If you are going to watch this film because Michael Caine or Michael Gambon are in it then don't bother, it's not their typical role although I found Gambon fantastic. Instead watch it for Dylan Moran I am a fan of everything I have seen him in and this is no exception, I didn't even realise he could act but even the characters which he has to pass himself off as I found completely believable, which is impressive considering the audience knows they are fake.

The plot is genius and although it is not constant laughs all the way through it has plenty of other charms. A great film for people with a sense of humour.


This film is a joy to watch and should do well on DVD and video. I suppose you really have to be Irish to appreciate the some of the subtlties such as accent, colloquialisms and the dress sense of some of the characters but let me assure you that when Dylan Moran impersonates 'Barreler' the impersonation is quite familiar to most people from Dublin because we have many characters in our fine city that look, act and talk like that! The sheer simple comedy employed and Michael Caines genius acting alone are worth the money but on top of this the plot is great, the script is fantastic and the dialogue fast moving and catchy. A perfect light entertainment movie without the madcap humour of Jim Carrey.


Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.

Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.

Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!

Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?


tell you what that was excellent. Dylan Moran is simply the funniest actor on screen( and on stage) and with Micheal Caine as your partner ain't to bad either, both are great to watch in a really funny film. true, not all the gags come off but its worth sticking around for the ones that do, but come on its got Micheal Caine in a dress in it( the whole admission fees worth that) and every time Dylan Moran's on screen its more like Bernard blacks movie. the story is two actors(Moran and Caine) who decide to steal money from a group of gangsters by acting out different persona's to fool them all but getting away with it's a different matter. basically "the actors" is a great British comedy that was somehow missed by many, seriously if your a Moran fan(or want to see Micheal Caine in a dress) definitely see this


This movie is all about entertainment. Imagine your friends that you love spending time with, the ones that you know inside out becoming a bit silly and perhaps taking on a character or two. That's what this film is about. An inventive script and brilliantly performed. It's not about pleasing the masses with this one, it's about having fun with a bunch of brilliantly talented people. Which is what I'm sure they all thought when they signed up for it.

The above review sounds completely unfair and I think that the person who wrote that was in the wrong frame of mind when they watched the film. In a lighthearted moment, there is great dignity in it if you care to look.

A job well done, I thought it was a great film. I'd watch this before the North American norm any day.

In a nutshell, it's not the best film you're ever going to see but it has a hell of a lot of moments. I haven't laughed that long in an age.


First off- What are some of you thinking? This is the best movie I've seen in ages!

Secondly- I don't think of it as a British movie as it is set in Dublin and has mainly Irish actors- Moran, Gambon, Aisling O Sullivan(Rita), Deirdre O'Kane etc.

Thirdly- I thought that Moran was excellent. He was hilariously funny through out. Micheal Caine seemed only to be there to get Moran context. Each character he took on he perfected.

Abigail Iversen I thought was better than any other child actor I have seen. She was believable as the smart kid and also as a kid and an adult(yes I know that sounds strange but hey...). Even she managed to upstage Caine.

Iversen and Moran worked very well together and were very funny in the preparation scene.

Barreler(Gambon) was very funny in his ineptitude.


This film is completely underrated.

It's a film similar to Will Keenan and Patrick Hasson's Waiting, as well as Adrien Brody's Restaurant and the classic film Breaking Away, which are all about young adults who are stuck and know they're stuck, with little or no chance of breaking free.

Death By Pizza (Delivered) is about an intelligent, free-thinking, artistic young adult (Will, played by David Strictland) who is stuck and waiting, bitter at the world's hypocrisy and bitter at his own lack of direction and desire. Will meets his nemesis, Reed (Ron Eldard), another intelligent young adult who's so bitter, he's chosen the path of crime. Both end up helping each other to free themselves of their bitterness, which enables them to get unstuck.

For these young adults, getting unstuck, or, breaking free, can mean both forging ahead into life, and plunging downward into death.

Will's life is filled with the trademarks of a young "stuck" adult: a soul-sucking, sweaty, under-paying job, crude customers, an ex-girlfriend who left him because he was unmotivated, a partial college education with no degree, a house filled with self-made art, and of course the new friend whose ungodly choices help him to save himself.


The original story and funny compelling characters went over well for a teen girls slumber party movie (2 times now). I loved it, it was fun and moved quickly, no boring drawn out scenes. It is violent and has a little language (though most of it is covered up). Its a great movie. David Strickland was a terrific actor. Ron Eldard gave a wonderful performance. I watch it with the girls every time.


I thoroughly enjoyed this made for TV movie. I was channel surfing, and came across the start of the movie. Boy am I glad I stopped. This movie has a real hot cast, as well as a semi-believable plot. There's drama, comedy, action, and best of all, the human nature aspect of this film is what makes it great. I hope it comes out on Video, because I will buy a copy. Rating...9 out of 10 stars


Inferno gives Los Angeles what it deserves-- a baptism in fire, death from above. An excellent cast of obsessed characters could survive and sweat out the passing of the coronal mass ejection but that would be no fun and certainly not dramatic. A really lame review in Variety criticized the characters for being concerned with their personal redemption instead of banning together to save the world. But what's refreshing about this big heat is that there's nothing anyone can do about it. We are, therefore, mercifully not subjected to "heart warming" scenes of fascist presidents and other big blowhard statists as they contrive implausible plots to save a chosen remnant of mankind (ala Deep Impact). Here the sweat drenched and lust-powered dirty half dozen work out their own redemption or face their personal oblivions the old fashioned way-- together as individuals or......alone with the Alone. Excellent TV film all in all. Clearly not denatured by the destructive meddlesomness of overzealous Network Execs. I highly recommend.


This is speculation. This movie could of inspired Paramount Pictures to film the movie The Core. Both movies have something in common nature.The only improvement for Inferno is a better cast. Inferno's cast is still good though. Excellent movie 8 out of 10. This is worth watching. This movie does have truth to it heat waves are real. Another piece of truth is heat related power outages. Where I live i have actually heard transformers blow. Unrest from heat is possible because people seeking to cool off may get rowdy. There is a considerable amount of team work in this movie. Again this a movie worth watching. The movie has a good cast. The movie has no slow spots.


I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!

I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.

I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.

I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.


Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.

The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.

As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.

Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.

Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.

Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured.

There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.

The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.


This is one peace of art! If you like comedy you should watch this! Here comes a funny moment from the movie: "spoiler"

Nikolai and Goroshkov are walking together in Paris for the first time. They are visiting the local market. And Goroshkov goes: -"Look Nikolai, how much food they have! Look! One-two-three-ten-thirty-fifty-hundred kinds of meat! But if ask for a tiny-tiny peace, just for the taste, they won't give you. French are very greedy!" Then Goroshkov takes Nikolai to a TV-shop...Goroshkov: "Tell me, who needs all these televisions? Look at this monster here, for example!" Goroshkov points a finger at the "monster"-TV and goes: "And this motherfu*ker...he is supposed to be digging a ditch, but no, he's on TV...wait a minute... that's ME! hahah!"

Wanna laugh? Watch the movie, you won't regret!


This was a wonderful little film that truly was creative and fun--something you see all too seldom in movies. The film begins in Russia just after the fall of the Communist government. As a result, society seems to be in chaos and life has yet to improve now that the old regime is gone. Dirty cities, crime and lack of housing still plague the poor residents of St. Petersburg.

