Carl Reiner's 1982 pastiche on 1940's film noir has never received its due as a genuinely clever, often hilarious salute to a genre that is ripe for satirical treatment. Filmed in a rich black-and-white by Michael Chapman, the film unique intercuts footage from actual films of the period to make it seem like the then-current actors are interacting with the stars of those movies. Consequently, Steve Martin looks convincingly like he's talking to the likes of Humphrey Bogart in "The Big Sleep", James Cagney in "White Heat", Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious", Alan Ladd in "This Gun for Hire", Burt Lancaster in "The Killers", Kirk Douglas in "I Walk Alone", Fred MacMurray in "Double Indemnity", and several others. The result means there are some contrived plot turns and certainly variations in the graininess of the film stock (since 1982 was still well before the enhanced computer graphics we see today), but the film is still quite a kick after a quarter-century.

The basic plot is straightforward. Rigby Reardon is a classic, world-weary gumshoe in the Philip Marlowe mold, who is hired by the beautiful and mysterious Juliet Forrest to find out who killed her father, a renowned cheese scientist. The story gets complicated because a number of random characters are introduced through the creative editing of the classic film clips. Reardon meets up with some familiar faces, and just to watch their non-reaction to Reardon's antics is worthwhile in itself. Credit needs to go to the smart screenplay co-written by Reiner, Martin and George Gipe. Most of the scenes, originally intended as straight melodrama in their original context, have been turned into uproarious slapstick comedy routines (including Martin in drag as Barbara Stanwyck's blonde femme fatale from "Double Indemnity"), wicked double-entendres and shrewdly off-kilter dialogue scenes.

The film's climax lifts a long dramatic sequence from 1949's "The Bribe" in which Ava Gardner, Charles Laughton and Vincent Price actually appear to be playing more substantial roles in this movie. In what is probably my favorite of his early screen performances, Martin has a good time as Bogie wannabe Reardon, gratefully harnessing the manic energy he displayed in his previous collaboration with Reiner, "The Jerk". Just before she broke out big in "The Thorn Birds", the stunning Rachel Ward lends a hint of welcome sarcasm to the sexy, Bacall-like languor she provides as Juliet, tapping into a genuine comedy talent rarely used since. Reni Santoni has the only other role of significance as the grinning Captain Rodriguez, who gets entirely too preoccupied with Reardon's pajamas. Legendary costume designer Edith Head did her final work on this film, which is fitting since she did many of the costumes on the earlier films. The 1999 DVD unfortunately has no extras.


This has been one of my top five favorite movies since the first time I saw it. Steve Martin and Carl Reiner are a pair... nothing less than genius from two of the best. It is hard to imagine what the editors must have been thinking when splicing together all of the scenes in this movie. The writing fits perfectly and melds Steve Martin's Rigby Reardon character with scenes from some of my favorite film noir. Favorite scenes include Rigby inviting himself to a party hosted by Ingrid Bergman, the scenes with Humphrey Bogart (talking about Bogey's tie... too funny), Rachel Ward's Juliet removing the bullet from Rigby's arm, and it goes on and on. This is a must see for fans of Steve Martin, Carl Reiner, and all of those wonderful old movies.


Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid is based on an interesting concept. You have scenes involving Steve Martin as a Private Eye inter-cut with scenes from classics like Double Indemnity, The Big Sleep, The Killers and loads of other 40's classics with people like Bogie, Ava Gardner, Cary Grant, Ray Milland, Burt Lancaster (still playing the Swede) and a bunch of other stars. The photography is faithful to the era it tries to re-create and Steve Martin has a 40's look about him. For me, the off-putting thing was the toilet humour in several scenes. They could have remained sober and created a better movie, Instead there is completely immature scenes which mar the sober atmosphere that the camera-work creates. Having said that, it's still interesting to see bygone legends in a completely new movie. By the way, all the scenes are from the movies. There is "lost" footage or anything that was edited out of the original movies. Interesting just for the visual look.


You might initially be reluctant to give 'The Glass House' a try if you've been turned off by many recent "thrillers" as they often have been disappointingly by the book. This is your eerie psychotic chase thriller similar to movies like 'Pacific Heights' and 'Unlawful Entry.' And, though it does play by the rules (unforutnately), there is something about it that makes it more entertaining than the recent dismal fare (not that Pacific Heights wasn't highly entertaining).

Leelee Sobieski plays Ruby Baker, a kid going through the terrible teens. When she and her brother's parents die in a car accident, they move in with ultra-modern family friends, Terry and Erin Glass. You know right from the start that there is something dreadfully suspicious and exceedingly bizarre about the Glass couple, but you can never be too sure exactly what at first (that's the purpose of a thriller, to throw you a few hints and let your quick assumptions guide you into all the wrong paths so that you're--hopefully--pleasantly surprised when the real perpetrator and his motives are revealed). But, Ruby Baker is a smart kid who's ever-present skepticism about the intentions of her new surrogate parents, and starts trying to figure out what's wrong. Unfortunately, this movie does terribly follow the book when it comes to the main character being disbelieved by other well-meaning characters (social workers, lawyers, teachers, etc.) who consequently pay with their lives for their doubts and unwillingness to really investigate, and in turn, making things worse for poor Ruby. It also follows the book when it comes to the deranged finale and the he's-not-really dead ending.

But, there is something that makes this better than most of its kind. On the one hand, you're never sure whether you can always trust Ruby because even she, too, arrogant most of the time, seems like trouble. It's hard to sympathize for a character like that at first. And, not only does Stellan Skarsgård make an appropriate villain as Terry Glass, his wife (played by Diane Lane) is not entirely an innocent creature herself as most women are often written to be in the role of the creep's wife/girlfriend/mother, etc. A good mix of characters and a creepy setting, combined with a decent finale, make it just the perfect mix of suspenseful elements. And one that I would recommend seeing.


THE GLASS HOUSE / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

	"The Glass House" takes place in a beautiful, luxurious glass mansion complete with swimming pools, expensive artwork, high-tech security systems, and just about everything else. The wealthy occupants, Terry and Erin Glass (Stellan Skarsgard and Diane Lane), become legal guardians of sixteen-year old Rudy (Leelee Sobieski) and eleven-year old Rhett (Trevor Morgan), when the kids' parents die in an automobile accident.

	Terry and Erin were the best friends of the children's parents. They welcome their new guests into a world of wealth, glamour, and fun. Soon enough, however, Rudy notices strange quirks about these seemingly friendly folks. Is Terry secretly watching Rudy change her clothes? Is Erin addicted to prescription drugs, or is she a diabetic? Was her parents' death an accident, or a diabolical act of murder? Trust becomes as transparent as the glass surrounding this family.

	"The Glass House" opened to mostly negative reviews, and not without probable cause. The setup provides an intriguing, imaginative situation, but everything happens so quickly the film forgets character introduction. First time-feature director Daniel Sackheim helms a hole-laden script by Wesley Strick that creates more plot holes than Swiss cheese. The film derives into involving material, but lacks the focus to play out these plot points.

	While Daniel Sackheim and Wesley Strick create a movie that lacks the timeliness and intelligence of a first-rate, edge-of-your-seat thrill ride, "The Glass House" does offer good suspense and a plot that reveals itself with tantalizing sinister hints and increasing tension. It keeps us guessing, even if this diabolical fairy tale is anything but surprising.

	Leelee Sobieski has been in a lot of movies lately, and that's not a coincidence. She is a very talented actress, and she carries "The Glass House" through many plot miscalculations. Trevor Morgan, seen in "Jurassic Park 3," adequately supports Sobieski's thorough, convincing performance. The very gifted Diane Lane and Stellan Skarsgard cover their sinister motives with pretentious personalities, but inject a mysterious, menacing undercurrent.

	"The Glass House" also provides a fresh, unique outlook on villains. Instead of causing trouble, these characters get themselves into trouble, which eventually makes them dangerous. Innovative, original twists like these are what make this movie worth a look. They say those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, but the villains in "The Glass House" do, and it's only a matter of time before everything shatters and breaks apart. It's quite involving watching these events come about, especially through a character driven story.


A moderately effective thriller featuring a capable performance by Leelee Sobieski as a teenage girl who, along with her younger brother, is taken in by a couple of old family friends after the mysterious deaths of her parents. The story is fairly predictable as thrillers go, but Sobieski delivers a performance that has enough spark to keep the audience interested and the production design and the look of the `glass house' that they live in are impressive. GRADE: B


The Glass House is so wonderful and all the bad reviews are just totally bogus because the movie was good.It was fresh, and highly original which is what a good thriller needs and the Glass House was able to take all the elements a good thriller needs and put it into it.I love how it does not just immediately jump into conclusion or the big climax, but sets up a good story and reasons that the characters might suspect something bad going on.To anyone who has not seen this avoid all the bad things you have heard and sit down and watch this movie you might enjoy it, and you hopefully will so don't let other peoples reviews and a bad box office performance already ruin this movie for you. 9.3 stars out of 10


Movies this bad tend to kill a lot of actors careers or at least push them out of the spotlight for a while. I think when you're an actor and sign onto scripts so cliché and void of creativity, it reflects poorly upon you as a performer and what you can bring to a performance in future productions.

I used to work at a blockbuster and can't get over how often the papers, TV shoes and people on the internet carry on about how good a movie was that meanwhile, literally over a hundred customers will come in frowning over. This was one of those movies.

Predictable, unintelligent, arrogant, slow and just a waste of our time and money. It's everything a thriller shouldn't be. At point are you held in suspense or questioning what will happen next. While the opposition of the internet always brings about the dogs of the industry that won't tolerate any ill words towards the industry, people of the real world are generally on the same page and this is one of those movies. Absolutely terrible.


An egregious piece of commercial trash, uninspired and soulless.

Leelee Sobieski is a 16-year-old whose wealthy parents were just killed in a traffic "accident." She and her younger brother are handed over to the only guardians available -- Stellan Skarsgard and his wife Diane Lane. But mischief is afoot. The guardians owe an enormous amount of money to the mob and intend to cheat Sobieksi and her brother out of the four million bucks in the trust fund. They'll kill the kids if necessary. After all, it turns out, they engineered the parents' car so as to disable it, disposing of the parents and leaving the two kids as helpless orphans. Something like that.

