This used to love this show! I used to watch it with my twin sister on VHS from the video shop when we were about 6 or 7. It ruled and the plots were happily remembered (the good old days they were). About four months ago, I was surfing about on YouTube when I type "The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog" up. I first watch the intro (which was cool) then I watch an episode or two. I love them! I mad for that show again. Old memories are rediscovered and I kept on watching more and more episodes off the Internet! Life is good again. But there is only one problem: it's not on normal television! I think the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or Five should consider bringing back this show. Kids of today will love it and the morals are beyond the best. Yes, the morals, AOSTH had meaningful morals like: "Go to the library" or "Don't go off with strangers" or "Tell a teacher if you are being bullied". I'm afraid the other Sonic cartoons don't have that kind of thought into their cartoons. Sonic Underground sucked and there wasn't meaning to it but to make money! Sonic's so called cousins from that series were stupid and unappealing. Sonic X is alright, a bit violence but just alright but it can't beat the 1993 DiC AOSTH series. I have never the other Sonic the Hedgehog Series by DiC and hopefully I never will! The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog really needs to be brought back to British Terrestrial Television...and Fast! P.S I also loved Stracth the Robo Chicken and Grounder the Drill Arm Robot from this series. Life was never the same without them! Stuff Coconuts the Robo Monkey, he was a nobody and he stank! 9/10


Ages ago, in a once glorious past, wise-cracking, cartoon mammals dominated the television airways and brought us funny situations, lovable characters, and hilarious villains.

Sonic the Hedgehog was one such mammal.

This show had a wonderful style of animation reminiscent of the classic cartoons of the eighties and a sense of humor not unlike the "Looney Tunes" shorts. The plot was excellently justifiable; that of a beloved gaming character and his tiny sidekick on the lam from a ruthless madman and his three metallic peons. It was a show filled with all sorts of slapstick humor and backfiring, dreamy schemes, as well as morals learned at each episode's end.

While it was long since canceled, int won't be soon forgotten.


I have been a fan of Chris Isaak for some time and was thrilled when I heard that he would be starring in his own television series (for those of you who have seen his antics on the Jay Leno Tonight Show, know how funny he can be) But what I wasn't prepared for was how smart and clever it was as well. I laughed hysterically when Brett Michaels from the band Poison had a guest appearance! And everyone will wet their pants when seeing the episode where Chris dates a female police officer who is CRAZY! All surrounded by great music. I was also surprised by the humor of drummer Kenny! When this comes out on DVD, I will by the all three seasons! If you get a chance to see the show, take it!


I loved the Chris Isaak show, especially Isaak and his band, who were very natural actors. I wished that it went on much longer. I saw most of the episodes and wondered what had happened to it. HBO and Showtime make the same mistake in my opinion, ending shows without any proper finish and without ever explaining why. HBO did it with "Deadwood" and "Carnivale", two fascinating and bizare shows.

There have been much worse shows on Showtime, which makes the canceling of Isaak even stranger. For instance "The Brotherhood" is still on, as far as I know, and it really isn't any good at all. They had this ridiculous idea that people don't know that Federal Hill in Providence is a heavily Italian neighborhood, and that Rhode Island is run by Italian Catholics, so they put the equivalent of the Bulger brothers from South Boston, an Irish Catholic neighborhood, in charge of the Providence mob and involved in Providence's filthy politics. Besides Jason Isaac, a very good English actor who, who when asked if he was tough like the sadist on "The Brotherhood" said, no, I'm a little Jew from Liverpool, or words to that effect, and Fionnula Flanagan there was nothing to recommend that show, but Chris Isaak--long since gone. It makes no sense.


I suppose I'm somewhat biased, but, as someone who worked on the show during it's first season, I found it to be an absolutely abysmal experience.

The DOP, while being a pompous ass, managed to turn out something that looked grainy and amateurish. If his talent could only have equaled his impression of himself it might have looked like something decent.

Chris, playing "himself" (whatever) and producer, had little tolerance for your normal technical requests other than "find your light".

The rest of the cast were quite pleasant to work with.

Could have been a good show if the producers had listened to concerns expressed.... or had found something funny to shoot.

I always refer to it as a "comedy". Like an updated version of the Monkees, but shot for cable with cursing and without the flying around high speed on wires... and without being funny.

You only have so much lamp life on your TV. Save it for something good.


I'd like to point out that this movie is literally based on first hand recollections of a prostitute interviewed in Al Rose's definitive book on the subject: "Storyville", published many years ago. Anyone familiar with with the era knows that the photographer, E.J. Bellocq, was a real person who captured on glass plates forever the images of the young prostitutes of Storyville. These photographs are hauntingly beautiful in their own right, and the young Brooke Shields--as well as the beautiful Susan Sarandon--were a masterstroke of Malle to play the parts of mother and daughter prostitutes. The recollections in the book draw upon the actual fact that the mother who related the story actually took part in the deflowering of her daughter in the "House" as described, and that they went on to be a "team", a very common and desirable commodity in that day. Not mentioned-- but inferred to those who "read between the lines"-- was that the pony that young Violet casually rides in the backyard of the mansion in the beginning of the movie was actually an animal used to entertain the paying customers in "the circus" that certain women performed in ...for the"right price." Many of the photo sessions depicted in the film are loving recreations of surviving Bellocq prints. The women portraying the "girls" in the movie could have been working girls in "The District" had they lived back then. Some IMDb readers profess to be shocked by conditions in Storyville back then, but as the book recounts, it was all true, and many of the women actually did enjoy their livelyhood. It was the "bluenoses" to the rescue who saved them and the U.S. Navy from themselves, just as they would save the nation from "drink" a few years later. Although ragtime and jazz are touched on in the movie, Storyville was directly responsible for the likes of young Louis Armstrong--who ran coal from House to House--picking up the street melodies he heard and playing them on a cornet furnished to him--providentially--by the local orphanage, and for Ferdinand "Jelly Roll" Morton, pianist...and pimp...who played in only the best houses and claimed he invented the term "jazz" as applied to music after witnessing first hand all that "jassing-around" he saw in the bordellos of Storyville! Remarkeably, overlooked altogether is any mention of the composer of the tune "Pretty Baby," Professor Tony Jackson, a key figure of the Storyville saga, who should have been the character portrayed in the film but wasn't, and who was not even mentioned in the credits.

As for Bellocq himself not much is known except that he was slightly deformed and not interested in the ladies at all sexually-- the marriage to Violet merely a modern plot device--but he professed his deep fascination and reverence for them, thankfully, in other ways: his portraits. Without them, a poignant record of their lives,and that of The District, would be lost forever. All in all, the film is a wonderful paean to Bellocq, and the women he loved in his own way. I would urge all critics of this movie to seek out a copy of "Storyville, New Orleans" by Al Rose, or MOMA's "E.J. Bellocq: Storyville Portraits." They will really open yours eyes to what Louis Malle has recreated.


A beautifully filmed movie which tells a difficult story with a subtlety and power that leaves you thinking about it during odd moments for days. It's that much more disconcerting because all the while you're keenly aware that this isn't based on "a true story" but on millions of true stories throughout history, including today, and in every part of the globe.

Due to my age I'd never seen 'Pretty Baby' in the theater or, for some reason, read much about it. I was aware of the basic plot but didn't know I'd be seeing quite so much of a naked 12 year-old Brooke Shields. A couple of moments were honestly difficult for me to watch, but I've come to the conclusion that the nudity is absolutely essential to the telling of the story. You *have* to be forced to see exactly what those men were paying for.

The brilliance of director Loius Malle's film is that he constantly subverts the audience's desire to be aghast at what we see. The camera finds happy little moments throughout the movie, your mind is left to fill in the ugly realities. This trend continues to the end, which is like a cruel mirror image of the typical happily ever after Hollywood ending.


Beautifully photographed and sumptuous to watch. Brooke Shields, with that famous saucy and spirited personality, is gorgeous. I wasn't bothered by the nudity. I wasn't bothered by the story either and I feel the movie accurately portrayed a different time with a quite different moral tone than the one we live with today. But, hey, stories are just stories. Actually, I think the main reason this movie works is because it comes across as honest, it feels like being in another place and another time, and it's lovely to see.


Louis Malle is one of the late geniuses of film. "Pretty Baby" is one of his most beautiful achievements. Telling the story of a lonely photographer's obsession with a precocious twelve-year old prostitute named Violet(Brooke Shields) in New Orleans early in the century.

The photographer (Keith Carradine) eventually allows Violet to move in with him, and then marries her. In a wonderful scene, Carradine buys Violet a baby doll. She is thrilled, but then asks why he bought her a doll. "Every child should have a doll" he replies. Shields reaction is perfect, she is angered that he still thinks of her as a child, but cannot help but play with the doll in the very next scene.

Shields hits all the right notes here. She goes from sexy and alluring, to childish and innocent with a snobbish pout. She is charmingly free-spirited from being raised in a brothel, and often appears totally naked in front of strange men many times her age. Prostitution is all that she knows, and Malle does not shy away from it.

This film was largely shunned when it was first released. It seems, having read some of the other comments here, that the trend continues. This is a mature film, for mature minds. See it and enjoy.


There are a couple of reasons to see this well-executed movie.

One is Brooke Shields in her only believable performance, as a defiant self-absorbed brat who learns not just about sex but about love. She is, of course, dazzlingly beautiful and barely pubescent and it's necessary to get beyond that. Value judgments about whether she should or should not have made this movie aren't really relevant. The movie is too good for that. Throwing up our hands and rolling our eyes is a little like interpreting "Lolita" as a simple story about pedophilia. Looked at pragmatically, Shields' playing this role hurt no one. Certainly it didn't hurt her subsequent career, what there was of it. There isn't any way to stop our own feelings of disgust at times, granted. I feel that way about movies like Friday the 13th or Halloween. I'm more disgusted by murder than by sex so I'm clearly warped. Shields packs more talent into her playing here, as Violet, than she did into all of her other movies put together. And it's not a one-note performance either. She develops from a vulgar know-it-all into a creature of real emotion. At the end of the story, her mother is taking her away from the older man she has married. The camera slowly moves in on her trembling face. She's silent but the froufraws in her hair quiver with regret. Malle ends it on a freeze frame of that drop-dead gorgeous, wrenchingly sad face.

