Come on, people who thought this movie was bad are taking it too seriously. This movie is so funny ! it shows the fact that swearing is funny, well its only funny if south park does it. awesome movie. it had a classic offensive plot and this time making fun of Canadians as potty heads. ahem, Terrance and Phillip... so basically, the 4 boys watch the Terrance and Phillip movie which is very rude yet hilarious, so after they watch it they become vulgar mouths and the south park parents are very angry and rages a war against Canada for making children become potty mouths. and the great factor is that the plot was used so well and the climax is just jaw dropping. the musical is very fun and lots of fun to sing with it. And the very impressive event is that they explore the characters really well in the movie. Like Satan, Saddam Hussein. Warning this film is highly racist,vulgar, adult and graphic. Come on Matt and trey make a second one !!!


There's one problem with television: You can't say &#*%, or $@&%, or #^&@%$. So what did Trey Parker and Matt Stone -- the creators of the hit mature animated series "South Park" -- turn? The movies, where anything goes (just about). Although the idea for a "South Park" movie probably came about before the idea to exploit the MPAA's more flexible ratings system for the TV show's impeccable satire, it's no less the perfect choice to bring the little Colorado mountain town and its foul-mouthed children to the big screen in "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut."

Using the movies, Parker and Stone immediately come out singing (yes, this is a movie musical) that the movies are responsible for society's cultural education. The third graders Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny all go to see the new Terrence & Philip movie, based on the show's fictional hit Canadian TV show about two farting roommates, mirroring the experience of the likely underaged crowd going to see the "South Park" movie, and there you have the brilliance of "South Park" and this film.

The Terrence & Philip movie introduces the kids to a whole world of swears and insults they never knew before (because they couldn't use them on TV) and they start using it in talking back to teachers and their parents. As usual, the parents of South Park take things too seriously and point the finger for their children's bad behavior at well, Canada, who else? Single-handedly, Parker and Stone introduce the Canada joke to Americans.

The film doesn't crusade for allowing bad language, but rather shows how silly it is to take language so seriously, particularly when Mothers Against Canada invokes a war with our neighbors to the north.

Parker and Stone should take their act to Broadway with the quality of the music in this movie, from the Oscar-nominated "Blame Canada" to "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" They do enlist the help of the talented Tony winner Marc Shaiman, but the show has always been known for its musical prowess. The songs are memorable, fun and break up the film well considering its structured like a long television special.

Fans of the show get exactly what they'd expect from "South Park" including some extra goodies and appearances from all the most liked characters. The language of course is off the charts, but the childish ignorance of adult content (Stan seeks the clitoris after Chef tells him that's how you keep a girl around) is there too. By film's end it's not the sharpest satire that the show has ever delivered, but it was obviously the perfect plot choice for making "South Park" into a movie, not just picking some random story line, but maximizing the satire potential of the new medium. ~Steven C Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com


Tiffani Amber Thiessen never fails to make an excellent TV movie and A Killer Amongst Friends is proof that the pretty blue eyed brunette can act superbly as Jenny Monroe,the attractive,and adored teenage girl who is envied by her friends,particularly Ellen Holloway played by Margaret Welsh who nailed the performance as a conniving and deceitful teenager whose jealousy leads her to brutally murder her best friend.Holloway only becomes more hated throughout the plot when she fools Jenny's heartbroken mother Jean (Patty Duke) into believing that someone else killed her daughter,leading her on a wild goose chase for a killer who doesn't exist.Patty Duke's performance was so captivating that you can feel her pain and her grief from the time she was told her daughter had been murdered,to when she discovers the horrible truth about the killer. A gripping,emotional,and brilliant movie that doesn't leave you disappointed.


Another made-for-TV movie inspired by true events, this movie is rerun on lifetime quite often. It's scary to contemplate a person treating another human being like the girls in this film. This movie is better than most "women in jeopardy, inspired by the story of" television flicks of the late 80s/early 90s. Patty Duke is excellent as bereaved mother and Loretta Swit (Hot Lips from M*A*S*H) lends solid support as the investigating detective who tries to keep Duke's character from jeopardizing the case. A very sad disturbing film.


This is one horror movie I would find sexually moving. "Shivers" is a movie that is mostly that way itself. Here you have a apartment complex that has a lot of couples there. Unknown to anyone, there's something unnatural going on. One doctor makes a parasite that should replace a diseased organ. That plan did work, however, the side-effect was increased sexual desire. Once that gets out, all hell's break loose. The young girl whom he had an affair with is the first, the second victim is the guy who works for a firm keeps a secret from his wife. The more people getting infected by these parasites, the wilder eerything gets. Everyone wants the desire for sex. Well, there's no telling how an infected person looks like. The only way you can tell is when you're getting mobbed by these horny, over-sexed freaks. Like most zombie movies you would smel dead flesh in the air. In "Shivers' it's not love, it's sex, and it's wild. This movie should be titled, "Invasion of the Sex Fiends". But that title can be considered pornographic! 3 out of 5 stars!


A parasite that's "a combination of aphrodisiac and venereal disease, and will hopefully turn the world into one beautiful, mindless orgy" is unleashed in a luxurious Canadian hotel. Despite director/writer David Cronenberg's script, "Shivers" isn't any great shakes as a bloody erotic horror. Mr. Cronenberg shows promise, however; and, there are at least three sexy scenes. First, you have luscious Lynn Lowry (as Forsythe) sexily undressing. Also, still beautiful Barbara Steele (as Betts) takes a bath; and, later, engages Susan Petrie (as Janine Tudor) in a seductive Lesbian kiss. Other than that, the movie features more bad hair than anything else. Cronenberg could have gotten off more steam by setting the maniacal sex parasites loose in a college. Paul Hampton (as Roger St Luc) emerges as the last man standing. Imaginatively re-titled "They Came from Within" and "The Parasite Murders".

**** Shivers (10/10/75) David Cronenberg ~ Paul Hampton, Lynn Lowry, Barbara Steele, Joe Silver


Undoubtedly one of the most frightening things about David Cronenberg's debut feature film "Shivers' to modern audiences, is the cavalcade of sheer 1970s "look" in both interior decor and clothing. The apartment building in which this zombie sex party occurs somehow becomes a character of its own, celebrating material ugliness as a mirror to the human ugliness which eventually occurs within it's soulless interiors. Somehow, the patina of years passed since the filming of this movie has rendered "Shivers" a more gut-wrenching experience. Which is worse, having a parasite (which is an obvious metaphor for fecal matter) shoved down your throat by a sex-crazed maniac or having to live in a boxy cinder-block apartment that boasts both zebra-print and daisy-print wallpaper battling for dominance in the same tiny kitchen? Still, this slice of Cronenberg's diseased reverence for "the flesh" carries the same "I need a shower now" feeling when it ends, as it did when it first unspooled on movie screens back in the day. Say what you like about this truly nasty movie, it broke a huge number of societal taboos and went many places other directors feared to go. Memorable set pieces include the appearance of the waiter at the elevator door, squeezing some kind of cherry crepes between his fingers before raping a mother and daughter...the daughter will have the dessert for her own when the door reopens. The two gay men in bathing suits who stand outside a door shielding the doctor, whispering "hey..you wanna go to a party?" through the peephole. The ugly woman attacking the waiter screaming "I'm hungry for love!". The two little girls on a leash on the basement stairs, barking. While dated, "Shivers" still packs a punch by daring to show the loves that dare not speak their names. Ugly wallpaper optional, but just try to block out the paper shade lamp-covers in the bedroom of the happy young married couple. Unforgettable!


When I first tried to watch this film, I was around ten or eleven and though it was lame, boring and disturbing. Nowadays I'm a huge fan of Cronenberg and think that this is a quality film. It's not without its issues, the characters mostly aren't terribly interesting and neither are the actors, and the writing and direction are efficient and sometimes ace, but not as overall gripping as Cronenberg's later works. However, the plot is genius, a kind of twisted allegorical look at sexual revolution and the bourgeoisie, and the crude but effective special effects make for many effective shock scenes. Of the acting, Barbara Steele stands out the most, though her role isn't too big, she is as majestic a horror queen as she was when she began and the role makes best use of her. The main lady with infected husband is pretty decent too, although her role is kinda thin. The film is watchable throughout though it does feel often like somewhat of a b movie. The ending is fantastic though, showcasing Cronenbergs subversive wizardry. Altogether, this is an influential, highly entertaining grisly sci fi horror classic, just a whisker away from the directors superlative later work.


"Shivers" of 1975 is a nasty and highly entertaining exploitation flick and furthermore the first feature film directed by cult filmmaker David Cronenberg. Although this does not yet reach the greatness of Cronenberg movies such as "Scanners", "The Dead Zone" or "The Fly", "Shivers" is definitely an atmospheric and creepy film that delivers gore, shocks and sleaze and, in spite of resemblances to films like "Night Of The Living Dead", quite some originality. This movie of many aka. titles (such as "They Came From Within" and "The Parasite Murders") is furthermore recommended as it features the great Barbara Steele (my all-time favorite actress) in a supporting role, as a lesbian.

Scientists have developed a certain form of parasites that are supposed to replace organs. What the scientists have not thought of, however, are the side-effects. Their disgustingly looking little parasites are not only anything but healthy, they also turn people into braindead and murderous sex maniacs...

This movie's wicked story and atmosphere as well as the nasty sleaze and gore make "Shivers" a real treat for a fan of exploitation. Barbara Steele is, as always, great in her supporting role. Apart from Steele, the performances are not too memorable, bu that doesn't lower the movie's quality as a highly entertaining little classic of weird exploitation cinema. Fans of David Cronenberg should definitely not miss "Shivers", a film that I highly recommend to any lover of bizarre Horror and exploitation cinema!


I like Cronenberg. I even wrote a paper on "Dead Ringers" in a film class, so I am not coming to this movie unbiased.

I enjoy horror movies, but usually find that the horror movies from the 70s are drastically lacking in anything worth keeping. For example: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is one of my least liked movies not for the movie itself, but for the fact that by time I saw it I had seen so many others do the same thing much better many times before. I was underwhelmed.

