Saturday June 3, 6:30pm The Neptune

Monday June 5, 4:30pm The Neptune

Few celebrations of ethnic and cultural identity succeed as mightily as Carlos Saura's brilliant interpretation of Isaac Albeniz' masterpiece Iberia Suite. At the approach of its centennial, Saura drew together an unprecedented wealth of talent from the Spanish performing arts community to create this quintessential love song to their homeland. The twelve "impressions" of the suite are presented without narrative in stark surroundings, allowing the power of each performance to explode before Saura's camera. Creative use of large flats and mirrors, moved throughout the set, combined with screens, shadows, fire, rain and rear projection add glorious dramatic effects to the varied selections of song, dance and instrumental performance. Photographs of Albeniz reappear throughout the program, connecting the passion of the music to its great creator. Saura encompasses all Spaniards on his stage from the beautiful elegance of elderly flamenco dancers in traditional costume to children joyously dancing with their instructors.


The music of Albeniz pervades this film. Once and a while it is played with original instrumentation (e.g. piano, but never full orchestra), but often it is re-worked with various contemporary ensembles (e.g.guitar) and treatments (e.g. jazz piano). Only occasionally is the music the sole focus of the film: the vast majority of the time the music is set to various dances, often flamenco, but not always. I would guess that there are 1214 scenes, which are not united by a plot. Not all scenes will reach the heights for an individual viewer. In my case about half reached the pinnacle, though all the rest were in their own way very fine. Those that worked for me moved me to goose-flesh aesthetic delight; indeed, the final scene left me weepy with joy. And in some very magical way it brings you deep into Spanish culture. If you don't like subtitles, don't worry. The film is virtually wordless, though each scene carries a title of an Albeniz piece. Seeing this very beautiful film sharpens my complaint that virtually none of the films of Saura are available on DVD in the USA. I am thinking here particularly of his flamenco version of "Carmen," a spectacular work of art that is available in Europe but not here (European DVD's won't play on American DVD players). This is a scandal.


I have never danced flamenco before, but somehow I feel like this movie was perfect. The colors, how blatant the dances were, the gypsies, and the rivals all put together made a movie that seemed to have ended too soon. I have seen other Carlos Saura movies and I agree that this film may be his best production. I feel that the best characteristics of his past films were put together and aligned to make Iberia. I appreciate the use of mirrors in revealing the activity going on behind the cameras. While watching this movie I felt like I was sitting in a small restaurant in Madrid, comfortably watching the dancers bang on a wooden plank over a delicious fruit cocktail. For me, this movie fit like a glove. I don't know how I will be able to get a copy of this film in the US in the next few years. I recommend this movie to anyone who is attracted to the livelihood of other cultures. It is safe to say that this movie is certainly on my favorites list.


I was surprised at the low rating this film got from viewers. I saw it one late night on TV and it hit the spot - I actually think it was back in 1989 when it first appeared. Yet I remember it pretty well, with a nice twist or two, and an interesting ambiance on a windmill farm. Michael Pollard looks suitably seedy for his role which pretty much sums up the unfulfilled early promise of his career, and everyone else plays it pretty straight ahead. I definitely recommend it as a rental, although some of the themes, which might have seemed a bit edgy in 1989, now may seem tame, which is a shame, considering that contemporary "edginess" is often just used as a necessary marketing tool, sort of like clamoring just to get noticed.


Michael Bowen plays an innocentish young man who hitchhikes a thousand miles to visit his absentee millionaire father (the creepy Ray Wise) at a sprawling, windmill-powered ranch and ends up tangled in the dangerous web of his young, scheming and seductive stepmother from hell (the yummy Clare Wren), thus causing trouble for the already dysfunctional family. An edgy, stylish and exciting drama that received no promotion and was sent straight to VHS and cable TV--where I first saw it. It is beautifully written, smartly acted, and tightly directed from a script that keeps you biting your nails. I cannot believe the reviewers who disliked it ever actually saw it. It is an undiscovered classic.


I thoroughly enjoyed this movie because there was a genuine sincerity in the acting. The writing was top-notch. James Arness is a great actor and he showed it here. Brian Keith was too old to be Davy Crockett, and can anyone really play Davy but Fess Parker?

Another great actor in this move was Raul Julia, who gave depth to Santa Anna, a vain and complex person who led Mexico through turbulent times.

While some may think the movie was slow-paced, it captured the battle as it unfolded, lots of tedium followed by a couple hours of horrific terror.

What impressed me most about this movie is that it made you think about a cause and how some people are willing to die for what they believe in. In this day and age when nobody stands for anything, I found it refreshing to think that there was a time when people died for freedom, no matter how you may feel about the politics of the time.


heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years.


The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.

I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston.

But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.

Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.

Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".

Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.

Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement!

Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did!


This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.

The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who is apparently still alive at age 85. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.

Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it.

Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.

The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions.

The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. "Santa Ana likes a bargain." Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film "The Alamo".


When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.

But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.

It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.

Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.

But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.

However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.

This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.

For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly.


13 days to Glory tells the traditional tale with sympathy toward the Mexican viewpoint. The major problem in this movie was that while cowboy actor James Arness played the part of Jim Bowie persuasively, the rest of the name actors in the cast Brian Keith (Davy Crocket) and Lorne Greene (Sam Houston) were too old.

Raul Julia played General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with grace and dignity owed to the professional soldier who after all won the battle. The scene where he upbraids his officers for failing to mount a guard and prevent a sortee is one the scriptwriters did not understand. Failing to keep watch is a major remiss in the military. Santa Anna was within his prerogatives to be angry. Raul Julia magnificently carried poor writing through the scene.

Kathleen York was an impressive Susannah Dickinson, a woman who deserves to be remembered for her courage. However, Kathleen York might have been reminded that as Dickinsons hailed from Pennsylvania they probable dis not sound very Southron.


This game show lasted just one season, but was intriguing to audiences because it required visual aptitude and a steady hand. One false move would disqualify the contestant from winning the prize, even though it was clear the contestant knew the correct answer. It was always exciting as the contestant began drawing, wondering if they would complete the drawing or be buzzed out; allowing the other contestant to easily win the contest. It was a light-hearted show, but it was clear that the contestants were often times embarrassed from a silly mistake made unintentionally. Rarely seen, the game show did not survive past one single season. Only a seasoned game show addict will remember this show, as it proved to be quite unpopular, even though game shows were making a big return to the TV screen after the scandals of the 1950's game shows. But it was a unique concept for a game show, and one that has as yet never been seen again.


In Arlington Heights, IL we never had a cafeteria in any of the elementary schools (1961) so I rode my bike home from school for lunch and always watched this game. True, I was 11, but I thought it was the greatest thing on! I'd draw hidden pictures on my blackboard and see if my family or friends could find it. I also remember winning wonderful cars (Pontiac or Oldsmobile) if the contestant got the final hidden picture game. I even had the home version!

I wonder why this game lasted so briefly. I enjoyed the music and the hidden pictures - the only one I could ever get was the lemon hidden as part of a bridge over a garden stream.

Really good memories are connected with Camouflage.


