This flaccid remake of Hitchcock's excellent thriller 'Dial M For Murder' dumps not only that great title but numerous chunks of the clever plot, and replaces them with twists of its own that are either predictable or old hat. Michael Douglas takes over from Ray Milland as a slimy rich chap married to unfaithful Gwyneth Paltrow; he blackmails her lover (Viggo Mortenson) into murdering her, but both his scheme and the movie go chronically wrong. The only good bits here are derived from the original play and Hitch's film, but it doesn't make a lot of difference as they're drowned in a stew of padding, unnecessary additional scenes and needless peripheral characters. Possibly the most visible blunder is that the murder set-up is far from perfect, although that's rivalled by silly plot holes like the one in which Douglas goes to Mortenson's apartment to retrieve his wife's wedding ring, thereby removing evidence of a connection between them, but neglects to do anything about the six-foot-wide painting OF HER FACE. An improvement on the original in no way whatsoever.


Definite Spoilers Ahead. Please don't read if you haven't seen the film yet and want to be surprised.

My biggest question -- why do directors/producers think viewers are stupid? Maybe most people just sit back and enjoy the ride...but why spend so much time and money to make a beautiful-looking movie like this, populated with some fairly good actors, and based on a good, classic story, if you don't care enough about the story to employ a thoughtful writer or two?

Anyway...this movie has too many plot holes to count, but here are the most glaring, in my opinion.

Why would Emily leave a comfortable, hot bath to answer the phone? In such a lushly appointed apartment, it's hard to believe it doesn't have an answering system or built-in voice mail. And even if it doen't, there's been no sign that it's going to ring an annoyingly long time when Emily starts moving to answer it.

Why was Steven so easily dismissed as a suspect -- just because he was "on the phone" during the attack? Of course he didn't commit the attack -- the attacker is DEAD. His having an alibi for the time of the attack does not clear him of arranging it. If he was even considered for a moment, he wasn't a suspect for committing the attack, but for planning it...and his "alibi" doesn't clear him of that.

Steven was so careful about so many parts of his "perfect murder plan" -- why would he so sloppily toss the cell phone out of his car, on his way from the poker game? If it were found (which it never was, apparently) the fact that it was on his return route would be pretty incriminating. There are plenty of places, like the East River, to toss something.

It's obvious the dead man lived in a very scary neighborhood (Emily visits and it's pretty dangerous looking) -- so we're supposed to believe the killer only used one key and had one lock on his door? I live in a nice part of New York and there are four locks between the apartment and the outside world -- but Emily was able to get into that apartment with just one key. Doubtful.

When Steven confronts Emily, it becomes a complication that there's something at the artist's loft connecting him to them: her wedding ring. Steven says he'll go get it. WHY does it matter if that connection exists? There are obviously many others they can't do anything about -- like the negatives to the photos he's just shown her; money that he's confessed to paying the artist; at least one of her friends who knows about the affair. And, he's supposedly a blackmailer, so wouldn't one assume he has some hidden "proof"? Why does it matter that the ring is in the loft? Surely, no matter what, Steven and Emily don't think they're going to be able to pretend Emily never had an affair with David!?

When Steve hands over money in Washington Square Park, David tells him the tape is a "commemerative copy" -- there's been no guarantee (that we've heard, at least) that there's no other copy of the tape. Who would assume that was the only copy??? And of course, we soon learn it wasn't.

If your husband tried to have you killed, and you had the proof (the tape), would you confront him (even with a gun in your pocket) or get the heck out and go to the police?

Of course David was recording the murder plot, when Steven laid it out at his own apartment. Why wouldn't he? If Steven was such a good planner, why would he not "shake down" David to make sure he didn't have a tape recorder? It would be in character not to trust him.

Argh! I want back the time I wasted watching this thing....


This is a good movie, the more I watch it the more I like it. When I first viewed this movie I thought it was ok, but when we bought the video it began to grow on me. The acting is excellent, and the story twists along at a good pace. Douglas is a good actor and his performance alone is worth renting this film.


A fine cast (Douglas, Paltrow, Mortensen, Suchet) was wasted in this feeble attempt. There were simply too many illogical holes to ignore and at the end you will feel cheated. I'll list just a few as examples. I would encourage you read on, so you may save your money and go rent Hitchcock's original instead.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD*****

1. David was just a con artist, so what made Steven think he could be turned into a hired killer?. Sure enough it didn't work, did it?

2. In fact, David as a con artist was much more likely to try blackmail. Sure enough, David tapped the incriminating conversation. Now that he had the tape, he could easily get $400K (or even more) from Steven. So why bother to kill (or contract out some thug to kill) Emily at all?? This is totally ABSURD. David just wanted to con some money and get out of town as he always did, with no incentive to kill his lover at this stage.

3. When detective Karaman mentioned the missing key, Emily said nothing and went into Latino slum and tried to play detective herself. It just does not make any sense. Emily obviously would not protect Steven at that point since she not only didn't love him anymore but also had a reasonable belief that the thug was hired by her husband to kill her for her inheritance. Moreover, she and Karaman clearly developed a sense of mutual trust, so she logically would show Karaman the missing key and let him do the investigation (after all he's a police).

4. The explanation Steven tried to spin on Emily about the missing key did not make sense at all. He claimed he took the key, put it on Emily's key chain and jammed the door lock because he thought the thug was David getting in with Emily's key and he tried to protect Emily's reputation. Then, he claimed the thug turned out to be just a burglar. Well, if that thug did not use Emily's key and did not pick the lock, how on earth he got in??

5...

I did find one quote to be ironically hilarious. When they met at the ferry, Steven told David that they should wait and carry on business as usual. When Steven started to walk away, David asked, with a deadpan face, "Should I continue screw your wife?"


When I first watched this movie, I thought of it as a "remake" of Dial M for Murder. I thought that it was really bad, seeing as how it's a "remake". But, after I thought of it as the same theme with a similar story, I started liking it more. I actually saw this before I saw Dial M for Murder, but although this was a good story I still found the original better. The acting in A Perfect Murder was very good. It was much better than I would have ever expected. This movie can't even be compared to Alfred Hitchcock's 'Dial M for Murder'. It still has a good plot. But, I wouldn't think of it as a "remake" because I was stuck trying to compare the two movies together, and it made this movie look really bad.


This movie was hard to rate. I initially thought I would give it a 9, but finally decided that it was an 8. Actually, it was an 8.4999, but with rounding....

I enjoyed virtually every minute of this film. The fact that it was a remake is of ZERO importance to me. I must assume from the many people who complained about it being a remake and whether it was, or was not, as good as the original Hitchcock film or whether it lived up to some preconceived notion as to what it was supposed to be or whether it deviated too far from the original... I must assume that those people (on average) liked it less. But, since only one out of one hundred (at most) of the people seeing this movie have ever seen/remember Dial M for Murder, then logic dictates that 99% of the population will enjoy it considerably more than the 1%. Of course, the odds are good that the 1% is on imdb.

This is a smart, stylish, well acted suspense thriller. It covers the bases significantly better than the average thriller. I had very few questions pertaining to flaws in logic or timing than normal. In fact, after asking my wife why this and why that and getting extremely good answers, I ultimately was left with a desire to have modified only a couple very minor things. And, that's pretty darn good for me!

This movie is a credit to all involved. I have to admit that I was caught off guard several times despite knowing how it would end. What makes a mystery really good is when the audience is asking - literally minutes before the end - how are they going to do it? We know what must be done, but we just can't seem to see the avenue to doing it.


I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. Michael Douglas as Steven Taylor is absolutely brilliant and sinister, and the best aspect of this story is that you don't find out why he wants really wants his wife murdered until later in the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow as Emily Bradford Taylor is also a great character, because although she is having an affair with another man, she's prepared to come clean with her husband before he tries to have her murdered. She is also tough and resourceful enough to survive the attack, and then smart enough to put the pieces together afterward.


As a die-hard Hitchcock fan, I reluctantly watched this film expecting a less than commendable remake. To my utter surprise, I was more than wrong. This film was very well made. It effectively brought Dial M into the nineties. The plot was actually plausible. Another surprise for me. After hearing the difference between Perfect and Dial M I thought it outrageous, but it works. Douglas and Paltrow's chemistry make the couple seem truly what the screen portrays. This movie was indeed a pleasure for me to see. Like Hitchcock's films, I'll watch it over and over again.


Okay, okay, so you hear magazines complain about this remake of the old Hitchcock movie (Dial M For Murder) and ditch it without a second thought. Get over it. This movie is almost as good, with some very talented actors, and plenty of twists. For those who haven't seen the original, you'll like this one even more.

The story goes something like this: You have an apparently doting husband who is going through some financial struggles, and his wife, an apparently faithful lady, who, unlike her hubby, is doing quite well. When the husband discovers that his wife is having an affair, he hires her lover to kill her. And the fun begins. Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow and Viggo Mortensen are sublime (and convincing) as the lead characters, and for those who complain about A Perfect Murder being a remake, or for those who complain about the older man/younger woman relationship, (something for which other movies such as Entrapment are guilty of too) put those two facts aside and remember that this is just a movie, cleverly made, with more surprises than an episode of Melrose Place (although I can't say that show appeals to me).

Give A Perfect Murder the credit it deserves. It's a great film.


I can honestly say that there was nothing about this movie that bothered me. I truly enjoyed the whole film experience. Gwyneth was wonderful as was Mr. Douglas and Mr. Moretenson. I realize that a few people have complained about the older man - younger woman relationship, but who cares? It's a movie. Deal with it. A decent thriller worth your time. Way better than one of Gwyneth's other thriller movies "Hush" - that one was horrendous. This movie was quite tense - not so much as say "Seven", but it was still an enjoyable watching experience. I recommend this film if you enjoy thrillers.


On the whole not a bad film. I may have been influenced by the fact that I didn't have to pay to see it but I would say that this film is a reasonable attempt at a remake and will prove fairly entertaining to most people, whether or not they have seen the original. On the whole, certainly not the worst remake ever. 7/10


I had not seen Dial M for Murder before I watched this film, so I had very few expectations about this film. I felt that the actors did well in the roles that they played, although this is not one of Michael Douglas's best roles (I think one of his better performances was in Romancing the Stone, or Wall Street). Overall this movie was an enjoyable way to pass the time, but not a movie that provokes discussion or debate. I was definitely glad I rented it, rather than paid full price at the theatre.


