This film is a lyrical and romantic memoir told through the eyes an eleven year old boy living in a rural Cuban town the year of the Castro revolution. It is an obviously genuine worthy labor of love.

The names CUBA LIBRE and CUBAN BLOOD are merely attempts to wrongly market this as an action film. DREAMING OF JULIA makes much more sense. It has more in common with European cinema than with RAMBO and the revolution is merely an inconvenience to people's daily lives and pursuits. That fact alone makes the film more honest than most works dealing with this time period in Cuban history.

The excessive use of the voice-over narrator does undermine the story but the film makes up for it with unqualified clips from Hollywood films that say so much more visually than the narrator could.

The comparisons to CINEMA PARADISO and are fair game as the film does wax melancholy about movies, but there is an underlying pain at the loss of a lifestyle that surpasses lost love.

The revolution, like the film JULIE, never seems to have an ending.


Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended.


Although some may call it a "Cuban Cinema Paradiso", the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie.


Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually.


Dreaming of Julia was the title of the original script, and was filmed in the summer of 2000 in Santo Domingo Republica Dominicana. To release the picture they change the original name to Cuba Libre. The director's cut was 3 and a half hours long. It was released on the festival of Bangkok in Thailand. It was the second film of Gael García Bernal (the first was Amores Perros)

and the first of Juan Gerard as a Director. In the poster the names of Diana Bracho and Cecilia Suares does not appear. Diana plays the grandmother and Cecilia the mother of the kid. They are great actresses and they keep the story together specially Diana. Check her out in other things you would be surprised.


I've watched this movie twice now on DVD, and both times it didn't fail to impress me with its unique impartial attitude. It seems more like a depiction of reality than most other Hollywood fare, especially on a topic that is still hotly discussed. Even though it sticks closely with the southern viewpoint, it doesn't fail to question it, and in the end the only sentence passed is that the war is lost, not matter what, and cruelty is a common denominator.

What really makes this movie outstanding is the refusal to over-dramatize. Nowadays truly good movies (in a nutshell) are few and far apart, with mainstream fare being enjoyable (if you don't have high expectations), but terribly commercially spirited. I think this movie comes off as a truly good movie (without being a masterpiece), because it sticks to itself, and gives the viewer a chance to watch and analyze it, instead of wanting to bombard him with effect and emotion to blot out his intelligence. This movie is cool, observant, and generally light-handed in its judgement, which is GOOD.

The story has its flaws, especially Jewel's Character comes off doubtfully, but then again the situation at the time was so chaotic, that for a young widow it might have been only logical to somehow get back into a normal life, even by liberally taking each next guy. Still she doesn't come off as weak, in fact I think she's one of the stronger characters, she's always in control of the relationships, with the men just tagging. And I take it very gratefully that she's not a weeping widow. I believe in the 19th century death of a loved one was something a lot more normal than now. You could die so easily of even minor illnesses and injuries, so the prospect of of someone dying, while surely causing grief, didn't traumatise people like it does now. People didn't seem to build shrines about their lost ones like they do now, and I like that attitude.

My recommendation is for intelligent people to watch this movie, if they are in the mood for something different than the usual hollywood fare. Don't watch if if you want non-stop action or heart-renting emotion.


Easily 9 out of 10 for a film by director we will continue to grow to admire. But don't watch this movie expecting to be "entertained." Ang Lee takes an objective look at a relatively unexplored aspect of the Civil War. What is beautiful about the movie, like all of Lee's films, is that he doesn't "side" with his characters. He creates characters, embodies them with life, problems, and ambiguity ... and endows them with a reality that often hits far closer to home than with which many are comfortable. This film has action, but it is not for the action lover since the violence is deeply disturbing and far from gratuitous ... i.e. like the characters, it is real. And as you would expect about one of mankind's most horrific wars, the violence is horrific.

But as an exploration of the greater human ambiguity that surely dwelt within the Civil War, it is a masterpiece. Was the war about slavery and an abolitionism? Lee seems quite willing to blur that line made so popular in depictions like the Blue and the Grey. Neither is about idealism, though, as seen in Gone with the Wind. It is about freedom, about the desire to have something which is yours and to fight for it. As you watch the characters, you will ask yourself "how can they be fighting to preserve slavery?" The fact is, I don't think they really are, and in that the film shows the problem of why so many were caught up in the maelstrom of the Civil War.

The fact seems clear that many of the characters we learn about are fighting out of senses of loyalty to "home" though they may never have examined what home represents or whether they truly espouse its values. The letter scenes are very moving and yet subtle. Jake and Daniel are other examples of loyalty stretched to the limits. And when the tension finally snaps, and these characters find themselves suddenly "free" ... we see the birth of new men.

All this mixed in with Lee's beautiful incorporation of humankind's environment with breathtaking vistas and frames. Lee has a style which is his, somehow European in its "art" (a slow camera, unrushed), Asian in its epic-ness and development of story, and yet somehow familiar and easily accessible to so many in North Americans.

Relax, let go of your preconceptions about what the Civil War is, what the "western" as a genre is, what a war movie should be ... and let Ang Lee take you into a world so fragile, so hard, so real that few of us can comfortably see it.

In this, Lee continues what he wrought in Ice Storm. Again, the movie is slow paced and without apparent "direction" ... a sure sign of Lee's ability to direct without "imposing" himself on the story or screen. His direction is amplified by what he brings out of Jewel (yes, the singer), a hitherto unproven actress who puts in an amazing performance.

A movie for those who love film and are not lovers of the standard Hollywood epic.


In anticipation of Ang Lee's new movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," I saw this at blockbuster and figured I'd give it a try. A civil war movie is not the typical movie I watch. Luckily though, I had a good feeling about this director. This movie was wonderfully written. The dialogue is in the old southern style, yet doesn't sound cornily out of place and outdated. The spectacular acting helped that aspect of the movie. Toby Maguire was awesome. I thought he was good (but nothing special) in Pleasantville, but here he shines. I have always thought of Skeet Ulrich as a good actor (but nothing special), but here he is excellent as well. The big shocker for me was Jewel. She was amazingly good. Jeffrey Wright, who I had never heard of before, is also excellent in this movie. It seems to me that great acting and great writing and directing go hand in hand. A movie with bad writing makes the actors look bad and visa versa. This movie had the perfect combination. The actors look brilliant and the character development is spectacular. This movie keeps you wishing and hoping good things for some and bad things for others. It lets you really get to know the characters, which are all very dynamic and interesting. The plot is complex, and keeps you on the edge of your seat, guessing, and ready for anything at any time. Literally dozens of times I was sure someone was going to get killed on silent parts in the movie that were "too quiet" (brilliant directing). This was also a beautifully shot movie. The scenery was not breath taking (It's in Missouri and Kansas for goodness sakez) but there was clearly much attention put into picking great nature settings. Has that rough and rugged feel, but keeps an elegance, which is very pleasant on the eyes. The movie was deep. It told a story and in doing so made you think. It had layers underneath that exterior civil war story. Specifically, it focused on two characters that were not quite sure what they were fighting for. There were many more deep issues dealt with in this movie, too many to pick out. It was like a beautifully written short story, filled with symbolism and artistic extras that leaves you thinking during and after the story is done. If you like great acting, writing, lots of action, and some of the best directing ever, see this movie! Take a chance on it.


