Datasets:

thejaminator

/

imdb_rewarded

like 0

`Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.<br /><br />While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.<br /><br />Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.<br /><br />It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'.

I saw this film when I was 10 or 11 years old, alone in my parent's basement on a Saturday night. It was being shown on "Chiller Theatre," a regular fright feature that I watched religiously as a young 'un. Now, I have seen many old horror films thanks to Chiller Theatre, but none ever stuck with me like "Danse Macabre," a.k.a. "Castle of Blood." I am 51 now, and only last year was I fortunate enough to locate a relatively recent, quality DVD edition of this wonderfully shudder-inducing supernatural classic, having thought I'd never manage to see it again. I have already watched it four more times, and cannot seem to get tired of it.<br /><br />They just don't make spook films like this one anymore. Haunted catacombs and mist-enshrouded graveyards just don't work as well in color as they did in black and white back in the day. Anyway, this one has Edgar Allen Poe and Barbara Steele, deliciously shadowy, cobweb-wrap'ed haunted castle sets, restless spirits re-enacting their deaths... and a wickedly ironic ending.<br /><br />IMO, this one's right up there with Robert Wise's "The Haunting," "The Innocents" (with Deborah Kerr), and the more recent "The Others."

<br /><br />Film dominated by raven-haired Barbara Steele, it was seen when I was seven or eight and created permanent images of pallid vampiric men and women stalking a castle, seeking blood. Steele is an icon of horror films and an otherworldly beauty, and the views of the walking dead pre-date Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD shamblers, unifying them in my mind.<br /><br />I don't see the connection between this film and THE HAUNTING, which is clever but ambiguous about the forces present. LA DANZA MACABRE is a b-movie without pretention, daring you to fall in love with Barbara Steele and suffer the consequences. There's no such draw to HAUNTING's overwrought Claire Bloom. The comparisons to the HAUNTING are superficial.<br /><br />And no, this movie does NOT need to be remade. Not only is it a product of the Sixties, but the large percentage of talentless cretins in Hollywood cannot fathom MACABRE's formula for terror. That formula is based on one overriding factor: GOOD WRITING. Low-grade classics like CASTLE and Corman's Poe films with R. Matheson and Tourneur's OUT OF THE PAST share a commonality of strong writing. It's simple. Get a real writer like Richard Matheson or Steve McQuarrie and let them put a plot into today's cinematic mess. Besides that, let Hollywood attempt some original material for a change, and stop exploiting the obviously superior product of the past.

Hardcastle and McCormick is an excellent TV show. <br /><br />Yes, it is predictable much like The Dukes of Hazzard, Hunter, The A-Team, etc etc etc.<br /><br />This show is just good clean television. The relationship between Hardcastle and McCormick is quite amusing. They often take jabs at each other several times an episode, which adds a great deal of humor to the show. It contains several car chases in almost every episode, but, who doesn't enjoy a good car chase? Especially with the Coyote! <br /><br />I only wish they made clean television like this today I highly recommend this!

I took a chance on "Hardcastle and McCormick" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection.

Wonderful family drama/comedy starring MacClaine and Garr that entertains and warms the heart every time I see it. Strongly recommended for all ages from 9 year olds to grannies. Lovely period piece capturing 1962. The story encompasses the struggling Garr, her two children and Aunt Zena (MacClaine) trying to make ends meet without a man as head of the household. The "family" heads west to take the inheritance of a long forgotten relative that has left Garr a run down, ramshackle road side cafe right out of the late 1940's. The tenacious Garr, as the sweet but determined mom, gets the whole family into the restoration and opening of the cafe. But wait......Aunt Zena is an old circus performer with card tricks, magic powders and a jesters sense of humor......she loves to get the kids and her into silly and sometimes dangerous games.....What happens next is a delightful combination of "Miracle at Lords" thrown together with the Cuban missile crises (with authentic TV news from the real event) and a "ghost" prank that gets totally out of hand. This film entertains, philosophizes, questions religiosity and gives an unnerving glimpse of the frightening scare of October 1962's Cuban missile crises. In the end one is left with the wonder of faith, family and rediscovered love. Oh, and the music from the era of the early 60's is just great!<br /><br />Recommend STRONGLY as a FEEL GOOD FILM 10 out 10

Shirley MacLaine in another tailor-made role. As the aunt to a single mom in a 1962 working-class Chicago neighborhood, the veteran character actress gets another work-out as a gutsy woman who won't let any set-backs defeat her spirit of success. The children, a pre-teen boy and girl, are drawn to their spirited Aunt Zoe, although the many magic tricks and practical jokes learned from her, and applied at all the wrong opportunities eventually get them expelled from school.<br /><br />The plot is cleverly enveloped in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with all of the social implications. Men building bomb shelters, people watching news programs on what seemed to be the only TV set, at a diner, and a general mist of uneasiness and fear in the air. When a "harmless" miracle is blown out of proportions, the climactic conclusion nonetheless makes the viewer feel good. Yes, Virginia, the sun will come up tomorrow! Clearly a small-budget production, this is still a sweet little film, filled with the magic that Sunday Matinees were made of. With a few choice "Oldies" thrown into an effective Sound Track, the whole family is sure to enjoy this one.****

A toothsome little potboiler whose 65-minute length doesn't seem a second too short, My Name is Julia Ross harks back to an English tradition of things not being what they seem -- Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes is one example. Out-of-work Julia Ross (Nina Foch) finds a dream job at a new employment agency in London, whose sinister representative seems very anxious to ascertain if she has living relatives or a boyfriend. After reporting to duty, she wakes up (Having Been Drugged) in a vast Manderley-like pile on the Cornish coast, supposedly as the barmy-in-the-crumpet wife of George Macready, who displays an alarming interest in knives and ice picks. His doting, enabling mum is the irresistible Dame May Whitty (this time a model of bustling efficiency on the other side of good-vs-evil than she occupied in The Lady Vanishes). The nightmare vision of this tale unfolds claustrophobically; we know what's going on but are powerless to tell poor Julia. This movie, curiously, is regularly accorded a place of honor as one of the earliest (and very few British) films noirs. I think it's closer to the Gothic old-dark-house tradition than the American one of wet cobblestones and urban corruption; it does, however, evince a more modern, psychoanalytic cast of mind. Whatever you call it, it remains a sharply satisfying thriller.

Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as "Dead Of Winter") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. "Julia Ross" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from ****

Having watched this film strictly on the strength of reviewers' ratings I was most pleasantly surprised. Although clearly low-budget, it bears the signs of clever ingenuity. For example, when Julia wakes in the strange house and looks out the window I found myself thinking that her sense of isolation would be enhanced with an exterior shot focused on her face and then moving backwards to include the house and its isolated location. And lo and behold! the next scene was exactly that last shot of the house standing lonely on the cliff at the water's edge. There are other examples of how a clever director can elevate his film to the level of a very enjoyable thriller. Savvy viewers will surely spot them but should rest assured they will not be disappointed.<br /><br />As to the performances, George Macready is his usual creepy self, barely maintaining his composure while suggesting a capacity for unadulterated violence. Nina Foch was surprisingly good as the no-nonsense working girl who's not about to submit without a fight. But Dame May Witty, oh boy, she even had me doubting my own eyes and believing she could get away with her evil schemes.<br /><br />This a real diamond in the rough and not to be missed.

Nina Foch delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the title character in this fun little Gothic nail-biter. She accepts a position as secretary to a London society dowager (played imperiously by Dame May Witty) and her creepy son (the effete and bothersome George Macready). Before she knows it, she awakens to find herself in a seaside manor she's never seen before, where Witty and Macready are calling her Marian and trying to convince the servants and the nearby townspeople that she's Macready's mad wife. Of course this pair can only be planning dastardly deeds, and even though we know Julia has to eventually escape her trap, director Joseph Lewis builds real suspense in answering the question of just how she'll manage it.<br /><br />"My Name Is Julia Ross" has nothing stylistically to set it apart from any number of films that came out at the same time period, but I was surprised by how well it held together despite its shoe-string budget and B-movie pedigree. There are quite a few moments that just may have you on the edge of your seat, and I found myself really rooting for Julia as she caught on to the scheme underfoot and began to outsmart her captors. In any other Gothic thriller, the heroine would have swooned, screamed and dithered, waiting for her hero to come and save her. So I can't tell you how refreshing it was to have the heroine in this film use her brain and figure out how to save herself.<br /><br />Well done.<br /><br />Grade: B+

Julia Ross (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position as a secretary with the rich Hughes family to get over her boyfriend leaving her. Almost immediately she is drugged and shipped off to the family's estate in Cornwall. When she awakens they keep telling her she's Marion Hughes, has been mentally ill and keep her locked up...but why? You'll probably guess why but won't mind because this one is fun.<br /><br />Along with "The Narrow Margin" and "Face Behind the Mask" this is one of the best B pictures ever made. (B pictures were low budget pictures made quickly with low budgets and no major stars). It's just as long as it needs to be (only 65 minutes), is well-directed, fast paced and exciting. It only stumbles at the end which I found a bit too implausible to buy.<br /><br />Foch (a good actress) is just OK in the lead but Dame May Witty is great and George Macready is excellent (and frightening) as the villains. Well worth catching. A perfect example of how you can make a great movie on a small budget.

For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.<br /><br />Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.<br /><br />Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios.

MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS is a mesmerizing 1945 B thriller from Joseph H. Lewis, arguably one of the very finest directors of Hollywood noir films. This 65 minute Gothic oddity from Columbia Pictures came after Lewis' lengthy apprenticeship as the helmer of a string of poverty row westerns, East Side Kids comedies, horror melodramas (including the incredibly bizarre Bela Lugosi shocker THE INVISIBLE GHOST) and standard studio B product (SECRETS OF A CO-ED, BOMBS OVER BURMA, THE FALCON IN SAN FRANCISCO, etc)---all of which set the stage rather nicely for what was to come from the enormously talented and inventive Mr. Lewis. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (as well as SO DARK THE NIGHT from the following year) introduced a director who had mastered the rare and delicate art telling a dark and probing tale swiftly and efficiently on the most modest of budgets. Later Lewis productions like GUN CRAZY (1949) and THE BIG COMBO (1955), despite the expanded scope of their narrative structure, continued to rely upon deft, lucid camera work and effective low-key lighting. And very modest resources.<br /><br />MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS probably owes more to the tradition of British mysteries (it's set in a studio-bound England) than it does to conventional film noir attitudes and trappings. A young woman (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position in the home of an elderly woman (Dame Mae Witty). Two days after her arrival she awakens from a deep sleep in a completely strange house and, mysteriously enough, with a brand new identity---that of the old woman's daughter-in-law. Told that she's been the victim of a nervous breakdown, she struggles to grasp the utter and seemingly hopeless nature of her predicament. But before long she begins to piece together the strange and troubling truth behind this dark mystery, that her "husband" (the always menacing George Macready) most probably murdered his real wife and that she's been duped into participating in a harrowing and sinister scheme. Much of what distinguishes this otherwise modest tale are the indelible touches that Lewis brings to the production, marking it as the first of his truly serious endeavors as a film director.

Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense.

This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.<br /><br />When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.<br /><br />The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?

Nina Foch insists that "My Name is Julia Ross" in this 1945 film noir also starring Dame May Witty and George Macready. It's short, and because it is, the film suffers. It could have stood to have been a good fifteen minutes to a half hour longer.<br /><br />When I was growing up, Foch was a fixture on television, playing a neurotic woman, the wife with the cheating husband, the nervous wreck. She became one of the great acting teachers in Los Angeles. Here, she's a pretty young ingenue playing the title role. Julia answers an ad for a secretary and is hired immediately by Mrs. Hughes and her son Ralph. Little does she know - though we learn immediately - that the employment agent is a front, set up to get just the right woman for this assignment, a woman with no family and no boyfriend.<br /><br />It's a live-in situation; once Julia gets to the house, she's drugged, and when she wakes up, she's told she's Mrs. Hughes and not allowed to leave.<br /><br />The acting is very good. Low budget but still entertaining - some things, particularly at the end, happen way too quickly, which is why I said the movie is too short. Nevertheless, I recommend it.

Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.<br /><br />It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.<br /><br />The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.<br /><br />Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.<br /><br />Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in "The Lady Vanishes." She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.<br /><br />George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.<br /><br />It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable.

A lovely little B picture with all the usual Joe Lewis touches.... people ripping up pillows and auras of lurking fear. Also, alas, an ending that comes out of nowhere, because, apparently, the auteur has lost interest in the movie, or perhaps because as a B picture it has to fit into a slot.

What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?<br /><br />This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it. <br /><br />Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times. <br /><br />Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity. <br /><br />But there's more. <br /><br />Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.<br /><br />Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.

Nicolas Roeg's projects are variable to say the least, but are never less than interesting. "Insignificance" is obviously, first and foremost, an adapted stageplay: it's wordy and pretty-much 'room-bound'. BUT, it pays to view this film more than once: the underlying themes are not overtly presented and, what's more, it takes a while to adjust to the juxtaposition and role-reversals of the four protagonists: Einstein, McCarthy, Munroe, and DiMaggio. <br /><br />Einstein is wracked by guilt over Hiroshima yet fancies the simplicity of a sexual liaison with Munro; Munro is sick of being seen as a bimbo and craves intellectual credence; Senator McCarthy is at the height of his witch-hunting powers but is an impotent sleazebag; DiMaggio is insecure about his celebrity, self-obsessed, and prone to violence. Each of them contains the seeds of their own destruction. Each character has a troubled, abused/abusive past and a questionable future. Gradually, we see that obsession itself is the central theme. America's obsession with its postwar cultural icons and mores; the obsessions of the protagonists for something none can have: peace-of-mind and/or happiness.<br /><br />Compared with the theory of relativity, a proposed unified-field theory and, indeed, the cosmos itself, all the aspirations and interactions of Roeg's protagonists seem insignificant. Yet these aspects of the physical universe (it's all quantum, trust me!) affect us when they are applied to the development of the means to destroy us. Monroe's mention of the principle behind the neutron-bomb (without naming it as such) is not an anachronism per se, but can only be understood by a contemporary audience. Indeed, ALL the references within the script are only accessible to a knowledgeable viewer: one au fait with '50s occurrences/personality cults and how they affect us in the 21st century.<br /><br />This film and its screenplay are either very, very clever, or extremely opaque and pretentious. Ultimately, however, probably insignificant.<br /><br />live long and prosper :) <br /><br />

I have always been a great admirer of Nicolas Roeg and "Walkabout" is one of my favorite films. This is a film version of Roegs stage play and while most of the film takes place in a hotel room it still has some of Roegs cinematic flare. Very unique story is about a famous actress (Theresa Russell) who after a hard nights work on a film in 1954 goes to a hotel to visit a famous professor (Michael Emil) and together in his hotel room they talk. After awhile she wants to go to bed with him but as they start to get undressed her husband is banging on the door. Her husband is a famous ex-baseball player (Gary Busey) and he wants to know what is going on. The three of them in the hotel room talk about what is going on and what the future holds for them. Meanwhile, a famous senator (Tony Curtis) is threatening to take away the professors papers if he doesn't testify at a hearing. Theresa Russell is just excellent and while she's not trying exactly to impersonate Marilyn Monroe she does a wonderful job of exuding the phobia's and nuances that Monroe is very well known for. One thing the film does is show her as not only a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown but show her as a physical wreck as well. She talks of being unable to have children and at one point in the film she suffers a miscarriage. You can make an excellent case that this is Russell's best performance and I probably wouldn't argue. The film does an interesting thing in showing many flashbacks as the characters continue to talk about one thing and in the flashback we see one of many reasons for their actions. Busey also gives a good solid performance and it reminds me of what a strong persona he gives off on screen. Emil as the professor is a character that has many more things on his mind then we originally thought. The last scene in this film is a demonstration of his darker side! One of the highlights of the film for me is the little conversation he has with the elevator man (Will Sampson of "Cuckoo's Nest") and they discuss what Cherokee Indians think about at all times. But of course the famous scene in this film is where Russell demonstrates to Emil how she does understand the theory of relativity and uses toys to show this. The professor is delighted by her demonstration and so are we! Russell and Roeg are married in real life and they do admirable work when they are in collaboration and this is probably their best film together. Good performances and a very interesting job of directing make this a challenging and visually thought provoking film.

Yes, it's flawed - especially if you're into Hollywood films that demand a lot of effects, a purely entertaining or fantasy story or plot, and you can't actually think for yourself.<br /><br />Roeg's films are for the intelligent film-goer, and Insignificance is a perfect example.<br /><br />The characterizations are brilliant, the story is excellent, but, like all Nic Roeg's films - it has you thinking on every level about aspects of reality that would never have dawned on you before. His films always make you think, and personally, I like that in a film.<br /><br />So don't expect to come away from watching this film and feeling all happy-happy, because it's likely you'll be disappointed.<br /><br />But I think it's excellent.

If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.<br /><br />This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.<br /><br />

New York, 1953. One hot night, four famous iconic figures will come together. The professor (Albert Einstein) has come to NY to give a speech, which he has, the senator (Joesph MacCarthy) on his back. Later that night his gets a surprise visitor; a famous actress (Marilyn Monroe). Who actually wants to discuss the theories of Relativity. Soon her ball-playing husband (Joe DiMaggio) turns up at the hotel room, begging to work things out for their crumbling relationship. Flashbacks of childhood, important events, perceived consequences of their actions creep in to show how these individuals cope with despair and a hidden fear waiting to break out.<br /><br />Now that's one-of-a-kind! Adapted off a stage-play by Terry Johnson (who would also script the screenplay for the film), "Insignificance" is an odd, quirky, seductive and downright curious fictional pop-culture gimmick in the hands of director Nicolas Roeg. This inspired and cerebral experimental effort might be rooted in its stage-play origins, because it does feel theatrical and most of the action occurs in a hotel backdrop and one main suite. The cramp look only enhanced the moody and smoky atmosphere of New York to great effect. However these limitations can't contain the fruitful and daring ideas that Roeg manages to randomly storm up visually and through the meaningful material. The way he reflects on the characters' (who are suggestively famous figures, without the need of naming of them) philosophical journeys and interpretations of their notions is stimulating in a spiritual sense, with the memories gelling into the present and visions showing their fears of realisations, which depending on what you're seeing is either beautiful, or hauntingly implemented. There's plenty of food for thought and hints within the verbosely innovative (if sometimes awkward) script, with the main focus concerning the present situation, but the flashbacks gives us the personal make-up (sex, power, enlightenment and glory) of what makes them who they are and how much of a burden it can be in there already demanding lives. Sure the story might not lead to anything by the end, and it can feel disjointed, but the dreamy vibe and intelligent arrangement irons out those folds and makes sure it never turns giddy. Peter Hannan's sensually fluid photography and Stanley Myers' titillatingly oozing blues soundtrack fit in snugly with Roeg's stylistically subdue and established style of directing. He makes it look like he's working with something big and large-scale, but otherwise that's not the case and a small little universe is created. The vintage costumes and locations of the period all come off fittingly enough. What made the film for me had to be the impressive acting it boasted from the main four. Theresa Russell's perky, drop dead gorgeous appeal of the sexy pin-up actress is a growing portrayal that definitely held the film together along with an genuinely excellent and endearing performance by Michael Emil as the professor. Tony Curtis marvellously plays it up as witch-hunting senator and Gary Busey is suitably good in the stoically gravel manner as the ballplayer. Showing up in minor, but amusing support roles happen to be Will Sampson and Patrick Kilpatrick.<br /><br />A memorably striking, fresh and tour de force meditation piece of metaphysics linked together by four different extremes. Some might find it pretentiously estrange and too talky, but this one had me wrapped up in its own little unique world to worry too much about its shortcomings.

