Amazon.com

Pedro Almodóvar scored his first international hit with What Have I Done to Deserve This?, cementing his reputation as Spain's bad-boy director of darkly comedic melodramas. Many of the themes that dominate Almodóvar's later films are evident here, especially his sympathetic affection for downtrodden women like Gloria (Carmen Maura), an exhausted housewife who's addicted to No-Dōz tablets and spends 18-hour days cleaning apartments and tending (just barely) to her teenage sons (one deals drugs, the other offers sex to local perverts), neglectful husband, and looney-tunes mother-in-law--all of whom have a particular knack for getting on her nerves. Toss in a prostitute neighbor, an accidental murder, and a pet lizard named "Money," and you've got the makings of a soap opera by way of Luis Buñuel and John Waters, served up with Almodóvar's distinctive blend of compassionate humanity and kinky outrageousness. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Dark Humor Gives the Film its Edge
As a North American, one is subject to films which are essentially shallow, mindless and repetitious. Rarely is there a film that comes as a surprise. However, Qué he hecho yo para merecer esto offers a completely different cinematic experience. Pedro Almodovar's use of dark humor in Qué he hecho yo is what I found most appealing. The film takes a peek into the lives of the members of a poor working class family and explores their many problems in a tragic but comic way. The film opens with a shot of an enormous apartment complex similar to "the Projects" of the United States defining the films dark aspects and the tragic situation of the family. Soon, the close up takes us into the tiny apartment which is decorated in humorously bad taste, "kitsch". This allows the audience to relax and laugh as it reveals the film's dark humor. Furthermore, the film deals with subjects such as prostitution, child molestation, adultery, murder, drug addiction, and poverty. What I found most interesting was the way in which Almodovar manages to poke fun at these issues. A North American film would never even dare to mention child molestation unless it suggested that the criminal would end up dead, however Qué he hecho yo presents a mother who allows her young son to live with his homosexual dentist after he makes advances towards the boy at his practice. Interestingly, it is one of the films funniest moments. Hence, the film is truly a must see for anyone wishing to escape the monotony of American cinema and who enjoys an unconventional dark comedy.

"No-Doz" are caffeine pills
In Pedro Almodovar's fourth film "What Have I Done To Deserve This?" Gloria (Carmen Maura) lives in a tiny high-rise flat in Madrid which she shares with her boorish, lazy taxi-driver husband, Antonio, their two sons--one is a drug pusher and the other is a teen male prostitute, and Gloria's selfish mother-in-law who hoards her own supply of mineral water and cakes in a locked cabinet. Gloria scrapes by with a pittance doled out to her by her begruding husband, and she cleans homes and businesses to supplement their meagre income.
Gloria exists to serve and clean up for those she lives with, but underneath that harried housewife exterior boils a woman of passion--the film makes that clear very quickly, but will Gloria ever have the opportunity to be more than an unpaid maidservant? Gloria looks around at the four walls of her squalid tiny kitchen, and wonders how her life got to this point. She copes with her miserable, joyless existence thanks to an addiction to caffeine pills, but when she runs out of tablets one day, Gloria explodes.
Almodovar films always include deep friendships and loyalties between women, and "What Have I Done To Deserve This?" is no exception to this rule--Gloria's best friend and confidante is Cristal (played with great good humour by Veronique Forque). Cristal is a chatty prostitute who dreams of going to America. Her free-spirited ways are a threat to Antonio who can't really contemplate a woman like Cristal--a woman who may rent her body out temporarily, but she still remains owned by no-one. Cristal is Almodovar's prostitute with a heart of gold. She finds extra work for Gloria, and Gloria's friendship with Cristal eventually leads to trouble. Some of the best scenes in the film involve Cristal--her open approach to life is hilarious, and some of the scenes with her clients are priceless--the professor who is doing 'research' and the exhibitionist who needs more than Cristal to make up an adequate audience. This is darker than some of his later films, and the bleakness may prove difficult for some viewers to see the film. But the comedy is there--black comedy, but comedy nonetheless. The juxtaposition of the television romances next to the squalor of Gloria's real life are marvellously laced throughout the film. Keep an eye open for the dentist who wants to "adopt" Gloria's youngest son, Miguel. Due to themes and language ... this film is not for the kiddies

Classic Almodovar
This Almodovar classic from the early 80's is an excellent dark comedy. Great characters such as the next door prostitute, the little redhead girl with telekinetic powers, the cheap grandma, the impotent policeman, the gay dentist, the two writers, and so on make for an interesting watch. Many classic lines are found in this one, like the newlywed who gets her face burnt from her husband spilling coffee on her "I'll never forget that cup of coffee" and "I'm diabetic? oh, I always forget at dinner time?"
This film is not really driven by plot, but rather by the characters' lives. Like all Almodovar movies, it is a piece of art, a meditation and a comical look at life, sexual orientation, coincidence, destiny and love.

"Wouldn't happen to have a whip, would you?"
In Pedro Almodovar's fourth film "What Have I Done To Deserve This?" Gloria (Carmen Maura) lives in a tiny high-rise flat in Madrid which she shares with her boorish, lazy taxi-driver husband, Antonio, their two sons--one is a drug pusher and the other is a teen male prostitute, and Gloria's selfish mother-in-law who hoards her own supply of mineral water and cakes in a locked cabinet. Gloria scrapes by with a pittance doled out to her by her begruding husband, and she cleans homes and businesses to supplement their meagre income.

Gloria exists to serve and clean up for those she lives with, but underneath that harried housewife exterior boils a woman of passion--the film makes that clear very quickly, but will Gloria ever have the opportunity to be more than an unpaid maidservant? Gloria looks around at the four walls of her squalid tiny kitchen, and wonders how her life got to this point. She copes with her miserable, joyless existence thanks to an addiction to "no-doze" sedatives, but when she runs out of tablets one day, Gloria explodes.

Almodovar films always include deep friendships and loyalties between women, and "What Have I Done To Deserve This?" is no exception to this rule--Gloria's best friend and confidante is Cristal (played with great good humour by Veronique Forque). Cristal is a chatty prostitute who dreams of going to America. Her free-spirited ways are a threat to Antonio who can't really contemplate a woman like Cristal--a woman who may rent her body out temporarily, but she still remains owned by no-one. Cristal is Almodovar's prostitute with a heart of gold. She finds extra work for Gloria, and Gloria's friendship with Cristal eventually leads to trouble.

