Early Bergman, and from the onset it is clear an artist is at work. The first conversation piece, with all 5 waiting women in the same room, is a long shot approaching 4 minutes, with various of the women talking. There are also already some typical Bergman postures, with one woman talking intensely and the one next to her staring vapidly past her downwards, seemingly lost in her own inner world. All that in well and good, but as soon as I heard the first monotonous monologue from the mother, her eyes turning to heaven, speaking of how she can not reach out to her husband", not even to scratch his eyes out, my Bergman-radar immediately hit the red zone. And surely enough, we are in for group therapy all the way, as each woman tells of one significant episode from their lives with their husbands. But it is a very elegant movie, and along the way you become quite sympathetic, even though all the stories describe infidelity and frigid bourgeous lives. My eye was caught by Eva Dahlbeck, who I also recently saw in Sommarnöje sökes. Here, at 32, she is sizzlingly hot. Overall it is a movie not to be missed by Bergman lovers, if mainly for historical reasons. His next movie was Monika, so this one can be said to commence his golden period. For the trivia-consumers: IMDb informs that Eva Dahlbeck has recently filed for divorce, after, ahem, 67 years of marriage. You go, girl!


See it. Lyrical, beautifully shot, quietly hilarious in spots, this film is seldom screened. Perhaps more than his better-known works, this film showcases Bergman's love of women. Bjork, Dahlbeck and especially Nilsson are adoringly photographed; this is passionate young Bergman. A delight.


This movie was made and distributed by the Mormon Church. But, unlike most films that fall into the above category, this movie is not about religion, missionary work, joining any church, etc. and so forth. This short film could have quite possibly been made by anyone. That is what makes it so good. It is a story about a trader coming to one of the small islands of the world to get himself a wife. The island is so small, there is only room enough for one village. There are none of the modern conveniences of the rest of the world, and everything is either built by the villagers or acquired by traders who visit the island by boat and trade for their handmade goods. In this village, it is custom to bargain and pay the father of the bride in dairy cows. This may sound like a serious film, but it really is rather quite funny and has some real classic lines to it that I'm sure will endear you to the film. The story is simple yet original and the flow and pacing for the film is perfect. If you can pick it up, it would be worth the effort.


Beyond the tremendous and true romantic love Johnny Lingo proves for his dear Mahana, he gives a tremendous object lesson in how to properly treat others, and bring out the very best in them. If all husbands would treat their wives the way Johnny treated Mahana, there could be no evil in the world.


This movie was made by The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints(AKA: Mormons, LDS) in 1969. Though made for any type of regular viewing, other than religious, its purpose was just a teaching tool to show value in every person and that there is beauty in everything. And sometimes it takes a little encouragement to show others the beauty.

Set in the early 1900's on an island in Polynesia, the film starts out with a local trader who barters for a wife. The father of the young girl is surprised why anyone would want his daughter as she is not the islands prized beauty. The father, thinking he can barely get 1 cow for his daughter tries to start high and haggle down low to gain his own respect. The trader comes up with an outrageous high number of cows and shocks the town when he arrives with all healthy and the full number of cows he promised.

This is truly an inspiration to ones self esteem, showing that worth and beauty is always in the beholder. Excellent to have in any collection.


Are you guys kidding? This is one of the worst films ever! The acting is atrocious, and there is almost nothing morally redeemable about the film at all. Racist, sexist, imperialistic--c'mon, get a life! The little 'slave' boy, grinning lackey slacker? Who just won't work reliably for the white trader? The idea that women's worth is to be measured on the basis of her looks (though admitting we can sometimes be wrong about it)???? That men set the value of all things, including women?

This is truly as bad as it gets. Too bad Mormon children --especially the girls-- have to grow up with this crap.


Of course the story of Johnny Lingo is one of the classics for Mormon children; the message it conveys is true and probably much more important today than it was at the time it was made. What makes it really watchable though, are the performances. Not their quality, but on the contrary, the lack thereof. The acting is so stiff and inept that You will laugh tears. I don't think, that Johnny Lingo was intented as funny as it comes out, but it is always worth watching. Beside trying to convey the message, that beauty is relative, inner beauty is that counts and that every one needs someone to believe in him to reach his full potential, there is no reference to the Mormon church or Mormon beliefs at all.


Though this is not the most thrilling ride (Tower of Terror and Rockin' Rollar Coaster are much better for thrills)Star Tours is fun. It's a ride simulator, or something like that. It's mild thrill so everyone can enjoy it, even the little 4-year-olds. DON'T GET A FAST PASS! The attraction is just as enjoyable at the line as the actual ride. C-3PO and R2-D2 make a special appearance in the line, arguing as usual. Now the ride. You're a passenger on a StarSpeeder which is taking you to Endor. Your pilot, Rex, is a first-time pilot and messes up by taking the wrong turn. You fly through a hanger and, after much confusion, leave. You enter hyperspace, but fly past Endor. Great. You end up flying through a comet, breaking through ice. You exit the comet and what do know! Star Destroyers. You end up being a part of the battle that's going on between the Rebellion and the Empire. You go through the Death Star trench scene(except Luke is NOT blowing up the Death Star). You finally make it to a Star Tours station, but not without almost crashing. You then leave and get to a souvenirs shop. They have anything you can think of there. Now Star Tours is a little outdated. But it's still enjoyable. When I first went on it I was 8, hated Star Wars, and loved the ride. That's how fun it is. You don't have to be a fun of the saga to enjoy it. It's NOT something to pass by at Disney.


I am a longtime fan of Disneyland, and many of the rides that they have put there. This is one of my favorite rides, even though it is not in any sense a great ride, nor is it one of the better attractions that Lucas worked on with Disney, EO of course being his best. All and all this is a decent ride but as many star wars fans will know, there are some major flaws in this ride:

*SPOILER ALERT*

1. As this is taking place after the battle of Endor, how can there be another Death star that is completely built up like the first one, when the second one was no where near completion? 2. The X-wings you see in this attraction violate the laws of the Star Wars universe, because they launch to hyperspace in attack position

*END SPOILER*

The flaws aside though, this is a fun ride for the whole family that actually brings some characters from the movie in, though you wont see any Jedi battles, as this is a flight simulator which takes you on a rough space trip, to an explosive ending. The attraction is a decent, if not great ride, and even though the only character in ride you see is R2, you will still hear some memorable quotes, and see memorable faces during the preflight safety videos. Be sure to look for the hidden mickeys!


What is the best feature at Disney MGM?Together with Indiana Jones is Star Tours, the great simulator of Star Wars. You are in a strange fusion of bus and spaceship.The cool thing is that the simulator is very realistic and loyal to Star Wars Saga, so you can sense a great speed when you enter Hyperspace or when you are evading laser shots at the Death Star. The "bus" is controlled by R2 and a droid called RX-1138, or just Rex, a troublesome droid who makes many mistakes during the film, like entering an ice asteroid. But afteralls, Star Tours is perfect, just like Star Wars!

10!


[MAY BE SPOILERS]

 Whenever I visit Disneyland, the very first ride I go on is this one! It is the coolest! The best ride in the whole park. I must ride it about five times. I never get tired of it! I love watching C-3PO and R2-D2 always repairing the Star Speeder 3000 while the screen advertises trips to Endor to visit Ewoks or a ski vacation on Hoth, or perhaps a wild adventure on Tatooine. It's so cool to see C-3PO and R2-D2 up close! You feel like those who have been in the movies. Then you board the ship. Your captain: RX Droid named Rex. The start of the flight is bumpy because he steers the ship right into the maintenence bay, then he zooms right past the Endor moon and right into a comet field. When that has passed, we run into the Empire! Then we help the rebellion blow the Death Star into oblivion then arrive safely at our destination.

 Again, the coolest ride at Disneyland! I hope they never touch it to fit those prequels. It's fine the way it is! So in conclusion, if you haven't ridden this ride before then my God, ride it! Immediately! You will love it! I guarantee it!! You'll wanna go get in line again when the ride's over! We all know the lines at Disneyland are murder but there are plenty of cool things to see while waiting. So please, ride this ride ASAP! You won't regret it! And may the Force be with you!

-


My father and I were in Disneyland 1 week prior to the "Grand Opening" of this ride at Disneyland back in 1987. Needless to say it is still on our list to catch when at the Disney parks. Considering the technology at the time it came out, it is still the foundation by which other "sim" rides attempt to duplicate. It was a lot of fun and regardless of the dialogue, it is just a good time...


This ride was made in 1987, and therefore is based entirely on the original Trilogy. Anyone who expects anything from the much later added first three episodes obviously can't be very bright. This ride was WAY ahead of its time when it was new, and is still a great ride and lots of fun.

As to why there would be no Jedi Knight, Sith Lord or light saber fight, well, this ride is called "Star TOURS." The entire gist of the ride is that you are on a space tour bus. R2D2 is co-pilot, and many of the other original Star Wars characters are throughout the ride which includes the waiting area.

REX basically takes the passengers of his ship on a trip around the Death Star almost exactly identical to that of Luke Skywalker in the first Star Wars movie. Anyone who doesn't get that, obviously can't be that big of a Star Wars fan, although you definitely don't need to be a Star Wars fan to enjoy this simlulator.


It has been years since my experience but it is still a vivid memory. Judging this movie solely on the film, there are excellent graphics and it tells a story that makes you belive you are actually involved in the film. The ride simply adds to this story and make it an "attraction."


You will enjoy this motion simulator ride a lot more if you have seen or are a fan of the Star Wars movies. There's not a lot of you, but I did ride this before I saw the films. I enjoyed it then as well. There are better motion simulator rides out there, but this one probably came first.


This ride sucks. I love Star Wars and there is no Star Wars character in this one. It is mediocre when compared to other simulators like Back to the future and Spiderman.

Star Wars deserved a better ride. I still can't believe they have created a Star Wars ride without a single Jedi Knight, Sith Lord or light saber fight.


