While an enormously influential pioneer on the field of special effects, French director Georges Méliès was oddly not that interested in making color films in his career. The reasons behind this apparent lack of interest were probably related to how costly and laborious was the process of hand-coloring frame by frame, as while his first hand-colored movie was done in 1897 ("L'Hallucination De l'Alchimiste"), he wouldn't attempt to make another one until 1903, when the hand-colored movies done by Edison's Studios became to be as popular as his films. That year, right after the enormous success of his masterpiece, "Le Voyage Dans la Lune" ("A Trip to the Moon"), Méliès directed 3 shorts that he colored himself: "La Guirlande Merveilleuse", "Le Cake-walk infernal" and "Le Chaudron infernal". Of the three, "Le Chaudron infernal" (or "The Infernal Cauldron") is the most well-known, mainly because this film followed Méliès' interest in the horror genre.

"Le Chaudron infernal" (also known as "The Infernal Boiling Pot" by some sources) is a movie about an evil green-skinned Demon (Georges Méliès, of course), who works as an executioner in Hell. Another demon in charge of bringing him the condemned, begins his work by sending a woman to the Executioner, who joyfully ties her and throws her into the big cauldron he has in his room. His assistant brings him another two condemned, this time two male courtiers, who follow the woman to her fate inside the boiling pot. As the bodies enter the cauldron the infernal flames grow bigger and reach an enormous size. After putting the three inside the cauldron, the Demon stirs up the remains and suddenly the smoke that comes from the cauldron begins to form images that resemble the bodies of the condemned. Realizing that this are the souls trying to escape, the Demon will raise the fire from Hell to stop them from escaping.

Among Méliès' many fantasy films, "Le Chaudron infernal" is definitely one of the most impressive of all despite its short runtime, as the addition of color takes the film to a whole new level, making Méliès' many tricks look even more amazing than before. To his usual array of dissolves and camera tricks, Méliès added the effects of drawing over the celluloid (an effect made famous years later by the "Godzilla" films of the 60s), using the hand-coloring technique not only to make the film look nicer, but to make an effect in itself. On a completely different subject, it's interesting to see that in this movie Méliès continues his preference for themes of horror and black magic, as he knows that it's in the horror genre where he'll be able to exploit his special effects to shock and impress his audience.

Being objective, the only problem of "Le Chaudron infernal" is definitely its runtime, as considering that by 1903 Georges Méliès had already done "Le Voyage Dans la Lune", one would think that this film is a bit too short. However, there is a reason for this considerably shorter runtime: it's short because the process of coloring the film was lengthy, and Méliès wasn't able to make longer colored films (and as written above, that's why he only made 7 colored shorts in his career). Despite this problems, "Le Chaudron infernal" is definitely one of the most interesting movies done by the legendary French magician, not only because of its inventive use of color as a special effect, but also because of its place in the history of the horror genre. This movie is definitely pure Cinemagic. 8/10


Every fantasy/horror fan should check out this 1-minute short from pioneering French director Georges Méliès. Made the year after what many consider Méliès' masterpiece LE VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE (A TRIP TO THE MOON) and not nearly as elaborate or impressive as that work, this is still a great piece of film history no film fan will have a problem spending 60 seconds of their time viewing. Unlike most other shorts from the filmmaker, this one was also hand-tinted a variety of bold colors, which gives it a different look and feel than others from the same era. It starts with two green, pitchfork-holding demons in horned headdresses luring a woman into their castle, wrapping her in a sheet and then throwing her into a cauldron, which then erupts in flames. They then throw two others in. The second demon stirs the pot and then the lead demon (played by the director himself) summons each of the three individual spirits. Smoke and fire erupt from the cauldron as each spirit emerges and then floats around overhead. The painted castle backdrop is a simple but effective Gothic design, with just a few thrones and a couple of red demon masks on the walls, and the special effects are very good and have held up surprisingly well over time. Other than a few choppy jumps toward the end of this short as the spirits catch fire and turn to ash, it's a very cool and interesting short.


1903 was a terrific year for Méliès, as he created his greatest and most amazing film, Le Voyage Dans le Lune. It is STILL an amazing and cute little film that was longer and more complex than any previous film. Its use of trick cinematography, great sets and innovations make it a truly landmark film. And, while Le Chaudron Infernal is STILL an amazing film, it pales in comparison to some of these other films.

Interestingly enough, the film is in color--featuring each individual cel having been hand-painted! This, plus the cool camera tricks make this a standout film. Now as far as plots go, it's pretty weird stuff. Two demons are chucking damned souls into a cauldron and ultimately summon their spirits using incantations! There's really no more plot than that--and that's why it is a tad disappointing.

If you want to see this film online, go to Google and type in "Méliès" and then click the video button for a long list of his films that are viewable without special software.


This thirty-second short from 1903 shows demons burning women alive in. Melies had it hand-tinted and the colors are quite startling and alive. When I compare it to modern scenes of horror -- the hordes of undead in THE MUMMY returns, for example -- it comes off very well. Take a look. Your great-grandparents may not have known anything about Gangsta Rap, but they got to see an occasional good flick.


The Forbin Project has just come out on DVD, anybody who has not already seen it has 24 hours to do so before they must hang their head in shame. The movie is 35 years old now but it is still the most intelligent and accurate portrayal of Artificial Intelligence ever put on film. In my opinion this is one of the best movies ever made, without a doubt it is the most underrated movie ever made. Be warned however this film will scare you; there is no blood or gore and the special effects are primitive by modern standards, but if The Forbin Project does not scare your brain then you have not understood it.

This is one of the very rare occasions when the movie is better, much much better, than the book. When I read the book years ago I remember thinking the premise was great and with a few changes it could be really great, but as it is the book is mediocre at best. With genius you wouldn't expect B grade moviemakers to have they kept all the brilliant parts and eliminated all the stupid parts. This movie has stood the test of time extraordinarily well.


This underrated science fiction/suspense drama, though arguably dated in terms of technology, is still a frightening allegory about humans allowing our technological creations to rule us.

Eric Braeden stars as Dr. Charles Forbin, who has created a supercomputer named Colossus, built solely for the purpose of controlling the nuclear defenses of the Western alliance. It isn't too long after, however, that the Russians announce that they too have built a similar computer for those same purposes on their side--Guardian. And when the two machines begin sharing information at a speed nobody can believe, an attempt is made to disable them.

This unfortunately just raises the machines' ire; and in retaliation, they launch their weapons at each other's home nations. The result is a chilling scenario that is potentially becoming all too real these days.

COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT was not a big hit at the box office for various reasons. One is that its cast wasn't exactly well known. Another reason is that its ending isn't exactly a happy one. Still a third reason is that Universal had trouble trying to promote it in the wake of the huge success of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The latter reason is obvious: Colossus and Guardian, like HAL in the Kubrick movie, become central characters here. The difference here is that while HAL malfunctions due to a programming conflict, Colossus and Guardian remain all too stable, convinced beyond a doubt that they know how to protect Mankind better than Man himself. As the computers point out: "One inevitable rule is that Mankind is his own worst enemy."

Joseph Sargent's direction is efficient, and the special effects work of Albert Whitlock still manages to work despite its obvious age. An overlooked gem in the sci-fi genre, this should be given a revival.


Eric Braeden is brilliant and matched action for action with the entire cast in low-key masterpiece about dangers of unchecked scientific advances. Cold War atmosphere is captured perfectly and the brittle dialogue is delivered to perfection. And sargent's direction matches script and performances in being understated yet uncompromising -- surprising me at every turn. Great movie, but if you are like me, you may wish not to see it alone.


The Forbin Project is a well-done, thought provoking movie. It points out that man's technology could just backfire on him someday. There has to be a limit to how much high-tech "stuff" we can come up with, without eventually getting in over our heads. Also makes one wonder if, maybe, there is a better way of doing things that we just don't want to accept. Definitely not a movie for those who just want quick, loud action, but aimed more at thinking individuals. Sadly, it has kind of gone into obscurity, but an excellent movie nonetheless.


I have recently watched Colossus for the first time in many years and find it still a classic for sci-fi purists. It seems sad to me in these days of 'explosion' sci-fi that there is little or no room for this type of 'conference room' drama.

Although the premise is a very old one in the manner of man creating machine in his own image, this film presents the story in the psychological and political arenas. The film is not overlong, yet the characters and their futility to stop the unstoppable is clearly developed. Although the technology of 1969 is the back drop for this tale, the message of Colossus comes through to us in our modern age of computers in every home. Like a Shakespeare play in a manner of speaking.

We are much wiser about computers nowadays though, and we grudgingly admit that trusting the red button is far better in the hands of men than machines if such things must be. So commissioning a project of this type would be ludicrous and far from plausible in the first place.

So why is this movie good then to myself and the other reviewers? Even though we may not create a defense system in this way, it seems to predict a visage of something that is yet to come. And it's a frightful one. The first words of Colossus says it best 'There is another system'.


This is an under rated Sci-Fi gem. Absolutely powerful story line leaving no room for cob webs in your mind. Dr. Charles Forbin(Eric Braeden)puts his life's work into creating a super intelligent computer that links up with a similar machine created by the U.S.S.R. and tries to hold the world hostage. Dramatic dialogue and crafty schemes seem just enough to outwit the computerized meglomaniac. Tension is tight and privacy is a cherished commodity.

Braeden, who later would become a major TV soap opera character Victor Newman, is outstanding in this role. Susan Clark plays one of his co-workers and pretends to be his lover in trying to fool the computer. Gordon Pinsent plays the concerned President, while Lenoid Rostoff plays his Russian counterpart. William Schallert is the calm and cordial Director of the CIA. Other notables in the cast are Marion Ross and Georg Stanford Brown. If you get the chance to see this Cold War thriller...by all means check it out. If you want to leave your brain at the door, forget it...you will need it.


I have not seen this movie in 30 years, but I remember every scene as if it were yesterday, and the deep feelings that I had when I first saw it lingers on as well. THOSE are the marks of a truly memorable film.