Some of the best scenes in the film involve Cristal--her open approach to life is hilarious, and some of the scenes with her clients are priceless--the professor who is doing 'research' and the exhibitionist who needs more than Cristal to make up an adequate audience.

While "What Have I Done To Deserve This?" isn't my all-time favourite Almodovar film, nonetheless, I do re-watch it from time to time, and it really is a great film. It is darker than some of his later films, and the bleakness may prove difficult for some viewers to see the film as a comedy. But the comedy is there--black comedy, but comedy nonetheless. The juxtaposition of the television romances next to the squalor of Gloria's real life are marvellously laced throughout the film. Keep an eye open for the ... dentist who wants to adopt Gloria's youngest son, Miguel. Due to themes and language ... this film is not for the kiddies--displacedhuman--www.Amazon.com Reviewer.

Great dark comedy
Almovodar's Best! (Terrible first date movie, however, with the opening sex scene). Humor along the lines of "Eating Raul". ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Watch a REAL Indian dance sequence
We begin in a small village. It is monsoon season (nearly as requisite to an Indian film as tumbleweeds in a Western). Our protagonist has returned from the big city to visit his family. His father is a pretentiously orthodox Brahmin, a pillar of his community (of which he repeatedly reminds anyone who will listen to him). One day a butterfly flaps its wings in Paris, and the resultant gust of wind blows up a Muslim woman's veil -- after a single glimpse of her face, our hero is irrevocably in love.

Several dance sequences and illicit meetings later, the parents of the two find out, and the results are as hideous and explosive as if a black man had whistled at a white woman in Mobile, Alabama. The couple go to Bombay and, after some amusing post-nuptial frustrations, have children.

At that point, the movie becomes more serious, with scenes from the Muslim-Hindu riots of Bombay in the early '90s. Being a Bollywood movie, after all, some pieces are cartoonishly done (watch the part where our hero gets to save his family), but the truth of the riots is present and terrifying.

The movie was well shot, the principals are both very charming, and the dance sequences feature plump, dark women -- a very nice slice of life if you've been watching too many Kareena Kapoor/Shah Rukh Khan extravaganzas.

This is certainly my favorite Bollywood musical, it's very sincere and sweet.

Must see
For those you want a nice movie filled with a good story line, not heavy on emotion and above all a scintillating music this is a good movie to see.

Made with the backdrop of the Bombay communal riots, doesn't offer a solution, but instead shows the pain and suffering of common people.

the only negative was that the censor board decided to cut scenes which were objectionable to Bal Thackery and his goons nad also to appease the Muslim community. ... Read more

Album Description

Import only NTSC/Region 1 DVD. The touching story of a man (Tim Roth) who was born and raised on a ship. His only interactions with the outside world are through the ship's passengers. As he matures, he becomes an accomplished pianist, and eventually falls in love with a woman who threatens to tempt him into stepping off the ship for the very first time. Tornatore's fairytale is at once a tender and moving motion picture that gives Roth a chance to shine. Stars Tim Roth, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Clarence Williams III, Melanie Thierry, Bill Nunn, Peter Vaughan. Directed by Giuseppe Tornatore. Widescreen 2.35:1, 1989, 125 minutes. 2001. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Music Of The Ocean
You probably know Tim Roth from playing bad guys, as in "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", "Planet of the Apes" --if you didn't notice, he was the bad ape--, or ,even, in "Vatel". Now, watching "The Legend of 1900", you'll be surprised seeing him playing the title role, 1900 -- yes, this is his name-- who is a very melacholic musician.

1900 was found in a ship when was still a baby. Adoped by one of the men who worked in it, he grew up watching people immigrate to America and being greeted by the Statue of Liberty. He is a natural born musician, so he can perfectly play piano, and it starts to call people's attention. So the film follows the life of this man who never leaves the ship. The story is told by one of his band mates.

The script is very fine, balacing some funny moments and some melancholics events. It is impossible to forget the impressive duel between 1900 and the father of the jazz. And Ennio Morricone's score is superb. The music that 1900 'composes' in the very moment a record is being recorded and he falls for a beautiful girl resonated in my mind for days. This piece is deeply touching. Giuseppe Tornatore is, as everybody knows, Italian and he directs the movie with the Italian approach, in other words, it will touch your heart and will make you cry many times.

There is no doubt that Tim Roth is the heart, soul and fingers of the film. Although he does not play piano, he just mimes, it is so good that one may think he is actually playing the songs. Other thing that is not impossible to avoid mentioning is his eyes. They are so deep and expressive. Most of his feelings are expressed by those melancholic pair of eyes. 1900 grabs your heart and, even though being so surreal, he looks so believable that you think you're watching a story very likely to have happened.

I recomend this movie for those who like Italian Cinema, and music as well. I don't think this is the kind of film for everyone, but, surely, it has its audience.

Incredibly well done!
I agree with some other reviews I've read above on how some people criticize this movie too easily. I don't think it's necessary to sit down and watch it with some preconcieved idea as to what to expect, rather than just let the movie and the soundtrack seduce you to it's full extent. I believe Guiseppe Tornatore and Ennio Morricone have put together a film that will be referred back to by many generations. It's one of those films that refuses to age in time. The brilliant performance by Tim Roth in an not-so-usual role brings to life 1900, a character so much within us all, representing what he has to say and do in this world through his magnificent piano-playing, ("A light that shines so bright yet for so little time"...taken from blade runner). I haven't the slightest intention of drawing any conclusion for the reviewer of this movie but if your not into great expectations, you'll probably wind up with more than that at the end of the film. My opinion is that the story didn't necessarily need to take place on an ocean liner, it could have been anywhere where 1900 felt safe and secluded from the bustle of the surrounding world but through his greatness as a pianist, he was always bound for fame and glory as well as his inevitablity. I feel it's important to get this point across to those who feel the need to compare this "insignificant" aspect with the movie "Titanic", yet I would have wished half the musical score in "Titanic" this film has. The main character leaves me with the sensation that he's subconsciously set out the task to leave a mark on this Earth while he's never literally set foot on dry ground and that all of us who have strived in our own lives can relate to easily yet again, he leaves an unfinished task to those who haven't. My advice, get the DVD, listen to the beautiful music and put your thoughts aside, the film will do the rest and you'll surely be wanting to see it more than once!

one of the greatest movies ever made w/o commercial minded
this is one of the most profound movies i've ever viewed. 'red violin' is good but not as good as this one. some of the other great movies that are always on my mind are: "the music teacher", 'somewhere in time'. i'd like to thank to those producers who could put this kind movie into production without putting the big denero boxoffice in mind. otherwise we would never have any chance to have such sublime and profound feelings and opportunity to learn that we do also have some passions revived by such great stories.

