I have to admit, this film reminded me of how drab and ugly styles were in 1980, yechh! From that opener, you can tell this film is pretty-dated, but it has a few charms that are worth exploring: namely, an outrageous-script by Margheriti and Dardano Sacchetti that would NEVER get green-lighted today by any studio. Yes, this is another one of Quentin Tarantino's favorites, and it isn't hard to see why. It's just an insane genre-explosion that owes a lot to the Italian "cannibal" genre, and a good-bite of George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead". You might add Jacopeti and Prosperi's "Mondo Documentaries" too, because I think they really opened this particular door. "Zombie" (the Italian title for DOTD) was a hit in Italy in 1979, thanks to the Argento's promotional-campaign and better-editing (I know, a sacrilege, but I have always preferred the Argento-cut, it's more fun!). With that came a wave of imitators, most-notably in Lucio Fulci's "Zombi (USA)/Zombie 2 (Italy & other " and "City of the Living Dead". The worst were the copies by Bruno Mattei, but that's another-story.

1980: a drab, miserable year, but a time when the culture was still pretty active and vibrant. Corporate-domination of film and most other media hadn't been-consummated yet, so there were still genuine indie films, and it was a sad thing to watch all this die as a kid. This is really why horror wasn't that good in North America for some-time, and it's still trying to recover (a wait-and-see). The Vietnam war had only been over for five-years when Cannibal Apocalypse was released, so the wounds were still ripe. That's what makes this film so gutsy--pun-intended--and even depressing. At one-point during the production, star John Saxon was so-depressed by having signed-on to such a bleak movie that he contemplated-suicide. Now, how many films can say that? It just wasn't a good-time in America, though in-retrospect, life was better than it is today (2006), which should scare most young-people.

There were more outlets for frustration and rage in 1980, and horror went-to-bat, since catharsis is one of its best-features. You have to release those fears and frustrations, and that's what horror is for many people. Horror is healthy people, we know this! Cannibal Apocalypse works-well in this area, so it has some very good-points to it. We should remember that this movie was made at a time when the draft still-existed. The draft is definitely coming-back, you can bet-on-it. Still not scared? John Saxon stars as Lt. Norman Hopper, who leads a rescue-party into a Vietcong camp to recapture some of his own troops. A battle-ensues, and a Vietcong-woman (where were the black-pajamas?!) is torched with a flamethrower, and falls into the pit she and her compatriots have been holding Hopper's men in. All this seems like a normal, low-budget war movie that was shot in Georgia, until...the starving-G.I.s begin EATING-HER. OK, C-rations and Halliburton's catering are pretty- bad, but Jesus Christ. Somehow--because the writers don't tell us how--the soldiers have become infected with a rabies-like virus that makes them cannibalistic. Cut-to 1980: one of Hopper's soldiers is released from a veteran's hospital, disrupting his already strained-life, and wreaking-havoc on American society (or at least Atlanta)! Hopper has already been fighting his cannibalistic-impulses (and winning), but the return of PFC Bukowski (done with charm by the legendary John Morghen) has brought-back flashbacks and memories of Vietnam he thought he'd forgotten. In an early-scene, Hopper bites a flirty neighborhood-girl, and he begins to succumb to the cannibalistic disease.

And this is what is so great about Cannibal Apocalypse--it challenges your loyalties to the characters, and coaxes you into siding with a band of cannibals, led by none-other than JOHN SAXON!! For this reason, and the gore, I think this is why the film became so infamous and censored. Yet, these are the things that make is as good as it is! In many areas, it was censored of heavily-edited. Until the release of the 2002 DVD (Margheriti died in November of 2002), Americans have never seen this film in its entirety. Saxon has said he has never seen it, and I doubt he ever will. Who can blame him? Yet, he gives an incredible-performance as Norman Hopper, even one of his best in his entire-career outside of Enter the Dragon. Granted, it's just another in a long-line of exploitation films that Mr. Saxon acted in, but it's a great role that he did justice to. Of course, his own personal-misery didn't hurt either. But, Antonio Margheriti's (Castle of Blood, The Virgin of Nuremberg) direction is excellent, and he didn't have much to work-with here. Sacchetti's theme of a violent-cannibalism spreading by bites is a solid-move, however. It's very primal and hits the audience on a subconscious-level, even though it owes a debt to Romero. It isn't as-developed as it should have been, but this was another rush-production.

So, as an anti-war film--not-so-good, the theme gets lost in the action and gore. But that's OK, it's a film that leaves people speechless, and that's what a decent horror-film is about, too. From "Cannibal Holocaust", to Dawn of the Dead, this is a hybrid-film that is unique to the time that made it. But, it is so audacious, so brazen, that it must be seen. It lags in the middle-section--pun-intended--but really picks-up towards the climax, and reminds us that movies about "the infected" are not new. I would even credit Cronenberg's "Rabid" (1977) as being first on this one, and a definite-influence on this film. There was something in the air then, and it seems to have returned. Call it war, chaos, genocide, social-unrest--but it's back. Best-move: just p*ss-on-it, you remember. No-wonder Morghen's character was named-after the American poet Charles Bukowski! If America is good at anything, it is slang.


This is a movie that follows a lot of the conventions of a zombie movie, the main difference being that instead of being dead, these flesh-eaters are alive, just taken over by a virus that turns them into deranged cannibals. It's an interesting concept, and this film features a lot of interesting scenes that you just don't see portrayed too often, such as a bizarre molestation in a film theater, and a long, tense standoff with a crazed gunman in a resale store.

This movie shows the influence of Dawn of the Dead all over it, from the resale store biker rampage and standoff to the final scenes, in which a group of four with the exact same gender/ethnic makeup as in DotD hole up against outside invaders. The interesting twist this time is that THEY are the pursued flesh-eaters, rather than the other way around.

This movie, while having rich and deep cheese deposits, also actually has some quality to it. It sustains a creepy and tense tone tied around John Saxon's growing obsession with consuming human flesh, and his struggle and fear about giving into those impulses. Saxon carries off his 'upright soldier' persona so well that one both empathizes with his struggle, and fears what will happen once his intensity is channeled into being evil. The direction is actually very good, with many shots carefully composed to create and sustain a great deal of tension and menace. And then there's just the story, which covers the first days of a viral outbreak as it begins to spread and people begin to wake up to what is going on, which is also pretty fascinating.

There's also an additional layer of tension to the movie (compared to a traditional zombie movie) in that after someone's been bitten, you aren't sure WHEN they will start turning into a crazed flesh-eater. In a regular zombie movie, they're dead until they wake up again, here they're a normal person until suddenly they just snap, which is cool.

Though this is supposed to be an 'extreme gore classic,' it's pretty tame by today's standards. When your big gore payoff shot has been done to comic effect in Death Becomes Her, the edge is pretty much gone.

Okay, now onto the individually delightful cheese elements: Stock helicopter footage opens the picture. There should be some kind of film festival of movies that incorporate unrelated stock footage, the supreme champion obviously being Hell of the Living Dead.

A guy pets a dog with an obvious explosive around its neck. He explodesand then the funky disco music begins! What's more, the music was actually pretty good! Please note: potential cannibals should not keep huge slabs of unwrapped bloody meat in their fridge. I mean, obviously everyone does, but if you suffer from cannibalistic tendencies A young girl comes onto John Saxon (who wouldn't?) by wanting to borrow a hair dryer. Her hair is not wet. She then reveals herself as an unhinged psychotic while blowing him (um, with the dryer) while he's trying to have an important phone conversation (with another unhinged psychotic), which would earn a punch in the mouth from me (but I am not susceptible to nubile vixens). Motorcycle chase in warehouse/resale store! Hard-bitten detective asks about mad gunman: "Is he subversive? Queer? Black? Commie?" Uptight mother advises daughter to stop "acting like a hussy!" They set real rats on fire! That's not nice.

There are EXTENSIVE background materials on the DVD, one of which tells two interesting stories: 1) That John Saxon couldn't understand enough of the script (badly translated from Italian) to know that he was in an extreme gore flick, and 2) Radice tells an incredible story about refusing to kill a real pig, leading to his "accidentally" almost severing an assistant's hand with a meat cleaver. Oops. But the docs get boring pretty quickly.

Hey, there are lot of other reviews of bad and cheesy movies (plus a lot of good movies) on my website, Cinema de Merde, which you can find through the URL in my email address.


I'm open to every ones opinion on different things but come on!!! This movie was great! I loved the fact how it used that the people we send to war are often not treated with the respect they deserve and the consequences from the seclusion and being locked up can do to people. All though this doesn't affect Norman the only non hospitalized Vietnam veteran who was bitten by Tony King (Note that is the guys real name)and how their urges of hunger come to matter (cannibalsim), and yes we can all say "We know what they are feeling." but truthfully I don't think they'll really believe you unless you were actually in Vietnam also. Well since I doubt many have an uncut version on VHS lets talk about the DVD it is loaded with the European trailer Japanese Teaser. A featurette (I think) over the movie and there is a text part about all the cut versions. There is more but I can't think of it right now. So go and enjoy some brought on by war violence in this (what I consider) tragic tale of misfortune.


