"Black Widow" is a well-written, though old-style, entertaining mystery. The story is taken from a novel by Patrick Quentin, a sound mystery-writer.

However the essence of the movie lies in the magnificent cinemascope photography, colors and visual effects. Note that most scenes have in the background large windows or terraces wide-open on the spectacular, terrific New York sceneries. Even the furniture of the various apartments is carefully chosen and placed, with beautiful artistic effects. Outstanding is the brief scene inside the dark bar, with the costumers merged into a liquid light: an evident reminiscence of Edward Hopper's paintings.

Alas! All these visual beauties are seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the TV version, which essentially shows just half of the screen.

The performances by all interpreters are generally good and professional. A major (personal) disappointment is that Gene Tierney does nothing. She's not even in the list of suspects, since she was thousands of miles away from New York during the whole murder affair. She just sits silently on the background, adding her incomparable beauty and natural refinement to the magnificent New York views. It should be added that George Raft seems completely out-of-role... but I'm too fond of this guy to be able to criticize him.

"Black Widow" is a good film; hopefully someone will be able to see it on the wide screen.


Ms. Ginger Rogers is 43 years old by now (1954) and in one of her last roles before retirement. Here, she plays somewhat against type, being a bitchy society grande dame. Despite being top-billed, it's actually a supporting role, although it's definitely the juiciest part. One of her lines is one of the best I've heard in a long time: "She was insane! To hang herself when she could abuse drugs!" I'm kinda warming to Ms. Rogers, though I'm still not finding her face memorable. She brings her brand of energy to her roles, so that she stands out even when the role or even her acting isn't all that good, she still shines. That's what makes a star.

This is coincidentally also one of the last roles of Gene Tierney, one of the most luminous of actresses because of her classic beauty. While not big on acting talent, she was still capable enough to fit perfectly into femme fatale roles in film-noir movies (e.g. Laura and Leave Her to Heaven - her sole Oscar nomination). That she plays a put-upon wife here is a waste.

Fellow film-noir regular Van Heflin rounds off the cast. He is good, as is the movie, but the highlights are definitely when Ms. Rogers is on screen.


Beautiful Peggy Ann Garner, not the plain little girl that played Francie in "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" is all grown up and plays the part of a female predator out to get her man in her first drama in living color. She plays the part well with lots of emotion and shows that she is a master of her craft.


This is a tense and ingeniously plotted noir film, based on a clever novel by Hugh Wheeler (writing as Patrick Quentin), and excellently scripted by Nunnally Johnson, who also directed. There is no way you can work out what happened until the end of the film, so don't even try. It is disappointing that the alluring Gene Tierney does not have a more interesting part and is more or less limited to being 'the wife', while her husband Van Heflin does all the acting. Ginger Rogers does a broad-stroke interpretation of a broad-stroke character, George Raft is stolid as a policeman, though it is only a supporting role despite his star billing. There are some splendid supporting performances: Virginia Leith, with a voice just like that of today's Selma Blair, was intriguing and had such promise, but never got the parts to show what she could have done in her career. Reginald Gardner is superb as Ginger Rogers's 'kept husband'. Peggy Ann Garner plays a scheming young girl (though she is 22 playing 20, she seems too old for the part, and is strangely frumpy and dull) who wheedles her way unscrupulously into affluent company with a pretence of innocence. Van Heflin is strong and forceful in his increasingly desperate role. This is an excellent fifties noir, made in colour, and Ginger Rogers's outfits are something else, and those hats! There is no undertone of despair as there is in so many forties noirs, there is instead the whiff of corrupt wealth and fame, which was so fifties. (There's no corruption now, is there?) This has something of the stage about it, being perhaps over-constructed, but it is damned complicated and keeps you guessing until the last scenes.


"To put the kindest face on it," says forceful Broadway theater queen Carlotta Marin about Nanny Ordway, a young woman found hanging in the bathroom of Peter and Iris Denver's apartment, "the girl was a little horror...a transparent. syrupy little phony with about as much to offer a man as Coo Coo the Bird Girl. Not even Peter with all of his radiant innocence about women could have been stirred for one instant by that dingy little creep."

"Lotty," says Peter, "the girl is dead."

"I know. And that's precisely why I refuse to speak harshly of her."

And with that we find ourselves in the middle of Black Widow, a murder mystery about ambition, obsession and regret. It might be subtitled The Life, Ambitions and Death of Nanny Ordway. Since it also is about theater people, Black Widow features some stylish dialogue, some clever performances and some back-biting relationships. And since the movie is based on a mystery written by Hugh Wheeler (under the pseudonym of Patrick Quentin), we have a story of uncomfortable psychological possibilities with at least two believable murder suspects and a story that, to my way of thinking, is satisfying and a bit sad.

But is Black Widow a first-class movie? Not exactly, but it's a lot of fun if you like older movies.

Nancy Ordway, "Nanny" (Peggy Ann Garner), is a 20 year-old want-to-be writer when she arrives in New York City knowing only an aging uncle who acts on Broadway when he can get jobs. Nanny has a way of moving up in the world. Before long she's met Peter Denver (Van Heflin), a successful producer, whose wife, Iris (Gene Tierney), is a beautiful and famous actress. Iris will be out of town for a few weeks. Nanny meets Brien Mullen (Reginald Gardiner), Peter and Iris' neighbor who, with his wife, the famous actress Carlotta Marin (Ginger Rogers), lives just above the Denvers in an equally swank penthouse apartment. Brien is a weak but charming man who knows his well-being depends on his imperious wife. "I'm...well, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm Miss Carlotta Marin's husband," says Brien when he meets Nanny for the first time. "I have a name of my own, of course, but it seems stupid to use it when I can get so much more attention simply telling whose husband I am."

Nanny has also captivated the 21-year-old son of a rich Boston family. That's after she wangled an invitation to share digs with the young man's sister. Nanny by now has become friends with Peter, even to the point of his letting her use the apartment to write in while he's in the office and Iris is still out of town. Nanny, in other words, is a piece of work.

When Nanny is found hanging in the Denver's bathroom on the evening Iris returns home, it's not long before Detective Bruce (George Raft) suspects it's not suicide, but murder...and Peter is the lead suspect. By the end of the movie we've learned Peter is dogged and desperate, but slowly figuring things out. Then we learn Detective Bruce is also figuring things out, and we may be in for a surprise.

The sense of regret comes partly from some of the characters we've come to know. We may not admire them all, but we don't dislike them, either. Partly, though, it comes from the actors. All of them bring memories of better days. It's fun to see stars like Ginger Rogers, Van Heflin, Gene Tierney, George Raft and Reginald Gardiner do their stuff one more time in an A movie that's well written and directed,. We realize, however, that all of them are either on the slide downward or are just about to tip over. Even Peggy Ann Garner, a major child star a few years ago, wasn't able to parley this role into major adult status.

For those who like to read mysteries and not just watch them, a trip to the used book stores in search of Patrick Quentin would be worth the time. Wheeler became part of Patrick Quentin in 1936 when, at 24, he began collaborating with Richard Webb. They also wrote under several other pseudonyms. Wheeler became the sole Patrick Quentin in the Fifties when Webb retired. Most of the Quentin mysteries feature Broadway producer Peter Duluth (changed to Denver for some reason in Black Widow). Start out with the Puzzle series that began in 1936 with A Puzzle for Fools, then on with A Puzzle for Players, ...for Puppets, ...for Warriors, ...for Fiends, ...for Pilgrims. Wheeler was a good writer who developed complex plots with solid characters and more style than you might expect. He turned to writing plays in the Sixties. In the Seventies he wrote the books for the Sondheim productions of A Little Night Music, Sweeney Todd and Pacific Overtures, as well as for Candide. His theater successes, unfortunately, tended to make people forget he was Patrick Quentin. He's worth reading again.


This is a bad film on almost all counts. First, the theatrical trappings are obvious, with long, tedious, dialog scenes of little import, and even less wit or charm. The acting is also unforgivably poor, given the talent involved. Ginger Rogers is totally out of place and completely unconvincing. Never a great actress, she doesn't even try here. The usually reliable Van Heflin is equally unconvincing, though certainly better than Rogers. Raft is also totally unbelievable and totally out of place. The supporting cast are a thorough disappointment. Nunally Johnson wrote some excellent scripts in his day, but this is not one of them. And he should never have been allowed to direct his own scripts. The worst aspect of this so-called 'mystery' is that the conclusion is obvious from the beginning, so there are no surprises here.


Nobody made films like Universal Studios in the 1940s! They had a great stable of contract players, costumes by Vera West, and set designs that just scream of that decade! This film is a wonderful example of it all!

In an old mansion there is a mysterious bedroom, "the blue room," where a man died 20 years earlier,and now, anyone who spends the night in the room disappears!

Grace McDonald, Betty Kean, and June Preisser, as The 3 Jazzy-Belles, steal the show with their comic antics, jive dance routines and songs (Boogie Woogie Boogie Man is a highlight). Their roles originally were to be played by The Ritz Brothers! Thankfully (no offense to Ritz Bros. fans), that did not occur.

A fantastic murder-mystery-comedy-musical-combination that is truly fun! This film is a remake of two previous Universal movies THE SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM, and THE MISSING GUEST.


Murder in the Blue Room was a personal favorite of it's star, Anne Gwynne. Anne told me herself that she thought the picture 'was snappy' and 'really moved along'. I couldn't agree more! Yes, kind of odd that a Universal Pictures mystery-thriller would be laced with Boogie Woogie tunes, but, surprisingly, the numbers tie in well with the plot and are not overdrawn. Probably the best tune is the novelty number "Boogie Woogie Boogie Man", sung by the girl group to captive butler Ian Wolfe! Anne's song, "One Starry Night," dubbed by vocalist Martha Tilton, is also a very good tune. Without giving away the plot, there is an interesting twist, all wrapped up in a seaside ghost-mansion setting. Very atmospheric scenes include the interrupted party scene wherein the ghost makes an appearance at the piano, the appearance of ghoulish-costumed Larry Dearden at the costume party, and the climactic gun play in the caves underneath the mansion. Made by any other studio with other actors,this film would not have been half as good, and unfortunately the movie is rarely seen today. A great example of classic '40's Universal.


