It's funny that Williams starred in this, b/c he was in another older movie called "Sieze the Day" with Jerry Stiller, about a loser trying to make a buck in NYC--A Saul Bellow story. I liked the beginning, when he told his students they would be "worm food" and told them to listen to the dead past students as he whispered "Carpe Diem! Seize the Day!" But I had to question some of the assumptions in the movie. For example, the poetry class was only one class out of several. It's not more important than any other, yet Professor Keating selfishly arrogates to himself the task of molding the character of these boys, as if the other teachers were all just dopes. He fills his impressionable students with the notion that it is better to be a hopeless romantic than a boring banker. But shouldn't the teacher focus on poetry, and having the students appreciate that, instead of trying to turn them all into romantics? After all, most of the students were sent there to become lawyers, bankers and doctors. A good teacher would have gotten the students to love poetry, not the teacher. Also, one IMDb critic wrote that "this film only shows rebellion in the form of following a sectarian leader". I missed that. True individualism and rebellion often are leader-less, and the film seemed to suggest that these impressionable boys either "go with the official program", or "go with Professor Keating's"--no third way, really. The biggest problem I had with the film was that the characters were not credible. Prof. Keating may have some charisma, but for all the students to love him so quickly, and spend their free time going into the same cave to read poems I found unbelievable. While they were there, they just acted silly, and no real attention was paid to poetry itself. Also, the boy Knox, who woos the girl, I found unbelievable. At first he's all shy, and toward the end, he becomes a real bohemian charmer with his poetry and professions of love. Yeah, right. Charlie Dalton, the one who takes most seriously the passionate teachings of his mentor, becomes quite the charmer and poet--but then all of a sudden becomes the one in the group who best predicts the political fallout of his actions (to try and get girls admitted to school). So which is he, a romantic poet, or a realist? Can't be both at that age. The saddest part of the movie was supposed to be the death of one student whose dad would't let him become an actor. I was a bit touched by his passionate "Puck" performance, but it was confusing because his dad walks in during the performance, and you're thinking "his dad finally accepted him", but no his insensitive dad drags him home, where his son eventually kills himself that same night. The boy just couldn't say what he felt to his dad, but the boy was a natural leader among other boys; it was frustrating and depressing. If the boy was too weak to even tell his father his passion, then he probably wouldn't have survived as an actor, either (that's my take). And like Emperor's Club, both teachers, although leaving their intangible, yet indelible mark on the young men they taught, are shown to be quite weak and naive in matters of the world and politics. In DPS, Prof Keating is made a scapegoat and kicked out from the school, even as he watches in humiliation another prof teaching the exact same "excrement" he told the students to rip out of their books. So he succeeded in stimulating some bohemian feelings into the bosoms of a few college prep kids, but then he can't teach there any more--good job. In Emperor's Club, Prof Hundert loses his spot as headmaster to a young, politically-connected upstart, even though he taught there for 30 years. What a sap. Why should any student respect a man who cannot even make his way in the world, and is surprised he's passed over for promotion for being so insular? He also seems puny to the grown-up bad boy Sedgewick Bell, the student he tried to unsuccessfully "mold" into a moral man--Bell invites him to his huge estate, where he also announces his candidacy for Senator--it makes prof Hundert's moralizing seem a bit silly. here he is invited, via helicopter, to this rich man's estate--Hundert looks like a fish out of water. Prof Hundert lives in his little-boy world of the Classical "Greats", and wrongly assumes that the great Greco-Roman leaders were men of high principles and honor, values he tries to instill onto his students. Yet any meager student of this era knows that the likes of Sedgewick Bell, the boy who cheats to gain favor, would have fit in just fine next to tyrants such as Augustus and Julius Caesar, who used Machiavellian cunning and force, not honor, to make their mark in history. So in that respect, Emperor's Club was even worse than DPS, because the basic premise that "men of honor" ruled the world of long ago is flawed, whereas in DPS, Prof Keating acknowledges the chaotic passion in poetry, and tries not to moralize as much as instill his students with the same romantic passion great poets felt. I want to see "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" to see how this stacks up against these 2. I give this film a 7. It is beautiful, touching, but too sentimental at times, which almost ruins it.


When I heard the title 1st I thought it must be a horror movie or something but when I saw it I enjoyed it very much. Because the movie reminds me myself. Not the way my parents wants me something different that I want, you know our school in here is just like their's. No girls and so boring and like them I'm passing the final year in my high school and after that I'm going to university. I saw the movie on December 2005. Now all of them are grown and are real men. When they recorded the movie I was just a baby because I'm born in 1988. In addition I wanna say that was a very cool movie and I liked it a lot and a big thanks to Robbin Williams with his excellent play.


I almost forgot how incredibly dope, fly, def, and funky fresh Run DMC were; especially Run!!! Run held it down! I remember Run's rappin and how it had a hard edge to it, but his character had the same hard edge to him as well. Krush Groove is a magnificent tribute to rap and the pioneers of rap. Krush Groove featured maybe half of the known rappers from that era. Run DMC didn't invent rap but they sure took it to another level. Rap is nowhere today without Run DMC. They elevated it to the stratoshpere. I remember dying to have a pair of Adidas because of them.

The movie itself is more or less a 95 minute concert with some acting in it. Blair Underwood was probably the only real actor in the entire movie. Being that this was his first movie, lucky for him it didn't kill his career. As poor as the acting was, I loved this movie. I totally understand that my affinity towards this movie is directly linked to my growing up in the 80's and listening to the very artists in the film. Each artists' appearance was an instant trip down memory lane. We're talking The Fat Boys, Kurtis Blow, The Beastie Boys, New Edition, Sheila E., Full Force, and even Donnie Simpson before he hosted BET.

I could go on forever about the movie and even though the movie was low budget, poorly edited, complimented with sub par acting, it is the memories that are evoked that makes me like it. Put this movie on my list of old school niche favorites with Beat Street, Breakin', and The Last Dragon.


Wow I can't believe I put off seeing this movie until now! I am honestly considering watching Tougher Than Leather(!) But seriously the first rap cassette I ever bought was Fat Boys Are Back in 1985 when I was 9. I would eventually turn into a life-long Hip-Hop producer after that. Back in the day(early 90's) I/we/they took De La Soul's lead and shunned R&B and commercial rap so I never felt the urge to see this...

...until now, as I watch the people who used to be plastered to my wall when I was a kid in what appears to be an actually good movie! I put this movie on while doing something else and ended up watching the whole thing standing up(a first for me). It seemed to move at a perfect pace and was well shot and directed; I loved the funky scene changes sometimes with a scratch and screen dissolve. Most importantly though are the stars, especially the brilliant Sheila E. who I now have a crush on.

I haven't seen High School Musical or any modern show of that variety but I would imagine this movie is the blueprint for that, at the very least it's a blueprint for today's fashion trends. If you like over the top 80's movies with heaps of heart and moments of panic-stricken hilarity, look no further. I think I'll watch The Last Dragon next...

Rap, Hip-Hop, whatever you want to call it, this is a great piece for the culture in general and probably an awful amount of fun for those that were there to make it. Definitely Def! P.S. - Recommended accompanied viewing is the 1986 Dutch rap documentary called Big Fun in the Big Town which can be seen on Google video for free. This shows interviews with Russell Simmons, Run DMC and LL Cool J, offering further insight into the story behind Krush Groove(there's other great stuff in there as well but I won't give it away).


A lot of good review comments, so I'll just add. This movie could well be classed a historical in some respects, and is actually shown in some colleges as part of curriculum. It is based on the true and personal story of Run DMC, The Fat Boys, Kurtis Blow, Sheila E, and others breaking out rap music for the first time to the mainstream audiences against convention and against those who would view rap as non-music and a fad. It showcases the music as a true underground phenomena; fun, creative, positive, and energetic; embraced by urban youth eager to rebel. Poor, fat, whatever, just being yourself for a change was enough for you to make a go of it and be successful. There are 12 musical productions in the film and some showstopper performances by Sheila E (coached by Prince for this film) especially. This movie was based on real events and the roles played by the people themselves who lived them. In that sense it may not have a Hollywood calibre cast and complicated plot, but that wasn't the point of this film. This film was meant to showcase the struggles of a music, the struggles of artists in an emerging genre, and show people where it was at in 1985. It did just that, capturing the heart and soul of hip-hop, where it all is rooted, free from excessive profanity, free from guns and gangsterism; just go out and have fun, stand tall, express yourself, forget the nay-sayers, and throw down the creativity. And the rest is history.


Krush Groove is the best movie about the Hip Hop culture. It shows it's roots, and how the top Hip Hop Empire got it's start. If you love Hip Hop, and like Brown Sugar you really need to see & own this movie if you haven't already. If you don't like this movie, you don't truly love hip hop, you're just having an affair. This classic shows all of the elements of Hip Hop with New Edition (the original group) Kurtis Blow (who the fugees sampled), The Fat Boys, RUN-DMC, LL Cool J who's still going strong, The Beastie Boys, & Sheila E who worked with Prince, even Rick Ruben who's in the latest Jay Z video was involved. Go get this movie! For real you need it! You won't be sorry!


This movie is worth renting for a few scenes, like seeing LL Cool J burst in and performing "Can't Live Without My Radio" during the Krush Groove auditions. Unfortunately, the storyline is weak, and the acting is terrible. However, if you're a true old school fan, be prepared for some classic scenes featuring the likes of Sheila E., RUN DMC, the Beastie Boys, The Fat Boys, LL, and so on.


I watched the 1985 film Krush Groove yesterday, I must say I really enjoyed it.Now here's the thing about this movie.If you do not like rap, you will probably not enjoy this movie.If you hate very old-school rap(any rap song that came out before 1988), you probably will not like this movie.However, if you like the genre of music, you will probably enjoy this film.I really like this kind of rap.I also like old gangsta rap from the late 80's to late 90's.I also like other types of music such as rock, metal etc.Therefore, I liked Krush Groove.The plot of the film involves a man who is trying to start his own record label, his brother's a member of rap group Run DMC.He starts it after a loan, and it does work, however there is another big record producer who is stealing his artists.He also owes money to the man who originally gave it to him.Meanwhile, a rap group called "The Disco Three"(The Fat Boys), are trying to make it big in the rap game.The movie features music from artists such as Shiela E, Run DMC, The Beastie Boys, Fat Boys, LL Cool J etc.If you like old-school hip hop/rap, then Krush Groove is the movie you should see.