A stunning realization occurs when some sort of phenomenon takes place!! Be it, firecrackers going off, witnessing a robbery, a hurricane nonchalantly devastating everything in it's path, or, for that matter, any other spectacular occurrence !! In the case of the Maclean Family, however, reveille was something which was no more complex than their day to day lives..Montana in the early twentieth century was an environment which was rough and tumble...The Maclean family was comprised of four people, the father, a minister, who was ideologically driven to raise his family properly. His wife was God fearing, and dutiful. The two boys were, well...BOYS!!.. What else can you say?...Brad Pitt starred in this film before he was really THE!! Brad Pitt, and his acting performance in this film was, to say the least, remarkable!!!.. His brother, Norman, was the cerebral type, he was touched by emotions that were genuine, and motivated by a set of values that Missoula, Montana concurred with!! Paul (Brad Pitt) was a misfit from the offset, and lived on the edge...You would think that Montana in the 1920's had no such thing, yet somehow, gambling, drinking, and violent confrontations, were as much a part of Paul, as was his fly fishing rod!! Fly fishing!! Did I say that? Parenthetically, this was the core of this movie's theme!! The recreation of fly fishing served as the cohesive bond which homogenized the kindred spirits of the Maclean brothers, and to a lesser degree, the father!! I would describe the acting in this film as incredibly believable, and the cinematography went beyond sensational.. Put it this way, anyone who sees this film will want to live in Montana.. Breathtaking filmography of bluer than blue mountains and streams captured the youth and effervescence that the Maclean brothers had for life...Seldom in a film do you witness whereby feelings immediately invoke a dogged tenacity to accomplish whatever it may be that someone wishes to accomplish..The Maclean brothers lived life to the fullest, and for better or worse, the father knew that this was going to be the only way the two of them could become men!!...Robert Redford directs this film, and tells the story of the Maclean's through the perspective of the older brother, Norman...Norman gets offered a position at the University of Chicago at age 26, and marries the woman he will always be in love with...What this film also points out, is that the younger brother, Paul, has attained an accomplishment of his own by being the epitome of a remarkable fly fisherman!! The seedier side of life prevails in the younger brother's existence, and exerts an insidious form of consternation for the Maclean family!! As most human shortcomings go, the Maclean family made light of turbulent waters, (literally) and thus, established unity as a family, by putting necessary blinders on!!!

The end of the movie "River Runs Through It" presents an epigram of life through the eyes of the older brother.. For Norman Maclean, stoicism is a prerequisite to perseverance in his emeritus years!! Such a fate is largely due to the fact that reflecting on his life is tantamount to yearning for people who have passed away! The fond memories of his brother, his wife, his mother, and his father, must now be viewed philosophically!! For Norman, his life has been relegated to stubborn facts that have determined his dubious outlook, and precarious resolve! Something as simple as the statement "This was your life, and that is how you lived it" is a somber recollection of the joy, the sorrow, the regrets, and the love, he gave, as well as was the recipient of!! Best put in the last sermon he heard his father give, his father said "We can completely love someone without completely understanding them".. Whether you agree with what has happened in your life or not, it happened nonetheless! Norman Maclean must come to grips with the fact that his life has been fragmented by misunderstandings! Norman Maclean has become a decrepit octogenarian who is polarized by virtual conclusions to his life!! The murky waters of Montana's picturesque rivers serve as a vicious and desultory finalization to his years on earth!! Without question, the very prolific statement of "what seems complicated is really very simple" purveys a very acrimonious message in this movie...More simply put...The people and places which were important in Norman's life, are now only a bittersweet memory....merely a painfully intellectual rumination of events which are aggravated by the haunted waters of Montana's beautiful streams and rivers...To which, for the entire Maclean family, "all things merge into one and a river runs through it"


I have read the short story by Norman Maclean, and the movie did justice to Norman Maclean's writing. My husband tends to reread it occasionally, and I myself have read it over and scenes of the movie keeps coming to mind. We have videos of many of Redford s movies and we have watched "A River runs through it" many times. Redford is part of the "famdamily" as he is always around. We never get tired of Redford's perception of Norman Maclean writings, and the beauty of Montana. The script reminds me very much of my own upbringing as my father had the same calling as Mr. Maclean's father. According to "A River Runs Through It," "Methodists are Baptists who can read," a line which by the way is not in the short story, but I think that is a funny line! My husband and I are well-read Baptists!

I have heard a movie critic state that the pace of this movie is too slow. I disagree. As one search for inner peace, this is the type of movie that will make you contemplate the beauty of nature in three/four rhythm of the metronome. The photography is outstanding! The acting is great. I love the scene where Norman and Paul as boys talked and wondered whether one could be a fly fisher or a boxer! Then as adult Paul played by Brad Pitt (Se7ven) is the "perfect guy" who needs help with his alcoholism but will not accept it. The same applies to Neal Burns, who uses worms as bait, he also needed help but would not accept the fact that he needed help. The scene where Paul refuses to eat oatmeal and the entire family has to wait an eternity to say grace! Finally after hours, they all kneel around the table to say: "Grace!" and they all leave. But the oatmeal stayed on the plate! That scene where the two love birds and their tattoos on their posteriors! That is funny! The sunburn! The drive back home where Jessie Burns (Emily Lloyd) decides to go via the train line! Beautiful dialogue when Norman proposes to Jessie because he wants her to come to Chicago with him!

Redford himself does a superb job as a narrator. I could not stop myself from comparing Brad to the young Redford (Barefoot in the Park). The nominated Director, Producer, Actor, is a visionary who deserves to be praised for his advancement not only in the cinema in the US but around the world. I am glad to live in nineteen hundred because I have seen the beginning of the black and white television, the movies and all the technology and special effects, to be able to watch videos at home and to live in the same century as Redford because I have had the chance to see his works. Redford needs no special effects to show us the beauty of Montana in this masterpiece. The river to me means that line that separates life from death, memories and realities. Redford shows the hands of the Creator so magnificently and a river runs through it.


Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. "Listen," their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown.


I have seen all the films directed by Robert Redford and appreciated his love of the American people and the land. In A River Runs Through It, Redford displays the lyric romanticism and visual splendor of the high Rocky Mountains of Montana as if he were a 19th century landscape painter of the ilk of Thomas Moran or Albert Bierstadt. This film makes love to the visual and the word with text by author Norman Maclean, and stunning camera work by Phillippe Rousselot (Serpent's Kiss, Reigne Margot).

Redford's cast is perfect. Tom Skerritt is the Rev. MacLean, a man whose methods of education include fly fishing as well as the Bible, Brenda Blythen, the mother, and his sons, Craig Schaffer and Brad Pitt create a family whose interactions reflect the same problems all encounter with growing teenage sons, and later, complex young men. Both Schaffer and Pitt are totally believable as the brothers whose love of fly fishing and each other will tie them together forever. It is the relationships between men, father and sons, brothers, and their women to the outside world that grounds A River Runs Through It to a vein of storytelling that is missing in so many of Hollywood films produced in recent years.

What makes these relationships special however, is the attention Redford gives to the language as spoken in dialogue. This is a literate script, beautiful to hear and unforgettable when coupled with the stunning Montana rivers and mountains. The words and setting are equal to performances by a cast that rises to their material. While the idea of fly fishing may seem an odd device to center a story, it is not so implausible in Redford's directorial hands. Given the material, Redford's ode to a simpler time and life is worth revisiting again and again.


One of the things about the film that warmed my heart strings was that dry fly fishing was a major part of the scene. I have occasionally carried out my times of dry fly fishing, having tied my own flies, and being accompanied by my brother and my father we spend a day on one river or another seeking to tempt the ever elusive Brown Trout to rise and take the fly that has been offered to them.

When we had occasions like this any differences between us disappeared and any of the pressures of the world melted away to be replaced by the glory of being absorbed in the activity and the surroundings of the place we were in.

