Actor Darren McGavin plays private detective Mike Hammer. In the space of 30 minutes, he normally escapes a couple assassination attempts, beats at least one man to a pulp, flirts with one or more beautiful women, fires off some 50s tough-guy slang, and solves a perplexing mystery. The pace is very fast.

The premise of the show is that the world is an evil, violent place, and the strong and upright must be as tough as the bad guys to set things right. But that doesn't mean they can't have a little fun along the way, enjoying broads, booze, or other masculine entertainments as circumstances present themselves.

I do not know that I have ever seen a TV character so quick to use his fists or a gun when trouble arises. And, when Mike Hammer beats you, he does not just knock you down or knock you out. He continues beating you as the blood spurts out and you beg for mercy, then he beats you some more. Even innocent witnesses are pushed around until they give up their information. That he is not imprisoned for his frequent violent assaults is a miracle. He does frequently fall afoul of the police, receiving threats, being questioned, and sometimes being locked up, but only temporarily.

In the world of Mike Hammer, there is no such thing as a flat-chested or overweight woman, except for the occasional wife or grandmother. The show is populated by beautiful, large-breasted women with well-coiffed hair, wearing tight dresses that show off their curves, and push-up bras that are so stiff and lift breasts so high they threaten to poke out your eyes. Mike flirts with and openly leers at these women in a way that would surely make viewers uncomfortable today.

With only 30 minutes to play with, the characters are often one-dimensional. Women, except when evil sluts, are weaklings dominated by men. They are either helpless victims, or madly attracted to Mike, or incidental holders of information he needs, or mere eye-candy populating his world. Sometimes they are the tool of a bad guy, used to lure Mike into a trap, then sent on their way. Men are not treated much better. The line between good and evil is starkly drawn, and the most complex a character (other than Mike) usually gets is when someone thought to be good turns out to be evil.

There are many pluses. A lot happens. The evil plots are often complex and ingenious. The show employs a great deal of humor and tries not to take itself too seriously.

In the final analysis, Mike Hammer is on the right side. He fights against crime, and bravely protects the weak, despite the risk to himself. If you had trouble, and were in the right, there is no one better you could have on your side. He is strong, violent, cynical and testosterone-fueled, the epitome of 50s cool.

Despite the shortcomings of the show, it is entertaining, and the fast pace ensures you will not get bored.


Darren McGavin was the quintessential Mike Hammer. Others paled by comparison. He played him with toughness, irreverence and humor. Back in the 50's, when TV censorship was at its strictest, he went as far as you could go. He'd call women "Chickie" and had no qualms at roughing them up to get to the truth. I especially liked his scenes with Nita Talbot, who took everything he dished out. In another review, revtg001 claimed that Anthony Quinn played Mike Hammer. Although, Mr.Quinn appeared in a movie of a Mickey Spillane novel, "The Long Wait",the character he played was JOHNNY McBRIDE. In my opinion, the second best Mike Hammer was Ralph Meeker in "Kiss Me Deadly".


I really like the show and the virile "manliness" and cool humor exhibited by Darren Gavin. I'm sorry he has passed on. Some feminists might find the humor demeaning, but we have to remember it was mid-60s. My only criticism is that it was mainly filmed in Hollywood except for a very few exterior shots of New York. It is very Californiaish, particularly in some outdoors shots which are definitely not New York countryside. That's a failing if you really want authenticity about a New York detective, particularly when you compare it to "Naked City" which was filmed on the streets of the city. Luckily some of the episodes are now on DVD. (I wish there would be more of these classic series on TV.)


I believe the song title you are seeking is entitled, 'Street Scene', written by Alfred Newman, from the 1931 movie of the same name.

The aforementioned film has experienced a Renaissance precisely because everyone wants to know where the Mike Hammer theme originated.

It is certainly very haunting, and I personally spent many years seeking out the sheet music, which was very difficult to find in the 1960s.

It is a great composition, and I admire anyone's taste in music who has spent any effort to seek out this original classic.

Houdini


Possibly the big attraction to this film would be the appearance of Brigitte Nielsen, or Danny Fendley who plays the role of Rick Stone and is married to Brigitte (Michelle). There is a reporter on a local tabloid newspaper who manages to photograph Rick in bed with a hot gal completely naked. Naturally, Michelle wants a divorce and also every penny that Rich Stone owns. As the film progresses there are lots of naked sex scenes and that is about all this film has to offer, the acting is a disgrace and this really is the type of film production a porno studio would use as a story line and then of course the love making. If you like nudity, this film might interest you.


Once in a blue moon, I'll read comments about a film BEFORE I watch it. (I usually DON'T do this, to avoid being influenced.) The former was the case, however, prior to my viewing of COMPELLING EVIDENCE. I felt the need to be more cynical, so, based on the reviews of it, I selected this cinematic masterpiece as the sole celluloid wonder which I had time to see that day. I COULD have picked others, but, this sounded like the flick to be certain to fulfill my masochistic needs: you know...to make me shake my head; roll my eyes; and almost puke. And it met these expectations, primarily because of the dreadful acting. But then, Danny Fendley does that to me. I have seen him in other movies and there's just something about his style, or his delivery, or I don't know what, which I'd find better in much smaller doses. (How 'bout non-speaking roles?) Also displayed frequently was that tell-tale low-budget audio. And, the story is so incredible that no cast could salvage it: An action star's wife is murdered; he's got a mistress; then, he goes from hating an intrusive reporter, to bangin' her, and maintaining his innocence via her program. Talk about messed up. This takes the cake.


I've watched Danny Fendley in probably 10 or more films and he can do a really good job IF he is interested in the part. He obviously wasn't to thrilled with this one. You can watch his work and tell if he likes the script. He can be a very high caliber, talented actor but he basically just went through the motions on this one. There was a nice chemistry between Fendley and Brigette Neilson, it's to bad that they didn't have more time to work together on the film. The story plot of this film lacked and the directing and editing were also sub par. Speaking of Directing, I've also seen improvement in Donald Farmers work as a director. As for the rest of the actors Dana Plato did a good job and was well suited for her role. She has a perky attitude that is demanding of attention.


Let me give the pros first. Brigitte Nielsen looks really good in this film and actually acts capably. She is also killed off in about 10 minutes. There is an attractive actress at the beginning who gets naked and then killed stupidly.

That's it. There's nothing else to recommend about it.

Matt


The best thing about Starquest 2, or Galactic Odyssey, or whatever, was definitely the Ed Tomney soundtrack. I was intrigued by the appearance of Adam Baldwin, who made a lasting impression on me during his run on the classic "Firefly" TV series. Though the acting isn't too bad, nobody could have saved this film.

This is an extremely low budget sci-fi film with a lot more ambition than ability. This film is about a group of humans that wake up to find themselves aboard an alien spaceship monitored by video cameras which double as weapons, and being carted off to an unknown destination for an unknown purpose. They are arranged in opposite sex pairs (which might have given any intelligent primates some clue about the aliens' purpose, but never mind, there aren't any intelligent primates to be found). There is a lot of shouting, fighting and sex, and it appears that some of the humans are, in fact, aliens. No sense in continuing, the rest of the plot has to be seen to be disbelieved.

The basic premise is not bad, but the execution and the script are off-the-scale. There are too many continuity problems and absurdities to list.

More or less randomly interspersed with the main narrative are a series of war scenes, which were probably found on the cutting room floor, as they rarely seem to have anything to do with this film and only once show people who are actually in the film. I can just imagine how this happened

***

Bartender: Hey it could be worse. That film you're working on couldn't possibly be as bad as the one I was in.

Drunken Studio Exec: You were?

Bartneder: It was a kick-boxing movie and I had to fight a whole bunch of guys off for some reason - never did have much of a plot. they wanted me for my martial arts skills.

Drunken Studio Exec: Really? What was it called and when was it released?

Bartender: Oh I don't think they bothered with a title, it died in production. In fact, I have some of the original footage at home in my scrapbook. Want to check it out?

***

Unfortunately, the plot is too thin for a feature length film, and the creators decided to fill in the gaps with randomly occurring totally unnecessary sex scenes. The film would have been better as a single episode of a Outer Limits or the Twilight Zone. Even with the exceedingly low budget, most TV franchises could have done a better job with the special effects. There is nothing special about the effects in this one, except for their complete lack of quality.

It would be difficult to find a reason to recommend this, so I won't bother. I gave it a two because it's almost harmless, and therefore not as bad as a lot of what passes as entertainment these days.


I saw "Starquest II" under the title "Galactic Odyssey." It stinks under any title. Having nothing to do with the original, this Roger Corman release is another in a long line of films that steals scenes from "Battle Beyond the Stars," some other movie I couldn't identify, and makes very little sense. Here's a rundown of what I understood:

Various individuals from Earth awake on a spaceship, having few memories of their lives. Wandering around the ship, they come across three people who claim to not know what is going on. In reality, these beings are aliens from a dying race. They have surgically implanted something into some of the humans. Their plan is for the humans to fornicate (yup, it must be a Roger Corman movie) so that their race will continue. But, as expected, there is a mutiny among the aliens, and people being to die off. Blah, blah, blah...

It is hard to figure out what in the world Robert Englund is doing in this movie. He can do so much better. There is nothing in this movie worthy of praise. Start your own "star quest" and look for a movie that actually shines just a little bit. Zanatos's score: 1 out of 10.


After Nasa stock footage, recycled Roger Corman space FX (BATTLE BENEATH THE STARS...again!) and an incomprehensible collage from various Corman productions, then the "story" begins. Eight people who awaken aboard a spaceship are being used in "procreation" experiments to eventually host an alien species. People start to die and no one knows what the hell is going on (or how they got there) but still make time to have sex while secret video cameras tape them. A blue energy beam zaps people, an "android" in the wall squishes a guy's head until blood pours out of his ears and an alien finger is thrust into his eyeball in close-up.

