Bordello Of Blood is a somewhat disappointing follow up to the previous (and far superior) Tales From The Crypt feature "Demon Knight". While it retains the possibly even more stupid and irritating this time around Cryptkeeper mini sections at the beginning and end of the story it lacks Demon Knight's best attribute, a sharp, quality script, and a fun thrilling main story, which more than made up for having to endure the noxious Cryptkeeper last time out. Thats not to say that Bordello Of Blood is all bad, it's just nowhere near as good or as much fun as Demon Knight was.

However Bordello Of Blood does have a few things going for it. A decent, suitably schlocky story premise (by Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis no less), a hip attitude and a sense of camp fun about the whole proceedings, and most important of all actor Dennis Miller, for it is he and his great laid back performance that saves this film from sinking into mediocrity altogether.

Dennis Miller is great fun as private eye Rafe Guttman, and he really does carry the film. The other performances range from good (Erika Eleniak) to bizarre (Chris Sarandon) to delightfully fun (Aubrey Morris) to frighteningly wooden (Angie Everhart and Corey Feldman). Then there's the direction.

While Gilbert Adler's direction is technically fine, if at times a little too unrestrained, it sadly lacks any real sense of energy or character, and because of this the film just never feels quite right. While it could have been a very good fun little schlock fest instead it doesn't seem to quite know what it wants to be, and as such comes out as very uneven in tone, throwing the film off balance and not letting you just enjoy it for what it is (or should be), simple fun schlock horror.

Despite it's problems Bordello Of Blood still manages to be an enjoyable tongue in cheek piece of hokum for lovers of the genre, but it's unlikely to convert anyone else, and isn't a patch on the first Crypt film. In spite of itself it did manage to hold my attention and mostly entertain during it's relatively short length, mainly due to the afore mentioned great performance of Dennis Miller, but it still should have delivered more than it manages to. Overall Bordello Of Blood manages to be suitably campy, undemanding fun but little more.

One man's opinion. 7/10


I don't care what anyone say's this is a good movie. It's funny and really entertaining. There isn't a dull moment. But it doesn't really belong in the horror movie genre actually there is no genre for Horror/Comedy/Action/Porn.


While the first film was a solid, self-contained horror flick with a touch of humor and a fair amount of sophistication and imagination, Bordello of Blood falls apart under poor direction and a far too free-spirited nature. While it is a failure as a sequel it manages to entertain only as a brainless time waster.

Dennis Miller does his best with the weak material and ad-libs a lot of humor. A little too much, taking the film even further from it's already vague ambitions. But worry not, his humor is still free and easy, unlike his cryptic (no pun intended) football commentaries. Erika Eleniak is marginally engaging and Corey Feldman is well underused. The weakest performances come from Angie Everhart as the ancient vampire Lillith and Chris Sarandon as the outrageously stereotyped southern TV evangelist. It's these performances that keep the film eternally low brow.

It's sad that Tales from the Crypt totally died after this movie but the powers behind it went on to found the Dark Castle production company (check out those movies they're actually quite scary and effective).

The new version of Bordello of Blood is by Universal and is presented in it's proper aspect ratio of 1.85:1 anamorphic and is in Dolby 5.1. The cheapo snapper case has been replaced by a sturdy keepcase and a new cover art. The only new extra is a trailer.


I love this movie, I can watch it over & over. Dennis Miller should be in more movies, he is hilarious in this. I loved the first Crypt movie & love this one even more. Its scary & funny at the same time. It may have its cheesy moments but hey not every movie is perfect. The orchestral music throughout the film along with the awesome soundtrack give this movie an awesome feel to it. It has Graphic violence, language & nudity. Its worth seeing if you are a fan of D. Miller, like me or a horror/comedy fan. I want more Crypt movies NOW!


I really like this movie, it reminded me of "Demon Knight" and it's just as great as "Demon Knight." I really think that Corey Feldman is a sexy and cool dude! He's really cool in this film, and he was cooler from "The Lost Boys" and I think he's still the Prince of Scary Movies. He's also really good looking in his older age, I betcha all the girls, even his wife thought he's till good looking. Dennis Miller could be funny or should I say, "Damn Funny!" Thank you for the comment. I do believe that they should continue on doing the scary tales from the crypt.

Signed, element_pharaohs


This movie is remarkably funny if you enjoy Dennis Miller's humor from "Dennis Miller Live" He's great in it. Angie Everheart's humor just isn't funny, she's ok. The effects and vampire mythology were so pathetic they were funny.


Dreadful, dreadful mess of a moovie that is as un-scary and un-funny as they come, sort of like Police Academy meets Fright Night. An obvious Dusk 'Til Dawn wannabe, this gopher turd of a moovie manages to waste the slim acting talents of such grade b actors as Dennis Miller and Chris Sarandon, and non-existent talents of Corey Feldman and Angie Everhart. The plot is painfully obvious, the effects are cheap and silly, the dialogue is painful, the direction mechanical, and the list goes on and on. Dennis Miller's character is sooo irritating that I'm tempted to believe that he was really played by Patrick Swayze in make-up. Over-long, boring, and just plain bad. MooCow says bleeaachh!! :=8P


I`ve never seen an edition from TALES FROM THE CRYPT so I can only judge BORDELLO OF BLOOD by its own merits and I`m afraid I don`t have much opinion one way or the other . It`s a camp horror movie featuring a brothel that`s a front for vampires and instantly reminded me of FROM DUSK TILL DAWN but is slightly more enjoyable . It doesn`t take itself too seriously which works in its favour other wise I`d be pointing out plot holes like how come the cops haven`t noticed that many of the town`s male inhabitants have been going missing . I could have done without the sexual innuendo and wise cracks though <br /><br />" I think you`d better step outside "

" No thanks I don`t have time for a < Sexual act > "<br /><br />Not sure if I`d be watching the TV series on a regular basis after watching this feature length spin off


I was a mere child when "Here's Lucy" aired first run on television and I loved it. But here's the thing: my mom and dad...hated it. Why? They were BIG fans of "I Love Lucy" and by the time this came on, they thought Lucy was all worn out without Ricky and the Mertzes, and it was time for her to go to pasture. Me? I never saw "I love Lucy" (A few years later when I entered grade school and would come home for lunch, it would be on in repeats and that's where my interest for that show came in!) so I had no previous opinion of her work.

But not me - I was a child and this appealed to me like Saturday Morning Cartoons. I loved the little dancing doll of Lucille Ball. You ask me, the whole show should have been that dancing doll at my young age.

I loved the overblown colors, I didn't get ALL of the humor but I liked watching Lucy, and her teen children. That's what appealed to me the most:The teens. As a child who had quite a bit to go towards teen-hood, watching these teens interested me as adults did at the time. And if you ask me, that's basically what this series was about: a single mom trying to raise her "hip" teen children and having a really crappy job with a really crappy/silly boss. It was the "sign of the times" and "Here's Lucy" was reflective of it.

Now here's the thing: I don't quite remember the "guest stars" - maybe that could be because I didn't know WHO they were. My parents knew ALL of them and maybe that is what influenced them the most about this show - where it did nothing for me.

There's the 'generation gap' for ya - those that know and have established views and those that don't and like what they see for the first time. For my generation, this was fun for its time - even though re-watching it NOW, as an adult...I can see what my parents were talking about. But even so, I still loved that dancing doll of Lucille Ball.


I am lucky where I am they air "Heres Lucy" on weekdays so I have seen many episodes. Here's Lucy isn't as good as "I Love Lucy" but it does have its laughs. I am a fan of Lucille Ball, and Gale Gordon, and I think they did a good show. The only thing which I dislike about the series is the singing and dancing acts. Also the show relies a lot on guest stars. There are episodes which will make you laugh and others which aren't as funny. It is nice seeing Lucy work with her kids though. I can't really compare this show though to "The Lucy Show" since I have only seen about thirty episodes most of being color. But overall this series is very well done. Not as good as "I Love Lucy" but its still worth watching.


Lucille Ball is the greatest comic of all time. Here's Lucy was a fun, campy show. It was great to see Lucy, Gale, and Lucy's kids all acting together. Fans now have the complete series of I Love Lucy and The Lucy Desi Comedy Hour. I would love to see Here's Lucy released as season sets on DVD. I hope to see complete series releases of The Lucy Show, Here's Lucy, and Life With Lucy. All of these shows are important parts of Lucy's television history. If you haven't voted yet, please do so at tvshowsondvd.com. Maybe we will get some good news on a future release!! The more votes, the more fans can show their enthusiasm!! Can you imagine owning all the Lucy shows in your own collection?!?!?


If you have fond memories of "Here's Lucy" from your childhood, the easiest way to retain them is never to re-watch this series. The plots are trite; the jokes are flat; and the overacting by both Lucille Ball and Gale Gordon is painful to watch.

At one time, Lucy had been the queen of television comedy, but that had been with the benefit of talented writers and a brilliant cast. Without those, Lucy is left to rely only on physical comedy, and that alone cannot carry a show, no matter the laughtrack volume.

I'm convinced that the only reason this series was a ratings success on CBS was that viewers had been watching some version of Lucy on Monday nights since the early '50s, and they were unaware that they could change the channel.


This was to be the least successful of Lucy's series but yet is not a big loss from the Lucy Show. It actually kind of spun in from the old show with almost no break. The difference is Lucy is finally considered more mature in her role here.

A lot of the same folks who worked on her previous series as writers and guest stars (Milton Berle for example) are here too. Lucie Arnez and Desi Jr. came on board here with mom. Some of us teens thought Lucie Arnez was pretty attractive when we saw her. She never got the chance to try as much comedy as mom was still the star.

While this is not quite as strong as the earlier series, it still has some great moments. The divorced mom character struck a cord as in real life this woman was becoming more common. The only thing is most divorced moms in real life were bitter while Lucy was funny. I take funny over bitter myself, but that is why this show like many situation comedies put a little realty in, but still were living in a never-never land.


My partner got this on DVD before we moved in together. After watching four episodes (those with "Shelley Summers," Liz 'n' Dick, Ann-Margret, and Wayne Newton), I was ready to go into relationship counseling.