You know t's such a shame that neither of these films went wide release. Sure they needed a little touching up in some places but these films are definate quality material. A breathe of fresh air in the horror films which is recreating itself once again as a truly important genre. Both of these films are good, and borderline great. they take somewhat sillacious storylines and make them somewhat believable filled with aggreassive dark humor and independent film dread. This sequel is pretty much a direct continuation of the original. It leaves the last films heroine Bridget infected and fighting her illness with the cure found in the last film. She's beginning to change when she's taken in by a youth facility and locked up for drug abuse. What insues is unfortunatly unwelcome and senseless visits from the first films title charachter but a vast mixing pool of other cringe inducing twists including the fact that a male werewolf has found her and wants to mate. A sleezy hospital guard who trades sexual favors for drugs. An innocent little girl obsessed with comic books. I wish I could truly give away the ending to you. Because it was so well done and I just didnt see it coming. And that is what this film prides itself on unpredictability. It goes in a completely opposite direction of where you though it was going and it makes sense. All in all the film has much to be successful with believable performances, especially from the film's lead Bridget, a good storyline, suspenseful direction, a creepy score all adding up to a startling refreshing take on an otherwise dying genre. Don't be fooled this sequel has major bite!


This is an enjoyable and surprisingly competent DTV follow up to cult hit Ginger Snaps. The first film was dark, entertaining and witty and had a good amount of tension and scares. The sequel is good fun but lacks the wit of the original and a certain amount of the hip-ness. The lack of Ginger herself is also evident. Katherine Isabelle is back but essentially in a cameo as the ghost of Ginger while once again the angst ridden sister Bridget is the centre of the story. Following the events of the first film, Bridget is on the run, moving from town to town and constantly taking monkshood (the drug that prevents werewolfism) to stop her turning into a werewolf following the final confrontation in the first film. When she is found overdosing on the stuff she falls into a coma and wakes up in a mental hospital but soon she is tracked down by another werewolf and with no monkshood to slow down her own transformation she must fight her impending hairiness. As she has found, Monkshood doesn't prevent Wolfiness, only slows the transformation. At the institute she meets the eccentric Ghost, who is fascinated with Bridget and soon learns of her problem. When a residents of the institute start turning up dead Ghost initially suspects Bridget but they soon discover that a mate is tracking Bridget to make hairy werewolf babies with her. As well as this Ghost may not be quite as she seems. This is well shot and has some tense moments and considering its small budget it is a remarkably accomplished and enjoyable piece of work. A good and more low key Ginger Snaps movie it is. ***


Brigitte now has the virus in her blood that destroyed her sister Ginger in the first film. So to prevent herself from changing into the beast she injects monksblood into her system, but after an overdose she wakes up in a rehabilitation clinic. Which now she has become so attached to the syrup and without it, the affects of the curse starts to transform within her. From the physical to the mental attributes. But also on her tail is that of a male werewolf who wants to mate with her and Ginger is keeping a tab on her by haunting her mind.

I remember when I picked up 'Ginger Snaps' I was expecting another mediocre or below-average werewolf flick. Gosh, I was wrong! Just like 'Dog Soldiers' it was more then good and added some new life to the whimpering sub-genre. And I'm happy to say it worked out again in this monstrous sequel and I was actually digging this one a tad more, though that was up until the stalling sequences involving hiding out in a house. It would've been great to see more Katharine Isabelle as Ginger too, but you can't have it all your own way I guess. I wasn't expecting anything incredibly special, but it did have big boots to fill and we all know the law of diminishing returns. Well, this sequel keeps far away form that trend and doesn't lean away from the quirky and offbeat nature of its predecessor, but it actually enhances it with a very morbid and cold-hearted appeal. It's depressing to the bone, I but I get kick out of any films that create this sort of tone! Though what made the original rejuvenating was that it had warm and natural relationships between the characters, especially between Bridget and Ginger, but also with the parents. Because of the sequel's depressing vibe, it does lack the heartache of the horrifying matter that drove the sisters even closer in the first film. Also it sorely does miss the characteristic interactions between the sisters. Although saying that they do share some screen time here, but only in small doses meaning far less impact.

The plot is an absorbing one, which doesn't break a whole lot of new ground like the original, but still comes up with enough hunger to set it out from most other horror flicks of the last decade, but also adding another dimension to the tale. Just like in the first film and like many reviewers have painted it's a metaphor for adolescent life, from angst, drugs and sex. But this cocktail is mixed with a refreshing twist involving the werewolf mythology, introducing the metaphor part of all of this. The snappy script holds up well and the story moves along pretty quickly with enough excitement initiated and the twists are far from easy to detect. No way is this story's structure predictable! The actual ending was kind of clever, but felt odd and left me feeling a little unsatisfied. The editing was swiftly sharp and potent to the pacing. It also recaptures the slickly handled production of that of the original, but it looks like it had more to work with here. That's especially because the special effects and werewolf designs were vastly better this time around and the attacks were more callous and bloodier. The isolated setting was made to great use with its cold wintry backdrop and gloomy awe. The action might have up the ante in this sequel, but so did the soundtrack by igniting itself with the Gothic and haunting tunes that made the original great. The upbeat tempo of the soundtrack bounds the mood. The spectral sound effects also worked its way into the picture and it was hard to shut out its thumping vibration throughout. The out-and-out stylistic camera-work sinuously develops some inventive shots. The direction by Brett Sullivan is above par and he hones down his skills with preciseness but adding such tautness and tension to the picture. The performances were magnificent. Emily Perkins comes out of the shadow of Katharine Isabelle here, and she made the most of it by turning in a convincing performance. Tatiana Maslany as Ghost one of the kids in the clinic provides on the humour side of things and Eric Johnson is perfectly scummy as one of the workers at the clinic. Katharine Isabelle makes some small but yet effective glimpses and adds in with some voice-overs. This production most definitely went one step bigger.

After two worthy werewolf films, I wonder if the film makers can repeat this winning formula in their third flick of the series Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004) or will it come crashing back to earth with a thud. The sequel is very much on par with the original and definitely well worth the look. Actually I would say it's a must-see if you seen the original.


Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed. * * 1/2 Actors: Emily Perkins, Tatiana Maslany, Eric Johnson Writer: Megan Martin Director: Brett Sullivan.

The second part of the "Ginger Snaps" trilogy picks up after the first one. Bridgitte has infected herself with Ginger's blood who has turned into a werewolf. In order to keep herself from becoming like her sister, she must inject herself daily with monkshood. After barely escaping a werewolf that has found her, she awakes in a clinic that treats all things including drug addiction. With her drugs taken away, Bridgitte can't escape what she is becoming.

I loved the 1st movie and I found the second one to be a worthwhile sequel. While the first one simmered with satire on female hormones and puberty, "Unleashed" is a straight horror film. It's too bad we don't see much of Ginger in this one, but she does turn up as a ghost who warns Bridgitte that another one waits for her. Bridgitte is a lot more confident and a lot hotter than the first one. But although this is her story, the one character that steals the show is a young girl at the hospital named Ghost. Bridgitte befriends this girl because she can help get her monkshood and I'm sure she feels a little bad that all the other patients make fun of her. There is a twist at the end of this movie that I was not expecting, but on my second viewing of it. I don't know how I could have missed it. All the warning signs were shown in the first thirty minutes.

If you haven't seen the first one you could just watch this one alone. It has a good enough story to keep you interested. It's not as fulfilling as the original, but it's a nice desert


I liked it a lot, in fact even more than the first movie. I loved the character of Ghost and all the comic book shots and her third person lines. Good ending. One thing they could have done was make the identity of the werewolf clearer. Also when the sister appeared it was kind of forced.. it didn't seem like she was a delusion


This is the only sequel I have seen that could be considered an improvement on its original.

I'm a great Fan of Ginger Snaps and was really excited about this film when i first heard about it, unfortunately when it arrived at the cinema I was to young to see it. I'm sure its always a gamble for people and film fans alike to buy movies on Tapoe/DVD with out viewing them first and for me this was a first. It was well worth the risk of my cash as I loved the film, the casting was especially good this time around ( the DVD showing the auditions in all their glory ) As far as the films go Emily Perkins takes her original part and runs with it, totally convincing the audience that she is trying to break away from her sister and the ghosts of the past.

The special effects and make up are of course grander this time around which enhances the horror side of things, but I my self view this more as a Drama that a Horror film. The suspense is really edgy and makes you want to fast forward to the next scene to see what happens next. As well as the stand allow story of Briditte's new company 'Ghost' making you want more as the plot continues. Even as a sequel this is a hard one to beat. I whole heartedly will you to see it, even if you have not yet view the first one.


"Ginger Snaps:Unleashed" is a pretty smart sequel to my beloved werewolf horror "Ginger Snaps".Brigitte is an addict.After mixing blood with her sister Ginger she has been infected with the virus.Each day the curse grows stronger and she must increase her dosage of injections.When she is found lying face down in the snow after the near escape from another beast,she is thrown into drug rehabilitation-locked behind the doors without her life-saving antidote."Ginger Snaps:Unleashed" is almost as good as the first one.The soundtrack is awesome and creates a creepy atmosphere of desperation and isolation.There is plenty of gore and violence and some really vicious werewolf attacks.The acting is excellent with outstanding performance by Emily Perkins.The film is really tense,so if you liked the original you won't be disappointed.Highly recommended.


"Ginger Snaps" single-handedly raised my interest in lycanthropic cinema, and "Ginger Snaps Unleashed" is a remarkably strong sequel that works for many of the same reasons. Like the thoughtful horror cinema of George Romero, where deeper human issues boil under a more obvious horror surface, "Ginger Snaps" used lycanthropy as a metaphor for puberty and its impact on teenage relationships; "Unleashed" uses it as a metaphor for addiction, with Brigitte Fitzgerald (Emily Perkins--"It"), sister of the ill-fated Ginger (Katharine Isabelle), injecting herself with wolfbane to curb her increasingly wolf-like tendencies. While in a rehab clinic for troubled teens, Brigitte forges a relationship with Ghost (Tatiana Maslany), a precocious girl whose seeming innocence unravels her secret. The new writing/directing team of Megan Martin and Brett Sullivan pick up where the previous film left off, skillfully bridging the two with a bare minimum of rehashed exposition, and the end result is extremely satisfying (though the machinations of "Unleashed"'s final third made me wish the script had tied some thematic/character arcs together better). Perkins, who is becoming a real horror ingénue, plays Brigitte with sympathy and sarcastic bite, and her relationship with Maslany comes close to matching the sense of sisterly love that provided the endearing backbone of the original "Ginger Snaps." "Unleashed" is the rare sequel that does its parent proud.


