This film had the ingredients to be great--both the fight director and the main star of Versus, which I love--but they made a totally forgettable movie. The villains were uninteresting, the characters were one dimensional, and all the cool concepts weren't executed well at all. For instance, there was a bad guy in the beginning with a huge sword like Cloud's in FF7. He died almost immediately after swinging it around a few times.

The director and star were so pretentious in the Making Of documentary. "Period dramas are a staple of Japanese cinema, so we decided to do something completely different with it, to reinvent it and create a type of action never seen before!" The costumes were all weird, Gothic, and in some cases, almost futuristic. I thought this had potential since it was really stylized. I had my doubts about the heat seeking missile from a samurai's rocket launcher, but it was the motorcycle that ruined it for me. Cause if there's one thing that period pieces are lacking in, it's motorcycles. They put some chains on it, which did nothing. Anachronisms can work wonderfully in historical fantasy, but this time it was plainly obvious that the filmmakers were trying desperately to be cool and failing.

My biggest problem was the fight choreography, especially after seeing it executed so well in Versus. The star, Tak Sakaguchi, is a fighter in real life who was brawling in the streets before Ryuhei Kitamura found him and cast him in Versus. No wonder he's a good stuntman! In this film, he decided to come up with "a new type of action never seen before!" The underlying principle of this amazing revolution of action cinema? Actually hitting people. That's his idea, his contribution to stuntwork. First of all, it's common practice in Hong Kong cinema where contact is required, and they usually use shields under their clothing. So his "innovation" is nothing new. Does this "new kind of action" add anything to the film? Not at all. For one, I didn't even notice he was actually hitting people. The difference was imperceptible. Here's the stupid part--it actually looked worse. Rather than choreograph something really cool like an exchange of blocks, dodges, punches, and kicks with maybe some acrobatics, his "revolutionary new technique" consisted of him just doing rapid fire punches to the torsos of the poor stuntmen who had to work with him. The sword work was the same back and forth swings little kids do when they play sword fight. I'm not kidding. Almost all of the fight scenes consisted of one hit kills on disposable bad guys with the same back and forth motion. No variation. No high and low. No fancy spins. Just back and forth. They used wire work and occasional camera tricks to spice it up, but many of the sequences were done in long shot, which made it glaringly obvious that a circle of opponents was approaching one at a time to be punched ten times in the chest in real life, then die. At least cover that stuff up with close ups and editing.

Additionally, the plot was incoherent. I kept expecting a moment where all would be revealed, but it never came. It's not even symbolic or profound. The star himself said, "When I read the fourth draft, I thought that it was absolute crap! So thought I would save it with my acting." (This was the fourth draft?! Oh my God!) And his efforts didn't work. Especially since he plays the same character in every movie: the anime badass who is annoyed all the time and says "Urusei!" to everybody. I think the best part, action-wise was when they had a capoeira guy do some cool inverted kicks and handstands and flips. Then he was dispatched by the actor punching him in real life.

The only thing that roped me in when I started watching was the production design. All of the costumes and props showed great potential for something really interesting and original, then failed to deliver on that promise. And I didn't know the "zombie" enemies were even zombies until they were called that in the documentary. They didn't look like zombies at all; they were just moaning people dressed all in black with silly hoods over their heads. I don't mean that to be dismissive of their costumes--their hoods were quite silly by hood standards; they resembled a jester's hat.

Fans of a good Gothic fantasy set in ancient Japan will be disappointed since the filmmakers only implied a plot without coming up with one. Last time I checked, the movie in which Tak Sakaguchi played a battle-loving badass who had a hidden reserve of power foreshadowed throughout the film only to be revealed at the climax was called Versus. After five years, the best they can come up with is Versus minus the story and fight choreography set in a different time period. I hope they're proud. Action connoisseurs will be very disappointed since the fight choreography is uninteresting and repetitive 90% of the time. It's sad when the best fight scene in the film is the one with the gun, and not the hand to hand exchanges or swordfights. If you're not picky about violence and just want to see an actor beat stuntmen uninterestingly, then this film is for you.