Malle is another reason this movie is worth while. He was a great story teller, even when the stories were a bit thin, as Polly Platt's is here. His specialite de la maison was the study of a community. He was almost anthropological in his approach. If he doesn't give us the social structure and eidos of a French boarding school, then it's Atlantic City, or a New Orleans whorehouse in 1917. We get to know the milieu pretty well, although we don't see much of the actual city, only the house itself, its back yard paved with coquina crunching under everyone's shoes, the palms and banana plants, the anoles. We get to know the furniture inside the house -- massive heavy things, overstuffed, overdone, overlaced, rose windowed. New Orleans was an odd city, a blend of all sorts of ethnic traditions. There's a bit of hoodoo thrown into the plot. (Madame Livingston addresses her clients as "M'sieur.") Edgar Degas visited relatives in New Orleans. Now, alas, it's becoming not much more than another big Southern city with the Quarter serving as a kind of theme park. Note too Malle's editing technique. When you expect a shot to disappear, to dissolve or be cut away from, it doesn't always happen. The image lingers, sometimes long beyond our expectations. Keith Carradine balked when Shields is taken away from him, for instance.

Much of this beauty (let's call a heart a heart) is made possible by the superb photography of Ingmar Bergman's collaborator, Sven Nyquist. He makes it possible for us to almost feel the heat and the humidity, and the solid mahogany of the bar.

The depiction of the cat house is convincingly realistic, the general atmosphere being one of casual jealousy, petulance, nudity, practicality, and mutual support. The women (and the clients) form fleeting friendships. When they leave, it's without any particular ceremony. That's why the love that develops between Carradine and Shields is as shocking as it is. It's the only real commitment shown in the film. There is an abundance of commitment on the part of the people who contributed to this very good film.


I think "Pretty Baby" is the kind of flick that some movie connoisseurs will feel compelled to say they like. However, all the things I've seen it lauded for are in fact sub par - story, script, performances and cinematography. The one thing it has going for it is historical interest - it is a great snapshot of New Orleans in this era, touching on the US navy and its role in supporting, then ultimately wrecking, "red light" culture, as well as music, race relations, poverty and prostitution. In this sense it has a Upton Sinclair-like quality, and might be watched only for the purpose of learning about New Orleans.

But it falls far short of telling any kind of cinematic story. It feels from beginning to end like a cheap documentary, with no real concept of art or story telling, but only a "look at how bad this life was" approach. The movie is constantly interrupted by superfluous scenes that lead nowhere and add nothing, and is laced with moments that the director obviously thought were pregnant with meaning, but are actually just awkwardly long. I was begging for the credits to roll an hour before they did. The movie is sloppy and uninspired from start to finish, which is a shame because turn of the century New Orleans is a story that deserves to be told well.


I, too, was disturbed by the nudity, but I was even more disturbed by the story. This little girl is made into a prostitute with the blessing of her own mother, her virginity is auctioned off, and the movie treats the whole thing matter-of-factly instead of as the tragedy that it is. I'm not even sure why I'm recommending this movie.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I like the fact that the film allows me to be disturbed on my own rather than hitting me over the head and telling me how I should feel (as Hollywood always does). No weepy music, no over-the-top emotional scenes, just a story. Take from it what you like.


I wouldn't say that Pretty Baby, directed by Louis Malle, has the overall audacity of the main art-house European-directed sexual trip of the 70s, Last Tango in Paris, but it comes close, very close. It's a scathing, unflinching look at the downtrodden women of a 1920s whorehouse in New Orleans. What's most shocking of all, and what Malle understands about such subject matter, is that the best approach with this material is truthful, and to not be exploitive in the sense of manipulative characters (situations are another thing). There's really not much in way of it going through anything specific in being stylized. If anything, as I recall, Malle's style here is to try and not seem apparent much, if that's possible, with a very controlled sense of pacing and how scenes should move. The implications raised in the picture are the sort that would probably get shot down in flames by the 'Religious Right, though mostly around the Brooke Shields character.

To say that it's not perhaps a masterpiece is not off the mark. But it's an important work nonetheless, and one that is really hard to forget or ignore once finished. Shields plays the daughter of a working-prostitute, played by Susan Sarandon with total class and southern finesse with the men, but never too un-wise around her daughter. It's the time of jazz, at least jazz coming into a much greater bloom, and sex and general decadence is right there for the taking in such an environment that the 'pretty baby' of the title resides. She's used to it all though, and Shields plays this character with total bravery- I almost wonder how much she was told of it all, and what she brought as intuition or having to just know the state of mind of her all-too-young character. Malle doesn't keep things totally helpless, as he has a photographer, played by Keith Carradine. He's probably the most level-headed and right-minded of any of the male characters (aside maybe from the band members who just don't take part in any shenanigans). But then comes the problem of morals- Sarandon isn't the one who falls for Carradine, but Shields really. But is it really love, or affection, or just the possibility of leaving he house?

The most controversial part of all of this comes down to this really- underage sex, or rather a form of twisted, really non-consensual sex that ends up just skimming the line of bad taste. But it is in bad taste to show subject matter like this? It's a tale of perversion, and how psychology ends up getting right into the cross-hairs of it, so such material should be up on the storyline. What's interesting is to see the 'breaking the virgin' part takes time to unfold, and how it does, and how ugly it all becomes the further it goes along. Shields plays it right though, and her range of emotions for the character is actually stunning, and almost makes Sarandon keep up with what's going on. There's a heap load of nudity overall, including a hot bit with Sarandon and Carradine, but really Malle is after the whole insulated world of this whorehouse, and how being true to oneself ends up clashing with the un-yielding mind-set of those coming in with a wad of bills and a set goal. It skids with being cringe-worthy, and I have a very distinct memory of probably cringing at one point. It's not great, but it's really memorable in the ways that matter. A-


I really liked this film for what it is. I also think that it is undoubtedly the most eye-opening film I ever saw in terms of the reality of the daily life of some people. Violet grew up in this house full of prostitutes, without a childhood, never knowing how to behave as a child. She grew up knowing how to behave in order to promote business in their 'house'. The deflowering ritual that Violet had to undergo would have scared me senseless, and it is pitifully sad to think that she looked forward to it, only because then the other women in the house would really take her seriously. The fact of the matter is, this is a true story and people should watch it, even if only to realise how grateful we should be for not living in times like that, for growing up in times where we are actually given a choice.


Very disturbing reality break. Child prostitution was prevalent in North America well into the early 20th century. This gives a good insight into demise of many children during this period. We were totally devoid of child protection agencies. Although many narrow minded artistically challenged people will label this movie as child pornography it is not. There is no suggestion of condoning or promoting of such. Louis Malle used a combination of shock and graphically disturbing scenes to get his message across. To have censored this movie would have been a throw back to the dark ages for artistic freedom. Although the acting leaves something to be desired it is a must watch for those wanting to see a dramatization of the hopelessness of the lives of children in the early Southern States.


Once you get past the fact of a naked preteen Brooke Shields, Pretty Baby is a well-made film that does an excellent job of evoking a specific time and place, and of developing the unique relationship between a precocious, sometimes bratty twelve-year-old prostitute and the quiet, sometimes temperamental photographer who loves her. The nudity, by the way, does not take place during any love scenes, though at one point there is nudity after one.

Brooke Shields's Violet is energetic, talkative, blunt, and friendly. What you see is what you get, not that her character is shallow. She's been raised in a whorehouse by her prostitute mother and takes things in stride that for most people would be traumatic, such as having her virginity auctioned off at the age of twelve and being left at the brothel for a time when her mother leaves to get married. She's an odd mix of child and woman, the sort of girl who wants a grown man to have sex with her but also plays with the doll he gives her. Having spent her entire life around adult sexuality, she's convinced she knows everything about men.

However, in the words of Bellocq, the photographer, "Some men are different." He arrives at the whorehouse to take pictures of the women employed there and shows much more passion about his need for good light in his photography than about any of them; the madam immediately concludes that he's gay (an "invert" or "cream puff"). For the most part he appears to be asexual, appreciating the beauty of Violet's mother's naked breasts but only because of how well they'll photograph. As he tells the curious Violet, "I have no time for hate or love," and when he falls for her it seems to be a surprise to him. He's the anti-Humbert. He doesn't actively seek out young girls, and if he and Violet end up involved, it's because of her pursual of him.

Their relationship is tumultuous yet committed, with tender embraces, screaming fights and tickling kisses. Bellocq's not always very much more mature than Violet, especially if she interferes with his beloved photography. The end of the film is either a tragedy or a relief, depending on your opinion about their romance. Either way, it's emotional.

Susan Saradon is good as Violet's mother, and the minor characters, from the drug-addicted madam to the friendly black piano player to the stuck-up German prostitute to the various clients of the brothel, come across as real people. The sets and costumes are gorgeous. There are a couple of flaws - some parts of the film take a few minutes longer than they really need to - but all in all it's a good film that becomes deeper and more complex the more times you see it.


This was Louis Malle's first American movie and another one - like ZAZIE DANS LE METRO (1960), MURMUR OF THE HEART (1972), LACOMBE LUCIEN (1974), BLACK MOON (1975) and AU REVOIR, LES ENFANTS (1987) - which dealt with the world of children. It was also a notoriously scandalous film because of child pornography issues (the setting is a New Orleans brothel), which makes it a surprising choice for DVD release in this age of political correctness - although Paramount basically just slapped it onto disc, as it's a no-frills release (with not even a trailer to go with it)!

