• In the 1938 film Marie Antoinette (1938), Norma Shearer refused any complimentary make-up for the final scene showing her character going to the guillotine. She wanted to look as haggard and exhausted as the real queen had in her final moments. In the final scene for this movie, Joely Richardson expressed the same effects as she tried to convey as her reflection can be viewed in the water bucket beside guillotine before the beheading.

The Affair of the Necklace involves a historical scandal in the court ofMarie Antoinette. Hilary Swank plays a young woman in a marriage ofconvenience to Adrien Brody’s character, who feels her ancestral lands andfamily name were unjustly seized and taken from her by the French crown.Shethinks if she can get to court and lay her tragic history before QueenMarieAntoinette, that the Queen’s feminine heart will be moved by her plight.So,she marries the Compte de la Motte in order to get a title which willadmither to court. Marrying Adrian Brody has to rank right up there with LaGwyneth’s marriage to Colin Firth in SIL on the all-time Top 10 ranking of"Least Odious Arranged Marriages of Convenience in Motion PictureHistory".

There’s a lot of skullduggery involving licentious, ambitious Cardinals,jewelers who never hit on the fruity scheme of busting up an unsoldnecklacethey were seriously in hock for making and selling off the diamondsindividually, and a very odd charlatan psychic type mesmerist/seer playedbythe preternaturally-creepy Christopher Walken.

I could tell you more, but why? This movie is beautifully-photographed,lavishly costumed, and by and large, dreadfully acted, edited, anddirected.I cannot even begin to tell you how bad Hilary Swank is in it. The 1,000word limit precludes that entirely. And as for editing, when your cutscause characters heads to jump around in the frame, that’s bad.

I didn’t expect much, though, since from the very get-go, the movieviolatedSurreyhill’s First Law of Bad Historical Costume Drama: If the Dogs arewrong, forget the rest. They give Marie Antoinette a Chinese Crested as alap dog, which is a big gaffe, since the first Cresteds were first broughtto Europe in the mid 1850’s, and this was to England, as part of azoological exhibition. But then, I think that the Cresteds weren’t theonlymembers of the cast who were chosen for their interesting and unusuallooks,as opposed to their actual suitability to play the part.

The Cast is pretty high-octane for a movie that basically bombed at theboxoffice and garnered lukewarm reviews. Christopher Walken is joined bySwankand Brody, and let us not forget Jonathon Pryce. Simon Baker is appealingina beige pantyhose sort of way as the hero, but when your hero is a gigolowho hopes to personally profit from the sale of what is essentially stolenproperty, you are entering interesting territory, particularly if yourlipliner also wanders around a bit, as Baker’s does. The problem withBakeris that he seemed to have great difficult taking his lines seriously, andone can see why. There are some real clunkers in this movie, and also, itrelies heavily on voiceover narration to make the plot comprehensible, andthis is another sign a movie is in big trouble. It violates almost everyrule of "show, don’t tell".

I was disgruntled to find much time elapsed before first appearance ofAdrian Brody. However, he does play "The Compte" and Surreyhill’s SecondCorollary of bodice-ripping clearly states that any male character under45who has the title of "Compte de ________" is to be considered sexy,whethervillainous or heroic, as Comptes are by definition, sexy.

This Compte mutters his lines in a weird "method" hybrid of Brando andQueens, while the rest of the cast is assuming an English accent, whichcauses cognitive dissonance, since the movie is set in France and starsmostly Americans.

Brody certainly does his best to kick some life into the plot, and he andWalken seem to be the only cast members who seem to have copped to thenotion that they AREN’T in a serious, art-house type film which willaccruenumerous Oscar nods, but that they are instead in the cheesiest of cheesyhistorical bodice-rippers and may as well have a bit of fun with it. Thereis little to ponder for most of the first third of the movie other thanSimon Baker’s neatly-tied queue, until this interesting andunusual-lookingman shows up and starts waving a sword around. Apparently, there is somesort of rule in this movie that all fights must be Shirts/Skins, and inthecase of the first duel, Simon Baker is shirtless while Brody is dressed tothrill.

But unfortunately for those of us who would prefer an extendedshirts/skinsdueling sequence, the plot grinds on and the necklace is put into play,andthe Compte ends up being chased through the streets of Paris by aflatfootedofficer of the guard. This has to be the lamest, most unathletic chasesceneI’ve ever seen filmed. It also points up one of the main problems with thefilm, which is that some of the characters just were all over the map. TheCompte has gone from being a agile hot-tempered duelist–quick to pull outhis blade and make use of it, to an ineffectual drunk effete decadent, toaclever schemer, and now he is a man who cannot seem to get out of his ownway, or out of the way of horses, fruitcarts, and peasants holding basketsof veggies. He finally escapes by jumping into a canal, or the Seine, orsomething, and presumably, this was in the days of open sewers, so thenextplace we encounter him is getting out of his bathtub claiming that he wassofrightened he nearly soiled himself. He is bathing, moreover, in thepresence of both his wife and her lover, Simon Baker. They’re just all onebig happy family of co-conspirators. Well, except that the Compte getsangered at some crack the lover makes about his manhood (they both mumbledtheir way through it as though both were embarrassed by the script so forall I know he was saying that the Compte’s father was a hamster, and hismother smelt of elderberries), morphs into a dripping-wet, homicidal,CesareBorgia clone, and goes after Simon Baker with a knife in one hand, whileholding a towel around his waist with the other. I found it a bit tragicthat the only conveniently-located weapon was a knife, and not atwo-handedweapon, like a grenade launcher or Scottish claymore, for reasons thatshould be obvious, but the movie kept its R rating, I guess.

One more observation from my notebook–the filmmakers seemed to have theidea that they needed to establish the Compte’s "Character" by having himbeeither drinking, holding a glass of some sort of alcoholic beverage as ifabout to take a drink, reaching for a bottle, or going over to the sidebarto fill himself a glass in every scene. Yes, even the scene in the towel.Even when he is riding a horse, for the love of all mercy! Even when he iseating a bon bon. Even when he is having a bullet extracted from hishiney.The only real exception was when he was going after the gigolo with theknife, as it would clearly have been difficult to hold a drink, the knife,AND the towel without dribbling Beaujolais down all over his, er, withoutgetting it all over the front of his towel. And yet, the character isneveractually shown as being sloppy drunk, despite drinking continuously frommorning to night.

Clearly, our Compte has a head like a cast iron skillet. Or thefilmmakersthink that the audience does, and unless they beat us over the headsrepeatedly, we won’t get it straight.

Anyhow, there is really only one thing you need to know about this movie.

Bon Bon Scene + Adrien Brody = a Man Who Knows How to Use HisTongue.

2) Reading over the comments for this film, I’m surprised how many peopledisliked it. They harp because there are no accents, different accents, orpartial accents. They complain about wooden acting. I’m wondering of somehowthe world is cross-wired, since the film I saw had very fine acting,gorgeous costuming, and excellent period dialogue. I was pleasedscriptwriters didn’t dive into the vulgar, although some scenes (mostparticularly the actual bodice-ripping) did push the mark.

As a period film fan, I found this story not only exquisite but alsofascinating. The plot is intelligent enough you don’t have to check yourbrain at the door, unlike many other dramas. True, it’s not completelyhistorically accurate and they’ve made Jeanne la Motte much more likable andmoral than she was, but that’s the point of a MOVIE. It’s NOT supposed to bereality, just a loose translation of a historical event. I found itworthwhile and watched it three times in a week… a rarity amongfilms.

If you’re not too snobby to put on your thinking cap, give it ago.

3) Despite John Sweet’s uneven script, this fact-based tale of intrigue andscams in Marie Antoinette’s court is watchable thanks to sumptuousproduction values (Milena Canonero’s gorgeous costume design garnered anOscar nomination), scene-stealing performances by Christopher Walken andAdrien Brody (who even gets into some swordplay as the heroine’s dissolutenobleman husband. Few people can make lechery and debauchery look as sexyand fun as Brody does here! , and good solid work from most of the restof the cast. In this drastic change of pace from her Oscar-winningperformance in BOYS DON’T CRY, Hilary Swank plays Jeanne St. Remy deValois,who takes revenge on her father’s death and her family’s ruin by pulling ascam on Cardinal Jonathan Pryce involving an ornate diamond necklacedesigned for exiled Madame DuBarry and spurned by the Queen (JoelyRichardson captures Marie Antoinette’s self-absorbed naïveté while stillmanaging to make me feel a little sorry for her, knowing she’d pay for herfoolishness with her life). Swank’s performance isn’t bad, but it’s notasassured as it should be, considering that Jeanne’s plot turned out to beinstrumental in spawning the French Revolution. Next to the rest of thesterling cast, which also includes Brian Cox and Simon Baker, Swanksometimes comes across as a little girl who’s playing dress-up and feelingself-conscious about it. FTR, my fave line comes from Brody who, afterbeing shot by Swank’s lady-in-waiting during his swordfight with Baker, ishaving the bullet in his butt removed none-too-gently by a doctor: `GoodGod, are you digging for potatoes?!`

4) This storylike true story had already been filmed by Marcel Lherbier in1946,with Vivianne Romance -famous for her bitchy parts-,a more thanadequate comtesse de la Motte.