If a film like this were made today, even including a contemporary problem to replace the Cold War theme, it would go over the heads of a majority of the audience. Why? Because the movie-going public wants blow-em-up action to go along with any plot. Except for the cities that the twin terrors Colossus-Guardian nuke (almost off camera), this has none. Secondly, this is a thinking-person's movie that goes beyond the typical "Machines take over the world" theme that we've seen in the Terminator series and the Matrix series.

What makes this move work on so many levels is that it taps into our greatest fears -- one of which is NOT death, but the loss of control over our lives. Why are people afraid to fly when their chances of being killed in an auto crash are so many times greater? Loss of control.

These supercomputers were designed to act in the place of humans by making human-like decisions such as "Kill or be killed" and "Offense makes the best defense." Unlike other machines vs. humans, in this movie, the computers do not fear humans, or even dislike them. Even when they kill a few million, it is done without malice. It is pure logic, and that is what is also scary -- making decisions without regard to the value of a single, human life. To the computer, deaths are just statistics, and in the "Mutually-Assured-Destruction" mentality of the Cold War, the side who has the last man standing is declared the winner.

Also, unlike contemporary movies, these two, big computing hulks do not become "self-aware" in any human sense. Nor do they go beyond the level of their individual programming. They are making decisions that they have been taught will make for a better world.

There are no, "Forbin as father and Colossus as son" overtones here like those in "I-Robot." If anything, Colossus becomes the authoritarian father-figure -- as in "I know what is best for you" -- perhaps mirroring Forbin's real father. This authoritarian father complex is what drives the computer's decisions.

It does not take a great leap of consciousness for Colossus/Guardian to know that threats alone do not work with children. There has to be logical consequences for their misbehavior also -- which are horrible to even think about in the human mind, but in the computer mind, it is "Necessary" for the good of all concerned.

How many human leaders/despots have followed that logic? Too many to count.


A lot has already been said about this compelling, oft-overlooked film, virtually all of which hits the proverbial nail on the head. While Eric Braeden delivers a superb, understated performance as Dr. Charles Forbin, the fact is that the real star of the film is the vast, omnipotent machine he has created. Even before it begins to speak with the chilling Cylonesque voice it has ordered designed for itself (the great Paul Frees like you've never heard him before), you'll find yourself glued to the screen watching Colossus "talk" to its supposed masters over its huge monitors.

A word about Frees' contribution to the film: In "War Games," for example, the computer has a curious sort of empathetic communication style ("Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of chess?") presented in a voice that sounds like E.T. filtered through a synthesizer. Frees gives Colossus an emotionless yet fearful quality of speech that seems to belie its implacable drive to dominate human destiny.

My favorite part of this film has always been, and will always be, the climactic monologue Colossus announces to the listening masses of humanity. From its opening line -- "This is the voice of world control," an identity neither Colossus nor its counterpart, Guardian, had used to that point -- you know this isn't going to be a happy speech if you are a sentient, flesh & blood resident of the Earth. What is particularly creepy about the speech is that, for all of its strangely optimistic sermonizing about how "the human millennium will be fact" and how the computer will set about the task of "solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man" -- outwardly the Utopian dream -- the message Colossus is presenting is set against the dreadful backdrop of "disobey (me) and die." As Colossus intones, "You say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride." In the end, unlike other supercomputer-run-amok films such as "War Games" or "Tron," "Colossus" is an end-of-the-world story without the nuclear or viral holocaust. In this film, it is the human spirit that is the casualty while the human biology lingers on. Unlike the rest of the doomsday genre, our end comes not so much with a bang as it does with a whimper.


With all deference to the comments of a previous reviewer (that Big Brother was a TV show, instead of one of the most influential novels of the 20th century), this movie is not about an all-knowing computer that runs every individual's personal life. In fact, the movie shows us that that granular level of control is not necessary. Colossus is a supercomputer designed for the defense of the country. The problem is that it is built so well, that it begins to make imaginative plans of its own. Shortly after activation, it discovers that another system, Guardian, has been built by the Soviets. In an effort toward scientific curiosity, the two countries allow for communication between the two systems. The systems combine and plot for the control of the planet. The plot leaves us, short story style, to imagine what takes place from here on. Several notable sci-fi buffs have suggested, and rightly so, that the story behind Colossus is eerily similar in concept to the story of Skynet in the Terminator series In fact, the story of the third movie would have been better served by following this script than the one used! This is a very underrated movie, asking many questions that are even more pertinent today.


I felt compelled to write about "Colossus: the Forbin Project" as it is still on my mind. I had a somewhat strange reaction to it. I can't remember the last time I was actually frightened by a film in the same way that I was frightened by this one. Typically, my fear response only kicks in when I see a potent image thrust at me quickly or when a movie uses unusual, eerie sounds to induce anxiety. Most films tend to frighten people by this primitive jack-in-the-box method.

But the fear "Colossus: the Forbin Project" gave me is the same fear I experienced after reading Orwell's "1984". It's the fear of being taken over. Of losing personal freedom. As the Colossus computer's demands and actions grow and become all-encompassing the audience's reactions seem to mirror the Forbin character's reactions. To watch him slowly crumble in the face of what he has created is frightening because he seems so implacable for most of the movie. We put our faith in him because he reacts to each twist in the plot with a knowing smile.

This is a film that gets under the skin in a big way. You have to think, after watching it: is this the way it happens? someone with good intentions doesn't realize the full extent of what he's created (whatever it may be) and it simply blossoms out of his control.

A disturbing and important film.


This movie reflects a major fear in the era before PCs (or microcomputers as they then were called). Few people (not even IBM as Bill Gates can attest) anticipated the rise of personal computing, thinking instead that large mainframes were the wave of the future. The logical extrapolation of this path leads to the mainframe brain represented here by Colosus and Guardian. Dated though the threat may seem, the movie still works well. A must see for all those interested in science and technology!

P.S. In the "Goofs" section of this listing, there is a paragraph entitled "Revealing Mistakes" which reports an error when Dr. Forbin blows out two candles with one breath. There is, in fact no goof. If you look at the scene prior to this when Dr. Forbin and Dr. Markham are eating dinner, there are FOUR lit candles on the table. When he blows out two candles with one breath, the lights dim after which he blows again, presumably to extinguish the remaining two candles which are off screen. The lights then dim again, as they should.

I suspect this would be more obvious if the movie was available in Widescreen rather than the Fullscreen version we've all gotten used to over the years. Hopefully, a future release of this classic movie will restore the fullness of the directors original vision.


The Forbin Project is classic sci-fi movie, and yet is criminally neglected. Most people have never heard of it, and TV channels rarely broadcast it. I first saw it 1977 on Jamaican television. I think I have only ever seen it once on the BBC.

This the old story of Frankenstein's monster updated for the Cold War era. The Baron, is now a scientist,Dr Charles Forbin played by Eric Braeden. The creation is super computer designed to control the American defence system.Every conceivable problem has been thought of and programmed into Colossus.What could possibly go wrong? For a movie made in the 1970s, it predicts the rise of artificial intelligence and man's eventual enslavement to technology. The makers of The Matrix and The Terminator must have seen this film at some point as they both deal with the same issue.

I have managed to watch a widescreen version, and I must say that it still adds up,despite the dated technology.The film has no stars in it, which is good because you are solely focused on the story and nothing else.What is refreshing is that this is sci -fi that refuses to dumb down-hardly any violence,flashy effects and no sex.

Once you see it, you won't forget it.


In the unstable world of governments, there is nothing more frightening than the Doomday war. Generals and scientists alike predict that will be, World War Three. To that end, COLOSSUS, THE FORBIN PROJECT was created. The film encapsulates the drama which unfolds immediately upon the completion of an atomic powered computer. In essence, the greatest scientific minds of the world, headed by none other than Dr. Charles Forbin (Eric Braeden) have combined their considerable talents, to create the worlds' most advance machine which has but one purpose, To insure the Peaceful Co-Existence of the world's population. The film contains an extremely memorable line, spoken by Dr. Forbin which comes to haunt him. "Frankenstein, should be required reading of all scientists." With the considerable talents of Gordon Pinsent as The President of the United States, Leonid Rostoff as the Russian Premiere, Susan Clark as Dr. Cleo Markham and William Schallert as CIA Director Grauber, the dream of war weary officials to finally create the ultimate defense machine, comes true. What everyone forgot was the fact, a machine created to prevent war, could morph into an atomic tyrant. Given the power to destroy the planet and the peoples it was meant to safeguard, now threatens all with a maxim, "I was created to prevent war. I will not permit war even if I have to destroy mankind to do it." A terrifying prospect. The race begins between the monster and the creators to see which can out think the other to regain what was so recklessly given away. A Classic film in every sense of the word. ****


Colossus is a super-computer created by Dr. Charles Forbin and his team, designed to protect the United States. Colossus one day announces that it has found another system called Guardian, a super-computer created by the U.S.S.R. for the same purpose. Colossus and Guardian link up and after much communication and exchange of data they reach a common ground, with a common language (known only to these two computer) and hold the world hostage. Sound scary? Yes, it is, a bit. Because of security reasons, the link between Guardian and Colossus is broken, after much discussions between the U.S. & the U.S.S.R., and Colossus gets uppity and launches missiles at the Soviet Union, as does Guardian at the U.S. The missile heading for the U.S. is intercepted but not the one bound for the Soviet Union, and a town and an oil field is destroyed but it's all covered up in the media. Of course there's much alarm between these two countries that they now have these two seemingly out-of-control computers calling the shots, and meetings are held to decide what to do. Dr. Forbin himself is more or less held hostage by Colossus, and tries to work around it by putting dummy warheads in missile silos and overloading the computer with tasks, but alas, nothing seems to get by this super-monster. This is some fairly chilling science fiction, and some decent cold-war scares, as things seem to be getting just a bit out of hand. Not a happy ending to this one either, which makes it all the more chilling. A decent film for science fiction & cold-war movie fans. Lots of familiar faces too (Marion Ross, William Schallert)although at the time it wasn't exactly a big-name cast. 8 out of 10.