However, despite a notable cast (Keith Carradine, Susan Sarandon, Barbara Steele and Gerrit Graham), the film only really comes to life - after a rather wandering first half - when the Lolita-esquire elements of the Brooke Shields character take center stage. As a matter of fact, Shields became an international superstar with her role in PRETTY BABY - which is similar to the one played by Jodie Foster in TAXI DRIVER (1976). Malle does not shrink from showing its protagonists (especially 12 year-old Shields) in the nude - but it's always tastefully presented, i.e. in a non-exploitative manner. Besides, the film's period reconstruction is impeccable...


Having heard stories from my Grandfather of the late 1890's thru early 1900's about the brothels here is Salt Lake,the movie give's a accurate look into the world of the "Higher Class" brothels. Girl's as young as 10 some,as in the movie daughters of the prostitutes,or girls who for what ever reason had left their homes. Yes; in this day of greater awareness of child abuse it's shocking to learn that through out history little or no thought was given to the age of children when it came to sex,all of us,if we go back in our family genealogy will find a very young great ###### great female who is responsible for us being here. And to you Christians,don't forget that Mary was 13 or 14 when Christ was born,she also was betrothed to Joseph at age 12, which was the custom then.


Tastefully done, almost frightening. The lack of emotion is amazing, but if you were "in the business" at the time, I can't imagine how thick-skinned a madam would have to have been.

This movie is more than surface-level entertainment, it documents the socio-economic and psychological aspects of prostitution in 1917 without being dry.

I would watch it again because there is so much going on I'm sure I missed something while I was fixated on the sets and costumes.

Highly recommended. Being a movie shot in the late 70's there isn't any overkill for the thrill as if this would have been produced today. Now, if you are easily offended or are looking for a lot of sex and violence, there is surprisingly very little, which allows the viewer to focus on the story and not the skin.


Pretty Baby, by Louis Malle raises a myriad of questions when viewed almost thirty years after its creation. "Niggling" questions about the appropriateness of the film itself, the topic of child prostitution, the use of young actresses and actors, the film's moral detachment, whether is should have been made or could be made again all flitted through my mind as I soaked in the beauty of the images. I was also captivated by the sub themes of race, class, and gender inequity were so subtly and effectively presented. Sven Nykvist's cinematography make it, for me, one of the most beautiful to look at films ever made. I love to see beautifully filmed movies and Pretty Baby is certainly that. Malle filmed it in hot and humid Louisiana and Mississippi but his focus on the visuals and his detachment from the characters and their situations give it a coolness and richness which were able to quiet questions in my mind. I don't think there are or have been many directors capable of making this film and seeing it released. I, for one am grateful Louis Malle was able to do so.

I've read comments that Pretty Baby glamorizes child prostitution. That isn't what I experienced while watching it. As beautiful as Pretty Baby is to look at, seeing the twitching faces of the men during the auction of Violet and then their nonchalance and camaraderie in partaking in it made me shudder. What kind of people are these? But I don't mean to ask that question in a judgmental was but with true curiosity. In the end Malle give us a kind of happy ending. Hattie has rejected the prostitution of the whorehouse for the prostitution of marriage and has come and rescued Violet from New Orleans and Storyville. The closing shot gives us a long look at Violet's reaction to the prospect her altered and unknown future. A lot can be projected onto Brooke Shield's face.

I remember seeing Pretty Baby back in '78 but I do not recall being particularly shocked. Seeing it now I could feel the nags and the amazement when experiencing Malle's audacity. Those were interesting times and my, how they've/we've changed.!


Why does everybody cut this movie down just for the nudity that is in it? It does not have all that much nudity and it doesn't show Brooke Shields that much nude. This movie might have a disturbing plot but I think it was a job well done for what it was. It's actually a pretty good movie, just could've had a better ending.


At the beginning of this film, there's a tight shot on Brooke Shields' baby face: she's watching something with interest and we hear a woman moaning just in front of her. Since we all know what "Pretty Baby" is about, one is to assume the child is watching some sexual act with curiosity. Actually, it's just the opposite. This is writer-director Louis Malle's clever way of laughing at the viewer, saying "You have the dirty mind, not I." It's a very smart way to begin to the picture, but little else occupied my mind after it got going. Why would Keith Carradine's colorless older man want to marry a pubescent prostitute? Nobody here is saying, especially not Carradine (who has one sullen expression to express every emotion). The photography and background scoring are gorgeous, however the story and characters provide no passion, no emotion. The film is like a stylish painting, but one full of dullards. *1/2 from ****


While best known for the controversy it inevitably ignites whenever it's mentioned, this is, in reality, a fantastic film. You have to feel a little sorry for Brooke Shields, as her starring in this essentially screwed her up psychologically something fierce, but she does give her one and only exceptional performance in it as a 12 year old girl living in a New Orleans whorehouse. She is being groomed for a life in the world's oldest profession by a rickety old madame and even her mother (Susan Sarandon). Meanwhile, a bizarre photographer (Keith Carradine) enters this world to take pictures. He's allowed to stick around every day because, I don't know, I suppose they think he might bring them some fame or at least advertisement, and because they assume he's a homosexual and nonthreatening. Over the course of the film, his relationship with Shields blossoms, but you're never really sure what his deal is. Personally, I do think he was a pedophile. While the prostitutes are always trying to turn Shields into a seasoned whore, Carradine is always insisting that she remain a child. Yet he is most certainly interested in a romantic relationship, as well, even while he wants to pretend it's a father/daughter relationship. So, really, I should probably be disgusted with Carradine, but why do I feel so sad when Sarandon shows up at the end, after he and Shields have been married, to take her away? Pretty Baby is an extremely complex film, emotionally, and it's gorgeously directed in a very subtle style by Malle, who might very well be my favorite French director. The final moment of the movie has Shields, about to become an actual little girl for the first time in her life, having her picture taken by her stepfather. The final freeze frame is every bit as perfect as the one that ends Truffaut's The 400 Blows.


Of course, this film is controversial, but it is mostly, if not completely, factual. It's the DEEP SOUTH, people. That's classic New Orleans. Catholic whores, whipping, swamps, children in the whorehouses, racism, the accent, the voodoo, the attitude, the sexuality. It's all part of the Deep South in the 20th Century. The only things missing are the crawdads and Mardi Gras. And I can understand the bad reviews, but those of you who do not think this is an excellent film do not understand the era nor the neck of the woods. Now, what I liked about this film is the actuality. There are still actual whores who are 12 or younger. They are in the underbelly of the city, banned from the French Quarter. Of course the whores portrayed were high-class. They were those one would find on Bourbon Street. And when Storyville was still running, the Red Light District would promote each slut it had. Even Madame Nell knows to auction off a preteen's virginity is illegal, but it still happened. I'm glad this film was made. Of course, American directors don't have the guts to display this kind of truth. I understand it may not have been necessary to show Mrs. Shields nude, but if anyone has read the trivia, it states a large number of young girls who turned the role down. Her parents obviously knew what was going to happen and still allowed her to participate. It was a role which not every preteen could portray. Mrs. Shields was extremely mature and played her part very well. I wouldn't say it's pedophilia. There are some who may find pleasure in a twelve-year-old's lady parts, but Bellocq loved her for her innocence. He even asks her to not speak as a whore. It's real. It's what actually happened. It's not what would have happened today, but it is truthful. It was a different time in a different place. For instance, Edgar Allan Poe, one of the greatest American writers in history, married his own cousin. This may be strange today, but back then, it may, repeat may, have been common. In Ancient Egypt, Pharaohs married their own sisters. This made more sense, though: they wanted to keep their bloodline pure. Puberty is the time when the body is ready to conceive and reproduce. Therefore, the teen years were originally meant for marriage. It's not out of pornography that Malle created this film. It's out of truth. It is true. Today, still. The mob showed exactly what all of you who despise this film believe. It took a lot of thought to produce this film. The architecture, the plant life, the community, the underage drinking. From what I've seen and known growing up around here, it's all pretty much true. I believe what you dislike is that it actually happened. It's a historical film. It's factual. New Orleans has changed, but there is no escape of the past. The Saints just won the SuperBowl after 43 years of failure. We can't escape the fact that our first playoff game was in 1990, 23 years after the team manifested. We can't escape the fact that Katrina's devastation could have been slimly less grim because those who were too hard-headed to flee stayed and died. We can't escape the fact that we once were the murder capital of the United States. We can escape the fact that we are the murder capital of the United States, but only for the same reason that so many of you are complaining. Times have changed, but those times are forever in history. Times will change again. Fortunately, we weren't too late for the times to change and this movie to never have existed. Thank you.


Pretty Baby is based on the diaries of a woman named Violet who grew up in the brothels of New Orleans. It is also based on the story of Ernest J. Bellocq, a photographer who worked in the same area.

There have been numerous reviews written about the film and it's controversial subject matter. Violet is born into a brothel just like her mother and it is here that she enters into the profession herself.

I would just like to say that the film is my favorite because of the atmosphere and the way the film is shot. We are voyeurs here. Watching a small window of time involving the people of this brothel in 1919. The sets and costumes all are perfectly done reminding one of an old oil painting. Muted colors, drapes, carpets, couches and ornate wall dressings all add to the mood of the film and you can't take your eyes off of it.

People looking for an action film are not going to enjoy this at all. But if you enjoy thoughtful period pieces you will probably enjoy this despite the subject matter.

I've watched it probably 50 times and dig it out once a year to enjoy it.


There is no way to argue something like this. No pubescent 12 year old girl should be shown in a movie topless, especially not a movie about child prostitution. It's bad enough that child prostitution actually exists in the world but to exploit a 12 year old girl in the making of this movie is bitterly ironic and director Louis Malle and the producers should have gone to jail for this. Brooke Shield's parents should have also gone to jail for making a little girl take her clothes off for a movie--they had no right. The point that this story is tragic and horrific can be made without having a barely adolescent 12 year old girl take her clothes off.