This was one of the amazing things that was portrayed to me in the film as the minister and his two sons, Norman and Pauly carried out the ritual. For there is something ritualistic about fly fishing as there is something ritualistic about so many pastimes. You can't just start casting your fishing line and hope for the best. You have to attune yourself to the place you are in, you have to scan the surface of the water considering how it is flowing and where the best point might be to place your fly and, depending on your skill level, you might even get your fly to land there long enough for a fish to take note of it and strike. The 'Art of Fly-fishing' was directed and represented so well that they themselves can be classified as artists.

The title for the film could not be more aptly chosen, for the river did in fact run through the life of father and two sons. This film however spreads itself broader than the family and community in Montana, by the the Blackfoot river, where the film is played out. It has the capacity to draw you in, to enthrall you, to capture you, as the history of the family, community and period is unfolded. The Story told is not just a family history, but a history of Life. What may be classified as a 'River of Life'


The combination of reading the Novella and viewing this film has inspired my wife and I to new levels. Recently I was pondering a statement made by the artist Thomas Kinkade in one of his inspirational books; He states: "You and I were not designed to breathe the fetid air of five o'clock traffic. Nor do I think God had banal television programs, media hype, worthless purchases, and soul pollution in mind when he created the universe..." I hadn't seen "A river runs through it" in a couple of years, but after pondering Kinkade's statement something drew me to watch the film with a spiritual eye. I watched it and saw a whole new world to the film and it inspired me to read the book (a must read). I have always been frustrated in Southern California but somehow got caught up in its materialistic society. The film really puts into perspective of how we should really experience God's creations. A combination of Macleans story and my desire to move back to the Northwest has driven me to move to Montana. I want my future kids to be able to rome the landscape, go fly-fishing with me, ride horses into nothing but open land and serene lakes set in the mountainside. A place where you seldom worry about crime. I look around SoCal and all I see is shopping malls, rude snarling people in their Mercedez Bens, miles of vehicles on congested freeways, gangs, racial turmoil on the verge of violent eruption, and everyone skeptical of each others intentions.

Anyway the movie is very inspiring with brilliant acting and a deep story about the fragile connections of loved ones. There is a lot of deep thinking in this film. The scenery is worth seeing alone and actually helps relieve tension. You should finish this film relaxed yet full of insights to your own life. It takes a compassionate, intelligent, and spiritual person to really grasp the meaning. If you don't understand the art of cinema and how a director achieves his goals through dialogue, tone, light, colour, scenery, camera angles/movement, etc. Then this film is probably not for the crowd that thinks "The Fast and the Furious" is the greatest film. Granted it was entertaining but shallow.

The bottom line: This film helps to realize that life is not about how much money you have or what things you posses. Rather it is about your relationships with family and friends and the experiences you share together. QUALITY NOT QAUNTITY


Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.

You must see this movie!


Excellent film dealing with the life of an old man as he looks back over the years. Starting around 1910, he reminisces about his boy and young adulthood; his family, friends, romances, etc. Very nostalgic piece with a bittersweet finale...."all things in life come together as one, and a river runs through it. And that river haunts me." Worth seeing.


In a little town in Montana two brothers grow up. One of them is Norman (Craig Sheffer), the other is Paul (Brad Pitt). Their father is Reverend Maclean and they grow up with his lessons that has to do with religion, and the lessons of fly-fishing. In this movie fly-fishing represents life, a little.

The story is good and keeps your attention although there are some moments you need a little action. Probably the movie has this moments because it is not really about the events that happen, but about the message. Some things do happen though. Norman goes to Dartmouth to study. After six years he returns and gets involved with a nice girl named Jessie (Emily Lloyd) and he is invited to teach in Chicago. Paul has become a reporter and is known as the "fishing reporter". He is famous and it seems he has a nice life, but he drinks a little too much and gambles too much.

The movie is very well directed, it has a nice score and all of the actors are good. The most beautiful thing in this movie is the cinematography. The mountains, the woods and the river all look very beautiful. If the movie was only made for these things it was good enough to watch. Fortunately there is more.


as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.

however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.

i'd like to disagree.

as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes  the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.

for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all.


A River Runs Through It is one of those movies that deserves to be seen in the theater so that the majesty of its cinematography can be truly appreciated. The acting is wonderful and understated, with every gesture and smile and nod carrying meaning. Brad Pitt gives a radiant performance and Tom Skerrit is powerful as the preacher father. The movie moves like a river, you have to be willing to follow it through ebbs and flows, but it is well worth it in the end.


When I first saw this movie I was with my dad. He encouraged me to watch this movie because it was one of his favorites. After watching the movie it instantly became one of my favorites.

A River Runs Through It is about two brothers who each take a different path in life. Norman Maclean (Craig Sheffer) is the older of the two brothers and he is set on the path of education. Paul Maclean (Brad Pitt) is the rebellious younger brother who travels on a path full of obstacles. The movie follows these characters as the each follow their own path.

There is no downside to this movie. You will be entertained the whole way through. The acting, directing, and script is all perfect. The two things that are exceptional are the cinematography and the score. Both of which entrap you in the world Robert Redford creates for you.

This is an all around great movie that is destined to be a classic. It sure is in my book. If you haven't seen this movie definitely watch it as soon as you can because it will stay with you forever.


In my humble opinion, this movie did not receive the recognition it deserved. Robert Redford lives near me here in Provo, Utah, at Sundance. I enjoy most of his work, and this was my favorite. I'm sorry that more people didn't appreciate it. My grandmother was an avid reader and read the book years before it came out on the big screen. She gave it to me to read after we had seen the movie together. The movie and book hit an emotional spot within my heart, and I was weepy for several days after seeing the movie. Sometimes love isn't enough to keep our loved ones from hurting themselves. We see this in our own family relationships, yet our love and our families and their stories endure throughout generations of time. The cinematography was perfect and breathtaking -- I was awed by its beauty and how well it brought to life the words of the author of the book, Norman Maclean, "But when I am alone in the half light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being with my soul, and memories. And the sounds of the Big Black Foot River, and a four count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." These words, taken from the book and spoken at the end of the movie (by Robert Redford who is narrating as Norman Maclean), are basically scripture, in my opinion. Any possible flaws the movie may have are overshadowed by the beauty and grace of the story and the cinematography. It was beautiful!


There is not much more I can say about this movie than all of the commentaries on page one, except - as Jesse says - "it's the berries". All of page one's commentators wrote eloquently - as almost so as the dialog is in this movie. This just may be one of those illusive things we hear so much about, but usually are made so by the actors who deliver the lines: a beautiful script. Maybe Robert Redford did hold strict sway onto the actors/actresses during the filming of this movie, so that the beauty of the story would not get lost.

I, too, attended church when I was very young and into my late teens. The church's pastor spoke very eloquently and quietly as the Rev. Maclean did in his church. That, in itself, is a totally different picture that is portrayed of Southern Baptist churches - no holy-rollering in my church. It was a big church, with many different programs to keep its congregation busy - the most inspiring perhaps was the music-department with its huge choir and almost classical anthems. Too, the Sunday evening-congregation was almost entirely younger people. Are you even aware it was once safe to go to church on Sunday night? How I wish it still was ! Watching "A River Runs through It" is very much like going to hear a beautiful sermon in a church whose members are fully involved in life. As has already been so beautifully written, the sermon for this movie is the open-space beauties of Montana - yet, aren't there also missile-silos there, too? Fly-fishing or any other activity which draws family-members closer together for a happy life - and deep understanding of one another - becomes a blessing. Although you see some of the shadier aspects of life then, too, the simplicity of the story paints a lasting impression on your heart, if you let it. Speakeasies and prostitutes are counter-balanced by the simple gatherings of old-fashioned, community picnics as this movie contains - in heavy contrasts to modern families taking their kids to Disney Land for screeching joyrides and calling it "a day together". There is noting wrong with that, but as "River" demonstrates, some of its taciturn beauty could do nothing but make life richer. This is the third film I've seen in which Tom Skeritt (?) plays a father, all different styles and brilliantly acted.

