Documentaries about artists can go one of two ways, either very insightful, with images that stick with you, as well as possibly entertaining, or very boring. This will often depend on the merit of the filmmaker, and how personally they connect with the artist and the work itself (some of it is more made for films to show just to get kids to fall asleep in school). Terry Zwigoff, however, is a filmmaker very much in tune with his subjects; his fictional films, the comic-book adaptation Ghost World is cynical (or skeptical) but with true heart, and Bad Santa is as dark as comedies can get. With his friend Robert Crumb he gets one of the most candid, and smooth, documentaries from the 90's. It may mean more to people who are from that period; Crumb is still a legend in the underground comic-book/art scene, not quite breaking into a 'mainstream' but still with his immense cult. But for one from the following generation, I was often mesmerized by his work.

A good part of the film is just Zwigoff using his camera to get into the main mind-set of Crumb, not just necessarily with interviews with his family members or friends and co-workers (though there is a lot of that), but also through the presentation of his work, often in medium close-ups, with awesome blues melodies and tunes in the background. Crumb's work is morbid, satirical, drug-inspired, occasionally racist (for a purpose), ultra-sexual (the Fritz the Cat adaptation film of his work was the first X-rated animated feature), and funny in most respects. One particular description by Crumb over a comic of a woman with a headless body being seductive for a main character is very fascinating, as it brings out several different reactions when reading it- laughter at the random-ness of the characters, romantic drama with the man's lusting for this headless woman, and pure odd-ness at what goes on here. You scratch your head in confusion, or maybe have to put it down in disgust, but if you have the stomach for it it's somehow rewarding. If nothing else, the actual form in the ink and use of colors is often miraculous.

Then there are the interviews. With Bob Crumb himself he's always in a fairly good mood, very personable around those he loves and admires, and those around him- mostly the women whom have inspired, terrified, and amazed him over the years- and without any shame or shyness about his work. And when it comes to his family they too are just as candid; it's a little depressing, to be sure, to see the state of his brothers (Charles, in particular, who is actually an identifiable character for many outsiders in the world, only to an extreme), and the tales of his father. Some of this goes to explain some things about the psychology of the Crumb mentality, but the fact is Bob Crumb does let it all hang out in his comics, as he admits "usually instinctively". There is something about the subject of the artist as a confessional, as someone who is so personal that he can't necessarily projects to a specific 'audience'. It's appropriate, therefore, that a filmmaker like David Lynch produced the film; the similarities are striking in how they both reflect their own desires and hates with the idealized Americana of the 50's.

At times 'Crumb' is a little un-settling, but never for the wrong reasons. It's not for the average comic-book fan, and for those who just love and respect artists in general will find much to admire in Crumb's style.


Honest, Scathing look at alternative cartoonist and his family. His relationship with his brothers Charles & Maxon and the genesis and motivation for his art are well captured by Director Zwighoff. Sometimes disturbing, but always entertaining, "Crumb" represents one of the best documentaries of the 1990s.


i saw this wonderful movie yesterday ,and i highly recommend it.I sat through the entire movie with a smile,what a fantastic member of the human race,Robert Crumb is.The Crumb family gives a whole new meaning to the word Dysfunctional,and it made my family look really sane:)love it. Go on see it and if you don't like it,see a doctor.


One of the best documentaries ever filmed. Zwigoff is a genius; Crumb is a genius (eccentric but a genius) and the film is brilliant. If you enjoyed it at all you have to see "Ghost World" and "American Movie". Cannot recommend it enough.


One of the two best documentaries I have ever seen......Little Dieter Needs to Fly is the other. This has to be the most dysfunctional family ever caught on film. Makes the Osbournes look like pikers! But don't mistake that comment to compare the two. Different worlds completely. Crumb gives you a psycho-view into the twisted minds of a family fruitcake. Truth murders fiction again! 9/10. See it.


"Crumb" is a documentary, and an emotional glimpse into the life of Robert Crumb. He is a frail, awkward man. A brilliant artist, and goofy personality. His art is rich in bizarre imagery, often sexually related. He is sensitive and passionate. As we meet his family, the story continues to unfold into weird and heartbreaking stories. Art is what allows Crumb to deal with his surroundings. It is about the power of art. A wonderful film.


An amiable and amusing mockumentary, 18 FINGERS OF DEATH stands roughly in the same relation to Kung Fu movies as SPINAL TAP does to rock music. Low rent action star Buford Lee (James Lew, familiar from supporting roles BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, THE REPLACEMENT KILLERS and TRAFFIC), sporting a certifiable Bruce Lee accent, is trying to get his new martial arts film 18 FINGERS.. off the ground. His travails are recorded by first time documentary maker, ever enthusiastic fan Ronald Mack (Maurice Patten). Along the way there are gentle parodies of martial arts heroes 'Stephen Seafood' 'Chuck Snorris' and most memorably, 'Antonio Bandana' etc, extracts from Buford's previous releases and scenes of the rehearsal and shooting of his latest one. Much of the acting on offer here is fine and the cinematography is excellent too (my DVD box claims the ratio is 4:3 but it is actually 1.85:1). The relationship between Lee and Mack is what gives the film its gravity  one especially relishes the scene when the star proudly shows him his collection of treasured Kung Fu memorabilia, including 'the actual socks worn by Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon' (sadly unwashed) - and the obvious affection shown the genre by the principals shines through constantly. It's a shame that the film somewhat runs out of steam at the end, especially once Mack has left the story. Occasionally too, jokes could have been sharper, a fact especially true of the late, extended fight scene between Bandana and Lee which plays out the old farting routine for too long, its introduction a sure sign that invention is flagging. One misses the insane surreality which appeared in KUNG POW its absence due, perhaps wisely, to 18 FINGERS' recognition that such elements would appear somewhat jarring in the context of a supposed factual format. But the buoyant Patten is a real find, one of the best things in the picture in fact, clearly a talent to watch, Lew's more restrained performance allowing his co star his head. On my copy some of the action scenes seemed a bit dark, but this is not too much of a distraction. All in all, this is worth watching, with no real slow patches, although as one might expect martial arts fans  and lovers of straight-to-video chock socky - will laugh the most.


This movie is absolutely horrible. Let me clarify, the first 20 minutes that I forced down were absolutely horrible. This movie is about as interesting as air. It's sad that it compares itself with Kung Fu Hustle. Using the same font and graphics layout as the Kung Fu Hustle DVD did. Don't be fooled. This is just a wanna-be decent movie hiding beneath a decent cover and some huge martial artists who aren't even given decent rolls. If you want to see a good funny martial arts movie check out: Kung Fu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer, or any other Stephen Chow film. This movie doesn't even compare to Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. I like stupid movies, but the movie still needs to be entertaining.


The idea of a mockumentary on creating a stereotypical low-budget martial arts movie is great. This movie definitely had some potential - some of Lew's lines on the aspects of these martial arts movies are great! But the whole thing is just too corny to be genuinely funny. Silly celebrity sound-alike names really take away from the celebrity impersonators ("Steven Seafood"? Why not just like, "Steven Seagull," or just use his real name? I think laws on parody would have had them covered).

Add to that very poor editing, with lines obviously recorded afterwards and edited in (they even overlap what the on screen character is saying) and a "fart fight" scene, and the whole thing just goes down the chutes.

It's really unfortunate that some of the best scenes are in the trailer! It opened promisingly enough ("I'm Deadly Thug #1!") but just couldn't keep up. Worth a rent maybe, but that's about it.


Hello James Lew fans all over the world. Being a huge fan of James myself, I enjoyed this movie tremendously. There is nothing typical about 18 Fingers of Death. It is a fine blend of martial arts and comedy all rolled up into one very funny story full of action. Mr. Lew plays Buford Lee, an unsuccessful actor who is trying to finally make it big with a top notch film but Buford runs into one obstacle after another keeping him from completing his movie. It takes a very special quality to be able to make people laugh, and James performance in this movie definitely shows us he has just that talent and skill. The script is great and the casting superb. There is a star-studded supporting cast with such favorites as Lorenzo Lamas, Pat Morita, Robin Shou and Don "The Dragon" Wilson. 18 Fingers of Death is a fun movie to watch and I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. Gary Willens/Los Angeles


I went into seeing this with no idea of the concept & no notion of what I would be watching.

It was 4 house-mates & friends, along with myself. Total 5 people, all with vastly differing movie tastes to say the least. However there is one thing were were all unified on for once, it took us less than 30 minutes to decide to turn this movie off & save what few braincells we had that either thankfully slept thru this torture or didn't succeed at committing suicide in a rage against me for forcing them to acknowledge this trash.

Since I cant submit a rating of 0 for the movie, I was forced to give it a rating of 1, which in my opinion is 2 more than it deserves.

Save yourself the time wasted & the mental anguish & AVOID this movie!


