I relaxed in front of the TV tonight, and started to watch "The Other Me", The idea of having an identical duplicate of the main character, that they only know about has been around since Disney first made "The Parent Trap". Since then the formulae has been used so many times I have lost count, and few have been any good. For once though it works, this film is fun, amusing, well acted, and well worth watching.

The crooks as always in Disney films are inept, but I would imagine are used that way as to not frighten the younger audience. The lead role, played by Andrew Lawrence shows he has real talent from the way he portrays the two different characters. There is no doubt that he makes the film work, and the supporting cast, do an amicable job. Well worth seeing if you get the chance especially as a family.


Double Lawrence is a great movie! Little Lawrence is quite a star! The parents were great actors and so were the criminals. They should all be on 7th Heaven!


I think that "The Other Me" was an amazingly humorous movie and I recommend that when you get a chance to watch it you do. Andy Lawrence did a great job along with everyone else involved in the movie. If you cannot see the movie then I recommend reading the book and if you have seen the movie then you should read the book also if you've read the book then you should see the movie. I think that the movie was a great reflection of the book.


i thought it was a great movie i liked the cafeteria part the movie it`s self is funny i`ve seen it atleast 100 times if not more the the bad guys were pretty cheesy but will browning was funny i wouldn`t want to go to that camp spartigus either i believe him i think it`s a prison camp his sister should go there for thinking that shes so smart twoie the clone is smarter than her. i liked the music video part where he tell will i got that from a music video.


If "Johnny Tsunami" is the feel-good film of 1999, then "The Other Me" has got to be the feel-good film of 2000.

I like this movie for so many reasons, including that it's fun to watch, it has great music, and it teaches an important lesson without getting preachy. Andrew Lawrence proved that he can hold his own as not one, but two main characters, as well as proving that he is not just a pretty face in the camera. Everybody who is casted in the movie (including Brendan Jefferson) did a great job, too.

When I saw this movie for the first time, I was amazed by what a good job they did, and when it was over, I want to see it again.

The one thing that sets this movie apart from other D.C.O.M.s is that you can relate to Will Browning, because you know how he feels and what he has gone through.

The message of the movie is that you have to be not just yourself, but your best self.

I really love this movie, and I hope it goes out on Disney DVD.


When I was going to see this movie, I thought it was going to be a schmaltzy flick. But I was wrong. This movie was great! It was a little bit of everything. It was funny, dramatic, romantic and most of all, funny.


The Haunted Mansion is a lame children's film that is short on laughs and a good story. Realtor Jim Evers and his wife and business partner Sara get a call from mansion owner Edward Gracey, who is looking to sell his property. Smelling the biggest deal of their career, Jim, Sara and their two children pay a visit to the mansion, located on a remote bayou. A thunderstorm strands the Evers family in the old mansion with the brooding, eccentric Gracey, his mysterious butler, Ramsley, and a variety of residents both seen and unseen. Will they be able to figure out what's going on and survive the night? The plot is based on a ride so I wouldn't really expect a really good story. However, the story is weaker then expected and its stupid. Kids won't be interested in the story though, they just want a fun film to watch. Kids may have some fun but anyone over the age of twelve probably won't. Its just a bit of a boring ride since there is really nothing exciting about the film. The acting is, at best, average with the best being Jennifer Tilly. She is a bit underrated and she would sometimes have some really funny lines. Eddie Murphy was enjoyable to watch in Daddy Day Care but he is really bad in this film. Terence Stamp plays the butler and does an okay job. Marsha Thomason plays Sarah and she did a terrible job. She was really boring to watch on screen and didn't show a lot of emotion either. Marc John Jefferies and Aree Davis play their two kids and they both actually give tolerable performances. Rob Minkoff seems to have lost his touch after making The Lion King since his last two kid films have been average at best. The best thing about the Haunted Mansion is that it had pretty good special effects. Nothing spectacular, but still not too cheesy looking. The music was horrible, but I guess they were trying to get a scary vibe which didn't work. The film is of course not scary and I don't think it was trying to be scary. If the film was supposed to be scary then it might work on little kids but it's a weak effort. The running time is only 97 minutes which makes the movie a little more tolerable to watch. Its better then The Country Bears but not as good as Pirates of the Caribbean. It's also not as good as Daddy Day Care which was a lot more enjoyable to watch. In the end, Haunted Mansion has little going for it as its hurt by shoddy direction and a weak script, there are few positives to be found here so I recommend you just skip it. Rating 4.3/10


When this movie came out critics and audiences were saying how rubbish it was and it was a waste of time and money, but as i have a keen interest in the paranormal i still wanted to see it anyway and i glad i did! This is a family film but there are elements of adult horror here such as suicides, murder and even zombies! The story is of a typical workaholic dad who neglects his family and decides to take them away to make up for this, but when he receives a call asking him to sell a mansion he can't refuse so off he and his family go.

Once there they meet the creepy butler Ramsley and the owner Mr Gracy who are obviously ghosts, and from then on all the supernatural events follow one-another from zombie reflections to levitating around a psychic in a crystal ball called Madame Leota. And i thought she was the best character in the film, not just because i'm a Jennifer Tilly fan but because she is very funny and has a strong personality for just a head.

The effects are as amazing as the sets with the green glow of Madame Leota, the zombies and more even the people who didn't like this film can't deny that the effects are excellent. As i said the sets are also some of the best i've seen the mansion is absolutely breathtaking.

The only thing that i think is bad with this movie is the child actors, they just look bored going round the mansion with straight faces even though they follow ghostly orbs into unknown places. But apart from this the rest of the film is great fun for kids and for the adults who aren't afraid to turn their brain off for 90mins. WATCH IT!!!!


First of all, I am a Disney kid that grew up going to Disneyland in CA every year. Since I am a fan of the ride, "The Haunted Mansion", I guess I expected this film to be good. When I heard the mediocre reviews, I backed off from watching it until I just bought it on DVD this past weekend. I was very surprised to find it a lot better than I expected. My kids loved it and have watched it about 3 times.

The sets were beautiful and intricate, the costumes and make-up are gorgeous and the special effects are amazing. Rick Baker "Monster Maker" is so talented and has done an impressive (as always) job creating a vision from the Haunted Mansion ride that he also admired.

If you are a fan of the ride, I would imagine that you would enjoy this movie as much as me.


'The Haunted Mansion' got a lot of bombs thrown at it by critics, and almost nobody liked it. Well, guess what: I did. It's a faithful homage to the ride, the actors are interesting, and the horror side of the story is appropriately creepy. The plot is partially based on the French version of the ride, and it's decent. Although the movie never answers the question of why Master Gracey (Nathaniel Parker, who's really good here) couldn't marry his sweetheart Elizabeth (who was black), the hints are pretty obvious. And I liked the whole concept of the curse (even though it doesn't make any sense). The little nods to the ride throughout the movie are fun, especially Jennifer Tilly as Madame Leota, a disembodied head inside a crystal ball who speaks in riddles. Tilly can do this husky-voiced role in her sleep, and I liked her (the special effects involving her are pretty neat too). Although Eddie Murphy is miscast, and there are zero laughs in the movie, his mugging for the camera doesn't hurt the movie. The kids are OK, and Marsha Thomason does what she can with a thankless role, but it's Terence Stamp who steals the movie. He is Ramsley, the sinister butler of Master Gracey. With his deep rumbling British accent, Stamp gives a deliciously over-the-top performance, and he does here what Johnny Depp did for 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. Back to Eddie Murphy for a minute: Although he earns no laughs, he plays noncomedic scenes well, and he has some good banter with Stamp. The production design of the mansion and the ghostly special effects are very cool, particularly a zombie attack that pushes the PG rating to it's limits. Is 'The Haunted Mansion' a great movie? Absolutely not; they could have punched up the comedy aspect of the movie. It's not a bad movie, though. I thought it was very entertaining, and it's certainly better than the awful trailers. Not as good as 'Pirates', but a fun ride nonetheless.


"The Haunted Mansion" is the latest movie to be based upon an attraction at the Disney theme parks. It stars Eddie Murphy as Jim Evers, a workaholic real estate agent who finds himself and his family trapped in a mansion infested with ghosts. The movie doesn't rank as well as "Pirates of the Caribbean." The story isn't all that it should be. But the movie does have its good points. The art direction is beautiful, and there are plenty of visual gems. The ghosts seen in the graveyard are probably the best part of the movie. Terence Stamp puts in a suitably creepy performance as Ramsley, the butler, and Jennifer Tilly is kooky as Madame Leota. "The Haunted Mansion" is no "Pirates of the Caribbean," but it is still worth a look.


Walt Disney World and Walt Disney Land have featured a ride called the Haunted Mansion for years. I have been to the one in Disney World and it is one of my favorites. The ride features ghosts, ghouls, and haunts that are amusing and fun. This movie, however is far from the ride.

Although it centers around the Gracey Mansion which is the same as the ride it is based upon, the movie The Haunted Mansion isn't that good. The only thing worth watching are the comparisons to the actual ride. Much like Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, they makers of the film put in features from the ride like Madame Leota's head in a glass ball and the singing statues. These were all cute and a nice touch, but the plot of the movie is incredibly boring. It centers around Jim Evers (Eddie Murphy) and his family trying to make a deal on the house for his job. The kids are tricked into going and it seems like Jim is losing his family. When weird things start to happen around the house, it seems that Jim must save his family from certain disaster when some of the ghost mistake his wife for another woman who already passed on.

The story itself is cute, but lacks luster. Some decent effects don't hurt the film, but the movie just isn't entertaining. Fans of the ride will be left disappointed and wanting much more. Disney should think twice before making a movie about another attraction in their parks.


This is a very under-rated movie. OK, it is not the best movie ever but its rating is 4.8 by now and this is way too low. The movie starts great but unfortunately gets cheesy after the first half hour. Nevertheless, the atmosphere is great. The house is detailed brilliantly. One problem can be the action plus horror content of the movie. It is not scary for an adult but may be a bit much for kids. They could have taken this into account and made this a nice family movie. In terms of cinematography, I think they did a great job. This much CGI loaded movies usually do not look as natural as this one. Light and material usage is certainly eye catching. I personally enjoyed the movie. Give it a try, you won't regret.