Not so with "Shivers," which does an excellent job of dealing with horror standards (the good doctor, the mad doctor, secluded victims, and a parasite/disease/curse running rampant) and not kowtowing to the standard uses of them.

Sure, we can read "Shivers" as being a warning about the excess of promiscuous sex and the lack of control human beings exhibit when it comes to sex, potentially leading to hedonism (if not a modern Sodom and Gomorrah) and, eventually, death. That's an easy read for any kid in Film 101 to do.

But the movie does actually work on the very superficial level that a horror movie should: It horrifies, terrifies and titillates (and with a young Lynn Lowry in the nurse's role you know very well it's going to titillate). Sitting through the entire movie becomes well worth it simply for the sensual, seductive, and scary shot of Lowry in the pool at the end.

This movie, like much of Cronenberg's work, is designed to make you think, but it also to reaches into the basest emotions you have. Lowry, Susan Petrie, and Barbara Steele (can we say "MILF" in a review?) become objects of lust for the viewer (yes, this is assuming the viewer is male and/or into women, I agree) just as we know that the film is a warning to us about the excesses of sex and emotion.

Not all of Cronenberg's work is great art, but "Shivers" is one of those movies that has stood the test of time and continues to work. Considering how few movies from the 70s can say that, I take my hat off to you, Mr. Cronenberg.


Satire on the sexual seventies? Parable on man's growing devotion to science? Simple horror film? It just might be all three. You could also put this in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Living Dead mold, a group that never stops, you either become one or die. However you look at this movie, it is real fun. There are plenty of gore scenes, most featuring strange growths on people. Then, there is also a heaping helping of bare breasts. My favorite scene is where one of the hotel staff tricks a couple into a large room where a parasite orgy is going on. He undresses while sticking out his tongue. Now, that is scary. The sole weakness of the film is that it is seriously dated, some scenes are funny now simply because of people's clothing. But the best joke of the movie is intentional; when sex is the sickness, who doesn't want it?

P.S. They Came From Within is the the best of titles, but It Comes From Within would have been better.


David Cronenberg's Shivers is a very clever, calculated piece of film making. The fashion it's made in is very similar to George A Romero's Dawn of the Dead, being lo-fi and confrontational, with a rich vein of social commentary running under the madness. Shivers is a disturbing concept, made unnervingly believable with it's low-budget realism.

The basic premise of Shivers is this, a mad scientist unleashes a parasitic organism into an apartment complex that multiplies rapidly and turns its hosts into sex-crazed zombies, with the goal of bringing man back to his savage roots. Cue lots of scenes of people charging down corridors in attempts to rape everybody they can get their hands on, and mass orgies in various bits of the complex.

As you can tell, Shivers intends to disturb. In fact, it doesn't waste ANY time getting on with that, opening with a scene that intercuts a new couple being shown around the complex with the graphic strangulation and dissection of a young girl (I might add though NOT a minor as many have suggested). This scene is later put into direct context by the rest of the movie but it's a stark, shocking opening to a stark shocking film.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past thirty years, you've probably heard a lot about how sick and warped Cronenberg's films and the man himself are. Rubbish. Shivers is shocking yes, but that isn't the point of the movie. Through the medium of scary worm like parasites and hordes of horny zombies, Cronenberg manages to effectively flag up a warning about the potential dangers of an increasingly sexualised society, and seems to wrestle with a lot of internal demons. He also works a lot of warmth and wit into the movie. In fact the bottom line with Shivers is that if you can stomach the graphic violence and dizzying horror of the concept, Shivers is a very human, emotive movie. The cast are all very convincing, and by and large the characters are very likable, meaning you will be rooting for them.

So, I'll recommend Shivers whole-heartedly, but it is NOT for the faint of heart. It'll probably disgust conservative viewers, and I understand totally that the idea of a movie that's about the spread of a mutant parasite that turns you into a brain dead rapist is probably not gonna be for everyone, but if you dig intelligent horror, especially that of the 60s and 70s, Shivers'll probably be a movie you'll really dig.


Hard to believe that I once thought this ludicrously daft horror-comedy, (although I'm not sure the laughs are intentional), was about the sickest movie I'd ever seen. It is fairly nasty in a visceral sort of way but it's also derivative, (it's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in all but name), and appallingly acted, (look out, in particular, for the elderly European couple with the walking frame), so that any serious point it may be making is lost. It's really another mad scientist movie, in this case the creation is a parasite, part aphrodisiac, part venereal disease, let loose in a self-contained Montreal apartment block. It could be seen as an AIDS metaphor and it's full of Cronenberg's usual queasy motifs but it's also pretty terrible.


In a posh apartment building there seems to be more to a bizarre murder/suicide than first apparent. When this proves to be the case a scheme by an eccentric biology researcher to fund his project come to light and we see what led to the initial grisly murder. The resulting aftermath is even more horrifying.

David Cronenberg's first feature film has all the visceral themes of his early works and they are executed with a vengeance. Venturing far into dark and unsettling horror territory Cronenberg crafts a spiraling nightmare of zombie outbreak and promiscuous sex. The film is almost a prelude to the much revered "Dawn of the Dead" by George Romero as it shows the beginning of a zombie outbreak. It is also better and much richer in its story and horror metaphor though the characterizations are slightly more shallow than in "Dawn of the Dead." But the presentation of the irrational horror and unsettling gore is at least on par with "Dawn," despite this film's many obvious limitations.

That makes for a must see for horror fans and this is a great first film from a great director. 9/10

Rated R for graphic violence and gore


Watching this again after a gap of so many years I was amazed at how much sex there was in it. I remembered the nasty little dog prick like parasites that get inside and cause the skin to undulate horribly. I also remembered the whole exclusive accommodation block concept (just looks really 70's now!) but I did not recall that this was a bit of a swipe at the free lovers and swingers of the time, most interesting. Much under rated this movie wastes no time in getting going, so far so fast in fact that with the knickers showing, then nude teen girl getting killed so vigorously before we know what is going on, a most uncomfortable start. Still, 'comfortable' and Cronenberg are not words that many would use together. This is a truly fine feature debut and whilst budgetary constrictions make a little of it look slightly amateurish this takes nothing from the overall effect and let us not forget that this much overlooked film was an obvious inspiration for Alien.


Shivers starts by introducing us, the viewer that is, to Starline Tower a luxury high rise apartment complex situated on an island. The only access is a bridge connecting the island to the nearest city which happens to be Montreal. Starline Tower is almost totally self contained with it's own shops, swimming pool, golf course & even it's own medical clinic manned by Dr. Roger St. Luc (Paul Hampton) & Nurse Forsythe (Lynn Lowry). On a seemingly ordinary day like any other something terrible is happening in Starline Tower, a university professor named Dr. Emil Hobbes (Fred Doederlein) has just brutally killed a young girl whom he was both having an affair with & using as a guinea pig for his bizarre experiments & he slits his own throat shortly after. Since he knew Dr. Hobbes Dr. St. Luc decides to do a little investigating himself & talks to Hobbes partner Rollo Linski (Joe Silver) who says that they were working on breeding a parasite that can take over the function of a diseased or damaged human organ. Meanwhile back at Starline Tower a resident named Janine Tudor (Susan Petrie) is worried about her husband Nicholas (Allan Kolman) as he seems 'very ill' which he is. Nicholas begins to vomit up leech like creatures that then start to bite & infect the other residents of Starline Tower who in turn go on a violent, sexual deviant rampage as the strange disease carried by these grotesque parasites spreads rapidly through Starline Tower. Dr. St. Luc & Nurse Forsythe discover the truth but while it may already be too late for Starline Tower & it's unfortunate residents they must stop the parasites from escaping the island & into the city where they will be all but impossible to stop...

This Canadian produced film also known as The Parasite Murders & They Came from Within, both Orgy of the Blood Parasites which would have been a fantastic name for a film & The Parasite Complex were apparently working titles, was written & directed by David Cronenberg. Shivers is considered to be his first proper film & I personally liked Shivers much more than the rest of Cronenberg's early films like The Brood (1979) & Scanners (1981) for instance. The script moves along at a nice pace & I never found it became boring unlike the Cronenberg films I've mentioned. I must also give Cronenberg credit for giving credibility & substance to a somewhat silly premise as he directs with deadly seriousness. Cronenberg throws in all sorts of everyday metaphors & messages as you would expect, the perils of sleeping around (you may get a parasite which will then possibly go on to infect the entire population of Earth!), modern scientific techniques, human isolation & the dangers of taking a bath & not noticing a large slug like creature crawling towards your privates! All of the characters are interesting & well flesh out so we actually care for them which helps the film enormously. Shivers doesn't contain much blood or gore, a few slimy parasites crawling around, the parasites themselves poking around around inside people causing their skin to bulge & a bit of blood is about as graphic as Shivers gets. Technically Shivers is a little on the rough side but this is to be expected since it was Cronenberg's first film, having said that it's not badly made but it's just not as polished as maybe you might expect from Cronenberg. Shivers was obviously a low budget film but Cronenberg managed to create a film better in style, atmosphere, substance & originality than the means & tools he had at his disposal would have suggested he could. The acting is pretty good & I suspect we have Cronenberg to thank for that, Joe Silver as Rollo Linski stands out in particular & dominates every scene he's in. Overall I enjoyed Shivers more than much of Cronenebrg's early films & I'd say definitely worth watching for both fans of Cronenberg & horror in general.


In 1976, L'il Davey Cronenberg must have seen how the US dominated Canadian culture. So he made Shivers, his first feature. On the surface, this movie is a fun horror romp, but unlike most generic horror films, it carries a deeper meaning.

