STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Nowhere To Run carefully conveys some touching,poignant moments,absent from every other Van Damme film except Legionnaire,but clumsily portrays them.The charecter development is poorly worked out,with potentially great charecters to build on either being killed off too early,or too quick to shed their skin.More of the film Van Damme obviously concentrated on being more dramatic,but ultimately the action scenes are as usual,especially so at the end,what take over,but again,this is too rapidly conveyed to have any real lasting effect,other than to do what any other basic Van Damme film would do.For a truely dramatic break from the norm,Legionnaire remains the Van Damme film to talk about.**


An escaped convict protects a widow from greedy land developers who want the property for something. Along the way the escaped convict falls for the widow and becomes a father figure for her two children. I want to make this clear, I quite enjoy Jean-Claude Van Damme and his movies, I recommended Bloodsport,Kickboxer and Universal Soldier. However Nowhere To Run is just an awful movie. When Jean-Claude Van Damme interacts with Kieren Culkin and the little girl, I just cringed. Even cringed more when Jean-Claude made passes towards Rosanna Arquette. Indeed there is a very awkward moment where Rosanna Arquette and the daughter in the movie discuss Van Damme's penis size at the dinner table, which then has Kieren Culkin all happy that his mom has seen Jean-Claude's penis. Yecch! It's all just cringe worthy material. With melodrama so leaden in sentiment that it made me want to throw up. Add on a sappy ending and you have what ranks as one of Jean-Claude's worst movies.

* out of 4(Bad)


15 years ago, a group of producers were planning a MOVIE. This MOVIE would star JEAN CLAUDE VAN DAMME and would be an ACTION THRILLER. Of course, because of it's PEDIGREE all original thinking would be THROWN OUT OF THE WINDOW. You see, you can never OVERESTIMATE THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AVERAGE ACTION MOVIE FAN. They don't want myriad PLOTS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHARACTERS. No, they want THE MUSCLES FROM BRUSSELS KICKING SOME ASS.

So, they drew up a little template that would NOT ONLY FORM THE BASIS OF EVERY FUTURE VAN DAMME FLICK, but would also be COPIED BY COUNTLESS OTHER CHOP SOCKY PRODUCTIONS, especially those of the STRAIGHT TO VIDEO VARIETY. Till now, this proved formula has been A CLOSELY GUARDED SECRET. Just like the recipe of the KRABBY PATTY. Having watched Nowhere to Run though, I think I can take a pretty good stab at CRACKING THE CODE. So here it is. Sorry, studios:

1. Think of a stupid title. For a start our hero can escape anytime he wants, plus he rides a restored motorcycle for half the film.. so why would he want to 'run' anywhere?

2. Give Van Damme a shady past, something he's not proud of (in this case, being an escaped convict involved in bank robberies), and then halfway through have him blurt out his crime to the love of his life. She immediately rejects him, but decides he's not so bad when he redeems himself by beating up the men who are trying to kill her. As you do.

3. Write in two cute kids who see Jean as a father figure, as they lost theirs due to a heart attack. They must be a boy and a girl. The girl has to carry a teddy bear everywhere and shout "MOMMY" a lot the boy has to be spunky and resourceful, even saving our hero's life at one point. Like it or not, he becomes a surrogate father to the little nippers. Bless!

4. If the main protagonist does get injured in the course of all his brawling, then don't worry. Put away the medkit, because in the very next scene, the nastiest of cuts will completely disappear! It'll be like nothing happened to him! What a relief!

5. The chief villain must be a old dude, wearing a posh suit and with an English accent. All throughout the movie, he has a seemingly endless stream of underlings to do his dirty work for him, but when they're reduced to rubble by The Muscles he should go completely nuts and wave a gun around. Of course this tactic also fails, and the damn Limey is arrested or killed. Phew!

6. The hero's love interest should have a rival for her affections who hates him and even sides with the bad guys temporarily to get him out of the picture. He soon as he sees how ruthless these dudes are though, and comes to his senses. He even congratulates the hero on a job well done at the end as he's surrounded by dead bodies. So he was a stand-up guy after all!!

7. Have the fight over something completely worthless, like a derelict old farmhouse, that most people would quite happily sell at a profit. One lady though, ain't budging because of it's 'sentimental' value and she'll even tolerate thugs killing her cattle and threatening her life with hooks to keep this ramshackle property. It's in a way of a huge development, you see. Will Van Damme risk his life over this belligerent bint? Your bet your..

8. Make full use of your setting. Because this particular film is set in a farm (see 7), in the fight scenes have Van Damme and his opponent use rakes, pitchforks and whatever else happens to be lying around as weapons. But of course, nothing beats the good old uppercut, even if it does take about 10 of them to knock the bad guys over. Hmm.. Maybe The Muscles isn't as strong as we thought.

9. Don't forget The Gratuitous Shower Scene (TM). If you can squeeze in a Gratuitous Sex Scene (TM), even better.

10. Put in a bunch of second rate John McClane style one-liners to try and give the hero some personality. Examples: 'Au Revior F***er' as he shoots dead an evil henchman, and "No, but I know what you are" when the Brit bad guy (See 5) asks "Do you know who I am?!" Shakespeare it ain't.

So to sum it up then: a BOG STANDARD ACTION MOVIE with no bells and whistles, but plenty of Van Damme TAKING NO PRISONERS AND KICKING BUTT. You even get to see HIS at one point. Tee hee. In the pantheon to JCVD films, I would recommend STREETFIGHTER and TIMECOP above this, but if you've WATCHED EVERY OTHER ONE OF HIS CLASSICS then this might be just what the doctor ordered. A HEAD DOCTOR, anyway. Brainless fun, nothing more. 4/10

P.S This review has been especially designed for action genre fans with short attention spans. All important words have been CAPITILISED, so you can just scan through it quickly before getting back to The Last Boy Scout. Hope you appreciate it!


Oh yeah. This movie was nothing but the purest form of crap from beginning to the very end. Everything is wrong here. It's difficult to find out where to start, but I'll begin with the story. It was terrible, and I guess everyone has seen something not far from it a thousand times before. It goes something like this: Bad guys want to buy a woman's land in the middle of nowhere because they're going to build houses there, but she refuses to sell. When bad guys start to get rough, stupid good guy van Damme (who happens to be a bank robber escaped from prison who suddenly becomes the kindest person on earth) comes to the rescue. The whole thing was so stupid that I was hoping for the bad guys to win, and they weren't exactly the coolest bad guys I've seen either. And worse: The action is nearly non-existing from beginning to end. They made some attempts to kick in some action a couple of places in the movie, but they were uninteresting at the best. They even attempted to throw in a fight scene at the end, but it was total failure. I'll consider this a drama movie. That's not van Damme's force. And compared to this, even "Replicant" and "Wake of Death" look good. Watch this movie ONLY if you're looking for a total waste of your precious time.


This movie must have been made off a bet that Van Damme couldn't have a successful movie without having helicopter kicks in it. And what does he do? He does no kicking at all!!! All he uses his legs for is kneeing some heads. This movie might have a story, but if I wanted that I wouldn't be watching a Van Damme movie. I love his movies and kicks. That's why I don't like this one. 1 out of 10.


VD is a convict, who escapes from a jail bus & then helps Rosanna arquette. Her land is about 2 be destroyed by Joss Ackland. He's old-lol. Well, VD fights off some bad guys who try 2 terrorize Arquette & her 2 kids. VD also gets beat up by a cop & 1 scene, he opens show curtain & see VD showering, what a gay cop. VD gets taken care of by Arquette which leads 2 of them having uh, sex. This is a pretty good movie, but it doesn't show his martial art skills like Bloodsport. a must see.


SYNOPSIS: An Australian art teacher at a catholic girls school moonlights as a prostitute on a regular cross country train trip.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: The secret lives of others. The things we have to do in order to make ends meet and the things we do for emotional love as well as physical love. The Woman (as she is known in the film, her name is never mentioned) has many motivations in this film, some monetary, some compassionate, some adventurous. The backdrop of a train rushing through the countryside with a mix of souls thrown together gives the sense of immediacy and living for the moment. Once they exit the train, all is forgotten and it is back to the reality of the world. However, in this film, the Woman eventually gives into temptation in hopes of finding the better life that has eluded her, against her better judgment.

PROS AND CONS: Wendy Hughes plays the Woman and she is pretty captivating in the role. She lends a sense of pathos and subtle pain to the woman that makes the same trip over and over, touching on the lives of others for a brief moment in time. The viewer gets the sense that she doesn't enjoy what she is doing, but sacrifices have to be made in life. Her changing hairstyles are interesting and she becomes a different woman each time she rides the rails.

It is interesting how each encounter is a small relationship that is crafted by the Woman. She is almost more of a therapist to these men than a simple sex object. But the breakup at the end is usually painful because they don't want to let her go. The Woman knows how to spot and manipulate troubled men. Men in need of something more than sex. They have their momentary sexual thrill and the chance to have someone really listen to their problems and are then cast off by the Woman before any real emotional bond can develop.

Because of this, there is an air of tension and sadness in the main character since she knows that each tryst will end with rejection and emotional pain. After the courtship in the club car, there is always the whispered phrase in the passageway "I do this for money". Later, in the Woman's private cabin, when it is all over, the Woman's face goes blank as she utters the words, "You have to go." Despite all the trappings of intimacy, it is only a business.

A low budget film that is an intimate and soul searching drama. Well acted and simple in style. It relies on the screenplay and emotions of the characters to move the story forward. Basic film making as it should be. This is a human story that the viewer can relate to. There are some unpredictable moments at the end and you won't see them coming or know the whole story until the film is over. Overall an enjoyable film.


This movie offers extremely poignant perspectives on the human condition.

We follow the prostitute (played by Wendy Highes), as she works to supply drugs to her brother (very codependent relationship).

Within the self-sacrificing martyr's life that she has chosen (mostly, it appears, as a heroic loyalty for her family) we sympathize with her position because of the way the movie is portrayed.

We are shown the fear of letting her brother go, that she endures.