Leelee Sobieski, I kind of like. Her acting talents may be modest but at least they exist. And her features are memorable -- those plump cheeks, that tiny mouth whose upper lip is chevron shaped, and those startling blue Tartar eyes. And Stellan Skarsgard is always dependable, and sometimes more than that. The other performers fade into the woodwork.

It's the plot that sinks this attempt at a chiller. There isn't a single instant that doesn't make a viewer feel that, somewhere, some time, he's seen this before. (And he has.) It incorporates every cliché in the formula.

I'll give just one example. Skarsgard is making a private, incriminating phone call late at night in his Malibu mansion. Sobieski is downstairs in the kitchen. She picks up the second phone and pushes "Listen." She accidentally makes a slight noise. Skarsgard hears it and begins to creep suspiciously toward the kitchen, but Sobieski doesn't know he's heard. Closer and closer. Cross-cutting between the scowling Skarsgard with the phone to his ear and the unsuspecting wide-eyed Sobieski behind the kitchen door. Skarsgard reaches the door. Sobieski yanks her head around. Skarsgard flings the door open. No Sobieski. She's darted away just in time.

This sort of thing goes on and on. In the climactic auto chase, Skarsgard rams through a wall and his Jaguar rolls down a cliff and smashes to pieces.

I glanced gratefully heavenward -- at least they'd managed to avoid the ritual of the corpse leaping back to life. But, no. While Sobieski and her brother sit alone in their silent car on the highway, the shockingly bloodied Skarsgard staggers through the hole in the wall with the intent of killing the two children. You know what I want to be when I grow up? One of the heavies in a horror movie. They never die. They take a beating but keep on ticking.

If you've never seen a movie before -- if you've never HEARD of movies -- you'll probably find this one engaging.


The Glass House is a great thriller for everyone. The film follows Ruby Baker and her little brother recently orphaned after the parents death from a tragic car accident. They go to live with there parents old friends.

At first everything seems great...until the siblings soon discover that all that glitters isn't gold... Credit is due where credit is due the cast does a superb job. Dianne Lane is stunning. The plot while a little cliché is alright, it keeps you watching for some reason. The film has plenty of eye candy and its entertaining.

The sets of the lavish house are amazing. Great and entertaining thriller. 10/10


I expected a lot when I watched the movie. Hence it did by no means live up to my expectations. I generally agree with the other ratings here, but I think the movie isn't that bad again. It has its thrilling sequences, the story is okay, a bit suspense, and the end is also okay. The acting is a point of criticism, right. Trevor Morgan was shallow as a character, which wasn't his fault but due to a bleak script. There could have been much more accomplished by a better director, as the story itself has some quality. The vicious couple could have been portrayed more credible as well. The tension and the level of suspense could have been higher too. Generally not too good and hardly agreeable.


Now, I'm not a horror movie fan or anything, but I see several thrillers a year and this one is by far the best I've seen!

The acting is just terrific. Leelee Sobieski and Stellan Skarsgard's best performances to date. It is a some-what normal story (it's not like aliens are invading Earth or there's a haunted mental ward or something).

I guess I do have a couple of complaints, though. I couldn't figure out why they wouldn't run away from school or call somebody from a safe phone. But if they did that there wouldn't be much of film.

But in several scenes, even though I know what's going to happen I jump every time! The perfect thriller! 9/10


I am not as harsh on this movie as most. LeiLee Sobieski establishs herself as a top young actress. That alone ought to be worth the watching, just so when she wins her Oscar you can say you saw her first great role. Stellan Skarsgård is exquisite as the creepy Mr. Glass, humanizing what could be a cardboard character. Diane Lane is convincing playing against type- proof that she too can really act. too bad she isn't given more character to work with.

My emotional response was anger at the abuse, not fear or terror - the obviousness of the outcome was apparent early, the few "twists" minor and uninteresting. The suspense never built. It got intense ( but not terribly so) too fast, and then actually let the tension dissipate several notches. A good thriller has maximum tension at the climax. This movie fails there.

The plot is swiss cheese ( full of holes).Almost totally incoherent, and totally unrealistic. Bruce Dern, Kathy Baker and Chris Noth sleepwalk through supporting parts. Don't they have better ways to make money than serving as plot devices?


I enjoyed this movie a lot. I think that people are right when they say that this movie isn't all that it could be. The acting is great, the plot is pretty good but this doesn't feel like a complete movie. Most of it comes from the fact that this movie first ran near 3 hours. Then they cut it down to a small hour and forty minutes. I think that a lot of substance was lost due to the fact that the audience would get bored. I'd rather sit through a slow movie that is good than a slow movie that is okay. They should have turned it into a mini-series on TV then release it on DVD to get the budget back. So in the end it's a good movie that I enjoy watching over and over again. 7/10


I was lucky enough to see a preview of this film tonight. This was a very cool, eerie film. Well acted, especially by Skarsgard who played his role of Terry Glass perfectly. Sobieski did a very good job too as it seems to me that she has a bright future ahead of her. The music was well placed but was fairly standard. The use of shadows was quite interesting as well. Overall, this was quite a nice surprise considering I'm not much a fan of this genre. 7/10.


The Glass House was recommended to me by a friend when I first saw it. I automatically mistook it as a cheesy mild thriller that probably not many people thought was a good movie. Since it was my friend, who has extremely good taste in movies, I decided to give it a try. When I read about who was in it, my excitement went up and I got higher expectations of what kind of movie it would be. I LOVED this movie! Everything about it was great. Leelee Sobieski plays an amazingly great part in this non-stop entertaining hit that made me proud. Everything was tastefully done and well though out that I am ashamed it didn't do as well as it did. Their house and how it's positioned is just beautiful while at the same time creepy, and how all the lines in the movie were so tastefully said made me give this movie the rating that I gave it. It was thrilling and effective, astonishing accomplishment in my book...


i enjoyed this movie.it has suspense,action,drama,and decent acting.it has a pretty dark tone to it,which i liked.while it have the same high octane adrenaline rush of "Joy Ride" which also starred Leelee Sobieski and also came out the same year,it's still pretty good in its own right.there's more of a slow build up to tension in this movie.i also think this movie demands a bit mote of its actors,especially for the the quiet dramatic moments.the cast acquit themselves fairly well here.the movie is fairly well written,though not wholly original(but there are some original elements to it)for me "The Glass House" is an 8/10


This movie I found very interesting. I liked it the first time I saw it. I think it's a very good thriller. Ruby Baker and Rhett Baker's parents die in a car accedent and have to go and live with the glass's and they also inherit a lot of money. About in the middle of the movie is when you can start to expect the glass's want the money. Mr. Glass is in some financial debt or something of that sort. I never expected the glass's to be bad people in the beginning of the movie but by the middle of the movie I knew something was not right with the glass's. If you like to watch thriller movies I would absolutely recommend this movie. I am a fan of thriller movies and I enjoyed this thriller and I am sure you will to if you go an buy the movie and check it out for yourself.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel


It's a typical Hollywood thriller with kids. But it's also one of the most fun. Domestic Disturbance from last year may have had John Travolta as daddy dearest, but this is better, even without a dad who is the only person who believes the kid. In fact, no one believes the kid in this one, except for the old guy, but only in the end. The only thing better about Domestic Disturbance is Steve Buschemi. Leelee is great in this movie, and the tragic parents death and surprisingly violent ending (like, everybody dies!)make this formula following thriller fun and not too bad. B-, 7/10


Leelee Sobieski is compelling as Ruby in this intense suspense flick. The remaining cast is applausable. The costumes are brilliant. One of the good farces in the genre, The Glass House will lock the viewer up in a broken home. 8 out of 10.


Orphans move into big, fancy house made largely of glass. With a couple called Glass. It's all so self-referential.

This is a good-looking, but hackneyed and, er, transparent rehash of 'they're-not-quite-dead-yet' thrillers like The Hand That Rocks The Cradle and The Tie That Binds (the latter being directed by Wesley Strick, who obviously loved the idea so much that he reheated the script and submitted it to be used again here).

Plot holes can be overlooked, but you can only make so many allowances for so many people doing so many illogical things. Leelee Sobieski is kept drugged for eons in her room and her new school doesn't seem to mind her continued absence. Prior to this she also squanders a million opportunities to escape or blab to the authorities, but instead chooses to make things difficult for herself by only trying to do eiterh of those things when nasty Stellan Skarsgard is around. Meanwhile, her old-enough-to-be-responsible brother appears not to care about her obvious distress and confinement as long as he gets to play video games whenever he likes.

Frankly, if you're going to enjoy this hooey you'll need to take your disbelief, decapitate it, burn it, and scatter its ashes over four continents.


This thriller was better than i thought. It was a real breathtaking and gripping story. Congratulations to Leelee Sobieski, Trevor Morgan and to the director Dan Shepard for this top performance! I rent the movie on dvd and i will buy it of course for my best of dvd collection. If you liked this one don´t miss "Joy Ride" starring also Leelee Sobieski, trust me you won't be disappointed. I gave 8/10.


The best way to view this miserable excuse for a thriller is to bypass it altogether. But, if you must, watch the DVD and skip from chapter to chapter. If you've even seen one thriller in the past 74 years, you'll know what's going to happen waaay before it does. Remember, you will never again be able to regain the minutes of your life lost if you give in and watch the thing.


This film was so horrible, I'm not even going to go into detail about the plot. All I will say, is that it's a poorly acted, cheesy, predictable "thriller" that, unfortunately, is not trying to be comical. Young actor Trevor Morgan demonstrates to the audience with grace that you can get acting jobs even if you have no talent. I garauntee you you will be pointing and laughing by the last scene.


It appeared to be not plausible from the beginning. Some of the scenes were almost ridiculous. As regular movie goers, this film can be missed without missing a thing. The acting also detracted from developing a potentially great theme.


