One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one.

It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen.

Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.

In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream.


My observations: vamp outfit at end is ravishing and wonderful, exotic and fantastic. Jeanette wore it well, and got even with naive Nelson. Boat crashing into his balcony served him right. Costume outfits of his female mafia were designed surprisingly well, especially by today's standards. 1942 costume designer did great job. Main song theme just lovely.

Caution to negative posters: 1942 was time of WW II; Pearl Harbor happened year before. U.S. just coming out of Great Depression; needed to get out and spend that hard earned money on diversion of singing, dance and yes, fantastic fantasy. Despotic dictators were trying to rule out there in RL, snuffing out freedoms. Thank goodness the public had these fantastic plot line movies to attend. Movie going was a privileged treat, in those depressing times. When you, negative posters, become actors or even movie stars, then YOU have room to talk and criticize. Jeanette's and Nelson's movies stand the test of time.

Angel wings wonderful, on the real angel. RL wings at costume party not so hot, but great on Jeanette considering the SL.

Beautiful singing by Jeanette and Nelson, as always. Jeanette dancing was a pure delight.

15/10


There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in "24" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.

When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.

There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his "24" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.

Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics ("North by Northwest" and "The Fugitive" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k.


It's been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used "Wall Street" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop.


At first glance, this film looks like the Keifer Sutherland series 24 for the big screen. With the focus on a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, a race against time, and plenty of Secret Service agents, the agency under the spotlight in The Sentinel.

But wait, the protagonist turns out to be Michael Douglas' character Pete Garrison instead, a veteran Secret Service agent famed for taking the bullet for Reagan in 1981. The SS agents are specially trained to "take the bullet", which is what makes them special - who in the right mind will put themselves in the line of a bullet and a target? But Garrison gets implicated in the assassination plot, and has to run for his life while at the same time doing his bit of investigations into the plot. All this because of his failure in a polygraph test, due to his adulterous banging of the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Tsk.

There are shades of Clint Eastwood's In the Line of Fire. Both featured aging actors, and aging veteran has-been heroes with a bit of a historical reference, who took the bullet in their respective tours of duty. While Eastwood's movie has a more enigmatic villain in John Malkovich, The Sentinel suffered from its lack of a central strong villain, preferring to share the assassination responsibility amongst many forgettable ex-KGB villains, and the mole within the Presidential Detail. With Douglas on the run from the law, he becomes similar to Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive, hunting the proverbial one-armed man while at the same time, relying on his smarts to outwit fellow agents, which turned out to be quite interesting to watch - despite slick processes, it still boils down to the performance and gullibility of individual agents.

Keifer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, top TV stars of today from 24 and Desperate Housewives, get relegated into support roles as the Secret Service investigators who are looking into Garrison's probable involvement in the assassination plot, and at times seem to have lept off the pages of CSI with their forensics skills. The beautiful couple had chemistry that could have resembled X-Files' Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, but alas these two had very little to do here. We know the reason why they're in the movie, and that is to get their fans into the theatres. Also, Longoria's role seemed unable to shake off her sexy-mama Gabrielle, and here, has her in fairly low cut blouses (Sutherland actually tells her to cover up) and tight pants (ogle-fest for fellow agents).

Nonetheless, it's still a pretty interesting look into the lives of probably the most highly charged and tense protection detail in the world, and the typical threats that they face daily, including the following up on every nutcase's threat on the life of the most powerful man in the world. It's a decent suspense and investigative thriller, with enough subplots to keep you entertained. But one thing though, like most ending action sequences, this one has a big enough loophole for you to fly a jumbo jet through.


I enjoyed this film. I thought it was an excellent political thriller about something that's never happened before - a Secret Service agent going bad and involved in an assassination plot. Unfortunately, for Michael Douglas' character, "Pete Garrison," they think HE's the mole but he isn't.

He's just a morally-flawed agent having an affair with the First Lady! Since he's doing that, he's unable to give an acceptable polygraph exam and that makes him suspect number one when it's revealed there is a plot to kill the President.

"Garrison" is forced to go on the lam but at the same time he's still trying to do the right thing by protecting the President. Douglas does a fine job in this role. I don't always care the people he plays but he's an excellent actor. Keifer Sutherland ("David Breckinridge") is equally as good (at least in here) as the fellow SS boss who hunts down Douglas until convinced he has been telling the truth. When he does the two of them work together in the finale to discover and then stop, if they can, the plot. The crooks are interesting, too, by the way. Also, I have never - and never will, unfortunately - see a First Lady who looks as good as Kim Basinger

This is simply a slick action flick that entertains start-to-finish. Are there holes in it? Of course; probably a number of them, and a reason you see so many critical comments. However, it is unfairly bashed here. It just isn't intelligent enough for the geniuses here on this website. My advice: chill, just go along for the ride and enjoy all the action and intrigue. Yes, it gets a little Rambo-ish at the end but otherwise it gets high marks for entertainment.....which is what movies are all about.


I thought that The sentinel was going to be a mediocre movie.When I finally saw it,I took a good surprise.The movie isn't great thing but it's very fun and the action scenes are very well done.This movie reminded me TV series like 24 or Alias.It's very similar to that series and it reminded me too,to the Wolfgang Petersen's thriller In the line of fire.If you're going to expect one of the most original and and one of the greatest thrillers in the history of movies,you will be disappointed.But if you go with little expectations,you will enjoy The sentinel.

Rating:7


I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel.


The Sentinel i was hoping would be a good film and boy i was right.A great story first of all from a novel and i thought this was an original story but i guess it wasn't and it was a very smart story. Michael Douglas in this film is very good and Keither Sutherland is too,but however it is very hard to shrug him off his role as Jack Bauer in 24 but eventually you do and he is very different in The Sentinel than he is in 24.also another person trying to shrug off their TV role but failed.Eva Longeria.She wasn't that good in the film and had a back seat in the entire thing.After i saw the film i had constant dreams about The Sentinel and couldn't sleep.Overall Sentinel is a good film and i would recommend it.


The Sentinel features a sort of run of the mill and clichéd suspense/mystery but is lifted with some good acting and taut pacing. These stories have already for the most part gone through as many permutations as we can bear, so what we're left with is how good is the acting, how smart are the setups and bad guys, how well crafted is the main plot etc etc.....so the Sentinel does a solid job given it's content. Michael Douglass and Kiefer Sutherland both maintain some good screen bravado and attitudes. Eva Longoria (first time I've seen her on screen) brings some satisfactory support. The whole affair side of the story is utterly implausible knocking it down a bit, but it deserves slack. Worth a viewing if you like the genre.


Good for an evening's entertainment - but the plot was unconvincing. Garrison's affair with the First Lady was unreal and passionless; the President was a cardboard cut-out. And who were the real villains anyway? Nothing was developed or explained sufficiently. I still don't know why they wanted to kill the President or how the mole got involved. The villains were nameless and undeveloped, so you never felt involved in their plot. Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland did their best to inject some reality into the story - the chase and confrontation were good. But Kim Basinger and Eva Longoria were both unbelievable in their roles, Basinger totally lacked character and no way could Longoria have been a Secret Service agent. This could have been a very good film but somehow it missed the way, with too many unanswered questions. Disappointing on the whole despite some very good scenes. And did they use the 'West Wing' set for the White House scenes? - I kept expecting CJ or Charlie to appear!


This was a pretty decent movie. This movie is good to just sit down and watch and be entertained. Just a typical Hollywood film. This movie will never win an Oscar or anything and definitely doesn't deserve one, but I thought it was pretty good. It's kind of like the show 24 but set into movie format. If you like the whole we've got to stop the terrorist from killing the president kind of movie then you will enjoy this flick. I personally think that storyline has been done WAY too much, but The Sentinel does add a little twist with the mole in the Secret Service. All in all, this movie won't leave your jaw to the floor or change your life, but who says every single movie has to be like that to be good?


Seeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.

The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.

It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse.


I'll be honest,I finally checked this movie not because of the stars--though they were reasonably watchable and compelling,particularly the three leads--or even the compelling story of a breach in the Presidential Secret Service(something,I've been informed through the DVD extras of this show,has yet to ever happen.Assuming that's true,that's remarkable!). I got it because it was directed and has a choice cameo by none other than Detective Meldrick Lewis!! Well,okay,Clark Johnson,one of my faves from "Homicide:Life on the Street" and a veteran (mostly) TV director. I'd say that he does about as good as he can with a project that is watchable but pretty average,despite the possibilities.

Veteran and ace Secret agent Pete Garrison(Michael Douglass)has to find out both who is blackmailing him AND who killed his friend,targeted and blew up an Air Force One chopper and is gunning for the Prez.(David Rasche. Anyone remember "Sledgehammer"?). His affair with the first lady(Kim Basinger,clearly one of the HOTTER first ladies we've ever had,fictional or real)is certainly not helping his standing. He's got to both ferret out the real mole in the service and avoid the hound dog like hunting of his former best friend and fellow agent and chief(Kiefer Sutherland,almost still completely in "24" mode). Throw in some other pivotal Service agents(Martin Donovan and the foxy,somewhat hard to buy as the gig Eva Longorria) and shady foreign characters and you have a fairly standard political thriller that doesn't aim as high as it purports and reaches the desired,if underwhelming,results.

The summary line is about the best way to describe how this show plays out without giving spoilers. The DVD extras to me seemed more insightful and interesting than the movie,though the film itself was entertaining enough to keep most (myself included) interested.


It might not be the best movie of 2006 but it was a just a movie to excite and to think about.The Sentinel is a good political thriller movie which seems similar to or even borrows some elements from other political thriller movies such as In the Line of Fire and The Manchurian Candidate. The basic plot of this movie is similar to other movies like this: A plot to kill the President of the United States. Michael Douglas stars as Secret Service Agent Pete Garrison who spearheads the operation only to find out later that he has been framed.Kiefer Sutherland co-stars as a sort of rival by the name of David Breckinridge and Eva Longoria as Jill Marin who is a rookie agent going under the guidance of Agent Breckinridge and Academy Award winner Kim Basinger as First Lady Sarah Ballentine. One improvement for this movie could have been more action as it is by some sources considered just as much an Action film as is a Thriller film but a good thing about this movie is instead of just an assassination plot to kill the US President,it also concerns a mole(traitor) in the Secret Service who is leading the President in the wrong direction.


My Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement.

The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.

Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.

The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as "should have been a TV movie", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.

All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.


Welcome back Kiefer Sutherland. it's been too long since you've appeared in a movie,, and what a movie this was, was it 24 no,, but very intriguing, especially with a pro like Michael Douglas in the lead as the embattled Secret Service Agent. Kiefer's character is the one chasing Michael Douglas the whole movie,, Kiefer's partner,, is Eva Longoria,, the Desperate houswife. wow she can actually act besides flirt all day and look good,, i wish though that Kim Bassinger had a bigger role,, but other than that, i really think the whole movie was a blast from start to finish. This movie is what i consider to b e a political thriller, everybody played their part to the hilt. nothing was revealed to sooon in the movie,, so as to keep you guessing at all times. and i really think that Kiefer did one heck of a job here in this movie,, but in my opinion Michael Douglas had the besxt performance of the day,, thumbs up.


Engaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.

In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, "Sergeant Ryker" is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.

This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many "name" actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.

Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.

However, despite its apparent obscurity, "Sergeant Ryker" still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. Highly recommended.


Sergeant Ryker is accused of being a traitor during the Korean War, a hanging offense. A long drawn out court-marshal ensues during which time the Sgt. must remain in a military jail. After much investigation the defense attorney attempts to exonerate the doomed non-com with an eleventh hour ploy. Very good picture.


The Korean War has been dubbed Americas's forgotten war. So many unanswered questions were buried along with the 50 thousand men who died there. Occasionally, we are treated to a play or movie which deals with that far-off, ghostly frozen graveyard. Here is perhaps one of the finest. It's called " Sergeant Ryker. " The story is of an American soldier named Sgt. Paul Ryker (Lee Marvin) who is selected for a top secret mission by his commanding officer. His task is to defect to the North Koreans and offer his services against United Nations forces. So successful is his cover, he proves invaluable to the enemy and given the rank of Major. However, he is thereafter captured by the Americans, put on trial as a traitor and spy. Stating he was ordered to defect, he sadly learns his commanding officer has been killed and has no evidence or proof of his innocence. He is convicted and sentenced to hang. However, his conviction is doubted by Capt. Young (Bradford Dillman), his prosecutor. Convincing commanding Gen. Amos Baily, (Lloyd Nolan) of his doubts, he is granted a new trial and if found guilty will be executed. The courtroom drama is top notch as is the cast which includes Peter Graves, Murray Hamilton and Norman Fell as Sgt. Max Winkler. Korea was a far off place but the possibility of convicting a Communist and hanging him hit very close to home in the 1950's. Due to its superior script and powerful message, this drama has become a courtroom Classic. Excellent viewing and recommended to all. ****


Love the characters and the story line. Very funny with plenty of action. Thomas Ian Griffith and Tia Carrer give great performances. I enjoyed the dynamic and comical interaction of Griffith and Career. Donald Southerland plays a very likable, and surprisingly sympathetic, burnt out hit man. All three actors are among my favorites and having them in this movie made for a special treat. A nice addition to my extensive DVD collection. I highly recommend this movie. If you like... Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Replacement Killers, L.A. Confidential, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Abyss and, The Whole Nine Yards... you will love this movie.


This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. All of you who regard this movie as absolute sh*t obviusly are not intelligent enough to grasp all of the subtle humor that this movie has to offer. It shows us that real life and "ficticious" action can produce a winning combination. Also, as a romantic comedy, it has one of the most clever ways for two people to find each other. Name me another movie where you can see all of that as well as Donald Sutherland singing a song like "They're Going to Find Your Anus On A Mountain On Mars."


The only thing serious about this movie is the humor. Well worth the rental price. I'll bet you watch it twice. It's obvious that Sutherland enjoyed his role.


The plot: A crime lord is uniting 3 different mafias in an entreprise to buy an island, that would then serve as money-laundering facility for organized crime. To thwart that, the FBI tries to bust one of the mafia lords. The thing goes wrong, and by some unlikely plot twists and turns, we are presented with another "cop buddies who don't like each other" movie... one being a female FBI agent, and the other a male ex-DEA agent.

So far, so stupid. But the strength of this movie does not lie in its story - a poor joke, at best. It is funny. (At least the synchronized German version is). The action is good, too, with a memorable scene involving a shot gun and a rocket launcher. But the focus is squarely on the humour. Not intelligent satire, not quite slapstick, but somewhere in between, you get a lot of funny jokes.

However, this film is the opposite of political correctness. Legal drug abuse is featured prominently, without criticism, and even displaying it as cool. That's the bit of the movie that seriously annoyed me, and renders it unsuitable for kids, in my opinion.

All in all, for a nice evening watching come acceptable action with some funny jokes, this movie is perfect. Just remember: In this genre, it is common to leave your brain at the door when you enter the cinema / TV room. Then you'll have a good time. 8/10


This film is one of the finest American B-movies of the 90s. If you're looking for a serious film, look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for some action, a lot of laughs, and a tongue in cheek variation on cops fighting gangsters, this is well worth watching. Everyone chews the scenery a bit, but that's really what the film is all about, and everyone is quite funny. Donald Sutherland and John Lithgow have great chemistry and need to do another film together.


I think Hollow Point is a funny film with some good moments I have never seen before in action movies. Well,both Tia Carrere and Thomas Ian Griffith aren't so good in acting, but Tia Carrere is nice and good looking girl, isn't it? But Donald Sutherland is superb in his role so-so mad gangster.


