2) Kathy is an outcast at an elite New England boarding school whom lands in a coma resulting from accidentally being hit by a car during a cruel practical joke against her by several car loads of her tormentors. A little later, Eva, a new arrival to the school, takes over Kathy’s old room and begins socializing with some of the girls responsible for Kathy’s condition. It turns out that Eva is a pawn under the control of the comatose Kathy from her hospital bed in seeing revenge against those whom did her wrong, while Kathy’s physician, meets and begins dating Eva whom also targets his latest girlfriend.

At St. Mary’s College, a boarding school for girls located just outside Boston, Massachusetts, a lonely, gaunt, unattractive student, named Kathy (Mijlijana Zirojevic), becomes the butt of a cruel practical joke perpetrated by a gang of students and the hunky, but sadistic gym teacher, Fred Vernon (Riccardo Acerbi). Kathy is tricked into going on a date with Mr. Vernon, but when she overeagerly makes her move onto him in his parked car in the woods, the students appear in their cars to taunt her. Running away from several carloads of her tormentors, Kathy runs onto a busy street where she immediately gets hit by an oncoming car and is admitted to the local hospital in a coma. Kathy’s strange mother, Mary, continues to gloom around the school in her capacity as a cleaner.

Some time later, a new girl named Eva Gordon (Laura Naszinski), arrives at the school where she is shown around by the stern headmistress Miss Jones, and given Kathy’s old room. Eva becomes acquainted with several of the perpetrators of the stunt. It is soon revealed (to the viewers only) that Eva is Kathy. Eva has somehow been processed by the spirit of the comatose Kathy whom begins using supernatural powers of telekinesis and magic to exact revenge against all those involved in the prank that put her in a coma. The first victim is Mr. Vernon, whom asks Eva on a date. That night while waiting for Eva to show up at the gym for their secret rendezvous, the narcissist Mr. Vernon is attacked and strangled by his own reflection when it jumps out of a mirror. The following morning, the police detective on the scene (director Lucio Fulci) concludes that Mr. Vernon died of a heart attack.

The following night, Virginia Williams (Kathi Wise), one of the students involved in the prank against Kathy, is attacked in her bed and suffocated to death by an onslaught of snails that appear and then dissappear. Again the police do not have any explination for the mysterious death.

Meanwhile, the neurologist in charge of Kathy’s case, Dr. Robert Anderson (Jared Martin), notices that Kathy’s vital signs increase in step with each of the mysterious deaths at the school. But he cannot make a connection to it. The next morning, Dr. Anderson is called to the school to examine Eva when she has a violent breathing fit during a class. During that same time, Kathy’s respirator temporally breaks down which leads to Eva’s respiratic attack, but nobody makes any connection to it. Afterwards, the strange Eva comes on strong to Dr. Anderson, leading him to ask her on a date where afterwards she seduces him.

During a field trip to a local art gallery, Grace, another one of Kathy’s tormenters, returns to the gallery when it closes to search for a valuable piece of jewelry that she left behind on the day visit. A marble statue comes to life and falls down on her, crushing her to death.

Dr. Anderson starts to become more apprehensive about the intense Eva. One evening, he suffers a horrible nightmare where she kills him after sex. He’s relieved when Eva’s mother arrives at the school to take her home for some rest. Eva begins to write obsessive love notes to him, but he brushes them off. Soon, Anderson becomes involved with another girl, named Jenny Clark (Ulli Reinthaler), the only student who shows any remorse for the prank gone wrong against Kathy.

Eva runs away from home and returns to the school after dark. Eva sets her eyes on Kim (Sophie D’Aulan), one of Kathy’s cruelest tormenters. As Kim is preparing to meet her boyfriend Tim for a date, Eva makes Kim see horrific visions of Tim being decapitated at every turn. Kim suffers an anxiety attack and in attempting to flee from the gory visions, plummets out of a third floor window to her death. Tim arrives seconds later, looks out an open window, and sees Kim lying dead on the pavement below. Tim is decapitated for real when Eva commands the window blind to fall down on his neck. Eva quietly leaves the building, while Kathy’s mother, Mary, watches from a distance.

At the hospital, Jenny arrives for a late-night date with Dr. Anderson, when she gets lost in the gloomily lit building, thanks to Eva using Kathy’s magic skills of mind bending. Jenny ends up in the morgue where she encounters Eva. The possessed girl, grabs a scalpel and threatens to kill Jenny for taking away her man, but Anderson arrives in time to intercept the slash of the scalpel, but gets badly slashed on his forearm. As Eva rises the scalpel to stab them both, she suddenly freezes, gasps for a few seconds, and falls to the floor dead. Upstairs in Kathy’s hospital room, her mother has pulled out all her intravenous drips, removed the respirator and turned off the life support systems. Appalled at the supernatural malice of her venganced-crazed daughter, Mary has somehow figured out of Kathy’s connection to Eva and has decided to put her daughter to rest. Kathy’s soul rises out of her body as a bright blue light, and disappears into the night sky.

2) I’ve seen several movies made by Fulci. And this one is the least terrifyingand scary among the others I’ve watched. For me it was much more easier towatch "Aenigma" then, for example, "Black Cat" or "House by the Cemetery"(which are, of course, the must seen ones). Nevertheless it has everythinga good horror movie should have. I really like it, especially the ending,which shows brilliant work of camera and music together. This movie is anexample of Lucio Fulci remarkable capability generated from his very ownvision of reality to create the unique mood and atmosphere.

3) Judging by the amount of other user-comments and their content aroundhere, this "Aenigma" (love the alternate spelling!) is a lesser knownand thoroughly hated Lucio Fulci film. Well sure, it’s not a patch onhis earlier work but still it remains a remotely enjoyable bloodbathwith some inventive killings (the snails!!) and an appealing cast ofyoung & sexy schoolgirls. The story, although highly unoriginal, iseasy to follow, unpretentious and fast-paced. Black sheep of Catholicgirl’s dorm Kathy is involved in a near-fatal car accident after aprank with the school’s gym teacher. Shortly after, a new and extrovertgirl makes her entry in the dorm but her mind seems controlled by thecomatose Kathy. Through Eva Gordon, Kathy and her spiritual mother seea chance for revenge, starting with the death of the insufferable machogym teacher. Fulci keeps the gore under control this time and focusesmore on the brooding atmosphere. "Aenigma" features some beautifulcamera-work, although admittedly, the same camera angles are oftenre-used several times. The girls’ acting is extremely hammy and it’s agood thing they all all look so cute, otherwise it would have been alot more difficult to struggle yourself through the movie. Nothingspectacular or special, but it certainly isn’t terrible, neither.

4) Aenigma appears to be Lucio Fulci's attempt at 'Suspiria', as theplotting, atmosphere, locations and characters are all similar, andwhile this isn't essentially a 'bad' film, it certainly has nothing onDario Argento's masterpiece. The influence from American cinema seemsto have affected the great Italian maestro Lucio Fulci on this film, ashe uses cheesy eighties songs a lot, and the way the plot plays outfeels a lot like an American slasher, with the focus being kept on thekill scenes and bedtime activities of most of the school girls. Thefilm forsakes logic at almost every turn, and much of the plot isn'texplained and doesn't make a lot of sense. The central theme of ayoung, injured, girl possessing several members of her school andtaking revenge on those that wronged her springs to mind immediately,as this isn't explained at all and that makes it hard to buy into thefilm. The way that Fulci handles this plot isn't very good either, aswe are never made to care for her plight and therefore the fact thatthe plot doesn't make sense is made all the more irritating.

Fulci does well with the atmosphere in the film, and the cinematographyis rather nice also. As you would expect from a director who made hisname with a whole load of blood and guts, there is no shortage of deathscenes in this film. These scenes range from featuring severed limbs togratuitous stabbings, but strangely enough; these scenes feel rushedand Fulci doesn't deliver a great deal of gore, which is probably themain reason why this film doesn't often get a very good write-up. LucioFulci has a bigger filmography than you would think, and many of hislesser known films – such as The Devil's Honey and Don't Torture aDuckling turn out to be his best. This film, however, is one of thedirector's more average efforts on the whole. I don't think Fulcireally cared too much about the supernatural angle of the story, and sothe film has ended up being disjointed and illogical. The acting anddialogue does nothing to alter this fact, as both are poor even for anItalian horror film. To be honest, I don't rate Aenigma as a completedead loss; although it should be noted that I'm more tolerant ofFulci's films than most.

5) In coma in the local hospital, Kathy is dying. Her spirit, seekingvengeance, reacts and takes possession of the body of a beautiful youngstudent, Eva, new at the college. Then, begins a bloody crusade of revengeon all students that have made fun of her in the past. With the (in)famousSnail attack, that reminds a lot of "the beyond". I’d give this one 6 outof10.

6) …ehr, nevermind, I guess I’m a sick puppy. And it seems that I liketormenting myself too, ’cause last night a strange urge encouraged meto re-watch AENIGMA. I first saw it 6 years ago, or so, and thought itwas rather bad. And now, 6 years later, guess what? It’s still bad.From the moment the opening credits come on you know it can’t be good:very bad 80’s pop music and a girl that’s putting make-up which makesher look even more ugly. Anyway, the story isn’t exactly original: Uglygirl gets to be the victim of a prank by fellow-students and ends up ina coma. But her soul roams free, occasionally possessing the new girlin school and killing all the ones involved in the accident.