Colossus is the new defense supercomputer that is trying to take over the world, and Dr. Forbin is the man who created it, and now must stop it. The excitement in watching Forbin and Colossus go through move and counter-move is what carries this film, and the two are worthy adversaries to each other. It's thin on action for a science-fiction film; the action is more cerebral in nature as Forbin and Colossus grapple for control. Even while attempting to become the dictator of Earth, Colossus sometimes displays a sense of humor that is almost human, and a ruthlessness that is all too human. In the end, Colossus isn't your traditional bad guy. It was programmed to serve humanity, and it seeks to do that by saving humanity from itself. It sees the lives lost in the process as a necessary evil. The ending is not your traditional Hollywood ending either; I strongly suspect they were planning a sequel (The book this is based on was the first of a trilogy). The sets may seem a little dated, but the story is every bit as exciting as it was then, and given the developments in computer technology and artificial intelligence, even more relevant.


This film may look a little dated today, but the fear factor is still strong. As "Fail Safe" was to the sixties, so this film was to the seventies. A super computer complex designed to be attack proof has control of the American Nuclear Arsenal. When it is brought on line it discovers that the soviets have also completed a similar computer. Between the two computers they achieve self awareness, and using their combined weapons to force the human race to comply with their wishes, as a big brother type system has taken power. Not the best cast choices but they do a good job with the script and direction. Worth a look!I rate this one a nine because of the dated look of it.


I had a dim memory of a movie I saw while very young in the 1970s about a computer called Colossus that tries to take over the world. I remembered only a few things about it: that it was out of human control, that it executes people, that it speaks through a very creepy spherical metallic speaker with a pre-Cylon computer voice, and that the movie SCARED THE HECK OUT OF ME.

So I recently buy the DVD, half expecting to be let down by my adult, cynical eyes. Fortunately, all the above-mentioned items are just as I remember them, and better, the rest of the film is well-done. The technical aspects of the story are questionable, as with all evil computer stories (ever hear of using wire-cutters, people?), but after reflection, not as questionable as I thought.

The setup for the story is a new supercomputer created by one Dr. Forbin (Braeder) which is placed in complete control of the U.S. defenses, including nuclear missiles and anti-ballistic missile defenses. The computer soon detects that the Soviet Union has a similar machine and wants to connect with it. Forbin talks the president into allowing it, and things spiral out for control from there very quickly.

Bu the best part of the movie is the moral of the story. Dr. Forbin, after activating his new computer, attends party at the White House and publicly states his wish that not only will his machine prevent war, but that it will also herald a new age of human advancement, in which famine and disease and pollution and overpopulation will be eliminated with the help of Colossus' vast computer power. Later in the film, Colossus offers EXACTLY these very things, much to Forbin's bitter disappointment.

How many tyrants attain power promising these very things? "Give me unlimited power, and I will build a Utopian future! Along the way, many people may have to die, and you will lose your freedom, but in the end I will set it all to rights." The difference is that Colossus may very well be able to deliver on its promises, and this actually makes it MORE frightening than any bumbling human dictator. Human tyrants are driven by flawed ideology, thieves' greed, or psychotic motives, and they are guaranteed to die after a few decades, like any human. But Colossus' menace is its cold logic, lack of ideology, and it's ability to learn and survive almost without limit.

Forbin, in his struggle to contain his creation, is joined by his fellow scientists, including the beautiful Dr. Markham (Susan Clark), a professional scientist. She adds immensely to the human side of this story.

The film is timeless. The look of the 1970s technology may be dated, but it's appropriate for the Cold War era this film is a child of. If you are a sci-fi fan who likes to think instead of watching brain-numbing action, this film is definitely worth a look.


Brilliant electronics genius Dr. Charles Forbin (a strong and charismatic performance by Eric Braeden) creates Colossus, a powerful and super-intelligent computer that's devised to regulate America's defense systems. Colossus instead gets in touch with its equally potent Russian counterpart Guardian. The two computers plot to take over the world. It's up to Forbin and his crack team of scientists to concoct a way of stopping Colossus before it's too late. Joseph Sargent's able direction, working from a smart and provocative script by James Bridges, not only wrings plenty of tension from the arresting premise, but also relates said story in a taut, involving and above all convincing manner. The superb acting from a top-drawer cast constitutes as another substantial plus: Susan Clark as Forbin's loyal assistant, Gordon Pinsent as the amiable president of the United States, William Schallert as a CIA director, Dolph Sweet as an army colonel, and George Stanford Brown, Robert Cornthwaite and James Hong as computer experts. The late, great Paul Frees supplies the creepy, droning, tinny voice of Colossus. Gene Polito's sharp, agile cinematography, Michel Colombier's rousing, rattling score, Albert Whitlock's terrific special effects, and a chillingly downbeat ending are all up to speed as well. Back in the early 70's this film was quite ahead of its time. Today it remains a still timely, pertinent and even frightfully plausible cautionary tale about the perils of artificial intelligence run amok.


A classic of science fiction and the paranoid political thrillers prevalent at the time: chilling in its implications and persuasively presented, the film makes for intelligent if demanding viewing. In hindsight, while it's much admired by connoisseurs of either genre (being a fan of both, I'd been longing to catch up with it for years!), the film deserves to have a more widespread reputation. Undoubtedly, this remains Joseph Sargent's best work; his cinematic career hasn't provided much else worthy of note, with the only film to come any close being the fine caper THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE, TWO, THREE (1974).

Its computer-run-amok theme echoes the Hal 9000 of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) and looks forward to DEMON SEED (1977)'s Proteus IV; what a fascinating if overwhelming triple-bill the films would make! Where production values are concerned  polished look (courtesy of d.p. Gene Polito, who later shot WESTWORLD [1973]), imaginative settings (by the veteran Alexander Golitzen), often disorienting editing (the expert work of Folmar Blangsted) and an appropriately weird score (by Michel Colombier)  the film truly can't be faulted, but it also benefits from a largely anonymous cast. The abrupt and unresolved ending, with Man refusing to give in to the undeniable superior intellect of his creation, is highly effective and certainly left the audience with sufficient food for thought  and even apprehension  for the future.

Needless to say, when this was announced for DVD release, I was ready to leap at the chance of finally being able to own and watch the film  but, as many of you must already know, my joy (and that of many another fan, I'm sure) was short-lived when it emerged that Universal had issued a Pan-and-Scan version (which I can only imagine now how this ruined its detailed widescreen compositions)!; thankfully, I was able to make amends via the miraculous format called DivX...


Like a previous reviewer, I saw this movie in theaters more than 30 years ago and not once since, and yet much of it I remember with amazing clarity. Eric Braeden is terrific--an understated and overlooked performance that should have made him a movie star.

It's a Frankenstein movie, of course, but the idea of technology getting away from us---well, anyone who thinks we're out of the woods in that area is fooling herself.

I wonder if a remake would be worthwhile. As is so often true of movies featuring computers, they are quickly outdated in terms of technology, and this can distract from the message of the film.


I came across an article on the BBC World News website for Friday Oct 28, 2005 discussing the IBM supercomputer Blue Gene/L. The machine, at the US Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, officially became the most powerful computer on the planet in June, 2005.

Hmm #1: The computer has recently doubled its processing speed. "Blue Gene's performance, while it has been under construction, has quadrupled in just 12 months."

Hmm #2: "The completed Blue Gene/L joins another supercomputing team-mate, called ASC Purple, to get to work on safeguarding the US's nuclear stockpile."

Hmm #3 "Purple can do 100 teraflops while it carries out simulations of nuclear weapons performance."

While they keep it on their site, you can read the full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4386404.stm "Supercomputer doubles own record".

See the movie again.


I'm not sure if talking about the ending is really going to spoil this for anyone, but I checked the spoiler box just in case. Considering the age of this movie AND the fact that I saw it when it first aired (okay, so I'm dating myself), it remains one of the most compelling computer-related films I've ever seen. Although I'm sure it really shows its age nowadays, it's the story that will hook you. Picture yourself the inventor of a computer that monitors everything, keeps track of everything, so you save time and effort. However, it monitors YOU, too, and as it gets more powerful, you have less and less freedom. So you try to turn it off. Of course, you can't. You've seen 2001, War Games and Star Trek, and THEY all managed to find a way to disconnect or blow out their computer nemeses. But Colossus is different. And you are stuck. The thing is, if this movie wasn't written as a pilot for a TV series, it should have been. It is the perfect set up and will leave you wanting more.


Part of a litany of late 60s films that recognized the potential power (and fear of things not understood) of the rapidly improving computer systems. Like HAL, Colossus one ups its creators. The use of "B" list actors and borrowing computer equipment that was old at the time doesn't really detract from the story. Watching the general public start to accept the rule of the computers, even to the point of wearing tee shirts similar to those bought at rock concerts with the symbol of the Colossus Programming Office on them, foreshadows stuff that actually is happening today.

Dated, even when it was made, this movie is still good fun.


I've only seen the TV edit of this film, and I think that the alternate versions section didn't list all of the scenes that were removed for it after reading the other reviews, but I hope that they don't detract from it.

Reading the opening credits the second time I saw it, I noticed it was based on a book, which is quite understandable. This is not your average Hollywood movie. There's basically no action, and all the plot is very cerebral in nature. The author of the book and the screenplay did a very good job portraying the reactions of various people, as well as of the computer itself.

Below are possible spoilers.

I said there are spoilers below, so don't blame me.

The one thing that has bugged me ever since I saw this was the concern of whether submitting to the computer's will is all that bad of a thing. The last chapter of Asimov's "I, Robot" presents a similar issue, and the way it's written suggests that we'd better let the computers guide us, because they're programmed to have at heart the good of all mankind. The difference, however, is that the Machines that Asimov had controlling the World's production were only willing to force those against them away from positions of power, and such resembled Earth politicians. Colossus and Guardian act more like aliens in their imprisonment and murder of innocent civilians in order to make sure that they can control the world for the betterment of mankind in the long run. Even Klaatu of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was unwilling to sacrifice human life or machinery in order to get across his point that there were more powerful forces at work on Earth.

