Another lame attempt at a "politically correct" Cinderella story, but with Elmo in place of Brandy. It dosen't get much worst than this. If your looking for a GOOD fairy tale story, watch the "Happily Ever After" series, politically correct it may be but atleast their able to pull it off, and on a regular basis.


I don't know how many times me and my wife have seen this video, I stopped counting at 25. Really sharp dialogue - sometimes it seems quite improvised, and sometimes it seems carefully planned. One of the favourite scenes is when David (Peter Dalle), after one of many quarrels with Marie (Lena Endre), smashes the TV-set he just bought in the street and then gets arrested by the police.


Another boring "comedy" from the Lorry gang. An orgy in boredom, although not as dull as "Yrrol", focusing on some married couples and their endless whining and nagging...

A fat 0 out of 10


It's easy to pick on MEGALODON and call it a bad movie. It's not original, it lacks a bit suspense every now and then, the acting is just average and you can tell that the budget was low, to name only a few things. But if you manage to look beyond its mediocrity, you can see that the film-makers really tried to make it as decent as possible. And you can only appreciate that. Now , if it wasn't for CGI-technology, this movie simply would not have been made. Only the actors and a few sets were real, the rest all CGI. It looks real good most of the time(the helicopter in the beginning and the sailboat at the end,...) but sometimes it fails desperately (that same helicopter crashing on the platform).

You already know that this movie is about a prehistoric mega-shark rising from the depths and terrorizing the crew of an oil-rig. And with it's title being MEGALODON, I thought the mega-shark was considerably lame. There's only one fairly decent attack-scene when he bursts through the ice. Decent in terms of that he finally does something. The rest of its screen time you see him swimming around bumping into things. Well at least they didn't make him roar or something. And the explosion at the end was ridiculous: They just disappeared!? But still, this movie never becomes really boring, 'cause the CGI frequently provides nice images to look at, with the 'cave-exploring'-sequence being a good example (nice glowing flubbery creatures). There are a few other shots worth mentioning. They're pretty pointless, but stylish. It was when they showed that smaller dinosaur-fish with the sharp teeth. The creature-designer actually made a real good-looking sculpture (no CGI) for this one.

I admit, to some MEGALODON may not live up to its humble 4-star-rating, but I think you should at least appreciate the effort the film-makers made for trying to make it work. And even if it can't compete with most of the underwater-creature-flicks, it still is way better than that Casper Van Dien SHARK ATTACK-tripe.


I just saw this movie last night. I bought it for 3 euros on DVD so you can't go wrong there. The reason I bought it is simple: I like movies about sharks and there are only a few about the Meg(alodon). Too few, but I heard that Jan de Bont wants to film the book Meg (great book) so lets hope that will happen. About this film: You get what you expect: A cheap-looking, low-budget (horror?)film. It takes about 45 minutes before we get to see the shark, so until then the viewer is bored with mediocre acting, simple character- and story building and cheap SE. The thing that bothered me the most were the computer generated effects. I hate that sooooo much and this whole movie comes from the computer: The snow, the helicopter, the oil rig and the shark. I understand that the budget was low but a computer isn't the solution. The other thing was that there were only a few actors in the movie: Should I believe that a handful of people operate a huge oil platform? Yeah right! The movie is about a shark, but the shark isn't convincing either. It looks good standing stil, but the way it moves, swims attacks etc etc isn't very good. And the climax...You almost have to see it to believe: It left me with unbelief...so dumb and simple.

It's a short movie (1 hr 12) minutes, the sound was horrible (DTS!), full screen, but what killed the movie were the computer effects....so not worth your time or money.


Watching this movie is challenging I mean it challenges your patience, even your ego, because the makers offend human intelligence with the so- predictable script. The CGI are made to show themselves as CGI, and not to create a setting or a specific background. Low budget shows the shark as a poor victim of some fish-tank. Low mobility of the monster, lesser thrilling moments than any other horror movies (I totally dislike them), the whole movie looks like a project of a junior student in cinematography studies. Don't watch it, it's not even a B category! I should, though, pay my respect to the actors, that didn't suck, even though the directing, the images and the script were totally under any level of tolerance. So, I salute them and I wish them much better movies to play in. 3/10 (5/10 for the CGI, 7/10 for the actors, 1/10 script, 2/10 editing, 2/10 director, 1/10 music- bad plagiarism of "Jaws" theme)


Despite what others think, this film is one of the better shark movies in years, it has a good developing storyline, and a couple of likable characters, and at least the megalodon doesn't consist of discovery channel stock footage, like in that other pile of junk called shark attack 3, the film's CGI is acceptable and the cast does a great job with their performances, the storyline is slow moving but not boring in the slightest.

Final verdict, its a decent shark movie with great CGI effects, great storyline and a great cast, you won't be disappointed.

7 out of 10.


Definitely one of the worst I've ever seen!! When my cousin called me up to let me know that Megalodon was on TV, I immediately performed an acrobatic run towards the TV room, not knowing that it was going to turn into a total disaster...

I just adore sharks, so I love shark movies (even if they're not very good) but this was just total and utter waste of time!

Where to begin? The thing that irritated me the most was the rapid movements of Meg. A Megalodon can't move that fast. He should be slow and heavy. But he was wagging his tail like a little fish! How could you dare make a fool out of the coolest fish ever?!

The acting, the story building and the ending were way below average.

*Spoiler*

The guy disappeared after the explosion. Not a single part of his ship could be seen in the crystal clear water after his completely pointless suicide mission, I mean he could have got away easily.

And the Meg, broken into two, bleeding like a broken jar of strawberry jam. Ahh, a very very bad scene.

The only nice thing about the movie was the final scene where we see the Meg's silhouette under the boat.

*spoiler*

Overall it was an awful movie with no real shots (all done in computer), no good actors and no interesting or thrilling scenes. So don't even think about watching it.You'll just waste your time.


If you plan to watch this movie hoping to see another good action-thriller movie, with bad shark attacking movie, just forget this one: bad acting, bad story, awful FX. It has nothing but a good name. I was hoping to see another Deep Blue Sea-like movie, only with greater shark and better feeling. Well I'm very disappointed. I tried to watch the entire movie, but after 15 minutes I've started to fast-forward the movie and watch only the key scenes. Moreover the famous Megalodon, is poorly designed and animated. The outdoor scenes seems to be computer-rendered and the overall feeling of the movie compares with the HBO made movies. Bottom line: if you want to see a shark movie watch again Deep Blue Sea - You'll be more satisfied.


I recently picked up this thing at my local supplier (Video to Go in Lansing) hoping to get my fix with a really bad movie. In this undertaking, there was some degree of success, but not extremely so.

The plot is that an oil tycoon is building a huge platform near one of the poles to exploit an oil pocket that was previously unreachable. He invited a TV reporter and her camera guy along to make a documentary about his new rig. During the drilling process, they open up an underground cavern where prehistoric fish have survived for millenia (presumably). This releases the Megalodon (the ancestor of the great white shark) and the thing proceeds to try and make the crew of the rig its lunch.

The acting is OK and the plot has been recycled so many times you can predict who will live and who will die. The whole thing looks like a producer and his friends got together and decided to play around with some new CGI technology they got for Christmas. On top of this, the damn Megalodon doesn't even appear until the movie is half way over. They tried to throw some environmentalist views into this thing, but it just seemed to add to an already lack-luster film.


Okay, maybe I did like Deep Blue Sea, and maybe I have been wanting to see a movie based on Meg by Steve Alten. BUT this movie is total CRAP!!!! The acting is horrible, the CGI is so so and the explanations for the megalodon are totally stupid. Why did Isaacs bother? I'm guessing he thought he'd try and make a buck off the success of Alten's Meg, but he FAILED, and FAILED terribly. I understand that Leighann Litrell is married to a Backstreat Boy and good for her, but her acting is totally shitty. I hope the Backstreat Boy's new CD does well--otherwise this poor girl will starve. Okay, anyway I am really looking forward to "Meg" being made into a movie and I hope it's done right.


Okay, 'Megalodon' is better then other films about other films such as 'Shark attack 3: Megalodon' and 'Shark Hunter'.

It opens up with a newscast where Maria Barrera is doing a report about shark attack and and oil stuff. With interviews from the head of it 'Peter Brazier' and 'Robert Amstrong' she ends up saying reporter 'christen Giddings' will be there for a week. The crew gets eaten to. The cgi and sound is great! I l o v e this m o v i-e it does not s u c k you h e a r that????? It i s a g r e a t s h a r k a t t a ck m o vi e! Watch it! I hope you will enjoy it as much as i did. It will be better then most shark attack films you will ever see. It goes next to Deep blue sea and shark attack 2!


This is simply one of the worst movies I have ever seen. This is not a B movie series, this is a Z movie. Lousy actors interaction, lousy CGI (final fantasy, where are you), and the more than predictable ending takes out any interest on the movie. The low budget shouldn't serve as an excuse to produce low quality movies. If you don't have enough money to build a sky scraper, you don't save on the concrete and all the other building materials. You just don't build it. I tried to give this movie a -10 vote but IMDb system only allows rates between 1 and 10. Let this be a warning to you. Just don't waste your time watching this movie.


I really enjoy B Movies so I decided to watch 'Megalodon' on an obscure Cable Channel, merely down to it's title, I wasn't expecting a lot & my Expectations were rock bottom as it was, I thought it might be Trashy but Watchable, like the Sci-Fi Channel productions, or something in the vein of 'Shark Attack'.... Nothing could prepare me for this virtually unwatchable pile of steaming crap.

It's set on a oil rig supposedly staffed by a mere 22 people....if you thought that wasn't many....actually in this entire movie you only see SIX of them throughout (probably as the budget only covered half a dozen 'actors' at $500 a pop) The acting was actually worse than I expected, The 'Actors' here was so awful they wouldn't even make it as bit players in a Steven Segal Movie... but I Don't mind bad acting as long as it's action filled....erm... this isn't.......NOTHING HAPPENS, It's all filmed in a broom cupboard of about 8 square feet.

There is No Tension & No Action - I was bored out of my mind while watching, but persevered To the end, so I could save others from this dreadful fate by writing this review.