Without giving too much away, Shivers (or "They Came From Within") deals with a virus that preys on civilians in a remote apartment complex, and turns them into sex-crazed zombies. The virus, which is the representation of America in the film, starts out in the host, and then quickly spreads throughout the building, much like American culture does in Canadian society. Soon the whole building is filled with mindless, sexual cravists...I think you can see where this is going. American films filled with sex, violence, and mindless story lines infecting Canadian cinemas? All signs point to this theme, and it's fun to watch this film, and pick out all the parallels. Although, if you're not for motifs, watch Shivers for the classic twisted horror Cronenberg brings to the screen. We are treated with references to Night Of The Living Dead and many other classic horror flicks along the way. In closing, if it says Cronenburg in the credits, you can guarantee a pretty grotesque/insane/outrageous experience.


As a big fan of David Cronenberg's later films, I was eager to see this one. Even though I knew it was his first--and therefore probably cheesy--I still hoped for something of value. I was mostly disappointed. The production values were so incredibly awful they made Roger Corman movies look like epics; the lapses in logic were big enough to drive elephants through; and the acting was so bad it actually became entertaining. (I've never seen anyone "act" walking across a room before!) There were two saving graces: if you're in the mood for a blast from the past, the ultra-hip 70's feel is totally groovy, man; and if you still happen to have a dusty bag of grass in a drawer somewhere, this is the movie for which to bring it out.


Some of the recent comments are wholly unjust to this movie. The point of the film is to make fun of phony sentimentalism, sanctimonious posturing, and the general tendency of the media to put profit ahead of grace, dignity, and the simple truth. Carole Lombard is not only beautiful, but an exceedingly talented actress (in this and everything else she did). The writing cuts to the bone, exposing hypocrisy in all its forms. The film is as fresh today, and is as relevant to the culture, as it was when it was made. As for the notion that a movie made in 1937 offends someone's sense of what is politically correct in 2004, and therefore deserves criticism, give me a break.


William Wellman was really a helluva director. Anyone that can do a movie like this, and make "The Ox-Bow Incident" too, must have been born to direct.

Coming in at a breezy 75 minutes, "Nothing Sacred" is still very funny on several levels, for several different reasons. Plot does not matter as much as execution, and how you deliver a line matters more than the line itself.

Frederic March and Carole Lombard are perfect, and the supporting cast is just as good, especially the actor who played 'Oliver Stone', March's frustrated boss.

Wellman does unconventional things like make the actors faces be hidden by a tree branch, practically unheard of in that day and age. But the fact of the matter is, that sometimes people are not perfectly framed in life, so maybe they shouldn't be in the movies - at least not as a rule. The first time you get a good look at Lombard, she has shaving cream on her face from kissing a man who is shaving - also not the normal star-moment you might expect.

Just terrific. 9/10.


A Southern hick, I love it when Vermonters are made fun of. Of course, they are only one of the many groups this movie pokes fun at. If you don't want to see physical abuse made funny, don't see this hilarious satire on everything politically correct. Of course, what really makes this hilarious is that in 1937, they didn't KNOW it was politically incorrect to show man hitting women, to show 'darkies', irascible and rude New Englanders, etc. Then there's the propeller-driven airplanes, the first of the airliners flying right past the head of the Statue of Liberty. And guess what? Jack Welch's fortress, Rockefeller Center, looked then just like it looks now.

Some things don't change: newspaper chicanery, among others. The hoaxes they bring about, and the hoaxes they continue to abet all in the name of news, is not news anymore.....it's SOP. Right now, the current hoax is the nomenclature used to describe the appointing of the Cabinet, as though the election were a fait accomplis: "Andrew Card, the president's new appointee......" and other such insiduously assumptive language has been used before, as this movie wonderfully points out. In this case, it's a woman at death's door dying of radium poisoning.....who ain't!!! I'm giving nothing away, it's perfectly obvious from the beginning.

 I suppose I should rail against the prejudice shown against all newspaper folks by the good people of Vermont, as they shut this guy out....with one toddler biting him on the leg as he walks down the street....but it just felt too good. (After all, some really do take their jobs as members of the 4th Estate and protectors of the common good seriously.)

The color is pretty good for 1937, and you'll see the Wicked Witch of the East portraying her less wicked, but still spiteful self.

What will give you chills is the pervading knowledge as you hear Carole Lombard's dialogue about death and dying...that she wasn't to ever grow old gracefully, but died in a plane crash not long after this film was made. She was a beautiful woman, and did quiet a good job of acting in this many-faceted satire of life and our attraction to dying, or the pretense of it.

Well worth your time on many levels ...just to see film-making of the 30's and how good it could be, for one.


The votes for this movie must have been based on political correctness, for based on hilarity, assuming one has a healthy sense of the absurd, this film rates a solid 10.

True, those who are thin-skinned will find the racial and gender and, uh, regional send-offs deplorable. However, since the film is a brilliant satire on the phoniness of those who take themselves too seriously, it is natural that when these people see themselves in it, they will be offended.

"Nothing Sacred" refers not only to the values hypocrisy seeks to destroy, but to the sacred cows the film seeks to topple. Carol Lombard has never been lovelier or more picaresque, and Frederic March plays a great foil for the barely plausible goings on.

One of the irritants in the highly regarded "Bringing up Baby" is the completely implausible haplessness of Cary Grant's character and the determined obtuseness of Kathrine Hepburn's. In "Nothing Sacred" there are no such distractions; it is the superior film.

Other joys of the film are the delightful vignettes, such as a dipsomaniacal country doctor's tirade against journalists (In vino veritas, indeed!) and the transparently phony patriotism at a strip club.

Filmed in glorious early technicolor.


Oh my my was this ahead of it's time or what! The funniest thing out of the 30's that you've never heard of. Super quick, non-chalant humor that's indifferent to weather or not you laugh and that makes it so funny (does not force one joke on it's audience and the effect is so humbling that it solidifies the humor.) Plus a lot of improving from a greatly skilled cast. I do mean great, they were all completely on top of their roles.

I was surprised to see such a sharp funny movie from this era, I mean in the type of funny it is. Chock full o gags and easy to watch the whole way through, I don't think there was one thing wrong with this one.


Absolutely hilarious screwball comedy. A hotshot newspaper reporter(Fredric March)tries to get in the good graces of his boss(Walter Connolly)by exploiting the "imminent" death of an ailing young woman(Carole Lombard). By way of newsprint the doomed young lady becomes the toast of New York City until her health situation is revealed as a hoax. Supporting cast includes: Frank Fay, Margaret Hamilton and Charles Winninger. Lombard is wonderful in the role of the ailing/doomed Hazel Flagg from Vermont. My favorite scene is when March is walking down the sidewalk and a small boy bolts through a gated fence to bite him on the back of the leg and scurry back to safety. This knee-slapping comedy is directed by William A. Wellman and its a crime not to watch.


The team of David O. Selznick producer, William Wellman director, and Fredric March leading man, after having had a big hit the year before with A Star Is Born, teamed up again to create one of the great screwball comedies of the Thirties in Nothing Sacred.

The inspiration for this film comes from the fertile imagination of Ben Hecht best known previously for co-authoring another newspaper classic, The Front Page. Hecht takes it a step further and while the Morning Post reports the news faster and better than its rivals, it doesn't create the news. Here the media is satirized for creating a celebrity.

Poor Carole Lombard as Hazel Flagg, country girl from rural Vermont who is misdiagnosed by her country doctor Charles Winninger as having incurable radiation poisoning. It's a small news item over the wire services.

But when hotshot reporter Fredric March gets a hold of it, he convinces his editor Walter Connolly to build up the story by bringing Lombard to New York and ballyhooing her into celebrity status. Lombard and Winninger by now know an error in diagnosis was made, but who can turn down an all expense paid trip to New York? The story just mushrooms until it gets away from any kind of control.

The difference sometimes between comedy and drama is often so slight as to be imperceptible. There's not much difference between Fredric March's character in Nothing Sacred and Kirk Douglas's in Ace in the Hole. Both are down on their luck newspaper people looking for a comeback and both exploit a story to their own ends, March comically and Douglas tragically. But the plots are more similar than one realizes.

Even today we still hunger for our celebrities some of whom are nothing but professional celebrities. The sad life of Anna Nicole Smith is proof of that.

When you think about Anna Nicole Smith though Nothing Sacred appears dated it actually has a very timeless message about the power of media to create and destroy.


I enjoy laughing but I have never been much of a howler, a knee-slapper; one who laughs so hard he falls over or loses his breath. All of that and more occurred to me when I saw the 1937 version (the only one worth seeing) of "Nothing Sacred." I knew it'd be memorable, since I've yet to meet a Ben Hect script I didn't love, I am very fond of Carole Lombard and Frederic March is one of the most under-appreciated actors of all time. Walter Connolly has some of the films best lines, certainly many of the most excoriating lines and certainly my favorite lines of the picture. Simple plot, you know it: Reporter March fakes a big city exclusive with "dying" Carole Lombard, a girl from a small Vermont town. They arrive in New York and the high jinks ensue. I say "high jinks ensue" deliberately, as my triteness has a purpose: ENJOY the dialogue and the comedic posturing and timing of some real pros, and I don't see how you won't burst three guts while watching this one. Oh, you need to put Political Correctness aside--the only serious point I make--since there is insensitivity, racial and otherwise. If this sort of thing, even though MEANT to show hypocricy, bothers you, skip this one, I mean it. Otherwise, just relax as the barbs fly like frenzied lightning and don't be ashamed to "rattle the walls" with your laughter. (During my initial viewing I was for the only time in my life accused of "rattling walls" with my guffaws.) If, as it is with old musicals, you can accept that this is a series of vignettes rather than a tightly bound story, you're home free and you'll know ecstasy. This is a screwball, not a drama or "comedy/drama." (I'd love to quote a few lines but I don't know if that is spoiler behavior or not). "Nothing Sacred" is mandatory viewing for anybody who loves old Hollywood comedies, screwball or otherwise and I rate it a solid TEN.