It has been said before, but I came to the same conclusion so it must be said again: if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie. Super-glossy image, decent acting (though I find Sobieski pretty boring as a lead) and a good, minimalist music score can't do much when the clumsy screenplay has so many conveniences (the heroine seems to have a mysterious knack for being in the right place at the right time to see/hear/find everything she needs to piece the truth together). The only well-handled aspect of the film is the subtle sexual tension between Sobieski and Skarsgard, but this sub-plot is soon dropped. (*1/2)


This is one of those movies that 5 years from now you will see on WTBS in the middle of a rainy Saturday afternoon and you will think, "hum, I don't remember that one". Leelee was good. Not many strong female parts out in the movie world for young women. She made the most of a predictable script and a bad back from the presumed dead villain scene. Her little brother, Rhett, was played by the same kid that played Scott Anspaugh for 5 episodes of ER. They basically had the only two good parts in the movie. It is a good diversion from the worlds events and served its purpose to kill 2 hours during tropical storm Gabrielle.

Leelee will likely win awards in the next 5 years but not for this one.


Awful, slow, boring, lacking plot, a painful experience and an utter waste of time. See it at the cheap theatre, anymore then a few bucks for this is hi-way robbery. Over an hour before anything happened that was remotely exciting. I can't express how repulsed I am by this movie. I liken it to Chinese water torture; I just wished it would end. I fear when the next poorly delivered line would come. Ruby is hot in her bikini. The only bright note.


Ah, The Glass House, this is the movie I've tried to forget, I got dragged to the movie theater with my friends to see this, I just knew that I wasn't going to get into it. I feel bad because I always say to people even if you have a gut feeling that a movie is going to be bad, just try to have an open mind and enjoy the film. My main problem though? I can't stand Leelee Sobieski, seriously, ever since I saw Heaven on Earth, her face just, I can't describe it, she annoys the heck out of me. But I did decide rather than just complain through the whole movie, I would just try to sit and see maybe if the film could have been worth the watch at least, well, I was wrong.

After losing their parents, Grace and Dave, in a car accident, Ruby and Rhett Baker are placed under the guardianship of Erin and Terry Glass, former neighbors/parents' best friends and childless couple who live in a large glass house in Malibu. Life is great for both siblings at first. However, Ruby soon discovers that her new foster parents are after the siblings' $4 million trust fund. Ruby discovers that the car her parents died in was a BMW loaned from the Glass' company and suspects that Mr. Glass was responsible for their deaths. Mrs. Glass watches an old home video of her and Ruby on a beach, happy and healthy. Then, overwhelmed with guilt, she overdoses and dies. Ruby wakes up the next morning with Mrs. Glass' dead body lying next to her. Shocked to find his wife dead, Mr. Glass traps Ruby and Rhett in the basement. Eventually, the two escape. After a brutal car accident due to Mr. Glass tampering with his own car in the same fashion as he did with the kids' parents.

Honestly, this movie is just a waste of time, it's a very mediocre thriller that is, well for me at least, is just very predictable. The acting is lame as well as the story; but I will compliment the set, if you want me to give this movie a positive comment, there ya go. It's just a weak script, bad cast, and I can't wait to get this bad taste out of my mouth from this stupid movie, just writing this comment is making my health deteriorate. I have to stop, I'm sorry, just stay away from this movie, plant a tree, watch paint dry, that's much more useful then watching this movie.

1/10


A simple thriller like so many others. A car accident, two orphans sheltered by the parents' business associates who are revealed to have been the killers to put their hands on the money the children represent, and all that for some shady business with criminal contractors. Banal. The elder child, the girl, will try to escape and will fail. And little by little things are going down but all is well that ends well and I can't reveal the details, except that the uncle will get the kids he should have gotten from the very start since he was the only family. The thrill comes from the details of the yarn we are told which is in a way a tall tale from some Calaveras County, California and its giant leaping jumping frogs.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


Thought at first this film was going to be a slow boring film about a sister and her brother having problems. However, this film took me by surprise and I could hardly believe what Leelee Sobieski (Ruby Baker), "Max",'02 had to go through in her godfather's Glass House, who was 16 years of age and had to share a bedroom with her younger brother. Bruce Dern,(Begleiter),"Madison",'01, played a foxy old man who offered Ruby Baker a helping hand and got himself into a big mess he never dreamed would happen to him in the House of Glass. The story has many twists and turns and does keep you on the edge of your seats, watching fancy cars going crazy on narrow mountain roads with plenty of sharp turns. Ruby even gets hit on by her godfather and even tries to avoid injections with a needle. Sit back and enjoy this very entertaining film with a great new Hot Star Leelee Sobieski.


Saw the movie, and up to the point,where the 2 Guys in the Ferrari show up it's good...but then... The Jaguar's brakes stop working he crashes in the back of the Ferrari, speeds up again and crashes again...come on! Never heard of an N or Handbrake? = Faild in the 1st Driving-Lesson...and then, just to top the Joke...Terry comes back...Is this a joke review of the 1st Scenes, where they where sitting in the Cinema (I think it was Jason) The last 10Min. spoilt the whole movie. Trash.


Yes, some of the events in this movie may be predictable, but I really loved this movie. It's got everything... scares, heartbreak, sadness, pain, happiness... everything except a sappy love story included. I really like Leelee Sobieski, and I think she's a great actress. (She's totally a young Helen Hunt.) I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be scared... just not to the point of terror.


This is one great romantic film. Joan Fontaine and Joseph Cotten who are presumed to be passengers on a ill-fated flight and, though listed as among the dead, are actually alive. They fall in love and spend time together in a villa in Florence. The wonderful "September Song" weaves its magic throughout the film. Joan Fontaine is vivacious, luminous and charming in her role as Manina Stewart and Joseph Cotten is great as David Lawrence. This is one of my all-time favorite films. It is available on video.


This is my first viewing so I can't start by saying it's a favorite, but with Joseph Cotten in the romantic lead and Joan Fontaine with all her charm and understanding, you really can't be far wrong to expect the best in a love story.

They meet on a plane flight, he as an untiring industrialist who has placed business and projects before his wife and son, and she as a concert pianist performing in various engagements on tour. An error in flight identity has these two fine people listed on a plane that crashed and they are mistakenly presumed dead. As their budding romance unfolds they both realize it's an opportunity for them to take hold of a new life together. That leads to complications of course, as we can expect.

I marvel at the way Joan (Manina) can reflect in her features so many subtle emotions, it's as if we can hear her unspoken words, the thoughts and agonies of a love that has many hurdles to overcome. That is great acting in my opinion.


All the comments about this film are favorable except for Mr. Neil Doyle's. I wonder what grumpy pill he took when he watched this or maybe he just isn't a romantic guy. Not one person said his review was "helpful."

This film is well-acted, scripted, and an interesting premise. The music is fabulous and the setting great. Like another reviewer said, Joan Fontaine's facial expressions say as much or more than the words she was given to speak. She is one excellent actress and Joseph Cotten is a veteran actor who once again turns in a fabulous performance.

I unconditionally recommend this movie to all classic movie lovers to fans of Joan Fontaine and/or Joseph Cotten and to all romantics everywhere.


I've been a Joan fan for a while now, so when I saw the laser disc for this movie I got it right away.

I was definitely not disappointed.

This movie has got a great story that could actually happen in real life.

Joan gives a great performance as usual, of course Joseph is also perfect as the man she falls in love with at the same time saving her life.

A great movie to watch if you like romance and a beautiful setting for a movie Italy.


"September Affair" was a film that stayed in our mind when we first watched it a long time ago. Seldom seen these days on television, it still keeps the romantic promise we remembered. The premise, which probably looked possible to the 1950 audience that saw it in its original release, seems unreal today, but this is just escapist entertainment, so it has to be watched in that context.

One thing that surprises is the Italy of that era where street traffic was devoid of cars, not the nightmare it became as years went by. This is a romantic travelogue in which the action is set, much like some movies that were shot in that country later on. After all, even in black and white, Capri, Naples, Pompeii, Rome, and Florence are wonderful places to visit.

William Dieterle's direction serves the film. The stars, Joseph Cotten and Joan Fontaine show great chemistry. Joseph Cotten, a serious actor, makes an excellent David Lawrence, the man whose marriage has reached an impasse. Joan Fontaine is quite likable as Manina Stuart, the concert pianist that falls head over heels and takes a chance with this practical stranger. Jessica Tandy and Francoise Rosay appear in pivotal roles.

"September Song" is heard in the background sung by none other than Walter Huston. This film even with its unlikely premise is still a nice way to spend time with pleasant company.


What can I say? This is a wonderful, gentle film, the kind, sadly, Hollywood no longer makes. I saw it first twenty years ago, and it haunted me ever since; I try to watch it once every couple of years. Fontaine and Cotten are in top form here, as are all the supporting actors (especially Tandy). The plot is absolute escapist romantic fare, which I'll leave others to describe. While on the surface the main catch may seem far-fetched, it's handled with surprising credibility; one cannot help but feel caught up in the lovers' dilemma. Given their once-in-a-million opportunity, would any of us have done anything different? Can we judge them?

But, despite the outstanding acting and story, the real stars here are the music and the Italian settings. The haunting song "September Affair," played in the film, was recorded shortly before Walter Huston's death and released posthumously; the poignancy of this fact, and the skillful usage in the film, made both a huge sensation. The captivating black-and-white Italian scenery, especially in Rome and Capri (check out the awesome sequence in the cave at Capri) is worth watching just by itself - much of the same would be captured later in Technicolor (but not as effectively) in the film Rome Adventure. An unforgettable viewing experience; if you love escapism and romance, don't miss this one.


