Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of "serious Woody," Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.

Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time.

Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last "scoop" about the identity of the notorious "Tarot killer." Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.

Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes "from his point of view we're scum." A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.

As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King," compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's "alma mater" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).

As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: "I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism." And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: "If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise." All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade.


Scoop *** out of **** Woody Allen is definitely not my favorite director, but I enjoyed "Match Point." It was an excellent dark romantic thriller that luckily did not star Woody Allen. It did have the beautiful Scarlett Johansson in it.

"Scoop" is Woody Allen's latest film and though he appears in this one, it's OK. It also features Scarlett Johansson and the two of them work perfect together.

Johansson plays Sondra Pransky, a young college journalist who gets the scoop of a life time from the ghost of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane.) Joe heard the scoop while on a boat with the grim reaper and a bunch of other souls the Reaper has taken. One of those souls is the secretary of Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman.) She tells Joe that Peter may be the serial killer roaming the streets of England. Joe, with the scoop of a life time, travels back to the living and gives this info to Sondra, during a magic act. Sondra is at some magic show with Magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen.) She becomes a volunteer to go in a disappearing box and while she is in the box, she gets the visit from Joe. Not knowing what to do, she enlists the help of Sid Waterman to help her crack the case.

This film has a nice light-hearted feel to it compared to "Match Point" and yet it all works. Johansson and Allen work great together. Allen's humor fits perfect for this story and role. Hugh Jackman is terrific as Peter Layman, the "suspected" serial killer.

This is a fun little movie to see if your ever looking for one to watch. The cast ensemble works well together and the story flows and you sometimes forget that your watching Woody Allen be himself. I say give it a chance because you just might like it.


Something happens to Sondra Pransky when she enters the magician's box on the stage of a London theater. Little does Sondra know the spirit of newly departed journalist Joe Strombel materializes to ask her to investigate the man someone has told him, on his voyage to another dimension, is the infamous Tarot killer that has been on a binge of crime in London. The only problem is the man accused is, for all appearances, a respectable upper class man.

When Sondra tells her experience to the Great Splendini, who is a.k.a. Sid Waterman, the magician is stunned, but decides to go along. The two would be P.I.s conjure an invitation to a club where Peter Lyman goes to swim. Sondra, who fakes she is drowning, catches the attention of this hunk, who wants to see more of her.

Needless to say, the two of them will get into all kinds of funny situations until the mystery is revealed at the end of the film. Little does the real Tarot killer think he can fool a resolute Sondra who proves herself to be more resourceful than he gave her credit for.

The result is a perfect summer film with a lot of laughs that is just what one needs to get out of the heat into a perfect time in a cool theater. Woody Allen has done better, and yet, this sunny comedy will vindicate him for past failures. In "Scoop", Mr. Allen has taken himself from the romantic lead pawing his gorgeous leading lady. His trade mark gesticulating is something this funny man will never get rid of, since it appears to be his trade mark. The film has some funny one liners that will go over the head of the viewers that might not be paying attention.

Scarlett Johansson, the beautiful star of "Scoop", seems to be the perfect foil for Woody Allen. She plays the straight part while Mr Allen does his shtick, a perfect combination. Both are excellent in their banter throughout the film. Ms. Johansson is a knockout beauty in her red bathing suit, although they have dressed her so dowdy in most of the costumes she wears on the screen. Hugh Jackman is seen as Peter Lyman a sophisticated man about town with the right pedigree. He makes a good appearance in the movie as the man pursuing Ms. Johansson. Ian McShane plays the dead Fleet Street journalist on his way to eternity.

"Scoop" is a light film for the hot and humid summer thanks to Woody Allen.


I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, and ended up really enjoying it. It lacked authenticity and believability- Some of the things that the characters said and did were completely bizarre, and a lot of the script seemed like it was ad-libbed (perhaps this is typical of Woody Allen? Excuse my ignorance) but the whole audience in the theater was laughing so hard. It wasn't even at the jokes in the movie per se, but at the whole movie itself. The acting reminded me of Seinfeld's acting, where he tries not to laugh at his own jokes- they are corny, but if you don't take the movie too seriously, you can really appreciate the humour of the ACTORS, not the CHARACTERS. If you're looking for a random movie, and you like Woody Allen, I'd definitely recommend it!


Woody Allen's second movie set in London. Tha Tarot Card murderer is killing prostitutes in London. Aspiring journalist Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) gets a tip that he may be Lord Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). She starts to romance him but quickly falls in love. She's helped by stage magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen) who doesn't like what he sees.

I like this better than the over rated "Match Point" from last year. It was shorter and moved much more quickly. The plot is old but I was entertained and it kept me guessing till the very end. It's not really a comedy but a mystery with a few very good comedic lines (all from Allen of course). It's not one of Allen's best but it's far better than his worst.