Three years ago when I was watching the Cartoon Cartoon Top 5, and first place went to an episode of the Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy named Night of the Living Grim. I found it funny, and I have been watching the show ever since.

A happy-go-lucky boy named Billy (Richard Steven Horvitz) and a cynical girl named Mandy (Grey DeLisle) own the Grim Reaper (Greg Eagles) because they won a limbo match against him (the bet was placed over the soul of Billy's pet hamster). The show accounts their many adventures, which range from problems that most kids their age face to situations involving supernatural creatures.

One of the reasons why the show is so funny is because it depicts the Grim Reaper as a childish, washed-up individual. Another reason is because the only intelligent human in the show is Mandy, while everyone else is either stupid or insane. The only reason why I don't give this a perfect 10 is because there are a few flaws to the show. First of all, Billy, although funny, can get annoying occasionally, and sometimes the show overuses potty humor.

Warning: this show is not for everyone. How much you like the show will depend on two factors. The first is how much you can tolerate the potty humor used in the show, and the second is how much you view the characters Billy and Mandy. You will either view Billy as an annoying, disgusting idiot who uses Grim like a toy, or you will view him as one of the funnier characters of the show. As for Mandy, you will either view her as a spoiled, manipulative child who only thinks about herself, or you will view her as a semi-Gothic girl who steals the show.

Grade: A- (Fantastic)


This show is one of the most hilarious cartoons I have ever seen! The only drawback is the sometimes violent and/or disgusting humor, so if you are uncomfortable about your children being exposed to that, it's probably a bad idea to allow them to watch this. Mandy is brilliantly voiced, and has an incredibly violent sense of humor. She frequently insults everybody, including her parents and other adults. Billy, on the other hand, is a happy-go-lucky idiot. In one episode, he remarks, "I guess nothing really gets to me." to which Mandy replies, "You know what they say: Ignorance is bliss." All in all, it's a wonderful show and Maxwell Atoms is a genius.I give it nine out of ten stars! Thumbs UP!


I've liked this show for a while.

Billy, a plain stupid little boy, and Mandy, a cynical girl trick the Grim Reaper into being their friend forever. They go through many supernatural adventures and all that stuff. This show makes evil funny.

The humor can go in between. Sometimes it's just hysterical, and there are many adult jokes as well. The potty humor can be a bit overused, though.

They also don't repeat new episodes enough, blah. Heard it was getting scrapped this year (ew)..

Anyway, This show brings back some of what was lost in the transition between 90's cartoons and this decade's cartoons. Really gives you a break from the cruddy shows they have now.


This has got to be the best cartoon network show of all time.

The show originally started as a show called grim and evil. But the evil part was soon dropped and became one show following Grim, Bill and Mandy. The show uses gross out humour which is probably the only show of it's kind now next to ren and stimpy. The thing about this show is that it's too dark to be a kids show it literally gets away with murder with it's humour and story lines and just it's plain weirdness like when billy starts to work with cthulu. The show will not be stopped and should hopefully continue for a long time unless they show something really offensive or not suitable for kids TV which i think will be very soon.

All in all this show is amazing funny and witty and fast on it's feet and well worth a watch unless you censor your kids from it.


This is one of the best children's television shows ever. Grim is great because he is more like an extremely old, six foot tall Yoda always helping the kids, hmm? Billy is the lovable doofus always getting into a load of junk that is really stupid, such as eating an endless supply of magical bubble gum and then flactuating huge bubbles, just before belching all of the gum up and into the atmosphere, covering the whole world in gum. Then there's Mandy, the cute little spawn of Satan, yet more evil than the Grim Reaper, which is weird. I remember the time that she smiled and caused the apocalypse to happen. That was a good time. Well, if you have never seen the show, I suggest you watch it immediately and start laughing as Kurtwood Smith plays Grim's father in one of the episodes!


Now I remember this show airs on CN on 2001, titled Grim & Evil, one was Grim (Grim Adventures of B&M) and Evil (Evil Con Carne). Now in 03' it was retitled "Grim Adventures of B&M"

Grim & B&M- It's about two kids waiting for something unusual to happen, and it did, comes the Grim Reaper. First of all, the character designs, voices and other stuff is downright bad.

Characters of the show: Billy- He was a neighborhood boy who doesn't remember anything because he doesn't have a brain, Well, he has a brain right now! He can be smart, intelligent and have personalities to each other.

Mandy- Can this creep ruin everyones lives today? We'll find out, Now Mandy is a mean spirited girl has no opportunity to have fun, she wants to be a demon all day. Mandy's Emotions: mean (that's all) no happiness? , no smiling? Why? Anyway, Mandy is so bad, that she torments Billy thinking he is retarded, well he's not! Grim- (No description). The humor is very overrated.

I used to watch this show when I was 12, but after a few years, I suddenly gave up on it.

Overall: It's not as bad or boring as Spongebob Squarepants (IMO the most overrated show ever made, but it's definitely not as good as Rocko's Modern Life, Ren and Stimpy, Doug or Invader ZIM.

B&M: 2.5/10


I have tried so much to try and actually enjoy this show(who does), but everything I've seen from this show is nothing but dark humor, which isn't at all funny in any way. This show is about this evil(in my own opinion) girl named Mandy, this dumb as a doorknob boy named Billy, and their forced-to-be-friend-forever servant known as the Grim Reaper. When the first started out, it was OK. Not that entertaining but not that dark either. But as more episodes came out, the more darker it became. Mandy became more evil, Billy became even more of an idiot, and the Grim Reaper went out of character a lot more often. He sometimes even enjoy Billy and Mandy as friends. I do not know how children actually think this is entertaining. And how parents haven't tried to ban this show yet. They have made fun of many popular shows/movies including Harry Potter, Star Wars, Pokeman/Digimon, X-Men. And even shows that are on Cartoon Network as well like Fosters Home For Imaginary Friends, Codename Kids Next Door,etc. I really wish I could give this show -10 stars because this show will crush childhood dreams.


The Cartoon Channel scored big with this lovely little cartoon. The stories and characters are very wonderful. The macabre stories take their cues from earlier and equally good children's cartoons, such as "The Real Ghostbusters" and "Ahh! Real Monsters," as well as from such eclectic sources as the stories of H.P. Lovecraft and Harry Potter and even from the Kustom Kulture artwork that featured Rat Fink. I've only seen a few episodes, but the cartoonists and voice actors have really made an enjoyable cartoon that mixes the supernatural with goofy comedy.

I do have some quibbles with this cartoon, and I'm sure that there are many people who agree with me. The animation style is part of a trend that focuses on deliberate crudity and outrageousness. The characters' personalities are manifest in the way they are drawn, which is surrealistic and crude, with thick lines and sharp edges; cartoonist Christopher Hart calls these types of 'toons "edgy 'toons." I know it's a hip style that the Cartoon Channel seems absolutely ape for, but, having been raised on the classic and complex styles of Disney and the Looney Toons, the crudeness of the animation style edgy 'toons doesn't quite win me over. I get the impression that the "Grim and Evil" cartoonists simply don't put in as much effort as their predecessors did in the days of yore. I also don't like that Cartoon Channel is marketing "Grim and Evil" towards young children, when the humor---again, much in the vein of the wild and crazy "edgy 'toons"---- is gross enough to be considered adult. "Grim and Evil" out-Ren-and-Stimpys "Ren and Stimpy" with its constant and explicit discussions and demonstrations of bodily functions, like boogers and bathroom humor. One episode featured one of the children stating that his mother was undergoing menopause. I think this is a little too adult for the demographic the Cartoon Channel is looking for. This cartoon is great for teenagers and adults, though; they are also the ones who may actually understand the homages to horror writers or older cartoons that may go over the heads of little kids.

Overall, this is a decent cartoon. Be sure to watch it, but if you're a parent, exercise caution if you have young ones.


I am just baffled as to why this show is so popular. This show is one of the poorest animated series I've ever seen. Characters such as Mandy are bitter and painful to watch, while the rest are lacking in basic intelligence, like Billy for instance. Sometimes, an idiotic character in a show is a good thing, but this show overdoes it, and that aspect doesn't work for it. It just degrades the quality of this cartoon even more. This show has no integrity, either, as its values are corrupt and poor, and after watching an episode, what has one actually learned from this, or what purpose has this show made? It tries to aim at comedy, but most of it is unintelligent comedy, which they overuse quite often. What's even worse is the graphics. This cartoon has some of the poorest animation I've ever seen, and that is another turn-off for this show. This show bothers me very much, and I don't see why people enjoy it so much. To me, this show has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and it's nothing special from any other show on TV. If anything, it is much worse and should be ignored in favor of other shows that have much higher quality production values. I think that this show should be canceled, or if not, the creator should give this show a massive "face lift" to provide the show with a more positive aura.


The conflict in Kossovo serves as backdrop for this Spanish film. Directed by Daniel Calparsoro, whose "Asfalto" we recently saw, is an intense film that takes the viewer behind the horrible war in that part of Europe. How similar is the movie in comparison to the real events, we can't say, for sure.

We are presented with a group of Spanish soldiers that are sent to restore electric power to a small town. As the group approaches the Serbian border, they encounter an unexpected turn of events as they are attacked by one of the factions and end up straying into a no man's land where no one is supposed to enter. The soldiers are faced with the horrors of a war they were just supposed to stay away from.

Vidal, the daring soldier, is instrumental for getting them back in track after the Lt. Alonso suffers what appears to be a shock. Alonso turns out to show all signs of a coward when he is captured. It's only Vidal who at the start appears to be the one that wants to be sent home in order to avoid any confrontation; this young man proves to be a natural born leader who finds a way to get back after experiencing some tense moments in that forbidden zone.

