"Tarzan and His Mate", the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of "Tarzan the Ape Man". Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.

The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.

Most people consider "Tarzan and His Mate" superior to the original "Tarzan the Ape Man". Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.

Like the first film, "Tarzan and His Mate" has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see.


This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss  and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction  foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.


This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.


A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout)


In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.


The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan.


Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!


Hard to believe, perhaps, but this film was denounced as immoral from more pulpits than any other film produced prior to the imposition of the bluenose Hayes Code. Yes indeed, priests actually told their flocks that anyone who went to see this film was thereby committing a mortal sin.

I'm not making this up. They had several reasons, as follows:

Item: Jane likes sex. She and Tarzan are shown waking up one morning in their treetop shelter. She stretches sensuously, and with a coquettish look she says "Tarzan, you've been a bad boy!" So they've not only been having sex, they've been having kinky sex! A few years later, under the Hays Code, people (especially women) weren't supposed to be depicted as enjoying sex.

Item: Jane prefers a guileless, if wise and resourceful, savage (Tarzan) to a civilized, respectable nine-to-five man (Holt). When Holt at first wows her with a pretty dress from London, she wavers a bit; when Holt tries to kill Tarzan, and Holt and Jane both believe he's dead, she wavers a lot. But when she realizes her man is very much alive, the attractions of civilization vanish for her. And why not? Tarzan's and Jane's relationship is egalitarian: He lacks the "civilized" insecurity that would compel him to assert himself as "the head of his wife". To boot, he lacks many more "civilized" hangups, for example jealousy. When Holt and his buddy arrive, Tarzan greets them both cordially, knowing perfectly well that Holt is Jane's old flame. When Holt gets her dolled up in a London dress and is slow-dancing with her to a portable phonograph, Tarzan drops out of a tree, and draws his knife. Jealous? Nope. He's merely cautious toward the weird music machine, since he's never seen one before. Once it's explained, he's cool.

Item: Civilized Holt is dirty minded. Savage Tarzan is innocently sexy. As Jane slips into Holt's lamplit tent, Holt gets off on watching her silhouette as she changes into the fancy dress. By contrast, after Tarzan playfully pulls the dress off, kicks her into the swimming hole and dives in after her, there follows the most tastefully erotic nude scene in all cinema: the pair spends five minutes in a lovely water ballet.(The scene was filmed in three versions--clothed, topless and nude--the scene was cut prior to the film's release, but the nude version is restored in the video now available.) And when Jane emerges, and Cheetah the chimp steals her dress just for a tease, Jane makes it clear that her irritation is only because of the proximity of "civilized" men and their hangups. Where is the "universal prurience" so dear to the hearts of seminarians? Nowhere, that's where. Another reason why the hung up regarded this film as sinful.

Item: The notion that man is the crown of creation, and animals are here only for man's use and comfort, takes a severe beating. Holt and his buddy want to be guided to the "elephant graveyard" so they can scoop up the ivory and take it home. They want Tarzan to guide them to said graveyard. You, reader, are thinking "Fat chance!" and you're right. He's shocked. He exclaims "Elephants sleep!" which to him explains everything. Jane explains Tarzan's feelings, which the two "gentlemen" find ridiculous.

Item: Jane, the ex-civilized woman, is far more resourceful than the two civilized men she accompanies. Holt and buddy blow it, and find themselves besieged by hostile tribes and wild animals. It is Jane who maintains her cool. While the boys panic, she takes charge, barks orders at them and passes out the rifles.

Item: Jane's costume is a sort of poncho with nothing underneath. (The original idea was for her to be topless, with foliage artistically blocking off her nipples, which indeed is the case in one brief scene.)

Lastly, several men of the cloth complained because the film was called "Tarzan and His Mate" rather than "Tarzan and His Wife." No comment!

Of course, Tarzan, who has been nursed back to health by his ape friends, comes to the rescue, routs the white hunters, and induces the pack elephants and African bearers to return the ivory they stole to the sacred place whence it came. The End.

So there you have it. An utterly subversive film. Like all the other films about complex and interesting women (see, e.g., Possessed with Rita Hayworth and Raymond Massey) which constituted such a flowing genre in the early 30's and which were brought to such an abrupt end by the adoption of the Hays Code.

The joie de vivre of this film is best expressed by Jane's soprano version of the famous Tarzan yell. A nice touch, which was unfortunately abandoned in future productions.

Let's hear it for artistic freedom, feminist Jane, and sex.


I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.


One of the best Tarzan films is also one of its most action packed (and graphic).

Picking up a year or so after Tarzan the Ape Man, Niel Hamilton's Holt has asked a rich friend to finance a safari back to the elephants graveyard to collect ivory. His Friend arrives also carrying dresses and perfumes that Holt hopes to use to win Jane back from Tarzan. Before they can leave Holt finds his map stolen and it becomes a mad dash to try and capture a competing expedition. When they finally over take the thieves they find the whole party dead and themselves surrounded. They have no choice but to fight their way out and soon find they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. Eventually Tarzan and Jane show up and everyone is off on even more adventures.