It's refreshing to see a movie that has very little sentimental value, but where the villains get exactly what they deserve. Gwyneth Paltrow is outstanding as the heroine who has an affair with an ill-advised lover. Michael Douglas, trying to avoid being typecast as the rich business tycoon he has played a lot of recently, is now a rich business tycoon who tries to kill his wife. The plot, though not entirely believable, at least made some sense, no small triumph in today's mystery/thriller genre. I understand that this film is a re-make of a Hitchcock movie, but unlike many, this one was a worthwhile effort.


This is an excellent mystery thriller. It's probably the best remake of a Hitchcock film to date. The many plot twists, turns and surprises kept me riveted to the screen. Michael Douglas is excellent as always, Gwyneth Paltrow vulnerable and gorgeous as the wife and newcomer Viggo Mortensen is suitably oily and cunning as the third member of the triangle. Its not Hitchcock but I'm sure that he wouldn't object to this film. Highly recommended.


Though I liked DIAL M FOR MURDER, this is not one of Hitchcock's classics, so the idea of a remake doesn't turn me off. And for the first 2/3, things are fine, especially since director Davis and writer Kelly add a twist on the "murder" that's smart and surprising. Douglas has played this part before, but he does it well, and Mortenson is good as well. But then there's a dumb twist thrown in near the end, and both Paltrow and David Suchet as the detective (who, as played by John Williams, was the best part of the original) are left twisting in the wind.


A Perfect Murder is spell-binding until the horror movie cliche ending. This film is very tight and the more you pay attention you can see the characters working things out with the audience. It's a near miss for me, but the film just left me empty at the end. I will say that Michael Douglas enjoys playing a villain in this movie so much that you can see a smile in his eyes at the joy of being utterly evil. Worth a look.


Overall a pretty good movie, but it needed a new ending. The ending was sudden and felt so final.. Did not leave you with a satisfied feeling for the movie.


She simply didn't fit the role. Here's Douglas looking suave and rotten rich while Paltrow has that lost waif look of hers that has its place but not here.


I liked the movie a lot because the two leads- Douglas and Paltrow look and are great. Douglas looks good for a middle age man, and I like the idea of his being married to a gorgeous young highly intelligent woman. Paltrow is young, very beautiful in a sexy sleek Audrey Hepburn way. The plot is kind of obvious, but the script and dialogue are good, and the movie pace is fine. Douglas and Harrison Ford are the two best male actors today. Maybe it is a little uncommon for a young, beautiful very wealthy woman to be married to an older man, but that doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.


I like the story very much. Also the cast was great. The detective and every actor in this movie was just great. Highly recommend!


For those of you who have not seen the Hitchcock classic "Dial M For Murder" on which "A Perfect Murder" is based, let's just say they are two equally suspenseful films that are in many ways similar but in many more rather different. I enjoyed this film's interesting plot twists and found Paltrow's performance stunning. A lot of people don't see her as a real actress, but in this movie she turned in magnificent and convincing acting. I commend the makers of "A Perfect Murder" for playing on Hitch's 50's masterpiece, and adding their own unique touch to this heartpounding suspenser. Rating: B


I have seen "A Perfect Murder" twice - once in a theater, once on video. It was a sleek, suspenseful entertainmnet.

Does it get points off for being a remake of Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"? Not really.

In the sense that there's too much talent in the world to warrant droves of remakes, I suppose that can be held against the film. Still, 'The Master of Suspense' did not have a perfect track record. "Dial M..." was one of his weaker efforts. Based on a hit Broadway play, the film was directed by Hitch for two reasons. He owed Warner Brothers a movie under his contract, which, as I recall, had him doing a project he loved [perhaps "Rear Window"] in exchange for "Dial M...". He also was intrigued with the new 3-D process, which was to be used in the Grace Kelly/Ray Milland potboiler.

"A Perfect Muder" has many differences from the original. It has had a definite update. It covers very familiar gound plot-wise, but it does so in that sleek, stylish Hollwood mode. In substance, it's a Subaru. In style, it's a Lexus.


I liked it better than the Hitchcock version, Dial M for Murder. Most of the stars measure up, except for Gwyneth Paltrow, who

reminded me of Twiggy.


Finally! After 30 some odd years, I finally got the chance to see The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure in its entirety. In the early 70s, one of the local UHF channels ran repeats of the Mickey Mouse Club from the 50s. Included was the daily serial The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure. For whatever reason, I never got to see the whole thing. So for over 30 years I was left wondering about the show and what happened and how the mystery was resolved. And for 30 years, I've had the theme song stuck in my head. I'm very happy Disney released this series.

So was it worth the wait? You betcha! While The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure may not have been as "spooky" as I remembered, it was a lot of fun reliving this moment of my childhood. The story is solid in that innocent, child-friendly, 50s sort of way. Remember, this is a serial designed for kids and made more than 50 years ago. The acting is actually quite good. While neither Tommy Kirk nor Tim Considine is what I would call a world-class actor, both give it their all and are a joy to watch. The supporting players are just as good (if not better in some cases) with Arthur Shields, Florenz Ames, and Carole Ann Campbell really shining. The sets are much better than I remembered. Sure, it's all stage-bound, but the Applegate Tower looked as good as I remembered. The direction is capable at a minimum with the usually dependable Charles Haas at the helm. Overall, it's a good show.

Disney has released The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure as part of their Walt Disney Treasures line. While I didn't really care about seeing the Mickey Mouse Club stuff or some of the other extras, the overall package is very nice. It makes for a very welcome addition to my DVD library.


My first exposure to the Hardy Boys came courtesy of this serial from the Mickey Mouse Club. It was after seeing this that I bought a load of the Hardy Boys kids novels to read. Those two certainly did have some adventuresome lives.

No doubt that later incarnations of the boys with Parker Stevenson and Shaun Cassidy in the Seventies and later for Canadian television Paul Popowich and Colin K. Gray in the Nineties were good in their day, but Tommy Kirk and Tim Considine will be the quintessential Hardy Boys for this former devoted Mouskaviewer.

The film is based on the very first of the Franklin K. Dixon novels which came out in the Roaring Twenties, The Tower Treasure. The Disney Studio nicely updated the story to fit into the Fifties. The boys get wind of a secret treasure hidden in the dark secluded mansion of miser Applegate. Somebody's taking very seriously the legend that pirate gold is hidden there. And miser Applegate, played by Florenz Ames isn't a guy to ask for help.

In the books the Hardy Boys did have a living mother who was not a really memorable character, just your average good mom. Their father is Fenton Hardy, formerly of the NYPD and now a famous private detective. In this serial, he's played by Russ Conway.

But the show made Fenton a widower and had Sarah Selby as their constantly interfering Aunt Gertrude. She was in the books as well, but here she was the female of the house. Half the time Kirk and Considine were trying to outfox her to get to their sleuthing business. Selby was memorable I have to say.

However what you will remember best is that Treasure Island pirate theme song of the serial about 'gold doubloons and pieces of eight' that is guaranteed to rattle around in your brain for weeks upon hearing it.

The Disney channel used to run all these old shows, but around 2000 just surrendered and now run their new shows on the cable network. Hopefully stuff like this will see the light of day again.


In the technical sense this is "limited" animation - the handful of animators (just four are credited) charged with bringing the story to life restrict themselves, when they can, to less than the full 24 frames per second, and often use all manner of cunning tricks to avoid having to animate at all. But the animation is emphatically NOT limited in any other sense. Neither the story, nor the world, nor the characters' freedom to move and breathe and think, has been constricted in any way; the animation (like the artwork generally) is simply GOOD, and there's an end to it. If your experience of "limited" animation is "South Park", you can be forgiven for thinking that "limited" is just a polite synonym for "bad", since "South Park" looks crude and awkward and just plain awful even when compressed to fit the tiniest of TV screens. But the glorious animation of "Grendel Grendel Grendel" expands to fill a wide cinema screen with no effort whatever.

To be blunt, "Grendel Grendel Grendel" is among the best animated features ever made: funny, sad, tense, relentlessly intelligent, what have you. If I say that there's a dragon who makes veiled allusions to Wittgenstein, that might convey something of the film's flavour; on the other hand, you might suspect this to be a sample of the kind of pointless eccentricity which film-makers (animators in particular) indulge in so that they won't be accused of being mainstream, and for no other reason. Not a bit of it. The film doesn't make a single false move or strike a single false note: every joke flows naturally out of its surroundings, and the film seems to be doing nothing so much as taking a healthy, childlike delight in its (surprisingly rich) material. I'm not saying this because I'm Australian. I'm as surprised that an animated movie this good was made in Australia, as anyone else. I'm even more surprised (despite the fact that it WAS made in Australia) that it's relatively unknown. You owe it to yourself to see it.


I got a hold of a VHS copy of this movie recently after watching it as a child over and over again. Evidently hard to find in America, this film depicts the story of Beowulf from the monsters point of view.

Sort of your typical tragedy of misunderstanding,(which we all secretly love..) this film did a lot for me as a kid. As the daughter of one of those progressive 60's moms, strange foreign cartoons were always finding their way to our VCR. It's taken me almost 20 years to find a copy of this on amazon.

This is just a kick butt cartoon.

In a world full of imported 2 year old spoon fed animation, it's kind of nice to go back and see what cartoons where like when people were kind of just experimenting. Movies like Rock 'n' Rule, Twice Upon a Time and pretty much anything by Ralph Bakshi were tearing down the walls of traditional cartooning and challenging children and adults to get something out of their Saturday morning rituals.

If you're a fan of indie cartoons, do yourself a favor and watch this film. It's not mind blowing by any means, but it is indeed a thought provoking little film, voiced very well and animated in a really interesting style. I have lovely memories of this cartoon, and i'm proud to own it once again.


