(No need to recap the plot, since others have done so already.)

It's understandable that many viewers find fault with the film, raised as we are with the slam-bang sensurround of today's cineplex experience. Against that background, a movie like Ecstasy appears to have wandered in from another planet. I think there are several worthwhile reasons why.

Most importantly, the film unfolds poetically, as the camera pans slowly over surrounding hills, trees, clouds, etc., providing a serene and lyrical sense of a natural world that integrates the man and woman into its fold. Together these reveal a style and dimension almost totally missing from today's technology-driven cinema, where rapid-fire editing works to divert audience attention and not to concentrate it. Additionally, the story is conveyed by eye and not by ear, with almost no dialogue to explain what's happening. This amounts to another extreme departure from today's very literal fare, where visuals only seem to count when they excite the audience. But perhaps most unsettling-- the movie is sometimes eerily quiet, not in the sense that silent films are quiet since we expect them to be. But in the sense that the characters seldom speak when we expect them to. Thus, the burden of the story is shared between the film-maker and the viewer. The former must choose his visuals artfully so as to convey the narrative, while the latter must think about those visuals, since they're not going to be explained.

None of this is intended to belittle today's film-making. It's simply to point out that a movie like Machaty's comes out of a very different aesthetic from the one we have today. I don't claim either to be any better or worse. However, I do claim that Ecstasy represents a perspective sorely missing from today's movie-going experience, where such 'contemplative values are routinely dismissed as slow and boring.

The film itself is no masterpiece, though at times it reaches artistic heights, as in the beautifully composed beer-garden scene with its final crane shot rising to reveal the exquisite tableau below. The slow pans of the countryside with its pantheistic celebration of life, nature, and regeneration are also wonderfully expressed. These are the kind of scenes that don't overwhelm you, but instead-- given half-a chance-- accumulate quietly into an experience as memorable in its own way as the spine-tingling variety of a "Jaws".

On the other hand, the film is sometimes heavy-handed, as when Machaty piles on the imagery, particularly in the final, ode-to-labor sequence. It's hard to know what to make of this rather disruptive presence. Perhaps the symbolism has to do with the heroic dimension that hard work holds for the love-lorn hero and people in general-- a theme then being promoted by the influential Soviet cinema. Still, its presence here is rather tediously over-done.

Anyhow, I've got to admit that I tuned in initially to see the gorgeous Hedy LaMarr in the buff. But now I have to admit that in the process I also got a lot more than just a peek-a-boo romp in the woods.


Dripping with symbolism and filled with marvelous cinematography, Extase is so much more than the erotic drama we've all come to expect. This is almost a silent film, with what dialogue there is in German, and highly simplified German at that. Perhaps the filmmakers intended the film to reach the widest possible European audience, as anyone with even a little high school level Deutsch can easily dispense with the subtitles. The story is of little importance anyway, with the film succeeding on a cinematic level, not a narrative one. Symbols of fecundity and the power of nature overwhelm the human characters--there are even scenes where flowers obscure the face of supposed star Hedy Lamarr--and there are moments here that will remind viewers of the works of Dreyer, Vertov, and Riefenstahl. If the film has any message to convey, I think it's a political one: bourgeois man is timid and impotent; working class man is a happy, productive creature; and woman is the creator, destined to be unfulfilled until she has borne a child. This blend of Soviet socialist realism and National Socialist dogma doesn't overwhelm the film by any means--it's a beauty to watch from beginning to end--but it does place it in a very distinct artistic era. And, oh yeah, Hedy does get her kit off.


The first time I had the window of opportunity to see this all but forgotten classic was back in the early 1980's,at one of our art houses as a revival. As I watched this fever dream of an exercise in 1930's sexuality, I thought YOWZA! They got away with murder in Europe back in the day. Unfortunately, this film was heavily cut in it's original U.S. release by the blue nosed Hayes Office (the staunch government censorship board,started by the "holier than thou" Bible thumper, Will Hayes...a former Post Office official,if you can believe that),due to it's overall theme of human sexuality (Heaven's forbid humans actually had sex in the 1930's). The plot of Ecstasy concerns a young woman (played by Hedy Lamarr)who marries a much older man,and later regrets it. She (Lamarr)meets a handsome younger man & has an affair with him, resulting in a divorce from previous husband (another no no in Hollywood movies back then---Divorce!). Despite the fact that the film was produced in 1933, it was probably the director's first time working in the sound format (i.e. the film seems to possess techniques that were used mostly in silent films---i.e. 1920's expressionism's). It's still worth searching out for a window into early European talking pictures,along with Luis Bunuels L'Age Dor (1930),and Karl Gustav Dryer's 'Vampyre' (1931). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude swimming scene & some thinly veiled sexual references, which would fare little more than a PG-13 by today's standards (but would have easily landed the dreaded 'X',back in the 30's,if it existed then)


First, let's get the "hoopla" out of the way.Hedy Lamarr was regarded as one of the most beautiful of women and the movies were a perfect medium for the many to see her beauty on screen.Here we have Hedy as a young fresh-faced 20 year old speaking in her native Austrian.I recently bought a 1990 uncensored version of this 1932/3 classic.Yes we see a brief close up of Hedy bare from the waist up but although she filmed the swimming & runaway horse scenes naked, the director Gustav Machaty uses the cover of branches, reflections in puddles, medium and long shots to show her thus in this famous scene; so don't go imagining there are any lascivious close ups or clinches.Her boyfriend , Pierre Nay keeps his clothes on at all times.Yes, fairly daring for its day but how innocous it looks now through 2003 eyes.

As other learned reviews have stated this film should be looked at for the imagary, expressionism, and allegorical statements it makes with pictures of drops of water forming a ripple on the surface of a pale of water, farm machinery, landscapes etc.Sweet sounding strings run for most of "Extase's" length and the film has a "feel" of a transition between silent and sound in its direction and concept.The script is highly minimalist and economical the story being mainly imparted through the medium of facial and bodily gestures with just a few words of German spoken by the actors with English subtitles beneath.Even these few words seem almost superflous in the general lyrical vein which runs through the film.