Enough of that though. The movie is hilarious. The beginning scene in a parlor-car carriage of a train at night, features dialogue between two fascinating characters in almost Quentin Tarantino'esqe pulp.

Upon first watch of this movie, the shades of moderate pathological narcissism (of the woman whoring herself) are unidentifiable in this scene.

Then as the movie gradually moves, we begin to see her ploys adapted to manipulate men. Whats more, the movie progresses in such a way so that because we are being gradually introduced more and more into her daily reality (caring for her brother, teaching, etc); the culmination of her expressing her opinion (that she is actually providing male clients with a worthwhile and much- needed service) never seems audacious.

I am not sure whether the intentions of the producers were to portray this girl in such a light, but her sociopathic rationale never seems sociopathic because of it. Indeed we see that it would take someone with her problems to behave in that way.

From the moments of communion in church; being binded from a long-term emotionally supportive romantic partner (as opposed to just sex); the effort she puts into 'rescuing' her emotionally and physically crippled brother; being a beautiful woman - more often-than-not in the sack with wrinkly, sweaty, drunken and sometimes obnoxious old men - who gets abandoned and used by one of if not the only 'handsome' man in the movie.

Not only is this a very human movie, but it is done in a way that people young and old can absorb and understand it's symbolic eulogies of human doings and happenings (maybe this is due to Peter Sullivan's exquisitely mellow soundtrack that relaxes the deep substance a little).

As an added bonus it is extremely entertaining.

I recommend that this movie needs to be watched many times over a lengthy period, to truly absorb its humanity, its message, it's genius.


I actually feel embarrassed for Michael Moriarty. He has never had the really good roles he deserves. And he did not deserve this. It is obvious that the studio wanted to exploit the popular "Salem's Lot" without "shoveling" out the cash to do a decent job. This film cannot even in good conscience be called a sequel. There was nothing left of the town at the end of the last film, and suddenly all new characters are coming home to a place that isn't even supposed to exist. I really felt as if my intelligence was being insulted, by this truly poor representation of the subject. If you are renting the film OK, you just wasted a couple of bucks, no big deal. But if you bought it, you've just been bitten big time. This movie deserves an early grave.


Father and son take a trip to Salem's Lot, Maine where they discover that the locals are all vampires - who want the two travelers to write a bible for them.

This disappointing theatrical sequel to the excellent 1979 mini-series Salem's Lot has pretty much nothing to do with the original or the novel that it was based on. This film is shamefully flat on scares and the vampires aren't even remotely frightening. For the most part we just get old people running around with plastic fangs in their mouths. Story-wise we get little suspense to sustain the audience.

Yet despite these obvious flaws our leading stars do OK performances and there's a fine music score.

Even still, this doesn't save this sequel from being poor.

* 1/2 out of ****


This is just so bad. The acting is absolutely appalling. The entire cast sound as if they're reading unfamiliar dialogue from an idiot board. Ricky Addison Reed doesn't appear to have done any other film or TV work before or since, & it's not at all surprising. In fact, a quick check through the database shows that quite a few cast members have only ever appeared in other schlock horror movies by Larry Cohen. The monster special effects are laughable. Just check out the ridiculous "true face" of the head vampire, it's on a par with those cheap & cheesy 50's horror/sci-fi B-Features. The script is an insult to Stephen King. Another reviewer stated that this movie isn't as bad as others have made it out to be. I disagree. It is really, really that bad.


The whole thing seemed to be constantly on one median level, with very few shocks. It never really yanks you into the story, and the music is extremely loud and dirge-like, making you feel like you're watching a very tepid documentary made without much thought. An extremely peculiar, rather uninteresting film, a considerable step down from the first film (which wasn't terrific, but was at least exciting!)

I think they should have got Tobe Hooper in again - perhaps he was busy. It's very similar in feel to Halloween 4, which was a complete waste of time - there's a feeling that nobody knew what they were doing during the whole creation process, particularly the music composers, who were obviously filling time until they were discovered by Philip Glass.


A lot of people! and so do I. Seeing this movie at first made me think this looks good... infact I think it started good then gradually got worse then it just buried itself. Michael Moriarty (who I'm a fan of) was in his typical horror movie role similar to movies like "The Stuff". The movie dies right after Joe (Moriarty) gave Van Meer (Fuller) the book about who the people of the town were, The Vampires. A lot more could have been put into the plot it was like it was made up as it goes along. I actually purchased this movie simply because Moriarty was in it, absolutely for no other reason.


This watered down version of Jerusalem's Lot is a far cry from the tense atmospheric town we grew to hate in Salem's Lot.

They made the mistake of bringing in a non-Salem's Lot child, to endear this attempt to the younger audiences. Larry Cohen, who also wrote It's Alive, It Lives Again, and Maniac Cop 1 & 2, penned this screen play. Cohen's style of writing is mediocre at best, frankly. He's had a couple of surprise hits, but they were surprises because the directors and actors involved made the necessary changes and added a quality to the work which lacked in Cohen's writing. Phone Booth is one such surprise. Unfortunately, he was also the director on this project, which explains the inability of the director to add a different perspective on the written work, and a 3.8/10 rating here at IMDb would seem to support the fact that something did, indeed, go wrong.

I has heart, but lacks substance and therefore rates a 3.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This movie had a good idea, that is, how a colony of vampires might live, what they do to survive, etc. However, it just didn't work out right. The pacing and performances were not up to snuff, and any movie in which you have characters standing in a barn full of Holstein cattle, and explaining that "Jersey cows make richer milk", obviously had problems in the design phase.

Just a bad film...


No doubt, A return to Salem´s lot is the worst film I´ve ever seen in my life. Bad acting, horribles fx, incongruencies jokes... No comment.


My Take: One of the worst movies I have ever seen in a life. Definitely the worst horror movie I have ever seen.

I bought this movie because I'm a horror movie buff, and it had a good cover art, but that's just a perfect example of the phrase "never judge the book by its cover.", and "Return to Salem's Lot" was, not just truly horrible, but also a is a real joke of a horror movie. The acting is weak, the script is pale, the make-up lacks realism and the scares aren't even scary. Doesn't that sound like a joke?

Michael Moriarty is like the father figure in the movie who takes his son back to his hometown, the vampire-infested Salem's Lot. His acting was way too over-the-top... and just plain ridiculous. Andrew Duggan as a lead vampire is weak, and poor Samuel Fuller, reduced to a silly role of a Nazi hunter. And much worse, as if the bad acting wasn't enough, the script never fared better.

Silly horror move, I wouldn't even recommend it to a camp buffs. That's how awful it is.

Rating: 0 out of 5.


Absolutly has nothing to do with the tv mini-series Salem's Lot (1979). Very low-budget type film. This does not have the same characters nor the same actors as in the original film and does not have the main vampire killer as in the original film we all are a fan of. This film is just a total rip-off by name of title of the original film instead. Not worth the bother and definatly not for children to see. My rating is an awful "1". What a waste of good talent for Evelyn Keyes (Gone With The Wind) and June Havoc. Only worth a look if you would like to see them act again. But they are goonies in this one. Why their was not legal nogotiations concerning the use of title ("Salem's Lot") and the picture of the main Vampire Killer from the original film on the video package is beyond me.


Above title in case you purchased or rented this sorry excuse for a movie. Fortunately I watched for free on cable! Mostly because the original was an interesting movie. And I'm a sucker for late night horror shows, however bad.

What's wrong with this? 10 things:

1. Not scary. 2. Acting is bad. 3. Not scary. 4. The plot is slow and predictable. 5. Not scary. 6. The movie doesn't give a damn about its characters, and neither should you. 7. Not scary. 8. There are some logical howlers you can spot from a mile away. 9. Not scary. 10.The special effects are hilarious.

In what other movie are vampires this easy to kill? Everybody's like, Buffy or Blade here. And the vampires are just sitting ducks. That's why it's not scary. And for a horror movie , that sure sucks.


Crummy horror sequel that is barely connected to the original but manages to be just as bad. Anthropologist Michael Moriarty moves with his delinquent teenage son to his recently inherited house, only to discover that the town is overrun with vampires. Yikes! The only compensation here is that there are a few laughs scattered about, thanks in no small part to Samuel Fuller as an old Nazi killer. There's a bit of life to be found towards the end, but make no mistake, this is dire stuff. The script is almost as junky as Larry Cohen's direction, while the actors are so wooden they could be used as stakes with just a quick sharpening of the head. No good at all.


Joe Weber an anthropologist returns from South America to be with his son Jeremy and they travel to a small, quiet New England town, know as Salem's Lot, where he grew up as a child and that he has inherited a house, which he plans to fix up and live. But soon he discovers the town's horrific secret, it's populated by vampires who live a normal life and the town's judge Axel, wants Joe to write a bible for their kind.

Drum roll please shock, horror! What do you know? I liked it, quite a bit. Okay, okay it doesn't come close to Hooper's superior 'Salem's Lot', but I found this cheap looking quickie to be hugely enjoyable and I liked that it was ridiculously quirky. Cohen's touch is evident here with the comedic black humour that underlined the story, which translated into plenty of his films that featured Michael Moriarity. Those two just seem to click when they come together. Cohan's got his own sort of style that distinguishes his films from the rest of the genre and that's why he's a cult b-grade filmmaker. For lot of people I can see why it's a big disappointment and why it was put down, but this is really only a sequel by name, as there weren't any real connections from what I grasp between the two films. If you think you are going to get something in the same vein as the classier Hooper film, you'll be sorely mistaken. It's just unfavourable to compare it to "Salem's lot", as it hasn't got a real chance. They should have had a different movie poster that didn't feature Barlow (from the first film), because he is nowhere to be seen, I guess that was one the other disappointments for people. But that's just advertisement for ya.

From watching the 'Island of the Alive: It's Alive 3' (1987) commentary not too long ago, which was shot-back-to-back with 'Salem's Lot'. Cohen originally went to Warner Brothers in the interest of getting the rights for 'House of Wax', but instead they suggested that they would back him for a 'Salem's Lot' and 'It's Alive' sequel. Where Larco production took control and many of the same cast and crew were involved in both products. Both films actually shared the same intro, with its multi-coloured lava effect. Is that saying something about the budget, or did Cohen just liked it and wanted to reuse it again? These double features were intended to be release on Warner Brother video, but they got a small cinema release. Just a bit of trivia for you.