Brigitte (Emily Perkins) is alone, after killing her sister Ginger (Katharine Isabelle), and injecting a substance called monkshood to delay the process of transformation in a werewolf. She has an overdose and is sent to a rehabilitation clinic, where she is mistakenly taken as a drug addicted. Meanwhile, a beast is chasing her, trying to become mated with her. Ginger escapes from the clinic with Ghost (Tatiana Maslany), a needy and lonely girl that wants to be friend of Brigitte. "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed" is a great sequel of "Ginger Snaps". The participation of Katharine Isabelle is minimum and basically is limited to give her name to the credits. However, Emily Perkins has another excellent performance in the dramatic role of a young woman fighting against her fate. This sequel is very claustrophobic and also very violent, but it deserved a better conclusion. The story is better than the first one, but I was a little disappointed with the end. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Possuída 2" ("Possessed 2")


After the explosively entertaining "Ginger Snaps", I had some doubts that the sequels could live up to the original. But in this one, we are greeted to a wonderful film picking up exactly where the first one left off: now with Bridget trying to stop herself from becoming a werewolf, and escaping from the rehab center she has been placed in.

If you find cutting and self-mutilation to be disgusting, then this is the film you want to either see or avoid. The opening credits are over a scene of Bridget in the bathtub, cutting herself to pieces. She continues to cut herself throughout the movie, as well as give herself injections.

The scenery is fantastic, as rehabs, hospitals and insane asylums are always great places for horror films if you know how to film them. The makers of this film know exactly what they're doing. Add secret passageways and you're set.

The new cast is also wonderful, easily making up for Ginger having a very small role. The cast now has several male staffers working in an all-girl rehab center, leading to such activities as trading sexual favors for drugs. But most importantly is a new character named "Ghost" (presumably because she's almost like an albino) who is fascinated with the occult and death and befriends Bridget after finding out she might be a werewolf.

Some interesting plot twists happen I can't reveal here, and as the wolf blood begins to overtake the human blood, things heat up. And then another werewolf shows up to try and mate.

Oh, heck. Just watch the movie. These guys have taken a worn-out horror staple (lycanthropy) and added such a new dimension to it that it's almost like an entirely new invention. Excelsior!


It is hilarious to see a detective trying to work while fighting extreme obsessive/compulsive behavior, as well as germaphobia strong enough to merit using anti-bacterial wipes after every handshake. While these tendencies sometimes take center stage, the writing is well-balanced and touching so that it becomes a very enjoyable comedy/drama and not a ridiculous farce. Entertaining and engaging for just about anyone!


I've seen a few episodes of this modern murder mystery-comedy series. In addition to being a challenging who-dunnit, there was a perfect blendy of hilarious comedy (can't beat having obsessive-compulsive detective to solve the most intricate crime mysteries). Sure beats 99% of most TV programming out there today. I found the writing to be witty (Andy Breckman who wrote script for the movie "Rat Race", also hilarious). The entire acting cast fit each of their roles perfectly. I've seen most of the main actors before, either on TV or on big screen. Tony Shalhoub is perfect as Adrian Monk. Some of you might remember him as Jack Jeebs in "Men in Black II". Bitty Schram is classic in the role as the more serious other half of the comedy duo, that being Monk's "half way house psych nurse" Sharona Fleming. I loved the scene where they were playing the board game "Clue" ... classic anticipatory comedy! I still chuckle thinking about it. If this series were to appear in print I would read them all! I look forward to watching many more episodes of this series. I hope it's temporary absence from the small screen doesn't mean that it hasn't made the ratings cut!


Initially Monk had endings that were really mismatched or less politely dumb. We would watch a great show and then boom, stupid ending. But recently the endings are much more creative and actually push this fun show beyond a 10. Simply great, clean, and fun entertainment..


This is great television. Fun, well acted, great plots and not so serious. I loved the fat man episode. Please, please, please don't let this one go away. I just smile the whole time Monk is obsessing his way to the inevitable conclusion.


Monk is Tony Shaloub's newest project. He plays an PI who has OCD {Obsessive Compulsive Disorder}. OCD is a serious mental condition that causes people to obsess over things. Shaloub makes it work though. *** out of ****.


Monk is a great detective show that you can sometimes solve along with Monk if you are a genius. The show is entertaining and despite what most people say, Monk's obsessive compulsive disorders are so funny! Not annoying! The commercials are sometimes long, but not often. For any person who even lightly likes mysteries, this show is for you.


"Monk" is a decent new TV show. The title character is a former police detective who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At first I was worried that the show would milk his OCD too much for humor value and make it a mean spirited run-on joke, or that it would become too sappy with fawning sympathy for him. Thankfully, the show's writers and director have found a good middle path combining human dignity with enough humorous situations to keep it fresh and upbeat. The characters are fairly good, with two exceptions: the police chief's assistant and the weekly villains. The assistant is one-dimensional as a dunce. He's the sort of character who's funny once but unbelievable and annoying as a regular role. The weekly villains often engage too much in chewing the scenery. It's like watching Scooby Doo, where at the end the apprehended bad guy always sneers, "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for this crazy guy and his sexy nurse!"

The aspect of the show that's weakest in my opinion is its believability as a police procedural. Yes, I know this is character drama and not another spinoff from the Law & Order franchise, but I did see an interview with the show's creator where he said that one of the main goals of this show is to function as a clue-finding whodunnit, much like a Sherlock Holmes story. In that respect I have difficulty believing Monk's abilities. His astute eye for detail, I'll accept as a combination of him being a smart guy, a trained detective, and an OCD sufferer. But his encyclopedic knowledge of seemingly every topic that comes up in the course of evaluating evidence, I can't swallow. In addition, that preternatural genius removes some of the plot buildup. There's no increasing tension as Monk puts in legwork or research time figuring things out; he just has to see all the clues and, Bam!, he's got the answer.

On the whole, Monk is a good show. It's definitely above average for network and cable TV series. But I'm a very picky viewer (I currently watch about 5 hours/week), and after watching several episodes I find the show's shortfalls put it right at the borderline between what I think is worth watching and what is not.


It was a good show idea and very funny. But I didn't feel that suspense feeling I was hoping to get. The commercials are too long and ill placed. It takes away from the show if you can mop the kitchen floor during breaks. But the show is a good idea and has humor which is something series like Law and Order don't have as much as. So for its lack or suspense it makes up for in humor and uniqueness.


I love this show. You feel a bit sorry for Monk's obsessive compulsiveness and yet have to laugh at his good fortune because of it. I love his ability to see clues that nobody else can. The writing is fabulous. I am definitely putting this show on my must see list.


I was really looking forward to this show, and all in all it was OK. The plot was fine, the acting was good, etc. Monk's obsessive behavior, which was supposed to be quirky, got to be more annoying than quirky, but it's something that they can work on. But they'll work on it for someone other than me. Why? Because the damn commercial breaks went on FOREVER!!! They had to be 5 or 6 minutes long each. I saw more spots for "The Dead Zone", Bowflex and acid reflux than I can count. I was caught up in the plot, so I didn't want to change channels, but never again. I suppose I could record the show and skip the commercials, but that ain't the point.


Antonio Scarpachi is dead! Adrian Monk Lives! Long Live Tony Shaloub.

Adrian Monk is a former Police Officer with Obsessive compulsive disorder and a fear of filth. He hates germs, has a plethora of other phobias, and wants to be reinstated to the Police Department.

Monk has a photographic memory and an ability to notice everything. He solves crimes by noticing the things most people over look.

In the premier I was totally impressed at how they use his obsessive compulsive disorder and his fear of germs to put him in predicaments that challenge his character. I love the way he struggles to overcome his phobias in order to get the bad guy. The show has comic relief that is classic Tony Shaloub schtick!

With his cohort Sharona, he solves crimes, impresses the police and confronts the many fears he has.

This is the Columbo of the new millenium! Not to be missed. I predict a long run for this program. I am not a USA Network watcher in general but I will be watching "Monk"!

I am also a USM grad in Maine and I am proud to call Shaloub a fellow graduate. Well done!


Clu Gulager is a familiar face as a veteran character actor. I had no idea he had briefly gone in for directing at one time and made this fine short, in the sixties poetic / experimental mode.

Note: this short is on the Criterion Collection DVD of "George Washington", evidently because David Gordon Green felt influenced by it. I'm glad it has been retrieved from the archives and made available to viewers of today's independent cinema. Green comments on the painterly visual effects (cinematography by László Kovács!), but the more obvious similarities are thematic: the world of kids in the semi-rural south, and how the world of adults impinges on them (and vice versa here of course).


Boy, there must have been a real dearth/scarcity of film fests back then!? (Not that being Nom'd for the Palme d' Or is chicken feed!!) But no others? Very odd!

Re: whomever's comment about Clu being "demented," he didn't seem that way to me, although I guess he had somewhat of a rep as an actor. Numerous actors who really care about their craft and/or are simply real people do have such days (or weeks, or years), so...!? His interview on the DVD of "The Killers" is very lucid, although it may have been rehearsed? No idea!

But this is a really terrific short film; it's worth renting "Geogre Washington" just to watch it, imo!!!


'A Day with the Boys' is a very unique and experimental short film. My first experience with the film came with the special features of David Gordon Green's 'George Washington.' This film was described as being an influence on 'George Washington,' but it is perhaps best to view the film without thinking about Green's work. A similarity between the two is apparent, but the films are almost nothing alike.

I was surprised at how affected I was by the film given its short running time and lack of dialogue. It featured a fresh and original stylistic approach that some may unfortunately misinterpret as an attempt to be overly artsy. Viewing the film with an open mind is a requirement in order to fully appreciate its message.

possible spoiler: This film is perhaps one of the more disturbing films I've ever seen. Not bloody or gory like most horror films, but disturbing nonetheless. I was really shocked by how much I continued to think about this film in the days following my first viewing.

