Like many here I grew up with Scooby-Doo. Unlike many here who did, I love this show! I think that it has been very well done and thought through. Everything about it marks it as a spin-off which isn't meant to be taken seriously. The formula is simple - it is a parody of other cartoons with a single bad guy trying to get the better of the good guy. By using the well known Shaggy and Scooby-Doo characters it is much easier to engage the viewer with the parody humour from the outset of each 30 minute episode.

There have always been Scooby-Doo spin-offs which have annoyed fans. The classic being the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts from the 80's. These spin-offs had their place: They allowed new content to be sold, created new fans, and kept Scooby-Doo merchandise on the shelves. I would agree that "Shaggy & Scooby-Doo: Get a Clue!" doesn't fit in with this traditional role but it is probably what I had always wanted the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts to be: an action packed show which focuses on the best/funniest Scooby-Doo characters! Good features of the show: the animation, the voices, the attention to detail, the bad-guys, the "Best Friend" relationship between Shaggy and Scooby-Doo, the constant humour! Bad features: None, although the revamped Mystery Machine is pretty close at times.

Well done Warner Bros. Animation! One of the cleverest cartoons in a long time!


I actually really like what I've seen of this cartoon so far. Sure, the animation isn't the best, but frankly, I'd rather see this type of more cartoony style done quickly and cheaply than the old type of style done quickly and cheaply (which was starting to happen more and more often--it's only a style that looks good when a lot of time and effort is put into it). There's nothing wrong with the angular lines and the little black-dot eyes--in fact, I think it's really cute. As a kid I never thought Scooby-Doo's design was particularly adorable, but I think I might like it better know.

Anyway, Shaggy has always been my favorite character, and believe it or not, but I think he has the most potential for some depth. Sure, the show doesn't center around the original "Mystery-solving" theme, but that was just a tired old formula anyway. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure there are writers out there who would be able to bring a lot more interest to Mystery Inc.'s traditional pursuits (which has been lacking as late), but in the mean time this show is a fun deviation from the standard. Shaggy and Scooby are still funny, but no longer only comic relief. They're still cowardly, but finally have the opportunity to use what seems to be (shock!) intelligence. They're the same old over-eating slackers as ever, but now actually seem to be getting on with their lives with the help of Uncle Albert's inheritance.

I used to find most original Scooby-Doo jokes to be pure cheese and unintentionally hilarious at best, but this show actually exercises a capacity for real humor. Also, I never really like Casey Kasem as Shaggy anyway, so the new actor doesn't annoy me as much as he does other people. (I still think Billy West was the best, though)

Overall, while not a great cartoon in the scope of all of cartoon history, still an achievement among other Scooby incarnations.


I just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous "Scooby Doo" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled "Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.

Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running "Roobi-Roo" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays "GET A CLUE!" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping.


I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon.


This series, produced at probably the most propitious time following the events of the second World War, is on a scale of value that stands far above any individual's presumption to criticize.

The timing of World at War's production in 1974, amounting to some three decades after the events of the war, permits an accurate relating of events in a manner uncoloured by residual propaganda and slant. The passage of thirty years allows the telling to be backed up by an impressive and fascinating panoply of the very individuals involved, ranging from some of the highest military and political figures down to the field soldiers, civilians, and such survivors of the death camps as have remained to bear witness to the unimaginable inhumanities of which civilized humans are capable. Most approaching or well into their senior years, the interviewed subjects have had enough time to reflect on their experiences and in most instances have had enough time for whatever propaganda and fervor may have affected them in the past to have receded away, leaving only the memories of what they saw and what they did.

The information that these survivors give, strikingly reinforced by the postures and expressions they display while telling their part, give their stories all the more impact. Such names as Ira Eaker, Adolph Galland, Louis Mountbatten, Albert Speer, Gertrude Junge (Hitler's personal secretary)... the list is far too long to relate.

Today, within the lifetime of the survivors of this enormous lesson in the hideous price of political ambition, are young people who chant the same sort of militaristic and nationalistic war promotion as led to WW2. The DVD series we discuss here ought to comprise the core of a mandatory history subject in schools, that the lessons bought at such a horrible cost in those days should not have been wasted but should be taken to heart by those who did not see firsthand the terrible price.

I am almost done watching the 11 disk set, having seen most of the series when a local TV channel aired it more than 10 years ago. It has lost none of its poignancy to me, indeed has become even more of a magnificent chronicle of some of the very darkest days of human times.

The highest possible rating seems unworthy of being applied to this presentation. I think the value of this series is beyond counting.


Utterly brilliant. Powerful and evocative. The most compelling documentary series ever made concerning war. It's tone offers a stark contrast to the often gung-ho attitude towards World War 2 that the media exhibits. Rather than opting for screaming about the horror of war, it allows Sir Laurence Olivier's quiet voice to take a back seat to the true images of war: corpses everywhere, explosions, terrified citizens and soldiers, broken men, indifferent politicians, mistakes that cost thousands of lives, the suffering of the innocents. Most of all it truly brings home that mankind is capable of when all normal rules of "civility" are removed. There is something distinctly Hobbesian about man in a true state of nature, he will return to a more beastly form capable of crimes that will still shock and fascinate 60 years on. Perhaps there could be a follow up series called "The century at war" for the twentieth century was truly the century of horrors. I feel it is an irony of immense magnitude that it took an event which caused the death of 50 million people to produce such a compelling and excellent series such as this.


Theo Robertson has commented that WAW didn't adequately cover the conditions after WWI which lead to Hitler's rise and WWII.

Perhaps he missed the first ONE and a quarter HOURS of volume 8? Covers this period, and together with the earlier volumes in the series, shows clearly the existing conditions, I feel. A friend of mine grew up in Germany during this period, joined the Hitler Youth even, and his experiences were very similar to that mentioned in WAW.

This documentary is SO far above the History Channel's documentaries I also own, that there is no comparison.

The ONLY fault, and it is a small one, that I have with WAW is this: the numbers are not included, many times. For instance, if you're talking about lend-lease, then how much war material was lent/leased? How much to Russia, how much to Britian? How many merchant ships did the U-Boats sink, and when? How many ships did the German or Japanese Navy have, total, in 1941? What type were they? How many troops? How many troops did the allies have, in total, and by country? Lots of numbers could have made a lot of viewers nod off, but I would have preferred MORE! And naturally, I always want to see more military analysis. Like WHY didn't Patton & Clark trap the German army that was at Cassini, after they had it surrounded, instead of racing Monty to Rome, and letting it escape? I don't think you can begin to understand war until you've seen some of these video segments on "total war", like the fire bombing of Dresden. It's like trying to understand Auschwitz, etc., before you see the clips of the death camps: you just can't wrap your head around it - it's too unbelievable.

Unknown at that time, and of course, unfilmed, were the most egregious cruelties and inhumanities of the Japanese, including cannibalism, (read "Flyboys"), and some LIVE vivisection of medical "experimentation" prisoners, w/o any anesthetic!

Dave


My wife and I have watched this whole series at least three times. I can't imagine how it could be better. This isn't the "complete" history of WWIIno library could hold such a historybut it is the best summary of that history. Lots of detail, lots of personal stories, and still keeps the overall picture in view.

Olivier's narration is excellently written and, of course, superbly given. The interviews are from all sides, except the Russian, because the producers were not allowed to talk to many Russians. It is very much worth owning this complete program on DVD. We treasure our copy.

The producer's do an excellent job of providing pictures and action where there was almost none extant in any archive: There are almost no films of convoys and submarine battles, for instance, but still, the episode on this subject is very well done.


The music and Laurence Olivier's sombre delivery set the tone perfectly for this outstanding documentary. This is still a must see for WW II buffs, descendants of the participants of that conflict, politicians who think things always go their way when they extend their foreign policy via the deck of an aircraft carrier (did you hear that George Bush?) and anyone else curious or needing to know the whys whos and hows of some aspect of that conflict. The 26 episodes are roughly in chronological order but can be seen out of sequence since they are more or less self contained. There is bound to be new insight for the new viewer because of the sheer volume presented. Actual footage of the battles is interspersed with interviews of those involved in the stories. Many of the interviews are with second line authorities, that is, support personnel to the main characters, privates, captains, secretaries, eyewitnesses and the like. You get a real upfront taste of what war is all about.