A mythical fable
This work of Giuseppe Tornatore is an original issue in the celluloid.
The story tells us about a child born in the middle of the ocean , (so forget about what's his birthplace), that lack of no land human being gives him that mythical character.
The script shows the process of growing up of this boy , who gradually became in the official pianist of that ship called Virginian, (another smart clue) .
The time comes for him , the piano and his intimate friend , the trumpeter are the only friends he has.
All the story is told in third person, before a seller of old musical instruments and musical scores; I mean a true dialogue between two categories of memories ; the emotional and the historical.
In that sense Tornatore signs his directorial prints on his favorite theme: the memory. That's the clever device of Cinema Paradiso.
But the pianist (in a brilliant performing of this underestimated actor of one million carats talent, Tim Rith), refuses in every decisve moment to leave his own country ship; he belongs to it. He was born there and a invisible link ties him: not even the only love , and mighty inspiration motive for his best composition is capable of make leaving his water home.
Beautiful , poetical and amazing tale with multiple laughable sequences, are surrounded by that duty fate of mixing with the ground land .
An unforgettable experience that will reward you from beginning to end.
Don't miss this one.

The Legend of 1900
This is undoubtedly the VERY BEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL movie I have ever seen. It is a movie that, after you have seen it, you can not forget. The story and characters, and music, haunt you, and Tim Roth is unbelievably fabulous. I can not understand why this movie, Tim Roth, and the soundtrack, did not win some major awards because the movie certainly deserved best picture of the year, Tim Roth deserved best actor, and the haunting and very original soundtrack should have also received the top academy award. This movie is even better than Cinema Paridiso, which is also one of my other favorite films. I buy this movie for everyone I really like. Lucky for me that I heard about this movie only on the Netflix website and ordered it. Why did this movie never get the publicity it deserved (that is something that I would like to know from anyone out there who may know)?? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Although Sunshine was made by a Hungarian, István Szabó, and deals with the history of Hungary as refracted through three generations of a Jewish-Hungarian family, you might be more inclined to give it three hours of your own life if you approach it as a David Lean movie in spirit. It is an English-language picture, and Maurice Jarre's music recalls his score for Doctor Zhivago. Szabó emulates Lean's intimate-epic style of merging the sweep of history with the crystalline detailing of individual lives, so that the shape of destiny is glimpsed through personal moments that feel at once evanescent and eternal. His lighting cameraman, Lajos Koltai, is one of the handful of cinematographers equal to capturing these moments in lapidary images--cinematic sunshine of the highest order.

"Sunshine" is a literal translation of Sonnenschein, the family name of the central characters. And "destiny" is one meaning of Sors, the name three Sonnenschein offspring choose for themselves to better assimilate as subjects of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Two are brothers, Ignatz (Ralph Fiennes) and Gustave (James Frain); their sister (by adoption) Valerie (Jennifer Ehle) is really their cousin. Both men love her, and Ignatz rocks the ultratraditional family by taking her as his wife. Nevertheless, the Sonnenscheins and the Sors enter upon the 20th century in loving solidarity, grateful to live under a liberal and tolerant regime. That's all swept away by the Great War, the rise of Nazism, and its replacement, the new fascism of Stalinist Communism. Valerie survives them all--though she's played later on by Rosemary Harris, Ehle's own mother. For his part--or parts--Ralph Fiennes goes on to embody two later generations of Sonnenschein/Sors men, the proudly patriotic Adam and his son, the rudderless Ivan, whose guilt over being a compliant prisoner at Auschwitz leads him to buy into the passionate puritanism of the Stalinist purges. Fiennes rises to the awesome challenge of creating three utterly distinct characters who all share the same congenital weaknesses and aching potential for greatness.

This is a film of considerable beauty and sometimes shattering power. Even three hours is not enough to do justice to all the characters, all the wrenching turnarounds of history and political allegiance and rectitude. But the film is never less than gripping, and as an essay on "family values," it's well-nigh definitive. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (55)

GLORIOUS. BUT COULD HAVE BEEN AN EPIC.
Can't remember the last time I sat through a movie for a full 3 hours, but Sunshine had me riveted. What a glorious message of love and joy subordinating almost every other pursuit in our lives.

We follow the travails of a Hungarian family through three generations -- and three political/ideological regimes. The first forty minutes are replete with their own elaborate costume sets and gorgeous locales of Budapest. The second and the third generations depicted find themselves smack in the middle of the Holocaust and the follow-up Stalinisque regime. As the Sonnenchiens (the Sunshine family) live through these times with a great loss of life and blood, there're also invaluable lessons to be learnt.

I felt the movie did not sufficiently capitalize on the emotions between men and women except for the first Sonnenchiens. Instead, there's a lot of unnecessary nudity. I'd be stupid to mind seeing Rachel Weisz (The Mummy) and Deborah Kara Unger (Crash) in ecstasy but it got to be almost redundant because the man was the same, Ralph Fiennes playing a different generation. The music for such an epic could have and probably should have been much more memorable, it was just any generic symphony you'd expect from a romanticized epic-mode film.

But these are petty quibbles. Like other movies of its kind, e.g., "House of Spirits" or "American History X", Sunshine certainly has its faults, but its messages about tolerance, humanity, and redemption are absolutely glorious.

