I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.

In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.

Pornographic? - Hardly!.

Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.

R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.

Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.

I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of "scientific proof" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.

Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved.


I first saw this on the big screen with my girlfriend. It was a fun romp with some cool music. Kristine was on the Playboy cover, and the centerfold, as I recall. She's really cute and perky and has lots of charm. The movie made me want to see more of her and so I kept a look out for her in other stuff. She's in Steven Spielberg's "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and Barbara Streisand's "The Main Event" and Bill Murray's "Meatballs", plus lots of TV shows like Night Court and TV movies. Me and my friends really enjoy her. But her starring role in Alice in Wonderland puts the focus right where it ought to be, right on Kristine as the center of attention, probably the prettiest, hottest girl I've ever seen in movies.


I thought the movie was great. I thought Kristine DeBell was GREAT and was glad to see her move on into some more interesting roles. I even overlook the fact that the print I have wasn't quite put back together correctly. But, who cares?


This movie was released originally as a soft "X", apparently with the explicit sex deleted. Later, the producers "relented" (smelled money) and re-released it with the excised scenes restored (apparently only about 3 minutes). I guess since Kristine was of age, it was held against her and her promising career came grinding to a halt. I guess its all in the timing (witness Pam Anderson's career)--but Ronald Reagan was in charge during Kristine's debacle (we had not heard about Nancy Reagan's affairs), Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were in full swing during Pam's "coming out".

The sex is just icing on the cake, both version satisfy. This naughty musical is way above similar of others that were released at the same time.


I had no idea who Bruce Haack was before seeing this film. I had just seen the MOOG doc, which was alright, the only problem was Moog led a very content life, and the doc was well... content. Haack's story is filled with all the marketable tragedy people buy into these days, but it carries a great deal of heart with it. Though the film doesn't go into the tragic stuff so much, one can sense that Bruce accepted the price of making music his way. There are so many elements that make up his legacy IE. invention of the Peopleodian, where Bruce could actually play music by touching people. It must have been challenging to document Haack's 'scatter-brained' output, which pretty much fell into every musical category imaginable (even rap music), but the director cut the piece together very coherently and managed to capture the spirit. And the cast... what a group of characters Bruce surrounded himself with, but what do you expect from a telepathic guru, tripping with kids, fighting against the music industry. I recommend this film to anyone interested in music history, it's that mainstream, but that important.


I want to start my review by thanking the makers of this documentary, it is obviously a labor of love and I think they did a pretty good job of putting together an enjoyable documentary about a person who has had so such little info available about him. It definitely has a fan worship feel about it, which is a good thing.

I had heard of Bruce Haack but didn't know much about him, and I found the start of this documentary frustrating because I could hear other musicians talk about him, but Bruce Haack himself was kept way too far off in the distance. I wanted to see this Bruce Haack guy!! I felt as though the makers assumed I already knew him as well as these musicians on the screen which I didn't, so I felt a bit left in the dark.

When Bruce was finally shown in action it was great and gave me a taste of who Bruce Haack was, but it was only a taste. We got treated to more musicians and I felt as though I was being told "Look - all these cool musicians are into him, so he must be cool!" I didn't really care much for the musician's commentary on Bruce.

I wanted to see Bruce, as a person. You know, the important stuff - more interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. More about his life, and yes, his use of drugs and other issues. I would of liked to know so much more about his "Hackula" project. I wanted to get inside his mind. Even if they did this via some "voice of god" commentary and photos it would of been OK.

The animations were good, but again I felt these were used as filler, they didn't really do anything other than allow me to hear his music and see some imagery based on the Dimension 5 records. I did think it was clever and creative, but again... I wanted to learn more about Bruce!

Maybe Bruce Haack was this elusive in real life?

Anyway - in the end I enjoyed this documentary and felt a sort of sadness that such amazing pioneers and geniuses such as Mr. Haack get forgotten as the march of time stamps ever onwards. I am glad that this film is around to educate people about Bruce Haack, even with its flaws.


George Sanders playing the Saint for the penultimate time does a good job out of a good script - with the usual good RKO cast around. It's a non-Charteris story too, bristling with murders and good clean fun.

Thread 1: In New York, Police Inspector Fernack, Templar's friend is framed in a corruption scandal and disgraced - ST comes over from London to try to put things right. Nice and simple so far - but is there really more than $90,000 in the world? Thread 2: Another tale of a woman taking revenge on the people who murdered her brother, Wendy Barrie does well in bumping off some nasty men and having the Saint fall in love with her to boot. Including a baddie who was under their direct protection and in Fernack's cellar - there's a creepy shot of him (dead and staring) and them in a car when they're taking him back to where they'd got him. Paul Guilfoyle as Pearly Gates must have supposed to have been homosexual in this - witness the dressing gown at the beginning, and the later beguiling comment by ST that he was thinking of keeping him as a pet - and did too for "Palm Springs"! Fernack was played by Jonathan Hale as usual but this time with such a beaten deflated attitude that what he really needed was a good slapping from Templar to liven him up.

The Hays Office also made sure you got the picture right, all threads are tied up with no straggly bits. Well worth watching for all of us who like this kind of thing, but if Val Kilmer's version is your yardstick then don't bother.


Excellent entry in the RKO Saint series with well-written original script, good camera work and transitions, good directing to handle some twists in the plot, good editing to keep the flow constant, and good acting. George Sanders is suave and witty. Jonathan Hale simply is Inspector Fernack. Paul Guilfoyle plays a mobster who goes straight (and drinks milk) because he cannot take the pressure. He will return in a later entry in the series. Story begins on an ocean liner headed to the U.S. where the Saint meets but cannot connect with Wendie Barrie. She eventually succumbs to the Saint's charms but she breaks his heart in the end. The Saint assists Inspector Fernack clear his name from a frame. A few bodies fall along the way. Good entertainment and above average for this type of film. Watch it.


This is a better-than-average entry in the Saint series - It holds your interest and, as mysteries should, keeps you guessing until the end and has several suspects to choose from.

Many films from the Golden Age are not for all tastes, especially younger viewers. They date themselves by clothing, cars, settings, etc. Who nowadays asks for a highball? Or wears a suit and tie everywhere? And the legal process was so much simpler - must have been a dearth of lawyers back then. Frankly, much of value is missing from those days.

In any case, go with it and enjoy. It's good - in an old-fashioned sense.


This nifty little movie demonstrates the rock-solid virtues of a time, place and kind of masculine strength that we no longer have or even aspire to have. The Saint is a paladin with only the best motives, to say nothing of a polished vocabulary and diction. No need to turn up the volume or read the dialog. George Sanders is so charming and, yes, low-key that all that talent, smarts, physical presence and above all, masculinity, seem, well, almost normal. Some normal! George Clooney can not begin to master the scene as Mr. Sanders does (and does without Mr. Clooney's mugging).He could play a sniveler (witness The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Rebecca) but when he was good, he was very, very good. Truly, a man for all reasons and seasons.


The above summary really isn't meant as a slam against this film, as the series followed a very similar format. As usual, Simon Templar ("The Saint") meets a lady in distress and comes to her aid. He also comes to the aid of a police detective who was framed of accepting a bribe. Along the way, he meets some interesting supporting characters (this time, Paul Guilfoyle as "Pearly" Gates) and during his unraveling of this not especially compelling mystery (none of them really are), Templar is extremely erudite and just plain cool! George Sanders is once again the consummate sophisticated British do-gooder and he succeeds once again in making an excellent B-detective series film. Nothing particularly special, but a familiar and breezy product sure to please fans of the genre.


"The Saint Takes Over" stars George Sanders as Simon Templar, aka "The Saint" in this 1940 entry into the series. It also stars Wendy Barrie, Jonathan Hale and Paul Guilfoyle. On board ship en route to the U.S., The Saint meets and tries to make time with a woman (Wendy Barrie) who gives him the brushoff. Simon is coming to New York to help Inspector Fernack, now thoroughly discredited due to a gangster frame-up; $50,000 was found in his home. The gangster, Rocky (Roland Drew), of course, was found not guilty at trial, and he and his fellow mobsters pay the bill for the frame and attorney representation - $90,000 in total. Today you need that to defend yourself against a parking ticket. This was a murder rap.