The acting is, for the most part, very good. Allen is bad but he's played this character a million times before and it's gotten tiresome. But Johansson and Jackman are just great--they look fantastic and give two very appealing believable performances. Also Allen (surprisingly) works on their sex appeal--there is a sequence where they're both in the their bathing suits to show off their nice bodies. The only real debit is that Allen still seems unsure on how to shot London. He's not as off as he was on "Match Point" though--maybe he'll just get better as he goes along.

Worth seeing. I give it an 8.


"Match Point" and now "Scoop" have both convinced me that not only is Woody Allen doing a neat job making movies in England (and that Scarlett Johansson is the right cast member), but corroborated what I have known for years: he shouldn't focus on neurotic rich New Yorkers. In this case, Johansson plays journalism student Sondra Pransky, whom magician Sid Waterman (Allen) puts in his disappearing box, where she meets the ghost of murdered reporter Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), who tells her that the serial killings that have plagued London were committed by millionaire Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). So, she gets to know him, and...well, I don't know how much I can tell you without giving it away. But I can say that this is probably Allen's funniest movie in years. There's his ubiquitous unique style of humor (especially the line about his religion).

So, you're sure to like this movie. If nothing else, it'll make you fall in love with London. But mostly, it's just so damn hilarious. Even if you don't like Woody Allen, you gotta love this one.


Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.

It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.

There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.

I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling.


***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on "Match Point" the two return for "Scoop" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as "Match Point" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees


do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.

with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?


I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman.


I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.

Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...

Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.

In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.

Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...


In the funeral of the famous British journalist Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), his colleagues and friends recall how obstinate he was while seeking for a scoop. Meanwhile the deceased Joe discloses the identity of the tarot card serial killer of London. He cheats the Reaper and appears to the American student of journalism Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who is on the stage in the middle of a magic show of the magician Sidney Waterman (Woody Allen) in London, and tells her that the murderer is the aristocrat Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). Sondra drags Sid in her investigation, seeking for evidences that Peter is the killer. However, she falls in love with him and questions if Joe Strombel is right in his scoop.

"Scoop" is another great Woody Allen's comedy outside Manhattan, actually again in London. His ironic and witty lines are simply fantastic, and I laughed a lot inclusive with his fate of hero in a country where people drive "in the wrong side". Sid Waterman is extremely funny and Woody Allen is in an excellent shape as comedian. However, his present muse Scarlett Johansson, of whom I am a big fan, has over-acting and is annoying in many moments, changing inclusive her accent to a histrionic pronunciation. Her character is absolutely silly and promiscuous, and I was quite disappointed with her performance (probably for the first time in her filmography). But this supernatural comedy is still a hilarious and worthwhile entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Scoop  O Grande Furo" ("Scoop  The Big Scoop")


They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from "His Girl Friday" or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: "I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism." Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the "American Tragedy"/Place in the Sun boating "accident." As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.

Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, "I'd be very surprised if he killed one person." This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class.


As a baseball die-hard, this movie goes contrary to what I expect in a sports movie: authentic-looking sports action, believable characters, and an original story line. While "Angels in the Outfield" fails miserably in the first category, it succeeds beautifully in the latter two. "Angels" weaves the story of Roger and J.P., two Anaheim foster kids in love with baseball but searching for a family, with that of the woebegone Angels franchise, struggling to draw fans and win games. Pushed by his deadbeat father's promise that they would be a family only when the Angels win the pennant, Roger asks for some heavenly help, and gets it in the form of diamond-dwelling spirits bent on reversing the franchise's downward spiral. And, when short-fused manager George Knox (portrayed by Danny Glover) begins believing in what Roger sees, the team suddenly has hope for turning their season around--and Roger and J.P. find something to believe in. Glover in particular gives a nice performance, and Tony Danza, playing a washed-up pitcher, also does well, despite clearly having ZERO idea of how to pitch out of the windup!


I have always like this great baseball movie! It has a good cast including two tremendous actors and two of My favorites Danny Glover and Christopher Lloyd! Also in this movie is Ben Johnson, Brenda Fricker, Big Tony Longo, Tony Danza, and Matthew McConaughey! Also Jay O. Sanders and Dermot Mulroney! The film has great special effects and acting from all of the film's actors! The baseball scenes are all realistic! The music by composer Randy Edelman is very good and it fits the film very well! Some of the actors who reminded Me the actual baseball personalities. Stoney Jackson's Ray Mitchell character reminded Me Royce Clayton, McConaughey's character reminded Me of Steve Finley, and Jay O. Sanders's commentator in My opinion resembled how Al Hrabosky looks today. This is a fantastic movie for non and Baseball fans and I strongly recommend this film!


I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.


That was definitely the case with Angels in the Outfield. It was on TV last night and I believe I hadn't seen the film since my sophomore year in high school and I'm now in my 4th year of college. Although the film has many flaws, it is just so touching that you can't help but sit down, watch it, and enjoy yourself. It is also hilarious. Danny Glover's ranting is just so over the top that you can't help but laugh out loud at him at most time. It adds to the film and I'm sure it's exactly what the director wanted. You actually feel for the characters in the film even though the development isn't the best. A must see. I highly recommend.