The production is pretty rough, which goes for disjointed editing and the shabby makeup and tacky effects. They might not be up to scratch, but in all, those certain aspects don't destroy the fun and heart of this flick. But one thing did stand out and that it was a well-shot picture. Daniel Pearl's (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) camera work ups the ante and a touch of professionalism. Sadly the score didn't have that approach, it was at times just a bit too much. Cohen might have executed some of the action scenes sluggishly, but that didn't dampen the reasonable thrills that flowed with some nice bloody moments and grubby make-up effects. Slow to get going, but when it kicks in, everything picks up with a sudden burst. What's a Cohen film without the trademark offbeat dialog and campy performances. The script was light on material, but the biting wit and maniac language shined through. The outrageous humour seems to be there to counter-punch the corny horror side of things. The flawed plot is pretty standard, with some virtually impossible actions taken or done. But my attention was held throughout and I just went with things. I thought it had some incredibly intriguing ideas in the mix and bizarre aspects that pull you in. I was even thinking of 'The Howling', which the same idea is covered in this film. Fine performances are heralded from the cast. Moriarity's versatility shows, and there's fun to be had when he's on screen. Also Samuel Fueller hams it up as a grisly old Nazi hunter and Andrew Duggan plays the Judge Axel with a touch of class and hidden menace. Ricky Addison Reed was painful as a foul mouth brat, Jeremy Weber. There's a notable performance from a very young Tara Reid too. What we get here is a dreary atmosphere that adds a nice pinch of satiric macabre, which kept me in a trance.

Addictively off the wall horror from Cohen, which might be too much for those who aren't into very cheap, campy b-grade horror.


Whatever you do, how intoxicated you might be, do not return to Salem's Lot! Even if you've been there in 1979, and somewhat liked it, you're going to be horribly disappointed if you return. If you want mainstream-horror, there's always Carrie (1976), Cannibal Holocaust (1979) and Cannibal ferox (1981), just to name a few. If you enjoy the acting of Michael Moriarty and the writing of Larry Cohen, you should check out Q (1982) instead.

The only thing I liked about this movie (haven't read the book), was the unorthodox portrayal of the "vampire race". It's always enjoyable watching on-screen stereotypes being torn apart.


It's hard to put into words just how bad the acting is in this movie. I won't even get into the ridiculous psuedo plot because I can't get past the acting. I've seen more talent in a play put on by kindergarteners and cats. Watch this film if you've been really bad and your priest is not available for confession. This is good for about a thousand Hail Marys.


This movie stinks. It is difficult to convey just how bad it is. A good place to start is the idiotic dialogue. The guy asks his 12-year old son, "Did you get laid last night?". Then, as he watches the painful transformation of his son into a vampire, the father calmly asks, "Would you like an aspirin?". Then there is the fact that it has nothing to do with the first movie, or the book. Then there is the fact that it is so damn boring. How many times do we have to see the guy try to escape from the vampires? Of course, the plot really makes no sense either. One has to wonder what the editors actually took OUT of the movie. If they edited all the bad parts out, the movie would only be about 45 seconds long. I was unable to even laugh at it, it was just too stupid. Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs.


This is one of the few movies I have ever walked out of the theater from. I was sitting there thinking, why am I wasting this hour? There is absolutely no characterization to speak of, so you won't feel anything for any character enough to bother even seeing what happens. It simply can't matter. Thus I still have no idea how it ends, and I walked out of it over 10 years ago...


This film was an absolute travesty. Any scrape of artistic talent and scaryness was cut out of this film. The scenes of the vampires knocking on the windows in the first was a classic but this peice of @#%$* is terrible.


No plot, bad acting, gratuitous gore, and stupid jokes. I turned it off 30 minutes into it cause it was so bad. Horrible movie I give it a 0. Salems lot was 20003923523523054270235 times better!


Oh jeez.I sat down one night and watched this on the Friday fright-mare and what a cheesy movie from the freaky 80s.The acting is just fake that you wonder what on earth they were doing in the 80s wasting money on cheap looking scenes. I personally sat down and watched the last 45 minutes of this terrible wasted space. I can't remember what I was doing that I missed the beginning but I was doing something. In the town people with the right intelligence would lock trespassers up but we don't see that here. Michael Moriarity must have gotten laughed at when he played in this. I can't believe he put up with this. People should know better. The vampires in this movie are unrealistic that you just want to turn away from this bad script of a horror night. Never watch anything like this unless you know it is good. I will never watch this ever again due to I will never get back the time they took from me. Start making better remakes people you just have to put your brain to it.


Contrary to the other reviewers here, 'A Return to Salem's Lot' is a competent film by director Larry Cohen. If you have not seen Cohen's work, you will not understand this film. Cohen - director of such wacky, off-beat horror titles as 'The Stuff' and 'Q: The Winged Serpent' - religiously injects demented humour and strange characters into his work. He also seems to like the small-town theme (see 'The Stuff') where strange happenings are plentiful and the townsfolk are more than a little strange and scary. It is not surprising that Cohen picked up on Stephen King's small-town theme, then, creating his own 'Lot' for his own type of vampires.

The general plot is fairly simple. An anthropologist (Michael Moriarty) inherits a house from his aunt in Jerusalem's Lot. He takes his wayward son there to both check out the house and get to know his son better. It is soon apparent, however, that the 'Lot' is overrun with vampires who want the anthropologist to write a journal about their existence.

With the help of a war veteran-Nazi hunter, they try to rid the 'Lot' of its blood-sucking inhabitants.

Of course the original 'Salem's Lot' and the 2004 re-make are a lot more accomplished. But this film is all about Larry Cohen. His fans will get it, even if you don't.

Matt Lee-Williams.


RTSL is one of those films that has all the stinky ratings at IMDb and tepid to scathing reviews at the few places that even bothered to review it. Hell, it's not even available on DVD and that's in a world where Peter Jackson picking his nose probably gets a 3-disc with booger collectible treatment. But this little obscurity IMO deserves a lot better.

OK, the title can be misleading, since apart from the setting of the town this one has little relationship with Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot or Tobe Hooper's film version of it. Like most of Larry Cohen's shoot-on-the-run ventures it doesn't have spanking production values and the FX have to be taken with a voluntary suspension of disbelief. And with some wild swerves between gripping emotional drama and obvious camp it certainly can't be described as having a very consistent tone. But unlike most modern day 'epic' films where every sparse scene and nuance is stretched out like a taffy competition, this film is packed with so many cool concepts and dramatic ideas it can barely contain them.

The story has a scoop-seeking anthropologist Joe Weber (Larry Cohen regular Michael Moriarty in another pleasing turn) going off with his problem son whom he has not seen in years to an inherited house in a quiet ancestral town where they can sort their issues...and yes, that place is Salem's Lot. In Cohen's version, the town has been entirely taken over by vampires, who constitute a society unto themselves, using humans only as servants. They are intrigued by the anthropologist and want him to write a chronicle, nay bible, of vampire civilization. In turn Joe's son is intrigued by the vampires and not sure if he doesn't want to become one himself. Cohen's pacy script presents his quirky and subtly humorous take on a vampire society with its peculiar lifestyle and its own attitudes towards the human race. He also presents the gripping dilemma that Joe faces, forced to stay and write for his son's safety and at the same time seduced by the prospect of writing a unique chronicle...and by an ex-girlfriend who has never aged after he left.

Thus far is a film that's plainly brilliant in its setup and I would have loved to see a greater progression in this vein. But after that Larry's script seems to have run out of ideas or time and he quickly reverts to a showdown where Joe teams up with a crusty old vampire slayer who just happens to have blown into the town. There occurs that same abrupt change of tone that happened in John Carpenter's They Live which, beginning as this quietly unsettling SF thriller, suddenly veered off into high camp territory with the scene where Roddy Piper decides it's time to 'kick ass and chew bubblegum'. To it's credit, RTSL goes for much longer before the camping grounds are laid, and even after that, retains a good modicum of interest.

Thus while not entirely streamlined or satisfying, RTLS is a film with several points of interest and IMO one that deserves a better appreciation than it has thus far received.


This is one of the rare films that are so bad that it's actually good! When I watched this with my brother we were laughing so much that our stomach were in agony for days... I just watched Cohen's The Stuff and there were similarities like Moriarty's wooden acting and really campy settings and lousy special effects. If you like bad movies this The Stuff is a must-see! Can't wait to own this on DVD...


A great film for those who admire film maverick Sam Fuller. Fuller, the director of cult and critical classics such as SHOCK CORRIDOR and THE NAKED KISS, appears in this film in his biggest role as a cigar-chewing Nazi hunter who turns to hunting down vamps. This is one of the great late appearances of Fuller and thus must be considered valuable for film history. And he has great lines such as "I'm not a Nazi hunter. I'm a Nazi KILLER!" Viva Fuller!!!!


Having seen the first film and enjoyed it so much I couldn't wait to see the sequel, however, I couldn't believe the out come.

The only thing that connects this to the first film is the title and setting, anything after that is Cohen's own creation. Which is a good thing.

The more depressing first film with it's downbeat ending is replaced by a much more comic film with great dialogue.

The special effects are poor, however, the joy of this film is in the writing and humour. Samuel Fuller as Van Meer is particularly good and is given the best lines in the film.

For an excellent well made horror film watch Salem's Lot. For a hilarious comedy horror look no further than A Return To Salem's Lot.


This movie is so bad, you can't help but laugh. The dialogue is horrible, the acting is horrible, the effects are horrible. It is not scary, but it is a helleva good laugh.


A divorced dad and son attempt to build on their newly resurrected relationship by heading back to pop's hometown named Salem in up-state Maine.When he gets there,he finds that all the townspeople have turned into 300-year-old vampires."A Return to Salem's Lot" by Larry Cohen is not as bad as it's reputed to be.In fact I used to watch it pretty often when I was a kid.Of course it's not as scary or suspenseful as Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot",but it still manages to entertain if you are in the right mood.The acting is terrible as is the make-up of the vampires,but there is enough amusing moments to make the viewer smile.Samuel Fuller is quite memorable as a Vampire slayer.Overall,"A Return to Salem's Lot" is a quirky,occasionally uneven horror film that is worth a look for fans of Larry Cohen's unusual horror movies.7 out of 10 and that's being kind.