This is the first mistake of this "remake":Hilary Swank portrays agenuine heroine,whose properties have been stolen by an unfairmonarchy,whose father was some kind of Robin Hood who protected thepoor against the cruelty of times.She appears most of the time as avictim,a noble adventuress,with a romantic love affair with hersidekick,but it’s the ending in London that takes the biscuit,when shereads her memoirs to old posh sobbing ladies "oh poor thing!oh poordear!" Les "memoires de madame de la Motte" -which were published inFrance during the revolution are obnoxious,trash stuff..Historian JeanChalon quotes this line in that notorious book "the voluptuous princess-she’s speaking of Marie-Antoinette- was waiting for me in her bed ,andI must say she took advantage of her husband’s absence…"ActuallyMarie-Antoinette never met madame de la Motte and the scene under thesnow when the queen accuses la comtesse of ruining the monarchy is purefiction.

The scenarists are as naive as the cardinal de Rohan,and as the peopleof Paris 1786,who thought Madame de la Motte’s punishment was unfair.LaMotte wouldn’t stay long in la Salpetriere anyway,and some say she washelped to escape.As for cardinal de Rohan ,he was far from being asaint,but he was naiveté itself.how could he believe that MarieAntoinette ,who had always despised her and never spoke to him,coulduse him as an emissary?

The film is entertaining and a lot of scenes are more historicallyaccurate -such as the grove of Venus and the trial:that’s was thequeen’s mistake:the king did not need the parlament to judge somebody-.Walken is ideally cast as comte de Cagliostro ,as Brody as Nicolas dela Motte.But the Queen’s execution (1793) comes at the most awkwardmoment ,and La Motte was dead (in 1791) when it occurred anyway.Thescenarists suggest her death might have been a crime :never a Frenchearnest historian made a hint at that.At the time,the royal family hadmore important problems to solve .

The scenarists say that the affair of the necklace was the direct causefor the French revolution,which is a narrow-minded view.It might havebeen the straw that broke the camel’s back but the reasons were muchmore complex and the students should take a better look at it.

The movie does not tell that after his exile,Rohan was restored tofavor during the revolution ,became part of the Etats-Généraux" in 1789,and died in Germany in 1803,the last of the dramatis personae

5) They’re are so many things wrong with this picture that it will be hard tolist them all. Story is about a woman named Jeanne St. Remy de Valois(Hilary Swank) whose parents were killed as traitors to the French regimeand now as an adult will do anything to get her family name and householdback. She decides along with her lover Retaux de Vilette (Simon Baker) andthe man she had married for convenience Nicolas De La Motte (Adrien Brody)would scheme a plan to convince the Cardinal Louis de Rohan (JonathanPryce)to purchase a very expensive necklace and give it to Marie-Antoinette(JoelyRichardson). Jeanne forged letters from Marie-Antoinette to give theCardinal for him to think that a relationship had been rekindled via mail.Jeanne keeps the necklace and uses it to purchase her home. First off,thisfilm is miscast. Swank is a very good actress and I believe to be a morebrave and daring one then some of the actress’s in Hollywood that get paidmillions and millions of dollars. She’s a real talent but the film neededsomeone to evoke a more jaded personality. Jeanne is portrayed as somesortof martyr that we are suppose to feel sorry for. This was probably more ofdirector Charles Shyer’s fault than Swank. Shyer has directed nothing butlight comedy before and this was his first entry into serious drama andI’mnot convinced that he understood the story. Brody isn’t bad and he seemstobe genuinely having fun in his role. And in case you didn’t notice, allthemain actors are either English or American and most of them don’t evenattempt some sort of accent. Its suppose to be France and they didn’t hireone prominent French actor. I guess if the French want to get back at usthey could remake "The Grapes of Wrath" with an all French cast! And itshard to tell what kind of accent that Christopher Walken was doing in thefilm. Hell, its hard to tell what accent he does in American films! Thefilmlooks good though. The sets and locations are authentic looking and theconstruction of a good looking film was there. Unfortunately, the rest ofthe film is not well thought out. Wrong director, wrong actors and thewrongfocus point of the story.

6) I love period dramas. I love the costumes, the sets, the horses, thestreetscenes. I love the fact that maybe I can learn a little bit about historyalong with being entertained. So it was with hope that I rented thismovieeven though it had only been in the theater two days and there were onlytwocopies of it at Blockbuster (both bad signs). I understand now why no onehad wanted anything to do with it from the beginning.

This film simply did not click. There was nothing in it that made meinterested in or care about the protagonists. The main fault should go tothe casting director who terribly miscast Hillary Swank as an 18th centuryFrench noblewoman. Don’t get me wrong,I do like Hillary and have recently praised her depiction of the young copin "Insomnia", but in "The Affair" she was like a fish out of water, tooangular, too wooden and quite obviously a modern American actress fakinganEnglish accent depicting a French character.

Then we must blame the director, because the sense of tension in this filmwas minimal. This was a movie about a court intrigue where the stakeswerehuge both monetarily and punitively. Much more passion should have beeninjected, more fear, more highs, more lows, intense love and ferocioushate,anything to get the viewer engaged. That this was not done wasunfortunate,because the film has a beautiful look to it and the sets and costumes donotdisappoint.

7) The costumes are lavish, the sets lush and resplendent. The story iscompelling: how a strange affair of court intrigue becomes part of alarger mosaic of incidences that will eventually bring down the Frenchmonarchy. As a backdrop to the main events of the film is the risingunrest of the French citizenry who are becoming more and moredisillusioned with their monarchy. A couple of great actors, mostnotably Jonathan Pryce as Cardinal Rohan, stand out. And yet, althoughmuch of the film is there, it is not quite all there. Unfortunately forall its splendor, the final piece needed to make the movie a triumph islacking: a leading lady right for the part. And maybe some adjustmentsin the music department.

First the positives: Despite a number of misgivings, this film stillhas the one element I always look for in any film: is the storycompelling enough that, at any given moment, I care about what willhappen next and it is not obvious what will happen next? And this moviedefinitely possesses the required attribute. Few movies have thisrather simple facet, and yet, for me, it is often what will make orbreak a film regardless of the genre. Films as diverse as Star Wars:The Empire Strikes Back, Amadeus, and The Sting have the notablequality of being unpredictable until the very end. These last examplesare of course masterpieces of film-making where Necklace is not. It's agood film with a good story but not one that will make any critics'lists.

The story of The Affair of the Necklace is extremely complex involvinga countess, the Cardinal of France, the Queen of France, a gigolo, asorcerer/psychic, a couple of jewelers, a peasant actress, forgedletters, and a necklace of tremendous value and prestige. From thestart, we know who did it, and the story back-tracks to tell us how andwhy the intrigue was perpetrated.

Now the not-so-good news: Hillary Swank, a 2-time academy-award-winningactress, is miscast for the part. The rest of the cast acclimatesrelatively well to late 18th-century France except for her. At timesshe seems to be playing a character more akin to an early 20th-centurydebutante than an 18th-century former member of the aristocracy. Attimes, some of her scenes appear contrived to provoke pity. Thecharacter is portrayed on the more innocent and vulnerable side of thefemale-character spectrum. This seems a bit hard to swallow as thiswoman is also a mastermind behind an intrigue that may have contributedto the downfall of the aristocracy. Maybe someone like HelenaBonham-Carter would have been a better choice…

The music is also inconsistent. For the majority of the movie,18th-century and even 17th-century music is heard which seemsappropriate as this is a period picture. I noticed a brief excerpt fromthe Monteverdi Vespers of 1610 in one of the church scenes. At othertimes, "original" music sounding a lot like Enya is played which alwaysruins my "disbelief". It reminds me we are in a movie made a couple ofcenturies after the events that are taking place. The filmmakers wouldhave probably saved a lot of time and money by sticking to period musicand not hiring a composer who writes new age music.

That said, this is still a good film when good films are uncommon.Perfect, not by a long shot. The script? Inconsistent but has itsmoments. Absorbing? Definitely. If you like period pictures,particularly those portraying pre-1800 Europe, you will still get a lotout of The Affair of the Necklace.