I had been on the Haunted Mansion ride as kid in Disneyland, and I love it. And I was psyched that there's going be a movie based on the ride (after seeing the trailer), and I when to see it with my Mom; and after that I love it!

The film starts when husband-and -wife realtors Jim and Sara Evers, with their children Michael and Megan, visit to Gracey Manor; after Sara received a phone call that the owner is selling the house, and workaholic Jim thinks it's a "golden opportunity" for their real estate business. At Gracey Manor, Mr. Gracey is enamored with Sara, and they discover that Sara looks like Mr. Gracey's old girlfriend Elizabeth (another "Elizabeth" counting the one from Pirates of the Caribbean), who died young and they think it was suicide...or was it? That's all I'm telling you folks, you will have to see it for yourself. So humour, Gothic scenery, and hints of horror make this film a delight to watch...over and over again; I am still SHOCKED by the negativity towards it though.


As weird and as unexpected as it might sound, I really liked this movie for what it was and it's no way as bad as everything tries to make you believe it is.

I thought that this was just a great children movie. Or well, maybe it's just because this would be the type of movie that I would had liked to have seen when I was young(er). People just often seem to forget or ignore their inner child. While watching this movie you just have to think and feel like a child again, since this is also the target group the movie got aimed towards. When you do so, you'll see that this movie is simply good at what it tries to achieve. It brings some good clean and safe horror entertainment for children. Young ones often seem to like reading horror stories (at least in my days this was the case) so they are likely to get a blast out of watching this movie. Some sequences however might be a bit too disturbing for really young children though, so be aware of that.

Of course when you start watching this movie as an adult you'll notice the movie its weak and quite formulaic story. Nothing is ever really surprising about it. The movie nevertheless has a great sense of adventure though in which a group of people gets trapped in an haunted house, with a new adventure in every room.

The movie is great looking, with also especially its special effects. Normally horror and special effects are never a good or effective combination but in this case of an horror movie for children, it isn't really a complainant. The special effects mostly serve to give the movie its feeling of adventure and it provides the movie with some of its entertaining moments as well. The movie also features some or the recently deceased Rick Baker make-up effects, which is always something great to look at.

Not sure if the movie is really as effective as a comedy than as an adventure movie though. Oh well, perhaps children will still find the movie funny in parts, though some of the jokes are obviously aimed toward adults. Something Disney movies often do so, especially lately.

I also can't say if I'm too sure about Eddie Murphy casting as the main lead. Now I have nothing against Eddie Murphy really but he just isn't suitable for all types of comedies. I think this is one of those movies that would had been better off without him. Besides the well known Eddie Murphy, the movie also features well known and respected actors such as Terence Stamp, Nathaniel Parker and Jennifer Tilly. Especially Stamp and Parker were great. On top of that the movie also features the wonderful Deep Roy, in a really small role though.

The movie its musical score by Mark Mancina also really deserves recognition. It was surprisingly great and effective. It can be described as a great and effective horror score as well as an entertaining one.

Great children entertainment!

8/10


It has been at least fifteen years since I saw a movie so bad that I nearly walked out on it (I did, in fact, walk out on 'Short Circuit 2'). Disney's attempt to capitalize on a halfway-decent theme park ride with this bowser of a movie was nearly as bad.

I will admit, there were two things that I liked about it: First, the self-animated crystal ball, complete with its englobulated (oooh, new word!) gypsy-with-an-attitude. Second, watching Eddie Murphy get upstaged by the barbershop quartet of singing busts (one of which bore a suspiciously strong resemblance to Walt Disney himself).

Don't get me wrong: I like Eddie Murphy as an actor, generally. His first 'Doctor Dolittle' movie was pretty decent, even though he'll never be able to truly replace Rex Harrison. He also did pretty well in 'The Golden Child' and the first couple of 'Beverly Hills Cop' movies.

I really think, though, that he deserved better than this pale wraith of a flick. As far as 'Haunted Mansion' is concerned, I think I can safely say 'Bag it and tag it.'


Nothing spectacular in Disney's latest attempt to turn one of their theme park rides into a movie. I pray that "It's a Small World" is never filmed, but I digress.

Eddie Murphy is good in the leading role, but his wife looked way too young for him. Special effects were pretty good, and almost made up for the flimsy plot.

But did anyone else notice that this movie was set in Louisiana (the ride at Disneyland is in the part of the park called The French Quarter, and the cars had Louisiana license plates) and not one character had a Louisiana accent? Not even the guy who'd lived all his life in the mansion?

Mindless entertainment, nothing more nor less. 4/10


This is a great movie for kids AND adults. It was a thrill a minute with a lot of laughs. I've never been on the Disney ride, but the movie has made me very curious about it, and will probably make a trip to Disney next year. This movie is a great advertisement for their theme park!


When I first heard that Eddie Murphy was going to star in The Haunted Mansion, I was initially disappointed. As a former intern at Disney World and as a Haunted Mansion fan, I wanted a more serious, scary look at the stories that surround this awesome attraction. But then I thought that there's been so many "haunted house" movies recently that have bombed (The Haunting, House on Haunted Hill), a lighter, more comedic approach to The Haunted Mansion may be better.

And I think that is the case here. It's not necessarily the scariest movie out there or the funniest, but there's a good mix of both to make this a good, unique movie for families. Honestly, I can't think of any other movie out there that combines a horror-type genre with the family genre. When I saw this in the theater, packed full of families, people laughed, gasped, and clapped at the end.

The tie-ins to the ride were nice too. From the beginning of the film, I enjoyed the ominous organ music that whisked me back to the ride. The singing busts were awesome, and Jennifer Tilly did a great job as Madame Leota. And I don't really need to mention that the special effects were mighty impressive.

Nevertheless, this movie isn't a perfect one. The story wasn't the most intriguing as I found myself bored at times, and the acting was kind of stiff and rigid (unintentionally by the Evers family).

All in all, though, this is a good family movie that's unlike any other movie out there.

My IMDB Rating: 7/10. My Yahoo! Grade: B (Good)


Bad script, worse acting. The newest Disney venture seems to be almost an afterthought. After the resounding success of Pirates of the Caribbean, you would think that Disney had some inkling of an idea of what the public wants. Clearly, this is not true. This 100-minute yawn fest lays out the storyline within the first half an hour, but continues to meander here and there without really accomplishing anything. Eddie Murphy an irritating, money-hungry real estate agent who cares nothing for his wife and less for their children (I'm not sure why they bothered naming the character -- Eddie seems to be playing himself as usual). He coerces his family to venturing to Gracey Mansion in hopes of selling it. I won't go into detail, mostly because it is too inane to repeat. The characters weren't developed, there's only a few things of interest from the ride, and the final resolution is predictable at best. In short, don't bother -- go buy Pirates of the Caribbean! Disney fans, you WILL be disappointed!


Unfortunately for Disney, I don't see how this loser of a movie could have made it any money. Even the great talent of Eddie Murphy couldn't save it. The premise, I understand, but what followed after the beginning credits rolled was beyond boring. Actually, I slept through about half of the movie. I'd wake up, look at it, and its boredom would knock me right back out. I felt like I needed to continue watching it, however, because I had paid for it on Pay Per View, and that was definitely one I'd ask my money back for had it been at the theater. Eddie Murphy did the best he could but could not pull it out of the fire. My cats usually watch TV, and counting their responses by walking out of the room and not coming back till the movie ended said it all! I do not recommend this movie to any one unless they want to be bored to death and join the "dead people in the backyard"! This rotten tomato is nowhere near Disney's or Eddie's good works but must be one of the worst of both!


I was really looking forward to see this film, The Haunted Mansion was my favourite Disney-attraction, when I visited Eurodisney a few years ago. But the result is disappointing, especially if you compare it to another movie based on a Disney-attraction (of course I speak of "The Pirates of the Caribbean").

The story is uninspired and full of inconsistencies, it´s almost unbearable to watch. The story is just a spin off of Dracula, where the vampire confuses a woman with a lost love. Exactly the same story is here, only that a ghost, his name is Master Gracey, thinks to have found his lover in the wife of an estate agent. To allure her to the mansion, Gracey alleges to sell the house and he wants her to do this for him. But instead of coming alone, she shows up with her husband (Eddie Murphy) and her children. So while he tries to seduce her, his butler (Terence Stamp) is concerned to get rid off the rest of the family. Of course Eddie Murphy will rescue his wife and Master Gracey will be reunited with his love and the bad butler will be punished (although nobody really knows why and by whom).

Eddie Murphy is a gifted actor and if he has the chance to show his talent, he can be very funny and moving. Sadly he normally chooses very bad scripts, this is no exception. He grimaces and pours out one-liners all the time, who are supposed to be funny, but are not. It´s just very annoying.

Terence Stamp, who gave such great performances in the past, tries to make the best of his character, but due to the weak script he fails completely. I can only pity him.


A few cool special effects don't make a good movie. I'm glad I didn't sneeze during the film and blow a hole through the tissue-thin plot.

Poor Terence Stamp. He's such a great actor and this is the kind of crap he's getting offered?

I'm not particularly a fan of Eddie Murphy, but I felt sorry for him, as well. Even the couple of times he could have been funny, you felt as if he were afraid to let go because he was in a family movie. His performance was dreadful.

I won't go into a windy description of the story, what little there was, and give a "spoilers ahead" warning. The spoiler would be having to see this movie in the first place. Don't waste your money even on the rental.

It's really a shame Disney bastardized their beloved theme park attraction with this drivel. You can be certain Mr. Eisner won't take credit for this one, even if he did have anything to do with greenlighting it, in his next pseudo-biography of egomaniacal lies.

Do yourself a big favor and shun this film at all cost.


I was not expecting Pirates of the Caribbean caliber but I was sure expecting more than Country Bears level. At least the Bears was entertaining for small children to see talking animals. Maybe a talking animal could have helped this movie, but I doubt it. The performances were not that bad but the story was awful. There was virtually no humor and so many plot holes it was incredible. For example (without spoiling anything), characters speak of a curse but I sure never heard anything cursed or saw a curse being given. What curse? Who cursed it? What could break it? Yes, the beginning of the movie shows some of the soon to be ghosts but there is nothing there about a curse.

