I love pop culture, but I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this. Then, I seen an episode, and I LOVE IT! I was a little upset when I found out that Christopher Eccelson would no longer be playing Doctor Who. He was probably the best one they've had. He fits the character so well. It's sad to see him go. I really don't think that the new guy is going to pull off the doctor as well as Eccelson.

I think everyone can overlook the cheesy effects in some spots and the creatures, such as the darleks. The story lines and characters can more than make up for that. I'm currently waiting for season two and I will review that as well, in case, for any reason, quality goes down.

Anyways, I think everyone should try to see one episode. I did, and I have been loving it ever since. Well written, well casted, and well produced, this show is worth the hour of viewing. Doctor Who gets a 10/10


I have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and over. I adore each of the "Doctors" for different reasons. But due to a man in the BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted. In 1999, the "man" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The Doctor Who universe has always been about "Choice", "Love" and "Sacrifice". This is what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor. Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know, there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it. We have already seen that he is a great actor.


As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.

Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.

This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is "Fantastic!".

Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.

So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. "Fantastic!" - Almost as many "Fantastic!"'s as The Doctor! -


If you're a long-time fan of the Doctor and you cringed when you heard they were making another series, rest easy -- it more than meets the high expectations of the original. The pacing is much quicker than the original shows, fitting more often into 50 minutes episodes rather than the average 90 minutes. The writing is excellent, the acting superb. The hardest - and best - thing to get used to is the production values of the new series. Compared to the original, it's got some now. (Although I will always have fond memories of bubble-wrap and hand-puppet monsters.) If you're not a fan, or if you tried the original and couldn't get a handle on it, jump in with both feet now! Everything you really need to know about the Doctor, they'll tell you as they go along. This series was written with minimal references to the Doctor's enormous back story specifically to encourage new viewers. Admittedly, I'm only seeing the first new series now as it's being shown on the Sci-Fi channel (in other words, probably cut to ribbons for time constraints), but I'm looking forward to future episodes either on broadcast TV or on DVD. (July 4th can't come soon enough!)


Russell T Davies has been tasked with re-creating a slice of my childhood: hiding behind the sofa, watching scary monsters battle with Dr Who. He, and his crew, are clearly all true devotees of the original series.

In much the same way as the Star Trek movies used their budget to make the Gene Rodenberry's original concept far more believable, Russell T Davies has both money and the advantages of excellent CGI to create the best monsters ever. I am sure that this series was made with a budget that anticipated both export and DVD sales and it really feels as if no expense was spared.

The accompanying series Dr Who Confidential shows the work that goes into each episode which is a really useful behind the scenes insight. Interviews with the cast and writers help retell the story from each characters perspective and are far more useful than simply watching the whole programme over again.

How does David Tenant rank in the pantheon of his illustrious predecessors? Time will tell but tonight, seeing Billie Piper play alongside Elisabeth Sladen, who was the Doctor's companion in the 1970's confirm that she has both the acting ability, screen presence and script to be the No. 1.


One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.

Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, "Rose" and "The End of the World," this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.

She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.

Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, "Doctor Who" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here.


For those with access to the BBC or the CBC, this has proved to be spectacular. Like Battlestar Gallactica, this is a show rebuilt from the ground up. But in the case of Dr Who, they saved the best parts. I can't believe I am saying this but.. this is by far the best Dr Who. This has none of the cheap production values and sometimes slow plodding of the old show. The acting is quite good and there is a real sense of continuity and history. The new Doctor is easily the equal of the great Tom Baker, and the writer (former QAF lead) seems to have made even the minor characters come alive.

I know...I'm gushing..but this should be on everyone sci-fi geeks list. I just don't know why it hasn't made its way here.. Whatever you do...if you ever loved Dr Who or sci-fi..see this!!!


I enjoyed some of the older Doctor Who many years ago, so when the new one came out, I just had to check it out. I was SO pleased - with the characters, the story lines, the updated look, I became hooked! From Season 1 (27 for the old fans) through to season 2 (28), it just keeps on getting better. It ties in nicely with the old shows too, although you don't have to know the old shows to enjoy this newer version.

Even though there has been a change of cast, I highly recommend Doctor Who - with Chris Eccleston AND with David Tennant.

I like that they've given the characters so much depth. The Doctor seems more vulnerable in this series, maybe because he is the last TimeLord. The range of emotions which Chris and David show are truly remarkable, and I felt their pain, anger, and sense of adventure right along with them.

Billie Piper (Rose) brings a very human element to each episode, although she is much braver than I would be. With her talent, Billie will go far in the industry.


Harry Langdon's "Saturday Afternoon" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's "Cops" or Chaplin's "The Immigrant" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.

For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of "Saturday Afternoon" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch "Saturday Afternoon" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.

But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of "Saturday Afternoon," when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.

"Saturday Afternnon" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake.


If (as I just pointed out in THE GOAT) Keaton is following the tradition of the comics finding themselves at odds with the law, this Langdon short (the last released before he did TRAMP, TRAMP, TRAMP) was based on another comic ploy - being married to a shrewish spouse, and trying to get away for some secret two-timing dating. Laurel & Hardy did this in several films, as did Fields, and Chaplin.

I have a problem with it - why do these characters always marry such nasty women? And there is an interesting sociological side issue - why don't you find female comics married to male counterparts to these shrews? I can't recall any, except in a Carol Burnett skit, where the two nastier members of two couples discover that they prefer having someone give it back as good as they get (a kind of mutual sado-masochism, but also reassurance that their not married to a namby-pamby type). As for the fact that the comics do marry shrews, I suppose one can imagine they get what they deserve. Or do they? Ollie really deserves a wife who throws pots and dishes at him? Yeah he went to that convention in SONS OF THE DESERT that ruined her plans, but he wanted to get some private time - there is nothing suggesting he and Stan cheated on their wives. Actually he is creamed by Mae Busch because he lied to her while Stan collapsed and told the truth to his wife.

Here Harry's wife (Alice Ward) is shown at the start talking to her mother about how she keeps him under strict control. We see Harry at his job (it is Saturday morning, and the job ends at noon for the rest of the weekend - this was before the idea of a five - day a week, 40 hour a week job in industry). He works in a foundry where he hits red hot metal into shape (an early joke about Langdon - he is a small, light man, not the muscular type to swing a sledge hammer). He just misses his streetcar trying to give a man a light. He calls home to explain things and gets an earful from the missus for being two minutes late.