Cannibal Apocalypse(U.S. title) is the only Margheriti film that is ultra-violent. I am not a big fan of the gothic Italian cinema, though he is regarded as a master of this genre. I have seen an interview with him where he states he didn't want to make this film as violent as it is. He claims that was the producers desire. Although not as gruesome as the third world italian cannibal film cycle( the whole film takes place in Atlanta, GA)there are scenes of exreme violence: eye gougings, face smashings. throat ripping, and a huge hole blown through the torso of John Morghen. Features John Saxon of Enter the Dragon Fame.Italian gore freaks take note.


I remember always looking thru the horror sections of severel video store here in melb and seeing the palace video cover of this and thinkin na this looks crap but i then saw the trailer on another horror video and was sold this is an hidden gem i mean if your got john saxon and john morghen in the same movie it has to be good.Check out the region 1 dvd of this with the great doco with interviews with saxon and morghen and antonio margeretti.***1/2 out of 4.


i was very surprised that this film was as good as it was. it had some amazing effects like a guy getting his leg cut off and charlie (who was a very very cool guy) gets shot in the belly with a shotgun a couple of times and you see a massive hole in him. the final sewer scenes were great as was the bit with charlie in the market place. very good film.

7/10


I did not hate this movie! It was actually pretty good. The effects were fine, the story was different, and Saxon was pretty good. The Vietnam sequences could have been filmed in my backyard...but this offered enough chills and violence to redeem my rental price of 99 cents. Space Maggot is feeling a little woozy, and cannibalistic, and sucks this a 7.


Maybe the fact that this particular cannibal movie wasn't directed by one of the usual suspects (Lenzi, Deodato) is what makes it so tolerable. Saxon plays a soldier who goes back to some south Asian country to rescue his POW buddies. He doesn't seem too bothered by the fact that when he finds him, they're eating human flesh, or that one of them bites him, and infects him with some kind of cannibal virus. Fast forward a number of years, and Saxon is gettin a hankerin for some human meat. This all happens about the time that his buddies decide to break out the mental hospital they're in. It all ends up with Saxon and his buddies infecting a bunch of people, and running from the law in the sewers. Cannibal city, baby.

Radice getting his abdomen blown clean out with a shotgun is reason alone to watch this movie (if you can figure out how they did this effect, let me know). The rest is pretty standard, as far as movies go, but it is a lot better than most cannibal movies. At least it takes place in the city and not in some jungle. Worth a look, if you're a cannibal or John Saxon fan.


The story may be complete bunkum, and the dialogue rather cheesy, but Antonio Margheriti's Cannibal Apocalype is still a great way to pass the time. With some deliciously juicy gore FX, a great turn by lead John Saxon, and a funky score by Alexander Blonksteiner, this Italian splatter pic tells of a group of Vietnam vets (Saxon, John Morghen and Tony King) who have contracted a virus which turns them into cannibals. Along with an infected nurse, they attempt to escape the police (and a biker gang) via the network of sewers under the city.

Margheriti keeps the action flowing nicely, only pausing slightly to throw in a sub-plot featuring a rather tasty teen who has the hots for Saxon. The blood runs regularly, and Giannetto De Rossi's great gore make-up is excellent. Highlights include a bloody tongue-biting and the infamous 'shotgun-blast to the belly' effect which is well worth the wait.

If you love the classic Italian zombie and cannibal movies of the 70s and 80s, then be sure to catch Cannibal Apocalypse (but make sure to see the uncut version!!!).

7.5 out of 10 (rounded up to 8 for IMDb).


I gotta say, I really dug this one. A little different take on the whole "cannibal" genre - this one plays out more like a zombie film, except the "monsters" aren't dead - they're just humans with a kind of "cannibal rabies"...

Two men are brought back from Vietnam and are kept in a mental institution due to their unhealthy appetite for human flesh. It seems that since that is all they had to eat at times, they were somehow "infected" with a need to continue with this bad habit. It also seems that this "virus" can be transmitted by the bite of an "infected" person. When one of the patients causes quite a fuss on one of his unsupervised leaves from the hospital, his old commanding officer shows up to help diffuse the situation. Unfortunately, years before, the commanding officer was also bitten while trying to rescue these poor soldiers, but has been pretty good at keeping his "sickness" at bay. Things get out of hand and start "spreading" when the patients attack members of the hospital staff and begin transmitting the cannibal virus...

CANNIBAL APOCALYPSE is a really entertaining and somewhat novel spin to the over-done cannibal genre. Taking the concept out of the jungle and mixing it with a zombie-like infection approach makes this one an original and enjoyable film. Plenty of red-stuff for the goreheads out there, and the fast-pace keeps it interesting and entertaining. Also, the police chief has some great one-liners - keep an ear out for him as well. Definitely worth a look for cannibal/zombie/gore fans...8.5/10


This is one of my personal favorites,great gore, good music, cinematography and of course John Morghan and Tony King's insane over the top performances. Overall a neat flick, and the gore rules! dig that shotgun blast to the stomach effect!


Part zombie, part cannibal, part gore equals full of crap. Come on...it just doesn't work. Commando Norman Hopper(John Saxon)rescues a couple of Vietnam POWs who contracted a rare disease that compels them to consume human flesh. One of the soldiers, Charlie Bukowski(John Morghen)bites Hopper in the rescue. War hero Hopper will be plagued with cannibal instincts fighting their way to the surface. Bukowski escapes from a veteran's psychiatric hospital and immediately goes into relapse and a gory rampage begins. A gun battle with police will comprise the meat (no pun intended)of the movie. An overload of ridiculous profanity doesn't succeed in shocking anyone...just laughable. Special effects are just as hilarious. Also in the cast: Elizabeth Turner, Wallace Wilkinson, Tony King and May Heatherly.


Norman Hopper (the great John Saxon) is on a mission to save Prisiners of war while on a tour of duty in Vietnam. He and his men find the POWs, but they seem to have been overwhelmed by cannibalism and one bites Hopper on the arm. This turns out to be a recurring nightmare that Norman has of his time in that war. Later that afternoon he receives a call from an old war buddy who's in a bind. He pays it no mind, until he gets wind that his same friend is going nuts and hold up in a department store, which prompts Hopper to go down there in an attempt to talk him down. Seems they've both been infected with a disease that makes one crave human flesh and is transmitted through biting. Soon Hopper, himself, joins in the havoc been wrecked. This could have been an alright film, but a shoddy script and less than convincing acting (Saxon excluded obviously), brings this one down, the long stretches of boredom don't help either. I think the last line off the film puts it best: "Call the chief and tell him this nightmare is over". Nightmare indeed. Eye Candy: a hint of Cinzia De Carolis's bush & an unknown extras bares left tit

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Uncut edition; 54 minute "Cannibal Apocalypse Redux" featurette; 6 & a half minute tour of filming locations; Poster & Stills gallery; Cast and crew filmographies; 8 minute Alternate American opening; Text essay detailing the butchering of the film; and European & Japanese theatrical trailers

3 Easter Eggs: go to the extras menu and there's an invisible bone over the guys tongue, click on it for the film's original theatrical trailer; Go to the filmographies menu highlight 'John Saxon' and press right for the original theatrical trailer for "La ragazza che sa-peva troppo" ; now highlight 'John Morghen' and press left for the original theatrical trailer of "Make Them Die Slowly"


(aka: Cannibal Apocalypse)

Finally an uncut version instead of the bastardized VHS tape that Vestron put out so many years ago. The censors took this film WAY too seriously in order to give it an R raring.

This film is so laughingly bad that it's hilarious. Breasts get bit off, tongues get bit off in such a funny, cheesy way that I couldn't contain myself. And I don't think that's what Margheriti expected, so I was wondering if he experienced the same kind of reaction from the audience when he first screened this film back in 1980. Now that WOULD be interesting.

At least this is nowhere near as vulgar and gross as the garbage Unberto Lenzi and Ruggero Deodatro filmed in the Amazon(?) because CANNIBAL APOCALYPSE comes across in so campy and implausible that it defies any kind of belief in reality, whatsoever.

Plus, the DVD also has plenty of interview extras and film clips that wind up almost being as long as the film itself. Never seen a DVD that had that much extra playing time before, so be prepared.

The plot consists of Vietnam vets coming back from the war carrying a virus that turns whoever they bite into a cannibal. Pretty soon, half of Atlanta is eating each other. (laughing)

Well almost...

I'll give it a 4 out of 10 for inspiring a few laughs


Antonio Margheriti passed away in the late 2002 but his works in the field of Italian horror and exploitation cinema will not die in the hearts of their admirers. War film L'Ultimo cacciatore (aka: The Last Hunter, 1980) and cannibal tale Apocalypse domani (aka: Cannibal Apocalypse, 1980) are probably the two best (known) films that he directed. They are both extremely exploitive and violent and also both written by Dardano Sacchetti who wrote most of the Fulci masterpieces like Zombie (1979), The Gates of Hell (aka: City of the Living Dead, 1980), The Beyond (1981) among films for other directors like Lamberto Bava and his Demoni (1985) and Demoni 2 (1986).

