I enjoyed watching this movie, although I may never look at locusts quite the same way again. I enjoyed watching the performance of Lucy Lawless, Dylan Neal, John Heard, and Mike Farrell. Lucy Lawless was outstanding as Dr. Maddie Rierdon, a woman who is both intelligent and resourceful and who, because of who she is, has to put the welfare of those endangered by the locusts before her relationship with her husband. This movie caused me brought up some slightly disturbing thoughts about what the people or a governments might do in order to put a stop to something that's out of their control. That is, unless they're forced to seek other, less damaging (to the citizens)alternatives. On another note, I sincerely hope one of those bugs didn't really fly into Lucy's mouth as the movie showed. If it did, I feel sorry for her. That had to be disgusting.


This movie didn't start out too bad, we get straight to Lucy Lawless in her underwear. Hey, can't beat that. Actually, Lawless is quite a good actress, something I never would have known from watching Zena. One of the more enjoyable parts about this movie was her relationship with her boyfriend. But that's not good when we're supposed to be enjoying the locusts.

After the first hour, the movie really loses its way. The writers seem more interested in bashing on the military than continuing the story they began in the first half. Basically, the "good" characters don't have a clue what to do, but they're more than happy to criticize the plan the military comes up with. A very dangerous plan indeed, but the military isn't given the opportunity of coming up with laughably absurd ideas and then having them work. Only Lawless and her boyfriend are allowed that option. Probably the dumbest scene in the whole movie is when they're in the helicopter and Lawless starts trying to kill everybody. Um, I think they would have probably had her locked up for the rest of the movie, but they act like nothing happened! That's the type of stuff that really distinguishes writers from hacks.

Then of course there's the scene in the barn. I mean, c'mon, even movies with 1/10th the budget of this thing don't take such liberties with common sense. If you want to electrify the exterior of a barn and two silos, you just hook up a generator to it? Oh, yeah. We are dumb aren't we? The problem was that the writers were so carried away with harping on the military for coming up with a solution that was extremely dangerous that they had to come up with some way of killing all the locusts in a completely safe way in order to draw a contrast between good and bad, but they just didn't have a clue how to do it in a way that anyone over the age of 9 wouldn't laugh at. Actually my 9 year old was laughing. Maybe the writers should have skipped the whole thing about demonizing the military, because they didn't have any better solution themselves? Nah, that would require maturity.

I give it 4 stars based solely on the performance of Lucy Lawless, which was really the only thing good about this.


Lucy Lawless must have needed a payday very badly to sign up for this opus.

Genetically enhanced locust (created by the evil military) are terrorizing the countryside, and the evil military only seem to want to consider chemical or nuclear options to fix it.

The plot is moronic, the characters wooden, the acting bad, and the special effects look cheap.

This is the worst piece of drivel I've seen in years. There is nothing to recommend it. Avoid at all costs.

Xena, where are you when we need you?


Possible spoilers due to references to other literatureassuming you can't guess the ending within the first few minutes.

OK folks, I have a dirty little secret: I really love crummy sci-fi picks. Bad acting, scripts, cheap effects and breaking the laws of physics just make my day. Plan 9 from Outer Space holds a special place in my heart.

While Locusts passed the test on each of these, it will probably (or should) be quickly forgotten, being more schlock than entertainment. Also, as somebody else mentioned, the bug close-ups are actually pretty good, so Locust kinda loses a few points in the cheesy effects category. The cliché alarm rings constantly, from the mandatory troubled romance to the divorced father with the cranky kids to the gruff military general who allows a civilian to boss him around to the national politics to the job climbers to theyou get the picture.

Important things of note:

The brilliant lead scientist sometimes wears hip huggers, a low cut top and no bra, and is photographed from above. I guess they had to do **something** to keep male viewers watching. Hello women: tell me, was there anything to keep you interested in this piece of garbage?

A huge group of 20-somethings stand around watching bazillions of bugs up close as they cover the windows, yet none shriek, barf, or any of the other normal expected reactions.

If you have a basic knowledge of electricity (i.e. current only flows in a complete circuit), you will have problems with this flick. Forget it if you understand high voltage, current capacities, grounding, welding, and arcing.

The movie wraps everything up in the last 15 minutes. I won't say what happens, but if the "feel good" parts of the ending don't make you toss your popcorn, you're one tough viewer.

There's a genetic reference at the end that made no sense whatsoever, but I'm not a bio major.

There is a remarkable parallel to Carl Stephenson's classic short story "Leiningen versus the Ants." This is great literature (for real); if you haven't read it, spend 10 minutes at http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/shorts/lvta.html. It's top notch.

There is a remarkable parallel to one of my favorite crummy Sci-Fi movies "Night of the Lepus." Check out the IMDb reviews of this beauty.

This movie was a total waste of time on all levels.

1 Star


For me this fell just short of the 'so bad its good' threshold - if this were just a degree worse, it would be terrific. Makes the TV disaster movies of my youth - remember the one about the Killer Bees and the super-dome - seem inspired. Terrible writing - that Doug Prochilo has quite a career ahead of him - some gloriously uninspired performances - the guy who plays 'The General' acts like a small town anchorman who swallowed a bad actor - and John Heard may have sunk to a new low. Thank heavens for veteran heavy-hitter Mike Farrell, who does magnificently chasing after some cows, or was that a double? Well, I hope it was fun to shoot, I'm happy for all the folks who got their start on this project, and I hope they all got paid real good - can I have my two hours back, now?


Just finished watching this and its a pretty bad film. A poor storyline, a rubbish script, and another low budget film where everything goes well for the good, and the bad get punished or learn a "valuable" lesson (even though really it was the leading female characters fault for closing down the research in the first place). The leading female character is always right and seems to be an expert in every field telling people what do (another low budget trait). This film just regurgitates all the bad things about low budget disaster movies. Its a shame because if this had been directed and scripted in more of a unique way, it could have brought back feelings of the old B movies about bugs etc.


Between this CBS Made-for-TV movie and the similarly titled SciFi Original "Locusts: the 8th Plague," 2005 was one whopper of a year for killer locusts. It's bad enough we have our hands full in the Middle East, but now the U.S. Department of Agriculture has its hands full with locusts. Surprisingly, the CBS movie had much better special effects. But otherwise "The 8th Plague" was a better, if predictable, movie. The problem with "Locusts" is that it's not really a horror movie. It's almost like the producers said, "Let's figure out what would happen if we had to deal with a swarm of locusts and film it documentary-style." I expect blood and guts when I watch these movies, which there is very little of here. To be honest, this movie is probably a little better than the 1 I gave it -- at least the lady who plays Xena the Warrior Princess was good in this movie. And "The 8th Plague" is probably a little worse than the 4 I gave that movie. But it's the principle that matters. Maybe the CBS locusts and the SciFi locusts can get together in a future movie and have a throw-down brawl, a la Freddy vs. Jason, and we can really figure out who's badder.


I cannot wait to see the goofs start on this horrible, horrible movie... The biggest goof had to be paying the writers who came up with this drivel and called it a story. Aggghhhhh Judging from the speed of the swarm crossing Indiana and Illinois, those locusts had to be doing Mach 4 or so... fast little buggers! I was also impressed with the careful military handling of VX.. providing everyone with full face respirators who handled it. Sheesh people, VX is a nerve gas, and is SKIN ABSORBED too... the gas masks wouldn't have made a seconds worth of difference.

I also choked on my drink when a certain person died from being bitten a couple times.. sheesh, I survived bike accidents with more wounds than he had! I want my my time back!


I admit it, I am a huge Lucy Lawless fan, and even I was nervous about this movie. I have been waiting for this since February. I knew the whole concept of LOCUSTS taking over the world was a bit far fetched, but, I was willing to go for the ride. And I ended up enjoying it. :) Honestly, much to my surprise.

I could go with the main plot, bugs devouring the crops. And somehow, Lucy made me believe that a giant bug zapper would work. In the end, I thought Lucy did a great job. She was not over the top, and did not slip into her 'Xena' mode. Lucy played the role strong, but not overly butch. Lucy took this role because she thought it would be fun, and "good Sunday night fare". She did not take it because as one person has said 'she needs the money'. Well, I know for a fact, that is not true. Lucy chooses her projects based on things other then money.

All in all, I thought this was a good movie, and held up better then I thought it would. If you can allow yourself to get into it, you would see that the acting was good, the plot can be worked with, and Lucy got mostly naked for us! What more could you want? Xx


This is the danger we run into with the new breed of low priced hi-def cameras becoming more readily available...cheap, quickly made garbage. I just can't figure out how it managed to make it all the way to TV??? Was this a USC brat? The son, brother or friend of a powerful Hollywood producer? A laughable plot from beginning to end with some of the worst direction ever to make it to Network. Simple remedial amateur filmmaker mistakes, such as breaking the "180 degree rule" and lack of "continuity of motion" and much much more. I laughed at the mistakes from beginning to end. Example: 1.) Lucy lawless takes a pregnancy test...instead of the test reading blue or pink it reads pregnant! Yet she still has to match the results with the packaging before she reacts. 2.) The inertia of 1,000 locusts would not be enough to break an average pane of glass. 3.) Locust jaws are not strong enough to break through human skin, let alone devour cattle...and so on. This is just an absolute piece of trash. The people who wrote, directed and produced this monstrosity should leave their careers behind and never be allowed to make another heap like this. The entertainment industry is small and there isn't enough space for hacks like them. Now I just can't wait for "Riding in Buses With My Sister" and "Elvis".


I have seen many insect/swarm disaster movies, and this one is good. This is a real true disaster movie that I think stands above other insect/swarm disaster movies. The disaster is widespread across the country and really gives a realistic feel as it involves various cities and states, news reports, highway traffic, a school bus and air travel. And Lucy Lawless is very good as the leading character, and she joins other strong female roles in disaster movies: Kim Delaney (10.5, 2003), Joanna Kearns (The Great Los Angeles Earthquake, 1990), Susan Batten (Hijacked: Filght 285, 1996), and Maria Conchita Alonso (Sudden Terror: The Hijacking of School Bus #17, 1996). Someone said the special effects are bad. I disagree. However, some intense close-ups of the insects are unnecessary and drag the film down a bit as "The Birds", "Jaws," and any other frightening thriller involving nature is the more frightening when you can't really see the terror. Now, let's hope they'll release it on DVD.


