In a bombed-out Vienna just after WWII, novelist Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) arrives from America to renew a friendship with his childhood buddy, Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Much to the dismay of Holly, a freak auto accident has recently killed his friend, according to those who knew Harry.

But in searching for details of Lime's death, Holly gets contradictory stories that don't add up. One of the persons who knew Lime is an attractive woman named Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli) whose continued presence in the story invites suspicion. The film's plot has Holly searching for the truth about his friend, while trying to stave off a city detective, Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) who tries to persuade Holly to leave Vienna.

The film's story is okay. But what makes "The Third Man" really interesting is the B&W cinematography, by Robert Krasker. Unlike most films, camera movement here is restricted, so as to draw attention to each frame's geometry. Typically in this film, a frame is tilted at an angle so that both vertical and horizontal points of reference are off-kilter. Frame images thus become a series of diagonal straight lines and curves. Further, very high-contrast lighting, especially in outdoor scenes at night, creates a bizarre, almost nightmarish look and feel, and are suggestive of German Expressionism.

All of which results in a visual disorientation for viewers that parallels Holly's disorientation both in the streets of Vienna and in his understanding of the circumstances surrounding Lime's absence. In most outdoor scenes there's a conspicuous lack of crowds, a lack of hubbub one would expect in a bustling city. Instead, only a few secondary characters appear in night scenes. This sparseness in characters on the streets conveys the impression that hidden eyes are watching Holly, ready to pounce at any moment from out of dark shadows.

"Everybody ought to (be) careful in a city like this", says one character to Holly, as an implied threat. Soon, a man who wants to give Holly some valuable information is murdered.

The script's dialogue is quite impressive, with some interesting lines and points of view. Some of the dialogue is in German, which enhances authenticity.

The film's acting and editing are very, very good. Adding a slightly romantic, and at times melancholy, tone to this dark film is the music of the "zither", an instrument similar to a guitar, but sounding quite different.

My one complaint about this film is that it's hard to keep tabs on some of the background characters. Trying to connect names with faces can be difficult, resulting in some confusion.

"The Third Man" tells an interestingly bleak story, set in a bleak, desolate urban environment, rendered truly mesmerizing by the creatively surreal B&W cinematography.


A young American novelist, Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton), arrives in Vienna looking for his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Once in the city, however, he learns that Harry Lime has passed away. Shocked, Holly Martins starts asking questions, a lot of them. He is told a number of different stories that eventually lead him to believe that Harry Lime was killed.

Determined to find out who is responsible for Harry Lime's murder, the American embarks on a treacherous journey amidst the unfriendly streets of Vienna. Soon, he is entangled in a web of deceit and dangerous machinations. Along the way, the American also encounters the beautiful Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli), a Czech national with forged Austrian papers, who agrees to help him.

Written by the legendary Graham Greene, Carol Reed's The Third Man is a terrific hybrid of a film where noir, neo-realism and Hollywood bravado are mixed to perfection. Set in post-war Vienna, the film is very much a dark caricature of sorts where the finesse, elegance and tradition of Old Europe are seen through the eyes of a naive but ambitious American looking for his missing friend.

Contrary to what many critics have claimed, the actual story is rather complicated. A giant mystery surrounding Oscar Welles' character, Harry Lime, is slowly peeled off, piece by piece. As a result, The Third Man quickly evolves into a guessing game where every little detail is worth analyzing. As expected for a noir-film, there is also a dangerous femme fatale who becomes a prominent player as soon as the main protagonist reaches Austrian soil.

In addition to strong dark overtones, The Third Man also boasts a great deal of nihilism. Betrayal and impossible love for example are depicted by Carol Reed with a sense of realism that feels uncannily contemporary. Not surprisingly, The Third Man works incredibly well not only as a non-stop adventure film, but also as a realistic depiction of a world struggling to recuperate after an enormous tragedy.

Furthermore, even though The Third Man is a British film, its view on Old Europe is distinctively American. The clash of cultural ideologies, as witnessed through the interactions between Alida Valli and Joseph Cotton, is particularly impressive. There are entire scenes where Carol Reed focuses on the American whose alarming naivety produces some of the most hilarious yet, disturbing sequences that compliment the mystery.

Finally, Anton Karas' soundtrack is beautiful. The mellow sounds produced by his zitner grant The Third Man with an entirely new flavor, one that blends with the dark vistas from Vienna's sewers exceptionally well. Not surprisingly, the atmosphere The Third Man sustains is often cited as its greatest strength.


The turmoil of post-war Vienna provides the backdrop for the story of "The Third Man" and some exquisite expressionistic cinematography is used to convey the sense of menace and pessimism which prevailed in the city at that time. The plot centres on two men and the way in which their longstanding friendship gradually unravels and finally comes to a fatal conclusion.

Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton) is an American author who travels to Vienna to take up the offer of a job working with his old friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Soon after his arrival he learns that Lime has been killed in an accident and after attending his funeral, intends to return home as soon as possible. He changes his mind, however, when he is invited to speak to the members of a local book club. After a few people provide Martins with information about Lime's accident, he becomes intrigued by some apparent contradictions in their stories and seeks out Lime's girlfriend Anna (Alida Valli). A British military policeman, Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) encourages Martins to leave Vienna and provides him with convincing evidence of the odious nature of the racket in which Lime was involved. Shortly after this, Martins discovers that Lime is actually still alive and meets with him at a local amusement park. Lime invites Martins to join his racket but Martins refuses and later goes on to assist Calloway in capturing his old friend. As a result of this act of betrayal, Anna puts a permanent end to their friendship.

"The Third Man" is an extremely stylish movie in which the sombre, claustrophobic atmosphere of its location is evoked perfectly by use of top class cinematography and a theme tune which fits its purpose far more effectively than any orchestral score could possibly have done. Add to this the great "I never knew the old Vienna" narration, Harry Lime's famous cuckoo clock speech and the drama of Martins' tale of optimism, disillusion, betrayal and loss and you end up with a real classic which continues to have an enduring appeal.


The fine acting, stunning cinematography, incredible lighting, and remarkable art direction is all accompanied by the numbing, bouncy, unsurpassable zither music. This complex, eerie story is told with cynical narration and shadowy imagery. From the amateur floating in the water, to (spoilers) the balloon seller, whose enormous shadow is thought to be that of Harry lime. The story is almost brutal to the protagonist, the poor sap by the name of Holly Martins who falls into an unhealthy love story.

The final scenes and opening scenes reach perfection. In fact, so do the middle ones. This is is one of the few films that I would never change anything in. From the wry humor to the masterful suspense and dark villains, this will always be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, movies ever made.


It took me a number of years to see it. Always knew the music, but never took the time to watch it..for some reason or another. Few years ago saw it on a Classic Cable movie channel. I have not stopped watching it since. About a year ago, I BOUGHT THE DVD SPECIAL EDITION..I always find a reason to see it again. And I keep finding more things in it..to make it more rewarding each time. syl.


Just a few notes on exceptional scenes, what's in them and what's not: 1) the ending, the framed shot that lingers for 50 seconds as Anna advances down the esplanade of the cemetery towards Holly and beyond; 2) the hospital scene: not a single shot of the children, but the tattered teddy bear was enough; 3) the wait for Harry to show in the cafe`: the close-ups of the faces of the military men waiting in ambush were straight out of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" and with the same dramatic impact; 4) the total absence of sizzling sex scenes, profanity, & gory violence (with one exception, none of the men killed is seen being killed, and in that one case there is no gore, only a quick hitting sadness); 5) and couldn't it have been just possible that Anna was wanted by the Soviets as a war criminal? Here's where Graham Greene's screenplay was strictly Cold War boilerplate: The Russians were necessarily the "bad guys," prepared to harbor a scumbag like Lime and persecute a sensitive soul like "Anna Schmidt" (maybe she'd been the lover of a high-ranking Nazi commander of a death camp and had shared in his sadistic delights). And, finally, the bozos in this column who disliked the music because it had an "Hawaiian sound" must have thought they were listening to Arthur Godfrey on the ukelele rather than Anton Karas' zither. Cold War boilerplate or not: 10 out of 10.


A masterpiece from all aspects. The black and white cinematography depicting each detail (and wow what shadows), the cast of splendid actors and actress, even those playing minor roles, not sparing any facial details!! And oh what background of Zither music. They surely do not make such movies any more.


This stunning film noir's politics may seem a bit dated, but besides that it hasn't aged a day. The cinematography is brilliant, the performances flawless. Easily ranks with Chinatown, The Maltese Falcon and Touch of Evil among the great film noirs of all time. Orson Welles leaves a lasting impression in his mere 3 scenes. Joseph Cotton is brilliantly restrained as the out of his depth American writer. Carol Reed's direction is magnificent. That last shot is, in my opinion, the best ending to a film noir EVER.


One of the top 100 films of all time. This film tells the story of an American writer's journey to a post-war Vienna in search of a friend he thought he knew. Ultimately he learns his beloved friend is very different from the one he had once known and loved. He is destroyed by this discovery and the choice he must make. The acting is superlative, the cinematography, haunting & the story tells a truth for all time. See it.


Dig that Zither music! The musical score makes this movie.

The Third Man isn't as great as all the hype it gets, but it is an entertaining film. Alida Valli is a standout as Anna and Joseph Cotton is very good as Holly Martins.

*****************Mild Spoilers Ahead*********************************

The opening scene at the funeral near the beginning of The Third Man has something hauntingly memorable about it. There's also clever use of a cat involved in an eerie scene that reveals Harry Lime. The ferris wheel scene is absorbing. And of course there is the desperation of the ruthless and clever Harry Lime (Orson Wells) when he is chased in the sewer. And don't forget the ending with Anna (Alida Valli) walking along the road a second time just like an earlier scene. This film has many fine moments and it is well crafted. Carol Reed, the director, had a nice touch. I don't think the cinematography deserved a best Oscar, though. The film wasn't lit up enough in some scenes. Dark lighting is ok and realistic, but you can go so far that you miss much of the action.

Then of course there is the zither music. It's wonderful.

I rate this film a 9 out of 10. Very watchable, but I'm not sure it's a classic.