Hollow Point, though clumsy in places, manages to be an extremely endearing and amusing action movie.

The primary entertainment value here is humor - everyone turns in clever performances that provide the film with a great deal of energy.

Oh, by the way, advocates of gun safety will be horrified by the conduct of the characters in this movie...


Re: Pro Jury

Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.

One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.

"EASILY GIVE AWAY VIRGINITY"? WHAT A SHREWD REMARK ABOUT THIS FILM. TRULY.

One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.

YOU JUST AREN'T AT ALL ABLE TO SEE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THROUGH YOUR OWN EYES? THAT'S SAD.

One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.

AND ANOTHER "EXPERT" OPINION DRAWN FROM EXPERIENCE. DANDY.

One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.

NOW BE A GOOD SPORT AND TELL US AT WHICH INSTITUTION YOU GREW UP.

One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.

OF COURSE THERE'S PROBABLY AN EXPLANATION. GOOD JOB FIGURING THAT OUT! NOW I'LL BE GENEROUS AND WILL HELP YOU OUT OF YOUR MISERY: ALTHOUGH IT WAS TRANSLATED AS A GENERAL "FOURSOME", THE WORD "čETVORKA" HAS ANOTHER MEANING: IT'S A SPORTS TERM USED TO DESIGNATE A 4M OR 4W SETUP - A ROWING CREW CONSISTING OF 5 PERSONS: 4 ROWERS AND A COXSWAIN.

This movie did not ring true for me.

WE SHOULD ALL HEED TO YOUR COMPETENT AND PRAISEWORTHY OPINION. DUDE.


This is a masterpiece footage in B/W 35mm film. The film makes you see a strange way to begin the day at 7:35 am in a bar and how much things can happen there in 8 minutes.

The short amazingly, gets you in a complex story using very little elements, and step to step makes you realize that something isn't totally right. It expresses a lot, makes your adrenalin go high with subtle details, and is incredibly understandable by anyone, not just the cinema critics experts.

But I know how it sounds : European short, black and white and low budgeted. Don't let that scare you. Is really worth to see by anyone, not just experts in the genre.

Isn't really much more to tell, since the film just lasts 8 minutes (exactly), and I don't want to spoil it. But I just watched it online and I couldn't understand why no one spent a few minutes to post a comment about it.

Really worth watching it. 10/10.


More directors like Nacho Vigalondo need a greater outlet for their talents. 7:35 De la mañana is absolute genius. What Nacho is able to convey in 8 minutes takes some Hollywood directors hours of film to achieve. I watched this smiling, but feeling a little dirty and not in the sexual way. You sit and wonder how you should feel after watching this 8 min. nugget. I was entertained, but was disturbed at the same time. Not many people can do that in just 8 minutes. It starts off simple enough. A young women comes in for breakfast at her usual place. She sits down and someone starts singing. From there, the film takes you through so many different emotions all at once it is hard to describe. It is in black & white, but this helps with the feeling the film gives you.This film makes you want to know more about the characters, how they interacted previously and how the ending impacted their lives afterward. I guess it like the old saying,"Leave them wanting more", Nacho Vigalondo is able to do that. Watch this when you can. Show it to your friends and wonder how 8 minutes can be so much fun without taking off your clothes.


I was so glad I came across this short film. I'm always so disappointed that short films are hard to come across, so when I saw this and saw that it was nominated for the Live Action Short Film at the Academy Awards, I was so pleased that I actually had a film that I was rooting for.

The plot is pretty simple, the director, writer, and star Nacho Vigalondo tried coming up with a reason people would suddenly break out into a song and dance number like they do in movie musicals. The result is extremely entertaining and the song is actually really catchy.

It's a well made short film, well edited and the actors all do a great job. And the last shot of the film is perfect.

I highly recommend this film.


With a minimal budget, a running time of eight minutes and a great amount of imagination, Nacho Vigalondo has achieved one of the most moving shorts I've ever seen. The subtlety of the screenplay is really remarkable, since it doesn't give the ending away until the very last moment.

Don't let anybody tell you what the short is about, since you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more. Nacho Vigalondo is the discovery of the year for his one-man show: directing, writing and acting in this formidable short is the most remarkable effort I've seen in years. Also pay attention to the performance of Marta Belenguer, her reaction shots are incredible.

Overall rating: 8/10


If you're amused by straight-faced goings-on that are logical within a given illogical situation, you'll enjoy this whimsical 8-minute Spanish film.

A woman enters a small café. The scene looks ordinary, but the counterman, customers, and two musicians seem somehow oddly subdued.

Suddenly, the musicians play and one man begins to sing the title song , dancing across table tops with musical-comedy gestures. The customers, at first immobile, at intervals chime in (badly but gamely) with phrases from the song, read from slips of paper in their palms. On and off they jump up and dance (awkwardly but earnestly) in choreographed motions, like backup singers.

But why??? the woman wonders. The answer is revealed as the soloist's jacket opens and she sees what's strapped across his chest -- just before the explosive climax...

Even if you don't catch the song's (probably ironical) lyrics, the situation-perfect performances should give you a grin and a chuckle... I'd love to see it again!


This 2004 Oscar nominee is a very short b/w film in Spanish. A young woman goes into a café, gets a coffee, and notices a couple of musicians standing silently with their instruments. All the patrons are motionless, like mannequins. One guy, however, is quite jolly and breaks into a song about what goes on at 7:35 in the morning. There is one surprising moment after another until the end which is quite, well, surprising. The people, the place, everything looks quite ordinary. And like the musical piece "Bolero", the thing keeps building until the climax. With its structure, theme,movement and wit,it is an 8 minute masterpiece.


A woman, Mujar (Marta Belengur) enters a restaurant one morning at &:35 unaware that a terrorist has kidnapped the people in said restaurant & is making them act out a musical number in this strange yet fascinating short film, which I only saw by finding it on the DVD of the director/writer's equally fascinating "Timecrimes". It had a fairly catchy song & it somehow brought a smile to my face despite the somber overall plot to the short. I'm glad that I stumbled across it (wasn't aware it would be an extra when I rented the DVD) and wouldn't hesitate at all to recommend it to all of my friends.

My Grade: A-


Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee?


Splendid film that in just eight minutes displays an unusual genre mix: mystery, thriller, musical. Briefly, we are allowed to tell about the story: a girl comes into a European Cafeteria and then... Soft transit from nonsense mystery to narrative logic. In a no time, no place way Vigalondo managed a delight in B/W by means of imagination and despite (thanks to) the tightest of budgets.

Because of the unity of time-space the film reaches the intensity of a short poem (almost a haiku). Spain, land of quick poetry in B/W (¿remember the early Buñuel?).

A must see for reassuring our belief in young cinema outside the States.


The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.

Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends.


I watched the movie while recovering from major surgery. While I knew it was only a "B" film, a space western, I loved it. It may have lacked the flash of high dollar productions it non-the-less held my imagination and provided great escapism. Sadly our society has so much available, discounting small attempts is too easy. In the same way that I can enjoy a even a grade school performance of Shakespeare, I can appreciate many levels of achievement for the art sake. I am a cop and found affinity with the retired LAPD. Dreams like his haunt me that I will be unable in the moment of crisis be able to respond to save another's life (or my own). while it was a romantic ending where Farnsworth did take out the bad guy (predictable) I needed a little happy romance where good can triumph. My world is really too cynical.


This movie is really not all that bad. But then again, this movie genre is right down my alley. Sure, the sets are cheap, but they really did decent with what they had.

If you like cheap, futuristic, post-apocalyptic B movies, then you'll love this one!! I sure did!


It was clear right from the beginning that 9/11 would inspire about as many films as World War II and Vietnam combined; however, there is certainly a big danger that most of these films to come are about as good (or rather: bad) as Pearl Harbor. It is a great luck that the first international release about 9/11 is not a cheesy love story starring a bunch of pretty faces, but a collective work of 11 directors from the entire world.