A return to Salem's Lot is a fair film that has a good cast which includes Michael Moriarty, Ricky Addison Reed, Samuel Fuller, Andrew Duggan, Evelyn Keyes, Jill Gatsby, June Havoc, Ronee Blakley, James Dixon, David Holbrook, Katja Crosby, and Tara Reid! The acting by all of these actors is very good. Moriarty and Reid are good in this film.The thrills is good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. Good directing by Larry Cohen! The movie may not be as great as the first one to some people but the film is interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Michael Moriarty, Ricky Addison Reed, Samuel Fuller, Andrew Duggan, Evelyn Keyes, Jill Gatsby, June Havoc, Ronee Blakley, James Dixon, David Holbrook, Katja Crosby, Tara Reid! the rest of the cast in the film, Horror, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Movie Nuttball's NOTE:

If you like Stephen King then I recommend that you check out the following films! Creepshow, Creepshow 2, The original Dead Zone, Salem's Lot, Silver Bullet, Maximum Overdrive, The Running Man, Graveyard Shift, It, The Shining (mini series), Nightflyer, The Green Mile, and Dreamcatcher!


A Return to Salem's Lot (1987) is a fun film by the legendary B-Movie director Larry Cohen. The film is about a former resident of Jerusalem's Lot Joe (Cohen regular Michael Morarity) who comes back to town with his son. Whilst in town they learn about it's horrible secret. The town is run and populated by the living dead! The mayor takes a liking to him chooses Joe to chronicle the struggles and the history of the people of 'Salem's Lot. In some ways the film uses parts of the book that the mini-series failed to utilize. While Joe and his son are in town, an elderly gentleman (Samuel Fuller) is in town asking question about an "old friend" who might be around. Seeing the old director tool around in an V.W. bug is quite the sight. Like all of Mr. Cohen's films, it's filled with his usual quirky dialog and interesting direction. Panned by some and hated by most this film has been sadly neglected. Many people fail to realize that this is a movie and it's not suppose to be taken seriously folks! Please remember that the next time you go to the theater.

Recommended!


Although not an original Stephen King story, but based on characters created by Stephen King, this old school vampire movie is Larry Cohen's sequel to Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot", and it's a very good horror movie in it's own right. The special effects and make-up art are pretty neat, and NOT done with computers. Of course you must be a fan of low budget horror movies to enjoy a movie like this. The players, especially Michael Moriarty, did a great job. There are no holes in the plot, it's a good vampire story, and you can have a good laugh too now and then. For instance, when Joe Weber asks his son if he can drive a car, Jeremy answers "Yes, I often borrowed Allen's Mercedes". If you payed attention earlier on, you saw Jeremy's stepfather Allen in a bumped up Mercedes. Very nice, I enjoyed it a lot.


In writing his epic novels `I, Claudius' and `Claudius the God', from which this series is adapted, Robert Graves reinvented the genre of historical fiction. And he could hardly have chosen a more fascinating subject than the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Even a tame retelling, based strictly on verified historical fact, would have made an interesting tale. But by embracing the lurid, sensationalistic hyperbole heaped upon the founders of the Roman Empire by later writers (Suetonius and Tacitus in particular), Graves concocted the ultimate in dysfunctional families, weaving a tale of scandal and debauchery capable of shocking even the most jaded of modern audiences. The more eminent classicists, naturally, sneered, as eminent classicists tend to do toward anything that threatens to make the ancient world more accessible to `hoi polloi'. One is forced to admit that, as history, Graves' juicy narrative is bunk. But o ye gods, what enjoyable bunk it is!

The drama gives an insider's view of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty, the first emperors of Rome. Over the course of his long reign, Augustus has managed to bring peace to his nation after nearly a century of off-and-on civil wars. But he remains a man divided, hoping for the eventual return of the old Republican government, but knowing that the best hope for a lasting peace is the continued concentration of power in a single person. Augustus therefore sets himself to the task of grooming a successor, one who shares his dream and will continue laying the foundations for the restoration of the Republic. His wife, however, Livia Drusilla, is determined to thwart his plans, and embarks on a slow, murderous scheme to place her own son (whom she fancies she can control) on the throne. The tale is told through the eyes of Claudius, step-grandson to Augustus, who suffered from the crippling effects of a childhood illness and was thus despised and ignored by much of his own family. Regarded as an idiot and of no threat to anyone, he alone remains standing while the poison flows and the daggers flash. To the surprise of all (none the least himself) this drooling, stuttering, limping old fool turns out not to be such a fool after all, and in one of history's great ironies, wins the prize everyone but he is after: absolute power.

Again, the historical facts alone make this an interesting tale. But it is the tantalizing glimpse into the inner workings of the world's first `First Family' that makes `I, Claudius' so much fun. Bill Clinton's philandering and the endless public spectacle that is the British Royals just seem so incredibly dull and tame compared with the bad behavior of Augustus' clan. Matricide, patricide, fratricide, regicide, suicide, incest, rape, pedophilia.and that's on a slow day. Poisonings, stabbings, betrayals, double-crosses, triple-crosses, madness. And one gentle soul sitting in the corner watching it all. Robert Graves' story brings out the tremendous irony of a nation finally at peace with itself, but ruled by a family embroiled in its very own civil war. It's the sort of sordid tale one finds only in the most disreputable of tabloids, but then rendered in gorgeous prose and delivered by the finest actors. To the uninitiated, it might best be described as a guilty pleasure cleverly masquerading as a stuffy British period drama.

I don't think anyone could have hoped for a more faithful transition from book to film than what the BBC achieved. Working with a 12+ hour running time, screenwriter Jack Pulman was not forced to content himself with a `Cliff's Notes' version of the story. Events progress in a naturally expansive manner, and characters grow and mature (or fail to do so) believably over time. In recreating the novels for the stage (after all, let's face it - this is predominantly a televised stage play) Pulman was constrained only by a modest budget and the limitations of the television studio. Action is confined to indoor sets, and the more spectacular aspects of daily life in ancient Rome (attending the Circus Maximus, for example) are left to the viewer's imagination, hinted at by the sounds of roaring crowds but never actually seen. For those audience members not put off by such, or by the drab color and lighting usually reserved for daytime soap operas, the entire production is a treat from beginning to end.

The acting is superb at every turn. Derek Jacobi lends tremendous dignity to his portrayal of Claudius, whose physical handicaps might have come off as insulting or hammy from a lesser actor. He is utterly believable as the `wise' fool, the only person in the entire family NOT scheming for power, and therefore the only one worthy of it. As Livia, Siân Phillips is a study in controlled, cunning evil. The role is reminiscent of Eleanor of Aquitaine in `The Lion in Winter', except that even Katherine Hepburn's Oscar-wining performance in that film is utterly outdone here (ironically, Siân Phillips also played the role of Queen Eleanor, in the BBC's adaptation of `Ivanhoe'). John Hurt's gleefully decadent turn as Caligula is fascinating to watch. Hurt's eyes, throughout his portrayal, remain chillingly cold and lifeless even as he smiles and laughs - except of course, for his expression of shock upon realizing that his sister Drusilla is, in fact, mortal. The most impressive moment in the entire production, however, came from Brian Blessed (Augustus), whose slow, quiet, passing away remains the most convincing screen death I have ever witnessed.

There are simply not enough superlatives in the English language to express my opinion of the towering triumph that is `I, Claudius'. And seeing the 9.5 user rating here on the IMDB, apparently I'm not alone.


Based on Robert Graves' famous novel, I, CLAUDIUS is the ultimate soap opera, vicious, cruel, manipulative--and this famous English miniseries grabs the attention and holds fast throughout the entire length of its complex tale of ancient intrigue.

The great strengths of I, CLAUDIUS are in the driving pace, sharp wit, and ferocity of Jack Pulman's script and the host of brilliant performers who play it out. Chief among these are Sian Phillips as the calculating, murderous, and unspeakably cold Livia, wife of Augustus; although Derek Jacobi gives a justly famous performance in the title role, it is Phillips who dominates and drives the story with this, the most brilliant performance of her career. But this is not to disparage the overall cast, which is remarkably fine and includes such noted artists as Brian Blessed, John Hurt, Patricia Quinn, Patrick Stewart, and a host of others.

Like the serpent that appears in the open credits, the story twists and winds--and covers several generations of the ruling family as Rome slips from the republic to royal rule, largely due to the manipulations of Livia, who has few if any scruples in her determination to rule first through her husband and then through her son. Although the look of the film is somewhat dated, it in no way impairs the power of the piece, and I, CLAUDIUS remains one of the handful of miniseries that actually improves upon repeated viewings. Strongly, strongly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


The mini-series I, CLAUDIUS is one of the best epics on the Roman Empire one can ever encounter. Although it is based on the novel by Robert Graves, the director, Herbert Wise, together with the producer Jack Pullman and other crew proved a respectful independence of portraying particular characters from ancient times. This film stands out among other historical movies at multiple levels.

First of all, I, CLAUDIUS is one of the rare examples of films showing the real core of the Roman Empire. The action takes place ONLY within the walls of the imperial palace. Everything that happens appears to be perceived by the members of the ruling dynasty. REAL WINGS OF IMPERIAL ROME! Conspiracies, poisoning, hatred, bloody desire for power... these are the topics of the film - ABSOLUTELY FAITHFUL TO HISTORY!

Besides, the empire is showed VERY realistically. It is not the glory of victories, it is not the power and triumphs of its leaders, IT IS THE REAL ROTTEN DECADENCE OF ITS REALITY! "Trust no one" as Herod says once to Claudius, his dearest friend. "The battle of Aktium did not look like that" says Augustus to a poet who attempts to glorify the deeds of the warriors. In fact, only Claudius manages to survive, but not to the end. Even he is poisoned by his fourth wife...