Infamous film was heavily censored to reduce the graphic violence (Its graphic even by todays standards. It probably would get a PG 13) and to remove all hint of nudity, (there is a several minute long nude swim scene involving Jane that is full frontal in its nudity, it was only recently restored). Its clear watching the restored version why this film was reduced by 20 minutes in its run time for TV. As it stands in its restored version this is a very adult film that is romantic, touching, action filled and everything else that a movie should be. Its an amazing film by almost any standard. Best of all its the sort of film that plays well both as a stand alone adventure, one need not to have seen the first film to enjoy it, but its also a film that deepens the characters and themes that were set up in that original film. Its an amazing thing.

I really like this film a great deal.

If there are any flaws to the film, its perhaps that the film hasn't aged well. The rear screen is often very obvious, there are gorilla suits for many of the apes and some of the other effects are more quaint rather than convincing. However on almost every other level this film is top notch.

You really owe it to yourself to see this. Make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up on the couch and just let yourself drift back to a simpler time. This is one of the great adventures.


A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.

Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.

Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't deadonly wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.

Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).

The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalé where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.

Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing propsdodgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swingsbut these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!

8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.


108: Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - released 4/20/1934, viewed 8/6/08.

John Dillinger escapes from prison and robs a bank in Iowa. Bonnie & Clyde kill two highway patrolman in Texas. BIRTHS: Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Alan Arkin, Richard Chamberlain.

DOUG: After we were rather disappointed with the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man,' we discovered among fellow users and historians that the second film, 'Tarzan and his Mate,' was the best in the series. It's true. I got a huge kick out of this movie. Johnny Weismuller returns as the titular vine-swinging, animal dueling wild super-hero, and Maureen O'Sullivan reprises her role as his entirely fantastic lady love Jane (who sports a two-piece outfit for the first and last time here). In my review for 'Ape Man,' I stomped on Jane pretty good for her obsession with clothes and her incessant screaming, but she's redeemed herself for me here. Make no mistake: O'Sullivan is the star of this movie, and Jane is the most capable character in the entire cast. She acts as the ambassador between Holt and Tarzan, she can function perfectly in the jungle and get along with the animals, and she knows how to hold off an angry pride of lions when she's out of bullets. She's even got her own jungle scream now. The chemistry between Johnny and Maureen is irresistible. She's totally got him trained. Cheeta is quite charming as well, taking drags off of Martin's cigarette. The plot is mostly an excuse for Tarzan to do battle with the jungle's most vicious animals, especially lions, crocodiles, and rhinos. The effects, though always visible, are much more dynamic and cool and complement the action nicely. Oh, and you can't talk about this movie without talking about the nude swimming scene. All I can say is: yes, she is naked. Very exciting stuff.

KEVIN: Wow. Just wow. When it comes to down-and-dirty pre-code action/adventure, nothing holds a candle to 'Tarzan and His Mate.' The inevitable sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man is a kick-ass, violent and risqué jungle epic. I doubt there will be another Tarzan movie in the future that takes no prisoners the way this one does. You'd be hard pressed to find a full scene in this movie that would be Code-approved, or Animal Rights-approved for that matter. The gruesome violence doesn't even wait for the happy jungle couple to show up before it pushes even the limits of today's adventure movies. And after T&J enter the picture, there's plenty of early morning cuddling and ass-naked afternoon swims. See it for yourself if you don't believe me. I love Maureen O'Sullivan most of all in this film. In the first film, Jane seemed like a walking contradiction, like the writers back then just didn't know how to portray a character like that. But here she is a great precursor to kick-butt females of later cinema. Although she still requires Tarzan's assistance in getting her out of most jams, she does a lot more than just waiting around to be rescued. Her personality is perfectly believable for a woman who has been living (relatively) comfortably in the jungle for a year. I watched this with my Mom, and I enjoyed pointing out to her just how much Jane has Tarzan "trained," as Jeff Foxworthy put it. She totally has the ape man at her every beck and call. Although there is a host of dated optical effects throughout the film, there is still plenty of hair-raising Tarzan vs. predator battles that are performed (mostly) for real. That and the men-dressed-as-apes are a lot more convincing this time around. **SPOILER** The film climaxes as the jungle erupts with a shocking orgy of animal kingdom violence that leaves Tarzan and Jane the only two humans still breathing. Although the couple rides off into the sunset reunited and victorious, I can't help but imagine how this story will seem to the next safari who will hear about the previous bunch of humans who went to find Tarzan and Jane and were never heard from again. **END SPOILER** One of things that still bothers me is Johnny Weissmuller's smooth, hairless bod and over-styled coif. Other than that, this is pre-Code action-adventure that is absolutely not to be missed.

