Name-brand actors co-star with clowns who often worked for Jess Franco in this Dr. Mengele story; the end result gives THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL no competition whatsoever. Fernando Rey and Jack Taylor are Nazi hunters while Christopher Mitchum is a crippled American mercenary employed by Mengele (Howard Vernon.) The pretty young agent who infiltrates Mengele's stronghold is played by an actress named Dora DollI kid you not! She gets to see the pathetic results of Mengele's genetic experiments before being beaten and thrown in a cage. The only mutant we get to see is a chimp-man who probably could have made a better movie. Taylor and friends attack the compound in an assault that tries, without success, to match the finale of THE WILD BUNCH. Director Andrea Bianchi apparently had a surplus of blood-squibs; the bullet holes are big and bloody and the red stuff sprays through the air by the gallon, literally painting the screen crimson. However, guns are aimed at soldiers' chests and they suffer head wounds, and Taylor walks out of an exploding building without a scratch. Too bad the real Josef Mengele didn't live long enough to sit through this howlersuch torture would have been partial payback for his crimes against humanity.


Weird and funny action in South America film. It is the result of collaboration between two rather bright European b movies masters. And it looks more like Franco's film, than Bianchi's. It is one of those banana super actions, with jungle locations, naked women, senseless story. But it has absurd and drive indeed. It looks like comics in some parts and have lo fi special effects amusement. The characters including Howard Vernon are nice and they make that real-time two-weeks made drive. The fans of Commander Strike, Oasis of the zombies will probably love this super-improvised hallucination etc.

www.myspace.com/neizvest


1000 words are not enough to review this entire series but I'll try my best. These are 13 one-hour stories with the usual horrific ending. Standard fare? No. Quality actors, great direction and superb scripts make a great series of stories that are long gone but definitely not forgotten. 25 years have passed since the original airing and upon review, they're still great! Madness, revenge, greed, jealousy and the occult are just some of the subjects covered by these stories. The effects are dated, the actors look unfashionable and the locations look dated but that isn't unexpected. This is the third decade since then and life moves on. You may recognise familiar faces from Peter Cushing (Famous Hammer Actor: From Beyond the Grave, Asylum, Top Secret) to Lucy Gutteridge (Top Secret, Secret Garden) and Denholm Elliott (Trading Places).

If you love British horror, made during the 'golden era' of British television, get the DVD and start watching!


Curiously enough, this is only Hammer's second foray into Wolf Man lore after THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961); intriguingly, it's mixed here with a VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960)-like brood of evil children  while the sinister procreation plot is a clear nod to ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968). An unsettling mood pervades this particular episode (helped by its central location, an English country-house situated deep into the woods)  even if, when finally glimpsed, the werewolf make-up is kind of goofy! The bewildered hero is played by Christopher Cazenove, his business partner by Hammer veteran Robert Urquhart, while Diana Dors is the deceptively genial housekeeper of the eerie mansion  who, apart from looking after the children by day, has the task of initiating the werewolf's female victims (the latest being Cazenove's wife) into their new 'role'. The final twist  concerning a woodsman Cazenove meets when he goes looking for his missing wife  is predictable, but nicely handled all the same. As has been the case with some other episodes in the series  which, I have to admit, has taken me by surprise overall  this presents a far more chilling, and subversive, concept (bestiality) than is usually associated with Hammer Films!


What's with the idiots (who obviously aren't fans of old escapist entertainments anyway) who hate the 'Hammer House Of Horror'? The series is GREAT. It's a tragedy/travesty a second series wasn't commissioned. It may not be perfect, but where else are you going to find so much stylish entertainment packed into 13 episodes? (although Hammers 1960's 17 episode series 'Journey to the unknown' was another superior show - shame that was cancelled early). The 'Hammer House Of Mystery And Suspense', which followed some years after, suffered from demands for less horror and a longer running time from U.S. TV apparently! I've read that the region 2 'HHOH' looks like new because it's been remastered - unlike the region 1 release.


This Hammer box-set from the 1980 TV series provides a fitting homage and legacy to arguably the greatest contributors of horror on the big and small screen.

The 13 stories cover everything from evil doppelgangers to Satanists; witches; ghosts; 'voodoo dolls'; werewolves; cannibals and more besides (no vampires though, something of a departure for Hammer!) They are imaginatively written and well acted with great performances from fine actors such as Peter Cushing and Diana Dors.

It is from a time when horror was about more than hi-tech gory special effects and torture sequences thrown together to make a 'body' of work and although this Hammer box-set is of its time it is a brilliant collection that has also stood the test of time. I like a lot of modern day horror as well as the old Universal horrors, horrors from the 70's etc but you will never purchase a more diverse and enjoyable collection of horror shorts in one collection as this one.

Well done Hammer, I truly salute you, you are sorely missed.


Just seeing Daffy dressed up in Robin Hood's green-and-red outfit and playing the mandolin while singing is pretty funny in itself Porky Pig plays Friar Tuck. Well, he has the build.

This Robin Hood is so unimpressive that the Friar is convinced it is "he." Daffy, er Robin, finally says, "Look - I'll prove I'm Robin Hood. See this guy passing by? I'll rob him of his gold and give it to some poor unworthy slob." Ahh, finally a Robin Hood who tells it like it is!

From that point, this cartoon was a ripoff of the Road Runner. Daffy trying to rob the guy was exactly like Wile E. Coyote attempting to get the Road Runner. Every thing that happened to him, I've seen in RR cartoons. Did Daffy steal his act here from Wile? Since this came out in 1958, apparently so. The only thing original was the ending when Daffy says "Shake hands with Friar Duck." That was a great closing line.

The best thing about this animated short was the color. This is another case in which the restoration job is fully appreciated because the forest colors are magnificent. It can be seen on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume Three.


This time, Robin Hood (Daffy Duck) tries to convince Friar Tuck (Porky Pig) that he really is Robin Hood, but the circumstances keep working against him. Maybe "Robin Hood Daffy" isn't the greatest cartoon from the Mel Blanc/Chuck Jones crowd, but it's still great. With some of the things that happen to Daffy here, you just have to remember what we learned in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" about a given cartoon character: you can drop anything you want on his head. And let me tell you, Daffy has a lot more to worry about than that! Anyway, this is another cartoon from the Golden Age. You may just feel like Robin Hood after viewing this.


Often hilarious and nearly always sumptuous, this is a solid Daffy Duck cartoon. The animation is in general very nice, with crisp colourful backgrounds, and smooth character movements. Though there was once or twice where objects such as the tree were a tad static. The music though was fantastic, very rousing. While not perhaps the most rollicking take on the Robin Hood story, I would say the Errol Flynn film takes that title, it is entertaining, with some good visual gags and a fun script. Whereas in cartoons like The Ducksters, Porky is the butt of the joke, but here, it is Daffy and he seems to be taking it well as he makes a rollicking Robin Hood figure, and Porky is an effective Friar Tuck. I would also like to praise Mel Blanc for his brilliant voice characterisations. All in all, not the absolute best Daffy cartoon, but solid enough. 9/10 Bethany Cox


Daffy Duck can be both a little annoying and fun to watch, and this is one of the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons where you just love him. Disney created their own animated version of the famous hero years later, but this is much more hilarious fun. Daffy plays a wanted Robin Hood, who is just prancing singing and playing his instrument, when he slips down a hill falling into a pond. We see Friar Tuck, Porky Pig, laughing hysterically as Daffy gets out, and he decides to teach Porky a lesson with his (buck and a quarter) quarter staff, but he hits his beak twice before the Friar comes to stop him, get him in the lake again, and Daffy joins laughing for a bit. When Porky has calmed down he asks Daffy if he knows where Robin Hood is, and Porky does not believe it is him. To prove he is Robin Hood, Daffy suggests robbing a rich man of his gold and giving it to a poor sole. Of course, this does not go smoothly: he can't fire an arrow, swing through trees and avoid a rock, drop a demolition ball, fire a larger arrow and stop the castle gates dropping. In the end, with Porky convinced he's just not Robin Hood, Daffy decides to "join" him instead as a Friar, and it ends with them shaking hands, and Daffy's beak going up again. Daffy Duck was number 30, and Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies number 20 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Very good!


One of the great classics of animation, Chuck Jones's 'Robin Hood Daffy' is a sumptuous and hilarious short from the late era of Warner Bros. cartoons. Based on the glorious Warner production 'The Adventures of Robin Hood', 'Robin Hood Daffy' combines subtle character comedy and broad slapstick with an astonishingly perfect balance. The famous "buck and a quarter quarterstaff" scene that opens the film is the finest example of this. Daffy's wild thrashing around is punctuated by his quiet run through of how the routine should go as he takes time out to establish just where he went wrong. It's a classic scene with some terrific animation as the chortling Porky Pig defeats Daffy Duck at a duel with very little effort. Compare this scene and the laughing fits that the characters break into afterwards with the same scene from 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' and it becomes even funnier as you realise how close to the source material it actually is.

There are plenty of other classic moments in 'Robin Hood Daffy' ("Yoiks and away"), each punctuated by the frolicking image of the weary traveller that Daffy is attempting to rob obliviously passing by the latest scene of Daffy's humiliation. Apart from the gorgeous layouts, the brilliant gags and the wonderful performance by Mel Blanc, 'Robin Hood Daffy' is also notable for how Jones uses the characters, particularly Porky Pig. Porky had long been a straight man whose star billing was contradicted by the way his co-stars upstaged him. Relegating Porky to supporting player breathed new life into him and, as is the case with all Jones's Porky and Daffy genre parodies, Porky excels himself. His laidback, overly-jolly friar is the perfect foil to inspire escalating frustration in Daffy as he tries in vain to prove he's Robin Hood, never thinking to just point out one of the many Wanted posters bearing his image. 'Robin Hood Daffy' is an exceptional piece of work that everyone of a certain age remembers fondly. It's another in an extraordinarily long line of Chuck Jones classics.


