This is a real curiosity from the vaults, a late 60s Swedish sex education film which became an enormous box office hit across Europe and even, when it was finally released uncut with an X certificate, in the UK in 1973 (it was initially refused a certificate); this is historically interesting, as The Language of Love (as it was titled in English speaking markets) features some sections of actual hardcore footage, with close ups of fingers masturbating vaginas and a penis penetrating one. The film is apparently meant as a serious attempt to allay people's fears and misconceptions about sex & improve the sex lives of heterosexual couples, but undoubtedly the enormous box office success of the film was due to the prurient interest of the public.

It is hard to image people actually sitting in a cinema and watching the film. The bulk of the footage has four "sexperts" (sex therapists plus a gynaecologist) sitting around in a living room, swilling gallons of tea & coffee and talking earnestly about sex. I don't know about the time of the film's release, but these days the sexperts chat is unintentionally hilarious, as the foursome are humourless, po-faced and rather brusque in their talk (as well as being an extremely plain verging on ugly bunch).

Inter-cut with this mirth-producing talk are mockumentary scenes ( purporting to illustrate the findings of famous sex researchers Masters and Johnson) in which couples talk about and do the sex thing. Here the film falls even further into risibility, as although these couples are meant to represent (or actually be) real people, they are so one-dimensional, robotic and mono-subject orientated that they seem like no one anyone has even met in this world, rather being dead ringers for the inhabitants of some future Brave New World-type dystopia. The most striking moment comes when the most focused-upon couple, who've previously experienced sexual problems, talk to each other after a bout of now satisfying sex and tell each other that they are now "real" - two less "real" people you'll have trouble finding in the history of the cinema.

The last third of the film is mostly taken up by the gynaecologist going about his business, inserting diaphragms, coils and caps into various young women or advising them to go onto the pill. This is followed by a completely unnecessary montage of shots showing a red-light district, pages from lurid pornographic magazines and couples walking around lewdly - all supposedly to illustrate what's wrong with society's prurient attitude to sex but edited and scored in such a way as to encourage an adolescent and voyeuristic attitude.

The film is poorly shot and goes on for too long, yet it gets extra stars for its camp value today. There's also a saccharine and quite repulsive score by Benny and Bjorn pre-ABBA. This is, btw, the film which Travis Bickle takes Betsy to see in Taxi Driver; the fact that she was offended instead of sitting there laughing her head off shows how unsuitable a date she was! The Language of Love is little more now than a historical document, and a testament to how self-deluding the experts in pseudo-sciences can get as they pretend to serious encouragement of a healthy loving sex life whilst adding to the creation of a culture of voyeurism and conformity.


ILLEGAL IN BLUE

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Ultra-Stereo

Suspended from the force after making allegations of corruption and impropriety, a disgraced cop (Dan Gauthier) moonlights as a cabbie and becomes involved with a beautiful young woman (Stacey Dash) implicated in the murder of her husband.

Utterly routine 'erotic thriller', the kind of low-grade rubbish thats been gathering dust in video stores ever since the release of BASIC INSTINCT (1992). The film is only marginally redeemed by some extended sex scenes involving gorgeous Gauthier ("Tour of Duty") and delectable Dash (CLUELESS), both of whom generate a fair degree of heat under the direction of former hardcore specialist Stu Segall (who helmed the likes of PENELOPE'S EDUCATION, INSATIABLE and UP 'N COMING under the pseudonym 'Godfrey Daniels'). Aside from a gratuitous lesbian interlude (de rigueur for this sort of thing), the movie appears to be aimed at the couples market, which means there's an equal amount of male and female pulchritude on display, and it's a pleasure to watch these lovely young things going at it like jackhammers. Otherwise, this is the usual badly-scripted drivel, competent but uninspired on almost every level. Nice music score by Stephen Edwards.


Typical kinda situation where the cop, instead of being professional or even particularly smart, takes more than a professional interest in the suspect, with predictably sexy results.

I'd have to say the hotness of Stacey Dash is the best thing about this movie, the rest is simply filler. Much like what I'm writing now, as I need a minimum of 10 lines. The thing is, this movie is not so special that it warrants a full 10 line review. What could I possibly say about it? It's not particularly innovative or original, in fact it sticks to an age-old formula and is pretty forgettable. I'll say this, if you liked All The President's Men, you wont necessarily like this. Unless you think Stacey Dash is hot, in which case knock yourself out. I did.


'Illegal In Blue' is yet another one of those movies where an idiot with connections to law enforcement repeatedly sleeps with the main suspect who we know will probably turn out to be the killer. Yeah, only in the movies. It's a T&A flick through and through with it's flimsy plot and it's not like the movie box told you otherwise. Speaking of such, don't expect to see a female specimen with large breasts. Yay, another misleading box cover.

I admit to liking the occasional T&A flick, but I can't stand the setup they use here and like so many others have before (see: Snapdragon). If nothing else it's tired. The guy is always an idiot who never thinks with his brain and this movie is no different. The cast goes through the motions and the directing is on auto-pilot. I don't recommend this to anyone not even fans of T&A flicks. Do yourself a favor - rent something else, something better.


Going from being Clueless to Illegal, Damon Dash's cousin sure did get a bit nasty in this one. I'll tell you one thing... The VHS is far more different than the DVD... the sex scenes between the cop and the devil in the blue dress are a lot longer. This movie is pretty enjoyable for a cheesy late night masturbation session, but let the truth speak... it's far from deserving an Oscar. You probably won't have to rent this flick... it plays on STARZ all the time, if you have it, and it's the extended version of the movie every time it plays. I actually like this flick, honestly. But it's understandable if many people find this movie hard to stomach.


Obviously this is one of those films I only wanted to see for some good nudity and sex scenes, but I didn't get what I was expecting. The only two sex scenes that I can actually remember was a very short lesbian scene in the club that the main guy was visiting, they were doing it while he chatted with the owner. The other is the main girl having ice cubes rubbed all over. The main girl is a really good singer, and quite attractive, but she could have done more, if you know what I mean. The main guy is an idiot and is only good for choosing the right girl. Again, there is not enough of what I wanted in a porn like film. Pretty poor!


I saw a pretty poor copy of this but the bottom line is that it lacks the punch, clarity and humor of the original series.

The characters are thin, unbelievable, two dimensional copies of the flawed but warm and likeable characters in the original series. The only actor who came from the original series is Robert Llewellyn who tries hard but is let down by the rest of the cast and the direction.

There's something seriously wrong with the timing of the humor. It's set up as if it was a sitcom not a comedy. The timing should be quite different however the canned laughter track is timed for a sitcom not for a comedy show and thus makes all of the comedy fall totally flat.

If you like Red Dwarf, give this a miss. If you haven't seen the original Red Dwarf then beg, borrow, steal or buy the original (or look for re-runs on PBS) but give this remake a wide, wide berth.


This is without a doubt the worst adaptation ever. Im sorry but british comedy is only funny when its *British*. The American humour aint at all funny and the characters are weak to say the least. The only good point about this show is Kryten......only because its the original. An absolutely terrible tv show, if you like Red Dwarf then watch the original.


I've finally been able to see what Satin City/Universal Studios did to Red Dwarf in 1992 for the US. There were actually two pilots, which makes things a bit confusing for everyone. I was able to only see Pilot #1 but I researched Pilot #2 to give some background about it as well. I will try to lay everything down in small bits.

Pilot #1 had a male Cat, a clean shaven Lister and Kryten. Of course, taking the plot from the UK pilot, entitled "The End". I did get a few chuckles out of this pilot but I shook my head in sorrow the rest of the time.

Pilot #2 had some recasting as well as a different general plot altogether. This time the writers took ideas from the UK episodes of `Backwards' `Terrorform' and `Parallel Universe' and used them in a style ala `Tikki to Ride' recapped `Out of Time'. This premise would've been a better start. I never saw it, but I read some scripts and saw some pictures from it. It was sounding better, but not by much.

*** Spoiler Alert ***

My thoughts about Pilot #1 are as follows. The UK music would've been just fine for the beginning theme of the US version; Todd Rundgren's version was more like elevator music. The adaptation of Kryten was just to give the show flavour and nothing much more. Recapping the premise at the end of the episode makes people feel stupid, especially throwing in bogus footage from the UK series. The part of Lister was out of place; Lister is smeggy and always should be - where's the cigarette smoking, curry eater we love? The set was way too functional and futuristic for the 22nd century, especially for an old mining ship. They should've casted Mac MacDonald as the Captain, at least for the pilot. You can clearly see Craig Charles' face in the mask while painting the F in Red Dwarf in the beginning. The opening minutes, the overview should've been done with a bit more charm; having a guy talk about his sex life isn't a good start on a premise, especially in a command room setting. I didn't like the Battlestar Galactica feel to it. The graphics were actually worse, though it sounds impossible, than the UK version; this does include the credits. Finally the corny jokes, the general atmosphere and the canned laughter were the biggest issues of mine.

My thoughts about Pilot #2 are as follows. They should've kept their first choice as Rimmer instead of using Anthony Fuscle, who looks way too muscular and not weasely enough. This pilot version also gives life to a female cat who is not at all like the UK version; instead, Terry Farrell, was casted as courageous and sharp-witted - obviously casted as a sex object. Kryten is in this version as well; I can't say anything bad about Robert. They used a lot of clips from Pilot #1 and the BBC version, which in my mind was not a good idea; starting fresh would've given them a better chance at selling the idea.

The scripts for this premise were rewrites of the originals from the BBC with all the best parts taken to make a full episode. They would've had a lot less material overall and only could've done about 2-3 seasons rather than eight series, like the BBC version.

In my opinion, instead of trying to mesh something like this for American audiences, they should sell the original Red Dwarf - Season by Season - to Sci-Fi or Comedy Central in the US. This would give true fans of comedy, or Sci-Fi, a great piece of work that entertains millions of people overseas, including Prof. Stephen Hawking and Patrick Stewart. I believe in 1992 there was no Comedy Central or Sci-Fi - but there was a USA Network; that would've had a great spot to run these on a nightly schedule around 11pm, right between two episodes of Wings.