The film is realistic, but it is important to state that it does not exaggerate anything. There is nudity but with respect to film art. It is not the focus. Cruelty is also not the focus as being the goal in itself. The evil is only "embedded" in the action. It is not Guccione's CALIGULA which destroys any classics of the movie art by disgusting pornography and horrific cruelty. I, CLAUDIUS is, first of all, a film art.

Finally, it is significant to mention the cast. There are few films, really few, which have such excellent stars. All people perform WONDERFULLY. You watch it and you forget that these are actors and actresses. You think they are real Romans of that time and totally set your mind on the action! It is a very rare experience and that is another reason why I absolutely appreciate this movie!!! Derek Jacobi, Sian Phillips, Brian Blessed and many many others make the film a real pleasure to watch. Especially Sian Phillips as cruel Livia, Augustus' wife, gives her finest performance here. MASTERPIECE!!!

I would recommend everyone to see this mini-series. It is a wonderful experience. The history lesson that this film offers is better than studying history in high school for four years. I, CLAUDIUS is the splendor of CLEOPATRA combined with the violence of SPARTACUS, GLADIATOR and the decadence of CALIGULA. Everything is there with an utmost harmony. SPLENDID!


Absolutely glorious series. All the actors in this series are in or have been in American films but they have always been underrated and are some of the best actors alive. There are more dames and knights than you can believe. Derek Jacobi is breathtaking in his performance. Sian Phillips is subtly evil. John Hurt as Caligula shines with madness. The sets are unbelievable considering the small budget they had. The most shocking thing is that everything in one sense or another is true. These people really did die these ways. It will take you completely out of your everyday life and deposit you in the world of the Romans.


The best miniseries ever made! Smart and sexy, with characters that live and breathe. Just some of the most marvelous characters include Brian Blessed as the benevolent Augustus, George Baker as the wounded Tiberius, and Siân Phillips as Livia. Includes one of John Hurt's finest performances, and I'd go into Derek Jacobi as Claudius, but they say I have to keep it below 1,000 words. The Canadian channel Bravo runs it occasionally, or try renting it from Blockbuster, but I recommend shelling out for the entire collection on video!


....When so many people have done a better job than I ever could?

When I rented this on video, a few years ago, my mother (who has passed away since) commented on how she would watch this back in the 70's, absolutely fascinated by it. I'd rented it because I'd seen it during its replay in the 80's, and was equally fascinated. It was rare to see a historical drama with so much lurid character detail.

What fascinates me today is the sheer number of character actors who appear in it.... Most of which were little known then but have since gone on to become better-known. Everyone from Brian Blessed, John Hurt, Sian Phillips, George Baker, Patrick Stewart and John Rhys-Davies to lesser-known actors like Kevin Stoney, Bernard Hill, Christopher Guard, Fiona Walker, Stratford Johns, Sam Dastor, Guy Siner, Darien Angadi, James Bree, George Pravda, Simon MacCorkindale, Sheila Ruskin, Bruce Purchase and Denis Carey. And they were _all_ good, no matter how small their roles were. Where the Brits find actors of this caliber, I'll never know.


I watched the series when it first appeared on TV back in 1976. A VCR and a DVD-player were unknown back then, and I always hoped that one day I could have the movie in my possession. When it was finally possible to tape and save movies, I often wondered whether 'I, Claudius' would be for sale on the market. Recently, I found out that you could buy the DVD, I mean really, it was already for sale back in 2001 and I DIDN'T KNOW !!! (geezes). I searched the internet and bought the DVD, watched it together with my 13 year old son, and he loved it as much as I did back then and now. He will use it for his Latin project. One word only : Magnificent !!!


One of the finest pieces of historical drama I have ever seen, if only the BBC could still produce such quality television.

The story covers around 70 years of epoch making history, from the perspective of one of imperial Rome's most unusual and unlikely Emperors, Claudius. For most of his life he is regarded with contempt by most members of his family, due to his seriously debilitating stutter and ungainly limp, attributes most unwelcome in the elite family of Imperial Rome. Derek Jacobi is simply outstanding in his portrayal of Claudius, as you watch him grow from boy to youth, man to Emperor. He seems by the end of the series to become part of your own family, and you find yourself comparing the historical figure to todays political leaders. However, my personal favourite has to be Caligula, played with breathtaking vigour by John Hurt. This man has the ability to both terrify and entertain in a single scene. His timing and delivery leave you crying with laughter, even if the subject matter is murderously horrific. You even find yourself liking the tyrant.

All in all, this output of 1970's British broadcasting can only be described as a masterpiece.

note: it's been rumoured that I, Claudius was the inspiration for HBO's latest multi million pound production "Rome", again made in conjunction with the BBC. Almost certainly another classic in the making.


I, Claudius is one the best BBC dramas ever, and sadly reflects a bygone age of programming of quality and substance, rather than bland reality TV.

Adapted from Robert Graves' books, this series tells the story of the Julio-Claudian house of Emperors, from Augustus to the beginning of the reign of Nero as seen through the eyes of Claudius. Taking full advantage of the gossip of the ancient sources, all the plausible (and some of the less plausible) rumours make it in to Graves' story.

Told as a flash-back narrative by Claudius, the story follows all the plots and intrigues concerning the succession of each emperor, most notable of which is Livia and her plan for her son Tiberius to follow Augustus. As each plot unfolds throughout the various successions, Claudius is witness to all the events and is left alone as he is deemed foolish and harmless by his peers, as he emphasises his limp and stammer. In the final part, Claudius himself is proclaimed Emperor and the story follows his troubled reign, with the debauchery of Messalina and the scheming of Agrippina, as the real Claudius said; that it was his destiny first to suffer and finally to punish the infamy of his wives.

The acting in 'I, Claudius' is just first class by the entire cast, especially in light of the relatively low production values. Derek Jacobi is convincing as Claudius ages, and his transformation from nervy youth to commanding Emperor is fascinating to watch. This is only outdone by Sian Phillips as Livia, who brings so much depth to the character that you don't just regard her as evil, but as a woman with a purpose, albeit misguided. And by the time of her death you actually begin to feel sympathy for her. Other notable performances are John Hurt's Caligula, Patrick Stewart as Sejanus and Brian Blessed as Augustus.

'I, Claudius' is such a true classic that it is hard to imagine that there will ever be another production of this quality ever made again.


I won't add to the many superlatives ascribed to this wonderful series, well-deserved though they are. But I would like to point out a few vital details that help explain just why it is so wonderful.

(1) Much has been said about Siân Phillips' intense projection of evil, but just how does she do it? If you watch carefully, you'll see she never blinks in her close-up takes, some of which are very long. This gives her a snakelike appearance, which enhances her voice and cold beauty in imparting such an air of menace to everything she says.

(2) Much has also been said about the lack of expensive sets, location shots, or special effects. But the point is that this series is successful because of these apparent deficiencies and not despite them. So much modern cinema and TV is swamped by expensive irrelevances to the detriment of the basics -- writing, acting, and timing. 'I Claudius' shows just how important these things are, and how unimportant those expensive special effects can be.

(3) I had the good fortune to read both books before the series was made, and then to watch it with a critical eye. It was satisfying to see such an expert adaptation, but especially so to see how the central point of the story has not been lost: the inability of any ruler, however powerful, to control what happens at the end of the long chain of command that inevitably forms. I found this a message of lifelong importance in both politics and management, and it is rare indeed that such a remarkable piece of drama and entertainment is also so fundamentally educational.


Excellent cast, superbly acted, very well written and directed. I particularly loved the performances of Derek Jacobi, Sian Phillips and Brian Blessed. An excellent production by the BBC, as usual. A comment about the DVD set. The sound on the DVD's is very unequalized. One minute you can barely hear the actors, the next you are being blown away by music and/or background noise. Other than this annoyance, the DVD translation is excellent. Also, look for some then lesser known actors and actresses who are stars now. I do not know how they pulled this off, but I am very glad that they did. Also, the DVD extras are interesting, including scenes from the unfinished version from the 1930's or 1940's.


I have seen this serie in 1976 and all the DVD's a few days ago, and its GREAT!!! All the English actors playing very good, but they always do. I like English films and series very much, but "I Claudius" is my favourite. I give a 10!


I first read the novels "I, Claudius" and "Claudius the God" when I was a sophomore in college. I instantly fell in love with them and it sparked my interest in Roman history. Naturally, I jumped at the chance to watch this mini series based on the books shortly thereafter. Eventually, I decided to buy it, and it still remains one of my favorite DVD box sets.

In the mini series there are some minor anachronisms and some events are out of sequence, but it still captures the political intrigue of the imperial family in ancient Rome. I'm not going to go into the story more than this because it gets very complicated and it is very long.

What really made this series stick out was the cast. Sir Derek Jacobi leads the cast as Claudius. Most of the story is told through his eyes as he writes a history of his experiences with the imperial family and some incidents that happened prior to Claudius' birth. Some other cast members include Brian Blessed as Augustus, Sian Phillips as Livia (Augustus' wife, and Claudius' grandmother), George Baker as Tiberius, John Hurt as Caligula, and Patrick Stewart as Sejanus to name a few. Fans of British cinema will be able to pick out even more familiar faces (I can't really go into all of the cast because there are so many excellent actors and actresses in this).

What really makes the story work is the interplay between the characters and the almost constant intrigue that goes on around the Roman political scene. The best part of it is that what happens is for the most part true or at least based on the writings of historians of the time. I recommend this highly to anyone who is interested in learning about Roman history and wants to get their feet wet.

On a somewhat amusing side note, Patrick Stewart (with hair) makes out with Magenta from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."


