(various spoilers follow)

Gene Kelly. Not Georges Guetary, who is sometimes criticized for being too young and un-French. Not Leslie Caron, who is sometimes criticized for her very green performance. Not even Oscar Levant, who more often than not annoys the dickens out of me.

No, it would definitely be Gene Kelly. There's something about his screen persona that's too ambitious and focused for him to be convincing as a penniless artist in Paris, content to put off facing the critics indefinitely, frolicking with little kids and old ladies and painting in the streets. That's what made him so effective in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and other movies where he played ambitious, focused characters. Jerry Mulligan is in some ways a cousin to Tommy Albright in BRIGADOON, another Lerner story with Kelly miscast as an American at loose ends who falls in love with a picturesque European place and an innocent female who embodies its virtues.

Except that Jerry isn't as likeable as even poor dazed Tommy. That's another galling thing about this film. Jerry is sometimes a cad to Milo, and even worse to Lise. When he first sees the latter at a club, he pulls a dirty trick to get her to dance with him. When she sits down again he pulls an even dirtier trick to get her phone number. When he calls her the next day she hangs up on him, which he takes as a cue to drop in at her workplace. And throughout all this it's obvious she wants NOTHING to do with him. When she starts laughing at his jokes in the perfume shop, it's about as believable as Milo's interest in his paintings. Sure he's good-looking and playful, but why should that sway her when she's got Henri, who seems like a gentleman to boot?

Admittedly it comes off so distasteful partly because of the actress. If a role like Lise was played by, say, Judy Garland, she would shower Jerry with indignant insults and glares. If she was played by Cyd Charisse, one would admire his guts. But when she's played by first-timer Leslie Caron she looks and acts like a shy, vulnerable teenager, and as a result Jerry just seems like a creep. And why DID they choose these other actors (though personally I'd rather they'd solved things by changing the lead) when the whole story hinges on the romance of these two young poor sweethearts disentangling themselves from their loveless commitments to older rich people? Not only is Gene Kelly a few years above Guetary and Foch, he's old enough to be Caron's father.

In short I think it all would have been improved by casting some young comedic-relief type dancer as Jerry, the kind that usually turned up in musical supporting roles...e.g. Ray MacDonald in GOOD NEWS or Bobby Van in SMALL TOWN GIRL. Maybe not them necessarily but someone LIKE them. Someone who could have chased Lise and made it seem harmlessly playful; someone who would have appeared genuinely happy living in that Chaplinesque hole-in-the-wall; someone whose humor and naivete would have contrasted better with Oscar Levant's sarcastic grumpiness. It probably also would have made the ballet seem less ponderous. And it might have provided a voice that could sing Gershwin better.

All this may give the impression that I don't like Gene Kelly. I do like him. He was terrific in most of his films, just not this one (well, and a few others). I don't despise AAIP itself, either; it has good points, like the art direction. And Leslie Caron, who despite her inexperience is rather charming, and really does look like she just stepped out of a painting. Georges Guetary does a fine job and his "Stairway to Paradise" is my favorite number in the movie. Nina Foch is beautiful and touching and should have ended up with SOMEBODY. But not Jerry Mulligan. I wouldn't wish that on her.


An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.


I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.

The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.

1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)


I don't know what the Oscar voters saw in this movie, but they must of seen some pretty hard stuff to see in it to be able to award it with the best picture Oscar. All I know is that fortunately there was Gene Kelly to play in it or this would have been twice as bad as I believe it is. First of all, I don't think Leslie Caron was really fit to play such a role. She isn't that talented, she isn't a great dancer and she's not good looking at all. It's a shame that one actor or actress may ruin a movie just like by playing in it because if Leslie Caron hadn't been in this, it might have made a terrific movie. The story was intelligent, the directing wasn't bad, and, as I said, Gene Kelly was pretty good. Now I'm not saying all this stuff about Leslie Caron just to criticize her, I'm just saying it because I think that's what the worse part of the movie is. She's probably a good actress but I can't tell because I haven't seen her in anything else but I think she was pretty bad in "An American in Paris". So if you want to see it, go ahead but I'm telling you, you're way better off watching "Singin' in the rain".


This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.

The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the "golden age" of musicals, go and see "Singing in the Rain".


I purchased the BLOOD CASTLE DVD on eBay for a few bucks not knowing what it was and all I can say is that I wasn't disappointed with this purchase. BLOOD CASTLE is one of those trashy European horror films that has almost no redeeming quality except for being thoroughly entertaining, for all the bad reasons. The opening alone was worth the price of the DVD: our heroine, Dr. Ivanna, arrives at the castle where she's supposed to help a scientist, Baron Dalmar, who does experiments on dead tissue. On her way to the castle 1) a man tries to rape Ivanna. 2) the castle's housekeeper fights with her. 3) the maid wants her dead. 4) and finally, Baron Dalmar nearly spits on her and wants her out the next day. Hmm...something tells me she's not welcome. With such a miserable arrival, you'd think Ivanna would leave the place in a NY minute but no, like so many great trashy films, our "headstrong" heroine decides to stay put and even enjoys a candlelight dinner with the grumpy Baron on that same eventful day. The intro is so over-the-top trashy (it's even greater than the memorable first few minutes of that Canadian film, JUNIOR) that I knew I was going to enjoy this.