This movie is one of the sleepers of all time. I gave it a 10 rating. The story is of the famed 'Bushwhackers' out of Missouri that fought on the side of the South during the War Between the States. The clothing they wore were authentic, the history and why they fought is very accurate and well researched. There was actually one of the battles that did not take place as they depicted... but not bad for Hollywood. The actors were well cast and were either the most brilliant of actors or the director really know how to get the best from them. I suspect it was a combination of great directing, super casting to find the right people and excellent performing by the actors. Not just one or two... this movie really jelled! It has action, romance, suspense, good guys and bad guys (sometimes depending on your individual perspective) and history all rolled into one movie. Even has the future Spiderman and Jewel. And she's good!


Taiwanese director Ang Lee, whose previous films include 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'The Ice Storm', turned to the American Civil War for his latest feature. Based on a novel by Daniel Woodrell, it follows the exploits of a group of Southern guerrillas, known as bushwhackers, as they fight their Northern equivalents, the jayhawkers in the backwater of Missouri.

As one might expect, there is plenty of visceral action, but the focus is on the tension that the war put on the young men who fought it - many of whom were fighting against their former neighbours and even family. Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) is such a man, or rather, boy, as he is only seventeen when the war reaches Missouri. He is the son of a German immigrant, but instead of following his countrymen and becoming a Unionist, he joins his lifelong friend Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and rides with the bushwhackers. Despite a lack of acceptance because of his ancestry and an unwillingness to participate in the murder of unarmed Union men, he remains loyal to the cause. So does his friend Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright), a black slave freed by another bushwhacker and so fighting for the South.

Lee handles the subject with aplomb, never rushing the deep introspection that the plot demands in favour of action and this lends the film a sense of the reality of war - long periods of boredom and waiting interposed with occasional flashes of intensely terrifying fighting. The action is unglamorised and admirably candid, recognising that both sides committed a great number of atrocities.

The performances are superb, with Maguire and Wright both courageous and dignified. Up-and-coming Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers is particularly chilling as a cold-blooded killer, while Skeet Ulrich is enjoyably suave and arrogant. Lee never flinches from the reality of war, but his actors do an admirable job of showing the good that comes from it - the growth of friendship, the demonstration of courage and, on a wider scale, the emancipation of oppressed peoples. Ride With the Devil is a beautiful and deeply compassionate film that regularly shocks but always moves the audience.


For those who commented on The Patriot as being accurate, (Which basically satanised the English), it was interesting to see this film. By all accounts this was the bloodiest war that Americans have ever been involved in, and they were the only nationality present. It was therefore very refreshing to see something resembling historical accuracy coming from that side of the Atlantic that did not paint America as either martyrs or saviours. All in all though what this film did bring home was the true horrors of any conflict, and how how whatever acts are committed in war only breed worse acts, often culminating in the suffering of the innocent. This was not a film where you cheered anybody on but both pitied and loathed all.


Strangely enough this movie never made it to the big screen in Denmark, so I had to wait for the video release. My expectations where high but they where in no way disappointed. As always with Ang Lee there is fantastic acting, an intelligent and thrilling plot that has you guessing right till the end and superb filming. Along with Unforgiven this is easily one of the two best westerns of the 90`s.

People who expect something along the line of Mel Gibson in The Patriot(corny) or Braveheart(acceptable) will be sourly disappointed, all others who appreciate the above mentioned qualities will have a fantastic time watching it. 9 out of 10.


The War Between the States was perhaps the darkest hour in the history of America; a war that pitted brother against brother and family against family and left scars that even today have not yet healed, and in all probability never will. And, as in any story about any war, beyond any historical significance it is the personal discord behind the greater conflict that creates the emotional impetus that makes it involving. It is the human element that renders the context necessary to give it perspective, which is what director Ang Lee provides in `Ride With the Devil,' a Civil War drama in which he focuses on the personal travails within the broader depiction of the War itself, and along the way manages to include an examination of one of the bloodiest chapters of the War, the infamous raid on Lawrence, Kansas, by Quantrill and his raiders, which he succeeds in presenting quite objectively from the Confederate point-of-view.

In 1863, the Union influence predominates in the State of Kansas, and even across the border in neighboring Missouri, those with Confederate loyalties are finding it increasingly difficult to hold out against the encroaching Northerners, especially without the aid of what could be considered any `regular' Confederate troops. And when things begin to really heat up around their own town, Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) form a band of their own and join in the fray, doing damage to the Union cause wherever it is practicable. Jack Bull and Jake do not like the War and do not like killing; but they are standing up for what they believe to be right.

There are others, however, even among their own, men like the young Pitt Mackeson (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), who will use the conflict as a vehicle for personal gain and as nothing more than an excuse to express their own violent nature through unnecessary brutality, perpetrated in many instances against innocent victims. And so, for Jack Bull and Jake, as well as many just like them, it becomes a time in which loyalty and moral judgments will be sorely tested; a time during which their souls will be tempered in blood. And they will have to ride with the very Devil himself, against seemingly insurmountable odds.

As with all of his films, director Ang Lee approaches his story through an incisive, yet subtle examination of the traditions, cultural aspects and moral attitudes of the people and times he is depicting. And in so doing, Lee provides his audience with at least some understanding of his subject that goes beyond the actual story and ultimately offers, perhaps, a deeper grasp of the motivations that propel his characters and the drama in which they are engaged. Whether it's the traditions and customs that account for the relationship between a father and his daughters (`Eat Drink Man Woman'), the effects of class distinction (`Sense and Sensibility'), the honor and code by which a warrior lives and dies (`Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon') or the moral ambiguities fostered by a lack of all of the above (`The Ice Storm'), Lee infuses his films with insights into the human condition that take them to a higher level. This film is no exception; and (as he does with all his films), Lee presents his story with the aid of breathtaking cinematography (in this film, by Frederick Elmes, who also did `The Ice Storm' brilliantly), which under his guidance is nothing less than visual poetry. It's that special Lee touch, and it adds a wistful, reflective sense to whatever story he is telling, which is one of the elements that make his films so memorable.

As Jake, Tobey Maguire initially brings a sense of youthful innocence to the film that contrasts so effectively with the maturity he conveys later on as the story develops, and his character along with it. Most importantly, Maguire convincingly and believably responds to the events that unfold around him, which adds to the credibility of the overall film and underscores the realism of the presentation: His stoic acceptance of death and the news of those `murdered' in the various skirmishes and battles; the moral propriety to which those he encounters adhere, even in such troubled times; the betrayal, which because of the nature of the conflict is almost commonplace; and the loyalty and beliefs to which he and his companions cling adamantly. It is all of this that Maguire achieves through his performance, and it is no small accomplishment. It is, however, the kind of studied, understated performance that is often taken for granted, which is unfortunate; work like this is worthy of acclaim, and should be recognized.

Skeet Ulrich is effective, as well, as Jack Bull, and Jewel (in her motion picture debut) turns in an engaging performance as Sue Lee Shelley. It is Jeffrey Wright, however, who stands out in a notable supporting role as Daniel Holt, as well as Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who brings a chilling Christopher Walken-like menace to his role of Pitt. Also, in what amounts to a cameo role (one scene), Mark Ruffalo leaves an indelible impression with very little screen time.

The supporting cast includes James Caviezel (Black John), Simon Baker (George Clyde), Tom Guiry (Riley), Tom Wilkinson (Orton Brown), John Ales (Quantrill), John Judd (Otto Roedel) and Kathleen Warfel (Mrs. Chiles). The Civil War will forever be an open wound upon the nation; but hopefully, as time goes on, it will be through the objective contemplations of filmmakers like Ang Lee and films like `Ride With the Devil' that will ultimately help to close the schism and promote healing. In light of more recent events, it is something that is sorely needed, worldwide. Film is a powerful medium; it can be educational as well as entertaining, and perhaps in the future more filmmakers, like Ang Lee, will embrace and promote a sense of unity through the sensitive depiction of the events and attitudes that make us what we are. 8/10.


Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.

As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.

The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.

There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.

No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any.


Ride with the Devil, like Ang Lee's later Brokeback Mountain, is a film of aesthetic and historical importance. Film lovers ought to see it at minimum twice as its artistic nuance is worthy to be over comprehended.

A perfect piece of art, surprising depth of humanity. I really don't recall another war film, will so capture you, will change your existing conception of history and politics, will restore your belief in humanity. After seeing so many killings, so many sufferings , you don't feel yourself numb, instead you treasure the bond between human beings more. The actors' performances haunt your heart, the music drives your mind. Some shoots, are not just some pictures, they transcend themselves, becoming the seeing of soul. Such is the true sense of film being a genre of art.

A film like this doesn't need long comments or reviews, everything it says by itself. Ovation to the cast which includes Tobey Maguire, Jeffrey Wright and Jewel Kilcher, the cinematographer and the composer of the beautiful and lyrical music, what an achievement!


After seeing all the Jesse James, Quantrill, jayhawkers,etc films in the fifties, it is quite a thrill to see this film with a new perspective by director Ang Lee. The scene of the attack of Lawrence, Kansas is awesome. The romantic relationship between Jewel and Toby Mcguire turns out to be one of the best parts and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is outstanding as the bad guy. All the time this film makes you feel the horror of war, and the desperate situation of the main characters who do not know if they are going to survive the next hours. Definitely worth seeing.


Ride With The Devil directed by Ang Lee(Crouching Tiger) is another gem in this fine directors cap. For those unfamiliar with the history of the Kansas-Missouri border wars during the American Civil War. See this film & you will visit a sad piece of Americana. Besides some superb action scenes (quite bloody at times). This is a story of love & devotion between men & one lady in particular. It stars Toby Maguire, Skeet Ulrich Jeffrey Wright & as the young lady Jewel, I never heard or seen her before, I want to see more of her).The acting is top notch, superb production values, very well written (adapted from a novel)

 This is a long film 128 minutes, but well worth seeing.

 my rating is ****

 respectively submitted

Jay Harris


The star of this film is the screenplay. Attention to detail for the period in dress, language ,social mores ( we don't hurt women) and the politics are remarkable. It is a reminder of Kosovo to-day. The subtle pieces in the action scenes are there for an attentive viewer and the choreography of these action sequences is superb. Perhaps this film is to close to the bone of reality to earn the support it should have received. It is like a staircase of increasing violence with well paced pauses of peace and serenity between each step. A great film....


The most succinct way to describe Ride With The Devil is with but one word: authenticity. I will not rehash what has already been said about this wonderous film, but I would like to say how much the historical research and painstaking attention to detail the crew no doubt went through was appreciated by this filmgoer.

As a student of history familiar with the period and setting of this film, I must say that this production is one of the most accurate fictional films regarding "bleeding Kansas". Yes there were liberties taken on the actual events, as all fiction is apt to do. But the overall feel of the film is genuine. Authentic costumes, authentic attitudes (no PC hindsight here) even the actors look authentic.Even Jewel Kilcher (who has a small part in the film) looked like she stepped form a mid 19th century photograph.

A few viewers I talked with have expressed their incredulity at the stylized dialog. They cannot believe that 19th century farmers would "talk like poets".

What they don't realize is that in this age of verbal slobbishness, the American public public of the 19th century was a surprisingly literate and eloquent bunch. These people were raised on Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible. The screenwriters reconstructed the most likely verbal styles of these people, judging from documentation of the time. The stylized dialog just adds to the magical atmosphere of the film.

But in addition to a historical document, this film works on a visceral level as well. Beautifully photographed and performed, it harkens back to the days of the great western epics. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas, done so many times before in so many other, lesser films is portrayed with a sense of urgency that puts the viewer right in the midst of the action.

Romance, adventure, moral and ethical conflict.This film has everything a discerning moviegoer could want.

In a year that was dominated by overhyped garbage like American Beauty, this great artwork was buried by an indifferent studio system. But I am certain that Ride With The Devil will be given it's due in the coming years. Please rent this film. You will not be disappointed.


When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.

This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.

The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.

Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.

Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.

Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.

While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.

Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.


An unconventional historical drama, with some fine battle scenes. Tobey Maguire gives an excellent performance, and gets some pretty good back-up. The script is literate and pretty original, and the film is kept mercifully free of heroes. That said, it does drag a bit, and the last reel is too much like a TV mini-series. Still, Frederick Elmes's camerawork keeps one interested in the dull bits (and every now and again you see a shot which reminds you he worked for David Lynch). Worth seeing.


I really enjoyed the detail that went into the script.

Jonathan Rhys Myers (misspelled) and Jewel were outstanding in their support roles. As was Jeffery Wright. Toby McGuire gave as fine a acting job as ever depicted, when he had to amputate his best friend's arm, knowing he would die without the procedure.

Attention to detail, with good dialect coaching to catch the Southern accent incredibly well.

Why this movie was swept under the rug by the Hollywood promoters I can only imagine. I have strong suspicions. Which makes it all the more appealing to me. I have given a dozen DVD copies out for presents.

Completely overlooked movie. Rent or buy it and give it your full attention for a couple of hours, then judge.


One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.

When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known.


So, neighbor was killing neighbor. Reminds me of Iraq. As I watched the American flag (50 stars in 1864?) being dragged behind the horse, I realized why burning that piece of red white and blue doesn't upset me as much as our destruction/indifference to the Bill of Rights. I'm a Southerner, and must have some historical memory.

Watching the Tobey McGuire character learn to respect the dignity of a former slave, as he looks at the scalps of blacks and Germans (his ethnic background) being wagered at a poker game.....was interesting. Many twists in this movie. The wife, who is forced into her marriage, shows both lust and a strong will, characteristics we're not used to seeing in 'respectable Victorian southern belles'.

The crazy wacked out renegade southerner gave me some insight into why my cousin, head of the Copeland Horse-thieving Gang, Inc. in Mississippi, was hung about that time. Bands of homeless men were roaming the countryside, armed. Remind you of Iraq? And how similar we are underneath the facade of religion and ethnic background? And why southerners are STILL fighting that civil war today.

Too bad we can't use that same knowledge in our handling of the country we've just invaded and are occupying, fomenting civil war everywhere. That's Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, who happen to have the misfortune to sit on oil. The wild-eyed killers in Missouri, raiding Lawrence, Kansas could as easily be the insurgents we're fighting now with no success.

Another anomaly was the father's tribute to the Yankees who move into Lawrence and erect a school "even before they erect a church. And for that reason, they'll win." Huh????? I was taught history in Birmingham, Al and we were taught that the North was much more industrial and richer.....that's why they won. Course, they also LITERALLY had God on their side. As you see here, when the freed slave indicates that he's cutting out to free his mother, sold into slavery in Texas. God, what a horrible legacy slavery gave us.

Acting pretty good, lots of blood and gore as the warriors ride gleefully into battle (but didn't hear any rebel yells, so reminiscent of football games in Alabama). You also get a real feeling for how stupid the war was, as the bushwackers and jayhawkers gather their forces for another raid. They have lost sight of why they're fighting, and so do we. Just more mindless slaughter.