Brad Pitt, mostly an undiscovered talent except for "Thelma and Louise" and "Meet Joe Black", and all of the cast-members deserved many awards. Little stories superbly told will get 10-of-10 from me over any movie with violence, foul language, ugliness and "action". I am thinking particularly of "Crash" and most of "Arnold's" movies. What a savior for peace this movie is.


This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The Footage is extraordinary, mesmerizing at times. It also received an Oscar for best photography, and deservedly so. I have many movies in my film collection and several more I've seen besides them, and not many of them are more beautifully or even equally as beautifully shot as this one.

It's unique and an overall great movie. The cast is terrific and do a great job in portraying their characters. We follow their destinies with devotion, and get very emotionally attached to them. Along the way, we also learn things about ourselves and our lives. I think much of this film for what it represent, and how it present it. I warmly recommend it


this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.


Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........


Academy Award winner Robert Redford (Best Director. Ordinary People 1980) captures the majesty of the Montana wilderness and the strength of the American family in this acclaimed adaptation of Norman Macleans classic memoir.

Craig Sheffer stars as the young Norman, and Brad Pitt stars as his brother Paul, an irresistible daredevil driven to challenge the world.

Growing up, both boys rebel against their stern Minister father (Tom Skerritt).

While Norman channels his rebellion into writing, Paul descends a slippery path to self-destruction.

Also starring Emily LLoyd as wild-hearted Jessie Burns.

The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematopghaphy in 1993.


I've always enjoyed films that depict life as it is. Life sometimes has boring patches, no real plot, and not necessarily a happy ending. "A River Runs Through It" is the perfect name for this film (and Norman Maclean's novel). Life ebbs and flows like a river, and it has it's rough spots, but it is a wonderful trip.

Robert Redford brings a lot to the film. His narration has a friendly feel that fits the picture perfectly. As a director, he is restrained and calm, and captures some incredibly beautiful scenes. As for the acting, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt work surprising well as brothers. I don't know quite how to describe Tom Skerritt and Brenda Blethyn's performances, except that they truly feel real. "A River Runs Through It" is a wonderful film.

8.6 out of 10


In answer to the person who made the comment about how the film drags on and who believed there was no purpose to the role of Jess's brother here is my response:

The role of Jess's brother is to provide a form of dramatic irony in the story. Craig Sheffer/Norman could have foreseen the troubles associated with living life to the full by looking at how Jess's brother turned out. There are various instances where Brad Pitt and his lives run in parallel, for example, when Jess's brother takes Craig Sheffer to a disjointed bar and subsequently he finds Brad Pitt there a few days later. The dramatic irony was there so Craig Sheffer's character would have a bigger emotional turmoil at his brothers death, knowing he could have done more to prevent it and subsequently creates a more compelling mood in the film.


In watching how the two brothers interact and feed off of each other through the whole movie makes me personally happy to live in the rural area much like they did in the movie. I have watched this movie countless times and have the book right beside my Bible. After watching the movie I agree that this is one of the few movies that does a book justice. I strongly recommend anyone that has the chance to go to Montana to fish or be outdoors to do so. It is amazing. I can not think of anyone else that could play the role better than Brad Pitt. Do yourself justice and watch one of the better movies in the modern movie era. STRONGLY Recommend And as a guide for fishing trips in both Montana and Wyoming, do not try to learn how to fly fish from the scenes of the movie because although it looks great on the film you have no idea how much practice and skill fishing like that actually takes. Thank you for listening Watch this movie please if you would like a long sad movie.


Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.


A River Runs Through It is based on the true story of two fly fishing brothers, Norman and Paul, (Brad Pitt and Craig Sheffer) whose Reverend father (Tom Skerritt) is a strict man whose two passions are his faith and fly fishing, - and, for him and his sons, there is a fine line between the two. This story describes the slow progression of the brothers' lives and how their lives separate on two different paths. It is a touching movie narrated by the director, Robert Redford, playing the elderly Norman and reflecting on times long gone and people long dead.

Certain themes recur in the movie, such as memory, death, eternity, and dreams. Most of these themes revolve around the almost tragic hero of Paul. He is a capable, charming, and brave man, but has his fatal flaws.

The closing lines sum up the "point" of the movie: "Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters."


Stewart is a Wyoming cattleman who dreams to make enough money to buy a small ranch in Utah ranch His only real companion is his sidekick Ben Tatum, the great Walter Brennan To accomplish that, they drive the cattle clear to Alaska and on to Dawson, in Canadian territory, where they sell them...

Along the way they meet the man who runs the gold-crazy town behind a dishonest lawman John McIntire... He attempts to steal them the herd... Later, in Dawson, McIntire and his gang reappear, this time interfering with Stewart's gold claim...

Captured by Mann's camera in the wonderful scenery of the Canadian Rockies, Stewart is a thoughtful loner forced into violence by his need to get rid of the treacherous actions of a corrupt entrepreneur robbing local miners of their claims

In this entertaining, beautiful Western, Stewart has two leading ladies to struggle with: Ruth Roman, a bit too valuable to describe as a sexy woman resisting the worst vicissitudes of the territory and the more docile, the French Canadian girl Corinne Calvet who does create a nice portrait of a likable girl with the ability to form a judgment... In spontaneous manner, Stewart is lost between the ostentatious saloon owner and the wife-candidate...


Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann teamed to do some of the best westerns ever made and this is one of the best.

The real star of the film however is the spectacular Canadian Rockies that serve as a backdrop for the story. Some of the best cinematography ever done in the history of film.

In all five of the westerns that Stewart and Mann did together the supporting roles were perfectly cast. No exception here, right down to parts that might only have a few lines, the characters are firmly etched with those lines.

Stewart is a cynical hard-bitten loner in this film whose only real friend is his sidekick Walter Brennan. It's Brennan's death at the hands of the villains that makes him want to finally free the gold settlement from the bad guys and incidentally redeem himself in the process.

John McIntire is the head villain of the piece and he was an under-appreciated actor with a vast range. He could play delightful old codgers, authority figures and in this case a particularly nasty and crafty villain.

One of the best westerns ever.


Cunningly interesting Western from a director who had few peers in the genre. Much like other Anthony Mann pictures, The Far Country blends a potent pot boiling story with an adroit knowing of impacting scenery. Both of which play out amongst some of Mann's peccadilloes like honour, integrity, betrayal and of course, death! The story sees fortune hunting partners Jeff Webster {James Stewart} and Ben Tatum {Walter Brennan} travel to Oregon Territory with a herd of cattle. Aware of the blossoming gold-boom, they plan to make a tidy profit selling the cattle in a Klondike town. Arriving in Skagway they find self-appointed judge Mr. Gannon {John McIntire} ready to meet out justice to Webster on account of Webster having fractured the law, all be it with honest cause, along the way. In punishment Gannon takes the partners herd from them, but they steal them back and head across the Canadian border to Dawson-with Gannon and his men in hot pursuit. Here beautiful women and a meek and lawless town will fill out the destinies of all involved.