Last film: It Happened One Night (1934). Next film: Twentieth Century (1934).


Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.


Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie.


Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.

In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.


Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?

This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.


Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.

He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.

I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.


I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.

It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.

I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.


I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.

I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.


this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following


The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films.


You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.


If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.

Arthur Lowe is a real treat!

I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.

Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.

I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!


I'm not a John Cleese completist (although I thought "Fawlty Towers was brilliant), but I am a fan, and when I saw this sitting, neglected, on a shelf at my local Blockbuster, I decided to give it a try. What I got was a wonderful surprise, and one of the funniest 50 minute viewing experiences I've ever had. The writing is typical English "goon show" schtick. In fact, as an audio skit, this wouldn't be out of place on a "Firesign Theater" album. But the execution and timing is spot on and this elevates "Strange Case" into the kind of jaw-dropping performance that can create lifelong British comedy fanatics.

The Brits have a gift for combining broadly satirical lampoons with closely observed "tics" of character and timing, and the creators use both to good effect here. Cleese's portrayal of "Holmes" seems to owe much to the Arkin's and Seller's "Inspector Clouseau"; however Cleese has such a knack for physical comedy that he more than holds his own. But the unexpected treat here is Arthur Lowe, who plays "Watson" as an genial but invincibly uncomprehending imbecile with such superb timing and delivery that he becomes the best aspect of the film. I'd never heard of Lowe before this (his background seems to be vaudeville and musical theater), but he justifies his entire career with this performance as far as I'm concerned.

Some people might not care for "Strange Case...", especially if British whimsy isn't their "cuppa tea". But I am extremely glad I got to see this before it vanished from sight.


It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.

It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.

This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.

I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.


Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, "Strange Case" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.

Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. "Good Lord."


One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.

Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.

I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.

McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.

Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !


When originally screened in America in 1972, 'The Night Stalker' became the highest rated made-for-T.V. movie in history. Based on Jeff Rice's unpublished novel, it told how a fearless investigative reporter named Carl Kolchak ( the late Darren McGavin ) discovered the existence of a vampire in modern-day Las Vegas. When it arrived on British television four years later, it did not quite have the same impact, but my friends were talking about it at school on Monday morning, as indeed was I. We all agreed that it was one of the most exciting things we had seen.

I did not know of the existence of 'The Night Strangler' until it turned up nearly a decade later. I.T.V., who screened the 'Kolchak' movies, had apparently decided to pass on the spin-off series; they felt 'Barnaby Jones' starring Buddy Ebsen to be more of a draw, and anyway, viewers might confuse 'Kolchak' with 'Kojak'! For years my only source of information concerning the show was an article in Fangoria magazine. I could not even purchase the Jeff Rice novels.

Then something wonderful happened. In 1990, B.B.C.-2 put out the show as part of a late-night Friday series devoted to the supernatural called 'Mystery Train', hosted by Richard O'Brian. 'Kolchak' found himself rubbing shoulders with the likes of 'The Brain Eaters' and 'Earth Vs.The Spider'. The opening titles were trimmed, removing Kolchak's whistling, and the closing credits...well, there were none.

The first episode screened was 'Werewolf'. I cannot say I was overly impressed, but stuck with it, and am I glad that I did!

I really wish I'd seen it in 1974. My twelve year old self would have adored it. Creepy, humorous, exciting, no wonder it fired Chris Carter's imagination.

The show's biggest asset was, of course, McGavin. Unlike the recent Kolchak, the original was an everyman figure, eccentrically dressed, rather conservative. He was to the supernatural what 'Columbo' was to crime. The late Simon Oakland was great too as Kolchak's bad-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo. The scripts overflowed with wonderful, dry wit. I found myself enjoying the programme more for the humour content than the horror. When the twenty episodes ended, I felt bereft.

'The X-Files' came along a few years later and filled the void - but only to an extent. I wanted Kolchak and Vincenzo back. I am glad that the show was never revived though. Without Oakland it would not have been the same.

I have the Rice books now and have read them several times. I was very surprised when Stephen King slated the first ( in his book 'Danse Macabre' ) as it is as good as anything he has written.

Alright, so some of the monsters were hardly state-of-the-art, but so what? The new 'Kolchak' totally missed the point of the original. What you don't see is sometimes more frightening than what you do...

