The Ernest films are pretty much all the same: amiable, clunky, dumb, with an inspired moment every half hour or so. This is the exception. Same writers, same production company, but for some reason they decided to forget about plausibility and go straight for surrealism -- and the result is one of the funniest movies ever made. There's a story of sorts (lots of people chasing a revolutionary war cannon purported to contain the Crown Jewels of England), and a moral of sorts (don't be afraid to risk), but they're just scaffolding for the gags and shtick. The script abounds in throwaway lines that have no relation to anything else ("I haven't seen anything like this since the Bay of Pigs"), scraps of ridiculous dialogue (the history professor sees Ernest with a possibly valuable artifact: "Where did you get that?" "France." "Where in France?" "Outside Paris"), and all sorts of off-the-wall bits (the professor doing Elvis, the Mighty Workboy song). Jim Varney does a few of his standard issue klutzy-Ernest bits, but they just set the real humor in higher relief. Plus, the supporting cast is great: Tom Butler as the villain, alternately sadistic and zoned-out ("Yes...but many men died"); Ron James as the nebbishy professor ("Herpetology is not my field"); and the magnificent Linda Kash, stealing the picture as the professor's domineering wife ("Really hate that tie, dear. Really do.") I've seen this movie maybe ten times, and it gets stranger and funnier every time. If you're expecting something that makes sense, you'll be disappointed, but if you just sit back and watch the weirdness, you're in for a comic classic. 10 out of 10, no hesitation.


I have always loved Varney's Ernest character. None of his movies are real pieces of movie magic. They are mere catalysts for Ernest to show his comedy ability. I believe that Ernest Goes to Camp and Jail are the best "movie" movies of the series but my favorite for general comedy is Rides Again because of the small asides that Ernest goes into during the film. I have no doubt that these movies are incredibly annoying if you are not a fan of Ernest but I love the subtle, unrelated to plot, funny without the movie, similar to sketch humor moments in Rides Again that shows some of the best Varney humor. "Blasting caps, that'll scare them, a brain is terrible thing to waste, map, map, where's the map, oh come now don't tell me you've lost that bloody map, oh no sir, that maps around here somewheres" all done in three different pirate voices.


This ranks among my most favorite of "Ernest" movies. The bumbling janitor Ernest P. Worrel (Jim Varney)and his wishy-washy, history-professor friend, Abner Melon (Ron James), stumble upon an old revolutionary-war cannon known as "Goliath," that Abner has been searching for his whole life. Unbeknownst to them, other people are also interested in the cannon because it contains the crown jewels of England: a history professor and Abner's boss, who moonlights as a crime boss, and an British secret agent who wants to recover the jewels for England.

As the other reviewer stated, "Ernest Rides Again" is a bit more serious in plot, but it is filled with laughs nevertheless, especially in the scenes where Varney plays against straight-man Ron James. Don't miss the hilarious canon "chase" scenes! The relative seriousness of the plot makes the laughs that much funnier. Definitely a "must see," especially for those who have never seen an "Ernest" movie!


I loved this show. I thought this show was creative, unique, very funny, and most amazing of all-clean. Jim Varney was so funny my sides ached for days after watching him. In this age it seems practically every movie I've seen that has tried to produce humour has a scene that involves a toilet and/or shows someone being kicked in the groin( I wouldn't think anyone[especially males]would think that was funny). This movie is an example of filmmakers actually having to think to produce a good, funny, screen play. The plot was turning in many interesting directions making it impossible to figure out the ending (films can get old when producers make movies with the same old plots over and over again). I throughly enjoyed this film and I hope many more people will.


Another round of mirthless antics from Ernest P. Worrell, a character considered lovable and endearing by only Jim Varney and the handful of in-bred yokels who make up the audience for these films. You have to feel sorry for Ron K. James, Varney's co-star in this mess, who has little to do but spout dreadful dialogue and look uncomfortable while Varney's gurning face hogs all the close-ups. The only entertainment value to be found as Varney mugs endlessly and destroys everything around him is in the hopelessly slack direction, which leads to such lapses in logic as a cannon rolling for miles along a completely straight road, a sequence that is topped only when the cannon bursts into a garden but leaves the fence behind it completely intact. The constant references to other films might be a distraction if they didn't remind you of how much better they are than this one.


Japanese animation has brought forward many films which are regarded as classics of the genre (for now ignoring the fact that anime isn't really a genre in and of itself, but rather a style of animation which encompasses several different genres, eg. horror, comedy, sci-fi, etc), but for some reason Macross: Do You Remember Love is seldom mentioned alongside gems like Akira, Ghost In The Shell, or Mononoke Hime (and pretty much every other Studio Ghibli effort) - something I find quite difficult to understand. I was lucky enough to catch this movie on late night TV several years ago and was completely spellbound by it. It has a simple storyline (boy loves girl, while humanity's future is threatened by warmongering cyborgs - hey, it's anime) but an innocence at heart which very few movies, even animated ones, are able to match. I was even luckier when I discovered a subtitled VHS copy of it, and it has since become one of my favourite animated movies of all-time.

For its time, the standard of animation is quite impressive. This movie must have taken at least a few people's breaths away when it was initially screened in 1984, because, even when you compare it to Japanese animation of the time (including Hayao Miyazaki's much-lauded feature debut Nausicaa), the level of detail and movement on display is mind-boggling. People don't just move their eyes and lips (as was the case in virtually 99% of animation then); their hair moves, their clothes show wrinkles, whilst the background details are nearly inch-perfect. Macross itself doesn't just look like a huge intergalactic space station, it also *feels* like one. I can think of few films which display a similar attention to detail as DYRL, and for that reason alone it deserves its rightful place in the animation hall of fame, next to anything Disney or Ghibli have ever brought forward.

The storyline, as mentioned before, is fairly straightforward (and admittedly clichéd at times), but thankfully this doesn't sidetrack from its unique charm, especially as the narrative progresses from a bogstandard battle of Good vs Evil into something else entirely, which I won't describe in great detail lest I completely ruin the surprise for you - however, I will say this: the ending itself is one of the most awe-inspiring things I have ever seen. Quite aside from the strangely moving premise of J-pop saving the universe, the entire choreography of that scene is an utter stroke of genius. It's a bizarre ending, but strangely enough it works.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on the Robotech series - in fact, I know pretty much next to nothing about the other instalments in the Macross/Robotech series. But I like to think that I know good film-making when I see it, and Do You Remember Love certainly is that. It's an unsung classic of Japanese animation which does not deserve to fester in obscurity, but instead requires widespread recognition as the ground-breaking work of art it truly is. Simply put, it's wonderful.

(NB, I want to point out that this review concentrates solely on the subtitled version of Macross: Do You Remember Love, not the dubbed and narrowed-down version of the movie entitled Clash Of The Bionoids, which, as many here have pointed out, is a monstrosity to be avoided.)


Super Dimensional Fortress Macross: Do You Remember Love? Ah, what a name and what a movie. This is what classic Japanese Animation is all about. Just the name itself conjures up nostalgic memories of yesterday, running home from fourth grade to catch the latest episode of Robotech, to attending my first Anime convention and realizing the true power of the unedited series as well as this incredible film which retells the story. The music, the characters, the animation and the story are the very things that attracted me to Japanese animation in the first place. And still, even after all of these years, SDFM:DYRL not only holds up, but is still a force to be reckoned with.

This is due, in no small part, to the creative talent and storytelling capabilities of Shoji Kawamori. Although his filmography may be small, it is an example of quality over quantity. Kawamori's Macross series made giant transforming robots, singing pop-idol young starlets, heroic floppy haired boys, and melodramatic drama popular to thousands of fans across the globe. Who in their right mind never dreamed of someday flying a Valkyrie, or meeting a girl as spunky and hot as Lynn Minmay or as gorgeous and smart as Misa Hayase? Or who never wished that their hair were as cool as Max's blue locks or Hikaru's tangled mop? And who never wished for the experiences and friendships shared by the Defense Force as they battled the onslaught of the Zentradi forces? Without Kawamori, none of these questions would have ever even been possible. To me, this is like trying to imagine a childhood without Star Wars.

SDFM:DYRL is at it's core, a story of an alien invasion. The Zentradi, a race of aliens created for only war are hell-bent on tracking down a lost ship, the Macross, which is the key to the universal power of Protoculture. Protoculture is the universal matter from which all things were created and it gives life to those who have it. The Zentradi track down this lost ship, which has landed on Earth. The humans of Earth learn, to a somewhat limited degree, the power of the Macross, and are able to escape with a few hundred survivors to the outer reaches of space, thus setting in motion the constant game of cat and mouse between the Zentradi and the humans. Although this story is quite basic on the surface, what really set Macross apart from the other giant-invading-robot movies/series was the investment the audience had in the characters.

The animation itself is quite beautiful, although it may seem somewhat primitive by today's digital standards. It is, however, a great example of how Japanese animation differs from its Western counterparts. While Western animation, especially concerning studios such as Disney and Warner Bros., put more energy into creating smooth animated movement, the Japanese directors and artists have always been more interested in creating insanely detailed drawings. Some Japanese directors have claimed that Japanese animation is actually more of a mix between the detailed still drawings of manga and the fluidity of traditional Western animation, thus it is an art form in and of itself being neither comic book nor cartoon. Macross is a perfect example of this ideology. Although the animation may not be extremely fluid, what we are given are vastly detailed cityscapes, landscapes and space frontiers, as well as mechanical and character designs to die for.

And how can I possibly even mention the word Macross without at least a brief mention of the music? Kentaro Haneda, who created the original music, made sure that the score and songs were as captivating as the film itself, as well as making sure every note of every song fit perfectly with what was being shown on screen. After all, with music playing such an intricate roll in the entire Macross saga, the music really needed to be top notch  and it was.

SDFM:DYRL is a classic in every sense of the word. A movie that is just as good today as it was almost 20 years ago. Some films do not live up to the memories we have of them, and as we get older some films lose their power. SDFM:DYRL on the other hand, becomes a beacon of light to remind us of the reasons we fell in love with Japanese films in the first place.


I first saw this film in the late 80s. Like most anime in the US at the time, it was solely available in a grainy, much-duplicated VHS. Still, the film drew me in. Okay, I was a little confused when I finally saw the American adaptation of the Macross TV series, but what the heck....

