This really is a great movie from 1933 and very ahead of its time.A young woman who is in love with two friends and is obviously sleeping with both of them must have shocked a more prudish audience back then i think it had been censored for a while.But never mind we can view it today knowing that there are a lot of gems like this one waiting to be rediscovered,its a shame that so many of the films made from this era are now lost.A modern audience wouldn't turn away from this film,as you don't expect a film from this era to be saucy and it is.Gary Cooper was a very nice actor and you can see why he was so popular back then,he had a very unusual style of being very masculine and at the same time very sensitive,he was great at picking the more complex roles,his characters weren't as one dimensional as most actors of this era.He was easily one of the most interesting actors of the 30s,this i would say was his best era in films.Unfortunately A Farewell To Arms is the only film you can buy in the UK from this era,i don't know why.Its sad that he is becoming a forgotten actor,i think we must have lost our imaginations a bit as we keep harbouring on with the John Waynes and the Cary Grants,and forget there were other classic actors around that don't deserve to be forgotten yet.


Wow, look at the folks in this film--Frederic March and Gary Cooper in an Ernst Lubitsch film! You certainly would expect a lot from such a film. Well, although some might strongly disagree, but despite these actors and Lubitsch teaming together, this is not one of the director's better films. The problem is that the love triangle in the story prevents this from being a legitimate love story--something seem in most Lubitsch films.

The film beings in Paris with March and Cooper living together in a cheap apartment. They are struggling artists, with March trying to become a successful playwright and Cooper trying to become a great painter. Into their struggle comes Miriam Hopkins, who has fallen in love with both they guys--and vice-versa. However, to preserve the friendship, they promise a "sex-free" friendship. The presence of Hopkins is a two-edged sword. On one hand, she encourages both men to be better at their craft and is responsible for working behind the scenes to be them recognized. On the other, there is strong sexual tension and ultimately this pulls the friendship apart. Can they work through this or will they each end up miserable...and frustrated? This film never could have been made a year later once the Production Code was revised and strengthened, as the notion of a three-some (even a non-sexual one) became strictly taboo...as was the liberal use of the word 'sex'. However, despite all this, the film really is mostly tease without a whole lot of action--though there is some implied sex (such as when March spent the night and was having breakfast with Hopkins halfway through the film).

Sadly, however, despite some interesting sexual dynamics and good acting, the scrip just never paid off that much. Now it wasn't a bad film, but more like a film by a great director that is only very good. The so-called "Lubitsch touch" just wasn't that obvious. Yes, there was comedy but the romantic spark just never arrives. A nice but not especially wonderful film. Frankly, everyone in the film has done better work.


In this surprisingly risqué film made before the Hays code, two men and a woman share an apartment in Paris and talk openly about sex. It's fun to watch, thanks to the witty and sophisticated dialog of Noel Coward, the screenplay by Ben Hecht, and of course the masterful direction of Lubitsch. March is wonderful as a struggling playwright. Hopkins has one of her best roles as a free-loving woman who loves two men but marries a third. Lubitsch elicits a fine comedic performance from Cooper as a hot-tempered artist. In a typical role, Horton plays a stuffed shirt. There's no music, which could make things seem static, but Lubitsch keeps it moving at a breezy pace.


So many people at their peaks produced this classic - Lubitsch, Hecht, March, Cooper, Hopkins, Horton and Paramount, getting it past the Hays Office just before its peak. Personally I regard Lubitsch's Trouble In Paradise from the year before as one of the best films ever made, but this is certainly one of his best pieces of work too.

Miriam Hopkins meets fellow Americans Gary Cooper and Frederic March on board a French train, and after an odd beginning their relationship develops into love. She loves the pair of them and they both love her, but whilst plenty of gaiety was displayed by all three there was no gayness between Cooper and March. I don't know if Noel Coward approved. The three agree to a gentlemen's agreement of No Sex, which is maintained, broken and for the benefit of the Hays Office re-established in the orgasmic climax in the taxi which re-visits the orgasmic climax in the taxi of Trouble In Paradise. There's no music in the film itself  but for the occasional dead section where people are going up stairs or dropping theatrically onto sofas for instance you could just supply some of the background music from Trouble In Paradise from your head. The actors are all delightful in their roles, especially Miriam Hopkins playing the blonde who decides not to decide. It's a charming albeit pretty frank theme expertly handled by Lubitsch, slyly toying with his audience as usual, though I suppose if he could come back today and re-make it that any charm would be lost in graphic scenes of sex and violence  back then it was discipline that was required instead.

What does it all mean  Three is the Magic Number! It also means this is a beautiful film, sure with a few minor faults mainly associated with a few stodgy stagey scenes, but well worth the watch at least for being out of the ordinary.


Pretty good company, here: Ernst Lubitsch directing a Ben Hecht adaptation of a Noel Coward play starring Gary Cooper, Frederic March, Miriam Hopkins, and Edward Everett Horton. This wicked crew just barely sneaked *Design for Living* past the Production Code before it clamped down and sterilized the mainstream studio productions of Old Hollywood. Of course, modern audiences must take the word of obsessive cinephiles like myself when we tell you that this movie was once considered wildly indecent. Lubitsch's suggestive fade-outs and closing doors will appear as antiquated as 19th-century daguerreotypes next to the modern standard of painstakingly photographed aerobic coitus. For that matter, the notion of a woman simultaneously enjoying the favors of two handsome young men seems rather passé. Only antiquarians will watch *Design for Living* for its titillating sexual dynamics.

More relevant for the typical movie-lover is the wittiness of the script, which gets increasingly wittier as the movie wears on. Which is to say, the film IS a bit diagrammatic and stilted during the first act: two American bohemians in Paris (Cooper as -- get this -- a modernist painter, and March as an aspiring playwright) meet-cute with a fellow American art lover (Hopkins) on a train. She works at an ad agency in Paris managed by Edward Everett Horton, who, having failed to get to first base with the ripe young tomato, has resigned himself to act as her ersatz-guardian. The first twenty minutes of the movie are too stage-bound, but once we're fully introduced to the players and their circumstances, the script starts to take off. Whereas Noel Coward's original play seemed scandalous because it was about two not-so-in-the-closet homosexual artistes living with a hot broad in a Paris walk-up tenement, Ben Hecht's adaptation seemed scandalous in an entirely different manner: he re-fashioned it into a story about two clearly heterosexual artistes taking turns hiding the salami with a hot broad in a Paris walk-up tenement. In the meantime, the one-liners roll down the assembly-line with gathering force. Hopkins -- "I know we had a gentlemen's agreement, but I'm not a gentleman" (saying this to Cooper while lying provocatively on a couch); March -- "Delicacy is the banana-peel under the feet of Truth"; Cooper -- "Let's drink to smallpox", to which March adds, "In Latin, Variola Cocca!" You get the idea.

In the direction department, Lubitsch finds some surprising breathing-room for his camera. Never held hostage by the witty banter, he's always finding a way to tell his story visually. An unremarkable, but typical, example is when Cooper runs out of his swanky new apartment to retrieve a note from Hopkins which he had angrily tossed out the window: Lubitsch makes sure that when Cooper picks up the note, it's a truly exterior shot -- no mattes. And of course, the director fiddles around with things like subjective perspective, close-ups, zooms, out-of-focus fades, and so on.

In the acting department, Hopkins and Horton are the winners. Cooper is, of course, terribly miscast as a bohemian painter, and Frederic March just wasn't a comedian. Both of the male leads seem intimidated by the fantastically arch and very funny things that they're supposed to utter. Put it this way: they're not nearly as confident as their director with this material.

Which, by the way, doesn't reach the level of sublimity attained by Lubitsch's prior film, *Trouble in Paradise*. But *Design for Living* will definitely do. You can now see it on the new DVD compilation, "The Gary Cooper Collection", from Universal. Part 1 of a series, one hopes.

7 stars out of 10.


There's no doubt about what's going on in Design for Living, a delightful high comedy about a ménage a trois, written by Noel Coward as rewritten by Ben Hecht and directed by Max Lubitschand it's not hanky panky. No, it's just joyous, straight-forward sex.

When two artists, the painter George Curtis (Gary Cooper) and the playwright Tom Chambers (Fredric March), encounter Gilda Farrell (Miriam Hopkins) on the train to Paris, their 11-year friendship is going to be intriguingly tested. Gilda (with a soft "g") captures them both, and she reciprocates but can't choose. And why should she? She moves in with them. There's only one solution, however, to the inevitable problem. "Boys," she tells them "it's the only thing we can do. Let's forget sex." And with that, of course, neither they nor we can.

Ben Hecht often bragged that only one line of Coward's survived in his screenplay. All I know is that Hecht's words are some of the finest and funniest, as well as the most amusingly realistic, you're likely to find in a high-gloss Hollywood comedy. The movie just barely got in under the wire before the Production Code began to enforce the prude's code of morality on America. Lubitsch and Hecht create a sophisticated world in which going to bed with someone you like is as natural aswell, going to bed with someone you like. There's no leering or innuendo in the movie, just a reliance on the sophistication of the audience. For instance, Gilda explains to Tom and George the differences between how men and women sort things out. "You see," she tells them, "a man can meet two, three or four women and fall in love with all of them, and then, by a process of interesting elimination, he is able to decide which he prefers. But a woman must decide purely on instinct, guesswork, if she wants to be considered nice." The point we're aware of with a smile is that Gilda not only is nice, but smart, and that she's already tested the waters with each of them.

We start the movie with a ménage a trois, but one which turns into a duet with George and then a duet with Tom. After some encounters with business versus art, we all come to our senses and enjoy the sight of Gilda, George and Tom reunited in New York with a plan in mind. "Now we'll have some fun," Gilda says happily. "Back to Paris!" I have a feeling that forgetting sex won't be part of the plan for long.

The frisson of a bi-sexual ménage a trois is substantially toned down by Lubitsch and Hecht. While it wasn't explicit in Coward's stage play, one would have to be deaf and blind not to get the subtext, especially with Coward and Alfred Lunt as the two male leads when the play opened. In the movie, however, this just becomes casual speculation, especially with Gary Cooper and Fredric March in the roles. Cooper manages not to embarrass himself in this highly polished comedy of sex and style, but it's clear that what works in Cooper's favor are his looks, not his line delivery or body language. March and Hopkins, however, are completely at ease and are a joy to watch.