Everything in this movie is fake, from the oil rig, to the snow, to the helicopter and and even the boat at the end (which does look like the kind of boats kids push in the city lake near where I live) and also obviously the shark using the worst possible computer generated effects.

I would be amazed if more than a $100k was spent on this dire & painful mess.

1/2 * out of *****


i thought that the director and the designers and the producer could of come up with something better then that it was awful. The computer graphics did nothing for the film and the producer really didn't think it through, i mean the scale of the shark was just ridiculous and most of the film was in computer graphics i think in total there was bout half an hour that wasn't done by computer.You could only just tell the shark was swimming in the water and it kept blinking while it was "swimming" so since when did fish start to blink, and it was poorly made, i mean come on its the 21st century all the technology there is these days the director and the producer could have made it much better that even the shark in jaws looked more real then the Megolodon did! my summary of the film is that it was rubbish and should of been scraped!


Hmm, so many words describe this film, but only one will sum it up.

crap.

First off you see a man going diving, I wasn't paying much attention at that point so I wasn't completely aware of what he was doing, anyway man dies as you would expect, 6 months later man finds tooth, searches tooth on internet and decides that over the 5 or 6 species of sharks that this tooth is not there and therefor is a complete mystery and the shark obviously ends up a dinosaur.

Anyway, this movie felt like a incomplete replica of the jaw movie's. y'know with your basic skinny dippers, shark eats through boat and swallows men, and also eventually gets blown up.

However, what they didn't include in this movie (which in my opinion the first war of the worlds used better technology and special effects) was good actors, a good script, emotion, half the time it looked like the lady was smiling when she was obviously supposed to be doing the opposite.

There was plenty of boob showing which probably got this film up to two (down from -0).

But I can honestly say I had never laughed so hard at people being chewed up by this incredibly big shark which looked as though it was used from a completely different film.

if I could I would give it a zero, that's what it needs, and by golly I hope the actors NEVER act again.


This movie was released the same year as Spider-man 2, Shrek 2, Shark Tale, The Incredibles, and The Day After Tomorrow, you would expect some descent graphics. 2004 was a year of amazing CG achievements. This movie just kills that reputation. It looks like they hired a relative of the producers who knew how to work a PC. Everything is computer animated. Everything looks like crap. They try to blur the images by putting tons of light around it, but it doesn't hide the disgrace. I am a pacific islander, I grew up with fish right in my backyard. The fish in this movie don't look like fish and especially don't move like them.

This is not worth your time, rent it and let your grandparents watch it, it should please them.


I have to say to everyone here that if you are out to find a terrifying movie, this is not for you at all. This movie, i would have thought, would come under the genre of Comedy. Everything and i mean absolutely everything in this movie was very very bad quality. But all this added to the comedy side of the film. I could not help but laugh during the shark attack scenes, all they had done was take cuttings of sharks obviously attacking seals, or sharks moving through the water. The MEGALODON shark was obviously footage of a Great White, just zoomed in on. The FX were so bad they were laughable throughout the film. The acting, so atrocious that it is funny and embarrassing for you at the same time. And for some reason the voices of the characters were not always in sync with the film and most of the actors had slight Mexican accents even when they were not Mexican. The continuity of this film is atrocious.

So when i say that this film is horrible, i mean it. By no means should you not view this movie, just do not watch it under the pretense that it will be scary. In fact go buy some popcorn, hire the movie out, get some friends around and get ready for non stop laughs. I honestly found this movie to be one of the funniest i have watched this year.


I wont even comment on the acting, sound, effects, editing, direction, and overall production of this film as they were all terrible. The worst part of this film, for me, was how much it ripped off ideas from Steve Alten's novel MEG. While he struggled to get his book made into a feature film, with a good studio, straight to release films like this continue to rip off his work, and use it as their own. The script was ungodly horrible as the "tense" scenes were more funny than anything else, and the entire concept of the film was no good. The effects were the films strong point, but even they were sub par. Don't see this film as it is a great waste of time.


So far, all attempts to make the extinct Megalodon into the next big monster (a la T-Rex from "Jurassic Park" or Bruce from "Jaws") have failed miserably. Steve Alten's bestseller "Meg" was followed up by an incredibly lame sequel. "Shark Attack III: Megalodon" was horrible, despite the Tom Cruise lookalike. There was a German effort a couple of years ago and the only bad thing that didn't appear in it was David Hasselhoff.

Of the efforts, "Megalodon" succeeds the most and that's stretching it. The premise, of course, follows the typical cliché of a small group of people inexplicably trapped in a confined area by a monster. It worked okay for "Deep Blue Sea" but not so much here. This time, oil rig workers and a TV crew accidentally unleash heretofore extinct fish from an underwater cavern.

What made "Deep Blue Sea" so good was the superior acting of Saffron Burrows, Samuel L. Jackson, Thomas Jane and Stellan Skaarsgard. We don't get much good acting in this film. Female lead Leighanne Littrell's only claim to fame is being married to Brian Littrell of the Backstreet Boys. Her acting is strictly two-dimensional and straight-out throwaway (if her role had suddenly been erased at the last moment, no one would have noticed because her character wasn't made essential to the movie's plot).

Anyway, reporter Christen Giddings (Littrell) and her dorky cameraman Jake (Fred Belford) go to the world's largest oil rig up in the Arctic (or someplace close enough to surround the rig with ice floes). There, we meet the rig owner Pete Brazier (Robin Sachs) and few of his workers (played by Mark Sheppard, Al Sapienza and Jennifer Sommerfield, to name a few).

The drill head penetrates an underwater cavern at 5000 feet, unleashing prehistoric fish and, eventually, a megalodon.

The only real acting is done by Sachs (best known for being Ethan Rayne on "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" and for hosting "Box Office America" on PBS for the last 10 years) and Sapienza (Philly Falzone on "Prison Break" and Mikey Palmice on "The Sopranos"). For some reason, Sommerfield gets the infamous "and" tag on her name in the credits, like she's a special guest star, although her resume shows nothing but one-time guest shots on TV shows. Whatever the case, she doesn't live up to the billing. Mostly, she goes to pieces and starts crying.

There is little in the way of thrills. The only real one is when the workers pull a prehistoric fish out of a suction hose and it attacks a rig worker a la "Leviathan." The creature effect of the fish is great (not CGI) and the fish really looks frightening. Alas, the worker who was attacked is sent off-screen a few minutes later for medical treatment and that storyline is lost.

Other mini plots are revealed and discarded. Sachs tells rig workers about an underwater methane leak and shows a glowing red spot in the sea near the rig. After that, we never hear of the methane leak again and the glow disappears. When the cavern opens, hundreds of prehistoric fish escape and very little is said about them or what kind of havoc they might be wreaking (I could imagine the producers already prepping a sequel). The other rig workers disappear after one scene and, save for a disembodied voice, are never heard from again.

Just like in "Jurassic Park," "Deep Blue Sea" and other copycats, a bad storm comes along so that the Coast Guard can't show up to save the day. The attempt to create a claustrophobic atmosphere fails glaringly.

The underwater scenes are CGI and they look very believable. There is a fantastic shot of the cavern, filled with luminescent fish. But, even CGI has its limits and you'll see that when the megalodon appears and attacks.

The shark attacks with all the aplomb of a bored movie star. Only one guy is eaten and that looks so fake I had no real desire to hit the rewind button. The shark attacks on the mini-subs are not convincing (indeed, the actors inside act more like they're getting ready to ride "Pirates of the Caribbean" at Disneyworld than they do reacting to being attacked by a 70-foot shark).

By the way, the movie is 91 minutes long. But, the shark scenes occur in the last 30 minutes. The shark attacks actually occur in the last 20 minutes, far too late to make this movie as good as it could have been.

I won't say who lives and who dies, but I will say the ending flat out sucked. A speech about environmentalism near the end comes out of nowhere.

The movie was directed by Pat Corbitt. You'll also notice that his company does the digital effects. At first, you might think he's a director who happens to own a CGI company. By the end of the film, you'll realize Pitts is a man with a CGI company who thought he could direct a movie.

It's not a terrible film. It's just lackluster and average, with a lot of wasted potential.


I sat down to watch this expecting a b movie, not great but one that was still entertaining - I didn't get that, I watched it with a friend of mine and we didn't talk to each other for half an hour after it finished simply because we were in shock at how bad it was.

Considering it was the most expensive oil rig ever you'd think they'd have paint in more colours than battleship grey, you'd think the dining room table for 24 people wouldn't be the size to seat 6, and you'd expect a couple of other actors floating here and there! Maybe if the script had of been half decent it would of stood a chance, but in one scene 2 minutes is wasted on the female lead asking where the toilet is!?!!!!

To be fair there are a couple of memorable lines, but the kind you remember because you can never understand how anyone ever thought they were good!

Basically if you wish to watch it, its an experience that you will never ever forget, but we actually felt ourselves getting stupider whilst watching it, it seriously drained all enthusiasm for life out of us!


This movie was Stellar, as long as you're looking for something completely unbelievable, poorly filmed, with no concept and no plot. We enjoyed the fact that on a bottle of wine this movie was HILARIOUS, simply because it was so bad. Did anyone else notice the fact that the music never changed? The shark didn't look big, the water didn't look real, and come on, honestly? the sailboat with the giant shark? you've got to be kidding me. How did anyone think this movie might actually sell or be watched by anyone? It's terrible. It's called Megalodon but we don't see the shark until well after the fact, and they really don't seem to freak out about the fact that the shark is supposedly prehistoric but now lives in our ocean. The best part for me was when the half shark body floated across the screen. The whole movie was just so bizarrely bad, it was nearly surreal.


hmmm,what to say about this movie.very,very low budget.CGI that looks very shiny and nice,but completely fake.for most of the movie,nothing happens,except a lot of talking.when the shark finally makes an appearance,it is underwhelming.it does not look that menacing.there is zero tension in the movie.there are only 2 good things in this movie.one is that the acting,surprisingly,is not that bad.and 2,there are some deep underwater scenes showing some very unique and beautiful creatures.they are very obviously CGI,but they look very pretty,nonetheless.i sat trough the whole movie to see the shark.i wish i hadn't.60 minutes of boredom for a few minutes of shark footage is not worth it.it's obvious they had zero budget,so they shouldn't have attempted this type of movie.i'll give it 3/10


If you were tempted to buy this on DVD, or pay for your seat, tough luck. Borrowed it from my local library and obviously this does not go anywhere near the now-cheesy-but-still-a-classic JAWS or the ABYSS from which it borrows.