I am presently watching the DVD version of the original television documentary. I strongly recommend this over the worn out, gaptoothed, overpriced VHS offerings available on eBay. I paid $120 Cdn for five 2-sided DVD discs. This new release includes bonus material and is in full screen mode. The menus are easy to follow, there is first a choice of which episode you want to view and then after selecting that you are given the option of various chapters in the episode or to play the whole episode. It is understandable with such a comprehensive presentation there is a tiny amount more of navigation in the menu but the impact of what you will see is not diminished after 30 years, nay, after 60 years since the war finished.

I remember watching the first broadcast on the Buffalo PBS station just before moving from London in 1975 and wishing right from that time that I could have a copy. Now my wish has finally come true.

See this documentary. Tell your friends. Buy a copy for your library. Remember and honour the sacrifices and challenges overcome by those from America, Russia, Britain, Canada and all the other nations and peoples involved in the final victory. What an eye opener.


Although too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as "The Nazis - A warning From History", "Blitz" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. "Britain At War In Colour", with its companion series "Japan", "Germany" and "America" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative.


If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!


Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator.


After all these years I still consider this series the finest example of World War II documentary film making. The interviews with the many participants from all countries set this apart from any other project. It would be great to see a contemporary documentarian(Ken Burns ?) take on this topic and try to gather information from veterans before they are all gone. With modern technology to improve old archival footage and lots of information that has been unearthed since 1974 when The World At War was produced, an updated version of this series would be welcome. The History Channel has made some fine shows dealing with many aspects of WWII but an expansive series such as the World At War has not been successfully attempted since the original. If you are interested in this era don't miss this series. It is required viewing.


This should be required viewing for all young people. This is documentary at its best, from the haunting music and terrific narration by Olivier to its unflinching and penetrating analyses, The World at War is unforgettable and irreplaceable for anyone who wants to know about humanity's sorry experience at the nadir of the 20th century.


I must have seen this a dozen times over the years. I was about fifteen when I first saw it in B & W on the local PBS station.

I bought a DVD set for the children to see, and am making them watch it. They don't teach history in School, and this explains the most critical event of the 20th Century. It expands their critical thinking.

Impartially, with the participants on all sides explaining in their own words what they did and why, it details what lead up to the war and the actual war.

Buy it for your children, along with Alistair Cooke's America. Watch it with them, and make them understand. You'll be so glad you did.


Example of how a World War 2 documentary should be made,using first hand accounts from actual troops and civilians whom participated in this awful conflict,and archived footage gathered from around the time .I caught this on a re-run on the History channel about a year and a half back,with no knowledge really of the Second World War at the time,but it enveloped me,and now I consider myself a World War 2 buff,watching and reading any and all that I can find about it,but nothing comes close to this landmark documentary,definitely worth buying the boxed set of.............

This is quite simply documentary making of the very highest standard.


10 out of 10, this brilliant, super documentary is a must see, with film clips from the war which people did not seen for years, untill this was screened in 1974. The film clips in this documentary from the war doesn't miss out anything, some of the clips left me dumbstuck. The whole series is over 20 episodes long, and Sir Lawrence Olivier is the narrator and tells a stunning story of war. Simply this is still probably the best documentary of war still, and now over 25 years old still is able to pack a tremendous punch. You must watch this at some time, even if it's a few episodes, even at that you will still be blown away at the impact this documentary means to those who have been there suffered and died in the name of WAR, in a WORLD AT WAR..


This is without doubt the best documentary ever produced giving an accurate and epic depiction of World War 2 from the invasion of Poland in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945.

Honest and to the point, this documentary presents views from both sides of the conflict giving a very human face to the war. At the same time tactics and the importance of Battles are not overlooked, much work has been put into the giving a detailed picture of the war and in particularly the high, low and turning points in the allies fortunes. Being a British produced documentary this 26 part series focus is mainly on Britain, but Russia and America's contribution are not skimmed over this is but one such advantage of a series of such length.

Another worthy mention is the score, the music and the whole feel of the documentary is one of turmoil, struggle and perseverance. Like a film this series leaves the viewer in no doubt of the hardship faced by the allies and the Germans during the war, its build to a climax at the end of every episode, which serves to layer the coarse of the second world war. After watching all 26 the viewer is left with an extensive knowledge about the war and astonished at just how much we owe to the members of the previous generation.


I remember watching this as a child in the UK, mesmerized by the story and Laurence Olivier's narration. We would talk about nothing else at school the next day. I imagine the ratings for the first showing were huge. This is quite simply the best most comprehensive documentary series despite the fact they had to cut the story down to the bone they managed to capture so much. What is interesting is that the battles of Britain and North Africa were pivotal yet are widely unrecognized as such by Americans. The series captures the rivalry between Mountbatten and the American generals, the suffering of German troops on the Eastern front, the maltreatment of Japanese prisoners of war by American troops. The images of the holocaust made me, a non-Jewish European, feel forever guilty about the treatment of the Jewish people. I don't know why this is not number one in the IMDb rankings. Perhaps they are showing their bias against documentaries. Spoiler - we win.


I am not a very good writer, so I'll keep this short. World at War is the best WWII documentary that I've seen. I've seen different WWII documentaries (not only English/North American) and this documentary seems to be the most complete WWII documentary that I've seen. I think it could talk a bit more about the Great Depression and why/how Hitler got to power, but it does a very good job at covering the war. It seems to be complete and objective/fair to everyone. It does not exaggerate or diminish roles of different nations. It has a lot of original footage, including color footage and many eye witnesses (it was made in 70's when a lot more were alive). It has great music and narrator. All-in-All I gave this one 10/10, because it's that good. (I haven't seen specials in DVD version so I cannot comment on those)


World At War is perhaps the greatest documentary series of all time. The historical research is virtually flawless. Even after a quarter century, it is the most accurate and definitive documentary about WW2. An invaluable historical work that includes interviews with some of the most important and fascinating figures from the war. I highly recommend it as a learning experience.


Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.

The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in "The Making of The World at War" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.

The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously.


i watched this series when it first came out in the 70s.i was 14 years old and i watched it at my best friends house as my dad didn't want to watch it.it became a weekly ritual every Sunday, and as anyone will tell you for two fourteen year olds to watch a documentary in almost reverential silence must mean that this was something special.

the broad sweep of the events of world war 2 makes for a difficult subject to document.so the makers broke it down into what they considered to be the most significant key happenings and devoted one episode to each.some episodes covered long periods such as 'wolf pack' which covered nearly all six years of the battle of the Atlantic.while the battle of Stalingrad had one episode to itself.

this documentary could not be made today quite simply because most of those interviewed are dead.the list of significant players appearing gives an amazing insight into the thinking at the time.Anthony eden the foreign secretary,Carl donnitz,head of the u-boats,Albert speer,pet architect confident and later armament minister for Hitler.in one of the later episodes we see traudl junge, Hitler's secretary,who was with him in the bunker and it was to her that he dictated his last will and testament-she left the bunker after Hitler's suicide and escaped through the Russian lines.these and many others play a major role in the realism of the events portrayed.

if i have any criticism of the series it is that the code-breakers of bletchly park are not included but the revelations of their part in the war only emerged after the series had been made so i cannot blame the programme makers.

the opening titles and music are magnificent,and Lawrence Olivier's narration lends a natural gravity to the script.

the best documentary series ever made? without doubt.unmissable


War is hell. But this documentary of WWII is heaven.

Not only is this series a breath-taking, almost-exhaustive look at the Second World War, it's a poetic masterpiece told clearly and superbly by Laurence Olivier.