Into this scene of bleakness and uncertainty comes an idealistic music teacher. He is among those without a home and he FINALLY gets a letter from the government that tells him he has a tiny room in a nearby flat. When he arrives, the place is a mess but the people seem friendly enough so they all have a lovely party. In the middle of the night, they are awakened by an old lady walking out of the giant wardrobe in the room (I was half expecting Lucy and the other kids from THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE to come out, but they didn't). They are too shocked to do anything at first but decide soon to investigate. Instead of just being a clothes closet, the wardrobe opens into Paris! How the residents of the flat respond to this magical gateway is really intriguing. Some, like the music teacher, are thrilled and in awe. Most of the others are more pragmatic and are mostly concerned with looting everything from Paris before the gateway closes once and for all! These Russian thieves are awful people--greedy, coarse and crude but down deep---VERY DEEP--are hearts of gold. I like how this is a metaphor for the nation now on the brink of Capitalism. At first, they run amok grabbing everything they can and only later do they reveal some depth--but mostly they act much like guests on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW! The film has many twists and turns and is both funny and mesmerizing. About the only negative is that due to some harsh language and a nude scene (albeit, a very funny one), this is not a film for kids. This is a real shame, as with some very minor editing, this could have been a great family film.


One unfortunate reality of post-Soviet Russia was that the people's welfare didn't change much from Soviet times. As we see in "Window to Paris", most people are still as depressed as ever, while they are encouraged to go after money.

Then, everything changes for music teacher Nikolai Chizhov (Sergei Dontsov) after he finds a window that leads to Paris. He and his friends are naturally quite amazed at what they find. This movie has one of the funniest discussions of Elvis Presley and Edith Piaf that I've ever heard. So watch this movie. You're sure to love it. It's sort of a precursor to "Being John Malkovich".


I originally saw this movie as a Blockbuster VHS rental. That was quite some time ago, but still remembered it. Blockbuster doesn't have it anymore. Netflix didn't have it and there weren't many copies on the web -- only a few spendy VHS copies. Recently did finally find it available in DVD form on eBay for a reasonable price (in PAL format, but our DVD player will play PAL discs on our NTSC TV).

Wife and I both enjoyed it. The style of the movie is a bit strong, and many if not most of the parts are rather strongly over-played as if amateurs were making it(especially the kids), but it's not bothersome. The contrasts of societies are accentuated in the overplay.

There is a bit of political preaching in terms of saying that the young in Russia shouldn't try to escape their not-so-great life but instead should at least try to make things better first. But that's not dominant. It's fairly humorous most of the time.

Some downplaying of the west commented upon by others isn't that at all IMO, I take it as a comment about expectations of the Russian characters. At least when taken from my western viewpoint. Perhaps it's a downplay of the west from a Russian viewpoint (which it is literally by the characters saying it).

I can't say how literally true to the film the English subtitles are, but I can say that the subtitles were done very well, full of English idioms as if done by a native English speaker -- complete with "colorful" language.


For real though, this game is where it's at. I'm 20 years old and that's basically where it started for me. 4-bit graphics was fabulous. I hope you all remember this game with as much adoration as I do. That Bluto is a real meany.


As I've hopped from film to film at the SXSW Film Festival, this film from the opening night has stayed with me. Curious, because it is a dark comedy with quite an absurdist premise.

A family of hyper-stressed fundamentalists in a small community of like minds is changed by an auto accident. Three of the four have the same near-death experience in which they are fully opened, as each receives a reversal of the concept of original sin (I won't spoil this scene with the specifics). The fourth, a middle school cheerleader, is not just the only one physically hurt, but also is unchanged and is now witness to what has become her crazy, apparently spiritually bankrupt, family. Every new moment brings a new outrageousness as they have become innocently naked and frank in every way, horrifying her and then the community.

Forgiving the Franklins has the most beautiful sexual awaking scene between a husband and wife that I have ever seen, to the Sarah Brightman song "Deliver Me," a song that can now bring tears to my eyes.

The cast is terrific. Robertson Dean as the dad, Vince Pavia as the son and Aviva as the cheerleader daughter are excellent, Mari Blackwell plays Peggy, the mom's questioning neighbor and best friend perfectly, a much more nuanced, fleshed out, real character than what might have been (everyone in middle America knows a Peggy). And Theresa Willis positively glows as Betty, the mom. There are lots of risks taken by the actors playing the three changed characters, and these risks pay off.

I hope this film gets a wide release - if so, I plan to see it again.

Very accurate review at: http://www.fosteronfilm.com/phil/forgiving.htm


I just got back from the GLBT Film Festival at the AMC Loews 34th in NY. A friend told me about this film. Audience response was very positive! Lots of good solid laughs as well as some quiet moments of realization. Top notch in every area. A movie that makes you think, and then makes you realize how lucky we'd all be if we could turn back time and live without shame or guilt. I imagine this will come close to, if not win, the audience favorite award! What was most surprising was the fact the the movie appears to start off as a satire and then slowly weaves into a genuine commentary on the negative and sometimes violent reactions of the very group it started to satirize. There isn't any mean spirited humor at the expense of one group, just a slow realization that we would all be better off if we just went back to the gentle innocence that we all started off with.


I agree with the other 9 and 10 star reviews. I saw this at the South By Southwest Film Festival in Austin. Of the 20 films I saw,7 were really good and this was the best one for me. I'm a sucker for movies that have plot devices where characters go through transformations that totally change their lives. The excellent acting was mostly done by people involved in TV, or it was their first movie. It was written and directed by Jay Floyd. This was his debut as a director. Jay's day job is apparently as a clearance administrator for lots of famous films. Forgiving the Franklins was a total delight and extremely funny in spots. This is one movie where I would buy the DVD and re-watch it, truly a high complement from me. Well done, Jay, yes...give up your day job!


Just saw this film the other day at the Santa Fe Film Festival. I was delighted by its honesty and humor. It was the most thought provoking movie I've seen in a very long time -- I just can't get it off of my mind for some reason. It may not be for everyone, because it makes you think. I don't know if people like to think in movies so much anymore, which is a shame. The actors who play the Franklins are quite a find. I couldn't imagine playing these complicated people with such frankness. Though I thought a couple of the supporting characters were not as good as the Franklins, I can totally forgive it -- because this is an important movie in my opinion. I didn't expect to like it so much, but as I've thought about it for a few days, it's proving to be a very relevant piece of entertainment.


I saw Forgiving the Franklins at a Paramount screening and loved it I have to be honest I really didn't want to go and I had become quite jaded about the movies being made today I have to tell you Forgiving The Franklins was fresh and wonderfully put together I laughed my ass off it was great story telling I could not believe two guys shot this and put the whole thing together. I thought if these guys can do a movie like this with this budget imagine what they could do with big money behind them. And then I thought be the jaded guy Iam the studios would probably f...it up anyway. That being said thanks guys I got lost and in your film and that's why I go to the movies to forget the world for a couple of hours.