Frankly, I felt betrayed.


This film discards everything known about movie-making and starts from scratch. Don't get me wrong though, it's not refreshing. It's a pile of junk. Story? Exposition? Acting? Soundtrack? Well-choreographed action sequences? A coherent ending? All missing. The visual effects aren't even up to par with movies made 10 years ago. To sum up the movie's plot in a few sentences, a coffin gets stolen from a monastery and people want to get it back. This movie is nothing but a poor (VERY POOR) excuse for Tak Sakaguchi and gang to dress up pretty. As far as the eye candy goes, it's not bad. Warning though, non-sequiturs abound. Rifles disguised as swords? Pretty cool. A bamboo rocket launcher? Wicked. A full out dirt bike? WHAT THE ****? Unfortunately, none of the above warrant spending the two hours to watch this film. I had to space it out over three days.

Oh wait, there is one reason to watch this film. If you look closely at the hero's sword, you'll see that it's a giant throbbing penis; head, veins, shaft, and all. No kidding. Giant. Throbbing. Penis.


It was good in the sense that it kept you interested somewhat because you are watching it to figure out what in the world is going on. There is no plot, there is no reasoning to what and why things are going on. You don't know what era you're in and you don't know who the characters are and where they are from or why they are there. The movie is a mix of everything. But there is a lot of action but it's nothing to be excited about. You won't love it neither will you hate it, but its a watchable movie. In terms of setting it is almost like Lord of the Rings being that it takes place in a forest but with swords and swords that shoot like guns and one person had a motorbike. The best way I can describe this movie is Lord of the Rings meets Inuyasha meets Zombies meets Vampires, meets Samurai Jack gone completely wrong. LOL, hope that helps!


Not even the title "Versus 2", under which it did play at the Fantasy Filmfest in Stuttgart/Germany, could fool anybody, that this is more than a piece of crap. Only thing this has in common with Versus, is the main actor here.

Other than that, don't look for a decent script (for a b-movie that is, not an actual movie, of course) nor decent acting nor decent humour nor decent anything. It's just plain stupid. And it's a shame, because it does start promising enough and there is a funny moment here and there ... but not nearly enough to grant this movie more than two stars ... it's still a waste of time!


I must say, i was quite disappointed with this one, as versus was sooooo great. This one is justlike a coffee , brewed up a second or third time, and it tastes bad.....i prefer to watch the original versus 100 times than this crap. the whole movie bored the hell out of me, while versus was so great and crazy, loaded with anticipation for whats to come in the next second all the way through, this is just lame....sorry, i cant tell you to go see this in the cinema or even rent the DVD, i really cant. ........... ........ ........... ...................... xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

awful awful awful


*** May contain spoilers. ***

Certainly, serious talent and skill came to bare in producing SCANDAL - JOSEON NAMNYEO SANGYEOLJISA (UNTOLD SCANDAL). The photography and direction are far above average. Set design, costumes, acting and music are all blended together with polish and flare.

Unfortunately, the story does not ring true. Surely in his life the seducer would have come across young ladies far, far, more innocent and sincere than the lady he sort of comes to love. There was nothing unique or special about her. In fact, she was so distrustful that she seemed more worldly than many. And that the seducer left her to seek sex with his kissing cousin points more to him never loving her at all.

Another problem is that all of the seduced young people in this film are always exactly dumb enough or inert enough to be tricked at every turn. The seduced people were boring puppets.

The story is introduced from a fictional book, and is told from the dead seducer's point of view (using his voice over at the end). The story is clearly presented as a unbelievable fantasy. Professional reviewers see UNTOLD SCANDAL as being a comedy? I agree with the amateur reviewers -- UNTOLD SCANDAL is a comedy for sadists. The fantasy is ugly and unpleasant. It is entertainment for the cruel.

Apply the photography, direction, acting, set design, costumes and music to a better story, and then we could have a world class movie.