This documentary series defines the genre. It's sweepingly long, no doubt, but you will enjoy all of them and want to come back for more and more. (I have the series on DVD and I probably watch the series three times a year).

Truly, this is an impeccable bit of film-making. Other than Olivier, the best part of the series is listening to the veterans tell their stories; whether it be about an actual battle or about finding a hog to butcher so they could have something delicious for supper.

I'm going to go watch it right now (again, my... 11th time).


This is what we can do to each other. This is the sort that everbody should see at least once.

It does not glorify world. It shows that it is the everyday person who is killed, mained and debased by war. The person on the "other side" eats sleeps, laughs and cry just as we do.


As so many others have written, this is a wonderful documentary. Here is a list of the 'chapters' for anyone interested: 1: A New Germany: 1933-1939 2: Distant War, September 1939-May 1940 3: France Falls, May-June 1940 4: Alone, May 1940-May 1941 5: Barbarossa, June-December 1941 6: Banzai, Japan, 1931-1942 7: On Our Way, USA, 1939-1942 8: Desert North Africa, 1940-1943 9: Stalingrad, June 1942-February 1943 10: Wolfpack 11: Red Star The Soviet Union, 1941-1943 12: Whirlwind Bombing Germany, September 1939 13: Tough Old Gut 14: Its A Lovely Day, Tomorrow: Burma, 15: Home Fires: Britain 1940-1941 16: Inside The Reich: Germany, 1940-1944 17: Morning: June - August 1944 18: Occupation Holland, 1940-1944 19: Pincers: August 1944- March 1945 20: Genocide: 1941-1945 21: Nemesis, Germany: February-May 1945 22: Japan: 1941-1945 23: Pacific: February 1942-July 1945 24: The Bomb: February-September 1945 25: Reckoning


The world at war is one of the best documentaries about world war 2.

The 24 episodes cover the war and what it was like in the countries involved in it. The first episode tells us how the Hitler came to power, and how he was able to build up one of the strongest armies in the world. They also fucus on the military actions taken during the war, and the holocaust. One of the strongest and best documentaries ever made. All of you must watch this. Perfection! 10/10


I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.

With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here.

I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s)

This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.

Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.

This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time...


This excellent series, narrated by Laurence Olivier, brilliantly, it should be said, charts the beginning to the end of World War 2. The origins are not entirely examined fully from Germany's fall at the hands of the Versailles treaty which helped propel Hitler's demonic rise, but as one reviewer says, that must be hard to do, in a 26-part series with so much to cram in.

Apart from the expected combat photography/action, there are plenty of personal, emotional and human tragedies that are told giving the viewer an amazing insight, especially if you're not necessarily a World War 2 buff/fan. Episodes showing 'testimonies' and what life was like on the home front of the main allies/adversary, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S.A. were quite eye-opening. Showing the extreme savagery of the war on the frontline and of course the sufferings of civilians, the death camps etc., were very well handled and exposed. I'd fully recommend this in any history class for the younger generation (Of which it could be said I am one at 47!).

Certain things are quite strangely left out, like the advent of the new jet era beginning, with Frank Whittle's experimental Gloster jet and the Gloster Meteor's combat debut as well as that of the German Messerschmitt Me 262 - especially as the V-1 was seen making its debut and there was surprisingly smaller mention of the V2. This is probably a small oversight, not referring to the more sensational secret and fantastic weapons which WW2 brought forward from a more barren old science. But a great series that made its mark and has done so ever since when thankfully repeated.

A series to own as a box set in history terms, on DVD for anyone especially who happens to be a military fan. Jeremy Isaacs and Thames TV should be well proud.


I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!

Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.

Buy it!


I saw this series when I was a kid and loved the detail it went into and never forgot it. I finally purchased the DVD collection and its just how I remembered. This is just how a doco should be, unbiased and factual. The film footage is unbelievable and the interviews are fantastic. The only other series that I have found equal to this is 'Die Deutschen Panzer'.

I only wish Hollywood would sit down and watch this series, then they might make some great war movies.

Note. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers and When Trumpets Fade are some I'd recommend


This was by far the best war documentary ever made. From the very beginning of the first episode when Sir Laurence Olivier described the horrific events in Oradour-Sur-Glane 'The day the soldiers came'. To the final days of the war when the mushroom clouds appeared over Japan, I never missed a second of this classic series and I remember it well even though it was screened way back in 1974. Each and every aspect of this tragedy was covered in detail. This whole series should be compulsory viewing for as many of the world's children as possible so that the tragedy of World War Two is not repeated and that bigotry, hatred, greed and intolerance are not confused with patriotism or religious zeal.


This is a fantastic series first and foremost. It is very well done and very interesting. As a huge WWII buff, I had learned a lot before seeing this series. One of the best things this has going for it is all the interviews with past individuals back when the war was relatively fresh in their minds, comparatively speaking that is. It is nothing against the men that you see getting interviewed in the programs of today, it is just that most of these men weren't really involved in the upper echelons of what was happening then. One of the best parts is the narrating by Sir Laurence Oliver. I would recommend this to anyone that wants to learn about WWII, but really think only the die-hards (such as myself) will want to buy this or watch it more than once. My only real complaint about this entire series is that some of the facts aren't quite as accurate as we now know. Especially with the information about Soviet Union is exaggerated or just plain inaccurate in places. That information is now different we now know because of the fall of the USSR. Overall a fascinating look at WWII and a must see for any serious WWII historian professional or personal alike.


Despite being told from a British perspective this is the best WW II documentary ever produced. Presented in digestible (as digestible as war can be) episodes as the grave voice of Laurence Olivier connects the multitudes of eye witnesses who were forced to live the events of that horrific time. Eagerly awaiting its appearance on DVD in the U.S. The Europeans had their opportunity with a release in DVD earlier this year.


'Five Days' is billed as something special, a crime drama that consists of a series of episodes, each set on one particular day of a police enquiry. But in fact, this element of the story turns out to be rather less significant than might at first be thought, as the fact that the action in each episode is confined to 24 hours is hardly noticeable, and very little distinguishes the program from countless other crime stories. In fact one almost can't help drawing comparisons to the last 'Prime Suspect', as one of the sub-plots focuses on a single, cynical female cop approaching retirement: and it's not just the absence of Helen Mirren that makes the comparisons unfavourable. There's a lot of earnest over-emoting, manipulative music and a set of characters seemingly contrived so that each one is in some sense sympathetic, in another suspicious. And it's possible to guess the guilty party well before the end, not because of the internal dynamic of the story, but rather because of the construction of the drama as a whole: certain things must be true, to justify the way that the series focuses on certain characters at certain times. In spite of these failings, the series grew on me: by the end, I was quite gripped. But it's a sad sign that the BBC, which once made the likes of 'The Singing Detective', boasted of this of "possibly the best drama of the year": for there's little true originality on offer here, and the claim reveals a lack of ambition that is dreadfully disappointing. 'Five Days' is in fact not rubbish; but it is formulaic, and one would hope that the very best the BBC had to offer would be something a little more innovative and fresh.


A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.

But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.

One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.


It's only 2 episodes into a 5 part drama, but I can already state that this is one of the best things I've ever seen. That's on TV, silver screen or even in real life.

As a writer, it's so good it's almost demoralising! As a viewer it's so entertaining that I'm annoyed the episodes are over a fortnight instead of Monday to Friday. It's clear that all these negatives are actually positives.

I'm a modern guy who previously turned over from TV dramas. In comparison to movies, TV dramas always seemed to be dated, quite tame, and well, generally boring! "Five Days" has really brought TV drama into the 21st Century, so for me at least, it's mind changing. Go watch it.


I totally got drawn into this and couldn't wait for each episode. The acting brought to life how emotional a missing person in the family must be , together with the effects it would have on those closest. The only problem we as a family had was how quickly it was all 'explained' at the end. We couldn't hear clearly what was said and have no idea what Gary's part in the whole thing was? Why did Kyle phone him and why did he go along with it? Having invested in a series for five hours we felt cheated that only five minutes was kept back for the conclusion. I have asked around and none of my friends who watched it were any the wiser either. Very strange but maybe we missed something crucial ????


