• First-ever Danish feature to be filmed in HDTV. (Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself (2002) and Askepop – The Movie (2003), which were also filmed in HDTV, were released before Afgrunden, but produced later.)

I viewed a print of 'Afgrunden' that was digitally restored by theDanish Film Institute but had many individual frames missing, resultingin bizarre jump cuts when characters who were about to step out offrame simply vanished. There is one intentional jump cut when AstaNielsen flings a lasso at Poul Reumert: the jump cut enables the nooseto encircle his neck even though Nielsen missed.

Nielsen plays Magda Varig (not Vang), a mousy piano-teacher who isengaged to a respectable businessman, until she visits Cirkus Fortunaand is intrigued by a macho performer whose handbill identifies him asMr Rudolph (Reumert). Magda kicks off her past life and joins thecircus. From there, it's a maelstrom of depravity.

The very beautiful Nielsen is tightly corseted throughout this film,except for one astonishing scene in which she ties up Reumert with hisown lasso, then she performs a deeply erotic dance all round him,shaking and shimmying her very definitely UN-corseted midriff. Thisscene was cut out of British and American prints of the film. However,Nielsen's dance consists largely of rubbing her buttocks againstReumert, rather than her front-side; perhaps in 1910 even the Danishweren't ready for THAT degree of eroticism! In an earlier scene,Nielsen is wearing corset-stays and all the usual female garments of1910 (floor-length skirt, petticoats, the lot) when Reumert hauls heraboard his horse and gallops away: it occurred to me that this musthave been a very uncomfortable situation for a woman in all thoseclothes.

There are some beautiful exterior shots here, and one splendid sequenceaboard a double-decker tram in Copenhagen. A postman and a vicar wear(respectively) a uniform and vestments which are so elaborate thatmodern audiences might laugh. More fatally, all through 'Afgrunden' theentire cast (including Nielsen) overact with hand-to-brow theatrics.One character is stabbed in the chest; instead of just dying, he has todo a melodramatic "I'm dying!" gesture and THEN die.

SPOILERS COMING. This is one of those misogynist films which says thatnothing is more dangerous than a woman's sexuality. Having discoveredher sensual side, the former piano-teacher Magda is now poison forevery man she meets. The film ends with Magda going to prison,presumably to remain there until she's no longer a danger to society(i.e., when she's menopausal).

I viewed a DFI print with Danish titles, at a screening in London.Unfortunately, the very last title card in the print reads "SLUT" …which is Danish for "Finish" (or maybe Finnish for "Danish"), but whichthe London audience (probably knowing better) chose to misinterpret,and to receive with mocking laughter. A shame, really: Nielsen's rolehere anticipates the 'vampire' roles of Theda Bara and Pola Negri, so Iwish that 'Afgrunden' could have celebrated female sexuality morehonestly and positively. My rating: 6 out of 10.

2) All four films made by Asta Nielsen in Denmark (in 1910, 1911 and 1919), before she became an international superstar, have been released bythe Danish Film Institute, which was created a hundred years ago andhas taken care of Danish films ever since. Thus we usually get verygood, clean and sharp copies of films almost 100 years old. The seriesis truly amazing, and the Asta Nielsen disk is one of the best. Thefour features (on one disk) are: Livets storme, Afrgrunden, Den sortedrøm, and Mod Lyset. I had only seen Asta Nielsen's later films, suchas Hamlet, before, therefore I was astounded to see that she was arather beautiful actress in her youth, with a figure of a Barbie dollwhich she isn't afraid to show. The films are remarkably good as well.In Afgrunden, we see Miss Nielsen as a shy piano teacher who abandonsher fiancée in order to elope with a circus artist, who turns her intoa harlot and a murderess; in Livets storme she is a dancer whose beautybrings along the ruin of her and of men; in Den sorte drom she is acircus star who does everything for the man she loves, and in Mod Lyseta reckless countess who has to destroy the lives of several men as wellas her own before she learns the true values of life. The last tale isa bit moralizing for modern tastes, but the first three (from1910-1911) are true gems. These films are naturalistic, strongportraits of life before the WW I. Miss Nielsen is a very good actressindeed, as well as a gorgeous clothes horse, wearing the trendiestmodels of the day around her nonexistent waist. The prints are verysharp, even though the first film shows some decomposition. They shouldhave been released colour tinted and with somewhat more interestingmusical accompaniment than the constantly meditating piano, but whocares? These films still were eye openers. When you thought the filmwasn't a true art form back in 1910, think again: moving camera,panning camera, closeups, parallel editing, fluent narrative – it's allthere, and years before these techniques became accepted in UK, US orItaly.

3) "Afgrunden" is a clearly primitive movie. It isn’t stylisticrevolutionary, and doesn’t invent any new way to tell a story.However…. Though "Afgrunden" is from 1910 there is one scene I justcan’t seem to forget. It sticks to me in some strange way. The famousdancing scene with Asta Nielsen clearly has a sexual context. Evencompared to modern films tendency to make sexual contents seem as dirtyas possible, "Afgrunden" represents the same standard with a lot moremodest use of effects and ‘moves’. Try to see it, just for that onescene.