Why did I give 1 to "Narnia" and 2 to this? For the skill in making something terrible in both cases with: 1- loads of money and a worldwide manipulation campaign 2- no money and no marketing gurus behind.

This is still something that does not deserve to be watched twice, maybe not even once. CGI is still something you would be proud of if you got it out of your own computer.

If anything, this film illustrates the concept of George Lucas who claims that CGI and digital cinema will bring filming within the reach of new talents. These were not the ones he referred to, as the script, the actors, the special effects remain terrible (by today's standards... check King Kong 1933 and enjoy), but some classics were made on a shoestring and we saw worse stuff done by great actors and directors.

It is no wonder this is as cheesy as it gets, but the Academy of Cinema also has its bad students.


This movie comes off as a rehearsal for a much better film. All the elements are there ... actors, story and effects ... but everything seems like it could have used a couple of more rehearsals before they actually committed it to a permanent recording media. It just has a completely unfinished feel to it.

Even the effects are a few levels below what I would expect in a science fiction or monster movie, nowadays, reminding me of many of the storyboard animatics you see in the Extras on the DVDs for better movies. I know this movie didn't have the budget of a "Jurassic Park" or even a "Godzilla" movie, but if you can hide your poor work with opticals properly, don't use it at all.

I liked the entire concept of a megalodon attacking folks, but it just looked like a big Great White shark, or just like someone in the CGI department had forgotten to shrink the creature to normal size.

I'm glad my video store had a deal so that I basically got this DVD for free ... I'd hate to have actually paid money to rent it.


If crap carries a name it sure is Megalodon! In my entire life never did i see a worst movie! On the other hand ,i'm sure this was intended to be a movie, it was probably designed as a something, the big nothing, created especially for the drunk people to make them puke! If i wanted computer animation i would have watched some Pixar arts, not this waste of time! this film does not have anything original in it. from the beginning you can tell who lives and who dies, and when it stars to get interesting it ends! I feel sorry for the producer! my guess is that if he'd gave the money to the homeless he'd get a better profit!


Saw this one last week. Damn what a disturbing bad movie. Read a couple of comments (i suppose it was here). Shouldn't have done that "better than Shark attack 3, special effects are OK" and more thing like that. Well, let me tell you one thing. The special effects suck big time. Check that half ass piece of shark at the end when it exploded and sank to the bottom.

The girl in the mini sub marine is told to wait under water for some serious looking bearded dude to get her because "they can help each other to the surface". Yeah do that! The whole reason she had to wait was because of the fact she was with another mini sub which was attacked by the shark.

At one point in the movie one guy is going down with the elevator to get another guy who is in the mini sub, Yeah sure, better not use radio contact because you can better tap on a window (don't know what he was planning to do down there.) I'm really curious whether we will ever see a great shark movie that will come close to Jaws, or number 2 "deep blue sea". Suppose not while sharks are more and more like teddybears when you watch discovery channel.


Well what is there to say about Megalodon, Well the CGI is OK the Station looks like CGI and so dose the water and ICE around it The shark looks like a Shark that is disproportionate his body is big and his mouth is really small. It is really slow moving. There really isn't any story development and the acting is somewhat unbelievable.

Over all it's OK if you are a really big shark fan. I like shark movies and it's not a bad movie but it could have been a lot better. I would watch it every once and awhile but it's not one to watch all the time it's not by any means a Jaws type movie

I give it a 4/10


I risked this movie after reading comments here and elsewhere. Lets say that though Megalodon has a cool idea (prehistoric shark comes out of a fissure that gets opened up leading to a deeper underwater prehistoric ocean), the movie blows big time. Take the plot, and throw would could have been interesting and suspenseful right into the toilet and replace it with a story that plods along accompanied by actors who come from the "high, I just got into acting and am having fun trying to do this part" school of thought. There are a few interesting characters, and a few people show that they have acting potential, and if you get into the frame of mind where you can deal with all the large amounts of shiny computer game cgi, then there is still the problem that the movie just sucks anyways. It has that awful filmed, ultra low budge cinematography look to it, with lots of things extremely scrunched up real close in the frame (probably to hide the cheap backgrounds, but clearly the cinematography just sucks). The editing is also terrible, with places where you feel like saying yourself "ok, you can cut now, the moment is over, cut already." Do yourself a favor, if your looking for a decent shark movie outside of the jaws series, try Deep Blue Sea, or Red Water. Otherwise, here's to the day when the movie Megalodon becomes extinct.


A typical low budget thriller/horror movie with a cast that doesn't bring much excitement to an experienced viewer, but then again not that bad either since none of them gave me the creeps.

The story itself is thin and we sort of jump straight into the story after very few introductions.

It's dark and windy most of the time to make sure the viewer can't point out the obvious 3D structures most of the movie is made out of.

But it is also slick and polished at the same time and nothing sort of fall into your eyes as irregular, it's just the feeling that this isn't how it would be looking in real life.

Some of the special effects are very nice such as the various fish types they have made for the caves and the whole thing could easily pass as real if I hadn't been into 3D artistry from before.

You get a few thrills from the action scenes and after watching it I felt like I hadn't wasted a good hour and a half, but then again I could have found something else to do also without loosing a good nights sleep over missing this film.

I give it a 5 for the special effects and the smoothness.


Henry Hathaway's 'Prince Valiant' is an epic adventure story set in the Golden Age of Chivalry... It is the story of a Viking Prince who pledges to go to Camelot and there strive with honor and diligence to become a Knight at King Arthur's Round Table...

'Prince Valiant' is about a ghost who plots treason, a black-armored knight who appears and vanishes at will... It is about a deadly Black Knight, who uses his disguise to make a pact with a Viking traitor to overthrow a great king...

'Prince Valiant' is about a desperate squire who dares to wear the armor and identity of a chivalrous Knight of the Round Table... And about a loyal squire who crowns a mighty knight with a rock, and tries to win a beautiful princess for himself...

'Prince Valiant' is about the son of an exiled king who seeks King Arthur's help against the usurper, and becomes involved in a court plot... It is about a courageous lad who faces the treachery of a mysterious black knight, who is scheming betrayal and murder...

James Mason portrays the shining knight Sir Brack who suffers the indignity of being challenged on the field of honor by a squire in the guise of a knight...

Janet Leigh plays the lovely damsel with one purpose, to answer love fully...

Robert Wagner plays the young hothead with one vow to fulfill before he can think of anything else...

Debra Paget plays the shy and charming dark-haired princess with a secret wish...

Sterling Hayden plays Sir Gawain, the perfect knight who knows that his duty is to find the Black Knight and destroy him before his treason ripens...

Victor McLaglen plays the Christian Viking hiding behind a red curtain with a long knife in his hand...

Donald Crisp plays the exiled King of Scandia who was overthrown by a Viking traitor and escapes with his wife and son across the North Sea to Britain...

Brian Aherne plays Arthur, King of the Britons, who assures Valiant that 'knighthood cannot be had for the asking...' It must be won! Barry Jones plays the father of two lovely princesses who suffers to get the best knight for one of his daughters...

Well... I just love this movie! Its good old magic moves me to some of the most cherished memories stored in my mind... It is an agreeable historical piece that has prowess, romance, and grace, and a breathtaking duel, one of the best you will ever see...


Fifty years ago moviegoers found that Fox's PRINCE VALIENT was much better than expected, thanks to Henry Hathaway's fine direction and a wealth of good sense from 20th Century-Fox. Fox was still well-taken with their new CinemaScope process that just begged for action and beautiful, colorful settings. This movie excels at all, but it's mostly the rock-solid story of King Arthur and the Vikings that makes it.

Screen beauties Janet Leigh and Debra Paget almost never showed any leg in any movie, and herein (sorry) are fully covered as usual. Anyway, it's the men who dominate this story. Robert Wagner is perfect as Valient, and Sterling Hayden is at the top of his form, as is James Mason.

Truth is that in the age of comic book movies (2000-2008) Hollywood's cocaine sniffers have no clue how to craft this genre with any classic quality. The secret is to focus on (1) story, (2) character development, (3) spectacular sets and scenery, (4) challenge, redemption, faith, patriotism. The religion and honor in Prince Valient would make today's godless movie industry cringe.

These days the focus (if any) would be on animation, choppy editing, almost no dialog, and the usual/identical musical score: vim, vim, vim, vim on a violin while a chorus belts out wordless chants. Boring! Thus films like Jerry Bruckheimer's "King Arthur" -- to name just one, is no longer even a memory, let alone a classic.

Treat yourself! Rent "Prince Valient" on DVD.


Artist/Book Illustrator, Harold Foster started his action/adventure comic strip in 1937. The full color strip was a feature of the weekend Newspapres' Weekend supplements, such as PUCK, The Comic Weekly* of the Hearst Corporation's King Features Syndicate(the Copyright owner).

PRINCE VALIANT, which also has had the subtitle, "In The Days of King Arthur", prospered from the very start. Mr. Harold Foster's excellent draftsmanship, combined with the use of printed text of story and dialog printed under the illustrations, instead of the use of "Word Balloons" gave the strip an appearance of a History Book that's come to life.

Harold Foster was highly experienced at that time as a book illustrator. He also had done illustration for the Black & White Daily Newspaper comic strip adventures of Edgar Rice Borroughs' TARZAN OF THE APES. This was his one and only daily comic strip venture.

By the 1950's the Good Viking Nobleman's career was well known, World Wide. It is at this time that adaptation to the film medium became a reality, bringing the Prince home to untold thousands of previously un-tapped fans, newly brought to the ranks of the Army of Foster's fictional Viking.** The Film titled simply, PRINCE VALIANT, was given the big time treatment. The filming was done in the 3 strip Technicolor Process,widescreen CinemaScope and Western Electric 4 Track Stereophonic Sound. When combined with the finely designed sets of castles, medieval villages, etc., gave an appearance to its scenes on par with Foster's Sunday Color Panels. Supporting the action and giving a fine mood setting opening theme is the beautiful original score by the old master, Franz Waxman(himself).