This film left me confused. The story's not bad in itself, reminded me a bit of Re-Animator, but that's not a bad thing at all. Also, the acting was better than I expected for most parts. Some of the characters behave really really odd though, especially the detective guy. That is THE most irrational cop (or character overall) I've ever seen in a film, and this time it's a bad thing. Most of the dialogs are pretty annoying, too: Most of the time you only see the face of one character filling the screen saying his line, then the next character filling the screen saying his line. It's surprising how rarely you actually see the two or more characters taking part in the dialog in one shot. That made the dialogs really stale and sometimes painful to watch. The overall editing wasn't too bad, with some exceptions where a cut left me totally clueless what's going on. I also got the feeling that some important things were left out. This movie's budget must have been incredibly small. The special FX that are used in the ending of the movie would have been a shame in the early 80s, now they're not even funny anymore. The rest of the effects (make-up effects) aren't bad. So the only scene where the effects are really awful is at the very end of the movie. One thing that was bad throughout the movie was the music: I mean, yeah, eerie is one quality music in a horror movie should have... sometimes. But the music should fit the movie, not just be eerie all the time, even when the "eerie" moment is long gone. The only exception here to eerie music is no music. Most sound effects sound out of place, too.

This comment probably sounds worse than the movie actually is. It's not that bad and if you've got nothing better to do and nothing else to watch you might watch this, but if you're not used to low budget films you might have a tough time watching it to the end.


The works of Howard Phillip Lovecraft continue to thwart film makers. His tales, written in the early 1900's are, invariably, updated to present day and forced to mix with today's fads, trends and "movie absorbing mind set". For the most part, they don't work, like this shot at the trophy. Anything by good Ol' H.P. should be a period piece like Jackson's "King Kong"...unless you are extremely brilliant. The makers of "Chill", while sincere, failed to create the magic to move "Cool Air" (which this movie is based upon) from short-story written in 1926 to a contemporary story. No fault, no foul ... a near impossible thing to do. Lovecraft excruciatingly cultivated sinister and dark atmosphere with climactic punctuations of visual action, almost the opposite of current films that are visually heavy to create the deep and dark unease (something they seldom do because ... perhaps ... they are running a formula in reverse?) ... Dan O'Bannon nearly nailed it with "The Resurrected" from Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward". Unfortunately, this attempt to bring "Cool Air" to the screen is a lousy shot at a Lovecraft adaptation and can't stand on its own as a horror film. Kudos for the effort but ... way big miss.


I rented this out of boredom on a Sunday night, and I regret it. I love bad movies. I feel an affection for them akin to what one feels for a special education kid. They try, and fail a lot, but you appreciate the merits of the attempt and recognize it for what it is.

That being said, there is really one way to surmise this film is awful. I have survived viewing of BloodRayne and the un-MST3K'ed Manos: The Hands of Fate. I and my wife were riffing this ten minutes into the film.

The only redeeming feature in this is the story, which was unique compared the usual fare (Hollywood could take a lesson here in looking for source material). However, everything else just fell flat...face first on to the concrete.

The acting was bad, even for a B- film. The dialog was painful, the acting uninspired. I've seen more convincing effects in homemade animated films, and the editing looks like it was done by a six year old kid riddled with ADD.

Honestly, only the most hardcore of Lovecraft fans will appreciate this. I respect his work, but I think he was rolling over in his grave when they wrapped on this pickle.


I have to say as a huge horror buff - this was absolute gutter trash. I kept asking myself where is the gore, the blood, the fear/horror factor.

The main music reminded me of rave techno music and I felt I needed to be in a club with glowing objects in my mouth.

I will say SOME of the actors were good - like the guy off Melrose Place - Thomas Calabro and the gal from Hellraiser - Ashley Laurence. But overall, I would not go out of my way to recommend to someone to see this, unless they were looking for something silly and cheesy to watch. OR they really didn't like horror because they scared easily, this would be a recommendation to see - as there is nothing scary, nothing gory or horrific about it.


I'm not a movie expert but I know when there's something to watch, and something to just pass by, and this movie here, after reading the comments peaked my interest, but once I got the movie playing it was a totally different thought. 5 minutes in, I had already made up my mind whether or not to continue watching this butcher of a movie, It was extremely late here where I live so I decided to give it a shot, but like I said above I could of let this one pass by, about 40 minutes into it, I couldn't watch anymore, sad display of effects, writing, and poor acting couldn't of made this any worse to watch, It was quite painful actually, I cant be disappointed to much considering I spent money to watch this, but I am disappointed that someone would say that this movie was worth watching. On my list of movies that I have watched this one ranks a 1 time watch, and no recommendation to any of my friends. This was 40 minutes I will never get back, so take it from me, when facing the chance to watch something else vs. this movie, then take something else.


If you're into creepy horror flicks, then this film is certainly for you. I was very impressed with the production value; really top notch. The suspense and the acting are noteworthy. Ashley Laurence ("Hellraiser"), Thomas Calabro ("Melrose Place") and James Russo ("Donnie Brasco", "The Ninth Gate") all turn in stellar performances. It's really wonderful to see these actors in a fresh new vehicle as I have always been a big fan of their work. It was really awesome to see the original approach that was taken on an H.P. Lovecraft story, and to watch his brilliant characters such as Dr. Munoz and Mrs. Herrero come to life on screen -- with a few new twists and turns thrown in for good measure. Director Serge Rodnunsky is multi talented and cutting edge in his execution of this project.


Like "Emmanuelle, "Joys of a woman" wallows in pseudo-philosophy while displaying a lot of aroused women seeking satisfaction The setting is Hong Kong, where Emmanuelle is taken through the high-life of the aristocrat

In Jack Jaeckin's first film, Emmanuelle was sexually reserved, and came out as she discovered her hidden sexuality In the sequel, she explores further into the erotic domainespecially other womenin trying to find the perfect lover

The characters are not real, but ethereal, dream-like creatures floating through life This quality actually works quite well as Sylvia Kristel encounters other women The eroticism is soft and sensual When she confronts a man, however, there is a feeling only of performance It's much more sharply refreshing and keen The male lovers never seem to be as compassionate or as feeling as the women, nor are their characters as developed

The photography is quite rich and luxuriant, and has captured a postcard view of modern Hong Kong


As a soft core feature, Emmanuelle 2 stands out as one of the very best of it's kind. Artfully rendered, beautifully photographed love/sex scenes, that really pushed the limits on just how far a film could go. This is a sequel to one of the most successful erotic movies of all time. I can report, in all honesty that is is a rare instance where a sequel is better than the original. While the first "Emmanuelle", filmed by Just Jaeckin, is somehow dark, and murky, Emmanuelle 2 is bright, and filled with life, and with genuine eroticism. Obviously this feature had a much larger budget than it's predecessor, and it shows. The viewer was introduced to the infamous "Emmanuelle" character in 1974. She was a shy, quiet girl of 19, married to an older man, who had very different views of sex. In that film we witnessed the beginning of her sexual awakening. In this sequel we see Emmanuelle developed into an incredibly strong, liberated woman, who goes about her sexual conquests like a drunken sailor! Sylvia Kristel sets the screen on fire with her unique brand of sexuality, which i can't quite describe. The many erotic scenes feature the most sumptuously filmed situations imaginable, and always set in the most exotic of locales. And as explicit as it is, it never crosses the line between good taste and sleaze for a second. What constantly surprised me about Emmanuelle 2 is just how well made it is. Every second of it looks like a very polished, big budget film. It was not expected, because the first Emmanuelle simply did not possess this level of quality. Best of all, while Emmanuelle 1 seems horribly dated today, thanks mostly to the 1970's philosophizing of the Mario character, along with the tacky theme song, the second one has dated beautifully, thanks to the truly elegant and timeless fashion choices for Kristel and the rest of the cast, and also to the gorgeous soundtrack by celebrated composer Francis Lai. If you have an interest in erotic films, i recommend you hunt this one down. I have the DVD from the Netherlands, which I believe is the most uncut version available. I also recommend seeing the original first; it is not as good as this one, however it is still a very good, and important film, as that is the one that started it all. Plus it is nice to see a character of erotic films actually develop, and change throughout a series. I cannot however recommend most of the others in the series, (with the exception of the very rare "Yellow Emanuelle" and a couple Laura Gemser films) as they range from bad to ridiculous. This stuff is worlds better than much of the ugly, corporate crap that comes out of Hollywood these days.


This may be the best softcore erotic movie ever made, and its a shame that more people didn't see it in America when initially released in 1975 at the height of the Sexual Revolution, before AIDS came along and took all the fun out of swinging. One reason why the film wasn't so popular is that just a few years earlier, the first Emmannuelle film, based on a supposedly true book by Ammanuelle Arson, was released with much hoopla - and seen by many people, most of whom did not particularly like it, myself included. There was a glossy look but a nasty edge to it all - the sex seemed joyless, owing to the awful approach of Just Jaecken. So people stayed away from the sequel, which is all about the joy of sex! And is absolutely sweet and seductive, lush and lovely - everything that the first Emmanuelle movie was supposed to be but wasn't. If this had been released first, everyone would have been delighted. This remains the most perfect film by which you can revisit (on screen) the truly joyous feel of sexual liberation in the mid-seventies, though steer away from its predecessor. Best sequence: Kristel's lovemaking, in an Asian brothel, with Laura Gemser, shortly to start a series of her own as . . . Black Emmanuelle!


I am in love with this film...when i was younger (18 or so) I saw this movie for the first time late night on a "premium" cable channel and loved it...it was adventurous and foreign. It's soft core and may disappoint some viewers but the story is entertaining and the scenery interesting. I have not seen the first one yet but am eager to...the 3 DVD set on amazon looks great. Just a very intriguing film...beautifully erotic and sensual. The setting of hong Kong is beautiful and you never really know what emmanuelle is going to do next or who she is going to do. I think it's the European charm and 70's style of the film that makes it feel rare and naughty.


Of the six movies that I've seen from this series, this is the movie to tell friends about. The locations are beautiful, the background (extras that appear) are not too glamorous and not too plain. The Thai bathhouse scenes are what I attempt to "sell" as the highly erotic shots. These are so hot, in fact, I'd rather watch EMMANUELLE movies than most X-rated films. I learned much later that director Roger Corman had directed some films. And now, in 2006, I find the webpage, and it contains more EMMANUELLE movies than I previously thought. This is a great film. Sylvia moves with grace,exudes sexuality but never showing her motives until the timing is there.