On a lighter note: Why are all of the kids unsupervised and alone at 6 in the morning? They should be inside watching cartoons if they are awake at all.


Michael Hertel, not listed, but what a great actor!!! This movie is by far the best shorts ever. The Directing is remarkable. A must see for everyone!!! What ever became of Michael Hertel??

This Movie appears just be a cute day with the boys at first. But the suspense builds and builds. The ending is a climax which will never be forgotten.


"A Day with the Boys" by Clu Gulager follows a group of boys as they are playing war games of childhood.The boys are only playing:burying the adult character/businessman alive after quick execution.Suddenly the camera is panning to reveal that they have killed others.The grave of the victim is marked with his suitcase and there are three similar graves marked with their own deceased occupants' emblems:an umbrella,a basket and a child's doll.Gorgeously photographed by Laszlo Kovacs "A Day with the Boys" looks like a painting with freeze-frames and dissolving images.The innocent darkness within children is stunningly revealed.An unsettling and poignant work of art.9 out of 10.


A Great Film, the visuals, the music, the times. I was 8 years old when the film came out, but oddly enough I can relate to it, more so on a subconscious level as I hardly remember being eight. The visuals affect me deeply, as well as the music. Someone pointed out it being haunting, I definitely got the same feeling. The movie made me cry, but I don't know why, at least not on a conscious level. The story line does remind me of when I was a kid, a time when kids played outdoors using nothing more than their imagination and whatever they could find to play with and being content. Also it reminded me of a carefree time of boys being boys. A must to watch and enjoy!


I can't for my life understand what's so appealing about this show and how on earth it has such a high rating.

This is a type example of a show which just have gone on and on, years after it should have been canceled. The plots are utterly ridiculous including possessions by Satan, evil twins and mind control through chips operated into peoples brains. This is what happens when the writers run out of ideas and take to bizarre stories just to keep the show running.

Unless you're a fan of bad acting and ridiculous plots you should stay as far away from DOOL as possible.


I was drawn into Days in Dec. '06 when Chelsea was treating Nick horribly - just before he turned into 'The Lonely Splicer'. For a few days, I turned it on just waiting for that storyline.

Then I met Bo - which shocked me as he looks so much like my husband. Eventually, I recognized Steve from an episode of The Nanny (as I'd never watched ANY soaps before this...) Then I followed religiously the Shawn and Belle escape from Phillip (who I couldn't stand at the time) and Sami and Lucas's wedding triangle.

Now! I'm all about Phillip and Belle!! Since I'm new (?) perhaps, I never saw much chemistry between Belle and Shawn. I think Phillip's macho side is a more "normal" alpha-male - just determined and pained looking at times --- all that money weighing him down??! It seems totally realistic to me that Belle would be hard pressed to ignore the support and safety Phillip could provide - nature calls! I've been reading that regular fans are unhappy with Belle's new promiscuous side - but, this is a Soap Opera, right? Anyway, since enjoying this show so much, I've put some time into the other Soaps, but this one seems in a higher class altogether. The parenting tidbits of advice actually help me with my kids! (and spouse!) I guess just feel like I can relate to the characters - despite whatever plot mechanism is underplay.

Thanks to all who work for this show!!!!!!


I absolutely adore this show! I stumbled upon it by accident in 1999 on a school lunch break and have been hooked ever since! Sky One cruelly axed it and then Channel 5 picked it up - unfortunately this was only a brief period.

Its been off UK screens until - I SALUTE YOU - Zone Romantica for bringing Days Of Our Lives back into OUR lives! Its roughly a year thats past in episodes so its easy catch up on. Yes the story lines, sets and acting are very comical at times - thats just what makes it so addictive. I loved the whole Garden of Eden storyline with Greta and Austin - oh how I wish Carrie would come back and get Austin away from Sammie! Anyway the Princess Gina thing was so good! I really hope Marlena starts her radio agony aunt show again - that was classic! Well enjoy people - Zone Romantica weekdays 9am, 2.40pm & 9pm (sky digital channel 149)


As a mother who has lost a child, I think DOOL's portrayal of Hope's and Bo's grief and anger was very realistic. I've been a fan of Days since the late 70's. Some story lines and actors are better than others but on the whole is is engaging and often deals with current issues. Frequently though, the story lines drag and are plots are repeated. There could be less of the cutesy early 20 somethings, and more middle-aged characters. I don't think there's one ugly man on the show and the women are all gorgeous. Bringing back Steve and Kayla is really fascinating to me and a great idea. Steve Johnson and his love Kayla were like the "Beauty and the Beast"; it was one of the best love stories on daytime TV. May Hope be carrying Bo's baby...although I don't know how old she is supposed to be. May Sami get what's coming to her...LUCAS. May Jack live forever!


Days is on the block to be canceled in 2009. There is an online petition to stop this from happening. Please sign it and send it to any days fans or just anyone who would sign it for you. the site is http://ipetitions/petition/123679. I need to say more to post this very important message. I am so glad John is back. I cried and cried when he episodes of him dying were on. I was depressed. I think that Shawn and Chloe hanging out will be a bad idea. I am a big EJ fan, but I like Lucas as well. I've been watching the show since 1987. I remember when Steve and Kayla got married and she got her voice back just in time to say her wedding vows. The best storyline was who killed Nick? It ended up being Jo, Steve's mom, but it was a great story if anyone else remembers it. Thank you


What should I say about Days of Our Lives. I started watching it when I was a teenager.. about 5 years ago.. I think I was 15 at that time. At first I found it boring but as I persisted watching the show I realised it that it's not that boring after all. That show is fun to watch and interesting as well. As the days passed by, I became addicted to it, i really got into it. I left watching it for a while, cause I've been busy.. but then I got into it again. I think the actors in Dool are amazing, they know how to act. My fave couple used to be Belle and Phillip, but I don't feel that way anymore. As the years passed by, I became a fan of the teenage friends Will and Mia. They are fun, so far I'm loving the storyline.


Hello fellow Drake enthusiasts! As many of you already know, the picket line protest that we had planned in behalf of Drake Hogestyn was pretty well a bust thanks to the devastating California fires. It is for this reason that we decided to plan another campaign to show the-powers-that-be that we, the fans, want Drake to return to the show that has been his home for 21 consecutive years. I know that we're all in total disbelief and are feeling furious and outraged since head writer, Hogan Sheffer, killed off John Black...speaking for myself, I never believed that DAYS would go through with this travesty and would actually fire Drake, but sadly, we can't undo something that has already been done. All we can do is move forward and show Drake's bosses that we will not rest until we are victorious and Drake is back on DAYS where he belongs.

We'd also like to take this opportunity to clear up some rumors. First off, Drake did NOT leave DAYS on his own because he was unhappy on the show or because he wished to retire...simply put, Drake was fired! I know that many people don't want to accept this fact, but it was confirmed by Drake's Fan Club President, so it is no longer deniable. Drake is also quoted in Soap Opera Digest and Soap Opera Weekly as saying that he learned of his character's demise from Executive Producer Ken Corday. "He called me at home, that's usually not a good thing. Whenever there are changes in head writing or producing, other changes are imminent. I wasn't shocked by the news." His leading lady, Deidre Hall, said that "Drake came into work one day and he confided that Ken had told him that it was bad news and they weren't going in his direction, so they were going to kill the character." Drake also talks about sleep deprivation since he found out that he is being forced to leave the show and how "It has been an incredibly difficult several weeks due to the disbelief, shock and then final acceptance and closure which is inevitable in any creative endeavor." So bottom line is that this man was fired, and I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not about to take Drake's sentence lying down! Whatcha say team, are you guys with us? If you guys are game, this is what we're going to do in an effort to make this a world-wide protest. If you support our campaign to get Drake back on DAYS, please sign into THIS thread with your name and where you live okay? Please feel free to also sign in any of your family or friends who are also Drake fans (or who love you and want what YOU want! ha ha!). We'll be opening up this type of thread on as many DAYS message boards as we can, and in December we'll be printing out the lists, putting them in a binder, book-style format and sending it to TPTB. We're going to see if we can get a small group to go down to NBC studios and present the book to either Ken Corday or Edward Scott's assistant, so that we know for a fact that it will be seen. Since I post at very few DAYS boards (I only post here at Soap City and at the DAYS NBC board), I would REALLY appreciate it if many Drake fans from here could take this text and start a thread about this campaign on one of the message boards that you all frequent. If you could keep an eye on that thread on "your" board and post in it about once a week at least to "bump" it and remind everyone about it, that would be terrific. Once you've seen that everybody who wants to be given the opportunity to sign it has signed it, please email me the link to that board DrakeDBEST@yahoo.ca so my partner and I could go in there and add the names to our list...that would be FABULOUS! Or if you have to be a member to go into that board, you could copy the list and PM it to me and that would work too.

Thanks so much! Also, if there any Drake fans who live in Peoria, IL or NEAR there, could you please IM me ASAP? Thank you!


I started watching this in high school and it used to pass the time. Now with Tivo I watch 6 soaps (Y&R, ATWT, GH, OLTL, AMC & DOOL)... out of all the soaps, Days is definitely the worst BY FAR. It's uneventful, boring and slow. Really naive and repetitive story lines. They drag nonsense out for months and even years sometimes. I literally fast forward every episode, to the point that it takes me a minute to understand the point of the whole episode. It's just dreadful. I was so excited that the Dimera storyline finally ended years ago, but now it's back. WHY? The Dimera storyline is so horrible and boring and unrealistic. Days really needs to pay attention to General Hospital and see what a soap can do... it CAN be fast-paced and engaging!