It was very disappointing that for years the sole legit commercial copy in English was the bastardized Australian production, ATTACK OF THE BIOROIDS. Suffice it to say, if you want a good example of how NOT to adapt a foreign film, that is the example to study. I used to watch it with the sound mostly turned off.

When I got on the internet, an online acquaintance gave me a VCD of DO YOU REMEMBER LOVE. It was pretty nice, at least until the viewer program failed.

But now I FINALLY have a DVD of the film. I just finished watching it and.....oooooooooooooooooooooooh bliss!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As I said in my title, this is still the greatest SF animated film ever made!

And the DVD includes the final concert! This was originally planned for the film but cut due to budget constraints. It was finally made for the MACROSS FLASHBACK 2012 music compilation. But now it is where it belongs, backing up the closing credits.

happy, happy, joy, joy.....


Macross The Movie: Love Do You Remember (as it is known here) is simply the greatest animated movie (both East and West) I've ever seen in my life. There's no animated movie in this world that comes close with it's deep and enduring story, great character development, great cast, the emotion and most of all the mecha-drama concept as defined by animation's greatest maker Shoji Kawmori! Lynn Minmay is the greatest female character of all, and you'll wish she's real! You'll feel like you're really part of the Macross universe as the battles and stories go on. You'll really be touched by the intense emotion of this film. You'll feel like you really want to fly a Valkyrie, then transform it into a Gerwalk or a Battroid to do battle for your race! And best of all, you'll realize the greatness of animation with this film.

No doubt about it, Macross The Movie:LDYR is the GREATEST ANIMATED MOVIE in the world! You're missing something great if you don't see this.


One of the most wonderful pieces of animation I have ever laid eyes on! The best attention to detail EVER! The Valkyries do not fly like they're planes on Earth(like in the series). You can see their retro-rockets firing and everything! They've thought of it all, and it adds up to a WONDERFUL experience. If you consider yourself a Macross fan, or even a Sci-Fi fan, you will LOVE this movie! The attention to detail and emotion make this story actually semi-believable, especially compared to the other Anime tripe out on the market today. A+!


What better way to make an encore performance of a classic TV series? Make a movie.

The Superdimension (not Superdimensional) Fortress Macross: Do You Remember Love? re-tells the famed Macross story with a whole new style. Actually a "fiction within fiction," it varies from the original storyline, a near-perfect complement to the series. Perhaps it doesn't match the substance of the series, but the improved style makes up for it. With improved designs, animation, and the new title song, even the most ardent Macross "purist" will enjoy.


This movie is produced after the Macross Robotech series. Its not scenes from the series its a whole new drawn movie. It has some of the story from the serie but a whole lot is different. Its much better drawn than the serie and it has more violent and romans in it.

 So did you like the series you will LOVE the movie: Macross Do You Remember Love.

 One of my all time high Anime and saying that though i have 120 anime DVDs means a lot.


I first bought this movie because i had grown up with Robotech and absolutely loved the Macross-part of it, plus that i love Macross Plus, and I thought that the original could'nt be that bad. I started the movie and when i finished i was in love with it. One of my first thought were that Robotech was just the pale copy it is. The animation in Macross: DYRL is great, especially when you consider that this was made in 1984! The music was fantastic (although a bit outdated) and realy set the tone of the movie. The mech designs are amazing (and by the way the Valkyries would work in real life if someone just put some money in to the project) and still some of the coolest ever in anime. The story and characters evolve in a beautiful way throughout the movie, and they managed to fit the bigger part of the whole long series storyline into just about 2 hours. Buy this anime and if you have any sense for good movies and anime you will love it. Very highly recommended. Personaly I give it 10/10.


The first time this film was made available in English, it was completely wrecked. If you ever see the familiar shape of the SDF-1 MACROSS on the cover of a video named ATTACK OF THE BIOROIDS, avoid it! It is of interest only to two groups-- those who are starved for any version of MACROSS: DO YOU REMEMBER LOVE and those who are (masochistically) looking for examples of how badly manga can get mangled....

Thanks to the internet and advances in computer technology, MACROSS: DO YOU REMEMBER LOVE is available in English in a CD (not DVD) format.


Dark, somber thriller about an art restorer Adrienne (Goldie Hawn) meeting Jack Saunders (John Heard) and falling in love. They marry, have a kid and are happy--until 6 years (or so) into the marriage he's suddenly killed. Slowly Adrienne discovers her husband wasn't who she thought he was...

Sort of a film noir. Hawn decided to take a chance on a dramatic role. Unfortunately this film fizzled at the box office and Hawn herself later said she made a mistake. I actually like the film. I liked it in 1991 and I still like it now 15 years later. It's got an intricate plot and some very nice directorial touches (some of the scenes were beautiful). Love their apartment too. There was also a very unusual but effective music score and a few nice jolts in the movie too.

The acting varies. Heard is VERY good is his role. Unfortunately Hawn isn't in hers. She's somber, quiet and too restrained. She seems very uncomfortable in the role. She doesn't ruin the movie but she lessens the impact--maybe it's a good thing that she never tried this again. Also I noticed quite a few plot loopholes left dangling after the movie was over. Still I found this engrossing and well-made. Worth catching. I give it an 8.


Goldie Hawn has never been a favorite, I must admit, but that is all the more reason to catch her in the one performance where she is not quirky, superfluous or silly.

The theme of this story has been done before, but thanks to a fine performance by John Heard, the character of Jack Saunders is intriguing and foreboding. John Heard is an underrated actor who adds a somewhat mischievous, ominous and sometimes comical overtone to his roles (You may want to watch him in the earlier 1970's film "Chilly Scenes of Winter", and there was also a film short wherein he portrayed Fortunato, in Edgar Allen Poe's "Cask of Amontillado". He was excellent).

Look for Ashley Peldon as the young daughter; Robin Bartlett, who is underused as Heard's estranged mother, and Tom Irwin, as Hawn's colleague from the art museum. The mystery is enough to keep you watching, and overall Heard's performance makes it all worthwhile. 7/10.


Adrienne and Jack meet, fall in love, marry, have a child, and live in a wonderful New York apartment. Then Jack is killed in a car crash. Slowly, things start to unravel for Adrienne in "Deceived," a 1991 film starring Goldie Hawn and John Heard.

This is a highly derivative movie concerning fake museum pieces, fake identity, and a double life, but it manages to be exciting and occasionally scary. As other people have commented, there are plot holes aplenty. Hawn and Heard are both marvelous in their roles, Hawn for a change in a serious part. She shows she's as talented a "straight" actress as she is a comedienne. The final big scene will keep you on the edge of your seat, and the climax of it is a knockout. This could have been one of the great movies if the script had been tighter because it is very well directed and performed with some excellent camera work and great music.

Despite script holes, I still found it entertaining. I wouldn't have minded paying good money to see it in the theater, and it makes a riveting rental.


The plotting is banal, the usual "husband is not who he pretends to be, and *possible spoiler* fakes his own death to escape being caught".

But the concept has rarely been executed better, and Goldie Hawn is simply outstanding here, with a truly fine supporting cast. The suspense builds logically from one step to the next, with an absolute minimum of contrivances. I was totally absorbed, especially as the "widow" slowly unraveled her husband's deceptions. Possibly the best scene in this movie was when she *possible spoiler* confronted her husband's pregnant new "wife". It was done superbly, with an absolute minimum of phony dramatics.

Too bad the ending couldn't have been done better, but, with the exception of those last five minutes, this film is well worth the effort of seeing.


This is an interesting thriller that I thought would be terrible. Goldie Hawn is very good in this film and the direction is solid. The biggest weakness this movie has is that it's too long. Should have trimmed this one down about 20 minutes to make it a little more intense. Not too bad though.


This is one of Goldie's finest. She played a woman who marries a man and has a perfect marriage for many years. Then one day she discovers something unusual about him. Very tense ending, I was on the edge of my seat. Watch this one alone, in a dark room, late at night.


I first saw this film when my children were so small that they consumed my time and energy and things went in one head and out the other. All these years, all I could remember about it was that it was one of those on my list of Movies to See When Your Kids Let You Have Your Sanity Back. That made it particularly fun to watch again recently. Goldie's character is so beautifully understated. She is just one of us, going about her day, until her life changes. You can relate each step of the way. I loved how the camera caught pieces of the truth that she did not, slowly building suspense. This calm elegance perfectly complements John Heard is at his deliciously evil best. The score works beautifully with the plot. Definitely put this on your jump-off-the-couch list.


Deceived rests totally on the weight of Goldie Hawn's shoulders and she delivers. Goldie plays Adrienne Saunders, a happily married restorationist with a young daughter. Her husband, Jack, is an artifacts dealer whom she met by happenstance years before. Things start going badly for Adrienne when a curator is mysteriously found dead at a museum, and it is revealed that a piece Jack bought for the museum for millions of dollars is a fake. Jack then suddenly dies, and Adrienne comes to find out that her seemingly dead husband was not who he said he was.

There are numerous plot holes in the movie, but Hawn works very well with what she has, and shows that she can more than handle serious drama. John Heard does seem miscast, as he goes from charming to psychotic without ever really establishing what makes his character tick, and why he has done what he did. All in all, a decent movie.


It never completely gets you involved. Oh, it does start out on a suspenseful note. The idea is very clever- a successful, attractive New York woman meets the man who seems to be Mr. Right (a successful artifact dealer), and their marriage is everything she hoped it would be, until he suddenly and mysteriously dies. But when she looks into his background, she finds that what she knew about him turns out to be false, and he may have been involved in criminal activity. Also, the music and visual style set the right mood. And Goldie Hawn, not known for film roles like this, gives a respectable performance. But as the film moves along, it becomes increasingly confusing and unbelievable, finally reaching a ridiculous ending. In fact, the closing scene is so confusing, it's hard to tell where it takes place. It looks like someone with a great deal of talent but a short attention span got bored with the film and rushed it to an ending because he was sick of it. Too bad, because it had great promise.


Do not watch this film alone!! Brilliant thriller without all the blood they put in common thrillers of today. The chase in the building area at the end could have been made a lot shorter. I rated this breathtaking movie 9.