This Daffy Duck short is similar in style to Chuck Jones' Road Runner shorts with its unique backgrounds and fast moving gags. I especially like the scene in which Daffy uses his buck and a quarter quarter staff. Also very funny is the character design of the rich traveler Daffy attempts to rob. The unique shape of this character and his horse combined with the way they prance across the screen is a hilarious visual. This is among the best Daffy Duck shorts.


Genre: Animated short, duck, pig, slapstick, based on Robin Hood.

Main characters: Daffy Duck (acting as Robin Hood) and Porky Pig (acting as Friar Tuck).

Actors: Mel Blanc (Daffy Duck and Porky Pig).

What happens: Starring Daffy Duck as Robin Hood, he meets the hysterical Porky Pig as Friar Tuck. Friar Tuck is looking for Robin Hood, but he refuses to believe that it IS Robin Hood

My thoughts: This is a very slapsticky Daffy Duck short (and as you may know I am not awfully fond of slapstick) however I like it quite a lot! I like how even though it has SO much slapstick, there is always a teeny bit of wit to top it off! I also love how they sometimes speak in old fashioned English like "I am whom thoust seekest. I am Robin Hood" and stuff like that. I also like the background animation, well-drawn wonky forests and paths. I also like the song at the very beginning.

Recommended to: Daffy Duck fans and admirers (like me) and people who like slapstick and wit in a cartoon! Enjoy! :-)


This short is an extremely funny teaming of Daffy with Porky as his "straight man" (with Porky's antics the cause of a lot of the funniest bits). I have to talk about something specific in the short, so let this be my spoiler warning: Any cartoon where Porky Pig sings the first verse of "Barbara Allen" is one my permanent list of favorites. When I first saw this cartoon, hearing an old tradition song issuing forth in the dulcet tones of Porky Pigs had me rolling on the floor and it still makes me laugh like a loon to this day.

The fun in this cartoon is watching Daffy and his progressively desperate (and increasingly unsuccessful) attempts to convince Porky that he really is Robin Hood, honest and for truly, he is! This has been released on a Looney Tunes Golden Collection on DVD and it (and the rest of the Collections) are well worth having and all most highly recommended!


Daffy Duck claims to be Robin Hood to Friar Tuck (Porky Pig). Tuck wants to join Robin Hood and to prove to Friar Tuck Daffy will steal some gold from a rich man and give it to a poor man. There are a couple of laughs, in the end mostly, but overall it is not that funny.


The black vaudeville team of Mantan Moreland and Flournoy Miller appear together as two men assigned to be night watchmen in a haunted pawn shop. One of the gags has Mr. Miller sitting down in an armchair, the arms of the chair grab him, and he shouts "Old rockin chair's got me", followed immediately by the song Rockin Chair, by Hoagy Carmichael, playing loudly. A miniature jazz band comes to life and plays. The band is led by Noble Sissle, the longtime musical partner of Eubie Blake. The great clarinettist Buster Bailey is featured in the band. They play red hot versions of Tiger Rag and The St. Louis Blues. The absolutely brilliant Harlem singer and dancer Cora La Redd tears up the place with her incredible singing and dancing. An old washboard comes to life and is soon being played by The Washboard Serenaders. Finally Mr. Miller and Mr. Moreland flee in fright, with Mr. Moreland running out of his shoes, which follow him, crying out "Wait for me". One of the greatest jazz shorts ever made.


Greetings & Salutations! Who can ever forget that great African-American actor and comedian, Mantan Moreland? The world was blessed on September 3rd, 1902, when Mantan Moreland was born in Monroe, Louisiana and the world was saddened at our loss when he died September 28, 1973 in Hollywood, California, where he appeared in 134 movies as well his memorable guest appearances on the Bill Cosby Show in 1969 or on "Love, American Style" in 1969, or on the police drama "Adam-12" in 1968. He also was in "Harlem On the Prairie" with Herb Jefferies in 1937 and appeared in a number of Westerns such as "Riders of the Frontier" in 1939 as Chappie, the cook (also known as "Ridin' the Frontier.") There shant ever be another Mantan Moreland with his portly frame and popeyed look, hopefully all of the movies he appeared in will be on VHS and DVD for future generations to watch and enjoy over and over.


"In The Woods" is a startling film. It is startling that anything this atrocious was actually released onto DVD. The "film" features the absolute worst acting, worst sound, and worst special effects this reviewer has seen in a movie in years (and he has viewed thousands). Now like most of you who enjoy scary movies, he likes to sometimes pick out a title that looks "so bad it's funny". He thought this title might fit the bill one boring weekday night. The problem was, it was bad all right, but it wasn't funny. "In the Woods" is absolutely rotten, plain and simple. Lynn Drzick (who is not a professional, or arguably even an amateur, director), does an astounding job of making this film unbearable by zooming in nice and close while his stone faced cast deliver their lines in some of the most dreadful monotone ever filmed. This movie makes Ed Wood look like Spielberg. I kept wondering if the actors were reading cue cards. At times it was very apparent they were "thinking" about what they had to say next, before finally spitting out their uninspired dialogue. The "monster" is some kind of mutant dog with horns, and is about as scary as a legless Huckleberry Hound. The movie is touted (on the DVD box), as akin to the Blair Witch Project, though it bears no resemblance to that film - it is a blatant, flat-out-obvious rip off of "Relic". This reviewer lived for a time in Western Michigan, the land where this garbage was filmed. Western Michigan is a pretty area, with good people and lots of great recreation and theater. Please don't hold this film against them.


This movie's plotting, pacing, dialog, action, and acting were so bizarrely strange, i don't know what to think. Any dialog snippet from any 5 minute segment has its own howlers. To with: "I'm gonna take leave of the fire station. And I can come help you at the pet store. and you can show me the difference between the gerbils and hamsters". Woah!

The cop had the best line "I'll tell ya what we got- s**t is what we got". This could be a cult film. You just cannot watch this sober. You need as many friends along to cheer the action along. I thought the cinematography was decent, with the traveling shots. Production design was less than inspired. The dialog was so inept it hurt. The sound mixing was okay, though it felt like everything was ADR'd and foleyed. This film CANNOT be compared to Blair Witch. BWP was much better done, and was a completely different kind of movie. Very little of this film took place in the woods. Maybe 'In the Woods' was a reference to the style of acting (wooden). Something i noticed with the short running time is that certain shots and scenes held out a little longer than needed. I'm wondering if that was to pad out the run time. If so, it hurt the pacing of the film. See at your peril. You have been warned.


This was an absolutely horrible movie. It made no sense, and I'm sure none of the people involved in making this film cared if it did. The acting was laughably bad, and so was the story. The monster did not look scary, and the "twist" near the end made NO sense. It's almost as if someone put a bunch of ideas in the hat for what the twist should be, and it was drawn randomly. Avoid this movie at all costs.


Let me start by saying I love horror movies and independent films. I enjoy bad horror movies, because they are often funny. But this movie has no redeeming qualities, other than the fact that any other movie I ever see will be better than "In the Woods." This movie is more like a soap opera than a horror film, with characters that are even more one-dimensional than in day-time soaps. The whole idea of how the monster (which looks like someone spent about 5 minutes making) came to be is totally ridiculous. The acting is terrible (and I'm not talking B-movie bad, but more like cue-card reading bad). No one in the movie ever even seems scared. This movie is so boring, pooly made, and most of all, POORLY WRITTEN, that I wish I could get my rental fee and 90 minutes of my life back. This script should never have been written, no less developed into a feature-length movie. I can't believe that anyone could have accidentally made such a bad movie. More unbelievable is that someone actually released this on video and DVD. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WATCHING THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE. This is not the good type of bad horror movie. This is just a very, very, very bad movie.


This movie claims to be like "Blair Witch Project" (which is not that good of a movie itself) so when I saw it on the shelf I just laughed.

But something told me to rent it (must be the devil himself).

Now, some classic "b" movies are so bad that they are actually kinda good, but this movie is just so bad it makes you want to poke your eyes out just to keep you from having to see anymore of it!

There was nothing in this movie even remotely close to the Blair Witch movie, so obviously that was just an advertising stunt to try to get attention to a movie that deserves absolutely none.

*(Spoilers)*

They only spend about 5 minutes of the whole movie "in the woods" so where they came up with that title I have no idea.

The "scary monster" thing they came up with is so ridiculous looking, it was actually kinda funny. The fake blood and body parts were so stupid and fake looking, it was almost as if they were trying to make a comedy, but failed miserably.

The writing is so horrible, a 5-year old child could come up with a better screenplay and dialogue than the writer of this movie.

The acting is also very horrible, very amateur-ish and fake.

Do not waste any time or money on this movie, you will live to regret it forever and ever!!!


"In the Woods," directed by Lynn Drzick, is a film that may have had potential, but fails miserably to recognize the kind of film that it could have been. Aside from the amateurish monster make-up and contrived storyline, this film adheres to, in principle, a sub genre of psychological film criticism: fairy tale theory. Fairy Tale theory takes, as its premise, the idea that an innocent journeys into the forest, only to discover the physical dangers and emotional perils which reside in that environment. (The forest is, of course, a metaphor for life in the real world.) Faced with challenges and temptations, the innocent comes face-to-face with his collective self (a concept based on Jung's "Collective Unconscious"). Ultimately, this character leaves the forest a changed individual, and that change can manifest itself in both positive and negative respects. "Little Red Riding Hood" is just one basis for this theoretical school; Edmund Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_, and particularly Book I on the Redcrosse Knight, is another.