This is one of those movies where the title does not give much information about the movie. I picked this up because the title seemed inane. I absolutely fell in love with the movie. I loved this movie from start to finish. Every once in a while, you need to watch a stupid movie just for the heck of it. This fits the bill. The Flatulence scene is one of the peak moments in this movie. I had to replay the scene two to three times just to catch it all because of how hard I was laughing. In fact, each time I watch this movie I repeat that scene several times, for the fact that laughing so hard I miss things, and because of how hilarious it is in the first place. This is a must view, if you love inane movies, or just need to relax!


Going by the previous comment here I thought this movie would be comical exploration into the kung-fu world. What a mistake that was! The only laughs I got were at the expense of the acting and the script (if there even was a script, often it felt as though the entire movie was being ad-libbed by a first-year college movie class). Although there are numerous references to classic kung-fu movies, they don't come across as a tongue-in-cheek homage, but rather a pathetic attempt to legitimise the meaningless content. There are plenty of low brow jokes which only serve reinforce the weak script and poorly written characters, with nothing original or witty as a saving grace. A waste of time & money.


First off, I recorded this because the title and info given on the cable guide made this movie sound interesting--if not for a few laughs. I've never heard of this movie so I put it on in the background as I did some stationary chores. 20 minutes later, I deleted the stupid thing. This movie is horrible. The main character seemed like a washed out, more annoying Chris Tucker. At least Chris Tucker has some character. I'm Chinese, and I find some jokes about Chinese culture funny. The jokes in this movie were so bad it was offensive. I don't hate much in life, but I hate this movie and am somewhat shamed that I had recorded it.


One of the worst movie I ever seen. Very bad acting, horrible script and the comedy is not funny. "Fart fight" that was awful. If you want to see a good KUNG FU comedy like "Kung paw" or "KUNG FU hustle" don't see this movie because is pathetic. I don't know why they did this movie. I rent it because Pat Morita and Lorenzo Lamas are in this movie but this actors don't help the movie, because is very bad. Maurice Patton was very non-original because he was imitating the good actor Chris Tucker. Maurice Patton was trying to talk, walk, move and express like Chris tucker, but was very non-original and pathetic. And James Lew is not funny very bad performance. Please don't waste your money buying it or rent it.


I would only recommend seeing this show if you have a liking for kung-fu movies. The point is that it makes fun of low budget, classic kung fu shows. If you don't laugh and enjoy the bad acting and cheapness of martial arts movies, you won't enjoy this show. In the first 15 minutes of the movie, I was starting to wonder about where James Lew was going with this show, and if he could pull it off successfully. Once you figure out his style of humour, it's enjoyable. Maybe it's just because I have a big kung fu movie collection and I'm of Chinese descent... If you're a true martial arts movie lover, rent this movie.


Now let me start out by saying this movie by no stretch of the imagination is a masterpiece, but it is much better than people seem to give it credit for. This is not a movie for the unobservant, if you need the joke to come up and smack you in the face you'll be bored. Some may wonder how anyone can say a movie with a ten minute fart joke could have subtle humor, but it does. The man that owns the Fortune Cookie company having a stereotypically Jewish name and later Ronald Mack(Maurice Patton) asking Mr. Lee(Pat Morita) if there's any Chinese Jews that bit was great and would have received huge laughs if it would have been slipped into an episode of Family Guy. But an example of the most subtle jokes and semi-racial(but they took shots at everyone so who cares) was placing Maurice Patton(who is African-American) directly in front of a Watermelon during the training scenes and makes you feel semi-guilty about laughing at it. Political correctness was very much the enemy of this film.

James Lew did a great job poking fun at his career and the fact that despite being a huge cornerstone figure in martial arts cinema being practically unknown by fans of his work and the fact that a fair amount of his contributions have been uncredited. The jokes run the gambit from subtle to direct, a great movie for fans of Kung-Fu or for the highly observant who are not above laughing at a fart joke.


This movie supposed to be funny ??? it ain't even near to the definition of the word ! it is by far the worst comedy i've ever seen !! at first i thought that it can't be that bad, just that the start is just lame, and later on the movie will be funny,,,, but hey, my mistake...it even got worse !!

I couldn't even bare to watch it till the end, it got so boring, and stupid !!

If you like to sleep in front of the TV , then go out and buy or rent this movie, and you are guaranteed to have a goodnight sleep !

I guess they didn't know what to do with the money, so they made this, to annoy the movie fans, and to laugh at those who find this junk hilarious !


This movie was so horrible I could barely even watch it all. I do not recommend this movie at all. The plot was horrible and the acting was just as bad. I really think they could have put more much needed time and effort into this movie. I think that if it was more of a movie and less of a documentary it would have gotten a better review from me. I seriously think this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I try to watch movies that are not popular just to see what they are like, and most of them are not so great but this one was truly horrible. 1 out of 10.

-


I really, really wanted to enjoy this movie but it just didn't seem to gel. A movie spoof is supposed to be funny, not make you sorry for the people appearing in it. Not to mention sorry for the people who financed it because you pray they can somehow make their money back and yet you know they probably won't. A movie lives and dies by it's script and for a comedy spoof this just wasn't very funny at all. And I agree with the 2 other people who said the "fart fight" featuring Lorenzo Lamas was the definite low point. Flatulence on film was funny when Mel Brooks did it in the classic "Blazing Saddles" but that was a long, long time ago. And how disappointing to see a film with the smoking hot Robin Shou and veteran Don "The Dragon" Wilson and neither one of them fights?? Just much too brief cameos for both, truly a shame. Might have helped things a bit here, at least there would have been some great fighting to make up for the lack of great comedy.


I really couldn't see it all at once, toked me 3 days...the thing that kept me seeing it was that at times humor was kinda nice and made me laugh but the fart things and some childish humor just toked it all away...and left me wonder why is Pat Morita there, was sad to see him in the movie...Lorenzo Lamas made me laugh imitating "Antonio Bandanas". Most are bad actors, the images are like a pure home made video...and by GOD the gayness of some jokes are really bad! O.o I can never(i think) give 1 out of 10 to a movie cause there's always some effort and some money and time spent doing one. So i give it 3/10 for the jokes that actually made me laugh.


Do not spend your money on this movie. I love mockumentaries and potty humor but I did not even crack a smile during this entire film. I gave it 2 stars 'cuz Pat Morita was in it. I am still baffled at how this kind of crap gets backing and then money is spent to promote it, and then it's distributed, etc. I'm all for up and coming talent but keep the small budget crap on the shelf for art's sake. Release it later if the director or an actor/actress makes it big later on. Why do I keep falling for this crap. Those who wrote positive reviews must be very very brainless or a part of the film in some way.

If your friend spends his/her money on this move...kung fu his butt and don't watch this. My eyes still burn. Help me.


As long as there are criminals, films will be made about their exploits.. Though what we call "a gangster film" in the 1970's bears little resemblance to the classics of the 1930's, it is still a film about big-time criminals and organized crime Only the baddies have been changed to assist identification

"Badge 373" is a case in point It is a simple story, based on the exploits of Eddie Egan, a real New York policeman who also, for good measure, plays a part in the film

Ryan, a New York detective, is suspended for causing the death of a Puerto Rican dope runner Taking a job as a bartender, he learns that his old partner on the force has been killed Then, with the law against him because he is no longer a policeman, and harassed also by the villains, he sets out to avenge his friend's murder

The twist is that these villains are no longer liquor and heroin smugglers, big-time gamblers or bank robbers They are Puerto Ricans Some of them are men who seek to foment a revolution on their island; others, led by a sinister figure in dark glasses called Sweet William, are the crooked element who will supply the necessary guns and ammunition Ryan, played by Robert Duvall, wages his own solitary war against both parties

It's a rough, tough and ruthless film, in which Duvall is as brutal as his adversaries; towards the end, he callously chops down a night watchman in order to gain entrance to the Brooklyn docks In fact, it is very difficult to have sympathy for any of the characters in "Badge 373." Perhaps this is intentional Perhaps cinema audiences of the future will not require to identify sympathetically with the characters they watch

Certainly, this was true in "The French Connection." No one could deny that it is a tremendously exciting film ... but could anyone have a feeling of sympathetic identification with the central cop character? Gene Hackman stirred the blood, but it was difficult to be concerned about whether he lived or died


Possibly THE most neglected movie of the 70s, BADGE 373 is, simply, the greatest movie ever made!!! Witty dialogue, excellent action scenes, touching characterization and a shatting climax. Do what ever you can to see BADGE 373...unstoppable!!!