First of all, I agree that the plot left something to be desired, but lots of you guys were either too busy laughing or griping to notice that there were explanations for some of the things you guys are knocking. For example, the research couldn't be done on butterflies because they wouldn't pose a threat to any country--hello, the Dept.of Defense financed the study. The pregnancy test thing, does anyone know if they actually say "pregnant" these days? But her looking at the label wasn't stupid, really. All women would have done the same, just to be sure. My only real problem--there was no explanation for this, not even a ridiculous one: did they just leave Peter in the silo? Did they tell his family? Some closure, please! I also agree John Heard should be above this, but who knows his reasons? And the "wooden" acting. Yep, for some characters--some extras, especially the kids, seemed to be smiling with delight rather than wincing in terror, but hey, they are kids (the little girl who played Sofia was quite real, though. I'd keep an eye out for her in the future.) The adult extras and some small roles though, no excuse for them. Enough rambling, my point is this: It was a bug thriller--what did you expect? I enjoyed it for what it was worth, and I bet it was fun to make.


In preparation for this movie, the writers underwent a serious process. The writers went into a room and armed themselves with a jar full of movie clichés. They pulled out one after another. "Military man wants action that could endanger the world." "Sappy love story between two main characters" "Scientist realizes his experiments have condemned the world to doom." "Heroes find a way to fight dire problem with help of a coincidence." I swear, this movie was made by Trey Parker of South Park fame. Watch the episode Die, Hippy Die, and this film eerily mimics that overly clichéd plot line. A small difference, however-South Park is meant to parody. This film was also a testament to how badly Lucy Lawless needs work. My god, Xena, how the mighty have fallen. One positive, however, is that this film really made me and my friends laugh like crazy. If you still want to see it, go into it thinking of it as a comedy. Believe me, it's much better that way.


This has to be a candidate for the worst movie ever made! We haven't seen a bigger load of trash in decades! It's not even one of those movies that is so bad it's funny - it's just plain bad in every way - the plot - the script - the cast - the effects - all terrible. You can't help but wonder how movies like this ever get made? I mean, who would read a script like this and say "hey, this is great, let's make it" or "hey, this is great, I'd like to audition for this movie".

Even if there is nothing else on TV, don't waste your time - turn it off and listen to the radio - go for a walk - play a game - read a book - anything is preferable to suffering though this abomination!


Yes, that's right. Because my D'Onofrio as Det. Goren in L&O:CI was interrupted by an episode of The Contender, which also merits discussion somewhere, I was forced to watch this nonsense. I'm fairly certain that if I was given a typewriter with 6 keys and 20 minutes, my script of Locusts would have been better. The general premise is amazing in that bioengineered locusts somehow escape their scientific compound. This leads to an brilliant display of obvious things, namely pregnant women and biblical references. This movie actually contains lines such as: "I'm pregnant and hormonal, now land this 'copter". And: "You did it.", "No, we did it." I'm not sure when I'll be able to keep food down again. Completely unacceptable. The saving grace of this movie came in the commercial breaks, which touted an excellent new Hallmark classic starring Rosie O'Donnell and Andie MacDowell, two actresses who have no business in show business. One of them plays a mentally handicapped person and if you can't tell which one it is, then I think that says something about each of their acting abilities. At any rate, Locusts was an offense to good taste everywhere and the film industry has been set back at least a decade. Hollywood really needs to adopt a Xenaphobic policy.


Television has spoiled me in the last few weeks...I saw the unbelievable Warm Springs, the very well done Mork and Mindy story, and Rosie O'Donell's heartwarming Riding The Bus. For every great Gem is a great big lump of poo and here it is...Locusts!! First this has been done numerous times before and I don't just mean the premise...the actual Locusts thing and it's just dumb. They had to have known that?? Director David Jackson has done enough decent Television to know a stinker doesn't he? Locusts is the "story" of a scientist who was secretly developing an unkillable swarm of locusts in his lab...don't ask why...we'll never know. When his boss Maddy Rierdon discovers this she insists that the Locusts be destroyed but unfortunately a few of them escape and due to their massive re population powers they intensify to a deadly swarm that will within days eviscerate the entire crops of the United States...and then I assume settle in Hawaii for a vacation...sorry....Now Maddy together with her estranged boyfriend, and the scientist who created them must figure out a way to stop these locusts or save the countries crops from their destruction.

The story is just so incredibly plot holed it's disgusting. The team moves around the country effortlessly from one end to the other in seemingly minutes. There is a pointless love story entwined in the middle of this, and it seemed like the writer got to a point in the story where they said...good enough I give up...electrocute them all and let's move on the a new project. It's not only the writers fault, the cast is god awful. John Heard who I really respect as an actor plays the completely shallow and empty character of the creator of the bugs. He shows no emotion or depth but then no one does. Star of the film...what a claim to fame...Lucy Lawless, looks great, finally out of the whole Xena thing. But she does an equally crappy job. They are all vapid and unemotional and BORING!! The locusts are also BORING...although I have to give slight kudos to the fact that it doesn't look like a big swarm of computer animated bugs flying around. But you don't ever get that creepy crawly feeling a bug movie should give you. The film has one or two spots of slight excitement before dive bombing into B-Movie crap. Avoid this one like a plague of locusts. 4/10


Wow. Nice concept, but... terrible dialog throughout most of it. A lot of the CG seriously sucked and most of the acting was surprisingly disappointing. All in all, this movie was good for a few laughs, just like most b-movies are.

One thing stood out though... Stacey, the office birthday girl. What in heaven's name was some one of her calibur doing in a low budget cheese fest like this?! Despite some of the silly dialog ("...and a bag of chips."), she was believable as her character and shined through. That was the best acting in the entire movie! Can you believe this is the same girl who played the mentally challenged girl in "Heart of the Storm"?! At the pace she is going, Azure Dawn will be a household name in the not too distant future.


I am going to give the reader until the end of this short critique to figure out how the bugs were killed. Because with all of these so called scientist, experts working on how to kill them you would think the solution would be harder then taking a trip to your local Home Depot. This movie is so bad it was good. First thing I didn't get the time-line. The man who dastardly invented these mutant bugs seems to also have picked up the use of super warp speed traveling while working in the lab late at night. One minute he is in Virginia and the next minute he is in Pittsburgh. Same goes for the scientist couple. One minute they are living together the next scene they are separated and she is pregnant. And there was no indication that this was 2 months later..it was like the next day. They are married but for some reason they seem to keep their marriage a secret. Why I do not know. They work for two different agencies. Then we have her father thrown into the mix. Who just happens to be a farmer in the Midwest straight in the path of the Bugs. We see Lucy Loveless who plays the lead seemingly drive to Indiana with the redeemed dastardly scientist ( who BTW daughter was attacked by locust and is now in a coma)from the DC area in warp speed time to warn her father who I guess does not have a radio or TV but has have a super sleek cell phone that the bugs are coming straight for him! Meantime we have the real villain..no not the bugs, not the dastardly scientist but a angry 4 star General who seems a little too eager to gas people with the same poison used by Sadaam Hussian (as were are reminded) to kill the bugs. We see a scene with what looked like a herd of sheep but I think it is cattle since we later find out they were eaten by the locust. They are now carnivorous! This is getting better then that classic movie Frogs. Most of the movie is spent watching scenes of locust swarming down on crowds..causing mayhem at a airport but no one is killed by locust eating them. Except one person toward the end after we find out that they like to eat flesh.but no other reports of death by Locust. And he looks like he was attacked by Slugs. The rest of the movie is spent in a battle of the wills between the Maniacal General and the husband and wife scientist trying to find a way to kill the bugs without killing folks. We have the usual war room scenes too. OK OK time is up for the solution. Seems like the good old Bug Zapper was the solution. This they figure out while bugs get zapped while trying to get into a silo! Yes one giant bug zapper. One had to think that during a day in the backyard having a barbecue someone would of noticed what those things hanging up off a tree limb was there for. Considering every time any bug got near it meant certain death. Kind of like seeing this movie.


(This post contains spoilers, so don't scroll down too far too quickly if you don't want to know what happens) I, being a huge Lucy Lawless fan, could not wait to see this movie. My dad and I sat through the entire 2 hours, which feels more like 4, the entire time thinking and saying "This is so unbelievable..!!", at one point my dad even said that she (Lucy Lawless) must have owed someone a favor..That's how surprised we were that she would be doing something like this. The plot is hard to believe (This coming from someone who couldn't believe more strongly in suspension of disbelief) and it seems the characters overreact, getting the government involved so early on? Their first result using nerve gas that was originally for the war in Iraq? I tried so hard to like this movie, but the final straw was..**SPOILER SPOILER**

When the man who created the locusts is helping Maddy get fuel for their solution, and is KILLED by the locusts..Now, I could see if he staggered in COVERED by them and bleeding to death barely able to walk, but he appeared to only have a swollen eye and cuts on his face. Granted his face was beaten up, I didn't think that an injury like that could kill someone...All in all the only reason to watch this movie would be to see Lucy. She is an incredible actress, but sadly, even she could not save this movie.


spring break shark attack proved to be the superior CBS spring movie. i was thoroughly disappointed by this movie. the release of the locusts was weak to say the least. however the acting wasn't horrible. i wish axlerod would've been the bad guy because that is an awesome name for a villain.

the humor attempted in the movie was god awful. they could've made it more suspenseful and eventually sold it to sci-fi. there is no way this movie will ever be on the sci-fi channel. it is that bad. i don't think anyone is truly scared by locusts after watching that film.

they needed to explore the office love affair more deeply. that might have saved it.