As for this version, I will give it an overall rating of 2/10, mainly for the idea. However there was no originality. A rule of thumb is that the concept should never change, even if the idea is ported overseas.


The version I saw had poor video quality and the audio was out of synch. But that's not what bothered me, I just didn't get the point. If you're going to do an adaptation then change stuff (more than just bringing Kryton in early), a genuine american take on the idea not just the script would be interesting. This is just recycled jokes, carbon copy characters who didn't suit the actors. I mean the original IS in english, so what's the point?


No wonder this never got past the pilot! The characters (with the exception of Kryten) are generic looking, acting, and speaking with none of the wackiness of the UK version; UTTERLY uninteresting.

The jokes fall flatter than an amoeba in a centrifuge. Even the jokes ripped straight from the UK version are delivered so badly they don't even elicit a smile.

No understanding whatsoever of UK RD's "trench humor". The music adds nothing.

The whole mess is just... PUTRID BEYOND WORDS!

Ho1ywood* just cannot seem to make any kind of comedy except banal machine-gun-rapid "spray stupid sex jokes and hope a few work", sort. Compared to this the minute long "Pigs in Space" segments of the Muppet Show were absolute masterpieces!

* misspelling intentional


No... Seriously... Just NOOOO! this should never have been made. i was lucky enough to have spoken to Rob Grant one of the creators of the original red dwarf whilst he was doing a book release and heres a little story he told me.

"the producers approached me and Doug (Naylor) and said he had a few questions before the go ahead, the first was that he didn't feel the American audiences would be able to associate with a hologram, so was there any way we could not kill Rimmer. second, He also felt that American audiences wouldn't feel comfortable with a creature evolved from cats so was there a way to write the Cats part as human, and lastly, Does it HAVE to be set in space?" now as to the truth behind this story i don't know but i assume due to the dire quality of the USA Pilot that it may hold some basis in truth, maybe with a typical Rob Grant humorous twist, either way it sums the show up perfectly, it was set for disaster from the off, recreating red dwarf is like trying to re-make Only Fools and Horses.

its not just the perfect scripting, awe inspiringly bad scenery, and excellent production work that made Red Dwarf what it was, it was Craig Charles, Chris Barrie, Robert Llewellyn, Danny John Jules and Norman Lovett. they ARE Red Dwarf and always will be. as proved by the temporary replacement of Norman Lovett by Hatie Hayridge in the original Brit series, the program slumped, and was much worse, her performance was excellent but she isn't Holly.

i am interested to find out where the second version of the Cat played by Terry Farrell (A Woman??? Why???) comes into it as only the pilot was ever made....


Why do Americans always feel like they have to take something which is already good and change it to suit them. The show had 8 series in england and easily had more if the actors wanted. so why did the Americans think they could do a better version of the show. Think of your shows. Did i just mention the office?? There could only be one lister ( Craig Charles). There can only be one Rimmer (Chris Barrie). The show was meant to be a low budget sci-fi TV series show because it wanted to be not because it had to be. Please watch the original show of red dwarf not the us pilot shows. Thank you and good night. Don't Forget that one day with any luck there will be a movie and with any luck it will be with the original cast and directors. Is It Over? The Smeg It Is....


This has to be one of the worst adaptations of any program I have ever seen. The acting is wooden, there's no spark between the characters, and the jokes are purely recycled.

The pilot episode takes jokes from across the range of the BBC series, and tries to compress them into one episode, failing miserably.

The actors who play Lister, Rimmer and the Cat try hard, but they just cannot achieve the same level that the original actors had. Kryten looks purely uncomfortable acting with them, and the whole cast lack the camaraderie that the original crew have.

If you're new to Red Dwarf, watch the original. If you're a die-hard fan, don't even bother with this version.


Oh dear. They tried, but I'm afraid that a 28 minute pilot in Britain DOES NOT GO INTO 22 minutes. Well it would if you didn't have an extra character, more plot and changing lines like "My library books are overdue" to some rubbish about Baseball cards. Too rushed, too short - the only redeeming features being Jane Leeves and of course the always excellent Llewelyn.


I watched both the first and second pilots on youtube (go to youtube.com and type in Red Dwarf pilot). The first one was utter garbage, the only saving graces were the captain, Tau (played by a woman, she was very good). And, of course Holly. The actors playing Lister and Rimmer looked like they were choking on lines wrapped in painful barbed wire. The actor playing the Cat was utterly, unbelievably bad. And, poor Kryten (the original British actor), though good, looked bored with the whole affair. The sets looked OK, but the special effects were stock British Dwarf. Now on the other hand, the second pilot looked much better. My favorite there was Terry Farrel (later to play Dax on Star Trek Deep Space Nine) playing the Cat. She was fantastic. The actor playing Lister was pretty good in this one, guess he did a bit of practicing between pilots. But, the actor playing Rimmer was stumbling dreadfully on the character. Holly was very good in this one as well. American television has been guilty of stealing British sitcoms for decades. Three's Company, All in the Family, even Sanford and Son started out as British comedies, though translated well for American audiences. But, Red Dwarf is one of those shows that lose's everything it is in translation. This project was doomed from the start. It might have been promising if it was not translated, just imported. I give the first pilot a 1 out of 10. But,the second pilot I'll be nice and give a 4, if not just for Holly and The Cat.


It’s ironic that, of Gance’s more celebrated Silent work, this should be the one I watch first: it’s a one-reel short about a mad scientist – hence its inclusion in the “Horror Challenge”, though the tone throughout is distinctly comical! The titular figure is played by Albert Dieudonne – later the incarnation of Napoleon in the director’s eponymous epic of 1927 – and who’s fitted here with an exaggerated domed head, which he finally shelters inside a cage!

Even so, its raison d’etre is Gance’s use of the wide-angle lens in depicting the disorientating effect on people when subjected to a drug (in the form of dust particles) concocted by the protagonist. However, this gimmick – which actually prevents one from following what’s going on! – is kept up for an inordinate length of time: consequently, even at a mere 10 minutes, the gimmick outstays its welcome…


Although director Able Gance became world famous after producing his four-hour epic film NAPOLEON, everything he touched was not cinematic gold. In the case of this film, it wouldn't even approach cinematic lead or cardboard! It seems that the director was experimenting with camera tricks--something he put to great use in NAPOLEON--featuring a "tryptic" view on the screen of three separate scenes in this film and many odd camera angles. In the case of this short, he tried using a very, very distorted lens that made things look like of like a fun-house mirror. The final product appears totally distorted and annoying--unless you are a die-hard film historian or you are 100% drunk! Then, perhaps, you'll find SOMETHING to enjoy about this mess. I give it a score of 2 out of charity--for at least trying something different. But the film is just stupid and insults your mind and intelligence. Nice try, but NOT one of your film successes, Abel!


This movie could've been so much more. As a member of the BDSM community, I have seen first hand the loving relationships between Masters and their pets.

This movie could have informed the audience about these relationships, about the growth of both people involved, their character development, and there could have even been subplots of action or care or intrigue without involving a contrived, convoluted, and ultimately damaging subplot involving human trafficking, a horrific and reprehensible practice that has nothing to do with 99.9% of the BDSM community.

It was obvious that the film makers have some knowledge of the dynamics of a Master/human pet relationship. But they wrapped it up in bad acting, bad dialogue, and bad story telling.


The acting is terrible. The plot makes no sense. This movie attempts to explore 2 relevant & infinitely interesting topics...a type of D/s relationship & human slave trafficking. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to doing either justice. It attempts to intertwine the two in a way that makes no sense. The D/s side comes off as typical fantasy...the woman is offered large sums of money by a rich man to try being his kept-nude & in a cage pet & she likes it. Now, I'm not against a well-done fantasy portrayal, but this isn't it. In the movie's defense, it does attempt to show a D/s relationship as a loving one with mutual consent & benefit (besides the monetary). But that doesn't begin to save the film. We are asked to believe that one day she is perfectly lucid & signing contracts & the next day she has no cognitive abilities except those of a dog. BTW, if you have a RL dog, you know that most of them have a whole lotta cognitive ability LOL. This is only one of it's many, many problems.

As for it's attempt to touch on the abhorrent practice of the human slave trade, it touches on it briefly in a way that makes no sense in the context of the movie. I had such high hopes for this film & the trailer made it look so exciting. I wanted to love it. Instead, when I wasn't laughing, I was just stunned by how bad it was. Don't waste your time! And definitely don't waste your money!


Breathtakingly, stunningly bad. Production values seem to be even lower than the average adult movie.

Total acting skills displayed by all participants: close to zero. Poor shooting, directing, editing, script, DVD transfer, etc. If anybody connected with this movie was paid more than bus fares and lunch money, they were overpaid.

Some movies are bad, but entertaining because they are bad. Not so with this turkey.

The only reason I gave it one star is because there isn't a zero-star voting option.


I bought the Pet and I really don't think it was remotely worth the money. The acting is not very good (the actors are very stiff and seem to be reading verbatim from cue cards, the quality of filming and cinematography is pretty poor, and the plot literally does not make sense (why do they need to train women to be human animals if they just want someone's kidneys? why would someone hang around people who sell body parts from pets if you have a pet, wouldn't you be just a little concerned about your own pets safety?).

After watching the movie, I understand exactly why it wasn't distributed; Blue Velvet was more disturbing in terms of content so I know it wasn't the excessively boring nudity and crawling in the movie that made it untouchable. It was really just the poor quality of the movie itself.

Personally I wouldn't have bothered with the movie if I knew all this beforehand, so buyer be warned!


As a member of the BDSM community, I have to say that this movie was complete trash. D Stevens had supposedly worked with people in this lifestyle and alleges that this movie would show the lifestyle in a positive light.