Grendel, Grendel, Grendel is a truly fantastic animated film based on the monster Grendel in the ancient Beowolf legend. It is one of my all time favourite films. The film is viewed from the point of view of Grendel the monster. He's one of those big, burly, wise, innocent and doomed monsters that legends are made of. The film works on a variety of levels. The visuals are great - bold deep colours. The soundtrack is ultra lounge and very James Bond. The story is wonderful. It is entertaining and deep, funny and sad, and has wisdom and wit thrown in as well. It's never dull, cutesy or mundane. The depth of the story, its smooth and quite referencing to wider stories, legends and theories allows interesting interpretations from a range of perspectives - mythological, historical, or psychoanalytical. It is a feel good movie with depth, design and spark. If you ever get to see the film then make sure you do.


This movie tale brings to life the classic story in a way that makes it the best retelling of it I've ever seen. Music, a handsome wolf, and a depth of plot that is hardly ever seen in a story that was once so basic.

There are a bunch of great songs in this movie:

So good at being bad

You should never talk to strangers

Blue in the green

You won't be there in the morning

The man without a heart

My favorite quote:

"King: You don't love anything, do you?

Dagger: I love hunting with the pack under a full moon..I love a romantic dinner by candlelight..The two don't seem to go together do they?


I caught this movie on TV the other night, and it was so bad, I was forced to watch the whole thing. Its a retelling of the fairytale-remade as a musical with Craig T. Nelson playing two roles and the always lovely Isabella Rosellini as Little Red Riding Hoods Mother.I'm not sure if the intended audience are children or adults, but I doubt either would be satisfied. The songs -lyrics and music are abysmal and most of the actors can barely carry a tune. Poor Craig T. Nelson, who I've enjoyed elsewhere, was hammy and ridiculous as the evil king.The young actress playing Red Riding Hood had one singing voice for the ballad and another for an up tempo song.If you enjoy unintentional farce, if you are a MSTK3 fan who can imagine Crow and Tom Servo dissecting this-you'll enjoy this movie.


'Banzai, banzai, and see how you like it...' is the only line I really remember from this movie, but ironically, I remember many scenes. I saw it over and over again when I was around 9-11 (over 40 yrs ago), and would be interested to see how it has aged. I'm somewhat afraid that it would be laughable, but judging from the other comments, I also wouldn't be surprised to see the opposite. I most of all remember how it made the whole world war more real to me, as I watched youngsters my age fight the hated Japanese.

The high rating I give it is based ENTIRELY on what a 9 yr old boy would have rated it back then, but it's all I have right now. So....has anybody anywhere seen this movie for the last 30 years, or know where to find it?


I saw this movie many times in the early 1950's on TV in Los Angeles. I think it is one of the best war movies I have ever seen. I have been looking for it on video for several years. I hope that Turner or someone else will put it on video.


I also saw this movie when I was young on TV in Los Angeles. It has not shown up anywhere that I'm aware of for nearly 40 years.

"China's Little Devils" is a Monogram Picture. Monogram became Allied Artists in the early 50's. They were bought by Lorimar in (I believe) the 80's. The Lorimar catalog was purchased by (again, I believe) Turner Entertainment which was itself acquired by Warners. I hope I've got the "line of authority" straight! But I'm certain that Warners now owns "China's Little Devils" and hopefully we may one day see a video release of this basically forgotten gem from WWII. Warners has released other Monogram titles, so hope is there.


I saw this in the early 1950's broadcast in Minneapolis/St. Paul between late 1953 and 1956. It made a big impression upon me so that I do remember the name but only some sketchy scenes. For an 8 or 10 year old it was exciting.

I never saw it rebroadcast and had almost convinced myself that it was a figment of imagination.

I too would like to view this film to see if it "holds up" over time or would be as laughable as "Action in the North Atlantic" which is only shown now because it has Bogart. Would this movie compare or contrast to "The Big Red One", "Tora, Tora, Tora", "Das Boot" or "All Quiet on the Western Front"?


This is a great movie for those who grew up in the 1950's. I didn't. I wasn't born until 1962, but when I was a young tyke, I had to see this movie from the moment I saw the TV spot advertising it on television. Dad and I went out to the newest theater in Austin-- the four-plex was the newest and biggest theater in the Austin area, with an name to mystify those reading the ads ~~~~The Aquarius 4, it was called. The movie was loaded with all kinds of footage from the 1950's, and included in this footage was some ancient looking film clips of the students in High School in Hicksville, NY. These students were demonstrating good and bad dress codes. On the left of the teacher were the ones dressed poorly with t-shirts, 'dungarees', open toed shoes, etc. And on the right, a group of kids that would make today's 90210 crowd look like the Peanut Gallery. In addition to this footage, there was other footage showing the fads of the day, the cars, Chuck Berry's tour bus sitting in a junk yard, and all kinds of things that I had never seen at the age of 11 or so. It was a collage of old films and reminders of an era past that people were trying to remember by the early 1970's. The makers of this film used a technique where they had one inmage on one side of the screen and another image on the other side. So, while the footage would roll on the right, you would see a modern-day Chuck Berry singing in concert. The film was half concert and half archival footage. It was a great film. The Shirelles were in the show live as was Little Richard, Fats Domino, Bill Haley, and Chuck Berry. The 5 Satins did a set too and let us not forget that 'guitar playing fool', Bo Diddley. Bo was there with his rectangular guitar, a pimp's hat with a feather and his uniquie timekeeping abilities. It was a memorable show. For some reason the makers of this film never released this again. It isn't on video, I have never seen it on television that I know of and all attempts at finding it on my favorite film guage (16mm) are futile. The only thing that I have been able to locate is a tv spot from the movie and this is valuable to me for the reasons above. I recommend this movie highly and I will never forget my experience with having seen this movie.


This movie begins with the opening lines to Shirley and Lee's "Let the Good Times Roll." I started singing along, and sang along to every single song until the very end. The punchline: I was there with two guys I worked with, who barely knew me, and there were only about fifty people in the theater. What a movie! It rocked from beginning to end... The stars in this movie were the Beatles of their day, the Stones of their day... Many of them have made major comebacks due to Public TV extravaganzas (So, where's the DVD?) The split screen is fun, giving the movie a pretentious look: "This is serious business, younsgters" on one side of the screen, and "We're having a whale of a time" on the other side of the screen. I have begun a campaign to get it re - released -- I kid you not! I want my DVD!


A group of about ten of us in our early 30s, who worked in the music business in the 60s and 70s: musicians, manager, publicist, tour manager... went to the premier of Let The Good Times Roll at the Dominion, Tottenham Court Road, London. The screen was full-size and we had great seats. The excitement of watching and listening to those legends is still with me and I especially remember the amazement that registered on Chubby Checker's face when he saw the enthusiastic response he was getting from the crowd so many years after his hit version of Hank Ballard's Twist. I had never seen the Five Satins and they remain in my memory as great performers that I'd enjoy seeing more of, but I haven't heard anything of this great movie since. Would love to see it again, own it, DVD or VHS - show my young friends, nephews and nieces! The time is ripe to release it on DVD, kids are really interested in searching through the archives and finding original great music - they'd love this.


This was my introduction into Rock and Roll. My mother paid for my friends and me to see this movie on my 12th birthday. It was running with the Lords of Flatbush. After the movie I just had to find out who those performers were. I did not understand how the audience knew the words to all those songs I had never heard. This movie was very influential in my life. I had seen Bill Haley and the Comets of course. I knew of Chuck Berry, but it seems he did "My Dingaling" and reelin' and rockin'. These were very controversial lyrics. Also I only knew Robert Riener from "All in the family" I did not know he was a director. I did find this movie for sale here http://shop.vendio.com/supersounds/item/944867200/index.html


Will we be talking about a "rockumentary" film twenty or thirty years from now featuring performances by "N'Synch", Britney Spears and Red Hot Chili Peppers? I would think probably not.

BUT... HERE is a film, though made more than thirty years ago, with performances by some of the greatest artists of their time, many of which are STILL performing today! This film was as close to a religious experience as it could be. I, too, would buy this film, should it become available.

And, I, too, ask the question regarding the soundtrack album: WHERE the bloody #$*@&( ~! is CHUCK BERRY?????????


"Let the Good Times Roll" will be screened Saturday, 9/19 in the Packard Theater at the Library of Congress Packard Campus Audiovisual Conservation Center in Culpeper, VA. The screening is free, but reservations are advised. Call (540) 827-1079, x79994, or (202) 707-9994. This is the third film in a Rock and Roll series that also includes "Ferry Cross the Mersey" on Friday, 9/18/09 at 7:30 pm, and "The Big TNT Show" on Saturday, 9/19 at 7:30 pm. Also showing with "Ferry Cross the Mersey" will be "Rhythm 'n' Greens" starring the Shadows. The theater is located at 19053 Mount Pony Road, Culpeper, VA. More details: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2009/09-161.


Boats Out of Watermelon Rinds (Karpuz Kabugundan Gemiler Yapmak) is a most charming film out of Turkey. It follows a teenage boy, Recep, working as an apprentice for the local Happy Watermelon Man. His mother is evil (involved in some unexplained human-ear baking ring), but a nearby woman wants to take him under his wing. "Auntie" as he calls her, is somewhat flirtatious and very much weird. Recep has a crush on her eldest daughter, who resents him.

The youngest daughter is infatuated with Recep, who doesn't take her seriously.

On the side, Recep is also trying to build his own movie theatre with two friends. They've got the film, the wooden projector box, a light and lens. Now all they need is to find a way to manually move the film at 24 frames a second.

Boats is witty, wonderful and at times, weird. It's a what Cinema Paradiso would be if David Lynch directed it. It is not perfect. There is a lull about 2/3rds into the movie that is hard to ignore. But this is one of those rare smart films for the whole family.


The actual nice things in the movie are small details like the secret eating of the walnut by the elder sister,like the scene of epilepsy attack of Deli Omer...- In the beginning of the movie,there was a scene o a cat moving around a man crying which is shot totally incidentally,is making you feel good ,happy but not...and immediately after the dead man comes alive and you feel peculiar... During all the time,during all that childish love stories you actually expect the explanation of that coming back to life scene and it is explained actually in the end when Recep promises Deli Omer to bring alive his dead wife.