The Days of Our Lives may not be the best soap on the air but it is certainly one of the most entertaining hours of television. You can't take this show seriously because it's outrageous. My family and I have watched this show for 20 plus years for the sheer enjoyment and entertainment value. We knew John Aniston before he was Jennifer Aniston's father as Victor Kiriakis. We love Frances Reid as the beloved matriarch Alice Horton. Deirdre Hall still looks great in her 50s. You could dress her in rags and she'll still look great. The cast has featured long term actors and actresses in roles we love. We love these couples too. Of course, you can't take anything on this show seriously but that's because we already take life too seriously. The show has one of the strongest fan bases around. If you want to argue, just go look at the results of the Soap Opera Digest Awards. Days has swept those award ceremonies for years. Who cares if the story lines are ridiculous like Marlena's possession and that she was the secret killer of so many beloved characters on the show. Ironically, they all went to a secret island somewhere like Lost long before that show came on the air. I was just happy that they were alive somewhere that I didn't care about the logic of it. We wanted them to be alive living somewhere. The show will never be the classic like Young and the Restless has been over the years. If you want fun, you will watch Days of Our Lives because regardless of the show's story lines which are outrageous, the cast pulls it off better than any ensemble around. NBC, if you are reading, soaps are a part of the American culture and should be around forever.


Days Of Our Lives is by far my favorite show, it takes you away from reality and into a world so different or perhaps in some aspects the same and show's you different sides of it. Some story lines may be a little out their like the Salem stalker but most story lines have meaning to them like the Dimera/Brady feud to show real meaning of hatred. Even though sometimes the same storyline can drag on and on and yes it is a bit annoying but it makes you keep on watching and sometimes sitting on the edge of your seat. Days of our lives is something that was not made in one day all episode's of days in my opinion must take hard work and I find every single actor and actress is amazing. Days of our lives get a 10 in my opinion for amazing acting; creative story lines & amazing connections with are world and a different world. If you don't watch Day Of Our Lives I suggest you start now!


Google for Jack and Jennifer clips (and Steve and Kayla) and you will come across a goldmine of clips that will tell you the entire story of the Johnson family - from Steve's arrival onto the show to Jack and Jennifer's first wedding.

And, oh my, if there isn't a boatload of pain, heartache... from Joy garrett's achingly wonderful portrayal of Jo Johnson, to Steve Nichols and Matt Ashford playing long-lost-brothers with so much history of pain between them.

Matt Ashford is one of the best actors out there, and Steve Nichols is incredible too. Watching the two interact has always been a treat.

Ken Corday let go of an incredible amount of potential for amazing storytelling when he decided that "Jack" had to leave with "Jennifer".

Days today is all about the couples. The only time people interact with others is to whine about their significant other, or plot to steal someone elses significant other.

There is no more warm and loving family or friend interaction for the sake of it, and that is the glue that holds the show together.

I'm saddened to see that a show that I watched from 1965-1992 and then started watching again when Steve and Matt and Mary Beth returned is still going to be so terrible.

It's not too late for NBC to fix this, but I'm guessing these pleas will fall on deaf ears.


I have been watching Days of Our Lives for 11 years and am still a HUGE fan. I have found there to be at least one good storyline at all times on the show even if there are a couple other ones that are slightly on the boring side. For the most part, the acting is well done and isn't as cheesy as some of the other soap operas I occasionally watch (minus Deidre Hall who is REALLY breathy and over-the-top with her acting at times). Some of the story lines are truly memorable and stick with you for years (for example, Sami on trial for Franco's murder). I will admit that when I first started watching it, there seemed to be more romance with the main couples (Bo and Hope, John and Marlena) and that some of the story lines in recent years have really affected these relationships. Nevertheless, this soap opera still offers romance and a variety of story lines that cater to the genre interests of television fans. It delivers high-quality entertainment for soap opera fans and luckily has many of the original actors that people have come to know and love (Alison Sweeney you are still my personal favorite). If you are looking for a new soap opera to fill your daytime television schedule, Days of Our Lives is a great choice to consider.


It may soon be over but I have some good memories of Days during the years. Belle helping her friend Chloe from her shell was one of the quality moments of DOOL. The silly charm of studio exteriors, arteficial dialogue, Marlena's possession and wonderful Salem Stalker were and are a quality camp. I enjoyed Celeste's premonitions and I liked genetically manipulated Gemini twins - I especially loved psychotic Rex! I can't understand the lure and redemption of Ej - Why to make him a hero? Because he is not fat or balding or geeky-looking? Because he is filth? - but there has been lot of good stuff after overrated 1980s.


I've watched the show on/off since the 1980's. I was initially drawn to the characters, especially Jennifer who I identified with. I stopped watching the first time the show got ultra religious and had Marlena possessed and John turn out to be a priest. A few years ago I found out they brought back Matthew Ashford to play Jack, so I started watching again. I had to stop again very quickly when they gave MEDICALLY INACCURATE information about abortions and tried to demonize the choice to not carry a fetus to term. Occasionally I'll sneak a peak (when they brought back Frankie) but I am unable to watch more than a few minutes before I get disgusted/angry.

Literally, every other sentence is a reference to god/religion. (specifically Christianity). Seriously, try making a list of the number of times per episode someone goes to the hospital chapel (with a big cross), goes to St. Luke's church or says a prayer or if you really want some fun, keep track of the # of times someone references "god", "prayer", "miracle" or a priest. Weddings now feature passages from the bible, sermons and morality lectures from the Irish priest. Christmas now features bible readings. Mimi literally had visions of the Virgin Mary. Nearly every single character blatantly wears a large visible cross (sometimes they have cross necklaces. I don't normally care if there's mentions of religion or god in a show, nor do I normally notice/care if someone wears a cross - but this is BLATANT / IN YOUR FACE pushing of Christianity. (note all the Christian rock ads during the show) It is the main reason I do not watch this show. This proselytizing is offensive and ruins the show!!

The second reason I don't watch anymore is how conservative this show is. I could list many examples, but I'll limit myself to a few: Now I have no problem with parents staying home to care for their kids if they want to/can afford it. However, I caught a recent rant to Belle about how women's NUMBER ONE (and implied...SOLE PURPOSE) is to stay home with their children. Mind you, it was not worded as "parental" duties - it was definitely very gendered to only the mom. And there is CONTINUOUS bashing of single adults or even nonbiological parents raising children! Belle literally credited her good life solely to the fact that both her biological parents raised her. And others have over and over again stated that children who don't have both biological parents (only heterosexuals of course!) will be screwed up. This is so outdated (and incorrect if you examine developmental psychology studies!) and so antifeminist it angers me. Speaking of incorrect facts, making Mimi not only suffer hallucinations & guilt and being left for having an abortion - they went so far as to claim her abortion made her sterile! This was a blatant antichoice "lesson" with no balance perspective or any other viewpoints shown! Marlena/Belle claim doctors & logical reason are wrong - "faith" will cure John. This show pushes a conservative social agenda and is probably written by the religious right to push their views about how people should live their lives.

The show lacks any relation to actual reality. Outside of maybe the midwest or the south is there really such a homogeneous set of Caucasian middle-upper class people? I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen Asian or Latin people. And there's only ever 4 African-Americans - the super-stereotype "Vodoo priestess" Celeste; Lexie, Abe (and if there's another Af-Am male then you KNOW Lexie will have to sleep with him. ) They flirted with having one gay character but there must've been a protest or something because he disappeared quickly. And per their ultraChristian missionary bent, there are no other religions even mentioned or god forbid (pun intended) an atheist!

The last irksome details to me is how the show has decided that it only wants to appeal to Caucasian Christian conservatives who are country-listening Nascar fans. Nowadays ALL the music at any bar or restaurant or a character is listening to is always country (except when they do a rare unsubtle promotional stunts like Rolling Stones or Smokey Robinson). Recently they've decided they need to try to appeal even more to the Nascar crowd so they've brought in 3 racecar drivers and featured a race in an episode. They've dumbed down Shawn's character - he was in college planning to be a lawyer - now all of a sudden he is shown saying he doesn't know how to use a computer and settles for a blue-collar job fixing cars as the only job he can get? Max (the Nascar racer) & Shawn talk about how they goes HUNTING, Connor's a southern drawlin' rodeo cowboy? How much more redneck can they get? Bo actually said "git er done" the other day.

I love many of the actors/characters (Jack, Jenn, John, Frankie, Patch, Billie, Sami etc.) but I can't stand the writers' social agenda. NBC please note: If you ever join the rest of the nation in this century & update their show, we would start watching again. But if they're really going to carry on airing this propaganda piece for the religious right, then I wish they would just cancel the show rather than demean the characters/actors by doing this to them!

I'm not asking for anything crazy like a John&Abe love match or Hope to catch AIDS from unprotected sex with a guy she barely knows (Patrick). But how about an interracial couple? Or a Jewish character? Or an Asian person (who's not a doctor) Or a non-"nuclear" family of mom-dad-kid-- how about a single dad? Let's lose the stereotypes & show a place that acknowledges todays diverse population and ways of living.


Ah, yes. I can remember not too long ago. At that time, one thing I would do each weekday was watch this classic soap opera. From that moment on, I was hooked on it. In addition, If you ask me, Marlena (Deidre Hall) really is diabolical. You would have to have seen some of the things she's done if you want to know why. I also enjoyed the days when Eric (Jensen Ackles) was on the show. Ever since he left the show, I haven't watched it as much. You'd have to have seen the show between 1997 and 200 if you want to know why. However, this is still a good soap opera. In conclusion, I highly recommend this classic soap opera to all you die-hard NBC fans.


Omg! I love days, it is so awesome. I have been watching it off and on with my mom, but now we have Tivo and we see it everyday. I love how everyone's secrets are coming out... slowly but surely. The only thing, only thing i don't like about this show is that it takes a mighty long time for the truth to come out or for something to happen, but i think that is what makes it a good show. I love it so much i am obsessed with the show. I want Shawn and Belle to be together and i want Stephanie with Max and Chelsea could take a hike because she is just so evil.I want Bo and Hope to be together and I want Billie and Lockhart to be together. What happened to Marlena? I want Jack to die already,(sorry) so Jen and Frankie could have a chance with their marriage, and i think Jack is just spoiling it, and Maggie moves around so fast first she was on Austin's rooftop and then the next scene she is at the infamous hospital baby sitting Jack. It's so ironic, yet interesting.


I started watching this show when I was sick and there wasn't much to watch during daytime TV. At first I thought it would be bad acting because that is the case with a lot of soaps. But after a couple weeks I really enjoyed it and actually hated leaving during the day because I would miss it. The characters all are different, yet I feel like I can really understand all of their point of views even if they are conflicting. My favorite characters are Kate and Chelsea even though they aren't known as the nicest people at least they they are believable. I also admire Sammi because of her determination, meaning she is not one to give up even if she may hurt someone else. I think Kayla should change her hairstyle, it was better before.