This is a very hard-to-find 'old house film'....but SEE IT if you get a chance! The plot synopsis was given earlier, but i'd like to give my personal comments on it.

At first, the "Andrews Sisters clones" get on your nerves, but you grow to like 'em after a bit! Anne Gwynn is lovely, as always....

It's kind of a mish-mosh of musical, mystery, drama, but it WORKS!

See it if u can! MOST enjoyable!


I loved this movie as a kid. It's a great suspenseful, spooky movie without any gore because of the time period it was made in.

Back then they had to rely on a plot to get the audiences attention.

I am desperate to buy this movie on DVD.

I hope someday someone will put it on DVD.

It's a treasure that should not be lost.

If anyone comes across source we can buy this from, I hope they will post it to let us all know.

At this point I have to fill in the 10 lines of text this thing says I have to have to post a comment :-(


This is one of the movies that set the standard for movies today. This movie was by far Hollywood at it's best. A classic movie that will make you laugh out loud and surprise you at the end. This movie also reflects acting in its most simple and effect tone.

Leslie is a director many enjoyed in the following years in many TV series like: Charlie Chan, F Troop, Gilligans Island, Maverick and too many more to comment on.

Those who haven't had the pleasure of seeing Murder in the Blue Room and you have enjoyed Leslie's TV series, this movie is a must see for all of you. It is almost impossible to find on VHS (never been released on DVD) and very few television stations have heard of it so you can't request it from them...so if you do happen to run across it keep it and enjoy!!!


A party is thrown at a haunted house where a man was murdered in the "blue room" 20 years earlier. The room has not been opened since. That night, Larry (Bill Williams) spends the night there. In the morning, he has disappeared. The following night, Steve (Donald Cook) stays the night there with a similar outcome. On the 3rd night, it is the turn of the Jazzy Belles.....can they solve the mystery...?...

This is a quick paced mystery with musical numbers courtesy of the Jazzy Belles. They sing and dance for 2 numbers and have a 3rd dance routine, all of which are good and performed in an Andrews Sisters swing style. A 3rd song is sung by the party host Anne Gwynne and is dubbed by Martha Tilton - that's why it sounds so good! The mystery keeps you guessing and the film is played as a comedy ...... and there's a ghost....!


The novelty of this game wears off very quickly. At first it was fun to play as several of the Simpsons characters but when they started repeating their dialogue for the 50th time it became mighty tedious and tiresome.

The gameplay is very simple. If GTA: Vice City is the Lego Technic of road rage games then Simpsons: Road Rage is, without a doubt the Lego Duplo. It is SOOO aimed at kids. No one over the age of 13 will be particularly impressed with this. It's just far to 'safe'. The Simpsons TV show is full of satirical humor and intelligence but this game is just a cheap spin-off aimed at a much younger audience.


The Simpsons: Road Rage is a quite good game. It has some flaws, but redeeming qualities as well.

Characters- Bart, Homer, Marge, Lisa, the whole enchilada of characters from classic animated show The Simpsons

Plot- Basically Crazy Taxi, Simpsons style.

Animation- Good for 2001, not that special looking for today's standards.

Sound- Average. Not bad, not good.

If you like The Simpsons and/or Crazy Taxi, definitely play this game. You will most certainly like it. Otherwise, give it a whirl if you can find it cheap, but other than that don't play it.

8.5/10 or: B


This is not a film for the occult horror film aficionado. "To the Devil...a Daughter" has already received a few whithering reviews that are all justified. Dennis Wheatley, the author of the book, condemned it because there was little resemblance to his novel and what appears on screen, except for the title. Currently available on wide screen 16X9 anamorphic transfer, the DVD contains a 24 minute documentary with recent commentary by Peter Sykes, the director, and Roy Skeggs, the producer. "To the Devil...a Daughter" is a well done film that demonstrates what a first rate director is capable of with a limited budget. This film turns out to be the horror film equivalent of "Casablanca" because the movie as originally scripted was not filmable. Hence, with the start of production, the script was continually being written on a day to day basis by Gerald Vaughan-Hughes, an uncredited screen writer. "To the Devil...a Daughter" followed the genre setting "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby" and was the last Hammer film because it was too little and too late.

"To the Devil...a Daughter" is one of the earliest Nastassja Kinski films and must have been seen by Roman Polanski who realized her potential. It is not a chessey film, but does have a few pieces of cheese in it. The most obvious one is the full frontal nudity scene of a very young Nastassja. Yes, it is cheesey, but from an editing view, is more shocking than titillating. In her first scene, it is apparent that there is more than a passing resemblance between Nastassja and Ingrid Bergman - innocent, clean beauties. In one of the scenes, Nastassja was having a problem actually getting the tears that the director wanted and there had been quite a few retakes. Richard Widmark said to the director, "when I say turnover, turnover, it's going to happen." Sykes started the film rolling and Widmark hit her right "in the chops" and the tears came and he said, "OK, now act." The cast is first rate and included Richard Widmark (who was pretty disgusted with the film and threatened to walk out on it), Christopher Lee (of horror film fame), Honor Blackman a renown actress at the time in Britain (known to American audiences as Pussy Galore of the James Bond "Goldfinger," and Denholm Elliot as the German bad guy in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

It is best to watch "To the Devil...a Daughter" with no expectations and let the film naturally unfold, without preconceived mental baggage. If one is steeped in the occult traditions, then this movie is not for you because of its glaring errors - all made up by the afore mentioned screen writer. Otherwise, the mood of the picture is quickly set by Richard Widmark's,

"98% of so called satanist are nothing but pathetic freaks who get their kicks out of dancing naked in freezing church yards and use the devil as an excuse for getting some sex, but then there is that other 2%, I'm not so sure about them."

Christopher Lee's role as the maniacal, ex-communicated priest brings to mind the great performance of Boris Karloff as Imhotep in the 1932 "The Mummy," who had the supernatural power to project thought over space and time. "To the Devil...a Daughter" is well paced with its race against time.


I finally saw this infamous final theatrical fright feature from the legendary Hammer Studios and was pleasantly surprised to find out that it was nowhere near as bad as its many detractors claim. In fact, I thought this movie was quite good. Granted, it's got its flaws (the much-ridiculed silly monster hand puppet and the weak climax are both below par), but overall this picture has a lot of solid stuff in it. For starters, the plot is fresh and compelling: Sinister excommunicated renegade Satanist priest Father Michael Rayner (a wonderfully wicked Christopher Lee) plots to impregnate sweet innocent nun Catharine (a ravishing and beguiling Nastassja Kinski in her first big role) so she will give birth to the spawn of the Devil. It's up to humble, but shrewd and charming best-selling occult novelist John Verney (superbly played by Richard Widmark, who makes for an engagingly unlikely Hammer hero) to stop Father Rayner and his avid followers before it's too late. Moreover, director Peter Sykes maintains a steady pace throughout and effectively creates a chillingly creepy atmosphere. The smart and intricate script by Christopher Wicking and John Peacock offers a gripping story and a strong pair of refreshingly mature adult characters as the two principal adversaries. David Watkin's polished cinematography and Paul Glass' spare, spooky score are on the money fine. Kinski does well as an extremely fair maiden in distress (and performs a truly startling full-frontal nude scene at the movie's conclusion). The stellar supporting cast qualifies as another substantial plus: Denholm Elliott as a wormy, wayward weakling member of the evil cult, Honor Blackman as Verney's spunky agent Anna Fountain, and Anthony Valentine as Anna's suave boyfriend David. Eerie, intelligent and underrated, this undeservedly maligned movie is well worth checking out by general horror film fans and hardcore Hammer aficionados alike.


This one really could and should have worked. The usual ingenuity was employed to stretch a small budget a long way, lots of British talent was available at micro-cost, a Hollywood A-lister came on board, it was based on probably the best of Dennis Wheatley's black magic novels, and in an age when, thanks to THE EXORCIST, occult movies were in vogue, it might well have regenerated vital interest in the ailing studio.

But it didn't. Hammer folded shortly afterwards, and this movie contributed to that - even though it made a healthy profit. Nowadays it's seen as something of a curiosity: a well-intentioned but belated addition to the Satanic horror cycle, still distinctly Hammer but laced with tasteless moments that don't do anyone involved any credit at all, and at times so clumsily edited that you're never really sure what's going on.

The first problem is the script, which apparently was being constantly rewritten right up until the end of production. As a result, there's no clear narrative line for the audience to follow. What is the purpose of the hideously deformed baby? Is it the Devil incarnate? If so, why does it then get sacrificed? What's Nastassja Kinski's role in all this, apart from to lie alluringly on slabs and indulge in full-frontal nudity? Who are the lead-Satanist's urbane followers? We never really get to know them, or understand what functions they have, and we see no real sign that they're part of a larger cult. Why does one of them then bleed herself to death? Surely it isn't required that every drop be drained from her body just so that a small amount can be trickled around a magic circle? Why, right at the end, are we suddenly introduced to the mysterious properties of flint-stone, and why, when it's got the blood of one of Satan's acolytes on it, will flint automatically protect the hero from demonic attack (if this is a part of arcane lore, how on Earth were we supposed to know  because the impression this movie gives is that we should be blown away by this revelation and say: "Wow, why didn't I see that coming?")?

The most perplexing moment of all however, comes  unforgivably  right at the climax of the movie. Once Christopher Lee has been thwarted, he simply disappears  with no explanation given. Has he escaped? Is he dead? Has the Devil taken him? We simply don't know, we're not told. (In actual fact, the answer is that in the original version, Lee was struck by lightning and died in flames, much the way he did in SCARS OF Dracula, and this similarity worried the producers so much that in the end it was simply cut out and not replaced.

Another problem lies in what, ironically, should have been one of the movie's greatest strengths  Richard Widmark. His presence (which was purely to justify US funding) is initially surprising and intriguing, but he was allegedly very difficult for the crew to work with, and extremely high and mighty while on set. And, despite that, he doesn't give much of a performance. Stone-faced and unemotional throughout, he lacks any kind of charisma and is way too old to be the hero in a movie where 18-year-old Nastassja Kinski is the heroine. Kinski herself doesn't add much, apart from the aforementioned risqué moments, and this is a pity because the rest of the cast do a good job. Christopher Lee is at his most devilish as the excommunicated priest at the heart of the conspiracy, and is ably supported by Honor Blackman, Denholm Elliot and Anthony Valentine as innocents who get caught up in it.

