What do you get when you have a tenacious, seasoned French police inspector by the name of Maurice Martineau is called to solve a murder case? Well, simply a very entertaining, fun film. The re-mastered black-and-white film "Quai des Orfevres" delivers the goods despite romance, jealousy and marriage that seem to just get in the way towards the truth of 'who done it?'

Inch by inch, technique by technique as seasoned by experience and intuition, the patience of this master Inspector etches into the truth -- but of course, with the help of a bag full of dirty police interrogation tricks.

Martineau is the centerpiece of this film. The use by director Henri-Georges Clouzot of raucous background music to intensify the drama in grand film noir style is a wonderful wrapper around the visual experience.

Martineau eventually solves the mystery and arrests the culprit. Hey, he is good!! But alas, Martineau, too, can keep a dark secret in his past. Who is that boy that is perhaps not his son?

Some things can never get solved -- even beyond the closing credits.


Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society: especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut.

After that we are relentless observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow.

The point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it.

As for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin. Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch, that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \

Even the forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at night.

From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the ultimate in despair.

They don't even know how to make films like this anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a kind of Rosselini on speed.

Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast.


Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still, Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also co-starred in Marcel Carné's Drôle de Drame, gives the best performance as the clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem sort of fascist).


Ruthless mercenary Bruno Rivera (Paul Naschy in peak nasty form) betrays his pregnant partner/girlfriend Meiko (well played by Eiko Nagashima) in order to have exclusive dibs on a fortune in stolen diamonds. But Meiko manages to seriously wound Bruno before he gets away. Bruno winds up in the swanky chalet of kindly rich doctor Don Simon (a fine performance by Lautaro Murua). He also attracts the attention of Simon's two hottie daughters: the fiery Monica (luscious Silvia Aguiler) and the sweet Alicia (nicely essayed by the lovely Azucena Hernandez). However, Bruno soon realizes that something is very amiss about the isolated place and plans to escape as soon as he can. Meanwhile, the bitter Meiko tries to find Bruno so she can exact her revenge on him. Naschy, who wrote and directed as well as stars, concocts one of his strangest, most twisted and perverse horror vehicles ever with this little seen oddity. The offbeat plot and mysterious atmosphere become more weird and unnerving as the story unfolds, eventually leading to a genuinely startling surprise downbeat ending. This film further benefits from occasional moments of graphic gore (watch out for the memorable sequence with one poor guy being devoured alive by vicious flesh-eating pigs!), Alejandro Ulloa's slick cinematography, and a decent sprinkling of nudity and soft-core sex. Good supporting turns by Roxana Dupre as sassy maid Raquel, Pepe Ruiz as amorous playboy Don Serafin, and Julia Saly as the deranged Teresa. A pleasingly grim and worthwhile shocker.


After I first saw this, I thought, "Wow, this is the most spectacular movie, visually-speaking, I've ever seen." Since that time, I've seen some that topped it but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better than the VHS tape.

The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and "lush" is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, "seeing" is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no "hearing," no dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film.

Story-wise, all I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction period

In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes.


SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?


Greystoke is without doubt the best tarzan movie I have ever seen. Christopher Lambert portrays a very believable man trying to return to the world of mankind alongside the fantastic Ian Holm. The struggle of John to leave the jungle and the apes who raised him is quite stirring. Some very memorable scenes including where Lambert makes the jungle noises to the romantic interest, and the scene where he witnesses his ape father's death. Tarzans feelings for both worlds is well developed and really makes you feel for him.

An excellent and underrated movie.


If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.

Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.

The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.

But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.

There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.


This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood  in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events  with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom  as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course)  with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker)  and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.


I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.

Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.

I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.


Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is based on the classic book Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs and is a more faithful adaptation to the classic book, the film has some great scenery like the Jungles of South Africa to the Greystoke mansion, the acting is also great. Chirstopher Lambert did a great performance as Tarzan, it was also his first English speaking role. The film has some funny moments, sad moments and touching moments that makes this a real classic.

The film sees a boat crashing in the Jungles of South Africa and some time later they have a son named John, the Apes go into the hut and one of them kills the Father. The Apes then take him to where they live and adopt him as one of their own, as the years go by John grows up and learns to be more like the Apes. In his teens his Foster Mom gets attacked by Native Hunters and soon killed by them, years later a group of people are going to Africa on a expedition. After setting up camp they're soon attacked by the Natives, most escape but Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot is left behind injured by some of the arrows. After hiding he meets John now an adult who takes him to his home and takes care of his wounds, after a while Phillippe starts to teach John how to speak English and teach him that he's not one of the Apes but a person. When Phillippe goes to leave John goes with him, after sometime they arrive at Greystoke manor where the Sixth Earl of Greystoke is shown his long lost Grandson, John is shown his bedroom and picture of his true Mom and Dad. John also meets Jane Porter and slowly as they get to know each other he begins to have feelings for her, when it's Christmas the Sixth Earl of Greystoke slides down the stairs killing himself. John then starts to miss the Jungle and wants to return but Phillipe tells him to stay since everything they had done would be for nothing. John is then torn between his life as a Greystoke and the Lord of the Apes.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is a great classic that should be seen. 10/10


Beautifully filmed, acclaimed director Hugh Hudson (Chariots of Fire) creates a story that brings the entire legend of John Clayton, Lord Greystoke and Tarzan of the apes to life with reverence and dignity, and with a scope not heretofore seen in Tarzan films. Christopher Lambert makes his starring debut as the young Lord, raised in the wild by a female gorilla after his parents die in Africa. Later returned to what is to him an alien world, that of class and privilege, he feels totally out of place. Once he learns what has happened to the apes that raised him and their world he realizes that he must go back. A sad but triumphant story told against a background of fantastic vistas. This is one of those films that is a must for every Cinemaphile's collection.