But the fun doesn't end there. Ivanna is repeatedly drugged whenever she goes to bed at night, only to wake up from unconsciousness, naked, bound and tortured in mild sessions of S&M by an unseen man. Even after experiencing these nightly S&M sessions, Ivanna stays at the castle, dully convinced by the angry Baron that what she's experiencing are nothing more than dreams. To be expected, even after being treated so badly from the get-go, Ivanna, falls in love with the Baron. Ivanna completely disregards anything negative about him, including the obvious fact that the dour Baron is popular with the young ladies. Every women at the castle (it seems only women work there) is in love with the miserable chump, who doesn't mind taking advantage of the pretty young things. Things get even sillier as someone lurks around the estate and kills (and has been killing) women. Basically, the Baron's physically disfigured brother, Igor is responsible for everything. In a very long winded scene, the brother warns the Baron he should not get too involved with Ivanna or he'll suffer the consequences. So what do the Baron and Ivanna do about this? Well, they get married of course! During the very brief marriage ceremony, the Baron is shot by one of the angry locals (father of one of the dead girls). But all of this doesn't deter Ivanna, who, amidst all the dead young ladies and torture surrounding them, cheerfully comforts the hurt Baron that "it's just a flesh wound" and the two can go on and enjoy their honeymoon at the castle, where the killer/rapist/torturer brother is. The whole thing quickly devolves into a nightmarish love triangle of sorts, between Ivana, the Baron and Igor. Blame it all on love!

Anyway, you get the idea: subtle it's not. Almost everything is over-the-top ridiculous in this film and when it's not OTT, such as the predictable climax, things get a tad boring. But for most of the film, the director or writer revel in one illogically trashy moment after another. I really love these kind of films, everything as subtle as being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, and populated by characters behaving illogically. Even those who made the Retromedia DVD realize this and when you go to the scene selection section, we hear one of the funniest bits of dialogue from the dubbed movie looped endlessly.

The production values are beautifully risible. The opening and closing credits, with those candles and red curtains...ah, a soupçon of class. The music sounds sometimes like something from a Tim Burton film, which only adds to the oddness of it all. And customary to these kind of films, when the young ladies take off their clothes, they just beg to be killed.

As a standard film, I rate this a 2, but as a "it's so bad it's good" film, I rate it a solid 8 stars. If you enjoy trashy films, please watch this one. It's a must see. The only thing left for me to ponder about it: what would it have taken for that woman to get out of that freaking castle?


(aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)

*spoiler*

This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.

The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.

Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.

But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.

Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.

The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever.

3 out of 10.


I caught this a few months ago on Family Channel, and having some memories of the TV show from my youth, decided to watch it along with my 4 year old daughter. I should have got some psychedelic mushrooms to go along with it, 'cause this is just bizarre! Not only is it a musical with annoyingly forgettable tunes, the requisite cheesy effects and cameos by stars long past their collective primes, it seems to have been produced as somebody's good acid trip. Talking flutes, British children far too old for this kind of crap... in the words of Krusty the Klown "uuuuuugggghhhhh! What was I on?" If you're a huge fan of the whole Sid and Marty Krofft oeuvre, go for it; otherwise, unless you're willing to get looped before watching, stay far, far, FAR away.


I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!

Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it.


I tried watching this abomination of the cinema when I was five years old; I have never been the same since. Filled to the brim with drug-induced images that reek of the common ravings of your average asylum resident, this "movie", despite its colorful appearance, is not for humans, ESPECIALLY not children.

It starts out innocently enough with a poor boy who ruins his classmate's drum by (wait for it) putting his head through it; yes, putting his HEAD through it. But fear not, my friends! He is quickly consoled by his chirping flute, which is weird enough, I'll grant you, but still acceptable.

THEN: The movie morphs into a combination of Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are, but loses all the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of either of these two books.

So, this seven-foot yellow relative of Barney, befriends this poor boy and plunges him even deeper into despair.

And, to add the pleasant array of horrific themes, a carnivorous boat, formerly a friend of the motley crew of hobbling grandfather clocks and doped-up "dragons", is added to the mix of mayhem.

The most comforting image in the midst of this chaos is the villain, aptly dubbed "Witchiepoo" (?). Of course, she has problems of her own: what with an obvious plastic mask constricting her facial expressions to having to deal with a broomstick whose gas level always seemed to be at its lowest at the most inopportune moments. As a result of this, one of her favorite pastimes was nose-diving into the body of water that separated the land of Pufnstuf from her degenerate, decaying abode (I don't know where I would have preferred to live).

In summary, this movie is terrifying...

If you want to watch the movie that has similar effects on its audience as The Exorcist, then this one is for you. Enjoy.


Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.

This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.

OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.

3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.


Cliché-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.

Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, "what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?"

Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.


Really, really bad slasher movie. A psychotic person escapes from an asylum. Three years later he kills a sociology professor, end of scene. One semester yesterday later (hey, that's what the title card said) a new sociology professor is at the school. She makes friends with another female sociology professor who works there, and starts dating another professor. The students are all bored, as are we.

There are a number of title cards indicating how much time has passed. Scenes are pretty short, and cut to different characters somewhere else, making for little progression of any kind. A lot of scenes involve characters walking and talking, or sitting and talking, and serve little purpose. Despite the passage of time, many of the characters are always wearing the same clothing. Sometimes the unclear passage of time means when we see a body for the second time, we ask ourselves: how long has that body been there? And also, at least one of the dead people don't seem to have been missed by others.

The killer manages to kill one person by stabbing her in the breast, another by stabbing him in the crotch, and another by slicing her forehead. Is his knife poisoned or something?

The video box cover has a cheerleader: there aren't any in the movie. The rear cover has a photo of someone in a graduation cap and gown menacing a group of women in a dorm room. The central redhead in the photo is in the movie, but nobody ever wears such an outfit, and there is no such scene. The killer is strictly one-on-one.


If you merely look at the cover of this movie, it's cool. DON'T. The movie itself put me to sleep. It was slow paced, had minimal violence and a poor use of suspense. The acting was bottom feeder material and the plot, while it would've been cool for a different movie, was poorly shown here. They even kill the only likeable character in the whole film! I give it a 2 out of 10 because the only thing that was good was the plot twist at the end. Other than that, you might want to save yourself from this movie trash.