This is a typical Chuck Norris film and typical 80's action film. It follows a simple and commercially successful script: Lots of action scenes, lots of nudity, one liners, plenty of stunts and some moments of pure fantasy.

This film is great for those wanting to sit with popcorn and watch a film where you know what you're going to get. But this film sacrifices a lot of realism to achieve it. Scenes of helicopters making outrageous pick ups or so many Vietnamese henchmen with poor aims when it comes to shooting Chuck are some examples. This film is pure action based, as the movie went on, it was action sequence after action sequence and personally, I was fed up with too much.

There is so much wrong with this film technically and is you want to watch a clever, powerful dramatic and original action film ,then this isn't for you. If you want to watch a predictable, satisfying, simple adrenaline fuelled kill-fest, then you'll like this.


This must rate as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Norris is appalling and hardly says a word in the entire film. Almost laughable if it wasn't trying to be serious. Very poor.


Hilarious! There is not another word to describe this film. I remember I've seen this when I'm 15 and I could not get a ticket to another film. This weekend I rented it  just to review what i already thought, 20 years ago, it was a disaster. It was a period of ufanistic productions where one hero could destroy anything that threats America or its ideal of freedom. Films like Rambo II, Red Dawn, Commando or Rocky IV looked seen to be wrote by someone at Reagan's office, but at least they had some qualities. This Braddock had none. Chuck Norris leads the scariest cast of all times (M Emmet Walsh should be punished to do a film like that - how come he had done Blood Simple later?). The screenplay does not make any sense (Braddock kills a character vital to the story  a big shot Vietnam general  and there are no consequences), the action scenes are primary (the sequence with the boat  that should be the climax! - seems to be shot by high school students), the cinematography is awful (mixing up sequences on a bright day and others made on a numb one). So... if you want to remember how the action movies in the 80's were disastrous without its great icons (Stallone and Schwarzenneger), take a look at Braddock... I only wonder if "Invasion USA" is even worse...but that you can tell me.


I saw this on TV and still somehow feel like I'm owed a monetary refund.

Of course that may be in part because I'm a fan of the Rambo series and am offended by cheap knock-offs. Actually I'd like to see a Celebrity death match with Rambo and Braddock, though it wouldn't be much of a fight.

And then there's good old Chuck Norris, who for some reason a few people find entertaining, but honestly, the greatest entertainment he gives me is the "Chuck Norris Facts".

This film is pretty easy to laugh at though, but I don't think it was meant to be funny. If you don't believe me, just try not to bust a gut when you see the last frame of the movie.


I was staying over-seas with nothing to do. As i searched through the rented room, all i found was Missing in Action. After popping it in I couldn't stop watching. I have never laughed harder at a movie since watching this. This movie was utterly ridiculous. The first scene alone made me fall out of my chair. This is the cheesiest and fakest movie EVER! I'm not saying it's even decent as a movie, at all, but it sure is funny to watch.


My expectations for muscle movies aren't that high - but this one failed miserably to even come close to meeting those low expectations.

This is a piece of exploitation, trying to build on popular sentiments over the possibility of US POWs in Vietnam, but without showing enough respect for its subject to make a decent movie. Instead, we are offered offensive stereotypes (the weasel politician, the noble veteran, the trusty sidekick, the so-evil arch-enemies) and idiotic plotting.

Even the action scenes fall flat - the hero is so heroic (if careless, walking into traps over and over again), the villains so incompetent, that there's never any suspense. Braddock just goes through the motions, because that's what the plot calls for.

Rating: forget this one - watch Rambo instead.


For those of you who have not seen this film, do not waste your time. Especially if you have seen Rambo II, as Bronson seems to visit the same POW camps in Vietnam that Stallone/Rambo did in his film. They both have the same plot line: Revisit Vietnam and this time we will actually win it.

Very unrealistic and very idealistic. the Hero Vietnam vet is tortured by memories of his days of captivity in Vietnam. He must go back and rescue the other POW's. he does this with the help of one friend (who he looses along the way, just like Rambo) and therefore wins the war for America.

