I still like this film. It has some grievous over-acting by Garbo as a ballerina on the skids. But the film works for all that. Grushinskaya has passed her prime as a ballerina, and her world weariness masks her awareness that her days of international greatness are over. She has nothing to look forward to - in fact her position is not that different from Anne Bancroft in THE TURNING POINT, who can teach ballet, but has no family life to comfort her like her old friend/rival Shirley MacLaine does.

She momentarily does get a shot for happiness in retirement: she meets Baron Geiger (John Barrymore) and finds he would be able to satisfy her. And he finds she would be fine for him. But his problem is he is broke, and owes his criminal partners for the money that set him up in this great hotel in Berlin. He has to pay them back - he was going to steal Grushinskaya's jewels, but he won't do that now.

GRAND HOTEL is like that, every time you watch it. It was written in the aftermath of World War I, and keeping that in mind you see the fractured bodies and lives that are colliding in the hotel. Lewis Stone, for example, is the man who makes the famous statement about "nothing ever happens" at the conclusion of the film. His Doctor Otternschlag is the hotel doctor, and is not very observant (by the time he makes the comment a murder has occurred in the hotel, and he is unaware of it). His face is scarred by a gas attack in the war. The war has probably made the doctor relatively quiet - and seeking quiet as much as possible. Hence his blindness. Wallace Beery is Preysling the textile manufacturer who is there for a big business conference and is facing bankruptcy - as was all of Germany (which had terrible inflation in 1923, due to war reparation and debt). Geiger's Pre-war cushion of wealth and position were swept away with the Hohenzollern dynasty in 1918. He was unlucky enough to survive his world, and most of his friends. And the small fry in the film: Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore) and Flaemchen (Joan Crawford) find their futures in considerable doubt too. Lionel is dying (we are never quite sure of what, but it sounds like it's industrial related - he works for Preysling's firm), and Crawford is aware that secretaries are a dime a dozen and needs to better herself - even if it means sleeping with the likes of Preysling. One can also add Senf (Jean Hersholt) who has to stay at his hotel job, while his wife is facing a dangerous childbirth which is worrying him to death.

The collisions between the characters is fascinating too, as the Pre-war standards of social class is up in the air now. Preysling is aware of his feet of clay but he is still known as a big textile manufacturer to the public. So he is not deeply impressed by John Barrymore's Baron, but every time they confront each other, the Baron's superior breeding outshines Preysling's pompous bluster. Kringelein too is confronted by Preysling who thinks the bookkeeper's appearance at that expensive hostelry suggests embezzlement. Kringelein not only shows that he is not in a position to be threatened by police or discharge, but adds that Preysling's blunders are such as to have merited being fired if he hadn't been boss. Preysling does make a kind of headway with Flaemchen but it is only on a cash basis - she really is far friendlier to the Baron and Kringelein.

GRAND HOTEL had been a major Broadway stage success when it was acquired by MGM. Preysling was originally played by Siegfried Ruman (later Sig Ruman) and the Baron by Albert Van Dekker (later Albert Dekker). Neither ended up in the MGM production, though both had distinguished film careers later on. The producer of the film was Paul Bern, who would be found dead in his home in 1932 just before the final cut was made on the movie. This is not the spot to analyze whether Bern was a suicide (officially he was) or was murdered by his wife (Jean Harlow) or some other person (a previous wife who killed herself a day or so afterward), but it led to Bern's friend and mentor Irving Thalberg completing the film as producer. Neither man's name is on the credits. However, Bern's hand is on the film - including the casting. He would have been facing a great producing career if he had lived.

The most notable thing about the leads is that (except for Garbo's Swedish accent - here as a Russian ballerina) only Beery tries a German accent. It comes and goes, unfortunately, but Beery's lost bull in the china shop performance is good enough not to be harmed by it. Preysling is a weak man, who married the boss's daughter to get ahead but lacked the brains to keep the firm going. In the end he has to lie to try to survive his conference with rival Tully Marshall. Unfortunately he cannot control his passions and anger.

It is said on this thread that Buster Keaton was supposed to play Kringelien. Presumably his alcoholism prevented it. But Lionel Barrymore gives a good accounting as the dying man. Yet Buster actually liked the idea. He tried to create interest in a comedy to star himself, Edward Everett Horton, and Marie Dressler called GRAND MILLS HOTEL, set in the "infamous" flop house in Manhattan. The same blending of the film's plots would have occurred. It never got beyond the drawing board. Laurel & Hardy would have been in the Tully Marshall and Wallace Beery roles, as button manufacturers who are trying to make a contract. Pity, it might have been a good comedy.


What was a great movie in 1932 is still a good movie in 1999. In the Grandest Hotel of them all as "People come, people go. (but) Nothing ever happens." This is a story of a day at the hotel. Nothing out of the ordinary occurs, except lots of drinking, gambling, a love triangle, .... This film is one of the last big-budget "studio" Hollywood movies from its era (20's-30's) and is frequently studied for both this aspect and its photographic techniques (like the revolving doorway). The two hours is well worth it. Lionel Barrymore's performance is also really memorable.


Along a couple of days in Berlin of the 30s, the lives of some guests are connected in the fancy Grand Hotel. Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo) is a dancer in crisis who falls in love for Baron Felix Von Geigern (John Barrymore, the grandfather of the sweet Drew Barrymore). The Baron is a bankrupted noble, a very gentle and refined person, but indeed a thief of hotel rooms. Preysing (Wallace Beery) is a tough businessman, dealing in Berlin an important contract. Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford) is officially an stenographer and also an expensive 'working girl', making programs with her clients. Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore) is a sick man who had worked most of his life as an accountant in one of the Preysing's company. During these days, one of these characters is murdered by another one. In the end, Grand Hotel is a place where people come, go, and nothing ever happens, in accordance with the definition of one character. Yesterday I saw this movie for the first time. The first point that called my attention was the constellation of the stars sharing lead roles: none of the previously mentioned character has less importance in the story. The long shots, with lots of figurants in the lobby of Grand Hotel, are very impressive. The beauty of Greta Garbo, who has a very theatrical performance, and Joan Crawford are amazing, even for the present standards. Unfortunately the quality of the image and sound of the Brazilian VHS is horrible. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'Grand Hotel'


Edmund Goulding's Grand Hotel is a perfect example of how a flawed film can still be great because of its blemishes, and not in spite of them. Winner of the Best Picture Academy Award of 1933 (but not even nominated in any other category), it is an indisputable classic that stands apart as one of the finest (and most timeless) motion pictures of the 30's -- which was a terrific decade for the cinema. The story structure was essentially unprecedented -- with the exception of that same year's Freaks, which was unprecedented in practically every way possible -- in that it featured multiple characters with independent relationships and intertwining narratives (in other words, it laid the groundwork for every Robert Altman film ever made -- Gosford Park in particular). Greta Garbo plays a dancer staying at a hotel along with a thief disguised as a baron (John Barrymore), a young and beautiful stenographer (Joan Crawford), a stern businessman (Wallace Beery), a fidgety social outcast trying to enjoy what's left of his life (Lionel Barrymore), and a mysterious doctor (Lewis Stone). The mysticism and coincidence of multiple people dealing with secret issues in the same location remains one of the most compelling and intriguing film techniques out there (see Todd Solondz's Happiness and P.T. Anderson's Magnolia), and it was certainly more compelling than most of what was being produced by Hollywood at the time (in spite of the fact that this WAS a great time for film, most pictures relied on very conventional and often contrived styles to achieve their popularity). So to think that the Academy once recognized such offbeat masterpieces makes you wonder what happened to them over the past few years. Even after 70+ years, Grand Hotel remains just as brilliant and fascinating as it was to begin with -- if not more: each character is as dynamic and enthralling as the next, and each frame is filled with surprises and idiosyncrasies. Perhaps Pauline Kael put it best when she wrote, "If you want to see what screen glamour used to be, and what originally 'stars' were, this is perhaps the best example of all time." Indeed, the stars in Grand Hotel are true stars, the foremost being Garbo: while often cited as one of the great actresses, few seem to recall how mesmerizing Garbo truly was. She hardly ever appeared to be acting, yet every gesture she made and every word she spoke was magnificently overdone -- as would have been necessary during her silent roles. And even though her beauty is far from conventional, it is truly undeniable. When first released, Crawford was notoriously frustrated that Garbo received top billing (she was rumored to have always arrived late on the set, playing Marlene Dietrich records in between cuts just because she knew they were Garbo's pet peeves), but to me this only enhances the characters: Crawford's role is supposed to be more subdued (afterall, she IS the stenographer and Garbo IS the celebrity in the film). Perhaps the most impressive performance of all is Lionel Barrymore's: as a bumbling, overly anxious everyman who has been ignored his entire life, he is completely and utterly heart-breaking; there is not a single moment when he isn't in character (and the same goes for the rest of the cast). His real-life brother John Barrymore is equally outstanding, providing a suave counterpart to Lionel's subtle melancholy. Goulding's direction is nothing short of spectacular: his innovative use of close-ups and repeated set-ups is something to be admired -- especially at a time when there was no precedent for these methods. The script (which was originally a play) is filled with both wit and insight (yet no Oscar nod?). Earlier in this review I made mention of the film's supposed flaws, and Grand Hotel is indeed far from perfect; many of the cuts are rough and uneven, and some of the plot developments come off as sudden and unbelievable, but the film is only better for it. Its faults give it an edge that would have otherwise been replaced by an overly polished look which wouldn't be nearly as compelling. All in all, Grand Hotel is an absolute masterpiece, plain and simple. Watch it and be amazed.

Grade: A+

(#88 on my All-Time Top 100 list. Visit http://imdb.com/board/bd0000002/thread/6917771 to view the entire list)


Published in 1921, Vicki Baum's German-language novel MENSCHEN IM HOTEL was an international bestseller. MGM purchased the rights and employed William A. Drake to adapt the novel to the stage. Titled GRAND HOTEL, it proved a great success on the Broadway stage, and with its fame as both novel and play the studio made the property the focus of its powerful array of contract talent. It was smash with both critics and audiences and won the Academy Award as Best Picture of 1932.