8/10


I really enjoyed this movie as a young kid. At that age I thought that the silly baseball antics were funny and that the movie was "cool" because of it's about sports. Now, several years later, I can look back and see what a well designed movie this was. This movie opened my eyes as a small child to the struggles other children dealt with and real world issues. That kind of exposure is largely lacking in kids movies these days which I don't think is to our society's benefit. Sure the baseball antics seem really dumb now, but they drew kids in. No seven year old is going to ask to see a movie about foster children, but they will ask to see a movie about baseball. Disney realized this fact and took advantage of it to teach these children an important lesson about the world.

As a young adult the performance of Al and the other angels seems far less impressive, however I will give credit to the actors playing both children and Danny Glover who all did a fantastic job.


Although I don't usually go for relentlessly heartwarming fare like this, I happened to catch the 1994 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (AitO) on cable one Saturday morning just as it was starting. Being an Adrien Brody fan, I was curious to see what Brody was like as a youth of 21 (20 when he filmed it, I suppose) in this early role as Danny Hemmerling, utility infielder for the California Angels (in the 1951 original, the hard-luck baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates. The name change is a nice touch, since it turns the title into wordplay). I decided to give the flick a chance, and it turned out to be a pretty painless, even amiable experience, with a decent balance of laughs, tears, sweetness, and baseball-based excitement. Also, my 7-year-old daughter liked the angel effects! :-) Directed by Mike Nesmith's frequent collaborator William Dear, AitO is the story of Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a foster child who prays real hard after his ne'er-do-well dad (the convincingly sleazy Dermot Mulroney) sarcastically says they'll be a family again once the last-place California Angels win the pennant. Soon Roger starts seeing real angels at the Angels' games, led by Christopher Lloyd, whose usual zany, eccentric irreverence keeps AitO from plummeting irretrievably into The Schmaltz Zone. Crusty manager George Knox (Danny Glover in world-weary, exasperated mode) is a hard sell, but once the team starts winning, he believes Roger's angel sightings, and soon Knox has Roger and his cute li'l pal and fellow foster kid J.P. (the adorable Milton Davis Jr.) at every Angels game for good luck. Knox even starts toning down his own temperamental outbursts and profane language, as much to appease the angels as for the kids' sake, resulting in a funny bit when he starts dressing down an umpire in his usual way but starts editing himself as he goes along. Predictable obstacles ensue, such as obnoxious sportcaster Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) trying to make trouble for Knox because of the angel angle. Sure, it all works out fine for our heroes in the end, but they're so darn amiable you don't mind! :-) Baby-faced Brody has a couple of good lines (I especially like his exchange with Glover about the emotional impact of the National Anthem at a ballgame) as well as a cute bit where a pretty blonde angel massages his shoulders before he goes up to bat. Brody isn't the only future star in AitO's lineup: his teammates include Matthew McConaughey and Neal McDonough, and of course, young Gordon-Levitt went on to co-star in TV's 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN as well as such films as 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The always-amusing Taylor Negron and Oscar winners (but not for this film :-) Brenda Fricker and Ben Johnson lend able support. If you're a baseball fan who wants to rent a movie appropriate for the kids and check out some notable young actors before they became stars, AitO '94 will do nicely.


At first you think another Disney movie, it might be good, but it's a kids movie. But when you watch it, you can't help but enjoy it. All ages will love this movie. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and now 8 years later I still love it! Danny Glover is superb and could not play the part any better. Christopher Lloyd is hilarious and is perfect for the part. Tony Danza is so believable as Mel Clark. You can't help, but to enjoy this movie! I give it a 10/10!


I think this is a lovely family movie. There are plenty of hilarious scenes and heart-warming moments to be had throughout the movie. The actors are great and the effects well executed throughout. Danny Glover plays George Knox who manages the terrible baseball team 'The Angels' and is great throughout the film. Also fantastic are the young actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Milton Davis Jr. Christopher Lloyd is good as Al 'The Angel' and the effects are great in this top notch Disney movie. A touching and heart-warming movie which everyone should enjoy.


I saw this film on TV many years ago and I saw this film when I got this on tape. I thought that this was reasonably well done. It was not the best of all movies, but it was good enough. The movie has enough talent to inspire many people, especially younger kids. The acting was good, with Danny Glover leading the cast. The plot line was not very believable, but the script was well written. This movie can also be the interest of avid baseball fans. It does not directly apply to a action-packed sports movie. It directly applies to a nice film that you can watch with your family and learn some messages that are hidden in this film. Overall, the film was good, but not great. I give this a movie a 7/10.