4) Spoilers ahead. The story is a complex one. Another writer here asoutlined it well, so instead, I will examine the character development.A young piano teacher (Magda played by Asta Nielsen) falls in love witha Vicar's son but leaves him suddenly during their courtship for acircus performer, apparently because she is awakened to passion. Thisis cleverly shown by the director and Ms. Nielsen changing the styleand pace of the film to contrast the quiet and peaceful courtshipbetween the Vicar's son and Magda with her sudden passion sheencounters when she visits the circus and meets Rudolf, the cowboyperformer. It is as if the passionate side of her nature is suddenlyawakened and beyond her control. This lack of control proves herundoing. Her cowboy is a philanderer, and she cannot deal with it. Shegoes through despair, self loathing, insane jealously, unbridlederoticism and murderous rage. Because of these fits of passion, Magdaand Rudolf eventually lose their position at the circus. They go aboutearning money any way they can, even sinking into prostitution. Throughall this she continually compares herself to the girl she once was anddoes not like what she sees. We sense that old self still lingeringinside her and the internal struggles that go on are evident. Eachtime, however, she always succumbs to her obsession, until sheeventually is taken away by the police for killing her lover.

Far from being above it all, the Vicar's son is also obsessed. WhenMagda ran away, she left a note for him, telling him to forget abouther. She knew she was lost and did not want to drag him down. Butinstead of taking up with a different, and more appropriate girl, hegoes searching for Magda. He finds her several times and theseencounters act as a reminder to Magda of her old self and act toincrease the the son's own feelings of obsessive love and loss thatbecome the defining emotions of his life. The last time he finds herthere is also a hint that his obsession is taking on an erotic aspect.He arranges to see her through the innkeeper in a private room, just asa "John" would arrange to meet a prostitute. Although he makes no moveson her, it may have been because of Magda,s own horror at seeing him insuch a situation. Why did he choose that particular way to meet her?Money was exchanged as well. The situation is ambiguous to say theleast. In the end, when she is taken away by the police, he is left inutter despair.

If you see this film, it is important to see the restored print by theDanish Film Institute and can be found on DVD with English subs fromDenmark. It is the best print, and is the one that other reviewers herehave praised. Other prints are unclear and incomplete, which can giveyou some very odd ideas about the film. One person here, for example,having seen an incomplete print said the film was misogynistic. This isnot true. Magda is not a femme fatal, a vamp, or any other artificialHollywood construct. She is a very real woman who's passions are selfdestructive. She actually tries to prevent the Vicar's son from gettinginvolved in her sordid life. But he had his own obsession and althoughit is quieter, it is just as destructive and just as deep.

The acting in the film is very much ahead of its time. At a time wheneven Griffith was still using a stage style of acting, the players inthis film act in a natural style. Griffith wouldn't get this workinguntil 1912 and you wouldn't see it in Hollywood commonly until 1920(ten years later). The story is told and the character developmentconveyed with an economy that is amazing even today. Much is done withthe faces of the actors but the director is also skilled in showingjust the right moment that will tell you so many things. This much plotand character depth in a 37 minute film make it unparalleled in myexperience.

The restoration is very good in most respects. The film is very clearand easy to see at all times. However, in a few spots the sourcematerials show a great deal of nitrate disintegration which is brieflydistracting. While there are brilliant moments in quickly conveying theplot and emotions of the characters, there are other moments which seemmore like the filming of a stage play. But this is 1910, after all.These drawbacks, are easily overshadowed by the intensity of the acting(particulary from Nielsen) and the pace of the story that sweeps youalong in a passion of its own.

5) Saw beautifully restored version as part of UCLA’s 2005 InternationalFilm Preservation series.

Correction to Frank’s excellent synopsis: Mr. Rudolph breaks into room,throws out Magda’s former fiancé, then turns on her. He appears quiteviolent, so Magda grabs a huge carving knife from the table and stabshim in the chest. That is why he drops dead. She throws her distraughtbody over him, clasping tightly. People enter the room and try toremove her from her dead lover. Even in death, she won’t let go, untila policeman enters and walks her down the stairs, leaving her abandonedfiancé alone, again.

You have to see her dance to believe it! We saw a stunning print, and Ican’t imagine anyone who saw her erotic, sensual dance will forget it.Quite a revelation that such a mature, realistic portrayal of sexualobsession was filmed in 1910, with minimal inter-titles and the amazingpresence of Asta. You can see the painted scrims/walls move as thecrowd tries to get into the room while Magda and Rudolph fight. UCLAnotes indicate "sets constructed in a prison yard." Many outdoor shots,with a feeling of one take and let’s move on, giving the audience atrue sense of what life looked like then. Absolutely no lighting, nospots, no close-ups, yet Asta’s natural radiance lit up her face, withrather naturalistic body movement for that time.

I agree she and Garbo were alike because they radiated unusual charismaand naked sensuality yet fully clothed. Her thick, curly dark hair andmassive dark eye makeup heightened her intensity. I don’t know why wedon’t read about her like we do Louise Brooks in "Pandora’s Box" or"Diary of a Lost Girl." Probably because this is such a rare film. Itwas on loan from the Danish Film Institute and I can only pray theyrelease it on DVD soon. I wonder when or if we shall ever see any moreof her films.

6) Interesting film, though it does seem too long at some points. The filmhowever do contain especially one interesting scene. Magda, the younggirlwhom the story revolves around, is performing on stage, with her love, acircus artist. On stage she ties him up with rope, and slowly starts todance around him. But it ain’t polka she’s dancing! She rubs against hisbody, feeling him up, while she slowly moves around him. Now this ofcoursedoesn’t sound very provocative today, but at that time it made themountainsmove! In fact, it was so provocative at the time that it was forbiddenforyoung men to see. Of course not any young man… only to the young menfromthe working classes (we all know who easy "they" /working class men/ areinfluenced! One simply couldn’t afford to poison a young workersmind!)

7) Magda meets her fiancé, Knud, in a casual way during a tram trip, atthat same moment both fall madly in love with each other; few dayslater, Knud invite Magda to spend a thrilling weekend at a vicarage,where his father works.

