I gave this a rating of 9 stars.

I watched this film primarily because I believed Anthony Hopkins was going to star in it; instead, I would call Mr. Hopkins role more of a supporting costar.

The film would have earned a 10 from me if it had featured Anthony Hopkins more. I found the Willy Beachum character and the actor playing him rather boring. Ryan Gosling who plays Willy Beachum, struck me as being a cross between Woody Harrelson and Pee-wee Herman, and quite frankly he could not hold a candle to Anthony Hopkins skills and talent as an actor.

The interesting parts of the film are when Hopkins' character, Ted Crawford, is in the scene or it is about him.

We do have some filler with Willy and his ambitions to work for a prestigious law firm, (he is currently a prosecutor in the D.A.'s office) and his love interest Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike), who, quite frankly, looked a little too old for him.

Nikki was Willy's new boss in the prestigious law firm--yet we have scenes where she is supposed to have gone to bat for him with someone in the law firm, so obviously she did not have total and final say.

The interesting part of the film has to do with Ted Crawford having shot his cheating wife and the very clever plan he has for getting away with it.


excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master piece.excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master piece. piece. piece. piece. piece.excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master piece.excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the masterexcellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the masterexcellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master piece. piece. piece.excellent and the screenplay was outstanding. Thanks for the master piece.


I went into this expecting a pretty decent film but not necessarily a great one and in the end that what i got.

To be honest some aspects of it were much better than i expected. Some of the direction and camera work mostly during the first half was rather impressive and the performances of Hopkins, who unlike may I never really find to amazing, was very very good. His murder was played in a very humor and down right cool manner. Gosling also did a pretty good job, though IMO some of his mannerisms didn't work.(though that could be on the director)

The first half of the film was very interesting and moved at a steady pace, and the way Hopkins character played the system was impressive but the last half hour or so dragged IMO and took to long to get to the twist. The twist was also revealed in a rather convenient manner but the actual twist at the end was clever.


The movie was too long and sluggish in its pacing, but the most glaring element of it for me was how much finer an actor Anthony Hopkins is versus Ryan Gosling. The latter has some very annoying personal ticks in his acting style. Perhaps, he thinks this makes him seem real. It makes him look kind of stupid. How did this dope get through law school, let alone get a job with the LA DA's office? And nevermind his being courted by that high-powered law firm! That was completely unrealistic for a character like his with a annoyingly detached view of just about everything. When he did flare, it was seemingly out of character.

Hopkins, meanwhile, sleepwalked through the part and outshone everyone. I guess the point of seeing the picture is to watch just how a fine veteran thespian can clean the floor with a comparative amateur opposite him. That was the real murder in this plot.


"Fracture" benefits mainly from the acting of two great actors, Ryan Gosling and Anthony Hopkins. The movie revolves around a battle of wits, a duel between their two characters and it's their charisma and skill that's the key for its success. The whole movie is almost like a game, about who can outsmart the other, who can win it all. A game with high stakes.

The direction is above par, with nice, beautiful shots, maintaining a great deal of intensity throughout the movie.

The script is tight as long as you don't over analyse it.

"Fracture" is not a masterpiece, it won't change your life, but it's a chance to watch two generations, at work, at the top of their game.

It keeps you watching, it keeps your interest and it entertains you.

I do think the ending could have been much better, but still, it doesn't hurt the overall quality of the movie.

"Fracture" is a safe bet, perfect for fans of the genre. A good effort by everyone involved. It doesn't disappoint.


When a man (Hopkins) kills his wife it seems like a slam-dunk case for the ambitious prosecutor (Ryan Gosling), whose mind is already set on his next lucrative lawyer job. But, in Columbo-style, Hopkins does not play his cards until in the courtroom, and it looks as if he may get away with it. This embarrassment even threatens Gosling's current and future job. It becomes a match between the cool-headed "Hannibal"-like genius Hopkings, and the smart and ambitious Gosling who takes Hopkins' bate. Gosling is willing to risk his career to put Hopkins behind bars.

The main question is: what happened to the murder weapon? A mix up with cell phones provides the answer.

But even when Gosling figures out how Hopkins did it, he cannot be tried twice, because of the double jeopardy law....

Who will have the last laugh? Watch and you'll find out. I found the ending rather pleasing, logical but somewhat unexpected.


I enjoyed this a lot more the second time when I could see it on a very clear DVD print. I don't know why that would make a difference with the story, but it did as I found it very good for the entire distance, although that's just a scant 69 minutes.

In the story, Charlie Chaplin does his normally-great physical slapstick so well that he accidentally becomes a hit at the circus, which is run by a nasty man (Allan Garcia) who regularly beats his sweet step-daughter, played by a very pretty Merna Kennedy. Charlie, of course, gets smitten by her and comes to her rescue.

This movie has a different kind of ending that what you'd normally see for a comedy but it's inspiring as Chaplin performs a noble deed. (However, Kennedy's character is in question as she seems satisfied to marry either of two men. Huh?)

Chaplin's timing and clever slapstick routines never fail to amaze me. Even though silent films aren't seen by many people these days, it's works of art like this that will endure forever. This is not of one of Chaplin's more famous movies.....but it should be. I think it's one of his best.


Charlie Chaplin is a film-maker who isn't given enough credit, in my opinion: sure, people think he's funny, but few seem to recognize the underlying melancholy of his work. In The Circus, our favorite little tramp is running from the law and stumbles upon a carnival, unwittingly becoming the center act and falling in love with a beautiful trapeze artist (Merna Kennedy). Even though this seems like the recipe for a feel-good romantic comedy, in Chaplin's vision, the guy doesn't get the girl. We essentially find ourselves laughing at an unemployed homeless man who needs to make an ass out of himself in order to escape the police -- which is nothing worth laughing at, when you really think about it. Nevertheless, Chaplin created some of the most uproarious scenes in movie history, combining his ingenious slapstick with a genuine humanity that made his character feel like more than just an object of humiliation. The Circus is certainly one of his most under-rated features, showing a darker sense of love and longing than any of his other work: the film opens with a repeated shot of his object of desire swinging on the rings with a forlorn gaze drifting into space. The final shot has the little tramp walking away from the woman he loves, alone: never before (or since) have we so sensed Chaplin's true gloominess. But if I'm making The Circus sound like a serious film, then I've been deceiving you, for it is a very funny movie indeed: Chaplin's gags are innovative and perfectly timed, and he always managed to keep his running time perfectly suited to the audience's interest. Yet in spite of how funny this movie truly is, the parts I remember most are still those that reached a deeper level of human emotion: the scenes between Chaplin and his lover are meant to be comical, but I couldn't help but notice the honesty and poignancy he injected into each vignette. This is as much a romance as it is a comedy -- and a drama, for that matter. It has been said that, two thirds during the shoot of the film, Chaplin had a nervous breakdown; considering the mostly morose tone of the film, that doesn't surprise me. But when film-makers have personal struggles, it typically only increases the authenticity and greatness of their work (just look at Woody Allen's career). Quite simply, The Circus is an American classic: Chaplin not only directed and starred in, but he produced, edited, and even composed original music for his films. His direction is superb -- not only from a comical standpoint, but from a cinematic one as well; one particular scene comes to mind that takes place in a house of mirrors, in which Chaplin uses a repeated set-up to convey a feeling of simultaneous order and confusion. His acting is plain brilliant -- if you can call it acting: he's one of those performers that you watch and smack your head in awe of how extraordinary he is. In a way, The Circus isn't a masterpiece, nor a perfect film, nor even a particularly great one -- but in another way, it is all those things and more. It is a splendid example of just how much can be done within a simple genre movie, and modern film-makers would do themselves a favor by learning from it.

Grade: A


The Circus is probably Chaplin's most underrated film. It is (easily) one of the funniest movies ever, and the inventiveness of such shots as the Mirror Maze scene and the closing sequence are nothing less than brilliant. What separates Chaplin from other comedian filmmakers is his ability to evoke a sense of pity and/or sympathy for his character. How can you watch the closing scenes of this film and, even after all of the laughter, NOT sense a bit of melancholia welling up in your heart? Truly one of the greats.


Although I didn't actually see the whole movie, "The Circus" is a hoot nonetheless. Charlie Chaplin plays a guy who joins the circus and before too long gets his own act. You'll die laughing in the scenes where he's attached to the rope. I actually watched it on TV while living with a family in St. Petersburg, Russia, and they laughed their heads off just watching him perform his stunts. That shows why these silent comedies were so great: you can laugh even if you don't know what they're saying. It's truly movies like these that make life worth living, and Chaplin remains possibly the greatest comedian in all history. 10/10.


The Little Tramp is chased into a circus tent during a performance; his antics prove funnier than those of the clowns, and the ringmaster hires him for the show.

When a comedian plays a character who is inadvertently hilarious, it can seem narcissistic: just check out Jerry Lewis's "The Errand Boy" where Lewis has his supporting cast praise the comic genius of the character played by Jerry Lewis. Despite this danger, and despite Chaplin's off-screen egotism, the premise plays beautifully, especially since The Little Tramp (though not Chaplin) is such a terrible comedian when he's trying to be one. My favorite moment is when the ringmaster demands the auditioning Tramp to be funny right that instant: the Tramp grins and shyly dances around a bit, gingerly falls down, puts his cane between his legs and meekly lifts himself back up. "Terrible!" roars his would-be employer.

This film has more self-awareness over comedy conventions that any other Chaplin I know of. The Tramp ineptly (but hilariously) performs a couple of standard comedy routines with the other circus clowns. Later, there's a funny twist to the old banana peel gag; and near the end he crashes into an old general store, looking as if he's thrust himself back into his old Keystone days. This is Chaplin's last true silent film, and the Keystone moment feels like a nostalgic farewell to the past.

"The Circus" is funny throughout, but the opening scenes are probably the best. There's a marvelous funhouse sequence and a priceless routine where The Tramp pretends to be a motorized dummy. (Has anyone seen the Swiss clock routine from "Your Show of Shows"?) He also falls in love with the ringmaster's cruelly treated daughter, which leads to a poignant ending.