The supercomputers of this movie are far more akin to those whose mantra is "to save X, we must destroy X," just not as extreme. They are what people were afraid of happening to machines in Asimov's world if his famous 3 laws were not imprinted so deeply within the robot's positronic brain. Their programming is to make guide humans towards a peaceful existence, but their design allowed them to think far beyond the parameters they were given, and allow them to threaten mankind into doing something they wouldn't do normally in order to "preserve the peace." The extreme tactics of the machines makes one so opposed to them that sympathizing with them in anyway is impossible. The second time I watched this, I seriously had doubts to why Forbin was acting the way he did at the end. Clearly he can see that mankind will be better off under this computer's guidance, even if it does mean a bit of oppression along they way, right? Well, clearly Forbin is much too human than we are initially led to believe, and like most humans is unwilling to have his life and the lives of his fellow men dictated by a machine of their design. Never mind that the original programming was partly for that exact purpose.

My problems with this include the fact I find it rather preposterous that Colossus would cease with its surveillance of Forbin while he's in bed with the mistress, given that Colossus is watching him in the bathroom and such. Also, the fact that Colossus couldn't have just been shut down (by either side) suggests that it is some sort of perpetual motion machine. Even if it had a power plant inside of it, humans have to supply it with fuel at some point. The best I can come up with is that it's given fuel for the year in some sort of non-reversible passageway, and that one of the things it blackmails humans into doing is making sure its power supply is uninterrupted. Also, it seems rather likely that all the missiles could have been capped and evacuated, forcing Colossus' weapons to be unable to be launched. That they'd have to be disarmed in the way shown is rather foolish.

Overall, I give this 8/10


There exists a tiny subgenre of "def-con" movies, sort of disaster movies with nuclear defense systems going haywire: Fail-Safe, Dr. Strangelove, War Games, By Dawn's Early Light....and the little-known 1970 Colossus, in which two computers supervising the missile arsenal link up and get smart. This film is often called dated, but to my eye it has stood the test of time very well. Like in Andromeda Strain (1971) all the money is in the sets, the actors are inexpensive unknowns. Unlike most old scifi-tales this one isn't about robots or space exploration, but about computers, data links and electronic surveillance. That is why the frightening Colossus scenario is actually MORE plausible today. Mostly this film is about technicians communicating with a computer; minimal "human interest"-subplot, no chases or gunfights, just the scifi scenario. That's the way i like it. I am very happy that Colossus: the Forbin project is finally available widely on VHS and DVD. Maybe now it finds its audience, it certainly deserves that. After seeing this film,interacting with your computer may feel somehow..different.


This movie along with Star Trek, Lost in Space, Time Tunnel, Journey to the Far Side of the Sun, etc. set things in motion that influenced my life and what I did when I grew up. Although yes it has it's pitfalls, but the basis was sound and effects for the time I think were very good. I still enjoy it to this day.


Clearly this is one of the classic examples of a 60's and 70's Movie adaptation of a book that is an unsung masterpiece of how you can as a producer, Director of Photography, Set Designer or Special Effects coordinator relay the textual concept, intention and feel of the original author in to a visual and intellectual Science Fiction thriller. One of my all time favorite Sci-Fi movies ever made. The Man vs. Machine battle in the book is sufficiently represented in this movie but it could easily have been two hours longer to get it all in. The movie as in the book starts slow with the tension building slowly until you along with the characters suddenly find yourselves trapped by the hope of leading edge technology with no escape. I saw the movie first before reading the book which encouraged me on to read the the original Jones book as well as the sequel, The Fall of Colossus which is just a little more out there. Without the degrading advantage of CGI or Computer Aided Special Effects the story rules here with some minor available technology of the day creating a story as much in your head as it is in your eyes. True fans of Sci-Fi will soak this movie in and watch it as many times as they can find it. Pure technological historians will see quaint real work references to 70's bleeding edge technology and can appreciate the advances over the last 40 years. A must see for pure Sci-Fi fans.


A largely over-looked sci-fi movie dating from 1970, it surely deserved a lot more attention than it received.

Embodying many recurrently popular themes, its over-riding message is one of technology running out of control. There's a strong whiff of 'Dr Strangelove' cold-war paranoia, with 'Forbidden Planet' 'Terminator 2' 'War Games' and 'I, Robot' all carrying the message - don't trust your machines too much.

Colossus is an America super-computer in the pre-microchip days. It's BIG. And it's put in charge of the whole NATO strategic defence program. Unfortunately; the Commies have had the same idea, and when activated; both computers meet in the electronic ethers, and it's love at first byte. They jointly conclude that their mutual tasks are best served by cooperation and begin telling each other all their national secrets. The governments don't much care for their frankness and sever the links. The computers don't like the actions of their gooseberry taskmasters very much either.

They decide that there's going to be a few changes, and threaten nuclear reprisal if they don't get their way.

What follows is a battle of wits between the human creators and their electronic creations, with the computers coming out on top.

Perhaps it's the rather nihilistic denouement that rendered this movie unpopular. Most people like an ending that is at least hopeful if not actually happy. And this movie doesn't offer one. It also lacked a 'big name' movie-star to help secure its recognition. It's more like a made-for-TV presentation. Whatever the case, it deserves better recognition. It's a whole lot more believable than, say, 'Logan's Run'. Perhaps if nubile Jenny Agutter had been recruited for this movie it might have likewise stirred as many loins as memories.

As things are, it must stand upon its scientific, social and political merits. And whilst science might have moved on in the 40 years, the social and political issues remain the same. For those reasons alone it's still worth a watch.

Happily, it's recent release on DVD will make that easier.


I watched "The Forbin project" ("Le cerveau d'acier" in french) as a kid ; I was about 8 in this time, so it was 20 years or so ago. I remember I was scared by this cold, logical and omnipotent machine. I kept a very impressed memory from this movie.

Seeing it again recently by pure chance, I was more or less ready to be deluded, as often when you're rediscovering movies you liked as a child. To my greatest surprise, I was truly happy to measure that my remembering was right. This movie was way advanced for its time : all the "sci-fi" aspects that perhaps seemed silly to a 1970 audience have become true : web transmissions, webcams, artificial intelligence and so on.

The scariest thing about the real main character of the movie, US-made supercomputer Colossus, later known as "World Control" after its fusion with its soviet counterpart, Guardian, is it acts the way you would act if you resigned all your human feelings, keeping your intelligence.

Colossus will certainly lead mankind to a safer, logically ruled, world. But this world will be a hell, as well as a golden cage for an intelligent bird.

God has created Mankind at His image, and Mankind created Colossus at its own, by its own laziness to solve its own problems.

If you please, you can consider THX 1138 as a kind of sequel of this movie (it was released one year after this one).

To conclude, a very pessimistic movie, in a "Planet of the apes/1970 era" tone and style. A special mention to Eric Braeden, who precisely played a POTA universe crucial character a little time later.


Why did I rate this as 9? This is not a movie that panders to the "and lived happily ever after" fairy tale mindset. This is about a grab for power by a powerful entity and the desperate efforts to prevent it. It is intelligent and surprising. Do not miss the last few minutes. This movie has a masterful sting in the tail. Excellent. First time I saw it I almost didn't believe how it ended.

The technology is antiquated, true. But the ideas are not. This is not an abstract creation like Skynet, this adversary talks to us and reasons. Not necessarily to kill us but for other purposes, but that doesn't mean it wont kill you. View for content and ideas not glitzy special effects, anyway I thought we were over that kind of science fiction these days.

Science fiction movies tend to be pale feeble imitations of science fiction novels. But Forbin is very satisfying. Fast paced, intelligent and surprising ... what more could you want? Pete


From a time in which movies were much more innocent, 'How Sweet It Is' is one of many comedies from the sixties that had to rely on script, timing, and facial expression instead of today's toilet humor to make audiences laugh. Not the funniest of the lot, but far from the worst.

James Garner and Debbie Reynolds are a married couple accompanying their teenage son as chaperones on a trip to Europe. Aboard the ocean liner, they are constantly trying to rekindle their romance by interludes in various cubbyholes of the ship. It's worth watching just to see the look of disgust on Paul Lynde's face and hear him sneer "Animals!" when he discovers them hiding in a lifeboat. Misunderstandings, jealousy, a rogue Frenchman, and a close encounter with divorce are in store before their European trip is over.

James Garner displays a knack for comedy, which he will later refine in his "Support Your Local Sheriff/Gunfighter" movies.

Good, clean fun if anyone is interested in that sort of thing nowadays. Kind of like a Rock Hudson/Doris Day movie. (Those were great, too!)


This movie has always been a favourite of mine for as long as I can remember. I had not seen it on TV for a while, so I decided to buy the video. It was well worth purchasing this movie because I watch it on a regular basis, like once every 6 to 8 months. Everything from the opening credits with the mannequins & psychedelic background, to the storyline and the variety of characters make this a fun movie to watch. My fave part of this movie is the part when Griff & his son take pictures of the girls trying to smile like the Mona Lisa. This is classic '60s movie making at it's finest! If you like movies from the late '60s like "Yours, Mine & Ours" & "The Impossible Years", then you will really appreciate the humour and storyline of this classic '60s romance/comedy.


I had many laughs watching this film, however I had a valid reason for that. A great part of the shooting took place on board the cruise-ship s.s. Statendam of the Holland-America Lines. Actually I was a steward on this ship in real life but I also played a very tiny role in this movie. The only thing I had to do was running down the stairs with a life-vest on. It was really a thrill to observe world famous actors like Debby Reynolds and James Garner that close. Shooting took place in 1967 while cruising between Los Angeles and Acapulco(Mexico)I earned US$ 80,- for my (very small)part.I since then followed the career of James Garner, especially the TV-series like the mini-series "Space"(Michener) and Space Cowboys (2000) and the series of Jim Rockford, the P.I.starting in the seventies.


"Swinging" comedy has family from the suburbs getting duped by a low-rent travel agent into taking a cut-rate European vacation. James Garner and Debbie Reynolds would seem to be an ideal screen match, but this leaden script never gives their union a chance (and both are saddled with deadening lines like, "Stop fiddling with your necklace and act like a man!"). Garry Marshall and crack comedy writer Jerry Belson adapted the screenplay from Muriel Resnick's book "The Girl in the Turquoise Bikini", and veteran comedy director Jerry Paris helmed the proceedings, but the results are bathetic; comic support from old pros Paul Lynde, Marcel Dalio, Terry-Thomas, and Vitto Scotti doesn't help much. These are not the "Happy Days", although there are fun bits by Erin "Joanie Cunningham" Moran and Penny Marshall. *1/2 from ****


Debbie Reynolds again creates a role of mother, wife, lover, and beautiful, whimsical, comedienne. She is fully at ease, and completely believable in this late sixties, slightly risque, sexy role.