Forgiving the Franklins is the best film I have seen in years. The acting was fantastic..especially Mari Blackwell who was truly remarkable in the role of Peggy Lester. She brought Peggy to life with incredible skill and made her as real as my own next-door neighbor. I also enjoyed Robertson Dean in the role of the father... he is a true professional, and managed to pull off even the most intimate scenes with a rare grace. The performances by the entire cast were very good, excellent, in fact but Peggy's role as played by Blackwell made the movie. The cinematography was beautifully done throughout and was most impressive. The only criticism I have to offer is a slight weakness of the ending scenes, which were overly drawn out, repetitive and a bit too focused on the wrong character. I would have liked to see it end on a note of forgiveness....but spite of that slight flaw, it is very much worth the watching and applause for all involved in the making of it.


the most "spiritual" film I have seen in a long long time. maybe ever. also one scene around the dining room table a piece of comic perfection. I understand a release date is coming up in the fall. if it comes to your town and you want to see a movie that makes you think this is it. Aviva is great in it and she is most certainly a future star - (Superbad is out now which she is in) - also all the actors seem perfectly calibrated. There is a tone set by this movie that is used to surprise through out. i would not know what to call it - it is comedy but the undergirding message is so fierce and direct that "comedy" is not a big enough word for it. I love this film. It is a thinking man's comedy. but even that phrase is not really good enough. FTF does have a message and that message needs to be heard right now


In this tale of a tightly wound Christian family that has three of its four members "born again" after a cake-caused car crash, what really stands out is how grounded most of it is, where there is so much potential to go over the top, and how truly inspired most of the acting is. Where most of the film's moments, particularly its frank and "innocent" discussions of sexuality after three of the four family members have their guilt and shame removed, is hilarious, it is also thought-provoking and the characters stay with you.

How often, for example does a character in a comedy spin from near caricature to full-bodied emotional being in the course of one scene? How often do we see a cast that can pull back from showboating mid-sentence, in order to show a bit of the humanity beneath the character's skin? Even many of the "bad guys" in this film have moments of heart-breaking honesty, even while much of what they do can be absolutely ridiculous and horrifying. There is truth and history behind even the most questionable acts in this film, which is a difficult task in satire.

How refreshing it is to see a darkish comedy that can dare to be humanistic. How nice to see actors so fully committed to character that they can dare to let them be ridiculous and sublime.

And as a gay person, I do not think I have ever been quite so touched by a heterosexual sex scene as I was by the first sexual encounter between the parents of this family after their accident.

Bravo. Bravo. One of my favorites at Outfest this year.


Wow, just caught this movie from Blockbuster and I love finding gems like this. While it was definitely shot on a budget and misses a little bit in clumsy editing (i.e. accident, hospital scenes, second to last end scenes), for a first directorial effort, I give this 10 stars! I absolutely loved the thought provoking concepts brought forth and if you're a free thinker and open to ideas outside the box, I highly, highly recommend this movie. I think the director and writer, Jay Floyd, should be given some attention and more opportunities in the film industry. Based on his credits, he may be another Quentin Tarantino.


It's always a pleasure to see characters in a movie who are wholly good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when they're surrounded by those who are neither. The film's moderately silly premise is that the conservative, religious Franklin family (mother, father, teen boy and girl) are involved in an accident wherein the parents and brother have a near-death experience during which they meet Jesus, a pleasant but somewhat exasperated soul who removes from them the burden of 'original sin.' When they return to their lives, many of their views and attitudes have changed, much to the consternation of the daughter, who didn't share the experience. The religious side is, I think, presented with a good balance, from the good (Jesus) to the starkly awful (those of his 'followers' who are obsessed with the sins of others and utterly oblivious to their own). It's a movie to make you think, give you a few good laughs along the way, and leave you with the pleasant feeling that the world just might be a nicer place than you think it is.


saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie.


I saw this film at the Sundance Film Festival and I too was surprised that it didn't generate more notice because it was not only powerful and beautifully crafted but very original. The audience was totally engaged and the greatest part of seeing a film like this at a festival is the opportunity to talk to the director and cast in the Q&A session afterward. They literally had to throw us out of the screening room for the next film - we could have gone on for a lot longer. The film is thought provoking and hilarious at the same time. It will be a shame if this film isn't picked up for wider distribution - I hope it will at least become available on DVD because I want to see it again and share it with everyone I know.


I was surprised that " Forgiving the Franklins " did not generate more buzz at this years Sundance Film Festival. There were times that the laughter at the screening I saw was so loud that you could barely hear the movie. The movie has some excellent acting and a story that really makes one examine broader issues . You know little issues like Religion, sex and the truth. Lots of comedy's seem to rely on the same old corny contrived situations, many leave you thinking " I know they ripped this off from some sitcom " .This film takes off on its own unique direction . I really think that Jay Floyd did a fantastic job with a tight budget on this film.


Amateur camera work aside, I thought this movie was very different, and unlike all the blogs and posts I have read, I got something totally different out of the ending than others. The premise of the story revolves around a very religious family and their ties to their church. How they must adhere to all the rigid rules and regulations, but the daughter seems to have problems staying on track, what with nasty thoughts of others and her use of bad language. Yet she prays a lot, as does her family. Then one day they are headed to a church picnic and are in an accident. From there the parents and her brother change; what with being knocked out and "saved" by Jesus. WARNING: MAJOR Spoiler ALERT. Or so we are led to believe. I think if you watch this movie from the point of view of the daughter only, then really pay attention to the end you will see that what we, the audience, thinks is an actual occurrence with the parents and son, is in fact all a dream, and from the daughter's POV. This would explain a lot of the actions portrayed by the parents and the son, which were totally opposite of how they lived before, especially the sex, and also would also explain why Peggy got away with murder, etc. Look at how perfect that pie is, but go back and look at the cake Betty makes. That is unless Caroline removed all evidence that the pie was laced. And also the fact that the scene where she sees her dead parents, laying there in each others arms, and her brother, all whom of which seemed to die very peacefully, even if being poisoned, fits with a dream sequence.


This is a wonderful movie...it's funny, dark, poignant, thought-provoking, innocently naughty and generally entertaining all around. I don't know that I've seen the like before..."The Rapture,"or maybe one of Todd Solondz's black-as-night "comedies" or even the recent movie "Teeth" come to mind...but those are all bitter, nasty little gems. "Franklins," despite the darkness around the edges, manages to have a thoroughly sincere and pure heart.

The story is similar to John Waters' "Low Down Dirty Shame," only this film differs in that it actually HAS a story, and something to say as well, beyond Waters' juvenile "Sex isn't dirty (snicker, nudge-nudge)" message. A conservative, repressed family undergoes a drastic change as a result of a car accident and suddenly aren't so conservative anymore...in fact, they're finally actually happy, probably the only people in their town (or maybe the entire world) who are. To talk about why this is the case would be to spoil the film; simply put, everyone should see it, though of course only people who are already sold on what the movie's upbeat, hopeful philosophy is ever would.

The acting is great--just this side of realistic enough to keep the proceedings from getting too heavy...Teresa Willis gives an especially memorable and brave performance as an uptight mother who emerges like a butterfly when she's freed up. Both she and Robertson Dean deserve kudos for their unflinchingly sincere performances (not to mention frequent and extensive nudity and sex scenes); they turn what could have been a salacious joke involving a "deviant sex practice" into a touching, believable and endearing moment. Aviva as the daughter is a standout and someone to watch, perfectly capturing the attitude, angst and speech patterns of a girl her age. Vince Pavia as the "himbo" brother with a secret is good looking and functional although his storyline and how everyone reacts to it is more rewarding than his actual acting. Mari Blackwell as the conflicted best friend to mother Franklin is wonderfully cold, confused and even compassionate in a role that could have gone over-the-top.