In all fairness should we also have a movie about a 12 year old boy who prostitutes himself during the Depression Era (this certainly happened)? Should he have frontal naked scenes so the film can drive home the point that he was sodomized? These naked scenes notwithstanding let's call it art. We all know a film about a 12 year old male prostitute with frontal nudity will never be made in Hollywood, so what makes it okay to have a 12 year old girl show frontal nudity? At 12 Shields was a minor and cannot legally make a decision whether she will appear nude in a film. And her parents had no legal right to decide that she will appear nude in a film. This movie ends up doing the very thing it criticizes--sexually exploiting a child!


This is an exceptional film - not because most of the critics say so, but for me because I cannot think of any other film which left me with a greater feeling of having been temporarily transported to another world in a place and time with which I was totally unfamiliar.

Many IMDb users have reviewed and commented on this film and another full review is unnecessary, but bringing out its exceptional nature and encouraging those who have not seen it to do so does require some supplementation. Comments about the nudity in this film not being disturbing come into this category. Today nudity occurs in films for two principal reasons, firstly because it would be natural for the character concerned under the circumstances being depicted by the film, or secondly because it is being used by the director to add a little eye candy intended to increase the visual appeal of the film. In the latter case the viewers personal reaction will govern the response to such eye candy, (typically for example, regardless of whether or not they themselves appreciate it, many viewers feel that this is very inappropriate for younger viewers and all films should provide advance warning when it is present). But where the nudity is an integral part of the story being presented, viewers who wish to see this story should not find it disturbing unless the nude scenes are excessive or gross. Pretty Baby is not such a film, it is one where Louis Malle has minimized his use of nudity - any less and the nature and character of the scenario he has to depict could become distorted. He should be commended on his restraint which may have made it much easier for some viewers to concentrate on the more serious issues raised in the film.

When this film was first released the sequence showing the brothel auctioning the virginity of their new girl to the highest bidder raised a lot of eyebrows, and clearly many in the audiences had not appreciated that this practice used to be commonplace. Most viewers found the sequence disturbing, but in Pretty Baby the fact that Violet had been raised to expect this, and was looking forward to it as an important step towards entering adult life, greatly reduced its impact. Another film, French Quarter, which was released the same year as Pretty Baby, was the story of an orphaned girl who had been strictly brought up on a farm, but who had had to take refuge in a city brothel to avoid starvation when her parents died. Those who saw it will remember that it included a similar auction which I for one found much more harrowing to watch as it clearly showed the trauma inflicted on an unprepared and very reluctant young girl, starting of course as she was being stripped and paraded for public exhibition. Any such sequences provide very uncomfortable viewing for most men, who tend to thankfully take refuge in a conviction that they could never occur today.

Other scenes showing the exploitation inherent in life as it was lived in Storyville in 1917 were also found to be disturbing by many viewers; and some comments even suggest a widely held conviction that we live in a more moral society today. Before we condemn our forbears we should perhaps examine this conviction in more detail. In Europe and North America we have quite recently moved away from a society where marriages among the upper classes were regarded as primarily intended to enhance social status and generate offspring. Wives frequently did not love their husbands and, although they dutifully provided children, they were often happy for him to exercise his virility with paid companions. Visits to a local brothel, where regular customers could became friendly with all the staff, were condoned or even approved. This often led to a reasonably stable environment for the young women concerned. Today most of us would strongly disapprove of such lifestyles, and would rightly emphasize how far we have progressed by ensuring young people have the opportunity to choose their own lifetime partner; but we still need to be honest about the problems this new lifestyle has created today. There were few Robert Pickton's feeding twenty-six victims to his pigs in Victorian times. Today we frequently encounter police warnings about serial killers; in Victorian times Jack the Ripper was a much more unique character. Too many of today's prostitutes shiver in the rain or snow on street corners throughout long evenings each night, periodically spending an infrequent few uncomfortable minutes in a car - each time at an unknown risk to themself - and are forced afterwards to give almost all their takings to a pimp attached to the local street gang. We need to recognize that many of them would probably regard living in a comfortable and stable brothel, such as that depicted in this film, as akin to heaven on earth.

Ultimately this is the powerful message from Pretty Baby that makes it such an exceptional film; but because the Director decided to employ a totally non-judgmental documentary type presentation and to minimise any direct emotional appeal, most viewers probably only recognize it when scenes returned to their memory during the hours and days after they left the cinema, and I do not believe its rare combination of beautiful imagery and haunting power has so far been brought out adequately by the comments on this database.


I had heard comments saying that this film was child pornography or something. That idea is totally wrong! The nude scenes where Violet (Brooke Shields) appears nude are only a few and pure, there is NO lascivious exhibition or anything similar. So please stop saying this is child pornography because it is not.

---MAJOR SPOILERS---

Anyway, I must say that most of the content, especially the first half, is disturbing because you can see how cruel was the social environment where the girl was living in. For example, they make her to prepare drugs for the old lady of the house, she is beaten, every woman keeps saying she will be such a beautiful revenue, she is allowed to see nudity and sexual intercourse anytime, and in general they do not handle her as a child, but as a servant and as a potential little whore all the time. The limit of sickness is when the girl's virginity is auctioned. Even her own mom agrees. At this moment you think "Does someone there has a heart?" It seems the only person that really loves her is the black pianist and you can see the indignation in his eyes during the auction, but he feels helpless cause he knows he cannot do anything because of his race.

But the worst is that most of this abuse is being done with the little girl's consent and her WISH. You just cannot wait to break into the screen, take her and shout "Wake up, baby, wake up!" Somehow she realizes that no-one cares about her but on the other hand she wants attention and wants to be handled as an adult, just like all preteens want. Sadly the only way of life she knows to be an adult woman is to be a prostitute. But even though she wants to be an adult it is just like a game for her, because actually she behaves like a kid because she IS a kid. And at the finale is obvious how her innocence is still there when her mom comes back with a new dad for her and wants to take her to a better life, and she says to her husband/photographer "Can't we all go?"... The finale makes you think "I hope Violet will have a really better life now". Since her new dad seems to be a respectable person you would think she will.

I enjoyed the film. It is cruel, raw, you have to be prepared to watch this. The bad points is that this film has a slow pace, it is predictable and the actors are not too good, it seems they are reading lines. But I give it 8 out of 10 because the plot is well done also the time scenery/clothing/atmosphere, and specially because it is a controversial theme handled deeply.

If someone asks me "Was Brooke Shields exploited in this movie?" I have to say of course, she was, not only for the nudes but for the situations she has to go through the film. Even though the nudes in this movie are tame, they are nudes after all and I don't think a girl that age feels comfortable being nude in a cinema production set with 20-30 people around looking at her, not to mention the things she has to say or to do with men in the movie. But what can you do? She was exploited, just like other kids in cinema like Jodie Foster, Drew Barrymore, Shirley Temple and the most recent Dakota Fanning.


What a dilemma! As a feminist, I feel that I should be deploring this movie right now. However, I enjoyed it immensely. I felt that the subject of child prostitution was very well handled, and that (surprisingly enough), Brooke Shield's performance was very textured and real. As outlandish as the whole thing was, Louis Malle really sucked me into that turn of the century red light district world, and thankfully did not bludgeon me over the head with exploitation or heavy handed tragedy. I'm still not very sure where the moral center of the movie was located, but I think that was Malle's point-- that it's a good idea to question and re-evaluate all taboo subjects to understand why they are taboo in the first place.


This movie was pretty darn awful. Brooke Shields' acting was, while commendable for your average twelve-year-old, uneven, to be kind. I expect better than animated whining from Susan Sarandon - really, one of her less well-thought-out roles. The only person who managed to convey the nature of his character was Keith Carradine. The acting was painfully wooden on the part of the supporting characters, especially the Madam, Frances Faye (oy geveult!). I don't understand how Louis Malle, writer and director of _Au_Revoir_Les_Enfants_ could produce a film with such lackluster portrayals of potentially engrossing characters.

So, for all of that, only the painterly direction of Mr. Malle and his willingness to look unflinchingly at something that turns most people's stomachs saves the film. Yes, it is disturbing to see Ms. Shields naked in sexual contexts, and performing and intimating acts that we try to keep the pubescent from even learning about in this country (USA). This is the beauty of the film, and its entire aesthetic reason to be.

If you're offended by naked baby buttocks, sexually aware pre-teens, or horrific acting, don't see this movie. If you want a challenge to your moral standards, it's the perfect show for you. If you're neither of the above, wait until somebody else rents it, because it's not worth paying for.


I think this film does a very good job capturing the period of 1917 New Orleans and shows a different side to early 20th century America. I love the music in film (i.e. Jelly Roll Morton and Scott Joplin), the set is wonderful, and the acting is good. Much of the nudity, however, is completely unnecessary. It tarnishes the story, which is actually quite absorbing.


In the final, wonderful shot of QUEEN CHRISTINA, Rouben Mamoulian directed Garbo to think of absolutely nothing as the camera slowly zooms in on her perfectly lit face. The result is that the viewer projects a multitude of emotions on that face. It seems that Louis Malle must have given all of the actors in Pretty Baby the same direction! If I had had any emotional connection to the story of a 12 year old whore, it might have worked; unfortunately, i really didn't care, and so the results were downright dull. The sole survivor is Susan Sarandon, whose magnificent eyes pour out emotions like a waterfall despite her lack of facial expression. Pass this film by; it's a dud.


A film of a young girl who lives in a bordello and becomes a prostitute. Set in New Orleans the film is suitable filled with jazz music. The seedy atmosphere and the decadent opium smoking madam are superb.

Brook shield his as beautiful as ever. I don't know how this film got past the censor especially the naked shots. The auction scene is bizarre and sordid.

Brook forms a relationship with a pedophile who "rescues her". The film shows there relationship and conflicts. I think it shows a reality that existed and still exists today. Well worth seeing.

The age difference shows in that she is still a child and wants to play rather than behave like an adult.