This film is over 30 years old,its attitudes are disgracefully non - PC. That is a given.It's not like today when everybody loves one another and we all live in harmony in a Rainbow Nation and all creeds and races co - exist in an atmosphere of mutual respect.Well,don't they? Things aren't a lot different in 2006,it's just that Hollywood likes to make us think they are.I'm not saying for a minute that it's right that things have barely changed in 30 years,but no amount of wishing will make it so.Professional criminals still hide their activities behind the poor and disenfranchised of their own communities,ferment trouble for their own advantage and cops like Eddie Ryan still hate them bitterly for doing it.Laws meant to protect the weak and vulnerable still shelter the cruel and ruthless.If Eddie Ryan,like Harry Callaghan before him,feels like chucking in his badge then he cannot altogether be blamed.Not that he gets a chance as his bosses pre-empt him. Clearly certain members of the Hispanic community are not shown in an exceptionally positive light in "Badge 373" and Mr Ryan is a baad baaad man,homophobic,racist,sexist and probably several other ists as well.but he does not exist in a vacuum,he merely reflects the society he lives in.I would suggest that a significant proportion of the population held attitudes not a thousand miles away from his and considered them to be perfectly acceptable. So here we are in 2006 tsk tsking about a film that shows a society whose views we don't approve of.They were times of social unrest,when there appeared to be a real threat to the status quo.Criminals took advantage of the turmoil and it was difficult to tell the man with a grievance from the man with a gun. "Badge 373" occupies quite an important position in the "Cop Movie" pantheon.It has obvious similarities to "The French Connection" but lacks TFC's sheer energy and inventiveness.It broke new ground in showing the cop / hero as a distinctly unpleasant person - something "The Shield" has made a virtue of.Your cop could now be dirty(Dirty Harry wasn't actually "dirty" was he),unprepossessing,inarticulate and amoral.Mr Robert Duval created a pugnacious objectionable ignorant cop we aren't supposed to admire,but one that we can believe in.He has been corrupted by the world he moves in and works by its rules,not those of respectable society.He is a wreck of a man,like "The Bad Lieutenant". "Badge 373"'s influence reaches a long way,you can't make a cop movie today without at least sub-consciously referring to it. It may look a bit cheap and shoddy by today's mega-budget standards and much of it may seem familiar,but remember you are looking at it from the wrong end of time's telescope.


Badge 373 is an excellent movie that features Duvall at his best. He's better in this outing than he was in Let's Get Harry and Falling Down, which were also, arguably, some of Duvall's best works (that some could say were ruined by bad direction and a bad supporting cast). Not this time, though! The writing and direction are brilliant. The pace is a little bit too slow for an early 70s "cop" flick, but it's still above-average and a good find. Check it out and be amazed.


This autobiographical character study of real-life New York City detective Eddie Egan, who also served as technical adviser for the film, is definitely underrated. Robert Duvall gives a convincing performance as Eddie Ryan, who suspended from the force after killing a drug runner. That still doesn't stop him from cleaning the streets up from gangs and other lowlife scum. The production values are surprisingly good for a little-known movie, it includes a lengthy car chase in which Duvall commandeers a city bus to evade bad guys driving all sorts of vehicles. I was lucky to have taped this onto DVD-R from Turner Classic Movies, since it probably won't be released on DVD anytime soon.


Not great by any means, but this sleeper, buoyed by a terrific performance by Robert Duvall, is very entertaining. Duvall is a suspended cop tracking down the killers of his partner. The quest leads him to a very sinister Puerto Rican mafioso (Henry Darrow) and more gunfire than you could imagine. The competent but mostly unimaginative direction is by Howard Koch (though he does stage a pretty exciting chase sequence involving a NYC transit bus). The supporting cast includes Verna Bloom as Duvall's long suffering girlfriend and Eddie Egan as his crusty yet benign superior. It's occasionally rousing, never really dull and fairly fast moving. The faux funk music, which is unbelievably intrusive is by J.J. Jackson.


My views on films are enigmatic sometimes; this is one of those times..!

I tend to like 2 completely mutually exclusive types of film; really good enjoyable movies & really bad enjoyable movies. Some can be a bit of both and this is the category I present for "Badge 373". A group of my friends & I enjoy nothing more than film nights which include a wide variety of good and bad films; all ultimately just fodder for us to critique, but features like this one really help break up the monotony of current Hollywood sensibilities and political correctness.

I won't bother to re-iterate what has already been posted regarding "plot" etc, but I will add comments to justify why I think it deserves to be included at the very top of the "So bad it's good" selection.

To start Robert Duvall...He has two characters in his repertoire "Angry man" (Network,Badge373,etc) & "The thinker" (The Apostle,THX1138). Thankfully he plays his angry man who practically shouts all the time in this..and shout he does; obscenities and racist remarks a given (sexist,racist,homophobic{before most knew the meaning of the word} and practically ever other you can imagine). The dialogue is simply ridiculous and even Duvall must have had many quiet chuckles to himself "memorising" such unforgettable lines as "I hope you're circumcised as survival in prison is measured in terms of inches"! Yep you guessed it; this film was produced pre-certification...

Need I say more regarding the dialogue? It really has to be heard to be believed..! I would certainly agree with what other critics have said here..that it is a "Cop-film" born of the times it was made; with the copper portrayed as a hard-as-nails, uncompromising, morally challenged, thug: Who is as bad as the criminals he is chasing down. As has been said; It does not do the fine job that French Connection did, but then can you really compare the two directors (William Friedkin vs Howard Koch)?

Do yourself a favour and get hold of a copy if you can; it took me close to 7 years to track down a copy after seeing the trailer on a bootleg VHS of "Cheech & Chong's - Up in smoke". I will now list reasons for your time & effort to source this feature: 1.THE most ludicrous dialogue ever committed to film 2.Hopeless action/fight scenes that don't even look rehearsed(Comic genius) 3.The cop who's story is being filmed acts in a supporting role 4.No films like this will ever be made again(Un-PC) 5.Duvall has THE worst undercover costume ever(Wig & tashe) 6.The main villain is called "Sweet William" 7.It has possibly the most ridiculous chase scene ever with a bus-load of innocent civilians dragged into one mans vendetta & after all the effort to chase him, in order to kill him, they just thump him in the gut and leave him alone!...I could go on forever..."the learning to shoot with his left hand" scenes are pure gold, as is the "Until they kill me" line delivered with possibly the worst Brooklyn/Irish hybrid accent you ever heard.

All that's left for me to do is write up the tag line: "A gun in his sock, an iron bar in his belt & no badge!" 5 Star atrocious goodness. Watch this after going down the pub for a few beers & you will laugh yourself silly...I know we did!


I've rated over 2,600 films on Netflix, and this is the film I always think of as the WORST film I've ever seen. Ludicrous action scenes, idiotic dialogue, illogical story, laughable acting (even Robert Duvall wasn't taking this seriously). The story layers on melodrama in an attempt to give the characters motivation for their absurd actions, but it's not close to believable. They even cast Eddie Egan (the real life inspiration for the main character) in a minor role to give the film some credibility. They tried to cash in on the success of French Connection, but misfired on all cylinders. I don't know what film the previous reviewer saw, but this one is on the Top Ten Turkey list, all time.


First off, what other movie has a killer alien from space that shoots green rays from its eyes and tries to have sex with the babes, and runs from shaving cream, amazing! But in my opinion what really makes this movie so freaking awesome is Craig Peck who plays mike, a horror movie fan, who just is truly amazing and knows what to do in each step. The girls are hot, the guys are cool, the alien is sick, and the camera work and music are just perfect. But here is my question, Why isn't Craig Peck in more movies?


For a low budget movie, it was quite well done. Outstanding performance by Craig Peck as Mike; who's an avid horror movie goer and had all the best lines in this film. Worth watching for him who seems to be the only smart one in the film


Mike is my hero! Finally, someone who doesn't wander blindly through the most obvious horror movie setups without spotting them and pointing them out to anyone and everyone who'll listen to him. Unfortunately for the rest of the group, they don't pay attention to him until it's too late. This movie is completely fun and you'll probably find yourself smiling through most of it. Face to face with a flesh eating alien with the ability to shoot hypnotic ray beams from it's eyes? Throw the cat at it. Sure, the cat will run away as soon as it hits the floor...but at least it bought you a couple of seconds. This movie is filled with goofball comedy from start to finish and is a must watch for any fan of comedy horror.


Very entertaining movie about seven youngsters (20 somethings cast as high school students) who go on a camping trip to summer house owned by the parents of one of the seven. The main character, Mike, freaks out when he sees a smashed overturned car. He insists that this is the beginning of a weekend of horror. He's right.

The usual murder-the-teens plot unfolds, but TNOT keeps it surprisingly well done. The creature and its powers are farfetched, but they work in this film. Even if you don't like anything about this film, Mike's lines will make it worth your time. They're hilarious!