This is as the cover of the video says a romantic comedy. A fun movie that although it is not going to change the world gives you a moment away from the day's trials and tribulations. Isn't that the best thing that a movie can do?

Jeremy Piven is a great comedian who can take any material and make it his, so any fan must see this movie. He and Ms. Fenn should make more movies together because their chemistry is right. This movie was made by men who have never before or since made another film. If I understand it correctly the producers are dentists who love movies and wanted to make this one based on their script.

Rent it and share it with someone you love with popcorn.


I really loved this movie. It was such an enjoyable film due to the great chemistry between the two leads. I can't seem to understand why Sherilyn Fenn isn't a huge star. She brings so much emotional honesty and depth to her roles. Anyone looking for a fun movie with good acting and romance, this is it! Great supporting cast too!


Jeremy Piven and Sherilyn Fenn are sane lovers trying to find one another in an insane world. They make a very charming screen couple -- why aren't they doing more films together? Piven's role as a tour bus driver keeps him putting on an act he despises to maintain an unlikely relationship with Fenn, who plays the part of a rising movie star. Just Write is a fresh, charming treatment of an old storyline, made enjoyable by memorable characters.

To balance the niceness of the two leads, Jo Beth Williams and Alex Rocco give outstanding performances as cynical supports. Williams delivers some great lines as Fenn's forever-on-the-phone agent, and Rocco, as Piven's lame father, provides an entertaining obstacle for his son to nudge aside so he can shoot for the moon.

Wallace Shawn, Jeffrey Sams, Yeardley Smith, and Stephanie Miller keep the laughs coming in minor support roles, and Costas Mandylor is the Hummer-driving, GQ- reading soap star boyfriend Fenn can't shake loose.

Relax and give it a try. I think you'll end up watching it more than once.


Dramas and Romances are usually movies I tend to avoid like the plague most of the time, although on occasion I sit through one or two every so often to remind me that men & women have the same basic emotions and that it is possible to get along and be happy. This movie in particular exemplifies this completely. Its the classic rags to riches type story with an unknown, in this case a tour bus driver, who falls for a movie star and in the process learns a lot about himself, movies, screen-writing, and the joys of life. I highly recommend this as a good family, make-u-feel-good type movie!

Overall Rating 4.5 out of 5


I rented Just Write for Valentine's Day, largely due to the reviews I read on this site (my adoration of Sherilyn Fenn had a little impact, also...). Most people thought it was a great date movie.

You know the basis of the story if you've read the summary, so I won't repeat it here. Jeremy Piven, from TV's short-lived Cupid, plays the bus driver whose favorite actress is Amanda Clark (wonderfully played by Fenn). He brings the same appeal he did to Cupid - - funny and down-to-earth. He really makes you pull for his character.

Sherilyn Fenn has one of the best roles of her career, even though it may not be much of a stretch (an actress playing an actress). She looks absolutely wonderful and, while I don't know what Sherilyn's like personally, gives Amanda such warmth and sincerity that it's hard NOT to fall in love with someone like her.

The two of them have a really nice chemistry together. I wanted to see more of them as a couple. There were some nice supporting characters who added a lot to the story. There was the typical misunderstanding, but it was resolved in a nice way. Some reviews have stated that it was unrealistic for a famous movie star to fall for a guy like this, but I don't view that as a negative. First, all good romantic comedies have similar problems (Pretty Woman, Notting Hill, Sleepless in Seattle - - how realistic are they!?); they all resolve them in an interesting way, just like this movie does. Second, I enjoy putting myself in a movie ("How would I react in this situation?"), and this one allowed me to pretend that I was pursuing Amanda/Sherilyn - - that's what movies are for!

In summary, (guys) don't view this as a chick flick just because it involves a love story. It's every bit as good as those I mentioned above. Rent this movie with someone you love and enjoy the ride. I actually watched it again the next day, and even fast-forwarded through it a third time to watch just the scenes between Piven and Fenn. It's special. My score: 10


I didn't expect to rate this movie more than a 4 before I saw it. The director has taken a plot which looks boring and trite and turned it into a unexpectedly good movie. Lots of clever lines(ala Neil Simon)and excellent performances by all actors. I gave this a "7" rating and should be watched whenever one wants something just fun to watch.


I really love Piven and I have always felt he should have been the leading man in most of the films he's in. In this movie he really gets his chance to show his stuff. And he blows it out of the water with his charm, and personality. The movie is cute, funny, and makes you cry (just a little). Truly a great flick to watch on valentines day or a girls night in. My mother and all of my girlfriends (some who don't even like the Piv!!!) think that this movie is really good to watch on a Friday night. Piven's performance of a guy who just wants to get to know the girl is endearing and makes you wish you were the girl. The father and the son relationship is fantastic and sweet. And you'll wish there was a little violence between Piven and the agent.


I'm a great fan of rags to riches stories. Having lived the riches to rags to riches life personally, the idea is quite appealing to me! What I found so interesting about Jeremy Piven's character was that he was so enamored with Sherilyn Fenn's character; that he saw through the obvious. He wasn't looking at the superficial. Yes, she was pretty and very rich, but that wasn't his motivation. He was truly motivated by, gasp, LOVE! His countenance and his boyish body language when he would be around her was so wonderful to watch. And how a bond and a friendship developed between the two characters was simply delicious. Sherilyn Fenn's character, I thought, was implausible knowing today's standards. However, I loved the thought of knowing that a beautiful, young, rich, single and famous actress could have such a deep longing for true love and faithfulness - where do you find that nowadays?

It's in this story!

The movie was so passionate and poignant, the characters so innocently appealing, and the supporting cast was simply tremendous. I can't say enough good things about this film. Who cares if its an independent. Who cares if its low budget. A good romance doesn't need the big hollywood hype or the big production; it simply needs two characters that truly and deeply love each other and are willing to look beyond the superficial attitudes that most of us have grown accustomed to!


Jeremy Pevin and Sherilyn Fenn are a dynamic screen couple, which is apparent from their first scenes. Their understated performances are accompanied by some first rate support from JoBeth Williams and Alex Rocco. In Ms. Williams case, the movies over before you realize it was her; this movie gave me a reason to remember Alex Rocco.

Despite the implausibility of the situation these people behave like normal people. If your going to pass yourself off as a screen writer, you might get some books about screen writing. The inability of "power" people in Hollywood to admit they don't know someone whose "in" is believable and a huge asset to the deception.

This is the rare Hollywood romance where we actually get a clue as to what attracts these two people to one another. Only once do they resort to the music and photo montage of a date to explain the mutual appeal. The rest of the time the screenwriter lets us hear what's going on with these people.

A great movie. I'm going to go watch it again.


As unoriginal as the plot seems and as poor as this film did in the box office, I found it to be both enjoyable and engrossing. From the few moments that Harold was on film, I wanted him to get the girl. There was no one better to play "the girl" than the talented and lovely Sherilyn Fenn. The plot is a bit too predictable and simple(boy meets girl, boy loses girl boy gets girl back for good), but the acting of both Sherilyn and Jeremy bring it to life. By the time the film was over, I had a new respect for the romantic comedy genre. A great film for a date or just to relax with on a weekend.


I was fortunate enough to catch "Just Write," on Starz last night and was greatly pleased (and surprised) with this film. I found all of the main characters to be very likable and also found the writing to be stellar, at worst. The film has inspired me to the extent that I just ordered three screenwriting books off of Amazon.com! When a movie has the power to make a person feel something strong or inspire them to the point that they will do something about their inspiration, then it must be a great film, and "Just Write," is!


Amanda (Sherilyn Fenn) is a rising female film star. Her pushy agent, Sidney Stone (JoBeth Williams) is upset, then, to learn that Amanda is not happy with the script of her latest project. Hasn't Sidney made Amanda's career and isn't her co-star to be none other than Brad Pitt? Yet, Amanda insists that her character in the new screenplay is stilted and subtly marginalized. Therefore, when Amanda runs into a Hollywood tour bus guide, Harold (Jeremy Piven) at a bar-for-the-stars, she is excited to learn that he is also a screenwriter! Except, of course, he isn't, but his admiration for her and for film prompts him to tell a little white lie. Amanda begs Harold to read the script and make changes and she will arrange for him to be paid for his work. With his trolley business in financial trouble, thanks to some mismanagement by his partner-father (Alex Rocco), and with the prospect of meeting Amanda again and again, Harold agrees to try. But, can Harold pull off the impossible, that is, fix the screenplay and get Amanda to fall for him, too? This is a lovely story about the good, but poor, guy finding love with a glamorous Hollywood star. Fenn is most lovely, funny and sweet in her role as a glam girl while Piven delivers his usual rapid-fire, good-natured and comic performance as the unlikely suitor. Rocco is fine as the scheming father and Williams is a hoot and a holler as the high-rolling agent. Wallace Shawn has a brief but important role as a fellow agent while Stephanie Miller, now a national talk show hostess, is a stitch as Shawn's reality-checking personal assistant. Then, too, the costumes are terrific, the Hollywood setting very beautiful and the script full of fun, romance and truth about the chaotic world of movie making. Find this flick at once, if you are looking for another entry in the romcom genre. It truly is "just right" for those who are always on the prowl for a feel-great reason to skip the usual household chores.


This is a nice easygoing film - the storyline is familiar to anyone who's acquainted with romantic comedies, though this film really isn't the comedic type, actually.

Anyway the plot is very simple and nothing extraordinary, and there are too many montage scenes where you get the feeling that the film is trying to substitute songs for the lack of action in plot. Also, it is rather formulaic particularly in the middle of the film ... the whole misunderstanding part is so cliched.

However, it's pleasant - it still makes for a worthwhile watch on TV, and predictably - of course the best moment is when they finally are together after all. That scene does make up a little for the flaws I grumbled about earlier, though definitely not entirely. Because:

1. The dialogue leading up to the kiss is very romantic. 2. The kiss itself. 3. I'm in love with the instrumental music in that scene.