Technically the film looks fantastic, all bright colors and wide-open locales...it looks like it may have been shot Hi-def...if so, the line has gotten very thin, it looks very much like film. There is a great deal of talking and a lot of it philosophical, which gets a bit preachy (moreso, I'd imagine to a viewer who disagrees with the film's politics), but this film says a lot of things that need saying...if only people wouldn't be afraid to listen and think. The arguments that take place are smart and well thought out, first and foremost refusing to demonize either the religious OR non-religious parties.

The ending is on the ambiguous side, which I found a bit of a disappointment somehow...I think it would've worked better had the author (as Jay Floyd is, since he produced, wrote and directed) given a more workable denouement, some sort of solution, but then again, there probably isn't one when it comes to pitting people with different faiths against one another. All the same, it was a moving, memorable final image that left me choked up--a success. Meanwhile, I'm awfully glad Mr. Floyd got this film made and look forward to sharing it with as many people as possible. Check it out.


I really liked this film about love between two adults in postwar Britain. The high standards of BBC TV is evident in the production, and superb lead actors (Claire Bloom and Joss Ackland) make this an uplifting experience. Bloom and Ackland have previously worked together in theatre, and their chemistry and interaction is splendid. I recommend this version of Shadowlands over the film version of 1993.


This movie was recommended to me by the same person that blessed me with a copy of The Chronicles of Narnia. Shadowlands is one of the most amazing screenplays ever written. It is well executed, acted and directed. The cinematography is a bit dark for my taste but I'm sure it was intended to be so. The screenplay is like poetry in portions of the movie, through out the movie I found myself taking pause to reflect on the comments just made on screen. This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can only hope that more people will run across it and add reviews. Fair warning though this was a 6 tissue movie for me. Very touching. Very Heartfelt performances.


This version did not move me as deeply as the later, Hollywood version starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. While it was beautifully filmed and superbly acted, the BBC version was more packed with dialog that imparted information which I found fascinating. It gave me a detailed glimpse of the intellectual, theological and moral considerations that motivated C. S. Lewis. It was therefore more interesting and stimulating than the Hollywood version, but not nearly as visually stunning or viscerally affecting. Still, while I did not leave a heaping mound of sodden Kleenex in the theater, I did use one, and at frequent intervals. I enjoyed this film every bit as much as the Hollywood version, and was grateful for the increased understanding I gained.


This was a very faithful presentation of Lewis's life in the mid-50's. The dialogue on theology and the banter with his follow colleagues was exceptionally good. Michael White's book, "C.S. Lewis: Creator of Narnia" deals with this time frame in a very parallel way. Joss Ackland's acting was superb in catching the unemotional Lewis. The movie took great pains to be presented in an accurate English setting. The development of a strong bond between "Jack" (his preferred name) Lewis and Douglas Gresham, Joy's son from her previous marriage, was enjoyable to watch. The movie did avoid the distasteful element of "Warnie" Lewis's (Jack's older brother) drinking problem, but it would not have moved the story on, so it is best left out.


Easily one of my favourite dramatic TV films, in many ways beautiful yet sad, heart-warming and thought-provoking, this is a superb dramatisation of a few years in the life of C.S. Lewis and his relationship with Joy Davidman. I found it to be incredibly absorbing with excellent and 'realistic' dialogue and situations. It all seemed very 'real', yet there were also 'magical' moments that almost leave you breathless with delight. Ackland and Bloom as the central characters were excellent, as were the supporting cast. It's one of those dramas that I find hard to criticise, simply because, for me, there is NOTHING to be criticised, it just works so well on so many levels.

Very highly recommended.


The 1990s film with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger is rightly showered with praise, and I enjoyed it very much, but this TV original is just as good, and in some ways, more appropriately cast. Claire Bloom isn't a brash Joy, but she is still confident and throwing her cap at her favourite author (played by Joss Ackland in one of his best performances).

Quieter, calmer, and less emotional than the Attenborough film this may be, but it does justice to what is a marvellous play full of meaningful dialogue. You'll still cry to this version, but perhaps you won't have the musical prompts to set you off.

There's room for both - and having seen this on stage, I would say that the Ackland/Bloom one is slightly more faithful. But they're both excellent.


True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES


this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best "super hero" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting


I have seen "Chasing the Dragon" several times and have enjoyed it each time. The acting was superb. This movie really makes you realize how one bad choice at a weak moment can change your life.


I loved this film! Markie Post is really great in it. I saw it on lifetime, and it's in the same entertaining class as films like: 'The Betty Broderick Story', 'Locked Up: A Mother's Rage', etc.... {which, by the way, are also very good, entertaining films!} It's an over the top drama, about a single mother who tries to break away from her middle-class, predictable personality. This movie is just pure entertainment! It doesn't have to be a realistic look at heroin addiction. But, it does show how any "regular" middle class person can (& they do!) get addicted to heroin. Junkies aren't just homeless uneducated people on the street. {By the way, if you do watch it, check out how the kid bosses his mother around! Spoiled!} 8 out of 10 stars.


Based on a True Story . . .

The premise of this film is to illustrate that through fairly normal events its possible for an outwardly 'decent' mother to get drawn into Heroin addiction.

***semi spoiler*** Some of the scenes are fairly inaccurate - whilst others almost make you want to get the 'fix' yourself.

Computer technician/graphic artist woman with good relationship with her young teen kid spirals into addiction after work colleague, who is a 'chipper' (-someone who can take + enjoy it now and again - ) Then spirals into an addiction that leads her eventually to scoring off 'street' dealers after losing contact with her steady dealer.

The scenes that show her coming down and getting 'sick' are often VERY real - especially the first real 'night sweat' Prior to all these events she began a relationship with a guy who just happened to have lost his wife to the bottle, and insists he has an inner radar not to get hooked on such women. Some radar! However after after some late turn ups and weird behaviour, the boyfriend challenges her as to 'what is going on' His radar begins to get more with it and demands that she empty out her bag; she hits the roof and storms out.

Because of the excellent and open relationship she had developed prior to this tragedy, he is the first to 'find' some real evidence in her bag; he then looks around the hose for her 'stash' - apparently his sensibility is from school lessons on drug taking - and when he discovers a large stash in the bathroom he flushes it! NOT A HAPPY WOMAN when she takes her next bath and its 'disappeared'.

The kid keeps one back and places it on the meal table - she then goes into further denial - admits it and says its no worse than dope.

Thge kid does all the right things and calls her friends and generally puts her in a position where she has to come 'clean' - if you'll pardon the pun.

The movie takes the viewer through some pretty arduous situations where danger is not far away.

Eventaully she gets help from a professional organisation and does cold turkey - you'll have to watch the film to see what happens next . . . .


i will like to order this movie for the women in treatment. i feel that this is a great movie for them to watch. i can't fine it no were i have been on ebay and all the other website to order this movie. now i am asking you for help to fine out where i can oder this movie at or what to do to get one. i will love to show this movie. yes i was like this movie and a lot of peoples here in treatment in to see how people can change there life around and move on. i think Markie Post played that move very well she is a great actor i love her movies. and if you have any other movie about addiction i will like to order them of the treatment center of women and men so that can look at other people go through what they go through in life.