On the way home Harry meets his pal Steve (Vernon Dent) who has met two nice, sweet girls who would just love to have a date. Harry is hesitant but agrees to it after talking to the girl (he agrees to pay for the hot-dogs for the foursome - he has a 1926 silver half dollar in his pocket). But his plans seem derailed when his wife discovers his hidden "cache" of coins. He keeps it hidden under the living room rug, and finds it by walking along the edge of the rug. But his wife spies on him, and confiscates all of it. Later she overhears him talking to himself and berating her. In contempt she gives him back a dime and says he can treat his date to a soda.

But Harry has a second cache of coins, and dresses up for the date - and goes out. He and Dent are apparently late, and Dent blames Harry, but Harry tries to make it up to him: he produces two prostitutes. They get into a quarrel when Dent (wisely) says they are not the type of girls he'd term as "nice". Eventually the girls do show up and the date begins. But soon Harry is hiding in the rumble seat, as his wife drives past in her roadster, and the girls boy friends turn up - angry at their two rivals.

The short works well and is amusing, and gives one a better idea of the persona that Harry Langdon developed in his brief stardom as a comic master. He is constantly put upon by others. He misses his streetcar because some stranger keeps asking for a smoke and a light, and in the end the stranger gets his own. The nice girl who is Harry's date has a little dog who chases him away. He rests between two cars that both start driving away and he ends up wrapped around a pole. It certainly demonstrates that Langdon had his screen persona down pat by the time that he made his features. If only he could have kept the complex whole together beyond those three first features.


"Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl.

It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives.

He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once.

Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that.

The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in.

This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed.


I've been a fan of Larry King's show for awhile, I think he does a terrific job overall and I don't think he ever 'wusses' out, as so many people seem to believe. He's a subtle Scorpio, he gets his zings in when he needs to, just as he managed to do last night with Paris Hilton, during her first post-jail TV interview.

The thing about this entire case that has really amazed me is that Hilton is still apparently clueless about why Judge Sauer gave her what she believes was a too-harsh sentence (and what's more, actually MADE her serve it) . In all the time she was in jail, supposedly alone 23 hours a day in her cell, she never once, in her mind, rewound the events which led to her being given the sentence that Judge Sauer saw fit to impose on her. She never once realized that it just might have set off a major red flag when she (1) showed up late in court for the original hearing and (2) proceeded to inform him, when he asked her did she not know that her license had been suspended, did she not get the papers in the mail, that "I have people who read that sort of thing for me."

All the time she was in her cell, she never came to the realization that this action (showing up late) and that statement -- and more importantly, the attitude - the utter cavalier disregard for the court system and the law in general and her driving privileges in particular that she displayed -- just might have made Judge Sauer (pardon the pun) go sour on her.

Last night, on King's show, after giving lip service to how she has been changed forever by her traumatic experience, how she has "learned" her lesson, she answered his question, "Do you think you got a raw deal?" with a resounding yes. And during the course of the conversation (if you can call it that), she said more than once that she did not feel she deserved what had happened to her. King asked, gently, more than once, if she does not feel she creates the situations in her life that she "finds" herself in, to which she pretty much stared at him blankly. She basically, therefore, holds the conscious belief that she's been victimized in this situation; she does not understand how she herself caused it, that day in court, by her cavalier attitude with the judge. I feel this is very sad - tragic, even, considering what a huge "role model" Hilton is to some people, and it renders anything she said last night about her so-called rehabilitated state into the realms of complete and utter cluelessness, contradiction and hypocrisy.

During the course of the interview, Hilton alluded to spending a lot of time in her cell reading the Bible. At the end of the interview, King scored major points by asking her what her favorite Bible passage was. She responded by groping perplexedly at her pathetic notes (completely superficial non-insights, which she had read on air as if she were Nelson Mandella or something) and finally grunting out, "I don't have a favorite passage."

Judge Sauer, in my book, is a hero, and after last night, so is Larry King, for subtly exposing Hilton for what she truly is.


As talk-shows go, Larry King Live is not bad, and since he occasionally gets good guests, it's a show to turn on once in awhile, but not compulsively. When Bill Maher, Carl Bernstein, a former president, or other substantive guests sit across from him, it's not too bad. Other times, he tends to host guests involved in the latest celebrity scandal which contributes absolutely no intelligent information to the country and feeds a largely uneducated public that wants to hear the latest gossip about movie and TV stars. During the OJ Simpson trial, it seemed like every other guest on his show was related to the case. But is this really journalism? Or the National Enquirer on the tube? Sometimes, it comes off a little bit like trash television--Jerry Springer in a sit down interview with phone calls instead of a live audience.

On the other side, King's show is definitely much better than Bill O'Reilly whose show is nothing more than a rightest-political platform of the Rush Limbaugh variety. That said, Larry King is not a bad interviewer, but alas, he is not a great one. King does not always come off like he completely comprehends when intellectual material is being presented, especially if it is by a scholar or historian with a new book on subtle aspects of politics. Always seems like the minute King can't quite deal with the issue at hand, that's when he turns to the phone calls, maybe hoping someone out in the country will have a better question than he has. He might interview someone like David Gergen, but may not have read any of his books. Sort of like the movie producer that never bothers to read the script.

When it's an entertainment celebrity, no problem. He can come off like he's thoroughly knowledgeable since the material is not that substantive anyway. Talking to Elizabeth Taylor about her relationship with Richard Burton is not exactly rocket science. And I notice he usually has seen the star's latest movie. Watching a movie takes much less time and contemplation than reading a book. However, if it's the likes of John Dean or Bob Woodward, King comes off a little like he didn't quite finish his homework. So off to the phones.

If you are looking for real in-depth interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR is probably the best interviewer in the United States. She reads and/or researches everything written by or about her guests beforehand and has a working knowledge of those areas. I don't see King quite doing that. Granted, he probably has an audience 1000 times larger than Terry Gross, which may say more about the American audience than King. In short, Larry is better than Bill but not as good as Terry.


Tia Carrere was the reason I decided to watch this film, as neither the title, nor the cover would have been enough to make me spend my time and money on this film  which goes to show, me and everyone, that a DVD shouldn't be judged by it's cover.

***SPOILERS*** The film felt like it was trundling along, not really going anywhere for the moment  the awkwardness of Paul Faber (Zak Orth) around girls being almost too embarrassing to watch, and the fringe on the otherwise attractive Kirsten Beck (as Alexondra Lee) being too school-girlish to watch. Where those really fashionable in 1995?

The relationship between Vicky Mueller (Tia Carrere) and Todd Boomer (Jason London) was tantalising from the start of though! That first meeting across the lake  magical. What a beautiful coincidence they should meet again just as he has behaved like a complete moron ("Boomer, with two O's as in moron") in front of Alexondra. A shame really that we as the audience knew who Vicky Mueller really was. (Well the title did give that away, wouldn't you think?)

