A very silly movie, this starts with a soft porn sequence, ventures into farcelike comedy in the art gallery, adds a shocker of a discovery in the hotel room then introduces a random murder for no obvious reason.

What follows is bizarre and surreal (the stopwatch scene in particular is exquisitely unnecessary), culminating in a revelatory "twist" ending which is as obvious as it is unfair on the viewer (see the trivia section for precisely why it's deliberately unfair).

The movie goes out of its way to be offensive to as many groups as possible - transsexuals, the insane, and the wonderful "Huggie Bear"-style racial stereotyping on the subway - and condescendingly treats the viewer like an idiot in the closing scenes, as characters endlessly explain to one another in great detail and over and over again what just happened in the film. Though the background female characters in the restaurant scene at the end are a joy to watch.

In fact, the whole movie is a joy to watch: Despite its many, many flaws, the whole package just, well, works.


i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10


The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank!


"Dressed to Kill" is surely one of the best horror/thriller movies ever made.It's taut,stylish and extremely suspenseful mixture of sex and violence.The acting is pretty good,the orchestral score by Pino Donaggio is unforgettable and there's plenty of surprises to keep thriller fans intrigued."Dressed to Kill" is a murder mystery that involves a sexually frustrated housewife(Angie Dickinson),her teenage son(Keith Gordon),her psychoanalyst(Michael Caine),and a high price call girl(Nancy Allen).The murderer in the film is a transsexual named Bobbi who is also one of Caine's patients.The film is full of breathtaking moments:the infamous elevator murder scene is extremely stylish and pretty gory as well.Highly recommended.


"Dressed to Kill" is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.

Sadly, the original uncut version of "Dressed to Kill" is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.

Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense),

Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...

I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted "cock" changed to "bulge"). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in "Lost and Delirious" is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.

What makes "Dressed to Kill" so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.

DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than "Psycho". It's a shame that very few actually know that.

**** out of 4 stars


Writer-director Brian De Palma is best known for his string of films that have been called, somewhat unfairly, "Hitchcock imitations." Contrary to popular belief, De Palma doesn't rip-off Hitchcock; he borrows story or character elements that may have been seen in a Hitchcock film and then expands on them in a more violent, modern way. Like Hitchcock, De Palma is known for mixing blood-soaked death with macabre humor.

"Dressed to Kill," made way back in 1980, is, perhaps, De Palma's most well-known Hitchcockian film, and it's probably his best as well. The story involves a cross-dressing serial killer stalking both a burnt-out housewife (played by Angie Dickinson) and a street-wise hooker (played by Nancy Allen).

Yes, it will remind you distinctly of "Psycho," but De Palma's flick is just as technically ingenious and darkly creative. The museum sequence is particularly well-scored and edited; the elevator stab scene is also one of the most uniquely shot murders ever put on film. "Dressed to Kill" may not be a complete original, but I'd say it's definitely worth your time. Rated R. 105 minutes. 9 out of 10.


Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement.


This is probably one of Brian De Palma's best known movies but it isn't his best. Body Double, The Fury and Carrie are better movies but this movie is better than Blow Out and Obsession. De Palma is very influenced by Hitchcock and this movie is a take off on Psycho. Angie Dickinson is a bored housewife who is thinking of having an affair and after her psychiatrist, played by Michael Caine, turns down an offer, Dickinson meets a man in a art gallery and she winds up sleeping with him. After this point it's best you don't know what happens but there is a murder and Nancy Allen is a call girl who gets a look at the killer. Dennis Franz is the detective on the case who really doesn't trust Allen and she has to find the killer herself. It's a pretty good movie but isn't one of De Palma's best.


the fact that the movie is predictable is not a problem. this movie is like a beautiful painting to be enjoyed. the museum scene is like a nice music video. the apres sex scene is an all too familiar scene in all of our adult lives. but the movie would not hold any interest for me without keith gordon. keith gordon is maybe one of the most underrated actors of our time. almost everything i know about acting came from studying mostly his eyes. he had the most compelling face. his character possesses the qualities i look in a guy, sensitivity and dedication. keith gordon is gorgeous. BTW, i kinda wish he'd shave his beard now as his lips, jawline and adam's apple were his prettiest set next to his eyes.


In what must be one of the most blood-freezing movies ever, a transvestite is murdering people in New York, and the answer to everything may not be what people suspect. One can see how Brian DePalma takes some influence from Hitchcock with camera angles and stuff. Michael Caine plays a most thought-provoking character, while Angie Dickinson is basically a bored rich woman with a bad hairdo. Keith Gordon (who later starred in "Christine") is probably the most interesting character in the movie. But you can't really understand this movie without seeing it. And after seeing it, you may never know just whom you can trust. Also starring Nancy Allen and Dennis Franz.


*** out of ****

Yep! Dressed To Kill is that kind of a movie. It's like Kalifornia, but it's different. Remember? That movie from 1993 which stars Brad Pitt as a serial killer who is "welcomed" by a couple of travelers in a trip to California as a buddy who might be a good company along the way. When I watch a movie, I always like not to know anything at all about the plot, before watching it, because the surprises may get even cooler. That's how it was with Kalifornia. When I watched it last year for the first time, I never realized it was a suspense movie, so when I found out, I was shocked, and when the movie went on and on, it got even better and I was at the edge of my seat, almost kissing my monitor, so close I was to it! So, we're discussing about Dressed To Kill, right? Before I watched this movie (today!), I've only watched 2 others movies from Brian De Palma, so I can say I don't really know that well his works, but can tell from afar that these 2 movies for me were as great as they could be. Carrie (1976) and Mission:Impossible (1996). When I watched Carrie on the TV, I was really that desperate to get a DVD copy and I can tell: this movie is great! Mission:Impossible also. And today, I watched a third movie from DePalma.

Well, Dressed To Kill is a movie like Kalifornia. When the movie goes on, it goes completely different than what you'd expect. I was watching, very curious, the scene of the museum, where Dickinson follows the mysterious man to his cab and they end together in an apartment room. You may guess what may have happened there. But when the movie reached the scene of the elevator, the movie went completely on a different path. I was watching the rest of the movie, and I really liked it. However, there are some low points... Some characters in the movie are completely silent! Take, for example, the mysterious man from the museum scene. I was always hoping that he could say something but he never did! This was totally ridiculous and was with no doubt something that made me change my mind by not accepting this movie as at least almost something as a masterpiece. Even in the cab scene, where Dickinson tries to apologize because of what happened in the museum, the completely silent man grabs her, pulls her inside the cab, and they start kissing each other. You know, it reminded me of the Mexican TV series of the 70's "El Chavo Del 8", where some characters are completely silent. Getting past these low points of the movie, it is actually a great movie, considering the suspense, the characters and the plot. Dennis Franz is cool as detective Marino! Reminded me of him as Capt. Carmine Lorenzo in Die Hard 2 (1990) where he plays almost the same kind of character.

Well, concluding this review, the ending of Dressed To Kill is the same ending as it is in Carrie! I don't know if I really liked that, because I hate imitations! I understand that Carrie is a movie from DePalma, so it's not actually an imitation, because after all it was his idea! But it turned to be a repetitive idea in Dressed To Kill, so DePalma could have done something different instead of showing Nancy Allen waking up from a bad dream the same way it happens to Amy Irving at the ending scene of Carrie. This was, of course, with no doubt, another low point. But if you get past this, you will find that Dressed To Kill is a really good movie, and I assure you that it's not, by any means, a waste of time watching it.


Typical De Palma movie made with lot's of style and some scene's that will bring you to the edge of your seat.