I am sorry, but equating a consensual slave who has agreed to be in a Dominant submissive lifestyle with someone who is killed so their organs can be sold is NOT sending a positive message. This movie is a plot mess, and the acting is wooden (I am being kind as most wooden statues have better acting range than the cast of this film) with the exception of the ladies who played the pets. (They seemed to be much better at playing the pet roles than they were when playing the non pet portion of their characters.) Sadly, Mr Stevens stated goal of exposing the international human trafficking could be much better addressed by leaving the consensual slavery of the BDSM lifestyle out of it and focus solely on the non consensual slavery he was supposed to be exposing.


I watched this movie with a group last night who is familiar with BDSM. Personally, I feel the movie did BDSM an injustice. If I did not know better I would think that in order for someone to become involved in a "power exchange," they would have to be enticed with big money or some reason other than their need to be in a supportive and loving environment. A true BDSM relationship involves a "power exchange" which comes from the person's need to submit, a gift of submission to their Master or Dominant.

By mixing in the slave trade it only misinformed those who have no knowledge of this type of relationship, and who try to use fear tactics to make us look as if we are a danger to society. In no way did I feel that the movie showed any type of a growing relationship that would justify anyone giving up the degree of control that was displayed. Her devotion was bought and paid for.

One comment from the audience was that the acting was comparable to a porno flick. Being knowledgeable as to the true relationships involved in BDSM we could see through the errors. For someone not familiar, it would only make them think that BDSM is a horrible thing. I would not recommend this movie to anyone outside of the BDSM scene.


Yes there were problems with the plot, but the acting was so bad I could not stand to watch the entire movie. The main character was just plain pathetic. I think someone could have convinced to chop off her own hands for the hell of it. Oh and who did wardrobe? He is wealthy so he wears nothing but a very out of style suit for the first part of the movie (the same one day after day). Obviously the wardrobe person or director never met a wealthy man. She also wears only two very unstylish outfits before she becomes his pet. Really this movie is not worth watching. I also found that the situation was very unrealistic. At first he is going to go buy some girl from the slave trade that the animal shelter people don't notice is in a cage. Then he is not doing that but instead wooing his soon to be pet instead. I just can't believe how much these characters just did not make any sense.


For anyone who comes here to read comments about this horrible celluloid abortion, please skip over the post titled "My Musings on The Pet".

I actually made the mistake of reading this pretentious tripe, and there's only one conclusion that can be drawn from this person's post: he's one of those imbeciles that spend all their free time role playing as a "Gorean". None of that lifestyle "information" he spewed can be taken seriously by anyone who seriously practices said lifestyle. He needs to just shut up and go back to drinking from his sip-pee cup, and not interrupt the adults. Go back to Gor and never enter the daylight with the rest of the normal people!!

***Caution! The following contains spoilers, read at your own risk! (Scroll down if you wish to read the rest of the review, spoiler free)***

This movie is absolutely horrible. It does not show the lifestyle in a positive light, and pretty much makes a mockery of the human slave trade. The main male character is a poor excuse for a human being whose only reason for taking a slave is because his dog died. Really? Really? And you know, it's pretty sad that the dog lived longer than the girl. The main female character is an idiot. She does all this stuff that doesn't even begin to make sense. Sitting on the floor at a restaurant? Yeah, like that happens all the time by people in the lifestyle. And through this entire movie, these people were getting into situations that they could have easily called the police on.

And then there's the scenes in which there's some sort of slaver's convention/party/bat cave, complete with the web servers that have the website for slave flesh speculation. In Utah of all places! This "master" doesn't want to sell his pet, so he brings along her ownership tag. To a get together in which they're what? SELLING SLAVES!! Then, he "accidentally" drops it, and somehow, the "pet" is too stupid to not go "um, hello? you just dropped this tag" And it only gets worse.

The best part, though, HAD to be the redneck who was doing the Slingblade impression. If he had busted out with something like, "He sure does like his pets branded, mm hum", I would not have been the least bit surprised.

***END OF SPOILERS***

If you are into the lifestyle and looking for a good lifestyle movie, or one that presents it in a positive light, this movie is not for you. If you are looking for a good movie that touches on the tragedy of the slave trade, this movie is not for you. If you are someone who enjoys movies, this movie is not for you. If, however, you are someone who spends their free time pretending to be a master or Gorean, and have somehow gotten the idea that you have any reason to speak, then this movie is perfect for you.

About the only thing this movie would be good for is for those people who are in a coma. Play this movie, and they're sure to come out of the coma, even if it's just to beat you for making them suffer through this horrible excuse for wasting people's time.


ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE! I just went through and sampled the movie, the actors make B-rate porn stars look like Oscar contenders. The audio sounds awful, and half the time the actors lips don't even move to produce the sound. It's blatantly obvious that they're in a sound studio reading their lines which are then haphazardly meshed with the video.

I'm glad I didn't pay to see it! Not sure why anyone would rate this movie as anything other than awful, even as a softcore porn it's done a poor job.

Avoid this title as it is a total waste of time.


This film is about a Jewish boy being sent to live with a catholic family during the Holocaust.

Normally, a film about a boy suffering in the Holocaust should be a sure tear jerker that touches people right to the core. An example is the Oscar winning "Life Is Beautiful", which to me is still the best film of all time.

However, "Edges of the Lord" is a rare example of a failed Holocaust film. It documents the mischiefs of a group of children that is only weakly related to the Holocaust, that they who could have been anyone in any place. The story is not engaging, and lacks emotional portrayal either, as it keeps going on and on about rather unusual acts between the children. Seriously, how could a teenage girl invite a young boy into a room for an hour and then want the other boys to stone her? Or a young boy running naked in the rain? The plot is weak to start with, and spirals out of control into unforgivable chaos that is beyond redemption.

The deadliest weak point though, is the accent. It is understandable that the director wants to make the film "authentic", but if so, why not make the film in Polish or in German? It would have been even more authentic, and easy on the ears. The resultant fake Polish accent in "Edges of the Lord" is a strange chimera that is very unpleasant on the ears.

The only strong point I can think of is the strong acting by Liam Hess. "Edges of the Lord" is still a big disappointment.


This is the MOST disturbing film I have seen in a long time. If you like this movie go rent Bastard out of Carolina. My God!! A child who believes he is Christ...meh? Good?? No!! Hangs himself on a tree?? No!! Good Movie?? NO!! Put it back where you found it and run away!! Why, oh why, would that dear boy whom everyone had such high hope for after the Sixth Sense be in something this truly traumatizing? At times I wished that I too had a whip so that I too could whip myself for renting this dreadful, horrifying, disturbing movie!! I was banned from the movie selecting for months after this one!! I repeat myself, do not get this movie!! Put it back on the self, that one in front of you, and leave. Go rent a happy movie. I recommend Max Magician and the Legand of the Rings. At least you will get a decent laugh.


I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy

I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy


Ronald Reagan (he's John) loves Patricia Neal (she's Mary), but he's married to his best friend's girl. There is a very good reason: best friend Jack Carson saved Mr. Reagan's life during World War II and Reagan married Lily to help his buddy out - you see, Lily needs an American husband to obtain passage to the USA. Meanwhile, Mr. Carson has married another woman

Even for the time, the comedy dialog in "John Loves Mary" must have sounded remarkably unsophisticated; listen, for example, to the scene when Reagan explains how he dealt with "loneliness" during his four years of service. The performances match the low average nature of the proceedings. Most notable as Patricia Neal's (inauspicious) movie debut.

*** John Loves Mary (2/4/49) David Butler ~ Ronald Reagan, Patricia Neal, Jack Carson


One of those thrillers that isn't half as clever as it thinks it is, and which half the time leaves you wondering what the heck is going on.

Tom Hulce is a "struggling artist" who lives in a dingy apartment in Hollywood. He has a daughter with Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, but they split up because Tom prefers to spend his time drinking, painting, and having casual sex with women he meets at a club owned by Adam Ant. Tom also spends a lot of time laughing at his own cartoons, which are painfully unfunny yet somehow earn him enough to pay the rent.

The first half-hour of the movie is unfathomable. There are a few comedic moments as we see Tom's home life, his daughter, and his broken relationship. Then, Tom comes home to a ransacked apartment and a confrontation with a scary dude in a red coat and dark glasses. Mr. Redcoat whacks Tom, and when he wakes up he's in a car with Redcoat and some other strange men. Redcoat demands Tom gives him "something" that "she" gave to him, but Tom doesn't appear to know anything about the "she" or the "something" that Redcoat is referring to. Redcoat is not happy about this, and pushes Tom out of the car, whereupon he's almost squashed by a large truck.

Tom goes to the police, and he then realises who the "she" was. Tom recently had casual sex with a woman (Virginia Madsen) whom he met at Adam Ant's club (it is later revealed that she was a prostitute, but Tom did not know this at the time). She has been found dead, and Tom was the last person to see her alive, so he's now in the frame for her murder.

Various other elements are brought into play, such as a society scandal, some incriminating photographs, a good cop, a corrupt cop, and an extremely powerful and wealthy society lady (who turns out to be behind the plot, her intention being to frame and ultimately kill Tom so that his paintings, many of which she owns, will rise in value). It's all faintly ridiculous, and progresses in such a jarring and disjointed way that it feels as though your brains are being scrambled.

There are a few priceless moments, but these aren't enough to redeem the film. What could have been an erotic scene - Tom getting to grips with a very naked Lisa Niemi - turns into extreme farce, as Tom's little daughter walks in and says "hi", completely unfazed (she's clearly used to seeing strange nude women in Daddy's apartment!) Mary then walks in, and she is somewhat less approving, so Tom desperately tries to make excuses and fails badly ("Is she a model?" "No, she's a secretary" - D'OH!) Mary storms out and Tom chases after her, to no avail. When he returns to the apartment, he finds Lisa dead (he actually trips over and lands face first in her pubic hair), so he ultimately decides he has to go on the run.

Tom goes to Mary's house and tricks her into letting him in, in the hope of finding refuge. Then, Adam Ant walks into the room wearing only a pair of underpants and a silly hat, and Tom slumps into a chair looking defeated and betrayed. This is probably the funniest moment in the whole movie.