Hollywood wouldn't make movies this adult and amusing until the Fifties, and even then the level of sophistication and respect for the audience, in my opinion, never fully recovered. Every now and then it's possible to come across in pre-Code Hollywood films of such mature pleasure you hope others will like them, too. Says one character in Design for Living, "Immorality may be fun, but it isn't fun enough to take the place of 100 per cent virtue and three square meals a day." How wrong he wasand is.


Lubitsch's adaptation of the Noel Coward play about a ménage à trois starring Gary Cooper, Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins. The two men play a painter and a poet, and Hopkins the girl who moves in with them as their muse and critic. Edward Everett Horton plays the more down-to-Earth man who also vies for Hopkin's attention. Apparently, only the plot of Coward's play is kept here, with all of the dialogue excised because it was too dirty for 1930s Hollywood. Even with that, the film was censored on release and, after 1934, when the Hayes Code was in stronger effect, it wasn't allowed to be shown at all. As it is, it's quite a fantastic movie, as you might expect from Lubitsch. It's funny and charming, but it's also quite a bit darker and more serious than the American films he had made before it in the sound era. I'd really like to read and/or see the original Coward play, but Lubitsch's version is undoubtedly a very good film.


I have recently married the most gorgeous man ever. I have corrupted him by encouraging him to drink absinthe and fall in love with jean Arthur and Norma shearer.

one of his favourite seduction was the Robert Montgomery- Norma shearer "private lives" but tonight...

but tonight we shared our very own discovery. the Lubitch masterpiece 'DESIGN FOR LIVING'

I had never seen it, but I know that there is no coward only Hetch, but who cares?

it is a wonderful film with wondrous performances and a classic in so many ways.

Brian


I found this film disappointing and, on the whole, unfunny. I expected it to be full of Noel Coward-type witty lines and it wasn't. The so-called double-entendres in this film were ponderous and far from delicious, in my opinion. Fredric March turns in an adequate performance but Gary Cooper and Miriam Hopkins are embarrassingly bad, in my opinion. Cooper is, as always, a breathtakingly beautiful man but he spends a great deal of this film striking "attitudes" and pursing and pouting his lips in a way I've never seen him do in any other movie. He seemed amateurish and high-school drama star to me. Hopkins also strikes "attitudes" and she often poses dramatically as she stares off into the distance and speaks rather ponderous and unfunny speeches. The best performance in the film is given by Edward Everett Horton as the square successful advertising man. Horton is a favorite of mine and I was pleasantly surprised to see him efface his usual and stock effeminate mannerisms and exaggerated double-takes. He's very believable as a staid middle-aged heterosexual man. I enjoyed his character and performance very much. However, the rest of the actors and the script don't live up to him.


I first heard Noel Coward's play as a radio drama on our local listener-supported radio station, and I immediately started searching for anything I could find out about it. When I found the movie, I was overjoyed.

This movie provides a sympathetic portrait of a lifestyle that is the true orientation for many people. However, most of these people cannot come out of the closet in our society. It is very refreshing to watch a movie about a triad that does not end in disaster.

I have identified as polyamorous all my life--even before the word was coined in 1990. It is hard having an "outlaw" relationship orientation, because most people who hear of it misunderstand it. (It's not about lots of sex, for instance. My favorite time in my life was when I was the second male in a triad, a very rich and satisfying life.)

Anyone reading this who is in the closet and wants serious information about the polyamorous lifestyle can Google the word "polyamory" for more links than you'll be able to read in a year. However, I recommend the following as the best places to start:

Two organizations that have provided guidance and information for years to this movement are the World Polyamory Association and Loving More Magazine.

For a historical review of how this lifestyle has fared in a mostly hostile climate throughout history, read: Three in Love: Menages a Trois from Ancient to Modern Times by Barbara M. Foster, Michael Foster, Letha Hadady. The three authors of this book are a triad that has been together for almost three decades.


This is an odd um- comedy with Frederick March, Gary Cooper, and Miriam Hopkins. March and Cooper play artist friends, writer and painter respectively, who meet Hopkins at the same time and find her abrasiveness cute. I'm thinking this must have been pre-code, because the word "sex" is used quite a bit, and listen closely, and there is even a cute "flockin'" flaunting of the F word.

Hopkins bossily dates both of them, plays them against each other, advances their careers and somehow, by the end, they decide they like it. This naive ménage a trios certainly could not have helped the rumors about Cooper's private life.Cooper and March really are good foils for each other, Cooper playing the more passionate, less polished painter, and March, the more refined and verbal. It works. Edward Everett Horton plays a boring advertising Exec who has been the mentor of Hopkins and who is also in love with her, in his way.

The premise really is not funny, and while this may have had some shock value in its day, because Hopkins certainly played it brazen, it is very hard to find cute. Hopkins has a gorgeous wardrobe, and the figure to wear it, she looks fantastic if she just weren't such a sharp tack. Naturally, two years later she played Becky Sharp in 1935s VANITY FAIR, and she was perfectly cast for the hard edged heroine.

I'm a fan of Cooper, March and Horton, but the only thing I liked about this one was Hopkin's wardrobe.


The cinematography on this film is outstanding; it really showcases Ottawa beautifully. The director was excellent. Although the female lead actor was not always believable, most of the other actors were. The plot of this film was a balance between the predictable and the unexpected. The ending is great. All in all, I was very impressed with this low-budget Canadian-made film. The producers should applaud themselves. You do us Canadians proud. We need more good Canadian films.

The leading boy in the film was great -- very cute, adorable, and a good actor too. The plot had interesting undertones and provided a glimpse into new Canadians' lives.

I would recommend it for families, the young and the young at heart. Go with minimal expectations and you will be delightfully surprised.


I had not heard of this film and had no idea what to expect from it but when I saw it I was overwhelmed. It is a very sweet and very moving film which speaks to you on so many levels. The kid who plays the lead role is a real natural.


It was a pleasure watching this charming and heartwarming film. I went to see it without really knowing anything about it and found myself falling in love with the movie from the very beginning. It has such a simple yet emotionally satisfying premise - a young boy searching for a hero to save his dying mother. The young actor made all the difference. Besides his personal charisma and cuteness he also happens to be a real natural, effortlessly performing in from of a camera. This goes for the rest of the cast too. It's just amazing how such a small film with unknown cast and crew can create such a beautiful movie.

A gem of a film!


I was lucky enough to attend the premiere of this film. I went to the screening with no expectations and was thrilled by my viewing experience. Passage to Ottawa is a beautiful story about multiculturalism, love and the search for a hero. This film also challenges the typical stereotypes of what a hero is. This film is also a wonderful aesthetic journey full of vibrant colours and characters. Warning: you may want to have some orange crush on hand. I left this film craving a glass.


A seven-year-old boy, Omi is sent from India to live with an Uncle in Ottawa. Nobody is told that his mother is dying. The teenage daughter of the family, Safia is given the task of watching over Omi. On one of their outings, Amy meets a black man, Roland, who is a tour guide in his thirties, and they become romantically involved. Omi is convinced that Roland is a superhero, who will save his mother and bring her to Ottawa, so he assists with their clandestine meetings.

The acting is in the low-key, naturalistic, Canadian style, which keeps a very light mood to the drama. The characters are interesting and endearing but are not fully developed. The film is quite enjoyable but not memorable.


A Passage to Ottawa is a superb family film in the league of Kolya, Children of Haven, and Central Station - sans the need for English subtitles - driven by emotions and story plot rather than sex and action.

The film is very touching, possibly due to outstanding performance of actors on its racial harmony family theme, or perhaps due to its excellent cinematography and direction, or may be due to its superb story plot centered around a 8 year old boy from India with great east-west music.

The story takes place in Canada. The fatherless boy Omi is in search of a comic-card hero to take home to India with him to care for his ailing mother. After a couple of misjudgments, he finds Roland, black captain of a local tour-boat. Omi changes his vision of hero from being white to someone who loves orange soda.

The teenage Safia born of Asian Indian father and white Canadian mother, who is taking care of Omi, pretends she has nothing Indian in her. She gets in romance with the much older Roland using Omi as an excuse to meet often with him.

The film beautifully presents the cultural mosaic of Canada in the integration perspective. Shot during and after the tulip festival in the spring, the film shows the Canadian capital in a storybook setting.

Although visiting from India, Omi surprisingly has no accent.


This is the third Lisa Gastoni "mignotta-movie" (to borrow a phrase from Italian Euro-Cult authority Marco Giusti) I've watched  after THANK YOU AUNT (1968) and Fernando Di Leo's SEDUCTION (1973)  in which a middle-aged woman is seduced by a much younger man. Also, like SEDUCTION, here the man is, in turn, seduced by Gastoni's sexually precocious daughter. However, this fact is even more disturbing than the earlier film because the girl involved in this case is not yet 12-years old! There is even one rather graphic love scene between the girl and the man in the bathroom, which follows further nudity as she is seen coming out of the bath and drying out; that it does not feel reprehensible or exploitative is a tribute to the remarkably sensitive performance of Karin Trentephol (who, perhaps unsurprisingly, never made another film appearance) as the girl.

Lisa Gastoni (at 43) is still a sensual and attractive woman and has her hair dyed reddish blonde here, but this proved to be the last of several roles in a similar mode  to which I alluded above and of which I wouldn't mind catching Jerzy Kawalerowicz's MADDALENA (1971) and Giulio Petroni's LABBRE DI LURIDO BLU (1975); in fact, she went into a long period of retirement right after this one before re-emerging two years ago. A welcome surprise is the appearance of veteran Hollywood star Mel Ferrer (as Gastoni's wheelchair-bound cynic of a husband) who adds some much needed dignity to the proceedings; while he had been appearing sporadically in Italian films since 1954, interestingly, his role here does not feel like a mere "meal ticket"  unlike some of his other Italian film work of the period, namely THE ANTICHRIST (1974), THE VIOLENT PROFESSIONALS (1975), etc. Unfortunately, Howard Ross' one-dimensional characterization of the rapist/serial killer sticks out like a sore thumb alongside this caliber of acting and, in any event, the actions of the characters strain credibility on occasion  Ferrer is conspicuously absent most of the time (although he is inherently aware of all that goes on in his household and his eventual suicide arises more out of selfishness than resignation at his crippled condition or the immorality of his kinfolk), not to mention the fact that the investigating police officer decides to consummate his obsession with Gastoni while the manhunt for the rapist is in full swing.