How come I've never seen or even heard about this junk-movie before? It's right up my alley with bloody teenkill, laughable plotting and an irresistible 80's cheese-atmosphere hanging around it. For some reason nobody is really interested in, the staff and students of an elite Catholic university are butchered by an unknown psychopath. Freshly recruited teacher Julie Parker becomes involved when all the people she has contact with either turn up dead or behave strangely. This movie is hilariously bad! There's absolutely no logic or coherence and every character is equally meaningless to the others. For example, there's a girl killed and her body dumped in a container. Then, and for no reason, the story suddenly moves forward three weeks yet the murdered girl is never mentioned or even missed. Not even by her boyfriend! The acting is pitiful and there isn't even a bit of nudity to enjoy. The revelation of the killer is quite funny because the makers really seemed convinced that it was an original twist... It's not, guys! "Splatter University" is easily one of the worst horror-turkeys ever.


A schizophrenic has escaped from a NYC mental hospital and soon teachers start getting offed at St. Trinity University. New teacher Julie (Francine Forbes) has to deal with the mess of red herrings. Despite a 78 minute running time, this cheap-o slasher drags on and on until the lame finish where the person you suspect is the killer from the get go is revealed to be as such. Director Richard Haines barely breaks a sweat with some lame stalk-n-slash staging but delivers the grue the early 80s audience was probably craving. For all of our amateur anthropologists out there, this was filmed in New Yawk in early 80s so you can check out all of the culture, beliefs, and practices of living people from that far away place. The film does get some credit for offing the "Final Girl." You rarely see that. Also, always nice to see a horror movie where a priest is the killer. Doth thou not trust the clergy, my beloved film industry? Thankfully, this one is only a phony priest and he gets caught. He is still working the moral high ground angle though.


It's a poor film, but I must give it to the lead actress in this one....Francine Forbes. She appeared to be acting the least and I personally thought she was kind of cute. Too bad she only appears in one other film in the database. Besides that, the film is filled with laughable gore and fakey death scenes. People get stabbed and they GUSH like 2 gallons of blood! But, if you like to watch poor horror films, I recommend this one highly.


Nut case is murdering college students, can new teacher stop the madness?!

Believe me, you won't care.

With a title like Splatter University, one would immediately gather that this movie just isn't high art. But worse than that Splatter University doesn't even qualify for amusing garbage. Splatter U is so poorly made - the story is mindless, the characters are throw-aways, and the whole movie lacks any essence of imagination. Needless to say there is no suspense or atmosphere or scares. This drivel isn't even brave enough to throw in any nudity (for the cheapest thrill of all). So all around this endlessly flawed slasher offers nothing in the way of entertainment (not even cheap laughs) and just becomes a complete bore. Bottom of the barrel folks - even die hard slasher fans will want to think twice before viewing, let alone paying money for this flick.

BOMB out of ****


Colleges, High Schools, Fraternities and Sororities have been the most popular stalking grounds for maniacal madmen since the slasher cycle first became a popular cinema culture throughout the late seventies. Even backwoods cabins and campsites have rode shotgun to the amount of massacres that have taken place on campuses since Halloween categorised the genre as a cult horror category. From early entries like To all a Good Night right up until the big budgeted schlock of titles like Urban Legend or Schools Out, there's usually always been a campus slasher lurking somewhere in the pipeline. Despite being picked up by Troma - the titans of B movie badness  Splatter University was heavily panned upon release and never really found an audience. Even notorious hack and slash websites like HYSTERIA-LIVES have written off Richard Haines' splatter yarn as one of the worst of the early eighties boom. I always approach criticised movies optimistically because there's often the chance than a few bad reviews can be unfairly contagious like a dose of the flu, which crowds the judgement of certain authors.

It begins in traditional fashion at the place where any maniac worth his salts emerges. Yep you guessed it  an insane asylum! It seems that one of the inmates has decided that he's unhappy with the level of service at the institution and therefore he's looking to take his business elsewhere. The unseen nut-job makes his break after stabbing an unfortunate orderly where the sun certainly doesn't shine. He obviously favours the dress sense of the murdered worker, so he takes the liberty of borrowing his uniform, blood stained trousers and all!

Three years later, we transfer to St Trinians College, an educational establishment that is controlled by catholic priests. A teacher is busy after hours marking her students work when all of a sudden there's a knock at the door. Before she has a chance to find out what the unseen visitor wants, he stabs her in the chest with a kitchen knife and she falls to the floor in a bloody heap. This of course means that there's a vacancy at the university and so we're introduced to Julie Parker (Francine Forbes), the lovable replacement for the recently departed lecturer. It seems that her arrival has inadvertently given the resident maniac all the motivation that he needs to go on a no holds barred slaughter-thon. Before long students and teachers alike are dropping like flies to the camera shy menace as he stalks the corridors and local areas armed with an exceptionally large blade. Suspicious suspects abound, but can professor Parker solve the mystery of the campus murderer before she becomes just another statistic?

I'm not precisely sure how many versions of this movie are available. The UK altered video was released under the alias of Campus Killings, but the US copy that I own states that it's the complete unedited edition, which could mean that there is a censored print floating about somewhere? I'd be fairly surprised if that was the case as Splatter University certainly isn't as gore-delicious as the hyperbole packaging would lead you to believe. One or two litres of corn syrup certainly don't stand up to gore hound's scrutiny when compared to the likes of Blood Rage or Pieces, so in this instance the movie is somewhat over hyped. One thing that many critics have failed to mention is the charming lead performance from Francine Forbes, who ends up carrying the entire picture on her shoulders throughout the 79-minute running time. Despite amateurish direction from Richard Haines she still unveils some magnificent potential that should have lead to the chance of another stab at serious acting under a more accomplished helmer. Unfortunately that possibility never came, and bottom of the barrel bombs like Death Ring and Splitz certainly didn't help to nurture a talent that could have improved dramatically under the right scholarship.