Many superlatives have already been said, and deservedly so, about this excellent film. A suspenseful mystery, well-acted by all major characters. Welles especially, as the mysterious Harry Lime, personifies evil even more effectively (if that's possible) than characters such as Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs) or Andy Robinson (Dirty Harry). Who can forget Lime's words spoken from the top of Vienna's ferris wheel about being paid for stopping those "dots below" (people) from moving or his Italy & Renaissance v Switzerland & cuckoo clock comparison. Simply, a "must see" film.


Just about my favorite black and white movie. And a fine mystery at that. Cotton, Wells, Valli and the rest of the cast all fit their roles. Hyde-White as Crabbin injects that bit of surprise into the movie. Valli gives you that hopeless feeling that many people felt after the war. I cant think of anyone else that could have done the roles better. The chase scenes are legend. You just cant find movies like this anymore.


The Third Man is a noir thriller set in postwar Vienna which tells the story of a couple of Americans trying to renew a childhood friendship in a foreign country after growing up to be very different people. Like all of Graham Greene's fiction, the film makes themes of betrayal, the loss of innocence, and the true difficulty of forming apparently simple moral judgements.

Many people count this as their favourite movie, which is remarkable for a British film of the 1940s. It is just a very successful coming-together of many wonderful talents: Greene wrote a classic screenplay, Carol Reed's direction is inspired genius, and Orson Welles, Trevor Howard, Joseph Cotton and others contributed unforgettable performances. Anton Karas's theme music is legendary. The cinematography is stunning.

You can become obsessed with this film, and if you do you will want to read Charles Drazin's excellent 1999 book "In Search of the Third Man". I also recommend the reviews by the eminent British critic Philip French, who has much of interest to say about the sources for Greene's screenplay.


This movie is so good that I barely feel qualified to comment on it. I first saw it as a 7 year old in the early 50s and, although unable at the time to appreciate its full qualities, I remained strangely moved by it and have been haunted by it ever since. This is the only perfect movie ever made. I guess most of the great things about photography and charisma and zither theme and story have been said by people far more articulate than I. However, there are two points I would like to make. Firstly, the camera angles seem to be designed to preclude the viewer from ever being comfortable in involvement with what is not meant to be a comfortable story. Secondly, the ending is just perfect, but the scene just prior to the ending is even more so. Watch as Lime is trapped in the sewer and Calloway tells Martins to shoot him. Harry turns to Holly and gives an almost imperceptible nod, and Holly pulls the trigger. Now that has some impact!


One of the finer films ever made. Masterful direction and screenplay set against a dreary but romantic postwar Austria. Even if you dont dig film noir, you will enjoy this. Pop it in the VCR sometime after midnight and soak it in baby.


I envy anyone seeing this for the first time; I was young when I first saw it and was quite entertained, but couldn't get the most out of it.

Now I've watched it many times and realize the masterful integration of plot, setting, characters, sound, scene, pace, etc. that make it a great flick.

The Criterion DVD is very nice (should be, at that price), especially the original Graham Greene story and his comments.


SPOILER

I would like my 50th user comment to celebrate a rather special film, so what better than a thanksgiving for "The Third Man".

It would go something like this...."'I never knew the old Vienna before the war with its - 'what?" "What city is next mentioned?" "'That's a nice girl that. But she ought to be careful in Vienna....' Who is speaking and what is the next line?" "'Mr Martins, what author has chiefly influenced you?' How does he reply and what is the response?"...And so it would go on. Time - circa 1950; place - a grammar school North-West of London; speakers - a group of 6th formers during a school break testing each other's knowledge about their latest cinematic discovery. If we had known the term "cult film" in those days "The Third Man" would have been ours. We were just a little too young to have been affected by "Casablanca", "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Big Sleep" and "Citizen Kane" did not really become known in this country until way after it was made. No, "The Third Man" was ours and I still think it as light-years away from the others I have mentioned in quality. We saw it on every available occasion and it was not long before I had chalked up ten viewings. Imagine my excitement when I was staying with my French exchange partner and he suggested we go to a cinema in Angers to see "Le Troisieme Homme". It was great sharing it with him and his mother and as I almost knew the dialogue by heart by then, I understood every word. in spite of my limited French. Just a few reflections many years on about a work that has been part of my experience for almost as long as I can remember. I could go on at great length about those tremendous set-pieces, Harry Lime's appearance in the doorway, Holly Martin's disastrous performance at the literary meeting, the ride on the Ferris wheel and the sewer chase, but it has all been said before. In any case visual and dramatic bravura alone do not make for greatness. "The Third Man" is a masterpiece because it states, or rather understates, some most perceptive things about the human condition. It is really a film about unrequited love. In a work where chases predominate it is the pursuit by Holly Martins for the affection of Anna Schmidt, Lime's lover, that is at the real heart of things. It is impossible to understand human chemistry, why Anna should be attracted to the amoral and ruthless Harry rather than kindly Holly who wants so much to give. But then there is an even greater irony inasmuch as Holly too is drawn to Harry; after all they have friends since boyhood. When Harry is finally cornered it is Holly who pulls the trigger that puts him out of his misery, like an act of kindness to a wounded beast. Carol Reed was at the height of his powers when he made "The Third Man", but he still had something almost as great to give before his slow decline. Perhaps I shall save the wondrous "Outcast of the Islands" for my hundredth offering.


The perfect ending, the great theme that will play in your head for days afterwards, love, post war Vienna, black market scams, a faked death, a friends betrayal for what is right and Welles. If you have any doubt about how good this genius was, check this movie out. He's on the screen for about 10 minutes, yet steals the film from the brilliant performances of Joseph Cotton, Trevor Howard etc. The classic bad guy that somehow you can't bring yourself to hate.

 Check it out and see if you can hate Orson when he flashes you that smile.


After watching the film, I looked over its reviews and I was not surprised by the vast divergence of opinion concerning it. It doesn't meet the expectations that many have for a movie. While I side with those that think the movie is great, I think many of the people who loved it praised it for the wrong reasons. This is not a movie with a "gripping" plot or characters you will remember for the rest of your life (and yes the zither music would seem out of place if you're seeking pathos). But to criticize the movie for those reasons (as many reviewers did) seems like criticizing "Ulysses" for being a little slow-going. Everything in the movie is DESIGNED to create the utmost emotional detachment for the viewer. Examples include the zither music, the dispassionate and unsympathetic characters, the lack of concern demonstrated by the protagonist concerning his danger (denying the viewer real suspense), the absence of "preaching" about the horrors of post-War Europe, the refusal to show the film's climax, and shots that make you want to look at the architecture rather than the people. Thus, despite the fact that film's story is depressing in the extreme, the persistent mood of the film is a satisfying mixture of melancholy, amusement, and cheerfulness. The effect, made possible by its detachment, provides a proper emotional seeting to contemplate the aesthetics of the movie's superb cinemeotraphy. In conclusion, if you're looking for thrills or even deep thoughts, don't watch this movie. But if you want a cheerfully detached work of art, this is the movie for you.


Not one to dish out 10 out of 10 easily (check my other verdicts!), I must defer one to this film.

It has been years since I saw it, but it is one of half a dozen films I'm still hassling the DVD shop if it will be available on one.

All the elements of a great film are there, ruined if it had been shot in colour, ruined if the tune had been played on a piano, ruined if the echoes had been on modern Hi-fi, ruined if it had been any other way.


...that are actually better in German than in English. If you see it in German you will note the (sometimes subtle, sometimes big) differences in language, the different dialects (US, British, Austrian-English) and it is easier to tune into the setting of post-war Vienna, which has been split into four zones of occupancy. One of the best movies ever


While Dalton Trumbo's political and professional travails certainly affected his outlook, I believe he looked more to conventional history in scripting "The Boss".

Trumbo certainly used the corrupt Democratic political machine of Tom Pendergast as the template for his script. Small wonder. The Pendergast machine was one of the most enduring municipal fiefs of the mid-twentieth century.

The crook that Payne is forced to make deals with in "The Boss" appears to be based on the real-life overlord of Kansas City prohibition-era crime, Johnny Lazia. The gunfight sequence at the train station is directly drawn from the famous 'Kansas City Massacre' of 1933 when 'Pretty Boy' Floyd, Adam Richetti and Verne Miller mowed down several F.B.I. agents and also killed the crook they were trying to rescue, Frank 'Jelly' Nash.

Another interesting parallel between the film and actual history is that Harry S. Truman was sponsored by Tom Pendergast and managed to keep himself personally clean and advance his political career while remaining loyal to the Machine. Truman is portrayed down to his glasses in "The Boss" by Joe Flynn, subsequently known to many as "Captain Binghamton in "McHale's Navy".

One little known historical fact that was left out is that Truman's first official act upon becoming President after F.D.R. died in 1945 was to fire the U.S. Attorney for Missouri who successfully prosecuted Tom Pendergast for tax evasion and sent him to prison in 1939.

Truman was loyal to Pendergast to the very end.


Based on the story of Boss Tom Pendergast of Kansas City who ruled the roost there succeeding brother Jim from World War I until the outbreak of World War II, John Payne delivers a riveting portrayal of a political boss back in the day when these guys were at their heights running our nation's cities. Mostly, but not all were Democrats who rounded up and registered the foreign ethnic populations and got them to vote for the party slate. In the days before social welfare became a responsibility of government, these bosses while they enriched themselves also fed a lot of hungry people, giving them food and fuel for a winter. Tom Pendergast was no exception there.

When talking about some of the facts of the Pendergast machine operation, the screenplay by Dalton Trumbo under the pseudonym Ben L. Parry sticks pretty close to the facts. In fact Pendergast did do the things described in the film to a country club that high hatted him. The romantic angle however of Payne being in love with Doe Avedon who married best friend William Bishop and then marrying plain Jane Gloria McGehee in a moment of drunken weakness is a complete fabrication. In fact Pendergast's private life as far as we know was a model of probity and he and his wife raised several children, unlike here where he's shown to be a man alone even keeping his wife at room's length away.

The character of Joe Flynn, later Captain Binghamton on McHale's Navy is Harry Truman who was a county judge (commissioner) for Jackson County, Missouri and later United States Senator. Truman himself was honest, but he also winked and nodded at the corruption of others and some of the cronies he put into office as president embarrassed him no end.