Put very simply this is the story of a young girl who marries a much older man (why we are never told and what did Eva see in him anyway?Money?), who is then trapped in an unconsumated and loveless marriage.She then returns to her father having left her husband and her father has to lie to his son in law.After a ride on her horse Eva decides to take a swim in the buff and loads up her clothes onto her horse's saddle.However her horse gets romantic notions itself and gallops off to greet its stablemate.Hedy rushes out of the lake naked and tries to recover her mount but an engineer at work sees and retrieves the horse then looks around for its owner.And so the romance is born.Her husband seeing that his rival must win Eva, later decides to shoot himself but I thought this was rather illogical and its main weakness bearing in mind his previous loveless relationship with Eva.

Despite being a 1990 reissue title on VHS, the sound being 70 years old, is a bit soft and with background crackles, in line with films of its age.After a period of mourning our handsome boyfriend obviously is so in love with Eva he imagines her as a mother with an infant so we have to assume they live happily ever after.Just let the imagary wash over you and disabuse your mind of the style of films even of late 1930's vintage.This is a lyrical piece that can be enyoyed for its own sake and not just for its eye catching title.I gave it 7/10.


Eva (Hedy Lamarr) has just got married with an older man and in the honeymoon, she realizes that her husband does not desire her. Her disappointment with the marriage and the privation of love, makes Eva returning to her father's home in a farm, leaving her husband. One afternoon, while bathing in a lake, her horse escapes with her clothes and an young worker retrieves and gives them back to Eva. They fall in love for each other and become lovers. Later, her husband misses her and tries to have Eva back home. Eva refuses, and fortune leads the trio to the same place, ending the affair in a tragic way. I have just watched "Extase" for the first time, and the first remark I have is relative to the horrible quality of the VHS released in Brazil by the Brazilian distributor Video Network: the movie has only 75 minutes running time, and it seems that it was used different reels of film. There are some parts totally damaged, and other parts very damaged. Therefore, the beauty of the images in not achieved by the Brazilian viewer, if he has a chance to find this rare VHS in a rental or for sale. The film is practically a silent movie, the story is very dated and has only a few lines. Consequently, the characters are badly developed. However, this movie is also very daring, with the exposure of Hedy Lamarr beautiful breasts and naked fat body for the present standards of beauty. Another fantastic point is the poetic and metaphoric used of flowers, symbolizing the intercourse between Eva and her lover. The way the director conducts the scenes to show the needs and privation of Eva is very clear. The non-conclusive end is also very unusual for a 1933 movie. I liked this movie, but I hope one day have a chance to see a 87 minutes restored version. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Êxtase" ("Ecstasy")


This was a very daring film for it's day. It could even be described as soft-core porn for the silent era. It was a talkie, but dialog was extremely limited, and in German. One did not need it anyway.

The young (19) Hedy Lamarr gets trapped in a loveless marriage to an obsessive (stereotype?) German and after a short time in a marriage that was apparently never consummated, returns home to her father.

In a famous and funny scene, she decides to go skinny dipping one morning when her horse is distracted by another. She is then forced to run across a field chasing after it, as she left her clothing on the horse. An engineer retrieves her horse and returns her clothing - after getting an eyeful.

They sit for a while and, in a zen moment, he presents her with a flower with a bee sitting on top. This is where she thinks back to her honeymoon and the actions of her husband and an insect. She knows this man is different.

She returns home and eventually seeks out our young fellow, and finds the ecstasy she was denied. You can use your imagine here, but his head disappears from view and we see her writhing with pleasure. Since he never got undressed, you can imagine... Certainly, an homage to women by the director Gustav Machatý, and a shock to 1933 audiences.

The only thing that mars this beautifully filmed movie is the excessive guilt, and a strange ending.


I cannot comment on this film without discussing its significance to me personally. As a child bad health prevented me from ever going to a cinema. I first encountered movies at the end of WWII through Roger Manvilles splendid Penguin book "Film", which brought me so much pleasure as my health began to improve that I wish I could buy another copy to re-read today. My introduction to many classics films such as The Battleship Potemkin, Drifters (Grierson's magnificent documentary), Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, and Ecstasy; came first through this book and later at my University Art-house cinema. Ecstasy had incurred the wrath of the Vatican, for condoning Eva's desertion of Emil, her subsequent divorce, and the brief swim she took in the buff, but Roger Manville ignored these trivial matters and discussed the film as a triumphant, outstandingly beautiful, visual paean to love - a view echoed by many IMDb users. A very lonely young man, when I saw it, I willingly concurred. No further opportunity to see Ecstasy arose until the introduction of home videos - by then it had become a treasured memory not to be disturbed. Quite recently I finally added Ecstasy to my home video collection and found this assessment very superficial. Ecstasy is much more of a parable on the continuity of human existence, against which individual lives are insignificant - perhaps a tribute to what Bernard Shaw in his aggressively agnostic writings used to term 'The Lifeforce'.

Ecstasy portrays a young bride marrying a middle aged man whose sex urge is no longer strong. Disappointed, she returns home and divorces him. Soon after she experiences a strong mutual attraction to a young virile man she meets whilst out horse riding. She makes love for the first time and it is an overwhelming experience. Her former husband cannot face rejection and gives the young man a lift in his car intending that a passing train will kill them both on a level crossing. But the train stops in time and the apparently ill driver is taken to recuperate at a nearby hotel where he later commits suicide by shooting himself. After these exciting climacteric sequences, a bland, predictable and almost inevitable ending emphasises that whilst individual human lives exhibit both joy and tragedy, collectively life continues to carry us all forward in its stream and only through contributing to this stream can we be truly happy. This story is trite, the acting is no more than adequate; and normally such a film would have disappeared into the garbage, as did most of its contemporaries, long ago. What has given Ecstasy its classic status is exceptional cinematography, a continuous lyrical score and very careful loving direction, coupled with something fortuitous but in cinematographic terms very important - it appeared just after the introduction of sound and was probably planned as a silent film. It is sub-titled and its Director has exploited the impact of brief verbal sequences accompanying some sub-titles, and occasionally breaking into the score which so lovingly carries the film forward. This makes it not only almost unique but extremely rewarding to watch. The parable in the tale is stressed continuously but so subtly that only when reflecting after viewing does one become fully aware of it. For example, the names - Eva and Adam; the obsessive behavior of Emil on his wedding night which shows that triviata have become the most important thing in his life and predicate his eventual suicide since he has no adequate purpose to sustain him; the ongoing series of beautiful sequences showing erotic imagery (a bee pollinating a flower, a key entering a lock, a breaking necklace during Eva's virginal lovemaking sequence with Adam, etc.); and the final post-suicide sequences which could have been filmed in many different ways but serve to extol the importance to individuals of performing some type of work that contributes positively to Society, as well as of creating new life to sustain this society after we ourselves pass on.