Kept me interested throughout movie. A psychoanalyst would have had a field day with Jack. I rated it an 8.


wow, i was not expecting much from this but found it to be very good! It sure kept my attention. I'm not usually a big fan of this genre of movie. Goldie did a good job. some of the shots happened so quick i wish i had seen it on dvd so I could rewind and take a second look.


You will get some excitement out of this movie, once you stop expecting Goldie Hawn to be funny. I think she could really do more of these "serious" parts and John Heard is also quite convincing. I haven't seen any other films of Damian Harris but I would like to.


A handsomely-made thriller saddled with a silly script, cluttered up with incredible situations and plot-holes. Goldie Hawn, toning down her upbeat persona, is curiously thoughtful and tense playing a woman whose husband has just died in a mysterious car accident; little by little she discovers he wasn't who he seemed to be. Nothing exciting or substantial is done with this premise, the child actors in the movie are just awful, and the long finale (a foot chase) doesn't do anybody any favors. The film's classy look dwarfs the marginal plotting (it leads one to expect much more), and the tag at the end--a freeze on Hawn looking wistful--is humorously self-defeating. There's nothing so thoughtful about "Deceived". ** out of ****


This is clearly Hawn's attempt to shake off her stereotypical image. Strangely enough she isn't the problem. In fact, she does okay without her usual smiling and giggling. The problem here is the ridiculous plot. It makes no sense whatsoever. At first sight it may seem complex but the truth is it's just not well thought out. I'll refrain from going into details but suffice it to say the story is very uneven and incoherent. Also, John Heard is terrible as a murdering psycho. It's easy to see why; he was completely miscast. His lines, which are supposed to terrify viewers, are laughable. The standard scares in the film are effective but very cliched and worn out. It sounds like a B-movie and that's exactly what it is.


This is not only my favorite Dragon Ball Z movie, but one of my favorite movies of all time. The longest and best DBZ film there is. I can't say how much I love this movie. I like the twist of how Goku isn't he first Super Sayian and is no where near strong enough to defeat Broly. Goku gets one of his biggest beatings ever. I honestly think this shouldn't have been a movie but a saga on the show. I mean the idea of a new Planet Vegeta and Vegeta the Prince is great. Also this is the first Goku villain that's held a grudge against Goku before they meet either on TV or movie. Broly's hated Goku forever. Broly sort of does that large super sayian Trunks does that slows him down but it doesn't slow Broly down. I really do love this one and recommend it 100%


This DBZ movie is the best one out of all, and this movie could be used as the soul to a live action movie!! This movie had the best music and action. Other English DBZ movies are good but are better left Japanese, for example; The History of Trunks. FUNimation outdid themselves this time, as this movie is so enjoyable thats its only drawback is that it ended. I could see this as a Live Action movie to see if more would work. Broly himself is an amazing character, as he does a good job pretending to be good then losing it when Kakarot aka Goku shows up. When he and Goku meet face to face, the movie really takes off. This movie is worth everyones time and makes a great source for entertainment.


"Dragonball Z 8: Burning Spirits!! Valiant Fight! Violent Fight! Super-Exciting Fight!", or "Broly: The Legendary Super Saiyan" in the English dub, starts off with our heroes relaxing and having fun after peace has been restored on Earth. However, the peace is soon interrupted by the landing of a spaceship. Out comes a huge army led by a mysterious Saiyan named Paragas, who asks Vegeta to come with him and become the king of the new Planet Vegeta and rule the new Saiyan empire. Paragas also tells of the Legendary Super Saiyan, who threatens to destroy the Universe, and that only Vegeta can stop him. After hearing this Vegeta decides to join Paragas to New Vegeta. Trunks, Gohan, Krillin and even Kame-Sennin (who apparantly had a little too much to drink) and Oolong come along for the ride. Meanwhile, Goku is told by Kaio-sama (or King Kai) that the Legendary Super Saiyan has just destroyed the South Galaxy, and now has his sights set on the North Galaxy. Goku is off to find the Legendary Super Saiyan. The trail leads him to New Vegeta...

This movie is the longest of all, and the length isn't just because of long-winded fights that DBZ has become infamous for (at least in my opinion). The movie is one of a kind in terms of storyline. It is the greatest story in all the DBZ movies, with the plot slowly unfolding as the movie progresses. There is a good amount of humor, especially from Kame-Sennin's drunken ramblings and behaviour. Action comes in truckloads in the second half. Brolly, who the Legendary Super Saiyan turns out to be, is one of the deadliest and most memorable villains ever concocted. He has some memorable dialogue, but the greatest thing about him is his insane and totally unpredictable behaviour. Needless to say, Goku and pals have a hard time taking him down, and their efforts are some of the most memorable battles in all of DBZ.

Overall, this movie is not to be missed by all DBZ fans.


This is one of the best Dragon Ball movies. It has Goku, Trunks, Gohan, Vegeta, Piccolo, Krilin, Mutenroshi... the story is interesting, Broly is a fantastic villain and the action is spectacular. In my opinion, it has only one problem: what we see in the movie isn't actually a fight. It looks more like Broly's training or something like that, because Goku and co. can't even hit him because he's too strong. All the action we can see in the movie is Broly hitting and the Z team receiving, it can become a bit boring. I would have preferred a weaker Broly (I'm not saying a pathetic one, of course), so we could see an authentic EXCHANGE of punches, and not this. Anyway, the movie is fantastic. It has very memorable scenes (I love the beginning, with a suited Goku) and the Z team does his best. A must see for all Dragon Ball fans.


The narrative of this film is as follows:

Good guys mess around a bit, then go to another planet to fight something.

It becomes apparent that they are going to fight Broly within 5 seconds of him being on-screen.

Broly looks stern.

Good guys mess around a bit. Broly looks a bit angry.

Good guys mess around a bit, give Broly a weak excuse to use his unsurprisingly mighty powers.

Broly destroys EVERYONE.

Goku wins.

The film is utterly pathetic and only marginally redeemed by some stylish action, which is never varied or interesting enough to make up for an incredibly tedious build-up that lasts a good two thirds of the film. It's a shame, because had attention been devoted at any stage to actually having characters or making the (actually quite promising) story more engaging it could have been pretty entertaining - the fighting is well executed after all, even if it's entirely one sided. Sadly the whole thing is so painfully slow and laughably obvious that it's really not worth it.


Dear Readers, I am a DBZ fan. I've only watched the Saiyan and Namek sagas and played DBZ Budokai, but I think it rocks. I've seen two of the movies: The World's Strongest and Most of Tree of Might, and now just watched Brolly: The Legendary Super Saiyan, part of a three pack of the Brolly Movies in DBZ.

Boy what an absolute waste of money.

The movie starts off well with Brolly destroying the South Galaxy and some funny scenes with King Kai and Goku. Also cool is Paragus and his army (which somehow disappears sometime during the movie) telling Vageta he's the heir to a new planet Vageta. Brolly himself is wicked cool and a villain possibly stronger and more vicious and ruthless than Frieza. The massive fight scene and Piccolo's dramatic appearance are cinematic triumphs. So what makes this movie bad? Gross and Disgusting images, the most sickening is the brutal killing of Brolly when he was a baby. How Brolly dies is also gross as Goku blows him up into shreds rather graphically and Paragus is crushed to death, though we are fortunately spared the gory details.

The Fight scene with Brolly vs Goku, Vageta, Trunks, Piccolo, and Gohan is pulse-poundingly amazing. The five Z warriors get the living daylights beaten out of them while Brolly isn't even scratched! Goku's famous move, the Kamehameha, doesn't even faze Brolly and even when Piccolo, Gohan, and Trunks give their energy to Goku, he can't even scratch Brolly.

The acting is okay. Brolly is interestingly voiced but has few lines and mostly screams his head off. Paragus is a suave villain and it's a bummer when he dies. Goku is completely annoying and stupid while Vageta (Who's my all time favorite DBZ character) just stands around moping because he can't defeat Brolly. Gohan and Trunks do a better job but are basically 2-D. Master Roshi is, as most times, a comedic persona and so is Krillin. They are completely nonessential to the plot and have no purpose except providing crude humor.

Point blank: Avoid this movie at all cost unless you're a violence junkie who likes sick Anime. Stick with the Dragonball Z Budokai games, they're much better.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector


This movie is one of the best of all time. Great animation, humor, and fighting scenes make this my favorite movie of all time!


"Miracles" debuted on January 27, 2003 on the ABC Television Network. After constant pre-emptions and special episodes of "The Practice", "Miracles" was cancelled after only six episodes. The Save Miracles Team, even after a year has passed, is still doing what it can to save the show. For more information, please visit MiraclesHQ or feel free to contact me personally.


Only caught a few episodes before it suddenly ended... what I did see I found intriguing and very moving at times.

The sort of show that inspires good deeds, don't you think?

"Heroes" does that a little bit as well - despite the frequent gore ;) Let's hope it {Miracles} reincarnates itself one day soon.

I'm not one to watch much TV, but when I catch one or two episodes of a show worthy of my time - I'll wait for it to come out on DVD so I can catch the entire series without interruption and in proper sequence.

Purchased entire season of Miracles on DVD for just $10 on ebay - can't wait to be inspired!


Wow... what a dark, enthralling tale! The plot is so tight, story arc so suspenseful, acting so affecting, and the scenes so horrifying and heart-wrenching at the same time, I'm completely captivated just 3 episodes into the show and ready to buy the entire series.

The cover art does no justice at all - Skeet Ulrich with his goatee shaved off (trying to shake off the Johnny Depp curse?) looks so much like his "Scream" character, that I thought this was going to be another teen drama.

Gothic horrors it deliverers, but not jut for teens. If "Buffy the Vampire" is high school, then this is Post Graduate. It's intelligent as "The X-files", only cuter, warmer, and more soulful.

Yet, this great TV series was doomed and forgotten due to bad timing, while elementary level suspense and fantasy like "Heroes" and "Lost" got many seasons and followers... How incomprehensible and depressing, really, "GOD IS NOWHERE", or shall I quote Paul Callan "...why is God doing this?"