Still the film is buoyed by Ennio Morricone's unusually subtle yet effortlessly haunting piano-led score and Massimo Pirri's firm directorial control that ensures the impact of several sequences on the viewer: the powerful opening scene in which Ross is holding his latest victim in his hands on his way to burying her; the lengthy, moving stairway confrontation between Gastoni and Trentephol; the confrontation between Ferrer and Gastoni in which the latter sadistically taunts the former by taking a hysterical spin on his wheelchair, and the twist ending which concludes the film on an admirably ironic note. While the central premise of a girl hiding and aiding a fugitive is reminiscent of WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND (1961) and THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE (1973), the action set-piece around the mid-point  where a band of villagers break into Ferrer's house with the intention of smoking the rapist out  is straight out of Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS (1971). An odd attribute of the Italian DVD I watched is that some over-exposed shots jarred alongside the more naturalistic lighting within these same scenes, but I'm not sure whether this is a fault of the DVD transfer or if they were filmed that way to begin with...


L'Immoralita is a film that is difficult to pigeon hole into one 'type' of film, but suffice to say it's an entertaining and well worked thriller with enough substance to satisfy most viewers, providing they can stomach the sometimes uncomfortable tone of the movie. Almost everything about the film really is rather detestable and as such the characters are hard to care for; making watching the film akin to watching a car crash at times. The film begins with a scene that sees a man carrying the body of a dead girl before burying her, and then being pursued by a bunch of people with guns. This man turns out to be Federico; a murderer and paedophile, wanted for killing children. Wounded, he bumps into a young girl who he befriends after she offers him shelter. The girl lives with her parents; the mother, lauded as the town slut, and her dilapidated father who is rotting away in a wheelchair. The murderer and the child grow closer together despite the law being after him and the pair develops a friendship that is shattered when the mother discovers the sheltered criminal.

This film is not easy viewing and features certain things that go over and above what I'd call 'bad taste' - a sex scene between a man and an eleven year old girl stands out in particular. There's not a real point to the film as such and it's more of a character study with the character's decisions providing the main points of interest. The two adults of the central cast have very distinct elements about their personality that are very easy to dislike, while even the young girl is the not the sweetness and innocence that you would expect. The way the plot moves is not completely typical and the film does veer off down paths you would not necessarily expect, and that does ensure the film remains interesting throughout. Credit has to go to director Massimo Pirri for keeping the film firmly in 'high class' territory - with a plot like this, it would have been easy for him to have ended up making a trash film. It all boils down to a typically shocking conclusion and while this film definitely won't float everybody's boat, it is a very interesting thriller one that is definitely worth seeing.


When I started watching this film I wasn't expecting too much. I thought I was going to hate it according to what I had read, but I decided to give it a try. It surprised me! It was a really good film with a very original story. Being an Italian low profile production it managed to be suspenseful and interesting.

The acting was good enough, especially the actress portraying the mother. And I loved Simona, the kid, and rooted for her all the time. By the way, the piano score was very nice and followed the story perfectly.

I don't want to spoil the movie because I think it really deserves to be watched. So if you like good drama with an original story (something hard to find these days) go for this one!


An 11 year-old girl befriends an injured man unaware that he is a paedophile killer.Her mother winds up having an affair with him which makes the girl jealous so she sets out to seduce him as well."L'Immoralita" by Massimo Pirri reminded me a little bit an infamous "Maladolescenza",but it was not as graphic.Still the sex scene between the girl and the killer may certainly upset some viewers,albeit the girl is clearly replaced by an older body-double.The story of "L'Immoralita" is morally dubious,however the acting is quite good and there is enough sleaze to satisfy any self-respecting smut peddler.I'd recommend this film for fans of Italian exploitation.7 out of 10.


reprehensible, exploitative, just some under-age quite graphical sexual intercourse to make you shiver a bit (with disgust) among some phony dialogs out of grotesque characters.. most everything is bad, actors (all of them, the child too), photography.. some things, some reactions are so unlikely to take place that i burst out laughing.. just quite a lot of bad taste (where everything feminine is supposed to be whorish and arouse the bestiality of men) and lots of bad intentions. I really don't understand how this could be rated so high but there seem to be thousands of lover of all kind of nasty, cheesy, Italian trash out there (i'm Italian myself, so don't think i'm racist). Who could ever dare to compare this crap to "The spirit of the bee-hive"... oh please!!!!!


i picked up a copy of this movie at an old Italian owned video store, completely unaware of what i was about to witness for the next 90 minutes or so. what originally sparked my interest in this 70's obscurity was the box cover artwork, which was basically a black cover with a large keyhole in the center - a single eye looking through it. simple, but effective enough to get my $2 for a weekly rental.

i'll never quite be able to fathom what the state of mind was like in the 70's, particularly in Italy (the origin of this film). i'm simply left speechless when i see a film like this. not that it was good. it was downright sleazy, and altogether badly done. but what concerns me here is the film's content.

in brief, a escaped killer (supposedly child killer) befriends a young girl of roughly 12 years of age. she takes him to her house in a beautiful remote part of the countryside, and hides him in the basement. her mother (a widow, or divorced?) soon learns of his presence in the house, and they eventually become lovers. but it is only to be short lived as this killer will soon meet his fate.

what strikes me about this film is not only the explicit content, but a brief sex scene between the killer and the young girl, which she (the character) willingly participates in (its obviously a body double, but still!?) ... i was truly shocked. and its no wonder this film faded quickly into obscurity.

my question is: how did a film like this ever get made? who were the people who financed this film, and others like it? it seems that for a brief while (in that decade where anything went) if you could conceive a story so depraved, and so totally wrong, there was a good chance of getting it made.

i don't recommend this film to anyone. it would only hold interest to those who have a Lolita-fetish, or collectors of hard-to-find movies. in any case, just remember: I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS FILM!


This one is supposed to be a sequel to some "Blood Cult", but as far as direct-to video goes, this one features the usual shots of people wandering endlessly waiting to be killed while others go on about their business, waiting to discover the bodies. There's some inklings of a plot in there and the finale (a black mass) is slightly interesting, but you'll fall asleep long before this.


Shot for $5 and some change in a dirt lot in someone's backyard, this straight to video film about a cult of somesuch or another has undeservedly made its way to DVD. "How", I ask? Did enough people actually watch this sub-mediocre production to warrant taking the time and energy to transfer it to a digital medium?

Count me among the guilty for having rented this back in the 80's, when straight to video had begun to glut the market with piles of these forgettable "horror" films. Count yourself among the fore-warned if you manage to read this in time to prevent renting the DVD, or worse, buying it.

Outside of the slick cover, there's nothing else in between, but if you won't take my word for, read some of the other user comments before proceeding with wasting your money.


With this "Blood Cult" sequel's jump to 16mm, the analogy shifts from infomercial to movie-of-the-week, with no reduction in gore implied. The images are prettier and so are the gals, and they even spring for a half decent dog amulet this time. But money can't buy you brains: learning nothing from their real mistakes, they still throw logic to the wind at every opportunity, this time working from a script by Jim Vance, the first movie's hipster boyfriend. While they spend great chunks of time rehashing plot points from the first movie, don't pay too much attention because they alter details at will; for instance, Julie Andelman is nowhere to be seen in spite of part one's tease ending. The plot centers on a list of names the now-nutso Ellis apparently slipped his deputy, but that canny device flutters away before they've crossed two names out. There's a dude on a dirt bike who keeps showing up  is he supposed to be scary or something? And after we spend the whole movie watching Wayne earnestly trying to solve the mystery, he duplicates the first movie's fatal conceit by announcing himself as a cult conspirator at the very end, thus transforming "Blood Cult"'s dubiety into outright fraudulence; it doesn't just make no sense, it is a frontal assault on the viewer's intelligence. And we STILL don't get to see the corpse-effigy.


I gave this movie a 2 simply because the acting (aside from 2 women who make a brief appearance, only to be killed) was not as bad as i had expected. Dont get me wrong - it was cheesy - and many times the actors stumble over their lines - but i expected worse from this movie. As far as the "plot" goes, well, you will be sadly disappointed. Murder is the name of the game in this movie - senseless mass murder - as a cult attempts to resurrect the founding member to take over the world. Horribly done, but a must see for those who love the "b" movies!


"The Return Of Captain Invincible" starts with one of the greatest spoofs of a newsreel show I have ever seen in cinema as a pre-title sequence. Funny moments and tragicomic situations follow back-to-back, but the definite scene-stealers are the songs (two of which feature Christopher Lee's voice). How much better can a song about the eductive power of alcohol start than with these immortal lines: "Mai Tai say that I'm Old-Fashioned / Tres vin ordinaire / That I want a fresh Manhattan / With white Anglo-Saxons everywhere / A Black Russian's / No Pink Lady / Give her the Singapore Sling / And Moscow Mule is not your baby / So Highball the Vodka and name your sting"? But I'm digressing: if you have a nostalgic love for old superhero movies, are not opposed to a little parody on the US and Australia alike, and are willing to follow that film in its occasionally whimsy turns, this is your choice for a late night film with friends (and don't forget to "Have a short or a Port or a snort of any sort" while watching)!


The US government's latest secret weapon is stolen, and the only man who can find it is an alcoholic ex-superhero. Captain Invincible returned to obscurity in his native Australia after a nasty run in with HUAC...

Captain Invincible is a hilarious, rock-opera parody of DC/Marvel superhero comics. To give away too much of the ridiculously ramshackle plot would be to spoil it, but you suspect this film was inspired by Christopher Lee's lament that he never starred in a musical comedy.

