I saw this film in college for $1 in 1980 and never really appreciated it until now.

It is amazing to note that this is the same Bette Midler who did all those Disney/Touchtone movies (Down and Out in Beverly Hills, etc.)! This is not a happy film. It has no happy ending. Most of the film is dark, adding to the dreariness of the story.

But you just watch Bette watching Houston Dyer leave her because he couldn't put up with her life. Watch him as he pauses before he gets into the tractor trailer that he's just hitched a ride with, watch him as he looks back at her, almost reflecting, thinking, for just a moment, reconsidering his choice, and then makes the decision to live with the choice and get on the truck, going God only knows where, leaving her.

Camera goes back to Bette, on the ground, wailing in agony, despair, and sadness.

You just watch Bette singing "Stay With Me, Baby" at the end of the film at the concert when she goes back to her hometown. How many takes before they got it right? Once? 37? She's on her knees, she's cradling the microphone, her eyes are blackened with the makeup that has mingled with the tears. Watch David Keith applaud from offstage as he's watching her give the performance of her life and KNOW that that applause was ad-libbed, that he was completely knocked out by her performance.

And then come back and tell me that this film was crap. I've seen Norma Rae and always believed that Sally Field deserved her Oscar but I no longer think that. Bette was robbed, plain and simple.


Loosely based upon the life of Janis Joplin and her struggles with fame and drugs, the Rose stays with the viewer long after the final fadeout. Acting tour-de-forces are manifest everywhere, and although virtually the entire supporting cast brings a Broadway-style truth and urgency that make thus excellent.


The Rose is about a woman whose sole purpose in life was to give of herself completely. Protected from adult responsibilities by her manager, "Rose" dug further and further inside herself, alienating all those who loved her. With an adolescent attitude toward life, she indulged in every excess. The poignant scene in the phone booth, where she overdoses on a lethal combination of pain killers, heroin, and booze is certainly worthy of an Academy Award. We feel her pain, and we really believe we are seeing a woman in the last hour of her life. Killing herself before our eyes, yet we are helpless to stop her. We can't stop watching. The final scene, and the final song Rose sings, Stay With Me, is filmmaking at its best. It sums up her life, and the life of so many talented musicians (Kurt Cobane, Jim Morrison, etc). Rose was desperate to have someone, anyone, who was there just for her. Yet she pushed everyone away who truly cared about her. Bette Midler's passionate and inspired performances in concert footage is unforgettable. The Rose is one of the best movies ever made.


The Rose is a fairly good loose depiction of the life and tragedy of Janis Joplin. Bette Midler more than pulls it off as the title character. She plays a singer who seems larger than life when she's on stage, but once she steps off it, we see a troubled and lonely woman on the brink of a complete breakdown. In an early scene, Rose pleads with her manager (Alan Bates) to give her a year off to presumably dry out and rest up. Her manager scoffs at this notion more than once throughout the film as there is just too much at stake financially if she stops performing for a while. We see Rose sink deeper and deeper into depression and alcoholism as the film goes on from one performance to another. Along the way, Rose meets up with a limo driver (Frederic Forrest) with whom she has a fling. Houston, as he's called, is drawn to this rich and vulnerable woman, but he cannot deal with some of her personal circumstances. He feels a lot of the attention she receives comes from the wrong people and for the wrong reasons. Rose really likes this guy, and the troubles she has with him really make things a lot worse as the film moves toward its conclusion. That being a concert which will be held in her home town. She also has an ambiguous relationship with David Keith who plays a young soldier she meets up with in an airport scene. Keith is supposedly hired on as a bodyguard, but his true purpose is never really explained. Problems with both people and substance abuse build throughout the film, and the conclusion can be seen from quite a ways off.

The film has several good points. First off, the acting is terrific all around. Midler has the feisty character down perfectly. Alan Bates as her manager is top drawer, too. Their conflict creates perhaps the most memorable scenes. Forrest mostly underplays as a country boy along for the ride who has a hard time coming to grips with this wild woman who has just fallen for him. Nobody comes up short in the acting department.

The down side to this film deals with Ms. Midler's singing. Director Mark Rydell has to toe a pretty thin line in terms of what this film is trying to be. Is it a musical vehicle built around Midler's singing ability, or is it a drama about a tragic musical figure? To his credit, Rydell pretty much has it both ways. Midler's singing ability is what it is. Personally I can take or leave it. Do some of the songs go on too long? For me, yes. I would have preferred more dialog and less music. But hard core fans of Midler will love the songs.

The idea this film effectively conveys is that celebrities are often some of the most lonely people on earth. True, they are surrounded by all kinds of staff and get all kinds of attention from fans, but beneath all of that there really isn't much to it for most celebs. The way they live, especially musicians who constantly tour, gives them little time to settle down and experience traditional friendships or romantic relationships. Notice how in an early scene, Rose practically falls down the stairs of an airplane, and nobody helps her! Her band just casually gets on a bus and her manager grudgingly goes over and helps her up after a moment. Regular people who are neither rich or famous often cannot fathom how some celebs seem to self-destruct before they've even had long careers. (Britney Spears would come to mind.) Truth is, we humans are all basically creatures of duality. No matter who we are, we all have our good and bad times. Most people can get through the bad times with the help of friends and family. Celebrities however have a lot farther to fall than most people when things start coming apart. Other than expensive rehab facilities which seldom work, a celeb usually has nobody else to turn to that can deal with them as a real person while they attempt to overcome their demons. That said, is it any wonder so many of them go from top of the world to down in the gutter seemingly overnight? 7 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


I sincerely love this movie. Its well made, the storyline and script are both good, and the acting and singing by Bette are truly divine!

Bette's vocals and charismatic acting ability shine through in this movie, which clearly shows the star she really is! After viewing this, I ran out and bought it, thats how good it is.

10/10


Bette Midler was awesome. A sad but compelling story with great rock music and Bette is awesome in the concert scenes. She is a woman that can sing any kind of music beautifully. Her portrayal as a high energy rock singer was perfect with her stage presence and personality. Superb movie.


I am the only surviving female-impersonator who played in "The Rose". I was the only one who had a talking-scene with Midler and Forest. I was approached to be Bette's impersonator in a drag-club, because I was/am a live performer. Midler's manager, Aaron Russo - who had come to check me out - called-out that I was doing Bette's "jokes" during a live performance in the world-famous "The Queen Mary", a night club in Studio City, CA - now sadly closed after 42 years. However, I do not do impersonations of other performers. What the manager didn't know is that most of her material came from drag-queens. I also had appeared in The 82 Club in New York City - a mafia-run establishment, and wonderful to work for, also closed - and was hired originally by Rydell as a consultant for the physical attributes in a long-closed speakeasy in downtown Los Angeles......it was larger, but perfect. After a conversation with Mark Rydell and a singing audition for an unseen Ms. Midler, I was told "bring an outfit - we've written a role for you". I was hesitant to accept - there was no contract for a speaking-role, I was paid only scale. I attended the first day of shooting on location, but did not go for the second day - they came to get me, I suppose because they liked what they saw in the "dailies" - There was a third day of shooting, all of which were totally miserable for me - I had no aspirations to be a "movie-star" - I was an established drag-act with a large following and loved my work. My drag-appearance was outrageous, as you'll know if you saw the film "The Rose" - I planned it that way, because that's the act I was doing at the time the film was shot. The role I did in the film actually was an impersonation of someone's identity I cannot divulge - I'm sure many New Yorkers picked-up on it immediately. All of the hair-dressers on location were shocked with my hairpiece - they could not have combed it. On the final day of shooting, it became very quiet after the "wrap". Ms. Midler very quietly called me over to speak with her before the entire company, thanking me for being so quiet during the shooting, not constantly calling "make-up", "hair" as the other impersonators did. I was highly complimented.

I've seen the film only once in a theater, and became so engrossed with the story, I completely forgot I was in it. Like 90% of the audience, when I saw myself I gasped. I heard people call-out my name, as I sunk deeper into my seat. It was only then I became extremely gratified to have been in the film. Ms. Midler and I never stuck to the script, because it did not bring-out that her character had once been down-and-out when she lived above "The 777 Club", and I supplied her with drugs. There is enough unused film from that shoot to make another film. What a waste of money ! It was and is my opinion the entire scene could have been left-out, it was so poorly, ruthlessly edited.

I worked for many years in "The Queen Mary" after the film was released. I never made a big deal that I was in the film. People asked if I were in "The Rose" during my performances - and do still today wherever I happen to be - and I tell them I was, but it was only another job - as it was just that. I'm much better known for performances at "The Queen Mary" than having appeared in "The Rose". I've turned-down opportunities to appear in other films, because I have no real interest, unless the money is good. Scale.....peanuts. Making movies is not fun !! All that standing-around, shooting the same scene 50 times-a-day.

If you are familiar with "The Queen Mary", you'll know my name. Otherwise, you'll have to look at this sensational film to discover my identity. I call myself "The Oldest Drag-Queen in Captivity", because I'm 82-going-on 30.

As other posters have stated, "The Rose" IS NOT A BIOP OF JANIS JOPLIN. If it's true the story was just a film for Ms. Midler to perform in to show her talent, it is a fabulous testament to that fact. Is she an actress? Indeed! She could not have done the body of work she accomplished without being one. Viva Midler ! The appearance of the film is exactly as it was intended to be - criticize all you want, this is a major film - and will become a classic.


There were two films of this genre: The Rose & A Star is Born.

The Divine Ms. M turns in a performance that tops Kris

Kristofferson & Barbara Streisand - with ease (using one of

Kristofferson's songs & a drag-queen Streisand impersonator!).

This film is a novelty / mockumentary take on a Janis Joplin type.

Obviously, Ms. Middler would have made a documentary if she had

wanted. . .so this is Bette jumping off where she feels she can

give an over-the-top performance.

There are no bad parts to this film. There are no bad songs. The

whole film has high production values and is comparable to The

Last Waltz in the intensity of the performance.

My favorite song is "Fire Down Below" - a dynamite performance.