8/10


TRIUMPH OF THE SON OF HERCULES is a nearly totally forgettable Sword & Sandal film, even by the genre's standards. It's probably bottom of the barrel. Is it the worst? Maybe but there are some good things about it. I like the Egyptian statue where women are sacrificed. In fact, it's one of the most spectacular things I've seen in any Peplum. Unfortunately, the rest is totally below-par. I watched the copy on the WARRIORS pack and the transfer was really awful. It was basically in B&W, or sepia tone. It looked like a silent movie. In fact, as a silent movie, TRIUMPH OF THE SON OF HERCULES ends up being fun. The dialogue is bad enough so no one would miss it if one was to turn off the sound to make it look like a silent film.

Though more physically fit than most actors playing these kind of roles, Kirk Morris is not an actor and this film proves it in spades. He does have some star quality but he's very stiff when it comes to acting. The story is tedious and the action is pretty much flat. The film's production values (aside from the statue) is really low-grade. Even the continuity is wretched. This film contains one of the biggest goofs I've ever seen in any film, and that includes Ed Wood movies. During the climax, Maciste enters a cave where a giant caveman lives. When he enters the cave, Maciste wears a specific piece of clothing (just a skirt really), which he basically wore throughout the film. But when he's deep into the cave, he's suddenly wearing a loincloth. After Maciste fights the giant and tries to save the girl from the altar, he's back to wearing the same thing he wore before. Really mind boggling stuff. Hard to believe no one noticed this major goof.

TRIUMPH OF THE SON OF HERCULES is basically not worth watching. I'm certain a good film transfer wouldn't make any difference to its quality. In fact, they should re-edit it, give it a beautifully even sepia tone, remove the sound and sell it as a silent film. Seriously, it would actually be cool.

Watch any other Kirk Morris film instead, like COLOSSUS AND THE HEADHUNTERS.


After Tim Burton's "Ed Wood" resurfaced that dubious genius, some peninsular scandalmongers decided to find the local equivalent to Ed and declared Tanio Boccia (who directs here as Amerigo Anton), Italy's worst filmmaker ever. That's not to be taken without a grain of salt. More than anything else, Boccia/Anton was one of those directors who accepted everything, did not argue with producers, took his projects as just another job and never thought of identifying with them. The results are under everybody's eyes, but it has to be admitted that he would have never thought of a future, let alone international, survival of his modest output thanks to TV, videotapes or DVDs. In the case of "Il trionfo di Maciste", the boyish Kirk Morris (alias Adriano Bellini, a Venetian who also starred in Riccardo Freda's "Maciste all'inferno") is to be admired in the muscular chariots scene at the middle of the film, where he offers such a picture of sweat, fatigue and effort as to become a minor cult classic for voyeurs. Although I'm not a gay person, I can easily picture the enjoyment of this share of the audience before such a sequence. For the rest, a minor and quite slow output without the visual glamor of the best productions.


I just saw this one yesterday (on one of those big, cheap DVD sets from "Mill Creek" - thank heaven for that company), and I have nearly the opposite opinion of Bryce David (though maybe for pretty flimsy reasons). One thing about this one is that it broke a few "Peplum" clichés. First (unless I missed something), the "sidekick" character (think Ulysses in "Hercules Unchained") had a much smaller role in this one, which is fine with me, since I don't always care much for that stock character. Also, it was just a little surprising to see the Hercules character riding off with the heroine at the end (having the opposite thing happen seems like almost as much of a Peplum tradition as a tradition of earlier westerns). And, I think the actress Liuba Bodina (an actress I know from nothing else, at least by name) knew how to play the "evil queen" role just right. One unusual thing about Kirk Morris is that he always seems to have a "sensitive" look about him, which almost clashes with the general idea of these films. What's more odd about that is that, judging by this one and "Conqueror of Atlantis," his Peplum characters are some of the more ruthless ones, even breaking a (sort of) rule in these films, by having the hero get rid of the femme fatale character pretty directly (usually that happens some other way).


Julia is a widow, who resides up in the mountains with her two daughters, but now low on cash she does her best to sell cakes during the Xmas holidays. Brian Harding is a city guy, who works in a bank and before Xmas holidays he has to go and repossess Julia's home because she was unable to pay the loan back. With harsh words said to each other Brian jumps back in his car on that snowy night, but ends up crashing his car not far from Julia's house. Seeing this she helps this stranger in and attends to his wounds. Brian tries his best to leave, but with the poor weather condition he is forced to stay put and slowly the two of them become friends and then more than friends. This is a really good movie to watch during the Xmas season. Gregory Harrison and Olivia Newton-John were brilliant in their roles. the part which i liked best was when Julia was trying to undress a very weak and drowsy Brian! It was just hilarious!


Olivia plays a widow with 2 young daughters living high in the mountains and facing the prospect of a bleak xmas having lost her job and with the threat of the bank taking her home through non mortgage payments.

Gregory Harrison plays bank employee who is to deliver the fatal news on xmas eve gets stuck in her house due to a car crash in a snow storm on xmas eve.

Making xmas cakes to try and make some extra money for the holiday season,Olivia and daughters,one of whom is played by real daughter Chloe whose acting at such a young age is quite credible.

Despite his somewhat nasty character Olivia falls for gregory harrison who although already has a fiance and in true disney fashion all ends happily with Olivia getting to keep her house and is given a framed drawing of her two daughters by harrison.

Bleak settings help to give atmosphere to the film and Olivia is maturing as a tv actress with this film being made not long after her successful battle with breast cancer.Not a glamorous role for Olivia but one with real grit and determination. 8 out of 10.


This is got to be one of the best Christmas movie's ever made. Olivia Newton-John and Gregory Harrison do a wonderful job in this movie. I would love to see them in another movie together. They act together as well as Olivia and John Travolta do. I recommend this movie to everyone who love's Christmas movie's. Olivia's real life daughter Chloe is also in this movie and she does an excellent job of acting herself. Chloe and her mother Olivia also star in another movie together called The Wilde girl's which is also a movie to see. I believe Chloe will be starring in other movie's, as she is a good actress like her mother. Those who will watch this movie will by no mean's be disappointed.


This movie distribution puzzles me VERY greatly. It's near impossible to get in any North American format (DVD region 2 UK appears to be the most available version) Why not North America? No idea. Would sell like hotcakes! Set your VCR (or other recorder) if you see it on TV! As for the movie...

Imagine one of the cleverest romantic stories you will see, the leads have great chemistry, and the children (one played by Olivia's daughter, how's that for a holiday "keepsake"?)are charming and not over acted.

If you expect a musical, no, that's not it... (very little singing, and all in context of the plot) comedy, well, sometimes... drama? Hmmm... not really... My "9" rating is based on "best of class" as watchable clever romantic stories are far apart. (WAY apart!) Screenplay vs. book? (yes, I actually found a copy of the book) I was interested in seeing how they compared... not well, I fear.

Screenplay beats the book with a baseball bat, one of the very few movies I've EVER seen where the "basic" idea of the book is kept, and the details tossed out the window, with the screenplay winning hands down.

The movie is FAR, FAR better than the book, it "flows" better, is far more a solid plot than the book, comes together without the cheap "gimmicks" of the book, etc. (ever seen a screenplay beat the *daylights* out of the book? and not vice-versa?) Nice work, Darrah Cloud (screenwriter), whoever you are, I'll look up your work! The book left me wanting my fifty cents back, the movie is fun, and more fun to watch than it would lead you to believe.

Keep a heads up for this one, you'll want to snap out the "erase allow" tab on your tape to protect it! Hey guys out there! BIG heads up on this, GREAT "at home" date movie, the fact that Olivia Newton-John is at her "cute looking" best is reason enough to watch. For the ladies out there, Gregory Harrison looks nicely groomed for the part.

I read somewhere the whole movie was done in several weeks (!) Some TV episodes take longer, but don't look it.

Enjoy!


Olivia makes a tremendous leap in her acting abilities following a rather "wooden" (pun intended) performance as a mannequin in yet another Christmas television movie, "A Mom for Christmas." This wonderful movie co-stars Gregory Harrison, whom she would also act with in the AIDS-drama "It's My Party," and also marks the acting debut of her daughter, Chloe Rose Lattanzi, whom, much later, would become an international singing sensation in her own right.

The film centers on a widowed mother of two young girls who is struggling to make ends meet in order to save the bank from foreclosing on her mountainside home. Bleak stuff for Christmas, huh? Then, along comes mean mister bank man, played by Gregory Harrison, who must give Olivia the bad news that the bank has taken over her house and she must move. All this fun on Christmas Eve...

Well, along comes a storm and forces Harrison to stay with Olivia & girls , and romance ensues, but not without some trials (including a dying lamb)... It really seems bleak, but it all works out in the end, and Olivia turns in her strongest role yet.

It is unbelievable that this movie has yet to be released on DVD - it was a top 10 favorite the year it was made, and has been re-run on television throughout the years since. Also, with Olivia's (and now Chloe's) popularity, the movie would surely be a strong seller. Repeated viewings have proved just how strong this film is, and it definitely ranks up there with the seasonal holiday classics that are re-run every year. It's a beautiful film.