Director Peter Sykes does a reasonable job considering the difficulties he supposedly had, and composes some very nice shots  check out the opening sequence in the church, all played out under beautiful stained-glass reflections  and makes very good use of authentic locations in and around London and Munich. But all this really does is remind you what a good movie this could have been.

New-fangled obscenity didn't help it much either. Throughout the age of permissiveness, Hammer had been pushing the envelope with regard to sex. But it really cuts loose in this one. The Satanic orgies are the most explicit and realistic the studio ever produced, and in addition to these there's a plethora of gratuitous female nudity, and then  yet again  we come to that ghastly, deformed baby. It seems to serve no purpose at all, and yet at one point is thrust up into Nastassja Kinski's womb, and at another has its throat cut on camera while it's still wriggling and crying. Christopher Lee was very unhappy with these scenes, while Dennis Wheatley was revolted and said afterwards that Hammer would never again adapt one of his stories  though neither Wheatley nor Hammer would live to see this defiance tested.

The film is certainly good enough to watch again. The mysterious nature of the rituals involved is quite convincing  the symbols, the ancient books, the dusty vaults  but it's too talkie and seems tediously slow by today's standards and, as I said before, the finale is truly the most disappointing in Hammer history.


Popular occult author Dennis Wheatley was so pleased with Hammer's 1968 movie version of his novel The Devil Rides Out that he happily agreed to them making further adaptations of his work, even going so far as to granting the rights for nothing. It was an offer that, eventually, the ailing studio could not afford to ignore.

Choosing to develop To The Devil A Daughter, however, was probably a bad decision: budgetary constraints meant that a faithful interpretation of Wheatley's book was impossible to achieve, and after much script wrangling, filming went ahead whilst further revisions were still being made.

To add to Hammer's problems, star Widmark was not a happy bunny on set, being displeased with the non-Hollywood film making process employed by director Peter Sykes and his crew.

However, despite all the problems, somehow, eventually, a finished product was deliveredonly to suffer from some hasty re-editing when some bright spark commented that the original ending bore too much resemblance to that of an earlier Hammer movie, Scars of Dracula. With such a troubled production, To The Devil A Daughter is an understandably less than perfect film, but despite its flaws, it still proves to be an entertaining dose of Satanic nonsense.

Widmark plays John Verney, an American occult novelist who is approached by a strange man named Henry Beddows (Denholm Elliot), who claims to be involved with a cult named The Children of the Lord, led by the sinister Father Michael Rayner (Christopher Lee, in fine form). Intrigued, Verney agrees to pick up Beddows' daughter Catherine (Nastassja Kinski) from the airport and look after her until they can meet again. In reality, Beddows is trying to protect his daughter from Rayner, who selected the girl at birth for a ritualscheduled to take place on her impending 18th birthdaythat will see her becoming an avatar for the demon Astaroth.

With such a great cast (that also includes Honor Blackman), and Wheatley's well researched black magic mumbo jumbo forming the basis of the script, To The Devil A Daughter trundles along quite nicely for the majority of its running time, offering audiences plenty of fun devilish goings-on, including the nasty birth of a demon child (which exits via the abdomen), Blackman being stabbed in the neck with a metal comb, one poor character going up in flames, Lee terrorising a trembling Elliot over the phone, and the lovely Nastassja giving viewers an eyeful of her hot bod.

Unfortunately, the messy finalé (which sees Lee's character disappear mysteriously after receiving a bump on the head) does mean that the film closes on something of a bum note and admittedly cannot hold a (black) candle to the real Satanic hit of '76, The Omen, but it's also nowhere near as bad as some Hammer fans would have you believe.

6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.


The final horror film from the celebrated British studio was the second adaptation of a Dennis Wheatley novel to reach the screen, after "The Devil Rides Out" in the late 60's. Here, "Devil Rides Out" hero Christopher Lee is now the villain, Father Michael. He's a heretic priest with fiendish plans for ravishing young "nun" Katherine (Nastassja Kinski, in her first big role). Katherine is being protected by American occult novelist John Verney (Hollywood legend Richard Widmark of "Kiss of Death" fame, making for a most unlikely but very welcome hero for a Hammer film).

I will grant that the conclusion does feel a little rushed, and the special effect of a demonic puppet is below par for a film that does succeed in creating an ominous mood. It's a good plot with some effectively shocking moments, not the least of which is young Kinski's full frontal nudity late in the film. It's graphic, creepy, and allows its veteran cast a chance to really shine. Lee is superb in one of his best villainous parts, and Widmark is a likable and rock-solid presence as his adversary. Honor "Pussy Galore" Blackman offers a bright performance as Widmark's agent and Denholm Elliott of the first and third "Indiana Jones" films is perfectly jittery as Kinski's guilt-plagued father. Kinski is quite stunning, mixing a sense of untapped sexuality and demure innocence very well.

For a film with its share of detractors, I thought it was reasonably well executed and polished horror fare. It's well acted, grim, and has a bit of kick to it. The script and the characters are intelligent and overall it rates as a respectable swan song for the legendary studio that produced it.

8/10


There's not a single scary moment in this boring albeit well made Hammer entry. Christopher Lee is an excommunicated priest who somehow manages to promise to give the Devil a daughter. Richard Widmark is the hack horror novelist trying to stop him. The idea of teaming these two famous screen baddies is promising, but they share scant screen time together. A dubbed Nastassja Kinski plays a young nun and Denholm Elliott is her father, who tries to renege on his deal with Lee. It's a lousy movie all around and even manages to wastes Honor Blackman (as Widmark's sharp tongued literary agent). Based on the (presumably better) novel by Dennis Wheatley, this film surely exists solely to cash in on the EXORCIST craze of the early 70s.


If you can get pas the very slow pacing, this is quite a satisfying film. it takes it's time getting where it's going to but the acting by the whole cast pushes it along and keeps the viewer's interest. Christopher Lee does his usual great work and Nastassja Kinski brings just the right note of naive innocence to her role (plus you've got to love a movie that has full frontal Kinski nudity!!!!)

Well worth a look, especially for fans of the Hammer type horror films, and despite being real slow at times, is well done.

rating:7


This film is about a Satanic cult helmed by fallen priest, Christopher Lee. The film begins with him being defrocked and soon picks up 20 years later--after he's created an order of nuns who look just like Catholic ones. The difference is that they've devoted their lives to Beelzebub.

A young nun (Nastassja Kinski) is being sent from their headquarters in Bavaria to London. However, her father (Denholm Elliott) seeks out the help of Richard Widmark, a noted author on the occult, to rescue Nastassja and prevent her from going through with a pact with Satan. Why exactly he picked Widmark is uncertain but the American spends much of the film trying to stop the Satanists from kidnapping the girl. The trouble is, it turns out she's rather willing to join them--which leads to a bizarre and confusing finale.

After watching this film I watched one of the DVD extras ("To the Devil... The Death of Hammer") and those connected with the film (such as Christopher Lee and the film makers) were very disappointed in the film as well--particularly the sloppy ending that just didn't work at all. Thank goodness for some outside validation for my relatively low score!

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER started off well enough and set a great chilling mood. However, as the movie neared the climax, it just seemed that the film got lost and was frantically looking for its way. Well, the documentary confirms this in several ways. First, in a very foolish move (caused by the pending closure of the studio), the film began without a finished script! Re-writes were done up until the last minute and as a result the film seemed rather incoherent at times. Second, the ending which would have been a lot better (having Lee getting impaled) was removed because they realized it was pretty much identical with one of the Dracula films that Lee had already made for Hammer Studios. Instead, the improvised ending was both confusing and limp. Apparently, the message the ending tells us is to toss a big rock at evil and it will easily be defeated!! Additionally, someone decided to stick in a rather gross scene involving a stupid demon having sex with Nastassja Kinski. Lee described this scene as "pornographic" in the documentary. I just thought it was icky and stupid--after all, the demon was an obvious puppet--and a bad one at that.

Overall, fans of Hammer films will probably be very disappointed--except for the card carrying cult members who ALWAYS see every Hammer film as a cinematic masterpiece. Others will no doubt find the film confusing and less and less enjoyable as the film progresses.

A final note--There is a lot of nudity and blood in this film. Full-frontal nudity and several terrifically violent and bloody scenes make this a very BAD choice for the kids!!


The role of economics in the industrialized North American market must have always been theorized in the homelands of the engines creation. Persons and industrialist such as Mercedes Benz and the Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) surely realized the opportunity of the North Ameircan market with the purchase of fuel and number of automobiles purchased per household. This type of economic phenomena sparked the concept of Speed Racer.

After the new constitution of Japan the industrialization of the isolated island nation of Japan must seek opportunity once again via economic partnerships with its global neighbors. This also helped spark the economic opportunities in the European and North American market if not the global market.

Speed is a young avid driver who without knowing any better is driven by his demanding father Pops Racer who has challenged himself his whole life to make a better machine better at winning races. It was in fact Pops Racer who drove his first son Rex Racer to the brink of destruction with his strategy of how to best use the technology he developed. As a mature Racer, Rex, finally realizes his own inherent values and becomes independent but still feels obligated to his younger bother Speed.

The exact relationship of Rex Racer to persons such as the Inspector are never really clear, but put into dramatization. Rex is eventually accused of being a type of agent for a country or organization due to his ability to be in places at times when there is no other explanation to how he would have known Speed was in trouble. Or the fact that the situations involved some types of illegal activity were his secretive knowledge is leveraged against an evil plot. This brings a level of cloak and dagger romance to Speed Racer.

The mixture of Speeds innocence with Trixy, Sprital, and Chim Chim brings a level of comic human nature. This concept is a good form of rhetoric to balance the themes and plots as they are played out from episode to episode. So, instead of a dry detective story the thrill of international race car driving, romance of cloak and dagger, and comedy of human nature is put into one story, Speed Racer.


This is worth sitting down to watch. Not your typical Miss Marple, as it takes place in Barbados. However, all the usual ingredients are there to make this a worthwhile diversion. I agree that there are some changes from the book, but on the whole these are positive. Give it a go.