It is not known whether Marilyn Monroe ever met and spoke with Albert Einstein (and since the mysterious disappearance of her diary after her equally mysterious death, we may never know), but in their lifetime the opportunity was there.<br /><br />Scripted by Terry Johnson from his own play, Nicolas Roeg's Insignificance imagines an encounter in a New York hotel room one night in 1953 between the two icons plus Joe DiMaggio (Busey), and Senator Joseph McCarthy (Curtis) - but only on one level. On another level, it elevates - or reduces - these 'personalities' (and what a lousy phrase that is) to mere avatars (the characters are deliberately unnamed), at once greater and lesser in status.<br /><br />The title Insignificance is both apposite and deeply ironic; here, DiMaggio's net worth has been reduced to little more than a picture on a bubblegum card. Monroe too is reduced to her constituent parts of dress, hair, lipstick, wiggle and voice. By uncovering their insecurities and reversing their roles, the film brings into sharp focus received notions of celebrity, exploding the cult of personality.<br /><br />Furthering the theme, there will be another explosion at the film's climax: Hiroshima in a hotel suite, in which 'The Actress' is burned to a cinder in seconds; a literal deconstruction of fame. Goodbye, Norma Jean. History informs the script, which in turn, shakes history upside down. As Roeg mused after watching Johnson's play for the first time, "These characters were mythic, not invented by any single person, not the public or the press, probably not even by the characters themselves." As played by Theresa Russell, Marilyn (a closet intellectual in real life), lectures a childlike Einstein ('The Professor', played by Emil) on the theory of relativity using balloons and a flashlight, while getting The Professor to show off his legs, in conscious parody of her own role in The Seven-Year Itch, the movie The Actress is seen to be working on in the film's opening.<br /><br />History records that Monroe's then-husband, fading baseball star DiMaggio (played by Busey as a tenderly psychotic simpleton), was unhappy about her iconic dress-splaying scene in the film, precipitating their break-up. Right on cue, we discover the jealous 'Ballplayer' in a bar, bemoaning the fact that if, "I want to see her underwear, I just walk down to the corner like all the other guys".<br /><br />In contrast to The Professor, The Ballplayer believes the universe is round - a contention shared by Native Americans. But the Big Chief (Sampson, of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest fame) who operates the Roosevelt Hotel's elevator has been all but disenfranchised from his own culture: "I no longer Cherokee - I watch TV." Meanwhile, 'The Senator' is investigating The Professor, who is on the eve of delivering a pacifist speech to the United Nations, but whom The Senator suspects is a Red. In fact, as he divulges to Monroe, Einstein is wracked with guilt over Hiroshima, and what the white heat future holds. Yet in a seemingly godless universe, all such worries and aspirations are rendered insignificant in the light of a higher (atomic) power.<br /><br />Roeg really is the perfect director to bring Johnson's stage play to the screen. Throughout, tortured childhood flashbacks and pessimistic flash-forwards (ka-boom!) draw unexpected connections between time, place and circumstance, with the repeated visual motif of a wristwatch employed to mark time's passing - but perhaps also to suggest all time is one time; each moment co-existing. As evinced by his back catalogue, it's something of a hobbyhorse for a director enchanted with the notion of synchronicity - see Don't Look Now in particular. Here, 1920 bleeds into 1945 and drip-feeds into the 1980s, a period in which another 'Actor' has taken on his greatest role as the President of the United States.<br /><br />If all this sounds rather heavy going (quantum physics is surely involved), the execution is anything but, owing to Johnson's witty, zippy screenplay, Roeg's playful direction, opening out an essentially stagey set-up - and the cast themselves, who are on stellar form. Tony Curtis especially leaves denture marks in the wood panelling as the paranoid, impotent Senator, who is seen attempting congress with a Monroe impersonator (a real one, as opposed to Russell's), before being let down by his dwindling member.<br /><br />Of course, Curtis once co-starred with the real Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot, and whose embrace he memorably described as like "kissing Hitler". As Roeg commented, "Everything suddenly seemed connected... when the film began to take shape even the actors themselves seemed part of this endless linking." It all goes into the pot, to be boiled down and served up in new and fascinating ways.

"Insignificance" is a far from great film, from a stage play, directed by Nic Roeg. In the scheme of Roeg's films, this is above the level of most of his post-"Don't Look Now" work, which is characterised by judicious use of Theresa Russell as lead actress. She's actually very good here, and far from the problem in other Roeg films like "Bad Timing" and "Cold Heaven". As the "Actress", who is Marilyn Monroe, Russell is very effective, portraying her as a thoroughly depressive, but likeable siren. She plays well alongside Michael Emil as Einstein, who is excellent to say the least. He looks the part admirably, and while Theresa Russell doesn't look exactly like Monroe, she certainly is attractive enough to make the part ring true. Other players are adequate if not quite as arresting as Emil and Russell are. A pretty workable, intelligent script is directed well by Roeg, but certainly not brilliantly, like "Walkabout" or "Performance". As in other later Roeg films, he tends to rely too much on vague, insubstantial flashbacks, that add very little to the film. In many ways the film would have worked better as a shorter (say, 60 minutes), more modest piece. Still, a quite acceptable, passable film. At times quite excellent, but somewhat lacking overall. Rating:- *** 1/2/*****

"The Woman in Black" is easily one of the creepiest British ghost stories ever made.A young solicitor,after arriving in a small town to handle a dead client's estate,is haunted by a mysterious woman dressed all in black.The film is loaded with extremely eerie atmosphere and the frights are calculated for and deliver the maximum effect possible.The action keeps the viewer deeply involved and the finale is quite disturbing.The acting is excellent and the tension is almost unbearable at times.So if you want to see a truly creepy horror film give this one a look.I dare anyone to watch "The Woman in Black" alone at night with the lights off.Highly recommended.10 out of 10.

The Woman in Black (1989) is a TV adaptation of Susan Hill's modern classic ghost story, published only a few years earlier than the film was made. Sadly, this film has not been released on DVD, and as far as I am aware it has been deleted on VHS. It's availability is in direct contrast to it's popularity amongst those in the know about horror films. The story revolves around events in a seaside community in the early 20th century where a young solicitor is sent by his firm to conclude the affairs of a recently deceased widow, who died on her isolated marshland estate. What he thought would be a routine and probably tedious task turns into a nightmare as he discovers that the old woman was haunted to her death, and that the ghosts of her past are not content to rest. The story is told in a subtle but concise way, never being self-indulgent, flashy or over-expositional. The obviously tight budget may have contributed to the no-nonsense approach, but it's just what the story needs, and why it works so well. It's what you don't see that scares. Having said that, there is one particularly terrifying scene that relies on the visual, and it works to perfection. I watched this film during the day, and it still gave me nightmares nearly a week later. If you love being terrified, do what you must to get hold of and watch a copy of The Woman In Black.

This film has been scaring me since the first day I saw it.<br /><br />My Mum had watched it when it was on the telly back in '92. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night by her tearful ramblings as my Dad helped her up the stairs.<br /><br />She was saying something like "Don't let her get me" or something like that. I asked what had made her so upset and she told me that she'd been watching The Woman in Black.<br /><br />So obviously i had to watch it and even though i was only eleven she let me. It scared the s*** out of me. I've been immune to horror films since watching this!

Every once in a while in the wonderful world of horror,diamonds are crafted, and one becomes completely awestruck by its sheer brilliance. This is no less than a diamond!! This is a film brimful of eeriness,chilling anticipation, and dark atmosphere, and I think it's safe to say, one of my favourite horror films of all time! And of course it contains probably the single most, flat out scary sequence in the whole of history of horror! Every time I see the film, and it gets up to the point where you know the inevitably will happen, I try to remember exactly when I will be frightened out of my wits, but it never fails to happen; I never get it right, and I find myself as terrorized as the first time I saw it!! Now, it must be said, to scare a jaded horror fan like that, that is nothing short of pure perfection. Unlike the Americans, the Brits know their subtleties, they take pride in the art of acting, they do not need any special effect in order to convey atmosphere, they rely on the power of the potent story, and the creepiness(in this case)of suggestion and anticipation. Every single element is impeccable, from the set pieces, the acting, the story, to the menacing atmosphere. Pauline Moran surely could make the devil whimper, that's for sure!! As an end note, if you for some demented reason don't like this piece of insanity, then you honestly don't know what horror is all about, and frankly do not deserve to know it either. Thank you!

I really miss the production of good old fashion Spooky films. If Ismail Merchant and James Ivory had been given the task of producing such a film it may have been this one, save for the lack of an internationally known, top drawer cast. This is one of those films that you watch alone on a dark evening with a pizza and some popcorn, and you don't even bother doing the dishes until morning because you just want to hide under the covers. Bravo to Director Herbert Wise, Writers Susan Hill and Nigel Kneale, top Production design by Jon Bunker, Art Direction by John Ralph and an excellent cast for making me shudder and feel so isolated even though I'm living in one of the most populated cities in the world in the beginning of the 21st Century. I gave it a "9" out of "10" because with the production and budget constraints of television, they really pulled of a great show.

I love ghost stories in general, but I PARTICULARLY LOVE chilly, atmospheric and elegantly creepy British period-style ghost stories. This one qualifies on all counts. A naive young lawyer ("solicitor" in Britspeak) is sent to a small village near the seaside to settle an elderly, deceased woman's estate. It's the 1920s, a time when many middle-class Brits go to the seaside on vacation for "their health." Well, guess what, there's nothing "healthy" about the village of Crythin Gifford, the creepy site of the elderly woman's hulking, brooding Victorian estate, which is located on the fringes of a fog-swathed salt marsh. When the lawyer saves the life of a small girl (none of the locals will help the endangered tot -- you find out why later on in the film), he inadvertently incurs the wrath of a malevolent spirit, the woman in black. She is no filmy, gauzy wraith, but a solid black silhouette of malice and evil. The viewer only sees her a few times, but you feel her malevolent presence in every frame. As the camera creeps up on the lawyer while he's reading through legal papers, you expect to see the woman in black at any moment. When the lawyer goes out to the generator shed to turn on the electricity for the creepy old house, the camera snakes in on him and you think she'll pop up there, too. Waiting for the woman in black to show up is nail-bitingly suspenseful. We've seen many elements of this story before(the locked room that no one enters, the fog, the naive outsider who ignores the locals' warnings) but the director somehow manages to combine them all into a completely new-seeming and compelling ghost story. Watch it with a buddy so you can have someone warm to grab onto while waiting for the woman in black. . .

Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.<br /><br />The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary. <br /><br />If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.<br /><br />This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared.

I saw this film on television years ago, but here several years after, I wake up in the morning, and still remember her face.<br /><br />This film is the most profoundly terrifying film I have seen.

Whilst I have loved haunted house movies such as Amityville and Poltergeist, this made for TV adaption of Susan Hills book packs a huge punch on the horrors of Hollywood.<br /><br />With a brilliant cast (many of which star in Heartbeat and other TV dramas), great acting, and fantastic setting (which portrays 1920's life convincingly), it has all the right ingredients to entice the viewer into what is a powerful ghost story.<br /><br />Herbert Wise did not need blood, violence, or gore to send chills down the spines of an audience. Using your own imagination, the Woman In Black is a figure of fear and dread, and whose presence is never absent once she first appears.<br /><br />The main character Arthur Kidd, a solicitor, learns about his unseen spectre on his mission to settle the estate. The widow dies and Arthur spends few nights inside her dreary home in which he notices many oddities, which may haunt him for some days. Some of the scenes are very unsettling and claustrophobic, particularly the locked room which opens itself, which turns the generator off and closes Arthur in darkness. The film becomes more harrowing the more you put yourself in Arthurs shoes, and his efforts to shake this ghost off. The writer puts many chilling additions into the story, an example being the tin soldier's re-appearance. One is eager to learn the meaning of it all. The fact we never really learn that much about the widow, leaves more to the imagination and makes it all the more unsettling.<br /><br />The widow for the most part, looks vicious and intimidating. The scene after winding the generator sent the chills down me, a woman who appears out of nowhere on isolated marshy land with a howling wind – having been on such properties myself I can appreciate how isolating this is. And the scene in the inn was perhaps the most horrible things I've seen, one I don't wish to watch in a hurry or show to elderly relatives. I have often woken up at night thinking she was behind me in my sleep.<br /><br />The Woman In Black is a great TV movie and a lost gem. I agree to some extent the Internet hype for this film has been totally overblown and can see why people were disappointed after spending the best of £50 on it, but I think the net has defeated hidden gems because it makes films like these over-exposed. I think it's still brilliant and fantastically acted and I consider it the greatest ghost story of the last century.

I was lucky enough to watch this without any pre viewing hype. I was surprised at the resilience of the ghost's image in my mind the next day, and the day after that. I've watched it 3-4 times, and each time I appreciate it even more. The settings are gorgeous, the town at dusk has beautiful lighting effects, the marsh long shots, and the house itself is sufficiently grown with moss. The main hero is so likable and good natured, that he is easily sympathized with. To the person who complained that there wasn't enough 'spark' in this film, I'd say that it's because the whole fight against the ghost is being waged by just this one person. It is a fairly slow paced film, with an unusual amount of time being spent ,pre and post ghost attack, on developing his character with family and work life. SPOILERS discussion/<br /><br />I especially liked the turning point, when he comes back to the main town and meets with the man helping him and explains about seeing the ghost. He describes the Woman in black, and then at the end of the conversation he says that he is going back, because after all, what harm had she done to him? The other man says, "you can't go back... alone!" and lends the hero his dog. The cute little dog offers a small respite of comic relief, with it's bounding through the house and even into the locked room.<br /><br />The many casual appearances of the ghost really freaked me out. The woman shows up in mid shot at the church, showing that it is not afraid of the church, and is also not shy or bound to the house. This is all in the very beginning. Another unbelievably memorable scene was with the kids outside of the church fence, watching the funeral. As the camera pans to the right, the woman is seen in the background among the gravestones. The older man won't even look at it, but the kids are all yelling and taunting it. Crreeepy... Usually ghosts are hidden in shadows, haunting specific locales or people. As has been mentioned, the ghost's malevolence and wrath are frightening, and I feel it's attacks and the ending were perfect and fully justified. The ending underlined the fact that the hero made a major mistake by going back to the house. Or perhaps he was marked no matter what, by saving the gypsy girl. The guy who plays the hotel manager is so believable, and really fills the role well. I have been spreading the word to my friends about how much I enjoyed this film, and it is reassuring to see others feel the same. I can see how people don't quite see the same masterpiece, especially if they went into it with a lot of review hype.<br /><br />I think another person summed it up when they said that this movie settled the question of whether or not Ghosts could physically harm man. Whew.. I plan to watch it again tonight followed by The Changeling, aaww yeah. Any other films to recommend?<br /><br />Thanks,

I first saw this movie here in the U.K. in December 1989 when Central TV broadcast it. I still have the video tape, although worn out (over the years many friends and family members have borrowed it and have also been chilled by it!). <br /><br />Anyway, I remember coming home that night, grabbing a Christmas tipple, switching the lights out and watching what was advertised as a 'Christmas Ghost Story'. Even now I remember certain scenes that still send the hairs on my neck standing on-end... <br /><br />I have seen some comments on the movie which say it's not this and not that...I think those people get scared by Friday 13th and the like, stalk and slash rammel, which are laughable. This is a 'traditional' ghost story; there is no big budget action or special effects...no swearing, no blood, no gratuitous sex scenes, no chainsaws or guns etc...So how refreshing!!!! It's atmospheric. IF you like chilling horror, well written, well acted and with a genuinely scary atmosphere, this is the movie for you. I like the original horrors; only last night I saw the original Haunting and that is a superb movie. Very atmospheric again - and so is The Woman In Black. The end of the movie differs to the book, but still very good. I recommend it. Try it...you *will* like it if you like traditional ghost stories...SO...turn off the lights, turn up the fire, lock the doors, grab a drink...and enjoy... :)

Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out.

I saw this on TV so long ago that I can't remember when it was, but it still stands out as one of the scariest, most unnerving films I've ever seen. There is a simultaneously subtle but intense dread induced by the woman in black lurking at the edge of the frame, not quite clearly visible, so that you feel (like the solicitor hero), unsure whether its just imagination or not. It is also one of the few films which has really made me fearful to keep watching. "Production values" be hanged, good films are about a director's ability to create atmosphere using film, actors, locations/sets, music, attention to detail, and ...imagination. A real gem.

This film gave me nightmares for months and I'm 17. This is the scariest movie ever made! That is no exaggeration!! I saw this movie at school in English lessons and no one else was scared which amazed me. After reading other reviews I'm glad I'm not the only person who found this so scary!!

Most horror movies are in fact horrible movies. They get to be same ol'-same ol'. Same ol' pack every minute with some cheap thrill (usually 'splatter') and nowadays they can pack every second with gaudy special effects. One of the goals of a really good horror flick is to suspend the sense of disbelief of the audience. For instance, I saw both of the recent Mummy movies and nearly got dizzy viewing ridiculous special effects every second. It probably costs a million dollars per second to make those movies and my sense of disbelief was never suspended, it grew roots.<br /><br />Subtlety can be more terrifying. Less is more. <br /><br />I first saw 'The Woman in Black' on the A&E channel. After flipping through the usual 987 channels of very bad television I stopped to watch it. This movie almost has the feel of a 'Masterpiece Theater' production. That was fine with me, I've always preferred British TV & movies anyway.<br /><br />Most viewers would find this to be too slowly paced. But the slow pacing helps give the story credibility. The special effects are few which lulls the viewer into thinking that this film is set in the real world thus making us a bit more uneasy. The makeup and costume for the ghost are kept simple and believable. Hollywood would have made her look like a she demon from hell with glowing eyes-fangs-claws etc. Hollywood would have done an overkill and turned this idea into a mediocrity.<br /><br />The woman only makes about five appearances in the film. Most of them are where she appears in the distance and even that creates a good fright. If she appeared too often, it could've cheapened the mood that gets set. However this movie is so well made that through much of the film we're led into sensing that she is there the whole time but not visible. The scene where she 'visits' Arthur Kidd late at night and we see her just a little too close is a masterpiece in horror.<br /><br />This is just an extraordinary film that I think should rate as one the finest horror films ever made. I have a copy of 'The Haunting', 'The Changling' and a zillion more. I haven't seen anything that tops 'The Woman in Black' yet although I'm still looking. This movie is so well made that it gives even the most hardened skeptic (like me) a moment where I almost had second thoughts about the non-existence of ghosts. I joke to people that I occasionally get brief fears that she could appear standing in the middle of the road or that I'd see her staring through my window, etc. Maybe she could be in a crowd at the mall glaring at me with her look of hate. This is how a really great horror film should be. Like a LaFanu novel, The Woman in Black very slowly pulls you in and wraps herself around your neck and before you realize it, she's squeezing the life out of you and then it's too late.<br /><br />Closest thing I have to a criticism is that this was made for the small screen... and it's a terrible shame that this is out of print. I just paid over $40 for my second copy of this movie. It's a major prize in my collection. Now I'm on a quest to find an even better horror movie that not only gives the chills but also qualifies a sound drama.

I gave this film an 10/10 with some reluctance as it's hard to praise something that so haunted and terrified me for years. The sheer menace on the woman in black's face is just pure horror and the accompanying music just worsens the dread. <br /><br />I saw this when it was first on TV when I was 10 and it really did disturb me for years. I'm fascinated by the fact that so many other users have said this too. So many movie reviews go on about how disturbing or terrifying a film might be but you can believe all those who have posted on this board, this really is incredibly powerful stuff. I mean I really like horror films and generally find them quite funny more often than not, but this really is menacing and will probably disturb most people. I haven't seen it since I was 10 and I'm tempted to watch it again but fear I might have some sleepless nights. I can't quite put my finger on what it is exactly, but I think it's something to do with the fact that fear is the Woman's greatest weapon and that we, as viewers, are just as susceptible as we feel the fear so intensely. It's remarkable that other viewers' feelings are so unanimous.<br /><br />I've also seen the stage play, which was an excellent production...but nothing can compare to this.

How much could the general Hollywood director learn from this movie? All... when it comes to actually scaring people. This movies truly shows that it is possible to really frighten and scare a viewer, and that monstrous monsters and long knifes never will be the best way of achieving this. All who love a real psychological thriller must see this movie... it is the best of it's kind.

The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.<br /><br />There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!<br /><br />A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing!