This is movie depicts the typical characteristics of Turkish villages and draws attention to the social relationships between people engaging in humor. Another pro for this movie is that although it is a local movie, it draws attention to pure feelings such as love and innocence.

Especially Turkish people should see it as soon as possible, that is because this movie is referred to the Turkish audience firstly. I do not know if another versions of this movie in other languages exist, but if it does, then everybody who sees cinema as an interpretation of pure feelings must watch it.

Personally, this movie provided me with the knowledge about the life outside the urban areas and gave me a great happiness.

Thanks to the director for such an admirable movie.


First this movie shows that money is not very important to create a movie. The story and the thriller takes you from the beginning to the end. The stories powerful characters are two kids this makes the intention powerful. Both kids are very shy and kindhearted. The story consists of determination, money, love, friendship and the family.

I live in Ankara capital city of the Turkey and I also went to Kutahya before. The point of view is very very good. The life in the villages is like that. These are for real I heard a lot of stories like that. This movie is describes for my grandfather's generation very much. All the persons who are in my age know a lot of stories like that for our parents childhoods. For example my father gives this movie may be 9 out of 10 :) The cinemas takes his attention very much I think.

Not much more to say about movie. Watch it pretty good. I like it very much I think every one will...


Watermelons, boats, boats from watermelon rinds - clearly this is a film about childhood! About that special kind of childhood of the East or maybe of the Past!

In childhood every detail is full of meaning, full of amusement, the near future holds grand plans and dreams, in childhood myths can have very real appearances, and there are many many summer minutes to spend with your friends, on the dried meadows of the village or maybe on the imaginary sands of the coast...

A childhood in the East: where townsmen are too poor but have their pride, where they still pay a lot of attention and appreciate the small details, where life repeats its slow rhythms and the future is blissfully far away. In the East myths still can have very real appearances, and there are many many daily moments to spend enjoying the simple blessings of God while waving off the flies in the hot air, chatting with your watermelon customers, or taking a nap!

I should warn you that just like our childhood, the film has no specific finale, it ends unexpectedly, taken away by the circumstances. One day we realise it has been gone for some time already, while we had still so much more plans and business to do with it...!

A humble, monumental and so necessary memory of times that will one day pass, and places that will soon change! Ashkolsun arkadashlar!


The director of that movie is a villager living in Kütahya(Turkey)and I'm living in the same city with him.this is his first movie and he recorded that movie with 10.000 USA dollars.

All the actors in that movie are the villagers.none of them r actors.But they create a perfect movie... Can u believe it?And that movie was awarded in various festivals in Europe...What a pure and perfect movie...It presents the pure but emotional lives of villagers and two kids...Watch that movie,it is nice.

First of the director Ahmet Uluçay creates good sense of vision.We can see the pure but colorful lives of people.


A very simple story with amateur casting can not impress me like this ever. It is about a passion of a two young people toward cinema, making their own projector with very primitive equipments. Their efforts are worth watching. Photography is perfect, every scene is a story itself, colored by the beautiful country side. Village and the villagers are so real that you get the impression as if you are watching a documentary about Turkish villages at the same time, showing the lifestyle, language, costumes, architecture, traditions, taboos and everything in a very lean way. A heartbreaking love story throws in a towel, very innocent but impossible because of the boundaries people set for their selves especially in Turkey. It makes you think how bright minds go in vein because of the lack of support or lack of facility. Fortunately imagination is all free. I am sure the filmmakers did not expect a box office, they put forth their hearts to display everything very sincerely and unreserved. Wish they can reach out the crowds.


For the last decade the Turkish cinema has been just churning out low-down comedies like Kahpe Bizans and Gora. This movie which has been called the Turkish Cinema Paradiso is one of those rare smart examples out of Turkish cinema.In the 60s in a small Anatolian village Recep and Mehmet are two youngsters, working as apprentices in a small town near their village. Recep helps a watermelon vendor, while Mehmet works with a barber. Crazily in love with cinema, they spend their evenings trying to make a makeshift film projector. One day, Recep meets a widow with two daughters who lives in the town and has come to pick unripe watermelons for her cows. Frequently visiting their home from then on to have tea or breakfast, Recep starts liking the elder daughter, Nihal. As for the girl, she is disturbed by having a peasant boy around the house and treats him as rudely as she can though she is also pretty much interested in catching attention of Recep. Her younger sister Guler, on the other hand, likes Recep, but the feeling is not mutual in that case.Towards the end of the movie we see the watermelon vendor selling all of his product by telling a one-liner: If you build up your ship out of watermelon you will sink down fast.Recept cannot be together with Nihal either because they turns out to have moved before he opens his feelings. So much to dream so little to realize!Impressive but not perfect! The two young actors look artificial at some points though their general performance is satisfactory enough! nevertheless this movie deserves acclaim on the grounds that it's not a potboiler produced out of commercial concerns!


This is a film from Turkey which tells one of the real stories of this land. It is a sincere work with suspense, you will pursue something that you don't know yet! The common problem of the movies in Turkey is about the subjects that they handle. They try to deal with the matters which have no effects on the audience, because they don't belong to us! Unlike the others, this movie is about our villages, our people, our way of thinking, our culture in short.

The main statement of the movie is "Hopes never die". Yes, life fights against you, but it will win when you give up! It says that the divine justice is not so immediate, you should be insistent!


I have never seen a movie like that. Not only the acting of the player is perfect but also it is almost unbelievable that none had every acted before. There is substantial number of new movies in Turkish cinema but Karpuz kabugundan gemiler yapmak is certainly among one of the three best movies played in the last decades.

What is so said is that Turkish film industry keeps using some useless actors and actresses instead of the players of this movie. The director gave them a good chance to show themselves somehow and they did great job and I can't fathom why they have not been asked for any other movie. I could not help saying that shame on those who are not able to make use of these new players' talent in Turkish movie industry. No wonder why we do not have a good movie industry any more. Just think you producers let me say lastly....


The Crow: Salvation (2000) is better than what I expected. Although the straight-to-video feel is apparent during the action scenes, Salvation is a really good sequel in the Crow series. Let me tell you, it's a lot better than City of Angels, which (in my opinion) just didn't capture the feel of the first Crow film. Anyway, the story this time around is this:

Lauren Randall (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) was brutally murdered by being raped and stabbed 53 times. Her boyfriend, Alex Corvis (Eric Mabius), is wrongfully accused and is sentenced to die by way of electrocution. Alex claimed that he was innocent, and that a man with strange markings on his arm is the real killer. Regardless, on Alex's twenty-first birthday, he is electrocuted. But due to lightning striking the prison, Alex receives more of a harsh death. It doesn't help that the man with the scar on his arm watched. The Crow brings Alex back from the dead to bring justice upon those who have killed Lauren and to find the scarred man. Since he was electrocuted, Alex's face is horribly burned. The men who did him wrong are Vincent Erlich (Dale Midkiff), Phillip Dutton (Bill Mondy), Stan Robbers (Walt Goggins), and Martin Toomey (Tim DeKay), all of whom are corrupted police officers. As Alex begins to kill the guilty, he proves his innocence to Lauren's sister Erin (Kirsten Dunst), who's deeply distraught over her sister's death. Erin's father Nathan (William Atherton) is also having trouble coping. As Alex is unleashing carnage upon the police officers, The Captain (Fred Ward) becomes extremely interested in Alex and the legendary Crow. Alex gets more than he bargained for, however, when his actions causes Erin to be in fatal danger.

The violence is of course bloody/gory, but this time it actually feels justified like the first time with Eric. Plus, it's always good to see police officers get theirs when death is knocking on the door. Alex uses his healing powers more often than his predecessors, either from the actual need to heal or just to be playful. A common occurrence in all three Crow movies seems to be that each hero is shot repeatedly by several people, which undoubtedly proves their short-lived immortality. Alex, unlike Ashe from the second film, has fun with his victims while he tortures/kills them. It's a better follow-up to the first film.

The acting was decent, but nothing mind-blowing. Eric Mabius seemed to have more fun doing the action scenes than the deep/heart-felt scenes (trust me, it shows). Kirsten Dunst, surprisingly, is both pretty and can act good. Everyone else isn't convincing in their roles. Sorry to make yet another comparison to the first film, but what made the first film stand-out is that the villains had depth and each one was unique. In both Crow sequels, the villains are introduced and then they face off with The Crow. Zero depth. Just all typical "tough" villains that try too hard to be considered evil/brutal.

While it's no masterpiece, Salvation pulls its weight and manages to be really good. Just skip over City of Angels and see this instead. Still, although it's not perfect, The Crow series is one of my personal favorite movie series. I can't wait to see what they do with the fourth one. I give The Crow: Salvation (2000) a 7 out of 10.


A wrongfully executed man named Alex(Eric Mabius), resurrected from the dead by the crow, returns with a vengeance to find the man with a scar on his arm that killed his beloved Lauren(Jodi Lyn O'Keefe). To find that man, Alex will first seek out the four men who falsely accused him on the witness stand which led to his death via electric chair. The crow will guide him on his journey to finding those responsible. Erin(Kirsten Dunst), Lauren's sister, and Peter Walsh(Grant Shaud;was Alex's attorney)are Alex's only allies in the search for retribution. Soon dirty cops are unmasked leading straight to the Captain(Fred Ward)and even Erin and Lauren's own father, Nathan(William Atherton). I like this film and think the reason it turns out better than I expected is due to the heart of the picture..one man's will to find the one's responsible for the death of his love. There is some strong talent in the cast for a direct-to-video feature and the young leads of Mabius and Dunst{..not to mention Ward, Atherton, Midkiff, and Shaud}bring much to this film. The film's budget is exceedingly lower, but I felt it makes up for it in keeping the plot simple instead of overloading us with an overkill of sick visuals. Now, that's not to say it doesn't lack punch and edge. There are some very gruesome moments indeed and much flesh is displayed, but the levels are down exceedingly. Plus, this film doesn't make out the perversion as beautiful, but with a disdain towards those young ones exploited{example being when Alex confronts the young girl tied to a pole in the strip club owned by the dirty cops}. The film doesn't speak highly for the cops on the force under the Captain. The world of this film isn't Gothic like the other two but just as corrupt. While the other two felt like they were set in a much darker time and place, this film feels closer to our time in modern society. That might turn some away who like the dark, noirish vision of the first two. But, I do feel the heart of the story is still here and the element of man's link with the crow is quite present here.