Meanwhile Magda are spending so particular weekend with her fiancé,comes to town a circus; Magda will fall in love with a cowboy whoperforms at the circus, exchanging at once the bored fiancé for thehefty cowboy and running away both without thinking very much this newsituation.

The relationship between Magda and her cowboy it will begin to be veryproblematic, tormented, and full of suspicions, jealousies andhumiliations suffered by Magda by her cowboy and despite that the boredfiancé appeared from time to time in her live trying to put an end tosuch wild passionate abyss, those efforts will be finally in vane.

"Afgrunden" it's a film directed by the great Danish and unfortunatelynot well known director, Urban Gad and starred by Asta Nielsen, actresswhom Herr Gad discovered and married.

Despite the film it's sometimes a simple and exaggerated melodrama,Herr Gad endow always their films with a stunning modernity as in styleas in content, being able to diminish those typical deficiencies of thefilm, in the other hand, standard for an early 1910 film production,not mentioning Damen Nielsen good presence and versatility (it isnecessary to emphasize the Damen Nielsen erotic dance scene, in thisway you'll see how modern and alluring your grandmothers were ), tworeasons, the Herr Gad film direction and Damen Nielsen performance,enough to watch this early Danish film.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave becausewhen this Teutonic Count heard about storm relationships, rememberedthat he must to talk something about it with some of their German fatheiresses.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzienhttp://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

I was really excited to see one of Asta Nielsen's first films, and atthat, it was my first Danish silent! Was I disappointed? Not really. Itwas worth a watch, but I have to say that the film was nothing special.I'm not sure if I've actually watched a film created earlier than thisone or around this time, so it is hard for me to put this film inperspective in relation to what was going on at the time in Denmark andin cinema. Maybe some cinematic techniques were new, but I wouldn't besurprised if there weren't any. There were many long shots (typical ofolder films) and I couldn't find anything that was innovative. On topof that, it was Urban Gad's first film, thus as an "amateur", Iwouldn't/don't expect much.

The acting was incredibly realistic and the only time over-acting wasseen was when Rudolf dies. Nielsen is known for her subtle acting, suchas a look telling it all, and I can definitely see the beginnings ofthis in Afgrunden; when she does the sensual dance; that look on herface is more erotic than her gyrating hips. While on the topic of the"famous" sensual/erotic dance, what I noticed to be a bit odd was thatthe audience is on the right of the frame, yet it seems as if both theactors acknowledge the camera as if it was the audience and not thepeople who are not seen on the right.

I see this film as a tale of a simple woman who has her emotionsunleashed, which leads her to her ruin. Although the film starts allhappy with Knud and Magda, with the intertitle to fit them "Younghearts", everything seems all lovey-dovey and nice. But at the sametime, the intertitle is like a foreshadow, implying (this is COMPLETELYmy interpretation by the way so I'm not getting this from any scholarlymaterial so take it with a grain of salt) that the relationship is likethe one of young people: fleeting. The intertitle can mean that thescene is of two young people meeting and falling in love, but as therest of the film shows, Magda's love for Knud pretty much ends. Magdacannot exactly be called a rational woman, but she was probably anormal woman of the times, but she is also easily excited, as theviewer can see with her reaction to the invitation to her fiancé'shome. At the fiancé's home, I saw it as a way for the viewer to see howmismatched the couple was. Magda wants to read but her fiancé wants togo for a walk; Magda wants to go to the circus and Knud goesunwillingly; Magda is interested in the circus dance and Knud is a taddisapproving of it. It already sets up for what is to happen and Rudolfsweeps her off her feet when he comes in through her window. Knud isthe complete opposite of Rudolf: he is steadfast and is a "moral"person. In the beginning of the film, Magda is seen only wearingcorseted dresses, and although she is seen wearing corseted dresseslater on as well, Magda's emotions are completely released when shedoes her sensual dance and her non-corseted dress reflects this. She isletting go of everything and in that very scene, she also unleashes heremotions when she lashes out at the other female performer. Perhapsthis can mean that a woman's sensuality and emotions leads to a declinein character, a moral downfall, but while this is what the viewer mayfirst think, it is also important to remember that Rudolf is aphilanderer. I would be jealous and angry too if I saw my loverflirting with every other woman. In the end, Magda kills Rudolf andalthough this might add to the whole "SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WOMAN ISNOT RIGHTEOUS!" argument, it was completely out of self-defense, and Ihope that contemporary audience sided with Magda. She doesn't deserveto get arrested at all, but she is taken away by the police. Knud isuneasy by what has happened and walks in and out of the room and out ofthe building. I interpreted his action of walking out of the room ashim realizing that he could never have Magda. In the last shot, helooks at Magda and tries to reach out to her, but she is in atrance-like state and does not acknowledge him and with glazed eyes,she is led away from the building by the police. This final scenereaffirms his severed ties with Magda as she does not even look at himand perhaps he realizes that their relationship is over since he onlyreaches out, but never directly approaches her.

So what is this film trying to say? Well, I don't know. Is it a moralstory? Maybe. Is it a tragic love story? Maybe. I'm not sure about the"message" of the film, but all I can do is speculate about what thescenes mean. For now, I see it as a story of a woman who goes with herpassions that leads to her "downfall" (financially and emotionally). Iwould rather prefer not to attach any moral judgment on Magda, becauseis it a sin to run away with a man? To be angry at him for being aflirt? I don't think so. I don't see Magda as a bad person and is moreupset with her staying with Rudolf.