For a 3 hour film, the DVD could surely have done a lot better by breaking the movie into Sors I, Sors II and Sors III sections. It is still a very worthy rental especially if you care about period peieces, political ideas, Ralph Fiennes, or Hungary.

take my wife please
A lighthearted romp through Hungarian history, "Sunshine" follows the trials and tribulations of three generations of the Sonnenshein family. Ralph Feinnes, in great comic form here, plays all three roles: Grampa, Pops and Junior. While the director was obviously thinking of structuring this movie along the lines of Alec Guinness's great "Kind Hearts and Coronets," in which Guinness played (I think) seven roles, many times "Sunshine" seems to have more in common with an Eddie Murphy film like "The Klumps." Be that as it may, the laughs keep coming when the recipe for the fabled health drink, which has brought the family fame and fortune, becomes lost. Add a few crazy women as love interests (including Deborah Kara Unger who seems ready to reprise her role in "Crash" here) and you've got the kind of film Mel Brooks used to make before "Blazing Saddles." "Sunshine" also has its serious side, as it is set against the backdrop of WWII and Stalin's pogroms. Still, in the tradition of Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" and Jerry Lewis's "The Day the Clown Cried," the serious undercurrent never gets in the way of some inspired sight gags, fabulous one-liners (listen carefully during the "pass the salt sequence") and general silliness.

What a fantastic movie!
This movie is a must-see!
It is a relativly long movie but you won't feel the length since it is very amusing and it absorbs all your attention so well that you barely notice the passage of time.

Epic multi-generational view of the last century in Hungary
By taking a slice of Hungarian history spanning roughly the last century, this movie chooses a historical setting which provides a concentrated message of human frailty and idealism amidst social and political change. In this microcosmic world of a century of Hungarian history, we encounter some broader familiar themes of social mobility (both economically and politically) of a religious minority in a country with its own conflicted sense of national identity through different political regimes. Ralph Fiennes (of the more familiar movie "The English Patient") superbly plays multiple roles, as a male member of three successive generations of a Hungarian Jewish family, spanning the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the two World Wards to (briefly) modern post-communist Hungary. Fiennes' presence throughout this movie in multiple roles lends a curious continuity to several recurrent themes in this tale of political and family loyalty and betrayal. Haunted by the image of his impotence at watching his father being tortured and killed in front of several hundred Jewish prisoners, the leading male character struggles to expiate his guilt and avenge the shadowy forces of anti-Semitism. But his own ideals are dashed as his police interrogator role in communist Hungary leads him to confront the hypocrisy of yet another regime in which ideological purity and political expediency are hard to distinguish. With his own fanatical commitment to pursue the fascist elements in post World War Two communist Hungary, the leading character shares much in common with his grandfather's loyalty, as a high level magistrate, to the monarchy of a crumbling empire of which Hungary was a part, and with his father's blind faith in the willingness of the newly recreated Hungary to assimilate a Jew who converts to Catholicism as he also becomes a national Olympics fencing hero. In the end, all three characters of three generations of the same family become victims of different political regimes, all of which learn to use their willing victims as pawns who become betrayed with their blind loyalty. Oddly, it is the several women characters who invariably become amorously entangled with different male characters, who seem most skeptical of the promises of different regimes. Unfortunately, it is not often we find this kind of epic movie which personalizes large swathes of history through the saga of several generations of a single family - and it is often compared to Dr. Zhivago. Highly recommended.

A masterpiece of WWII storytelling
If you were appalled by films such as Schindler's List, wait till you see this one. Many people consider WWII storytelling an exhausted topic, which is simply not true, as witnessed by the popularity of The Pianist and Adrien Brody's consequent though well deserved stardom.
"Sunshine" has all the elements of a great movie. A top of the line cast, to start with Ralph Fiennes whose performance is superb (in my opinion Fiennes' greatest masterpiece). You might be put off by the length of this movie, though the story carries itself very well. Simply told, it will move you. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

David Lean's handsome adaptation ofCharles Dickens's classic novel captures the warm humor and richness of character that so many filmmakers miss in their reverent recreations of Victorian England. From the nightmarish opening sequence on the windswept graveyard where young orphan Pip (Anthony Wager) meets the desperate escaped criminal Magwitch (Finlay Currie) to the shadowy, musty mansion of the widow Miss Haversham (Martita Hunt) where he first meets the impertinent young beauty Estella (Jean Simmons), Lean captures a childlike exaggeration of reality with his elegant expressionism. When Pip's sudden change in fortune sends him to London as a burgeoning gentleman in high society, Lean sketches a beautiful, bustling city. John Mills's performance as the adult Pip charts his change from the wide-eyed wonder and generous spirit of the child he was to the class snob transformed by money and social standing, an ugly flaw that Pip confronts when his mysterious benefactor is finally revealed. The outstanding cast also features Valerie Hobson as the grown-up Estella, now a beguiling enchantress, a bright young Alec Guinness in his film debut as Pip's jovial London roommate Herbert Pocket, and the imposing Francis L. Sullivan as the decidedly humorless lawyer Jaggers. Exquisitely photographed by Guy Green (who won an Oscar for his work). Lean and his collaborators effectively maintain the heart of Dickens's epic drama while cutting it to its essentials in this vivid, compelling film. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Amazon.com

Filmed in the widescreen splendor of "Panavision Super 70" and blessed with the finest production values that Hollywood clout can buy, this tale of spunky Irish immigrants forgot one crucial ingredient: a decent screenplay. The film is entertaining enough, and director Ron Howard brings his technical proficiency to the simple plot, culminating in a dynamic, breathtaking depiction of the Oklahoma land rush of 1893. But the movie is really just a vacuous vehicle for married stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as (respectively) the poor tenant farmer and rich landlord's daughter who flee Ireland to be American pioneers. The scenery and the stars are never less than stunning, but Howard falls short of the mark in his attempt to match the epic sweep of films by David Lean. On the other hand, this movie is certainly never boring even if it rarely makes sense, and Lean's own Irish epic, Ryan's Daughter, is a snoozer by comparison. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Book of Days
Far and Away is such an incredible looking movie that your heart might end up hating your eyes for distracting yourself from the true beauty of the film.