I saw this movie at the Brussels International Filmfestival on closing day, and I have to say it didn't convince me. It definatly had a sense of style to it, but the storyline (if there was any) was utterly confusing and very hard to follow. Kirsten Dunst is completely wasted in a small and weepy role as the daughter of a corrupt officer, and Eric Mabius as the Crow has a great presence although his dialogue is quite appaling and clichéd. The plot again evolves around the same subject as the previous two films. A guy is wrongfully accused of killing someone, but during his execution something goes wrong and somehow he is revived by a crow. From there on he goes on a quest to kill the men who killed him. So far so good, but from there on the movie rapidly goes downhill. Aside from some stylish action and a really great 'cop-nearly-abuses-young-girl scene', there is not much going on at all. 3/10


No disrespect intended to the majority of Crow fans (I myself am one) who think that the first film and Brandon Lee's performance in it was unbeatable and way better than this film and Eric Mabius' performance. But I must disagree, and I'll also ask if all those Crow 1 / Brandon Lee fans would be so adamant that the first film and that actor were the best thing since sliced bread if Brandon hadn't tragically died at such young age. Truth is that I like The Crow : Salvation more than The Crow, and I find Eric Mabius to be a better actor and his character to be more charming than Brandon's personality. The fact that Brandon's character was half insane while Eric's was totally sane simply wasn't an advantage for Brandon. Not in my eyes, anyway. Don't get me wrong, I still like The Crow as a film and Brandon as an actor. They're what convinced me to see the two sequels, after all. But while Brandon Lee was definitely handsome, charming and a good martial artist, he just wasn't all that good an actor. I do believe that he had a very bright future ahead of him in Hollywood if his life hadn't been cut short, but it's the fact that he died at such a young age and before his career could've taken off that has given him such a legendary status among fans. On the other hand, I think that Mabius has all of Brandon's positive qualities (minus the great martial arts abilities, of course), and he's a good actor on top of that. That's what makes Salvation better than the original, even if Michael Wincott's villain in The Crow had a slightly better presence than Fred Ward's villain in Salvation. But everything about Salvation I loved  the acting, the dialogue, the plot, the violence (the execution scene and the break-out from prison were particularly well-done, fun and brutal at the same time), the soundtrack, and most of all, Eric Mabius himself. This guy simply owns the screen when the camera's pointed at him. I don't know why Dunst's name appears first, but that's an annoyance I will happily look past. It's clear that Mabius is the star of this film. The way he talks is delicious, ****SPOILER**** and he has tons of heart and rage when he addresses his friends (Dunst when she claimed she wanted to die) and adversaries (every villain he toyed with before killing them) and strangers (the drug-using stripper at the club whose age he asked before freeing her). Dunst herself isn't bad. Not a bad actress in her own right, though I doubt that's why she's got so many male fans. Her best scene was when she had informed Mabius that it was her information that had led the bad cops to his figurative door before his arrest/execution. And at least her character isn't a total damsel in distress as, while Ward's chief villain snatched her twice, it wasn't really her fault. The first time was because Mabius' friend distracted her before losing his own life, and the second time was because her gun only had one bullet in it. And considering that Ward's character is an experienced cop and she's a young civilian, it makes sense that he'll have sharper reflexes than her. Which isn't to say that this film's perfect. For one thing, it could've easily been twice as long so as to give more of a background to the villains (something that all three Crow films lack), and it was never explained how Fred Ward's character actually knew of the event which allowed Mabius to return from the dead, or why he was so obsessed with mutilating his own arm. The other villains, made up of the five corrupt officers under his command and his blonde secretary/lover, are cookie-cutter antagonists who show up only to harm innocents and then be beaten by the hero. And while I've seen Dale Midkiff and Bruce McCarthy in other films and I know them to be decent actors, they just don't have anything to do here besides being typical 1-dimentional villains (ie, needlessly violent, remorseless, having no positive aspects at all to them and good only when dead). But those small drawbacks aren't enough to take away from the genius that is Salvation. After seeing it, I only wish to smack Paul Anderson over the head for not including a character like Mabius' Alex Corvis in his Resident Evil films. As good an actor as Mabius is, he was totally wasted in RE, and he wasn't present at all in the sequel (which is a good thing for his career). But I can only wonder how the first mediocre film and the crap-filled sequel could've been improved if Alex Corvis had been around to tear off zombie heads in those two RE films. Too bad we'll never find out. Either way. To summarize, I own this film on DVD, and am very glad for it. 9.5/10.


What a complete travesty this film is. Everyone keeps saying they learned their lesson after City of Angels. Are you blind? This film rips off the original film even more than the first sequel! Would it kill them to give us something new? A female crow? Another time period? Something other than a young male out hunting thugs...

The acting in this film is horrid. The villains are paper thin. The same cliche bad-asses we've seen thousands of times. Remember the first movie where each villain was clearly distinct from the next? T-Bird, Tin-Tin, Skank, and Funboy are still vivid in my memory. I couldn't tell you the name of one of the clowns from this movie. Just more second rate goons working for some puppet master... overkill.

The film definetly looks straight to video quality. The direction is totally uninspired. A total rehash of the first two movies. The original Crow is one of my all time favorite movies and it's almost painful to see how low this series has gone.

For the record, I think this pile of garbage is worse than City of Angels. And for those of you totally hateful towards that film, read the screenplay that comes on the Special Edition DVD for a look at what that film was supposed to be before producer Jeff Most got his hands in it. That man has tainted something that was once great and refuses to let go. They've totally misread what made the first film so incredible. If there is a Crow IV, I'm not expecting a lot...


I think this movie wasn't even worthy of being a Crow movie. It simply didn't feel like one. The movie wasn't dark enough and I didn't feel the same vengeance from this character as I did with the first two films. There were a few things I liked, such as the image of the crow makeup burned into his face and the angel crying blood but I really didn't think that the acting was that great, the bad guys weren't bad enough, and the general feeling of a Crow film just wasn't there.


For the third Crow outing, I was left feeling rather skeptical of watching this considering the disaster with City of Angels?

I actually purchased this film on DVD in May last year and regrettably passed on to a friend considering I wasn't going to watch this too often as much as the original.

This time around it seems to have learnt from the mistakes from the 2nd part by sticking very closely with the themes of the original.

Eric Mabius was a surprise indeed for the lead with Kirstin Dunst on hand in a supporting role. Parts of the film did lack in places but was still exceptional viewing nevertheless.

I wasn't too sure about the villainy, as I thought the police being behind the murderous cover-up of Alex Corvis's (Eric Mabius) girlfriend (played by Jodie-Lynn O'Keefe) was little cheesy not mention repetitive with the idea of the police being the bad guys.

Visually it does resemble the original a lot and thumbs up Eric Mabius as well as he does pay homage to Brandon Lee very well.

I thought Fed Ward wasn't as menacing as he appeared to be, but was decent attempt.

Not bad, but please tell Miramax/Dimension to stop panning out any further Crow sequels as they really should have learnt their lesson with the last outing.


This movie was really terrible.I would only give it 2/10 but that's because The Crow 2 was even worse.The Crow's make-up job made him look like an extra in a Marilyn Manson music video.How anybody could find him intimidating is beyond me.

Kirsten Dunst acts well(and is hot)but what why she agreed to do this mess is beyond me.The movie is WAY to long and is edited very badly.The LOUD rock music over every action(if you can call them that)scene becomes annoying really fast.

Please,i beg you don't watch this.Not even on t.v.Ever.Don't encourage them.Don't make the same mistake i did-and i saw it in a theatre for free!


OK this isn't as good as The Crow: Wicked Prayer (2005) but better than The Crow (1994) some music tracks of this makes me wonder if I have gotten hold of a movie with the same music guy from Universal Soldier: The Return (1999) but take nothing else away from it These Crow Movies need a higher rating me watching them makes me wonder if this is THE GREATEST FILM FRANCHISE OF ALL TIME. yes you read that right I love these movies the only reason I haven't watched The Crow: City Of Angels (1996) is that I cannot find it no matter where I go this villain is one of those "I want him to die" villains I also had never ever heard of these actors (which they were very good) besides Kirsten Dunst which we all know from Spiderman (this movie is way better) now the plot is The third entry in 'The Crow' series follows Alex Corvis, who was framed for the murder of his girlfriend and is executed. he is then brought back from the dead by a crow when the legend says 'Love is stronger than death'. He returns to discover that a corrupt police force is behind her murder and for him to go after the killers, he must find out the mystery behind everything that happened. 10 years old and still a good movie

Rating: 9/10


Look, I know this move came out in 2000, but I had never even heard of it until it ran last night on F/X at midnight. I cannot at all understand how anyone thinks this even compares to the first Crow movie, or even City of Angels(which was bad). First, in all honesty, any "Crow" movie that doesn't come out as a straight-up remake of the first one is going to get the same response. "an unoriginal attempt to tell a new story by cloning the original movie"

The Crow franchise seems to be the victim of it's own gigantic launch into the world of movies.

The original Crow had villains that had quirks that made them individuals, you remember them each on their own.

City of Angels....it really isn't fair for me to make comments about at this stage because, quiet honestly, it was so bad that I took nothing away from the theater. I cannot remember much about it other than "Sarrah is grown up and moved to L.A." I only remember this because I didn't care for "Sarrah" in the first movie.