The best thing in the film is Eloy Azorin, a talented young actor who is perfect for the role of Vidal. Eduardo Noriega, an actor who has done better in other films, is quite a puzzle as the cowardly lieutenant. Ruben Ochandiano, Carla Perez and Jordi Vilches are seen as part of the platoon of Spanish soldiers.

Daniel Calparsoro seems to be getting better and better all the time.


We often watch world conflicts on TV and think they could never occur in our own country: we're too civilized to surrender ourselves to such brutal behaviour. This thought is one of many that haunts a group of Spanish peacekeepers in the embattled Serbian province of Kosovo. The troops represent a spectrum of personalities: the pacifist, the trigger happy, the professional soldier, the UN translator with conflicting loyalties, the soldier who wants no part of somebody else's conflict and who just wants to go home. As they undertake their duties - rebuilding a Church, restoring electricity to a town - the conflict becomes their reality. They are swept into it, and far from being the placid observers & peacekeepers they think they ought to be, they now must fight for their own survival. They slowly begin to lose that veneer of civilization that they though only they possessed, the same patina these embattled locals once had, but lost long ago. The director based many of the stories on actual events as told to him by Spanish soldiers returning from the region. It is filmed in a very gripping and heavy way - drawing you into it all, along with the lost soldiers. It drew great acclaim at the Toronto International Film Festival, 2002. For those who followed (or survived) the events of the last decade in the Balkans, it is a stark and honest portrayal that will leave many re-thinking the versions they may have formulated in their own minds, reading newspapers and watching TV, comfortable, in their own very civilized, and very insular, homes


I think that fortunately spanish cinema is evolving from the obscure era of the "destape" (the first movies that were made after the death of Franco were known like this because most of them were light porn films) and from Almodovar's large shadow.

Guerreros is an entertaining film which makes the audience to question how war is really and how it is showed to us. The film begins with an intense dramatic action scene in which many kosovars are killed by serbian paramilitars. The mission of the platoon is bringing back electrical power to the village and go back home. But finally they get in trouble with the kosovar guerrilla because of the acts of a french captain and almost every french and many spanish die.

They're in the middle of Kosovo without transport, low ammunition and two wounded units.

The history is interesting and it's quite well made from the technical point of view but from the military point of view it's a complete disaster. A disaster because every lieutenant on every army knows how to manage a situation like this; that's why they're lieutenant and not soldiers, platoons never go along the path, and in anyway, all together to give a clear objective to an average shooter.

By the way, some other things are quite well done like the attitude of the sergeant, the way they manage their weapons and how finally they act. That's because they were trained partly by the spanish army and they taught them some things :)

Despite of the military mistakes, it's very entertaining and superb in FX, at least for spanish cinema. As I said in the summary, a hurra for Daniel Carlparsoro.


I caught this on Spanish-language HBO the other night and was captured by its style, tension, and brilliantly executed character development. The pacing is deliberate and, at times, frenetic. The tragedy of the "fog of war" in which these Spanish peacekeepers are lost is palatible. If you liked "Saving Private Ryan", "The Big Red One" and "Enemy at the Gates", you'll love "Guerreros".


I don't know if directors, screen players or others in the team ever go to analyze the culture of one nation before recording a movie, which has to do with the part of new world history. KFOR troops suffered first victim in 2001, in an accident shooting, and fact is that KLA has never attacked NATO troops, they were allies. Every movie that describes history in a wrong way is to be judged. I have seen the movie out of curiosity, but this production is far far away from qualitative movie. My tip for directors is: before you shoot a movie, analyze the culture of the people first... On the other hand, KFOR soldiers were not positioned in mountains and rural areas of Kosovo, they were positioned in towns, villages and populated areas. Serb soldiers have fled Kosovo one week after KFOR troops marched. If you make a movie just to show the action, then don't use someone else suffering to create so called art, but create a fiction story, don't mess with people feelings, or on the other hand, gather facts and then create a realistic movie, what has happened... but it looks like Spanish troops in Kosovo were partying more than others, and have done a movie just to show how "brave" they are.... pity, shame for world cinematography... Spain is not for action, I say stick with Almodavar


OK,this is a resume of the entire movie,because this movie is probable one of the worst movies ever seen,not for his special effects it for his awful script.. i resume:this movie is about the NATO mission in kosovo,its about a soldiers of Spanish engineers corp., the film start whit him trying to rescue a Serb hostage,but wen he arrives,he don't shot he see how the hostage is executed with a plastic bag but he don't do anything,he is hitting by a weaponless mens and have more brainless scenes, 1ºIn the mission and stupid french commander decided to shot some kosovars refugees,(but kosovars militants of elk were the NATO allies). 2ºbefore lost 4 strikers and all the convoy,the rest of the Spanish platoon decided to continue the mission(wow,they are lost,are 10 soldiers,within trucks,radios,food and radio and the mission is in a village taken by serbs militians,) 3ºin the road to the village they see a car with more kosovar allies,but they decided to left the road and run across a mined field,genius,then they lost a soldier... 4ºwhen they arrive to village they are easily captured by militiants,(the reason they never use his machine guns) 5ºFinally the kosovars retakes the village using the Spaniards stykers,and some of the Spaniard soldiers escapes to the outskirts and kill a pacific famer,and eating the food like animals... awful movie,its more like "what don't do in a battlefield


Paul Robeson is the star in this Ripping Yarn, with the British keeping the 'picaninnies' under control in Nigeria.

A number of pastoral African scenes of the National Geographic variety (if you know what I mean) are included in this story of the conflict between two tribes in the African heartland.

Don't believe the undergraduate comments here - this is nowhere near as racist as the B grade American films made in the same era ("The Jazz Singer" for instance, and it's ilk), or TV series of the fifties - the Africans are dead glamorous and brave, and the British characters wooden and two-dimensional.


Although a source of much embarrassment (and biographical revisionism) to Paul Robeson in later years, by the standards of its day Sanders of the River isn't quite as obnoxiously racist as you might think. Unlike American films of the period, it's more patronising than openly defamatory and while he's hardly a role model, Robeson's convict-turned-king plays a more central role in the plot than Leslie Banks condescendingly paternalistic British commissioner ("Sandi the Brave, Sandi the Wise/Righter of Wrongs, Hater of Lies!"). But then, you don't expect subtlety from a story by Edgar Wallace, who many blamed for the collapse of peace talks during the Boer War because of his salacious invented newspaper stories of Boer atrocities.

As a film it holds together fairly well, with the extensive and often spectacular location footage of Africa and Shepperton riverside (all too obviously shot with stand-ins for the two stars) compensating for the Victor Herbert operetta style songs given to Robeson ("Let the rivers rattle/Onwards into battle/Make them flee like cattle").


Viewed today, 74 years after the film came out Sanders Of The River is a paradoxical film with the good and bad of British colonial attitudes of the 19th century. It's based on the first novel by Edgar Wallace, prolific British author who spent much time in Africa during the latter 19th and early 20th century.

Sanders played by Leslie Banks is the local administrator of an area of what is now Nigeria and a man who is confidently shouldering the white man's burden as he saw it. Nevertheless he's probably the best representative of his type in the area, someone the British see as the best in themselves.

He's taken the trouble to study the languages and cultures of the various tribes in his area and mixes in the local politics judiciously and fairly. When one of the tribal kings, Tony Wane, starts resorting to the slave trade which the British fought vigorously to suppress, Banks comes up with his own instrument of enforcement.

His instrument is rival king, Paul Robeson of a different tribe and on that the plot of Sanders Of The River turns.

Robeson was over in the United Kingdom at the time because he could not get the kind of film roles he wanted in the USA with America hung up on stereotypical blacks. Though the film is a salute to the judiciousness and fairness of British colonial role, Robeson took the part because I believe it gave him a chance to show the real Africa. There is no way America was ever going to make this kind of film. After MGM's near disaster with Trader Horn, American companies shied from location shooting until there until The African Queen and King Solomon's Mines.

Though taking place in the Nigeria area, the film was shot on location in the Kenya colony and we learned that the first Kenyan president, Jomo Kenyatta actually was an extra in this film. Robeson gets a chance to sing a couple of songs written by Mischa Spoliansky and Arthur Winder, but are as good in the black idiom as Gershwin's Porgy and Bess. No way Paul Robeson would have sung them if they weren't.

Robeson is joined in the vocal department by Nina Mae McKinney who scored big in King Vidor's Hallelujah, but was then unable to find decent roles for a beautiful black singer. That would wait until Lena Horne came on the scene and not altogether satisfactorily done there. She plays Robeson's wife and mother of his child and her capture by the rival king sets off a potentially nasty blood bath.

Sanders Of The River though incredibly dated should be seen quite frankly because of that. Robeson's singing voice is at its best here and this is a picture of Africa you won't get in Tarzan films.


Impossible to watch through 21st century eyes,"Sanders of the river" belongs to the "Saturday Morning Pictures" school of movies.I saw dozens like it in my local Odeon (Our Dominion Extends Over Nations) as a small boy.Wise white man benevolently ruling over spear waving savages,chattering monkeys,trumpeting elephants,and other denizens of the Dark Continent.Most of the savages had bones through their noses and danced round the cooking pot chanting gibberish.They were badly-made,with unsteady scenery,crackling soundtracks and startling inadvertent jump-cuts.Nobody you ever heard of was in them and we forgot about them as soon as we got out into the daylight. Unfortunately there were some well-known actors in "Sanders of the river" it was well made and very popular in its day.Now it seems slightly hilarious to give it the broadest possible benefit of the doubt. If you go to see it don't take Spike Lee.


Excellent film dealing with Arthur Miller's story of a man who sold defective plane parts to the military during World War 11 resulting in the death of many pilots.

Edward G. Robinson gave us an outstanding performance as the conflicted individual, who did this for his own selfish-interests only to escape prosecution but to see his partner jailed.