I just got this DVD set and also read the liner notes and the status of the unknown actress. But Minnewanna is obviously played by Lottie Pickford, the actress sister of superstar, Mary Pickford. Check out photos of Lottie Pickford on various web sites.

Griffith is the most important director in the history of American films. That he was considered hopelessly old fashioned by the dawn on talkies is irrelevant. His early short films helped set the tone for the look and feel and attitudes toward Indians, cowboys, the American West, the Civil War, etc. While this film (at 15 minutes) is not dramatically moving, it IS important as an early look at Griffith's love of and attitudes toward history. Even in 1909 he was not afraid of portraying the settlers as "conquerors" any more than he was afraid to take an honest look at our Civil War period in THE BIRTH OF A NATION in 1915.


Following the release of 'The Birth of the Nation (1915),' director D.W. Griffith has often been branded with the unfortunate attribute of being a racist. While it's difficult to argue with that film's unabashed advocacy of the KKK, it's also interesting to observe a few of Griffith's other films, in which he displays an undeniable sensitivity towards other cultures. Take, for example, 'Broken Blossoms (1919),' where a Chinese immigrant (portrayed, admittedly, by American Richard Barthelmess) is shown to be, by far, the film's most compassionate and respectable male character. 'The Red Man's View (1909)' was one of hundreds of short films that Griffith produced for the Biograph Company from 1908-1913, and it represents a pivotal step in the development of the Western genre. One of the earliest to explore the conflicts between Native Americans and European settlers, the film treats the plight of the Indians with respect and empathy, quietly condemning the actions of the "conquerers," who invaded the land and left countless tribes homeless.

Living a comfortable and happy existence in the remote wilderness, a Native American tribe goes about its daily business. A young man, Silver Eagle (Owen Moore), has fallen in love with a beautiful maiden, and it seems that nothing can come between the adoring couple. However, as one might expect, a conflict of cultures is on the horizon. A ragged pack of unkempt settlers emerges over the hill, pistols at their sides, and they arrogantly demand that the Native Americans move from the area. After a brief but fruitless protest, the tribe chooses to avoid a violent confrontation and regretfully departs, but not before the nefarious settlers claim Silver Eagle's young maiden as their own. Torn between the love for his sweetheart, and loyalty towards his dying father, the young man mournfully follows suit. The tribe walks for miles, it seems, but they are unable to find a suitable place to live. Having been permanently uprooted from their home, they must accept the sad truth that their lives will never be the same again.

Working with a running time of just eleven minutes, Griffith has very little time to recruit our sympathies for the primary characters, but he does quite an good job. There's something inherently devastating in watching the tribe marching solemnly away from their spiritual home, a slow, sorrowful procession of broken souls. For some reason, John Ford's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940)'  another film about a displaced family  came immediately to mind during these sequences; it's an uneven comparison, of course, but that's just the association that my brain made. Griffith almost fools us into accepting a makeshift happy ending, as one settler suddenly attains a conscience and apologetically returns Silver Eagle's maiden to him, but the conclusion is more tragic than anything else. Silver Eagle mourns at the side of his deceased father, knowing that, even with his sweetheart by his side, his tribe has no home to which they can return. If only for its unique storytelling perspective, 'The Red Man's View' is essential viewing for anybody wishing to experience yet another aspect of America's first great director.


I was blown away by the beauty of the actress playing the Indian maiden in this film. From the first moment you see her on screen she looks like you could reach out and touch her, she is so realistic. The D.W. Griffith Years of Discovery liner notes say she was "unknown." Well, that is a crying shame! How could someone not document who she was? She was stunning, and completely believable. If anyone knows who she was, please post it here for posterity.

This film was pretty sensitive to the Indians' cause, and also showed that the white man could also get along with the Indians when they showed true Christian character towards them. Owen Moore and James Kirkwood perform well. The father's death scene is moving and poignant. Was D.W. Griffith a racist? If he was you couldn't tell it from this film.


This solemn little tale is often held up as one of the more remarkable Biograph westerns. While Griffith predominantly treated Native Americans sympathetically (albeit patronisingly so) The Red Man's View, as the title suggests, differs in that it tells a story solely from the Indian perspective.

What is really interesting is how he uses physical arrangements to show this point of view and the protagonists' plight. The white men appear over the hillside as a kind of characterless swarm  an impersonal force, rather than a group of individuals. The Indians on the other hand advance slowly across the landscape in single file, dignified, each one an individual.

This is one of Griffith's first really great outdoor pictures. The vast empty spaces allow for maximum impact as actors approach us from the distance. This use of depth had a massive influence on Charlie Chaplin  think of how many times the little tramp entered or exited a scene over a great distance, all the better to show off that unique walk. In the final scenes the wind howls across the wasteland  a great bit of atmospherics that was pioneering for its time.

1909 was a period of incredibly speedy development in Griffith's style and competence. We go from nonsense like The Voice of The Violin and What Drink Did earlier in the year, to this simple yet stylish piece of storytelling. However, the best was yet to come with Griffith's very next picture  A Corner in Wheat.


In a peaceful Indian (aka Native American) village, Owen Moore (he's Silver Eagle) courts squaw Lottie Pickford (she's Minnewanna). Inevitably, white conquerors arrive; at gunpoint, they force the Indian tribe to abandon their land. For nefarious reasons, the conquerors keep lovely Lottie for themselves, sadly separating her from departing sweetheart Moore. Must the Indian sweethearts remain forever apart? (Mary's sister) Lottie Pickford is a beguiling Indian squaw. Director D.W. Griffith's "The Red Man's View " scores points for its point-of-view; however, it remains a relatively weak and unimaginative drama.

**** The Red Man's View (12/9/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Owen Moore, Lottie Pickford, James Kirkwood


I can't help asking these questions while watching most of Franco's movies from the late seventies, early eighties. And this one is a good example of this period in his career.

If you have seen Vampyros Lesbos or Female Vampire (a.k.a. Erotikill) you basically know the story. In Vampyros Lesbos there's a stunning vampire girl (Soledad Miranda) who rather sucks the blood out of other females than out of men and in the end dies.

In Female Vampire there's the same eternally young girl this time sucking on genitalia instead of necks to keep her youth and satisfy her hunger. She also dies in the end, although she commits suicide if I remember correctly. Alternate versions of this movie have the vampire girl actually drinking blood to bypass censorship.

Doriana Grey, filmed 3 years later and again featuring the ravishing Lina Romay playing lead, basically recycles the same story but doesn't make any compromises.

Doriana Grey, an eternal youth, is living all alone up in a castle with her mute servant and keeps her youth by sucking the life out of innocent girls with the occasional man on the menu. In the end she satisfies herself and dies, floating in a small swimming pool, just as the Female Vampire dies playing with herself in a bath filled with blood.

This brings me back to my three basic questions.

Is it porn?

Sure, it is. I wouldn't call this family entertainment. You get a lot of masturbation scenes (and I mean a lot!), a couple of lesbian scenes and some man-woman action. There are extreme close-ups of female genitalia and scenes that can only be considered as hardcore porn.

On the other hand, most of the sexual partners of Miss Grey die and she is not having any fun, at least, according to the story she's not supposed to have. I'm not an expert on porno-storylines but I don't find it very erotic to see people die after having sex. So, in some way, this is hardly an erotic movie.

Is it exploitation?

Definitely. It is a prima example of seventies erotic cinema from the seventies. It might not be very erotic nowadays, but it was shot to be.

Is it Franco?

Affirmative. Although it's more explicit than earlier Franco movies, it still contains some of his trademarks:

- Out-of-focus camera work. Many scenes have Franco play with the focus, making many parts very confusing and giving it a dream-like quality.

- Zoom in - zoom out. Franco has often been critized for using the zoom lens too often. Others defend the director, saying he only did that during a short period of his career (i.e. 1968-1971). Still, in this movie there's a lot of zooming going on.

- Completely useless shots. This is one of my favorite Franco trademarks, the ability to move the camera to a completely useless part of the scenery, focusing on rain pouring down or a leaf against the dark sky. This can be explained by Franco's own words, claiming to be a voyeur. He doesn't only focus on female genitalia, he's also a voyeur of the beauty of the ordinary world.

- Storyline. I've already discussed the similarity between this movie and other Franco movies like Vampyros Lesbos and Female Vampire, but there's more. He frequently uses characters that are mute or have a speaking disability (e.g. Lina Romay plays a mute vampire in Female Vampire), in Doriana Grey the servant is a mute who used to be a protest singer (!); a girl locked in asylum, telepathically connected to someone in the outside world. This can be traced back to Murnau's Nosferatu, but it is also a recurring storyline in Franco's movies. And then there's the doctor in the asylum who goes by the name of Dr. Orlof, a name you'll find as early as 1959 (The Awful Dr. Orlof). Dr. Orlof in turn seems like a reference to Murnau's Nosferatu again (Count Orlok).

So in the end, what have I just seen? A typical Franco movie who continues to move towards pure sex movies and leaving the horror genre altogether, keeping up with the zeitgeist. Definitely a must for Franco fans but not a very good place to start.

One last word: the DVD, released by the producer Erwin C. Dietrich, has been completely restored, cleaned up and digitally mastered and looks perfect in every way. This is how they should treat all movies before transferring them to DVD.


In my humble opinion this is one of the best Jess Franco films ever. Lina Romay is hot as hell, mostly spending her time masturbating away. The film has an eerie hallucinatory feeling to it, like watching porn in slow motion while on dope. Beware: There are two versions on the market, one is softcore and not that good, one is full hardcore and that's the one I'm refering to. Erwin C.Dietrich told me he was given this film as a gift from Jess Franco in gratitude but never really done anything with it. Finally, due to the DVD revolution it's finally out on silver disc, And it's looking absolutely stunning! Check it out!