This is quite a late entry in the BBC Hickson Miss Marple series. The story had a previous outing with Helen Hayes as an American Miss Marple. I re watched this recently a found it surprisingly worthwhile though hopelessly trapped in 80's TV movie-land - it had a good Mr Rafiel! This Hickson version is quite faithful to the book though it has to be said that Christie spent less time mourning the death of the maid than this more PC version. There are a couple of minor characters cut out but otherwise its fairly intact. The cast is OK; Donald Pleasance does pretty well as Rafiel but no better than his Hayes counterpart, the Kendalls are a little dull and Sue Lloyd affects a bored Texan drawl as the unpleasant Lucky Dyson.

Joan Hickson is wonderful as always as Miss Marple but this is not, in my opinion one of her better outings.


I cannot believe the lack of positive comments on this episode. Everything works together, the acting, the locations, the music, the subtle changes to the book. To make what is in my humble opinion a wonderful piece of drama, Joan Hickson is as always incredibly good in the role. Superior in every way to the awful Helen Hayes version, Adrian Lukis and the gorgeous Sophie Ward are superb, and the closing scene between them is superbly acted and gripping. It would be really interesting to see if ITV can produce something as good as this when it comes around to it, will also be interesting to see who will be starring as Miss Marple. Sit back and enjoy this wonderful drama.


Caribbean Mystery is a good book by Agatha Christie, but I wouldn't go to say it was one of her best. It is worth the read, but I do prefer Murder is Announced and Sleeping Murder out of the Marple books. This adaptation while taking some liberties with the book, is the best adaptation, and yes I do prefer it over the Helen Hayes version. The adaptation is beautifully shot, with lovely camera work and the scenery is colourful and very pleasing to the eye. The music is well composed and fits nicely with what's going on on screen, if careful not to overshadow the action in those crucial scenes. The script and plot are solid, while taking liberties with the book. Speaking of the changes, I liked the idea of Miss Marple visiting the chambermaid's aunt, however some other changes like the dead coming back from the dead seemed far-fetched and didn't quite work. The adaptation also is rather lengthy, and there is some sluggish pacing in the middle half. On the plus side though, asides from how it was filmed and the good plot and script, we are also treated to a first-rate cast. Joan Hickson is as wonderful as ever as Miss Marple, and Donald Pleasance makes the most out of his role as Jason Rafiel. Sue Lloyd is suitably nasty as Lucy Dyson, and T.P.McKenna is good as Dr Grahame. Adrian Lukis and Sophie Ward are a little on the dull side as the Kendalls though. I will say the final solution was very effective. Overall, a worthwhile diversion, not so bad as an adaptation either. If you want a better Hickson- Marple adaptation though, try Murder Is Announced and Sleeping Murder. 8/10 Bethany Cox


"A Caribbean Mystery" is my favorite Miss Marple novel. It takes her to a scenery where you might expect Hercule Poirot but not our favorite English spinster. The book has many intriguing charactersand this TV movie kept many of them. You might miss Senora de Caspearo, who, in the book, gets Miss Marple on the right track with her "evil eye" superstition. But we have all necessary characters who are knitted into this mystery which is mostly about adultery, moneyand murder. They dedicated much screen time to the maid, who was little more than a prop for Christie. However, befriending the maid and visiting her village, I actually think this is what Christie's Miss Marple might do. The voodoo stuff was probably inspired by other Christie novels, such as "The Pale Horse" or "Endless Night" but it used up much screen time which I would have rather dedicated to actually seeing Lucky's death. In the book, when they discover her floating corpse, they at first think it is Molly  which leads to the conclusion that the murderer might have been mistaken, too. That's why I give 9 stars out of 10.

And last but not least some hints for those who might be confused by user lossowitz' comments: The poison was not administered through pills in a bottle randomly placed into Palgrave's medicine cabinet but in another way which is not disclosed in the movie. Tim Kendall placed regular blood pressure pills there afterwards, taking advantage of the fact that many people in the hotel believed Palgrave had a heart condition. When Victoria started to tell people about the pill bottle that had not been in the cabinet before, Tim just played cool. He was still safe. Even if the police found out that Palgrave did not die of natural causes, he could have gotten away with it. But Victoria simply knew too much. She knew that the bottle belonged to Greg Dyson and that the person who placed it into Palgraves cabinet must have been either him or somebody who had access to his suite  the hotel manager, for example. Victoria confronts Dyson, who does not react to her threats because he simply didn't do it. Victoria did not enlist Miss Marple's help because she did not want the murderer brought to justice, she wanted money. She probably blackmailed Tim off-screen when he was "returning the knife". And if you watch the movie carefully, it becomes obvious that Palgrave is not just dug out because of a superfluous pill bottle but on behalf of the doctor who is Miss Marple's ally.


A good crime novel might be material for a fine movie or even for some entertaining distraction, as the hunt for the killer is a plot technique that keeps the attention focused. How they made such a gruesome movie out of an Agatha Christie novel is an art in itself.

As not having read the novel, I'm not sure if the plotting mistakes are due to the writing or the adaption, but either way, they are there and aren't going away. The poison in the pills that the major never takes? Why would he take one now? The killer not trying to hush the possible poisoning but even informing the police about it? The exhumation based on the fact that a pill bottle was in his bathroom that wasn't there before? The hotel nurse telling someone in a highly suspecting way that she saw the killer? Why not tell the police or even her 'new friend' miss Marple? Dramatic effects like the exhumation during the night, some tiny voodoo and the nervy score cannot save the lack of drama.

Badly scripted, awfully acted and Barbados seems a perpetually overcast island with some techno-echo-crickets chirping away every time we are supposed to witness outdoor scenes at night. This isn't even entertaining anymore, this movie is a crime itself.


Christie did all sorts of things with mystery, but in this case she stuck to the genre as genre. In this case, the idea is to deepen the groove, to follow the pattern and surprise with small things rather than the grand upsets of other stories.

In that case, the subtleties are important: the richnesses of character aren't there to define a person, instead to indicate a world, many worlds as candidates for the one world that is true.

These BBC do more than just tinker with the story, they flatten those worlds into characters, and then strut these characters as stereotypes. All the richness of the mystery is lost.

In this case, there's an extra cause for humor: to enhance the local flavor and also satisfy modern correctness, we have extended additions involving the local people: an aunt and a patronizing voodoo bit.

The result is an unwatchable mess.

Since nothing of value can be said of this particular episode, this is a good a place as any to remark on the portrayal of Miss Marple. In the books, the character is a busybody, slightly obnoxious, fussy. Bright, but only by measurements in her own world. She is as occupied with her garden as the gossip in the village. She is, in fact, as comical in her own way as Poirot is meant to be.

The BBC characterizations make Poirot more comical and Marple decidedly less so. She is reduced to one mannerism, an "oh dear oh dear oh dear" or some slight variation, while at the same time hovering near fondly remembered grandmotherisms. The whole

fulcrum of the craft is in the position of the detective, where they are in comparison to us. Here that fulcrum has been blindly moved to a sunnier spot.

A real shame.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.


Ignore what you've heard bad about this movie. Some writers might be upset that the movie doesn't go too into detail about actually putting graffiti up or saying that it's using incorrect terminology but those people completely missed what's good about the movie.

First off, the actual presentation, filming, camera movement, effects, etc. are all extremely artistic and original. The entire movie just makes you feel empathetic for the characters. The atmosphere, the scenery, all of it. Interludes between scenes of the main character always running, just running away.

The music is good too. It's all done by El-P, for anyone familiar with Def-Jux.

The whole movie though, it's just amazing... So many people overlooked this. Everything is just done so brutally realistic, how the way characters react and think, how life really can just be ****ed up. It's a powerful movie and the ending is the best part. (be warned though... it's sad...)


This film is the best graf film ever made that isn't a documentary. It isn't Beat Street. There is no wack or corny dialog. No weak links on the acting side. No stupid side plots. If you are not familiar with graf or the culture of writing then watch it and learn. Do not judge this film as you would a general genre film. This isn't a drama, or an urban drama....it is a GRAF FILM. Pure and simple. If you don't like dirty and lewd comedy don't bother seeing The Aristocrats. It you aren't into seeing independent films, gritty urban/graf or hip hop related films then DON'T BOTHER WATCHING OR REVIEWING THIS FILM! True heads only need apply. 10 out of 10 for staying true to the culture...everyone who gave this film 1's need to reserve them for The Fantastic Four or another mindless summer blockbuster. Read my in dept comments on the board titled "Is It That Bad?" One.


I went into this movie thinking it would be a non-cliché, modern portrayal of graffiti culture in NY... only to see in the first 2 minutes, a guy Break dancing with a boombox, in front of a muraled wall. Maybe it was a flashback of the main character as a kid... but it seems that would only make sense if the lead character was 30yrs old.

I tried to give this movie a chance. But there were just too many things that bugged me... The writing for instance, all the graffiti terminology was incorrectly used. When a graffiti writer goes "Bombing" he does not go out and do full illegal murals. Nobody even mentions doing "fill-ins" or "throwups" which are the most commonly used terms/acts by graf-writers. They call them "pieces" in the movie, which is completely wrong. Those are just some examples...

It became pretty obvious that the filmmakers knew little or Nothing about graffiti. Just because you know about Sane & Smith, and heard a couple chase stories from your NYU buddy, isn't enough to go out and make a significant Graffiti movie. There is some "cool" cinematography in this, which isn't bad. But that's it. Storyline is similar to the likes of Wild Style or Beat Street (a hip hop love story). But even those movies were made with less pretension than this.


amazing movie. i used to write but the fort got way to hot with the vandal squad crap, but this movie made me bust out the Krylon and fat caps and go out that very night. not only an amazing Graf doc. but also a damn good plot that anyone who has ever held a chisel tip can fully appreciate. it is a very real view of life as a writer, always on the run. despite their attempts to silence us we will be heard loud and clear. very moving and compelling.

if u view Graf as vandalism, don't watch this movie...

or better yet go out Bombin' and feel the realness of life on the run...


Just finished watching the movie, and I gotta say...It was fresh. Had me from start to finish. I was immersed. I felt as though I was running through Brooklyn with the characters. As soon as I finished it I had an overwhelming urge to go to throwup some work.