Somehow the performance was left off of the soundtrack album

and the only decent cover is Bob Seger's.

If you want to see Bette acting and singing at a level few can hope

to equal: watch the film.


This is a most exciting, gripping and fabulous film. Bette Midler's electrifying performance was worthy of best actress. The Janis Joplin type performance is stunning - her heart and soul is in her voice which pulsates and vibrates into your very being and sends shock waves of electricity tingling coolly down the back of your spine touching your very soul. This is a gut-wrenching experience that teaches nothing but makes you experience everything.

I love this film, the music and the voice and performance of Bette Midler. What a thrill it is to see an artist like Bette Midler perform to such an extreme and lofty level. What a dazzling radiant star that burned so brightly for so short a time and then was so suddenly and prematurely snuffed out. But when an artist gives so much of herself in every song she sings, it is no wonder that her life was slowly drained and eventually terminated by the fans who loved her.

I was working with The Canadian Film Institute in 1980, one year after the release of this film, and we put on a festival in Ottawa at the National Film Archives Theatre in July. We started out with "The Rose" at 8pm and then concluded with Crawley Films Academy Award winning Documentary film "Janis" at 11pm. It was just like a live Rock Concert. The crowd was in a frenzy. The only thing missing was Jimi Hendrix! Love this one. Real entertainment and excitement!

I should note that the director, Mark Rydell, does an overview commentary on the DVD version of this film and it is like taking a university level cinematic studies course. He makes interesting and relevant comments on every scene in the film and it is well worth listening to. Highly informative and fascinating!


Better Midler gives a smashing, touching, tear-the-house-down dynamic and exhilarating Oscar-nominated performance as the Rose, a fabulously wealthy and successful popular rock superstar sensation who's been burnt-out and worn down by too much long hard time on the road, too much booze and drugs (Rose likes to swig Southern Comfort straight from the bottle while performing live on stage), too many cameras in her face and too much time spent recording songs in the studio at the expense of having a meaningful and fulfilling personal life, all of which leaves Rose feeling terribly lonely, unhappy and unloved. Rose wants to take a much-needed vacation, but her pushy, ruthless, overbearing greedhead manager Rudge Campbell (flawlessly played to intensely contemptible perfection by Alan Bates) urges her to do a special hometown concert. Rose finds temporary solace in her relationship with good-looking nice guy drifter Houston Dyer (a characteristically top-drawer turn by the criminally undervalued Frederic Forrest, who deservedly snagged a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his superlative work here), but Dyer's inability to easily handle Rose's wild lifestyle of debauched excess only exacerbates the severity of Rose's depression, which goes off the deep end into total despair with tragic consequences.

Loosely based on the real-life flash-in-the-pan live fast, live hard, live like today's almost over and tomorrow ain't never gonna happen and if you live like this too much you will most certainly die young sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll exploits of Janis Joplin, "The Rose" poignantly exposes the horrible price of fame and fortune, showing to often devastating effect the way fame destroys one's ability to have a personal life, pushes people to a near breaking point, and grinds people down to nothing after they lose the strength needed to withstand the strain being a famous person grimly entails. Mark Rydell's perceptive direction and the trenchant script by Bill Kirby and Bo Goldman neither glorifies nor vilifies the rock'n'roll lifestyle, opting instead to merely show its potentially dangerous pratfalls with a properly glum, depressing tone and an arresting, unflinching frankness.

Vilmos Zsigmund's glittering, burnished, faded cinematography gives the film an appropriately blinding brightly saturated color flashy look, shooting the lively, uninhibited concert sequences through a dense smoky haze of piercing reddish hues (such fellow noted cameramen as Laszlo Kovacs, Owen Roizman and Haskell Wexler also lent a hand to the dazzling concert sequences). Toni Basil, who had a fluke top 10 hit tune with the waggish novelty song "Hey Mickey," did the raunchy'n'raucous dance choreography. Midler belts out all her songs in a hoarse, bluesy, whiskey-ravaged alto with incredible incendiary gusto; the highlights include the hauntingly beautiful and melancholy title ballad, a torchy, slow-burning rendition of "When a Man Loves a Woman," and a hilariously campy shredding of Bob Seger's "Fire Down Below" done in a drag queen bar with a bunch of outrageous transvestite celebrity lady impersonators (70's mock disco diva Sylvestor plays the Diana Ross lookalike). Midler's show-dominating tour-de-force portrayal gets sterling support from an exceptional cast peppered with stand-out character actors: David Keith as a bashful soldier, Jack Starrett as a country music road manager, John Dennis Johnson as a rowdy hick jerk in a hillbilly bar, Jonathan Banks as an oily TV promoter, Don Calfa as a smarmy music biz leech, Victor Argo as a bath house locker room attendant, Will Hare as an amiable grocer, and, in a particularly chilling and startling cameo, the great Harry Dean Stanton as a cold-hearted a**hole country singer/songwriter who flatly tells Rose right to her face that he thinks her singing stinks. A sad, insightful and eye-opening film, "The Rose" makes for a truly heart-breaking, but undeniably powerful portrait of an all-too-human and fragile person who gets led down the road to ruin by the very business that ironically made her.


Well two out of three can kill you these days.But The Rose was set in the late sixty's or early seventy's where drugs were all she really had to worry about.She diden,t.If your a fan of Bette Midlers or Janis Joplin you should love The Rose.Bette Midler Gives an Oscar worthy performance (she was nominated,but Sally Field won for NormaRae)in her first major film role.Rose Foster is a major star in the rock and blues music world But being a great success with a voice that most of the world would kill for is not enough to fill her emptiness.Shes on the booze in the first few frames,the drugs soon follow.Recently relesed on DVD,The Rose is not the feel good movie of 79 or any year but Bette Midler,her voice and her acting talent make this film well worth watching.


My mother told me that Bette Midler wrote the song "The Rose" for the movie. She gave me the original soundtrack from the movie. I listened to it but didn't really understand it. Then I was looking through the schedual on hbo.com and I saw that "The Rose" was gonna be on and i HAD to see it. So i did and i love it. i cried and cried. I felt so sorry for her. And Bette Midler did a GREAT job in the movie!!!!


Ok first of all, Bette Midler is one good actress, and singer. The Rose is about a woman of the same name, Rose, who is brought down from her rock and roll stardom by drugs, sex, and obscene remarks from mean men calling her obscene names. But she can't help it. This film is loosely based upon Janis Joplin, a rock and roll star who came "down" from drugs. This movie is sad, at the end. It made me cry, and I am a man, so ladies you know you gotta see it!! And the song THE ROSE is my favorite song now!!! I love it and I loved the movie and I will watch it over and over.!! thank you , C. Patterson


I loved this movie. Bette Midler is one of my favorite actresses but her portrayal of a washed up, burnt out, alcoholic, drug abusing 'Janis Joplin' was by far her best performance. She looked fantastic and while some of the 'concert' scenes were a bit long, overall the movie was very well done. The scene where she is walking up to the stage in Florida at the stadium and almost falls over gave me chills and her singing 'Stay With Me Baby' was the most moving and powerful performance I have ever seen. It literally brought tears to my eyes. The roller-coaster of emotions that you go through in this movie will stay with you long after the last credit has left the screen. Bette Midler at her best, when she collapses at the end you truly feel as if you have lost right along with her. The best 'music' movie I have ever seen.


I saw most of "The Rose" on TV a few years after it came out. I don't know quite how much I missed (just the beginning, I think), and I won't claim to remember the parts I saw very well. But as for what I did see, I remember very clearly what my reaction to it was, and other comments show me that I'm not the only one to feel this way. I saw a lot of things done by the characters -- things that were loud, emotional, rash and sudden; things that had to have some very strong motivations behind them. But at no point was I able to tell WHY any character was doing what they did. And when a movie is full of actions that require definite motivations, but don't have them, that movie ends up being tiring, pointless and unsatisfying -- which is what "The Rose" is.


Making her film debut, Bette Midler plays a singer loosely based on Janis Joplin. Midler does a very good job in the role, showing the woman making something of herself, but living a self-destructive life to the point where she ruins herself. A particularly eye-popping scene is when she struts through the men's room and the men get all freaked out and start jumping into the pool. You gotta wonder what's with those guys.

Equally as good as Midler is Alan Bates as her manager and sometimes lover. "The Rose" is certainly a movie that I recommend, and I believe the director later directed Bette Midler in the equally interesting "For the Boys". Also starring Don Calfa and Doris Roberts.


Bette Midler delivered an electrifying performance in 1979's THE ROSE, an explosive and emotionally charged musical drama, oh-so-loosely based on the life of rocker Janis Joplin, that earned Midler an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. Midler pulls out all the stops as a burnt out rock and roller who thinks she has everything in the world she could possibly want, except for the love of a good man, which she almost finds with a chauffeur/drifter (Frederic Forrest)who has a secret or two of his own. Midler is in virtually every frame of this film and completely commands the screen that completely belies the fact that this is her first film. Forrest provides solid support as the new man in The Rose's life as does Alan Bates, who plays her hard-nosed manager. Midler proves herself to be a powerful actress, but the film;m really comes alive during the musical sequences with "When a Man Loves a Woman" and "Stay With Me Baby" as definite standouts. Static direction and a somewhat clichéd screenplay are completely overpowered by Hurricane Bette. If you're a Midler fan, this is a must-see.


I really wish I could give this movie a full ten stars; unfortunately there is just too much wrong with it. For one thing, it is much too long, and the scenes of Rose's deterioration are rubbed in the audience's face until the movie becomes pretty much unbearable to watch. I found myself wanting to tell the director, "Okay, I get it, she's falling apart, now can we please move on?" Also the film has suffered from the beginning from the fact that it is a thinly-disguised biopic of Janis Joplin; no doubt the filmmakers had reasons for fictionalizing what was certainly a dynamic, if tragic, true story, but knowing that it is "fictionalized reality" is sort of a bummer.