Best Episode - 'Horror In The Heights' Worst Episode - 'The Sentry'


Weak scripts at times? Yep! Cheesy special effects at times? Yep! Deliciously guilty pleasure most of the time? Yep! More about Carl Kolchak and Darren McGavin? Yep! I always enjoyed science fiction as a kid, but found so much of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy/horror stuff as just so much crap. It took Abbott and Costello to give me a new perspective on the classic Universal monsters, and it took Carl Kolchak to win me over to the "dark side" of entertainment. The Duke had Rooster Cogburn, Eastwood had Dirty Harry, Garner had Maverick and Rockford, Selleck had Magnum, and Darren McGavin had Carl Kolchak. Mixed in with all those weak scripts, cheesy special effects, that baroque group of supporting characters and actors and guest stars, there was Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak. He had a wry sense of humor in spite of the danger, was an idealist in his pursuit of the truth, and a realist when it came to accepting the obligatory incompetence and eventual cover-up by government officials. Additionally, unlike 98% of us, Kolchak was willing to stick his neck out and do what needed to be done, even if it meant his demise, the end of his journalistic career, or jail time. For all his faults, including no taste in clothes, Carl Kolchak was a man of charm and wit who drove a beautiful classic yellow Mustang (which was an old used car at the time) on his way to save the day for humanity. As good as any other fictional hero Carl Kolchak was the everyman hero brought to life every week for one season thanks to Darren McGavin. Now that he's passed on and his show is on DVD, I hope he's having as much fun watching me watch him have fun playing Kolchak The Night Stalker all over again!


I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a "monster of the week" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - "Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker.


It's a genuine shame that this spin-off TV series inspired by the superior made-for-TV pictures "The Night Stalker" and "The Night Strangler" only lasted a single season and twenty episodes, because at its best this program offered an often winning and highly entertaining blend of sharp cynical humor (Carl Kolchak's spirited verbal sparring matches with perpetually irascible and long-suffering editor Tony Vincenzo were always a treat to watch and hear), clever writing, nifty supernatural menaces (gotta love the offbeat and original creatures in "The Spanish Moss Murders," "The Sentry," and "Horror in the Heights," plus you can't go wrong with such tried'n'true fright favorites as zombies, vampires, werewolves, and witches), colorful characters, lively acting from a raft of cool guest stars (legendary biker flick icon William Smith got a rare chance to tackle a heroic lead in "The Energy Eater" while other episodes featured great veteran character actors like Keenan Wynn, John Fiedler, John Dehner, Severn Darden, and William Daniels in juicy roles), effective moments of genuine suspense (the sewer-set climax of "The Spanish Moss Murders" in particular was truly harrowing), and, best of all, the one and only Darren McGavin in peak zesty form as the brash, aggressive, and excitable, but basically decent, brave, and honest small-time Chicago, Illinois newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak.

Kolchak was the quintessential 70's everyman protagonist, a wily and quick-witted fellow with a strong nose for a tasty scoop and an unfortunate knack for getting into all kinds of trouble. Moreover, the occasionally bumbling Kolchak was anything but superhuman; he usually either tripped or stumbled while running away from a deadly threat, yet possessed a certain inner strength and courage that enabled him to save the human race time and time again from all kinds of lethal otherworldly foes. Kolchak was surrounded by a handful of enjoyable secondary characters: Simon Oakland was perfect as Carl's chronically ill-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo, Jack Grinnage as the prissy Ron Updyke made for an ideal comic foil, Ruth McDevitt was simply delightful as the sweet Miss Emily Cowles, and Carol Ann Susi was likewise a lot of fun as eager beaver rookie Monique Marmelstein (who alas disappeared after popping up in only three episodes). Granted, the show did suffer from lackluster make-up and special effects (the titular lycanthrope in "The Werewolf" unfortunately resembles a Yorkshire terrier!) and the latter episodes boasted a few laughably silly monsters (the headless motorcyclist in "Chopper," Cathy Lee Crosby as Helen of Troy in "The Youth Killer'), but even the second-rate shows are redeemed by the program's trademark wickedly sly sardonic wit and McGavin's boundless vitality and engagingly scrappy presence.


I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films.


I remember the original series vividly mostly due to it's unique blend of wry humor and macabre subject matter. Kolchak was hard-bitten newsman from the Ben Hecht school of big-city reporting, and his gritty determination and wise-ass demeanor made even the most mundane episode eminently watchable. My personal fave was "The Spanish Moss Murders" due to it's totally original storyline. A poor,troubled Cajun youth from Louisiana bayou country, takes part in a sleep research experiment, for the purpose of dream analysis. Something goes inexplicably wrong, and he literally dreams to life a swamp creature inhabiting the dark folk tales of his youth. This malevolent manifestation seeks out all persons who have wronged the dreamer in his conscious state, and brutally suffocates them to death. Kolchak investigates and uncovers this horrible truth, much to the chagrin of police captain Joe "Mad Dog" Siska(wonderfully essayed by a grumpy Keenan Wynn)and the head sleep researcher played by Second City improv founder, Severn Darden, to droll, understated perfection. The wickedly funny, harrowing finale takes place in the Chicago sewer system, and is a series highlight. Kolchak never got any better. Timeless.


"Kolchak" was a TV series that really didn't fit into any category. Part horror, part comedy, some social awareness thrown in, and what we have is something that I think people weren't ready for. It's a shame really, as I've started to watch these shows on the Chiller network, (I never saw the originals), I realized how different and interesting it really was.