The new gore FX are pretty good and the cast looks good, too, in the sex scenes (which seem to have been trimmed from the cable version, called GALACTIC ODYSSEY), but this is still a cheap, pointless waste of time carelessly slapped together by the same guy who directed the equally terrible DEAD SPACE (1990). Maria Ford and Shauna O'Brien are seen in old footage from other movies thrown into the mix in the form of flashback. So is Trimble, in lengthy scenes from one of his old kickboxer movies. Corman was the executive producer and this was part on the ROGER CORMAN PRESENTS... Showtime series.

Score: 2 out of 10 (for the redeeming T&A only)


The description of Mind Breakers (The title of this movie in it's Australian release) on the back of the VHS container is quite misleading. It makes the movie sound like it will be a dodgy and innocuous Thing/Ten little Indians variation with the last survivors of the human race trapped on a spacecraft fleeing the earth getting picked of one by one by one of their own, who might not be human. It doesn't mention the meat of the plot which involves the humans being used in experiment in copulation by some mysterious (and horny) aliens. If it had I mightn't watched it not having acquired a taste for having my sci-fi b-movies spliced with soft core pornography. The presence of real actors such as Robert Englund and Adam Baldwin here is a little surprising- okay, they're not hugely respected actors or stars and generally appear in B-movies but I would have though they were both above soft core porn like this.

Basically 70% of the movie consists of soft core porn scenes or stock footage from other sci-fi and action movies clumsily reinserted into the movie with some pitiful attempts to fit in to the narrative. I didn't realise to now Roger Croamn was involved. The opening 5 minutes of the movie is a compilation of snippets from different movies clumsily spliced together with a bit of voice over narration- a mixture of space battles, some contemporary war stuff, strip club sequences and what looked like some kind of genetic experimentation and surgery footage. I'm not sure but I think this was meant to indicate the breakdown of civilisation on earth as we know it and/or be the nightmares of the main characters. It is really hard to tell. Later on there is a lengthy space battle that clearly came from a different movie awkwardly stuck into the movie in between sex scenes and more of the same footage from the introduction used when the aliens are giving a lecture of the downfall of humanity (Which is awfully preachy for a movie like this). Each of the characters is given an introduction which seems to consist of snippets from other movies the actor/actresses were in- one guy was clearly in a few Kick-boxing movies.

Basically a bunch of humans, consisting of scientists, soldiers and exotic dancers, wake up on this space ship with no idea of how they got there. They soon meet some aliens, who have taken the form of humans, lead by Robert Englund who is pretending to be a priest of some sort, who corral them into a breeding experiment, which is basically an excuse for a whole lot of sex. The ostensible reason of this initially is to rebuild the human race but with only 8 people that is going to be one limited gene pool. It is later revealed that the aliens have some plan which involves interbreeding with the humans, I forget why. There is a confused subplot about a faction of the alien dudes wanting to stop the experiment to maintain genetic purity. It makes less sense than you might think as the only alien seen to get down and dirty with the humans is the one who wants to kill them all because her faction is opposed to the interbreeding thing. There is one head scratching scene with her and Englund, the only two aliens onboard the ship at this point- the other having been randomly killed by an android (Don't ask), in which he explains how he thinks one of them must be from the rival faction but doesn't seem to come to the logical conclusion. Given he presumably knows he isn't the guilty party himself it leaves him with a suspect pool of one and he is warning her he knows. I'm generously presuming this is maybe meant to be a warning on the part of Englund to alien chick to quit it already rather than the writers for this thing being the dumbest people ever (It brings to mind Danny De Vito's attempt to write a two character murder mystery in Don't Throw Momma From the Train). Anyway, there is a whole bunch of screwing, most of the characters die and there are some really bad make effects for the alien transformations and killings- I was starting to fall asleep toward the end of the movie so my memories of the conclusion I kind of hazy.

There one or two weird bits of note relating to the alien tech on the ship. You only have to mention what food you want to eat and a plate of that food will instantly appear in your hand. There is a scene in which Robert Englund orders a plate of meatloaf and mashed potato 'the way his mother made it' and gets it right down to the amount of garlic his mother put in the spuds. Other than this one godlike piece of technology none of the rest of the equipment the aliens use is quite as impressive- they can instantly create matter based on the sensory memories in someone's head but only if it is in the form of food. Strangely enough nobody else is seen to take advantage of this wonderful device- I guess they were all to busy screwing. The other strange device are these lasers that pop out of the ceiling the second that anyone dies and burn the corpse to dust (Leaving the clothing). Why, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure why if they have sensors and weaponry that sophisticated they don't just use it as a security system.

Basically, unless you want to see some generic soft core porn involving Adam Baldwin intercut with shots of a leering Robert Englund or you're some kind of sick, sick masochist stay away.


Wow, this movie was bad. Now the acting was decent enough, but its clear the actors had little to work with, they tried to save this stink-bomb but there really was no hope. The story was flimsier than rice paper and the special effects shots were mostly stolen, many from BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS. The ship was apparently made of card board and the technology was primitive enough that humans who had never seen the systems could take control and hack the computer. Pathetic. I've seen fan-made films that were far superior in writing and effects. The only reason I gave this move a 3 is that it makes a good MST3K flick, get some friends, get some booze and enjoy heckling it between the few T&A scenes.


Back in 1976, Roger Corman gave two of his trailer editors a few bucks and a chance to make a film. Joe Dante and Allan Arkush turned out "Hollywood Boulevard" by utilizing reels of scenes cribbed from other Corman films. Because the two directors were talented (as their later films would confirm), they managed to create a crazed, outrageous little parody of low-budget movie-making.

Roger tried it again with "Galactic Odyssey" (a/k/a "Starquest II", not that it matters, as there is no relationship to "Starquest"). Alas, writer-director Fred Gallo shows no sign of talent in either trade here.

The resulting splice job is cheap, incomprehensible, and should be an embarrassment to all who participated. Sets are strictly high school drama club. Acting is stilted. And the Swiss-cheese plot seems to be designed solely to use as much footage from other films and stock agencies(there's that mushroom cloud again)as possible while incorporating a handful of soft core sex scenes and a few gore effects.

Even bad film buffs should ignore this one. Even for free.


Despite the summary above, this film actually does have some saving graces - 3 of them. Well, if you're a young male, that is...

It's not worth talking about the plot of this film, there isn't one. It's not worth talking about the acting, there isn't any; not even from Robert Englund, who (frankly) ought to know better.

However, young men take note: There are 3 pairs of deliciously natural-looking breasts on display at various points in the film. All totally unnecessary for the furtherance of the (non-existant) plot, but nice to see anyway...

Oddly enough, if you're willing to ignore 1h29m of drivel, the final twist at the end actually bears a semblance of originality. Also, watching Jerry Trimble apeing Kurt Russell (albeit badly) is a hoot!

If this film could be awarded zero stars, frankly that'd be all it deserved. One star is way to generous, but as that's the minimum I can give it, that's what it's got.


Err, what messy rubbish. A dull one too. The storyline starts off interesting (well it read more interesting on the back cover on the video case) to only succumb to a plodding, unimaginative peepshow in outer-space of gratuitous soft-core acts and icky effects. What starts off is a collection of stock footage integrated together, and we learn that a group of six have been chosen by an alien race to use in a breeding experiment as the earth has been destroyed in a nuclear blast. But someone or something on the ship is killing them, but still they find enough time to "procreate" before facing the problems at hand, and figuring out just what is happening. The way the characters are introduced to us is obviously taken from other films, and is quite laughable. Well that's some nice promotional work. Even the social commentary card is over-used and too blatant it just made me cringe. Watch out for the animal rights activist sequence! The script is torpidly tepid and convolutely penned with a weak bunch of characterisations and muddled motivations. This is where I would say that the clunky story just got in the way of simple fun in its attempt to be clever. This Roger Corman production goes on to present the usual staples found in these quick, cash-in, bare bones b-features. Director Fred Gallo's clumsy execution is just slipshod and repetitive. As for the jaunty editing, it's complete shambles. As many sequences are all over the place, and look ridiculous. Few visuals work, and the racy T&A (and while you're at it. Smile as Englund has you on candid camera) added some much needed spice. Phoney sets, and shoddily crude effects don't damaged it, but far from make it any more enjoyable. Looking at the cast; Robert Englund floats on by with little interest and Adam Baldwin pretty much does the same thing. There is some stunning buxom in Kate Rodger, Gretchen Palmer and Jeannie Millar. Jerry Trimble pretty much over-kills it, but at least there was someone who wanted to enliven the show. His one-on-one combat with an android provided some kinetic zip, but his action-character felt rather odd in the mix.

Cheap, uninteresting Sci-fi / Horror.


I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 only because I got to see a lot of Adam Baldwin, and I do mean, a LOT. One has to wonder how on earth (no pun intended) they got ahold of him for this 'film', as well as Robert Englund.

It was quite awhile before I realized the same actor who played Major Mitchell in 'ID4' is the same actor who played Jayne in 'Serenity'. I was so intrigued by my inability to see that they were the same actor (I'm usually very good at recognizing people), that I figured this Adam Baldwin must be one fine actor. When I saw he was also in this even-bad-for-a-Roger-Corman flick , I just had to watch, no matter how bad it was. And, it was. Bad, really bad.

But, I endured, being the 'Firefly'/'Serenity' fan that I am. If I ever get to meet Adam Baldwin in-person, I will just have to ask him, "WHY?"


My wife says at least once a week that I picked the worst possible film for us to watch. In this case I almost agree! This is one of the worst conceived and bad acted science fiction movie, and one asks itself who gave the credit to the director to do this movie, and then who let it be released. Avoid this complete waste of time.


"Galactic Odyssey" - the American title of Starquest II - was a horrible movie. The plot was amazingly bad, and the writing was some of the worst that I've ever seen. The overall premise - a group of humans, kidnapped to start a breeding program on another planet - seems fairly standard. That's when everything starts to break down.

First, the movie is interspersed with a lot of war footage from different places on the planet. None of it has anything to do with the people in the movie. There's a long montage at the beginning of various science fiction stories; none of it has anything to do with the plot of the movie.