Most certainly the thing that makes this movie better as the average thriller, is the style. It has some brilliantly edited scene's and some scene's that are truly nerve wrecking that will bring you to the edge of your seat. The best scene's from the movie; The museum scene and the elevator murder. There are some mild erotic scene's and the movies pace might not be fast enough for the casual viewer to fully appreciate this movie. So this movie might not be suitable for everybody.

The story itself is also quite good but it really is the style that makes the movie work! It might be for the fans only but also casual viewers should appreciate the well build up tension in the movie.

There are some nice character portrayed by a good cast. Michael Caine is an interesting casting choice and Angie Dickinson acts just as well as she is good looking (not bad for a 49-year old!).

The musical score by Pino Donaggio is also typically De Palma like and suits the movie very well, just like his score for the other De Palma movie, "Body Double".

Brilliant nerve wrecking thriller. I love De Palma!

10/10


Yesterday, I went to the monthly Antique Flea Market that comes to town. I really have no interest in such things, but I went for the fellowship of friends who do have such an interest. Looking over the hundreds of vendor, passing many of them quickly, I spotted someone selling VHS tapes and DVDs. Most of the films he had on DVD were rather recent; the oldest one I noticed was the 1940 Cary Grant-Irene Dunne co-starrer MY FAVORITE WIFE. But the VHS tapes, by their nature, were mostly older films. I couldn't resist buying SOMETHING since they were being sold at 3 tapes for $10.00. What a bargain, as Eddie Murphy used to say. I came across one film that I had heard about for years but had never seen: John Cassavettes's OPENING NIGHT (1977). Well, I certainly wanted that being a fan of Gena Rowlands, and I had heard that this film contained one of her finest performances. He also had FACES (1968). I had seen this about 20 years ago, a time when I probably had not had enough life experience to appreciate it thoroughly. And I wanted to take advantage of the bargain, so I grabbed that one too. My other choice was CLAIRE'S KNEE (1970).

When I got home, I decided to put aside the work I had planned to do so that I could watch OPENING NIGHT. I was totally enthralled by this film. It focuses on Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), a famous actress of stage and screen, who, during out-of-town previews, is having personal and professional problems coming to terms with both her character and the play's theme of facing aging. After one rehearsal, an avid fan and autograph hound accosts her with cries (and tears) of "I love you! I love you!" A few minutes later, this fan is hit by a car and killed. This begins Myrtle's descent into herself where she must face her own fears of aging, the future of her career as a mature actress, and the inadequacies she finds in the play itself (written by a much older female dramatist, played by Joan Blondell). Throughout the film, she sees the dead girl, an obvious symbol of her past; drinks almost constantly; and receives insincere support from her director (Ben Gazzara), the producer (Paul Stewart), her costar (John Cassavettes himself), and the dramatist. Actually, they're more concerned about how her behavior will affect them and their careers: flubbing lines on stage, improvising new lines, generally cracking up on stage, and arriving for the Broadway opening totally drunk.

This story functions not only to address the issues of aging but also to promote Cassavettes's displeasure with mainstream movie-making. As I watched the film, I was at times surprised, confused, amused, disparaging, but ultimately involved, entertained, and satisfied. Cassavettes really had a great sense of humor, cared very much that his audience understood what he was implying, and wanted them to be emotionally involved in the story. He makes allusions to ALL ABOUT EVE with the use of the avid theater fan, even dressing the young girl in a slicker and hat similar to the one worn by Anne Baxter at the beginning of that film. This allusion functions most obviously to support his aging theme, the contrast of the older and younger woman. He also obviously uses the contrast as a symbol for Myrtle's confronting her own lost youth. At first, I felt the symbolism was TOO obvious, but then I realized that that was Cassavettes's intention. He doesn't want his audience misunderstanding what he's getting at; if they did, it would interfere with their emotional involvement. This spectre of youth haunts Myrtle, attacks her, and wants to destroy her. Myrtle eventually "kills" her, but before she can really come to terms with herself and the play, she must reach bottom (another figurative death?). So Cassavettes has her get so drunk that she can't walk and must crawl to her dressing room the night the play opens on Broadway. She resurrects herself (helping yourself out of such situations is also important to the film's theme) and makes the play a success by giving a great performance and changing the direction of play for the better by improvising so that it contains some ray of hope for the aging character she's playing. These scenes are funny and interesting. Cassavettes and Rowlands actually did the play in front of live audiences, who did and did not know they were going to be part of a movie. The play they're doing also acts as contrast: it's mainstream and self-serious about the issues it addresses, that is, until Myrtle changes its denouement. In doing so, she also improves the work of her co-stars. The natural evolution of interaction (achieved through improvisation)between and among human beings, subjective realism, and universal truth - these were Cassavettes's concerns in making films.

Gena Rowlands is amazing throughout. Of course, she has that great face, and Cassavettes (notoriously in love with her throughout their marriage) treats us to numerous closeups of it so that we too can feel her emotions and that we know what's going on inside of her. She makes you care so much about this character that you want to see her work her way out of this crisis of the soul. And this is what holds your attention for the 2 hours and 30 minutes running time. The film is deliberately paced at times and requires constant attention, but anyone with interest in good film-making and great acting will be rewarded. Someone else said that this is a movie for people who love movies. All others be forewarned.

Seek out OPENING NIGHT if you've never seen it. Everyone in it is excellent, and it's one of Cassavettes's best films.


It was once suggested by Pauline Kael, never a fan, that Cassavetes thought not like a director, but like an actor. What Kael meant was his supposed lack of sophistication as a filmmaker; to take that comparison further, to me, it never feels like Cassavetes is directing himself in a film, it feels like Cassavetes implanting himself inside his own creation, like Orson Welles. Cassavetes is just as much of a genius as Welles, but far more important as a true artist (as opposed to a technician or rhetorician). This is like a cross between Italian passion (though Cassavetes was actually Greek) and Scandinavian introversion. Never before have inner demons been so exposed physically.

It's about the mystery of becoming, performing, and acting. Like a haunted Skip James record, it's got the echoes of ghosts all around. Rowlands' breakdowns, which are stupefying and almost operatic, surprising coming from Cassavetes, are accompanied by a jumpy, unsettling piano. Who is this dead girl? The metaphysical possibilities are endless, and it's amazing to find this kind of thing in a Cassavetes film, just the overt display of intelligence (there is also a brief bit of voice-over at the beginning). But then, he always was intelligent, he just never flapped it around for easy praise. This is not "Adaptation"; here, the blending of reality and fiction and drama is not to show cleverness but to show the inner turmoil and confusion it creates.

There's so much going on. The pure, joyous love when Rowlands greets her doorman; the horror when she beats herself up... The scene where the girl talks about how she devoted her life to art and to music is one of the most effective demonstrations of understanding what it means to be a fan of someone. You can see some roots of this in "A Star Is Born," and Almodovar borrowed from it for "All About My Mother." I think the ending is a little bit of a disappointment because of the laughing fits, but the preparation leading up to it is almost sickening. (You can shoot me, but I think the alcoholism, despite its urgency in many of the scenes, is a relatively small point about the film.)

It's a living, breathing thing, and it feels like a process: it could go any direction at any time. Like "Taste of Cherry," we are reminded that "you must never forget this is only a play." Yet it is dangerous: when Rowlands says that line, is it great drama? How will the audience take it? Is she being reflexive or does she just not care? Her (character's) breakdowns are incorporated into the performances, and ultimately the film, in such a way that it's like witnessing a female James Dean. 10/10


Let's go straight to the point: this is The Movie I would take with me on a desert island (with dvd player). It's just perfect. If a reason for you to see a movie is that you love the actors, you like to see them free to involve in the space and feelings, this movie is for you. See the scene when Myrtle (Rowlands) come on stage drunk and Maurice(Cassavetes) has to improvise because she doesn't follow the script anymore. If you're sensitive to the camera's movements, you'll be fascinated by the way the camera moves on stage, the particular flow, that give you the impression camera follow the actors as if it was lead by the theatrical principle of "private space"... amazing. And the story is just a brilliant mix of tale and realistic drama. Cassavetes is again arguing with Hollywood and the majors' politics, but this time, he do it through Broadway, making one of the most exciting movie about theater. Well, this movie is a bliss.


Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10.


I only know of one other movie that could possibly compete with Opening Night and that's Bergman';s Persona. Both movies are simply amazing, they have a richness of ideas hard to grasp at first sight. We have a profound meditation on the relation of art and life as one actress, Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), finds herself more in touch with the character she is playing on stage than she would want to. The accidental death of one of her fans, a young girl that declares her love for Myrtle and she is then hit by a car, leaves a deep mark in the actress. She starts asking herself question related to her aging that starts to affect her until the only solution becomes alcohol. But that doesn't help to much and Myrtle is one step away from complete madness. The scene where she kill the imaginary (or not) spirit of the dead girl is one of the most thrilling scenes I found in a Cassavets film. The movie ends with a display of genius on behalf of the director as he films a theater scene where he himself and Gena Rowlands improvise a scene, since Myrtle comes too drunk to the opening night to perform her part accurately. This scene was filmed spontaneously, with a live audience, the laughter is genuine, the chemistry between Casavates and Rowlands absolutely amazing. If you liked Persona or are interested in a movie that offers substantial ideas alongside great entertainment this movie will suit you just fine.


Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.

At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.

Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself ("I'm going to bury that bastard," she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.

Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.

Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are.


Gena Rowlands plays an actress who loses her grip on reality when she witnesses the death of a fan of hers. She becomes increasingly deluded from reality, and as a result her emotional turmoil intrudes with her work as an actress. In the sense that she breaks all the rules of acting and improvises everything, yet still manages to engage her audience makes the film interesting (if a bit self-important) as a parallel of Cassavettes' own struggles as a filmmaker. There's so many ideas thrown around, and as result it becomes a bit muddled (I'm still pondering the relation between the dead fan and Rowlands, among many other things), but the way they're presented in their rawest form makes it a consistently interesting and thought-provoking film. Would be great on a double bill with Mulholland Drive.


Broadway and film actor-turned-director John Cassavetes (from Rosemary's Baby)creates a masterpiece with this 1977 film. It stars Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes himself, Ben Gazzara, Joan Blondell, Paul Stewart, Zohra Lampert, Laura Johnson and there is a cameo by Peter Falk. The premise of the film: An aging stage and film actress (Gena Rowlands)re-evaluates her life after an obscessed fan dies in a car accident trying to get her autograph. The movie has a slow pace and a dark, moody, frightening quality. It has a 60's cinematic look and it even reminded me of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby without the supernatural horror. The fears here are the ones every successful actress has- she is getting old and she will become useless in her career. Furthermore, she feels she has lived a life that lacks any true spirituality, humanity and merit. She has lived only for her career- she has no children, doesn't do charitable deeds, etc. The gradual disintegration of her personality is the meat of this film. She is falling apart. She's in a crisis. Gena Rowlands really gets into the character's tormented psyche and acts the part quite well. She is a terrific actress and this 70's film is a refreshing contrast to the often violent films of the period and or the disaster movies or adventure thrillers. It's a movie with lots of deep-seated emotion but has a cold, cynical feeling, as if Cassavetes is criticizing the mainstream movies and actors of the 70's generation. Either that or this movie is a product of the 70's which was itself cynical in many aspects- Nixon's deception, Watergate, Vietnam, etc. Although the production values are not great, and this film is not well-known, it's a very haunting film with haunting moods. Kudos to the underrated and late director Cassavetes who died in the late 80's.


I spent 5 hours drenched in this film. Nothing I have ever seen comes close to the delicious funk this film left me in. Never mind females advanced aging dilemma's, human fear vaults off the screen for your viewing. Personally engaging to the ninth degree, the film invests one with an undeniable shared feeling for our lives'. I enjoyed this dalliance with raw wounded gall deep from within. It empowers a mutually shared vestment in the history of human encounters reaching far deeper into the pain, isolation and skewed views of self and others. The result forgives our tepid forming of a bridge away from the muddy sludge of dead we must encounter. The birth in finding real people is a happy pursuit. The effort for realism intersects with the dark ground of our bankrupt culture.


John Cassavetes' "Opening Night" is fantastic and fascinating; fantastic because it plays with the deepest fears we have inside our imagination, fascinating because it never ceases surprising us. With its very long duration of two hours and twenty minutes, anyone who appreciates characters won't be able to take their eyes off the screen.

The story of an unstable actress, Myrtle Gordon, (Gena Rowlands) trying to put herself together for a play, fighting her demons; "Opening Night" is not only about a woman on the verge of a breakdown but also about the complexities of the lives of theater actors and the theatrical world. All of Cassavetes' characters here are experienced people that know about the world of theater; so half of the film takes place on a stage, either where the performers do their job or at backstage, where producers and writers and directors do their job.

Cassavetes is so harsh with his characters that this unkindness turns towards the audience, but the audience in the cinema. Because there is another audience, in the theater of the film, that doesn't know what is really happening and laugh because they think everything is performance. And that's essentially what it is; it's just that the audience in the theater doesn't get to see 'backstage' the way we do. They don't experience Gena Rowlands' exuberance before she goes out to that stage, but most importantly; they don't know the reasons why she acts the way she does.

I always thought that it would be difficult to be friends with an actor. Myrtle (Rowland) says she's an actress and that's the only thing she knows how to do; and I imagine that if I had a friend who was a professional performer, it would be really difficult to tell when he's saying the truth because I would know he's an actor and he can fake anything at any time. A lot of the things that Myrtle does during the awful experiences the film puts her throughWe suspect if she's being real; the rest of the characters suspect too.

There is the writer, Sarah (Joan Blondell), who can't understand why Myrtle doesn't understand the character she's written for her. There's the director, Manny (Ben Gazzara), who can't accept the fact that his best actress might be losing it; the producer David (Paul Stewart) who doesn't know where to stand and Myrtle's co-star Maurice (Cassavetes himself), who can't deal with the love they have for each other.

When she witnesses the death of a teenager, a fan; all of this comes together and affects Myrtle, but no one knows if her delusions are for real. They don't say anything because they don't want to upset her, but the movie enters in a state of subconsciousness that only Myrtle accepts. At times, we can tell that everyone has had it. During these moments, Cassavetes' brilliant script depicts a scary brutal honesty in the words the characters say in a discussion backstage; and not only what everyone tells Myrtle but also what she says to them.

Here are people who are not afraid to speak their mind and constantly change what they are thinking, just like Cassavetes' way of making cinema. And in this aspect, the performances are more important here than in "Shadows", because the characters are involved in a bigger picture; a bigger story that steps out of the trivial.

But in another aspect, the actual way of making cinema, this movie is no different from "Shadows". There's a beautiful thing in the way Al Ruban's camera shoots the characters. When someone's talking, the camera doesn't focus on him, it shoots the person who is listening; so we can see how he or she reacts to the things the other one's saying. Sometimes they don't care, sometimes they are happy, sometimes devastated.

Improvisation might still be there, though, among all these wonderful performances. Near the end, there's an unexpected scene where Cassavetes and Rowlands start talking, non-stop. Whether this was improvised or not is not something we have to wonder. We have just got to watch; and watching both of them exchanging life experiences and seeing words come truly alive in a conversation that means a lot more than what it showsIt doesn't get more natural than that.