I don't understand why it is so underrated on IMDb.. This movie is just the perfection.. The better adaptation of all times of the myth of Tarzan! As a french, I can say that this is the better role of Christophe Lambert, ridiculous in a lots of movies, but here absolutely wonderful, charismatic, incredible! The plot is great, well told, the story magnificent, the direction, the atmosphere, the music, every things are perfect! How believe these sequences with the Elgar music, just simply perfect..

Greystoke is truly an unbelievable movie, underrated here, I don't really know why, but really appreciated


..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon serials.

This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously. Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors. This was a movie that he shines in.

The photography and the apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve.

I highly recommend this film


This is both an entertaining and a touching version of the classic tale, also quite intelligent, not of the 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' school at all.

It's the famous story of a child reared to manhood in the jungle by apes. A titled British couple (the wife pregnant) is stranded in the African wilds after a shipwreck. After the parents' deaths, the baby is raised in the jungle by apes. Twenty years later, this young man (i.e. Tarzan) rescues a wounded Belgian explorer, nursing him back to health. The Belgian discovers evidence that his rescuer is the young Lord Greystoke and returns him to his rightful estate in Scotland, where he must adjust to civilized society.

The movie is sort of divided into two parts. In the first half, we see Tarzan in his jungle environment. Not being an expert, I am unaware as to the realism of its depiction of ape community life, but it is certainly entertaining. For me, the more moving section is the second half, when Tarzan must meet his real family, develop language skills, and adjust to aristocratic British society, all the while wooing Jane (Andie MacDowell). He is portrayed as a 'noble savage', whether in the wild or in elegant Edwardian parlors. By contrast, the upper crust is depicted as often far more barbaric than the jungle Tarzan left.

Christopher Lambert is fantastic in his sympathetic portrayal of Tarzan in both the jungle and civilized environments. He conveys a real sense of his confusion and conflict, torn as he is between the two very different worlds, his original ape family and his new human one. Sir Ralph Richardson, one of the old British legends, is brilliant as always in the role of Tarzan's grandfather, the Sixth Earl of Greystoke.

The film focuses more on Tarzan's struggles in adapting to civilization and his inner conflict than on his jungle exploits. This unusual take on the old classic makes it both the typical dramatic adventure but also, above all, a moving personal story. I wasn't surprised to note here that its director is the same individual, Hugh Hudson, who also directed Chariots of Fire, another brilliant movie.


There is absolutely no doubt that this version of Tarzan is the closest to Burroughs' vision. While he gladly collected his royalties from the films produced during his lifetime, he frequently made it clear that they were little more than the bastard children of his tales. The film studios' ludicrous obsession with casting Olympic swimmers as Tarzan was beyond laughable. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they did not set their sights on shot-putters.

Prior to this film, the most faithful adaptations were in comic strips and comic books. As fine as some of these were, we had to wait seven decades for a filmmaker with the integrity to respect the character as he had been created.


Where this movie is faithful to Burroughs' vision, it is excellent; where it departs from Burroughs, it is superb. It is a tale of family, of the seeking of a father by a real and emotional orphan. Lambert's speaking of one of the most anguished lines in all of cinema "He was my Father!" is enough to bring tears to the eyes of the most cynical critic. Not a perfect motion picture - the notorious over-dubbing of McDowell's voice by Glenn Close is unconscionable and only explicable in terms of a very British error - but a fine if flawed masterpiece and a noble farewell to Sir Ralph Richardson.


Don't let the wildly varying reviews of the movie deter you. You'll love it or hate it according to your own tastes. However, if for no other reason, see "Greystoke" to experience the excitement of a great actor grabbing your heart as he breathes life into his role. Ralph Richardson was not a great actor for how perfectly he could handle Shakespeare; rather, he is to be remembered for his sensitive treatment of every character he portrayed. He was never indifferent to his responsibility as an actor. His reading of the part of the Sixth Lord of Greystoke, his last performance, is to be cherished by all who love the theatre.


I must confess that I don't remember this film very well. But, certainly I liked it. I think it was the best adaptation from Burroughs novel, really. And of course it's one of the best movie from Christopher Lambert.

A good movie about Tarzan, as cult as the ones with Weissmuller.


The greatest Tarzan ever made! This movie is done in a way that no other Tarzan ever has come close in doing. It has every thing in it that you would want in a Tarzan movie. No other Tarzan movie ever has or ever will portray the character this well. I would say that if you have seen a Tarzan movie and liked it you should see this one you will love it, and if you have never seen Tarzan you should see this one and forget the rest of them.


Before I review this film, I must make a confession that is rather a bold statement to make as a film reviewer. Anyone who has already read any of my previous reviews may know that I've always been controversial in a low-key sense, giving high marks for flops such as "Captain America" and 1985's "Creature" and panning such film classics as Alistar Sim's "A Christmas Carol" and "Shakespeare in Love." With that in mind, this confession might not come as a surprise:

The simple fact is, Christopher Lambert is probably one of my favorite actors. Woah, now, don't start getting crazy on me just yet. Let me explain myself: I by no means think he's the greatest actor in the world. I clearly confess that he is not. He is certainly no Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins, but I would say that his acting ability is probably somewhere up there with at least Bruce Willis. What I admire about him, however, are the human qualities that he brings into his action heroes. He is just an average guy who laughs and cries and bleeds, who is a hero because he has to be, not necessarily because he wants to be. It takes a lot, in my opinion, to be able to bring out those qualities in a character (especially in the movies he's worked in), and Lambert's heroes are a far cry from Schwartzennegger's or Stallone's. Quite frankly, Lambert's characters are easier for me to relate to. Hence, he's not the greatest actor in the world....He's just a personal favorite.