This 1937 screwball comedy is perhaps the only Technicolour film of it's genre, and what a fun, exuberant ride it is! Reliable 30's leading man Fredric March stars as Walter Cook, a reporter at the New York newspaper 'The Morning Star' who will do anything for a good story. After a botched attempt to pass off a African-American commoner as the Sultan Of Brunei, Wally, desperate to redeem himself, travels to Vermont to cover the last remaining weeks of Hazel Flagg's (the wonderful Carole Lombard) radium-poisoning-interrupted life. The trouble is, Hazel's not really sick at all- she was initially misdiagnosed by her bumbling Vermont doctor. Still, Hazel jumps at Cook's offer for her to take a last-gasp trip to the Big City. She's a big hit with the City as the new 'bleeding heart' story. As the pair inevitably fall in love, Hazel's conscience starts to get the better of her and things start to unravel very fast.

Lombard and March! What can I say...they are terrific together! Carole's bright and gorgeous, this is one of her best performances. She's slightly too glamorous to be a small-town Vermont gal, but she's very believable in the role otherwise. As one of the best comic actresses ever to grace the screen, she lights up and gives wit to every scene. March is likable, attractive and does comedy very well. The pair share numerous classic moments together, particularly in the mock 'fight' scene. They, IMO, rank up there with Hepburn-Grant and Gable-Colbert as one of the great screwball pairings.

The colourful supporting players are a lark, too. Watch for the lady better known as The Wicked Witch Of The West, Margaret Hamilton, early in the film as one of the many seemingly 'backward' residents of Vermont. Yep, anyone? Walter Connolly is priceless as the stressed newspaper boss Oliver Stone. Applause must go to Billy Barty, as the young Vermont boy who bites March on the calf, for providing possibly the most spontaneous and funny moment in the entire film.

Aside from the fun and games, this is a wonderful satire on both the values of modern society and the corruption of truth by the media. From the opening shots of busy New York night-life (watch for the very prominent Coca-Cola sign) and Big-city skyscrapers obviously inspired by King Vidor's silent 'The Crowd', we know that we are getting a screwball comedy with a message. Aside from certain racist and sexist elements that the modern viewer may find slightly off putting, this film holds up very well.

The only problem with this film is the rather slow opening sequence. The laughs only really flow fast and freely when we arrive at Vermont and Lombard makes her entrance, 15 minutes into the film. The colour is slightly dodgy (or is it just my copy?), which is understandable as it is one of the early colour films.

Another one of those 30's comedies that didn't have to rely on toilet humour or sex jokes in order to be entertaining.

My rating: 8/10


The incandescent Carole Lombard was simply the most beautiful comedienne during Hollywood's golden era of the 1930's. In fact, the one conceit of the film is how her stunning glamour, especially in the newspaper photos, seems at odds with the innocent small-town girl she portrays in this 1937 screwball comedy classic directed in lickety-split fashion by the two-fisted William "Wild Bill" Wellman. Lombard never let her beauty get in the way of being funny, and her effervescent manner makes her seem dotty enough to make the crazy situations she gets into believable. Moreover, the film's constant tweaking at the public obsession over a young woman's impending death predates the concept of reality programming by nearly 70 years.

For a movie that clocks in at just 75 minutes, the far-fetched story is fairly dense but clips by without a wasted moment. In brief, Wally Cook is a New York tabloid reporter relegated to the obituaries after his most recent story is exposed as fake. Seeking to rehabilitate his career, he uncovers a story on Hazel Flagg, a woman in rural Vermont dying of radium poisoning. When he arrives in her town, she suddenly learns that her diagnosis was a mistake and that she is not dying at all. However, feeling constrained by her small town existence, Hazel pretends to be terminally ill in order to accept Wally's offer to take her to New York City. In true 1930's fashion, New York pours its heart out to her making her an instant media celebrity. Hazel starts to feel guilty over the misdirected attention, and of course, Wally and Hazel find themselves falling in love amid all the deception and inevitable chaos.

Just coming off his classic dramatic turn in the most cohesive version of "A Star Is Born", stalwart leading actor Fredric March gamely plays the initially cynical Wally with the right everyman demeanor, though I kept thinking how much more at home William Powell or Cary Grant would have been in the role. The lovable Lombard makes Hazel a sublime comic creation even though the character is basically a selfish charlatan. They have a classic sparring scene near the end where each lands a punch on the jaw of the other. Familiar character actors complete the cast with Walter Connolly in constipated frustration as Wally's constantly boiling editor-in-chief (aptly named Oliver Stone), Charles Winninger properly pixilated as Hazel's fraud of a doctor, and familiar faces like Sig Ruman, Margaret Hamilton, Hattie McDaniel and Hedda Hopper in little more than walk-on parts.

Wellman displays an idiosyncratic way with the camera, for instance, focusing on Lombard's ankles as she flirts with March in an open crate or having a tree branch cover their faces during a key dialogue scene. Unsurprisingly, the director of "Wings" and "Lafayette Escadrille" inserted a scene aboard a plane to show off the Manhattan skyline. One of the first movies filmed in Technicolor, it still looks pretty good though there is subtle graininess and typical for a film of this age, a constant popping noise exists in the background. Not as good as "My Man Godfrey" nor as funny as "Bringing Up Baby", "Nothing Sacred" is still great entertainment and a rare opportunity to see the luminous Lombard at full star wattage.


NOTHING SACRED is a look at modern celebrity at it's worse and most bathetic. And God bless it for taking it all apart.

Wally Cook (Fredric March) is an able newspaper reporter, who when plastered (which appears to be frequently) creates hoaxes at the expense of his newspaper and his boss Oliver Stone (yeah, really - only he's played by Walter Connolly here). At the start of this film, Wally has an African-American named Ernest Jones (Troy Brown Jr.) pretend to be "the Sultan of Marzepan" a wealthy far eastern potentate who is planning to donate millions to build some kind of multi-cultural center in Manhattan*. At the last moment his wife shows up with their children (the wife is Hattie MacDaniel), and she wrecks the hoax just as Connolly is taking credit for the donation for his newspaper.

*Oddly enough there has recently been a two part news item in the New York Times about the plans (in Abu Dhabi) for a cultural center and university on a large scale. But this seems to be a legitimate scheme.

From the start Ben Hecht's script follows the idea of how we, the sophisticates who live in cities (especially New York) are far more gullible than we would imagine. Wally is first banished to the obituary column of the paper (Ernest is given a janitorial job - this film is from the 1930s, by the way, so some stereotyping is going to be here). After a month Wally begs for a chance to resume his old job. Oliver, somewhat reluctantly, ends up giving Wally a scoop to interview a young woman in a New England town named Hazel Flagg (Carole Lombard). Hazel worked in one of those factories where they used radium based paint on watches, so she has been diagnosed by the local doctor (Enoch Downer - Charles Winninger) as dying of radium poisoning.

Wally goes to the town of Warsaw, and finds the natives nosy, secretive, and hostile (one little kid even bites Wally on the leg). He finds Hazel and makes the offer that Oliver has for her - if she will come to New York City, the newspaper will give her first rate hotel accommodations, fine dining, take to all the sites, and have the city lay out the official red carpet to her - until the day she dies. Hazel gleefully accepts - she hates being stuck in her town. Of course she fails to mention that Dr. Downer (who is a heavy drinker) botched up her test, and the lab has now revealed that she is healthy as a horse and will not die. She takes Downer with her and Wally to make sure he keeps quiet.

The film then follows her rise to international celebrity trumpeted by Oliver's newspaper, the Mayor's office, and other interested parties. She is invited to all sorts of events (when she attends a wrestling match, the two wrestlers - supposedly killing each other - stop to greet her with smiles). A collapse at a nightclub (due to drinking too much) is mistaken for an early sign of her mortal illness (sentimental Oliver begs Dr. Downer not to spare him the worst - the next edition is going out in half an hour!). In the meantime Hazel and Wally have fallen in love - but Hazel does not know how to break the bad news to Wally: that she may live to a fine old age!

Many of the screwball comedies of the 1930s don't work so well today, due to changes in our perspectives. Certainly the jokes at the start concerning Ernest Jones are not so funny now - although Hecht did work in a scene where Ernest gets some back (having been called a fake by Oliver and others at the newspaper, Ernest stumbles into the truth about Hazel - and when he sees the others is swallowing it doesn't give a word of warning). But for the most part NOTHING SACRED works pretty well to this day, and showcases Lombard in her best screwball performance, ably supported by March in a comic turn for a change.


A cute show. Nothing made me roll on the floor, but still cute. Carole Lombard was soooo beautiful. And she was secure enough in it to take a comedic role where she would make faces, and have her hair wet, and other things that many beautiful actresses would not. I recommend.


Just saw this "classic" on AMC and even though it's very hard to make me laugh, there are 2 EXTREMELY funny lines (won't spoil them for you) regarding things that are written in letters penned by the Carole Lombard character. I laughed out loud. After the movie was over I was still "playing" these lines in my head and laughing.

That kind of humor is rare for a movie that's 60 years old-- I haven't seen/heard these jokes duplicated in a movie since.

Definitely worth seeing. 7 out of 10.


An unscrupulous reporter takes advantage of a small town girl's supposed imminent death in order to manipulate the public and gain more sales. Lombard however is not that imminent to death and she turns the tables and takes advantage of the situation. Plays as well today as more than sixty years later which proves that while the people may have changed the media stays the same. A good biting satire. on a scale of one to ten..8


A film which has Fredric March bitten in the calf by a toddler who subsequently runs askance like a rabid rabbit can't be but excellent. Not to mention Carole Lombard's dazzling performance (I can't remember having seen her mediocre anyway) : how fun and beauty reach a perfect match ! The colors, as translated on the DVD, are fragile and uncertain, which adds a certain poetry to that otherwise quirky comedy. As for the "meaning" ! Some of the front pages devoted to the supposedly terminally ill Hazel Flagg (Carole Lombard) might have inspired all the drivel that was supposed to be a tribute to unfortunate Di. The details of the film are also of the neatest sort. One striking example is the Heroines on horses show (another tribute to the "dying" Hazel Flagg- five minutes short, featuring Lady Godiva, Helen of Troy, Pocahontas and some others, and managing to be as irrelevant and funny as can be. Is the secret of these comedy, where beauty is a showcase of fun, lost for good ? The sublimely "dark and handsome" March, the deliciously "classically blonde" Lombard revel in ridicule, and that's a feat no modern comedian seems able to perform. Highly recommendable !