This story could have been exciting and full of visual pleasure, but Ithought it failed utterly. I could not muster up any real interest in thecharacters, and the writer made a major misstep in trying to make Jeanne(Hilary Swank) a quasi-revolutionary heroine instead of a scheming conartist. (This decision didn’t even make sense within the world of thefilm:if Jeanne is an anti-monarchist, why is she working so hard to get backheraristocratic name and fancy estate?) The screenplay was inefficient andmuddled, and relied heavily on dull and unnecessary voiceover narration.(Idid, however, appreciate some of the writer’s attempts to create perioddialogue.)

Unlike most IMDB reviewers, I didn’t care for the cinematography (I sawthison DVD; maybe that explains it?); I thought the colors were washed out andalmost every shot infused with fog. I also found the composition of theimages unexciting. You would think a nighttime scene in a garden ofVersailles, with characters running around in 18th-century costumes, wouldbe fabulous, but it was passionless; the whole film has a workaday feel.

Some of the actors do well: I liked Joely Richardson as Marie-Antoinetteandthe two jewelers were funny and engaging. Hilary Swank was partlyeffective,but I was distracted by her uneven accent. Christopher Walken had asimilarproblem: he used some Russian consonants, but his distinctive inflectionremained unchanged, making for an odd-sounding character. At the risk ofoffending most IMDBers, I must say that I think Adrien Brody is totallycreepy, and I particularly never want to see his tongue again.

I’m not sure why so many IMDB reviewers thought the characters should haveFrench accents–if the characters are supposedly speaking their ownlanguage, it makes more sense for them NOT to have accents. Whether theysound English or American is immaterial to me, but it would be nice tohaveconsistency, which this film lacks.

Although I admired most of Milena Canonero’s beautiful costumes for thisfilm, I think they were wasted by a director whose visual sense doesn’tmatch my ideal. For a more stylish (albeit puzzling and disturbing) movieset in the 18th century, try "The Draughtsman’s Contract".

9) This was a movie I had always had a slight interest in seeing and nevergotten around to it, then I eventually forced myself to rent it and Imust say I really did enjoy it. For all the history buffs this is not amovie for them, but if you really just sit down and watch withoutanalyzing every detail it is very enjoyable. The plot is veryinteresting and interwoven and for the most part the cast does anexcellent job. My only exception was unfortunately Hilary Swank. I havealways loved Hilary Swank, but she didn't seem to have a clearunderstanding of what she wanted to portray with Jeanne. Jonathan Prycewas absolutely fantastic as the cardinal. He conveyed a danger that wasvery subtle yet frightening at the same time. The costumes wereamazing, and I was very happy to see some scenes actually shot in "TheHall of Mirrors." Charles Shyer didn't blow me away with his directingstyle and some shots seemed uneven and out of place, but it was in noway distracting. Overall, it's a movie that doesn't necessarily requireyou to think very much, but it is still enjoyable. I'd recommend it fora lazy afternoon next chance you get.

10) When I first sat down to watch this movie, I thought it was positivelybrilliant. Hillary Swank is great in everything she does…hell, thewhole cast did a bang up job! But mostly I liked it because I thoughtit was the truth. After all it matched all I had learned in highschool.

Then I found out what a big lie it all was.

This whole 'Affair' was completely romanticized and history rewrittento show the world yet again how _terrible_ the Monarchy was. But sinceI'm armed with new information, I might as well inform everyone whothinks the same way I thought of some key facts.

Fact 1: The Monarchy NEVER killed Jeanne's father. Her parents wereLONG dead before this whole affair even took place. Her rage at theMonarchy stemmed from the pension she was suppose to receive from beinga blood royal. Her rage at Marie stemmed her apathy, yes, but becauseshe did not really sympathize with Jeanne's plight.

Fact 2: Jeanne was not born a noble. True, she was illegitimatelydescended from royalty but all her nobility ties and titles came fromher marriage to Nicolas. In fact, she was quite well off in hermarriage, but that didn't stop her from sleeping around with the likesof both the Cardinal and Rétaux.

Fact 3: Buying the necklace was all the CARDINAL'S idea. But Jeannewent along with it readily, but her greed got in the way. She ran to_sell_ the diamonds off the necklace in London and keep the profits forherself.

Knowing what I know now, I'm infuriated at this movie not only forfalsifying history but trying to tell us this is exactly what happened.Marie Antoinette was the true victim in all this (something JoelyRichardson tried to convey in her performance) and Jeanne was exactlywhat the Monarchy said she was; a petty whorish thief. There was nohonor in what those people did, they all had their own selfish reasons.I'm just sad with the pile of historical information we have at ourdisposal no one seems to want to use it.

• In the time period that the story was set, America in fact maintained two naval bases in Trinidad, one at the western peninsula called Chagaramas and the other in the east of the country, called Wallerfield. They were closed in 1962, the year the country gained independence from Great Britain. There is still a lot of evidence of their presence to this day i.e., airstrips, the deep water harbor, and several still-standing buildings. Chagaramas is now host to a thriving boating industry. It is well known in the sailing world as a shelter during the hurricane season, and hundreds of yachts and private craft are anchored there every year. It is considered to be out of the Caribbean’s hurricane belt.
• The song “Rum and Coca Cola” by The Andrews Sisters was originally a calypso song composed and performed by a Trinidad calypso band in the mid-1940s. At that time the American military maintained two bases in Trinidad. The song is about the soldiers from these bases and how a mother and daughter provided “pleasure” for the “Yankee dollar”. Actually, if one walked around Port of Spain – Trinidad’s capital city – during this period it was a common sight to see American soldiers and sailors with local women at hotels and bars.
• The production of “Affair in Trinidad” is credited to the Beckworth Corporation, named for Rita Hayworth and her daughter Rebecca Welles, but Beckworth wasn’t an actual production company. It was a tax dodge set up by Hayworth and Columbia Pictures president Harry Cohn to allow her fee for the film to be considered a capital gain rather than a salary, and therefore taxed at a lower rate.

• Continuity: An exterior shot of an airborne DC-3 with standard rectangular windows is followed by an interior shot of Emery looking out of a round window.
• Continuity: When Bronec gets run over at the airport his bags end up on the verge but in the next cut they are on the road.

That’s not to say that she doesn’t look beautiful in the film. Whilst notlit as gorgeously as she was by Rudolph Mate in Gilda, she has a moment herestanding in repose in shadow, smoking. But even with her character being arecent widow, her voice is dead and she carries herself like a somnambulist.She is best when she is dancing as she does twice here. In the first,Trinidad Lady, is the Carmen Rita – barefoot and tossing her dress. Theframing distances us – director Vincent Sherman may be more interested inthe crowd around the stage, but she looks happy performing. The second, I’veBeen Kissed Before, has obvious parallels to her Put The Blame on Mame fromGilda. She wears a shimmery black dress as fetishistic as the famous blacksatin sheath, the number is schematically arranged to present her as a trampto later be rewarded with a face slap, even the choreography recalls that ofMame. However her announced intention to dance, even if contextualised, is adramatic change of characterisation. She gives us the Gilda we want, and notthe woman we have accepted up to this time – the one we have woken up with.

The Gilda connection is made in the film by the casting of Glenn Ford as herromantic partner, thankfully treating her a little kinder this time around,Steven Geray in an amusing supporting role as her employer, AlexanderScourby as a pseudo-George Macready but without the menace, the locale beingTrinidad as Gilda was set in Buenos Aires and a plot about German-ish hoodsinvesting in shady activities that pose a threat to security. Ford tells ushe was a pilot in the war and since he isn’t old enough to mean WW1, we knowthat Upp and her co-writers have written their screenplay in a rush,explaining Hayworth’s own reluctance to participate.

Scourby is give the witty lines like "Some people are mellowed by drink.Have another" and "At the risk of dislocating your personality, try to becalm". He has a funny exchange with Ford about Hayworth – "I think you looklovelier in this color than any other. Don’t you agree?" "There’s a fewshades I haven’t seen her in yet". Valerie Bettis who created Rita’s dancesalso appears as the wife of one of the Germans and her drunken energy isvery welcome. She has a great laugh and even gets to parody Hayworth’sdancing at one point, and Juanita Moore is good as Rita’s maid. Shermanprovides an exterior of an airport with seemingly limitless open skies, andgives Scourby’s interior an imposing staircase.

This film is not a bomb, plot holes notwithstanding. Sherman moves thingsalong and at least Hayworth isn’t the embarrassment she was in the Hall ofMirrors sequence in The Lady from Shanghai. Perhaps Aly Khan took the bestof her and Harry Cohn was left to salvage her career with the little she hadleft to give.