What were the audience members laughing at? Why did Lucie's lip-synch of "Danke Schoen" elicit wild applause from the audience--was Lucy pointing an uzi at them? Who thought that Lucy's tired old schtick when she couldn't get Liz Taylor's ring off her hand (yes, folks, it was the hand-behind-the-curtain bit, older than moon rocks but only half as funny) was anything other than wince inducing?

What am I missing here?

I am I too jaded? Did I spend too much of my life watching sophisticated, socially relevant sitcoms like Maude, All in the Family, Murphy Brown, Roseanne, Sports Night, Arrested Development, and the Simpsons? Why can't I enjoy this show? Heck, as a native Upstate New Yorker, I *should* be cheering for my country(wo)man.

My sister and partner call Lucy a "comedic genius." Who would have thought that I would be in an LTR with someone who refers to her as "The Divine Ms. Ball"? I concede that I'm in the minority, but, like Cassandra, I have to tell the truth. For me, there is no questioning it: this is television's lowest point.


NBC aired a series called "Cliffhangers" in 1979, consisting of three stories: "Stop Susan Williams," "The Secret Empire," and "The Curse of Dracula." Of the 3, only "The Curse of Dracula" completed its story (Although when the series first aired, It was already on Chapter VI (But then, none of the three started on its first chapter).

When the series begins we meet Kurt Von Helsing (Stephen Johnson)and Mary Gibbons (Carol Baxter)going after Dracula's coffins. Dracula (Michael Nouri)almost gets them, but they escape. Mary's vendetta against Dracula is personal:it seems that Dracula was responsible for the death of Mary's mother, Amanda (Louise Sorel). However, Mary soon falls under his spell when Dracula falls for her and gives her one of his special hickeys. This doesn't sit well with Antoinette (Antoinette Stella), a wannabe vampire who is obsessed with becoming Dracula's main squeeze. With the reappearance of Amanda (Who has become a vampire), Mary has to fight her feelings for Dracula and stop him once and for all.

Although a tad dated, The Curse of Dracula was an interesting piece of television. You can understand Dracula's point: who hasn't had the desire to live forever, but knowing that eternity would be incredibly lonely? Dracula's feelings for Mary are genuine (Although you can't help but wonder how many times he's used this line in the 500 plus years of his existence) and you can't blame Mary for wanting to be with him (Kurt was a dull as a plastic knife). In the end, we know that good triumphs over evil and that Dracula will have to go (Although we know that he ALWAYS comes back).

Nouri's interpretation of Dracula is interesting. In the scene when he and Mary are stargazing and he expresses his love for her, you can't help but feel his loneliness. No wonder, when offered the choice to join him, that Mary took his hand and threw caution to the (literal)wind.

If you can get a copy of it (And there's some floating out there), it's worth a look.


The film the Celtic riddle is a legendary piece of film art. Jessica fletcher at her finest (as always). The plot infallible, the characters despite the badly fake Irish accents are what we would call shadows to Angela's amazing acting abilities. I find Jessica's ability to spot a large haematoma on the back of someones head from a great distance to be an amazing talent. One which many a health-care professional could do with. Despite the Northern Licence Plates in what should be a film set in the south of Ireland. Being Irish myself I find it is not very often that Northern licence plates are found in the Republic, especially not on police cars, which by the way should be the Garda.

Despite these errors, minor flaws, I still find the Celtic riddle to be the greatest film to be released in 2003. I wish Angela Lansbury all the best in future film making, hoping she does return to Ireland as Jessica Fletcher, taking on-board my constructive criticism of course.

Lots of Luv and respect From Louise Brick


With strong performances by all players, this was one of the best episodes of "Murder She Wrote". It was refreshing to watch a "Who done it" that wasn't easily solved in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Fionnula Flanagan's character, Margaret, kept Jessica's eyes rolling with her finger-snapping and explosive temper. The setting was beautiful giving one a sense of Ireland and it's people. Let's have more episodes, please.


Jessica Fletcher is one of my favorite actresses and she hits a home run with this one.

The movie is set in Ireland, and the cast is mainly Irish, except for Jessica of course. The scenery and characters are very vivid and make you long to visit Ireland.

So Jessica is called to Ireland for the reading of the will. The deceased leaves a riddle to be solved, of which the prize is something of great value....

And so it is off. The riddle takes teamwork as each person is left a small piece of a puzzle to be solved. Several murders ensue and the race is on to solve the riddle and find the killer.

I loved this one.


Yes, the nosy Ms. Fletcher has returned for another murder mystery. When presented with roundtrip tickets to Ireland to attend a reading of an acquaintance's will, Jessica Fletcher discovers just what the prospect of finding treasure will do to people.

The made-for-TV film was corny and pretty flimsy to solve, and it was quite a joke to see the immediate transitions of some of the characters. The ending was also quite abrupt, but the film managed to remain at least somewhat entertaining.


Murder, She Wrote, the tv show, hasn't been on in awhile, right? New episodes that is. Therefore this isn't a new episode at all... but it sure felt like one. I never watched the TV series but I've seen other Made-for-TV Movies after a series has been canceled and they all felt like just another episode therefore they were really anything that special. This MOVIE wasn't that special, either. One thing I never got was the desire to visit the beautiful land of Ireland... I didn't think the scenery was prominently featured here. That was a good thing because exotic locations can often appear on film more like postcards and can detract from the story. Not so here. Ms. Fletcher blended in quite well. What was peculiar was how she was involved everytime the police were on the scene. Hmmm... I'll bet it was like that 1,000 times over the course of the series. Cops... Jessica. Cops... Jessica. That was quite monotonous and kind of ridiculous. Reminds me of The Dukes of Hazard, how the Duke boys were always getting into one fix or another, over and over, and the whole time they were living in a tiny rural county. Very monotonous. Interesting, though, was the relationship between the youngest character, Brita, and Ms. Fletcher. It was nice to see them getting along, Brita making Jessica feel welcome and the two of them solving the riddle together. Refreshing considering how pathetic that Fiona character was. Mucho daft but for the longest time I thought she was the bad guy so a good job in the writing with that. Overall, this was a pretty decent mystery. Angela Lansbury was fantastic as was Sarah-Jane Potts (I wish more of the movie featured her!) It didn't really have very much of a movie feel to it after the first few minutes or so but I still enjoyed it and hope Ms. Lansbury's in good enough health to make a new `episode' or two. My grade for this: B


This is a great, atmospheric, you might say "cinema-verite" film of a selection of the bands that made up the mid-70s CBGBs New York Punk scene. It was shot on a single 16mm camera, largely live at the club, but also with some "out in the street" sequences, and is a vital, rare document of exciting and vibrant music. And OK, let me get this over to ya now, the film doesn't have the benefit of sync sound. I'd guess the audio, which is a mixture of live tapes and commercially available records, was dubbed on later when the film makers had cut their footage together. So it's all pretty jumbled up, and the visuals don't match up a lot of the time, but I reckon that's a feature, not a fault. It all just adds to the rough-n-ready quality. Maybe those negative IMDb reviews came from folks who just didn't "get it" and expected something more slick, more MTV (yuk). Well isn't that ironic, since MTV and its nauseous ilk are forever trying to ape old-school underground film makers, and they usually fall way short of the mark simply because unlike these guys, MTV are clueless.

Some of the bands you'll see here went on to commercial success (check the very early footage of Talking Heads and Blondie) and some are still propping up the "influential" lists thirty years on (Television and Patti Smith just played sold-out painfully hip gigs in London last month) and some verge on performance art (Wayne/Jayne County) and some are just plain forgotten (Marbles, Tuff Darts). But none of the 12 or so segments here are over-long and the Ramones footage is worth the price of admission alone. Music fans should be happy someone bothered to capture the CBGBs scene while it still was a scene. Essential, x10.


Yes, this film is all but unwatchable. The unsynched video and audio make for one of the most unsatisfying experiences ever. This is supposed to be a documentary, but what did I learn from this film? If there was a band I didn't recognize, I wasn't told who they were. I don't know when the performance was shot, or where, or who the musicians are, or what their influences were. We don't learn why this generation was called blank by the filmmakers. There are no shots of the audience, so we don't learn what effect the music was having on those who were actually there. This isn't a documentary, it's being trapped at someone's house who you don't like and they pull out their home movies of their kids.


Blondie. Ramones. Talking Heads. With a roster like that, you'd think this documentary of the legendary 70s CBGB scene would kick ass, right? Well, sorry to say it doesn't. What we have here is home movie footage of the bands in action with rare demos playing in the background. The songs don't sync up with the bands. Worth it only for die-hard fans of the artists featured, really no one else.

Don't you hate it when you search for a video of a band online and all you get is a twenty second clip taken from a cell phone video camera? This is the cinematic equivalent. "Another State of Mind", "The Decline of Western Civilization", and "End of the Century" are all superior punk rock docs. (2/10)


I first viewed this movie in 1924 at age 6 yrs--probably the first movie I ever saw. I thought it was terrific then, and after viewing it again now(2003) I still think it is an exceptionally fine movie. Many special effects without benefit of computers. A very ambitious movie for that time.


A beautiful princess, courted by royal suitors, is desired by a powerful Mongol magician. There is none in the kingdom wily & cunning enough to thwart the evil one's wicked plots - no one, that is, except THE THIEF OF BAGDAD.

This is another wonderful Douglas Fairbanks silent adventure epic. The world of the Arabian Nights springs alive before our lives, with Fairbanks as all its fantastic heroes rolled into one. His athleticism is here perfectly at home in a realm of flying carpets, magic armies & undersea battles.

Director Raoul Walsh & Art Director William Cameron Menzies have created a realm of domes & towers, turrets & great halls, bazaars & souks - all the perfect backdrop for Fairbanks & the plot's sinuous action.

In the supporting cast, Sojin makes an excellent villain, the mysterious epitome of evil. Look for Anna May Wong as a palace maid & versatile African American actor Noble Johnson as the Indian Prince.