This was a top-notch movie with a top-notch cast. Danny Glover, Tony Danza, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and especially Christopher Lloyed are well-cast in this charming movie about real-life angels helping the Angels baseball team. You never know, it could happen. I loved Lloyd's role in it. He was hilarious. The story is about turning your life around, as the kid's belief in Angels helped turn around angry, hardened, and embittered manager Glover see the best in people. The movie was well made and also about seeing the best in people and reaching your dreams. It was funny, charming, touching, and sad, all very nicely done. You will like (or love) it. I guarantee.

*** out of ****


This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.

Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.

Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.

10/10


One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.

At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.

Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans.


This movie, while seemingly based off of a movie of the same title in 1951 released by MGM and starring Janet Leigh, is still a great film. Danny Glover in one of his best performances brings George Knox, a down on his luck baseball manager with a short temper, to life. As for this movie being "stacked", how about adding Christopher Lloyd (his stage experience works and shows through in his performances on screen, a wonderful actor), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun), Brenda Fricker (a charming and well seasoned Irish actress), Tony Danza (yes even he is good in this film), Matthew McConaughey (he stole the show in Dazed and Confused, and his role may not be as pivotal in this film, but he got exposure), Adrien Brody (what I said about Matthew McConaughey goes the same for Adrien, except the Dazed and Confused part), some great character actors like Taylor Negron (David), Tony Longo (Messmer), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass) and a seasoned veteran in one of his final performances, Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy, the owner of the California Angels), and the rest of the cast does a great job, plus a great storyline that is uplifting to pretty much anyone, I don't care what recesses of depression you're in. I loved this film as a kid, and it brings back memories when I watch it today. I need this on DVD. I recommend it to any parent who's looking for something their kids have not seen, and everybody else, for that matter.


I have to say despite it's reviews Angels in the Outfield was a pretty good movie. I like the fact how it teaches kids to always have faith and never give up because yes miracles can happen. Unlike the other baseball movies this one particular movie stood out because of hits amazing special effects and well orchestrated soundtrack which was very interesting. Though I liked this movie it did have some flaws such as some irrelevancy (i.e. Towards the end when Ray Mitchell hits a homer he doesn't step on the plate and therefore that wouldn't be a score. But that's just nitpicking.) I have to say i was really impressed with this movie's presence and moral: Just have faith, Don't give up.


The quality of this movie is simply unmatched by any baseball title of its time. Pam Dixon branches out in the film industry to recruit blue-chip prospects and make this work of art a must-see. Academy Award winners Brenda Fricker (Home Alone: Lost in New York, A Time to Kill), Ben Johnson (The Last Picture Show, Red Dawn), and Adrien Brody (The Pianist, The Village) amplify the atmosphere of the movie, drawing in an anxious audience. However, the dramatic performances are neutralized by quirky radio broadcaster Jay O. Sanders (JFK, The Day After Tomorrow).

The story is centralized around a foster child, up-and-coming actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Brick, The Lookout). Sidekick Milton Davis Jr. delivers a tear-jerking performance as the longtime friend who never knew his parents. The two don't have much, but what they do have: Angels' baseball, and what they are seeking: identity. That's when 4-time Emmy Nominee Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon, Predator 2) comes in to save the day as frustrated Angels Manager, George Knox. In relation, all characters in the story seem to have the same mission: search within themselves to find out who they really are.

Depressed over the fact that Roger (JGL) is separated from his father, he wishes to God for reunification if the Angels can take the pennant. Odds are astronomical, but 3-time Emmy winner Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, My Favorite Martian) comes in as the omniscient overseer to work a little magic (pun). Before you know it, Al (Lloyd) is sitting with Roger in the stands, snacking on cracker jacks, and causing some of baseball's biggest boners! Dorothy Kingsley and George Wells' (DK Oscar Nominee GW Oscar Winner) 1951 screenplay is done justice under the finger of mastermind William Dear (nominated in Directors Guild of America). He includes a touching side story centered around pitcher Mel Clark, played by Tony Danza (4-time Golden Globe nominee, Emmy nominee), who in relation to all other cast members is just trying to find his place in a confused Anaheim. Clark has been dubbed a wash-up, a once big-name in Cinci, but he has something to prove to Manager Knox.

Spoiling this nail-biting plot would simply be the equivalent to committing adultery in the 18th century. This one is a diamond in the rough, and it will keep you on the edge of the seat until all come to peace. Did I mention a cameo by Matthew McConaughey (A Time to Kill, We Are Marshall) for all you ladies out there?


I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film.