I saw this with my wife and daughter and we were all very disappointed. My son went to Looney Toons and I wish we had gone with him. The trailers for this movie were a much better film. If you get a chance to see this, don't take the chance is my advice.


Lesson one: Let them see this movie. This is not the comedy that the trailer portrayed but is more of a light humored Poltergiest (which was also rated PG). I enjoyed it myself of course but would probably not take kids under 9 or 10. Eddie Murphey is still funny but I still liked him better in his R rated films. The special effects were pretty good but nothing just outstanding. This film was not bad considering it was based on an amusment park ride. I would go watch this again and I probably will own it. It was fun entertainment for almost the whole family. Check it out if you get a chance.


I was so excited when the previews for this movie came out...I simply had to see it.

As a professional, Goth/Macabre/Erotica author, anything chilling, romantically tragic and down right elegantly creepy is right up my alley. From the first glimpses of the mansion and the surely wonderful scenes I would see, I was ready to go. I was *very* doubtful about Eddie Murphy being in this movie (his comedic talent is better used elsewhere where he can actually be funny) but I decided to give it a try...Now...I wish that I hadn't.

Was this movie supposed to be a kid's movie? Was it supposed to be a teenager's movie? What WAS this movie supposed to be? Whatever it was supposed to be, romantic, tragic, funny, thrilling...it didn't make it. The plot, the story and the acting got terribly lost *somewhere* in it and was never found. This movie has so much wrong with it that I hardly know where to start, so I will simply stick with the acting.

First off, the cast with the exceptions of Nathaniel Parker, Terence Stamp and Jennifer Tilly was a disaster...

Where they "dug" this cast up, I have no idea, but they should have re-buried them. Wallace Shawn and Dina Spybey were absolutely great in their parts, but you can't expect two funny and cute people to carry an entire movie...the way this movie was laid out, they were expected to do far too much work and that was simply too much to ask.

Nathaniel Parker's obviously beautiful and elegant acting talents were so far wasted in this movie that I felt sorry for him. Take the *entire* cast away, give him the house, a roaring fire in the study, and a wonderful wardrobe of silken smoking jackets, black pants and dress shoes and let *him* do his own movie filled with ghosts and things that go bump in the night and I would gladly buy a ticket to see it.

Terence Stamp's broad range of acting talent was also a total waste in this movie and a few times judging by the expressions on his face, he may have thought so too.

Jennifer Tilly was the only truly saving grace for this film and then yet again, she couldn't have been expected to carry it any more than she did.

Marsha Thomason should have been far bypassed for this film. I think her talents could have been better used elsewhere as well. It was painfully obvious that she, nor could anyone else in this movie with possibly the exception of Terence Stamp, hold anywhere near the court that Nathaniel Parker did when called to be entrancing and tragic...she just was not believable.

The only reason I own this movie is to look at the beautiful settings (the house is magnificent on the grandest scale, and the cemetery is wonderful!) and to sigh forlornly alongside the elegant and ever so dashing Nathaniel Parker who was truly one devastatingly tragic and beautiful ghost...

Avoid this movie...


I had high hopes for this movie considering what a big deal the box office made this movie into but when I watched it for the first time, not even half way through the movie I was so disappointed in it. First of all, Eddie Murphy does not belong in this movie at all, he just does not fit in with this movie. And the leading lady was a poor choice as a supporting cast as well as the two bratty know it all kids who looked more like rejects from some shelter with crappy one liners through the movie. Even the plot of the story was bad, a man who fell in love with his fiance' in whom he was to marry dies of a supposedly suicide and years later he tries to bring her back to life and fall in love with him again by locating Eddie Murphys wife who we find that she is not his fiance' reincarnated but then she is and then she isn't again and the whole movie is just one mess. I wouldn't even recommend this movie to a child. There is nothing haunted about this movie movie more like stupid mansion is more like it. I don't know what has happened to poor Eddie but he really needs to change his direction in movie roles.


If you need an example of the evils of corporate and media convergence, this uninspiring film is it. Old Walt Disney had fun making his movies and one suspects he actually wanted to entertain kids. Here we see flinty eyed accountants and oh-so-serious market researchers uncontaminated by artistry using film as a corporate tool,in the process producing a movie that while technically excellent has neither soul nor spirit. It had a balance sheet, not a shooting script; a corporate goal, not a plot. A)Let's use black actors as a cynical device to attract new black markets for the same old stuff whites have bought for years B)Let's create an effective cross promotion for the Haunted House attraction at Disneyworld. The result is a movie that is both sterile and stupid. Walt would not have smiled.


`When the crypt doors creak and the tombstones quake Spooks come out for a swinging wake Happy Haunts materialize and begin to vocalize- Grim Grinning Ghosts come out to socialize'

Who would have thought that at this point the Walt Disney Company would be at a big crossroad with their adaptations of classic theme park attractions? When the family oriented studio announced the trio of ride based features, many were quick to call Disney executives crazy and desperate for story ideas. Most of the movie-going public would have agreed with them after the embarrassment that was The Country Bears in July 2002. Almost one year after that box office flop, Disney bounced back big with the surprise hit of the summer, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, which steamed rolled its way to $300 million domestically and possibly two sequels. With both a hit and a miss in their hands, Disney's third and final theme park adaptation, The Haunted Mansion, could swing either way but the company executives would have it be a hit for sure. The presence of star lead Eddie Murphy should assure this. Granted Murphy has had plenty of recent adult oriented flops such as Showtime and I Spy but his reputation as a family film star has been remarkable including his most recent hit, Daddy Daycare. Can he continue the streak with The Haunted Mansion? If the marketing campaign for the film has anything to say about it, the answer should be a big yes.

The story focuses on a man who enters a haunted house with his family and must do whatever he can to save them from its ghostly in habitants. Jim Evers is a successful real-estate agent along with his partner wife, Sarah, but doesn't seem to find the time to spend quality time with his family. He's missed soccer games, anniversaries and barbeques for his work. Seeing his problem, Jim decides to take the entire family out to the lake for the weekend to make up for his mistakes. At the last minute, Sarah receives a call for her to stop by the Gracey Manor to help sell the decrepit estate. She at first declines but Jim urges her to take up the offer for the sake of the business and the family. Unfortunately they get more then they bargained for as creepy incidents occur around every corner and the entire mansion itself seems to be hiding a disturbing secret. Jim Evers must discover the mystery in the Haunted Mansion before it's too late for his family and himself. The story for The Haunted Mansion, though well intentioned, seems lacking and predictable. The opening sequence of the feature ruined any suspense for many later events and could have been done in a different way that didn't give away much of the story before the audience even had a chance to settle down in their seats.

The cast of The Haunted Mansion is a relative bunch of no names but they try to their best, which works effectively for the most part. Eddie Murphy leads the group with a moderate performance as Jim Evers. The problem lies in the fact that Murphy is not all that funny in the feature and really isn't given anything to do that gets a laugh. Nathaniel Parker, who portrays Master Gracey, gives a wonderfully Victorian style performance that's both creepy and effective. He starts off a sinister character but by the end, you realize his true intentions are as evil as they may seem. Terence Stamp achieves an amazingly creepy performance as the butler, Ramsley. Though the character seems to be a supporting role at first, as the feature rolls on he becomes more central to the storyline and therefore much more effective. Jennifer Tilly is a delightful highlight as Madame Leota (aka the floating head in the crystal ball) and stays true to character within the attraction for most of her time on screen. The only disappointment in the casting area involves Terence Stamp and Dina Waters who play the servants of the mansion. Stamp, who is most famous for his role in The Princess Bride, could have been used in a more humorous way then he was here but the filmmakers fail to do so. The two were barely used at all which results in a disappointing aspect of the feature, which could have been avoided if they were used more prominently.

Overall, Foolish mortals should heed this warning! If you are looking for another Pirates of the Caribbean, wait for the film's sequel rather then searching for it in The Haunted Mansion. Not to say that the film is not entertaining, it has its moments, but The Haunted Mansion doesn't even come close to the spectacular filmmaking that was presented in the summer swashbuckler. The problem lies mostly in the plot that is often flat and predictable ruining many of the film's twists before they are even set up. So what is the offender of this horrible filmmaking crime? The actions of the opening credits. If you have to see this film but don't want the film's secrets given away early then keep your eyes closed for the first three to five minutes. If anything reasonably favorable can be said of this film, it has to be the solid special effects and the creepy atmosphere the filmmakers are able to maintain despite a weak story. Disney fanatics will love the many tips of the hat towards the inspiration of the film including the hitch-hiking ghosts on the side of the road. There is no doubt that this film will be a family-friendly hit over the Thanksgiving weekend but for those looking solid filmmaking should save their money for the likes of Elf.

My Rating: *** ½ out of 5 (Grade: B-)


When I saw this movie, I thought it was amazing. Then I went to Disney World, and went on the ride, and it was much better. Much of the stuff in the movie is the same as the ride, but in the movie, you cant experience it for yourself. Even though it is another movie ride, it wasnt that bad. A lot of the actors in this film have been in previous Disney films such as Eddie Murphy, who led an exceptional role, and Wallace Shawn who has been on Teachers Pet(tv show), and My Favorite Martian. Most of the scenes shot in this movie were very good, including one where Eddie Murphys character spins around the room, with a crystal ball. The ghost were filmed very good also, but they should have watched Tower of Terror beforehand, and maybe they would have had a better idea about it. I would give this film an 8 out of 10.


The Haunted Mansion is a film for the hole family, which as we know is based on the Disneyland ride, fact that had me expecting nothing from it! but any way, it resulted to be pretty amazing, Eddie Murphy's performance is good and funny as well as the plot that ended up being really entertaining, go see it!!!