'The First Great Train Robbery' is about a quite impossible mission in Victorian underworld... It is about 25,000 pounds in gold bars placed in strongboxes and taken by armed security guards to the railway station...

'The First Great Train Robbery' is about the fastest pickpocket you'll ever see, a suave and daring gentleman who never tells the truth It is also about a bunch crooks that can steal your heart with the company of a fascinating disguised mistress who suspects that her father breaks his own regulation for each morning of the shipments...

'The First Great Train Robbery' chronicles the grandeur and hypocrisy at all levels of England during the Victorian Era, and proves that the cleverness and prowess of a criminal mastermind is elevated to heroic status...

With excellent photography of Ireland beautiful countryside, and great music score by Jerry Goldsmith, plus the costumes and sets, Michael Crichton's movie gives train heist's fans the pleasure to enjoy a very entertaining period thriller


Wow, this is a wonderfully-filmed movie that especially looked good since it was one of the first DVDs I purchased a decade ago. Rich colors and good period detail of 19th century England made it visually attractive. However, the picture was too grainy. I hope someone has re-issued this and given it the transfer it deserves.

Beware that it takes quite awhile before the actual holdup takes place. This is almost a two-hour film and they build up slowly to famous heist. However, I didn't find any of it boring. This is rated PG but there are quite of bit of sexual innuendos early on by Connery as he woos Lesley-Ane Down. Other than that, it's a pretty tame film. Donald Sutherland adds a touch a touch of humor here and there as he and Connery pull off the suspenseful heist....and it is suspenseful.

Connery trying to maneuver on top of the train was a highlight, as was the "whooshing" sound of the train each time it passed under a bridge. The stereo in here is very good for a film almost 30 years old.


With Mission Impossible like precision, Sean Connery, Lesley Anne Down, and Donald Sutherland pull off The First Great Train Robbery, years before Jesse James did it in the American West.

Of course holding up a train with a dozen masked bandit confederates doesn't equal the near precision complexity that it took to steal gold bullion off a train by three men in stealth. Connery is the mastermind of the scheme and he plays Edward Pierce with the usual charm we've come to associate with Connery.

It was interesting how Connery gets the idea for the heist in your typical Englishman's club with at least one of the responsible parties for the gold in that very room. The other club members know him as a retired industrialist who seems rather well fixed and comfortable. If they only knew the real source of his comfort.

Lesley Anne Down may have given her career performance here as Connery's girl friend. Their scenes fairly crackle with witty repartee and sexual innuendo. Down is certainly not above using her sex to help in the robbery. In fact the first part of the plan which took about a year in preparation was to get duplicates of four keys that unlock the safe on the train where the bullion is transported. She compromises one of the key custodians in a Victorian bordello which is the film's humor highlight.

Donald Sutherland is the safecracker friend of Connery's enlisted for the caper. He gets the dirtiest details of the caper. In fact the authorities get wind of some kind of plan in the works and Connery has to make some last minute adjustments to his plan. The adjustments call for Sutherland to get into the car in a coffin with a dead cat for odorous effect. What some won't do for money. Sutherland handles the whole thing quite well.

Connery has the dangerous part of the caper which calls for him to go from front to back on a moving train. Those sequences according to the Films of Sean Connery were shot in Ireland which better represented the look of rural 1855 England. I was stunned to learn that Connery himself did the stunts. Sean admitted himself that it was the most dangerous business he ever undertook for any film. What some will do for the sake of art.

The First Great Train Robbery is a stylish caper film set in Victorian Great Britain and the film really captures the look and manner of the period. One of Sean Connery's best films, definitely worth a look.


Another fine performance from Connery in his attempt to move away from his cliched James Bond persona and expand on a wider variety of character roles.

Based on a richly descriptive screenplay & textured direction, both by Critchton, we see Connery as a master criminal/gentleman attempt to steal gold from a moving train in Victorian England.

Connery plays the role very much with a straight bat, perhaps a little too pompous & stiff but entertaining all the same.

However, he is ably supported by fellow criminals Donald Sutherland (with a rather thick & unforgiving Cockney accent) and a rather angelic performance from Leley-Anne Down as Connery's love interest.

Coupled with a some outstanding cinematography by Geff Unsworth, showing panoramic views of the English countryside, as well as superb set direction of a very realistic Victorian London, First Great Train Robbery is a treat to watch.

Critchton's direction has never been better, although I feel the film is perhaps 10 or 15 minutes overlong. But he never lets the pace flounder, and neither does he let the Connery-Down love interest suffocate or distract from the overall plot.

However, the characterisation for the main leads is a bit shallow & clumbsy. Connery is very much at home as Edward Pierce, the well respect city gent & playboy. In essence, not all that different from his James Bond character, although in this film he is given enough invention & ad-lib to make the character more rounded than the rather one-dimensional Bond.

Sutherland, offers the comic-relief, the working-class foil to Connery's respected gent, and he plays it very well, apart from the rather hammy English accent.

Obviously the most memorable scenes are with Connery risking his own life as he hops along the tops of carriages of a steam train as it winds its way through the English countryside on its way to Folkstone. I must admit to being totally gobsmacked at how close Connery was to being decapitated from those very low bridges the train went under. But I guess its testiment to Connery's great interest in the movie that he allowed himself to take on such risk.

The ending is perhaps too contrived and perhaps blemishes the movie as a whole. But don't let this stop you. Overall, this is a fine film and a very funny film, and is definitely an under-rated Connery role that deserved more praise than it received on original release.

****/*****


Probably the most entertaining movie about this period of time. An accurate view of England in the middle of 19th century as well as a thrilling action/comedy. Do not forget to read Michael Crichton novel which is as good as the film.


I like heist flicks, and this is the best I've seen so far. It's got great suspense as the crew of thieves (led by the incomparable Sean Connery) makes intricate plans and patiently prepares for the big day, changing and adapting the plan as needed to cope with unexpected obstacles. There is little in the way of sub-plots; virtually all of the action and plot is part of The Plan. The Victorian setting is great; you start to wonder where Jeremy Brett (as Sherlock Holmes) is, and when he's going to catch these crooks.

I'm a little puzzled by the category of "action/comedy." I'd say this was firmly in the "crime" category, and no other.

9/10


"The Great Train Robbery" is based on a novel by Michael Crichton. It features the efforts of a band of three to rob gold kept in elaborate safes on a train leaving England to support the Crimean War. The film's costumes, elaborate sets and a score from Jerry Goldsmith are impeccable at creating a sense of Victorian England.

Sean Connery is charming as Edward Pierce, who leads the robbers. Donald Sutherland has a memorable role as Robert Agar, a top-rate thief and accomplice to Pierce. Lesley-Anne Down plays Miriam, Pierce's enchanting female companion who has no scruples about using her womanly charms.

The film follows the elaborate and interesting lengths that the gang must go to before they can even board the train. The elements of a great caper film are there: split-second decisions, tension and improvisations when plans go awry. The film also benefits from a lot of well-placed humor. "The Great Train Robbery" proves to remain interesting throughout the build up to and during the robbery.


I'm surprised we don't see more comments on this film, which is really pretty good as a period piece.

The plot is that the British Empire is paying its soldiers in the Crimea in Gold bullion, and has to move a quantity of it from London to the coast. An enterprising gang of criminals, lead by Connery, form a scheme to steal it.

What follows is the drama of any heist film where they criminals concoct elaborate schemes, only to have those schemes foiled by random chance, and having to improvise to carry them through to fruition. Your sympathy is with them, you want them to succeed, probably for no other reason than you feel no common ground with the folks trying to stop them. The gold was being used to pay for a pointless war.

Connery was pretty good here, trying to move beyond his James Bond persona, yet not quite escaping it. Donald Sutherland was a bit over the top, but still quite enjoyable to watch.

The film drags in places, but that's probably just a modern bias against 70's films, which didn't fill every space with CGI carnage.


Maybe not the great train robbery but a pretty good one.

Michael Crighton is not an artist but he's a fine storyteller. Often his films are better than his novels. But everything comes together in this one -- script, score, direction, photography, and performances. How does someone like Leslie Anne Down come to look so droopy-eyed and lovely? And how come Sean Connery looks so good and so sexy as he ages? (A criminal act, if you ask me.) Donald Southerland is the epitome of an 1855 criminal rogue. Goldsmith's score is lively and reminiscent of Prokoviev's Lieutenant Kije.