Rocky sends his bodyguard, Pearly Gates (Guilfoyle) to the lawyer's house to steal the $90,000 from the safe. The attorney catches him red-handed and sends him back to his boss with a message. Seconds later, he's dead. Rocky meets a similar fate. And on and on - who's killing this group of gangsters? The Saint has to get one of them to talk so that Fernack can be cleared - can he get to anyone before they're murdered? The woman he met on board ship reappears and figures prominently in the case.

Few actors have a way with a line like George Sanders, and his dry wit, good looks, smooth voice and depth as an actor suit Simon Templar perfectly. Paul Guilfoyle provides some humor as the nervous, milk drinking Pearly Gates, and Jonathan Hale is great as the sometimes exasperated but worried sick Inspector Fernack. Wendy Barrie, who appeared in many Saint episodes, is very good as the woman who captures Simon's heart.

Very enjoyable.


These cartoon writers are unrelenting with their corny (and fun) puns. The first shot we see in here is an island prison with the following written above its big gates: "Alka-Fizz Prison - No Noose Is Good Noose." Inside the prison, the first sign we see is "Welcome: have a seat." They then show an electric chair.

Corny gives way to clever, however, as our favorite wolf is seen behind bars. With pen in hand, he literally draws a door next to him and then escapes through it! In no time, he has criss-crossed the United States, zipped up through Canada and is in the northern part of that country. It's there we see the Canadian Royal Mounted Police and, of course, our hero Droopy, known here as "Sgt. McPoodle." He has the assignment of catching the at-large criminal from Alka-Fizz. So, with his trusty little blue horse, he goes out in the heavy snow to track down the wanted wolf.

From that point, we get the normal story: Droopy always being a step ahead of the wolf, no matter what the latter does....and both characters are involved in some wild and very funny sight gags. Droopy even pops out of an eagle's egg on top of a mountain. There is nowhere the wolf can go - or do (plastic surgery!) to escape the intrepid "Sgt. McPoodle." Nobody, by the way, in the history of cartoons perhaps has more exaggerated reactions, either, than this wolf each time he sees his nemesis! His screams, facial and body stretched out in horror each time is a big part of the sight gags.

You'd think this one-joke cartoon would get monotonous but it doesn't. It's more good stuff from Tex Avery and the gang, just one of 24 cartoons in the "Complete Theatrical Collection" DVD with wonderful-looking restored visuals.


Come on. Anyone who doesn't understand the greatness of this here cartoon should be kicked off any critic's panel. They should not be allowed to be heard, because they obviously have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Anyone who does not love this here animated cartoon directed by Tex Avery should be chained to a chair and forced to watch "Huckleberry Hound" episodes for 20 years straight!

The takes and double-takes by the Wolf in this cartoon are the finest examples of this important past of comedy that have ever been captured on film.

Tex Avery should receive a posthumous Academy Award for this cartoon. It's the best.


This animated short is a remake of one of Tex Avery's earlier shorts for Fred Quimby at M-G-M (Dog Gone Tired). An escaped convict (here just known as Joe)who just broke out of 'Alka Fizz Prison' tries to keep one step ahead of Droopy (known here as Sgt.McPoodle of the Mounties),but always manages to run into him,one way or another. This is easily one of the most side splitting,funny shorts that rolled out of the M-G-M animation studio. It manages to get most of it's laughs from the shocked reactions Joe has whenever he encounters McPoodle (including some equally deranged sound effects-i.e..car horns,screaming,elephants,etc.). As with any Avery M-G-M short,frantic,kinetic pacing is to be expected (along with some nice, surreal sight gags-i.e.Joe trying to run away from McPoodle & actually running off the side of the film). Pop this one into your DVD player & laugh yourself silly.


Tex Avery's tenure as director of cartoons for MGM was in the 1940s and 50s was one of the brightest moments in cartoon history. His cartoons were exceptionally inventive and surreal with MANY weird touches that were later celebrated in the movie THE MASK. Eyes popping out when a guy sees a girl, impossible stunts and non-stop action were the trademarks of these films.

This is one of several Droopy cartoons that Avery was responsible for and it's among his best. Droopy is a Mountie and he is determined to get his man,...though in this case it's a wolf who has escaped from prison. Throughout the film, despite many insane stunts, Droopy keeps up with this crook until eventually the wolf gives up because Droopy is seemingly everywhere! Full of funny gags and loaded with laughs, this is a great cartoon.


What a strange atmosphere is being created in the streets and on the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco in this exciting action picture. Although the characters and the story are in fact bad, it still has a certain cult-flair.


I'm seen this documentary in its feature-form, in a movie theatre. And... wouah! The pictures are astonishing, one really wonder how by Jove did they manage to film those waves, those animals, those... is that a plant ? a predator ? a creature from the movie Abbyss ? Anyway, it's remarkable. Sure we've seen a lot of such documentary on TV, with weird animals and so on, but none with such a beauty, a precision, a deep emotion. The only downside is the commentary. In French it's narrated by François Perrin, usually good and familiar with beautiful documentaries, but the text is not good at all. Not enough informative of too much, innapropriatly anthropoid...


The entire series, not just The Blue Planet, is nothing short of amazing. The best nature series we have ever seen. The episode on the deep is like traveling to outer space! We have watched this with our 10 and 7 year old boys and all four of us have not been able to pull away. We read a negative comment on this and could not believe it. There is so much new information that we never learned in school. Its also the best view we have seen from any television or movie into the delicate balance of our earth's eco-system. The amount of time and effort put into capturing these shots is very much apparent when you sit down and watch this series.

A must see for everyone.


Everything I can say, is that it's one of the best documentary movies of the ocean ever seen. It impresses immensely by professional filming, scenery and idea! What I've seen during those 50 minutes cannot be compared to any other visions of the blue planet


An stunning look at the ocean and the life in it.

The Good:

The camera work was absolutely phenomenal. Every shot is done beautifully.

It was interesting seeing all the different animals that I could have never even imagined.

David Attenborough has the perfect narrator's voice. No one could have done any better.

The Bad:

There were one or two different times where there was a reference to the Earth being 1 million years old ( I hold a different belief).

Overall a TV series anyone can enjoy. I highly recommend buying it. 10/10 stars.


Blue Planet... Wow... Where do I begin? The years of hard work paid off in what is, without question, one of the best documentaries ever created.

The sights and sounds presented in Blue Planet, like most documentaries with the Attenborough stamp, are rare and haven't even experienced by most people. That alone should be enough reason to buy this series, especially if you're the curious type who 'wants to know'.

Blue Planet is not a perfect documentary, however. It does get a bit repetitive after the 3rd episode. How many ways can different sea creatures swim, kill, poo, mate, and lay eggs, and do all of these ways really need to be explored? But if you have a deep interest in sea life, this repetition shouldn't become a problem for you at all.


I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .

Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie


"The bad dreams always come back again like unwanted friends," says Marion Fairlie, who with her half-sister, Laura, lives in a vast mid-Victorian country estate. "And last night I found myself in Limmeridge churchyard. Normally, people who are dead stay dead, just as normally it is the criminals who are locked up rather than the victims. But then, there was nothing normal about what happened to us..." And we're off on a first-class Gothic story of madness, deception and villainy, based on Wilkie Collins' great novel of Victorian mystery. It's a good idea to pay close attention, because there are plots within plots, yet they all center on a cunning and ruthless scheme which involves, what else, money, lots of money.

Marion Fairlie (Tara Fitzgerald) and her sister, Laura Fairlie (Justine Wadell) are devoted to each other. Marion is fierce and protective; Laura is softer and much more romantic. Marion has no money of her own; Laura will inherit riches when she comes of age. Marion has no marriage prospects that we know of; Laura has been pledged sometime ago to Sir Percival Glyde (James Wilby), an altogether too charming aristocrat. They are the wards of their uncle, a fussy, condescending, immensely self-centered hypochondriac (Ian Richardson). All seems to be quite routine, but then a young artist, Walter Hartright (Andrew Lincoln), is engaged to teach them drawing and artistic appreciation. And when he arrives at night to the local train station, there is no carriage, so off he sets out on foot to the estate. In the dark woods he encounters a strange woman, dressed all in white, wandering about and speaking of things he does not understand, who then disappears. Are we uneasy? Yes, and so is he and the sisters when they come to realize the strange woman looks much like Laura. Later, does love emerge between Walter and Laura? Does a bud bloom? Is there a misunderstanding that sends Walter away and results in Laura marrying Sir Percival? Does a canker gnaw? And do secrets slowly come to light about the relationships among Laura, Marian and the woman in white...do we learn to be deeply suspicious of Sir Percival's intentions...do we come to enjoy the style and manners of Sir Percival's close friend, Count Fosco (Simon Callow)...and do we eventually realize the foul depths of depravity, as well as the power of honor and true love, that humanity is capable of? Do we visit Victorian insane asylums, see falls from high towers, dig open graves in the middle of the night and watch retribution arrive amidst the roaring flames of a locked church?