A surprisingly good cast presents the story in a very convincing, almost matter of fact manner.(Like, for example, we all have Singing Swords or know someone who does, right?) The plot line involves treachery, betrayal and the problem of finding out just who is the real enemy.

Robert Wagner(with Paige Boy Haircut)portrays Prince Valiant in a most convincing manner. Lovely Janet Leigh is Princess Aleta, Debra Paget(Ilene), James Mason(Sir Brack), Sterling Hayden(Sir Gawain), Tom Conway(Sir Kay)all seen as member Knights of the Round Table. And to preside over the Round Table Boys, we have Brian Aherne as King Arthur.

Rounding out this costumer are such familiar names as Neville Brand, Richard Webb, Don Megowbn,Donald Crisp and Primo Carnera(!!). My personal favourite character/scene stealer is Victor McLaglen as Val's old Viking Warrior Buddy, Boltar.

The plot involves states of war between Arthur's Camelot crew and some of its neighbors, both foreign and on the British Isles. (There is even a scene where Val remains mum when King Arthur asks of the whereabouts of Val's Father, the deposed King of Thule, a Kingdom in modern day Norway.)

But even more interesting is the presence of a most dangerous Domestic Enemy in the form of 5th column traitors and spies, who provide the greatest threat to Arthur's benevolent Rule. The leader of this enemy movement is the Black Knight. Evil, treacherous and of an identity unknown, he is the one who presents the greatest threat to peaceful Camelot and the rest of Britain.

And if we stop and make some comparisons, we will find this film very relevant to those 1950's post World War II, Cold War Era. For it was the internal vermin who were the most dangerous in the story. Led by this unknown who desires conquest of Britain by using these collaborators; which is just what the U.S.A. and the Western World was facing up to then. The Black Knight(Joe Stalin & successors Bulgonin, Kruscchev, etc.) pay and use Soviet Spies, Home Grown Reds and "useful Idiots" in certain high positions to try to weaken and eventually defeat the Western Powers.

It seems that this film had some real meaty underlying themes to go along with its value to the Saturday matinée crowd. Either way, it is a film worthy of investing an evening.

* In Chicago's The Herald-American we had PRINCE VALIANT occupying the entire back page of the Color Comics, Puck. Other features seen in the Hearst "funny papers" pages then were BLONDIE, FLASH GORDON, JUNGLE JIM, HI & LOIS, MANDRAKE THE MAGICIAN,BRINGING UP FATHER(Maggie & Jiggs),THE PHANTOM, HENRY, BEETLE BAILEY and TIM TYLER's LUCK!

** This begs the question: Just what took Hollywood so long in bringing us a Prince Valaint flick?


While not nearly as good as Hal Foster's comic strip, this film is not nearly as bad as some reviewers would have you believe. James Mason makes a fine villain, and the action scenes are well directed by Hathaway. The biggest problem is that it is, after all, a fifties film, with all the good and bad points of the fifties. I am a big fan of the fifties, because it is the decade in which I started watching movies, but I am also aware that relatively low budgets and heavy handed censorship made even the best fifties films somewhat dubious -- e.g. A Streetcar Named Desire without any hint of homosexuality. Comparing Prince Valiant to most modern knights in armor films, I find it more fun than, say, Black Knight or Timeline.


As a Prince Valiant collector and as editor of the Prince Valiant--an American Epic series, I naturally have mixed feelings about this movie. Parts of it are really bad, I know. Hal Foster sent many pages of corrections after he read the script. Naturally, they were ignored. On the other hand, James Mason makes a great villain, and if you kind of squint your eyes during the middle part, the rest of the movie is quite enjoyable. Rick Norwood www.io.com/~norwoodr


A historical note: Although tons of pictures of Vikings with horned helmets have been produced over the years, this is actually a myth. They never, to our knowledge, wore such helmets. And, if you think about it, this makes sense, as the horns would make such a helmet unwieldy and difficult to wear. Plus, you might get stuck going through doorways! This traditional view of Vikings is more the Wagnerian view of the people. In fact, the wonderful movie "The Vikings" is so wonderful, in part, because it gets this point correct. Also, while this might disappoint you, most historians don't believe King Arthur ever lived or if he did, the stories about him are all false. The stories you read about him were often written as much as 1000-1300 years after he was to have lived and vary tremendously--and they are essentially myths. Sorry to spoil this for you, but I was a history teacher--and I love debunking myths.

The film begins with Valiant (Robert Wagner) being sent by his daddy the king (Donald Crisp) to the court of King Arthur to become a knight. Crisp's friend, hidden under all that makeup and hair, is Victor McLaglen, by the way. It seems that Crisp has had his kingdom stolen from him and why he would then choose to send his son away is a bit of a mystery. What also is a mystery is why a Viking would go to the UK and serve Arthur. Oh well, it's no worse than a film I saw years ago where a Saracen (who were from the Middle East) was also in Arthur's court! At least Scandinavia is kind of near Britain! On his way there, he stumbles upon a Viking making a dirty deal with a Brit--and accidentally stumbles into the midst of the traitors. He manages to escape(!) but is now a man pursued by many who wish to bash in his skull! In addition to avoid getting killed, much of the film concerns Valiant's new career as a squire. While he hates to have such a lowly job, such is the way to career advancement in the knighthood game. Oh, and by the way, knights were NOT the noble dudes you see in the film. Mostly, they were used to beat up the peasants for their lords and fight various wars. They were an incredibly violent and non-chivalrous group and I'd love to see a film portray them like they really were--often, a bunch of raping, murdering scalawags. Now THAT would make for an interesting film! So, as you can tell, I hate this film for its many, many inaccuracies. However, I can enjoy such a film on purely an entertainment level. So is it entertaining and worth seeing? Well at least on a aesthetic level, it's a nice film. It has the wonderful touches that you'd expect from an A-picture from Twentieth-Century Fox. Great music, lovely period costumes, wonderful locations and nifty castles--it sure looked wonderful (though the castles used were all built much too late for the time period in the film--gosh, that history teacher in me is rearing up its ugly head again).

As for the writing, dialog and acting, it's not a film that impresses. Much of the dialog seems strangely anachronistic and dull. Some is even rather dumb (such as when Janet Leigh confronts Valiant at the 50 minute mark). The characters all seem a bit flat and dull. The actors, though often accomplished, are not at their best here. Sterling Hayden, a wonderful actor, just seems out of place as does James Mason. The biggest problem, however, is Robert Wagner. In this period in the 1950s he was very much an up and coming actor--having starred in quite a few plum roles. However, Hollywood often didn't seem to know how to use this handsome man--putting him in films that simply didn't seem to fit him. Here, he plays a Viking and in "Broken Lance" (also 1954), they cast him as a macho cattle rancher!! I mean no disrespect, but he was not the action hero sort of guy. He would have been better in romances or such films as "A Kiss Before Dying"--where he very effectively played a guy who romanced and then murdered women. You can't blame Wagner for these roles--he was young and the studios paid well...and they were starring roles. Too bad he just wasn't right for them--and his accent and manner seemed to have NOTHING to do with Vikings. I would have much preferred to see some rugged ruffian in the role instead (such as Ernest Borgnine or Victor Mature).

As far as action goes, for an adventure film it is strangely static and filled with dialog. I would have loved a good castle siege or sacking here and there throughout the film...and I kept waiting and waiting and it only came too late--after I was pretty bored with the film. Sure, there were a few nice attempted murders here and there (cool) but not enough to make the film seem "actiony"--instead, it was much too much like a stuffy costume drama much of the time.

Now if I wanted to watch a rousing and completely historically inaccurate film, there are a lot of dandy ones out there. "Ivanhoe" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are fantastic costume dramas and are first-class entertainment. And, if you are some sort of weirdo and want to actually see something with more realism and accuracy (but with tons of really, really cool action), try "The Vikings"--a rousing and wonderful bit of entertainment that actually touches on some of the themes seen in "Prince Valiant". It isn't that this film is terrible (it isn't), but there just are a lot better and more entertaining films out there to see first. Heck, now that I think of it, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" would definitely be my choice as the best Arthurian film out there!


In my childhood Prince Valiant was one of my favorites. There was this film and also an album to fill in with cards related to the film. Henry Hathaway did a real good work with this film, very good for all ages, but more for children. One of the things I liked was the way Valiant (Robert Wagner or his stunt) jumped and ran. He was very active and with pride. The film had a good acting of James Mason as the villain Sir Brack, Sterling Hayden as strong Sir Gawain; two beauties of those days, Janet Leigh and Debra Paget, and the ex-boxing champion, the Italian Primo Carnera as the villain Sligon, who badly talked in the scenes he participated. Although the film was made in studios, the photography and the environment shown were good.


I Know: Robert Wagner's hairdo is sort of unbearable; Janet Leigh's white wig is too much; Valiant's sword looks over-sized; Sterling Hayden behaves like a contemporary New Yorker; it's very easy to imagine who the black knight is; vikings didn't have horns in their helmets; and so on.

But somehow I found this medieval story based on Harold Foster's characters entertaining and I even enjoyed it. In fact I think that for 1954 "Prince Valiant" takes the most of Foster's novels about knights and vikings in the times of legendary King Arthur.

Good colorful locations, fine settings, good action scenes and a sort of "sticky" musical score that even sounds appropriate help the picture along with an acceptable script and Henry Hathaway's prolix direction.

Highlights o the movie are James Mason's convincing villain, Brian Aherne's fine portrayal of King Arthur and a violent and smashing final duel between Valiant and the unmasked Black Knight.

If you like medieval costume adventures you'll enjoy this one too.


