The only remaining copy of this film was saved and restored right before itdisintegrated; so the viewing can be a bit blotchy, especially towards theend.

Joan Crawford is still learning her craft and does a lot of the silent-stargrimacing that so often accompanies the over-acting damsel-in-distressroutine of the 20’s. She is definitely miscast in the role of amilquetoastgirl who won’t speak her mind to the right people. But it is interestingtowatch her as she puts her best foot forwards, as always.

Ramon Novarro is the real STAR of this movie. There are abundant close-upsand he really does have a timeless magic. His boyishness and earnestattitude seems very real and is completely endearing. His character iswell-cast and his is the only believable role aside from the villainship-mate played by Jim Mason.

Ernest Torrence has the best role for an actor with opportunities galore tochew the scenery … and he DOES with gusto. Much too old for the part heis playing, his saving grace is that he IS a likeable curmudgeon and theviewer may choose to overlook his miscasting.

If you love Novarro, don’t miss this. If you love Crawford, check her outas she attends MGM’s acting class 101. If you love sea dramas, this isjustok. As a silent film, it’s watchable and mildly entertaining, but no greatclassic.

2) A rare chance to watch Joan Crawford just before her breakthrough insilentpictures the same year, when she starred in `Our Dancing Daughters’ as theepitome of the ’20s flapper. In this movie she plays the lady-in-between(and the cause of sibling rivalry) seamen brothers Ramon Novarro (JoelShore) and Ernest Torrence (Captain Mark Shore).

Crawford does a fine job playing the ingénue, and boy! does she lookdifferent from the trademark image she adopted from the 1930s onwards: inthis picture her features look much softer, she has `smaller’ lips, etc.(sort of the ’20s look).

But, I must have to note that this is Novarro’s film all the way, playingdevil-may-care Joel Shore, the youngest of four seaman brothers, whobecomesa full-fledged, grown-up man, the hard way.

Novarro’s flair for comedy, playing and foolin’ around, making practicaljokes and having lots of fun, is at full display in the first half of thepicture (these scenes are heartfelt and very believable), before he has toconfront life and his much admired eldest brother (Torrence), because oftheir love for the same woman. A very entertaining film, you almost forgetit’s silent.

The same story had been filmed before by Metro pictures in 1923, using theoriginal story’s title "All the Brothers were Valiant", starring MalcolmMcGregor, Lon Chaney and Billie Dove. Then again, it was remade by MGM in1953 as "All the brothers were valiant" with Robert Taylor, StewartGrangerand Ann Blyth.

3) Two brothers dream of their love for the same girl backhome,while aboard ship sailing ACROSS TO SINGAPORE.

Based on the famous adventure story ‘All The Brothers WereValiant’ by Ben Ames Williams, this is a rousing silentfilmwhich features strong action & good acting. The productionvalues are first-rate, as is to be expected from MGM. Althoughthe plot becomes somewhat ludicrous – the hero kidnapstheheroine off to the Orient where they confront a dastardlymutiny – the film is certainly never dull.

Ramon Novarro stars as the youngest son in a sea-faringfamilyof hardy men. (The Studio kept their Mexican star constantlyroaming from one ethnic identity to another; here he playsAnglo-Saxon.) Giving a typically robust performance, Novarrois not lacking in the heroics necessary to beguile hisaudience.It is unfortunate that Novarro’s films, silent & sound, withtheexception of BEN-HUR (1925), are all but forgotten today.

Big, blustering Ernest Torrence steals more than a scene ortwoas Novarro’s sea captain brother; gruff & gentle by turns, heisindeed valiant. Joan Crawford, early in her film career, istheobject of both brothers’ affections. Just when she seems amitetoo demure, Joan’s fire begins to spark; she also proves to beasurprisingly good pistol shot during the mutiny.

Movie mavens will recognize an unbilled Anna May Wong asaCelestial temptress.

4) The very poor print being shown on cable and satellite obscures the impactof this raw tale of two brothers who love the same woman. The youngerbrother is loyal to the older demented one who thinks he has beenbetrayed.Joan, as the bone of contention, comes off as a saucy lass who can’t quitemake up her mind until the trouble starts. Look for lots of "stormy"actionin this several times remade epic based on Ben Ames Williams’ "All theBrothers Were Valiant".

5) This is a good silent film, with high MGM production values, goodacting, story and direction – to me the 84 minutes running time flewby.

Ramon Navarro and Joan Crawford are young lovers Joel and Priscilla whoare unexpectedly and unintentionally thwarted by his chunky big brotherCap'n Mark played by Ernest Torrence suddenly being publicly announcedas being betrothed to her. From the playful opening scenes at theshipwreck, jolly dinner party and rites of passage (for Joel) bar-roombrawl it gets serious, coinciding with a pivotal voyage to Singapore onthe Nathan Ross. The other two brothers are summarily dismissed fromthe plot by Noah getting washed overboard in a storm and Matthew lostwith the Sea Robin. The only bit I didn't like was Mark crazy withdrink in Singapore – presumably not still moping about Priscillabecause Joel had smoothed it over on board the ship, but theimplication it was caused by guilt over his six month relationship withAnna May Wong who was meant to be seen as a lesser mortal by the highlymoral white audience. Favourite bits: the juvenile scenes by Joel atthe dinner party; the storm scenes; the very realistic climactic fightscene; the main players' conflicting emotions as the plot unravels. Theprint saved is generally good but can be a bit dodgy – only justpre-combustion in places, but bearable if you get into the story.

Well worth watching for all sorts of reasons – if nothing else forNovarro and Crawford and MGM being young and full of life and promise.

6) This film has a very, very complicated plot–so complicated that itreally seemed to have too much plot. The main plot involves RamonNovarro falling in love with a young Joan Crawford. However, whenRamon's brothers return from a sea voyage, Crawford is promised toRamon's oldest brother and Ramon is a bit of a milksop and saysnothing. However, he does accompany two of his brothers on their nextsea voyage, as the oldest brother is the captain and the next brotheris the first mate (thank goodness for good old fashioned nepotism).Soon, all kinds of crazy crap occurs (such as one brother fallingoverboard and dying, the older brother being stabbed and left for deadin Singapore and Ramon being blamed for the stabbing!). All this madefor a very complicated plot–and if I tried explaining it, you'dprobably not believe me!