This is a story of intense inter-family conflicts. The partner's daughter was to be married to Joe's (Robinson's) son Larry in the film. The picture begins with the fact that Larry is missing in action. Ann, played by Louisa Horton, is now becoming engaged to Joe's other son, Chris, played with marvelous insight by a young Burt Lancaster.

Mady Christians is also a standout as Joe's devoted wife, who herself is in denial that Larry is probably dead and knowing full well what her husband did was wrong.

This is a terrific film dealing with moral conflict and the ultimate tragic resolution to it.

You have to wonder what Edward G. Robinson had to do to be nominated for an academy award.

This is Arthur Miller at his best writing. A truly American classic.


Since this movie had no particular reputation, I expected a somewhat ho-hum adaptation of Arthur Miller's play. In fact, the movie somewhat improves on the play. It's not afraid to be a little more "superficial" than the play, opting less for profundity than for solid melodrama, and I do mean solid. Robinson is superb, but the real surprise for me was the unshowy, very subtle (for him) performance by Lancaster, never a favorite of mine in his latter-day, hammy period. Here he seems content to be an ensemble player, supporting Robinson and playing a relatively quiet, Gary Cooper sort of role, and therefore he comes off more of a genuine star than usual. When he does finally explode in physical violence, the effect is truly shocking.


ALL MY SONS may have been slightly diluted for the screen as compared to the stage play which implicated corruption and wartime profiteering on a higher level than just one or two business men, but it's still powerful stuff and extremely well directed by Irving Reis. Individual scenes have a strength that is impressive, largely due to the excellent central performances of BURT LANCASTER, EDWARD G. ROBINSON and MADY CHRISTIANS. Robinson, in particular, makes the most of a meaty role that has him cocky and confident one moment, then bruised and bitter the next as his past crimes catch up with him--and his conscience.

Seems that during WWII, he and his partner (FRANK CONROY) were pressured to finish making cylinder parts for airplanes on the government's tight schedule and knowingly sent defective parts which caused the death of twenty-one pilots when their planes went down. Robinson has been hiding the truth from himself and his neighbors ever since, concerned only with making a decent living for himself and his family in suburban America.

Conflicts arise when others around him begin to question his role in the crime that sent his partner to jail. The son of the jailed partner, played in rather stiff fashion by HOWARD DUFF, is unforgiving when he realizes Robinson shared the guilt with his father and yet let his father take the blame for the incident. Lancaster, too, and his girlfriend (LOUISA HORTON) who happens to be Duff's sister, also bring the conflicts into the open when they start asking for answers and probing for the truth. Horton is rather colorless in what is meant to be a sympathetic role and spent her remaining years in TV roles.

But it's EDWARD G. ROBINSON who makes the biggest impression as the father, proud of his achievements and obviously in denial until his son, Lancaster, makes him realize why his other son never returned from the war--which leads to a tragic ending.

Summing up: Somber drama never quite overcomes its stage origins but it's still powerful stuff.

Trivia note: The only implausible factor in the casting--the physical impossibility of BURT LANCASTER as Robinson's son, when he bears no physical resemblance whatsoever to Eddie--nor Mady Christians for that matter!


Most American theater lovers think that greatness descended upon Arthur Miller in 1947 with his great play THE DEATH OF A SALESMAN. It certainly is the play that people remember above all his work, even such later classics as THE CRUCIBLE and A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE. But as a matter of fact, just like THE GLASS MENAGERIE preceded Tennessee Williams' A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, ALL MY SONS preceded THE DEATH OF A SALESMAN.

If Williams found a tragic poetry in the soul of his fallen aristocratic characters - his Amanda Wingfields and Blanche Dubois - Miller found a mine of power in the failures of the American cult of business success. In SALESMAN it is Willy Loman's gradual realization that a lifetime of hard struggle and strife serving his company did not result in his being shown any respect when he can no longer bring in any large business. In ALL MY SONS, Joe Keller (Edward G. Robinson) is not a small peg in the economy like Willy Loman. He is the owner of a factory - on his way to being a millionaire which (in 1948) is the proof of success in America. But while Willy Loman has a dirty secret that cost him his son's respect for him as a father, Keller has a dirty secret that makes him a criminal.

The film/play takes place in 1945 - 46. Keller's oldest son has died in World War II, in an military aviation crash. His younger son Chris (Burt Lancaster) has returned too from military service upset - he is aware that something is wrong about the death of his brother, but he is not sure what. He is also aware that his father has a secretive side - one that he is sensitive about. It appears to be connected to the wartime trial of Keller's partner Herbert Deever (Frank Conroy). It seems that Keller and Deever's plant got a big government contract that required the delivery of airplane motors at a particular date. It was a very lucrative contract: in fact, it built their company. But there was a defect in the motors - which did not prevent Deever from completing the delivery of the defective motors. As a result, twelve planes crashed in the South Pacific, killing their pilots and crews. Deever ended up going to prison, but the critical decision was made without Joe Keller being present (he was ill that day) and so Keller did not go to prison.

Somehow, despite Chris's perplexity about his brother's death in the war, the Kellers would seem not to have any problems. Joe is an apparently successful manufacturer and seems well liked. His wife Kate (Mady Christians) is always ready to smooth over any little flurries of difficulties that may pop up. But Chris comes home with his girl friend Ann (Louise Horton). This is upsetting to Joe and Kate, though they try to put their best face on it: Ann is the daughter of jailbird Herb Deever. And sometimes tagging along is angry, troubled George Deever (Howard Duff), who has occasionally visited his dad - and has heard the story of the defective motors from a different perspective. And that perspective raises issues about "good old" Joe Keller.

Up to 1945 the subject of government contracts and corrupt cost cutting rarely popped up on stage or screen. But during World War II it became a big issue because of the huge government contracts that Washington set up for the war effort. In fact, the U.S. Senator in charge of investigating waste and corruption in these contracts made a really big name for himself in the public eye. He was a Senator from Missouri named Harry S. Truman, and by 1944 he had become such a prominent figure that F.D.R. insisted he be his running mate for the Democratic National Ticket. They won, and within a year Truman had a higher office than Vice President.

But the subject never really came up before in film. There was, oddly enough, a film in the 1930s about the Spanish American War "tainted meat" scandal that damaged the career of Secretary of War Russell Alger in McKinley's Administration. This was I LOVED A WOMAN. The meat packer profiteer involved in that film was played by Edward G. Robinson of all people. But that scandal was the only war profiteering one that came to the screen. So when Miller did this film it was, if you will, "virgin territory".

Miller, of course, turned the issue into a morality situation - as Joe Keller comes face to face to his sin against his partner, his country, the war effort, and his own sons. And he does, in the end, learn that the material gain was too costly - as he realizes, the dead pilots were all his sons.


I was shocked to see the viewers at rated this as 6.6 or something. If this is a 6, Gone With the Wind is a 4. A moral conflict that all should be able to identify with. Edward plays the role beautifully, he makes the call or rather has someone else make the call to preserve the status quo but it does anything but that. Anyone else playing the lead it might have been a lesser movie.

I was disappointed that it was not on the best 100 movies list in last years pole.


A standard 1940's group of ensemble players, coupled with strength of an Arthur Miller project. All of the cast principles and minor players as well were at the top of their forms when they stood before the cameras. None were noted as powerful stage actors in their own right. Yet when they appeared in this film, they succeeded in doing what I think a film of a major stage work should do. Carry the viewer into the stage (not film) theater, and give him/her the unique experience of a Broadway or Off-Broadway theater seat.

The production style and direction, (for reasons of cost and utility) let the words of Miller's play take center stage. The Art and Set direction, in beautiful black-and-white, are spare, firm, and commanding. They command our attention. Miller is big on attention to the issues his characters are grappling with and their impact on the great issues of our (and all) time.

As Miller repeats in Death of a Salesman, there are layers upon layers of meaning and understanding between his characters and the issues they confront both internally and externally. The two business partners have had a long, intimate, family relationship (like Cain and Able). So close a relationship, that his son could have married his partner's daughter. And she of course, is the only one who has always known (from that son) the truth about the death of the son. And the truth(s) about the father.

Miller shows us that the father's Horatio Alger lies are so much at the foundation of who we are individually and collectively as Americans; the they can almost completely wash out what individuals and a community should think about its leading citizens. It is an interesting plot twist that as Miller's script points out, it is the low class birth and poverty of the father embeds him into the fabric of the community.

That the film faithfully carried Miller's message of contempt and loathing not only for the worship of that false god(capitalism), but also for the whole Horatio Alger hero myth (that both American liberals and conservatives embrace) is quite daring. Even for a film world that had not yet descended into the long night of the "Black-List".


Enjoyed this Edward G. Robinson, where he plays the role of Joe Keller, a self made man who was poor and built up a very profitable business. Joe has a nice family he is very proud of and works hard to give them all the comforts he never had when he was a child growing up. During World War II Joe started bidding for government contracts and he was making good money until American pilots started having problems with their aircraft and many pilots were killed because of faulty parts. There is a big scandal and Joe Keller faces some very serious problems. Burt Lancaster, (Chris Keller) plays the role of one of Joe Keller's son's and he gives an outstanding supporting role in this film. After this airplane scandal, many people started saying, "Ask Joe Keller" what really happened. Edward G. put his heart and soul in his role and clearly showed his great professional acting abilities. This is a rather sad story, but true to life.


I watched this movie on TCM yesterday for the first time. I have seen other movies starring Edward G. Robinson and have always liked his work. Without Robinson this movie would flop. Yes, Burt Lancaster stars in it too but he does not add much. Others could have played the role of the son and in fact Lancaster seems miscast as Robinson's son.

When watching a new release I don't have the luxury to weed out the biases one acquires from watching something filmed in one's own date and time. One distinctive mark of a good movie is how it appeals over time. This movie was made more than 60 years ago yet it transcends time. The styles and fashions of the 1940s fail to get in the way of the story which seems just as real today as it was back then. This is the hallmark of a great movie.