"Bomb the system" had great acting, really good filming, decent script, and some nice "tags"(they don't dwell on any of the pieces long enough unfortunately). My only complaints were: the girlfriend, she was too stereo typical, and anti-captilist. Also the lack of an in depth look at actual street art(graffiti). All in all the I loved this movie, and would recommend it to anyone, whether they are into graff or not.

8 out of 10 stars

Watch it now!


The dedicated practitioners of graffiti art in New York City get dramatically profiled in a film shot 'guerilla' style late at night in order to simulate the 'danger' involved with the only art form that's against the law.

Stereotypical 'bad' cops continually stalk the intrepid band of 'taggers' while 'Blest' (Mark Webber) truly is the most artistically blessed member of the gang as he readies an art exhibit of his best work.

However, this film doesn't really become interesting until Blest becomes involved with 'Alexandra' (Jaclyn DeSantis), a political activist who anonymously paints the words 'Bomb the System' all over the city sidewalks using a cleverly modified shopping bag that has a stencil cut into the bottom.

As the police become more and more of a factor the dangers that Blest faces by hanging with his friends causes him to make some hard decisions. Worth watching for some great night shots of New York City and an amazing sequence on the top of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Check it out!


I've always been a big fan of cult films that expose some sort of cool and/or intriguing sub-culture whether it's rhyme battling in 8 MILE, heroin addiction in TRAINSPOTTING, or even fraudulent stock trading in BOILER ROOM. These films are great because they present the subject without promoting it or criticizing it which draws you into the world and allows you to make your own judgments.

BOMB THE SYSTEM definitely falls into that category and for the first half, had the makings of a cult classic. It thrusts you into the dangerous world of the graffiti artist and makes no apologies for how they go about doing it(by the way, I'm amazed it took this long to make a movie about graffiti). The film centers around Anthony, AKA "Blest", who is part of a "bombing" crew that is constantly hunted by the local Police Vandalism Unit. If you are a fan of hip hop culture, then you are sure to buy into the whole bravura of the renegade street-artist(I am and I did). You buy into it because you feel as though they are carrying on this long legacy of artistic expression.

But then, in the second half, things get a little confusing. First he meets this girl who is part of a political-stencil-message-spraying group that are trying to say that a bumper sticker message like "Don't Eat Meat" is better than artistic graffiti? And then to top it all off, he turns his back on his friends and says that graffiti is stupid? I don't know if I just missed the point of the second half, but it definitely left me scratching my head.

But besides that, the film has some great experimental editing and cinematography that enhanced the overall atmosphere and experience. The acting is great by a cast of unknowns or littleknowns, especially Gano Grills who played "Buk 50." Films like these really bother me because they have such potential for greatness, but then take a left turn somewhere instead of staying on the right track. But then again, it did have a scene in an underground club that was playing Madvillain "Money Folder" so...


i don't know about you guy's but this movie was awesome.also the message that the movie is trying to pass is the reality of our life's.the end of the movie where bless is being killed by the cop and after that it says "you have to make the right decision" it's the best ending and at the same time the most touch full ending that i've ever seen. you shouldn't stand in such worthless part of the movie such as the graffiti terminology. focus on the message that every movie is trying to pass to you. don't see the tree and loose the forest.... if of course you know what i mean..........thats all guy's,i hope that this comment will make you rethink again the whole think and change your point of view for this movie.......thanks,see ya.


I just finished the film, and boy, it was not good at all. I've never seen any other movie about graffiti, and yet everything in this one seems clichéd. Many of the characters are not believable, for example the central villain is a "bad cop" who is just laughable in the way he is portrayed as pure evil. And it just DRAGS for about twenty minutes two thirds of the way through (and the movie is only 90 minutes long!). I almost went to see this last fall at the local film festival, but the schedule didn't work out, and I'm glad I saved my $10. If this was a film made by a group of high school students I would applaud them, but for a professional film this is just a pretentious waste of time.


Yes, I own this but at least I didn't pay much, 'cause it was used. Anyway, this film is boring, Oliver's accent is annoying and he puts on that " I don't want to fight you", good guy act, that Van Damme used to put on in the eighties- if you dont know what I mean, watch the film, I mean B movie cause this is in no way a "film"!


Olivier Gruner (Finally I can go back to reviewing other movies, since this wraps up my turkey binge)stars as a gym instructor who's past jumps out of the bushes and bites him in the ass. (Or as Randy Travis puts it) It seems that Gruner is part of a unit called TNT (this is one of the film's better ideas) and after the senseless murder of a woman and child, Olivier gets sad and runs away from the unit. Eric Roberts and Sam "Flash Gordon" Jones are the guys who want to take him on. Helmed by Robert Radler, TNT fails miserably as a generic stupid actioner, the movie is mercilessly boring for it's first half only to be undeniably hilarious it's second half. The climax is alone worth it for fans of camp because Gruner and Jones duke it out in what amounts to the world's most ridiculous climax. Acting-wise, Randy Travis probably gives the best performance, giving an adequate tough guy role, despite not having enough screen time. Eric Roberts and Sam J. Jones on the other hand seem totally embarrassed, as they should be. Gruner is as usual dependably bad, with awkward acting so reprehensible it makes you cringe. Indeed watching Olivier Gruner interact with Rebecca Staab (Who plays Olivier's girlfriend) is truly as bad as it gets. The fight sequences would be okay, if not for the god-awful directing and basically it becomes quite obvious that this was a quick shoot. Indeed Radler rebounded with the far more enjoyable Substitute 4:Failure Is Not An Option, although that one is no great shakes, at least it doesn't have Olivier Gruner trying to talk all lovey-dovey with his co-star. Then again though, nobody gets hit by a truck in Substitute 4...

* out of 4-(Bad)


The only reason it didn't get a 1 out of 10 is because you get to see Randy Travis do about a minute's worth of trick gun handling.

The plot was completely expected, you can see every dumb move that someone's going to make at least a minute or two before they make it, and you're left with this horrible feeling that you've wasted time that could have been spent...well, sleeping, if nothing else.

Who do I see about getting the 90 minutes or so of my life back? I watched it for "free" on a cable movie channel. I would have been very unhappy if I had paid money for it.

If you haven't started watching it yet, don't. If you already did, yes, I know. You feel used and stupid. You're not alone, if that's any comfort to you.


Olivier Gruner doesn't disappoint too much. He's shown better moves elsewhere, and no one expects great acting from him, but he still delivers an adequate performance. The real problem is with the one-dimensional performance of Eric Roberts. I wonder how many hours he was even on the set! It is disappointing to see a performer in a movie taking it even less seriously than do the viewers. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit: Maybe he is really a C-Movie denizen of this appallingly low quality. Randy Travis comes reasonably close to making his poorly written character believable, but the movie wouldn't have been particularly different without him (and his accent isn't exactly typical for Colorado sheriffs, either).

It's just disappointing when the worst performance in an unambitious action movie comes from a supposedly competent big name, and the best from a martial artist for whom English is a second (or third, for all I know) language.


This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. I believe everyone involved in its production was cynically motivated by greed and hubris, and possibly large quantities of pharmaceuticals. There was not enough sex in this to elevate it to the level of a "3" or "4" rating out of 10 possible. Further evidence that centipedes will outlast us.

IMDb requires that I write 10 lines of text. What further commentary could possibly illuminate you as to the childish and silly nature of this movie? Escape now while you have the chance. I like escapism and "bad" movies if they have some qualities worthy of redemption. All I can say about this one is that the bad girl whose large boobies dangle in the exercise sequence was sexy in a very dirty way. And then she was gone.

So will we all be. Let this not be the legacy of the human species.


I really enjoyed seeing this movie.It's more enjoyable to watch a movie when it has a good cast.The cast consists of actors like:Olivier Gruner,Rebecca Staab,Judson Mills,Randy Travis,and more.It's a good super action movie.I also recommend you see Militia,& Missing In Action.


Bobbie Phillips did an amazing job as a part-human,part-sub created to battle evil. It's the stuff B movies are made of,but her interpretation raised it to an A for sure.Her strength and subtleties kept me entranced! It's great to see an attractive female in an action role that maintains intelligence and believability! I hope to see her in more of these types of roles!


This film has it all: bad acting, virtually no plot, and terrible editing. The only possible reason to see it other than boredom from having nothing else to do is to watch Bobbie Phillips, a truly beautiful woman. I sense she has more talent than could be utilized in this sub-par film.


A group of VIPs including Henry Kubica (John Waters), a high-executive of the Corporation, is kidnapped by a gang of robbers in a building of a casino, which is protected by a state of art security system. Kam (Bobbie Phillips), the human hybrid and IBI (International Bureau of Investigation) agent, together with another IBI agent, infiltrate in the group, trying to get enough information to organize the rescue of them without jeopardizing the safety of Kubica. However, she realizes that there are much more interests for the Corporation that the safety of the persons. This movie is really a bad clone of Die Hard, having bad story and ham actors and actresses. The beauty of Bobbie Phillips is not enough to save this film. Anyway, Bobbie Phillips and the surprising end of the plot are the best this movie can offer. The parts I and III of Chamaleon are better and better. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): `Sedutora e Fatal II: Inimigo Mortal' (`Seductive and Fatal II: Mortal Enemy')


If America only knew how good this was,it would be the highest rated Made-For-TV movie series of all time(hard to believe there are more people out there that would rather watch "The Columbo Mysteries" than Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe Chronicles- that just goes to show the power of major network name-brand advertising.

The Richard Sharpe movie series has been television at its finest. I have seen all of the BBC Sharpe series movies,"Sharpe's Waterloo" is my favorite of the films. However I tune in to PBS everytime they air the Sharpe movies. So far all the movies have been based on the Sharpe Chronicles - adventure novels written by Bernard Cornwell(the same author who wrote "Rebel"). Each Movie chronicles the on-going adventures of Richard Sharpe who is a Brittish Lt. in the Brittish military during the late 1790's-to early 1800's during the Napoleonic era in Europe. I sincerly believe that each one of these Films has been good enough to have shown at the movie theaters,if the producers had wanted to. Unlike other Made-For-TV films,The Hornblower films do not have that Made-For-TV feeling to them,like most television movies have. However each of the Sharpe Movies picks up exactly where the last one left off. The only negative thing I can say about this movie series is the use of an electric guitar as the background music- I have to take points off for that, because the sometimes screeching guitar noises can become annoying at times.