However, this film has one saving grace: Bette Midler. Mark Rydell has proved over the years that he has a gift for directing actors (culminating in what I consider to be his masterpiece, ON GOLDEN POND). Midler had some little acting experience before; she was in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF on Broadway and had had small roles in about half a dozen pictures before making her screen debut (as a leading lady) here. And what a debut it is. Like Bette Davis, Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand, and Ethel Merman, Midler is a larger-than-life persona, especially on screen, and this movie milks her ebullient and sassy personality for all it is worth. Rydell's sense of overkill would have sunk the picture except that Rose, as Midler plays her, has a waif-like charm and a vulnerability that just makes you want to protect her even as she blows you away with her vocal cords of steel, moving huge audiences to loud cheering.

I should really have said two saving graces: Frederic Forrest earned his Oscar nomination here. In what might have been a thankless role in the hands of a lesser actor, Forrest makes you feel what his character feels for Rose, even his sense that his love is not going to be enough to save her.

The rest of the cast is simply competent. Rydell is an actor's director, and unless an actor is either miscast or truly lacking in talent it is impossible for him/her to give a bad performance in a Rydell film. So it must be admitted that Alan Bates is very good here, though his character is such a thoroughgoing villain it is hard to care anything for him: as Rose's manager and therefore the person spending the most time with her, you would think he could tell exhaustion from temperament; here he is merely a sadistic monster and definitely plays a role in Rose's final destruction. But of course, perhaps it is a tribute to Bates that he makes you hate him so completely.

This is an actor-driven movie. Its length is a problem: I have no objection to long movies which need their length to tell their story (SCHINDLER'S LIST comes to mind), but at LEAST a half an hour could have been chopped out of this picture and it would probably have made better viewing because there are moments when the whole proceeding grinds to a screeching halt. Also, the script is only so-so; a straightforward biopic would have taken fewer liberties and probably would have made a better film, and Midler could certainly have played a convincing Joplin.

The performances are what make this film worth watching; Midler is a powerhouse and Forrest not only holds his own but emerges as a strong presence in his own right.


First-rate rock'n'roll road film.

When I saw it in the theaters the year it was released I was a. totally impressed by it as a film and b. totally sympathetic with Rose.

I have to say though that 10 years later as a manager and agent for musicians (not rock'n'roll and certainly not on the scale presented in the film) I had a whole new appreciation for people who possessed one undeniable talent yet made life hell for those who worked to help them make a living at it! Having managed one very popular high-end Irish booze-hungry performer who showed up when he felt like it ("I know when the sound check should be") and also felt free to book conflicting dates on his own when he felt the money would be better -- AFTER a contract had been signed! -- I felt huge sympathy for Rudge Campbell. Yes he might have been a little too money hungry but by god he was right when he "fired" her... once the contract is signed it's too late to change your mind.

Bottom line though is that this is a fine film and a very accurate record of how an unstable performer can run herself into the ground.


While the film is a very good one with Bette Midler giving a marvelous Oscar nominated performance, Ms. Midler is at worst when she belts out the songs. All you basically hear is loud music and Ms. Midler scream-singing.

Nevertheless, Bette delivers a walloping performance as a boozy, emotionally distraught rock star caught up with drugs besides alcohol. She is emotionally unbalanced especially with the men who seem to come into and exit her lives in record time.

Midler receives excellent support from Fred Forest, as an AWOL guy who befriends her, becomes her lover only to suffer repeated abuse as well as Alan Bates, in fine form as her manager unable to cope with her emotionally unbalanced behavior.

Where is everyone going? This is the constant message stated by Bette (Rose) throughout the film.

This is the usual story of a person's inability to handle success. Yet, Bette Midler proves herself a really competent actress.


Bette Midler offers a performance that is both powerful (for the actress) and troubling (for the character.) She plays Mary Rose Foster, a girl who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in Florida, but by 1969 (when the movie is set) ended up as a mega-rock star known simply as "The Rose." Unfortunately, in the midst of all her success her life falls apart. She ends up (by the time the movie begins) as a lonely alcoholic close to burnout, but with a manager (Alan Bates) who won't let her have time to recuperate, and instead just keeps pushing her on and on to the next show. Rose just wants to play one last concert - in her hometown to show the locals what a star she's become and then (as she says repeatedly) she wants to take a year off (and from the looks of her she could use it.)

Midler made this movie. It was her first starring role, and it was a challenging one, but she pulled it off perfectly. I'm not a huge fan of her style of singing, but the behind the scenes look at life on the road was interesting enough, at least for a while. Admittedly, the story became a bit monotonous after a while and there were extended scenes that really didn't seem necessary to the development of the story, but director Mark Rydell does manage to pull the viewer into Rose's life, and make her a sympathetic character. The movie also featured a decent performance from Frederic Forrest as Rose's love interest Huston Dyer, who started as her chauffeur and ended up as her lover, but eventually had to get away from her and the life she was leading, although I found the romance a bit too contrived to be believable.

I thought this was a good movie, memorable mostly for Midler and the music. Even with the weaknesses that are clearly present, I'm still going to 8/10 for this.


May I be so bold as to put one of the most annoying misconceptions in all of filmdom to restthis movie is NOT about Janis Joplin. It is NOT based on Janis Joplin's life; it is NOT about a Janis Joplin-like character. The only similarity between the character Mary Rose Foster and Janis Joplin is that they were both female rock singers. The occupational hazard of drug and alcohol abuse is so ubiquitous in this genre that it can hardly be said to implicate Ms. Joplin as opposed to virtually any other female rock singer. Why no one says this movie is about Grace Slick, Stevie Nicks, or Joan Baez, I don't know, but it bears no more resemblance to Janis Joplin than it does to any of these other women. Bette Midler's "Rose" is truly an enormously talented woman, but she does not look, sound, dress, speak, act, sing or dance like Janis Joplin. Janis Joplin was not prone to getting into fights with people in public, stealing limousines, trespassing in steam baths, she was not from Florida, she was not asking to take a year off, she was not being manipulated by some evil Svengali manager, and she did not return to her home town to do one total blow out concert and subsequently drop dead on stage. I suppose it does not help that misinformed boobs like George Mair continue to perpetuate this nonsense in biographies of Ms. Midler, but no matter how frequently a fallacy is repeated or by how learned of an individual, it does not make it so. So to sum it up in plain English, THIS MOVIE IS NOT ABOUT JANIS JOPLIN.

I think perhaps people are so eager to jump to this conclusion because without it, it is admittedly difficult to figure out exactly what this movie IS about. I'll leave that question to subsequent reviewers who care to dig beyond the surface cliché that this movie is about Janis Joplin, which I believe we have now clearly established, it is not. Would I recommend it? If you love Bette Midler, yes. If you're a fan of Janis Joplin, see the documentary "Janis" instead.


Bette Midler was fascinating in this movie which you can pick up at Target for ONLY $5.50! I agree with the earlier reviewer that there is 20+ minutes of footage that could've been axed like her singing in the gay club and the side story with the old lesbian lover which never truly developed. Another stale, uncomfortable scene was her in the phone both trying to get through to the stadium. Great idea but way too long.

I watched (listened) to some of the director's comments and he OR the film NEVER explain the beginning/ending of the movie with people looking horrified at a big montage of photos including her and other males. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? Was that her parent's house? Was it a stalker/obsessed fan? Why are they disturbed? That really irks me as I'm confused about this, if ANYONE can explain this please do! Am I going to have to contact the director? I saw this for the first time since I was 7-8 years old, I had a fuzzy memory that she took the downward spiral, went into seclusion and then came back with a roar singing THE ROSE in concert ending the movie. Obviously I was wrong in what I remembered but the touching song was played in the end causing me to cry as it did when I was a child :-( I'm also curious why she didn't sing it as "her" song in the movie? This might've seemed cheesy to some but it would've bee more powerful to me.

Sincerely, Noah Tempe, AZ


Contrast, please, Midler's "The Rose" with Streisand's "A Star Is Born." That's really all I can say.

But I have to say more, to post this.

Okay.

"The Rose" is raw and real. Features a truly astonishing acting and singing performance from Bette Midler.

"A Star Is Born" is smooth and glossy. Phony, to be exact. Nothing "astonishing" in the acting department. Lovely songs. So what? In retrospect, Streisand's "Star is Born" ranks down there with Lucille Ball's "Mame," compared to "The Rose." Plus: ever see Midler's "Mama Rose" on TV in "Gypsy?" Miss Midler can act rings around Miss Streisand. And that's saying something! Of course, Streisand can outsing ANYBODY.

Guess it all evens out.


I like Bette Midler as a musical performer. I can tolerate her when used in the right way as an actress. Some say this was an Oscar worthy performance (believe she was nominated), but I disagree. Not because I didn't like her acting, but because I never knew for sure what she was playing - other than pain. That's not her fault of course, but she can't get credit for it either.

Thought the film was a mess in general. Most shots were too light or too dark or out of focus or otherwise visually unintelligible. There were sloppy edits and there was no story to speak of. The main characters were one dimensional. All Alan Bates did was scream. It was well acted I supposed - tho the camera didn't catch it nearly as well as it could have - I believed he was selfish and greedy, but because I was told, not shown.

Wasn't even that crazy about the concert footage. Midler added a raucousness or squelch to her voice which I suppose was some sort of homage to Janis Joplin but it just made her voice sound less pretty. The band was mediocre - this may or may not have been another homage - to Big Brother And The Holding Company - Joplin's backup band which was often criticized for it's mediocrity - but in any case it was ill-advised.

Midler's accent was inconsistent - wasn't sure it ever sounded Floridian, which is where her character was from. We were given little background about her life other than one brief story about her promiscuity - so we never got a handle on where her intense pain came from. Okay, it was suggested that she was rejected as a youth, lonely as an adult and searching desperately and unwisely to fill holes and find love. Or do we assume all that because of what we know about Janis Joplin? In any case that's a thin plot reed to hang a two hour running time upon. And it nearly snapped for me several times. I gave it the lowest rating I ever give - 4 - if a film is leaning towards a rating any lower than that I turn the set off.