I enjoyed the music, which Chaplin composed for this film in 1969. His scores are always repetitive; but they're also sweet and funny and they enhance the action. I could have done without the title-sequence song (which he sings himself)something about looking up at rainbows. Otherwise, this comedy is near-perfect and holds its own against Chaplin's even greater features, "The Gold Rush," "City Lights" and "Modern Times."


I have no idea why more people don't review this movie. It's better than "The Great Dictator," "The Gold Rush," and "City Lights." I like this movie because it presents Chaplin in his prime: the 20's and 30's. There is no Stoogesque slapstick here, instead there's Keatonesque timing and choreography.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT. There's a running joke where Chaplin is being chased by a mule. This was just hilarious. I don't know why I mentioned that, but I guess it's because I wanted to be facetious and have a spoiler alert. Ha ha. END OF SPOILER ALERT. YOU MAY RETURN TO READING FACILITIES.

A true comic masterpiece that displays Chaplin great talent. It also has a great, poignant ending. Chaplin was the first of his kind and the greatest comic of cinema.


This one ends bleakly -- or just poignantly -- insisting that we reevaluate the relationship between the tramp and the trick rider. Was the ending a result of the problems that Chaplin had in making the film, or a product of his personal problems, or the inevitable ending prefigured from the tramp's first falling in love? He looks at the paper star left over from just-departed circus wagons, then waddles off as an iris close ends the film. Before that, Chaplin shows his genius (not an overused term for him!) in a beautifully timed house of mirrors sequence, a riotous destruction of a magician's disappearance-trick (Charley, hiding from the police, is already in the compartment in which the beautiful girl is supposed to materialize), and an even funnier sequence in which Charley releases rabbits, piglets, and pigeons from the magician's table. Perhaps the funniest moment is Charley's ascent to the high-wire platform -- he is being yanked up, a la Peter Pan, but pretends to be going hand over hand. The best example of superb timing is when Charley pulls a chair out for himself and replaces it just in time for the circus manager to sit down in. The film also raises the issue of spontaneity vs. meticulous rehearsal. It favors the former, but is clearly a product of the latter. This turns dark and perhaps the darkness is implicit in the persona of the tramp and the venue of the circus, but it also has some breathtaking and very funny sequences before that final third. Thanks TCM for bringing this one to the tube! It is one of the last examples of how great silent films could be.


This film and "Limelight" could well be subtitled as "Chaplin on Performance Art Vols. 1&2." But while "Limelight" focuses mostly on the interaction between the performer and the audience, this film seems to explore two different themes relating to performance: its hypocrisy (the tryout, being told to eat the apple by the director and then being chastised for eating it by the actor), and humour in its deficiencies (note the uproar when Chaplin knocks the table off, exposing the hidden man feeding the animals through the hats). These are both characteristic of Chaplin, walking around in a tramp's outfit on his own Hollywood studio, also the two opposite roles in "Dictator." The production difficulties are notorious, and Chaplin cleverly adds a tyrannical stage-master into the mix. But still what resonates most with me is an example of Chaplin's ideas that great art and, consequently great humour, comes more out of desperation and ignorance, if accompanied with a good heart, than talent and coldly calculated intellect.

That and I consistently laugh during this film more than any other Chaplin.

4 out of 5 - An excellent film


The Circus

*Spoilers*

This is my first silent film I've ever seen. I was about 12, surfing the channel on television in my parent's room then I saw Charlie Chaplin did very hilarious stuff under the tent, which come to me as The Circus. Ordinarily, I'd dismissed it as another black and white film because I was just a kid at that time. I will not see The Circus until many years later when I saw it again on television. It has always left impression on me since I ever saw it.

It's kind of sad that Chaplin didn't really mention this film at all because I believe it is his finest film next to The Gold Rush. Charlie Chaplin would again play The Little Tramp whose tried to escape from police because police believe that he steal someone's wallet, which he was falsely accused of. To hide from police, he just enter the tent and did more hilarious stuff than clowns did and audiences just reacted well to The Little Tramp.

As the story progress, we can see the relationship develop between The Ringleader's daughter, whose is the rider for The Circus and The Little Tramp. It's very funny that Chaplin cannot pass the audition for The Circus but is very funny when it comes to showtime.

It is amazing feat that his famous tightrope walking required about 700 takes, which is best part about the movie. We can see the monkeys are doing some harm to The Little Tramp. Excellent mixing of the suspense and comedy since original tightrope walker had left and The Little Tramp replace him. The story will say that the Girl fall in love with handsome tightrope walker and left The Little Tramp envy with green.

But The Little Tramp got good heart and is witness to their wedding. As The Circus left, The Little Tramp just sit on some box and pondering for a little bit before pick up piece of paper with star on it and crumple it then throw it away. Then just left the scene.

This is very excellent silent film, which is very enjoyable. The Circus is few of several silent films that rank on my top 100 but it's rank higher than silent films on that list.

Can't think of another enjoyable silent film than this one.

****/****


One of his least known, but definitely one of his best, Charlie Chaplin's The Circus is a moving and very funny film about the famous Tramp who joins a circus and brings love and joy to all around him. Of course, it is much more than that as we witness some incredible stunts by the versatile Chaplin, as well as some great camera work that was undoubtedly way ahead of its time.

Perhaps simply because it is in black and white, or it is without dialog it is a sad truth that great auteurs such as Chaplin and Buster Keaton have been mostly forgotten by today's moviegoers. For this reason, I find it very important to continue to support their work and look for further and deeper truths. What can be gleaned from this is astonishing. There is so much sadness, joy, anger, and fear lurking at the surface it takes multiple views to catch it all. What Chaplin does with this simple story, his incredible array of stunts and comedic situations, and that memorable little Tramp make for one of the greatest of all silent films; one worthy enough to be mentioned with City Lights, The Gold Rush and the other Chaplin classics. Even more than that, it is a memorable event to watch this unfold; one to always think of and cherish for always.


Following the success in the summer of 1925 with the release of The Gold Rush, Chaplin started work on The Circus in 1926. The production, like The Kid, was stonewalled numerous times with various situations, chief among them was a fire at Chaplin studios and divorce proceedings brought on by his second wife: Lita Grey. Chaplin forged on, and The Circus was released in January of 1928. In The Circus, the tramp happens upon a failing circus and inadvertently becomes a huge success when he unknowingly interrupts the show. He befriends a girl, the proprietor's daughter, played by Merna Kennedy in her film debut. The proprietor puts increasing pressure on Chaplin to make good, and complicating matters is a handsome tightrope walker interested in the daughter. It's a great combination of Chaplin's trademark sight gags and pathos. The highlight of the film occurs when the tramp decides to impress the girl by substituting for the no-show tightrope walker. Chaplin filmed this scene several hundred times to get it just right. Three Chaplin regulars appear as clowns in the film: Albert Austin, Henry Bergman, and Chester Conklin. Chaplin edited, wrote, directed, and produced the film and received a special Oscar for doing so. That's Chaplin singing at the beginning of the film, which is very poignant. The singing was added to the film by Chaplin some 40 years later. ***1/2 of 4 stars.


There was barely a minute in the Circus I wasn't smiling and/or laughing like a silly little kid, and that's the key for how successful the picture is and, hopefully, in its appeal. For those handful of young people (i.e. children) who would be adventurous enough to come close to a black and white movie let alone one without any dialog, it's possibly the most enjoyable of all of Chaplin's pre-1940 work. This doesn't mean it'll make you cry like City Lights or be somewhat enlightened like Modern Times, but it has a fresh and joyous and innocent delight in its making and Chaplin as the Little Tramp, where here he's more than ever like a simple cartoon character thrust into this rough-and-tumble circus world with a mean ringmaster and kind and kind of loving girl.

And it's not just the infamous climactic tightrope act, although if for no other reason that's one big reason to see the film as the little Tramp goes haywire with his plans to "safely" go across the tightrope. It's just the entire assemblage of skits and moments, little things that might seem silly to talk about- like Chaplin locked in a lion's cage or trying to 'learn' a barber trick- and how it unfolds with a precision and finesse (yes, finesse) that is just short of genius, if not that. In fact a big point in the film is "try and act funny", which is not something that can really be barked on command to anyone, especially the Little Tramp who, in essence, garners his comedy from unintentional goofiness, embarrassment or humiliation on the parts of others, or just plain old physical pratfalls. What we get in the Circus is the tale of the classic clown in the midst of a whole programmed slew of them, and what it takes to make it in it- or what humanity is there.

As said, it doesn't necessarily have the best love story, even if that's touching, and it doesn't make some big statement on the working-man or society in general. But if you want to just flat-out laugh at some incredible stunts and witness Chaplin's craft of quality, The Circus is fantastic fun.


I've been spending a lot of time lately going through and watching all of Chaplin's oldest short comedies that he made for Keystone and Essanay, and with only a few left before I get into the 1920s I decided to jump ahead and watch this one, which is reportedly the last true silent film that Chaplin made, since there were elements of City Lights and especially Modern Times that were clearly moving toward the sound era. The first thing the struck my is how much better looking the film is, and the second thing that struck me is that, other than the length and thickness of the plot and story, it is remarkably similar to his earlier films. In a good way, of course.

By now, Chaplin had reached a point in his career where he was a major film star, so of course this movie is much bigger, much more ambitious than the 10 or 20 minute films he was churning out a decade before. He plays the same person, the little tramp out of the job, out of money and out of love. Maybe this is just me, but I really think that the parts of Chaplin's films where we see the tramp before the story has started going are generally some of the best parts, because we get quick looks at the tramp's personality  what he does with himself when nothing's going on. He's usually just hanging out, spinning his cane or browsing casually without a care in the world. I sometimes wonder what Rowan Atkinson would be doing if there had been no Chaplin to inspire his own famous character.

There is a very clever opening to the movie, as Chaplin twice finds himself the victim of pick-pocketing, once when another man's wallet is slipped into his pocket, and another time when that wallet is stolen from him before he realizes he has it. Luckily, a police officer sees the second thief and returns the stolen wallet to the thoroughly astonished tramp. When he goes to spend some of his new money, the real owner catches him and, as can only happen in a Chaplin movie, the ensuing chase makes him a star.