Interesting from start to finish, The Far Country benefits greatly from James Stewart's bubbling {anti} hero in waiting portrayal and Mann's slick direction of the tight Borden Chase script. The cinematography from William H. Daniels is superlative, tho not done any favours by current DVD prints, and the film has a few surprises and a "will he wont he?" core reeling the viewers in. Paying dividends on re-watches for hardened genre fans, it still remains something of an essential viewing for first timers venturing into the wonderful, yet dark, Western world of Anthony Mann and James Stewart. 8/10


This first-rate western tale of the gold rush brings great excitement, romance, and James Stewart to the screen. "The Far Country" is the only one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns that is often overlooked. Stewart, yet again, puts a new look on the ever-present personalities he had in the five Stewart-Mann westerns. Jeff Webster (Stewart) is uncaring, always looking out for himself, which is why he is so surprised when people are nice and kindly to him. Ironically, he does wear a bell on his saddle that he will not ride without. This displays that he might just care for one person- his sidekick, Ben Tatum, played by Walter Brennan, since Tatum is the one that gave it to him. Mann, yet again, puts a new look on the ever present personalities he put into the five Stewart-Mann westerns. He displays violence, excitement, plot twists, romance, and corruption. The story is that Jeff and Ben, through a series of events, wind up in the get rich quick town of Dawson, along with gold partners Calvet and Flippen, and no-good but beautiful Roman and her hired men. They are unable to leave, because crooked sheriff Mr. Gannon (McIntire) and his "deputies" will hang them, since the only way out is through Skagway, which is Gannon's town. But, eventually, McIntire comes to them, but not to collect Stewart and/or his fine that he supposedly owes to the government. What is McIntire there for? He is there to cheat miners out of their claims and money. People are killed. A sheriff for Dawson is considered needed, and Calvet elects Stewart because he is good with a gun. Stewart, however, refuses the job, because he plans to get all the gold he can, and then pull out. He also refuses it because he does not like to help people, since law and order always gets somebody killed. So, Flippen is elected instead. A miner is killed because he tries to stand up to one of Gannon's men, a purely evil, mustachioed fancy gunman named Madden, who carries two guns, played by Wilke. Flippen attempts to arrest Madden and see that justice be done, but he cannot stand up to him, so he becomes the town drunk. A man named Yukon replaces Flippen. Stewart and Tatum start to pull out, but are ambushed by Gannon's men. Tatum is killed, and Stewart is wounded. Stewart finally realizes that he must do something, or Gannon will take over Dawson, set up his own rules, and it will become his town, just like Skagway. The audience also realizes what Stewart must do. Another thing that the audience realizes is that Stewart is the only thing that stands between the townspeople and Gannon. If Stewart leaves, Gannon would take over the town. If Stewart stays and keeps on not doing anything about it, the townspeople will be killed one by one mercilessly and uselessly. This is where a great scene occurs. Stewart walks into his cabin. He has a sling on his arm. For a few seconds, his gun, in the gunbelt, is hanging on a post beside his bed, the gun is close up, Stewart is in the background, just inside the door. He stares at it for a few seconds. He tosses the sling away. The sling lands on the back of a chair, and falls to the floor. This is symbolic, because he is throwing away his old life, which consisted of not caring about anybody but himself. He comes into his new life, of helping people when they need help. What ends the film is a guns-blazing, furious show of good against evil, and a genuinely feel-good feeling that everything will be alright.


Colorful western.

Wyoming cowboy James Stewart moseys on up to the Yukon Territory to dig for gold, sell his steers, and try to get a date with pretty saloon-owner Ruth Roman if he can shake the tail of crooked sheriff John McIntire who wants Stewart's cattle. Beautiful cinematography in a collaborative effort by William Fritzsche and Bill Daniels. Good Technicolor adventure from Universal-International, directed by Anthony Mann.

Also starring Corinne Calvet, Connie Gilchrist, and Walter Brennan as Stewart's sidekick.


The penultimate collaboration between director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart (excluding the few days Mann worked on Night Passage before parting company with the star under less than amicable circumstances), The Far Country belies its mainstream look to offer another portrait of an embittered man dragged unwillingly to his own redemption, fighting it every step of the way. This time he's a cattle driver whose response to labour problems - challenging troublesome cowhands to a gunfight at the end of the trail - results in his cattle being confiscated by John McIntire's larcenous judge of the Roy Bean school of law and order. Stealing them back and taking them across the Canadian border, he soon finds himself unwillingly drawn into the growing conflict between prospectors and the judge as he cheats or kills them out of their claims...

While it's no great surprise which way Stewart turns at the end, he's a surprisingly callous critter along the way, even using his desire to just be left alone to excuse not warning a group of prospectors of an impending avalanche when he has the chance because it's not his problem. For most of the film there's really only a hair's breadth between him and McIntire, something the judge recognises immediately, revelling in the company of a kindred spirit even as he's genially planning to lynch him. In many ways the townspeople who put their faith in him probably recognise it too - despite their appeals to his dead-and-buried better nature, there's an unspoken acknowledgement that the only person who can stand up to the judge is someone almost as bad as he is.

As usual with Mann there's an exceptional use of high country locations, though for once the final showdown takes place on level ground, and the film is almost perfectly cast with strong support from Walter Brennan, Harry Morgan and Ruth Roman (though Corinne Calvert's young romantic interest veers to the irritating). Sadly the great cinematography of the Canadian Rockies is done few favours by a distinctly average DVD transfer, with only the theatrical trailer as an extra.


This is mostly a story about the growing relationship between Jeff Webster(Jimmy Stewart) and Ronda Castle(Ruth Roman). She takes an instant liking to Jeff in a brief encounter on the deck of the steamer to Skagway, and a longer look when he hides in her cabin while authorities seek him on a charge of murder. They find out they have some things in common besides an animal attraction. Neither trusts a member of the opposite sex, apparently because both have been married to spouses who cheated on them. Gradually, they learn to trust each other, as they journey from Skagway to Dawson. But Ronda clearly has close dealings with corrupt sheriff Gannon and engages in some shady practices in her Castle saloon in Skagway. She eventually has to decide between Gannon and Jeff. Meanwhile, Rene, a young naive French woman also takes an immediate liking to Jeff, but only gets insulting brush offs in return. Yet, she sticks with him in his travels from Skagway to Dawson and his activities around Dawson. Along with Ronda, she nurses him back to health after Jeff is left for dead by Gannon's gunslingers at his gold claim. Walter Brennan, as Ben, serves as Jeff's long time sidekick. He doesn't have a meaty role, but serves to soften Jeff's hard edges. His demise symbolically opens the door for a woman companion replacement for Jeff.

John McIntire(as Sheriff Gannon) makes probably the most charismatic evil town boss you will ever see on film, oozing charm and humor to go along with his bullying. Evidently, he sees something of himself in Jeff, repeatedly declaring that he's going to like him. He makes a believable incarnation of the infamous Soapy Smith, who spent his last years in Skagway, as one of the premier con men of his times.