Well, of course, and it's a grand journey for us.

This BBC/Masterpiece Theater program features fine acting and outstanding production values. To fit Collins' 500-plus-page novel into a television show of less than 120 minutes means a good deal had to be cut or abridged, and some changes were made most likely to achieve greater impact in the little time available. Still, taken on its own terms, the production of The Woman in White in my opinion works very well as a moody, romantic, dark television tale. Tara Fitzgerald as Marion gives a commanding performance as a woman determined to protect and then save her sister. James Wilby as Sir Percival manages the clever feat of slowly letting us see the depraved slime beneath the skin, who still has charm amidst the villainy. Ian Richardson as the young women's uncle almost steals the show. He gives such a bossy and pungent performance it almost unbalances the story every time he appears. Perhaps the weakest of the main parts is Simon Callow as Count Fosco. The Count is simply a monster, yet a supremely civilized and charming one. Collins described him as being of immense girth. Callow does a fine, mannered job of it, but to me he lacks a little of the monstrosity of evil.

At one point, Marian tells us, "My sister and I are so fond of Gothic novels, we sometimes act as if we were in them." Little did she know what was in store for herself and Laura.


Fate puts a pair of priceless items in Ernest's hands and he gets kidnapped and taken to Africa because of it. This was my first Ernest film so I can't compare it to his others, but I thought it was fairly amusing. Good stuff if you like slapstick humor and plain old clowning around.


Jim Varney's performances as the Harem Girl and A.U. are amazingly funny--on a level surpassing Chaplin and Keaton. Linda Kash is great in her once-in-a-lifetime role as the hometown waffle waitress longing for adventure. Unfortunately, the remaining 90% of the movie was unwatchably bad due to the atrocious plot. The makers of Ernest Goes to Africa did not rise to the creative challenges inherent in low budget film production. Only worth seeing on cable.


An Intelligent and well obtained film worth to export!

In this exiting and really intelligent movie filmed entirely in Bogotá, you can feel the total meaning of the word "Bluff"(although is a Colombian film, the title is in presented in English); !

The story is about Nicolas Andrade (Federico Lorusso), a photographer who find his girlfriend Margarita (Catalina Aristizabal) having an affair with his boss Pablo Mallarino (Victor Mallarino), owner of a magazine; after this Nicolas is left without girlfriend and without any job. Nicolas revenge to Mallarino consists in following him and obtaining photographs of him with his new affair Alexandra (Carolina Gomez) to blackmail Mallarino in order to obtain money in change for not showing the photographs to Margarita.

The story is really intelligent and well related, to the point that you'll understand fully the meaning of the title, the movie shows a thriller with a lot of a comic scenes and characters, resulting in a real pleasure to someone that enjoy the movies focused on a good script.

I stand out here that this film is different from the typical Colombian movies that show's some dark and violent image of our beautiful country, which is something really refreshing. Some critics say that this story don't show Colombian typical way of living, so it could be held in any part of the world, i disagree with this: (1) the movie is totally filmed in Bogotá, so you can see streets, and images of the real Colombian capital (i hope that some American people and movie producers watch this so they stop showing Amazonic jungle, or Mexican little towns in Bogota as on some Hollywood movies), (2) the characters, dialogs, accent (with exception from Nicolas that is from Argentina) are totally from here, Rosemary (Veronica Orozco) has an accent typical from Cali, (3) you can also see social and cultural differences from the common people in Bogotá. I hope that all this, plus an English title move people from other countries to watch this masterpiece of Martinez

Excellent acting of Veronica Orozco, Luis Eduardo Arango (detective Wilson Montes), Felipe Botero, outstanding as detective Ricardo Perez, and good acting of Mallarino, Catalina Aristizabal and Federico Lorusso.

A movie worth to export, that people from around the globe will surely understand and enjoy!, Don't miss this movie 9/10!


I actually went to see this movie with low expectations since it was the only one that fit my schedule. And amazingly I found it really original. I have commented on other Colombian films before, and I agree that Colombian movies tend to have a similar scheme, and always try to make reference to the average vulgar people,especially trying to make jokes out of the continuous cursing. But let's face it, the language used in this film is not especially exaggerated. Unfortunately, this is how real people speak. The storyline and the pacing are brilliant, and it could be extrapolated to any country in the world The acting was great, and the script is to me one of the best ones ever produced in Colombian soil. I think that anyone around the globe can get a good one hour and a half of entertainment, with a beautifully well directed bluffing black humor comedy. It kind of reminded me of films like snatch, and others of the sort. I highly recommend it and hope it can be viewed by more people, since Colombian movies seem to have started to be more internationally focused since last year.


Bluff I really think this movie is very good.

Is basic a different kind of Colombian movie. Is hilarious and the actors uses local expressions that are so much fund to listen.

It shows a different face o Bogotá and I think that's very important because Colombia is a diverse country and we need to show that to the world This is the first movie of the director Felipe Martinez and I really except this movie will be the beginning of a great career as a film director.

We need to continue support Colombian filming industry, because this movie and others good films are the beginning of something big.


'Bluff' has been showing for a good few months at movie theatres in Bogota, and today I finally got round to seeing it. I didn't really know what to expect at all, but was very happily surprised. It is a crime comedy of the same ilk as Snatch etc, and it manages to nicely balance elements of suspense with comedy. The style of the film is established early on with cheerful music and the Argentinean narrator who makes asides direct to camera -- odd the first time, but subsequently fitting naturally.

With my less-than-perfect Spanish, I still found the plot and dialogue easy enough to follow, and plenty of the comedy is situational. My Colombian girlfriend was laughing a lot at the various portrayals of people from different regions and social classes which did pass me by somewhat, but for instance a well-acted portrayal of a pompous idiot in a position of power is funny in any language.

I think it is to this film's credit that it has something of a global flavour: I wasn't often reminded that this was Colombia that I was watching. Yet it is important to note that many wealthy Bogotanos do live like some of the characters in this film, and it is not a mis-portrayal of Bogota or Colombian society in any way, just a *selective* portrayal -- as is any film supposedly portraying a 'real' situation/culture.

I don't know how much of the comedy would be lost in subtitles, but if it comes to your country definitely go check it out: it is a very slick and enjoyable movie with great elements of black humour. And all in a tightly packaged 90 minutes.


This film is one to spend the short while, entertainment, but who then could be made in nobody country it does not have anything identifies "the Colombian". Who looks for the topics of the supposed Colombian or socially and politically correct cinema and what it is denominated "it jeopardize",it is better than it is not going to see this film. Some to the drug traffic, or the fight is no reference either farmer and worker, or wing guerrilla and to the kidnapping political.

The corrupt police is a personage who it could be Mexican, Russian, Italian or Chinese, and also the personage protagonist, an Argentine photographer, it could be Venezuelan, Peruvian or Philippine and the frequent "boludo" in its parliaments it could be replaced by another word of slang of any other country without the personage or history changes. The important thing is that it is a very decently counted history with images and right performances. Its quality almost is of TV movie but of the good ones. That if one film like this if it deserves or does not deserve the support with publics bottoms a little is a classic discussion "mamerta".


Hallelujah!!!! Finally, a true Colombian film crosses the border(s) to shows how Bogotá and Colombia really are! I am an American of Colombian and French heritage sick and tired of seeing Colombia so perversely and ignorantly portrayed by Hollywood and others.

How many of you are aware that Colombia is the second oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world (after the USA), or that it has a vibrant film and television industry (-to say nothing of Ugly Betty), that it's capital, Bogota (Pop. 9 Million) is the "world Capital of the Book," or that this beautiful city is host to the world's LARGEST International Theatre Festival? I hope that Doug Liman, Simon Kinberg (-Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Robert Zemeckis, Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) one day visit Bogotá, to see how wonderful it really is, and focus on Bogotá's cultural vitality and diversity, instead of myopically producing films such as Maria Full of Grace from which Joshua Marston profited greatly (for this terrific film) without ever thinking-through about the ontological damage his film would help to perpetuate upon the "unfairly tarnished image" of Colombia.