The rest of the cast members were par for the course of movie obscurity, especially the wooden plank teenagers who for some strange reason acted like they were auditioning for a remake of Grease or The Wanderers. The bog standard point and shoot direction couldn't have helped to build much confidence in the project and the fact that the few signs of potential were undermined by the clumsy handling of the script writer left the feature effectively unredeemable. Perhaps the only claim of originality to be found in Haines' slasher is the brave attempt for the contrasting conclusion. Let's just say that it's not a final that I was expecting to witness in a movie that was so typical of the cycle.

At one point in the runtime, one of the teens says, "Man that Parker bores me to tears" Well the same can be said for Splatter University, which never lifts the pace above slow motion. With that said though, Francine Forbes made for a delectable scream queen and undoubtedly one that I would have paid to watch again in a similar role. So that pretty much sums up this un-troma-tising ride. Slow paced, shoddy but still strangely alluring; you'd have to be especially forgiving to give it a chance


A patient escapes from a mental hospital, killing one of his keepers and then a University professor after he makes his way to the local college. Next semester, the late prof's replacement and a new group of students have to deal with a new batch of killings. The dialogue is so clichéd it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk. Horrible acting, horrible script, horrible effects, horrible horrible horrible!! "Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining. Skip it and rent "Girl's Nite Out" instead.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Profanity, Brief Nudity and Sexual Situations.


This has got to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I remember watching it years ago when it initially came out on video and for some strange reason I thought I enjoyed it. So, like an idiot, I ran out to purchase the DVD once it was released...what a tragic mistake! I won't even bother to go into the plot because it is so transparent that you can see right through it anyhow. I am a fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis so I am accustomed to cheesy gore effects and bad acting but these people take this to a whole different level. It is almost as if they are intentionally trying to make the worst movie humanly possible...if that was their goal, they suceeded. If they intended to make a film that was supposed to scare you or make you believe in any way, shape, or form that it is real then they failed...MISERABLY! Avoid this movie...read the plot synopsis and you've seen it!


I have a nice collection on movies going, and this one was added to it. Number 274 to be exact.

The title had me going at first. Splatter University. I thought this would be a great horror movie. Was I ever wrong. Don't get me wrong, this is not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it could have been a lot better. I love all movies, but this one was one that was more of a laugh then a scare.

Poor audio quality, poor acting, and poor shot arrangements are some of the areas that could have been improved. 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie is ideal for a good laugh. If your looking for one of those movies to make fun of, then this is one!


I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.

This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.

Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.

"Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.


This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh.


the cover of the box makes this movie look really good, don't be fooled. splatter university came out in 1984 which was the last good year for horror, but this movie sucks. the characters are so annoying. only the teacher is cool. there is like no plot to this movie, who the hell would ever produce this waste of a film?

spoilers up ahead

the teacher dies in this, and it was a female, we all know that we must have a female surviver, if you're going to break the rules do it in a good horror flick not this waste


Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.

Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.

After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.

The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice.


Does this film suck!! Horrible acting, horrible script, horrible effects, horrible horrible horrible!! Nothing redeeming here for even the most die-hard of horror fans! A crazy killer stalks students at a college. People are showing up dead in the hallways, but still, class carries on as normal??? After about the 4th body, I would think that they could allow the students a few days break! LOL. This about as bad as it gets folks. This film should be shown as a means of torture to criminals. You have been warned!


I am an avid B-Rate horror film buff and have viewed my fair share of slasher pictures, so I have a substantial gauge to judge this film by. It easily ranks in the upper echelon of the worst horror films the 1980's has to offer. It isn't as scary as Night of the Demons, it isn't as gory as Re-Animator and lacks the camp value of There's Nothing Out There. That being said, this film has no value. Keep in mind, the movie artwork is for a completely different film. The stills shots on the back of the DVD box aren't taken from this film.

VIOLENCE: $$$ (There is plenty of violence but we've seen it all before. A murderer kills nubile students and the occasional facility member by slitting throats and all the other tired methods of murder that horror films utilize).

NUDITY: None

STORY: $$ (The story focuses on Francine Forbes - who wisely changed her name to Forbes Riley after this film was made - who accepts a job teaching at a university. People start to die and Forbes believes the killer is targeting her. Is it her new heartthrob with a checkered past or the libido-crazed student? To be honest, it is impossible to care because the script doesn't flesh out any character outside Forbes).

ACTING: $ (Terrible on all levels. This slasher has the feel of a school production -high school that is because college students could make a better flick than this. Forbes showcases a modicum of talent as does Seminara as one of the students, but everyone else is of the "extras" caliber of acting).


Was it foreshadowing when Tori complained that her first boyfriend was treating her like a robot, and then her new boyfriend (the murderer) turned out to be a designer of artificial intelligence? I think so. Scenes to make you squeal with delight: montages galore, a strip-tease in a kimono (what do you call it when you seductively put clothes on, instead of take them off?), and a climactic battle on skis! Definitely tune in for the beginning and end, but you can grab a sandwich during the second act when all the plot is happening. Is it better than CO-ED CALL GIRL? Nah. Does Tori ever make it to paradise, or out of the snow, even? Nope.