This is a very engrossing BBC-TV mini-series which is loosely based upon a mysterious disappearance of a young mother, but the series is really more of a study of the assorted characters in the story, which lasts for five hours. It is thus very much an ensemble piece, where the wide variety of brilliant British actors and actresses can show off their talents. The actual characters portrayed are really 'the kind of people one does not normally meet', people so boring and nondescript that it is difficult to admire them. For instance, the lead character is a young husband (the one whose wife disappears) who has no job and no apparent interest in finding any. He lives off handouts from his parents-in-law. He was once in the Army but does not appear to have the slightest flicker of any ambition or any interests in life apart from doting on his small family. He is played by David Oyelowo, who is brilliant at the part, coming across as a totally sympathetic person, although his only activities for five hours are loving and grieving, which he does superbly, so that one wants to comfort him, as he is so obviously a nice guy. The standout performance of the whole series is unquestionably Penelope Wilton, who acts circles round everyone else in the story. She is simply incredible. She portrays a very unsympathetic woman, indeed the only character in the story who is all too familiar to everyone, namely an irrational, hysterical, self-centred, dense, querulous, blindly loving and blindly hating, elderly idiot-woman. Alas, alas, we know them too well. Wilton is one of Britain's finest actresses (see my review of her in 'Half Broken Things'). She takes a character who could have been two-dimensional and makes her four-dimensional. She is wonderfully supported by old pro Patrick Malahide, who plays her exasperated husband, and the pair of them set a high standard indeed for all the younger players. Janet McTeer, a spectacular actress when younger, has become a much less sympathetic type of person now that she is older, has coarsened in some way, and puts one off, but she redeems herself in the latter stages of the story by showing how brilliant an actress she can be when she has a chance by pulling off one of the most convincing and original drunk scenes I have ever seen on film. The big surprise is the enigmatic character Sarah, played with great depth and originality by actress Sarah Smart. She takes a character who could have been insufferably tedious and by sheer acting magic turns her into a deeply mysterious and intriguing person, about whom we wonder tirelessly for the entire five hours. She is so good at it that we end up wondering about Sarah Smart, frankly. I guess that's what happens when you really do your job properly, that people wonder where the character ends and the actress begins, if she knows herself, that is, and many do not. She has some deeply unnerving tricks with her eyes, which wobble and let us know she is unhinged, but we are not sure how or why, though we eventually learn that she had an extremely violent and traumatic childhood. Her mastery of ambiguous facial expressions is extraordinary. Rory Kinnear is amazingly convincing as an apparently hopeless fellow who lives with his mum and isn't up to much, but who turns out to have hidden depths. (I suppose most people have hidden depths, but do we want to plumb them, that is the question.) His mum is played very well indeed by Margot Leicester. A superb performance is given by Lucinda Dryzek, who plays a snotty, revolting teenage girl of the sort we all dread to meet, but who at crucial moments collapses in helpless tears and turns out to be pathetic, with all her arrogance just a pose. Three other children are also very good, Lucinda's friend, and her younger half-brother and half-sister. The younger siblings may be very dim indeed as characters in the story (they seem unable to say anything particularly articulate, being hopeless witnesses to the disappearance), with little to recommend them but their sweet natures, but that is conveyed to wonderful effect by Lee Massey as the boy and Tyler Anthony as the girl. Harriet Walter has a small role, but we do not get to see much of her, which is a shame, as she is such a fine actress that she was wasted here. One could go on, but one must draw a line somewhere. The series manages to be strangely fascinating because of the depth of portrayal of all these essentially uninteresting people caught up in a web of intense anxiety and suspense.


One of the finest pieces of television drama of the last decade. Throughout the five hours, ones perceptions and sympathies are constantly challenged as it explores many facets of modern day British society. David Morrisey is, as usual, brilliant. At first coming across as a heavy handed copper in conflict with the heroine, but then proving to be intelligent and caring, as he works with her in uncovering the truth. I have never seen Surrane Jones before. I believe she comes from the world of television soaps. Her performance was magnificent, as she maintains her humour and composure whilst trying to balance the demands of the case and the stress of caring for her mother. I could go on and talk about every member of the cast who contributes to this magnificent drama, but their efforts would mean little without such an absorbing script that constantly challenges your assumptions about any of the characters. It is programmes like this that restore one's faith in television drama, whilst at the same time making it almost impossible to settle for most of the garbage that is increasingly filling the airwaves.


An OUR GANG Comedy Short.

The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...

Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama.


This is one of the all-time great "Our Gang" shorts. Spanky is at his very cutest and funniest, and the babies that he get's left to babysit are also hilarious. Tiny Spanky is coerced by the gang into watching all their little siblings. The opening shot of them all in baby carriages, being entertained by various things hung by the gang from fishing poles is a beautiful gag.

Spanky's appearance wearing his huge toy knife when asked to babysit by the older fellows is priceless, as is his response --"Hey, where do you get that stuff -- I don't take care of no babies!" The tiny fellow saying "remarkable" throughout the film, all the beautiful sight gags, and Spanky telling the babies "all about Tarzan" add up to make this one of the best "Our Gang"'s you'll ever see.


This is a really great short from Hal Roach. This is because of two main reasons: The littlest kids in the short are among the cutest to have ever been on film and the plot has so many funny and well-written elements.

As for the littlest of the Little Rascals, I honestly can't think of a cuter kid than Spanky at about age four. Despite being a rather chubby and unattractive kid in later years, he was just precious here. And, placing the little tiny boy in charge of babysitting the even younger kids was not only funny, but once again high on the cute factor.

After the older kids blackmail Spanky into doing this awful babysitting job, all kinds of funny mayhem breaks loose. The gags are pretty effective and well-done for the time--with an accidental crank call involving a murder and a final scene where Spanky FINALLY gets control of the little ones being the most memorable. I haven't seen these shorts in many decades and I am glad I gave this one a chance.


This is a pretty OK film... yes some parts are lame and exceptionally convenient, and the movie doesn't really justify the large star cast (AB, SD, Tanuja). However, the actor that really impressed me here was Kay Kay Menon (not to be confused with the singer KK). In the scene where he first meets Amitabh's character, I thought that a man who can just look at AB, keep staring and not say a word, and still look strong, is definitely a good actor. In fact, he has proved himself worthy again in Sarkar, alongside AB for a second time. This guy should get more roles, he's brilliant.

If you've read any of the other reviews here on IMDb, you already know the plot, and I do agree that Akshaye Khanna's entry into Pakistan was a little too easy. And the little love angle he shared with "what's-her-face" was completely unnecessary. But he is a fairly good actor (as seen in DCH), Sunjay Dutt is cool to watch, always. and AB... what can I say. I don't know if I'm his biggest fan in the world, but I know I can definitely compete for the spot.

An interesting watch, considering it's Bollywood, although a bit inspired by Hollywood oldies like "the Great Escape" and "Bridge on the River Kwai".


Two movies back to back which dealt with Indian POWs; Veer Zaara and Deewaar. Although Veer Zara was a love story of a guy who gives everything up for someone, Deewaar focuses on the main subject itself. It is not hidden that many Indian POWs are rotting in Pakistani Jails for years - for whom neither Indian Govt. has time or sympathy nor the other side. I'm sure some of Pakistani POWs are in India as well, but let's focus on the movie. Full of actors. Some were stage actors like Raghubir Yadav, Rajendra Gupta, etc. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the role of a Major, acted well. Akshaye Khanna did his part well. There was nothing for Amrita Rao to do than a few giggles and couple songs. I think Sanjay Dutt's role was most solid even though it wasn't too long. He acted really well here and his dialog delivery was also impressive. If you compare it to LOC, which was nothing but a day long movie with story going in all directions (if it HAD a story) - Deewaar is a well directed movie that keeps a good pace and does justice to all actors. 7.5/10


I really loved this movie and so did the audience that I saw it with in Los Angeles. After the film, lots of people were crying and saying how much the film had affected them. I can see why it was such a huge hit in its homeland, Sweden. The film is masterfully directed and each character brilliantly drawn so that by the end you really know these people and care about them. The music is very natural and the main song in the film quite heartbreaking but inspiring. Would definitely recommend this film for everyone to see - even people who don't normally go to subtitled films. Definitely deserved the Oscar Nomination because of the profound themes of the film reflected without pretension in a small-town community with everyday people. It is a film that unites us in this divided world and shows us the potential of the human spirit. A MUST SEE!