First of all, everyone who saw this movie in 1979 (as I did) knew it was supposed to be about Janis Joplin. There was otherwise no point to the movie. A lot of the details were different, but The Rose's life was the same kind of train wreck as Janis Joplin's life. The Rose is a character that is impossible to admire. She had it all and blew it. She was stupid. An idiot. She took her somewhat marginal talents -- used them and abused them -- made lots of money and instead of living the good life descended into a hell of personal despair. I don't feel sorry for people like that. As for the singing, one can take only so much of Miss Middler's caterwauling; enough is enough. Her occasional appearances on TV were more than enough. Over 2 hours of her pseudo-Ethel-Mermanesque screeching is more than any human should endure. Most of the other characters in this film are unlikeable and despicable as well. There are no positive role models. Nothing but tragedy, bad sex, bad drugs and alcohol. This isn't entertainment. It's overwrought theatrical angst!It's typical overindulgence on the part of Hollywood -- in which the lives of movie stars and rock stars are made to seem soooo tragic. I feel so sorry for these spoiled and over-rich babies. Not!


I actually went to the trouble of registering for this website (which I love, and look at quite frequently)... Just to say that this was the absolute worst freekin' movie I've ever seen in my life. It's been bothering me for years and I just had to get it off my chest.

I went to see this movie in '79 when I was a poor college student, and paid good money to get into the theater. Well, it was the most overly dramatic, self-indulgent piece of tripe I've ever witnessed. (See all the other negative comments here, they go for me too... in spades). I could go on and on about how much I disliked it, but I won't. It permanently turned me off to Bette Midler, no matter what her other talents may be. (Although she did redeem herself a bit in my opinion by her excellent guest role in that one Seinfeld episode).

Good movies are almost sacred to me. Suffice it to say that this is the only movie I can ever remember walking out on in over 40 years. Don't waste your time. Any other crappy movie you can think of is better than this one. Wheeewwwww.... I feel better.


The peanuts gang are up to their usual mischief in preparation for Easter Sunday, but no one seems to be listening to Linus. He swears that the Easter Beagle will come and make the celebrations complete. Typically no one listens to him, he is little bit 'Ralph Wiggum' remember.

Though Snoopy ends up being that very Beagle, he's far too busy trying to help out Woodstock. The poor little bird is freezing in his cruddy little nest full of cold water. So Snoopy goes off to the mall (already advertising Xmas goodies!) to buy him a bird house. With hilarious results.

After much hijinks and endless trips to the mall for eggs (Marcie keeps smashing them as she doesn't know how to do egg-painting) Snoopy saves the day and proves Linus right after all. Sigh! They don't make 'em like this anymore. I'll take Snoopy over Spongebob any day.


In my opinion, this is an excellent holiday special which is very hip and hilarious. However, I couldn't bear seeing Marcie (voice of Peter Robbins) having to boil all those Easter eggs herself while Peppermint Patty yelled at her so she would do it right. In addition, the thing that really makes this special worth watching is the score, especially "Linus And Lucy." When that song is performed, I always get warm and tingly. I would have to say that's my favorite song of this special. If you ask me, Charles M. Schulz was a really good artist. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent Easter special which is very hip and hilarious to everyone, especially all you fans of the comic strip who have not seen it. When you see it, prepare to smile and have a good time.


Like the Valentine's Day this episode is charming fun. You can't beat a cool Vince Guaraldi soundtrack, wry Charles Schulz humor and the earnest kid's voice actors not to mention some great catch the Beethoven references. This will not disappoint and has much to offer on so many levels. I have not seen it in years, but it cracks me up as much now as it did then. It even has some commentary on modern commercialism which is always heartening. While not as classic as the Christmas and Haloween episodes, it is up there with some of the best, certainly better than the ones which post-dated Vince Guaraldi death. Keep it on the shelf and bring it out in the spring. It will be a tradition you will be proud of!


Peppermint Patty and Marcie are getting together to decorate Easter eggs. Patty has the paints ready while Marcie fries the eggs! Well, there goes that day. Snoopy's friend Woodstock, meanwhile, gets rained out of his nest. So Snoopy accompanies Charlie Brown, Linus and Sally to Discount Mart to buy a new house for Woodstock. Sally needed some new shoes and Linus was telling his friends about the Easter Beagle, who distributes Easter eggs to children on Easter morning. Sally reluctantly believes him. Peppermint Patty and Marcie arrive then to buy some more eggs. Everybody gets what they wanted. Marcie tries toasting the eggs and ends up cooking them; At first Woodstock can't fit in his new house, but soon he makes himself right at home! Furniture, major appliances, the works. But when Snoopy decides to invite himself over, he really brings down the house! He is sent back to Discount Mart to buy a new one. Patty and Marcie go to buy some more eggs. This time Marcie is instructed to BOIL the eggs, so she cracks the shells and dumps the yolks into the water, which enrages Patty.

Lucy plants her Easter eggs around the yard with intent to find them again the next day. Little did she know that Snoopy was gathering all the eggs behind her; Easter morning, Sally is furious at Linus when the Easter Beagle does not show; Peppermint Patty was distraught over the wasted efforts with the eggs; Charlie Brown is distraught over the whole holiday. But suddenly, who should come prancing along but the Easter Beagle himself: Snoopy! He gives eggs to Linus, Sally, Lucy, Marcie, Patty, Woodstock, but ran out when he got to Charlie Brown. Marcie scarfs down her entire egg, shell and all, leaving Patty very frustrated.

It's The Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown is another classic Peanuts TV special! It goes up there with A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (1966), which was referenced here. Back then, Linus was all set to greet the Great Pumpkin in the middle of a pumpkin patch on Halloween night. Sally waited. The Great Pumpkin didn't show. Predictable results ensue. Then there's A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving from 1973. IN this Easter special, Charlie Brown didn't have much involvement. It mostly revolved around Snoopy and Woodstock and the bird house, Peppermint Patty and Marcie tending to their Easter eggs and Linus and Sally discussing the Easter Beagle. But anyway, this Easter I recommend you check out It's the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown! Great fun for children of all ages! Be on the look out for the Easter Beagle this Sunday, kids! But let's not forget what the holiday of Easter is really about: Our Lord and Savior.

-


Like the Valentine's Day episode of Charlie Brown, the Easter special is a lot of fluff regarding the members of the Peanuts Gang. It's not nearly as good as the Halloween episode (which is seems to mimic) or the Christmas episode.

In this episode, the Peanuts are getting ready for Easter, and Snoppy becomes the equivalent of the Easter Bunny. The episode is very mundane with a lot less to offer when compared to some of the previous Charlie Brown films.

Not terribly good. I would recommend that you see the Christmas episode or the Halloween one. Only watch this if you really are a fan.


This is as depressing as the rest of the specials, though not as much as the Christmas one. It's amazing to me that more of my generation didn't grow up angst-ridden because of pap like this. You want to THROTTLE Lucy and the rest of the girls, save for Peppermint Patty, who at least tries to be nice to Charlie Brown, and give the rest of the gang a whop upside the head while imitating Cher in 'Moonstruck': "Snap out of it!" When CBS chose not to air any of the specials one year I sat down and wrote a personal letter to Roone Arledge, CEO at the time, profusely thanking him. These shows should be put in the dustbin, have kerosene poured over them, and set alight!


Ileana, nice to hear there's another person who liked the show. In Finland we had 15 or 16 episodes I think, and I recorded all of those. I still do have them on VHS.

Since Hardball's not on DVD, or even original VHS, I've been thinking of getting my recorded episodes to digital format at some point. I do have the pilot also, but due to some sad coincidences, it has a bit worse quality than the other episodes.

Great series, John Ashton and Richard Tyson had a nice chemistry and fitted their roles perfectly. The best thing in the series was the humour, which often came from these two guys competing each other. That lead to a lot of juicy loud-mouthing and amusing happenings.

Why it was canceled after one season, is a mystery to me, but I definitely miss the characters. It's not realistic to wait for it's second airing I guess. :(


This was one of the best series ever, everyone remembers hardball. it's a shame it only ran for one series.

The chemistry between John Ashton & Richard Tyson was amazing, it has to be one of the most underrated TV shows that people enjoyed that never got a second series or even more.

The comedy between these two was brilliant. it's a shame they can't remake the series as it would not be the same without John Ashton & Richard Tyson, to me they made hardball and it would be impossible to replace them.

Columbia Pictures Television would make a fortune if they released this as a box set. i'm almost certain it would be a hit.


Jean Rollin's "La Morte Vivante"/"The Living Dead Girl" is an excellent erotic ultra-gory vampire tale and I like it very much.The film has some wonderful atmosphere and some striking images of eternal painful life.There is plenty of graphic gore to satisfy fans of extreme horror.Along with all of the gore there is a large amount of beautiful naked women running around.Rollin's trademark photography is naturally here but this film is much gorier than his other films that I've seen.Francoise Blanchard who plays bloodthirsty Catherine is incredibly beautiful.Overall,I enjoyed this film and you should too if you like zombie/vampire cinema.There is also an unofficial sequel to this one called "The Revenge of the Living Dead Girls"(1987).


I hate to admit it, but I like the idea of Jean Rollin more than the reality of sitting through one of his films. It's not that I don't appreciate what he's doing. I do. He has a unique world view and holds a special place in the world of "fantastique" cinema that is indisputable.

Still, I find his films a little boring.

Case in point THE LIVING DEAD GIRL springs from a simple and fascinating concept of a dead woman, who must drink blood to survive, returning to a château to be with an old friend.

As fascinating as the concept is, Rollin doesn't do a whole lot with it. He serves up plenty of atmosphere, imbues his material with a subtle eroticism and draws a superb performance from the beautiful Francoise Blanchard. What else do you want? you may ask. I'm not sure. I wanted more to happen, I guess. I wanted Rollin to jettison the boring bits and replace them with his signature set pieces.

It's been described as "savage", an adjective I wouldn't use myself. It's also been described as "dreamy". For the most part that's true. My frustration is with the film's uneven tone. Why couldn't it remain "dreamy" right through? You do need patience and a little forgiveness to enjoy Rollin.

I still wouldn't miss anything he's done. He's one of us.