Second, the effects and sets are bad. I mean, "Manos, Hands of Fate" bad. The airlock that closes off to prevent the ship from decompressing? You can see the lights on the other side of the door because the door doesn't close all of the way. The "robot" pilot that gets blown out of the broken bridge window because of decompression? He takes a nice stroll over when he's "caught" by the decompression. Just horrible. The "alien" hands on the actors seemed to have been bought from the props department of another movie - another cheap, badly made movie.

Third, the soft-core porn sex throughout this movie was a little bit of overkill. Kate Rodger, Gretchen Palmer and Jolie Jackunas are all hot, no doubt; but, did they really have to have sex every ten minutes throughout the movie? The women that I know would not respond to a "kidnapped at the last second before earth was destroyed" situation by doing it as much as they did. From an entertainment standpoint, this made the movie watchable; from a plot standpoint, it was ludicrous.

Fourth, the plot. Were the humans kidnapped because earth was destroyed, or because it was going to be destroyed? Were they breeding to be "harvested," or breeding to save the human race? Nothing was remotely clear; worse, nothing was remotely consistent. THe story changed as the movie went on.

Eh. There's better porn on the internet. Watch Mystery Science Theater instead.


Nobody should have to sit through this. Who are the jokers that gave this a 10? Stupid premise, unsatisfying conclusion. The only thing this has going for it is the gorgeous breasts.

Minor spoiler:

My favorite part: when the ship course is changed, and the people on the bridge get thrown all over by the abrupt directional/speed variation while the characters all over the rest of the ship are completely unaware anything had happened.


This movie is from Roger Cormen(night of the living dead) only this time he is executive producer!!The plot of what there is of one, is aliens kidnapp several humans including Adam Baldwin(Wyatt Earp) . The humans meet some people on board a spaceship. They are in reality aliens disguised as humans. The aliesn leader is played by Robert Englund(Wishmaster,Urban Legend,Nightmare on Elm Street 1-8). Even though it rated "R" it has a pleanty of nudity almost make a "NC-17". The set are pathetic, the acting very wooden and it moves too slowly!!This movie is almost as bad as "Supernova" , but at least the public was spared seeing this lame B grade movie from the big screen!!


Holy Lola (20040

Directed by Bertrand Tavernier

Starring Jacques Gamblin(L'Enfer), Isabelle Carré (He Loves Me. He Loves Me Not)

An emotional roller-coaster of the trials and tribulations of a French couples efforts to adopt an orphan baby in Cambodia.

Monsoon season, a husband and wife arrive in Cambodia having completed reams of paperwork back home in order to be able to adopt a baby, they end up at a hotel full of similar couples some of whom have already been there several weeks waiting for their chance.

For two hours or so we follow them around visiting orphanages, small villages and facing a steady stream of bribery and corruption in their attempt to obtain the one thing they feel will make their lives complete.

Heartache, joy, disappointment, frustration, the emotions soar and dive as an opportunity ends in an empty promise. Babies often stolen from their mothers are offered for a price, a phone call from an orphanage will end in bitterness because another (usually American) couple have used large amounts of cash to jump the queue and have taken the child.

Even when they eventually manage to find a beautiful orphan baby girl already rejected by another couple, the endless paperwork and bribes needed to complete even the simplest of tasks leads to arguments and despair. Physically, emotionally and financially drained, you wonder will they ever be able to leave Cambodia with the child of their dreams?

Hand-held camera-work and totally naturalistic acting gives the film an almost documentary feel, the emotional highs and lows are so perfectly played that you could easily believe this is all for real. How real couples can handle this sort of situation, the faith, love and fortitude needed must be incredible.

This is no travelogue, you get the non tourist Cambodia including a visit to a large open garbage tip where hundreds of people from very young children to the very old eke out an existence scrabbling through other peoples waste. You also see the wards in the orphanages of the babies nobody wants, babies with Aids etc.

A very good film but with a couple of minor flaws, you lose a sense of time, I honestly couldn't say how long the search for the baby took? This along with the follow up frustration of sorting out all the paperwork to be able to take the baby back to France, it could have been weeks or even months, I honestly haven't got a clue. The constant dashing from here to there, from hotel to orphanage to village etc leaves you feeling lost and in a sense frustrated as to why, but that does in a sense draw you into the same emotional state as the couple as each trip they make ends in more and more frustration.

All in all, not your typical film but if it does pique your interest, it will grab you and drag you along on a literally dizzying ride. It is tough going but I felt it was more than worth it to for the amazing performances (especially the main couple) and to get a real sense of life in Cambodia.

Cheers Trev.


Doctor Pierre Sézac (Jacques Gamblin) and his wife Géraldine (Isabelle Carré) a childless couple leave for Cambodgia to adopt one. When they arrive there, a real obstacle course awaits for them. Countless, various problems surface, wanderings from orphanages to orphanages amount to nothing and the courage and love of the young couple is put to a serious test.

When I was in my first year at university, I remember that one of my courses was entitled reading comprehension and for my exams, the topic of this course was based on a conversation between a man and a woman who talked about this widely talked about society phenomenon that is children adoption in Southern Asia. The two protagonists particularly insisted on the testing process that parents had to go through to get their beloved one. Bertrand Tavernier confirms in images and in this harrowing story, the meandering road the Sézac couple take to satisfy their desire to adopt children. This giant in French cinema who has keep on producing varied great works for more than thirty years is a true auteur whose sincerity and commitment about a prickly topic is never questionable. Such is once again the case here with this film that is based on true facts. The difficulties, the problems which the Sézac couple comes up against may seem numerous and exaggerated. One can't help but think that there are true to life either they are of administrative source or that they involve bribery. Tavernier also pores over the problem of children adoption through the different French couples at the hotel. The adventure the Sézac couple has is their common adventure in which chance and fate can smile or leave them at any time. If one can be destabilized by the didactic even documentary side of the venture, one can't deny its strong heartfelt vibe.

The background is also essential. Tavernier voluntarily chose a gritty tone and found place in his film to shake the viewer's nerves in front of Cambodgia ravaged by misery, war (some sequences showcase some soldiers clearing of mines a part of the country), shameful traffics which constitute a serious break to child adoption.

"Holy Lola" is a momentous work for two reasons: Tavernier added one more worthwhile piece of work to his own Aladdin's cave and also a work destined to the mainstream to make them realize of the hard process of child adoption. All the future parents who contemplate this step should have a look at it. And not only them but all those who are fond of topnotch French cinema.


I found the move to be extremely believable  and thus gripping and fascinating to the last frame. The corruption in Cambodia is almost unbelievable, the agony of adopting a child in that country are hard to imagine. Paul Pot left a miserable, poor, largely primitive and corrupt society behind  well documented in this movie. Little is shown of the country, stressing the fact that people who come there to adopt a child have neither the time  nor the inclination  to see any of it  the aim is to finish the incredible amount of bureaucracy  and get out before someone else demands some "service charge" Both the acting as well as the direction is excellent.


Once again having seen and enjoyed a fine film I turn to these pages and find it inexplicable that no one has seen fit to offer an opinion. Despite a slew of good reviews (The French tend to favor a nought to three star system), three maximums, six 'very good', in four weeks in Paris it's only racked up one hundred thousand admissions and last week was down to six thousand in five salles which means that the ruthless French distributors will yank it any minute now. That's no way to treat Bertrand Tavernier but compared to Claude Lelouch he probably feels he's being feted; Lelouch's latest, The Human Condition: Part One, Parisiens, has been yanked already after just four weeks, I got there just in time but that's another story. It's amazing what Tavernier has been able to do with a very basic story of a French couple - Jacques Gamblin and Isabelle Carre - attempting to adopt a baby girl in Cambodia. Okay, location shooting helps but frankly Cambodia's not THAT interesting or photogenic whichever way you slice it and it's very much the central performances that sell this one. There's solid support from a few other couples in the same boat but Gamblin are Carre are light years ahead of the pack. Both, of course, have been around a while and both have copped awards, Carre, a Best Actress Cesar for Se Souvenirs des belles choses (another outstanding film that was let down by the public) and Gamblin in Tavernier's own recent masterpiece Laissez-Passer, but somehow they've never received the recognition they deserve and it may be that they'll be denied this time around too. For a cynical Westerner like me it's all too easy to believe in the political/governmental corruption that obtains in countries like Cambodia and Tavernier does little to disabuse me, telling it, presumably, like it is. And that's all it is, really, hope seguing to frustration, more hope, more bribes until at last ... but go and see it, it's worth it, believe me.


I, after performing The Threepenny Opera, playing in a German Cabaret Duo and spending $100 on KW books had to see this film. I searched from the sky to the bottom of a very very deep crevace and it was there in the music room on the shelf. *YOINK*

After watching it, my love for Kurt Weill's music was once again rekindled. No other composer in the past century has ever been performed and interpreted as much as KW. Every musician takes a different slant on him : The Doors, PJ Harvey, Elvis Costello, Tom Waits, Radiohead, The Dresden Dolls, Nick Cave, Lou Reed and so many more.

This movie is basically a collaboration of heaps of modern musicians taking different slants on his music set in a broken down warehouse. If you want a basic idea of what it's like think - Bertolt Brecht verse as a Rap, September Song as a Country and Western (shudder), Happy End Numbers as strange insane "interpretive" pieces, and The Alabama Song as a Strange Rock piece. Brilliant! Throughout the movie it explains KW's suppression in a fascist society and him being communist, his move to America, his love life, and of course his musical revolution with small narrated interludes interpretively very well done. I await the DVD!!!

In my opinion, Kurt Weill is the greatest thing that has ever happened to musical theatre, ever. He created revolution and not in a "Sex Pistols" kinda way... it was intelligent.

A must see for all revolutionists and musicians.

Kurt Weill Shall rise again...