Although D.J. Perry's character is no innocent, when he first journeys into the forest (he is an alcoholic and an emotionally abusive husband), the viewer gets the sense that he is unaware of the world in which he lives. He is, like many individuals, contented with the life in which he lives: working, drinking, and going home; this routine is his world. When he is forced to face the inconsistencies and unexpected circumstances which life throws his way, manifested rather dully by a three-horned dog and a reptilian-looking homo sapien, he demonstrates an incapacity to tackle turmoil and confusion. Most everyone in his life, but particularly his wife, pays a price for his lack of insight. Yet, in the end, miraculously he overcomes his naiveté, but realizes that "the beast continues to exist in the forest," and that is the nature of "the forest" (of life). Now, while that may sound fairly intriguing, Drzick fails to motivate the viewer to invest any empathy or emotion into the film. D.J. Perry's and Jim Gruelick's turn as a quixotic duo fails for, among other reasons, lack of chemistry and unengaging dialogue. Perry's relationship to his wife, although more involved than his connection with Gruelick, is too cursory and terse to be effective. The dynamics of this dysfunctional household are presented in a rather shallow, inept manner.

The creatures, as hinted at previously, lack even the sophistication of, in reference to the B-movie classics of the 1950s, lizards with prosthetic armaments attached to their bodies. The three-horned dog reminds one of a stuffed animal, with three tusks attached to its face.

Of even more disappointment is the film's screen writing. Apparently, this film is set in the United States; it would seem near the forests of the Carolinas. In flashback sequences (which are not readily connected to the film's plot nor to D.J. Perry's character development), two knights (one of which may be a sorcerer who conjured up these monsters to wage a battle between two kingdoms) appear fighting in the forest. I mean, "hello!," knights and sorcerers were indigenous to medieval Europe, not 12th or 13th century North America. Also, the tag line for this film is "Vengeance is Timeless." OK, what was this "vengeance" (as supposedly set forth in these flashbacks) based upon, and how does it relate to the D.J. Perry character's conflict. No direct ties to this "medieval" vengeance, and the film's focus on this man and his wife is ever made.

I give this film 1 out of 10 points. My criticisms go to the heart of the screenplay, the acting, and the special effects. However, one suggestion for the director, Lynn Drzick, is to consider the original material, and reshape it to create tension, significance, and believability. "In the Woods" may have the chance for merit, but unfortunately, this merit is utterly unrealized and shockingly disregarded in the final cut.


Ok, let me just warn you that this is the worst movie ever made with no doubt about it. The film itself must've been shot on a budget of about a hundred bucks and featuring nothing but locals who have acted in their whole life. The plot is about two hunters who go in the woods, dig up a grave, find an animal skull, and run out of the woods when a loud noise scares them. Afterwards, one of the hunters finds body parts showing up at his house and gets blamed for some recent murders. Now onto the films many failures. First off, it's not scary in the least bit. The overall look of the film resembles a soap opera, resulting in a very dreary boring film. Eventully, we get this wonderful devil-dog-pig-monster-thing chasing him around. Numerous plot holes ensue and we get a doctor who's voice is unexplainably odd. Some weird medievil plot twists appear late in the film throwing ya off as well. One of the lowest points of the film comes from the girlfriend's role in the film. Her constant yelling at her boyfriend for not staying home all day makes ya wait for her death. Yes, seriously she scolds him for leaving the house, and how he shouldn't work. When the time comes, the dog pig pushes her down (while she's smiling), and then rips an arm off of her. May I point out this arm is about as skinny as two fingers next to each other, and only about a foot and a half long. To end this, the film is extremly worthless. It can not be found in many video stores, so one's chance in seeing it would be from buying it. The box may say it's good, but read reviews like this one to know how bad this movie is. But then again, if your willing to pay $35 on Amazon.com for this DVD, then something's wrong with you (I bought it for $9 used and regretted it). And if the horror of this movie existing wasn't bad enough...they're making "In the Woods 2".


I just rented this movie and watched it with some friends. What it says on the cover and the general idea make it sound like it just might be worth watching once. We laughed through this whole movie, which was supposed to be scary.

Everything in it is just begging to be cracked on. From the VERY bad acting to the inappropriate scenes, to the really stupid looking monsters.

The story has huge holes. Scenes that just don't fit in with the storyline at all. The only way I can recommend this is if you want to sit around with some friends and laugh at a REALLY BAD movie. It is entertaining in that respect but only that. Cannibal gerbils and devil dogs? LOL!!

I think the funniest thing about this movie is the price it goes for? Who would actually buy this?


I still can't figure out why any self-respecting person would ever attempt to make a film that is as stupid as In The Woods. Or better yet, why any decent person would ever rent, let alone buy, this piece of utter garbage.

I think the writer should win the award for the dumbest storyline ever made into an actual movie.

Everything about this movie just screams of stupidity. The acting is very mechanical and fake, the special effects (if you can call them that) and the "scary monster" seem like they're from an old 80's PBS tv show.

Well, the list goes on and on. I won't bore you with all the details, if you want to be super bored you can go out and rent this movie!


Usually, a good horror movie is scary, creepy or unnerving. "In the Woods" is none of those. So I place this movie in a new genre: Horrorble. Horrible basically describes this movie, it doesn't deserve any more words. I laughed through the entire 90 minutes. I laughed at the not so special effects and the bad acting. Horrible acting. What was the purpose of the "cannibal hamsters"? The ending was really dumb, and it seemed the movie was partially written, shot, then written more, shot etc.

It claims to be "creepier than the blair witch project". This line is what encouraged me to rent the movie. Don't waste your time.


Bad acting, stupid scenes and rediculous monsters. That sums up this nightmare. The whole concept of the woods is a joke. There are only about 10 minutes that you see these idiots actually in the woods. And when they did go to the woods, these firemen actually want to dig up a grave so that they maybe help the police locate a body? Can anyone say STUPID!!!! And in the first scene, there is a house on fire and these firemen are fighting the fire and trying to rescue people in the house. Come to find out, the lady and the baby both die in the fire, which really bothers Alex. The dialogue on the back of the firetruck when Alex is upset to learn the baby died. "Gee Alex, those things happen". Gee Alex? Haven't heard Gee anything since the Bradybunch. The acting only gets worse. Another example. Fat ass man sees the devil-dog coming. Instead of running out of the building, he unlocks some type of closet and jumps behind some good old cardboard boxes. Yeah, them boxes always protect you from monsters. This movie sucks ass big time. Please don't waste your money and your time with this crap.


As a big fan of indie and low budget horror, I've seen some poor acting in my day, but this one may take the cake. I think the cast knew what they had gotten themselves into and stopped trying after the read through.

Basically, this film commits the cardinal triple sin of the indie horror world: The script is stupid, its boring, and its not at all scary.

I'm one of those people who feels he is required to sit all the way through any movie, but this one tempted me to bail out like no other movie I've seen recently. I did make it though, barely.

As for the people who are comparing this to Blair Witch, why? The two films have nothing in common at all, other than having a scene or two take place in the woods.

Save your rental money....or go rent Session 9, May, or Ginger Snaps instead.

Rating 1 of 10.


In order for a movie to be any worse, it would actually have to shoot out of the DVD player and decapitate you as you watched it. Here's what you do, if you're one of those gluttons for punishment who just have to see for yourself: Get your two or three wittiest friends together, with a safe supply of your liquor of choice, and have a ball playing "Mystery Science Theater 3000" with it. And prepare for dialogue spewed out by an Automatic Cliche Machine, delivered by actors on par with the cast of your average third-grade play, embarrassing themselves through a "plot" that only makes sense when it's silly. AND A POSSIBLE SPOILER, AS IF ANYTHING COULD "SPOIL" THIS MOVIE: The monster (one of them, anyway, the main one, I think, except the other was bigger and badder, except that *that* one was kind of good, *except* it killed random people...follow?)is a critter called the Devil-Dog (kudos to originality!). It's really quite charming. Mind you, it's a result of abysmal special effects, but the result is something that looks like a cute and cuddly cross between a badger and a land-sloth. Only those big horns prevent you from wanting to scratch its belly and feed it biscuits. One may think they should sell it in pet-stores -- maybe next to the DREADED CANNIBAL GERBIL-HAMSTER WHATEVERS! (And if you haven't seen the movie, don't even *ask* about those.)


From the bad community theater acting, to the bad script, to the bad direction, to the bad not-so special effects...I found this movie to be the funniest movie I've seen in a really long time.

Is it scary? Only if you think that someone out there thought it was a horror movie and marketed it as such.

It it even good? Not even decent.

I recommend a Friday night viewing over pizza and a six pack. That's the only way to get any enjoyment out of this laughable piece of dung, especially if you spent more than a penny to view it.


If you have the terrible misfortune of actually renting this STUPID movie, I feel very sorry for you.

If you are thinking of renting it---DON'T! I am here to warn you that this movie is the dumbest piece of garbage anyone has ever made--EVER. From the paper thin acting and storyline to the fake looking "monster", everything about this movie completely SUCKS!

The "actors" are just some local people who just woke up one day and said, hey--let's get out the video cam and film an entire movie in one day, sure--it'll sell like hotcakes!!

This stupid attempt at a movie makes "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" look like a cinematic masterpiece!

PLEASE AVOID THIS MOVIE AND KEEP THESE "MOVIE MAKERS" OUT OF BUSINESS-THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO TALENT!


This horrific attempted at film making makes Ed Wood look like an Oscar worthy director. I enjoy watching B movies for a good laugh, but this was so horrifically bad that it wasn't even funny. I would rather of had three root canals than be forced to watch this pathetic excuse for a film again. The acting seemed like it was from an old 80's soap. The script was unintelligent and boring. If the Director wanted to be original he did it. It was the most original boring monster movie ever. Sadly originality doesn't make up for the actors, the script, the bad effects, and the stupid plot line. If you have to chose between watching this movie and getting shot remember wounds heal.


I am a huge movie fan, and it is very hard for me to hate a movie. I even like movies that are so bad that they are actually good, such as Plan 9 From Outer Space.

This movie doesn't even fit into that category. The director of this movie was obviously trying to be serious, and ends up making a complete joke of a film.

The acting is the worst I have ever seen and there are so many plot holes I cannot even begin to describe them all.