2) When one approaches a 1940’s title like ‘Affair In Trinidad’, you’ll behard pressed to figure that it’s some sort of musical with Fred Astaireand Ginger Rogers, or some madcap Marx Brothers comedy, not a hardedged murder mystery, yet that’s what this badly titled movie is. Notthat there’s nothing wrong with the movie, I liked it. It’s just thetitle is sort of curious. Rita Hayworth is a.. uh.. entertainer in verysleazy club (check out the people "returning" downstairs (cough) andkeeps the people entertained by singing and dancing very suggestivelyto a song called "Trinidad Lady". Actually, she’s SMOKING (as in hot!)in this scene, her dress and dancing are amazing. But soon, the policearrive on the scene, her husband has committed suicide, and they wantto find out the reasons leading to his death. Glenn Ford, playing assteely jawed as Glenn Ford can, who plays his brother, wants to knowtoo! From there, it’s a whirlwind of deception, romance and thrills(well, not really), that is not really suspenseful, because we find outearly on who did it, we just have to find out why (and that reason is asilly post-war hokum). Oh well, Hayworth IS pretty to look at, andGlenn Ford is great as usual, so the combination of the two is sortafun to watch.

3) When one talks about Rita Hayworth and Glenn Ford as a screen team, oneis primarily talking about Gilda. There first film, The Lady inQuestion had them as featured players, second was the classic Gilda,third was The Loves of Carmen with a horribly miscast Glenn Ford. Itwas after that one, that Rita Hayworth married Aly Khan and was off thescreen for four years.

When she came back, Harry Cohn decided not to be too adventurous. Herlast big success was Gilda with Glenn Ford, she got Glenn Ford. She wasa singer stranded in the southern hemisphere in Gilda, she was again asinger stranded in Affair in Trinidad. Stepping into the GeorgeMacReady's shoes as villainous mastermind is suave and continentalAlexander Scourby.

Rita's husband is murdered and the Trinidad police inspector TorinThatcher knows full well Alexander Scourby is behind it. Scourby isyour international man of mystery in the Sydney Greenstreet, OrsonWelles tradition. Thatcher wants Rita to spy on Scourby and she agreesto find out exactly what he's up to.

In comes Glenn Ford into the picture as her late husband's brother. Hewants some answers and nearly succeeds in wrecking the whole project.Good thing Rita's a quick thinking girl, a better thing is that Ford'sa man of action, helps them both out in a pinch.

Come to think of it, though Alexander Scourby is a fine player, OrsonWelles would have owned this part and even better if he had directedAffair in Trinidad. This is just the kind of story that someone likehim could have made into a classic. What a film to remember with Ritawith her most well known co-star and another ex-husband as well.

Harry Cohn probably would have shot anyone who brought him that idea,still it's interesting to speculate.

Though Affair in Trinidad got panned by critics it cleaned up at thebox office with all of Rita's loyal fans wanting to see her again. It'sstill a treat for fans of the screen's greatest sex symbol.

4) This highly entertaining movie was the return of Rita Hayworth to thescreen after a brief flirtation with married life and screenretirement. For her comeback, to establish back with the graces of themovie buying public, she is teamed with Glenn Ford who starred with herin her biggest and most popular hit Gilda. This was no guarantee forbox office magic because an even bigger budgeted movie "Carmen"starring the aforementioned tanked in 1948. But that was a unoperatictake on the famous opera story Carmen with a woefully miscast GlennFord in a Tyrone Power like role. Avoid that movie. But going back hereto the mystery and intrigue of Gilda, this movie was a box office hitunlike the earlier comment mistakenly claimed and was one of the 23biggest hits of its year. ( I don’t know the exact rank). And GlennFord was wooed away from Columbia by MGM with a bigger paycheck andHayworth stayed on at Columbia through the late fifties. The plot amismash of Notorious and the earlier Gilda as Hayworth plays thetemptress who is really an innocent who all men cannot resist. Herhusband is murdered and his brother shows up to find things more fishythan they really are. One thing about Hayworth, she could hoof for sureand sell sex through dance and the two musical numbers are a delight.Forlorn shadows, dark passages, whispers in the dark follow as VincentSherman, a true craftsman, if not an auteur (I do not believe an auteuris superior to a craftsman. An auteur just has a regular theme in themovies he/she directs.) brings sharp direction and well-earned suspenseto this fine movie. Catch it whenever it airs or better, just rent it.

5) Certainly not as good as "Gilda", and nowhere even close to being asgood as "Notorious", but I still find it a very enjoyable movie. Ienjoyed the directing, the song/dance numbers, and was not bothered bythe storyline that others on this site found weak. I like Glenn Ford,too, but I found his performance a little too much on the melodramaticside, and less on the believable side, but he was still enjoyableoverall.

A couple of things reminded me of other films: 1) The moment when Ritaopens the door to the guest house to find all the bad guys standingjust outside waiting for her somehow reminded me of when Bob Cummingsand Priscilla Lane enter the train car of circus freaks in"Saboteur"…both scenes were a little eerie…and both were very nicecinematic moments. The other comparison that was a bit distracting forme was 2) how much Alexander Scourby in "Affair" reminds me of MorrisCarnovsky, Bogart's nemesis in "Dead Reckoning"…they have a verysimilar look, and their characters are also very much alike.

A previous reviewer knocked Rita Hayworth's performance as beinglifeless…Yes, it could be that it was Rita's lack of enthusiasm, butI wouldn't know her frame of mind, so I don't know if that comment isfair for people to make…to me, I took it as her choice for thecharacter…it made perfect sense for her to be dazed anddetached…think about all that her character has suffered in aloveless marriage, an unfulfilling job, the grief she feels for herfailed marriage, her husband's death, her own emotional death, thenwhat she is forced into doing in terms of the lies, deceit, andintrigue for the police. Add to that her confusion over her feelingsfor her brother-in-law and is it any wonder that the character's headwas swimming? I think Ms. Hayworth did a fine job with the role…andwas she ever gorgeous, too!!

"Affair In Trinidad" will never be accused of being a masterpiece, butit is absolutely worth viewing if you're in the mood for someenjoyable, Noirish entertainment.

6) I am flabbergasted by the low imdb average for this film! From the openingcredits onward I was riveted by this film. Like Steve Emery (Glenn Ford) Iwas fixated on finding out what happened to the late Mr. Emery. This filmhas intrigue, suspense, and no short amount of sultriness thanks to thegorgeous Rita Hayworth (Chris). Hayworth also performs two stunning dancenumbers. Mention should also be made of the terrific performances turned inby the actors who play the motley crew led by Max Fabian (AlexanderScourby). The only drawback to the movie is the absurdness of Fabian’s plot.He was helping the Nazis secure launching bases for possibly attacking U.S.cities. This is pure propaganda. The Nazis had no such plan. They couldn’teven take Paris. Perhaps this plot point was developed to scare Americansinto supporting the Allied campaign against the Nazis. Still Affair inTrinidad is a terrific suspense thriller, 9/10.

7) The re-teaming of "Gilda" stars Rita Hayworth and Glenn Ford in the1952 production "Affair In Trinidad" had Columbia Pictures executiveshaving high hopes of achieving something nearing the same success astheir enduring 1946 classic. But James Gunn and Oscar Saul's screenplayfailed to reach the mark and the picture turned out to be nothing morethan just another average Noir!

Nevertheless it did have some things going for it and not least asizzling performance from the beautiful Rita Hayworth as a nightclubentertainer. The stunning Hayworth just gnaws at the scenery throughoutand setting male hearts a racing with her inimitable renditions of acouple of songs which, in her hands, simply sparkle! Vincent Shermandoes a reasonable job in the director's chair and the glorious black &white cinematography by Joseph Walker is as sharp as a button. Theexcellent DVD transfer is particularly enriched with well definedimagery!

Glenn Ford is his usual laconic, sullen and truculent self as SteveEmery who arrives in Trinidad only to learn that his brother hascommitted suicide. Refusing to believe the suicide claim he sets out toprove otherwise. Determined to get to the bottom of what exactlyhappened to his sibling and with the help of his brother's widow(Hayworth) he exposes the truth resulting in an action filled finale.

The picture is well held together by a good supporting cast such asValerie Bettis (who also created Hayworth's couple of dance routines),Torin Thatcher as the police chief but especially Alexander Scourby asthe smooth and charming baddie with the colorful name of Max Fabian.His role looking every bit like a dry run for his smooth and charmingracketeer Mike Lagana in Glenn Ford's cop classic "The Big Heat" thefollowing year.

Not too bad a movie really and I can think of worse ways to spend 94minutes. But there are no extras – not even a trailer – which to put itmildly is nothing short of reprehensible!