I tried my best to keep an open mind! "Miracles" borders on camp. Story lines make no sense. The boy ghost says the evil spirit "wants everything." Really now? That's a truly exciting revelation! Especially when in an earlier episode, at his funeral, the same boy ghost shows up all happy, and at peace. We are led to believe there's closure. Can't the writers make-up their minds? Or, are they trying to save money by not hiring more actors!

One episode even turned an old lady into jelly! She caves in and tells her deep, dark secret because one of our dopey investigators had the audacity to ask twice. Wow! That would convince me to spill the beans to a bunch of strangers after keeping my mouth shut for well over 50 years!

The acting is not inspiring, either. There's no chemistry. At times I get the feeling the main characters don't know if they are going to be filming the next episode. Sometimes it seems like the actors are trying hard not to giggle. Keep in mind this not supposed to a comedy show!

This series is a cross between X-files and Bewitched. A confusing mess to say the least! Good try, no cigar!


I admit when it comes to watching straight to video National Lampoon movies nowadays, it's expected to be something zany for the average couch stoner to watch on a Saturday when there's nothing else to do. This was advertised as a "Hilarious comedy in the spirit of Animal House and Van Wilder", and anyone who has seen Adam & Eve knows that we've been duped. Duped to no end. There were no laugh out loud moments of hilarity. The editing was horrid, the dialogue was horrid, and the music montages were too often. We get it, she's a virgin and needs to ponder if she's ready, while thinking back to the moments she felt secure with him... But did they need 8 separate montages throughout the movie to say it? That part killed me worse than the fact that this "abstinance love story" was nothing more than a way for someone to tag the National Lampoon name to a bad flick that most likely needed to recoup as much of it's low budget as possible. I guarantee there will be a lot of horndogs hoping for boobies and hi-jinx to grab it from the shelves, only to be disappointed when nothing funny or exciting happens well into the film. I sat through it, cringing and bored, hoping for a possible "hilarious" catchphrase to use one day. All I got was lethargic, disappointed, and an ending to a movie that sucked as bad as the main character's blue balls.


My girlfriend and I picked this movie up at the video store thinking to ourselves "This should be funny, National Lampoon is genuinely funny for those boring afternoons". We were sorely disappointed.

From the get-go, this movie looks like it could have potential. No. Stop thinking that. The acting is horrid, the jokes are not funny (I can't even think of a moment where I laughed, nor my girlfriend). We sat in disbelief as we waited for a joke to come, or possibly this movie to even get better - but no. The "National Lampoon" name was obviously tagged on so someone would actually watch this. Well that worked.

To sum this up, I watched the rest of this movie hoping for something funny (my girlfriend walked off and did something more constructive), something to justify the $5 I wasted on this. In the end, this one found its way back to the video store and I insisted that the movie was scratched so I could get another movie that would redeem that $5. Don't watch this movie, unless you're looking at how "not" to make a movie.


If you check the other comments, you'll hear about this being a great romantic comedy. It's not. As a romantic comedy, it barely passes muster. The laughs are few and far between, the plot is completely formulaic, and the only thing "National Lampoon" about this film is the title. Douglas is wooden as Adam, although Chriqui is very convincing as Eve. The frat-house shenanigans are tame beyond belief when compared to other Lampoon college movies, and the girl waiting for the perfect time to toss in her V-card is an old theme that isn't freshened in any way by this film. After great National Lampoon titles like "Van Wilder", "Animal House", and the "Vacation" movies, this one feels like the first attempt of someone straight out of film school.


I liked Adam and Eve because it is a nice romantic comedy which contains college humor as romance ass-well. It maybe just gets a little boring, and the relation between Adam and eve does not really develops true the movie, but maybe that was the whole point? I thought the acting was nice but don't know much about it, why does this review has to be 10 lines?

To all who are saying this isn't National Lampoon enough: Does it has to be? What's wrong with a nice Romantic Comedy? For all those who just want 2 C something fun new movies Sex Drive and The Hangover are very nice, also Yes-Man is a good one if you want to have a good laugh.

Conclusion: NICE movie, watch it. I enjoyed watching it and I give it a 7/10.


No one expects a movie with National Lampoon in the title to be high theater, but most National Lampoon movies are funny in a low brow way. "Adam and Eve" couldn't cut the mustard. Emmanuelle Chriqui is GORGEOUS, but that alone couldn't save the movie. The love story is sweet, and the chaste Eve is treated in a respectful way, but the script wasn't funny, the supporting characters were not funny. George Dzundza, who I remember fondly from his Law and Order days, was wasted in this film. The male lead seemed too stoned and apathetic to care about anyone. Thank God this movie was on Starz and I didn't have to pay for a ticket.


It's Low Budget, Amateurish, and Simple. When I came across the DVD on Amazon I was only interested in buying it, because it had National Lampoons plastered over the front cover. When it arrived and I watched it for the first time I was pleasantly surprised.

It's the story of Adam and Eve, but not the story we are familiar with. In National Lampoons version of Adam and Eve Adam falls for Eve a beautiful college student who happens to be a Virgin. At first the virginity thing doesn't pose a problem, but during their nine month relationship and Eve's reluctance to lose her virginity Adam's frustration causes him to question leaving the relationship and the woman he truly loves.

This is a teen movie so there is obviously profanity, fart jokes, and alcohol filled parties with half naked girls, but blended in with a beautiful story of Love and Friendship.

The beautiful Emmanuelle Chriqui was of course fabulous in the film. I wish I could say the same for Cameron Douglas. I could sense he was uncomfortable in certain scenes, which made him appear like a poor actor, which in all honesty he isn't just a newcomer. Maybe a little more rehearsals and he would have done the part justice.

I'd recommended this to all National Lampoon fans and possibly anybody who likes a beautiful love story with some fart jokes in the mix. This is a great first date movie or for any guy still trying to get his girl into bed.

7 out of 10 stars.


I loved National Lampoon's Van Wilder and Animal House so I thought "Oh, this must be an awesome movie!!" When me and my friend started it, we thought the beginning must be a lead in and the plot would start taking off soon. Unfortunately, this bullshit made up the entire movie. The acting in this movie was horrible-the guy couldn't act to save his life and is using his father's name to actually get parts in Hollywood. The girl's performance was okay, but she has basically screwed over her entire reputation because she chose to be in this movie. If you know what's right for you and don't want to waste $5 at Blockbusters, never ever rent and watch this movie.


Okay, so this wasn't like all the other National Lampoon movies, like it was hardly funny...at all. However if you go into it knowing that, then it's actually a great movie. And it's also a slow movie, just a warning, but I loved it. It's a movie I will always remember this movie and certain parts from it, there are many fabulous words of advice (probably more of a chick flick, I don't think most guys would wait this out) But honestly, don't just ride it off. I'm a teenager, I love the funny movies out like all the other National Lampoon movies, this one is just a bit more...real? Than the others? I would give it a shot for sure, when you think you're in the mood for it of course (:


With great hopes of hearing that this movie was funny my roommates and i rented it. i would have rather watched grass grow, hung myself, or stab myself in the eye with a knife then watch this movie. the plot was weak at best, the acting was horrible. the big scene you wait the entire movie for was worthless. the only thing that held this movie together was the character of eve (Emmanuelle Chriqui) and the character munch (Brian Klugman). munch did some funny things, not laugh out loud funny but things that you wish you did in college. the character of eve was very attractive however lacked in acting. if you really want to waste a hour and a haft of your life go head watch this movie, but it frankly sucks. i've seen some bad movies, and this is surly on my top 3 all time worst movies list, hands down.


This is not the "wildly hilarious" comedy that was promised on the DVD cover. This is a relationship movie that has very few funny moments. I was expecting something along the lines of Van Wilder, but this movie is pretty serious.

However, the acting isn't bad, and I found myself actually caring about what happened to the characters, though I think I would have enjoyed the story more if they had left out Adam's disgusting house mates. But the gross factor goes along with the National Lampoon tag, I guess.

Overall, not bad if you have nothing better to watch. But if you're looking for something funny, you get more laughs out of RV. Seriously.


I rented this movie thinking it was going to be a typical National Lampoon's movie (lots of laughs, college humor, the same means of Animal House). Instead, I got a movie that sounded like a sex ed documentary, because it was too melodramatic to be considered a romantic comedy. Adam (Cameron Douglas) didn't seem to be the "sex crazy guy" described in the movie summary in the back of the box. Eve (Emanuelle Chriqui) character was okay because of the message she wanted to bring up to the audience. Adam's buddies weren't present in the movie that much, so we don't get enough feedback of Adam's life BEFORE meeting Eve.

I'll give this movie a 1 out of 10, because I cant give it a 0. I'm still upset about the name "National Lampoon" in the box.


This was probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I obviously wasn't expecting this National Lampoon film to be anywhere near as good as Van Wilder (really funny movie--a must see) or even Dorm Daze (which was okay, not extremely great), but this one was just pathetic. The storyline (girl chooses to stay a virgin but her boyfriend isn't keen on that idea) seems like it would be interesting, but without some comedy it was made out to be just plain awful and perhaps too realistic. The characters were the typical college kids; nothing too extravagant. I must say that my favourite thing about the whole movie was the choice of music played-that's all! Boring, pointless and not at all comical pretty much sums up this lackluster film. Honestly, unless it is the only movie you can get your hands on to watch, don't waste your time or money on this!


Adam & Eve is a guilty pleasure of mine. The movie is unusual in that it is a sweet and innocent love story mixed with gross out sex humor. Its definitely not your typical National Lampoon movie... its a little more classy and a lot more thoughtful. The guy humor is amazing. I've never seen a movie that comes close to realistically capturing the sex crazed, beer hungry college guy. Not every guy in college is as ridiculous as this, but trust me these guys existed. Cameron Douglas is ADORABLE. (I love the song he sings to Eve on their first date)And of course, Emanuelle Chiriqui is as lovable as ever. My only complaints are that the sorority girl stuff wasn't realistic and Eve's parents characters were annoying. (The acting was good. I just didn't like the way it was written). All in all, its a fun movie that gives you a little dose of love and laughter.


You would think that acting would be in Cameron Douglas' genetic code with his Dad and especially grandfather being talented actors. That is what I thought going into this movie. With the past successes of National Lampoons with Chevy Chase, Animal House, Van Wilder and coupled in this movie with the lovely Emmanuelle Chriqui and my expectations were high.