Frederick March is a reporter on a New York paper, desperate for a feature story. He digs up a notice of a young woman in Vermont, Carole Lombard, who has been diagnosed as terminally ill with radium poisoning. Not knowing the diagnosis was a mistake made by a bibulous rural doctor, March rushes to Vermont and offers the "dying" woman a trip to New York, all expenses paid, for a last fling. Lombard has discovered the mistaken diagnosis but, in thrall to the prospect of a vacation in the Big Apple, agrees to go along.

She's exploited by the newspaper and becomes a celebrity. She gets the keys to the city for her bravery. People weep at her name. The governor endorses a "Hazel Flagg Day." Everything Lombard does -- such as getting drunk and passing out at a big affair in her honor -- is interpreted as a sign of her mysterious but debilitating illness.

A quartet of European doctors finally uncover her real state, which has more to do with radiance than radium. She and March have fallen in love. Lombard leaves a farewell note to the city, claiming she is going off to die alone ("like an elephant") and the couple escape on a ship.

I'd heard this was an outstanding screwball comedy of the sort common in the mid and late 30s, so the first time I saw it, years ago, I thought I had caught the wrong movie because it wasn't very funny. I've just seen it again and it's still not funny.

It's rushed, yes, and sometimes a little hysterical, and everyone involved tries for boffo laughs, but it doesn't clear the bar set by such other examples of the genre as "Bringing up Baby" or "It Happened One Night" or "The Palm Beach Story." I hate to say it, because so much effort is on display and because Carole Lombard scintillates in the role of the deceptive but fundamentally decent Hazel Flagg. But Frederick March, a fine actor in serious parts, is miscast. Somebody like Clark Gable or Cary Grant is called for -- an earnest extrovert. The funniest scene, I gather, is when March knocks Lombard unconscious in the bedroom. Maybe I'm becoming patriarchal but it doesn't make me laugh to see a woman punched in the jaw. Well, maybe my ex wife. As it is, the funniest scenes involve ancillary characters like German doctors and Scandinavian firemen, who are on screen collectively for about ten minutes.

The plot itself has a lot of built-in tension because, after all, both Lombard and the audience know she isn't sick. So how and when will the charade be brought to a finish? Actually, it leaves a thoughtful person a little uncomfortable because what we have here is an example of an aborted rite of passage. A rite of passage marks the transition of the subject from one status to another. The ceremonies, large and small, surrounding a death are part of a rite of passage, a shift from the status of "living" to that of "dead." People go to a lot of trouble to prepare for an impending death. And when the doomed person refuses to die -- maybe perks up and remits -- the ritual is aborted. The same thing happens when one of the parties cancels a wedding at the last minute, after the invitations have been sent out and the presents have arrived. It leaves a hole in the scenario. It's like watching a Charlie Chan movie with the last ten minutes missing. The audience is, of course, happy that Hazel Flagg is alive and well in Tahiti, and yet underneath it all they feel a little CHEATED.

Anyway, I understand that many viewers enjoyed this immensely and don't want to discourage anyone from watching it, but I thought it was interminable instead of terminal. Not a laugh in a cartload.


This is a classic with Carole Lombard. In one of the previous comments, it was mentioned that the color was off a bit and the DVD was blamed. Although the DVD transfer may be awful too, I think this movie may have been made in the original 2 strip Technicolor process (since it was in 1937) which always has a blue tinge to it. It was probably not the vivid and beautiful 3 strip process which I think first appeared in 1939 with Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz (at least for major studio releases).

Can anyone confirm this?

The movie has a wonderful performance from Lombard which I find her second best, the best being her performance in My Man Godfrey. the supporting cast is excellent with the exception of March, who I always found to be a "hammy" actor. That style of acting was pretty normal back then - and widely accepted as "correct".


Thanks for your review of Nothing Sacred I appreciate it. But it's a misnomer to compare it to Bringing Up baby. Hepburn and Grant are eccentrics who are living in there own worlds but they screwily belong in each others too, love; and the film shows it's a worlds of eccentrics. The satire is not in those characters, they are not cynical people. Flagg and her sponsor in Nothing Scared are opportunists and they are living in our world of structure that is phony. Mention of racism is odd. The giant black man who 'leans' on hotel doors to collection flowers is doing exactly what the film is about, finding a way to justify/ignore his cynical actions, for his own reward...a very funny moment. Nothing Sacred is a wicked film,in detail...


This movie was made over 70 years ago and shows its age. Everything is dated. The story, which is childish. The acting, which is stagy. The cinematography, which is staid. What is good, however, the fight between Carole Lombard and Frederic March and when March and Lombard are in the water. And what makes this movie special is Ms. Lomabrd's presence. Carole Lombard was born thirty years too early. She was meant for television. She would have been the queen of the sitcoms. She would have easily out-Lucyed Lucille Ball. That is, she was hot. And she was talented and wonderful ... and married to Clark Gable. She had it all and then she was gone. This vivacious babe, a precursor to your modern TV sitcom star, was the epitome of a movie comedienne. If only ...


after watching this movie,one thing really struck me:how talented Carole Lombard was as an actress.she has a real gift for comedy,of which there is a fair amount in this film.i found i very funny,but beyond that,i just thought it was well written,and even more relevant today than back then.it basically skewers every imaginable target,including the price of fame,and paints pretty much everybody as phonies,when you you get right down to it.even your average every day person is painted with that brush.but this is also a romance and drama,and it also works on those levels.Fredric March is the male lead,and he does pretty well in the role.the supporting players are also good,but,like i said,it is Carole Lombard who steals the show.i had a great time watching this film,and highly recommend it.my vote for Nothing Sacred:8.5/10


"Nothing Sacred" has been remade in whole or part many times but no version comes close to the original 1937 screwball comedy starring Frederic March and Carole Lombard. Directed by William Wellman with a script by Ben Hecht, Nothing Sacred is more topical today than it was then. There's been a good deal written on this board about the political incorrectness of it: racism, drunkenness, physical abuse, stereotyping. It's true, there's something to offend everyone. Instead of judging everything by today's enlightened standards, I prefer to notice that yes, things were different in the past and then move on to the wonderful, witty script, the very modern topic, the great performances, the early, muted color, Lombard's outfits, the old airplane and the scenes of New York as it was in all its glory in the 1930s.

March is Wally Cook, a reporter in hot water for writing about the Sultan of Brunai who in reality is a regular Joe working in New York with a wife who identifies him while he's making pronouncements. Wally goes to Vermont to hunt down a story about a woman dying of radium poisoning and finds her in the person of Hazel Flagg (Lombard). Hazel has just gotten some very bad news from her doctor (Charles Winninger) - she's not dying. The diagnosis was a mistake. She had hopes of taking a trip out of Vermont that was offered to her and asks the doctor to keep the new diagnosis of health quiet. Soon after, she meets Wally, who wants to bring her to New York for a last fling at the expense of the paper, which will follow her until her last poisoned breath. Hazel agrees and takes the doctor with her. At first, she has a blast with only the occasional twinge of guilt. Then a German specialist is brought in and blows Hazel's scam all to hell.

One of the comments had it right - this story predates reality shows by something like 63 years. Hazel, like so many today, is an ersatz celebrity, famous for being famous. What will never change is milking a subject for profit until it's dry. Nothing Sacred has some hilarious scenes and great lines, including the big fight scene in the hotel when Wally tries to make Hazel seem ill by forcing her to fight with him in order to sweat and raise her pulse rate. The nightclub scene is a riot.

Lombard is beautiful and wears some stunning outfits and gowns, a gift to Hazel from the newspaper. She was a very adept actress with a wonderful sense of comedy. How sad that she is in a film about dying young and would do so five years later at the age of 34. She and March do a great job together - he's normally not known for his comedy but does well here. He approach to Wally is serious and he plays Wally's intensity and affection for Hazel for all it's worth. Connelly as his editor is fabulous, as is Winninger as the doctor who drinks his way through New York.

Nothing Sacred has been a musical, Hazel Flagg, and remade as Living it Up (with Jerry Lewis as Homer Flagg). Most recently, the general plot was reworked as Last Holiday. See the original in the screwball comedy genre which is, alas, no more.


Enjoy many of William A Wellman's direction of films and in this film he goes completely slapstick with his leading stars being Carole Lombard as Hazel Flagg and Fredric March as Wally Cook. Janet Gaynor was originally selected for the role as Hazel Flagg and was decided that Carole Lombard was best suited for the role and she was a great success. This is a story about Hazel Flagg who lives in a town called Warsaw, Vermont and Hazel has been advised by her physician in town that she has a very short time to live, because she has a radiation in her system and it will take her life. A New York City newspaper man picks up on her story and decides to visit her town and write a complete story about her condition and her life. This report is Wally Cook, (Fredric March) who visits this town and gets a very cold reception from everyone in town and especially Margaret Hamilton, (Warsaw, Vermont Drug Store Lady) who two year later appeared in "The Wizard of Oz" in 1939. There is lots of comedy and Carole Lombard the wife of Clark Gable gave a great performance with lots of vitality and humor. Enjoy.


At a mere 77 minutes, this delicious serving of pure hilarious cynicism still seems a bit long while you're watching it -- maybe because the writers at times invest too much in milking all they can from certain scenes. But when this satire rolls, it really rocks. Too, too bad that so many film makers of today lack both the insight and the skill to produce a match for this old chestnut. Carol Lombard gives her usually fine performance playing a character who gets too deep into her once-innocent scheme to back out gracefully. She does some over playing here, but isn't that the way Lucille Ball played Lucy for so many years? Frederick March turns in one of his best performances, Walter Connolly and most of the others are right on-key. You can add this to W. Wellman's long list of very professional directing gigs. And warn everyone -- this is one movie you DON'T walk into in the middle!