This film, recently voted as an audience favorite at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival, is inspiring and moving. A famous conductor, forced to retire by illness, returns to the small village of his birth to become the leader of the church choir, and finally find fulfillment in his music. Drawing on Sweedish traits of keeping things within oneself and of the insular character of a small Swedish village, this film develops each of its characters well. superbly directed, acted and sung, it brought tears to many eyes, and smiles to all. Hopefully it will find distribution in the United States.

If you can, see it!


Wow I loved this movie! It is about normal life in a small village. About hypocrisy and honesty, love and surrender. Great! It is about things everybody encounters in life. You have to do things with passion. But some people will not appreciate your passion and will try to stop you. There are people who find the opinion of others and 'what will the neighbors think' more important than to follow their heart. Don't let anybody's opinion stop you from fulfilling your dreams and passion. I loved the fact that the actors were all really normal people, it could have been my family. No big beauties, but all people you fall in love with during the movie.


This is one of those movies that you keep thinking about when you wake up the next morning. It will give you that warm, fuzzy feeling and leave you with a smile on your face.

Sure, we get fed the typical stereotype characters and stories, but it does do the trick: Entertain.

Being from Sweden and living in the US for quite sometime, it is funny how we react. "The deadbeat husband is going to kill him", "She (Gabriella) is going to die and then there will be a heartbreaking larger-than-life ending". We know how these things work, everything comes together at the end. And it did. The characters were somewhat simple, they were so elaborate that you didn't really think twice about it, nothing was really left for your own imagination. The closest would probably be Siv, she makes you ask yourself if she indeed was in love with Daniel, but that's about it.

But the movie is beautiful, set in rural Norrland, the music is absolutely amazing and the characters are lovable. Michael Nyqvist is truly genius, with his crazy unique look and Frida Hallberg is charming and approachable. Maybe a little too nice.

But most of all this movie makes you feel, and that is the most important thing. You cry, you laugh, you hate and you identify. I don't know about you guys, but that does not happen that often.


I am not going to spoil the contents to anyone, who has not yet watched this humble masterpiece by Kay Pollak.

A world famous conductor brilliantly played by Michael Nyqvist seeks peace from stress by moving back to his childhood village. The villagers, who has followed the genius in silence, are slowly tempting him to share of his greatness.

Each role in this movie, has a very specific purpose and shows a remarkable potential in each of the actors playing their own chord in short but precise words, a symphony of love.

Not love in the sense of relationship, but in the tone of the spirit deeply buried within each of the characters, each revealing their own present story, their needs, their skeletons, desires and much more.

I shall not forget to mention, the two main parts played by Frida Hallgren and Michael Nyqvist, whose dramas are played in unforgettable harmonies of emotional feedback. They touch each other with a pain connected in their own disability to love themselves.

Michael Nyqvist is really put to the test here in a very difficult setup, in one of those movies that either end up as catastrophic or fantastic. And fantastic it became from start to end, not one second less or more than enough, you are left with a feeling of change and a taste for more.

To this day, definitely one of the best movies I have had the pleasure of watching.


First I was caught totally off guard by the film's initial lyricism and then I became totally enchanted with the unfolding story and engrossed with the brilliant directing. The characters were all fully developed, not bigger-than-life but just like the people we live among anywhere we are in the world, in Sweden, in Turkey or in America, all completely believable human beings with foibles and nobility. Hollywood could learn so much from this beautiful film. It shows that there is no need to go into every little detail behind every action to bring out the whole theme clear and bright, and that shows the brilliance of the director! Hearfelt thanks to Kay Pollak and the wonderful cast for this superb treat!!


If the screenwriter and director intended to open hearts with the movie as the musician wanted to do with his music, they succeeded with me. Commonplace human situations became original, personal and immediate so that I personally felt touched by each situation. I believe I would credit the power of music combined with the point of view of the person writing the movie. Without spoiling, I can say that I was very moved by the movie's approach to living. Haven't actually cried out of-what- joy? empathy? just deep emotion? in a very long time. I would love to find a way to show it to others. Saw it at Seattle International Film Festival.


Back to the roots with "like it is in heaven" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone.

From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.

He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.

Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears!


A beautiful film, touching profoundly up the simple, yet divine aspects of humanity.

This movie was almost perfect, and seeing as nothing in this world can be truly perfect, that is pretty good. The only minor thing I subjectively object to, is the pacing at some points in the middle of the story. The acting is also very good, and all the actors easily top actors in high-profile films. The actual directing seems to have been well thought through, and the script must have been amazing. There are some truly breathtaking moments of foreshadowing, and a quite gorgeous continuing circular composition of the story.

The moment in the movie, when the main character achieves that feeling of being in heaven is the perfect ending to a truly brilliant yarn.


Kay Pollak's 2004 heart-warmer Så som i himmelen/ As it is in Heaven contains every stereotype of Swedish humanity and inhumanity yet manages to be a crowd-pleaser. It contains plenty of ammunition for cynical critics, continuity error-spotters and for saccharine-debunkers, yet manages to depict the colours of life in a small community evocatively. The film also runs the gamut of proverbial messages about 'finding one's own voice' and 'just doing it despite one's fear', without completely removing the lump from the throats of the cynics.

Its success as a crowd pleaser comes from two facts. Firstly, small films about strangers bringing new life to rural Christian communities provide plenty of scope for the exposure of hypocrisy while at the same time allowing repressed characters to break out of their hairshirts. The same year and with a similarly Swedish breeze, The Queen of Sheba's Pearls did it, and Babette's Feast also comes to mind. Secondly, any film about small communities taking on the whole wide world will strike a human chord in our increasingly individual/self- focused and impersonalized world. This film's structural similarity with the likes of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Calendar Girls and On a Clear Day shows its indebtedness to the formula. But it is a formula with life left in it yet, and this seems to be because people need positive- message films that evoke a sense of community almost in spite of themselves.

The stranger is burned-out maestro Daniel Daréus on a quest for self-rediscovery. The town he visits, or rather revisits, is, unbeknownst to the townsfolk, the place of his childhood. He was bullied mercilessly by classmates here, supposedly because he was a sensitive musician without aspiration to drive a truck. Here, he takes the job of cantor/choirmaster, despite the usual suspicions of artists and outsiders. The place is, of course, populated by a wide range of recognizable types whose character arcs can be predicted: the broken-hearted, fair-haired girl so beautiful she nearly glows; the cellphone-ringing local businessman; the woman whose beauty is lost amidst domestic abuse; the steely pastor and his less austere wife, who at first seem right out of Ingmar Bergman. Also present: jealous, uptight spinster (Siv) (check); geriatric whose soul still sings (check); elderly couple who may have repressed desires for each other since kindergarten (check); obese person whose function is to point out we should not laugh and say 'fatty' (check); intellectually handicapped boy who proves able to sing a good 'A' (check).

Pollak's film is not all warm fuzzies, however. It diverts from the 'let's put on a show despite setbacks and moral opposition' sub-genre. It contains violence and an ending that might well be a metaphor for dying after achieving creative nirvana. The violence of the film is mostly a function of male anger and repression, but in never delves deeply into why the school bully who grows up into a wife beater is like this. Similarly, the small town Pastor so closely adheres to the moralistic, black-wearing super-Protestant stereotype, that his secret indulgence in girlie magazines is hardly surprising. His repressions and hypocrisies are just there, dangling unrelated to psychological reality. Perhaps the unexplained photograph of a young boy, a lost son perhaps, glimpsed once over his shoulder, holds the secret.