A common misconception that people who havent seen these movies have is that all of these films go to gether as a mini-series- that is not true. The Sharpe movies are not a mini-series,all of these films are individual movies about the same charactor, However they are sequels to each other each picking up where the last film left off.- with all the same actors playing the same roles in each film(EXAMPLE:think of the James Bond films-that same principle applies to the Sharpe movies,but unlike Bond, the Sharpe films are sequels)

If you have seen the Sharpe movies and you liked them and you wish to see more similar themed programing, I will suggest A&E's Horatio Hornblower movies(6 movies in all- same basic priciple as the Sharpe movie except Hornblower is in the Brittish Navy to whereas Sharpe is a ground soldier)

I give the entire Sharpe movie series 4 out of 5 stars. Its near Perfect entertainment- but you cant please everyone, so for those of you dont like epic Napoleonic era battles,classic historic style drama,high stakes adventure, and danger on the European battlefields,if you dont like stuff like that-there is always a Columbo re-run for you to watch.


I'm feeling guilty now. The comment I posted about Sharpe's Battle before wasn't objective. It was tainted by lust. I don't want to get a bad rep, so here's an OBJECTIVE comment, in context, for people who care about the quality of what they watch rather than just about the actor's looks.

Sharpe's Battle does have a lot of strengths. For one thing, the dialogue's good. In other Sharpe films, such as Sharpe's Sword, there's something a bit fake about the interaction between the characters, but in Battle its much more convincing. There's also some really gritty fighting, particularly in the town towards the end. Sharpe's fight with Loup is excellent, although I do agree with another review I read somewhere here in that the expressions of the characters when they hate each other has echoes of lust as well. Perhaps we could draw a lot into this about how love hurts. Being over forty years old and still not knowing that much about love in the true sense of the word, I will refrain from stereotyping what I don't understand.

The problem with Battle, in my opinion, is Loup himself. He's not a villain on the same scale as some of the ones we see around. Sure, he tries to be evil, but he just ends up being vaguely annoying. Oh, and why doesn't he attack Sharpe sooner? Surely he realises that he has him by the balls most of the time?

My score of 8 out of 10 stands, but hopefully I've explained it a bit better now.


Sharpe's Battle is in my humble opinion, one of the finest entries in the entire movie series and despite the slight hiccup of Sharpe's Gold, shows the team behind them going from strength to strength. For while the formula of Wellington having a problem, sending to Sharpe to solve it, a beautiful woman getting involved and everything culminating in a massive pitched battle was well and truly in place by now, Sharpe's Battle takes pains to develop its characters further. The finished film, is nothing but satisfying.

For one thing, this is one of the most action packed episodes of the lot. The battles are a lot smaller scale than normal and have more of a guerrilla war flavour to them, but they are still as gripping as ever and the fights come fast and frequent. One minute they're engaging in bitter street fighting, ducking and diving from alleyways to doors and back again, snatching off rifle blasts at their darting foes. The next they're defending their fortress from the massed ranks of French infantry, engaging in bloody hand to hand combat as the fires of battlefield immolation roar around them. And while it may be a small point, they're given a subtle veneer of freshness by the absence of the standard red and blue infantrymen uniforms, replaced by the green and white of the palace guards and the fantastic looking French wolf pack with their grey uniforms decorated with wolf fur.

What's more, Sharpe's Battle goes some way towards developing the characters beyond their normal roles. Sharpe will of course be familiar to any fan of the series but here, is a tad more weary of the endless fighting and more embittered than usual, the lack of a romantic female lead for him to bed this time around revealing the creative teams willingness to toy with the familiar pattern. Daragh O'Malley meanwhile puts in perhaps his finest turn to date as Sergeant Harper. As per normal, he is a genial and charming man who can put a smiling face on the war, but late in the episode this changes and he is overcome by a berserk rage, but at no point does this feel forced.

Best of all though is Jason Durr's performance as Lord Kiely, commander of the Royal Palace guard and a man obsessed with making his name and the name of his regiment go down in military history. Kiely could very easily have been another pompous gentleman for Sharpe to clash with, but while he may fit the bill somewhat, he is far less stereotypical than the likes of Henry Simmerson, the slimy brute from Sharpe's Eagle. Instead, Kiely is a conflicted persona who simultaneously loves and hates his wife, unable to bed with her thanks to a disastrous miscarriage that has stained their relationship. At turns you will loathe him, at others you will sympathise and once or twice its even possible to admire him, Durr putting in a fine job as the tormented man.

Elsewhere, we get another tremendously unlikable villain in the form of Brigadier General Loup, a one-eyed, mustachioed French scumball and even Rifleman Perkins getting a much needed boost of characterisation. You also have the Royal guard themselves, men of pride who have to come to terms with the knowledge that they are the laughing stock of the army and as they grow in the art of war, it's hard not to cheer for them. Best of all though, you get another hour and forty minutes of dashing heroism, unchecked violence and daring-do, but with a bit more humanity this time around. Highly recommended.


Sean Bean returns as Napoleonic war hero Major Richard Sharpe and Sharpe's Battle opens with Sharpe and his Chosen Men liberating a tiny Spanish town that has been sacked by the French under the command of General Loup. When Sharpe discovers that many women children and indeed babies have been massacred under the Frenchman's orders, he is outraged and promptly executes without trial the two French soldiers they have caught, making an enemy of Loup who now vows a bitter revenge.

When Sharpe returns to camp however, is told he has been made strategic adviser to Lord Keily, and has been ordered to whip his men 'The Royal Irish Company' into an effective and loyal company of fighting men. This is made more difficult however as articles in the American press that are being unusually and freely distributed amongst the ranks, speak of British atrocities in Ireland, making Sharpe's new company an angry and embittered group of men.

Also making Sharpe's life a misery is the inexperienced and arrogant Lord Keily himself, who's attitude towards Sharpe and his own men, plus his open affair with a sensual female guerrilla fighter by the name of Juanita, pushes Sharpe to the brink of his patience especially as this affair is embarrassing, and emotionally crippling the beautiful and busty Lady Keily who is also in camp.

However when Lord Kiely learns that his wife is pregnant and that Jaunita is actually a French spy in the pay of General Loup, he quickly reorganises his loyalties and tries to rally his men back into order, but thanks to the lies regarding the British atrocities (spread by Juanita of course) many of them are now secretly working for the French against the British and are ready to turn on Sharpe in the heat of Battle, and help Loup organise the kidnap of Lady Keily.

With his friend's now his secret enemy, Sharpe and is Chosen Men are lured into a fight to the death against an enemy both seen and unseen.

When the Irish reveal themselves as turncoats during mid battle however, it results in the tragic death of Rifleman Perkin's the youngest of Sharpe's chosen men, resulting in the remainder of the crack Rifle company going completely berserk killing off all the traitorous scum, this coupled with the inevitable rescue of Lady Keily and the final showdown between Major Sharpe and General Loup make this truly great swashbuckling stuff.

Great support as usual from Daragh O'Malley and Hugh Fraser and stolid performances from the lovely Allie Byrne as Lady Keilly, and the sensual Siri Neal as Juanita.


Totally good episode in the Sharpe series! Entertaining to the last minute! But like Sharpe's gold this episode doesn't really fit in the main storyline (the war against Napoleon)! Although Sharpe fights against the french (under command of Lupe) it is not really a mission part of Lord Wellingtons big scheme!

*spoiler* The heroic death of Perkins was a surprise and it was good to see Harper and the other chosen men cry! He and Sharpe really cared about their chosen men! I say this because I missed the tears and drama about Sharpe's faked death (they thought he was dead)in Sharpe's Honour! I guess they didn't want do overdo it,it is war and everything! Soldiers should be able to control their emotions!

The action was superb! Although the battle was not a big one it was great to watch Sharpe and his men fighting again like soldiers did in those times! I read some reviews and came across one of comparing this episode to a bad B movie! If you saw this as a stand alone movie than it is not really clear of who Sharpe is and what he does! But I think you have to see this as part of a series,at least you have to seen enough episodes to know the background of the story otherwise much will not make sense!


Sharpe's Battle. Starring Sean Bean as the unimaginably fitting role for Richard Sharpe. Daragh O Malley is the best sidekick for Sharpe, and the riflemen are great. The new characters are good too, but Runciman reminds me of Jabba the Hutt (both are fat, and without manners). Lord Keily is also a great character. Loup is obviously the villain, and Juanita is easy to hate. By contrast, Miranda, the girl with Perkins, is a character-emphasizing asset.

This follows the book okay most of the way, but the ending was quite different. In the novel, the book ends with the Battle of Fuentes d'Oneros. Here, it ends with the fall of a village serving as Loup's headquarters. I see no fault in anyone's acting, either.

This episode has some incredible scenes. The two main ones I'm referring to are the death of Perkins and the death of his murderer. I felt so sad for Perkins. He was awesome! And Daragh O Malley in a real temper is incredible as he pounds through the street, shouting "ORourke! You bastard O'Rourke! "(the killer of Perkins). I'd say that was his best acting in the whole episode.

Watch this thing for yourself. It's good to see things for yourself.


This is the first Sharpe film I've ever seen, and according to other reviewers it isn't the best. Even so, I thought it was top entertainment. There's plenty of action and all that. (SPOILER AHEAD!) In my opinion, the most important scene was when Lady Kiely offers herself to Sharpe, and he refuses in a very honourable manner - I can't see James Bond doing that, can you? Mind you, anyone with looks like Sean Bean can't exactly be desperate... Did you know he was voted second sexiest man in Britain?....sexiest man in the world, more like...Sorry, am I diverting?

Yes, right, back to the film. Sharpe is such a great character, and Sean Bean does portray him really well. Unlike most British officers of the time, he actually earns his place, and the snobbery against him is hideous. Still, he survives. South Essex my ass. Sounds like Sheffield to me, mate.