I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.

It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.

This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.

The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie.


Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. "Otherwise," as he said, "what am I doing?" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.

Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: "What do you think the play lacks?" "Hope," says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.

Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play ("Aging, who goes to see that?" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.

The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as "The Second Woman" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.

One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.

It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean?


I have spent the last week watching John Cassavetes films - starting with 'a woman under the influence' and ending on 'opening night'. I am completely and utterly blown away, in particular by these two films. from the first minute to the last in 'opening night' i was completely and utterly absorbed. i've only experienced it on a few occasions, but the feeling that this film was perfect lasted from about two thirds in, right through till the credits came up. everything about this film, from the way it was shot, the incredible performance of Gena Rowlands, the credits, the opening, the music, the plot, the sense of depth, the pace, the tenderness, the originality, the characters, the deft little moments.... for me, is truly sublime. i couldn't agree more with the previous comment about taking it to a desert island because the sheer depth of this film is something to behold. if your unlucky enough to have a house fire, i guarantee that instead of making a last ditch attempt to rescue that stash of money under your bed, you'll be rescuing your copy of this film instead.


"Opening Night" released in 1977, tries to be an ambitious production. It succeeds only in the truly stunning performance of Gena Rowlands. Her character of theatre actress Myrtle is not necessarily someone we would love in real life. She is self-absorbed, often obnoxious, and makes life miserable for those around her - in other words, not unlike some actresses! Myrtle is also a woman on the edge of collapse - we are not quite sure if the demons she is fighting are real or imagined, although we are let in on the secret early. Rowlands is obviously well directed with love by her gifted husband, actor/director John Cassavettes, who has a role in the film as well. This film is not without flaws - it is overly long, and the last part of the film where Myrtle goes on stage while very drunk seems almost cruel. The "improvising" in some of the dialogue - at least while on stage - goes on way too long. Some of the supporting characters give good performances, especially from Ben Gazarra, playing Myrtle's sleazy producer. Joan Blondell's character is never fully developed, and I never could figure out why she was in the film, except to placate Myrtle. See this film for Rowlands alone - she is fascinating throughout - and it is tough to take your eyes off her, although you will want to at times.


John Cassavetes' 1977 film Opening Night is, what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist, 'overlooked'. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It's not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it's about a half hour too long, and there's a bit too much emphasis on the drunkenness of the lead character Myrtle Gordon, played by Gena Rowlands, the wife of Cassavetes, long after we've gotten the point. But only Woody Allen's masterpiece, Another Woman, which also starred Rowlands, eleven years later, is a better portrait of the internal conflicts of an aging woman. Yet, Rowlands did win the Best Actress Award at the Berlin Film Festival for this portrayal, and it was well deserved. Often this film, written by Cassavetes, is easily compared to his earlier- and inferior- film, A Woman Under The Influence, but it's a spurious comparison. Rowlands' character in that film is severely mentally disturbed from the start, as well as coming from a blue collar background, while her characters in this film and in Allen's film are both artists who are haunted by apparitions. In this film it's the ghost of a dead young woman who can be seen as Myrtle's younger doppelganger, while in Allen's film it's her character's own past. Many critics have taken this film to be a portrait of an alcoholic, seeing Myrtle surround herself with enablers, such as a stage manager who tells her, during opening night, 'I've seen a lot of drunks in my time, but I've never seen anyone as drunk as you who could stand up. You're great!', but this is wrong, for alcohol isn't her problem- nor is her chain smoking. They are merely diversions from whatever thing is really compelling her to her own destruction, and much to Cassavetes' credit, as a storyteller, he never lets us find out exactly what's wrong with Myrtle, and despite her coming through in the end, there's no reason to expect that she has really resolved anything of consequence. This sort of end without resolution links Cassavetes directly with the more daring European directors of the recent past, who were comfortable in not revealing everything to an audience, and forcing their viewers to cogitate, even if it hurts.

Yet, the film recapitulates perfectly the effect of a drunk or fever lifting out of the fog, and as such the viewer again is subliminally involved in its drama. Whether or not Myrtle Gordon does recover, after the film's universe irises about her is left for each and every viewer to decide, and as we have seen before that lid closes, one's choices do matter.


The movie was much better than the other reviewer stated. It's a nice family movie. It has a fun fantasy aspect of some time travel. The story revolves around a 14 year old girl who accidentally finds a way to travel back in time in the old elevator of her apartment building. Of course, no one believes her when she tries to explain her disappearances. She finds and makes friends with a girl about her age and is able to help the girl's family in many ways. She is also able to help her own relationship with her father in the long run. It reminds me of a Hallmark movie so give it a chance and decide for yourself. It seemed to be aimed more towards children about 6-12 years (maybe a bit older) and it's pretty much PG or G rated. I'm an adult who can appreciate a nice "family" movie - I guess the other reviewer isn't.


I found 'Time At The Top' an entertaining and stimulating experience. The acting, while not generally brilliant, was perfectly acceptable and sometimes very good. As a film obviously aimed at the younger demographic, it is certainly one of the better works in the genre (Children's Sci-Fi). Normally, I would say that Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia produce the best movies and TV shows for children, and 'Time At The Top' does nothing to discount this theory! I don't think that continuity and great acting are important to younger people. A good plot and an imaginative screenplay are far more important to them. Both are in abundance in this film. The special effects are good, without detracting from the story, or closing the viewers off from their own imaginations. It would have been very easy to inject an over-load of SFX in this film, but it would have totally destroyed its entire 'Raison D'etre'.

The settings and camera work are of a very high standard in this movie, and complement the fine wardrobe and historical accuracy. Overall, this film is highly satisfactory, and I recommend it to all viewers who can see the world through children's eyes, or those that try to, like myself! Now, I really must read the original book, as soon as possible.


A fascinating look at the relationship of a single father in 1998 and a single mother in 1881, tied together by a time-traveling teenager. Reminded me of "Somewhere In Time," Richard Matheson's "Bid Time Return," as rendered by Christopher Reeves and Jane Seymour.


I love the movie, it was a very interesting fantasy movie b/c of the real meaning of family in it, the history of our country, the fun-filled action displayed in the movie. I watch time @ the top about 4 X's a week and I just love it! I wish that a sequel had of been made to see more of Susan's dad in the past and watching how Susan delt with her new baby sister and having no telephone, computers, gameboys or anything of the 21st century. I hope everyone else enjoyed the movie as much as I did I guess you could say I'm a time at the top fanatic and I don't mind. The lil boy in the movie Robert Lincoln Walker was simply adorible I wonder who he is and how old he is today. Does anyone know if he's played in over movies or TV shows?


I found this family film to be pleasant and enjoyable even though I am not a child. It is based on the concept of a high school girl, Susan (Elisha Cuthbert) discovering that the elevator in her upper class apartment building becomes a time machine when a key on a key chain she got from a blind scientist is turned in the elevator lock. She learns how to control the machine (with some uncertainty about time of day).

The film is not a work of serious science fiction. You have to ignore the usual instability paradox associated with altering the past through time travel, i.e, the past is changed to prevent the 1881 Walker family from becoming poor, but the change means the family never got into financial trouble, so Victoria wouldn't have told Susan about the financial problems her mother had, which means that Susan shouldn't have had a reason to change the past in the first place! But other than that, there are some nice touches in the story, such as the old elevator panel, found in the apartment of the woman who secretly invented and installed the time machine, not having a space for the lock that activates the time machine feature. As in many stories for children, we need to also suppose that a child will not share startling information about a time travel device with a parent or other adult but instead hide the time traveler.