The effects are some of the most ridiculous I have ever seen. There is no shame in having a small budget. George Romero made Night of the Living Dead with only $60,000. But you should at least try!

Do NOT waste your money buying or even renting this film!


I'm all for a good B horror film, but this was the most horribly done, worst acted, most retardedly written thing I have ever seen. The sets were laughable. The gore was stupid. I kept wondering when it would be over. I have an unfortunate need to always watch the whole movie, no matter how bad, just to give it a chance to get better. This one never did.

June 2008 ~ After reading some of the positive reviews, I reevaluated my opinion. With every film I watch, I try to find something positive. I am an artist myself and I know that a lot of effort and love goes into any production of art. I try to see it from the writer's, director's, even the editor's point of view. I try. Really, I do.

But, unfortunately, I have to stand by my original review. Sorry guys.


This is without a doubt the worst film i have ever seen. It is so pants. The story makes no sense. The characters have no emotion. The acting is the worst i have ever ever seen. The main character is a muppet. Why does he constantly have to have a bloody shirt on? What the dickens is that muskeeter lizard thing. I hate this film i hate it HATE HATE HATE.

give this film a well desrved 1/10


I just recently rented this title and it was great.

The story line contained issues from alcoholism, marriage issues to the normal every day issues in the life of our great firefighters and the crazy things we do with our friends.

I know we've all done a few of those here and there.

DJ Perry was awesome even considering this was his 1st starring role. A few times he was running in this movie I was waiting for him to fall flat on his face. He definitely kept it real. I would of been running my butt off if I was being chased by that hideous creature.

All I can say is great writing, directing and acting.

Go out and watch it!


I picked this up as a twofer but the comparison the Blair Witch was thankfully nowhere near as bad as that one-the Blair Witch is ins a category of its own as sheer unadulterated BADNESS.Nothing is or ever will be as bad as that film. This movie isn't bad but so much of it was unnecessary. For a start the scenes of a blazing house and the firemen had little to do with anything which followed. Also the reason the 2 firemen are supposed to dig up what they thought was a body-as there were a number of unaccounted for disappearances-again not needed as part of the plot-was really where it began after all the faffing about with another sub plot connected with the fireman's wife who objects to his drinking-yet it never showed him sloppy drunk he'd just had a few drinks.So what everybody drinks. We then get a story moving into total fantasy as the bones and skull of what looked like a rhinoceros come to life and start leaving parts of bodies all over the town.Naturally the police don't believe the theory that the remains of the bodies have been killed by a creature who chewed them to death!. And it gets sillier as it goes on-after the fireman's wife is attacked and left for dead she later makes a complete recovery in the hospital! But thats about where it ends-no doubt the budget ran out!


I find that the previous comment misses not only the subtle nuances of the film's plot, but also completely underestimates the quality of the actors and, especially, actresses (such as the stunning pathologist) that star in this cult classic. Furthermore, the film tackles some difficult, contemporary issues, through an exciting and thrilling storyline, such as men struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, alcoholism, bestiality, amputation and most importantly medieval sorcery. These topics are subtly woven into the rich tapestry of the plot and I was left not only captivated and deeply moved, but it has also led me to reassess my outlook and attitude to life. I am disappointed with the poor reception that this stunning film has received on this website, and I urge all to view this cinematic triumph.


It angers me that this movie is out there in a lot of stores, where many people can make the same mistake I did and rent the damn thing. To its credit, it shows promise from the 20- to the 45-minute mark, but then just falls into an incoherent mess. I've read that this was written between takes, which would explain the ridiculous plot twists that appear out of thin air. The only thing that would explain this movie's existence at all is that some rich kid wanted to see himself in a movie, and hired all his friends to be in it. That would also explain why this utter lack of anything of quality has such good distribution. Don't even rent it to see how bad a movie can be: many of you can make better movies than this.


My God, where did they find these actors? Not one person in this flop could act. The two main characters (who happened to be firemen) were just plain silly. The dialog sounded as if it came direct from Sesame Street or something like that. The DVD box cover is really misleading, comparing this to The Blair Witch Project. Now that's a joke. Scenes here that were just thrown in, conversations about hamsters, just stupid. I sure do pity the Portage Fire Dept. for allowing their good name and equipment to be shown in this stinker. I hope these "actors" didn't give up their day job and they really should go back to whatever they were doing before they thought they could act.


On a weekend hunting trip two firefighters Alex Kerwood and Wayne Higley stumble onto a mysterious burial site.They dig it up and find the skull of an ancient horned creature.Big mistake!Suddenly the unleashed monster starts killing people in a small American town...OK,I'm a pretty tolerant guy when it comes to low-budget indie horror,but "In the Woods" is bad to the bone.The script is lifeless and dull,the suspense is non-existent and the action takes place in the woods for only 10 minutes or so.The DVD proudly claims "Creepier than 'The Blair Witch Project'".Yeah,right!Avoid this piece of cow dung like the plague unless you want to be bored beyond comprehension.


This film is unfathomably bad. The script sounds like it was doctored purposefully to be the worse script ever.

The 'story' jumped around and the pacing was awful. The film in general made no sense.

In some scenes you could see the auto exposure kick in, and some shots had a rounded border. Everything seemed carefully made to be amazingly rubbish.

The special features include a 'Main Menu', 'Chapter Selection' and 'Original Soundtrack'.

I laughed so hard at everything after watching this my face hurt.


reading some of the reviews this movie received upset me. a great deal.

a lot of work went into this film and it DOES have a very very good plot

the acting is above average and the effects are amazing i think the creatures were very well presented too. the only flaw was indeed the sound, but ive seen a lot worse

i indeed watched this movie twice in the same day after buying it, it was very enthralling. i think they should expand on the mythology of these beasts, perhaps in a sequel/prequel?

this movie is now one of my favourites, up there with the Hellraiser series, Mothman Prophecies, Wishmaster, Carrie, Event Horizon and Jurassic Park

again, it is such a hell of a shame that people are ready to spit on this film, when it does deserve a helluva chance

it is just aces


In The Woods appeared at the East Lansing Film Festival and to much surprise many seemed to enjoy it. The film concerns two hunters, who find and then are terrorized by, an evil entity. The film's cinematographer makes great use of contrast staging the first half of the film in a rural forest setting and the second half in an urban landscape.

The film stars DJ Perry and Stuart MacDonald in a mostly amateurish production that never rises above it's similarities to two other films.

The film's director, Lynn Drizick, borrows heavily from The Blair Witch Project and Backdraft. He even places mention of B.W. on the film's poster.

Perry stands out as the man forced to do battle with ominous demonic forces from hell including a specific devil dog. He offers up a comedic/action-hero performance not seen since Bruce Campbell in the Evil Dead trilogy.


No, I mean it, I am in a state of utter awe of this ability to continue producing grade-A results. This is a review of the PC version. All that appears to mean is that you can save at any time(with a few delectable exceptions), and are not limited to the well-placed(if arguably plentiful) checkpoints. In ways, this is less hard than the others(on the other hand, it is challenging, yes, also on the easiest setting, of the three for puzzles and four for action... yep, adjustable difficulty, so anyone can play this). It's about as long as the first one(in general, it takes a bit of inspiration from it... including in a way that I'd have preferred it didn't, but I understand that others did want that; you should definitely try to play the original one before this, you will appreciate it on another level), but the well-done puzzles seem simpler(that, or I'm getting better... and I tend to think it's the former, not the latter; meanwhile, this has the greatest riddle-solving system yet), if there may be about the same amount of them. On the other hand, this one may have about twice as many types of creatures. They are grotesque and nightmarish again, and this time, a few are downright bizarre in appearance, resembling nothing that we can recognize. All of the design is impeccably done. This again uses our own imagination in conjunction with the unnerving sights and audio to build up the psychological terror. The atmosphere is chilling, carefully established and maintained throughout, by the grisly sights and the incredibly well-done and meticulously crafted sound-side that is either shocking or hinting, never noisy or dull. This has amazing music, if there may be more lyrics than earlier in the series; then again, they are fantastic, and like the second, this does, as it needs to, distinguish itself(without deviating so much that we get alienated), they can't all be carbon-copies, they have to do something new. This hits the nail on the head in that regard. The plot is marvelous, if not as deep as that of SH2. I refuse to give it away. The story-telling is well-done(I swear to you, I was literally touched a handful of times during this, not only scared) with you finding details as you go along, and then the scripted, in-engine cut-scenes(there are no CGI ones in this one, and they are not missed), with a free cinematography(with that said, were there an excess of shots from below the protagonist, or was that just me?), a wide range of animations and rather articulated faces and the like(I do not personally find the introductory movie as compelling as the other two, perhaps that is only me... it might be the pop song, if I will grant that it's sufficiently sad in tone). This has astonishing graphics, and the lighting, shadows and weather effects(love the "grain") are brilliantly done. You now play as Heather, a teenage girl not afraid to speak her mind. I wasn't bothered by the gender in the least, and her personality isn't irritating(I've yet to come across a single obnoxious person in this franchise up to this point); however, her vocabulary, well, fits her age, and it does take away from the mood when something is called/described using words like "boring", "gross" or "yuck". Well, it didn't bother me enough to take me out of it, even briefly. All of the characters are credible, diverse and well-developed, and there are so few of them that you remember everyone and they all matter, none of them can be left out with no impact. Vincent is one of my favorites of all three games. The acting tends to be magnificent. This is instantly engaging and quite exciting. It takes a while before you realize what exactly is going on, without this losing any of its gripping tension. It is a cinematic experience with its strange, interesting and effective angles, and the dynamic camera that you can exert limited control over. The button for this can get you third person view, and that is invaluable in this. It won't work everywhere, still, it will when you have to, as the video-game won't always automatically do so. One thing I suppose one could say is that the enemies can be frustrating, to an extent not seen before this entry. And there are a lot of weapons, if not any that are superfluous. I've heard complaints about the Uzi... well, can *you* use it constantly? Besides, these are not about the combat. The lead now turns her head at nearly everything you can interact with, which at best takes getting used to, at worst is an annoyance. They split up Enter and Use into separate functions... not sure why. There are several endings and other things to unlock. This revisits areas from the previous incarnation, though they do new things with them. Several of your surroundings are creepy places to begin with, like a subway station and train. You now see the elevator as its moving, another of the countless eerie situations in these. It's all so abandoned, so close to quaint, and yet absolutely not. The interface remains unchanged as it should be, and once you are used to the directional keys(shouldn't take long), the way you move in this is rather intuitive, and you can get into this almost immediately. This does tinker with game-play mechanics a tad, all improvements. You can run a nice and fitting distance before tiring, for example. There are immense loads of brutal, bloody, strong violence and disturbing content, as well as a little sexuality in this - you should be able to figure out pretty quickly if you can handle it or not. I recommend this warmly to any fan of the other ones, and of other smart survival horror VG's. An acquired taste that ages like a fine wine, and that I wouldn't dream of doing without. Return to Silent Hill... if you dare. 10/10