Both versions of this film now available on video feature scores based on themes from Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, which exquisitely conveys all the allurement of the Thousand and One Nights.


This movie is great fun to watch, like you would expect from a genre movie such as this one. It has all the typical adventurous, action and comedy elements present to make this a great swashbuckling movie. Add to that Douglas Fairbanks in good shape and you have a classic unforgettable genre movie!

Douglas Fairbanks is totally great in this one. He looks, acts, breaths, eats like a real superstar. He handles all of the athletic action in the movie really well. It's not hard to see why this man was THE swashbuckling hero of the '20's.

The movie is really great looking, with many grand looking sets. Really great looking stuff! (though obviously all fake.) Something you would normally expect to see in a D.W. Griffith movie. The movie also has some silly looking but yet great early special effects, toward the ending of the movie.

The story has all the ingredients needed for such a genre movie as this one; an heroic main character, a love interest, stereotypical villains and lots of fun and action. Especially toward the ending the movie starts to become greatly adventurous after a sort of slower middle and good first part. It's of course all rather simple and formulaic but this is also what makes the genre so great. You just always know what to expect. It's good simple fun that's professionally and well made, that's also beautiful to look at.

Also definitely fun to see how much of this movie was later used again in Disney's "Aladdin". Some, mostly action sequences, are obviously almost directly copied.

A great fun movie, from swashbuckling-specialist director Raoul Walsh.

9/10


There are very few silent films that I enjoy as much as a modern film. In fact, the only silent film that I would rate as a 10 is Buster Keaton's The General. But Douglas Fairbanks is certainly worth watching, if you have any real interest in film. He has so much charm, and moves so fluidly, that he captivates even when the special effects are, well, very 1920s. Fairbanks does not so much act as he dances the role. The costumes and sets, by William Cameron Menzies, are also spectacular. I have watched this movie in the earlier DVD version, and frankly it put me to sleep. First, a great deal of it was missing, and so the story was choppy and hard to follow. Second, the print quality was poor. But the new Kino Fairbanks collection is a miracle of film restoration. There is one section on this DVD that is poor quality, compared to the others. But since this is a section that I have never seen before, to see it at all is wonderful.


Really a $2 million dollar extravaganza, the film has amazing art direction and production design by William Cameron Menzies that keeps this film visually interesting, and the viewer spellbound, for well over its two hour length! But it's not just the fantastic and virtually non stop special effects that elevate this film. The verve, energy and smile of Douglas Fairbanks anchor the well told fantasy and its action. This was the 20s version of a 'blockbuster' with its editing, scope and scale, continuous action, special effects, and a fine fantasy story--something not seen comparably again until the unleashing of 'Star Wars' (1977).

There are a couple of slow spots, the Thief's repentance scene and his first time alone with the Princess go on a little too long, but so much else happens in the film that these momentary slowdowns are easily overlooked. The Princess herself (Julanne Johnston), far from being the entrancing mystical vision who captivates and transforms the Thief is, unfortunately, almost a cypher, since her face is hidden behind a veil for much of the movie, and she's not staggeringly beautiful. And why does it take so long for the Thief to ride to the rescue when the Evil Mongol Prince has taken over Bagdad when he could have flown there on Pegasus, the Winged Horse? To heighten the dramatic tension of course!

We also get the bonus of seeing Anna May Wong, in her first 'big' role, so beautifully slinky as the evil Mongol slave / spy. Her major silent film was the British 'Piccadilly,' (1929). Sojin Kamiyama played the Evil Mongol Prince with great menace and evil eyes. You can see him in 'Seven Samurai' (1954) and the first 'Musashi' movie, 'Mushasi Miyamoto' (1954) with Toshiro Mifune.

What really impresses is the ending in which the Thief uses his magic dust to create tens of thousands of soldiers out of the earth to defeat the Mongols' take over of Bagdad, as he then sweeps up the Princess in his invisible cloak, and flies off on the magic carpet with her to live happily ever after. This is the kind of Saturday afternoon at the movies ending that would get audiences cheering even today. Film histories note that after the end of the premiere showing of the film in New York, Fairbanks, as the producer, writer and star, leaped up on the stage to thunderous applause. Well deserved!

This film passed my test of time test as my 8 and 10 year old grandchildren thoroughly enjoyed watching it. They clearly recognized its similarity to their Disney version of 'Aladdin' (1992). The great DVD KINO version has a new soundtrack (with hints of 'Scherazade') that adds to the thrills of this wonderful movie. Old silent movies are boring? Not this one! I give it an 8.


Thief of Bagdad (1924): Douglas Fairbanks, Julanne Johnston, Sojin, Anna May Wong, Brandon Hurst, Snitz Edwrds, Toe Du Crow, Noble Johnson, Charles Belcher, Winter Blossom, Sam Baker, Mathilde Comont, Jesse Lasky Jr, Jesse Fuller, Etta Lee, Sadakichi Hartmann, David Sharp, K. Nambu, Charles Sylvester, Charles Stevens, Scotty Mattraw, Jess Weldon....Director Raoul Walsh...Screenplay Douglas Fairbanks, Achmed Abdullah, James T. O'Donohoe, Lotta Woods.

Fantasy films have been around since silent films first took the world by storm. Melies "Voyage To The Moon", "Frankenstein" "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", "Call of Cthulhu" "Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari", "Phantom Of The Opera" "Metropolis" "Ring Des Nibelungen"- all fantastical movies dealing with the supernatural, science-fiction, horror and fantasy. In the 1920's, handsome and very physical actor Douglas Fairbanks ranked among the top actors with Lon Cheney and Charlie Chaplin. Fairbanks had played the "heroic" adventurer in "Robin Hood" and "Three Musketeers", all roles which called for physical stamina, stuntwork and charisma. In "Thief of Bagdad" he portrays a nameless devil-may-care thief from Bagdad during the mythical "Arabian Nights" days. Think Aladdin from Disney. He survives life by taking what he wants and living in the streets. Before long, he becomes involved in a quest to win the hand of the beautiful princess (Julanne Johnston). She favors the Thief -when he has disguised himself as Prince Ahmed- but there are other suitors competing for her hand in marriage, among them a Mongol Prince (Sojin), a Persian Prince (Mathilde Comont) and an Indian prince (Noble Johnson). The Princess sends them on a quest to find a treasure so rare and valuable that she would deign to marry he who brings it to her. It's of course, our hero The Thief/Prince who marries the Princess but not after fighting intrigue, baddies and experiencing a fantastical adventures in remote, mythical locations, among them under the sea, where he is tempted by mermaids, and The Citadel of the Moon. This silent film was the first of its kind, not in its theme of adventure but in its stunning visuals and effects. The production and art design is by the esteemed William Cameron Menzies, whose impressive career in Hollywood was long (he would design production for Gone With The Wind in 1939). It's a masterpiece. Every detail brings to life this magical "Arabian Nights" world. This is the most "colorful" of any "black and white" silent film ever made. For night scenes, the color is tinted "evening" blue, casting shadows on palace walls and city alleys. The "underwater" scene is also tinted to stand for the greenish-blue sea. The castle is itself amazing, with huge, flowery doors and walls. Audiences must have been amazed at how realistic everything appeared, even how the Princes are able to fly on a magic carpet or The Thief make himself invisible, or how The Princess could see through a magic globe. As for the acting, it's typical of the silent era school of acting which means exaggerated facial expressions and dramatic body language and while it appears laughable and corny today, it was standard acting in its day. Even so, the plot is strong even if the characters are one-dimensional, good/evil. There is a little more to the acting though, for example Asian actress Anna May Wong in the role of the Princess' traitorous slave girl. Unbeknownst to the Princess, the Mongol slave girl is in league with the Mongol Prince. Obviously harboring hatred for her "conquerors" the people of Bagdad, including the Princess herself, she plots to help the Mongol Prince succeed in becoming King of Bagdad. When Plan A fails, Plan B suddenly takes shape - invasion of Bagdad by the Mongol armies. Because the film is quite long and slow-moving, it has the feel of an epic, another popular genre in silent films (The Birth Of A Nation, The Ten Commandments, Ring Des Nibelungen). This is a treasure of a silent film, often overshadowed by more famous silent films of the 20's but it is a document in cinema of the early 20's and should be studied in film school. Douglas Fairbanks was already well into his middle-age but he was still doing his own physical stuntwork and female-pleasing in his looks and charms. This is a sensational, unforgettable film and a must see for devotees of silent film and fantasy films.


I first saw this on cable, AMC, I think, and I loved it. I later acquired a tape. This movie rocks and Douglas Fairbanks is the rock star. The sets are magnificent, the effects fascinating, and all the actors pulled out the stops, many of their performances still remarkable by modern standards. Every cent spent on the production shows up on the screen. You don't know anything about movies if you've never seen this one. It contains comedy, adventure, horror, fantasy, and science fiction. The sets are overwhelming in their size and number. The special effects are amazing even at this late date. For those who have children who love Aladdin, this film has many harbingers, although the 1940 version with Sabu is the direct predecessor.


I fully agree with the rapturous review by Mordaunt Hall in The New York Times. Hall went on to name the movie as his number two choice for the Ten Best Films of 1924. In this choice, however, he was out of step with the majority of his comrades. 450 American motion picture critics selected The Thief of Bagdad as the year's Best Film!

I have little to add. The only person who has any valid reason to complain is Snitz Edwards. Incorrectly billed in the credits as an "evil associate" (he's nothing of the sort!), Snitz figures mightily in the introductory sequences and the modus operandi of the plot, but then abruptly disappears. The lovely Anna May Wong would also get my vote for more footage, but at least she runs true to form right through the movie.

Some people have complained about "primitive" special effects. Whilst it's true the effects range from the brilliant to the amateurish and even quaint, this is a movie that has an abundance of "heart", a quality that most computer-generated 21st century films signally lack.

As for the stupendous sets by William Cameron Menzies, the superb cinematography by Arthur Edeson (why hasn't someone written a book about Edeson's mind-boggling career? After all, he photographed at least twenty of the current top cult favorites) and the magical acting by the athletic Fairbanks, the scheming Sojin and the entrancing Miss Wong, all not only contribute richly to the film's success, but each actually presents a compelling reason for making this Thief of Bagdad an absolute must-see!