I had heard about "gaming" and "Dungeons and Dragons" before, but I had know idea it could be like what I saw in the "Gamers: Dorkness Rising." These guys are so funny and fun to watch. Especially the guy who plays the "bard" or "minstrel" or whatever, he has a gift for physical comedy and timing. There is so much background humor and energy in some of the scenes that make you really think that at least some of it was improvised there on set. The special effects needed to be worked on a bit, but I saw it at a convention last year and thats one of the things they said they were going to redo and make better, so it's probably wicked now!


I am definitely not a gamer, but a couple people in my family and my boyfriend are. So, a little reluctantly I decided to find out what the big deal was with "fantasy stuff". I saw Dorkness Rising and thought it was HILARIOUS! It's slapstick, but not disrespectful to those that enjoy role playing games. Also, and most importantly, people who've never gamed before can enjoy it and not feel left out or lost trying to understand the plot. The acting was great and the field shots/set were believable. This makes me want to see other movies by this production company. I can't wait to see what the future holds for this group! Three cheers - well done!!


I'm new to gaming, but I would have started MUCH sooner if this film had been around! I caught it at Gen Con last year (a trip made only as a favor to my husband) and LOVED it! Even to a non-gamer like I was at the time, it's funny and accessible--so much so that I finally relented and started sitting in on my husband's gaming group.

I don't want to give away any plot details, but if you're a gamer, you NEED to see this film--and if you're not, you're going to have a great time despite yourself. There are certainly "in" jokes, but the vast majority of the film is accessible to anyone.

My only complaints: wish it were longer and wish it were available on DVD. Soon, perhaps?...


I saw this at the screening at GenCon in Indy. I had some time to kill and decided to check it out. It played to about 1000 people in a packed standing-room-only ballroom.

Wow, what a ride! The script was tight. The action tense. The pacing perfect. The character exposition excellent. One thing I really appreciated was that you knew going in that this wasn't a big budget film. Yet it soon became obvious that the creators pushed their sets and effects as far as they could despite their limitations. And it was more than enough.

It's true that this film was targeted at a certain audience - gamers/tabletop players - the creators make no effort to hide that. But other filmmakers could learn a lot from them. For in going for the jugular in scene after scene and not worrying about if Mom who happens to be watching will "get it", they got the biggest laughs time and time again. But there's enough universality there that Mom will be laughing too, even if she's not in on every joke. I think too many times I see films that try so hard to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator so that they will appeal to the most people, but the movie just ends up suffering for it.

But not this flick. Indeed, this film was so solid that it had the audience wrapped around it's finger from the opening credits. And, while the viewers around me *really* wanted to like the film, they weren't pushovers - gamers can be among the most critical niche out there.

I'm so glad I got to see this in a big crowd. At least 10 times the audience was having such a good time that they erupted into applause at a joke or scene during the film. How often does that happen at screenings? It should be no surprise that there was a huge standing ovation when the closing credits rolled.

For my own part, I can't wait for this to be released. After it ended, one of the producers said they were shooting for a simultaneous TV/DVD release. That date cannot come soon enough.


Dead Gentlemen Productions has put together a film with amazing production values considering their budget. Anyone that has ever played any role-playing game, particularly any fantasy RPG (they play Dungeons and Dragons in the movie) will LOVE this movie. Brilliant performances all around--especially with regards to the dual nature of the principles, playing their players and their characters. Anyone who has ever filmed or acted in a student film will appreciate the amount of work and love they put into this project. This movie (and its prequel) is to fantasy movies and role-playing games what Blazing Saddles is to westerns--parody of the highest order. I only have a couple minor complaints about the movie itself, none of which will prevent me from buying the DVD as soon as it's available (only 6 more weeks--I'm counting the days):

1. When Lodge is talking to Joanna about joining the gaming group, he hands her a copy of the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and says "this will tell you everything you need to know." The camera hovers too long on a shot of the book, and the moment really seemed like a commercial.

2. The jokes are hilarious, but they seem unevenly spread throughout the movie. The last third of the movie, after the almost continuous barrage of visual and verbal humor preceding it, slows down a bit, as if the narrative was catching up with the jokes. Odd, but Blazing Saddles always struck me that way as well. . . and I love that movie, too.

One of the narrative strengths of the story is the unresolved nature of the romantic subplot. Will Joanna become the GM's girlfriend? Will she go back to Cass? Or will the three maintain a platonic friendship, deepened by the camaraderie of role-playing? (Yes that sounds sappy, but there are a couple of saccharine moments, particularly when Cass and Lodge "make up" at the end.) But the movie spans one week: in terms of human relationships, those questions could not be answered in a week. The fact that the characters' relationships are left undefined strikes me as better than the more classical choices you see in most movies, like the girl gets her prince and they move into the castle, or the prince sinks into the North Atlantic after three trite, tedious, and predictable hours. The writers really seem to have a grasp of the psychology of the characters, and you can see the characters (both the gamers and the player's characters) change over the course of the movie, but not suddenly, and not unbelievably.

I would love to hear more wisdom from Brother Silence. "The man who stands out in darkness is. . . fluorescent."


Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.

The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.

The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.

Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.

All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).

In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.

Score (for non-RP'ers): 7/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)

Score (for RP'ers): 10/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment)


Better than the original, "the Gamers: Dorkness Rising" manages to pull off a funny comedy with good acting, fine special effects, and comedy that transcends the "gamer" knowledge-base and do so on a low budget. I've seen many low-budget films that have been terrible and almost none that have been as good as their high-budget counterparts. This film blows most mainstream movies away! Parts are a bit weak (the bit with the pirates and ninjas -while funny- goes on a bit long without explanation and takes you out of the movie for a bit) but, overall, this is a very strong film.

I'm very happy to say that I bought this film as soon as I saw it and brought it home.

Any chance we can look forward to another feature Gamers movie from these guys? :)


This groundbreaking film is truly a work of art. I went into the screening at the convention in Indiana with very low expectations, having already viewed 2 other film with "gamer" in the title (both of which were so bad that by the end of the second one I had plucked out one of my own eyes with my drinking straw and a twisted paper clip I found between the seat cushions). But from the opening credits "Dorkness" had me. The temperate Northwest setting made a beautiful backdrop for the drama surrounding the frustrated game master, Lodge(powerfully portrayed by Nathan Rice) and his misfit band of friends who set aside the real-life dramas they face everyday to face fantastical dramas in the setting Lodge provides for them. After the first scene(set in the fantasy world they inhabit) They are violently thrust back into the world they so desperately try to escape. This drew so many comparisons to my own life that I was moved to tears. Rice's acting is of such amazing caliber that I truly believed within the first 20 minutes of the film that he really was a twenty-something male suffering from frustration, male pattern baldness and an annoying group of "friends" that can't seem to grasp concepts like right and wrong. Lodge's friends are of some note here: Leo, the oldest and heaviest of the trio seems to be the only other character with a job, aside from lodge. Yet he seems to gravitate socially towards Gary, the youngest of the group. This seems only slightly odd at first until you realize that Gary is, in fact, a sexually confused sociopath with very few prospects outside his "fantasy" world. This dichotomy serves, not to confuse, but to inform and uplift the audience about the importance of diversity in our society. My only complaint about this is that the actors who portray Leo (Scott C. Brown) and Gary (christian Doyle) seem to play the characters for laughs at times, as though they were informed they were acting in a comedy instead of a hard-hitting action/drama. Speaking of action, Brian Lewis makes his film debut as Cass, the third and most influential member of Lodge's motley crew. the tension is always high when he is on screen, both when he is arguing passionately about his beliefs to Lodge or when displaying his fantastic Martial Arts skills as "Silence" his fantasy character. Or even when he turns around suddenly to face the audience and you reflexively duck in the audience so as not to get smacked by his fantastic chin. Lewis Lights up the screen no matter what he's doing and I hope to see more of him in the future. Once the action begins in this movie, it just doesn't quit. the drama and the action blend so seamlessly at times that you can's tell whether your in the middle of a frenetic action sequence or a touching dramatic moment. Truly a thrill ride of Epic proportions, I would recommend "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" as required viewing for anyone who loves film. It was almost worth losing an eye over.