I remember watching this series when PBS first aired it in the US in the late 1970s, and I remember being fascinated by the story and the characters. Even at a young age I realized I was watching high caliber performances. I finally have gotten this series on DVD and been watching again. All of the raving review comments are on the mark. The collection of superior performances by so many fine actors in one series has probably not happened since - it surely did not happen before. One cannot credit Derek Jacobi enough for his brilliant yet subtle performance throughout. Yet he is constantly equaled by Sian Phillips (the best and most memorable Livia I have ever seen!). I could list the actors' names and go on and on about the high quality of their performances, but the best advice is to say: Buy or rent this and see it. More than once! Repeatwed viewings draw you deeper into the story and uncover more details with each viewing. Even the low budget BBC sets of the 70s are pleasant and appropriate. The production is superb and the directing is top notch. Though with a big budget this could have been staged as an epic production with lots of added scenery etc. (remember this was before CGI!), the closeness and theatre-feel sets actually make it more intimate and the viewer is brought right into the fray. Highest recommendations and accolades!


I had not seen this series in many years and re-viewed it last week. One thing I had not noticed before was the pairing of older actresses with younger husbands. It wasn't intended to be literal, but the poor guys kept getting killed off and the women lived to play in later episodes, so I guess the casting people decided to go with making the older women look as young as possible rather than the other way around. That was a good choice. It still was jarring to see Germanicus' wife looking more like his mother...ditto Augustus and Livia.

But this is a trivial. This excellent series inspired me to read book of Robert Graves' books (I Claudius and Claudius the God)and I am the richer for it. One can't help but wonder how on earth the males in the stories could possibly been as thick headed as they were about the arch villianess, Livia, and that surely wasn't actually the case. Watch out if she offered to nurse you to health! One thing for sure, those were tough times to live in and one wonders if the aristocracy of Rome was that dangerous, what were the "rabble" like?

Great acting all the way around. A wonderful and brutal study of a wonderful and brutal time.


I have always been a great lover of history and the Historical fictions that Robert Graves weaved in his Claudius novels is not only some of the best novels I have ever read, it is some of the best history of have ever read, even if large portions of it are at least partially fabricated or stretched history. Graves has a very easy style of writing and his books are very readable anyway but he knows what to add and where to make the already enthralling history even more interesting to the readers.

This miniseries is one of the best translations of a book into film or television that I have ever seen. There is very little major that is changed or removed from the story. The story is excellent and the acting is absolutely incredible. Derek Jacobi conveys Graves's Claudius perfectly in all his innocence, wisdom, foolishness, and nobility. He effects the stutter perfectly and twitches and limps incredibly convincingly. With very little makeup he looks fairly convincingly as a teenager in the brief scenes where Claudius is meant to be in his late teens. Brian Blessed is excellent as the families original patriarch, and the first master of the Roman Empire and possibly the greatest political mind of all time. He conveys the historical Augusus very well who was both amicable and good natured but also very imposing and powerful. Sian Phillips is excellent as the ultimate uncompromising matriarch whose mind alone was nearly equal to Augustus, but much more harsh and uncompromising. George Baker is excellent as the dark and brooding Tiberius who is slowly pushed into the evils which he committed later in life. John Hurt is Amazing as the psychotic Caligula. The rest of the large cast is excellent with such mentions as Patrick Stewart as the power hungry Sejanus, Patricia Quinn as Claudius's vile sister Livilla, Margaret Tyzack as Claudius's mother, and John Rys-Davies as the sadistic and violent Macro.

I definitely recommend this to anyone who has any love for history or just great television.


I first remembered seeing part of an episode of this TV mini series when I was very young. My dad was a fan and I remember one or two moments from a particular episode which had stayed with me. It was until nearly twenty years later that I saw the whole series in all its glory. I was absolutely blown away. The acting is of the finest caliber with all the major players executing their roles with such conviction that you actually believe that these people were the Roman aristocracy. The stellar cast really is first rate and that applies to the major actors right through to the supporting characters who are all superb. The script is completely gripping with every scene getting better and better with some vicious humour thrown in. Some people may be put off as this mini series goes back almost thirty years and is not filled with the spectacular computer generated effects that are all to often visible in todays programes and films. That said if you enjoy Roman history or if you enjoy political intrigue,scandal,murder,plots and treason then this really is a must see. **********10 stars.


This no doubtedly is the best miniseries ever made for television. Yes, it was 11 hours plus long, but it is certainly worth it. From episode to episode, you feel closer and closer attached to each of the characters and their feelings and passion for power and lust. Never before have I seen such a well-orchestrated soap opera as this, displaying the history of the 1st century- going through the Julian Dynasty. Heck, if it wasn't for the intense nudity of the series, I would recommend this to every classroom across the globe.

 The characters of I, Claudius are unforgetable. Brian Blessed (Gladiator) as Augustus did a wonderful job and you'll really admire his efforts as the portrayal of Rome's first emperor. Another notable performance is from John Hurt as Caligula, who lit up the screen with his psycho fantasies, and unpredictable hatred towards others. Lastly, the glory and all the credit goes to Derek Jacobi (Gladiator), who turned a risky and grueling role into a soft symphony, despite the mental retardation inflicted on the character of Claudius. I bet no actor would've done a better job than Jacobi, so hats off to him. Overall, this movie is about 99% accurate to the real thing so you cannot get any better than that folks.

Gladiator? Fall of the Roman Empire? Spartacus? Caligula?

 None of these movies match up to this miniseries- which is not afraid to tell the facts of the first five emperors; Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Don't even think about passing this one on- this is a must see and who cares if it takes 11 hours of your time- it's just like any other TV show on a DVD pack, but better.


"I, Claudius" is one of the best things to watch, ever. It's awe-inspiring, from its wealth of information (is Robert Graves one person or a research and communications department?) to its superb acting and gorgeous sets (I just wish that it was taped on film so it would have that fancy look to it). Sian Phillip's Livia is a beyond-Machiavellian force to be reckoned with, really one of the best performances I've ever seen. Brian Blessed's Augustus is comic relief, but one that carries a big stick even though his wife is paving the way. And Derek Jacobi as Claudius is all false idiocy, which looks harder to pull off than what everyone is doing today- that simmering "mystique" which is as empty and false as the way everyone perceived Claudius to be. He's got a thick vein of cleverness pumping just below his magnificently thick exterior. But my favourite- one of my favourite characters in all of film, is Sejanus. This is one sexy beast. He's a corrupt Roman who wears a uniform, and have you heard his voice? Makes my teenage hormones go all in a tizzy. I had no idea a guy from Star Trek could be so sexy, but now I don't know, I might have to start watching those old shows just to see what I've been missing. (If you read this, Patrick Stewart, you are a SEX MACHINE!!!!!!) Bald or in uniform (either series) he is delicious. AND, MAGENTA is in this (Livilla, Sejanus's squeeze, the lucky bitch). If this and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is all she did, that is enough to make me jealous. And the sets are what I am modelling my house after, and my wedding dress is going to be a toga, and my parties are going to be bigass Roman orgies with at least a few Sejanuses and a couple of Drususes and the odd Herrod Agrippa (but no beard), and lots of Caligulas- they'd be a riot. And the moral lesson I have learned from "I, Claudius" is that we all know a few mini emperors - I know a Caligula, a wannabe Livia, some hardcore Messalinas (we call them hoochies around here), and I'm not sure if I am a Claudius or Tiberius, but I'll be happy either way so long that I find a Sejanus. Or Patrick Stewart. (Once again, all together: SEX MACHINE!!!)


Based on the excellent books (themselves based on historical fact and rumours) I, CLAUDIUS and CLAUDIUS THE GOD by Robert Graves, this series is surely one of the best dramas ever filmed. The plot concerns Emperor Claudius compiling a warts and all history of his family, starting with his grandfather Augustus, the first ever emperor of Rome. Made in 13 50 minute episodes, unfortunately the only bad thing about the show is the rather cheap BBC production values. This is salvaged by the incredible acting, with only one poor(ish) performance in the final episode. With lashings of black comedy, debauchery, incest, murder, insanity, suicide, orgies, back-stabbing and adultery I, CLAUDIUS is unmissable. John Hurt is especially good playing the unhinged Caligula, plunging Rome into new lows of extreme sexual depravity and fear alongside his sister.

A truly moving drama (notably the last episode) everybody on the planet should see this show. It's that good. Trust me!


I remember quite well one Christmas vacation, coming back to my hometown from school, visiting much-missed friends at a party . . . and being shushed quite vigorously when I walked into the place. They were watching episode #4 of "I, Claudius," which was completely unknown to me at that time. At first I was quite miffed--the homecoming friend ignored for a TV show? But I grudgingly watched, and within 15 minutes I was kicking myself for having missed episodes 1 through 3. This is simply one of the best film experiences I've ever had. Years after watching it the first time round, I was delighted to have my hands on that "new" technology, the VCR, so that I could watch "I, Claudius" whenever I liked. In the meantime, I'd run out and purchased the Graves books, not to mention Suetonius' "Lives of the Caesars." Someone else here has written that this series has everything, and indeed it does. It has a fine sense of accuracy, and it manages to combine sweep and scope with the individual and intimate. This is everything historical drama should be, and I have found that the friends I've introduced to it feel the same. I have to say that my one regret is that it made me admire Derek Jacobi so much . . . I fell ill the one night that I had a chance to see him in person, in "Becket"! What an astounding actor!


One of the best British imports on Masterpiece Theater in the USA, the series was a real bicentennial gift from the United Kingdom.

Over a dozen chapters, the series held the interest throughout, there's not a moment that it flagged. So many wonderful performances by the players. Derek Jacobi got his career role in this series as the club footed stuttering Claudius who survives by just making sure everyone thinks him a fool and not worth bothering about. In the meantime he secretly records his family's inner history.

The really evil one here is Livia played by Sian Phillips. I'm pretty sure that such prime time bitch goddesses as Joan Collins on Dynasty and Jane Wyman in Falcon Crest modeled their characters on Livia because these women were Girl Scouts compared to Livia. Livia was the wife of Augustus Caesar played by Brian Blessed and Phillips also got a career role.

I'd be hard pressed to decide who was the best Caligula ever. John Hurt in this series is up against some pretty stiff competition in Malcolm McDowell in the title role of the film Caligula or Jay Robinson in The Robe and Demetrius And The Gladiators. Insanity gallops in the Caesar family as in The Brewsters and in the case of Caligula it breaks the three minute mile.