Starring Darren Mcgavin as Kolchak a reporter for the International News Service, and Simon Oakland as his always angry boss, Tony Vincenzo, the show followed the exploits of a Chicago news reporter who more often than not, became a part of the story himself, as he searched the windy city for modern day creepies that go bump in the night. The underlying charm of Macgavin really sets the show apart. A somewhat goofy guy, who always wears the same suit, you cannot help but love him. His jokes are great, and the back and forth between him and the skeptical editor, Oakland, are downright hilarious.

The stories are for the most part pretty good, and the acting is very good. The 70's were not a *great* period for special effects, and the show suffers for it, but if you suspend disbelief, what you have is a fun series that was ahead of it's time.


A couple of years back I had purchased (and enjoyed) the MGM double-feature DVD of the two Kolchak TV movies, THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972). When the Universal set of the subsequent TV series came out, I had intended to buy it immediately – but rumors of playback issues with the dreaded DVD-18s kept me from adding it to my collection; recently, I placed an online order which consisted of a spate of discounted Universal Box Sets and decided to pick up the KOLCHAK 3-Discer as well.

Having watched it now, I can safely say that I didn’t regret acquiring this beloved (if short-lived) crime/horror series one bit: it may follow a standardized formula – dogged and resourceful newspaperman Carl Kolchak, marvelously played by Darren McGavin, gets into everybody’s hair with his attitude (flustered editor Simon Oakland, long-suffering colleagues, assorted authoritarian figures, a plethora of monsters and villains), faces up to the inevitable (and usually supernatural) threat alone but, finally, is pressured into keeping his story under wraps – but a winning one (further boosted by an impressive line-up of guest stars and notable behind-the-scenes credits), making the show a great deal of fun.

That said, quality varies from one episode to another and the modest budgets afforded them results in special and make-up effects which sometimes leave a lot to be desired (for instance, the werewolf in the eponymous entry and the goofy alligator creature in the very last installment) – not to mention the fact that these were restricted to 50-minute programmes and intended for family consumption to boot rather precludes a simplified and wholesome rendering of its often intriguing psychological and metaphysical themes (in the case of the werewolf, again, he’s never seen biting anyone but, somewhat foolishly, is made to merely throw people around)!

While the hero’s cynical narration does a lot to pull one into the fanciful plots, there’s a healthy dose of comedy relief involved in each episode (often, but not exclusively, revolving around McGavin’s relationship with either Oakland or geeky reporter Jack Grinnage) – to say nothing of reasonable atmosphere (the setting, for the most part, is Chicago) and suspense. To make the ride even more pleasant, there’s a bouncy score by Gil Melle' and Jerry Fielding.

For the record, the monsters encountered (but not always defeated) by Kolchak throughout the series are: a revived Jack The Ripper, a variety of cults (voodoo, Native American, Aztec), aliens, vampire, werewolf (going round its over-familiar concept by having this particular episode entirely set on a cruise-liner!), doppelganger, Satanist, swamp creature, mass of electricity, robot, apeman, witch, headless motorcyclist, succubus, a knight’s armor taking a murderous life of its own (the episode with perhaps the best supporting cast – featuring John Dehner as a morose police captain, Hans Conried and Robert Emhardt), Helen Of Troy(!) and crocodile. Some of the actors (other than those playing Kolchak’s co-workers) return in the same roles – Keenan Wynn and Ramon Bieri (both as officers of the law), John Fiedler (as a shrewd morgue attendant) and Richard Kiel as two distinct nemeses of the hero. If I were pressed to choose the finest (or most entertaining) episodes, I’d lean towards HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS (co-starring Phil Silvers and Abraham Sofaer) and the afore-mentioned THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS – while, as the weakest, I’d go for THE WEREWOLF (due to reasons I’ve already explained) and CHOPPER (based on a story concocted by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale!).

Unfortunately, the set contains no extras: it would have been nice to see a featurette discussing the numerous concepts dealt with in KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER, as well as putting the series into the context of where TV was at the time of its original airing, or even denoting the lasting influence it had on the apparently endless run of sci-fi series popular today. In fact, Kolchak himself – in a much younger and ostensibly darker guise – returned in a 2005 revival; this version is available at my local DVD rental outlet…but, for various reasons, I’m not sure I’d want to check it out so soon after the 1974-5 classic!


There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age.


Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.


As a forty-something urban explorer/photography and longtime fan of the original Kolchak: Night Stalker series since my early childhood, one aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is the amount of urban exploration Carl's character undertook during the series. He always managed to get himself in to one great abandonment, sewer or tunnel after another. Armed with only his trusty penlight (okay, so he had some flares in the primal ape episode tunnel) and his camera, he never carried any other gear to either protect himself or make the exploration easier.