8 out of 10


After reading all the reviews of people complaining about either how pretentious or boring "Judy Berlin" was, I just had to write something about how incredible this movie is. It is the complete opposite of pretension. Real people, living real lives, catching us up in their emotion as we recognize and identify with their loneliness. I just don't get how this is pretentious. Perhaps it could be because "pretentious" is a word most people throw around to sound smart without knowing what it means. "Pi" is pretentious, "Judy Berlin" is not. Filled to the brim with haunting and incredible performances, it evokes Allen's more insightful dramas, such as "Interiors," as well as Ingmar Bergman's best work. And yet, Bergman is not in style now. Mass culture goes more for the insane mind-benders, like "Fight Club" and "Being John Malkovich." Even though both were great movies, "Judy Berlin" is better. It is an exploration of the souls of a small town. Madeline Kahn, Edie Falco, Barbara Barrie, and Bob Dishy are all superb, completely immersing themselves in their roles. Not to mention the gorgeous cinematography or the incredible harpsichord soundtrack. "Judy Berlin" has a lot to say, if you'll just listen to it.


This is an overlooked and sadly neglected little gem of a film, primarily because of some wonderful performances, especially the sadly underused Barbara Barrie. The other 3 main players are also wonderful, Bob Dishy, Madeline Kahn, and Bette Henritze. Edie Falco is competent without reaching their high standards. I don't understand the negative comments about the score as it's one of the better one's I've heard in years. Certainly better than anything by minimalist Phillip Glass, which another reviewer compared it to, and light years better than Danny Elfman or any of his other bombastic compatriots could devise. And it was nice to see a film of this nature done in black and white for once...and done so just because black and white can be as beautiful as color (though it's clearly not up to the standards of earlier Hollywood films), not because it's attempting to be some kind of pseudo-noir film.


Judy Berlin is a unique independent film and stands out also because it was the final film of the late and great Madeline Kahn.

Filmed in black and white and directed by Eric Mendelson, I was actually an extra in the diner scene with Edie Falco and Aaron Harnick. You don't actually see me, because Iam far off from the scene. I met Edie and she was very nice. A good friend of mine is her first cousin. I was hoping to finally meet Madeline Kahn, but she wasn't in the scene they were filming that day. Even Edie was disappointed she didn't have any scenes with her in the whole movie. The rest of the cast is so great. Bob Dishy, Barbara Barrie, Julie Kavner, Anne Meara and the rest all are a pleasure to watch. It was filmed here in New York, all over Long Island. The film is funny and so bittersweet. It played all the film festivals in 1999 and was officially released in 2000. Madeline Kahn passed away in December of 1999, so it was released 2 months after. Even though she didn't live to see the year 2000 she has this one remarkable film for her only movie of the 21st century. If she had lived, she may have won an academy award for her outstanding performance. Watch it and you see if she wasn't Oscar worthy.

The DVD has some great deleted scenes too. If you haven't seen this movie yet, you should really give it a try. Its not a big budget comedy or drama, just a small independent film with a big name cast of pros. I have to say though this is the perfect film for us to remember the wonderful and beautiful and the very multi-talented star Madeline Kahn.


JUDY BERLIN was obviously inspired by the many comedies of Woody Allen. Everything from the black and white look (that Allen used in MANHATTAN and STARDUST MEMORIES among others), to the neuroses of it's main character David (a struggling filmmaker) to the girl he tries to win (THE SOPRANOS' great Edie Falco) to the portrayal of the parents (including the late, great Madeline Kahn, in her final performance), all suggests Woody. But the director, Eric Mendelson, making his first film, captures all these people in the same way Allen does in all their humour- but also suggests a level of sadness that Woody hardly ever did. This is a wonderful little film that should be enjoyed by all.


This film has a first rate cast including some famous faces like the wonderful and missed Madeline Kahn, the brilliant and subtle Barbara Barrie, the under-appreciated Julie Kavner, and Emmy Winner Edie Falco in the title role as an aspiring actress from Long Island. The suburbia has become the new it thing. Of course, suburbia is not as boring as we like to make it out to be on screen. There are some brilliant moments and casting of Barrie and Falco as mother and daughter is perfect casting. Kahn plays the bored housewife and loving mother who needs assurance from her husband played by Bob Dishy who is a school principal where Berlin's mother Sue works as a teacher. Kavner plays a cafeteria lady while Anne Meare plays his secretary. It's shot in black and white which is a departure from the normal color. The shots are quite first rate and the film has a slow but steady peace. The characters are realistic at least to my lifelong suburban eyes. I can identify with almost all of them.


In a day of eclipse in Babylon Village, in New York, the thirty-two year-old aspirant actress Judy Berlin (Edie Falco) is moving to California expecting to make her dream come true. Her mother Suzan 'Sue' Berlin (Barbara Barrie) is a bitter school teacher that likes to flirt with the principal Arthur Gold (Bob Dishy), who is married with the housewife Alice Gold (Madeline Kahn) that is close to a breakdown. Their thirty year-old son David Gold (Aaron Harnick) has just moved back home after a frustrating experience as filmmaker. While wandering on the street, David meets Judy who studied with him in the elementary school and they spend the day together. Meanwhile the confused Arthur kisses Sue during the eclipse.

"Judy Berlin" is a delightful low-budget movie with entwined stories in the suburb of Babylon. The performances are excellent, disclosing the intimacy of the characters in a realistic way. This movie was released in Brazil on VHS by Cult Films Distributor. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Judy Berlin"


because the commentary with the director, producers and Edie Falco is quite enlightening, in respect to both the film and the making of any low-budget film. Well worth it for me (I own it).

The performances are all fine, and it is a fitting role for Madeleine Kahn's last film appearance. Too bad that she was gone from movies for so long, especially after seeing this.

**Possible Spoiler Ahead**

To respond to the person who felt that the movie is named for its most "appealing" character, I disagree. It would seem to me that the film is named so because Judy is the one character in the film who has any real desire to leave this community and, however misbegotten, acts upon that desire. One hopes that it will inspire the lead to be less skeptical about such a crazy type of dream and to take the chance to pursue his own dreams, e.g., to go away and actually learn how to make the movie about this town that he wants to make.


I don't know if this movie uses a little or a lot the author's own past, but it could have, it is, somehow, very much like a memory exploration (and it talks a lot about memory actually : remembering school pals, remembering teachers word, remembering the 19th, etc.). The storyline is a mess, but that is not the point, this movie doesn't offer a message like "the good one wins", "the girl married the nice guy". The image is fantastic sometimes. The acting is great. The whole thing reminds me a lot of Mark Kalesniko's comic book called "Alex" (a very good comic book, too)


This is a great movie to escape into. Filming it in black and white was a great choice and the cast is so perfect. It is also the perfect role for Madeline Kahn, who the world lost too soon shortly before the film's release. She is just great and I recommend this movie to everyone.


I love indie film, I like art films, I am split on this one. It is about nothing really, it's performances are fine, it's photography is decent (The Eclips scenes look great), yet this story goes no where. Should it go somewhere? No, but it doesn't stay with it's characters long enough to be about them! I feel awful about not enjoying this film, it's slight and sweet, it's not a hip indie and it doesn't have to be. Wonderland was a film about real people, doing real things, it's the most beatuful film of 2000, this film is pointless. The film isn't a comedy, it has dramatic elements, a film should have to fit into a certain genre (like what was American Psycho, The Virgin Sucides and Run Lola Run really....A horror film or a comedy, a drama or a comedy, or an action or foreign art film, repectively). This film has no genre because it is nothing. It's like a documentary about boring people living their boring life...it's not groundbreaking...but it's not good either. First Love Last Rites and Wonderland are two very overlooked films about real people that are much better than this art film wannabe. At Orlando's Enzian it would have been laughed off the screens by the art film crowd and the film professors that attend the theater. I understand why this film got picked up by the Shooting Gallery, it's not a real film, it's someone's life told without homor, insite or excitment. On the other hand it's charactors and direction were ok-I don't totaly hate this film-there are worce places to be in (like a screening of Adam Sandler's latest opus)-yet I am split on to what the message and the story the filmmaker is trying to tell? What is he saying, what is he telling us....he may be talented but the script is pointless, sure these people exist in real life by is it a documentation of these "real people"? If it is Wonderland is the movie to see (that film gets a 10, this one a 4)


While super-critical cineasts might find fault with this debut offering of Eric Mendelsohn, I was delighted and moved by it. A poetic tone, a profound humanism, graceful and splendid perfomances by sadly neglected actors and an innovativeness that a more splashy, slick film like "American Beauty" lacked. Suburbia and its inhabitants aching for real communion, mostly unable to give or receive it...how well this movie expressed it! Bravo and may there soon be more from Mendelsohn and his like!


This is an excellent movie. I had to hunt it down while visiting LA, but Judy Berlin is definitely worth catching. Eddie Falco, Barbara Barrie, and Madeline Kahn are excellent leading ladies. Kahn especially makes an impact as a worrisome and somewhat philosophical housewife who goes on a long walk during the eclipse. Beautifully shot in black and white, Judy Berlin is wonderful, definitely one of my favorite movies. Too bad it didn't get a wider release.


Why can't more films be like this? Mr. Mendelsohn has created a gem. Without any flash, this film takes you down an uncomfortable path and at the end makes you want to get back on it. Wonderful score as well.


This is a film that should be seen. Judy Berlin is funny, sad, touching and thoughtful, moving you from laughter to tears and introspection. The cast is great, starting with Edie Falco of Sopranos fame, who is endearing and comical as the title character, a wannabe actress with dreams of success in Hollywood. Her optimism is offset by the glum David Gold, who has been there and done that in Tinsel Town without any luck. Plucky Judy won't be dissuaded however, and her blind optimism is one of the lasting treasures of this movie. Another reason to go out and see Judy Berlin is that it's the last feature role in the brilliant career of Madeline Kahn, who is fantastic as a housewife with a wandering soul. As Madeline wanders the streets of suburban Long Island during a prolonged solar eclipse wondering if there's ever been a Wednesday, you can't help but identify on some level with her. Judy Berlin also features great performances by Barbara Barrie (who I personally loved in Breaking Away) and Bob Dishy. I'd never really seen Dishy before, but his performance made me go look up what he's done because he was really great. Go see this movie! You'll get a glimpse of a director on the rise, Eric Mendelsohn.