GREAT movie and the family will love it!! If kids are bored one day just pop the tape in and you'll be so glad you did!!!

~~~Rube

i luv raven-s!


One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain


this movie was one of the best disney movies i've ever seen. great for the entire family to watch. the ideas may be a little far-fetched, but it's a feel-good comedy and the acting is great. love the little boy, j.p. and academy award winner adrien brody's part may have been very short, but very memorable. highly recommended.


Christopher Lloyd is funny and really believable as "Al the head angel". This movie is much better than the first, but it has great special effects that the first did not have as well as a much better plot and writing.

OK - it was written for kids, but adults have as much fun as the kids do. Tony Danza does a very realistic job in his role - but this is NOT a Taxi reunion.

Danny Glover is actually good and even seems to be very human in his emotions as well as showing some real acting talent for a change, a pleasant change.

Watch at least once - it is worth the effort to catch it.


This movie is perfect for families to watch together. It is a great film and it deserves more credit. The special effects are stunning and spectacular. Everyone who has children should share this with theirs.


"Angels in the Outfield" was originally a 1951 movie from the Ted Turner library; Disney remade it in 1994, this time, using the California Angels (now the Los Angeles Angels) as the team (Disney used to own this and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks Hockey Team; also, good use of the words, huh?????).

This movie was about a couple of orphaned children who wanted a family. A man promised the boys a family, only if the Angels won the pennant. So, he called upon God one night about this. The boy who prayed could see the help coming on the way (and ONLY that boy); for instance, when the first angel had come down, a player hit a ball so hard not only did the bat break, so did the ball!!!!! For much of the post-All Star season of 1994, the Angels were at the top of the AL West (of which my home team the Rangers is one and it still is). However, they lost a game because the boy was at court instead of the White Sox/Angels game (there was no Central Division in Baseball back then, hence Chicago being in the West), and no angels were there to help. Thus, a new rule was created: no angels can help in championship games. But wait! In the final championship game, the Angels won!!!!! It was a miracle indeed!

What I liked about this film: This is a good movie. I mean, I prayed every night for the last few years asking for help with school and stuff; look at me now! My work was good!!!!! So for one, this shows that if you believe, God can send His angels down to help you with any troubles that you may have in life. And second, this is a family baseball movie, which is always exciting. This is an old Disney movie, too; I've seen this just recently on the New Disney Channel (blech!!!!!).

"Angels in the Outfield" will change your life forever once you've seen it!!!!!

10/10


Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes.


With all the "Adult" innuendos in todays family movies its nice to see one where you don't have to worry about that and can just sit back and enjoy a family with your kids. Yes, this movie might have a few swear-words (there's that time where Knox swears, but they don't let you hear the full words), but for the most part this movie is truly as clean as they come (and that's including movies from back in the day). Not only that, its very enjoyable, one of my favorites, and just a great clean and fun movie to watch with the family.

The only thing I have against this movie is that it is too short and I wish there could be more of some of the memorable parts that are in it, I'm not going to mention them because I don't want any spoilers here.

All in all nicely done and a great movie to watch; so go out and get the kids, make some cookies, and watch this movie!


But how can you stand to mange a baseball team that can't win. For George Knox, it is not easy. As the movie opens, Roger Beaumont (Joseph-Gordon-Levitt) and his best friend J.P (Milton Davis Jr.) are riding on thier bikes around the angels' stadium. When they return to thier foster mother's home, Roger is suprised to have a visit from his dad (Dermot Mulroney). His mom is dead! And when he asks his father when they going to be a family again, he father jokes "I say when the angels win the division championship" So later on, Roger and J.P hide in a tree to watch the angels play baseball. When the manger George Knox (Danny Glover) take out his pitcher, the pitcher gets mad and gets into a fight with him, and soon the angels team get into the fightm that gets Knox ejected from the game. That night Roger makes a prayer, for the angles win the championship. When his foster mother Maggie Nelson (Brenda Ficker) agrees that Roger and J.P go to a basball, Roger sees real angles come on the field and helps the left fielder (Matthew McConaughey) makes a catch, that leaves the manger and the play-by-play man (Jay. O Sanders) how did he to that. Roger learns from the head angel (Christopher Lloyd) that only he can see the angles, because he was the only that prayed for help.

10/10


You know, this movie isn't that great, but, I mean, c'mon, it's about angels helping a baseball team. I find the plot line to be hilarious anyways, this kid's dad says he'll take him back if the angels win the pennant (because he knows they won't) Kid prays to his fake god to help the angels win, god helps the whole time (via the angel Christopher Lloyd, RIP) And in the end, his dad doesn't take him back and rides off on his motorcycle right in that kids face. it's hilarious until Danny Glover adopts it and it's friend.

I guess the upside is that the old lady is left alone to die with her stitchin' projects and her stories. The real winner here, though, is god. Because later he got a job as a writer for numerous prank shows.

As a kids movie, it gets a 7. As a movie about the mysteries of blind, stupid faith, and the nature of "god," it gets a 10.


This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-(


I enjoyed Albert Pyun's "Nemesis" for its cheesy action and semi-complicated script. A lot of people complain about the "confusing" plot to the first film, which is probably why "Nemesis 2: Nebula" has a dumb as rocks plot with the same super-action to carry it through.

This one gives the name of the first movie's hero, Alex, to a bulked up super-female sent to the past to save the future. She is raised by a tribe in Africa. A good portion of the film only has dialogue in an African tongue without subtitles, which I liked because it made it seem somewhat authentic (how often do movies in this genre really try to do that?). It doesn't take long for the evil cyborgs to time travel back in time to find her and try to kill her.