This film is the story of Joesph and his hopes and dreams. His father is killed and he seeks to kill the man that took his land. Joseph meets up with Shannon, the wealthy daughter of the man responsible for taking Joseph's land, and she pays him to take her to America. Unfortunately they're robbed and we see the cold, harsh realities of foreigners trying to survive in America. Through prize fighting, Joseph begins to make a nice life for himself, while the spoiled Shannon ends up plucking chickens to make end's meat. Their trials and tribulations bring them together in one of the best love stories told, and the ending...well, lets just say that it's one of the most wonderful endings you'll find in a film.

Ron Howard has done an incredible job of bringing this film to life, and the performance of Tom Cruise is one of his best ever. Far and Away is a film that you have to see. You'll feel better about life after you have.

A real feel-good love story for the dreamer in us all.
What can I say about this film to begin my review? Three words. I LOVE it. I may be a little biased, but I love things set in Ireland, Scotland, and that area. I was hooked immediately on the beautiful scenery of Ireland's west coast, and my heart was immediately stirred by the rich and dramatic, yet at times very soft and tender music. Even more so when I read "Music By John Williams" in the opening credits. But I digress.

Music and scenery aside this movie still has much going for it, and it really shines. It's a love story yes, but it's beautiful. Others have mentioned the great chemistry between Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman here, and they are right. I am not a big fan of Tom Cruise (Rain Man was excellent though) or Nicole Kidman, but they played very well off each other. This film follows, again as many have mentioned, the two lead characters as they make a harrowing journey from Ireland to Boston to Oklahoma in pursuit of their dreams. His is "I'll work my own land someday" hers is "I'm modern, and I'm going to a modern place" She wants to get away from her parents old-fashioned and "stuffy" way of living.

I hate to diss other films so I'll try not to do that here. I WILL say that I loved the love story in Far And Away because it works. And it works because it is given time to develop. Joseph and Shannon hate each others guts at first and make no secret of it, but they are drawn slowly together by the perils of their journey. It is touching to see their hatred for each other change from hatred to grudging respect, to affection, and finally grow all the way to genuine love. This works MUCH better than spending a day on a ship, and saying to yourself "Oh look, there's a pretty girl up on the next deck. Let's take her dancing, partying, teach her how to spit, how to stand on the back of a ship with her eyes shut and her arms outstretched. Then I'll draw a nude portrait of her, and then we'll go and have sex in the back of a car. All witihin a period of about three or four days." (Just for the record I loved Titanic too, but the "quickie" love story took away from the power of the film JUST a TAD because the love between Rose and Jack was not allowed to GROW and DEVELOP into itself as it is here in FAR AND AWAY. In TITANIC the love between Jack and Rose was just THERE. It was just: Boy meets girl. Girl meets boy. Boy loves girl. Girl loves boy. Badda-BING, Bada-BANG, Badda-BOOM)

I'm sorry, I'm digressing again, so I'll try to keep to the point and keep the rest of this short. In summary , to me this film is a great one, well done in every part of the package. LOVELY scenery is wedded to absolutely beautiful music as two great actors are supported by an assortment of loveable aqquaintances and a couple of dastardly villians (I'm counting Mike Kelly here too, see the film to know who he is and why I call him a villian). All this comes together in a beautiful love story that has the power to touch the heart, and the tear ducts, and make you realize the importance of holding onto and going after your dreams. I loved it, and so can you, if you have the courage to let this film touch your heart. If you do allow that, it will carress it. Peace, and God bless you. Always.

Do you have a craving for strawberry tart?
Watch this movie to find out where that line comes from.

In 1892-93, Tom Cruise is poor Joseph in Ireland and Nicole Kidman is rich Shannon from the same country. Their fake accents are collectively awful. Cruise sounds like a wannabe leprechaun.

Together they run off to America where they tell the landlord they are brother and sister so they can share the rent. Joseph becomes a boxer and wins big in the ring. Shannon decides to be a dancehall girl.

Although they profess to hate each other, you know where that storyline is going to end. It is, after all, Cruise and Kidman in their heyday.

I did like the homesteading scene at the end -- where people raced across the plains and made their claims to land. I hadn't known about that piece of history before. Nicely done, Ron Howard!

Too much edited from TV version
I was very disappointed to find so much missing from this movie on DVD. I have the TV version recorded and I know they left out quite a bit. This seems strange since DVDs are suppose to hold so much more information. I also saw the movie at the theater a couple of times,there are parts missing on the DVD that were in the theater version also. Don't buy the DVD if you enjoyed the TV version"with never before seen footage". I had expected the DVD to cover it all,but at least everything I saw at the theater.

Only because I can't give it zero
This well may have been the worst movie I've ever seen. I only watched it to the end to see if it could continue to deteriorate. Shockingly, it did. The storyline was terrible, the dialogue was worse. The best part (or worst, depending on how you look at these things) was the very end. Just when you think the film couldn't get more insipid, a horse rolls over Tom Cruise and, much to Nicole Kidman's chagrin, he dies. She starts crying and screaming over his dead body and, shades of Beauty and the Beast, his eyes suddenly pop open. Yes, he's been brought back to life by the strength of her love. What were these people thinking? If you are trying to find a movie to fill out your list of the ten most worthless films of all time, check this one out. If not, don't bother. ... Read more

Reviews (42)

Shattered Realities
'For A Lost Soldier' is one film which I have watched several times! It deals with a volatile topic, the story of a very young boy who finds love in the arms of a young Canadian soldier in World War II. Since the story is based on an autobiographical book, it is not the whimsy of a script writer but rather a glimpse into one man's childhood memories. The director took some liberties with the book, both in the introduction and again at the end, but otherwise stayed fairly true to the story. The movie challenges one's ideas regarding consensual sexual relationships which involve an adult and a minor. If anyone was seduced in the film, it was the soldier. The boy is in control and very aware of what it is that he wants from the soldier at all times. The event happened during the liberation of Holland and the liberation theme is tied closely to the young boy's own special liberation. The film also gives a vastly different view of life in Holland under German occupation. While 'The Hiding Place' portrays the horrors of Nazi power in a large city, this film shows what life was like in a remote village. The boy's ration card, so carefully guarded at home, is not even recognized by his 'adoptive' family. They appear to eat well and the village is only guarded by two German soldiers. The soldiers are so bored, they attend the local church service on Sundays, even though the minister is raining down hellfire and brimstone on the German forces in his sermons. One movie with two new concepts to explore, make the film a basic to any good collection.