Welcome to the 80’s world of college-cuties: smoking in dorm-rooms withSylvester Stallone & Tom Cruise-posters on the wall. The acting’sreally bad all the time and the sound editing’s rather sloppy too. Butthe directing isn’t really too bad. There are a few nice camera-movesand two fine top-shots of the school and the hospital (which do looklike miniatures, by the way, but still nice). Are there any morereasons to watch this flick? Well, ehr… maybe: thedeath-by-snails-scene (kinda gross), the museum-sequence, adecapitation, and… a bizarre sex-scene in a dream with ourleading-girl biting chunks out of the love-doctor.

But there isn’t much gore actually, considering Lucio Fulci made this.The movie itself never gets really boring due to the deaths andfrequently intercut freaky shots of the creepy girl in a coma, but theending seemed like they just (literally) pulled the plug on this movie.It really hurts me a lot to flunk a Fulci-movie, ’cause I’m a fan ofsome of his movies. Can’t bring myself to give AENIGMA less than 4stars though, because it still feels like a Fulci-movie. If you’re onlyan average horror-fan, you should avoid this movie ’cause this is forFulci-fans only.

7) I love bad movies and foreign films and I can find redeeming qualitiesin nearly ANY movie… I'm always critical of people who proclaim thata film is 'the worst movie ever made,' but this one is almost deservingof being on a 'worst movies' list. The camera-work and acting rescuesit from that fate… just barely. Admittedly, on a scene-by-scenebasis, there were a few effective moments — but it feels like thescript was written in a single afternoon. Style without substance.

In a very CARRIE-like opening sequence, Kathy (Dragan Bjelogrlic) istransformed from ugly duckling to… 1930s prostitute. She's soonhumiliated by her peers and winds up in an accident that results in herbecoming a permanent vegetable. She then leaves her body and possessesEva (Lara Naszinsky), a new student with daddy issues who helps (?) getrevenge on the people who scorned Kathy.

Though Fulci has his patented visual flair, the film screams turkey andseems rife for a MST3K treatment. I'm not usually one to mock thescreen, but I couldn't help myself with this movie. The biggest problemis that the story and dialogue (or at least the English dubbing) arelaughably absurd, yet the actors are playing it straight. It reminds meof an Ed Wood film that's completely oblivious to its own badness. Mycondolences to the cast, who made the best of what they were given. Thefilm is set in the USA (posters of Tom Cruise, Sly Stallone, Yoda andSnoopy adorn dorm walls), but little care was put into researchingAmerican dorm life, and absolutely no care was put into researchingmedical facilities and jargon. The effects are terrible almost acrossthe board. The three exceptions are a creepy mirror scene, an eroticsex scene that takes a nasty turn and a death-by-snail sequence that'suncomfortably well played (though still ridiculous). Unfortunately, alater scene with a menacing snake wasn't as effective — we cut fromsilly reaction shots to inserts of a snake slithering across the floor.Ooga-booga. Then this scene goes from dopey to unintentionallyhilarious. To top it all off, it's unclear WHY Kathy possesses Eva. Evadoesn't actually kill anyone (unless she did during one of the numeroustimes when my mind started wandering) and Kathy never actively takesover her body. I could've choked down a specter-like out of bodyexperience, but the possession seems completely pointless.

There are only three instances when I'd recommend this film. First, ifyou're gonna have a big party and are looking for a film to mock whileyou and your friends get hammered. Second, if you're looking for atextbook example of how NOT to write a story. And third, if you're adie-hard Fulci fan. If you're looking for a scary movie or under anyother circumstances, beware. Get one of Fulci's earlier horror moviesinstead.

If you didn't like that film, then you won't/don't like his other work.(Or maybe you will)I'm a reasonably big fan of his work, although Istill need to see plenty more of his films. What you have to understandis that the stuff he did doesn't really have a big budget behind it,and in a way I think it's better, because the death scenes look muchmore real (which is strange, you'd think with the amount of money thatthey have these days backing horror films, that the effects would bemuch more realistic, but I find that they're not)If your a fan ofcheesy horror, that at the same time has gore galore plus plenty more(heh, nice word play)then Lucio Fulci's stuff is definitely worthchecking out. If you're not, then you can always go back to the endlessagony that is the "I know what you did last summer" films….

9) The late Lucio Fulci, director of numerous Italian gore classics,obviously deemed gastropods so terrifying that he gave them starringroles as slimy killers in Ænigma, a 1987 clunker that clumsily blendedelements of Carrie and Patrick to tell the tale of a comatose girl outto seek revenge on those responsible for her condition.

In the snails' unforgettably daft scene, a girl awakens to find herselfsmothered by the slow-moving molluscs, who ultimately suffocate thepoor lass, covering her from head to foot in slime. It's just one badmoment out of many bad moments in a very bad film.

Ænigma opens with a young woman named Kathy (Milijana Zirojevic)excitedly preparing for a date (with the help of her friends) byselecting a nasty red dress and plastering on her make-up like a clown.Once ready for her night of romance (gold eyelids—check!; redcheeks—check!; hideous hairstyle—check!), the girl rushes to the doorto meet her lucky beau.

Later that night, the couple park in a remote spot for a bit ofcanoodling. Kathy soon gets into the mood, and begins to moan loudlyand writhe in pleasure, much to the delight of the small crowd ofonlookers hiding in the bushes. Yes, Kathy is the subject of a meanschool prank: the guy she is getting all gooey over doesn't really gofor the minging clown look; he's only with the poor lass in order tohumiliate her in front of his pals.

Realising the truth, Kathy runs away in tears, only to be hit by a car,ultimately ending up in intensive care.

Meanwhile, at the exclusive boarding school where Kathy lived with hermother, new student Eva Gordon (Lara Naszinsky) is getting used to hernew environment. However, fitting in with the other girls might notprove to be easy, since Eva is being telepathically controlled byKathy, who is looking to even the score with her bullies…

I get the distinct feeling that, with this particular film, Fulci wasattempting a more stylish approach than usual:Ænigma is ratherrestrained in the gore department, and the boarding school setting andgeneral ambiance is very reminiscent of the work of giallo genius DarioArgento. Unfortunately, Fulci is not quite in the same league asArgento when it comes to creating stunning visuals and a dreamlikeatmosphere, and the result is a rather bland and unmemorable effortthat leaves one longing for some yucky eyeball trauma or a bit of messybrain scrunching to spice things up.

The story, a weak mix of elements stolen from several much betterfilms, doesn't make much sense (no explanation is given for how Kathycan conjure up snails and, in one equally silly scene, animate a marblestatue), and the majority of the cast is pretty lousy. The onlyrecognisable name in the film (recognisable to fans of low-budgettrash, I mean) is B-movie star Jared Martin who is totally wasted inhis role as a neurologist (although he does get to roll around nakedwith a lightly-oiled Naszinsky, which would be a fair enough reason fortaking the gig!).

Ænigma is one for Fulci fans who, like me, have seen all of his betterknown films already and are now just ticking off the other titles fromhis filmography for the sake of completion.

10) Bizarre, corny, but reasonable entertaining Fulci rip on "Carrie" takesthe premise one step further. The unfortunate victim of a college prankgone terribly wrong when those who humiliated her caused poorKathy(Mijlijana Zirojevic)to walk out in front of a moving car, shelies brain-dead in Intensive care on life-support. But, even in theseterrible conditions, the need for revenge drives Kathy's vengefulspirit to possess the host of nervous-breakdown beauty, Eva Gordon(thesimply gorgeous Lara Naszinsky who I wished would never leave thescreen she's so easy on the eyes)into eliminating those who caused herharm. When each murder is about to be set-up and executed, Kathyexperiences violent emotion which bewilders Dr. Robert Anderson(JaredMartin, who many might remember from the short-lived, but great, "Warof the Worlds" series)whose in charge of her care. Kathy should not beexperiencing anything in her worsening state, so when she, all of asudden, shows signs of aggression after such states of silence itdoesn't make sense in a clinical way. Meanwhile, we come to understandthat the methods used against each victim stems from their own dreams,with unusual results. The gym instructor's own reflection attacks(he'squite an egomaniac for whom Kathy adored and the major culprit in thedirty prank that went awry)him, one student is attacked by snails(!),one girl is attacked by a Greek statue(!), another girl can not escapea room where the vision of her boyfriend beheaded remains on thebed(she falls to her doom in a state of panic from the dormroomwindow), and Dr. Anderson himself experiences a grisly dream where hisnew lover, student Eva, chews chunks of flesh from his torso and mouth.

When Eva is sent away after too many violent temper tantrums andrebellious-type behavior(said to perhaps effect the other femalestudents, in a negative was, that attend the St. Mary's Bostoncollege), her lover Anderson starts a relationship with Jenny(UlliReinthaler). The doc sure loves the student body..yuk, yuk. So we seethe wrath of Eva/Kathy, who escapes from her asylum home, as sheconfronts Jenny attempting to find Anderson's office. Will Jenny escapewhere others failed? While I'll be the first to admit that this flickmakes little sense whatsoever, it sure has the same visual energy Fulcihad a talent for expressing even with the hokiest of story-lines. Thebizarre nature of the crimes against the victims is enough(..althoughmost aren't that gory)to warrant at least one viewing. Good electronicscore. Hilarious dated foot-note..you'll notice lots of postersfeaturing popular heroes and movies at that time(Tom Cruise/Top Gunposter, Sly Stallone/Rocky III poster, etc)in the 80's, I'm guessingFulci added to give his Italian flick a more "American feel."

Kathy's mother, the maid of St. Mary's, seems to have a red glow in hereyes and she plays a heavy role in either stopping the carnage orletting it continue. Either way, she understands that her beloveddaughter is on the rampage.