I like some stupid movies for various reasons;a favorite actor or actress,a setting or plot involving something I find interesting,or I need a laugh after a hard day or night. Prince Valiant ye benighted swine is not one. Sterling Hayden is sooo out of place while James Mason decides he'll earn his money in spite of what's given him to perform. (His distinctive voice would've been perfect speaking as either Gandalf or Saruman) And that herd of "studio" Vikings stampeding over each other with the horned helmets, Kirk Douglas and Ernest Borgnine's characters from the movie The Vikings,must be cringing in Valhalla. Never did like Robert Wagner. He belongs in that class called stars or celebrities pretty can recite their lines on cue,but ever call them actors. It's like watching Alan Ladd in his fading days attempt to become a swashbuckler in the Black Knight,or horrors James Stewart as Spartacus! If you want to see Barbarians storm a castle watch Kirk Douglas's The Vikings or Charlton Heston defend one in The Warlord, only if the infotainment commercial gets truly boring watch this.


Prince Valiant is son of the exiled King of Scandia. Travelling to Camelot, he hopes to join the round table knights and reclaim his fathers throne. But in his way is the mysterious Black Knight, and love of course will create its own set of problems.

The first thing one needs to know is if certain members of the Valiant cast are playing it for laughs?, or, as I suspect, they are badly hamming for all they are worth. Robert Wagner, resplendent in Cromwellian wig and Sterling Hayden are particularly bad, with poor Janet Leigh looking shocked to be in the film at repeated intervals. It's hard to divert attention from such glaring overacting, which is a shame as there is decent adventure movie at its heart. It looks real nice courtesy of Lucien Ballard's photography, and director Henry Hathaway knows how to craft action sequences {the final sword fight between Valiant and Sir Brack is very special}. But there is a reason why the likes of Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power are revered in the genre, it's because they had the swagger to go with the swash. Neither Hayden {sounding like he's reading from auto cue}} or the hopelessly miscast Wagner come close to making a convincing fist of it. Not even James Mason on villain duties as Sir Brack can stop this from being a candidate for worst medieval picture ever made.

4/10 for its look and costumes.


Quite frankly if you are looking for magic and fantasy and fantastic costumes and beautiful women AND beautiful men, "Prince Valiant" is great! Yes, it's the gorgeous Robert Wagner at 24 in a black page boy wig. And.....Janet Leigh with those torpedo breasts that were so typical of that time when whatever women were supposed to be girded up in. But look at some of the other performances. James Mason is as always consummate and thorough. Brian Aherne as King Arthur - well he always looked like royalty - might as well act it. If you want escape from the stark "horrors" that THIS RED STATE millennium has "wrought" - watch this movie. It is Hollywood entertainment at its costly costumed legendary finest! PS - Robert Wagner is gorgeous - he is more beautiful than the women if that is possible.

Ahhhhh, Hollywood...............

PPS - Debra Paget is under-rated - what a sensitive lovely girl she is.


Have not seen this film in years and enjoyed viewing the youth of all the veteran actors. James Mason,(Sir Brack),"Lolita",'62, played an outstanding role, who did some very fancy sword swinging among King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table. Robert Wagner,(Prince Valiant),"Banning",'67, had great interests with the Vikings and England's King Arthur. Prince Valiant wore bangs as a very young inexperienced man striving to solve some problems his family were placed in and had a difficult time in carrying out this mission. Janet Leigh,(Princes Aleta), "Houdini",'53, looks very young and is attractive to both Prince Valiant and Sir Garwin. Sir Garwin is played by Sterling Hayden,"Crime of Passion",'who takes Prince Valiant under his supervision and plays a great supporting role through out the picture. There is great scenery at an old Castle in Scotland, which adds greatly to the production of this great Classic film from the 50's. Enjoy.


Should have stayed in the Sunday Comic pages. What a waste of the talents of some of the top stars for that time. Could have been better however if it was written as a story instead of trying to make it like a Sunday Paper story.


This was a truly amazing film. TCM just played this along with four others for Valentine's Day. While "Camille" (What was with Nazimova's hair?), "The Eagle", "Four Horsemen", and "Conquering Power" were all good, "Son of the Sheik" was the best for Valentine's Day. The pure raw sensuality that Valentino portrayed was exciting. I've only been into the silent films for the past fours years, and as I'm only 22, one would think I have no appreciation for "old" people. However, this film had me online for a few hours finding pictures of Valentino in this film. HUBBA HUBBA!!! It really is a shame he didn't live longer. He very well could have made talkies, as the song I heard him record sounded lovely.


In the south of Algiers, in a camp of outcasts, the Frenchman André (George Fawcett) leads a troupe of mountebanks and thieves. His daughter Yasmin (Vilma Banky) is the dancer of the group and is promised to the cutthroat Moor Ghobah (Montague Love). However, Yasmin meets Ahmed (Rudolph Valentino), who is the Sheik's son but she does not know, and they fall in love for each other. When the young couple secretly dates in the ruins of Touggourt, where Yasmin dances, the criminals attack Ahmed, beat up and capture him, expecting to ask for a ransom. Ghobah poisons Ahmed, telling that Yasmin is a bait to lure victims for them. Ahmed escapes, and he abducts Yasmin and despises her. When he knows the truth, he fights against the gang of criminals trying to rescue her from Ghobah.

"The Son of the Sheik" is the last movie of Rudolph Valentino and a delightful adventure with romance, action and drama. The cinematography is impressive, and I particularly liked very much the sequences when Vilma Banky dances in Touggourt beginning with a close and opening to the whole place, and when Ahmed chases Ghobah and Yasmin in the desert. Considering the equipment available in 1926, big, heavy and with serious limitations, it is amazing how these scenes were shot. Rudolph Valentino is fantastic in the role of the son of the Sheik, and his agility recalled me Errol Flynn, when he fights in the bar of Touggourt, jumping on the chandelier. The beautiful Vilma Banky dances magnificently well, shows a great chemistry with Rudolph Valentino and has also a great interpretation. The intense music of Arthur Gutmann gives a perfect dynamic to this wonderful underrated film. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "O Filho do Sheik" ("The Son of the Sheik")


This was Valentino's last film, and he is excellent in it, but it is far from being his best film (as many critics claim). Certainly "Camille", "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse", "The Eagle" and "The Conquering Power" are much better films. This was designed as a rollicking and sexy adventure film, with large doses of cheap slapstick humour, and on that level succeeds admirably. That famous scene where Valentino ravishes Vilma Banky is extraordinary, and Valentino shows real talent in portraying both the son and the father (he is almost unrecognisable in the latter role). Great split screen work allows the two Valentinos to inter-relate well too.

The film makes you wonder what this talented and beautiful man may have achieved had he lived. Would he have made it in talkies? It's hard to believe such charisma would ever fail.


It is sadly appropriate that in his final movie Valentino plays a stronger and more nuanced version of his signature character: Sheik Ahmed, the impassioned lover who is initially impetuous, self centred and brutal, but who gradually matures into an admirable man. In this case, the male lead is actually the son of the original sheik, but Valentino also plays, just as engagingly, the father who is now middle aged, wiser (this is essentially the adviser role Adolphe Menjou had in the original movie) but still commanding and able to wield a sword.

As wasn't the case with "The Sheik," the script acknowledges the luridness of its material in a tongue-in-cheek manner (one memorable title card reads "The night was young at the Café Maure. Not a knife had been thrownso far") while not mocking it to the point at the movie would lapse into parody and lose its pulpy charms. For example, in one of the most famous scenes the sheik tries to put his rebellious son in his place by bending an iron bar; the son replies by straightening it out. This is deliberate camp that nonetheless clearly establishes the strength of character and body of both men. The film also departs from the original in the frank comic relief it provides in the form of a nasty but amusing little mountebank who seems to get on the good and bad characters' nerves in equal measure.

For those expecting titillation, the film does not disappoint. Valentino and the leading lady Vilma Banky, were involved in real life and it shows in the spooning scenes. The film also has plenty of the rougher, even perverse sexuality that in one form or another is present in nearly all of Valentino's films (even "The Eagle," the closest to a family picture Valentino ever made, has that brief scene with the hero flourishing a whip before the frightened female lead). Here we have Ahmed's rape of Yasmine which is far racier than the merely hinted at ravishment of Lady Diana in "The Sheik," and a striking (and homoerotic) sequence in which Valentino, tied up, his tailored white shirt torn to shreds, is subject to a prolonged whipping by a gang of thieves, the most sadistic of whom addresses him as "My young lion."

To me, this is the quintessential Valentino film and the one to show people who are curious about this actor's enduring mystique.


I only just watched 'Son of the Sheik' on dvd last night and was amazed at the textures of cinematography and the natural un-histrionic flow of the performances. While it may not be very profound or innovative, it never set out to be, and it is a far better flick than I expected, very rounded and organic and effortless. Vilma Banky is lovely and appropriately lowkey, and Valentino is every bit as exciting to watch as his celebrity maintained. Ahmed is NOT a character performance, Oscar material or anything, but Valentino instills this cardboard figure with the warmth of life, a quickening of the pulse, all very controlled and tasteful and humanly affecting rather than superhumanly virile. Of course he looks gorgeous, but so does the film itself. Some of the slapstick may seem dated by now, but then what about 'American Pie'.


In sands "Not East of Suez -- but South of Algiers," handsome Rudolph Valentino (as Ahmed) and beautiful dancing girl Vilma Bánky (as Yasmin) fall in love. Mr. Valentino learns that Ms. Bánky must dances for coins, which her wicked father George Fawcett (as André) gambles away. Mr. Fawcett and Montagu Love (as Ghabah) are part of a band of renegade thieves. Valentino wants Bánky for his own, but Fawcett isn't about to part with the goose that brings in the golden coins. Valentino is kidnapped, strung up, whipped, and held for ransom. Turns out, he's "The Son of the Sheik"

Valentino is freed, with a lot of help from his friend Karl Dane (as Ramadan). Valentino thinks Bánky betrayed their love; and, he vengefully abducts her. Meanwhile, Ahmed's father Rudolph Valentino (in a dual role, as the original Sheik) and mother Agnes Ayres (as Diana) are preparing an arranged wedding for the younger Valentino. Father and son clash, over love and lust

An indelible, essential film, "Son of the Sheik" finds Valentino at the top of his profession. George Fitzmaurice (direction), George Barnes (photography), William Cameron Menzies (sets), and George Marion Jr. (title cards) are all outstanding. Bánky and the supporting cast are excellent. The filmmakers create a rich, dreamy, and imaginary world; note how the opening "title card" refuses to be precise. This goes even further than the original "The Sheik" (1921) ********* in establishing the films as something incompatible with reality; of course, both films suffer when taken without a grain of sand.