~Chip Deedlenick


This film is so wonderful it captures the gaming life. I laughed so hard while watching this. The movie is about a gaming group that have a hard time with a campaign that their dungeon master came up with. The movie switches from the real world and the gaming world as they play the campaign it shows them in the gaming world as their character, and then switches back to the real world when they are not playing. The campaign is the basis for a module that the dungeon master, Lodge, is writing. The problem is Lodge can't finish his module because the characters can't finish the campaign. They are more for killing and looting instead of role playing. Lodge wants them to role play through the campaign something they have never done before. They decide to bring in some extra help so they bring a,wait for it, girl in to play. Lodge also makes a npc, a non player character, a paladin,who can not witness or do wrong, to play. The film is how they do all this and more I don't want to spoil any of the film so I won't say any more. This movie may not be a big budget film the acting may not be Oscar worthy but if you are into gaming or into dungeons and dragons then definitely watch it. They had a lot of fun making this film and it shows I am not going to bash on it for any movie problems such as continuity or any thing it was a low budget film that is just fun. There is some slap stick comedy which I enjoy and some damn good writing in my opinion. So if you want a fun film try it .


I was laughing so hard most of the time I had people glaring at me because they couldn't hear over my laughter. I literally fell out of my seat at a specific point.

I'm a Bartender and Bouncer for a living in the Real world (note my use of the term Real world, sadly it always has to come first), and whenever I tell someone I play RPG's, it's usually followed by one of two questions: 1. What, like D&D? I played that back in Junior High.

2. Really? I've been looking or a group forever! Have room for another? Very rarely do people not know what D&D and Gaming are.

That having been said almost every person who watches this movie can get something out of it. Even if you aren't a Gamer, chances are there is something in your life you "Geek Out" about that can be made fun of in a light hearted way, and that alone means you can relate to the hijinx in this flick. It's just light hearted happiness in an hour and a half.


There are few films that have had me waiting and waiting for release more than this one. This is the latest film from The Dead Gentlemen group responsible for the original Gamers film and the Demon Hunters films. This group has not been terribly active over the last few years but this film is a definite reason to try and keep things up in following their progress.

This film follows a group of gamers who are trying to finish a campaign run by a GM frustrated by his group's disregard for his story. With the help of some new blood they attempt the campaign again with hopes of finishing this time.

This movie is a breath of fresh air in the movie community and a great improvement over the original. The movie shows respect for the game much like the original movie did but on top of that this movie shows a dramatic improvement on special effects launching it above the simplicity of college films. The acting is fairly decent and the jokes are quite funny.

Unfortunately many of the jokes are in jokes so if you are not a gamer you may not find the film as funny as others. So this is why I give the movie an 8 instead of the 9 that I initially thought of. Any case if you are a gamer or know about gaming check this one out you will enjoy it.


Best fan boy movie I've ever watched save "Free Enterprise."

In some ways it reminded me of an early Kevin Smith film.

If you do any kind of role playing, this movie will likely have you laughing often at its insatiable fun. Don't expect a big budget here, the acting is also questionable at times, but it really adds to the fun of the atmosphere they create. The script is truly humorous with a lot of witty moments worth experiencing.

The bard that always gets killed had me rolling. The sexually confused player also had me smiling a bit too. But in the end... It was just a great movie showcasing some better moments in the lives of a few geeks having a great time with role playing.

If you are bored, and ever got into role playing, this will do nicely for a distraction. A real unexpected treat.


I saw the original rough screen showing 4 times at Gencon a couple years ago. I was delighted to have done so, my daughter is in the movie.

I stood in the back of the room with her watching the much younger fans sit on the edge of there seats, dead quiet no wanting to miss a line. The standing ovation afterward's was like watching the fans when the USA Hockey Team beat the Russians at the Olympic Games in Montreal.

I love excellent comedy and sight gags. Taxi, Barney Miller, Cheers, Frasier and Married with Chilren are my all time favorite comedy shows. Lesser shows I will not even watch.

This movie will do for Gamers what Animal House did for College Frat days, what Dodge Ball did for weird sports. Forget the lack of a mega budget backing the production. This is pure art, it's that good.

I could not be happier for the entire cast and production company.


This movie brilliantly captures the atmosphere of a D&D group. While watching, I could not help but notice how vividly characters reminded me of myself and my gaming friends to the point where they acted literally the same as we do. Including the bickering, the fighting, the internal jokes, driving the DM crazy. EVERYTHING.

It has it all. Jokes that made me cry, action scenes which, even filmed in low-budget, I found uncannily awesome. The story is pretty straightforward and unsurprising, but that doesn't really matter, since the best part of the movie is to see the characters react and interact with each other and the NPCs.

Seriously, if you're playing D&D or any similar RPG, I cannot stress this enough, WATCH THIS MOVIE, it captured beautifully the spirit of D&D.


Gamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.

I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like "fighter", "wizard", "hit point", "level", "character", "flaming hand", "Chaotic Evil".

What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.

I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it.


There are few films that deal with things that I would consider myself an expert on, this one is.

After some years of Fantasy Role Playing we split, me not leaving without a sense of shame of what I had become: a dork.

You see, these things are really canonical, it happens to everybody.

First you create a character fairly and it dies after the first attack.

Then you help a little with the constitution, and while you're at it, why not help with strength, intelligence, intuition, charisma and dexterity too? This in turn frustrates the game master who doesn't know how to deal with this invincible gang. And after a while it bores the players too, so they start to create ever more exotic race-profession combinations, no matter how ludicrous it is.

I created a Druedain warrior monk, yeah, not that far from the film.

And that's not all to be said about the destructiveness of the inherent dynamic of this devilish game (think the hunt for experience points), but just watch the film, it shows it all - and of course the stupidity of its most basic premisses.

For this end, in turn, there is no better profession than the bard. I don't exactly understand why the bard became a character in the first place, after all, the blacksmith is none. But once it became one, it had to be mapped into the game flow, that is: it had to be made lethal, at least indirectly. The poking of fun out of this never comes to an end and rightfully so.

Sure, it's not exactly a professional production, but I haven't seen a better satire in ages.