There is nothing remotely scary about modern "horror" which is an insult to the word "horror". Freddie Vs Jason, the Scream movies, Cabin Trash, and especially Stephen King's infantile attempts - he's recycled every story from The Monkey's Paw to whatever, often in the same story - at horror in both writing and on film (except for Kubrick's version of The Shining which actually was scary, unlike King's books which are as frightening as my big toe - the left one, which still has the nail.<br /><br />But The Woman In Black is that rare modern film that will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. This is the way it should be done; the director creates tension, and the scariest ghost ever actually seen simply by having her suddenly turn up standing still somewhere or other with that incredible look on her face. Then he brings it all to a ghastly disturbing close. He's learned his lessons from the masters who knew how to make horror - Val Lewton (original Cat People) and Robert Wise (a Val Lewton disciple and director of the Haunting and The Body Snatcher), Jacques Tournier (another Val Lewton disciple who directed a truly horrifying zombie film, not the gross rubbish Raimi did (gross isn't scary, folks, it's just gross), and Lewis Allen (The Uninvited), and of course Jack Clayton's turn on Henry James The Innocents, and the way the master of suspense, Hitchcock, can still bring you to the edge of your seat even with a slow-building and burning period piece like Under Capricorn.<br /><br />TEN STARS...

I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!!

A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed.

...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release.

...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.<br /><br />All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.<br /><br />If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!!

This is a plain old spooky ghost story. I showed it to some friends of mine in my movie club, and they were kept spellbound until the ending! No blood or gore- just good old fashioned suspense. It starts out right from the beginning, and builds and builds. The ending is a real twist that caught me unawares. <br /><br />Well directed and well acted. It is also a "period piece"- set in the 1920s- which added to the atmosphere. <br /><br />I was so impressed I got the book by Susan Hill from Amazon. The movie follows the book rather closely. <br /><br />It's a shame it's not readily available on DVD. My copy is VHS. This along with "Haunted" are probably two of the best Ghost Stories I've ever scene. Which just goes to show that a little creativity outdoes "in your face" gore any day!

A young solicitor from London, Arthur Kidd is sent to a small coastal town of Crythin Gifford to oversee the estate of a recently passed away widow Mrs Drablow. While attending her funeral, a mysterious lady dressed in black catches his attention. Supposedly Drablow lived a reclusive life, and locals kept pretty quiet about her. After this he heads to Mrs Drablow mansion that can only be reached on a causeway through the swamp during low tide. There he encounters the woman in black again in cemetery out back of the house, and things begin to get creepy as terrifying noises start coming from the marshes. Now can Mrs Drablow's belongings and listening to her recorded dairy entries help Kidd figure out this gloomy mystery that the locals fear to talk about.<br /><br />Often highly regarded amongst horror fans as being one of the most chilling ghost stories ever and I can see their point. But only in doses does it draw upon tag. Yes, from what you can gather I was left a 'little' under-whelmed, despite really liking it. I was expecting goose bumps throughout the whole feature, but that's probably it… expecting. Mainly I had a similar reaction with the 1980 haunted house thriller 'The Changeling'. When you hear so many good things, it's sometimes hard not get caught up with it.<br /><br />Anyhow what the British TV presentation of "The Woman in Black" effectively does is bring out a truly old-fashion, slow burn spine-tingling premise driven by its moody locations, disquieting atmosphere and first-rate performances. Subtly blankets the psychologically gripping story (adapted off Susan Hill's novel of the same name), as the simple mystery authentically opens up with a depressingly tragic tone and successfully characterises its protagonist. Little seems to happen, and can feel drawn out, but the fragile randomness of it catch you off guard. Whenever the camera focuses on the lady in black. Who mostly appears as a background figure, it's ultimately creepy. She might not appear all that much, but when she does…. Talk about unnerving! That also goes for that downbeat conclusion. Pauline Moran, who plays the woman in black, competently gets us nervous by just her gaunt appearance and sudden positioning. A pale look and those minor mannerisms just seem to haunt you. She's a spirit you don't want to cross paths with, yet alone let her see you. An accomplished performance by a marvelously moody Adrian Rawlins as the solicitor Arthur Kidd does hold it all together. In support are solid turns by Bernard Hepton, David Daker, Clare Holman and David Ryall.<br /><br />Drawing heavy on its lushly sombre rural town and foggy coastal locations adds more to the realistically eerie plight and the centre piece were everything unfolds in the forlorn, time-worn Victorian house that comprehensively suffocates the air with constant fear. Director Herbert Wise carefully fabricates alarming imagery that slowly covers one secretive piece at a time in a smoothly paved out rhythm of well-judged contriving. Instead of going out to shock us, some scenes contain a distressing intensity that won't let go. The sound effects are masterfully used, by surrounding and disorienting the air. Rachel Portman's harrowing musical score knows how to get under your skin during those eerie moments and then stay with you.<br /><br />This rarity made-for-television feat is a stimulating rich and unsettling supernatural spook-fest. It might not share much new to the sub-genre, but it competently sticks to it strengths to deliver what counts in this curse.

The Woman In Black is fantastic in all aspects. It's scary, suspenseful and so realistic that you can actually see it happening in real life. I first saw this on the TV back in 1989, and with all the lights off and the volume turned up, it was probably the most creepy experience of my entire life. I managed to get hold of a copy, and now, I make sure to bring it out every Halloween and show it too unsuspecting family members, who have no idea what they're in for, and all I can do is laugh with glee. As for the film:<br /><br />It starts out with a young lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is assigned by his firm to go to the market town of Crythin Gifford to settle the papers of a recently deceased client - Mrs. Alice Drablow. <br /><br />This film starts off as a reasonably solid and interesting ghost story. But then, Arthur attends the funeral, and from that scene on, we do not feel safe. We are constantly on edge and biting our nails, and that goes on for the next hour or so, until the final, thrilling finale.<br /><br />A warning to all new viewers though: do not watch this alone...

Yes, a true classic! This is what British drama is all about,realism and the minimal use of special effects (and over inflated budgets). I last saw this drama when it was last screened on British terrestial TV in 1994. It truly should be viewed by everyone who likes a scary plot,no big names but non-the-less great acting.Sadly the copywrite is now owned by someone unknown and as such this great drama is unlikely to be aired anytime soon.I myself recently acquired The Woman In Black on VHS,so now once again I shall be able to enjoy this truly great British drama. You should try and enjoy it too!<br /><br />Mark R. Horobin

The Woman In Black was a British made for TV movie which was first broadcast on the BBC on Christmave Eve of '89, and again in '92. I believe it made a round on American TV on A&E. It was released on VHS in Britain in the early 90's but went out of print. A U.S. company released it on DVD later, but that version also sold out. According to the website of the author of the book, the rights to the movie are now owned by someone else and that it won't be released again, and that there are unofficial bootlegs being sold on ebay.<br /><br />I first heard about this movie just recently on a message board and had to check it out. I found a copy on ebay for about 28 bucks. It's certain to be a counterfeit from a seller in the far east, even though the DVD says, "made in Canada," ha ha. But it's a good copy, and you can't really fault the bootleg labels for releasing stuff that is rare, out of print, and lost in legal disputes.<br /><br />I love the movie. It's a period piece set in the 1920's, with all the very authentic and quaint British settings of that time. The Woman In Black is very atmospheric and dark. For the most part, the movie is very low-key, but effective and scary. There is no self indulgent gore, violence or much at all in special effects, but The Woman In Black is still able to create absolutely chilling moments. It's a chilling classic styled ghost movie. The movie itself looks like it could have been made in the 1930's except for the color. Without all the flash of all the modern horror movies, I'm afraid this film will always just be a lost gem. For me, it places itself as one of my all time favorites.

Why am I so convinced there's actually another film version of this novel out there somewhere? I saw the film again this year as I am teaching the novel and find the changes in the film annoying - there is no appearance of the little boy in the novel and the ending has been changed. They kill him off in the film but the whole point is that he is haunted by the events at Eel Marsh House for many years but does remarry and eventually put the events behind him. Mr. Bentley is a far more sympathetic character in the novel, the scene in the film where Kipps sets fire to the office is plain daft, and the constant appearance of the toy soldier to signify the presence of the child is genuinely creepy but pointless - Kipps is haunted by the woman seeking revenge, not the child. I am sure I've seen a film which is better and closer to the novel and actually scarier. Have I just imagined this?

I recently stumbled across this film on TNT five minutes into it, while on vacation in Florida... (hey there has to be some down time in the hotel, right?) I was initially surprised to see Melissa Joan Hart in any feature length film on TNT. I mean "Drive Me Crazy" isn't THAT old already, is it?<br /><br />But I stuck with it, and was thoroughly surprised and entertained. Melissa plays her role as the psychotic Jennifer excellently. The supporting cast (Nick, the ex-con boyfriend; Karen, her best friend; and her life-controlling parents) all added a great degree of believability. The twist at the end was a nice closure to this tale of the girl who always seemed to be one step ahead of everybody.<br /><br />If you get a chance, check it out!<br /><br />

Twisted Desire (1996) was a TV movie starring Melissa Joan Hart. Melissa's character, Jennifer Stanton, a seventeen-year-old seduces her current boyfriend Nick Ryan into murdering her two parents. The movie is based on the 1990 murders of the parents of 14 year old Jessica Wiseman. Jessica had her 17 year old boyfriend Douglas Christopher Thomas shoot and kill her parents! Thomas was executed in 2000! Jessica was released from prison when she turned 21 years old. Evidence now suggests that it was Jessica who fired the fatal shot that killed her mother. Jessica is known to now be residing somewhere in the state of Virginia.

When I was flicking through the TV Guide, and came across "Twisted Desire" on the movie section, I read it's description. Three words caught my eye "Melissa Joan Hart" ...I find her role in "Sabrina: The Teenage Witch" absolutely vile, I hate those kind of programs, so I was just thinking that it was going to be a boring old, love story starring her...Little did I know.<br /><br />It finally started on the television, I had my bucket ready in case I were to puke over it's cheesiness or soppiness, you know what I mean. At first, you think she's just a nice, ordinary girl who's in love, but has mean parents. Then when you find out she's manipulated her boyfriend into killing her parents, so she could be with her TRUE love, you're like "Whoa". You just don't expect this sort of role for that sort of actress. She played her role very well in my opinion, I never expected her to be able to act like such a bitch, and voilà, she did it perfectly! Congrats to her, the movie was very good, I'd definitely watch it again and recommend it to others.