Valentino's characterizations are startlingly well-crafted; no doubt, many original film goers missed the nuances present in the younger Ahmed, and would not have even guessed, unless alerted, Valentino was also portraying the older Sheik. The "split screen" appearance of the two Valentinos is technically brilliant; and, even with make-up, Valentino's portrayal of the older Sheik shows an extraordinary range. In fact, Valentino could have essayed a double career as a dashing older man. Had he lived, Valentino might have been awarded his own best acting "Medal of Honor" for his performance, which was at least equal to John Barrymore's 1925 win, for "Beau Brummell".


It amazes me, that Valentino-as-the-sheik was able to start such a fashion in the 1920s. Watching this sequel of THE SHEIK I keep seeing everything that had already been recycled in the Broadway operetta DESERT SONG - also filmed as an early talkie, shortly after SONG OF THE SHEIK. Valentino far outclasses everyone I've ever seen play "The Red Shadow" - and visually the SON OF THE SHEIK is much better than any DESERT SONG film version (even the later, color one). Considering the intense interest in 'Arab Matters' today, it's sad that no one revives DESERT SONG done Valentino-style. Because even after all those years - his 'hypnotic gaze' in the film remains hypnotic.


Valentino's final film is unremarkable for its characters or plot - the latter is but a melodramatic trifle. It is, however, of some historical interest with regard to visual narrative.

Of course, back then there were no 'vocal technician' actors. Every actor had to tell a story with his or her body, face, and especially with the eyes. On that count, there's plenty of trademark Rudy glares, modulated with knowing smirks and slight raises of his right brow. He was keenly aware of his power over women, and wasn't afraid to use it - it shows here.

Likewise, Banky has to keep the male audience interested, so she has to project this without words - and so her dances are engineered to send men into smoldering paroxysms -- somewhat risible, today. Compare this to Samantha Morton's performance in "Sweet and Lowdown" to see how far we've come, not only in movie craft, but in the degree of competence we expect from the actors.

The key technical feature is the split screen compositions with Rudy playing 'the Sheik' and 'the Son' in the same frame -- not original, but quite effective and nearly seamless. Simultaneously, it ties in the first "Sheik" AND this story; Rudy has to reinvent the first character - very clever.

The big weak spot, though, is in the intertitles. These were not well handled - they aren't edited to any effect, they're simply cut right in between the actors' mouth movements. This could have been essential viewing if someone had the vision to manipulate us more effectively through the editing.


I still think of this, one of his first movies, as his best. Here Cantinflas' explodes with comic genius. He fully develops the under-educated but always noble, kind-hearted delinquent he is that speaks his mind, only to the confusion of even the most highly educated. The courtroom ending scene also establishes the formula for a bunch of "mistaken identity" plot movies that follow.

The "Bobby" scene at the beginning makes you howl with laughter. The portrayal of the absurdities and paranoia of the upper class let every working-class bloke bellow out loud as well.


Here in Mexico, Cantinflas is praised as one of the best mexican comediants of all time. And with good reason! This is one of his first films and, in my humble opinion, his best. Maybe it turned out to be so good because in the time this movie was released he wasn't a big star yet.

I recommend this movie to everyone who speaks spanish. People from other countries may not get it because this is SO mexican, that even non-mexican spanish-speakers may have a hard time getting all the jokes.


I mean...when I first saw this movie, I didn't wanna see it, there was nothing else on t.v., constantly zapped out of this prehistoric black&white film, tennis on 2nd channel, rubbish on Tele-5, so I finally landed on this "Ahí está el Detalle" again, it was just beginning...I had a laugh, then one more, laughs got into outbursts of uncontrollable laughter, decided to turn on de VCR and recorded it almost wholly, I had to see it three times to get it all in (Mr. Mario Moreno talks so fast you have to listen twice) .It's the only one I liked by Cantinflas but the best comic movie I've ever seen in my life.


In Spanish-speaker culture, "Cantinflear" is a approved word (The Real Academic of Spanish language). That means so much in a language. Cantinflas is the best comedian in our culture. He was Passepartout in "Around the World in Eighty Days", but the better performance were in the trial of the movie "Ahí está el detalle", all the people finished speaking like him (cantinfleando). I believe that the confusion in this movie is so good due to Bobby was a dog but the trial was a man murderer. Cantinflas is the Best comedian in America Spanish-speaker.


Though it doesn't match the captivating staging of Vincente Minnelli's Meet Me in St Louis as a nostalgic period musical, both this charmer and its sequel By the Light of the Silvery Moon, based on Booth Tarkington's delightful Penrod stories, are very much in the same mold as the Minnelli classic; both films provide ideal vehicles for the multi-talented Doris Day, seen here at her most fetchingly tomboyish with her frequent on-screen partner at the time, Gordon MacRae. Their combined vocal talents bring genuine class to the turn of the (last) century tunes, providing a veritable cornucopia of some of the era's most recognizable standards. The pair create an easy chemistry mercifully free of the self-conscious projection so prevalent in many contemporary "feel-good" movies. Billy Gray, as Day's younger brother in his pre-Father Knows Best days was a likable and unspoiled child performer, who brought terrific comic timing in the delivery of his misplaced energies. Mary Wickes as the no-nonsense maid who acts as a kind of chorus to the action, is another notable scene-stealer, in a film which like so many of the early Doris Day musicals leaves this viewer with a warm glow.


I just happened across this one Sunday morning on Turner Classic Movies, and I loved it. What a cast: Doris, Gordon, Billy Gray (of "Father Knows Best"), Ellen Corby (Grandma of "The Waltons"), Mary Wicks (from the "Sister Act" movies) and others who made this a total trip down memory lane. I can hardly wait for the second movie, "By the Light of the Silvery Bay" (1953) to come on!


This is a collection of warm, human and often humorous Booth Tarkington stories, strung together, of a perceived or recalled pre-WWI America. It had all happened half a century before this mid-20th Century production. It was, perhaps, the last clarion call of the sweet, sentimental ballad of the turn of the last Century as Rock and Roll was starting to impact as the popular music of the West.

	The production values of this film are strictly 1950s studio. It was shot on tri-exposure Technicolor with the lighting a bit flat but, all in all, a loving tribute to the era complete with many of the top song hits of the time, some that are still celebrated today, in the 21st Century.


Its not often I give a film 10 of out of 10 but Doris Day movies consistently rate that high for me. If you are in a depressed or foul mood, her smiles, her singing, and the cast members around her always can lift you to another place. This is much like a Technicolor Judy Garland film in a lot of ways, with homespun family values and courting. At first, I had a problem with the leads, who seemed too old, playing teenagers. The actors grow on you, especially Doris. The actor playing her annoying kid brother is terrific. The parents are well portrayed and protective. The housekeeper is a wiley classic. Even the family dog gets in the act in several scenes. I recommend the film heartily especially if you want to smile and sing along. Doris Day is and has always been a national treasure. I am very glad I got a chance to spend the afternoon with her in this film.


This is the first of two movies about the same characters. Doris Day and Gordon MacRae play young sweethearts in this turn of the century inspired by the stories of Booth Tarkington. The story is told from her point of view and her home life with her mother, father and bratty brother are central to the film. Of the family members, the most memorable is Billy Gray ("Bud" from FATHER KNOWS BEST), as he is a terrible little brat that is a lot like Dennis the Menace and the Problem Child all rolled up into one.

The romance between the two is sweet, but in trouble because Gordon plays such a stubborn and overly opinionated "modern" man who doesn't believe in old fashioned conventions like marriage! Well, being a Hollywood film, and a very sweet one at that, you KNOW how the film will end. However, the journey there is so pleasant and so well constructed that you really don't mind at all! It's a delight for all.


I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Jack Warner saw how well MGM did with Two Weeks With Love, a nostalgic gaslight era musical that starred Jane Powell. I'm sure Warner then got the idea to do a musical for his reigning musical star of the moment Doris Day from the same era. And save a whole lot of money because nearly all the material is in the public domain.

On Moonlight Bay is the title of the film and one of several songs sung by Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, and Gordon's rival for Doris, Jack Smith all from the era before America's entry in World War I. Hollywood has done a lot to glamorize that era of Norman Rockwell and Grant Wood as America likes to see itself. Certainly none of the social problems the USA had in that era seem to intrude on Milbern, Indiana the fictional location Booth Tarkington had for the Winfield and Sherman families whose son and daughter find each other.

Of course if you paid a ticket to see social problems in a Doris Day film as that other Warner Brother icon would say, what a maroon. Doris as the tomboy first baseman hasn't quite discovered men yet, that is until she almost shoots Gordon MacRae. After that you know how this film will go.

One original song was done for On Moonlight Bay, the Christmas Story which Doris and Gordon sing with accompanying carolers. It blends nicely in with all the nostalgic material.

On Moonlight Bay and its sequel film, By The Light Of The Silvery Moon is based on the Booth Tarkington Penrod stories. Billy Gray who later was Bud Anderson in Father Knows Best plays Doris's younger brother Wesley (Penrod). He's one mischievous kid and whatever trouble he doesn't get into here is saved for the next film.

Doris, Gordon, and Billy all appear in the next film along with her parents Leon Ames and Rosemary DeCamp and maid Mary Wickes who always has a sharp word for the goings on.

I confess I have a fondness for the songs of this romantic era myself, so I'm prejudiced about On Moonlight Bay. But try it you young folk, you might like it.