Not much of young Oscar left in this but I guess that once Jess caught sight of that Ms Romay's swinging bottom and breasts, he was soon too mesmerised to worry overly about plot details. And one can sympathise, Lina Romay is naked throughout the film and seemingly perfectly happy to not only reveal all but to get down and very dirty in a surprisingly explicit Franco outing. Nudity is hardly unknown in the 'dirty old man's' films but were this not so different in feel to accepted hardcore, that is the label one might find appropriate. Elegantly shot in widescreen this is a colourful, erotic tale with surprising moments hinting at vampirism and despite the appalling dubbed dialogue very watch able and amazingly possibly one of Romay's best.


Doriana Grey should please Franco's admirers, leaving others alternately bored, confused, and aroused in spite of themselves. As with others of the director's films, there's a dreamlike quality to the proceedings, with wealthy and ennui-afflicted recluse Doriana strolling leisurely through her home or staring at the sky between sexual encounters played out to tranquil sitar music.

Some of the actors seem to be playing their parts in a trance, as if hypnotized before shooting, like the cast of Herzog's Heart of Glass. The English dubbing, too, is mostly monotone, which only enhances, rather than hurts, the timeless, otherworldly atmosphere, with dialogue ranging from the seemingly lofty ("It is the destiny of all beauty to be destroyed") to the simply lewd ("Go down on me").

The DVD, as of writing, has long gone out of print, but Franco enthusiasts are encouraged to look for this one through gray market services. The staring, frightening lust expressed in Lina Romay's eyes alone is worth at least one visit to her château.


A magnificent adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, enhanced by the splendor of Rome at its full glory under Julius Caesar. Charlton Heston is at his best as Marc Anthony and makes you feel as if Shakespeare wrote the part for him. I have mixed feelings about the choice of John Gielgud as Caesar. There are times in the movie that he portrays Caesar well as the aloof dictator and others when he overacts as he does in most of his roles. Jason Robards is a fine actor, but not as Brutus, unless Stuart Burge intended to experiment with this role as a Spaghetti Western. Robard's dialogue is wooden. Robert Vaughn shines as Casca as does Richard Johnson as Cassius. Richard Chamberlain portrays well a self opinionated Octavius Caesar. The opening of the movie is a masterpiece of imagery and impact and one is plunged into the involvement of the triumphal entry of Julius Caesar into Rome and the aftermath. Why on earth there has been no DVD release of this movie beggar's belief.


One of the things that I always thought about Julius Caesar is that in the life of one of the great movers and shakers of the ancient world, he's merely a figure in which all kinds of people at the end are busy weaving their schemes around, be it his death or his conferred immortality.

Antony and Brutus are each worried about their place in Caesar's affections and Brutus figures he's lost out to Antony. It makes him an easy mark for Cassius's plots. After the dirty deed of assassination is done, it's Antony and Octavius though they are teaming up against the conspirators, you can tell both in this version and in the better Fifties version that MGM put out that they will soon be at odds.

Charlton Heston is a strong Antony here, but unfortunately for the play to succeed you need an equally strong Brutus. That's not what you get in Jason Robards, Jr. For a man who in his time was considered the greatest interpreter of Eugene O'Neill, when it comes to Shakespeare the man was out of his league. No reflection on him, everyone has casting limitations.

A real good interpreter of the Bard who played Cassius back in 1954 plays Caesar here. John Gielgud is equally fine in both versions. And Richard Johnson and Robert Vaughn are superb as conspirators Cassius and Casca. And Richard Chamberlain who was trying very hard to shed his Dr. Kildare image is fine as the cunning Octavian who Antony ultimately underestimates.

Charlton Heston in his memoirs takes blame for casting Robards and Robards himself realized he was miscast. Oddly enough in that earlier version James Mason as Brutus was the best one in the film.


Much better than the earlier Julius Caesar, which starred Marlon Brando as Mark Antony and James Mason as Brutus. In this version, Jason Robards as Brutus is admittedly an embarrassment, but the rest of the cast is quite strong. The delivery of Antony's funeral oration by Charlton Heston is brilliant, powerful, well-paced, the dramatic high point of the movie. Richard Johnson as Cassius, John Gielgud as Caesar, Robert Vaughn as Casca and Diana Rigg as Portia are fine actors, with full dramatic presence, at home in Shakespeare's language. Brief parts, like the soothsayer's and the cobbler's, are memorably played. The screenplay omits two short passages that are important to the plot: (1) Cassius' avowal in the first act, after his attempt to persuade Brutus to oppose Caesar, that if their positions were reversed and he, Cassius, stood as well with Caesar as Brutus does, and Brutus made a comparable appeal to him, he would certainly not listen. (2) Immediately after the assassination, a promise by Brutus to Antony's servant of safe conduct for Antony, who thus knows when he comes to the Capitol and weeps over Caesar's body, challenging the conspirators to kill him also, that there is no danger of their doing so.


This is a pretty good film version of the play. Sure, Jason Robards is a little stiff at first, but he gets better as the film goes on. John Gielgud is fine as to be expected. Charlton Heston does an admirable job as Antony. Overall, this is a very good movie version that doesn't take a backseat to the earlier Mason/Brando version. Try to follow it up with the Antony and Cleopatra with Charlton Heston taking up the Antony role again. They complement each other well.


As others have noted, Jason Robards' performance as Brutus has real problems, particularly at the start. While playing the character as vague and distracted is certainly justified by the text, Robards often appears just this side of comatose. James Mason was far better in the older film version.

The biggest and best surprise is Heston's strength as Antony. He believably conveys an interesting mixture of loyalty, craftiness, and ambition. And his work in the funeral oration is well-paced and well-directed. Overall, this version has a lot going for it -- it's among the better Shakespeare adaptations that I know of.


This is a film built entirely for fans of Shakespeare. If you want a truly cinematic version, try the Brando version. This version is as true to Shakespeare as any film I have seen. John Gielgud in his second Julius Caesar film role, this time as Caesar himself, is studied and brilliant. Brutus plays off of Antony well as the weaker of the generals. Surprisingly, Heston plays a brilliant Antony, strong and resilient, as Antony should be played, and showing a serious command of the language and supernatural world of Shakespeare's Caesar. I recommend this film for any true reader or scholar of Shakespeare as the definitive Julius Caesar film adaptation. If you want Hollywood-type entertainment, go for the earlier but flashier Brando version.


Julius Caeser was an enigmatic character historically, as well as in Shakespeare's portrayal of him. Reading his works in Latin is both a delight and wonder. The propaganda of the Gallic Wars lays the foundation for wartime journalism, portraying the enemy as something slightly less than human and the cause of the invaders as something noble and enlightened. Having said this, one looks at the Bard's depiction of Caeser's assassination and his portrayal of Caeser as something different from History.

Sir John Gielgud was always stately in whatever role he played. He was an excellent Cassius in the 1955 version but seems a bit distanced in his role as the Dictator. One reviewer accuses him of being a ham and "overacting." Well, thanks for sharing that unshared opinion. Heston plays Moses playing Marc Anthony and Jason Robards grumbles his lines as Brutus. The real role that justifies the price of admission is that of the Brit, Richard Johnson whose angry, sullen Cassius stands out against Robards's wooden Brutus. Christopher Lee and Robert Vaughn both execute their roles splendidly as do the ladies, Jill Bennett and the ever lovely Diana Rigg. The pretty boy role of Octavius by Richard Chamberlain was merely OK and clumsy and the fight scenes seem a bit cranky compared to what we see today. But, we're in it for Shakespeare, not a shoot'em or garish cast of thousands recreating bloody battle scenes.

I prefer the 1955 version with the Ham of hams, Brando as Mark Antony and Louis Calhern as Caesar. There, the great Gielgud and a competent James Mason made the respective roles of the conspirators, Cassius and Brutus sparkle.


This good rendition of the Shakespeare playwright talks about tragedy, ambition, politics, corruption and wars. The film starts in battle of Munda where Julius Caesar(100-40 b.c.) vanquished Pompeyo and terminates in battle of Filipos where the second triumvirate(Marco Antonio, Lepido and Octavius Augustus: Richard Chamberlain) vanquish Brutus and Cassio. Aristocrat party prepares a conspiracy and March 15, 44 b.c -Idus of March- Julius Caesar was assassinated in senate .Remains surprisingly true to Shakespeare's adaptation and working directly from the original, unlike many other historical movies of the same era. The Caesar killing is originally staged including unexpected frames of the murderous washing their hands in the blood of Julius and below of Pompeyo sculpture.

There are magnificent acting from a memorable Charlton Heston as Marco Antonio, an electrifying John Gielgud as Caesar, a sneaky Robert Vaughn as Casca and a splendid Richard Johnson as Cassius, among them. Performances attractive enough extends right down to the minor characters, wealthy of expert character-drawing, as Christopher Lee, Diana Rigg and Andre Morell as Ciceron. Directed with imagination and professionalism by Stuart Burge and well produced by Peter Snell who followed with a sequel also little known 'Marco Antonio and Cleopatra' starred and directed by Charlton Heston.This gripping flick will like to Shakespeare devotees but its spirit is intact in spite of are taken some liberties. It's hard to believe this underrated film did not have success, today is best deemed but contains brilliance of dialogue perfectly played by all-stars. Despite this one turns out to be inferior than classic film 'Julius Caesar(1953)' considered definitely the best version available directed by Joseph L Mankiewicz and starred by top American players as Marlon Brando( similar role Charlton Heston-Marco Antonio), Louis Calhern(John Gielgud-Caesar), Greer Garson(Jill Bennet-Calpurnia),James Mason(Jason Robards-Brutus), Edmond O'Brien(Robert Vaughn-Casca role) among others.


By now in his late forties and sporting an obvious, bright red hairpiece, Charlton Heston seemed an odd Antony when first seen. But Heston remained fit all through his long career. While he does not as much look the part, his Marc Antony provides a sturdy center for this second filming of the Shakespeare tragedy. Also, Charlton Heston had a scholarly side unusual for a Hollywood actor. He clearly gave much thought to this portrayal which on the whole is better than the misplaced Method emoting of Marlon Brando's Antony, some seventeen years earlier.