SCREWBALL COMEDY THAT PROVES THEY DON'T MAKE 'EM LIKE THEY USED TO Nothing Sacred is taut satire in the newspaper and screwball genre made in the 1930s in the wake of similar type movies such as Front Page(1931),Bombshell(1933) and many others. It is a movie with the 2 stars in top form Carol Lombard as the faux heroine in one of her best roles,which would includ Twentieth Century(1934),My Man Godfrey(1936),To Be or Not to Be and others. Also starring Fredric March as the Newspaper reporter from New York who will do anything to hype a story and it is at least one of his Top 10 roles and he had many great ones including deserved Oscars for his performances in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde(1932) and Best Years of Our Lives(1946). The supporting roles as played by Walter Connoly as the Newspaper editor and Charles Winninger as the the horse doctor are superb. tHIS ZANY FARCE IS DONE IN A MANNER THAT THEY JUST CAN'T DUPLICATE TODAY OR PROBABLY NOT SINCE THE 1950S and it is a joy to behold. This is a great comedy and one that is a treasure and a gem-just appreciate that they once made a bunch of comedies of this quality-This is one of the Greatones-though I wouldn't quite put it in the masterwork/All-Time Great Category.


Unlike many of the screwball comedies of the 1930s, this one is a bit different because it is both funny AND excellent social commentary. The film makes fun of the cult of celebrity as well as the fickle and short attention-span of the public. The film begins with a cute scene--as a foreign potentate is being honored at a fancy dinner. However, the "celebrity" turns out to be a hoax and the reporter responsible (Frederic March) for promoting this fake is demoted by the newspaper boss, Walter Connelly (who, as usual, is very funny in a supporting role as a blow-hard boss whose nerves are frayed).

Later, March is able to convince his boss for one more chance, as he convinces him he has a new and TRUE human interest story the newspaper can promote--a pretty young lady dying from radium poisoning! The lady turns out to be wacky Carole Lombard and just before March shows up to interview her, she finds out from her dopey doctor (Charles Winninger) that he was wrong in his diagnosis and she will live after all. March does NOT know this and innocently promises to take Lombard to New York and make her a celebrity. Well, as Lombard's life in Vermont is pretty dull, she doesn't tell him the truth and goes to the big city to be wined and dined as well as being given the key to the city!! It all snowballs very quickly into a nationwide obsession with this "dying" woman and at this point it's too late to tell the truth!

This is only about the first 2/3 of the film. How all this is successfully resolved without them ending up in prison is for you to see for yourself. Also, if you are interested, this was later remade by Martin and Lewis as LIVING IT UP. I personally preferred the 1937 version because of its excellent acting and fast pace. Not a great film, but a very good one that's sure to please.


I wouldn't call this a screwball comedy, though. It stars out with Fredric March as a reporter who is demoted because his last story was a fake. He convinces his boss, played by Walter Connolly who always seems to play these kind of roles, to make a bigger story out of a woman dying of radium poisoning. He takes her to New York and show her a good time until she dies. But it turns out she isn't dying and she wants to tell March but her doctor won't let her or something like that. This movie is pretty short at only 75 minutes and it could of been longer. Fredric March is great as the reporter and Carole Lombard is also good as the woman who is faking her illness. This movie was directed by William A. Wellman who didn't too many comedies.


A small town girl Hazel Flagg (Carole Lombard) has become deadly ill of radium poisoning.Or that what she thinks until her doctor, Enoch Downer (Charles Winninger) notices he has given a wrong diagnosis.A reporter called Wallace Cook (Fredric March) starts writing about the "doomed" woman and wants to take her to New York with him.She doesn't want to go spoiling it all by telling the truth but instead packs her bags and her doctor and it's off to New York.Some falling in love happens along the way.David O. Selznick as the producer and William A. Wellman as the director.James H. Street behind the story and Ben Hecht behind the screenplay.Oscar Levant behind the original music Nothing Sacred (1937) is a fine example of a good old time comedy.This is very screwball.The lovely Carole Lombard shines in the lead.In real life she died way too early but she did make herself a screen legend during her time on Earth.Fredric March makes a great male lead opposite Carole.Just watch their funny fist fight in the movie.And this is a romantic comedy! Charles Winninger is hilarious as the boozing doctor.Walter Connolly is brilliant playing the editor named Oliver Stone.Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin starred the remake of the movie in 1954.The title that time was Living It Up and it was also awfully funny.70 years hasn't done any harm to this movie.It's more like a fine wine and gets better with age.Not that I'm an expert of wines.


I was taken to see this for the first time when I was too young to get most of the humor. It improved as I aged. It really is one of the best.

Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis did a remake (called "Living It Up", though I somehow remember the title as "Homer Flagg") and I remember at the time thinking that that version was MUCH better, but what did I know? I was only nine.


In a screwball comedy, the dialogue should be sharp, witty, and come fast and furious.

"Nothing Sacred" has a few flashes of true humor delivered by Carole Lombard, but is an otherwise plodding, dull, and pedestrian comedy.


My fourteen-year-old boy is very much into computers (that's hardly surprising). This summer he'll be back with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth program studying - I don't really know exactly what. It's some kind of computer program, I just sign the check.

He's very much both anti-Microsoft and anti-Bill Gates. He's also quite pro-Linux, the emblem of the "Open Source" movement whose adherents regard its underlying virtues with a devotion normally reserved by the religious for the icons of their faiths.

So he wanted me to see "Revolution OS," a documentary about the Linux operating system and the open source movement that spawned the increasingly important competitor to both Microsoft and Apple.

This is a very interesting documentary which I, clueless as to the secrets of operating systems, readily understood. I watched it with the barest comprehension of Linux or the philosophy underlying the open source concept.

Much credit to the filmmaker for not only explaining the seminal value of open source - the commitment to free interchange of ideas with minimal incorporation of legal protection for intellectual property - but for also succinctly allowing contrasting values and competing personalities screen time. This documentary is a very concise but excellent guide for the uninitiated into a world usually the arcane preserve of specialists most adept at talking to each other.

The Open Source movement is a work in progress threatened by the real risk of those benefiting from openness legally protecting their own "added value" and thus, in a sense, betraying their benefactors. Several of those interviewed pursue their open source values almost as a creed, the commitment to computers taking the place of more traditional dogma.

Anyone interested in a major intellectual counterpoint to the dominance of both Microsoft and the role of law in insuring proprietary benefits for innovators should see "Revolution OS": no manual required.

8/10.


When I first saw this on the shelf at the store I thought that it had a strong potential to just be a "feel-good" movie geared only towards those in the open source movement.

But after watching it, I feel like this is a documentary that I could show my parents so that they can better understand the Open Source Community that I call myself a member of.

This movie provides a very good introduction to what drove software programmers of the 70s into the idea of freely available source code. I thought I new most of the history, but a lot of what Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens talk about enlightened me. I feel like I know understand the open source community better and get the big picture. Even though I thought I knew the big picture before.


Given that I have no knowledge about computers nor how they operate, I found

this film very informative with some basic descriptions of the free software and open source movement (which have some ideological differences... not that I

had ever heard of either). The film recounts the historical evolution (and

subsequent "revolution") through a series of interviews of key players in the development of the Linux operating systems for computers. If you know nothing about computers, do not assume that you will find this film uninteresting. In fact, although dense with information, the narrative is straight forward and almost all the information is explained for the ignorant like myself.

There are some relatively small problems with the film, mainly near its

conclusion. The finale of the film does not address the disparity between the commercial aspects of open source in the 90's and the long-term growth of the philosophy and practical applications. I assume that the Linux OS and the idea of open source did not lose steam after the dot-com stock bubble burst. Given I don't work around computers, besides for internet research and writing, I must make that assumption. Yet the film implies, for those of us who are ignorant, that perhaps it was derailed by the economic problems. But given the stable

foundation of the idea that the film describes, I cannot imagine that commercial problems would have a long-term affect.

The film ultimately is a nicely constructed lesson for those of us out of the loop. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in watching documentaries or

learning interesting kernels about our world. In terms of emotional involvement, the way the director juxtaposes the interviewees creates interesting moments of humor (there seems to be a jockeying for credit happening within the community of programmers). Where the credit belongs and how people have used this

ideology (which it is according to one of the founders of GNU-- see the movie, it will all be explained) to launch practical business operations creates a nice tension. Of course, there are some mentions of Microsoft's relationship, which is adversarial, to the Linux OS that can help the laymen get emotionally involved in the story by means of creating a hero (the Open Source community) and a

villain (Microsoft). Of course the Microsoft way of business (proprietary rights) is never really given voice with the exception involving an over-dramatized

reading of argumentative letter written in the 70's by Bill Gates (given I am originally from Seattle and some of my friends work for the giant, it seems a little one-sided).

Again, if you have no knowledge of computers, do not avoid this film for that reason alone. If you are on this site, you have an interest in films. You can at least appreciate it as a nicely constructed documentary (although not excellent) that will illuminate a part of recent history.

A small note: although there are some mannerisms of the interviewees that can be regarded as stereotypical regarding computer enthusiasts, they are some of the more well-spoken interviewees I have seen in film in awhile.


While this documentary only covers the early period of Linux and Open Source history (up to about 2000), it provides great insights into how the software industry got itself where it is today.

Of course, since 2000, Linux has made great strides into the server market, the desktop market (even Walmart sells computers with Linux now), and the embedded market. Cell phones, Palm PDAs, cameras, camcorders, cars, networking, Tivo, cable boxes, etc. all run by Linux now (or soon will, according to announcements from manufacturers).

The days when you needed to learn a dozen different operating systems are gone. Learn Linux and you know how everything works. The best part is that if you don't like the way something works, you can change it. That, and it's free! Make copies for all your friends, legally. Tens of thousands of high-quality free software products (office suites, graphics packages, video processing, everything imaginable). Tech support is provided by tens of thousands of volunteers.

It's hard to understand how this change from paying for software to free software happened; for many people not involved in the process, it's still news to them.