Requires an open mind, but surprisingly a fine movie
Because of its extremely risky subject: A friendship that develops into a romance between a 20-30-something Canadian soldier and a 12 year old Dutch boy, “For A Lost Soldier” is no doubt destined to remain in the very obscure, little-seen foreign film file, which is unfortunate. The first half of this film is reminiscent of other great coming-of-age war films like John Boorman’s “Hope and Glory”, but takes a very offbeat twist when the boy, Jeroen, meets Walt, the somewhat melancholy but friendly soldier. While some may be unsettled with the idea of a boy and a man having a romantic relationship, the story really focuses more on the friendship and the rites of passage of a boy growing up. World War II must have been a terrifying experience for many of the children of Europe, especially when you are sent far away from your family and surrounded by people and places you don’t know. Never being graphic, this sometimes haunting film delicately deals with themes of love, loneliness, friendship and abandonment. An enjoyable mix of light-hearted moments and touching, poignant moments as well. Directed with grace and class, there’s a lyrical beauty and lush tone to this film which is subtle and under-stated. The audience is invited into the sleepy Dutch countryside and the simple lives of a peaceful, tolerant people. This movie is much more than an offbeat, foreign “gay love story”. “For a Lost Soldier” is a charming and captivating film that will stick with you long after you’ve seen it. It deserves to be seen.

On Exploitation
I've thought very hard about this movie after reading these reviews.
I couldn't, and no matter how hard I try, can't distinguish the soldier's behaviour towards the boy from pure self-gratification - an exercise in narcissism, projected from 1st person to 3rd.

The boy's regard for the soldier, I suspect would be entirely familiar to any boy who ever had a crush on an adult.

but Love?

I found it a thought provoking movie, because it used the cinematic conventions of a love story to tell a story about neediness. Sure, neediness is necessary to love, but sufficient? Hardly.

I don't have a problem with a movie portraying sexual exploitation, but felt uneasy that the treatment here skirted perilously close to sanctification and propagandisation. It was certainly not 'portrayal' in any way I could make sense of.

It has an uneasy resonance, for me, with a strong tendency in the community of men who exploit boys: they mistake the undoubted readiness of certain boys to form attachments, and their curiosity about sexual development, for love and/or sexual desire. I believe this impression is largely formed and reinforced by powerful expressions, like this movie. The problem is that such expressions almost certainly represent the wishful thinking of adults, rather than the authentic experience of kids.
Even when the story is autobiographical, as I believe this to be*, it makes sense to me that the dishonesty could represent a sexualised variation on the self-replicating damage we see in schools and military institutions, where each incoming group "grows up" from being exploited and abused to perpetrate the same on the next intake. There's some sort of "empathy bypass" which seems to be inherent to the mechanism.

*From reading the review of the book on which the film is based, the film has definitely been sanitised and perhaps crosses the line into fiction : in the book, the soldier forces sex with the kid, and his general behaviour towards him is even less consistent with love than is depicted in the film. I didn't know this when I wrote the preceding, and I somewhat sickened to reflect that the movie's promos and reviews ever led me to believe this was a film which might uplift me.
The whole thing starts to feel like a triumph of romanticism over honesty, perhaps in the tradition of the "Olympia" films of Leni Riefenstahl, where the beautiful bodies and movement of athletes, and the considerable arsenal of artful cinematography, were conscripted in the glorious service of something horrible about to engulf Europe.

I don't require my movies to condemn. In fact, I prefer them not to make moral judgements of any sort. It disturbs me, however, when they use misleading packaging to inveigle me into taking an interest, and then once I'm inside, use an essentially dishonest "insemination by imagery" process to surreptitiously advance a moral judgement - in favour - of the frankly indefensible.

I defend your right to see this movie and make your own judgement, but I'm glad I can exercise my right to warn you about it.

Appealing only to those who actively seek such media
The ostensibly "tender" portrayal of a 12-year-old boy's (Jeroem) sexual relationship with a Canadian soldier (Walt) in World War II. Apart from barely developing the kid as a believable character, there's hardly any redeeming quality to Walt. The man is openly a predator, using candy and promises of adventure to seduce his way into Jeroem's pants. There's only one real "sex" scene between the two, and the director handles it with as much taste and class as one can handle a grown man deflowing a preteen. In a scene where Jeroem's adoptive father confronts Walt about what he knows is going on, the man wilts under the fact that he owes his freedom partly to the Canadian army's driving Nazis out of their land, and his resolve crumbles. All in all, it's a pretty bland and full of half-hearted narrative excuses. I will give the film one kudo, tho: they didn't fall back on the cliché of abusive father-figure driving the boy into the pedophile's "loving" arms.

I'm Conflicted
Oh, my. What to say about this movie? It is, after all, about a young man having sex with a 12-year-old boy.

First, the easy part . . . . The movie is well-crafted, structured around flashback, a deft mix of subtitled Dutch and English in reflection of the idiosyncratic communication that evolves between the main characters, and beautifully filmed in the soft light of northern Europe. As a piece of cinematic craftmanship, I'd give it 4 stars.

But then there's the story itself. Can sexual relations between an adult and a child ever be excused by love or circumstances? Before this movie, the answer for me was a resounding no. After this movie, I simply don't know. The man here is not a sexual predator in that he is not attracted to the boy by virtue of his youth. Instead, he is a gay man doubly isolated by his sexual orientation and by being on foreign ground at the end of a world-shattering war. And, coming across a gay boy likewise isolated from his home at the end of the same war, a bond is forged that did not have sex as its initial aim and came to include sex only after love was so deeply established as to have rendered age irrelevant.

Or did it? After all, the soldier is first attracted to the boy by his looks, not by anything he knew about the boy or his circumstances. And can age ever be irrelevant to sex involving minors? Do 12-year-olds ever know enough of themselves, their world, and its risks to be informed participants?

If nothing else, this movie accomplishes something by making the question tenable. But does it, in the end, make this love affair all right? I simply don't know.