Cannibal Apocalypse stars the b movies favourite John Saxon and Giovanni Lombardo Radice who is a small legend in the field of Italian exploitation cinema. He has acted in Fulci's Gates of Hell and even more notably in Umberto Lenzi's sicko cannibal flick Cannibal Ferox (1982) that he also hates the most nowadays! Saxon and Radice (the latter known also as John Morghen) are Vietnam veterans that suffer from a strange virus originating from the war field: cannibalism and the need for human flesh and some gut munching. In the city, this naturally causes trouble as Radice is the active one and Saxon only trying not to accept what his teeth and hands more and more desire and eventually they find themselves on the run and contaminating more and more people with the virus and their hunger. It spreads as wildly and rapidly as the zombie virus in Romero's zombie films, and thus Italian zombie films, too!

So what a rip off of a plot but this way they were. These films, Cannibal Apocalypse being a very noteworthy example, are nothing but exploitation and attempts to cash in some bucks and throw a movie that is even more violent and sleazy than the previous one. The Italian cannibal/zombie genre has some real masterpieces and serious pieces like Ruggero Deodato's harrowing 1979 masterpiece Cannibal Holocaust that is as important and topical in its message about humanity and media than it was back then. Naturally the film caused a hystery due to its sadistic and graphic (but not gratuitous) violence and many producers and directors started to rip that film off in order to "satisfy" the audience that liked the violence in Deodato's film so much even though that is definitely not even the film's point, it is its theme, and everyone watching Holocaust because of its violence are closer to the film's message than they could have ever (dared to) thought. Lenzi did his Ferox and Eaten Alive (1980) and they are nothing but mindless gore and some laughable attempts to give the film some kind of a meaning and importance which means lines and bits of dialogue taken straightly from Deodato's film, especially in the case of Ferox.

Cannibal Apocalypse has a little different setting as it takes place in urban jungle and in the big city, not in the jungle with wild animals and natives. The film has sadly very few positive cinematic merits and even the soundtrack that is usually very effective in these films (Fabio Frizzi with Fulci and Riz Ortolani with Deodato) is at times very awful and almost laughably cheesy disco-something attempt that makes the imagery even more painful to follow. But the soundtrack has some genuinely creepy bits too and that is more than nice. The cinematography is nothing special nor the editing and all they did very carefully and with 100% interest were naturally the close ups to the gory details in the spirit of exploitation cinema.

The carnage on screen is pretty strong and thus this film cannot be recommended to anyone else than a hardcore fan of the genre. There are some now "legendary" scenes like the shotgun blast at the end and the sadistically long tongue ripping scene that really makes it clear what is the reason for this film's existence. The most insanely sick Italian sleaze gore hell I've seen so far is Aristide Massaccesi's (aka: Joe D'Amato) 1979 film Buio Omega aka Beyond the Darkness that has some of the nastiest ideas ever in the history of cinema. The effects in Apocalypse are by Giannetto de Rossi who began his remarkable career with Spanish director Jorge Grau and his atmospheric zombie piece Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue aka Let Sleeping Corpses Lie in 1974 and worked alot with Lucio Fulci and his zombies, too.

It is interesting to hear the makers' own opinions on these (low) films nowadays, now that most of the directors have retired and are old men, and the actors also aging but still possibly in the business. John Morghen has some very straight opinions on these films he's acted in as he says they are very sick and he doesn't like them at all. He admits that Lenzi was the most "violent" one and "liked violence very much" which I hope is not as true in real life as it could be (Lenzi seems like a very nice old guy to me.) Margheriti himself was very proud of this film and also mentioned plenty of times that Quentin Tarantino himself has liked Cannibal Apocalypse (same kind of comment about Q has been said by Lenzi, too!).

The fact is Cannibal Apocalypse is pretty inept in any serious and cinematically noteworthy level lacking almost all the atmospheric wonders of Fulci and being visually very uninteresting too. Still Cannibal Apocalypse has a place in the minds, hearts and shelves of the enthusiasts of Italian (exploitation) horror cinema which still has MUCH more noteworthy and greater pieces to offer and thankfully so.

Cannibal Apocalypse is also a little too long running 96 minutes in NTSC speed. No need for that as nothing interesting or important is included in most of those minutes. For example, the final sewer chase sequence is painfully long. Beware the epilogue again, though! 3/10


Years ago, Vestron released this on U.S. home video as INVASION OF THE FLESH HUNTERS, in case you've wondered why there's too many alternate names listed for it. This one deserves a fatality because it is extremely out of focus! Watching people nibble on human flesh does look nasty at times, despite the poorly translated U.S. release having had the excess gore cut. The big problem is that it fails to recognize itself as a bone-chilling horror show. A lengthy police stand-off scene and some action-based elements have nothing to do with its supposed frightful imagery. Adding to the frustration is that these "cannibals" are compared exactly to vampires! Very bad scripting and directing jobs succumb this "nightmare of terror". Unless you've seen this film elsewhere in the world that had extra gory material in it, you might have liked it. I looked forward to seeing and enjoying this one, and I guess that's too bad!


This video nastie was eventually released in Britain with 2 seconds cut. Those two seconds must have had all of the action because there was really nothing left in this movie that would qualify it as a nasty.

Some Vietnam soldiers are trapped in a cage and they get an opportunity to gnaw on some flesh. That is the only nudity you see in the film - 2 seconds. One of them bites his Captain's (John Saxon) arm when being rescued and he has the dormant virus that will come to haunt him in later years.

For some reason, the two soldiers never fully recover and they go on a rampage that is tame by cannibal standards. The police end up chasing them all in a sewer, but our hero escapes and puts on his uniform for an honorable death.

You can be sure they did not get them all, but I don't know if there was an Apocalypse II.


### Warning: small spoilers will follow..###. Cannibal Apocalypse (the most popular title out of its 20 alternate ones) is one of the most banned and heaviest cut movies in the world. Yet, if you look beyond its vicious reputation and the nasty sounding title, you'll discover than it's in fact a lot more than just another sleazy Italian horror film. Apocalypse is deeper and more clever than it looks and I was pleasantly surprised by the professionalism of the screenplay. The film asked itself the same question I was wavering. `How does a strictly social ritual, such as cannibalism, grows out to become a contagious disease?' Of course, you don't get a waterproof explanation for this but at least I feel like Antonio Margheriti and his crew tried their best to add range, debt and plot-thickening aspects. The ultra-charismatic and underrated actor John Saxon (really, I'm 100% heterosexual, but this man IS handsome!) plays Norman Hopper, a traumatized Vietnam veteran. Along with two fellow soldiers, he brought back a hugely disturbing virus that spreads cannibalism in the streets of Atlanta.

True, Cannibal Apocalypse does contain a few tedious sequences but these are rapidly forgotten whilst looking at other and highly exiting scenes. Apocalypse opens with a brilliant and truly atmospheric Vietnam flashback and further in the film there's a compelling hostage-situation in a flea market (which is obviously influenced by Romero's Dawn of the Dead). Apocalypse doesn't feature an overload of nauseating gore or explicit violence. Especially not when compared to some of its namesakes, like Cannibal Ferox, Jungle Holocaust, Eaten Alive or Mountain of the Cannibal God. Still, some make-up effects in this film are  although cheesy  rather hard to digest. People's faces are being blown of by shotguns and there even is one scene in which a body gets entirely hacked up with a grinding-machine! Plus, for the real gorehounds amongst you, there's a gruesome eyeball moment as well (Seriously, what's with all Italian directors and there obsession for eyeball-terror??). As mentioned before, the starring of John Saxon surely increases the status of this film. His grimaces stay impressive throughout the whole movie. Also starring is Giovanni Lombardo Radice. This guy has one of the coolest careers in cinema ever, seeing he also appeared in milestone titles like Fulci's `City of the Living Dead', `Cannibal Ferox' and Rugero Deodato's `House on the Edge of the Park'. Lombardo Radice always ends up horribly butchered and Cannibal Apocalypse isn't an exception to this!! I'd say Cannibal Apocalypse is a eurohorror adventure for the more experienced fans who have seen enough plot-less, overrated cannibal shockers. Perhaps they'll appreciate the efforts Margheriti did here. Give it a try.


Likeable film from science fiction turned action director Margheriti. Cannibal Apocalypse features a lot of gore and violence in the fashion of Margheriti's older horror films FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD FOR DRACULA. One of the only cannibal flicks to come out of Italy in the late 70's, early 80's which was not set in the jungle, but instead in some American city! Good camerawork at times, decent music by Alexander Blonksteiner, and a reasonably cool cast all give this its share of entertainment value. Good for gore in the last 20 minutes or so, while most of the action is confined to the short intro sequence in Viet Nam (which was decently well done). Passable, satisfying cannibal film, still does not hold a candle to Cannibal Holocaust.