Although the 1930s was notable for social dramas, audiences of the Great Depression wanted an escape from the hardship of their lives, and no expense was spared to create the glittering and very high-gloss image moviegoers craved. Designed by legendary art director Cedric Gibbons, who mixed Deco and Moderne styles to tremendous effect, each set was built specifically for the film and no detail was overlooked; Adrian's costumes were also meticulous in their combination of high-fashion and romance. No detail was overlooked, and in terms of production values alone few films before or after have bested GRAND HOTEL.

But if GRAND HOTEL is distinctly of its era in terms of visual style, it is also distinctly of its era in terms of performance, and it is here that we run into a bit of trouble. Most actors of the silent era relied on a mannered performance style that compensated for the lack of sound. The arrival of sound forced them to invent a new performance style, and some proved more adaptable than others. In many respects, GRAND HOTEL is a study of the struggle to invent this new way of acting; some of the performers are excessively large, some are in transition between silent and sound modes, and some are distinctly modern in their approach.

In terms of story, GRAND HOTEL presents several overlapping and interweaving plot lines. Celebrated ballerina Grusinskaya (Garbo) is performing in Berlin--and is a deep depression that threatens her career. Baron von Geigern (John Barrymore) is in desperate need of money--and has agreed to steal Grusinskaya's famous pearls. When Grusinskaya's suicide attempt collides with the Baron's intended theft, romance is result. At the same time, industrialist Preysing (Wallace Beery) has arrived at the hotel in an effort to conclude a important business deal and has hired a stenographer named Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford) to assist him--but Preysing is unaware that company accountant Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore) has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and has taken rooms at the hotel, determined to enjoy himself before he dies. These characters, along with Grusinskaya's maid (Rafaela Ottiano), the hotel doctor (Lewis Stone), and various hotel employees (including Jean Hersholt) collide repeatedly over the course of a few days--and none will emerge entirely unscathed from their encounters.

John Barrymore was noted for his larger-than-life performances on the stage, and he brought that same quality to many silent films; less fortunately, he also carried into the sound era, and his performance reads as excessively large. Although Garbo was a great star in the silent era, she quickly adapted to the new demands of sound in such films as ANNA Christie--but when faced with Barrymore's over-the-top performance she responds in kind, and the result is visually beautifully but incredibly mannered, and their scenes are not greatly aided by their dialogue, which is itself very much in "the grand manner." Although they are indeed fascinating, their performances are distinctly out of synch with the rest of the film, where a more natural style of acting is the norm.

While Wallace Beery and Lewis Stone are quite good, and while Lionel Barrymore is unexpectedly effective (and much less mannered than his brother John), it is really Joan Crawford that points the way toward the new acting style. Crawford herself had worked in silents, and scored notable successes in such films as OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, but she has made an easy leap to the sound era and never overplays her hand; Flaemmchen is among the best of her early performances, and Crawford herself thought it among the best of her overall career. She wasn't wrong.

With the acting styles all over the map, GRAND HOTEL requires a modern viewer to make constant mental shifts; consequently, the film sometimes feels more than a little uphill. Even so, there are plenty of compensations: Garbo at the height of her beauty; Lionel Barrymore's multi-layered performance; a Crawford classic; and always, always the lush look and feel of the movie. Although I think it will most appeal to film buffs, there is no denying the thing has power, even though that power has become somewhat obscured by the passing years.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


The only production of "Grand Hotel" I've ever seen that actually worked (that, in fact, was deeply moving) was the Broadway musical from the early '90s. Of course, it didn't do so well, being head and shoulders above both the original play and this "all-star" M-G-M romp.

There is a reason why this is the only film to win "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards -- and nothing else.

"If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage," actors have maintained since, oh, Euripides.

Here, what's on the page is cliché after cliché -- pretentious conceits that were already old and tired by 1932.

What's fascinating is certainly not Goulding's hackneyed direction, but the various actors' more or less successful attempts to breathe real life into cardboard roles.

At the top of that list is Lionel Barrymore. In retrospect, and considering his entire filmic career, he was a far more versatile and better actor than John. One always gets a vivid character, and not Lionel Barrymore "playing" one. (Watch him in "You Can't Take It With You," for instance, when he had to work on crutches because of his advancing arthritis. Amazing.)

Next, Joan Crawford. Third-billed, and even with added Garbo scenes to keep Crawford from walking off with "Grand Hotel," she still does.

Crawford and Lionel Barrymore not only make their clichéd lines and characters wholly believable, they literally walk off into the sunrise together at the end, as clichés often do.

Wallace Beery is wonderful and dimensional and even heart-breaking as Preysing. (He apparently only accepted the role because he was promised he would be the single star with a German accent.)

John Barrymore, next, does the best he can playing a Baron who wears more eye shadow than Garbo. Oh, wait: Barrymore ALWAYS wore more eye shadow than his leading ladies. Whether a carryover from his theatrical makeups during his stage career, or a misguided attempt to give his puffy alcoholic's face some screen definition, it's hard to say. What's easy to say is that he's occasionally effective here, and affecting; but mostly self-conscious. "Why is that man wearing all that eye-shadow?" leads to an awareness that one can almost count, beat by beat, his stagy timing of even so simple a gesture as gently chucking Crawford's chin, or his vain attempt to make a mediocre script sound like iambic pentameter. In "Bill of Divorcement," with Katherine Hepburn, in this same year, he still wears more eye shadow than she, and is still given to the odd sing-song stage (as opposed to film) line reading. But he's much better. Then again, so is that play.

Then there's Garbo. Truly, a stunning film actress, an immortal phenomenon (and, as always, photographed by the brilliant William Daniels, breathtakingly beautiful). But please, out of courtesy to her talent and legend, don't compare her performance here with any of her others ("Camille," say, or "Ninotchka" or "Anna Karenina"). Director Goulding allowed her favorite mannerisms to get the best of her: the constantly dancing eyebrows in closeups, the tilt-back of the head to gaze soulfully at ceilings (were cue-cards pasted up there?).

Lewis Stone gets nothing to do but embody a one-man Greek Chorus, over and over, about (to paraphrase): "People come and go. But nothing ever happens in the Grand Hotel."

Adrian's costumes and Cedric Gibbons' art direction provide as much drama and character as the script. Possibly more: one finds oneself admiring the detailing in a hotel room door, or the sweep of a "moderne" upholstered chair in Lionel Barrymore's suite during his ecstatically played (and largely silent) drunk scene, at the expense of what's happening between the predictable characters.

Watchable? Certainly. A revelation? Yes, when Crawford and Lionel Barrymore are on screen. Great? No. It's a pretentious novel turned into a pretentious play turned into a pretentious film -- pretending to be profound, timeless and enduring.

Instead of the Grand Cliché that it is.


A hotel is merely a transit station. People come, people go. Guests partake in dinner, dancing and gambling; occasionally, something more dramatic unfolds  a man and woman fall in love, a heart is broken, a person is murdered. Then the guests leave, and new customers take their place, oblivious to the events that unfolded just the previous day. The slate is wiped clean; the hotel has a short memory. As Dr Otternschlag (Lewis Stone) knowingly muses, "Grand Hotel always the same. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens." Edmund Goulding's Oscar-winning 'Grand Hotel (1932)' is a mere snapshot of several days in the life of Berlin's finest rest-stop, in which lives are changed forever, and yet the guests' full stories can never be known. An astonishing cast  Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Wallace Beery, Jean Hersholt  introduced a new style of storytelling, with ensemble casts of unrelated characters whose lives inexplicably interweave. A slew of imitations followed in the early 1930s, and author Graham Greene was inspired to write his first successful novel, "Stamboul Train."

In 1932, the United States was still in the midst of the Great Depression, but Hollywood was optimistic. Producers knew that audiences flocked to cinemas precisely to escape their own worrisome lives, to temporarily imagine themselves beside their favourite movie stars in glittering surroundings. Films like 'Grand Hotel (1932)' and 'Top Hat (1935)' delivered on this promise, with extravagant hotel rooms and wealthy businessmen flaunting their wealth. The dreams of the working-class are depicted through Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore), an unremarkable clerk whose impending death prompts him to splurge his savings and enjoy his final weeks. The cycle of life is used allegorically to symbolise the circular narrative of life at a hotel. While hotel porter Senf (Jean Hersholt) awaits news of his child's birth, a guest awaits his own death. By the film's end, one man is dead, and a baby is born. Other characters are abandoned before their stories have reached a satisfactory conclusion, mimicking the continuous nature of life itself.

The film's cast is occasionally hampered by an acting style left over from the silent era, but is otherwise excellent. John Barrymore is suave and charming as a good-hearted pearl thief, and brother Lionel is even better, offering a poignant portrait of a dying man who finally understands what living life is all about. Joan Crawford and Wallace Beery provide able support, but aren't quite as memorable as their co-stars. 'Grand Hotel' was my first film to feature actress Greta Garbo, and for a few minutes I was left wondering exactly why she is held in such high regard. Where was the subtlety in her performance? Then she smiled, and it was like the sun had risen on a new day. Perhaps Garbo hadn't yet moved on from the silent era, communicating her emotions with thick brush-strokes, but when your face can so dazzlingly light up the movie screen, there's no hurry. A modern remake of 'Grand Hotel' would be difficult. The film's impact rests largely on the glamour and reputations of its main stars, and I think it's safe to say that today's Hollywood doesn't create "stars" like it did in the 1930s.


MINOR PLOT SPOILERS This is set in Berlin in a beautiful, luxurious hotel. Among the tenants--there's Greta Garbo as Grusinskaya--she's a fading ballerina who is miserable and "vants to be alone; John Barrymore plays the penniless Baron who falls in love with her; Lionel Barrymore plays a man who's dying of an incurable disease--but wants to go out enjoying himself; Wallace Berry plays a ruthless industrial man and Joan Crawford plays a stenographer he hires.