Ward Boss Roy Roberts, Payne's brother is James Pendergast and it is true he ran a good chunk of Kansas City from his saloon. It's also quite true that Pendergast did make a deal with organized crime there who did open speakeasies in Kansas City like every place else in the USA. The famous Kansas City massacre did have a bad effect on his public image although not as immediately influential in bringing him down as shown in The Boss.

The Boss is a no frills uncompromising look at the soft underbelly of corruption in America back in the day. It's a well acted drama with John Payne in one of his best dramatic performances.


The Boss, filmed from a script by the blacklisted and hence uncredited Dalton Trumbo, starts in 1919 and ends somewhere in the Great Depression. It's about the corruption of a municipal machine that focuses on demobbed doughboy John Payne who, when his older brother dies, inherits his political clout.

On the night of his return he godrunk and married a stranger he comes to scorn (Gloria McGhee, whomakes you yearn for more of her). His only unwavering loyalty lies withan old wartime buddy (William Bishop), who has married the girl Payne loved. So all his passion goes into strengthening his hold over the city, including forging an unholy alliance with the (unnamed) Mafia.

Despite a precisely staged shootout in the train depot (did Brian De Palma borrow from this as well as from The Battleship Potemkin, for The Untouchables?), The Boss is really a somewhat Kane-ish look at the rise and fall of a lone wolf; Payne's tough yet touching performance lends an almost tragic tinge. The result is an involving period piece that dwells on the late fringes of film noir.

(One topical note: the men's costumes were by Dick Cheney.)


I originally saw the film when it came out and only saw it again recently. Scenes from the film have stayed with me and I wasn't disappointed when it ran on TV. John Payne, The Boss, was a good Hollywood portrayal of a crime boss. The bad guys are really bad and the good guys are few. Crooked politics, payoffs, rub-outs, double-crosses, brawls, you name it and it's used. Payne was a popular actor in the 40's but I didn't appreciate him at the time. Based on this film I will try to see some of his others. If you liked Asphalt Jungle you probably would also like The Boss.


This was much better than the late-night potboiler I had expected. Payne was playing such a vile character that his performance seemed a bit forced at times, but I can see why he did this picture since the portrayal is a bit different from most of his roles He's up to the stretch, and should have done more dramatic work and fewer formulaic westerns & cop/investigator parts. More plots and subplots than we're used to in this period, and it all works. Dalton Trumbo's heavyhanded anticapitalism, thoroughly-corrupt-government motif is a bit much, but that was the popular theme amongst the leftie writers of the period, much as it is even today.


***SPOILERS*** The film is obviously based on the notorious and mobbed up Tom Pendergast Missouri political machine that got future president of the United States Harry S. Truman, played by Joe Flynn using the name Ernie Jackson in the movie, elected senator. "The Boss" follows the career of a crooked politician Matt Brady, John Payne, from running the state of Missouri, that's never mentioned in the film, to running from the law and ending up spending his golden years in a federal penitentiary.

Coming back home from WWI as a decorated US Army captain Brady was uninterested in following his older brother Tim, Roy Roberts, footsteps in taking over the city's Third Ward. It was after a night of drinking and fighting with his best friend Bob Herrick, William Bishop, and while barley sober marrying a complete stranger Lorry Reed, Gloria McGhehee, that Brady finally came to his senses. It was also after being dumped by his girlfriend, who would later marry his best friend Bob, Elsie Reyonolds-Doe Avedow- and his brother Tim suddenly dropping dead, after having a violent argument with him, that changed Brady's way of thinking. Changing it for the worst not the better.

Being the top political king maker Brady controlled every politician in the state from Governor Beck, Harry Cheshire, on down to the local dog catcher. Ruthless and vindictive at anyone who as much as meekly disagreed with him Brady nurtured a slew of enemies who, when the time came, descended upon him like vultures on a dying corpse in the wild.

Brady went so far as getting involved with the mob who's head man Johnny Mazia, Robin Morse, he helped out, from going to jail, when he was a teenager. This happened when Brady got wiped out in the stock market and was deeply in debt to Mazia's gang in him losing over $200,000.00 in his gambling with Mazia's illegal bookies. With Brady having no choice but letting Mazia's gang have their way they turn the entire state of Missouri into a den of political corruption and mob drive-by shootouts and sponsored hit-jobs.

The final shoe to drop is when Brady gave the go ahead for Mazia to whack former gang member Morris Lazetti, John Mansfield, who was to turn states evidence against both him and Mazia in their criminal activities. This lead to what is now known as the "Kansas City Massacre" that cost the lives of a number of FBI Agents who were taking Lazetti, who was also killed, to Washington to testify.

With public outrage reaching its hight the city fathers lead by newly elected District Attorney Stanley Millard, Rhys Williams, have Brady kicked out of his position as head of the Third Ward. On top of all that there's also a federal charge in the murder of the FBI Agents, as well as fixing both federal and state elections, also hanging over Brady's head.

In the end even Bob Herrick, Brady's best friend, turned on him perjuring himself-in order to save his own hide-by falsely testifying that Brady took over a million dollars in kickbacks from a number of city insurance companies. What hurt Brady most is that he risked his life in saving Bob from being murdered by the Mazia mob! And this is the gratitude he ended up getting from him!

In the end a beaten and broken man ,looking at least twenty older then he actually is, Matt Brady who even his long suffering and abused wife Lorry couldn't quite bring herself to feel sorry for is seen walking into the state penitentiary- Leavenworth- with his trademark Cuban Cigar dropping to the ground as he prepares himself to spend the rest of his life behind prison bars.


In trying to jumpstart itself, this movie is somewhat heavy handed at the beginning, taking one notably big and questionable dramatic risk, but gains power slowly and turns into something of a monumental mini-epic with John Payne's changes of hair coloring registering his slow and merciless journey toward a godless end...what a performance, but it's not as good as Gloria McGehee's as the unwanted wife Lorry - which is about as good as you'll ever see from an actress on screen, period. Also great is Robin Morse as Johnny the Organization Man, a wonderful low key performance...where has this movie been all our lives? It's powerful, at times difficult to watch, brutal, and worth the ride.


According to Maureen O'Hara's memoirs, Alfred Hitchcock never liked to do period costume pieces, he felt those were not suitable to his particular talents. But he did this one for Daphne Du Maurier because he wanted to film Du Maurier's Rebecca later on. Which as we all know Hitchcock did and was very successful.

There are elements of Jamaica Inn that certainly might have appealed to Hitchcock. Maureen O'Hara arrives at the Jamaica Inn on Great Britain's Cornwall coast to stay with her aunt. The Inn however is the headquarters for a gang that wrecks ships on the coast, kills everyone on board and steals the cargo. Leslie Banks is the head of the group there. We also have a Georgian dandy in the person of Charles Laughton who has a lascivious eye for Maureen O'Hara. He's not what he appears to be. The whole idea of this innocent among the cutthroats not knowing who to trust would definitely have appealed to Hitchcock.

The original novel had Laughton's character as a hypocritical parson, but for American distribution his character was changed to a local nobleman. The Hays office forbade a man of the cloth be shown in such a light.

Parson or nobleman unfortunately Hitchcock did not rein in Laughton. In this particular film, he's just too hammy. Then again he was the co-producer of this so no one was in a position to tell him anything.

O'Hara credits Laughton for launching her career. He brought her to America right after this and had RKO sign her to play Esmerelda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. A far better film than Jamaica Inn.

Robert Newton and Emlyn Williams have roles of substance here as well. Jamaica Inn might be worth a look.


Even though it is one of the weakest works of Hitchcock, the film surprisingly provides rich cinematic flourishes. For a 1939 film, it captures on screen the atmosphere and dark mood of the novel quite vividlythe stormy scene, the cave, and the inn (with the name board flapping in the wind). It is another matter that the albino parson of the book is transformed into a squire (with an unbelievable eyebrow make-up) in the film who commands his steed to be brought inside his dining hall. Daphne du Maurier's novel was adapted for cinema by the trio of Sidney Gilliat, Joan Harrison and J.B. Priestley, and reportedly the author did not approve of the end-product.

As in many Hitchcock films there is a recurring reference to marriage. Here a good woman remains faithful to her boorish and cruel husband through thick and thin.

As in most Hitchcock films there is a lot of sexual innuendo without any sex on screen, especially when Pengallen (Charles Laughton) makes the young girl (Maureen O'Hara) his prisoner. (The only film where Hitchcock showed sex on screen was "Frenzy.") And as in many a Hitchcock film, a bad guy turns out to be a good guy. This is one of the rare films of Hitchcock where the director does not make a cameo appearance.

The best cinematic flourishes were-the focus on the thin hands of the 17 year old who cannot be shackled by the soldiers as the handcuffs are too big, the opening "prayer" that serves as a grim introduction and finally the last scene of the film: Chadwick, the squire's butler, who thinks he can hear his dead master calling him for help in death.


My wife and I had not heard of Jamaica Inn at all prior to buying a DVD collection of Hitchcock's works. We decided to watch the film as the Jamaica Inn is near where my Cornish ancestors lived.

We actually found the film gripping. Yes, the acting is stagy at times, but we always enjoy the "old style" acting. Apart from the dodgy special effects, we found the film quite gripping. Others have said that the Squire was clearly the villain from the start. That is true. The tension comes from us being aware that this is so - and watching as the hero and heroine become ensnared by him. Similarly, the almost constant night time scenes and the howling gales are oppressive and eerie...

Critics may say that the film is not as good as Psycho or The Birds. However, this film was made 20 years prior to those films. I think that it was a good effort, considering that it was made on the eve of WWII.


After years of hearing that this was one of, if not THE worst Hitchcock picture, finally seeing it was a pleasant surprise.

Sure, it's an unfamiliar genre for him (Under Capricorn would have to be the closest, and it really IS one of his worst), but it is a rollicking, exciting adventure romp, if you stop expecting it to be a Hitchcock masterpiece.

In the famous interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock dismisses the film very quickly, blaming its failure on Charles Laughton, who was co- producer and star, and brought in J B Priestley to build up his part. But it is SUCH an enjoyable performance --- over the top yes, this is Laughton we're talking about --but absolutely relishing his role as the hypocrotical magistrate who is secretly head of the smuggling gang. (Not really a SPOILER, it's revealed early in the picture .... too early for Hitchcock's liking.) And the delight he takes in tying up his female prisoner must surely be equally a reflection of Hitch's obsessions, as much as the character's.