So you get the idea - it's up to your taste.


Average love comedy with good performances from the participating actors.The film could have been better with more quality directing,screenplay and cinematography.The simple manner this fairy tale was told gave the movie credibility and worth watching to the end as long as a love comedy is expected.Fenn fans will like this for sure.....


This is one of those excellent short subject films that doesn't seem like either TV episode or someone attempting to get investors to expand it to feature length. It's a very simple, straightforward narrative brought to soul-stirring life by the gifted director. Ignore comments from those who seem too jaded to appreciate this little gem of a film. And at less than 30 minutes what do you have to loose just to check it out.

In fact the reason I am writing this at all is because I wondered what he had done since (I saw this years ago) and found to my shock and dismay no one has given him a project.

It is included on the DVD for the now defunct Film-Fest DVD series, Issue 3 (along with some other good shorts)


I recently saw this film during the USA Film Festival in Dallas. The USAFF's new program director mentioned it was her personal favorite of the festival. I can see why. Although there is no dialogue in the film, the director's visuals tell a tale all their own. The film is beautiful to look at with sharp colors, haunting music and amazing poetic images. The emotional pull of the actors makes the story both fascinating and moving. This is definitely not a "typical" film. It is unique, mysterious and moving, yet simple and elegant. It feels both gentle and brutal. A very emotional experience. This director's first film is a stunning accomplishment. I wish I could see more films like this....it's truly beautiful.


A story about a girl in a psychatrie hospital who just wants to be free. She lives in her own dreamworld with dolphins. There is a young boy who falls in love with her. He wants to help her to come free...

There is no dialogue, but that doesn´t matter.You don´t need dialogue to feel the love between the people. This is the way cinema has to be: pure magic! If you don´t cry when you watch this movie, you must have a heart of stone. Open your mind and feel...


The opening sequence alone is worth buying a "Dolphins" DVD. This movie is one extended moment of intense beauty, more like a modern dance performance than a theatrical production.

There is no dialog, so don't worry about having to deal with sub-titles inherent foreign films. The movie unveils itself in such a way as to reach any person in any modern culture.

The story is small and the plot simplistic, but you won't care. I promise.


...for this disappointing short. This movie is full of embarrassing clichés (e.g. the asylum inmates behave absolutely unnatural) and looks to me like a "work in progress" that was finished by all means. The fuzzy and arbitrary story and the David Hamilton optics are just an obvious trick to cover the dilettantism behind all. However, some people will be fooled and mistake it for poetry... for those I recommend the insightful audio commentary on the film fest DVD that reveals absolutely no useful information - not to let room for interpretations - just because the directer himself doesn't have the slightest idea why he did certain things. I'm pretty sure that "deep inside" this german equivalent to Mark Borchardt (I clearly prefer "Coven" to "Dolphins" by the way) is aware that he is actually an untalented filmmaker...even (and much more because) he thinks he has created something wonderful and unique. The latter it is. 1 out of 10


I have a great deal of affection for this movie. It's flawed, but it's a hoot! Granger certainly makes a unique and entertaining Holmes. The decision to cast Bernard Fox as Watson was a fabulous move. The cast also includes the always entertaining Anthony Zerbe and William Shatner too! I agree with another reviewer who noted that Holmes living on a hill overlooking London is definitely a nice touch. It truly conjures up the idea of Holmes as a protector of the city. This version of the classic tale deserves it's reputation as a cheap and cheesy TV movie, but it also deserves to be remembered as being hell of a lot of fun! I've had a ball enjoying this one on many occasions. Fun stuff!


I beg to differ. This production was by far the best of the films made of this story. I did not laugh at all. In fact I would like to own a VHS or a DVD of this film, if possible!

I loved all the movies featuring Stewart Granger, he was a captivating star! I also liked the actor Ian Ireland, who played Sir Henry. The photography was very good and the film created an ambiance/mood befitting this mystery.

Despite the fact that it has been many years since I have seen it and I am not really able to point out specific details, I can safely say that this was an entertaining movie.


Actually I watched it when I was very young with my Mom and it scared me! I never forgot it and I was hoping someone here would know where I could get a DVD copy of it for my Mom's birthday in March! Anybody? I would really appreciate it! I have looked and looked to no avail. Please let me know as soon as possible~ Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I know my Mom will love it! Thanks! I am sure there is someone out there who has this DVD! Just sitting on a shelf somewhere! I just wanted to ask this one question but it says I cant post it at all till I make ten whole lines of text so please pardon the rambling lol! Thank you~


Not a classic to be sure, but a decent TV movie-of-the-week adaptation of the oft-filmed Conan Doyle novel. Although it departs somewhat from the book, all the essential elements of the story are there. The cast does its best, and Granger makes an interesting Holmes. It would have been nice to have seen him as the Great Detective in other movies; he really was a class act. As noted by others, Bernard Fox is a more than adequate Dr. Watson. The costumes and sets are also good for a made-for-TV production of this era. But that music! You'd think that with the entire Universal Studios library of music at their disposal, the producers could have chosen more appropriate themes and cues!

At about 72 minutes, this brief version of a classic mystery makes an enjoyable time-filler; suitable for family viewing.


It has a great title, but the movie isn't worth the film its made with. The plot is awful and the story of a German tank crew trying to get back to its lines is performed just like a spaghetti western. I mean with the never ending, annoying music and stares of the actors. It culminates in a tank battle taking place approximately 50 feet from each tank. Of course the German tank explodes, but both occupants get out unscathed. The German tank with the American crew also explodes, but no one comes out. Furthermore, the equipment and uniforms are equally ridiculous. Also, the dialogue seems as though it was written by a 10 year old kid. Do not waste your time with this clunker.


World War II movies are my forte and I am well-versed in military history as well as time-period accouterments. I have seen some bad Second World War flicks in my time, but this "thing" of a picture, this blasphemous abomination, sure cuts the cake! Besides lacking talent, creativity and a determination for a little historical research, the guy who directed this film had to have sympathies with Nazi ideals. First, it was shocking to see the French Resistance portrayed as a roguish band of buffoons headed by an equally idiotic and boisterous leader; a smack in the face to the brave, witty Maquis who courageously resisted the German occupation of their homeland. Secondly,the film is saturated with bad acting, senseless dialog, contemporary uniforms,weaponry and vehicles (check out the "U.S. troops" wearing Spanish Army camouflage uniforms, helmets - which are a direct copy of the old German M1944, poorly concealed by helmet covers and brandishing CETMEs -Spanish copies of the G3 7.62mm automatic rifles). The "Tiger" is clearly a Spanish Army-issue M-48! Need I go on? Rent, but do not buy, this movie. The insatiable stupidity will make you laugh and cry..and laugh again; yes, it's that bad!!!


Contender for the worst film ever made!

I saw this movie for the first time at the recommendation of a friend. He warned me it would be painful to watch, but I had no idea how painful it would turn out to be.

This film (the English version I saw is entitled "Battle of the Last Panzer") is intended as a WWII epic depicting the struggle of a German tank crew, caught behind enemy lines, trying to get themselves and their vehicle back to German-held territory.

Other than that, I will make no attempt to describe the insanely fragmented and incoherent plot - you simply have to see it for yourselves!

Everything about this movie is just plain bad -- the plot, the dialog, the setting, the special effects, the equipment and uniforms, and the acting.

The star of the show is the Lieutenant in command of the crew (capital letters indicate emphasis):

"Any attempt at disobedience, or talk of desertion ... will be punished by DEATH!"

"As the Fuehrer said ... Those who are not with us ... are AGAINST us!"

"You have one minute, no more, to throw down your arms and get out of sight! After that minute, I'll advance -- RAPID FIRE!"

The film is supposed to be set in France, after the D-Day invasion. But in place of the lush green fields of Normandy, the landscape is arid and looks like Sicily or the south of Spain.

The uniforms are the best! "Americans" wearing Italian uniforms, complete with Italian rank and helmets. The weapons they are carrying are modern G3 assault rifles. The "Germans" are no better - they are carrying Italian-made Baretta submachineguns and pistols! Last but not least, their "Tiger" tank is an old US M-48 tank.

Writing these comments is proving to be almost as painful as watching the film. However, it's a must see. If you want a real shock, watch it right after "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers" and you'll find out just how bad bad can be!


This one could have easily been called LITTLE LOST PANZER ON THE RANGE, and is a nearly brain dead but nonetheless enjoyable Spaghetti Western masquerading as a war thriller. Since Spaghetti Westerns are essentially cartoons for grown-ups, I can see how BATTLE OF THE LAST PANZER has confused many viewers into thinking it a failure. There are no "good guys" in this movie (a quality shared with Spaghetti), but there are no real "bad guys" either, which is perhaps the movie's biggest flaw -- it's hard to figure out whom exactly one should be rooting for, but one of the characters helpfully states straight out the movie's agenda: There are no good or bad nations, only good or bad men. A worthy and romantic conclusion to be sure but in direct conflict with the traditional role that Germans play in mainstream WW2 movies, which is to be the villains. Just ask Steven Spielberg.

So like Umberto Lenzi's DESERT COMMANDOS, here is a low budget pre- DAS BOOT war movie that asks us to consider the German soldiers as people with the same kind of good/bad dualities that exist within even the most noble of us. "Stan Cooper" plays a more or less straight-laced young German Lt. in command of what is portrayed as the last functioning Panzer tank still fighting World War II, cut off from German lines after a devastating ambush knocks out all of the other Panzers in his column retreating from Normandy after the allied D-Day invasion, the German war effort obviously lost beyond any hope & the Nazis in a near panic as defeat looms. The majority of the film depicts Cooper and his crew roaming the faux-French countryside -- which will look eerily familiar to anyone who has seen at least three Spaghetti Westerns, since most were filmed on the same Spanish exterior locations -- encountering various indigenous locals, fighting off allied elements, and contemplating the meaning of service, loyalty, the value of life, and the price of failure to follow orders. The usual stuff, competently staged & filmed by true professionals. Whether or not the tanks or other equipment used are historically accurate is irrelevant: get over it. This is a well made movie, even if incredibly stupid if you stop to think about it.