If you want to know how this all happened, Revolution OS will give you the background you need to understand the way the software business works now, and in the future.


I've read 3 books related to the open source movement - "Just For Fun", "Rebel Code" and "Free As In Freedom". This documentary told much the same story as in the books. However, it was kind of neat to "meet" some of the key players and hear them personally give their observations and viewpoints. It was also neat seeing them "in person" because they portrayed a different image than I sensed from the books. They are real people dedicated to a great endeavour. For anyone interested in open source, this documentary is a "must see"!


I had been hearing about Revolution OS from some programmers at my company for the past several months. I'm a management-type so I didn't think the film would really be my type of thing. I then heard a CNET radio segment on the film and decided it might be kind of interesting after all.

As it ended up, I caught the last show at the Towne 3 in San Jose. I was tired by the time I sat down in my seat, but I was surprised that I actually stayed awake through the whole film. The director really succeed in making the film a lot more entertaining and involving than I would have thought possible. There were lots of talking heads, but I not as much as I was expecting. The best thing about the film was that it had a sense of humor about the whole thing.

If you don't know anything about Linux or Open Source, but are interested in the topics, then you will really like Revolution OS. If you are looking for an intelligent documentary about something pretty important, then you will definitely like Revolution OS. If you are looking for some sort of super-technical film about how to write software or how and why obscure software patches were created, then this film is not for you.

Basically, the director, J.T.S. Moore, approached the film like he was telling the story of a revolution with its own heroes, villains, defeats and sly comebacks. That's why I liked it because it was about people and some universal ideas.

One final note, I don't see a lot a documentaries in the theater, but Revolution OS seemed really well made. The print I saw was scratched up from a lot of screenings, but the cinematography, editing, shot design, and music were totally top notch. A lot better than the stuff on TLC or The History Channel. I think the whole film was shot on 35mm and in cinemascope. Very neat. I will definitely get the DVD when it comes out.


I saw a really well made documentary today Revolution OS. I really knew very little of the Open Source / Free Software history. By the time the film was done I understood it very well. J.T.S. Moore told the story so well. The music that Chris Anderson-Bazzoli composed was well used all through the film. There is a scene about a letter Gates wrote way back around 76 ranting about "free" software. The music and the voice over really sell the scene so well. Moore's cutting between the different people being interviewed is great. He did a good job of starting an idea from one guy and finishing with another or going back and forth. I had no idea how LINUX had come to be; it was fun to see how wide a range of people were involved. I found the film to be engaging and fun.


"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" has become a modern classic, and I enjoyed the author's appearance. I'd never seen Stallman or Torvalds on the screen, either.

Totally uninteresting, possibly even devastatingly horrible and excruciatingly boring, to anyone who hasn't spent some time using and writing free software. Most of target audience probably lives in the Valley, plus a few exclusive pockets of geekdom in major cities throughout the world. You know who you are, hang your heads in shame while you watch.


TZ was never known for its comedy which makes this episode stand out. A lot of the gags are played a little too broadly but are still fun. My favorite is the Marshall's repeated calls for "Stuntman!". Another good aspect of this episode is the high quality actors playing the director, the AD, the lead, and Jesse James. They all seem to be enjoying the ride, maybe a little too much, as the acting is a little more hammy than needed at times. It has the requisite twist ending but even it is played for laughs. So many TZ episodes seem stretched too far beyond the twist just fill the time. This episode is slightly too long but the comedic acting keeps your interest. Highly recommended.


Lord knows Rod Serling tried to write comedy for his great series, but the results were almost always trite and heavy-handed. This one, though often maligned by the "experts", is truly delightful (and yes...I realize that comedy is very subjective).

There are some slow, repetitious moments in the main confrontation between Rance and the real Jesse (which could have been solved with more inventive direction)....but otherwise, Chris Nyby's work is first-rate. The entire first half is just CRAZY--a beautifully staged "chamber-comedy" in which we find ourselves enmeshed in the quirky interplay between a tedious, pampered boor and the behind-the-scenes mechanics of TV make-believe. And for once, here's a running gag that actually works!--- Rance's bad habit of wildly flinging his six-shooter in the direction of the mirror mounted behind the bar.

The real pitfall of this brand of satire is the tendency to play too broadly..but Larry Blyden's performance is beautifully balanced and controlled, as is that of Robert Cornthwaite, who could always be counted on for a first-rate job. Arch Johnson is also dead-on.

From Rance's nutty first entrance to the hilarious concluding plot twist, Serling managed to crank out his best comedy while buried under the stress of his third full season of production. And Fred Steiner's (uncredited) "hoe-down" music adds the final touch of brilliance to this underrated gem.


A TV cowboy star is in actuality a wussy egomaniac who doesn't know the first thing about the Old West. Miraculously, he is transported from the set to the REAL Old West where he meets all the outlaws who his character has killed and bested in his series. Not only do they prove to him that they are MUCH more manly but they threaten him until he promises to return to the present day and correct this silly stereotyped cowboy hero image--allowing the bad guys to win and revealing to America that cowboys like Roy Rogers and Gene Autry were just pretty boys who NEVER would have survived the rigors of Western life!

I have noticed something in reading through the Twilight Zone episodes on IMDb. In general, the serious episodes of the show are rated much higher than the comedic episodes--even though I think that the occasionally funny episodes are a great relief from a constant barrage of overly serious themes. This episode, like so many others, is great fun to watch because it didn't take itself very seriously! Do yourself a favor and give this one a watch.


One night a group of friends, more or less go out for a night on the town in New York City. This low budget film explore their lives and where they are going in life. There are four main characters: There is Tom, an aspiring actor, Willie, a welfare case always insisting the white man is keeping him down, Fernando, a Puerto Rican womanizer who passes himself as Italian, and Johnny, a neighborhood supermarket employee who knows there is something better.

These four people go out on the town and run into various people, problems, but this night proves to be something different from every other night they go out. This movie is so good because it manages to be funny while having some real good points. The acting here is excellent and the script is excellent.

The characters all are realistic. Johnny, seems to be a real nice guy, and seems to be the nicest out of all of them. Tom is the second nicest to me, as he tries to do the right thing, but sometimes is a little sidetracked. Willie is a decent man who hasn't yet learned to get off his ass and work, while Fernando, who tries to pass for Italian is a straight up prick.

The movie looks at so many issues, from education, to ethnicity. There are many different things this movie talks about, and there is not a happy ending, something that is pretty cool. It just kind of ends, and you really don't know where it goes after the ending, well you do and you don't. The movie is unique like that.

Overall this is an excellent low budget movie with a lot to offer. The movie is all acting too, no violence or elaborate action sequences, making this movie nice and quaint. The movie has a lot to offer and I recommend it highly.


I loved this movie. I must have watched it at least 10 times in my life because it's just that good. Usually when I watch it, it's because I recommend it to somebody who has never even heard of it, so I feel the need to let them see my copy. They usually thank me afterwards and agree that it is excellent. It's strange that such a great movie gets so little credit. Not that people don't like it, I guess it's because most people never heard of it. It's a shame.

Next time you go to the video store, keep this one in mind. John Leguizamo does an excellent job in this movie, probably the best performance I've seen from him to this day. Doug E Doug also does a great job in this movie. Although you may not be too familiar with the rest of the small cast, don't let this stop you from checking this movie out, great performances all around. When watching this one, you really get interested in the characters as they are all unique in their own way. Johnny is a shy, honest, hard working young man who lacks experience with women. Willie is an angry man who would rather complain about his situation rather than do anything about it, but deep down he means well. Tommy is a struggling actor with woman troubles and the only one with a car. Last but not least, we have Fernando (or should I say "Vinny"), a self centered womanizer who thinks he is Italian (watch the movie and you'll see what I mean). These four friends go out on the town from the Bronx to Manhattan looking for good times and find themselves in some memorable situations. It's a lot like real life and what makes this movie so great is how the characters relate to each other. The introduction of all the characters is definitely something to see. Great directing, nice cinematography, excellent dialog and not too bad of a sound track. What more can I say.

I recommend this movie to everybody, especially if you like comedies with original jokes that go beyond cheap gags. If you like going out with a small group of friends on a Friday night looking for something to do, this movie will remind you of all those good times. I highly recommend it, so rent it next time you go to the video store.


I have to agree with Jason's review, Hangin' with the Homeboys is an excellent and extremely funny film.

It is very reminiscent of Spike Lee's early movies in that it has a very personal feel. I noticed that in the end credits Vasquez appears to send a 'shout out' to friends he grew up with who I assume he had lost contact with. I suspect that Vasquez based a number of the characters and incidents in this film on his neighbourhood pals.

The strength of the film is that despite the fact that Vasquez deals with some very important issues, he balances everything perfectly with great expertise. This is not just a comedy (although it is extremely funny), it is also a very intelligent and thought provoking film and it is clear that Vasquez would have had a bright future.

The acting is excellent and despite this being a loud and brash film at times, there are some very subtle moments that will result in you remembering moments from this film weeks later.

This film deserves to be seen and enjoyed by more people.


Joseph Vasquez' portrayal of the lives of four friends as they prowl the night in search of good times predates the ubiquitous Swingers by four years. Hangin' is similar to its more popular cousin in its sweetness and incisiveness as it deals with the heartaches and fatal flaws of its protagonists. However, these nocturnal wanderers also have to deal with some of the more sublime facets of race relation as Nestor Serrano as Fernando, aka Vinnie, a Puerto Rican gigolo tries to convince everyone, including himself, he's Italian, or Doug E. Doug as Willie blames every one of his problems on the fact he is black and moreover accuses other black people he meets of "selling out" or "ignoring {their} African roots" while he has never participated in one rally or learned a single fact about African Nationalism. The film also features one of the earliest hints at the talents of comic/playwright John Leguziamo as sweet, introspective supermarket stock boy Johnny, a subdued, endearing performance by a man who's now known for extravagance. It's just a matter of time before Leguziamo gets that role which will make him a superstar. Mario Joyner completes the foursome as a lovelorn, less confident than he tries to exude, struggling actor, nee telemarketer, in a solid, if not spectacular performance. While this wonderful film rarely lets up on the laugh, it's also intelligent and inspiring, while at times heartbreaking. What's most heartbreaking is what came after this film; after the promise of his debut, Vasquez was given a ton of money and backing for his next feature, but the film had to be shut down after a week of shooting as Vasquez was walking around the soundstage proclaiming himself Jesus, among other insane ramblings. Within a year, Vasquez died of AIDS in relative obscurity, a tragic end to a man who showed signs of genius. Who knows what that genius might have led to, but while this film will never balance off what might have been, at least he was able to leave his mark with one great film. Hopefully more people will get to see it.