I especially love how much more complex the movie is the its shorter predecessors. It is clearly a big-budget 1928 Hollywood movie, with high-flying stunts and even special effects (yeah, special effects in a Chaplin movie!!). There are plenty of charming and effective sight gags, including his famous tight rope scene with the monkeys, and a sweet love story that calls to mind the similar love story, and how it played out, from The Tramp, back in 1916. If the oldest two-reelers are too rough or uninteresting to you, this would be a great film to see to check out Chaplin's early work. It's similar in countless ways, but is cleaner and has a much more engaging plot. Excellent show!

Note: The IMDb trvia page mentions that this is the only one of Chaplin's feature films not mentioned in his autobiography, because of "problems with the film, not the film itself." I understand that his studio burned down during production and that he suffered a nervous breakdown during filming because of personal problems, but do any of his dissatisfactions have anything to do with the actual film? If you know please email me, this movie is definitely something that I would think he would be proud of!


This one has to be one of his best, on a par with his speech in the closing scene of The Great Dicatator 1940! I'll admit I was never much of a Chaplin fan in the past, until I saw these two in the past couple of years. His early Essanay works I didn't like at all, full of gratuitous, senseless violence masking as comedy (people knocking the crap out each other for no apparent reason)but Dictator, and Circus touch the heart as no others do! The film, as a whole, is rather drab & slow, Chaplin playing the Tramp as a circus act, (not discounting his own tightrope work), but the closing scene, as the circus moves on and he's left alone, with only a picture of his love, and his Tramp walk into the sunset, makes it an emotionally powerful piece to watch, giving us glimpse of Chaplin's inner self, not to be found anywhere else, but hidden beneath his character. A must-see for those who enjoy a heartwarming story!


'The Circus (1928)' was one of the few Charles Chaplin features that I was yet to see, but that wasn't from lack of trying. I first attempted to watch the film mid-way through last year, but, being terribly ill at the time, and having to wake up relatively early the following morning, I barely got half-way through the Tramp's antics before I had to turn off the DVD and go to sleep. For some reason that I can't quite explain, it took until yesterday for me to finally commit to another try, and it was a pleasant and entertaining experience. Though certainly one of Chaplin's lesser efforts, 'The Circus' is an enjoyable and imaginative thread of slapstick gags, with the occasional hint of pathos, though not to the extent of many of the Tramp's other feature-length outings. The circus setting provides an ideal collection of props and scenarios for Chaplin to explore, and many of the film's laughs are derived from his character's hopeless attempts at being a clown, performing magic and tight-rope walking.

We first find the Tramp {whom Chaplin liked to call the "little fellow"} at a carnival, completely devoid of money, where a devious pickpocket (Steve Murphy) has stashed his winnings into the Tramp's trouser pocket. As he tries to pickpocket his money back, a policeman catches him, and, completely befuddled, the Tramp finds himself graciously thanking the officer for returning the money that he never knew he had. Needless to say, it doesn't take long before both the Tramp and the pickpocket find themselves frantically fleeing the authorities, and Chaplin takes refuge in a maze of mirrors, where the policemen can certainly see their quarry, but can't decide which of the dozen reflections is real. Following a hot pursuit, the Tramp finds himself scuttling through a circus tent in the middle of a performance, and the audience is left in hysterics by his inadvertently hilarious antics. The The Circus Proprietor (Al Ernest Garcia), desperate for anyone who might save his floundering show, hires the Tramp immediately, but deliberately neglects to inform him that he is the star attraction.

As was typical in most of Chaplin's pictures, there is also a love interest that forms the story's emotional heart. Merna Kennedy plays one of the circus performers, the ill-treated step-daughter of the show's proprietor. When they first meet, the Tramp scolds the hungered girl for stealing his meagre breakfast, but quickly takes pity on her, and eventually falls in love. Realising that he lacks the means to provide any respectable life for the women he loves, the Tramp graciously surrenders any notions of marrying her, instead convincing Rex (Harry Crocker), a handsome and upright tight-rope walker, to take her hand in marriage. The film's final image, of Chaplin sitting alone in the newly-deserted field where the circus once resided, is almost achingly poignant, a perfect illustration of the lonely lifestyle that he must lead each day. It was Charles Chaplin, in even his early films, who discovered that tragedy and comedy were never too far apart: though 'The Circus' doesn't quite balance the two as evenly as his various masterpieces, such as 'Modern Times (1936)' and 'The Great Dictator (1940),' it remains a joyous slapstick romp, with more than enough heart to go around.


This feature stands alongside "The Gold Rush" and "Modern Times" as among Chaplin's best. If it lacks the exoticism and technological sophistication of the other two, it has some marvelously funny set pieces.

Chaplin, as the Tramp, gets mixed up with a pickpocket while visiting the circus. Mistaken by the police for the criminal, he runs into the center of a clown act in the center ring and, without intending to, wows the audience in a way the clowns never did. His next escape attempt leads him into a magician's act in which he finds himself, to wild applause, frantically trying to stuff various small animals -- doves, ducks, piglets -- back into top hats on a table but finds himself swimming in the little beasts. There is a scene, lasting only a few minutes, in which Chaplin imitates a mechanical man that is about as funny as anything he's done.

The inevitable sentiment is damped down. There is a circus girl that Chaplin falls for, but she is attracted to a newcomer, a debonair tightrope walker. It doesn't interfere with the comedy.

There's no point in going on too long about the plot. It's mostly a series of set pieces. But the plots never meant too much in Chaplin's films from this period anyway.

Recommended without qualification.


If you like silent movies & watch a lot of them, you'll probably enjoy this masterpiece made by movie icon Charlie Chaplin...I bet even non-Chaplin fan would like this movie.

With all the problems he had on & outside the set, we have to give Chaplin the credit he deserves! He was going through a divorce, had to stop filming...& even hide the film to avoid his wife to destroy it. Even the set was destroyed...How lucky are we ?!

City Lights opens with some kind of weird talking so I enjoyed The Circus even more because it's the last silent film Chaplin made. The last scene really is something to remember. You have to see the emotion on Chaplin's face! It's like if it was Chaplin himself who was there instead of the little tramp! We can feel his sadness through the screen, this is incredible! Every time I watched it, I feel this is the last time we see The little tramp as we know him!


I've only watched two Charlie Chaplin films as of this date, this one and the outstanding CITY LIGHTS. However, they alone are already enough to convince me that Chaplin was a genius, and a very funny man. Here he plays his famous tramp character, who is first involved in a hilarious chase sequence with the cops throughout the circus. When his physical antics prove funnier to the paying crowd than the clowns already acting in the show, the mean and abusive ringmaster hires Chaplin as a funnyman for the circus. There are consistent funnies all along the way, but also an endearing story of his affection for a female horse rider from the show, who's sweet on someone else.

I often say that silent films are not my favorite type, and I don't care for the silent Laurel and Hardy films like I do their early talkies, because I love hearing their verbal exchanges (especially Hardy's). But when it comes to Charlie Chaplin I can't imagine his work being as entertaining any other way than silent, with him relying on pantomime over voice. I was also struck by how creative and interesting so many shots were in this film, even more so than some early sound movies.


THE CIRCUS may well be one of the best of Chaplin's silent comedies, especially enjoyable from the point where he inadvertently becomes the hit of the circus when he pinch hits for someone at the last moment. He gets all the audience laughs from that point on--and deserves it. His clowning here is among his most acrobatic, most physical, and at the same time, there's a bittersweet charm to his romance with one of the lovely circus performers--MERNA KENNEDY.

All of the circus stunts are beautifully performed and the story maintains interest as the Little Tramp goes from sudden success to sudden failure--and then back again.

HARRY CROCKER is good as the romantic foil for Merna Kennedy, a tightrope walker whose act is later performed with even more daring results by Chaplin in one of his best acts.

Altogether delightful romp, with the Little Tramp as a lovable scamp!


I have recently spent many an hour watching the feature length films of Charlie Chaplin and have grown to appreciate just what a fantastic film maker he truly was.having now watched 'The Circus' for the first time in it's entirety,I believe that it should be ranked amongst his very finest works.

The plot of the movie may be a little flimsy and it could be described as a series of sketches rather than a feature film.But that shouldn't detract from the many merits that this film has.There are so many scenes of creative brilliance;the hall of mirrors,pretending to be an automaton,the chase in the circus ring,the fabulous tight rope segment.These all go to show what a great movie legend Chaplin was and he should be regarded in the very highest esteem.

'The Circus'may not be Chaplin's very best movie,but it is a joy to watch,especially when you consider the turmoil he was going through while he was making it.


I am definitely an amateur and may be a dilettante when it comes to being a serious film reviewer/critic, but this movie has SO very much to offer to the movie-lover, that it is a sad commentary on the state of our commercial arts that it remains largely unknown to all but the ardent silent/chaplin aficionados.

The IMDb profile and the other user comments highlight many of the generally innovative and well-executed gags and set-ups but I thought I would provide a list of things to look out for that don't get so much attention:

- the hungry tramp stealing bites of hot dog from a toddler; only chaplin and his tramp would need to add mustard to the illicit gain

- though a famous shot for chaplin-niks, the brilliant harmony (aided greatly by the manic section of music) as both the thief and the tramp end up in parallel flight from the coppers, essentially for the same crime.

- the entire aristocratic air of the tramp settling down for a hobo's breakfast; when the chicken clucks by and charlie runs off to chase it, there's a pregnant pause of expectation...did he get it? will it be his meal? No. Befitting and completing the emotional tenor of the tramp, all he desired was an egg. So rewarded, he doffs his hat to the offscreen chicken. A fair exchange thus completed.

- I can hardly believe that in 50 or so comments, no one has mentioned the introduction of Merna to Charlie. When she reveals that indeed she is a performer in the circus, charlie glances at the poster-bill behind them both advertising the "Sword Swallower" With a mischievous grin and lilting eyes, he inquires as to whether this is HER role in the show. When she corrects him, "No, I ride the horses." he is so sweetly embarrassed by his misconstrual of her talents. A very sexually subversive, risqué gag for 1928.