After seeing all the hype from TV promos I Watched this TV film today. Other reviewer have rated it one (1) star - surprisingly, one rater thought it was an "oscar worthy movie". I don't know what that rater watched, nor do I understand how he arrived at his posted rating - which IS more than a little high. What I watched was a film that was full of bad writing, Wooden acting and an uninspired story. Then there is the so-so FX which help make watching this movie a waste of 2 hours. Guess I hoped for more than was shown, pity; thought this may have had promise, maybe even a plausible story. What I saw was a movie that is food for termites.


This movie sucks. I mean I found it in a bargain bin at a store and I expected a movie that was so cheesy and terrible it made you laugh. Instead what we get is a story about a group of teens who love computer games and spend 19 hours 'online' non stop. I stress online because when was the internet ever like what it is in this movie? Its so inaccurate. This movie has dated badly. Movies made in the late 80s/early 90s generally do, but they still remain some charm. Terminal entry does not. The only thing good about this movie is how bad the acting of the teenagers is and how the magnum PI wannabe guy is so Uber cool! Watch it at your peril. If you want unintentional humour watch 'Stone Cold' or 'Hard to Kill' (classics).


I knew this was going to be bad. I expected it from the minute I picked up the box, turned around and looked at the screen caps and couldn't stop laughing at the dated looking teenagers.

What the heck was Yaphet Koto and Edward Albert doing in this 'Wargames' rip-off? The story of a bunch of teens who spend the weekend in a secluded cabin in the woods hacking into an on-line video game called 'Terminal Entry.' Although, they hadn't figured out that it's not a game at all, but terrorists actually using the interface to carry out their hijacking of the American communications system (there only seems to be one that they're after) and are using the game to carry out their assassination plots.

It's is a terrible, achingly boring movie that is so slow movie. The action scenes are pathetic, the dialog is stupid. You can immediately sense how lame this movie will be from the very beginning when the model is showering nude (why are people always so happy when they shower in the movies?) in full make-up or when Yaphet Koto is being shot at in his helicopter by ground terrorists, and doesn't seem the least bit bothered by the fuselage of gunfire. Edward Albert plays the hardened, five-foot soldier who takes it upon himself to single-handedly kill the terrorists. It's his mission.

Two stars because hottie Patrick Labyroteaux actually adds a bit of humor.

Do yourself a big favor, pocket the cash and time you would spend watching this mess and do something else.


Well. I have to say I saw this film when I was 14-15 and I found it amusing.

It is based around a group of teenagers who gather and play an adventure game together. They try to find the ultimate game and finaly they find a very exciting one that sends terrorists to targets.

They seem to have full control over this terrorist network indeed.

By coincidence they find out that the terrorist acts they plan are executed for real!

Nice twist, but the movie is definetly dated and it hasn't age well.


Take WarGames, dial down the intelligence level by 99%, add a bunch of dumb teens and some incredibly cheesy action sequences and what have you got? Do you need me to tell you?

You know the scenario.. three guys and three gals hack into a terrorist computer network which they think is a game but is instead a real life program. They order the assassination of the Russian peace envoy, explode a few oil refineries and generally wreck mayhem all over the good ol' US of A. Only when they order their own deaths as a joke do they realise this is all actually happening in real life. Who can save them? Why, only a bearded border control guard and his bubbly news anchor girlfriend. Then, you have the hard-as-nails black guy and the obese White House security officer. (NEVER accuse the writers of sticking to convention!!)

Obviously, the fat dude is the only one to actually get shot in the film.. big target you see. The rest of the action involves lots of blanks being sprayed randomly about, tons of extras diving onto the ground in slow motion and explosions where the sound effects seem out of proportion to the minor blasts we see. There's some hand to-hand combat too, which wouldn't look out of place in a comedy satire. Meanwhile the computer nerds take it in turns to unwittingly plot the destruction of the free world on their PC, and shag the attractive ladies they bought along with them for the ride.

See, it's films like this that give spotty anti-social freaks who play Warcraft all day long a vain hope they may have a hope of losing their virginity. Sorry, not gonna happen. Despite six kids causing the deaths of thousands by ordering a hitherto unknown band of radicals to commit acts of terrorism over their PC, and supermen who can kill people by the dozen without taking so much as a scratch themselves, this is by far the most ludicrous plot in the movie.

Still, it's not entirely without merit. The script is so hair-brained in will almost certainly keep you engrossed till the end, and it's always worth having a giggle at the many overdone battles. But at the end of the day, this amounts to very little but a waste of time and energy. Don't hold your breath for the DVD release. *GASP* 4/10

P.S There is a 'funny' monologue by one of the main characters over the ending credits which is possibly the most UNhilarious things I've ever heard in my life. Plus an extra scene which would suggest a sequel. Except it never made it past the drawing board. Phew!


I only grabbed this one because Christina Lindberg (of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE and SEX AND FURY fame) is in it, and I've got a serious hard-on for that chick. Unfortunately...she's not in it for long, and you only see her tits once, so what you're left with is a boring and un-erotic sleaze film.

Swedish WILDCATS is about a bunch of sluts that work in a brothel. They do some un-sexy dances for their male patrons, and afterwards they do what hookers are best known for. Somewhere in this boring mess is a "love story" between one of the ho's and some guy she met at the park. Throw in a scumbag that the guy from the park works with who has seen the chick at the brothel and wants to ruin their relationship - and there ya have it...

Like another reviewer mentioned - Swedish WILDCATS is pretty much an over-glorified chick-flick with a few tits and asses thrown in for good measure. There are definitely some smokin' chicks in this one, but the sex scenes are dull and un-sexy. The under-use of the ravishing Christina Lindberg is absolutely criminal - and everyone involved in this production should be shot for this unforgivable oversight. Don't bother unless you like dull romance films with a little bit (but not nearly enough) sleaze thrown in...


I can't for the life of me recall why I ordered this film from Netflix. Watching it brought me no clue either. Although it features a past her prime Diana Dors the film has little else to recommend it. It is stultifyingly unsexy and humorless so it has neither erotic nor camp value. The DVD even has interviews with some of the "creative" team who claim that there actually was a script. Little evidence of that in the film. If you are interested in pre-hardcore erotica with some attention to plot and great cinematography I would recommend the films of Radley Metzger. They aren't GREAT films but Metzger has a wonderful camera eye and the scripts are a lot more intelligent and sometimes even interesting.


Swedish Wildcats: 2/10: Have you ever been watching a film and a slow creeping horrific realization comes over you. You know despite the box art and the blurbs you realize this movie isn't what you thought it was. It is something much more dastardly and vile. It's a chick flick.

Swedish Wildcats is a chick flick in all its Harlequin Romance, bad Anime back-story glory. The original title Every Afternoon should have been a clue and the music certainly gives hints but it isn't till the fortieth shot of a fully clothed woman wandering around the parks in sun drenched Copenhagen that the true level of horror sinks in.

The girls are attractive enough and do disrobe from time to time but seem remarkably bored with the whole affair. The men all resemble euro trash surrender monkeys with a couple resembling flaming surrender monkeys if you know what I mean. The wildcat scenes are nothing you haven't seen Rebecca Romijn-Stamos do in the X-men movies.

In fact all the stage productions look more like NEA grant fodder than an actual erotic show. There is no real erotic edge and the plot with a whore pretending to be ballerina finding chaste love with mechanic pretending to be test pilot is right out of every bad Japanese animated series ever (Minus the giant robots of course). This movie needed giant robots, a serial killer, something besides romance and a tour of Copenhagen.

New York Wildcats: 1/10: More of a featurette than a full blown movie NY Wildcats takes the cats motif from Swedish Wildcats and runs with it into a brick wall.

A showcase for some of the worst line reading this side of public access, NY Wildcats doesn't deliver on the eroticism it promises, While avoiding the mind numbing tedium that Swedish Wildcats is full of.

It brings a level of incompetence to the table rarely scene outside of early Full Moon Pictures releases. Add on a very unattractive cast and you'll find yourself fast forwarding through the sex scenes as well as the plot, never a good sign.


...this movie has everything that everyone expects of Betty Grable every time. It is bright and colorful and silly and funny and loads of fun. Betty, (ever the independent and employed woman) is working as an entertainer in an odd little dive. Well, a friend of the owners does what we would now call a corporate take-over--and then he does a make-over on Betty and she becomes a big musical comedy star--but wait--it is more complicated than that! See this and you will understand why Betty Grable was loved at the box office for so long. She is wonderful.


CONEY ISLAND was such a successful Fox musical that seven years later it was turned into another starring vehicle for Grable called WABASH AVENUE. It's a breezy turn-of-the-century show biz tale about two Coney Island hucksters and the tricks they play on each other to win patrons at their establishments.

Betty is the brassy singer with the garish costumes and exaggerated singing/dancing style that Montgomery has to tone down by tying her to a prop so she can't move but has to deliver her ballad ("Cuddle Up A Little Closer") without gyrating all over the stage. Naturally, the love/hate relationship blooms into romance with Grable and Montgomery making a pleasing match as a team.

Lost of comedy relief from PHIL SILVERS and CHARLES WINNINGER, some nice song and dance numbers for Grable, and the whole backstage story is easy to take, the usual misunderstandings and schemes backfiring before the fadeout to a happy ending.

For BETTY GRABLE's fans, this one has to be rated one of her best.


I remember a fun energetic guy who tricks and plays jokes on an old buddy. There is a woman that works for his buddy. He ends up falling in love with a her and at the same time he changes her reputation as an actor to be a real star.It turns out that his buddy plays a joke right back and well.... you should watch it.


I remember it being one of the best shows of the season when it was released. Now i'm re-watching it via Netflix. The other reviews here don't make sense to me. I do want to see the Britsh version, but I'm glad i didn't see it first. The gist of reviews is that this is a pale comparison, which doesn't mean much.