George Baker is very good as the pleasure seeking Tiberius whose succession to the throne Sian Phillips is working overtime to achieve. Patrick Stewart with a full head of hair plays the opportunistic Sejanus who reaches for power, taking advantage of the increasing hedonistic tendencies of Tiberius in his later years. Sejanus would have been his career role had he not become Jean-Luc Picard.

Margaret Tyzack who was Queen Anne in The First Churchills gets another fine role as Antonina, mother of Claudius. Her other son Germanicus falls victim to Caesar court politics and her daughter takes up with Sejanus. Her children disappoint her throughout and she like the others fail to see that Claudius is not the fool he appears to be.

Probably Sheila White's Messalina is far closer to the truth than Susan Hayward's worldly woman in Demetrius and the Gladiators. White plays her like the Catherine Howard of her day, like the legendary nymphomaniac wife of Henry VIII who was one of the two who Henry executed. You've got to love that coitus contest between Messalina and the head of the guild of prostitutes. Guess who wins.

Robert Graves lived long enough to see his historical fictionalization come to life and I'm sure he must have approved. Graves did some considerable research into ancient texts for I, Claudius. His interpretation is as valid as any others we'll find of those wild and crazy ancient days of the Caesars.


Drama's and movies are for entertainment primarily I believe. In that sense, this drama is a top ten feature. The acting is superb. The budget for this making is clearly very low yet the (only indoor) scenery is absolutely acceptable. One may feel cramped occasionally due to the strict indoor shots. But the storyline is intriguing and captivated me. Added to that, the Roman empire has a certain magic flair.

'I Claudius' is a single-season-13-episode drama of the rise and fall of many Roman Emperors, according to Claudius' memory. Claudius is the last Roman Emperor but whether this is a victory for this (good) man is debatable. See for yourself to find out. Also, 'I Claudius' is the one and only drama ever broad-casted in every single nation in the world.

The bad side is the historical accuracy: almost none. It's missing too many relevant and interesting aspects of the political culture in those days. If the intention of this drama was to educate me then I wouldn't have been very pleased. But education wasn't the purpose of the director at all so no problem as far as I am concerned.

I'll give it 9 stars. I motivate it like this: Entertainment Value counts triple. 10 for Entertainment, 5 for accuracy. 10*3 + 5 = 35. 35/4 = 8.75. No eight-three-quarter star exist so I round it up to 9 stars.


What a wonderful mini-series! A really excellent use of television to apply the time necessary to do justice to a good book (in this case, two books). Derek Jacobi shines as the lame, stuttering title character. But, so many fine performances abound in this treasure!

Brian Blessed, the benevolent, cunning, and oblivious Augustus. Sian Phillips, the malevolent Livia. George Baker, the brooding and frustrated Tiberius. John Hurt, the cheerfully insane monster, Caligula.

Look for a swaggering young Patrick Stewart, and an ambitious young John Rhyss-Davies as virile captains of the Guard.

Terrific in DVD, which seems to have corrected the series' sound engineering problems. Only one minus: Make-up is theatrical and does not hold up well to the TV camera.

Watch Episode 1 ... you'll be hooked for the entire thirteen hours of great this story-telling epic that was made for TV and TV was made for!


This series remains vivid in my memory, no matter it was 1976 when it first was shown on PBS! It led me to become interested in ancient Roman history. It also introduced me to the fine British actor, Derek Jacobi. It's been interesting to watch his career and to see what a versatile actor he truly is.


What can I say about this brilliant TV series? It's simply unforgettable and something to see time and time again. Top-cast actors in a stunning TV-drama, for me it ranks even higher than other classic mini-series such as 'Upstairs-Downstairs' or 'Brideshead Revisited'. The British TV has a great reputation for historical dramas, but I don't think they'll be able to top 'I, Claudius'. 10 out of 10.


Rent this and for the next few weeks that snaky, insidious theme tune will be inching its way across your subconscious. Especially as there's no other music in it, contributing to the stagey, slightly hollow presentation. Don't expect any long shots of the Colosseum or exciting chariot races, it's all on set.

The historical context and arch dialogue delivered by star turns such as Sian Phillips, George Baker, Brian Blessed, Derek Jacobi and John Hurt may convince you that this is more highbrow drama than it really is. I enjoyed it, but it follows one theme: someone in the Roman court is overtly or covertly murdering their way to the succession either on their own or someone else's behalf, and the others are too dim or cowed to prevent it. I'm not sure how historically accurate it is, and watching innocent people get stitched up is only so entertaining in my book.

It does get a bit repetitive after a while. Even the star turns are more entertaining than impressive. Phillips might be channelling Disney's Wicked Queen as Livia, while Hurt is not too far off Kenneth Williams in Carry On Cleo in his portrayal of Caligua.

Some nasty stuff implied rather than seen but which would give Hostel 2 a run for its money make this non-family viewing, on the other hand those drawn to it for that reason would be disappointed by the lacklustre orgies. By disc four I had got quite depressed by its goings-on, there really seemed to be no respite from it. That's not to say it isn't very enjoyable at times, but it seems to peak just before Caligula's arrival.

If you're still keen for a bit of Roman when you've completed the series, the movie Quo Vardis picks up where it left off, dealing with Emperor Nero's reign (Nero is well played by Christopher Biggins in I Claudius and Peter Ustinov in the movie).


When this film (entire series) is viewed by any student of history or for that matter, anyone " wishing to see Rome, . . .as it truly was " will hardly be surpassed for enjoyment. The story told here is that of the first five emperors of Ancient Rome. Brian Blessed plays Augustus and is very accepted as the benevolent dictator. Siân Phillips plays Livia, his scheming wife. George Baker is Tiberius, who waited too long to become emperor and was despised during his tenure. John Hurt plays Caligula who garnered more praise for his role than nearly everyone else. Christopher Biggins plays the fiddle playing Nero. James Faulkner is Herod Agrippa, the jovial friend from the East. His was a particularly sympathetic soul and friend of Claudius. But it is Derek Jacobi as Claudius who tells the tale of his family and does such a fantastic job, that this series has created such a high plateau, he may never surpass it. An excellent series which should also establish for itself the crown of Classic. *****


After being introduced to this series shortly after it came out I've taped this and shown the entire series to two women, who also loved it.

Of course this was a natural for me after studying Latin for five years (but classical Latin literature pretty much ends with Virgil and the early Augustan age)

I'm not one who normally notices good acting, only bad acting, but Jacobi (and, really, the entire cast) was brilliant.

Sian Phillips is a portrait of pure evil

A gripping tale that will engage you to the end. The worst that can be said of this is that it is a classy soap opera.

Read the books!


Danger Island is TERRIBLE. In EVERY way. BUT! It is without a doubt the most entertaining film I've ever seen. The dialogue, the plot, the acting, the effects - GENIUS!!!! There are several suggestions ( plot points that are never explained, the montage of images during the end credits ) that this was a failed pilot to a TV series - if anyone's listening, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!! Danger Island every week? HEAVEN!!!!!!

Altogether now: Alone on a dangerous island, Frank's become a fishmonster! Alone on a dangerous island, Frank's become a fishmonster! FRANK! HE'S A FISHMONSTER!! ( etc. )


The movie was cute. I caught it on the Family Channel at the end of July. Most of the actors were familiar. I like Sci-Fi and I always enjoy watching a Joe Lara show or movie. Check this one out.


One of Tennessee Williams' best plays becomes a good but not great film despite a stellar cast. It's hard to pin exactly why this film doesn't soar but it's a solid screen version. Maybe it's just that the subject matter works better in a stage environment and that the camera is just too intimate.

Familiar story of restless son, his crippled sister, and their manic mother, who seems to live in the golden past is great material for the stage. And this sad story of the mother's attempts to goad the son into bringing home a young man to meet the sister seems rather cruel. But even the forgotten and lost can lead lives of desperation as they cling to dreams and make wishes on silver moons.

Arthur Kennedy stars as Tom, the son who tries to please his mother but longs to escape his dull job in St. Louis and see the world. Jane Wyman is the crippled sister who has shrunk from the world and collects tiny glass animals. Gertrude Lawrence is the mother who was abandoned by her husband and has been reduced to living in a dumpy apartment and selling magazine subscriptions. And Kirk Douglas is the "gentleman caller." All 4 actors are quite good, although none received Oscar nominations, despite the hype. Many great actresses have been associated with the role of Amanda Wingfield since this play made its Broadway debut in the 1940s: Laurette Taylor, Katharine Hepburn, Joanne Woodward, Maureen Stapletobm Jessica Tandy, Julie Harris, and Jessica Lange have all played the role on stage, film, or TV. And I swear I remember Shirley Booth doing this on TV also.

Ultimetaely the story is as fragile as the glass figures. If any one character dominates the story the whole play collapses. This film version works very well in balancing the roles. And while Wyman seems a tad old for the part, Lawrence was an even odder choice. I've also read that Bette Davis and Tallulah Bankhead were considered. But how they decided on Lawrence--a great musical comedy star in London and New York--is anyone's guess. She really is quite good but the film might have need the extra star power of Bette Davis.

Anyway, this classic American play is worth watching.


I'm sorry. My summary isn't really a summary but a strong feeling that kept coming to mind as I watched this film. As Mrs. Wingfield talked and talked and talked and fussed and controlled the daylights out of her grown children, I kept having a fantasy of Arthur Kennedy (Tom Wingfield) punching the garrulous old bat in the mouth! This is NOT a complaint about the play or the film--after all, Tennessee Williams was deliberately crafting a portrait of a terminally controlling and annoying lady. I assume it was a form of exorcism--a way for him to let go of people in his past who annoyed him practically to death! As I already mentioned, the single parent Mrs. Wingfield is a terribly annoying person. Despite this, her two grown children still live with her! You can understand, perhaps, the daughter living with her. Laura (Jane Wyman) has a severe limp and has trouble getting around--perhaps this explains why she never left. As for Tom, he's the real puzzler. Unlike Laura, he is more open in his disdain for his mother and her annoying ways...yet he eventually does what she wants AND is still at home though he looks to be in his 30s.