There's dozens more just like this within this film and if you haven't seen it, it is so worth the investment of 70 minutes of your entertainment time. It has heart, nobility, zany humor and madcap comedic antics rolled into one concise ball; not unlike the ball of paper made by the crumpled circus star, that the tramp kicks away in the end.

a wonderful piece of film-making.

pax vk


"The Circus" was made between the classic "Gold Rush" and what is, arguably, Chaplin's masterpiece, "City Lights." It dates from 1928 and is, without doubt, one of Chaplin's great films. It opens slowly, but don't let that put you off - it quickly accelerates. And, as for the ending? Anyone moved by the ending of "City Lights" will love the ending of "The Circus:" Chaplin's character, strolling toward the horizon, leaving love and friends behind, disappears into the distance, setting up a scenario to be repeated in "Modern Times". Simple, touching, beautiful. Sandwiched between, "The Gold Rush" and "City Lights," this film is often overlooked, but it is a wonderful Chaplin classic that deserves to be more widely known.


Sunday June 5, 6:30pm - Neptune Theater Saturday June 11, 11:00am - Egyptian Theater

"Swing little girl. Swing high in the sky, and don't ever look at the ground. If you're looking for rainbows look up to the sky. You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."

The point at which the world of cinema caught up to and passed Charles Chaplin is The Circus, his final film of the silent era. A disastrous production schedule and Chaplin's personal turmoil at the time has much to do with the diminished stature of this film. Likely an episode in his life he chose to forget and excluded from his autobiography, the film was forgotten until it's re-release in 1969 with an original soundtrack composed and title song performed by the then eighty year old Chaplin. The Circus, despite all this, is no less a work of genius than his other films of the era and includes many of Chaplin's best and most memorable comic moments. In a spectacular opening shot we see Merna, a circus rider, burst through a paper ring to reveal all the vitality of the big top, a Degas dancer amid the sawdust and lights. While lacking the chemistry Chaplin had with Edna Purvaince, Merna Kennedy brings a sweetness and charm to her character. Her joy is short-lived when she is brutalized by the ringmaster for her lack of perfection. Enter the little tramp, broke and starving, yet always managing to get by, this time, secretly fed by a babe in arms. A victim of misunderstanding and happenstance, he finds himself pursued by police, across the boardwalk and into the fun house maze of mirrors in a complex and magical scene. After Charlie is forced to masquerade as an automaton to avoid capture the chase ends up under the big top, where he wrecks the show but wins the audience over with his misadventures. The mayhem subsides, the performance resumes and we are left with the dissatisfaction of the crowd, "Where's the funny man? Bring on the funny man!" Oblivious, he lies fast asleep in a nearby horse cart. Chaplin's brilliance was never so clear as when he portrayed every day life in all it's mundane little details. The starving little dancer steals his breakfast. he rebukes her, pities her, and in the end gives her his meal. Later, as she hurries off, the tramp is smitten, and the die is cast. Our little fellow manages to stumble his way to success, hired, fired and finally re-hired as a circus prop man. He is in fact, and unknowing, the star of the show. As though to illustrate why his love for the girl can never be realized, the tramp tosses food to Merna from her lofty perch in the empty tent, they are from different worlds. In the end, he guides the girl to the safety of a better life and the promise of prosperity as the little tramp wanders off into the setting sun. In a picture filled with an excess of wonderful vignettes, chased by a mad donkey while holding an enormous stack of dishes, Charlie's surprise when he opens a trunk to find it full of wild monkeys, his boastfulness at surviving a moment trapped in the lions cage only to be frightened by a kitten, and William Tell with a banana, Chaplin left still more on the cutting room floor. In the highlight of the film we see Charlie's hilarious trip across the highwire as he stands in for the absent star and is attacked by the marauding monkeys for his efforts. While The Circus may be thinner in character development and plot than Chaplin's other feature films, it remains a thoroughly enjoyable comic masterpiece. Easily forgotten by modern moviegoers, no one has ever achieved the ability to express tenderness, joy, sadness, irrepressible humor and pathos to a greater degree than Chaplin. The broad appeal of his films made him the beloved everyman to a world-wide audience. The Circus is yet another gem from the greatest comic filmmaker of the silent era and a subtle hint of the masterpiece to follow. The opportunity to see this film on a big screen in a theater from the silent era is rare and should not be missed.


Okay. First, in all honesty I must point out that I usually prefer the movies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, but I have watched quite a few Chaplin films recently. While this film isn't quite as good as a few of his later films (such as City Lights), this is still a good film and very lovely to watch--with a real artistic touch by writer/director/director/musical score creator and actor Chaplin is truly outstanding!! He at least deserves a lot of praise for being so versatile.

So, despite its beauty why do I only give it a 7? Well, aside from some very funny slapstick moments, there is, once again, a lot of "schmaltzy" moments and the film is jam-packed with pathos. In other words, the movie tries VERY VERY VERY hard to be poignant and touching--and I am the type of person that prefers a little more humor and a little less of the sappy hero. I know this ISN'T the opinion of everyone--so if you LIKE when he tugs at your heartstrings and helps a damsel in distress (yet again), then you'll be thrilled. I just thought I'd seen this theme one time too many.

BY THE WAY--Chaplin was well-known for being very obsessive-compulsive about his films--doing scenes again and again to get it "just right". Well, he made a big blunder here and I was surprised it wasn't caught. While doing the very funny high-wire act, his right pant leg came off while he was holding on to the pole for balance and monkeys were climbing all on and around him. Then, when the shot cut back, the pants leg was back ON!! Oops. This doesn't spoil the movie at all--it's just a funny little mistake. Or, maybe, one of the cute monkeys crawling all over him during this scene put his pants leg back on him!

PPS--only a few weeks after I first wrote this review, I have seen about 8 more Chaplin movies. After each one, my appreciation for his talents increased. In hindsight, I think a score of 8 is more in order. While it's true I'm not much for pathos, I must acknowledge his amazing talents.


A very entertaining and well-made comedy. The story is pretty simple with The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) this time taking a stage hand job at a circus where he unwittingly becomes the star of the show with his antics. The best moments of the film are the expertly choreographed comic routines. The climactic tightrope walk is a bit of a letdown next to the earlier, funnier bits (like the opening funhouse chase), but that is a small detraction. The unrequited love story adds some much needed depth to the film, giving it that bittersweet quality that any good comedy needs to be effective. Chaplin here gives us just a peek at that serious side of The Tramp that we would see more of in his last two films. Beautiful ending.


022: The Circus (1928) - released 1/6/1928; viewed 8/28/05.

Gandhi visits Ceylon, now Sri Lanka. Leon Trotsky is expelled from The Soviet Union, leaving Stalin in undisputed control. The Holland Tunnel opens in Manhattan. The Ford Model A is unveiled. 1600 people are hospitalized in London due to the icy streets. Kern and Hammerstein's Show Boat hits Broadway and is a huge success.

BIRTHS: Steve Ditko, McLean Stevenson.

KEVIN: As expected, Charlie Chaplin's The Circus was extremely funny. The single funniest bit is definitely the high wire bit. That was a piece of physical hilarity worthy of Keaton or Lloyd, and it's in a Chaplin movie. What I found most surprising about this film was the ending. At the end of both The Kid and The Gold Rush, he gets the girl and he gets rich. But at the end of The Circus, he doesn't get the riches or the girl. Instead the little Tramp just keeps going.

DOUG: As '27 ends and '28 begins, Charlie Chaplin releases his latest Tramp adventure, The Circus. Naturally I didn't enjoy this as much as the other Chaplin films we've watched. I did enjoy the high wire sequence; you can't go wrong with monkeys. I did find the ending a little strange; usually, the Tramp ends up with the girl and gets rich and all is well. But here, he marries his potential sweetheart off to his rival and goes on his merry way to his next adventure.

Last film: My Best Girl (1927). Next film viewed: Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928). Next film chronologically: Speedy (1928).

The Movie Odyssey is an exhaustive, chronological project where we watch as many milestone films as possible, starting with D.W. Griffith's Intolerance in 1916 and working our way through, year by year, one film at a time. We also write a short review for each and every film. In this project, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the time period, the films of the era, and each film in context, while at the same time just watching a lot of great movies, most of which we never would have watched otherwise.


One can argue that Charlie Chaplin wrote, directed, and starred in greater films than his neglected 1928 gem, The Circus, his last fully silent film, which he also wrote with Joseph Plunkett, but one cannot reasonably argue that he made a funnier film; nor can one argue that The Circus is not a great film itself. Yet, critics, fans of Chaplin, and even Chaplin himself, long overlooked this great film. The reason has more to do with the highly publicized divorce trial from Lita Grey that Chaplin endured while filming the feature over two years, as well as a host of other production disasters. Chaplin was so paranoid he felt his wife would try to steal the film, so hid the negatives. The film was not even mentioned in Chaplin's autobiography, nor was it screened in the years after its release, until, in 1970, Chaplin rereleased it with a new score that he composed.

As a Chaplin aficionado, I can state that no Chaplin film goes as long- 69 minutes, with such sustained laughter. There are more memorable gags in this one film than in any other film he made- or perhaps anyone has made since, and it deservedly won him his first Academy Award at the first ceremony in 1929. It was a special award for Versatility And Genius In Writing, Acting, Directing, And Producing. Obviously, these were the days before schlock like Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Monster, and Titanic were considered 'great films,' worthy of such awards. Yet, even had Chaplin not buried the film in his vault for decades, the very fact that it was made between two of his greatest critical and financial successes, The Gold Rush and City Lights, two indisputable silent film era masterpieces, may have fated the film to its nearly forgotten status anyway.