So disappointed. Douglas is absolutely horrid. Quite obviously he received this job based solely on his last name. You will sit there hoping the movie gets better, but it does not. Don't waste your time with this one. "Pathetic" really doesn't do this film justice.


Very plainly and very simply this movie is BRILLIANT!!! THis movie is not a comedy. IT is a love story, a true love story in disguise. The college dorm room setting... disguise. The maker, National Lampoon, a disguise. Here is the equation. Life is about love and life is also about pain. This movie is about both of them. This movie illustrates the feelings of love and the pain that goes along with it that we experience in life. The viewer must watch this movie for what it is... not for what it is not. The viewer must watch this movie with an open mind and not expect a comedy. This movie is much, much more than that. This movie couldn't be more about real life if it tried.


The moral of the story, and the main plot point between the two main leads, playing Adam & Eve - told very well, and acted out well. The rest of it? I don't know. Guess it is National Lampoon drivel.

So watch the movie for the interplay going on and the well written story about waiting for the right one to have sex with first, and when you hold off, the complications that arise in the male partner. I have been there before myself. And I know what he is feeling. Except now I can handle it with more of a level of maturity. So that is why you should watch this. It is a realistic portrayal of that kind of happening, in many relationships today. Albeit less than a few decades ago, but it is still happening around us...

I connected and cared for these two main characters, Adam & Eve, but the rest? Who cares.


The movie is playing as I type this. How I netflixed this I have no idea, I think it was the National Lampoon tag. This is the worst move I've seen...ever. This is worse than Demolition Man, worse than Sleepless in Seattle, worse than The Replacements. I can't believe how bad this movie is. I thought the beginning was a lead in, and she was going to have a penis or something, but I'm slowly realizing that this movie is serious.

The acting has got to be some sort of b-league intro to acting class rejects. I can't believe Michael Douglas's son is this bad. I might get really hammered to see if I find this more amusing, but I doubt it. Maybe they're going for the college stoner crowd. But are you kidding me?!?

I hate myself for having sat through it this long.

Charlie


I was lucky enough to screen this movie a while back. The raw cut was very impressive. I thought it would be worthy of a future theater release. Comparable to the great Adam Sandler romantic comedies, but with more of an Animal House feel. This movie has many actors that you would recognize from other movies (like the dude driving the Jetta in fast and furious) or TV (like the hot chick in Entourage) and obviously Michael Douglas' son - Cameron. This is definitely not a talentless production, rather one of those rare occasions where a few young talented actors come together and show some signs of what will make them future movie stars. I cannot wait to see the final release. There are scenes in this movie that will bring a lot of us guys back to our college days. Also great for women who would like insight into the dumb things guys do and talk about when they get together with nothing but time on their hands; great times and lots of laughs. This movie catches this environment like few movies I have seen. Highly recommended.


Wow, this is by far one of the best college movies I have ever seen. It captures the social scene of college campuses better than any movie of its kind. The screen play is absolutely brilliantly written, each scene contains incredibly true to life dialogue and interaction. Justin Kanew is able to perfectly balance humor with real life drama. The storyline is not the most realistic ever, especially in this day and age of college life. However, it does shed light on the difficulty of maintaining a relationship while still enjoying the university lifestyle. The acting in this film is very solid. The actors and actresses do a terrific job portraying the life and times of college, as well as the emotions of sexual frustration and relationships. The musical score is also awesome, and fits the movie very well. Overall this is an amazing first effort for Justin Kanew. I expect to see big things out of him over the next few years and decade.


Am I the only one who thought this series really stunk? Cheesy animation, silly plots, even as a 9-year-old, it gave me a queasy feeling. And I loved cartoons, science fiction and both "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn," all of which were elements of the series. But combining a conventional Twain character with far-fetched fantasy plots was a nauseous mix. I think this is a great example of Hanna-Barbera's cartoon heresies that drug animated films to their historical low point. The mixture of animated and live action is a very difficult concept to pull off. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is a good example of where it worked well. This is an example of where it failed miserably.


Dick Powell is a down on his luck musician/singer from Brooklyn who's looking for some kind of work at Priscilla Lane's dude ranch. She signs him on as a new singing cowboy although Powell has a deathly fear of anything on four legs. Visiting talent agents Pat O'Brien and Ronald Reagan hear Powell and immediately want to manage him. All of this ain't sitting too well with Dick Foran, Lane's sweetheart. Powell is moving in on him in the talent and love departments.

Cowboy from Brooklyn is so typical of the wonderful entertaining nonsense that movies used to be about. But Dick Powell by this time was desperately trying to broaden his image. It was being continually cast in these kind of films that made Powell leave Warner Brothers two years later after his contract was up.

Pat O'Brien made six features with Powell, more than anyone else except James Cagney. By this time he was playing fast talking press agents, managers, etc. in his sleep. He too would leave Warner Brothers in two years for greener pastures.

Ronald Reagan before he left for even greener pastures said that the two best friends he made at Warner Brothers were Pat O'Brien and Dick Powell. He described both as being inordinately patient and kind with a new player just getting started. He never forgot the encouragement both gave him in his career.

Dick Foran in Boy Meets Girl showed he had some hidden comedy talents in burlesquing his singing cowboy image. He does it again here, deliberately singing offkey and flat to contrast with Powell's tenor. Not too many performers would let themselves be deliberately upstaged like that. At the time he was the singing cowboy star at Warner Brothers and he too would be leaving them shortly.

The gimmick here is how Powell turns into what O'Brien built him up as. It's pretty funny I have to say and here's a hint. Think Road to Rio.


Dick Powell stars as a Brooklynite who becomes a cowboy in spite of himself. Drifting into a small western town, Powell takes the only job available as a ranch hand. He likes to sing in his spare time, which attracts the attention of talent scout Pat O'Brien. Before you can say Gene Autry, Powell is promoted into America's favorite singing cowboy--though he's hard pressed to prove his western skills when the plot situations demand it. Rather condescending in its attitude towards western stars (as non-western movies tended to be in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s), Cowboy From Brooklyn was another step backward in the (temporarily) fading career of Dick Powell. The only good thing to come out of the film was the song "Ride, Tenderfoot, Ride", which became the leitmotif of many a Warner Bros. cartoon short.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN ANY OF DICK POWELL FILMS, INCLUDING THIS ONE, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM


While fairly average as far as musicals go, this movie is noteworthy for me because it is the only film that features my two favorite actresses, Priscilla Lane and Ann Sheridan.

While they don't have any scenes together, unfortunately, there is a scene where Priscilla looks at a picture of Ann. It's not much, but I'll take what I can get!

It's too bad The Cowboy from Brooklyn does not do a good enough job in showcasing Priscilla Lane in the female lead. And Ann Sheridan is barely featured at all.

I can only imagine what could have been...


This film is terrible. What makes this all the more unfortunate is that the film has a solid idea and a great cast. The idea was used to much better advantage in Abbott and Costello's 1942 comedy for Universal "Ride 'em Cowboy". Coincidentally Dick Foran also appears in that film although as a character similar to Dick Powell's, the phony cowboy. Pat O'Brien plays his standard fast talking promoter to perfection but adds very little to the proceedings. It's hard to believe that this was the same year that he did both "Boy Meets Girl" and "Angels With Dirty Faces", both co-starring James Cagney. The songs are less than memorable. It's great fun to see a very young Ronald Reagan in a supporting role.


Warner Brothers really worked Dick Powell. Between 1933 and 1935, he made 17 movies. In 1938, he "only" made four. And they are stinkers. This is the worst of the lot, one of the most silly and sappy Hollywood musicals ever made. The script is dreadful, the music is forgettable, the sets are embarrassing, and the acting is merely passable. Powell deserves an award of some sort for agreeing to appear in this turkey. But then, he was under contract. Moreover, he had worked with Ruby Keeler, so he was capable of great self-sacrifice.

The opening scene sets the gravity of the film: three musicians singing on a moving train and being thrown off, piano and all. They find their way to a dude ranch, Powell sings, a visiting New York agent hears him, and he is on his way to New York and fame and glory. But first he has to appear to be an authentic westerner. He is not. And he is mortally afraid of all animals. So a local hypnotist, in New York at the time, gets him to briefly become the world's champion steer slinger. Happy ending.

Pat O'Brien plays his stereotyped role. Ann Sheridan, all of 23, makes a very brief appearance. And Ronald Reagan is on hand, playing O'Brien's fast-talking press agent. Priscilla Lane tries to speak with a "western" accent. A disaster for all.


By the time I was born Transformers G1 was already almost to a close and the movie had come out just a couple of years previous. Needless to say I was born a little too late to catch Tranformers at the height of their hay day. Those born around the same time as me grew up primarily with Beast Wars and reruns of G1 which by that time had gone into syndication. Heck I even enjoyed Beast Machines to some extent. Sure it wasn't what its predecessor was but hell I enjoyed it more than this crap. Plus the toys were great fun! The main story follows three kids who somehow stumble upon an artifact that activates a small robot later to be revealed as a mini-con. This sends out a beam that summons the Autobots and their long time enemies the Decepticons to earth. By the time this show came out I was already a teenager and had long since pushed Transformers to the back of my memory. Then one day I turn on Fox/Kids, now spiraling into mediocrity, and saw Robots in Disguise. I was a fan of anime and I thought since when did this start being animated by the Japanese? I watched maybe one episode and was sickened to my stomach.

I thought okay maybe this is just a one time thing. I was wrong. Shortly after that ended Armada started coming on Toonami. I liked Toonami a lot back then only to once again discover another Transformers Anime series. From that day forth I vowed to never watch another Transformers episode again post Beast Machines. Once again this includes some annoying kids. Why the heck are they around don't they know its taking away from their toy sales? Plus they added in the concept of the mini-con. As it is now common practice to add the elements of collecting things and battling them in children's anime this is no different. Okay so why do I care if the Decepticons get the mini-cons why do I care if any of the Autobots die? Believe me you have no reason to care about any of these things. The animation quality is commonly found in the lesser anime like Pokemon and Yugi-Oh and what do ya know this show is pretty much like Pokemon with robots. Those kids I just kept wishing the Autobots or Decepticons would step on them cause I hated them so much! Every episode centers around them and their problems that just happen to involve robots. The Autobots serve more as devices to help them through their lives by teaching them things about themselves that they had deep within them. What does this mean? Boooooorrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnng! They were supposed to be helping the Autobots instead of the Autobots helping them. It should have been all about the Autobot's conflict on earth and they just so happened to have humans helping in their fight.