I remember before it premiered, the buzz was mostly questioning whether the US was ready for such an "unpleasant" central character. I found Fitz pleasantly realistic and not nearly so obnoxious as the press indicated. The show has a great deal more depth than much of what's on, plus a large dose of simple everyday realism compared with most current dramas (where's Bochco when he's needed?)

Currently there seem to be two schools of drama; both rather irritating: In one, focus on characters is maximized but events are somehow super-heightened as to be unreal. Kind of soaps on steroids that grind you down after a while: i.e. Grey's Anatomy

The other is the gimmick show, started by ER, which focuses so heavily on it's supposedly clever concept, usually some scientific subject usually just off the radar of common folk, the characters are virtually forgotten; mere robots carrying on the activity necessary to illustrate the subject: Any of the CSI's, Criminal Minds, Numbers, Lie To Me, and a few dozen others they've spawned.

Cracker was not clichéd. It was character driven without forgetting to have interesting goings on, and didn't try to twist the viewer into knots with every plot turn.

Fitz reminds me quite a bit of Dr. House, especially now that show has lost it's sense of humor as well as the cast and formula that made it great. Cracker was never as brilliant as House began, but then there's plenty of room for both sorts. Perhaps the character of Fitz WAS before the time was right.


I was a huge fan of this series when it first aired. I recently stumbled onto the DVD Boxed set and just finished up with the final episode last night. I was reminded of just how much I loved this show. Granted, I haven't seen the original British version, but recently found a boxed set and I'm anxiously looking forward to viewing. Of course, I understand the desire for those who have seen both versions to make comparisons. I'm sure i'll be doing the same once I finish watching the British version. But if you just take the American version on it's own merits, it's hard to find another show comparable in quality and sheer grittiness. Pastorelli's Fitz is a deeply flawed human being. Many times his disgust and disdain for others is off-putting and makes one question why we care for him. Just as often though we see the kinks in his armor. His humanity is shielded with walls of self loathing. It's that dichotomy of his inner struggles which what make this such a great show and a breath of fresh air to watch. It's unfortunate that American TV just wasn't ready for the dark realities that this show portrayed. There's nothing better than watching a TV show that dares to be REAL with multi-layered characters. It seems there have been some on here reviewing this show with a black-and-white bias comparison to the original British version. I'm truly looking forward to watching Coltrane's Fitz with an open mind, which is what others here haven't seemed to be able to do with Pastorelli's Fitz.


It's too bad that it didn't run longer. I've not seen the original UK cracker, so I probably will have less qualms than those that have. I love this show. I own the DVD collection and while some episodes aren't great or even good most of them are excellent. Episodes like IF, Faustian Fitz and others are extremely well done. Each episode sort of has twist and some of them are expected and some aren't. I say great acting, great writing(in most cases) and overall a great show buy this on DVD if you can find it it's cheap and definitely worth every cent. This show is definitely a precursor to shows like Medium, the Closer, House and many other specialized mystery shows. I am willing to bet however the UK version is way better, but I have not yet seen it. Buy it.


I was not familiar with Robert Pastorelli, who died of a drug overdose, shortly after the series ended. I know he starred on "Murphy Brown" and some other television series, but that was it. Looking back at his "Fritz" the character and the actor clicked, for the most part. Granted, some of thedialogue was straight from the U.K. series, but Pastorelli did some nice personal touches in the series too: 1.) Compare Robbie Coltrane's (WHO is the definitive Fritz) ability to take down a suicide jumper compared to Robbie P.'s "Some Day A Lemming Will Fly" in both series. The approach is more American with R.P. flapping his arms attempting his own version jump believing the suspect will save him and get them both off the ledge. Robbie C. gives a speech about the title's meaning, but Robbie P. adds a little world weary flair by the flapping. It should be noted that the American Fritz really did hate his life, while the U.K. version's vices (gambling, booze, and adultery) kept him alive. I'll never forget Robbie P.'s line to an arsonist about to blow a house up: "Go ahead. It's been a bad week." 2.) After knowing that he puts an innocent man behind bars in "Lemming", both Fritzs react differently. Coltrane reflects quietly; Pastorelli gets sloshed the day they wanted to have a date. Again, it was Pastorelli's view of Fritz that made that role in the U.S. his. He wasn't just copying Coltrane word-for-word and action-for-action always. 3.) Some dialogue is definitively up-to-that-date American: Robbie P. tells an antecodote that Robert Mitchum lived on juice and alcohol. Just like the U.K. version had its pop references so did this one. 4.)Also of note are the episodes when Pastorelli has a heart attack (or rather his Fritz does), which is not in the U.K. series, the U.S. version of Fritz talking to his dad, and the final episode where Robbie Coltrane stars as a Hollywood star. The point that I am hinting at is that yes, Coltrane, who is a very good actor, fit U.K.'s Fritz like a glove, and yes, I love his Fritz. Pastorelli's Fritz was an American sequel to the series. (Note that the U.K.'s final episode -- not including "Lucky White Ghost" -- was the plot for the first U.S. series.) Pastorelli seemed to draw from the hell he was in shortly before his death to make the character his own. If that ain't Method acting, what is? For even attempting to touch this beloved U.K. character with his own style should give the man some credit in the great beyond. His American Fritz never got fully developed, and that was the truth. Nonetheless, the U.S. series was a very good attempt, and if you can, try to see it as the work of Pastorelli and R. Lee Emery and others instead of a copycat. It deserves better than that label.

(Personal note: If responding to this comment, no tabloid crap or jokes about R.P.'s life, okay? Tahnk you.


After reading several recommendations of Spoorloos (a.k.a. The Vanishing), I went ahead and bought the Criterion DVD release, which, by the way, has no extras. Let me say, I was not disappointed with the movie. If you like well-made, well-directed thrillers, it is definitely worth checking out. The story was simple enough; Rex's girlfriend mysteriously disappears at a gas station they stopped at while on vacation. Cut ahead three years and you still have him searching for her. Due to his persistence, the man responsible finally decides to get involved.

With very little violence and no gore, Spoorloos was able to leave the viewer in a truly depressing state. Some people might call it boring but I found the slow and steady pace to work in favor of the characters, as the acting was top notch. So was the direction of the scenes, which were set up quite nicely. It was interesting to see such attention paid to both the victim and criminal's point of view. You could really understand the desperation, confusion, and obsession that Rex felt with his loss. In turn, you see cold evil in a form that does exist in our world. While maybe not shocking to all viewers, the ending is terrifyingly tragic, made so by the realism and calmness throughout the film. Just ask yourself, how would you feel if that happened to you?

If pushed for a criticism, I would say that some of the symbolism seemed a bit too heavy handed but other then that, this is an intelligent, deep thriller. I have not seen the American remake (oddly enough, both versions are from director George Sluizer) but I can all but guarantee that the original is what you want to go with first. Many people suggest skipping the remake altogether!


The Vanishing is a movie only those with ice in their veins can ever forget. The direction is absolutely brilliant, from the opening frames until the very end. I felt Saskia's fright when she thought she lost Rex initially, and her description of her dream made me feel chills. When she disappeared, Rex's combination of rage, frustration, anxiety, and grief was torture to watch. A particularly powerful moment was when he slammed the car door shut so hard the window crumbled into pieces.

Watching Rex become consumed in every way by his quest to find Saskia was also extremely difficult to watch, although it was certainly inevitable. I found the professor's description of his actions appalling in many cases, the most notable one being when he fixates on Saskia and we see his POV. Seeing Saskia warmly respond to him was devastating, knowing what would happen. Throughout the film there was an overwhelming sense of doom and isolation, like this was a cruel world where even in the most idyllic settings evil lurked everywhere and attempting to fight it was futile. Rex undergoes one of the most harrowing emotional ordeals of any movie character ever, and when he is at the end of his rope his crucial decision would seem so insane out of context but viewers understand that it really is his only choice. The shock ending, especially the way it was done, almost made me scream, and I will never forget the final shot. The Vanishing could be shown in any film class on direction, as an example of perfection. Material that could have been turned into just a mediocre thriller with would have seemed like a lame twist was turned by George Sluizer into an utterly harrowing filmgoing experience. And that is the right word, because a movie like The Vanishing is not just watched-it is experienced.

I estimate I have seen around 700 movies in my life, and horror is my favorite genre. I have only seen two films that left me so scared that after they ended I couldn't even move. One was Psycho, which I saw 10 years ago when I was only 12. The other one was just this year-The Vanishing.


There aren't too many scenarios like this one. The original version and the Hollywood remake of this film were both directed by the same man, George Sluizer. As I understand from popular opinion, this is one film that was fine the first time round, and not well received on the second go. I cannot fairly compare them, and I have no more desire to see the remake of "Spoorloos" than I do the remake of "La Femme Nikita", namely "The Point Of No Return".

I saw the original version upon the strong recommendation of a newspaper reviewer proclaiming it one of the most disturbing films they'd ever seen. The photograph of a young couple about to be torn apart in the paper reeled me in.

A pleasant holiday excursion goes horribly wrong when a man's lady friend goes missing at a crowded rest stop. He grasps at straws in desperation as very little can be done because few clues or leads exist. The abduction is arbitrary and nearly flawless.

The film was indeed well done and what struck me the most was the focus on that of the villain. It is a portrayal of a normal, respectable family man who trains himself in meticulous detail for an abduction. His cold, calculating approach is probably the most frightening aspect. His inhumanity is difficult to comprehend.

Many film endings can be shocking and may stick with you forever, and for a lot of people that is certainly the case with this film. That's why I was surprised to learn that the TV commercials for this film gave away the ending. However it didn't ruin the film for me.

The suspense and chilling setting of this film makes it hard to forget. The viewer constantly wondering, "What would I do?" or "How would I cope?". Impossible questions we all hope we'll never find the answer to.

Of course, keep a few handy responses in mind should you watch this with your better half when they ask the inevitable, almost rhetorical question, "What would you do if I went missing and you couldn't find me?"

"I'd surely die, dear."