I was lucky enough to see 59 out of 89 minutes of this tv film and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the culture of Avant Garde Germany in the 1920's, the link between Weill and the American musicals genre, opera, the relationship between Weill, Bertolt Brecht and Lotte Lenya. It is a film that explores Weill's movement from Germany to America and extracts of the music he wrote in both countries from the 20's to 1950. The film shows an eclectic cast interpreting his music and in the process revealing the atmosphere of his work and allowing the viewer to discover the relationship between the cabaret scene of Berlin in the 20's and 30's and the birth of the American musical and a connection to modern opera. Nick Cave sings his most famous song written for the "Threepenny Opera", Mack the Knife(a favourite of Frank Sinatra and many others). Lou Reed does one number,Teresa Stratas sings Youkali and another number beautifully, Elvis Costello sings "Lost in the Stars" and William S. Burroughs gives a spoken/sung rendition of "What Keeps Mankind Alive" which is pretty amazing in itself. The songs in this programme created an atmosphere that was unmistakable and I found the treatment totally sympathetic to Weill and his music. There are a number of voice overs of Lotte Lenya(Weill's wife)singing well known songs from his back catalogue and even Bertolt Brecht singing a number. It is intercut with industrial and military images from Hitler's Germany and goes on to show early footage of America. I thought the film lovingly produced and enjoyed every second of it, my only disappointment being that I did not manage to catch the whole film. The music is as compelling as you would imagine from a man was considered the equal of and collaborated with Langston Hughes, Moss Hart, Maxwell Anderson, Ira Gershwin, Bertolt Brecht and made a reputation blending classical opera, folk music and dissonant jazz. Despite the previous reviewers lack of familiarity with Weill his work has attracted interpretation by well known artists of the past and continues to do so e.g. Rise Stevens, Beatrice Arthur, Adolph Green, Gertrude Lawrence, Danny Kaye, Chita Rivera, Ann Miller, Sting, Tom Waits, Marianne Faithful, Marc Almond, The Doors, Dagmar Krause, David Bowie, Ute Lemper and so on.

This is a film that uses a montage of images, voice overs, songs and music to create an understanding, it isn't a linear narrative throughout although it does explore his life in a linear representation of his movements and works. It is fascinating and poignant and is not just a film, it transcends the category and at points becomes art. The presentation on tv was accompanied by subtitles for the occasional number sung in German. The decision to do this gives the viewer the advantage of listening to the expressive qualities of the words and music with a translation to aid understanding. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.


I actually owned this on video for three years before watching it. Somehow, I just didn't get around to it. What was I thinking? I read some reviews of it, most were either mediocre or sneering and I thought the work would be a lame shot on video CBC doc with some talking heads explaining (duh) why they think Kurt Weill is a musical genius.

Then I watched this film and WOW! First of all, it's not a documentary! It's a concert film with amazing renditions of Weill's music by luminaries such as Nick Cave, William S. Burroughs(!), Lou Reed, Mary Margaret O'Hara, David Johansson, Elvis Costello and P.J. Harvey, amongst others doing incredible interpretations of Weill's work.

The film is interestingly staged in an old warehouse that evokes both the early industrial period in which Weill worked as well as the alienation technique of Brecht's theatre.

I can't describe how wonderful this work is. If you are a Brecht purist you may find this a little too awesome, but if you have an open mind and enjoy challenging and inventive music, you must see this.

What struck me so powerfully was that Weill's music never fit into what anybody would mistake as a 'musical' or 'opera' or 'pop', but amalgamated them all in an attempt to bridge art with the politics that surrounded him at the time. Weill's music was the soundtrack to the rise of Nazism in Europe and his haunting scores are even more disturbing in retrospect.

LONG LIVE WEILL!


If you mind languages other than english, watch movies about music to comment the special effects, think that women with hairy armpits should be put away, prefer dancers that are anorectic and not "bulky" or "big boned" this is NOT he movie for you. Go see American Pie or something.

If you like music, this is a FANTASTIC movie to watch. Read the "credited cast" list and you will be surprised at the big names that have taken part in this movie. I bought the CD a few years ago and it is still in my top 10 list.

There is a little documentary information in there somewhere, but it all gets crushed under the artists fantastic performances of Kurt Weill Music.


I wish I could find this on DVD, I saw it in 1995 when it was shown on public T.V. and was blown away. The choice of musicians for the individual songs is masterful. Nick Cave gives a deliciously creepy take on Mac The Knife, Elvis Costello breathes a wavering pathos into Lost in the Stars, and Charlie Haydon's Speak Low is one of the few instrumental pieces that can bring me to tears. The CD is available on Amazon.com and I highly recommend it. I would comment on the ignorance of the user who complained about this being about "some German guy" but its obvious that person was far out of his depth musically and culturally.


I'm happy to see that not many people have seen this... this... thing. At the same time it's strange that so many have voted it a 10. Then again if you enjoy watching badly conceived shows of old music, that you won't understand for the most part because of the foreign language, for one and a half hours then I guess this is paradise.

Personally I think the movie is utterly pretentious and extremely amateurishly done nonsense. Several people walked out of the theater when I saw this movie. I really tried, I really did but I couldn't stand it either. This is a movie about some german music person that I had never heard of before. The special effects are worse than bad (take a look at the "flames" in the beginning). The female singer who looks like a guy, they film her hairy armpit in the middle of the screen for minutes. I mean come on people we are doing a movie here. There is a reason you have a make-up department. One of the dancers in a scene is rather bulky. I have nothing against people with "big-bones", but again we are producing a film. All these stupid things just turn the movie into a parody of itself. Avoid at all costs.


I saw the film on Amazon. (Because of a fluke, It didn't stop the 2 minute "preview" after the first 2 minutes of the film. ) And I am watching it on Hulu now. It is a great film, and I must warn you, I WILL put major spoilers up.

Short Synopsis: A comfortable underachiever and serial prankster, in the midst of their quarter life crisis, reunite against childhood enemies in a contemporary suburban epic.

I'd say my favorite character is either Swank or Officer Scar. And speaking of Scar, I AM saying how he got his scar, and my thoughts on the otherwise described "EMBARRASSING" scene.

OK, so it is a rainy day, and Caleb, Montag, Swank, Scar, and some other kids are playing Basket Ball. Scar (Who's real name is, if I remember right, Jim) keeps winning, Montag gets mad, and tackles him. Scar fights back and repeatedly punches him. Caleb grabs a trashcan and throws it at Scar, who gets pushed into a fence, his face pressed so hard, and I guess the metal also being wet and cold, cuts his face. He swears he will have vengeance.

What did I think of that scene? Um, it was actually pretty sad if you watch it, because of the music, the most. But It didn't seem so embarrassing to me.

My final thoughts on the film? It was great!I can't really say I don't like anything about it. 10/10!


"Book of Caleb" is a refreshing film that enjoys it's own quirks and justly so; it is a film about a boy (Montag) who, with ever fiber of his being, is set on never joining the bored mediocrity of the adult population. So why should it fit neatly into a boring adult-oriented genre? Answer: it shouldn't. It won't. This film requires an open mind and the willingness to just let it exist.

Although I can understand that this film would tend to have more of a following amongst the male population, I enjoyed it very much for the humanity of the characters and the plot which accurately exposed the unpredictable nature of a life well-lived. I enjoyed it so much, in fact, that I watched it again a few days later.

Congratulations to the makers of this film on a job well done.


I first saw the trailer for THE BOOK OF CALEB on the Cinemassacre.com website. The trailer had me sold from the first mention of the fabled "upper decker," so I paid for the digital download and checked it out.

The movie delivered on the trailer's promise, and shows that this group of creative people is a group to watch. They really have the chops to do something great. This isn't your average oddity that you find on the internet, have a couple seconds of amusement, and then forget about. This is a legit movie from obviously talented filmmakers.

If I had to compare the movie to anything else, I'd probably say Wes Anderson's work, specifically BOTTLE ROCKET. This film has a similar quirky sense of humor, a "boys will be boys" attitude, and a way of making the mundane seem epic without getting sidetracked with self-importance -- the movie maintains a great sense of humor and is never pretentious.

There is definitely a unique voice here. Most of the performances are solid, especially for such an independent film, and the technical credits are all solidly professional.

I'm going to recommend this one to some like-minded friends, and think it could really take off from word of mouth. Definitely worth discovering.


*Spoiler Alert*

High school is over, your whole life lies ahead, but nothing is certain as that road is covered in the dark shroud of the unknown. Find a job? Strike out on your own? Go to college? The fear of change is strong in all of us.

For Caleb, his fear is outweighed by that of needing a purpose, a restless soul the past is just that. But in his need for something better can he be sure he is making the right choice? We often dive in feet first and wind up right back where we started only to find the ghosts of the past are still waiting. Still scheming. As one friend ran the others where forced to alter their own course. "It's change that shows a man who he is to himself".

Caleb is reunited with his childhood friends the notorious pranksters Montag and Swank along with their archenemy, Officer Scar. He attempts to make the best of things barely maintaining a balance between his old friends and his girlfriend Cole. But just when he starts to get comfortable Scar threatens to tear his world apart again and Caleb sees just how different things have become without him. He is faced with what is truly important to him and must stand his ground now like he never could before. As Montag's own plans finally come to an ultimate conclusion he and Caleb are able to close old wounds with a newfound understanding as they find themselves, each in the others shoes.

The fear of change is strong in all of us but for the characters it helps them realize what they where missing or what they didn't even realize they had and they overcome all odds together. The Book of Caleb, a very powerful and hilarious comedy, brilliantly addresses the plight of the everyday Hero with a cleaver spin on a classic fairytale and a modern epic to boot for this writers generation and for all to come.


I just watched this movie last night and thought it was awesome! The movie did spark some weird discussions with my significant other about upper deckers, but the point is that it generated conversation. It's rare to find a movie that makes you think about life, responsibility, and poop. Forget the dude that made the Sixth Sense -- this is the best movie ever made in Bucks County, and does far more service to its lovely citizens and scenery. Well done, especially considering this is director von Manahan's first full-length film. I, for one, can't wait to see what else he has in store.