There is no denying that for its day and age this is wonderful.

Given that it is nearly a century old it holds up very well.

Though slow in places and long at 2 hours and 19 minutes I can imagine the original audiences must have blow away by the special effects, action, and story, costumes and sets etc;

If course, the real selling point is Fairbanks who truly lights up the screen. Yes, its hammy even for a silent movie, but what comes across is his boundless energy, his enthusiasm, and the love of what he does.

Recommended for all those who love swashbuckling adventures!

A treat to go back in time.


This is a wonderful film and amazing to look at even today for its technical prowess. Unfortunately for this film, though, the remake starring Sabu was an even better film and was overshadowed a bit because of this.

Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. plays the thief. He is a real scoundrel and not particularly likable,...that is, until he meets the woman of his dreams, the princess. He vows to straighten up his life after he introduces himself to her--beginning by telling her the awful truth about his life. Despite this, the princess is head-over-heels in love with him--thanks to his fulfilling a prophecy made earlier in the film about the identity of her beloved. However, daddy isn't pleased with the thief and has him beaten and thrown from the castle. Other, less wonderful REAL princes are left to vie for hand. However, she wants Douglas and comes up with a plan to send all of them on a chase to bring back the greatest treasure. Douglas decides to enter this contest as well--and due to his new-found goodness is able to make himself a prince and win her lovely hand. The film fades out as they take a very spectacular magic carpet ride away from the city of Baghdad.

The film strongly excels artistically. The city appears huge and grand and generally very real. The special effects are also top notch. Fairbanks is also incredible with his athletic prowess as he effortlessly climbs ropes, battles silly looking monsters (the only minor drawback among the many special effects) and leaps about the scenery. About the only other minor negative is that occasionally, Fairbanks' performance is perhaps TOO Athletic--as he didn't do quite a convincing job with the love scenes and quieter moments in the film. Still, it's a silent masterpiece.


If anyone ever asks why Douglas Fairbanks was such a big star, tell them to view this film. His personality "leaps" off the screen and the film is as exciting as it was in 1924. True, some of the "special effects" are a little corny by today's standards, but the film holds up, nevertheless.

And to all those who appreciate the male form, Douglas Fairbanks physique is unbelievable!


In Bagdad, Douglas Fairbanks (as "The Thief") is a carefree crook, proclaiming, "What I want - I take. My reward is here. Paradise is a fool's dream and Allah is a myth." All that is thrown asunder when Mr. Fairbanks lays his eyes on veiled, but pretty Julanne Johnson (as "The Princess"). In order to win her hand in holy marriage, Fairbanks must successfully maneuver increasingly dangerous and incredible feats.

Unnecessarily slow-paced, but very much worth the time, "super-production" from Fairbanks and company. The sets and photography are extraordinary; and, the overview shots of Bagdad not only are, but also look - futuristic. Director Raoul Walsh, photographer Arthur Edeson, and designer William Cameron Menzies create a wonderful "Arabian Nights Fantasy World" for the ever-exuberant Fairbanks to inhabit. Anna May Wong (as The Mongol Slave) steals the acting honors; otherwise, the arm-flailing acting of the cast is outrageous, but... it fits the mood of the film. Hang in for Fairbanks' magic carpet ride near the film's end. Like John Kay sang, "Fantasy will set you free."

********* The Thief of Bagdad (3/18/24) Raoul Walsh ~ Douglas Fairbanks, Julanne Johnston, Sojin, Anna May Wong


008: The Thief of Bagdad (1924) - released 3/18/1924, viewed 7/28/05.

George Gerswin's "Rhapsody in Blue" is performed for the first time in NYC. The IBM corporation is founded. Calvin Coolidge gives the first presidential radio broadcast.

BIRTHS: Margaret Truman, Lee Marvin.

KEVIN: Now this movie was really something. We have here our first Douglas Fairbanks movie, our first all-out adventure movie, and one of the earliest all-out special effects movies. A lot of people trace effects films back to King Kong, but they often forget this film, which uses all kinds of tricks like flying carpets, under-water duels, giant spiders, just about everything. It was a lot of fun to see how filmmakers pulled off things like flying carpets and giant monsters back in the day, long before the days of Ray Harryhausen. Early on in the film, I was reminded of the numerous fantasy-style kung-fu movies I've seen. I'd love to see a modern remake of this film done in that eastern style. After all that, I wonder how the 1940 version will hold up compared to this one.

DOUG: 1924 sees the release of of this rip-roaring screen classic directed by Raoul Walsh and starring silent film adventurer Douglas Fairbanks. I thought this movie was awesome. Fairbanks (who I think looks a lot like Clark Gable) brings what I'm sure is his usual bravado to the role of the Thief. Although this guy is a criminal and a swindler, Fairbanks manages to make him so cool that we root for him anyway. I remember there is a moment after he meets the princess, we can see him kind of become reflective as he starts to consider living life without thieving. The third act of the film is nearly all action, as the Thief braves many perils including monsters and fiery caverns to win the ultimate prize for the princess. These scenes contain lots of special effects (the first we've seen so far) that must have been quite impressive for the day. The finale has our hero facing off against 20,000 Mongols by summoning "a magical army from the earth, 100,000 strong!" Woah! To me this film felt like it could be a martial arts movie. A lot of moments would be right at home in a big-budget kung-fu movie, like when he takes the royal ring and cuts it in half with his sword (in a modern movie, we would see the ring float in mid-air as his sword slices through it in slow motion).

Last film: Marriage Circle (1924). Next film viewed: Sherlock, Jr. (1924). Next film chronologically: Girl Shy (1924).

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


I saw this movie for the first time, about twenty five years ago. And every time that I have the opportunity to watch it again, I don´t waste the chance (although unfortunately is rarely show it on t.v.) This film is almost eighty years old, and in my opinion has yet to lose their strong plot history, with Douglas Fairbanks at his top performance and in his stunts.The stages are so impressive.I like this picture a lot more than the 1940 version,that was made with much more resources. I recommend this movie amply. !Good Fun!


Douglas Fairbanks was a peerless action star and in 1924 was at the top of his form. Raoul Walsh was one of our greatest action directors and paces THIEF very nicely. The special effects are mostly quite impressive, only a couple of them are so dated as to appear a bit silly. The art direction of Cedric Gibbons is astounding. The sets are either gorgeous or bizarre, and often both. The 20's was the golden age of pop culture in America and this film is one of the proofs.


I taped this masterpiece from the TV about 3 to 4 years ago and I have probably seen it maybe 15 to 20 times. Each time I see it, more and deeper messages come to me about the real message that this movie portrays.

This film is now 75 years old and I say one thing, it gives the movies of today one good run for their money.

Look at the special effects that could and were done with less than maybe a quarter of the equipment that we have today.

I even like this version of the Thief of Bagdad more than the 1940 version!!! It is that exciting!!!


"The Thief of Bagdad" (1924) is an amazing adventure film and it is one of my favorite movies. Starring the athletic Douglas Fairbanks, Senior. Based on the "Arabian Nights" it tells you the story of a thief - Ahmed - in Bagdad that fell in love with a beautiful Princess and has now to gain her love, because "Happiness must be earned".


I remember watching this movie at school not too long ago in film history and immediately fell in love with it. Not only did Douglas Fairbanks star in this film, he also produced it.

***A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD***

The Raoul Walsh film is based on a tale from the Arabian Nights. A noble, nice-looking (sorry, I had to add that in), young thief named Ahmed who sneaks into the palace (with the help of a magic rope) and tries to steal, but changes his ways when he falls for the Caliph's daughter. After hearing that the Caliph is searching for a husband for his daughter, the thief disguises himself as Prince Achmed. He fulfills the prophecy of the princess by being the first to touch the rose of the tree. Later, he expresses his honesty to the princess about him not being a prince, but a thief. His true identity is revealed when one of the Mongol slaves he "ran into" tells the Mongol prince who he [the thief] really is. Then, the Mongol prince ends up telling the Caliph and the thief is stripped, whipped, and thrown out of the palace.

Now the princess must wed one of the suitors that were left. But suggests that whoever brings back the rarest treasure after seven moons, she will marry. Before the thief goes out on the quest, the princess gives him her ring. Ahmed goes through several obstacles such as the Valley of Fire, the Valley of the Monsters, the Cavern of the Enchanted Trees, the Old Man of the Midnight Sea, the Abode of the Winged Horse in which no one has been able to survive.

The special effects are outstanding for a 1920s film! The tinted scenes of the thief's quest sets you off in a mood and gives you a feeling for that particular scene. Despite the age of the film, it's worth watching!


I have seen this film a number of times, most memorably at the Nederlands Film Museum, Vondelpark, Amsterdam, to live accompaniment. When seen with such accompaniment, the film is a delight to watch, with the film and music and live sound effects making a real evenings entertainment.

A classic silent movie with all fun of the fairground. A fairy tale which is enriched by the style and presentation of the times.

Fairbanks plays an excellent thief full of mischief and daring.


For those who have not seen a silent film, try this one. Douglas Fairbanks shows off great silent acting & fantastic stunt work in a very entertaining film. This is the type of film that should be pulled out when someone wants to do a theater organ score with a silent movie.

There is a very good reason this film is great visually and clever with special effects. The Director is Raoul Walsh who is one of the great Directors who has gotten more recognition in recent years because of his great body of directing work. This version has been overshadowed by the 1940 version done in Technicolor with Sabu, but once you look at this film, you will realize this film is great in its own right.

Julanne Johnson, a very busy actress in films until she retired in 1934 does pretty well here in the female lead. This is Raoul Walsh's 49th film directing & it shows in how well the cameras are used in this film.


It's a funny thing about watching silent movies in the 21st Century, even silent movies that have been well restored. Especially in the case of fantasy films like "The Thief of Baghdad" and others like it that require special effects, it is not just that the special effects look archaic compared to the CGI effects of today. There are a lot of things modern day audiences have to get used to, such as the fact that spoken dialogue doesn't appear in subtitles unless it absolutely has to. If two people are arguing and no words appear on the screen, you really have to make your best guess as to what they could be saying.