What really surprised me was the acting. Especially in the scene where Vicky gives Todd a metal version of his alter ego (the dog character), in the little white jewellery box. The actors really managed to recreate that tingling sensation of a first kiss  point of no return for Todd and Vicky. A shame really that the film ends with focus on (after getting over Todd's fathers Harvard drive) his re-uniting with his friends. I could envision a whole new film  following Vicky to New York  there must be a good art University there that Todd could attend?!?

Nevertheless, a film that does just what we want Hollywood to: entertain us for the duration of the film. Did anyone else notice how none of the loves are happy ones in this film? Todd's mother is slightly insane (on the phone 24/7), his Dad doesn't find her attractive (any more?) Todd's teacher obviously is disenchanted by his wife and vice versa  Todd himself enters into a wonderfully erotic & daring relationship which, however nice it may be, would realistically be very difficult to maintain (age difference, maturity difference etc), and Alexondra & Zak do not get together because Alexondra is not mature enough to handle a relationship (-> her reactions towards the condom, the cheating, Zak's advances etc. are all very immature, and often involve running away), and Zak himself, the poor guy  is too much of a best friend/like a brother-guy to pull even Alexondra.

Mind you, good film though! I gave it an 8/10. Brilliant performance by the actors - who bring the script to life.


To paraphrase Thora Birch: "I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of everything I hate in a film".

This obscure film was too low key and intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie?

But if you have an opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could do a lot worse. "My Teacher's Wife" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going for it and holds up well to repeated viewings.

Jason London (as high school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts in "The Man In the Moon" and "Dazed and Confused". He is helped out by exceptional work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father.

As someone commented earlier, this is a "mature" teen movie because the romantic relationships are universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find.

But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull off a "believable" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema history.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,

"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch.

So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too.

The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.

When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!

However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.

It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.


Three American lads are backpacking their way around Europe, challenging each other to accumulate as many daredevil stunts and Hot babe lays as they can, But Andy seeks true love. He finds this during their bungee-jump attempt on the Eiffel Tower, when he comes across and breathtakingly saves a suicidal and heart-burstingly beautiful Julie Delpy. His attempts to find this girl and the secret he uncovers lead he and his friends into an fast paced adventure full of action, romance, gore, and inspired humor, without ever taking itself to seriously, or striving to be anything other than a wildly entertaining 90 minute ride. I have seen this film a number of times and found it a much more rewarding experience than the 'London' original, although both films are so different it is not fair to compare the two or even to consider this a sequel.


The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to "An American werewolf in London". None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.

I dare to say the opposite.

An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.

The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...

I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that!

The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.

There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.

So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars!


I just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris. Let me start by saying "London" still holds up after all these years and the transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny, and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to "Paris" its enjoyable, a few scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel "What If" well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title "An American Werewolf Comes Home" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned on...nice!!!!


OK, most of us agree that this is a weak attempt at a remake, but at the same time it's also a different movie in its own right. Don't get me wrong, 'American Werewolf In London' is a superior film, but 'American Remake In Paris' is a decent movie as well.

First off, the only real similarities are the TITLE, 2 American BACKPACKERS, and WEREWOLVES. Other than those 3 things, 'American Remake In Paris' stands apart fairly well on its own with its special blend of humor, action/adventure, and horror. Most of the people who say this film is better than the original are the youth of today's generation that think any movie made before 1990 is total crap. While those of us who grew up in the 80's can appreciate older films and what they have added to the horror films of today. What a lot of people fail to realize is that without the old classic films, including the B&W ones, horror wouldn't be what it is today. Now I'm getting a little off the beaten path...

An American Werewolf In Paris is a good attempt at re-creating a classic, but it will never surpass the original, ever. With that said, this is still a very entertaining film to watch and I do recommend it. I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. Maybe that's being a little generous, but I've seen much worse attempts at trying to re-create a classic.


I have never seen "American Werewolf in London" but this movie was very entertaining. When renting it I thought it was a horror movie but it turned out to be more of a comedy with some horror aspects. I thought the transformation sequences were nicely done but effects wise, the best scenes were those where the effects and the lighting built off each other, nice. The transformations reminded me a lot of werewolf transformations in other movies, but the werewolves themselves are very beastly and not very dog like. Gore: i do believe there is too much in this movie, which really takes away from the horror, when every frame has blood in it, taking the violence seriously is hard.

J.Hurst (8th grade)


this movie is not as bad as some say it is infact i think it`s more enjoyable than the original . maybe that`s why some people hate it as much cos they dont want to admit it`s a good (not great) movie.<br /><br />most if not all fx were done by C.G.I which i didn`t mind at all cos it was an enjoyable movie. Phil Buckman - (Chris) was in my opinion the best guy in the movie Julie Delpy was rather attractive she brought the sexiness to the movie.

there were a lot of wisecracks in the movie which i thought were good. this movie is in my collection but the original is not because i dont like it as much as this one. i was not bored when i watched this movie it kept me watching unlike some horror movies i could mention like oh say = driller killer & suspiria (dario argento`s movie) thats to name but two.<br /><br />this is an ok werewolf film it should be in people`s collection if they like werewolf movies maybe i`ll get the original at some point maybe. i have only one complaint and that is Phil Buckman - (Chris) should have been in it more than he was but apart from that the movie was fine.

rating for this movie 8/10 an ok werewolf movie not the worst one out there.


Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez

I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it.


Andy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor movies. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomem Americano em Paris" ("An American Werewolf in Paris")


Of course I am going to think it was a great movie. I recognized several people I didn't see during filming also. I was the one playing the guard about an hour into the movie in the death row exercise yard asking for a light for a cigarette. I also changed this one scene. They had originally had it set to go into the rec yard and straighten out the inmate and turn him around and walk him out. The Director said "It is taking to long, what would you do Gower." I said, "We need to go in and hook the arms and drag him out backwards. That way your camera can stay on his face as we take him off set." I also lived at this same prison as a young child as my father was the Assistant Warden of Security. I am also a current employee with the Tennessee Deaprtment of Corrections as a supervisor at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Even though a lot of the movie was a joke, the part I was in was reality enough. Also in the bar scene the dancer kicking high in the air and leaving the stage was an actual stripper I use to work with at a club called "The Classic Cat".


"Landscape after a battle" opens with escaping prisoners over a snowy field full of fences - in rather funny movements accompanied by Vivaldis Four Seasons. A touching opening. But we soon enough learn to know these prisoners as a mob, and when they (also treated humouristic) burry a man alive, the protagonist stops for a moment, but is soon more engaged in finding books from the turndowned camp than caring about his neighbour.