Cannibal Apocalypse is an important Italian horror film as it marks the successful fusion of the two most successful Italian sub-genres; zombies and cannibals. The plot follows a vicious virus brought back to America by three soldiers returning from Vietnam; only it's not your usual virus. Instead of turning it's victims into mindless zombies; it leaves the afflicted aware of their situation, albeit with a hunger for human flesh. Cannibal Apocalypse isn't the movie that you would expect it to be. Even though it's been cut and banned many times, the gore isn't all that nasty, or frequent; with only a few sequences really hitting the 'disgusting' mark. The film is much more intelligent than the usual cannibal nonsense, as it explores themes such as Vietnam veterans returning into society, and turns the tables on Dawn of the Dead's social commentary. It analyses it's points with a sly grin on it's face, however, and it's clear that none of the points are being made with any real conviction; but Antonio Margheriti has shown with previous movies (Dance Macabre, The Virgin of Nuremberg) that he's too clever for merely making a movie about cannibals - and that's the main reason why Cannibal Apocalypse offers more.

The film benefits massively from the presence of John Saxon. This hardworking and criminally underrated actor leads the film with relish, and adds massively to the final spectacle; even if the man himself refuses to see this film. He is joined by cult actor Giovanni Lombardo Radice, who has worked with many of the great Italian directors, including the likes of Lucio Fulci, Umberto Lenzi and Michele Soavi. The plotting of the film is well paced, and despite a few lapses; is generally exciting throughout. Tributes to Dawn of the Dead, along with Fulci's Zombi 2 are rampant throughout; the best, of which being a sequence inside a flea market - good stuff! Margheriti's direction is as assured, as you would expect, and even if he's not quite an Argento or Bava; he's definitely among the elite of the lesser-known Italian directors. The fact that this movie is mostly set in a city sets it apart from most of the rest of the cannibal films, which tend to take place in the jungle. On the whole, this certainly isn't one of the best movies ever made; but it's a lot of fun, and won't disappoint fans of Italian horror. Recommended.


In 1996 Mario 64 was released a Sega bleed a little, with Saturns inferior 3D graphic hardware and the cancellation of Sonic Xtreme, it left Sega in a state of shock. But with the impressive specs of they're upcoming Dreamcast system, the Sonic Team was full able to utilize its hardware. Considered the be the best, not only in sales, game in the Dreamcast library, it helped set the graphical standard years ahead of its time. This game, sales rivaling that of Halo, was popular enough to spawn a sequel, a TV series (sonicX) and a soundtrack. My friends are still fooled by its graphics, they think this game was made recently.It still is and will always be my favorite game.


I am a huge Sonic fan, and after all the fun Genesis games came out, I thought that they couldn't possibly get any better. I was wrong. The debut of 128 bits of graphics on the Sega Dreamcast was the greatest.

The action stages were amazing and I loved the fact that they had adventure fields, so I could run around and talk to people just for the hell of it. There were also different objectives for different characters in the action stages, which made it that much more interesting. Also, the story lines conflict with each other perfectly.

One huge drawback is Big the Cat. His story was awful. His missions included fishing for his friend, Froggy. The fishing was tough and not much fun. Another thing that bothered me a little was that every character (not including sonic) had only 5 action stages or less. They were fun as hell, but I wish that they were longer.

Overall, I recommend this game. If you don't have it, you are missing out on one of the greatest Sonic games ever to be made. I've gone through it five times and it's been loads of fun every time. I give it a 9.5/10 (Only reason it's not 10/10 is because of Big and the fishing)


This would be a compelling and scary film if it were fiction. But it is in fact, a docudrama based on the worrisome events of the Quebec crisis of 1970. Canadians adulate Pierre Trudeau but forget that he was the one who unleashed a police state on a free country. (We never learn, do we? We did it to the Ukranians in World War I, to the Japanese in World War II and now to Arabs and Muslims. But I digress.) "Les Ordres" captures the gritty reality of working class Montreal with stark black and white footage, punctuated with occasional but effective colour. It takes the unusual but also effective step of having the actors discuss the people they play within the body of the film.

I was left with an understanding of how something like the Gestapo can come about in a civilized society if police are given unfettered powers. The Quebec police and the RCMP came very close to the Gestapo model. Although there were no significant abuses outside Quebec, the law applied to all of Canada. I was a broadcaster in Toronto at the time and it was frightening to realize that for a time freedom of the press did not exist in Canada. This is a powerful and compelling work that deserves wider exposure. It also should be shown in schools as a fundamental example and a discussion starter on the importance of civil rights and the fragility of freedom.


This film takes place in the infamous 1970 October crisis in Québec. After a separatist movement kidnapped a minister of the government, the army is in the streets of Montreal and makes hundreds and hundreds of arrest, with the help of the police. The arrested are students, activists, syndicalists, but also people who ''look'' strange, are at the wrong place at the wrong time and really don't have anything to do with the situation..... This film shows the complete lost of control of the Canadian government (Pierre.E. Trudeau) and how they orchestrated their plan of making all separatist look like terrorist...

The acting of 'Jean Lapointe' as a textile worker and taxi driver is incredible...

In my opinion, this film ranks with Costa-Gavras's ''Z'' and the infamous 'Battaglia di Algeri' of Gillo Pontecorvo, as the top 3 best political movies of all times..... A must see!


This movie is not about action, it is not about special effects, it is about injustice. The persons portrayed in this movie did not die, nor did they suffer tremendous pain. But, for no valid reason, their liberty was taken from them because of the law instated to counter terrorist acts happening during "la crise d'octobre". You cannot compare this movie to a war film because it isn't, neither can it be compared to a drama because it is not that either. It is made in a documentary structure, sometimes showing us the people involved, sometimes, showing us the impressions of the actors playing them, and how they were disturbed by the whole idea.

This movie is based on testimonies of people detained without recourse during the crisis of October 1970. This film is meant as a reminder for everyone that, as much a government can be civilized, as much it can abuse its power to protect itself with fear.

If you watch this movie, do not expect twists and turns, do not expect violence, do not expect special effects... do not expect anything but humanity. The mere fact that someone can be deprived from freedom, even just for a few days, can leave a sour taste. I don't think this movie was made to be a statement, but rather to be disturbing, as the events it tells.


One of the great engaged movie of the seventies. This a real drama with its atmosphere from such a Kafka. The filming is very simple and precise. The actors are convincing and sincere. This particular way of sharing movie and documentary is very interesting and powerful. Michel Brault gave us once a cinema lesson in the University of Québec in Montréal. He told us to direct movie with the stomach, not only with the head. So I realized that even a great director like him could create through emotions more than spirit. So feel the movie and you'll discover soon enough what you understood through the movie. For every person who loved this movie, I recommend "Punishment Park" directed the same year by an English guy in USA, Peter Watkins. You can find this rare movie on IMDb.


It really happened. it was October 1970. Wartime law was voted in Canada. Not Bosnia, not Congo, not Cosovo, not Albania. Canada. At dawn, 400 individuals were arrested in Montréal and held in jail for weeks without charges nor explanation. This masterpiece by Michel Brault tells about it. Wether you see it to understand current canadian news or to reflect on freedom or to see an excellent thriller, I doubt you'll regret it. A must for communication students.


This movie lasted 109 min. and already around 5 min. into it I was bored!! I really sat through 109 min. of just wanting something to happen, but nothing did. Maybe this movie is good for people interested in the event that took place in 1970, but as I knew nothing about it, it didn't appeal to me. I had hoped that a good ending would come in and save the movie, but I was let down there as well! I have seen loads of movies and have voted for over 370 movies here at IMDb, some of my favorites being "Schindler's list", "Limelight", "Breaking the waves", "Awakenings", "Fried green tomatoes", "The green mile", "Legends of the fall", "Saving private Ryan", etc., so it's not that I don't like this type of film (drama), on the contrary. I've started viewing more and more drama instead of just lame Hollywood blockbuster action flicks, but this movie was extremely boring and slow. It wasn't terrible, but REALLY bad! No more than 2 out of 10 from me!


The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: "This is almost too beautiful." And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does.


THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.

Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.

I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.

The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.

With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.

So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008.


From the filmmakers who brought us The March of the Penguins, I guess that came with plenty of expectations for The Fox and the Child. From the harsh winters of the South Pole to the lush wilderness in France, the narrative now becomes part documentary and part fairy tale, which tells of the friendship between the two titular characters, Renard the fox and its friendship with the child who christened it, played by Bertille Noel-Beuneau.

The story's frankly quite simple, and at times this movie would have looked like the many Japanese movies which children-miscellaneous animals striking a friendship after the development of trust, and how they go about hanging around each other, dealing with respective adversaries and the likes. Here, the child meets the elegant fox near her home up in the mountains, which provide for plenty of beautiful picture-postcard perfect shots that a cinematographer will have to go into overdrive to capture.