A question for all you girls out there : If a man you`ve never met before accidentally phoned you up on purpose and continued to do so at the most indiscreet moments would you be intrigued by him or so freaked out you`d phone the police ? Yeah that`s what I thought so I couldn`t swallow the idea of Marti Gerrard putting up with the unwarrented attention of Connor Hill

***** MILD SPOILERS *****

This is a really dumb story . Connor Hill`s wife is murdered and the plot revolves around the question is Connor phoning Marti so he can have an alibi ? But there`s a massive gap in logic here , couldn`t Connor have employed a hit man ? something the prosecution seem to have ignored . And wasn`t there any forensics at the murder scene ? So why does the whole trial rest on Connor phoning Marti at the time of the murder ? Dumb . Dumb . Dumb . And it`s as predictable as it is brainless .

My abiding memory of this film is that for someone who made the winter Olympics Marti Gerrard is a really crap downhill skier


Umm.. I was quite surprised that someone actually gave this film high marks.

Lets face it... Tori Spelling is not a great actress.. and this movie just proves the extent of her "talent". The movie's plot was weak... I bet the dork that came up with this concept was some perverted peeping tom. If there is a good thing about this movie, I would say it's that Tommy Chong's daughter, just for the fact that she's his daughter... and then there is that Soap-Opera-ish male lead who's decent good looks somewhat make him attractive, but ceases to help his dramatic abilities. *Why does IMDb require at least 10 lines? How many more ways can you simply say "This movie sucks"?


Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line "Tori Spelling can't act" as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10


Well, there you have it, another disillusion on my account. Two, actually! First of all, even though I like to think of myself that I know a little something about 70's euro-exploitation and its most prolific contributors, I never heard about Joseph W. Sarno before. Here's a guy who made over seventy rancid and cult-laden exploitation movies and I haven't seen a single one! How? Why? What happened here? Secondly, and even worse, just when you think to have found a new source for obscure cult movies, that director's most famous and supposed "masterpiece" turns out to be an irredeemably dull and irritating film. Admittedly, lesbian vampire movies form a pretty insignificant sub genre as a whole, but some of them bath in ominous atmosphere and curious sensuality (like José Larraz' "Vampyres" or Harry Kümmel's "Daughters of Darkness"). Joseph Sarno's film has nothing to offer, except copious amounts of gratuitous nudity and even that becomes boring rather quickly. The events take place in a secluded old castle, hidden deep in the German mountains, where five centuries ago lived a malicious and bloodthirsty (literally) baroness. Her loyal disciples still throw naked dance parties in the castle's catacombs, which are lit by penis-shaped candlesAUCH, and hope to resurrect the baroness any time soon now. Suddenly (don't even ask how) the castle is full of young and sexy female guests, so even more erotic rites ensue. Sounds delicious and entertaining enough, but "The Devil's Plaything" contains a massive number of sequences where literally nothing happens and where the cast members' ignorant facial expressions are simply unendurable! Sarno isn't capable of creating suspense or building a Gothic atmosphere (or maybe he just didn't bother to) and the actresses' capacities restrict themselves to standing in front the camera topless and pull a really pathetic face. Please do yourself a favor: no matter how desperately you strive to see all lurid lesbian-vampire movies of the 70's, this one isn't worth a penny! Even the repertoires of Jess Franco and Jean Rollin are pure art compared to this dud.


To be as honest as I possibly can, The Devil's Plaything (or Veil of Blood or Vampire Ecstasy or The Curse of the Black Sisters or) is a complete bore. The movie has a good premise behind it  the resurrection of a long dead vampire through the body of a descendant through the aid and assistance of a group of women dressed in black  but the execution is horrible. There are great, long moments of screen time when literally nothing happens. Characters just stand around with nothing to do. There's no mystery, no suspense, and no plot points to care about. The acting is simply abysmal. Most of the acting involves a group of below average looking women dancing naked while staring at the camera. They do this repeatedly. And what little plot there is seems to be designed to get more of these less than attractive women naked so they can join in the dancing. While it's not as bad or pointless as the dancing or the plot in something like Orgy of the Dead, it comes close.


I wasn't as "lucky" as some of the others commenting on this film: i have never seen anything else out of the...shall we say... "fecund" mind of Sarno. I agree with many: some of the actresses who spend a lot of time topless and (go-go) dancing are not really that attractive. I kinda liked Fraulein Crank(?)...she was so homely , she was cute! The acting was pretty stale, also, though delivering lines in a second language might have accounted for a lot of that problem. Trying to follow the plot was a major chore: was there one, really? I do heartily agree with one other comment: for a vampire movie, there's not much blood. Yep, if you want GOOD bloodsucking flicks, check out such Hammer classics as "Horror of Dracula" and (my personal favourite) "Brides of Dracula".

The most (unintentionally) humorous part is where the lady doctor gets her clothes torn off by a cloud of bats...which you never SEE!...the bats, I mean.

Okay as a time-waster if you happen to catch it on cable here in the Great White North but, for heaven's sake, don't rent it!


This is not a horror film, but a boring sex movie. A very bad movie, to be avoided by any serious horror fan. No plot, awful acting and annoying music. If you only watch the trailer you will know enough... It's a shame that such thing is available on VHS or video while there are so many good movies unavailable. If you like vampires try the Hammer Productions or the Italian Gothic from Mario Bava and Antonio Margheriti instead. Those are masterpieces if you compare this with this trash. Rating = even "1" is too much! And believe me, I am not the only one with this opinion.


This is a German film from 1974 that is something to do with some women who come to a castle and beyond that, I can't really tell you their purpose or even what the purpose of the movie is. I can tell you that there's several women who also moonlight as servants at this particular castle who strip, put on body paint and gyrate to bongos like they were at the Goth Kit-Kat Klub, though, and that seems to be a good portion of the run time of this film. Yeah, there seems to be something with devil worship and vampires, and there's some girl on girl stuff, etc., but the main focus seems to be the painted babes gyrating away in the basement. I did rather like the eye-rolling of one of the main housekeepers/devil worshipers, that lent an authenticity to the proceedings and made her even more evil-looking. Was that Wanda the Evil Lesbian (as billed in the credits)? No matter. If you aren't too picky about your lesbian devil worshiping movies, you might like this, otherwise it's pretty dull stuff and I couldn't even finish it, I was so bored. 3 out of 10.