This one I like a bit less than part two, but they are almost even in their enjoyment value. However, my favorite of the series now has to be Silent Hill Origins thanks to a vastly improved combat and movement system. This one has a good story of a girl who while at the mall starts to see weird things, then of course monsters show up and our gal named Heather must navigate the demented mall, which gets even more demented after a ride in an elevator. She also has to navigate the subways, sewers, and office buildings...all this before she even gets to Silent Hill! And once you get to Silent Hill you will be amazed at how foggy it is! The story is great as it seems to be a sequel to the first one, and of course Origins fits nicely in there too. I would elaborate on it more, but I don't want to give to much away...except I will say I hated that Claudia woman a lot. Those religious nuts always get my blood boiling. So there you have it, the atmosphere is also killer, I loved how you switched over to the more deformed and evil world and the puzzles were not to difficult to piece together. The problems come in the combat...a weakness for all Silent Hill games, you often get damaged and killed less because of your skill and more for the camera angles. Granted this makes it a bit more scary I guess, but I hate when the camera pans to the front of you when I need to see what is ahead. It is also sometimes to hard as I had a bit of difficulty with the final enemy even on easy. Still all in all this was a great survival horror game.


Silent Hill 3 remains the coolest Silent Hill game yet, Silent Hill 4 remaining the stupidist. Silent Hill 3 is so scary. The atmosphere it dark, the only light is your flashlight, and something is waiting around every turn and corner. This is definitely not the game you want to be playing alone at home with the lights off. Way to scary for that, but so fun that you can't resist playing it over and over and over. I will admit when I first bought it, I was too scared to play it, so I got my friend over and watched him play it. And I skipped through some speed runs on Youtube. Great... Now the graphics of this game can't be described in just one word. Brilliant. Top-notch. Outstanding. Breathe taking. Each room, each character is so amazingly designed, you feel as though you are watching a movie with real actors. The monsters, although not as scary as the ones in the first two (some are just hilarious), are designed bautifully. The riddles are tough, but not impossible so you don't break your controller in anger. Some things I did not like are: The way Heather runs, the voicing, those little dogs. That's it. If you're prepared to be scared, get this game.


-a cute little girl Heather is the typical American girl complete with the attitude and the "whatever" demeanor. one day after awakening form a nightmare in a mall she is confronted by a detective who asks her odd questions about her childhood and after losing him she finds that that strange things begin to manifest such as the mall turning into a rusty ugly place filled with demons and what not and after escaping she bumps into a crazy lady that claims that she has being looking for her for a long time. she gets home to find her dad killed and finds that the crazy lady had something do with it so she decides to investigate what is really going on by visiting Silent Hill and also at the same time find out the truth about her "burning" past

-this game is pretty much a sequel to the first game with a lot of the characters from that game appearing in this which makes for a really great story because in it's own confusing way it actually helps the story from the first game make a little bit of sense. the little twist involving the main character is by far one of the best developments ever in a video game. throughout the whole game you think you know who she is but in a second you find that she's a MAJOR character from the first game and the movie now all grown up. It's not a mind blowing twist like the one involving James and how his wife really died in "Silent Hill 2" but it's still pretty damn good. last week I got an email from one of my friends that made me feel like doing back flips. The email read that Christophe Gans maybe doing another "Silent Hill" which made me happy beyond belief. If the first movie went with the first game's plot then I hope that he uses the plot involving the grown up Alessa from this game for the next movie. He could also combine some elements from the second game since it has the best story in the franchise but whatever the case I have full faith in Mr. Gans and know he will make another masterpiece that I'll obsess over.

-all the trademarks of the "Silent Hill" franchise like not knowing what's going on for a good 40% of the game, the mechanical/orchestral score by Akira Yamoaka, plot twists so good that it makes Shymalan look like nothing and of course creatures so weird you'll wonder from the mind of what twisted person designed them are all present and accounted for. Apart from story every thing is improved from the previous games including the controls which were a bit frustrating at times to the graphics which is just amazingly f**ked up in this game. It's not uber realistic like "Half-Life 2" but rather just looks like something out of a really bad dream. The previous game looked really disturbing but this one just blows that one out of the water. From the environments to the great creatures everything in the game is amazingly well detailed and guaranteed to make you pee a little. The only downside to the graphics is the characters who have some really awkward faces and texture animation but hey when the game play and story is so good it doesn't make it much of an issue.

-Akira Yamoaka keeps on improving and improving as the games go along and whiles for me personally I think "Silent Hill 2" contains the best music this is one is very close behind. It still has all the weird sound effects mixed with orchestral and electronic instruments which provides for some really creepy music that enhances the scare factor. My favorite piece in there is the cue "One's Weaker Self" which is this bellowing male vocals that sounds like the voices of hell. it's also played in the movie for the scene when Sharon gets a peek at Alessa's dark side when the movie begins. There are tender moments in the score but for a most part it's the weird creepy stuff that he does so damn well. one great improvement over the past games is the creatures who are a lot more messed up in this one and whiles there's no creature that rivals my boy Pyramid Head the creatures should make any normal human being get skid marks in their knickers when they see them coming at them.

-if you like games that draw you in and if you saw the masterpiece of enjoyable cinema that was the movie "Silent Hill" and want an idea of what will happen in the sequel then pick this game up, but if disturbing images and odd looking demons aren't your thing then it's best to stick to "Barbie's Horse Adventure"

I miss you Pyramid Head


This is a little fact for you here. "Silent Hill 3" is the scariest game in history. I am not joking it seriously is. If you ever play this game. it will make you want to scream and shout while your playing because it is so scary. The girl who you play as will get your juices going. The character and monster design is incredible and amazingly realistic. Some of the monsters which you meet throughout the game will haunt your dreams forever. Definitely not for the weak hearted and if your a fan of the series well then i suggest you get a copy of this fast because it was very hard to get mine believe me. and all those sound effects will make you want to kill yourself if you hear them in real life. The music i really great especially in the opening. so if you wanna to scare the crap out of yourself get this game but if silent hill 2 scared you. don't let the thought of playing it cross your mind.


I was a cop with about 10 years on the street when I read Wambaugh's book, and figured the movie would be terrible. I thought Altman and his crew caught both the flavor of the book and of life on the mean streets of LA dead on.

Maybe you had to have been there. I was a great Hill Street fan (still am), but it was sanitized for TV, and much less like the real thing because of needing to maintain a plot line. Life ain't like that, and neither was The Choir Boys.

Cop humor is hard to fathom for outsiders. Cops are, in fact, a minority group anthropologically, meeting all the same criteria. Life out there doesn't go from A to B to C. It's chaotic. So was the movie, a little. Good job of catching the feeling.


Cary Grant had a definate talent for slapstick humor. He and Irene Dunne are superb in this film about a wife who "comes back from the dead" after seven years. Dunne just sparkles and twinkles as she reunites with her husband who has just remarried.

Grant had an underrated gift for comedy that should have been utilized far more often. He is perfect as the husband who's life is out-of-control when his wife returns the same day he's had her declared dead. His joy of realizing she's still alive is second only to the manic gyrations he puts himself through as he tries to deal with the situation without letting his new wife in on the news.

Too bad this isn't avaiable on DVD or VHS.


Everybody wants to be Cary Grant. I want to be Cary Grant.

-Archie Leach

I doubt that the above quotation is on Cary Grant's tombstone, but it should be. Just as "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia" should be on W.C. Fields' stone (unfortunately, it isn't), Cary's quote would make a fitting epitaph to a career that spanned more than three decades.

All of which has nothing to do with My Favorite Wife; it's just one of my all-time favorite quotes and I love to use it.

What would you do if you declared your wife legally dead after seven years in order to marry another woman, and she came back? Furthermore, what would you do if you found out that during those seven years she was alone on a deserted island with another man? That's the situation facing Nick Arden (Grant), and while some men may relish the idea of having two wives, it nearly drives him insane!

Ellen Wagstaff Arden (Irene Dunne) has just returned after seven years to find that her husband Nick has married Bianca Bates (Gail Patrick). Stephen Burkett (Randolph Scott)is the athletic gentleman (check out the way he dives into a swimming pool) who spent seven years alone with Ellen.

Both Stephen and Ellen (or "Adam and Eve" as they called each other) insist that nothing happened, but Nick isn't so sure. When Ellen explains that Stephen was out of commission with a broken leg for the first six months, Nick replies, "That still leaves six and a half years." To allay his fears, Ellen introduces a short, bald, shoe salesman to Nick and claims he is Mr. Burkett. The humor in the scene arises from the fact that Nick has already met the real Mr. Burkett at his club.

Adding to the mix are the two children Ellen left behind when they were still infants. So now we have two problems: Nick has to tell Bianca that he's already married, and Ellen must tell the children that she's really her mother.