But while we indulge in wistful scenery, the characters don't get to establish that level of trust from the onset, and we have to wait a few seasons to past, and 45 minutes into the film, before they find a leveler in food. The child persistently attempts at striking a bond with the objective of taming the creature for her own amusement, but the fox, well, as other notions of course. While I thought the narrative was pretty weak, unlike March of the Penguins which has that human narrative interpretation of what's happening on screen, what excelled here were the documentary elements of the movie, tracing the life and times of the fox as both a predator, and a prey.

Between the two, more tension and drama was given to the latter, especially when dealing with traditional foes like wolves, and granted, those sequences were fairly intense especially when the child got embroiled in it. Otherwise, it was plain sailing and quite a bore as the two of them go about their playing with each other, in shots that you know have undergone some movie magic editing. There were surprisingly dark moments in the movie that weren't really quite suitable for children, as those in the same hall attested to it by bawling their eyes out suddenly, so parents, you might want to take note and not let your toddler disturb the rest of the movie goers.

As a film, I would've preferred this to be a complete documentary ala The March of the Penguins, but I guess the way it was resented, probably had the objective of warning us not to meddle with nature, and that some things are just not meant to be, and should stay as such. Decent movie that leaned on the strength of the chemistry between Bertille Noel- Bruneau, and the multiple foxes that played Renard.


Maybe I'm biased to foxes, fox stories and all but I thought this was wonderfully done.

I really enjoyed that it was shown when Lily wasn't comfortable, such as the fire and the room (trying not to spoil too much here). I think that's important for kids to see and try to understand.

After reading a few others comments I'm a bit confused, one says that at the end -spoiler- the mother and her son appear, as she's been the one telling her son about her story. The movie I saw did NOT have the mother or son at the end, merely a painting of a girl with a fox. Can someone enlighten me on that? Anyway I really enjoyed this movie, although some scenes can be a bit slow which might be difficult for high energy kids to sit through. Still worth it if they can sit still.


Watching "The Fox and the Child" was an intoxicating experience. The lush visuals, integrity of point of view, and utter beauty of the setting and characters left me in a swoon of pleasure.

The plot is uncomplicated. Deceptively simple. Within the container of that simplicity a world unfolds that draws you in and leaves you breathless.

I laughed. I wept. I learned.

This is a movie you can trust yourself to -- give yourself over to. Dare I say it is an act of love intended for any innocent heart. It reaches to the heart of the viewer--of any age--and reveals the world through new eyes, as if seen from the heart.

Adi Da Samraj once said that true Art draws the viewer beyond point of view into ecstatic participation in Reality. I feel I have been privileged to watch--no, to participate in--this film, a work of true Art.


A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.

Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.

But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing.


I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.

Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.

Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating.


This is a very beautiful and almost meditative film-there is hardly any dialogue in it, apart from the narration; and the scenery and music compliment each other perfectly. I didn't at first connect the red hair of the girl and the fox until it was pointed out to me by a friend (who also has red hair!) It is almost an old fashioned type of children's films, saying that children nowadays prefer animations like Shrek or Toy Story etc-but I feel that young people should be introduced more to the beauty and wonder of nature which this film certainly does. Maybe not the best ever film of its type but certainly an excellent and relaxing view for all ages -not just children.


'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.

There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.

Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.

The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.

While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.

- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au


This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing.

I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.


There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.

I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.

Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.

The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.

The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.

But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10

P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will.


At the beginning of the movie, the beautiful photography and the scenes of the fox were amazing. However, the story was so very slow and boring. And then the little girl begins to domesticate the fox, which leads to tragic events. We live in the forest, and frequently see foxes. One thing anyone should know is that you leave wild animals to be wild, and enjoy them from afar. This movie sets a terrible example to the children who will be watching it, in trying to make a wild creature into a pet. I do not know what the point of the story was supposed to be. Even after the terrible events with the main fox, the little girl was still wanting to play with the kits. Does she never learn her lesson? And there are other scenes featuring predator animals to the fox, which only adds to the trauma inflicted on children watching this movie. What a disappointment this movie was. And what a horrible story it tells. The final narrated dialog was so stupid, by which time my wife and I were screaming at the TV! I absolutely hated this movie, and would never recommend it to anyone!


I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.


I just can't believe all the nasty comments about this movie. Everybody seems to think this movie actually has to measure up to the classic with Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't even claim to. IT'S A TV MOVIE FOLKS!! Indeed for a TV movie it does a good job. It has a great cast. The acting is actually very good. Pernell Roberts, in an extreme departure from his Bonanza role, steals the show. His Marshall Ward is the the quintessential villain that you love to hate. Nasty and cool at the same time. In a slightly smaller role, J.A. Preston does a great job of portraying the conflicted black man who assists Ward in tracking down the good guys. The always reliable David Carradine is quite likable as the one-time outlaw who makes you root for him. Much criticism is directed toward Lee Majors' acting in the other comments. "Stiff?" "One dimensional?" Has Majors ever been accused of being a Shakespearean actor? He is Lee Majors. The guy who plays quiet strong characters and relies on his looks for likability. Within that limited range, he is very good. I can see why he was picked to portray the same strong and quiet Will Kane that Gary Cooper portrayed in the original.

I have only two little problems with this picture. First, the original happens at high noon, thus the title. This one establishes neither the climax nor any major part of the plot as occurring in midday. Having failed to do so and still retaining the High Noon title it does open itself up to the unfair criticism of being a rip off of the original. My other issue with this movie is with the ward-robe folks who dressed Majors in almost the same outfit as he wore as Heath Barkley in The Big Valley. That, in my opinion, makes it a bit more difficult for us to accept him as Will Kane. The characters make frequent verbal references to the original High Noon story, so there is a deliberate effort here to make us remember it. Therefore, dressing Majors in a darker outfit reminiscent of Cooper's Will Kane would have served far more effectively to help us make the necessary emotional connection to the original.

If you want to watch a deep drama with a lot of character development you will be disappointed. In fact characters mostly start the same and are the same at the end of the story. What little character development there is happens with Preston's Alonzo. Also, the aforementioned references to the original seem to be merely a buildup to re-examining, albeit too briefly, the courage (or lack thereof) of the town folks who left Kane alone in his predicament in the first story. Here, was an opportunity lost when the filmmakers shortchanged us By not expanding enough on that particular point.

If you want to watch the simple story of an incident in a western genre that's done well you will not feel robbed of two hours of your life. All in all, this is an entertaining western which I would not mind, if ever on DVD, purchasing and placing right next to my cherished copy of the original.


I enjoyed the movie very much. I thought Lee Majors captured the essence of Will Kane better than Gary Cooper. David Carradine was great as a likable, not so bad, not so good, down on his luck guy, who wasn't real particular about the letter of the law. Bonanza's "Adam" was a particularly unlikable bad guy as the law officer who conducted himself and the duties of his office to satisfy his own personal greed and needs. The theme of a wrong, for which the good guy seeks recompense, was good and evident throughout the movie, as it evolved into a theme of "standing up to evil." Lee Majors was great as Will Kane, just trying to do right and finally not being able to walk away from evil, knowing he had what it takes to fight it.


The only thing I could find about this movie that I liked was the performance of Lee Majors. He carried the part very well, but the entire movie had a lot of disappointing acts. They shot at each other and missed too many times. Marshal Ward was suppose to be such a good shot to make such misses at still targets. He had hit Harlan Tyler on a running horse at about 400 yards and before that he had killed another running rider early in the picture. He then missed Will Kane and Ben Irons sitting still at a closer distance, several times. The in-town action was much better than the outdoor scenes. The early scene with Will Kane sitting at a table without a gun talking tough to Irons and Tyler was too unbelievable, I'm sure they would have noticed he wasn't wearing a gun long before he got up out of the chair. However, at the end of the movie Will is wearing his gun in a vest holster. So confusing. Irons later admitted that he had never killed anyone, so why was he willing to kill Will Kane? Movies need to be more realistic especially westerns. This director, Jerry Jameson would be well advised to watch Lonesome Dove before he directs anymore Western movies.


HIGH NOON PT. 2 (BRING ON THE DISAPPOINTMENT) There really isn't an adequate way to describe how terrible this movie was. I believe in a fair system of evaluating movies: that they have certain goals in mind and try their very hardest to achieve them. The single goal of this movie was to point out events that happened in the plot line of the original High Noon through stale and unbelievable situations, as much as possible, as to conceal its completely lack of meaningful dialog or purpose in general. As a standalone movie, it failed to have any semblance of an interesting plot. As a sequel, it completely rejected the motivations of the characters in the original movie, reducing the cinematic experience to, "suffer through the terrible dialog for 5 minutes until a gunfight occurs". If only a few words or a single phrase could convey how completely vacuous this movie is, then this review would definitely be paragraphs shorter and most likely contain a few expletives.