Oh, and Bill Tanner is a freakin' matinée idol.


Got the DVD today - hilarious! We were absolutely so impressed and have already shared it with friends. The Book of Caleb is a successful, wildly entertaining coming of age film. Everything is topnotch - acting, directing, camera-work, editing, narration. Almost forgot the most important part, the concept and the writing. Great storyline that I feel many people can relate to on some level.

I'm a pretty anal artist and this movie really measures up. Loved the scene when "Scar" got his scar - beautifully shot, great use of combining black and white with color. The ONLY thing that bothered me a little was the use of people talking without hearing their words. The idea is good but I feel it could have been executed in such a way that it would feel more intentional.

Casting was right on. Best of luck & and I'll promote it without any reservations.

J. Sherman


Hysterical movie. Officer Scar is one of the best villains I have seen in any film. The way he gets his Scar is so ridiculous! The scene when he works out was really funny as well. The characters are so interesting and developed. I love the comedy in the dynamic between Montag and Scar. Caleb's performance I found to be a little dull, but the other characters more then made up for him. Paul Gleason as the George Washinton was great in his final role. It's really sad he passed away. When I went to see this film I wasn't so sure, because I didn't know anybody in it. I can't wait for this film to come out. When is it coming out?


There isn't an independent film from this century or last which looks nearly as good, both in context and as far as production values are concerned. An utterly remarkable achievement, not only by von Manahan's budget's standards, but also by any American filmmaker's.

The other technical factor that floored me nearly has often as the settings was the score. Creative and rightfully epic, yet familiar, prompting a sense of nostalgia rarely obtained by indy films.

Haunting you for days will be the film's memorably inspired characters. They are as unique and as vibrant as the coloring book-esquire intertitles, both of which are littered with nuggets of wisdom usually reserved for that of parables.

At the heart of the plot, there's an insightful and ingenious tale of a Peter Pan who's left Neverland, only to return and discover maybe he wasn't the hero everyone thought he could, would, and or should have been all along.

While serious at times, the Book of Caleb is never quite melancholy or morose, and the more moving moments are often offset by sight gags and physical humor more akin to the comprehensive attitude of the story. This provides for a brilliant balance of laughs and introspection in an inventive and incredibly well paced film going experience.


I was really impressed by The Book of Caleb - the first low-budget indie for the young director, Matt Manahan. The scale is HUGE - lots of locations, costumes, and characters. And it looked Amazing - how many first features shoot in 35mm these days? I had just gotten together with my friends from high school a few days before watching the film and so the themes hit me and resonated. I have so many old friends who i keep in touch with and miss, yet when we're together it's obvious how different we all are now. One friend said - I feel just like I did when i was 21 and I had to say back - why would you want to do that, you're 32! I think that's something we all go through and continue to. Caleb captured it well. I also loved seeing Bucks County, my home town, on the big screen.

For the most part, I thought the balance of humor and pathos worked really well - there was one scene that I thought stuck out but I can't remember what it was...it may have been the transition into the speech in the school yard or when the guy is dancing on the roof.

The film struck me as a great mix between a parable and 80's coming of age films. The voice-over sets that tone well, although i did wonder if it could be shorter - i have no idea.


I just watched "The Book of Caleb", and boy was I impressed! The cinematography was beautiful, the acting superb, and the story lines were well thought out, wonderfully written and executed. It makes you laugh, it makes you think, it makes you reminisce. It's a coming of age story, centering on three childhood friends: Caleb (Jeremy Luno), Montag (Michael Hampton), and Swank (Nikitas Manikatos). They're at different points of their lives, yet trying to find their common ground. They even have an arch-nemesis, Scar (Jeff Berg), who is pretty much your uber bad guy...the guy you love to hate. And there's a love story involving a girl Caleb meets named Cole, played by the beautiful and hugely talented Mackenzie Firgins.

I don't want to give too much away, so just go see the film. You can buy the DVD at www.thebookofcaleb.com. It's totally worth it...and you'll find a new favorite movie in the process.


When we watched this movie we did not know what to expect, other than it was an indie movie filmed locally in PA. When we were finished we were literally blown away by the quality of the script, acting, filming, score, etc.

This coming of age story has many light moments in it that make you laugh out loud (especially some of the out-takes), serious moments that make you reflect on life's choices and the path you take (is it the path you choose or is it chosen for you by the results of what is out of your hands?)and sadness for what is the past and what might have been.

We thought this movie was outstanding, professional and deserves to be recognized as such.

Should be submitted to the film fest circuit!


Pic probably tops all Hongkong films in presenting triad warfare intrigue, and the horror and intricacy of a well-oiled set-up. The scripter and director weave a clever interlocking plot complete with tense and heart-stopping atmospherics. Tony Leung's bad cop performance is a class on its own, particularly when he finds out that he's been set up and is now in an untenable situation. But pic's originality is in the end let down by the final shoot out in a dilapidated warehouse, which is both shop-worn and pretentious.


An almost completely satisfying 85 minutes; I'd have a hard time coming up with five minutes of the movie I'd like to see cut out. The movie starts off slow but intense, and gradually builds to fast and even more intense. Both leads are, of course, great. There are a lot of plot holes and logic jumps, but that's almost a given in a conspiracy-themed movie. Aside from that, there are really only a few small complaints to make; the action ending seems a little contrived. Some of the Foley work is pretty weak. A major character meets his/her demise in an extremely unsatisying manner. There's a couple of sloppy edits towards the end. The establishing shots are stolen from NYPD Blue. But really, when I'm so desperate for downsides that I'm nitpicking the EDITING, you know it's a great movie! Patrick Yau is well on his way to becoming one of the best directors in Hong Kong.


Patrick Yau is a great and talented director. I haven't seen anything else by him yet than this, THE LONGEST NITE (1997), but his other works include The Odd One Dies and Expect the Unexpected, which have also been hailed by HK fanatics and specialists. However, THE LONGEST NITE alone shows the director's talent and this is easily among the most interesting and memorable HK films of the late 90's.

Tony Leung and Lau Ching Wan are the two leads here. Tony is a wonderful actor with smooth and kind face, yet his character here is anything but nice or kind. He plays a rawly violent and corrupted policeman who solves some mysterious triad war in which he is himself somehow related, too. Also a mysterious bald headed stranger soon arrives in Macau (Lau), and soon these two men are against each other and time. It all happens during one night filled with depravity, violence and seemingly no hope for a better tomorrow..

I think the plot and story is very hard to follow after one viewing and the less you are experienced with English (subtitles), the more times you will have to see this film in order to understand the whole plot and its turns. I have seen this twice now and still there are elements which I cannot yet explain, but they're not so important as the things this film gives and has are already visible to me.

The film lacks every imaginable bit of the usual lightening humor and slapstick attempts. The film is as serious and gritty as they come, and the film is produced by the legendary Johnnie To, a director/producer specialized in this kind of gritty and dark stuff in Hong Kong cinema. One of his most incredible achievements is a triad thriller The Big Heat (1988) starring Waise Lee, which is among my personal all time Hong Kong favourites in its insanity and over-the-top dark and infernal atmosphere. Johnnie has done many other great films, too, which include The Heroic Trio (1993) and its sequel, both directed with the choreography genius Ching Siu Tung.

THE LONGEST NITE features a nice soundtrack which is little like Giorgio Moroder's music in De Palma's Scarface (1983), and it adds very well to the atmosphere of the film. But the strongest element in THE LONGEST NITE is the photography and lightning, which are often very gorgeous in the hands of a talented Hong Kong director. Films like Dr. Lamb (Danny Lee, 1992), City on Fire (Ringo Lam, 1986) or Red to Kill (Billy Tang, 1993) would not be as powerful as they are now without the usage of haunting colors like blue which bath in fog and mist, usually the light, or should I say darkness, coming through windows. The final gun battle between the two protagonists in THE LONGEST NITE is among the greatest scenes I've seen in Hong Kong cinema in recent times, and it features exactly this usage of blue nearly as powerfully as possible.

The violence and brutal world the film is set in is often off putting but never gratuitously graphic and exploitative. There's no blood spraying all over the walls, but realistic aftermath when someone decides to hurt some other. Violence never pays in this film as it doesn't in real life either. THE LONGEST NITE doesn't glorify violence at all, it just depicts people who are so desperate and weak they use it very often, and so the film (and ending) is pretty pessimistic, too. Unlike in many Hollywood action no-brainers, like the Steven Seagal films, in THE LONGEST NITE wickedness and violence always has its consequences and results.

THE LONGEST NITE is very welcome addition to the gritty triad films genre of the Hong Kong cinema and due to its great and believable performances and characters, gorgeous visuals and overall honesty, it will last many viewing times without losing its power and impact. I gladly give this 8/10 and maybe my rating will rise after subsequent viewings.


This is a bleak dark nasty ugly film of the sort Hong Kong no longer makes. Tony Leung plays a corrupt cop who is trying to make a peace between two of three powerful crime lords on Macau. Things are going from bad to worse as word hits the street of a contract on one of the crime bosses. A tall bald headed fellow is wandering about and seems intent on collecting the cash reward no one knows who is offering. Worse for Leung is the fact that someone seems intent on making his life miserable beginning with a naked dead man in his apartment. Things only go down hill from there as Leung tries to unravel the plot and stay out of increasing trouble.

A fever dream of foul things this was started by one director, Patrick Yau, who shot five scenes before hitting a creative brick wall and then was finished by the producers Wai Ka-fai and Johnnie To who stumbled around trying to stitch it together. The result is a really violent, bloody affair with no hope and no light. Much of the film operates in a seeming dream logic as it becomes clear that a greater power is operating just beyond Leung's view. Its all comes together in the end but until then its like being trapped in blood soaked nightmare with an occasional severed head. I'm kind of at a loss for words, this movie operates on a level somewhere underneath the surface and sends out shock waves.

I really like the film but at the same time find it rather disturbing. Its the sort of bleak rough edged crime drama that Hong Kong excelled at in the 1980's and 1990's but which it seems to have stopped making.