FILM BLOG – http://sachlichkeit.net

9) This film was apparently very popular, sort of inaugurating animportant, although often overlooked, period in film history, that ofDanish silent film–at its height during the early 1910s. What Iconsider the best qualities of this era are not actually evident inthis particular picture: that is, interesting lighting effects, use ofmirrors as a self-referential device and impressive mise-en-scène. In'The Abyss,' the framing is standard and extremely dated. There's oneshot of an approaching train arriving at a station, a la the Lumièrebrothers' short, which I like to note only because there seem to bemany such shots resembling those first films scattered throughout theearly silent film era.

What 'The Abyss' does have is sensationalism, which is ratherrepresentative of 1910s Danish cinéma. The sex, including the dance, ispart of this, as is "the bad woman" played by Asta Nielsen. And, aswith most other such films I've seen, a circus must be involved. AlfredLind, listed as the cinematographer of this film, helped further createthe circus film genre with subsequent films, such as 'The FlyingCircus' ('Den Flyvende cirkus') (1912). Moreover, the plotting in thesetypes of films is nearly identical.

Besides being a notably early entry in sensational Danish circus films,'The Abyss' also continues to receive some recognition as launching thescreen career of Nielsen, who was an exceptionally popularinternational star, especially among German audiences. Her actingseems, compared to contemporaries, rather restrained, I suppose,thankfully forgoing much of the usual theatrics. Overall, 'The Abyss'might be worth seeing if you're interested in Nielsen or early Danishcinéma.

(Note: Even in the restored Danish Film Institute print, there isconsiderable deterioration in some scenes.)

The events unfold just before the start of the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan. A son of a high ranking military boss arrives in Afghanistan, hoping to take part in combat and earn some medals before the war ends. This leads to a chain of events and a dramatic finale. Major Bandura, who had a chance to leave for home, decides to stay with his men and take part in another operation in a remote village.

The Afghan intervention was a bloody and pointless war in which eventhe generals had forgotten the reasons for the bloodshed. This filmshows the tension and the cruelty of military life, the emotionalatrophy experienced by the troops and the pain that convulsed a smallnation torn by war and civil-war.

There is no lack of powerful scenes. One of the first is footage ofsteel coffins being loaded onto a transport bound for the USSR. Soldersgo about their work while an officer calmly ticks off the destinations:Moscow, Rostov, Donetsk, The Baltic.

An earlier comment describes the last scene with Maj. Bandura asillogical. It is perfectly logical and in the spirit of the film: theonly human relationship Bandura maintained was with the Afghan familywhich he accidentally kills in the assault. Having lost his only bufferagainst the senselessness of the war, Bandura turns his back on theboy(and his gun) in resignation to his fate.

I particularly liked the last scene: a flock of MI-28s rising over themountains as the voice of a pilot yells: "Uhodim! Uhodim rebyata!(We're leaving! Boys, we're leaving!) in a tone of sincere relief.

Afhanskii Izlom is an excellent film – brutally honest and asunholliwood as they come.

2) I would recommend this as the most successful attempt so far to make amovie on Soviet Afghan war. And it is very honest and responsiblepicture starting from small details of uniforms and weapons up to humanrelations, war routine and Central Asian landscapes. It's been shot inTajikistan just after the the troop withdrawal which happened in 1989not in 1985. The Italian star Mr. Placido was just perfect in the roleof Major Bandura. Other characters looked also very natural especiallyalways drunk club managing officer:-).The scenario seems a bit jammedin the end but it might be an impact of the Civil war in Tajikistanwhich had started right during the shooting of the film. All movie teamhad to escape sometimes even under fire. The last scene is purely"harakiri" type of behavior and reminded me the final phrase from onefamous samurai movie – "We've won all battles but lost the war". Itcould be also a metaphor of USSR collapse – the great country allowingto shoot itself to the back by the small offended child.

3) Well, the movie is basically about the last days of a specific Russianregiment stationed in Afghansitan, before the main troop withdrawal in1985. The movie accurately portrays the grim realities of Russian armythat have made it infamous: "dedovshina" (officers and NCOs physicallyharassing, beating and humiliating younger recruits), mixed characterof war (you can trade with your enemy one day and kill him the next),life of women at the front lines, documentary footages of helicopterassaults, and coffins being soldered and sent home in heave C-130Hercules class Russian cargo planes with tracer to jam Stingermissiles, fatigue, boredom, anti-war sentiment, emotional side simplyput. The there’s some action scenes, but they are poorly done, andoften are illogical, like Major Bandura’s suicidal walk and turning ofhis back to 10-year-old kid armed with AK-47 who’s father he justkilled. Also the fact that in the middle of firefight in the mountainsheavy grenade launcher pops out of nowhere (and any half-bright personknows that it’s virtually impossible to hump 40-50 lns launcher on themarch anyone). But at the same time films shows that war is a dirtyaffair, where murder is sometimes condoned, wanton destruction of wholevillages for little or no reason is normal, indiscriminate killing ofcivilians is overlooked as collateral damage inevitable during war…Some food for thought as to why Afghan war as lost.. Not the best warmovie made, but profound and intelligent enough to be worth watching.

4) From the first to the last scene, this film is made veryrealistically,even too realistically that sometimes we can't seedetails in night scenes(it's dark as real night),in the desert(sunshineis so strong as in real desert).

Script and actor's play are also very realistic. Shots and episodes areedited not to show things and events "effectively", to "explain" them,or,as many Hollywood films do, to "entertain" viewers. Editing here isto represent the events as if they really happened in Afganistan.Camera is set sometimes far from dying solders, even the moment whenthe main character Major Bandura is shot and killed.