Lee steals the film as the dastardly arch-villain Mr. Midnight, belting out his numbers in a fine bass-baritone, as scantily clad slave girls massage his jodhpured thighs. Unforgettable.


I first saw this film when I was but a young lad, and loved it - the fact that some of the film was set in Australia played something of a major part in this - although some bits frightened me for no apparent reason. On repeated viewings, however, I have to say the film still holds up in the manner it was intended: over the top, extremely silly, fun.

The casting is superb; Christopher Lee and Alan Arkin skine, and I'm one Australian who wouldn't have minded seeing Graham Kennedy as the real Prime Minister...

Although they're quite well written - the "Hypno-Ray" song still sticks in my memory - the songs do seem a bit out of place, but when you're watching the story of an alcoholic ex-superhero who's retired to Australia, well... Frankly I think the sillier the better!


I just saw the film for the first time tonight, so these are some brief impressions.

 This virtually unknown little movie is a weird, goofy, silly, and touchingly sincere experience. The very premise of the film is fascinating, and though we've seen the "old-time hero in the modern world" premise before and since, this is one effort that really delves into the potential of that idea. The script keeps dropping in bits of social satire and commentary; the evil villain's plot is essentially the inverse of "white flight", seeking to "purify" New York by luring all the minorities to the suburbs and then killing them. The implication that he's also the supreme evil force in the universe adds a neat mythic touch. The Captain's quest to re- capture the spirit of America that inspired him to begin with is rather sweet, and Kate Fitzpatrick is charming as the spunky heroine. (Arkin and Lee are great, but aren't they always.) The songs are generally fun, even when predictable- despite being written by a number of different people (including Richard O' Brien!) they've got a nice consistency.

 It's a flawed film in many ways- the humor is uneven, ranging from the clever to the silly (often at the same time- though "Amazing Computer Brain is Stuck!" got a laugh from me.) The finale is so abbreviated that I'm convinced there were scenes that were either cut or never filmed. And, this isn't really a criticism, but I do wonder why Australians were making a movie about the American spirit.

 Still, this movie doesn't deserve the sheer obscurity it seems to suffer. It's undoubtedly a unique film, and as such provides a truly fascinating experience.


Saw "Captain Invincible" last week at a Bad Movie Night event and it was the worst -- and funniest -- musical I have ever seen. This movie makes "Plan 9 from Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane"! It's meant to be a spoof and is purposefully bad, but I don't think the makers of this film intended it to be quite as awful as it really is. The musical numbers are completely lame, plenty of gratuitous nudity a la Benny Hill, there are evil punk rockers with half-mohawks, bondage clad new wave hooker chicks, attack vacuum cleaners, crazed Nazis with Yoda-like sidekicks in bad prosthetic makeup. What more could you want? Oh, yeah, a discernible plot might be nice and actors who could sing and dance would be a real bonus.

If you want to throw a boffo Bad Movie Night, I highly recommend "Captain Invincible" -- it will have your guests in stitches and explains why we're glad the 80s are long past.


This is my kind of movie, I had never heard of it before, and only found it due to a purchase I made from Amazon, noticed this title as well. I am in chronic pain, and take advantage of any distraction from reality to take my mind off it. This movie did just that! On par with Attach of the killer tomato's, killer clowns form outer space, rocky horror picture show. Just as corny as any of them, This is well worth enjoying, laughing over, and forgetting your everyday worries and care for awhile. God Bless Mr Arkin to not have any pride when he made this film (I don't see how he could have, such a big gamble) But then again I had not heard of it until a couple weeks ago. Mr Allen Arken does provide his high quality of humor to this film. As usual his humor has again occurred before its time.


Have you seen Billy The Kid and the Green Baize Vampire? Little Shop of Horrors. Think back to Rocky Horror or Lisztomania. Even the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is of a similar mould. Off-beat musicals. These little gems that people once had the balls to make.

Captain Invincible or 'Vince' is such a film. After winning WW2 for the red, white and blue, our super hero is subjected to McCarthy type interrogation and accusations. Excellently edited pathe news reels bring us up to date during the opening credits. Vince runs away down-under and drinks himself stupid for 30 years. Then an APB is put out for him to save the world from the outstanding Christopher Lee and his baritone voice. At the end of the film Vince regains his patriotism and saves the world, singing a few songs along the way.

A great parody of the hero genre, songs of all styles and well written. My favourite is the US President putting his advisers straight with a single word. That word repeated and repeated at speed to a little ditty keyboard number that'll leave you in tears.

Don't study the film too deeply, it's not that type of film. This is simply a visual and musical experience to enjoy for those with a sense of humour and who appreciate the people who make these movies without a care in the world.


This is not at all what I expected and I have to say that I squirmed through the whole thing hoping it would get better but alas, it never did. Captain Invincible (as played by Alan Arkin) is a faded super-hero, who was the victim of McCarthy-ism and took up residence in Australia to drink himself into a stupor. But as circumstances would have it he's accidentally discovered to have super-powers by a lady cop who takes an interest in him, and them when Mr. Midnight (Christopher Lee) is threatening death and destruction, the U.S. Government puts out an APB on Captain Invincible to the world, so that he can be found to come to their rescue. That all doesn't sound too bad, huh? Yeah, well wait until they start to sing. Not that Christopher Lee singing and dancing with a deadpan look on his face isn't somewhat amusing, but this is chock full of songs and after a while I just wanted to stop the DVD before the end, although I somehow managed to get through it all. This may appeal to some, and it's not without its amusing parts, but I didn't in any way expect that this was a musical and that left me very disappointed. Just one more of those "what were they thinking?" kind of films, 4 out of 10.


I've been wanting to see this movie for ages because I love tongue in cheek musicals and Christopher Lee is good. Unfortunatly I got the dvd recently and watched it, it's just not entertaining or funny. The singing is rather bad, even if it's comedy singing you want to have people who can sing to a certain degree, the plot is full of holes and some places makes no sense at all. But all that isn't important if it's funny and entertaining, but it isn't. I said The Fantastic Four was more entertaining, and it is (The unreleased Corman movie that is). This film was lacking that spark, the songs were poorly constructed and the actors uninspiring, if you liked Rocky Horror & Little Shop of Horrors then avoid this, the values those films had aren't here. There was one point where he was being attacked by vacume cleaners where he said "This really sucks!" my sentiments exactly. 3/10


If you're looking for steamy soft core, this isn't it. It's an actual attempt at comedy, not something Seduction Cinema does well. I've seen several of their movies and this one is the worst so far. As a certified male pig, I was looking for a lot of nudity and as much of that as possible....what I got was a bad comedy and some television-style T&A. Avoid this one, and if you're a big Misty Mundae fan see SpiderBabe or Lust for Dracula instead. I give it a 2 only because Misty Mundae was her ever-amusing self in it.

The comedy isn't mind-bogglingly awful, it's just bad. You will even chuckle at a few places, but overall you'll wish you saw something else. Think you're going to see a lot of g-strings? Think again.


Who can forget such characters as Smirnoff, Sour Ass, or Dildo Saggins. There are a few slow points in the film, but that is not enough to disregard it. Misty Mundae is definitely one of the cuter girls that I have seen in a long time(she reminds me of Willow from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). Still a good, seven star, movie. Lions, Gorilla's and Spokes' Models Oh My!!.


OK first its soft-core porn, if you don't like a lot of soft lesbian scenes you may as well go elsewhere. As far as porn rip offs of well known films go this isn't bad. The characters are easy enough to laugh at, Erin Brown (Aka Misty Mundae) is hysterical as the main character and her wizard mentor Smirnof will have you in stitches. The plot is of course a very simplified version of the Tolkien books with as many sex based jokes as they could cram into one script. The effects are cheap and so are the costumes but you won't care. The actors know they are making a cheap parody and they run with it playing it for laughs all the way. There are several times they break the fourth wall but if it worked for Groucho it can work for this film. Grab a beer or 6 and some pretzels, but try not to drink to fast or you may end up doing spit takes while watching this.


This was my introduction to the ever lovely, the captivating and totally enchanting Ms. Mundae. Seduction Cinema has quite a few of these erotic parodies, and most, fortunately for them, star the incredibly irresistible Misty Mundae. Production values are of the B-movie variety, (do people still really say B-movie anymore?), but once you get past that, it is very entertaining and erotic in a very down to earth kind of way. The best thing about any of these films is Misty, as she is able to carry off this witty, charming on-screen persona that just blows you away, time after time. She delivers most of the lines with tongue planted firmly in cheek, and metaphorically winks at the audience with every cheesy line and action she goes through....Misty Mundae is able to pull off something very few other actors could, and her commanding presence and on-screen charisma suck you in, and intrigue you in ways that endear you to her character and her portrayal, and simultaneously enable you to overlook the overall quality of the material, and whatever other shortcomings the film may have. Misty delivers a few one-liners that will make you ROFL if you are able to experience this film is the right spirit, and she along with this film, will inspire you to catch her other Seduction Cinema films, that I'm confident will surely delight on the basis of Misty's appeal alone. I enjoyed this film as well as Play-mate of the Apes, and her others strictly because of her beguiling, overwhelming and underrated talent as an actress. In the end, Lord of the G-Strings succeeds in part because it doesn't take itself too seriously, but mostly because it has the appeal of the "real deal", a true diamond in the rough, with the multi-talented, naturally beautiful and irresistible charming; Misty Mundae!


With out a doubt, this little flick is funny then most, and way more erotic, then much of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the last few years. Darian Crane is perhaps one the best soft core erotic performers around, and if her scenes are simply girl/girl, or guy girl, she turns on just as a hot performance in both. She is very beautiful, and deserves to be allowed to carry a movie on her own. She has in this flick a great comedic timing, as does the star Misty Mundae, who's a great escape from the generic Hollywood starlets with fake chest (i.e. Paris Hilton). She, Crane, and AJ Kahn are all natural looking females who don't need much help from the make up department. If any movie out of the Hollywood cookie cutter needed to be Lampooned it is the overblown, over hyped Lord of the Rings series. The movie is fitfully funny, and just as erotic. Ignore every bad review of this movie that you have read. Those people weren't watching the same movie that I did. This movie is a must have!