No instead all conflicts are mostly resolved by those damn kids. The writing was terrible, the animation was terrible, and by anime standards this is just awful. If you are a true Transformers fan then stay away from this like the plague. I know some people don't like Beast Machines but come on folks it had way more merit than this.


In my opinion I didn't think Transformers: Armada wasn't that bad. I thought it was good. This was the first Transformers series I watched and I literally grew up with it. To me Transformers: Armada was sometimes emotional, heart pounding, and dramatic. I really like this show so much that I wanted to buy the DVD.

So to all haters out there at least give this a chance for goodness sake. I think this was the best series c'mon at least they brought back some G1 characters.

If you hate what I wrote then fine but watch Transformers: Armada give it a try. I gave it try when I first watched it.


This is the best of the series of transformers that are out. it has its own story, giving a plot line involving the new breed of Minicons, and gives all of what you would want to have from Transformers: the endless fight between the Decepticons and Autobots, with a series of revelations and surprises on the plot line, which reintroduces the character of Unicron.

The plot line starts with the Minicon escaping from Cybetron, to avoid being captured by the Decepticon or Autobots who uses them to empower themselves in the battle, and land on Earth. After a long search, the advanguards of the two factions reach on earth, having a first encounter with 3 kids, who will aid the Autobots in their fight with the evil Decepticons in a journety to the coquest of all the minicons.

If u wan a good series to begin with transformers, this surely will be the best choice.


My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed this romp of nonsense. In fact, we're still singing that crazy "Four Months at Sea" song and laughing about it. Sure, it is improbable, but the actors are obviously having fun, making it such a pleasure to watch. Imagine a bunch of no-talent prisoners attempting a musical to "please" their warden (and escape)? Can they pull it off without killing themselves laughing at their ridiculousness? That's entirely debatable. The songs are catchy, the casting of the musical characters (think con-jobs) hilarious, the costumes.... well, see for yourself. This is one film we are planning to buy and keep. Just what is needed when stuck in lousy winter weather.


I don't know, maybe I'm the only person in the world who didn't enjoy The Full Monty. Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but I hated it. So when I was dragged into the cinema to see this follow-up by the same director, I went kicking and screaming. True, I knew absolutely nothing about the film, had not seen a review and sure, it starred the always funny James "Cold Feet" Nesbitt and the delectable Olivia "Rushmore" Williams, but I was determined to loathe every agonising moment.

A few minutes in, a funny things started to happen. Something odd was happening in my throat and in my chest. That sensation in my chest... that strange feeling... What was it? No, I wasn't bringing up bile. It wasn't pain; It was... it was... No, it couldn't be. It was laughter! Yes, I was laughing. The film was funny and entertaining and charming and the corny, feel good ending left me with a warn glow.

Eewwww...


Calling this a comedy is like calling a pile of compost a flower garden (I was going to write something else but didn't think it would be published).

Its just isn't funny

- its unbelievable, - "Hello I'm a very attractive, professional woman, I'll just wander off alone with an armed robber for a romantic meal !!!",

- makes no sense "Hello I'm depressed prisoner(Timothy Spall) - the guards hate me, my wife is seeing another man, I was framed ... oops now I have cancer,,"

- and is very, very bad.

I wasted nearly 2 hours of my life on this film ... I wish I could have had a 'Lucky Break' and missed it altogether


After passing on The Full Monty in favour of Brassed Off, the now all-but defunct Film Four were quick to throw money at Peter Cattaneo's next comedy and confidently launched a huge marketing campaign for Lucky Break secure in the knowledge that they had the big local hit of the year. Subsequent excuses for the film's disastrous performance at the box-office varied from good weather putting people off going to the cinema to the revelation that the screenwriter had done time for IRA offences (subsequently overturned, but still about as endearing to the British public as Al Qaeda are to Americans). For some reason no-one mentioned the fact that it's not any good. At all.

A grab-bag of second-hand ideas from Two-Way Stretch, The Tall Guy and others, it's a laugh-free zone that goes out of its way to avoid surprises while failing to ever find its own tone, nodding to half-baked attempts realism and wildly underdeveloped comedy without ever committing to either. Even the tried-and-trusted routines don't work here: Bill Nighy is just irritating as he tries to splutter some life into unfunny dialogue while Timothy Spall does his dishevelled hamster shtick yet again, while the amateur musical used as a backdrop for the planned prison break seems simply amateurish and unfunny. Quite dreadful.


Lucky break is one of those rare movies that basically went straight to DVD and one you rent if you've got a coupon from Blockbuster. Pay the $3.00 bucks and you won't be disappointed. I found the story completely original and an unpredictable but great ending.

*** out of 4

P.S Watch the ending credits.


Hard to believe that this is from the team that brought us 'The Full Monty', it is embarrassing to think that this may be seen outside of England. Monotonously paced, it never gets out of first gear and there is scarcely a funny line during the entire film, let alone an original one.


Good....but not great. The main problem with this film is that although all the cast try very hard, its just not *that* funny. A major flaw with a comedy. And there isnt really enough drama to support it either. the basic idea seems to have come from that bit at the end of The Producers where they are running a musical in prison. This film features a group of convicts all planning to escape during the Governors new musical "Nelson - The Musical". It all meanders along very nicely, quite funny in places. Bill Nighy is a plus point to this film, but still doesnt get enough funny bits to do. And although the musical is meant to be laughably bad, it mostly just seems fairly dull.

The one truly brilliant performance here comes from Timothy Spall. His character gets very little time on screen, and yet, due to his acting, you find out more about him than any of the leads. Unfortunatly, his subplot is rapidly glossed over, hiding a lot of the serious point the film tries to make.

So, see this if you have nothing better to do, it won't waste your time. But, if you really want to see an edgy British prison comedy, watch an episode of Porridge. If you want to see a comedy featuring an appalingly bad musical, see The Producers. If you want to see an amazing acting performance, see, oh, anything else with Timothy Spall in. Perfect Strangers is a good place to start, although he doesnt actually feature that strongly in that either. Still, look him up, you wont regret it.


Just saw this film a couple of hours ago and thought I'd write a review while it was still fresh in my Mind.

In summary I really enjoyed this film, wasn't a classic but was a good evening out. (7/10)

Plot - Not very original. As other people have commented, this film has a Porridge feel about it. Certainly not as funny though.

Acting - On the whole pretty good. Having seen him in a few things now, I would not call James Nesbitt a charactor actor. However his cheeky charms were right for this role, Olivia Williams was average but passable, nice to see her in an British flick after her roles in 'Rushmore' and 'The 6th Sense'. For me Timothy Spall out-classed the rest, my first thought was that I would have liked to have seen more of him but on reflection I actually prefer him as a side kick.

Tone - I would not class this film as a straight comedy, it certainly had its tragic moments. I think this film will suffer from being compared to "The Full Monty".

7/10


Although not a laugh a minute rollercoaster, Lucky Break is a sweet film, with many funny moments. (mostly coming from Stephen Fry's musical lyrics)

James Nesbitt and Olivia Williams make a likeable couple and the supporting characters are all well done. An enjoyable film.


In my opinion, this was a great movie in a comedy aspect, but it also touches on your emotions as parts of the movie are, or can be, very sad. I left this movie very glad that I saw it, and I would see it again. I saw The Full Monty, and I loved it, and I thought this was a great follow-up movie, but I didn't take them into aspects of each other, as I never do any movie, it should be judged upon your own opinion of comedy and movie standards, not upon past movies by the same director. Overall, this is a very good movie, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Also, watch it till the end of the credits, you won't be disappointed, but maybe sad emotionally.


If you're like me and drool like an over-hormonal teenager when that unlikely sex-symbol James Nesbitt smiles his cheeky-charming smile then you MUST go and see this film.

Even if you don't, I'd highly recommend it. As with the director's previous Brit-hit `The Full Monty' this provides plenty of laughs, many colourful characters and some poignant moments. They also managed to fit a love-interest into a prison movie (hard to do and not particularly convincing but fun to watch nonetheless).

Perhaps not as belly-laughingly funny as the Full Monty, but still loads of laugh-out-loud moments and an all-round enjoyable film.


It is a nice change; the story was light and had a nice ending (a must in my opinion. The world has enough evil in it; I don't need that for my entertainment as well!) and even the violence was "ok" meaning, not too graphic. Cute movie.


Lucky Break in 2 words would be utter rubbish, it was not funny, in fact it had about 1 jocks worth of laughter and it was just pretty boring. This film doesnt even compare to the likes of other newer british films such as the parole officer which was great fun. Please everybody do not go and see it.