Such method reminds me of masterpieces of Italian neo-realism. And theconstruction of the story here is based on the same principles as"Paisà",or "The Bicycle Thief"–chronological series of "true to life"episodes and a few pathetic moments, which at first seem to be suddenand illogical, but have inner reasons.

I think the inner reason of Major Bandura's suicidal death is religiousemotion–Repentance for innocent people's death(not only his accidentalkilling of family in the village, but also death of solders under hiscommand).He is not depicted as a eager believer,on the contrary he isdepicted as tactful and responsible officer.Exactly for this reason hislast decisions(to go back to the destroyed village and to turn his backto an armed boy, whose family he killed)seem an act of Repentance.

The Russian Orthodox choral, which sounds at the end("EveningSacrifice")is another context,by which all the film can be seen fromthis point of view.

So yeah, I’ve seen my share of bad movies. They can be a lot of fun towatch. A lot of bad movies are so bad (I’d never call them "so badthey’re good"), they’re enjoyable, especially with the right crowd. WarBus Commando, however, is not one of them.

This movie was bad. And it was slow. They need to use a rundown oldbus, modified to make it a "WAR BUS!", to escape hostile territory.Fixing a bus will never be exciting film. It was just agony to sitthrough this horrid movie. It wasn’t even funny in its badness. It wasjust wrong. The funniest part of all of this was to learn that this wasactually War Bus 2. Someone had made a movie about a War Bus before andthought it a worthy concept for a sequel. Thank God an alternate titlewas Afghanistan- The LAST War Bus.

2) Bad. Avoid. Oh, I suppose I should be more specific. This isn’t really adirect sequel to War Bus. The first one took place in Vietnam, this onetakes place in Afghanistan. And if you’ve seen the first one, you knowthatthis can’t really be the same bus anyway. The two films share none ofthesame characters. First, I should explain that I love bad, silly, cheesymovies that make me laugh. That is why I sought this out. C’mon, it’sgotMark Gregory! Thunder from Thunder Warrior I-III! Trash from 1990:BronxWarriors & Escape from the Bronx! My hopes were set high, and I wascompletely disappointed. The first War Bus was a solid, albietunrealistic,war flick. This one is boring. There’s not a whole lot to laugh at andthere are but a few fleeting glimpses of competence. So if you’re lookingfor a good war film, rent the first War Bus instead. If you’re lookingfora good Mark Gregory film, THIS IS NOT IT. But hey, if you’re readingthis,you’ll probably ignore me and just watch it anyway. I understand, I’d dothe same thing.

On the plus side,this is a relaxing work,without the usual sex,violenceandall the trendy paraphernalia.The landscapes are beautiful and the camerashows a great love for the feathered race.The director has partly avoidedManicheism(i.e. good ecologist/wicked hunters).

But she did not avoid her two main character’s melodramatic background:theschoolteacher spent seven years in the army ,in Djibuti (and Tchéky Karyo,who plays him,if he’s a credible ecologist ,is a thoroughly implausiblefirebrand),then he had the now de rigueur bout of alcoholism.As for thewoman,her childhood’s almost worthy of Victor Hugo’s "les miserables":herfather treated her badly,she left ,became pregnant,was abandoned by herlover, deprived of the custody of her child,and the wholeshebang.

Nevertheless,nature lovers should not miss this movie.Yannick Bellon wasthefirst director in France ,to tackle seriously the rape topic ("l’amourviolé",1977).Some kind of female André Cayatte ,her work generally remainswithout vigor and self-conscious though.

The real drama takes place inside the mind of the lead character, Wade. "What is real?" is the fascinating question here. How far do we go to rationalize our acts and desires? This flick is definitely worth watching from a psychological standpoint!

• When meeting with James Coburn to discuss the film, director Paul Schrader encouraged Coburn to make heavy preparations for his role. Coburn responded “Oh, you mean you want me to really act? I can do that. I haven’t often been asked to, but I can.”

• Continuity: Wade puts his right hand’s finger in his mouth because of his toothache, but when he turns his back to Margie he appears with his left hand’s finger in his mouth.
• Continuity: When on the deer hunt, in a shot from above Jack is shown putting the index finger of his left hand to his mouth to signal his wealthy customer to be silent, but in the next shot it’s his right index finger.

I am in awe of Nick Nolte’s spectacular performance. It is honest, complexand totally convincing. Nolte is ably supported by James Coburn and others.This is moviemaking at its best.

2) Based on a novel by Russell Banks who also wrote "The SweetHereafter", and directed by Paul Schrader of "Raging Bull" and "TheMosquitoCoast" fame, the winter landscape and cold bleakness of the town setsthetone for this exploration of the dark legacy of what it is to be aman.

Nick Nolte stars in this dark story of a the lone policeman in a smallNewHampshire town investigating a hunting accident. James Coburn is excellentas Nick Nolte’s father, a brutaland angry old manwho typifies a sick machismo which has in turn afflicted his son.Hisacting is extraordinary as is Nolte’s although their styles aredifferent.Noltle is subtle; his facial expressions are controlled and typical of amanwho has learned to hold in emotion. Coburn’s face, on the other hand,ismore deeply expressive; his eyebrows move, his mouth hardens, hiseyesglare.

This is the kind of dark, brooding movie that I like. For a brief fewhoursI enter its world and get completely absorbed in the characters in the wayIdid with "A thousand Acres" or "The Horse Whisperers". Like thesefilms,there are no easy answers and the conclusion does not wrap up in aneatlittle Hollywoodpackage that is soon forgotten.