It could be The Lord of the G-Strings: The Two Towers. Yeah. Anyway, this is a typically weak, but harmless Seduction Sinema movie. My favorite part, besides the obvious, are two names: Smirnof and Ballem. They are funny. I kept wondering why Dildo Saggins name wasn't Dildo Packin. I realize that Saggins is closer to Baggins, but isn't Packin a much better image? Hmm. And the ending, wouldn't it be better if there was actually some want to get rid of the G-String, that would make it funnier that there, essentially is no ending. Thoughts? Now, back to the obvious. Misty Mundae has nice little breasts with light pink nipples, AJ Khan's butt centered, stripper dancing is very pleasant, and Ruby Larocca's short cameo as a sultry barmaid seduced by the horny Mundae is a highlight. Also, all wood nymphs should have tongue piercings. That is all.


I'll give this a 10 out of 10 just to counterbalance the low voters a bit. It's worth at least 6 out of 10.

Are those votes low because of the nudity? It's a soft-core porno movie, what did you expect? Same for anyone expecting an action movie or something like that. I wonder how many of the voters actually saw the movie.

This movie is an extremely humorous Lord of the Rings spoof with nudity in it. Nothing more but also nothing less. The dialogs are better than a lot of regular comedies, let alone the average porno. Sure they did not have a huge special effects budget, but they used what they had the best they could, and they came up with a very entertaining script.


Ok yeah it's a grade B soft core porno.. but all sceens with Smirnof in them are cinematic gold. You can pretty much tell it is a whole mess of adlib and what an awesome job of it. He is funny and clever for the type of film this was and what he was given to work with.

My hat is off to you Michael R. Thomas.


(some plot content included, although there is no way to spoil this crap) Ok, here's the scene: Me and my friends are renting movies one night and we decide to rent this (thinking it would be funny, not a porn because of it's R rating). My, my, my, how we were wrong. There were probably 11 people total working on this movie. There are like 5 orcs in the whole movie, and they get killed and yet come back for the next scene. But the thing that had me tearing my hair out was the "comedy." Good lord! The jokes, if you can call them that, were so bad, oh so BAD. Seriously, it made me want to cry thinking that someone thought that some of these jokes would be funny. There was one part in the movie I thought was funny (I think at this point I would have found anything funny) was a scene where the bad wizard was killing Smirnoff the wizard by putting him under a blanket and then farting under the blanket. I believe he called it the "killer dutch oven." Another part an "orc" (which was a guy with blue make-up on) started p**sing on the "throbbits" that he was trying to catch. It was obvious that he would have seen them, but like the rest of this movie, it didn't make any sense at all. And despite what you may have read in other reviews, the girls in this movie are especially skankarific, and if you have any standards whatsoever with women, you would find MAYBE one remotely attractive. The dialogue is diabolical and the CG! I've never seen such crap. There were cut scenes to show where the throbbits were on their trek. The only thing was the AWFUL cg looked NOTHING like where they were. This movie is worth the rent to see just how bad this is! Another thing that absolutely baffles me is why this movie was made. It's not quite porn and it's the farthest thing from being a funny movie. Who provides funding for this crap? Only see this movie if you're looking for another reason not to live.


I really liked this movie. I think it pulled off everything I needed. I found it pretty funny, though some might think otherwise. I think that if you have the extra time, and see it playing, give it a look. You might enjoy it. Personally, the wizard was the best part of the movie for me, and he kept me laughing. The names of the people were a great rip on the movie "The Lord of the Rings", which made it so much more funny for me.

The movie holds a lot of fun if you give it a chance. I know I did and it was worth it. I don't know if you should buy it at first sight, but I do suggest you rent it, or watch it next time it comes on TV. Well, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. :P


In yet another Seduction Cinema soft-core parody, Dildo Baggins (Misty Mundae, because she can NEVER not be in a Seduction Cinema movie *rolls eyes*) along with fellow Throbbit lesbian lovers, Horny and Spam go off to destroy the evil G-string, after drunk perverted Smirnof, the Wizard presents that quest to them. Wackiness, in the form of dumb jokes, unerotic sex, and more dumb puns, ensues. Terry West will never be confused with Orsen Wells, hell, he'll never get confused with Lloyd Kaufman even, but this "Lord of the Rings" parody is still his clear best, and yes I know that's a bit of a back-handed compliment. I chuckled a few times, but groaned more and not in the good way.

My Grade: D+

DVD Extras: almost hour long documentary; 37 minute Behind the scenes featurette; a lame music video; and the usual Seduction Cinema trailers

Eye Candy: everyone gets fully nude multiple times

Easter Eggs: highlight the tree for more behind the scenes footage; highlight the head for an interview with John Link


A passionate tale of heartbreak and love triangles (literally). This movie lifted me to half mast, and kept me there for hours on and off. To say that this movie changed my life is a gross understatement to the testament of its magnitude on the movie experience. Move over Casablanca, this is the new American classic. i could go on and on about this movie. I have seen it multiple times and it has given me multiple orgasms. It is a travesty to try and confine this masterpiece in the parameters of human language. I feel like this movie has filled the void in my heart that was left aching from my disappointment of "Gladiator Maximus Glutius). I love Rob L.


This is a terrible movie, even for parody soft core pornography. Part of a series from this troupe, this movie receives two out of ten stars for being somewhat more watchable than its predecessor, Playmate of the Apes and successor, Spider-babe.

Basically, what you have here is the end result of assigning a group of high school students to write a parody for a comedy class, and then injecting them with aphrodisiacs. If the flat jokes weren't bad enough, and there are some groaners, the sex scenes are tepid enough to bore even those with insane libido.

The one genuine laugh you'll receive is at the movie's end, when Dildo encounters a friend thought long dead, and his cheesy, over powering fake laughter forces Dildo's actress to lose her composure and start genuinely cracking up. She has a nice smile. Lets hope she can get into some higher quality porn.


Man... I thought I'd seen some bad movies before, but this is seriously the worst ever. Its so bad, that if you are even the least bit drunk or high you'll find this movie hilarious. There are 6-8 totally ugly chicks who all just keep getting naked. The production value is zero, think high school project done in a weekend. It was obviously filmed in a park, and nothing, no amount of seeing the people in the movie naked could ever make up for how terrible this movie is. Yea I laughed my ass off, but if you have to spend even one dollar on it, its overpriced. I caught it on latenight television, and I felt bad, really bad, for everyone involved in the movie. You can't plan on making something this bad, it has to just happen. A quick spoiler: the hobbits, or whatever they're called in this movie, enter a tavern which is supposed to be in the forrest in medieval time and make out on the tavern pool table, which looks brand new. Man... SO bad.


I rented this movie because it seemed so ridiculous and I thought it would be hilarious. I was expecting something like Dreamquest as well. Boy was I wrong. The acting in this movie was horrible, but that doesn't usually bother me in porn, but all of the sex scenes were virtually the same. They tried to make them more interesting by adding more and more girls each time, but they all consisted of the same thing. I was bored of the movie after about the first ten minutes, but I made myself watch it, hoping it would get better. It got worse. When the character of Sourass was introduced, it all went to hell. THis character's power was to suffocate people by farting on them. All of the scene changes consisted of cgi pic of castles, but none of the scenes took place in a castle so it didn't make any sense. On a positive note, the women in this were cute for the most part and there were some funny moments, but I would stay far far away from this unless you like repetitive softcore porn and disgusting, childish fart jokes.


I love the police-type of TV shows and 240-Robert is one of my favorites! Mark Harmon, John Bennett Perry and Joanna Cassidy made a GREAT team! The characters sense of humor and professionalism made this show very believable. I remember seeing this show as a kid and thinking how proud it must be to serve as a Deputy Sheriff. I hope to visit the old 240-Robert station in California some day. I hear that it is a lifeguard station located off Pacific Coast Highway.

Perhaps 240-Robert will show up in reruns someday? That would truly be an AWESOME day indeed!


I have seen this show when I was growing up and I liked it very much

Here in my country, the most of TV series of America came in under some format almost without any delay since decades ago.

It is clear that this formula has been reproduced many times but I like the acting freshness, the connection with the characters, and of course the equipment they use in the rescues (who doesn't dream about a bronco)

Well, I hope the DVD industry take care soon about the not so popular shows and release it quickly.

PS: I loved the soundtrack


Yes, I remember this show.

After growing up enjoying Emergency with Mantooth and Tighe, we were given this return to rescue stunts.

But it failed to measure up.

Essentially what 240 Robert did was bring Mark Harmon to the limelight.

Other than that, the show was awful.

And pray tell, what did the numbers mean? I asked my brother, named Robert.

"Two wheels, four wheels and no wheels," he replied, as rescues were done on motorcycles (yes, a la CHiPs), four wheeled vehicles and the helicopter.

"But why use the name 'Robert'?" I asked further.

"Because it is a wonderful name," Robert replied.


This is a film that EVERYONE should see. It all starts with the title, Shaft in Africa. The concept of Shaft going to Africa and the cover alone are reason enough to get it. Plus, it is inexpensive and can be found at most retail stores. Ok, lets break this film down shall we. First, while watching this movie I laughed harder than I ever have before. The second time the man with the staff broke down Shaft's door, I was in tears. The first time was hilarious, but again? Pure, unadulterated genius. Shaft is like James Bond minus all of the silly innuendo and sex jokes. Plus, you actually get to see NUDITY, albeit some is Richard Roundtree's bare rear end and a fat hooker, there is an extremly hot vixen NAKED. You can never tell what is going to happen next whether he be riding a camel or the whole, triangle shirt-waist factory inspired, building fire minus the locked doors and the slaves actually running UPSTAIRS. To sum it up, this movie has it all. Sex, Violence, Gore, Explosions, Stick fights, door breaking, but sadly, features a dog getting killed which NO ONE wants to see. I seriously think the only reason the dog was there was so that Shaft could utter the "Only one man died today, and two dogs" line, which wasn't that amusing. No one wants to see a dog getting killed. This movie rocks my socks off. Period.


