

Later on after Connery gets the verdict set aside with evidence he's uncovered, he's feeling pretty good about himself. At that point the film takes a decided turn from Touch of Evil to Cape Fear.

To say that all is not what it seems is to put it mildly. The cast uniformly turns in some good performances. Special mention must be made of Ed Harris who plays a Hannibal Lecter like serial killer on death row with Underwood. He will make your skin crawl and he starts making Connery rethink some of those comfortable liberal premises he's been basing his convictions on. Many a confirmed liberal I've known has come out thinking quite differently once they've become a crime victim.

Of course the reverse is equally true. Many a law and order conservative if they ever get involved on the wrong end of the criminal justice system wants to make real sure all his rights are indeed guaranteed.

Criminal justice is not an end, but a process and a never ending one at that for all society. I guess if Just Cause has a moral that would probably be it.


JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night.


I read some previous comments stating that this movie loses steam towards the end of the movie and also that it has a similar ending to Cape Fear. I completely disagree. I'm going to give a simple review for the normal moviegoers out there. I thought the casting was perfect. I thought this was one of Ed Harris's best performances. What an evil psychopath!!! I have a lot of respect for his acting after viewing his performance in this movie. I was riveted throughout this movie. If you like mystery thrillers then this definitely a movie you want to see. I also noticed a young Scarlett Johannson in this movie. This movie is filled with top stars and I highly recommend it!


hi.. I consider Just Cause one of my favorite Sean Connery's movies, it is a tense psychological thriller with excellent performances from the Cast, especially Connery..it also has one of the best lines i have seen in movies, so the dialog is pretty good in this one.. It also has one of the best scenes in movies ever, when Sean interviews Ed Harris's character in prison is just fantastic..i enjoyed this one a lot and i can not recommend this enough, really do not miss this one ! Do not pay attention to the negative reviews stating that the last 30 minutes suck, it was as intense as the rest of the movie, i really find Just Cause a very entertaining movie..


To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID


I enjoyed this movie, granted it is mainly because I enjoy seeing Sean Connery act and this one has the added bonus of having Ed Harris and Lawrence Fishburne in it too. The story has a grandma seeking out Connery's assistance because her grandson is in prison and she says he was wrongly convicted. At first it seems there may have been some racist aspects of the case, however it later turns out the main officer on the case was black himself and it seems he did some rather bad things to coerce a confession out of the boy. Well the boy tries to point to another killer locked up in the same prison, one who is about to be put to death. He is a particularly nasty person too, as he takes a lot of joy in what he did, writing the relatives of his victims and trying to get people to mail them. A lot of twists and turns in this one with some of it being somewhat unexpected. Me I just enjoyed Sean Connery's character trying to make sense of the whole ordeal. The movie also made me mad in areas, especially when you find out what ultimately happened. You get very good interplay between Connery and Harris and Connery and Fishburne as they all shine rather well in this one. In the end this one makes for a rather good suspense/thriller.


A young and seemingly promising college graduate (played by Blair Underwood) is sent to jail for the murder of an innocent young girl and is put on death row. Sean Connery plays the "happy go lucky" attorney whom the young man's grandmother tracks down out of retirement and pleads with to take on the case in the hopes of freeing her grandson. Laurence Fishburne plays a police officer who was well involved in the case and is hell bent on debunking an theory that Connery might dig up to try and free the boy whom he and the entire police department swear is guilty of the crime. Ed Harris, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee, and the Late Lynne Thigpen co-star in this very intense dramatic thriller.


I really liked this film. All three stars(Connery,Fishburne and Underwood) give credible performances;and Harris is enjoyably over the top. The lighting and shot angles in some of Harris' scenes make his face look truly diabolical. The surprising turn of plot at the end makes it interesting. Not a great movie, but an enjoyable one. I gave it 7 of 10.


The movie was a suspenseful, and somewhat dark, look at the severe results of a genuinely human mistake. Connery and Fishburne work very well together in this thriller about murder and redemption. Keep your boots on for the strange turnaround at the end of the movie...you'd never expect it!


I just saw the movie on tv. I really enjoyed it. I like a good mystery. and this one had me guessing up to the end. Sean Connery did a good job. I would recomend it to a friend.


As usual, Sean Connery does a great job. Lawrence Fishburn is good, but I have a hard time not seeing him as Ike Turner.


I've read a number of reviews on this film and I have to say "What is wrong with you people?!?!" This was an excellent film! I thought this film was superb from start to finish and the story was extremely well told. I'm convinced that the people that didn't like this film weren't paying very good attention to the film. There are a number of very important scenes that if you aren't paying attention you will be confused and the following scenes may not make sense. I urge anyone who didn't like this film to watch it again and watch it alone so that you can truly pay attention. The story made perfect sense to me and as I said, was very well told. Every scene in the film has a point and everything fits together at the end of the film.

All the actors did a fantastic job! Sean Connery was very good in his role as always. Laurence Fishburne was superb as Tanny Brown, playing a very interesting character. Kate Capshaw was a nice touch as well, and looks fantastic. Blair Underwood was a pleasant surprise, I didn't really expect anything great from him, but he pulled off a great performance. Ed Harris was the real gem in the film. He plays a truly sick individual and really makes you see how disturbed his character is. Watch his eyes in his scenes, just superb!!! Also, there is a very young Scarlett Johansson (as Kate) in one of her first roles...not a bad place to start. Excellent cast in this film!

I would strongly recommend this film to anyone that likes any of the cast members or just likes thrillers. This is a great film and should be seen. Don't listen all these other people's opinions, go see the movie and come to your own conclusions. I hope that you will see the film, and I hope that you enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris


This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss "TRUE CRIMES" or "THE HURRICANE". My wife and me gave 8/10.


This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie.


Ed Harris's work in this film is up to his usual standard of excellence, that is, he steals the screen away from anyone with whom he shares it, and that includes the formidable Sean Connery. The movie, which is more than a bit sanctimonious, comes alive only in the scenes when Harris is interrogated by the attorney for another convict. It is breathtaking, a master class in artistic control.

The other cast members are all adept and Connery is reliable, as is Fishbourne, but the story itself packs no wallop. The plot depends largely on the premise that a black prisoner always will be mistreated and coerced by white law enforcement officers. This is the engine which drives the story, right or wrong, and makes one feel a tad cheated at the end.

Still, worth watching to see Harris in action.