I'm not intending to say that all 11 episodes are great (Youssef Chahine's, for example, has a needless prologue with too many cuts and Shohei Imamura's has a really bizarre ending) or that the segments are in the right order (Imamura's, being the only one not referring directly to the Twin Towers, should open the film, not end it, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's should be the last one instead, as it's the most impressive one). But it is an impressing effort and an interesting portrayal of the way other parts of the world react to the collapse of the twin towers.

Consider Samira Makhmalbaf's opening segment, in which an Afghan teachers tries to explain to her pupils what happened in New York and unsuccessfully suggests a one-minute silence. Or Idrissa Ouedraogo's part (which features a bin Laden-double so much resembling the real one that you'll be shocked when you see him, I promise), in which 5 boys muse about good things that can be done with the reward put out on Laden.

There's a surprisingly good (and extremely angry) segment by Ken Loach about a man from Chile talking about what he calls "our Tuesday September 11" - that September 11 in 1973 when their elected president Allende was killed and Pinochet installed his dictatorship - with the generous help from Henry Kissinger and the CIA. This could have become a terrible effort in Anti-Americanism, but it did become a sad tale and shares my recognition for the best segment with Inarritu's (mainly sound impressions and phone calls from the hijacked planes to a black screen, sometimes a few pictures of people falling down the WTC and finally a collapsing tower, ending with the screen brightening up and one question appearing) and Amos Gitai's about a hysterical reporter trying desperatly to get on air after a car bomb exploded in Tel Aviv (hard to recognize, but this one is a masterpiece of choreography).

All these different segments (I haven't mentioned yet Claude Lelouch's about a deaf girl, Danis Tanovic's about a demonstration of the Women of Srebrenica, Mira Nair's - strange, but it takes an Indian director to make the part that is probably most appealing to Western tastes - about a Muslim family whose son is under a terrible suspicion after 9/11 and Sean Penn's with Ernest Borgnine (yes, Ernest Borgnine) as a widower leading the most depressive life one can imagine) add up to a unique film not easy to watch and hard to forget. I am sure this film will be a classic known to everyone thirty years from now. I hope it will be remembered for starting a long tradition of world cinema movies. But, alas, it's far more probable it will be remembered as a one-film-only effort. And as the one of the few 9/11 movies made by then that don't reduce this terrible event to a love story with a happy end just to please the audience.


French production in which leading film directors from 11 countries were invited to create 11-minute short films conveying their reflections on the events of September 11.

The film segments vary widely in content and quality. Two allude to U.S. complicity in terrorist acts (in Chile against Allende, who died on September 11, 1973, depicted in the segment by British director Ken Loach; and in Palestine by U.S.-backed Israelis, shown in the segment from Egyptian director Youssef Chahine). Two more recall other destructive acts (a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, shot by Israeli director Amos Gitan; the Japanese "holy war" against the west in WW II, by Shohei Imamura).

Ironies abound in several stories. Shadows that darken the New York City apartment of a grieving old man suddenly disappear as the World Trade towers telescope to the ground in Sean Penn's piece, bringing the man momentary joy. But in this bright light he can finally see that his wife is really gone. In Mira Nair's film, based on a real incident, a missing young man, also in New York City, the son of a Pakistani family, is first presumed to be a fugitive terrorist, but later he proves to a hero who sacrificed himself trying to save others in the towers.

There are poignant moments dotted throughout. Loach has his exiled Chilean man quote St. Augustine, to the effect that hope is built of anger and courage: anger at the way things are, courage to change them. Imamura tells us that there is no such thing as a holy war. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher with her very young Afghan schoolchildren, exiled in Iran, trying to tell them about the events that have just transpired in New York. But they are understandably more impressed with a major event in their refugee camp, where two men have fallen into a deep well, one killed, the other sustaining a broken leg. This is comprehensible tragedy on a grand scale for the 6 year olds.

Idrissa Ouedraogo, from Burkina Faso, creates a drama in which the son of an ailing woman spots Osama bin Laden in their village and gathers his buddies to help capture the fugitive terrorist, in order to get the $25 million U. S. reward. He tells his friends not to let any of the adults know their plans, for the older folks would merely waste the money on cars and cigarettes, while he plans to help his mother and others who are sick and destitute.

It is Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (maker of "Amores Perros") who provides by far the most powerful and chilling segment, one that, for the most part, shows only a darkened screen with audio tape loops of chanting and voices and occasional thudding sounds. Brief visual flashes gradually permit us to see bodies falling from the high floors of the towers, and it dawns on us that the thuds are these bodies hitting the ground. The sequence ends with elegiac orchestral music and a still shot, bearing a phrase first shown only in Arabic, then with a translation added: "Does God's light guide us or blind us?" (In various languages with English subtitles) Grade: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 10/31/04). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.


Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from.


This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.

Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.

The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.

Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.

The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.

The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.

The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.

My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "11 de Setembro" ("September 11")


As you may know, the subject here was to ask eleven directors from all over the world to make each a short movie of 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. We have here : - Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) : what afghan refugee kids can understand to the towers collapsing ? Well, nothing. A great lesson. - Claude Lelouch (France) : a weak plot with a great cinematography... Just imagine a deaf woman living by the WTC who sees without understanding it that her dog barks... Well just see it. - Youssef Chahine (Egypt) : the greatest oriental movie maker has compassion... For everyone : for an us soldier who died ten years ago, for the people in the Wtc but also for a palestinian suicide-terrorist. Maybe the less tender movie towards the us. - Danis Tanovic (bosnia hrzgovia) : good images, makes us travel, for sure... Not a very good plot. Idrissa Oudraogo (Burkina Faso) : from one of the poorest country in the world, a tender and funny story about five boys who want to capture Osama Bin Laden... And they could have done it but nobody believes them when they tell they know where he is. Ken Loach (uk) : September 11, 1973, The Chile entered in a twenty-years long bloody dictature. Thousands of death, tortures : all that was offered to Chile by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, and knowing this changes very much your point of view ! I guess that is because of that particular short that no american movie distribution company accepted to release the movie in us theaters ! Loach forgot to point that 1973 is also the year when the WTC was built ! - Alejandro Gonzalez inarritu (Mexico) : impressing images that we all know too well, and a lot of black screens. I didn't get this one very much, it is more an artist video (to show in an exhibition) than a movie. - Amos Gitaï (Israël) : an absurd ballet of policemen, journalists, etc., around a burning car in Jerusalem. Very well done. - Mira Nair (India) : about the anti-islamic feeling that followed september the 11th. Very good actualy. - Sean Penn (us) : a funny little story that reminds us a fact usualy forgotten, the WTC did have a huge shadow, and some places now have a daylight they never had. - Shohei Imamura (Japan) : a different one. Here there is not even one word about the WTC, and the action takes place at the end of WWII. It has only one message : no war is holy. This short movie gives very deep feelings, but the director aparently would have done better with more than 11 minutes. --- so --- A great movie, a great attempt to take the world's temperature. I love it.


Though the pieces are uneven this collection of 11 short films is truly a moving and human experience. There were some who, in the wake of the emotion on the anniversary of the bombings, took this to be anti-American. I don't think thats the case, even though some parts might be taken that way if you don't look behind the obvious. Ultimately the film is nothing except an attempt by people to express their confusion, sympathy and feelings about what happened. These are stories of people who's worlds have been shaken up by what happened on a Tuesday in September.

As I said this film will move you, probably to tears. Its not always easy to watch, for example the film from Mexico is little more than a black screen with sound, but its effect is such as to lay even the strongest of people low. If you can be strong you really should see this film. It will comfort you and enlighten you and affect you...