This is a most unsettling and haunting film which vividly depicts the banality of evil. American filmgoers who are too lazy to settle in to the ambiance and mood of foreign films will probably not be patient enough for it, though. I went to see it not knowing at all what to expect, and really got a jolt. One factor that made it so powerful was the everyday reality of it all. These are seemingly normal people you'd see on the street anywhere. I thought it was a masterful depiction of what would probably actually happen when someone you loved just disappeared out of the blue, and the turmoil of emotions that would be unleashed. If you are at all susceptible, the ending will absolutely chill you to the bone, and is the perfect topper to a great film. Please do yourself a favor, and DON'T make the mistake of seeing the American remake instead of the original!


"The Vanishing" is one of my favorite movies, probably in my top ten. I first saw it in 1990 in San Francisco. Without giving anything away, the end of this Dutch/French film contains an extraordinarily diabolical twist, and at the theater at which I saw it, the projector crapped out with about 15 minutes left. Everyone was issued a free pass to come back, which I did the next day, having barely been able to get the creepy story out of my head. I couldn't wait to see what happened at the film's conclusion. Fifteen years later, it still makes me shudder sometimes. The American remake with Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland should, in my opinion, be avoided at all cost; the ending was changed, no doubt to suit the bottom-line aspirations of some brain-dead producer. But the European original is full of great acting (particularly from the villain, Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu), a tight storyline, and, of course, a wickedly brilliant ending. It's a film worthy of Hitchcock.


***This review includes spoilers***

This dark, brilliant film has been much-talked about since its release in 1988, and for good reason: only a few films have such immutable power, leaving you with mental images that stay with you for months or even years. This film's austere ending is a commentary on the prevalence of heartless evil in our society. Reduced to its simplest expression, there is no joy in nature. Make no mistake, this is an ugly film that you will only want to see once. I cannot imagine anyone finding the same degree of stark satisfaction from the sanitized 1993 American version, complete with a happy ending tacked on to appease nervous producers. Please don't see the 1993 version.

Rex and Saskia are two young lovers on holiday, alternately loving and fighting as close couples are wont to do. Their flaws are revealed, making them more endearing: during the drive he becomes macho and demanding, while she rebels and becomes petty and shrill. After the fight, they are closer than ever. One cares about these characters, can imagine their lives together for years to come, possibly even getting married. She's earthy and fun-loving, while he is quietly appreciative of her company. Oddly, she presages the forthcoming events by recounting a strange dream about a golden egg. These two seem a perfect match. The sun sets on their short romance when they stop at a rest area and she disappears. He hangs around the rest area for hours, long into the night looking for her and trying to reconstruct her footsteps through the rest area. The sense of desperation and mystery lingers, and it shows in his pained expression. Anyone who has ever lost a loved one can identify with his quiet, desperate longing.

Several years later, Rex is still obsessed with Saskia's disappearance. His romantic partner, realizing that she can never take Saskia's place, walks out on him. Rex appears on talk shows, canvasses neighborhoods with flyers, and revisits their favorite places in an attempt to understand just why Saskia disappeared. This part is important: Rex wants to understand the nature of evil, and in order to successfully get through this film without lying awake all night with the ending forever running in your head, it's important to acknowledge this aspect of his character.

The film cuts to Raymond, the man who kidnaped Saskia: you might have imagined a raving maniac, but instead you see a gentle, kindly older teacher with a wife and son, living in a well-appointed flat and driving a Citroen; he might just as well be Pere Noel on summer holiday. This film is constructed like a crime scene investigation. First we experience the disappearance firsthand, and then we go into the mind and life of Raymond, showing how he coldly planned and carried out the kidnapping with as much emotion as changing the oil in his car. It is this two-part process which slowly builds the powerful suspense in this film. We see how methodical he is in his approach to the planned kidnaping, and, impossibly, we even laugh at him: looking for a victim, he inadvertently makes a pass at a young woman he knows, and she calls him on it, saying that he should be ashamed of himself. It is this twist of fate that drives him to kidnap a young woman from the rest area, where no one is likely to know him. So the fates have brought him Saskia.

Aware of Rex's obsession, Raymond offers to meet him in a public place and show him what happened to Saskia. Suffice it to say that the mystery of Saskia's disappearance is frighteningly revealed at last; listen closely and you can almost hear God laughing in the soundtrack. Because of the strong ending, I would recommend seeing this film with at least one other person.

There is nothing beautiful about this film; it is cold, ugly, and unfair. At the very least, maybe it will help you to understand the unreasonable nature of evil.


George Sluizer's magnificent European thriller remains as intelligent and haunting today as ever.

While traveling across Europe, a couple stops at a service station where the woman disappears without a trace. Her boyfriend embarks on a desperate three year search hoping to learn who abducted her. In the meantime however we are introduced to the strange character of a gentle family man - who turns out to be the sly madman responsible.

The Vanishing is one of the smartest and most chilling thrillers of modern cinema. It doesn't resort to violence, clichés, or conventional plot lines - but instead plays out its intriguing mystery premise by establishing its characters and their personal struggles. From there it builds a compelling plot of growing tension that escalates to a finale that is absolutely chilling and powerful. The conclusion is one of the most bold movie endings ever. Sluizer's direction is wonderfully stylish, using the lovely French locations to their full effect. Henny Vrienten's music score is nicely atmospheric and adds a perfect touch to the film's slick cinematography.

The cast is another great highlight. Gene Bervoets does a dynamic performance as the man who struggles with his obsession to learn the fate of his missing girlfriend. Johanna ter Steege is captivating as the lost love of Bervoets. However the show is truly stolen by Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu. Donnadieu is one of the most charismatic and fascinating villain characters ever. He's frightening, not for the typical reasons, but because he plays a weirdly heart-felt character that seems as normal as anyone. A real feat indeed.

The Vanishing is a film that all horror/thriller fans should see. It's an outstanding modern genre classic that isn't only tasteful and gripping, but strikingly smart too.

George Sluizer also directed an American remake in 1993, to much less effect.

**** out of ****


There are very few horror movies that even slightly frighten me, and this is probably true for most grown-ups. The monsters in those films are caricatures, blatantly cartoon-ish villains that are one dimensional and, as mature people know, don't really exist. That's because most of the truly frightening monsters in real life wear clothes just like the rest of us, have normal jobs just like the rest of us and are often living right next door, usually appearing to be ordinary family men and women on the surface. They will wave at you or nod as you pass them, if that's the custom in your area, or perhaps they will just stroll quietly by you and you will never know the horrors they commit. Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killing cannibal, might have not gotten caught when he did if it weren't for that horrific stench of decaying corpses that permeated from his apartment; because on the surface he looked and acted just like a quiet, ordinary guy. And what scares us most of all, if we admit it or not, is not only how ordinary he seemed but that at one time he was just like us, he just started down a twisted, psychotic path somewhere along the way, a path any of us could have fallen into had we been in similar circumstances. The real monsters are in all of us. Fortunately, most of them are completely inactive which gives us, on the surface, most of the time, a fairly placid and uneventful life.

Then you watch Spoorloos. It works so extraordinarily well because it feels like a documentary, a slice of life of the three main characters, Rex, Saskia and Raymond. Rex's girlfriend Saskia, just mysteriously vanishes and, being a realistic film, you see the horror, loss and near insane obsession such a loss would bring. You witness his wrenching emotions, excruciating emptiness and desperation in trying to discover someway, anyway to find her. And then you meet Raymond, the man who looks like an ordinary man with a seemingly happy family and, for no apparent reason, you realize he is responsible for Saskia disappearing from Rex's life. But what did he do with her? Surely this man, this seemingly ordinary man, could not have done anything terrible could he? What follows is the unfolding of a mystery that moves so painfully and methodically, developing into such a real horror story that you find yourself stunned when the credits roll. And what really is scariest of all, the character that sticks with you the most, is the monster. George Sluizer, the director, carefully leads you through the story from every character's perspective but the one whose eyes you see through the most, is the monster. You are left wondering "how could he?" "could I ever do something like that?" Like life, it does not have a neat, tidy happy ending but rather leaves you with too many disturbing questions of an extremely disturbing story. This is movie making and story telling at its best. Not in terms of incredible special effects or beautiful cinematography but understated, realistic acting of realistic characters and story. Spoorloos, along with Roman Polanski's "Repulsion" are the two most frightening movies I have seen for they have haunted me the most, due to their unflinching, realistic, disturbing stories.

As a footnote, the director, George Sluizer, was paid a pile of money to direct a pile of crap, an American version of this story, the English title was also "The Vanishing" but this turd was made five years later (1993). Do yourself a great favor and do not confuse the two if you are renting, look for the Dutch/French version made in 1988. Also, if you run into the real monster from Spoorloos, or someone just like him, send him to meet Todd Graff, who wrote the Hollywood version and all the others responsible for that awful mess.


This film really got to me. The scariest film I've ever seen. I had a hard time sleeping after I saw it. Great filmmaking.


"The Vanishing", or "Spoorloos" (its original Dutch title) tells the story of Rex Hofman (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu), who is on a carefree road trip with his girlfriend, Saskia (Johanna ter Steege). After breaking down inside a tunnel, the two make their way to a busy truck stop in the French countryside, and Saskia goes inside to grab a few things. But when she fails to return to the car, panic ensues, and Rex begins a frantic search for his missing girlfriend. Three years later, Saskia is still missing, and the abductor, Raymond Lemorne (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu), a cool-facaded college professor, begins contacting Rex, promising to tell him the truth of what he did to Saskia... but Rex, desperate for answers, finds himself in a situation more horrifying than he could have ever imagined.

I'd heard of "The Vanishing" before, and how it was hailed as a psychological chiller classic, but I had no idea that the version that I was aware of was actually a remake of a 1980s French/Dutch film. That is, until I mistook this movie for the 1993 American version at the video store. When I took it home and began watching, I immediately realized this was the original French film, but I'm extremely happy that I made this mistake. Why? Because otherwise I wouldn't have gotten to watch this excellent movie. I have yet to see the American remake of the film, so I cannot compare the two, but I can easily say that I found this to be one of the most effective psychological horror films I've had the pleasure of seeing.