-Anyway, you will at least enjoy Bluff very much! -Oh, and thanks IMDb for your invaluable/great work!!!


"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spinoff of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy."

In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look.


- A group of bandits rob a train of the gold shipment it is carrying. In their escape, the bandits split up. The one thief who knows where the gold is hidden is killed before he is able to talk. Three men have a different part of the "clue" that will lead to the gold. Can the banker, the bandit, and the bounty hunter work together to locate the missing loot? Or, will they kill each other first? - The plot is an obvious take-off of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Various scenes in the movie are also lifted from other films by Leone, Corbucci, and more. But, to me, it's done in a way that doesn't show disrespect to the original work. Instead, Any Gun Can Play lovingly parodies some of the biggest films in Spaghetti Western history. The opening scene of three men riding into town and the final face-off between the three main stars are a wonderful homage to the SWs that came before.

- Castellari adds a lot of nice touches of his own - the reflection in the spilled wine, the Stranger's entrance with the vivid red background, and the playful way the gold is discovered in the end. Although highly unbelievable, many of the fight scenes are well staged and directed. Two fight scenes in particular (the market fight and the bath house fight) are very nicely done. He is also unafraid to try different things with his camera. Tight close-ups, overhead shots, and shots around corners are all common in Any Gun Can Play.

- Another plus is the cast that Castellari had to work with. George Hilton is always good in these movies. Gilbert Roland is literally playing Gilbert Roland. And SW newcomer Edd Byrnes holds his own with the two SW veterans. The supporting cast features, among others, SW regular Gerard Herter.

- Any Gun Can Play should not be taken too seriously. Nice touches of humor can be found throughout the movie. If this is possible with an SW, it's more of a "feel good" movie - very reminiscent of some of the Terence Hill / Bud Spencer films.


Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.


George Hilton never really grabs me like Franco Nero or Clint Eastwood, but this is a great outing for him. Basically rippin off the Django/man With No Name and doing a damn good job. The opening sequence of this gem is a classic, and the cat n mouse games that follow are a delight to watch. Fans of the genre will be in heaven.


"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spin off of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy." In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. My name is Evren Buyruk from Crestline California


A gang of bandits lead by the shrewd, rugged, ruthless Monetero (a perfectly imposing performance by Gilbert Roland) steals $300,000 worth of gold coins during a daring train robbery. But untrustworthy member Bahunda (an amusing turn by Jose Torres) makes off with the coins and hides them. Unfortunately, Bahunda gets killed before he can tell Monetero where he stashed the booty. So Monetero has to join forces with cunning, cocky, enigmatic bounty hunter the Stranger (smoothly played by the handsome George Hilton) and cagey, corrupt banker Clayton (a delightfully weaselly portrayal by 50's teen idol Eddie "Kookie" Burns) to find the coins. Skillfully directed by Enzo G. Castellari, with a clever, complex and twist-laden script by Castellari, Tito Carpi, and Giovanni Simonelli, a playfully amoral and nihilistic tone (everyone keeps double and triple crossing each other with happily greedy abandon), a twangy, flavorsome, spirited score by Alessandro Alessandroni and Francesco De Masi, plenty of stirring shoot-outs and rousing rough'n'tumble fisticuffs, a wickedly sly sense of self-mocking humor, a steady pace, and a real doozy of a surprise ending, this giddy and often hilarious feature makes for an inspired send-up of Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Popping up in nifty secondary parts are the luscious Stefanie Careddu as Monetero's fiery gal pal Marisol, Ivano Staccioli as a hard-nosed army captain, and Gerard Herter as flinty lawman Lawrence Blackman. An immensely amusing and enjoyable romp.


This enjoyable Euro-western opens with a scene that predates a similar scene that Sergio Leone wanted to shoot for "Once Upon A Time in the West" but couldn't persuade Clint Eastwood to appear in. Three tough-looking gunfighters ride into a town. One is dressed like the Man with No Name in a poncho. Another is dressed like Colonel Mortimer from "For A Few Dollars More," and the third is garbed like Django, except he rides a horse instead of pulls a coffin behind him with a machine gun in it. Our hero meets them in Main Street behind a wagon loaded with three coffins. "Any Gun Can Play" is a spaghetti western with an in-joke on spaghetti westerns since the hero here wipes out the three killers. Aside from a little too much comedy, especially in the acrobatic fight sequences, this is an above-average oater.

The notorious Mexican outlaw Montero (Gilbert Roland of "Barbarosa") and his gang of trigger-happy pistoleros rob an army train transporting $300-thousand dollars in gold coins across the frontier. Director Enzo G. Castellari of "Inglorious Bastards" stages the hold up from a variety of camera angles that thrust you into the forefront of the action. The bandits seize the locomotive along with the coach carrying the gold and separate it from the rest of the train that houses the U.S. Cavalry. While Montero and his gunmen keep the Cavalry pinned down, Pajondo (Pedro Sanchez of "Sabata") commandeers the locomotive, kills the engineer and his crew and trundles it away, leaving the other pistoleros behind to fend for themselves. Essentially, Pajondo double-crosses Montero and steals the gold for himself. Later, Montero catches up with Pajondo at the Rio Grande. Before the bandit can reveal the whereabouts of the loot to Montero, however, a Cavalry sergeant shoots Pajondo dead. Before he dies, Pajondo tells Montero about a medallion that serves as a clue about where he stashed the treasure. The irate Cavalry captain (Ivano Staccioli of "Commandos") imprisons Montero, but he cannot loosen the bandit's tongue even after he uses his whip on him. Infuriated by Montero's reticence, the captain threatens to have the Mexican shot if he doesn't talk. Meanwhile, the jailers let a priest speak to Montero, but he really isn't a priest. The six-gun toting Stranger (George Hilton of "The Ruthless Four") masquerades as a man of the cloth and rescues Montero from a firing squad. Unfortunately, before Montero is rescued, Clayton (Edd Byrnes of TV's "77 Sunset Strip") takes the medallion away from him and keeps it for himself. Clayton is the bank representative that was sent to safeguard the gold. He is horrified that the Captain wants to shoot Montero. Clayton's career at the bank hinges on his ability to recover the gold. The Stranger stages a fire at the fort to distract the firing squad and Montero takes the Captain as hostage and tries to escape, but the Stranger shoots him off the horse. Before the authorities can verify that Montero is dead, the Stranger claims the body for the handsome reward he will receive and he rides out with the Captain's gracious thanks. No sooner have they left the fort than Montero's men show up to rescue him from the Stranger. From this point on, the Stranger, Montero, and Clayton forge short-lived alliances among each other as they search for the gold. Castellari and scenarist Tito Carpi, who has penned a number of spaghetti westerns such as "A Few Dollars For Django" and another Castellari oater "Seven Winchesters for a Massacre," rely on clever humor and surprise reversals to keep the action fresh and fast-paced. One cool scene has Clayton seated at a table about to eat his meal when he hears some suspicious sounds from behind him. Clayton pours his drink on the table and sees the gunmen behind him with holstered six-guns.

"Any Gun Can Play" lives up to its title. In fact, many guns do play, and at least twenty or more corpses pile up before fade-out. This western isn't so much a parody as it is a knock-off of Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Mind you, bad guys and good guys fall as frequently as ten-pins in a bowling alley, but their deaths aren't depicted in the brutal fashion of a Leone western. "Any Gun Can Play" doesn't take itself as seriously as the aforementioned Leone masterpiece. The three leads jockey back and forth for supremacy. Each has a piece of the puzzle that will lead them to the treasure, but they refuse to share their information until the shoot'em up finale. Lenser Giovanni Bergamini's colorful widescreen photography is spectacular, especially the opening shots of the train chuffing along railway tracks with distant mountain peaks rearing up dramatically in the background. Another great shot occurs when Montero tests the Stranger's imperturbable calm. This scene happens after the Stranger has rescued Montero and the Mexican's minions arrive to save their chieftain's bacon. Confiscating the Stranger's six-gun, Montero takes aim at the poncho-clad tough guy and empties the revolver, placing his well-aimed bullets harmlessly in and around the unflinching gunslinger. Bergamini, who photographed Castellari's World War II thriller "Inglorious Bastards," frames the scene with the Stranger in the background and his pistol in Montero's hand in the foreground for a pleasing, three-dimensional style shot. Meanwhile, Francesco De Masi's lively orchestral soundtrack is as memorable for its own idiosyncratic melodies as Ennio Morricone's soundtracks were for the Leone westerns. The opening song is reminiscent of a 1950's Hollywood western with its catchy lyrics and guitar riffs. Although it isn't a major spaghetti western, "Any Gun Can Play" is always entertaining nonsense with interesting plot twists and good performances, especially the indefatigable Gilbert Roland who was 62 years old at the time!