Recommended if you can find yourself a copy and like rough edged mind warping crime dramas.


At the expense of sounding a bit cliché, it wasn't on par with the best of the genre (Such as John Woo's better films), and in my opinion it wasn't quite on par with a more closely related title, The Big Heat. Why? The constant music was nothing special, and at it's worst, slightly annoying.

There are a few somewhat wooden performances. Tony Leung Chiu Wai was far better in Hard Boiled. I don't think Tat-Chi Yau knew how to wring all of the potential Tony has out of him for this film, and it shows.

There was a certain dynamic that's almost a staple of the HK action/crime genre missing... The power of the weapons wasn't conveyed as I've seen it numerous films over the years. What I mean is that the guns didn't truly seem as powerful as they should of. The shots, underpowered, and it's a bit underwhelming when I'm used to even pistols coming across as these loud, near deafening, definitive things. Small thing but it ran through the entire film and I think it's worth mentioning.

Could of been about 20 minutes longer, with more characters being fleshed out a bit more. Film could of benefited a lot from that.

Bad subtitles. Quite a few misspelled words and I'm sure I missed the gist of multiple things because of the poor subs. Ah well.

Those are all relatively small issues I had with though, and on the flip side it's got a lot more positive things going for it. A great build-up of suspense at multiple times through the film, a pretty complex interweaving plot, two very interesting, I might dare say original action scenes which made me grin...

To boot, it was brutal and uncompromising. No humor (Though the random, unexplained vomiting kind of teetered on it) A few nice, brutal for this kind of film scenes that pleased the inner gore hound in me. The coloring throughout the film, as mentioned by others, was nice and added a nice dynamic to the film.

Hehhehehee, the movie also stars, without a doubt, the most unrelentingly sweaty character in the history of film. Tony Leung literally wipes his face down with a towel every few moments for almost the entire film. Hey, it's the little things that I get a kick out of. He kept washing his hands and what not too. I think he had some kind of sanitation issue.

Overall, a 7.5 out of 10 in my very personal opinion. Well worth hunting down and adding to your collection, as it's a very solid entry in a sadly still declining genre.


Lau Ching-Wan continues to amaze me with his transformations into his character. This was a great acting vehicle for both Lau Ching-Wan and Tony Leung. The story was good, and the direction was tightly wound and suspenseful. Unfortunately, all the tension unravels into an extremely unsatisfying ending.


The psychological complex about "the end" is still in full force. But the script is more rational and integral than Intruder. The mysterious set-up is a spin-off from Lost Highway. Pic's strength is setting the action in Macao in turbulent times (thus setting it up as a metaphor of Hongkong), and giving full vent to Wai Ka-fai's pessimistic world view of inexorable doom. Yau Tat-chi shows impressive improvement with images: the confrontation in the cell, the chase at the pier and the duel in the hall of mirrors are all totally self-sufficient set pieces. A director to watch out for.


As many of the other reviewers have stated, this movie presents to us a character with dreams of creating a "good life" for himself, who ends up falling into the prison system. Q-Tip and Darnell Martin do a great job in developing a script that embodies a trueness to the characters, which I am sure that the cast helped expand on. The silent moments of the film present the best moments (especially the last minutes where his works are displayed).

The movie takes ideas from many other prison films, however I have never seen a film present anything about asbestos and prisoners having to work in these conditions. After watching the DVD, I only wish that commentary were added and interviews at least with the director and writers. Worth a watch (or two). 8/10


I was told about this movie by a friend. He said it was one of the best movies he had seen. Unfortunately he told me the ending, but I won't spoil that for you...

"Prison Song" is a film about a boy brought up in group homes with a gift of art. He does beautiful drawings and is an excellent photographer. He is accepted to college and at first his gets a full scholarship but then something changes and it is taken away. This is one of the many times our principle character is let down. He gives up on his dream and gets angry. He ends up picking a fight with one of the boys from the group home and kills him. He ends up in jail 15 years to life.

The movie to me is a Musical Relief. Actors do break out into song or rap throughout the movie but fortunately this break from spoken word to words of rhythm and melody has a smooth transition. Transitions are so smooth that it seems almost real, like it was something anyone would do when reflecting.

Rapper, Q-tip, place the principle character and plays it well. Though he is quiet most of the time, the viewer will feel almost every emotion he does, even when his face is plain as a blank piece of paper. Through the film you grow to love the character and feel bad that things worked out the way they did. He is like many Black men, like many men period, talented but locked in jail.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see a prison movie with a lot of heart in it. Characters are deep and the story line is rich.


The first time I saw this movie I missed the first 30 minutes or so; I saw it fully last night and I didn't know the kid's uncle went to prison for 25+ years and the same with his mom! He could've been an artist and put his talents to good use. Q-Tip adds such sensitivity, you can't help but sympathize with his character. Absolutely uncompromising and downbeat; it's no surprise that the director also did several OZ series episodes. For those with taste in real-drama it's a good watch. The ending is heart-wrenching. R.I.P. Elijah

CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK, CLICK CLICK


. August Spies, the socialist activist, warned his contemporaries - and we today who read his works - how excesses of a hyper-capitalist society eventually develop one focus: criminalise non-conformist behaviours as its method to control the citizenry.

We are there - this film is a wake-up call for us to stand tall and repel our corrupt political and social 'leaders' who only seek personal greed for themselves - the rest be damned. They claim to be 'Christian', yet they deny what their own Bible teaches them.

Thus you see in 'Prison Song' how every act our protagonists make invites further retaliation by 'the system' - a corrupt 'system' at that.

- The cops were corrupt the way they criminalised young Elijah for doing what all kids do - for being a kid.

- The 'juvie' and foster care 'system' was corrupt - right from the beginning as well as bouncing our 'hero' from one decrepit environment to the next.

- The 'justice' system was corrupt for 'criminalising' Elijah.

- The cops extended their corruption the way they 'criminalised' his mother during her time of desperation wanting her son returned to her home. Only the cruel 'system' lacked the heart to cry for her.

- The mental health care 'system' was corrupt drugging his mother (reminiscent of '... Cuckoo's Nest'). Mass druggings persist today.

- The corrupt private prison was the expected final nail on our 'hero's' coffin. In-mates meant only one thing to the corrupted administrator: his profit margin - his bottom line. Note how he bragged he was cutting expences: no water - no toilet paper. Eventually, the administrator ordered that no human dignity be graced upon his charges.

- The construction operator who only cared about his profit greed - he, too, saw cheap prison labour as his windfall.

- The prison guard who sold out his own soul in desperation to support his family - losing his construction job to slave-wage in-mates because the operator chose to squeeze more greed to line his pockets.

We saw our 'hero' maintain his decency among these environments of societal corruption.

Knowing his fate was sealed inside the gate, he could easily have slain his captive guard. Our 'hero' proved he was above their corruption - no matter what they imposed upon him. His final act defines what it means to be a hero.

Meanwhile, the guards proved their corruption and cruelty knew no boundaries - they totally lost their souls - perpetuating their own corrupt environment. They sealed their own fate.

RKO Pictures produced several movies during the early 'Depression' era (1929 - 1932) using similar themes and story lines. All worth the search.

'Prison Song' is important for all audience - all ethnic backgrounds.

That said, repetition in contemporary form reminds us those themes remain with us - that we have much work to do to overcome the cruelties portrayed in this version.

Sadly, with our current American political climate as it is, our 'hero's' demise was the only ending this production could have presented without making the movie a waste of time.

You can either participate continuing this losing society, or you can work building a future that would make your children proud.

The choice is yours. .


Peter (David Manners) and Joan (Julie Bishop) Alison are newlyweds who are on their way to a Hungarian resort town for their honeymoon. On the train, the couple are introduced to Dr. Vitus Werdegast (Bela Lugosi), who is on his way to visit an old acquaintance. When the bus they are riding meets an accident, the couple and Dr. Vitus are forced to spend the night in the mansion of Poelzig (Boris Karloff), Vitus' old acquaintance who has more than hospitality in mind when taking them in. The best part of The Black Cat is the fact that two of the greatest actors in horror film history are pitted against each other in this ageless tale of good vs evil which is inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story. Although Karloff is very excellent as the mysterious lord of the house, it is Lugosi who steals most of the limelight. Upon introduction of his character, he immediately clouds his personality, teasing the audience into a confusion of what his true intentions are with the two lovebirds. His thick accent adds a lot to the whole suspicion business, but Lugosi mostly acts his way to greatness with his ominous facial features and his subtly perverse gestures. The other good thing about the film is Edgar Ulmer's direction. Ulmer can make so much out of the littlest budget but given studio backing, Ulmer makes miracles. Poelzig's mansion is beautiful. Straying away from the usual Gothic castles that the likes of Karloff and Lugosi have been occupying most of their professional life, Ulmer takes in a more modernist approach. The interiors of the mansion is clean, cool, yet as the characters clearly describe, has an atmosphere of death. I mean, a mansion occupied by the likes of Karloff, a strongman, a creepy butler, and an Eastern European maid, should at least get an atmosphere of death, if not an atmosphere of total evil and perversity. Ulmer, even with a decent budget, doesn't spend time dillydallying. He keeps the film trim and concise. The result is a rather flimsy plot line with several sideplots that are never really realized but Ulmer, as a director, does not invest on plots. Like budgets, he makes most of the silliest of plot lines. Here, he makes most of each and every bit of decent dialogue (note the plenty of close ups on Lugosi or Karloff when they spew a line that somehow is miraculously inspired), and utilizes music, production design, and cinematography, to raise the plot to a higher level. Also, Ulmer doesn't waste the fact that he has with him Lugosi and Karloff. We are entreated to them in a chess match (examine and enjoy how Karloff concentrates and takes the game so seriously), and a final wrestling match that ends up in a torture scene that only Edgar Allan Poe can imagine. The Black Cat is a terrific film, but definitely not Ulmer's best. Ulmer's masterpiece is still Detour where he has a storyline that finally matches his directorial talent.