There's also the case of timing. "The Thief of Baghdad" runs 2 hours and 19 minutes, and it's safe to say that if the film had sound (dialogue too), the running time would probably be cut down by at least 20 minutes. There are also the other hang-ups of silent movies, such as the movement of the characters being too quick, and how some of the actors and actresses look very strange and out of the ordinary. The lack of color added to the overall darkness of the film due to lack of lighting also is a deterrent to watching these very, very old films that were made when my grandparents were infants (literally).

If you are not a fan of old movies, you really have to keep those things in mind when watching "The Thief of Baghdad" for the first time. The fact is that this film's audience was probably people who didn't go to the movies often, and were still amazed by the novelty of moving pictures.

Keeping in mind all I said about why few silent films have not exactly stood the test of time, is "The Thief of Baghdad" a good movie? For many reasons, yes, and it should be watched by people who are fans of action and fantasy movies, because this really paved the way for what CGI and other special effects sciences only made better in the years to come.

The movie tells a good story, although one that sputters and stalls a few times in the first 30 minutes. Douglas Fairbanks, the epitome of the ultra masculine hero, plays the thief here who goes by no other name. You see him steal to make a living in many clever ways. In fact, the first five minutes of the film are incredibly entertaining the way he manages to pickpocket wealthy patrons, and effortlessly fling his way up to a balcony with just a long rope and a donkey.

The story really begins, though, when the thief disguises himself as a prince, and attempts to woo the princess. He does successfully, though he is filled with guilt about deceiving her. Long story short, he is put on a quest to obtain a rare gift for the princess, in competition with three other princes with whom the princess wants nothing to do with. Whereas the three actual princes rely on their servants to get them their gifts, the thief goes alone on a long journey. He has help along the way as to where to go, but he really does the grunt work himself.

Of course, the filmmakers did nothing to make Fairbanks look Arabian or Iraqi, but that's just one of the ways you really have to suspend disbelief in this film. Fortunately, "The Thief of Baghdad" didn't make the same mistake that "Birth of a Nation" did in portraying racist stereotypes (whether or not that was a mistake really depends on the viewer). Instead of making white men and women into embarrassing stereotypes, this film used actual actors of Asian, African, and (I'm guessing) middle Eastern descent. They probably had the artistic liberty to make such politically incorrect assertions about those in the Middle East, but they thankfully avoided it in this film.

Being a moviegoer who you could say has been spoiled by CGI special effects, I actually found myself wondering how some of the special effects in this movie were pulled off. There are scenes where a boy mysteriously reappears on a rope that is hanging in mid air, a giant scorpion attacks the thief as he searches for the lost treasure, and a magic carpet flies over the city of Baghdad. I was amazed to find myself saying, "Given what the filmmakers had to work with, how did they do that? How did they edit the film so that that particular effect worked?" If you have that sort of wonderment out of a moviegoer who just went to see "Avatar", you've got a good movie.

The movie was also probably shot on a studio lot, but the set design is so detailed with its tall buildings and plants carefully placed in the makeshift Baghdad that there are few indications of such a location. The movie was probably a big hit at its time because so much artistic effort was put into bringing this Arabian Knights tale to life. These scenes within Baghdad made me wish more that the film was in color, but I would not settle for colorization. That process would have ruined the film.

So "The Thief of Baghdad" is a bit slow at times, and some scenes require the point of view of someone who has never heard of television. Still, the movie told a good story, the special effects were awe-inspiring considering its time period, and the message of the film is something to take away: "Happiness Must Be Earned". These words are written in the sky as an old man is sitting in the Arabian desert presumably telling a young boy this story. This scene, identical in the beginning and end of the movie, go against the traditional rule of "Show, don't tell", but the scene is still a very artistic and beautiful way to bookmark such a film.


Cinema creates its own legends. Among the greatest of them was Douglas Fairbanks, in his incarnation as the eternal swashbuckler, a romantic hero who could only exist in the golden days of the silent era. Thief of Bagdad is his finest moment, the greatest tale he ever told.

Although Fairbanks wore many different hats in his swashbucklers  exchanging the mask of Zorro for the cap of Robin Hood and so forth  each of these characters was just the same persona in a different time and place. His previous two efforts, The Three Musketeers and Robin Hood, spend a lot of time laying down back-story before allowing the hero to emerge, and this made them very profound but a little slow at times. In contrast, Thief of Bagdad begins with the introduction of the titular rascal, sweeping us straight into his escapades, and then building the wider plot and story-world outwards from there.

Fairbanks's style was always extremely athletic and rhythmic, but the action of this one is almost akin to ballet. Doug dances his way through the role, and much of the movement seems literally choreographed, such as the three fat guards' heads popping up one after the other. The dance even carries through to the serene and tender love scenes. This balletic feel is made appropriate by the fantasy setting, which allows a more abstract approach, unlike all the other Fairbanks pictures which were rip-roaring adventures, but were grounded in (fairly) realistic worlds. The fantastical tone also makes acceptable the pantomime acting, such as the exaggerated yawn and stretch of the guard falling asleep, or Fairbanks's palms literally itching when he spies a precious jewel.

As his director for this project Fairbanks selected Raoul Walsh. Walsh is now best remembered for the gritty action pictures he would later make at Warner Brothers, but perhaps the most important aspect he brought to his pictures was a romantic spirit of adventure. The fabulous sets were already built and the script locked down by the time Walsh came on board, but he adds his adventuresome touch in a number of ways. Walsh was very much an outdoors man, and many of his pictures emphasise the openness of plains and mountains, making them places of freedom, contrasting them with a stifling atmosphere for interiors. Thief of Bagdad, with its elaborate street sets and cavernous halls, has a less clear distinction between indoors and outdoors, but Walsh makes those very streets the equivalent of the open plain, keeping his camera back to show Fairbanks dancing freely through them. In the final half hour, notice how places such as the bazaar or the harbour where the bad princes seek their treasures are photographed as crowded or confined, with actors framed through doorways or amongst the clutter of the set. When we cut back to Fairbanks, he is in long shot in a wide-open space.

It's also very like Walsh to make us feel as if we are there with the hero, taking part in his adventure. While those long shots rightly show of the magnificent sets and the hero's athletics, at crucial times Walsh brings us in close, often with the camera just behind Fairbanks, as if we were following him. Perhaps the most effective of these is in the fight with the lizard monster, in which we are literally brought in for the kill. We also get to see Walsh's sensitive side (rarely acknowledged, least of all by himself) in the romantic meetings between Fairbanks and his lady fair, embodied in this case by Julanne Johnson. These scenes are both tentative and passionate, with the most beautiful moment after he scales her balcony. We cut between two separate shots, one of Fairbanks kissing her arm, the other of her looking away. Their contact is slight, but filled with deep emotion.

Thief of Bagdad comes from an era in which the walls between cinema and forms of expression such as ballet, opera and fine art were at their thinnest. Title cards are kept to a minimum, and yet this is not a collection of technical tricks like Murnau's Der Letzte Mann. Neither is it confusing or pretentiously highbrow. It tells its story visually, but still manages to be engaging and earthily human. It is the very essence of silent cinema.


I've always loved this version of the ancient Arabian tale, Douglas Fairbanks was at the top of his game, lithe and energetic throughout the 148 minutes. There are various copies available, some better than others overall in various states of decomposition, but I haven't seen one better than the Thames Photoplay issue. A copy I've seen (regurgitated by Elstree Hill) has a whole chapter almost burnt up and a teeth-grindingly awful score, so if you're interested it'll probably pay to be careful.

Fairbanks spends the first 20 minutes scene-setting with plenty of stealing and acrobatics, then tries to steal from the Caliph of Bagdad but falls in love with his beautiful daughter instead. He then spends the remainder of the film as the Reformed Thief Of Bagdad, trying to win her. In this he's up against 3 rivals and they're all tasked with finding the greatest treasure to decide which one will marry her. The main role was split into two for the 1940 remake  he was certainly more animated than John Justin! Anna May Wong plays an evil traitor but confidante to the Princess, a role she reprised 10 years later in Chu-Chin-Chow the first film version of which appeared the year before this, and which provided some of the story here too. Some of the special effects still look good especially the flying carpet scenes and creating the million man army, but the rest for the main are primitive  however if you're unfortunate enough to see any of the laughable modern versions, maybe some with eye-splitting digital cartoonery too you'll realise special effects do not make a great movie. This has a great story, great sets, great atmosphere, is constantly inventive within the technological limitations and lives in the imagination long after it's finished. However if comparisons are possible between silent and sound films, I think Korda's version was something extra special and on another level altogether.

So if you care, dig out a good non-budget issue of this for a magical night's entertainment.


I have earlier seen Modern Times (which actually god dialog and singing in it) and City Lights (which had melodies in it), both were great (I need to rewatch City Lights though.

Anyways, today I watched my first true silent film. The Thief of Bagdad (1924) and it will most probably land in my top 50 or close to it. That means it's better than any 30's film I have seen. I just loved pretty much everything with this film and surprisingly enough the special effects (without counting the horse riding on the skies) were perfect. Fairbanks and the rest of the cast were to my surprise extremely good too, who would have thought that about a silent. I'm just truly glad I decided to give this film a try. It's only problem was the constant changing of colors which would disappear if someone took the time to restore it. Overall 98.5%.


One of the best films of the Silent era, right from the start: the stunt where Fairbanks gets to a balcony by means of a rope, a donkey, and a sleeping fat man is still one of the funniest in movies. It is also perhaps the most distinctive-looking film ever made. There's a lot of Art Nouveau furniture and jewelry out there but this is the only Art Nouveau movie, from the palace walls and gates down to the little vial the Thief uses to put a potion on a rose (which is itself stylized). Every set, prop, lamp, and costume is a work of art. Even the swords and pikes look original and eye-grabbing. (Get that mural in the Mongol palace! Just a throwaway detail.) Fairbanks spent a vast sum on this film, and it shows. According to film historian Kevin Brownlow, Fairbanks had been highly impressed by the German studio films he'd seen on a trip, and this one has that same designed, all-of-a-piece look.