Will Kane (the fake one, Lee Majors) comes back to Hadleyville with his not-as-hot-as-Grace-Kelley bride Amy Kane (Katherine Cannon) with the intent of setting up a small cattle farm, with some horses here, and some cows and bulls there. Lacking any explained or implied purpose or intent, three villains decide to come to town in a fashion that is strangely plagiarized (and far better executed) by the original High Noon. Ben Irons (David Carradine), the main outlaw, is hunted down by the new Marshal of the town (Michael Pataki) and his posse, setting in motion a not-so-epic struggle that could have easily been resolved by never making this film in the first place. In a strange twist of foundational beliefs, Kane decides to wield a gun whenever possible and shoot people to the tunes of the awfully compiled soundtrack. Jerry Jameson, the director, should have taken a second of his time to realize that he should have opted out of butchering the sequel to such a great movie and quit his dead-end job at the prestigious USA Film studios, if not only to spare his future audiences from torture that could possibly be used to extract valuable information from the inmates at Guantanamo bay. "Tell us the truth or you will be forced to watch this movie!" Usually movies rely on nuanced cinematography and great acting to create an interesting story that an audience would actually surrender some of their valuable time to watch. Apparently USA Studios went ahead and skipped this chapter in the book entitled "how not to make a bomb of a movie". The only way High Noon Pt. 2 could produce drama was by putting some poorly written, 80's syn th music on top of the action. You know, the kind of music that makes you want to vomit and throw away that old Casio you have been storing in your closet for decades. Apparently mentioning important events in the previous High Noon was not enough to make this movie interesting, and dramatic "DUN DUN DUNS" and "SHREEK SHREEKS" needed to be added to jar the audience into submission. "Oh no, please don't do this to me," I kept screaming as the fake Kane plunged into dialog about "how he needed to get back at the new marshal." My efforts to somehow use my shrieking voice to alter the soundtrack on the magnetic VHS tape were in vain, and I nearly suffered a few mortal wounds. Fortunately, I was able to return the movie to the Hollywood video drop-off box two hours after viewing it, saying my last "thank you" to the legacy of High Noon sell-out movies that need to be quickly forgotten. If you want more heartaches, try the 80's remake of the original High Noon. I swear, the purple pill isn't going to save you this time.

Most of this review has contained ambiguous bad-mouthing that does not confront the terrible reality of the movie itself. I'll fix that in the flick of a wand! Remember the original High Noon, where Will Kane was a reluctant hero who did the right thing and fought Miller to the death? Say goodbye. Kane takes part in a series of events that run contrary to his "no violence unless absolutely necessary" beliefs, shifting the movie from an allegory about political persecution into a poorly executed Western that completely relies on gunfighting to entertain the audience. Kane fights the new Marshal a number of times, shooting back and forth, never getting hit, utilizing almost every bankrupt Western movie convention known to humanity. Instead of leaving you with the message that you need to stand up for yourself when outside pressures become overwhelming, this film lets you know that violence is always the answer, even when it comes to deciding whether someone is innocent or not. Why ask questions if you can just shoot people? High Noon pt. 2 failed to live up to its own standards, and was so incredibly bad and unwatchable that it descended beyond the point of being "so bad that its actually funny" to become "two hours of pain that will not be easily forgotten". The specifics of the plot are not even worthy of discussion, because at best they were completely ripped from the original film, or taken straight from the journal of a screenwriter who has the same ability to tell stories as a veteran who can't get over a war. "One day, back in 'Nam" becomes "One day, back in High Noon the original". Please, do not see this film. If you happen to start a class action lawsuit against USA Studios for releasing it, please notify me so I can sign up my name along with as many fake names as I can possibly think of.


I hated this movie when I watched it, and after watching it again now I know why I hate it so much.

High Noon, Part II: The Return of Will Kane had virtually nothing to do with the original High Noon. It cashed in in the original to give us a title character and that was about all. Near the beginning we get a gratuitous slaughter of a pen full of horses as the bounty hunter tries to catch a guy he knows could not have committed the crime he's charged with. Since the guy is in with the horses, just shoot the horses to find the guy, right? I wasn't angry with the guy who shot the horses, I was angry that the writer and producer thought that disgusting and unnecessary scene would be worth including in the movie. I don't care that they of course didn't REALLY shoot the horses, it was still gratuitously sick. It didn't make me hate the bad guy (which he earned on his own), it made me hate the movie. And, it never got any better afterward.

Lee Majors as Will Kane was horrible. Talk about a stiff, cardboard, unsympathetic portrayal. Pernell Roberts came across as the biggest jerk on the planet. Sure, you're not supposed to like the 'bad guy' but in this case it went beyond 'dislike' to 'I despise this movie because the bad guy is so annoying.' (Actually, Richard Jaeckel, Skip Homeier and Richard Boone played numerous bad guys who I still enjoyed watching even though I wanted them to 'get theirs'.) I don't know how Majors or Roberts has ever been a success in acting; neither of them can play a character I care one iota about.

I think though that I could tolerate Majors and Roberts and the storyline a lot better if there wasn't this tenuous attempt to connect this story with High Noon. It could have stood on its own as a story and in my opinion would have been much better had it been a story in its own right than with the attempted High Noon tie-in. Lee Majors compared to Gary Cooper is like Tom Selleck compared to Clark Gable. This movie's biggest annoyance is that they tried to cash in on the name of a classic Western, for no good reason. Now, if we saw a much older Will Kane having to face the sons of the men he had to kill, that would be a relevant story to make a Part II; this however is ruined by trying to make the connection. I'm changing my '1' rating to a '4', but really this was a very misguided effort.


I saw the original "High Noon" more then 100 times. In fact I re-scheduled my first marriage so as to fit it in. I consider "High Noon" (1952) to be the best movie I every watched. As for "High Noon, Part II, The Return of Will Kane" I firmly believe that it was a true waste of valuable film and a gross waste of money in making it. "Plan 9 from Outer Space," often talked about as being the worst movie ever made, was, in my mind, a far better movie, although I think its director, Ed Wood, would have brought considerable talent to the making of "High Noon Part II."

Bottom line...compared to, "High Noon Part II," "Plan 9" was a monumental screen success and money well spent by the Baptist community in producing it.


If I had to pay to see this alleged movie, I would have contacted a Lawyer for my money back. Any resemblance to the real Will Kane is purely a coincidence. Low Noon!, should be the title!


I searched the several dictionaries I have available to me at my office and came up with at least 40 adjectives that would have "added and reinforced" my one line statement above. But I felt adding, "and that's a gross understatement" would give you a clear and brief picture of my thoughts on this 1980 TV disaster...!

I apologize if I have offended any of you who felt the TV rendition was even worse then what I indicated above...!


Great story on several levels of ripoffs, backstabbing and deception. Perfectly acted parody of LA life, very funny and understated. Excellent performances especially from the 3 actresses - Lucy Alexis Liu, Talisa Sota, and Sadie Frost. Very much in the same vein as '2 Days in the Valley' (1996). Some strange sex scenes and the violence is almost comical. 3 separate but interconnected story lines occurring on a sunny LA day centered around 1 million dollars in cash, inspire the quirky characters to commit a litany of depraved and devious acts. Not a well known movie, but a little gem if you can track it down - well worth watching.


Okay, I'm pretty sure I am the only person in the entire world who liked that movie. And no, before you ask, I'm not a die-hard Lucy Liu fan. Admittedly, this movie was riddled with problems, but I think Quentin Tarantino said it best when he commented on Brian DePalma's "Bonfire of the Vanities" that it takes a director of quality to make a truly disastrous film. A hack wouldn't doesn't take the risks that failed to pay off in Flypaper. That being said, I have to wonder why a film like Flypaper falls so hard when films like "The Unbelievable Truth" launch a prolific career and a borderline cult following. Though the two films are as different as night and day, they both spring from the same impulse: stepping outside a genre and examining it outside the confines of illusionism. For all the griping that goes on about unoriginal, cookie-cutter genre pieces, shouldn't we have just a little generosity when a director has the guts to break the mold? Personally, I was hooked after the very first scene. Anyone can be outrageous. Anyone can be true-to-life. Combining the two takes brass balls, and Klaus Hoch has got him. For sure he's willing to throw a bucket of gratuitous sex and violence in our face, but, believe it or not, there is something rustling behind the curtains in Flypaper. No, we are not supposed to take anything anyone says in the film without a whopping grain of salt. That's part of the point. Every single character is a walking contradiction, a grotesque hybrid of celluloid and flesh. But -God help me, I know this is where I'll lose you- isn't that what it's always been about? We go to the movies. We rent DVDs. We sit back and watch human beings transformed (at best) into morons and (at worst) objects. It's a twisted zero-sum game, and it mirrors real life in ways we don't even want to think about. Flypaper is compared unfavorably with Pulp Fiction and various Cohen Brother films, perhaps because there is no warmth or adulation, no well-thought-out view from nowhere. Essence absolutely refuses to precede existence. These characters are going to do some very stupid, pointless things, and there is no redemption, no "correct" path for them to return to, not even a solid realization of their sad, silly condition.


the way this movie begins is very odd, but then again, so is the movie, but it's a GOOD odd. One of the catchiest lines in the movie was "when you F*ck a duck it's hard on the duck, so you have to break it's neck when you're done. you can't f*ck a duck and let it live" There was a good group of actors and actresses in this title, and I don't really recall it out in the theaters. I have been looking to pick this movie up at best buy, but it's not available there. Sadie Frost is totally hot in this movie, and her running around in panties and a tank top after a drug/alcohol induced stupor was pretty hot.

but the genius in this movie lies in the story itself.