In a strange and impossible to believe twist, when the ship with Ramonin chains arrives back home on the East Coast of America, Ramon hijacksthe ship back to Singapore without getting supplies and seems to arrivethere in the space of just a few days AND he brings Crawford with him(why, we just don't know). Then, even more oddly, the older brotherswims aboard the boat and it all ends up in an exciting but ridiculousconclusion.

When this film debuted in 1928, I assume it played much better than itdoes now, as the plot seems awfully melodramatic and tough to believe.However, as far as production values go, it is a very good silent andthe script is interesting enough to make it better than just atime-passer. A competent but far from great film.

7) Across the Singapore (1928)

** (out o f 4)

Two brothers (Ramon Novarro, Ernest Torrence) who work on the sea fallin love with the same woman (Joan Crawford), which leads to tragedy inthis silent melodrama. The main reason to watch this film is due to theearly performance by Crawford but the rest of the movie offers verylittle in terms of entertainment. The biggest problem with the movie isthat its story is so over dramatic that you can't help but hate each ofthe characters and in the end you really don't care what happens tothem. All films like this are a tad bit over dramatic but this onetakes the cake and might be the worst offender. We expect a jealous fitto happen (as they do in all movies like this) but the screenplay heretakes it to a crazy, psychotic level that comes off more like a badcomedy more than a drama. Both Novarro and Torrence are good in theirroles but the screenplay doesn't really offer them much to do. Crawfordis cute in her role but again, the screenplay really doesn't offer hertoo much except to stand around and look shocked at what the brothersare doing.

Ramon Novarro (as Joel) is the youngest of the seafaring Shore family.While older brother Ernest Torrence (as Mark) is off on a long voyage,Mr. Novarro falls for fetching Joan Crawford (as Pricilla). Uponreturning, Mr. Torrence is revealed to have also fallen for thebewitching Ms. Crawford – and, eventually, the brothers become rivals.Crawford prefers Novarro, but her father "betrothes" her to Torrence.Before their wedded bliss begins, however, the Shore brothers must makea trip to Singapore; it's Novarro's first voyage with older brothers,after proving himself in a barroom brawl. While sailing "Across toSingapore", a fierce storm blasts the Shore brothers' "Nathan Ross"ship – with tragic results…

Actually, this is a version of "All the Brothers Were Valiant". Perhapsthe title was changed because one brother clearly dominates (Novarro),and only one other figures prominently (Torrence). Although there arefour Shore brothers, you won't see much of the others, valiant orotherwise. It's odd MGM re-made this story in 1928; it was seenrelatively recently, in 1923, with Malcolm McGregor, Lon Chaney, andBillie Dove as Joel, Mark, and Pricilla. AND, there was no soundversion until 1953, with Robert Taylor, Stewart Granger, and Ann Blythin the principal roles.

Novarro performs very well, especially enjoy his scene with Crawford,when she boards the ship to bid farewell, before his maiden voyage.It's also one of Crawford's best scenes, and the lower "Nathan Ross"set is beautifully detailed. Anna May Wong also performs very well;though uncredited, she is the best supporting player. Note Ms. MayWong's excellent introduction (during the first trip to Singapore) -she relates her dissatisfaction with her man, and her desire for Mark,with a few simple gestures. May Wong is superb, and should have beenincluded in the film's credits. James Mason (not the later actor) isfine as the villain.

There are some problems with the story. The whole "betrothed" issue isconfusing to me, and may be to others. I also don't understand why anexperienced sailor like Mark Shore immediately goes below and getsdrunk; perhaps, he saw little brother with Crawford earlier on? Iwondered how Mark Shore could order a certain character killed, and,seconds later reverse said order. Though a fine actor, I had sometrouble accepting Torrence in this role – I expected him to be thevillain, due to his other indelible portrayals.

A big MGM production, with a lot of excitement, and a fine cast. Thevoyages of the "Nathan Ross" are particularly exciting… great storm,and great ending. This is a film that was "saved" in the nick of time,however, and some of the film is sadly deteriorated; happily, it isstill enjoyable.

******** Across to Singapore (1928) William Nigh ~ Ramon Novarro, JoanCrawford, Ernest Torrence

2) I started taping this one as a gift for my elderly parents (the kind ofvintage C&W Canadiana they enjoy), while doing chores and keeping an earopen for the commercials to edit out. Within minutes it had mecaptivated.Stompin’ Tom is an incredible showman, with fantastic stage presence andagenius for lyrics that rivals Johnny Cash and Tom T. Hall. Funny how onecan grow up Canadian and turn such a blind eye (and deaf ear) to suchgreatness, simply because of his familiarity and (percieved) lack ofsophistication. His ballads are literature set to song, and hiscelebrationof things uniquely Canadian are observant, informative andsweet-natured…patriotism as it ought to be.

As a showcase, it’s smartly put together by director John Saxton, wholaterwent on to write efficient exploitation flicks like "Happy Birthday ToMe"and "Class of 1984". One complaint I’ve always had about concert films,even classics like "The Last Waltz", is how tiresome it eventuallybecomesto watch musical stage performance for an entire feature length,especiallyif it’s only one singer. Not only are a few other decent acts inserted(impressive regional talents) to break things up, but a lot of Tom’ssongsare dramatized, pre-rock video style, with appealing (now retro) footagestarring Tom, and some charming animation sequences. Though spanningonlyone 70s night at Toronto’s Horseshoe Tavern, one comes away feeling likehe’s been on a guided tour through another era.