Eventually, Tom manages to unravel the entire thing (he's doing better than the audience at this point) and he confronts Wealthy Society Lady at an outdoor party, where all of the guests (several hundred of them) appear to be in on her plot. Redcoat is assigned to drive Tom up to the Hollywood sign and kill him, but for some reason he shoots himself instead, allowing Tom to make his escape.

Tom asks Mary to meet him in a hotel room, which she does, but she brings along the Good Cop (Harry Dean Stanton) for support. Unfortunately, Corrupt Cop turns up as well and after a standoff, both cops are dead. Tom realises he is in it up to his neck and decides his only way out is to fake his own death, with Mary's help and support. Tom goes back up to the Hollywood sign, where Redcoat's body is still in the car. He takes Redcoat's dark glasses, sets the car alight and makes a dash for it.

The final scene is at "Tom's" funeral. Mary and daughter, wearing funereal clothes, get into a car. The camera pans and we see the car is being driven by a smiling Tom, who has disguised himself as Redcoat by wearing his dark glasses and combing his hair. Cue end credits; gnashing of audience teeth.

The major plot developments are unconvincing, and the conclusion unsatisfying. Too many things are left unsaid. What was Adam Ant's role in all of this? Was he in on the whole thing? Did he set Tom up with prostitutes so he could jump into bed with Mary? How did Corrupt Cop become wound up in the plot? Part of the problem is that we don't care what happens to Tom, as he is such an unlikeable character. He cheats on his wife and (knowingly or otherwise) uses hookers. He laughs at his own jokes, he appears to be mad, whiny, and delusional, and is capable of extreme violence (witness the extremely unpleasant scenes with his elderly landlady - is this supposed to be a guy we're meant to root for?) At one point, I thought there was going to be a split personality twist, where Tom and Redcoat turned out to be the same person. It's not that type of movie, though.

Sometimes, an inscrutable plot can reward an audience willing to think outside the box and unravel it. However, Slam Dance has such poorly-acted, two-dimensional characters with unconvincing motivations, you get the impression that it simply isn't worth the effort.


"Slam Dance" is not a good picture. First of all it's boring. Second it's badly written and thirdly it's badly directed.

Tom Hulce gives a very cheesy performance as a troubled cartoonist on the run. During an early scene he enters his burglarized apartment and reaches for an umbrella for protection. The ridiculous expression of satisfaction he gives at finding such a handy weapon is completely out of tune with the tension of the scene and so from that point on all credibility is lost. Surprisingly Tom Hulce has a few more moments of uncertainty as an actor during the course of this rambling movie. The blame must rest firmly on the director shoulders.

There are also a myriad of corny coincidences and gaping loopholes that only serve to alienate the viewer. Such simple logic as to how a casually dressed man on the run can enter an evening dress society Hollywood party with out the hint problem is tossed aside as unimportant.

Just because children seem to like the lead protagonist does not automatically mean the audience will. Who is this cartoonist that laughs at his own jokes?

This is a motion picture that can degrade in the studio vaults to its hearts content because it will never be missed.


I found this movie amusing for its low budget effects and several flaws in its continuity. The most frequent flaw was the splicing of scenes in which it would appear to be day and then night and back and forth. Despite, or perhaps because of its flaws, I liked it. It does help if you like 1950's "B" sci-fi films and Shostakovich to start with.

In addition to the plot strongly resembling Robert Heinlein's "Puppet Masters", the music was also not original. I could find no evidence that there ever was a "Tom Jonson" who wrote any music for this film or anywhere, ever. Most of it was taken, uncredited, from Dmitri Shostakovich's symphonies 1, 5, & 10. I also recognized an excerpt from Sergei Prokofiev's music score for the Russian language film Alexander Nevsky. At the time Brain Eaters was distributed these composers were not as frequently performed in the US and their music would not have been familiar to almost all movie goers. Both composers were from the Soviet Union (Prokofiev died in 1953). They were perceived as Communist and there was a certain amount of prejudice and/or fear about performing it. During the cold war it would also have been difficult for Shostakovich to pursue legal action against the film company if he even knew his music had been used. I suspect this is exactly why this music was used.

I also would not be surprised if it turns out that the source of the performances were records purchased at a record store and the musicians were not compensated either. The credits do not list any orchestra(s)/conductor(s). The editing of the background music was also poorly done. There were several places where the music did not transition smoothly to the next scene or even within the same scene.


The Brain Eaters starts with the newly engaged Glenn Cameron (Alan Frost) driving his lucky fiancé Elaine (Jody Fair) to the small American town of Riverdale in Illinois to break the good news when they see a sudden bright flash. Glenn & Elaine stop to investigate & discover a large metal cone that's 50 feet tall by 50 feet across at it's widest. In Washington Senator Walter K. Powers (Cornelius Keefe as Jack Hill) takes full responsibility & flies out to Riverdale where he is met by Glenn who just happens to be the Mayor's (Orville Sherman) son, Glenn informs Senator Powers that his Father has mysteriously disappeared & there has been 3 unsolved murders in the area recently. Glenn takes Senator Powers to the cone where Dr. Paul Kettering (Ed Nelson), Dr. Wyler (David Hughes) & their assistant Alice Summers (Joanna Lee) are busy running all kinds of tests on the unidentified object. Kettering informs Senator Powers that he is baffled by the cone, eventually they all end up in the Mayor's office who has suddenly reappeared. After some macho rubbish between the Mayor & the Senator about who is in charge the Mayor pulls a gun out & makes a run for it but is shot by a cop. Kettering & a somewhat unemotional Glenn examine the body & discover two holes in the back of his neck. Kettering performs an autopsy & discovers that the Mayor was being controlled by an alien parasite previously unknown to man, Kettering puts two & two together & comes up with the startling theory that these parasites have come from the cone. But since the parasites got to the Mayor who else is being controlled? The mystery deepens even further when an expert in bio-chemistry , Professor Helsingman (Saul Bronson), who has been missing for the past five years turns up out of the blue. Kettering & his team face a race against time to stop the parasites before they take over the entire human race!

Directed by Bruno VeSota The Brain Eaters is nothing to get excited about. The script by Gordon Urquhart supposedly based on Robert A. Heinlein's novel The Puppet Masters fails to make the most of it's obvious potential, the potential for paranoia is wasted. The film makes it perfectly clear who is controlled by a Brain Eater & who isn't. Film's like John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) & Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) brilliantly uses the mistrust between characters to heighten tension & make us, the viewer, question who we should believe & put our faith in. The Brain Eaters has none of this which hurts the film badly as it's very predictable & doesn't even attempt to try & pull any surprises. The dialogue is clunky, awkward, static & feels dated as is often the case with 50's Sci-Fi but there are a few laughs to be had if you listen closely enough. To give it some credit it moves along like a rocket, there's no boring exposition here even going as far as having a few scenes narrated rather than try & condense the information into an ordinary conversation & at only an hour long it doesn't outstay it's welcome. The Brain Eaters themselves are rarely seen & when they are they look like wigs with antenna's. There's no blood, gore or violence & the special effects are generally poor as you would expect. The acting is very wooden & everyone looks & sounds like they're reading their lines from cue cards, & yes Leonard Nimoy does make an appearance even if it's hard to make him out you'll definitely recognise his voice. Director VeSota fails to bring any scares, atmosphere, style or originality to the film as a whole. Overall I thought The Brain Eaters was an OK way to pass an hour but could have been more & at the end of the day fails to distinguish itself from any other 50's black & white Sci-Fi film of which there are many better ones available. One to watch only if your desperate.


This is one of a series of vintage AIP horror titles released some time ago as part of an R2 DVD collection entitled "The Arkoff Library", though the copy I watched was actually culled from an AMC TV broadcast (with constant streaming advertisements of upcoming shows and pictures!); others include THE SHE-CREATURE (1956), BLOOD OF Dracula (1957) and HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER (1958)  all of which I have acquired in time for my ongoing Halloween challenge. Thematically, the film is a variation on the classic INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) with a small town gradually taken over (though not by an alien organism but rather a vanished  and, typically, superior  civilization); despite the sensationalistic title, the creatures  'possessing' their victims through small punctures at the back of the neck  are never actually seen, leading to a wonderful POV shot (perhaps the film's highlight) depicting an attack on the hero's girlfriend. The leader of the 'invaders' is actually a bearded old man  only ever shown in silhouette  residing in a cone-shaped rocket! The end result is not too bad though hardly a classic of its familiar kind or genre and obviously cramped by the low budget and necessary compactness (running a mere 56 minutes); interestingly, the film's director is the burly Orson Welles-lookalike sleazeball from DEMENTIA (1955).


Were it not for the presence of two men who scored great success later on television, Ed Nelson on Peyton Place and Leonard Nimoy on Star Trek, The Brain Eaters would have no reason to be remembered. Then again with your half eaten cerebrum it would be impossible to remember this film anyway.

It's not monsters from Outer Space, but a collective of Borg like parasites, speaking of Star Trek, from the Earth's core who've come to the surface in rural Illinois and start invading the populace of Riverdale. When they take over the police authority and cut communications from the outside, our intrepid heroes led by a US Senator of all things have to deal with them on their own.

Ed Nelson and Leonard Nimoy play two of the scientists. But the saving grace of the film if it has any is the performance of Cornelius Keefe as the blustering United States Senator who is most aware of the prerogatives of his office and ain't gonna let no aliens, parasites, whatever stand in his way.

Leonard Nimoy's name is misspelled in the credits and for reasons of posterity he probably considers it a blessing.


Sorry to say, I was bored about 2 minutes into this flick. The actors ham it up so much, they almost distract you from the flat dialogue. The Director tried really hard, maybe too hard, but nothing clicks in this movie. Our audience giggled once, but at the end, we all looked at each other, and left the theater wanting to see a REAL movie.


the original driver is great. this piece of sh*t is well just that a piece of sh*t. it has loads of glitches popup graphics handling of the cars is not as good as the first one it is too sensitive on the second one compared to the original. that is not the worst part of the sequel the worst part is th really annoying slow motion glitch you get when you go around corners or put the foot down when you pull away from a standing position.

quite simply this is worse than Alterd Beast for the megadrive if that is possable. i have the first one and will probably have the third one but i will not ever have the second one.

it all comes down to poor programming and it was probably a rushed job cos it was not long after that the playstation died and the black box (ps2) was born they would be trying to get it out quick style so as they could get it sold before the enevitable happened. (R.I.P) playstation.

my rating for the game 1/10. my rating for the original 9/10.