Maureen O'Hara, making her debut, looks ravishing, but is far too healthy and robust and ACTIVE (and brunette) to be considered your typical Hitchcock heroine.

But you only have to watch the cutting in the opening scene of the first shipwreck to know that this is certainly the same man who gave us the shower scene in Psycho.


In the Nineteenth Century, in Cornwall, a group of pirates leaded by Joss Merlyn (Leslie Banks) uses false beacon to misguide ships to wreck on the rocks of the coast; then they kill the survivors to rob the cargo and gather in the Jamaica Inn, a place of ill fame. When the Irish orphan Mary Yellen (Maureen O'Hara) travels to Jamaica Inn to live with her aunt Patience (Marie Ney), the coachmen of her stagecoach refuses to stop in the infamy inn, and Mary asks for help in the house of the magistrate of the Justice of the Peace Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton) that rides with her to the inn. Her aunt had not received her letter but lodges her in a room. During the night, Mary overhears the pirates hanging their mate Trehearne (Robert Newton); however, she saves his life and escapes with him. They run to the house of Sir Humphrey, where Treheame identifies himself as Officer of Law. However, they do not know that sophisticated and arrogant Sir Humphrey Pengallan is the head of the gang of pirates.

"Jamaica Inn" is an underrated work of Alfred Hitchcock. The story is too dark, especially considering that it was released in 1939. The cinematography in black white is magnificent, and Charles Laughton has an awesome performance in the role of the ambiguous Sir Humphrey Pengallan. Maureen O'Hara is also amazing in an unusual role in 1939 of a strong woman in her first lead role. The DVD released in Brazil by Continental Distributor has 89:41 minutes running time and it is visible the edition of the movie when Mary and Trehearne are lodged by Sir Humphrey. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Estalagem Maldita" ("The Damned Inn")


Somewhat unusual for a Hitchcock film, I found myself drawn in and actually enjoyed it. I think that probably had all to do with the performance of Charles Laughton as the haughty squire, Sir Humphrey Pengallan. There's no two ways about his wickedness, he's a perfect cad - just catch the way he sizes up Maureen O'Hara's character when she first makes her appearance at his home. And oh, those eyebrows! - you'll marvel at the makeup job that just adds to the extreme of Laughton's over acting. Oh, and one other thing - it's hard to understand what he's saying sometimes, but he's so entertaining in the delivery that you just don't seem to mind so much.

The story itself deals with a band of cutthroats, thieves and smugglers on the Cornish Coast of England, while the dark and moody atmosphere of the picture gives it the feel of a pirate film that mostly takes place on land. Laughton's Pengallan is the mastermind that pulls the strings on waylaying ships to their doom on the stormy coastline. Robert Newton appears as the anti-pirate in this one, and after narrowly escaping death at the hands of Joss Merlyn's (Leslie Banks) rowdy bunch, he takes charge to bring Pengallan to his ultimate demise.

Here's something to keep an eye out for. After Trehearne (Newton) and Mary (O'Hara) escape from the villains by swimming out to their boat, they wind up seeking refuge at Pengallan's home. While still in his soaking clothes, Trehearne pulls a dry folded piece of paper from his pocket. How'd he do that?

As most of the comments on this board suggest, the film deserves a chance, even if it doesn't hold up well for the professional critics. The best way to view it would probably be late at night, with a nice warm brandy to take off the evening chill. A dark and stormy night would do just fine in keeping with the on screen atmosphere. I think Pengallan would agree.


I'm not sure if I can explain the low rating of this film overall on IMDb, because I thought it was a remarkable action/suspense film, full of excellent actors and unforgettable moments. You've got the screen debut of Maureen O'Hara, who's playing a young woman who gets involved with a group of pirates when she travels from Ireland to England to stay with her aunt Patience (Marie Ney) and her abusive husband Joss (Leslie Banks). Very quickly we find out that the local magistrate, Sir Humphrey (Charles Laughton), is the mastermind behind their scheme of tricking ships into wrecking on the shores of Cornwall, murdering the sailors and stealing their cargo. She befriends a young pirate (Robert Newton) who the others want to hang for skimming the take and together they set about trying to prevent another robbery.

The story itself is very interesting and takes us to a location and period in English history that we don't hear much about. There's a wonderful seedy quality to the clothing of the pirates and the locations they inhabit. Hitchcock and his writers seem infatuated with the lifestyle of the thugs. The story is from a book by Daphne Du Maurier, who was apparently one of Hitchcock's favorite authors (he also did films of her "Rebecca" and "The Birds", both much more well known than this film). Unfortunately a lot of the story elements are very predictable -- Laughton's behavior from the very beginning is far from the "gentleman" who O'Hara seems to take him for rather naively even though she's seen him toss a bag of coins to his compatriots after losing a bet on her beauty. I suppose on a certain level the film is a warning about the deception of appearances -- Joss starts to seem like a more sympathetic character than Sir Humphrey, especially when he essentially sacrifices himself for Mary (O'Hara) towards the end. This is fairly standard melodrama -- you have an impossible love between the aunt and the uncle; the conventions of melodrama (not to mention the PCA) will not allow him to escape punishment for his crimes, but his love for his wife is true so the writer allows him to make the "sacrifice" so that this conflict will resolve itself in a way that satisfies the audience. All through the film there's a hint that Joss might be sexually interested in Mary. Only in the act of sacrifice does he reveal his real nature.

But then the film has yet another surprise for us -- Laughton's character becomes more and more irrational until we reach a point by the end where Mary realizes along with the rest of us that he's actually completely insane. This is revealed largely through the relationship between Sir Humphrey and his manservant Chadwick (Horace Hodges), one that has vague homo-erotic connotations (possibly just a fanciful invention of Laughton, though Hitchcock couldn't have failed to have noticed it). Touchingly, Sir Humphrey bids another servant to watch over Chadwick after he leaves because he's worried about the other man's mental health! That's just one of the examples of offbeat humor that Hitchcock employs in this film, often using the humor to offset and relieve the intensity of the suspense. For example when James (Newton) has gathered the troops and is trying to arrest Sir Humphrey, he stops by Sir Humphrey's estate just long enough for one of his foppish hangers-on to comment "hey, you're wearing my uniform!" I couldn't say I noticed any other typical "director's touches", except the pan that reveals Laughton as the collaborator. I'm not a huge expert on Hitchcock in particular though, but I have noticed the humor involved in his suspense scenes, a device he also used in "The Lady Vanishes" and all the way through "North by Northwest." The performances are all solid. I liked what O'Hara was able to do with her eyes after Laughton tied her mouth up; she was clearly naturally talented as a screen actress. Laughton is always tough to assess because he likes to play around so much and have so much fun inhabiting the role that it sometimes damages his performance, and he was a guy with a world of talent.... so much so that it seems like he gets bored with it and does other things, sometimes things that work and sometimes things that don't. I'd say this film is a 7 or 8 out of 10 on the "Laughton scale." He's sufficiently creepy in the early scenes and his playfulness works nicely with the "madman" angle that the writers wanted to take towards the end. Leslie Banks' work in the film was probably the most impressive in my opinion because he also had the broadest character to work with, and managed to make this character work as a human being.

Certainly an exceptional British film from the period, giving us a rather unusual story filmed with great skill and played by a group of talented actors.


If sinking your teeth into over-ripe fruit is one of your pleasures, then Jamaica Inn should be your dish. It features one of the ripest and most ludicrous performances I've ever seen from Charles Laughton as Sir Humphrey Pengallan, and that covers a lot of territory. As the squire who is the full-figured mastermind behind a gang of murderous wreckers on the Cornish coast, Laughton sports the latest dandyish fashions, a false nose, false eyebrows which almost have lives of their own, a carefully coifed comb-over, a piggish over-bite and line readings that would make Bette Davis at her most mannered envious. Close behind in the ripe playing sweepstakes is Robert Newton as Jem Trehearne, law officer and hero, who roles his eyes almost as much as Laughton, and Leslie Banks as Joss Merlyn, the leader of the gang and the owner of Jamaica Inn. The only person who manages reasonably well is Maureen O'Hara who plays Mary, the plucky and beautiful niece of Merlyn's wife. Even she is largely confined to earnestly crying out for decency and screaming.

Don't get me wrong. Jamaica Inn is so over-the-top it's a delight to watch, especially when Laughton is chewing the scenery. Hitchcock, making his last movie in England before leaving for the United States, supposedly became so bored during filming that he didn't care what the actors did. The story is a bodice-ripper by Daphne de Maurier; in fact, Maureen O'Hara's bodice gets ripped not once but twice. The time is about 1800. The place is Cornwall on the rocky coast. Jamaica Inn is a stone hulk of a building close by the warning light that shows ships where to avoid the rocks in the stormy seas. Someone with advance knowledge of ships with rich cargoes has been blocking the warning light. When the ships founder, wreckers work their way to the ships, slaughter all the sailors and take the cargo. Merlyn and his gang are the heavies, but who is the mastermind? Then young Mary, whose parents have died, shows up late one night at Jamaica Inn's doorstep to be taken in my her aunt, Merlyn's wife. At the same time we learn that the gang has a ringer in its midst, an officer of the law determined to bring justice to Cornwall and identify the mastermind. We also learn (this is no spoiler; we find out very early in the movie) that the mastermind is the effete, mannered Sir Humphrey. It all comes together with madness and murder on the wind, switching from Jamaica Inn and the rain-swept coast to Sir Henry's elegant mansion and his imperious demands. "Listen Merlyn," Sir Humphrey says, "I want money. I know what to do with money when I have it which is why I must have it. Do you understand? I must have it!"