The whole enterprise is witty, well thought out, and engrossing. There's an excruciating byplay between Connery and the younger wife of an old banker. They are having tea al fresco watching the workmen build an "ancient" water wheel out of old parts. Neither of them cracks a smile as they talk about how the parts are bolted tightly together instead of screwed, how the joints must be tightly fitted ("so rare," remarks the lady), and how America is "a land of many prominent erections." Connery probably has the best lines. One of them is keen. His girl friend, Downe, demands of him, "Do you ever tell the truth?" He smirks slightly and answers, "No." I'm uncertain about whether to explain exactly why this exchange is so funny because I don't want to insult anyone who already knows. But for any kids who may be reading, this exchange of lines constitutes a "logical paradox." If you are asked if you ever tell the truth and you deny it, well then you are lying in your response, which means you must be telling the truth. The answer is both true and false at the same time, as is this sentence, "This statement is false." Sorry, a little tedious, I know, but that's the sort of thing you find in this film.

The script will also give you an entertaining lesson on the life and lingo of early Victorian England. You learn what a "jack" is and what "a ratter" is and what a "crib" is. The moral calculus of the film is a little wedged, what with Connery having strangled to death a shrimpy squealcat who didn't deserve being murdered by any but "The Godfather" standards.

It's not all intrigue and planning though. The climax is filled with rip-roaring action. Crighton has said that when they were shooting the scene in which Connery is crawling along the top of the train, the coat he was holding accidentally was blown out of his hands but the actor stayed in character, turned around and retrieved it.

You won't regret catching this if you can manage it. Kind of a family movie and a nicely rendered one.


In the beginning there were four keys. And the keys were used to lock two giant safes. There was gold locked in the two safes, and it was good. And the giant safes were aboard a British train. The train was destined for Eastern Europe to fund the British forces fighting the Crimean War. Edward Pierce stated the gold was worth £25,000 and aroused the criminal element. But there had never been a robbery from a moving train before. And Edward Pierce said "All anyone ever thinks about is money." And it was good.

Sean Connery plays Edward Pierce, a comely yet conniving thief of thieves, who decides for his next project to lift the Crimean Gold from a train bound for Eastern Europe. The character Edward Pierce is loosely based on real-life thief William Pierce who enacted one of the greatest train heists in the 1850's. The very opening of the movie is Connery's voice-over explaining the gold, the safes, and the whereabouts of the four keys. Immediately, we understand that his initial goal is to acquire the keys to steal the gold.

He solicits the help of fellow pick-pocket and lock-smith ("the best screws-man in England) Edward Agar (also a real-life figure involved in the 1855 heist) played by Donald Sutherland, and the beautiful Leslie-Anne Down as Miriam. The first half of the film is Connery and Sutherland investigating the location of each key, its owner, and a possible weakness in the keys' owner. Their first target is Mr Edgar Trent, head of the bank entrusted with the dispatch of the gold. Connery discovers Trent's routine to discover a weakness. We see an imagined scene in which Trent rejects the solicitations of a young woman to which Connery remarks in voice-over: "No respectable man is that respectable!" This is how the first segment of the film is organized, through the investigation and acquisition of each key which is duplicated care of Sutherland. The last act is the actual heist.

Blessed are they that experience this pure entertainment from beginning to end. Of course the bad guys are all colorful characters with not only shrewdness but wit to match, while the upright members of society who hold the keys to the gold are painted as bland and stodgy bores. Every scene is replete with humor and sarcasm, and Sutherland and Connery make an unlikely pair of complementary underworlds. And this heist must shortly come to pass. Amen.


Based on the movie's director Michael Criton's book about the real life events surrounding the world's first train robbery on May 15, 1855, where thousands of dollars worth of gold was stolen.

"Edward Pierce" (Sean Connery), along with his sidekick, "Robert Agar" (Donald Sutherland) and "Pierce's" lover (Lesley-Ann Down), plan to heist a moving train of gold meant to finance a war. First, the three must gain four keys, which have been separated for safety.

Now, the three have to get the keys, and get on board the moving train to get their prize.

The first thing you'll notice is the costumes worn by everybody on screen. They appear to be quite accurate, and some outfits appear to be thick and heavy. The outfits also appeared to me to be brand new on everybody. Not one outfit had that worn look.

The performances from the main cast is pretty good, as is the chemistry between the cast members. Connery is near perfect as the lead scoundrel who charms every one who comes across him, not knowing his true intentions. Sutherland is fairly laid back in his role, and can come across as boring at times.

The pace of the movie is real slow and deliberate. For many, it might be a bit too slow. I found it to be a nice, steady pace. It only picked up a little bit when the heist goes down.

If you are looking for a lot of action, there really isn't much in this film. The action kicks in a bit as the heist goes down, and you are rooting for the villains in this film.

Overall, this is not a bad movie. However, I wouldn't go out and rent it. Check it out if you come across it on television, or on Hulu.com.


The First Great Train Robbery is set in Victorian England in 1855 during the Crimean War while Great Britain was at war with Imperial Russia, to pay the soldiers £25,000 worth of gold is transported to the Crimean Peninsula every month starting at the London branch of the Huddleston and Bradford bank & across England by train in two several inch thick safe's which require four keys to open. No-one has ever robbed a moving train before but suave criminal Edward Pierce (Sean Connery) & his partner Miriam (Lesley-Anne Downe) comes up with an elaborate & daring plan to do just that. Each of the four keys are stored separately so finding them & copying them is the first thing Edward & his men need to do, then the hard work really starts...

This British production was written & directed by Michael Critchton based on his own 1975 novel which was simply titled Great Train Robbery, apparently the 'First' was added to the title to distance itself from the real great train robbery of the 60's. The film apparently is a fairly accurate adaptation of the novel although the end is changed slightly & a subplot involving a 12 year old prostitute was also dropped. Based on true events that indeed took place in 1855 the film doesn't really strive for historic accuracy & is a crime caper in the mould of The Italian Job (1969) with a charismatic & likable criminal & his gang staging a daring heist to steal lots of gold & a throughly entertaining tale it is too, I have to say I liked it a lot. I liked the character's, Sean Connery's character in particular is very suave & likable, I love the innuendo filled conversation he has with Edgar Trent's wife, Donald Sutherland's key maker Agar provides good support although in the book it was he who turned Pierce into the police & there's plenty of colourful Victorian character's to flesh the film out as well. The film has a decent pace although it's not the most incident packed ever made, the film has lots of great sequences from the tension filled scenes where they steal & copy the the keys to the exciting climax where Pierce has to make his way across the roof of a speeding train. If you like crime heist films then this is one of the best.

Director Crichton does a good job & the film looks splendid with sumptuous Victorian England production design, I would expect a lot of time effort & energy was spent on making The First Great Train Robbery look so good. Animal lovers should beware, although not in the UK since it's cut, because there's a ratting scene where a dog attacks some rats. The film showcase's both the rich splendour of the wealthy inhabitants of Victorian England (there's a great scene early on in a mens club where several gents scoff at the idea of women being able to vote) & the squalid slums of the poorer inhabitants. There's a great attention to detail throughout including a recreation of a flower show held at Crystal Palace.

With a supposed budget of about £6,000,000 the film is well made throughout with impressive production values & period design. Filmed in Ireland & here in England. The acting is very good with Sean Connery making a very likable villain but one who also has a dark side when needed, British ballet dancer Wayne Sleep did all his own stunts including scaling that prison wall while there are numerous other notable faces involved.

The First Great Train Robbery wasn't the first by any means but definitely still stands as a great heist film that has eye catching period detail, a good solid plot & a great cast. A really good film & it's as simple & straight forward as that.


I've noticed there are a couple of posters/viewers who believe that Pierce was the one who strangled Clean Willy, although we do see Sean Connery's character was seen by Willy and that's why he runs, we don't ever see Pierce actually chasing Willy as he runs through the city streets. I believe it is one of the older henchmen in Pierce's gang who kills Willy. If you stop the frame where the killer is standing outside the building after doing the deed you can clearly see the man is definitely older and shorter than Sean Connery is and he is not dressed as well, he also is not carrying the cane that Connery was holding earlier in the tavern scene. It is more likely that Pierce was the unseen person distracting Willy with the object falling down the stairs. Check it out! Great book! Good movie!


This Connery suspense/action comedy is like a large toy, a very exquisite and eminently likable one.I was charmed. As comedy, it's direct and nice and sometimes also grim; as an action outing, it's straightforward and suspenseful. The cast is one of the finest ever in this league of films. In a word, it is eminently classical. It is complete: funny, thrilling, fastpaced, well developed. The quality of the roles is as good as can be wished. Moreover, it is funny in a way that doesn't undermine what the film sets itself up to.

The First Great Train Robbery (1979) is atmospheric without resorting to mocksets. It's a comedy, and it's concomitantly grim and atmospheric. The whole segment about the fugitiveinformer is a fine example of such a thing.

The right term for The First Great Train Robbery (1979) is,I think, beautiful. A very exquisitely crafted toy. There is much skill at work here. Such movies do not appear by chance; they take a very sure instinct for amusement, and that powerful quality named gusto.