I saw this series when it world premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. I liked the idea behind the film, where two men got together and told a director from each country to direct a movie about 911. These directors never met before until the project was complete, and they saw how it looked all together. WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the pieces were very powerful, and some were controversial. If you are an American, then you may not like this as some of the pieces may be found anti-american. However, i know a few Americans who enjoyed these series. The piece that i found the best was the one from India. It was about how a muslim family, living in the States, had 2 sons, and one of them was missing. The Americans gave them the cold shoulder and automatically assumed that he was linked with the terrorist bombing. It captures the mom's despair and humiliation of these accusations so well, that it brought tears to my eyes. In the end we see that her son had died while trying to save the many victims from the crash of the towers. This was a true story, and that was what made it so real. There were a lot of emotional and powerful pieces, and the African piece was one of the best. It was humourous yet just as powerful as the others. A must see for everyone, and hopefully America will unban this, and let it play in their country.


Eleven different Film Makers from different parts of the world are assembled in this film to present their views and ideas about the WTC attack. This is one of the best effort you will see in any Film. Films like this are rarely made and appreciated. This film tries to touch every possible core of WTC. Here are some of the most important stories from the film that makes this film so unique.

There is the story from Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) where somewhere in Iran people are preparing for the attacks from America. There a teacher is trying to educate her students by informing them about Innocent People being killed in WTC massacre. Then comes a story from Youssef Chahine (Egypt) where a Film Maker comes across face-to-face conversation with a Dead Soldier in the WTC attack and a Dead Hard Core Terrorist who was involved in WTC attack. Then we see a story from Idrissa Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) where a group of Five Innocent children's sees Osama Bin Laden and plans to kidnap him and win the reward money from America. Then we see the story from Alejandro Gozalez Inarritu (Mexico) where you see a Black Screen and slowly you see the real footage of WTC buildings coming down. And the people who are stuck in the building are jumping out of it to save their lives. The other most important story is from Mira Nair (India) where a mother is struggling to get respect for her Dead Son whose name is falsely trapped in WTC massacre! After September 11 attack, Our heart beat automatically starts pumping if we hear two names anywhere in the world.. First is World Trade Centre and the second is Osama! This film totally changes our perception and makes a strong point by claiming something more to it.

I will definitely recommend this movie to everyone who loves to have such kinds of Home DVD Collection. Definitely worth every penny you spend. But please don't expect anything more apart from Films in this DVD. There is of course Filmographies of the Film Makers but No Extra Features.


I first saw this film when it aired on the now defunct Trio Channel a few years ago, and recently watched it again--sans commercials--on Sundance. I was impressed the first time, and found it even more engaging on second viewing. Yes, some of the segments are far from perfect--Amos Gitai's hysterical commentary stands out like a sore thumb--but taken collectively, 11 09 01 is a total success. Best of show: Shohei Imamura's amazing final segment, which contemporary critics such as the thick-witted Mick LaSalle somehow misinterpreted as an attack on 'the terrorists', but now stands revealed as a masterful anti-war polemic; Samira Makhmalbaf's opening piece that manages to blend deep empathy for the victims of 9/11 with a prescient concern for the children of Afghanistan; and Idrissa Ouedraogo's amusing children's crusade for Osama Bin Laden--a hunt almost as serious and successful an undertaking as the one for the REAL Osama. Youssef Chahine's segment is a noble if failed experiment which at least has the guts to remind the audience that Bin Laden and al'Qaeda are basically creations of American foreign policy and the CIA, and though Sean Penn's character study seems out of place, it's still an effectively bittersweet piece of film-making. All in all, essential viewing, and a darn sight better than Oliver Stone's reactionary World Trade Center.


This document truly opened my eyes to what people outside of the United States thought about the September 11th attacks. This film was expertly put together and presents this disaster as more than an attack on U.S. soil. The aftermath of this disaster is previewed from many different countries and perspectives. I believe that this film should be more widely distributed for this point. It also helps in the the healing process to finally see something other than news reports on the terrorist attacks. And some of the pieces are actually funny, but not abusively so. This film came highly recommended to me, and I pass on the same feeling.


First of all I've got to give it to the people that got this thing together. 9/11 is such a sensitive issue that making a movie that dares to be controversial about it takes a great deal of guts. It's a shame, although not surprising, that the movie was banned in the US.

That being said I think that the movie is superb with a couple of weak moments. The movie starts up with the Iranian segment which turns out to be somewhat reminiscent of Majid Majidi's work (the absolutely beautiful "heaven's children" and "the color of paradise"). Much like those 2 films the clip shows what happened through the innocent eyes of a class of Afgan refugees in Iran. Absolutely beautiful clip. Same goes for Sean Penn's clip which is superb as well. But just as some of the clips are beutiful others are absolutely brutal. Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu does the mexican clip and just like his gut-wrenching "Amores perros" he does it as brutal as he can. Most of the clip is a black screen with several sounds playing in the background. Those sounds are of the reporters and their shock as the second plane crashes, those who called home from the burning towers and left messages for their families, those who were angry....and he combines this with flashes of people jumping from the towers. A very hard clip to watch and one that you won't forget.

Some clips could turn out to be very hard to watch for Americans as some of the clips could be interpreted as "you're not the only ones that are suffering". In particular the Egyptian and British clips that not only say that but turn the tables and say how much suffering the US has caused to other people.

I will also make a special mention to the clips from Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, India and Japan (although this last one may seem terribly out of place it actually isn't).

However, not all the clips are great and I make a special mention on the clip from Israel which, in my opinion, is extremely weak. While the idea was good (a reporter is at the scene of a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv but his story gets bumped because of what happened in New York is something that a lot of us who live in countries at war can relate to) the realization is terrible. The clip ends up as just some entertainment reporter trying to get some air-time at all costs, a guy saying he's a witness and hoping that he can go on TV, and soldiers and paramedics shouting just "because". The clip fails to capture any of the drama of such a situation.

If you happen to have the chance to see it then you should, that is, unless you're a conservative in which case you'd better stay out as you might get offended. But if you're not then you might learn how many of us outside the US lived through 9/11.


This is a collection of documentaries that last 11 minutes 9 seconds and 1 frame from artists all over the world. The documentaries are varied and deal with all sorts of concepts, the only thing being shared is 9/11 as a theme (very minor in some cases). Some of the segements are weak while others are very strong; some are political, some are not; some are solely about 9/11, some simply use 9/11 as a theme to touch on human feelings, emotions and tragedies that are universal; some are mainstream while others are abstract and artistic). This film has not been censored in any fashion by anyone so the thoughts that you see are very raw and powerful.

This is a very controversial film, especially for conservative Americans. I think two segments might really tick off the right wingers (one from Egypt where a dead American soldier and a dead Palestinian bomber come back as spirits; another from UK which recounts the US-backed overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973, which resulted in 50,000 deaths and horrible atrocities). The segment from Mexico was the most powerful, recounting the fall of the towers and the resulting death in vivid fashion (you have to see it to believe it).

Even though the final product is uneven, with some segments being almost "pointless", I still recommend this. It's very difficult to rank this film because the segments vary all over the place (some weak, some very powerful; ). I'm giving this a rating of 9 out of 10 simply because some segments were excellent and covered issues that usually get censored (Mexico segment, UK segment, Japan segment, Egypt segment).


i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.

there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are "fair targets" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.

pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window.


A patchwork about 911. The 11 stories from 11 directors from 11 countries are sometimes humoristic, sometimes boring (the first one, for example), sometimes used to say to Americans "we have had more deaths than you, and you supported the murderers", sometimes really weird (but highly symbolic and interesting). I really loved the Claude Lelouch (personal live of a couple in New-York, showing that our day-to-day "problems" are unimportant), Shoei Imamura (bizarre, strongly anti-wars in general), and Idrissa Ouedraogo (funny, typical African optimism despite terrible day to day misery), and Youssef Chahine (an Egyptian intellectual, pro-peace, having moral difficulties to accept the U.S. policy towards Arab countries) I am really pleased to see that many Americans liked this movie. It shows that we (or they ? I am still Belgian, but living in Texas for 12 years) are still interested by other cultures, and able to question past and present actions of our government, like we should in a democracy.


Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.

Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it.


I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.

From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.

The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.

The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.

The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.

The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.

The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.

The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.

The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.

There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.

10/10


This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today  he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.


This is the greatest film I saw in 2002, whereas I'm used to mainstream movies. It is rich and makes a beautiful artistic act from these 11 short films. From the technical info (the chosen directors), I feared it would have an anti-American basis, but ... it's a kind of (11 times) personal tribute.

The weakest point comes from Y. Chahine : he does not manage to "swallow his pride" and considers this event as a well-merited punishment ... It is really the weakest part of the movie, but this testifies of a real freedom of speech for the whole piece. The weirdest comes from the Mexican nearly conceptual-art film ... I am still not sure what A. Gonzalez Inarritu meant. The 9 others are perfect (K. Loach, S. Penn, S. Makhmalbaf, ...) or nearly perfect (C. Lelouch) and made me either smile, or cry or even left me stunned. I still don't know if S. Imamura's fable is really related or not to the September 11th catastrophe, but it is so pretty that its finale place deeply 'makes it'.


First of all, I don't understand why some people find this movie so anti-american. Sure, there are moments when the U.S. are accused directly, like at the segments of Youssef Chahine, Ken Loach and, to a certain extent, Mira Nair. But come on, they aren't naive accusations; instead, they are based on real and documented facts, and all the documents that the CIA released about Chile confirms this, for example.

But returning to the film itself, what I enjoyed most on it is the variety of moods we find in it. We find children being educated for the respect of the all the people who died in the event; we find a unhappy couple that will be changed by the tragedy of that day; we find common people that have their feelings downgraded on the shadow of the events of September 11 and react differently to this, with dignity or frustration; we even find someone in the movie for who the fall of the towers grounds for a moment of real happiness.

All these visions and others - as powerful as these or even more - make a consistent blend and help the spectator to have a glimpse about how different people spread across the world reacted to the events of September 11th. Thus, what we see is a panorama that is much more complex than whites and blacks, and this may make some people infuriated; but this is the world where we live, and in it there is no place for manicheistic ideologies, regardless of what presidents or priests may say us.

Finally, I think it's a shame that there isn't even a release date for this movie in the United States of America. It's a shame because most of the american people is asking why this catastrophe happened, and this movie could give some clues to them. This film puts very clearly - differently of what some people of this forum think - that everything we do today will determine our future, and that the errors of the past will affect how we live today.


the movie is great, like every other international project that includes strong impressions. three of them (israel, bosnia and egypt) should've been cut out. especially bosnian clip, which is pathetic beyond all reason, and doesn't contain a single original thought or element on it's own. everything else is really great, unrecognizable for most of americans, known for the rest of the world. unfortunately, clips speak about misery of the people all over the world. and, as i see it, there are so many of those who won't give a damn about it...

top 5: 1. loach 2. penn 3. inarritu 4. lalouche 5. imamura


First than anything, I'm not going to praise Iñarritu's short film, even I'm Mexican and proud of his success in mainstream Hollywood.

In another hand, I see most of the reviews focuses on their favorite (and not so) short films; but we are forgetting that there is a subtle bottom line that circles the whole compilation, and maybe it will not be so pleasant for American people. (Even if that was not the main purpose of the producers)

What i'm talking about is that most of the short films does not show the suffering that WASP people went through because the terrorist attack on September 11th, but the suffering of the Other people.

Do you need proofs about what i'm saying? Look, in the Bosnia short film, the message is: "You cry because of the people who died in the Towers, but we (The Others = East Europeans) are crying long ago for the crimes committed against our women and nobody pay attention to us like the whole world has done to you".

Even though the Burkina Fasso story is more in comedy, there is a the same thought: "You are angry because Osama Bin Laden punched you in an evil way, but we (The Others = Africans) should be more angry, because our people is dying of hunger, poverty and AIDS long time ago, and nobody pay attention to us like the whole world has done to you".

Look now at the Sean Penn short: The fall of the Twin Towers makes happy to a lonely (and alienated) man. So the message is that the Power and the Greed (symbolized by the Towers) must fall for letting the people see the sun rise and the flowers blossom? It is remarkable that this terrible bottom line has been proposed by an American. There is so much irony in this short film that it is close to be subversive.

Well, the Ken Loach (very know because his anti-capitalism ideology) is much more clearly and shameless in going straight to the point: "You are angry because your country has been attacked by evil forces, but we (The Others = Latin Americans) suffered at a similar date something worst, and nobody remembers our grief as the whole world has done to you".

It is like if the creative of this project wanted to say to Americans: "You see now, America? You are not the only that have become victim of the world violence, you are not alone in your pain and by the way, we (the Others = the Non Americans) have been suffering a lot more than you from long time ago; so, we are in solidarity with you in your pain... and by the way, we are sorry because you have had some taste of your own medicine" Only the Mexican and the French short films showed some compassion and sympathy for American people; the others are like a slap on the face for the American State, that is not equal to American People.


A great idea: 11 stories about 11 September. 11 directors from different countries with different results. Ken Loach talking about an immigrant (as usual) is just brilliant (as usual). The Frenchman does a very good job also, while the Burkina Faso film was a nice surprise. However, the Israel film was a bit boring, and the Mexican guy, well, he should quit directing and work in a Mexican restaurant. 8/10


Everything is relative seems to be the main theme from the outset by this set of eleven pieces by eleven directors. That is to say that what might be number one priority for people like Bush, Blair and Company, may not be so for a great many other people, ordinary people. From the opening scene in which an Iranian teacher is trying to impress on her little students the most important thing that has happened, with the result the children are not impressed, as the death of a neighbour and things like that evidently affect them much more closely than anything which may have happened in New York, USA, wherever that is, this series of almost documentary styled pieces establishes that not all things are as equal unto all men as some world leaders would try to prophess.

Whereas, obviously, the attack on the WTC was a dastardly event by any yardstick, one does get the impression that both politicians and TV cameramen tend to blow up things out of all proportion - wonderfully manifested in one of these pieces. Would the same reaction at international level have occurred if the attack had been made on Lagos, say, or Djakarta, say, or even on Rio de Janeiro, say? I rather think not. News seems to suffer distortion depending on where things happen: much more TV time is given to an earthquake in Italy, say, than one ten times more destructive in Outer Mongolia, say. Greater distances seem to decrease the magnitude of the disaster.

This series of eleven pieces helps to put things in better perspective - or, perhaps I should say, some of the pieces do, as each director with complete freedom has made up his own story, his own translated perspective, such that it is not possible to judge the whole merits, but individually for each eleven-minute segment.

In no way should one deduce that this is an anti-American film: that would be a too simple reading of the diverse messages manifested through the segments. However, it is not pro-American either. The eleven segments adopt varied attitudes and the common link - if there is one - is that the disaster of the WTC attack has to be seen in perspective from different view-points. Only then will such people as George Bush even begin to comprehend the planet he is living on.

Clearly stated in one segment is a belief of mine I have been harbouring for two years now: America has not learnt the lesson. And the lesson is that the USA has to share this planet with the rest of humanity - not dominate it by ruthless economical persuasion or just plain force. Instead of learning that the USA cannot continue just stamping all over everybody and everywhere, its political leaders, aided and abetted by Blair (and even Aznar) have become even more arrogant and even more intolerant, which is not doing any good to anyone in Afghanistan or Irak at present, let alone much elsewhere. The White House mentality is totally rejectable: the US and UK invaded Irak and caused all the chaos, and so should clear up the mess they caused - not insist on the UN and other nations to delve in with a helping hand and thus find an easy way out of the turmoil.