The movie looks great. There are crashing seas, stormy nights and coaches drawn by galloping horses. Jamaica Inn itself has that detailed, threatening look that Hitchcock achieved with the wind mill in Foreign Correspondent. Stone stairways go up and down, nothing fits well, shutters rattle in the wind. The scenery chewing isn't confined to the leads, either. The gang members get their moments, too, especially Emlyn Williams as Harry, an invariably cheery and dirty young man with a knife. The movie rises or falls, however, not on Hitchcock but on Laughton...and Laughton is so ripe he's spellbinding. You have to see him to appreciate his way with these words, spoken to a bound and gagged Mary, "We may be going a long way, you know. Nearer the sun, of course...the Isles of Greece. You're thinking that'll cost money, but I have enough. One must have enough. I always knew that to live like a gentleman, spaciously and with elegance, one must have money...and a few beautiful possessions, of course, like you, my deah." Sir Humphrey's last words bring the movie to a satisfyingly ornate ending: "Make way for Pengallan!"


Along the coast of Cornwall, duplicitous Charles Laughton (as Sir Humphrey Pengallan) helps budding romantic twosome Maureen O'Hara (as Mary) and Robert Newton (as Jem Trehearne) fight smuggling pirates. Everyone comes to the conveniently shore-situated "Jamaica Inn", where leader Leslie Banks (as Josh Merlyn) and his gang hang out. Alfred Hitchcock directed this old English costume drama, before taking his work to Hollywood. So, there are some understandably well-directed moments; and, the coastal and cave scenes are nicely done. However, "Jamaica Inn" is a poorly staged version of Daphne du Maurier's novel. The actors and director make it mildly entertaining; but, the story does not captivate. Apparently, the cast had a contest involving outrageous eye make-up, which Mr. Laughton obviously won (by a hair).

**** Jamaica Inn (5/15/39) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Charles Laughton, Maureen O'Hara, Robert Newton, Leslie Banks


Jamaica Inn was the last film Alfred Hitchcock made in England before going to Hollywood before the war and from the sloppy look of it he must have been in an awful hurry. A more dreadful Hitch sound film I have yet to see. The cinematography is murky beyond necessity, the editing choppy and telegraphed as the suspense is relegated for the most part to goofy land pirates running amok snarling and terrifying a youthful Maureen O'Hara.

A rather odd time and plot (and it shows) for the usually contemporary setting Hitchcock it deals with 18th century pirates that manufacture ship wrecks along the coast of Cornwall. The brains behind the cutthroats who are more caricature than menace is a highly respected landowner, imbalanced perhaps by the ravages of tertiary syphilis (Tabes dorsalis? Then again I'm no doctor). Charles Laughton plays Sir Humphrey Pengallen with a recklessly overreaching almost unintelligible (to fellow actors as well as the audience)disdain for everything as he jabbers incomprehensibly throughout. Laughton seems to act oblivious to all around him and some scenes look more like a rehearsal as he adopts different nuance and utters non-sequiturs as if searching for the right fit. Hitchcock who once referred to actors as cattle clearly has a case of mad cow disease with Laughton. In addition to Hitch's poor handling of the cast (the pirate gang is pure keystone cop dressed in buccaneer) his pacing is off as well with action and suspense scenes lagging and having the imagination of Saturday matinée serials. An incoherent muddle of a film from start to finish featuring two cinema giants at their worst one would be wise to avoid checking in at Jamaica Inn.


A dreadful Alfred Hitchcock film, perhaps one of his very weakest. Just before leaving England for Hollywood to shoot "Rebecca", Hitchcock squeezed into his schedule this windswept adventure for Charles Laughton's Mayflower Films. Based on a novel set on the Cornish coast by Daphne Du Maurier, the same author and setting as "Rebecca", Laughton plays a decadent, deceitful nobleman who shelters a young orphaned woman from a band of cutthroats living down the road; seems these land pirates are in league with a not-so-mysterious benefactor to sabotage the ships attempting to port, ransacking their vessels and killing everyone on board. Laughton, made up and dressed to resemble a baroque clown, seems to be having a good time, but all his leering and over-affectation is used for little purpose here--his character simply doesn't make any sense. Laughton's real-life discovery Maureen O'Hara has her first major movie role here, and she's posed prettily and is amusingly irate throughout. The climax is elaborately staged and exciting, with Hitchcock finally shaking off the cobwebs and giving us some of his trademark shock effects, and Harry Stradling's cinematography is first-rate. Otherwise this busy, boring drama never finds an appropriate tone or style. *1/2 from ****


In the early 1930s Alfred Hitchcock did a historic costume movie called WALTZES FROM VIENNA about the Strauss Family. He obviously never enjoyed such films (he never tried musicals or pseudo-biographies again). But it was the first of three attempts he made to do a historic film. While none were total disasters, none is usually counted among his best films. One can't deny this is fair with WALTZES FROM VIENNA but JAMAICA INN should not be totally denied as being a good Hitchcock film.

It was his first attempt to do a story from novelist Daphne Du Maurier. This would also be part of the reason for JAMAICA INN's low rating - the following year Hitch would do Du Maurier's REBECCA, as his first Hollywood film, his first film with David Selznick, and it would be his only film to win the Oscar as best picture. Without trying to rip down REBECCA, it's higher production standards outclass JAMAICA INN.

JAMAICA INN would also be the first of two films that Hitch made with Charles Laughton. Given that the other was THE PARADINE CASE, neither of them are in his top films. Hitchcock would always say that he always found Laughton a very difficult actor to direct, and claim that Laughton insisted on trying to base the character of Sir Humphrey on the walk he had. Supposedly his mincing little walk was that of a public school boy who had peed in his pants. Yet his regency baronet and his corrupt Old Bailey Judge were both excellent performances, and are among Laughton's best characters.

The film is about wrecking during the Regency period (roughly 1810 to 1837). As such one can see it as a kind of continuation of George Arliss' DR. SYN (later remade with Patrick MacGoohan as THE SCARECROW OF ROMNEY MARSH). That was set in the 1770s - 1780s. But the issue of the wreckers is handled differently. The Arliss and MacGoohan films stress the economic unfairness of the revenue anti-smuggling laws, and how they impact on the locals who support the smuggling ring. Arliss, in his trial scene, reminds the jury how he helped his neighbors. MacGoohan's followers insist on chanting a sardonic mantra, "THE KING'S LAW, THE KING'S LAW", when discussing the revenue laws. But Hitch follows a pro-law and order point of view. The wreckers have murdered people and are targeted by the government for destruction. Robert Newton is sent as their leading agent to find out the smuggler's secret.

Newton (here young, vigorous, and not the slave to alcohol he became a decade later) learns that the key is at Jamaica Inn, a desolate, ill-famed hostelry, run by Leslie Banks (this would be Banks' second film with Hitchcock - he'd been in the original THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH). Banks does not like strangers too much, but he has his hands full - his niece Maureen O'Hara has shown up in need of a home and job. O'Hara notices the comings and goings of certain locals at the inn, and so does Newton. Eventually they join forces to solve the riddle. They find only one ally: the local magistrate and baronet, Sir Humphrey. Laughton's regency buck is far better than the mincing step story suggests. He is a cultivated type surrounded by boobs, and he lets us know what he is up against. His performance, supported by Newton, O'Hara, and Banks, makes the film.

But the best dramatic moment in the film is by Stephen Haggard, the youngest of the smugglers. When told he will be hanged, he gets hysterical, screaming about he's too young to die. Even the last scene with Sir Humphrey is not quite as effective as that moment. A scene like that should have guaranteed a lasting career for Haggard in film. Sadly, if you look up his filmography on this board, you will find he was (like Leslie Howard) a war casualty in 1943.


In the 1800s in England a young woman (Maureen O'Hara) finds out her uncle is part of a smuggling gang. They purposefully arrange shipwrecks, kill the crew and take anything of value from the ships. She tries to stop them but has to deal with evil Sir Humphrey (Charles Laughton).

Ho-hum. This was an expensive production and the last film Hitchcock directed in England before leaving for America. (He wouldn't return until the 1950s for "Stage Fright") The plot is, to be blunt, pretty dull and obvious. I saw everything coming from a mile away. Also there is a laughably obvious toy boat used in the shipwreck we see--but that was probably state of the art in 1939.

Acting doesn't help. Maureen O'Hara looks lovely but gives a surprisingly bad performance--but she was only 18 at the time so she can be forgiven. Laughton however overacts--badly. He always overacted but usually directors reigned him in. Hitchcock couldn't. Laughton and him had huge fights on the set which Laughton always won. That's too bad because his WAY over the top acting harms the film.

It isn't totally unwatchable. There is (of course) some beautifully directed sequences--including the opening shipwreck. And there is an eerie atmosphere helped by the b&w photography and dismal settings. But the story is dull and it's obvious that Hitchcock's heart wasn't into this. It took me 2 showings to stay awake--I kept falling asleep. Unless you're a Hitchcock completest you can skip this. Not recommended.


What starts as an action packed cut-throat jamboree overflowing with absolutely incredible atmosphere quickly becomes a stagy film with too much talking. It's not without it's humorous jabs at both the upper and lower class and although it's rather over the top, Charles Laughton's performance is almost enough to carry the film alone. There are some surprisingly dark moments (both in light and tone) particularly the opening scene and the nighttime exterior shots are simply magical. Strangely lacking in some of the more distinctive camera techniques one would expect from Hitchcock, Jamaica Inn overall is still an enjoyable watch  just slow.


This is truly a great classic film starring Charles Laughton,( Sir Humphrey Pengallan) who is a ruthless ruler who heads a gang of thieves who look for shipwrecks along their coastline with many huge rocks and boulders. These crooks live in the Jamaica Inn and deliberately turn out the lamp that would guide the ships away from their rocky coast. Maureen O'Hara, (Mary) is traveling from Ireland as she lost her mom and seeks to find her aunt who lives at the Jamaica Inn. However, Mary does not have any idea what she is getting herself into until she realizes that the local town people do not want anything to do with the Jamaica Inn and her coachman leaves her a mile or two away from the inn along with her luggage. Maureen O'Hara was just starting her career and was very pretty and thin and you just knew she was going to become a great star. Charles Laughton gave one of his best performances in this great 1939 Masterpiece of great acting.


. . . so many of whom are wailing here about being cheated out of "their" preferred Hitch. They demand better suspense! wimpier blonder heroines! a better century! Honestly, folks, Baskin-Robbins can have 31 flavors of ice cream, but Alfred Hitchcock can't have more than one flavor of suspense?