Now I remember this conversation I had with a dolt; he was telling me that Connery didn't do other important roles others that the Bond franchise.

There is a delicious scene when Connery has a brief talk with the quite young wife of a much older banker. The rather unsubtle innuendos of their exchange ,that indicate a very willing woman, about screwing, etc., are extremely funny. Connery is, in fact, a 1855 picaresque rogue. The whole story has a goodnatured picaresque air.

Lesley-Anne Down was the owner of the sexiest thighs that could be admired in the '70s cinema. She looks again absolutely arousing in The First Great Train Robbery (1979).She had all the potential and quality of a comedy actressthough she was lately underused in all those stupid soap operas that spoiled and ruined her career. Anywaywatch her beautiful thighs in the bed scene where she undresses!

Two more things: I've noticed, in my experience with other viewers, that  is suited irrespective of age or sex of the viewers;it is fun in an universal way, regardless of such things like the sex or age of the audience. Then, it has an enjoyable varietyseveral forms of comedy (from sexcomedy to social satire), action, suspense, charming performances from the central group of actors (i.e., Connery, Sutherland and Mme Lesley-Anne Downso that it skillfully avoids all monotony. Happily, Mme Lesley-Anne Down really is important in the film's development. She was, in a way, my dearest reason for watching The First Great Train Robbery (1979).

She really invests a huge amount of charm in her picaresque role.

In a modest and unpretentious way, the director manages competently the several registers of the moviethe comical, the adventurous, the satirical, the grim one. I've found the cinematography of FGTR to be delightful.

As for Sutherland's secretit is that, being so ugly and dis-likable and sordid and nastyhe's nonetheless irreplaceable. I wouldn't have liked anyone else in his role. And I think that this part is a nice achievement in Sutherland's unfortunately chance uneven career.


It was nearly certain that 1903's "The Great Train Robbery," popularly known as the first movie, would be remade in some form at some point. It's just fortunate that it turned out to be a clever, imaginative action/adventure rather than the dull-minded, big-budget exploitations we've had to endure in remakes & sequels in recent years. Conman and "cracksman" (bank robber) Edward Pierce aka John Sims (Connery) masquerades as a "sharp businessman" to enter a London gentleman's club and scope out a "ring-flash pull." He settles on the British Army's monthly payroll for the Crimean campaign, a shipment of solid gold sent in two special Chubb safes on a guarded railroad car. Much of the film is devoted to the collection of the four keys needed to open the two safes: two kept in a very secure railway office, one by "square-rigged" bank President Trent (Webb) and one by oversexed bank manager Fowler (Terris). To do all this & the climactic robbery, Sims assembles a colorful crew: theater actress Miriam (Down), who's also his mistress; pickpocket & "screwsman" Agar (Sutherland); driver & strong-arm Barlow (Downing); and "snakesman" Clean Willy (Sleep, in a unique & outstanding role), who can reputedly climb "a wall of glass." Sutherland has one of his best roles as the gifted safecracker who's both deft and hilariously awkward. Down combines sexiness & funniness as well as Marilyn Monroe ever did & it's an injustice that no one else has ever said so. But there's no match for Connery in a role that was made for him: a charming, polished, gentleman rogue ("No respectable gentleman is THAT respectable," he insists), as long on charisma as he is short on honor. Sims will resort to anything, even murder, to protect his interests & get what he wants, but it's impossible to hate him. Instead, Connery gives an outlet to the villain in each of us, the side that wants to stick it to the Man by robbing a bank or bamboozling the IRS, but can't be aired in real life by anything more dastardly than voting Mickey Mouse for President without fear of arrest. Prolific novelist and erstwhile doctor Crichton, in his first directorial effort, exercises firm control in bringing his own novel to the screen, seeming to know exactly what he wants to say & how to say it. Every time it seems that the film is about to lag, it somehow just picks up again--even at the very end--making it difficult to find a place to get a soda & popcorn refill or a bathroom break. Make your theater logistical arrangements carefully before setting out on this train.


This film includes one of the all-time great double entendre conversations between Sean Connery's rogue/gentleman and a lady (whose morals may not be what they appear). You will never again hear a discussion of tools and workmen without thinking of it and chuckling. Mae West would have loved it!


This is a fun movie, and I recommend it with only two reservations which I'll get back to. Sean Connery rarely is in historic costume films (the only two that come to my mind was "The Red Tent" and the "Indian Jones" movie that he made, and they are set in fairly modern times - 1928 and the 1930s to be exact). He pulls off Edward Pierce with elegant aplomb, a brilliant and inventive gentleman thief who one roots for. Leslie-Anne Down is properly coquettish and sluttish when her goals require it. And Donald Sutherland is properly lovable as a successful pickpocket and thief (I loved his snapping his knuckles to make his hands more limber) who allies himself with Connery to carry off the theft. He also makes the most purple faced cholera corpse on film (you have to be there to understand why).

The sense of the film setting is good too, from the vintage 1850 train and carriages to the use of Joseph Paxton's Crystal Palace in a scene. The original palace burned down in 1936, but the model (although it looks like a model) is a nice reminder of the time and place.

Now my reservations: Michael Crichton's novel was an examination of the hypocrisy of Victorian England. Taking an actual 1855 robbery (probably the first really great theft committed on a train - of gold bullion needed in for the Crimean War), Crichton examined the existence of the very rich and privileged and the very, very poor in the slums. He looked at bordellos that the rich frequented, or the public executions. Much of this is in the film. Downs repelling the advances of the fat bank official in the train is an example, as is the public execution of a poisoner - the chant the "good people" yell as the woman is hanged, "Oh my, I think I have to die" is an actual chant used by the public at those occasions. But Crichton also notes the irony of the way the public attack the train thieves while embracing the idiots running the Crimean War that the gold was for. In the novel Pierce brings up the murderous James Brudenell in court. He refers to Lord Cardigan, the fool who led the Charge of the Light Brigade. The court rebukes Pierce. That is not in the movie.

Secondly, in reality Pierce was more villainous than the film (and Connery) makes him. We do see Connery's character strangle Willie, the human fly who he used to steal one of the keys he needs. But Willie had "peached" on Connery and the gang to the police. In the actual case Pierce had cheated several of the others in the division of the spoils. He was better covered when the prison sentences were handed out (because he planned the crime, and the others performed it). The judge in the case, angry at how Pierce behaved, sentenced his one or two year sentence to solitary confinement - which is very hard on most prisoners. And he served the sentence - he did not escape the police as the film has it.

Despite those reservations this is still a grand film to watch.


Another great Donald Sutherland film and a great caper film to boot.

Sutherland stars with Sean Connery and Leslie-Anne Down in a bawdy and fun caper to rob a train while moving of a gold shipment of £25,000 heading to pay British soldiers in the Crimean War.

A seemingly impossible task that is complicated at the last minute and has some funny twists and turns is a joy to watch. Of course, the real joy is watching Connery and Sutherland as the plan and execute this caper.

Great cinematography and Michael Crichton does not disappoint as director of a film based on his own novel.


The very beginning of this movie was truly promising and so compelling it was just too hard to surpass. But the directing and some truly great scenes made up for it. This was maybe the first movie dealing with the Victorian period that I saw and wasn't an utter drag. It was funny, witty and overall entertaining. Sean Connery isn't at his true best, although he is believable in his non Bond role and Donald Sutherland isn't given enough chances to really develop his character. If the ending was a little different this movie could have been an instant classic. Slightly on the predictable side and with some (too)big coincidences but still a very good effort by Michael Chrichton. 7/10


SPOILER

I think this film should be a classic. The story was very engaging at it moved along at a near perfect pace. Sutherland and Connery were very good together and I was rooting for them the whole time.

I think that the big problem with this film that keeps it from being a classic film is the ending. Something much better could have been done rather then them just "getting away" in a very improbable event. I don't know what it could have been done, but it should have been done.


Best selling novels often make bad movies but with writer director Michael Crichton (who also wrote the book) does what most others should do: FOLLOW THE BOOK AND IT WILL USUALLY BE A SUCCESS!! Not that Crichton does everything right. (Remember the movie Runaway? Didn't think so)


"Godzilla 2000," actually completed in 1999 (and was released during the summer of 2000 in America), was the first Toho-backed kaiju-eiga film to receive a major theatrical distribution in the U.S. since 1985. I saw "Godzilla 2000" at the theater and wasn't disappointed, even though a lot has changed since Toho killed off their iconic monster at the end of 1995's "Godzilla Vs. Destoroyah."

I'm 19; I've been a hardcore "G"-fan since I was four years-old and of course, I was quite hesitant about seeing a new "Godzilla" film, being that the Americanized 1998 version wasn't that good. The Toho logo that appears during the opening credits reassured me that "Godzilla 2000" was taking me back to the good old days when Godzilla wasn't afraid to knock down a building or stomp down the military when they threatened him.