Edward G. Robinson plays his role perfectly. One would think that the character and actor are one in the same but this was not the case. Robinson's character lives in classic denial. He is convinced of his lie. When confronted by Lancaster you can see the pain in Robinson's eyes. I enjoyed this movie and the wonderful performance by Edward G. Robinson. It's a joy to unearth such a treasure as this movie turned out to be.

Also fun was watching a young Arlene Francis and Henry Morgan. They strike me as such nice people. I enjoy watching old clips of "What's my Line." Also, growing up I always liked the comforting presence of Henry Morgan who is still alive today!


The movie, "All My Sons", is timeless in the telling a post war story about two families for which the war was never ending. Edward G. Robinson portrays "Joe Keller", the manufacturer who owns the plant that sold faulty airplane parts to the military during the war. His business partner went to prison, but Robinson's character, "Joe Keller", was home sick the day the bad parts were shipped. Eddie Robinson gives a flawless performance, as always, playing a sharp minded and hard working plant owner who's life's blood flows through the profit margins of his business. "Joe" knows everything that goes on at the plant and was never sick a day in his life, so Joe said. Why, then, was he out sick the day the faulty parts were shipped? Joe's wife, "Kate", is unable to accept the fact that one of their sons, Larry, who went missing in action as a pilot in the Pacific theater, was indeed, dead and not, "missing". The war had ended 3 years earlier, but "Kate" could not come to terms with the truth that her son was never coming back home, ever again. The war would never end for Kate. Larry, the "missing pilot", had planned to marry "Ann Deever", who's father was Keller's business partner, who went to prison while "Joe Keller",(Robinson) was acquitted of any wrong doing at the trial because he was home sick. Folks around town suspect Joe's hands weren't clean, and Joe got away with it while Herb was made the fall guy. Joe and Kate have another son, "Chris Keller", played by Burt Lancaster. Chris and Ann began falling in love, as Ann came to terms with her first love, Chris' brother, was killed in the war. The fact that Ann and Chris want to get married is unbearable to Mrs. Keller. Kate's reaction to Ann and Chris being engaged is akin to seeing her missing son in a coffin. Robinson's portrayal as "Joe Keller" leaves nothing to the imagination. He wants the only son he has left to inherit a booming business which was all that Joe Keller could measure the worth of his life by. Everything in Joe's life was built on half truths, denial and finally, success in terms of wealth and reputation as a businessman. When the war was on, Joe needed the lucrative business that came from the military's need for production. His partner went to jail, oh well, that wasn't Joe's fault. Herb Deever was rotting in jail, but Ann Deever was ready to marry Joe's surviving son, Chris. Joe figures that as a way to pay Herb, well, Herb's daughter, Ann. Ann would be getting the business in marriage, to Chris. Joe liked that, but Kate saw it as sacrilegious for Ann to marry Chris instead of waiting for "Larry", her son, Chris' brother, and Ann's initial fiancée. Larry was dead, but Kate wouldn't hear it. Ann's brother, George, (Howard Duff) came back home too, but he was angry after visiting his father, Herb, in prison. He blamed Joe for everything, including the fact that the successful Joe Keller was doing great, and Ann's and George's father was wasting away in prison. George wasn't happy about his sister marrying into the family that looked the other way while his and Ann's father took the rap and went to prison for sending bad parts for military airplanes, which crashed and killed dozens of men in the war. Edward G. Robinson never fails to deliver, and this film is no exception. The supporting cast, especially Mady Christians, who plays "Kate Keller", the brokenhearted mother and the loving wife, is believable and disturbing. Christians portrayal of a mother waiting for her son to come back from the war, gives the feeling that made me cringe, for the fact that I, too am a mother. I was afraid to relate to her because she was so believable. It made me uncomfortable, which is a credit to Christians' acting ability. Burt Lancaster looked stunning, and also gave a decent performance. Howard Duff, who played, "George Deever", the son of the imprisoned business partner, and Ann the fiancée's brother was terrific in his role. Howard Duff's character was the impetus for causing the Keller family, and his sister Ann, to face the truth, and face the ugly things that happen from fighting a war. The story takes place after World War II, which by all accounts, was a just war, as America had been attacked. It isn't about the war in Europe or the war in the Pacific. It is about the war's effects on the people on, "the home front". The war between families and the mother who couldn't stop believing that her missing son wasn't dead. Eddie Robinson is great as, "Joe", a man who sees himself as a total success in business, family, and in service to his country when he provided parts for the cause during wartime. Things unravel little by little until finally, their entire world crumbles around them, as if they were also living in a war torn, bombed out city. The war comes home to stay for these people. I highly recommend the movie, "All My Son's", for viewers of ages 12 and older. This movie has a great deal to offer. I own it, and have gone back to it time and time again.


Arthur Miller has always been my favourite playwright and All My Sons my favourite of all of his plays. The film version really impressed me as they were able to make the film come alive in an interesting, new and exciting way. The shots were meaningful, but not pretentious. The acting work of Edward G. Robinson as the tragic Joe Keller was inspired. The subtle ways his character would speak volumes without saying a word. Mady Christians (Kate Keller) had few lines but we rarely wondered what was going on in her head. All the performances were well done...but...

There were two things that bothered me about the film.

The first was noticeable, however forgivable. I found that the delivery by Burt Lancaster (who played Chris) sounded like he was trying to act on stage. He spoke the lines with pronounced enunciation and flair. He did not overact in any way, but the way he delivered his lines felt forced, felt like I was watching the performance rather than watching life unfold.

The next was a disappointment for me. However, if you have not read the play you wouldn't notice it at all. The end of the play is quite emotional and whenever I read it (about once a year) I find that I weep uncontrollably. The film did not have the same emotional affect, however, and although it was still tragic it somehow came across with less impact than the words on the page.

I am a filmmaker myself and it has always been my dream to remake All My Sons once I have garnered enough experience to do it right. I hope one day to do it justice.


This is a great movie for anyone who likes well-acted, tightly-written suspense and who can tolerate the absence of such tired action-movie clichés as exploding helicopters and pithy catchphrases. Edward G. Robinson does a masterful job as Joe Keller, an aircraft manufacturer who shirks the responsibility for providing faulty equipment to the Army Air Force (as it was known then) and allows his partner to go to jail. Solid supporting performances by Burt Lancaster, Howard Duff, and Mady Christians make All My Sons an even more rewarding movie.

What I really loved about it is how the screenplay contrasts not just guilt and innocence but also knowledge and belief, loyalty to family and loyalty to the truth, and grief and guilt. The plot is complex and fulfilling; all characters are well-rounded. The acting is uniformly excellent and you are made to believe in the characters and their plights.

I have two hesitations about recommending this movie unreservedly. One is that anyone who has seen the play, and especially any fan of Arthur Miller, might find the movie disappointing. Screenwriter Chester Erskine changed quite a bit, including removing some characters and reducing the number of competing plot lines. The script may be weaker than Miller's play, but it's more suitable for the big screen.

The other reservation I have is that the underlying premise is actually quite unrealistic. In real life there would have been no investigation in the first place, and certainly no criminal charges. Training aircraft crashed with such depressing regularity that investigation was rare even in the most suspicious cases - there just wasn't the money, time, or interest on the part of the brass. Problems in combat situations would be investigated, but most training accidents were assumed to be pilot error even when they patently weren't. This error won't bother most people, of course, and shouldn't; but if you are a stickler for accuracy it might affect your enjoyment of the film.


"All My Sons" was on Broadway in 1947 and starred Ed Begley Sr. and Arthur Kennedy. It was a timely play, as stories of wartime corruption had started to surface. Considered anticapitalist, it was suspected of being pro-Communist, so the film version is somewhat modified from the play. It stars Edward G. Robinson, Burt Lancaster, Mady Christians, Howard Duff, Louisa Horton, and Arlene Francis.

Edward G. Robinson plays Joe, a man who worked hard to build his factory along with his partner, Herbert Deever. During the war, Deever was put on trial and found guilty of shipping cylinders from the factory that he knew were defective, which, when put into planes, caused the deaths of many war pilots. Though Deever claimed that Joe knew about the shipment, he wasn't believed - Joe was home sick at the time the cylinders were sent. Though the cloud remained over Joe, his business stayed highly successful, and he enjoyed a good place in the community. His son, Chris, however, comes home and announces that he wants to marry Deever's daughter Ann - who had been engaged to Chris' brother Larry, lost during the war and presumed dead. This fact has never been accepted by Chris and Larry's mother (Christians), and Joe is anxious that Chris put aside his idea of marrying Ann. Then Ann's attorney brother calls her from the prison where their father is incarcerated. He believes Joe is guilty and wants to reopen the case.

This is a very well acted film that suffers from the miscasting of Edward G. Robinson. Robinson was a magnificent actor but is so obviously guilty, one wonders how he escaped prosecution, especially when one sees the sincerity of Herbert Deever when Chris visits him in prison. The Broadway star, Ed Begley Sr., had a friendly face and a good deal of warmth; Robinson is scrappy, defensive, plus he looks like a thug. It was more of a Spencer Tracy role - it called for a more lovable man that you want to believe, doubts to the contrary. Mady Christians, who was blacklisted, is very sympathetic as Joe's wife.

Burt Lancaster insisted on this role; early on, he saw a career as a hunk beginning to take form and fought it. This led to interesting parts for him later on, and he made a great transition to character actor later in life. One can certainly understand the temptation to cast him as a hunk, with his broad shoulders and great build. Lancaster was the whole matinée idol package, right down to his full lips. Apparently the actor knew how handsome he was and was very competitive with other stars of that era, such as Tony Curtis, and like Curtis, he wanted more than romantic leads.

Despite its flaws, All My Sons is a strong drama about a son breaking away from his father, the strength of denial, the importance of penance for one's acts and of moving on. A Chinese woman who saw "The Crucible" was certain that Arthur Miller had been in prison in China, so universal was the language of that play. That was Miller's gift, the ability to tell a deeply human story that, politics and social change aside, can still resonate today.