This is a very interesting film. I honestly felt I was bored through a large portion of this movie but I could not stop watching. I was wrong I was not bored I was fascinated and intrigued a feeling very rare in the world of modern film watching. So rare I did not recognize the feeling until well into he film. This is truly gripping and ultimately tragic horror film. HIGHLY recommended.


Grisly, potent shocker from Jean Rollin regarding how a dead young lady of two years, the body surprisingly fresh without rot during that time(?), is revived from a spilled can of toxic waste, put there by some corpse looters, after a minor earthquake. She has vampire mentalities(..not to mention terrifying fingernails which can tear into flesh with ease) meaning this uncontrollable thirst for flesh and blood from human beings..the girl, Catherine(Françoise Blanchard), calls the evil inside. A "blood sister", Helene(Marina Pierro)did not know her best friend from childhood had been dead and after a phone call leading to Catherine's discovery(hearing the sound box playing music both listened to as children)she races to the villa to see about her. What Helene sees is a bloody mess, several unfortunates who became blood donors to Catherine's unhinged feeding time. Helene will slowly grow obsessed with keeping her beloved "sister" alive doing whatever it takes, meaning luring those unaware of what awaits them, to become victims for Catherine. A photographer, Barbara(Carina Barone)sees Catherine walking in a daze upon leaving her crypt and takes a snapshot. That snapshot fascinates her..the image that compels her to seek out the identity of Catherine might seal her fate. Perhaps, Barbara's husband(Mike Marshall)will be able to keep her from harm before it's too late. Or, will Barbara's obsession with learning more about Catherine, and taking more pictures of her, lead to a gruesome demise. What the people around this villa need to worry about is Helene's mad desire to find fresh bodies for her Catherine.

The most important story element, and what I feel is the most haunting aspect, is that as days go by Catherine is realizing the monster she becomes when the evil hunger returns. She wishes to be put away and begs for Helene to see this through. The idea of losing her friend a second time, and not being able to come to terms with the fact that Catherine is dead, I think Helene is the tragic character of the film. Friendship and love seem to be very powerful emotional drives within this plot while Rollin often cuts into this with a furious rage when he shows Catherine's eating habits. She just doesn't suck blood with any form of sophistication, but tears into her meal like a crazed, starving animal. And, believe me, the feasting is extremely unsettling as we watch the flesh of throats, arms, and stomachs ripped with vengeance by Catherine who seems out of control with her senses with the primal urge to munch operating in overdrive. The direction is rather straight-forward, I felt, and followed a projected path. It ended about the way I imagined it would. The ending leaves only despair for the victim who just wishes for the blood lust and torment to leave her.


Aside of the always popular 'back to life via toxic waste' introduction, this is a very unique and atmospheric film. The characters are all very representative, and rather well cast. Many scenes like the music box greeting over the telephone and the exploration of the catacombs stand out as very well done, but nothing can compare to the finale: Frantic flesh eating, echoing screams, amazing special effects, and no happy, Hollywood ending. Definitely a great movie, and a good representation of the style and ability of Jean Rollin.


Even with this being the first and only Jean Rollin movie I've watched so far (and having viewed a couple of trailers from his other efforts), I feel like I already have a pretty good idea of what this Frenchman stands for. While Rollin clearly is in the same league that produces  what many call  Euro-Trash movies, I think he is at least one step above Über-Euro-hack Jess Franco. Rollin at least has something Franco never had: The man's got style.

LA MORTE VIVANTE (AKA THE LIVING DEAD GIRL) tries to be a lot of things. One could say it's got some sort or 'arty' semblance or contains poetic visuals (e.g. after Catherine sets free the wounded girl from the catacombs, look at the exterior shot where she stumbles towards the water  the way it is lit, the red boat in contrast with the green grass, the shadows separating that scenery from the concrete of the castle-wall on the right, her white dress reflecting in the shimmering water, the violin playing on the soundtrack). Of course, there's a lot of female nudity at display throughout the whole movie (and for the girls: there's even a male generously providing a glimpse at his ding-dong too). However, Rollin somehow manages to give it an 'arty' touch (e.g. after Hélène discovered the bodies of the dead couple, she walks in on a naked Catherine playing the piano  just look at the shot where she's sitting naked behind the piano, her back facing Hélène), while in any given Franco movie you can't do anything but pass it off as cheap sleaze.

But all the possible merits this movie has, can't prevent you from feeling you are indeed watching a trashy Euro-Horror flick. The acting is barely tolerable, the editing is rather rudimentary and on top of that, the pacing becomes a bore sometimes. From the two main female characters, only Françoise Blanchard (as Catherine Valmont, the Living Dead Girl) manages to do a decent job. Her performance can easily be described as eerie, disturbing and captivating. Marina Pierro (as her life-long friend Hélène) on the other hand, fails to deliver. She comes off as uninspired and emotionless. During close-ups, it even looks like she's heavily drugged. Her gazing eyes made it look like she was on morphine during the entire shoot of the film. I might have gone a bit easier on the girl if she would've at least shown her voluptuous roundings unclothed, but she even failed to deliver that. The subplot with the foreign couple (both amateur-photographers in their roll, and poor actors in the movie too) doesn't even lead to anything. In fact, they're quite annoying: All they do is argue about everything up until the point you just wish they'd break up and disappear from the movie. Well, actually Them being in the movie does lead to something. While you might think that, with all their investigating, they will play a pivotal roll in the plot, all they accomplish in the end is getting themselves killed. Which leads us to the next thing this movie has to offer: The gore. Bloody gruesome activities happen on a regular base in LA MORTE VIVANTE. And while the blood-splattering, eye-popping, gut-munching, skull-splitting (by axe), throat-ripping (etc.) is all very enjoyable, the on-screen execution of the effects often leave a lot to be desired (i.e. you can see just a little too easy that it's all fake).

So, yes, there's not much in this movie that really works well. Except for the drama-part between the two girls (and that's a strange thing to say for a sleazy gore-flick). The relationship between the two of them, and how it evolves, is very interesting and keeps me from calling the movie over-all boring. It's intriguing how things change between them, even in such a manner that by the time the movie ends, the rolls of protagonist and antagonist have somewhat shifted. Catherine needs blood and kills, yes. But when the story progresses, she develops a severe aversion towards her actions. She becomes repulsed by them, so much even that she doesn't want to live (or should I say "be undead") anymore. Hélène, on the other hand starts providing her with fresh victims and near the end even starts killing anybody who comes too close to discovering their secret. So the drama between the girls is what almost makes this a good movie. That, and the ending. Now, I myself saw it coming even before the first act of the film was finished. The ending's predictability could be a big 'thumbs down' for the movie in general, but I must say I didn't feel all that negative about it. The execution of that final scene (starting from the events at the water, the shocking gore footage  for once looking realistic, Blanchard's performance, to the final frozen frame) is what saved the ending. And then the end-credits scroll the screen while a darkly ominous drone colours the soundtrack.

A solid ending to a rather weak movie featuring one of the most ridiculous opening-sequences ever in horror history (which I failed to mention earlier in this review).


This film was published in Germany on DVD, now playing the full 87 minutes including audio comment by Jean Rollin. You can buy it relatively cheap at Video/DVD markets (5-10 Euro). It is worth seeing if you have a taste for atmosphere. Yet it is not as surrealistic as other Rollin films. As mentioned in other comments before, the Italian actress playing Helene is absolutely marvellous. Though scene footage and atmosphere range from nice to elegant and dreamlike, Rollin should have spent more attention to the unnerving dialogues. The German synchronization/translation s... big time. At first glance, I had inspected more, but if you focus on the beautiful images, this is a fair deal. BTW, there is an extended gore scene at the end which makes you feel like Rollin is going slightly over the top, overplaying. Though the end (which results from a twist in the storyline) seemed quite odd and ordinary to me after I finished watching, it is different now. Re-thinking the whole story, it adds a nice perspective to the usual image of the vampire ... a new shade, a new breed beyond tradition and clichée.

7 out of 10 (due to the weak dialogues)


Life can be tough when you are a resurrected French vampire maiden. Especially so when you crave a constant supply of ready fresh blood. Fortunately the vampire in this film has her trusty blood-sister to help her out and keep those bothersome American tourists away from the castle. Overall this is a fairly typical Salvation Films' release with the mandatory candle lit atmospheric scenes. Worth a look, I reckon.


Prior to my viewing of 'The Living Dead Girl', my only taste of the master of erotic vampire films, Jean Rollin, was the low quality and overall less than brilliant 'Lips of Blood', and because of that I wasn't expecting great things from this movie. However, to my surprise this is a surprisingly good movie! The Living Dead Girl hinges somewhere between a love story (between two women, no less) and a very gory zombie flick and while it could easily have gone wrong, Rollin has created a film that will both shock, amuse and even touch you, and that's not something that can be said of many zombie movies! The plot is like an early blueprint for the underrated second sequel to Return of the Living Dead, and it follows a toxic spill that brings a dead heiress back from the dead. Naturally, being a zombie she brutally murders everyone in the vicinity, but it gets really interesting when we find out that before death, she and a friend were very close, and now that the heiress is back from the dead; the old friendship can be rekindled.

On a technical level, The Living Dead Girl isn't all that great, but considering the low quality of the picture, it's not all that bad either. The script is rather trite, and the film is also rather oddly paced, as it starts off like any other silly zombie movie, only to mature into something much more interesting later on, which may annoy some viewers. The acting is surprisingly decent, which is good because one doesn't watch this sort of movie for great performances, so when there is one or two, it's a treat. The characters are definitely underdone, but the actresses make the best of them. Rollin makes best use of the actresses too, with numerous nude scenes, which help the erotic element of the movie no end. The lesbian undertones also help to up the sleaze level, which is fine with me! Finally, there's the gore, which is both striking and excellently done. Despite being over the top, it still manages to be realistic and the French director has proved that he isn't one to hold back the bloodthirstiness of a movie with this picture. On the whole, it's not for everyone...but if you like erotic horror sleaze with lots of blood and nudity; see this movie!