It has some low points. Like most silent films, it moves slowly by modern standards. The brief monster sequences were not very good even for 1924. And things drag a bit when the Thief starts romancing the princess. On the plus side it's got Anna May Wong, already a beauty, as a traitorous lady-in-waiting. At 16 Wong already knew to act with her eyes, rather than with her arms, like Johnston (the princess) does.

Most people who've seen a "Thief of Bagdad" seem to have seen the 1940 version and the cartoon "Aladdin" but missed this one. That's a shame. The 1940 version is very good (it has dazzling color and a great Genie) but, like most films that are made by a committee of directors, it looks and plays like a film made by a committee. I prefer this Fairbanks version, corny acting and all. It's less sappy and more vital, and it looks more original. The dialogue written for the 1940 film is filler; it adds little to the pictures. This is exactly the sort of story Chaplin had in mind when he worried that talk in movies might turn out to be a handicap.


I watched this the other night at the academy of motion pictures arts and sciences special screening and was annoyed at one film historian introducing it telling us to "bear with it"" and making excuses for its pacing and style. I have watched and enjoyed many silent films, but evidently the influence of NIjinsky was not such a good thing on this one. I really found it dull and Douglas Fairbanks was too old for the part and went about it like a ham and cheese sandwich with extra meat. Anna may Wong was very good. the sets were a let down, everything about it was a let down. It doesn't help of course that the Michael Powell Alexander Kora version from the 50s with divine Sabu is one of my favorite films. I enjoyed hearing the rim sky korsakov cut and paste score actually, at least there wasn't some really annoying music slapped on as in the Gloria Swanson version of "rain" "sadie Thompson" also directed by Raoul Walsh and an infinitely better movie.


Well, it may not be everyone's cup of tea and it certainly has it's flaws - but for me at least, Fortress is one of the most fun B-movies released in the nineties, and that's no surprise considering it's helmed by the great Stuart Gordon! One of the main reasons why Fortress works so well is because it puts its focus in one place and every imaginative element of the film goes towards furthering the central plot. The title refers to the impregnable privately owned prison of the title. We are introduced to this penitentiary and its various pitfalls right from the start and while it's not hard to see where the film is going to go, it does at least make you wonder how it's going to get there. The central characters are John and Karen Brennick - a couple sent to the Fortress after she becomes pregnant with a second child, thus breaking a futuristic population control law. However, John isn't happy to just rot away in jail, and despite the numerous pitfalls that makes the Fortress escape proof - along with his fellow prisoners, he plots to escape with his wife.

The basis of Fortress is your classic prison escape movie, the only difference being the prison at the centre of the tale. The Fortress itself is certainly made good use of as the inventive methods in place to stop the prisoners escaping are constantly kept at the forefront of the audience's mind. The film really is never boring for a minute; if there isn't something directly going on in the movie then Gordon is using the time to build up the situation that the prisoners find themselves in. The film features a good B-movie cast, with 'Highlander' Christopher Lambert taking the lead role. Lambert is hardly a great actor, but he at least looks the part and his athleticism serves him well. Loryn Locklin isn't given much to do as the leading lady, but the rest of the support cast includes the likes of Lincoln Kilpatrick, Vernon Wells (who, coincidently, was also in the 1986 Australian movie of the same title!) and Jeffrey Combs, who is just great as always. Kurtwood Smith is probably the biggest standout, however, as the maniacal head of the Fortress. This film really features everything you could ever want from a B-movie - constant action, imagination and some hilarious performances. It all boils down to a suitably over the top climax and while this might not be the best film ever made - its one hell of a lot of fun and I certainly recommend it!


Well, here we have another brilliant Christopher Lambert movie but once again it's very underrated. Lambert stars as John Brennick he is an innocent prisoner in a futuristic high-tech prison trying to escape with his wife, there's lots of special effects and blood and guts in this fantastic film. The acting is very good, even though I haven't heard of them apart from Lambert. If you've seen "Lock-Up" starring Stallone, you'll love this!

Overall a brilliant and very entertaining movie, with some surprises in it. My advice is to see this movie, it's good!

Jonathan Horner.


Fortress is a very underrated sic-fi/action movie made in the early nineties by Stuart Gordon (the maker of re-animator/from beyond/dagon). The story is your standard prison movie formula, only it's set in the future.

The best thing about this film is the suspense of the action sequences. There were several scenes in the movie that literally had me talking to the TV. Nice performances by Jeffery Combs(as a very amusing computer geek type)and Christopher Lambert are a big plus. Kurtwood smith is also great as the prison director.

At the time it was released I was impressed with this film and over time my affection for it has grown (it continues to entertain even after seeing it several times). The main flaws would be the predictability of the plot and some cliché characters, but it's all handled so well that it doesn't really hurt the movie.

It's a good popcorn action movie, and one of my favorite Stuart Gordon Films. In my opinion, this is probably Gordons Second best film, after re-animator.


The movie has it all blood and gore, romance, and a lot of butt kicking action. I like this movie because it not only has a great story line but also stars one of my favorite actors (Christopher Lambert). Fortress is a must-see movie.


I remember seeing Fortress and Fortress 2: Re-Entry for a bargain of £1,00 each so I though okay. I'm a fan of Lambert in the Highlander films and the plot seemed interesting so I bought them both. I watched it and loved it, it may be a low-budget film but it was great.

Lambert does a great performance as John Brennick a man sent to the Fortress because he wanted another kid with his wife Karen. The law in the future says you can have only one child and that's it.

Kurtwood Smith does an equally great performance as the warden Poe, who gets pleasure out of watching the inmates sexual dreams but dreams are not allowed in the Fortress. Each prisoner is implanted with a device that shocks them if they break the rules and also kill them if they misbehave too much.

Jeffery Combs is good as D-Day a computer genius, his performance in Re-Animator was great too.

Fortress is a great sci-fi film that wont disappoint. 10/10


Its about a totalitarian society where people only have one chance at having a kid. They have this futuristic super max, with these ingestible detectors, and a computer mainframe warden. This film is great, watch for the scene with the d day computer virus, it is a classic. The character development, and acting is decent. Worth renting, I love this film.


Stuart Gordon began his career as a director with Re-Animator, a classic horror comedy that has a huge cult status and deservedly so. Fortress was his first entry to non-horror oriented field, even though Fortress still has many horror elements, too. Christopher Lambert plays a military officer in the near future, where it is allowed to have only one child per couple. He and his wife broke that order and they are sentenced to high security modern prison Fortress, set in the middle of desert. There are many inmates there and everyone wants to get out, but if someone breaks the rules, the punishment will be death or torture by the sadistic boss and wardens..

This was surprisingly great film, and Gordon did fine job with the film. It was filmed entirely in Australia and the film was first big budget movie for Gordon. He said that he wanted to do a sci-fi action film with brains, too, and that he wanted to discuss some topical issues with his film. These issues are over population and alarming/scary development of technology, and even though the film is not too deep or philosophical, it has these aspects of commentary about society and our everyday world, and what it should not be. This is not as satiric or intelligent as Paul Verhoeven's Robocop, for instance, but still it is little more than just average blast 'em action film set in the future.

The settings are very great and technically this film is fantastic as there are no flaws in camera use and editing. This reminded me little bit of Robocop's future cities, and both films are marvelously staged. The action is plenty and it is exciting and professionally done and shot. Occasionally the film reminded me also of Paul Anderson's Soldier, the non-stop action mayhem film starring Kurt Russell. Christopher Lambert is not as multi leveled actor as possible, but still he has certain kind of charisma and he is easy to watch in his films. Kurtwood Smith played the bad guy in Robocop, and he plays bad guy in Fortress, too, but not as NEAR as bad as in Robocop's manic performance.

Due to the film's violence and fierce moments, this is pretty close to Paul Verhoeven's style of making action films, as couple of scenes are very violent and almost too violent for this kind of mainstream production, and as far as I know, this had to be trimmed by two violent scenes to get the R rating in US, and this slightly cut version has been released also on DVD in US and Europe. I saw the uncut version on VHS and there are couple of over-the-top bloody shootings and two gory stomach explosions, of which the second is VERY gory. It is easy to see the film is directed by the man behind the hilariously ultra gory Re-Animator. The violence in Fortress isn't funny in the tradition of Re-Animator; It is serious because the film itself is serious, not the kind of half comedy like Re-Animator.

The film is perhaps little too slow moving in the middle part but for most of the time, this works fine and pleased me very much, and proves the talent of Gordon in other genres than horror, too. I give this 7/10 rating and recommend this to anyone interested in sci-fi and action cinema. It's not a masterpiece but still very noteworthy piece of 90's science fiction and action cinema.


Getting sent to prison for having a second baby even though the first one died? That's really unfair, but what a good idea for our prisons we have now. Not with that evil warden who kills people, but activating pain to prisoners who break the rules. That would be great. When seeing this film the first time, it makes me wonder why they don't allow prisoners to dream good things about intimacy, yet they allow assault by that 187 guy. It wasn't good how John was mind-wiped for not killing a man, because if he had done that, Prison Director Poe would of used that to keep him in prison for later on. So what's being pointed out in this movie is that murder is not allowed in the public, but in prison, the warden is allowed to murder whoever he wants and if a prison doesn't obey his orders to murder someone, they get punished, and they may of been in there in the first place for murder. That really doesn't make sense. Still a great film though!