The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.<br /><br />The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan "Never been kissed") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.<br /><br />Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called "Clarissa Darling " or Sabrina Spellman"<br /><br />I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out.

Although the story is fictional, it draws from the reality of not only the history of latin american countries but all the third world. This is the true, pure and raw recent history of these countries summarized concisely in this novel / film. The offbeat supranatural stuff, lightens up the intensity of historical events presented in this movie. After all the supranatural stuff is a part of the culture in the third world. Although is not critically acclaimed (probably because of the supranatural stuff), This is an excellent movie, with a great story and great acting.

I liked the movie, first of all because it told an interesting story, but the story as told in the movie felt like it was condensed from a much-longer story. Since the book is over 400 pages, that makes sense. It spans a time period from the 1920s to the 1970s, in a fictional South American country, also a lot to fit into the time available. I think it would have been much better as a six-hour mini-series than it turned out as a 140-minute movie.<br /><br />Even though it's rushed, the story doesn't skip so much that it gets confusing. What is told is told fairly well. One fault is that Clara's supernatural powers appear inconsistently; either they should have appeared more evenly through the course of the movie, or they should have been left out. Two more faults (which could be spoilers): Esteban's eventual return to goodness happens somewhat too suddenly, and Ferula's curse seems to wear off, even though the tone of the story suggests that it should endure forever.<br /><br />The acting is excellent. Glenn Close, as the tormented spinster Ferula, is outstanding. Jeremy Irons, as the brutal self-made rich man, is also excellent. Meryl Streep, as the main character Clara, is great, although she's often even better than she was in this movie. There were many well-performed smaller roles too. The biggest fault is that the movie seemed to lack a dialect coach; each actor seemed to speak in a different sort of accent.

Brilliant adaptation of the novel that made famous the relatives of Chilean President Salvador Allende killed. In the environment of a large estate that arises from the ruins, becoming a force to abuse and exploitation of outrage, a luxury estate for the benefit of the upstart Esteban Trueba and his undeserved family, the brilliant Danish director Bille August recreates, in micro, which at the time would be the process leading to the greatest infamy of his story to the hardened Chilean nation, and whose main character would Augusto Pinochet (Stephen similarities with it are inevitable: recall, as an example, that image of the senator with dark glasses that makes him the wink to the general to begin making the palace).<br /><br />Bille August attends an exceptional cast in the Jeremy protruding Irons, whose character changes from arrogance and extreme cruelty, the hard lesson that life always brings us to almost force us to change. In Esteban fully applies the law of resonance, with great wisdom, Solomon describes in these words:"The things that freckles are the same punishment that will serve you." <br /><br />Unforgettable Glenn Close playing splint, the tainted sister of Stephen, whose sin, driven by loneliness, spiritual and platonic love was the wife of his cruel snowy brother. Meryl Streep also brilliant, a woman whose name came to him like a glove Clara. With telekinetic powers, cognitive and mediumistic, this hardened woman, loyal to his blunt, conservative husband, is an indicator of character and self-control that we wish for ourselves and for all human beings. <br /><br />Every character is a portrait of virtuosity (as Blanca worthy rebel leader Pedro Segundo unhappy ...) or a portrait of humiliation, like Stephen Jr., the bastard child of Senator, who serves as an instrument for the return of the boomerang. <br /><br />The film moves the bowels, we recreated some facts that should not ever be repeated, but that absurdly still happen (Colombia is a sad example) and another reminder that, against all, life is wonderful because there are always people like Isabel Allende and immortalize just Bille August.

Could not understand why Jeremy Irons felt it necessary to exhibit a most disconcerting accent, spoken through clenched teeth,and from the back of his throat. In fact it rather spoiled the film for me, and distracted from what was probably a fine performance by him (very irritating). No other actor or actress seemed to have such a pronounced accent and whilst I have always rated Jeremy Irons as a fine actor, I would not class this film as being one of his best. The film however has whetted my appetite, as have some of the other comments made re this film, which I have found very interesting,and intend to now read the book.

The photography of this bid-budget production is surprisingly bad. Colors are muddy and brownish and the photography has very 80ish look to it. Direction and editing are often quite uninspired and TV-movie like, too. *And* at first the movie only seems to want to torture its viewers with lurid images of sex and violence. Hans Zimmer's score is also a typically simple and bland work of this overrated, untalented composer.<br /><br />But if you are willing to watch the movie further you are rewarded with a very moving family story, a sort of European version of Edna Ferber's family epos Giant. While at first you wonder why Clara married this idiotic man, even his character gets more depth and more background one can judge him by. Clara delivers the movie's spiritual lesson, a great and moving statement set against the terrible happenings in her country. Her daughter, whose lover is a young Antonio Banderas at the beginning of his international career, understands that lesson and ultimately tries to live by it. The way the plot was constructed with the ending mirroring the beginning was great. The actors all do a great job, too. I was wondering "Who is the actress playing Blanca?" all the time, but of course, it was a really young Winona Ryder!<br /><br />All in all, this movie really made me want to read the book.

At first I didn't didn't like it that much, although I did. They didn't include the third Trueba generation, the love between Blanca and Pedro wans't well explained and some actors were too different from what I had imagined.<br /><br />Later I realized that, had the movie been more loyal to the book, it would have been like five hours long, and would be kind of tedious. Now I like it very much, because my favourite characters are there as I portraited them. Clara really looks like an Angel in live, and her introduction to the story at the beggining of the film was fantastic, loyal and short. Glenn Close is Ferula. I pictured her just like that, only not in mourning throughout the whole thing. Esteban is find enough. I never really liked his character, and, although I was interested in him, I hated him a lot, more specially when he hit Clara. As in the book, the very last part is the most exciting one, and it has real history too there.<br /><br />The movie is really good, specially considering that it was a gringo film based upon a latin american book. Its amazing how many famous stars are there, don't you think so?

This movie is an incredible piece of work. It explores every nook and cranny of the human mind, focusing on the characters relationships with the people around them. Stellar performances all around. This one had me weeping for about half an hour straight. Spend some real time with this one.

This is one of the few movies I watched twice in the theatre. I really love this movie for its atmosphere and its telling of the life of tragic hero Esteban Trueba. He makes so many mistakes but gets a chance for redemption. Isn't this a rather consoling thought?<br /><br />When I watched it for the first time, I thought that after the won election, the movie would be over - I didn't know the book. So boy was I wrong when the dramatic climax was still to come! I was literally swept away by the sheer power of the last half hour of the film.<br /><br />Many people here utterly dislike this movie. I cannot understand that one single bit. Maybe those who read the book first are - as often with screen adaptations of novels - simply disappointed that so many things have remained untold, unseen, unexplained. But as a movie telling a touching story - the story of a family, the rise and fall of a man, the deep compassion of a woman, the strength of love and the insanity of hate (and conservatism) - this movie is simply splendid! Furthermore, the soundtrack is incredibly good and the cast is wonderful as well - especially Winona Ryder and Jeremy Irons.<br /><br />So definitely one of those films that cinema was invented for!

Maybe it's because I saw the movie before reading the book, but I really love this movie. I've seen it many many times and will be watching it many times more. It's a compelling story, that's interesting from the beginning to the end. It has everything: action, romance etc.

well, i said it all in the summary, i simpley adore the movie and the cast...i would give each actor an Oscar...great, great movie...i'm 25 now and i watched it 4 times in different periods and i always think i won't cry and i always do, about 2 or 3 times...;) meryl s. was absolutely brilliant, jeremy irons also..just brilliant...i wish the movie received more awards... i really don't know anybody who watched it and didn't loved it... also, glenn close was fantastic... the story was beautiful and sad at the same time... i loved the fact that despite everything clara and esteban loved each other so much, and how blanca was close to her parents...

Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little.

Can such an ambient production have failed its primary goal, which was to correctly adapt Allende's novel? Obviously yes. Bille August managed to make a superficial, shallow film where basic elements of South American mentality are presented simply as side events, resulting in total incoherency. I can't believe there was a whole production team that could not understand the book! There is of course technical quality in this film and I think the actors did their best with what they had in their hands, but something is missing. And this something was the most important part.

I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.<br /><br />This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.<br /><br />Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.<br /><br />Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.<br /><br />

All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way.

I think it's one of the greatest movies which are ever made, and I've seen many... The book is better, but it's still a very good movie!