This was obviously a BIG production. The sets are elaborate, everything looks perfect and this was the first film with an all star cast. The script is sharp and the direction moves the story along. Garbo and Crawford are just superb--they're so young and full of life! They play their roles to perfection.

But there is one big problem here--the male actors. To put it kindly they're pretty bad. John Barrymore looks like he's a million miles away; his brother Lionel overacts to an embarrassing degree (and gets very annoying) and Berry chews the scenery. They weaken what could have been a great movie. As it stands I can only give it an 8--but it's still well worth seeing. It won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1932.


How wonderful, how divine, how engrossing..........it's the Grand Hotel where "nothing ever happens", according to Lewis Stone's character. This is one of those films that must be watched repeatedly to savor the glamour and nuances of the performances of the star-studded cast. Let's talk about the cast. GARBO: Many think she went over-the-top with her performance of the ballerina who doubts her own talent and star power. Instead I find it exactly right. She is playing an artist given to flights of fancy and eccentricity (she'd be called a diva today). Watch her as she plays her scenes with John Barrymore......she is besotted with him after their night together. It's perfect JOHN BARRYMORE: The troubled star gives it his all as the suave, desperate but basically decent Baron. He hits just the right note in his performance and it was to be his next to last great performance. JOAN CRAWFORD: "WOW" might be the word for her playing of the slightly dishonorable stenographer. I think this may be one of her greatest roles before she went on the likes of "Mildred Pierce" and her other roles of suffering women. LIONEL BARRYMORE: His character (but not his acting) is the one I like least because he is constantly cringing and apologizing; however,based on the type of role it is, he is right on the money. His scenes with his brother are extremely well done. WALLACE BEERY: Nobody could have done the blustering, egocentric magnate better than Beery. He spent a lot of his career in more comedic roles and here he shows that he can actually act.

Lewia Stone, as the disfigured doctor who is always waiting for a message (what kind of message is never made clear) is good in support as is Jean Hersholt, the head porter.

Yes, it's dated, maybe some of the dialogue is considered corny, and the performances are of the time..........and it is magnificent. Check into the Grand Hotel. You won't want to check out.


Grand Hotel is a movie about how people's lives intertwined in there brief stay in a HOTEL- in this case THE GRAND HOTEL.

Well in the beginning of the movie the Doctor guy says- "Grand Hotel! People come and go" Well that is just the way the movie is. The entire movie is filmed inside the HOTEL. The story Not for once goes outside the hotel.

And well what happens outside the hotel is all left for our imaginations.

The STORY of the movie was superb. I loved it. It was SAD, True, Funny and Involving.

Well there are all kinds of characters. The Character's Story Before they came into the GRAND Hotel is never explained. Which is another Superb thing about this EXCELLENT FILM.

The Story involving so many people and the way there lives intertwined is REALLY WELL EXECUTED. And well there have been many movies after the year 2000 that have stories involving many people- with their own stories.

Well I must say the performances are all GREAT. Especially by JOAN CRAWFORD and Lionel Barrymore. The characters they portray just stole my heart. Too sad that in 1932 there wasn't any SUPPORTING ACTOR or ACTRESS AWARD. If there was than I bet Lionel and Crawford would have won EASILY.

All in all, this is a PHENOMENAL Oscar winning movie. And it is also one of the MOST important movies in the History of CINEMA.

10/10 I loved it and Enjoyed it!


At Grand Hotel "they come and they go" utters the house doctor played by Lewis Stone. Indeed the lobby of the opulent Berlin hotel is like the world in microcosm as travelers from all over hurry through its busy foyer. A series of their stories are intertwined in which romance, suspense, tragedy await.

Over the years many films of this type (Dinner at Eight,Separate Tables, Ship of Fools, Airport,)have been produced with varying degrees of success. None have ever equaled Grand Hotel much to the credit of director William Goulding who managed to evenly distribute roles and get fine performances with a cast of the era's mega stars without having them bump into or upstage each other.

Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Lionel Barrymore and Wallace Beery all deliver classic representations of what made them stars of that period. The pace of the film moves briskly and never slows as one major star replaces another in scene after scene. The overall story itself edits well into each segment due to the well defined connections between the characters.

Naturally the scenery and set design are plush and Goulding presents it well with controlled, unobtrusive camera work. But it is the stars as a group glowing brighter than ever in a time to quote Norma Desmond when pictures were still big, the players larger than life. The physiognomy and chemistry of icons Garbo and Barrymore, Crawford before she hardened, as the working class hero, Beery at his surly best and Lionel Barrymore as the pathetic retiree stealing every scene he is in.

Grand Hotel still holds up today with its story line and performances but it is also an excellent example of a period that was about to come to an end (1932). For just outside the door's of this four star hotel National Socialists were in the streets unwittingly plotting to end everything grand about the city of Berlin.


According to Dr. Otternschlag; People come, people go. Nothing ever happens. The good old doctor couldn't be more wrong. Lots of things are happening in Grand Hotel when several different persons with different motivations check into the hotel.

The movie follows several different characters in the movie who all in a way get connected to each other. All of the characters are in the hotel for different reasons. It makes the characters very powerful and interesting to follow. The movie might not be as old fashioned as it might seem at first sight. The movie might be made in 1932 but the story and its characters sure don't feel old fashioned and the movie doesn't fall into some typical genre clichés. The movie is unique in many ways, which makes this movie a very enjoyable one to watch, even for those who normally don't watch early cinematic pictures.

The movie has a wonderful cast. John Barrymore is good and convincing as the thief with a good heart, Baron Felix von Geigern. Greta Garbo shines as always and so does Joan Crawford, whose performance is perhaps a bit underrated. Lionel Barrymore goes over-the-top at times but at least I could stand him this time. I normally can't stand him in movies but I must admit that he entertained and perhaps somewhat surprised me this time.

Yes, so its really the cast and diversity of characters that makes this movie a greatly interesting one to follow. At moments there is nothing much happening on screen but due to its characters the movie still remains interesting throughout its entire running time. You just never know what's going to happen next in the Grand Hotel.

It's interesting to note that the movie won an Acedemy Award for best movie but it wasn't even nominated in any other different category.

A surprising and entertaining movie that is great thanks to its characters and storytelling, which makes this movie a very good- and interesting one to watch.

8/10


MGM's motto was that they had more stars than there are in heaven or something to that effect. No movie proved it better than Grand Hotel. Before Grand Hotel, it would have been unthinkable to put more than two of a studios top stars in one film. MGM rolled the dice and put Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Wallace Beery, Lionel Barrymore and Joan Crawford together for a memorable film. To support them they included the best of their second string character actors such as Lewis Stone and Gene Hersholt to name but two. The gamble payed off and Grand Hotel was awarded the Best Picture Oscar. All of the stars put in a great performance but in my opinion Joan Crawford really stands out in this one. Garbo's performance is good but seems rather strained. The Barrymore brothers do a fine job. Wallace Beery is fabulous as the tough as nails industrialist who gets in over his head. MGM wouldn't wait long to try the formula again releasing another all star cast film Dinner At Eight two years later.


A corrupt businessman. A ballerina bereft of passion. A common burglar posing as a baron. A pragmatic doctor. A dying man determined to live out his days in luxury. A porter worried about his wife. And a stenographer caught up in the mix. Combine these characters into a bowl, add a dash of star power, stir well, and you have "Grand Hotel", Oscar's 1932 winner for Best Picture.

It has been said that the best baseball games are based on good pitching. Along those same lines, the best movies are based on good writing. Never mind that Grand Hotel came from MGM, the most powerful studio of its day. Never mind that the cast included not one, not two, but seven of the most legendary names in Hollywood history. Never mind that it was the second of the three Best Picture winners produced by Irving G. Thalberg in a six-year span, "The Broadway Melody" (1929) and "Mutiny On the Bounty" (1935) being the other two. At its core, "Grand Hotel" has one of the most intricately-written scripts ever created, filled with characters as diverse and as multi-dimensional as any found in film.

Though nominated only for Best Picture (a very unique anomaly in Academy history), "Grand Hotel" offers not only a wonderful script, but fascinating performances from Wallace Beery (who did tie for Best Actor that year for "The Champ"), Greta Garbo, and an almost unrecognizable Joan Crawford, in her breakout performance. This film also has a pair of Barrymores, with Lionel as the ailing Mr. Kringelein, looking to spend his final days in the lap of luxury, and John as the dashing Baron von Geigern, a hotel thief with a soft touch.

"Grand Hotel" is a character-driven movie, filled with deception, intrigue, scandal, and corruption, with a murder thrown in for good measure. Of all the characters in the film, only Mr. Kringelein, who has a run of good fortune, Flaemmchen, who only wants a good opportunity, and the hotel porter Senf (Jean Hersholt), who frets throughout the film about his wife's labor, come away better at the end than in the beginning.

I think the reason "Grand Hotel" was not nominated for a screenplay Oscar was simply that nobody was credited with adapting the script for the movie. It is quite possible that the script was already solid enough, so that only minimal adaptation was necessary. Otherwise, it holds its own on the screen quite well.

I will not be deceptive here. "Grand Hotel" is a dated movie. But, on the other hand, I think it holds its own as a study of seven characters and as a successful experiment in early ensemble casting.


Although Chaucer and Boccaccio together with many successors dealt with literary interpretations of life in urban settings involving strangers meeting in public places, Vicki Baum was among the first to bring this genre into the twentieth century world of movies and popular fiction. Neil Simon and others owe much to her concept of romanticized drama taking place in a modern hotel setting.

Unlike some other film buffs who write here from time to time, I enjoy comparing a movie version to its literary predecessor -- usually some novel or play. Neither is necessarily superior to the other; it's just that understanding the whole context of a good story lends depth and credibility to characters and their motivations.

"Grand Hotel" was a first not only in the era of talkies, but of bringing together an ensemble of character actors who were all stars in their own right. Garbo and the Barrymores, Crawford, Wallace Beery (compare if you can his performance with that of Gert Fröbe in the later German version) may be seen as larger than life each in his or her own right.