3) I have watched this movie several times and reflected on the negativecriticisms of others on this message board. And while I agree that someof the performances were flawed and that an evening spent watching itcan hardly be called entertainment, still, in terms of its writer’sobjectives, which are summed up in Rolf’s concluding VO (which I quotebelow), in my opinion Affliction it is a superb accomplishment.

I write thusly because I as a child — as I must suppose the writer wasalso — was beaten often and most violently by a totally out-of-controlfather who himself was the product of his father’s violence. Which isnot to say that I did not afford ample provocations for soundthrashings (or possibly a more effective form of chastisement, for, asthe proverbial fool, I indeed kept returning to my follies), stillthere are limits. Nevertheless, I have thought often of the effectthese beatings must have had in shaping my personality and destiny –and being now some 85 years of age, I have had a very long post, postgraduate course in introspection.

Whatever, the writer’s conclusions did indeed resonate with me, andwell written they were indeed:

ROLFE (V.O.)

The historical facts are known by everyone — all of Lawford, all ofNew Hampshire, some of Massachusetts.

Facts do not make history. Our stories, Wade’s and mine, describe thelives of boys and men for thousands of years, boys who were beaten bytheir fathers, whose capacity for love and trust was crippled almost atbirth and whose best hope, if any, for connection with other humanbeings lay in an elegiac detachment, as if life were over.

It’s how we keep from destroying in turn our own children andterrorizing the women who have the misfortune to love us; how we absentourselves from the tradition of male violence; how we decline theseduction of revenge.

4) Affliction is the story of a man, Wade Whitehouse, who lives his lifein the shadow of his father, Glen, a large, overbearing drunkard whohas abused his wife Jill and two sons, Wade and Rolfe, as shown inflashback and still does so into adulthood, verbally..The story isdescribes by Rolfe in voice over and brief appearances and establishesthe salient facts of Wades existence: his failed marriage; hisinability to connect with his young daughter;his inability to commit tohis girl friend; his menial job which consists of supposed sheriff androad crew;all are the result , as described in voice over by Rolfe atthe films conclusion, of being deprived, almost at birth, from theabuse, of the ability to love and trust. But Wade struggles to overcomehis affliction, to no avail. Despite his father’s abuse, Wade clearlyloves his father, or at least acknowledge his debt as a son, by hidinghis father’s pickup keys to prevent him from driving drunk. Ironicallythis results in a scuffle in which Wade accidentally kills his father.The scene which follows is one of great power, as Wade sets his fatherscorpse ablaze in the garage and retreats to his father’s home to viewthe conflagration from the kitchen table, fortified by a bottle ofwhiskey.. He in essence, is witness to his life going up in flames.Rolfe, in voice over, ties up the remaining threads of Wade’sdestruction.

Not a feel good film for sure, but one that is brilliantly acted by thetwo main actors, Nick Nolte as Wade and James Coburn as Glen. Thesupporting cast, though excellent fades into the background.whencompared to these two.

First rate movie making that will ring some bells if one can empathizewith the story. I found it compelling and rewarding.

5) AFFLICTION / (1997) **** (out of four)

By Blake French:

Dysfunctional families have always been the subject of motion pictures.Recently, with movies like "American Beauty" and "The Story of Us,"Hollywood has portrayed American households as candidates to be on the nextTV tabloid talk show. Paul Schrader’s dramatic portrayal of a troubledfamily in "Affliction" is as intense as any suspense thriller releasedwithin the past few years. The thought-provoking power of his script, basedon the novel by Russell Banks, and the methods he uses to execute the vivid,interpretative character study creates more than just a sense of emotion andempathy, but places the audience in the character’s shoes, allowing us toexplore a tense atmosphere on our own.

The movie looks into the life of a struggling person named Wade Whitehouse,played with extreme intensity by the descriptive Nick Nolte. He is the lowlysheriff of a small backwoods in New Hampshire. Nothing much happens inLawford, however, thus Wade is usually restricted to plowing the snowystreets and serving as the local school’s crossing guard. His ex-wife,Lillian (Mary Beth Hurt), has most custody of their daughter, Jill (BrigidTierney), and neither relative enjoys his company. Wade’s alcoholic father,Glen (James Coburn in an Oscar worthy performance), who abused him and hisbrother Rolfe (Willem Dafoe) as children, continues to abuse him emotionlly.

The subtle town of Lawford is turned upside-down when a rich businessman ismysteriously killed while hunting with Wade’s friend, Jack Hewitt (JimTrue). Finally given something to investigate, Wade takes his job seriously,even when complications arise when his mother dies, his brother comes homefrom Boston, and his waitress girlfriend (Sissy Spacek) meets Wade’s parentsand realizes what she gotten herself into.

As Wade’s life starts to completely unravel, the filmmakers neglect toleave out any details; from flashback of his fathers abuse to anuncompromising toothache, Wade is developed vividly and clearly. The movieis best when allowing Nick Nolte and James Coburn to come to terms with eachother’s hatred for each other. The performances are what make this moviemuch more distinct than similar but lesser films like "The Other Sister" and"The Story of Us," and even better acted than the masterpiece Award winner"American Beauty."

Instead of milking the dysfunctional family material to the maximum, thefilm also has tender dialogue and heartfelt scenes that exhibit a lovingrelationship between Wade and his girlfriend. These scenes make even moretragic the production’s unsettling conclusion and increase the overalldramatic impact, which is tremendous.