Like many here, I recently purchased the DVD box set of the two pilot movies and subsequent TV episodes, and have been slowly revisiting all the shows. And although I remember watching them back in the early 70s when they first aired, its been over 30 years passed...so many of them seem new all over again. Campy, dated and cheesy - but charming and highly entertaining. They just don't make stuff like this these days. Now its all regurgitated spin-offs with predictable characters and plots.

Thankfully, my 16-yr-old daughter has been sitting down to watch the episodes with me and has developed an appreciation for them (she enjoys the genre). It gives me hope and faith the series will carry on to new generations of fans for years to come.


I barely remember this show, a little ,but I remembered it was great! My eldest brother, reminded me about the show recently and I had seen an advertisement for the D.V.D set coming out. The network, again screwed up in pulling this from the air, so that they could put what else in it's place? It should have gone at least 3 seasons. Why not, right? I think sometimes that the network executives think they are the 'gods' of the entertainment world. But they mis-guess and flat out miss good show placement from time to time. Let it be said that, they have a lot more flops than 'hits'. This was one of the poor decisions to cut from the line-up. Anyhow, I am getting this for my collection.


If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker.


Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series "X-Files"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).

Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book!


"Kolchak: the Night Stalker" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead?

That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.

I'll address the question of Kolchak being "formula" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.

In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.

You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.

The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include:

Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.

The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the "Omen" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.)

Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.

Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!)

On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on "Buffy." McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone.


This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.

It's a document.

It's mind-blowing.

I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)

NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.


Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.

It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.

For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible.


We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.

The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back.


The Unborn is a Roger Corman production and as such is nasty and tasteless. If you hate pregnant women, check out this movie because it's chock full of preggo killings and failed abortions. Brooke Adams stars as Virginia. Her and her square of a husband go to some fancy fertilization clinic because they can't have kids on their own. There they meet Dr. Meyerling (James Karen of ROTLD 1 & 2). Dr. Meyerling has had a very high success rate at getting couples pregnant. (Insert joke here.) Is it because he's creating some genetic killer supermutant babies? That's what Virginia starts to think when she starts having some odd side effects and extreme moodiness from the treatment. That's when she starts taking matters into her own hands.

On this one, you'll have to get the rest of the details somewhere else because if I told ya all the goodies this one had you might hurt yourself putting it on your Netflix rental queue too quickly. It's a bit slow-moving for a while but once it picks up in the final third, all systems are go! Very highly recommended by me on the strengths of its un-PC fetal violence. 33 1/2 out of seventeen stars.


The Unborn is a pretty good low-budget horror movie exploiting the fears associated with pregnancy. It's very well acted by the always-good Brooke Adams and b-movie stalwart James Karen, although the supporting cast is pretty average for a b-grader. The music, by Gary Numan of all people, is good too. Henry Dominic's script is quite intelligent for this sort of thing, although there is a hint of misogyny about it. Rodman Fender's direction is merely adequate, and there are some unnecessary cheap scares. If you're a fan of Adams, whose movie career is nowhere near as illustrious as it should be, check it out; she's great, as always.


The Unborn tells the tale of a married couple named Virginia (Brooke Adames) & Bradley Marshall (Jeff Hayenga) who have tried for the last five years to conceive, Virginia has had two miscarriages since then & is desperate to have a child. They visit Dr. Richard Meyerling (James Karen) for help after he is recommended by some of their friends, Dr. Meyerling says he will be able to help them have a child. Dr. Meyerling operates on Virginia & it is soon confirmed that the surgery has been a success & Virginia is pregnant. At first everything seems perfect & the Marshall's couldn't be happier, but their picture perfect lives don't last for long as Virginia's pregnancy develops problems, she becomes moody & acts totally out of character & she receives a worrying phone call from Beth (Jane Cameron), another woman who has undergone Dr. Meyerling's procedure, who claims that Meyerling is in fact using his patients for his own sinister ends & is in fact a disgraced genetic researcher. Virginia begins to question just what is growing inside of her...

Produced & directed by Rodman Flender I actually thought The Unborn was a decent horror/thriller (it's DEFINITELY NOT a sci-fi film as the IMDb would have you believe) that pleasantly surprised me. The script by Henry Dominic tries to be different & it must take some credit for that at least. The Unborn goes for psychological horror rather than cheap scares & bad special effects, it's got quite a clever story that works & plays on basic human fears. It moves along at a fair pace although it's not exactly an action packed film by any means. The climax was good & seemed a fitting way to round things off & the warnings about messing around with genetics seem even more relevant today than it must have been back then, maybe Flender knew something the rest of us didn't. On the down side it lacks some exploitation elements & is at heart a dialogue driven film mostly focusing on one person so it can get a bit dull at times. Also, I have to mention it, what on Erath was that grinning black skateboarding dwarf all about eh?!

Director Flender does an OK job, The Unborn is far from the most stylish or visually interesting film ever made but it's good enough. The atmosphere is good & there's a fair bit of tension as what Virginia has inside of her & Dr. Meyerling's sinister plans aren't fully revealed until the last possible moment. Disappointingly the blood & gore is almost non existent which in a way lets the film down because in retrospect nothing really memorable happens, The Unborn relies on good storytelling which is fine but in a week I doubt I'll remember too much about it.