As a 1933 film I would rate this at 9 - even comparing it with contemporary works I would not reduce this below 8. For me the film will always remain a "must see", (although you may feel that my background remarks above indicate some bias in this judgment). Unfortunately in North America contemporary assessments of this film have been distorted by the extreme 1930's reaction to Hedy Kiesler's very brief and relatively unimportant nude scene which she had difficulty living down in Hollywood (some critics, who have clearly not seen such classic films as Hypocrites, Hula, Back to God's Country, Bird of Paradise or some of the early works of D.W. Griffiths and C.B. deMille, have even erroneously referred to this as the first appearance of a nude actress in a feature film). This scene was probably part of the original novel, and the film would have been very little different if the Director had chosen to rewrite it.

Two further thoughts; firstly this is a Czech film, released there in 1933. Its final message about hard work generating positive benefits for society must have seemed very superficial to its viewers when a few years later their country became the first victim of Nazi oppression and was virtually destroyed for at least two generations (I do not remember these sequences being screened just after the war when I first saw this film - were they removed from the copy I saw then?). Secondly for me its main message today is that things of real beauty are often very transitory even though their memory may stay with one for a lifetime. We should all be thankful that today some of them can be captured on camera and viewed again at our convenience.


I gather at least a few people watched it on Sept.2 on TCM. If you did you know that Hedy had to change her name to avoid being associated with this movie when she came the U.S. It was a huge scandal and I gather that the original release in the U.S. was so chopped up by censors that it was practically unintelligible. I watched because I had just seen a documentary on "bad women", actresses in the U.S. pre- movie censorship board set up in the early '30s. It looked to me as though they got away with a lot more than Hedy's most "sensational" shots in "Ecstasy". In fact Hedy looked positively innocent in this, by today's standards, and it was nice to see her early unspoiled beauty. It was a nice, lyrical movie to relax to. I loved it for what it was: a simple romance. I watched it after pre- recording it during a sleepless early A.M. I would love to see the first version released in the U.S. for comparison's sake.


In 1930,Europe received quite a shock when Luis Bunuel's 'L'Age Dor' was released, causing a riot in Paris when screened there,resulting in it being banned for something like over forty years. Three years later,in 1933,when Europe had gotten over the shock,it was once again turned on it's ear with 'Ekstase',a symphony (of sorts)to love. The film starred a young,unknown German actress named Hedwig Kiesler,who would later change her name to Hedy Lamarr,when she moved to America to escape the madness of Adolf Hitler,as Eva,a young bride who has just married a cold,distant loveless husband (played by Emil Jerman),only to discover that she has made a major mistake. One divorce later,Eva is footloose & fancy free & is out one day, skinny dipping in a lake,when she discovers Adam,a handsome,young engineer (played by Aribert Mog)who takes a real fancy to her (and she,him). After a wild night of passion,Eva's ex-husband turns up once again,hoping to win Eva back,only to find he now has a rival. I won't spoil what transpires. Czech director, Gustav Machaty (who directed the original screen version of 'Madam X',another parable in romantic obsession) directs from a screenplay by Jacques Koerpel,Frantisek Horky & Machaty,from the novel by Robert Horky. The film's velvety cinematography (which reminded me of Avant Garde photographer,Man Ray's photos of the era,which goes for some impressionistic use of light & shadow,a lot)is by Hans Androschin & Jan Stallich). The film's brisk editing is by Antonin Zelenka & the films art direction, which goes for a lush,nearly Art Deco look,is by Bohumil Hes). If I have any quirk about this film, it is the music score,by Giuseppe Becce,which goes for an over the top,melodramatic feel to it that gets old fast (certain themes are repeated over & over again,wearing out it's welcome,fast---kind of like some of David Lean's over use of certain musical themes,especially in 'Lawrence Of Arabia',and 'Dr.Zhivago'). Some years back,a brand new restored print was made up of the best source material,cobbled together from various European existing prints available,restoring it to what is quite possibly the closest version of what it originally looked like before the Vatican condemned it as "decadent" (yeah,right...like the Church never did anything wrong),and the Hayes office cut it to ribbons,when it was finally released in the U.S.A. in 1936,in a "Hayes Office" approved cut (likewise). Minimal dialog in German with English subtitles (it was meant to be a mainly visual experience). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude skinny dipping scene by Hedy Lamarr (done tastefully,mind you) & some suggestions of sexual content (likewise)that would scarcely earn it a PG-13 rating,nowadays. Worth a look if you have any interest in early European cinema,or Avant Garde/Experimental cinema


This picture was banned from American movies houses in the 1930 because of nudity by Hedy Lamarr, (Eva Hermann) which caused all kinds of problems among the ladies in the 1930's but not so much for the male population. This story concerns a young woman named Eva Hermann who gets married to an older man and is carried over the threshold on the wedding night and the husband never consummates the marriage and worries about all kinds of very petty things like his shoes and killing bugs. Eva leaves her husband's house and lives with her father and tries to explain her situation. On a hot Summer day Eva takes a ride on her horse and decides to go for a swim naked in a lake in the woods. Her horse runs off and she runs after him and is observed by a young man who finds her clothes and returns them to Eva. These two people become very acquainted and there is a romance that starts to bloom. There are many more interesting problems that arise as you view this film to its very end. Enjoy a great Classic film which was a Shocker Film in 1933. Enjoy.


Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.

ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!

This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.

Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!

So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment.


I had never heard of this film until I came across it by accident when browsing IMDB. I saw it had gotten many awful reviews containing very colorful expletives on how much it stunk. Of course this meant I had to see it. I was pleasantly surprised as Whipped is actually rather a good movie. I watched it with a group of friends and we laughed more than we had at many recent highly acclaimed Hollywood fluff comedies. This is an independent film and as such portrays its subject matter (sex and dating) without the usual Hollywood fakery. I distinctly suspect that people's opinion of this film will depend very much on their experience of life. If you've never dated or partied much you won't get this movie because you won't have met people like these characters. If you have, you'll recognize many of the situations that portrayed here in comedic fashion. The ending was also good, as it did not portray women as unreal, helpless, virginal romantics in contrast to many Hollywood movies.