Some of us have never been to Disneyland, so they can make all the rides into movies they want, we'll never know. That said: The movie was very well done. Some parts were overly predictable, while the story flowed rather easily. It's another, "been done before plot" with some added special effects and humour, all of which added together equal a movie worth seeing. Eddie Murphy is Eddie Murphy at his usual sillyness, reminiscent of his "Beverly Hills Cop" style of acting. All supporting cast do a wonderful job and the direction gives it those scenes that'll make you jump then laugh. I would not recommend this movie to children under 13 as some scenes may frighten them. Should have been rated PG-13 instead. Other than that, good movie. I would rate this movie a 7.5 out of 10.


I enjoyed this movie for the most part. NO SHOCKING SURPRISES, like in some other wicked evil movies released lately. This movie was not as good as "Pirates Of Caribbean", so you will be disappointed if you are expecting one of the best movies ever, like Pirates was. But it is a good family film, for ages above 5 or 6 anyway.

There are a couple of scary parts that might frighten young children. I was scared a little when the mummies were chasing Eddie and his daughter in the crypt for the key, and the spiders crawling all over the crypt door freaked me out a little! ALSO, when Terrence Stamp summoned Satan up from hell (I think that's who it was, it was a demon or devil made of fire), that part was also scary somewhat. (It looked like the EXACT same Satan as in the movie "Spawn", which was scarier and grosser than this movie was.)

In my opinion, Jennifer Tilly was the BEST! I really enjoyed seeing and hearing her as the Gypsy in the crystal ball. That was great SFX too! I thought Terrence Stamp was good as a really creepy butler, and sorta scary also. I thought Eddie Murphy was OK, a little annoying, maybe he was written that way. The butler in the film says he can't stand to listen to Eddie talk anymore, it is getting on his nerves, well... That is exactly how I was feeling too! Eddie was getting on my nerves a little. I thought the kids were cute, VERY REFRESHING, after watching the horrible movie "Cat N Hat", where the kids were obnoxious horrible brats! Their mom was beautiful, seemed so sweet, had such a beautiful smile, she was really a stunning woman. I believe her name was Marsha Thomason. She Definitely looked like a movie star. Wallace Shawn was funny too. The statues singing barbershop quartet were really great effects, I really enjoyed them. The ghosts looked good also.

If you have a family with kids, who don't have nightmares too easily, then I recommend this film. This was a good movie for teenagers too. If you buy "Pirates of Caribbean" DVD, you get a free matinee ticket to see this film, so you might like this better if you have a free ticket!!! I think Disney Studios should really consider turning this movie over to Jerry Bruckheimer Productions in a few years, and let them remake it. It would be interesting to see if he turns it into a Great Movie Classic, like "Pirates Of Caribbean" was!


This movie was a pretty good movie for what it was but it isn't my favorite movies but it is one of my favorite movies of the year 2003. This is a great family film but I wouldn't recommend it that smaller children(10 and under) see it because like the ride there are some scenes that would scare them. This movie is more for younger kids than Pirates was but adults would like it too. Eddie Murphy was great in his role, I would not have picked a better actor for that role. The special effects were amazing and I wouldn't be surprised if this movie at least got nominated for an academy award for visual effects. Terrance Stamp was excelent and so was the rest of the cast.


Haunted Mansion review.

Summary: Eddie Murphy plays Jim Evers, a self-employed real estate that cares enough for his wife and family that he sometimes works too hard at providing for them and neglects his parental/husband duties, in pursuit of earning a better life for his family overall. To this end, he brings his family to a what could be a huge deal that could really benefit them all; selling a sizeable mansion out of town. It turns out that the place is haunted and all manner of ghostly high-jinks ensue as the family seeks to unravel the mystery of the Haunted Mansion.

I believe that Eddie Murphy did very well with the role that he was given. Unfortunately move-makers try too hard to make fathers seem "bad" in todays movies that Eddie's character seemed rather "forced". I mean, he is frequently portrayed as caring for his family, seeing to their needs, teaching them about things in life like "facing your fears", yet Hollywood cant seem to have a positive father role-model these days. Jim Evers is victim to the standard negative movie father cliches: He works too hard providing for the family that he neglects them, then bumbles his way trying to make amends for this.

The movie overall had a decent story about two lovers that were ill-fated (similar to a Romeo and Juliet type of story) and have doomed a mansion and its ground to perpetual purgertory. The special effects are great. Marsha Tomason does a great job as Sara Evers. Nathaniel Parker and Terence Stamp do a great job as Master Gracey and the butler Ramsley. The child actors to a decent job, but are hardly oscar-winning performers. Jennifer Tilly is awesome as Madam Leota and Wallace Shawn and Dina Spybey are excellent as the servants that try to assist the Evers family.

The set design is superb and the ghostly special effects are really good. The story is rather simplistic, which makes it great for kids, but interesting enough with enough humor to make it worthwhile for adults to enjoy. This is not the type of movie that a group of teenagers looking for a horror flick would enjoy or a group of rowdy adults. This is a movie that is great for a family.

Rating: Family movie: 8 out of 10. As a "general" movie: 6 out of 10.


I loved the beginning titles as well as the ending. The music and costumes were stunning! The mansion and special effects were equally stunning! So much work went into this movie and it really shows. I just wish they would have shown the ballroom (Mardi Gras) scene more. I was really looking forward to that and they only showed it for a few seconds. Overall I recommend seeing this movie, it is dry in a couple of parts, but what movie isn't! Also fans of the ride will notice many more correlations to the ride are in The Haunted Mansion than there were in Pirates of the Caribbean. I especially loved the 'Welcome Foolish Mortals'!


This actually isn't that bad. Historically it's complete rubbish, of course (and why is *D'Artagnan* always the one who ends up with a daughter instead of a son? -- see the enjoyable "D'Artagnan's Daughter" of 1994, for example!) and Susie Amy's unfortunate accent grates every time she opens her mouth, but as modern-day swashbucklers go, it was refreshingly free from knowing allusions and would-be updating of the genre. It was just played straight out for the adventure, and all the better for it.

The 'younger generation' - the sons of Athos, Porthos and Aramis - were well-written, acquiring individuality of their own even before we found out who they were supposed to be, and not just clones of their respective fathers. I loved Aramis's offspring as a devout gambler, and Athos' as a cocky womaniser... The Musketeers themselves I thought bore relatively little relation to the characters of the book, with the exception of Michael York's very welcome reprise of his classic role as D'Artagnan. Experience really does show, I'm afraid; he completely acted Susie Amy, for one, off the screen. I'd far rather remember him this way than in the terminally un-funny 'Return of the Musketeers' from 1989 -- a corpse that should have been let lie if ever there was one -- and was extremely appreciative of the opportunity.

I watched the first episode on a whim. I was sufficiently hooked to bother to video-tape the following one when I knew I was going to be out... and bother to watch it immediately I got back, an accolade if ever there was one!

An attractive-looking cast. Good comradeship, avoiding too-obvious romance. Depardieu, playing an Italian-speaking character in a Francophone milieu with a heavy French accent, was out of place, and poor Susie's lower-class London tones were equally inappropriate. Not a classic... but far from the embarrassing mess it could have been.


Really enjoyed this but especially because of Susie Amy who plays the lead character, she really held her own against some big names, and is beautiful.

It's an all round entertaining film, which I believe was made for TV. I completely disagree with some of the reviews here about the acting, the reviews at Amazon.com where I bought the DVD were really good.

I like this sort of film, it's easy viewing, not difficult to follow, the writing is very simplistic but the characters were throughly entertaining. Surprisingly I thought Gerard was one of the weaker performers compared to his usual standard.

Well worth watching if you enjoy all round light entertainment.


I liked the script, but some of the actors are not so good. The battle scienes weren't good at all. And one more thing: in the book Athos was very quiet, but in this movie he is very talkative. Anyway I recomand you to see this movie for fun.


The reason I gave this awful film a 4 instead of a 1 is the wonderful cinematography. This film is beautifully captured in its brilliant colors and wonderful landscapes. Unfortunately, the main character in this is practically unwatchable. The first time you notice that something is wrong is when we get our first closeup of our heroine. For living out in Gascony, France in the late 1600s, why is Valentine wear heavy eye-shadow, cheek blush, and bright lip stick? She does the best she can with the dialog she's given but ohhh, such dialog. Then, in a society that is 200 years away from Women's Suffrage, she expects... DEMANDS... to be treated equally with the men without even proving herself. She even rudely bursts into the Musketeer Commander's office and demands to speak with him. He rightly should have thrown out anyone who tried that except the King. She takes it as an insult that he is not impressed with her. She doesn't try to hide her feminine side at all including having a tailor made, curve hugging Musketeer uniform. This would have worked out better if it was more a "Connecticut Yankee" type where a modern woman is sent back in time but her modern sensibilities are entirely out of place in this film. I'm not sure why a great talent like Michael York agreed to appear in this travesty but I guess a paycheck is a paycheck. If you want to watch a film where a woman takes on a man's world, try Disney's Mulan. The story and acting are much better.


In this Hallmark TV production Louis XIV is still under the thumb of Cardinal Mazarin (Gerard Depardieu). It's 1660, and the Cardinal will brook no opposition. Mazarin sees personal advantage in continuing the war with Spain, but the callow Louis is beginning to think otherwise. Then there's the king's arranged marriage to the Spanish Princess Maria Theresa, the pesky possibility that Louis just might not be rightful king of France and the festering resentments of Mazarin's deadly creature, Francois Villeroi. A certain letter is all Mazarin needs to keep Louis under his control. Cardinal Mazarin doesn't hesitate to turn those who oppose him into angels.

All this has nothing to do -- yet -- with Valentine D'Artagnan (Susie Amy), who was taught to fight with a sword by her father and who is determined to be accepted as a Musketeer. D'Artagnan (Michael York) sends her off to Paris with his encouragement. "You've got two good reasons to be brave," he tells her. "First, you're a Gascon. Second, you're my daughter. Always fight at the least provocation and never submit to insults or edicts. Above all, remember who you are...a D'Artagnan!"