LIVING DEAD GIRL was my first Jean Rollin experience and I have to say that I somewhat enjoyed it. The production values, from the actors to the sets to the FX, ranged from average to below average. The direction though was glacially slow and for many moments, my attention drifted to other things than the movie, which ain't a good thing.

Some scenes are haunting and the look of the movie is a nice change from the usual horror movies but I never really got involved with the plight of the two girls. I don't know why but I thought the two lead actresses were a bit too aloof. Overall, LDG is okay but you need to fast forward through many long and dull moments. And some of the FX are really terrible, even for such a low budget effort.


A leak of radioactive gas is Resurecting a girl that´s been dead for some time. Getting up she starts to kill of everyone in her way, as she finds her way back to her lesbian lover in a remote castle.

A dark erotic and tragic tale of love and lust by the legendary Jean Rollin is very sad and does really get to you in the ending scenes.

I Can´t compare it to any other movie I´ve ever seen because it´s so damn good and unusual.

Highly recommended!


The Living Dead Girl stars the beautiful Francoise Blanchard as Catherine Valmont who comes back from the dead for one of two reasons. Either a chemical spill or an unfulfilled blood pact she made as a child. It's open for interpretation. Catherine begins killing as soon as she comes from her coffin. She then goes to her childhood home, a rather large mansion, and this is where most of the film takes place.

There is a nice amount of gore in this as Catherine eats as couple of people and kills several more. She also becomes more herself and less a mindless killing machine as she drinks the blood of her victims. There is conflict when she begins to fight her homicidal urges as her lifelong friend, Helene (Marina Pierro), wants her to return to normal no matter how many people would need to die. The result of this conflict is a lot of blood splatter. There are also several shots of full frontal nudity on display throughout which should keep the fans of sleaze happy.

My only complaint is that the music doesn't do this film justice but the atmosphere stays thick regardless.

One of my favorite movies. Recommended to fans of gore and sleaze and a must for fans of Jean Rollin.


i expected to see a good horror movie, when i bought "the living dead girl" but i was disappointed. the dialogues are boring, the plot is unimaginative, the camera stands somewhere in the corner without dramatic.the whole movie is long-winded. the special fx are ridiculous and the erotic-factor is zero, just some naked women standing around.


Any college student could do better. It feels like Jean Rollin did a one take anything goes. It's one of the worst acting and story line I ever saw. The nudity is only there to compensate for the lack of a story.


The Living Dead Girl is one of the worst horror films ever because it has nothing to offer the audience, not even schlock or eerie premises, what passes as "gore" is supposed to douse us with some appreciation of this awful film, and yes, it is terrible. Rollin made this simply to cash in on nude horror films, but it doesn't have any atmosphere, story or fright to propel it along and most of the naked women are dead dull ugly. Continuity errors, cheap make up and effects, mics in the shot, film crew shadows and excessive lighting also ruin it beyond imagination. The pacing by all accounts is tediously slow, Rollin drags us through lurid shots and fake eye gougings and rotten acting that wouldn't pass a low budget play. The problem of the film is that it is not interesting, nor even believable, and he neglects to give us any truly frightening moments, instead he overloads us with distracting and annoying fake blood and fully naked waif-like 70's girls who are hideous to behold. There is no story, just one scene after another that is comprised of the Dead Girl looking for more idiotic victims and tons of shots comprised of the boring French provinces shown in wide angles, including a lackluster French band playing corny music. The ending is incredulous and the whole thing is a wasted effort from a limited director.


I've seen this many times over the years, and it's one of my absolute favorites. Some folks seem to think the Fleischers have to take a back seat to Disney.

NOT !!

They were, in many instances ( such as this one), far more inventive than Disney, and their work did not lose touch with common emotions,and had broad-based appeal to all ages, despite technical complexity.

Mickey Mouse will never go off the air. But neither will Betty Boop or Popeye.

In its own special way, "Gulliver's Travels" rivals the Disney features with its complexity, and its lack of laziness. If you really look at it, and keep in mind that this is animation done by hand...the old fashioned way, you will have a keener appreciation for the hard work that went into it. In those days, Disney and the Fleischers had to run the studios like a factory. It took teams of men in units and working shifts to concentrate on just the movements of the characters to make them appear lifelike (not like the computer animation of to-day, or even the TV animation of UPA or Hanna-Barbera in the 1950s).

"Roto-scoping", a process invented by the Fleischers, made the task that much more daunting. But the Fleischers had to be "perfectionists/masochists". The love of their craft shows in the movements, the backgrounds, the stories, and the music...not to mention the characters.

I am truly taken with the score. It is warm and dreamy and romantic....tearful to some. Some folks can't get with it, but it's a shame we don't don't hear much real music like that anymore in the mainstream.

Win Sharples and Victor Young did a very fine job...one of the best of All cartoon scores. Work on this film appears to have gotten Win Sharples the scoring job for the Fleischers, one he held down after the Fleischers were given the gate by Paramount, and which he continued to hold until Famous Studios was padlocked.

I can't recommend this feature highly enough. It's good clean fun, an accurate character study, terrific music, animation...the "whole nine".


Just throw any negative comments you read here from IMD comment contributors in the wastebasket. I don't know what they were smoking.

Gulliver's Travels is beautiful! It is just as beautiful now as it was 60-plus years ago when it premiered, perhaps even moreso with the wonderful restoration we have now on DVD. This film doesn't have to compete with anything by Disney, and I don't see how this story has anything to do with Snow White. It stands on its own two feet as a captivating and charming classic story that children can enjoy over and over again, made when animation was really animation, and all the cells were handpainted by artists, instead of slopped together on boring, cookie-cutter computer models.

The storyline is perfect and has an anti-war undertone that was a bit daring for its time, made on the eve of World War Two. Even Disney's Snow White didn't have the guts to do that! So kudos to the Fleischer Brothers!

The songs are all wonderful and the soundtrack sounds marvellously enhanced on the new DVD version. "We're All Together Now", "All's Well", "It's A Hap Hap Happy Day", "Bluebirds In The Moonlight", and especially the haunting "Come Home Again, Sailor Man" are all perfect and flow into the action of the film, instead of being placed there with no relevance just to try and get a hit song. These sheet music pieces always sell well on Ebay, highlighting the fact quite clearly that this is one of the most beloved animation movies of all time.


Talk about unforgettable music! I saw "Gulliver's Travels" forty years ago on Saturday-afternoon television, and I can STILL hum much of the Ralph Rainger/Leo Robin score, especially "Faithful", "Forever", "Faithful Forever", "We're All Together Now", and "Orchids in the Moonlight". What a songwriting team they were.

It's impossible to not compare "Gulliver's Travels", and its songs, to today's animated product, and it's sad when I try. The knack seems to be lost in all regards.

Lanny Ross and Jessica Dragonette, top radio stars of the period, actually enunciate the lyrics, and in tune, and with varying dynamics. What a relief to remember a time when that was mandatory in film music.

And we can also luxuriate in the well-drawn visuals, which allows the audience time to wallow in the rich colors and narrative (without the slam-bang short-attention-span cutting that sea-sickened me during "Atlantis" and similar Y2K material).

Give the youngsters a taste of the Golden Age of animation, songwriting and storytelling with "Gulliver's Travels", and take the time to enjoy it with them.

Highest recommendation. ****


"Gulliver's Travels" is one of the great animated features of its' time. It was made as a response to Disney's wildly successful "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". Today, "Gulliver's Travels" is not accorded the same respect as the Disney pictures and is pretty much forgotten.

Why? This is as good as "Snow White". After all, it was made by the Fleischer brothers, contemporaries of animation and in my opinion, geniuses. They made the 17 classic Superman shorts that still spellbind people today, including myself. They made those classic 20 minute plus Popeye shorts. Betty Boop, Grampy, Screen Songs, Little Lulu, Gabby (spawned from this feature) the list goes on. Famous Studios was one of the most prolific animation studios of its' time.

While purists may complain that it doesn't stay faithful to the book, I think the changes are appropriate. What kid would understand Swift's social satire? What adult would really want to see a wholly faithful cartoon of the book. Besides, we have the 1996 epic film with Ted Danson to go to with accuracy.

The songs are surprisingly great considering how some can be overkill in a film like this. The characters are endearing and the story is solid and involving. What more could you ask for?

**** out of 4 stars


Shipwrecked by a storm in 1699, Dr. Lemuel GULLIVER'S TRAVELS would bring him to a strange island inhabited by tiny little people.

While not one of the great animated features (it was only the second released in the United States, Disney's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN Dwarfs in 1937 being the first) GULLIVER'S TRAVELS is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with Technicolor animation of a generally high quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any 'heart' - they don't come alive on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket would a year later in PINOCCHIO.

However, it is ultimately unfair to compare the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios. GULLIVER was their first foray into feature length animation (HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN would be their second in 1941), and eventually they would expend their energies again on the cartoon short subject, including the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series which would commence in 1941.

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS is of course based on the classic novel by Jonathan Swift (with a little nod to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet) focusing only on the section dealing with the minuscule kingdoms of Lilliput and Blefuscu. In place of Swift's irony is a great deal of slapstick, but such is the nature of the animated cartoon. The personalities of the royal youngsters, one from each of the rival nations, is left completely unexplored and their romantics is at the expense of more screen time with Gulliver, as are the exploits of the three incompetent Blefuscu spies. The film's main character is actually night watchman Gabby, who isn't very appealing (yet not too repellent to spawn a few further cartoons featuring his exploits). The film is at its best when it de-emphasizes plot for the visuals, as in the binding & transportation of the giant, or when the rotoscoped Gulliver tows the entire hostile fleet from Blefuscu up onto the beach by the ships' anchor chains.

Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for silly King Little. Pinto Colvig (best known as the original voice of Disney's Goofy) provides the vocals for Gabby. Gulliver is voiced by Sam Parker, while Jessica Dragonette & Lanny Ross sing for Princess Glory and Prince David.