This film certainly caused quite a stir when it was released in 1978. Today, "stir wise", it would result in a large yawn. This is the story of a young girl growing up in a brothel in Storyville, New Orleans when the brothels were very popular and just before they were all shut down. The stir was caused by the apparent nudity of the then 13-year old star, Brooke Shields. The film uses an adult body double for her nude scenes. There is a fair number of topless scenes involving the older women, especially Susan Sarandon, who plays Brooke's prostitute mother. It depicts the everyday life in the brothel, showing the prostitutes as just people trying to survive and make a living. There is music, alcohol, cocaine and, of course, sex. The story is OK, the acting OK, the cinematography also OK. Basically nothing in this film is more than OK. I think it's worth a rent, perhaps. I believe that numerous children did grow up in this fashion, being the children of prostitutes. The Storyville brothels were eventually shut down and that is depicted as well.


Ah, yes the 1-line summary is what I would describe the film.

Considering the U.S. child pornography laws, I'm surprised U.S. government has let this movie to be produced.

Looks like the Louis Malle had the guts to make a movie that has nude scene of a young girl named Brooke Shields.

Perhaps that is why this movie must be significant.

It's not surprising to see a lot of reviewers bashing this movie because of the nudity scene.


Battlestar Galactica is often dismissed as one of the most expensive turkeys in television history. Labelled a shameless Star Wars rip-off, the show exploded on to TV screens in the late 70s, only to peter out in its first season after audiences tired of increasingly lame scripts apparently built around the re-use of expensive effects footage. But to a generation of kids who could only tear themselves away from their Star Wars action figures for the weekly adventures of Apollo and Starbuck, it was the real deal. Now, like Star Trek before it, the much-maligned series looks set for a possible revival, with ongoing fan interest stirring rival camps to vie for production rights for a new series or cinema version. Battlestar Galactica was initially a major ratings success when it debuted in 1978 with a pilot episode detailing the destruction of human civilisation by the robotic Cylons - chrome-plated disco stormtroopers with metallic voices that were the last word in Casio home synthesiser effects.

Lorne Greene as Adama effectively reprised his patriarchal leader role from Bonanza, leading the wretched remnants of human civilisation as they fled their mechanical oppressors in search of refuge on a lost planet called Earth. Richard Hatch played his son Apollo, while a scene-stealing Dirk Bennedict played his roguish friend Starbuck. The two blow-waved heartthrobs were clearly moulded on Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, but worked brown velvet in a way their cinema counterparts never could. Early plotlines -- involving mass starvation, political corruption, class division and religious fanaticism -- effectively detailed the desperate plight of the refugees and caught the imagination of viewers. But when the pilot episode won huge ratings, the full-length series that was hastily rushed into production abandoned such complex and gritty storylines for more puerile scripts that inevitably involved lots of re-used clips of explosions. Character development largely went out the window. Blonde vixen Cassiopeia (Laurette Spang), introduced in the pilot as a prostitute rescued from a baying refugee mob by Starbuck, was inexplicably reassigned as a nurse and a generic love interest. A disgruntled Jane Seymour apparently demanded that her character, Serina, be shot dead by a Cylon at the first possible opportunity. Her wish was granted in the fourth episode, leaving fans wishing that her son, Boxey and his yapping mechanical dog, Muffet, had also fallen under Cylon swords. Human traitor Baltar, who had been so satisfyingly hacked to death by his Cylon allies in the cinema version of the pilot, was the subject of an absurd plot alteration that saw him leading the genocidal robots in their quest to finish off humanity. John Collicos camped it up as Baltar, chewing through his ridiculous dialogue with occassional style. Baltar's queeny power struggles with his lieutenant, Lucifer - a bitchy robot with an impressive wardrobe of capes - were an ongoing feature of the series. Amid the recycled dog fights and budget-saving plotlines that involved characters being regularly stranded on backward planets that inevitably resembled Earth, several excellent episodes were produced that have maintained fan interest to this day. Lloyd Bridges put in a star turn as the war-mongering Commander Cain and Patrick McNee appeared as a seductive alien who was probably Satan. Despite occasional dramatic flourishes, the often-puerile plotlines alienated advertiser-friendly demographics. The show was axed at the end of its first season, leaving the storyline unresolved and a generation of kids feeling ripped off. Many more were tempted the following year with the appearance of Galactica 1980, a ultra-cheap bastardisation of the original show detailing the arrival of the refugees on a contemporary Earth. It failed to attract even the very young demographic it was aiming for. Twenty years later, actor Richard Hatch, series creator Glen A. Larson and the Sci Fi Channel are all working on separate Galactica proposals. Although copywrite issues continue to cloud the possibility of a revival, many fans will retain their fond childhood memories of this much maligned show.


As remembering 'Battlestar' from the viewpoint of a youngster in the late 70s - early 80s, I would give it a 9/10.

Viewing 'Battlestar' from the viewpoint of a near 30 male in the year 2000, I give it 7/10. (I have all 24 episodes on tape)

The special effects were near the late 70's level of "Star Wars", and that is truly saying something considering this was a made for TV movie / weekly series. Sure, the stories were uneven. However, to put that in perspective, they rode the gambit from the morality plays of Star Trek (TOS) to the character stories of Star Trek (TNG).

The backstory involved the last known group of 'humans'. After they were given a 'Pearl Harbor' job by the alien bad guys and nearly wiped out, they went in search of a long lost colony. This colony was located on a planet called 'Earth'.

This was really a revolutionary show. It took the best 'good vs evil' elements of Star Wars and combined them with the 'every show is a lesson' elements of Star Trek (TOS). If you weren't contemplating the human nature element of the story, you were involved in the characters.

Unfortunately, you were rarely concerned about both of those within the same episode. In my opinion, this is the only major flaw of the series, it was somewhat unbalanced from show to show. This is somewhat understandable from a series that was wrought with network politics and never made it past 25 episodes. Nevertheless, this is a series that would be very much enjoyed by any true sci-fi fan.

If you don't know the history of the show by now... ABC canned it, despite well above average ratings. The brass felt the show was too expensive. What could have been one of the great sci-fi TV series of all time was done after 24 episodes.

I place 'Battlestar' behind only Star Trek (TOS) as the best sci-fi TV series of all time.


That's right, one of a kind. When I first watched this show back a couple of years ago, it just caught me like no other had ever done before. The characters, the settings, the stories, all just magnificent.

One thing a lot of people pick on is the writing. I, myself, do not have a problem with it at all. In fact, I find that the stories make this show one of the most unique sci-fi's ever done. The 12 Colonies of Man all decimated by the Cylon Empire and the struggle of the refugees to survive, all escaping in some 220 refugee ships all being protected by the Galactica herself in search of the planet earth. And let's not forget the other memorable stories, such as the discovery of Commander Cain & the Battlestar Pegasus and when the Galactica found Kobol and discovered some of the origins of men. There's also the stories involving the Ship of Lights, Terra, and other ships from within the rag-tag fleet.

Another highlight of the show is the characters, especially Adama, Apollo, and Starbuck. One could say that Adama was the father figure, the wisest of the group. Then there's Apollo, just one of them good ole boys. And then we have Starbuck, probably the most memorable character from the entire series. And let's not forget the others: Boomer, Jolly, Athena, Cassiopeia, Boxey, Muffit, and last, but definitely not least, Baltar. Yes, this menacing figure is probably the 2nd most memorable face in the series.

And let's not forget the Cylons. These guys were probably one of the biggest money makers of the series back then. Menacing and powerful, they will stop at nothing until the destruction of the human race is complete.

One of the biggest highlights of this production is the music. Who can forget the opening theme? No doubt one of the greatest in all of sci-fi. We also have the Cylon music, very dark and menacing. In this production, Stu Phillips was a genius and he should definitely be commended.

Now, the special effects are something to be admired as well. Created by Star Wars' own John Dykstra, the effects in Battlestar Galactica greatly outshined the rest at that time. Though, the biggest drawback is the constant reuse of special effects footage over and over and over and over again. But it was done to save money, so it's understandable.

Another memorable aspect of the show are the ships themselves. The Galactica, herself, is a huge and powerful vessel, while retaining a charm that few other ships can keep. Probably the most popular ship was the Colonial Viper. While they may resemble the X-Wing Starfighters of Star Wars, the Vipers are unique and special in their own way. Probably the most unique ship in the show was the Cylon Raider. Bat-like in appearance, it was a fierce competitor for the Viper. Then there's the Cylon Basestar, just plain menacing is all that can be said about it. Then there are the other ships: The Rising Star, The Colonial Movers ship, The Celestra, The Prison Barge, The Livery ship, The Gemini Freighter, etc. They all were memorable in their own way.

This show is VERY underrated. A work of art, in my very honest opinion. I give it a 10/10. Extremely brilliant.


This film, and the television series that went with it, definitely had the greatest impact on a lot of boys' childhoods in the early 80s. If like me you are unsure of whether you saw Star Wars or this first, then a mutual fondness of both arises. Today Battlestar Galactica is considered to be an example of how not to do sci-fi - despite the opening promise, with the unforgettable destruction of humanity's home and the following promise of hope still bringing tears to my eyes - the series quickly degenerated into children's television aimed at the youngest and dimmest of children everywhere. But none of that affects the promise of this opening film, which has all the elements any successful film or TV Movie could hope to employ - drama, action, loyalty, betrayal, destruction and death, loss and hope, and the most lovable of characters everywhere - right down to Boxey, who by owning Muffit, was the envy of children everywhere... (In fact it's rumoured that Annakin Skywalker's look was based on him!) So overall, I would recommend this film - it symbolises all the good that made the late 70s memorable.


This is one of my favorite sci-fi shows, but I certainly recognize its flaws.

The Good:

* the concept

---> I liked the historical context of the 12 tribes of Kobol, the Pearl Harbor-like attack, the "ragtag fugitive fleet" seeking Earth. This really framed the series well.