I liked this movie. It's not a thriller, and surely not for the kiddies. It is a multi-character study of depth (and, I'll admit, predictability). Not all the considerable bondage involves ropes and scarves; most of it's social -- painful, constraining, and unattackable as a knot behind one's back. This is, for me, Laughton's creepiest role ever, and that's saying something. He was actually hard to look at. (Am I the only one who got subtle hints that his galloping madness owed something to syphilis?) Almost everyone in the cast contributes some glint of acting genius or gravitas to this Gothic tale of moral choice and social submission. In addition to O'Hara and Newton, who are both outstanding, I have to single out Marie Ney (Aunt Patience), in a role they don't write for women of any age any more, and Horace Hodges (Chadwick, the butler), whose eloquent silence closes out this fine movie.


I just saw Jamaica Inn (1939) and was shocked to find it right at home at any exploitation film fest. While it was directed by Hitchcock, it doesn't feel like a Hitchcock movie at all, and the true auteurs of the film are the dialogue writer (separate from screenplay writer in the credits), Sidney Gilliat, and the star, who is also the villain, Charles Laughton. The dialogue seemed straight out of A Clockwork Orange, as if both films take place in the same alternate universe. One character in particular sounded like one of Alex's droogs. Coupled with this fantastic dialogue was one of my top ten favorite villains in movie history. Charles Laughton chewed the #$*! out of the scenery in this role, with better-than-perfect comic timing and a villainous role straight out of an exploitation film. While not technically an exploitation film, I think you could only get into it by watching it in the same way you would watch an exploitation film, otherwise you probably wouldn't 'get it' and think it was just some early undeveloped Hitch film. For example, I thought the last 10 minutes or so of Laughton kidnapping Maureen O'Hara's character was just a 1930's metaphorical way of filming an exploitation rape scene. Just watch the way Laughton does the most insanely despicable things and seems to have the most blasé and yet innocently boyish fun doing it. Play this in the middle of a triple bill of 1970's exploitation films and it would feel right at home. Probably the only way to watch it. Viewing this instead as most people do, as Hitchcock-in-development, will probably only lead to disappointment, as can be seen from other user comments.


Talking about bad Hitchcock films is kind of fun given Sir Alfred didn't make many of them, just enough to show himself human. And as bad Hitchcock movies go, "Jamaica Inn" is moderately more entertaining than others like "Number 17," "The Paradine Case," and "Topaz," though for the same reason it is so awful: Charles Laughton.

Laughton plays Sir Humphrey Pengallan, lord of a coastal Cornish fiefdom that includes Jamaica Inn, a den of cutthroats to which journeys young Mary (Maureen O'Hara), niece of the innkeeper's wife. After rescuing one of the gang from hanging, Mary finds herself seeking Sir Humphrey's mercy. But just how merciful is his lordship? Not very, if all the scenery we see him chewing in his opening vignette is any indication, muttering airily about the lack of true beauty in the world and having as the guest of honor at a fancy dinner party his prize horse. The Caligula touch is apropos of Sir Humphrey as we get to know him, and of Laughton, too, as he takes every line in the script as a license for excess.

Laughton held the overall reins of this project as his pet producer was in place over Hitchcock, and you can see how he was granted free roam whether Hitch cared or no. Most actors playing characters with dual identities are content with one revelation scene; Laughton must have three. Every other line of his is delivered in extreme close-up, twitching an outrageously fake pair of eyebrows and stepping on lines by the other actors like they were ants at a picnic.

"Next thing you'll be telling me you're as good as I am," he sniffs, beetle brows popping at a hapless extra, upper lip puffed as if full of Skoal. "You're not as good as me. Nature was against you from the start; everything else has been against you since."

Hitchcock didn't make many period pieces in his career, so the fact that this one is set in Regency England circa 1819 is a source of some positive anticipation, as is O'Hara making her screen debut. Original author Daphne Du Maurier gave Hitchcock the source material for two of his most well-regarded films, "Rebecca" and "The Birds." Laughton and Hitchcock possessed the same mordant wit, an eye for taking the mickey out of a highly-charged scene.

Yet none of it comes off here. O'Hara is shrill and wimpy, crying "Aunt Patience, Aunt Patience" every five minutes and taxing our patience continually. The rest of the cast, led by Robert Newton as Mary's hamster-cheeked companion, is uniformly bad, especially Leslie Banks as the overbearing innkeeper and Marie Ney as Patience his wife, always looking right at the camera as she does her Tammy Wynette thing in explaining to Mary the merits of her Springer-worthy marriage. Instead of a coherent storyline, one stares at a screen dark as an oil slick from which various dime-novel tropes occasionally squeak out. Some like web reviewer Self-Styled Siren see this as intentional comedy; with all respect to her Bloggeress I must disagree. There is no sign of irony here, just a lot of clinkers.

The only redeeming virtue in "Jamaica Inn" is the same thing that makes it worse than other Hitch flops like "Topaz": Laughton's overripe performance. He's so over-the-top and without restraint that he's often hilarious. I don't flatter myself to think I can look down on Laughton; at his best he was quite a brilliant actor. But here is a case of a talent in losing battle against his own formidable ego, playing every scene with a flip hauteur that seems to mock anyone else's attempt to be engaged.

That unfortunately included Hitchcock himself, as can be seen from the way scenes trail off or start suddenly, completely lacking the Master's usual polish. He had other worlds to conquer by this time, preparing to embark on his most fruitful patch of work by sailing to the United States. Too bad he left England on such a bum note.


I would be inclined to think Hitchcock made this corny film deliberately tongue-in-cheek if he had not all but disowned it in interview comments. Cheesy FX -- uneven performances -- but fine Gothic atmosphere and some great moments. Taken as it comes it is an enjoyable adventure a la Treasure Island -- except that Robert Newton plays the handsome hero!

Of course Laughton is over the top as others have said - but if you like Laughton you should see this film for his performance alone. Emlyn Williams also plays a delightfully sinister and menacing character -- I mistook him at first for Robert Newton (being prejudiced by the latter's subsequent typecasting).

Make sure you get the more recent Kino Video release (VHS or DVD) -- there was an earlier VHS version that was all but unwatchable.


I have just seen brave daddy Laughton in a couple of his movies, only a bit antiquated. I got interested in daddy Laughton when I was 17by way of Pacino, in whose life Laughton had the place of a mentor, it is said.

The first of the these two movies is JAMAICA INN. (The name might suggest exotic meridians; yet it is but a Cornish story about the barbarous deeds of the coast people.) The second is THE BEACHCOMBER, which reunites on screen Laughton and his pretty wife, Mrs. Lanchester. Take this from a Laughtonianthey're both movies to be seen.

JAMAICA INN is a Gothic swashbuckler in a Victorian dress (--as a matter of fact, the 1820s, not quite yet the Victorian era--), a thundering Victorian show oozing with that peculiar brio of this director, a rogues melodrama; and a proof that the lesser Hitchcock is vastly preferable to others' accomplished outings. In this melodrama, Hitchcock is amply rhetoricaland it begins in force, in what could be termed Hitchcock's 2nd style (that of the '40s), with discussions of beauty, etc.. There's, of course, Laughton who indulges himself in one of those peculiar, colorful, overthetop performances of his ; and this period movie introduces Maureen O'Hara, whom Laughton, liking the girl, wanted in. (I can't refrain from quoting what Elsa Lanchester, Laughton's wife, said about Mrs. O'Hara:'--She looks as though butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, or anywhere else'.)

As usually, Hitchcock had a difficult relation with his actorhere, with Laughton.

I often think Laughton's only follower, in terms of style and gusto, could have been Burton; but Laughton was uglier, wholehearted and, I believe, more endowed.


This long forgotten corner of the Hitchcock universe has occasionally been called "Hitchcock's Lemon" but I personally feel that title is undeserved.

Sure it's not perfect (a sentence I never thought I'd write about a Hitchcock film) but a bad Hitchcock movie is pretty damned good by everybody else's standards.

The tension and push-pull of criminal behavior meeting it's inevitable end at the noose has long built some damn good dramas but some how Charles Laughton's performance elevates this to near madness. His version of Sir Humphrey turns an average movie villain into a fascinating character, a repulsive yet lovable nut who elevates himself yet pushes down the little guy. When confronted by a "lesser person" about how similar they are and how he's no better then anything else, Laughton nearly foams at the mouth. When the hero unwittingly insult's Laughton's manhood and social status there's a definite moment where Sir Humphrey nearly plugs the unsuspecting protagonist right in the back.

All in all, good but not great film. A must for Hitchcock fanatics.


At the beginning XIX century,Cornualles, where rules the judge Sir Humphrey Pengallan(Charles Laughton) ,there are going a young woman orphan called Mary(a gorgeous Mauren O'Hara with eighteen years old)) to live with her uncle(Leslie Banks)owner of the Jamaica Inn.Soon afterwards she is realized the inn is the base of a band of criminals who are planning shipwrecks on the rocky coast for rob it.

The picture is a costume drama with action,suspense,romance,adventures,tension and formidable interpretation.It's a romantic story with exciting images narrated with amazing agility and swiftly,thus murders,storms,shipwrecks,escapes,pursuits..The film along with ¨Walzes from Vienna¨(1934)and ¨Under Capricorn¨(1949) is one from trio Hitchcock's epoch tale.And is the first of Daphne of Maurier adaptations along with ¨Rebeca¨and ¨The birds¨. Hitchcock had problems with Charles Laugthon(1899-1962), both had a difficult and obstinate character and were physically likeness.Besides the sadomasochist relation between Laughton and Mauren O'Hara reflects the tempestuous relationship Hitchcock had with his actress.This is the last film from Hitchcock's British career. Soon afterward this movie, Hitchcock was contracted by the great producer David O.Selznick(Gone with the wind)for the direction of ¨Rebeca¨.He started the plenty successful American career and no returning to England until ¨Frenzy(1972)¨.


Jamaica Inn is an eighteenth century coaching inn on Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. It is said to be one of the few old Cornish inns not to have been used by smugglers; it is about as far from the sea as it is possible to be in Cornwall, and its exposed position on open moorland by a main road would have made it easy to detect any suspicious movements of goods. Nevertheless, its atmospheric setting appealed to the novelist Daphne Du Maurier, who used it as the backdrop to her novel "Jamaica Inn", which deals with the activities of smugglers and wreckers in early nineteenth century Cornwall.