It also requires disregarding some poorly staged scenes and uninspired performances by some of the adult actors. (The child actors (Elisha Cuthbert, Gabrielle Boni, and Matthew Harbour) all were very convincing in their parts.) In one scene in the 1300s native Americans notice Susan observing and photographing them. But they don't register surprise in the sudden appearance of this blond, white skinned girl in peculiar dress. Their response is to simply stop what they are doing and to walk calmly towards Susan. In the same scene an Indian mother is carrying what is supposed to be a baby but is so obviously a doll (its white skinned and its head flops around).

Timothy Busfield, the award winning actor who originally came to fame in TV's old "Thirty Something," gives a somewhat uninteresting, sometimes listless, performance. In the other extreme Michel Perron hams it up as the Italian building superintendent (janitor), as does Richard Jutras in his role as a nosy neighbor. (The neighbor's name is Edward Ormondroyd, which is the name of the author of the novel the film is based on.) I suspect that these problems may be the fault either of the director or possible of a low budget.

Despite these flaws, I recommend the movie for kids. In addition to the interesting story, it also has some educational value, in that it points out how much both technology and social norms have changed in little more that 100 years.


Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...

I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood!


I am from Sweden and i have just seen this movie and the thing is that i thought it was okay. I have seen many bad comments about it but you must remember that a lot of people that watch this two parts miniseries are located all over the world and not just in USA. Also remember that not everyone has ever heard of the film made in the 60:s and maybe not in the events(murders). And even more...that it can be hard to find the original movie and if so there always be people around that doesn't like black/white films. This one feels fresh and in color and will find its public. Its 12 years old now but i just saw it for the first time. I will try to find the first one if i can to compare them but i haven't seen it anywhere in Sweden. Ofcorse there is internet but not for anyone in the world. The thing here is that this is mostly part of an American crime-history and was big in the 50-60:s in just USA but in rest of the world it just past by i guess. Well it was told about for some time but 40 years later it will fade away in for example Europa cause time goes by. We had our own problems and crimes so if someone will do a remake of the film and put it back in some light again its not a bad idea at all. A new generation can take part of this horrible story and even the film about Capote that was released just a few years ago witch was a pretty good film too i think. It will boost interest to the events that took place some 50 years ago and maybe stop it to fall in sleep. It started me up and now i am looking for the Robert Blake-version so it wasn't that bad...huh? This are my opinions. Some people will of course disagree but hey...its okay. Sometimes there will be okay with remakes on old films. Its not every time the old ones are that good. The film-making techniques has developed a lot and scenes can be made more realistic if they want today. Its always a question of money of course. There has been so many movies that were made in the "good old days" but there were also money missing, bad directors etc, and they remakes them today (50 years later) and suddenly they are okay to watch. My friend got this box of old classic horror-movies and s/f and i cant say i was impressed of the so called good old days. Most of them you cold put in the trashcan directly. They were so bad that we just sat there like zombies...could not move...like brain-dead. I cant recommend them to anyone. Some of them i have seen remakes of and i remember liking them...but not the originals. They were just painful awful. This is like the old story of who was the best Bond...Moore or Connery...I think if you see Roger Moore first you maybe find him the one to trust or like... Thanks for me and i am sorry for my English, thats not so good. /Lars from Sweden


Like others, I have seen and studied most of the books and films concerning the Clutter Killings, including a few dramatic works thematically based on the actions and psycho-mythology of the participants to the crime -- including Capote himself. As to Capote, I cannot forgive him for willfully withholding Perry Smith's confessions, intimacies and writings from even the defense counsels. I believe truths and facts Capote "reserved" for his "book," which required for Capote two guilty verdicts and capital punishment, would almost certainly have sustained a successful insanity defense for Perry Smith even under the old McNaughton Rule. Capote himself could never write another major literary work after "In Cold Blood." Shame and guilt. In my opinion, he willingly encouraged and planned the brutal capital punishment to provide the spectacular ending he required for his book/drama. To him, both men HAD to die for his book to succeed. The book had to justify itself by pretending it was about the horror of capital punishment. His actions and silence assured that ice-cold conclusion.

Capote's book is not truth. It is not factual or journalistic. It is drama and melodrama spiced with his own creatively psychotic imagination. What most people consider the virtues of the contemporaneous first movie are stark images of Capote's mind, which may have been the most cold-blooded aspect of all. No wonder viewers ironically but necessarily prefer Blake's performance. That actor IS the nightmare from Capote's dishonest imaginings.

So who is to say how the two killers should be played? Who is to judge what could make an essentially poetic psychotic snap from excessive courtesy and kindness to "do it now" killing? I agree with the few who see in Eric Roberts' work a magnificent performance, Shakespearean in its range, yet played with heartbreaking sincerity. Anthony Edwards takes a much safer "attitude mode" to create a smarmy Hickok; but he is one-dimensional and boring, with only a few notes in his television range. Roberts is almost four-dimensional, adding physical weakness and agony to a powerful animal body, a Frankenstein Creature who thinks in poetry and knows exactly what NOT to do. Like Leopold apropos Loeb, Robert's Perry Smith is hopelessly in love with an evil man. Without Hickok or a man of his particularities, Perry Smith would not have brought his psychotic mind into a world of horrors. He fears himself more than he fears anything else in life.

Given the freedom from Capote's death grip on the consciousness of the Clutter killings, Roberts and Edwards are free to create original personalities and psychoses to craft a different and new production of the drama. Same facts, some of the same lines from the case record, but deeper, more complex, with clearly titanic psychotic stresses -- indeed Roberts is so good at this fluidic madness that he physically and facially demonstrates in every moment how little awareness he has of where or who he is.

What many of our reviewers dislike about this film, Roberts in particular, is that cold-blooded killing isn't shown the way they expect and have been manipulated to demand. That is because here we are seeing a far more profoundly realistic "interpretation of life and death" than Capote could ever create -- a real Tragedy.

The actual cold-blooded killer, Mr. Capote, and his hypocritically artistic "non-fiction novel" do not control these interpretations and performances.

If "In Cold Blood" and Capote's effect on life, literature and truth matters as much as scholars say, then it takes guts as well as talent to portray the truth, or a version of the truth, that is not the rank, cowardly lie drawn up from the fathoms of Capote's own abyss.


This two-part TV mini-series isn't as good as the original from 1966 but it's solid. The original benefited from a huge number of things---it was all in black and white, it had a great jazz score and it was filmed at the real locations, including the home of the doomed Clutter family. That was important because in the book and in the original movie the home is very much a character itself.

This remake was filmed in Canada which I guess doubles okay for Kansas. The story tries to be as sympathetic to Perry as it dares to and Eric Roberts plays him as a somewhat fey person, his homosexuality barely hidden. The gentler take by Roberts doesn't quite work in the end though because it's hard to believe that his version of Perry Smith would just finally explode in a spasm of murder. Whereas Robert Blake's take on Smith left you no doubt that his Perry Smith was an extremely dangerous character.

Anthony Edwards was excellent as the bombastic, big-mouthed and ultimately cowardly Dick Hickcock, the brains of the outfit. His performance compares very well to Scott Wilson's role in the original movie.

Since this is a longer movie it allows more time to develop the Clutter family and in this regard I think the 1996 movie has an advantage. The Clutters are just an outstanding, decent family. They've never harmed another soul and it is just inexplicable that such a decent family is ultimately massacred in such a horrifying way. It still boggles my mind that, after the Clutters were locked in the bathroom, that Herb Clutter didn't force out the window so at least his children would have a chance to escape. This movie has the thought occur to him, but too late. From what I read about the real home, which is still standing, the way the bathroom is configured they could've opened the counter drawers and effectively barricaded the door which would've forced the killers to blast their way in. But it might've bought time for some of the Clutters to escape. Why the Clutters didn't try this, I have no idea.