Second to Space Cases, My Brother and Me was possibly the worst show I've ever seen on Nickelodeon. Not only did it have no premise, but it contained a series of the worst actors I've ever seen. Each actor spoke as if they were reading their lines off a wall - broken speech that made them all sound incredibly dumb. It used to pain me, as a kid, to watch this show when it was on and usually I'd have to change the channel halfway through. Suffice to say, none of the actors from the show has gone anywhere, more or less. I can't even remember any of the plots because none of them had the possibility of holding my attention. And the funniest thing of all was throwing in the token white kid with blond hair and glasses. Overall, a poor effort on someone's part.


The remains of a giant worm are uncovered at a Scottish village, and horror and hilarity ensues, or so hoped the filmmakers of this camp based on a Bram Stoker novel. Donohue is quite alluring as a mysterious woman obsessed with snakes. Davis and Oxenberg play damsels in distress, but Russell doesn't really take advantage of the possibilities presented by this trio of babes. Grant, in an early role, had not yet gotten down his quirky mannerisms, but shows an affinity for light comedy. While there is some witty dialog, there is too much nonsensical talk. The film has all the elements in place for campy fun, but becomes a bore instead.


Terrible movie, with goofy music and the kind of wacked out scenes you'd expect to see in a bad dream. I thought the movie sounded good when I heard it had something to do with vampires and such. It turned out to be a long, boring movie that wrecked the rest of my evening, if you know what I mean.

Don't watch this movie. Expecially when there is so much more better things out there.


I rented this flick after viewing part of a cut version on the Sci-Fi Channel. I thought it would be so cheesy it would be funny. It has TONS of cheese but the acting's so awful, it begins to wear thin on the viewer. Amanda Donohoe looks pretty hot but the armpit hair could go. Hugh Grant phones in his performance and looks stunned that he had to do this flick. The other women look decent but are somewhat forgotten while they attempt to tell some very dull story. In a word, this movie is "pathetic." It might be "the best Irish/Celtic horror film" because it might be the only "Irish/Celtic horror film." If this film had any competition in the category, I can guarantee my vote would be for the competition. They could have just filmed the three women running around semi-nude and that would have more of a plot than this piece of trash. The "monster" looks like a paper mache worm. The VERY end is cute but the nearly 1 hour and a half of slow torture it took to get there isn't worth it. Don't waste your time!!!!!!!


Once again we have to deal with Mr. Grubin's use of mundane metaphors. How many times do we need to see the sun, moon, or a galloping horse? Show some faces for cryin' out loud. Obviously Mr Grubin had to fill up his 6 hour doc with idle images because he couldn't use stock film footage they way used on his other docs. Too bad. The documentary could have been a good one. It is Mr. Grubin's worst film so far. One note of interest, Tom Haneke's editing for the first couple of hours was superb!


I can't help but laugh that these people that did a review all give it a good rating.

With such big profile star (except for prefame Ekin Cheng), one would wonder how will it turn out. After recently viewing this movie i can agree with Kozo from LoveHKFilm that Calling this film bad would be an insult to actual bad movies. This movie was sooo awful that it was worth it to watch till the end. This movie full of stupid humour that leave you confuse and will make you laughing how stupid the movie is. The storyline was just crapacular, if you have watch the film, they say the FutureCop can't lie or else they will get shock. Well when they are in present time, there was soo much lying going on (when Andy Lau and Jacky CHeung went for the interview is just one of many example). The plot was very shallow (which they stole from Fight Back to School) and the joke are not funny. From the start to the ending this movie look very fake, boring, and extremely stupid.

Com'on guys let the public know that this movie should not be view and should all be burn and forget about. Right now this is the second worse HK movie i had ever saw behind the New Option.


The film is terrible, the subject of the film does not have sense, music is frightful and the actors without commentaries. I hoped for another thing of this film, but not covered all my expectation, sorry that she is Mexican, but is necessary to recognize when she is good or bad, and this is garbage, literally.

The film is terrible, the subject of the film does not have sense, music is frightful and the actors without commentaries. I hoped for another thing of this film, but not covered all my expectation, sorry that she is Mexican, but is necessary to recognize when she is good or bad, and this is garbage, literally.


This show "died" after the Woodcocks (played by Eddy Kaybe Thomas and Kat Foster) disappeared without a warning...

Not that it was amazing, just a good 20 minutes of a properly made low key sitcom. But after the Woodcocks were cut off, the show just tried to take other directions and if of course failed miserably (who would have thought replacing half the cast could have an impact!?) What is weird is that while the show has obviously turned in to a train wreck, it is still on even though you can tell no one cares anymore... Their daughter has been replaced twice, even going from a brune girl to a blonde girl between 2 episodes, but if you can't tell that it's a sign even the producers don't care anymore then keep watching by all means!


I liked the original premise of the two couples, one young, one middle aged and the comedy of the differences between them. Kenny was funny as an occasional guest star, but having him all the time now and losing the Woodcoks (Jeff & Steph) has changed the show altogether to something that just isn't that funny anymore. I find myself hating Kenny more everyday and the show too. I caught one of the episodes they shot last season with the Woodcocks. It is out of place with the current story line, but a welcome break. I do so miss the Woodcocks. I do so hope that they bring the Woodcocks back for good. After these three episodes with them air and they're not back, I don't know how I can continue watching the show with Kenny and their current format.


I have only seen about fifteen minutes of this show and that wasn't by choice. It was on the television when I visited someone in the hospital. It was a perfect place for the show, it, like the person I was visting was sick. It was trying to get laughts, but the only ones that were laughting were on the laugh track. It is such a standard, generic sit-com with nothing new and little to recommend it. I have never understood why it is felt that certain actors "deserve" a show.

It seems to me that the first thing that should be developed is a concept, something new and different. Then the actors should be cast. This show appears to be a vehicle for Brad Garrett, who's talents I think are very limited. He might be fine as a supporting character, but seems to lack the talent to be a primary character.


Why do people laugh in this show when someone walks in the door? or just sit and do nothing? Im serious no jokes or set up or calls back, someone enters a room and the laughter is there, why?

Is this for real or canned laughter? I find this a broad and manipulative typical boring show in which people cant decide whether they want to laugh at something or not, 'Im a man and the wife does what I say I hate talking to her and doing things blah blah blah'.

The use of satire in this is well off the mark, there are too many shows that play out like this are have nothing going for them.

Don't get me wrong I love my wife, BUT - kinda jokes, lets make jokes behind the wife then act like a child when shes around.

This is on a par with UK show My Family, complete rubbish.


Gotta tell ya, folks...i was really pulling for Brad Garrett, but this show has "mid-season cancellation" tattooed all over it...Garrett is one of those guys who's funny standing still, but even he's not going to be able to dig his way out of this level of sub-standard writing...the whole premise is DOA...Fox broke some ground with "Married With Children", but this reconstituted substitute of a remake is 20 years late and as tasty as margarine....

As Elaine Benes herself might have said, "Next!!! (Please excuse this parenthetic.........Nothing really more to say...just satisfying IMDb's 10-line minimum..)


Just saw Suburban Mayhem at TIFF; it's a brash, eye-popping mess of a movie. It's trying to pay homage to Pulp Fiction with its suggestions of horrible ways of dying--beheading or being bludgeoned to death by an inept killer. These are all loathsome, stupid people who manipulate and copulate their way through life.

The problem with this movie is its lack of purpose of direction. Is this a commentary on the skewed moral compass of these losers who will only find their fifteen minutes of fame by becoming infamous? I'm not sure that the director knew what was happening and just made this flick, hoping that someone would imbue meaning into it.

I don't know what the fuss is all about. There are plenty of films that address immoral characters and their behaviours in a way that makes you think. This film just pushes you over the edge and out the door.

Not worth your time.


I completely agree with you. I saw this film at Canne a few months ago and was very surprised that it made it into the film festival. It was by no means up to the quality of the other films in the festival and there was a great deal of shock after the screening from audience members who were really surprised at the less than average quality of the film. I think the film was written by first time screen-writer Alice bell, and it really shows. The script, direction, and performances are really not up to scratch. I agree and was also surprised that this film got commissioned. I have seen some very good Australian films recently, most notably The Proposition and Look Both Ways and was looking forward to yet another quality Australian product. Unfortunately though, Suburban Mayhem just doesn't cut it.


Hmm... I am actually in this film, I went to the "premiere" screening tonight in Newcastle (after the film had already been in the can for several months now). This also coincides with the announcement for the AFI awards. It didn't surprise me that this film wasn't nominated for best picture. I know we've had some absolute stinkers of late, but honestly, this failed to live up to my expectations. I read another comment on this page saying how it was a "high-octane thrill ride". Well, honestly, this should serve as a reminder not to mix ethanol with your screenplays unless you're going to burn them.

I feel for Alice Bell. I know she's been told by a lot of people that this film is brilliant, but honestly, her vision of a cat-out-of-hell Corman-esquire tyrade has been painfully dissolved by Goldman self indulgent directing. Firstly, the talking heads documentary. Why do it unless you had a lot of screen time to fill. We know what's going to happen in the end. It seems to me that if you're going to have a "high-octane thrill ride", shouldn't you at least be living in the now and the present? I mean, isn't all this just past tense. We know she makes it, we know Rusty makes it, we know someone dies. I mean, if you're going to set your structure up in such a house-of-cards way, you may as well just film it as a segment for A Current Affairs afterall.