I am so impressed, really. I expected cheesy gamer humor and nothing else.

OK, there's a ton of pretty geeky humor. But the movie is so well done. The acting is quite good.

The dialog, while gamer cheesy at times, I guess to cater to the gamer crowd, is not bad at all. At times it's even, dare I say, great.

When the female gamer, who built this non traditional fighter type character rather then the usual (min/max) type gets all these additional attacks (seem right, I did not check the rules,) it was cool.

The sets are amazing for what must be a fairly low production movie.

The story moves right along. The transitions from game world to real world are well done. A male playing a female character would sometimes be played by a female, and sometimes by himself. Pretty clever, I thought.

The guy who decided to play a female, but kept forgetting he was female was good for a lot of laughs. He even said tag at one point, and the female walked on to play the role ( sorry, I did not look her name up, she did great though.) The guy always trying to "get some", got a bit tedious, but I guess that was more gamer humor.

There was just so much to like about the movie. Lighthearted. Fun! Very well done and I am saying that as a movie fan, not a gamer (and I am not a D&D player.) As I said I expected SO much less.

Movies often don't hold my attention, I end up listening to them while working on my computer. This one held my attention. I can't give a movie much higher praise.


I don't play video games at all but my children do.

I got a big kick out of this. Would like to see more of this type of film. "very cool" as my youngest would say.

Interesting characters and the overall story line was interesting. Like I said I don't play video games but I think that my children would enjoyed this. It was not full of bad language and that is a pleasant change. This visual concept was different which caught my eye. Plus the sound track was pretty good. I might even try out some of the games my sons plays to see because of this film. Who knows maybe I'll be a gamer someday.


My sister, dad, and I are really into D&D and one night we were browsing Netflix looking for a movie to watch when this one came up. We thought we would try it out and I ended up almost dying from laughter. The writing and acting in this movie is so amazing! Witty characters, great interaction, and hilarious moments kept us in stitches the entire time. I love this movie! It might not make that much sense for those who don't know about Dungeons & Dragons, but nevertheless, it is a good movie. This only goes to show that movies don't need an astronomical budget and big name actors/actresses to be a success. Check it out if you want a good, clean comedy.


House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.

Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing.


This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's "House of Frankenstein", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing "Moonlight Sonata" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).


This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).

The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a "cure" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.

Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?

Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.

The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.

Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8.


This is quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series).

Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7/10.


Coming at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.

A mad scientist sets out to "cure" both monsters of their "sicknesses" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.

If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo!


A year after the release of the average "House of Frankenstein", Universal released another Monster Mash where all their famous character would collide once again. "House of Dracula" would reunite Dracula, the Frankenstein's creature and the Wolf Man for what would be their final battle and will finally close an era for the studio. Directed once again by Erle C. Kenton, "House of Dracula" presents a slight but noticeable improvement over the previous film and delivers a better constructed (although still flawed) story that while far from perfect, is a more appropriate closure than the previous film.

The story ignores most of the events of the previous entry, "House of Frankenstein", and introduces a new angle to the story. Count Dracula (John Carradine), tired of having to hide during sunlight, asks help to the brilliant scientist, Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens), a physician famous for his research in biology. Edelman becomes fascinated by Dracula, and soon begins an experimental treatment, in the mean time, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), the Wolf Man, visits Edelman with the purpose of get rid of his curse. Soon Edelman realizes that Dracula is a monster that must be destroyed, but his own exposure to Dracula's blood is also developing a disease in him. The discovery of the Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) in a nearby catacombs will bring more turmoil to the mind of the brilliant scientist.

After the previous clash of monsters, it is good to see the series going back to the roots and delivering an almost straight-forward Gothic horror returning to the dark pessimistic nature of this kind of films and moving away from the comic relief of the previous entries. The story (by Edward T. Lowe Jr.), has many interesting themes, as the contrast between Dracula and Talbot (both looking for a cure, but with different purposes) and Edelman's increasing madness. Probably among the most interesting themes is the inclusion of the character of Nina, a gorgeous but deformed woman who aids Dr. Edelman hoping to be cured of her condition.

Director Erle C. Kenton is back again and this time he finally captures the dark nature of these three characters, a nature that was apparently lost in the previous film. Despite the low-budget, Kenton crafts a Gothic horror that while simple, is quite effective, and even manages to present old partners such a these characters in a fresh way. While it's never on the level of the originals, "House of Dracula" recovers that charm that Universal Studios horror films used to have, and Kenton makes sure that at least for a last time the monsters receive a chance to shine.

The cast is very good this time, with Carradine, Chaney and Strange reprising their roles (although Strange's role is considerably smaller) with more enthusiasm than in the previous film. The addition of Onslow Stevens, Jane Adams and Martha O'Driscoll to the cast bring back the tragedy and the drama to the series, with Stevens giving a terrific performance as Dr. Edelman. A small cameo by Lionel Atwill and the presence of Skelton Knaggs as the creepy Steinmuhl complete one of the better cast Universal horror films has had in years.

"House of Dracula" is a nice addition to the series, specially after the mediocre "House of Frankenstein". It's nice to see Kenton back in form in a somewhat serious horror film, however, and while the plot is quite original, it suffers not only because of the budget, but because the film attempts to do a lot in a very short runtime with bad results. It's true that the characters have all very inventive story lines, but the film dedicates very few time for each of them to develop, and the film seems very rushed and disjointed.

While far from perfect, it's also far from being the worst of the series. "House of Dracula" is a nice closure to one of the best times for the horror genre, a time when ghosts and ghouls roamed the foggy nights, and mad scientists gave life to hideous monsters. Later the monsters would be back in "Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), but that would be a whole different context. after the disappointing previous entries, it's easy to dismiss "House of Dracula", but give it a chance, and let the monster roam for a last time. 7/10


All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. "The Wolf Man", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.

As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.

Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.

Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.

7/10


This has one of the more unusual plots I've seen in a horror film, but it's based on good, solid Universal Studios fare: Lots of monsters, pretty heroine, torch-bearing villagers. But my favorite part is Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) searching for the cure for his lycanthropy. After dying in the original "Wolf Man," he is resurrected and wanders through "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and "House of Frankenstein" searching for a way to end his affliction. I think first-time viewers will find his search in this particular movie very interesting.


"House of Dracula" is a good sequel to "House of Frankenstein". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his "affliction" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in "House of Frankenstein"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection.


"House of Dracula" isn't all that bad of a film and is rather decent at times.

**SPOILERS**

Arriving at the home of Dr. Franz Edelmann, (Onslow Stevens) in his seaside home, Count Dracula, (John Carradine) discreetly seeks a cure for vampirism. He starts work on a potential cure involving blood transfusion, the Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot, (Lon Chaney Jr.) arrives at his estate looking for a cure to lycanthropy. Working with the two patients, he discovers a possible cure in a mold found near the laboratory, and after searching the area, he finds the Frankenstein Monster, (Glenn Strange) buried nearby. Becoming obsessed with reviving it, Dr. Edelmann keeps neglecting Dracula and Larry's requests, and after demanding that they get their treatment instead of him working on the Monster, they turn on each other in a climactic showdown.