As pure comedy, perhaps the only film that has as ceaseless a run of comic gags that all work is the 1960s all-star comedy classic It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, but that film could lay no claim to great nor higher art. Perhaps the only downside to The Circus- or rather the DVD, is that it does not offer the original film from 1928, replete with a silent film organ score- say by the great silent organist Rosa Rio? Instead, we only have the overwrought, and didactic musical score Chaplin composed in 1970. His opening rendition of the saccharine Swing Little Girl, sung over the opening titles, is plain bad- both as music and as sung, but thankfully passes quickly. As with his unfortunate 1942 reissue of The Gold Rush- with added narration, this music guides the audience too much, although the film's main theme, I must admit, wins you over at the end. Fortunately, that film's DVD comes with both the 1942 reissue and the 1925 original- which is superior. Some artists never know when to leave greatness alone. Even so, The Circus is the purest and least flawed Chaplin feature film ever made, in that it distills every single aspect of his greatness and, yes, even that grossly overused term- genius. For anyone with a love of pure cinema, silent cinema, and its history, this film and DVD is a must to see and own. But, if you have heart problems, I advise you to be wary, because it is so funny it could literally hurt you.but wouldn't that be the best way to go?


A movie that is somewhat underrated and unintentionally overlooked in "favourite westerns" discussions ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO is nevertheless an excellent and true classic western! Produced by MGM in 1953 it was richly photographed in Ansco color by the great Robert Surtees and sparkingly written by Frank Fenton along with the uncredited Michael Pate. Skillfully directed by John Sturges this was his first great success with the western genre. Set in a remote Union outpost for captured confederate prisoners during the Civil War, Sturges set out to give the story an authentic look so he filmed in the stunning locations of Death Valley and in and around the New Mexico Badlands. In a 1970 interview the director said he greatly regretted that he never got to make the picture in Cinemascope as he had planned. He had missed the full development of the process by just a few weeks. The first Cinemascope movie "The Robe" was released by Fox at the same time.

William Holden, in one of his best parts, plays union Captain Roper a formidable hard-bitten taskmaster over the prisoners. Nobody escapes from Bravo! If they do Roper finds them and brings them back! The opening of the film has him doing just that as he drags escapee (John Lupton) back to the fort on foot and on the end of a rope to the chagrin of the other prisoners. Even Bravo's commanding officer (Carl Benton Reid) thinks he is too harsh ("Roper when I see you work at soldiering - I'm glad we're in the same army"). On a visit to the Fort for a wedding is the lovely Carla Forester (Eleanor Parker) whose real business is to arrange for the escape of her confederate officer lover (John Forsyth) and three of his men while at the same time ensuring Captain Roper falls for her charms, little suspecting that she herself would fall in love with him. Eventually they do make good their escape and the remainder of the picture has Roper and his troop in hot pursuit after them through dangerous Mescalero Apache territory culminating in a a very exciting sequence towards the end of the picture - when after a terrific chase by the Apaches - captor and captured are pinned down by the indians in a desert gully. Now together Union and confederate unite in a last ditch stand against a common enemy!

Adding greatly to the proceedings is a terrific score by the almost forgotten composer Jeff Alexander. This is the best thing this composer has ever done especially the beautiful ballad he wrote "Soothe My Lonely Heart" which is sung in the picture by Stan Jones. Jones himself wrote the rousing Cavalry song heard over the opening and closing credits.

A wonderful exciting movie that every fan will want in their collection now that it's available on DVD. Good one Sturges!!

Classic line from "Escape From Fort Bravo"........ As the young confederate serviceman (William Cambell) says impatiently to veteran (William Demarest)............. "How did a decrepit old man like you ever get in the war?". Prompting the retort from Demarest "Cause all the smart young men like you was losin' it".


William Holden is Captain Roper, a strict commanding officer in charge of a large group of Confederate prisoners in a dry heat stockade at Fort Bravo, Arizona, in 1863...

He is disliked by his captors as well by his captives because of his displeasing behavior toward the escapees whom he invariably recaptures... A main example, dragging back to the fort John Lupton with a rope around his waist...

To Fort Bravo arrived, one morning, the talented, and beautiful Eleanor Parker (Carla) apparently for the wedding of a friend (Polly Bergen)... In fact she is scheming the escape of a rebel, Captain John Forsythe...

Carla - a confederate agent - knows how to charm and handle beautifully Holden in her sojourn in the fort... Holden is the only danger to her plan, as he is the man who finds everybody...

One night, she escapes in a horse-drawn cart with three men, and a coward storekeeper, her Confederate ally... A deceived Holden receives with shock the striking notice that Carla, the woman he loves, is the one who planned the escape... He sets out in their pursuit, ignoring that outside, and around him, in the wilderness, common enemy is watching, the deadly Mescalero Indians...

Holden is stern, enigmatic and firm as the brusque young officer, who keeps the restless prisoners in Fort Bravo while trying to keep out marauding Indians... However Holden is an ideal human officer with integrity beneath his inflexible rules that discipline is fundamental in and around Fort Bravo...

The film carries cautiously, continuous tense action sequences as it incorporates into the exciting climax... The state of expectation and the quality of hopefulness are extremely controlled... The cast gives force and pressure to the nature of the drama keeping the actions spontaneous... The dynamic climactic redskin ambush, with brutal arrow-artillery, express great tension... The rain of the Indians arrows is vigorously presented by John Sturges who directed many fine Westerns like "Backlash," "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," and "The Law and Jake Wade."

"Escape from Fort Bravo" is a great Western and a good suspense drama with a sweet romance and spectacular action... The scenery is overwhelming: the jagged rocks, the dirt and the sage as well as the play of light and shade, all fulfilling, in Technicolor, one purpose, Grey against Blue and Indians against everybody...


"Escape From Fort Bravo" had a unique western storyline that shifted somewhat during the course of the film, but still left the viewer

with a decent film for its time. Fort Bravo is being used as a Confederate prison camp during the waning months of the American Civil War. Inside the fort's walls are the prisoners, wanting to escape, and the troops of the Union cavalry, trying to prevent their escapes, and outside are the bands of savage Mescalero Apaches, just waiting for anybody to leave the safety of the fort.

William Holden plays Capt. Roper, the Union officer given the dubious task of recapturing any escapees and returning them to Fort Bravo. It's an unpleasant task, he personally dislikes the job, but he does it, and does it all to well, much to the chagrin of the rebels still in the fort. During this time, a female Confederate sympathizer, played by Eleanor Parker, comes to the fort and will attempt to distract Holden, while she manages to enact the escape of her Confederate lover, played by John Forsythe. The escape occurs, some rebel prisoners manage to leave the fort, Parker goes with them, but she does not realize that Holden has come to fall in love with her. Roper, Holden's part, takes a small troop of men out from the fort in pursuit, he hoping to catch up with them before the Apaches do.

Besides the three main leads mentioned above, the supporting cast includes William Demerest, William Campbell, Richard Anderson, Polly Bergen, and in a pre "Broken Arrow" role, John Lupton. Campbell and Demerest do provide some comic relief, playing off each other's abilities, etc., but the lead parts do carry the picture and prevent it from becoming just another Cavalry-Indians western. 7/10


This beautiful film is another action western about Union and Confederate soldiers at a western outpost whose task is to hold the territory for the Union, prevent rebel defections, and fight Indians. A pretty rebel sympathizer uses her charms to effect an escape of Confederate officers and the hunt is on. William Holden and Eleanor Parker play off one another well in this tug of war and wills with John Forsythe hovering as an interested party. The film has exciting cavalry-Indian battle scenes, and the second clash is particularly novel in its execution because it is done by Indians. A craven rebel soldier proves to be the unlikely hero at the wind up. The picture was filmed largely in Death Valley and is striking in its great visual beauty.


It's an interesting western/prison movie cross-over, although above all the movie remains a western of course with some of its formulaic ingredients, in this movie it's mostly the use of Indians. The story makes the movie more original than most of the other western's from the '50's. It's originality also help to make this movie a better than average one.

Of course the story still feels the need to put in a love-story into the movie but that's basically the curse of every movie that's over 50 years old. Nevertheless the love-story itself is also quite different and original, so it isn't as distracting as in most other genre movies from the same period often was the case.

Director John Sturges has made many entertaining and adventurous movies in his career and I consider this as one of them, though it obviously is not his best work. It's just a good and enjoyable movie, with some real great moments, for in between.

At times its painfully obvious that the movie was for some part shot in studios with fake looking backgrounds in it. It makes the movie look outdated but that also by now has become part of the charm of these sort of movies. The cinematography is from Robert Surtees, who perhaps was the greatest cinematographer of his time. This movie isn't his best done however but it's a worthy one.

William Holden is good in his role, though it's hard to always like him because of the stubbornness and seemingly lack of emotion of the character. The supporting cast also pull of well, especially John Forsythe.

The musical score by Jeff Alexander is surprisingly great and I mean really great. It's not the usual some old, same old '50's western drivel. It's a score worth searching out, though I don't think it's available anywhere.

An enjoyable movie to watch, that's worth watching if you get the chance.

7/10


William Holden's character, in the Civil War-era Western "Escape From Fort Bravo" (1953), has a very appropriate name. When we first see his Capt. Roper, he is dragging an escaped Confederate prisoner, by rope, across the desert; a not-so-subtle warning to any other rebs who might be planning a similar break from the Union fort, deep in the Arizona Territory. But when that escape comes, led by Southern Capt. Marsh (John Forsythe) and abetted by Texan belle Carla Forester (Eleanor Parker), Roper is forced to follow the fugitives...even though the path leads straight into the country of the bloodthirsty Mescalero Apaches. Filmed in Death Valley National Monument and in gorgeous color, "Escape From Fort Bravo" showcases some truly spectacular scenery, not the least of which is Eleanor herself. One of the 1950s' most gorgeous of actresses, she looks absolutely ravishing here, her famous red hair a wonder to behold. She would also appear the next year in another film--"The Naked Jungle"--featuring man-eating ants. (Oh, did I forget to mention that those Mescaleros have a nasty habit of tying their prisoners to ant hills?) "Escape" boasts a very tough-talking script, with glints of humor coming from the bickerings between (those great character actors) Williams Demarest and Campbell, and its final third is remarkably suspenseful, as Roper, Carla and the escaped rebs are laid siege in a ditch, while the Mescaleros pick them off with rifle shot and lob volleys of arrows into their midst. Director John Sturges would go on to make three more classic Westerns over the next seven years ("Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," "Last Train From Gun Hill" and, of course, "The Magnificent Seven"), and here turns what is basically a "cavalry and Injuns pic" into a thing of real beauty and excitement. Yes, I really did enjoy this one.