Why do you ask? Its got more one-liners, better (as in more amusing) dialogue, better action. Shaft becomes the poor man's James Bond in this one, doing what amounts to international spying but without the hi-tech tricks of Bond. Great final "Shaft enraged by the slow working justice system" ending. Great title song by the 4 Tops ("Are You Bad Enough") doesn't measure up to the classic "Shaft" but still delivers.


It was interesting to see Shaft taken out of his surroundings (NewYork),as he is coerced into taking on an international mission going to Africa to help crack down a slavery racket (Africa to France),and the man at the top. The plot left something to be desired as it came across with some lulls. There is plenty of sex and violence and if that's your bag, then Shaft in Africa is your movie. The bad guys know he's coming as Shaft snuffs out numerous attempts of his life as he carries out his mission. Richard Roundtree does a good job of portraying the indomitable John Shaft. Frank Finlay plays the main villain (Vincent Amafi), who heads the slavery racket. The women of John Shaft are the educated and beautiful Aleme, (Vonetta McGee) plus the alluring and one track minded Jazar, (Yugoslavian actress Neda Arneric). McGee plays the daughter of the Emir, who hires Shaft, and is Shaft's main love interest. Arneric is Amafi's mistress, who offers her assistance to corner Shaft by "diverting his attention". Arneric steams up the big screen with her provocative seduction scene as she entices Shaft aboard the slave smuggling ship. Shaft senses this is a trap as he makes sure the coast is clear and interrogates Jazar, before he finally relents to her persistence and they make love in her cabin. The movie does have a strong ending as Shaft makes his way to Paris and saves the day,as he shuts down the slavery racket. There were other books written by Ernest Tidyman however this served to be the last Shaft movie made during the 70's.


I am a huge fan of the original film in this series, SHAFT--having scored it an 8 and enjoyed every minute of it. Unfortunately, the sequels (SHAFT'S BIG SCORE and SHAFT IN Africa) were major disappointments--mostly due to really bad writing and lots of ridiculous story elements. In SHAFT'S BIG SCORE, Shaft has a gun battle with about a dozen crooks. They have a machine gun and tons of pistols as well as a helicopter. Shaft has a shotgun and a pistol and manages not only to win but shoot down the copter!!! Sadly, it only got worse in SHAFT IN Africa.

The main plot idea isn't bad. A group of concerned officials want to infiltrate an evil mob that sneaks illegal workers from Africa into Europe and treats them like slaves. A timely topic now as well as then. However, having Shaft be the guy to infiltrate was just silly. While the film was set in East Africa, Shaft looks little like one of these people--mostly because almost all Black-Americans trace their ancestry back to West Africa--on the other side of the continent. In addition, he didn't really try to use an appropriate accent throughout the film--only once or twice--and he didn't shave or cut his hair to blend in with the slaves. He simply looked like "Richard Roundtree: Movie Star" amidst the poor unfortunate villagers. Unfortunately, about the only thing going for the film is the action and extreme violence (for 1973). Sadly, even the great tune "Shaft" was gone and the music was rather bland throughout the film!

By the way, although it looked cool, why did Shaft bother to blow up the bunker at the end of the film even though the bad guy and all his men were dead?! It just seemed like a silly excuse for pyrotechnics.


Lana knows her soda jerk job blindfolded and gets a bonus for never being late for work EVER! Big Deal! She's sick and tired of this joint and this crummy small town. She wants to get out and live a little. So, she leaves her job and goes off to New York, giving herself a makeover. But, not before, she got into a big huff with Robert Young, her boss and there's a matter of a "slight" misunderstanding. So, Bob goes off looking for her. But she is minding her business in New York, when trouble of another kind falls in her lap. It's more than you bargained for in this fun, non-stop quirky little film, costarring EugenePallette, Walter Brennan, and Dame May Witty. It's the kind of film you just don't want to end. So, forget everything and discover that life can be "slightly dangerous," when you go looking for it.


The scene in which our heroine is forced to choose the most beloved toy in a room absolutely crammed with goodies, surely rates as one of the greatest moments in the cinema. As you know, I'm not a keen fan of Lana Turner, but here is a vehicle in which the blonde siren excels. Not only does she enjoy a highly sympathetic character to work on the audience with, but in Wesley Ruggles she has obviously found a sensitive director with the ability to help her exploit every dramatic and comedic opportunity the clever screenplay provides. True, poor old Robert Young does get jostled out of the picture for a while, but he does return with a couple of hilarious solo routines, including his famous toppling-over-the-balcony bit at the opera.

"Slightly Dangerous" not only revels in first-rate entertainment, but it's produced with Leo's customary flair and impeccable polishincluding a wonderful roster of Hollywood bit players and cameo artists. Just look at that cast! In fact Wesley Ruggles was a director who paid particular attention to the minor character players and was always concerned that a scene be milked for its maximum effect. He'd quickly replace an actor who could not give him precisely the impact he wanted. For instance, Mickey Rooney's dad, Joe Yule, was originally cast as the painter, but the director thought he was too old and lacked the flair that this little bit needed. Yule was replaced by Joe Devlin.


Although I would hesitate to call it "film noir," Strange Illusion is a tightly woven, intriguing mystery. For a Poverty Row production, the writers and Ulmer paced the film well and kept it interesting. The acting, although amateurish at times, doesn't distract from a believable story. My only real complaint about the film is the music-- too much of it and too loud.

Brett's penchant for teenage girls is a refreshingly realistic perversion for a film of the '40s. It also stands in stark contrast to the "gee whiz" scenes (as mentioned in a previous comment), which seem like they were lifted straight out of "Leave It to Beaver."

I rate it 7/10.


****SPOILERS**** Having recurring dreams of his fathers Judge Cartwright tragic and deadly train accident every night Paul Cartwright,James Lydon, is convinced that his fathers death was no accident but a murder and the person who murdered his father is in his dream and in the shadows not being able to be recognized.

Being very protective of his mother Virginia,Sally Eilers,Paul gets very agitated and concerned when she gets engaged to marry a Mr. Brett Curtis, Warren Williams. Curtis comes across as a suave and sophisticated as well as well traveled gentleman who swept Virginia right off her feet. But Paul who feels that he's just not what he is and his background it's just too perfect to be real.

In his awakening state of mind Paul sees the events in his dream accruing over and over in real life which convinces him that there's something very strange and sinister about the very debonair and smooth talking Brett Curtis. Paul also has a grudging feeling that Brett is the man in the shadows in his dream who was responsible for his fathers death and also wants to keep his mother from marrying him.

Early cinematic psychological study about the mind and it's deepest secrets and how they come to the surface when we least expect them to Which makes the movie "Strange illusions" a unique movie for it's time, 1945, and as far as I know has never been duplicated since.

Things in the film like Brett's strange behavior in regards to Paul whom he senses is somehow on to him and his intentions has him lose his cool from time to time and almost expose himself as the psychotic that he really is.

Paul has tapped into something real and deadly through his subconscious, his dreams, but unknowing to Paul Brett is working with Professor Muhlbach,Charles Arnt, who runs the Restview Sanitarium where Paul will soon be staying at. Looking into his late fathers files, that he kept locked in his study, Paul finds out about a mysterious Mr. Claude Barrington who Paul's father was very interested in.

Judge Cartwright felt that Barrington committed a string of crimes from murder and rape to embezzlement dating back to 1932 when he was married to the former miss. Cecilia Gordon who was found drowned some six months after their marriage.

Barrington seemed to have vanished and then popped up and commit crimes almost at will all across the American Southwest. Barrington has a talent to disappear and resurface after each crime with a new and bogus identity and successfully avoided being fingerprinted or photographed. It was Judge Cartwright's closing in on him and being about to expose him and have him arrested, and made to pay for his crimes, that led to his unfortunate "accident".

Paul also feels that Barrington faked his own death and is now back to eliminate those who may be able to expose him as still being alive by being in the position of finding Judge Cartwright secret files; the Judge's family. Paul is sure that the late Claude Barrington is the very alive Brett Curtis.

Having to get rid of Paul but not until Brett is legally married to Virginia Brett and Professor Muhlbach plan to have Paul committed in his sanitarium and then have an "Accident" that will put his searching for the truth, about his dead father, to an end once in for all.

With Brett married to Virginia he can offer her sympathy comfort and understanding for the loss of her son and his step-son until the time is right for her to have an "Accident" too. With that Brett can get his hands on the Cartwright estate, and all the evidence that the judge gathered on him, and have it destroyed with no one who can be in the position to know about it, the Judge's files, or get their hands on them. Mind twisting movie with a surprise ending that will more then just surprise.


It is told that STRANGE ILLUSION was made in little over two weeks with very, very limited funds and fading star power. But director Edgar G. Ulmer had full reins to do what he could with what he had. Still a decent B-movie with plenty of intrigue. The opening "allusive dream" of college lad Paul Cartwright(Jimmy Lydon)is to set up the story line. His well respected father dies mysteriously in a train/car accident which leads to haunting nightmares in which his father warns him of oncoming danger to his mother(Sally Eilers)caused by a mysterious stranger that wants to cause harm to the family. Inter the mystery man Brett Curtis(Warren William)introduced as the widow Cartwright's suitor. Lydon's character becomes a little obsessed with Curtis wooing his mother and making disturbing advances toward his younger sister. Seeking help sorting out circumstances and illusions, Paul turns to a friend of the family Dr. Vincent(Regis Toomey). Next comes maneuvering in and out of a sanitarium and the revelation of false identity and the reason for the unfinished plot to cause destruction of the Cartwright family. This is an enjoyable little psychological melodrama. Also in the cast are: Charles Ant and George Reed.


Hamlet, Freud and Edgar Ulmer may seem like an unnatural group of pals, but among them they have come up with a tidy little psychological thriller. In fact, with a bigger budget and stronger actors, Ulmer might have had a classic on his hands. As it is, Strange Illusion can't escape its Poverty Row heritage. Even so, it's a well-paced movie that keeps a person's interest. Even if the best-acted roles are the bad guys, that's not necessarily a drawback in a B movie.