By the end of "Affliction," like in "The Ice Storm," we feel for the maincharacter’s losses. Although this film is more conclusive, it is alsounmerciful; we receive no happy ending, no satisfying motifs, this movietakes itself seriously and has no pity, regrets, or agreements. For WadeWhitehouse, the climax of the movie represents death, grief and sorrow. Forus, we can only stare at the screen and try to comprehend what we haveexperienced through his eyes.

6) "Affliction" doesn’t have an immediate plot. It’s mostly a delve into aman’s (Nick Nolte) psyche, a divorced alcoholic man who was abused as achild by his drunken father (James Coburn). He tries to cope, he tries tomake something of himself by attempting to solve a hunting accident which hethinks is really a murder. He claims that after this, everyone willremember him as a hero.

Luckily the audience isn’t made to believe Nolte’s cause, to us he looksjust as mad as he does to the characters around them. This is well done,because it could’ve been presented as some big twist at theend.

Anyway, the "mystery" element to the film isn’t that important. It’s mostlyabout how hard – and almost impossible – it is to prevent an emotionallyabused man to make the same mistakes his father made. This idea ispresented well, but by the end it just feels so thick and depressing thatit’s hard to take anything from the film, because you don’t want to rememberit.

Acting-wise the movie is quite good. Nolte delivers what I think is hisbest performance here, with a quiet desperation wonderfully put out by hiseyes, voice, face, and so on. James Coburn does his usual well, but I haveto question just why he won an Oscar for this. Don’t get me wrong, he was aterrific actor and his performance in this is great, but he’s not in manyscenes, and the scenes he is in are mostly just a variation of the samething: Coburn drunkenly and violently mumbles at his sons and eventuallystarts to yell and thrash. This is all well and good, but his scenes nevergo beyond that, except for (maybe) at the end when he spews his own sort oftwisted philosophy to Nolte.

Other great performances come from Sissy Spacek as Nolte’s increasinglyuneasy girlfriend. Also Willem Dafoe as Nolte’s brother who is so concernedwith being quiet and not problematic that he cant prevent the build-up ofviolence and abuse in his family. I’d say that this performance is moreOscar worthy than Coburn’s.

This is a good movie with a great message, but it doesn’t put enough on thetable, 7/10.

7) This is the best film I’ve seen for a while. I don’t understand allthat whining and complaining about the weak plot or how depressing thefilm was. Well life is depressing at times. And more than tells astory, Affliction draws a beautifully sharp picture of one desperate,troubled but goodhearted man’s breakdown. Nolte’s acting is awesome andhe sets into the role perfectly. I think he should have won the Oscar,although Coburn was great too and deserved his price. With it’s snowyscenery and small town murder mystery Affliction shares similarities toTwin Peaks. I also like films that include some kind of a statementtowards the world around us, and that’s what Affliction does.

For what is considered a small, independent film, this movie is packedwithbrilliant performances by two great actors. James Coburn is the dark,angrypatriarch of an abusive household, whose abuse and anger are inherited byhis son(Nolte). The story is told by the youngest brother (played mainlyinvoice-over and a small cameo by Willem Dafoe), and traces the events of asmall town murder investigation that leads to the mental collapse ofNolte’scop character. The film weaves us through a buffet of sub-plots and bitcharacters (including a nice appearance by Sissy Spacek), which is attimeswhish-washed. However the tone and style of the film are quite fresh andunique.

Penned and directed by Paul Schrader, who will probably always beknown for writing "Taxi Driver", the film is a stylish take of what ismostlikely a much better novel. The tone is cold and dark, and serves as theperfect backdrop for the anger and isolation of the two "male" characters.In my opinion, the voice-over narration takes away from the feeling thepicture leaves, basically serving the purpose to tell us what to feel.Theimages and performances on the screen do a fine job in dong that on it’sown, without re-enforcment. On a whole, the film is powerful and moving,and is a great look into the heart and soul of lives that are truelytortured. I would recommend this film if for no other reason than to seethe brilliant performances of James Coburn (Oscar winner) and Nick Nolte(Oscar nominee).

9) A walk in the park, a fine romance, a Indy Jones and the Last Crusade.Come on, a combination of Russell Banks and Paul Shrader, the authorwho explores a school bus accident and the writer/director from TaxiDriver, or The Comfort of Strangers. Did you really expect a happyending? The film is a dark side vision of Richard Russo's Nobody'sFool, which Paul Newman and Robert Benton turned into a tale ofredemption on screen in that same part of the world. No redemptionhere. As Wade's brother's final voice-over lets you know that Wade isstill out there, reliving his father's life, you are relieved to bepermitted to leave this claustrophobic world.

Painful scene after painful scene are piled on each other, none more sothan the painful rejection of Wade by his little girl. Children gothrough periods where their parents are embarrassments to them, but inthis case, it is more of a fear than a shame of Wade that makes herwant to be in her mother's arms.

This is a great film of uncompromising realism. It is a modern Jude TheObscure, but at least you were allowed to see Jude when he had hope andsome happiness, and at the end he simply wore himself out. At the endof Affliction, all that you know is that Wade is out there in theworld, his angers banked.

The film works because of Nolte's performance. Coburn has an easierjob, but he carries it off. The sub-plots mean little, but show usWade/Nolte in a field of action, and demonstrate that it is not onlyhis personal life that is a mess.

Odd that Banks' The Sweet Hereafter locale was moved from upstate NewYork to British Columbia, and this film of bare rock, flinty NewHampshire was made in Canada also.