2):
Bolshevik propaganda : the comparison between 1921’s Russia, and a capitalistic planet Mars. Engineer Los is building a spaceship to reach Mars. He is in love with Aelita, the regent, who he met in his dreams. In real life, his wife Natacha takes care of refugees. [Actually, Aelita is the figurehead queen, and not the regent (Tuskub), who holds the real power. Los's wife should be spelled "Natasha." -- Added notes by Prof S P Hill.]

• This movie became such a hit in the Soviet Union that many new parents named their little girls “Aelita”.
• This was director Yakov Protazanov’s first film after returning to the Soviet Union from his exile in Paris.

With Aelita back then young Russian cinema tried to rival foreignEuropean and American productions, a competition that resulted in thebig spectacle, which Aelita is with its big production values butobviously propagandistic story, fit in what is basically a Sci-fi filmattempting to proliferate communist ideas. In a way it also markedbeginning of dominating influence of Communist state with its idealsover the art, in this case cinema, which continued nearly till the endof Soviet Union in 1991.

Aelita's story is based on a Sci-fi novel by Alexei Tolstoy, who laterbecame one of the most important Soviet writers though mostly renownednot for Sci-fi stories, but for his historical novels.

It's about a young scientist Los, who is living with his wife Natashaand is already for several years is working on a project of a spaceshipcapable of going to Mars, while on a background of Russian Civil Waroccurs with all its destruction, hunger and, of cause, accentuated bythe communist propaganda class struggle, which is shown in a characterof Ehrlich who represents an old kind of persona with its obsoletebourgeoisie values of already dead Tsarist Russia, showed opposed to a'new man' of adhered to communist ideals soldier of the Red ArmyGussev.

While all this happens on Earth, we are introduced to the distant worldof planet Mars with its monarchic regime, somewhat reminiscent ofEgyptian pharaohs or Roman Emperor's rule, where the working class,represented by the slaves, suffers under tyrannical regime of theruling class. The world, which evidently represents the kind of a worldagainst which Bolsheviks where fighting against. It's from there thatMartian princess Aelita observes the life of other characters in Russiaand develops a sort of attraction to them and their way of life.

The film culminates when finally Los' project is brought to life andexpedition is sent to Mars, causing there upon arrival a slave uprisingand revolution, which results in no more nor less than in peaking ofcommunist propaganda element in the story in a form of establishing ofthe Soviet Socialist Republics of Mars!

Overall, all the propaganda elements put aside, Aelita is one of themost original classics of not only the Russian, but of the world silentcinema. 8/10

2) Certainly one of the more interesting and unique silent movies that you willsee, "Aelita" is well worth watching despite its flaws. It’s nomasterpiece, but it offers an intriguing and often creative mix of sciencefiction, melodrama, and history. It also has an interesting story thatholds your attention and moves at a pretty good pace.

Don’t be automatically put off from seeing this film by the fact thateveryone mentions the dose of silly Soviet propaganda that comes with therest of it. It’s definitely there, but the political elements are notterribly obtrusive or heavy-handed, although there are a couple of timeswhen they are unintentionally humorous. There are many other themes thatare just as prominent, or more so – such as relationships and jealousy,fantasy and reality, real-life concerns versus idealisticprojects.

The dual settings of Moscow and Mars are used rather well, setting off thedifferences and similarities between the two societies and relating them tothe concerns of the characters. There is a nice contrast between thesettings and props in Moscow, which are drab but effective, stressing thepressing concern of everyday matters, and the weird, distinctive Martiansets and costumes. The latter are creative and interesting to look at, andif they are sometimes a bit over-the-top, they are no more so than mostcinematic conceptions of other planets. The film’s historical setting isalso quite interesting in itself. It is set a few years before the movie’srelease, at a time when Russia was just emerging from the chaos ofrevolution and civil war. The atmosphere of rebuilding and uncertaintyforms an important part of both the plot and the themes of the movie, and italso provides a historical look at an often forgotten era. Most of the castand characters (at least the ones in Moscow) are believable enough that youwant to find out what happens to them amidst all this.

You can certainly find plenty of better silent movies or better sci-fimovies than this, but you would find many more that are far worse, and notnearly so distinctive. For the price of putting up with a handful ofpolitical blurbs, you get to see an interesting story with some substanceand plenty of unusual and creative details.

3) _Aelita: Queen of Mars_ is a visually-interesting satura ("mish-mosh,""stew"), bringing together soap opera, political drama, romantic comedy,crime-drama + farce, science fantasy, and, finally dream-vision.

The sequences set on Earth tell some rather, well, mundane stories ofjealousy and political corruption, interesting for being set in Moscowduring the hungry years around 1924 and having the villain a minor Sovietofficial.

(Caution, though: the villain’s name is spelled "Erlich" in the titles onthe Kino re-issue of the film. If that is a correct rendering, that’s theYiddish word for "righteous" and a Jewish name, so Comrade Erlich may beoddly Jewish–if aristocratic _and_ Bolshevik–and the film engaging in someold-fashioned Russian antisemitism [where confused categories aren'tsurprising]. If the name is "Ehrlich," Comrade Minor Official may be ofGerman descent and the film more newfangled in trashing insufficientlyRussified German-Soviets [who are also aristocrats andBosheviks].)

The scenes on Mars are much more interesting, visually.

As David A. Cook states in his _History of Narrative Film_ (a standardfilm-course text), the Martian sets are "designed completely in theConstructivist style." They follow the principles of Vsevelod Meyerhold intrying to create "a machine for acting": which works here in producing afuturistic vision that was to go on to the FLASH GORDON series and othervisually classic works of High Modernism.

There’s also imagery of a Mechanized Underworld and Mechanical Hive: ideasthat don’t go back beyond H. G. Wells’s _Time Machine_ (1895) and _First Menin the Moon_ (1901) and E.M. Forster’s "The Machine Stops" (1909)–andvisual and thematic possibilities that were going to go on to works fromFritz Lang’s _Metropolis_ (1926) to George Lucas’s _THX-1138_ (1971) andbeyond. And there’s a revolution on Mars, which is something neither Langnor Lucas could/would pull off.

Ideologically, _Aelita_ is about as sophisticated as _Birth of a Nation_ or_Metropolis_ or _Gone with the Wind_, and less offensive (even to a viewernamed "Erlich"). It should be seen for the same reason as we see _Wizard ofOz_ and _Dune_: to see the visuals. Just Fast-Forward through the dumbparts, in all of them.

4) A remarkable film from 1924, of immense historical interest. See theturbulence of Russia as it was just a few years after the 1917revolution and the subsequent war 1918-21 against the foreign-backedWhite Army. But see it all in the context of a most amazing futuristfilm, at least the equal of the other two equivalent futurist greatsfrom Germany and Britain – Metropolis (1927) and High Treason (1928),respectively. Arguably it is the best of the three, with avant gardesets and costumes that could have come straight out of the Bauhaus'choreography workshop. The version shown on Australian TV had apresumably later added music score that was just so perfect andintegrated to the film's plot and visuals that it could not possiblyhave been better had it been original. It had a mesmerising robotic,minimalist, mechanical and repetitive character that was simply madefor a futurist and surreal film like this. The cyrillic characters ofthe silent narration only add (for us Westerners, at least) to themystery and surreality of the whole story, and one can only feel sorryfor those who, after all this tour-de-force, feel shortchanged from anunfulfilled need for a more banal storyline. Or aggrieved by theperception of the film as mere propaganda. There's always reruns ofRambo and The Green Berets for you, fellers! It's a pity mostcinephiles are oblivious to the existence of this film, as wideravailability and screening would ensure its fame as one of the greatestsilent, futurist and early modern films.

5) You couldn't wish more out of a Soviet movie from the twenties. It'sgot a pretty great deal of propaganda, not so obtrusive as you mightimagine in spite of the hammer/sickle that appears somewhere towardsthe end. This movie is no Potemkin, and this should be noted at thestart; and it's no Metropolis though it shares some common featureswith the latter, especially the costume design. The screenplay is basedon a novel by a Russian novelist Alexei Tolstoi, called Aelita thatappeared a year before the release of the movie. I haven't read thatbook but I can hardly think that it was as incoherent as the movie.From what I read on Wikipedia concerning the book it seems to revolvearound a trip to Mars made by a Russian scientist who "exports" theSoviet Revolution, a prevalent theme of Bolshevism. The movie focuseson a more melodramatic angle, with the scientist playing the role ofthe cuckolded husband who gets sick and tired of his wife's'philandering and decides to kill her. He does so, but it eventuallyturns out that that was a dream (it is not clear when the dream begins)and the whole sequence with the Martian Soviet Republic is included inthe dream.

If I were to analyze the movie rigorously, it seems quite obvious thatit has some major goofs that not only affect it as a movie but as apropaganda vehicle as well, given that the sequence with the revolutionis a dream, and as it turns out, a very bad dream because at the endthe scientist is reunited with his wife whom he didn't kill. Major flawfor plot and propaganda reasons as well. But, as other reviewers alsopointed out it is not the plot that makes the movie worth seeing butthe Constructivist design that may have not inspired Metropolis butit's still worth noticing for its own sake. The society on Mars isorganized as a capitalist one, in the style of Lang's movie, with theworkers inhabiting the underground. I don't know of any earlier Russiansci-fi, so this is as good as it gets. Highly recommended formovie-buffs interested in sci-fi and/or Soviet movie making.