The Crow : Salvation... or as it should have been called, Desecration. A young couple in love, torn away from each other by death, at the hands of the bad guys. Young man returns from the dead with the help of the Crow to avenge the death of his beloved and his wrongful execution. He discovers who the bad guys are, bonds with a living person and enlists the aid of some he can trust that had been involved with the case before he was executed. He obtains "justice" against the villains, loses his power, and is ready to finally rest in peace only to be forced into a showdown with the true man behind everything, and rescue the girl he bonded with. I think I saw this in another movie...The Crow. The surprise in this movie is that Kirsten Dunst did this film, I am by no means a fan of hers, and "Erin" could have been just as easily "Mary Jane". Her status in the film industry is why I don't understand her choice to do this. Fred Ward I understand, this seems to be his cup of tea. The plot makes minor changes to the original film story, instead of a big shootout with a bunch of thugs and criminals in a warehouse, there is a big shoot out with crooked cops and their back-up. Instead of an intelligent but twisted mastermind pulling the strings, there is a not so intelligent but twisted mastermind(used loosely) pulling the strings. Both top men could have left their "Crow" to go back to the dead after he believes he has avenged his girl and himself, but decide to kidnap the one living person who has a tie to the "Crow". This in turn leads to the bad guy's undoing. The acting was bad, the cinematic bad, the effects very bad, their really want anything good about this film other than the credits rolling. when I saw this film, I really thought this film was made by the Sci-Fi channel. As BAD as this film is, I think anyone who is a fan of "The Crow" should see it. Like it or not, it is part of the "Crow" universe.

There was Highlander, good movie, which spawned 4 more movies, two TV series, and animated trips into the world of the Highlander. None of which came close to the originality or quality of the first film, and each new product punched a new hole into the original film.

The Keaton/Burton "Batman" was a good movie for it's time, but it spawned 3 more movies, each more forgettable than the last.

"Salvation" is to "The Crow" what "Batman Forever" is to "Batman", it's like the ugly step sister, you don't wanna see her, but sooner or later ....it's gonna happen.


I love this movie! I would do all caps but the comp wont let me. I love "The Crow" when I watched "The Crow: Salvation" I fell in love with it. You can ask any of my friend, I'm obsessed! The Crow: Salvation blew The Crow: City of Angels out of the water. No matter what any of you say. Alex Corvis (Eric Mabius) is so awesome! I love this movie! It says I have to use 10 lines which wont be hard. i love this movie. I love this movie. I love this movie. I love this movie. ((Girl screams when Alex's head hits widow.)) "You're Up!" Mwahahaha...I love that. I love all of Alex's quotes. I love all of Alex...Haha you can guess who i'm going as for Halloween. I hate it when people try to look like Alex or Ashe or Eric or Jimmy(any of the Crow's) They stink at looking like them. I know just to do...You will think that's Alex walking down the street. He's mine!

~KioKo


I absolutely hated this movie. I did like The Crow 2 in a strange sort of way. The first was good. This movie makes the second movie look like Schindlers List. The acting was terrible, especially by Eric Mabius, who is an embarrassment to the series. The "action" in this movie is horrible. Theres only 1 real action sequence, and its so stupid. And when you have a good actress like Kirsten Dunst reduced to a whiny female lead, it only makes it worse. I'd rank this in the top 10 worst films ever, only being beaten out by Superstar.


Cool movie! One of my personal faves! It's the best Crow movie 'til now in my opinion. Eric Mabius looks great as the third Crow and Kirsten Dunst acts brilliantly as Lauren Randall's sister. The first part of the plot is pretty common (a guy being set up for his girlfriend's murder) but the next is typical Crow-Corvis(Mabius) comes back from the dead to revenge both deaths.

Though the blood doesn't look real.More ketchup, please!

There are lots of great special effects which make it great (the car chase scene where the car and the helicopter blow up).

The rest is cool...


Remember 'The Crow'? The brilliantly dark and visceral story about a man seeking vengance from beyond the grave? Remember how picturesque the gothic scenery was, how great the character's were, how badly you wanted to see things set right? Well keep on remembering, because you'll get NONE of that in this, the third installment of sequels that should've stopped before they began. I LOVED the first movie, amazing. The 2nd one stunk, but its still got a few points for cinematography. This third film takes the plot of the first film, bastardizes it, and tries to regurgitate it in this insanely stupid film. A weaker plot there is NOT! Not to mention the character's that all seem to be running around fulfilling the plot elements with almost no sense of motivation. horrible horrible horrible. Not even worth a watch because of Kirsten Dunst.


This film was a BIG mistake. After the first 2 movies, the fans of "The Crow" saga made enough money to put this and the second terrible sequel together. This movie has nothing to do with the originally, brilliant cult movie with Brandon Lee. The story and the actors are so boring and useless that I had to laugh when I saw this crap. The makers they put this together are blind? I don't know who is this director phenomena, but I think he never saw anything about James O Barrs' comic or the first movie. The actor with the name Eric Mobius and his story with the burning scars on his face as a mask are so-so silly. Just try it once, you'll see...


I bought this movie after enjoying the first two, and knowing that the movies would have nothing in common. While watching the film, I took note of a few things, these were: The acting was very poor and would have been better if performed by monkeys, the lighting was so dark that you could barely see anything correctly, the audio track was so quite that you could barely understand the actors, and it lost all meaning of the story rather quickly.

The only good part of the movie, was the end. I was sorely disappointed and only keep in around as a place filler in my DVD rack. Seriously, Barney the Purple Dinosaur strikes as better entertainment.


This movie is definitely not for the girls.

No hot guys, while there are plenty good looking girls, most of all are the "slutty" type, and there a few scenes in a strip club, so there's lots of female nudity and stripping, which they also added in unappropriate parts of the movie. Not good.

And unlike the first movie, this one has no feelings.

I didn't find the acting very good, I feel Kirsten Dunst doesn't belong in a film like this, she was whiney and annoying most of the time. The character Alex wasn't a very good actor either, he had nothing that appealed to me.

It was hard to understand this film because of so many characters, I had to rewind in a few parts to understand.

Overall: 3 out of 10 I didn't enjoy it at all, but maybe you would.


The Crow: Salvation tries to make a name for itself by trying something new in the series. Not only is it about revenge and love, but the film incorporates a mystery element, bringing much-needed freshness to the franchise. I liked it! Story: Salvation begins at Alex Crovis' execution. Alex had been convicted of murdering his love, Lauren. Obviously, Alex is innocent, and the real killer is at large. After being executed, Alex is brought back to life and guided by a crow to seek vengeance. With the help of Lauren's sister, Erin, Alex tries to figure out why he was set up, and why his love was killed. Alex soon uncovers a conspiracy and a bunch of corrupt cops. Let the vengeance begin! Directing: Personally, I didn't like Bharat Nalluri's directing style. The way he shot things seemed way to T.V. movie-ish. There's a lot of close-ups, and tight spaces in the film. All of the scenes are evenly lit, and don't differ much from each other. There is an occasional nice shot, however, such as a scene with Alex walking down an alley towards the screen, with it snowing. Nalluri was alright, I suppose, but nothing special.

Acting: Eric Mabius(Alex Corvis) brought a totally different feel to the role. He has a definite liveliness about him that I liked. However, I wish he would have drawn me in more during the emotional scenes. I was very disappointed with Kirsten Dunst, who acted very amateurish in this film. It was like she hardly knew what to do with her part. What's the deal? Fred Ward(The Captian) did a fine job as the villain in the picture, and did no wrong that I could see.

Score: Marco Beltrami did an outstanding job scoring the film. The music has never been a problem in the Crow series. Beltrami takes a slightly different tone as far as the music, but still stays true to Revelle's Gothic roots.

Violence: The violence is prevalent, and quite bloody. Shootings, stabbings, impalings, even a severed arm. However, although graphic, the blood is a really bright red, and has a definite fake look to it.

Profanity/Sexual Themes: As with the other two, the f-bomb is used throughout the film. There is also a fair amount of female nudity, as one of the settings is a strip club.

Substance Abuse: No drug use going on, and I don't recall alcohol abuse either.

Overall: The Crow: Salvation is a good attempt to take the series in a slightly different direction. I think given a different director, the film really would have shined. It's still enjoyable, however, the mystery subplot did seem to take away from the love story a bit. A good action flick a fair bit better than City of Angels, and worth a look. 8.5/10


The Crow Salvation is a film that was personally in my opinion and I am sure, many others opinions, a step up from The Crow: City Of Angels. It's true, in most respects, it is.

Unfortunately, this movie doesn't quite focus on the poetry and melancholic views that the first one showed and maybe the second one showed as well. Though it is somewhat an original story in terms of the twists, and how Alex Corvis is executed for murder and is set out to find the killer(s). Almost like Poetic Justice.

This movie more focuses on the action of the movie instead of the sadness involved, but in most respects as said earlier, it is a step up. You might consider this to be a movie that is more appealed to a more teen audience.

Eric Mabius makes a really good Crow, though he is sort of a more "anti-hero" filled with rage in this movie instead of a good guy. Unfortunately, his look as the crow isn't exactly cool, instead, he looks kind of gross. This movie also isn't as dark as the first two were.

Kirsten Dunst's performance was terrible. I think she makes a better child actress than an adult/teen actress.

Jodi Lynn O'Keefe's performance was awesome, and she is so beautiful. In a way she has a little bit of resemblance to Shelly in the first Crow.

Still, I'll recommend this one anyway even if it doesn't make up to the first crow, but it does make up to the second one.


Firstly, I'll say this: The Crow: Salvation is far from a low-budget knock-off sequel. Most second sequels are restricted by tiny budgets, meaning tiny no-name stars. The fact that they managed to get Kirsten 'Mary Jane' Dunst on board will tell you what kind of budget they're working with here, a pretty decent one.

Secondly, why does everyone hate the Crow sequels so much? Okay granted they're pretty straight reruns of the first movie with different casts, but they look and feel great, and the overall standard of material is pretty high. Plus, I may be blaspheming here, but strip away the veneer of Hollywood Gothic and high-concept production design, and all the original movie really constitutes is an Arnie style revenge flick. Which is quality, I might add, and the next two were exactly the same.

Bottom line with this movie is this: Eric Mabius makes an enthralling third crow, yeah Kirsten Dunst is pretty and all but she misses as much as she hits acting wise and the director knew this so she doesn't spend too much time overdoing the comic book heroine thing. The plot is good, and likeably macabre, so what's the damn problem?

Watch this movie with an open mind and don't think too hard about the original (or do and remember the plot was paper-thin and the characters were really cartoony) and you'll have a blast, okay?