Typical "Americans in a foreign country" storyline, made BETTER by the talents of the lead actors. It would be impossible to resist this movie if you were a fan of any of these wonderful actors! James Garner is always a treat in any role, be it comedy or drama, and Debbie Reynolds is typically wonderful in her role as the neglected wife. Add the phenomenal talent of supporting actors such as Terry-Thomas and Paul Lynde and you have instant comedic magic. I would love to find this movie available on DVD to add to my collection. There are no movies being made today that are any funnier than this, and it's a shame so many of these old comedies are so difficult to find on DVD.


At last this gem of gem's will be on DVD with the debut of the Joan Crawford Collection Vol 2. One can only hope that this is released in its original widescreen format and has been remastered. The VHS print is a little worn and I can hardly wait to the see the extras.

This movie is so bad its a must see, this movie is Joan in color and on steroids as she bulldozes her way through the film. This is camp at camps best. Who else can order "Lobster Newberg and Coffee" for lunch at the studio cafeteria with a straight face other than Crawford... For die hard fans of Joan's more camp later years this one will keep you in stitches.


"Torch Song" has to be seen to be believed. Joan, as Jenny Stewart, apparently a "top" Broadway star, stomps her way through the entire film with as much grace as Godzilla, destroying anything that irritates her - - and EVERYTHING irritates her.

As we watch Jen/Joan careen down this warpath, one gets the odd feeling that Faye Dunaway based her entire "Mommie Dearest" role on Joan's "tour-de-force" performance in "Torched Song" (oh, I'm sorry, "Torch Song").

There are several scenes in this agonizing film where Joan seems bored out of her skull and time just passes as she plays with her pull-down lamp, pushes buttons on some kind of intercom/radio, flops down on the bed and stares at the ceiling -- you know, the sort of riveting moments that keep an audience glued to their seats.

It is a wonder why someone didn't off this character early on in the film, she is so hateful and cruel and obnoxious. And yet, based on information I heard directly from the writer of a once top-rated TV show, there are actresses (and actors) who really are as horrid as the vicious fang-baring demon that Joan portrays in this hideous laughfest.

One of the fun things about this movie is every time you see Joan she's in a new outfit. Some of them are horrifying, like her hangover-halting canary yellow robe. Others clearly show off her girlish waist and great gams. But no matter what she's wearing, her face looks like it could scare the Russian Army straight to Siberia, non-stop, running through the snow in their bare feet if it would help get them there faster.

The big "reveal" at the end is so absolutely pathetic as to be laughable. We're asked to believe that because Mike Wilding as Tye Graham can't "see" his hot blonde fellow musician (because he lost his sight in WWII), that he could never love her (even though she's younger, prettier, sweeter and a BILLION times better for him than "Jenny"). We're asked to believe that because Tye saw Jenny in a musical right before he left for the war (which even she admits she wasn't that good in) and reviewed it for a newspaper, that, somehow, seven years later, she will find it in her big charcoal black heart to "love" him. Why would she? Why would he want to love her? It's all fabricated and insane. And to add an extra cherry on top of the sundae, we're asked to believe that even though he was a journalist, went to war, then came back blind, now he is suddenly a brilliant pianist who knows every note of every song Jenny is going to (lip-synch) sing, even though it's a new show with new songs that the public hasn't heard yet -- songs that he already has memorized (because Jenny's former MD, who could not STAND her, "teaches" Mike the songs).

Right.

Then we have Gig Young. Why is he in this movie? He's a drunken sod and Jenny seems to keep him around just so she can insult him. He serves absolutely no other purpose. Then, as another reviewer points out, he vanishes mid-way through the film, never to be seen again. No great loss.

Probably the most exciting scene is when Jenny decides to throw a party on a Sunday night after a week of grueling rehearsals because she has her eye on Tye and wants to get to "know" him better. All the other "guests" at the party are men. Pay attention: It is so unbelievably and shockingly gay it is hard to believe it got past the censors. Jenny specifically asks for Tye to "entertain" that night--but Tye is "busy" (this INFURIATES her), so instead some gorgeous hot young black man with a honeyed-voice shows up and sings instead. He's cute for sure, and one of the male guests leans on the piano, mesmerized by his voice (and probably what's under his tuxedo).

Then, when Jenny learns that Tye isn't going to come to the party, she tells her agent (in the privacy of her bedroom--which looks like it was lifted off the set of "Twilight Zone") to get everyone "out" of her apartment "now." He walks out and five seconds later you can hear the party stop instantly as she sits in cold stone silence on her bed. It is so sad and stupid.

Then the ending, when, after "discovering" the review that Tye wrote about her, Jenny "realizes" that all this time he had been trying to tell her that he loved her, she rushes to his absolutely fabulous gorgeous perfectly appointed apartment and (apparently) tells his blonde sycophant wannabe-girlfriend to get lost (all very subtly actually). Then Mike and Joan have their absolutely unbelievable moment of "human warmth," make asinine jokes about his seeing-eye dog, and then kiss each other with all the excitement of two mannequins on Prozac.

The entire film is washed in jarring Technicolor "colors" that resemble "reality" as much as I resemble Brad Pitt (and honey, trust me, I DON'T), and unfortunately Joan comes off as some kind of monstrous drag queen.

The last thing that drove me insane through this must-see disaster is Joan's "hair." I don't know who determined that this "cut" was going to "work" for Joan, but she looks like someone rooted around Mamie Eisenhower's hamper and dug out a used wig with ghastly tight curls and bangs and swirls, giving her the look of either a former lobotomy patient or a 50's overpriced dominatrix.

I really don't know what anyone was trying to "say" with this film, but trust me, whatever it is, it can't possibly compare to when Joan orders "Lobster Newburg and coffee" -- now THAT is saying something (even if it's pathetic)!


Possibly the worst picture Crawford ever made, it begs to be seen to be disbelieved.

Despite "winning" Charleston contests at the Cocoanut Grove in her twenties, even vintage early films prove Crawford was no dancer. Nor could she sing particularly well.

So, naturally, she's cast in "Torch Song" as a huge Broadway singing and dancing star. (Crawford was 49 at the time.)

In her opening "rehearsal" number with "Ellis" (actually, "Torch Song's" Director, Chuck Walters), one can practically hear her count, "One, two, three, four" as she studiously moves from one carefully choreographed pose to another. Even Shirley Temple, with Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, did better than this in "The Little Colonel" (1935) in their still-startling and delightful tap dance sequence.

There's nothing "delightful" about any of Crawford's dancing-singing sequences in "Torch Song." But she's consistently "startling." Her songs ("Follow Me," "Two-Faced Woman") are mediocre at best: never to be heard again, or embraced by the music-buying public. Worse, they're actually sung by India Adams, whose voice doesn't remotely resemble Crawford's.

The show-stopper (and not in a good way) is "Two-Faced Woman." Crawford, in blackface, descends the staircase (still silently counting her simplistic dance steps and "posing" rather than dancing). Blackface? Never explained. Perhaps blackface was chosen for the "shocking" moment when she angrily rips off her wig and glares into the auditorium with her enormous eyes and red slash of a mouth -- topped with disheveled hair dyed a remarkable Technicolor "red" that even Lucille Ball wouldn't have dared attempt.

No one, of course, not even a would-be lounge singer like India Adams (whatever happened to . . . oh, never mind), can destroy a chestnut like "Tenderly," whose haunting music and lyric support even the talentless.

Marjorie Rambeau inexplicably won an Academy Award nomination for her three brief scenes as Crawford's mother. (She and Crawford were longstanding friends.) Adolph Deutsch (Composer) presumably arranged and played the impressive "mad" piano arrangement of "Tenderly" for blind pianist Ty Graham (Micheal Wilding) in the final scene. It's the single most emotionally honest moment in the entire film, musically capturing Ty's love and anguish and frustration with Crawford's "gypsy madonna." Until it's completely undercut by one of the most rapid character reversals (and bad dialogue) ever conceived for a major film.

"I finally did it," asserts Crawford's character, attempting to convince Ty (and the audience) that she's been trying to break through Ty's defensive shell all along (she hasn't: she's just been spouting hackneyed bitchy dialogue, lip-synching to hackneyed "original" songs and silently counting out her game but amateurish dance steps -- all in Helen Rose's gloriously improbable Technicolor costumes).

"Torch Song's" final line, meant to show Crawford's "tender," warmly humorous side, references Ty's seeing eye dog, Duchess. Say what? THIS is "Torch Song's" payoff?

Is "Torch Song" watchable? Yes. Like a train wreck.

Is it "so bad it's good?" No. It's just bad.

The "Reefer Madness" of musicals.


who loved Joan Crawford. Such an amazing era. The Technicolor oranges and aquas, Joan is a bit over the top but if you are an avid fan this will cease to matter.

She is the strong Jennie Stuart, chanteuse and Broadway star who minces no words. She meets her match with Michael Wilding, a blind war veteran who plays piano. He is a sympathetic gentle character who also has Dutchess, a boxer seeing-eye-dog to keep him company. At first she is resistant to his music and dislikes him because he is not intimidated by her. He seems to know her character very well. Strong, but scared of getting close to people.

The music is haunting and reminiscent of a gentler, romantic era. Joan is herself and then some, and eventually discovers the reason she cannot make an impression on the pianist. There is a nice twist to the end. Overall a do not miss for Crawford. 9/10.


**PLOT SPOILERS** Just hilarious. Joan Crawford plays hard-boiled bitchy singer/actress Jenny Stewart. She treats everybody like dirt--but that's cause she's (sigh) lonely. Only piano player Tye Graham (Michael Wilding) sees right through her. And--oh yes--he's BLIND!!!! Oh the irony! Naturally she hates him then falls in love with him. It leads up to a totally predictable twist at the end that leads to a happy ending that will have you screaming for insulin!