For those of you who would like to fool yourself into believing that the United States actually won the Vietnam War, this would be a great film for you to see!


Let's just hope he stays Missing in Action along with this movie. If you're going to watch this movie get ready to say to yourself, "What a big copy off Rambo". This movie tries to make Chuck Norris seem like a state of the art stealth soldier. I mean how hidden can you be when your camoflaged in black and your hiding against a white building. Let's not forget to mention how this movie views people from Vietnam. You can tell that the script writer must have some hatred towards them. Another major factor was the amount of unnecessary nudity within this movie. One meet Chuck is talking to a guy, the next you see some man bring a naked women on top of the table. If you are under the age of 18, you should not watch this movie. Heck, if your under the age of 99 you should not watch this movie.


Former `Nam veteran goes back into the jungle to save American POWs from nasty commie scum . Hey didn`t Sly Stallone .... ?

Believe it or not this film managed to offend me more than RAMBO:FIRST BLOOD PART 2 . Both films show the Vietnamese as being cruel , stupid incompetent communist vermin but MIA shows a Vietnamese general begging for his life like a sobbing schoolgirl . I`ve read a lot about the war in South East Asia from a myriad of American sources , everything from Jane Fonda to Soldier Of Fortune magazine and there`s many different angles as to what observers thought of the VC but they all agree on one thing - There were no cowards in the Viet Cong . I was also taken aback with seeing the concept of the Vietnamese secret police travelling to Thailand to bump off our hero like an oriental KGB , sorry but I was under the impression the Vietnamese just wanted to be left alone and wouldn`t have the inclination to bump off Americans in foreign lands , but why let reality get in the way of a film that screams America good , pinko commie scum bad .

When this film was released in 1984 more than a third of the world`s population lived under a communist system . You`ve got to wonder if there`s a connection between the two


MISSING IN ACTION is one of those "God Bless America!"-themed, war-mongering movies made after the Vietnam War in order to cash in on the newfound pseudo-patriotism of the average American citizen (just like what happened after the September 11th attacks). It is your typical action vehicle, made in the wake of films like RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD, with all the thoughtless racist overtones you'd expect. Chuck Norris's performance here is pretty much the exact same one he's always delivered, but as anyone who's seen a Norris flick knows, that's NOT a good thing. Come to think of it, Norris's character Braddock is the most shallow, underdeveloped role I have ever seen him play. It blows my mind to think that this was a box office hit, but then again, we Americans seem to have a pension for paying top dollar for moron-entertainment. Bottom line: MISSING IN ACTION has absolutely no value whatsoever (entertainment, artistic, or otherwise), and should be avoided at all costs.


Chuck Norris stars as Col James Braddock a Vietnam vet who goes behind Vietnam to save American P.O.Ws and wipe out his enemies in this strictly routine yet very popular bodycount flick which appeals to die hards of the genre. Not as bad as movies like this get, but not good either, watch Rambo:First Blood Part II instead.


Chuck Norris is a terrible actor. He may be good at that karate stuff that he does, but that's all he has going for him. Well, I guess the ladies like his body (I know of a couple who do). The story stinks, the acting stinks, the special effects are decent, but pretty much everything else about this film stinks. It smacks of patriotism and tries to strike that chord in the viewer. It fails at that by being just plain blatant. Overall, a real lousy film. Don't waste your time.


Missing in Action (1984) was the first in the Col. Braddock series. Shot in the Phillipines (yes, with Filipinos playing Vietnamese). This Cannon Films Production launched the "bring back the P.o.w.s" genre during the mid 80's. Chuck Norris plays Col. Braddock, an unconventional officer who'll do anything to "bring back the boys that were all but forgotten". Filled with mindless chop-socky and very uninspired action scenes, Missing in Action is a movie for die-hard Chuck Norris fans, lovers of Cannon Films or Grade Z action films. Watch Chuck break international law and defy the laws of logic and realism in Missing In Action!!!