A train holding union soldiers is transporting $300,000 of gold, along with a banker Clayton, who's there to see it reaches its destination, but it's suddenly robbed by the bandit Monetero. However Bahunda nicks off with the gold and hides it, but when Monetero tries to get it out of him, he's killed by soldiers. The only clue is that of a medallion, but Monetero is captured and soon would be executed. A stranger dressed up as a priest comes by (who after the bounty of Monetero) and offers to save his life for half of the gold. In exchange Monetero gives him half of the medallion, but Clayton notices it and discovers something is up. Soon all three are crossing each other for the gold, but also the bank's insurance company and Monetero's gang are watching on, waiting for their chance to pounce.

Just watching the opening sequence you'll know you're in for a spaghetti western with a tongue-in-cheek style and a reliance of sprinkling many references (some nicely realised) from other films (largely the Dollar trilogy) of its sub-genre. Director Enzo Castellari's sprightly direction is sprawling and mostly lightweight, but there's potential in many of his grand, showy set pieces and smooth rhythmic pace. Largely there's a lot of tussles, fist-fights (and plenty of acrobatic stunts) taking place, compared with all-out vicious shootouts. However most of these stunts are very well done, and very enjoyable and when the guns are blazing there's energy to burn. The traditional story sticks close to conventional details, but since there's a lot of conniving and outfoxing going on, the spontaneous nature makes sure you're never quite certain how it's eventually going to play out between the three. This leads up to many effective suspenseful moments, clever twists, and plenty of wink, wink. The humour within the starch script is pretty sly. Worked in favourably amongst the light and zesty style, is Giovanni Bergamini's dynamically taut framing and Francesco De Masi's impulsively rousing music score. The performances are extremely well tailored and form a striking rapport. George Hilton's wry and scuffed turn is solid as the ambiguous stranger. Gilbert Roland brings class and intelligence to his formidable Mexican bandit Monetero. Edd Byrnes gives a poised performance as Clayton, that holds up well. Kareen O'Hara doesn't get much to do, but is a worthy looker. Gerard Herter, Pedro Sanchez and Ivano Staccioli provide able support.

A fun and worthy spaghetti parody/homage that throws one curve-ball after another and many fruitful down 'n' dirty antics.


"Any Gun Can Play" (1967), directed by Enzo G. Castellari, is a very good pastiche of Spaghetti Westerns, especially Leone's. The first half is great, which, apart from the opening which is a direct nod to "For a Few Dollars More", with Monco, Colonel Douglas Mortimer and El Indio lookalikes walking into a ghost-town and then promptly killed by a Bounty Hunter called "The Stranger", is entirely serious, with great gunfights (especially the train-robbing scene), fast and furious action and nice performances from Gilbert Roland, George Hilton and (who manages well, considering that he is badly miscast) Edd Byrnes. But then, when the film reaches the half-way mark, there is a jokey fist-fight between Hilton and Byrnes. It isn't very funny, and is the weakest part of the film, but it throws everything you have seen previously in a new light. You realise that in fact the whole thing is a spoof of Spaghetti Western conventions, and in retrospect, the first half is so well done that you completely miss this spoof undercurrent. What now follows is a more obvious parody, with even some acrobatic jumping around from Brynes that predates all those seventies Circus Westerns. The ending, a complete send-up of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" climax, is very well done, as in other hands it could have been very silly. So, a pretty fun Spaghetti Western, that doesn't take itself too seriously. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Spaghetti Westerns.


Bounty killer George Hilton, smooth Mexican bandit Gilbert Roland (who's great), and bank representative Edd Byrnes each try to outwit one-another while searching for a large amount of gold from one of Roland's train robberies that was hidden by a treacherous member of his gang.

Though not the greatest that the genre has to offer, It's still breezy enough with a lot of light-hearted, action-filled fun and a satisfying finale.

Any Gun Can Play is mainly remembered for it's opening gag where George Hilton easily guns down three outlaws resembling Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Django.

The next year, Hilton and Roland were reunited alongside Van Heflin and Klaus Kinski in the highly recommended The Ruthless Four.


Based to some extent on writers, David Croft and Jimmy Perry's, own experiences as Butlins Holiday Camp entertainers in the UK during the same timescale the programme follows, "Hi-De-Hi!" epitomises the 'slapstick, postcard humour" of post-war Britain. Set in the fictitious seaside town of Crimpton-on-Sea, "Hi-De-Hi" chronicles the comedic goings on within the Maplins Holiday Camp - one of many dotted along the British coast owned by the mega-rich, but never seen (on screen) Joe Maplin.

Although the actual show began in 1980 with the pilot episode and ran until 1988 when the BBC deemed it too tame for it's cutting edge comedy department, seasons 1-5 focused on 1959 while seasons 6-9 spotlighted 1960 - a time when the old style British Holiday Camp began to fall into decline. During the first 5 seasons, Jeffrey Fairbrother (played brilliantly by the late, great Simon Cadell) was the camp's entertainment manager; a well meaning, yet slightly pensive ex-university professor breaking free of his upper class background and venturing into the "real" world to head his team of entertainment staff who were in stark contrast to his own laid-back personality. From season 6 onwards, Fairbrother was replaced by Clive Dempster (played by David Griffin when Cadell quit the show at the height of it's popularity), an ex-RAF war hero who, in many ways, was similar to Cadell's character in background, but more a scoundrel than a gentleman.

However, the real stars of "Hi-De-Hi" throughout the nine seasons were Ted Bovis (played superbly by Paul Shane), a stereotypical working class, ale drinking, bawdy comic - someone who could never resist an opportunity to fiddle the campers; Gladys Pugh (played by Ruth Madoc who's currently experiencing a career comeback with appearances in the hit BBC Comedy, "Little Britain"), chief Yellowcoat (what the entertainment staff were called because of their bright yellow jackets) and sports organiser - but more importantly, the one person who saved Jeffrey Fairbrother and Clive Dempster from embarrassment by covering up their inexperience in running a holiday camp; Peggy Ollerenshaw (Su Pollard), the slightly dopey, yet lovable lowly chalet maid with a burning ambition to become a Yellowcoat, and Spike Dixon (Jeffrey Holland), Ted's innocent protégé learning more about 'show business' than he hoped for.

As usual with a Croft & Perry production, the assembled cast of characters were a bunch of misfits played superbly by the actors involved. Mr. Partridge (played by the late Leslie Dwyer, who was in his 70's by the time he left the show), the alcoholic child-hating children's entertainer; Fred Quilly (Felix Bowness), a former champion jockey with a dubious past; Yvonne & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves (Dianne Holland & Barry Howard), the snobbish former ballroom dancing champions who were in the twilight of their careers; and Sylvia and Betty (Nikki Kelly and Rikki Howard), the two main girl Yellowcoats who were always looking for the type of fun Joe Maplin would never allow in one of his camps.