I can't say that same, however, for his films. However much I appretiate his acting, it would be foolish not to confess that his choice of films leave something to be desired. Most of them are, quite frankly, terrible, and any ridicule that he's gotten over the years from me isn't due to his acting, but rather his bad choice in scripts.

With that in mind, I can say that his debut film, "Tarzan," is one of his best films and probably his greatest performance. As I mentioned, it is effective becasue of the humaness he brings to the role, and for how seriously the director, writers and actors handle the material. This is a far leap from the B-movie action adventures with Johnny Weismeller from the 1940's. In fact, I would hesitate to call it an action movie. Instead, it is a serious drama that takes all of E.R. Burrough's material seriously, showing Tarzan's quest to discover his real family in Scotland after realizing that he doesn't fit in as a "white ape." He is torn in between his old family and his new one, which includes a wonderful Sir Ralph Richardson in his final role. In an attempt to adapt to humans, his ape instincts also kick in, and he can't decide what he loves more: His real family, or the one that he's always known. All in all, it is a wonderful commentary on society, and a wonderful character study.

If nothing else, it launched Lambert into international stardom, which continued will into the 1980's with films like "Highlander" and "he Sicilian." Unfortunately, it didn't last. But just wait a while....His latest career moves such as "Gideon" and "Resurrection" have proven that though he still have a long way to go, he's a competent enough actor to be able to perhaps make a... ahem.... comeback if he'll just pick his roles better.

For now, however, here's the verdict on his first film:

*** out of ****


I thought this was a very daring representation of the old hokey 'Tarzan' concept made so popular by Hollywood, Weismuller, et al.

Yes; there is a lot of silly stuff. But then, the idea is silly. It is almost unbelievable that a human baby could be sired to adulthood by chimpanzees. I am tempted to say completely unbelievable, but that the concept has never been tried. And there is certainly a bit too much anthropomorphism for comfort. Though under the circumstances I can see how that would be very difficult to avoid. We also now have a much greater insight into the issues of acculturation, and know that a human raised from infancy without human behavioural prompts would ultimately never learn them in adulthood.

Still, if you can get your head around that lot, there's a great deal to admire that is both imaginative and daring. Lambert does the beast thing with tremendous aplomb. I am tempted to say that it is the most convincing and sympathetic role I have seen him play. There are plenty of other excellent performances too. Not least of which are Sir Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm.

What is particularly disturbing - and rightly so - is the simian perception of humans. We get to see ourselves almost from the point of view of the poor, dumb, helpless brutes over whom we so routinely lord it. And it demonstrates well how the phony 'civilisation' and 'morality' with which we cloak and justify our conduct, is no more than an expression of own selfishness and arrogance. It may seem a little overstated at times, especially in the hideous museum dissection rooms, but what we see isn't just a truth about the Victorians; its a truth about the way we are today. It's one that needs to be stated, and cannot be stated often enough. Holm's character's obsession with the 'ray-zor' as a symptom of civilisation - as if to possess facial hair were a primitive condition to be scorned - is an excellent case in point. Primitive bearded readers take note.

The story is depressing. Ultimately it's a tragedy. Because even though he returns to the jungle and the freedom from moral tyranny that is truly human 'civilisation'; we know he's doomed. Before the third millennium is 50 years old, wild simians will be hunted into extinction as bush meat, and their environment developed for agriculture and mineral exploitation to gratify insatiable human excess.

In the end, it's a tale about ourselves. The path to extinction that other simians tread, must eventually be followed by humans.

Highly recommended for its ethical take, despite the hokey moments.


While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining, slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography, workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs. The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related. It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD Tarzan movie.


Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall.


I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.


Although films about Edgar Rice Burroughs famous Rousseauian hero Tarzan have been seen by movie goers for almost a century now, this is the definitive version of the story. Greystoke is the actual story of the origins of Tarzan as set down by Edgar Rice Burroughs way back in the second decade of the last century. I've been assured by experts.

Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes are probably the most filmed fictional heroes in history. I've no basis in fact for saying that, just a gut feeling. The most popular Holmes was Basil Rathbone, the most popular Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. And films that they made with both those characters will be criticized no end by purists.

But Greystoke is the real deal, a faithful adaption of Burroughs first story concerning the origin of his hero. I can't think of another film which shows that Tarzan learned French before English, but that is shown here and it's only natural since it was a French survivor of a massacred safari played by Ian Holm who discovers Tarzan who has been raised by the apes since his parents who were shipwrecked on the African coast died there after his mother gave birth.

His parents were in fact the son and daughter-in-law of the Earl of Greystoke and the surviving Earl, played by Ralph Richardson is of course overjoyed to learn he has a grandson. Of course there are others who don't welcome the new heir back in society.

One who doesn't is Andie McDowell playing of course Jane. She does not communicate with Tarzan in answer to his grunts and monosyllabic commands. Tarzan speaks a concise English, French, and understands the language of the apes as well. As for the language of love, Tarzan and Jane need no lessons.

Greystoke earned three Oscar nominations for best makeup in regard to the apes, best adapted screenplay and a posthumous nomination for Ralph Richardson for Best Supporting Actor. It should also have rated a nomination for cinematography of the jungle scenes in Cameroun and the scenes of the British Aristocracy in several landmark places like Hatfield House and Blenheim Palace.

For Burroughs purists, Greystoke is the real deal.


How his charter evolved as both man and ape was outstanding. Not to mention the scenery of the film. Christopher lambert was astonishing as lord of Greystoke. Christopher is the soul to this masterpiece. I became so enthrawled with his performance i could feel my heart pounding. The entireity of the movie still moves me to this day. His portrayal of John was Oscar worthy; as he should have been nominated for it.


I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid.

Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.

As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.

So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it.


This is one of the most enjoyable teen movies I have ever seen (and that I wished was released to video). It was released the same year as another great comedy in which Tim Matheson played a role "Animal House" (Which is probably why it was overlooked).

One of the most memorable parts of this film would definitely be the soundtrack, which could have and should have been a formal label release. The soundtrack features a lesser-known 70's act named High Inergy whose song "We are the future", played a marquee role in the movie's Prom scene. I remember purchasing the group's album "Steppin' Out" as a kid mainly because of the look of the girls and not necessarily for their musical talents.

The closing song is one of the best ballads I have ever heard, and I can still hear it in my head. I wish I knew the group's name so that I could look for it somewhere in cyberspace.

If you liked films such as "Over the edge" and "Rich Kids", I think this is one that you will enjoy as well.


Slipknot is a hardcore rock band from Des Moines, Iowa. Nine band members who all wear customized boilersuits, and personalized, homemade masks (eg. #6's clown mask, #0's various gasmasks, #8's tattered + torn crashtest dummie mask with dreadlocks). The music itself seems to walk the finelines between sane and otherwise, yet is performed so brilliantly and psychotic.

"Welcome To Our Neighborhood" sounds rather a generic title, but the footage itself is something else. Interviews with the band, soundbites from their latest, selftitled album, 2 live performances, and one banned-by-MTV music video (a brilliant homage to the classic Kubrick film "The Shining"), the movie clocks in at not even half-an-hour, but is certainly worth it. It is perfect for introducing any metal/hardcore fan to Slipknot.


This DVD usually sells for around $20. I wouldn't pay this much for the DVD if I had known what I was getting, but regardless this is a pretty good disc. It displays the Knot in all their glory, with footage from their concerts... playing Surfacing, Wait and Bleed and Scissors among other tracks, including the "Spit it Out" music video, which was apparently banned from MTV.

Slipknot, for those who don't know, is essentially a symphony of the damned: nine masked men who display total chaos on stage, with machine gun drums, squealing guitar and vocals that will tear your face off and leave you wanting more. For those who've never seen Slipknot before, I cannot recommend enough you get this DVD... probably off eBay or Amazon so you can get a better deal.

A short, though well made show of the Knot.

Seven out of ten.


I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans of the band, and fans of alternative music in general


Slipknot is a heavy metal band from the great city of Des Moines, Iowa in which the rockers wear their own distinguished mask (I know someone already said this, but I need to fill up space for this review). The band members are Joey, Mick, 133, Sid, Clown, James, Corey, Chris, and Paul. This band is one of the best new heavy metal bands in my opinion and should be heard by everyone that loves hardcore rock. Another good movie is called "DISASTERPIECES" which shows the band's performance at the London Arena. The "My Plague" video was shot there and is included on the DVD. The most kick ass song they made is also on there (Sic). So if you love the band you need to see this and if you love heavy metal music then you have to hear this band.


I can't remember exactly where i heard of them first, but i listen to a little of one song and liked it. Went and bought the cd and had finally found the type of music i like. I heard about this video and knew i had to have it. It has a lot of clips from them playing in concert. Let me tell you, watching this video doesn't even compare to them in concert. I've seen them twice in concert and don't want to ever miss a chance to see them again. The other two things it has is some interview, and even a video for one of their biggest songs. couple little side notes...i saw them at ozzfest 2001 and they ruled there, but seeing them in a smaller inside stage was much better (they had some really cool things to do with being able to cut out the lights) the other, in case anyone wonders, votary means a devout follower.


From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film.


One of the flat-out drollest movies of all-time. Sim and Rutherford are at their best matching wits over the predicament of an all-boys and all-girls school sharing the same quarters. Slapstick has never been this sophisticated.


This film, without doubt, is the clearest example of the British humour the Germans can't understand. One-liners run rampant in a film spawning one of the greatest series of films in British cinema history (St.Trinians). The story of bureaucratic incompetence amid post-war trials enables Frank Launder to direct maximum talent from all the cast. It's probably the only film in which Margaret Rutherford meets her match, in Alastair Sim, for forceful characterisation (she still wins though). Joyce Grenfell (bless her) and Richard Wattis both deserve mentions in Dighton's masterpiece of English etiquette and stiff upper lip under pressure.

No Rutherford/Sim/Grenfell fan would be without this in their collection. Absolutely brilliant. Why 9/10? Only 83mins long.


The Happiest Days of Your Life showcases some of Britain's greatest comedy talents of its time in a traditionally farcical and upper-class-twit like fashion. Generally it is a whistle-stop tour of stuffy English behaviour with the girls-only school providing a great setting for the dotty goings-on. Margaret Rutherford, Alastair Sim and - most especially! - Joyce Grenfell are all fantastic, giving us a lot of laughs as they express their utter horror at what they are having to deal with. As the film moves on, things get sillier and sillier with the tour around the school for the parents being a suitably crackers high point.

At this point I will give special mention, again, to Joyce Grenfell and her wonderful character Miss Gossage. She is so extraordinarily innocent, silly, apologetic and ineffectual that she seems to steal the whole film. She provides the greatest laugh of the film when she flirts with a male teacher ("Call me sausage!").

Whilst some of the film is slow or dated, and not always very involving, it still maintains most of its sparkle and barely pauses for romance. Good for a silly, harmless giggle.

7/10


The play is cleverly constructed - begin with the porter, Rainbow - & let the audience see the background unfold through his eyes. The film follows the play with great faithfulness, working, no doubt, on the simple premise that it couldn't be bettered. Now throw in a host of superb character actors - & the result is a resounding triumph.A definite must-see.


After a long run in the West End this charming film re-cast Margaret Rutherford as the Headmistress 'Miss Whitchurch' in this financially successful adaptation made in 1950.