Jeff is the quintessential antihero, a loner(except for companion Ben), who doesn't want to stick his neck out for others, even when he knows he is the one right man for the job. In this respect, he closely resemble's Burt Lancaster's character in "Vera Cruz", for example. Thus, Jeff not only turns down the job of marshall of Dawson, he is convinced to leave Dawson after Gannon's gang move in with clear intentions of taking over everyone's insufficiently legal gold claims, while disposing of some miners and suggesting that the rest make a hurried exit from Dawson. Even Ronda suggests that she and Jeff make a hurried exit from Dawson while they are still alive. Then, Jeff has a sudden change of heart, apparently still nursing desire for revenge for the shooting of Ben and himself. He changes from anti-hero to hero in leading the expulsion of Gannon's gang from Dawson. In this respect, he differs from Lancaster's character, who never reforms(But is Jeff truly changed, or just handing out revenge for wrongs committed against his own interests?)

The main problem I see with the plot is the 2 principle women. Clearly, Ronda is groomed as the right woman to tame Jeff. Although she is clearly characterized as a "bad" girl, Jeff has a checkered recent past himself, having shot at least 5 men in the US or Yukon, and having stolen his cattle back from Gannon. Ironically, soon after Jeff changes from anti-hero to hero, Rhonda makes a similar change in running into the street to warn Jeff of Gannon's impending ambush. She dies as a result and Jeff asks her why she didn't just look out for herself(his supposedly just abandoned creed!).

It's clear that Corine Calvert, as Renee, just doesn't make a credible substitute for the dead Ronda, in Jeff's mind. Yet, the apparent implication of the parting scene is that they get together, even though Jeff never visibly gives her a kiss or hug. Her image as a good, if naive, young woman is somewhat compromised by her job in Rhonda's saloon of bumping miners weighting their gold dust, pushing the spilled dust on the floor and recovering it later. I'm also very unclear about her relationship with Rube Morris, a middle aged miner who followers her around and works a claim with her.(He's not her father).

Another problem is the amateurish handling of the gun fight between Jeff and Gannon's gang. If Gannon had any skill at all with a pistol, he should have killed or seriously wounded Jeff under that boardwalk, before Jeff did the same to him. And how did Jeff's badly shot up right hand suddenly become well enough to shoot a pistol with apparent ease? I also wonder what Jeff and friends did to help save the avalanche victims. They were much too far away to pull them out alive from under the snow. And why weren't most of Ronda's pack horses and mules also buried by the avalanche?

You will see a host of probably nameless but familiar faces among the miners and Gannon's gang. The sequences shot in the Canadian Rockies provide a breathtaking backdrop to the action. All-in-all, a very entertaining western, with most of the major flaws concentrated at the end. No doubt, this film takes some great liberties with history and geography, especially, the part taking place in the Canadian Yukon, which was in fact much tamer than the US Skagway.


Anthony Mann's westerns with Jimmy Stewart are slowly gaining for that director a position with John Ford and Howard Hawks as the best film director in that genre. He certainly knows how to give dimension to nice guy Stewart - in Mann's films there is an edge to Jimmy that is slowly demonstrated to the audience. In WINCHESTER '73 it was the relationship of Stewart to his brother and how it twists him into a figure of vengeance. Here it is a "I trust only myself" attitude, which leads to one complication after another. Even before the film properly begins he (as Jeff Webster) kills two of his hired cowboys who were helping on a cattle drive to Seattle because of some dispute (we never are clear about it - either they wanted to leave the cattle drive, or they tried to steal the cattle).

He meets his match in Skagway, the port he has to get to in order to take his herd to Dawson. Skagway's boss is a so-called law man named Gannon (John McIntyre) who reminds one of the real boss of Skagway in the "Gold Rush" Jefferson "Soapy" Smith and Judge Roy Bean. The problem is that neither Smith nor Bean would have gotten quite as sleazy as Gannon in turning every opportunity into a chance to make some money. Stewart's herd interrupted a public hanging - so (as a penalty fine) the herd is confiscated (to be sold later for Gannon's profit).

Stewart is partner with Ben (Walter Brennan - who oddly enough won his last Oscar playing Judge Roy Bean). They are also joined by Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) and also meet two women, the sophisticated Rhonda Castle (Ruth Roman) and the friendly and helpful Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvert). Rhonda works closely with Gannon, but had helped Jeff earlier in fleeing the authorities in Seattle. However, she has a similar "I only trust myself" attitude to Jeff. She does offer him employment to get supplies for herself to Dawson. He, Ben, and Rube go but at night (while the others are asleep) they go back and steal back their cattle. Renee follows and warns them that Gannon and his associates are following. Jeff holds off Gannon long enough for the cattle herd to be brought over the Canadian border, although Gannon points out that since Jeff has to return by way of Skagway Gannon can wait until he does to hang him.

The reunited party of Rhonda and Jeff split over the trail to take to Dawson, Jeff opting for a longer and safer route. After he is proved right, they go by his route and reach Dawson only to find there is a lawless element threatening the community due to the gold fields. The herd is sold to Rhonda, and Jeff, Ben, Rube, and Renee start prospecting. There is soon two groups in the town of Dawson. One led by Connie Gilchrist and Chubby Johnson want to build a decent town. But the Mounties won't be setting up a station in Dawson for months. The other, centering around the "dancehall" run by Rhonda, are in cahoots with Gannon who has a vast claim jumping scheme using his gang of gunslingers (Robert J. Wilke - really scary in one sequence with Chubby Johnson and Jay C. Flippen, Jack Elam, and Harry Morgan). Jeff wishes to steer clear of both, and head with his new wealth and Ben for a ranch they want in Utah. But will they get there? And will Jeff remain neutral?

The performances are dandy here, including Stewart as a man who is willing to face all comers, but would otherwise be peaceful enough. Brennan is playing one of his patented old codgers, whose love of good coffee has unexpectedly bad results. Flippen is a drunk at first, but tragedy and responsibility shake him into a better frame of mind - and one who has a chance to verbally stab Stewart in the heart using Stewart's own words against him. McIntyre would achieve stardom on television in WAGON TRAIN replacing Ward Bond, but his work in Mann's films show his abilities as a villain (such as his trade post opportunist who outsmarts himself in WINCHESTER '73). He is, as is said elsewhere on this thread, really sleazy - but he has a sense of humor. Roman is an interesting blend of opportunist and human being, whose fate is determined by her better feelings. And Calvert is both a voice of conscience and a frontier "Gigi" aware that she is more than a young girl but a budding woman.

Best of all is the Canadian Rockies background - as wonderful in its way as the use of Monument Valley by John Ford. Mann certainly did a first rate job directing this film, and the viewer will appreciate the results.


Another very good Mann flick thanks to the father/son combination of Walter Brennan and Jimmy Stewart. Brennan (Ben Tatum) is often the comedic conscience of either Stewart or Wayne (Red River/ Rio Bravo). He's there to see that the younger man takes the ride fork or bend. "You're wrong Mr. Dunston". Jeff Webster(Stewart) gives off the impression he cares only for himself but it is clear he cannot desert Brennan. John McIntire is excellent as the law of Skagway with due respect for the trappings of justice over the reality of it. Another key theme is helping people and in turn being helped by people. The loner can do neither and suffers for it.

The caption above plays on Tatum's assertion that he can't live without his coffee. This nicotine addiction proves fatal. Probably the first and last time on the screen.

I recommend this film and now own the DVD.