You're also brought up to date with the limbless kids coming home from Iraq, as the bushwacker (ahh, what connotations) first has his arm seared shut, trying to save it, then has it amputated, and then dies. So much suffering for such a stupid cause.

The cinematography is fantastic. Now I have to get back to the DVD and get the production notes, one of my favorite parts of any movie. I suspect that this movie was written by a Gore Vidal, as the spoken language is of a type you would associate with that era, if you knew History. The dialogue is definitely thought-provoking. Not your ordinary blood and guts war movie, by any means. You see the wounded but still active-duty soldiers, still fighting cause they have nothing else to do. You see the southern raiders, living off the land, stealing indiscriminately. Yet, at the beginning, you've seen the battle stop, so the women could be evacuated from danger. As I read the escalating number of women and children dying in Iraq, I'm thinking, "Where did we lose our sense of honor as a people?" I have forgotten why I sought this movie out and bought it after 20 years, but some book somewhere lauded it. With good reason. Tobey at his best, pre-Spideyman. Buy the DVD or rent it. And tell me why others laud this, not just liberals cest moi.


Ang Lee clearly likes to ease into a film, to catch action, characters and setting on the hoof, as they emerge. Covering the haphazard endgame of the American civil war via the haphazard actions of a young militia, unformed in mind or manhood, this is an ideal approach. The film turns out to be about the formation of personalities, adulthood and relationships. Lee also shows the beautiful panoramas of the mid-south as a silent character, enduring the strife like a hardy parent.

James Schamus' script is probably the standard bearer for this film; close behind it are a number of well-appointed performances that carry it admirably. Jeffrey Wright's name alone could carry this film for me. He's brilliant here but in a slow burning role: instead we are treated to very good (if not revelatory) performances from a large, often recognisable ensemble.

A noble, optimistic film. One to watch if you don't fancy the harder, more bittersweet Cold Mountain or The Claim, for example. 7/10


I enjoyed this film very much.Tobey Maguire gives a terrific performance as Jake. He has got to be one of the best actors I have seen. And I was surprised there were so many humorous lines throughout the film. He was extremely good at this too although I have never seen him deliver a comic line before. The film gets you involved with the characters and really makes you wonder what is to become of them all. I did not know what to expect from Jewel's performance but I think she did rather well. Lots of exciting scenes. A thoroughly good ride. I am absolutely a fan of Maguire's. Check out Cider House Rules. One of the all time Best Ever.


You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.

The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.

Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.

Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.

It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.

It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.

The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.

There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.

This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.

Recommended. Complete success.


In the process of trying to establish the audiences' empathy with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) the filmmakers slander the North and the Jayhawkers. Missouri never withdrew from the Union and the Union Army was not an invading force. The Southerners fought for State's Rights: the right to own slaves, elect crooked legislatures and judges, and employ a political spoils system. There's nothing noble in that. The Missourians could have easily traveled east and joined the Confederate Army.

It seems to me that the story has nothing to do with ambiguity. When Jake leaves the Bushwhackers, it's not because he saw error in his way, he certainly doesn't give himself over to the virtue of the cause of abolition.


From the excellent acting of an extremely impressive cast, to the intelligently written (and very quotable) script, from the lavish cinematography to the beautiful music score by Carter Burwell, Rob Roy offers a rarity in movie going experiences: one that is nigh impossible to find fault with in any area.

There have been several comparisons made with Braveheart, which came out the same year. With all due credit to Mel Gibson, Braveheart struck me as too much of a self-conscious and preachy epic to rival Rob Roy as the kind of movie I would care to see more than once. While Braveheart works hard to be a serious epic, Rob Roy just grabs you and absorbs you into its tightly edited storytelling. Not a single scene is wasted.

Rob Roy contains the perfect balance of dramatic tension, action and even occasional humor. The characters are well fleshed-out, perfectly conveying vernacular and mannerisms that anchor them in their authentic period setting.

Further, they are not caricatures of good and evil as we all too often observe in even modern film.

For example, while we hope the heroic Rob Roy prevails, we realize his predicaments are products of his own pride and sense of honor. Tim Roth plays one of the most hateful bad guys in the history of cinema, yet there are moments when we can understand how the events of his life have shaped him into becoming what he is. Rob Roy employs a level of character development that makes its story even more believable and gripping.

Rob Roy is a delightful treasure, featuring one of the greatest sword fights ever choreographed and a climatic ending worthy of all the tense anticipation.


Michael Caton-Jones's Scottish period piece bears little connection to the Sir Walter Scott novel of the same name...

The film opens in the Scottish highlands, with Robert Roy McGregor and his men hunting down a bunch of cow thieves who have stolen several heads of His Lordship James Graham's cattle... The scene then switches to a sword-fighting contest attended by noblemen with longhair wigs, adorned shirts, soft colored coats, paleface make-up and conventional gestures...

MacGregor lives under the protection of a local lord named Marquis of Montrose... When he enters an ill-advised trade agreement with Montrose, he innocently leaves himself exposed to the malicious plots of Montrose's evil-doers... The unfolding of their perfidy is the most creative and pleasant part of the movie, though it takes a repugnant turn with a violent rape... When Rob Roy is finally compelled to rebel against the English soldiers, the action becomes well understood, ending with the predictable duel between him and an expert with the blade...

Liam Neeson injects heroism and passion to his character... He is intelligent, fair and virile... He carries his height with grace as the Scottish chieftain of a small community... He is a loving father, a passionate lover, and a noble husband, driven to desperate acts by dastardly villains... He'd rather die than tell a lie or betray a trust...

Oscar winner Jessica Lange gives the film class as the strong robust devoted wife, a proud peasant woman, brutally raped by an icy psychotic aristocrat... Lange's lines are filled with dignity and integrity: 'I will think on you dead, until my husband makes you so. And then I will think on you no more.'

John Hurt brings his usual clever touch with character roles to make Montrose something more than a greedy Marquis, ruthless with money and tempered by the English court's fashion for foppery... He is a pompous arrogant man with two villainous servants at his service... Honor, in his view, seems a quaint notion... He has two objectives: ruin the reputation of his rival, the Duke of Argyle, and to hunt down the fugitive MacGregor... He sends his soldiers to burn the Highlanders' homes, to kill their people and their livestock...

Tim Roththe perfect antithesis to the hero, is fearsome and strangely an effeminate enforcer... He is a penniless British aristocrat, a nasty 'hired sword' wonderfully evil, ravishing and murdering his way through the Scottish mist... His name is Archibald Cunningham... He turns out to be a liar, a thief and a murderer... He dismisses himself as 'but a bastard abroad, seeking his fortune and the favors of great men," and therefore can't care about anyone else: "Love is a dung hill and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow." He even jokes that he once raped a young boy whom he mistook for a girl...

Cunningham seems pathetic... He smiles foolishly, and utters words with affected refinement, but not terribly harmful-until a muscular swordsman insults him, and we discover that he's a cool head and an expert with a sword... He really does steal the film with a performance that earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination...

And while Brian Cox is suitably odious as Killearn, Andrew Keir is Montrose's rival, the powerful local aristocrat, the Duke of Argyll, one of the few trustworthy men McGregor meets outside his own family...

Set in 18th-century Scotland, and with an atmospheric musical score, 'Rob Roy' is really a love story between a man and his wife, a recognizably human story, unjustly dwarfed by Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart,' that does tell essentially the same story of provincial resentment of overbearing English landlords...