"Hi-De-Hi" typified the slapstick era of the late 50s with it's saucy and, to a certain degree, vulgar "tongue-in-cheek" humour (jokes about people sitting on toilets and anecdotes about 'women with big knockers' were the order of the day). But despite it's whiff of "Carry On" funniness, it was always so innocent and became something of recommended family viewing back in the 80's. Of course, the critics of the show remarked that the show had outstayed it's welcome by a good couple of years, but I disagree. While the early seasons focused mainly on bawdiness and slapstick humour, the latter series of "Hi-De-Hi" saw more thought put into the scripts and the main characters (especially Spike Dixon & Gladys Pugh) were able to grow with more sensitive story lines. That said, there were a few criticisms of the show. Clive Dempster was no Jeffrey Fairbrother, and the former didn't quite have the on-screen chemistry with Gladys as Jeffrey did (I personally think it would've been more believable if Gladys had married Jeff); five seasons dedicated to 1959 and four to 1960 caused more than just a few continuity errors (the disappearance of old faces and introductions of new characters weren't explained properly, especially with the Yellowcoats who came and went with much regularity; and the character of Gladys Pugh, who, in the pilot episode was made out to be a free-loving man-eater that was suddenly transformed into a naive virgin like character! Also to mention quite pedantically, most of the 1959 holiday season was covered in season one, so to stretch the rest of the year out in five further series was something bordering unbelievable. Still, the show wasn't meant to be meticulously looked upon, and the comedy more than outweighed it's flaws.

All in all, "Hi-De-Hi" was probably one of the last comedies from the BBC's golden period, and even if it never managed to rival such British comedic mainstays as "Only Fools & Horses", "Porridge" or even "Last Of The Summer Wine", "Hi De Hi" will be best remembered as a comedy the whole family could enjoy. If you haven't already checked it out for yourself, I implore you to do so.


I get really fed up with sitcoms; you feel you always know what is coming so it ceases to be funny. On the other hand, Hi De Hi, you rarely know what is coming and it's laugh out loud funny. I have just purchased the second set of the series, (series 3 -4)and I am surprised at just how much I am enjoying it all - again. I have nothing but praise for the writers or the actors (or the many unseen crew members) because the entertainment they provide is well worth the wait. The gems that have come from this series and the respect that the actors achieved through it speak for themselves. Croft and Perry created some pure gold some of which shines through Hi De Hi.


I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.

As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.

( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )

Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. "Hi-De-Hi!" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!.

One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.

I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: "Lies, Ted! All lies!".

As with every other Perry/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated.

The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating!

With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.

The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.

Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'.

I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers!


Having reviewed 3 of the 4 Perry and Croft sitcoms, I thought I would get them all done now. Dads Army, is my all time favourite sitcom, It ain't half hot Mum is also a classic as is You Rang M'Lord. I don't regard Hi De Hi as a classic, but it is still funny.

It's about a holiday camp, similar to Butlins, but instead of red coats, it's yellow coats. It is ran by Jeffery Fairbrother, a well meaning man, but has the personality of a sock. The staff include fun entertainment manager Ted, his sidekick Spike (he ended up being thrown in the swimming pool nearly every episode), yellow coat Gladys, careless maid Peggy who longed to be a yellow coat and the Punch and Judy man Mr Partridge who hates kids. Situations occurred mostly round the swimming pool, where someone would be thrown in every episode (with there clothes on of course).

Not a classic, but still funny. Jeffery Fairbrother left half way through, so this, a bit like Only Fools and Horses, outstayed its welcome. Jimmy Perry was actually a red coat at Butlins.

Best Episode: Peggy's Big Chance, series 2, episode 2.


A cranky police detective suspects a French duke of being the infamous thief ARSÈNE LUPIN.

John & Lionel Barrymore costarred together for the first time in a motion picture in this intriguing crime drama. Alike and yet so different, they are the perfect counterpoint to each other. John plays his role with suave sophistication (when not in disguise) and Lionel is earthy & common in his portrayal, each obviously having a wonderful time trying to out act the other. Helped by a generous script, the outcome is pretty much a draw, with the viewer the clear winner.

Although upstaged by the two male stars, Karen Morley is intriguing as the mystery woman John finds naked in his bed. Tully Marshall gives a colorful performance as a silly nobleman with much to lose to the master criminal. Henry Armetta & George Davis are very enjoyable as two seriously inept security guards. John Miljan provides a sturdy presence in his small role as the police prefect.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Mischa Auer as a guide in the Louvre during the climactic scene dealing with an attempted heist of the Mona Lisa.


Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When "Arsène Lupin" was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. "Arsène Lupin" is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.

John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.

Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In "Arséne Lupin", Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.

SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!

Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.

Don't look for a good plot line here, but "Arsène Lupin" is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10.


A remake of the 1916 silent film, based on the 1909 novel by Maurice Leblanc. The detective series would be made into numerous plays, films and TV series in the UK, the US, and France over the years. This 1932 version starred the smashing Barrymore brothers John (as the Duke) and Lionel (as Detective Guerchard). They would also star together in Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, and several others over the next couple years. Sonia (Karen Morley) shows up in the Duke's bed during a party in this pre-Hayes code film; first the lights go out in the bedroom, then they go out in the main ballroom, then the search is on for the crook and the missing jewelry, as well as other missing valuables... You can tell talkies hadn't been around too long, as they still use caption cards several times. Also watch for a new kind of safe that doesn't need a combination. Well-thought- out plot, no big holes, but no big surprises here either. Not bad for an early talkie film. Clever ending.


John Barrymore plays a gentleman who is also the thief, Arsene Lupin. While no one knows for sure this is the case, the inspector (Lionel Barrymore) is sure of it but cannot prove it. So, Lionel spends much of the movie following John--hoping to catch this brilliant and slippery thief.

Although I liked the film, I really think I had higher expectations for it and thought it might be better than just a very good time-passer. That's because it paired John AND Lionel Barrymore in the film and since these brothers were such dynamic actors, I think I expected sparks and magic but instead only caught glimpses of it here and there. Now this is not to say this is a bad film--it certainly isn't. It just didn't rise to the level of being unforgettable or a film I strongly recommend you see. Thanks an adequate script, the film is pretty good but I was surprised to hear no French accents at all in the film even though it was supposedly about French people! Also, there just wasn't much life in the film until it was nearly complete. The ending was indeed excellent and entertaining--so good that it elevated the film from a 6 to a 7. It's nice to see it ended on a high note.


Sure, it has its pretentious moments, it plays like art-house, live-action Fantasia, but it also has moments of deep beauty and humor. Omnibus films are always a problem, but I have always had a keen interest in them. I will now rate the segments individually.

Nicolas Roeg - "Un ballo in maschera" - This segment may very well spoil the film for some people, because it is absolutely the worst of the whole bunch. It is difficult to follow, mostly because it tries to adhere to a clear plot (a hackneyed one, at that). The photography is unaccomplished. The best thing about it is the bit of Lesbian homoerotica that it never does enough with. This segment made me VERY nervous about continuing. 2/10.

Charles Sturridge - "La virgine degli angeli" - an unclear segment, but it hardly matters. The film has the best cinematography of the bunch, mainly because it is in a stunning black and white. The segment is dreamlike and beautiful. 7/10.

Jean-Luc Godard - "Armide" - I chose to brave this much-maligned film for the Godard and Altman segments. With Godard, I was much more impressed than I thought I would be. I can't claim to have seen all that many of his films since he made so many that almost no one has seen, but, judging from what I have seen, this may be his best work since the 60s. It is the funniest segment in this film, and the most artistically accomplished. Bravo, Jean-Luc! 9/10.

Julien Temple - "Rigoletto" - a very funny segment, it is also quite predictable. Still, this story about a husband and wife who are cheating on each other at the same resort is wonderfully filmed with long, complex tracking shots that depend on precisely timed choreography from the actors. It also has a great self-referencing joke about omnibus films themselves. The final scene is very weak. 7/10.

Bruce Beresford - "Die tote Stadt" - this short segment involves too lovers in (I think) Venice. It is pretty, with some nice shots of doves flying about the city. It is slight, but nice. 7/10.

Robert Altman - "Les Boréades" - not one of the better segments, unfortunately, this is more of a music video than a concept short film. It involves the occupants of an insane asylum attending a theatrical performance. The music and images work well together, so at least I can give it credit for being a good music video. 7/10

Franc Roddam - "Liebestod" - somewhat unfortunate for Beresford's segment, this segment is very similar to it. As you might assume from my phrasing, this one struck me much more. It is about a young man and his girl going to Las Vegas on a fatalistic voyage. 8/10.

Ken Russell - "Nessun dorma" - maybe the most visually striking segment, it plays in a fantasy world more than in reality. It is a beautiful tale of a fallen angel. 8/10.

Derek Jarman - "Depuis le jour" - I have heard a lot about Jarman, and this is the first piece of filmmaking I have seen from him. Hopefully, I'll see more in the future. This one is also music-videoish, but it is better than Altman's segement. It mainly concerns an old woman remembering her younger days. The editing and the use of different film stocks to represent both time and emotion are very beautiful. 8/10.