The Good News: This was a rather decent film. There is one main idea that is quite creative and imaginative. This is the first film to openly propose the idea of vampirism as a blood disease, and one that can be transferred from person to person through the exchange of bodily fluid, something that would be taken up by later genre works but rarely as directly as this. There's even a microscope slide of the parasite that is believed responsible for the condition. It works in some rather nicely used ideas and comes across as a rather nifty idea, even if some of the execution is a little stale. The fact that each of the creatures has at least one standout scene is a nicely done idea. The Wolf Man has a marvelous scene where he transforms inside a prison cell to the doubting members of the search party and goes crazy. Dracula's initial appearance of appearing as a bat and flying toward a prone figure sleeping and then appearing in human form looks really impressive. The Monster rampage is well handled and an appropriate amount of destruction is caused. The large bat that Dracula transforms into always looks decent for once, and is quite realistically done. It's a thoroughly decent affair.

The Bad News: There are several things that weren't all that great about this one. The fact that the film combines so much potentially intriguingly plots and ideas that it really doesn't know what to do with them. There are several different back-stories that have to be mingled together and which should be clear enough to mix well together and seem coherent. This really doesn't have any of that. The plot is rather flimsy and doesn't really give a preferential treatment to any of the stars, and instead concentrates on one then another and then includes all three in the ending. The monsters only seem to get engaged with each other for the smallest possible reason makes it a big distraction. The ending is for once a big let-down, and seems entirely like it was changed at the last minute. There's a few other small things that weren't all that spectacular, and pretty much also contribute to this.

The Final Verdict: It's quite a decent film and manages to get through most of the time with an entertaining style. Nowhere near the classic status of each monsters' debut features, but it's a nice enough watch for fans of the monsters and of Universal films in general.

Today's Rating-PG: Violence


Dracula (John Carradine) visits Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who believes everything can be cured by science. He wants Edelamn to cure his vampirism--Edelman agrees. Then Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) pops up looking for a cure for his turning into a werewolf. Thr Frankenstein monster is discovered too but doesn't really do anything.

Very ambitious plot for a Universal horror film from the 1940s. Trying to cure the monsters by science is actually an interesting idea. Also this movie has beautiful sets (LOVE the castle to doctor lives in), tons of atmosphere, is very well-directed (great use of shadows) and has pretty good special effects.

The acting is all good except for Carradine--he tries but I could never accept him as Dracula. Also Lionel Atwill pops in playing (as always) the chief of police. This is pretty much forgotten and derided as a stupid film but I think it's very good. It's also to last time the Universal monsters were done seriously--the next film was in 1948 in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein". It's a great film but the accent is more on comedy.

The only real flaw here is there's a LOT of plot for 67 minutes and some gaps in logic: Why does Dracula try to bite lovely Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll) when he's being cured? And why (and how) does the doctor get Frankenstin into his castle? Still these are small complaints. Recommended.


The last of the sequels,not counting Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein which was more or less a spoof.this time count Dracula (John Carridine)takes center stage seeking a cure for his vampirism from a kindly doc(Onslow Stevens).well good ole Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr)shows up also seeking a cure.the good doc succeeds in curing Larry's werewolfism,but Dracula tricks the doc and ends up contaminating his blood and makes the good doc a crazed lunatic.oh and all this time big Franky(Glenn strange)lies on a table awaiting his electricity fix so he can wreak some havoc.this was kind of a short movie,around 70 minutes and some change,but the action is there,and the great actors are there as well.Lionel atwill turns up as a police inspector,heres some trivia,Lionel atwill appeared in son of Frankenstein,ghost of Frankenstein,Frankenstein meets the wolf-man,and house of Frankenstein. and then this one.if there was another in the series they May have added the creature from the black lagoon to the line up,I'm giving house of Dracula 8 out of 10.


The "House of Dracula" really has nothing new to offer in the way of chills or thrills or new twists on an already tired storyline. This film was made as a hasty sequel to the fairly better made "House of Frankenstein" from a year earlier. In "House of Dracula" you can see the factory like production values of 1945 taking their toll on an otherwise potentially scary movie. Stock footage from previous films in the series and then the ending from "Ghost of Frankenstein" used as the ending here just makes for an "el cheepo" flick. Therein lies the shame of the studio and the producer considering that they had top notch talent and merely wasted everybody's time and effort on a quick money return scheme. But that seems to have been the trend all throughout Hollywood at the end of WWII. This is what brought on some of those mindless SciFi pics of the 1950's with all their closeups of harmless lizards in order to make them appear as dinosaurs. The days of James Whale and Val Lewton, to mention two, were over as far as creating real mood and atmosphere in this genre. Keep in mind also that the makeup genius, Jack Pierce, who actually did medical research in order to create all of our favorites, was summarily fired right after this particular film was released. A lesser capable makeup man by the name of Bud Westmore was then hired as the head of this department at Universal, soon to be Universal-International. Not to denigrate Mr. Westmore's ability but horror films were just not his forte. OK, to watch or not to watch. Watch this film but only as part of the chronological order of the Frankenstein series and you'll see how this all ended up as comic fodder for Abbott & Costello.


House of Dracula was made towards the end of Universal's horror cycle of the 1940's and I've seen this a couple of times.

A mad Doctor, Edelman is breeding plants for a serum that cures people. Count Dracula arrives for a cure for his vampirism and Lawrence Talbot then comes to see if he can cure him from turning into a werewolf at full moon. Frankenstein's monster is then discovered and Edelman brings him back to life just as the villagers descend on the castle and set it on fire. Talbot, now cured and one of Edelman's female assistants are safe though.

Like a lot of movies of its kind, we have a hunchback assistant and thunderstorm to keep it moving.

The cast includes Universal horror regulars Lon Chaney Jr (The Wolf Man), John Carradine (House of Frankenstein) and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's monster. Also starring Onslow Stevens (Them!), Lionel Atwill (The Vampire Bat) and Martha O'Driscoll .

House of Dracula is a must see for all old horror fans out there. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.


I liked House of Dracula much more than house of Frankenstein. Carradine is much more passable & his acting isn't as ridiculous & overboard as in HOF. The actors deliver solid enough performances. The subplots (eg the monster, the village mobsters, the village idiot, the hunchback nurse etc ) are mixed in well, so that none becomes an odd splinter as in HOF. Better run than the stitched-together HOF. The hunchback nurse is as likable as the hunchback in HOF. The doctor is very good. As well, Lon Chaney adds a classy touch with his wolfman. Worth watching twice. A classic universal horror with that typical 1940's, long lost flair. Especially good is the doctor's performance before/after his blood had been contaminated with Dracula's.


This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

*** out of ****


This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.

Rating: ***** out of *****


Despite all of the comparisons to House of Frankenstein, this movie outshines its predecessor and is one of the funnest monster movies in the Universal Monsters series, and sadly, the last. O.k. so it doesn't exactly stack up to something like the Bride of Frankenstein as one a classic to revered by fans of all movies, but with a cast of Dracula, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster (What? no mummy?) you can't help but enjoy this schlock fest! And unlike House of Frankenstein, the monsters in this movie interact a lot more. But this movie also offers some unique story lines for both Dracula and the Wolf Man who both go to Dr. Adleman for cures of their afflictions. While the Wolf Man actually does find a cure, Dracula injects his blood into the doctor and that's when the real fun begins! I highly recommend this movie to fans of classic horror movies. But remember, I never said it was good, just fun.