I saw this movie today for the umpteenth time and it finally occurred to me... Weren't both men to blame? Wasn't Herbert Deever really just as guilty as Joe Keller? No matter who "says" they are responsible, anyone involved in knowingly shipping faulty parts that could kill people is responsible. Deever shouldn't have sent them out, no matter what he was told. Isn't that what all those Nazis claimed when asked how they could commit so many atrocities? "I was just taking orders." That doesn't wash with me or with most people. We all have a responsibility to follow our own consciences with regard to right and wrong.

They were both guilty....

It's a wonderful story and very well performed and written, but that fact remains to be discussed.


"All My Sons" is one of those disappointing films that goes far enough in a certain direction to become somewhat interesting but doesn't really follow these ideas to any kind of meaningful or even dramatically satisfying conclusion. To how much of an extent that was the fault of the original work by Miller and how much was due to the changes by the screenwriters it's impossible for me personally to judge because I'm not familiar with the material. But regardless of the reason, in my opinion it doesn't add up to a particularly good film.

Chris Keller (Burt Lancaster) is the somewhat disillusioned son of an industrialist, Joe Keller (Edward G. Robinson) who happens to be in love with the daughter of his father's former business partner (Howard Duff), Ann Deever (Louisa Horton). What could have been a rosy small town setup however has been sent off the tracks by a criminal investigation into the war-time practices of the company, which was accused of passing off defective parts which ended up killing American pilots  Ann's father has been sent to prison for a crime that it becomes increasingly obvious was probably just as much Edward G's character's fault.

The great weakness of this film is that it's completely obvious that his character is the guilty one. Otherwise there would be no story at all. And a moral dilemma should really have more weight than this one. Should Keller have rejected the defective parts, even if it meant shutting down his plant? Obviously he should have rejected them, so there's really no dilemma. The film tries to convince us that his plant would have been forced out of business if he had rejected them, and yet at the same time shows us that his business was booming during the war. This makes the economic element of the dilemma unconvincing. And even if we did believe that he had to choose between rejecting the parts and closing his plant, his speech about how hard he's struggled to create this legacy for his children hardly inspires me to empathy with his "plight".

As if to quash any last possibility of compelling drama, the film's eventual conclusion focuses on a letter from Chris' brother, who died in the war. His letter, which the film implies should be like an earthquake of drama shaking this family, is instead predictable and its tragic consequences are also predictable.


The premise of this film is about a man appointed to be President under unusual circumstance. The current President and Speaker of the House tour a building in Europe, which colapses and kills them both, the vice-president is ill and can't fullfill the office.

The Presidency falls to a surprizing fourth in line.

It's a great story and I don't understand why it isn't on video yet.

The only small flaw is that it is time dated with the premise of Apartied in South Africa. Everyone write to the studio and get them to put it out on video. It has appeared on TV but they cut it to ribbons and destroy the continuity. -ARBY


Although dated this is an excellent movie with Jones as commanding as usual. One of the most intriguing phenomena to watch is how his character grows into the bold and confident president one would expect of one who has tasted the power of the office. The ubiquitous theme of racism is dealt with adroitly. Moreover the Rod Serling screenplay makes one wish the old master would have left a greater body of work along these lines. The Movie is however much different from the book but this was for me a very enjoyable find, especially after a near 30 year search. I recently got a fair copy from videogrill on Ebay. As of this date 4-20-6 there is another copy being offer through the same online group.


The President and Sec. of State are killed when a building collapses, and the Vice President had had a stroke a month earlier, so the Oval office falls to a token black staffmember (played by James Earl Jones). This coincidence seems even more plausible today considering recent terrorism and the health of current Vice President Cheney. Serling's unsentimental script (based on Irving Wallace's book) includes intrigue and plot twists, and the amazing confluence of recognizable character actors under effective direction transcend the usual TV movie standards, making this one of the better TV movies I've ever seen. Put another way, the film doesn't feel dated at all, except for todays increased racial visibility in political offices. The film is also a mirror image of Serling's "Seven days in May," and represents the only way a good guy (a true Washington outsider) could get catapulted to power (except for the Prisoner of Zenda-esque comedy "Dave").

Ironically, while it was probably a sensation to see the portrayal of a black president in the 1970's, today's audiences aren't surprised to see James Earl Jones in the CIA/White House in the Tom Clancy movies.


Possible light spoilers, but nothing specific. Yes, you too can see Darth Vader running the white house! "The force is strong in this one!" Really, I'm a big fan of the "West Wing" and this movie brings forth the same feeling of the hair on the back of my neck going up. Mr. Jones does a fantastic job of being uncomfortable with his new role as the first African-American president of the United States. In the opening scenes we find out that the President and Speaker of the house have both been killed, and the Vice President has been an invalid for awhile, so the next person in line is James Earl Jones' character - he believes that he has been given his position as a token gesture. He can't believe that anyone would want him as a President. Some hate him some think he is an "Uncle Tom." The movie follows his slow morph into a charismatic leader that wants to run for president. All the supporting players do a great job, I would buy this on DVD if it was available. If you like "An American President," or "West Wing" then I guarantee you will enjoy this film. It goes a little slow in the middle, but really picks up steam in the end. A great political film. Unfortunately, the color of the Whitehouse 30 years later is still...well mostly white.


I have read the comments of the academic from 2004. Now is the age of Obama and it looks like "The Man" missed the mark. It seems that everyone in the media and democrat party is trying to save this president and in turn; disrespect the constitution of this country. James Earl Jones is, and always has been, a terrific actor. In this movie he is backed up by some of the best of the supporting actor universe. As you can see from the previous comment, this is more than about just a movie. The question should be asked does the race of the President require that no criticism be cast on his (or her)actions,that no honest and fair debate be held, or that all policies be acquiesced to just because of race. This movie is optimistic in that a good, qualified man found himself in the seat of power by accident.He was worthy of that power and had to fight the good fight. He did not travel the globe apologizing for his country or displaying the trappings of power for the sake of self aggrandizement. James Earl Jones was an American, raised as American with American values. I wish reality could be the same.


This was indeed an excellent movie, but I remember seeing it on the big screen, I am quite sure it is not a "TV movie" as several others have said here. I am sure many know it only from the TV broadcasts, as its theatrical distribution was probably not widespread. Take a look at the movie poster on this page (have you seen that many movie posters for TV movies??!!), and make your own judgment. Jones is indeed superb, and though the premise is somewhat far-fetched, it is not important, because the drama remains. An important period piece of its time. I remember the performances and the cinematography to have been excellent also. PLEASE get this out on DVD ASAP! Great flick!


Never having seen "The Advocate's Devil", we decided to take a chance and frankly, it paid off quite well. Thanks to director Jeff Fleckner, the film has a lot going. In fact, the crisp cinematography used in it and the excellent editing makes this a movie well worth a look.

The film is based on Alan Dershowitz's novel, a defense attorney, himself. We are presented with a situation of how a lawyer's bad judgment clouds his vision and gets a client absolved of a crime that seems, in retrospect, too obvious to even get involved in. Abe Ringel (Ken Olin) is retained by jock star Joe Campbell (Holt McCallany) when a young woman accuses him of raping her. In fact, Ringel and his team of investigators seem to have doubts about this client from the start.

Joe Campbell figures he is above the law and can do whatever he thinks he can get away with, even after a tragedy occurs, for which he is not even blamed. It's not until he decides to concentrate on Emma, Ringel's daughter, when everything comes to a head.

The film is interesting to watch because it's not the typical Movie of the Week type. The acting is good and the cast gives an excellent account under the direction of Mr. Bleckner.

"The Advocate's Devil" will not disappoint because the quick pace and credible story.


"Thirty Something" star Ken Olin has certainly had a fascinating career since the series ended. He has become a very successful producer, for one thing. Acting wise, for as nice a guy as he played on the series, he has often been cast as a wife killer. In this movie, based on a novel by Alan Dershowitz, he's an attorney with a run of losses who takes what looks to be a slam-dunk case, defending a basketball star accused of rape. Along the way, it begins to look like the case isn't the winner he anticipated as inconsistencies in his client's story begin to emerge.

As his investigator girlfriend, beautiful Mariska Hargitay gives a warm and honest performance. I first saw Mariska's work when she was a kid on "Falcon Crest" and my opinion of her has never changed. She was a delight then, and she has evolved into a wonderful actress while still maintaining a charismatic presence. Holt McCallany, as the defendant, gives nothing away in an enigmatic performance and will keep you guessing.

This is a film that will definitely hold your interest. Only a lawyer could come up with a plot like this, however. I found it just a little too clever.


XX There Are Spoilers XX Disturbing crime/court drama based on a novel by famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz who also wrote the screenplay about rape deception and finally murder.

Known as "The White Knight" San Francisco Condors basketball star Joe Campball, Hoit McCallany, has it all: talent looks charm and money as well as thousands of star struck young women who would give their right arm to spend an evening with him. One of those lucky ladies Jennifer Dawling, Jessica Tuck, gets that wish and after having a quite and delightful dinner with Joe goes up to his hotel room to spend the night with him.

The next morning Joe is accused by Jennifer of raping and abusing her and is later indited by a grand jury to stand trial. Joe getting defense attorney Abe Ringel, Ken Olin, to defend him tells Abe that Jennifer is trying to get money out of him by dragging his name through the mud and that he's willing to take the stand to tell the truth which is that he's innocent of all the charges that she made against him.

On he stand Joe comes across so truthful and straightforward about the events that happened that evening with Jeniffer that Abe reviles her name, a possible rape victim, in public at a news conference the next day.The trial of Joe Campball is a forgone conclusion with him being found innocent,a verdict announced by a pretty and admiring young woman who's the jury forewoman, and admittedly set free. Everyone in the courtroom, with the exception of Jennifer and her lawyer, feels that justice was done but the person who you would think, next to Joe, would have felt most happy about the verdict didn't.