This is a strong movie from a historical and epic perspective. While the story is simple it is pure and straightforward. In truth, it is the standard story of a simple, honorable man whose honor comes into conflict with the more educated and wealthier men of the period.

Poor vs. Rich, honorable vs. dishonorable, a classic but well-told tale without much of the glitz of hollywood stinking up the screen.

Extra points just because you can almost smell the people on the screen. :)


This is one powerful film. The first time I saw it, the Scottish accents made it tough for me to understand a lot and that ruined the viewing experience. I gave up on it but then acquired the DVD, used the English subtitles when I needed them, and really got into this movie, discovering just how good it is. It is excellent.

The widescreen picture makes it spectacular in parts, with some wonderful rugged scenery and the story reminded me of Braveheart, an involving tale of good versus evil. Here, it's Liam Neeson (good) vs. Tim Roth (evil). Both do their jobs well.

Few actors come across as despicable as Roth. Man, you really want to smack this guy in his arrogant, irritating puss. (He is so nasty and vile the sick critics love his character more than anyone else's here). Neeson is a man's man and a solid hero figure as Gibson was in Braveheart. Jessica Lange is strong in here as the female lead. The movie draws you in and gets you totally involved, so prepared to have an emotional experience viewing this.


What can one say about a film that has one of the blackest, most nihilistic, and occasionally most weirdly -I wont say 'sympathetic'..I will say 'charismatic' villains in the history of the Cinema, and the best sword fight since Flynn and Fairbanks were in their heyday? This is an epic about a stubborn, sometimes foolish, incredibly courageous and honest mans fight for his honor and freedom against tyranny. I loved it. John Hurt and Tim Roth were great villains. Jessica Lange was very moving, tender, and sensual.


MAJOR SPOILERS!! THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!!

Commenters have touched on the major theme of "honor" in the film, and too many comparisons to "Braveheart." I'll point out a few things about this movie that I have not seen other comments touch on:

This movie has a decidedly different take on abortion. The first character to get pregnant is the villain's (Roth) girlfriend, and when he coldly suggests an abortion, she states it is too late for that. The shame of her situation ("I'm to have a bastard's bastard.") leads her to commit suicide in a much later scene. The second character to find herself pregnant is Mary, Rob's wife, after a rape by Roth's character (and at least one sex scene with her husband, Rob). Late in the movie, as Rob is leaving for a final confrontation with Roth, Mary asks what she should do about the pregnancy of questionable origins, with a tone hinting of abortion. Rob replies in a noble tone, "it's not the fault of the child," and then states what he thinks the name should be, girl or boy. I find this "pro-life" stance on the part of the hero to be very un-Hollywood. Rob walks from the darkness of the house to the bright outside to make this comment -- not coincidental symbolism.

Another related theme is Roth's character is a bastard, someone who evidently does not know who his father was, and has few kind words for his mother, though he wears a picture of her in a case hung from his neck. Is it coincidence that Roth (devoid of family stability) is the walking definition of psychopath, while Rob is the strong husband/father figure, and of course the hero. In the final sword fight between Rob and the villain (Roth), the former slices the latter deeply across the chest -- the left side of the chest, over the heart. His employer and pseudo-father figure (John Hurt character) holds the mother's picture in his hand and gazes at it, before snatching it from the neck of the dead Roth.

Also what I find interesting was the direction of the rape scene, which was not quite graphic but neither was it off-camera and implied. I found it surprising in it's somewhat matter of fact depiction, with Mary convincingly showing the characteristics of someone going through the ordeal, and subsequent post traumatic stress (as we call it now). My point being that the rape was neither sensationalized nor just implied, which I find an interesting middle road for Hollywood to take.

In the final fight scene, I have to correct an earlier commenter: The weapon Roth chose was a rapier (or perhaps a short sword), the weapon Rob chose was a Claymore. Someone was really doing their homework on this entire scene. Roth would have the upper hand in such a situation, but of course the Claymore is a distinctly Scottish weapon. What is even more striking to me (as a fencer and someone who has read a bit on the subject) is that this final sword fight is one of the most convincing of any film ever made: The actors seem actually trying to kill each other -- not the usual slashes to the opponents blade we see in most movie fights (including the movies opening fight). Even more true to history, Roth is seen several times using the rapier as a thrusting weapon, which is it's purpose by design! (Rapiers were edged, but primarily a thrusting weapon with the edges used mainly for parrying an opponents thrust.) Rob uses the Claymore in broad slashes, as it's design intent. The fight goes down as I would expect it to -- Roth effectively wins. Though Rob wins the day by grabbing Roth's weapon (more symbolism) and striking him dead with a powerful slashing cut.

Folks, it is RARE to see this level of historical accuracy in a movie sword fight.

I'll also note that for whatever reason, I remember 1995 (the year of release) distinctly as a time of distrust of the U.S. government. Hollywood was obviously tuned into that, with the release of both "Rob Roy" and "Braveheart," and I think the anti-government leanings are why both films get so much comparison.

I think the different perspective that this film gives is refreshing to avid movie fans, tired of the same old, not so hidden messages from Hollywood.


**Attention Spoilers**

First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...

it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to "Braveheart". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". I like "Braveheart" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to "Rob Roy" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love "Braveheart", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love "Rob Roy". Here are my particular reasons...

-"Rob Roy" is about real people.

Let's face it, the William Wallace in "Braveheart" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.

The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a better film than "King of Kings", and that is also one of the reasons why I think "Rob Roy" is better than "Braveheart". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.

Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in "Braveheart". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.

Throughout "Rob Roy", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.

The villains in "Rob Roy" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in "Braveheart" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in "Braveheart", but from Brutus in "Julius Ceasar" to Fredo in "The Godfather Part II", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism.

"Rob Roy" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. "See to it that I am not mocked" are his favorite words to his "factor". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.

Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in "Rob Roy", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.

Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. "Rob Roy" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.

Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.

- The final duel in "Rob Roy" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in "Braveheart".

One thing I get tired of is people telling me that "Braveheart" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From "Spartacus" to "Gladiator", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. "Braveheart" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.

Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...

First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.

The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell "FREEDOM!". But hey, maybe that's just me.

- "Rob Roy" is more realistic than "Braveheart"

I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in "Rob Roy", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by "Rob Roy" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. "Rob Roy" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.

By contrast, the dialogue in "Braveheart" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before "Rob Roy", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of "Aye"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.

So, do these descriptions prove that "Rob Roy" is a better film than "Braveheart"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". To put simply, "Rob Roy" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. "Braveheart" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...

Grade - A Score - 9


Overshadowed by "Braveheart" released the same year, the two costume dramas beg comparison. I admit my bias against Mel Gibson, yet I maintain a rational preference for "Rob Roy." Both "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" compellingly depict Scots history in bloody, romantic fashion. "Braveheart" is an epic paean to individual honor and courage and a fine revenge fantasy. It's also melodramatic, anachronistic and maudlin. Note its cornball usage of slow motion filming. Its violence is both ugly and glorious. It is the latter quality which makes it more appealing to the adolescent mindset. While "Braveheart" surpasses "Rob Roy" in sheer levels of carnage (not to mention its indulgent running time), the latter film is ultimately more mature and satisfying. Its action is more understated, yet more surprising and clever. Its sex is less showy, yet more erotic. "Rob Roy" also has a better realized romantic interest. Its dialog attempts to approximate the poetry of the period. Its rotted teeth in the mouths of the actors attempt to approximate the dentistry of the era. And Tim Roth is a superlative villain. Also recommended: "The Last of the Mohicans" and "The Patriot." You may find the latter more akin to "Braveheart" with its emphasis on blood lust, with the former more similar to "Rob Roy" in tone. All the of the aforementioned movies merit their R ratings for violence.