Cary Grant was a master of this type of comedy, and the film's screenwriter and producer is Leo McCarey, who began his career making Laurel and Hardy shorts (when McCarey directed the Marx Brothers in Duck Soup, he took the title from a 1927 L & H short; Groucho considered him the only first-class director the Brothers ever had). Randolph Scott, whom we usually associate with Westerns, does a fine job as Nick's rival. And Gail Patrick, who played Carole Lombard's snobbish sister in My Man Godfrey, really makes us feel sorry for her. The poor girl had no idea what she was getting into.

As implausible as this whole scenario is, a fine cast makes it work.


It's obvious that the main reason for this film's existence is an attempt to recapture the magic of the first pairing of Cary Grant, Irene Dunne, and Leo McCarey, namely 1937's "The Awful Truth." Unfortunately, the material isn't quite up to the task. The plot seems aimed at children; it can't be taken seriously, as it completely ignores any adult consequences arising from it. The film's saving grace is sex. While implicit in other screwball comedies, here it seems more pronounced, perhaps an attempt by Grant, Dunne, and McCarey to prop up the obviously weak material. And it works, creating for adults who care to look a sexual dimension, a dimension under the surface, one that's funny, outrageous, and even daring for something made in 1940.

Cary Grant has married Gail Patrick. Married couples on their wedding night have sex. Irene Dunne rushes to stop this and succeeds. (Patrick complains to her mother on the phone that they drove "all night, **all** night!!) But Dunne seems to be a rather liberal lady, having no qualms about Grant's hesitation in telling his new wife the truth, nor with him going so far as to bringing her home and carrying her over the threshold! As Dunne has dallied with Randolph Scott, perhaps she's giving Grant the option of dallying with Patrick. Grant's hesitation in telling Patrick the truth may be an indication that part of him does want to at least consummate his new marriage. When outside forces prevent him from absent-mindedly doing so, as in the arrival of the insurance claim adjuster, he expresses relief. When he learns of the existence of Scott, he embraces jealousy as a means of getting his mind off wanting to make love with his new bride.

It's interesting that even though Randolph Scott makes the obligatory declaration that, despite being on an island alone with Irene Dunne for 7 years, nothing happened, Dunne never validates this. In fact, her bemused expressions seem to indicate that she has trouble buying this as much as Grant does. The film is in fact consciously ambiguous here; it does nothing to paint as impossible the idea that perhaps Dunne and Scott were actually intimate on the island.

The sexuality of the film comes to a climax in the last scene. Grant "wants to go to bed" in her room, while Dunne won't let him as long as he won't forgive her. She lies in bed, cooing with ecstasy at how comfortable she is, her expression dangling sex, suggesting if Grant needs time to think about it, he can wait until Christmas: "We'll have a **lovely** Christmas; what's 59 days more?" Grant can't take it anymore, forgiving her "for whatever happened" and comes back dressed as Santa Claus, looking to get his present now.

Like "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," the film has a number of sight gags and jokes at the expense of Cary Grant's sexuality. Here it uses the well known fact that Cary Grant and Randolph Scott lived together for a number of years when Grant was between marriages as "bachelors." It has Grant almost swoon at the sight of a topless Scott taking a dive, and later has Grant sitting in his office, reliving the moment in his mind. And then there's the scene of Grant looking through women's clothing, holding them up to a mirror, while telling a doctor, "I have to go, he's waiting for me in the car!"

The hilarious sexual undertones of the film are really brought to life through Irene Dunne. Her delivery, her expressions, her energy, are all very saucy. Cary Grant is very good reacting against her. It's for this reason that the two are able to rise above the silly material to create a rather sophisticated sex comedy, one that forgives natural indiscretions on the part of each party, and it's for this reason I give the film an 8/10.


This has got to be one of THE funniest films I have ever seen! Nick (Cary Grant) was married to Ellen (Irene Dunne) for 4 years before she was shipwrecked, and presumed to be dead. 7 long years later, he remarries (to Gail Patrick) - just as Ellen has finally been rescued. She turns up at his place only to find that he's on his honeymoon, so she hightails it to the hotel to go surprise him. Nick gets himself into an awful pickle trying to find the right time to tell his new wife (whom he has been married to for only a few hours) what has happened, and also telling the children that the new lady that they are enjoying the company of is actually their mother. The plot can only thicken when Nick finds out that Ellen wasn't alone on that island for 7 years, but she had company in the shape of a very athletic (and very single!) man..

Funnier than Grant and Dunne's previous comedy, The Awful Truth, and just as sweet as Penny Serenade; this is a definite 10 out of 10!


I was really looking forward to this being a fan of Cary Grant, Irene Dunne and screwball comedies, but I was very disappointed.

My main concern was the dismal treatment of Gail Patrick's character (Bianca). It wasn't her fault that Irene Dunne (Ellen) wasn't dead yet she is treated so rudely and offhandedly that I found it irritating and frustrating.

In addition it often simply wasn't funny.

Don't waste your time on this, watch and watch again "The Awful Truth" starring the same pair instead, and contrast the treatment of Ralph Bellamy's character with that of Patrick's.


I hate to say anything bad about a film like this, but when there are so many similar films and I have seen a lot of them, it's easily to make comparisons and nit-pick. Let me say, first of all, that I am not complaining about this film. "My Favorite Wife" is easily enjoyable, with a well-written plot that is engaging from the beginning. It's funny, and like all great romance films, there is real emotion here. It involves Cary Grant finding his wife, whom he thought was dead after a shipwreck, seven years after the incident alive and well. Trouble is, he is remarried and he believes she is in love with a man she met on the island. It's all screwball fun and somewhat touching as their romance is rekindled and their children discover their mother for the first time. It has a similar feel to most other Cary Grant films ("The Awful Truth," etc). Irene Dunne plays Grant's wife as well here as she did in that film. The ending of the film seemed a little out of place and took a bit too long to wrap up. This came close to ruining the film for me emotionally. Despite that, if you're looking for some clean, easily-likable comedy, this is for you. Not the best of it's kind, but still entertaining.

*** out of ****


After seven years of his wife, Ellen, presumably being lost at sea, Nick Arden marries his latest flame, Bianca. Only to get on his honeymoon to find that Ellen has in fact survived, and spent the seven years on a tropical island with another man called Stephen Burkett.

My Favorite Wife is based around the Alfred Tennyson poem entitled "Enoch Arden". Numerous adaptations have been made, but few, if any, are as frothy as this Cary Grant and Irene Dunne starer. Grant and Dunne are re-teamed here after their massive success with the quite marvellous The Awful Truth in 1937, and tho the role of Ellen was touted to Jean Arthur, it was Dunne who grasped the role and created sizzling comedy once again with the fabulous Grant. The Awful Truth director Leo McCarey, was all set to direct this piece but a car accident put paid to that and the reins passed to jobber Garson Kanin, who aided by a firing on all cylinders cast, weaved a splendidly delightful picture.

Tho the movie's obvious charm lays with it's two main stars, it would be a big disservice to forget the contributions of Randolph Scott as Stephen Burkett and Gail Patrick as Bianca. Scott's laid back persona is perfect foil to Grant's more batty approach work, while Patrick in the tricky role of the neurotic second wife is fabulous, and it remains a mystery as to why she didn't go on to better and brighter things. Tho the ending is never in doubt, and the last quarter dries up on the gags front, My Favorite Wife still stands the test of time as a screwball picture of note, see it if you get the chance, it should brighten your day. 7.5/10


I am writing this review because after years of watching this movie and loving every minute of it, every time I watched it, I have just watched 'Move over Darling' for the first time and thought I'd write a review of both and compare them.

Firstly this original and black and white version is so much better. Although the later film does have identical dialogue in parts and James Garner and Doris Day are great in the roles, they just do not to it as good as Cary Grant and Irene Dunne done...er did. For instance, the scene where Nicholas Arden first sees his wife in the hotel lobby and he follows the lift doors closing. Hilarious and Garner does it superbly, but that was a typical Cary Grant action and no-one can do it better.

The film opens with Nicholas Arden (Grant), who having lost his wife to a shipwreck seven years ago, is filing his petition to get have his missing wife declared legally dead, so he can marry Bianca, a fox-clad beauty played by Gail Patrick.

However, having happily made his vows and is all set to settle down with wife number two, wife number one, hilariously portrayed by Irene Dunne, makes an unexpected return from her shipwrecked paradise, determined to get her husband, life and home back.

Grant now has to spend the rest of the movie realising that his one true love has returned and must find a kind, and considerate way to 'dump' his new bride.

Add to his misery and torment, Grant's discovery that his wife has not been the lone shipwrecked victim these last seven years, but has been a jungle mate to a muscle bound Adonis played by Randolph Scott, news made worse by the fact that their affectionate nicknames for each other during that time seem to have been Adam and Eve.

With such 'naked' truths scratching the surface, it's not long before Grant's trouble's really start as with two Mrs Ardens out and about, living, breathing, walking and talking, the authorities are starting to sit up and take notice. Bigamy is after all a crime.

As with 1937's 'The Awful Truth' Grant and Dunne prove what a great comedic team they made and that their performances were by no means a fluke. It is also my opinion that Irene Dunne was a more natural comedienne than she was a singer...good voice though she had. She was just more of a joy to watch in these kind of roles, the opposite of her 1963 counterpart Doris Day, whom i always preferred as a singer.

The one failing of both these films however is the character of Bianca, she is such a tragic figure when you think about it, she's neither nasty, vulgar, cruel, malicious or evil. Just a woman who loved a man enough to marry him, yet in both films she becomes a victim. Maybe she should have been written to be a gold-digger or a liar or a cheat, just so you don't feel so sorry for her. The Comedy can become a bit tainted and black as a result

Anyway. A True classic and a great example of screwball comedy.


Although not as wacky and funny as either Bringing Up Baby or Arsenic And Old Lace, this is a very funny and memorable Cary Grant comedy. I don't understand how someone could be disappointed by the movie, as one comment on IMDb stated, but everyone has their own taste (and I sure know of a lot of beloved films I hated).