Paul Cartwright's father, an older man and a respected judge, died two year ago in a train accident...at least it appeared to be an accident. Paul's not so sure. Paul (James Lydon) is a young man from a good family. He has a younger sister and an attractive mother, Virginia Cartwright (Sally Eilers). The family is well off. Paul lately has been having dreams, disturbing dreams, of his father telling him to take care of his mother, to be wary of a shadowy someone who is coming into her life. Paul confides in an old friend of the family, Dr. Martin Vincent (Regis Toomey), who tries to calm Paul but who also respects Paul's intelligence. Paul is, in fact, smart and resourceful. Then one day Paul's mother introduces him to Brett Curtis (Warren William), a smooth, gracious man Paul feels he's met before. Curtis and his mother announce that they plan to wed.

Paul becomes suspicious of Curtis and Curtis' association with Professor Muhlbach (Charles Arnt), a psychologist who runs an exclusive and very private sanitarium. Before long, Paul becomes a "guest" in the place so that he can investigate Muhlbach and Curtis. But things begin to go wrong. It becomes a race to see if Paul can break away, if Dr. Vincent can convince the police that there may be a link between the death of Paul's father and the team of Curtis and Muhlbach, and if Paul and some of his friends can get to the lake cottage where Curtis has gone with Paul's sister.

James Lydon had a great success as a child actor, especially playing in the Henry Aldrich films. He was typecast as a gawky, friendly, well-intentioned kid. Strange Illusion was an attempt by him to break out of those roles as he grew older. He's not a gifted enough actor to carry the weight of the movie, but he certainly gives the role all he's got. He's no embarrassment. The acting interest, however, comes from Charles Arnt and, especially, Warren William. Arnt gives the professor a great gloss of smiling insincerity. He's unethical down to his polished fingernails.

Warren William really shines. William was a tall, broad-shoulder man with a profile that out- Barrymored Barrymore's. He had a creamy baritone voice and a smooth manner. Although he was in private life a shy man long-married to one woman, in movies he became typed as a charming rotter. He was big stuff in the early Thirties, but by the late Thirties had slowly moved down to B movies. In Strange Illusion, at 51, his profile was still as sharp as a crease, but his face was beginning to look its age. His eyes were a little puffy and pouched, the jaw line not quite so firm. With the Curtis character, William's face looks like dissipation. As soon as we see Brett Curtis walk into Virginia Cartwright's parlor to be introduced to Paul, we know this man is as insincere as a head waiter. Later, while we watch him try to sweet-talk Virginia into to an early marriage, all the while subtly looking over the daughter, we know the ghost in Paul's dream was right on. William does a fine job showing us a creepy, dangerous charmer.

Ulmer starts the movie with the dream sequence. It's B movie special effects but it serves the purpose of getting us into Paul's mind and preparing us to believe in Paul. Be forewarned. There's a brief dream sequence at the end which verges on the icky.


I've recently seen "Strange Illusion". It's a film that I had been wanting to see for a while. Considering it came from the low-budget studio PRC, I didn't know if it would be one of their better, mediocre or worst films. It's not one of their worst, but it just about reaches the PRC level of mediocrity. It seemed like it had an interesting plot. Jimmy Lydon plays a young man who is convinced that his mother's new beau is a killer. He's enlists the aid of a doctor friend to help him solve the mystery which surrounds the household. Jimmy Lydon has had a memorable career as "Henry Aldrich" in the popular 1940's series. He was seen in many other films and in the classic "Life With Father". However, he is served with a somewhat juvenile script here and, at one point in the film, is given a few lines of 1940's teenage vernacular to speak! It is very strange to see him suddenly break away from his normal way of speaking and start using this vernacular on his girlfriend. He says things like "Hello, vixen. What's mixin'?" and "Are ya missin' my kissin'?"! Strange, indeed! I wonder what PRC was thinking! Warren William is good, as usual, portraying the mother's sinister new beau. It's unfortunate that a little more thought about plot, suspense and dialog didn't go into this film. It could have been a much better film. For it's brief length, it seems overlong and much too uneventful. I would suggest seeing this film only if you must, but you can certainly find much better low-budget thrillers out there!


This was a good acting role for James Lydon, as a mature young man protecting his mother. But, one wonders, is he too protective?

Paul Cartwright becomes weary when his mother starts dating again, one year after his fathers tragic death. The man is smooth and challenges Paul about his interest in criminology. Paul starts investigating, and comes up with interesting facts about Mr. Curtis. The story is a good one, as we unravel this mystery about the death of Paul's father. Don't miss this.


Normally speaking, the name Edgar Ulmer conjures up the idea of a good, solid film made on a shoestring budget. That was the tough part of working on Poverty Row during Hollywood's Golden Age.

I say normally speaking because Ulmer missed this one completely. He was undone by a lousy storyline and a humdrum script, and by enough plot contrivances to sink several pictures. Sorry to see Warren William down on his luck or out of money, but he turns in a better-than-routine performance in a thankless role. Jimmy Lydon also passes muster, and his career was such that he took whatever was offered after a good run in the Henry Aldrich series.

Anyone looking for a recommendation for Strange Illusion must look elsewhere as I feel it lacked plausibility and clarity. I think the fan base overrated this one.


This is a textbook on how not to get away with a crime. All the people in this movie are preposterous. The efforts made by the bad guys are so over the top and convoluted and use so much energy to get what they want, things fizzle and go out long before the end of the movie. Then there's that stupid dream. Why did he have that dream? Did he have real mental problems? Lydon is so calculating. Why can't he give people a straight answer. This is really Oedipul as well. He does have fixation on his mother (the call her the Princess). The crook has a big face and a pencil thin mustache. Anyone could have told the widow that this is a bad combination. Finally, there's that stupid malt shop talk and the way the kids interact with one another. The funniest scene in the movie is when Jimmy is talking to his friend, the Doc, and his buddy is trying to tell him something. They didn't say anything about him being deaf in his right ear. Don't get me going.


Certainly, quite early on in his career, Jimmy Lydon was "trapped" in the Henry Aldrich series and while "Life With Father" may have been his most prestigious film, "Strange Illusion" gave him his best role.

Paul Csrtwright (Jimmy Lydon) is troubled by recurring nightmares in which his dead father warns him about a stranger's evil intentions about his family. He is staying with his teacher Dr. Vincent (Regis Toomey) but feels he must go home at once to protect his mother and his sister. When he arrives home he finds his mother, Virginia (Sally Eilers) has been seeing a lot of Brett Curtis (Warren William) - a man who Paul feels uneasy about at first sight. His sister Dorothy has a great crush on him but Brett is a sinister villain with a weakness for young girls.

Paul's dream starts to come true, Dorothy receives a bracelet from Curtis, he hears a very loud concerto and then faints. He decides to investigate Curtis, with the help of the family servant, Ben (George Reed), who has never liked Curtis. Before he died, Paul's father started to investigate a shocking unsolved crime involving the drowning of a wealthy young widow. Paul has a right to be worried, Brett has a grudge against Cartwright, whose meddling stopped his plans years before - he now wants revenge. Brett's first plan is to convince Virginia to marry him and then to have Paul committed to a sanatorium. Meanwhile Paul's friend Lydia confesses that she has had a confrontation with Brett at her family pool and has always felt uncomfortable around him. Paul is keen to go to the hospital - he thinks he will find out something there as Brett is very close with the head doctor.

This was a really good movie with the dream sequences a bit of a twist on the tired old "why won't anyone believe me" style plot. Warren William made these type of roles his own - the icy exterior hiding deep feelings (in this case murderous). Sally Eilers looked lovely as the mother, caught in the middle of a suave conman and her son's concern. Both of these fine actors left the screen in the next couple of years. Again, it is a movie I would recommend.


Enjoyed viewing this 1945 film and was surprised to see Jimmy Lydon,(Paul Cartwright), star of all the "Henry Aldrich Films of 1943", who gave an outstanding role as a young man who experienced dreams that could help his mother from getting involved with a man called Brett Curtis(Warren William),"Fear", who wanted so desperately to marry his mother and enjoy the great riches she possessed. Regis Toomey, (Dr. Martin Vincent),was the only person Paul Cartwright could turn to with all his troubling dreams and did his very best to find out the real mystery to his nightmares. Paul Cartwright was placed in a mental institution and notice there was two-way mirrors in his room and tried to hang his clothing over the mirrors to prevent his being spied on. If you like a good 1940's mystery from the past, you will enjoy viewing this great Classic Film!


This minor film noir has competent direction, good cinematography, solid production values, and an imaginative story line that makes it rise above the typical crime drama of that era.

Jimmy Lyndon is excellent as a gawky college student haunted by a bizarre precognitive dream of his family and dead father, who was a judge murdered under mysterious circumstances.

Sally Eilers delivers a nuanced performance as his mother, who has fallen under the spell of a suave conniving gigolo, perfectly played by Warren William with his rich, deep, mellifluous voice and sophisticated mannerisms.

The plot twists and turns when Lyndon is sent to a mental hospital to be treated for neurosis and hallucinations under the care of a villainous psychiatrist (Charles Arnt). During his confinement, Lyndon uncovers evidence that William is a serial killer in cahoots with the psychiatrist and is preparing to strike again...

Although the entire cast delivers good performances, Lyndon and William are outstanding and well worth the price of admission.


Strange Illusion is a movie I tried to watch, but just couldn't make it all the way through. It comes off as an extremely poor attempt at a Hitchcock type movie.

The storyline itself is kind of interesting, but several factors really overwhelm that and drag the movie down:

1) the bad acting of the lead character and his teenage friends 2) the unrealistic old fashioned gee-whiz dialogue 3) simplistic camerawork 4) inappropriate and dated music in a number of scenes

There were some scenes where the music was appropriate and added a lot of tension of the situation. However, too often you were subjected to some very annoying violin music that was not needed and detracted from the experience.

I gave it an honest try, but never bothered watching it all the way through. It really was that bad...