This sweeping drama has it all: top notch acting, incredible photography, good story. It is often compared to "Braveheart" because both movies take place in historical Scotland. Even though I love Braveheart, I think this is the better of the two films. Jessica Lange gave an incredible performance (should have been nominated for an Oscar). Liam Neeson is fantastic in the title role. Tim Roth plays one of the most evil, despicable, characters in film history (he was nominated for an Oscar). John Hurt is excellent as Lord Montrose, another dislikeable character. I am always amazed at the incredible range of characters that John Hurt can play. This is a story of a dispute over money between Rob Roy and his clan, and Lord Montrose. Rob Roy is a self made man, who will not solve his problems with Montrose if it violates his sense of honor. Montrose, who, inherited his title, has no sense of honor. And that is basically what this story is all about; honor of the common man versus corruption of the nobility. This movie is very entertaining, it should appeal to all. It has romance, action, beautiful scenery, and has a exciting plot. One of my favorite films.


This is a very good, under-rated action/drama/and slightly historical movie.

The basic story concerns Rob Roy's borrowing of 1000 pounds, its theft, and the problems it causes for his family and indirectly his clansmen.

Cunningham( Tim Roth) is an amazing villain and character in this story. Brutally cold and if you watch his face he seems to be able to turn his eyes off and look completely evil.

Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) is excellent too, but i think the writers used the word "honour" 1 too many times.

The rest of the cast is strong, and the whole movie is very well acted and filmed.

The Action is exciting and the sword play very realistic, but not too gory. The story is good and you really want Rob to win.

All in all just shy of a classic.


Its not Braveheart( thankfully),but it is fine entertainment with engaging characters and good acting all around. I enjoyed this film when it was released and upon viewing it again last week,find it has held up well over time. Not a classic film,but a very fine and watchable movie to enjoy as great entertainment.


This is the moving tale of Scotland's legendary hero, Rob Roy, and his battles with the feudal landowners. Like Braveheart to which it is frequently compared, it is not very historical. Despite their primarily fictional nature, I rate both of these movies highly and would be hard pressed to choose between the two. The 13 Century William Wallace is, as others have noted, a larger than life national figure, while the early 18th Century Rob Roy comes across as an honourable but ordinary Scotsman.

The story revolves around a clan chieftain, Robert Roy McGregor, who lives in a Scottish highland cottage with his wife Mary and their two young sons. As the movie begins, he and his fellow clansmen are hunting down some thieves who have stolen the local lord's cattle. Rob Roy then wishes to improve the living conditions of his people so arranges to borrow one thousand Scottish pounds from a local noble, the Marquis of Montrose, in order to buy cattle to herd to market. He temporarily entrusts this money to his friend, Alan McDonald. When both McDonald and the money turn up missing, Rob Roy finds himself in conflict with Montrose as well as his despicable protégé, Archibald Cunningham, and his sleazy factor, Killearn. Rob Roy's honour is also tested when Montrose seeks to involve him in false testimony against his rival, the Duke of Argyle, whom he wishes to accuse of being a Jacobite.

The charismatic Liam Leeson is brilliant as the kilted highlander Rob Roy, an intelligent, virile, and noble hero and a man whose sense of honour is pivotal to this tale. Personally, I feel that this is Neeson's best performance, his brogue (albeit Irish) adding authenticity for the average viewer. Rob Roy is a stubborn, proud, courageous, and honest man whose word can be trusted. He is a loving husband & father, and also touchingly loyal to his friend, McDonald, who is accused of robbing him.

Tim Roth masterfully portrays his major adversary and surely one of the most heinous and sadistic cinematic villains, Archibald Cunningham, an egotistical, ruthless strutting peacock. He is very effeminate for someone who makes it his major business to ravish the local women, whether willing or otherwise. The pathetic Cunningham himself constantly refers to the fact that he is a bastard unaware of his own father's identity, though this hardly justifies his horrendous misdeeds of murder, rape, and thievery. Also, he mercilessly casts aside the young servant girl, Betty, after she becomes pregnant with his child, resulting in her suicide. John Hurt plays the arrogant and foppish Montrose, who is eventually implied to be Cunningham's father.

The movie is essentially the very believable love story between an ordinary man and his wife, beautifully depicting the passionate relationship between Rob Roy and Mary. Those who question the presence of passion within marriage should watch this husband and wife! I think the phrase used by this pair, 'How fine you are to me...' is surely one of the most beautiful expressions of love in all cinema.

The most compelling performance is possibly by Jessica Lange as Rob's wife, Mary McGregor. Lacking make up, she has the pretty but natural look of a sturdy peasant wife and mother. The actress brings great courage and dignity to her role when she is brutally raped by the despicable Cunningham, while the disgusting Killearn looks on. Her dialogue is plain spoken but filled with pride and grace. I give Hollywood its due that for once they showed just enough in the rape scene to reveal its cruelty as well as Mary's pain and humiliation, but nothing intended to sensationalize. Their kinsman, Alastair McGregor, shows emotional anguish when he learns of Mary's rape, and further torment when she swears him to secrecy never to reveal to her husband her violation by Cunningham.

Of course this film features the beautiful scenery of the Scottish highlands, also lavish period costumes and appropriate musical scoring. There are no grand battle scenes as in Braveheart, but continuous engaging action and a particularly gripping sword fight in the final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham. This is a captivating movie featuring both tense action and a beautiful love tale.


The early to mid 90s were a high point, in my opinion, for the historical drama. Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Rob Roy - all portrayed a distinctive passion and intensity in their respective time periods.

Rob Roy was a unique and intriguing taste of a time and place rarely represented by film. It really has everything - interesting story, great acting, remarkable dialog, and breathtaking scenery. I was particularly impressed by the apparently genuine dialog. I can imagine this is how early 18th century people spoke and behaved.

Something else that surprised me was the vulgarity expressed by the characters. I found it to be more repulsive and shocking, albeit often more subtle, than most found in films set in modern times. The movie had a very racy and sexually charged edge to it that was unique and most likely very realistic in the context of the era.

The pace was very tight, with hardly a dull moment. There was much intrigue and political subplots that complicated things a bit, but yet did not detract from the main storyline.

The action was also very well done and gripping. Something that I will forever find remarkable is that during the highlight action piece in the film, there is no soundtrack whatsoever. It makes for a very tense, exciting sequence, since we have no musical cue as to the direction and resolution of the scene.

Rob Roy will always remain high on my list of favorite films. I would recommend it to all.


Liam Neeson portrays the Scottish legend Robert Roy Macgregor from the early 18th century. He is a true actor. He captivates the audience with his charisma as he does in all his roles. Jessica Lange is excellent as his wife Mary. Mary is such a beautiful woman. It's her love that makes Rob Roy the legend, but it's his passion that makes her love undying. They need each other. Tim Roth as the evil Cunningham is perfect; in one way or another, upon watching the movie, you will find Cunningham disgusting. The Scotland scenery is beautiful. The environment and conditions of the times are depicted quite well. If you like history, romance, passion and love, you'll enjoy Rob Roy. There is violence and blood, but it's unavoidable in telling this story as it should be told; no gratuitous violence. And you do have to listen carefully if you're not used to a Scottish accent. One important point that makes this movie so good is that no one actor or actress is glamorized; they get dirty and actually look unattractive in various scenes. It's their skill as actors that attracts you, they don't rely on marquee names, popularity or sex symbol appeal. This is something special.