Good classic film that shows how the North dealt with the Confederates and American Indians at the same time during the U.S. Civil war.Good overall production and the ciematography was very good.To nitpick,the movie started slow and Parker's dresses were too unrealistic for the circumstances.Also the romance chemistry between Parker and Holden was lacking.The script could also have been a tag better.Still,the second half of the film delivered the action goods which will delight true Western genre fans.Only for fans of the genre who are not partial to the Confederate side and fans of the lead stars......


This western starring William Holden and Eleanor Parker is a very good western I reckon. It takes a while for it to take off so to speak but when it does there are some real thrilling action and some real good scenes and moments you don't easily will forget.

*SPOILER* I really liked the scene near the end when they were caught in open by native braves and had to take shelter on the ground with just some rocks and walls of dust to protect themselves from spears, arrows and bullets. *END OF SPOILER*

William Holden good as Captain Roper and Eleanor Parker as Carla also puts in a good performance. I recommend this to western fans with some patience because, as written, it takes a while for it to reach climax, but when it does, you won't forget you watched it.


"Bad Day at Black Rock" director John Sturges' first period horse opera, "Escape from Fort Bravo," takes place during American Civil War at a remote cavalry stockade doubling as a Confederate prisoner-of-war camp. Of course, the plot concerns an escape attempt by the Confederates and they take advantage of inside help. The Frank Fenton screenplay based on a story by Philip Rock and actor Michael Pate is rather formulaic stuff right up to its cavalry ex machine ending. Nevertheless, the dialogue with its philosophical ramblings about life, death, and love surpasses the usual oater.

Lensed by Robert Surtees in Death Valley as well as locations in Gallup, New Mexico and at the Ray Corrigan Ranch in California, this western boasts striking scenery that Sturges puts to great use during the last half-hour when the Indians launch an attack on our stranding group of heroes. Indeed, this was the first time that Sturges and Surtees paired up. Later, they worked together on "The Law and Jake Wade," "The Satan Bug," and "The Hallelujah Trail." "Escape from Fort Bravo" has an isolated look thanks to these arid looking locales that heightens its authenticity. Sturges makes great use of the landscape, especially during the climactic Indian attack and does a splendid job of setting up the attack. William Holden heads up a solid cast including Eleanor Parker, John Forsythe, William Demarest, William Campbell, Richard Anderson, Polly Bergen, John Lupton, Carl Benton Reid and Glenn Strange.

The film opens with a foreword. In 1863, while the War Between the States still raged, a large group of Confederate prisoners were held in a sun baked stockade at Fort Bravo, Arizona Territory. Captor and captivethese men in blue and grayeyed each other with hatred. In the wilderness around them, a common enemy eye them bothdeadly Mescalero Indians. Afterward, in a series of long shots, we see a horseman in a blue cavalry uniform with a man in gray tagging behind him on a rope. Bob Bailey (John Lupton) has tried to escape, but U.S. Cavalry Captain Roper (William Holden of "Golden Boy") has recaptured him. He takes him back to Fort Bravo and few are happy to see him return with the prisoner.

The situation at the outset promises a compelling tale. Fort Commandant Colonel Owens (Carl Benton Reid) sums it up when he explains to Roper that the POWs outnumber the guards at an outpost in the middle of nowhere infested with hordes of bloodthirsty Mescalero Indians watching their every move. Owens makes explicit his sentiments about Roper. "When I see you soldiering, Roper," Owens observes, "I'm glad we're in the same army." Nevertheless, adds Owens, "I use to have a full regiment now I've got one troop. I've got as many Confederate prisoners as I have men." Roper understands their predicament. "Colonel, I don't know whose going to win this war, the North or the South, but we're here to hold this country for one of them, even if we have to arm those Reb prisoners." Owens wonders about his fitness for command. Roper observes, "This is a hard country to stay alive in colonel, much less to stay young." "Escape from Fort Bravo" documents the enormous lengths that the Confederates go to so they can escape. After Roper buries a cavalry detail wiped out in the desert by the Indians, he has a stagecoach skid into his camp. Indians had been chasing the coach and a woman, Carla Forrester (Eleanor Parker of "Detective Story"), in the coach wields a derringer, and kills an Indian. Carla explains that she was heading to Fort Bravo to attend Alice Owens marriage. Alice (Polly Bergen of "Arena") plans to wed U.S. Cavalry Lieutenant Beecher (Richard Anderson of "Macho Callahan"). In truth, Carla has come to Fort Bravo to help her lover, Confederate Captain John Marsh (John Forsythe of "Destination Tokyo"), and handful of soldiers, including Bob Bailey (John Lupton of "Julius Caesar"), Sergeant Campbell (William Demarest of "All Through the Night") and Cabot Young (William Campbell of "Backlash") escape. After Alice's wedding, a general store owner, Watson (Howard McNear of "The Andy Griffith Show"), will smuggle the Confederates out of Fort Bravo in his wagon.

Matters grow complicated, however, when Carla begins to reciprocate the love of the man that she is supposed to distract. Roper shows Carla his roses and bares his heart to her. He wants to marry her and she loses control of herself and joins the Confederates in Watson's wagon. The following day, Roper and a small patrol light out after the Confederates. Roper catches up with the cowardly Bailey at a nearby town. Bailey learned about the Mescalero Indians on the warpath and decided to await Roper's arrival. Roper takes Bailey with him and they recapture the Confederates. No sooner has Roper caught them than the Indians come breathing down their collective necks. Roper and company outrun the Indians and take refuge in a wash surrounding by mountains. Our heroes blast away at the Indians until the redskins retreat to the heights and surround Roper and company with lances. The Indians use the lances to aim their arrows and they unleash dozens of arrows.

The resolution to our heroes being cornered by the Indians is the cavalry appears at the last minute. Right up until the cavalry arrives, "Escape from Fort Bravo" looks pretty bleak. Sturges direction is competent enough in the dialogue scenes where the exposition and philosophical notions are crisply and effectively delivered. The bulk of the humor comes from the byplay between the older Demarest and younger Campbell. Jeff Alexander's music is nothing special, though the theme song is vibrant. The final set-piece where our heroes are pinned down by the Mescaleros is exciting stuff. Holden is appropriately gruff at the hard-bitten Roper and Parker is easy on the eyes. You can tell when the filmmakers are on location and when they are using a studio. Nevertheless, this is a very good western drama.


William Holden did Escape from Fort Bravo as a double loan out from his two studio employers, Paramount and Columbia. It would have been a wasted trip, but for the fact that he also did Executive Suite in the same package. Mr. Holden was much in demand after winning the Oscar for Stalag 17.

He's very much like Sefton from Stalag 17 only this time he's the jailer and up to all the tricks the prisoners have. He's second in command of a prison stockade in the west during the Civil War. And the prisoners and their jailers are surrounded by hostile Mescalero Apaches.

One trick he's not up to is the charms of Confederate agent Eleanor Parker. Coincidentally enough she's a friend of Polly Bergen who is post commandant Carl Benton Reid's daughter and she's arrived for Bergen's wedding to young Lieutenant Richard Anderson. But she's also sweet on Confederate captain John Forsythe and she's there to spring him.

Just why Forsythe's services are so desperately needed by the Confederacy is not gone into. In any event I would think that the Confederacy would try for a mass escape like in The Great Escape before using an agent to affect the escape of one man and some of his selected companions.

And what companions. Two feuding enlisted men William Demarest and William Campbell and a sensitive young lieutenant in John Lupton who already failed at an escape himself. Not the guys I'd take along.

Nevertheless Escape from Fort Bravo boasts of some great scenic photography in Death Valley and a very exciting last stand battle with the escapees and Holden facing certain death at the hands of the Mescaleros.

Director John Sturges and all the players involved did films a lot better than Escape from Fort Bravo.


Pretty much run of the mill western displaying many of the same plot lines that have been rather beaten to death in the Western genre. Star William Holden gives a fairly mediocre performance for him in this one. Eleanor Parker, his female foil and romantic interest is very blase and dutifully unthespian like as the temptress who ultimately falls for the hero. The civil war theme is an important cinematic experience, but the film lacks a lot from a creative standpoint. The portrayal of the Indians as flat characters worthy of slaughter is never more obviously shown than here. The best part about the movie was probably the performance of old civil war veteran William Demarest who is very convincing in his crusty old sidekick backup role. The Cinematography was good, except for the fact that they chose for a location a real flat desert terrain with no vegetation whatsoever, so the good camera work is somewhat spoiled therein. I would give this picture about 4 stars (out of 10).


I saw this movie when I was 15 yrs. old and really loved it. It holds up pretty good after all those years. The always reliable William Holden elevates the film just by being in it as he did with so many other films. The story starts slow but the Indian attack climax is still as exciting as ever. This is a very nostalgic film to me and I waited a long time for the DVD. Unfortunately, the DVD was very disappointing. I'm not sure if it's the DVD transfer or the low budget Ansco Color they used in 1953 but it's very grainy in parts and blurry in others. I wish they'd have used black & white as the Ansco Color is also very washed out and the graininess and blurriness is very distracting. 8 stars for the movie and 3 stars for the DVD!


Slightly overrated in its day, this is still a solid western with good scenery (Death Valley?) and a striking Indian attack involving barrages of incoming arrows. However, the costumes for Eleanor Parker, who's just arrived by stagecoach, are laughable. She seems to have brought with her a warehouse of large, elaborate dresses with matching hats and accessories! William Holden has a bare-chest scene and, yes, there's a good thatch of hair on them thar pecs. This was his last "hairy" movie for awhile since in PICNIC, LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING, RIVER KWAI, etc. he went with the shaved-chest look.


Supposedly based on Sir Arthur's "Lost World", this film must have him spinning in his grave. The only resemblance are the character's names and the Amazon jungle setting. This lost world is best described as an episode of TV's 'Lost" as written by your local college frat house. The King, or giant ape of the title, is constantly referred to as he, or him, never by name. At one point Bruce Boxleitner asks who "he" is and one of the natives, who look like frat house refugees, replies "you can not speak his name." Obviously as doing so would have involved a lawsuit for copyright infringement. I should mention that for the entire duration of the film, all 75 minutes, the "King's" screen times amounts to approx. 2 minutes. The remaining 73 minutes are filled with endless babble from bad actors on how they are going to get out of the jungle. Additionally the SFX are on the same level as the acting. This movie needs to be permanently lost!