A good film with--for its time--an intense, sprawling, rather dark story somewhat reminiscent of John Ford's "The Searchers" though not so brutal. The story starts fast and doesn't let up, with several scenes of really good dialog between (Stewart's) Jeff Webster, Ronda Castle and Sheriff Gannon. This film is in some ways reminiscent of "Bend of the River" (1952), also a Mann-Stewart work, but I found it far less sentimental and more interesting. There are a few caveats: a too-quickly wrapped up (and rather sentimental) ending; 24-year-old Corrine Calvert is not very convincing as a naive French teenager, and of course the film takes place in the Mythic West, a land of fable where the real laws of nations and physics don't apply. But these are trivial concerns. James Stewart is surprisingly good as a dark, disengaged man who thinks he cares for no one but himself, and the mountain scenery can't be beat. A fine Western costume drama.


Classic drama/action western with incredible cinematography that is well ahead of it's time(1954). The production is very good and you can tell that it was done with pride and love.Unique peek into the American NORTHT WEST pioneers is very educational and entertaining.This movie is very under rated because most people do not like to see the reality that many "lawmen" during this particular time and place were very crooked/corrupt much like most developing countries today.The action sequences could have been more realistic though but still,this movie really covers most of the essentials.Not for an audience who wants only pure testoterone type westerns for this movie is more for those who have a sense of history and philosophy.......


As I drove from Skagway, Alaska to Dawson City,Yukon a couple of years ago and was impressed with the scenery, I cannot help but wish that this film even though it has beautiful color and scenic views would have been shot in the actual location. Jasper in the Canadian Rockies is a magnificent place, but still not the real place where the film takes place. When the story moves to Dawson, that is when I feel Anthony Mann, who used the outdoor locations so well, could have made the most if he filmed in the actual place. James Stewart here is again a man fighting within himself, one side of him does not want to get involved and help people who stand in the way of him making money, and the other side just is not able to look away from people being murdered. Ruth Roman is the ambitious woman who does not care on whom she steps, Corinne Calvet is the nice girl. Mann is excellent directing the shootouts, but the high point of the film is how well he does in the outdoor scenes. He uses the outdoors as much as he can and he is helped by the winter scenery, the predominating white, like it was with the greens in "The Naked Spur" and the browns in "The Man From Laramie". Like all of the Mann-Stewarts, this is a traditional western, with a difference in the elaboration of Stewart's character which is more complex.


Cowboys James Stewart and Walter Brennan take their herd from Seattle to Alaska and on into Canada to stake a claim. Once there, they have to contend with seductive, shifty businesswoman Ruth Roman and ice-cold, happy-go-lucky villain James McIntire.

John Wayne may get talked about more, but his good pal Stewart made some excellent, hard-edged westerns too, some with the great director Anthony Mann. Frankly, I'd take this, with it's sturdy action sequences and fine melodrama, over North To Alaska any day!

The Far Country features some breathtaking scenery and cinematography that should definitely have been shot in widescreen.

Also, there's some strong support by the always reliable Brennan, Roman (who's great), the incredibly cute Corrine Calvet, and James McIntire, who plays one of my favorite types of bad guy, the kind that doesn't take himself too seriously.

This would make a great double-bill with another highly recommended Mann/Stewart northwest-set western, Bend Of The River.


My comment would have been added to the RELEASE DATE section, but I couldn't find a place for it. I was really surprised to see that this movie was released in the U.S. in Feb., 1955. I saw it in a "first run" theater in Washington, D.C. in March, 1958. Wonder if it was re-released, or some problem? In my opinion, this movie is very light entertainment, but has some classic characters. John McIntyre does a bang-up job as a corrupt judge/entrepreneur/thief. Walter Brennan does basically the same role he did in Red River years earlier. And, in my opinion, James Stewart gives as fine a performance as he ever did. I have seen this movie a half dozen times or more, and never tire of seeing parts of it again. The photography and scenery are splendid, and it offers a remarkable amount of entertainment in one hour and thirty-six minutes.


(contains slight spoilers)

It's interesting how Anthony Mann uses James Stewart here. Stewart is, of course, remembered by many as George Bailey from Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", so it's easy to find parallels between the two films. In "It's a Wonderful Life", Bailey gets to see the world as it would have been if he had never been born. In "The Far Country", Stewart's Jeff Webster, by not getting involved to help anyone else (except himself), gets to see essentially the same thing: A world in which he (for all practical matters) doesn't exist.

By not getting involved (and by attempting not to care about anyone), Webster is forced to see those for whom he can't help but care get hurt, pushed around, and even killed while he stands by and does nothing. This reminds the viewer of George Bailey watching a world that has turned upside-down because he has also decided not to get involved by not ever having been born.

Both movies end with the same image - a close-up of a ringing bell. Stewart, by turning around his philosophy of non-involvement, has, it would seem, earned his "wings".


After losing his cattle herd to a dishonest lawman, a trail boss winds up in the Yukon gold fields with a bad reputation and small chances of being able to return to the states. While there his fortunes take a turn for the best until a bad luck specter from the past comes calling. Good western with many favorite old faces in the lineup.


Now, admittedly, I'm no ardent student of the genre. As a matter of fact, I've tended always to shy away from Westerns because, in spite of all their critical cachet as America's primal stories (or whatever), they seem to me to forever devolve into tiresome retreads of either "shoot up the Injuns," "the big gunfight," or "Hey, let's form a posse!" In other words, it always seemed to me a genre so rooted in and tied to convention, that it left precious little room for surprise or originality. (And yes, I HAVE seen at least some of the so-called "greats", and unapologetically lump them into this negative assessment - including Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, My Darling Clementine, and of course the infamous [but profoundly dull] Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone teamups in the '60s.)

But when I saw this movie on TV - as part of a commemorative Jimmy Stewart weekend upon his death - I finally GOT IT: I understood, at least in theory, what the Western mythos has to offer as a serious thematic preoccupation (aside from just action and thrills). It is the push-pull between lawlessness and order; the American West represented freedom, but also the prospect of the wild, the untamed. Respectable folk could get hurt out there. Which, of course, meant that perhaps - just perhaps - it wasn't meant for respectable folk, and that the only residents should be the amoral and the shifty, those who dispensed justice strictly from the barrel of their revolvers, and where kill or be killed would ever be the law of the land. In such an environment, of course, the true heroes are the ones who are ornery and free-spirited enough to be out there in the first place (and so reject "society," at least as it manifested itself on the Eastern seaboard), and yet have enough sense of justice to believe that a society based on chaos and fear just IS NOT RIGHT. Catching and examining that disparity between law and disorder IN THE MAIN CHARACTER HIMSELF is, I believe (after seeing this movie), the highest and truest goal of any Western. Sadly, it is so often not the case, as the white hats are completely white, the black ones completely black (and let's not even get started talking about the Indians, ok) and there is precious little shades of gray in between.

Not in this one. Jimmy Stewart plays a blatant fortune hunter who follows the trail of miners before him into the Alaskan wilderness to prospect for gold. He is joined in this by his lifelong buddy, played by Walter Brennan (perhaps the Western cliché character to end them all - but nevertheless enjoyable here, as always) - and no one else. Pointedly, they are out for themselves, and while Stewart displays his patented charm (come on, we could never really dislike the guy, now could we?), we are left with little doubt that his is basically a self-centered, self-interested character: none of his "Gosh" or "Oh golly gee" humanism is allowed to come through. Or, rather, it has to be EARNED, by the end of the picture, in the way I described above. He must confront the lawlessness in himself, and weigh it against the need for order and justice which are so blatantly lacking in the border town which serves as the miners' starting point on their gold dust trail. This town is ruled tightly by its wicked sheriff, Mr. Gannon, played by John McIntire in one of the best "bad guy" performances I've ever seen. He comes on with so much charm and humor, and has such a relaxed and interesting rapport with Stewart, that it actually takes awhile to recognize that he *is* the bad guy - so that when it finally sinks in, it does so with double force. Further, by establishing a type of breezy (if necessarily guarded) camaraderie between McIntire and Stewart, the film plays up the notion of how close in temperament they really are - and so how far a moral distance Stewart must walk by the end of the film.