Irene Dunn plays Grant's wife who has been lost at sea for many years. She and a man she is shipwrecked with were finally discovered and she returns home to Grant on the eve of his wedding! Apparently, after so many years he is ready to have her declared legally dead and proceed with his new fiancée. Her arrival sure throws a monkey wrench into their plans! However, when Grant finds out she was stranded along with the handsome Randolph Scott (FYI--he really was Cary Grant's best friend in real life), Cary isn't sure whether to get remarried or return to Dunn!

FYI--The same year this film debuted, another film with almost the exact same story line also came out called "TOO MANY HUSBANDS". While this other film was amiable enough, MY FAVORITE WIFE is better in every way. If you only see one of these films, be sure it's MY FAVORITE WIFE.


Hilarious RKO comedy of 1940 with impeccable credits both cast and writing/directing and crew. With editing by Robert Wise! What a combo! Obviously a smash hit in its day and must have a wonderful experience to see in the 3000 seat movie palace. Screened a lot on TV in Australia, anyone lucky enough to roar with laughter at this almost perfect screwball comedy will instantly agree how hilarious and exact it is. In the 60s, it was ineptly remade as a Doris Day vehicle also successful and equally well crafted but not nearly as much fun. Somehow it works better as an art deco comedy. The courtroom scenes are almost lifted verbatim into WHAT'S UP DOC in the 70s. Interesting and sad too, to see the very talented child actor Scotty Beckett long before his untimely descent into crime and early death. The obvious rapport between housepals Grant and Randolph Scott is slyly enjoyable too. This is champagne Hollywood. Imagine a hideous remake today for the multiplex mob: Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore instead of Cary Grant and Irene Dunne... with Rob Schneider in the Randolph Scott role. Add swearing and punching and edit using a lawnmower.


Although Cary Grant is justifiably remembered as a screen legend (indeed he was probably the most adept of any of his contemporaries at romantic comedy), it seems criminal that Irene Dunne is almost forgotten these days. This is the second and most lightweight of three very fruitful screen pairings they had during this period - the other two are the even more insane divorce farce, "The Awful Truth", from 1937 and 1941's child adoption tearjerker, "Penny Serenade". With her insinuating laugh and sophisticated but down-to-earth manner, she is a wonderful screwball heroine, even if she lacks the haughty glamour of Katharine Hepburn or the brazen beauty of Carole Lombard.

Here Dunne plays Ellen Wagstaff Arden returning home after seven years shipwrecked on a desert island. The problem is that her husband Nick has just gotten remarried to a high maintenance socialite named Bianca. Further complications ensue when it's disclosed that Ellen was not alone on the island and that her companion was an athletic Adonis named Stephen Burkett, of course a bachelor. The ending is obvious from the beginning, but there are some hilarious set pieces along the way, in particular, when Ellen recruits a timid shoe salesman to impersonate Stephen and also when her ruse is exposed as the real Stephen pops up from the country club swimming pool. In 1940, the same year he made classics like "The Philadelphia Story" and "His Girl Friday", Grant is at the top of his game, and Dunne matches him every step of the way. It does seem a bit of a stretch to think that the principal characters would be celibate for seven long years, but such was 1930's Hollywood convention.

Randolph Scott gamely plays the dumb-as-dirt Stephen, an ironic choice given the rumors of the actor's relationship with Grant. As Bianca, the glamorously venomous Gail Patrick - expert at such roles from classics like "My Man Godfrey" and "Stage Door" - knows her fate in the movie but doesn't really show her talons until the courtroom scene. In scene-stealing bits are Granville Bates as the frustrated judge and Donald MacBride as the confused hotel clerk. The only drawbacks are the overly precocious children played hammily by Scotty Beckett and Mary Lou Harrington. Directed with comic mastery by Leo McCarey, it's a frothy confection from a bygone era, and the far inferior 1963 Doris Day remake only proves how unmatchable Grant and Dunne are. The DVD has a surprisingly pristine print transfer, and extras include an unrelated comic short featuring humorist Robert Bentley and a condensed 1950 broadcast of the movie featuring Grant and Dunne.


Much better than the Doris Day Rock Hudson remake. Lawyer husband has wife declared dead after 7 years lost at sea and remarrys the day she returns after her rescue. Movie moves into high gear when Nick (Cary Grant) sees his first wife as the elevator door closes in the hotel on the way to the honeymoon suite with his bride and he's on the spot to break it to his new bride but then finds out his wife was stranded with a hunk of an anthropologist (Randalf Scott). She makes it worse by hiring a milque toast shoe salesman to impersonate the anthropologist so as to mislead Nick into thinking there was nothing to worry about but he's on to her. Many very funny scenes in the courtroom where a cantankerous judge weds, annulls, declares death and fines people for contempt.

If you like old fashioned romantic comedies, you'll love this


A very good comedy, able to refresh anyone under heavy stress, acting three good stars Cary Grant, Irene Dunne and the "cowboy" Randolph Scott, who in fact did a little as a supporting actor. Irene is a dead wife who came back to her home and family, and found his husband (Cary Grant) married to another nice lady. However, Cary simply loves his real wife, so the problem was how to get legally rid off the new wife and to come back again to her real one. The law, obviously, has the last word in this matter.


Cary Grant & Irene Dunne were a great screen team --all 3 of their films were winners--but this one was the very best. Gail Patrick usually played a glamor puss &, as in this film, she was,as usual, very haughty. However, a very interesting sidebar to this film is watching Grant & Randolph Scott together. They made their 1st movie together back in 1932--a film called Hot Saturday. In My Favorite Wife,a stand out scene was when Grant 1st sees Scott on the diving board. His eyes light up and even later, in his office, he cannot get the image of Scott out of his mind. Of course, anyone might react that way if their wife had been alone with him for 7 years--but--these guys certainly looked ( and apparently did) like 2 guys who really appreciated each other--in more ways than one.


I don't know if this movie would strike today's viewers as being so amusing. I mean, it's STILL extremely amusing today, but in 1940 some of the subjects that gags are built around were taken more seriously. In middle America divorce was rare, for example. As late as 1964 one of the reasons Nelson Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination was that he had recently divorced and remarried. We didn't have a divorced president until Reagan, 16 years later. And at one point Cary Grant is sent to gather some clothes for his wife and a psychiatrist sees him examining the dresses in her closet and posing in front of the mirror, holding up the dresses in front of him, trying on different women's hats. The suggestion of homosexuality and cross-dressing must have been outrageous at the time. Homosexuality was still "the love that dare not speak its name" and was thought by everyone in Bassett, Nebraska, to be a mental disease -- those residents who had heard of it, anyway.

The jokes are built around a simple enough plot. Grant, believing his wife (Dunne) to have drowned 7 years earlier in a shipwreck, remarries. But Dunne shows up vibrantly alive, having made it to an island. Grant tries to hide Dunne's identity from his bride while trying to figure out what to do. Halfway through the movie he discovers that Dunne was not alone when she was rescued from the island. Also rescued was another survivor -- the robustly masculine, handsome, and athletic Randolph Scott, who is also in love with Dunne.

That reminds me. When I said earlier that homosexuality was taken seriously, I meant it. Careers could be ruined by rumors -- whole lives could go down the drain. Grant and Scott happened to be pretty good friends and they shared a house at the time this movie was being shot. Rumors began that they were both gay, based on nothing more than their living in the same house. Both careers survived, but the rumor about Scott lingers on.

The greatest character in the movie is undoubtedly the judge, Granville Bates. What a crabby face! What an irritable and impatient man! Someone in the courtroom opens her compact and begins applying makeup, and the reflection of the light reaches him. "Hey! Put that thing away! What are you trying to do, blind me? I won't have any of that in this courtroom. Try washing your face instead of painting it. (pause) There's such a thing as contempt of court, you know. (pause) Don't let ME get after you." The other great performance comes from Cary Grant. Nobody has ever been better at light comedy than Grant, I swear. His every statement is funny. Even his hesitations, like "Well ---" And he uses the skills he learned as an acrobat to add to his success. Watch him scuttle across the balcony of the house with his wife's dresses, his legs working like a marionette's while his head advances in a level line without bouncing at all. It belongs in the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Randolph Scott is good too in one of his freewheeling earlier roles. His chest is always puffed out, his voice loud and resonant, his gestures flamboyant, everything that was deliberately dropped from his later roles in the Boetticher Westerns.

I could never really get with Irene Dunne. I understand that she was a genuinely decent woman, but her on-screen appeal eludes me.

It's a good thing that film lasts as long as it does, because they no longer make many comedies as successful as this one.


100/100. The is one of the greatest romantic comedies of all time, everything comes together perfectly - direction, screenplay, score, cinematography and the cast, and what a terrific cast. Irene Dunne and Cary grant are excellent,and have such an amazing rapport, the supporting cast is outstanding, especially Gail Patrick, Granville Bates and Donald MacBride. Randolph Scott is well cast. Nominated for three Oscars, original screenplay,original music score and for art direction. There are so many memorable scenes and it is often laugh out loud funny. A great and unforgettable classic. The pacing is amazing, thanks to director Garson Kanin.


... they don't make them like this anymore? If not someone should. In connection with another film I stated that most errors or unrealistic situations can be overlooked if we are compensated via Style, Class, Sophistication etc and this movie proves my point. It is 1) unrealistic that Irene Dunn, missing at sea for seven years, should reappear on the very day that husband, Cary Grant, has succeeded in having her declared dead and then, moments later, remarried in the same courtroom and 2) that Grant's mother would not have attended the wedding; presumably the writers needed Dunne's mother-in-law to be in when Dunne (who naturally would not have known about the new wedding so would have no reason to attend and try to stop it) resurfaced though a little thought could have solved this. Gail Patrick is saddled with the typical Ralph Bellamy part but the whole thing moves along lickety-spit and generates lots of laughs and good feeling. A minor gem.