It is not enough to judge this film on its own merits from the perspective of the twenty-first century. Without historical context -- including knowledge of its origins and the people who made it -- no true appreciation will be possible.

Personally, I like Baum's later film "Hotel Berlin" much more. But that may be because I found the book more complex and relevant. De gustibus non est disputandum. Or something like that.


At first, the 1930s all-star comedy-melodrama "Grand Hotel" seems like the type of movie they don't make anymore. But one of the major trends in modern Hollywood is the ensemble movie where different characters' stories interweave in surprising ways, and "Grand Hotel" might just be the father of them all. It's not as overstuffed as some modern movies, focusing on just five characters: a hotel thief pretending to be a baron (John Barrymore), an industrial magnate (Wallace Beery), his secretary (Joan Crawford), an aging and neurotic ballerina (Greta Garbo), and a nebbishy, dying man spending his last days in the luxurious hotel (Lionel Barrymore). Their adventures are generally predictable, though always believable and in-character. Overall, the movie is a moderately fun time, especially in order to see a wide range of 1930s acting styles in one movie.

Hard to believe that Garbo and Crawford were born just months apart--they were both 26 during filming, but Garbo's world-weary ballerina looks and behaves as though she were 36. Though everyone in the film has a different acting style, Garbo's stands out the most. She swoops her chiffon sleeves and looks meltingly romantic in close-ups, as if she were still in a silent movie, but then speaks extremely flowery dialogue. At only 26, then, Garbo seems like a relic or a self-parody. Crawford, on the other hand, is a fun, sassy, modern girl, who knows both how to flirt and how to keep things from going too far. She definitely steals the movie with her tough-minded performance. Garbo's acting works in movies that consistently maintain a keyed-up romantic tone, but in the stylistic mishmash that is "Grand Hotel," Garbo seems the least real--even to a 1932 audience. The DVD features reveal that her line "I want to be alone" got spoofed as soon as the movie came out!

John Barrymore has important scenes with both ladies, and works hard to find an acting style that complements their two very different approaches. He succeeds by playing his character as a reserved gentleman, more moderate than his scene partners. That way he can be flirtatious but not crackling with Crawford, romantic but not melodramatic with Garbo, and friendly but not effusive with his brother Lionel. Lionel, too, has a distinctive style--very mannered, stuttering, bowing and scraping as the little bookkeeper who is finally learning how to live. Yet his enthusiasm is sweet and touching. Wallace Beery gives a decent comic-villain performance complete with off-and-on German accent, though I had trouble caring about his character's money problems. I wonder, too, if the Great Depression and other events of the 1930s had some influence over the plot line where little-guy Lionel Barrymore gets the courage to stand up to the big bad CEO Beery.

Other than that, "Grand Hotel" is not particularly concerned with social or political problems--it's strange to think that it takes place in Weimar Germany and just two years later, the Nazis would take over. It doesn't have much emotional resonance, but it's a useful time capsule of 1932 Hollywood.


"Grand Hotel" is the kind of film that doesn't lose anything during repeated viewings. It is a marvelous MGM production that pretty much embodies the kind of thing the studio did best, during the company's most prolific era. The narrative revolves around one of Germany's most luxurious hotels, the Grand Hotel, which provides the setting for a series of interesting guests that struggle with different problems. The story is really an excuse to display glamorous stars and MGM's now famous ultra glossy production values, but who's complaining? Certainly not me. The film has an all-star cast, and it is a special treat (and lots of fun) to be able to watch each actor compete for the camera's attention. It was a smash hit when it was first released, and the film even managed to win the Oscar for Best Picture. More than seven decades later, the film has somehow retained its initial energy, thanks to the movie's fascinating cast. Watching it again, after so many years, was an enjoyable experience. I was delighted to find out that the film is still a grand piece of soapdish entertainment, and if you have yet to delved into Hollywood's early classic period of film-making, this MGM production provides a nice starting point.


(There are Spoilers) Being told by his doctor that he hasn't got long to live meek and kindly bookkeeper Otto Kringelein, Lionel Barrymore, decides to go out in grand fashion. Taking his life's savings with him, some 11,000 Marks, Otto is to spends his last days on earth in the most expensive hotel in Berlin the aptly named "Grand Hotel".

It's at the Grand Hotel Otto gets to meet his abusive boss, at the textile factory, Preysing, Wallace Beery, who treats him with total destine. Preysing is certain that the only way Otto can afford to stay at that swanky and expensive joint is that he embezzled his business. Otto gets his by now hot in the collar boss even madder at him by stealing his pretty stenographer Flaemmchen or Flaem for short, Joan Crawford, who sees what a creep her, like Otto's, boss the Iron Prussian-like Preysing really is.

The movie "Grand Hotel" also has as one of its guests the flat broke and compulsive gambler Baron Felix Von Geigern, John Barrymore. Baron Felix lost his entire fortune playing baccarat and is now in danger of getting his legs broken if he doesn't come up with the cash, 5,000 Marks, that he owes the "Boys" who've been backing up his losing bets. Baron Felix now on his last legs which he'll need crutches for if the "Boys" don't get their money is planning to rob the Great Grusinskaya, Greta Garbo, the worlds greatest ballerina who's also a guest at the hotel. The Baron concocts a plan to rob the Great Grusinskaya of her pearl necklace while she's at the Berlin Theater doing her thing: Dancing her heart out for the audience there.

Baron Felix who's only friend on earth up to that time is his cute and faithful Dachshund Adolphus, or Adolph for short, will later "make it" with that cold fish of a woman Grusinskaya while in the process of burglarizing her hotel suite! Catching Baron Felix off guard, by coming back to her suite early, Grusinskya is charmed by the handsome rogue who sweet talks her right out of her dance costume and into her bed; With him joining it.

It's later that the Baron after confessing his love for Grusinskaya, and returning her stolen pearl necklace, decides to use the naive Otto in a card game of baccarat he set up. This is done by Baron Felix in order to get back the money he owes the "Boys" before the "Boys" who've just about had it with him, in his stalling to pay them back their money, end up making him a cripple. The card game goes good for first-time gambler, beginners luck?, Otto who breaks the bank walking away with another, to his already 11,0000, 3,500 Marks.

With time running out on him in paying the "Boys" back their money a desperate Baron Felix grabs Otto's, who's dead drunk for drinking champaign, wallet with some 15,000 Marks for him to finally pay back the "Boys" before they pay him, in working the Baron over, back with compounded interest and fractures. ***SPOILERS***It's then that Baron Felix finally sees the light and gives up his life of a cat burglar and con-artist but only after one last fling, in robbing Preysing room, which turned out to be fatal for him.

Despite the major and established stars in the film, Greta Garbo the Barrymores and Wallace Beery, it was Joan Crawford, compared to the quality of acting talent she was up against, in a more or less supporting role who stole the films acting honors. Being both wholesome and sensuous Miss. Crawford was able to put the grubby and aggressive Preysing in his place. This was by showing him that the person whom he held in contempt, and was a rival for her affections, the sweet and soft speaking Otto was a bigger success, as a human being, that he'll ever be.

In the end the so sure of himself Preysing ended up being lead out of the Grand Hotel in handcuffs and going to jail for crimes committed by him on and off the premises. As for the meek and sensitive Otto, whom Preysing stepped on for some 30 years, he also left with Flaem for Paris to spend his last, and extremely happy, days with her at that city's "Grand Hotel".


One minute in, I knew I was watching something wonderful. The scenes of the characters in phone booths lets us know immediately who they are and what they're about. We know Lionel Barrymore's dying; John Barrymore's up to something. Phone booths are supposed to be private, but we're allowed to eavesdrop on people's intimate conversations - it's thrilling, a great way to kick-start a film. By the time we entered the lobby, with that wonderful three and a half minute (I timed it!) elevated shot of everything that's going on, with the characters wandering in and out of the frame, hanging in the background, I was helplessly lost in the action. I literally said to myself: "this is great". A big goofy smile on my face, I watched the film get better and better.

Every single performance, with the possible exception of Garbo, is flawless. A far cry from my opinion of him in Dinner At Eight, I thought Beery was very good, delivering a blustering, dominant performance, but sad, almost child-like, at times.

Crawford (the first film of hers I've seen) was, at least to me, a revelation. I can't shake the image of her with that Baby Jane look, and I was surprised at how beautiful she was here. Her scheming is so subtle I hardly noticed it until the very end. Then I replayed her scenes in my mind and everything fit into place. Was she always this sassy? Garbo was possibly the weakest link. She was impressive, don't get me wrong, but there's something dated about her acting, something that just didn't sit right. I don't know, maybe she's too iconic. When she didn't have Barrymore to act with I felt she was lacking something.

John Barrymore was excellent. I simply cannot fault anything this man does. He's now sharing my favourite actor spot with Brando.

But Lionel Barrymore stole it. His turn as the dying, socially awkward geek living life for the first time is one of the best performances I've ever seen. Absolutely tragic. The scene immediately before he dances with Crawford made me cry. The guy was heart-breaking. From his mumbling complaints at the front desk, just trying to be heard, to his desperate search for his pocketbook, while the thief wrestles with his conscience, to his confrontation with Beery, he was note-perfect. His gesticulations, the movement of his eyes, the strained look on his face, everything screamed sadness, desperation, and dignity.

The music was perfect. It seemed to almost never stop. Waltzes echoing the way the characters danced around each other, whether it's to steal pearls, bed stenographers, coax insecure ballerinas, or confront tyrannical bosses.

The direction was often dizzying: The previously mentioned shot (and there were more than a few others) that seemed to go on forever; the shots looking down on the distant lobby far below, in all its deco glory.

Not a frame is wasted. It's one of the very few films I'd be happy to see run an hour longer. It's snappy, fast-paced, glamorous, sexy, sophisticated, funny, and ultimately tragic.