Technically the film is OK, I'd imagine that The Unborn had a pretty low budget but it's well made even if it's a little bland & forgettable. The baby creature is actually a decent special effect & has fairly realistic facial movement. The acting is good & this was one of the first acting jobs credited to Friends (1994 - 2004) star Lisa Kudrow, I have to be honest I don't like Friends & I don't even know who she was in this so I can't tell you how she did.

The Unborn is a good horror/thriller that deserves to be more widely known & seen, it's far better than a lot of low budget crap that litter video shop shelves. If your a horror fan & are looking for something a bit different, something slightly more intelligent & thought provoking than usual then I think you could do a lot worse than The Unborn. Followed by a dumbed down sequel The Unborn II (1994) which I watched straight after this, check my review out if you want..


The Unborn is a very, very different film. James Karen & Brooke Adams are in the film and they performed quite well. this film is builds up solidly and it keeps you going. Though I think you must be a horror fan to watch this because of the scenes and the plot. There is one brief sex scene with no nudity that could have been left out and to some people this scene may disappoint someone like Me that's into the film and thinks that stuff ruins a good film but that's it when it comes to that. There is a scene where Adams' character goes nuts and kills a cat but you can tell its not real. The music is very different but very good. The Unborn in My opinion is a really creepy film that's superbly unpredictable and that's quite strange! I recommend all horror fans to this movie!


i watched this film many years ago and have searched for it ever since in my opinion although very raw it is very educational as to what the future can hold i enjoyed the movie and to this this day rate it very high sorry to all those that disagree but a movie should always be judged each to there own and in my opinion its great give it a go with all the cloning and test tube babies that are happening today who are we to judge this film, this may be a dramatised event of what is to become but there you go. All the horrors of today are so far fetched even i laugh but this one gets me thinking and it scares me as a mother what if i was desperate,after watching this movie i would think twice sorry but i love the movie make your own mind up don't watch the movie making- just aknowledge the story and ask yourself this how far would you go for a child?


If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy


I rented Zero Day from the local video store last week. I had never heard of the film and I had my reservations about it. Just from looking at the box I knew the film was an Indie film and therefore the quality was going to be less than a mainstream film.

I can tell you that after I finished watching Zero Day I immediately started it from the beginning again. The film was clearly following the basic outline of what happened at Columbine High School of April of 1999, but what struck me was how believable the two lead actors were. My first time through watching this film I wasn't entirely sure if what I was watching were actual tapes left behind by the shooters at Columbine. In the back of my mind I knew what I was watching could not be real but at the same time the acting was so convincing you had to keep giving your head a shake.

Is the film disturbing? Absolutely! Are you going to see things that will make you question the merit of the film? Probably. I think what most people will find disturbing is they will actually have feelings for the two lead characters, Calvin and Andre (Played by Cal Robertson and Andre Keuck). Why is that problematic for some people? Calvin and Andre are planning a massacre at their high school. I know for myself, I felt an immense sadness for Andre and Calvin. I had empathy for them because their lives had come to such a horrific point. They had fallen so deeply through cracks that they had begun a journey down a road which could have been stopped, if only people around them had taken notice to their plight.

Zero Day is a phenomenal film. It gives you an up close and personal look to events that most of us will only ever see the conclusion to on the news. It leaves you thinking about the lives involved. And it leaves you perplexed how people get to this point. A week after seeing this film, I still think about it.

Those of you who have not seen Zero Day please keep in mind the following: The film is an independent with little to no budget and the film is shot on camcorders. The material in the film is disturbing. This is not mainstream Hollywood and there is no happy ending.

But if you can put all that aside, Zero Day is a film that will stick with you and just maybe help you to open your eyes a little.


As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.

The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)

The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it.

The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.

All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.


Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves.


Zero Day leads you to think, even re-think why two boys/young men would do what they did - commit mutual suicide via slaughtering their classmates. It captures what must be beyond a bizarre mode of being for two humans who have decided to withdraw from common civility in order to define their own/mutual world via coupled destruction.

It is not a perfect movie but given what money/time the filmmaker and actors had - it is a remarkable product. In terms of explaining the motives and actions of the two young suicide/murderers it is better than 'Elephant' - in terms of being a film that gets under our 'rationalistic' skin it is a far, far better film than almost anything you are likely to see.

Flawed but honest with a terrible honesty.


I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.

Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.

The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.

I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts.

It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids.

Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie.