Radical stances adopted by the US (or even Israel) is only going to be met by radical stances from Islamic people, who for years have been gearing up fanatical fundamentalism, if only to cover up their own macho uselessness, i.e., stoning women to death or simply shrouding them from the tops of their heads to the dusty ground.

The world is in a terrible mess, fueled by the greed of a few rich countries who seem bent on not seeing or understanding anything from more multilateral perspectives. This film in eleven separate pieces accurately portrays this dismal and dumb posture.


The idea's which are shown in this film are with a lot of care and detail and depict what a lot of people from around the world think of the American Policies, not neccessarily the United States itself. It shows what most of the people around the world think about America and what the Americans dont know about themselves. 11 directors showing 11 amazing minutes each of something which will give US viewers a lot to think about when they go home after watching the movie.


Chang Cheh's "Shaolin Temple" might very well be the highwater mark of the Shaw Brothers martial arts film cycle. This rousing kung fu epic boasts an amazing cast - a veritable who's who of the Shaw stable. Though the plot is fairly standard and the fight choreography is superb as usual, it is Cheh's handling of the subject matter that makes this film remarkable and enjoyable. The sense of reverence displayed for the history and traditions of the Shaolin Temple is palpable in every frame. Not unlike William Keighley's paean to the fabled Fighting 69th in that same self titled film or John Ford's salute to West Point in "The Long Gray Line," Cheh's "Shaolin Temple" is a lovingly crafted ode in that same style.

The cultural correlation I am tempted to make, is to compare the Shaolin Temple to the Alamo. Watching this film will give the same admiring and nostalgic feelings that you experienced many years ago in grade school history when you learned of the courage and sacrifice of those doomed heroes of the Alamo. At the end of the film, you too might be tempted to call out, Remember the Shaolin Temple!


The Only Kung Fu Epic worth watching. The best training ever. The main character spending a hundred day's on his knees outside the shaolin temple show how desperate he is to learn kung fu to fight the manchu dogs who have taken over china.


An entertaining kung fu film, with acting, plot and fight scenes a cut above the average chop socky. All of the cast are likeable characters and skilled martial artists. Alexander Fu-Sheng's proto-Jackie Chan comedy antics are fun to watch, and his austere companion shows particularly impressive skills. For me, the film's only glaring flaw is the size of the cast -- at times, things get a little confused as the film chops and changes between various subplots, and some of the characters are not as fully fleshed-out as one might wish.

But a kung fu film should be judged first and foremost on the quality of the action, and Shaolin Temple definitely delivers on that count. The film climaxes with a high-bodycount battle that allows each character to show off his skills against a worthy opponent.

Overall, Shaolin Temple is an enjoyable low-budget kung fu movie. Not up to the quality of a good Jet Li film, but definitely worth a look for fans of the genre. My rating: 8/10.

Misc notes: The 1987 Warner Home Video release I saw was (predictably) poorly dubbed, and lacked full cast & crew credits.


This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. If you know the Real World and the people from those shows, this movie will be top notch, if you have never seen the real world you will still think it is an extremely funny movie but you won't get some of the inside jokes about the actors and the tv show.


Hilarious film. I saw this film at the 2002 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival, and laughed from start to finish. The acting was subtle but very funny. I'm not entirely certain about "The Real World" influence, we don't get that here, but the film holds up without the understanding of that show. Heather B steals every scene she appears in, most notably when acting with her seldom talkative red co-star. Highly recommended. I'd love to see this released on Video/DVD some time in the future.


If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.

Great Camp!!!


Well, I am delighted to hear a rumor that this may finally be issued on DVD. When that will happen, I don't know, but I will grab it when it's released.

In my humble opinion, this is Errol Flynn's most entertaining film, especially when "Gentleman Jim" Corbett's ring career begins in the film. Then it goes from a good film to a great one.

Few people could play arrogant men and still come off as a likable good guy as well as Flynn could and this film is a perfect example of that. Reportedly, this was Flynn's favorite role and I believe that. You can just sense how much fun he was having here. Ward Bond also looks like he was really enjoying his role playing the famous John L. Sullivan. Bond, too, was never better.

There is just the right amount of action boxing scenes in here and they are pretty well done, too. Corbett's family is fun to watch, too, as they carry on in the stands during Jim's matches. Out of the arena, Corbett's family's constant arguments and yelling can get a little too loud and annoying but they set the stage for a fitting conclusion.

And speaking of the conclusion, Sullivan's speech to Corbett after the big fight is very touching and the highlight of the film. Some mean-spirited critics (Variety, for example) didn't like that ending nor the fact that much of the film is fictionalized but - duh - most films are fictionalized, like it or not. And, in this case, it made for a nice story and nice ending. (In real life, Corbett was a very soft-spoken true gentleman, not anything like Flynn's portrayal, but Flynn still make him a good guy.)

This is one of the more entertaining classic films I have ever watched and I eagerly wait for the DVD.


This film enhanced my opinion of Errol Flynn. While Flynn is of course best known for his savoir-faire and sprezzatura (to throw in a couple of high-falutin' European terms!), this film gives him an opportunity to stretch (albeit only slightly) as an actor, as he plays an unabashed social climber with a big ego and a sense of nerve to match. The supporting cast is excellent; everyone seems well-chosen for their roles.

The story moves briskly and, while not particularly profound (it misses, perhaps intentionally, the opportunity to render social commentary on the massively uneven distribution of income during that time), it certainly entertains and satisfies. From what I know of Jim Corbett, the story is also reasonably faithful to history. I also really liked the great depictions of 1880s San Francisco. All in all, there's little not to like about this film...very well worth the time to watch it.


James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" was the starting point of this lively and well-remembered fictionalized biography. The author was heavyweight champion of the world, succeeding John L. Sullivan, before the turn of the century. The events of the narrative depict Corbett as a brash but likable and intelligent young man whose conquest of the world of boxing and social prejudice in his time, when he was considered merely the son of Irish immigrants, a lowly bank teller and a nobody surprised everyone. It took him several hours of exciting and often amusing screen-time to prove his compeers were wrong. He is an bank teller when the film opens, but he somehow wangles an invitation to a sporting club for the well-to-do. He falls in love with a beautiful but snobbish girl, with whom he always seems to be quarreling, and he lives at home with a brawling clan of Corbetts who seem to fight with one another as often as with others. When he defeats the club's best and a professional fighter borough in to embarrass him, he finally decides to become famous by fighting. he sets out on the road with his friend, who acts as manager and trainer, and despite a few near setbacks, he wins all his bouts and attracts attention. Coming home to pursue his girl again, he contrives to annoy the Boston Strongboy, mighty John L. Sullivan, who enters bars and claims he can "lick any man in the world". Few believe he can win a bout against Sullivan, but Corbett, dubbed "Gentleman Jim" for his gracious manners and patrician appearance surprises everyone by moving, dancing out of range, and negating the furious Sullivan's power. The film's finest scene perhaps comes when a beaten Sullivan comes to congratulate Corbett. The new champion rises to the moment, tells Sullivan a few years before it might have been different, and shows him nothing but admiration and respect. He gets his girl as a result of his two performances, but by the end of the film, as they visit his s parents, his manager is able to tell the world, "The Corbetts are at it again". The films is attractive and has a consistent style without being flashy. The script was written by veteran Horace McCoy and Vincent Lawrence from the Corbett novel. Sidney Hickox did the cinematography, with period set decorations by Clarence Steensen and art direction by Ted Smith. Heinz Roemheld did the music and Milo Anderson the gowns. The film was ably directed by action-film specialist Raoul Walsh. Flynn also liked working with Walsh but did not care for the other director he worked for most often, Michael Curtiz. Among the cast,were Ward Bond as John L. Sullivan, in one of his best performances lovely Alexis Smith a bit spotty but intelligent as the girl Corbett loves and a very able Errol Flynn as Corbett, a young man he seemed to relish playing--he later said it was his favorite role from the period...Jack Carson was his manager, Alan Hale his charismatic father, John Loder a rich foe, with William Frawley, Minor Watson, Madeleine LeBeau, Rhys Williams, Arthur Shields, Dorothy Vaughn and Mike Mazurki along for the enjoyable proceedings. It is hard to say enough about the logic and light-hearted fun this movie's makers have generated; it is one of the best-liked of all sports biography films, and by my standards one of the most enjoyable as well.