Best Picture winner more known for putting together the first all star cast in Hollywood. Though the cast is impressive, the movie really does have a lot more to offer than just the names on the marquee. Intertwining the stories of several different characters staying in the Grand Hotel in Berlin, the film is a wonderful collage that succeeds both artistically and emotionally. The well balanced script gives each character room to develop on their own, but also connects them perfectly to one another. More important than being all stars, the performers are all very good actors as well. John Barrymore is charming as a hotel thief down on his luck. Lionel Barrymore is nearly heartbreaking as a dying man who makes some real friends for the first time in his life. Joan Crawford gives a lovable performance as a sweet secretary, who'll do almost anything to get some extra cash. Wallace Berry is infuriating as the hard headed business man, yet he keeps from being a one dimensional bad guy. Greta Garbo also does a decent job in the film as the prime ballerina who just wants to be alone. Each performer does a good job of making you care about the character and what they are going through. Their converging story lines complement each other so well that the film never feels disjointed. Rather, we always feel that we are watching one grand picture made up of many parts.


movies from this era. Clearly acting, directing, and writing styles have changed drastically. Not to mention production values. I admit I don't always understand why some films are considered "classics". This is one of those films. Released in 1932, Grand Hotel must have been a wonderful escape for those living through the depression. Beautiful people, in a beautiful, rich location, living their beautiful lives. M-G-M at the time advertised that they had "more stars than the heavens", and they proved it with the wonderful cast in this movie.

I admire the way the different stories are interwoven and clumsily connected to each other. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another film that did this as well during this period. The opening sequence of the overhead shots and the introduction of the lead characters is also very well done, for the period. I also like the way that Jean Hersholt's(spelling?)character frames the movie. And the amount of sexuality suggested must have brought people pouring back into the theatres.

But there is no denying that many parts of this movie are pure melodrama. It is not helped by the fact that none of the lead actors would ever be accused of "under playing" their roles. The scene where Garbo is on the phone trying to find Barrymore, and the one towards the end with Lionel Barrymore and Wallace Beery are particularly bad. But again, that was the style of the day, so how much can you discount the film for that?

I would love to see this picture re-made, but left in the pre-WWII Berlin, and hopefully include a minor storyline of what was happening in Berlin at the time.

A wonderful artifact from Hollywood's golden age, I would rate "Grand Hotel" a 8 out of 10.


Grand hotel is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's romantic, tragic, funny and completely irresistible. The plot is great. The story would even make a good screenplay today. And the actors are brilliant. Garbo shines as the lonely ballerina, and gives the best performance in the movie. There's something so sparkling and human about her acting. I fall in love with her everytime she's seen on screen... and this movie is no exception.

As for the rest of the cast; they're great!! Although Joan Crawfords character is a bit anonymous. But her talent and beauty makes the most of it!!

Highly recommended


Grand Hotel glimmers with Art Deco oppulence. The performances are wonderful,The script sparkles and the story still enthralls. John Barrymore gives one of his greatest performances as the down on his luck Baron Von Giagern,charming wistful and melencoly.Brother Lionel gives his greatest performance as the dying,but zestful Otto Kringelien.Lewis Stone is appropietly flippant and cynical as the enigmatic Dr. Otternslag and Joan Crawford shows us just how pretty and endearing she was in her early career.And then there is Garbo,the mystique that followed her to her grave must have started with her ethereal performance in this film.She is a wonder. Murder,theft,love,hate and greed...with all of this going on,I wish I could take Otternshlag's advice and "stay one more day".


This is a great movie! I've got to say it again: This is a great movie! I've never liked cowboy or Indian pictures, but this movie realisticly sets up a fantastic but simple premise that there are Indians still living in the wilderness. Tom Berringer discovers them with the help of Barbera Hershey while the sheriff played by Kurtwood Smith is looking for him. Smith, by the way, is now probably best known as the no-nonsense father on "That 70s Show." I also have to mention the dog who seems to get a lot of his own scenes. The Indians superficially look authentic and believable as does their history which is so grounded and set up before hand that they could almost be real. The scenery is probably the biggest star as much of the locales and views are too breath-taking to be real. This movie would have had Academy Award written all over it had it been released theatrically. This movie just goes to prove that Hollywood big shots really don't know what they are doing.


This movie was wonderful. It had all the elements of an Oscar contender. It had action, but was also humorous throughout. Scenes of violence were done tastefully and the only thing slightly objectionable might be a few swear words. A true family film. I own the video and have watched this movie at least 30 times.


"Shutup...you!!" Fun.. modern, 'fantasy western'........with a great score..breathtaking scenery.....and wonderful sense of adventure. As an afterthought........the studio added a pointless narration by an uncredited Wilford Brimley.......arguably the most irritating..annoying..unnecessary voice over I've ever heard......this is called the Theatrical audio on the disc...& should be avoided like a week old plate of beans.

Before you play it..go to the 'Languages' section on the DVD..choose the Director's audio version...& enjoy this improbable little gem of a film.


This movie reminds me a lot of "Lost Horizon". The scenery is beautiful and anyone that's ever been up in that area can attest to it. It's both a chick flick and a guy's movie because of the great mix of emotion, excitement and action. A couple of things in the movie are a little hard to swallow, but so are a lot of things in James Bond or Indiana Jones pic's, and it never stopped anyone from liking them. Tape it or rent it if you haven't seen it, you won't be disappointed.


I have rarely seen a movie where certain scenes run chills down my spine.

One scene in particular is the one where Lillian, and Lewis, first encounter the Native Americans. They were so dynamically beautiful, as well an intimidating in their native costumes, and paint, and their horses were painted, and decorated to the hilt. This scene didn't only send chills up my spine, but much to the credit of Tab Murphy, it brought tears to my eyes, as also did other scenes in the movie.

Yellow Wolf, who was played by Steve Reevis, was I think aware of the changing world beyond his own, and up until now the only way he could prevent the outside world from infiltrating his own was to do away with its representatives, Which meant of course killing them. Modern technology was advancing, and it was inevitable that they would be discovered in time, unless someone they could trust from the outside world could help them. As the story ended, I hoped that Lillian, and Lewis, would be the trusted folks from that outside world who would be able to help keep their existence hidden.

A beautiful story with a beautiful cast. See it if you can. you won't be disappointed.


I was thrilled to see this great film released on DVD. It's such a shame it wasn't given proper presentation when it was first released theatrically. They have done a fantastic job with the DVD. So many special features. The Director's cut, the featurettes, even a section on the authentic native American costumes, all give a fascinating insight into the difficulties in making a movie like this. My hat's off to Tab Murphy's writing and direction, and of course Tom Berenger (the perfect Lewis Gates)and Barbara Hershey. Thanks too, to HBO for producing a fine DVD.


I have seen this movie several times. It has a plot of what could have been and like the movie says, "What dreams are made of." At least for me that is what this movie is. I thought the narration was okay.

I love the scenery and even though it was not filmed in the USA it could have been. I own horses and ride quite a bit in country similar to this where I live. We even have many waterfalls in the area. Not quite as spectacular as the one in the movie, but..... When I feel the pressures of modern day living closing in on me I can watch this movie and then take off on one of my horses into the wilderness outside my back door and get away from everything except for an occasional, "Silver bird with a long white tail," overhead. When watching the movie I can almost smell the smells and hear the sounds of being in the wilderness. That's when I get the itch to feel my horse moving under me while riding through the thick forest.

I liked the, you know it is going to happen, love story and the idea of a Native American tribe surviving all those years without being found.

The American Paint horses use in the movie for the "Lost Tribe," were a special touch for me, since I own a Paint horse. Very nice choices of horseflesh! This movie was recommended to me by a Native American friend and I have recommended it to many other friends. Not one of them did not enjoy it. They all thought it was an excellent movie in every way.


I just watched this movie on a local TV channel tonight. I had never heard of it, but it is now officially my favorite film. I absolutely loved the story, the scenery, the acting - and Zip, the dog was marvelous. The movie has something for everyone. They should make a sequel with the same actors, but I would prefer one without the voice-over narrative.

I don't recall seeing many movies with Tom Berenger in them, but this is one that I will never forget. I really could fall for that man.

My advice: beg, borrow, buy, rent or steal this movie. It's definitely worth which ever route you choose to get it. I'm certain to look for "Last of the Dogmen" to add to my extensive collection of videos and DVDs. I only hope that I can find a captioned version.

I am going to tell everyone I know about this wonderful film.


This movie is one of our favorites. We own it and watch it almost every time it is on TV. We are RVers and travel to remote areas where DVD or video are our only choices. Dogman is always with us. We have traveled thru the area in Canada where this movie was filmed-it is some of the most spectacular scenery we have ever seen. The first time I saw the movie the story line was so believable I had to look it up on the "net" to see if there was any truth to the story. Where the story itself is not based on fact, the actual Indian beliefs and thoughts I think are true. Tom Berenger is excellent in the role of Lewis and the dog is great. We are dog lovers. We also have a great fondness for Native American stories and traditions. This movie should be part of everyone movie library.


I am a 42 years old male who's first VHS movie purchase was Terminator back in 1984. That should tell you what kind of movies I like, so when I tell you that my eyes watered up at least four times during this film please don't think of me as wimpy.

When the teaser ran for this on TNT during a commercial break, I had no intention of watching it, and had intended to turn he channel. However, as I held the remote in my hand, fumbling to find the scan button, I noticed Mario Kassar in the opening credits and Carolco Films, (both instrumental in producing the first Terminator film).

I am also a Tom Berringer fan as well so what the heck...I figured I would give it a chance. Five minutes into the film, I was so happy I did.

I've read a lot of the other comments here, and a few have made some unfavorable remarks about Wilford Brimley's narration. I on the other hand, think that had it not been for Wilford, I may not have stayed interested. What many people don't realize about film is that if there is a lot of "back story", a narrator is typically necessary to fill in the gaps, and tie up loose ends to certain scenes.

Hence, I had no qualms about Wilford's addition to the film. The only problem I did have, is at the end, he refers to himself in the first person as if he was somehow part of the story, yet it was never revealed which character he was, (a good guess would be he was the lead Deputy).