Truly worthy of the Hitchcockian label, "The Vanishing" weaves a tale that is both frightening and dramatic. When the film begins, it gets off slowly. Nothing much happens for a good thirty minutes, but we, the audience, already know something bad is coming in the way of our characters. And when that moment happens, it's scary because of how realistically depicted it is. Everything in this film is realistic, and I think that gives it a lot of power. The characters, their actions, their rationale - it all seems so human, and it is easy to sympathize with them. After Saskia has vanished, the rest of the film focuses on both Rex and Raymond, and the mind games that Raymond begins with Rex, who is desperately seeking the truth. The themes in this film are relate-able as well - the loss of a loved one and the desperate need to find the truth behind what happened to them. All of this is natural human reaction, but the situation in which it's placed is unusually and sufficiently frightening.

The imagery in the film is lyrical, the camera-work excellent, and the symbolism effective. It's an atmospheric movie and this is another one of its large benefactors. It leaves its audience in a surreal, somewhat depressed state, and a film that can do that has got to have achieved something worthy of recognition. The acting is great, Donnadieu plays a role reminiscent of Rutger Hauer's performance in "The Hitcher", and Bervoets is convincing as the Rex character, desperate in finding answers. Johanna ter Steege is also great as Rex's ill-fated girlfriend, Saskia. As for the much-talked-about-ending, all I can say is "Wow". I didn't see it coming, and it isn't anything remotely like your typical story conclusion. It, as well as the rest of the film, is depressing, dark, and somber, and while I wouldn't call it a "twist" (because it really isn't), it's still extremely effective.

Overall, "Spoorloos", or "The Vanishing" is a surreal and scary film. The story is near genius and worthy of a Hitchcock status, and the movie is extremely well-made. For fans of slow-going, almost dreamlike psychological horror films, "The Vanishing" is an absolute must-see. It leaves you with a strange, unsettling feeling in the pit of your stomach, and poses a thought provoking question- how far would you go to discover the truth? Perhaps sometimes the truth is better left unknown. I can't stress enough that filmgoers should not be put off by foreign-language movies. If you're too lazy to handle subtitles, then you will miss out on excellent films like this and many, many others. 9/10.


I can't understand how anyone could say the first 100 minutes of this film are of no merit whatever. Surely the ending that every viewer finds so profoundly unsettling only works because the rest of this beautifully crafted film leads us to expect a quite different ending. 'Spoorloos' is not only the most genuinely chilling movie I've ever seen, it is a good contender for Best Film Of the 80s. Its feeble Hollywood remake ('The Vanishing') should serve as a warning to all European film-makers of the crassness of LA studio executives.


Whenever any conversation about creepy films comes up I always mention this one. Those who have seen it scream 'That film is incredible!' while the rest want to know the plot. Well the plot is very simple but even so undeniably intriguing. A couple stop at a petrol station and she goes in to get coffee. She never comes out. That's it. What then happens it that we see the third person involved in her fate and this is why the film really gets under your skin. It's the sheer normality of this character who constantly has to push himself, test himself to see how far he can go. This is the only film I have ever watched which has actually given me a sleepless night. I ended up pacing the flat unable to forget about the fate of the characters in my head. Unusual yes but this film really does give one nightmares. I saw it in 1991 and I have not seen it since. I don't particularly want to because I can still remember it vividly 16 years later. It really does not get any more effective than this. A real gem but keep it at arms length. It's a killer.


I was watching TV this morning and saw a few minutes of the (far inferior) American version of this film, and asked myself why I was watching this when I have the original on DVD? So, I put on Spoorloos, and although I've seen it a few times before, it once again grabbed my interest, and I noticed, right away, a few details that make this version far superior to its American counterpart.

First of all, foreign films usually have an advantage to me by casting foreign actors with whom I am not familiar. In this case, by not being a familiar face, the character of Raymond Lemorne came across as even scarier...he looked like a normal guy that I might meet on the street. In the American version, you have Jeff Bridges looking crazy, playing crazy, and ya just know to stay away! Also, I love the running coverage of the Tour De France playing in the background during the scenes where the girlfriend goes missing. It parallels some of the situations that both of our leading guys are going through....and it's cool that Rex is wearing a yellow jersey (like the Tour leader) during those frantic scenes while he looks for Saskia. This yellow jersey, and all the references to Saskia's dream of the 'golden egg' (like Rex asking her to peel the orange, and her golden foam knitting-needle cover) just bring a sense of unity to the whole piece.

Many people here have written about the ending, which I think is brilliant. I was surprised that the American version (which was also directed by Sluizer, by the way) really copped-out on the ending. Rex was really losing it during those 3 years after Saskia's disappearance, and he was no good to his new girlfriend (who says at one point that she doesn't want to be part of a menage a trois), and no good to himself. His obsession had taken him over, and since he was willing to risk it all to find out what happened to Saskia, then he had to lose it all. Not a happy ending by Hollywood's standards, but it made more sense in the story.

So, if you're considering seeing one of the two versions, please do yourself a favor, and go with this one.


It's a terrifying thought, having a loved one vanish without a trace. One moment you're together, and then you're not. You turn your head for just a second and she's gone. Panic sets in; you check everywhere, question everyone, go over every detail until your head hurts and still nothing makes sense. You feel nauseous and frustrated and then the fear settles in. It's getting dark-- now what do you do? File a missing person's report that eventually leads nowhere. Your significant other is reduced to a mere statistic. You wait and wait for closure, but it never comes. Three agonizing years pass. It is now an obsession, an obsession that consumes your entire life. There is no evidence, no pattern and no body. Your life is put on hold until you find the answer. The task seems daunting in that only by shear luck will you ever know the truth. Then one day your persistence pays off and you stumble upon a stranger, a stranger who knows something. Is he the murderer or just a lunatic? Do you take the chance? Is the risk worth knowing the truth? This unnerving dilemma besets the protagonist Rex in George Sluizer's 1988 cinematic masterpiece The Vanishing. What I found most intriguing and refreshing about this film was the seemingly benign approach it creates allowing the terror to build gradually. The central characters, a Dutch couple Rex and his girlfriend Saskia, are average looking and behave in unspectacular fashion, laughing, arguing as most couples do. They are traveling to France for a vacation.

The opening scenes establish the happy couple; an ominous turn ensues when they stop at a gas station and Saskia disappears. As Rex searches for her in panic, he learns that she was last seen leaving with another man. Three years pass and Rex is still searching. His obsession consumes him, sabotaging his relationship with another woman. Then everything switches gears, with the entire second half of the film focusing on Raymond Lemorne, the kidnapper. It seems an odd technique to use (showing the villain throughout) but it works extremely well as we examine his perspective. It is here that The Vanishing establishes itself as a thriller that will be unlike all the rest, as Raymond is presented as a frightening but complex villain. A successful teacher with a loving wife and two daughters, strange only in his dullness, his monstrous desires are nourished by the fact that he sees himself as a resident above suspicion and therefore undetectable. He's a chameleon, an everyday man, who looks like the guy next door. This is what makes this film so effective and disturbing. Here is a culprit who blends in so well he can never be caught. He is very intelligent, yet imperfect. There are scenes in this movie both comic and unsettling at the same time. We observe as Raymond acts out his kidnapping scheme, and then pitifully attempts to bait young women into his car without any luck. His plan constantly fails until he meets Saskia.

At first this film does not portray itself as suspenseful, but develops tension so calmly that by the time it is over, you're left exhausted. George Sluizer's genius direction comes from the idea of playing with the audience's nerves, letting anxiety build as we learn what ultimately happened to Saskia. Yet when the reality sets in, and the truth is revealed we almost wish the movie hadn't told us, just like Rex, who had his life destroyed by Saskia's unsolved vanishing, comes to the realization that maybe he would have been better off not knowing either. Similar to the pieces of a puzzle, the story gradually connects. It stays riveting from start to finish, psychologically absorbing the whole audience. When Raymond offers a chance for Rex to see Saskia again, he must first experience what she went through, and you're left wondering "Where the hell is this going to take us next?" The movie moves so subtly towards its shocking conclusion, that when it comes, we believe it. Unlike the usual "conventional" twist ending, The Vanishing pulls off the extremely complex act of seeming both shocking and inevitable, leaving you with a finale that will genuinely leave you numb for days.

-Myles


some people are amazed by this movie, even chilled, but i thought it was a complete waste of my time. the entire first two acts of the film are great, setting up a tense situation where the viewer is intently waiting to see the dramatic climax. and then the whole thing goes to hell! my only qualm is that the ending is entirely unbelievable. no one, NO ONE, would volunteer for this uncertain fate. i can't believe that this man, the protagonist, would be so distraught that he'd volunteer to suffer the same fate as his mysteriously absent girlfriend. she was obviously dead; she never tried to make contact with her old life. so, either he is the world's laziest suicide, unable to commit the act himself, or he's an idiot. as i watched the movie, when the protagonist is presented with the choice of finding out what happened to Saskia by undergoing the exact same treatment, i almost turned the movie off. all i could think was that there was a third choice: beat the kidnapper into a pulp, take his ass back to your apartment, and torture the information out of him. not agree to die at the hands of the same bastard who killed your girl. hey, maybe i'm just too American to appreciate the emotional damage motivating this man's inexhaustible search, but all i know is that, given the same situation, my own need to know could be instantly replaced by an undying homicidal urge that i would gladly focus on the kidnapper who created this void in my life. i certainly wouldn't sign up to be buried alive. and just why does this budding killer bury people in the first place? he goes through all that preparation so he can just bury his victims? wouldn't he rather see their anguish? i just think all these characters are flat, thoughtless interpretations of how real people would conduct themselves in similar situation with similar motivations. i think this movie was written by a monkey with no human insight and the idea that people are genuinely frightened by this schlock causes me to doubt moviegoers more than i already do. personally, i think the deranged neighbor kid from Toy Story is more psychologically thrilling than this foreign rag.