The film has some pleasant songs including 'All's Well' and the Oscar nominated 'It's A Hap Hap Happy Day.' The two national anthems, 'Faithful' & 'Forever,' are fine romantic tunes which deserve to be rediscovered.

It is unfortunate that the Fleischers' remarkable Stereoptical Process, which could produce beautiful 3-D effects, is only glimpsed for a few moments during the opening credits.


..The Fleischer Brothers in Florida wanted to establish an East Coast "Disney" Studio, so they turned out some fine shorts and even some cartoon-features ..Production and artwork at times, were very-very good. Though their best efforts may have been the 4O's Superman color cartoons, many fans believe"Gulliver" an excellent effort to try and match "Snow White"...and as a new cartoon-factory ..they almost did it with this feature. It had some memorable moments to see and songs to hum. This is a real Favorite ...FOR MANY....!


The Fleischer studios were best known for their "Popeye" and "Superman" shorts, but the caliber of animation and story-telling in this 1939 feature-length film were on a par with Disney at that time. Had they not gone bankrupt in 1942, I suspect they would have surpassed Disney in many ways.

The idea here was to do Disney's "Snow White" one better, and they came very, very close. The restored edition on DVD shows the depth and beauty of the artwork to perfection. Fleischer was even perfecting a "stereo-optic" process to add 3-dimensional depth to their images which was used in this film to good effect. The music is typical of the period, rather sugary for today's tastes, and the "Gabby" character introduced in this movie isn't nearly as funny as they seemed to think at the time. (Two "Gabby" shorts are also included on the DVD; draw your own conclusions.)

I can only guess at the reactions of movie-goers who first saw this film in 1939, but I suspect that they were blown away by the sheer scope of the artwork. Gulliver is a "man-mountain" to the Lilliputians, and the scale and perspective between him and the "tiny people" is perfect throughout the film. The sequence where the tiny townspeople use a variety of skills to truss up the sleeping "giant" and cart him (literally!) to their king's palace is, by itself, worth the price of the entire movie.

The pacing is a bit slow during the first part of the film, but the filmmakers do a nice job of setting up the conflict between the two tiny kingdoms, which (true to the spirit of Swift's story) is caused by the pride of the rival kings. I would've preferred less "Gabby" in this sequence, but I understand they were trying to establish a new character to compete with the Mouse.

If you like good animation, you will enjoy this DVD.


I thought that it was well done. The script closely parallel the book. This animation and love ballad must be critiqued in the context of it's time. Filmed in Techi-color and just the second full-length animated feature, it rivalled many of the light musicals on the silverscreen in the 1930's.

If you have not seen it, judge for yourself.


America's second animated feature - for whatever that title may be worth. Although it dates from the days when animated films were still finding their feet it lacks the honour of being a pioneer. Not that being a pioneer makes a poor film any better. Honest viewers have to admit that "Snow White" lacks the assurance, and, bluntly, isn't as good, as Disney's five subsequent masterpieces ("Pinocchio", "Fantasia", "Dumbo", "Bambi"). But at least "Snow White" shows the results of years of consideration and more man-hours than I care to think about. In addition it has a genuine charm - due to the fact that even in 1935 Disney knew what he wanted. The Fleischer brothers just wanted to finish something, anything, before a ridiculous deadline.

Consequently their animators didn't have time to learn how to animate all the humans. (Disney's animators didn't quite get it either, but had the sense to limit themselves to three, only two of which were major characters.) The Lilliputians are the usual Fleischer creations, good enough in their way. The prince and the princess are awkward genuflections in the direction of Snow White. Gulliver himself is entirely rotoscoped. (That is to say, a live actor was filmed and the footage - down to the very wrinkles in his clothing - was traced over into drawings. I don't know who the actor was but it seems they told him to move as woodenly, and as little, as possible.) There is, to say the least, a serious mismatch of styles.

One might be willing to call these "technical flaws" and forget about them but there isn't really anything else to redeem the movie. The elements of the plot fit with each other as poorly as the drawings do. If pressed, I would describe "Gulliver's Travels" as a love story - a love story with singularly uninvolving protagonists and a good deal of excess "incident" - that is, padding. This film has all the clumsiness of a pioneer with none of the conviction.


I used to love this animated film version of Gulliver's Travels when I was a child, and hadn't seen it for almost twenty years. A few times over the last few years, I'd seen it on a shelf at video stores and thought about hiring it out, but had always moved on, which was unfortunate, because it's a genuinely lovely film. The animation can't be compared to Pixar or Dreamworks, as it was the standard of animation almost seventy years ago, but you can tell by watching it that the film was made with a lot of skill and love by the artists. The world created within the film seems a lot more innocent than today's fare due to the era in which it was created - you won't find any popular culture references like in Dreamworks' Shrek or Disney's Aladdin, which is a good thing, the story is able to stand on its own two feet.

*Spoiler* I was surprised by how much a few of the comical moments in the film made me laugh - the part where the town-crier (Gabby) goes to the king's chambers and tells the king that the giant won't fit in his room, and the king's response? 'So, it's not good enough for him?', followed by the king seeing the giant for the first time, and immediately streaking back to his chambers, being pursued by a whirlwind of flying furniture that his wind motion has generated, I honestly couldn't stop laughing! Don't expect this film to be at the standard of today's animation, because you'll be disappointed. But if you view it as a children's film which was lovingly made and has excellent artwork considering that it was all hand-drawn, then you may very well like me find yourself watching it again two or three times within a week before reluctantly returning the copy to the video store. Highly recommended.


No, this isn't Madagascar, Lion King or Shrek. Not even Peter Pan or Cinderella but this film demands the respect of something created in 1939. That's right '39! Not 1989, 1979 or even '69. I'm amazed and the amount of effort that must have gone into this animation.

I'm curious to know if Gulliver is rotoscoped. The little people are obviously traditional animation but there is definitely something different about Gulliver.

For an excellent verion of Gullivers Travels including all of his travels (not just Lilliput) catch the made for TV version starring Ted Danson.


I had completely forgotten this film existed until the notice about Jack Black playing (im assuming) a live version of the title character. I used to watch this all the time when I was little, I absolutely loved it!

The animation was brilliant for the time, the story was wonderful, full of hope and romance and everything I had wanted as a little girl.

I have never read the book so I am not sure of how close it follows the story, but even as a stand alone film you could not deny the magic behind it!

I'm away to find it on DVD so I can watch it again and bring back all the happy memories! :D


Have you ever watched a cartoon you used to watch a long time ago? Like watching the 1940's Superman today, Gulliver's Travels from 1939 leaves viewers of today not only feeling nostalgic, but like it was a good movie by the standards of today. True, tastes in movies change with time, but true classics never die.

The animation style of Gulliver is simple and the story straightforward. It starts with Gulliver being shipwrecked onto an island full of tiny people, about the size of ants. One nation's princess is getting married to another nation's prince, and the kings are planning the wedding. When it comes down to the wedding song, both kings suggest their own songs and have a fight about it. They end up going to war over it, but before the war can start, Gulliver is found and captured by the tiny people. He escapes and becomes allies with the people of Lilliput, the nation with the princess. The rival king has sent spies to Lilliput and asks them to kill Gulliver. The movie progresses with the countries warring and Gulliver trapped in the middle. Gulliver reunites the prince and princess and is about to put a stop to the war when the spies pull his own pistol on him. The prince hops on his horse and knocks the gun off just in time, but falls down a cliff in doing so. Gulliver picks up the boy and tells the kings how stupid they've been, fighting over a song, and that the prince is dead. In the end, the prince turns out to be alive and sings his country's song with the princess singing her country's song. Gulliver gets a new ship and is on his way. All is well.

The most striking thing a viewer will notice in the movie is the differences between characters. The smarter, most knowledgeable and reasonable characters like Gulliver, the prince and princess all are animated to look lifelike, whereas the villagers, spies and kings all have a sort of dwarfish, cartoon style about them. This puts a visual line in the sand between the characters that becomes more and more obvious as the movie goes on. The kings are acting foolish and the people from the village are acting on their behalf. The spies and Gabby, the man who finds Gulliver all have the most cartoonish movements and are the most comic-relief type characters. The animation style provides for a visual representation of the character's personality, subtly hinting that real people should be more reasonable and intelligent, lest they look like the dwarfish, ignorant people.

Another element that draws attention to itself is the repetition of Gulliver's line "Oh my." Oddly enough, he only says it at times where the plot is thickening, such as when the prince comes back for the princess. He doesn't seem to find it odd that people not much bigger than ants are clothing him and dancing for him for no reason other than he's a giant to them. This may be surprising, but considering Gulliver's character, it could just be a part of his kind-hearted nature. This distinction between "Oh my" being something surprising, and Gulliver's "Oh my" meaning something is about to happen, becomes more concrete as the movie goes on. Thus, when an "Oh my" is heard from Gulliver, the audience knows it should pay attention to this point in the plot, as it is important to the overall storyline.

The most notable animation achievement is the realism behind Gulliver. Nowadays, amazing things can be done with 3D animation, making characters look more realistic, but for some reason, they still have an unnatural feel to them. This comes down to the motion of the characters, which this movie nailed with Gulliver. His movements look like that of a human being, jerky at times, possibly slow, but always realistic in those flaws. Nobody moves swiftly across the floor with little bounce, or keep steady, fluid motion, and this lack of fluidity is captured in Gulliver. Good examples of this include when Gulliver steps over the town and during the first shipwreck scene. Before he steps over the buildings, he pauses slightly as if to gain balance and keep going. This slight pause is what separates him from the CGI of today. When Gulliver's ships wrecks and he's drowning, his head comes above water a few times, but his arms are seen flailing, wildly, but with purpose, as if in an attempt to get air. Their movement is almost random, but meaningful. This level of realism within Gulliver is still astounding today, almost seventy years after the film's production.

The director Dave Fleischer has something to do with this animation style. At that time, he was a great director of many cartoons, most notably Popeye. Gulliver had a huge step toward realism and it continued on in Fleischer's work. A few years later, he went on to direct the Superman cartoons, which are still held in high acclaim for their animation style and techniques of realistic movements and absorbing story lines.