Don't get me wrong, this is a piece of crap (not that the first one was anything great). There are subplots involving Africa's political unrest, treasure hunting, and tribal combat. The picture is very short on brains, so none of these things gets a very good treatment. The picture is basically a drawn out fight with some chases that boils down to muscle-babe vs. cyborg. It has its entertainment value, just don't expect quality, or anything of the first movie.


The Clouded Yellow is a compact psychological thriller with interesting characterizations. Barry Jones and Kenneth More are both terrific in supporting roles in characters that both have more to them than what meets the eye. Jean Simmons is quite good, and Trevor Howard makes a fascinatingly offbeat suspense hero.


A delightful little thriller opens with Trevor Howard in his Jag convertible and ends on a dockside in Liverpool. It's all thrills and spills as the ex-spy has to restart his career just as he's getting some serious R & R cataloguing butterflies (how British is that?).

Trevor Howard and Jean Simmons frolic from London to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Liverpool (via Ullswater) - he's just been thrown out of MI5 or something, and she, you guessed it, is on the run, wrongly accused of murder. There's seedy docks, rolling Lake District hills, sheep, country pubs, coppers getting lost, waterfalls, a bunch of amateur cyclists, rooftop chases, and lots of Chinamen (don't ask), and it's all very Hitchcocky and Hannayesque...

..and a smashing example of British Noir...


A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of "Police Net Closing In" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle.


This film plays really well with an audience. Especially once the chase begins. Plus, Trevor Howard with his sensible, smart charms and Jean Simmons with her innocent demeanor and piercing eyes are terrific together.

The film starts as a psychological drama but after the murder it segues into a chase thriller as the two leads head for the border. Some may think the chase is superfluous but actually the chase is essential because it aids in clearing the mind of the Jean Simmons character by getting her out of the oppressive household, plus it helps bring out the real killer - who is suddenly put into such a position that they have to finish the job. The killer rightly believed that once the Simmons character was arrested she would be put away. And it is true that her lack of control in the household - as well as evidence pointing her way - there is no way she would have gotten out of the murder charge. The chase that ensues helps bring out the truth.

This is an entertaining film. Seek it out if you can find it.


Hitchcock was of the opinion that audiences aren't really interested in what puts protagonists into danger - only that they ARE in danger, and need to escape.

This film proves Hitchcock was not 100% correct. Police believe Jean Simmons is guilty of a crime, when she plainly isn't. Trevor Howard decides their best course of action is to run for it. And so, the body of the movie has our charismatic pair dodging on and off trains, buses and coaches - jumping across rocks at the top of a waterfall - scrambling across dockyard roofs.

All good exciting stuff - but I couldn't get out of my mind that it was all unnecessary. They should have stayed put.

In other words, the MacGuffin wasn't strong enough.


This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like "Straight Jacket"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on "The Tingler," and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.


William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is "Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story".

I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.)

His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of "13 Ghosts" (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for "The Tingler" (see separate review), money back guarantees for "Homicidal"... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.

The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to "Rosemary's Baby", he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.

The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not "E! True Hollywood Story". Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.

I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film.


I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.


- After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.

- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.

- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.

- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any.


Well, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of "What's the matter with Helen?" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington ("Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell ("HushHushSweet Charlotte") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in "What's the matter with Helen", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking.


The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.

Director Curtis ("Night Tide," "Ruby") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the "Peanuts" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original "Friday the 13th" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers.


Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.

The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.

Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.

In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.

My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.

By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top!


I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).

The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).

Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...


Yes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious.


this was a very good movie i wished i could find it in vhs to buy,i really enjoyed this movie i would definaetly recommend this movie to watch i would like to see it again but can never find it in tv, it would be well worth the time to watch it again


I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, "problems" develop.

It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947


This is simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.

You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up.

Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been "Texas Tragedies" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal.


This movie is one of the many "Kung Fu" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- "Wax on, wax off" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. "This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one!


I agree with another user here and have to say that this is one of the best Kung Fu movies ever! I watched this as a kid and absolutely loved it! The scaffolding scenes are brilliant and you can really empathise with this guy because he is treated as an outcast. Nice humour and fantastic kung fu this movie rocks! If you like Kung Fu you would love this!!!


This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!

Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!


Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.


Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.

This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.

Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.

Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.

Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?


I saw this movie once on late night t.v. and knew it was the best movie ever. This is one of the few Kung-Fu movies with a decent plot. The progression of the main character is seamless. The whole movie is great!


I thought this would be a sequel to the original "36th Chamber of Shaolin" but actually it's more of a light-hearted "sister" to the original. Gordon Liu still stars as a would-be hero on a quest to learn kung fu to defeat those pesky Manchus... but this time around it's lighter and more comedic. The film centres around the local dye mill, where wages are cut due to the hiring of 10 new Manchurian bosses. Liu plays "Chao", who is able to fool the mill bosses into thinking he is a shaolin monk possessing almost magical kung fu skill. But his luck runs out, he is exposed as a fraud, and he promises the mill workers that he will go to the Shaolin monastery to learn kung fu, and return to protect them.

The comedy really begins at the monastery where Chao makes several bungling attempts to get accepted. This sets up lots of really funny moments, and lots of great fight choreography. Continuing in the "36th Chamber" tradition we see all kinds of neat and interesting (and supremely hokey) training methods at the monastery as well as creative uses of wooden benches as weapons.

Also unique and of note is the blending of kung fu and the craft of bamboo scaffold building. Chao is not accepted as a student at Shaolin but is made to build bamboo scaffolding for the "10 year restoration" of the monastery. On the DVD I bought there is a special on bamboo scaffold building and the inspiration that director Lau Kar-Leung drew from it. This is a craft many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years old, and in Hong Kong scaffolding is still built of bamboo even on large high-rises, though the West exclusively uses steel tubes and clamps. As a result of his scaffolding work, Chao develops a special style of kung fu... when asked what kind it is, he hilariously replies "scaffolding kung fu!!" which he first tests during a dust-up with the monastery's Abbot. In the final confrontation with the Manchus, there is a dazzling array of creative uses for bamboo poles and ties.

From a comedy perspective, I think it's one of the best of the kung fu genre. As a kung fu film in general, it also stands out... I recommend it to anyone!


Brilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu.


After 21 movies and three years of working in Hollywood Bette Davis finally got a role she claimed as her own and which put her as a force to be reckoned with. As Mildred Rogers, Davis burst forth with a completely unsympathetic role of a slutty waitress who becomes the target of Leslie Howard's affections, and already eager to sink her teeth into a role like this, she had no qualms of the awful things her character was meant to do throughout the course of the film and the awful transformation she would undergo. It also has been widely noted that her performance here, one of the few things that makes this slightly uneven movie watchable, has been the one to remember even after two remakes and the scenes where she rips into Howard have made cinema history.

At circa 85 minutes, the story moves at a nice pace, telling the story of Philip Carey (Howard) as his life crosses that of the destructive Mildred Rogers over and over again.

Howard and Davis' chemistry is all but non-existent -- Davis sustained in an interview much later in life she personally didn't care much for Howard's iciness towards her and that helped her act even worse (in character) towards him as Mildred. All the same, the two seem awkward with one another; their scenes together remain stiff, only salvaged by the ferocious acidity Davis brings to her lines and her own nervous presence. Then again, Cromwell's direction has a certain stiltedness about itself that fails to come through at times -- he tries to fill in some space (whenever Davis is not there) with dissolves and montages indicating the passing of time (a calendar superimposed over a changing Frances Dee). All much in the style back then. This was before technicalities and complicated camera angles came into being, and in essence, the visual story is a simplified, bare essentials translation of the Somerset Maugham's novel -- which is saying a lot, since at 600 pages, "Of Human Bondage" would have been indeed hard to film even then.

Storywise, it feels that Philip Carey may be something of a glutton for punishment, since there is no discernible, sexual attraction between he and Mildred and to compound that, Mildred never hides her displeasure from the get-go. Howard's performance never seems to go through much external emotion -- his eyes are constantly sad, his expression never veers too far away from lost (he could almost be a distant cousin to William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist" -- dejected, hurt, and absolutely passive), but this is possibly a part of his character and the reason he fails to see that other women (played by Kay Johnson and Frances Dee) are making themselves vulnerable to unrequited affections. Interestingly, Johnson's Norah, once she realizes Carey will never fall for her, is the one who sums the story up with her observation that people are bound to other people -- she is bound to Carey as Carey is bound to Mildred, and Mildred herself is bound to Miller (or men who fit the role of provider). In her short but memorable scene, she's the one who holds the essence of the story's moral.


Of the three remakes on W. Somerset Maughan's novel, this one is the best one, and not particularly because what John Cromwell brought to the film. The film is worth a look because of the break through performance by Bette Davis, who as Mildred Rogers, showed the film industry she was a star. Finally, her struggles with Jack Warner and his studio paid off royally.

The film is dominated by Mildred from the start. We realize from the beginning that Mildred doesn't care for Philip and never will. She doesn't hide her contempt for this kind soul that has fallen in love with the wrong woman. He will be humiliated by Mildred again, and again, as she makes no bones about what she really is.

Poor Philip Carey, besides of being handicap, is a man who is weak. When he tries to cling onto Mildred, she rejects him. It is when Mildred returns to him, when she is frail and defeated, that he rises to the occasion, overcoming his own dependency on this terrible woman who has stolen his will and his manhood.

Bette Davis gives a fantastic portrayal of Mildred. This was one of her best roles and she ran away with it. Her disgust toward the kind Philip is clear from the onset of their relationship. When she tells him she washes her mouth after he kisses her is one of the most powerful moment in the movie. Leslie Howard underplayed Philip and makes him appear even weaker than he is. Frances Dee, Reginald Denny, Alan Hale and Reginald Owen, are seen in minor roles.