My first comment on IMDb ... after watching many IMDb Top250 ... After this I HAD to write something. One of my all-time favorites.

This movie is fantastic. I have never seen a movie that let's you feel with the main actor like this one.

If you see this movie, you feel the feelings the main actor has. This movie makes you curious, angry, sad, afraid and shocked like few other movies.

The acting is superb and so is the cinematography.

I am so glad I could watch this 'old' masterpiece. Thank you George Sluizer!


and you ever want to go to sleep again. I just saw this for the second time* and I wasn't going to watch because it scared me the first time. But...it's so well done that it just pulled me right in. And I sat there, this time knowing what was coming, and watched right to the very disturbing end. The lead actor Donnadieu and the supporting cast are all convincing in a very believable story. And the psychology behind the motivations of the various characters was well thought out and shown.

Also, my heading may be a spoiler, I'm not quite sure, so I've indicated that just in case.

*It was showing on IFC where they bill it as The Vanishing. There also seems to be a 1993 Hollywood remake.


If you look up this movie here, it's considered a very good thriller. If you look up it's remake (w/ Kiefer Sutherland), they say watch the original. And the verdict is that they're right, for the most part. The character development in this French/Dutch film is fantastic in that this is the first time I've ever been drawn to the evil character, but the lag time in the movie slows it down immensely, which is it's only problem. While trying to get you to know the man behind the mysterious disappearance of a Dutchman's girlfriend, some parts of the film drag on to no end, and then pick up finally after one specific scene, being a car-ride where it picks up and doesn't fail. When the Dutchman finally meets the evil man, the dialog and scenes are impeccable, leading up to an astonishing ending that made me feel very empty. A great thriller, even after the long, drawn out parts.


This is one of my ultimate favourite films. It is not about the action but the fact that the main character is a sociopath. The film puts so much detail into how he is to commit the act just to see if he 'feels' anything and shows how unemotional he really is (this is the scary part). He chooses the worst crime he can think of (being a claustrophobic) and then plans it meticulously. The ending is shocking when you put all the pieces together of what he has done earlier in the film leading up to this, even involving his children screaming to see how far it travels! I think the remake ruins the whole premise and meaning of the film and advise anyone to watch this one. He shows no remorse just a morbid curiosity of other peoples emotions.

Truly a cold calculating scary man.


This is a class exercise in making the ordinary and everyday seem extraordinary. The build up to the girl's disappearance is muted to say the least. The low-key nature of her not returning and the range of emotions from impatience to agitation to panic and then despair is performed with a realistic touch.

The middle section of the film is the who-dunnit part where the boyfriend attempts to amass information. The director cleverly avoids flashbacks to the girl so that your memory of her appearance begins to fade. There are a number of such clever devices employed throughout the film.

The French schoolteacher is superbly evil in his own secretive way, whilst all the while maintaining his respectable front to the local community. The ending is chilling and all too believable. I heard they remade it, but why bother to gild the lily  it was already a good movie.


This movie from start to finish has really no merits that I could see. The plot unfolds at an almost painfully sluggish pace, and came across as very disjointed and overly drawn out in places. Very little insight was established in terms of what Rex really had to endure with the disappearance of his lover, the film almost makes her disappearance seem trivial in it's execution. The protagonist/the kidnapper was lacking in the character development department too, small insights into his early boyhood behaviors and apparent sociopathic personality are presented, but in my opinion executed very poorly. Overall a pretty uneventful film, I really do not understand the intrigue at all.


This is the original Norwegian version of a film remade in America, by the same director, no less, about a boyfriend who becomes obsessed after his girlfriend vanishes right from under his nose at a gas station.

Because I wanted to see the original after seeing the trailer for the American version and hearing the original had a far better ending, I bought the Criterion DVD of this and watched it.

The ending probably would've shocked me more if I hadn't seen the trailer for the American version, which gave the closing plot twist away.

I've never been more angry at my own culture in my life. If you want to see this, don't even bother watching the trailer for the other movie, which starred Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland.

This surprise ending would've chilled me to the bone ... if I'd not already seen Kiefer Sutherland live through it in the trailer.


This film is slow to start, and only picks up a little bit near the end. There is no real suspense during the movie until the last 25 minutes or so when we are hoping to find out what happened to Saskia. The whole dream of the golden eggs could be pulled out entirely and wouldn't change the movie any. Overall, I gave the movie a 4 for being slow, with not much suspense and little plot development.


Apparently a lot of people think the revelation at the end of this film is worth the trip to get there. I am not one of them. (Don't worry; I won't be giving anything away.)

I don't think the comparison which has been made to Hitchcock is apt at all. Hitchcock normally puts you on a slow boil, then raises the temperature until by the end you're scorching and sticking to the bottom of the pot (maybe I took that analogy too far). There is a lot to keep you busy in the typical Hitchcock film, with an exciting finale as a bonus.

But in The Vanishing there is so little to hold your interest. By about midway, I was wondering whether the film would end up like The Usual Suspects, where the ending would force the viewer to re-evaluate everything that had gone before. But in that film your attention was held until the twist. In The Vanishing unfortunately, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. The first 100 minutes of the film have no merit of any kind -- they're just setup for the big payoff. And for me the big payoff was in Confederate currency.


Is Mr. Rex Hofman, the main character in this movie, totally mentally retarded and suicidal? Even though Rex is insanely obsessed with the disappearance of his girlfriend, why did he have to give himself up to a psychopathic killer and let himself be tortured to death? What did he accomplish? Absolutely NOTHING!! Unless a person is a psychopathic masochist, no human being in this world will ever do such a stupid thing!! Apparently Mr. Hofman is indeed a totally stupid, psychopathic masochist. I cannot buy the existence of such an idiotic individual on this planet, except in an insane asylum. Some IMDb commentators have complimented this movie as a good character study of a psychopathic killer. No, no. This movie is a character study of two psychopathic killers: wacko Monsieur Raymond, who kills others, and stupid Mr. Rex, who seems to enjoy killing himself. When a movie deviates from reality to this extent, it stinks. This is a rotten mackerel.


This is certainly an interesting study of a psychopathic killer and of the man who sets out to track him down after his fiance disappears mysteriously at a gasoline stop in France. It is known in the English speaking world as THE VANISHING and was remade in 1993 with an American cast. Without revealing the startling denouement, one cannot explain the most attractive aspects of the film, which is the detailed study of both tracker and killer that occupies most of the last half. The unsatisfying part is that while we see many details of these two men's lives, we are given little insight into their motivations. We have to "piece it out" for ourselves. That's probably what the director wanted. Madness and curiosity are obvious motivations, but not really enough. With these cavils, I will still say that SPOORLOOS is at once terrifying, gripping,...and, well, amazing. It is well acted but poorly photographed and edited. One suspects the director is of the sort who doesn't regard these things as important.


"The Vanishing 1988" tells of the dogged search of a man for his girlfriend who disappears while they're together on holiday. Not a "thriller", this psychodrama spends most of its time dwelling on the criminal mind of the abductor, the anxiety and angst of the abductee's boyfriend, and flashbacking to show what transpired from the abductor's perspective after setting up the story with the boyfriend's perspective. The film is well crafted realism and a worthy watch for those who don't mind subtitles.

From the same novel as the later American version (circa 1993), movie purist agree this Europic is superior to the Hollywood product but then, aren't they all? There are sufficient differences, however, to make viewing both films worthwhile.


I recently got interested in viewing "classic" films, and according to the reviews I'd read of this movie, it was supposed to be quite an unpredictable thriller that keeps you guessing until the very end. Perhaps I'm a little jaded or something, but I was so disappointed with this film I was sure I'd rented the wrong one. There was no suspense, the ending was predictable, and I was left feeling very let down. So much for a "classic".


A man's wife mysteriously disappears at a gas station in France, and the man obsessively searches for her for years, led on by the psychopath who took her in a cat and mouse game.

Nicely photographed in color but with actors going a bit overboard while obviously trying to be "realistic". Some very good scenes, but the ending fails to pay off on all the suspense that has been gradually built up, and is more sad instead of terrible.


I read the reviews of this film and noticed it was receiving good ratings so I decided to see it, result, don't believe everything your hear(or read). The film was slow until the ending, the director absolutely used his time unwisely, scenes that were presented in 10 minutes could of been reduced down to 3. The actors played their role and basically anything else was pretty good. But this film with a little bit more work could of a been a least decent.


This hysterical animated short is a classic that can be enjoyed by anyone who has ever had a dog or a family or even if not, anyone who enjoys a good laugh! The animation isn't that of a top blockbuster Disney, but it's cute and the family is just odd enough to make most people feel at home.

The main story is a small dog dealing with two kids, the kids' parents, and their overall household. When the dog is left at home after indulging in too much of Mom's new recipe while the family takes in a movie, the story gets interesting. It's a small cast of characters, but each is memorable in their own right.

My only concern is that it's not long enough! It leaves me wanting another adventure of this interesting and somewhat misfortuned canine.


I remember seeing this short film when it first aired on Amazing Stories in 1987 and I thought that it was the funniest thing I had ever seen. Every character (including the dog who is silent) was extremely funny. I have never forgotten it and was looking for it all over the place (thank heaven for the internet). I watched it, and although the animation is not on par with anything that is out today, it is still probably one of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life. I cannot get it out of my mind (I think the same thing as the robber at the end, every morning when I have to walk my dogs). If you can, find it...If you can't, find it anyway, it will surely crack you up, dog lover or not.


In the Family Dog, Brad Bird was already demonstrating the brilliance that would propel him to greater fame with The Incredibles. The writing, timing, voice casting, and music are all spot on. I recorded this episode off the air in the late 80s, and my wife and I watched it repeatedly. Recently my kids (15 and 9) were wondering what this show is that we quote from all the time. Just last weekend I dug out the tape to show them. Now there's a new generation of Family Dog lovers in our house. Enjoy watching the inter-related stories of the dog suffering humiliation from every family member before engineering an escape to the outdoors, a short family holiday film, and the longer adventure of the dog failing to protect the home from thieves, being sent to attack dog training school, and... well you'll have to see.