Heed the advice of those comparing it poorly to Pulp Fiction. It is clearly trying very hard to imitate the the style of that movie, as many filmmakers were attempting at that time. It fails miserably at it. In fact, it fails miserably at even matching the low quality of "Two Days In The Valley", another piece of cinematic crap which failed miserably at attempting to imitate Pulp Fiction. (OTOH, "Two Days" is far more disappointing than "Flypaper" due to its stellar cast.) If you enjoy movies like Pulp Fiction, or Get Shorty, or Fargo, or Snatch, then see THOSE movies. This movie is a total waste of time. Plus, to add insult to injury, the multiple story lines have no payoff. They end in the middle of nowhere like unfinished highways miles before they reach a destination.


The basic idea behind this film as that a whole lot of messed up things happen...some a bit pointless, some are really, really weird, and a few are amazingly funny.

if you're in the mood for a really messed up, yet really good movie, then this is your choice for the night.

for the low brow crowd...lucy lui is naked in this

seriously though, this movie was quite good. kind of sad klaus koch hasn't made another movie since.


A very good movie, that unfortunately has not been viewed by many people.

The plot is complex, but the way it is pulled off; this must be one of a very few titles that was entertaining in the year of 1997.

My advice is everybody should at least check it out!


Few films have had as much nonsense written about them as Ernst Lubitsch's "Design For Living." From the moment it was released, it was criticized for rewriting Noel Coward's then-daring play (Ben Hecht, the screenwriter, said: "There's only one line of Coward's left in the picture--see if you can find it!"); for casting Americans in parts that had originally been played by Coward, Alfred Lunt, and Lynn Fontanne; for toning down the gay subtexts of Coward's play. All that is, of course, completely irrelevant; the question is not whether the play is faithful to the source material, but whether it's good. And it is, it is.

There are flaws in the film. This was one of the first times Lubitsch had made a movie with little or no music on the soundtrack; previously, in his musicals and his sublime "Trouble In Paradise," he had used background music to cover up potential dead spots and carry the film along. Here there is none of that, with the result that some of the early scenes seem oddly paced. But the wit of the script (written by Hecht but, as always with Lubitsch, carefully supervised and contributed to by the director himself) and the appeal of the performers (more about them later) pull the film through the occasional rough spots, and the second half of the movie is just about perfect.

Another idiotic thing that is often said about "Design For Living" is that Lubitsch and Hecht rewrote Coward due to fear of the censors. In fact, the censors must have had a heart attack when they saw "Design," for this is one of the most sexually frank of the pre-Code Hollywood movies; premarital sex, cohabitation, adultery and frigidity are all clearly portrayed-- but, as always with Lubitsch, they are implied rather than shown. Lubitsch's trademark door and blackout gags are here, and they are hilarious; again, it's not Noel Coward--it's Lubitsch, the cinema's greatest comic filmmaker at the peak of his powers.

But there's something else here that isn't found in most Lubitsch films, and it comes from Ben Hecht, whose cynical, fast-talking, very American style of writing gives the characters a flavor quite unlike the more Continental wit of Lubitsch's usual heroes. (This is also one of the few Lubitsch films where the lead characters are American rather than European.) Critics have sometimes complained that Hecht's somewhat inelegant style was unworthy of either Coward or Lubitsch. Again, I disagree; the moments of Hechtian farce (like the hilarious party scene) are beautifully handled by Lubitsch and turn the film into a forerunner of screwball comedy, the place where Continental charm and hard-driving Americanism meet.

Now to the actors. The "British is Better" attitude of many critics made it inevitable that Lubitsch's American cast would be pilloried. Again, this is not Noel Coward and a Noel Coward style of acting wouldn't work in this context. All the leading players are actually quite wonderful: Miriam Hopkins, one of Lubitsch's favorite actresses, has the best role and gives a marvelously energetic performance as the flighty, pretentious free spirit who tries to substitute art for sex; Gary Cooper is at the height of his youthful charm, with a surprisingly light comic touch and great teamwork with Fredric March. March, who can often be heavy-handed in film comedy, is here charming and funny; it's a tribute to Lubitsch that he got such a genial performance out of him. And, of course, there's Edward Everett Horton, one of Hollywood's finest character actors in one of his finest roles.

If you know and love the Noel Coward play, don't expect this movie to be a faithful adaptation. Think of it as an original work of comedic art that happens to utilize some of the story elements of Coward's play. It's not Noel Coward; it's a splendid romantic farce that, like all great comedies, has serious themes underneath the fun: Sexual freedom, male vs. female roles in society, art, love, friendship. So see it (if you can; it's not on video, alas). It's not Noel Coward, it's Ernst Lubitsch, and despite the occasional flaws, it's Lubitsch at his best.


Miriam Hopkins finds herself in love with both Gary Cooper and Fredric March (who can blame her?), so she does what any sensible Pre-Code woman would do: she decides to live with both of them!

It's a tribute to movie audiences of the early 1930s that a sophisticated comedy like Design for Living could a.) Get produced, and b.) Be a success at the box office. The dumbing down of current films means that the delicious innuendo in Design for Living would go over the head of most of today's audience.

The key to the Lubitsch Touch was in the perfect timing of physical gestures and the delivery of the lines. Trouble in Paradise and Design for Living were the best in this respect. Personally, I prefer the lack of music in Design for Living. I think it dates the film less than Lubitsch's other efforts.

I don't mind that Ben Hecht wrote most of the film's dialog rather than Noel Coward, who wrote the original play. All I know is that the dialog is very very funny and quite naughty, making this the ultimate Pre-Code film.

Miriam Hopkins could do no wrong in a Lubitsch film, and her work here is brilliant. She's intelligent and uncompromisingly honest. Her leading men, Gary Cooper and Fredric March, are both sexy and hilarious. Gary Cooper is a particular revelation, displaying a flair for comedy that is quite unexpected. As Cooper's friend and rival for the affection of Hopkins, March is also very funny, which comes as no surprise after his brilliant parody of John Barrymore in The Royal Family of Broadway (1930).

Prepare to laugh yourself silly during what may be the funniest film ever made.


Intelligent script, witty dialogue, sexy stars, sophisticated story, deft direction…What more can I say? It's Lubitsch and Paramount at its Pre-Code best! This was another of those "vintage" films of which you had the chance of reading a lot about, but before Universal released "The Gary Cooper Collection", where it's included, you had nowhere to watch it. Of course, I bought promptly the aforementioned set.

The picture tells the story of free-spirited Gilda Farrell, a young lady who works at a Parisian Advertising Agency, managed by that great seasoned pro, Edward Everett Horton, who by chance meets on board a train, struggling, penniless, artists George Curtis, a painter (Gary Cooper) and Thomas Chambers, a playwright (Fredric March), in which may be one of the most "risqué" plots of all the Pre-Code Era, dealing openly with the pros and cons of a mènage-a-trois.

Miriam Hopkins portrays the deliciously mischievous Gilda, giving a top, tongue-in-cheek performance, looking absolutely beautiful and full of glow from within; it's really in her films directed by Lubitsch that her appeal shines at its most and she looks at her attractive-best.

Fredric March is good too as the "more down-to-earth-but-nevertheless-madly-in-love" playwright, who lives with buddy Gary Cooper in a miserable tenement, until Miriam Hopkins comes in scene and to "the rescue".

But the revelation, in my opinion, is Gary Cooper; after seeing him in many of his 1930s films, I feel that I like him best in the variety of roles he got to play in those years: a young idealist in "Peter Ibbetson", a sensitive soldier in "A Farewell to Arms", a sophisticated artist in this one, etc. He really was a good actor from the beginning of his "talkies" career (I haven't seen his Silents, so I cannot give an opinion), showing much skill and depth in his interpretations. In this film he plays excellently opposite such strong talents as Miriam Hopkins and Fredric March, absolutely "a la par".

In all, a highly enjoyable film. Smart Entertainment. A must.


I'm not a big fan of the Lubitsch Touch. This, which I hadn't seen in 20 years, I think is my favorite.

The recent Broadway revival of the Noel Coward play, which was supposedly very ooh-la-la and daring, was a bust. Interminable and misguided.

One problem was that the female lead was made very cold. In the movie, Miriam Hopkins is just right: pretty, seductive, witty.

Gary Cooper is sublime. He was a great comedian -- equally good in "Desire," the delightful movie with Dietrich that Lubitsch produced and supposedly had a big hand in directing. Too bad he changed gears so drastically and became the strong, silent Western hero he's known for today (if he's known at all, alas.)