10) This piece of sloth won an Oscar? You've got to be kidding me. This isperhaps the most slow moving, boring, uneventful "drama" I've everwatched. You kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing did.Half the time you couldn't even make out the dialogue (I think Noltewas drunk or stoned in real life as he mumbled through the script; and,no, I don't think it was intentional). There's a toothache, a murder, adivorce….and why do I care? This movie struggles trying to decidewhat to be. Is it a murder mystery? A drama? Or just a pointless wasteof time? Mostly the latter. The ending made absolutely no sense at alland was completely unfulfilling to the script and the audience. Theexpected gradual buildup one anticipated was completely absent…thereis no "descent into madness" or anything like that. It is more like 2hours of nothing, horribly drawn out, followed by about 5 minutes of aseries of events that should have been the climax, mostly reduced toflashback and 3rd party offscreen narration! (And bad narration, Imight add – Willem Dafoe might be a great actor, but he should never beallowed to read/narrate a film again. He sounds like he's reading outof a book.) I understand the deeper intent, but the execution waspathetic. I would not curse sitting through this entire film again onanyone. There are much better movies out there to deal with substanceabuse and violence…this is not one of them. Mostly it's just a bunchof exposition and wasted time. Quite an affliction on the viewerindeed!

2) A scorching, forty-five minute modern mondo with an intense, breakneck focuson self-abuse and sexual and moral deviancy within underground performanceart and culture. Live footage of the performances of G G Allin, interviewswith banned-from-drawing comic book artist Mike Diana, and a vitriolic odeto mass slaughter courtesy of the masked Full Force Frank, are amongst thefilm’s more noticeable moments.

Mark Hejnar’s film successfully recalls the mondo format in its fascinationwith cultures that deviate from the everyday, and its assumption that thisinterest will be instinctively shared by the audience. Indeed, a title-cardwhich introduces startling (for the uninitiated, at least) footage of G GAllin defecating on stage and anally masturbating with a banana alludes tothis, the title reading ‘What You All Came To See.’ Mainstream culture maybe appalled, but Hejnar nevertheless appears to be goading it into admittingthe presence of a grisly fascination. This is often shocking stuff, forsure, yet frequently with an intentional sense of absurdist humour (Dianastruggling to make himself vomit, on demand, over a crucifix) that allowsgreater access into this patchwork of controlled chaos.

3) A very fast moving fascinating piece of work from theunderground,afflictions only intention seems to be to shock and disgustthe viewer.Not that there's anything wrong with that,and it sure ashell succeeds in doing so.Some of the more notable clips include thetypically endearing punk singer gg allin bashing his own head in with amicrophone,eating diarrhoea covered fries and being typically himselfand some "gays with guns" shooting some people up,and we see the camerazoom in on the horrific images of the real mutilated corpses.Markhejnar picks up on countless interesting underground subcultures,andthrows them at us at full pace.Give this award winning self proclaimed"most underground film ever" a look if you are unashamedly interestedin humanities sick side.8/10 *This comment is dedicated to IMDb userScott from Modesto who sent me a copy of this film out of his owngoodwill.*

4) Hmmm…AFFLICTION is a hard one to call. I found most of it to be quitefunny, while at times also being repulsive and depraved. Hard to reallysay much about this one without just talking about the "content"…

AFFLICTION is a collage of a bunch of "shock" footage that is sometimeshilarious, sometimes sick – but always entertaining. We see"shock-punk" GG Allin doing what he does best – eating dook. We getsome joker called Full Force Frank who rants on and on about guns andmass murder while wearing a ski-mask, aviators, and a leather jacket(I'd love to meet this jackass – seems like a fun person to have adrink with…), a bunch of "extreme" body piercing/S&M scenes, somescenes of "golden-age" porn-star Annie Sprinkles, some dildo puking ona bible, "shock-comic" artist Mike Diana – whose insanely tastelesscomics were banned as "obscenity", and a good bit more…

Nothing really all that "redeeming" about AFFLICTION – basically just abunch of weird stuff that will be of interest to "extreme" film-fans. Ipersonally found most of it laughable – GG's antics are always a"treat" – and that Full Force Frank cat is a certifiable whackadoo thatI'd love to spend a day with (if he didn't shoot me with one of hisnumerous fire-arms). Casual film-viewers or those easily offended mayas well leave this one alone – hardcore sleaze fans will DEFINITELYwanna check this one out…7/10

5) Better leave Mark Hejnar's document to extreme lifestyles and art outof your house if you have any sense of morality. Amid a killer crop ofvideo mayhem showing in explicit detail genital mutilation/piercing,scat/uro/vomit, and extreme BDSM, Affliction also takes in depth looksat wacko 'zine scene militant Full Force Frank, fetish icon AnnieSprinkles, and dead junkie GG Allin who's always a hoot. It all comesat you pretty fast and smacks you around rather nicely. In between allthis are looks at "extreme" artists like obscene comic creator MikeDiana whose artwork was actually banned. Chances are that Hejnar'sAffliction would probably be ruled obscene in many places. If youwouldn't mind seeing a guy anally masturbate himself with a crucifixwhile jerking off, take a look at Affliction. It's got leather-ensnaredballs. 9/10.

"L'affittacamere" is another one of those awful Italian comedies thatare nothing more than a mix of cheap eroticism, where the cute girlgets naked over and over, and gross humor. The problem here is thatgross humor is the main subject here and in this kind of film that'sunforgivable.

Gloria Guida is the cute girl (actually the only one) who inherits amansion with her sister that they will use as a hotel; during the moviemany guests arrive, some of them really weird, and their interactionswith the girl is what the plot is about. There are delirious thingslike a judge obsessed with signing on female body parts or the junkiepolice dog, but 100 % of the movie is completely unfunny and the nudityis almost non-existent. Terrible.