To address some issues: there is a familiarity with 'Gilda' which isjust that and cannot possibly take anything away from what a triumphthis film actually is.

Firstly, I love how it is such a classic, straight-to-the-pointHayworth vehicle. Business: Harry Cohn had to 'give away' BornYesterday, which was intended for his number 1 star, to Judy Haliday;now she was "back!" just like the posters said; she had star power andwasn't given From Here To Eternity as her comeback simply because shehad too much box-office to be in an ensemble picture; and what betterway than to give fans a sure-fire treat – Hayworth and Glenn Ford inanother simmering film noir? Except, this is no 'Gilda' – this is'Affair In Trinidad'. Hayworth reinvents herself, her talent bristlingwith abandon in her opening number The Trinidad Lady. The swirlingintro to this film is over in seconds and there she is – still the starand definitely not off the pedestal. We can see the transformation iswhat films can get away with just that little bit more – when Hayworth'slides' to show off her amazing legs it's like a revelation, a forcethat cannot be held back. This is Rita dancing with her trademarkunearthly grace, yet now she has experience that she can convey likenever before.

This is certainly true with her acting too. She had always been able togive spirited performances that she isn't always – superficially atleast – given much credit for. But here she handles her scenes withgreat texture, assurance and (key to most starlets of the era'sguaranteed appeal) vulnerability. My favourite scene is when she is'stealing time' to peek through documents for the police – she gets arare kind of drama not normally given to her before. It's just eninteresting, daft moment that is perhaps just typical 1950's melodrama,but glamorous and crucial at the same time.

We also see the impressive actress Valerie Bettis, who is very much acharacter that was emerging in this period – a very vamp-like, sardoniclady with a smouldering alcohol-sustained sexuality, in the vein ofGloria Swanson, Bette Davis, etc. She eats the scenery, which is anacquired taste, but well worth it. The actress in question is ValerieBettis who it would appear was a successful TV actress in the samedecade. Her character Veronica Huebling certainly tried to use her sexappeal to entrap and exploit men, the way she believes Chris Emery(Hayworth) is able to, which possibly explains her heavy drinking.

Juanita Moore conveys a powerful presence also, managing someinteresting lines. Some of which are dated, or perhaps just twee, butto be enjoyed nonetheless.

When Hayworth famously tosses her hair again, we don't need to hear any'Gilda' comparisons. She had moved on, she had made straight-forwardvehicles all through her ascent to super-stardom and fans willdefinitely appreciate the familiar elements resonating their ownspecial glory, but shaken together as it is, we get something new thatis definitely worth investigation.

9) During the time that this 1952 film was being filmed, its star, RitaHayworth was thinking of terminating her contract with Columbia Pictures.Why didn’t she? It would’ve prevented her from making films like this.Thisfilm plays like an obvious attempt to repeat the big box office success of"Gilda", a 1946 Columbia Picture starring Hayworth as she is reteamed withher "Gilda" costar Glenn Ford. The farfetched plot has nightclub singerHayworth and her brother-in-law (Ford) joining forces to track down herhusband’s murderer. In the box office results, the film was adisappointmentand it eventually inspired longtime Columbia Pictures contract playersHayworth and Ford to pursue film careers as freelances.

10) Above average film starring Glenn Ford and Rita Hayworth once more.

In this one, Ford comes to Trinidad just in time to learn that hisbrother as supposedly committed suicide and meets Hayworth, the widow.

Hayworth is fascinating in the role and an absolute joy to watch. Shecan do some really heavy duty acting here and then break into awonderful song and dance routine. Both her singing and dancing are upto par here as well as a wonderful plot involving spies. Hayworth hasbeen asked by the government to infiltrate the ring and it appears thatshe is very much against her brother-in-law in an attempt to shield himfrom apparent danger.

Alexander Scourby is excellent in the villain role.

• Final film of Thurston Hall.

I would say it was their trade mark; for instance features with carsand phones…Such as Roy Rogers B westerns…

Back to AFFAIR IN RENO, we can see a normal guy – John Lund – whoarrives in the Biggest Little City in the world – Reno – with onehundred grands in his coat. A little bullion in bank notes given by awealthy man to a casino owner so that he marries his daughter…

And our hero discovers that he has a bodyguard, designed by the richguy to protect him against people with bad purposes, a bodyguard inpetticoat. Nothing less…

You can guess the following. I will tell no more about it.

A good time waster. And a RG Springsteen film is always worth foranyone who loves B movies.

This is the pre-Castro Cuba whose final days were so vividly summoned inTheGodfather, Part II: Fulgencio Batista’s venal, wide-open playground forwealthy Americans (the movie was filmed, by Laszlo Benedek, entirely onlocation).

At the airport, sugar-cane tycoon Raymond Burr, confined to a wheelchairandsporting a platinum buzz-cut, deplanes with his young wife (Sara Shane,who’s again called Lorna, as she was the year before in Three Bad Sisters;judging by her performance here, she probably couldn’t be counted on toremember yet another name). Instead of heading out to Burr’s baronialestate in the mountains, they dine at a Havana club where the high-strungjazz pianist (John Cassavettes) strikes Burr’s fancy and so gets invitedover to the table. He seems uneasy, as does Shane, which isunderstandable,since they’ve been carrying on a clandestine affair whenever she’s intown.Nonetheless, Cassavettes accepts Burr’s invitation to stay at the countryplace and play at his annual `fiesta.’ There the points of the trianglespend suffocating, white-knuckle evenings sipping demitasses while Burrplays his tapes of native music at ear-splitting volume.

With, for the bulk of the movie, only the three principal characters onscreen, Affair in Havana stays tense and claustrophobic. This works onlytoa point beyond which It needs, however, something more in the way ofincident and background.

Burr seems to hold his wife responsible for an accident that caused hisparalysis, but what happened is never revealed; He has also retained aprivate detective to take film of the illicit lovers, but we don’t knowwhatprovoked him to do so, or when he first learned of her infidelity (was hisasking Cassavettes to join them innocent or disingenuous?); And Burr’schauffeur/valet seems dog-loyal to Shane, smitten in fact, but we neverlearn why. So when the plot threads converge in the final few minutes,it’snot so much startling as abrupt. Most of the movie doesn’t prepare us forthe end, leading us to wonder, Did the production suddenly run short ofpesos?

2) Well-made but inconsequential triangle drama, with Raymond Burr playinga brooding, resentful industrialist who may or may not be a terminalcase — resentments are directed primarily at wife Sara Shane, who wasresponsible for crippling him in a boating accident. (To correctanother comment here, it is clearly a boating accident that crippledBurr, as revealed in a tense sequence on the water in which Burr nearlyrams the boat carrying him, John Cassavettes, and Shane into somerocks.)

Cassavettes, a jazz pianist scraping out a living at a local wateringhole, spends the bulk of the movie trying to untangle from Shane’s webof sexual come-ons and neediness, something his character hasdifficulty with. Burr makes a complex villain/protagonist, filling inhis angry cuckolded husband with numerous human qualities that earnaudience sympathy. Unlike the claims of an earlier comment, therelationship between Shane and the loyal Cuban servant Valdes is not amystery. Rather, unlike how current movies might handle such a plotdevice, the adultery of Shane is always implicit and not explicit. Asuggestive and violent scene on the ocean beach reveals theirrelationship within the boundaries of 1957 censorship — if this filmwere remade today, that scene would be excessively sexual and heavy.

The movie’s ending is not atypical of programmer features of the era,as Cassavettes nods, returns to his piano — as in "the show must goon" — and soldiers on, finally shed of both Shane and the tawdrinessthat surrounded their relationship. The rushed finale suggests, forhim, the best of all possible worlds.

• Cameo: [Carry Slee] Woman leaving the bus.

• Revealing mistakes: At the end of the msn conversation, there is an URL visible, showing it’s really a local web page instead of a real msn conversation.

The dancing is pretty sad for the most part- the plot is about a younghip hop dancer who aspires for greatness, only to meet a good lookingdancer with lots of Ecstasy. After that happens we get a lot ofstandard issue home drama scenes- the clueless concerned parents, therebellious addict teen, etc.. this is all cookie cutter suburbanviewpoint garbage- it is poorly acted, lacks any real detail or realismto the subject matter and all in all is a complete and utter waste oftime. Go see "Fucking Amal" instead.

2) This movie sucked so much! the plot is predictable unrealistic and sobad. the directing is one big cliché! Brainpower plays some kind ofgoodie2shoes. and the one liners of the actors are to be ashamed aboutlike the comment: nou dat wordt dus een 1 it's just to bad and its sostupid that the girl wakes up when she smells the food. And theburgling scene is stupid. how does he open the door? i just think itsto much problems to be just a bit realistic the movie does bad to thenovels although the novels are quite unrealistic to they do give somekind of inside to the possible troubles of a teenager. i think this isthe worst Dutch movie ever.