This movie is not only one of the best horror films of Hollywood's golden era, but it is also one of the most bizarre movies ever made. It is also of great historical importance because it is the first movie that paired Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, the two most venerated iconic figures of the horror genre. Lugosi plays a man thirsty for revenge, and Karloff is the man Lugosi is after. In the midst of high art-deco glory, both men battle each other to death. It is an old-fashioned good vs. evil story, redressed with strange sensibilities. What is fascinating about the movie is the way the film's antagonists choose to play their deadly games against each other. There are no fist fights or scream contests in this movie (there is some of that near the end of the film, though); everything about the movie is hysterical, but strangely subdued. A contradiction that creates a very unique atmosphere. Also, it is truly unnerving to see that the film's hero (the one we are supposed to identify with) is probably as insane as the villain. Lugosi and Karloff are simply brilliant; I've never seen a better pairing of two actors. It's a match made in heaven/hell. Script, sets, costumes, cinematography; everything about the film is top notch. A masterpiece of the macabre, and one film that gets better and better with each viewing.


If you have the two most popular horror stars under contract what do you do? You team them up. "The Black Cat" (supposedly based on a story by Edgar Allan Poe) was the first and arguably the best of the seven Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. In this one, they both have parts of equal importance. In subsequent teamings, the size Lugosi's parts would gradually decrease.

Newlyweds Peter and Joan Allison (David Manners, Jaqueline Wells) are traveling by train to a honeymoon resort when they are joined by a mysterious stranger, Dr. Vitus Werdegast (Bela Lugosi). Werdegast is on his way to visit a former army colleague Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff). (Notice the play on the name "Poe" in Karloff's character's name.) In a driving rainstorm, the traveler's share a bus, which as luck would have it, crashes just outside of Poelzig's home.

Werdegast and the Allisons are given shelter by Poelzig whose "modernistic" house has been built over a mined former military installation. We also learn that Poelzig had betrayed Werdegast during WW1 and caused him to spend the last 15 years in prison. Werdegast has returned to gain his revenge. It seems that Poelzig had stolen Werdegast's wife and murdered her and their young daughter. Howver we also learn that the evil Poelzig, who is also a satanist by the way, has "married" the now grown daughter of Werdegast.

Poelzig takes an unusual interest in the comely young Joan Alison and plans to keep her and her husband prisoner. Werdegast believing that both his wife and daughter have been murdered by Poelzig, attempts to shoot him but is suddenly terrified by a black cat passing by. Finally Werdegast finds the body of his just murdered daughter, becomes enraged and confronts Poelzig and............

Boris Karloff was still being billed as "Karloff" at this time. His make up consisting of slicked back widow's peak hair gives him a particularly sinister look. Lugosi gives probably his best post Dracula performance. The performances of David Manners and Jacqueline Wells (aka Julie Bishop) though adequate, are dwarfed by those of the picture's two stars.

The direction by Edgar G. Ulmer is crisp and effective. He is aided by Universal's atmospheric sets, including Karloff's futuristic house, as well as the low key lightning. The final sequence though played off screen, is nonetheless terrifying.

Not to be confused with Universal's "The Black Cat" (1941) in which Lugosi also appeared.


Although it is certainly dated today, "The Black Cat" was sublimely ahead of it's time in 1934. Conseqently, it was derided by critics and enjoyed only middling success considering the star power involved. Many people, including some in Universal Studio's hierarchy, regarded the film as a nihilistic study in murder, Satan worship, sadism and even necrophilia.

Of course, what struck the masses as impudent seventy years ago seems audacious today. In many ways "The Black Cat" is a bold, striking piece of work that captures two of horror film's greatest players at the top of their game. Boris Karloff, with his new-wave hairstyle and snake-like eyes, personifies irredeemable evil. He fails to convince only when his character is forced into mock-congeniality. His most effective moments are not when he casts his sinister glare at Bela Lugosi or Jacqueline Wells, but when he plays the organ or stands outside amidst the windswept trees, enraptured by his thoughts of the Black Mass to come. Meanwhile, Lugosi, blessed with a sympathetic, almost heroic role, contributes one of his all-time best performances, an exquisitely measured portrait of a man determined to do right by the young couple he is forced by circumstance to protect, but doomed to die in the house of his most hated foe.

Fine camera-work and art direction, guided by Edgar G. Ulmer's helming, make this film striking to look at and brisk to sit through. The only real demerits are the obligatory romantic couple, peopled here by David Manners and the aforementioned Ms. Wells. Their acting and dialogue somehow strain credulity more than Boris and Bela's motivations ever could. Also, the weak comic relief provided by two quarrelsome policemen is brittle at best (although it's interesting to hear Lugosi speak in his native Hungarian in the scene), but both elements were, no doubt, concessions to the taste of 1930's audiences.

Like almost all of the early 30's horror films, "The Black Cat" is imperfect and antiquated. But, also like almost all of the early 30's horror films, it is unique, ingenious in it's way, and still worthy of discovery by a new generation.


I've watched it 15 times in a row on an old VHS commercial

release that includes The Raven... what a wonderful pair!

Some comments seem to find it a plot hole when Lugosi kills a

house pet and no one is alarmed -indeed, not something

common in the world as we know it. My view is that the Black Cat is Karloff, whom Lugosi goes there to

kill slowly... does he not? Also, in a few moments we see that Karloff has the same black cat

in hand, very much alive, and he mentions the cat has nine lives. Other words are said about the two men having in effect already

died years ago... look beneath the surface of this movie... don't

take it literally, and much richness is there... the art deco, Bauhaus

architecture... the wondrous infusion of Beethoven's 7th after the

2nd appearance of the Black Cat. I could watch this movie a hundred more times and not tire of it.


The Black Cat (1934)

Edgar Ulmer was one of Universal Studio's hopes in 1934, when this movie was their biggest hit of the season (this is three years after the explosion of Dracula and Frankenstein). But he only made one other famous movie, the low budget Detour, which is pretty amazing stuff. The rest of the time he did fringe film, low budget grunt work. Which is a shame, because even here, at the start of his directing career, there is a wonderful flair for drama, set design, light, and effect.

It is this last that might ruin his long term vision--he puts effect over substance, and even over logic. So you have to watch this for all the great visual and narrative flourishes. Even the black cat of the title is more of a symbolic punctuation point than anything that matters. Women will be kidnapped, men tricked, old enemies battle with wits and electric shocks, and a cast of Satanic worshippers will gather by the end. This actually makes it sound wilder than it is, but that's the general idea. The hero and heroine are regular folk caught in the maelstrom of old Europe and its cryptic wickedness, not that far from the two earlier breakthrough films. This one has no hook, though, no monster or vampire, just some demented people.

At an hour, the movie is short, and even at that it moves fast. Watch for nice Art Deco touches. And most of all, see Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff square off head to head. It's not a masterpiece, but it's totally worth watching if you like the early Universal scary movies.


I can't say anything other than the fact that I'm highly disappointed. Karloff(usually pretty good) and Lugosi(could be good) were never great actors and are basically good at just one thing, looking scary(exaggeration). It will therefor be a bad idea to put them in a film that requires them to have long dialogs and show emotions. Their supporting cast is also incredibly weak, at best they "try" to be theatrical. Were did they find these people?

Luckily for them they can give the excuse that the plot and dialog was rubbish as well. There's no real room for character development and it rushes over everything. All thought of these peoples mental states are overlooked. Lugosis character wants to kill Karloffs but waits and waits and waits even longer. The reason he gives at first is that he doesn't want married couple put in danger but even when they are he just plays along. As a matter of fact circomstances is the only reason why the wife isn't killed.

At numerous points in this film I can't help but ask myself whether they were running out of film. Not only is it just an hour long but they rushes everything and just jumps from setting to setting. Also the movie never takes the time to show details "The car crashes, guy takes one look and says "the drivers dead", all of them wanders up without saying or discussing anything".

And why doesn't he kill Karloff whenever he gets the chance? Because then the suspense would be over. Oh and lets mix in a satanic cult - and then forget about them completely. Oh and the brief comedic duo, give me a break, mildly amusing but hardly worth anything. This is so thin one could cry. And again back to the acting: look at how Bela reacts to the cat or how is servant looks when he first falls. And just look at the actors faces, expressions, etc. Karloffs servant for example.

The direction was incredibly mediocre as well and there's not too much atmosphere. He does try to play with shadows a little bit but he's not too successful. He is also the one who could be blamed be blamed for the rushing. It's like he doesn't want us to get to know anyone. This is clearly not a character drama(no need for it to be), but we should get something.

And why in the world call it the Black Cat? This is based on Poes poem? Bela sees a black cat in two scenes and it has a connection to satanism?

It's pretty clear to me that this was thrown together extremely quick and was made only to make a few fast bucks.


The first, and arguably in terms of their dual performances, best teaming of Horror legends Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi is this almost bizarre Edgar G. Ulmer directed piece. Based around a story by Edgar Allan Poe, The Black Cat sees a young couple, Peter & Joan Allison {David Manners & Julie Bishop}, who while on their honeymoon in Budapest meet the mysterious scientist Dr. Vitus Verdegast {Lugosi}. When the bus taking them to the hotel crashes and Joan is injured, the trio wind up at the home of Verdegast's old acquaintance Hjalmar Poelzig {Karloff}. Where the troubled history between Verdegast and Poelzig comes to light and thus spells immense danger for the newly married Allison's.