The rest of the film is set in an American camp from where the prisoners are not released, in some kind of semi freedom, semi camp. A perfect set for a study of war criminality, American camps, Polish nationalism, Catholisism, grief and human misery in general.

Film makes an important turn. In comes women, and with them film changes light, colour and temper. At the same time it turns out that these prisoners were slaves in Holocaust. I think a main underlying political theme of the film must mankind's treatments of Jews under and after the world war, and not only the Nazi exterminations, but mankind letting it happen - and even forcing them out of Europe after the war. On an emotional level the film is about grief and the problem with letting grief come, how environment makes grief difficult, and how difficult it can be to share grief for people with different experiences.

But the film is a carpet of underlying contradictions,humour, irony and sudden beauty. A couple of times during the film a gypsy prisoner plays on an harp, an emotional tune brutally rejected (filmatically speaking) by the protagonist. That example picks up an important essence of the film's style and theme. When it comes to humour its very comic how the protagonist constantly looses and finds back his glasses, in crowds, in hay stacks etc.

Its not hard to understand Spielberg's respect of Wajda when you see this film. The great treatment of light can be compared with Spielberg on his best. The Grunwald intermezzo speaks for itself. Narrativly it only brings the film out of the camp, but filmatically it brings the film to dream and eternity with profound beauty. Anyhow, there is also another scene I can't let go without comment. Its the Christian Supper. Undoubtly ironical, but simultaneously deeply religious we see the transsubstantiation moment, everybody falling on their knees, while the protagonist is saved from isolation by the priest to serve as a comic altar boy. His bells are mocking the scene, but also gives it emotion and love. When Nina gets her bread, sun light falls upon her and bells ring spheric, its the peak moment of the film.

Main actors are excellent in their roles. Olbrychski as the perfect Wajda protagonist - the doubting reflecting mind, unable to put all the aspects of his mind and emotion into life. Beautiful Celinska is with great body acting debuting in a character unable to express all her inner in her proud movements.

Those who try to describe everything, often are unable to take nothing in consideration. This is what Wajda manages. His films are either very moving, deep or beautifully shot, but pays attention to life's and society's particularity. A moment of joy for one, is the moment of irony for a second, the moment of grief for the third, a moment of nothing for the fourth.

There is at least two reasons to pay attention to Wajdas films of this period. First is the remarkable free expression of deep political impact. This country was the first to overthrow communism twenty years later. Second is the development of a filmatic and narrative language that Kusturica has rose to grandeur.


In Landscape after the Battle, Andrzej Wajda in the second era of his filmmaking career, depicts emotional and psychological confusion in a former Nazi-prison in Poland, freed immediately after the WWII.

A hand-held camera explores a lot of extreme close-ups and vivid colors. The end credit as graffiti on flanks of freight train cars symbolically concludes the film. The soundtrack is great, except Vivaldi, which sounds tacky in pop-art fashion, in the opening sequence.


Aside from the fact that the women in the film are stunningly beautiful and all the camp prisoners are too fat, this film rings true on the chaos of the post-war.

Beautiful photography, and a powerful national expression of the Polish national character.

It's very slow at points, but its entire pacing is so different from American and Western European films that it's quite refreshing.

Both lead actors do a very good job. On the DVD version, you can see interviews with the principal actors and crew, and the lead actress Stanislawa Celinska has gained about 50 lbs and lost all of her beauty. But in 1970, she was a stunner.


Krajobraz po bitwie like many films of Wajda is, perhaps, not understandable for the "rest of the world". Story based on the few short stories of Tadeusz Borowski, who during WWII was the prisoner of Oswiecim, Dachau and Dautmergen camps. Borowski in his books describes inhuman life in the Nazi camps from the point of view vorarbeiter Tadek - porte parole of author who also was on the privileged position among the prisoners. Borowski was merciless for the humanity and merciless for himself. He describes the human history as the endless chain of exploitation and humiliation. Ironically, after the returning to Poland he stopped writing artistic prose and became communistic propagandist, producing stream of anti-imperialistic and anti-american press publications. After few years he committed suicide. In the movie Wajda changes point of view. Vorarbeiter Tadek - character created by the Tadeusz Janczar - plays only supporting role. Story is focused on the poet, destroyed, burned out by the war and imprisonement and his one-day love affair with Nina, Jewish girl who escaped from communistic Poland although she actually hates jewish life and mentality. As the background we can observe sad grotesque of so-called "dipis" (displaced persons) life, who after the liberation are settled by the Americans in SS barracks. Marches, patriotic kitsch mixed with hunting for the extra dose of food and/or prostituting German girls.


there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)"nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10/10


A story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety.


The movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was based.


When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.

It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.

If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++


An incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film.

It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible not to feel anything for the people in this drama.

There are lots and lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your life - make this one of them.


If there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in 1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL ingrained into my head after all this time.


Everything about "Choose Connor" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!

Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and "the system" -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.

I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain.


Over the many years, there are some films that just slip by & hardly anyone views.

Choose Conner is one of those films.

This small gem played at some festivals & had a short 2 week run in a small theatre in West Hollywood making all of about $ 5500.

It is now on DVD I do hope many more will now see this,.

It is a strange drama of a shrewd youngish politician, who influences a very bright 15 year old lad.This politico also has a handsome nephew (about 17 years old) who befriends the 15 year old lad.

The above paragraph is slightly vague as to what occurs, SO is the film, & that is what I appreciated, we do NOT get all the facts,Much is left to our own thinking. You will hear dialog that makes this logical..

Steven Weber (Wings) is our politician,his role is slightly vague,this is another point for the audience to ponder

Alex D.Linz is our 15 year old, He was about 17 when they made this movie, but easily can pass for younger. He has been in films & TV since he was a young child, He is a very good actor & is quite convincing.

Escher Holloway is the older teen, This role is his first major part & he too is excellent.

Now I am saving the best for last, the writer/director,

Luke Eberl is not yet 23 years old. For a first effort a big thumbs up. I do hope he as well as our 2 lads have a long career.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 86 points(out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)


I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films.

I did think this one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough. Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the "valuable lesson" about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good influence.

Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that.

I hope Luke makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun.


The plot line is an expose of the under belly of American politics. While the theme seems common, what "makes" the movie is the unconventional way the story is told.

The characters are played with conviction. You feel the innocence of the lead, and his innocence lost. The politician is the prince of double-talk, a real snake.

The camera work is impressive. It affirms the nuances of the acting and dialogue. Ditto for the music.

The story uses a parable-style with vingettes where the message is filled with double-entendres. A very canny strategy by the writer/director. The tension in the storyline is carried through to the last scenes.