Rumour has it that around the time that ABBA – the multi-award winning Swedish disco favourites –'s star had reached its zenith, the band grew disillusioned with singing in English and yearned to perform in their native tongue. Soon after, problems began to emerge in the onetime-wed locked-watertight partnership and recordings became less and less frequent. The band dissolved, albeit unofficially, in 1982 and pop lost one of its most celebrated artists. Although they have never admitted that there's any truth in those rumours, the fact remains that ABBA would never have been so successful had they only recorded in their native tongue. If you want to appeal to the largest money-making media market in the entire world, then you must cater for English speaking audiences.<br /><br />It's amazing for me how such a small island that's located a stone-throw away from the European continent could have created perhaps the most recognised, although not most widely spoken, language in the world. Everyone speaks a little bit of English; whether it be simply 'hello' or a common swear word - you'll find an English speaker almost everywhere. Pedro Galindo obviously didn't agree, because Trampa Infernal was never subtitled for global consumption until it was released recently on budget DVD. That's a real shame, because it's actually a decent slasher movie that's a lot better than many of its English-speaking genre compatriots.<br /><br />The film launches in the somewhat unfamiliar territory of a pistol duel. Two unidentified characters are shown sneaking around a dilapidated complex searching out one another for the inevitable final showdown. After some suspense and a couple of near misses, one of the pistoleers emerges victoriously. Next we learn that they were only paintball guns and the two competitors are actually youngsters from the local town. Nacho and Mauricio are fiercest rivals and Mauricio is always trying to prove himself to be better than his soft-spoken opponent, but as of yet he hasn't succeeded.<br /><br />Later that night, whilst the victorious gunslinger celebrates his triumph with his girlfriend Alejandra and his buddy Charly, Mauricio enters the bar and says that he has one last challenge for his glorious nemesis. He says that this will be the competition that will prove to the town once and for all who deserves the uttermost respect. Nacho is at first reluctant because Alejandra warns him of the perils of continual competitiveness, but he eventually succumbs to the weight of peer pressure and agrees; much to the distaste of his morally superior partner.<br /><br />They plan to head out to the remote region of Filo de Caballo, because recent press coverage has reported that numerous people have been butchered by what locals believe to be a vicious bear. Mauricio proposes that whoever murders the animal can be regarded as the greatest and he also promises that it will be the last battle that he wages against his adversary.<br /><br />After visiting the armoury to stock up on weapons and ignoring the warnings of the elderly store-keeper, the group set out to the remoteness of the secluded woodland. Hunters become hunted as they learn that the 'bear' is actually a homicidal Vietnam vet who is still unaware that the war has ended and considers all humans as his enemy. What started as a competitive adventure suddenly becomes a battle for survival as they are stalked and slaughtered by the malevolent assassin.<br /><br />I picked up Trampa whilst studying in Madrid from a Mexican student who lived in the dorm room next-door to me. I remember that the copy I watched was faulty and the tape ended about 10 minutes before the final credits rolled, which meant I never got to see the final scenes. Thankfully I came across the budget DVD recently on Amazon and immediately added it to my collection. <br /><br />Gallindo's slasher is a surprisingly good effort that excels from its skillful direction and enthusiastic plot, which attempts to cover areas not usually approached by slasher movies. It is in fact so good that it reminded me on more than one occasion of the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic Predator. This is especially evident in the scenes that show the creepily-masked assassin jogging through the forest and stalking the panic-stricken troupe as they struggle to escape the maniac's playground.<br /><br />Despite Gallindo's obvious awareness of genre platitudes (the bogeyman even uses a claw-fingered glove a la Freddy Kruegar); Trampa also attempts to add something different to the standard template. Whilst the majority of the runtime plays by the concrete rules of the category, the final third heralds a significant step in individuality as the maniac arms himself with a machine gun and entices the hero to his lair for the final showdown. From here on, the film rapidly swaps genres and becomes almost an action film, which depending on your taste will either excite or disappoint you. The last slasher that tried to crossbreed the two styles was that shoddy eighties entry 'The Majorettes', which is not necessarily a good thing.<br /><br />As is the case with many Latin films (especially Spanish flicks by Almodovar and Amenabar), Trampa has a subtle undercurrent of a moral to its story, which is conveyed successfully without being rammed down the viewer's throat. Over indulge in the temptations of competitive masculinity and you may not always be the winner. It's a sugar-coated point, but it's handled delicately enough not to detract from the fun of the feature.<br /><br />Trampa may be cheesy, but it deserves to be seen and recognised as one of the better late slashers. The killer looks great in creepy army fatigues and white Valentine-style mask and the attempts at originality just about work. It may lack the gore that most sincere horror fans enjoy, but it has enough in terms of suspense and creativity to warrant at least one viewing.

Talk about a blast opening, "Trampa Infernal" has the coolest opening credits ever! Guided by musical tones that are perhaps slightly inspired by the legendary "Friday the 13th" theme (Tsh-Tsh-Tsh-Ha-Ha-Ha), the names of the lead players appear on screen split up in giant syllables. Promising intro of a totally obscure Mexican slasher/backwoods survival thriller and it only becomes cooler with every minute that passes. Two extremely competitive and testosterone-overloaded paintball enemies challenge each other to the ultimate showdown in a sleazy bar. According to a newspaper article, there's a savage bear loose in the nearby woods and it already killed multiple of the hunters that tried to catch it. The challenge includes that whoever kills the bear will be declared the ultimate macho hero with the biggest set of balls. Upon arrival, however, it quickly becomes obvious they're not up against a bear but a bewildered and utterly maniacal war veteran with quite an arsenal of weapons in his hideout and numerous combat tricks up his sleeve. After a whole decade of tame and derivative American slashers, this early 90's Mexican effort looks and feels very refreshing and vivid. The formula is simplistic but efficient, the lead characters are plausible enough and the building up towards the confrontations with the sadist killer is reasonably suspenseful. The maniac must have been a fan of Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, as he also uses a self-made glove with sharp knives attached to it and a white mask to cover his face. The murders are pleasingly nasty and barbaric, which I was really hoping for since the awesome aforementioned opening sequences, and waste a whole lot of gratuitous blood. The forestry setting and particularly the camouflaged booby traps are joyously spectacular. "Trampa Internal" is a Mexican slasher/survival sleeper hit that comes warmly recommended to the fans of the genre.

I searched for this movie for years, apparently it ain't available here in the States so bought me a copy off Ebay.<br /><br />Four young hunters and three of their girlfriends venture into the woods searching for a bear that apparently has killed several campers. What they find is an ex-Vietnam vet gone crazy (he kills some of his victims using a glove with long metal finger nails a la Freddy Krueger). As soon as the night falls, one of the girls goes for a walk after a brief argument with her boyfriend, she gets killed. After one of the group finds her body, they all hide in their tents waiting for daylight. Once the sun comes up, all of them try and make it out, but fall victim one by one.<br /><br />Seven bodies, not a lot of gore, but a couple of good murders, especially the girls'deaths. The guys get killed in somewhat bloodless ways (blown up in car, shot to death, knife through head). <br /><br />Overall, INFERNAL TRAP is a nice slasher film from the late 80's. Nothing new, just well acted, fast paced and some pretty ladies. 10 out of 10.

Four macho rough'n'tumble guys and three sexy gals venture into a remote woodland area to hunt for a bear. The motley coed group runs afoul of crazed Vietnam veteran Jesse (an effectively creepy portrayal by Alberto Mejia Baron), who not surprisingly doesn't take kindly to any strangers trespassing on his terrain. Director/co-writer Pedro Galindo III relates the gripping story at a steady pace, creates a good deal of nerve-rattling tension, and delivers a fair amount of graphic gore with the brutal murder set pieces (a nasty throat slicing and a hand being blown off with a shotgun rate as the definite gruesome splatter highlights). The capable cast all give solid performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Pedro Fernandez as the nice, humane Nacho, Edith Gonzalez as the feisty Alejandra, Charly Valentino as the amiable Charly, and Tono Mauri as antagonistic jerk Mauricio. Better still, both yummy blonde Marisol Santacruz and lovely brunette Adriana Vega supply some tasty eye candy by wearing skimpy bathing suits. Antonio de Anda's slick, agile cinematography, the breathtaking sylvan scenery, Pedro Plascencia's robust, shuddery, stirring score, the well-developed characters, and the pleasingly tight'n'trim 76 minute running time further enhance the overall sound quality of this bang-up horror/action hybrid winner.

Seven young people go to the forest looking for a bear.Soon they are all stalked and viciously murdered by a crazy Vietnam veteran."Trampa Infernal" is a pretty entertaining Mexican slasher that reminds me a lot "The Zero Boys".The film is fast-paced and there are some good death scenes like throat slashing or axe in the neck.Unfortunately there is not much gore,so fans of grand-guignol will be disappointed.However if you are a fan of slasher movies give this rarity a look.Mexican horror flicks are quite obscure(I have seen only "Alucarda" and "Don't Panic"),so this should be another reason to see this enjoyable slasher.My rating:7 out of 10.Highly recommended.

Tintin was one of my favorite heroes as a kid. I used to borrow the books from the school library every chance I got. My favorite one was "The Red Sea Sharks" - so much action and humor.<br /><br />This documentary was a brilliant exposition of the background story of Herge and his development of Tintin. The film-maker's personal experience in interviewing Herge and the story of his relationship with the artist who was the inspiration for the Chan character was very moving.<br /><br />A great documentary of a very talented and well-loved artist. A great example of someone who has become internationally renown, and has brought joy of millions of children (and the young at heart) all over the world.

Imagine that I was about to miss this great cultural event on Swedish TV last night, and it was only because my girlfriend insisted on keeping the TV on (to make it easier for her to fall asleep!) that I came across it (yes I had seen an advert for it previously but of course forgotten about it and looked forward to an 'early night'...).<br /><br />Anyway - this must surely be a rather unusual idea - to base a film documentary on an interview made with sound only more than 30 years ago. But with animated and other documentary film material it adds up to a really good and insightful portrait of one of the 20th centuries' most appreciated literary artists - Georges Remy a.k.a Hergé.<br /><br />I for sure will read my Tintin albums with a different eye after having seen this film, which makes it easier to connect the variations in style as well as content with the different periods in Hergé's life (and I can tell you that I will a.s.a.p get the few that I don't have). Of course my perception of the albums has changed over the more than 25 years that I have already been reading them, as has my view about what albums are my favourites, but this adds (at least) one more dimension to them.

"Tintin and I" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).<br /><br />We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.<br /><br />Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.<br /><br />Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again.

If you as I have a very close and long relationship with the world of Tintin....do yourself a favor and watch this beautiful documentary about Hergé and his life creating Tintin. I'ts so brilliant and a very cool production. The whole background story about Hergé and the people and also very much the many different situations he was influenced by, for good and worse is amazing. There is a very fine and obvious connection between the comic books and just this. I will for sure be in my basement digging up the Tintin albums again. Also, the movie itself are very well told and has a great ambient sound to it. I really do hope people will find this as intriguing as I did!

This is a brilliant documentary that follows the life of Herge and his creating TinTin. Its based around a series of interviews conducted in 1971, and covers every thing from his early life and "Nazi collaboration" to the final moments of his life.<br /><br />Brilliantly edited, very cinematic and fast paced enough to not get boring. This film will give you a new appreciation for the work of Herge.<br /><br />The film makers make the film more than just another documentary. Using the latest state of the art technology and for a change putting it to good use.<br /><br />Recently more and more documentaries have been making it to cinemas. But this one as to be amongst the best...