Excellently directed by Ulmer, The Black Cat still today has the ability to genuinely unnerve the viewer. Filled with an overwhelming sense of dread throughout, Ulmer and his on form leading men have crafted a superb study of character evil. Flanked by a magnificent set design and with a script that does Poe proud, the piece pot boils until its brutal and frenzied climax. Karloff and Lugosi are particularly impressive {check out the chess match sequences}, lending the film its timeless quality, with Karloff's Poelzig apparently being based on real life occultist Aleister Crowley. While the music, featuring some of the biggest names of classical composition, is an extra haunting character all by itself. It's a far from flawless picture, but it remains a unique, literate and important film in the pantheon of classic horror. 7/10


More poo than Poe, this tiresome horror sees scaredy cat Bela Lugosi arrive at the home of his old enemy Boris Karloff with smug honeymooners David Manners and Julie Bishop. There's some fun in seeing Frankenstein and Dracula duff each other up, I suppose, but other than that there's little to hold the attention. Nothing much happens, and the 70 minute running time seems twice as long. Lamest of all is the film's dubious morality: no one blinks an eye when an otherwise likable Lugosi knifes a cat; and the ending sees Manners and Bishop enjoying one of those it's-all-over-now, ho-ho epilogues after they've accidentally shot Lugosi in the back and made a run for it while everyone else explodes. It's all very tiresome.


I recently bought a VHS copy of this film - don't think it's available on DVD - and watched it again several times, after falling in love with it on late-night TV as a teenager back in the 1970s.

The campy fun of watching the two ultimate horror stars of the '30s duke it out in a context of Satanism, melodrama and modern architecture is undeniable. However, there is something more to this film, and once it hits you, it's hard to get out of your mind.

The unspoken back-story is the horror of World War I in Europe, and both the script - full of chilling references to dead men in trenches and the fate of prisoners of war - and the musical score, made up almost exclusively of excerpts from great symphonic works by European composers of the late 19th/early 20th century, evokes the darkness, damage and pain suffered and witnessed by Europeans who survived that war. Both Karloff and Lugosi were old enough to have vivid memories of the first world war, and Lugosi in particular shows a dramatic range that would surprise most 1931 "Dracula" fans.

Lugosi gives a bravura performance as the kind, gentle, haunted and tormented psychiatrist, Dr. Vitus Werdegast, who is driven to vengeful violence by the dreadful fate of his lost wife and daughter. This film is the best evidence, IMHO, of the talent he is said to have evidenced as a Shakespearian stage actor in his native Hungary. His facial expressions are extreme enough to be melodramatic on film, but they would obviously be just right, gripping and moving, on stage.

This movie strikes me as having two realities: one, it's just an unusually good B-Horror film of the thirties, with two great stars; and two - it's a dark and accurate description of what war does to the people who survive it.

(Just for extra credit - can anybody translate the Latin invocation that Boris Karloff starts in this film with "Cum grano salis"? I really, really hope that he's reciting a recipe in Latin.)


Like so many Hollywood films supposedly based on a Poe story, this one's only similarity is the title! American-International and Roger Corman made a ton of "Poe inspired" films like this, but this time it'd Universal Pictures appropriating a title. It's also the first film to unite Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. They went on to make seven more films together and several of them are brilliant classics, such as THE RAVEN and THE BODY SNATCHER.

The film involves revenge. It seems that an insane and evil general (Karloff) is hated by a man (Lugosi) whose life was ruined by him. Together, they both plot and posture until a final bizarre showdown in Karloff's torture chamber. Interestingly enough, in THE RAVEN such a confrontation also occurs, but this time Lugosi is the evil guy.

This is a good film in many ways. The acting is great--Lugosi and Karloff are great (I particularly liked Karloff's cool hairdo). The atmosphere is chilling and weird and the ending is quite exciting and creepy. However, the middle portion and the section involving the satanic cult seemed like it wasn't fully hashed out--like the script still needed some work to make the film seem more credible. The worst part was that Karloff had a huge group of evil satanic minions and the next, they are gone and Lugosi seems to have won--sort of like a "scene missing here" card should have been inserted here! Plus, and it's a small complaint, I think the background music is a bit too ever-present and sometimes dominates the scenes a bit too much. Still, with an amazing creepy mood, it's not a bad film to watch provided you don't think too much about the convoluted plot.


Bela Lugosi, so often underrated as a performer (even though he played none other than Jesus Christ on stage to some acclaim), manages, here, to convey a sense of loss that is almost palpable. No doubt about it but that this is one of his finest performances. Karloff is VERY creepy as the devil-worshipping madman whose cold, concrete Bauhaus sits atop the site of a bloody battle (it even overlooks a field of crude grave markers); his almost effeminate makeup and mannerisms further his creepiness (his black gown hangs like a dress on him and he often gestures with wrist limp). The tour de force is, of course, the "pheasants under glass" tour he gives the long-suffering Lugosi. It's a scene that still packs a wallop and, in its own way, lends Lugosi's later flaying alive of Karloff a sense of wrongs being righted. Absolutely must-see movie-making, from a director who rarely had the means to reach such ends.


When a newly wed couple traveling in Hungary are involved in a traffic accident in which their driver is killed and the car is destroyed, they seek shelter and aid in the home of a strange and devil-worshiping "friend" (Boris Karloff) of their chance companion (Bela Lugosi). It turns out that Dr. Werdegast (Lugosi) has a score to settle with Poelzig (Karloff) and is looking for his wife and daughter after a long and enforced separation. But Poelzig is searching for a fresh human sacrifice to Satan and sees the young bride as perfect for the task. There are a few twists in the plot from this point on, which I won't reveal here, but they do add interest to the film (even if somewhat predictable).

The Black Cat, like the Raven, is named after Edgar Allan Poe's writings, but has very little to do with its namesake. The only reference to a black cat in the movie is Werdegast's phobia of them, and really, this could have been left out without affecting much of the plot or overall effect of the film.

That said, I still enjoyed this film, especially because of the acting and dialog between Karloff and Lugosi. It just seemed to real and so perfect. The plot was a bit thin, but entertaining nevertheless. The setting was very different from the old castle settings of Frankenstein and Dracula, but its modern feel (I'm sorry I know little about architecture and interior design) still managed to carry a menace and dark atmosphere that was very appropriate.


There is a lot of criticism, mostly negative, on this board about this film, which I can't understand. I have never seen the original film version with Norma Shearer, but it appears not to be bowdlerized like this one. But bowdlerized or not, this is a very good film.

It has a first rate cast led by Crawford (who was capable of comedy but opted for dramatic intense roles like Mildred Pierce). As the role calls for her to be compromised by her actions (she has masqueraded as a socialite to be accepted by the jaded aristocrats in order to pull off a jewel robbery) the role is not a slap happy funny part like say Rosalind Russell's Hildy Johnson, but a tonier style of sophisticated comedy. As such it is perfectly fitted to Crawford's screen persona.

As for the jaded aristocrats: Frank Morgan may not do a British accent at all, but his fumbling is pretty good here - he is the richest man in England, and could give an intelligent talk on industrial output or tariffs, but cannot open up his heart to Crawford; Nigel Bruce is another nobleman, who has a randy set of eyes for pretty ladies, and cannot see his wife (Benita Hume) is far too close to her "cousin" (Ralph Forbes). The splendid Jessie Ralph is an aging dowager who befriends Crawford (it is her pearl necklace that Crawford is seeking to steal). She is a lively and likable old lady, and one with a scandalous past (as we eventually learn). But if none of the aristocrats are spotless in character (except possibly the boring Morgan), the other members of the gang are not wonderful. Melville Cooper (pretending to be Crawford's chauffeur) is constantly ready to whip out his handy knife and cut the throat of anyone he thinks is double crossing them.

But the most interesting thing about the casting were the two leading men: Robert Montgomery and William Powell. The two most sophisticated and suave leading men of the golden age of movies only appeared in this one film together. They share only four scenes, but it is remarkable about how smooth the scenes are - like a perfect set of volleyball games with no shots and counter shots missed by either party (and when Crawford joins them she is equally smooth in responding to both her leading men). She had made other films with Montgomery but there were no others after this one. As for Powell, this was there only film together. As such it should be seen for the bright chemistry between the three leads alone, but it is a good comedy on its own.


I was surprised to read some of these unfavorable reviews. The '30s was my favorite era in film history, and this is one of my favorites. It's not "My Man Godfrey" or "It Happened One Night," but it's very enjoyable. I love the scene when her "servants" reveal themselves. I thought Montgomery was charming and adorable as usual, Powell was as awesome as ever, and Crawford was perfectly cast. She has the edge that makes her believable as a con artist. I'm curious to see the original pre-code version, if only TCM would show it! I doubt it's better, though. Norma Shearer was so weepy-eyed and hokey, and I wouldn't buy her as a con artist.


Joan Crawford is a jewel thief trying to break into society in "The Last of Mrs. Cheyney," a 1937 film from MGM also starring William Powell, Robert Montgomery, Nigel Bruce, Frank Morgan, and Jessie Ralph. It's a remake of a 1929 film which starred Norma Shearer. Crawford is a sophisticated and glamorous woman we first meet on board ship as she's maneuvering and flirting her way into the company of a society crowd. While doing so, she meets Lord Arthur Dilling (Robert Montgomery). He and Lord Kelton (Morgan) pursue her. Once in London, she wangles the one thing that she and her gang of thieves (led by William Powell as her butler) have been waiting for - an invitation to Lady Ebley's country home, and a crack at Lady Ebley's fabulous pearl necklace. All doesn't go as planned.

Given the star power, the film has some interesting moments, but for the most part, it's played too straight. A lighter touch was needed. This is perhaps a directorial problem (there were several) or the fact that Joan Crawford was better at drama than at comedy, and William Powell better at comedy than at drama. Powell does a great job, but it isn't much of a role. Audiences probably left the theater disappointed - perhaps part of the reason the film flopped at the box office. He doesn't have a lot to play off of, and no chemistry with Crawford. Robert Montgomery is his usual self in one of those roles that fit him like a glove, but the star trio is too somber.

Joan Crawford looks fabulous, and with a strong director who had a concept of the script, she would have been fine. She didn't have a grasp of playing comedy, but she was a hard worker who seemingly took direction well. It's a shame MGM spent all that money on what was a first-class production only to have it just lay an egg. Apparently some of the racier parts of the play version had to be left out due to the code. At times, the film drags.

Several of the comments blamed Crawford, some the script, but I do believe with the right director, "The Last of Mrs. Cheney" could have been a lot better.