Fans of the book will recognize that this movie takes a lot of liberties with how the crime is committed but not too serious. Still, it's distracting to viewers like me who have read tons about the case. The actors playing the cops, led by Sam Neill and Leo Rossi, are uniformly excellent, much better, I think, as a group, than the actors in the original movie. They know that to secure the noose around the necks of both of them they have to get them to confess. And the officers come to the interview impeccably prepared. They had already discovered the likely alibi the phony story of going to Fort Scott, and had debunked every jot of it. The officers then let Smith & Hickcock just walk into their trap. Hickcock is a b.s. artist who figures he can convince anyone of anything and the officers respectfully let him tell his cover story. But when they lower the boom on him, he shatters very quickly. It's very well filmed and acted and very gratifying to watch because the viewer naturally should loath Hickcock in particular by this point, a cowardly con-man who needs the easily manipulated Smith to do his killing for him. Supposedly Hickcock later stated that the real reason for the crime wasn't to steal money from the Clutters but to rape Nancy Clutter. At least she was spared that degradation.

The actors playing the Clutters are very good, Kevin Tighe as Herb Clutter in particular. The story sensitively deals with Mrs. Clutter's emotional problems, most likely clinical depression, and Mrs. Clutter displays remarkable inner strength when she firmly and strongly demands that the killers leave her daughter alone. From what I've read the Clutters' surviving family was particularly bothered by how Bonnie Clutter was portrayed in the book, claiming it was entirely untrue. But as an aside, both of the killers related to the police how Mr. Clutter asked them to not bother his wife because of her long illness. Capote might make up that fiction to make the character of Bonnie more interesting but certainly the killers had no reason to falsely portray Mrs. Clutter and no doubt much of the conversation in the book (duplicated in the movies) is right off the taped confessions of the killers. So it would've been nonsensical for Herb to have said that and not have it be true.


Although I generally do not like remakes believing that remakes are waste of time; this film is an exception. I didn't actually know so far until reading the previous comment that this was a remake, so my opinion is purely about the actual film and not a comparison.

The story and the way it is written is no question: it is Capote. There is no need for more words.

The play of Anthony Edwards and Eric Roberts is superb. I have seen some movies with them, each in one or the other. I was certain that they are good actors and in case of Eric I always wondered why his sister is the number 1 famous star and not her brother. This time this certainty is raised to fact, no question. His play, just as well as the play of Mr. Edwards is clearly the top of all their profession.

I recommend this film to be on your top 50 films to see and keep on your DVD shelves.


After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.

But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.

I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...

Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind!

Nick Houston


This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America.


The 1967 In Cold Blood was perhaps more like "the real thing" (Think about it: would we really want to see the real thing?), but it was black and white in a color world, and a lot of people didn't even know what it was, and there was an opportunity to remake it for television. Plus, if you remake it, you can show some stuff not shown in the original. The book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the first "nonfiction novel". Truman's book was in fact not 100% true to the real story. I thought the Canadian location sufficed for Kansas pretty much for a TV movie. Look for the elements of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: Dick's womanizing, Perry being an aspirin junkie, Perry playing blues guitar.


I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence .


Ernst Marischka, one of the most respected Austrian directors of that time, made films full of beautiful scenes, delicate love and with respect to all that is precious in life.

Nowadays, if people should hear about him, they associate the name of Marischka with SISSI trilogy (1955,1956,1957). However, he made other excellent films like DAS DREIMADERLHAUS (1958), EMBEZZLED HEAVEN (1958) and definitely this one, MADCHENJAHRE EINER KONIGIN showing the young years of queen Victoria. Although it deals with a slightly different theme than SISSI films, I do not see many differences between this movie and SISSI. They are strikingly similar.

The movie is almost identical. The style, the music, the photography. In fact, the crew are almost the same. Anton Profes, Bruno Mondi!

The cast... Romy Schneider's one of the first main roles. It was a lovely introduction to her role of Sissi since this film was made one year before the first part of the trilogy about the Austrian empress. It is also a film where Romy plays with her mother, Magda Schneider. But Ernst Marischka was not the first director who cast Romy to play with her mum. Romy's debut, WENN DER WEISSE FLIEDER WIEDER BLUHN (1953) was her performance with her mother, too. Therefore, there were some voices that Romy began her Austrian career on the bases of her mother's fame. Indeed, there is some truth in it.

Again, like in SISSI, this film shows love very gently. Victoria meets Prince Albert in a little inn in Dover. Their sympathy is based on pure exaltation in dance and gentle smiles. And now...? What would it be showed like? Only sex... But is it the only thing love is based on?

I am grateful to Ernst Marischka for these movies. They had a soul and a message. Some people may call them kitschy, but I will never give up admiring these films. They are IMPRESSIVE!!! UNFORTUNATELY, HIGHLY UNDERRATED!


I loved this movie. It was so well done! Great acting and drama and historically accurate. I love Romy Schneider movies. This one rocks, not as great as Sissi but still rocks!

And Scorpiolina,she commented and said french dubbing. Well this is originally a German movie not french. So yea. Second of all there was a plot, maybe your not familiar with history. Oh and her mother played the part of her governess, not her teacher. And the storyline was actually not Cinderella but Queen Victoria, maybe u missed that detail.

But anyway.... yea the history in this movie is great, I love historical movies and Queen Victoria is very fascinating! I love all the historical stuff. Like that guy that was trying to manipulate her mom. And when she ran away and met her future husband and he showed her the "new type of dance" waltzing. When waltzing was new it was considered kinda scandalous because the couples dance so close. Yea her governess was like oh my god!

And also the clothes, I love the clothes. The styles are great, hoop skirts are awesome. And of course Romy always looks very pretty.


Don't let my constructive criticism stop you from buying and watching this Romy Schneider classic. This movie was shot in a lower budget ,probably against the will of Ernest Marishka, so he had to make due.For example england is portrayed as bordering on Germany.BY a will of the wisp Victoria and her mom are taking a vacation to Germany by buggy ride alone.They arrived their too quick. This probably could not be helped but the castle they rented, for the movie, was Austrian. When she's told that she's queen she goes to the royal room where the members of the court bow to her, where are the British citizens out side from the castle cheering for their new queen? Why ISBN't she showing her self up to the balcony to greet her subjects ?Low budget!Where the audience back then aware of these imperfection? I wonder how the critics felt?Durring the inn scene she meets prince Albert but ISBN't excited about it. Durring the meeting in the eating side of the inn your hear music from famous old American civil war songs like " My old Kentucky home" , and "Old black Joe". What? civil war songs in the 1830's? Is Romy Schneider being portrayed as Scarlet?Where's Mammy? Is Magna Shnieder playing her too? Is Adrian Hoven Rhett or Ashley? What was in Marishka mind?Well this add to the camp.It's unintentionally satirizing Queen Victoria'a story. This is the only reason you should collect it or see it 03 11 09 correction Germany and england are connected


In one of her first movies, Romy Schneider shines as young queen Victoria of Britain, as she is suddenly put into the throne at the age of 18, learns to govern despite the machinations of the politicians, and eventually romances and marries Prince Albert of Saxony. Kitschy and campy (though surprisingly faithful to the real events), this romantic piece is irresistible. Seeing this movie about British royals spoken in German adds to its quaint charm. On that front, one wonders why an Austrian movie was made about an English queen; but then one remembers that in 1954, Austria was still under occupation by allied troops, including British ones. Maybe this was one of the reasons for the existence of this film.