In a grim totalitarian near future married couples are allowed to have only one kid. John Brennick (a solid and engaging performance by Christopher Lambert) and his pregnant wife Karen (well played by the fetching Loryn Locklin) get arrested for trying to have a second child. They are both sent to a brutal subterranean maximum security penitentiary run by the cruel Prison Doctor Poe (a splendidly wicked Kurtwood Smith). Of course, John plans to escape and take Karen with him. Director Stuart Gordon relates the absorbing story at a brisk pace, does an expert job of maintaining a tough, gritty tone throughout, and stages the thrilling action scenes with rip-roaring verve (the climactic jailbreak sequence in particular is quite tense and stirring). The uniformly ace acting from a tip-top cast qualifies as another significant asset: Lambert and Locklin make for sympathetic leads, Smith excels in one of his customary bad guy roles, plus there are stellar supporting performances by Jeffrey Combs as flaky, bespectacled computer whiz D-Day, Lincoln Kilpatrick as wise trustee inmate Abraham, Tom Towles as mean roughhouse bully Stiggs, Vernon Wells as vicious top con Maddox, and Clifton Collins, Jr. as scrappy young punk Nino Gomez. David Eggby's fluid, polished cinematography, the nifty special effects, Frederic Talgorn's moody, rousing score, and a few dollops of grisly gore are all on the money effective and impressive. A very cool and satisfying science fiction film.


This is a fun low budget Sci-Fi prison flick, that's rather exciting, with a solid story, and fun performances!. All the characters are cool, and sure it may be a bit cheesy and have some bad dialog at times, but it's all good fun, plus Christopher Lambert is simply amazing in this!. It's also surprisingly violent, and I remember watching this movie on TV as a kid, and enjoying it so it was great to re visit it, and it's pretty well made and written for it's low budget, plus it's also quite imaginative, and creative too. All the characters are very likable,and the ending is also quite cool as well,plus there are some really impressive action scenes as well. Kurtwood Smith is really good as the villain, and Lambert and Loryn Locklin had pretty good chemistry together in my opinion, plus the special effects are pretty good despite the low budget it had. It had a couple of decent fight scenes, and I think this should be quite higher then 5.3 in my opinion, plus the opening is quite intense. This is a fun low budget Sci-Fi prison flick, that's rather exciting, with a solid story, and fun performances in my opinion, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Stuart Gordon does a great! job here with very good camera work, excellent angles, adding some good atmosphere and just keeping the film at a very fast pace.

There is lots of violence&blood. We get extremely bloody wounds,gory dog bites,bloody nose bleeds,hole blown through one's stomach,nasty broken jaw, with blood spurting,stomach explosion,a few body explosions,guy tearing out his own eyes,stabbings,hands cut badly with glass,extremely gory gunshot wounds and tons of blood!.

The Acting is fun!. Christopher Lambert is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, very charismatic, as always had a wicked laugh, gives one of his finest performances, was fun to watch, and kicked that ass! (Lambert Rules!!!!!!!). Kurtwood Smith is really good as the villain, he was intimidating, and hammed it up perfectly, I loved him!. Loryn Locklin is a solid little B movie actress and did fine in her role, she had pretty good chemistry with Lambert and was likable, I dug her. Clifton Collins Jr. is good in his role I liked him. Lincoln Kilpatrick had a strong presence about him and was great as Abraham, it sucked he didn't survive. Jeffrey Combs is good as the computer geek I love this guy!. Rest of the cast are fine.

Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5


***Possible Spoiler Attached*** * * *

At first glance this film is just another sci-fi flick with a mediocre plot and sometimes dull dramatics. The pundits have been less than generous with their praise, of a movie that fails to deliver what the trailers promise. Fortunately it has a few redeeming features.

The premise of a society with boundaries on conception is not a new one, infact at the time when this film was released, China was very much in the news for limiting couples to one child only. But while trying to deal with a very real scenario, albeit in the 'global' future, the film crew and management had their own brush with Australian authorities regarding the use of 'local' talent preferentially on the Aussie set. Despite the associated delays and bad press, the film was completed, much to the delight of sci-fi aficionados.

Christophe Lambert portrays an ex-marine John Brennick who's wife Karen (played ably by Loryn Locklin) is expecting her second child. Their first child died and during an attempt to cross the border into Mexico, the land of the free(sic), they are taken prisoner. Transported to an underground prison, they fight technology, hard labour (no pun intended) and a prison warden called Poe (believably evil and portrayed by Kurtwood Smith). It would seem that Poe has been reading too many of his namesake's books, leading to a rather deviant bent, a lust for married women and psychedelic dreams, plus (due to genetic enhancement) the inability to hold his drink.

Once Brennick decides he's had enough, he attempts a breakout, with his cell-mates in tow. One by one they are eliminated by various cyborgs, until there is just the Brennicks and Nino (Clifton Gonzalez Gonzalez) heading for the border in the truck that brought them all to the prison. The ending is a little bland, with one version showing the Brennicks and baby, while the other shows Nino being terminated by the truck. Does this all sound a little implausible? Tough....it's sci-fi.... what else do you expect?

Actually, once you get past the bad acting by some of the Aussies and some very plastic props, the film isn't that bad. It deals with complex social issues; those of overpopulation (which generally means first world values foisted on third world countries), incarceration in prisons run by private companies (a concept currently being adopted world-wide), and the love of a man for his wife and child.

Christophe and Kurtwood are both capable of creating stylised characters, something they succeed in doing (shame that Kurtwood later lost the plot in That 70's Show). If you are into sci-fi, future-world or true kick-arse action, then watch it.


What a team, Legend Christopher Lambert and the truly awesome Vernon Wells in a movie together, and such a classic movie as well. This is a film of Mega proportions to the highest extent and both actors perform to the highest standard in it. Wells plays Maddox(what a name, i bet he thought of that himself) who likes beating people up and raping young men(what a role, he obviously had some considerable influence after his role in Commando so he gets to do whatever he wants in movies) Lambert is class as always and the plot is genius, what more do you need apart from maybe Schwartzkshgjsfgnjsjvnjnnegger or Edward Woodward to add to the already masterful piece of art. This is a classic with no doubts.


Oh I loved this movie!! It was so exciting!! It seemed like John and Karen were never going to escape. It was, however, a little bit exaggerated about all the horrors that the poor couple lived there. The character of Poe was cartoonish. But the film was so enjoyable. I can't wait to see the sequel!!


A good sci-fi prison escape story with great set design and effects. Kurtwood Smith is great as Warden Poe and Lambert plays his typical combat hardened ex-military agent he has portrayed in the likes of Mean Guns.

Good supporting characters and few plot holes round the movie out. I'm a bit biased, I admit, as I'm a huge Lambert fan.

Worth seeing.


When this film came out the idea of massive imprisonments in the US seemed remote. In the past there may have been a will to oppress but it was counter-balanced or diffused by ineffectiveness or inefficiency of the government. Technology has provided athe means; political crises have strengthened the will.

In the volitile political climate inside the US one can easily see how a regime could get out of hand and with the use of technology start mass imprisonments and keep inmates in line with thought control and torture, here for a second pregnancy.

The danger with making films of this nature is not that it envisions a brave new world which those of good conscience should work to avoid but that it might inspire those personalities like that of Prison Director Poe (Kurtwood Smith) to the means and methods of more effective repression.

Do works in the bleak Orwellian futuristic 1984 genre warn or provide a model for action? Is fortress a warning or a prophesy?

See the film.


Stuart Gordan the master of really (and I mean REALLY) cheezy literature based horror movies (Re-Animater, Pit and the Pendulem, Castle Freak, From Beyond etc.) brings us FORTRESS, a Christopher Lambert, Sci-Fi classic. Look it is a little cheezy, but that is Gordon's style. If you like Sci-Fi and if you like Christopher Lambert, you'll probably like this movie.

Sometimes I feel a little bad for Lambert. He's an international star, who's career looked so promising after GREYSTOKE in 1984. He got type casted as the sword guy do to the popularity of HIGHLANDER and has been making nothing, but straight to video action/dramas for the past 15 years. Yeah, I feel bad for him, but then, I watch his movies. What can I say? I really enjoy watching them. Most of them may be cheezy or even bad, but when I go to the video store and I see a new Lambert box sitting on the shelf I get excited. So yeah, maybe his career didn't go the way he had planned and maybe he is stuck in "straight to video", but thank God he is! That way when guys like me go to the video store and we're not in the mood for some hollywood bullsh*t, and we've rented every horror movie on the shelves a hundred times, and there hasn't been a new Bruce Campbell "straight to video" classic released in ages, we can pick up one (or all) of the seven Christopher Lambert videos that have come out that week and know that our weekend is not going to be a complete waste!


Pretty interesting film. Good enough performances by the cast. You actually get to care about the characters. Overall a well thought out story. Stuart Gordon still has his touch...


As I child, my parents let me watch all sorts of violent movies and I really can't thank them enough for it. I will name a few that stayed in the memory to this day: Speed, Hard Boiled, Under Siege 1 and 2, Terminator 2, Highlander, Braveheart and this movie, Fortress.

Fortress stars Christopher Lambert in his best role (yes, even better than Highlander). In the future you can't have more than one child or something like that and he and his wife are sent to a new super prison where escape is impossible, or so it seems!

I have a problem with the tagline 'the only thing it couldn't hold was an innocent man'. Lambert is not innocent. His wife is pregnant again and no matter how stupid the law is, he broke it. So I suppose the only thing it can't hold is a group of guys who plot to escape using the explosive stomach bombs that are planted in them on arrival. Yes, you heard correctly, stomach bombs! If you go out side the perimeter...BOOM!

Kurtwood Smith makes a great turn as the Head of the Prison, and as the pawn of the complex computer system that runs THE FORTRESS!

I loved this movie as a kid, and I watched it recently. Guess what? I still love it. It's got character to make up for it's clichés and a whole bunch of originality to make up for Lambert's French-Canadian-Lambert accent. His acting is what I call Lambertesque.

The non stop action makes this movie a great watch for any 1) man 2) fan of 80s/90s action 3)Lambert fan 4)Anyone open minded

I highly recommend it.


After making an astounding breakthrough into the horror genre with the splatter classic RE-ANIMATOR, Stuart Gordon's career has consisted of a wild string of hits & misses. His biggest miss was Fortress, a futuristic prison breakout film that was also his biggest hit, proving so popular that a sequel came out half a decade later.

When I said "his biggest miss", I meant that despite being a box-office hit, the film met with a mixed reaction from critics & genre fans alike. I personally don't like the film  Fortress is sci-fi at its most brainless. It is perhaps the worst film that Gordon has ever made (not to mention being so cheesy that it will win a French cheese competition).