---> The look of the Ceylon base ships and the bat-wing Ceylon fighters was terrific. I also liked the look of the battlestars and Colonial vipers. The command center of the battlestar seemed believable.

* the casting:

---> Lorne Greene as Adama brings a commanding screen presence

---> Richard Hatch as Apollo is well-cast and believable as a leader/captain of a fighter wing

---> Dirk Benedict as Starbuck the amiable sarcastic sidekick

---> John Colicos as Baltar oozed evil with perfection

---> other minor cast members like Herbert Jefferson Jr as Boomer and Terry Carter as Colonel Tigh were very well cast too

---> I thought the three most visible female characters were all good, though not standout. Maren Jensen, Laurette Spang, and Anne Lockhart just also happened to be beautiful too.

---> visiting cast members like:

-------> Lloyd Bridges as Commander Cain was truly memorable

-------> Patrick McNee as Count Iblis was also highly memorable

-------> Ray Milland and Fred Astaire were good guest stars too

* the costumes

---> I liked the Colonial Warrior uniforms - they still have a style to them today. I liked the Warrior helmets with their Egyptian-like motif.

---> The Ceylon warriors with their shiny armor, had a great look to them too. The red strobe they used for vision was a great menacing concept.

* some episodes with great plot lines

---> the return of Commander Cain and the Pegasus stands out

---> I thought the visit to the "home" planet of Kobol, with its Egyptian motifs, was terrific. This is part of the pilot's introductory three episodes.

---> I also liked the encounter with the Ship of Lights and Count Iblis - this was especially well done.

* the music - I still like the theme song to Battlestar Galactica

* the behavior of the Ceylons was entertaining. "By your command" spoken in a tinny voice was a favorite.

The Bad:

* some cheesy special effects (by today's standards)

---> ...and reuse of the same special effects

---> why was Count Iblis' crash site off-color in one moment, and clear blue the next?

* quite a lot of cheesy cringe-inducing dialogue

* the little kid Boxie and his robot dog

* some of the episodes had really horrible plot lines, especially later in the series

---> the Lost Warrior where the kids attack the Ceylon outpost

---> why did Baltar return to the human fleet again?

The Ugly:

* the original show was cancelled after one season

* Galactica 1980, the follow-on show in which the battlestar finds earth, was pretty horrible

All in all, I am willing to forgive Battlestar Galactica's flaws and remember with fondness its strengths.

Rick


Created by Glen A. Larson, the master of late-1970's TV Sci-Fi, this is the best of the spate of Star Wars clones. On the surface, it is a cheesy space-opera epic with space battles, an army of genocidal robots, a traitorous betrayal, and a desperate fight against incredible odds. Going deeper, it is both a statement about the Cold War and a conscious allegory of Mormon theology (Larson is a member of the LDS church).

I grew with this series, and idolized Starbuck and Apollo. Still today, I can watch the series premiere (which was also variously released as a TV movie, and even in theaters in Canada, Europe, and later the USA) over and over again. There are some moments of great dialogue, the effects are pretty good (even if they tend to repeat...a lot), and the story and series concept are excellent. You gotta love any series that STARTS with the near-extinction of the entire human race.

Unfortunately, when the transition was made from the original concept of several special-event TV movies to a regular series, the conventions of 70's TV took over. Forget most of the series episodes, they tend to repeat plot ideas more than "Star Trek: Voyager" re-uses the "Space Anomaly of the Week" idea. But the original movie is a true sci-fi classic.


SAGA OF A STARWORLD: The movie-length series pilot was great, with space battle action, we see for the first and only time the full fleet of Battlestars as they were, lots of Cylons, the traitorous Count Baltar (John Colicos), the planet Carolon and the creepy Ovions. This episode gets an A.

LOST PLANET OF THE GODS Part 1 and 2: A good two-parter, and I liked how the Galactica found and entered that black void in space, and eventually found the planet Kobol, where all human life supposedly originated. That whole premise sort of had some awe and wonder to it. Adama's (Lorne Greene) research on the ancient exodus from Kobol, and the way the Galactica exited the void and found Kobol, both seemed to have put the famous star on opposite sides of the void, which confused me a little. And there was nothing on the surface of Kobol that indicated that the ancient people had any space flight technology to leave Kobol, which was also a little confusing. A.

THE LOST WARRIOR: I liked this episode, with Apollo (Richard Hatch), stranded on a planet due to his viper running out of fuel, and finding himself pitted against a Cylon (called Red Eye by the planet locals) who was also stranded on the planet, but with memory loss, and now being commanded by a local gangster-type on the planet. The thing about this episode that didn't make sense is the locals not recognizing Red Eye as a Cylon before Apollo arrived, considering that these people originated from the Colonies as well, and the husband of one of the women was a Colonial Warrior. B+.

THE LONG PATROL: Starbuck (Dirk Benedict) is assigned to go down to a planet (the reason for which I don't think was very well explained in the episode) in a suped-up, but unarmed viper. I thought the episode was a little bland, but it has some amusing Starbuck moments. C+.

THE GUN ON ICE PLANET ZERO Part 1 and 2: This episode has some good action in it, but it's never been one of my favorites. And the repeated use of visual effects stock footage was particularly annoying in this episode, like that same image of the laser from the ice gun shooting across the fleet. C+.

THE MAGNIFICENT WARRIORS: The team has to go down to a planet to barter for some food seeds after two of the agro-ships are destroyed by a Cylon attack. Bland episode. C.

THE YOUNG LORDS: Another stranded viper pilot episode, this time it's Starbuck, and he has to help several children free their father from the Cylons, who have occupied the planet. Another bland episode, but it does have a lot of Cylons (they're always cool to look at) and Spector, another IL series Cylon that Lucifer is jealous of. Baltar is also in this episode. C+.

THE LIVING LEGEND Part 1 and 2: A powerhouse episode, that has the Galactica discovering that not all the other Battlestars were destroyed, as they find the Pegasus with Commander Kane (Lloyd Bridges) in command. Lots of Cylons, lots of space (and planet) battles, a Battlestar taking on two Baseships. A+.

FIRE IN SPACE: If I want to watch "The Towering Inferno," I'll watch "The Towering Inferno." The worst "Galactica" episode in my opinion. A generous C-.

WAR OF THE GODS Part 1 and 2: Another excellent episode. But when Count Isblis (Patrick Macnee) says to Baltar that in order for his (Isblis') voice to be that of the Imperious Leader, it would've had to have been transcribed into machine leader a thousand yahrens ago. Isblis would have to be a thousand yahrens old. But I think that is exactly what happened. A.

THE MAN WITH NINE LIVES: A decent episode and a good look at life within the fleet. B-.

MURDER ON THE RISING STAR: Another decent episode, a whodunit, and another good look at life within the fleet. B-.

GREETINGS FROM EARTH: I think this episode is very underrated by fans. I thought it had a very good story. But, design-wise, Hector and Vector are the worst-looking robots I've ever seen. A-.

BALTAR'S ESCAPE: This episode has Baltar, along with the Nomen from MAN WITH NINE LIVES and Eastern Alliance Enforcers from GREETINGS FROM EARTH, planning an escape from the prison barge, and from the fleet. Good within-the-fleet action episode. B+.

EXPERIMENT IN TERRA: Disappointing follow-up episode to GREETINGS FROM EARTH. Not much action, but the Ship of Lights from WAR OF THE GODS returns. But I wish the GREETINGS FROM EARTH/Terra arc could've been explored better in this series. C.

TAKE THE CELESTRA: Another underrated episode in my opinion, and another good within-the-fleet action episode like BALTAR'S ESCAPE. B+.

THE HAND OF GOD: The final episode of TOS has the Cylons finally returning, and the Galactica plans to take on a Baseship. Another good action episode. A-.


As a six or seven year old, I was glued to the screen every sunday night at about 8 o'clock. My favorite tv-show, battlestar gallactica, had something magical and cool (never heard of Star wars at that point :)). It had a lovable rogue in Capt. Starbuck and a guy we all wanted to be in Capt. Apollo.

20 years later the romance en nostalgia rapidly wears of. I grabbed the DVD out of the sales-bin the other day, and watching it wasn't that enjoyable anymore.

Spoiler!!

First of, the plot and story are not that great. It goes wrong at the very beginning of the film. why in god's name would you leave your colonies unguarded, when you haven't signed a treaty yet. well, I would never leave my civilization for a shooting target, whatever the situation would be.

/spoiler

About the acting. Well, it's ok. The cheesy lines are acceptable, and Dirk Benedict is kinda funny, in his own, gambling and cigar smokin', kinda way. His character is based on Han Solo, as Apollo is a Luke in many ways. And so many Star Wars characters have a Battlestar double.

Even for it's time the SFX are not more than ok, but the use of ordinary 80's 'earth' electronics to display the interior of the battlestar and fighters is more disturbing. It's a cheap production in many ways, which leaves you with the thought : has this production team got lack of imagination or money?

-Spoiler- Nice easter egg: When the battlestar command is trying to help starbuck get back to the Gallactica, they take over his board computer, you can see it boot up and a command line appears saying "made in the USA.." - another sign of faulty and inaccurate production -/Spoiler-


Awesome show for the time. As far as copying anything from Star Wars, I don't think so. The Vipers are NOTHING like the X-Wings. The model work is outstanding. Some of the dialog is sugar coated, but the premise is great. For once, it isn't earth getting annihilated by aliens and robots. I have shown this series to some of my sons friends who thought it was cool. It's worth watching. Lorene Greene is excellent as Commander Adama and his counter part, John Colicos, is very good as Count Baltar. I still love seeing the Vipers launch out of their tubes(I'd like to see an X-Wiin have a dramatic entrance like that)A lot of work went into the show only to have ABC cancel it out of stupidity. The show was very popular(which is why George Lucas and Co. went after it)It is NOTHING like the new show. But is very well done.