Perhaps these holes are functions of the editing, like several inconsistencies and continuity glitches that can be spotted, such as Siv's unexplained reappearance in the choir (twice) after moralistic outbursts. In fact none of the hitches in the film last very long and all seem resolved within a scene. Apart from in some awkward love scenes, the film's 127 minutes seldom drag, but there is a feeling that things may have been left on the cutting room floor.

The film remains solid three-star-fare despite the holes that can be picked in it. This is simply because in a world of technology-focused flicks and materialistic self-seeking, any glimpse of human community is, deep down, welcome for anyone, even the cynical.


My expectations were quite high for this film. Everyone I know who saw this film at the cinema told me that everyone there stayed through the credits because they were so touched. My expectations could not have been any higher, anything short of wonderful would have disappointed me.

I was anything but disappointed by this movie. I loved how it dealt with difficult subjects without going through the usual steps a Hollywood film tends to include. In this film characters worked through problems they had had for decades, they worked through prejudicm, they learned to open up. But it did not come easily, and not just by singing a song or two. It was painful, it took arguments, it took confrontations. It felt like real life.

One scene that really stuck out to me was the scene in which Gabriella sings her song. Helen Sjöholm is one of my favorite singers, her voice is lovely, and you could tell that she was not just lip-syncing to a previous recording during filming (which I often find in other movies), she really sang with her whole body and soul. You could feel what Gabriella was feeling in that scene. Had this movie been made in Hollywood her song would most likely have been sung toward the end, and it would have made her husband open his eyes and see the error of his ways, as well as making the other people in the village realise a thing or two. Instead it came halfway through, and it did not bring any solutions. Her husband did not become overwhelmed and realise what he's putting her through, and it didn't seem to make anyone else in the village more open minded. It was beautiful, it was pure and it was touching but it did not magically solve all her problems. That felt real to me, that's probably what would have happened in real life. The whole movie felt like real life to me, nothing neatly wrapped up but everything with a sense of joy and happiness. You rarely find a movie which feels so realistic.

There were a few things that bothered me, but hey, no movie is perfect. If you haven't already you should go see "As it is in Heaven" and be filled with a joy for life, a sense of hope and the feeling that you've been touched on a level movies rarely reach. You will be sad, pained, happy and a dozen other emotions.

Someone once said that if every person in the world sang in a choir there would be no more wars. Having seen this film I might have to agree.


I was drawn to this movie the moment I saw a preview of it on Oscar night. When I read about Kay Pollak, I was hooked. We Americans are suckers for a comeback kid.

I understand this movie was a huge draw in Sweden. As a very provincial American I can only speculate on the reason. Perhaps it is because of the provocative joke that the Lena character makes at the beginning of the movie and other social comment but perhaps it is because of the central message which I believe has the same appeal everywhere in affluent societies.

The message of this movie for me is the same as the movie Titanic. Life is short people and as far as anyone really knows it's all we've got. It can be taken away at any time. So isn't it a pity that we spend so much time hiding behind walls separating us from other people because we're so afraid of being hurt? Tearing down the walls is painful but feeling alive lies on the other side of those wretched walls. Feeling alive is worth taking the risk. Give and you will receive. So start living NOW.

Many people are criticizing this movie for it's lack of characterization and other flaws. I say you are all pseudo-sophisticated. Get a grip folks, it's a parable, a fable for we affluent westerners who are materially rich but whose souls are in abject poverty.

So join a choir or a band or help build housing or distribute food for those less fortunate than you. Spread some joy and make the world a better place as long as you get out and commune with your fellow man. Writing a check is not enough. We are a social species by the way. Even the humblest of your fellow human beings can affect you in ways you never thought possible.

Rugged individualism has its place but it is over-rated.


I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this as my #3 film. I had an initial interest in seeing this being of Swedish descent myself with many of my ancestors coming from the Norrland region of Sweden where this was filmed. Also I grew up in an area of rural north woods America where many small towns were much like the setting of this film. It's nice to see more films using rural locations as their settings like Så som i himmelen. This was a very good film and I'm sure a very hard film to pull together with it's large ensemble cast but Director Kay Pollock really pulled this off after a nearly two decade absence from directing. Helen Sjoholm in her motion picture debut as an actress was fantastic and I would look forward to more of her on the big screen. I enjoyed Michael Nyqvist in the lead of this well-rounded cast. I would highly recommend this film and rate it a 9.0 on a scale of 10.


The arrival of an world famous conductor sets of unexpected events and feelings in the small village. Some people are threatened by the way he handles the church choir, and how people in it gradually change. This movie is heartwarming and makes you leave the cinema with both a smile on your lips and tears in your eyes. It'a about bringing out the best in people and Kay Pollak has written an excellent script based on the ideas he has become so famous for. The actors are outstanding, Michael Nyqvist we know before but Frida Hallgren was an new, and charming acquaintances to me. She has a most vivid face that leaves no one untouched. Per Moberg does his part as Gabriella's husband almost too well, he is awful too see. One only wish the at he would be casted to play a nice guy one day so we can see if he masters that character as well.

This is a movie that will not leave you untouched. If you haven't already seen it, do it today!


The famous international conductor Daniel Daréus (Michael Nyqvist) has a heart attack with his stressed busy professional life and interrupts his successful career with an early retirement. He decides to return to his hometown in the north of Sweden, from where his mother left when he was a seven year-old sensitive boy bullied by Conny and other school mates, to live a low-paced life. He buys an old school and is invited to participate in the church choir by the local Shepherd Stig (Niklas Falk), but the reluctant and shy Daniel refuses in the principle. However, he gets involved with the community and feels attracted by Lena (Frida Hallgren), a local woman with a past with the local doctor. His music opens the hearts of the members of the choir, affecting their daily life: the slow Tore (André Sjöberg) has the chance to participate in the choir; Inger (Ingela Olsson), the wife of Stig, releases her repressed sexuality; Gabriella (Helen Sjöholm) takes an attitude against her abusive and violent husband; the gossiper and frustrated Siv (Ilva Lööf) opens her heart against Lena; the fat Holmfrid (Mikael Rahm) cries enough against the jokes of the businessman Arne (Lennart Jähkel); even Daniel starts loving people and Lena as the love of his life. When they are invited to participate in an important contest in Vienna, Daniel finds his music opening the heart of people making his dream come true.

"Så Som I Himmelen" is a touching and sensitive movie, with a very beautiful story. It is impressive how director Kay Pollak and the screenplay writers have been able to develop a great number of characters in 132 minutes running time. The performances are top-notch, supported by magnificent music score and at least two awesome moments: when Gabrielle sings her song in the concert, and certainly the last concert in Vienna with the audience, jury and everybody participating in the melody, and Daniel making his dream come true. Like in "Teorema", the stranger changes the lives, not of only a family, but of a conservative community. Further, like many European movies, the open conclusion indicates that Daniel actually died, at least in my interpretation, reaching peace with the success of his music. My eyes became wet in these two scenes. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "A Vida no Paraíso" ("The Life In the Paradise")


Firstly, I really enjoyed this movie and its message, which is about daring to live life to the fullest. Very poetic, with heartwarming and funny and sad scenes, very lively, it was a pleasure to watch. Here are my "exceptions" though: The movie was way too long and at some point, it kept adding more and more additional conflicts so that it started to lose the main story line. I disagree though with another comment that its unrealistic to have so many people with "strange" problems in such a small village. I think this was absolutely realistic! There are incredible dramas going on everywhere, we just don't know this about people we meet only superficially. I disliked the ending, which was so loaded with symbolism and extremely forced. It left a bad taste as it was just too much. I did not like it that so many big issues were dramatically mentioned in the group (when some accused others in front of everyone else of major things, people would just be more "ashamed" to voice everything so personal in front of everybody, even if those people are a group one is closely working with). And: defending oneself is a human-beings strongest instinct. So why on earth would Daniel let himself be beaten and never fight back, not even to defend himself? I mean he was not weak, he could at least try to defend himself when attacked but it just drove me mad to see him do nothing. It was as if the storyteller tried to forcefully bring across a message like "violence is not needed", but the way he chose to do this was not good. I am also against violence but the character loses credibility when he stays unmoved despite all the attacks. And: Gabriella...why on earth would a woman, who has spent years with a man beating her up, go to that man when he gets arrested and say "I do not wish you any harm. You have just done your best, like all of us". Oh really, this spoiled so much! Was she going to be a saint or what? It would be normal for her to be bitter but not so almost "holy" and therefore not human. Was her work with Daniel and the music so great that it made her forget all of the s**t that happened to her? Oh, please. So, these were the spoiling moments. Nevertheless, I still think this is a delightful movie all in all, which is amazing enough, given my discomfort with quite a few things. Watch it!! ;-)"


This is absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen. It takes me on a a roller-coaster of emotions. I laugh and cry and get disgusted and happy and in love! All this in a little over two hours of time!