Period costume drama was not really Alfred Hitchcock's forte, so he was not the most obvious choice to direct the film version of Du Maurier's novel. (According to some accounts he only did so in order to secure the rights to another of her novels, "Rebecca", made into one of his most famous films the following year. A third Hitchcock film, "The Birds", was also based on her work). The film is set in the 1820s. Jamaica Inn, which in the film is closer to the sea, closer to Truro and further from Bodmin than it is in reality, is the headquarters of a gang of wreckers, led by the innkeeper Joss. The wreckers conceal coastal beacons in order to cause ships to run aground. Then they loot the wrecks and kill the surviving sailors.

The main character is Mary Yellan, the orphaned niece of Joss's wife Patience, who comes to stay with her aunt and uncle after the deaths of her parents, but who flees from the inn after discovering her uncle's criminal activities. In the original novel Mary was herself Cornish, but here she is made Irish, presumably to accommodate Maureen O'Hara's accent. Another change to Du Maurier's plot concerns the main villain; in the book he was a parson, but in the film he becomes the local squire, Sir Humphrey Pengallan, who is in league with the gang. He uses his powers as a magistrate to offer them legal protection in exchange for a share of their loot, which he needs in order to fund his lavish lifestyle. This change was made in order to comply with the American Production Code, which forbade unsympathetic portrayals of clergymen. Even in the thirties America was the main export market for British films, which meant that the Hays Office could exercise its influence on both sides of the Atlantic.

Pengallan was played by that old ham Charles Laughton, who also acted as co-producer and insisted on rewriting the script to give his character greater prominence. Most of the blame for the failure of the film must be laid at his door as it was he, rather than Hitchcock, who had the final say on these matters. Laughton was often prone to overacting, and his performance in "Jamaica Inn" is one of his hammiest. The ending, rewritten to give him a dramatic death scene, is particularly melodramatic and implausible. Laughton was also responsible for the casting of O'Hara, even though Hitchcock had not wanted to use her after a poor screen test. Her performance in the film itself is a wooden one; Laughton overacts badly, but she underacts equally badly. (Surprisingly, the film was good for O'Hara's career. Laughton was, unaccountably, so taken with her performance that he invited her to play Esmeralda opposite his Quasimodo in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame").

The critic Michael Medved included "Jamaica Inn" in his "Fifty Worst Movies of All Time". I suspect that Medved was being deliberately provocative; he must have realised that he could not fill his book with fifty examples of Z-movies like "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" and that nominating a minor work of a major director for a "golden turkey" would be a good way of generating controversy. Nevertheless, the film is one of Hitchcock's weakest, lacking not only the drama and suspense we have come to associate with Hitchcock but also the touches of humour he often used to lighten the mood. (Any humour in the film is inadvertent). It is hardly surprising that Du Maurier disliked the adaptation and that Hitchcock left Britain for Hollywood as soon as possible after completing it. Today it is of interest to Hitchcock completists only. 4/10


These films of the 1930s, 1939 in this case, are amazing. Simple acting, yet still quite inspired by silent movies technique. Very simple setting not cluttered with too many useless props and other decorations. The dialogue is necessarily simple and the voice work is a caricature of dramatic speech. It was all recorded directly when the film was shot on a sound stage most of the time and the microphones were still very primitive. So what could you expect? No integrated music, no sound effects or very poor ones, no visual effects of course with most of the time sedentary cameras. And the lighting was still far from particularly brilliant. And yet these films were magic because they did not even try to look real, realistic. They had to work the way the technique dictated it. Then the rest was compensated and supplemented by the imagination of the audience. And the zippers in the backs of the monsters were not bothering anyone at the time since it was such a marvelous improvement to have the puppets on the screen speak in real voices. It is amazing to see such an old film by Hitchcock. He was already a great director who could get some real gripping action or situations even with all the shortcomings of his equipment. We have to watch them again these old films, these first talkies, to ,be able to appreciate what modern films have to offer but also what we have lost along the way, a lot more than we may think, and particularly the magic of black and white illusion. But we can't be and have been at once, that's obvious. So let us be living in our time and nostalgically revisit the past.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


I first saw this film when I was nine years old and it scared me to death. It was atmospheric for a young boy to watch and full of dark brooding camera work. Charles Laughton was excellent in the type of part in which he always excelled. Maureen O'Hara looked suitably beautiful and Robert Newton made a convincing Revenue man. This film cries out to be remade.


...or maybe not. Pirates have always been a shaky element in films, until 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. But back in 1939, not even the roller-coaster ride was in anybody's mind, and film portraying pirates might have looked ridiculous even then.

What is surprising about the fact that this film is outdated is that it's a film by Hitchcock, whose films never quite seem to out date, apart from his silents. Yet, it's the pirates that are to blame. Even a master like Hitchcock feels must have felt awkward in making this film, and as a result, nothing works. It becomes a dark comedy thriller with drama and romance, none of these genres ever quite mixing in. Charles Laughton is not the one to blame, he's possibly the best thing in the film. However, Maureen O'Hara definitely has no idea of what she's doing, she doesn't even know what accent she's doing! Still, the viewer must remember not to count this as a true Hitchcock film. Though the elements are there, particularly the 'runaway' element, it's very weak. Again, it is Hitchcock's fault, but it's mostly the fact that this is a film with Pirates in them, and they rarely make for believable actors...


I had heard about this movie from Harry Medved's fantastic book THE FIFTY WORST FILMS OF ALL-TIME, as it is one of the 50. Because of that, I probably had a slight predisposition to dislike the film--though I liked it more than Medved, as it was not even close to being that bad! But, I could easily see that Medved's recounting of how the film was made would conspire to make a poor movie. Apparently, Alfred Hitchcock was the director of this film, but Charles Laughton was both the star and owned the production company. Apparently, again and again, Laughton ignored his director and instead of a subtle or believable performance, he was shrill and bellicose--looking nothing like the great actor he was in some of his other films. In fact, I noticed in several of his early films, Laughton yelled his lines and over-acted terribly and without a director in firm control, I could really see it impact the film. Plus, apparently, in disgust, Hitchcock pretty much gave up on the film and quickly completed it so he could leave England for Hollywood. If this troubled production in any way contributed to his decision to leave the UK, I just don't know.

Apart from the overacting by Laughton, the biggest problem is that I expected a mystery or suspense film. But, as the "secrets" of the film were revealed in the first few minutes (duh--it was pretty obvious that young Maureen O'Hara had walked into a nest of vipers), there was no suspense or mystery at all. Like the silly nose that Laughton wore throughout the film, the movie just seemed fake and silly--just not bottom 50 bad--maybe bottom 250!


I like to think that after shooting this drek Hitchcock left for the USA one jump ahead of a mob of discerning movie-goers handicapped by the huge amounts of tar and feathers they were carrying. It's the Romantic in me. Of course the truth is vastly different if unconvincing; Hitch went on to become the idol of those who worship mediocrity and managed to dazzle Truffaut (and if ever two over-inflated filmmakers deserved each other ...). So, what of this, his last effort on British soil for a couple of decades. The glib answer is that Hitch had no gift for 'period' pieces - witness Under Capricorn, the biggest turkey since the one Scrooge bought for Tiny Tim - but that implies that he had a gift for SOMETHING. Lots of folks out there think so but it's always proved elusive to these hard-to-please eyes. Charles Laughton hams his way through the lion's share and grudgingly allows the likes of Leslie Banks, Maureen O'Hara and the best actor in the movie, Bobby Newton, to get a look in. Oh, yes, it's about smugglers and set in a papier-mache Cornwall. Easily Pleased Enjoy.


Def-Con 4 (1985) was a surprisingly good low budget take on World World 3. Despite the low budget and the cast of minor actors, it works. The landscape and the situations the residents on a heavily radioactive Earth are a lot similar to what it would actually be like compared to most movies that were made during this time.

A nuclear warhead equipped space station is circling above the stratosphere when the unthinkable happens. Nuclear holocaust! In a pickle, the crew aboard the space station must make several decisions in order for them to survive in a world that's nearly impossible to survive on. Can they do it? What kind of world awaits their return? A watchable film that will give you a good time if in the right mood.

Recommended.


I haven't seen DEF-CON 4 for several years and if it's as bad as I remember it I hope to never see it again . The story is grim and lacks credibility . A space station witnesses the third world war and a trio of survivors wait for the radiation levels to drop so they can return to Earth , and when they return they find that the survivors are well armed barbarians where it's survival of the fittest

This movie doesn't concern itself with the intellect of post apocalypse authors like John Wyndham or John Christopher , it's trying to be similar in genre to the likes of MAD MAX etc . The problem is that it doesn't have the budget to do so . We see no devastated cities and most of the action takes place in North American woodland which is an obvious budgetery descion on the part of the producers and not a creative one . There probably wasn't much of a movie to start with but if there was the exploitive scenes take it down to an even lower level . For example the hero walks through woodland ( Did I mention most of the action takes place in the sticks ? ) and comes across a bunch of survivors who are carving up a roast dinner - A human leg ! There's another scene with a severed arm and a couple of other gory scenes . I know that the likes of 28 DAYS LATER and THE OMEGA MAN suffer from gaps in logic but at least they're entertaining and enthralling unlike this contrived unsympathetic mess


Def Con 4 is one of those movies that is pretty much unique in the world of B grade cinema. First off, why do so many imdbers dislike this? There are thousands, perhaps millions of movies far worse off. The acting and special fx are actually pretty good for such a low budget film. The beginning of the film has a great sense of dread. The music by Christopher Young is awesome! There is some over top emoting from the lead actors that is slightly lame, but overall a good relic from the cold war. This may be one of the more underrated Canadian sci fi movies of the 80s, although much of the plot and characterizations goes way lame in the second half. In summary, it's a good bad movie that is more good than bad.