When asked if I liked "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" better, I answered "'Battlestar Galactica'-- the original!" It's better technically than "Trek." It's more creative than "Wars" (originally a rip off of Frank Herbert's "Dune"). And it definitely tops the insubstantial thrills of the 2003 "reinvention." This TV movie opens with a tragic attack on the human race by the vicious and mechanical Cylons, including the spectacular strafing and bombing of the planet Caprica, which destroys Colonial morale. By the time fifteen minutes are up, everyone has lost somebody close, and the story is already in full form thanks to Richard Colla's brilliant directing and Glen A. Larson's constantly clever writing.

The special effects are still spectacular to this day, and while they could have cheapened the actual drama of the show, they didn't. Watch especially for cheesy good performances from Richard Hatch, Jane Seymour, and, of course, Lorne Greene. Look out for space disco performed by the alien Android Sisters.


Battlestar Galactica did have a heavy impact on my childhood. I remember all of my friends trying to rebuild Battlestars and Vipers in various designs out of our LEGO space edition tiles. And how much fun it was to blast the other's ships into pieces! LEGO must have earned millions through us. Never ever has there been another spacecraft as illustrious in design as the Galactica (forget Star Trek's clumsy saucers). Unfortunately, the special effects appeared a little simple, because they were persistently reused. And YES, another commentator was right: Maren Jenson is THE reason to watch the show! Of course, there are one or two things about the story which are quite dubious. For one, the praised military leadership being better than a civilian one is a little hard-core cold-war belief. And in the series, those partially overemphasized religious elements sometimes got a little annoying in the otherwise splendid science-fantasy plot. But after all, those elements formed a heterogeneous mix promoting tolerance and gave the show its uniqueness. Definitely worth watching!


A great cast of charachters, combine with several celebrity cameo's to make this slightly typical science fiction story fresh each week. The plot revolves around the destruction of the 12 colonies of mankind, by a race of machines called Cylons. The last remaining Battlestar (Galactica) is now in search of the lost 13th tribe, from it's known origin, which split from the original group & has no known location. They hold the hope that Earth will give them a base to fight their antagonists & to rebuild their own race. This series put Universal in the front of sci-fi developement for a while. Worth watching for any science fiction fans who may have missed it. You'll enjoy it a great deal.


I loved Battlestar Galactica when I was a kid. I never saw the series, but the two movies were really nice work.

And today, I still love those two movies, but can understand the bad reputation the series gained.

But I love the scenario (it is so wonderfully hopeless: The last remnants of a human civilisation are fleeing the overwhelmingly evil Cylon empire). It has some very strong moments, for example when the treason of the Cylons is discovered too late to save the human colonies and fleet. This was a bold and different approach. Or when Apollo's brother is shot down and killed just seconds before reaching the safe haven Galactica.

I love the spaceships. The model kits are really wonderful, especially the Battlestar design.

And I also love the characters. Starbuck impersonates everything a boy wants to be (he's so damn cool), and I still go by the codename Starbuck today, though (or maybe because) I am totally different. Lorne Greene as Adama is the archetype of the wise leader, and the girls might seem very 70s to us today, but they certainly worked back then :-)

All in all, I think that Battlestar Galactica, at least the movie, deserves some better praise than that you usually hear. Even though the battle sequences are always the same (they always get the Cylon in the middle, njahahaha)...

And yes, I hate the kid and the robot-dog as well.


Having just seen a "restored" theatrical print a couple of months ago and now having seen the new DVD, I can say that it is virtually flawless. The subtlety of color makes many sequences appear almost three dimensional (especially on the Galactica). They appear to have removed most of the annoying matte lines from some scenes, although a few garbage mattes are visible. Some scenes that were almost unviewable blurs on the VHS have been restored to almost crystal clarity. Also visible are occasional film scratches, but it is far superior to anything I have seen since the 70's theatrical release in "Sensurround" or however they spelled it.

If you are a Galactica nut or even a fan, you will cherish this in your collection.

P.S. I don't work for Universal!


"There are those who believe, that life here began out there." These words marked the start of a new sci-fi show that featured robots, ships, bigger ships, planets, space and more robots. Yes, I remember when I got my first taste of Battlestar Galactica for the first time back in 1986 when it showed on BBC2 at 6pm. Aged only four, I knew this program would be in my life forever. My sister used to watch it just for Richard Hatch and still does! The Twelve colonies of Man have been fighting the Cylons for over a millenia. Finally having a choice for peace, the Humans take it, not knowing what lies around the corner. Only Adama's two sons, Zak and Apollo know of the empending doom from a routine recon patrol. Racing to get back to the Galactica, one of them gets blown to bits when a Cylon attack force races towards the fleet of Battlestars. If you've seen the series and the feature-lentgh movie, you know of the quality of the effects were, at that time, groundbreaking. Now, they're just pants. The actings good along with the plot. Its just those effects. That niggle aside, I still love watching both the series and the movie. Oh, don't bother watching the new one. It don't match up to the original. I mean...Starbucks..a..Woman!!


This was one of my favorites as a child. I try and catch the show whenever it reairs on the Sci-Fi network. I enjoyed the 2003 mini-series but I feel that it was incomplete. It left a lot hanging. I wonder if the Sci-Fi channel plans to finish the show. If anyone knows then feel free to email me. Let me know when they are planning to air the rest of the show or if it is still in production. I checked a few online sites but I didn't have any luck with finding any real comment on the subject. Has anyone seen the DVD version in the stores yet? I found the VHS version a few years ago but you could only purchase two episodes at a time and considering the price I didn't think it was worth the cost. I want the entire TV series with the original cast members. I am not interested in the newer version with Barry Van Dyke as one of the major characters.


From what I remember about what was said in the press about this show, Larson, et. al., had high minded ambitions about this show-He wanted to be fun and interesting for both children *and* adults. Cassiopeia was a "socialator(prostitute?)", remember.

However, it was reported that the network was adamant that it be a kiddy show. This lead to increasingly inane plots and cartoon like characters which ultimately resulted in "Galactica '80".

I still think the premiere episode and some of the subsequent ones were some of the best work ever done in science fiction.

I still sometimes think in terms of "centons", and "microns", and praise the lords of Kobol.

I cant wait for the theatrical remake!


For a television movie that set up a series afterward, Battlestar Galactica was really very entertaining. There is no doubt at all that it is a no-holds barred knock-off of Star Wars. nonetheless it has an interesting plot, enjoyable characters played by enjoyable if not great actors, some top-notch special effects for its day(and some truly horrendous ones as well), and a great score. A war between robots and humans breaks out as a human betrays his people for power. Soon the survivors of a vanquished group of human colonies make their way back to Earth to find their "mythical" sister in race. Lorne Greene plays the chief leader wonderfully and his role gives this film much of its credibility. Actors Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict are playfully acceptable and we get the likes of ray Milland, Lew Ayres, Patrick Macnee(voice very menacing), the always affable Wilfred Hyde-White, Terry Carter, and others who all enhance this production. The film end so a series can take off and though I watched it as a kid I don't remember that all that well. It appears I am not missing much. This tele-film; however, is generally well-made and very fun to sit back and enjoy. There are some detractors of course like some corny situations, dialog, and characters. The boy with the robot dog is so nauseatingly unpleasant.


The above statement, from the patriarchal Commander Adama (Lorne Green) sums up this show quite nicely. In case I need to remind you, Adama has to lead the last survivors of humanity from the Twelve Colonies of Kobol to a long-lost mythic planet called Earth, home of the 13th Tribe. The colonies were just attacked by the robotic and clumsy Cylons, who strafed a city or two and killed at least one dog.

The first part of Adama's statement is fair enough. Clearly another solar system would be located beyond your own solar system. Oh, but it's also in a different galaxy? You might as well say that the restaurant you're trying to find is "Just down the street, in Africa". I wonder if the writers knew what they were talking about.

"Galactica" is full of moments like this. The Vipers, the little fighter planes our heroes fly into battle, have enormous fiery exhaust trails -- Isaac Newton must be spinning in his grave. (The Vipers themselves look like hastily cobbled-together knock-offs of the X-wings from "Star Wars"). Their cockpits even have a little instrument on the dashboard telling the pilot which way is "up" -- in space.

The villains of the show are the infamous Cylons, renowned in the realm of televised science fiction as the dumbest, clumsiest, and most ridiculous-looking villains ever. It's to be expected that they can't shoot, but these chrome-plated robots can barely WALK. According to Lorne Green, the Cylons are just plain evil, but I'm not sure "evil robots" is all that meaningful, although I did have an evil calculator once. I'm never quite sure whether the Cylons had an organic counterpart who created them, but it doesn't really matter.

In many ways this show is a shallow imitation of "Star Wars," and this can be seen in the cast of characters. Particularly Starbuck (Dirk Benedict), who tries so hard to be Han Solo, but only comes off as petulant, sexist, and rather pathetic. Apollo is the noble, Luke Skywalker hero type, and as such doesn't have a personality. Starbuck has a faithful black sidekick, Boomer, who seems to be much more competent than Starbuck. Adama also has a faithful black sidekick, called Colonel Tigh, who at one point is reduced to picking up everyone's laundry. Take that, Civil Rights Movement!

The destruction of the human colonies is a brief, and amazingly painless affair. A park is strafed by Cylon ships, and a small dog is killed (though the actual death is not shown, so we are left with some hope). Soon enough, our heroes have forgotten all about the genocide: Starbuck tries to get it on with two equally boring women, and Apollo enters into a creepy relationship with the little boy whose dog was maybe killed (though it might be slightly less creepy if you consider he was only trying to sleep with Jane Seymour, the boy's mother). The Cylons, meanwhile, attack again, but are destroyed because they're so utterly incompetent.

Oh yes, and there's a robot dog. I think it was actually a chimp in a robot-dog costume, but either way it's quite nauseating. The special effects are all right to start off (I like those old effects from the Seventies and Eighties, sometimes more than modern CGI), but get very repetitive very fast. I could also mention the preposterous characterization of the humans, including weak-kneed pacifists who are quickly killed, the inexplicably evil and stupid Lord Baltar (John Colicos) who betrays humanity, and the unbelievably dumb Council of Twelve, who prove that democracy just doesn't work.