The movie was like a good mystery book. Something was "afoot"; you knew it was bad; you didn't know exactly what it could be - you had your suspicions; and when the evil was revealed you let out your breath you hadn't noticed you were holding in. Saddened, shaking your head.

A story well written and well told. 3 cheers to a young writer/director.


In this election year, where so much idealism is attached to one of the candidates, it is poignant to watch a film that warns us not to make an idol out of anyone running for public office.

Luke Eberl is the writer and director of "Choose Connor". There are significant parts of the film that reveal that he is a 'genius' when it comes to telling stories via the cinema.

Go see this movie before the election and then ponder why and for whom you will cast your vote.

Let you eyes be opened like those of the young protagonist.

A mix of "Citizen Kane", "Advise and Consent" and "Paths of Glory" by a young director as talented as those who made the films listed above.


Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) can on the surface be described as a French variation on John Huston's seminal heist film, Asphalt Jungle(1950). The difference between the two films is Rififi(1955) pays a little more attention in detail to the robbery sequence. Also, the police aren't involved in the aftermath of the robbery in Rififi as much as in Asphalt Jungle. In the end Rififi(1955) is in my opinion a slightly better film than Asphalt Jungle(1950). Remarkable Noir picture that defines 1950s French Cinema.

Spartacus(1960) may have been the one which broke down the infamous blacklist, but in my opinion Rififi(1955) was the film that began to break apart the unbreakable Hollywood blacklist. First film in five years for Jules Dassin who was victimized by the McCarthy communist hunt of the late 40s to early 50s. He got some sort of retribution when Rififi(1955) became a success around France and Europe. Thus defying the poisonious Hollywood blacklist in a major way that probably inspired others to do the same. Rififi(1955) is the most important film of Dassin's career because it not only restored his name, but also gave him a second chance at making films.

Jules Dassin gave the filmworld and its ever growing audiences a masterpiece of influential proportions. His handling of the material is exceptional and direction of the actors is flawless. Builds up tense situations with precise craftsmanship. Dassin came full circle in the Film Noir genre by directing his best and last Noir, Rififi(1955). Marked the end of Dassin's period in filmmaking when he was involved in doing Noir pictures.

Rififi(1955) is the number one film in an arsenal of thirty plus films for director, Jules Dassin. A masterpiece in acting, cinematography, directing, editing, and writing. Not a film to leave your seat for one minute because there is always something memorable going on. As brilliant as anything by Jean Pierre Melville who was a master of this type of film. Masterpieces such as Rififi(1955) are relatively small compared to the probably billions of films made in motion picture history.

The one fascinating aspect of Rififi is the precise planning and careful execution of a robbery that takes up a bulk of the 118 minute duration. The main characters plan and execute the jewel heist in the same way a film director prepares for the pre-productions, production, and post-production of a film. Shows how difficult a Jewel heist like in Rififi(1955) is in committing and why very few would do something like it. The fact that the scene hardly contains a mess up like in other heist films turns this scene into something even greater. Close as one can get to having a perfect sequence in a motion picture.

Lack of unnatural sound in the landmark thrity minute heist sequence puts it in a realm of absolute realism. Any dialogue or/and music would ruin any suspense and tension the director is trying to create. The use of natural sound makes the heist sequence a rewarding film viewing experience. Now Filmmakers and producers would use dialogue and music in a scene like this because of a lack of confidence of a mainstream filmgoer's patience. Sustains a level of consistency that never once lets down.

Maintaining a high level of suspense is what makes the heist sequence tick to perfection. The director achieves suspense in the heist sequence that's rarely equaled in most robbery scenes from heist films. Jean Servais and the rest of the main actors contribute to the suspense with some low key acting. Getting suspense put in a scene is a task few are capable of doing. The robbery sequence of Rififi(1955) reaches a Hitchcockian level of suspense and tension.

Many filmmakers from the years following Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) have been influenced if not inspired by it. One filmmaker influenced was Jean Pierre Melville(original choice for director of Rififi)who used variations of the heist sequence in Le Doulos(1961), and Le Cercle Rouge(1970). Another filmmaker influenced was Stanley Kubrick who made a similarly themed film in The Killing(1956). Also, Quentin Tarantino whose debut feature Reservoir Dogs(1992) was inspired by this film. Other film directors influenced are John Woo, Michael Mann, Paul Schrader, Ringo Lam, etc...

Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) is comparable to Bob le Flambeur(1955) in many ways. One, Jules Dassin and Jean Pierre Melville directed groundbreaking films in Rififi(1955) and Bob le Flambeur(1955). Two, each film involves an aging criminal who plans and carries out a daring heist. Three, Bob le Flambeur and Rififi finishes in fatalistic fashion. Four, each film shares many motifs and situations that classify the two as film greats.

Part of Rififi's charm are the colorful characters that surround the story such as Tony le Stephanois, Jo le Suedois, Mario Farrati, and Cesar le Milanais. Most of the violence is implicit yet effectively brutal. The main characters led by Tony le Stephanois abide by a strong outdated code of honor that is remindful of Sam Peckinpah and John Woo. Jean Servais becomes the role of Tony le Stephanois with his cynical outlook and tired looks. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) became a favorite of mine the moment I saw it on the big screen from beginning to end.


Rififi deservedly gets a lot of mention for the famous heist scene, and, indeed, that scene deserves all the credit it gets. It's a masterful piece of suspense, character interaction and photography. But Rififi isn't just this one scene - every scene in the film is as masterfully put together, and as a whole, the film is not only taught with suspense, plot and character, but an adroitly told moral tale that set the scene for film noire for years to come.

Cinematically and technically, the heist sequence may be the most impressive scene of the film, but for me, it's the final scene that holds the most power - Tony le Stéphanois's hallucinogenic drive towards redemption.


RIFIFI (Jules Dassin - France 1955)

To me, it seems a very risky idea to attempt a Hollywood-remake of Jules Dassin's 1955 classic RIFIFI. Planned for release in 2007, Al Pacino apparently is gonna play the lead, taking on the role of Tony le Stephanois. Risky business... How they're gonna pull this off?

Ironically, Dassin was blacklisted in Hollywood and went on to try his luck in France and made this little masterpiece, aptly called by some "The Grandddady of all caper- and heist movies". In my opinion, it remains a one-of-a-kind classic, beautifully filmed with one of the most memorable endings ever to be put on film. Whatever one's opinion of the film.

In the last couple of years RIFIFI has become dangerously overpraised. Nevertheless, this French noir-classic shouldn't be forgotten. Go see it, before the remake is out there, in order to have some ammunition for comparing the two.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10


I see alot of movies at the cinema (103 so far this year) and I have to say that this is by far and away the best film I have seen this year, even though it was released back in 1954!