Terminally bad Chuck Norris film. But a masterpiece compared to it's nonsensical sequels. Chuck doesn't even dress or have the presence of an officer. I mean who would take this person seriously? Not recommended for viewing unless A.) You and your friends want to watch a bad movie or B.) You're too lazy to change the channel because you lost your remote. If I were you I would get up and change it manually.

Not recommended.

Filipinos don't even look like Vietnamese people.


Hard to believe this kind of movie could have such success ! I saw this as a kid and was appalled. I remember one scene when somebody shoots a machine-gun at Norris for two minutes and not a single bullet approaches him ! Worse for an action movie, the pace is snail-like and there's not an ounce of tension.


No matter what you think of Chuck Norris, this is the movie the legend and 'facts' are based on! Of course it is a bad, stupid action movie. But besides that you see just how tough Chuck is. He doesn't drink beer out of a glass - the bottle only, He can take out a whole unit of a foreign army by putting on black clothes, and he sure as $hit doesn't shake hands with commie vietnamese generals, - he's tough, he's hardcore to the bone, he's Chuck Norris.

The plot is great for an action movie - Its the early 1980s, and POWs are still being held in viet nam. Chuck knows this becuz he just got out of one. So he heads back on an official US diplomatic thing, but he has an agenda of his own - to singlehandly break out POWs that are still being held. Go Chuck Go!


Unfortunately this movie was a disappointment for this Dr. Strange fan. Long on unhelpful (and not per the original) back story and too short on actual story, the film failed to capture all of the wonder and "strange"ness of the original comic book series. I know because I collected them all. Realization of Strange's character is okay as far as it goes, which is not far, but the romance and the family backplot are unnecessary and consume far too much of the film. Dormammu is poorly realized and Mordo is one-dimensional (or two-dimensional in the case of this not-so-sophisticated animated comic book film). Dr. Gina Atwater is an unnecessary addition as well which to the best of my recollection, without referring to my series collection, was never an element of any importance whatsoever. Throughout the comic book series, Dr. Strange gave a much stronger impression of willful mastery of magic, yet here he is rather the reluctant hero, which was never present in the original. The Eye of Agamoto is misrepresented and other devices usurp its place in the Strange mythos. All in all, this Strange fan was sadly disappointed in a film which seems sloppily tossed-off without careful consideration for the original source as well as a rather Saturday morning effort on the part of the filmmakers towards the technical side of the film. In fact, this SHOULD have been a Saturday morning offering for the kiddies, and not a theatrical offering.


(contains a very minor spoiler)

This year at the Toronto film festival I decided to do the patriotic thing and see some films from my native land. This, unfortunatly was one of them.

The problem with this film is not that it is so bad, but it could have been good. The acting is superb and the whole film has an interesting visual look. Unfortunatly, the script is a mess. The plot is predictable at best and ludicrous at its worst. The characters act without motivation of any kind. Example: a teenaged youth decides to live with his biological mother who he has just met and run away from his adopted mother. He has an excellent relationship to his adoptive mother, his adoptive father isn't in the picture so he isn't a factor, and the mother provides much for him. Yet for some unknown reason he runs away. At no point does he show any form of resentment towards his biological mother and at no time does he show any signs of being angry at his adoptive mother. Speaking as a teenager, we might be irrational but this is just insane.

Also, the past that the main characters share is revealed badly and many of the flashbacks have little to do with the film. The main idea of a woman who was raped seeking revenge on the people who did it isn't bad. The idea that she would do this by simply calling one of them up and annoying him is. The character who helped to rape her, Max seems filled with guilt at some times and others he acts as though she is an old girlfriend who is simply pesky.

There are other problems, like a tendancy of the director to be so ambiguous that some scenes tell you absolutely nothing. The film is also filled with many superfluous characters who add nothing and simply confuse the story (something the rest of the script achieves quite well). The ending feels as though it has been tacked on from another film. It resolves little and again is completely unmotivated. Overall, the film is confusing and the plot unjustified. But it looks nice and that's all that seemed to matter to some members of the audience. I wasn't one of them.