The USA has become a totalitarian regime, with a law passed that limits a woman to one child only. Marine Captain John Brennick & his wife, who is pregnant with her second child (the first died at birth), are caught at a checkpoint & sent to the Fortress, a secluded underground prison complex situated in the middle of a desert. There, prisoners are terrorised by pain-causing implants & computer-controlled devices that censor dreams. Brennick attempts to conduct a prison breakout, no mean feat considering that the prison is virtually escape-proof.

Fortress is actually a wild concoction of every sci-fi cliché under the sun, which, although entertaining in the check-your-brain-at-the-door sense, proves to be amazingly silly. First, the film shows the US adopting a one-child policy, which is rather improbable given the fact that the US is a large country & is not packed to the brim like China, thereby making such a law pointless. The implants are another thing  they are poorly designed (they can be pulled out of the prisoner's body using magnetics) & there is nothing to stop them from being passed out as waste matter. The dream censor is ridiculous to say the least  if they can eliminate wet dreams, then why are prisoners going around raping their fellow inmates. The film also shoves in cyborgs (a staple of many self-respecting genre films during the 1990s), with a cyborg governor (who acts more human than machine) & whole cyborg SWAT teams, who prove to be nothing more than convenient cannon fodder for our hero, although they do kill half the escaping party.

The acting is rather mixed. Christopher Lambert does his naughty-schoolboy impression (he is one of the most wooden actors around), while his fellow inmates are a lot more believable, with Jeffery Combs playing a jittery-nutbag to perfection & Kurtwood Smith trying to be a sympathetic villain, but narrowly missing out on that role by Tom Towles. Gordon throws in his usual darkly comedic splatter, which does contribute greatly to the film's watchability, although it is a style which belongs more to the horror genre than an action film like Fortress.


2017, a dystopian future, and US Army officer John Henry Brennick (Christopher Lambert) and his wife Karen S. Brennick (Loryn Locklin) are expecting a second child. Strict one-child policies forbid any couples having a second child, but the Brennick's first child died at birth so they attempt to get away with a second pregnancy. They are caught trying to cross the border and sent to a maximum security prison that is owned and run by the "MenTel Corporation" A place where dreams are not your own and all thoughts of escape are dealt with severely by futuristic methods unheard of in the civilised world.

You got Connor MacLeod, Herbert West, Clarence J. Boddicker and one of the finest female bottoms in cinema, all crammed into one riotous, hokey and immeasurably fun movie. It probably wont come as much of a surprise to anyone to learn that this Christopher Lambert starrer is not going to have you scratching the cranial matter and pondering the future of mankind. But it does have some interesting ideas both in terms of its prison setting and in the technological advancements used. I mean hey, would you try to escape if you had an intestinal bomb set to go off outside the perimeters? {think The Running Man's neck braces but in your belly}. It can also be said of Fortress that it's not over ambitious, director Stuart Gordon is aware of his restraints and keeps it simple but sparky, of which this is aided by Lambert buffing up and throwing punches left right and off kilter. Tho nothing much as an actor, Lambert none the less gives the likes of Sly and Arnie a run for the money here and looks every inch and sinew an action hero.

Kurtwood Smith, Jeffrey Combs, Lincoln Kilpatrick, Clifton Collins Jr. and Loryn Locklin's bottom all add varying digress of fun and frolics to the occasion. While the set design for the interiors is really rather snazzy. It's B movie berserker time folks, a dystopian world where Christopher Lambert can beat the crap out of blokes twice his size, where half humanoids have flame throwers for arms, and Kurtwood Smith is in charge of a prison. Great fun really, truly. 7/10


Christopher Lambert stars as a man in the near future and his wife is pregnant for the 2nd time but that is illegal because of a population control and they are trying to escape to Mexico but they get caught and sent to a maximum security futuristic prison called the Fortress for 31 years.It is said that it is imposable to escape from this prison but against all the odds Christopher Lamberts character plans to escape from the prison with his wife and some of his friends.

I have seen most of Christopher Lamberts movies and this movie called Fortress has to be one of his best movies he has ever done.There are heaps of great action scenes in this movie and the most memorable scenes are the scenes in the end of the movie when Christopher Lamberts Character and his friends are trying to escape the prison and Christopher is shooting all of the prison guards to escape.

Over all this is a great Sci-Fi/Action movie and i highly recommend that u rent or even buy this movie.And my rating for this movie is seven out of ten.


Here's the scenario: Futuristic company limits couples to only one child, and any past that become property of the company. Any violators of this law are sent to a seemingly inescapable prison. One couple dares to violate this law and is sent to prison, and thus conflict ensues. If you're anything like me, you're probably thinking this movie is going to rank right up there with Super Mario Brothers as far as sci-fi movies go, but I actually enjoyed this one. This movie manages to avoid the cheesy unrealistic costumes and weapons that plague far too many sci-fi movies, and it also produces characters that you start to sympathize with. By coupling an interesting plot with somewhat decent acting, Fortress deserves at least a saturday afternoon rental, that is if nothing more exciting is going on.


I think this movie is best summed up as follows: Eventually all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs: 'I am haunted by waters' ... I too, folks, am haunted by waters. As the old saying goes: Just because you don't graduate head of the class, doesn't mean you won't one day own the school. Overall this movie exemplifies the fact that without innovation and without trying you can't do anything, and if it doesn't kill you it'll only make you stronger. It must also be said that Warwick Capper's performance as 'Braindead Prisoner' is truly dizzy stuff, folks.


A man and his wife are caught trying to escape the totalitarian government that rules the future USA. Their crime: having a second child. Their punishment: confinement in a large underground facility that monitors the inmates right down to their thoughts. Brennick soon becomes determined to find a way of the facility.

Directed by Stuart Gordon, the man responsible for the visceral cult classic "Re-Animator," has given this film much of that same punch. And that is what partly makes "Fortress" quite a fun watch despite its many limitations. The pacing is quite good and keeps things moving along. The character angles are decent and the overall design is nicely innovative and not overdone with a fake gloss. However, the film does fall a bit on its face with providing any sort of metaphor or truly thought provoking science fiction. You've kind of seen all this before in some form or another and the biggest disappointment is the abrupt and sappy ending. "Re-Animator" had a very nice and catchy ending so I thought Gordon would have another surprise like that waiting here, but sadly there is none.

But that aside, this is an enjoyable film and seeing those early 90s computer effects at work is always fun, especially since the ones here never try to outrun themselves. Fun stuff, save for the ending. 7/10

Rated R: graphic violence, and profanity


I'd just like to say that Fortress is one of the most imaginative,creative and highly entertaining '90's Sci-Fi action films,which never gets boring and always engages.The robots and the action scenes are amazing.


The only player who can act even marginally in this turkey is Kurtwood Smith but, of course, he had practice in the Robocop series. Loryn Locklin had no such experience, She wanders in a daze through the conventional plot, resembling a lost cocker spaniel. Christopher Lambert, on the other hand, never seems dazed, alternatively sullen or glowering. It seems clear that the producers spent all that money on special effects to divert attention from a cast that might be more usefully employed in a fast-food restaurant. If the producers really wanted to improve movies, they would send Locklin and Lambert to acting school. "Crimes does not pay"--neither do bad movies.


Angry spoilers ahead After what seems an eternity, finally this movie was apparently coming to an end, but the worst was yet to come: Lambert's wife, who is also imprisoned, is about to give birth to her child. As if in a parody of the Argentina of the 80's, the Government wants to steal the children from her for some hideous purpose. The funny thing is that they don't wait until the woman brings her baby in the world naturally. Oh, no: they're going to use a saw to open her womb and take out the baby while killing her. When she realizes what's happening, the woman starts shouting and calling for her husband, who was precisely running along the prison two corridors away, hears hem and says something like "I'm coming, honey!!" This movie is THIS sophisticated, from the beginning and until the very end. If you find it on TV, DVD, or whatever... Please don't waste part of your precious lifetime in this


Depravity doesn't begin to describe just how atrocious this film is. I like my share of bad films, but this has no redeeming qualities: poorly written, poorly acted, and not at all in a fun way. This movie crosses you from the Yellow, into the Red, and then the guy from that 70's Show makes ZED have the computer gun explode your stomach, so you're left with only a gaping hole in your torso, where your soul used to be. Christpher Lambert would have done you a favor by just letting you fall off the moving platform. Best of all: our heroes are sent to prison while attempting to flee the country at a heavily manned border. At the end of the film, they escape to Mexico by crashing through a chain-link fence at an unguarded border. So essentially they could have saved themselves (and us) the whole movie if they'd just done their homework on US border patrols. Good work guys!


A movie that really could have been a lot better. Not all that bad, but far from good. Some of the cast have acting ability, but not all of them are going at full power. Parts of the decor is convincing, but quite a lot of it looks like plasterboard painted flat gray with some extra symbols thrown on to make the whole look futuristic. Some effects are very nice (the holographic display for instance) but some are obviously made on a too-tight budget (the StriKlones) and a lot of them are not at all necessary. The story could stand on its own without most of the explosions.

The overall feeling is that if the makers had opted for an existing location instead of constructing one, some more money could have gone toward retakes and actor coaching. A lot of the techno-junk at the end could have been replaced with a straightforward (fire)fight with todays weaponry without sacrificing any of the tension and with much better end results. SF generally works just fine without death rays.

All in all, this film is OK if you are trapped in bed (the flu, hangover, terminal boredom) and need some entertainment that won't strain the brain too much. It never achieves "suspension of disbelief" which is crucial in a movie, so it mostly falls on its face when it comes to really grabbing you, and that's a shame since it easily could have been so much better. There is nothing really wrong with the scripted ideas, most of the crew is capable of much more than this and wiser spending would have resulted in a better film. I realize the backers want to see the money end up on the screen, but they should have focused on the acting instead of the "future" angle which really is incidental anyway.

Hollywood is always recycling stuff. Lets hope this movie gets remade some day, with different priorities.