You better see this episode from the beginning, because if you start to watch it any later, you will be confused as to what is happening to Clark's life.

Yet, that is the twist; Clark is stuck in an alternate reality. Lana is devoted to him. Lex lost most of his legs and is in a wheelchair due to the bridge accident when he swerved to miss Clark in the pilot of the series. Martha is married to Lionel. About the only constant is his most loyal friend Chloe, who still believes in who he is. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have any superpowers. He is in a mental institution for putting himself in a fantasy world where he does have powers, and is ridiculed for believing so. Aside from Chloe, there is one mysterious figure who believes in Clark: a black man who in the alternate reality is also a resident of the institution, who believes he is from Mars.

Clark must stay true to everything he believes is actual reality, and not get brainwashed by the institution's psychiatrist, who is in fact the fourth Phantom Zone escapee.

This episode is utterly mind-blowing and shocking. Plus, it provides a fresh twist from the usual type of "Smallville" episode.


While in the barn of Kent Farm with Shelby waiting for Chloe, Clark is attacked and awakes in a mental institution in the middle of a session with Dr. Hudson. The psychologist tells him that for five years he has been delusional, believing that he has come from Krypton and had superpowers. Clark succeeds to escape, and meets Lana, Martha and Lex that confirm the words of Dr. Hudson. Only Chloe believe on his words, but she is also considered insane. Clark fights to find the truth about his own personality and origin.

"Labyrinth" is undoubtedly the most intriguing episode of "Smallville". The writer was very luck and original denying the whole existence of the powerful boy from Krypton. The annoying hum gives the sensation of disturbance and the identity mysterious saver need to be clarified. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Labirinto" ("Labyrinth")


Though derivative, "Labyrinth" still stands as the highlight of the mid-half of the six-year-old show. Finally a story allows Welling to show how he has grown as an actor. It's not easy playing a character that is the embodiment of "truth, justice, and the American way" on a weekly basis with very little variation. His performance, permitting him to show how one might react if he/she discovers that all that he knew may be a lie, was quite believable.

Welling rose to the occasion marvelously.

As always, Michael Rosenbaum, as the "handicapped" Lex, delivered, as did Kristen Kreuk as a too-sweet-to-be-believed Lana. Allison Mack, the ever-present Chloe, also scored as a slightly "off-her-rocker" version.

The use of an annoying hum in the background added to the tone of the installment and made for an engaging drama.


This episode is a bit confusing. Some people say that you have to start from the very beginning but I have to say I was a bit confused from the beginning!

Clark gets a blow to the head and wakes up on the floor of Fairview Mental Institution and is made fun of for believing that he's a superhero. Clark is told that the life that he knew was all in his head. Delusional. He also find some things that are unusual: Martha's married to Lionel; Lex is bound to a wheelchair with his limbs cut off after his accident on the bridge; and Lana is devoted to Clark. But he finds one familiarity; someone else who's devoted to Clark: Chloe. He also finds that a mental patient is also from the known world of Smallville. And the doctor is an escapee from the Phantom Zone.

This episode reminds me right back to a Buffy episode called "Normal Again" where Buffy begins to have vivid-daydreams about a mental asylum. The doctor tried to convince her that all that she knew was a figment of her imagination and that she was, in fact, crazy. Her parents were still married, they still lived in LA, her friends didn't exist, Angel was never her boyfriend and she didn't have a sister called Dawn. Demons and vampires also didn't exist. Both episodes are a bit sad because doctors aren't just telling the characters that it's all a figment of her imagination but it tells us what it really is: fiction, and it brings us back to reality. It's nice, though, to have a sense of reality every once in a while, but we watch these shows to escape from reality. It's again nice because the characters have to overcome new challenges.


(No spoilers, just plot details) I can't understand such hatred for this episode. You want to watch a bad episode of Smallville? Watch Subterranean - now there's a sack of crap. Tom Welling gives a good performance (I don't say that very often), and Michael Rosenbaum is great, but he is most of the time. The alternate universe scenario seems eerily realistic. The Martian Manhunter, who previously appeared in "Static", returns and tells Clark that the doctor that is the head of the insane asylum where they are being held at is actually a phantom from the phantom zone, and if Clark wants to return to his universe, he must kill him. An overall great episode, with good acting and a decent pace.


Some bad reviews here for this and I understand why but treat it as a low budget serial killer film and you might get more from it than most.

I thought that this worked in a way because afterwards I felt dirty and wanted to take a long shower so that is some degree of success isn't it?

I would say there is just the right level of sleaze here to get under your skin although the acting is maybe a bit too uneven. David Hess is only in this brielfy so don not get your hopes up to much if you like Last House.

Other than that - worth a look.


Zodiac Killer (2005) was an interesting film from German born director Ulli Lommel. He directs, produced and co-stars in this latest production. Not only does he manage to make an interesting film on the cheap. But he reaches a new low when Herr Lommel works in footage from nearly his entire film catalog. I have seen film clips from Boogeyman I and II, War Birds, Tenderness of the Wolf, Brain Waves and Cocaine Cowboys (even Andy Warhol makes a cameo from beyond the grave courtesy of this film). Even though he uses plenty of old footage, he works them in well (and very creatively might I add).

The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.

This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why "wink" "wink".) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.

Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans.


One of the more intelligent serial killer movies in recent history. ZODIAC KILLER offers an imaginative take on the background and history of one of the most notorious serial killers. The filmmakers create an unexpectedly good insight into the pathology of this mysterious killer, and anyone who remembers Zodiac will be intrigued. Others will want to discover more about this enigmatic criminal. Unlike many serial killers, Zodiac was not insane at all but very methodical and a self-promoter. The director here plays viewer expectations and pulls it off. The film is constructed as a murder mystery, or a "cold case"-style thriller. It is an intelligent investigative/procedural-style horror film that will put-off gore-hounds in search of cheap thrills.

Some people dislike any movie that is shot on video. This attitude is very old-style and provincial. It is an attitude and view of movies that puts technical issues above entertainment value or artistic value. These attitudes are on the way out. ZODIAC KILLER is a low-budget film, no doubt, but discerning viewers will look beyond that and find a carefully-crafted gem.


I read thru most of the comments posted here & all I can say it that most of these posters have major problems in life. This show, unlike most game show, was fun. Mr. Shatner, whose brill in ALL that he does, was again the hit of the show. He's genuinely bubbly personality shines like a beacon where ever he goes. He's fun & makes you smile & that's exactly what the show does also. The dancers & questions, the round-about fashion they're presented only add to the shows appeal. And even though there's a Great deal of money at stake it's fun. The pressure (stress) that exists in most game shows does NOT exist here. Several people who posted messages complained how much time is waisted with the dancers & choosing questions, &c, like Millionaire doesn't have similar time wasters. All I can say is most of you have missed the whole concept. The idea here is to have FUN & ENJOY yourself. There's something for everyone. Qustions to test your knowledge, eye candy (the dancers), suspense, Mr. Shatner's wonderful fun-filled personality... well if that doesn't perk-up guys up then I feel bad for you; and if that's not enough, YOU CAN GET RICH! I really miss the show. Out of ALL the games shows that have ever been on, & to be quite frank, I HATE game shows, this is the one I really liked & truly miss. The only other game show I ever liked was Match Game.


I absolutely love this game to death. Ever since I was 9 years old (I am now 15). It has great graphics, characters, magic, weapons, additions, and don't forget the ultimately awesome dragoon forms! I am still waiting for a remake, prequel, or a sequel to this spectacular video game.