As for the film itself, I found the entire cast to be believable, interesting, and lovable. As stated earlier, I was holding back tears throughout the film. By the end I was almost ready to start balling. Everything adds up. There are no loose ends, or mysterious "contrived" solutions.

For example, in the first scene, a town's person tells Tom's character that his brother went into the woods years ago and never came back. So later when, Tom stumbles upon a stockpile of personal items and I.d.'s and some (Lumberjack) dynamite, of persons lost or abducted over the years by the lost tribe (in an effort to protect their way of life) there is nothing phony about it when Tom uses the dynamite to collapse a cave leading to the hidden valley where the Indian's live. It all makes for a great ending that doesn't make you go.."Yeah, right....sure" with a frown on your face. You instead cheer and weep for joy.

I have not come across such a touching "Western" since Duvall and Costner's "Open Range". I also had a reminiscent thoughts of "Last of the Mohican's (Daniel Day Lewis) while watching this film, up until the point when I realize that this lost Indian tribe was more civilized than the law enforcement agency of the local town.

I think the core reason this film such a great piece of art, is the irony. In the beginning, the film set me up to think there was something in the woods, almost supernatural. I was expecting to see ghosts, and Indiana Jones like spirits chasing Tom through the woods. But none of that ever happened.

Once I learned that this film had something to do with Native Indians, the discovery of the Indians went from being understandably and realistically tense, to making me recall real life history of the native Indian, such as Little Bighorn, to sitting on the edge of my seat wondering if the film will end with another modern day massacre, or if everyone will come out of this alive.

The growth of all the characters involved, even the dog "Zip", is astonishing, and something to admire as well. I am not kidding, even the dog had enough sense to know when he had it good. Befriending a little girl and having someone to play with, as opposed to waking up in a bar with Tom drunk out of his skull, was something cute to watch.

I've babbled enough. Bottom line is...go rent or buy this flick today!


As an Indian-lover and a dog-lover, what more could I want than 'Last of the Dogmen'? The best thing about the film is Zip the dog, played by Zip the dog. He is really something. This film was written and directed by Tab Murphy, and it is a tragedy that he has not directed another film since (and this was his first). He did an excellent job. Tom Berenger is superb as the rough cowboy type who rides out into the wilds, with his dog, as a tracker and bounty hunter. Berenger plays this role with particular intensity, as if it meant a lot to him and was not just a job of acting. Barbara Hershey is also excellent as the professor obsessed with Indians. The story is about the survival in a 'lost valley' in the Oxbow region of Montana (actually shot in Alberta, Canada, presumably because Montana is not wild enough anymore) of the descendants of a band of Cheyenne Indians called 'the dogmen'. A lot of real Indians are cast in the film, speaking genuine Cheyenne, as Barbara Hershey astonishingly does herself. These Cheyenne are living a traditional life just as they did in the 1840s, and Berenger and Hershey become hooked on this 'real life' and don't want to leave to go back to the falsities of 'civilisation'. This is a moving fable, dealing with the issues of the 'loss of the wild', the crushing of Native American culture by the unspeakable brutalities of white settlers, the betrayals of trust which deprived the Indians of their habitats, and the continuing psychological perversion of bitter people who want to stop the innocent enjoyment of life by shattering the dreams and the enforcement of degradation upon those too weak to protect themselves. Congratulations to Tab Murphy for this brave testament, and may he find other ways to continue bringing these messages to us, even if he has to rely on smoke signals.


***SPOILERS*** You at first don't exactly know what your watching in "the Last of the Dogmen" it that it has nothing at all to do with the 19th century American West but the hunt for a trio of escaped convicts in the wilds of modern Montana.

Being sent out to captured the dangerous fugitives, who had killed a prison guard in their escape attempt, is the grizzled and fatalistic bounty hunter Lewis Gates, Tom Berenger, and his faithful companion, and only friend in the world, his tracking dog Zip.

Tracking the three fugitives into the impassable Oxbow Quadrangle Gates finds what's left of them with a broken Indian arrow as the only clue to what exactly did them in. It's back in town that Gates' curiosity gets the best of him as he tries to get to the bottom of what happened to the three convicts! It's there that Gates contacts anthropologist Prof. Diane Sloan, Barbara Hershey, who's conducting an archaeological dig in the area. The findings from that one broken Cheyenne arrow will lead both Gate's and Diane into a world that was lost for some 130 years. A world that had the survivors of the brutal 1864 US Calvary "Sand Creek Massacre" go into hiding for over a century. It also had them protect their unexplored and pristine land with the bravery and ferocity of the then, back in the 1860's, Cheyenne Dogmen whom these now modern Indians are the descendants of.

Gates who had shut himself off from the world since his wife the daughter of the town's Sheriff Deegan, Kurtwood Smith, was accidentally drowned-when she fell off her horse-would in fact find a new reason for living in the dangerous world beyond the "Wolf Valley" in the Oxbow. It was there that the remaining Dogmen Cheyenne tribe settled and lived in peace from the hated "white man" for over 100 years.

It took a long time for Gates with the help of the fluently Cheyenne speaking Diane to win over the suspicious Dogman Indians but in the end it proved dividends to both in each taking turns saving each others lives. In fact it was Gates who lead sheriff Deegan and a posse of local citizens to the Dogmen's camp but only in his attempt to save the chief's son's, who was earlier shot by one of the escaped convicts, life. Gates did that by riding into town and robbing the local pharmacy to get life-saving penicillin! The final moments of the movie "Last of the Dogman" is about the most feel-good, without being too schmaltzy, ending I've even seen in that Gates together with Diane and Zip, who was almost killed by a Cheyenne arrow, ended up being together in Dogman Country. A place where time stands still and where life, and the environment, isn't corrupted.

P.S The movie besides its uplifting storyline and powerful acting by Tom Berenger Barbara Hershey and the Dogman's Indian Chief Yellow Wolf played by Steve Reevis is also beautifully narrated by actor and former rodeo clown, who's job is to distracts a wild 2,000 pound bull from goring a fallen rider, Wilford Brimley.


This is a movie that you will stop and watch every time it shows on TV: IF you have a true romantic spirit and love an outdoor action movie.

The first sentence says it all, but let me say that the actors are well matched and the chemistry is great. I recently spent some time in Western Vancouver Island and was struck by the scenery and immediately thought of this movie and the beautiful backdrop in every scene. It is truly a beautiful movie.

I am not a movie critic and as you probably can tell, this is my first, impromptu attempt to recommend a movie. It is a story about an itinerate cowboy and a secret that he stumbles across while tracking some runaway convicts. The story line has many facets that unfold as the cowboy becomes entangled in the secret that he uncovers.


I have just seen this enjoyable yarn for the first time on afternoon UK commercial TV - not a great showcase . I wonder why I have never heard of it and whether it was not distributed much here. The plot pedigree is obviously "Lost Horizon' and many other films on the "lost tribe " theme but this story was done simply and tastefully, making one long to believe it. I was left wondering if the female academic intended really to document her discovery and how she would do it lacking writing materials and considering the danger of revealing the tribe to the outside world. That would be another story, so the successful reunion at the end of the film was satisfying. Why are such delightful films taken so little notice of and so much Hollywood trash is hyped to the skies?


Dances with Wolves (1990), Thunderheart (1992), and Last of the Dogmen (1995), are all movies that made me proud to have been "captured" by the native American spirit when I was born in 1957.

No, I am not 1/4 Cheyenne or Cherokee, nor would I ever want to be one of the multitude who claims to be one of them, just because it is fashionable. There are many other Nations that belong to and depend on Mother Earth as a people. I can't speak for them, however, I have ridden horses in Hell's Canyon, have seen elk, deer, big horn sheep, cougars and coyote in my backyard, and they all live in harmony w/ my cocker spaniel.

Me, well I am 1/4 French, 1/16 Lakota Sioux, and 1/16 Nez Perce, yet 100% American Purebred Mutt.

My ancestors fought in the revolutionary war, and eventually pioneered Washington, the Evergreen State. Bill Gates and Micro$oft may claim it now, but not before I became a WSU graduate, a Washington Apple, a "User Friendly" Macintosh. If I could "roll up the carpet", Micro$oft, WallMart and McDonald's would be the first to go under.

They've made the majority of us all lazy and beyond fat, so yes, if there was such a place... I'd go...


This was an edge of the chair movie all the way. I started not to watch it because I only liked one of Berringers movies, and that was the one where he made a comedy spoof out "movie cowboys"; forgot the name, but it was all those colored shirts, always clean shaved, and shot the gun out of the outlaws hands with a sixgun from a mile away. This movie showed a different side of the man. Of course,it is always interesting to see Kurtwood Smith but I must say he will always be Norm Stoney to me. That movie made me feel like I wanted to be a part of that hidden Cheyenne camp, away from the traffic, the war, high school shootings, and senseless killings every day all over America. So, for a little over an hour, I was "there". I just didn't get Barbara Hershey!!! Thanks.


So much of what passes for movie entertainment nowadays is hard to digest, and it's hard to fathom why anyone would have spent money to produce it. One goes to the video store and has to comb through aisle after aisle of violent, gory, immodest, indecent trash... and then you find a movie like this. The cinematography alone would make this movie worth watching. Add a beautiful musical score, some very fine acting, and a captivating plot, and you have a rare experience... a movie with heart, that entertains, and which even delivers a message without being cloying or overbearing. This movie is a must see if you're looking for something better than the average offering.