Some saying about 'The Play is the Most Important Thing', or something like that, is attributed to that old Bard of Avon, himself, William Shakewspeare. if it wasn't old Will, it may well have been our own, super-veteran film Director, Mr. Raoul Walsh. There are a large number of his films that would support this hypothesis. None are more appropriate than GENTLEMAN JIM(Warner Brothers, 1942).

The Film also racks up another award, being named as Errol Flynn's favourite of his own starring vehicles. It clearly gives on screen evidence that would easily lead viewers sitting in the darkened theatre, or viewing it on their home TV or DVD, to conclude same.

To be sure, the story is a semi-serious Biopic, which takes a portion of factual material and blends it with a liberal dose of the old imagination to bring us a very satisfying, albeit somewhat fictionalized(what Biopic isn't?)occurrences.

The casting is excellent, as it makes good use of the natural athleticism of our lead, Mr. Errol Flynn. Though not a Swashbuckler, a Western or a War Picture, this GENTLEMAN JIM is perhaps the starring role that was the best fit for the rugged Australian.

Errol was a member of the Australian Olympic Boxing Team in either 1928 or 1932. His training and skills in the 'sweet science'are clearly in evidence throughout the film and especially in the "Big Fight" for the World's Heavyweight Boxing Championship with the great John L.Sullivan,Himself.(played in expert fashion by Ward Bond) The cast reads like a duty roster of Warner Brothers' resident supporting players. It features Alan Hale as Jim Corbet's father, a Livery Wagon operator*. His two brothers are Harry and George (Pat Flaherty and James Flavin), the two 'blue collar' men of the family, their occupations being stated as being 'Longshormen'.

The great Jack Carson does his usual masterful serio-comic performance in support as Jim Corbett's friend and fellow bank teller. The rest of those we can both recognize and remember are:John Loder, William Frawley,Madeleine LeBeau, Minor Watson, Rhys Williams,Arthur Shields,Dorothy Vaughn to name but a few.

Director Walsh also used a number of Pro Wrestlers in roles of various Boxers. Hence we have Ed "Strangler" Lewis and an unknown Grappler* are featured as the 2 waterfront pugs in the opening scenes. Others were Sammy Stein, Mike Mazurki(ever hear of him?)and "Wee Willie" Davis. These guys had a powerful,yet unpolished look about them that the old Pier 9 brawlers would have possessed.

We haven't forgotten Leading Lady, Alexis Smith. She is powerful in her characterization of an "independent" woman, yet maintains enough true ability as a comic player in many of the scenes. She displays quite a range in her part as poor little rich girl, Victoria Lodge.

With all these ingredients at hand, the trick is how to mix the elements in proper proportions to give it the 'just right' blend. Well, Director Walsh does so with a reckless abandon. Because he is looking for, above all, a great film. His treatment shows all of the skills he had honed to a fine tuning starting with his days as a player with D.W. Griffith. Mr. Walsh seems to have a special fondness for that period, the 1890's.*** Mr. Walsh's direction moves through the script at a fairly fast clip, breaking up the exposition scenes with a humorous punch-line, "the Corbetts are at it again!" Hence, he is able to maintain a light, even humorous touch to a story which could become too drab and serious.

Furthermore, in an almost unnoticed element, Brother Walsh gives us an authentic look of a San Francisco of the 1890's. And as a further example of his fondness for that period, he creates wide, dynamic images of the historic Prize Fights. There is a vibrant, joyful mood conveyed in those Boxing scenes. As a crowning glory to this great, perhaps underrated film, Director Walsh gave the image a look as if it were an illustration from The Police Gazette, which covered such events in those "Old Days".

But there's just one thing to remember before viewing. If it is for the first time, or if your seeing it once more:

"THE CORBETS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!"

* In my humble opinion as a historian of both Film and Pro Wrestling, it looks like Tor Johnson, who years later was a favourite of Director Ed Wood's.

** A 'Livery' is a somewhat archaic term for a vehicle for hire for local city transportation.

*** It's true. Mr. Raoul Walsh was a Griffith Veteran Player. He was the actor to portray John Wilkes Booth in THE BIRTH OF A NATION(1915).

**** Being born in 1887, Raoul Walsh was old enough to have his own memories of the 1890's and of the Sullivan-Corbett Championship Bout and what it meant to the Sporting Life in the America of those days.


Flynn, known mostly for his swashbuckling roles (and his bedroom antics!) takes a different tack with this film and it works beautifully. Playing real-life boxing champ Jim Corbett, Flynn turns on the charm full blast as he makes his way from a stifled San Francisco bank teller to a celebrated pugilist, all the while setting one eye on society deb Smith. He and best pal Carson attend an illegal bare-knuckle fight and are arrested along with scores of other men (and a dog!) including a prominent judge. The next day, he gets a chance, via Smith, to gain entrance to the judge's private club. He uses this opportunity to weasel his way into the good graces of its exclusive members and land a spot as the club's resident boxer. His unusually adept skill in the sport soon has him taking on all comers, up to and including the world champion John L. Sullivan (Bond.) Flynn is downright magical here. He is the epitome of charm, charisma and appeal in this role. He looks terrific (especially in a hangover scene with his hair mussed and wearing a white union suit) and does virtually all of his own stuntwork (impressively!) His line delivery is delicious and he is credible and sympathetic and at the same time duplicitous and rascally. Smith exudes class and taste from every pore and is a good match for Flynn. At this stage, he needed a female costar who could stand up to his advances and reputation (he was undergoing statutory rape charges at the time) and she does so admirably. She is repulsed by his freshness and cavalier attitude, yet can hardly help but fall under his enchanting spell. Bond is incredibly burly, brawny and towering, yet tender when the script calls for it. Amusing support is provided by a young and ebullient Carson. Frawley is his dependably cantankerous self as Flynn's manager. The rest of the cast is excellent as well including Flynn's rambunctious family and an assortment of stuffy Nob Hill types. The whole thing is beautifully appointed and securely directed. A few of the sets are amazingly presented. Some of Smith's gowns border on the garish, but she suits the upswept hairstyles very well. It's a terrific glimpse into the earliest days of championship boxing, but it's also so much more. Some of it (like the character traits shown by Flynn) is enhanced or exaggerated for entertainment purposes, but a lot of it is authentic (like the methods and costumes shown in the fight scenes.) One line is particularly memorable: "I believe you like me more than I like you, but it's entirely possible that I love you more than you love me." It's classic romantic dialogue (and there are more than a few zingers sprinkled throughout the script as well.)


Gentleman Jim not really a boxing film. It is a vehicle for Errol Flynn as Jim Corbett. But having said that, the boxing scenes are a real eye-opener to the modern viewer. There are no 12 round, points decisions here.

Errol Flynn plays the Irish bank clerk who gets a shot at the heavyweight world title. Flynn is well suited to the role of suave but unpredictable Corbett. His opponent John Sullivan is still better however, a bruiser of the old school played by Ward Bond.

The theme of the film is a man pushing for his big chance. Corbett leaves his mundane life behind and builds a new persona as Gentleman Jim. Jim is a chancer who can adapt to any social environment. He is a liar and an egotist. Sullivan the heavyweight boxing champion is portrayed as a simple brute but his honesty and sportsmanship gives a certain contrast to the main character.

There is action and excitement aplenty and a wonderful ending with the requisite redemption for all. And Errol Flynn gets the girl.