I remember David Denby in the New Yorker going on and on about how great this movie was after Sundance, and I was very curious to see it. I finally saw it a couple weeks ago at the Hamptons Film Festival (It won there, too.) and still find myself thinking about it. I'm so tired of all that gimmicky stuff that passes for indie film, but this is what it's all about -- poignant, funny and so totally worth seeing. It's beautifully written, brilliantly acted, (check out Edie Falco from the Sopranos and Madeline Kahn as a high-strung suburban housewife) gorgeously shot and subtly directed. This is a movie for grownups. Remember acting??!? Remember images? Remember three- dimensional characters? But what's really great is it has all that, but it's not pretentiously "arty," either. It's just a real charmer.


Great performances by Madeline Kahn and Edie Falco, as well as the rest of the cast push this fine independent movie. The story revolves around one day on Long Island in the lives of a half dozen or so people, connected by various relationships (family, school, work). From the depressed would-be filmmaker to the talentless, but ever hopeful, aspiring actress the movie finds a way to take you deep inside the characters without really letting you know much about their lives beyond this single day. The eclipse at the heart of the story allows for some great lighting effects on the black & white film.


I had a hard time watching this movie. I need characters to care about, and a decent reason why I should. This has neither.

Madeline Kahn is married to Bob Dishy and they are unhappy. Their son, David, is living at home again and he is unhappy. Barbara Barrie is a school teacher, and unhappy although she does not know it. Edie Falco is Judy Berlin, who's too clueless to know she's unhappy.

This is all well and good..but WHY are they unhappy? Why hire actresses like Anne Meara and Julie Kavner and then use them in two scenes each? Why should I care about these people? They are not particularly interesting, and they can't even be articulate about why!

There's some nonsense with an eclipse..an Alzheimer's victim walks in a classroom and stays there..a possible affair..and then its over, thankfully. 4/10.


Judy Berlin is a blah story about blah people living their ever so blah lives. Blah, blah, blah. Eric Mendelsohn, a former assistant to Woody Allen and an obvious Woody wannabe, wrote and directed this independent production about Jewish angst in suburbia. Unfortunately, where Allen creates urbane films with fascinating characters, sharp sardonic wit and thought provoking ironies, Mendelsohn has brought us a sub-urbane version where witless and hopeless people go about their boring and mundane lives.

The film is an ensemble piece including various character studies in the slice-of-life format. The story has an obviously autobiographical flavor to it. David Gold (Aaron Harnick) is a failed 30 year old Hollywood director who returns to his parents in Babylon to wallow in his regrets, and I suspect he is Mendelsohn's alter ego. Though not specified, Mendelsohn uses enough period cars, props and costumes to peg the period to the mid 1980's which is undoubtedly a recreation of the period when he lived on Long Island. As a result, this film will probably have more appeal to Long Islanders since Mendelsohn, was successful at giving it a genuine Long Island look and feel.

The filmmaking was a mixed bag. The sound and music were terrible, even below standards for independent productions on shoestring budgets. The film was shot in black and white with a very artsy look. This was sometimes very effective, when Mendelsohn used high contrast lighting, especially in some of the eclipse scenes. At other times it made a dull story even duller.

The acting was the strongest element of the film. Madeline Kahn gives a wonderful performance as Alice Gold, a neglected housewife who is losing her grip on reality. This was Kahn's final performance before her death and was probably one of her very best. Edie Falco was also enchanting as Judy, the only upbeat character in all of Babylon (and she was leaving). Barbara Barrie and Aaron Harnick round out an excellent ensemble cast. It's too bad they didn't have more interesting material to work with.

The most that can be said about this film is that it contains positive hints of Mendelsohn's potential as a director. His future as a writer is far more certain. The camerawork was good, but he should be banned from writing screenplays. I rated this film a 4/10, probably a point higher than it's worth because I lived on Long Island and could appreciate the accuracy of the local culture. It might be worth a try for Jewish suburban New York viewers, but for most others, it is likely to be a tiresome ordeal.


This is an excruciatingly dull, slow movie. Amateur night all the way. Just another boring movie about boring people doing boring things. But here's the twist: it all happens during an eclipse! Still boring, though. Now it just looks poorly shot, as well.


The opening title card of this short drama informs us that it was "founded upon an actual occurrence in New York City," and this information has the same impact it has today when a movie or TV show announces up top that it's based on a true story: everything that follows is granted additional weight by our knowledge that what we're seeing, or something close to it, really happened. In the case of this film we feel as if we're watching a police report come to life, one that relates the sort of pathetic, wretched tale one hears about in the news or from friends, a miserable story of inhumane behavior with tragic results and no happy ending. Where film-making is concerned, director D. W. Griffith does the material and the viewer a service by telling the story as plainly and simply as possible. Even if the intertitles were to be removed the plot could be easily followed, but as it stands the text underscores the injustice of the situation with eloquent, understated fury.

Elderly character actor W. Chrystie Miller (a man born in 1843!) is the central character, a carpenter who is the only provider for his ailing wife. A doctor informs the couple that country life and fresh air is the only cure for her, but they are obviously poor and unable to pick up stakes and travel. It's chilling to read the next title, "At the Shop the New Foreman Weeds Out the Old Hands," and then to watch while a cold-hearted gent with a bushy black mustache does precisely that: he struts about the carpentry shop, singles out each elderly employee, fires him, and puts a younger man in his place. Our protagonist is among those singled out, of course, and he finds that pleading for his job is useless. Later, on the brink of starvation he turns to theft to feed his desperately ill wife, but like Victor Hugo's Jean Valjean he is caught and the authorities are unsympathetic to his plight. In this case, however, a sympathetic judge investigates, determines that the old man is telling the truth and attempts to help him-- too late, as it happens, leaving the old man alone, grieving and bitterly angry.

Many of Griffith's early works at Biograph champion the cause of the working poor, but seldom with the white-hot indignation he and his crew display here. The fact that WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH OUR OLD? was based on a true story undoubtedly boosted everyone's efforts, and it's all the more impressive that the approach is so restrained, given the period. Miller is first-rate in the lead role, and most of the other performances are low-key and contained. As for the writing, Miller's moving performance in the final scene is complemented by the memorable wording of the final title card: "Nothing for the Useful Citizen Wounded in the Battle of Life."


At home, old carpenter W. Chrystie Miller's wife Claire McDowell is in failing health. At work, Mr. Miller finds himself pushed aside for younger, more agile, hands. Fired, the aged Miller finds it impossible to find a new job. When his money runs out, Miller is unable to support his ill, starving wife; desperate, he turns to crime.

Director D.W. Griffith uses film to ask the legitimate social question, "What Shall We Do with Our Old?" Miller is fine as the man whose crime was getting old. McDowell was not old, but suggests it with some success. The always great Biograph team is highlighted by Donald Crisp, performing very well in court; he is the expressive bailiff in the foreground, to the left of your screen. Mr. Crisp is clear; the conclusion is not so much.

**** What Shall We Do with Our Old? (2/13/11) D.W. Griffith ~ W. Chrystie Miller, Claire McDowell, Donald Crisp


D.W. Griffith's first film, 'Those Awful Hats (1909),' was designed as a comical public service announcement of sorts. A few years later, the director continued to perform public services, but the complexity of his work had evolved exponentially. Much like 'A Corner in Wheat (1909),' he is here using cinema to make a profound social statement, this particular issue highlighted in the film's title: 'What Shall We Do With Our Old? (1911).' After an aging carpenter (W. Chrystie Miller) is fired from his job to make room for young workers, he is unable to find another job, leaving him, penniless, to care for his ailing wife (Claire McDowell). In order to survive, the carpenter reluctantly turns to crime, but is arrested and brought before a kindly, sympathetic judge (George Nichols). Despite the judge's understanding, it is too late for this elderly couple to be rescued from abject poverty: the wife succumbs to her illness, and the carpenter is left grieve his losses and ponder his lonely predicament.

'A Corner in Wheat' ends with an image of hope. 'What Shall We Do With Our Old?' concludes with an image of despair, a pertinent social problem without any known solution. Griffith doesn't even attempt to propose any sort of resolution, which does admittedly come off as rather hypocritical  it is, after all, one thing to merely acknowledge a problem, and another to try and fix it. But the film is given emotional depth through an opening title that informs us that the story was "founded upon an actual occurrence in New York City," assuring Griffith's undeniable social relevance. Miller is very good in the main role, showing strong emotions in response to his character's hardship. Nichols, as the judge, also does well, playing the sort of sympathetic authority-figure role that Frank Capra might later have set aside for Harry Carey or Harry Davenport. McDowell, as the carpenter's sick wife, is adequate, but quite obviously far younger  34 years old  than she was supposed to appear.


In What Shall We Do with Our Old? we can see Griffith grasping towards a perfect expression of poignancy in his short features. Here, his approach is all about subtlety and simplicity.

The fact that the story can be conveyed through just a handful of intertitles allows for more realistic and emotional acting. In many early silent pictures (Griffith's included) half the performance was about revealing plot or character through ridiculous pantomime. Here, there is no need for that, and the acting is much more purely about conveying mood and tone, with the slow, sombre movements of the elderly couple. Later on, the bustle of the courtroom and the prison cell give a more frantic feel. By now a brilliant master of pace, Griffith slows things down again for the final scene.

Griffith's shot composition was also becoming increasingly refined. He arranges extras in lines that draw the audience's attention to particular points of action. It's also great how the even the set design matches the pace of each scene  the home is bare and Spartan, the workshop, courtroom and prison cell are full and layered.

Being a kind of social protest piece, What Shall We Do with Our Old is in a similar vein to 1909's A Corner in Wheat. However, while Griffith has clearly moved on in his direction and arrangement of actors, it lacks the dynamism of the earlier film. It's a shame, because having more fully rounded characters (as opposed to A Corner in Wheat's faceless crowds) it should have a greater impact. Having said that, with several scenes apparently lost it is difficult to judge what we are left with.


Rarely is a wholesome subject like this handled without being trite or boring. The literary device of the clone is up-to-date and shows that Will is capable of becoming more like Twoie. Of course, Twoie could have had the same effect on Will if he had actually been a cousin visiting from Belgium, but imagine how dull a movie that would be! Although the age group in the story is Jr High, Andy Lawrence is 12 and I think that age group would benefit more from seeing the movie.