I bought this film at a used movie sale. I remembered the title and the poster from way back, and for some reason I had it mixed up with another apocalyptic flick called "Twilight's Last Gleaming". Also I saw the name Tim Choate. I recalled he was "Zathrus" on the show "Babylon 5". I should have saved my money. Very poor production values, although the orbital weapons platform parts looked pretty good for a bad film, the rest of the film is hazy and crappy, and poorly lit. There is no real dialog, it is just bad. The film was made with Canadian Government tax dollars and they put in several things to show the flag, like the weirdo in the kilt who made booby traps with Canadian Government issued Social Insurance cards. Go figure! The characters are terrible, the acting is laughably bad, this film just stinks. You can't even say that it is so bad it's good, it is a lazy effort that makes no sense at all. And Tim Choate's best work was on "Babylon 5" under all that make up.


I love B Grade movies. I have a fondness for them which is pretty deep, but this was F Grade crud.

For some reason i read the back of the DVD cover and thought this may be interesting. Astronauts crash to earth, have to survive against the diseased and megalomaniacal survivors, criminally low budget. Sounds like a winner.

Well winner it was not. Not funny enough to warrant it being "so good it is bad" tag, the diseased people pretty much don't rate a mention, the main characters have no charisma and are pretty annoying, the bad guys are kinda OK, the main bad dude look's like a hobo's Patrick Swayze and has zero acting talent, and his offsider is a lot like Bennet in Commando, the camp, extremely unscary psycho bad dude with a mustache. The story line starts off well but begins to worsen not too soon after the start, and gets worse and worse and then plateaus and then gets worse again. The ending is finally reaches the so bad it is good stage, but if you watch that far into it, as I did, then you are a fool. By the end you are stupider than you were before.

Written, Produced and Directed by the same cretin, this abysmal effort wasted my 2 dollars spent hiring it, and my time watching it. I feel cheated. I want blood.


I always find it funny in these 80's post apocalyptic films that people can create makeshift bombs, build shelters, but can't fashion a spoon with which to eat! And the poster is completely misleading. Cool, sure. But neither the astronaut nor the ship resemble either of them actually used in the film... one could only hope.

I saw this film when it first came out and the disappointment of my memory holds up today. Fortunately, I watched this for "free" as part of my Netflix membership with the Watch Now option. At least I could fast forward through the bad parts, which was once they got back to earth.

If you like bad movies, you'll love this one.


Three astronauts on an orbiting space station loaded with nukes witness the outbreak of Nuclear War. After weeks of orbiting, knowing their loved ones back home are dead or dying an external signal forces them back to Earth. The crew jettison their nukes but one jams in the bay. When they land the female doctor is injured and the captain is killed by cannibals. The third member of the crew (Howe) goes looking for help and is soon in the hands of a local warlord who, it turns out, was responsible for the re-entry of the spaceship. He (rightly) suspected it contained information that would lead him to a "Safe Haven". The two remaining crew members are tried for war crimes and sentenced to hang. Howe escapes but returns, starting a rebellion. He finds the doctor dead. Eventually Howe and JJ (the Warlord's girlfriend) sail away as the last nuke on the downed ship explodes.

I'm surprised at the low rating this movie gets. For a lo-budget SF film of the period it is not at all bad. For one thing it does not play safe. Though influenced by many movies: Mad Max - obviously, Dark Star, The Quiet Earth etc. the first section of this film on the station is genuinely effective. It goes downhill a little as we enter the usual post apocalyptic shoot 'em up of the second half but even so, everything that happens is horribly credible.

I suspect people don't like this movie because it's not easy. It doesn't drop all the usual clichés into place like the the standard lazy Hollywood cheapo SF flick. The moment where our hero shoots the two guards on the boat is very realistic. He doesn't want to shoot them. He's never shot anyone before and pleads with them not to pick up their guns. They think he's bluffing and slowly reach towards them. He screams at them to stop. Their hands reach out nearer their rifles. He fires. It's horrible. In your standard Mad Max rip off the hero would have blazed in and just blown everyone up. The guards if they were given a chance would have dived for their weapons - not reached out for them slowly like they do here. It's not your standard Holly wood schlock.

I'm not saying it's a great film, there are many faults with it. But it doesn't deserve the panning some people give it. For instance: The actress playing JJ (though very good) is too old for the part I don't buy her as a teenager at all - and everyone's hair is far too clean. The end of the world by thermonuclear heck and everyone is wallowing around in filth but their hair is all nice and freshly washed? I don't think so. And I didn't buy the hanging scene at all, there is no way the kilted survivalist wouldn't have stepped forward and saved his own life at the first opportunity. I guess the writers were trying to turn him into a more sympathetic character but it just didn't work.

If I was looking to make a low-budget movie I would certainly give this one a look for ideas and inspiration. There is some good stuff in here.


A noteworthy member of the post-nuclear apocalypse genre of film that adds admirably to the body of opinion of what the world would be like after an all out nuclear war. More sensible than the fantasy treatment of movies such as "Road Warrior" or "A Boy and His Dog", but not so dismal as "The Day After", this movie gives a bit more feel of what really might happen after a Nuclear confrontation, but has enough action and adventure to make for a good film. The movie is somewhat unpolished, but pleasingly gruesome (as a movie dealing with nuclear war must be). I gave it a 7 of 10.


How bad can a science fiction movie get? Fred Ray Olen - the master of shitty sci-fi flicks - would die of envy if he ever saw "Def-Con 4". This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. Lousy effects, crappy story and BAAAAAAAAAAAD acting. Sometimes movies are so bad you sit there with that B-movie smirk - smiling because the flick stinks so much that it actually (and unintentionally) is funny. Here - I just wanted to rip my my own head off and feed to it to the smelly Golden retreiver next door - hoping that the furry menace would choke on my tortured eyeballs.

This is what the back of the DVD-cover says: Three astronauts return to Earth two months after a nuclear holocaust and find disease-crazed humans wandering through shanty towns constructed from the refuse of the previous civilization.

And your next question probably is: What the f..k!!! DVD-cover? Did you actually rent or buy this crap? Nope, got it for x-mas 2004 as a part of a 5 disc/10 movies boxed-set named "SCI-FI - 10 GREAT FILMS!".

Riiiiiiiight.....


Yes, there is a secret code in this movie (for what, I forget) but it's "E Pluribus Funk", the title of an LP by Grand Funk Railroad. I think that this speaks volumes about the quality of this film.

If you enjoy bad sci-fi films, then look no further. This is about as bad as they come. The crew of a secret space, uh, satellite? Or something...end up being in space while nuclear war happens on earth, only to crash-land on earth sometime later...not MUCH later, but society seems to have changed rather quickly and gotten that dirty Mad Max Punk Rocker type look to it. Plus, cannibalism is in, too.

I watched this only about a month ago & really, most of it now escapes me (except for the all-important secret code). It's pretty much ridiculous and can be taken as a comedy, although I'm relatively sure it was never intended as one. 2 out of 10, argh...


DEFENSE CONDITION FUN! Yes, sorry for the cheesy summary title, but I enjoyed this cheeseball 80's post-nuclear holocaust flick from our good friends at New World Pictures (They who brought us the immortal 80's vampire-stripper film 'Vamp' and some other goodies). It's a fun low-budget ride about a trio of astronauts manning a U.S. Star Wars defense satellite as World War III/nuclear Armageddon breaks out between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Following this rather well done sequence, they are quickly brought down and then one of them is just as quickly devoured by starving, irradiated homeless teenagers... and it just gets campier from there.

Turns out a sadistic, well-connected college student has somehow managed to takeover this local chapter of post-Armageddon society, so alas, even in the event of nuclear war, it appears we're still destined to be ruled by idiot frat brats. The two shuttle survivors, a hilarious survivalist pervert in a kilt, and the college dude's ex-girlfriend try to make their way out of this easily-led, two-month-old dictatorship society to an uncontaminated area of the globe.

Completely lacking in logic, and desperately in need of some good post-nuclear holocaust landscape imagery, it's nonetheless an enjoyable 80's b-movie-action-sci-fi-thriller-comedy, or backfillerdy for short. Watch for the "areolae" scene...


Now for those people that have seen this movie, let's face it, this movie probably wouldn't strike a cord with people like E.T. or Starwars, but for an 80's flick, this movie's pretty damn good.

If this movie was made with a higher budget, and with good computer FX. I would give it a 10/10. But it was not, needless to say that it was doing pretty go for it's time.

I have seen movie's made around the same time as this movie, the plot sucked in them and the acting could have come from a small group of hillbillies hanging around the set for left over beers. Not that I am saying this movie acting perfect. Over all this acting is good exept for some spotty areas here and there. For those of you who are fond of 80's sci-fi flicks I highly recommend this movie.


Bleak sci-fi begins with three astronauts who are forced to crashland on post-nuke earth after a nuclear holocaust. Much of the population has been wiped out, but those who remain are either savage mutant cannibals (who are first seen carving meat slices off of a severed leg) or unbelievably sadistic punks who imprison innocent people in a slave camp and are led by a fascist Hitler clone (Kenneth King). The special effects work (especially at the beginning) is good, the cast tries and there are some interesting things that happen, but overall it's a grim and unenjoyable film. The script could have used a polish or two.

Score: 3 out of 10


One of the better eighties post-apocalyptic films was and is Def Con 4. It bombed in 1985 but has gone on to gain a small cult following. It is the story of three astronauts, one in particular, who witness war and nuclear holocaust from a satelite. The space footage is well shot and a genuine sense of dread reigns as we watch them contemplate the deaths of their families and of civilization.

 When their satelite is forced to land they fall into a nuclear wasteland fillled with armed militants and plague ridden cannibals. This is perhaps one of the dirtiest looking movies of its day, which rather adds to the already oppresive atmosphere. Unfortunately Def Con runs out of steam toward the somewhat hurried finale. Yet if your not easily put off by the brutal tone of the movie, its science fiction worthy of 90 minutes of your life.


I think this movie, for what it is and when it was made, is a very good effort. I think it tries to be better than it is, and with a bigger budget and a higher certificate rating (i.e. if it were remade now) would be really good.

There were scenes in it that i thought wanted to show the brutality of a post-apocalyptic society but stopped short of fully doing it. The character of the psychopathic Gideon Hayes played by Kevin King was thoroughly unconvincing because he looked like a 12-year old more suited to "Lord of the Flies".

This movie is memorable and worth a watch. A good candidate for a remake.