As I am a huge fan of the original I couldn't help but judge this sequel on it and so I probably don't see it as 'fresh' as other views but even so I still found it weak viewing. From start to finish, events were rushed and meaning was scraped over with unnecessary gore  and pore gore at that. The scenes were badly cut, the score was diabolical and the script was just pathetic. There simply was no deep meaning in this film, it seems they spent so much time perfecting the CGI effects, stunts and constant similarities to the first film that they forgot the plot  the actual purpose of the crow. My advice to anyone considering seeing this movie is don't. If you still insist on watching the film and are a fan of the original, expect to be disappointed.


I would say that this is a way better improvement from The Crow: City of Angels. This film went for another direction. They used different music this time, a new theme. The setting is taken someplace else and the elements felt like it was from the first Crow movie. I'm not gonna say this is better than The Crow cause you can't beat the Brandon Lee classic. But this is right behind it. I thought the action was better than the second film. The love story is moving. I just wish that this Crow film was in theaters and not direct to video. Cause the cast in this film was pretty good. I'd give it a 8 out of 10. The Crow is a 10 out of 10 for me. The Crow: City of Angels was a 6.5 out of 10 for me.

RavingHulk


This movie is better than the second Crow movie, City of Angels but this movie, like COA, could never equal the deeply moving love story of the original with Brandon Lee, nor the magnificent actor that Brandon Lee was. The Salvation lacked any real emotion. The acting wasn't too bad but the dialogue was delivered with an unreal quality like it had been badly rehearsed. The violence was gory, unlike the original Crow movie. The sensitivity was not there, and the scenes, including the background was not made to look real and looked like it was all done on the set. The original Crow movie had me in tears at the end because the love story was so touching; The Salvation had me shrugging my shoulders wondering why I even bothered to buy the movie.


Another sequel to the crow franchise. i absolutely adored the first film. its a stunning film which set the standard very high for anyone to do better. since that film there has been nothing better. Its original sequel (the Crow: city of angels) was an incredibly poor film. I have seen much worse films but that came close to being one of the worst. Its third outing however (the Crow: Salvation) i enjoyed. Along with having a relatively original story (but keeping it strongly to the original) it has a strong acting cast who portray each character well. IF your a fan of the crow series its worth seeing each film. If you watch the films in order you can truly see how much better the third installment is.i give it 7/10


If you liked the first two Crow movies, you will not like this. It does not follow the true "Crow formula".

The true power which was contained in the Crow is totally violated.

 Very disappointed.


This is one cool goth movie. It's better done than the first one, because the first one had to be sown together a la Frankenstein when the lead actor really did die. God bless his soul. It's also better because it recycles footage from the first two. This movie is one great leftist movie about recycling, the memories of a schoolbus, and anti-death penalty. The end is hilarious. Let me just say that someone had a fetiche for female facial hair in this movie. It's also cruel to a step beyond the first two--Brandon Lee grieved, Vincent Perez went masochist, but William Atherton smiles like a killer clown. You can disagree with me and say the whole budget went to an illogically cool explosion and a trip to vegas for everyone, or ignore the crow's original bad acting--he's got a smirk on his face when he walks back in his cell, and take a trip downtown with the crow, way downtown.


Though slightly better than its predecessor (CROW: CITY OF ANGELS), this one follows Crow numero dos by ripping off the scenario of the superior original film rather than acting as a sequel.

Some decent acting, and the mood of melancholy keeps it afloat, but the extremely routine storyline is difficult for the viewer's emotions to overcome.

** out of ****.


As far as Crow movies go, this one kicked butt. It was also one of the best movies I have seen in a while. It's a shame that it never really had the publicity it deserved (I'm not even sure if it was even shown in our local movie theatre). Although it seemed to have a slow beginning, things really picked up. In the tradition of the prior two movies, it was just loaded with action, where the newest incarnation (or avatar) fought his way through thick and thin to right the wrongs placed upon him, his girlfriend and her sister.

Overall, I gave this movie a 9 out of 10 stars.


I've been waiting for the moment when I'd finally see the third installment of the Crow saga. The moment came last night; and I must say that it might not be he best movie ever, but it was worth the waiting and the time spent in seeing it. I felt I was back into the dark, windy world to which the crow brings those troubled souls to "put wrong things right".

Another thing I'd like to comment is that (and kill me if you want, How do you kill someone who's already dead) I actually liked the Crow:City of Angels, and that I found this movie not better than its predecessor but different. It has a different mood, a different tone and a different feeling. This one has more action but is not as violent. And again, Eric mabius is not a better crow than Vincent Perez, it is just different. His character is more direct and he is not afraid to kill innocent people for his purpose, as opposite of the other two.

Scars instead of paint, and the poetic quotations are missing, I liked that, that makes the motivation of the character more visceral and organic and painful; a way to drag his sacrifice as a reminder. And of course, a guy who's here for a purpose and won't leave until it's finished. If something like that would happen to me, I would definitely do the same thing, and that's why the crow appeals to much to me and it always will.


Alright, this movie wasn't great, and I'm going as far to say that it's the weakest of the crow movies. I know i know, everyone calm down, I've got my reason. 1. The movie never adhered to any style/color. The first crow dealt with the color black. The film was very dark. City of angels had the yellow color to it. Salvation kept jumping around like it couldn't decide. 2. It almost seemed that the main character, alex, didn't have a personality of his own. Look, in the crow, brandon cared about his lost love and would go to any lengths to be back with her. In the second one vincent played the crow as insane, like he'd lost his mind. I didn't really get any feel towards the character of alex. 3. Some of the lines were just down right HORRIBLE. The original didn't have any super cheesy lines, the second one was more comic booky so it was alright, this one just let them go. Overall, the worst, i think the one (if they keep the title) with DMX will end up being better than this.


Don't get me wrong, I liked the film. The story, of an African-American who finds himself working in the pits in Wales, is perfectly passable, and was as leftwards as it was going to get to thread its way through the British film censors. But we know what we are going to watch this film for - to hear Paul Robeson sing.

During the 1980s, the British Bass, Robert Lloyd, listed his big four bass singers of all time. Robeson was among them. (The others were Fyodor Shalyapin, Cesare Siepi and Ezzio Pinza.) The BBC2 programme he did this for, also featured a few seconds of footage from proud valley.

The big scene comes just after his friend has been killed in a mining accident. The local Eisteddfod - a Welsh festival of music and poetry - takes place. Robeson gets up and sings "Deep River". I have heard Robeson's 78 rpm recording of this song. This version is nothing like it. It is magnificent. As Robeson performs, the shivers go up the spine and the tears come rolling down the cheeks. This is so good that only Paderewski's performance in "Moonlight Sonata" can be compared to it.

Because of this performance, no one who watches this film will be disappointed.


Paul Robeson. The mere mention of the name evokes images of the consummate performer, a Da Vinci of the stage and screen, a presence fully deserving of admiration. Yet, despite his exemplary talent and popularity, his list of movies is pathetically small, which can be attributed to two factors - racism and politics. How sad because Paul Robeson was undoubtedly one of the major figures in U. S. entertainment history and if one wants to know why, one just has to watch the movie Proud Valley, directed by Pen Tennyson. Here Paul Robeson plays a role that transcends the ludicrously ridiculous racial stereotypes that Hollywood wanted Mr. Robeson to play. Imagine for a moment, my friends, Paul Robeson playing a shuffling, mumbling sycophant. An outrage! Yet this is exactly the kind of silly roles that Hollywood would have had Mr. Robeson play if he had so chosen. That he starred in such movies as Show Boat and The Emperor Jones was due in large part to the fact that these films were directed by British directors who truly appreciated Mr. Robeson's talents. In Proud Valley, Robeson delivers an outstanding performance as a miner who makes the ultimate sacrifice so that others may live. The story may seem contrived, but it isn't. The movie is neither sensationalistic or melodramatic. Rather it presents in a straightforward way a story that the audience can understand, appreciate and applaud due in a large measure to the presence of one of truly legendary giants of American stage and screen, Paul Robeson.


In reviewing the achievements of African-Americans on film in chronological order for Black History Month, we're now at 1940 with the entry of The Proud Valley, considered by star Paul Robeson as his favorite. In this one, he's an American named David Goliah coming to Wales to find a job. After hearing his voice from outside the window while conducting his chorus in rehearsal, Mr. Parry (Edward Chapman) manages to convince David to sing in his choir and gets him a job at the mines where he also works. His son, Emlyn (Simon Lack) also works there and is engaged to Gwen Owen (Janet Johnson). I'll stop there and mention that Robeson is in fine form musically especially when he sings "Deep River" that sends chills down the spine. Perhaps because of his color, his character is sometimes in the background but by the end he does become essential. So for him, I'd definitely recommend The Proud Valley.


This screen adaptation of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play "The Front Page" was adapted for the talents of Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell -- there is no such character as Hildy Johnson (Russell) in that play.

Director Howard Hawks wanted to show the whirlwind pace of the newsroom in the criminal courts system so he had his actors overlap their lines -- so much so that at times it seems as though everyone is talking at once; it even gets difficult to understand all that is going on.

He also had the cast move FAST so the film looks totally frenetic from scene to scene with no respite -- either from the laughs or from the action.

There are two really good "inside" jokes in the script: The first is where Walter Burns (Grant) is describing Hildy's fiancee and says that "he looks like that guy in the movies -- Bellamy," Well, it WAS Ralph Bellamy playing that part!

The other is when Burns says something about someone he once knew named "Archie Leach" which just happens to be Cary Grant's real name.

This is one of the true gems of Hollywood's most prolific era. It has incredible pacing, acting, photography and an authentic gritty feeling that would be associated with hard-boiled, "anything for a story" newspaper people.

It has long been one of my favorite films and deserves to be watched over and over again -- just for all the dialogue and great acting that may have gone by so fast you missed it the first time.