Mel Gibson's Braveheart was a spectacularly accomplished film, but it left a sour taste in the mouth. Rob Roy, by contrast, is slightly less polished, but a better film by far. This is a historical film which combines timeless themes with truly historical values, whereas Braveheart put a gross and unpleasant comtemporary gloss on an ancient tale. What makes this film is the cast. Liam Neeson plays the hero, in a role he basically reprised (in a watered-down fashion) in the Phantom Menace. The character is heroic, but is neither the greatest fighter nor the most demonic lover. Admirable yet human, he commands the screen. Against him are set a selection of equally human adversaries including Tim Roth's Cunningham, obnoxious but brilliant, and John Hurt's morally bankrupt laird. Also to praise is Jessica Lange, as Rob's pragmatic wife: also strong and noble, but 300 years away from a modern heroine, which is only as it should be. This is not the most original film you will see, but it has the courage of its own convictions, and the strong performances make you care.


To bad for this fine film that it had to be released the same year as Braveheart. Though it is a very different kind of film, the conflict between Scottish commoners and English nobility is front and center here as well. Roughly 400 years had passed between the time Braveheart took place and Rob Roy was set, but some things never seemed to change. Scottland is still run by English nobles, and the highlanders never can seem to catch a break when dealing with them. Rob Roy is handsomely done, but not the grand epic that Braveheart was. There are no large-scale battles, and the conflict here is more between individuals. And helpfully so not all Englishmen are portrayed as evil this time. Rob Roy is simply a film about those with honor, and those who are truly evil.

Liam Neeson plays the title character Rob Roy MacGregor. He is the leader of the MacGregor clan and his basic function is to tend to and protect the cattle of the local nobleman of record known as the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt). Things look pretty rough for the MacGregor clan as winter is approaching, and there seems to be a lack of food for everyone. Rob Roy puts together a plan to borrow 1000 pounds from the Marquis and purchase some cattle of his own. He would then sell them off for a higher price and use the money to improve the general well-being of his community. Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? Problems arise when two cronies of the Marquis steal the money for themselves. One of them, known as Archibald Cunningham, is perhaps the most evil character ever put on film. Played wonderfully by Tim Roth, this man is a penniless would-be noble who has been sent to live with the Marquis by his mother. This man is disgustingly effeminate, rude, heartless, and very dangerous with a sword. He fathers a child with a hand maiden and refuses to own up to the responsibility. He rapes Macgregor's wife and burns him out of his home. This guy is truly as rotten as movie characters come. Along with another crony of the Marquis (Brian Cox) Cunningham steals the money and uses it to settle his own debts. Though it is painfully obvious to most people what happened, the Marquis still holds MacGregor to the debt. This sets up conflict that will take many lives and challenge the strengths of a man simply fighting to hold on to his dignity.

Spoilers ahead!!!!!

Luckily for the MacGregor's, a Duke who is no friend to the Marquis sets up a final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham to resolve the conflict one and for all. This sword fight has been considered by many to be one of the best ever filmed. Cunningham is thought by many to be a sure winner with his speed and grace. And for most of the fight, it looks like these attributes will win out. Just when it looks like Rob Roy is finished, he turns the tables in a shockingly grotesque manner. The first time you see what happens, you will probably be as shocked as Cunningham! Rob Roy is beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted, and perfectly paced. The score is quite memorable, too. The casting choices seem to have worked out as Jessica Lange, who might seem to be out of her element, actually turns in one of the strongest performances as Mary MacGregor. The film is violent, but there isn't too much gore. It is a lusty picture full of deviant behavior, however. The nobility are largely played as being amoral and sleazy. The film has no obvious flaws, thus it gets 10 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


I question anyone saying they don't care for this movie. Some reviewers have said it didn't have enough action, some said it was too long, etc. Don't listen to them!!! If you like Shawshank Redemption and/or Braveheart, you will definitely love this movie!

The acting performances are superb! Tim Roth, John Hurt and Jessica Lang are allsuperb and Liam Neeson does an admarible job and is a very imposing character because of his size. The Cinemaphotography was brilliant and breathtaking. It is onw of the few movies I have seen in my life (along with Shawshank) that was virtually flawless from casting, directing, writing, acting, etc.!!!

I was amazed this wasn't in the top 50 or 100 movies reviewed. I felt so passionately about it that I just registered with IMDB so I could let everyone know the real scoop. I have seen this movie about 10 times (each time with a different person) and everyone has loved it! You must be awake and pay attention carefully for the first 30 minutes because they introduce quite a few characters in the beginning. If you have the attention span longer than most of these juvenille kids writing reviews for the movies on this site, than you will love this movie! Come on...all 3 Lord of the Rings movies in the top 9 and the Matrix at #32?!?! That should show you the age range of most reviewers here!

This is a top 50 movie!!!


Rob Roy is and underrated epic of passion and action!SOME MILD SPOILERS WITHIN. Liam Neeson gives a towering performance as Rob Roy MacGregor,one of the best in his career.Jessica Lange is letter-perfect as his wife Mary.They have the most passion and chemistry I've seen in a screen couple.John Hurt gives his best snotty aristocrat performance.Tim Roth portrays one of the great screen villains.His rape of Mary is repugnant and harrowing.He really is a magnificent bastard in this movie.The final duel between Rob and Cunningham is one of the best swordfights ever.Well scripted ans scored,and Michael Caton-Jones direction is flawless. 10 out of 10.


When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedly one of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I was intrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was a great film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Roy has grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheart is great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. The most significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robert the Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland's greatest king. Another is the historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film in proportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am also bothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least by me) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson's egomania can be seen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on me over the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind most in Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing more mature and complex with each viewing.


A very engaging, intelligent, and well-made film. Liam Neeson and Tim Roth play their roles superbly. The cinematography is outstanding. The fight scenes are amazing. This is a film I will enjoy watching again and again. One of my favorites.


I loved this movie. The scenery was breathtaking, the plot had some nice twists and turns, and the characters were well rounded. On two fronts, however, "Rob Roy" scored far above average. First, I have rarely seen a "popular" film in which the quality of dialogue was so high. There were many verbal slashes and thrusts to accompany the brilliantly choreographed swordplay. I could give numerous examples, but why should I? Just watch the film. Second, this movie understood a principle rarely acknowledged any more. For a drama to succeed, it needs not only a hero, but a really believable villain. If you don't have one, there's not much joy in rooting for the good guys. And "Rob Roy" has not one, but three--the Earl of Montrose, his henchman Kilairn, and Archie. Not one-dimensional villains, either, but fully fleshed and very nasty. It takes a bit more patience than "Braveheart"--there's more dialogue, and the accents are a bit tough, but it's a much more clever and subtle piece. (As I said, I loved this movie!)


This is a very exciting and romantic film. I have seen it several times and never get bored with it. Everything is realistic and it is a good plot. The actors are excellent Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, Tim Roth and Brian Cox.

I actually prefer this film to Braveheart as Braveheart contain so many historical misstakes. There is many exciting scenes - watch out for the Bridge Scen and the last fencing scene. This is really good and surprising scenes.

The music are lovely...it really suits to the movie. The setting is amazing.