Structure is the most important in storytelling. All the flashy shots, no matter how elaborate, are meaningless if you can't justify your plot. This seems to be the problem with Australian films of late. Our funding bodies just seem to be giving our tax money to the same old people to create the same old films. Trust me, three years from now, this movie will be on some shelf in a DVD shop with a fifty cent pricetag on it.

Let's making something lasting and resonant. Play with your camera's and digital floating mailbox effects with your own time. Once more, I say, decent idea, sadly subverted, poorly executed.

Alice if you're reading this dear, don't let my words get you down. Please try, try again.


I was very excited to see this film after all the hype, i was also looking forward to a funny, insightful portrait of 'SUBURBAN MAYHEM' especially having grown up in a place like the one depicted in the film.

I was extremely disappointed. I actually found myself bored for the entire length of the film and it only runs for 90mins. I really can't understand how people are saying this is thrilling or a fantastic Austalian film. It is actually very weak, boring with not much mayhem.

I thought Barclay was outstanding but the script and direction was sloppy, the 'documentary' format annoyed me, totally unnecessary.

I can see what was trying to be achieved but the script lacked a real depth and direction and i found the characters to be two dimensional.

I don't know who is at fault here, the direction or the writing, maybe it was both - but somebody missed the mark completely.


There sure is differing comments on this page. I have to say though, I am stuck in the middle of them all. I don't think the movie is as bad as the first two comments, i also don't think the movie is as good as the third comment. It's not bad, and it's not good. It's an OK movie. It could have been a lot better. I don't agree with the first two comments, and I thought the performances were acceptable. Emily Barclay is good, Michael Dorman is passable, (just, mind you), and the ensemble cast were good. I think the main problem with this movie was summed up very well from a Hollywood Reporter review I recently read, it goes something like this: "If you are going to spend 90 minutes with a wild animal, something about that character should intrigue and engage you. Nothing here does." Having said that, the film is OK, just not good. It's definitely a DVD movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon.


Few films will have you come away feeling as sick as I did from Suburban Mayhem, a putrid and quite vile film about despicable people doing despicable things to one another for the sake of daft entertainment. The film is bad, in that depressing and sickening manner that certain 'bad' films are. This is no guilty pleasure and this certainly isn't a study of anything remotely interesting despite the clear intentions it has. What else can you say about a film that brutally murders off the one, decent character whom tries to help others and then resorts to having its lead characters conform to horrific acts of animal cruelty for good measure?

The film centers on a female youth named Katrina (Barclay) and like the hurricane of her namesake, this little monster whirls bucket loads of chaos as she whirls around the general area causing havoc. Katrina has achieved what little ambition she has very early on in the film: her face on newspapers and her figure on television  it's a celebrity status through horrific acts that someone like Charles Manson might know all about but the thing that's more agitating is its obvious reek of Natural Born Killers and how Suburban Mayhem uses the distorted television perspective complete with 'the guilty' speaking into a camera in a mock interview set up  isn't that a clicé yet? If not, why not  I hate the convention and I hate how it makes people that do it feel clever because it 'breaks the fourth wall' and that's so 'out there' when it comes to mainstream cinema. You're not fooling anyone.

So the film revolves around Katrina and we see her story told to us in flashback format. Now, the term anti-hero is one that springs to mind here but I'm not going to apply it to Katrina because she (as does the film overall) doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the term. An anti-hero is someone who isn't quite on the level of 'good' but knows what they want and we feel a guilty urge to want them to win, even if it clashes with our own moral codes. Here, Katrina has a child, a child that she neglects and ignores in a couple of scenes that are just disturbing in her ruthlessness. Her father, John (Morgan), threatens to have the child taken away unless she sorts out her drug plagued; mischief plagued and crime plagued life. But she cannot have that and enters femme fatale mode to seduce a local nut-case named Kenny (Hayes) into killing her father for her. I don't think anyone in their right minds is going to want Katrina to get away with this.

The film's draw is a question that doubles up as its own hypothesis: "Can you really get away with murder?" thus tempting us to watch to see if someone actually might. Well, unless you're Jack the Ripper in 19th Century, or whenever it was, Britain  no, you can't. The question the writers and co. should've asked one another in a filmic sense is: "Should you really be able to get away with murder?" This is what they fail to spot by the time Katrina is just about home free and documenting to us her story from the confines of the future. If the film is so interested in the quirky delivery of the study of achieving celebrity fame through infamy then Natural Born Killers sets the bar and Van Sant's 'To Die For' is sub-Natural Born Killers; and Scott's 'Domino' is sub-To Die For which means this film is sub-Domino, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel given how much I hated Domino.

So the 'anti-hero' on this occasion is not someone who will force us into questioning our own moral codes as much as she will force us to pray that she dies a slow death not too far into the film's beginning. The drug taking; threatening innocents at home; baby rejecting disaster that is Katrina struts about and moves into seducing Kenny for her own dirty work; we are not amused and we are not enthralled and we cannot believe what we're seeing. These days, the idea of becoming an overnight success for young people is, arguably, at its peak what with the extensive reality TV shows and so forth. I only pray this film be seen by as few as these young people as possible because in the end, the film is a glorification of a young girl who has attained celebrity status through things like pregnancy and getting caught up in a murder plot and what-not. What alarms me is that, here in Britain, the film was classed as a '15' certificate meaning most any teenager can access it.

I felt dirty when I watched Suburban Mayhem. The film is misjudged in its overall delivery and presentation of its ideas; a fun, fast and frenetic series of scenes that revolve around trench-coat wearing hermits being told to kill people on the promise of an easy lay from someone we're supposed to be gunning for. If you want a more mature look at working class life in Australia, as made by the Australians, I recommend 2005's 'Peaches' but Suburban Mayhem is a messy and childish exercise best viewed by as few people as possible.


Katrina (Emily Barcley) is a sad, pathetic, utterly narcissistic young unwed child neglecting mother. The only true love of her life, her brother, has been sent to prison for beheading some poor convenience store attendant, and she's angry about that. Angry enough to do something drastic.

This film was competent enough and kept my interest, but the main characters are so completely devoid of likability or sympathy that it's too hard to empathize with them. There for I didn't get invested in them, much less give a toss about what they were doing. It's marginally well acted and all that, but I just didn't care.

Eye Candy: Emily Barclay provides the T&A

My Grade: C-


I was elated when I won two tickets to the closing night film at The Melbourne International Film Festival. Suburban Mayhem had been wrongly titled and I was at a loss to establish how such a film could get made. What would I be able to learn from an attractive girl who likes to suck and .uck and whose only redeeming feature is a cute baby. This film should of been titled "Suburban Misogyny". I think that in this day and age it is very sad that for whatever reason women are still being perceived in such light on screen. I found this film meaningless and lost. The characters in this film were unlikable and had little room for development. Even the father who you were supposed to like was shallow and out of depth. I went into this film wanting to like it but left feeling very very empty.


This is without a doubt the WORST movie I have seen in years. Absolutely terrible. The whole film revolves around a 19 year old girl who decides she wants to kill her father. She is a mean and vile character and one can't help but ask?...who wants to sit in a theatre and watch a film about a character you absolutely despise?? There is no empathy for this character therefore you couldn't give a damn what happens to her, or what happens in the film. It also has one of the worst performances on screen by Australian actor Michael Dorman. How did this movie ever get made? It's pretentious, uninvolving, boring, and downright terrible. I strongly recommend you save your money and do not go and see this movie. If you don't believe me, check out the reviews....EVERY SINGLE REVIEW I have seen of this movie is negative. No-one likes it...and i completely understand why.


Boring Boring Boring.

Sometimes I go into a film not wanting to be there or with negative pre-conceptions only to be blown away with it's originality and entertainment values. This was not one of these films.

In an age of free to air TV programming mainly consisting of shows depicting death, killing and women using their sexuality to put men down, Suburban Mayhem has both for $15.

During the Q&A after film writer (Alice Bell) could not answer the question asking her whether she liked her main character or not. Considering the films content I wonder what did her father did to her ?

I cannot believe that the writer and the director would think that this was an interesting time for a movie like this. I cannot see anything new about it.

If you really want to see killing just turn on the TV, people are doing it for real !!!!!

The worst thing about it ? Its not entertaining !!!!!

Save your hard earned money.


I read the book on which this film is based--"Bud and Lou", by Bob Thomas--when it first came out, and it didn't impress me much. It turned out that Thomas had relied for a lot of his information on Eddie Sherman, Abbott & Costello's longtime manager who had been fired by the duo and obviously had a major ax to grind. That was to be expected, and it's even understandable, but this movie is, if anything, even more one-sided than the book. Its main goal seemed to be to paint the two comics, especially Costello, in as bad a light as possible. Now Lou Costello was no saint; he was known to have a short fuse, he and Abbott fought bitterly on occasion and even went for months at a time without speaking to each other off the set, he gave many of his directors a lot of trouble and he had a habit of "appropriating" furniture and props that he particularly liked from the sets of his pictures. However, if you believe this movie, he was venal, nasty, stubborn, vengeful, temperamental and offensive 24/7. The script bears little resemblance to the real lives of the two comedians (Costello's daughter in particular was so incensed by this movie that she wrote her own book to refute it and the book it was based on); however, even if it was 100% accurate and Costello actually was the ogre the movie paints him to be, the horrendous miscasting of Buddy Hackett and Harvey Korman destroys whatever possibilities the movie might have had. Hackett bears somewhat of a resemblance to Costello, although he's taller and heavier, and Korman is about the right size and build as Abbott, but that's it. Costello was born and raised in northern New Jersey, as was Abbott, and both had the sharp, rapid-fire speech patterns and New York-ish accent typical of that area, though Costello's was more pronounced than Abbott's. Hackett sounds like a Borscht-belt Catskills comic, which is what he is, and Korman sounds like a classically trained stage actor, which is what he is, and neither of them even tries to come close to the way Bud and Lou spoke--Abbott's mile-a-minute carnival barker spiel, Costello's excitable sputtering as he gets more and more confused--which was central to the astonishing verbal byplay between the two and which, although they made it look easy, was actually quite complex, especially in the "Who's On First" routine. In addition, and even more damaging, is the fact that Korman and Hackett have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever, which is painfully obvious by their atrocious rendering of "Who's On First"; it's so embarrassingly, maddeningly inept--Hackett, for reasons known only to himself, speaks even more slowly here than he does in the rest of the movie, when the whole POINT of the routine was Costello getting more and more overwhelmed as the pace got faster and faster--that it should have been completely cut out.