• During the filming, Ricardo Montalban received a spinal injury which required a 9-1/2 hour operation and which has left him in constant pain ever since.
• Most of the “Native Americans” in this movie are all portrayed by Hispanic or Caucasian actors, because there was a noticeable lack of Native American actors at MGM at the time this movie was made.
• In order to film in Technicolor while shooting on location, heavy Technicolor cameras and equipment had to be transported in by mule.
• When the original version of the finished film was submitted to MGM executives, they didn’t like it. The film went through heavy editing, and a producer had the idea of tying together the surviving pieces by adding voice-over narration from Mitchell’s grown up son, as if he is telling his father’s life story. Howard Keel, who had just finished making Show Boat (1951), was brought in for this purpose. The changes led to director William A. Wellman effectively disowning the film. When asked about it in an interview, he said “I’ve not seen it, and I never will.”
• Debut of Timothy Carey.
• Clark Gable personally chose William A. Wellman to direct because he admired Battleground (1949).

• Continuity: When the horse with Gables son runs away. the child is originally on the right side of the horse. The succeeding shot shows him on the left side of the horse. Later shots show him back on the right side.

But the fur trappers of the early half of that century faced a fardifferent situation. They were few and the Indians at that pointoutnumbered them. These people as typified by Clark Gable and the restof the cast in Across the Wide Missouri were the really brave ones inour history. They wanted to trap their beaver and sell their pelts andthe last thing they wanted was wholesale immigration of settlers. Ittook a lot of nerve to live in that lonely existence, days and weeks ata time where you couldn't count on a troop of soldiers to bail you outof trouble.

I'm a big old sucker for films about the earlier west and two good onescame out at this time, this one and the following year from RKO, TheBig Sky. I give the nod to this one thought because it was done incolor and on location.

Gable gets one of his best post World War II parts as the sturdy FlintMitchell, mountain man who falls big time for Indian princess MarisElena Marques. While grandfather Jack Holt approves of a white husbandfor his granddaughter, the match don't sit well at all with RicardoMontalban his successor. The climatic duel between Gable and Montalbanis staged very well indeed and quite thrilling.

Playing various fur trapper roles are Alan Napier, James Whitmore, JohnHodiak and most of all Adolphe Menjou. Though one normally expects thedebonair Mr. Menjou in tuxedo, he's really quite good as the FrenchCanadian trapper and sidekick to Gable.

Maria Elena Marquess got her one and only chance in Hollywood and didwell as the Indian princess. She was already a name in Mexican cinemaand became an even bigger star down there due to this film with ClarkGable.

This film marked the farewell performance of Jack Holt who died soonafter it was completed. His career spanned all the way back to theearliest years of Hollywood. He makes a very impressive chief of theBlackfeet.

Gable was a rugged outdoors-man in real life, he liked to fish and huntand brought his fourth wife, Lady Sylvia Ashley on location.Unfortunately Lady Sylvia was not a big fan of the great outdoors andher experiences roughing it contributed to the Gables gettingunhitched.

Director William Wellman kept things going at a good clip and thoughAcross the Wide Missouri is slightly over 75 minutes for an A film,it's still a great item and rates being an A film for its cast and itsproduction values.

2) Honesty seems the first quality of this Wellmann work:it uses no less thanthree different languages:English,Indian language and French:it’s reallygreat fun to hear the cast sing on Xmas day the Canadian "Alouette gentillealouette" en Français dans le texte…even if the words have nothing to dowith Christ’s birth.

The second strong point is scenery:the landscapes are breathtakinglybeautiful and the color is splendid indeed.Mountains and forest are lovinglyfilmed .

A lot of people will probably note similarities with Delmer Daves’s famous"Broken arrow" which was released the precedent year .It’s almost the sameending.I would favor Daves’s work over Wellmann’s because his characters aremore endearing , his story more absorbing and the relationshipcharacters/nature more convincing.But "Across the wide Missouri" is worthwatching :the story is told by Gable’s son who appears as a baby in themovie and shortly as a child .One scene is particularly touching,even if werealize it only afterward:Gable and his Indian wife are kissing each otherwhile the small child is watching.There are a lot of deaths in this oftencruel story,but neither the White nor the Indians are demeaned.

3) Realism and attention to detail highlight this otherwise routine tale oftheopening of the west by mountain-men. Gable’s performance is somewhatsubdued in his portrayal of a trapper that takes on an Indian wife inhostile territory. The scenery is pretty and the story moves at a goodclipwith an exciting finale.

4) This film does a good job of portraying the story of the mountain men whotrapped beaver in the Rocky Mountains and played a significant role inwinning the West. Clark Gable is the star of this film. He plays atrapperwho falls in love with a Blackfoot maiden (Maria Elena Marquez). He buysher from a Nez Perce chief hoping to use her to get into the good gracesofher grandfather, a Blackfoot leader. Ultimately, he falls in love withher.

The romance between Gable and Marquez is the real story of this film. Itismuch more believable than the relationship between James Stewart and DebraPaget in "Broken Arrow". In the first place, the two of them can’t talktoeach other. Gable needs an interpreter to talk to his wife. Therelationship compares to the forced marriage between Robert Redford and aFlathead girl in "Jeremiah Johnson". Gable’s affection for his Blackfootwife is obvious throughout the film.

The film paints a much kinder picture of Native American life than manyWesterns. Like Dewey Martin’s character in "The Big Sky" Gable returns inthe end to the Blackfeet. He has learned to value Indian life and wantstoraise his son with her mother’s people.

The film portrays the real life capture of fur trapper John Colter by theBlackfeet. Captured by a young chief named Iron Shirt Gable must run forhis life. The film should have taken more time with this exciting scene.It is far too short and not nearly as exciting as it should have been. Ienjoyed Henry Fonda’s run for his life in "Drums Along the Mohawk", but itwas very poorly done here. Colter’s successful escape from his Blackfeetcaptors deserves a better rendering.

This film is worth watching for the beautiful high mountain scenery andtheromance between Gable and Marques. The soundtrack is not particularlyoriginal, giving us constant variation on the old standard "Shenandoah",butit is pleasant listening. Enjoy it.

5) One of the first ‘liberal’ Westerns that emerged tentatively in the 1950s,films showing that Indians weren’t just bloodthirsty savages but peopleswith their own culture and humanity. In making this ethical breakthrough,Wellmann doesn’t reject the traditional, Fordian Western that had relegatedthe Native American to a whooping menace; instead, he embraces it. LikeFord’s films, ‘Missouri’ is a history lesson, a tribute to the pioneers who’tamed’ America, ‘giants’ as the narrator calls them, the camera dulyrecording the suitably vast sky as a Wagnerian backdrop for these men.