I happened upon this movie on television. I think it was on A&E, it intrigued me because the story line was so unusual. It captured my attention in a sea of films that are all too much a like to be watchable. This movie riveted me to my seat, I did not want to miss any of the it. I watched it, and knew I had to rent it, because when the commercials came on I just wanted to be able to see it in its entirety without the ads. Barbara Hersey is very good in it as a Professor, and Tom Berenger as a sort of black sheep, a rebel of sorts, with a dog that he loves more then anything. He has lived his life out in the wilds and knows how to track, but he does not want to. All he wants is to be left alone. Barabara Hersey is a knowledgeable History Teacher that knows a lot about Indians, and is interested in artifacts unearthed. What could be two more unlikely pairs to find themselves interested in the same thing. His father-in-law hates his guts. A dark secret keeps them at odds. Tom Berengers life is a mess, and he has a loner reputation with the town that he inhabits. Mostly he keeps to himself till one day when he is pressured into tracking some convicts down. I do not want to tell more, go rent it, you will not be disappointed. There is just such a great story of mystery, and lost cultures, and hard feelings dispelled. Something to open up the wonder again for a far off time that most cannot hope to reach or see but get just a glimpse of it in this very fine film. I bought this film at Christmas time, I wanted it for my collection of great movies.


A small, uplifting film that has a surprisingly full body. Very strong performances by Tom Berenger and Barbara Hershey. They just seem to fit together naturally. I suppose that their naturalness on-screen in this film can be credited largely to their considerable talents. But, bless whoever cast them together for seeing their possibilities.

The film's premise was very engaging. The action was well paced. Most of the characters actions and reactions rang true. There was some good humor, particularly regarding the dog.

The dab of history laid out in the storyline was tantalizing. I suspect that there is some grain of truth to Lillian's recounting of pertinent historical events.

I think that Wilford Brimley contributed greatly to the success of the story. Having his narration start things off was a stoke of genius. He brings such gravitas and authenticity to everything he does that the viewer encounters absolutely no difficulty suspending disbelief as necessary to embrace fully the storyline.

The locations were fantastic and the cinematography was inspiring. After first seeing the theatrical release, I rushed home and scoured my trusty atlas to locate the Oxbow Quadrangle in northwestern Montana. I just knew that it was a place that I would love to explore someday with my kids. When that search proved fruitless, I went online to the State of Montana's website, only to be frustrated once again. It was not until the movie first hit TV (HBO, I think) that I endured the credits to learn that it had been filmed in Alberta, Canada and Mexico.

I also loved the theme music.

I have seen this film about 15 times in the past 10 years. It never disappoints me.


Just saw this on HBO. Good enough for an afternoon's enjoyment. This movie is very, very, very similar to Lost Horizons starring Ronald Coleman set in America. That film and the book are from the 1930's. Wasn't there a remake of Lost Horizons a few years ago? The stars have good chemistry. The dog is real star and probably smarter than the two leads, as they admit in the dialog. The saving of the sheriff is a little faked. It did not appear he was in real danger. It would appear the film makers cut a few corners. I would have liked the characters developed to a greater extent. Couldn't Gates have gone to a local vet or animal supply store and purchased penicillin off the shelf or with a vet's OK?


I loved this movie when I first saw it and I have enjoyed watching it again and again. Although it is not a "perfect" movie, I think the overall feeling one gets from its mixture of western, mystery, and romance themes is something quite special. It's true that the story pushes the limits of credibility, but that is what makes it special . . . that something we thought was gone is still here just over that next mountainside. It is based upon enough fact that the viewer thinks it just might be true. In my book, any movie that leaves you wanting to know more of the story, to visit the places where it occurred, and to learn the facts behind it is good story telling worth suggesting to others.


Last of the Dogmen takes you into the past while remaining in the present. Tom Berenger and Barbara Hershey have good chemistry together.Tom Berenger makes an awesome "cowboy" type of romantic lead. Native Americans are well represented. This movie helps open the eyes of what it was like for the Cheyenne Indians plight to escape the forbearance of the Whiteman. Like Lewis Gates says: "I was born a hundred years to late," which is exactly the way I feel. The music portrays romanticism, and boldness, kind of like the westerns of days gone by. The dog "Zip" is an actor in himself. He is well trained. The scenery is awesome! Take me to Canmore, Canada, or is it the Oxbows? Which ever, I loved this movie! Would like to live this dream come true.


I know that the movie isn't "realistic," but it's fiction after all. The concept is unique, and I don't know of any other movie that uses this plot. The whole idea of Indians still living in the U.S. as they did 130 years ago is fascinating. Some of the shots - especially the one where the Indians first "materialize" to Barbara Hershey and Tom Berenger - are really awesome. Also, I love Steve Reevis, so anything he EVER does is a draw to me. Also, I don't care that much that it's not shot where the movie is supposed to take place - they do that all the time now, although I've never been able to figure out why. Was there no place in Montana they could've filmed this? Is it cheaper to film in Canada? Look at the movie "The Edge' - it's supposed to take place in Alaska, but they used Canada also. That's the only thing that irks me, and, I'm sure, other viewers. Why can't we just film movies in the places they are supposed to take place in?


I enjoyed Barbara Hershey in this movie. Just couldn't stop watching. The story was one of those that is predictable, but still interesting to see how they explain where the characters are going to end up.

I could have lived without quite so much narration. It is redundant at times as the story is on the screen already.

The locations and camera shots are just gorgeous. This part of the country is so picturesque.

The story of a lost tribe of native Americans that are discovered by a "cowboy" and a professor while looking for clues to missing persons. The best comparison to other movies would be in the category of time travel. Since the world that the tribe lives in is isolated from the modern, and they have kept their native language and customs. Again, I have always found Barbara Hershey to be a very good character actor. She is quite attractive as well.

This is a good movie and I would recommend it.


Not everything on the screen can be Citizen Kane or The Godfather. However,this movie does not pretend to be anything other than what it is, an entertaining story about possibilities. Despite being a little preachy, it is nicely photographed, well told, and provides the audience with information that may not be historically accurate but based in fact. It was well cast with more than competent actors as believable and likable characters in a far fetched but "I guess it COULD be possible" story. The timing and editing are what I feel make the film work. And, unlike other reviewers, I don't find Wilfred Brimley's narration annoying or distracting. You could see the ending coming but so what. It is a nice way to spend a rainy afternoon.


I have yet to recommend this movie to a friend who didn't enjoy it. I guess it addresses "themes" that many of us dream about. It has several themes going on at once. There is "action/adventure", there is "wild west", there is "love story", and so on. Louis Gates, a modern-day bounty hunter, is seeking some sort of redemption (through self-destruction) for the death of his wife, for which he was really not at fault. Through the course of this movie, we see him find love and peace. I think we all want to believe that we could turn back time and maybe find a Shangri-La, even in the far reaches of the American west, and that is what happens to Louis Gates in this movie.

Highly recommended for the good story and the beautiful scenery!


*Caution potential spoilers and road hazards ahead* ROUTE 666 is actually the kind of lightweight straight-to-video extravaganza that would make a good date flick. Whoever you're with, they'll get bored quickly and want something else to do. The premise had potential, that being federal agents stuck in the middle of nowhere with a prisoner, being pursued by homicidal ghouls. Unfortunately, the execution is as bland and bleak as the desert landscape that surrounds them.

Lou Diamond Phillips sleepwalks and occasionally "trips" through the film, and his is the best performance. Steven Williams does add some oomph to the proceedings, too. The rest are wrung from the "hey, memorize the script and recite the lines" academy.

Speaking of script, in ROUTE 666, a lot of talk replaces any modicum of action. Well, suspense for that matter, seems to have taken a holiday, also. What's left, is a talky, unexciting, predictable outing that has a couple of good moments. ROUTE 666? Don't go there, girlfriend.

Not recommended.


Went in with an open mind, looking to watch an entertaining movie and it turned out to be just that... Entertaining. Story could have been stronger, but the idea was very good and kept me watching. The arty camera shaking was pointless but didn't ruin the film for me. Not sure in the direction they wanted to take this film, but its definitely not a horror, more of a road movie with a touch of every other genre.

ALL in all, if your lost for what film to watch, definitely worth checking out Route 666, its not the greatest film, but go with an open mind, and don't pick at everything you see, and you'll enjoy the film, I could quite happily sit through it again


OK, wait, bad isn't what I was looking for........awful, there we go. The shaky camera stuff was annoying and the acting was horrible. As soon as I saw Lou Diamond Phillips' name in the info, I knew it was going to be bad. He hasn't been in a good film since.....oh yeah, he hasn't been in a good film EVER. The whole plot line of "Route 666" was dumb and the supporting cast for the "greatest actor in the world"(<-sarcastic remark) was almost worse than any supporting cast I have ever seen. If I were to pick the top 5 bad movies ever, this would definitely be at the top of my list of candidates. Do NOT watch this movie, because it will be a waste of your money and your time.


Sometimes there are movies that just don't deserve to be called movies and sometimes there are cameramen who just deserve to be shot. By some weird twist "Route 666" isn't a movie and it's shot by a cameraman who should aim at something else with a tool that looks nothing like a camera. I guess you already know the what I mean so I will start the review here if it's OK with you. OK? Good.

"Route 666" is an abomination that suffers from being a bit more abnormal than it's low budget flick companions. Why? Well, I guess it can have something to do with the retarded storyline, horrible actors, useless FX and the cameraman who makes the "action"-sequences look like something that's been filmed from a washing-machine during an earthquake. I could start picking at every little fault that "Route 666" suffers from but I don't have the time. Just don't watch this movie okay?


Yes, looking @ release date and others' comments, you'd pass this one by...But take another look :

It's a road movie, which is a great and under-utilised genre; It's got grim humour coupled with a ghost-line (not bad); It's got good character actors; Its script is tight; And I come from the place where they filmed Mad Max (before the US dubbed it : cringe), so give me some credit for knowing films that use deserted environments !

Someone had an idea with this one and got 3/4 of the way there. It isn't Duel but it's not a waste of a Coke & popcorn for 90 minutes either.


This has got to be one of the worst movies I've seen in quite a while. The plot is horrible. There are so many plot holes that it makes it hard to concentrate on the bad active, grade school haunted house makeup & special effects or the terrible sound effects. Stay away from this movie.


Take some zombies with a jackhammer, FBI agents, bounty hunters, an US marshal, county cops and a car thief. Throw it all into a pot, and stir. Then you get this movie.

So stupid and bad made that I had to laugh at times!