The film plays fast and loose with the facts--many bios do, but this one does more than most--and the performances by the other actors are nothing special. Arte Johnson plays Eddie Sherman, but makes no particular impression. Michelle Lee, tall, slender, gorgeous and WASPish, plays Costello's wife Anne, who in reality was short, stocky, swarthy, and in fact looked more like Lou Costello than she did Michelle Lee, and Hackett doesn't connect with her, either. The film makes some curious omissions; it doesn't mention, for example, that both Abbott's and Costello's wives were burlesque dancers, which is where they all met. While a case may possibly be made for leaving that out, less understandable is the fact that, although the film covers the team's career in radio and movies, for some unfathomable reason it completely ignores the fact that they had a hugely successful television series for several years (which is still being shown in reruns today).

To sum it all up, if the one-sidedness, inaccuracies and omissions weren't enough to sink this movie, the almost criminal miscasting of the two leads is. This is a stinker of virtually biblical proportions. Avoid it.


I first saw this as it was originally presented on TV in 1978. I have not seen it since because I hated it then. Lou Costello, one of the funniest comedians (although underrated) of all time and Bud Abbott, the greatest straight man ever are woefully misrepresented here. According to this, Costello was a monster and Abbott a weak man who knew nothing about anything, even comedy (The way "Who's On Forst?" is done makes it sound like an educational commercial for Mapquest instead of a comedy routine). While it's true that Costello had more push and was the business head of the duo, he was also a man of many sides, including a love for children, that this biopic prefers to erase. Buddy Hackett and Harvey Korman (both funny men in their own right)play the roles of two very interesting men as one-dimensional boobs who couldn't handle any aspect of show business. It's amazing that Buddy Hackett and Harvey Korman, who are comedy pros could come off so antiseptic and lifeless. It's as if they have no feel for comedy. As a matter of fact, Hackett derided the movie as terrible and he was embarrassed by what it represented for Lou Costello. When Lou's daughter wrote a book called "Lou's on First", Hackett wrote a foreword for the book essentially putting down the entire film as a colossal waste and terribly misleading.Instead of watching this film, read the many books of Abbott and Costello. You'll get a much better and more entertaining view of the two men that way!


As a huge fan of the Hornblower books, I looked forward to these lavish TV adaptations with great anticipation. Imagine my disappointment to find that none of the merits of the books had been captured, leaving only the cheesiest sort of American-style action-adventure.

This first installment is the perfect example. In the original story, the key duel is a masterful play by the virtuoso whist player Hornblower: he takes a losing hand and at the risk of his life finesses it into "an even chance." This reveals the essence of his character: the ability to make coldly dispassionate decisions even when his personal safety is at stake. This revelation is not lost on characters in the book, becoming a key stepping stone in Hornblower's advancement in the navy.

The TV movie throws all of this away. Instead of a brilliant tactician, Hornblower is now just another military bonehead, who solves his problems by a combination of physical prowess and ill-deserved good luck.

Of course, if the film worked even on that level, it might still be entertaining: a latter-day Captain Blood swashbuckler, perhaps. Alas, that's not in the cards either. As appallingly portrayed by the talentless, charmless Ioan Gruffud, Hornblower is little more than an annoying boob, with neither the charisma of an Errol Flynn, nor the gawky believability of CS Forester's original hero.

The historical backdrop might still be of some interest, but that too has been horribly botched. The severe realities of naval life, so vividly depicted in the books, are softened and distorted beyond all recognition. There's no challenge here, for characters to rise above; it's more like a tedious commercial cruise, with boring dinner-table conversation being the worst imaginable hazard.

I suppose that had these films NOT included the name "Hornblower," they might seem like passable (if mindless and style-less) light entertainment. But only of the most marginal sort. By attempting to pass themselves off as Hornblower stories, though, they become openly offensive. My advice: avoid at all costs. Put on The Sea Hawk if you want escapist nautical hijinks, and read The Happy Return or Flying Colours if you want sparkling historical drama.


As a great fan of the Hornblower series (have read it completely through 3 times), I was somewhat disappointed in A&E's rendition of it. C. S. Forester's writing was "abso-fraggin'-lutely" outstanding. His characters, plotting, and historical accuracy and detail mark the books as classic reading and are thoroughly enjoyable.

I was looking forward to the miniseries with great anticipation. Hate to disagree with what seems the common praise -- the sets, the actors, the filming are all very well done -- but what's missing is the texture of the STORY!

As probably the worst example of this, Forester's chapter "The Even Chance" sets up the characters and situation that bring about the duel wonderfully. It's unique. He explains the inaccuracy of pistols of that time and how Hornblower sets the conditions of the duel because of it. In the tv version, this has been changed to something that has little to do with the story as Forrester wrote it. They make a series of a good book precisely because it's such a good story, and then feel compelled to change the story into a typical formula plot.

Enjoy the series for what it is, but read the books to get the story that made them classics in the first place.


There's a decent enough slice of science fiction lurking somewhere in this story but it's well hidden in a low budget TV standard shoot-em-up production.

The fact that the director felt it necessary to supply 3 screens-worth of background information at the start demonstrates that he doesn't have a lot of faith in the quality of the screenplay. Lots of machine guns and explosions punctuate the unimaginative dialogue. The actors do their best but they don't have a lot to work with.

The film does have its moments and from time to time begins to develop relationships between the characters, but the director seems determined to keep rushing on to the next unremarkable action sequence instead of allowing the viewer any kind of emotional engagement.


This is one of the few films I have EVER seen, I would call TOTAL RUBBISH!

It is a shame to see a talent like Nigel Benett, wasted in such trash.

It truly has NO redeeming qualities,

The screenplay is completely incoherent, to the point one has to only imagine the editor, had some kind of brain aneurysm, whilst working on it.

Somewhere after what may, or may not be, the second act, there is a 20 minute motorbike, "chase", that simply serves no purpose, other than to show off some "special effects" and explosions, and even they are so cheap, it is embarrassing to watch.

I have no idea, how you even get finance, let alone insurance to make such a film.

This film makes Plan9 from Outer Space look like Lord of the Rings! At least Plan9, had ambition, beyond its years, or finance.

Life is too short, >AVOID< >AVOID< >AVOID< >AVOID<.


Well, here is another of those quickies that the studio forced upon Bette Davis although this one is not quite as bad as some of her other efforts during this time (Fog Over Frisco, The Big Shakedown).

This time she is paired with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and they are a rather attractive couple.....but as usual Bette does not have much to do here except use a phony Southern accent and sport that platinum hair. The story concerns two flyers (Doug Jr. and Frank McHugh) who go to work for gangster Leo Carillo (before his days as Pancho, sidekick to the Cisco Kid) and get involved with running drugs. The story and dialogue are surprisingly modern as are the living arrangement of the three main characters. But the film still comes across as one of those throw-aways that were on the lower half of the double bill at the local Bijou. Bette deserved better than this. It's worth watching just for the ambiance of the early '30s and the rather honest appraisal of the Depression and its effects.


Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Frank McHugh are a pair of newly discharged Marine fliers who can't find work in Depression era New York. Fairbanks meets similarly situated Bette Davis and the three of them move in together for economy sake only.

In the meantime Doug gets a job as a chauffeur to Claire Dodd, moll to gangster Leo Carrillo. Carrillo takes a liking to Doug when he catches him with Dodd and Fairbanks shows some coolness under fire. He starts Doug working for him now in his business.

This looks like a film again meant for James Cagney with possibly Edward G. Robinson as the gangster. Still Fairbanks does carry off the part.

Bette Davis hated this film with good reason. She's in a part that either Glenda Farrell or Joan Blondell would normally be doing. She affects a nice southern drawl as befits her character of Alabama. I guess it was a learning experience because she put away the drawl and brought it out again for greater effectiveness in Jezebel.

Even with such good players, the film is definitely one of Warner Brothers B products and does kind of fray around the edges.


This is Bela Lugosi's only starring feature in color. That's about all it has going for it, really; the schtick of having a corpse narrate the movie (Which would be done quite a bit better a few years later by Sunset Blvd.) isn't well executed, anyway.

Laura Van Ee (Mary Lamont) is a nervous, tension-ridden ex-dancer who thinks she's imprisoned in her room by her husband Ward and her father in law Dr. Josef (George Zucco). She's mad, mad I tell you! Since it's her corpse that narrates, I think we can assume we know what happens to Mrs. Van Ee right from the get-go.

Why is she so anxious? She's not sure - no one is - but everyone suspects it all has something to do with her past, and something to do with a handkerchief. Enter Bela Lugosi and a midget - no, wait, Professor Leonide and his faithful companion, Indigo. And a wisecracking, tough-guy reporter (Douglas Fowley) and his dim-bulb dame (Joyce Compton). Add in a bumbling ex-cop who overtly desires a murder so he can solve it and get back to "real" policework (Nat Pendelton), and you have all the ingredients for One Crappy Low Budget Movie.

Every now and then the director remembers this is supposed to be a horror film, not a crime caper, so you hear this loopy pseudospooky music that's probably supposed to portend doom, or something. Which makes some sort of sense, but there's nothing creepy going on at the time, so it's hardly effective.

I've heard tell that Lamont, as the haunted Mrs. Ee (love the surname) is the only actor with any kind of spirit (ha, ha) in the movie - but please, hammy isn't the same as being spirited. Lugosi plays Lugosi, the midget disappears halfway through the picture, there's a supposedly disembodied head, and that's about it. It's all over in an hour or so.


Scared to death is a fun movie. I really liked the character of Bill Raymond (played by Nat Pendleton), who was a detective sitting around a house waiting for someone to be murdered so that he could impress his superiors on the police force.