I just finished watching the DVD of this first-class, semi-Screwball comedy in Columbia Classics beautiful transfer, and it absolutely made my day! What a movie! What a screenplay! The dialogue is better - more modern - in fact, than a in lot of contemporary movies. It's incredibly funny, too, and my teenage sons kept laughing right along with me at the smart come-backs. Cary Grant is, of course, as good (if not better) than ever, and I've never seen Rosalind Russel in a role that suited her more perfectly. And that's just for starters: The timing of the thing is still awe- inspiring after sixty-odd years; the supporting actors, down to the bit-players, are all memorable, convincing and hilarious; the camera work (this IS the forties, though) is inventive and the editing superb. I can safely confess now that I hadn't ever seen it before, but that's no reason for you to make the same mistake: Go buy/rent it NOW! Hats off to the great Howard Hawks, his cast and crew for pulling this comedy masterpiece off. And thank you, thank you, thank you Columbia Pictures, for

making it possible for me to watch it in such pristine condition! (I've got the 2002 edition, and from what I've heard you should beware of earlier DVD issues).


Charles McArthur and Ben Hecht met when both were reporters in Chicago during the 1920s. They created two of the funniest farces in American drama, TWENTIETH CENTURY (about theater people) and THE FRONT PAGE. The latter was based on their experiences as news reporters in those crazy days in Chicago, where the newspapers concentrated on sensationalism and the politics was thoroughly corrupt. The resulting play is hysterically funny and yet remains timely. For all the exaggeration of how Walter Burns and Hildy Johnson manipulate police, politicians, reporters, and civilians to get their scoop, the story remains relevant for several reasons. The political balance in a big Mayoralty election is precarious due to the Earl Williams case. Williams has shot a policeman who is African-American, a big local voting block, and they want him punished. The corrupt Mayor and his idiot jail warden are willing to execute him for the votes needed to stay in office, but the Governor (who is from the rival party) believes the killer is insane (or at least mentally deficient). So already (as you see) race, politics, and the validity of the death penalty get pulled in. Soon we also see examples of nepotism and corruption in the police, and City Hall, cynical politics based on a man's life, and questions about privacy and a free press. For a play from 1931 this one still has relevance.

There had been an earlier version of the play in the 1930s called THE FRONT PAGE, starring Adolphe Menjou as the conniving and devious Walter Burns, and Pat O'Brien as ace reporter Hildy Johnson. It is a good version, and both stars do well with their parts (and both have the verbal speed necessary for the dialog to flow over the ears of the audience). But when the film was remade in 1940, Howard Hawks decided to redraw Hildy Johnson into a female reporter (and previous wife) of Burns. His casting of Cary Grant was radically different too. Burns is a nasty, conniving s.o.b. who would kill for a good story. Menjou was somewhat dapper (he was usually dapper) in the role, but the hardness under the presentable shell was there. And by changing Hildy from a guy to a gal, and Walter's former wife, you had to make Walter look more interesting. So Walter is turned into Cary Grant. There was a search for Hildy, involving Jean Arthur and Irene Dunne as possibilities. Neither ended up playing him. Instead it went to Rosalind Russell.

It has to be admitted Russell had the vocal abilities to push the dialog at the proper clip. Possibly Jean Arthur could have done that just as well, but Arthur did not have the apparent physical strength behind the stylishness that Russell showed. She really does balance well (in this film) with Grant, given their characters.

Motivation changes a little. This Walter Burns still wants to get his scoops, but there are moments of fragility when he realizes he may forever lose Hildy to her fiancé Bruce (the ever helpless Ralph Bellamy). And they oddly work (Hawks manages to keep them under control). Also, as the story is now twelve years older than the original play, certain changes occur in Walter's political views. He does dislike the gang (led by Clarence Kolb and Gene Lockhart) running the city, and points out to Hildy that they have a chance to help give the city the sort of government New York City has under La Guardia. This does not end his joy at scooping the opposition, but it does suggest that Burns has more depth.

It is now generally believed that this is the best of the film versions of THE FRONT PAGE, and one of the funniest films ever made. The entire cast shines (look at the scene where Helen Mack confronts the reporters who have made her look like a tramp, and have told lies about John Qualen (Williams) - she is in a state when Russell takes her out of the press room, and the reporters are thoroughly ashamed of herself - and Russell comes back looking at Regis Toomey, Porter Hall, and the others, and says "Gentlemen of the Press!" with heavy cynical irony). And also note Billy Gilbert's immortal Joe Pettibone, the most hopeless monument of total befuddlement in movies. It is one of the few film comedies of that period that retains it's laughs one viewing following another.


Every good thing you've heard about this movie is true. It may very well be the fastest paced movie I've ever seen. Jerry Bruckheimer's most hyperbolic action movie ain't got nothing' on this one.

Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell were a brilliant screen pair (indeed, it seems that no one was bad casting when paired with Cary Grant) as rival reporters in a furiously paced news office. Russell is the odd man, or should I say odd girl, out, due to her lack of a penis, but she proves herself more than capable of holding her own with the boys.

Russell charges across the screen and never loses momentum for a second. She's goofy, sexy and hysterical. The funniest moment in the film comes when she's chasing a man down the street (I won't go into details) and dive tackles him to the ground.

One of the first films from the 40s and a highlight of the decade.

Grade: A+


This gloriously funny romp by Howard Hawks is rightly remembered as one of the fastest-talking movies ever made. Originally done as 'The Front Page', the play by Hecht and McArthur takes on new life here as the character of Hildy Johnson metamorphoses in this version to be a sparky woman (played by Rosalind Russell), former wife of the harassed columnist Walter Burns (played with characteristic bewilderment and charm by Cary Grant). Hildy is about to marry again, to the nice but dull Bruce Baldwin (played by Ralph Bellamy as a character so boring he 'is like Ralph Bellamy' - how Hollywood liked its in-jokes).

With that fire-cracking script, a sizable amount of sparks between Grant and Russell, and good support from Bellamy and a cast which includes Gene Lockhart, Cliff Edwards, Clarence Kolb, and Regis Toomey, 'His Girl Friday' is one of those classic gems which never age and which remain hugely entertaining.


If BRINGING UP BABY has rapid-fire dialogue and one crazy scene after the other, HIS GIRL Friday goes even faster and is 10 minutes shorter. A story not that un-similar to THE PHILADELPHIA STORY which deletes the scatterbrained socialites in favor for a gritty, urban setting, Cary Grant is fantastic in his role as Walter Burns as he tries to win back his wife Hildy Johnson (an equally brilliant Rosalind Russell in full comic mode) by literally throwing her back into what she -- deep down -- loves best: reporting and the breakneck lifestyle that comes with being in front of the news. These two are on camera often, and their dialogue together is like a frenzied waltz: trying to follow every exact word, gesture, and snarl is quite a task, boy, does it sizzle! What a shame that this wasn't up for any awards, as this could have easily won in acting categories. Completely ahead of its times, this is an interesting view on feminism thirty years before the term became public knowledge, and if one listens closely, a study in verbal sexual interplay. Which shows that making Hildy Johnson a woman was the best decision a director could ever do to enhance a story.

A remake of an earlier film (THE FRONT PAGE, 1931), itself a film version of a 1928 play, HIS GIRL Friday was remade again as THE FRONT PAGE in 1976 and yet again in 1988 as SWITCHING CHANNELS, with Kathleen Turner nicely holding up in her portrayal of the role that cemented Rosalind Russell as a skilled comedienne, this time set in media TV.


As if creating one comedic masterpiece with 1938's BRINGING UP BABY was not enough, director Howard Hawks returned to the same genre a scant two years later - and he somehow managed to rival even his own previous masterwork. Nominally a reworking Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur's play THE FRONT PAGE, HIS GIRL Friday manages to surpass it's classic source material and emerge as one of the screen's finest comedies. The film is also perhaps the perfect example of Hawks' trademarked rapid-fire, overlapping dialogue, which has never been as fast nor as furious anywhere else before or since. This is certainly one of the fastest moving comedies ever filmed, and the whole cast never misses a beat.

Walter Burns, the conniving, self-serving newspaper editor, is a character that could have easily come off as a tyrannical jerk. As portrayed by the suave Cary Grant, however, the pompous, arrogant Burns actually becomes (gasp!) likable! It is a difficult balancing act that Grant must perform as teetering between the two extremes of the character, and he is arguably the only actor imaginable with the skill and charisma to pull such a tricky characterization off this successfully. And the one-and-only Rosalind Russell is every bit his match - full of verve and aplomb, Russell's Hildy is an independent career woman, brimming with intelligence and class, that impressively pre-dates the major feminist movement of the mid-sixties by a good 25 years.

The film's supporting cast is no less impressive, with every single role cast to perfection. This is particularly true of Ralph Bellamy, who (along with his Oscar-nominated performance in 1937's THE AWFUL TRUTH) proves once again that he is the ultimate straight man. The film contains some grim subject matter that may seem like unlikely fodder for a screwball comedy (murder, attempted suicide, and public execution are all touched upon), although the film somehow manages to deal with such topics respectfully and without sacrificing any laughs. In the end, HIS GIRL Friday is an absolutely unbeatable romantic comedy that remains wildly hilarious and comes as close to sheer perfection as any motion picture could ever hope to.


"His Gal Friday" is Howard Hawks' tribute to the brilliant play in which this film is based. Charles McGraw and Ben Hecht, two of the best writers of the era, paid tribute to the journalists that wrote for the American newspapers of the thirties. This movie has some of the fastest dialogs in memory.

The incredible combination of Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and Ralph Bellamy in the main roles is what made this movie a favorite. Mr. Grant as Walter Burns, the unscrupulous newspaper editor, is the perfect foil for Rosalind Russell's, Hildy Johnson, a role that is played by a male in the original play and in the other film versions.

The best moment of the film is the moment when Cary Grant speaking so fast, that some what he says goes over the viewer's heads, refers as to Ralph Bellamy by name as not having a chance and cites in the same breadth his real name Archibald Leach.

It's hard to imagine anyone but Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell playing Walter and Hildy. Ralph Bellamy is perfect as Hildy's fiancé, Bruce Baldwin. Gene Lockhart is perfect as the sheriff Pinky Hartwell. The ensemble of actors that play the reporters following the possible execution of Earl Williams, are perfect.

An excellent comedy thanks to the genius of Howard Hawks.