3) This is a film noir in my opinion. A drama about young people (16-18)and it reflects the problems they have these day's: either you belongto a certain group or you don't. In some groups you're cool if you goalong using drugs, in others you'll be banned. It's a story of childrenof said ages that fall in love but don't know how to cope with thatfeeling. It's a movie about ambitions and parents that don't listen towell to their adolescence. Parents that keep their children on a leachand be suspicious. Not an easy job anyway. You see the normal everydayproblems of families these days. Furthermore, good acting, hip-hopmusic by Brainpower, good camera works and editing. This is a Dutchfilm and a typical one too: meaning no nonsense, toilet scenes,frustrated mumblings and drugs. Reality detail: when using the internetto chat, you clearly see the popular MSN configurations. Spokenlanguage is Dutch, but on the DVD you can have subtitles in Dutch (forFlamish viewers), English and French. Spoken language to too harsh, noviolence, no sex, no death although the players do their best to getthere. Great film.

4) I saw this film for the first time in October 2006. The whole Dutchfilm business was talking about it: it was the first book of CarrySlee, a very popular Dutch writer who writes mostly for teenagers, ofwhich was been made a film. Shootingstar, the production company of"Afblijven!" had organized a big casting day in March 2006. This isbecause they wanted to look for new talent in our country and give achance to children who wanted to be in a movie and were not member of acasting agency. After three rounds, Sem Veeger, at that time 14 yearsold, was chosen to play Melissa, the girl which it is all about in thestory. Apart from a Youth Theathre Education, Sem had never doneanything with acting in a movie before, so it was kind of special thatthey picked her out of eight hundred other children. Sem has talent.She's got an enormous amount of power on screen, she really sort of"sucks you to her face": something in this girl makes you wanting tolook at her. She's also pretty and has a nice voice. But there wereparts she didn't do well, and it has been shown more than once thatthere are still a lot of things to learn for her. But she's got time ofcourse! I think they picked the right one. Sem is a nice, intelligentgirl who was ABLE to do this. She had fun on set and she grew more andmore sure about herself. Did you know that she broke her calf muscleand had to do a dancing scene? Brave girl . Matthijs van de SandeBakhuyzen is one of the most talented people in this film. He is theson of the director Willem van de Sande Bakhuyzen who died last year.Afterall, this film is very nice. I already saw it six times. Sem issome sort of an example to me, because she's my age and I also want tobe an actress. This film's got a lot of weird texts, that is not themost strong point of it. The acting is not always good, but the storyis really nice.

5) It's an excellent movie: the tension is clearly sensible and there iseven a moral: don't touch any drugs: it ruins your life. You know,these days many youth can be influenced by their friends to take drugsand sometimes it's hard to say no. That's why this film shows us, it'sthe best thing to do! It's not a movie like Eragon or something, soit's not a very spectacularly movie, but it certainly is a good movie!The only problem is, it's spoken in dutch. So people who can'tunderstand dutch won't understand it… Even most Belgians will havesome problems to understand it at the beginning, but in the middle ofthe movie they don't have those problems anymore… So just: it's amovie that has to be seen

• Due to quarrels whether this should be a social realistic film or a family film and the last of the two options won, a key scene had to be cut; it featured Torben’s lawyer, Jannik (played by Kim Sønderholm (Kim Sonderholm Andersen)) and Malene’s lawyer Lisbeth (played by Maj-Britt Mathiesen) in a struggle over their clients divorce. This scene was deemed inappropriate for a family film, therefore cut, but it will be among the bonus material on the DVD when released in the fall of 2005.

While he is trying to prove himself as a father he does everything thathe should not do. BUT, a miracle happens and he becomes the director ofhis son’s teenage football team, Hvidore.

—– Spoiler—— He works hard and changed his life to DO somethingin life and get back his son. It works he get his son back and starts arelationship with one of his son’s friend’s mom. Everything goes reallywell and they got the cup. —– Spoiler——

FINAL COMMENTS: This movie gives you what it offers at the beginning. Anice 80 minutes that does not heard you much. But my problem was to seea part about "divorced family" AGAIN! Else than this, it might have aquite small but efficient market in Europe and rest of the world. Afterall it uses a very common language, football.

3 over 6 star…

2):
Dr. Malhotra believes he is simply a protective parent while his daughter Ria believes he’s simply possessive. All is well till Aryan walks into their life. Aryan is the epitome of all the values that Ria’s father abhors – wild, unpredictable, overpowering and obsessive. But he has all the qualities that Ria had always wished her life partner should have, an intriguing, magnetic and sensitive personality. Aryan has only one mission in life – being in love with Ria. Nothing else matters. Soon begins a war of ideologies, desires and wits. How far can Dr. Malhotra go to convince his only child that she’s headed towards disaster?

3):
After the tragic accidental death of his son, Rohit, Dr. Ranveer Malhotra has been very close and protective toward his only child – a daughter named Ria. His feelings of protectiveness towards her is almost to the point of being possessive. Ria resents this, but hopes that this will end soon. Ria meets Aryan in college, and both get attracted to each other. She introduces Aryan to her parents. Her mom, Sheetal, is impressed and approves of Aryan, but her dad does not approve of him at all, and will do anything in his power to prevent Ria from marrying Aryan.

• Amitabh Bachchan only committed to this project due to his personal association with the movie’s former producer ‘Sujit Kumar’, who approached him for the role.
• Originally Zayed Khan was approached to play the obsessive boyfriend’s role, but because of his commitment to another movie he declined.
• At the launch of the movie Vikram Bhatt claimed he had written the story of the movie himself and was inspired by his relationship with his daughter whom he had separated because of his divorce.
• The movie was shelved whilst in production, due to its producer Sujit Kumar falling in financial difficulties. However it was reviewed once Cutting Edge Entertainment got involved with the project.
• In a scene in the mountains you can see the registration letter C-GEJC on a small yellow float plane. This aircraft (Cessna A185F) is registered to Whistler Air, a Canadian company. This suggests that the mountain scenes were shot in British Columbia, which would explain the west coast architecture of the holiday house.
• The song “Tum agar bas”, is inspired by the Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali khan’s Qawaali “Tum agar younhi nazrein”.

Aetbaar is told primarily from the point of view of Ria Malhotra(Bipasha Basu). She’s a college student "waiting for the right guy tocome along". She says she’ll know him when she meets him. She meets him(although she doesn’t think so at the time) when he, Aryan Trivedi(John Abraham), almost runs his motorcycle into her. They run into eachother again later, at a disco. Aryan keeps coming on strong, and Riafalls for him. Little does she know at the time that Aryan has anextremely obsessive, violent side and basically runs his own gang. Wesee the violent side early on when Aryan heads out to a whorehouse fora little extracurricular activity, and his idea of a good time isassaulting his host instead of making love to her. Ironically, Ria’sfather, Ranveer (Amitabh Bachchan), is a well-respected surgeon whoends up treating Aryan’s victim. Ranveer suspects that something is offwith Aryan as soon as he meets him, and his pleas, then demands, thatRia cease seeing him begin to grow stronger. Eventually, he uncoverssome "dirty secrets" about him. Meanwhile, Aryan’s behavior beginsgrowing more threatening. Anyone who has seen a number of thrillerswill probably be able to predict a lot of the plot from this point, andof course, anyone who has seen either Fear or Cape Fear will be able topredict it in a fair amount of detail.

But insofar as Vikram Bhatt focuses on creating a suspenseful thriller,Aetbaar usually works. Of course Abraham is no De Niro, but he’spsychotic enough in his own way. Some of the later scenes, especiallythose in the climax, can suffer slightly from pushing the envelopetowards ridiculousness–for example, at one point, characters do theclassic U.S. action film move of outrunning a fireball, but on theother hand, the less bombastic violent material works extremely well.

The sets and locations in the film are attractive and suit the materialwell. The Malhotras’ getaway home was particularly effective and thelandscape was impressive cinematographically. Of course, the same sortof bucolic but atmospheric setting was used in Cape Fear, but thatmakes it no less successful here.

Problems arise on two fronts. The more serious flaw is that Bhattdirects his cast to horrendously overact. The melodrama couldn’t bethicker. There are a few attempts at comic relief, but those are justas painful. Bachchan, in particular, makes you want to cringe when helays on the syrup, and his English "hip youth" spiel towards thebeginning of the film is not only cheesy, but for some reason he’salmost shouting with a bizarre, affected phrasing. That’s a very minormoment, but such groan-worthy tangents are littered throughout thefilm. I wish Bollywood directors would more often stress underplaying arole. With that type of acting instead, Aetbaar could have nearly beena gem.