I sat in awe and watched this work of genius and felt quite ashamed that I had never even heard of it before my local art house cinema decided to show it for a week on what looked like a new print.

The best part of the whole movie has to be the 28 minute break in where there is no speech and no music, merely the sound of the men carrying out the heist. Pure quality.

Although really dark in places it is lightened with the dry humour.

Not many films score 10 out of 10 but this does and also gets a gold star for effort!!

If you ever get a chance to see this movie, please do not hesitate, it's a classic.


After five years in prison, Tony le Stéphanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest friends Jo (Carl Möhner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' Âge d' Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar (Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable ring to his mistress.

"Du Rififi Chez les Hommes" is a magnificent film-noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility, supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of favorite movies ever. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Rififi"


Or vice-versa.

This is a French film noir directed by an American film maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of film in which tension toward the ending is important.

Dassin filmed in realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall.

Dassin plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets careless.

In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the "good" bad guys we are identifying with and the "bad" bad guys who are out to do in our good bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys are not even "good" bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that. In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the usual motto, following the old Hollywood "code," was "Crime Doesn't Pay," with every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the movie.

Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be, and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being "one last heist" for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground, burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film! Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled out.

One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids see Rififi--almost.

Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full.


The minutiae of what's involved in carrying out a robbery is what makes this one of the best of all heist movies. Then there's the robbery itself, a wordless, thirty minute nail-biter that has never been surpassed, followed by what is probably the cinema's most pronounced example of dishonor among thieves as things begin to spectacularly unravel, and we have what is unquestionably the greatest of all heist movies.

This was a tough and unsentimental film when it first appeared in 1955 and it is just as tough and unsentimental today. (It displays some of the edgy brutality of Dassin's earlier "Brute Force"). There isn't a flabby moment or duff performance in the entire film and Dassin captures the milieu of seedy clubs and Parisian back streets like no-one else and the final drive through Paris by a dying man is one of the most iconic closing sequences of any movie. A classic.


This film is a work of pure class from start to finish, for a moment forget the famous 28 minute no dialog heist, forget that it's set in Paris and forget it's Noir. The film itself, the premise and the execution make this a pure gold experience.. it's sharp intelligent and thought through in great detail, just like the heist itself. It portrays real characters that are not only believable but whom you empathize with. It's a film that doesn't glamorize the notion of a robbery but shows it for what it is.. theft. It shows that a heist is hard work and ultimately not worth doing. Now all things considered put on top of that a daring 28 minute sequence with not a word spoken and set in gorgeous Paris with truly great attention to detail and fantastic cinematography and that last scene ...when you look up and see those trees... wonderful use of raw and basic filming techniques... it is a master piece in my view and I'm glad to have seen it.


If the caper genre owes a lot to Walter Huston, it also has a debt of gratitude to Jules Dassin, a man that was ahead of his times and who suffered a lot because of his blacklisting when Edward Dmytryk accused him of being a Communist. The end of his American career would have meant the end of Mr. Dassin, but moving to Europe proved he was bigger than the same people that had contributed to his Hollywood demise.

"Rififi" is an elegant film in which all the right elements come together thanks to Mr. Dassin's vision. He decided to adapt Auguste Le Breton's novel because he saw the possibilities for turning it into a caper film that became an instant classic. Jules Dassin was penniless in Paris when he discovered the city that were going to serve as the background to his film. The bad weather paid off for Mr. Dassin as the streets were always wet and not much had to be done to show them that way.

When we first meet Tony, he is playing cards. Tony appears to be in bad health; he coughs all the time and sweats profusely. After losing all his money, he goes to see Jo, the Swede, who tells him about a possibility for a robbery at Maupin & Webb, the fancy jewelry store at a tony section of Paris. They pass the idea through Mario, who suggests Cesar, the Milanese, an expert safe cracker.

Tony, who has come out of prison recently, learns that Mado, his former lover is now with Grutter, a creep that owns a night club. Upon confronting Mado, instead of love, all he feels is contempt, and the meeting ends badly and he throws her out of his place. Grutter has no love for Tony, who is his natural enemy because of his connection with Mado.

When the day arrives, the gang is able to get to the apartment building where on the second floor, right above the jewelry store, the owner lives, but he is away. Everything goes well and the gang gets away with the jewels. Cesar, the Milanese, a typical ladies' man, takes a ring as a souvenir, which in turn he gives the chanteuse at the Grutter's night club. This tactical mistake is the spark which unravels the well thought plan.

Jean Servais made an excellent Tony. He showed a tired man who was possibly doing his last robbery. Carl Mohner, Robert Manuel and the director, Jules Dassin, are seen as Jo, Mario and Cesar, the quartet jewelry thieves. Marie Sabouret plays Mado. Marcel Lupovici plays Grutter with a subdued intensity. Robert Hussein, who would go to direct movies later on, makes an impression with his Remi, one of Grutter's men.

The film best asset is the great camera work by Philippe Agostini, who captured the atmosphere of Paris and the locales where all these criminals operate from. Georges Auric's music plays well with the action in the film. Jules Dassin was peculiar in his choice of films that he directed, and unfortunately, that is our loss because this man was a genius as proved mainly with "The Naked City", "Night and the City" and "Rififi".


As far as I am concerned, this film noir had two totally different things going for it as opposed to the film noirs I am used to viewing: 1 - the setting is Paris, France; 2 - there is 28-minute scene with no dialog.

Both make this movie a bit unique, at least to English-speaking film noir fans. Actually, an American, Jules Dussain, shot the film, so it's not entirely a European film. Initially, I was disappointed in this after I had watched the first 40 minutes. It's an expensive DVD and I was bored. However, once that silent segment started - the actual heist (you already know what's it about), the film picked up considerably and just got better and better.

In fact, I thought the best part of the story was what happened after the heist. The best aspect of the entire film was the cinematography. This is what makes the disc worth owning. It's excellent film noir photography and a real travelogue for those of us who have never seen Paris...and this is Paris in the mid 1950s. There are lots of bleak-but-interesting rain-soaked Paris streets and buildings I found fascinating to view. In fact, there were many more of those great shots than of London in the much better known film, The Third Man.

The lead actor in here, Jean Servais, I think his name is, also is interesting to view. Someone described his face as a cross between Humphrey Bogart and Harry Dean Stanton, and that sums it up perfectly. A warning for those not expecting profanity or nudity in a classic film. This is France, not the United States, so there is a little bit of both in here. I appreciate the DVD offering the choice of subtitles or a dubbed version, too.