I won't go through all the twists and turns the plot takes - see those for yourself (as well as the rugged and gorgeous Alaskan scenery - filmed on location, mind you, not cheap painted stills that the studio made up). What's key here is how much this story focuses upon character, with great dialogue and character interaction substituting for gunplay much of the time - although the film has just enough action and adventure to prevent it from ever being static (read: "talky"). Definitely one of the greatest performances I've seen from Stewart, showing he could play the renegade, the "man's man" just as convincingly as the decent and upright guy next door. If anything, in fact, his "everyman" qualities lend greater strength to his characterization, making him seem less mythic or overblown - -like, say, Eastwood or John Wayne - and more a three-dimensional personage. His relationship with Brennan is well-played: understated, but nevertheless touching (with a faint suggestion of George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" - an altogether different type of "western").

I certainly have more Westerns to see, but this is for now my favorite, and the yardstick by which I will necessarily judge all the others. It deserves to be much better known and appreciated than it is.


The fourth of five westerns Anthony Mann did with James Stewart, this one involves a hard bitten cattleman named Jeff Webster who takes a cattle drive from Wyoming to Alaska, via Seattle. He hooks up in Seattle with his partners Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan) and Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) that he has sent ahead of time in order to make preparations for the boat trip, north.

But first, he has to put up with insubordinate trail hands, cheating riverboat captains and the charms of coy, manipulative Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) who believes Jeff could be a valuable ally in the future. That's why she hides him out on the boat while the captain's looking for him for the earlier (and justifiable) killing of a trail hand.

Jeff also has the misfortune of running into sleazy Judge Gannon (John McIntire) who runs the town of Skagway, Alaska. Gannon locks Jeff up for disrupting his public hanging by running his cattle through town. He fines Jeff the ownership of his cattle and Jeff just has to eat crow for the time being.

In the meantime, Jeff agrees to ride point for Ronda up to Dawson in order to deliver supplies. But this is just a ruse so Jeff, Ben and Rube can slip back into Skagway and steal his cattle back. Of course Judge Gannon finds out about this and is right behind but is delayed by Jeff with a rifle while Ben races the cattle over the Canadian border out of Gannon's reach.

After avoiding an avalanche and another shootout with some other Skagway men, they finally reach Dawson where Jeff sells his cattle to the highest bidder, which just happens to be Ronda who then promptly sets up a new gambling house in Dawson. Jeff then takes his money and buys himself a claim and starts panning for gold.

But then Judge Gannon comes up to Dawson to get in on the gold action up there, and tells Jeff that he was getting a little bored with Skagway and wants to try his luck up in the Klondike, himself. That involves bring some hired gunman with him and forcibly stealing some of the other miner's claims. Jeff and Ben now feel it's time to clear out while the goings are good, leaving Rube to fend for himself as a most ineffective sheriff against Gannon and his gang.

They look for a back way out only to find themselves ambushed by Gannon's men because Ben made the mistake of opening his big mouth. Ben is killed and Jeff is severely wounded but that doesn't save Judge Gannon from his just due. The ending shootout at night on the muddy Dawson street pretty much takes care of that. First Jeff kills two of Gannon's best gunman (Jack Elam and Robert Wilkie). Then as Ronda comes out to warn Jeff that Gannon is trying to slip around behind him, Gannon shoots her in the back and she dies right there in Jeff's arms. Then Jeff kills Gannon as he's hiding under a wooden sidewalk. Revenge has spoken.

This is another rip-roaring western that's right up there with THE NAKED SPUR and THE MAN FROM LARAMIE. Why the Universal DVD uses a pan-and-scan print instead of the widescreen print TCM uses, is beyond me. You'll wind up missing half the glorious Alberta cinematography by William Daniels. So if you like well-written 50s westerns, then this one's an A-list keeper.

8 out of 10


This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10.


The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable.


This movie was just as good as some of the other westerns made by Anthony Mann and James Stewart like Winchester '73 and The Naked Spur, and much better than Thunder Bay and Bend Of The River. This film starts out like a run of the mill western but gets more complex as it goes along. It starts out with Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan arriving in Seattle and Stewart is charged with murder. He is found innocent but is cattle is stolen by a corrupt judge. Stewart then agrees to lead something but i forget what it is but Stewart only cares about getting his cattle back. As the movie goes along it's like Stewart only cares about himself just like his character in the Naked Spur. It gets much better at the halfway point after they arrive in Alaska. This is one of Stewart's better westerns.


I don't know if I'm just weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :)


I thought it was one of the best sequels I have seen in a while. Sometimes I felt as though I would just want someone to die, Stanley's killing off of the annoying characters was brilliant. It was such a well done movie that you were happy when so and so died. My only problem was in some scenes it looked like someone with a home camera was filming it and it was weird. Judd Nelson is cute, at least in my opinion and he was excellent in the role as Stanley Caldwell. Brilliant movie.


Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it.

Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.

I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.


I loved this movie. It was almost the same as the first (cabin by the lake), only instead of just killing women, he kills men also. And the scenes are much more interesting, 2 of my favorite scenes are firstly, when Stanley and Allison are in the dance club and he is describing Kimberly's last moments before she is thrown to the water, And secondly, When Stanley is visiting Allison in his basement, right before they head down to the set, when she kisses him. Those scenes, for me, were very intense and riveting. I gave the movie a rating of 8/10, not because the movie was bad, but because the filming was bad, I mean, there were times when you'd notice nothing was wrong, like its being shot the way a film is usually shot, you wouldn't see the "live" camera shooting, but then, very little, you would notice the filming mistakes. what went wrong??


This movie is the best horror movie, bar-none.I love how Stanley just dumps the women into the lake.I have been a fan of Judd Nelson's work for many years, and he blew me away. Its a blend of horror, and drama ,and romance, not so much comedy. His evil, yet charming look captured me right then and there. That look in his eyes, I will never forget. There's something about him, I cant describe.


When I first found out that Brian Krause was going to be in this movie, I wanted to watch. It took me weeks to realize that I've seen the original of this and loved it. So I had even more reason to watch. Well, I watched. It was actually better than most sequels for TV movies. I hate what happens to Brian's character (you can find out for yourself) and I didn't like most of the characters, Brian's one included. But the movie needed the cheesy and annoying and jerk-like characters to make Stanley Caldwell (Judd Nelson) shine once more. At the end, I was cheering for Stanley and his own happy ending. If you liked the original Cabin by the Lake or if you like horror movies without the blood, I'd suggest you watch this.


as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for "Return to Cabin by the Lake" is 7/10*


actually... that "video camera" effect, is just that, it's an effect, a rather good one.. (u don't know much about directing a film do you?) this film is in fact BETTER than the original, it's great fun to watch, made for TV, doesn't need to follow any rules. I find it hard to watch number 1 because of how he kills the first girl, its disturbing. and all the time we are routing for Judd Nelson to get away with it, we as the viewers are on his side. i hope one day we will see a 3rd cabin by the lake but i doubt it. Watching this film you can understand how real movies are made, as this is sort of like a film within a film. Judd is one of the scariest villains ever, and he's more realistic, he doesn't just mindlessly chop people up like in other horrors.