6) Bizarre Russian sci-fi, socialist silent about a scientist who builds arocketship, flies to Mars, and leads the Martian proletariat in a communistrevolution. Or at least that’s what I’ve always heard that that was whatAelita was about. In reality, this part of the plot only takes up aboutfifteen minutes of this 111 minute film. Most of it takes place on Earth,where a scientist, Los, suffers the infidelities and hedonism of his wife.He watches her with scorn as their philandering neighbor feeds her pieces ofchocolate. This movie may hold the record for having the most unnecessarysubplots. There’s a man who is training to be a spy/privatedetective/undercover policeman (the professions seem kind of mixed up) andthen there’s a soldier who has had much experience `winning over’neighboring lands to the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, on Mars, curious QueenAelita is wasting the planet’s energy supply by using a newly inventedtelescope to watch Earthlings. She falls in love with the scientist. Themovie is mainly valuable for the early science fiction settings. Thefilmmakers do a very good job with the art design on Mars. Of courseeverything looks very silly and impractical, but it’s always amusing. Someof the sets and costumes are more imaginative than anything in Metropolis.Of course, Prozanov isn’t anywhere near the talent Lang was, and most of thetime the images are haphazardly composed. The Earth sequences, which take upthe vast majority of the film, are not too bad, to tell you the truth. Infact, the story is pretty good. It certainly needed to be cleaned up a lot,especially so we might understand why the side characters exist in the firstplace (it makes more sense when they get to Mars, ¾ of the way through thepicture). The acting is quite excellent. I thought the Martians wereparticularly well cast. I was actually quite enjoying Aelita: Queen of Mars,but the cop-out ending is rather bothersome. It’s worth seeing, but it mightbe helpful to know beforehand that it’s going to fall apart completely bythe end. 7/10.

7) Martian society mirrorsthe one that the Bolshevik revolution was supposed toreplace. Aelita is the nominal Queen of Mars, but it isreally ruled by a council of elders, who enslave the Martianworkers underground (as in Metropolis). A Russian engineer builds a spacecraft, flies to Mars and inspires a revolutionwith the help of a Soviet soldier.

Interesting and famous as early science fiction. The Martian Sets andCostumes are in the best Russian Constructivist style of thetime.

That’s it: the story of some Soviet people going to Mars and inspiring theconstitution of the first socialist republic of mars. Sometimes ludicrousbut in fact one of the most imaginative sci-fi movies of the silent era.Just look at the cubist dress of the Martians! If you liked "Metropolis"youcan’t miss this one.

9) Although it gets billed as a front for Soviet propaganda, this filmseems to be outstanding in relationship to the time it was

made and its phenomenal use of set design and production

values. As just a piece of visual decoration it stands as a far

advanced futuristic film in comparison to that red hot-pants

junker METROPOLIS — which owes a deeper, (or at least equal)

debt to Russian constructivist design then to its German

Expressionist roots. AELITA is one of the most seductive and

rich films in silent cinema –if you can get past the deadend

storyline and plot development–which should never interrupt

WATCHING a film.

10) Although it gets billed as a front for Soviet propaganda, this filmseems to be outstanding in relationship to the time it was made and itsphenomenal use of set design and production values. As just a piece ofvisual decoration it stands as a far advanced

futuristic film in comparison to that hot-pants junker

METROPOLIS — which owes a deeper, (or at least equal) debt to

Russian constructivist design then to its German Expressionist

roots. AELITA is one of the most seductive and rich films in silent

cinema –if you can get past the storyline and plot development–

which should never interrupt WATCHING a film.

Telling a story of two strangers who meet by chance in an elevator, TheIntimate follows their journey through the day and night (which doesn'tseem to end by the way), as they discover about each other, and aboutthemselves in the process. Kinda like Before Sunrise in its treatment,the lovers, nameless except known as Boy (Jo Dong-Hyuk) and Girl (SungHyun- Ah), play the usual courtship mind games, playing coy, beingaggressive, taking turns to bust each others chops as they fall intoeach other's arms.

Sounds like your typical romance movie, no? At certain points the usualelements are there, like plot devices romanticizing a bench and handdrawn pictures, and the mushy things lovers whisper to the ears ofanother. Clichéd highlights include one needing to leave the countrythe next day, and the other being engaged to someone else, and now bothof them, by Fate, are presented a chance to do something totallydifferent. But in this story, it managed to take aged old questions ofdoubt, and weave a compelling movie around them.

The basic question will be what is love. Is it supposed to be longdrawn and lasting a lifetime, or is the feeling actually made up ofshort passionate bursts? And after being with someone for so long, isit a question of being afraid to leave the comfort zone of familiarity,or does it boil down truly to faithfulness? The nagging fear of beingabout to marry someone, and then you meet your soulmate – what do youdo? Blame the person for turning up in your life too late? And it issomehow true that the longer you know someone, the more faults that youwill find, and the question is, will you be able to live with thosefaults, or do you prefer to live in that constant crest of emotionalhighs and bailing out when the slightest inclination of such faultsstart to rear its head?

It helps that both leads are eye-candy, as they offer you a chance toanswer some of those questions yourself if you were to put yourselvesin their shoes and be offered the same set of temptations – here's whatyou currently have, and here's what someone else can offer. What wouldyou do? If there is a gripe, it'll be the one-dimensional fiancé thatsomehow has to be demonized in order to make the other option all themore appealing.

It's a relatively engaging movie, though watching the out takes whilethe end credits rolled made you appreciate the movie's direction alittle more. While those scenes which were left out may be seen as moreinteresting, somehow I felt it would have disrupted the pace anddragged events rather than having it all compacted into a screenduration of 24 hours. It would have been a totally different look andfeel altogether, but probably not for the better.

• Carnivorous plant named Adela was not a prop, but real plant (though not, of course, carnivorous). A specialist from a local university was required to take care about the plant during the filming.

2) Nick Carter goes to Prague to help the police with a missing personscase and promptly runs afoul of an evil botanist with a man eatingplant.

I remember thirty years ago when this movie came out in the US seeingreviews on the local TV station that made me want to see this film. Thelimited release it got prevented me from doing so, as did the completedisappearance from TV and video. Still the idea of that hungry planthad haunted me for three decades while many other "must see" moviescame and went. Thanks to stupid luck I stumbled upon a copy of the filmand I have to say that I was not disappointed.

This is a jokey send up of the pulp thrillers from the turn of thetwentieth century. It takes one of its greatest heroes, Nick Carter andplays with everything that makes the pulps so much fun. Here Carter iscalled into action and using a variety of wild inventions he takes on avillain that is very much of the "boo hiss" Snidley Whiplash, mustachetwirling variety. Its just a fun movie done in the style of storiesthat haven't been in vogue in a century. No big belly laughs but lotsof chuckles and plenty of smiles.

If you want to see a good little film, thats probably all but forgottennow, you'll need to search it out. Its not going to be the be all andend all but its a neat little gem to add to you list of film treasures.

• Ana Bustorff’s part was originally intended for Leonor Silveira who had to turn it down because of college.

The film starts strong with an amusing stop motion animation sequenceand then… nothing. A lot of nothing for about an hour. Very littledialogue. No discernible plot. Just two actors with bad hair having badsex with random strangers.

There are some fantastic shots and the costuming is very unique, butthe film is pointlessly arty. The director even includes one of thosehorrible poetic sequences that angst ridden film students are so fondof.

Just when I was ready to leave the theatre, things picked up. The Evecharacter does something unexpected and the subsequent change of localepropels the movie forward. Suddenly the film started to make sense andthings actually start to happen. If only the entire film was as good asthe last 30 minutes I might feel comfortable recommending it.

2) This was probably THE most boring movie i have ever seen. It startedoff really funny, but there was not much to come after that. Artisticas it might be -or tries to be, there was just zero story. Half theaudience left. I really think the idea is awesome and you could do alot with an interesting topic like this, but the director in my opiniontried too hard to be different and shocking and arty to be takenseriously. If you want great artistic images- take pictures with asimple camera, don’t make a film and bore the audience. My personaladvice for everyone without the nerves to be waiting 90 minutes for astoryline : Do not waste your time on it!

The film is a dramatic documentation of the 1896 attempted colonizationofEthiopia by Italy. Ethiopia like many African countries contains a richhistory and culture ignored by the west. And more so ignored by Americanmentality. The battle of Adwa and story of Emperor Manalik and EmpressTaitu are legendary and should be a part of the human history. Insteadwelearn about Christopher Columbus and such annihilating greats. At thetimeof Adwa and the many years to follow Manalik and Taitu were viewed aschampions to much of the world. They had accomplished what would beconsidered impossible by defeating the Italians, their story spread asfaras the Americas. This is a great showing of the battle of Adwa what leadtoit and what preceded it. The film also previews its (in the making)sequel,a documentary to show 40 years latter. Another great feat one that mostother nations could boast of, Haile Salassie holding off the ItalianFascists.

The film is a must see. So little is shown about this defeat of Europeanarrogance. The film is not about military victory, but a victory ofmorals.Just in the poetics that this film speaks it is sure to connect toanyoneopen to it.

The film is based on Alan Dershowitz’s novel, a defense attorney,himself. We are presented with a situation of how a lawyer’s badjudgment clouds his vision and gets a client absolved of a crime thatseems, in retrospect, too obvious to even get involved in. Abe Ringel(Ken Olin) is retained by jock star Joe Campbell (Holt McCallany) whena young woman accuses him of raping her. In fact, Ringel and his teamof investigators seem to have doubts about this client from the start.

Joe Campbell figures he is above the law and can do whatever he thinkshe can get away with, even after a tragedy occurs, for which he is noteven blamed. It’s not until he decides to concentrate on Emma, Ringel’sdaughter, when everything comes to a head.

The film is interesting to watch because it’s not the typical Movie ofthe Week type. The acting is good and the cast gives an excellentaccount under the direction of Mr. Bleckner.