So a plane crashes on a "Lost World" type of island. The plane broke in half in midair, so the survivors set off in search of the fuselage and the radio so they can call for help. Along the way they encounter giant spiders, man-eating vines, Pterodactyls, a rather odd (and entertaining) tribe of natives, and even King Kong.

The special effects are pretty bad, especially King Kong, he's positively humorous. But this story is all about the characters, and it's pretty good in that area. Everyone plays it rather low key, you won't find your usual clichés nor your usual over-the-top imbeciles, but instead some folks that you can actually sort of care about and like. Their quest is also interesting, as they keep finding more and more planes that crashed on the island, which sets up a nice mystery, and then they're captured by the tribe of natives and we're pretty much in the B-movie fun zone after that.

Overall, a surprisingly watchable low-budget effort. Good characters and interesting plot, and some really sexy and likable babes. I give it two thumbs up.


King Of The Lost World, a perfect B-movie classic. Extremely close to King Kong, both original and remake, but seeing as they all inspired by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book Lost World I can see why. Bruce Boxleitner is cast perfectly, in that is he a bad guy or good guy role. Rhett Giles, is another who I really enjoyed in the movie, he definitely has leading man qualities,I look forward to see him in his upcoming TV show Lost Colony. King Of the Lost World is a great Suanday afternoon movie for those of us who love cheesy films. Giant apes and spiders, Scorpions afraid of a camera flash, and man eating vines, a great way to waste 2 hours.


If your going to produce a special effect movie, at least have the basics with which to carry it off. The Lost World was one of my favourite books as a child and previous translations to the big screen have been OK, at best. However although the acting was certainly acceptable, the budget for the effects must have been raised by a quick whip round of the stars and crew. awful doesn't even come close. The main creature (king Kong who wasn't featured in the original story anyway) looks like and moves like a glove puppet. Anyone over 7 who goes to see this is going to come away extremely disappointed.Bruce Boxleitner has appeared in many Sci-Fi TV series and movies and does his best to carry off this film but he is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid. With the technology thats available today for creating believable CGI effects, it inexcusable to release such a sub standard movies, especially when it seems to be released on the back of the New blockbuster "KING KONG". When low cost TV sci-fi's are being produced now, with quite acceptable visual effects, I fail to understand that those responsible for the graphic effects would deem this movie "Fit for human viewing"


To be quite honest I just got in to Asylum recently and have been lucky enough to interview the director of this movie, Leigh Scott. The first movie I saw was, "Beast of Bray Road" and I really enjoyed that. It was cheesy and fun. So when I saw that they had done a King Kong type movie that mixed with The Lost World I got excited.

This movie had some really cool CGI F/X and knowing that the budget for this flick must have been extremely well it was pulled together quite nice. Now the only thing I had a problem was not enough of the giant ape. If it had more of that and less of the survival story than maybe just maybe it would have been a bit better.

But other than that one little flaw I must say it was really well done. Which is funny cause I hate all these negative reviews I've been reading about their flicks. To tell you the truth I'd rather watch an Asylum tie in than one of the glossy pieces of crap thats been out lately. King Kong was a waste of 3 hours plus of my time. It dragged on way too much. This movie barely drags on and it kept my attention the whole way through.

And lastly the Asylum picks the hottest and best actors and actresses around. Good job, Asylum... combining talent with good looks. A feat thats sometimes not even easy to pull off in Hollywood. All in all I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys sitting back at home with your friends on a Friday night, eating popcorn, drinking beers, and having a good time. I know I'll be going to Blockbuster soon and renting some more. That, you can count on.


I actually went out of my way to find this movie because I love giant monster movies, especially King Kong related monsters.

The effects in this movie were so bad they were embarrassing.

It's amazing that there were better effects in 1933's King Kong compared to this...I take that back...there were better effects in 1903's The Great Train Robbery compared to this bomb.

It's tough to mess up a movie with giant monsters and decent looking girls...but whoever made this movie did accomplish this feat.

Anyone who is curious like I was about this film stay far away as possible. It is a total waste of your time.


I saw the cover. Obviously a cheep movie that is trying to make some money from the popularity of Peter Jackson's King Kong. Anyway - a huge gorilla in the lost world - cool! I knew it was going to be cheep, but I liked the idea. And the rating was still 5,8 so I thought it will be worth watching. I was wrong. Since it is the Lost World I expected some dinosaurs. Nope. Compared to this movie the TV series "The Lost World" look like a Hollywood blockbuster. No dinosaurs. Just a sloppy CGI giant spider, a couple of sloppy CGI giant scorpions, and a sloppy CGI giant gorilla, which you finally see for a couple of seconds at the end of the movie. I love B-movies, but not B-movies that pretend to be A-movies, if you know what I mean. If this movie was done intentionally stupid just for the fun if would be nice. Now it is just boring. And I guess a couple of days ago it had 5,8 rating because all the guys from the ending credits voted here.


Any movie coming out in 2005 and having King Kong in it (although unnamed and in a bit part) is going to suffer badly. Mind you this movie deserves to. Only loosely following the classic Conan Doyle story, and not a patch on the old 1925 silent classic (which incidentally cast Sir Arthur Conan Doyle playing himself) This movie is just far to bitty to be enjoyable, with many plot holes which will leave you asking questions. It also seems to suffer from being updated, maybe it would have been better to have set it in the period it was wrote in. One gains no sympathy whosoever for the cardboard cutout characters, and couldn't care less as they are killed off one by one. Even the end of King Kong, by nuclear weapon, is done somehow in an unspectacular manner!. All in all it leaves one feeling bored and deflated.


I can't say this is the worst movie I have ever seen, but it is definitely in the top 10. The premise of the story is sound enough, and that is what actually attracted me enough to rent this movie. Unfortunately, that is the only redeeming quality in this movie. The actors were given virtually nothing to work with, as the dialogue was absolutely horrible. Some of the lines sound as if they might have been penned by Ed Wood himself, until you consider that Woods' work at least had some naive charm about it. The acting was atrocious. Every single actor in this movie seemed to mail it in at the same time, and it was not all due to the poor writing. Finally, the CGI was extremely poorly done. There was no hint of realism at all with any of the computer work. The effects were cheap and lacked any sort of attention to detail, something the entire movie lacked as a whole. I have to be fair and say that like the previous reviewer, I only watched part of the movie. It turned out that the movie was dirty, and stopped playing after about 45 minutes. I decided it was not worth the time to clean the disc and try to find where it left off. My advice would be to miss this one completely. Don't waste your money renting it, and if it shows up on TV you can certainly find something better to watch.


A commercial airliner crashes in a remote Amazon jungle. The motley group of survivors find themselves in a strange and dangerous world populated by big deadly spiders, giant scorpions, winged reptiles, killer sentient vines, a lethal native tribe, and a fearsome towering ape. Director/co-writer Leigh Scott relates the absorbing premise at a steady, snappy pace, maintains an admirably serious tone throughout, and stages the thrilling action scenes with a reasonable amount of flair. Moreover, the sturdy cast all deliver solid and spirited performances: Bruce Boxleitner as the huffy, enigmatic Lt. Challenger, Rhett Giles as the stalwart, resourceful John Roxton, Jeff Denton as the likable, sensible Ed Malone, Sarah Lieving as plucky photographer Rita Summerlee, Christina Rosenberg as fidgety, foxy California babe Dana, Chriss Anglin as nasty native tribe leader Olo, Amanda Ward as pretty stewardess Natalie, Boni Yamagisawa as feisty native girl Tianka, and Thomas Downey as the jerky Reggie. Steve Railsback contributes an especially lively turn as the deranged Larry. Steve Parker's crisp cinematography and Ralph Rieckermann's robust, rousing score are both up to speed. Plus there's a decent smidgen of gore, a dab of tasty female nudity, and a welcome absence of both pretense and cheesy oneliners. Granted, the CGI creatures are really tacky and unconvincing, but that criticism aside this flick overall sizes up as one hell of an enjoyable romp.


Having just watched the new large screen Peter Jackson remake of King Kong at the theater this past Friday, I was not surprised to find a giant gorilla movie on the shelf at Blockbuster on Saturday. It looked sort of cheesy based on the cover art, which featured a giant gorilla and the word KING in large letters. I stupidly assumed this movie would be centered on a giant gorilla who was the king of his so-called Lost World.

I was quite surprised that this movie was released in 2005; I would have assumed that it had been produced in the early 1990s and shown on the SCI-FI channel after midnight for the last 15 years. "King of the Lost World" is distributed by a company called "The Asylum".

A plane crashes in a remote jungle, presumably in South America, although I'm not sure it was stated as such. There are several survivors despite a large explosion complete with a near mushroom cloud sized fireball. Sadly, the front end of the plane is missing.

Almost immediately we see a woman still strapped in her seat on a piece of wreckage who has just awakened following the crash. Suddenly a giant ape rips her into the air and carries her off. This is sort of where I see the whole "King Kong" aspect of the movie but the part about the girl falling in love with the savage beast never materialized. In fact, I lost track of this woman all together.

Over time, many planes have crashed in the area and the survivors have become some kind of primitive tribe who feed some of the crash victims to flying dragon like monsters as a ritual sacrifice, trying to placate the flying beats? The tribe may be fearful of the flying dragons but they have a much greater fear of the giant gorilla who "brings death" to them. Of course, they can't speak his name. How do they know his name? Who named him? I didn't see any native folks running around in this Amazon jungle, only freaky crash survivors who sit around painting themselves up in war paint and smoking cigars.