Without checking out reviews of the time it's pure speculation whether this blatant rip-off of Meet Me In St Louis went undetected. It's possible that critics and/or viewers weren't so analytical back then but against that is the fact that less than a decade had passed before the Musical Queen of the Warner lot went up against the ex (just) Musical Queen of MGM. There are clues a plenty; both were based on well-loved reminiscences masquerading as short stories - by Sally Benson and Booth Tarkington respectively; both featured charming (but with a touch of the 'cutes') American families; both were set in the Mid-West, Missouri and Indiana respectively; both featured Leon Ames as Banker patriarch; in both stories the girl of the family falls for the Boy Next Door (who, this time around has relocated to the Boy Across The Street); both families boasted an outspoken maid in the respective shapes of Marjorie Main and Mary Wickes plus a youngest member (Margaret O'Brien, Billy Gray) whose tall stories result in misunderstandings that lead to physical assault. Both even have snowmen for God's sake. In most cases the actors stand up well to their counterparts though Rosemary de Camp in the Mary Astor mother role would perhaps not have been as effective as Astor at playing 'bad' as Astor did in The Maltese Falcon. Mary Wickes has far more warmth and appeal than Marjorie Main, Gordon McCrae could sing better than Tom Drake and Gray had a slight edge on O'Brien. What the latter lacks is Minnelli's eye for color and decor and a score by Ralph Blane and Hugh Martin, relying heavily on tried-and-true numbers from the period (1917 against the 1903 of St Louis). Seen today it's highly watchable and competently done but overall I feel that Meet Me In St Louis would come off best in say another fifty years from now.


The story of Mahzun who is an outsider living out on the streets. This docile, slow but gentle character works in a Turkish cafe during the daytime and at nights, he is a professional car burglar. He steals a car, drives around the city all night and in the morning, he brings it back to the spot he had taken it from. He is often in trouble with the police, he has only a few friends. Mahzun falls in love with a heroine addict and everything hidden in him comes out after this... Tabutta Rovasata is a good movie with a strong story, charming characters and good acting..One of the best of 20th century Turkish cinema. Please pay attention to the wonderful music of ' Yansimalar' ...


Crime, punishment, corruption, misery, hunger, love, desperation, friendship, innocence, purity and more are what you get in this movie with three main characters and one of the best screenplays ever written. Great choice of cast. Their powerful acting not only supports the screenplay, also strengthens the acting of the amateur players. In my opinion this one may be the best movie made with the least possibilities. Stop wasting your time on Hollywood movies and take a look at what Turkish cinema can do. Highly recommended for those who think that they had enough of that same old screenplays and some sicko acting.


The story tells us about a man who owns nothing. Beside his few friends, he is homeless and has got no work, often nothing to eat but that does not worry him. He is only worried that " everything is forbidden nowadays". He is a professional car burglar who only steals to have a ride. Instead of selling the car he always bring it back after cruising the city in the night.

If he ever has got something in his hands he does not know other than to share. He shares his bread, his room, his car that he steals but he cannot share his love.

When the film finishes you see the explanation of the film crew: " This film is real because we made it up".

He shows us the man with nothing but a big heart, perhaps too big for this life..


This movie, based on a real character (Mahsun) and story, takes place in the place I live today (Rumelihisari - European side of Istanbul). It is a story of an outsider living in the streets, drinking, helping out an addict whose he's in love with, stealing cars to sleep in them not to get cold in winter nights and cleaning them before driving them back to where he steals from. Music is extremely charming and puts you in a melancholic mood.

It is a story of loneliness, and a story of innocence that is so real that you can't get away from watching it once started. Dervish Zaim made a tremendous work. I love this movie. And congratulations to the production.


A work of art. Shows money is not every thing was the thing on my mind I was to say.. Ironic... a little more thinking on the subject, money became something. or is it not? no matter what.. this work is a great combination of directing and acting.. worth to think about it..


What does a director do if he hasn't enough fund? Dervis Zaim did his best. Ahmet Ugurlu,Tuncel Kurtiz acted perfectly. Realistic,different and smart are the adjectives to describe this film.


I caught the pilot of "Bram and Alice" and saw potential in it, but not as a network TV show. Bram is the author of one successful book, being hounded by his publisher to produce a second. He passes his days avoiding the publisher's phone calls and spending his advance money seducing pretty young women writers who come to him seeking advice or an entrée into the writing business. Alice is a daughter Bram didn't know he had, from a years-ago indiscretion with her mother, a woman he hardly remembers. Alice wants to be a writer and journeys to meet Dad to establish herself both as his daughter and as a writer.

For anyone who remembers NBC's "Buffalo Bill" from the mid 1980s, the same principles apply here: unlikeable characters in key roles and abundant cynicism. Of course, the door is open for redemption and unexpected kindness to blossom, but the show would need to have lasted for more than a couple of episodes.

On one of the cable networks this show could possibly have survived, even thrived, because its thorny matters of plot and character could have been worked out. On network TV (in this case CBS) "Bram and Alice" withered on the vine.

I seem to recall that James Burroughs directed the premiere episode of "Bram and Alice", the only one I saw; Mr. Burroughs' guidance plus the excellent cast made it memorable. But, like the aforementioned "Buffalo Bill", "Bram and Alice" died prematurely. I can't guess where this show might have gone given a fair chance.


I first took notice of Olbermann from his well articulated clips from youtube.com. He was just so knowledgeable and passionate about the news which isn't new I guess, but what struck a chord with me was his sincerity. I am accustomed to news reporters having catch phrases such as "Keeping them honest." or "fair and balanced" but Olbermann isn't looking for quotes that can be easily imitated for the masses he is looking for the news and thus the truth. I hear so much about Anderson Cooper, but I don't get it. What is so intriguing about him besides his flashy silver hair and his "keeping them honest" gimmick? What contribution has he given to his viewers? I am not here to criticize complacent yet otherwise well meaning reporters, but I am here to thank Keith Olbermann. He reminds me of a time when being a journalist meant something more than being a personality who likes to wear "bow-ties." Thank You Olbermann. Thank You for giving us a chance to use the television medium for an exchange in information and not just a weekly digestion of programming. I now look forward to 8'o clock pm.

Good Night and Good Luck- Edward R. Murrows


I faithfully watch Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC. He is articulate, sometimes humorous, and really fair to both sides. I consider this to be the one hour of can't miss TV. If you miss the 8 o'clock hour, it replays again at midnight (on the east coast). He brings on informed guests to review the day's news and often brings out facts that are missed by the quick synopsis given on other shows. Each story is covered in depth rather than spending 10 minutes endlessly debating a few points that other shows do. He and guests discuss the topic with a genuine interest in the facts rather than the spin. If you want news with ALL the facts, and how it may relate to other issues, watch Keith Olbermann and Countdown on MSNBC.


Contrary to the other comments by macjoubert, Keith is NOT pro-democrat as stated there. He is however anti republican, but if you pay attention to his show you see he is just as hard on the democrats as the republicans. He goes after all the idiots running our country and points them out for what they really are.

Yes he is biased, he has his opinion and speaks it loud and clear, but perhaps that's what makes him so good. Unlike a lot of other news groups which just spout off the latest talking points from Karl Rove, or what the Neo Cons would have them say, unlike the lame, democrat biased reporters who are too weak to stand up to our failed government policies and speak the truth. Keith is NOT afraid to tell it like it is. He and unlike those who try to defend the republicans, Keith actually shows proof and makes sense with what he says. Go to Rush, or Bill O'Reilly's show and you will find nothing but baseless claims, aimed at destroying freedom of speech, freedom of though and the American Way. This is Free America, NOT Natzi America! It's time we had more reporters like Keith Olbermann


I first learned about "Countdown w/Keith Olbermann" when I read a transcript of Keith Olbermann's special comment "Liar in Chief...the president who makes things up", identifying that George W. Bush had claimed that Democrats had made certain claims (which of course they'd never actually made). Ever since then, I've watched his show almost every night. It's just about the best thing out there. Who else would rip at the Bush administration and poke fun at Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan/"American Idol" like this? Not to mention having George Carlin as a guest.

Anyway, this is the news show that I recommend above pretty much all others (of course, there's always "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report"). In times like these, such a program is what we all need.

As for the worst persons in the world: The bronze goes to: me. I said in my IMDb review of "Ed Wood" that it was the first R-rated movie that I'd ever seen in the theaters. I remembered a few months later that "Serial Mom" was the first R-rated movie that I'd seen in the theaters (followed by "Backbeat", and then "Ed Wood"). I apologize for this.

The runner-up: Rupert Murdoch. Through his media outlets (namely Fox Noise), he has buried a story about Sibel Edmonds. She has exposed the theft of US nuclear secrets and how they made their way to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with the help of Turkey and Israel. But according to Murdoch's MSM, this is nowhere near as important as Britney Spears. Tell me, Rupert. If - as Roger Ailes claims - presidential candidates who can't face Faux News can't face al-Qaida, does that mean that Fixed News has practically no interest in stopping al-Qaida. I always knew that the two entities were equally intolerant, but might it go that far?

But the winner: no, it's not Bill Orally, but Indonesia's former dictator Suharto. He died today without ever having undergone prosecution for the murder of almost 1 million people in Indonesia and East Timor during his 32 years in power (not to mention letting Nike establish sweatshops throughout his country). And now no one can prosecute him. Oh well, at least he'll spend eternity in Hell.

Suharto. Today's...worst...person...in the world! Anyway, Keith Olbermann hosts a great news show.


Mr. Olbermann is smart, witty and funny.

He provides an alternative voice to the right wing domination that has lasted for years in the media.

Straight shooting, fresh, sharp and antagonistic against the Plutocrats that have seized our nation.

Lacking demagoguery, and the mythic trash that comes from the propagandized news from conservative opinions.

I enjoy Mr. Olbermann, and look forward to seeing him on other news venues. I feel he is the most interesting news person that has evolved in many years.


I used to watch this show religiously. Yes, I consider it equal to going to church.

Keith has a way of lightening up the news while making important points.

He can be depended up to bring in the very best commentators to back up his own commentary and give us the real facts behind today's news.

Yes, it has a liberal bias, but then the truth is the truth, and Fox News needs to have something to counteract the falsehoods.

I enjoy Olbermann because he just doesn't take himself seriously and her certainly has fun bursting the overly inflated egos of those who do not have America's interests at heart.


The Olbermeister is always worth listening to... I've found the Keither's insightful (correct spelling) comments and summaries generally right on the mark. I particularly like it when he attacks the faux news (noise) folks for the prostitutes they are to the fascist "upper" hand now running into oblivion what was the American Republican Party.