Any movie with Cary Grant, to me anyway, is wonderful. It is trite to say, but there really is no actor like him today. Geoge Clooney could have been, but to his credit (unfortunately for us Cary-like lovers) he has chosen to accept the challenge of many different roles and sees himself as an actor, not a specific type of person, acting. I like both these men, in any case.

Irene Dunne is also fabulous, her timing is the best of anyone this side of Madeline Kahn, but Dunne was more sophisticated and played off Grant beautifully. One cannot imagine Kahn as a Cary Grant leading lady!

And Randolph Scott! Wow. Where has he been all my life? Oh yeah, dead. Too bad, he is also perfect for this film. I wouldn't mind seven years on a Pacific Island with someone who can swing from a trapeze like he can.

Oh yes, the film...great escapism, but I must say I think both "Nick" and "Ellen" as husband and wife were insensitive clods to Gail Patrick's character, "Bianca." That poor woman would have made some man a good wife, too bad not Nick.

This is one of my favorite movies and I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to see how the other half lived in the 1930s.


This is a fine film, it has a lot of talented people in it. Carey Grant, & Irene Dunne are great & really the whole cast is great. The comedy genius of Leo McCarey (who did some fine comedies with the Marx Brothers) is involved & the film is well done.

The only problem is that now the plot seems a lot tamer than it was then. Back when we had morals in society, a man & a woman alone on an island for 7 years that were not married to each other was a big scandal. Now, with single women having kids without fathers, some having multiple kids with multiple fathers & with an anything goes types of morals involving girl & girls the plot in this seems to innocent. In the early 1960's this one was remade with Doris Day & James Garner (after Marilyn Monroe died tragically during her filming of it).

If you want to see a fine talented cast making a fine film, this one is for you. When it was made, the theme seemed more mature than today, but this one can still give you a smile & make you miss the age of moral decay which today represents by taking you back in time to a era where this humor comes from.

161


Harry Callahan quickly establishes his action-not-words by driving his car through a liquor store window to free the owners, who are being held as hostages Demoted to the personnel department, he scorns bureaucracy in general and in particular the Mayor's policy of attracting women into the force, but he is saddled with one, Kate Moore (Tyne Daly) as his by now obligatory 'minority' partner

Insp. Callahan finds black militants are not his enemies but his allies: when 'Big' Ed Mustapha (Albert Popwell), the black leader, is arrested to boost the Mayor's prestige, Harry actually resigns this time and continues his pursuit of the revolutionaries as a loner His female aide risks her own job to he1p him and eventually they chase a prime suspect through the seamy 'massage parlor' underworld of the city and kill a leading gang member, who has disguised, herself as a nun And discovering that the Mayor is being held captive on Alcatraz Island, they make for an abandoned fortress for the final shootout

The film is a step backwards in style and content from the previous two Harry seems to have reverted to his first incarnation: 'What kind of a department are we running when we're more concerned with the rights of the criminals than of the people we're supposed to be protecting?' and displays unusual brutality in roughing up a man who feigns heart attacks instead of paying his restaurant bills

Advertised as the 'dirtiest Harry of them all,' it is also the weakest Without the experience of Siegel or Milius to help him, Eastwood took a gamble on James Fargo, his assistant director on some of his previous films and the result was competent action but a noticeable lack of depth and subtlety


This is the third installment of the Dirty Harry series, all starring the legendary four-times Academy Award-winning actor and director Clint Eastwood. Naturally, it's not as powerful and dramatic as the first of the series, because, once again naturally, sequels are difficult to make. Especially if you want them to live up to their proceeding movies.

"The Enforcer", like all five installments of the series, is a great action-crime film with it's own little individual plot and point. It's got plenty of decent action, Eastwood flaring away with his .44 Magnum revolver, punching bleeding holes through his challengers.

This movie has also got a pretty dramatic ending.

Overall, "The Enforcer" is another classic Clint Eastwood movie and definitely worth checking out and seeing a few times over.


It might not be the best of the Dirty Harry films, but The Enforcer is my favorite one. This is the one where the sexist side of Inspector Harry Callahan is explored and challenged.

Clint Eastwood is now on some dead end assignment in the San Francisco PD because he's once again offended someone powerful. He's now reviewing applicants for promotion. But when a robbery occurs of an armory and some heavy duty weapons are stolen, the SFPD has to turn to Dirty Harry.

In this case something called the People's Liberation Strike Force with those weapons and explosives now start making demands on the city of San Francisco.

A lot of dead bodies pile up in this one, including John Mitchum in his third and final appearance in a Dirty Harry film. Mitchum was one of the detectives in the SFPD Homicide Squad and had a peripheral role in the first two films. Here he becomes Clint's partner and actually uncovers the hideout of the militants, but the leader gets the drop on him and kills him.

Harry Guardino returns as Eastwood's immediate superior, Guardino was absent from Magnum Force, he figured prominently as the constantly harassed superior. Bradford Dillman is an ambitious politically minded captain, who gets the liberal mayor, John Crawford's ear.

Tyne Daly gives the best performance, probably her best big screen role as the female partner Eastwood is assigned with. It's part of the new look the SFPD is being given. She's quite the inexperienced klutz at first, something Clint doesn't really need. In the end she really does redeem herself. And Clint loses a bit off the testosterone here.

The final shootout with the militants who've hidden out on deserted Alcatraz Island is the best climax of any of the Dirty Harry films. The Enforcer's got the best ending of any Dirty Harry film.

As you gather some punks chose to try their luck with Dirty Harry.


This movie continues the tradition of Clint Eastwood making great movies. The Enforcer is not the best of the Dirty Harry films, but it isn't the worst of them either. (The Dead Pool is). Don't get me wrong, they are all great flicks and I enjoy all of them but there is a best to worst order to these movies. The Enforcer is filled with Harry's dry humor and tough talking dialogue. 1976 San Francisco is filmed beautifully and provides a great background as in all the Dirty Harrys. The music is suitably funky. A bit dated, but funky. Tyne Daly does a good job as Harry's spunky new partner. Tyne Daly wasn't bad lookin' in 1976 either. I'm sure Tyne misses those days. Bottom Line: Must have this movie to complete the Dirty Harry collection. It's a good tough-cop movie on it's own but I suggest getting all these films. Get the box set on DVD.


This film was to be Dirty Harry's last outing in the seventies (do not worry though, he had two comebacks in the eighties). It is easy to compare this film, with the two previous Dirty Harry movies, because there some things have (still) not changed. First of all, Harry (obviously) kept his cheeky mouth, which again provides the viewer with the necessary laughs and his boss with the necessary headaches. This is not the only thing that has stayed the same though. Again some of the scenes could have been shorter, thus (theoretically) making The Enforcer a much tighter package. A perfect example of that is the scene in which Harry chases a bad guy to the rooftop of a building. Not only could this scene have been shorter, but it could also have been much more exciting had there been adequate use of music and cinematography. There is however one upside to this installment in the Dirty Harry series, which is, that it is far more stable than it's predecessors. It is not a decent or good film film, but it gets very close, mainly because of the good acting and the fact that the film remained interesting for the despite it's downsides. Best Dirty Harry film until then. If you want to know if it is the best in the series, check my comment for Sudden Impact


For me the sequels to "Dirty Harry" never came close topping the original, but I thoroughly enjoyed and think highly of them anyway... well maybe with the exception of "The Dead Pool". Each one seemed to add its own distinguishable touch to the typical formula. The third film (and probably the cheapest, as it looks like it) of the series 'The Enforcer' seemed to have that swinging and carefree vibe of the times, with the biting reality and stark realisations (heavily implemented in the first two) taking a backseat for forceful (if crass) humour. However the violence is still gritty, mean, explosive and openly displayed. Director James Fargo ('Forced Vengeance', 'Every Which Way But Loose', 'Caravans' and 'A Game for Vultures') has appeared in some of Eastwood's early films as assistant director, and here he paces it well-enough and let's the foundation play out more like an expansive low-key action fling filled with the constant buddy routines (as Harry is paired up with a young green-horn female detective fidgety played by Tyne Daly. Who does bring an authentic and potent side to her role) that are credibly developed, long-winded build-ups finishing off with brute force and the quick-witted response. Harry also has got a catch-phrase just 'marvellous'.

Eastwood laconically pulls it off with dominant ease and certain authority of truly delving into this character (as now there's more to that monomaniacal search for one's own justice), as his hands out punishment (against a bunch of terrorists who call themselves 'The People's Revolutionary') and has time to let fly what he really thinks. Copping the cynical barbs are amusing support performances by Harry Guardino, John Crawford and Bradford Dillman. The bad guys here aren't overly memorable, but the DeVeren Bookwalter bestows a steely glance and has a quietly dangerous psychotic air to him. Showing up again, but in another different character is the wonderful Albert Popwell.

I never tire of the San Francisco locations (where most of the films are shot), and the camera superbly details the on-screen action and striking background features. What I like about the ending of these earlier 'Dirty Harry' films, was how they weren't afraid to end on such an powerful note involving something represented visually to express the mindset, as the camera slowly zooms out and the harrowing score cues in. On the point about the music. I would say I was a little put off by the racy and bouncy jazz score arrangement of composer Jerry Fielding (who by-the-way has done some magnificent scores for films of Sam Peckinpah, Michael Winner and Clint Eastwood) just didn't have the stinging, sombre and self-reflecting quality of Lalo Schifrin's efforts. That's not to say it was bad or felt out of place, because it didn't with the feel that this one opted for. But a darker or more subtle take could've done it wonders since Fielding has chalked up some jarringly bold pieces in other films.

The script has some political context (home-grown terrorism, political correctness and equal-gender opportunity), but always stays true to the story than trying to undermine or overdo it. While it should be predictable, it does keep one step ahead and offers a surprise or two.

An up-to-par sequel.