"The Advocate’s Devil" will not disappoint because the quick pace andcredible story.

2) "Thirty Something" star Ken Olin has certainly had a fascinating careersince the series ended. He has become a very successful producer, forone thing. Acting wise, for as nice a guy as he played on the series,he has often been cast as a wife killer. In this movie, based on anovel by Alan Dershowitz, he’s an attorney with a run of losses whotakes what looks to be a slam-dunk case, defending a basketball staraccused of rape. Along the way, it begins to look like the case isn’tthe winner he anticipated as inconsistencies in his client’s storybegin to emerge.

As his investigator girlfriend, beautiful Mariska Hargitay gives a warmand honest performance. I first saw Mariska’s work when she was a kidon "Falcon Crest" and my opinion of her has never changed. She was adelight then, and she has evolved into a wonderful actress while stillmaintaining a charismatic presence. Holt McCallany, as the defendant,gives nothing away in an enigmatic performance and will keep youguessing.

This is a film that will definitely hold your interest. Only a lawyercould come up with a plot like this, however. I found it just a littletoo clever.

3) XX There Are Spoilers XX Disturbing crime/court drama based on a novelby famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz who also wrote the screenplayabout rape deception and finally murder.

Known as "The White Knight" San Francisco Condors basketball star JoeCampball, Hoit McCallany, has it all: talent looks charm and money aswell as thousands of star struck young women who would give their rightarm to spend an evening with him. One of those lucky ladies JenniferDawling, Jessica Tuck, gets that wish and after having a quite anddelightful dinner with Joe goes up to his hotel room to spend the nightwith him.

The next morning Joe is accused by Jennifer of raping and abusing herand is later indited by a grand jury to stand trial. Joe gettingdefense attorney Abe Ringel, Ken Olin, to defend him tells Abe thatJennifer is trying to get money out of him by dragging his name throughthe mud and that he's willing to take the stand to tell the truth whichis that he's innocent of all the charges that she made against him.

On he stand Joe comes across so truthful and straightforward about theevents that happened that evening with Jeniffer that Abe reviles hername, a possible rape victim, in public at a news conference the nextday.The trial of Joe Campball is a forgone conclusion with him beingfound innocent,a verdict announced by a pretty and admiring young womanwho's the jury forewoman, and admittedly set free. Everyone in thecourtroom, with the exception of Jennifer and her lawyer, feels thatjustice was done but the person who you would think, next to Joe, wouldhave felt most happy about the verdict didn't.

Abe knew that he unleashed a psycho on society who raped before heraped Jennifer and will more then likely rape again, which he did, andone of his intended victims being his, Abe's, pretty young 17 year-olddaughter Emma, Gina Philips.

During the trial Abe found out that Joe is an expert computer hackerand likes to hack into court and police websites checking young ladieswho claimed to have been sexually abused and then having their casesthrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Jennifer Dawling was oneof those young women.

Joe had found out that these women would not be believed in a court oflaw, if they chose to press charges against him, because they werealready proved to be lairs before so why would not a jury feel thatthere lying now. Which was exactly what the jury in the case that thestate, through Jennifer Dawling, brought against him felt.

Free to do what he wants Joe ends up killing another young women LisaLister, Anne Farquhar,who he picked up and took at a local SanFrancisco hotel-room. Abe seeing this in the TV news, no one in thenews or police knows who killed Lisa at the time,and realizes that thisis Joe's Modus Operandi. The act that Joe's basketball team, the SanFrancisco Condors, were playing in SF at the time makes him a primesuspect in the murder.

Feeling terribly guilty for letting Joe loose on an unsuspecting publicAbe tries to get him re-arrested by the police with what he knows abouthim. Still technically being Joe's lawyer Abe feels that he can'tbetray his client even though his client betrayed him.

Joe in a mad effort to get even with Abe charms his young daughterEmma, who's totally Ga-Ga about him, and takes her to a hotel room todo to her what he did to Jennifer and Lisa and ,as far as we know,dozens of other young ladies before them. With Abe and the police beinghelpless to stop him.

The movie " Advacate's Devil" is both shocking and engrossing at thesame time and will leave it's audience jolted at whats happening on thescreen. Both Ken Olin and Holt McCallany are in top form as the lawyerand criminal with McCallany stealing the movie as a chilling DoctorJekyll and Mister Hyde type of person and McCallany pulls this offwithout the use of any makeup at all.

4) A very clever legal drama, shown on television but one i would definitelyhave paid money to see. A Defence lawyer gets more involved in a case thanhe would like due to his client threatening his daughter.

Excellent performances by all the cast, who i must admit I’ve never seeninanything else, or atleast i don’t think i have. they may have been insomething but not impacted on me.

Hire it or catch it on TV, you won’t be disappointed.

5) A very good , solid, direct for T.V. movie. I had the fortune to watchit on "Cinemax" and I really enjoyed it.

The movie deals with the hard situation that popular lawyer Abe Ringleis going through after losing several cases in a row and not being ableto recover from that situation. Things change when basketball superstarJoe Campbell is accused of rape with violence. Campbell decides to hireRingel as his lawyer. Ringel and his super hot assistant, and otherteam member figure out and win the case although they know that Mr.Campbell is in fact a disturbed person that gets excited afterinsulting and raping women. Ringel discovers that Campbell murdered anex-hooker and threatens him about demanding him. This is where themovie gets interesting on the legal field because it shows topics likethe lawyer’s professional privacy about his clients, rape, testimonies,murder, etc.

Things get bad when Campbell decides to take revenge on Ringel byseducing Ringel’s sweet but hot daughter Emma. Campbell manages to gether on a hotel room and tries to rape her after telling horrible thingsabout her dead mother.

This movie is very interesting even if you are not familiar with laws.It moves in fast pace and manages to keep you entertained. Watch thismovie and you won’t regret it because it’s a solid drama with likablecharacters, great acting, and most of all, it’s entertaining and verybelievable.

6) As a big SVU fan, I checked this one out for Mariska Hargitaypre-Olivia Benson! As a TV movie thriller, it was quite good fun,although the director's habit of putting the camera at an angle all thetime was VERY annoying! The plot is pretty much standard TV movie fare,defence lawyer Ken Olin gets a high profile client off, only to realisehe was guilty. Cue the dramas.

For Mariska fans, she has a fair bit of screen time, and isn't JUST theGirlfriend. She's an investigator, although we don't get to see enoughof her investigating sadly. The young girl playing Olin's daughter is abit of a Natalie Portman lookalike, and is annoyingly perky at times.

Good Sunday afternoon viewing on the Hallmark channel!

7) This turned out to be a very good movie. The story is intriguing, and Iwonder if it must have been based on reality, somewhat. The onlyproblem is there was the big film- "The Devil's Advocate" with KeanuReeves and Al Pacino- (totally different plot though) so it may confusethe viewer, thinking these are similar films, and thus, not tuning in.

That aside, Ken Olin is excellent in this film, as the defense attorneywho must defend basketball star, Joe Campbell (portrayed by HoltMcCallany). I have seen McCallany in one or two smaller films, and hewas excellent in this. The case which Olin prepares so well, and winsturns out to be a possible mistake. What if the defendant really didrape these girls? What kind of person is he? What is he capable of?.

Mariska Hargitay is also good as Olin's assistant. There is a smallrole for Deanna Milligan ("Intensity" 1997) and Gina Philips is Olin'sdaughter, who becomes involved with Joe Campbell (McCallany). While theending wasn't overly suspenseful, this film addresses the many flaws inour legal system, and psychological issues which cannot be assessed bythe courts.

Saw advocate’s Devil on cable in bits and pieces. due to commercialinterruption when I usually change the station. but with VHS videosprices generally so low these days, tried in vain to find it forpurchase, thus far.

mayhap I will record it when next I find it playing.

my rating is that it appears to be engrossing, well-written (yes, thisis THE one from the Dershowitz novel) and well-played. Ken Olin playsthe defense attorney. (he starred in 30-something). and therefore wasimmediately recognizable to me (for the other reviewer’s comment)..allaround, a seemingly worthwhile courtroom and beyond drama.

9) I liked this movie, I usually hate legal drama crap but this one wasprettygood. Sadly, in real life pro athletes get off for stuff like this all thetime no matter how many times they are accused, and their fans will alwaysbe on their side. The guy in this movie was a complete sociopath, it wasreally scary! I recommend this movie to anyone who likes legal films, andalso to any Lifetime movie buff. The only problems I had with the movie:1)The movie never tells what happened with that girl who got killed 2) Whydid the daughter just forgive this woman for having an affair with herfather, and why would she suggest they move in together? I mean come on nodecent person would suggest a couple move in together!

Other then that the movie is really good! Please watchit!

10) Well…I originally wanted to watch this little telefilm; to see someother stuff Hargitay had done. I must say it was werid seeing her withlonghair. The whole plot of the story ran like your typical ‘lifetime’ movie.You know the channel where; "The men are accused, and the women areabused."

Just like all other lifetime movies, this one was predictable. As soonasthe Lawyer’s daughter left for college I swear I knew exactly what wasgoingto happen. I understand that someone would like to make unique camerashotsto enhance their piece. But trust me using dutch angles was not a way togo. It just seemed to make the film worse, and I wondered when they’dstopit.

Besides all of that they never really explained the ‘note’ that thebasketball player found in Rendi’s computer. I find it hard that the girlwould dismiss it all that easily. In regards to that it wasn’t veryrealistic.