It's not long before Valentine is up to her pommel trying to save the king and to foil Mazarin's schemes. She is accused of murder by Mazarin's beautiful agent, Lady Bolton (Nastassja Kinski) and must rescue the Princess. Valentine often skewers members of the Cardinal's Guards. Even with the aid of the three sons of Porthos, Athos and Aramis, who have just been accepted as Musketeers themselves, all looks like France might be lost. But then the old men show up. With Valentine and their sons by their sides, they show how it's done. Although we're an hour into the 170 minute production before they appear and the movie isn't about them, there's something poignant, amusing and inspiring when we see the aging D'Artagnan, Athos (Christopher Cazenove), Aramis (Alan Corduner) and Porthos (John Rhys-Davies), heavier now, gray, a little slower and often used for comedy relief, answer the call to honor and arms. We don't see as much of the four as we'd like, but they help make the movie.

On the TV movie's plus side: Those actors who can actually act -- mainly the older ones -- do a fine job. The production values are high. The story, however drawn out it becomes, still contains enough of Dumas' great swashbuckling tales of derring-do, evil, honor and action to be entertaining. Bringing in the sons of those three musketeers, then their fathers plus D'Artagnan himself, gives a nice glow to the story.

On the minus side, too many of the under-30 actors have that wrinkleless, earnest and unexciting talent found in network television comedies. Depardieu, while one of the world's great actors, has never been at his best trying to act in English. This movie is no exception. And there are all those corny back flips, rollovers and sword twirling during fights, usually by Valentine. The great weakness, however, is the lack of style. The production is pleasant but, as Cyrano would say, it has no panache.

To see a first-class version of what the daughter of D'Artagnan, aided by her dad and his old comrades, can accomplish with great style, humor and adventure, watch Bernard Tavernier's La Fille de D'Artagnan, renamed Revenge of the Musketeers for the U.S. DVD release. Sophie Marceau plays an energetic Eloise D'Artagnan and Philippe Noiret is her father. When she recruits him and his three comrades to save Louis XIV, look out. Eloise is almost as good with a sword as they are. And they, although sometimes out of breath, are still the best around.


Valentine (Susie Amy), the daughter of famed musketeer D'Artagnan (Michael York)wants nothing more than to become a daring french swashbuckler liker her father.

Turning her back on the social mores imposed on the women of the day.

She proves her fearlessness and is finally asked by the King to save the future Queen who is being held for ransom.

This lavish television production also stars Natassja Kinski and the french actor Gerard Depardieu.

Or though not one of best Muskateer movies it is quite an enjoyable one.


This is a story of a girls quest to become a Musketeer like her father D'Artagnan. It's very entertaining and suitable for the whole family.

We all like Susie Amy who plays Valentine D'Artagnan, very much. Thought all the young musketeers were great and it was a lovely contrast with the older characters, their fathers. I am a big Michael York fan so it was good to see him back as D'Artagnan.

It could be a bit storytelling at times, but that is needed for younger viewers. The fight sequences could be slightly repetitive and many of the action movies are, but they were well done.

Think from reading other information, this wasn't filmed as a movie but as a TV mini series so it is quite long to watch in one sitting.

But all in all, what you'd expect, not difficult to follow but entertaining viewing for the family.


I really enjoyed this film, it's great fun. I thought the characters were very entertaining, I'd recommend it to anyone.

It was wonderful to see Michael York back as D'Artangen after all this time. Susie Amy, who played his daughter Valentine was brilliant and so were the three young Musketeers. The only thing I wasn't totally convinced about was Gerard Depardieu's character - The Cardinal, it was at times difficult to understand what he was saying because of his accent. All in all it's feelgood film that would be suitable for all viewers


I watched this on TV at Christmas time and really enjoyed it. It's good family entertainment, thought the sword fights were great.

Really liked Susie Amy as Valentine, think she was good for the role, and Marcus Jean Pirae was good as well as Villeroi.

It wasn't brilliantly written, it was a bit 'storytelling' but the cast was great - Gerard Depardiu didn't do very much though - it seemed as though he was drunk from time to time!

The villages and the sets were beautiful and really perfect for the period. It was great to see Michael York back as D'Artagnan!

I would recommend this for adults and children, it's an adventure...


I don't know why but I actually liked this show. It was entertaining, funny, sexy and overall fun to watch. John-Ryphus was great in it, I haven't seen enough of him and it was a refreshing thing (and appropriate) to see him in this. Usually shows coming from this network are a bit on the lower end-scale, but this one was better. I gave it a 7 out of 10 which as i mentioned for this network is good. I usually do not rate their work this high. This is an old story told a thousand times by a thousand different filmmakers and for some reason I actually enjoyed this one. Anytime La Femme is used in a title, I have found it to be something worth watching for one reason or another.


Overall, this movie was okay. But the acting for the lead character, Susie Amy i think, was horrid! She was so stiff, and something about her grin instead of a smile, just seemed unrealistic, and it just rubbed me the wrong way. Gerard Depardieu was amazing in it, as usual. And, if you're like me, and are still young or even old for that matter, the guys, especially Casper Zafer(Gaston) and Nico Nicotera (Etienne) and some other young Musketeers are very nice eye candy :)! I liked John Rhys-Davies in it, as he is one of my favorite actors, but he must have still been in his Gimli stage when doing it because he came across with that sort of Scottish accent of the dwarf. I had trouble with the actors who played the original musketeers but that was no fault of the actors, as they were good, but I grew up on Disney's version with Keifer Sutherland, Oliver Platt, Charlie Sheene, and Chris O'donnell as the main characters. At times the movie seemed dull, but the fight scenes were good, but not bloody. Perfect for children, kinda lacking for the older crowd. But none the less, this movie wasn't too bad. I would recommend it for renting, but don't waste your money on buying it!


I one reviewed a movie on IMDb and said it was the worst I had ever seen, but this movie has superseded that one to become the worst.

1. The movie was not historically accurate. There were several severe problems with accuracy. The idea that a woman, without at all disguising herself as a man, could have ever become a musketeer is awfully presumptuous to begin with. Next, all the characters were CLEAN throughout the movie. The time period in which it was set ought to have clued in the filmmakers that a little dirt was in order, since people rarely to never bathed. Also, almost all of the French characters spoke with British accents. The costumes looked new, like they had never been worn before.

2. The acting was abysmal. OK, there were a couple of decent actors, but I can't imagine how they were convinced to be in this. The main actors, however, Susie Amy and the main musketeers, were severely lacking in acting skill. I'm not sure if this was their fault or the director's, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. My sister's comment was that at the height of Valentine's emotional output, she looks like she has just broken a nail.

3. The story was extremely close to the story of "The Three Musketeers," where the musketeers must protect the queen from having her indiscretions become known. In this story, they are protecting the young king, but other than that, the differences are slight. Evidently the screen writer did not have the creativity to think up something actually new.

There was one thing I enjoyed very much about this movie. It gave us a lot of laughs. My sister and I muted the TV and made up dialogue to go with the terrible wigs and bad acting.

I would recommend this movie to anyone for a laugh.


This is a very predictable movie yet at the same time very entertaining. I thought the casting was well done and that Susie Amy was a good choice for Valentine. This is a movie meant for entertainment and not for a deep socially redeeming value. I compare it to Cutthroat Island with Geena Davis. Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the movie. When I watch movies of this nature I am looking for fun, some excitement, but mainly relaxation. This has all the qualities I look for in a movie. If I want to watch a more sophisticated movie then I am looking for different qualities, but this is good family entertainment with no explanation needed. My only problem with this movie and others that take place in a European country is that when all else fails, lets give them British accents. Depardieu, being French, had the only realistic accent in the movie.


For me it really grates when the costume department appears to have done no research what so ever! This is supposedly set in 1660. The costumes the French wear seem reasonably accurate, but when we skip over to the Duke of Buckinghams home in England the English are wearing Disneyland versions of the court fashions of at least ten years later.The Duke of Buckingham himself seems to have invented hair gel and be using it to excess on his most unlikely (for the period) hair style. Since the English court generally took its fashion lead from the French, on top of which the English monarchy had only just been restored it hardly seems likely their fashions would have been so far ahead! I'm sorry, I know I'm being pedantic but for me these things can ruin a film...


HOW. HOW?!?!?!? How can a movie be so BAD?!

By the title alone, I wasn't expecting much out of it when I saw it in the shelve at the video club... But I figured, "it stars Gerard Depardieu, so it can't be all that bad." Big mistake. The only decent thing in the whole movie (for the full two and a half painful hours it lasts) was Depardieu's acting - and let me add, he plays a supporting role, so you don't see him much either. For the rest, you are left to stare, speechless, at a sequence of extremely dumb scenes, while you ask yourself what's the point in them. It's one of those movies where you know exactly what is going to happen next, with a lot of "secondary scenes" (by this I mean scenes that don't add up to the storyline, they're aim is to get you the most bored as possible), and did I forget to mention, it features some very, and I mean VERY lame actors. I was planning on going into more details, but I can't. My fingers won't let me. One final word: Don't even think about buying/renting/asking a friend/downloading/what ever, this movie. Unless you strive to finding out how bad can a movie be.


This one starts off pretty slow. After a brief scene involving two boys playing, a man is sent to Budapest to investigate what is going on with a professor there who was supposed to have sent something. It starts to pick up once he gets there and meets the professor. The professor is a nervous man who slips him something once his wife leaves. The investigator says he'll come back later that night to talk more. When he does, the police are there, and it seems some of the people he met may not have been who he thought.

Clearly the movie had a budget. It has lots of locations, some nice special effects, and camera-work that involves cranes.

What seems initially to be a giallo movie (and arguably still is) becomes a bit more supernatural than is usual for that subgenre. There's a woman with enormous strength, an exhibitionist research assistant, an old man with a warning, spider-shaped scars, heavy rolling balls, and it just keeps getting stranger. Some good murder set pieces, and a totally bizarre climax. The ending was pretty satisfying.