How often does one remember only a few brief scenes from a film and find on re-viewing years later that it was only those few moments that are worth remembering? NAKED LADY, one might think, being a film of individual moments, could well be such a film. Happily, this is not the case. (Only the little kids on the lawn and the extended reprise of faces and "smile" moments at the end seemed at all tacky.) The passing years have only added to the film's value, for it turns out to be a revealing portrait of changing attitudes to sex in the late sixties, when people of all ages with open minds were receptive to new ways of thinking about sex. The film has an innocence and a hopefulness, a simple charm that we've all lost today for many reasons. It's Funt's film all the way, of course, and it's his masterpiece! His personality dominates the film; his voice constantly heard, challenging his subjects to say what they think and to think about what they say. The naked ladies in unusual places are there to sell the film, to provide entertainment value, but people are what endlessly fascinates Funt. He really likes people, and he loves to talk to them. The core scenes are all talking heads; the co-eds talking about guys on the dorm, the young people and their parents talking about sex, the woman who "prostitutes" for free because she likes it, his interview with a prospective model, even the "man in the street" comments about "how birds do it." It's no accident that the film is interracial, because Funt's belief is that you can't judge a person by their looks. Sometimes people are true to type, but just as often they're not. An IMDb viewer says that, based on his recollection, the current version differs from the original release. I wouldn't have remembered the changes he mentions, but my own recollection suggests an excision of a character in the greatest sequence in the film in which Funt, as a bus ticket clerk, feels people out on their feelings about an interracial couple. I recall clearly that there was a young, long-haired hippie type who was very outspoken against the couple, who was contrasted with the older man who says, "what's the difference, it's a big world," and prefers love to war profiteering. I did misremember that great line of the passing English bicycler at the beginning which I recalled as, "What you got there, Charlie?" when it's actually, "Charlie, how'd you get caught with that one?" But I can't see how I made up the young long-haired hippie; I'm certain he was there in the original release. The comments of the older man whose son married a Mexican girl, his difficulty in accepting the marriage so touchingly mixed with his pride in his grandchildren, again brought a lump to my throat. Moments like this must have been what Funt lived for. In his earlier days, going way back to "Candid Microphone" before TV, the emphasis was always on human interaction. (I remember, for example, a theatrical short where Funt, as a travel agent, insisted, with total courtesy and friendliness, on selling a customer a fancy vacation when they wanted something plain and simple.) The TV show had moved away from that to sight gags like cars splitting in half. This film was Funt's attempt to return to his roots. It's a very serious film by a very serious filmmaker, Funt challenging his audience to examine their own feelings and beliefs, and gently urging tolerance for the infinite variety of mankind. It's a far better, more enduring film, in fact, than some of the documentary "classics" (GREY GARDENS, for example) that were made in the same era.


"What Do You Say To A Naked Lady?" is a fascinating look at the sexual-social attitude changes in the United States during the transitional late 1960s. Mr. Funt, the power behind the popular entertainment programs "Candid Microphone" and "Candid Camera", may not have meant it to be, but this film brilliantly documents the generation gap between the 1950s post-WW II parents/grandparents and their 1960s flower child progeny.

Dated to the extreme, it is a film of its time. (When a woman tries to sleep with a gay men, he's tells her he can't because he's 'queer'. A white grandfather type tells of his opposition to his son marrying a Mexican girl. The children, however, are wonderful and not 'too dark'.) If you are interested in where we were and how far the attitudes of the typical American have changed, this documentary is a must see.


I grew up with Allen Funt shows and this movie only proves how much laughter Allen Funt has brought to people and it has never been to make anyone feel anything but glad to be included in his wonderful work.

I think the cast was perfect and a remake would be great for younger people at this time. It was done with excellent taste as always by him. He has always shown great respect for all people. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys to laugh.


This film is the famous "Candid Camera" television show in a feature format, and much more Risqu'e that could have been broadcast. But beyond the amusing laughs of Alan Funt's situations lies a surprising glimpse into the uncensored attitudes of American culture in the midst of social upheaval.

Prevailing sexual and racial attitudes are both surprising and tantalizing. Taboo subjects are tackled in an unflinching way, without comment by the filmmakers - leaving you an unobstructed view on our past culture.

- Andy Somers


Just watched a rare showing of this obscure Allen Funt hidden camera movie on fancast.com. It lives up to the title when-in the beginning-a woman casually walks stark naked to an elevator asking for directions from various men walking by. From there, it goes on to frank discussions of sex to people of various ages and genders. There's also some interviews with underage kids who seem to think they know all but don't really. In fact, one of my favorite exchanges was when after Funt asked what a premature baby was, this boy said, "It's one who knows a lot for his age." LOL! I also loved seeing that scene with that red-haired woman when she faked an orgasm after getting spray-painted! And some of the reactions of the preview audience was priceless. So on that note, I highly recommend What Do You Say to a Naked Lady? P.S. Richard "Shaft" Rountree makes his debut here as part of an interracial couple seen kissing in order to get various reactions of people watching them.


like i said its funny but its pretty darn good too.......................

the film is about people being filmed without knowing it and getting their reactions to unusual encounters mainly with nudity, like a naked lady asking for directions, one asks some ppl to kiss her, and a naked girl in an elevator, and then has video of ppl discussing the film after they watched it...........

so if you haven't seen this and you like stuff like candid camera and things like that you'll like this, but this is also more than that, so ya i recommend it, if you can ever find it


Here's one of those gloriously godawful "you gotta be kiddin' me!"-type of plodding and maladroit low-rent no-budget psycho sicko gore flicks that played on double bills in numerous drive-ins and grindhouses in the splendidly sleazy 70's. Indeed, this delectably dreadful dreck was paired with the equally atrocious, yet somehow oddly endearing dippy hippie terror trip-out "The Curse of the Headless Horseman" on a twice-the-tacky-terror twin feature offering that must have caused anyone who saw them together to either make an immediate beeline for the exit door 15-odd minutes into the first film or slump into their seats in a comatose stupor after the ending credits of the second picture finished rolling.

A mother-fixated bargain basement Norman Bates-like oedipal wreck homicidal crazy brutally butchers assorted supremely irritating women at an especially dingy and rundown beachside carnival in upstate New York. That's it for the threadbare plot -- and said skimpy story is related by cinematic blunder wonder triple threat would-be producer/ director/writer auteur Leonard Kitman (who also puked forth "The Curse of the Headless Horseman" and later did a few scuzzy porno movies under the alias Leon Gucci) with a staggering all-out incompetence that's genuinely breathtaking to behold. Techincally, this crud is simply appalling: we've got slack pacing, an often meandering narrative that's overloaded with tedious talk and dreary filler, clumsy red herrings, grainy, ugly, frequently static and immobile cinematography, a grating score, ragged cut'n'paste editing, and cheesy splatter effects that wouldn't even gross out your grandmother. Moreover, the cast overall strikes out somethin' rotten: Willowy blonde lead Judith Resnick is hot, but vapid, Earle Edgerton makes for a singularly bland and uncharismatic hero, Andy Milligan film regular Martin Barolsky nerds it up to an almost unbearably geeky extreme as the balding, middle-aged fruitcake killer, Gloria Spavik hits new heretofore untouched heights in nerve-shredding celluloid obnoxiousness as an insufferably shrill and whiny fat old bag who gets her head bashed in, and Burt Young (Paulie in the "Rocky" series) embarrasses himself royally in his less-than-sterling film debut as a pathetic, irritable, grotesquely misshapen hunchback retard named Gimpy. Plus William Grannell (Jason Varone in the Cheri Caffaro "Ginger" flicks) briefly pops up as the long-suffering husband of a shrewish woman who gets decapitated in the funhouse early in the movie. However, this altogether stunningly ham-fisted honey does possess one exceptionally right-on asset: It's so rich and vivid in seedy local color that it comes across like a fascinatingly lurid and depraved mondo-style documentary on the grimy underbelly of the seriously seamy Coney Island carny scene.


This is a terrible movie in every way. The story is awful, the special effects are laughable... wait, what am I saying? Special effects? There apparently wasn't even a budget for lights and microphones on this one! That's a big handicap when most of the movie was shot at night on the noisy Coney Island boardwalk and Astroland. Let's face it, this flick just has nothing going for it.

But... it was shot in Coney Island in 1969/1970. I gave it two extra stars because I was a kid growing up in Coney Island in the 70's, so there was a big nostalgia factor for me. I rode on many of the rides shown in the film. I ate at that Nathan's and walked on that boardwalk.

If you're not nostalgic for 1970's Coney Island, pass this one by; you won't be missing anything at all. If you are, though, see it with the sound turned off and pay more attention to the backdrop than the movie itself.


Set in Coney Island this is the story of a psycho killing people on the midway. I'll leave the actual plot for you to work out when you see this.

This is one of those so bad its good movies, one where your jaw hangs open in disbelief at whats going on.

Take for example the music. Its folk music. Why? I have no idea. I don't think anyone who had a brain cell couldn't see that the music chosen has nothing to do with whats going on on screen. Its so opposite to what you are seeing it grates on you.

Its occasionally acted and partially written which makes it somewhat watchable.Its a movie to get drunk and watch laugh at.

Its interesting to watch the carnival scenes since its incredibly obvious that they are filming at an operating carnival since people are constantly looking at the actors in a puzzled manner. The crowd scenes after the opening decapitation are fall down funny. As is the response time of the police and medics to the crime scene, never has help arrived that fast in New York.

If you're in the mood for grade Z entertainment I recommend the film for a nights rental.


Purchased a DVD with three (3) films and this film was one of them, so I decided to see just what this film was all about. Earle Edgerton,(Tom), Judith Resnick (Laura) and Martin Barlorski (Dan) all made just this film or maybe two after this production. The star of the film was Burt Young,(Gimpy),"Nicky's Game",'05 who is a great character actor and is presently making great films. The background has scenes from Coney Island, Brookly, N.Y. and even Nathan's Hot Dog Stand is shown with Gloria Spivak,(Dumpy Gal) who made only this one picture and faded out from stardom. All I can really say it was a Big Joke to watch, horrible horror film and it made absolutely no sense at all. Oh, I forgot to say if you like lots of Teddy Bears to hug, there are plenty in this picture.


Some bad movies I've seen in my entire life have been considerably good, simply because they've aged well enough to build a more entertaining purpose. For that reason alone, B-movies, or drive-in movies, or "Idontknowwhatelseyoucancallit" were never made on a gigantic budget compared to today's refined standards. Pre-millennium movie buffs laugh over these rushed out products as fun, enjoying, weird, and unusual. The reason technology hadn't been the cream of the crop justifies how virtually all films were created in the past 2-6 decades of cinema. Not so with CARNIVAL OF BLOOD.....

Far worse than an Ed Wood production, this experience in bad moviemaking really shows! It does have some strange gory-looking material, including a scene where a head decapitates in front of crazy carnival-goers waiting for a ride, but you know it's extremely fake! Actually, this isn't a horror show, it's a mess! Couples argue, folk music is playing, people romancing, a buddy chatting to a friend for five worthless minutes, a woman getting struck by a car that looks poorly filmed.... What more is there? Much more! You'd think the opening credits was never a flaw for movies. Guess again! While you hear the sound of a heartbeat, those black screens with red lettering also has a woman's face moving her mouth and not voicing out a single word!