‘Missouri’ records the development of a UNITED States, and not only does thefilm bring together a melting pot of different nationalties – Americans,Indians, Scots, French (who provide the kind of knockabout, Fordian ‘humour’usually reserved for the Irish) etc., with their own tongues, stories, musicetc. – but also a series of structural opposites (man/woman;nature/civilisation, capitalism, language) to create a national allegory ofcohesion. Even the past and the future are brought together – the narratortells of great doings in the past, stretching back at least as far asWaterloo, the Old World; but it is also his story, the tale of his birth,itself the literal and allegorical fruit of racial togetherness, the whiteman and red woman, even if the cheerful narration does sound conventionallyWASPish.

Of course, you can’t create without destroying, and, as in all those folktales and myths that express the primal hopes and fears of a people, theevil spirits have to be exorcised, in this case the renegade Indian IronShirt, who has the nerve to equate the white man’s convenient desire forpeace and mutual help with the loss of his own land. We shouldn’t expectmiracles in 1951; ‘Missouri’ is only as liberal as its times will allow it -only those Others that accept the White way of life are welcome. AlthoughMitchell and Kamiah seem to engage in a reciprocating process of teachingand initiation, it is Kamiah who is infantilised, who is brought back to hergrandfather, who is put across her husband’s lap and smacked fordisobedience, i.e. for following her own instincts and customs.

Iron Shirt, rightly hostile to a people who only see the awesome beauty ofthe Missouri landscape for the money it can make them, is demonised. Thebirth of the child is linked to the natural surroundings he is heir to; whenIron Shirt tries to kill him, his transgression is clearly unnatural, justas his unwillingness to see the white point of view and give in. In a worldwhere translators (hence communication, conciliation) are the true currencyof progress, Iron Shirt is a man of action and physical signs, not to betrusted.

The film feels like a civic lecture, made to be shown to schoolchildren toteach them tolerance and the great American way. But Wellman has directedsome of the most sombre Westerns ever made (‘The Ox-Bow Incident’, ‘YellowSky’), where American progress has fatally turned in on itself, and thebright colours and cheerful tone here are deceptive. As if to warn us, heuses his characteristic montage zoom, whereby his camera pulls back from acomposition, not by a zoom, but by cutting backwards at different anglesfrom it, creating an eerie, distancing effect.

The climax in the woods, as Mitchell fights Ironside, has a clear symbolicpurpose, but it is the most chilling in the film, with no music. To rootout the savage, Mitchell himself must become savage, using the Indian’stools to destroy him. He has become destructive and can no longer take partin the forging of a community, from which he voluntarily expels himself. Inthis story of nation, community and unity, this breach of withdrawal istroubling, and marks the film as a first step in the direction of thetraditional Western’s apotheosis, ‘The Searchers’.

6) They were so close to having a good film here, but it is another caseof a poor script destroying the quality work of all involved. Gablelooks great…tan, fit, and masculine as hell. Speaking of masculine,Ricardo Montalban is the bare-chested Native American antagonist…thisman has an over-powering charisma that makes it impossible to take youreyes off him. And another special mention must be made: AdolpheMenjou…he was absolutely fantastic as Gable's friend and translator.Truth be told, the whole cast is really wonderful, but as usual, thescript gives them hokey garbage to utter to one another. And not justin English! The producers went to the trouble of having much of thescript in French and various Native American languages, yet the scriptwas dopey in all those languages. The storyline had great potential,but it wasn't realized well.

The best part of the movie? The scenery. It was, by far, the mostunbelievably gorgeous scenery ever put on film. Yes, there have beenmyriad other films with beautiful scenery, but they had beautifulSHOTS, whereas this movie has the scenery all the way through, behindevery actor, in nearly every scene, and it is breathtaking. If thismovie doesn't make you want to throw on a backpack and hiking boots andplan a trip to Colorado, then you need to make an appointment with adoctor…either an eye doctor, a psychiatrist, or both.

There are a few nice moments throughout, but overall the film is prettymediocre. The actors all look fantastic, and do the best with thescript they've been given, but what speaks the loudest and makes thebiggest impression is the scenery. They had all the parts, but couldn'tmake the whole…as they said on "Get Smart": "Missed it by THATmuch!!"

7) This Western film directed without any particular distinction byWilliam Wellman is visually stunning and has moments that are exciting,touching and even thrilling. It is also an uneven movie with a patchyscript which relies heavily on a voice-over narrator. The film ispretty thin on a strong story line. "Across the Wide Missouri" mainlyconsists of a string of episodes that suggests there was more of ascreenplay here not captured in the film. Why? One only wonders.

Clark Gable continued his pattern of pairing up with much youngerleading ladies. When this film was made, he was 50 and Maria ElenaMarques was 25. Interestingly, in the similar "Broken Arrow" made oneyear earlier, James Stewart (playing a scout rather than a fur trapperlike Gable) was 42 to Debra Paget's 17—-an identical difference of 25years! To continue the comparison, both women portrayed Indian maidensalthough one is American Caucasian (Paget) and the other is Mexican(Marques). Both married their leading man in the films and died as theprice for doing so.

"Across the Wide Missouri" and "Broken Arrow" have other similarities.Both films present sympathetic views of Native Americans, and theirability to intermingle freely with white outdoorsmen in the spirit ofmutual respect if not friendship. They also reveal that the treacheryin these relationships often came from the whites and not the Indians.While "Broken Arrow" is better written, "Across the Wide Missouri" maycontain better performances by the two leading actors.

One final interesting point to consider. Jack Holt (in his last film)played Marques's aged grandfather, Bear Ghost. At the time, he was 63,or just 13 years older than Gable. Yet Gable is playing Holt's grandsonby marriage! Talk about make believe! In the blockbuster film, "SanFrancisco" made by M-G-M in 1936, Holt and Gable played romantic rivalsseeking the affection of lovely Jeannette MacDonald. At that point,Gable was 35 and Holt 48. From romantic rivals to grandfather andgrandson in just 15 years!