For a fan series, I must admit that Hidden Frontier is not at all that bad. But, reviewing this series can not be based on whether it is a fan series or not. The initiative in itself is commendable. The creativity as well. I reckon these are people with ordinary jobs, and a big enthusiastic heart for Star Trek. But, doing all this work. Pulling all these resources. Taking all this time, and still all those flaws.

First of all the acting, and the lines are awful. For most. The dialogs belongs in a 70's military show, not in Star Trek. The captain (Mr Squinty) looks like he is about to burst into laughter anytime. And most characters are just reading their lines. The directors should be aware of the fact that "retake" is not just a word in the dictionary. But I also guess that the series are made in the manner of "Two Takes Frakes", who directed many of the TNG episodes and movies Also, I could not help but think that most of the actors are typical Trekkies. Without going any deeper into that assumption.

My biggest concern regarding the whole project, is the quality of the releases. When they first decided to spend so much time, and resources on this series - why didn't they make it available in decent quality? Using the quick time format, with low low resolution is a waste of talent. Even the "higres" episodes is considered bad quality compared to the standard quality series are released in. Using Xvid codec, with a larger resolution and file size would have improved the experience massively. If band with problems was the issue, setting up a torrent tracker would have solved that.

Let's hope the crew decides to brush the series up, and perhaps release it on DVD, giving it the quality the project deserves.


First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.

So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.

But it has a lot of faults.

First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.

Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.

Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.

The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.

Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.

The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.

Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this:

Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"

Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."

Well, duh!.....

Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.

I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.

Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.

But what can you say, it's free....

PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?


How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.

If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.

The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.

Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.

While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.

Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.

I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad.


I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable.


Follow-up to 1973's "Walking Tall" continues the real-life drama surrounding Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser, but this installment plays like a lame TV-movie. Bo Svenson takes over the lead role from Joe Don Baker, but he's much too mild for the part; he comes off like an ambling country singer with a bat instead of a guitar. Good supporting actors like Richard Jaekel, Luke Askew and Robert DoQui end up with very little to do. I would give the film one-star strictly on its good intentions, but the screenplay is a transparent and lazy mass of routine predicaments and the production is cheapjack. Followed in 1977 by "Final Chapter-Walking Tall" and in 1978 by the television film "A Real American Hero".


How can they from Joe Don Baker (as Bufford Pusser in the first sequel) to Bo Svenson (as Bufford Pusser in the second sequel).Why did they do that for.Just Because Bo Svenon look more a like to Bufford Pusser they still should'nt of changed it because the first sequel it was Joe Don Baker as Bufford Pusser and that one of the thing i wanted to see in the second sequel.

I would've given this movie a 7 out of 10 and i would've given it a 1 out of 10 if the story did'nt have anything to do with Bufford Pusser's life but it did and that why i had given this movie a 3 out 10.

I strongly suggest that anyone who is planning on watching this cheese i suggest don't and watch the first sequel instead.


Autobiography of founder of zoo in NYC starts out by being very cute and would be great family movie if it stayed there. however we get more and more involved with reality as gorilla grows up to be a wild thing not easily amenable to his "mother's" wishes - this might scare younger children, esp. scenes where Buddy tries to injure Gertrude. rather quick resolution at the end. below average.


As a big fan of gorilla movies in general, I anticipated that this one would be great - and as for the gorilla effects, They were quite good, however - that is the only thing I can write about this flop. The film claims to be based on a true story but in effect, it does not even come close to what actually happened to "Buddy" - who in real life, was the famous Gargantua, sold to Ringling Bros. by our supposed "heroic" Gertrude Lintz, known by many animal enthusiasts as a woman who hardly had her animals' welfare in the best interest. As far as Buddy being portrayed as becoming aggressive, this was total fiction and at no time did the gorilla, in real life, resort to such behavior. buddy did, in fact, escape his wooden crate (not a plush cage room as depicted in movie) during a storm, to seek shelter and comfort in the house, which frightened Gertrude Lintz into selling him. No, Buddy was not released into a gorilla family surrounded by lush trees in a zoological paradise - he was abandoned in a wooden crate, deep in the back of a garage for some time with only a single light bulb for comfort and then sold to the circus - where he actually lived a better life having peanuts thrown at him until he died (historically the oldest living gorilla on record, by the way) before a show in Miami. Notice also, in the film, how Buddy grows older but the chimpanzees never age. (The chimps, by the way, were not raised simultaneously with other animals, including Buddy, as portrayed in the film)


Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from ****


Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.

Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.

Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.

Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast.


Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film "Blood For The Muse" is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca.


I've seen (far too) many flicks from this company - this one is about middle of the pack. One the good side, its a bit more stylized and under control than some of their fare - less of the sophomoric attempts at humor and more adherence to story (for what its worth). Many of their titles, like Sexy Sixth Sense, are buried by baaaad performances and an amateurish sensibility. On the other side, I found the simulated sex scenes not as hot as some of their other flicks (like Vampire Vixens, Gladiator Eroticus, Spiderbabe or Mistress Frankenstein).

Misty Mundae is always a 10 on the peter meter, as is Darian Caine. I found Barbara Joyce hot in a school-marm kinda way, and Ruby LaRocca a sexy little hottie.

Watch this with the remote firmly in your (free) hand, on a night when you need a break from porn. Don't waste your time wanting to check the story - you've got better things to do w/ your life. It is not a movie, it's pure T&A, but not bad by that standard.


As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.

Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.

There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.

Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.

Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen.