Fredric March was a very fine actor but not a comedian. He is the weakest link; but he works well in the ensemble.

Edward Everett Horton is funny, as always.

It really works, and is as racy today as it must have been when it came out.


This was one of the movies I was so sure was going to be stupid and annoying but it turned out to be such fine comedy I've already watched it three times in the past week or two. So many good lines. Tom writes a play called Goodnight Bassington - a comedy in about three acts with a tragic ending. George paints Lady Godiva on a bicycle, despite the fact that a bicycle seat IS a little hard on her historical background. Gilda says that she went to see the above-mentioned painting of Lady Godiva with a friend. "She loved it. We haven't spoken since," Gilda tells George, who begins to pout. He does a fair amount of pouting throughout the film.

Eaglebauer also makes for some fine humour in some scenes near the end, but we never get to see the man. We only hear him bellowing out a joyous song about "falling leaves and fading trees! Goodbye, summer, goodbye!"

But besides all that this really wacky movie is a delight and I sure wish they'd re-release it because it's so good.

So. There's only one thing I have to say to you. Immorality may be fun, but it's not fun enough to replace one hundred per cent virtue and three square meals a day.


Not all of the plays by Noel Coward have been put on the screen. PRIVATE LIVES was (Robert Montgomery and Norma Shearer). So was BLYTHE SPIRIT (Rex Harrison and Margaret Rutherford). So was CAVALCADE (which actually won the best picture award in 1933 - but did it really deserve it?). HAY FEVER has not popped up, nor PERIOD PIECE, nor SOUTH SEA BUBBLE. And DESIGN FOR LIVING has popped up (the same year CAVALCADE did), but in a bowdlerized version. Still Ernst Lubitsch's DESIGN FOR LIVING was a highly amusing comedy, even if part of the "design for living" was seriously missing.

Tom (Fredric March) is a writer - a dramatist. His closest friend is George (Gary Cooper) an artist. On a train trip they share a compartment with Gilda (Miriam Hopkins), also an artist - but one who works for an advertising firm run by Max Plunkett (Edward Everett Horton). Both young men are seriously smitten with her, and she fully appreciates them. So they have a dilemma - who would she rather be with. She solves it by making an agreement to live with them as their "muse - den mother". In short she will be keeping them from turning out shoddy work - telling them what she finds is "ROTTEN!!" (Hopkins' pronunciation of that word is quite memorable). She will also continue working for Max. All three find this an agreeable idea, although Max does not. He may be a good businessman himself, but he finds Gilda quite a sexual turn-on too. So Max hates Tom and George.

This odd menage-a-trois cannot work. The three partners are all good looking, and their hormones are active. Soon Gilda runs off with George, leaving a teary note for Tom. He follows, and spends a highly pleasant afternoon with Gilda, until George returns and has a fit. Then she decides to save their friendship by leaving - and accepting Max's businesslike proposal of marriage. Tom and George go on a long foreign trip, missing Gilda's wedding. Max and Gilda go to a four star hotel, enter the bridal sweet, and shortly afterward Max realizes that he is missing the honey moon!

Still, Max can always hope. Gilda is plenty willing to be a good sport and help build up his business. When entertaining important clients like Mr. and Mrs. Egelbauer (the cement king), Gilda will willingly (if haltingly) lead the stuffy guests in a pleasant parlor game of "Twenty - Questions" (Hopkins reluctant sounding, "Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?" at the start is heart-breaking). But Tom and George return to free her spirit from durance vile. And Max...he is reminded that the Egelbauers of the world never cared for Gilda, so when he announces his divorce it will double or triple his business.

When Noel Coward wrote DESIGN FOR LIVING, in 1930-31, he did plan for it to be performed with his friends Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontane. Lunt and Fontane were the leading "married couple" stars of the American theater at that time. People in the know realized that Lunt was gay and (rumor had it) Fontane was a lesbian, but the marriage worked because of mutual artistic respect and partnership (oddly enough not so much in film - only one movie, THE GUARDSMAN - but in stage work and later television). With this in mind, Coward actually constructed the menage-a-trois of the play to be two bi-sexual men and the woman they jointly love. The bi-sexuality of Tom and George is not really developed in this film (Lubitsch would not have minded putting it in, but the powers that were at Paramount would have had fits). If you think of the central situation, though, and Gilda's reluctance to split the two "boys" there is a trace of Coward's original idea there.

The odd man out here is Max. It's ironic that Horton played Max, for in real life he was gay (Cooper was notorious, despite his marriage, for affairs with Marlene Dietrch, Patricia Neal, and several other women; although March had a long marriage to Florence Eldritch, he had a reputation as being a real "letch"). Horton's Max is quite sympathetic, despite his self-importance and no-nonsense view of things. He does have one of the most memorable moments in "Lubitsch Touch" cinema, when we see him and Hopkins go into the bed chamber on their wedding night. There is a long pause to represent a sizable passage of time. Then a disgruntled Max leaves the bed-room (obviously he has not gotten anything), spots a floral gift from "the boys", and kicks it viciously!

Max does one other thing that I find endearing - unintentionally he gives a good line of dialog ("Immorality may be fun, but....") to Tom, who sees what a good line of dialog it is. Subsequently, while attending Tom's smash comedy, Max is amazed to hear the line sprouted by a pompous figure on stage. More reason to hate Tom there!


098: Design for Living (1933) - released 12/29/1933, viewed 6/28/07.

DOUG: We reach the end of 1933 at long last, and an excellent finish it is with a highly underrated comedy starring Miriam Hopkins, Gary Cooper, and Fredrich March. If you're looking for great comedies from the 30's and you've already gone through the Marx Brothers, just do a search for "Ernst Lubitsch" and go nuts. A lot of movies from this period date themselves, but somehow Lubitsch's films hold up, with a combination of great writing and great comedic acting that it seems only Lubitsch can bring out. The three leads, Hopkins, Cooper, and March, play characters that you would love to hang out with, people who are witty and cool, inspired, and love to trade quips and barbs with each other with complete honesty. Everybody is just a little bit crazy in that fun, charming, sexy kind of way that Lubitsch does so well. The dialogue is so crisp and so funny. You just don't hear the word "sex" spoken very often in the 30's, so that when you do hear it, as you will several times in this film, it's a little jarring (but in a good way). Also props go out to Everett Van Horten (also from Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise) as the straight man who just can't understand this gang.

KEVIN: Wow. Why isn't this movie a classic? Because it is in my book. One of the most enjoyable movies of the year, or next year, or the entire decade I expect, is the hilarious and endlessly quotable Design for Living, directed by Ernst Lubitsch from a play by Noel Coward, starring Gary Cooper, Fredric March, and the always fantastic Miriam Hopkins. There are so few movies I've seen where nearly every line of dialogue is either a joke or is a set up for a joke. Lubitsch and Ben Hecht's fine-tuning of Coward's play brings out an incredible energy that proves Lubitsch's skill not just for silent moments, but great dialogue as well. The three leads give enormously likable standout performances as three struggling artists (two guys and a girl) in star-crossed love, who pour that energy of love into their work. They find success, but it's the emotional companionship that trumps it all. What I love about the story is that these three individuals are all-around good people and whatever happens to them, we really hope that they work it out.

Last film: Sons of the Desert (1933). Next film viewed: Wings (1927). Next film chronologically: It Happened One Night (1934).


I bought the Gary Cooper collection because of "Design for Living". It didn't disappoint me. This movie is classy, it's full of wit and sexually free. I found the plot intriguing, the set excellent, the costumes fine and Lubitsch inspired together with Ben Hecht (lovely and smart screenplay).

The movie shows 4 actors only, which could be considered its strength if the actors were all good. 1 out of 4 is good and 2 out of 4 are really good. 1 out of 4 has got nothing to do with such environments, dialogs and sophisticated comedy. Gary Cooper does not fit to me. He's a sort of amazing good looking and so dashing statue to look at. Nothing more. He just doesn't look comfortable in acting spoiling intellectual shades. He doesn't work to me.

Miriam Hopkins is good, she's mischievous, charming and funny. She plays the free woman with intelligence, combining sensuality and brain. Audience - even the male one - does understand why she can't choose between the two guys and she conquers it. Every woman would like to be her; that's the message she strongly brought on the screen: being free of living life the way she desires.

Edward Everett Horton is perfect, hilarious and very elegant. He's the right choice to play Plunkett Inc. and he didn't let it down. He IS Plunkett Inc.!

Fredric March is so charming, sophisticated, sexy and so right for Thomas. He does much better here than in other movies (e.g. Anna Karenina) which could seem more suitable for him. He's perfect for Lubitsch so much and his performance is a top one. He's a fine comedian too, he's measured and passionate at the same time and he's really handsome. His sensuality is made up either by intellectual attitude or a physical one.

Don't know why he's been forgotten, a wonderful actor like he is. Can anybody tell me?

I do suggest to get this movie and to enjoy it since it's really a nice touch in our collection. We do need nice and elegant touches. Especially nowadays.