With FC Venus it is a rare pleasure/torture to see a film which is partially well done and partially awful. The pleasure is that all the scenes that are about the soccer game are carefully worked with a good amount of dramatics and game technicalities. The torture is that everything else in the movie is just painful watching.

A good load of fine actors don't really improve a film if directing is terrible; the dialogue is lost in a messy scene of too many people waiting one to recite some limping lines that are supposed to be funny. It is difficult to concentrate on the dialogue as the speaking voice is taped so poorly that it makes you feel that you are completely outsider in regards to the film events. No close shots to speakers and no idea what is generally going on. A lot of talk about sex is used to replace more usual humor. The cameo by Aki Riihilahti and Mikael Forssell looks only embarrassing in this context.

It seems that the movie makers have been too much concentrated to train the bunch of actors to love and play soccer because they have forgotten to finish the drama part of the movie. If that was to hint how much more fun sports is than movies I think it shouldn't have been done this way. The match day is worth watching but it may render you only sad because everything that comes before it is rather unpleasant.


Animated children's movies should really stick to real fairy tales rather than manufacturing them out of grim novels and grimmer history. Making a fairy tale out of one of the grimmest of twentieth century events and completely destroy any resemblance to well documented history is a crime against history, its victims and the children it grossly misinforms. Rasputin was not a supernatural evil wizard/demon. He was killed before the revolution. He had no part in the murder/assassination of the Romanov's or Anastasia's fate. Where is the Leninist terror? Where is the truth about what happened to Anastasia's family, even if even now no one can be completely sure about Anastasia herself? This movie is being made in an era when the Anastasia/Anna Andersen hoax on which the Bergman movie was based has been exposed via genetic testing. There is no excuse for cluttering children's minds with such nonsense given the cruel brutal facts of history.

This is not a classic fairy tale, nor a bible epic, it is just a really contemptible idea for an entertainment vehicle. There is also no reason it could not be translated to a fiction time and place without connection to actual events and then be a successful movie without the baggage.

What's next?

The happy holocaust survivor a la "Life is Beautiful" complete with singing, dancing camp inmates, and humorous bumbling guards? And perhaps big smiling ovens!

How about the adventures of a sweet young thing with a big princess attitude that barely got out of the World Trade Center with her hunky young hero just before a giant flying demon Bin Laden reduces the buildings to rubble with blast of his powerful satanic breath?

Rating of 2 is for the unquestionably good looking product and the work of the voice actors that was wasted on it, leaving some room at the bottom for totally unredeemable works.

The movies should stick to established fairy tales, and leave making up modern ones to politicians and their spin doctors, for example: We come as liberators, that's why we are building a dozen or two permanent bases in your country!


By no means should this movie be called "The Razor's Edge." That this movie uses that title demeans the excellent novel so well crafted by the novelist W. Somerset Maugham. Part of what makes the book wonderful is the frame narration by an outside source--so that Larry is always just a construction by another, a person we never really know, who remains as mysterious as his quest and his sense of enlightenment. With Murray's movie, we don't even have the character who is supposed to tell the story--it is like trying to film The Great Gatsby, except without Nick Carraway.

The movie transmogrifies the wonderful qualities that Maugham invests in Larry--an indescribable smile that shows the warmth and generosity of his heart; a spirit that never rises to anger, that gives in a Christ-like manor which suggests the purest version of altruism known, untainted by self-interest; an elusive sort that we never can encapsulate--and changes them into Murray's own strong suits: witty retorts directed at dull people, low emotion alcoholism coupled with outbursts, clowning for the camera. Murray's Larry is not the pure soul who captivated a famous writer--he is the man from "Ghostbusters," trying every now and then to be serious. Many of these qualities are anathema to the character he is to be portrayingand I was hoping to see some completely different side of Bill.