There were a great deal of fun turns in the movie. The bad guy was really a good guy and the person who was "murdered" really deserved it. As I mentioned before, the cop was there for no reason but to wait for a murder and the reporter was also there waiting for something to report. There was also a dwarf who seemed to just be hanging around to make the movie strange, a man who wanted a divorce and couldn't figure out how to get one, a doctor who never saw a single patient and a maid who sometimes seemed like she might be a nurse.

The plot was so silly and contrived that you couldn't take it seriously- so you have to just sit back and have some fun with it. It's not an expensive movie, I bought it on a DVD that also has 2 other Bela Lugosi movies on it- White Zombie and The Corpse Vanishes. It's not the best plot in the world, but it is a nice distraction for an hour of your time.


Bela Lugosi's only color feature film. VERY strange movie about unhappily married Laura (Molly Lamont) convinced that her husband and his father are trying to scare her to death. (Why they are supposedly doing it is kind of vague) In strolls the mysterious Prof. Leonide (Bela Lugosi) and his mute, deaf midget friend (Angelo Rossitto) for no real reason. Then there's private cop Bill Raymond (Nat Pendleton) casually walking around the house looking for a murder!

Not a good movie--badly directed with some of the worst color designs I've ever seen in a movie. The acting ranges from unbelievably hammy (Lugosi) to bad (everyone else). The plot is full of holes and unexplained people and circumstances--I'm still not sure what Rossitto is doing in this. Also someone in a blue mask keeps looking in windows--but everyone says it's a GREEN mask! Love the part when George Zucco listens to the heartbeat of a woman who fainted and immediately declares she's under hypnosis!

None of it makes much sense but--in a way--this is lots of fun. Just silly enough to enjoy and keep you interested. The "explanation" at the end is just ridiculous. The color is actually pretty strong in the print I saw and it's all narrated by a dead woman! It's bad (that's why I give it a 3) but oddly compelling. A must for bad film fans.


Norm thinks more of this turkey than I do. I found it inept in plotting, dialog, direction---well, everything. Lugosi tries, but the deck's stacked against him. Watch as Zucco takes the dead girl's pulse, lets go of her hand, and it hangs there for a second before dropping to the floor. Lines get flubbed but they go on anyway. Hear the corpse stick her two cents in periodically, while the same spooky chord plays every time. Okay, I've seen it, but the next time I watch it I'll have some liquored up friends over for some solid laughs.


This is a strange, lukewarm chiller that arguably for the first time in the movies has a corpse telling the story of her mysterious death by way of flashbacks from a lab in cold storage. This is also the only movie that Bela Lugosi played in that was released in color. The mysterious green mask that keeps appearing in the window does fit into the weird story line. Albeit this 65 minute mystery/drama is more odd than horror.

Beside Lugosi, very familiar faces show up in the cast: George Zucco, Roland Varno and Nat Pendleton are aided by Molly Lamont and Gladys Blake.


The story is not an important as the chance to see Bela Lugosi acting. He played Professor Leonide, a strange character, in his only color movie as a star.

Former Olympic wrestler Nat Pendleton provided the comic relief as a dis=graced police officer desperately hoping someone would get murdered so he could solve it and get back on the force.

There were no really scary moments, as the film is mainly concerned with who is causing havoc that eventually leads to murder, and the list of suspects includes just about everyone.

Oh, we know that there will be a murder as the story is told in flashback.


Scared to Death starts in the 'Central City Morgue' where a pathologist (Stanley Andrews) is about to begin his gruesome work on a dead woman named Laure Van Ee (Molly Lamont), as the corpse of Laura lies there it begins to tell the tale of how she ended up dead... Cut to Dr. Josef Van Ee (George Zucco) & his son Ward (Roland Varlo), they discuss Laura & how she won't give Ward a divorce & how she is generally a moody paranoid b*tch. Laura thinks that someone is trying to kill her & she suspects everyone, from Lilly Beth (Gladys Blake) the maid to the private patrol officer Bill 'Bull' Raymond (Nat Pendleton) to a creepy stranger Professor Leonide (Bela Lugosi) to her husband Ward & Dr. Josef. No one is safe from her accusations & moods, women eh!? However it seems Laura may have a point, she receives a decapitated dummies head, the feeling that she is being spied upon & mysterious letters that appear to unsettle her. Then a tipped off reporter named Terry Grant (Dougles Fowley) & his bird Jane Cornell (Joyce Compton) turn up, invite themselves in & start sniffing around for a story. Before the night is over they will get one...

Directed by Christy Cabanne this is a pretty poor film whichever way you look at it I'm afraid. The script by Walter Abbott plays much more like a murder mystery than a horror film that the title may suggest. The murder plot is confused, it tries to cram as many stupid red-herrings as it can. Every character in Scared to Death acts so suspiciously it becomes both irritating & distracting, I mean do these people want to be suspected of murder even though it hasn't even happened yet?! I quite liked the idea of a corpse narrating it's own murder but for some bizarre reason the film likes to concentrate on the comedy relief supplied by the dim-witted Raymond. The ending might have been effective if not preceded by such a lame, confused & boring hour of badly written comedy, mystery & character's who don't need to be there, I mean what was the purpose of the dwarf Indigo (Angelo Rossitto) as to my eyes he contributed NOTHING to the film? The story doesn't grip like any good murder mystery should & just ends up becoming tedious.

Director Cabanne does nothing to add any suspense, tension, scares or excitement & instead piles on the lame comedy. Scared to Death might have been decent it if were set in a spooky old mansion but Cabanne decided on an bland ordinary looking house which hardly generates any atmosphere, in fact it doesn't generate any. There is only one murder if you can call it that, refer to the title to understand what I mean.

Scared to Death was another poverty row effort for Lugosi who comes & goes but doesn't do much. This was one of only two colour films he appeared in, the other being Viennese Nights (1930). The acting isn't great but it's better than some of these early horrors.

Scared to Death is a poor murder mystery, has no horror elements in it & is stuffed with annoying comedy that is anything but funny. Do yourself a favour & give this one a miss, there are much better films out there. One more thing, the IMDb cast listing on the Scared to Death main page gives away the identity of the killer if you look down it. A case of the IMDb breaking their own rules?


Laura (Molly Lamont) thinks she is being frightened to death. She is not a very pleasant character, just the way she talks to people. Professor Leonide (Bela Lugosi) and his companion Indigo (Angelo Rossito) arrive. Rossito had a featured role in "Freaks" and was hugely in demand in Hollywood. Bela is fantastic as usual as Leonide, someone from Doctor Josef Van Ee's (George Zucco) past. The way Bela looks the Doctor up and down and sneers "old friends" with a wealth of meaning - is there anyone who could doubt he is one of the all time greats!!!!

It is a pretty ghastly movie - nothing makes much sense. The doctor's son produces a photo of a masked couple - he thinks it will clear up the identity of Laura. The ending is fantastically bad with every thing in the plot but the kitchen sink. And any film with Joyce Compton as the second lead (however madcap she is ) you know is not going to be a grade A production. Still the "Natural Color" does look very natural - not garish or artificial. The biggest mystery of the film is why it was filmed in color in the first place - when there were so many lesser musicals that could have been enhanced by color.


This film was told though a series of flashbacks as told by a dead woman lying on a slab at the morgue. While a very intriguing idea, the ineptness of the transitions was a problem (they were very abrupt and choppy). What was a much worse problem is that although the story is supposed to be told by the dead woman, many scenes in the film don't feature her and you are left wondering "how did she know about that conversation?".

This dead woman, by the way, was a very obnoxious and sharp-tongued lady--so you find yourself rooting for her death! I actually liked this because so many people in the movie had good motives for killing this harpy and it also felt very satisfying to see her literally scared to death.

As for the acting, apart from George Zucco and Bela Lugosi, most of the rest of the actors seem like amateurs--and often they either talk over each other's lines or they get the other actor's names wrong (like the exchange where one character keeps calling the other "Bull" instead of "Bill"). These problems should have been dealt with by the director, but apparently re-shooting scenes wasn't allowed or they simply couldn't afford this! Considering it was made by "poverty row" studio Golden Gate Pictures, this sloppiness isn't too surprising.

The plot, though far from great, is reasonably interesting and will probably be quite enjoyable to fans of Bela Lugosi--especially the strange twist ending (though it is a tad too complicated). Others probably will find the whole thing rather silly and dull--though I think this gave the film some of its cheesy charm. I especially liked when Zucco declares that the zombie-like lady is being controlled through mental telepathy! How he knows this is completely beyond me--perhaps he just was reading the script.


Mainly notable as Bela Lugosi's only film in color (he's actually quite good as a magician), it's narrated by a corpse (could it have influenced SUNSET BOULEVARD [1950]?) - however, judging by the absurd split-second flashes to the body on the morgue slab every once in a while, the film-makers apparently thought the audiences constantly needed to be reminded of this novelty!

I really wanted to like this film because the central idea (a woman with a guilty past fears for her life in an institution) and some of the imagery (especially the green mask motif) were intriguing enough. Unfortunately, the plot development was extremely muddled - with new characters introduced from time to time but subsequently given little to do (chief among them Angelo Rossitto as Lugosi's deaf-and-dumb but, by the latter's own admission, bad-tempered dwarfish sidekick). Besides, it establishes situations - for instance, Lugosi's long-time grudge with George Zucco - that are ultimately left hanging in the air and which it never bothers to resolve or adequately explain, that one's attention is bound to wander throughout. Add to this the inane comic relief provided by Nat Pendelton as a dumb cop (who is even less appetizingly involved in a romance with the household's ordinary and inevitably frightened maid) and Douglas Fowley as a flustered reporter (who has no purpose in being there at all but has a ditzy blonde in tow for good measure) and it comes as no surprise that the end result is so flat and poorly done in all departments!!

P.S. Here's an interesting (and hilarious) review about the film which perfectly encapsulates its various shortcomings - the author seems to bear a particular grudge against the title: http://www.scifilm.org/musings/musing125.html