A look behind the scenes at the wheeling and dealing that goes on in Washington to get things done. The dying President (Franchot Tone) nominates a controversial candidate (Henry Fonda as Robert A. Leffingwell) for Secretary of State. The film, based on real events, follows the public and private dealings as the Senate holds confirmation hearings on the nomination. Blackmail, smear tactics, political trade-offs and more highlight this movie. Senate majority leader Robert Munson of Michigan (Walter Pidgeon) tries to steer Leffingwell toward confirmation, with his initial roadblock being Senate Pro Tem Seabright "Seab" Cooley-SC (Charles Laughton), a minority party member. But Munson bypasses overly-ambitious Wyoming senator Fred Van Ackerman (George Grizzard) to put Utah’s Brigham "Brig" Anderson (Don Murray) in charge of the committee vetting of Leffingwell. Cooley drags out an old comrade from the nominee’s college days (Herbert Gelman, played by Burgess Meredith) in an attempt to scuttle the appointment. Meanwhile, Van Ackerman sics a team of blackmailers on the bisexual Anderson in an attempt to ensure the nomination, even though Anderson, Munson, and the president know Leffingwell has provided perjured testimony about his past. Anderson travels to New York and assaults his old army lover outside a gay bar, returning to the Capitol to slit his own throat in his Senate office. Chastened by Anderson’s suicide, Munson and Cooley agree to disagree in a "nice" way, and the full Senate vote on Leffingwell’s nomination ends on a 47-47 tie since Munson has shamed Van Ackerman into walking out of the chamber before his name is called. Just as the voting ends, the Vice-president Harley Hudson (Lew Ayres), the Senate’s presiding officer, is informed that the excitement of the radio broadcast of the close roll-call vote has resulted in the President’s death. Knowing that Leffingwell has given false testimony under oath, Hudson refuses to honor his mentor’s dying wish, stating that as president-apparent, he’ll nominate his own choice for Secretary of State.

• Charles Laughton’s final film.
• Average Shot Length (ASL) = 18 seconds
• The film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Allen Drury, who was a congressional correspondent for The New York Times during the 1950s, while he was writing the book. Nearly every character is based on a real person (Lafe Smith is based on John F. Kennedy; Orrin Knox is based on Robert A. Taft, Fred Van Ackerman is based on Joseph McCarthy and the president is modeled on Franklin Delano Roosevelt). Even the blackmailing pf Brig Anderson, and how it’s resolved, is based on a real incident. And the Leffingwell nomination is based on the House Un-American Activities Committee investigation of Alger Hiss.
• Although the character of The President (played by Franchot Tone carries no role name, at one point in the script Munson (played by Walter Pidgeon) calls him “Russ”.
• Director Otto Preminger offered the role of a Southern senator to Martin Luther King Jr., believing that the casting could have a positive impact (despite the fact that there were no black senators at the time). King declined after serious consideration, as he felt playing the role could cause hostility and hurt the civil rights movement.
• The man who is seen turning down a drink from a passing waiter is then-U.S. Senator and future Democratic presidential candidate Henry Jackson, (aka “Scoop” Jackson), who appears uncredited. At a special private preview of the film for members of Congress, the sight of Jackson refusing a drink drew gales of laughter from his colleagues.
• Burgess Meredith, as Herbert Gelman, testifies against Leffingwell at the latter’s confirmation hearing, claiming that the two of them were members of a Communist cell. In real life, Meredith was himself named an “unfriendly witness” by the House Un-American Activities Committee, which nearly ruined his career. Will Geer, who plays the Senate minority leader, was also blacklisted for refusing to name names before the same Committee.
• The blackmail attempt is based on the case of Wyoming Senator Lester C. Hunt, who was blackmailed by members of the Republican Party. Hunt was told by Sen. Styles Bridges that if he ran for re-election that November, the details of his son’s arrest (for soliciting prostitution from a male undercover officer) would end up “in every mailbox in Wyoming”. Hunt eventually agreed to step down, but eleven days later committed suicide in the Capitol.

• Continuity: When Senator Brig Anderson (Don Murray) returns home after the black-tie party, he enters his bedroom and removes his tuxedo jacket. An undershirt is clearly visible under his dress shirt. He then goes into the bathroom and removes his tie, but having awakened his wife, comes back into the bedroom before taking off his shirt, at which point, he’s no longer wearing an undershirt.
• Miscellaneous: When the roll call vote is being conducted on the motion to advise and consent to Leffingwell’s nomination, Senator Van Ackerman’s name is not called. Even though he had left the Senate Chamber, the clerk would still have called his name.
• Crew or equipment visible: When the Majority Leader meets the Vice President in Dolly Harrison’s garden during her party, the shadow of the camera is visible on the lawn behind them.

• Revealing mistakes: As the security guard enters Senator Anderson’s office the telephone is ringing. The rings (apparently added in post-production) each echo around the office, but the final ring stops abruptly and there is no echo. Even if the caller had hung up in mid-ring, that ring, like the others, would still have briefly reverberated around the room.
• Factual errors: As the Senate votes on Leffingwell’s nomination, the President listens to an announcer on the radio as the senators are heard voting in the background. But in 1962 no radio or television broadcasts were permitted from the Senate floor.
• Factual errors: Certain errors are made in the way senators are usually called upon or addressed in the Senate chamber. In the film, senators are almost always referred to as “The senior (or junior) senator from” a state, but in fact the terms senior or junior are seldom used in recognizing or referring to a senator on the floor or in committee. Also, when Senator Lafe Smith is called on during the climactic roll call and at first doesn’t answer, the clerk repeats his name, at which point he responds “No”. But in actual Senate practice a senator’s name is not called a second time until after the initial roll call has been completed.
• Audio/visual unsynchronized: During the roll call vote on Leffingwell’s nomination, as the Majority Leader walks up to the Vice President to tell him the vote will be tied, senators can be heard responding yes or no to the nomination. Although he is not seen in the shot, the name of Senator Strickland (played by actor Will Geer) is called and a voice answers “No”. But that voice is clearly not that of Geer, whose voice is heard responding immediately after when the name of Senator Sundberg is called. At that time, a voice which is unmistakably Geer’s replies “Nope”.
• Factual errors: Until his elevation to the Presidency, Vice President Hudson is not shown traveling with Secret Service protection. Since 1954, such protection was provided unless specifically declined. Also highly unlikely that a sitting Veep would be traveling alone on public conveyances such as commercial airliners and taxicabs, as shown in the movie.

It really has aged very well, and is, obviously, at least as relevanttoday as it was in 1962 –"realistic" in its depiction of thecongressional situation in its own day, positively prescient in itsrelation to our own.

Fonda is good, but curiously second fiddle to the other, more subtlecharacters.

It’s Walter Pigeon’s best flick (by far), well cast as the SenateMajority Leader and he carries the role off with an almostShakespearean aplomb.

Almost Charles Laughton’s best (only because that’s a very hard call),with his hopelessly crumpled white suit and hat, shufflin’ gait,positively Irvinesque homespun witticisms and wonderful, drawling,contemptuous "Mis-ter Rob-ert A. Leff-in-well".

Might be Franchot Tone’s best, as well, as the ailing, frail,chain-smoking president, a little bit too close to Life (filmed 6 yearsbefore he died of lung cancer).

Gene Tierney is very good as the D.C. socialite hostess "DollyHarrison" –a character clearly based on Averill Harriman’s wife Pamelaor, as a type, a later Katherine Graham.

Definitely Peter Lawford’s best film –which, admittedly, is not sayingmuch, but he’s very well cast as a rather dissolute, philanderingKennedyesque senator who is, nonetheless, not without his Qualities.

Lew Ayres’ Casper Milquetoast "Vice President Harley M. Hudson" is anexcellently wrought character, from his "bucket of warm spit" role asthe impotent President of the Senate to the wonderful twist he gives itat the end, which expounds quite beautifully the subtleties anddefinitiveness of the Reality of Power.

The scenes of D.C. are positively nostalgic –imagine anyone being ableto catch a cab to the capital and then walk right up the steps and goinside ; or an aged night-watchman making his rounds as *the* Securityfor the inside of the Senate building.

As are the various aspects of the underground "Gay Scene" in NYC withthe wonderfully cast Larry Tucker, Jerry Fielding’s fine music and "thevoice of Frank Sinatra" (as credited). (Some might object to the"clichés" in these scenes, but, to me, those clichés are part andparcel of the ambiance of the period of the film and the culture itportrays and should be seen as such –rather like appreciating theovert racism in "Birth of a Nation" for what it is. I am glad thatPreminger didn’t "sanitize" his presentation of this matter, especiallygiven the crucial nature of it to the plot of the film.)

But the contrast between the civility –albeit occasionally a ratherraw one– of the senate of circa 1960 and that of the present day isnot nostalgic quite so much as it is just heart-rending ("The World WeHave Lost"), and the roots of our present grotesque, take-no-prisonerscongressional savagery are fully exposed in the intertwined plot linesof McCarthyesque ideological rigidity and homosexual blackmail.

All in all, a "Roman à Clef" to the political world of 1960’sWashington, vividly relevant to our own time.

2) Preminger's masterpiece and one of the greatest of all American filmsand yet critical opinion is strongly divided on this one. Some peoplebelieve that the melodramatic elements of the plot, (homosexuality,blackmail, suicide), denigrates the film's authenticity and takes awayfrom it as drama but the characters are so beautifully drawn, (and theperformances of such a uniformly high standard), that the mechanics ofthe plot seem startlingly real. By being overt about homosexuality in1962 the film broke new ground, though the gay characters, brieflyseen, are cringe-worthy stereotypes.