All interior shots took place at Riverside studios in Hammersmith, London. The exterior scenes were filmed on location at a public girl's school near Liss in Hampshire. During the 12 - week shoot both Margaret Rutherford and Joyce Grenfell were staying in a hotel nearby and would often visit the school during the evenings where they would happily enjoy the company of the real school mistresses.

Although the film's script contains only two original lines from the original play the leads and supporting actors are in fine form and you can only feel sympathetic for their predicament especially in the final scenes.


A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major trouble.

The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail Station, great fun 8/10.


This film was made thirteen years before I was born but I still think it is the wittiest, dottiest, most harmless piece of fun ever made. It simply could not go wrong with the cast of superb British character actors it boasts.

Where to start? Alastair Sim-peerless; Margaret Rutherford-ditto;the wonderfully alkward, innocent Gossage, played to perfection by the imperious Joyce Grenfell. The caddish Victor Hyde-Brown (a Guy Middleton special) and the rest of the staff sum up post-war middle-class England to a tee.

The humour is sometimes obvious, but it is of that special "Ealing" variety and is never offensive.

I have watched this film more times than I care to remember and still laugh like a drain at the antics every time. The storming of the dorms occupied by the girls school, the magnificently-planned but ultimately doomed twin tours of the school and the chaotic ending involving the arrival of a third school to add to the anarchy, are priceless.

It's an old cliché I know, but they really do not make them like that anymore. How I wish they did. If you haven't seen it, please do, you won't be disappointed.


This film is just plain lovely. It's funny as hell and as old as the hills. The acting is superb and it's fascinating seeing post-war Britain and how we used to behave in those days. This seems to have been some pre-runner to the St. Trinians films (given the Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford connection - there's also a very young George Cole in there who appeared in many St. Trinians films) but I don't myself understand the connection. It was shown on BBC4 recently after a biography of St. Trinians creator Ronald Searle, however I missed enough of the biography to miss the connection with this film. Anyway a great film in its own right and something that should be preserved for all time!


"Gaming? Nicotine? Fisticuffs? We're moving in a descending spiral of iniquity!" So says the head of St. Swithen's upon inspecting the master's common at Nutbourne. The faculty and students of St. Swithen's have been ordered to share facilities at Nutbourne to avoid German bombs during World War II. Then there's the masters' library. "The Diary of Samuel Pepys? Abridged...well, that's something to be thankful for. What's up here? The Memoirs of Casanova? Wasn't that the book we caught Jessica James reading in the closet? Decameron Nights! Well, really! What ever else this place may or may not be, it's no place to bring carefully nurtured girls!"

Yes, a terrible mistake has been made by the Ministry of Education. Nutbourne is a school for boys. St. Swithen's is a school for girls. And what makes this one of the best post-WWII British comedies, Nutbourne's head master is Wetherby Pond...played by Alastair Sim, while St. Swithen's head mistress is Muriel Whitchurch...played by Margaret Rutherford.

"St. Swithen's?" says Pond. "You don't mean to say that yours is a school for boys and girls?" he asks one of the early girls. "Only girls" she says cheerfully. "Does this mean, sir," asks one of Nutbourne's teachers, "that we are to expect 100 young girls?" "It means that not only have the ministry made a mistake in sending a school here at all, but that it is guilty of an appalling sexual aberration!"

Margaret Rutherford's Miss Whitchurch, as positive and immovable as a battleship, intends to make the best of it, by briskly taking over Nutbourne if possible. Alastair Sim's Pond is exasperated up to his big bald head and is determined to salvage his school. In the meantime, there are 100 young girls and 170 young boys to be fed and places found for them to sleep (along with all their teachers). The cooks and caretakers, totally put upon, walk out. Miss Whitchurch and her girls, however, are up to the cooking tasks. "Come now, Angela," she says to one girl who is trying to stir something in a big pot, "haven't you made porridge before?" "Yes, but no one ever had to eat it." "That's a defeatist attitude, my dear. Stir it well and don't shilly shally."

Things are hardly going well when Pond discovers four governors from a school he hopes to lead are arriving at any moment to see for themselves how well led Nutbourne is. And Miss Whitchurch learns that four wealthy and influential parents have just arrived to see how their daughters are doing in the new -- boy free, they were told -- facilities. The only solution? Miss Whitchurch and Pond, their teachers and their students, concoct a split-second shifting of classes to give the allusion that Nutbourne has no girls and that St. Swithen's has no boys. After the parents inspect a dorm and leave for a class, the girls in the beds duck under and the boys who'd been hidden under leap up into the beds, just as the governors walk in. The boys are observed at rugby and, as soon as the governors turn their backs, the goal posts are taken down, nets for lacrosse are put up, and just then the parents walk over to observes the girls. One parent spots her daughter in a science class, then moments later sees her in a choir practice, then moments later.... "There's Angela again," she says to Miss Whitchurch. "Why so it is," she replies, hustling the parents out to avoid the governors who are approaching just around the corner. "The child's quite ubiquitous."

When we leave Nutbourne, everything has been discovered. The students are milling about. The teachers are dazed (except for two who are kissing.) The Education Ministry has just sent several more busloads of students. The parents are speechless but the governors are not. "We're waiting for an explanation," one says sharply. Pond holds his head and shudders. "Can't you see I'm trying to think of one."

The film moves from one complicated and ridiculous situation after another, braced by a very funny script and two hugely comedic performances by Rutherford and Sim. Sim's droll exasperation and Rutherford's implacable determination are so well matched that's it's a shame this is the only movie they ever made together. Joyce Grenfell, as Gossage, St. Swithen's tall, awkward, loping sports teacher gives them some competition. If you keep your eyes open, you'll also find some amusing references director Frank Launder works in, including a gong at Nutbourne that looks just like a midget version of J. Arthur Rank's, a faint echo of the zither theme from The Third Man and a shot stolen from David Lean's Oliver Twist, except this time the little boy walks up holding his porridge bowl and says, "Please, sir. I don't want anymore."