Yes, CARNIVAL OF BLOOD doesn't make any entire bit of sense, especially when it is a B-movie, and if you get a desperate chance to view it, be sure to invite some friends or members of your family to gather 'round for an evening of pure ill-minded entertainment. Be sure to serve up some stale popcorn and flat carbonated soda for the occasion. Once you witness the absolute noneness of this perverted work of cinema, you'll find out that there are tons more cheaply made movies far surpassing its dreadful quality! GOOD GRIEF!!!


This threadbare, bottom of the barrel effort will certainly hold you in suspense as you wonder to yourself '"Will it ever end? Will it ever, ever end?" The opening credits are the most bizarre you may ever see and they are inter-cut with the movies incredibly irritating theme song. The setting is Coney Island and the film uses this location for the bulk of the filming. There are many scenes of the real life carnival customers gawking at the camera from a few feet away and some also appear to have been roped in as extras where crowd scenes are needed. There are a few indoor scenes filmed in the dingiest and grimiest sets imaginable. The murder scenes are interesting as the gore is laid on thickly, in the style of Herschell Gordon Lewis movies, but using an even more minuscule budget. There are endless scenes of ad-libbed dialogue complete with microphones in plain view and also scenes using dubbed in dialogue which bear no relation to what's happening on screen. There are looped sounds of background carnival noise which are repeated endlessly and will have you wishing you were hard of hearing in no time. The 'acting' is appalling throughout with the sole exception of Gloria Spivak who would appear to be an entertaining character in real life. The film often looks as though it is about to veer off into porno territory which is no surprise when you look up the Directors former and subsequent credits.


Contrary to the croonings of Liza Minnelli and Frank Sinatra, The City That Never Sleeps is not New York, New York but Chicago, Illinois. At least it is in John H. Auer's 1953 movie of that name, sort of a noir-inflected Grand Hotel or Dinner At Eight, that opens and closes with floodlit vistas of the wedding-cake Wrigley Building. Several characters' lives intersect in an urban crime drama that even offers a touch of the fanciful.

Gig Young, at the center, plays a cop who's dissatisfied with his job and with his marriage (his wife, Paula Raymond, makes more money than he does). Off hours, he hangs around a strip club called The Silver Frolics on Wabash Avenue to see, both on stage and backstage, headliner Mala Powers. That relationship is a rocky as his marriage, and she's as unhappy with her lot as he with his (`Whaddaya want me to do? Crawl into a deep freeze?' she taunts him during yet another breakup). Then Young heads to the precinct for the graveyard shift, riding in a prowl car with a new partner he's never met before (Chill Wills, who also plays the unseen `Voice of the City').

During Young's nocturnal tour he meets up again and again with the various players in the plot. There's rich, crooked lawyer Edward Arnold, who blackmails him into burglarizing some incriminating papers; his two-timing wife, Marie Windsor; former magician turned criminal William Talman; his own brother (Ron Hagerthy) who's now Talman's apprentice; his pop (Otto Hulett), a police veteran; and a `mechanical man' (Gregg Warren) who entertains passersby in the Silver Frolics' window.

Some of the ties among the characters are up front, others furtive, to be doled out as the plots thicken. By the end (Poverty Row having learned the lessons MGM taught a couple of decades earlier in the titles cited above), there's tragedy and heartache, reappraisals and reconciliations. There's even a character who vanishes as mysteriously as he materialized  a whiff of the supernatural which curiously fails to leave any influence on the way the stories unfold.

The City That Never Sleeps shows the right breadth for a big, urban story  from Arnold's moderne penthouse to Young's middle-class flat to the raffish alleys running off Wabash Avenue. Director of photography John Russell (later to film Psycho) helps Auer out with some crafty touches (a telephone dial glowing from a flashlight shone upon it comes to mind). It's not a haunting movie, but it's a satisfying one  a title that did Republic Pictures proud.


A 1953 Republic gem and a great noir find. This sort of small black and white drama was actually what finished off Republic as TV shows took up this sort of storyline and style, and the studio didn't adapt. Cop Gig Young and burlesque floozie Mala Powers go adulterous and the realism of the noir photography created on actual Chicago streets allow the viewer to be completely absorbed into their cheap backstreet world. This is such an interesting film, and the low budget actually works in its favour......like Monogram's startling DECOY of 1947. Chill Wills appears as a very special and strange character and I won't spoil who he is at all. A very clever and ultimately quite emotional film from a fascinating period in American Cop-dom: 1953...as LA CONFIDENTIAL proved for that city. Find this and relish it, and thank the crummy world of Republic for making it. As a bonus for all us noir-ees, the sensational Marie Windsor is here as well, by the narrowest of welcome margins.


CITY THAT NEVER SLEEPS tries hard to be a major film noir, and does not quite make it. If THE RACKET had a promising central figure at sixes and sevens with the legal and illegal authorities, but no character development to explain how he got the way he did, CITY tries to be a film noir variant of those films like IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE or AN INSPECTOR CALLS where characters are not quite human, and are intermingling (and bedeviling) humans and their motivations.

We are watching Gig Young, a career cop from a family of cops, who is slowly being corrupted by crooked big - time lawyer Edward Arnold. Young is basically acting like a go-between between Arnold and the police, tipping the lawyer off about current investigations. He does get well paid for this, but he has to deal with Arnold's right hand man William Talman, who is not to be trusted. Young does not like Talman's cultivating Young's younger brother - possibly turning him into a complete criminal. He does not realize that Talman is also working in cahoots with Arnold's trophy wife (Marie Windsor) to get the upper hand over the lawyer. Young's own behavior is not really liked by his father, an honest old style cop who is regarded as a hero by the department.

You can see that the situation is going to lead to disaster. Young is working an evening shift, and his partner is unable to show up. An unknown Police Sergeant (Chill Wills) takes the partner's place, and the two go around the night world of the city. And while they do so, both are unaware of the explosions about to rend apart the worlds of Arnold, Windsor, and Talman - and dragging in Young's younger brother.

Some things to watch in the film: Talman (having shot someone) is aware that the only "witness" is a figure in a window. Is it a mechanical man or a real witness? Talman has to spend hours watching, and to see if the figure remains "mechanical" or not.

See also the sequence where Young chases Talman along a deserted set of elevated train tracks through Chicago. It is a tense and exciting sequence.

Finally, note the appearance (in his first movie role according to this board) of comedian Tom Poston as a police officer, who gets involved in a situation that is far from amusing. It's an odd first role for such a funny figure to have played at all.


I can't wait to see the DVD release of this film with the features and commentary because it is one of those rare Noir films that stay with you. Not so much for the average domestic problems that Gig Young's character displays but more for his relationship with Mala Powers and their great quotable lines:

Sally "Angel Face" Connors, dressed in a stripper's costume to Johnny Kelly- "Come here." Kelly's reply: "I've been there."

And Angel Face's great speech explaining her disillusionment: "I'm sick of this town. I'm with you Johnny. When I first came to this town I was gonna be... oh there were a lotta things I was gonna be- become famous. But Chicago's the big melting pot, and I got melted but good".

And there are also the throw-away lines in the bar: Waitress to Bartender: "Two Old Fashions- no ice, no water, no sugar, no grenadine".

"City That Never Sleeps" has a light step and has so many quirky little characters that you might wonder who the story is about. The film does focus on certain characters to make its point, is sometimes great to look at for its night-lit location photography and has some nice noir humor.

Gig Young has the unflappable charm and bon vivant attitude that almost gets in the way of his disillusioned cop Johnny Kelly. Kelly is the ultimate Everyman who has become a cop because his father wanted him to, and whose wife unwittingly emasculates him because she earns more money that he.

All in all, "City That Never Sleeps" is worth catching for its noir look and some good performances.


Unless you've the skill of an O. Henry, it's pretty ridiculous to talk about the spirit of a city, even as a generalization. But when that "spirit" takes human form and joins the local police force, really it's too much! Whatever induced scriptwriter Steve Fisher to introduce this bizarrely extraneous element into his otherwise tight little tale of the seamier side of Chicago, it was a mistake.

Fortunately, the assignment was handed to John H. Auer, who was most definitely the class director of the Republic stable. The action scenes here are handled with his usual vigorous finesse and there's plenty of excitement. The movie was actually lensed on location in Chicago, the city's streets made forcefully real by John Russell's deft photography.

Gig Young registers okay as the hero, while Chill Wills is saddled with the "spirit". However there are top performances by seasoned players like Edward Arnold, Marie Windsor, William Talman, Paula Raymond, and Wally Cassell as the mechanical man. Mala Powers is suitably cast as "Angel Face".


This film set in Chicago in 1952 starts ponderously with a voice-over of 'the voice of the city', strangely that of actor Chill Wills (whose voice is more that of a cowpoke or a ranch hand, thus highly unsuitable for this purpose), who then appears in the crime story as a ghostly police sergeant representing the spirit of the city. Really, we could have done without those affectations, and Wills's acting attempts to be mysterious are worse. However, setting all that aside, the rest of the film is a pretty straightforward crime drama which is very good. Gig Young plays a disillusioned policeman vacillating between leaving and staying with his wife and quitting and keeping his job. One wants to kick him so that he stops dithering, but the story requires him to be like that. There are some strong performances: Mala Powers is good as a wild love interest of Young's, Edward Arnold is suave and persuasive as a bent criminal lawyer, Marie Windsor as usual is svelte and corrupt, and William Talman is very effective as a bonkers criminal who wants to shoot everybody, and nearly does. It's all good entertainment, if you look the other way when the pontificating is going on. One needs to take it with a pinch of paprika (the director, John Auer, was Hungarian).


This was a great movie!

Beautiful shadowed images lingering on the screen. I saw this gem at the '06 San Francisco Film Noir Festival #4.

The movie was slow early on but when it finally got going it led to an exciting climax. Interestingly narrated is all I'll say about this story. It's a great and sordid tale from a night in the urban jungle. Don't miss this if you get the opportunity.

This tight little drama is about a cop ~ Gig Young ~ who gets tempted to dabble in the web of corruption and vice. With Marie WIndsor, Chill Wills, William Tallman, and a few other familiar character actors of the day.

And, yes this movie was loaned to the festival by Martin Scorsese. It was his personal 35mm print.