"Spider Labyrinth" is a strange and slow but engaging Giallo-type thriller that doesn't have any big names involved in the production (except maybe  if you're an insider  special effects wizard Sergio Stivaletti) but it nevertheless stands as one of the greatest undiscovered gems of late 80's Italian horror cinema. Around this time, the Giallo (which is essentially a stalk & slash movie with some additional trademarks) ran low on inspiration, but this movie brings some imaginative diversity to the sub genre by adding occult sub plots. Sort of like Sergio Martino already attempted to achieve in the early seventies with "All the Colors of the Dark". The plot opens with a brief but atmospheric flashback/dream sequence immediately clarifying the protagonist's link and phobia for large spiders; a small detail that will prove very relevant later in the film. Alan Whitmore is an American professor studying ancient dead languages. He's part of his university's project called Intextus, which concerns professors from all around the globe collaborating to translate and comprehend one specific long lost language. The correspondent in Budapest  Prof. Roth  hasn't been heard of in a long time and, since his input is particularly fundamental, Alan is assigned to travel to Hungary and meet up with him. Alan arrives in an overall uncanny and hostile environment, but nevertheless comes into contact with Roth through his amiable and stunningly beautiful secretary Genevieve. Shortly after, Prof. Roth is found murdered under mysterious circumstances and Alan gradually becomes sucked deeper and deeper into a (spider's) cobweb of occult conspiracies. Slow and indistinctive at first, "Spider Labyrinth" marvelously unfolds into a hugely macabre and unnerving thriller. Considering the plot (and perhaps after a few slight changes) and some of the malignant characters, THIS should have been the final chapter in Dario Argento's Three Mothers trilogy! Director Gianfranco Giagni may perhaps be a relatively unknown name in the Italian horror industry, but he promptly proves himself to be capable of maintaining a grisly atmosphere throughout the film and even proportionally builds up more tension towards a literally mesmerizing climax. The sinister Budapest filming locations form the ideal setting for a tale like this, but everything else is entirely Giagni's accomplishment (like, for example, empty swings and toy balls bouncing seemly by themselves). Then, last but not least, there's the work of Sergio Stivaletti in the special effects department. The effects  and particularly those during the finale  are shocking and masterfully nauseating. I've always been a big fan of Sergio Stivaletti's 'art' and once again he surpassed himself his own craftsmanship. If you like horror, and I do mean Horror with a capital H, I guarantee you'll be staring at the last fifteen minutes of "Spider Labyrinth" with your mouth and eyes wide open. Bravo, Mr. Stivaletti!


I picked this up at the rare video store on VHS since it seems it's not very well known or even on DVD.

It's a surprisingly refreshing Supernatural horror film with elements of the 'Giallo' mixed in. Well directed, even creepy at times it is very interesting.

The plot deals with a professor who uncovers a sinister plot. Filled with good camera-work, colorful elaborate lighting and scenes in old city centers of Europe, it is enticing for the horror fan.

If you liked this, I'd recommend: Zeder (1983)(aka "Zeder - Voices from Beyond" or "Revenge of the Dead"), The House of the Laughing Windows (1976), Suspiria (1977) and One Dark Night (1983).


This combo of favourite Italian 'Giallo Supernaturale' aesthetic and Lovecraftian 'Wierd/Cosmic Terror' plot; "Il Nido del ragno/The Spider Labyrinth" deserves far more attention.

Prof. Alan Whitmore; a standard Lovecraftian man of science (haunted by a childhood experience of being locked in a closet with a strangely sentient spider seemingly watching him from its' web), is co-coordinator of the 'Intectus Project' - which is studying an ancient mysterious, world-spanning cult.

Sent to Budapest, Hungary to recall data obtained by colleague, Prof. Whitmore is sent into 'the vortex of madness' as the hideous truth of his childhood nightmare spins a web of the greatest horror.

My first knowledge of "The Spider Labyrinth" came from Travis Crawford's review in the 'Eyeball Compendium', as other reviewers here have pointed out this film is easily obtainable on 'boot-leg', but cries-out for a better DVD release.

Gianfranco Giagni has certainly crafted a classic, beautifully merging the cinematic supernaturalism of Mario Bava ("Kill, Baby Kill!" and "Lisa and the Devil"), Dario Argento ("Suspiria" and "Inferno") and Lucio Fulci ("The Beyond" and "Manhattan Baby") with the literary plot-work of H.P. Lovecraft ("The Call of the Cthulhu", "The Whisperer In Darkness", "The Dunwich Horror", and the piece which inspired Lovecraft Arthur Machen's "Novel of the Black Seal").


I just got the import Midnight Video bootleg/USA Public Domain Release of the film. I must say I've been at this since I was 10 years old...watching horror films...reading Fango...searching for those lost treasures...after years of seeing horror films everything starts to blur and become the same old thing...stories retold, murders recreated..scares duplicated...Basically, you realize that there is not much new or novel out there...ghosts, monsters, zombies...psychos...that's about all. Spyder Labrythn is the first film in years that I can say caught me off guard and drew me in...It is this weird mix of Suspiria and The Beyond...but where The Beyond was stupid...story wise and in presentation...this film was not and where Suspiria dragged in parts of the narrative for the illusion of suspense...Spyder Labrynth doesn't. A beautifully simple tale of a professor sent to Budapest to investigate the lost communication of his colleague only to get drawn into the madness of the town and the secret it's people are protecting. The film is not predictable...the effects are gruesome and amazing and it has this claustrophobic eeriness that has only recently been recaptured by The Descent...A must see for any Horror Fan...it's a shame the film is Public Domain and will never get a decent release...


This largely unknown Italian horror movie encapsulates the best of Italian horror. We've got Giallo elements, supernatural elements, surreal ambiance and a dark, sinister plot. Despite a lovely murder scene that takes place in the middle of a load of bed sheets, the first half of the film is largely rather uninspiring; but as the film moves on, it mutates into one of the most grisly assaults that I've ever seen from Italy. Many people that have seen this movie have labelled it a Giallo, and while the film does have it's Giallo moments in the first half - I'd put Spider Labyrinth in with the robust Gothic horror films such as Kill Baby Kill, Inferno and Suspiria before listing it amongst the likes of Solange and The Bird With the Crystal Plumage. The plot follows a professor who is sent to stay with a fellow professor for reasons that are always left rather vague. It's not long before his professor host ends up dead, and our hero is being plunged into a world of mystery and sinister cults, which all seems to focus around some strange 'fist-sized' black balls.

Italian horror is well known for not making a lot of sense and this film suffers from a screenplay that adheres to that 'rule'. The intrigue is generated towards the start mainly because of the fact that the film is so difficult to follow, but once the film enters it's more satisfying second half, these problems are somewhat resolved. Even while the film isn't making a whole lot of sense, however, it still remains interesting by way of its atmosphere. Atmosphere tends to be more important in this sort of film anyway, so the fact that this one relies on it is largely to its credit. The beautiful Italian locations are well shot and the lighting in the scenes indoors gives the film exactly the right mood. The underground scenes towards the end represent the film's strongest location shoots, and are one of the main reasons why it ultimately succeeds. The special effects look extremely cheap and are mostly stop-motion. However, they're really disgusting also, and the final scene; even though the 'monster' is a doll, really is nightmarish. Overall, I could easily understand anyone that doesn't like Spider Labyrinth; but it hit the nail on the head for me, and I definitely recommend it to my fellow Italian horror cinema fans!


Professor Alan Whitmore has been sent to Hungary to collaborate with a professor there on some special project involving an ancient cult, or some such thing. While there he finds the professor has had a nervous breakdown & says strange things. Before he knows it, Whitmore has been "sucked into the vortex" of odd things happening, and there are mysterious disappearances taking place at this strange hotel in which he is staying.

Further investigation reveals the ancient cult, known as The Weavers, to have some kind of "spider thing" going on, and that there are cult members everywhere, which is evidenced by the odd tattoos they all have.

The "mystery" is well-shrouded throughout the film and not revealed until fairly late in the film, although there's plenty of strange goings-on to keep your interest until then. Budpest makes a great place to make a horror film, with deserted streets that are creepy even in broad daylight. When the mystery is finally revealed there are some stop-motion special effects that seem a tad hokey but that's only a minor complaint.

There is a feeling of dread throughout the film that is well maintained, and that's a big plus. Strange this is so obscure, because it's well worth seeing and fits well into the Italian horror niche of the 80's. Worth seeing if you can dig up a copy somewhere. 7 out of 10.


SPIDER LABYRINTH is a late Italian Horror film, obviously inspired by the classic works of Mario Bava and Dario Argento. However, this is a classic in it's own right. A young scientist travels to Budapest to investigate the reasons for unexpected problems with a top secret project. He soon becomes, ah, entangled in the web of a sinister society... Highly recommended.


Written directly for the screen this horror film has a captivating and staggering story. Almost every scene from beginning till ending is full of action and tension sequences, which are done by good camera work. Its way of storytelling is very smooth. I watched it with subtitles; even though the script is very substantial, it isn't necessary to follow up each conversation. The dialogue and connection which Pablo and Malena established together magnetizes the full attention from the viewer, since their body language and gestures were complementary with the screenplay.

The story takes place in August 2001 in Argentina. Pablo and Malena, who are in their mid-20s', are siblings from a dysfunctional family. Their father whom Pablo never seen in his life before, is in coma. They visit him and Malena introduces him to Pablo. Malena has grown hatred for his father, for he served under Anti-Communist Dictatorship of the Argentinian army to quench the communist movement torturing thousands of innocents, instead of looking after his family. There is a huge question mark here: Why are all the communists introduced as innocents in this film?

The frightening fact here is that when Pablo and Malena think that their father is helpless in coma, he turns out to be more powerful than he was alive. His spirit continues to torture the restless souls of the dead innocents. He has written a detailed diary including how he tortured the families of communist vanguards when he was young. In return to his weakened body, he bargains with one or more daemons to continue on his dictatorship mission. One of the daemons in the look of a little girl finds this diary from where he hided away. Then Pablo, the curious and adventurous one of the siblings, gets this diary from that daemon, assuming that it was something the little girl lost. So the daemon begins to bugger around Pablo and Malena. The diary which has the curse of the daemon brings only trouble to them.