Frank Launder and his partner, Sidney Gilliat, were responsible for some of the best films produced in Britain during the Thirties, Forties and Fifties. They wrote, produced and directed, sometimes doing one, sometimes the other. In one way or another they were responsible for such first-rate films as Green for Danger (with a masterly droll performance by Sim), I See a Dark Stranger, The Lady Vanishes, Night Train to Munich, Wee Geordie, The Belles of St. Trinian's, The Rake's Progress and many others. With The Happiest Days of Your Life, Launder wrote and directed while both produced. It's one of their best.


Before watching this movie from beginning to end, I happened to just catch the last half hour. Ordinarily I don't watch a movie if I haven't seen it from the beginning, but a friend had it on and once I started watching it I couldn't stop.

I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a wide theatrical release. This is quite a funny movie (often gallows humor) , and the monster and monster truck in it are quite menacing. The monster makes Leatherface look pretty, and the monster truck is a like a cross between a World War I German artillery vehicle and a giant coffin.

A timid twenty-five year-old virgin guy is on a long drive to stop the woman he loves from getting married. His ex-best friend tags along and rags on him constantly. They're menaced on the road by a vintage black hearse and the aforementioned monster truck. They also pick up a hitchhiker, played by the very sexy Aimee Brooks.

I also watched the animated trailer with the director's commentary, and the electronic press kit and I found those both to be interesting. I would bet that the feature commentary with the director and the two male stars is pretty enjoyable too, but I have so many other movies to watch I've never seen before....


Well, it has to be said that Monster Man is a huge mess of a film, but somehow multiple different genres and a clichéd plot come together to make one of the most enjoyable modern horror films I've seen in ages! The two biggest styles that the film mixes are a 'Road Trip' style teenage comedy and a 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' style redneck horror vibe, and while one gets in the way of the other quite often; director Michael Davis manages to keep things moving thanks to the fact that the constant shift in tone means that we're never quite sure where the film is going to be taken next. Things start out worryingly as we're introduced to two characters, both irritating in different ways. Adam is a wussy virgin, while Harley is a fat big-mouthed "A-hole". They're both driving across the desert to attend the wedding of some chick they both liked in high school. After a couple of strange events, they pick up a hitch-hiker, and then find themselves being chased by some maniac in a monster truck for reasons unknown...

The idea of someone being chased by someone else in a bigger vehicle is hardly original, but the way the monster truck is used here is one of the film's biggest assets. The truck itself looks spooky because it's so haggard and rusty, and the fact that it bounces around the screen makes the unfolding action exciting and suspenseful. After a while, you begin to get used to the characters and once Aimee Brooks enters the fray, things start to look up. The teen comedy side of the movie actually works pretty well, as Justin Ulrich is always on hand to deliver some entertaining lines of dialogue and the scenes between the dorky virgin and the hot female hitch-hiker are interesting enough. Just when you think the film couldn't possibly get any messier, things take a turn for the weird in the final third. Without spoiling things, it has to be said that Monster Man features the sort of ending that couldn't possibly be seen coming, and along with the twist, is a big surprise. Some people may feel ripped off by the sudden turn at the end - but I actually thought it worked quite well as it fits the film in that nothing here really fits... Overall, this isn't a 'great' film by any means - but if you're looking for some silly entertainment, Monster Man should hit the spot!


A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster Man. A hilarious horror/comedy outing that never sets out to "say something". It's a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this horror/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be entertained.


This was on Showtime the other night, and I figured it was going to be another made-for-video crap fest, like "Earth vs. the Spider" or any of those other HBO horror shorts. Instead, I found a comedy/gore classic. It was legitimately funny, and surprisingly, the acting was quite good. Even my wife, an overall horror-hater, agreed and was laughing at parts. In addition, the FX were high-quality.

Overall, the film felt like a parody of Joy Ride/Jeepers Creepers, and the 2 main characters reminded me of the pair from Shaun of the Dead. Definitely worth watching, but don't take it seriously.

The End.


If you took a really good jack black movie, added a little jeepers creepers, and then a dash of joyride with a hint of texas chainsaw massacre and house of a 1000 corpses...you would have MONSTER MAN! i went into this movie, not really expecting much at all, but i wound up really enjoying the movie. the whole premise is really cheesy, a monster man in a monster truck chases down people, but it is so funny that the writer/director doesn't expect you to take it seriously. justin urich is a comic gem and should have a very promising career. he is identical to jack black. the only problem with the film is the unbelievable hero role played by eric jungmann. but overall, if you are looking for a really really fun movie that will crack you up until you are rolling in the aisles, and at the same time, scare the crap out of you...check out this film.


While driving in a highway to the wedding of his beloved Betty-Ann, Adam (Eric Jungmann) is surprised by his former schoolmate Harley (Justin Urich) on the backseat of his car. Adam has broken off with the inconvenient and moron Harley because of Betty-Ann. Along their road trip, Harley makes fun of some rednecks in a bar and later their car is chased by a giant monster truck on the road. After some incidents, they give a lift to the hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks) and sooner the trio is terrorized by a scary monster driving the monster truck.