Only watch this movie if you have absolutely nothing else to do.


Are you ready for some weird entertainment? What seems to be a decent cop show turns into a horror flick. Yes, there is plenty of action...but you find yourself wondering how much stranger can this thing get. Some pretty good actors assembled to do this thing for producer Terence M. O'Keefe. William Wesley directs no doubt with a grin. This is a toss up between being really bad and being just a below average B-movie.

Lou Diamond Phillips and Lori Petty are government agents that track down a Federally protected witness(Steven Williams)hiding in the desert along Route 66. After convincing him to return to LA for his appearance in court things get crazy. It is decided to take a shortcut on a piece of closed highway, Route 666, where the now small FBI caravan is attacked by four zombies. The undead are four prisoners/murderers that were slaughtered while working on a road crew several years earlier. One of the zombies happens to be Phillips' estranged father.

Phillips has starred in worst...check out BATS. Somehow he keeps his dignity without embarrassing his following too much. I found Miss Petty pretty much irritating throughout. Williams is outstanding and has most of the best dialogue. Dale Midkiff is notable as a pompous FBI agent. And kudos to the veteran actor L.Q. Jones playing the corrupt county sheriff. The road less traveled is finally rid of its phantoms. Worth your test drive.


...to spend a paragraph talking about, that is. But what is curious about the movie, which is quite awful even by the widest margins of quality, is why the director insists on shooting the action sequences as if he was re-making Spielberg's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The effect doesn't make the movie any better, simply because its action scenes are just, well, terrible.

And then prisoners turned ghosts appears and more foolishness happens. Then there are the characters whose only reason to exist is to get in the hero's way.

Oy.

2 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the film)


***SPOILERS***SPOILER***SPOILERS***

This is clearly one of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to watch. A couple of feds are taking a witness to court and travel along a closed down road called "Route 666". Of course there are some mean, ugly zombies here who wants to make asphalt (yes, you heard right, asphalt) out of everyone foolish enough to travel there, because the road is cursed you see, some prisoners were killed here for a long time ago. The hero is, of course, the chosen one who is the only one who can break this evil spell, he's the chosen one since his father were one of the prisoners. Now that's what I call a coincidence. Among thousands of feds, the chosen one just happens to have the mission to transport a witness across this particular road.

Wait, things just get dumber.

His companion gets mad when he finds out that he is a son of a murderer and prisoner so after one of the most tedious and hideously acted monologues ever, he starts a fight with the Jack (the hero).

I almost went to pieces. Why is he so stupid that he starts a fight over something that no-one can help? Jacks special lady, Steph is just watching this outrageously useless and unnecessary fight without a thought of helping Jack out.

Wait, things get even dumber than this.

After the feds have gotten some of they're men slaughtered by the zombies they call the local marshalls to help them out. The marshalls arrive, and what do they do? They're starting to kill off the feds!!!

And that's when it struck me: this is one of the worst movies I've seen. I mean why was this even written? Why did they make a film out of this inane script? Were they actually paid to write this?

You might think that I'm not telling you anything about the good things in this movie only because I'm mean cynic who loves to slog off movies but no. I tell you this because there are almost no good things in it. The actors are painfully useless, the characters are truly worthy of my hate and one-dimensional, and the camera-work... Oh the camerawork. Figure out what it would look like if a drunk man with spastic hands armed with nothing but a handcam was allowed to film a movie. This is like that but actually even worse. It's among the most atrocious things to date. Not even the gore can save this one, since there's very little of it and all the FX sucks, so even gore-hounds will be let down. The only thing that was the least bit redeeming was that at least the black guy survived it. It's almost a rule in movies like these to have coloured, funny sidekick which gets killed in the end of the movie, oddly enough it didn't occur here, which is good. But one right can't make up for the hundreds of errors, a plot with more holes than swiss cheese, laughable dialogue, awful camera work and editing and every other countless mistake which is to be found herein.

If you're still interested in watching it then may I recommend full-frontal lobotomy?

0/10


Come on, give me a break. You see Route 666 on the sign and you turn down that road? Nobody, even if they are trying to save time, would get on a road with that name. You are just asking for trouble, and the folks in this ghost story got what they asked for.

I like Lou Diamond Phillips, even if he'll always be Ritchie Valens to me. I also like Lori Petty and L.Q. Jones. They both keep popping up in movies and TV shows. In fact, the cast in this film has done a lot of work, so maybe you'll find someone you like.

I certainly don't have high expectations when I watch a "B" movie, but I hoped to be entertained. This film did that. Sure, you get the same tired clichés and some people tend to act like jerks (Dale Midkiff), but the ghost aspect was pretty cool, and added to the horrible deaths.

Give it a whirl if you have nothing else to watch.


Well I haven't really come across something like this before. "Route 666" tells the story of a cop and his buddies who retrieve a witness meant to testify in L.A. However, while on their way, aside from a group of men wanting to kill the witness, they attempt a supposed shortcut just off of Route 66, which inevitably spells death.

Along this road lies a secret hidden for years. A small chain-gang that had, several years before, been in an "accident" lie dead in a small graveyard just along-side this road. Their spirits still walk among those roads and those who dare step out onto the road shall meet with these wrath of these long-dead criminals. In addition to that, a secret connection lies between one of the gang members and a certain traveler...

If you have nothing else to do and you're in for a good "B" movie, take a look at this one. It has its faults and some of the effects aren't up to par with the 21st century exactly, but it's still worth a look.


WARNING:Spoiler content! This movie is excellent, right from the start, it is clever, quirky, slick, and really really funny. Also, to the trained eye, it is packed full of so much symbolism that there is almost no scene where one cannot be found. The characters are clever and represented wonderfully by the people who play them, especially Rabbit, you have to love that guy, even if you find him a constant irritation, the film would definitely not be complete without him. The storyline is nice, well thought out, and spreads the action out nicely over the length of the film. Providing us (the audience) with a good dose of revenge, humour, irritation, entertainment, maybe even a little fear for the weak hearted and squeamish watchers, and finally and a little unexpectedly, the iron man (La Rocha)having a sentimental moment at the end with his father.

The only thing that stopped this movie getting ten out of ten for me was the female lead, she is a great actress and fit into the part really well, i just find that her voice offends my hearing to such a degree that i can hardly bear to listen, it really grates against the ears. Other than that, this is an amazing film, i would recommend it to anyone looking for something that is not particularly scary but nonetheless highly entertaining.


I saw just the first hour of this movie trying to see what my guide meant by dead. Then when I find out the movie turns out to suck.

The cinematography is horrible with the fact that you can see what is computer generated and what isn't. Give you an example, the first time the zombie gang attacks our "heroes" of this movie one of the marshals is firing out of the SUV and it looks like they used a blue screen either for the character or for the background.

Why does a zombie carry around a jackhammer in the first place. Ohhh, and for an added bonus the marshals who are supposed to be trained at firing guns can't hit the jackhammer zombie because they are firing at the jackhammer that is just there.

This "MOVIE" doesn't make any sense at all.


Route 666...highway of the beast. Here is a film that had some great desert locations and some decent gunplay. And that's about all.

****SPOILER****

In this ghostly action thriller, Jack (Phillips) is a--get this--Federal Marshall, who used to do under-cover work for the CIA, and before that was a Navy SEAL. How's that for background? Of course, he has an unspoken love for his partner, played by Petti. They're attempting to deliver a witness to trial along a closed and dangerous stretch of old Route 66. This highway is haunted by the souls of four convicts who were murdered by the guards set to watch them. In an amazing coincidence, one of the convicts was Jack's long-lost father.

This sluggish film was more entertaining in the beginning, as an action film, than later, when it became a poorly-executed tale of family redemption, ghosts and secrets from the past.


Route 666 is the latest masterpiece by film director, William Wesley (Scarecrows, 1988). Once again he captivates his audience with a thrilling story, an incredible cast and amazing special effects. This film is definitely fun to see with some friends and some popcorn. Check it out! You won't regret it!


"Bergman is dead, long live the movies!" is the best way I can describe this mini seen at the special premiere opening.

Finally Swedish movie makers dare to mix a historic event with fiction and make something more fun, beautiful and exciting than just a Bergman drama or a reality show. But of course, when Måns and Björn do something it's done for the public and not just the critics.

What really strikes me is the characters, they are so vivid! Excellent acting makes the story feel true. They seem to be living at that time and place and really bring you in to their world. I can't think of one single actor that could be replaced, they all do it so well.

A special note on the music (no pun intended), it's by far the best score in a Swedish movie yet. Buy the DVD if you have surround sound in your home, it will be worth it.

I think this mini set a new standard for film making in Sweden, showing that it is possible to make beautiful movies in Europe. And we want more.


Good acting, good story, but poor in a historical perspective. The movie set in the time period of Scanian war between Swedes and Danes tells the story of a man who's family is murdered by the Swedes. The main character joins a band of Scanian freedom fighters to seek revenge on the people murdering his family. Places and events are totally fictional which made me a bit disappointed. Maybe I was hoping for a Scanian version of Braveheart/The patriot etc. The name Snapphane, which was used as a pejorative term by the Swedes to describe the pro-Danish rebels,is used by everyone in the movie. Had the people behind the mini series done a better research to make it historical correct I would have giving it a higher vote. Acting and parts of the story is worth 7/10 votes, historically 1/10 so my final vote will be a 4 out of 10. I hope the mini series become an inspiration for others to make more movies in the same genre.


I wanted so much to like this movie. The trailer was promising. The period in Swedish/Danish history is very interesting and should lend itself to great stories. But it just felt so low-budget. Kinda like the stuff you see on "Hallmark".

The vigilante heroes where portrayed as "The gang that couldn't shoot straight", and the murderous king turned out to be good in the end.

Imagine a a film about the intifada financed by Fox and you get the picture.

Good photo. Good music. Terrible screenplay. Anachronistic feeling. You're almost looking for wrist watches and airplanes.

Sad when the topic is important.

It could have been great. Now it's not.