... for the Binfords' dog in this (the only) animated episode of 'Amazing Stories'. Part 1: The children play with the dog, but it's more like torture for him. And he doesn't like the cheap food that Ma Binford gives him. Will he find a way to get out?

Part 2: Two burglars rob the Binfords' home, and the dog is not able to stop them. Mr Binford brings him to Miss Lestrange's dog training camp, where he is trained to be more aggressive. But it seems they don't teach him how to tell right from wrong: first he attacks the burglars, but then he also attacks a policeman. He even starts a criminal career with the burglars. Will he get on the right path again or not?

(Perhaps there are actually three parts. After part 1, they watch a Christmas home movie; that passage may be a separate part.)

I liked the second part better than the first. I think it's funnier. But part 1 is still o.k., and it's much shorter than part 2. I liked the passage after the dog has returned from the training camp best; the way he catches one of the burglars, and his subsequent criminal career. And I liked the animation; it looks really good.

All in all, a good episode in my opinion, but I like the episodes better that have more horror, mystery, or sci-fi. (This is almost pure comedy. There are some good jokes, but I think there could have been more.)

Footnote: There was a spin-off series that was also called 'Family Dog' (1993), but I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's good.


This episode of "Family Dog" remains about the funniest film I have ever seen. Not only did I thoroughly enjoy it, but so did my whole family. It's now nearly 20 years since it was made, but my two daughters can still recite the entire dialog, and we still "crack-up" when we think about it!!! The expressions on the faces, the antics, the characters, the situations, are truly inspired. I was not aware, although not surprised, that there was a whole series of episodes "spinning-off" from this original, and I wouldn't mind seeing those. Sometimes, however, the follow-ons can be a little disappointing when compared with the original, especially when the original is so brilliant.


I remember this one when it was passing on the french CBC Network. A good and funny french-Canadian dubbing (among those voices: Ronald France, Benoit Marleau and Elizabeth Chouvalidze) who made those chimpanzees much more funnier.

However, it's this spoof of all spy and psychedelic series (James Bond, the Man from U.N.C.L.E. and the Monkees among others) which makes this series worth to watch. It maybe bad and dumb for others, but leave your seriousness at the door when you'll watch Lance and Mata Hairi make the move on the Baron, the Dragon Lady and all the CHUMP villains...

A.P.E. rules again. And like the Baron says at the end of each show: we'll meet again ! P.S. and that Ed Sullivan spoof, it is so funny !


I was a small child when this ran during its one season in 1970, and it had a profound effect on me, although at the time I had no idea why. While some people argue that "H.R. Puffinstuff" was the most psychedelic, drug-fueled kids' show of all-time (and of that period), I would say it comes in a close second to "L.L."! Watching "L.L" now, you can almost picture the haze of pot smoke and LSD trips the creators and writers of this show must have gotten their ideas from! It's like a stoner's PhD thesis! "L.L." is a surrealistic masterpiece worthy of Salvador Dali (wonder if the old boy ever watched it? Now THAT would be something to behold!). It's easy to understand why it only ran for one season, and equally easy to see how it has achieved the cult status it enjoys today. Truly a time capsule of the late 60s/early 70s, thank goodness that it's now preserved for posterity on DVD! Children and heads of the world unite!


39013, an escaped convict, carries out his revenge on the man who put him in prison, by imprisoning Granville and impersonating him, with the aid of Granville's traitorous aides. When destroying all of Granville's holdings in order to ruin him, he burns down the Granville Amusement Center, which claims the life of the younger brother of one of three circus daredevils. The three daredevils then swear vengeance against 39013, and are hired by Granville to hunt him down, even though the impersonation is in effect. Brilliant plot, with the best chapter endings caught on film, especially one and eight, and one is probably the greatest of all, with Gene trying to outrace on motorcycle a torrent of water quickly filling up a tunnel. 12 chapters. In terms of serials, 10 out of 10.


This is a serial that has it all! The leads,Herman Brix[Bruce Bennett],Charles Quigley,and David Sharpe are top notch.Carole Landis is fine as the herione,and Charles Middleton does his usual fne work as the master villian.Sharpe shows that he can act as well as perform those great stunts!Location filming adds to the scenic values,good story line,music score,and special effects from the Lydecker brothers. It all adds up to 12 chapters of non-stop action.One of my top ten serials from Republic.


This serial made at the peak of Republic's serial making may be the finest serial ever made. It has the best music score of any serial and a great serial cast including Charles Middleton, Herman Brix, C. Montague Shaw, David Sharpe and Charles Quigley. Also pretty Carole Landis and Miles Mander and you have one of the most energetic serials you will ever see. If you have never seen a serial and want to see one this may be the one to watch. It has been voted in the top 10 of an expert panel of serial fans appearing on all 25 panelist's lists.


Now this serial had a lot of hype to live up to...I had heard or read that it was one of the best serials ever made from every source I encountered. It was spoken of in the same awed tones as The Adventures of Captain Marvel, Zorro's Fighting Legion, Fighting Devil Dogs, and Drums of Fu Manchu. And it lived up to all the hype.

Charles Quigley, David Sharpe and Bruce Bennett are great as the three circus daredevils who join the police in their efforts to stop the escaped convict who is known by the name 39013. The action and thrills are easily on a par with most of the SFX blockbusters today...and these old time SFX are pretty believable too. Just watch the motorcycle racing ahead of the water in the flooding tunnel!

This chapter play doesn't really fall into the ruts of many of the genre. The cliffhanger resolutions are all very believable, and there is only about a half a chapter of recap. The acting, beyond the three principals, is excellent. Carole Landis has a minor though pivotal role that really doesn't use her comic talents, but Charles Middleton plays the archtypical villain role that he became known for...especially after he took on the role of Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon.

There are few serials that I can recommend wholeheartedly. But Daredevils of the Red Circle has definitely joined that list!


This Republic serial is about as good as they get. The chapter ending involving a tunnel under the river is quite memorable, as I pass through the Lincoln Tunnel every morning on the way to work.

I was also impressed with the always-excellent Charles Middleton (best remembered as Ming the Merciless) as the villain. Everytime we see him in a movie, my girlfriend gasps "39013!"...which is pretty remarkable when you think about it. How many numerically-named characters do YOU remember from old movies?


As a kid in the early TV era of the 1950s, I had the opportunity to view several serials from the late '30s and the 1940s. Apparently these were syndicated to TV stations to use as "fillers" since the network feeds weren't available (or the station didn't want to pay) during certain hours, including the after-school--i.e. late afternoon--time frame. In retrospect, it seems that our local station (WSBT in South Bend, Indiana) had a very astute--or very lucky--program director who chose the best serials out there. "Zorro's Fighting Legion," "The Mysterious Dr. Satan," "Fighting Devildogs," "The Black Widow"...they were all there. But the best of the best, in my opinion, was "Daredevils of the Red Circle." Drama, suspense, action, and a morality play (the best revenge is not to destroy one's opponent, as 39013 attempted to do, but to outdo him legally and ethically, as 39013 possibly could have done were his superior mind not warped and twisted)...these were the most memorable features of this 6-day, 15 minutes per episode odyssey that trumped sandlot baseball and other boyhood pursuits typical of the early baby boom generation. Some 45 years later, the opportunity to purchase this touchstone of my youth on VHS presented itself. Viewed with the more critical, possibly even jaded, eye of a middle-aged adult, the production does not disappoint. The plot, acting, special effects, and musical score may seem primitive by today's high-tech standards, but in the context of the times in which this serial was created, it "raised the bar," as we like to say today, for all that followed. So check it out. Imagine yourself in the late Art Deco era of engineering feats (the tunnel), sexy vehicles (the "Heritage Softtail" precursor motorcycle and '37 Buick Century straight 8 convertible, among others), and beautiful people (the impeccably coiffed and dressed "Blanche;" the trio of heroes in their flawlessly ironed suits, shirts, and ties; the elegant Granville; and even the villain 39013 as played so convincingly by Charles Middleton in first-class clothing that we seldom see today outside of a corporate boardroom), and enjoy. Maybe the subtitle of this serial should be: "the Lost World, Never to Return"...


In the Year 1939 you would have to visit the movie theater for about twelve weeks in a row in order to find out the complete ending to this film. This film involves three Circus Stuntmen who are acrobats and one of their brothers is killed which is caused by #39013, Harry Crowel in revenge for Horace Granville sending him to jail who was his former partner in his business. Carole Landis, (Blanche Granville)"I Wake Up Screaming" is the daughter to Horace Granville and finds out about a wicked scheme that #39013 has planned against her farther and if she tells her father will die. There is plenty of action, secret doors, secret panels and plenty of bombs being set off, with water rushing through tunnels and more and more. Great Classic film from 1939, this one you will really enjoy.


The daredevils/heroes are: Gene-- the brains of the outfit, Tiny  a gifted strongman, and Bert -- an agile escape artist. They are aided by Carole Landis who plays Blanche Grandville  the granddaughter of Horace Grandville whose multimillion dollar industrial complex is under attack by master criminal 39013. This film is twelve chapters of action packed cliff-hanging fun.

I particularly liked the fact that these circa 1939 daredevils did almost all of their action scenes in double breasted three piece suits!

The history of the major actors is quite interesting:

Dave Sharpe,Bert, became an Army pilot during WWII and a major stuntman; having a long and celebrated career in the industry. He has been ranked with the great Yakima Canutt.

Charles Quigley, Gene, had a good career but died of cirrhosis of the liver before he turned sixty.

Bruce Bennet aka Herman Brix, who played Tiny, was a 1928 Olympic champion who went on to a very long career and lived to be over 100 years old.

Carole Landis was 29 when she committed suicide.

I bought this film because of the multitude of glowing reviews found on this forum. I was not disappointed!