Throughout most of the film, Mrs. Wingfield mostly talks AT her children. In particular, she always is pushing Laura to meet a nice man and marry and is badgering Tom to bring home a man for Laura. Although it never was explicitly stated in the film or play, when Tom talked about going to the movies, some took this to be his excuse to get out of the house (and away from mom) but I took it to be that he was possibly out cruising for men. Considering this is a Tennessee Williams play being dramatized, it's not hard to make this assumption--especially since homosexuality is a theme in several of his other plays AND since Williams was gay. Either interpretation is valid, I think, but lead you in very different directions in your thinking.

There is a heck of a lot more I could say about the film and the Wingfields, though frankly you'd probably do a lot better reading a critical analysis or more in-depth summary. Instead, let's get to the movie itself. Like the Tennessee Williams films of the 50s and 60s, the plays were butchered to get by censors. While this one wasn't as badly butchered as some (such as SWEET BIRD OF YOUTH where the castration scene was changed to a nose-breaking scene!), the film is pretty tame and they changed the ending--making it more upbeat! Based on what they were allowed to say and do in 1950, it's pretty good and the performances were excellent--though it is odd that Amanda Wingfield's children DON'T have the accent that she has. I love Arthur Kennedy and Jane Wyman--but were they really the best choices for the roles? As far as the indifference to his mother's blathering goes, I guess Kennedy WAS a good choice--as this fits his screen persona pretty well.

Overall, a well worth watching film but not among my favorite Williams plays. Interesting, yes, but lacking the spark and vicious interactions that Williams fans have come to love! Plus, I deducted a point for the "happy ending"--it wasn't true to the story at all. Tennessee Williams is NOT supposed to make you happy or optimistic!!!


This version of Williams's beautiful play takes all the magic, memory, and poignancy out of the story. The play is a wispy, fragile thing and the movie takes the story, which remains, and shifts it to a typical film structure, taking the greatest things about the play out and putting all the conventional movie "stuff" in.

Add to that a totally misguided change to the ending, where Laura suddenly has a new gentleman caller (!!!) and the sadness and purity of the whole thing falls apart. The play is about a man who leaves his sister to a sad, lonely life and his own emotional confusion and regret about following his personal journey instead of caring for his mother and loving sister. Take that out and you've got... nothing.

Very disappointing.


This film was excellently cast; the actors played their roles very convincingly. Everything about it was going great: the setting, mood; great acting. The play itself was a real downer; a man (Edmund O'Brien) is still living with his mother and sister although he's in his mid twenties. His mother is domineering; she succeeded in driving away her husband, who joined the merchant marine and left her and their two little kids. Her grown son is now moody and weak; the result of being raised by a bossy, delusional woman. His sister (Jane Wyman) suffers from a condition that causes her to limp noticeably. She was obviously sheltered by her mother and now she's introverted, lacks self-esteem, and lives in a lonely fantasy world. Kirk Douglas plays the gentleman caller who ultimately rejects the daughter during their blind date and makes up a story about being engaged to blow her off as gently as possible. After the date doesn't work out, the mother takes it out on her son, who leaves then forever and, like his dad, joins the merchant marine. This is a very sad play on many levels. It deals with a woman who lost her mind after her husband deserted her. She and her kids live in a cramped apartment in the midst of a squalid slum. Her daughter has to deal with the unfortunate fact that people like her, who limp, face rejection and ridicule in life. Her mother coddled her and she has regressed into a shy, pathetic young woman. Her son , who no doubt bore the brunt of his mother's frustrations has grown into an aimless, bitter young man. When he tries to set his sister up with a popular guy he works with, it blows up in his face. The way this movie ended changed the meaning. The play did not offer conclusive hope for the daughter. There wasn't another gentleman caller. One could only hope that she would soon come out of her shell and that she gained some self-esteem from being lectured on her good attributes by Kirk Douglas's character.Maybe now that the son is out of the picture, the family dynamics will change for the better. Or maybe things will get much worse. It made you think, and there are possible positive and negative outcomes; it's up to you.


One of the few chances to see the great Gertrude Lawrence on screen. her amanda is so complex,manic,gentele,harsh. a truly great performance that was totally ignored by the academy.arthur kennedy too is compelling as tom. a shame he did not do more William's on screen he was one of the major stage interpreters of the man. only jane wyman seems miscast,a bit too character-actressy for the subtlty of the role to shine through.too bad,because without a good laura half the play is lost. a good effort that could have been great if they had not used wyman.


This version of Tennessee Williams brilliant masterpiece The Glass Menagerie is utter crap. It is an insult to his brilliance. With all the changes made from the original play script, Williams' meaning and themes are completely lost, and the movie makes absolutely no sense. Yes it was a good first attempt at putting one of Tennessee William's plays on screen, but they did not need to change it. I do not recommending watching this movie if you are a fan of The Glass Menagerie. Watching this version and watching other versions of the same play many things seem to be grossly misunderstood. for example making Laura normal, she is not normal she is crippled mentally and physically. Amanda would not have yelled at the store clerk, it is against her southern genteel ways. The way the movie begins is all wrong, Tom doesn't begin telling the story just because he is bored, he tells the story to help him get rid of the memory of Laura, to an extent.the use of different locations takes away from the theme of escape. in the stage version there is only one set, the apartment, we as the audience are never meant to see the other places these characters go. by doing this is negates the idea and concept of a memory play. For the 1950s it was probably a great success, but it comes at the cost of loosing the integrity that Tennessee Williams out forth in his play.


The word "menagerie" just happened to come up in a conversation(unrelated to show business) and reminded me of this story. So later,while casually browsing the web, it occurred to me that very title of Tennessee William's play probably had much to do with adding that item to our general vocabulary. Defined as an assortment of animals, the expression here takes on both literal and figurative meanings that sort of intertwine throughout the screenplay. I have yet to see the Glass Menagerie performed live, and really have nothing much more to say now about the motion picture versions, except that further commentary may very well be forthcoming since my mind has been activated on the subject more than ever before thanks to websites like this. Feel free to check the few other brief impromptu reviews I'vesubmitted to get some idea what to expect.


In THE ROSE, Bette Midler plays a character based on the life of Janis Joplin. This one of those rare movies where everything works perfectly. Although she is amazingly talented, I sometimes wonder if Bette herself ever looks back on this movie and wonders how she managed such an amazing portrayal, in the same way that an Olympic skater reviews the footage of a 10.0 performance and is stunned that every blade stroke really is picture perfect.

While the storyline is memorable, and the acting superb, music outshines everything else. This is a movie from 1979, a time when rock and roll was still considered a lifestyle, and big rock bands were treated with absolute god-like adoration. Music mattered. It was a vital part of peoples' lives, and in THE ROSE it reaches the heights of excellence that normally exist only in memories that have improved with age. In this case, the music sounds as vibrant, exciting, and fresh today as when the movie debuted.

Bette belts out these songs with soul and fiery passion. The only other contemporary singer I can imagine doing a similarly credible job is Melissa Etheridge.

Sissy Spacek won the Best Actress Oscar for Coal Miner's Daughter (1980), but in retrospect I'm sure a lot of people regret not having awarded it to Bette Midler. This was not only an amazing, high caliber performance, but one that the passage of time has not diminished. This is a stunning movie. My dream is to rent a movie theatre for an evening, invite 30 friends, and relive this great experience.

Movie theatres used to be bigger, and were aptly called "movie palaces". THE ROSE deserves to be seen in such a grand venue. In the rich pantheon of movie history, THE ROSE is true royalty.

Note added October 9, 2007: It has been over a year, and I have no indication if anyone has ever read this review. If you read it, even if you give it a thumbs down, please answer whether the review was useful to you or not. I just am so curious if anyone will EVER read it. Right now, I'm listening to the soundtrack. This movie is timeless.


This was Bette Midler's first starring role in a film and she finally showed the world what a great talent she is. This story is very loosely based on Janis Joplin and it takes place (Supposedly) in 1969. Midler is a famous rock n' roll diva Mary Rose Foster and she's known just as "Rose". She's burnt out and lonely but is kept working by her gruff manager/promoter Rudge Campbell (Alan Bates) who supplies her with shots of adrenalin to keep her going. Rose is an alcoholic and a former drug user and she has a tough past from growing up in Florida. This past haunts her and she keeps talking about showing everyone from there how she has made it. After a country singing star named Billy Ray (Harry Dean Stanton) orders her to never sing one of his songs again and ridicules her morals Rose is furious. She takes off with a limo driver named Huston Dyer (Frederic Forrest) and starts a romance with him. Rudge thinks Huston is just another hanger on but Rose thinks she has finally met her true love. Huston tells her that he's actually AWOL from the army and she tells him of her past in Florida. They have a rocky relationship and Rose meets an Army PFC named Mal (David Keith) who tags along on the tour. This film is directed by Mark Rydell who went on to direct "On Golden Pond" and one thing he has shown in both films is complete trust in his actors. There is very little structure to this film and its mainly just a showcase for Midler. Without her dynamite performance this would have been one of the biggest duds in history. Give Rydell credit for a good eye in giving Midler the opportunity. The film consists of two types of scenes. The concert footage that shows Midler's tremendous voice and stage presence, and the scenes where she's on the verge of a nervous breakdown and the inability to exist in the real world. Its very rare to see an unknown explode on screen like this. Midler is nothing short of riveting and astonishing. Her character is so dark and bleak that an actress of lesser strength would have gave out but Midler has so much energy that she appears tireless. The films cinematographer is the great Vilmos Zsigmond and over 90% of the scenes are either at night or in low lit rooms. This gives the film the dark and bleak look that epitomizes Rose's personality and future. Forrest as Huston is also excellent. Aside from "Apocalypse Now" this was his finest performance and the two of them have real chemistry on screen. Forrest spent most of his career playing hardnoses or heavies but here he plays a real normal guy who is at odds with himself and if he should remain with the always drunken Rose. The film does go way too long and some of the scenes are pointless. It seemed irrelevant when a former lesbian lover pops up out of nowhere and Rose and Huston have a big fight. This part of the film could have been edited out completely as it serves no purpose. Ponderous handling of the material by Rydell but with Midler's gut wrenching performance it becomes a film that is ultimately unforgettable.