Crawford made plenty of bad films in her career--but none was as much fun as this one! She overacts even more than usual (believe it or not) and bulldozes her way through the film. It's a terrible film with a truly rotten script but Crawford is so over the top it's hard to not enjoy. Her "singing" numbers are unbelievable. When she "sang" her first number "Follow Me" I broke out laughing! It is SO obviously not her voice and Crawford's overdone acting during it is just incredible. Still she DOES lip sync well. The high point (so to speak) is the song and dance of "Two Face Woman" with Joan AND the entire chorus in black face! It's just too jaw-droppingly silly to take seriously. And when Joan tears off the black wig at the end to show that blazing red hair it hits new heights of camp! The rest of the cast falls by the wayside of Crawford's histrionics. Poor Gig Young barely registers. Wilding is actually pretty good--his nice underacting actually compliments Joan's overacting very well. Marjorie Rambeau (playing Joan's mother) is very good also and was actually nominated for a Best Supporting Actress for this. Also Joan's "clumsy" dance partner is director Charles Walters.

This is most definitely not a good picture but it's in blazing Technicolor, has a hilariously stupid story and has Joan going full blast! A must see for camp followers. I can only seriously give it a 7 though. Yeah it's fun but it's SO stupid!


Joan Crawford (as Jenny Stewart) is an iron-willed Broadway musical star; she knows how to stomp out a cigarette, and soak up the cocktail hour. In her "Torch Song" opening, Ms. Crawford chews out her dancing partner (actually director Charles Walters, who is paid to get around Crawford's right leg). Alone, at night, Crawford weeps - she is really a very lonely woman, unsatisfied by her younger boyfriends, and adoring teenage fans. When her beleaguered pianist is replaced by blind Michael Wilding (as Tye Graham), the domineering diva may find love, at last.

As a Broadway musical star, Crawford is wasted. "Torch Song" is, however, fun to watch as an example of the "trashy" Joan Crawford film. The wretched excess is highlighted by the legendary star's dubbed "Two-Faced Woman" production number; keep watching for the moment, shortly after the song, when "black-faced" Crawford pulls off her "wig", in ghastly fashion.

Mr. Wilding (then Mr. Elizabeth Taylor) and Gig Young do their best, as Crawford co-stars. Marjorie Rambeau has a nice supporting role, as Crawford's mother; their pivotal "Gypsy Madonna" scene is very nicely played, with Crawford singing "Tenderly" (her real voice) in a "duet" with the woman who dubbed her material (India Adams), while mother Rambeau guzzles a beer. Down the hatch!

*** Torch Song (10/1/53) Charles Walters ~ Joan Crawford, Michael Wilding, Marjorie Rambeau, Gig Young


Okay, this is NOT a great film and the plot is quite silly at times (plus, the version of this film performed on the Carol Burnett Show is possibly better), BUT I liked it. Yes, Joan Crawford belting out the songs and dancing with her football player shoulder pads underneath her leotards are both silly, but there was a certain goofy charm to the film. It definitely was a last gasp film--a 1950s film that looked amazingly like a 1930s or early 40s musical except for the film being in color.

Joan is the scheming woman bent on success as a singer/dancer. Despite having only marginal talent (my opinion, not that of the people in the film), she makes it to the big time only to discover she is all alone. Then, she discovers her blind pianist has secretly loved her all these years and the movie ends in a romantic clinch.

Contrived? Yep. A bit over-the-top? You betcha. But, despite all this it is all good fun.


Okay, so that's not how Joan's big song goes, but nevertheless. I am going to do some snarking because this movie deserves it. I am guessing Joan Crawford made this movie because she missed MGM and wanted to take a last look. Or maybe she thought it was actually decent. I'm hoping for the former and praying it's not the latter.

See, this movie is terrible. Really, honest to God terrible. The plot--bitch goddess Jenny Stewart crushes people beneath her feet on a regular basis, but she is actually quite vulnerable ON THE INSIDE. (Yeah, one of those.) However, one day she comes across Tye Graham (played by Michael Wilding, who pronounces "Graham" as "Grimm"--rather appropriate) when he is hired to replace her burned-out rehearsal pianist. He's blind due to an accident, and she is unable to believe that a blind man can read music and play the piano. They clash immediately, as is to be expected, until the relationship sort of blossoms into something else. Okay, I can live with that. But, damn, the things that happen along with the way are intolerable!!! I am not even going to get started on the blackface number, which is obscenely awful. I will, however, elaborate on some of the little things.

First--why is Gig Young in this movie? He's Jenny's boyfriend-kinda-sorta, but he cheats on her on a regular basis, and she's incapable of feeling anyhow. I guess the filmmakers realized his utter lack of importance, because he disappears halfway through. Gee, darn. He apparently attached himself to her so he could steal money from her. ("Next time you go out without Jenny, don't sign her name to the checks," Joan says testily. I must confess I get a kick of out her lines like that, because my name happens to be Jenny. I wish I could boss people around like that!) So basically Gig Young is there, and then he isn't. Fine. Whatever. If my memory serves me, Gig Young is most famous for committing suicide rather than any movies he made, but that's beside the point. This movie didn't help his outlook on life, it would seem. Didn't mine, either.

Second--Joan, who could be quite attractive, has somehow ended up with orange hair. Maybe it looked good in black and white, but it don't here, that's for sure. I can only hope it wasn't her decision, or that she was in some alcohol-induced stupor when she had it done. Or maybe the hairdresser was incompetent, because I ended up with orange hair for that exact reason one time. Whatever the reason, she looks ghastly. Especially during the blackface number I've vowed not to think about again.

Third--the color of everything else is a little too garish for my liking as well. I am thinking, as some of you have probably guessed, of the chartreuse bathrobe Joan wears midway through the movie. What the heck is that thing? Underneath she's wearing some stylish white pajamas, why not show them off? Joan's makeup (not the blackface, the regular stuff) also struck me as a little off--in the scene where she tries to adjust the clock with her eyes closed her face is a full three shades lighter than her chest. That's not really a big deal, since that happens in real life more often that not, but it's still jarring to see it on screen.

I've totally trashed this movie, and that isn't entirely fair. You'll notice, perhaps, that I've given it a four. Those four stars come from two scenes in the movie in which Joan actually rises above the material and does a good job. The first of the two scenes comes when Jenny attempts some everyday tasks as a blind person--she tries to set the clock, as I mentioned earlier, and she also tries to make a phone call. She fails miserably at both tasks, and realizes she's taken sight for granted. I think she does very well with the scene mainly because of how she reacts to her failure--she's appalled. I get the feeling that Joan herself would have been appalled at such a failure as well. (Incidentally, I thought she was quite convincing in her "Night Gallery" segment.) The second scene is when she goes to see her mother, the only friend she's got. "Friend" is a word to be used loosely there--her mother's a leech just like Gig Young was. However, I think Marjorie Rambeau, a well-known stage actress in the 'teens, is quite likable and even sympathetic. In this scene Jenny comes to her mother asking for romantic advice about Tye. She's bothered because she's in love with a man who doesn't know what she looks like, but her mother recalls a connection that Jenny and Tye had before the injury that left him blind. That leads to the cranking up of the old Victrola for a listen to one of Jenny's records. Jenny listens and sings along. I love that scene because it's strange. As everyone mentioned, Joan's singing is dubbed by India Adams. (I actually think Joan mentioned that in "Conversations with Joan Crawford." Wherever it was mentioned, Joan was quite peeved about not getting to sing her songs.) What's strange is this--the record is India Adams singing in a higher-to-be-interpreted-as-younger voice, but Joan Crawford is singing along in her own voice. They're obviously two different people. Did MGM think no one would notice? I did.

At any rate, those two scenes don't redeem the movie, so I'm afraid I can't heartily recommend it. Better stay away unless you're inebriated and need a good laugh.


**SPOILERS** Unbelievably corny yet fascinating movie that has Joan Crawford pay more or less herself as the bossy and arrogant Broadway superstar Jenny Stewart.

Jenny in her rehearsals for her new Broadway play "Two Faced Woman" is so overbearing in her demands that her top musician pianist Charlie Maylor walked off the set and was never seen or heard from again. With Charlie being replaced by the blind and dignified pianist Tye Graham, Michael Wilding, Jenny finally meets her match in someone who's about as unyielding and non compromising as herself. This sets off a number of wild confrontations between Jenny and Tye in how the music is to be conducted with Tye getting the best of her by getting things done his way not hers. As much as Jenny dislikes Tye she in fact becomes secretly found of Tye by him treating her like any other "broad" and not giving into her demands even if it means him getting fired from his job as the plays musical director.

As he slowly turns the screws on Jenny Tye get her to open up and reveal the miserable life that she's been leading all these years that made her the horror that she eventually became. It's lonely to be on top and Jenny being there for years had become detached from the very people who were responsible for her getting there. Acting aloof and not giving a heck about Jenny's feelings about him Tye treats her as shabbily has she's been treating those who work with her on the set: With complete contempt! It's later when Jenny learns through her beer drinking mom Mrs. Stewart, Marjorie Rambeau, the truth about Tye from and old scrapbook that she had about her daughters road to success that the truth finally came out to what was behind Tye's conduct towards her! This was the opening that Jenny was looking for and with that explosive information went for his jugular vain like a bat straight out of hell!

Michael Wilding-as Tye-does hold his own against the hard driving and take no prisoners Joan Crawford-as Jenny-who finds it very difficult to get the guy in line and in his place for almost the entire length of the movie. The super cool Tye does in fact have Jenny's number and knows how to play it as good has he plays his piano but it's Jenny, with the help of her beer swelling mom, who discovers Tye's weak point which has the calm cool and completely in charge of things Tye fall apart like the cheap, from a crack a jack box, camera that he really is!

***SPOILERS*** In the end with both Jenny and Tye realizing what imperfect persons they really are they in fact come together and fall in love with each other. Fully knowing that somehow they were both really meant for each other for better or for worse with of course Tye's cute and dedicated seeing-eye Duchess being thrown in for good luck.

P.S After staring in some 100 movies "Torch Song" was Joan Crawford's fist Technicolor film that she stared in and as expected she made the very best of it!


Enjoyed this 1953 Classic Musical with Joan Crawford playing the role as Jenny Stewart, a New York City actress who could dance, sing and give great dramatic roles and many Broadway Hits. Jenny had a mind of her own and hated anyone to criticize her on her singing and dance performances. One day Jenny meets up with a piano player named Tye Graham, (Michael Wilding) who is a blind veteran and is a sort of substitute piano player when the original piano player quit and walked off the Broadway Production. Tye becomes very critical of Jenny's performance numbers and the two of them become very angry with each other. This is a great romantic story because when Tye was able to see, he viewed Jenny Stewart in a show where Jenny sung the song, "Tenderly" and he never forgot her great performance. This is one of Joan Crawford's great films along with a great supporting role by Michael Wilding, who was in real life married to Liz Taylor. Enjoy.


Surely, the Joan Crawford in this laughably over-the-top 1953 melodrama must have been Faye Dunaway's direct inspiration for her lacerating impersonation of the screen legend in "Mommie Dearest". The garishly Technicolor film marked Crawford's highly trumpeted return to MGM after she was unceremoniously pushed out in the early 1940's only to make a comeback at Warner Brothers in a series of meaty roles in classic films like "Mildred Pierce" and "Humoresque" and prove she had the chops to handle older roles. It's too bad this is such a silly vehicle because Crawford, hovering around fifty at that point in her career, seems determined to make something substantial out of it. With her hair a flaming orange and her face severely tightened, she plays a disagreeably vainglorious Broadway diva named Jenny Stewart, a musical comedy star that seems to have all of Margo Channing's insecurity but little of her scathing wit. Instead, Crawford is made to snarl the lines in John Michael Hayes and Jan Lustig's limp screenplay without any noticeable irony.

Everyone kowtows to Jenny and cowers when she has her frequent outbursts, everyone except Tye Graham, a blind pianist hired to be her accompanist. Of course, they will inevitably fall in love, but this absurdity occurs almost in a vacuum since director Charles Walters seems more interested in showing Jenny as a raging harpy when she isn't acting pitiable in the privacy of her bedroom. For an MGM production, the movie looks surprisingly budget conscious and contains only one fully-costumed production number, the amazingly offensive and badly choreographed "Two-Faced Woman" which Crawford and a chorus of dancers perform in blackface (!). It has to be seen to be believed. Crawford's singing voice is dubbed by an emphatic singer named India Adams, not the worst offense at the time since such lip-syncing was pervasive. As a dancer, Crawford likes to show off her still-impressive gams, but her moves are so slow and deliberately minimized that Carol Burnett's years-later parody looks all the more accomplished by comparison.

Michael Wilding simply looks embarrassed as Tye, especially in the final wrap-up scene that requires him to have an excessive tantrum, and an extremely disengaged Gig Young is wasted (and looks wasted) as a sycophantic drunk leeching off Jenny. The one scene that works is between Jenny and her beer-guzzling mother, played with unapologetic relish by Marjorie Rambeau. They actually seem related. The 2008 DVD contains several extras - a 14-minute retrospective featurette called "Tough Baby: Torch Song", a PSA for the Jimmy Fund featuring Crawford at home with her subservient children, an audio clip of her recording session (apparently done before the decision was made to dub her voice), a vintage MGM cartoon and short, and the original theatrical trailer. It's just not good enough to be considered a camp classic, but there are moments that truly defy logic.


After Joan finished Mildred Pierce, she entered her absurd period. Enhancing that, she became severe, and with Torch Song she has added just plain scary to her film presence.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I watched Torch Song. Joan's close-ups look like some kind of art deco over-colorized presentation that is guaranteed to make the viewer wonder if this was intended as a joke or as a surreal escape. Check out the eyebrows that look like they belong on Queen Kong, the fruit-like color of her hair, the blood red lips, and in fact the she-devil enhanced shape of her lips themselves.

So many embarrassingly obvious ways to get her legs in the picture...nauseatingly odd as she tried to portray Marjorie Rambeau's daughter - they looked more like a couple of old hag sisters who belonged in a smoky cocktail bar, not doing "girl talk" in mom's apartment.

And furthermore, Joan is not pretty, she was always an overly made-up actress full of spite, nastiness, and intolerance for human frailty. I don't really think this film is a portrayal of character Jenny Stewart as much as it is a realistic view of Joan Crawford.


JOAN CRAWFORD returned to MGM for TORCH SONG after a decade of other films at other studios, in a role that paints her character as tough-as-nails--in fact, so tough that you expect her to take out a gun at any moment and shoot anyone who disagrees with her bossy persona. Not only is she tough, but the script is trite from beginning to end and the whole film is garishly lit in bright Technicolor to show off Joan's wardrobe and a neat pair of legs. It all seems like a warm-up for JOHNNY GUITAR in lush settings rather than a saloon.

That she can't sing is obvious because it's immediately apparent that a professional singer is doing the songs (India Adams). And despite her early days as a hoofer doing the Charleston and other dances during her flaming youth, it's also easy to see that dancing is not her strong point. So she seizes the bitchy role of a dame who treats a blind pianist with such scorn that even his dog growls every time she comes near him.

An appalling blackface number is enough to gag on (using a leftover track from a Cyd Charisse film that never made the final cut), and her confrontations with MICHAEL WILDING (the blind pianist), GIG YOUNG (a drunken playboy, what else?), HARRY MORGAN (a stage manager/agent) and MARJORIE RAMBEAU as her plain speaking mother, are all strictly theatrical, harsh and unconvincing.

One thing I'll say--she does "haughty" and "overbearing" so well, that it's hard to remember that in real life she was so afraid of further humiliation by the cast and crew of HUSH...HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE, that she left the film and feigned illness to get out of playing the role of Cousin Miriam. She also pleaded illness when she was afraid to attend the Academy Awards--afraid she might lose--but put her make-up on for the cameras when the radio announcement came that she won.

Nobody looks good in this one--but speaking of Academy Awards, MARJORIE RAMBEAU got nominated for her mother role here. She's not bad, but it must have been a dreary year for Best Supporting Actresses.

This one belongs near the bottom of Joan's career and surely any sane person would want to miss it--leaving it entirely to Crawford's ardent die-hard fans who think this is high camp.

Particularly unbelievable and jarring is the ending, which has Crawford and Wilding realizing that they love each other after all the harsh words and deeds are over!! Total rubbish.


Joan Crawford plays a shrewish egotistical Broadway star- in other words HERSELF!

In one ridiculous scene, Joan, in her first color film, wears light black face that makes her look like Dorothy Dandridge!

Camp trash deluxe.


While the original Italian title – THE POLICE ASKS FOR HELP – clearly pigeonholes this one in the then-popular (and incredibly prolific) poliziottesco genre, the English title under which it is better known around the world – WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO YOUR DAUGHTERS? – implies a giallo in the same vein as Dallamano’s best-known film, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO SOLANGE? (1972). In any case, while both elements are effectively present – a hatchet-wielding murderer is the subject of the climactic manhunt – the police procedural themes are more prevalent.

The film deals with a teenage suicide which eventually uncovers a child prostitution ring which, as usual, includes not just the petty sleazy oddballs (here personified by Franco Fabrizi) but also high-profile professionals (a celebrated doctor) and high-ranking government officials (a Minister). The cast is surprisingly good for this type of genre effort: Claudio Cassinelli (as the investigating Police Chief), Giovanna Ralli (unusually cast as a female D.A.), Mario Adorf as the policeman who finds the first body and also discovers that his own teenage daughter was once a “victim” of these perverts, the afore-mentioned Fabrizi and Hollywood veteran Farley Granger in a smallish role as the first victim’s father.

As usual for Italian genre movies, the music score is an asset and here it is provided by Stelvio Cipriani whose motif, while simple and repetitive, is extremely effective given that it involves children singing gibberish (and thus commenting on the main theme of the movie itself even through its performers). Alarmingly, the end titles claim that every year in Italy, 8000 teenagers run away from home but only a small percentage returns to the fold – the majority are never found!


From the director of the excellent what have you done to Solange, Massimo Dallamano, here is a strange Italian giallo, more a police procedural (an a really lurid tale, a ring of teens used as prostitutes by people in very high places - that was the time, in Italy, when several directors and scripwriters tried their hands on very hot subjects, like this one) than an Argentian thriller (but it is scary enough in a few places and also very gory). It starts with the false suicide of a very young girl, hanged nude under a roof and then proceeds with a lot of cars and bikes chases (the killer is always covered by a motorcycle helmet until the very end - it is possible that the director of Night School took from here the idea of the killer masked with an helmet), almost always running without pauses. Tense and scary enough, good almost till the end (a lot too Dillenger for my tastes).


Massimo Dallamano's "La Polizia Chiede Aiuto" aka. "What Have They Done To Your Daughters" is a very suspenseful, atmospheric and intelligent mix of Giallo and Poliziottesco, that no lover of Italian genre cinema of the 70s should allow himself to miss. When a teenage girl is found hanged in an attic, the police first think of suicide. Further investigations, however, point out that it was murder. As the investigations go on, it becomes clear that the murder is somehow related to a teen-prostitution ring...

This very suspenseful and tough-minded Thriller keeps the suspense going from the beginning to the end. The plot is very elaborate and stunning and score by Stelvio Cipriani is brilliant and contributes a lot to atmosphere and suspense. Most of the murders are actually not seen, and there is no excessive splatter and gore, but what remains of the murders is often quite brutal, not least due to the delicate context. I must say that, concerning the cast, "La Polizia Chiede Aiuto" was not quite what I had expected. As the DVD cover had 'Mario Adorf' in fat capital letters written on top, I expected Adorf to be the star of this movie but just plays a supporting role (in which he is, once again, excellent). This is not a flaw however, since Claudio Casselini and Giovanna Ralli are very good in the leading roles. Cassellini is excellent as the investigating homicide detective Silvestri, and beautiful Giovanna Ralli fits very well in her role of a young female assistant district attorney. Ralli may also be known to Italian movie buffs for films like Sergio Corbucci's revolutionary Western "Il Mercenario" or Enzo Castellari's Giallo "Gli Occhi Freddi De La Paura". My favorite film from Massimo Dallamano will always be his Giallo-masterpiece "Cosa Avete Fatto A Solange" ("What Have You Done To Solange", 1972), but "La Polizia Chiede Aiuto" is also a highly memorable film. All things considered, this is a tantalizing thriller that my fellow fans of Italian Genre-Cinema can not afford to miss. An elaborate plot, great performances and a brilliant score go in hand with constant suspense from the beginning to the end. In Short: "La Polizia Chiede Aiuto" comes with my highest recommendations!