This is one of Clark Gable's better films of the 1950s, though it neverreally got that much attention and many have unjustly written it off as" just another Western". However, if you watch it you'll find that thefilm has two major points that make it unique and a very beautifulfilm. First, the film is about the period BEFORE that shown in mostWesterns. The typical Hollywood Western occurs between 1866-1880,though there are a few exceptions before and after. However, very fewdeal with life in the West circa 1829 when the only White men were furtrappers. Since I am a history teacher, I admire this about ACROSS THEWIDE MISSOURI. Second, the film humanizes the Native Americans muchmore than most films and there are no "black and white" groups in thefilm. Many of the Indians are quite decent but they also are notuniformly good either–and the same goes for the trappers. Iparticularly loved the relationship that developed between Clark Gableand his Indian bride. It did a lot to build sympathy for the charactersand once again truly humanized both characters. The only real negativeabout this is that three of the key Indian roles are played bynon-Indians (J. Carrol Naish, María Elena Marqués and RicardoMontalban)–a standard practice in the time it was made.

While these two points make this a memorable film, it sure doesn't hurtthat this film has some of the most vivid and beautiful scenery of anyfilm of the 1950s. It's obvious that this wasn't filmed on some soundstage or filmed in the outskirts of Los Angeles! So overall, what's notto like about this film?! Excellent acting, a great script and auniqueness make this a film worth seeking.

By the way, this film is highly reminiscent of the wonderful RobertRedford film, JEREMIAH JOHNSON–another film well worth your time.

9) Across the Wide Missouri (1951)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Clark Gable plays a beaver hunter who heads to the Rocky Mountains butencounters Indians as he explores the new territory. There's some nicethings in this film but in the end it comes as a major disappointedespecially about Gable and Wellman did so much better with The Call ofthe Wild in 1935. When this was shown on TCM, William Wellman, Jr.talked about all the problems with MGM during post production.Apparently this was originally meant to be an epic picture but thestudio started cutting it to pieces and they eventually cut so muchthat they had to hire Howard Keel to do narration to bring any sense tothe film. Watching the 78-minute movies it's easy to tell that there'sall sorts of stuff missing and there are even some very strange edits,which make it clear that we were originally meant to see more. As forthe final version, it's really not too bad but it's not too goodeither. Gable is pretty good in his role but Ricardo Montalban stealsthe film. J. Carroll Naish has a nice role as well. The Technicolorreally brings out the great locations but in the end one can't get overthe edited product. The "shock" at the end of the picture is alsoruined due to the narration, which kills the suspense of how the filmplays out.

10) At 79 minutes, this one had a short playing time, even by 1951standards. Which works to it’s advantage since it keeps the storymoving along at a fast clip, but has production values that keep itfrom descending into a B western. It could also have something to dowith the cuts MGM made before the film’s release, but what you seetoday is what audiences saw when the movie premiered over 50 years ago.

Clark Gable plays a 1830s trapper who ‘buys’ a Blackfoot maiden namedKamiah (Mexican actress, Maria Elena Marques), who was earlier capturedby the Nez Perces indians, and uses her to gain entrance into Blackfootterritory in order to hunt beaver. Only problem is, he starts to fallin love with her and they eventually have a child.

There’s also the complication of Chief Ironshirt (Ricardo Montalban)who despises the white man and kills any of them who set foot onBlackfeet land. He makes for a pretty muscular, ruthless chief. It’spretty much a non-speaking part for Montalban except for a couple oflines spoken in Native Indian.

There’s little gunplay except at the end when Ironshirt’s men ambushGable and his trappers near the river, and Kamiah takes an arrow intoher chest, killing her instantly. The horse carrying Gable’s son racesoff into the woods with Ironshirt and Gable right behind and there isan excellent gunbattle in the woods as Gable is forced to shootIronshirt with his powder rod still stuck in his rifle barrel. It goesthrough Ironshirt like an arrow. Great scene.

Howard Keel narrates as Gable’s (now) grown up son. With excellent onlocation scenery somewhere in the Northwest ( I wish I knew where, I’dlike to go up there) captured first-rate by cinematographer WilliamMellor and fast direction by William Wellman, I liked it. Wouldn’t mindowning it on DVD, either.

One of the best westerns Gable appeared in, even though he didn’t maketoo many of ‘em.

7 out of 10

• Recorded in Ultra-Stereo.

2) …okay, not really. But still, this Ricky Schroder/Brad Pitt production(made when Schroder was the bigger name) has all the after-school specialcharm of…all those after-school specials that I forget the names of. Thestory is cliched and the characters are simplistic, but if you don’t take ittoo seriously and pretend your high school track team is watching it on theway back from state championships or something silly like that, you mightactually have a great time with this movie. If you actually want to see areal movie and not something that is just fun to laugh at, I wouldn’trecommend it. Great for bigger, slightly intoxicated audiences, especiallyif they are runners. Also great for people who love incredibly sappystories of brotherly love.

3) This is the most amazing movie in the world. Being a runner myself,this movie puts you into the emotional roller coaster that is highschool running. There are many times when you feel like you will not orcannot accomplish the county championship but if you have someone likeyour brother to lean on then anything is possible. This movie hasinspired me more than Chariots of Fire, PRE, and Without Limitscombined. The acting and raw emotions that these characters experiencewill live on for ever. Where is the Academy Award for GREATEST FILMEVER MADE? By the way Pitt looks JACKED and he is the man in this move.Best performance of his life. PS if those are the standards to get intoStandford then my whole XC team from junior year should be there. Butthat doesn't matter.

4) The snappiest thing about this film is the title. Two American teenagebrothers, one a swat and a goody two shoes on the athletic track, and theother a rebellious delinquent (born on the wrong side of the tracks, getit?), end up at the same school after bad boy Billy (Rick Schroder) gets asecond chance after a spell at a Borstal.

Members of Billy’s delinquent melee try to reclaim him for the bad side,butwe all know that is not going to happen. Joe, the elder brother (BradPitt),is trying for a scholarship to a prestigious university by running afasterrace than anyone else. This is where the story falls apart.