What makes the film a masterpiece is Preminger's extraordinarymise-en-scene and possibly the best use of the widescreen for dramaticeffect in any American movie. By keeping some characters on theperiphery of the screen while the main characters in the scene interactin the foreground Preminger creates tensions and psychologicalrelationships between them that cutting would only dissipate.

The plot centres on a dying President's controversial nomination of aleft-wing Secretary of State. On the one hand, there are consequentialmelodramas inherent in pushing the plot forward, (the President'snomination is opposed; the politicians play dirty), while on the otheris the almost documentary-like approach Preminger applies to thepolitical machinations that take place on the floor of the senate andin the offices, houses and hotel-rooms where the characters live andwork.

It is also the most entertaining of all political movies. (filmedluminously in black-and-white by Sam Leavitt it feels like a crackingfilm noir). The cast are matchless and many of them did their finestwork here. This is particularly true of Walter Pigeon as the MajorityLeader, (he's as decent and as noble as Ghandi), Franchot Tone as thePresident, Don Murray as the senator who is being blackmailed, (he wasnever to get a better part), Lew Ayres as the invisible Vice-Presidentand Burgess Meredith as the mentally unstable witness, (it's a greatcameo). Charles Laughton, too, gave a career-defining performance asthe wily old senator whose opposition is the source of everyone'stroubles, (it was his last film).

George Grizzard's character and performance is a mistake. He's thevillain of the piece and he's demonic; he goes around spitting fire buthe's a necessary evil. And the ending doesn't ring true; it's tooconvenient, a cop-out even if we are on the edge of our seat. But theseare minor quibbles when everything else is so extraordinarily good. Thescript, by Wendell Mayes, is one of the great adaptations of a book,(even if it does reduce the roles of some characters and leaves out theback-fill). Amazingly, this great film wasn't nominated for a singleOscar. It rose above the brouhaha of the Academy.

3) As a Congressional correspondent for the New York Times during the1950s, author Allen Drury had ample opportunity to witness Washingtonpoliticians in their natural habit—and drew upon numerous factualsources, including the controversial Alger Hiss case and the scandaloussuicide of Senator Lester Hunt, to create the story of a controversialnominee for Secretary of State. The novel was not only a best seller,it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

It was also a book that Hollywood could not film under the filmindustry's notorious Production Code. As it happened, the book fellinto the hands of director Otto Preminger, long-time foe of Hollywood'srules for self-censorship. He not only made the film, he flagrantlybroke the code; as such, ADVISE AND CONSENT presents our nation'sleaders embroiled in a blackmail plot, finds actress Gene Tierney usingthe word 'bitch,' and became the first Hollywood film to show a gaybar. It was shocking stuff for 1962.

The story is extremely convoluted. An aging and extremely ill Presidentmakes a highly controversial nomination for Secretary of State—whichis opposed by a member of his own party, who bears the nominee apersonal grudge and who attempts to derail the nomination by accusingthe nominee of former membership in the Communist Party. This in turntouches off a vicious battle between those in the party who support thenominee and those who don't, a battle that will ultimately result inthe suicide of the only character who has the integrity we would liketo see in our political leaders.

The cast is indeed remarkable and, from Lew Ayres to Betty White, playswith considerable conviction and tremendous restraint. Henry Fonda isoften cited as the star of the film, but in truth he appears in thesmall but pivotal role of Robert Leffingwell, nominee for Secretary ofState. Screen time is divided between Walter Pigeon as the MajorityLeader, Charles Laughton as the senator who opposes the nomination, andDon Murray, an idealist who finds himself chairing the nominationcommittee. All three play extremely well, but it is reallyLaughton—in his final screen role—who walks off with the film asthe devious and openly vicious Senator from South Carolina. The trio isably supported by a dream cast that includes Franchot Tone as thePresident, Lew Ayres as the Vice President, George Grizzard as agrowling ideologue, Gene Tierney as a society hostess—and yes, BettyWhite, who offers a brief turn as the Senator from Kansas.

It has become fashionable to dismiss Otto Preminger films of the 1950sand 1960s as ponderous, all-star, and pseudo-intellectual trash, andindeed it is difficult to find much positive to say about films likeEXODUS and HURRY SUNDOWN these days. But Preminger is in many waysunder-rated; his films have not always dated well in terms of subject,but they hold up extremely well in the way in which they are puttogether, with ADVISE AND CONSENT a case in point—and it is worthpointing out that accusations of leftism, adultery, and homosexualityare still enough to prompt everything from impeachment to congressionalhearings to resignations. Nor has the process of the political danceitself changed greatly between then and now.

The great flaw of the film is its conclusion, which seems facile to thepoint of being hokey—but this is also the great flaw of the novel,which ends in much the same way–and at times ADVISE AND CONSENT seemsmore than a little dry. All the same, it remains a movie worthwatching, particularly notable for its performances, fluid camera work,and meticulous recreation of party politics. The DVD offers anear-pristine widescreen transfer with good sound quality and aninteresting, if occasionally too academic, commentary by film historianDrew Casper. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

4) So condescending, to everyone. Washington socialite Gene Tirney comesinto the public gallery of Congress escorting two diplomat's wives, theBritish and the French. She gives the French wife a lesson into theworkings of Congress, the French lady doesn't seem to know anythingabout the American executive branch or understand it. Why didn't theFrench sue? Or women for that matter. Behind the camera there is a manwith a tyrannic brain a misogynistic eye and a very old sensibility, ifany. What's fun about this politically incorrect tired tale isprecisely the incorrectness, the melodramatic turn and CharlesLaughton. Betrayal and conspiracy in the corridors of power has alwaysbeen a favorite subject from Shakespeare and beyond but here there is amassive problem and I can't decide whether it takes itself tooseriously or not seriously enough. See it by yourself and enjoy aterrific Laughton.

5) Given the long running time, the film would have benefited fromtrimming the introductory scenes to a few minutes, as it doesn't reallyget going until the confirmation hearing starts about twenty minutesin. The cast is excellent, particularly Pidgeon as a senior senator,Murray as the head of the confirmation committee, and Ayers as the VicePresident. However, Laughton, in his final role, steals the film as thesly old senator from South Carolina. Although he has the central roleof the Secretary of State candidate, Fonda doesn't get much screentime. Tierney has an inconsequential part, the token female character.The finale is rather contrived, but it is an absorbing drama.

6) Advise and Consent — a conservative novel filmed by liberals, PeterBogdonavich called A&C "the best political film ever made in America."

What's the competition? Citizen Kane and A Face In The Crowd are aboutthe media, as is The Last Hurrah (at least partly), and All The King'sMen (1949, need I add) is about corruption. But A&C isn't dealing withcolorful crooks, instead we see sincere politicians doing what theythink is right. The details of Senate procedure are bound to be lesseye-opening now after a generation of C-SPAN, so the film's lastingvalue is in the direction of Preminger, and the performances.Top-billed Henry Fonda, as the Adlai Stevensonish nominee (although theconfirmation hearing scenes were based on the Hiss case) has little todo but look noble — he hardly appears in the film's later half.

Charles Laughton steals any scene he's in as a Thurmondesque SouthernSenator. This was his last film, and he went out with a definite bang.

George Grizzard is almost as colorful as the villain. Liberals of thetime were predictably — and to a degree, justifiably — outraged bythe Joe McCarthy figure being a radical leftist peacenik. Why didn'tGrizzard become a bigger star?

Most of the remaining cast is excellent: Franchot Tone as the Prez, LewAyres as veep, Walter Pidgeon (perhaps his best ever part, along w/Forbidden Planet — he's really the hero of the piece), Paul Ford, IngaSwenson, Wil Geer, Betty White (as a Senator!!).

But the most fascinating casting was Peter "Brother-In-Lawford" as ahorndog New England Senator. How did Preminger get away with this????

I do wish we could have seen more of Edward Andrews as the DirksenishOrrin Knox. He's a major character in the book, but disappears from thefilm before the halfway point.

And that brings me to the film's most notorious character, Don Murray'sSenator Brig Anderson. Anderson's blackmailing takes over the lastthird of the film, squeezing out other characters.

Murray is rather dull, and while I realize the point was to make him abland All-America type, perhaps Preminger could have cast a moredynamic actor — say Ben Gazzara, whom he'd worked with on Anatomy Of AMurder.

The DVD commentary w/USC prof Drew Casper was interesting in itsdiscussion of Preminger's "objective" style and lack of reaction shots,but otherwise spent too much time on Preminger bio and gossip about thecast (which was frequently misleading and outright wrong anyway).

Those curious about A&C's real-life counterparts should go here:http://home.earthlink.net/~dbratman/drury.html#2

7) With the election of John F. Kennedy, in 1960, Hollywood took aheightened interest in politics, and the behind-the-scenes drama oflawmaking. Allen Drury's massive novel of wheeling and dealing, "Adviseand Consent", was a natural choice for the big screen, and under thesure direction of legendary Otto Preminger, a classic 'politicalthriller' was born.

The premise, the nomination of a controversial new Secretary of State,and the actions of the President and Congress to help or hinder hisapproval, is still a remarkably timely issue, over forty years later,and it is surprising how little things have actually changed. WithHenry Fonda as the nominee, you'd expect that he'd be the 'good guy' ofthe tale, but when he lies under oath (even for the best of reasons),Preminger makes it clear that in politics, as in life, there is littlethat can easily be divided into 'black' and 'white'.