In spite of having one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a horror movie, the irritating Harley, "Monster Man" is a surprisingly good trash horror-comedy. The story is a collection of clichés, beginning like "Joy Ride" or "Duel"; then it turns to one of the countless rip-offs of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"; there is a surprising twist, ending with a hook for a sequel. There are hilarious scenes, Aimee Brooks is extremely sexy and this film really entertains. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Monster Man"


I saw this on Zone horror and fully expected it to be compete crap like most of the films they play , however I was pleasantly surprised. The film revolves around 2 friends and a maniac in a monster truck who is chasing them (i know it sounds crap but its actually quite good) , the film is creepy when it intends to be and is laugh out loud funny in parts (and not in an unintentional way either, it is well paced and is a lot of fun as well as being very gory , there's some very funny black humour thrown in as well. Its not the most original movie but so what. If your after Shakespeare then this is not it , if your after a fun movie then this should be fine


Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why?

Pretty good horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role.

BUT I could see the "twist" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7.


I first saw this on Demand. Or on TV. I'm not really sure. But this has got to be my all time favorite movie ever! I mean, this movie has blood, gore, laughs and chills through out the movie. I recently ordered "Monster Man" from Amazon and i've been watching "Monster Man" ever since i got it. Trust me, you will love this movie.

P.S. The commentary on the DVD is way funny. They also said something about "Monster Man 2" during the commentary. Let's hope they make "Monster Man 2"! If you have the chance, rent the movie or buy it. You will absolutely LOVE it! This is the best movie that has come out in 2003.

10/10


In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in shame.

Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam (Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on risk.

The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty amusing.

As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown and delivers.


Great horror comedy from Michael Davis.Iwas laughing so hard i almost peed! Great acting from Eric Jungman as the good guy who saves the day & great performance by the Jack Black-esquire like performance from Justin Urich. He was just divine in this film. This guy deserves to be a big star. Also,Aimee Brooks was good in the film as well as the girl in danger along with the guys from a killer reminiscent of Jeepers Creepers. The gore to was given in copious amounts & i loved it.I just hope they release a not rated version. Great low-budget Horror Comedy. The dead cat in the hotel sex scene is just gruesomely funny! ***** out of *****


Two city guys are driving through Hicksville USA when a rusty monster truck suddenly appears and repeatedly attempts to run them off the road.Having picked up a mysterious blonde hitchhiker,they pull up at a truck-stop full of redneck amputees,one of whom warns them of 'the demon out there'. But they don't listen.Big mistake!"Monster Man" by Michael Davis mixes comedy with horror surprisingly well.The film borrows heavily from "Duel","The Blair Witch Project","Jeepers Creepers" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".The story is pretty silly,but there is enough gore and violence to keep splatter freaks happy.I enjoyed especially the performance of Justin Urich,which offers the film its comedy relief.Still the complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.Give this one a chance,if you have some time to waste.7 out of 10.Did I mention that Aimee Brooks is sexy?


This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending!. All the characters are pretty cool, and the story while unoriginal is very good, plus Eric Jungmann(Adam) and Justin Urich(Harley) had fantastic chemistry together. One of the funniest moments in the film for me is when Adam is trapped in the bathroom, and Harley wakes up to find that monster truck sitting there, and decides to take a p*ss in the truck, and Aimee Brooks is just plain sexy!, plus this is one of the best low budget Horror films I have seen in a long time. It's very gory, but in a comical way, and I thought it was very well written as well, plus Michael Bailey Smith is fantastic as the Monster Man and had some wicked makeup!. It's similar to films like Joy Ride, Duel, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc and it has some suspenseful moments here and there, plus The gore effects are really well done for the most part. This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Michael Davis does a very good! job here, with great camera work, good angles,good use of colors, and using a great setting, plus he kept the film funny and at a very fast pace.

There is a lot of gore!. We get extremely bloody nose bleeds,gory impaling's, bloody stabbings,guy is cut in half by a monster truck, human remains in a cooked stew, guts all over the place,guys guts fall out,pencil in the eyes,bloody slit throat,bunch of people walking around without limbs,gory dead squirrel,heads are squished,severed limbs,bloody and mangled corpses,decent amount of bloodshed,one very gory scene at the very end and more!.

The Acting is very good for a low budget film. Eric Jungmann is fantastic here as Adam, he was a nerd but a very likable one, he had fantastic chemistry with Justin Urich, had some cool lines,and I just loved his character, he also seemed to be enjoying himself,and he was especially good at the end!. Justin Urich is excellent as the ass of a Best Friend, however I just couldn't help but love him as he was very funny, and often stole a lot of the scenes, I really dug him!. Aimee Brooks is gorgeous, and did great with what she had to do, she had good chemistry with Jungmann and like Jungmann was especially good at the end, as I loved her mysterious character. Michael Bailey Smith is wonderful as The Monster Man he was very creepy looking, had some awesome makeup, and is now one of my favorite slashers!. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5


Just got around to seeing Monster Man yesterday. It had been a long wait and after lots of anticipation and build up, I'm glad to say that it came through and met my expectations on every level. True, you really can't expect too much from hearing the plot rundown, but after reading some of the reviews for it, I was ecstatic. I mean, what trash fan wouldn't want to see a gore flick about a deranged inbred hick mowing people down with his make-shift monster truck? I went in expecting a cross between Road Trip and The Hills Have Eyes and got so much more. This was a horror comedy that actually worked. The film makers got it right when it came to making you squirm and making you howl with laughter at the same time. Kudos to Michael Davis for going all out with the gore and pushing the envelope with the sickass humor. Let me list just a few reasons why I love this movie so much: First off is the story. It's been done to death in so many other flicks. A college guy gets wind that his childhood crush is getting married. He, being the 25 year old virgin that he is, hops in his Vista Cruiser and decides to take the road trip to confess his love, hoping that she will fall head over hills and all that good jive. Hidden in the backseat of his station wagon, is good buddy Harley. Harley is the loudmouth, former friend, who laughs and talks just like Jack Black in High Fidelity. You can't help but like the guy, but if he was your friend in real life, you'd have to keep a whiffle ball bat handy(laugh all you want, but have you ever been hit with one?) to keep him in check. So, he's a little on the obnoxious side, to say the least, but you can tell that he's a loyal friend, deep down...Anyway, they're on the road and when they stop in a bar, they aggravate the locals. Now they're being stalked by a leatherface clone in a monster truck. That's it. Yeah, along the way they pick up a gorgeous hitchhiker but I'm too lazy and hungover to go into that right now... so just watch the damn movie.