The other flaw arrives with Bhatt bowing to various Bollywoodconventions. Ria has to fall for Aryan for the film to work, but toconform to the standard Bollywood ebb and flow, Bhatt has Aryanstrangling Ria one moment, and the next moment they’ll be singing atravelogue romance song to each other–you’d half expect them to getmarried in the next scene while Johnny Lever shows up to tell a fewjokes. The build up from Aryan as love interest to Aryan as dangerouspsycho needs to be gradual, and once he does something like strangleRia, she needs to approach him with a bit more skepticism, even if shestill gullibly loves him and has a bit of provisional trust in him.

There are also some very odd production design elements. For somereason, Ranveer has a piano on his patio, uncovered. Pianos aren’tweatherproof normally. Maybe in the film, this one is supposed to be,but it’s weird enough that it distracted me. Or, Aryan is supposed tobe an artist. He’s done some portraits of Ria. The first one he showsher is actually quite scary looking–she seems to be melting, as if itwere an "acid portrait"; nevertheless, she’s impressed, as if it were anormal painting. Again, these are minor points, but there are many ofthem over the course of the film, and in the general context, they arekinks in the flow of the thriller.

There are also a few dangling threads; these should have been betterdeveloped. For example, Ranveer never does find out who beat up theprostitute, even though there’s a great chase scene where he comes veryclose. It’s just dropped after that. But that’s also a backhandedcompliment. It should have been better developed because the idea wasvery good. Bhatt, who also wrote the story, had no shortage of goodideas in his details, and he can create a lot of suspense when he wantsto, even if the basics were cribbed from other films.

Aetbaar is nowhere near a perfect thriller, or a perfect Bollywoodfilm. But it is well worth a look, and if you’re more sympathetic tothe typical Bollywood melodrama mode and other clichés, you just mightlove it.

2) This movie does keep you watching. Unlike the typical bollywood movie,the story moves along rapidly in this one. So even though you canpredict exactly what’s coming next, while the traditional Hindi movietakes its sweet old time in getting there, this one gets right to thepoint.

The story was quite unrealistic. I don’t mean the premise, as that infact was a pretty good one. However, the way the story unfolded wasquite far-fetched and worthy of a cheap horror novel. Amitabh Bachchangave a strong performance as always but the rest of the cast can’t actat all. Moreover, the characters of Ria and her mother wereunintelligent to an extreme. Especially the mother… I know theywanted to established that Amitabh as the father was the head of thehousehold, but having the mother’s character be this useless is well,quite useless.

The only positive thing I can say about this movie was the looming darkfeel it had to it. I haven’t seen this in a Hindi movie since Aks andSangharsh. This gloomy, evil, dark, helpless, "feel something in yourstomach" shade is rarely seen in bollywood, and perhaps writers anddirectors need to explore it a little more. It works wonders inHollywood, so why not bring it home? They bring everything else homedon’t they?

Perhaps I’m being too critical. Perhaps the movie was only meant to beas good as it ended up being. All in all, not worth it. 4.5/10

3) This movie had me on the edge of my seat from beginning to end. Notonly did the sinister part hold my attention but also the lovingdevotion which the father had for his daughter. This movie is a mustsee! This film knocks down the familiar stereotypes which some may haveof Indian parents, because we see love and devotion all the way. Also,the actors in this movie did a wonderful job. It’s clear that this filmwas geared towards the father as the main focus, showing how he takescharge and protects his family when the need arises. After watchingthis movie I couldn’t help but run into my father’s arms to simply say,"thanks for everything!" Please give this incredible movie a try!

4) This was John's Abrahams film, he plays a negative role and plays itreally well, i remember watching this movie a couple of years back andi was really impressed with John's acting, he was only a couple offilms old and was a model before he went into acting, my god he wasgood in this film, and i have loved John ever since.

Hmm Bipasha , her performance was okay but she could have done better,i swear she bores me every time i see her on screen i just watch tochange the channel, she does not show any emotion at all, Big B, wellhe was excellent then again he gives a 100% performance in all of thefilms that he does, the music was really good as well and i loved thesoundtrack, this is a must see film and if you have not seen it go andcheck it out.

5) Regardless of the fact that this film may have borrowed or takeninspiration from a Hollywood counterpart, it is a Bollywood cinemaachievement in suspense and superb acting! Amitabh Bachchan and JohnAbraham face off in this stunning thriller that involves a father(Bachchan) who has to save his daughter (played by Bipasha Basu) fromthe clutches of a wicked distraction (Abraham) with a dark past. Ifthis film does not leave you at the edge of your seat as it climaxes,they you need to have yourself checked to see if your heart rate isnormal like the rest of us. The three main protagonists are all stellarin their parts, especially John Abraham who will scare your knickersoff in this psycho role he plays here. Bipasha is also excellent as anaive college student who defies her parents all in the name of love.It took me a while to like John Abraham again after seeing him in this,he was just too scary for comfort! Oh! and the songs are great too,especially the title number.

6) With a tag line like "Love can kill", I expected some thrills out of thismovie which had some talented names attached to it. Sadly what I got was adamp squib. This particular director has a habit of borrowing heavily fromenglish films for most of his movies. In this case the Marky mark movie"Fear", a tale of a obsessed lover. The three principal characters areamitabh bachan, bipasha basu and John abraham. Amitabh is shown as a overprotective father to bipasha who’s studying at a local college. One rainyday bipasha encounters a group of bikers, John is one of them. He thenfollows her to a disco and then to her college and somehow manages to getadate with her. John has got all the bad habits one can think of, he hangsaround with his hooligan friends stealing, drinking, going to brothels andbeating up whores etc etc. Amitabh has planned something different for theweekend and takes the daughter away for a song routine at a sceniclocation.When Bips does not turn up he goes all wild and decides to show up at Bipshouse. Where as expected the lovers are caught by the Dad. Amitabh asksBipsto call him for tea, where Amitabh realises he has seen John somewhere,butcan,t remember. The rest of the story is about how Amitabh finds out whoJohn is and decides to save the daughter from his clutches. The story isnothing home to ride about and has been seen in a earlier movie of thesamedirector "Inteha". Technically movie is slick. Music very functional.Amitabh is the only saving grace. Bips is badly miscast as the innocentlass. The talent shown by John in "jism" and "saaya" is missing mainly dueto bad characterisation.

After watching the movie, some of the things which gave me heartburnare:

On their first date when Bips does not show up, John ends up at placewhereBips is, and they are suppose to be on holiday. How in the world did heknowwhere they were.

Later when he meets Bips he almost chokes her to death for not beingthere.Hello!! what does the director wants the viewer to think.

He beats up the hooker like a savage beast. No complaint, No policereport.Nothing

I dont have any thing against getting inspiration from hollywood movies,butone should get inspired not completely make a mess out of it. The directorhas done it in the past with movies like "Ghulam" and "Raaz" which wereinspired but were well made in their own rights with some excellentperformances by Aamir khan and Bipasha basu respectively.

This one is strictly for Amitabh fans only.

7) This was a slick thriller. Amitabh, of course, gave another performanceworthy of applause. Bipasha perfectly suited and portrayed her role of arebellious daughter. John was a convincing psycho. The trap scene andtheclimax were excellently shot and were edge-of-the-seat. Amitabh andJohn’sconfrontation scenes were well shot. Songs were really nice. The moviewasslightly reminiscent of the recent flick, Inteha. The only thing thatdidn’tmake sense was why Bipasha was falling head-over-heels for John when he’sobviously abusive towards her.

i really enjoyed this movie i don’t know how many times i’ve watched itbut it’s truly something for Vikram Bhatt fans Amitabh Bhachan’s actingis great Robin Bhatt’s screenplay is cheesy but i’ve seen that in hisother movies and i appreciate him his abilities as a scriptwriteroverall this movie can teach you about your relationships with yourfather or your parents it has some similarities with Inteha but it’sdefinitely a different story and when you watch it you’ll enjoy it iknow i did 4/5 is the rating of this movie i give it really rockedsongs were really great Udit Narayan’s voice is beautiful along withothers highly enjoyable movie

9) Aetbaar Bipasha was one of the obvious reasons why I took this movie.Besides, I remarked to my dad that Amitabh is a lucky chap and therewill be something in his movies. If I enjoyed watching Aks, I woulddefinitely enjoy any stupid AB movie which has Bips starring in it! Butfrankly, this movie gave me much more.

What’s new: Not much except one or two situations and twists. I amgonna refrain specifying these as they could be potential spoilers.This is one movie where the feelings are brought out very naturallyfrom a young passionate lover’s perspective.