Du rififi chez les hommes is a brilliant film which studies criminal minds and allows viewers to have a better understanding of criminals who are fundamentally not different from ordinary folks like us.What director Jules Dassin shows is that criminal do have families and they care a lot for them.That is why they adhere to a strict code of honor. For them a family is not only made up of wives,mistresses and children but also include casual acquaintances and close friends.Contrary to what many might find it hard to believe,Jules Dassin has not tried to glorify crime in his film as rififi makes it clear that crime never pays.It shows that all kinds of bad activities result in some kind of human loss.Apart from its philosophical stance Rifif is worth watching for its technical finesse.While watching one of the film's most brilliant sequences about breaking of a safe,one would find it hard to believe meticulous precision with which criminal minds execute their plans.This is a scene which nobody has dared to copy in Hollywood.


A recent re-issue of the French crime film (original title 'Du Rififi Chez les Hommes'), with its famous 20-minute silent jewel heist sequence, now comes in the US in a gorgeous new print from The Criterion Collection with improved subtitles and some extras. Jules Dassin was an American (born Julius Dassin in Middletown Connecticut) who was forced to make films in Europe because he was Blacklisted. Rififi was well publicized in the US and did well in art houses. Later Dassin became a lot more famous in the US for 'Never on Sunday' (1960) starring his wife, the Greek actress and political activist Melina Mercouri. (Greece was again glamorized and popularized for Americans and others with Anthony Quinn in Mihalis Kakogiannis' 1964 'Zorba the Greek', which was even a big hit in Cairo.) The new Rififi DVD includes a recent interview with Dassin. I did not previously realize that one of the main robbers, Cesar the Milanese, was played by Dassin, who stepped in when the original actor became unavailable. He's one of the most memorable characters, a dandified Italian safe cracker who speaks no French.

Although this classic has all the trappings of French film noir--the black and white twilight world of well lit apartments, shiny black cars, men in suits, the nightclub scenes, including a dramatically filmed and lit title song performed at the club, the stony faces and the Gauloises in hand or mouth--I don't think it's as atmospheric or has quite as distinctive a style as Melville's films do. But there's the mesmerizing robbery, which still holds up today as a tour de force. It goes like clockwork, with a fine sense of craft and teamwork among the robbers. Some nosy cops are efficiently dealt with. Things quickly go wrong after they go home and distribute the loot when one of the players gets sloppy and gives a dame a ring with a million-dollar bangle in it. Has there ever been a heist film whose perps lived happily ever after?

It's the wordless heist sequence that guarantees this a special place, and Dassin, an American director who had an unusually varied and exotic career, deserves full credit for that. He took a novel so conventional he was going to reject it, and added some key elements that make it special. In the event, he couldn't pass on doing the adaptation: he needed the money too much. Jean Servais, who plays the lead character Tony le Stephanois, was an actor rather down on his luck. His grim face is perfect for the role. He was later to play the lead in Dassin's He Who Must Die (1957), which used French actors in Greece for a political tale. 'Topkapi' is a somewhat disappointing 1964 caper film (it pales compared to 'Rififi') that also got US distribution. It does have a good setting, but it's wasted, gone all bland and bright and prettified. Of Dassin's post-Hollywood oeuvre, 'Never on Sunday,' with its catchy theme song and charismatic heroine, is the popular choice (and won Best Film at Cannes 1960); 'He Who Must Die' the political choice; 'Rififi' the genre choice. An odd piece is his 'Phaedra' with Mercouri and Tony Perkins (1962). Purists of tough-guy Hollywood genre work would eschew these and favor Dassin's early films, which include a prison drama, 'Brute Force' (1947);a cop flick, 'The Naked City' (1948); and two hard core noirs, 'Thieves' Highway' (1949), and 'Night and the City' (1950). Personally I tend to like French noir and American neo-noir spinoffs better than the original American noir source material--hence my enduring fascination with 'Rififi'. But Dassin is rather unique in having not only made Hollywood noir but then going over to Paris and producing a memorable example of its Fifties French derivative.


After seeing NAKED CITY and NIGHT AND THE CITY (which is still my favorite Dassin) I was more than excited to watch his "Masterpiece" (O-Word Criterion) RIFIFI.

Now i am a little bit disappointed about the story.

So I have at least these five questions in my mind:

1. In the final Countdown Louis Grutter shot from the inside a house the main Character Tony le Stéphanois. He couldn't know if he is still alive or not, but he didn't care about it and ran directly after it outside the house (with the money) to reach his car. So of course Tony wasn't dead and shot him. BIG QUESTIONMARK.

2. In another important scene the specialist in safes Cesar gave directly after the robbery as a present a diamond ring (which was a part of the robbery) a Woman which was working for Louis Grutter in a night bar. Stupid, because before this character wasn't THAT stupid. And of course Louis knew directly that Tony planned the jewel robbery. SMALL QUESTIONMARK.

3.After the Gangsters behind Louis Grutter murder Mario Ferrati and his wife,Tony and his best friend Joe planned a revenge against Louis gang. At the same time they don't care for the security of Joe's wife and his five years old child. Of course Louis gang kidnapped the son. CHEAP and SIMPLE.

4. The perfect heist: Of course this is the best 30min. long scene in the whole Plot, without any word spoken in the whole time, but was this a perfect heist?? Comparing with other movies which handle with this theme i could only smile when for example Tony was taken a fire-extinguisher to banned the alarm. Also too SIMPLE.

5. The Grutter gang went to the house of Mario, because they knew (however....) the jewels will be there. Then they murder Mario and his Wife. And then? They are not searching for it! NO. They ran directly out of the apartment. And more. They not observing the apartment after it so Tony can go after a while (which was the same day) inside to take the jewels. BIG QUESTIONMARK.

Over all: it's a good movie. Because of the brilliant 30min silent heist scene. Because of the very good cut (The end scene in the car through Paris is stunning) . Because of a very good actor called Jean Servais. Because of this Black/White fever you will get while watching it. Because of some other reasons too other user wrote about, but please don't tell me this is a stunning story.


In order to pull off a job like this caper in Rififi (e.g. The Score and its opines), one has to have nerves of steel. This one apparently demands and commands it. Jules Dassin is the master.

I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It deserves to be better known, even though it was not at the time of its release in 1954, due, one supposes, to the director being blacklisted in the hypocritical Hollywood of its day.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has not has the pleasure of seeing it.

I cannot give it enough stars.


I heard they were going to remake this French classic in 2007, and I see it is in development for 2011. This will be a shame, as Hollywood kicked writer/director Jules Dassin out because of the infamous blacklist. They should not have the right to remake any of his films.

I love "caper" films and "film noir," and this combines the best of both.