You play as Dart, a young swordsman who has the potential to be quite the hero. On this adventure you encounter wondrous creatures and boss fights. You also encounter some friends on the way who have their own special element. Such as Fire, Darkness, Water/Ice, Thunder/Lightning, Earth, Light, and Wind. There are also items known as dragoon spirits, which allow you to transform into magical creatures of legend. Dragons, wizards, creatures called winglies and evil creatures you'll have to face on this adventure of action-packed thrills and excitement. One of my all time favorite games, The Legend of Dragoon!


I remember this game. It was always sitting on the shelves alone, until one day I decided to try something new for a change, and got this game. I stared in awe at it, since it was the first ever game for the PS1 that I owned that had 4 discs. When I played it, I couldn't put the controller down, seriously.

The storyline of this game is so good and twisted, it's almost as good as the Final Fantasy VII Storyline, and that is hard to accomplish. When you play the game, you get so involved with the characters it's unbelievable that it's only a PS1 game, as It feels like a movie. And I believe it should be made into a movie.

Too bad this game is a very unheard of game and barely no one has played or liked it, as it is one of those games that is sitting on the ends of the shelves, with a 50% off sign sitting on it, trying to sell. Well I am one of those people who always look at those on the ends, and try them out and most of them turn out to be really good. Heck, that is how I got into final Fantasy VII, looking in a catalog, and finding it. But this is different than Final Fantasy.

Legend of Dragoon, is the only game or RPG that is better than most Square Enix games, surprisingly. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made by Square Enix but it's not. Hardly any games I play are better than the Final Fantasy series, or the Dragon Quest series, but this one is. But what really bugs me is why it is very little known and is not praised, which it should be.

Graphics are pretty good for a PS1 game, but what can you expect from it? It's PS1 man, made in 1999. Story I have already mentioned is amazing, almost beats VII. Characters are a amazing, you get involved so much with them, and their actions.

A definite 10 out of 10. Definitely deserved more praise, and a very well done RPG by a company other than Square Enix.


I second the motion to make this into a movie, it would be great!! I was also amazed at the storyline and character build in this game. I have played it again and again (over 20 times) just to try something different and it gets more interesting every time. Final Fantasy eat your heart out!! THIS SHOULD BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!!!!! If anyone out there wants some help to start a petition to have this made into a movie, please contact me. I would love to help with that project any day. The graphics are great for PS1 and even make you forget it is PS1 most of the time. The multitude of side quests makes it different every time you play.


This game is one of the best RPG. Fist, It is actually more amusing than any other because of the battle system (you harm the enemy depending on how you aim the attack, you can transform into dragoon, the special attack, the magic...). The script is very good. Characters are all lovely and you have no long dialogs to support, as happened in several games of Final Fintasy series. I got bored of that dialogs about past, when you just want to go on with the game's story. Ambientation is a jewel on this game, it combines Middle-age fantasy with futuristic science fiction. It's remarkable that animation effects are just incredible, i like them more than other in other modern games (we can't remember that Legend of the Dragoon is 8 years now). Then, Map is huge, there are all kinds of places an enemies. Finally, Music is not the best game muse I have heard, but it's perfect for a game like this.


Legend of Dragoon is one of those little-known games that people either love or hate. Some people claim it's far too similar to other games, namely the Final Fantasy series--which is understandable, since it was originally intended to be Sony's equivalent of Final Fantasy. Honestly I can't comment on the similarities beyond that, as I'm not very familiar with the FF games.

I think my favorite aspect of the game is the battle system. Not only do you have the ability to change into a more powerful dragoon form, but every time you attack, you have to pay attention in order to complete the attack by pressing buttons at the correct time. Not only that, sometimes enemies will attack you back right in the middle of a sequence, which means you have to press different buttons in order to avoid taking damage. Even the use of certain attack items requires a bit of button-mashing. If you don't want to attack, you can always guard, which not only cuts any damage taken in half, but raises your hit points without the use of healing potions.

The FMVs are quite well-done, about the same quality as Final Fantasy 8's. However, the graphics during game play aren't quite up to that standard. They're nice, but they could have been--and honestly, should have been--better. The translation as well leaves something to be desired. Not only does it raise interesting character relationship questions, but there are also some grammatical mistakes that simply shouldn't have been allowed to pass.

Another thing I found interesting was that you lose main party characters--one dies, and the other basically becomes useless to the party and leaves. While the death of the one character is often said to have no point, it makes you realize early on that the characters, while heroes, are still just as mortal as the next person. The people who replace the lost characters simply gain all their stats, so the transition game play-wise is fairly smooth. Perhaps my one complaint about the characters is the main character's love interest, Shana. She is the epitome of the helpless female in need of rescuing, pathetic to the point of driving a player to screaming with frustration. While you can use her in your party, she is insanely weak--I don't even know what her dragoon powers are like, as I disliked her so much I never used her. The character Rose, by contrast, is probably my favorite female character in any game ever. She's no wimp, and some of her dragoon magic is extremely useful. Meru is quite strong as well, while sometimes being an annoying talkative brat.

The character designers were, as most are, inclined to make the female characters appear pretty or whatever, and didn't give much thought to the actual usefulness of the outfits. Seriously, no armor and having most of your skin exposed is not helpful when fighting monsters. But I will give them props, as they do have females serving as knights in the various countries.

I can't comment much on the plot, as honestly I didn't pay much attention to it beyond where I needed to go to next. I'm not sure if this says something about the plot itself, or my gaming style.

All in all, it's a very enjoyable game. It has its flaws, but for me it struck just the right balance of having to think and just pressing buttons and killing monsters.


The story and the characters were some of the best I've ever seen. the graphics were good for the PS and the cut scenes and voice overs were amazing. I beat the game at least 3 times and loved every second of it. I felt the problems the protagonist faced were believable and realistic and i believe it deserves a sequel. or at least a remake. If they remade it for the ps3 i would buy the system for just that game and maybe mgs4 its amazing also the idea and execution of the dragoon system is enough to warrant a rental and on top of that ad the inventive although sometimes cheating(stupid buster wand) combat addition system and the plot makes this game a definite buy.


I stumbled on this late last night n TCM.

Hadn't seen it since it came out originally, but had never forgotten it.

I had completely forgotten how gorgeous and talented Signe Hasso was when she was still young, ditto for Shelly Winters before she balooned out.

Ronald Coleman, though, was the quintessential state actor of his time - I had read Othello in high school English - and HATED it. After seeing "A Double Life" I read it again and finally understood what the play was about.

The Gordon/Kanin writing team was at its peak when this script was done -

A movie well worth remembering and rewatching,


Ronald Colman gives an electrifying performance as Tony John, a Broadway actor who can't separate his offstage life from Shakespeare's Othello, the character he plays on stage....Two important scenes illustrate Tony's dilemma. The first one takes place in producer Max Lasker's office. Acting is a matter of talent for the practical-minded Lasker. But Donlan, Tony's friend, disagrees: "No, no. When you do it like Tony does it, it's much more. The way he has of becoming someone else every night...so completely. No, don't tell me his whole system isn't affected by it."....The other scene occurs in waitress Pat Kroll's apartment. Tony tells her his name is Martin. She thanks him. Then he says: "Or Paul. Hamlet. Joe. And maybe Othello."....When Tony begins rehearsing Othello, we learn that though he's trying to keep his real life separated from his stage life, "The part begins to seep into your life, and the battle begins. Reality against imagination." He can't keep the two separated: In his mind Pat is Desdemona and he's Othello, and he wrongly believes she has been unfaithful to him. He murders her....Colman's bravura performance, in a complex and difficult role, earned him 1947's Academy Award for Best Actor. Oscar nominations went to Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin for Best Original Screenplay. Not to be overlooked is Milton Krasner's atomspheric cinematography.