Regardless, all of that works pretty well until the film stumbles when the element of a woman is arbitrarily interjected, and Cooper finds himself falling in love with a hostage (blond Erna Schürer, a classic beauty in every sense of the term) who has volunteered to lead the wayward tank crew back to German lines. Skirmishes with odd looking war surplus garbed Partisans and headline Gringo star Guy Madison's ineffectual American brigade kill time and raise the body count, punctuated by a fascinating combat sequence where director Jose Luis Merino -- best known for his Gothic Horror thrillers -- colors his film with nearly opaque red and blue filters. Another interesting moment comes when Cooper is allowed access to the body of his new lust-thang and the thought of his men, his mission, and the danger they are in causes a certain amount of post traumatic stress disorder coitus interruptus, much to the annoyance of his would be squeeze. The romance subplot is perhaps the film's other major flaw but it does allow for some dimension to be added to the character of this zealous, ultra-loyal German officer and leads to the eventual cracking of his surface to let some of the humanity come through.

But the ending is almost an unforgivable cop-out, a seemingly arbitrary "War Is Hell" moment added to show viewers the futility of it all, in case we missed the point on our own & were having fun. In the end Merino's message seems to be that war isn't fun but it can be entertaining for others to watch, especially if you can get your hands on a big, cool looking working tank, a pretty girl or two and some moments of choreographed destruction. The final tank battle is actually very reminiscent of a show down on the streets of a dusty Western town between the hero & the villain, and Merino chose to have the two tanks be identical to sort of tell us that one is just like the other, like Radio Raheem's LOVE and HATE knuckle dusters from DO THE RIGHT THING. It's not the most profound insight into human character ever to pop up in a war movie, but in this case it will have to do.

All in all the movie goes on for about 10 minutes longer than it should have, and while the story is involving for sure it never really resonates on the emotional level that the subject matter would usually endow on a film. So it really is almost a pure example of how the Euro cult genre directors re-tooled their Spaghetti Western approach to ape war movies for the brief period of time (1968 to 1970 or so) that this strange little "Euro War" genre was all the rage, and stands as an instructive example of the process at work. Fans of the Euro B-movie scene from the 1960's/1970's will be well served by taking a look, but anyone in search of a history lesson might want to just see what's on the History Channel. That's not what these movies were made for, and holding it accountable for failing to rise to a standard imposed upon it by a future generation with different social mores isn't fair.

7/10; look for it on one of those bargain priced multi-disc DVD box sets for about $9, and make up your own mind.


War film logic dictates that both Americans, Germans and the occupied French will all understand each other while speaking fluent Americanese. With this kind of co-operation, why was there ever a war in the first place? Possibly to inspire no-budget tank operas like Battle Of The Last Panzer. It's the tale of a doomed Panzer squad led by the clearly-insane Lieutenant Hunter (played by Italian actor Stan Cooper, real name Stelvio Rosi). His men know the war is over and are on the brink of mutiny, but Hunter, who spends most of the film with his shirt off and practicing his strange full-facial style of overacting, is determined to see his mission through to the last man standing. They bulldoze their way into a tiny French village and capture the sycophantic mayor and his less-than-impressed wife Jeanette, who despises weakness and sees something sexy in Hunter's bullish macho destructive determination.

Played by German actress Erna Schürer who spent most of the Seventies in more sleazy Italian fare such as Strip Nude For Your Killer and Deported Women of the SS Special Section, Jeanette willingly volunteers to become their tour guide, supposedly to save her husband, but after a while trapped in a tank full of sweating, leering Germans her motives are quite clear, showing off her flesh and playing the affections of one soldier against the other. At one point, Hunter peers up her skirt and says "Pull up into the underbrush and park!" Jawohl, mein herr.

Unlike spaghetti westerns, the Italian war cycle was far shorter, much less prolific, and produced no stand-alone genre classics, least of all this one. But Battle Of The Last Panzer from 1969 has the look and feel and musical score of a spaghetti western from the same era - transpose Confederates versus Yankees on top of the WW2 players, substitute a war wagon for the Panzer tank, and gatlings for submachine guns, and you have a Sergio Leone movie. A rough as guts Leone at a third of the running time, one-fiftieth of the cost and with a script rewritten buy a team of monkeys on typewriters, but a Leone film nonetheless. And with a cool red-tinted spaghetti western style shootout at the end, it's worth sitting through this interesting yet deeply flawed Italian-Spanish poverty-row production. So gather the troops and fire up the Tiger for another excursion into enemy territory courtesy of the losing side: the Italian war epic Battle Of The Last Panzer.


I almost turned this movie off during the first 10 minutes. I decided to continue watching it to see if there really was a plot buried amidst all of the other shortcomings of the film. There are several things that you should know that are bound to annoy the typical war movie viewer. 1. Stupid music. Some of the worst I have ever heard. It reminds me of the old spaghetti westerns. 2. It's a dubbed movie. I'm not a fan of movies that are dubbed, i'd rather watch them in the language they were shot in and read captions. In this case, it's worse because the Americans and the Germans are both dubbed and have no accents what-so-ever. In some really dark scenes, you don't know if you are watching the Germans or the Americans. 3. Authenticity. There are so many inconsistencies with weaponry, uniforms etc that it's hard to tell who is who and who they are shooting at. Even the Germans shoot at the other Germans who are hiding behind a tank early in the movie yet, Later, in pitch black one of the men can identify the Lieutenant from 1/4 of a mile away as he walks down a hillside. 4. Dialogue. War movies are about war. Guns, explosions and people fighting. There are some really odd cut scenes. There is one with a prostitute where a soldier trying to teach her about humanities indecency - she's not interested, she just wants the $64 dollars. Most of the dialog reminds me of watching Japanese Anime.

If you watched it this far, you might as well know that it doesn't get any better. All of the actors have perfected rolling down hills as they die. Apparently gravity always pulls you towards a camera man, never away.

All in all, a complete waste of time. Unless you are just looking for a movie with cheesy dialog, there's ALWAYS something better than this to watch.


First the movie is bad, not horrible just really bad. The only thing that kept me watching was the girl(Erna Schürer)she looks like the long lost twin of Tara Reid. Erna is somehow softer looking, but a close copy. It turns out Erna Schurer is some late 60 early 70 Italian scream queen. She did all those sadistic/exploitation/well endowed nude horror movies that are becoming so popular lately(Italian grind house). If you have a 100min or so to kill, and want to watch a low budget Italian/Spanish anti-war(Vietnam)movie that is poorly written not very well acted, somewhat funny(although it was not filmed for any laughs), and has a better version of Tara Reid then Tara Reid herself in it...then this movie is for you...Andrew Wolf(II)


This film is a total waste of celluloid. It's the story of a German Tiger tank caught behind US lines during WW 2. There is no one in this film that you will recognize.The acting is terrible, period. The German part of the soundtrack is dubbed in English, so the mouth movements don't match the words. The musical score doesn't match the film at all. It bears a strong resemblance to the score of many of the early spaghetti westerns. Errors abound...the Nazi "Tiger" tank is, in fact, an old US M-48. The Germans keep talking about needing "gas". All Tiger tanks were diesel-powered. There are errors in the small arms on both sides. About the only thing that kept me watching was the sexy blond wife of a local restaurant owner shows plenty of leg and provides a bit of eye candy. She bears a distinct resemblance to Nancy Sinatra back in her "These Boots are Made for Walking" days. The dialog is poorly written, cliché-ridden and woodenly delivered. Some of the acting is so poor that I found myself laughing when there is no humor in the film. It's difficult to believe that this director had already done a half dozen films prior to this tripe and actually did several more afterwards. Don't bother with this one - at all.


"La Battaglia dell'ultimo panzer" is about a German panzer crew caught behind the American lines in France in 1944. The production values of the movie are very low; the anachronisms and errors concerning equipment and uniforms are actually quite obvious. Nevertheless, the plot is quite intelligent. This is a surprisingly serious war movie and much more reflective than most WW II war movies of the period (such as 'Where Eagles Dare' or 'Kelly's Heroes', or the countless Italian rip-offs of these more 'lighthearted' war thrillers.)

This is mainly because the characters, and in particular the German soldiers, are more than just the kind of cardboard cliches one expects from this type of low-budget movie. Especially the main character, a German lieutenant and commander of the crew, played by Stelvio Rosi, is a surprisingly three dimensional character. While he presents himself as a hardline nazi believer at first, we later see that the horrors of war affect him deeply in an unexpected moment and the final scenes of the movie have a very bitter lesson in store for him. Civilians and their different ways of dealing with the occupation also have a place, giving some surprising nuances which most war movies (including the technically infinitely superior, but plot-wise arguably inferior 'Saving Private Ryan') lack.

The acting is middle-of the road. None of the (quite unknown) actors are really bad, but none really stands out. 8/10 for some of the writing, 2/10 for the production values


When Edgar G. Ulmer's "The Black Cat" was released in 1934, it was the first film to feature famed Universal horror actors Bela Lugosi ("Dracula") and Boris Karloff ("Frankenstein") in the same film together, which may explain part of its continually fueled cult popularity today.

The film is dark and forthright and disturbing, even by today's standards. The bad guy character is a Satan worshiper who murders women as sacrifices and keeps their preserved bodies locked up in a dungeon beneath his creepy Hungarian mansion, situated on the remains of a battlefield where men under his command once fought.

The key of the film, and what surges us forward with exceeding momentum, is an American couple honeymooning in Hungary. While traveling via train, a mysterious man named Dr. Vitus Verdegast (Lugosi) shares their compartment and tells them of an old friend he plans on meeting after some 15 years of being held captive in a prisoner of war camp.

The American couple is comprised of Peter Alison (David Manners), a pulp mystery writer, and his newly wed bride, Joan (Julie Bishop, credited as Jacqueline Wells). They feel uncomfortable around the pleasant yet strange man, and are eager to continue their tour of Hungary, when tragedy befalls Joan and Peter in an automobile accident and Verdegast and Peter are both forced to take her to the residence of Hjalmar Poelzig (Karloff), the very man Verdegast is expecting to drop in on.