Noticeable: Bipasha’s acting is among the best in the industry when itcomes to thrillers. The fact that she’s so sexy just makes it better.She has given a very mature performance. So, has John Abraham. I ambeginning to like this chap, he suits the stylish villain role betterthan most in Bollywood. The chemistry between the lead pair isterrific. I do not so much appreciate the loud sound of Amitabh’ssaliva between sentences. He’s better reduce the volume of such soundeffects! Verdict: OK movie although its not a Must watch!.Suspense/Climax is not up to the usual Vikram Bhatt standards, but nota bad movie.

10) Movies are influenced not copied and in this case well influenced anddirected. John Abaraham debuted in Jism and it is amazing how far he hascome in span of few movies. In Jism he was wooden, here he has great depthand range almost matching the Veteran Bachchan. Hindi movies have beendominated by actors like SRK,Salman Khan who have neither the looks nor thedepth to portray the diversity required for an Actor.Last decade the IndianCinema has been cheated,orphaned and greatly deprived of this diversity-inthe younger set where as we always had feast from the Older Actors likeBachchan, Patekar, Om Puri, Amrish Puri-just to name a few. Actors like JohnAbraham are filling this gap and Actors like him have heightened interest inthe otherwise dormant Hindi Cinema. The movie showcases incredible duellingbetween Abraham (Aryan) Bachchan (Doctor Trivedi) and his daughter (BipasaBasu). Bachchan is indisputable Icon who has a commanding presence in anyscene in any angle-a born Actor like Pacino-where as Bipasha most of thetime looks like she is hiding a secret (seductively I may add), but she doesemote well when called for,unlike Actors in her class Ash Rai; who looksgood but the woman cannot act period-which can be a handicap for a Directorthe Caliber of Vikram Bhat. I think this movie along withAramaan,Bagbhan,Raaz,Shakti,Jism,Satta,Hero,Gadar,Tezeb,Dhoop are the lightat the end of a dark tunnel for the Hindi Cinema and it is time to rejoiceinstead of criticising.

• First shown on 26 April 2005 in Wellington (NZ) at the Camperdown theater to the Weta Workshop team while they were working on Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005).

The DVD is set up so you can watch just the songs, with no breaksbetween them, or so you can watch the whole movie, with documentarybridge segments leading into each live performance. CHOOSE THE SECONDOPTION! (It is the first option on the menu.)

I made the mistake of choosing to watch just the songs first. I hadnever seen Aerosmith perform, and had not heard their music in years,so it all seemed to be a jumbled frenetic blur.

But I felt that I must have missed something, and I did have the DVDfor the weekend… so the next night I watched the whole movie, as itwas meant to be viewed.

Suddenly it all made sense. Each song worked on its own, like picturesin a frame instead of a busy collage, and the pace was perfect. I beganto understand what this band is about, and why it has endured for threedecades. I liked the movie so much that I watched the whole thingagain.

I still cannot grasp exactly how three guitar players and one drummercan build up and sustain such a rich and complex wall of sound behindSteven Tyler's stupendous vocals (and 20,000 screaming fans) –although seeing them rehearse and record in the the studio — workingup the various parts, then pulling them together — did help me beginto understand. Other bands need to add keyboards and a horn section, ora fiddle section, plus a few extra percussionists and backup singers,to achieve that sort of high intensity.

* A curious footnote. On the "Willie Nelson & Friends…" concert DVD,noteworthy for its many badly mixed and evidently unrehearsedperformances, the very best thing on it, inserted at the end to leavethe viewer with a good last impression, is a pair of improbable butbrilliant duets sung by Willie Nelson and Steven Tyler, the first inWillie's style, the second in Aerosmith's. Shows what great vocalistsboth men are (in case you didn't already know).

2) Aerosmith: You Gotta Move (2004)

**** (out of 4)

From their early records like Toys in the Attic and Rocks all the wayup to P.U.M.P the boys knew how to deliver a high energy concert fullof sexual innuendo plus a crowd full of beautiful women who certainlydidn't mind showing off their sexuality. In 2004 the boys went back totheir roots and released Honkin' on Bobo, which was a bluesalbum—done Aerosmith style of course.

Aerosmith: You Gotta Move originally aired on A&E but this DVD releasefeatures more interviews, more loud music all in a glorious 5.1package. In interviews Aerosmith said they wanted their first live DVDto be something memorable and this certainly is.

The features works perfectly as a documentary, which mixes in theconcert cuts perfectly.

If you ever wanted to know what goes on back stage before the concertthen this film gives you a wonderful look. Everything from thepre-concert rituals to even arguments over what songs to include on theset list is here for fans to see. The most interesting stuff is thetalk about the making of the blues album and how it almost didn't getreleased because they didn't know if they could make it strong enough.Also mixed in is some scenes with the boys meeting fans plus the likesof other rock stars who are just as star struck as the actual fanspaying for the tickets.

I've seen Aerosmith nine times since that show in 1997 butunfortunately didn't catch this last one. I had high hopes this DVDwould capture the spirit of an Aerosmith show and for the most part itsucceeds. The show starts off with the always welcomed Toys in theAttic, which they can't do any wrong with. The version is played justthe same as previous tours but it's a good way to get the crowd going.The raunchy Love in an Elevator follows and if you've ever seen theseguys live, you just know this is a song to bring the roof down. Up nextare Road Runner and Baby, Please Don't Go, which are from the latestalbum. I first came familiar with the band with their Get A Grip album,which of course featured Cryin'.

Out of the nine shows I've been to this one has been played at each andI can't wait to hear it for a tenth time. The harmonica solo towardsthe end of the song is worth the $100 price tag for tickets.

Up next we get The Other Side from P.U.M.P. followed by classics likeBack in the Saddle, Draw the Line and Dream On, which are allincredible songs for the show. The guitar solo by Joe Perry during Drawthe Line shows why he's one of the best in the business and can anyonetop Tyler's vocal performance from Dream On? Another highlight ofseeing the boys in concert is hearing Perry take the microphone and doa blues number, Stop Messin' Around. The encore then kicks in withrecent crowd favorites like Jaded and I Don't Want to Miss a Thing,which, depending on the show, can sound great or bad. As silly and assappy as I find IDWTMAT, I can't help but fall for it each time I hearit. It's probably due to the vocals by Tyler but the concert versionalso has a nice piano solo, which sets the song up nicely. Finally theboys hit the climax with a rocking variety of classics and recentsongs. Sweet Emotion kicks things off followed by the new Never Loved aGirl, which fits in perfectly. The greatest hard rock song, Walk ThisWay follows with Train Kept A Rollin' closing the show out.

As with The Making of P.U.M.P, this feature here will be a huge delightto fans as well as though who haven't experienced an Aerosmith concertbefore. The band perfectly blends the sexuality of rock with the bluesand performs one of the best live shows out there. Plus, it never hurtswhen a band has played together for such a long time.

2) This is definitely primarily a documentary. There really isn’t more than afew songs clips on here. Basically, the deal is this: Aerosmith hasappearedon Columbia and Geffen records; Geffen put out "Things that go pump in thenight" a better video not to be confused with this one. This wasColumbia’sattempt to compete in the video market during a big album for Aerosmith.Also, because Columbia doesn’t own the rights to the songs on Pump, allthesong clips are studio-out takes or production stuff because of a loopholewhere performed material doesn’t really violate copyrights on competinglabels. Anywho, this should basically be reserved to die-hard Aerosmithfanslike myself. There is interesting conversation, but not too muchhappening.No offense to Aerosmith, but don’t get this one until you own most of theother Aerosmith videos. Definitely better Aerosmith videos out there: BigOnes you can look at is the best, then something like Video Scrapbook,Texxas Jam ‘78 (good set list), then Things that Go pump in the night,thenMaking of Pump, then Permanent Vacation 3×5. That’s my ranking for theAerosmith videos, anyway. Of course, I love them all, but I’m just lookingat for potential fans who naturally want to start with the best videos.Rockon!

3) Well worth your time, you see the dynamics of America's answer to TheRolling Stones. Watching Joe Perry cut the solo for 'What It Takes'behind the soundboard is priceless, has are the interviews with bandmembers about each other and the long lasting effects they've had ONeach other… Listening to Joey Kramer talk about the tick he has is abit hard to handle, especially when he reveals that Steven is thereason behind it. And the fact that the band has survived the decadeafter Steven and Joe earned the "Toxic Twins" nickname is discussed,but not throughly enough. The band proves through out this DVD thatthese guys are in it for the long haul and that they have a sense ofhumor over their many issues through the years. Good Stuff but notgreat…