After hiking all day these poor LOST survivors (their numbers thinned somewhat) sit down to rest in a cave or something. A girl asks a guy "Want a peanut?" He replies "Peanuts? No. No peanuts. If I never see another bag of god damned gyp joint airline peanuts in my life. My miserable f-king life I'll be just fine. Keep your f-king peanuts." Did I mention the part about how this woman gets a small scratch on her leg at the beginning of the movie? This guy who is horn-dogging on the arguably good looking photographer notices it (he later gets killed by a giant scorpion in a cave when the scorpion puts it's stinger through his chest cavity). The woman blows it off as 'just a scratch'. The next morning it is a wide open, six inch long gash on the front of her lower leg. One of the other women in the group takes a look at it and says "She's infected!" which came out sounding like she had been bitten by a zombie from Dawn of the Dead and would soon be eating the meager brains out of the remaining survivors.

For a stranded person with zero medical resources the easiest fix for a massively infected leg wound is simple -- you simply pack fly larva into the wound in what we call a "Maggot Bandage." The maggots will eat the dead flesh and apparently cure infections. So this enterprising fellow lifts a couple nearby rocks and finds a bunch of squirmy bugs (definitely not maggots) which is proceeds to drop into the wound, complete with a handful of dirt. This is all wrapped tight with a strip of cloth from one of the other survivor's skirts.

For the next half a day in the movie the girl is deathly ill. They make a great show about how they are carrying her all around the jungle. Then, suddenly, they stop because someone spots a plane crashed in the jungle (there are a surprisingly large number of nearly intact planes laying around) and they set the woman down on a rock where she sits for a moment. The next thing you know she's up and running as if nothing ever happened and no further discussion or observation of her wound is necessary.

The very cute, but amazingly stupid, woman in the torn stewardess uniform is the first one to break through the trees and spot the nearby plane. She shouts for everyone to come because she found their plane! At any rate, the plane this woman spotted looked like a fully intact fighter jet not just a cockpit section of a large airliner. The stewardess was very disappointed when it was pointed out that it wasn't their plane, after all. How the hell could she be that stupid? She can't tell the difference between a 727 and a fighter jet? Let's forget that they left their half of a broken plane two days back on the other side of a mountain and that they were searching for the broken off cockpit section OF A HUGE AIRLINER.

In another scene a woman gets her shirt ripped open and another woman is caressing her breasts and licking her face. While this scene was interesting it didn't contribute to the story line. I suppose it was inserted at a strategic point in the film to grab the viewer's attention just when they were planning to hit the eject button.

This movie was full of exceptionally bad script writing, wooden acting, and cheesy not-so-special effects. There really isn't anything I can tell you about this movie that would make you want to see it. In fact, I would urge you NOT to rent this film.


There has never been a proper film adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyal's 'The Lost World' and it looks like there never will be. All have them have been low budget TV or straight to DVD movies. The most credible was the 2001 BBC version. So where do I begin with this little beauty? The acting? You can guess. It was cheesy and B movie'ish' which is exactly what you expect. Its almost like the film makers insist on bad acting to live up to the expectations of people who watch movies like this.

I don't understand people who insist on loads of deaths. Why? The original 'Lost World' didn't have any deaths. But this one is rich in death. Characters are killed off left and right in ludicrous pointless ways. Some characters have so little screen time that when their time comes you are baffled because you have no idea who they are or what the hell they were doing to warrant such a killing. Listening to this is gonna cause your ears to vomit. The music is this horrible constant drone that feels like a sledge hammer headache. There is no accuse for such poor special effects. The monsters look like cartoons and bad cartoons at that. Kong is just bad enough to be funny he looks like something a four or five year old might draw only it would be better. So after reading all this and you still want to watch it go ahead but prepare to be disappointed to the max.


I gave this film a 3 / 10 because at least it was in focus, lit, audible and none of the actors stared at the camera or off-camera people. So technically, at least, it was of acceptable quality.

As for plot, character interaction/development, dialog and so on, it was mostly sewn-together cloth of movie clichés. As these shortcuts and symbols get relied on more and more our movies will become more and more stylized and incomprehensible to those not familiar with the language, like Opera or Japanese Kabuki and Noh theater.

One of the newer and more annoying such idiocies is the "safe line." The explosion at the end is "limited extent -- 300 yards" says the Challenger character, and it's true: once our heroes have run 305 yards away, they can safely stop, turn and witness the event completely unharmed. Everything within a 300 yard radius in all directions (including up and down) is completely and utterly destroyed, yet the survivors can stand a few inches farther away and suffer no blast effects, no radiation effects at all. They don't shade their eyes from the light and heat and don't hold their ears to shield them from the noise.

I have been seeing this kind of thing in more and more movies lately and I want it to stop, do you hear me? Stop it! Right now! (pant, pant, gasp)

I feel better now....


I won't even try to say anything nice about this horror of a flick, except that some of the chicks were attractive and sparsely attired. (Do women really fly dressed like that?) It pretends to be some kind of blend of Conan Doyle's "Lost World" and "King Kong" but misses by parsecs on both counts. Oh, and lest we forget, the location is kind of a jungle-centered Bermuda Triangle, where airplanes have been crashing for years.

We have an ultra-fake giant gorilla; a few frames of a huge, but unarticulated, spider; some giant scorpions that are camera-shy (joke); and a bunch of flying dragon-like reptiles (maybe meant to be pterosaurs) that attack the gorilla like gnats, or maybe wasps. Then there are the indigenous peoples, whose facial makeup -- at least on the boss -- is extraordinary. Anyway, are they really indigenous, or just left-over from previous crashes since they speak English as well as their native tongue? These natives sacrifice the crash survivors (of which there seem to be many more in movies and TV than in real life -- oh, I guess that's why they call it fiction) to the flying beasties because their presence keeps "him" (pseudo-Kong) away. Why this quits working, as at the end of the movie, wasn't at all clear.

The best character, and seemingly the castaways' leader, played by the competent Aussie, Rhett Giles, suddenly gets killed off by the by the fake scorpions, mid-flick. My guess is they could only afford to pay him for half the movie.

The name player, Bruce Boxleitner, clearly has more name than talent. I can't believe this guy had the chutzpah to think he should have been selected to play 007 rather than Pierce Brosnan. He is along to defuse a nuke, lost in a previous crash, which has a 300 (foot, yard, meter? I forget) blast radius, and, apparently, produces no radiation. Why bother? Actually, that would make a good tag-line for the whole movie: Why Bother?


The first thing I always tell myself before I watch a low-budget Sci-Fi film is: "be prepared: it's bound to be bad to at least some noticeable degree." Occasionally, there's a film that passes by that is decent enough to be watchable and those films get my praise for their results on such a low budget. However, very few of them get to that level. Most of them are what they are: bad films. And "King of the Lost World" is about as bad as they get.

The film is said to be based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel "The Lost World". I personally have never read it, but based on the previous film adaptations of the story, I can assume that it is nothing like the novel. Pretty much there are only two possible similarities that I see from them. One: a lost world with monsters. Two: the names of some of the characters. Speaking of the characters, they are about as bland and irritating as ever. They are just what I expected, or worse. There's the tough guy wanting to be a leader, his assistant who will take over some point during the film, girls who are just there to scream and be love interests for our leading characters, and characters that are just simply annoying to the other characters and even more so annoying to the audience. The new plot is very dull and it just takes odd twists and turns and adds unnecessary and extremely underdeveloped subplots that lead up to keys in the climax. A climax which we don't really care about.

Special effects on the film are even worse that I expected. The CGI graphics used in "King of the Lost World" are absolutely horrendous. We see giant insects and other creatures that look so incredibly cheap, they aren't even laughable. And the way they are incorporated in with the sound effects and the action is inexcusable. I remember this one sequence where Bruce Boxleitner's character shoots his gun at a giant scorpion or something like that. We hear a gunshot that is so quiet it's like a dull thump, and then the scorpion just simply whips away from sight, so quickly it almost just disappears. Other graphics are so horrible they seem to be blurry. That mostly revolves around the so-called "King" of this Lost World, who I assume is the giant gorilla whom we see next to nothing of for a long time. Good thing, too. Because the graphics used on the giant ape made it almost difficult to see what it was. And that's not all that was blurry. Scenes of our bland human characters and oftentimes in scenes so dark that the camera doesn't even focus very well. It's almost as if somebody filmed it in their back yard using a cheap camcorder.

Is there anything positive about "King of the Lost World"? Yes. A few things. It had good set designs and a fairly good music score. But that's just about it. Overall, it was just a very bland and mind-numbingly boring excuse for an adventure story. And it's not a patch on the original 1925 version of "The Lost World" or the so-so 1960 version.

Bottom line: don't bother with it. You can find better even on a long, dark rainy day.


I'm a big sci-fi fan who has a bad habit of sitting through just about any sci-fi movie once. This one was another in long line of those movies I should stop after the first five minutes. This movie is beyond terrible it's so bad. The acting and I use that term very lightly is downright awful. This is one of the worst scripts I've ever seen and this is very lame attempt to cash in on King Kong. The big sorry looking poor CGI ape in this movie is pathetic. You also see all of about two sorry minutes of him. This is trash and Sci-fi channel is really scrapping the bottom of barrel showing this crap. I loved the old big white movie far better then this crap. I can't believe someone got money to make this and I'm shocked Bruce Boxleitner is so hard up cash he take this sorry role.


Where to begin on this pile of dog plop? The DVD cover, that's a good spot. The DVD cover has a picture of a giant ape, an ancient temple and three big helicopters. One, the ape looks nothing like the DVD cover and there is no sign of the Helicopters or the ancient temple. So right off the bat the movie lies to us, lie number two. The DVD box claims that this movie and King Kong was based on the lost world. There were no big monkeys in the Lost World. Now that we are done exposing the lies of the box let's move on to the movie itself. The CG is a joke, the story doesn't make any sense. If they were over South America, how did they get on an island? Bruce Boxleitner played a Government agent looking for a downed military plane with a nuke in it. Once they find it, what does he call in PLANES! When he knows full well from his own experience that planes don't work there. That was just stupid. SPOILER WARNING, Bruce Boxleitner blows up the nuke killing the big monkey. Leaving two people trapped there with no hope of rescue. It's stupid, it's deceitful, it's just a waste of your time. But the one I truly feel sorry for is Bruce Boxleitner. He's better this this pile of puke. Bruce, what the hell were you thinking? THE NOOSE!