Fux news' false pretense that presenting two disparate opinions provides a valid forum has been shown as the wrong argument that it is on the show. To me, Fox New's b.s. "fair and balanced" is a modern day equivalent of the conflicts between the followers of Jesus of Nazareth and the lions in the Flavian Amphitheatre in Rome.

Keith's sparing with the "billo" or "oraly" or whatever you call his competition is especially interesting- as well as entertaining- to me. Before I knew better I used to watch the o'reilly factoid on a regular basis. He still has some- however rare- sound opinions but he sure as hell ain't open minded and generally focuses on increasing the current smokescreen put up by this dirty white house. I liked it post 9-11 when he "took on" the charities for their failure to give much of the donations to the needy in a timely manner; I am disgusted that he hasn't lived up to his promise to denounce this administration when weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq; and also find it revolting and channel changing that he repeats and glorifies distortion and other fascist propaganda.


In a time when watching Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Hannity can be repetitive, boring, safe, wretched, and just downright wrong and bullying (even if the former sometimes is OK), Keith Olbermann is a sublime respite. Yes, he'll make his point of view known, but an unpopular one? I think not; when watching Olbermann go into one of his "special comments" it comes about as close to- if not quite as classical- as an Edward R. Murrow speech rallying against one injustice or another. It's actually inspiring to see what is usually just another 'talking-head' speaking intelligently not from some vapid "gut" ala O'Reilly, but from facts that send many Americans as of late into a tailspin. How to put such a travesty like the Bush administration into a context of articulation (and one that isn't of full-on satire like the Daily Show)? Look at Olbermann.

But it isn't all serious and such; one of the great joys of Countdown is that, within the parameters of the archetype of the structure of the show. Olbermann makes his show into fun satire and moments of levity following the first half just the typical lot (though an interesting lot usually) of talking heads, with his "Best Person" and "Worst Person" listing, Oddball moments (videos of crazy Santa's or deer jumping over a car as it's driving, among many, many, many other classic bits that most often would be left in the dregs of you-tube). He's a man that understands irony- he's not one to back down from giving a scathing comment against someone whom he thinks deserves it (and, whatever affiliation you have, you got to admit that he can give the sucker punch linguistically like few others in cable news, and not with the rancor of some of his rivals). But he's also a man of conscience, and he'll reveal himself as having more lucid thoughts on a subject than one would ever expect of a Tucker or even Anderson Cooper or other.

For me, it's one of the most addictive shows on cable TV news.


I have to admit it, I didn't really mind Keith Olbermann when he was on ESPN. Unfortunately for Keith, he peaked with "Sportscenter" some years ago, and the ratings for both his show and his network prove this. I do watch this show from time to time, and its more like something reminiscent of propaganda programming from the 1930's than either a news or current events program. If you are looking for real news, legitimate discussion of politics or current events, don't look here. This show is even more biased to the far left than Fox News is toward the right. Its ironic that he constantly rips on right wing talk show hosts for being so hateful, but in my opinion he is just as hateful (if not more), just from the left rather than the right. Judging by his ratings, it seems as though even the left is bored with this nonsense. I am a bit surprised that this show hasn't gone off the air, but I would imagine it will go the way of "Air America" before too long......


Keith Olbermann counts down the five top news stories you might be talking about tomorrow. The five stories are used loosely on the show, they decrease in seriousness. The first few are usually policy oriented, the next one or two is about the politics and the number one is a Keith Olbermann written special comment or a puff story on celebrities or something very stupid.

The show started out as a run of the mill news hour, but as the Bush administration continued their questionable activities, Keith Olbermann started speaking out. His Worst Person's of the World and special comments started laying the blame where it was deserved. This is the kind of show that can renew the fire in an old liberal. Keith Olbermann doesn't have time to debate the other side on the issue, his guests mostly agree with him and expand on his thoughts.

If you're a moderate or liberal who believes that sometimes there's not two parties, there's just right and wrong, and the republicans are usually in the wrong, this show is definitely for you. Keith Olbermann is the liberal you can depend and believe in.


Who ever wrote the last comments about Kieth Olbermann, obviously doesn't know what he is writing about.

Olbermann is intelligent, fair minded, and straightens out those ignorant saps that watch Fox. It's about time that another side of the news is presented. His programs are well thought out, and done with class, unlike his counterparts on other news channels. His factual analysis of other so called "news cable news" stands to his credit. MSNBC has great and fair talent. Olbermann's guests are not "staged" to back up one story or another. It's time we had real "fair and honest" news people on the air.


I've begun to watch Olberman's Countdown. I must say I am absolutely amazed at how lacking I am at amazement as to his ratings. He's positively dreadful; lacking in talent, acumen, political savvy of any sort, and the permanent smirk doesn't help.

Maybe he should have stayed doing "sports" journalism and guesting on the Hollywood Squares.

Those who seem to think he's remotely fair, consider this: He just, as I write this, referred to John McCain as indulging in "crass political terrorism." Even as he just had several guests in a row that he offered the opportunity to bash in the worst way, Sarah Palin and the aforesaid McCain.

He obviously promotes anti-Palin scurrilous rumors, attacks Republicans with an irrationality that would do Bill Maher proud, and omits basic facts when characterizing his pathologically fearful enemies (does he have a list, maybe he can count them down?).

I don't think he's a Democrat actually, I think he's an Obamacrat. He shills for him without question or demur -- taking his orders obviously as a robotic talking head.

His lack of balance is actually a bit scary insofar as others, such as Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, and even Chris Matthews (though not lately), have proponents of the other side to at least discuss a particular matter with.

Olbermann? He has a part of his "show" that is dedicated to the "most outrageous or untrue thing said on the behalf of John McCain", entitled, "McCain in the Membrane." Nice.

The snicker inducing backdrop of all this, is that no one watches this dreck -- excepting a few bemused critics (like me), or the true believers who hang out on the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org, who spew out the most vicious of comments, not limited to wishing death on those they feel are insufficiently non-extreme left. Throw in that female comic who called Hillary Clinton a word best left unwritten, even with asterisks. I'm not afraid of words, but that was something Olbermann probably wouldn't have minded on his show if he could have gotten away with it.

I'd actually suggest tuning in, merely to be shocked and amazed, and have one's jaw dropped, at what passes for "journalism" on MSNBC.


You know, I have YET to see a conservative deny what they are. Hannity doesn't deny it, Rush doesn't, Levin doesn't, basically they all are very clear and comfortable with who they are. Heck, Bill O admits what he is (libertarian I believe). EVEN ALAN COLMES WILL SAY HE IS A LIBERAL. Why is it that liberals never admit what they are? They always claim to be fair, but everything they do says they aren't. For example, this guy always features a conservative as his 'worst' person. Really now. Out of all the dopey Dems in Congress...none of them make the list? Puhleeze. All of the aforementioned hosts routinely play clips of both sides. Does anyone believe that Olbermann would ever go after a liberal the way Hannity did Voinovich over immigration? This guy probably wouldn't be at the bottom of the pile if 1.he wasn't so hateful and 2.if he'd just admit his bias instead of unsuccessfully hiding it.


Not so sure about that, unless of course he says something you like. Remember people tend to like and appreciate anything that least offends them rather than pure truth, as the cliché goes , truth hurts. Olbermann is extremely biased towards the Democrats, for proof watch 10 episodes and count the number of true "debates", i.e. arguments in which there IS an _opposing_ point of view, rather than just blind anti-Republican, anti-Bush hatred (8-9)*5 For proof (rather most recent of many), of the many just watch his defense of Kerry Nov 2 2006, soon after his (Kerry's) gaffe about lacking education and ending up in Iraq.His hilarious attempt at bolstering his position is even crushed by his own guest Thomas Ricks. Your answer will conform with mine, the Russian for nothing. Nada. Which pretty much sums up his show too , its nada.


Umberto Lenzi's "Napoli Violenta" is a first class cop movie that really shocked me.It's exciting and really memorable with some nasty bits of violence(including a fence post impalement and bowling ball facial).Maurizio Merli is great as a veteran cop named Betti.He sets out to clean up a protection racket run by the Commandant(Barry Sullivan).Along the way,Betti befriends a little boy whose father is murdered by the criminals.Since Merli passed away in 1989,"Violent Protection" attained almost a cult status in some places.There are some great car chases and plenty of exciting gun-play.So if you're a fan of Italian crime genre give this one a look.Highly recommended.


Umberto Lenzi tried his hand at just about every popular type of film in Italy during the sixties, seventies and eighties, and while he has some very nice entries on his list of directorial credits; it has to be said that he isn't the best director to try his hand at the likes of Giallo, zombie and cannibal movies. However, when it comes to crime films; Lenzi comes into his own, and just like Almost Human a couple of years earlier, Violent Naples is an entertaining and nasty little crime thriller. Like every film in this sub-genre, the major influence comes from the masterpiece American film 'Dirty Harry', and here we follow a copper not too far removed from Clint Eastwood's famous character. Commissario Betti is your typical disgruntled cop that favours violence over proper police procedure. He's fed up with the way that Naples is being run by the criminals, and so sets his sights on The Commandante. However, this man isn't easy to bring down, and since Betti is receiving no help from his fellow townsmen, the task of ending crime in Naples is left to our leading man.

The title of the film leads the viewer to expect lots of violence, and Lenzi certainly doesn't disappoint in this respect. We've got bowling balls to the head, a young woman having her face scraped off on a moving train, a man impaled on a sharp fence and many other such delights. Overall, it has to be said that this film isn't very original, but Lenzi injects some freshness into it with a barrage of exciting chase scenes (the best of which take a point of view shot from the front of a motorbike) and violent shootouts. The good thing about these Polizia movies is that they are played out for pure entertainment value, meaning that Lenzi is free from trying to be arty, and can pack in as much violence as he likes; a fact which is often capitalised on. The film benefits from a strong Italian cast, including Maurizio Merli; who may be no Clint Eastwood, but still delivers a strong and entertaining lead performance. John Saxon gets to join in the fun also, and there's also a place for fellow American actor Barry Sullivan, in the role of the villain. Overall, if you're into Italian cop movies; this isn't one to miss!