I'd seen only the great films from the 30's by this director, before enjoying this first color film from 1955. It is a light work with some sombre undertones from the military setting: we are after all in the summer of 1914, and the gallant young officers will soon be facing the terrors of the Great War. Clair reminds us that this world has vanished into the mists of time by the careful use of pastels--lavender, gray, pink--and by the camera receding into the distance: you hardly ever see a close up, most shots are long or medium. Leon Barsacq did a wonderful job as production designer; this is one of the best designed films I can remember seeing from this period.

Gerard Philipe is the best Armand you could wish for--he's brave and skilled as a soldier and incredibly immature as a man. The idea that you can carry on affairs with five women at a time is no more than a logistical problem for him. Michele Morgan plays her part so well; she's got to be mature and responsible (she's a divorcée, and hasn't been long in this town). Her heart is pulling her in a direction her mind doesn't want to go. Jean Desailly reminds me once again that he's one of the finest French actors: his Victor isn't a stuffy bourgeois, his heart is with Marie-Louise and he knows what a formidable opponent Armand is. Also he's got to combat the closed minds around him, notably his sisters.

Les Grandes manoevres can be compared to Rules of the Game, and if the Renoir classic is greater, it's because Renoir was dealing with more profound themes. I was engrossed in the story of this garrison town just the same.


This is one of the most finely crafted films of cinema's short history. Period atmosphere, costumes, sets, indoor and outdoor photography, pacing and editing are all superb. The music by Georges Van Parys is poignantly nostalgic and at the same time entertaining and light. The biggest attraction of this film, though, is the wit of its script, which could rival any comedy of Shaw or Wilde or Colette, and top them all for sheer virtuosity in the art of depicting the many faces of love, and its delivery by one of film history's most finely cast troupe of comedians. `Les Grandes Manoeuvres' is ostensibly a Gérard Philipe vehicle, full of his inimitable monologues, which lets Michèle Morgan do what she does best: suffer coldly, remotely, nobly, silently and elegantly. It is peopled by actors the likes of which this planet has rarely seen brought together, namely Jacqueline Maillan and Lise Delamare as Jean Desailly's wicked, two-faced, possessive sisters who marry the feline elegance of beasts of prey with the evil but colourful personality of Walt Disney's Cinderella's wicked stepmother. It features some of the most beautiful women of the planet: Morgan, Bardot, Dany Carrel, Magali Noël. The men are also physically and mentally highly idealized. This film is rarely shown and therefore largely unappreciated. It is only available on DVD in a pristine transfer in French only on a Brigitte Bardot boxset from Quebec (imavision.com) comprising seven films of various worth ranging from this unqualified masterpiece to more lowly efforts to Fellini-Malle-Vadim's `Histoires extraordinaires'. This film is so good it is probably worth learning French to understand all its subtleties and absorb its unique charm. It makes all of René Clair's preceding efforts, even the most poetically imaginative like `Beauties of the Night', look like immature doodles or preliminary sketches.


This finely crafted movie takes us convincingly back to the France of some 100 years ago. Against the setting of a small provincial town, it shows how its prominent citizens mix up with the officers of the local cavalry regiment. Citizenry is represented here by the excellent female star Michèle Morgan, the military equally well by actor Gérard Philipe. The magnificent interaction between the two of them makes this movie going: Morgan, playing a divorced Parisienne running a ladies' fashion shop, has herself seduced at last by officer Philipe's tireless efforts. But at that very moment their relationship takes a turn for the worse.

Their tragedy gets more dimension, and is softened at the same time by the succesful development of another love. A young local girl (Brigitte Bardot) finds her cavalry officer, played by Yves Robert. The sincere human warmth between them contrasts with the stiff etiquette in the Morgan/Philipe-affair.

'Les grandes manoeuvres' (= the big army-excercises) is a very well made movie. I only think it a little too mechanical, as director René Clair forces you to watch it with hardly any emotions. Not even Brigitte Bardot is able to change that.


A French army regiment, resplendent in colorful uniform, is quartered in a French provincial town for summer exercises. As this detachment first enters the town marching in order down its main thoroughfare, a beautiful woman (Michele Morgan) appears on the balcony of her fashion shop and catches the eye of the regiment's dashing and handsome Lothario who has already compiled a notorious string of conquests (Gerard Philipe). This gives rise to a bet by his fellow soldiers with him, when the soldiers reach their barracks, that this time he will not be able to seduce this woman. He launches a spirited campaign for her, designed to sweep her off her feet, but becomes so ensnared in her charms that he completely loses his mind and falls genuinely and madly in love with her, forgetting totally about the bet and wanting only her. The high point of his fortunes is reached when, practically on bended knee, he protests to her that he does not love her for only a few days or a few weeks but for his whole life. She is on the point of yielding to his entreaties when she learns of the bet. The denouement is exquisite torture as she is unable to credit his protestations any longer notwithstanding that she passionately desires to, he is in effect impaled to his hurt on the thorns of his past, she ends by returning to the fat husband with greasy ringlets of curls from whom she'd been divorced and who appears totally unworthy of her, and the regiment marches out of town at the end of summer. There are comic interludes of great charm and even some hilarity, as well as all the brilliance and wit that make a French movie a French movie, but all in all this is a sentimentalist's dream of a production in which the adorable loveliness of Michele Morgan is at its dazzling height.


Is it possible to hurt those who are incorrigibly superficial? Probably. In René Clair's Les Grandes Manoeuvres, an amusing film of manners, morals and seduction, you can watch how to do it in style.

Lieutenant Armand de la Verne (Gerard Philipe) is a dashing young officer of the 33rd Dragoons. His regiment is based in a small provincial French town. The time is well before World War I. de la Verne has a reputation of having seduced just about every daughter, wife and mistress among the town's grande bourgeoisie and petit nobility, not to mention their maids and a number of night club singers. He's charming, confident, light-hearted and may even mean some of those endearments and pledges he whispers, at least when he's whispering them. His regiment will be going on maneuvers in 30 days, and a wager is placed between his friends in the regiment and their civilian friends. A woman will be chosen at random, and if Armand has not seduced her before the regiment leaves, he and his friends will pay for a sumptuous farewell dinner. If he succeeds, their friends will pay. Armand is supremely confident. So are his friends. The woman turns out to be Marie-Louise Riviere (Michelle Morgan), single, divorced and the proprietor of a millinery shop. The women of the town have been polite toward her but suspicious. She is, after all, an outsider and divorced. A reputation can be extraordinarily fragile when upper-class gossips start whispering together. Not only does Lt. de la Verne begin finding reasons to be gallant toward Madame Riviere, so does Victor Duverger (Jean Desailly), a cautious citizen of the town who is just as worried about his own reputation. He has two sisters who don't approve. Marie-Louise has no wish to see her reputation ruined, despite all those who are observing and who love to have something to talk about behind their fans. Then, to Armand's befuddlement, in the process of seduction he begins to fall in love. By then, everyone is aware of his attempts with Marie- Louise, and all his well-worn (and previously successful lines) are repeated with laughter by his friends, by the women he has seduced and in some cases even by those he didn't. Marie- Louise hears the whispers...even worse, she learns of the wager. This movie which is so stylish, which glows and smiles with such elegant artificiality, has a decidedly ironic ending.

The movie is permeated with a gorgeous sense of unreality. The costumes and colors are vibrant; the scenes in the town streets, the drawing rooms, the ball rooms are almost like exquisite drawings. The officers strut along in their red pants, polished black boots and stiff collars. It's apparent that to be a success as an officer one must dance well. Michelle Morgan is a vision with her long neck, blond hair and enigmatic eyes. Gerard Philipe, however, is the center of the story. He's a seducer, a happy comrade, a man who loves a challenge in love and is unafraid of a challenge for a duel. He is so completely superficial that his growing acquaintance with love and his final look at a pair of closed shutters is touching. Gerard Philipe was one of France's greatest actors and leading men in the Fifties. He was 33 when he made this film. He was dead four years later. He said he was feeling poorly and went to his doctors for a check up. They discovered he had cancer of the liver. He died weeks later at the age of 37.

And for those whose pulse may not quicken at the thought of watching a foreign language film, remember that René Clair worked in Hollywood during WWII (and was stripped of his French citizenship by the Vichy government). Look for I Married a Witch, It Happened Here and And Then There Were None.


This is late Rene Clair but none the worse for that. The first thing you notice is the color; pastel to a fault so that even the bright red trousers of the dragoons seem somehow muted. There's an unreal quality about the whole thing so that the overall effect is like watching a marionette show under water. The next thing you notice is the toytown quality of the sets, reminiscent of the castle in Les Visiteurs du Soir, the whole town, interior and exterior looks as though it never needs sweeping or cleaning. The plot needn't detain us - the one about the babe magnet who either wagers himself or else his colleagues wager on his behalf that he can seduce (in the early 40s and The Fleet's In, the GI only had to KISS the girl to win the bet) a girl selected at random by a given date has been around since they were writing with papyrus - because it's Style not Content we've come to see and we don't go away frustrated. What we have here is one of the great beauties of French cinema - two if you want to stretch a point and include Gerard Philippe, who was about one generation ahead of Alain Delon in the Pretty Boys Who Can Also Act school - wearing exquisite clothes, smiling her exquisite smile (eat your heart out, Julia Roberts) and suffering as exquisitely as only Michele Morgan could. Against all the odds, plot one step up from total cliché, mannered acting, predictable outcome, etc, we keep on watching and more than that, watch it again and again. Let's face it, on a Clair day you can see forever.


Ninja Bachelor Party is undoubtedly the crowning achievement of Sacred Cow Productions, a group of comedians and assorted nuts originally headed up by the late Bill Hicks.

With nothing to do with a bachelor party but plenty to do with ninjas, it is the story of loserly Robitussin addict Clarence Mumford's quest to be a ninja warrior. Not everyone will understand the finer points of some of the humor, but the hilarious voice-overs and the practice of recycling scenes are undeniably funny. The climactic fight scene is great fun, with plenty of poorly-executed slapstick and general ridiculousness. Ninja Bachelor Party is a joke all the way through, including the credits. At half an hour long, you can't afford not to try it out.

Just don't expect to take much away from this film... not recommended for mature audiences.