The thing that makes this movie so scary is the way that it portrays Andre and Calvin as (relatively) normal guys. These are definitely not people who want to become professional filmmakers since they goof around in front of the camera, forget scripted lines, etc. They are only making the video as a diary to show 'the survivors' how normal their lives were. Their parents just think the guys are filming for a family home video. By researching other kids attacks on their schools, Andre and Calvin learn what not to do and they inform (usually in a silly 'This Old House' kind of way) any potential 'Andres and Calvins' who might be watching this video how to make bombs, get weapons, and not get caught before Zero Day (the day of the attack).


This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a "Columbine" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for "Zero Day". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic.


High school friends Andre Kriegman and Cal Gabriel declare war on their classmates and plan a terrifying assault on their high school. As they begin the deadly countdown to their final act of revenge, the two start a video diary to explain their feelings and chronicle their mission.

There is another similar movie like this, called "Elephant." Why do I bring this up? To compare the two films, of course. I have to say, even though I liked "Elephant," this is a much better film. What's the difference, you ask? Well, for starters, this is shot differently, much along the lines of "Cloverfield," "Blair Witch Project," and "Diary of the Dead." This makes the movie all the better because it's much more painfully realistic.

But what won me over was how the movie was willing to show the "other side of the story." You get to know these two shooters, unlike "Elephant." I actually cared for one of the shooters and could understand their actions and why they did what they did. This movie actually makes you feel sympathetic to these people and that's a good thing because it's not always black and white.

To be honest, this is why I almost cried in this movie. The characters are real human beings with logic and reasons behind their actions. You get to understand them. It's not like they want to kill people for attention. Overall, this film is emotionally gripping and very haunting and much better than "Elephant."


Cutting to the chase: This is one of the most amazing, most intense film I've seen in a long time. The first movie in years that left me absolutely staggered. I could barely feel my way out of the theatre, I was so overwhelmed.

I've been staring at the screen for about fifteen minutes trying to find some way to describe the power of this film, and just failing. Highlighting any one aspect of it -- the documentary-style video diary format, the unflinching portrayal of the events, the force of the characters -- just seems to trivialise it all. Some may find it laughable that any killer could be characterised as normal. But then not all killers are raving lunatics foaming at the mouth. Many are quite regular, unassuming people. They're just wired differently.

And that's perhaps the most chilling thought of all.


This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone.


Chris and Andre are two average, ordinary teens. Misunderstood by some and picked on by others. But together they stand and all will pay. Together they form "The Army of Two". They scheme and plan "Zero Day". That day is when they decide to storm their high school and inevitably murder 14 people in cold blood. Told through the tapes that they made "Zero Day", it is barely a fictionalized telling of the Columbine tragedy.

"Zero Day" is one of those movies that will mess with your head afterwards. The two main actors (Calvin Robertson and Andre Keuck) do such a good job that their characters seem like almost any disenfranchised teen walking the street. Their performances were very believable, you kinda liked these guys and that was scary. Shot on video almost totally from the teen's perspectives "Zero Day" feels very real and authentic, like you are right there. These kids try to rationalize their actions to the viewer and the actors sell it to you. But be warned it does follow the tragedy from beginning to end and the ending makes be shocking and uneasy for some.


In my honest opinion, everyone should see this movie at least once. It really put things in perspective as I watched it. Though it was fictional, this movie is about something that could happen to your children.

It shows how easily two kids can hide both their hatred for their school, and their plans to murder innocent students. This film would not have worked in any other format. They pulled off the hand-held camera, perfectly.

It reminds us of April 20th, 1999, when Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and then themselves. It also reminds us of the media storm that followed after. Everyone wanted to see the Rampart video and everyone wanted to see the Basement tapes.

This movie is a fictional version of our dreams coming true. We get to see the kid behind the monster.

The only bad thing about this movie, is that it did not do well on the market, and few people even know it existed. If it would have had a single preview on a single blockbuster movie, everyone would have gone to see what the big deal was about, Zero Day.

I believe this is the best film adaptation of a school shooting of the few that have truly attempted it. The shooting itself only takes up about ten minutes of the hour and a half long film, because It mostly focuses on Cal and Andre, and what they did up to that point.

If you have not yet seen this movie, go rent it, and watch it. I guarantee that when it is finished, you will be speechless.


zero day is based of columbine high school massacre. and its a video diary of two boys. at first you don't know whats going to happen you think it is just a bad student film. until they start talking about the horrible things they are going to do in this quite school. until they start talking about pipe bombs and guns and going shooting in the woods. they is a lot to say about this movie. all know this film is well a film you forget you watching a film and watching a real video two boys made.

the two boys act like they are in a weird cult. they burn all there stuff. like play station games books dvds homework stuff school stuff. these two boys can be anybody your friends you brothers or the people you see walking down the street. it goes through there daily actives (and that is making a gun. in the videos they make it mentions the bullying that happens to them and how people said stuff about there clothes and the things you are into I'm not saying its right but many people do do things like that.

and also the thing is with this people are suspected to like it because of the sensitive topic they have chosen on this film.

so thats my review on zero day.

and lets just say the end shooting scene is messed up.