Aparecidos has the meaning for "Seen versus Disappeared". Who is seen is the Dictatorship regime runners, and who is disappeared is the slaughtered rebels against this regime. Soon, Pablo and Malena read the diary and start a journey to save the victims of the murderers. One of the communist vanguards ,who has never been captured by the police due to the lack of evidence, has been killed with his pregnant wife and little daughter in the hands of Pablo and Malena's father. Daemon completes the bargain with continuously torturing the wife and the daughter's souls.

When you feel like you accomplished something, you think that you must be happy and be proud. Then suddenly you realize that you didn't accomplish anything; the confusion in your mind and senses leads you realize the fact that you just decoded something hidden. That was Pablo's confusion in the movie. When he was explaining to her sister what he was really trying to do, he says that he was gone out of his mind and trying to save someone whoever is dead already. Every night at the same hour in the same motel in the same room, the same murder takes place involving the same dead corpses continuously for the last 20 years. Who are you going to save? Save a dead tonight. Amazing concept, isn't it?


Highly entertaining ghost story with many plot twists and turns. This film is unpredictable and offbeat. Ultimately, it is a plea to stop the torture and murder of civilians who suffer under repressive political regimes. This message should be applied equally to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, Communists in Argentina in 1981 or Iraqis in Guatanamo Bay in 2009. There are a few places in the film where it doesn't work well if you try to consider it logically, so don't look at it logically. Just follow the story where it wants to take you and you will be rewarded. I watched this because it was billed as a ghost story, but I enjoyed this film on so many other levels.


If you want something different than the usual horror genre, this is the movie for you. I would personally describe it as horror with a supernatural twist/thriller within a mystery. Long description, but that's what it is. I wanted to see it first and foremost because it was filmed in Madrid, Spain (having lived there, some things were recognizable), and I am a fan of supernatural horror flicks. The plot of this movie was NOT predictable whatsoever, which is good. I hate movies you can figure out in the first five minutes of watching them. I was so engaged in the film that I did not move from seat for fear of missing one little detail. There are some parts that made me gasp even, and what you find out in the end is really disturbing,intriguing, and extremely unexpected. Oh, and just a further note, the Spanish they speak in the movie is a castilian dialect, but that's why they have English subtitles.


Mystery with supernatural overtones about a brother and sister who go to sign off on the impending death of their father in a hospital. Complications almost instantly arise ("We were only suppose to sign papers, not see him" balks the girl). While traveling after signing the papers they discover discover an old diary and some pictures, things which tell the story of a serial killer, a killer that may still be operating. I've completely botched that and to be perfectly honest short of reading a straight synopsis there is no way, none, to really describe this film. Its a film that refuses to go in any direction except its own. It plays with reality, refuses to adhere to conventions and tells a story that only completely makes sense when you get to the end of it... and in my case its the sort of thing I know I need to see again to get a handle on. I have no idea if I liked it or not. I know that my insistence that the film be a certain something had me working against it. Thats not the way to enjoy this film, its something that you have to let take you where it wants to take you. Can I recommend it? Certainly if you're willing to let it go and do. I do like bits of it, and there are bits I'm not crazy about, but at the same time any film that makes me want to watch it again (even if its to work out what I just saw) is worth a shot.


Let me start out by saying that I gave it a 7/10 due to the misleading "horror" movie this film is supposed to be(?). I don't know if the horror genre with this movie is the way to go. Another review calls it a "horror with a supernatural twist/thriller within a mystery", I'd leave out the horror part and say it describes it perfectly. That being said, I enjoyed it for the most part, as it was entertaining and had unexpected twists (with some old horror movie ingredients).

It's a different way to tackle some social-political issues that have been left unresolved in Argentina. Very BOLD in terms of how the subject matter was dealt with (one of the other reasons I gave it a fairly high rating).

I feel I need to clarify points, misunderstandings the movie may've caused others who've seen it:

1. There is NO mention of any political affiliation of the parents in the film. There is only a blatant assumption that they're communist by the doctor. You must take into account that in the 1976-1982 dictatorship, the communists weren't the only ones targeted. There were socialists, Christian-democrats, Peronists, unionists, liberals, activists (in general) etc. And anyone who had significant ties or any ties for that matter, or simply questioned the regime would be considered suspicious, not to mention a potential target.

2. Where is there in the film any hint of a communist vanguard and what lack of evidence? If you refer to the woman telling the Malena about her experiences and the fact that one of her friends disappeared because he went to a "marcha" (protest-march), please refer to point Nº1.

3.The movie was filmed in Argentina: The City of Buenos Aires and in the Patagonia. The Castilian "dialect" is rioplatense (spoken in Uruguay and Argentina).

The end was the part that most impacted (me, at least) as the siblings were now able to see all the ghosts of the people who were "missing" (keep in mind in Spanish "missing" and "disappeared" in this case are the same word=desaparecido/s). Aparecidos= (the) Appeared. For this reason I felt the title was perfect and the ending not only appropriate, but surprising, non-conventional, in a very good way.


I am a fervent fan of the genre of horror / suspense and for that, being Argentina, interested me much the plot of the movie. It is not a masterpiece but I liked the plot. As there Master of Horror in an episode that just deals of former Vietnam veterans returning to life to exercise their vote. Not that it's a similarity, but they are realities. Besides I liked the shots made in Patagonia, Argentina. Very consistent with the film. I speak Spanish, but sometimes talked so fast and closed it is not understood. Of course each one has his accent. The name of the movie also liked me, Appeared Vs. Disappeared. I think that the end is the best.


This little picture, a fine Wesley Ruggles comedy, struts along with great pace, and has a great cast with Lana Turner, Robert Young, Dame May Witty, and Walter Brennan. The acting is excellent, the antics unusual,and the comedy delightful. But the thing that is way beyond compare in this picture is the bubbling beauty of Lana Turner at her absolute peak. She carries the day with a sublime sort of sparkling charm as she changes personalities several times just to break her tedium with life. No, she never HAD amnesia, and no, she never wanted to commit suicide! But people will talk. Her beautiful sparkle and comedic charm actually made me weak in the knees. Robert Young does a decent job chasing her down the entire film, but it is Turner's film all the way.


SLIGHTLY DANGEROUS gave 21 year-old LANA TURNER her first big starring break in a film not dominated by a male star. MGM couldn't have chosen a better vehicle to show off her talent as a light comedienne with a gorgeous face and figure. And ROBERT YOUNG does nicely as her leading man in a farce that has elements of screwball comedy.

It takes the mistaken identity theme (based on a false case of amnesia) and puts Lana in the clutches of rich relatives--WALTER BRENNAN (in an unusual role for him) and DAME MAY WITTY--who believe she is their long lost daughter. Young knows the real story and spends most of the movie chasing after her to prove to the folks in her hometown that he shouldn't have lost his job over her disappearance.

It's all lightweight comedy and Turner never misses a chance to give the role of the scheming girl a sense of fun and innocence with a sexy twist. She goes from brunette salesgirl to blonde heiress in a series of outfits that only MGM's wardrobe department could devise. This is the kind of light escapist entertainment that weary wartime GIs were crazy about--and Lana looks sensational while giving an expert performance.

ROBERT YOUNG is no slouch as her leading man. He has some scenes that reveal just what a flair he had for light comedy--and some of it very physical.

The big delight is seeing so many well-known names in character roles: Ward Bond, Florence Bates, Alan Mobray, Bobby Blake (as Lana's kid brother), Ray Collins, Frank Faylen, Norma Varden and Howard Freeman, to name a few.

Well worth a look--a pure delight from start to finish.


Lana Turner is young and gorgeous in this light comedy about a waitress with a lucky penny and the dream of getting out of her humdrum life. The penny works wonders. After escaping her small town, a ladder falls on her in New York City - when she comes to, it's assumed she has amnesia (she was deciding on her new name when the ladder came crashing down). After a trip to the library, she decides to become a long-lost heiress who disappeared as a child in 1925.

Robert Young plays her ex-boss who looks to expose her lie; Walter Brennan is her welcoming, wealthy father; Ward Bond is his security guy; Dame May Witty the heiress' former nanny. Ray Collins of "Perry Mason" fame also makes an appearance, as does Eugene Palette as the newspaper editor who prints the amnesiac's story. It's a terrific cast, with Young's role being a departure for him. He does it well. Lana is simply adorable.

The movie leaves an open question, which is kind of fun, too. All in all, very enjoyable.


The delightful MGM film "Slightly Dangerous" proved to the world the power and star appeal of Lana Turner, who at 21, was at the height of her beauty. The film, directed with great comedic style by Wesley Ruggles, feels as fresh today as when it was released. The excellent quality of the print TCM showed is one of the reasons to enjoy it even more.

"Slightly Dangerous" is a fun film, typical of those wartime years. We are introduced to Peggy Evans. She has been selected for an award of $2.50, in merchandise from the small department store where she works, for her punctuality. Figuring it would take her another three years to earn the $10.00 prize, Peggy, who has quarreled with her new boss, Bob Stuart, decides to try her luck in Manhattan, where she undergoes a make over and goes from a brunette into a ravishingly looking blonde.

Her problems start when she is hit by a bucket of paint in front of one of the daily newspapers. Since her clothes are ruined, and has no proof of identity, the people around her believe she has suffered a temporary memory loss. Thus begins her adventure in the big city in which she pretends to be the lost daughter of a millionaire.

Bob, who has been fired himself, comes to the city trying to locate Peggy after he sees her picture in the newspaper. By now, Peggy has turned into Carol Burden, the daughter of the rich Cornelius Burden. Her troubles start when Bob wants to prove she is Peggy the girl with whom he has fallen in love.

The film is delightful because of the light touch Mr. Green gave the story. Lana Turner was a good comedienne who was perfect in playing the double role of Peggy/Carol. Robert Young was also an actor that was effective in all the comedies he played, as he shows here with his take of Bob. The perfect supporting cast couldn't be better. Walter Brennan, Dame May Witty, Eugene Palette, Ward Bond, Ray Collins, Alan Mowbray.

"Slightly Dangerous" will please everyone because of the magnificent cast in the movie.


I liked this movie so much.

Lana Turner was gorgeously cute and it was a very charming comedy in my opinion.