Certainly, there are recognizable historic figures in the cast, underdifferent names. The most obvious is skirt-chasing Sen. Lafe Smith, athinly-disguised JFK, himself, who cut quite a social path prior tomarrying Jackie (and afterward, too, as the years have revealed). Thathis real-life brother-in-law, Peter Lawford, plays the role, is a grandpiece of 'tongue-in-cheek' casting (as is Gene Tierney, one ofKennedy's early 'conquests', as a Washington social maven). Onecharacter has become even more fascinating, since the film's release;wily South Carolina Sen. Seabright Cooley (a brilliant CharlesLaughton, in his final role), was said to have been based on Illinois'legendary Everett Dirksen, but in a real-life parallel, South Carolinaproduced a 'real' Sea Cooley, in the amazing Strom Thurmond! The'Who-Is-Who?' aspect aside, the film is populated with many fascinatingcharacters, from wise and sympathetic Senate Majority Leader RobertMunson (Walter Pigeon, in one of his finest later roles), and his'right-hand man', Senate Majority Whip Stanley Danta (Paul Ford, alsowonderful), to the Minority opposition, headed by the perfectly-castWill Geer. Women, who were finally achieving greater political status,aren't as well-conceived in the film, but are present, with BettyWhite(!) in a small but visible role.

The key 'players' of the drama, however, are the wily, dying President(screen veteran Franchot Tone, in a terrific 'comeback' role), theenigmatic Vice President (Lew Ayres, another screen legend making a'comeback'), young, idealistic Sen. Brigham Anderson (Don Murray, whonearly steals the film in his tragic portrayal), and opportunistic Sen.Fred Van Ackerman (George Grizzard, as easily the film's most hiss-ablevillain!) As with all Preminger films, there is an element ofcontroversy in the story, with homosexuality as the issue addressed.While later film historians have complained that the director fell backinto an almost caricatured approach to the gay lifestyle, consideringthe era the film was produced, and the censorship restrictions of thetime, to even mention it was a courageous move, and that Preminger keptthis key plot element in the story should be applauded.

"Advise and Consent" may not be the kind of film that will appeal toeveryone, but each time I hear Jerry Fielding's stirring opening theme,I find myself drawn back into this ever-fascinating world of Politicsand Power, and I think, if you give it a chance, you'll be hooked byit, too! This one is a keeper!

The son of Austria's attorney general and the actor who portrayed "Mr.Freeze" on the Batman TV series, legendary on-set tantrum-thrower "Ottothe Terrible" hired many Hollywood victims of the shameful McCarthyhearings years later to appear in his movies or work as crew, includingseveral in ADVISE & CONSENT, which could be considered a spoof ofMcCarthy's reign of terror. My question is: Was Preminger doing so outof a guilty conscience? It's hard to pin down to what extent peoplesuch as Reagan, Heston, Wayne, or Preminger may have blabbed in theprivate interviews with the witch-hunter's "leg-men," which precededMcCarthy's public naming-of-names of those fingered by mostlystill-anonymous cowards. One can search for the "black holes" ofHollywood's 50s-era stars the same way astronomers detect theirnamesakes in space: by the absence of (lime)light. The quartetmentioned above have NO long gaps in their Hollywood money-making,unlike eventual Preminger hire-on Dalton Trumbo, and scores of otherswho did not live long enough for "amends" to be made. If you don't gofor astronomy, consider this: how insulting is it to the memories ofthose who perished that Preminger went along with making the JoeMcCarthy stand-in for ADVISE & CONSENT, Sen. Fred Van Ackerman (GeorgeGrizzard) the SUPPORTER of a lying erstwhile Communist sympathizer?McCarthy succeeded for as long as he did by appealing to that Americanmajority with no sense of irony, and a willingness to vote against 9 of10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, if they're ever given the chance.A movie that promotes so much gray matter when distinct lines of blackand white are demanded cannot excuse itself by citing the sourcematerial. People such as Rush Limbaugh probably grew up idolizing Sen.Van Ackerman, vowing only to shed that last scrap of conscience thatcaused the senator to walk out before the climactic vote. It's a shameHenry Fonda allowed himself to be bamboozled into the role (of theperjurer) that no doubt helped create the legend of Hanoi Jane.

9) A pretty good, ensemble movie about political intrigues and thepersonal secrets and ideologies that propel them. Henry Fonda is thetitular star but, really, there are half a dozen people who playimportant roles with, arguably, Don Murray's being the most dramaticand challenging.

The plot. President Franchot Tone wants his nomination for Secretary ofState, Fonda, to be confirmed by the Senate. There are senators whodon't want to see Fonda get the job because he's too liberal or becauseof past feuds or both (Charles Laughton). Others, like George Grizzard,are the most smegmaphagous of politicians who want to see Fonda get thejob and are willing to stoop to blackmail to see him get it. The Chairof the Senate Subcomittee that is conducting the hearings, Don Murray,is a man of principle who plays by the rules and is holding off hisjudgment on Fonda.

Fonda has a problem, see. At one time, mostly out of curiosity, heattended a few meetings of a communist cell in Chicago. Fonda's swornenemy, Laughton, brings in an eye witness to Fonda's early mistakes,Burgess Meredith, but Fonda destroys him on the stand by proving thatMeredith has made misstatements about his own past, including hidingthe fact that he spent time in a psychiatric hospital. BurgessMeredith, with only a little screen time, gives the most nuancedperformance.

I don't want to get into the plot any farther because it's complicatedand explication would take too much space and ruin too many surprises.And there ARE surprises.

Here is one of them. This film was shot in 1961 during the Cold War,when the United States was bitterly divided on many issues. Yet theconflicts, in their essence, are still with us. Charles Laughton, notunreasonably, stands for firmness in dealing with the enemy. Let'sstand up on our hind legs and fight back and not sacrifice ourliberties or our dignity. We never have and we never will. Fonda, whois called an "egghead" in the film, is a former professor at theUniversity of Illinois who sees nothing wrong with negotiations andcompromise, depending on circumstances, and who feels that ourdiplomacy shouldn't be determined by pride. George Grizzard is a grimlyvicious senator who plays all kinds of dirty pool and is willing tobring the temple down with him if he can't get his way. If some of thatdoesn't resonate, I don't know what will. Only the name of the enemyseems to have changed.

Charles Laughton is as blubbery and crapulous as always but not nearlyas animated as in earlier roles. He was dying of spinal cancer and it'sa wonder he could walk at all. A long-ago homosexual experience playsan important part in the plot, leading to a suicide. Those attitudes,at least, have become more diverse. Sometimes politicians who are outedresign, sometimes they deny everything and continue with their careers,and sometimes they admit their gender orientation freely and continuein office, judged by their political values rather than what they do inthe boudoir. Both Laughton and Grizzard might have had problems alongthose lines if they'd been involved in politics. And one wonders if thedirector, Otto Preminger, went out of his way to see well-knownpolitical activists cast as politicians — Don Murray, Will Geer, HenryFonda, Franchot Tone, Lew Ayres. Perhaps not.

It's an interesting film with some good performances and, in the end,strikes me as a balanced piece of didactation rather than a propagandapiece.

10) "Advise and Consent" offers a glimpse into the dirty deeds andmisguided ideals that keep the Washington political machine running,and it's as powerful and relevant today as it was 45 years ago.

The story revolves around the nomination of a controversial candidatefor Secretary of State. Henry Fonda plays Robert Leffingwell, the manwhom the U.S. President (Franchot Tone) is determined to add to hisadministration. Leffingwell is a reluctant nominee, a man whose pastdalliance with the Communist party could come back to haunt him. WalterPidgeon, as the Senate's Majority Leader, embarks on a strategiccampaign to approve Leffingwell's nomination, but he is opposed by theconservative and curmudgeonly Senator Cooley from South Carolina. AsCooley, Charles Laughton delivers one of the best performances of hiscareer (and sadly, his last) as the politician you love to hate.

To add balance to Leffingwell's confirmation proceedings, the MajorityLeader brings in the young and energetic Senator from Utah, BrigAnderson, played by Don Murray, to chair the confirmation subcommittee.When it appears that Anderson may hold up Leffingwell's confirmation,power hungry Senator Ackerman (wonderfully realized by George Grizzard)digs up a secret from Anderson's past in a blackmail attempt.

Murray has the film's most challenging role as the gay and closetedBrig Anderson, so full of guilt and self loathing that he goes toextreme measures to preserve his secret. "Advise and Consent"supposedly is the first American film to actually depict the inside ofa gay bar. We see it from Anderson's perspective, a dark and forebodinglocation full of shadowed figures, while Frank Sinatra's "Secret Place"plays in the background. Anderson's reaction to what he sees isreflective of 1962 societal views of homosexuality; it's anuncomfortable and degrading scene to watch, and the film's weakestpoint. Still, it brings a visual and physical perspective to Anderson'sutter desperation to keep this side of his life hidden.

Inga Swenson (probably best known as the bitter Swedish housekeeperKraus on TV's "Benson"), turns in a touching performance as Anderson'swife, who preserves her husband's secret in order to maintain hisdignity.

Otto Preminger, known for his perfectionism and dictatorial style, getsthe best out his actors. There isn't a single flawed performance in thefilm, but Laughton and Murray certainly shine brightest. Look for somesmaller, but effective performances by Peter Lawford as, ironically, asuave and womanizing JFK type, and by Betty White as the senator fromKansas. Gene Tierney also appears as Dolly Harrison, a rich Washingtonwidow who throws lavish parties, but there's far too little of her inthe movie.

"Advise and Consent" offers no happy and tidy ending, but a realisticone nonetheless. The theme of the movie can be best summed up whenPidgeon's Majority Leader responds to Ackerman's justification ofAnderson's blackmail as having been done for the good of the country.Pidgeon's pointed retort, "Fortunately, our country always manages tosurvive patriots like you," is a pessimistic statement about the stateof the U.S. political process.