Featuring a mixed cast of British and American actors, the result is mainly predictable but some surprises and disappointments also feature. One disappointment is Gielgud as Caesar. Sir John was a veteran Shakespearian by 1970 with a fine voice and tons of dignity. Yet at sixty-six he was a touch too old for the part. More to the point, the effete Gielgud lacked the masculine force to play this virile ex-general whose battlefield victories were said to be matched only by his conquests in the bedroom.

One surprise is the subtle portrayal of the conspirator Casca by American Robert Vaughan. "Sour" Casca, the cynical observer, is a minor character but sharply drawn and Vaughan makes him come alive during his few minutes on stage. Jill Bennet is sympathetic as the prophetic wife of Caesar but in the role of Brutus' wife the well-born Portia, Diana Rigg at age thirty-two looks luscious and is simply superb--Shakespeare in the finest style. Another veteran Shakespearian, Richard Johnson, is nearly as good as the jealous, manipulative Cassius.

Jason Robards plays Brutus like a wooden Indian for the first two acts. In the third act however--that is, after Brutus and Cassius have fled Rome--he seems to grow in the part and his acting gains conviction.

The importance of the plebeians to the play was understood by this director, who cast the roles carefully.


Seua khaap daap (aka - The Tiger Blade) is a fast paced martial arts and gun fight action film set in modern day Bangkok. Yosthana ("Yos") is a smart young "Special Agent" who uses technology, a magic sword, guns and a healthy dose of martial arts skill to vanquish dozens of bad-guys, some of whom are protected by magic. Along with a team of sometimes comical special agents they chase and fight the henchmen of notorious rebel Commander "Kao Yod". Plot holes and twists are plentiful but the well scripted action scenes and high (for Thailand) production values make the film enjoyable. Don't expect as slick a film as a modern Hong Kong production and you won't be disappointed. Think more like along the lines of an early 90's Jackie Chan or Chow Yun-Fat action movie and you'll be thoroughly delighted.

*Note - The version I saw contained some sort of fuzzy pixelization censorship of a) cigarettes when in someone's mouth but not in their hands, and b) guns when pointed directly at someone in the same frame. Bloody scenes of bullets striking heads and chests, a body exploding, and faces being punched were not!?!?! go figure.

Finally, this film contains no nudity but it is filled with violence, a bit of sex and a sexual assault. I don't have kids but I would think this warrants PG-13 treatment.


OK maybe the special effects and the storyline are not that great, but as a cool action flick, the tiger blade rocks. The duration of the movie is 110 min and it contains almost 80 minutes of non-stop action. The movie has only begun or the action explodes on the screen. You have bullet-ballets, go-cart-chases, kick-ass-fighting and always with a funny undertone. I recently watched Born to Fight and Tom-Yum-Goong, and OK the action sequences are better made, but in total, both movies we're rather disappointing. Both these movies we're made with much bigger budgets, but The Tiger Blade is more enjoyable and a second viewing will not be a problem. I'd actually want to see it again.


The Tiger Blade starts with a great kick off and manage to hold that throughout the entire movie. The story might not be that clear but actually it doesn't matter. You just go with the flow and accept the holes in the story which are filled in with great action scenes. It's Thai and of course you're thinking about Ong-bak but The Tiger Blade does use wire work and probably stunt men but it does't mean the action would be less. The direction is good and it shows that the greatest attention went to the action aspect. Would that bother? The story of Ong-bak isn't also that great. Just forget the story, tolerate the acting performances and you're settled for a good action ride. It deserves your attention when you loved Ong-bak and the Russian Night Watch because it's a perfect combination of those two.


Tiger Blade is one of the worst action movies I ever saw... The plot is non existent, it's so full of holes that I lost interest about 10 minutes into the film. So, at least there are good fight scenes ? No. Special effects are cheap. It's all a rehash of previous films, notably Matrix, but with inferior quality.

Everything sucks in this movie ! Lousy acting, totally boring, this flick is an insult to the viewer. Avoid !

Sometimes the absence of a plot is preferable to a really crappy one. Take the Doom video games, for instance. Who cares why you're there as long as there are aliens to shoot ?


The Columbo formula was thrown out the window here. Unfortunately, so was the pacing. The result is one of the most boring entries of the series -- complete with a Columbo who seems to be making fun of himself half of the time. At the end, since Columbo didn't seem to care that much about catching the killer, I lost interest too.


The milieu here is the family and friends of the Commodore (John Dehner), very rich folks. The Commodore is murdered and just as we think Columbo has the killer (Robert Vaughan) cornered, he's murdered too. Columbo assembles all the possible suspects in a room at the end and goes through a Charlie Chan or Hercule Poirot routine to expose the real killer, whose motive turns out to be greed.

This is thin stuff although the director (Patrick McGoohan, a talented actor) tries to lay it on with a trowel. I would guess the script started off as an hour-long show for "Mannix" or "Dan August" or something. There are many attempts to pad it out with humor and none of them are funny. (See Lieutenant Columbo try to wrestle himself into a FULL LOTUS POSITION! That'll be ten cents.) Characters get rather elaborate introductions and then play no more than the usual minor roles. Worse, this is a somewhat different Columbo than the character his fans have come to know. He's bumbling, of course, and has to cope with the difference between a mainmast and a mizzenmast, but on top of that he's CUTE. He winks. He smiles. His comments are coy. And what does it all boil down to? A two-minute experiment at the end in which the killer reveals his guilt. The rest were all red herrings.

There would be worse episodes after the series was revived and wrung out, but this is certainly one of the weakest of the original series, despite the talent in front of, and behind, the camera.


I won't post any spoilers for this film; but if you're going to watch this unpopular "Columbo" entry anyway, I recommend you don't read this, or any other review, until afterward.

Charlie Clay (Robert Vaughn) runs a ship building business owned by his father-in-law, Commodore Otis Swanson (John Dehner), who is not happy with the wastrel's shady dealings. Nor is he pleased with any of the people closest to him, including his alcoholic daughter Joanna Clay (Diane Baker), his elderly nephew Swanny Swanson (Fred Draper) or his lawyer Kittering (Wilfred Hyde-White). Soon the Commodore is murdered; and Charlie Clay covers it up by impersonating the Commodore, taking the corpse out on the man's yawl at night and throwing the body overboard. Lt. Columbo (Peter Falk) investigates this case with the help of a veteran sergeant (Bruce Kirby) and a 29-year-old novice (Dennis Dugan). Our rumpled, redoubtable detective knows Clay covered up the crime. But his assumption that Clay committed the crime may prove premature.

The reason you shouldn't read any reviews is because they invariably call this is a whodunit. That makes it a departure from the usual "Columbo" formula, in which we always see the murder take place. But the word "whodunit" gives away the surprise an hour into the filmin which we learn, along with Columbo, that who we thought had done it, hadn't done it.

Actually, it's not that much of a surprise. "Columbo" fans will know something is up right away, since we see the cover-up but not the murder itself. We always get to see the murder, we lucky brutes. This unusual episode has two precedents. "Double Shock" also withholds important information during the murder scenein order to surprise us later. "A Friend in Deed" also has one person covering up the murder for someone else.

"Columbo" is one of those rare series that succeeds because of a strict formula, not in spite of it. Even many mystery series leave us craving more variety. The only parallel I can make is an odd one: Chuck Jones's "Road Runner" series also works because of its formula. The closer it hues to it, the funnier it is. This film should join the post-Jones "Road Runner" shorts in one grave marked, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Everything is wrong with this entry, directed by Patrick McGoohan from a script by Jackson Gillis. The pacing is jerky and awkward. The performances are bad: Diane Baker, a good actress, overplays her role as a drunk; Peter Falk is weirdly aggressive and self-satisfied as Columbo. The characters seem manipulated into acting the way they do, instead of behaving like real people. Lt. Columbo has all the suspects gather into one room for a classic Agatha Christie-style ending; but the solution to the mystery is a complete bore.

Here's a question for those who have already seen this (not a spoiler): Why wouldn't the Commodore have reused the "S" stencil rather than asking for two?


I love the Columbo series, have seen at least 80 percent of the show's episodes, and hope to eventually see them all. So far, this one is by far the worst. What makes it so disappointing is that it has a wonderful supporting cast: John Dehner, Diane Baker, Robert Vaughn, Wilfrid Hyde-White, and Dennis Dugan, among others. But what a waste of talent. And what terrible pacing and staging. Patrick McGoohan is a fine actor, and his performances as the murderer in this series are outstanding. But his directing in this episode is simply awful. If you're a Columbo fan, skip this one. If you're not a Columbo fan, all the more reason to skip it as well!


I really like Patrick McGoohan's most other directed Columbo movies really much, since his directing style certainly give the movies something extra. However he went too far with this movie. The directing and story-telling in general is different from the usual Columbo movie formula. It's a real slow moving movie, in which the killer himself also isn't known to the viewers this time, until of course the very ending. It's obvious they wanted to try something different for the Columbo series, as they tried numerous times before and after this movie as well. Funny though that they always went back to the usual Columbo style we all are so accustomed to.

Really problem with this movie is its pacing. It's annoyingly slow. Sequences seem to go on for ever without getting to its point. It really makes you wonder why the movie wasn't provided with any more pace. At one point Lt. Columbo goes into a trance. The actual movie itself also really feels like it goes into a trance though. It really doesn't make this movie a pleasant one to watch. It's not like the story is anything too bad, or the approach of not revealing who the killer is, or how the murder was committed, until the very end, is a bad one but it just doesn't work out with this type of directing approach as got picked by Patrick McGoohan, who is probably also better known and respected as an actor than a director really.

One thing McGoohan still does right though is the movie its humor. He is one of those directors who understood the Columbo character well and knew how to throw in the right kind of relieving humor, involving the character. Though being a close personal friend of Peter Falk, he probably gave him a bit too much room though to do his comedy thing, since he definitely goes a bit over-the-top with it at times. Oh well, at least he still probably had lots of fun with it.

Poor Robert Vaughn. He's a great actor but the Columbo movies he has starred in just aren't among the greatest. He deserved better, also since he seems really like an actor who is the right guy for playing these type of roles in these types of movies.

Tiresome off-boat Columbo entry. It has a good typical Columbo ending though.

4/10