The actors are all brilliant! I have to mention the leading actor of course, Michael Nyquist. He does a remarkable job!! I also admire the actor who plays Tore, who plays this mentally-challenged young man in such a convincing way! He sort of reminded me of Leonardo di Caprios roll in Gilbert Grape! And then there is the most beautiful song in the world: Gabriella's sång.

I recommend this for everyone to see and enjoy!


I was taken to this film by a friend and was sceptical about a Swedish film with subtitles. However, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this beautiful film. The unnecessary cruelty that man is capable of was portrayed confidently without overwhelming images - although animal lovers may have to shield their eyes for a brief couple of seconds somewhere during the first 10 minutes. A traditional story of humility versus brutality and hope versus tragedy was illustrated from a satisfyingly fresh angle using a spectrum of characters with very natural flaws and features. I particularly liked how the film managed to address multiple aspects of hypocritical human behaviour that concern bias, discrimination and sanctimonious pretence. An absolute gem of a film that I will promote to all who will listen.


Kay Pollack (the man behind this movie) is a real great man who tries to share his life philosophy in different ways. He has written a bunch of good and well written books about how to control your senses and keep your soul happy. The message in most of his books and this movie, is about that your thoughts in fact is what causes your problems and that the reason of your anger hardly ever is caused of what you think of. The main message is that you can choose to be happy, but hardly ever do that.

To watch this movie and learn something very important on life, you have to keep your mind very open and L I S T E N to all the "hidden messages" (or guidelines to get through life) which most of the parts in this movie contains if you listen and watch. Watch it with your ears.

You won't learn the meaning of life, but you'll learn how to live and get the most out of it...

So, while watching, please keep in mind:

"The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open!"


A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.

The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.

At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.

Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.

The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.

Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.

Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty.


"Så som in himmelen" was probably one of the 3 most beautiful films I have seen in my life. That it did not win the Oscar, I will not shed a tear. This movie is in a kind of class of its own, that an Oscar win would possibly have detracted from it!!! My dearest friend Anders (Nyberg), you have done true magnificence with your pen here! Kay Pollak, with your creation, and everyone contributing, you all have given a gift of Love to our world. Between the points of entering this world of ours, then exiting it - you really can say that you made it better! A special personal thank you from my soul to all of you, that you brought back some precious memories from the second decade of my life. I grew up in Sweden, and my young mind and present Beingness was formed and shaped by many beautiful Swedish influences, individuals, traditions, music and nature. My blessings with gratitude to you all. With Love and Light, George-Gabriel Berkovits Soulhealer, Johannesburg, South Africa


Beyond the excellent direction,production,acting & the predictable drama lies an essential message in the script:

"Listening leads all the way" In order for the voice to flourish,listen.To harmonise with other in voice,listen. In order to approach yourself,listen.To discover the needs of any situation or others,listen. It appears that the script writers are conveying a "life's secret".Listening leads to an awareness of one's Self. It awakens the other senses, especially vision & expands the horizon.One's soul too can be discovered. The artistry of this movie "As it is in Heaven" magnificently displayed the unfolding of life,not only its joy & sadness,but ultimately the hope of life. All this by the leading character's first instruction to the choir;

"Just Listen,it leads all the way"


The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.

The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of "Brassed Off" the models of "Calendar Girls" and the dancers of "the Full Monty". But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.

Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable "types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long  Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.

Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do.


Yesterday I watched this movie for the third time. It was recommended to me by a fried several weeks ago. I never watched or even noticed it before, because it falls (so typically) in the category "Swedish Movie" and those who rose up (like me) with Hollywood productions tend to be sceptical of any foreign movies. Hell what a paradigm shift! The film touches me, because it just keeps up my hope, that mankind can change to a better way. The Swedish village is just a pattern for all areas on earth where people live together - controlled by religion, misunderstandings, lack of courage, predictions, disguised brutality, but also the ability to have fun, to meet, to sing... It takes a trigger from outside to rip off the masks of everyone (who keeps one) and to let them feel that we all are just human beings with the desire to live our own lives. I can never stop to see stories like this, because, that keeps up my hope as described above. The five minutes containing the story of Gabriella's song including her performance is one of my movie-highlights ever! Thank you Kay Pollak just for these 5 minutes, which made me happy!


It is a superb Swedish film .. it was the first Swedish film I've seen .. it is simple & deep .. what a great combination!.

Michael Nyqvist did a great performance as a famous conductor who seeks peace in his hometown.

Frida Hallgren was great as his inspirational girlfriend to help him to carry on & never give up.

The fight between the conductor and the hypocrite priest who loses his battle with Michael when his wife confronts him And defends Michael's noble cause to help his hometown people finding their own peace in music.

The only thing that I didn't like was the ending .. it wasn't that good but it has some deep meaning.


As it is in Heaven {SPOILER WARNING)

This was a great human drama that stimulated my emotions and my imagination.

This is a parable revisiting the life and death of Christ. Daniel is a superior gifted musician ,who is physically and mentally exhausted by his career , and has to give it up. When he joins a church choir as its cantor, he brings about a transformation in the lives of the choristers , just as Jesus did to the society in first century Palestine. They laugh, they begin to speak openly and truthfully to each other , their faults are exposed,they accept each other, come to love each other, become a vital community.They include the mentally disabled young man (?Tore), such is their inclusiveness.

The pastor, Stig enjoyed authority through imposing a stifling morality on the congregation, and that is gradually rejected by the choristers . When Stig dismisses Daniel , there is a revolt, and Stig is crushed. Stig represents the Jewish authorities of Jesus' day, whose insistence on obedience to the Jewish law,provided a stark contrast to the new life by "the golden rule" brought by Jesus.

In one dramatic scene, someone declares "the church invented sin". All through the film, there is this contrast between moral-ism and vital living (being).

True to the Christ story, Daniel is killed by Conny , when he beats him up, leaves him to drown in the river. Next scene , we can hardly believe it when Daniel's (resurrected!) body is dragged into his room (the tomb) draped in a white linen sheet (the shroud!), by three women (three women kept vigil at the foot of the cross in the gospel).

Daniel is drawn closely to Lena, a warm beautiful young woman who has been betrayed by a man she loved, and who is now promiscuous (Jesus developed a close relationship with Mary Magdalene- Lena- who was probably a high class courtesan/prostitute). Through Lena, Daniel learns to love , something he has longed for, and now finds fulfillment .

The solo sung by Gabriella , composed by Daniel, is all about living a full life , in contrast to moral correctness that leads to concern about sin , and what's right and wrong.

The final scene shows the choir all singing/humming in harmony , like a mantra, drawing in the large audience, exemplifying the harmony and inter-connectedness that is our true human destiny.