Second thing I love was the humor. This one had some of the sickest laughs of any movie since Cabin Fever. Just how messed up is it? Well, I won't even go into the whole cat scene and as for the "corpse burrito" thing, I'll leave that to your virgin eyes as well. The bar full of amputees was somewhat disturbing and that guy who looked like John Turturro bothered me too. Harley, although a totally obnoxious frat-boy type, can really sling off the one liners. Love the clogs, by the way. I need a new pair..

The GORE. This one pours it on heavy. While the first hour plays out as a demented road comedy, the last third is all about blood and guts. If the movie hadn't kept such a light tone throughout, it would have been a little disturbing, but seeing how it was all played for laughs, there is no way possible that you will be bothered by it. If you're still in your seat by the time it comes, you'll probably see the humor in it too, but seriously, there were buckets and buckets of the red stuff. There was a big plot turn that I DIDN'T see coming and when the credits rolled, I was completely satisfied. I had gotten exactly what I came for and I'm really glad that I bought it. Much like Cabin Fever, it's going to get a lot of replay.

The Look of the movie was outstanding. There was this deliberately cheap look that made the whole thing scream late 80s and I loved the exaggerated colors. It's obvious that Monster Man was done on a relatively low budget, but much like Cabin Fever (sorry I keep comparing the two) it actually works in the movie's favor. Cabin Fever was an ode to the 70s greats, this was the 80s answer to that. So take that for what it's worth. No CGI here. This is what we all needed. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't get a theatrical release because this is everything that Jeepers Creepers SHOULD have been. Thank god for Lions Gate.


I got this as part of a competition prize. I watched it, not really expecting much from an obviously low budget production. I laughed myself sick!There are obvious references to other films in the horror genre - Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Friday 13th etc. All the standard clichés were there - long drive through partially arid and somehow menacing countryside, inbred red-necks, mysterious vehicles tracking you - throw in some really good humorous scenes (siphoning petrol from the camper-van) and dialogue ("f*****g virgin? That's got to be an oxymoron.." and you have one of the best spoof horror films for years. I particularly liked the way our reluctant hero used his stress-related nose-bleed to great advantage..


I got Monster Man in a box set of three films where I mainly wanted the other two but still had a very pleasant time with it. It blends horror and comedy to reasonable effect, helped out considerably by the decent performances of Eric Jungman as the geeky lead, Justin Urich as his a hole friend and Aimee Brooks as the love interest. The film is fairly predictable and mines ideas from a host of other films, but stays fun throughout, with some good gruesome gore thrown in. Sure it doesn't measure up to the classic gory comedies, but this still does fine. Director Michael Davis even manages one or two creepy scenes, such as in the bathroom, or the bar. The film is watchable throughout if a little messily plotted and written and for me it only lost it a bit towards the end when the Monster Man of the title starts to resemble a member of Slipknot and the film tries to go more horror style but isn't twisted or convincing enough. The final moments are a trifle weak as well. Still, despite lack of much suspense and overall silliness, this is a good example of unpretentious, often gnarly splatter comedy that should endear itself to fans of the same.


Five minutes in, i started to feel how naff this was looking, you've got a completely unheroic hero and his overweight fool of a friend. Seen it all before, yeah right. I was getting ready to be bored out of my mind for a good few hours. This is something i have become quite used to... haven't we all. Then after a few minutes of testosterone fuelled insults and such, the truck appeared. Okay the filming techniques used to make it look fast were clumsy, but who cares! That truck is amazing! Soon however that is taken away again and we're back to the geek and his overweight friend. But now i'm satisfied that at least it won't be too terrible. I then proceed to be amazed again and again by the cleverness of the film. There are so many jokes at their expense, it's like everyone in the world is in on this except the two of them. The mind behind the makeup and effects was a genius i swear it. Believe me, if you are a man you miss so many of the jokes in this film, there is so much here that only a girl can understand.

Brother Bob is by far the best hillbilly killer that can be found anywhere, the fact that he's sewn together just adds to the effect. There are of course some really dud science facts in here, but isn't that always the case. When our 'hero' is having a nose bleed and using the blood to lead brother Bob to his death, now that is rubbish. There is no way a nose bleed can be that bad and not mean a severed artery or something. I'm all with the use of too much blood, but that is taking it a little too far. The incest jokes are a little predictable but funny nonetheless. And the way brother bob meets his end is more than classic. Overall, this movie rules, it really breaks out of the overacted melodramatic strain of horror that we got so much of in 2003-2005. The end of this move simply could not have been better.

This is a definite must watch for anyone who likes their horror with several side orders of gore and attitude.


I caught this movie on the Sci-Fi channel recently. It actually turned out to be pretty decent as far as B-list horror/suspense films go. Two guys (one naive and one loud mouthed a**) take a road trip to stop a wedding but have the worst possible luck when a maniac in a freaky, make-shift tank/truck hybrid decides to play cat-and-mouse with them. Things are further complicated when they pick up a ridiculously whorish hitchhiker. What makes this film unique is that the combination of comedy and terror actually work in this movie, unlike so many others. The two guys are likable enough and there are some good chase/suspense scenes. Nice pacing and comic timing make this movie more than passable for the horror/slasher buff. Definitely worth checking out.