Joan is put to bed and given rest after the fright of the accident, and Poelzig greets them all with warm hospitality. However, it does not last for long, because it is soon revealed that Verdegast has come back after 15 years to claim his wife and daughter from the clutches of Poelzig. Poelzig informs him that his family has passed, but Verdegast believes that Poelzig murdered them both and seeks vengeance on the Satan worshiper, who plans on making Joan his next sacrifice.

There were lots of Universal horror films made during the 30s and 40s, some better than the others. "The Black Cat" is still considered one of the best to this very day, and it has not dated nearly as much as some of the other horror stories. It is still as disturbing as it was in 1934, with its villain not only creepy but literally evil, right down to Boris Karloff's eerie first appearance.

To be dreadfully honest, the film's only flaw is that it is often too quick to follow in chronological order. The film is only 66 minutes long, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me it was even shorter. It flies by quickly. Good for repeated viewings, yes, but sometimes the cuts are too rapid and all over the place.

That's a single flaw. The rest is pieced together perfectly. It was one of Lugosi's few heroic roles, and as Verdegast we are never sure if he is a good guy or bad guy until the very end, when the two arch enemies have a climatic showdown, which is as poetic as justice can be.

Karloff, credited as simply that in the movie, is perfect as Poelzig, and this was one of Lugosi's highlights before he sunk deeper and deeper into drugs and alcohol and eventually died before Edward D. Wood, Jr.'s tragic film "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was released, which didn't stop Wood from using old footage of Lugosi filmed prior to the scriptwriting process for the film (often considered the worst ever made). Wood credited him in the title role, yet Lugosi didn't even technically star in the film at all.

The movie is visibly filmed with a low budget and many technical imperfections. But its director, Edgar G. Ulmer (1904-1972), was a man whose films were often flawed but nevertheless quite haunting. "Detour," often regarded as his finest moment, was shot in six days with a band of B-actors, yet it still remains a cult classic today, even finding a spot in Roger Ebert's Great Movies compilation.

Ulmer was a refugee from Hitler, and no, I am not related to him as far as I know. Ulmer was an assistant to F. Murnau Abraham on various films, and presented the German link between American cinema of the time and German cinema, which was much more exaggerated with its filming.

It's very evident in "The Black Cat," but I don't think I'd want it any other way. It was most assuredly a breakthrough in the art of fast-paced filmmaking, and even by today's standards it is incredibly short. "The Black Cat" is one of the quickest film experiences you will ever have, but also one of the most disturbing and enjoyable, too.

5/5 stars.

- John Ulmer


The best of the collaborations between Karloff & Lugosi. The production values are high and Karloff's makeup is excellent. There is a lot going on it the script-- perhaps too much, as the script is a bit confusing and sometimes pointless. But the atmosphere is thick and the "aura" hangs over the movie like a dense mist. There is more horror implied than actually seen. This movie has black magic, a man skinned alive, treachery, phobia, and a chess game with lives at stake. Mostly, it has great performances by Karloff and Lugosi in their one and only film appearance as equals (without one dominating the other). Truly, this is one of the finest Universal horror classics and will deliver everything a fan of such fare could possibly want.


The Black Cat is, quite simply, a horror masterpiece. Almost everything about this film is perfect. I'm not going to go into detail on the story, because if you haven't seen it, you should.

The acting is some of the best you'll ever see in a horror film. Lugosi is at the top of his game. His portrayal of Ygor in Son of Frankenstein may be Lugosi's only better performance. Karloff is wonderfully creepy and mysterious (and has some of the most bizarre hair I've ever seen). Seeing the two work together in The Black Cat is a real pleasure. Although Karloff gets top billing, this is Lugosi's film and he makes the most of it. David Manners and the rest of the cast are more than adequate.

The futuristic house in which the film is set is a departure from the more Gothic, Victorian settings of most of the Universal films. And it works. Thanks to some terrific set design, lighting, and cinematography, the modern house exudes as much atmosphere as any old castle, dungeon, tower, etc.

The Black Cat contains some of the most unsettling scenes of any classic Universal horror film. It is, IMO, the darkest of any of these films. I just wonder how it was viewed by audiences in 1934. Two scenes that immediately come to mind are the black mass performed by Karloff and the torture scene at the end of the film. These scenes are not typical of the Universal classics. They have the power to stick with you long after the movie is over.

But what I really like is the way the story unfolds. At the beginning, you know nothing of what's really going on. Bit by bit, the story unfolds. Many of the plot points are revealed by Lugosi. In fact, if it weren't for Lugosi's monologues, I wonder if anyone would have any idea of what was taking place.


I can't imaging how this movie would have been without both Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, probably very very bad. The chemistry between the two is amazing.

This is one of those movies in which the story absolutely doesn't matter. The story is totally absurd and very simple (The black cat storyline has absolutely nothing to do with the movie and serves no purpose at all) but yet that is what maybe makes this movie extremely fun and easy to watch.

Watching this movie made me realize something; Bela Lugosi actually was a very good actor that was ahead of his time. The way he delivers his lines and his eye for details shows that acting was a great passion for him. Yes I think I can now be considered one of his fans.

Another great thing were the sets that were wonderful and even now 70 years later they still look very modern.

Don't expect a movie with ghouls and monsters, it rather is more fun to watch then it is scary and the Lugosi/Karloff combination is what makes this movie a real classic.

7/10


"The Black Cat", for all its flaws, is one of the most unique horror films ever made. Its certainly the most bizarre horror film of the 30s outside of the legendary "Freaks". Plus, it unites two of the greatest genre icons of all time, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Its also one of the few occasions that Edgar G. Ulmer was able to show how talented a filmmaker he was. He only created one other notable film, the absolute masterpiece "Detour" which is possibly the greatest b-film ever made.

The main reason why the film works so well are the performances of both Karloff and Lugosi. Karloff plays one of his most deliciously evil yet charming and sophisticated characters yet. The man exudes tension whenever he appears on camera. Even better surprisingly is Lugosi. Lugosi was sometimes criticized as having charisma but no real acting skill. He is actually superb in his role as a tragic hero. This makes me wish he was given more parts such as this instead of the grade-c schlock he was confined to late on. Both of the stars have marvelous interplay, especially the chess scene. They more than make up for the sappy performances by David Manners and Julie Bishop.

In addition to the performances, Ulmer must be given a lot of credit. His direction and story are both bizarre and throughly captivating. Also, the set design is quite surreal, coming across as art deco gone horribly wrong. Its not a perfect film, but is one of the most memorable horror films of the 30s. (7/10)


`The phone is dead. Do you hear that Vitus? Even the phone is dead.' What a great line!

This is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff playing chess and fighting it out over old wounds and new ones.

The entire supporting cast is splendid as is the direction Edgar G. Ulmer. Yet could we expect less from a story (loosely adapted as it was) by Edgar Allan Poe and this cast? See for yourself and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Many aspects of this film remind me of `Old Dark House' and I like it just as much. If you know me you would realize what a ringing endorsement that truly is.

I think you'll be refreshingly surprised at Lugosi playing the sympathetic character, even though it's not entirely clear early on in the movie.

One of the scenes that has always stood out in my mind since first watching this film is the one near the end when Lugosi ties up Karloff. There is no blood and yet it is more gruesome than many of today's graphic moments. It goes to show that there is more to great horror than having to show every detail.

Keep an eye out for the title of the book Karloff reads in bed.Very creepy stuff.

I rate this movie a 9+ in the category of horror classics. To me it's not Frankenstein or Dracula but not that far below.


This one works on several levels, that may not all be apparent to the casual viewer. It delves into the sci-fi area of the fear and apprehension of the new and strange unfamiliar technologies that did, do and always will cause mankind to shudder to think of just what our role will be in the future. This parallels the then current political idea of a society that would be best ruled by scientists, engineers and the like. Known as 'TECHNOCRACY', this system neither had much room nor any sympathy for the human side of things, too inefficient.

Secondly, the inclusion of the Satanist cult is both a throw back to old Gothic type horror tales of witches, ghosts and the supernatural. This is a link to the vampire and werewolf, and is a horror that cannot be more universal (not Universal!). Fear of the occult.

Thirdly, the element of the story that is perhaps the most pertinent to our 'modern' world. The Mansion,which serves as the setting for most of the film, is built on the sight of a great World War I battle, in which countless thousands lost their lives. This in the end is probably the most horrifying (and truthful) element. When combined with the blood-letting and cruelties of man to fellow man that are portrayed as the climax to the film, the movie sounds both a condemnation of what has transpired in the previous part of the 20th century, WWI, and the unthinkable atrocities that were to come.


Lugosi and Karloff are perfect together. There are three movies that these two have important roles, but this is the only one where their roles are of equal importance. (In The Invisible Ray Karloff dominates; in The Raven it is Lugosi.)

The script seems to be storyboarded to take advantage of their accents. One time, when the rather ingenuous romantic lead, David Manners (UH!), dismisses a morbid theory as "superstitious baloney" to which Lugosi- breaking up an ordinary line into an orchestration of musical syllables- replies, "Superstitious, perhaps. Baloney, perhaps not." - each of the five words underlined by a little shift in facial expression.

In the same sequence, Karloff, explaining the fear that has caused Lugosi to throw a knife at (and kill) a cat, delivers a beautifully spoken monologue about the "extreme form" of the phobia, ended it by saying that Lugosi suffers from "...an all-consuming horror---of cats." His perfect diction adds to the effectiveness of the lines; the word "horror" is emphasized, given a menacing intonation, while a pause, and a lift of the eyes upwards in a mock-religious expression, a slight hissing in the final sound, gives the ordinary phrase "of cats" a genuinely frightening connotation.

This is one of the best horror movies of the early thirties. Karloff is evil, yet magnetic, and Lugosi's hero is sympathetic and well-intentioned, but also callous and overtaken by some far less admirable traits. 10/10