Brad Pitt has by far the more convincing physique. Rick Schroder is goodlooking enough, provided he stops slicking his blond locks back with acartload of grease, but he is no athlete. The clever cinematic device ofdressing him in black shorts and shirt for the running sequences cannothidethe flab. The slow motion sections (a la Chariots of Fire) only accentuatethis.

Watch this if you want to see obviously twenty-something year olds tryingtobe school kids; if you enjoy folk belting round the running track; if youwant to remind yourself of what Brad Pitt looked liked before he became areal actor.

Two redeeming quotations from the film are "The only thing personal is thesize of your d**k" and "I thought you were as straight as a virgin’sd**k".Memorable because, as I remember, at the age the characters are supposedtobe, these comments pepper every day conversation. That there are only twoduring the 1 hour 40 minutes is an indictment of authenticity.

5) I can only say that this slighty forgotten Brad Pitt flick from eleven yearsback is much better than you would perhaps expect. Even though "Across thetracks" is a very typical and basic drama of a single-mother who’s trying toraise his two sons. One thing that gave me a smile or two was the fact thatthis film had some incredibly silly goofs. I’m not the type of a lad whousually tries to find ‘em but this time they really attracted my attention.The sight of soundman’s microphone in the kitchen scene was something Ithought I would never have to see in a motion picture. And how much doesBilly actually get up his nose when he sniffs a line? Some other thing thatamused me massively was some of the smaller characters. They were so bloodystereotypical it was extremely comical, nearly hilarious and many of theirlines were sooo ridiculous. If you’re a Brad Pitt fan you’ll love thismovie. Observing how much Pitt has developed as an actor during the 90’s Ihave to admit that this Schroder bloke was just as good if not even betterthan him. Still, Pitt wasn’t at all bad either. "Across the tracks" was amovie that’s worth checking out, that’s all there’s left to say aboutit.

6) So-so movie featuring Ricky – oops, I mean "Rick" – Schroder and a 27 yearold Brad Pitt playing high school students. There isn’t too much of astoryhere, and I’m not really sure what the point is. It is good in a way, butthe plot just didn’t interest me too much. Maybe they should have justreleased this as a TV-movie instead of a feature film. I guess it is OKifyou are bored, but I’d only recommend renting it if you are a fan of BradPitt, Rick Schroder, or track. Oh, and the kid who plays Blossom’s olderbrother is in it. Why did this movie receive an "R" rating??

7) Not much to rave about unless you happen to be a Brad Pitt fan or afollowerof Rick Schroder. The two play high school brothers that find some successon the track field. Pitt is trying to walk the straight and narrow; whileSchroder is a reform school refugee. Otherwise this movie does good toholdinterest against an after school TV movie. Carrie Snodgress plays thepassive mother still grieving her husbands death. Thomas Mikal Ford is the"meaning well" track coach. Unrealistic casting hurts.

I thought this film was great, it is a simple and emotional story based ontwo brothers, who both happen to be good looking and great actors. Ireallylike Rick’s performance in this and think he looks gorgeous!

Overall a great film and of course not forgetting Brad Pitt, who is alwaysexcellent! I definitely recommend this film if you are a fan of eitherPittor Schroder, or just want to chill out with a nice film (especially if youare female).

9) All the characters are cheap and hackneyed, from the concerned and confused,loving mother to the bad boy friend of the kid fresh from jail. Peerpressure, cod-psychology, simplistic relationships, poor characterisation,it’s all here. It’s not too offensive – what would one expect from a 1991Ricky Schroeder/Brad Pitt film based around the adventures of two boysinvolved in running? A few "important" races, some shouting and apredictable yet ridiculously hole-ridden plot. Great stuff.

2):
Mitch Carew (Dick Curtis) is released from prison and returns to Arroyo intending to get revenge on “Wild Bill” Hickok (Bill Elliott as Bill Elliott) and Dan Woodworth (John Dilson), who were responsible for his conviction six years earlier. Carew meets Woodworth on the street and cold-bloodedly shoots him through the heart. Hickok, who has been away for some time, comes to town with plans to settle down, and learns of the killing and that his old friend, Larry Armstrong (Richard Fiske), has joined the outlaw’s gang. Hickok rides to the gang’s hideout, finds Larry alone but can not convince him to leave Carew. When Hickok rides away, Carew, hiding in ambush, takes a shot at him and hits his hat. Spinning around, Hickok sees Larry with a drawn gun, and fires at him, unaware of Carew’s presence. He rides back and finds that his dead friend’s gun has not been fired, and he throws Larry across his saddle, and escapes the outlaw’s ambush. In town, his fiancee, Anne Woodworth (Luana Walters) denounces the “code of the west” and Hickok agrees to hang up his guns. Carew later rides into town and announces that he is looking for Hickok. The latter, following a bitter argument with Anne, feels he can not refuse to accept Carew’s challenge, and straps on his guns and goes to meet Carew.

The New York images were stunning, and beautifully presented around thestory of the Russian boy’s adventure. In particular, the historicalshots of daring construction workers, dangling hundreds of feet in theair to put together New York’s skyscrapers were gut wrenching. It’shistorical value, presenting the beginnings of one of the most excitingcities in the world, is immeasurable.

A genuine, chance-viewing – I’m grateful for my good fortune atdiscovering it. I only wish I could get a copy for my collection.

2) A grand scale IMAX 3D mini-epic blending state of the art monochrome 3Dstill photography from 1916, with stunning full-colour 3D motion andsurround sound from 1995.

The story is obviously contrived to make optimum use of the archivalmaterial: a young Russian boy, Tomas Minton, travels "blind" (i.e. in aroomwith no view) by ship to New York, and jumps ship to search for arelativewho emigrated early in the century. That man had found paid work as aspecialist 3D photographer and had sent home a viewer and a set of hisslides which showed many aspects of 1916 New York life. Tomas routinelyrefers to this collection of pictures as he wanders the city trying tofindrecognisable landmarks in the modern skyline.

(N.B. The World Trade Centre doesn’t get any special attention, if itappears at all.)