First of all my heartfelt commiserations to anyone who bought a cinema ticket in the hope of seeing a film in the same mould as the fantastic Gregory's Girl and Local Hero but ended up leaving the theatre feeling disappointed and vaguely cheated. While it's true that sequels are usually, bar a few notable exceptions, a mistake and exist merely to provide studio executives with an opportunity to cash in on the success of a previous film by offering us either a thinly disguised retread of the original story or a plot line so far removed from the intentions of the original that the resulting film makes no sense. In the case of Gregory's Two Girls, Bill Forsyth has the dubious honour of managing to commit both sins - on the one hand revisiting the plot of Gregory's Girl, while at the same time serving up a frankly incredible and moronic storyline involving Scottish arms dealers. Schoolboy Gregory is now a teacher at the same school where at the tender age of sixteen, he harboured a hopeless passion for the football playing Dorothy. Although now thirty five, Gregory still harbours a hopeless passion but now for the football playing Frances, also sixteen, despite the fact that music teacher, Bel has made it clear that she is attracted to him. His passion for Frances and his desire to impress her lead to his involvement in a scheme to expose a local arms dealer who also happens to be an old schoolfriend. There's no point in going any further as the rest of the story is forgettable and the ending makes no real sense at all. The main problem lies with the character of Gregory himself, in that there is no sign of the endearing and charming sixteen year old Gregory who actively and comically pursues Dorothy convinced that he would eventually win her over. At thirty five, Gregory is presented to us as a rather sad and friendless creature whose life is neither active nor comic. Outside of work his time is spent watching videos of Noam Chomsky and reading magazines about international injustices. As his friends and family from the previous film have seemingly vanished, save two pointless scenes with his younger sister, who no longer offers him advice or seems at all interested in his life, we are left confused about what it is Gregory really wants, who he is and why he is the way he is. Why for example is he friendless? Why does he never see his father, who is clearly still alive? Why has he returned to teach at the school he once attended? Why is he so interested in Noam Chomsky and injustice? Why has he become so apathetic? Why is he attracted to Frances? Why isn't he attracted to Bel until the last twenty minutes of the film? What in heaven's name do Bel or Frances see in him as he is neither drop dead gorgeous or even interesting? Why does he continue to try and impress Frances even after he and Bel have become an item and when their association threatens to completely disrupt his life? Are we really to believe that a Scottish arms dealer openly selling weapons of torture to oppressive regimes could manage to evade media scrutiny but fall foul of a couple of school-kids? Does Gregory really think that dumping a handful of computers into the sea will change anything? To make matters worse, actor John Gordon Sinclair attempts to rehash his performance as the adolescent Gregory right down to the facial expressions and awkward body language. Unfortunately on a thirty five year old it just comes across as odd and vaguely creepy. On top of that, it's hard to feel any sympathy for, or empathy with a teacher who has erotic dreams involving sex with one of their uniform wearing pupils while they both lie on a pile of gym mats. Rather than being amusing it simply smacks of paedophilia. It's hard to know what was going through Bill Forsyth's head when he wrote this script or why he thought fans of the original film would embrace a story so completely lacking in the charm, wit and warmth that turned the first movie into a classic. I can only assume that the plan was to craft a film about a man who was refusing to grow up and commit to adult life and perhaps whose happiest memory was of being sixteen and pursuing the best looking girl in the school but who by degrees is forced to accept that a life lived in the past is no life at all.That at least could have been the basis of a film which was thematically interesting and intelligent. As it is Gregory's Two Girls adds up 116 wasted and pointless minutes saying nothing and signifying even less. Gregory's Girl was responsible for launching Bill Forsyth's career, here's hoping that Gregory's Two Girls won't be responsible for sinking it.


Watched this film having really enjoyed Gregory's Girl many years ago. This was drivel. The plot was vaguely distasteful with the teacher and his friend perving over 14-15-year-old girls in very short skirts. Previous commenters seem to think that this doesn't matter, but I found it rather nasty. If you have children at school then the last thing you want is to think that every youngish teacher is lusting after his pupils. We were surprised that the censor let that through. Apart from that the film was just a waste of time. The script was poor and John Gordon Sinclair trying too hard to recreate his schoolboy image, slightly wacky and off the wall. Why anyone would want to lust after him in this performance is incredible. This film failed on all counts for me. Dreadful. Please don't waste your time watching it. Life's too short


This film is a travesty, and isn't fit to keep company with the superior original. The plot is an absolute mess, and the film is way too long. Everytime they're struggling, they desperately inject a sentimental reminder from the first film.

"Gregory's Girl" is one of the top 10 British films of all time, this one is awful.


This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.

Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)!

At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).

The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score.


I'm going to have to disagree with the previous comment and side with Maltin on this one. This is a second rate, excessively vicious Western that creaks and groans trying to put across its central theme of the Wild West being tamed and kicked aside by the steady march of time. It would like to be in the tradition of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but lacks that film's poignancy and charm. Andrew McLaglen's direction is limp, and the final 30 minutes or so are a real botch, with some incomprehensible strategy on the part of heroes Charlton Heston and Chris Mitchum. (Someone give me a holler if you can explain to me why they set that hillside on fire.) There was something callous about the whole treatment of the rape scene, and the woman's reaction afterwards certainly did not ring true. Coburn is plenty nasty as the half breed escaped convict out for revenge, but all of his fellow escapees are underdeveloped (they're like bowling pins to be knocked down one by one as the story lurches forward). Michael Parks gives one of his typically shifty, lethargic, mumbling performances, but in this case it was appropriate as his modern style sheriff symbolizes the complacency that technological progress can bring about.


I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion  good, bad, or surprising  don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western.


Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****


By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.

 It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.

 This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.


Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)


Damn, I thought I'd seen some bad westerns. Can't top this one though. Hell I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for a Trinity Triple Feature for cryin out loud. I dont think I'll be able to watch Ben Hur again without laughing my ass off. Just really bad.

But hey, if you like stupid westerns with acknowledged stars in the thing take a peek at Shoot Out with Gregory Peck. It's just as bad, but much funnier. 1/10


I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.

The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.

And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.

Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.

And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).

Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.

See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling

PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth.


I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.

A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.

I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment.


For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.

Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.

The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.

Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.

As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better.


To be a Buster Keaton fan is to have your heart broken on a regular basis. Most of us first encounter Keaton in one of the brilliant feature films from his great period of independent production: 'The General', 'The Navigator', 'Sherlock Jnr'. We recognise him as the greatest figure in the entire history of film comedy, and we want to see more of his movies. Here the heartbreak begins. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton's brother-in-law Joseph Schenck pressured him into signing a contract that put Keaton under the control of MGM. Keaton became just one more actor for hire, performing someone else's scripts. Then his alcoholism got worse. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton never again made a truly first-rate film. A couple of sources describe a would-be masterpiece comedy that Keaton claimed he *almost* got to make at MGM: a parody of 'Grand Hotel'. Biographer Tom Dardis has offered convincing evidence that Keaton made up this story.

The heartbreak increases because, among the many years of Keaton's long steady decline, he just occasionally came up with a good film ... such as his short comedy 'Grand Slam Opera'. I continue to search for the lost footage of Keaton's dramatic scene with Spencer Tracy in 'It's a Mad Mad World': a sequence in which embittered cop Tracy telephones an old retired crook (Keaton) and tries to recruit his assistance in stealing Smiler Grogan's cash. That footage is almost certainly gone forever, but I keep looking.

'Speak Easily', alas, is one of Keaton's films from the beginning of his decline. MGM were trying to build up Jimmy Durante (who, coincidentally, played Smiler Grogan three decades later) as a new comedy star. Unfortunately, MGM tried to build up Durante by teaming him with Keaton, whose style of comedy was simply incompatible with Durante's. (I'm a fan of both.) Throughout his career, Durante was a merciless scene-stealer: commendably, he knew that he was being built up at Keaton's expense, and Keaton was the only co-star whom Durante never attempted to upstage.

Keaton was often cast as the victim of extremely cruel machinations. In 'Speak Easily', he plays a didactic and humourless Midwestern college professor named Post (because he's as wooden as one) who receives a letter informing him that he's inherited $750,000, which he must travel to New York City to claim. Does he make a 'phone call to verify this? Does he even check the postmark? No; he takes his life's savings out of the bank and rushes to New York. As soon as he's gone, Post's manservant confesses that he wrote the (fake) letter to jostle Professor Post out of his rut!

Post, who thinks he's a 3/4-millionaire, crosses paths with Jimmy Dodge (Durante), who's trying to produce a musical revue but hasn't any money. The characters which these two brilliant comedians are playing onscreen simply fail to intermesh. Keaton is playing one of those eggheads (like Mister Logic in 'Viz') who intellectualises everything. Durante plays one of those annoying hepcats who is incapable of making any straightforward statement because the script requires him always to speak in slang. There's a painfully unfunny dialogue scene in which Durante is trying to talk to Keaton about money, but - instead of coming straight out with it - Durante has to use increasingly contrived slang terms like 'kale', 'cartwheels' and so forth ... while Keaton of course has no idea what Durante's on about. I'll give Keaton credit: his own dry and dusty prairie voice, his flat Kansas accent, is absolutely perfect for the character he's playing here.

Sidney Toler, looking much leaner and more handsome here than he would be just a year later, is impressive as the excitable director of the revue bankrolled (on tick) by Professor Post. Henry Armetta, whom I've never found funny, is even less funny than usual here, offering a running gag with a stupid payoff. Thelma Todd impressed me here, in a more villainous version of the role she played in 'Horse Feathers' (a much funnier movie). Edward Brophy, one of my favourite character actors, is wasted.

Part of the problem with 'Speak Easily' is that supporting characters behave in completely inappropriate ways. Keaton's lawyer shows up at Durante's theatre with an urgent message for Keaton ... but he isn't there, so the lawyer proceeds to divulge Keaton's personal business to the first total stranger he meets. (Fire that lawyer, Buster!) In another scene, Professor Post - the guy who's perceived as bankrolling this musical - blunders into the chorus girls' changing room, and all the chorus girls immediately squeal and cover themselves. I know for a fact that *modern* chorus girls would never react this way, and I seriously doubt that chorus girls in 1932 behaved that way either ... certainly not in response to the 'angel' controlling their show's pursestrings.

SPOILERS COMING. About half an hour into the unfunny 'Speak Easily', the great Jimmy Durante seats himself at the piano, grins into the camera, and does that distinctive little shake of his head as he starts to play a tune. This is the moment when I thought that, at long last, this movie was finally going to settle down to its purpose of entertaining us. Alas, no. Most annoying of all is the ending of this film, which uses the single most hackneyed and implausible cliche in all of comedy: the one in which an utterly incompetent dimwit becomes a star comedian through his own ineptitude. (Keaton would be forced to replay this cliche in a 1955 episode of 'Screen Directors Playhouse'; Chaplin had already used it in 'The Circus'.)

I very nearly wept - in anger and sorrow - at the wasted opportunities in 'Speak Easily'. Mostly out of respect for the work that Keaton, Durante, Toler, Brophy and Miss Todd have done elsewhere, I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.


What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films.

I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film?

No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.

MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable.

What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent.

And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get.

There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece.


Watching "Speak Easily" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz.

Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, "Tell me about the rabbits, George." (Post would have said something like, "Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help.

There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.

If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch "Speak Easily" with friends, a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.