This movie stands up as a thought-provoking film. It should not, however, be read as an unambiguous justification for adult/child sex. Since it, however, implies more than presents the ambiguities and could leave some thinking they've just watched an argument that child sex taboos are nothing more than unwarranted modern western uptightness, I discount it to 3 stars. ... Read more

Description

Set against some of the most spectacular scenery ever seen on film, Himalaya tells the story of a generational struggle for the leadership of a tiny mountain village between its proud old chief and a headstrong young caravaner. The balance of power shifts uneasily as they make their annual salt trek across the Himalayas.

Director Eric Valli is a photographer and an author whose work is regularly published in National Geographic, Geo, The New York Times Magazine, Smithsonian, and Life. He has been living in Nepal since 1983 and his first journey through the Dolpo (northwest region of Nepal) dates back to this period. He wrote several books about this country before shooting HIMALAYA in 1997. In 1992, he was awarded the Gurka Dakshin Baho award from His Majesty the King of Nepal for his body of work on the country. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Simplified culture
"The Scent of Green Papaya" tells the evolution of Vietnamese society in its 1950s through the story of Mui, a girl from the rural area, from being a servant in an upper class family to her marriage with a westernized pianist. The focal point of the movie is very much on the cultural richness of Vietnam. You can easily feel that each frame is very carefully set and shot. The camerawork is slow, but sometimes very formularized, and so is the acting.

The director Tran An Hung has been living in Paris for years. His dream of his parents' culture makes Vietnam the obvious choice for his film. The seemly artistic presentation of Vietnamese society received a lot of recognition in the West (Oscar nomination for the best foreign movie). But in my humble opinion, this acclaimed movie depicts a Vietnam that exists in this westernized director's fantasy rather than the Vietnam in the ordinary native Vietnamese's heart. The real Vietnamese culture has to be way beyond just a simple collection of symbolized exotic items presented in this movie.

A hauntingly beautiful love story
It is hard to imagine a more beautiful movie than Tran Anh Hung's "The Scent of Green Papaya". With a bare minimum of dialogue, Tran brings to the screen the story of Mui, a 10 year old Vietnamese girl who comes from the country to Saigon in the early 1950's as a live-in servant to an upper-class family whose wealth is being squandered by the dissolute and womanizing head of the house. Mui is a simple soul who finds delight in things most of us take for granted; the exquisite cinematography in this film brings out the beauty in the most ordinary objects and lets us share in Mui's sense of wonder and discovery. Ten years later, when the family's wealth has been dissipated to the point where they can no longer afford a live-in servant, Mui is sent to work for a wealthy young pianist, Khuyen, the friend of the eldest son of her former employers. Khuyen is engaged to be married but in Mui he finds the peace and serenity that is lacking in his shallow and materialistic fiancee. In very basic terms, "The Scent of Green Papaya" could be called a Vietnamese Cinderella story, except for the lack of a wicked stepmother. Despite the almost total lack of dialogue in the second half of the film, the movie is so beautifully crafted, and techically and emotionally so satisfying, that you come away awed with how Tran was able to do so much with so little. This film is living testimony to the fact that sometimes less is more. It's a beautiful, unforgettable story of a young woman's coming of age.

Highly Recommended!
Absolutely phenomenal! This is, by far, my favorite Vietnamese film. Rather than repeat what other reviewers have said, I will just say that I can not recommend this film highly enough. It really stays with you. BEAUTIFUL!!!

Unbelievable foreign film!
I remember the first time I had ever seen this movie. 4-5 years or so ago I was surfing through my parents' digital cable movie channels hoping to find something that interested me. When I read the info for 'The Scent of Green Papaya', I thought to myself, that sounds like a good movie, so I tuned in to watch. Honestly, the first time I watched it, I thought it was good, but after the second and third time, I thought it was fantastic. It's a charming story about a 10-year-old servant girl growing up in the 1950's in Saigon. As you're watching the movie, you feel sorry and perhaps a bit angry at the mother who's husband is cheating and leaving the house for days with all the family's hard earned money. You learn to spite, yet love the youngest son for his devilish and mischievious tricks he plays on the young servant girl.

It's a wonderful movie, but not necessarily family oriented. Perhaps for those interested in forgein films with a bit of comedy and romance attached. Still, it is definitely a must see!

Yes, this movie is slow
I will not lie and say this movie filled with car chases or explosions. If you expect an action flick, look elsewhere.

I understand people's reaction to the slowness of this movie because when I saw it, I thought the same thing. However, over time I came to appreciate it. What this movie lacks in plot, it makes up in beautiful scenes and images. There are not many movies that leave you thinking about it years later. ... Read more

Reviews (656)

Fear Comes From Inside: Really Scary Film with Stylish Touch
Yesterday, on April 28, we have finally seen the theatrical release of this masterpiece in Japan, and the waiting time was very, very long. But it was worth of our patience. "The Others" is not only a chilling and scary movie; it is crafted with style and intelligence, and it is fantastic to watch the director (who is still below the age of 30!!) create this piece of art.

As you probably have known by now, beautiful Nicole Kidman plays Grace, whose children are allergic to light (and this disaease really exists, you should know). With ritual-like meticulous rules, she manages her household works, employing new servants in a huge, dreary countryhouse, which ever-hanging fogs mystriously surround. But there is (or are), she comes to know, some intruder(s) here, of which existence her children are convinced. And sooner or later, Grace comes to feel that, too.

It is a natural but unfair comparison if you point out that "The Others" resembles at some places a certain Oscar-nominated film, because the director Amenabar does it with completely different touch. I cannot tell you much, but let me say, like Hitchcock's classic "Rebecca," the heroine (and the audience) is lured inexplicably into the mystery of the old house and its past. Also using the classic frameworks of ghost stories used in the original "Haunting" (Robert Wise version, NOT THAT remake), the film makes us jumping in the seats, sending lots of chill in spine, and, moreover, it treats a universal subject of love between mother and children in a subtle fashion. On top of that, the film goes further, to make the mother Grace not exactly an ideal one for kids, and it succeeds eventually in depicting the fraility of humans -- in short, you really don't know what you think you know.

Anchored by strong and believable acting given from underrated Nicole Kidman (why did Oscar ignore her work here, preferring that musical ... well, but all right, I understand), and aided effectively by other well-cast players whose uncanny presence unnerve us greatly, "The Others" will rivet your eyes on the screen, especially when you are a connoisseur of old-fashioned horror film. Keep your eyes open when you see the details of the film: furniture, photoes, everything. Something is wrong with this house, but how and what is not clear. This bizzare sensation is another asset of the film, and you will find what you missed with repeated viewing.