A hilarious and insightful perspective of the dating world is portrayed in this off beat comedy by first time writer/director Peter M. Cohen. The story unfolds as the four male protagonists meet weekly at the local diner to confer about their dating woes. We meet Brad: a good-looking, wall-street playboy with a quick-wit and sharp tongue; Zeek: a cynical, sensitive writer; Jonathan: a sexually perplexed nice guy with an affinity for hand creams and masturbation; and Eric: the married guy, who cherishes his weekly encounters with his single friends in hope for some enlightenment to his boring and banal married existence. The trials and tribulations of the men's single lives in New York are amusingly expressed, mirroring that of Sex in the City and HBO's new comedy The Mind of Married Man, and bring an astute light to scamming. The story takes a twist as the three singletons meet Mia--wittily played by Amanda Peet-and all fall for her. She seduces them each with her uncanny ability to conform to the personalities' they exhibit. When they come to realize they have all met and fallen in love with the same woman, they chose her over their friendship. Whipped is a realistic portrayal of the dating world, one that the critic's failed to recognize. In plain language, they missed the point. The protagonist's here are caricatures of real people. The exaggerations are hysterical, mixing satire and humility, and are not to be taken as seriously as the critic's disparagement suggests. See this movie, you'll laugh from start to finish.


I hadn't laughed this hard for a movie in a really long time. The garbage that Hollywood has been putting out lately drives me up a wall! This one was definetely fresh and witty. If you look at the demographic figures for the ratings, only a few women have voted! I don't want to ruin the movie for you but I'm sure that every guy who saw this ran to their computers to rate it and gave it a poor score, why? Because the movie puts men in their place, that's why. If more women vote for this movie because of its actual humor value and not because it is damaging to men...it could easily be a "7" rated movie!


This movie is hilarious! I watched it with my friend and we just had to see it again. This movie is not for you movie-goers who will only watch the films that are nominated for Academy Awards (you know who you are.)I won't recap it because you have seen that from all the other reviews.

"Whipped" is a light-hearted comedy that had me laughing throughout. It doesn't take itself too seriously and should be watched with your friends, not your girlfriend. It won't win any awards, but it just has to be watched to be appreciated. True, some of the jokes are toilet humor, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone can use some of it sometimes. Some people need to lighten up and see "Whipped" for what it is, not what it isn't.

****1/4 out of *****.


I didn't expect much from this, but I have to admit I was rolling on the ground laughing a few times during this film. If you are not grossly offended in the first ten minutes, this might be a film for you. Ditto if you are the type that would enjoy watching Amanda Peet shuffling cards for an hour and a half. It's certainly not a momentous work of comedy, but given the low-budget indy genesis this is masterful. To level the playing field for comparison, imagine all of the studio films with their budgets slashed by a factor of 100 or so and see what you get! Kudos to Peter Cohen and his network for seeing this through. I look forward to his next effort.


Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products.


A MUST SEE! I saw WHIPPED at a press screening and it was hilarious. We're talking nonstop laughs. It makes SOMETHING ABOUT MARY seem like a meandering drama. Amanda Peet screams star quality with her winning combination of beauty, brains, and serious acting ability. Peter Cohen, the director, has made a cutting edge film that shows the raw inside of men's egos in the urban dating world. For all of it's comedy, Whipped succeeds with it's intelligence. Which is so rare for a first time director, especially with a romantic comedy. He is a major talent. Judah Domke, Brian Van Holt, Jonathan Abrahams, and Zorie Barber round out the cast with depth and very strong performances as the would be slick lady's men. You've got to see these guys go to work and get caught in Peet's web. Check out the trailer on whipped.com, it's worth the 3 minute download.


This movie was hysterical. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I mean, it's not "Good Will Hunting," but was it supposed to be? I actually went into the advanced screening expecting a lot less and was pleasantly surprised. The comedy hits hard and is fairly constant. Amanda Peet is hot and awesome. The entire audience that I screened it with seemed to be enjoying the film as much as I did.


After viewing "Whipped" at a distributor's screening at the AFM the other night, I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed. The audience was laughing all the way through. Unfortunately, every territory was already sold, so I did not have the opportunity to purchase the film, but I truly believe that it will be a big hit both domestically and over seas. I agree with the comment that "Whipped" should not be pitched as a male "Sex and the City," mainly because unlike "Sex and the City," "Whipped" is a satire about dating that never takes itself too seriously. "Whipped" pokes fun at relationships in a way that most sex comedies wouldn't dare. Also, the film that I screened at the AFM had more of a plot and story than "Swingers," "Clerks," and "Sex and the City" combined. "Whipped" never slowed down for a beat and provided the audience with non-stop comedy. The performances of Amanda Peet and the rest of the cast were all rock solid, which only made the film more impressive considering the budget.


Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".

Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them?


Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (1980) was the second film to star to pot loving duo of Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong. The lovable burn out smokers are now roommates. They live in a condemned building looking for ways to score more smoke and just lay about all day. But Cheech is the "responsible" one. He has a job and a steady girlfriend. One day, Cheech wants to get his freak on so he tries to get Chong out of the house. Another problem arises as well, Cheech's brother "Red" (Cheech is another role) is in town and wants to hang with him. Firguring that he could kill two birds with one stone, Cheech pawns Chong off and Red. What kind of adventures will Chong and Red get into? Will Cheech get his freak on? How long will Chong go without some smoke? Just watch CHEECH & CHONG'S NEXT MOVIE to find out!!

Tommy Chong takes over the directorial reigns for the sequel. He received some experience when he did some uncredited work on UP IN SMOKE. Funny but not as good as the first film. But Cheech and Chong fans will enjoy it. Followed by NICE DREAMS.

Recommended.


A typical romp through Cheech and Chong's reality which includes drugs, singing, more drugs, cars and driving, even more drugs, Pee Wee, aliens, gasoline, laundry, stand up comedy, surprisingly more drugs and SPACE COKE !!. It is not as coherent or plausible as Up in Smoke but it still is incredibly funny, without becoming as strange as Nice Dreams. There are some classic scenes, which include the opening scene where they get some gas for their car and the drive to work. Also funny is Cheech's song (Mexican-Americans) and Chong's follow up song. Another notable scene is the welfare office scene with Jones (human noise machine), from the Police Academy series, and the old laughing man. All in all, this is a great follow up to Up in Smoke and is quite watchable when sober or not.

-Celluloid Rehab


And I'll tell you why: whoever decided to edit this movie to make it suitable for television was very ill-advised. EVERYTHING CONCERNING DRUGS IS CUT OUT AND COVERED UP!!! How do they do it, you might ask? Well, they don't do it very well, that's for sure. Anyway, instead of the marijuana which Cheech and Chong are supposed to have in their possession, they are said to have diamonds! Still, the characters go around in a haze of marijuana smoke stoning others along their way with no explanation whatsoever!


This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R


I'm a fan of C&C, going back to their records, and liked this movie, but at one point in the mid-1980's on cable television in San Jose California, it was aired with an alternate plot line that destroyed the entire point of the movie. All references to marijuana were replaced with "diamonds". The bag that "Red" drops to Chong has diamonds in it instead of marijuana, but the conversation still remains the same ("...it's worth ~$3000/lb"). There is also a subplot in which clips of aliens on a ship were added observing C&C, and talking to each other about getting the diamonds. At the end, instead of "space coke", it's something else. I'm not sure who created this version, but it was horrible, and obvious that they were attempting to make it family/child friendly. It would have been better if that network had not aired it at all.


The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them...


The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. "Don't Spill it Man !", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out.


This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something.


Ok, needless to say, this film is only going to appeal to a certain audience; namely stoners and like-minded people.

That being said, if you are one of these aformentioned people, this film is a MUST. In fact, I think it should be mandatory for head shops to sell a copy of it to anyone purchasing their first bong. What Monty Python's Holy Grail is to geeks and nerds, so is this movie to potheads. I first saw this film 10 years ago or so, and I still crack up every time I watch it. The jokes perfectly lampoon the pothead lifestyle, far better than latter day knockoffs like Half-Baked attempt to.

There isn't a plot, so to speak; the film is more of a collection of various skits; as the films protagonists wander around Los Angeles in their legendary haze. Despite this, the film has an excellent sense of pace, and doesn't drag at all. Many people cite Up In Smoke as C&C's best work, but I would have to say that Next Movie is superior.

So if you're in the mood for an hour and half of belly laughs, light up, tune in, and let your mind float away =)

Oh, and FREE TOMMY CHONG!


SPOILERS

A buddy of mine said NEXT MOVIE was the best Cheech & Chong flick and went out of his way to have me borrow it and THE BLUES BROTHERS. NEXT MOVIE has no plot, has no pacing, really has no anything of what defines a movie ... but it is funny. And for what it is worth, Cheech and Chong show some heart.

Well, in this little paragraph I put in the plot, but being that four-fifths of the movie, nothing happens that would usually start a story. I will just say that Cheech 's cousin shows up.

Was there no other funnier moment when Chong made Cheech drink the pee twice? What about the rooster? Was that Pee-Wee Herman's first movie appearance? You would have to watch the movie yourself to enjoy it. I don't think NEXT MOVIE has strong enough balls to make it awesome, but the movie has heart and hey, my buddy let me borrow it so it gets a 7.


This was stupid funny movie.. Cheech and Chong are the dopiest wasted guys ever... i rate this film a 7.. but if you like this one then go see Jay and Silentbob! There funnier and crazier. Now Cheech is a sellout working on kids movies..... wheres chong?


This story is a familiar one in the long-running Tom and Jerry cartoons, especially in the 1940s, the only difference being that two cats instead of one are threatened to be evicted if they don't catch the mouse (Jerry). Tom has an unnamed buddy ("Butch?") living in the house with him, so this really upsets "Mammy Two Shoes" who can't believe that they have a mouse despite TWO cats in the house.

Anyway, the one who catches Jerry can stay while the other gets the boot, so the competition is on!

Even though it's familiar territory I still enjoyed this because the cartoon had enough original sight gags to make entertaining. You not only had the cats competing against each but Jerry in the equation as well, so there were enough good gags to definitely recommend if you are a Tom & Jerry fan.


"A Mouse in the House" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.

This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».

If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the "rear" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too.


Tom and Butch Cat fight over the capture of Jerry Mouse because the one who doesn't catch Jerry gets kicked out. The two cats dress in their master's clothing to disguise themselves and lets the other have it! Confused, Tom and Butch whack their master's rear and all three of them get kicked out.


Action & Adventure.Billie Clark is twenty years old, very pretty, and without a care in the world,until a brutal street gang violates her life, and she turns into an ALLEY CAT bent on revenge! When the gang attacks her grandparents house and her car, Billie uses her black belt prowess to fight them off. But at the same time she earns their hatred, and she and her grandparents are marked for vengence.When her grandparents lose their lives to the brutal thugs. Billie becomes like a cat stalking her prey-and no prison,police force,boyfriend,or crooked judge can get in the way of her avenging claws. She's a one-woman vigilante squad,a martial arts queen,a crack shot with no mercy. She's the ALLEY CAT.Watch for the dramatic ending versus the Gang leader! Rated R for Nudity & Violence, Other Films with Karin Mani: Actress - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) .... Janie Soon Lee , "From Here to Eternity" (1979) (mini) TV Series .... Tawny, Filmography as: Actress, Stunts - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) (stunts)P.S. She should have been Catwoman in the Batman Movie!


This entertainingly tacky'n'trashy distaff "Death Wish" copy stars the exceptionally gorgeous and well-endowed brunette hottie supreme Karin Mani as Billie Clark, a top-notch martial arts fighter and one woman wrecking crew who opens up a gigantic ten gallon drum of ferocious chopsocky whup-a** on assorted no-count scuzzy muggers, rapists, drug dealers and street gang members after some nasty low-life criminals attack her beloved grand parents. The stunningly voluptuous Ms. Mani sinks her teeth into her feisty butt-stomping tough chick part with winningly spunky aplomb, beating jerky guys up with infectious glee and baring her smoking hot bod in a few utterly gratuitous, but much-appreciated nude scenes. Unfortunately, Mani possesses an extremely irritating chewing-on-marbles harsh and grating voice that's sheer murder on the ears (my favorite moment concerning Mani's dubious delivery of her dialogue occurs when she quips "Don't mess with girls in the park; that's not nice!" after clobbering a few detestable hooligans. The delectable Karin's sole subsequent film role was in "Avenging Angel," in which she does a truly eye-popping full-frontal nude scene, but doesn't have any lines.) The film's single most sensationally sleazy sequence transpires when Mani gets briefly incarcerated on a contempt of court charge and shows her considerably substantial stuff in a group prison shower scene. Of course, Mani's lascivious lesbian cell mate tries to seduce her only to have her unwanted advances rebuffed with a severe beatdown! Strangely enough, the lesbian forgives Mani and becomes her best buddy while she's behind bars. Given an extra galvanizing shot in the vigorously rough'n'ready arm by Edward Victor's punchy direction, a funky-rockin' score, endearingly crummy acting by a game (if lame) cast, a constant snappy pace, numerous pull-out-all-the-stops exciting fight scenes, and Howard Anderson III's gritty photography, this immensely enjoyable down'n'dirty exploitation swill is essential viewing for hardcore fans of blithely low-grade low-budget grindhouse cinema junk.


Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.

Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.

Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.


I waited until the 4th of July to write this because . . . well . . . because it just feels right to be doing it on this day.

In 1924 D.W. Griffith needed a hit, he had not had a big one since ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921). He'd been working steadily since then but his movies had been smaller in scope and had failed to hit the right chord with audiences. He was planning a film about Patrick Henry when he was contacted by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) who asked if he might expand his ideas to encompass more of the American Revolution. This movie is the result. By the time he had finished he had a 14 reel history lesson and there wasn't a trace of Patrick Henry anywhere.

We all know the story of the Revolutionary War but Griffith threw in a love story with Patriot farmer Nathan (Neil Hamilton) falling in love with Tory aristocrat Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster, a leading lady for Griffith for many years). Complicating matters is the fact that Nancy's father hates Nathan . . . well not just Nathan, he hates all rebels. It does not help matters when, during a skirmish on the streets of Lexington someone jostles Nathan's arm causing him to discharge his gun and accidentally wound Nancy's dad!

Paralelling the love story is the (mostly true but partially embellished) story of Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore) a renegade British officer who feels he owes allegiance to no one. With Thousands of Indians form the Six Nations on his side he hopes to crush the colonials and become monarch of his own empire.

Comparisons with BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) are inevitable. The Montague family might just as well be the Cameron's from the earlier film while Nathan could be a part of the Stoneman family. The sequence of the Battle of Bunker Hill is staged very similarly to a scene in BIRTH OF A NATION with the attacking army, in this case the Redcoats, storming a trench packed with Patriots. The only thing missing is Henry Walthall charging across No Man's Land to stuff a flag into the muzzle of a cannon. Amazingly enough the battle scenes in America seem to lack the energy of the battle scenes in BIRTH and fail to draw the audience in. Something is clearly missing. It isn't scope, G.W. "Billy" Bitzer's camera work is quite good. Maybe what is missing is . . . dare I say it . . . sincerity?

The brutality of Capt. Butler and his men is well underscored although much of it happens in long shot or offscreen. Don't expect any heads to be lopped off in closeup like we saw in INTOLERANCE (1916). In one scene Butler's second in command, Capt. Hare (Louis Wolhiem) gouges out the eyes of a captive colonist. We see only the beginning of the deed, for the remainder the camera focuses on Hare's face as he obviously has a good time doing this. Lionel had been working with Griffith on and off since 1912. A story goes that he approached Griffith for work and D.W., knowing the reputation of his famous family, said "I am not hiring stage actors." to which Lionel replied "And I am nothing of the kind, sir!" He makes a very good and quite believable villain. Louis Wolhiem appeared with Lionel's older brother John three times; in SHERLOCK HOLMES and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (both 1920) and later in THE TEMPEST (1927). As Capt. Hare his wild staring eyes and disheveled hair not only mark him as a villain but make you think he is quite mad also.

Neil Hamilton later remarked that America was his first time on horseback and "I was scared to death.". He hides his displeasure very well though and we can believe he was quite the equestrian by the time shooting was over. Mr. Griffith was very much in love with Carol Dempster and at one point asked her to marry him. She refused and soon left his stock company, after which her star status gradually waned.

Speaking of horses, one accidentally amusing moment which had to be unscripted came during the depiction of Paul Revere's ride. He rides his horse right up on the front porch of a family to announce "To arms! The Regulars are coming!" but as he tries to leave the horse cannot negotiate the steps backwards and stumbles spilling his rider on the ground! I am amazed Griffith did not do another take.

So is America a classic? YES! Don't wait for July 4th to see it, it is enjoyable anytime.


I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliché of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.

However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.

PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm).


are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of "fisher folk." My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective.


The silent film the Pride of the Clan starring Mary Pickford was supposed to be set in a fictional island off the coast of Scotland. In actuality, most of the exterior shots were filmed in Marblehead Massachusett on Marblehead Neck near several rocky seaside geographic areas including the Churn and Castle Rock. My initial interest in the film was because of two factors: 1) the Marblehead film location in my hometown and, 2) the fact that my grandmother Lizzette M. Woodfin was hired as a stand-in for Mary Pickford during filming of several scenes including the "cliff scene". Both women were small (5') in stature and both my father and grandmother related the fact that she was a stand-in with her back to the camera for the cliff scene as part of the Chiefton filming set. I just wanted to relate this story for future film historians and buffs. The film itself (my DVD copy is somewhat poor) is very well done with lots of action and expressive acting including several scenes where Miss Pickford portrays a strong woman characterization. I enjoyed it and would love to get a better copy of it although I am unsure whether one exists as I have seen in various movie sites that remaining copies are dark because of deterioration. A very nice film of the silent genre with lots of action!


Star Pickford and director Tourneur -- along with his two favorite cameramen and assistant Clarence Brown doing the editing -- bring great beauty and intelligence to this story of poor, isolated Scottish Islanders -- the same territory that Michael Powell would stake twenty years later for his first great success. Visions of wind and wave, sunbacked silhouettes of lovers do not merely complement the story, they are the story of struggle against hardship.

The actors bring the dignity of proud people to their roles and Pickford is brilliant as her character struggles with her duties as head of the clan, wavering between comedy and thoughtfulness, here with her father's bullwhip lashing wayward islanders to church, there seated with her guest's walking stick in her hand like a scepter, discussing her lover, played by Matt Moore.

See if you can pick out future star Leatrice Joy in the ensemble. I tried, but failed.


Strangler of the Swamp was made by low budget studio PRC and is certainly one of their best movies I've seen.

A man who was hanged for a murder he didn't commit returns as a ghost for revenge on the people who accused him. He uses a rope to strangle his victims and after several deaths, including the old man who operates the ferry across the swamp, he disappears. The old man's granddaughter takes over the ferry herself and also falls in love with one of the local men and they decide to get married.

This movie has plenty of foggy atmospheres, which makes it very creepy too.

The cast includes Rosemary La Planche, Blake Edwards and Charles Middleton (Flash Gordon) as the Strangler.

Strangler of the Swamp is a must for old horror fans like myself. Excellent.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5.


Some people say this is the best film that PRC ever released, I'm not too sure about that since I have a fond place in my heart for some of their mysteries. I will say that this is probably one of the most unique films they, or any other studio, major or minor, ever released.

The plot is simple. The ghost of a wrongly executed ferryman has returned to the swamp to kill all those who lynched him as well as all of their off spring. Into this mix comes the granddaughter of one ghosts victims, the current ferryman. She takes over the ferry business as the ghost closes in on the man she loves.

Shrouded in dense fog and set primarily on the single swamp set this is more musical poem than regular feature film.Listen to the rhythms of the dialog, especially in the early scenes, their is poetical cadence to them. Likewise there is a similar cadence to the camera work as it travels back and forth across the swamp as if crossing back and forth across the door way between life and death, innocence and guilt. The film reminds me of an opera or oratorio or musical object lesson more than a normal horror film. Its an amazing piece of film making that is probably unique in film history.

This isn't to guild the Lilly. This is a low budget horror/mystery that tells you a neat little story that will keep you entertained. Its tale of love and revenge is what matters here, not the poetical film making and it holds you attention first and foremost (the technical aspects just being window dressing.) If there is any real flaw its the cheapness of the production. The fog does create a mood but it also hides the fact that this swamp is entirely on dry land. The constant back and forth across it is okay for a while but even after 58 minutes you do wish that we could see something else.

Don't get me wrong I do like the film a great deal. Its a good little film that I some how wish was slightly less poverty stricken. Its definitely worth a look if you can come across it.


**** Includes Spoilers ****

I've been a horror film fan now for many decades. Just when I think I've seen all the great ones another pops up to surprise me. I had never seen this film before. It was a treat, off the beaten path too...not just the path to the swamp ferry boat either. Here was a horror film made in the 1940s that dared to try something VERY different. The pretty girl is (gulp) fearless for a change and saves the men, including the man she loves, from the monster ! How is that for a twist. This girl was the complete opposite of most women in films of that time, no screaming at her own shadow, no fainting from fright, no tripping over a leaf as she runs. This gal wasn't afraid to live alone in a secluded hut far away from the rest of the villagers. Not only that but the place was on a foggy swamp rumored to be haunted. Heck she even takes naps on the swamp grass outdoors...like a regular 1940s version of Ripley. No snake, gator or ghostly strangler would dare bother this gal. Books on early feminist films should be sure to include this overlooked work.

See this if you are a fan, like me, of those wonderfully atmospheric classic B/W horror films they made only in the 30s and 40s. And be sure to wear your cast iron turtle neck for protection.


PRC which was the lowest of the low actually struck gold with this moody little thriller. They did the same thing a year earlier with "Detour" which is probably one of the finest low-budget films ever made.

"Strangler" is basically a one set film, filled with mist and shadows, a technique used by most poverty row studios to hide the sets, or lack thereof. But here, it works well. The ghost of Charles Middleton (better known as Ming the Merciless) lurches around the swamp killing those involved in his wrongful execution for murder and generates some sympathy from the viewer. His final victim is to be the daughter of the ferryman.....he concentrates his wrath not only on those directly involved in his fate but their relatives as well.

Rosemary LaPlanche does her usual imitation of someone in a coma that passes for her acting style. She offers herself up to the strangler in order to put a stop to the killing but as a sop to the audience, the strangler sees the goodness of her gesture as a sign that his mission is complete and he returns to the hereafter, somewhat chastened. If Ulmer(who directed "Detour") has directed "Strangler" she would be hanging from the nearest tree and the strangler's job would be done. But who's complaining? It's not the story that is the major attraction but the shrouded sets, lighting and the general moodiness of the piece. It stands, right behind "Detour", as PRC's finest hour


Very well done and spooky horror movie from poverty-row film company PRC who usually put out really cheesy films like DEVIL BAT or THE FLYING SERPENT. German expatriate director Wisbar does wonders with a small budget and his studio-bound swamp set. Gaunt and ghoulish Charles Middleton is effective as the Strangler.


Probably the best picture Producers Releasing Corp ever made, this little horror piece rivets the attention from first to last. Director Frank Wisbar obviously knows a good story when he writes one and what's more important he knows how to realize its full shock potential on the screen. Not only is the plot involving and the characters fascinatingly drawn, but the setting is absolutely out of this world! Just about all the action takes place either at night or in the middle of a clinging, pervasive fog. This chilling atmosphere is augmented by Wisbar's inventive direction and the wholly convincing performances he has drawn from all his players. The lovely Rosemary La Planche makes an ideal heroine, beautiful, spirited yet vulnerable. Robert Barrat delivers his usual no-nonsense, straight-down-the-line portrait of the local bigwig, though it's hard to believe that the personable, good-looking guy who plays his son is none other than the later dullsville writer/director Blake Edwards.


A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story.


At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some "repertoire" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious.


When I watched this film the first time, it was a taped copy and the title was/is Caged Terror. I still own the tape, and I confess, I've watched it more than once from beginning to end! The film is extremely low budget and the dialogue is often unintentionally amusing! I have gotten a few of my friends to watch this and we've had some great laughs from the terrible script. The film concerns a couple, (remember this is like early 70's so they are just too hip man!) who go on a week-end camping trip in what I believe was supposed to be upstate NY. They have some hilarious dialogue after catching and eating a fish and the girl bemoans the death of the fish and that they ate it! The guy comes back with something goofy about how they ate the fish and now it was a part of them, and he goes; "And that's beautiful man!" Heavy man, really heavy! LOL! Anyway, along come a couple of Vietnam vets, one of who plays the flute, I believe. (At any rate they are musical fellows!) The guys are clearly attracted to the girl and when the couple prove unfriendly, they end up terrorizing them during the night. The guy ends up caged in a chicken coop, and has to watch his girl friend being ravished by the two guys. Actually, by the end of the night, she seems to be pretty into it, and when morning comes, the guys leave and the girl and guy are free to leave. Supposedly the guy has learned a lesson about how to treat people, and the girl has a smile on her face! :) Anyway, I would recommend this film highly to anyone looking for a damn good laugh! It never fails to amuse me anyway! If I could find this on DVD and replace my old tape copy, I'd actually buy it again, it's classic camp! You gotta love this stuff!


A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.

This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.

The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.

In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out.


Maybe it wasn't that good as a whole, but the second episode, which was the first one I say, was so memorable I still remember it today. I became a fan of Dick Francis. I would recommend it if you are interested in horse racing and mysteries.

The cockney slang of the sidekick, Chico Barnes, is a lot more amusing to those of us who have never been close to hearing London's Bow Bells, but the leads are attractive and the shows were interesting.

Sid Halley was one of Francis' more interesting characters, and the show actually minimizes some of the difficulties with his hand. Interestingly, electronic hands of the sort used in the stories are apparently less functional for the user than the sort invented after World War II.


I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences.


The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: "This is almost too beautiful." And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does.


THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.

Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.

I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.

The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.

With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.

So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008.


From the filmmakers who brought us The March of the Penguins, I guess that came with plenty of expectations for The Fox and the Child. From the harsh winters of the South Pole to the lush wilderness in France, the narrative now becomes part documentary and part fairy tale, which tells of the friendship between the two titular characters, Renard the fox and its friendship with the child who christened it, played by Bertille Noel-Beuneau.

The story's frankly quite simple, and at times this movie would have looked like the many Japanese movies which children-miscellaneous animals striking a friendship after the development of trust, and how they go about hanging around each other, dealing with respective adversaries and the likes. Here, the child meets the elegant fox near her home up in the mountains, which provide for plenty of beautiful picture-postcard perfect shots that a cinematographer will have to go into overdrive to capture.

But while we indulge in wistful scenery, the characters don't get to establish that level of trust from the onset, and we have to wait a few seasons to past, and 45 minutes into the film, before they find a leveler in food. The child persistently attempts at striking a bond with the objective of taming the creature for her own amusement, but the fox, well, as other notions of course. While I thought the narrative was pretty weak, unlike March of the Penguins which has that human narrative interpretation of what's happening on screen, what excelled here were the documentary elements of the movie, tracing the life and times of the fox as both a predator, and a prey.

Between the two, more tension and drama was given to the latter, especially when dealing with traditional foes like wolves, and granted, those sequences were fairly intense especially when the child got embroiled in it. Otherwise, it was plain sailing and quite a bore as the two of them go about their playing with each other, in shots that you know have undergone some movie magic editing. There were surprisingly dark moments in the movie that weren't really quite suitable for children, as those in the same hall attested to it by bawling their eyes out suddenly, so parents, you might want to take note and not let your toddler disturb the rest of the movie goers.

As a film, I would've preferred this to be a complete documentary ala The March of the Penguins, but I guess the way it was resented, probably had the objective of warning us not to meddle with nature, and that some things are just not meant to be, and should stay as such. Decent movie that leaned on the strength of the chemistry between Bertille Noel- Bruneau, and the multiple foxes that played Renard.


Maybe I'm biased to foxes, fox stories and all but I thought this was wonderfully done.

I really enjoyed that it was shown when Lily wasn't comfortable, such as the fire and the room (trying not to spoil too much here). I think that's important for kids to see and try to understand.

After reading a few others comments I'm a bit confused, one says that at the end -spoiler- the mother and her son appear, as she's been the one telling her son about her story. The movie I saw did NOT have the mother or son at the end, merely a painting of a girl with a fox. Can someone enlighten me on that? Anyway I really enjoyed this movie, although some scenes can be a bit slow which might be difficult for high energy kids to sit through. Still worth it if they can sit still.


Watching "The Fox and the Child" was an intoxicating experience. The lush visuals, integrity of point of view, and utter beauty of the setting and characters left me in a swoon of pleasure.

The plot is uncomplicated. Deceptively simple. Within the container of that simplicity a world unfolds that draws you in and leaves you breathless.

I laughed. I wept. I learned.

This is a movie you can trust yourself to -- give yourself over to. Dare I say it is an act of love intended for any innocent heart. It reaches to the heart of the viewer--of any age--and reveals the world through new eyes, as if seen from the heart.

Adi Da Samraj once said that true Art draws the viewer beyond point of view into ecstatic participation in Reality. I feel I have been privileged to watch--no, to participate in--this film, a work of true Art.


A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.

Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.

But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing.


I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.

Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.

Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating.


This is a very beautiful and almost meditative film-there is hardly any dialogue in it, apart from the narration; and the scenery and music compliment each other perfectly. I didn't at first connect the red hair of the girl and the fox until it was pointed out to me by a friend (who also has red hair!) It is almost an old fashioned type of children's films, saying that children nowadays prefer animations like Shrek or Toy Story etc-but I feel that young people should be introduced more to the beauty and wonder of nature which this film certainly does. Maybe not the best ever film of its type but certainly an excellent and relaxing view for all ages -not just children.


There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.

I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.

Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.

The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.

The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.

But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10

P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will.


I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen


A lot of the problem many people have with this movie is that they seem to think that the story should have been more entertaining (ignoring it is based on a true story) or ranting against a film that glorifies Che (which it really doesn't). This film is very close to Jon Anderson's definitive bio on Che and gets the story right. Soderburgh does an excellent job of setting the mood for the unraveling debacle that was Che's Bolivian adventure. You really get the impression of the total timidity and bewilderment of the Bolvian peasant to Che's revolutionary ideas or of the difficulties that his men faced with hunger and the terrain. Sorry to bore the attention challenged movie fan out there but that was how it happened. So don't go into this movie expecting a Rambo shoot em up, its a true story!


Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che  Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?

James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One  that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward  usually everlasting love or material wealth  as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage  not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.

Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.

High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena  light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say  and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).

But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this  interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations  make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.

There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.

With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.

But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.


Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.

If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.

The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is 'The Argentine,' depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is 'Guerrilla,' and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.

This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.

It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one.


Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.

As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.

Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10