Bill Bryden - "I pagliacci" - the sad clown, possibly one of the most famous arias (particularly memorable from an episode of Seinfeld), this serves as the material separating each segement and the finale. It is simple and effective. 7/10.

Overall, I give it a solid 7/10. It isn't anywhere near as bad as you've heard.


I'm an opera buff, and operas are full of sex, blood and death. It may help to know the librettos of the operas the arias are from to really appreciate this film -- my mileage is very different than Tug-3. I am a classical music lover, and I liked this film.

I loved Ken Russell's "Nessun Dorma" segment, and would actually like to see him produce Turandot, because opera is supposed to be overwhelming, truly multi-media experience , but then I loved Lisztomania. I love *Turandot* and knowing the libretto so well may be why I don't find this segment the travesty that Tug-3 did.

The Buck Henry/ Rigoletto segment is probably the most approachable for the average viewer -- they are likely to recognize the tunes, and its a classic bedroom farce. I like bedroom farces, so the silliness didn't upset me.

The "Liebestod" segment is so outstanding that I recommend people watch this for that piece alone. "Depuis la Jour" was, for me, beautifully spiritual. And the Caruso recording of "Vesti la Giubba" (aka I Pagliacci) with John Hurt as the clown was wonderful. But people just wanting naked women may feel there is too much music and not enough bare flesh and sex.


10 respected directors each shot a short film with operatic arias as the inspiration (and music). I'll do each one separately:

Nicolas Roeg (dir)--Giuseppe Verdi (music). A story about an assassination attempt in 1931 Vienna. Theresa Russell (Roegs wife) plays a man! Not bad--very beautiful and exotic. Russell is great.

Charles Sturridge--Verdi. No story but there is some haunting black and white imagery that fits perfectly with the music.

Jean-Luc Godard--Jean Baptiste Lully. Horrendous. Pointless, boring, no plot, no nothing. Filled with gratuitous female nudity. The worst!

Julien Temple--Verdi. Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo and Anita Morris star in this funny, if obvious, story about a cheating couple. Pretty good.

Bruce Beresford--Erich Korngold. Short, lush and romantic. Very good.

Robert Altman--Jean-Philippe Rameau. Dull. A yawner.

Fran Roddam--Richard Wagner. This has Bridget Fonda in her film debut. Beautifully done love story with a fairly explicit sex scene.

Ken Russell--Giacomo Puccini. Really strange but OK.

Derek Jarman--Gustave Chapentier. Lyrical look at youth and old age. Very sweet.

The last is by Bill Bryden doing "I Pagliacci". He has John Hurt (!) dressed as a clown lip-syncing to Caruso (!!!).

When this came out it almost got an X rating (for the abundant nudity and the sex scene). It was given an R with a strict warning attached saying the R rating would be heavily enforced. After the film bombed that warning disappeared.

The idea isn't bad and 6 out of the 10 segments were worthwhile. Worth seeing even if you don't like opera. Just avoid the Godard segment. I'm giving it an 8.


Robert Altman, Nicolas Roeg, John-Luc Goddard--you were expecting a fun film the entire family could enjoy? These and other directors were obviously chosen because they have not followed the mainstream, but created it. For those that complain that they did not adhere to the original story of the opera--How often does the music in a film directly relate to what is going on in the film? It is the mood that counts. This is what I believe the directors of these movies were doing: creating a contemporary mood for old operas. For the most part they succeed wonderfully. With all these operas, who is going to like them all. We could have used more Beverly Sills.

Finally, what is art (even opera) without a few naked women?


Definitely worth watching.

Ten different directors each present a segment based on their favorite opera aria. You don't need to be an opera lover to watch this film. (Although, of course, if you hate opera, you're really going to have a bad time with this!)

Not surprisingly the segments range from brilliant to only fair. Most of the fuss seems to be over Godard's contribution -- whether you think he's brilliant or pretentious, his segment won't change your mind.

Some of the pieces have a clear narrative; others are more a montage of connected images.

None of the pieces is more than 10 minutes or so; if you're not happy with what's on the screen, wait for the next segment, and think about how much culture you're soaking up.

Keep your eyes open for performances by Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo, Elizabeth Hurley, Briget Fonda, Tilda Swinton, and John Hurt. (The Buck Henry segment alone is worth the price of admission).


I saw this movie in the early 1990's when it had been out on VHS for a little while. At the time, I found it to be interesting, and was especially struck by the Ken Russell segment, with the visions of the accident victim in triage and surgery.

Last night, at a 2nd-run showing of the latest Indiana Jones movie, the vision of John Hurt prompted an unexpected flashback to "Aria", which I had not thought of in years, and the sudden memory of the Russell piece itself was enough to cause an outbreak of tears for a little bit.

If I can make this observation, I note with interest the love-hate reaction that people have expressed to the Russell segment, and I have found this interesting difference in other movies that delve into deep trauma and its aftereffects. Some GET it, others DO NOT, interesting.

I see by the comments and the rating that the overall work hit people in various ways. This is how it affected and affects me.


Guess a few upscale film directors were sitting around sipping their absinthe, grappa, aramangac or jungle juice some night in the 80's during the Cannes or other film festival and one said "Hey, guys let's do a movie where each of us creates a segment around a world class aria." Welllll...it kind of sort of worked. Clearly someone was smart enough to select some of the best recordings of the arias chosen, for example Bjoreling's Nessun Dorma, so if you were blind and lying on the floor just listening to the DVD you got more than your money's worth. Not every director succeeded but more did than not and the flick seems to improve with each viewing over the years. My favorite is the eerily beautiful love duet from Die Todt Statd; okay a young naked Elizabeth Hurley is eye candy but her husband singing to her, his wife's ghost, is incredibly beautiful with the love music second only to Otello and Desdemona's "Gia nella Notte Densa" in all the operatic repertoire. Could the flick been better, sure, what couldn't not have been but it's well worth a view especially of you're in a hyper-romantic mood.


When I read the synopsis for "Messiah" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. "Messiah" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time.


What can I say? You expect only the best in drama from the BBC and MESSIAH is not an exception to the rule.

MESSIAH is a great thriller, a truly shocking and creepy tale about a serial killer who cuts out victims' tongues and replaces them with silver spoons. Police Officer Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott) and his team have the task of trying to solve the mystery of the seemingly random events, before more lives are lost.

But be warned - despite it's '15' rating (in the UK), MESSIAH is a bit of a gruesome film. Some of the murder scenes are similar to those in SE7EN, and one or two can be really stomach-churning. But if you can withstand that, sit back in your chair and enjoy... although you'll most likely be on the edge of it or hiding behind it.

Rated '15' by the BBFC for moderate violence and strong horror.


The DVD release of this superior made for TV BBC drama is a more than welcome addition to my collection. Great acting, gripping story, and wonderful direction all add up to one of the best BBC dramas in years.


I have to say when it comes to Book to Movie Adaptations the BBC rarely lets me down. Now regarding this mini-series. I love the Starling Novel, it's by far the best murder/mystery I've ever read. The Mini-series, it defiantly made my day when I saw it. The primary story was kept near perfectly intact. The characters match the ones to the novel very well, the personalities and mannerisms were spot on for Red and Jez. I thought Duncan was done very well as was Kate, Eric came off as too much of a simplistic character, he had a little more depth in the book, but they also altered his sub-story so that may have had to deal with it. Of course there are changes, but most are cosmetic, but some I found disappointment in, the sub-story with Eric murder charge was changed and that changed the whole dynamic between Red and Eric for the movie, and they cut out the Triathalon training Jez was doing. Some of the other events in the book are changed to be viewer friendly. Over all if you liked the book, you will like this, if you like the mini-series, then you'll love the book. I must say, this is the most accurate Book to Movie adaptation I've seen.


Having read the other comment about this superb piece of TV drama I felt compelled to balance things a little. If you like you murders, to be signature and serial, and your cops to be British, and shout a lot, and the gore to be bloody and have a religious slant then this hits every button. Not quite enough 'gov'ing to put the shouting into the Sweeney's rarefied heights, but otherwise highly rated. Ken Stott is excellent as the 'cop on the edge' and the guest stars are also well cast, including Edward Woodward and Art Malik. Recommended. (In response to the earlier comments, although I accept that 'Red' would not 'normally' drive away from a hit and run, he had just witnessed his brother arrested for murder, and I am fairly sure he does not see the boy move.)