This is Bette Davis show, and don't you forget it!


**SPOILER ALERT** W. Somerset Maugham classic on film about a love obsessed young man who's abused hurt and humiliated by the object of his obsession to the point of losing everything he has only to find true love in the end under the most unusual circumstances.

Leslie Howard plays the role of Philip Carey a sensitive young artiest in Paris trying to make a living by selling his paintings. Told by a local art expert that his work is not at all good enough to be sold to the art going public Philip decides to go back to his native England and study medicine and become a physician in order to help others.

Philip being born with a club foot is very hypersensitive about his awkward condition and makes up for that by being a very pleasant and friendly person. One afternoon Philip is at a local café with a fellow medical student and spots pretty waitress Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis, and immediately falls in love with her. Mildred at first rebuffs the love-sick Philip but later realizing just what a sap he is takes advantage of his feelings for her. Mildred has him spend himself into poverty buying her gifts and taking her out to the theater every time she off from work. Phlip also falls behind on his studies, by paying so much attention towards Mildred, at the medical university and fails his final exams.

Going into hock buying an engagement ring for Mildred in an attempt to ask for her hand in marriage the cold hearted Mildred tells the startled Philip that she's already engaged to be married to Emil Miller, Alan Hale. It turns out that he's one of the customers at the café that she's always flirting with.

Philip broke and heart-sick slowly get his life back together and later retakes his medical exam and passes it and at the same time finds a new love in Nora, Fay Johnson, a writer for a local love magazine. Later to Philip's shock and surprise Mildred walks back into his life.

Mildred telling Philip that her husband Emil, who's child she's carrying, threw her out of the house has the kind and understanding Philip take her back at the expense of Nora who was very much in love with him. It later turns out that Mildred wasn't married to Emil but had a child out of wedlock by having an illicit affair with him! Emil it turns out was already married.

As before Mildred takes advantage of Philip's kind heart for her and her baby daughter, where he supports them with food medical attention and shelter, to the point where he again goes broke and can't continue his studies ending with her leaving Philip; after having a very heated and emotional encounter with him. Out on the streets with nowhere to go Philip is taken in by Mr. Athanly, Reginald Owens, who he once treated at the hospital and falls in love with his daughter Sally, Frances Dee.

Later Philip has his club foot corrected at the medical center and with the help of Mr. Athenly gets back to being a doctor. It's then when he encounters Mildred again who's really at the end of her rope. Dying of tuberculosis and having lost her daughter she's all alone with no one to look after her. Philip now well to do and respected in medical circles does all he can to help the sick and poor Mildred but in the end she succumbed to her illness and passes away.

Mildred had the love and devotion in Philip all those years that he was in love with her but choose to abuse him and have affairs with man who were just like her, cold unfeeling and selfish. In the end Mildred got back just what she gave to the kind and sensitive Philip: She became both unloved and alone. Philip found in the sweet and caring Sally everything that Mildred wasn't and in the end also found the true love that he was looking for all of his life.


This movie, even though it is over 70 years old is still a very moving, strong film. Bette Davis, as the slutty, vicious Cockney waitress Mildred is absolutely believable. Watching her performance is still spellbinding. She makes the viewer absolutely despise her and pity her at the same time. Leslie Howard's performance as the weak, obsessed Phillip Carey is not as strong, but I don't see how any actor could hold their own against Ms. Davis's performance. She chews up the scenery in every scene she is in, totally stealing the show. This is the movie that sealed her stardom and she deserved to win the Academy Award, but lost. It was shocking for it's day what with themes of unwed pregnancy, multiple sex partners, and Mildred's vicious language so it is somewhat dated, but still an excellent movie. Just to see the scene where Mildred tells Phillip what she REALLY thinks of him ("You cad, you dirty swine....") is still some of the greatest acting I have ever seen on film.


Several features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.

Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.

Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.

Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy ending.


How amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel.


Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.

While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).

Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.

Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah.

Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.

The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.

Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.

Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.

Available on DVD.

9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances)


Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage," she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in "Dangerous." I imagine Davis' fans of "Of Human Bondage" who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film "Dangerous," performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.

I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, "Of Human Bondage," gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in "Of Human Bondage." That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in "The Man Who Played God," & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.

I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for "Dangerous," 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from "Of Human Bondage," onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6.

"Dangerous" provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in "Dangerous" (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in "Of Human Bondage," Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.

Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.

It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.

Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.

Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in "Of Human Bondage," Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead.