While Werner Herzog has stated that he looks at his 1992 film Lessons of Darkness as a work of science fiction, it shouldn't be discounted as a documentary either. But unlike the recent Wild Blue Yonder, where Herzog made a true science fiction documentary, this time the line is further blurred by making everything involving humans ambiguous as to their connections with their surroundings. Despite the locations being discernible as to where it's at, and the two interviews being indicative of where the people are possibly from, he keeps his 54 minute plunge into the Kuwait oil fields a primarily visual trip. It sometimes even felt like someone had decided to do a documentary on some civilization in the future in some obscure sci-fi novel (or, for a moment, like some wayward planet in the Dune universe). It's best then, as Herzog suggests, to take one out of context of the period, even if seeing the green-screen images (however brief) of the war conjures up immediate associations. If looking at this without the associations of the Iraq war part 1 or the Kuwait connection in it all with oil however (as with Wild Blue Yonder not associating that its 'just' NASA and underwater photography), it fills one with an immense wonder at what can be captured by a lens not bound by conventions.

But amid the freedom that Herzog decides to use with his resources, he ends up striking his most visually compelling treatise on destruction to date. It's like he decided to take certain cues from Kubrick via 2001, and from just general nature documentaries, in order to capture the sort of alien aspect to this all. Because the act of setting these oil fields, which were left in a state of disrepair following said "fictional" war, is like facing nature off on a course against nature (fire on oil, then water on fire). There's also the element of industry that finds this way in this mix, especially because of the presence of human beings in this mix. Herzog, in avant-garde fashion (ala Dieter and Yonder) sections off the scenes with Roman numerals, and in theme and tone it does work (e.g. a part meant for showing the machines trudging around is labeled as being part of 'dinosaurs', or when the people set the oil on fire and the others are "mad" in coming in on it). And eventually what starts out as just simple, yet spatially complex, aerial takes on the tattered fields, turns into an act of seeing ruin and something that would seem incredible in an objective frame of reference.

But that doesn't mean Herzog limits it completely to total dialog-less landscapes (which, as Herzog has said in the past, he likes to think in grandiose terms he "directs") of fire and obtuse figures fanning and producing the flames. He also gets two interviews with women who were around when the war was there- one who is given no words for what she says except that her husband was killed, another who had a child with her and who is now traumatized- and somehow this too works even out of context. I'm sure that if Herzog had wanted to, even in limited time and circumstances he was in, he could be able to work some political stance in the proceedings. His decision to keep politics or anything of the immediate recognizable in concrete terms is a wise one. Not that there isn't something concrete to seeing destruction of this magnitude. But there's an abstract quality to all of this after a while that makes it all the more real in nature, while still keeping to a control of the subject matter into something that looks out of this world, ethereal, and somehow unnatural while still being about nature all the same (hence science-reality).

It's almost too arty for its own good in a small way, with Herzog's inter-titles and ultra-somber voice-over becoming like gravestones marking the sections of one set of madness to another. But there's also a daring here that is totally unshakable too, and from a point of view of cinematography it actually goes on par (if not occasionally seems to top) what Kubrick did in 2001 or what Lynch could've done in Dune, which is that a filmmaker uses places and objects that are of this world, but then taking the audience to a place that is also assuredly not so. It adds a level of mental discomfort, but then that's likely a big part of the point- seeing the oil burned by order of a government that's been on the news we watch every night is one thing (or rather was), but it's another to suddenly take it in another light, where in the realm of science-fiction it asks the viewer to raise questions via abstractions one might forget when taking it as complete truth. It's a hybrid film that you'd never see this in a cineplex next to the big-bang sci-fi action fare, but then most probably wouldn't want to.


Werner Herzog documents the Kuwaiti oil fires during the Gulf War. That is the simple explanation not given during the film or the movie's narration, and does not inform the composition of the work. Rather, here is an apocalyptic tale of a city divided, destroyed, and replaced by raging infernos, man-made volcanoes, plains turned to deserts and forests subsumed by lakes of oil. The movie itself is very elemental and often contrasts opposing forces, water and fire, oil and sky. Herzog adds classical music for poetic effect, and shows characters, all of whom have lost their voices.

The first half is Apocalypse realized, complete with Biblical notation and everything. The landscape is destroyed, long helicopter shots show nothing but wasteland. The second half is more curious, and ultimately more disturbing. For the majority of the second half you watch as people put out the fires, dig through the oil, and rebuild, reintroducing technology and solidity and community to the landscape. Then, less you read a hopeful message into this feature, those same workers reignite the fire. No real motivation is explained or described, except that the workers themselves subsist off of continuing the destruction.

Herzog has always shown a propensity to bringing the camera to the edges of survival and human condition, and even the technical aspects of bringing a film camera so close to raging infernos and spraying oil wells has to be taken into account. He is fearless for his craft, his equipment, and his life, and it is because he imbues all of his cinema completely with his soul.

--PolarisDiB


Some eastern sea that lay heavily in the dawn, attended in its farthest far horizon by titanic walls of smoke and crowned by spires of fire and hot gouts of burning oil arching in the air. This deceptive sea reflecting the sky above made of crude oil. Werner Herzog mounts his camera on a helicopter and takes us through the desolate landscape of Kuwait's oil fields yet there's no politics involved, no topical Gulf War content. These oil fires the result of the scorched earth policy of Iraqi military forces retreating from Kuwait in 1991 after conquering the country but being driven out by Coalition military forces. In a truly apocalyptic manner, Herzog simply invites us to "come and see" the works of man. Reciting short passages from the book of the Apocalypse as sweeping aerial shot after sweeping aerial shot expose a land ravaged by war, the earth tarred far as the eye can see, a vast steppe of black tending to the rim of the world, the skies charred by enormous fires and billows of smoke. This is really a documentary on the apocalypse, on some end to the world, the Gulf War a paradigm of all wars to end it with. A truly awe-inspiring spectacle of destruction and abandonment that mirrors man's insubstantiality when measured up against nature in his own power to destroy it. Not a documentary in the traditional sense but mostly a plot less 60 minute expedition in the deep recesses of a wartorn desert that lets the grandeur of its visuals see it through with Kubrickian aplomb. In the end the workers reignite some of the oil wells they previously extinguished. Herzog muses in his voice-over: "Now they are content. Now they have something to extinguish again".


A mostly voiceless pictorial depiction of the aftermath of Persian Gulf War in Kuwait. Balletic cinematography, a good deal of it aerial, encompasses infernal horizons and devastated landscapes hardly recognizable as earthly, sweeping oil drenched, smoke filled distances, to the adagio strains of Verdi, Schubert, Prokofiev, and others. The images, for all their grotesque beauty, speak the truth, like moving paintings.

We witness the detailed drama of an out-of-control burning oil well being tamed and capped, see vast lakes of oil, some of them boiling, and fly for miles over the charred remains of buildings and the discarded refuse of war. Heavy equipment plods like prehistoric dinosaurs; men in their fire suits stumble about like aliens from outer space. Otherwise there are no living things, not even plants, anywhere.

We visit a torture chamber and examine blood stained instruments of torture neatly laid out on tables, then hear two mothers' testaments of unspeakable brutality, so unspeakable that one mother, who watched as her two sons were tortured to death, literally lost the ability to speak coherently, so unspeakable that a little boy whose head was stepped on and father killed by the invading Iraqi army has refused to utter a word since.

But these are the only two instances of intimate human contact. The rest of this brief 53 minute documentary watches from afar. Herzog inserts some narration here and there, some of it overly literary, but for the most part we are left to peer out through the camera lens at a world far more fascinating and compelling than anything any film maker could contrive.

Astonishingly, this scratchy print, a remarkable historical document, is the only one in existence, and this is its first theatrical screening (it has been seen at various film festivals previously).


Werner Herzog narrates sparingly from an alien's perspective, but for the most part lets the images do the talking themselves. And yes, there are some pretty powerful images contained within this 50 minute documentary.

This is a pretty typical Herzog documentary, which if you aren't familiar with him, that means it's a pretty slow paced film. But the images are so great, if you let yourself get caught up in them, I don't see the slow pacing to be a problem. Herzog always says he's looking for "ecstatic truth" in his films. I think he achieved that with this one.


"Certain Fury" is grade-Z stuff in most departments (the low production values and the often very bad dialogue stand out), but Tatum O'Neal is engagingly tough and she makes the film worth watching all by herself. Irene Cara is awful, and the slashing scene is hilariously fake, but Tatum won me over, enough to give this film a ** rating.


Badly acted, written, and directed, Certain Fury provides a fair amount of unintentional laughs. Tatum is the 'bad' girl, Irene the 'good' girl gone bad. One of the funniest scenes had Tatum spitting in Peter Fonda's face. He responds by slashing her face (in unconvincing close-up) with his nail file. When she falls to the ground screaming, he blurts out to his hench-men, "Get this bleeding bitch off my boat!" If you like 'good bad films' then this one is for you. If you prefer quality...well then you've been warned.


It's like this:

Tatum as po' white trash. The Tuff Girrl. She smokes! She swears! She needs a new agent and quality time at a tanning salon!

Enter Irene "Fame" Cara. The Good Girrl. She's from Westchester! She wears GAP clothes! She once again shows us her negative-boobage in an unintentionally hysterical near-rape scene!

This turkey trots along like a how-to tutorial in camp & cliche, and the kitchen sink has been thrown in for good measure. We have a foot chase in the sewer-tunnels, a towering inferno in a crackwhore flophouse, the classic Peter Fonda boat scene, and a finale that had me spraying cherry Capri Sun from my nostrils. Hint: It's supposed to be sad but it's really a knee-slapper.

Not quite campy enough to be cult, "Certain Fury" can surely be found in a Blockbuster close-out bin... sandwiched somewhere between "Tuff Turf" and an Olsen Twin flick.


'Raven' was a great show. It had a good plot, great fight sequences, and awesome chemistry between the actors. I highly recommend it if you can find it. I am still trying to find the episodes on videotape!


I was still very little when this show aired here in Europe, but even so, I still remember two shows me and my family were sort of addicted to : Sledge Hammer and Raven. Although not very alike, they were and are both icons of genius series in the 80's and 90's. I still remember the great scenery and atmosphere in Rave and the fights were exciting as ever, how else would a little guy like I was remember such a show clearly? The main characters were great developed and Raven himself had such a great mystery over him as a former member of the Black Dragons.

As mentioned by many people here before me, it's a pity that Raven (and sledge hammer too) had such a short lifespan. And while many shows are now re-released on DVD, Raven stays in the cold for no apparent reason, at least to me. Please release this show and make us happy :(


British cinemas in the '70's were full of features based on popular television sitcoms such as 'Bless This House', 'Please Sir!', and, of course 'On The Buses'. When Benny Hill was asked by Thames to make a movie, he opted for a compilation of his top-rated sketch show. He had probably been inspired by 'Ten From Your Show Of Shows' which had been released the year before to great success.

Unlike the Monty Python film 'And Now For Something Completely Different', 'The Best Of Benny Hill' showcased the original television sketches, not a single item was remade for the big screen.

These included 'Tribute To The Lower Tidmarsh Ambulance Brigade', 'Garden Of Love', 'The Short Life Of Maurice Dribble', 'The Messenger', and 'Wishing Well' amongst others.

Benny's old gang - Bob Todd and Jackie Wright - are in evidence, and the wonderful Patricia Hayes appears in several items.

I saw this in the seaside resort of Tenby in South Wales and it perfectly rounded off an afternoon of fish and chips, crazy golf, sun and candy floss. Despite the fact that the material was directly taken from television, no-one felt cheated or left the theatre in a mood other than happy.

My only complaint was that in the transference to the big screen, the picture quality had noticeably deteriorated, giving the movie a washed-out look.

Fellow reviewer Theo Robertson wonders why the 'Sale Of The Half-Century' sketch was not used. Benny had yet to come up with the idea. 'Hill's Angels' were not formed until 1980.

The movie's success led to Thames making similar compilations for I.T.V., these would be mainly be screened on Bank Holidays. Network has released all of Benny's early Thames work on D.V.D. now, so I could not really recommend purchasing this. Besides, the picture quality on 'The Annuals' is far better.

Funniest moment - 'Tuppertime', Benny's spoof on 'Dee Time' ( a popular '60's B.B.C. chat show starring Simon Dee ). Over the course of the sketch, Benny's 'Tommy Tupper' struggles to interview a bored, pipe-smoking Henry McGee, the country's oldest man, an inebriated actress, and a vicar ( Michael Sharvell-Martin ) who has gone on air with his flies undone!


Benny Hill was a true comedy great, evident in this fitting tribute of him, shown here as a compilation of his very best shorts. His comedy is admittedly quite bawdy, as Benny makes men look like idiots and lectures mangling the English language, but I like bawdy and particularly it suits Benny to a tee. The quality is a little grainy and washed out, but the shorts are still a lot of fun, Tuppertime especially is priceless particularly with the vicar who comes on the air with his flies undone, and Benny is as wonderful as ever. Jackie Wright and Bob Todd do their usual selfless stooging to perfection, and Patricia Hayes is delightful in her appearances. The scripting is also top notch and the music is well done. Overall, I truly enjoyed myself, a really nice 83 or so minutes to spend your afternoon. 9/10 Bethany Cox


The poignant story and sarcastic representation of the life and moral values of the sub-continent's red light area is captivatingly pictured in this great movie.

The movie underlines the stark facts that depict how a poor and young woman gets entangled in the evils of prostitution. The viewers are compelled to admit the follies and bitter treatment meted out to an innocent woman who ultimately resorts to find refuge in the filthy side of the world. By, coincidence, the most respected, wealthy and influential elite of the city also finds solace in the company of this woman. But something is common in both, i.e., they have been rejected from their homes and yearn to find shelter (physical for the poor and psychological for the rich).

The song "Chingari Koi Barhke" is a classic masterpiece shrouding the excellent screenplay and cinematography coupled with heartrending acting of Rajesh Khanna who has proved that he is a SUPER STAR given his spellbinding screen presence. His brilliant and mesmerizing acting in the boat in a moonlit night speaks volumes about the subtle imagination of the director. The lyrics and music of this song can reverberate the emotions of even an extremely self centered person. Whenever, one watches this song ......one finds something latently vibrant which stirs deep inside the soul. The trio of Rajesh Khanna, Kishore Kumar and Shakti Samantha supercharged the movie with this magically hypnotic song. THIS IS THE HIGH POINT IN Indian MOVIE MAKING. Believe you me, the direction, music, acting and cinematography in this song is very unlikely to be equaled in near future, given the prevailing temporal, crazy, puerile, showy, cheap, vulgar and synthetic direction, acting and main theme of the movies.

Some of the very subtle and bitter human values and sentiments creep at the climactic end of the movie underlying the quintessential lesson for mankind to "do good and earn virtue".


I have recently become more disillusioned that ever with Bollywood and its invariable churning of sugar-coated, feel good products, which lack a heart and soul. but if someone was pick up one film, as a beacon, as an example of the great emotional and spiritual waves that flow though India, it would be this one.

A poignant yet everlasting drama of love and the power of compassion and humanity. it tells the story of a woman (Pushpa), who is ostracized and eschewed by society and its establishments, to rot away on the notorious fringes of it. Yet within the brothel she resides, she builds a temple of love and care for those two people that come to see her. Nandu and Anand are members of society, yet only ostensibly, yearning for the compassion that their families fail to provide them, and in search, they come to Pushpa, whose abundance of love and human sympathy far overshadows her disreputable social standing. They alone see her inner beauty, while society maligns her, yet as the director points, cannot provide the qualities of love, happiness and tranquility for members like Nandu and Anand. Pushpa's relationship with Anand is certainly one of the most beautiful you will see. Theirs is a purely platonic relationship, which succeeds where the social union of marriage - for both - fails.

As they continue to meet, their bond grows, and beyond their own socially certified families, they create a little family of true love, depth and care. They receive from each other the love they so desire - motherly love for Nandu, a true companion for Anand, and a child and husband for Pushpa - though their relationship with each other has no social legitimacy. Samanta succeeds in creating a cynical presentation of society as one that compels people to stay within the confines of its social institution of family yet cannot provide for the very emotional, and spiritual ingredients that constitute it. Add the fact that it is society after all that created the brothel, where unquenched desires can be fulfilled, and what you have is a representation that makes Pushpa's relationship with Nandu and Anand all the more 'holy'.

This film tackled a theme that was very much taboo in Indian Cinema, and succeeds in presenting a mature, yet never over-the-top, nor didactic story that ultimately every Indian household can identify with. The music is an absolute delight and adds to the melancholic yet redemptive nature of the relationship between the three protagonists. Setting presentation is class, with nothing done to hide the vividly grotesque nature of the red light district and the people that patronise it. It has its fair share of stereotypical characters, who function very much as symbols of the unscrupulous, cunning nature of society. Yes, you get doses of the typical Hindi film melodrama, but its very much reserved to a modicum. Where it succeeds is in teaching you about human relationships and that it is love, togetherness and understanding that makes family, and not a social ceremony or some legal document. This is a film for all generations who appreciate human relationships and its power to transcend social boundaries.


I don't claim to be an expert in Bengali literature (far from it), but I have always found stories coming out of Bengal to be a class apart. The characterization, the depth of the plot, the sincerity of the human emotion in those stories are the among the finest to be found anywhere. Kabuliwala is another such great movie to be based on a Bengali story.

Sharmila Tagore is superb, Vinod Mehra plays the grown up Nandu with great sincerity. Rajesh Khanna lends a lot of credibility to Anand-babu despite having turned a major superstar during the making of this movie. Om Prakash is always a pleasure to watch although his role is very small. R.D.Burman and Kishore Kumar top it all off with the great music!


It is said, that this human race is always progressing but after a point all is destroyed and God will again create it from the very beginning. So I can imagine that it is not possible that this kind of movie can be made again ever. The world has to be created again by God and only than this kind of movie can be made. I slute Shakti Samant Sahib and his team for their eternal contribution to the society. It is not possible that these people will born again for thousands of years. This film also shows Indains have talent and qualities as these people were born and brought up in India and were Indian by heart.

I admire Mughl-e-Azam but in Mughal-e-azam there is king, armies, and glamour to support the story line and creenplay but Amar Prem is purely natural and close to common man therefore it is a lesson and a great satire on our society specially in the subcontinent.


A village girl Pushpa is turned away by her in-laws and her own family. A friend sells her to a brothel where she is frequented by Anand. Anand is married but he finds peace with Pushpa. As the fate has it Pushpa's relative Sharma moves in the same locality as Pushpa. She tries to find some love from the family but is too contaminated for a 'respected' society now. The film is broadly about how every human-being long for 'love' and still how rare it is to be loved.

This movie is divine. I have no other word for it. It's a fantastic combination of concept, story line, execution and acting. I see this film in the same league as 'Ram Teri Ganga Maili' because the woes of the protagonist are the same still it is completely different. RTGM is more a socio-political statement while this film works at a very personal level. Pushpa and her longing for love is just too heart breaking. Everyone she loves disappear at some point or the other. In her later years she takes care of her dying husband. The paradox of the situation is very interesting because through out the film you see young Pushpa as a prostitute. The way Shakti Samantha has handled the death of her husband scene is brilliant. She goes to the river with a very clean and expressionless face; she uses a small rock and just gets rid of the bangles. Nandu is the high point of the film. Pushpa cannot have a family and so she tries to find a son in Nandu who is ill-treated by his step mom. Pushpa shares the pain of longing for a son with Anand who is supposed to be her lover but obviously they can't marry and have children. The character of Anand is also brilliant as he is not just a neutral character.

Rajesh Khanna is brilliant in this film but it's a Sharmila Tagore film. She has given an Oscar performance. Rajesh Khanna has also given an Oscar performance. Must mention the name of the genius because of who this film is sure to go down in the history of Indian Cinema. Mr. Rahul Deb Burman. Amar-Prem is unarguably the best Indian soundtrack ever recorded. Kishore Kumar in his prime, opening credits by SD Burman and poignant poetry by Anand Bakshi. I feel like writing about 'THE' KK but that would be jazz. Of course we all know how much we miss him everyday. Shakti Samantha has created a masterpiece. A must watch. 10/10.


This movie is a re make of an old Bengali classic starring Uttam Kumar. The role of Uttam Kumar has been played by Rajesh Khanna in this Shakti Samanta movie. However, the performance of Super Star Rajesh Khanna, Sharmila Tagore and the music of Rahul Dev Burman are a life a time effort and they have created magic in this movie. Other characters also do their part well- Omprakash, Leela Mishra,Sujit Kumar, Vinod Mehra and others have done their part well. The movie will be remembered for its 6 nos- 3 by Kishore Kumar, 2 by Lata and 1 by S D Burman. The story is a classic and the movie deserves more than what share it has got in last 38 years and is a timeless classic and is life time effort of all the cast and crew. Dialogue of the movie "Pushpa I hate tears' is immortal. A must see to see how the magic of Rajesh Khanna, Kishore Kumar and Rahul Dev Burman worked in the early 1970s to be later spoiled by Amitabh Bachchan and his trend of action movies. It is true people forget good things like Amar Prem and remember all the bad things. A must see and a tear jerker.


Well how should I describe this movie... the very first scene of the movie itself sets the background of the movie and tells about the masterpiece we are going to witness in the next 155 minutes....... Have you heard the song "doli me Bithay Ke Kanhar..."......? I bet you will forget the songs of recent times.... both son and father namely RD Burman and SD burman and the excellent sharmila Tagore will make you cry in the song............. Well you will take a long time to recover from the movie after watching it .... but if you don't watch it interestingly you will not like it much.... It is very artistic and touchy in its flavour....... It is bound to make you emotional in a very different way. Shakti Da has this great capability of making you cry by his character's plight and on the top of that the music matches the atmosphere of the movie bit by bit.... RD Burman was at his best in this movie.... the songs are incorporated in the movie to carry the viewer into the mind of the character.the lyrics are marvellous. Rajesh Khanna is unstoppable. Don't have words to express how he acted in the movie. As for Sharmila Tagore, she was the same as rajesh khanna.. the second half of the movie is quite touching..... Look at the way the song "BADA NATKAHT HAI" is used in the background when Vinod Mehra returns to search pushpa.. I recommend this movie to all who haven't seen what Indian directors are capable of. watch it to know it.............


Was the word Katanga ever used by Wolfie after "Power to the people" quote? I watched the series for all episode 1977 onward. The series brilliantly depicted the many small rebel groups of the era. Wolfies character was exceptional, Shirl his girlfriend was played to perfection and her father and mother were typical of the Old Ways are best Brigade of the time. Any change from the norm was viewed with suspicion and was considered against society and only harm could come from such thoughts and actions. Wolfie and his comrades were a magnificent creation depicting urban unrest in the UK with humour, pathos and with a certain amount of sincerity in the beliefs that society should be changed. Even Wolfies avid avoidance of work in any shape or form and his bumming for drinks and money was humorous and extremely funny. Need to know about Katanga to settle argument.


This is a masterpiece by John Sullivan who went on to write the brilliant Only Fools and Horses, only one sitcom is better than this and that is Dads Army.

It is about Marxist Wolfie Smith (Robert Lindsay), who is leader of the "Tooting Popular Front (TPF)". He and TPF Member Ken (Mike Grady) are lodgers at the Johnson household, which consist of Shirley (Cheryll Hall- series 1 and 2) who is Wolfies fiancée, until she immigrates to Italy, Dad Charles Johnson (Antro Morris-Pilot, Peter Vaughn Series 1 and 2 and Tony Steedman series 3 and 4) and daft Mum Florence (Hilda Braid). Also in the TPF are Tucker (Tony Millan) and Speed (George Sweeney). They drink at The Vigalante which is owned by Harry Fenning (Stephen Grief series 1 to 3), who is a hard-man, until he goes and is rumoured to have been killed by Ronnie Lynch (David Garfield) who is the new landlord of the pub. He is married to Mandy (Susie Baker).

This is great comedy, the best character in it is the Mum. I'd have thought when Shirley left, the show wouldn't be as good, it was still a masterpiece. A fantastic ending theme tune.

Best episode: The Hostage, series 1 episode 4. Here the TPF kidnap a Tory M.P., but it turns out to be Harry Fenning............


The nearest British television got to a 'Fonzie'-type character was 'Wolfie Smith' who, in his 'Freedom For Tooting!' T-shirt, khaki jacket, braces, jeans and green beret, was an ineffectual rebel somehow left over from the '60's. He was marvellously played by the charismatic Robert Lindsay, in his first television role since 'Get Some In!'. Wolfie worshipped Che Guevara, and dreamt of 'the glorious day' when the downtrodden working classes rose up as one and threw off the shackles imposed on them by their capitalist masters. Ah. If only...

Backing him up were Buddhist Ken, sad cowboy Tucker, and psychotic Speed. Luckily, Wolfie had a most understanding girlfriend in the shape of Shirley. Unluckily, her Dad - a Tory voting security guard - didn't see Wolfie's appeal, constantly disparaging him as 'that long-haired Yeti in plimsolls!". It was all very funny, hardly surprising seeing as it was penned by the great John Sullivan ( his first series ). One of the best episodes was when the T.P.F. kidnapped a man they thought to be their local M.P., only to discover that he was the local 'Godfather' - Harry Fenning.

Cheryl Hall left after the second series, so Shirley was written out. Peter Vaughan ( who played her Dad ) left also, and the role went to Tony Steedman. Er, why? With Shirley gone, there was no need for her Dad to be still around. Or for Wolfie to be still living in the Johnson's house that matter.

Arguably the most famous episode was the final one of Season Three, in which the T.F.B. found an abandoned tank, and tried to take over the reins of power by storming Parliament. After a short prison sentence, they came back for one final series, which concluded with Wolfie and Ken going to Spain to find Shirley, only to discover that she was now happily married. 'Citizen Smith' had a good run, and is fondly remembered. Lindsay may have done other things since, but to me he'll always be 'Wolfie'. Sullivan's next series was 'Only Fools & Horses'. Ever heard of it?

Remember, folks - Power To The People!


A Nymphoid Barbarian In Dinosaur Hell. A really interesting title that seems to promise a fun movie. In reality, the title gives you no hints about the actual movie. The word Nymphoid was used just to give it strong sexual overtones, which were completely, absent in the movie. The word Nymphoid, which actually isn't even a real word, has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Now, about those dinosaurs. There are no dinosaurs, plenty of mutant monsters but no dinosaurs. So, a more realistic title may be, A Barbarian in Mutant Hell. It's a pretty bad movie with plenty of poor acting. The plot is poor but interesting enough to keep you watching and so simple it is very easy to follow. The one thing I did enjoy about the movie were the special effects, and mutant monsters. Even though most they were crude, they were plentiful and interesting. It's a bad film but certainly not the worst I've seen. Do not go out of your way to see it. If you don't see it, you're not missing anything.


This film is the biz! The "Plot" is at best flimsy, but if we are honest, there is no plot. The acting is appallingly poor to the point of being offensive and the special effects are less than special.

This film is a must! It is utterly crap and absolute genius. It is the kind of movie that ranks alongside eternal classics like Plan 9 and Tarantula. There is a fight between two reptile Dinosaur type beasties that is straight out of the Chewits ad of the 80's with the monster eating the leaning tower of Piza, the Taj Mahal and the Empire State Building. It is so 5h1t that you simply must see it.

Go forth and scour the bargain bins of the local petrol station. Visit Charity shops. Trawl the internet. Find this movie.

It is a piece of cinematic gold!


OK. What would happen, if Roger Corman, who directed produced and wrote all those nickel dime horror movies, like "The Terror" which was made with left over film and three days left in Boris Karloff's contract for another movie, the movie in which Jack Nicholson plays opposite his wife of the time and ad libbed many of his scenes and lines--WHAT IF--Roger Corman "married" Saturday Night Live.

You get shlocky trash, you get unknown actors, you get dumb cartoon characterizations shot on the cheap for nickels and dimes--canned and sometimes original linear productions, first act second act third act straight action with a hint of sex ( and little more than a hint ).

You'd get the eighties substitute for the chapter serial of the forties, an hour and a half of utter dreck with nothing more than Ed Wood appeal.

But.

That's the idea. What's interesting is how they put this crap together, and you get to watch.

I like stuff like this. $15K worth of technology you could shoot a better movie today.

Which is the point.

So.

Why don't you? And just sit box with a huge box of jujubees you got at RiteAid, or maybe chips unending with hot sauce you'd pay five bucks for, and kick back with an idiot movie you don't need to have a Master's in English lit to comprehend and hoot the villain.

Get it?


STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM!!! I bought this film for a very very very cheap price in the hope that it would be funny. It is not. It is not remotely funny or even remotely watchable. It is actually torture to sit through. There is no redeeming feature about the film whatsoever. The trailer is the only good thing on the DVD but even that's in the wrong place. It plays before the films as opposed to when you select 'trailer' on the menu. There is next to no dialogue in this film, no sex and rarely any decent violence. The special effects are dismal but sometimes slightly amusing and at the same time confusing. Like is the man with the rubber face actually deformed or is it a mask? The ending is the final insult. Do not buy or watch or rent this film. Ever! Period.

Get Nightmare at Noon instead. Or Omega Cop. Or Eastenders......


A great little pointless flick with no effectively discernible dialog. At least not any recognized or recognizable language. Linda Corwin is a real cuty pie and basically turns the film into a Corwin-fest, emoting constantly. Is it great film? Ha ha ha ha ha. But great film requires a lot more energy to watch than this. This is just fun. I doubt that you will be disappointed and cannot understand why the Tromas didn't use this gal again as she brightens up the set, wherever the set happens to be.

This is typical of Troma films which seem to just unfold in an otherwise pointless manner. The reason for the film is the film itself. There are what passes for special effects and lots of s-c-a-r-y makeup which has the added benefit of not looking very real; clearly poor stop action and masks, all of which just adds to the cache of this low budget charmer. I heartily recommend this to any one who has nothing better to do than watch TV for an hour or two. You really barely have to pay attention. A DVD would be the perfect way to watch it. I taped it seven years ago off a TV channel (USA Up All Night) and am strongly considering the purchase of a DVD.


If you want to experience a fantasy world of mythical beasts and far-off lands there are several choices. Firstly you can dream it. Secondly you can read it. or thirdly you can see a movie about it, where all the imagination work is done for you with visual effects and camera work. So why on earth are there movies made which still require us to use imagination to make the images seem real, or even watchable??

I have no problem with the "B" or even "C" movie genre. Some old and very respectable movies are made using plasticine model monsters, and superimposed close-ups of real insects... not a crime, nor a problem. But in this film, even those tried and tested, basic techniques are done badly. Although, hang on, was that a cameo by the "Asteroid-millenium falcon eating-monster" from "The Empire Strikes Back"?? No, surely not!

I sometimes wonder how and why films like this ever get made. I mean, someone has to have an idea at some point, and the "story" grows from there, right? I couldn't even piece a story together out of this, the final product. So how on earth did anyone first answer the question "So, what's this film going to be about?" Initially titled "The Dark Castle" I believe... then had a name change to entice an entirely different audience. The added female voice-over at the start belies this attempt at trickery... in fact, I'm not sure that one couldn't take this film and it's packaging to the advertising standards commission, and hold the company liable for every copy sold under these false pretences.

I rated this film "2", and justify the rating thus... one point for creative use of the poem "Jabberwocky". And one point for all the laughs I got from everything in this film! And I wasn't laughing at the funny bits I assure you! So rather than try to explain what this film is... how about a little about what it isn't. It's not a parody or a spoof, this limp lettuce of a production is somebody's actual attempt to make a movie. It's not a horror... believe me, "comedy of effort" would be a better genre! And it most certainly isn't any kind of soft-core porn either... don't let that name-change fool you! All in all, shockingly bad and pointless stuff. Not for horror, fantasy, sci-fi, B-movie, c-movie, or even any-movie fans at all.

Ever.


Set in a post-apocalyptic world of mutants and monsters, A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell stars Linda Corwin as a sexy barbarian named Lea (nice legs, shame about the rack!), who gets into a spot of bother when she is taken prisoner by a big ugly brute and his reptilian pals.

I'm not a big fan of Troma's output: I love unintentionally cheesy horror and silly sci-fi, but I just don't get the appeal of Lloyd Kaufman's productions, the majority of which I find to be deliberately amateurish (now where's the fun in that?) and not at all funny.

A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell, on the other hand, has me rather confused about its makers intentions: sometimes it follows the standard Troma route, offering extremely dumb characters, bad special effects, and gratuitous sex and violence; occasionally, however, it seemed to me that director Brett Piper wanted his film to be more than just tacky trash, throwing in snippets of poetry (Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky), an intriguing sci-fi slant (there is the suggestion that the planet may not be Earth, and that the humans are the descendants of space travellers), and more poignant moments (such as the agonising cry from the scarred warrior who yearns for company).

Whatever the director's intentions were, however, the film still sucks!

The action meanders aimlessly for 82 minutes, delivering countless badly choreographed fights, shonky stop-motion monsters, and dreadful acting, and anyone looking for a bit of sex to spice up the mind-numbingly dull action will be sorely disappointed (Linda Corwin's Lea is certainly NOT a nymphoid!). The result is a tedious film that is nowhere near as much fun as its title suggests.


My first brief acquaintance with "Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell" came when I watched the trailer. I watched the trailer and promptly put the movie back on the DVD shelf where it remained untouched for nearly twenty-one months. For some reason I still haven't figured out but already deeply regret, I decided to watch it after all even though I'd knew it would have the same painful effect as poking my own eyes out with a rusty spoon and pour sour vinegar in the badly infected eye-sockets. Yes, I am aware of the fact that I'm ranting on and on, but that's partly also because there's very little to say about the film itself. Apart, of course, from that it's a totally retarded and irredeemably awful piece of Troma crap with amateurish acting performances (praise the Lord most of the characters don't talk a lot), horrible dialogs and effects/monstrous creations that appear to be designed by kindergarten toddlers. Arguably, the best element about the entirely pitiable project is the enticing title, and then that is also for about 99% inaccurate. The lead girl is hardly a nymphomaniac, nor is she very barbaric and theoretically speaking there aren't even any dinosaurs. If I'm not mistaken, dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures and "Nymphoid bla bla bla" is a post-apocalyptic movie. The monsters aren't dinosaurs but ordinary mutated pets (!), like dogs and cats. All the fans and Troma junkies who're claiming this movie ought to be interpreted as a nifty and ingenious comedy are full of lame excuses. No matter how underdeveloped my sense of humor may be, I know for a fact this wasn't comical.


I thought that it was a really good film, and had strange creatures, but what did any normal monster movie person think when they first saw the title...? Actually, this is more of a G version of what the Troma studio usually produces, so people have to know Troma before the judge harshly the Troma film Nymphoid Barbarian. I thought that it kept my attention since it did have many strange creatures. This is not a Blockbuster movie, but I thought it was a good movie. It was not Heavy on Plot but it had some plot to deal with. I recommend this Troma film to the more less Gore oriented monster lovers. it is not your gross Dead-Alive type movie. More Greek Mythological type movie in more of a B range....


*SPOILERS!!!!!!* (but then, who'd care with this!)

I bought this title for a relative as a joke present, keeping the 50p price tag on it. Little did I realize how bad it was, and they insisted, in the most sarcastic fashion, that i should view it too. Oh dear...

The best bit of this film is the opening sequence, loosely tying it in as a sequel to another film which appears to have nothing to do with this one! It offers a couple of inept chuckles, but the fun stops there.

I cannot find a single redeeming feature in this film. There are no campy moments, there aren't even any moments of unintentional laughter, it really is that bad!

There is no excitement, the script is cringingly embarrassing (there are some truly poor attempts too add some mysticism by reading 'The Jabberwocky') And the monsters look awful. The plot is non-existent, and there are huge swathes of the film that involve nothing but people walking across bits of scrub land, with some terrible keyboard music.

This is a terrible film, don't see it. It's not funny, scary, camp, pornographic, exciting, or entertaining in any way, shape or form.


Probably not the worst film ever, but pretty close. My satalite provided the description 'Various nuclear mutants want to be with the last woman alive in a land before time'. I was expecting a terrible film, hoping at best for a few comical moments, intentional or otherwise, but this "film" has absolutely no redeeming qualities. It didn't even deliver on the promise of nudity or sexual content.

I'm not sure if I can articulate how terrible this movie was. For starters I'm pretty sure the whole thing was filmed at one clearing in the woods. Because the 'nuclear mutants' can't speak (or presumably act) the audience is subjected to several long segments devoid of any conversation, filled only with the poorly synthesised music (which I swear at one point becomes 'pop-goes-the-weasel').

I should mention that I missed 15-20 min about half-way through the movie when I went to wash the dishes that had been piling up in my sink for about a week. It was actually a much welcome break from 'Dinosaur Hell'. Maybe next time my roommates refuse to do the dishes I'll make them watch a few minutes of this movie.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go re-review a few films, like 'Good Burger' and 'Celtic Pride'. If this movie is a 1 on 10 then those films must deserve 9s or 10s (and prolly Oscar's).


I only bought this movie because it only cost like three dollars from a store that was getting rid of all it's VHS movies. It cost three dollars and I wanted my money back. If it was free I would have wanted my money back. That movie took a couple of hours or so out of my life that I want back. I took it to a place that sells used videos, and the guy behind the counter had heard of it as the worst movie ever made. From now on I don't think that I can ever give another movie a vote of 1 because I think it will give this colossal piece of crap too much credit.


I hired his movie in pure interest of what a movie would look like on a budget of 10 cents. And this movie looks like it got a budget of 5 cents. The directing, editing and especially the acting are SHOCKING!! Not to mention that stupid music score that drains the talking and above all is sooo repetitive!!

minus**** out of ****


This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. First of all, the title is all wrong. The main character is not a nymphoid because, well, she's just not. She is not really a barbarian. She is actually pretty much a wimp. The dinosaurs aren't actually dinosaurs. They're mutated monsters. And the place where it was shot was not any sort of hell; it was actually quite nice. The acting was terrible. There weren't even many speaking parts. The plot was non-existent. I hate this movie with a passion.


I'm sorry, but this film has nothing going for it at all. Bad costumes, bad acting, bad sets and a stupid plot make it incredibly crap. Having said that, if unrealistic dinosaur claymation is your thing, then you'll probably like it. Actually, you probably won't.


In New York, detective Alex Scott (Christian Camargo) is investigating with his partner Sergio Perez (Carlos Leon) the disappearance of several children. When they visit the Mexican witch Gloria (Miriam Colon), the woman advises that a powerful evil force is chasing the reincarnation of her son and drowning the other children to bring pain to their mothers.

"The Cry" is a boring, pointless and unpleasant mess about a Mexican legend called "La Llorona". This is the first time that I see a reference to this legend, and maybe this movie might make some sense to those that are familiar with "La Llorona". However, the screenplay is terrible, without development of characters or situations, and there is an absolute lack of explanation about everything that happens in the story. Why the evil spirit is attacking children in New York? Why the former Wall Street broker Scott has become a New York detective after losing his son? Why Maria was able to protect her son and why she blinded herself in the end? The lead character Scott is absolutely boring; maybe the actor has felt the turkey he was hired to work. Last but not the least, the theme of mothers drowning babies and children is of an extremely bad taste even for a pseudo-horror movie. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Gritos da Morte" ("Cries of the Death")


I hate to bash anyone's work, but this is simply the WORST film ever. It would take far too long to list this film's problems, but suffice to say...you will be wasting your time and money on a terrible film.

As far as the mother's killing their babies because of La Lorona, well that could have been handled in a terrifying but effective way (if it had to be handled), but this is not a thoughtful or sensitive treatment. It's not even a scary horror movie and the acting is so stiff - where was the director?

As to why it was shot in New York City instead of Mexico, clearly there were budget issues. But location is the least of the problems. I wish there was something good to say about this film, but I couldn't find it.

Maybe the film's writer/director or some cast/crew can post some positive comments...


wow, was this film awful....

$1 rental at redbox wasted.

the only reason i watched the whole thing is because i'm paralyzed and when in bed i couldn't shut it off myself, lol.

every scene was long and drawn out with boring camera scenes.

the flashbacks were long and boring and very predictable.

nothing was interesting or scary.

you could cut out 45 minutes of this film and not lose anything to the story.

the cast was awful, and i wanted the spirit to kill everyone just so movie would end.

i'd watch my mother the car reruns before this film, hehe.

the only thing the writer should feel proud of is she found a sucker to finance it.

Stink-A-Roo don't waste your time.


The Cry is a take on the La Llorona legend of Mexico and America. The two countries have many different takes on the legend. This film seems by all accounts to take from one of the Mexican legends of La Llorona hunting down children and drowning them.

The director Bernadine Santistevan film is stylishly shot, and looks fantastic, but unfortunately it lacks any substance.

Nothing is ever really explained in the film, like for example why La Llorona turned up in New York of all places. Why not Mexico where there is more history of the legend, and most importantly why she choose her victims.

Without these major points explained in the movie it all seemed kind of pointless.

One other thing I don't think an evil spirit possessing mothers to kill their own babies (and very young babies at that) is not a very good idea for a film. There are so many variations on this legend why not choose one that's a little less disturbing.

To sum it up people looking for "Dead Silence" or "Darkness Falls" type of film don't bother renting this, but people with an active interest in the La Llorona legend my find it interesting.


I was really excited about this modern take because Mexcian folk tales and especially la llorona stories are a passion of mine. I had heard it was bad and I was willing to deal with bad effects/bad acting etc for a sake of enjoying a new twist on my favorite scary story. however. i was so unbelievably disappointed in this film that i almost couldn't watch it, but i did, praying it would get better. Its not scary. Its terrible acting despite the main actor (who is a terrific actor as seen on Dexter) so I know it is simply the screenplay and not the actors themselves (with the notable exception of the main detective's awkward and laughable-in- a-bad-way partner who was just horrendous. all the women didn't do bad at all but maybe that is because all together there may have been about five lines of dialogue written for all the females in this film combined. the worst part of the movie by far was the story. with such amazing folklore to work with i don't understand how it was even possible to make this movie as terrible as it was. i can scare my nephews with this story by telling it to them in the middle of the day in the car. i don't get how with such a large budget (you can tell by the caliber of cinematography) they could have made this story so frustratingly boring. i agree with the last review: none of this story makes sense and is ever explained. it trails along and leaves off like a seven year old making it up at a camp fire and then ending it abruptly when she realizes everyone has stopped listening. I also think that the way the scene was shot with the white mami was indeed in horribly bad taste. Come on Biny, lets see you choose better projects in the future.


What in the world was this about??? I noticed early on that this movie was taking an deep plummet toward tastelessness when I figured out what was happening to the children! This is absolutely the worst movie I have ever, seen in the 35 years that I have been living in this world!

I don't think I have ever seen a worse movie. At least nothing that would 've surpassed this this total waste of time and space! How was anyone able to convince a movie production company to green light such a pointless heap of cow dung is beyond me!! Please America, save your brain cells for something like Benjamin Button or some other good movie recommendations. I don't want to give to many details, so that you may have a chance to watch for yourself, If you dare. Ohterwise, you have been warned!!!!


Based around the urban legend of La Llorona, "The Cry" deals with mothers who drown their children because a spirit tells them to. Trying to get to the bottom of this phenomena is officer Alex Smith (Christian Camargo), who has his own terrifying secrets. As he delves into the legend, he begins to realize that it's not just a legend, but a reality.

La Llorona is said to be a spirit of a woman who, after her lover jilted her, drowned her child in retaliation, then weeps for him, and she wants company so she convinces mothers to drown her children so she has someone to cry with. It's all a pitiful excuse mothers give as to why they drown their children - one of the most despicable acts imaginable. And this movie was just as horrible.


Entertaining and intelligent story behind this Latino legend.

Great film-making also! I definitely recommend this film.

It stayed clear of silly stereotypes.

The story was interesting.

The directing and acting was great.

Looks like a big budget film, even though it wasn't a Hollywood film.

It jumps into interesting cultural issues.

And the director and writers isn't afraid to bringing up societal taboos. A must see.

I grew up with the legend.

It scared me then.

This movie also scares me.


Spanish Harlem is plagued with a rash of disappearances and murders revolving around small children. Nothing seems to connect the crimes except that they seem to take place near bodies of water (although at least one occurs in a bathtub). We enter the story from two angles -- a woman who can see the victims in her visions and two police detectives, one of whom had a troubled childhood.

"The Cry" (or "La Llorona") was a confusing film for me. I never understood how the main actress was connected to the crimes. I don't know why the fortune teller scene was so long (seemingly to explain the Weeping Woman, but it didn't do this very well). And the flashbacks to the cop's childhood? Or the flashback to the girl by the water? Very hard to follow and ultimately more distracting than anything. The film was 80 minutes, but could easily have been 60 if the opening credits were cut down and the extra material (flashbacks) were excised.

Stylistically the film is good. The director really captures some great shots and the use of lenses or filters to give scenes different colors was a nice touch (sometimes blue, other times green or orange). The use of two different kinds of cameras made the editing look a bit sloppy (not unlike "Cabin by the Lake 2"). The overhead shots were also unnecessary.

I don't mean to be harsh, because really I could see this was a labor of love and it does have potential if it had simply been edited differently. And I applaud the writer for exploring a traditional part of her culture. In a bonus feature, she says she scoured the earth for five years collecting stories of La Llorona. Unfortunately, she left us with an inconsistent narrative that doesn't really make those stories clear. (Personally, I would recommend a book presenting oral histories of the Llorona tales... it would be more appropriate than the film).

I keep bringing up Ryan Harper's "Circulation" again and again in my reviews. I can't stress enough how great that film is. And here it comes again. If you're looking for one film that brings Spanish-American culture to the audience the best, you want "Circulation". "The Cry", while not a bad film, left me more confused than anything and I failed to connect with whatever the message was intended to be.


While the film is most definitely not what the video cover would suggest (a farce), it does turn out to be a wonderful surreal comedy, with (gasp!) a point to the story. I understand why some may be to say the least disappointed however, I found it to be very entertaining art piece, which is not easily done. Recommended for viewers who enjoy something a bit off (not in a screwball way, but in an artistic way). Those who are looking for a good classic farce (and I love a good farce) are better off with "Clue" or "Noises Off", two of my personal favorites.


My husband and I rented this film thinking it might be a classic farce, as the cover copy suggested. Thirty or so minutes in, we were wondering if we had rented a movie that had never actually been watched by the person writing the promotional material. It was slow and not a comedy, in our opinion, and definitely *not at all* like the description. We were bored and disappointed and ended up returning the film to the rental store.


This is an off-beat yet charming feminist comedy with a deft dialogue and great photography. The cast is top-notch, in particular Lorraine Bracco and Molly Parker. However John Malkovich's unconvincing turn as Italian Lothario Roberto is both funny and embarrassing but you wonder if that was the intention in this slyly witty Italian production set in Montreal. The conceit of the ladies room is handled well and becomes the centrepoint for anxiety and female companionship. This is, in effect, a celebration of female solidarity in a very surreal, Italian way with a quirky Canadian twist. It's not for everyone's taste but it's better than most films that call themselves comedy today. Expect the unexpected.


It´s a comedy. Mess of love, the main excene is when two women are in the ladies room of the opera crying and talking ironically about their affairs and marriage situation and Roberto(John Malkovich) is in the cornice trying to avoid them to discover his promiscuity; ne of the girls open a window and face Roberto there(lol). A brilliant plot, witty.


Seeing John Malkovich and Greta Scacchi on the cover credits raised expectations, but this film was very disappointing in many ways. The director was apparently quite desperate to make this an "arty" movie, but the acting was very poor at times and the attempts at jokes were embarrassingly bad. I just couldn't believe that John Malkovich agreed to appear in such a low quality film....


This is a strange movie, but not completely bad . Only the ending is quite usual and poor - but the second part, after the first boring 30-40 minutes, worths the time wasted. I rented it because the presence of John Malkovich, who makes a funny cameo, and watched very perplexed the first part, really too slow and without new glances on the matter. Some moments are quite poetical, others just banal - the music is splendid, even if not clearly listed in the credits. Sometimes it seems old Italian Opera, but with a trivial remake. The actresses aren't equally good, and some stories (there are more) are simply lost in the ongoing of the movie. In certain situation remembers Polansky's "Who?". This may be a good exercise for movie lovers.


From the first episode where, in a dreamlike atmosphere, we see a nude girl with an iron mask on her head escaping a high-security facility and in the process, magically tearing apart a bunch of armed guards, to the very last episode, blood continues to flow (and nudity continues to be shown). This does not mean that the movie is distasteful, on the contrary, there is some kind of strange beauty associated with the violence which results in a mix of sadness and melancholy that stays with one long after watching the movie.

I did not see too many anime to have an authoritative opinion on this, but I believe that the excellent soundtrack is also one of the sources of the emotional blend of sweet and bitter atmosphere in the movie. The theme of the anime is sung in Latin, has a heavenly sweet voice sing a deeply sad song. The theme is associated with the intro and ending clips, which being symbolically very rich, adds a strong sense of magic and mystery to it.

One of the nice parts, and maybe also of the sources of strong emotions associated with the movie is the way in which the director develops some of the main characters in such a way that they are complete. They have good parts and they have bad parts, they love and they hate. You love them at times and then you hate them at other times. And because you get to know them pretty well, you will eventually get involved to the point that you really fear for their fate.

Besides being complete, the characters are idealized and put in deep emotionally situations: they risk their lives for their loved ones, they die for their loved ones, they hurt for their lost ones, they cry, they laugh with joy and everything at the highest level of involvement. Maybe this is why we like them: in a way they are so much more alive than us!

Inocence and pain, beauty and menace, death and love, blood and hope, all these make from Elfen Lied an addictive series which will leave a long-lasting impression on you. And be prepared to watch all the episodes together, it might be hard to stop before the last one!


I love this movie. I had to buy my own DVD of it, because I love it so much. Eve Ensler is my favorite female playwright. This workshop is nice for the inmates to express themselves freely, non-violently and in a positive way. This a description of all the women: Donna Hylton: Remorseful for murder. Serving 25 to life.

Anna Santana: Remorseful for murder. Serving 15 to life.

Nora Moran: Remorseful for armed robbery and assault. Serving 10 to 20 years.

Monica Szelkovics: Remorseful for murder and trying to convince her mother that with a sentence of 50 to life there is a strong chance she will never leave prison.

Roslyn Smith: Remorseful for murder and training guard dogs. Serving 50 to life.

Betsy Ramos: Remorseful for manslaughter. Serving 15 to life.

Kathy Boudin and Judith Clark: Former Weather Underground Members remorseful for murder. Boudin was released after serving 22 years of her 20 to life sentence. Clark is serving 75 to life.

Cynthia Berry: Extremely remorseful for murder. Serving 25 to life.

Betty Harris: Extremely remorseful for manslaughter. Serving 8 1/3 to 25 years.

Kelia Pulinario: Remorseful for murder. Serving 25 to life.

Michelle McWilliams: Remorseful for manslaughter. serving 12 1/2 to 25 years.

Migdalia Martinez: Remorseful for drugs. Released in 2000. Sentenced to 15 to life. Granted clemency.

Jan Warren: Remorseful for drugs. Served 13 years of a 15 to life sentence. Granted clemency and released in 2000.

Nedreys Arias: Remorseful.

Shanta Striklin: Remorseful.

Pamela Smart: Still a bitch and has no remorse for her crime of murder. Serving life without the possibility of parole. Thank God.

Kudos to Eve Ensler, and the rest of the film makers and crew members. Two Thumbs Way Up!


Maybe it's just cause I'm kinda partial to great flying and big-busted women who kick butt, but "Aces: Iron Eagle 2 is the most fun I've had watching a movie all year (the other highlight being "Princess Diaries 2, but that's another story).

After seeing the original, pathetic "Top Gun" wannabee (aircraft engaged in "aerial combat shooting static displays, COME ON!), I skipped "Iron Eagle 2". However, there were some things I wanted to see after watching the previews and seeing the poster. Yeah, those things belonging to Rachael McLish, the only body builder of EITHER gender who ever got my cigar puffing (Yeah, I know this is sexist as hell, but I'm on a roll and it's THAT kind of movie). No nudity, darn it, but McLish is hot and handles herself well, especially with a couple of machine guns. Besides, how many movie's do you get to see with Sonny ("Streetfighter") Chiba, Horst ("Magnificent Seven") Bucholz and Senator Fred Thompson of the great state of Tennessee, not to mention, the downright neat (with the right script) Lou Gossett, Jr.? Yeah, "Aces" is predictable, but that's part of its charm. It was probably also fun for former 007 director John Glen to work with people who can actually enjoy their work without trivializing it. HEY ROGER MOORE AND TIM DALTON: PAYING ATTENTION? Just wish McLish would've had more exposure ...

I give "Aces: Iron Eagle 3" a "7". MISS MCLISH: DO YOU HAVE ANY OUTTAKES? THE RIGHT ONES WOULD BE WORTH AN "8".


This film incorporates most of the clichés, (republican) political themes,and formulae of modern military fiction, and tells a story about aging planes and the aging men who fly them fighting to avenge the honor of a fellow pilot and put a dent (more of a bomb crater) in the drug war. The film also adds some characterization and entertaining action sequences, and attempts, though not very effectively, to employ comic relief (Phill Lewis' character).

Lou Gossett Jr, Sonny Chiba, Chris Cazenove, and Horst Bucholtz play a team of exhibition fliers who put on air shows in authentic and semi-authentic WWII planes. Gossett also has a 'day job' at an air force base which is due to be closed. When one of Gossett's younger colleagues loses his plane and the wreckage is found to have been stuffed with cocaine, Chappy (Gossett) goes into action.

Meanwhile in Peru - where all of this will ultimately lead - our female lead, Anna escapes imprisonment by an ex-Nazi drug-lord who has taken over her small town. Anna is an athlete and appears to be about 23 years old. The character is played by Rachel McLish - who is, as of 2007, 51 years old. The film is 15 years old, so she was in her mid-30s when she made it. I had to look up her age three times before I could believe what I was seeing. McLish is not a bad actress, though not quite up to the level of the rest of the cast. She is, however, excellently physical, and would have made a great action star (I wouldn't be surprised if this option were still open to her).

A quarter of the way through the film, these two plots are about to coalesce.

If you're a fan of military fantasy, you just might enjoy this fairly silly but very pretty film. Others should probably avoid it.


Let me put it this way: if you're looking for a movie with lots of action, plenty of explosions, Sonny Chiba (!), a cast as integrated as an old "Star Trek" episode and the wonders of Rachel McLish, you MUST see "Aces: Iron Eagle III".

The first one was pretty good in a cheesy, '80s way; the second was more or less forgettable (tell the truth, I can't remember one character from it)... but "Aces" - It has everything an action fan could want. ...that is, if you haven't seen "Top Gun", "Die Hard" or any other movies with explosions, planes, Louis Gossett Jr., etc... etc....

But Rachel McLish.

Sighhhhh....

Excuse me, where was I? Oh yes, Rachel. What a woman. Not only is she stronger than any of the guys in this film, but she shoots, fights, speaks Spanish and strangles guards with chains better than Bruce Willis ever dreamed of. Looks better in a t-shirt, too.

Two and a half stars for "Aces". Good stunts, explosions.... Great use of a former Ms. Olympia.


This movie was total nonsense, but still I kept watching. The action is quite good and plenty of explosions. Absolutely ludicrous plot. Theres a bit where the Spitfire pilot shoots down a jet with a grenade launcher while he hangs out of the cockpit. Nonsense but great stuff. Its got Horst Bucholtz in as well.


I love movie's that include vintage war planes in the plot, and this is no exception- even though the ME-109 and Japanese Zero were substituted by a repainted P-51B and a T-6 Texan. But it was still a fun b movie ride. Directed by John Glen, best known for his work on the James Bond series, the story follows Chappy Sinclair (once again played by Louis Gossett, Jr.) who is now flying part time in an air show act, with him flying a P-38 Lightening. Joining him in the show are three washed up WWII vets: Palmer from Great Britain, piloting a Supermarine Spitfire (beautiful airplane); Leichman from Germany, piloting an Me-109 (the P-51B I mentioned earlier, but still magnificent looking none the less); and Hirokoshi, piloting the Zero. The action starts when a deceased friend's sister approaches Chappy for help in taking down a Nazi drug lord who is holding her Peruvian village hostage. With her and a street wise hustler by his side, Chappy and the vets out fit the planes with air to ground rockets and set out to prove that its about the man, not the machine. The action in this movie is awesome, considering the budget, and its a fun concept seeing these pilots coming together and putting past former differences past for one final battle. If you love antique fighters and aren't a nitpick, then this is the movie for you.


Unintentionally funny & painfully dumb. Makes the original Iron Eagle look like Citizen Kane. Why anyone would agree to participate in this is beyond me. They probably could have gotten more money and respect selling Amway. I watched this movie at 3:00 in the morning because nothing else was on TV. I wish I would have watched the Weather Channel. I think this movie was trying to suck out my soul.


Louis Gossett Jr returns as Chappy Sinclair who is this time aided by Sonny Chiba and Co to battle Colombian drug-lords who have kidnapped the brother of rebel fighter (Played by body builder Rachel McGlish) and so the grumpy old men show up to put on a show that proves that these old farts still have what it takes to become one man armies. Okay this is when things got terrible and the main reason is that we are forced to watch over the hill guys save the day. Not fun to watch at all and even Gossett seems bored with the material. Also of disappointment is just how wussed out they make Chiba's character. Back in the 70's Chiba was the most ruthless martial artist ever and now he is reduced to a sobbing soldier who isn't up to par. It is all terrible to watch and really it serves as example as of what killed Gossett's career.

* out of 4-(Bad)


did the writers of this movie think we're idiots? vintage world war two p-51 mustangs outflying and outgunning mig jets?!?! hell, why not take on the army in a biplane next. no wait...we can defeat the entire soviet air force by using only paper airplanes...


whoever thought that this movie was a thing that needed to exist needs to be dragged out of Hollywood and thrown in a stockade. or at least a brig.

Bizarre pro-drug war, wet dream of Monroe-doctrine-humping idiots. cheesy like Velveeta, and not in the good sense. I haven't even finished the movie and I'm already wanting my life back.

the plot is nonsensical, the "twist" is about as bendy as a re-bar, and the characters as believable as three dollar bills. Racial stereotypes are played for their full effect, it's a low point in the career of everyone involved.

hell the planes aren't any good either, which was the best part of the first two.

The only redeeming quality is that it ends. it's biggest flaw is that it starts. save your money on the rental. just grab a stick, sharpen it and poke yourself in the eye repeatedly. it'll be more amusing.


This little mini series is among the best I've ever seen. The actors are committed to their work, the story is believable, yet uncommon enough (to many people) to be appealing.

Katie Blake does a superb appearance as Helen, a teenager about to finish school and go to college, when "Dear Nobody" shows up and turns her world up side down with a tough decision to make and some well hidden family secrets to discover

Sean Maguire as her boyfriend also delivers a solid performance, but not quite reaching up to Blake's standard. To me he's too much of the stereotypical handsome male. Rough features, a squared jaw and not a freckle or a zit for miles around. But let's not hold that against him. He does after all perform admirably and manages to convey the anxiety any teenage boy in his position would feel.

In closing:

Watch this series and ponder the moral dilemma it does in fact present. Or just watch it and be entertained by the actors and mesmerized by Katie Blake's beauty. Like I did.


The story takes place in the late 1930s and begins as the High School's new principal, Michael Rossi (Lee Philips), arrives in town to assume his duties...

Constance MacKenzie (Lana Turner) is an attractive widow who owns a dress shop... She runs it efficiently but is an over-protective mother who removes all choices from her teenager daughter, Allison (Diane Varsi), including her selection of friends Allison seems a strong candidate for rebellion once the opportunity arises

Allison's best friend is Selena Cross (Hope Lange), who lives in a shack on the wrong side of town with her mother, Constance's housekeeper Betty Field, and her drunk stepfather, Lucas (Arthur Kennedy).

There is also Russ Tamblyn, "stuck" in a failure cycle emotionally, and socially; Barry Coy, the wild son of the town's richest businessman; Terry Moore, the high school flirt; David Nelson, the boyfriend of Selena Cross; and Doc Swain (Lloyd Nolan), the voice of logic... These are the most distinguished characters among a great collection of townspeople whose lives form a model of misunderstanding, scandal, and nasty secrets

Mark Robson's drama draws nine Oscar nominations...


Okay, so I wasn't alive in the 50s. But my father certainly was.

He recommended this movie to me, and I have to say -- I was impressed.

It represents one of the few mainstream films of the era that presented day-to-day life as it really was. Peyton Place is a movie that strips away the candy-coated exterior which surrounds many a 50s film, and shows the raw and flawed lives of people who are struggling with issues that viewers in today's society can still relate to.

Although a different genre, it wasn't until I delved deeper into Film Noir that I discovered more films that presented an edgier and raw window into the world of the 40s and 50s. I appreciate a writer or director that has the guts to risk losing viewers by insisting on honest presentation of culture or events.

This film is worth a look.


The book "Peyton Place" came out in the early 1950s. It blew off the lid of a small New England town full of rape, murder, sex, abortion, infidelity, suicide etc etc. Even though the town (and residents) were fictitious, this book created an uproar. It was a huge best seller but condemned as utter trash by all book critics and "moral" people everywhere (of course they were buying the book themselves). Now, almost 50 years later, it's considered a great literary novel and taught in colleges!

Hollywood took the book, toned it down considerably, went all the way to Maine to film it and basically gave it Grade A treatment. It has a great cast, a stunning score by Franz Waxman, gorgeous New England photography and moves along at a fast clip. The once racy stuff is very tame by today's standards but it's kind of amusing to watch--the dialogue scene between Diane Varsi and Russ Tamblyn (about sex) is giggle-inducing. An abortion is never called that--it's called "inducing a miscarriage". A rape becomes "forcing himself on her". Still, the main stories in the book come across...and it works very well. The cast really helps.

Lana Turner is just great as Constance MacKenzie--a woman with a deep secret. Lloyd Nolan is perfect as Doc Swain--he even gets the New England accent down right! Arthur Kennedy is downright terrifying as Lucas Cross and Hope Lange is fantastic as his step-daughter. Everybody else (with one exception) is good but the ones mentioned above were the best. The one debit is Diane Varsi--she's TERRIBLE as Alison MacKenzie. Unfortunately, she's the main character. Her face is always blank and her readings are in a monotone. Especially bad are her narrations over the scenery. You see just jaw-droppingly beautiful scenery---and her drab, toneless voice droning on. Still, everything else is so good she's easy to overlook.

OK--it's a soap opera but a VERY good one. The 2 1/2+ hours just flew by. Highly recommended.


PEYTON PLACE has had quite a reputation as a book and a movie. The movie is BASED on the book, and is NOT the book. In my opinion, the film is much better. Attitudes have changed and I can imagine what the film would be like if it were re-made. What was implied in the book would be glorified on the screen. Besides, the film makers of today can't hold a candle to the film makers of yore. Small town scandal has been a topic for movies forever and a day, but none better than PEYTON PLACE. The acting is first rate, especially by DIANE VARSI; HOPE LANGE and LANA TURNER in the lead female roles. The male roles are a bit underdeveloped and LEE PHILLIPS seems a bit off as Michael Rossi. However, the more I see the film the more he grows on me, as does the entire film. The location sites are great as is the cinematography. The lush score by Franz Waxman really seals the films brilliance. This movie must be seen on the wide-screen with stereo sound for the full impact and appreciation. PEYTON PLACE clocks in at 2 hours and 37 mins., but could have been longer. The only distraction is the rear projection for Lana Turners exterior scenes. It's quite obvious she did not go on location. There are even doubles for her in the long shots. Besides these minor distractions, PEYTON PLACE is a must repeat viewing again and again. A shame the career of Diane Varsi stalled so quickly after three more films. I went to school with her sister, Gail, and I'm know she would have gone on to stardom if she had the chance. She was equally talented.


Based on the bestselling novel by Grace Metalious, Peyton Place is a solid melodrama all about the secrets and scandals of a small New England town. John Michael Hayes did a fine job of adapting the book, tightening the plot and losing most of the cynicism, though it can be argued that the book's feminist slant was lost in the process as well. Mark Robson's direction is the model of craftsmanship; the film is slick entertainment that moves along smoothly and assuredly. And what a cast! Lana Turner justly earned an Academy Award nomination for her work her (sadly, her only nomination); obviously identifying with elements of the role, she delivers her most even keeled performance. She also has terrific chemistry with Diane Varsi, playing her daughter. Other great performances are provided by Hope Lange, Russ Tamblyn, Terry Moore, and Lloyd Nolan. Peyton Place is more than just an artifact of the 1950s; it's been highly influential, and if you don't believe me, just take a look at Dawson's Creek.


Exceptional, affecting melodrama about small-town life in America. The story is at times a bit tawdry, but it is always intelligent, complex and it is populated with many memorable and realistic characters. They're people to care about. Better yet, the actors portraying them are mostly brilliant. I had some problems with Arthur Kennedy's performance; it's too over-the-top, and not up to the same level of maturity as many of the others. I also thought Lee Philips was weak in a key role. But Lana Turner, Diane Varsi, Russ Tamblyn, Terry Moore, Barry Coe, Mildred Dunnock, Lloyd Nolan, Leon Ames, and Hope Lange give enormously sensitive performances that will live with me for a long time. Especially Ms. Lange, who is just heartbreaking as a young woman who is sexually abused by her alcoholic stepfather (Arthur Kennedy). The story is frank (1950s frank) and intelligent about sex and the way that small towns treat it. I would surely credit director Robson with keeping this film, which could easily have been a disaster, flowing like a gentle stream. It's a rarity that a Hollywood film like this could be so insightful about small-town life. It does have one big narrative problem, and that is that its climax is a trial. It's not often that a climactic trial works well, and there is no exception for Peyton Place. It seems fake, and the lawyers and defendants don't present evidence in an at all believable fashion. And then there's this cringe-inducing third-act speech. It belongs in a lesser film. 9/10.


Peyton Place is a great and realistic observation of human behavior taken in the context of when and where it was written, no matter how shocking truth may appear. After years of medical practice, I have lived many experiences not unlike that of Dr. Swain in this novel/movie. I saw "Peyton Place" for the first time in my late forties as part of a CineClub presentation. I grew up naively in a small North East farm town in the late 50's. My grand uncle was our local Country Doctor. I was frightened if not scandalized by the big city lifestyle when I moved to the city to attend medical school. He assured me that "we" had the same "scandals" in our community, it was just "hidden or kept secret". In all honesty, I had already witnessed some of these issues as they shook my own family of origin. Later, I returned to practice in a rural town. As I got closer to the native citizens, I discovered many secrets, secrets not unlike some of the tragic events that took Peyton Place by storm. As I grew older (and hopefully wiser), I realized that each town has their own "Peyton Place". It's all around us, it's is part of our human nature, part of it is in each one of us. Mrs. Metalious, the author of this great novel, paid the price of her own honesty with her life. This novel and the movie that it is based on, have to be taken in the time context it was created. Unfortunately, many of these events are still taking place around us today. I have witnessed them through my interaction with many patients and friends. Love, lust, passion, ambition, greed, envy... are all basic instincts that drive us through the meanders of life, some leading us to good outcomes others to tragedy. I recently returned from our occupation in Iraq where I was severely injured in combat, ending my career as a physician. I saw the best and also the worst of what man can do to mankind. I witnessed many issues that I saw in Peyton Place, only on a larger scale. Peyton Place bears witness to a part of the world we live in, it is in all of us. The events taking place in her youth were the source of Grace Metalious' novel and shaped the course of her story. I highly recommend this movie, it is part of history, our American history, good or bad. Finally, I greatly appreciate all the viewers that take time to share their opinion about movies with the readers through IMDb's Comments Place. May God or your "Higher Power" bless you all, GLN.


I just finished the book Peyton Place last night and was excited to get the movie on laserdisc to see how Hollywood interpreted the true to life stories of the numerous characters in the novel. I was horrified to see every female character stripped away of her individuality and independent strength. One character's low-cut dresses and "easy" lifestyle are simply explained away by her admiting it was all to get the boy she loved since she was six to marry her. What happened to Matalious' strong female voices that spoke their mind and came to grips with their own inner strength. A very disappointing outlook even for a 1957 story. I did not expect the novel verbatim but also did not expect an entire whitewash of the true drama in life. See the movie if only to explain why our parents revolted so strongly in the sixties from the morals taught them in the fifties.


In 1941, in the small town of Peyton Place, Michael Rossi (Lee Phillips) is hired as the new principal of the local high school. While the students are preparing to graduate, some of them live personal dramas. Allison MacKenzie (Diane Varsi) aspires to be a successful writer, but she is very repressed by her widow dominant mother Connie MacKenzie (Lana Turner), a woman dedicated to raise her daughter in a conservative way and work hard in her shop only. When her mother believes in a gossip about Allison and her friend Norman Page (Russ Tamblyn), Allison argues with Connie and she discloses her hidden past, and Allison moves to New York. Allison's best friend Selena Cross (Hope Lange) lives with her mother, the housemaid Nellie Cross (Betty Field), her small brother Joseph and her abusive drunken stepfather, the janitor Lucas Cross (Arthur Kennedy), in a very poor cabin. The wealthy Rodney Harrington (Barry Coe) loves his independent and ahead of time girlfriend Betty Anderson (Terry Moore), in spite of his father Mr. Harrington (Leon Ames) be against their relationship. Selena is raped by Lucas and later she aborts the child while escaping from Lucas. The local Dr. Matthew Swain (Lloyd Nolan) takes care of her, forges his records and gets a written confession of Lucas, forcing him to leave Peyton Place. With the attack of Pearl Harbor, the youngsters join the armed forces to fight in the World War II. Lucas returns, tries to abuse Selena, but she reacts and kills him. When Selena is sent to trial, she makes Dr. Swain to promise that he would never disclose the truth, since she was afraid of the scandal and of hurting her beloved boy-friend. However, Dr. Swain exposes the sordid, hypocrite and despicable moral behavior of the local gossipy and intolerant dwellers and tells the drama of Selena to the jury.

"Peyton Place" is a dated melodrama, a soap opera that shows the stereotypical lifestyle of a small town in America in the 40's. The false morality and intolerance rules the relationships among the dwellers, with gossips, sexual repression and snobbery in a hypothetic "Peyton Place". This film has many good moments, the best one when the doctor exposes the wounds and the truth about the dwellers, but also shows lots of clichés. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Caldeira do Diabo" ("The Devil's Boiler").


This is one of the prime examples of what happens when screenwriters take a great book and for some unknown reasons change a great deal of the plot. The Alison in the book was a shy, quiet, gawky teen - this Alison is relatively confident and beautiful. The Selena in the book is described regularly as a dark, gypsy-ish looking girl - Hope Lange, who plays her, is a blonde. The Selena in the book had no speaking relationship with her father, but the movie actually opens up with his apologizing to all for his drinking behavior - something he did not do ONCE in the book! The poor schoolteacher - what happened to her role and personality from the book? It's nonexistent. The character in the movie has nothing to do with the character in the book. At the very beginning of the movie, she has a conversation with Lucas Cross that NEVER could have taken place in the book. Mr. Rossi, one of the central characters, opens his role in the movie in a completely different fashion than the book depicts. In other words: watch this very, very soapish opera and poorly done translation - as long as you're not expecting to see the book, in movie form. SO many books have this happen. And amazingly, the movies that are the best, are those that stick to the plot line as closely as possible, in as reasonable a way as possible (see: The Godfather!). There really wasn't any reason to change the book as much as they did. I have no clue what the screenwriters were thinking. This movie is a very, very thinly veiled "cover" of the book. It was terribly disappointing, after really loving the book. Unless you haven't read the book, DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!


Grace Metalious' explosive best-selling novel is given the Hollywood treatment in 1957's "Peyton Place". Devoid of so much of the nonsense that has been known to permeate other melodramas, "Peyton Place" is a beautifully filmed, effective film that uncovers the hidden scandals of a quaint, New England town. With fine acting, score and cinematography, this screen classic translates well from its literary heritage. And the film's unraveling of the town's secrets is handled well - building up like a ball of snow as each successive scandal is unearthed.

We meet the townspeople from the point-of-view of Allison Mackenzie(Diane Varsi), the sweet and sheltered daughter of Constance(Lana Turner). Constance struggles to be a good mother and community member, while rebuffing the advances of handsome school principal, Michael Rossi(Lee Philips). On the other side of the tracks live Constance's housekeeper whose daughter, Selena(Hope Lange), struggles as a victim of abuse by her own step-father. In the midst of these primary plots are several other tales revolving around sex, love and the war. No one is immune to the reveal of secrets, which have a domino effect all across town.

"Peyton Place" shook the foundation of Hollywood's censorship board by exposing such taboo topics as sexual abuse and abortion, but not once does it come off as exploitative. On the contrary, the film is firmly grounded in emotion and genuine feeling. And while the movie straddles the line of good taste, a plot involving the war effort and its effect on the young men of Peyton Place proves to be profound. Lana Turner does her job well as the repressed mother. In fact, heated passion can be sensed underneath her aloof, icy-cold exterior - a chill factor even more effective 2 years later in "Imitation of Life". And the incredibly good-looking Lee Philip is a perfect match the screen beauty. But it is really with the sensitive performances of Diane Varsi and Hope Lange that this film gains its legs. And Lloyd Nolan cannot be overlooked as the town's warm-hearted doctor. "Peyton Place" could have been a heaving, overblown showcase, but instead made its way into becoming an important melodrama that has stood the test of time.


(Some spoilers) So, this is what all the furor was about, huh? Well, I'm sure that the novel, for its time, was in fact as scandalous as I've heard. Of course, due to Code restrictions, the movie version was watered down, although it still manages to deliver its message. I must say that the film certainly does not lack plot points  there are many plots to the story, yet when it was all over it still felt somehow anticlimactic, due to the unrealistically up-beat ending. It's as though, having gone through so many trials and tribulations (very well portrayed by the entire cast), all is right with the world again. Did the novel end this way? I'll have to read it and find out.

I would have liked to have seen more of the character of Norman Page (played fabulously by Russ Tamblyn). His was such an interesting character, yet was given limited screen time. This is a shame, as I wanted to know more about him each time he appeared on the screen. (SPOILER>>) This lack of depth in the script was probably due to the taboo nature of his relationship with his mom. A very fine performance by Tamblyn nonetheless.

Hope Lange was heartbreaking as Selena Cross, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks. Her meek demeanor and then the cracks in that façade made for a powerful performance. You just knew that someone was going to end up having to take control over the sickening situation of her family life, and I cheered when (her fear still paralyzing her to fight completely) the doctor (a superb Lloyd Nolan  extremely believable as a caring physician) came forward to help rectify the situation and clear her name.

Lana Turner was great as Constance MacKenzie, although she too did not have enough screen time. In fact, as averse as I usually am to longer films, I feel as though Peyton Place could have benefitted from another half hour at least. Turner's conflicts with daughter Allison (Diane Varsi in a strong performance) were very realistic, and the viewer can easily identify with both characters and their development throughout the film. Very well done.

Lee Philips was pretty good as Michael Rossi, the handsome new school principal. His is the first character to challenge the town's usual way of thinking. In the end, he gets his way, but not until after several struggles with the community, his love interest and himself. The only drawback here is the actor's voice, which is really squeaky. In fact, if you look closely, some of his dialog seems to be dubbed  what it must have sounded like originally, one can only guess!

A more minor sub-plot was that of Rodney Harrison, the Harvard-bound high school graduate facing scandal due to his love for the infamous loose-living high school girl, Betty Anderson. This aspect of the story also had a lot more potential that what was seen, and again, its (sad) resolve was too pat  although truer-to-life than some of the plots. Both Barry Coe as Rodney and Terry Moore as Betty were believable in their roles, and this viewer was saddened by their fates which, given the times, was unsurprising  a `you play, you pay' attitude.

Peyton Place as a character itself also goes through a metamorphosis in the film. An excellent narrative device of Allison MacKenzie's voiceover describing the changing seasons perfectly represented the changing attitudes/times for the town and its people. In effect, the passage of time and the seasons serve to illustrate the townspeople maturing and adapting to life as the world and its ideals evolve. The mechanisms of this transformation was the strong point of the story, and was quite effective, indeed.

So  a somewhat dated film with a social conscience and not without its merits.


Grace Metalious' bestseller comes to the screen with lavish good taste, but the small town scandals depicted are not entirely white-washed. Glossy melodrama directed by Mark Robson allows star Lana Turner to suffer nobly, playing single mother to graduating teenager Diane Varsi, harboring a skeleton in her family closet while being romanced by high school principal Lee Philips (in an appealing performance). Varsi and her friends are all awakening to the joys of boy-girl coupling, unsure about sex and not about to ask their parents for help. Involving and polished, though just a bit stiff or starchy. The courtroom climax (with shopgirl Hope Lange on trial for killing her abusive step-father) is really corny, but fans of the soap genre will be enthralled. Fashioned into a popular television serial starting in 1964. Followed by "Return to Peyton Place" in 1961, which featured none of the talents assembled here. *** from ****


"Peyton Place" hooks me from the first scene to the end. Every time it appears on television, I always have difficulty changing the channel.

The movie have its share of dated trappings and mistakes (as a previous IMDb user commented, the film is set during WWII and the 50's fashions don't match the 40's setting) as well as the Hays Office mandates were still in effect, which also explains why some story lines were purposely watered-down or even censored.

In spite of the flaws (or even because of the flaws?), many of the performances, including Lana Turner, Hope Lange, Arthur Kennedy and, especially, Lloyd Nolan as the town doctor and the voice of reason, were outstanding. (The movie was nominated for 9 Academy Awards including 5 nominations in the acting categories. Nolan should have been the 6th.)

Beautifully photographed by William Mellor and a very memorable and still classic musical score by Franz Waxman, "Peyton Place" is an entertaining drama that still has an effect on this viewer.


This is the quintessential example of a bad book being turned into an excellent film. The novel was an international best seller which "ripped the lid off" a small town. The movie explored the psychology of the characters and featured some superb acting as well as a musical score that ranks with the very best. Franz Waxman flavored the music with a touch of Aaron Copland and came up with a real winner. Photography was stunning, and the movie makes great use of wide screen.


I love older movies and especially try to watch the ones I have heard of but never seen. For the most part when I do this I am somewhat disappointed in the movie. This is the exception. This movie was well worth watching. I thought the casting was excellent, the characters developed well and scenery was great. It was like a walk back in time. I especially liked the way that many different characters were developed, and you want to know more about each of them. You wonder how they lived the rest of their lives. This is to me a true test of how good a movie is. Did the boys make it home from the war alive? Did Allison become a famous writer? Did Connie and the principal get married? I wish there was a part two to this movie. I would stand in line to watch it.


OK for starters the movie entertains me lots, but i still think that, between all the silly dialog of this characters and their morality problems resides just a silly movie full of clichés and a beautiful cinematography.

The movie, based on a famous bestseller from the 50s, is full of rape, misogyny, murder, abortion ... a lot of topics for a trashy exploitation movie. This is not exploitation, even if all the topics are included here. The thing is that are so, but really so outdated, that you cant avoid the jiggle.

Still, the performances are very good, the Cinemascope photography is gorgeous, and, at the end, the direction takes for more thank two hours of material like this. So, it's trashy but catchy.

A 7.