Some thirty years ago, Author Numa Sadoul published a book length interview with the Belgian comic book artist Georges Remi (better known as Herge, the creator of Tintin). This movie catches up with Sadoul today as he recalls the interview, while we listen to the cassettes (Herge died in 1983) and see some old photos and footage of the man himself. Some parts of the interview were not published in the book at the request of Herge, and we now know these dealt with his separation from his wife, after he had an affair with one of his collaborators (who years later would become his second wife). An interesting thing the movie does not address well is the shift in the Tintin books from the early rightist and imperialist books (Tintin in the Congo, Tintin in the lands of the Soviets) to fairly anti-imperialist books just a few years later (The Blue Lotus). On the whole, I come out of this movie knowing a few more things about Herge and seeing him as a bit more unlikable than when I come in to the theater.

Tintin and I recently aired as an episode of PBS's P.O.V. series. It's based on a taped interview of Georges Remi a.k.a. Herge, Tintin's creator, from 1971 in which in discusses his various experiences publishing his popular character, first in a Catholic newspaper, then in his own series of comic books. Awesome sweeping views of various comic pages and surreal images of Herge's dreams. I first encountered Tintin in the pages of Children's Digest at my local elementary school library reading The Secrets of the Unicorn. My mom later got a subscription to CD and I read the entire Red Rackham's Treasure every month in 1978. I remember seeing some Tintin comic books in a local book store after that but for some reason I didn't get any probably because I was 12 and I thought I was outgrowing them. I do have Breaking Free, a book written and drawn by J. Daniels, published in 1989, six years after Herge's death. Haven't read it yet. This film also covers the artist's personal life as when he left his first wife after his affair with a colorist in his employ (whom he later married). Her name is Fanny and she is interviewed here. If you love Tintin and his creator, this film is definitely worth a look. Update: 9/4/07-I've now read Breaking Free. Tintin and The Captain are the only regular characters that appear here and they are tailored to the anti-capitalist views of Mr. Daniels with Tintin portrayed as a rabble rouser with a chip on his shoulder who nevertheless cares for The Captain who he's staying with. The Captain here is just trying to make ends meet with a wife and daughter that he loves dearly. They and other construction workers vow to strike after a fellow employee dies from a faulty equipment accident. The whole thing takes place in England with working-class cockney accents intact. Not the kind of thing Herge would approve of but an interesting read nonetheless. Oh, yes, dog Snowy only appears in the top left corner of the cover (which has Tintin running over the police!) and the dedication page.

This is a excellent start to the film career of Mickey Rooney. His talents here shows that a long career is ahead for him. The car and truck chase is exciting for the 1937 era. This start of the Andy Hardy series is an American treasure in my book. Spring Byington performance is excellent as usual. Please Mr Rooney or owners of the film rights, take a chance and get this produced on DVD. I think it would be a winner.

"A Family Affair" takes us back to a less complicated time in America. It's sobering to see how different everything was back then. It was a more innocent era in our country and we watch a 'functional' family dealing in things together. The film also marks the beginning of the series featuring the Hardy family.<br /><br />The film, directed by George Seitz, is based on a successful play. Judge James Hardy, and his wife Emmily, are facing a domestic crisis that must be dealt with. Married daughter Joan comes home after she has committed a social blunder and her husband holds her responsible. At the same time, another daughter, Marion, brings home a beau, who is clear will clash with her father. The happy teen ager Andy, seems to be the only one without a problem until his mother makes him escort Polly to the dance, something he is reluctant to do.<br /><br />Needless to say, Judge Hardy will prove why he knows best as he puts a plan into action to get everyone together again. After all, he is a man that understands, not only the law, but how to deal with those outside forces that threatens his standing in the community and what will make his family happy.<br /><br />Lionel Barrymore plays Judge Hardy with conviction. He is the glue that holds everything together. Spring Byington is seen as Emily, the mother. Mickey Rooney has a small part in this film, but he is as always, fun to watch. Cecilia Parker and Julie Haydon appeared as the daughters, Marion and Joan. Sara Hayden and Margaret Marquis are also featured in the film as Aunt Milly and Polly, the girl that surprises Andy with her beauty.<br /><br />"A Family Affair" is a good way to observe our past through the positive image painted of an American family.

Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful.

This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.

Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.

Of the spate of Austen films from the 1990s, this is my favorite, more even than "Persuasion," which was the one that converted me to Austeniana. Before seeing this "Emma" I had seen two previous versions, but in one Emma seemed all wrong, more like Lady Teazle, and in the other she seemed half wrong, like a possible impostor, whereas here she seemed just right, young and silly and stubborn. In general I thought the attitude and the atmosphere of the production conveyed the charm of the novel exceedingly well; indeed it is one of the sweetest, merriest things I have ever seen, rather in the nature of a Christmas treat. The script is unusually well formed, and the adapter's additions, like the shaft of light that reveals Harriet to Emma in church, are all in keeping. Mark Strong as Knightley is not what I would have expected, but I enjoyed him very much: he strongly brings out the plain-spoken, practical side of the character, in contrast with Emma's affectations, and his choleric outbursts against Frank Churchill are quite funny. Bernard Hepton makes Mr. Woodhouse a figure of almost Carrollian absurdity; Samantha Morton as Emma's protégé is exactly as soft and exactly as firm as she ought to be. And as in the same producers' "Pride and Prejudice," care is taken that the eventual couplings of characters can be believed--uniquely in some cases. For me this production was and remains a delight.

I've seen this movie after watching Paltrow's version. I've found that one a very good one, and I thought this would not be as good... but I was wrong: British version was far better and enjoyable! I found Jeremy Northam more "agreeable" than Mark Strong, but I can say that Strong catches much better Austen's Knightley. Anyway, both versions are good,but anyone that loved Austen's books, should watch this movie. I agree with *caalling*: Andrew Davies changed a few things, but still remains faithful to the original.<br /><br />10 out of 10<br /><br />My 2 cents!

This has long been one of my favourite adaptations of an Austen novel. Although it is definitely not in the same category as the spectacular "Pride and Prejudice," "Emma" is a lush and relatively faithful TV version of Austen's novel -- especially considering its short length. The biggest change between the novel and the movie is a good one, as the unnecessary snobbishness that Austen exhibits at the end of the story is removed here and replaced with someone much more akin to Emma's character in the rest of the book. I thought the characters chosen to portray the roles were well-picked. Kate Beckinsale walks the fine line between girlishness and the social snob with a grace completely lost in Gwyneth Paltrow's '96 version. Samantha Morton's wispy blonde locks suit her attitude and character as the simper that accompanies her role in previous characterisations is replaced with the Harriet we know from the book. Mister Knightly's role is carried out extremely well in my opinion; both the seriousness and the gentle compassion that the hero is painted with in the novel are present here in this much-neglected, sumptuous film.

I've really enjoyed this adaptation of "Emma".I have seen it many times and am always looking forward to seeing it again.Though it only lasts 107 minutes, most of the novel plot and sub-plots were developed in a satisfactory way. All the characters are well-portrayed. Most of the dialogues come directly from the novel with no silly jokes added as in Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility.<br /><br />As a foreigner, I particularly appreciate the perfect diction of the actors. The setting and costumes were beautiful. I find this version quite on a par with the 1995 miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" but then the producer and screenwriter were the same. Kate Beckinsale did a really good job portraying "Emma" of whom Jane Austen said she would create a heroin no-one but her would love. She is snobbish but has just enough youth and inexperience to be still likable. Mark Strong was also very good at portraying Mr Knightley, not an easy part, I think, though he has not the charisma shown by Colin Firth's Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. Even the end scene (the harvest festival) which does not happen in the novel provides a fitting end except for when it shows Emma being cold and almost unpleasant with Frank Churchill whereas in the novel she was thoroughly reconciled with him, even telling him that she would have enjoyed the duplicity, had she been in his situation. A strange departure from the faithfulness otherwise shown throughout the film. I find the costumes more beautiful and elaborate than in other adaptations from Jane Austen's novels.

It has taken me a while to watch this version as unfortunately I don't seem to be able to rent it in the video store, only the other version but I fell in love with it. I was always borderline with the other Emma. Gwenneth and Toni Collette, as they are not British naturally have to put on the accent, and well to me it doesn't seem natural. It seems put on. Sorry but don't think Toni and Gwenneth did a brilliant job there. I could not warm to any of the characters, but this version is more heart warming and more the type of person I imagined Emma to be. It is definitely the version I will come back to from now on. I was disappointed that Mr Knightley was not better looking, but he is convincing. I also like Jane Fairfax better (played by Olivia Williams). I never warmed to her in the movie version, but she is better portrayed in this version. Come to think of it, (besides Mr Knightley) all characters are better played, and a lot less over the top. Unfortunately both came out around same time and the Paltrow version got more publicity. Pity...... I also love the new scene at the end. Well done to Kate Beckingsale! Therefore, if you are a Jane Austen fan, don't forget to watch this one.

Kate Beckinsale steals the show! Bravo! Too bad Knightly ins't as good looking as Jeremy Northam. Mark Strong did a fabulous job. Bernard Hepton was perfect as Emmas father. I love the end scene (which is an addition to the novel-but well written) when the harvest is in and Knightly dines with his workers and high society friends. Emma must show that she accepts this now. She is a changed woman. That is too much too quick, but OK. I'll buy into it. Samantha Bond plays Emma's ex-governess and confidant. She is wonderful. just as I would have imagined her. I believe that when the UK does a Jane Austen its the best. American versions of English literature are done for money and not for quality. See this one!

Old Jane's mannered tale seems very popular these days. I have lost count of the number of versions going around. Probably the reason is that her "ruts" are our "ruts" even at this late date. This TV mini-series gives it a mannered telling suitable to the novel. Headstrong, opinionated Emma is a pretty "modern" girl when you think about it, even though the ambience of Jane Austen's world may seem a tad artificial to us today. If you haven't seem EMMA, I'll only say that self-sufficient Emma does get her comeuppance. It's worth watching to find out how. The acting honours here go to the ladies: Kate, Prunella, Lucy and Samantha. They could almost have had a psychic connection to old Jane!

Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years. <br /><br />The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications. <br /><br />Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld". <br /><br />I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.<br /><br />This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10