Though this movie may have been forgotten by many, its animation style, subtle repetition of elements and straightforward storyline all lend to this movie's timelessness. Normally, people look to the future for the latest and greatest, but Gulliver is a shining example of what the past can teach the future.


This was the Fleisher Bros. one real effort to compete with Disney on Disney's own turf - "revising" a classic story for American tastes - and this in itself led to the film being dismissed by many critics as "imitative" of the Disney technique. This is not really fair, because the Fleisher's had a keen sense of the culture of the 1930s that the Disney people consciously decided to ignore - the depression; growing concern over the unstoppable march to the Second World War; an American pop-music culture adopting African-American motifs more and more; and a growing sense that working-together could provide us with a brighter future than rigorous individualism. All these elements of '30s American culture receive positive comment in the film, and thus make it more directly American than anything comparable by Disney.

But the film has real problems - these began virtually at the beginning of production, when the Fleisher's decided they would keep costs down, despite the ambitions of their project. This involved some shoddy dealings with their animation crews, and effacing creative credits other than their own whenever possible. Bad production strategy and tactics show forth in a certain blandness to the background of the animations (among the least interesting background art in the Fleisher catalog) as well as a curious lack of unity to the story - for instance, the three spies, while providing excellent comic relief, seem to come from some other film entirely, and the plot twist they provide could have been constructed along other, more innovative lines.

Still, there is certainly nothing objectionable here, the music is rather interesting, and the story is pretty upbeat - on the whole, it succeeds at entertaining, and is short enough not to be dragged down by its flaws.

Pretty good for children, and not all that bad for adults.


I love animation from the Fleischer Studios, along with Disney,Rankin/Bass, Hanna/Barbera and Studio Ghibli from Japan; this is a excellent film, and beautifully animated from the very studio that delight us with KoKo the Clown,Betty Boop,Popeye the Sailor and Superman. My favorite characters from the film are Princess Glory, she's really beautiful and I should tell you that this film is the reason I love her singing voice actress - Jessica Dragonette; Prince David and Gabby the town-crier, he's very funny. The film also has an excellent soundtrack with great songs too.

I was quite intrigued with the story of Gulliver and his adventures in the land of Lilliput,I had watched the Mickey Mouse cartoon "Gulliver Mickey" from 1934 and the version with Sanrio's Keroppi the frog; I think I would like to read the original novel sometime; I love literary films both animated and live action. In short, Gulliver is great fun, and should be enjoyed by everyone in the family - young nor old.


What a beautiful story. Just incredible. I saw it when I was a little girl. It kept going through my mind. I had to watch it today. For me it's the story of God shipwrecked into our lives for the sake of LOVE. It's also the story of the church trying to tie down God (Gulliver) and He loves us enough to let us for a little while, but He knows our nature is to war and He has to stop it. So He sends His Prince to show His Glory and when His prince dies and everyone's heart is crushed and they realize the error of their ways, He lets His prince live again with Glory and romances the longing of our heart with LOVE. Precious. LOVE CONQUERS ALL!


Paramout Pictures wanted something from their cartoon supplier Max Fleischer Studios to follow up Disney's success with Snow White. Paramount financed a state of the art animation studio in Miami Flordia so the Fleischer brothers could complete this ambitious undertaking.

Max and Dave Fleischer augmented their original New York City staff by over 400 employees to achieve the results Paramount wanted so badly. Did the Fleischer brothers succeed? That, to this day, is a matter of subjective conjecture.

Gulliver's Travels is by any standard of animated film techinique a rare gem. The story may not adhere to the book as closely as purists would have wanted, but in the realm of animated cartoons it stands proud.

The background artwork is stunningly detailed with rich colors, captured by the three strip Technicolor process. The rotoscoping of the title character is flawless. The painstaking animation of the supporting cast is 100% Fleischer comic whimsy, done this time to the most meticulous standards as yet undertaken by the Fleischers.

I would recommend this feature to anyone who appreciates the time and money it took to hand draw this flight into fantasy, both from an enjoyment standard and from a historical look at what the Fleischer staff could accomplish.

The film is beautiful, the score regal, and the overall effect spellbinding. See it, hear it, cheer it!


This was one of the top 20 box office films of 1939 and even garnered two Academy Award nominations for Victor Young's Best Original Musical score (losing out to The Wizard of Oz) and Best Original song, Faithful Forever (losing out to Over the Rainbow from The wizard of Oz) so it was well received by the public of it's era but it isn't Disney. Paramount released this film from the Max Fleischer animation studio with the original concept for their popular Popeye to be Gulliver. It actually might have worked better. Instead they chose to use a process that the Fleischer's, Max and Dave invented called Rotoscope where they film an actor and trace his features into animation. Sam Parker is the voice and features of Gulliver. Longtime Disney Pinto Colvig, best known as the voice of Goofy is the voice of Gabby. Colvig had left Disney in 1937 and freelanced for Warner Brothers and worked for Fleischer as the voice of Bluto until 1941 when he returned to the Disney fold. Jack Mercer who was the longtime voice of Popeye is the voice of King Little. Lanny Ross is Prince David and Jessica Dragonette is Princess Glory. I've seen this many times and have always liked it but you are a curious observer to it and not drawn into the story like you would be to a Disney animated film. The story only deals with an interpretation of the first part of Jonathan Swift's classic story Gulliver's Travels. It's a nice movie but it lacks the charm of Disney. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.


Wonderfuly done, and at that point in time when animation was REALLY animation and not just the same art shown over and over or computerized "stuff". The music is very well done, with great voices and good score. Given that it was made in '39 this film has held up beautifully. It still conveys a good antiwar message which, in this day of Home Land Security and international political blundering, we all might do well to remember. All in all, for its sweetness and wholesomely entertaining story line, this thing is STILL a treat for young and old alike. You want a nice story with a good message, well done animation with pretty music? Something to just relax with and enjoy? Travel with Gulliver.


No, it does not have any of the social sarcasm of swift's book. And it is not animated in today's flawless though empty androidal style. Yes, it is GREAT FUN! The Fleischer style, in the long form, spins a bouncy Hollywood-ized yarn that is every kid's dream: To be bigger than all the adults and have them all in awe of you. Fun to the end.

A gem.


A black and white film that looks like animation but is none. The film is a very, very personal rewriting of Gulliver's Travels to Lilliput. In fact the whole film concentrates on two small kingdoms in Lilliput that are planning to marry their princess and prince but the fathers have a disagreement on which of two songs will have to be played at the wedding, "Faithful" or "Forever". And that leads to war. Gulliver is going to bring peace to this part of the world by making love win and by joining, merging, splicing them together. This rewriting is just charming but that's all. What makes that film unique is its date, 1939. That was a dream of this film maker to have peace in Europe, to bring together Hitler and Chamberlain, Freedom and Fascism like he was bringing Faithful and Forever together. A dream full of naive peace-loving but also blind humanism. In 1939, due to all kinds of mistakes for at least twenty years the war had become inescapable, unavoidable. But it is always refreshing to go back to the great idea that peace is possible in this world provided we accept to respect the other and to look for a reasonable compromise. But what happens when such a reasonable compromise is no longer possible? We look for Weapons of Mass Destruction, of course.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


I came across this one by accident at the drug store for $1, and what a bargain! 1940's style animation - (think Casper the Friendly Ghost), with a few entertaining musical numbers. I think it's Bing Crosby doing Gulliver's voice, but didn't see his name on the credits. Some funny Lilliputians, including the King, really make this one fun to watch for the whole family. There are sword fights, and I was really intrigued by the animation for sea washing up on the beach at night. Gulliver is very life-like, replete with the shadows on his features to capture the "lighting" of the scene, which I found very striking for the time. Also, I think it's actually released in 1940, according to the credits.


This infantile adaptation of Jonathan Swift's <Gulliver's Travels> shows that the creators were simply not up to the task. It depicts only one of Gulliver's four journeys, and fails to render even that accurately. The film communicates none of the themes of Swift's literary classic.

Instead, the creators fabricate a Capulet and Montague style feud that captures none of the absurdity of Lilliputian politics, the grotesquerie of Gulliver's size, or the misplaced pride of both Gulliver and the Lilliputians. In fact, in this version, Gulliver does not speak until 40 minutes into the 75-minute film.

Aside from the fact that Gulliver washes upon the shore of Lilliput where he is restrained by tiny people, the plot of the cartoon bears virtually no resemblance to Gulliver's voyage to Lilliput.

**** spoiler this paragraph ****

A series of Snow White inspired string-laden ballads separates scenes of insipid Lilliputian gags. The only clever turn is Prince David rescuing--rather than slaying--the Goliath-like Gulliver.

**** spoilers done ****

I'd steer clear of this, even for the kids, as there is plenty of better material out there for all of you to enjoy.

3 of 10


There are virtually no redeeming features in this tedious piece of animation. The songs are awful, the vocal characterisations weak, the story confused, the dialogue puerile and the animation, at best, a pale imitation of Disney. The only thing that it has going for it is a plea for peace, which, given the year that it was made, was certainly timely.


Chosen as the film to start the Perspective Canada series for the 1999 Toronto Film Festival, "The Five Senses" explores numerous lives in turmoil that are also intertwined in many ways.

Shot in Toronto, the story revolves around the disappearance of a little girl and how it affects the lives of those who knew her and those who feel responsible. More predominantly though, I believe it is about the bonds that are forged from one person to another in a variety of relationships and the strains that can test them. From friends old and new, parent to child, employer to employee, client to vendor, lovers past and present. All of these associations undergo a transformation of some kind in this film.

The film is beautifully shot with interesting set-ups but is not edited evenly throughout the feature. Scenes with Molly Parker and Mary Louise Parker are tightly edited and executed nicely, while some other scenes just seem to be drawn out a bit too much, the pace is a slow one, with numerous subplots that attempt to liven the drama.

But for art's sake and support of Canadian filmmaking, I would prefer not to draw negative attention to this film. There are some very moving scenes and excellent performances, but at the same time, I'm not sure I can recommend this one to just anyone.