This noisy aimless mess was an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Star Wars, released the previous year. Battlestar Galactica was barely able to hang on for one season despite the fertile ground and general acceptance for sci-fi that had been created by the Star Wars hit.

This 1978 Galactica, and all the other followup Galactica "movies" and series to come from it in the early 1980's, was poorly written and poorly developed. The final product was so revolting that they even managed to mangle the hackneyed character stereotypes and plot twists that were regularly used to fill out the majority of each week's episode.

While fans of the series heap praise on Lorne Greene, John Colicos (and Richard Hatch) for their fine effort, most seem to ignore the fact that these unlucky thespians were working with ridiculous scripts. One shudders to think how much worse the final on screen product would have been if everyone performed as poorly as Dirk Benedict, the intended 'lovable rogue' stereotype who instead came across as the 'obnoxious pain in the a**' stereotype.

The final product would have been better suited for Saturday mornings, but the expense of the leading edge special effects (for 1978) forced this to be a prime time offering.

Producer Glen Larson has an impressive track record for producing fun, technology-based fare, but Galactica was simply too weak on too many levels. Catch his Buck Rogers, early Knight Rider or Fall Guy for examples of how the genre CAN work without making you wish that the 'bad guys' would win so the series could end.


This is such a poor Star Wars Light ripoff developed by a couple of cult religion Mormon morons. The whole show smacks of Mormon propaganda and religious overtones. The Mormon beliefs are almost impossible to take and that takes a lot away from the show. Special effects oddly hold up because they are fairly inert, but the stories are either boring or indirectly have something to do with Mormonism. Bonanza actor is woefully out of his element as the captain/commander of galactica. This show demonstrates what a bad actor he is. BTW, they even ripped off the sound effects from Star Wars. How low can these cult Mormon dips sink?


Bad actors, bad script, bad costumes, bad hair, bad makeup, bad plot, bad special effects. Hmm, let's see, what's the theme here? Oh yes, could it be "Bad?"

So bad it's laughable.


I give this a high rating simply because of George C. Scott and Marlon Brando, who rise above muddled material and breathe life into an otherwise clunky TV movie. The plot is basically oil/greed ripping off the nation, and if I didn't know better I'd say Brando was channelling Dick Cheney, but the music and the script and the camera work (zooms, anyone?) are so cheesy that it's hard to stay with this movie.

However. The performances are fresh and fun and strangely lively, all the actors are magnificent, and true or not- it's a nice little commentary on modern greed in America (and the world).

A fun watch if you've nothing better to do than watch great actors go head to head.


This movie is not for the weak of mind. The plot is complex. I remember reading reviews that used words like "murky." Since the movie was a bit more complex than cops chasing robbers around some city at high speed most critics lack the intellectual wherewithal to keep track of what is going on.

Beginning with a friend's murder in Los Angeles Lt. Barney Caine, LAPD, (George C. Scott) follows a trail which takes him to Europe and leads to a formula for turning coal into gasoline. It takes Caine a while to uncover this and the plot takes a number of twists and turns. The ending can only reinforce one's cynicism about how the world works.

The performances are strong and the movie is well worth the time taken to view it.


I saw this movie when it came out in 1980 and enjoyed it immensely with all of the twists and turns keeping me thinking the whole time. Yes, Marlon and George were perfect for their respective roles. Brando playing the aging corporate bad guy who knows the score, and Scott an over the hill cop who gets his teeth into something he just can't seem to let go of. Both, to me, fit their respective characters well. The nature of the plot, although kept vague was necessary for the internal intrigue to build. Still, many did not like this forced need to contemplate the many aspects of this film as it was being seen. Yet, I wonder if those who did not enjoy this movie as I did might not find it more interesting if viewed today with gas heading toward $4 and then maybe $5 a gallon? Does everyone need to have everything shown to them in a movie or am I just one of the few who's head doesn't hurt when I use it for what it was designed to do? Enjoy this movie for what it is, a commentary on human greed and power.


With two screen giants such as George C. Scott and Marlon Brando (even in a cameo), this film is worth seeing. One line from the film that has stuck with me is from Scott to Brando, "You're not in the oil business, you're in the oil shortage business." How true.


This is a story about a man who discovers an evil plot and risks everything to thwart the scheme. He opposes the ultimate "establishment" and is weighed and found wanting when the time comes to take the final step to expose the ruling classes' determination to keep the lower class lower and the super upper class on top. After all his risks and frustrations and dangers the invisible powers that "be" casually regain the upper hand as if nothing has happened and once again it is business as usual. The movie is a powerful subliminal civics lesson for young people. The antithesis is another Marlon Brando movie titled "Burn." I suggest you see that one also.


Pitched as 'the movie the oil companies don't want you to see' but instead proving to be the movie nobody wanted to see, The Formula is a classic example of how blockbuster novels so often turn into mundane films. It has a solid cast, a solid script, solid production values  everything, in fact, but a reason to watch it. It's one of those lethargic thrillers where cardboard characters constantly talk to each other about things that happened offscreen and which the film would have been far better showing us as George C. Scott's LA cop uncovers a conspiracy involving a Nazi formula for synthetic fuel that Marlon Brando's eccentric oilman wants kept under lock and key so he can artificially inflate the price of oil. The teaming of Oscar's two most famous refusniks sadly provides no sparks  indeed, there seemed to be more drama offscreen between director John G. Avildsen and writer/producer Steve Shagan over the re-editing of the film, resulting in a compromise cut that probably satisfied no-one (it's a genuine surprise to find them jovially sharing the audio commentary on Warners' new DVD). Not that it seems that anyone else was so passionate about the film: there's no shortage of class talent here (John Gielgud and Beatrice Straight also turn up), but it's clear that the paycheck is of more interest to them than the script and they're just slumming it. Not a terrible movie, just a rather flat, uneventful and predictable one.


Detective Barney Caine (George C. Scott) gets involved in an increasingly twist-laden plot that begins when an old friend of his is found murdered. As it progresses, he travels to Germany, speaks to a variety of characters, and hooks up with a grieving young woman (Marthe Keller). The story actually began back at the end of World War II and involves the creation of a synthetic fuel which, naturally, certain interests want to stifle no matter what has to be done.

It's the actors that really make it worthwhile. The film itself, I thought, had a reasonably engrossing plot. I enjoyed the twists and turns that it took, even if not that many of them were actually surprising. The foreign locale certainly doesn't hurt. The film begins well, and moves slowly - some might feel too slowly for a film without truly effective revelations - towards a rather low-key showdown between the two adversaries.

Scott and co-star Marlon Brando, in a typically amusing performance as an oil magnate, don't appear together very often in the film, but their scenes are very effective. Keller is alluring as Lisa, the young woman who knows more than she's letting on. G.D. Spradlin, Richard Lynch, John Van Dreelen, Calvin Jung, Alan North, David Byrd, and Ferdy Mayne all do fine work in supporting roles; John Gielgud has only one scene but is superb in it. However, Beatrice Straight is wasted in a very minor role. Ike Eisenmann (from the Disney "Witch Mountain" films of the '70's) and Craig T. Nelson also turn up briefly.

Giving this film some sense of relevance of course is its premise, as the film explores subjects still very much on people's minds. It's entertaining enough if not particularly memorable, but works as a meditation on corruption and greed and the machinations of people in certain positions of power.

7/10


Of course any chance to see a film with George C. Scott and Marlon Brando is not to be missed, but I do so wish that they had done something better than The Formula.

The Formula referred to in the title is in fact a formula that the Nazi scientists developed for getting oil fuel out of coal. The only source of it in all of Europe is in Ploesti in Romania. Which was why the Nazis made damn sure to occupy the place and also wanted to get to the Soviet Union oil fields as well.

Anyway a former cop who in retirement found working on the other side of the law, a lucrative supplement for his pension is murdered in Los Angeles. George C. Scott is the LAPD detective put in charge of the case. The former cop's widow Beatrice Straight is also murdered along with just about everyone else who talks with Scott during the course of the investigation.

Said investigation takes Scott from LA to Germany and back to LA and mysterious gazillionaire Marlon Brando. The story takes in old Nazis, new Nazis, Arab terrorists, and the oil establishment who wants The Formula on its terms.

What I don't understand is that if the powerful conglomerate that Brando controlled wanted things shut down, why in heaven's name was Scott put in charge of the investigation? Doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it.

Brando and Scott together in their final confrontation scene are fabulous. Would that the rest of The Formula was done so well.


Caught this while doing some work at my desk and saw it had George C Scott, a favorite of mine. It had a really bad feel to it on a made for TV movie level, so I kept it in the background so I could get some snippets as this looked really really boring and it's all that was on at the time. Anyway if your political bents swing towards the Greenpeace crowd than you will rate this a 7 to 10, since I'm on the other end of the political spectrum it gets a 2. I love secret Nazi formula thriller stuff, and one that holds as much promise as the "formula" here did along with Scott should have come much better. That said the movies only redeeming qualities was it's similarities of Brando's character to Dick Chaney, and the speech in the end when Scott says "Your the reason why old people have to eat out of garbage cans!". That and a weird scene with strippers on stage in Germany with swastika pasties on, that was kind of interesting, you had to be there. I think both of these actors pulled some stunts during the academy awards and they were the forerunners of todays mostly leftist Hollywood actor crowd, and this movie has a clear political bent to appeal to that audience with dialog like the old people and trash cans. I'm surprised he didn't mention anything about soup lines, but I might have just missed it as this movie was hard to stay focused on and for once I preferred to do some work than follow this boring drivel. 2 of 10 stars, Scott didn't make all that many truly great movies in his career, but I certainly remember the ones he did do, this one wont be remembered as one though.