With their third generation of "Godzilla" films being kicked off with this flashy new movie, Toho continued a trend that was seen in generation two, where they discard the events of the previous Godzilla incarnation and instead start with the original 1954 "Godzilla" and work from there.

Toho took full advantage of this new series by designing a distinctly reptilian Godzilla, who as the film opens, has already popped up on the radar of some brainy scientist who argues that Godzilla should be studied, instead of destroyed.

And Toho didn't skimp on creating a new monster either, which is a giant UFO that yields something a lot more than just martians. This new foe is actually a nasty little creature that's never given a name, though subsequent debate about the film has concluded that its name is "Orga," who proceeds to try to consume Godzilla and his powers, thus creating one powerful monster.

"Godzilla 2000" has a lot of problems too, which may or may not mar an otherwise decent stomping experience. Though on the whole, it's nice to see Godzilla back in form (somewhat) and this Toho production firmly returns their most beloved creation to dominance, it also suffers a lot from the problems that have plagued its predecessors, and some of those problems may have been due to Roland Emmerich's 1998 Americanized version of the big green guy.

Of course, since I never really cared for the people in a "Godzilla" movie and those feelings haven't changed, it must be pointed out here that the people have been drastically short-changed in favor of the all-out monster showdown that is the film's climax. You're really given a reason to not care about humans in this picture, whereas any previous "Godzilla" movie may have made you have an inkling of feeling for them.

Godzilla himself has changed a lot, with massive plates that line his back and he's also been given a pretty nifty set of fangs. But the thing is, this Godzilla looks and behaves quite... different. Though it's evident with this production that Godzilla is the bad guy (pending on your view), this was one of the things that really struck me as unique about the previous generation of kaiju-eiga films - in that you never really knew if he was the bad guy or not - this movie makes that pretty clear to you, even though the new monster Orga is clearly the bigger problem for the people of Japan.

The special effects in this third generation "Godzilla" film seem to actually be a step back too. The previous generation (the first two movies at least) had really beautiful and thoughtful effects that put you into wonder about how they were achieved. This series doesn't have that level of wonder for some reason. You'd expect their effects to improve over five years or so, but these effects look rushed and unrealistic.

Aside from these quibbles, "Godzilla 2000" doesn't suffer a whole lot, but I was glad to see that it firmly reestablished Godzilla back to his good old, stomping self.

7/10


This is the latest in the Toho Films series, and it should be noted that this movie is a GODZILLA movie, a genre unto itself. Not only is it an intelligent film, with likeable characters ( the Godzilla Prediction Unit is great, in the enthusiasm of scientists trying to understand Godzilla as a force of nature; besides that, who wouldn't want to be part of the GDU and have that cool Godzilla logo on the side of their transport vehicle? ) and a truly kinetic, enthusiastic script by Hiroshi Kashiwabara and Wataru Mimura--the most telling line of dialogue in the movie, which could be used to describe the love and respect the writers have, occurs when a television reporter comments that the entire proceeding is "like something out of a 1950s science fiction film."

And that is the point of this movie, to remind every one of us who grew up on monster movies that in the midst of all the ALIEN-stylized cinematic drool, that the giant UFO perched menacingly over Tokyo, shimmering with mysterious electronic pulsations while Godzilla ( with an underwater swimming scene for Godzilla that is priceless) stomps in for a classic samauri-like duel with the alien craft and its occupant, with all the Man In Suit and b-movie special effects you can stand, is the reason why many of us "creature feature" lovers continue going to the movies TODAY, because we're looking for something like GODZILLA 2000. A movie crafted with exquisite passion and respect, both for its subject and for its audience.

Go see this movie in a theatre, or be sorry you didn't. Thrill to the magnificent musical score (the best I've heard in a film this year), and the superior direction that provides Godzilla with power and heroism (yes, heroism; Godzilla's reasons for alternately destroying Tokyo, but fighting against alien forces to save it, demonstrates what all us monster freaks know: Godzilla is intelligent, and has his reasons). I dare you to go and see Godzilla blast away with his atomic breath and not be ready to come up out of your seat with joy. This movie is undiluted greatness, from beginning to end.


I enjoyed this flick. Sure it wasn't the best movie made and it surely would not win an award, but it was a fun film. There are a couple of the Godzilla movies in the 90's I liked more, but this one did not disappoint. The dubbing is rather good for everyone except the guy who is trying to kill Godzilla. He sounds a bit to deep voiced and at one point when he laughs he goes "Ha, Ha, Ha", but other than him the dubbing is good. There is also a bit of dead zone where godzilla isn't around between godzilla's first encounter the flying saucer and the final battle, but it is not to bad. Also, they kind of ignore the movie Godzilla vs. Destroyah even though they show Godzilla's son taking over the reigns this fact is ignored and all the characters from the 90 films are ignored as well. All and all it is a fun movie and there is a good battle at the end.


This is my second favorite Godzilla film.

It has a good enough story, a great enemy, and good enough special effects. If you own this on DVD and you live in the USA, then please watch it on the "Audio Commentary". It will change your view of the movie. Plus it's a great come back against "Godzilla (1998)" which disgraced Godzilla. If you are a big Godzilla Fan, I fully recommend this film to you. It's a great start to begin the Millennium series which also has some really good films, among my favorite.

Anyway, I give this film an A-. If you watch it with the "Audio Commentary", you will too.


I honestly feel that this is a great Godzilla film in many ways; but the negative comments written on reflection by some viewers are difficult to dismiss. Many of the negative reviews of "G.: Final Wars" reflect a frustration with that film's radical revision of the very look and feel of the series. Here, the problem is that, despite innovations, "G. 2000" remains narratively and stylistically bound to the traditional series, but can't quite deliver the goods some fans expected of it. This bodes ill for the whole "millenium" series that follows, and indicates why this Godzilla series, while developing a cult of its own, lost the interest of many older fans.

I'll approach this by remarking an important point that, oddly, many missed, reflected in the American audio commentary to the US DVD version of the film. What astounded me, right at the beginning of the film, was that the Americans involved in the loop and re-edit of the US release had not the slightest clue that a great deal of the humor of the film develops by spoofing the wretched American "Godzilla" (-in-name-only, or GINO) of 1998; The opening has Godzilla at a light-house, not only as a tribute to the granddaddy of post-WWII dinosaur flicks, "Beast from 20,000 Fanthoms", but because "Beast is the film the American GINO was really remaking. This is quickly followed by a confrontation between our human protagonists and Godzilla in a roadway tunnel - clearly a comment, and spoof, on the tunnel sequence that ends the GINO film. Little digs at GINO pepper the whole film; and along with them, back-handed comments on the previous Godzilla series of the '80s and '90s.

Visually, something odd is going on here, and I don't mean the new Godzilla suit some have a difficulty with; actually, performed well and photographed from the right angles, it can be very impressive.

What's happening is in the background, but it shapes the whole look of the film. With the enormous development and reconstruction of Tokyo over the past few decades, the city has literally shot up, with enormous skyscrapers tossed together with every little over-all urban design. Let's face it - these buildings very nearly dwarf Godzilla; although technically larger than ever before in the series, he looks smaller because of the urban growth he has to wade through. This also accounts for some of the higher-angled placements of the camera, which have the audience looking down on Godzilla (without the jet or helicopter POV as in previous films).

The fact is, the world around Godzilla is becoming ever more complicated; the film-makers are pretty savvy about it, but many audiences, although more sophisticated about such matters than they were in the 1960s, clearly feel uncomfortable with even minor renovations in the series, since these frequently reduce Godzilla in stature, in comparison with the legendary city-stomper of old.

As for me, I really like the characters; I find the special effects impressive and the story engaging. And from what I have in the American re-release, I think the film-makers did a pretty good job over-all.

Maybe the reason Toho decided to retire the character is because they had to; maybe the era of Godzilla is over and it's time to find new monsters and new heroes. Too bad; it was a pretty good era for vinyl puppet monsters and invasions from outer space. In that regard it was truly a fun ride, and if it is indeed over, I will miss the best of it.


Godzilla has been and will always be a Japanese creation and thankfully Godzilla 2000 has no Hollywood input. The American version some years ago was a disaster with the story plot focused on Hollywood actors, not the big fella. In this film, Godzilla once more comes to the rescue of an ungrateful planet. Godzilla always saves the world from some creature or aliens that would take over the planet Earth. The military tries it's best to kill Godzilla without success of course. The whole plot involves a flying, ancient rock that has a flying saucer hidden within it. The saucer attempts to clone itself with the cells of Godzilla. This film brings us the fight music of the original movies beginning with Godzilla, King of the Monsters. If you enjoy Godzilla then you will be pleased with this film.