Tony (Jean Servais) gets out after doing a nickle, and after he beats up his old girlfriend (Marie Sabouret), he plans a big score with his friends Mario (Robert Manuel) and Jo (Carl Möhner), What makes this a great caper flick is the attention to detail in planning the robbery. You see that reflected in the George Clooney Vegas capers. Nothing is left to chance.

The caper goes off great but Grutter (Marcel Lupovici) sends his sons, Robert Hossein and Pierre Grasset after Tony and the gang. After blowing it with Mario, they kidnap Jo's son. Lots of bullets fly before it is over.

A great film by a great director. The standard by which other caper films are measured.


The fact that after 50 years, it is still a highly watchable movie, says a lot about it. It is more intelligent and interesting than almost all recent movies of the same genre you can find, and has a certain endearing feeling of innocence to it. I am not a big fan of this type of movies, but I could watch the whole thing without being bored, which makes it a good movie to watch with someone who does not necessarily share your taste in films. I liked the black and white palette, the excellent casting, the clever heist scene that keeps you guessing about what trick they will pull next, and the ending like everyone else. Watching the heist sequence makes one realize the power of silence, which is unfortunately so underused in today's cinema.


I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection DVD restoration is impressive.

In its outline this movie follows the time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us two movies for the price of one.

John Servais plays the idea man Tony le Stéphanois (always referred to as "le Stéphanois") with such world-weariness that he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist. They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist.

The heist goes off without a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most memorable scenes from any noir film.

It is established early on that Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son, partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially.


This is an excellent documentary about a story I hadn't heard about before. The first solo, non-stop sailing race around the world took place in 1968-69 and involved a handful of racers. It's a truly fascinating story about man vs. nature and man vs. himself. The story focuses on Donald Crowhurst, the tragic figure in this story. The film elegantly combines interviews with footage which was shot by the sailors themselves aboard their boats. The story is very suspenseful and sad as we learn the details behind the history of Donald Crowhurst. This is one of the best documentaries of the past few years. It has true human emotion in it as the men face this almost impossible task of navigating the world non-stop on their own.


well-made documentary about a sailing race, sanity and the loss of both.

i remembered reading Sir Francis Chichester's account of his trip around the world when i was in high school as i watched this film. what an adventure that was.

deep water tells an equally fascinating story.

it takes a special person and an excellent sailor to manage a non-stop trip around the world...alone.

this film does a great job of demonstrating that.

i love to sail, and my brother races J-30s.

but i could never accomplish such a feat.


I saw this movie on TV and loved it! I am a real disaster film fan, and this one was great. The cast was made of some really interesting people. Connie Selleca is always great. And William Devane is in a league of his own. He can play both comedy and thriller in the same movie like few others can. The story line is great too. The thought of being able to follow a time line of what will happen, and to use this time line to prevent a global disaster is an interesting idea. And this movie brings it out in such a way that is almost totally believable.


This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see.

As with a lot of these films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden (the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee sent all his "hoes" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting "hoes" (his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown back in jail.

As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film. I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such as "Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day" call for further investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom mic seems to show up in every other scene.

Most of all, Moore shows incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album "The Chronic". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love "Dolemite". If you don't dig it, you're a "no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!" (7/10)


What a trip down memory lane.

Do not look for great acting, believable plot lines, or anything resembling a quality movie.

This is pure blaxploitation at it's finest. Outrageous outfits, unrepeatable dialog, objectification of women, and the sleaziest cops you can imagine.

This vanity piece by the "Godfather of Rap," Rudy Ray Moore, who left us for good last week is the standard by which all blaxploitation is measured.

You not only see blaxploitation at it's finest, but get glimpses of his comedy genius, and see why his records were kept under the counter.


Dolelemite (1975) is a cult classic. Starring Rudy Ray Moore as the pimp superhero out to wrong rights whilst challenging the MAN along the way. He has two enemies, that no good Willie Green and the sleazy mayor. Watch Dolemite kick, punch, slap and pimp his way across the screen. What's the man's name? DOLEMITE!

Interesting film that paved the way for a generation of rappers and performers. To sell more of his party albums, Rudy Ray Moore made several on the cheap films during the seventies. Self produced and marketed he catered towards a specific audience. Some people call it blacksploitation others call it trash, I call it entertaining. Dolemite was followed by the semi-sequel The Human Tornado and a direct to video Return of Dolemite 25 years later.

Highly recommended, a definite cult classic!

Footnotes, if the film was properly matted on video you wouldn't see the boom mikes. Dolemite was cut to receive an R-rating.


Dolemite is, for me, an object of my deepest affection. It's got everything: a gang of karate-fighting prostitutes, Dolemite punching his fist through Willie Green's (director Martin) stomach, high pumps and 100 gallon dalmation-print hats. Moore's unique comedy raps, actually toasts, are close to the roots of hip hop. No wonder Dr. Dre mentioned "Dolemite" 3 times on his classic album "The Chronic." Add the best list of characters to ever grace a movie, like the horny preacher, the hamburger pimp and, of course, "the one who no one knows until it's time." Credit should be given for style to director D'Urville Martin, a fella who probly doesn't get as much attention as he should around film fan circles (I've been looking for a copy of his and Fred Williamsons' movies from the early 70s for years and can't find them).

A lot of people are really down on this movie and say it's really bad, and it is true that you can see boom mikes appearing everywhere (look to DP Nicholas Josef Von Sternberg, for whom I think this was a very early effort), there are a lot of things going for this movie. Number one, there is no other movie like it. Number two, you get to see Rudy Ray Moore do a (highly sanitized; everyone who HASN'T seen Moore's outrageous live act will have to use their imaginations) cinematic version of his toasts, plus him living the life of his comic book character superpimp come to life. The action scenes are pretty poor, but the characters' dialogue when they're talking trash more than makes up for it. It's full of strange little details (like the fact that the Hamburger Pimp is wearing a Dolemite T-shirt inside out -- was this intentional or did the guy just pick up whatever shirt was lying on the set and put it on?) that keep you coming back to watch it again and again.

At least I have.


Being a bit of a connoisseur of garbage, I have stumbled across this little treasure. Action, romance, crooked cops, violence. Its all here and not a single one has been pulled of right. I was in love immediately. Then, a funny thing happened about the second time around. I became addicted. I thought it was going to be a one rent and chuckle kind-of-movie.

Rudy Ray Moore knew what he wanted to see in a movie. He didn't have the money to make it look good, but he did it anyway. That's very commendable. It also shows he was making the movie for his self. I don't know how many of you have heard Rudy Ray's music, but if you haven't he has a whole slew of albums reaching into the fifties.