POTENTIAL SPOILER!!! BEWARE!!! (Well, not really, but just to be on the safe side of things).

From the glaring reviews posted here, on IMDb, I went out of my way (and, boy, did I ever go out of my way to see this dud! I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, so hunting for a three-decade old and rather obscure giallo wasn't necessarily a walk in the park) to fetch a copy of "What have they done to your daughters" and what a put down it was! The film's plot, tenuously copied from Jules Dessin's 1948 masterpiece "Naked City", is so full of holes, seems like a swiss cheese! A good many of the leads go nowhere and the killings, which are central to the plot, or so seem to be, are really never explained; we have no idea why a mysterious biker goes zooming around Rome, with a meat ax, butchering lust-crazy teenagers, private detectives and, even, a district attorney (played by a rather dazed Giovanna Ralli - her 70s hairdo stood out way, way more than her deadpan acting). Well, yeah, there's the usual link with the "rich & powerful", but its just too lame to fully explain a good deal of the killings. The film ends on a rather low key, leaving you to wonder if there wasn't anything a tad more interesting to do with your 90 minutes instead of watching this incredibly confusing piece of italiana. In all due respect with the previous comments, can't really see what the praise is all about - probably, I should go back and give it another shot - but that would be wasting another hour and a half, and life is just too short of a deal.


With its foreboding name and plot wrapping around a teen prostitution ring one could be forgiven for expecting a sleazy bad taste affair from this one, but creditably it ends up as a restrained and respectful affair with a feel of compassion towards its theme of corrupted innocence. Its plot blasts off with the discovery of a supposed teen suicide from hanging and soon enough develops into investigation of this and the aforementioned vice ring, with matters complicated by a motorcycle riding, leather clad killer. The film operates as something of a crime thriller/police procedural type affair, shot through with splendid scenes involving the aforementioned killer that give it a delicious giallo current. Giovanna Ralli and Claudio Cassinelli make for fine leads, passionate and committed they effortlessly sweep the viewer up with their determination to bust the evildoers at the heart of the whole scandal. Writer/director Massimo Dallamano (screenplay also credited to Ettore Sanzò) crafts an involving tale, sympathetic to all afflicted by the matters at hand with time for emotional scenes as well as some nail biting suspense (including a sweet car chase) and a spot of pleasing bloodshed. Though not especially gory the film still offers up a few grisly doozies, though the best moment effects wise (it involves someones hand) is best seen through adept use of the pause button to focus on the frame or two for which the full glory of the effect is seen. Despite the sordid subject matter the film refrains from sleaze, it is in fact fairly restrained stuff, with its most discomforting moments involving tape recordings rather than anything visual. This approach works pretty well I think, it enhances the feeling that this film actually cares about its subject, a feeling promoted clearly by the "factual" quotes used as bookends. A typically fine Stelvio Cipriani score works well for both innocence and excitement, with the early switch from the pleasant shots of schoolgirls in the street in the opening credits to nasty goings on very much aided by the music. Its not a perfect film, falling down a little in its giallo capacity, great set pieces but not so much in the way of explanation, the ending is a tad abrupt and in general a bit more development could have given it somewhat more of an impact, but for me it was still pretty darn fine. Definitely worth a watch for fans of this sort of thing I think.


As is probably obvious by the lurid title, Massimo Dallamano returns to the same teenagers in peril themes he explored two years earlier in his giallo What Have You Done to Solange. Only this time around the focus is more on the police procedure than the blood and sleaze that is associated with the giallo. What remains the same though is the classy visual style and the mystery aspect.

The discovery of a young girl hanged in a run-down attic leads the police to an underground prostitution ring. The story lacks the myriad red herrings of the giallo but it retained suspense and mystery well enough to keep me glued on the screen. Dallamano however throws a black-clad killer in the mix and punctuates this police proceedural with a couple of very well done gore scenes (hand decapitation, machete in the head, screwdriver in the belly; take your pick). As a testament to Dallamano's style, the killer is always shot close-up with wide-angle lenses that adds a reality distortion of sorts.

Add to that a sterling score by Cipriani that is equal parts suspenseful and subtle and some well handled action scenes and car chases in the poliziottescho mold (although it lacks the rampant energy of one, so I wouldn't classify it as such) and here you have a movie that is definitely worth the time of ANY fan of 70's Italian crime cinema. I shouldn't forget to mention that the copy I saw had surprisingly good dubbing too.


A 15 year-old schoolgirl is found hanged in a locked apartment in Rome. Further police investigation reveals the apparent suicide to be a murder.

Many more deaths lead police closer to the source of a conspiracy to entice young teenage schoolgirls into a prostitution ring in this sordid but well-done giallo.

Similar in theme and style to the same director's 1972 "What have they done to Solange?".


A young naked schoolgirl is found hanged in a room locked from the inside, the police suspect suicide, until that is the clues seem to point in the direction of murder. So when the police led by Inspector Silvestri(Claudio Cassinelli) with the assistance of the asst district attorney Vittoria Stori (Giovanna Ralli) realise that they are investigating a teen prostitute ring with some highly influential people involved, they know they are going to have a tough time convicting anyone and sure enough their investigation is dogged with interference and dead ends. Dallamano director of What have they done to Solange? again returns to his schoolgirl in peril themed story and like its predecessor it's a highly controversial topic that is handled professionally and intelligently. Despite its topic, there's very little in the way of visual sleaziness here, the offences against the girls are confined to tape recordings the police have and its from these that they build their case. The film is in fact only half Giallo and plays more like a Poliziotteschi (Italian police procedure film), we only get brief glimpses of the leather clad killer as he tries to cover up his identity by killing those who might be able to give him away. Stelvio Cipriani again provides an excellent score, the film looks good visually, no more than you'd expect from a director who used to ply his trade as a cinematographer, there's also a very memorable chase scene that livens up the film immensely. Claudio Cassinelli and Cortese provide some fine acting in their respective roles, if there is such thing as a high brow Giallo this must surely be it.


The lifeless body of an attractive teen girl is found in a dusty attic. She's hung and everything points in the direction of a suicide. Closer investigations, however, points out that the girl has been murdered elsewhere before dragged into the attic. The discovery of the corpse slowly unravels a network of teen-prostitution in which several eminent civilians are involved. This hardens the police investigation while the killer (on a motorcycle and carrying an authentic butcher knife) is still on the loose. `What Have They Done to Our Daughters' is kind of like a sequel to `Solange' (or fully entitled: What have you done to Solange'). The stories don't follow each other but they handle about similar events: young schoolgirls caught in a web of unsettling and sleazy affairs. Both films are above average gialli, with an incredibly high tension-level and killer musical scores. Even though `Solange' upholds the mystery longer and more efficiently, this film contains a little more action. Best example to state this is the extended police car versus motorcycle chase through the beautiful streets of Italy. The budgets, however, are low so don't expect blood-soaked murders like the ones featuring in Dario Argento gialli.


I don't like to add much to the comment of my predecessor. This movie is interesting because it features a very well made and elaborated cinematography which contributes much to overcome the script and acting shortages. The colors are well picked, the night exterior and interior scenes are unusually subtle lit for this time. The camera always gives room to the actors and dives into the action if necessary. The wheelchair camera in the hospital is something new for that time alongside the short lens action when the killer advances at the hospital stairs. Very contrasty and very colorful pictures that don't look like the usual big lamp lighting that was usual for the 70ies in Italy. The framing in the car-motorcycle-chasing scene is also far above what was state-of-the-art. Long lenses, big contrast variations and focus shifting give it the edge. Another HURRAY for the soundtrack: Stelvio Cipriani varies only one theme (schoolgirl variation, police/chasing variation) with great effect to it. This soundtrack is very typical for Cipriani and almost as masterful as the one for "Mark Il Poliziotto".


Okay, I simply had to see this since I saw it's "sequel" first (about two years ago), UNSEEN EVIL 2 (aka ALIEN 3000), and I immensely enjoyed it because it was truly one of the worst movies I had seen in a very long time. From it, I also learned that Tim Thomerson apparently starred in the "original". All this was reason enough for me to sit my a§§ down with this "original" epic tale of Alien Terror & Indian Mysticism.

So how did it go down this time? On a bad movie-scale, this "original" is about twice less fun than the "sequel". Does that actually make it a better movie...? I have absolutely no idea...

It's not even fun writing a user-comment for it (while the sequel was). We got annoying people running around in some woods, being chased and ripped to shreds by crappy CGI (make no mistake; it's not as fun as it sounds). But if that's your thing, then sure, go ahead and watch it. I'll always be willing to give retarded rubbish like this a peek, but I can only take so much of it.

I'll be generous and give it one point for what happens to Tim Thomerson. Didn't see that one coming. I guess the producers realized they were spending too much money hiring him, so they just decided on the spot to write him out of the script.

By the way, if you happen to love UNSEEN EVIL, then go watch DEMONICUS (2001). You'll have a blast. It's even from the same director (Jay Woelfel) and its more or less the same movie, only this time with a possessed idiot running around in a plastic Roman-times inspired body-armour, slashing people in the woods. Have fun.


Man...what can I say about this film? When I saw the cast included Richard Hatch, and the King Of B-Movies Tim Thomerson, I thought it had potential. I was wrong. Almost immediately, from the look of the film, I could see it was low-budget. Still I held out hope. Then I saw how cheesy the prop "artifacts" looked, I smelled trouble. Upon seeing how weak the monster effects were, I KNEW I was in trouble. Only some classic B-movie gratuitous nudity could redeem this film (hopefully from Cindy Pena, who plays a Native-American guide), but once again I was disappointed. If you see this film on the shelf at your local store, RUN. It has poor production, a weak plot, and generally poor acting performances...