The 1916 images are extraordinarily detailed, fully justifying the IMAXbigscreen and we see a lot more than just the facade of skyscrapers, or thetinsel of Broadway. I am never likely to see New York in person, so I wasimpressed by all of the visuals.

Director Stephen Low takes advantage of opportunities to push people’s 3Dresponse buttons, but it’s not done excessively. The overall impact is ofavery big city, with a personal history of endurance in the face ofhardship,and with many elements of true beauty in its landscape andarchitecture.

There’s a rather natty but very unlikely happy ending, instead of themostlikely event of Tomas being grabbed by Immigration and thrown on thefirstplane back to Russia (proving that this really is a work offiction).

Brisbane’s IMAX theatre closes down this month, after consistently losingmoney since it opened. I feel especially privileged to have been able toexperience this film in the world’s biggest and best of movie theatreenvironments.

3) It was one boring Sunday afternoon…I had nothing to do so I decidedto check out the new IMAX theatre. They played this movie and I almostnever recovered after it. Never would I imagine that I would be somoved by a film. I would say this is the perfect movie, both visuallyand storytelling. I is done with so much emotion. I cried and wascompletely taken by this experience. It really shows New York in abeautiful way. You can almost smell the city watching this. Beautifulfilm with mindblowing music by Bond composer John Barry. I immediatelybought the soundtrack after I left the theatre. Just incredible! Forthose people (I can imagine a lot of them) who have not seen this…GOSEE IT! It is most likely very difficult to find nowdays though whichis a big shame.

4) I was curious how that format – so impressive at th IMAX theaters -would translate to the regular television screen, so I rented the VHSof this. My answer: it doesn't. One needs a big screen, I guess…..avery big screen, especially when the visuals aren't that good to startwith as was the case here.

This is simply a little documentary about New York City, comparing howsome intersections and buildings looked back in he early part of the20th century as compared to when this movie was made in 1996.Interwoven in the presentation is a little Russian immigrant kidsstory.

It's quite boring for the most part. If you grew up in NYC, especiallyin spots where this was filmed, this would be a lot more interesting.

5) This is undoubtedly the single greatest IMAX film I have ever seen. Itsvisual effects may seem a little outdated – although this certainlyadds to the charm – but it conveys its sweet little plot with a senseof grandeur. Whereas most IMAX films try to make you feel like you’rein a theme park, watching some special effects extravaganza, "AcrossThe Sea Of Time" could stand independently as an example of exceptionalstorytelling, and a great FILM.

I’m shocked and disappointed that it clearly wasn’t popular enough tosustain an audience, as it is now virtually impossible to find a cinemaanywhere that is showing it. So sad.

If IMAX want to save themselves, they need to commit to getting greatfilmmakers and allowing them to tell their stories on the big screen,as was clearly their policy when they created this.

Do NOT, under any circumstances, miss this film.

6) This is a beautiful film, enhanced by John Barry's fabulous score(although some parts were written for a previous movie.) I have seenthis film 3 times. Sydney Imax, Adelaide Imax and Melbourne Imax. AtMelbourne, the right eye image was OUT OF FOCUS!! No, it was not mehaving had a few too many, and it was not the glasses. Changing themmade no difference. I wrote a letter of complaint to Melbourne Imax butguess what? They didn't reply. All too hard I suppose. Considering thetechnology of the move projection (IE only one projector not two) it ishard to understand how one image was out of focus and not both. Someoneelse can explain this to me. Apart from all that, the 3D in this movie,the stereo cards, and the music – everything is just wonderful.Yes, thestory too! Being a collector of stereo cards (and also having been toNYC) this movie has special significance for me. I took a friend who isalso a stereo photography guru and he was totally overcome by the totalexperience. Now……. I made a very big mistake of buying the VHSvideo tape last week. One word or advice – DON'T – unless you only haveone eye and/or never have and never will see the 3D version!! Such alet-down and so disappointing. If you like the music you can get theCD. Question: When will Sony Picture bring it back? It is timeless -way beyond the bounds of fashion or modernity. At least they shouldrelease it on a 3D DVD!! (Polarised glasses too…?) Maybe thetechnology is already here, but I haven't heard about it. Tomas Mintonwell done! PS. I had already posted this then I read John Frame'scomments: "Blending the best 3D imagery from 1916 and 1995, 4 January2003" John, just to add to your nice review, the WTC towers DO featurequite prominently in at least two scenes in the movie. A jolt to bringus back to modern times hey!

7) I was left on the cutting room floor when they edited this film. InOctober, 1995, I brought my parents and aunt to visit New York City fora week. Either Wednesday or Thursday of that week, we went to theNatural History Museum on the Upper West Side. Mid-afternoon, wefinished up there and walked down to see Lincoln Center. When we gotthere, they were filming a sequence where the Minton character was towalk along the retaining wall of the fountain. While they were settingup the shot, someone came up to my father and asked if I would like tobe an extra. I said yes and was brought over and placed with a group ofthree other men. Our duty as extras was to walk around behind thefountain while Minton walked on the wall that faced Broadway. It tookfour or five takes before we were done. During the set up for one ofthe takes, the group of us were standing next the young actor playingMinton. One of the group asked him where he was born and he answered"St. Petersburg." The person asking responded "Oh, in Florida?" and thelittle guy barked back "No, Russia!"

I eventually rented the movie and that entire sequence had beenabandoned.

• Film debut of Polly Bergen.

2) Jimmy Wakely was a cowboy crooner that was promoted to his own series.He co-stars here with the busy comic sidekick Dub "Cannonball" Taylor(Was he in EVERY western ever made ????). This was a fun movie, but hadno really memorable moments.

The budget and action here are average, but the film is notable for itscast, which included a young Polly Bergen, who remains active in theindustry today. The songs are fun, but routine…….

Wakely was never a box-office champ, but he did have decent run andeven got his own comic book series ! This film was typical of those1940's films that padded the matinée schedules of the day …

2):
Bogart plays a U.S. officer of artillery who is court martialled in disgrace (in 1941) and who leaves the country. He gets a job offer in central America with a stop off in Panama. While there he discovers Japanese plot to attack the Panama Canal along with the Pearl Harbor attack.