I haven't seen this film in years so my knowledge is a little rusty. I do remember thinking that this film is twice the film of Braveheart. It is simply more realistic and has more believable characters. Ridb Roy looks like one would imagine Rob Roy to look like, messy hair and beard with simple clothing. Also the Liam Nesson has a Celtic look about him, he looks like a Scot and more importantly looks like Rob Roy. It's a comparison which angers some people but compare him to Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Gibson is supposedly playing a man who's legend has caused him to be described as a 6 foot 7 giant while Gibson is almost a foot shorter. The story contains a little romance, conspiracy and an underdog story. Sound anything like Braveheart? But instead of a film that cries out "freedom", liberty and nationalism we get a film which says honour, love and justice. This makes it a more interesting film. Much like Gladiator. The cast is fantastic and Liam Nesson is a very strong leader in this endeavour. The story is great with how it deals with heroism and humanity. The scene where Mary is raped and she walks out of the burning house with a look of true Scottish strength is followed by her washing the semen from her crotch in an extreme panic. This is something a heroine in Braveheart would never do. Overall this is a stunning and almost flawless watch. Go and see it!


The year 1995, when so many people talked about the great premiere of BRAVEHEART by Mel Gibson, also saw another very fine, yet underrated movie on Scottish history, ROB ROY. Although it is a very different film, especially due to the historical period the story is set in, ROB ROY has much in common not only with marvelous BRAVEHEART but also with the very spirit of epic movies.

It is a film that discusses similar themes, like fight for dignity, courage, honor, revenge, family being a key to happiness. It also leads us to the very bliss of Scottish highlands where the human soul finds its rest being surrounded by all grandeur of nature. Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson), the main character is a true hero (so universal in epics), sort of "Scottish Robin Hood" who struggles to lead his people out of oppression imposed by cold hearted lords. Although he worsens his situation through the acts, has to suffer a lot, two things stay in his mind undeniably: HONOR that he is given by himself and LOVE to his woman, Mary MacGregor (Jessica Lange). That leads him to unexpected events...

Except for the interesting content and quite vivid action, the movie is filled with truly stunning visuals. This factor has to do both with the sets and locations of the film as well as the wardrobe. Many memorable moments stay in the mind of any viewer who can allow themselves an insight into artistic images. For me, the most splendid scene was in the Highlands when Rob Roy tells his boys what honor really means. Then, he sends them away and beautifully makes love to his woman. The scene he escapes Marguis of Montrose (John Hurt) to the waterfall is also worth a look as a stunning visual.

Of course, there is some graphic violence, like in the duel for instance, but I don't think that this violence would be as harmful as in many other modern films. Its justification is like any other epic's: bloodshed and cruelty of those times were really serious and there would be no point in hiding it. The most disturbing scene, for me, was the rape done on Rob Roy's wife by the villain of the story: Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth). It's truly disgusting and kids should definitely stay away. However, all the rest is O.K. Yet, there is one aspect that made me really love this movie, the performances.

All the cast do perfect jobs, from the leading Lian Neeson who fits very well to the role of tall, brave, strong Scottish man to the supporting cast of Brian Cox who portrays wicked Killearn, a silent witness of terrible acts who feels comfortable with the evil of war. Jessica Lange is very fine as Mary MacGregor and has some of the most beautiful moments in the film. There is chemistry between Ms Lange and Mr Neeson in many of their scenes. John Hurt, one of the best British actors, does a terrific job as Marguis of Montrose, a corrupted man for whom money is the aim in itself achieved by any means. I like that calmness of his portrayal. But the real villain is played by Tim Roth who truly depicts wretched side of his character, Archibald - a man who mocks love, who loves war and who finds true lust in rape and slaughter. But, like in any good epic, this exceptional evil must find its end...

And one more aspect: the musical score: such memorable and sentimental tunes that are bound to sound in the ears for long. The final moment touched me to tears not only because of the beauty it conveys but because I deeply combined these blissful tunes with the grandeur of locations. Scotland remains in the heart of its visitor and this movie reminded me of that permanent effect. It was, as if, my second journey to Scotland.

ROB ROY is a very nice movie, very well directed, photographed and acted. It perhaps does not equal BRAVEHEART with its spectacular sets and crowds of extras in battle scenes, but it is a fairly long film with much attention placed on one very significant feature a cinema should have: stunning entertainment combined with heartfelt education. I really enjoyed that film, do not hesitate to call it metaphorically "highlands of entertainment" and rate it 9/10


I first saw Rob Roy twelve years ago. With little money for entertainment, I rented it for my fiancé and I to watch on a bone chilling winter's night. The movie I had wanted was gone, so I rented this instead, not expecting much, and was very much surprised with how good it was. I just recently watched it again, and loved it every bit as much as the first time.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about Scottish outlaw Robert Roy MacGregor, a cattleman and folk hero. From the little I know about the man and his story, liberties have been taken with the facts, but it's a movie, not a textbook, and so the filmmakers can be excused. Basically, the plot of the movie is that Rob Roy borrows money from the Marquis of Montrose to buy cattle which he then intends to sell and reap a large profit from. But, his plan is foiled when the friend entrusted with the money is robbed of the cash and murdered in the forest. Our hero finds himself on the run after failing to settle the matter with the Marquis, and Mary, his wife, suffers a sadistic rape at the hands of Archibald Cunningham, a smarmy Englishman with no soul. Atrocities ensue, until, in an immensely satisfying conclusion, Rob carves Archibald up like a Christmas turkey.

There are many great performances in this movie, but allow me to touch specifically on a few. Liam Neeson, as usual, is fantastic, a sexy beast you can't take your eyes off of. Honestly, this man is like ice cream: even when he's bad he's good. His Rob Roy is an honourable man struggling to provide for those who depend on him, in the best way he knows how. Jessica Lange, as Mary, gives this woman a fierceness which is a nice change from the simpering, dull movie wives audiences are usually forced to endure. You just know she doesn't take any b.s from Rob, or anyone else for that matter. Tim Roth is completely over the top with his portrayal of the evil Archibald, yet somehow, it works. All the posturing and preening, combined with some wicked dialogue, result in one of the most memorable movie villains in recent memory. Combine all of this, and the stellar work by other supporting players, with the luscious scenery of Scotland, and you have what amounts to one really, really cool movie. If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend that you do.


I had never heard of Robert Roy MacGregor before "Rob Roy" came out, but the movie is definitely worth seeing. Playing the title character, Liam Neeson brings the same spirit to the role that he brought to Oskar Schindler, and Jessica Lange also does a really good job as his wife Mary. Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth) is one person very likely to make your skin crawl.

All in all, this comes out as good as "Braveheart" (maybe even better). I laugh when I think of how Hollywood released two movies almost back-to-back taking a swipe at England. Very good. Also starring John Hurt, Eric Stoltz, Brian Cox and Jason Flemyng.


It's a little disconcerting to have a character named Gig Young in a movie...played by Gig Young. But this film is where Gig got his name and also a nice career boost after playing small parts under another name.

I'm going to go against the majority of the other comments and state that I really enjoyed this film, mainly because of the vibrant performance of Barbara Stanwyck as Fiona. She was funny, angry, vulnerable, caring, and feisty as the oldest of three daughters whose mother died on the Lusitania, and whose father was later killed during Woar War I.

As the "man" of the house, Fiona has stood steadfast for years against settling her father's will which would therefore allow a Donald Trump type named Charles Barclay to get the family home. But Fiona's keeping a secret as to why she hates Barclay so much. Geraldine Fitzgerald is the middle, flirty sister, who is married to an Englishman but craves her youngest sister's boyfriend (Gig Young).

If you're a Stanwyck fan, this is a no miss.


Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.


This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!