Abe knew that he unleashed a psycho on society who raped before he raped Jennifer and will more then likely rape again, which he did, and one of his intended victims being his, Abe's, pretty young 17 year-old daughter Emma, Gina Philips.

During the trial Abe found out that Joe is an expert computer hacker and likes to hack into court and police websites checking young ladies who claimed to have been sexually abused and then having their cases thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Jennifer Dawling was one of those young women.

Joe had found out that these women would not be believed in a court of law, if they chose to press charges against him, because they were already proved to be lairs before so why would not a jury feel that there lying now. Which was exactly what the jury in the case that the state, through Jennifer Dawling, brought against him felt.

Free to do what he wants Joe ends up killing another young women Lisa Lister, Anne Farquhar,who he picked up and took at a local San Francisco hotel-room. Abe seeing this in the TV news, no one in the news or police knows who killed Lisa at the time,and realizes that this is Joe's Modus Operandi. The act that Joe's basketball team, the San Francisco Condors, were playing in SF at the time makes him a prime suspect in the murder.

Feeling terribly guilty for letting Joe loose on an unsuspecting public Abe tries to get him re-arrested by the police with what he knows about him. Still technically being Joe's lawyer Abe feels that he can't betray his client even though his client betrayed him.

Joe in a mad effort to get even with Abe charms his young daughter Emma, who's totally Ga-Ga about him, and takes her to a hotel room to do to her what he did to Jennifer and Lisa and ,as far as we know, dozens of other young ladies before them. With Abe and the police being helpless to stop him.

The movie " Advacate's Devil" is both shocking and engrossing at the same time and will leave it's audience jolted at whats happening on the screen. Both Ken Olin and Holt McCallany are in top form as the lawyer and criminal with McCallany stealing the movie as a chilling Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde type of person and McCallany pulls this off without the use of any makeup at all.


A very good , solid, direct for T.V. movie. I had the fortune to watch it on "Cinemax" and I really enjoyed it.

The movie deals with the hard situation that popular lawyer Abe Ringle is going through after losing several cases in a row and not being able to recover from that situation. Things change when basketball superstar Joe Campbell is accused of rape with violence. Campbell decides to hire Ringel as his lawyer. Ringel and his super hot assistant, and other team member figure out and win the case although they know that Mr. Campbell is in fact a disturbed person that gets excited after insulting and raping women. Ringel discovers that Campbell murdered an ex-hooker and threatens him about demanding him. This is where the movie gets interesting on the legal field because it shows topics like the lawyer's professional privacy about his clients, rape, testimonies, murder, etc.

Things get bad when Campbell decides to take revenge on Ringel by seducing Ringel's sweet but hot daughter Emma. Campbell manages to get her on a hotel room and tries to rape her after telling horrible things about her dead mother.

This movie is very interesting even if you are not familiar with laws. It moves in fast pace and manages to keep you entertained. Watch this movie and you won't regret it because it's a solid drama with likable characters, great acting, and most of all, it's entertaining and very believable.


This turned out to be a very good movie. The story is intriguing, and I wonder if it must have been based on reality, somewhat. The only problem is there was the big film- "The Devil's Advocate" with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino- (totally different plot though) so it may confuse the viewer, thinking these are similar films, and thus, not tuning in.

That aside, Ken Olin is excellent in this film, as the defense attorney who must defend basketball star, Joe Campbell (portrayed by Holt McCallany). I have seen McCallany in one or two smaller films, and he was excellent in this. The case which Olin prepares so well, and wins turns out to be a possible mistake. What if the defendant really did rape these girls? What kind of person is he? What is he capable of?.

Mariska Hargitay is also good as Olin's assistant. There is a small role for Deanna Milligan ("Intensity" 1997) and Gina Philips is Olin's daughter, who becomes involved with Joe Campbell (McCallany). While the ending wasn't overly suspenseful, this film addresses the many flaws in our legal system, and psychological issues which cannot be assessed by the courts.


Saw advocate's Devil on cable in bits and pieces. due to commercial interruption when I usually change the station. but with VHS videos prices generally so low these days, tried in vain to find it for purchase, thus far.

mayhap I will record it when next I find it playing.

my rating is that it appears to be engrossing, well-written (yes, this is THE one from the Dershowitz novel) and well-played. Ken Olin plays the defense attorney. (he starred in 30-something). and therefore was immediately recognizable to me (for the other reviewer's comment)..all around, a seemingly worthwhile courtroom and beyond drama.


I thought that this was a wonderful movie. I missed the first few minutes of it, however and would love to see it again. Mariska is one of my favorite actresses and it was cool to see her playing a different role than Olivia Benson on SVU.


At the same time that Norah Stanton (Wendy Crewson) is researching an esoteric Etruscan religious order, the order is secretly a Satan-worshipping cult preparing for the return of their exalted one. A mystical clock is calibrated to Satan's coming. He requires eighteen potential "angels" to choose among for his adopted earthly form. Norah and her family become mixed up in the nefarious plot. Especially important is her extremely attractive, wannabe-model daughter, Lucy (Rachael Leigh Cook). After Norah's apparent suicide, the order and its affiliates conspire to bring Lucy and her father to Italy, where it's a literal race against the clock for Lucy's life.

Well, this certainly isn't the first film for which I'm way off of the mainstream public opinion as reflected on the Internet Movie Database, and it certainly will not be the last. Maybe it's that I tend to be a sucker for "Satanic/Catholic voodoo" horror films (with the exception of believing that The Exorcist (1973) is severely overrated--there goes that "contrary to mainstream opinion" tendency again), but I loved The Eighteenth Angel. I really have a hard time comprehending the negative reviews this film has received.

A number of people have complained about some minutia or another in The Eighteenth Angel being implausible. For example, Lucy smuggles her pet cat on the plane to Italy. I agree that it would be difficult to do this in real life, but the film is fiction, not a claim about how the real world is, and HELLO??!if you're worried about real-world plausibility, if you're not going to like a film because of a lack of real-world believability, then why the heck would you be watching a film about Satan?! Religious mythology is about as implausible as we can get. Horror in general doesn't tend to be predicated on the real world. Hopefully, you do not believe that there are really such things as vampires, the Frankenstein Monster, Freddie Krueger, or forces that will possess you so that you have to chop off your hand and turn your appendage into an extended chainsaw instead. You're not watching this film with an understanding that you're going to see documentary-like material unless you have mental problems.

The question is whether The Eighteenth Angel succeeds as a kind of dark fairy tale--that's essentially what the horror genre is, with the exception of psycho/serial killer films (and those count as horror because they're "monsters"; they just happen to be real life monsters). As a dark fairy tale, this film kicks butt.

The Eighteenth Angel has some stylistic resemblance to The Omen (1976), which shouldn't be surprising because David Seltzer, the scripter, also wrote that earlier staple of the genre. Part of The Eighteenth Angel's success rests on the fact that almost everyone except the Stantons seems suspicious--they're all candidates for involvement with the satanic cult. Seltzer smartly avoids either directly confirming or denying conscious involvement from most parties, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. Even Norah may have been involved in the "plot", or may have ended up involved after meeting with Father Simeon (Maximilian Schell). We're never shown exactly what led to her suicide, except that we can see it was either voluntary or caused by some supernatural force.

William Bindley's direction is fantastic. The Eighteenth Angel is worth viewing for its cinematography (by Thomas E. Ackerman) alone. Bindley contrasts a nice range of superbly constructed sets and practical locations with expansive, impressive landscape and external shots. He also routinely incorporates a number of extended cinematographic techniques, such as different film stocks and a wide range of approaches to lighting and exposures--from "washed out", or "whited out", brightly lit and generously apertured snippets to shots with dark, chiaroscuro-like shadows and silhouettes. The clock, counting down to Satan's earthly manifestation, makes regular appearances, and while this isn't an unprecedented device for enhancing suspense, the construction of the clock face is intriguing and it's just as interestingly shot and edited as the rest of the film.

The performances are great. Cook is more than convincing, especially once she enters Alice in Wonderland territory as her dreams begin to come true. Christopher McDonald, as her dad, Hugh, is so frumpishly fussy that you want to slap himthat overbearing, overprotective personality is exactly what the character calls for. I also loved Schell as the creepy two-faced priest.

As a Satanic/Catholic voodoo film, the horror emphasis isn't on gore or action so much as odd, often subtle events that are unnerving. The Eighteenth Angel is full of those. Still, there are some fairly visceral makeup effects, which are extremely well done and are worked into the plot with just the right amount of psycho-like depravity and bizarre ambiguity. The climax of the film also has somewhat of a "gothic action" feel, and there's a beautifully nihilistic denouement that should boost any horror fan's rating a point or two.

If you're looking for plausibility, you're in the wrong business. But if you're looking for a marvelously dark fairy tale told with a lot of style, you've come to the right place. This film deserves much more recognition than it has received to date.


The Eighteenth Angel is, at best, a very below par 'horror' film. I say this because, it's just not horrific. The storyline is essentially a standard 'evil cultists wish to summon Satan to Earth' type thing, something which has, to be honest, been done many times before. In addition, the cast, even the normally entertaining Cook, do nothing to raise the believeability level of this sad little film. The end result is that you find yourself A) Laughing at the film for it's flaws, and B) Not even giving a damn for the characters, neither of which should be results of watching a 'good' horror film (Check out Ring or Nightmare on Elm St.). So while this film does have many flaws, it's biggest letdown is that it is simply not scary, and what more should you be looking for in a horror film. In short, don't see it unless you're a big Cook fan.


This film has everything: murdering mad monks, evil clocks, crucifix murders, car chases, corpse-bothering, maximilian schell and rachel leigh cook as satan! It may be uninentionally funny, but this film is inspired genius and deserves a sequel!


"The House of Yes", "Family Rescue", "She's All That": all decent movies starring Rachael Leigh Cook. That's why Rachael was the only reason I wanted to see "The Eighteenth Angel" (well, that and the fact it was shown just after The X-Files). The short version: not even Rachael (as Lucy) can save this disaster.