Lana played Peggy Evans a store soda jerk in a New York department store. At the beginning of the movie she is given a merit certificate for being on time for a 1000 days straight. She feels that there is something more for her out in the world. So with a new look and a new name she is walking to the New York Star when disaster strikes - she is hit in the head with a bucket of paint. When she awakes people think she has amnesia and even though she hasn't - she goes along with it.

Lana Turner was a much better actress than she was given credit for and really excelled in these frothy comedies.

A very funny sequence at the start of the movie has Lana say "I can do this job blindfolded" and proceeds to make a banana split that way. This is what causes all the trouble in the first place.

Robert Young is also in it as Bob Stuart, her boss at the department store and the only one who knows her secret. I movie I would recommend.


This movie has certainly "grown" on me. There are very few weak parts in it. Even the extras are outstanding. There is both social and moral content. Lana Turner's character grows up and my, what a thinker she is. And so is the persistent Robert Young. Everyone wins. This is what I consider a feel good movie. I also loved both the band music and the opera scene music. If you like Walter Brennan and Dame Mae Witty, you'll have to love them in this movie. Alan Mowbray has a good bit part. I love seeing Eugene Palette manage something without goofing it up. Even he sparkles. And I've become a fan of Jimmy Conlin who plays the role of the bartender.


Such a little film and it raises so many questions. I saw this film at a Sardi's Chowder Society lunch years ago, and I was astounded. We never see the driver, we never see the car, we just see the view forward from the front bumper, and what a view it is. FLAT-OUT through the early morning streets of Paris in something very, very fast. Seemingly insane risks are taken as red lights are blown thru at 120+ mph, pedestrians and on-coming traffic narrowly missed. How was this possible? Was there any traffic control or did the driver really take those risks? Who drove? Who is the woman at the end? What made her worthy of such a drive? But most importantly, exactly what kind of car was it? (I'd like to think it's a Ferrari 275 or 365, some knowledgeable buffs say a Renault Alpine, but no one can answer that one for sure.) If you are a sports car enthusiast, this film is not optional, it's mandatory. For others, some get it, and some don't.


When you initially watch the DVD it's looks very quick.

I'm actually a racing driver, so i know what 150mph looks like and when he's on the Champs Elysee he's certainly close to that speed - 5 gear and max revs.

But the maths only add up to an average speed of just 44mph over the 6.5mile course. Which still isn't bad but not as quick as you initially think !

It's still something people talk about and I regularly pop the DVD into the player to show friends. It's still the same open jawed reaction !

The recently re released, re mastered DVD is far better quality than the poor private video's that had been knocking around for ages.


They showed this incredible movie at TV5 in a "Motorshow". I was paralysed watching it! I could not move my body to reach for VCR ... And the minutes passed away - and Whaooo what a moment!

So now I´m looking for the movie on European video or DVD - do you know anything about that? It´s available in US video format, but here I am in Europe...


This short (approx 15-20 minutes) film is right up there with the car chase from "Bullit". If you're into fast cars-this is for you! Lelouch borrowed a friends Ferrari, strapped a camera on the front and took a high speed drive through the streets of Paris at daybreak. Thrilling! Listen as he goes through the gears. We have a tradition in my (British) car club of showing this at the last meeting of the year-and no one has tired of it yet! (Equally as exciting backward as it is forward!) Credits should read-"Sound track by Enzo"!


In 1976 or 1977 my wife and I saw this movie in Paris. It was called Paris Nonstop at the time. It was not a Ferrari at all. It was a motorcycle and began, as I recall, by showing the motorcycle with the camera mounted off to the side. Same movie. Look at this one, by the way, and notice the "Ferrari" charging up a narrow street and approaching a truck on the right side. There is a woman on the sidewalk to the left with about 3 feet or so between the curb and the truck. The motorcycle does slow a bit, then tears through the narrow opening and acceleratesno chance it was a car of any description. Leaving that aside, as you watch whatever it was blowing red light after red light and blasting pigeons in every direction, you don't need to get huffy about how fast he might have been going. He was going way too fast for where he went. Note: No pigeons were (apparently) hurt in the making of this movie.


You see someone is driving a very fast car, a yellow one, a Ferrari from the peripherique of Paris into the center, the heart, the Sacre Coeur. You see the car driving - and you are the camera, you are the car, you are the movement towards the center. This movie is both miracle and myth. It was shot without permission, in the early 70ies by Claude Lelouch. The ride through the city takes place in the very early morning, fantastic light - and it ends with a rendezvous in front of the famous church high above the city. So finally you see one of the main reasons of driving too fast - the fear of getting late to a date. This is exactly what cinema is about: movement. Perfect! (But I don't believe that they really fixed the camera on the car directly)


Rather than waste anyone's time, I'll start with the answer to the obvious question - yes, the characters in Nude for Satan spend plenty of time nude. For Satan. Probably more than in any other film I've seen short of hardcore porn. And every time they do, you'll probably want to shout out, "Nude for Satan!" 'Cause it's just that much fun to say. Try it, you'll like it. "Nude for Satan. Nuuuuuude for Satan. I'm nude for Satan!" See?

Of course, there's a bit more to it than that; there is a plot, kinda. Our Hero, Dr. William Benson, happens upon an unconscious woman who crashed her car on a lonely highway in the middle of the night. Seeking medical attention for her, he is directed by a very odd man to an isolated castle, and from that point on, things start to get very strange. The two get separated, and William ends up getting distracted by Evelyn, a dead ringer for the car-crash woman who dresses in period clothing (when she's not nude for Satan), calls him Peter, and is hot for his bod. The crash victim, whose name is Susan, ends up spending time with a variety of people including their enigmatic host, an unnamed female servant, the leering, gap-toothed butler (or should I say, handyman?), and William's doppleganger, Peter.

Both William and Susan are fairly creeped out by the goings-on in the castle, but don't really start trying to figure things out or get away until they meet back up when Susan is menaced by a giant, and apparently quite horny, spider. Then our host explains to William that Peter and Evelyn are the repressed, dark sides of Dr. Will and Susan, and then William witnesses a bizarre ritual where Susan and Evelyn merge and make out with Peter while various nude and semi-nude people dance around, apparently (you guessed it) for Satan. Alas, Will's will proves too strong for the dark side to claim him as well, and he escapes, only to find himself back at the site of the original car accident.

If you think it all sounds rather confusing so far, keep in mind that, for the sake of brevity and comprehension, I've left out most of the really weird aspects of the film in the above summary. No, really.

But the most interesting thing about Nude for Satan is that it appears that this film was a major influence on The Rocky Horror Picture Show. We've got an innocent, upstanding couple, who find themselves stranded in a castle after experiencing car troubles, and are gradually seduced to a life of vice and debauchery by its bizarre inhabitants. There's a bedroom scene that matches Janet's breakdown ("But you did!") right down to the heavily blue- and red-gelled lighting. And the clincher comes at the end, when Peter and Susalyn exactly mirror Frank and Columbia's little frolic on the throne in RHPS's ballroom scene, immediately followed by what could certainly be called a "floor show." All in all, pretty much a must-see for the serious cult-movie fan. Say it with me again - "Nude for Satan." Hee. That never gets old.


Even though the time since I watched this piece of cinematic history fades away I feel compelled to document my personal experience with the motion picture.

Even though this film is bound by about as much storyline as the ingredients on a packet of Special K, it manages to keep the mild interest of the viewer through a string of scantily clad females, naked dancing and what could only be described as bouts of randomness.

The film starts off with an old fellow heading up to a castle, and I think I pretty much lost the plot from thereafter. It may be a combination of poor scripting or the fact I was rather tired at the point of watching this... in either case, I was unable to twig to the supposed outline of 'A doctor and the Devil battle for the soul of a beautiful woman'.

Another 'glueing' factor of the film is that throughout one feels compelled to keep watching in the event of anticipated intercourse. To the credit (or not) of the director, the nudity remained tasteful throughout the film.

A roller-coaster ride which keeps you coming back for more.


Having been a fan of all things ridiculous from a very young age, I couldn't believe my eyes when one evening a friend and I sat down to watch some trashy horror rubbish and what greeted us was this. 'Nude For Satan', the title sounded good, and from the opening where we witness a car crash nearby a mysterious, remote castle we were captivated!

From there on Luigi Batzella draws us into his fantastical, horrifying, bizarre world where things are not as they seem. The setting is gorgeous, with our protagonists (Dr. William Benson and a young lady, Susan) wandering the strange grounds, but something is not quite right, as the characters meet up again they seem to no longer know each other. From here on they are thrust into a twisted reality of dopplegangers, giant spiders, nudity and Evil!

This is a film that will change your perspective on the medium forever, alter your perception of filmic conventions and one which will stick with you for many years to come! A truly essential surrealist picture!

Open your mind to 'Nude for Satan'!

7/10


To all the people who are babbling about how the movie had no plot,I've got words 4 things to say to you- 1.Its a Exploitation flick. 2.Its Italian Exploitation flick. 3.Its is a "classic" Italian Exploitation flick. 4.Its a Cult flick(Enjoyed by some and despised by most)

The reason i didn't give it full marks is that it doesn't have as much nudity as i wished for,but still pretty good.It has very good atmosphere which i totally love about these movies and the wooden acting also makes me happy.If i want to see great acting i would watch a Mira Nair film. The lead actress is absolutely gorgeous with a great body,and she would do great in my classic exploit collection.


Lots to look at, as you would expect from an Italian film. Supernatural in theme, not much of a plot. This is not necessarily a negative thing, considering how effective if worked in Dario Argento's "Inferno". Plenty of nudity from Rita Calderoni which doesn't hurt. Somewhat similar in gonzo style (but not as frantic)to Polselli's "The Reincarnation of Isabel". Worth a look.


This film is quite good,very dreamy,and the nudity itself quite pleasant.The spider scene staggers belief!But imagine the room is full of opium smoke,and the film makes sense immediately.Its a bit like the unreal feeling of a heavy flu,it doesnt matter whats going on,its all happening anyway.Dont expect much more than what it obviously gives,and indulge in euro-trash at its most surreal.