I starting watching this on Comedy Central and assumed "oh, a film about some guys partying in the Bronx...i'll give it a whirl." I was not expecting a curiously sincere, although somewhat slap-stick, film about class differences in NYC.

The four characters represent the spectrum of what any struggling urban area would produce: a loaner who blames his race on his inability to thrive in society, an actor who tries but eventually fails to make his movie dreams a reality, a gigolo who denies his often maligned heritage in order to court women, and a genuinely earnest stock-boy who secretly desires to do what few in his position are able to: leave the monotony of dead-end beginnings and go to college and experience the world.

After each character is introduced, the film follows the journey of the men from areas of the Bronx (where beer bottles are thrown at the car after a protective father hears one of the men whistling at his daughter) to Midtown Manhattan, where the group partake in some harmless pre-Giuliani peep-show fun.

I rarely comment on films, but I thoroughly enjoyed this 'Hunt's Point Odyssey'. Some of the messages the film tries to convey are done so unrealistically, however, some of the scenes are moving and authentic (an interrogation scene involving a racist Italian subway cop who discredits the gigolo's purported identity by reacquainting him with his given Hispanic name on a driver's license, in an attempt to further emblaze immovable class lines).

Many cities contain areas with steep social and economic gradations, but none compare to NYC. It was entertaining to watch the small victories and defeats of each of these men who are somewhat pathetic, but all share common goal of enjoying themselves. Their journey is a painful reminder of the difficulty inherent in trying to escape the oft-referred realizations of each of their 'seemingly inescapable and meager' respective destinies.

Most (if not all) of the main actors grew up in NYC, and I think that helps to add a sense of realism to their performance.

If you have an open mind and don't mind the unmistakable sound of early 90s rap soundtracks, get this film. Perhaps you will enjoy it as much as I did.


We have all seen Mean Streets,Swingers,Entourage. This movie is on the same lines as that. Hanging With The Homeboys show's us what we look like on our Friday and Saturdays Nights. How we talk to woman. How we argue amongst ourselves. How we drink.

Johnny,Fernando aka Vinny,Willie,and Tommy all resemble at least of our friends. Johnny is the profound insecure young man who is desperate for love. Fernanod aka Vinny is a ladies man who tricks woman to go out with him for there money only to go out and meet more women. Willie is a man who is always feeling discriminated against, he also the peasant one of gang. And finally Tommy. Tommy dreams big and super stardom. Somehow he will make it big.

The description of the characters not only fit our friends but ourselves. Hanging With The Homeboys is almost The Guys Night Out Bible. When you feel lonely on a Friday Night pop in Hanging With The Homeboy either that or Porn.


This film made me laugh. It is good to be surprised by a movie you didn't expect much from. The movie is special. If it is a cult movie I think it is because it speaks to the heart. It a movie about hanging with the guys. It spoke to me and I'm a white middle-class dude from the Midwest. The cast did a great job. The director is deceased and should have received more recognition. I will definitely find a copy of this for my library. I will definitely tell others about it. I have to make this ten lines or they won't print it. I don't know what IMDb wants. I am telling you to see this movie. It is about guys in the city on the bad side of town going out on the town. Thanks for a great film.


This movie is a sure classic. Vasquez manages to touch many aspects in society. When dealing with race, jobs, and friendship he makes it easy to put it all in one day. There are many movies that consist in one day, but not all of them are successful. Vasquez manages to make every character totally different. Though 2 of them are Puerto Rican and the other two African American, each one has a strong role opposite to the same race as them. This is big part in the film since tension comes from everyone, and not just racially focused on the typical black and white. The filming is good also with night on night shots that depict a true night life in New York. Vasquez used slow close ups at points for tension and meaning. I really looked forward to more from this director also writer of the movie. It is rare we get voices that relate to a movie behind the scenes of it.


A great movie. Seldom are young, urban men portrayed so humanely. The movie is very funny, but not superficial. They are confused young men trying to understand the world, women, and themselves. The film breaks movie stereotypes for these guys are struggling to make it in the world without crime, drugs or violence. Each of the 4 characters are well developed and wonderfully acted. The direction is great. NYC itself is almost a character in the film. The guys and the film takes place in the Bronx. Manhattan is viewed as the center of the universe while the Bronx (and they themselves) feel alienated from Manhattan and "making it." They're feelings of not really fitting in is demonstrated in their unwillingness to go to Manhattan. I've used the film in some of my college classrooms to discuss male friendships and male-female relationships. Great film!!!


The four main characters complemented each other very well. The movie was very intelligently written. It was funny and moving. The ending is quite appropriate as the overall film is just a snapshot of one Friday night of these four bickering friends.

I'm especially fond of Nestor Serrano's work in portraying Vinny/Fernando. Even though he was supposed to be a selfish womanizer, he did have certain qualities that made me sympathize with him. (For example, he did come to Willie's aid when he was thrown out of the party by the bigots, even though it meant giving up a chance with one of the few women in the movie who didn't flat out ignore his come-ons.)


This movie reminded me of all of those "crazy guys on the loose" movies. "Weekend Pass", "Fraternity Vacation", et al. Except in this case the main characters were minorities. A big negative was all of the swearing, way too much. To me, a lot of swearing in a film shows a weak script. "How can we punch up this scene, dramatically?" "Ah, just put in a lot of swear words, that adds drama". I don't think so. Another thing is how each of the four main characters have an epiphany, that is straight out the "crazy guy" film handbook. Finally, the first few minutes start off promising and there is some humor but that vanishes further on. Unless, one finds humor in degrading women. And am I the only one that thought the title song sounded a lot like Motley Crue's "Dr. Feelgood"?


I am usually tolerant of horse movies. I don't expect the actors to be the best riders or horse handlers. I expect mistakes to be made and things to be wrong. I try to sit back and just enjoy the story. This is what I expected to do recently when I picked up a new horse movie called The Derby Stallion.

Well it was simply awful. The lead could not ride at all. I feel they could have found an actor with riding skills. Even worse was when they switched to the legs of a dark bay horse jumping when the lead horse was a bright chestnut. They should have taken the time to do the research and find the right people.

Overall I was not impressed with the way this movie was shot and put together. Some of the close-ups seemed too close and out of focus and actually made me dizzy. I feel a lot more could have been done to make this movie better starting with an actor who had real life horse experience.


I will begin by saying that the only reason I watched this movie is because I like Zac Efron and was curious to see his other work. Considering the film hasn't received much attention outside of the Zac Efron fanbase, I had my reservations about how the film might turn out. Unfortunately, I wasn't mistaken.

'The Derby Stallion' has a very straightforward, some might even say cliché, storyline: a boy befriends an older-mentor archytype (think an old, black Yoda) and needs to learn how to ride steeplechase in order to compete against his rival and win the big derby at the climax of the film.

The film starts out with 15 year old Patrick in conflict with his dad who wants him to become a star baseball player. Instead, Patrick spends his time hanging out with the local town drunk, Bill Cobbs' Houston Jones, who regales him with tales of being a steeple chase rider. Naturally his parents disaprove of their friendship but this changes when Patrick takes an interest in riding and wants to compete in the big derby. Everything is going great until Houston passes away and Patrick, consumed by grief and lacking in confidence, decides to quit riding. At the last minute, he changes his mind and everything is set right. The film ends with a shot of Patrick leaving his trophy at Houston's grave, his family at his side.

The film is typically corny, rife with a very predictable storyline and the usual conflicts/resolutions that one might find in most family films. However, the ending of the film is so hasty and anti-climactic that I couldn't but help feel like it was done in a very half-assed way. Also, as many others have pointed out, the fact that the Patrick character becomes so skilled in such a short period of time defies logic and the so-called 'relationship' between horse and jockey is seems shaky at best.

The one bright spot is Bill Cobbs who does a fairly decent job portraying the relationship of Houston's 'Yoda' to Patrick's 'Luke' (yes, there's even a line in the film that is essentially paraphrases "Do, or do not. There is no try."). Other than that the film is forgettable. I'm sure there will be enough interest generated by Zac Efron's celebrity to get the film seen, but any serious rider, as others have previously posted, will find the premise and execution weak.

Edited for typo.


Horses and Zac Efron, a match made in cinematic heaven, right? Oh, how you could not be more wrong. Although I find Zac Efron to be one of the hottest (if not the hottest) man on the planet, his perfect body and alluring charm did not even captivate me enough to keep my eyes open. From an equestrian's point of view, this movie was also terrible. The fact that it's impossible for someone to become a steeplechaser in several weeks makes the plot completely fallible (I've been riding for 7+ years and I am no where near ready, and I compete at 3'). Not to mention the plot already was completely predictable. But whatever. Apparently if you are a really hot, oppressed teenage boy whose parents want you to be a "real" athlete and play baseball, you can get on a horse (after falling more times than is really necessary, the horse was already trained and it was rearing/bucking? Come on. A horse does not need to gain "trust" necessarily for you to sit on its back), be jumping cross rails in a week (over and over, might I add, which proved absolutely nothing), and be steeple chasing in a few months. If you don't know what steeple chasing is, it's basically a race, but you jump. So a race with X amount of horses all jumping the same things at the same time going speeds that regular racehorses are at. Pretty much racing only 100x more dangerous. And it's definitely not Zac Efron jumping, obviously, since none of the camera angles are of his whole body during the entire race scene. Oh, and guess who wins?