• Director John Huston went off to join the war effort before the film was finished, and Vincent Sherman directed the final scenes.
• The last-minute screenplay change from Pearl Harbor to the Panama Canal was not implausible. Until the mid 1930s US military exercises concentrated on defending the Panama Canal from air, amphibious & small craft attack and were extensively covered by the press.
• The original trailer for “Across the Pacific” copied the same format as the one for The Maltese Falcon (1941) (which had the same director and three of the same cast members), beginning with Sydney Greenstreet’s face against an otherwise dark background as his voice narrated.
• Director Vincent Sherman met with John Huston just before Huston left the project to join the Army Signal Corps and shoot documentaries for the war effort. The two directors conferred just before they were about to shoot the scene in which Leland is trapped in the movie theatre and three assassins are trying to kill him. “How does he get out?” Sherman asked. Huston replied, “That’s your problem! I’m off to the war!”
• Though the film’s plot was changed from Rick Leland foiling a Japanese plot to blow up Pearl Harbor to a Japanese plot to blow up the Panama Canal (necessitated when the Japanese actually attacked Pearl Harbor without Leland being there to stop them), the title wasn’t, so the film is called “Across the Pacific” though the characters never even get TO the Pacific, much less across it.

• Continuity: When Rick is using the machine gun, the end of the ammunition belt is clearly visible as he is firing. When he stands up a second later, the belt goes all the way to the ground.
• Factual errors: The background for the opening titles is a map of the Panama Canal. The orientation of the map and the compass is correct, but the labeling of the map is incorrect. In fact, the Atlantic end of the canal and the city of Colon are at the upper left (Northwest), and the Pacific end of the canal and Panama City are at the lower right (Southeast). The map is correctly labeled behind the closing credits.

2) Two women move in together in a trailer owned by the sleazy lawyer who defended their boy friends after they were arrested for selling dope to undercover agents. With no money and little job prospects, the two struggle to make ends meet. Initially considering becoming prostitutes, a helpful man aids them in getting jobs as a barkeep and in a grocery. But when drug agents claim the trailer they live in, things just become worse. Paco is Carmen’s young son, who befriends an old prospector and a man who keeps a trained lion and tiger in the desert.

2) Here’s the deal: a lot of stuff in this movie I didn’t like. But I firstsawthis movie because I knew that Michael McKean had a role in it. He is notinmuch of the movie, but what he is in took my breath away. More peopleshouldreally acknowledge that he has so much more to offer than Lenny Kosnowski(Laverne and Shirley) and David St. Hubbins (Spinal Tap). He is amagnificent actor, and one of my very favorites.His performance in "Across the Moon" should have gotten much morerecognition than it ever did. If you have not seen this movie, rent it,justto see his few lines, and his few scenes. All together, this movie has anice feel to it, and women would definitely be able to identify with thesituations and the characters.

3) Well,there is two ways of looking at this film, the first one isobviously the one everyone has taken,the other one

needs a different approach,this is one of the best film ever made in

this style,this sure is a new way of making people think they’re

looking at some crappy stuff when they’re not,the girls are astonishing

of style improvement all along the development of this comedy,because

it is a comedy,the writer is not trying anything else than entertain

you guys,he sure managed to entertain me big time ,as a matter of fact

whenever I don’t feel too good,I watch this movie,AND I Feel GREAT!!for

1 month at least!Excellent job,I love this movie! FRED

4) Kathy (Christina Applegate) and Carmen (Elizabeth Pena) are two totallydifferent girls who are brought together because their boyfriends arepartners in the selling and distributing of illegal narcotics, and windupselling their stash to a couple of cops. After being sentenced to aprisonterm in a jail 400 miles south of LA, both ladies, who are not keen ontheidea of being so far away from their men, move down to the desert andstartlife down there. They have their share of arguments while learning tolivetogether, but deep down inside their both good girls, so learn to lookpastand eventually embrace the differences. Carmen’s boy Paco (MichaelMundra)even learns to like the desert life, with the help of a few localcharactersof course (one played by the always amusing Michael Mckean). At the most,this is a movie that entices the viewer to feel that they too learnedsomething about cultural diversity, and it was really great that both theleads were able to overcome prejudices and live together peacefully. Ifyou’re in the mood for a film that’s been made a thousand different timesunder a thousand different masks but leaves you feeling good about lifeasthe credits roll, then give this film a spin. If you’re more the typethatdoesn’t enjoy watching recycled trash, then I’d say it might be better toput this one back on the shelf next time you’re in the video store. As alast thought, there was a cool painting by Frida Kahlo on the wall of thetrailer, its unfortunate they didn’t give her any credit. Rating:18/40

5) i actually liked this movie about two woman who decide to live together outin the desert near the place where there busted boyfriends are located. amovie about idealism and it’s power in time of need. this movie is alsoknown as mojo flats (at least that’s the title the video cover had for it).

recommended for people who like road-movies, this looks like a lightversionof Thelma and Louise.

6) Found this film very entertaining with lots of Comedy, Drama, Murderand the finding of a gold mine. Chistina Applegate,(Kathy), "King ofthe Hill" plays the role of a gal whose boyfriend winds up in prisonfor stealing and meets up with another gal, Elizabeth Peria,(Carmen)"The Lost City", who has a husband and a boy and her husband is also inprison. These two gals decide they are going to move closer to theprison in order to make their visits a lot easier. These two gals rundown on their luck and decided to sell their bodies for some money inorder to eat and so they decide to go to a Fire Statiion and gather upa few John's. This film will take you in all directions, and keeps youguessing just how the film will finally end. The ending is ratherdisappointing, but the film did entertain but really was not thegreatest film to watch. There was a brief appearance of BurgessMeredith,(Barney) "Rocky V", playing the role as a very old bent overGold Prospector.

7) This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you’reinto masochism, never see it. It was an insufferably long, pointless,eye-harming, depressing movie and will forever top my list of bad movies.Whoever wrote this movie is a sadist. I almost cried at the end, that’s howbad it was. I’d like to give it zero stars, but since that’s not an option,I give it one.