For those who have enjoyed this (and I bet you did), the story is perhaps inspired by Henry James's novella "Turn of the Screw," which deals with the similar situation. You may as well read that equally well-crafted, creepy story.

Trivia: look closely at one of the old photoes of the dead: one of the three men on the bed is director Amenabar himself (and one of the others is Mateo Gil, director of Spanish film "Nadie conoce a nadie" of which music Amenabar composed, and of which star Eduardo Noriega was featured in the two previous Amenabar film in Spain, "Thesis" and "Open Your Eyes." The former one is a must-see for anyone loving blood-curdling thriller. But hey, appearing in a photo? This is exactly what Hitchcock did in one of his earlier films about a life-boat, another masterpiece about the people in a confined place !! Surely Amenabar loves his master.

"Others" Among Us
THE OTHERS is one heck of a ghost story. In the tradition of intellegent films of the genre, such as THE SIXTH SENSE and POLTERGIEST, this movie keeps you on your toes from start to finish. Grace (Nicole Kidman) awaits her husband's return from war. She and her children, who suffer from a rare medical condition, called Xeroderma Pigmentosum, (extreme sensitivity to light) live isolated from the outside world. Then, one day 3 mysterious servants, led by Bertha Mills ( Fionnula Flanagan) arrive at the door...Soon after Grace finds herself struggling to keep her children safe from strange forces as her sanity slowly slips away. This film has all the classic touches that make a good ghost story. Creaking doors, a big house isolated and poorly lit, strange noises and happenings, all helped along by a great performance from Kidman. Written and Directed by
Alejandro Amenábar, the movie is tops, where so many other recent ghost stories have failed, relying to much on dopey effects to push the story ahead (the remake of The Haunting for example).

The 2 disc DVD set is pretty good even though it all could have probably fit on one disc. The features are made up of documentaries and featurettes. The most intriguing of which, is on the aforementioned disorder, seen in the film. The still gallery includes rather typical looking photos from the film. I would have liked for a commentary track, but I know that not every DVD has to have one to be solid. Nicole Kidman makes this film more than just a story about "things that go bunp in the night" Recommended

Very Inteligent Horror Film
Another fantastic example of a new genre of smart, very well written and very well made horror movies. Had this come before Sixth Sense it would deserve a full 5 stars.

"I just feel more and more cut off from the world."
Alejandro Amenabar's "The Others" is a reminder that very good films need not be glitzy or gimmicky. Neither is an excess of special effects or action sequences required. Film is an exercise in storytelling and good films succeed in telling their story well no matter how small and quaint the film may appear to be.

Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman) and her two children, Nicholas (James Bentley) and Anne (Alakina Mann), live in a manor off the British coast. Three strangers arrive one day in answer to a placed advertisement for domestic help. For some strange reason, the three strangers prove to be familiar with Grace's house. Mrs. Mills (Fionnula Flanagan), Lydia (Elaine Cassidy), and the gardener Mr. Tuttle (Eric Sykes) soon immerse themselves in the daily routine of the manor, but the mood of the house suddenly seems changed with them around. Is there something to the strangers or is Grace's imagination just getting the better of her?

"The Others" revels in its simplicity. This is a film reminiscent of an earlier era in terms of filmmaking craft but it does not at all feel like a time-displaced relic when viewed through the filter of modern sensibilities. A legitimately unsettling atmosphere is created under the deft direction of Amenabar and Kidman is granted a wonderful opportunity to put her acting talents on display. She takes full advantage of her chance to carry a film on her own and succeeds admirably. Kidman is the emotional and dramatic catalyst of the story and the film as a whole would have been far less effective had she faltered. Flanagan, Cassidy, and Sykes are also great as the sweet but creepy strangers. From the outset, we know that there is something amiss by their arrival on the scene but we cannot put our finger on it. A tip of the hat to Amenabar for keeping us in suspense until the very end. Good work all around.

A Wonderful Classy Thrill Ride
Definately one of Nicole's Best Performances this film is gripping anc chilling. The acting is great and the plot takes you for many twists and turns. This reminds me of an Alfred Hitchcock movie and it will definately be remembered. ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Horrifying realism, but profound in picturing culture clash.
Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.

If You Liked Last of the Mohicans, Do Not Miss This Film!
Few movies of recent memory arrived with such little fanfare but had such enormous impact on the viewer as did Black Robe. As powerful a tribute to good film making as Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans [1992], this film transports you back to the North American wilderness of the seventeenth century, and gives the viewer a dose of realism that will live in your consciousness for days on end. Epic in it's scope and historically accurate in it's story, this movie captures on film what few others have accomplished for this period of history. If your idea of good cinema is an opportunity to be educated as well as to be entertained, and to relive a time in history long since past, then DO NOT miss this fine film! It is a must see movie for all history buffs... Excellent!

An antidote for the neo-romanticism of the AmerIndian
"Black Robe" is based on a novel of the same title written by the late Brian Moore, who also wrote the film's screenplay. Moore's idea for the plot of his novel and most of the details he used within it came from the Jesuit Relations- a 17th century chronicle of the day to day events of the North American mission of the Society of Jesus. While the Relations' main purpose was to describe successful conversions, miracles, and battles fought against Satan, they are also one of the most important historical records of the lives and customs of many American Indian tribes.

The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language.

However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs.

Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife.

One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.)

The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.)

"Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly.

As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests.

I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.

Clash of Culture
Black Robe

The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe.

The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance.

One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film.

For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.

Neo-Colonial Propaganda at its best
To begin with, I think this film is a true cineastic masterpiece. From its hauntingly beautiful score through the breathtaking landscape shots to the meticulous detail observed with any buildings, item of clothing and other equipment down to the last little piece of Native jewellery used, this film let's you immerse into a powerful image of 17th century eastern Canada "as it really was". The film is at its best when it illustrates mutual misunderstandings in the encounter of two completely different cultures.

The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture.

The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition.

The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian.

When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending.

It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet.

The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned.

At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html).

How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more