I saw MESSIAH 2 a few months ago and didn`t get to see the original teleplay untill a few days ago and this is far superior to the sequel . Okay it`s not a million miles away from the plot of SEVEN but it`s still compelling . Much of my praise has to do with Ken Stott`s performance as DCI Red Metcalfe a policeman who seems to have led a very unlucky life and someone who has a terrible secret . It`d be easy for Stott to go over the top but he plays the role in a fairly subtle way . Likewise the murders are very shocking but - unlike the sequel where the murders are carried out onscreen in a rather OTT manner - there`s actually little violence shown .<br /><br />My only criticisms are that the red herring was too obviously a red herring which meant I wasn`t taken in by the shock twist ( And you would probably see the shock twist coming so I won`t bother with a spoiler alert ) and that when the real murderer was revealed it seemed both slightly far fetched and caused a few plot holes to appear in the story . If I remember correctly the sequel had similar problems once the murderer was revealed so maybe it`d be a good idea not to make MESSIAH 3


Obviously inspired by Se7en and sometimes even more gruesome; more bloodshed and very graphic details (a bit too much for my taste). Great script and acting (I was especially impressed by Ken Stott and there were no weak points in te cast). Good cinematography and very realistic stereo-sound. One of the best thrillers I've seen since years. Although it was scheduled on BBC in three parts I watched Messiah on video in one take. One point of critic; the motivation of the villain was not very convincing.


Messiah was compulsive viewing from start to finish. The story centred on apparently random murders of men in London in various gruesome ways. DCI Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott)has to find the truth which, to his surprise, is a little closer to home than he might think.

Gripping drama and Ken Stott was brilliant. Hopefully we have not seen the last of DCI Red Metcalfe.


I saw the Messiah:- The First Killings and I thought it was absolutely one of the best programmes I have seen, ever. It was one of those programmes that you think that oh, no, I cannot watch the rest of this but you feel compelled to watch it just to see who done it. Jamie Draven was an absolutely amazing actor in it, to be able to switch between two totally, totally different characters one of which is the evil, nasty person that did it and the other person who is Jez Clifton, the cop. To be able to do that, well, I certainly wouldn't be able to do it, well not without cracking anyway. I really do love and care for Jamie Draven with all of my heart and I always will, until the end of time, I think that Jamie is the sweetest, cutest, sexiest guy in the world. I absolutely love Jamie in Ultimate Force also because he looks god damn sexy in the blacks that he wore. I love Jamie Love Paula Draven

-X-


1981's Just Before Dawn is one of the best tales of wilderness horror out there. It's one of the finest-made slashers of the 80's and it easily blows movies like The Final Terror, Don't Go in the Woods, or The Prey out of the water.

A group of young adults come to check out the mountain property that one of the group has just bought. However they are not alone in the wild. A hulking in-bred murderer, who seems to be in two places at once, is lurking and apparently hates trespassers.

Director Lieberman, who gave us such great B films as Squirm (1976) and Blue Sunshine (1977), does an excellent job with this smart thriller as well. The movie is nicely atmospheric, with a creeping sense of tension and some strong suspense. This film makes even the open wilderness seem frighteningly claustrophobic. The Oregon locations are beautiful and well captured by the crafty cinematography. The music score is a true original and awesome in contrast with the scenic visuals.

Deborah Benson makes for a great lead, her presence was captivating. Gregg Henry delivers a good performance as Benson's lover and Chris Lemon provides some occasional charisma. The supporting cast, especially veteran actor Kennedy, also does quite well.

A true gem of the slasher genre, that needs no gore to thrill. Definitely well worth seeking out for slasher fans and horror buffs alike. See it!

*** 1/2 out of ****


Jeff Lieberman's "Just Before Dawn" is definitely one of the most underrated horror movies ever made.The film,whilst a little bit influenced by "Deliverance" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre",is extremely creepy and memorable.The suspense almost never lets up and the atmosphere is genuinely eerie.The cast is excellent,Deborah Benson and Jamie Rose are great female leads.The inbred twins are truly frightening and remorseless killers.The film is beautifully shot-it was actually filmed on location at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon.There is very little gore,but one killing,when Verchel is stabbed in the groin,is pretty nasty and unpleasant.A must-see for slasher fans.10 out of 10-what else?


I'd been postponing purchasing this one ever since its DVD release  for one thing, because I'd been somewhat underwhelmed by this director's two other horror titles (SQUIRM [1976] and BLUE SUNSHINE [1977]), but also the fact that the film itself is said to have been slightly trimmed for gore on the Media Blasters/Shriek Show 2-Disc Set! I now chanced upon it as a rental and am glad I did  because, not only is it superior to the earlier efforts (at least, on this preliminary assessment), but I also found the film to be one of the better imitations of THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974). This factor, however, only helped remind me that I've yet to check out another such example  Wes Craven's classic THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977), whose 2-Disc R1 edition from Anchor Bay I purchased some time ago but, after all, Halloween-time is fast approaching...

Anyway, the film manages an effortlessly unsettling backwoods atmosphere (it was shot in the forest and mountain regions of Oregon)  with plenty of effective frissons throughout but, thankfully, not too much violence (even if the last of the villains is dispatched in quite an outrageous fashion!). The principal young cast here (one of them played by Jack Lemmon's son, Chris) isn't quite as obnoxious as those we usually encounter in this type of genre offering  despite freely indulging in the shenanigans one associates with teen-oriented flicks and which, by and large, persist to this day! George Kennedy appears as a sympathetic Ranger; though he doesn't have a lot to do, his characterization is decidedly enhanced by making him a lover of plant and animal life. Also notable among the locals is familiar character actor Mike Kellin in a nice role as the drunkard who first comes into contact with the murderous duo of the narrative  his warning to the teenagers, naturally, goes unheeded but he's later able to lead Kennedy to them.

The hermetic family the teens come across in the woods, then, is eventually revealed to be hiding a skeleton in their closet. While one of the girls displays genuine curiosity at the intruders' presence, the rest are openly hostile to them  and, in the case of the burly and uncouth twins, appropriately creepy (one of them is even prone to maniacal laughter during his rampages); at a certain point in the narrative, the Ranger even offers an interesting explanation as to the nature of their aggressive and generally uncivilized behavior.


It may have been inevitable that with the onslaught of "slasher" movies in the early 1980's, that a few good ones might slip through the cracks. This is a great "rare" film from Jeff Lieberman, who insured his cult status with his memorable 1970's films "Squirm" and "Blue Sunshine".

Five young people head into the Oregon mountains (this movie was actually shot on location) to do some camping and check out the deed to some land that one of them has acquired. Before long, they will predictably be terrorized by a bulky killer with an incredibly creepy wheezing laugh.

"Just Before Dawn" is noticeably more ambitious, "arty", and intelligent than some slasher films. Lieberman actually fleshes out the characters - well, two of them, anyway - as much as a 90-minute-long film will allow him. The film has genuine moments of suspense and tension, and actually refrains from graphic gore, save for one killing right at the beginning.

There is an above-average cast here, including Oscar winner George Kennedy, as a forest ranger who's understandably gone a little flaky from having been alone in the wilderness for too long. Jack Lemmon's son Chris, future Brian De Palma regular Gregg Henry, blonde lead Deborah Benson (it's too bad she hasn't become a more well-known performer, judging by her work here), Ralph Seymour ("Ghoulies"), Mike Kellin ("Sleepaway Camp"), and Jamie Rose ("Chopper Chicks in Zombietown") round out the cast.

Some of the shots are interesting, and the early music score by Brad Feidel (now best known for his "Terminator" theme) is haunting and atmospheric.

This is worth catching for the important plot twist at about the one hour mark, although a moment at about 75 minutes in involving the heroine and a tree and the killer is almost comical; it may actually remind a viewer of a cartoon! One of the most clever touches is the final dispatching of the killer, which I'd never seen before in a horror film and probably won't see again.

I didn't give it 10 out of 10 because I can't honestly that I was that frightened. Still, it's an interesting slasher that is worthy of re-discovery.

"That deed don't mean nothing, son. Those mountains can't read."

9/10