Here's the longer version: Some of the acting is so bad it's more frightening than the horror plot (a Satanic church wants the Antichrist back and all they need is a demon clock saying when they should sacrifice 18 angelic children). The worst performance is given by Maximilian Schell: instead of acting like a satanic priest he acts like he's the evil penguin in a children's story. When he recites the satanic verses, you think he's reading the recipe for pork chops. The more the story evolves the more ludicrous it gets. If you know the horror cliches, all you have to do is make a list and wait for it to come. Oh look, spikes: somebody's bound to get killed by them. (check) Oh look, nice horses: they are probably going to kill someone. (check) Let's wait for the cameo of a cemetary. (check) Etc etc. (check) Watch out for painful mistakes: father Simeon is praying to the Devil in a pentagram (check), but apparently the makers of this movie didn't know what a pentagram is. It certainly isn't what they used a movie. (If you don't know what a pentagram looks like: watch Jacob the Liar: in that movie they needed a Jewish star, but they used a pentagram.) Add the final ingredient: referring to and stealing from other movies. Maybe they can get away with referring to Brian de Palma's Obsession (the church scene), but it's hard not to spot they borrowed some ideas from The Exorcist. Once again: bad copying only makes a bad movie worse.

So it's best to skip this movie? Yes, unless you like watching Rachael Leigh Cook. In this movie she is a teenage model, so there's lots of posing and looking nice. But she was much better in the movie list I started this review with, so that's not really an argument. Also, skipping The Eighteenth Angel means you don't have to see the ending of a movie which gets worse every scene. You'll clap your hand when the titles get there: not because the movie was good, but because it's finally over.


I wasn't expecting a lot from this film, but I was disappointed even so. From the beginning it can't seem to find what it really wants to do, which is unfortunate because it's a kind of interesting premise...but only 'kind of', which dooms it from the outset when coupled with its lacking script and subpar acting.

Unfortunately the only really interesting things in this film are the things that they tend to crib from other, better films and stories. And although it does have some pretty well-known actors who generally are known to be able to act, this just never quite comes together, which makes it seem like a serious problem with direction. For example, Christopher McDonald's character -- the presumed 'hero' Hugh Stanton -- is played so broadly that he is practically a poster child for the obnoxious American stereotype. And it's not really his fault so much as the fact that he is given so disastrously little to work with.

Similar is every other character; while Rachael Leigh Cook does a rather good job with her Lucy Stanton (a character unfortunately and implausibly called 'Luce' and pronounced 'loose' by her father), she has very little to do but be a victim of her father's obnoxiousness and some sort of bizarre Satanic cult that is only given a raison d'etre in the last twenty minutes. Maximilian Schell's rather good acting is wasted in his predictable yet nonsensical role. The rest of the cast do decent enough jobs but are given pathetically little real role in anything happening and are often disposed of in comically ridiculous ways.

The story is just not engaging or tense, and there isn't really a moment where it's anything but boring. This is a serious shame because the premise could have been very suspenseful, but it wasn't even remotely realised. Although most of the effects are somewhere significantly less than special, the monstrous 'blanks' were extremely striking but unfortunately went completely wasted. Similarly wasted was so much potential with the rest of the film, where often things set up to happen ended up fizzling before they got there.

The music varies between zany and irritating, which is noteworthy since Hugh is a music teacher. Some of the moments that were supposed to have been scary or striking simply sound like someone hit the Drama Button, eliciting laughter instead of a scream or a jump.

Overall this film is so inane that, at times, it is blatantly offensive to its viewer. It's not because of any religious undertones (although those are botched too), but instead because of the extremely regrettable fact that this script was not anywhere near as engaging as it should have been. It meanders, teases, and seems to forget itself within mere lines of self-contradiction. The acting is uneven, even for the several experienced actors involved, and all in all it is a wasted opportunity that ends up being similarly a complete waste of time.

It's a pity. With a decent cast and a decent premise, sometimes even a bad script or lacking direction can be overcome. Not so in this case.


Having in mind that this appeared as a low budget B class movie, I was surprised with the general idea and realization. Clones, by my opinion, do not have a soul! Period! And another remark: since 6+6+6, 1+8=9 and that corresponds to the 9 circles in Dante's vision of Hell in the Divine Comedy. Think about it...


I'm quite surprised by the low ratings users have given this movie. I think of all the direct to video genre films of late The Eighteenth Angel is the pick of the crop. Great acting, an original plot, and great surprisingly good visual effects combine for a great intriguing film.


I rented this movie on the only reason that Rachael Leigh Cook was in it, and now i wanna buy it! this is a very good movie(how the hell could it get only a 4.9?!?!) Rachael Leigh Cook did a tremendous job. she made her part very believable. the standard movie starts at one point, and the rest of the movie branches off from there, while u know exactly what is going on. but not this movie. this kept me guessing well into it. and the ending was a twist(i won't say right now)

i recommend this movie for anybody who enjoys movies that don't follow the set pattern of hollywood(the guy gets the girl, the good guy always wins, the bad guy dies, all i good at the end) i AM going to go out and buy this movie(not just because Rachael Leigh Cook is in it, although it is a very good reason to)


I watched this movie on the recommendation of a friend, and was she dead wrong about it! I knew the ending halfway through the film, and from the way they filmed it I'm sure it was supposed to be a surprise. The only redeeming factor was that it was so bad I had a good time ripping on it with my friends. I also enjoyed the portrayal of a Music Professor as the action hero. Totally unbelievable and ridiculous. Don't rent it unless you like watching sub-quality "Omen" ripoffs.


If you're looking for an Occult Lucifer-rising sort of film, this is a definite must-see. Omen was good for its time, but seems a little dated. This is not a simple re-do though on an old plot. There are interesting connections made between Science and Faith, and the ending was well done if a little predictable.

The only negative features were the father's role was a little bit wooden (but acceptable), and explanations were a little underdone for exactly how all the supernatural puzzle pieces fit together.

I'd recommend it if you're into movies like The Prophecy (one but not two), the Omen series (I-III), Rosemary's Baby, and other such apocalyptic fiction.


Rachael Leigh Cook does a tremendous job in this movie, truly making the part come to life and lifting an average movie to another plateau.

She has the face of an angel and has a very impressive presence on the big screen. She has the ability to draw you into a movie like only the great ones can.


"The Eighteenth Angel" is a passable horror film-I really wanted to like it.Of course it's horror,and being a fan,I want to like most horror films.Anyway "The Eighteenth Angel" is a well-made,albeit a bit predictable,horror movie that will keep you entertained from the beginning to the end.The acting is pretty good(Rachael Leigh Cook is definitely very talented and beautiful actress),and there are some gruesome scenes.Director William Bindley does know how to compose effective scenes,but "The Eighteenth Angel" becomes boring at times.Still I'd recommend this one to serious horror fans.7 out of 10.


who thinks that this movie was completely lame? the only reason i watched the whole movie was because i expected a good ending at least. but even the ending is just so crappy and lame that i can't help thinking that i wasted my time on this boring movie. watch it if you are a raechel leigh cook fan, but even her performance didn't move me at all. rating - 4 out of 10 stars.


I helped make this movie.. It was a very fun film for those interested in darker side of magic and the devil... And.. What lusts life has to give to create the devil's child.. What things you could have happen if you really were in a cult.. Who would save you?? Or would you fall to the evil within yourself?? I feel truly inspired by David's work... He has a brilliant and dignifying diabolical ideas that really set your mind to thinking! I hope I can work with him again!! I have many many more great ideas..

Right now I'm helping put together another film on magic and I'm going to be in this one!!

If ya don't like the 18th Angel, then you never understood it in the 1st place. You never know maybe some of the movie has some truths in it... Maybe you'll get it after you see it a few more times..

Syncerely, 18th angel Antichrist


The countdown is on...the devil is coming, the devil is coming. And, it wants some beauty, so let's kidnap some beautiful girls. From the phony somber stridency of the narrator's opening monologue, to the stupid clock that gives the countdown, this movie has the most implausible of themes. On first viewing, the movie was rated a 5, for some interesting camera work, and movie tone. But several months and several 100 movies later, a second viewing(why I wasted my time I don't know) warrants a lower rating. New rating: 4 As an aside, in one scene, the husband asks about his wife's work: It's "Etruscans" she says. "Ah, snails," he says. "No that's crustaceans," she says. "No sorry, that's mollusca," I say.


the only thing I still remember of the movie is the stupid pentagram that looks like a Christmas decoration(somebody already wrote about it, I know). Ah, the good accent of foreign guys when speaking Italian: Hopkins was ridiculous when reciting in Latin-Italian in Hannibal. Maybe that was the only aspect they concentrated on while doing this movie and still I don't understand this etruscan book idea where it came from. For what I remember the etruscan civilization was many years before Rome itself was founded and was conquered by Romans before the coming of Christ. So why this weird link. If there's some good history teacher, please help me solve the question. At the moment I left all of my elementary school books in Italy


****** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ******

The one thing I did like about the mediocre FINAL CONFLICT was the subplot of the killer monk hit team . THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL tricked me into believing I was going to be watching a similar type of film that revolves around a gang of killer monks bumping off bimbos but that doesn`t happen . Still not to worry because this film is so awful it`s nearly good . Highlights that caused me to laugh out loud were :

Lucy`s funeral speech whilst holding her cat

The man eating cats on the rampage

The reaction on the actors faces during every melodramatic moment , and boy are there more than a few of those

The line about scientists " Genetically making people " ! I was under the impression that all people were genetically made . One half of you contains your mother`s genes and the other half contain`s your father`s genes . If you`re reading this and you`re black but your parents are both white then I`m sorry to tell you this but they are not your parents.

Oh and that scene where Lucy turns into a slo mo pouting model when the man starts taking her photograph !

Actually that`s the one seriously bad point about the film - It`s kind of sleazy . Rachael Leigh Cook in my eyes doesn`t look a day over 14 so when Lucy starts discussing modeling in her underwear , or keeps giving a sultry look or that horse riding sequence I couldn`t help but give an audible " YUCK "