I never seem to write a review on IMDb unless I am extremely surprised at how good, or how bad, a movie is. This film falls into the first category. Every year, I try to see all the nominees for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, even those that I know I won't like. "As It Is In Heaven" seems to fit the bill. The plot sounds sugary and sentimental and slow....For my tastes, which run more towards original, dark and/or daring foreign cinema (Michael Haneke, Francois Ozon, A lot of modern Japanese/Korean cinema) "As It Is In Heaven" does not sound particularly interesting....It didn't get released in the USA, so I sat down to watch a VCD I found in Singapore, preparing to "cross it off the list". After a dull beginning, "As It Is In Heaven" becomes that rare film where you really become inspired by what is happening on screen. Weak points: The characters in the film are pure "stock" characters- the Wounded Dreamer, the Town Bully, the Battered Wife, the Loose Woman Yearning for Love, the Repressed Minister....Thankfully, they're largely a likable bunch, as well as being well-written and well-acted. Ingela Olsson, as the minister's wife Inger, would have been nominated for an Oscar had her performance been in English. Strong points: the music is beautiful, and the main song, sung by Gabriella, is truly dramatic and memorable. And keep an eye out for the feisty 87-year old actress playing Olga, who is keeping up with the dancing steps as well as the younger ladies! I won't discuss the ending, but I will say that it makes sense. They're are a lot of emotional things happening in the last hour of the film, and you're not quite sure why they're happening. Although nothing is explained in words, it all makes sense as the movies comes to a fitting crescendo. **** out of *****. Probably the strongest Swedish movie I've ever seen.


I went to see this movie twice within a week and can only sum it up in one word (which I normally don't use lightly): Wonderful! In my view, the best movie ever made. Who deserves Oscars and other awards if not this Swedish crew who have created cinematic perfection in the last scenes of the film, when everything that is said (and left unsaid) throughout the story is drawn together? Just as the character of Daniel Dareus evokes so many sentiments and long repressed feelings within the people around him, the movie does the same to its viewers: You walk out with your head abuzz and your heart feeling full. Great stuff! Next time you ask yourself "what is the meaning of life", perhaps think about how you feel after a sumptuous experience like As it is in Heaven: Happy, content, fulfilled. To say it with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway: "Such moments are enough".


" Så som i himmelen " .. as above so below.. that very special point where Divine and Human meet. I ADORE this film ! A gem. YES amazing grace !

I was so deeply moved by its very HUMAN quality. I laughed and cried through a whole register , indeed several octaves of emotions.

Mikael Nyqvist ís BRILLIANT as Daniel , a first rate passionate performance, charismatic and powerful. His inner light and exceptional talent shines through in every scene, every interaction ,in every meeting. I was totally mesmerised, enchanted and caught up the story, which is our collective story, the story of life itself.

The film was also so inclusive of many archetypes, messiah, wounded child ,magical child, artist, teacher, priest, abuser, abused, victim, bully, divine fool - ALL the characters so real and true to life - all awakened great fondness and compassion in me.

It is a real treat to see such a thought provoking yet thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining film. Oh ..mustn't forget the heavenly choir of angels and breathtakingly beautiful sound.

THANK YOU ALL - This Swedish film will surely captivate people world-wide. BRILLIANT !


A famous conductor decides after a heart attack to go back to the village where he was born to live a quiet life. There, he comes in Dutch with the local church choir, that will change his life.

I had no expectations when I saw this movie for the first time yesterday; I like watching foreign movies that are not English, and I've already seen a couple of Swedish movies in my life, but this one was the best so far.

Where to start? In my opinion, this film is a jewel, thanks to many things, of which one is the outstanding acting. Michael Nyqvist is perfect as the thoughtful, almost shy and devoted conductor Daniel Daréus. Beautiful Frida Hallgren is enchanting with her pretty smile and her subtle acting. The choir members are all well-developed, interesting characters with their own story each.

This movie tells a story, a beautiful story, about music, love, pain, memories, death, about a man who devoted his life to music, and who tries to create a calm existence in the village where he was born, while trying to make peace with the past and with the way his life has been till then. Kay Pollack shows us that the Swedish are outstanding movie creators. Go see Så som i himmelen, it's a movie that makes you think about life and love, and that's also comforting, in some way.


Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece.


I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.

Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.

This movie helps set the record straight.


After watching two of his silent shorts, 'Elena and her Men (1956)' is my first feature-length film from French director Jean Renoir, and I quite enjoyed it. However, I didn't watch the film for Renoir, but for star Ingrid Bergman, who  at age 41  still radiated unsurpassed beauty, elegance and charm. Throughout the early 1950s, following her scandalous marriage to Italian Roberto Rossellini, Bergman temporarily fell out of public favour. Her next five films, directed by her husband, were unsuccessful in the United States, and I suspect that Renoir's latest release did little to enhance Bergman's popularity with English-speaking audiences {however, she did regain her former success with an Oscar in the same year's 'Anastasia (1956)'}. She stars as Elena Sokorowska, a Polish princess who sees herself as a guardian angel of sorts, bringing success and recognition to promising men everywhere, before promptly abandoning them. While working her lucky charms to aid the political aspirations of the distinguished General Francois Rollan (Jean Marais), she finds herself falling into a love that she won't be able to walk away from. This vaguely-political film works well as either a satire or a romantic comedy, as long as you don't take it too seriously; it's purely lighthearted romantic fluff.

Filmed in vibrant Technicolor, 'Elena and her Men' looks terrific as well, a flurry of bright colours, characters and costumes. Bergman's Polish princess is dreamy and somewhat self-absorbed, not in an unlikable way, but hardly a woman of high principles and convictions. She is persuaded by a team of bumbling government conspirators to convince General Rollan to stage a coup d'état, knowingly exploiting his love for her in order to satisfy her own delusions as a "guardian angel." Perhaps the film's only legitimately virtuous character is Henri de Chevincourt (Mel Ferrer, then Audrey Hepburn's husband), who ignores everybody else's selfish secondary motives and pursues Elena for love, and love alone. This, Renoir proudly suggests, is what the true French do best. 'Elena and her Men' also attempts, with moderate success, to expose the superficiality of upper-class French liaisons, through the clumsy philandering of Eugène (Jacques Jouanneau), who can't make love to his servant mistress without his fiancè walking in on them. For these sequences, Renoir was obviously trying for the madcap sort of humour that you might find in a Marx Brothers film, but the film itself is so relaxed and laid-back that the energy just isn't there.


Several posters have quoted Renoir voicing his desire to make a film showing Ingrid Bergman smiling to camera. The short answer is wouldn't we all whilst the harsh reality is that only a select few got to do so. At this stage of her career Bergman couldn't get arrested; in 1949 she left Hollywood to make a picture in Europe, fell for director Roberto Rossellini and never looked forward. After five turkeys in Italy she was probably ready to open a vein but within the year, after making this for Renoir, she was back where she belonged and with an Oscar to boot for Anastasia. This is one of three movies that Renoir made in color around this time and on balance it's better than The Golden Coach, which isn't hard, and about even with French Can Can. Renoir probably figured that with so much going for her Bergman could get away with a couple of wooden leading men and Renoir picked two doozys in Jean Marais and Mel Ferrer, solid mahogany in both cases. The plot is actually based on a real incident in French history but Renoir is content to give it a once-over-lightly and concentrate on replicating the paintings of his father in set up after set up. In its pastel colors it resembles another film of the period Les Grandes Manouvres which is no bad thing. All in all it remains a pleasant trifle showcasing a beautiful and charismatic actress.


Thanks to a smart script and a steady hand from Writer/Director Kevin Meyer, "Perfect Alibi" is an entertaining and very likable mystery thriller. The movie starts methodically and builds up steam as the clues begin to reveal that nothing is what it seems to be. Teri Garr and Hector Elizondo are terrific as they team up to unravel the mystery, reminding me of Nick and Nora Charles, from the "Thin Man" movies. Kathleen Quinlan is excellent as Alex McArthur's tormented wife and the character roles, played by veteran actors Charles Martin Smith, Bruce McGill, Anne Ramsey and Estelle Harris are well done and provide plenty of light moments at just the right time. There's even a cameo by Rex Linn. In all, I felt like I was reading a good book by the fire.