The plot changes are ridiculous: Larry drives an ambulance instead of flying a plane; he goes with Gray rather than by himself; Sophie and her husband are married at the beginning rather than later; Larry and Isabel sleep with each other; Sophie's a prostitute instead of a whore and she falls truly in love with Larry rather than dutifully, as she does in the novelthe only way that her leaving him makes sense. Isabel's indiscrete shouting in a dignified restaurant wrecks the grace of her character; the confrontation between Sophie and Isabel is maddeningly trite and destructive to any subtlety that the movie might wish to preserve. Gray, rather than being the commonplace everyman, is instead some spidery sort supposedly war-mates with Larrya foolish depth to a relationship better left at its tenuous state, as the book does. In order for Larry's character to make sense, he needs to be left alone during the war, rather than have some mate from Chicago there to observe his transition.

The end result is a palate of flat, rather dull characters who belong to a soap opera rather than the host created by Maugham, individuals who make poor decisions at times, but who, nonetheless, we can never wholly condemn. In the book, our ethereal vision of Larry is tempered by the compassionate portraits of Suzanne and Elliot and Gray and Isabel and Sophie. In the movie, we must subsist wholly on an unbelievable Murray playacting for the camera but never even approximating the earnestness and rigor of Maugham's Larry.


this was a horrible disappointment, with equally terrible acting, direction and screenplay. it's so bad one can't help thinking it's somehow a comedic takeoff on the Maugham book, but the punch line never arrives. there is a reason as to why it failed - it's worse than a TV movie. they shamelessly butcher the Maugham classic - reducing it to a charmless mess. the characters have none of Maugham's depth or interest, and are reduced to one dimension. it was extremely difficult to sit through, and while i love Bill Murray, i'm sure this is some of his worst work. seems like he stepped out of Saturday Night Live sketch. i don't know how anyone could recommend this. don't waste your time.


In this strictly paint-by-numbers direct to video thriller, Detective Max Garret (Stephen Baldwin) is assigned to protect Laura Cross (Kristy 'I STILL refuse to get nude' Swanson). Of course even though he's married to a stunning women, he feels chemistry with Laura and vice versa. It's not really that interesting when red herrings are thrown at the viewer AFTER you know who the killer is. This film was tedious to sit through and extremely uninvolving. All the actors were just going through the paces. When i found out one of the writers was responsible for the dreck known as "Naked Lies" it all clicked into place. No wonder the film was so bad. It's like a Skinamax erotic thriller WITHOUT the sex (there IS one scene but it's VERY tame) IE. totally worthless.

Eye Candy: Gladys Jimenez gets topless, but her scenes in "Blowback" were better

My Grade: D-


This clunker-stinker was just on ShowTime Too ... thank goodness I was actually working on the computer! Just hearing the insipid banter, throughout this waste of celluloid, was enough to make me actually BEG my wife to turn it off. She replied: (many times) "I can't turn away from this train-wreck!" And, yes, as noted by another poor reviewer who lost two hours of his life; even a bloated Kristy Swanson couldn't rescue this film version of nails on a blackboard. And as for Baldwin ... I don't think any explanation is needed? I would suggest that two hours of watching the Weather Channel is time better spent; you might actually catch a plot line and the ending will be far better!


I just saw a copy of this movie and it was awful. Nice camera work and clean edits made for a vast comparison with the weak plot and horrible acting by these b-movie stars. The only thing one could hope for is to see Kristy Swanson get naked, which she didn't even do (three years after her Playboy shoot she has packed on a few more pounds which is probably the reason!)

To even think of this movie as a thriller is impossible: the focus is more on the Baldwin and Swanson characters rather than developing a true thriller plot of who is killing all these people.

Overall don't waste two hours of your time, life is far too valuable.


There isn't much to say about this C-Grade "thriller" really. Released as "Betrayed" in New Zealand, the DVD cover which is a homage to "Basic Instinct" is somewhat misleading, for while "Basic Instinct" was no masterpiece, it wasn't as terrible as this film. The plot is very weak, the settings plastic, the score terrible and the dialogue cheesy. The leads, Stephen Baldwin and Kristy Swanson are just going through the motions, though they do hold the film together, and Swanson looks very healthy. The rest of the cast are appalling, in particular the actors that play Baldwin's wife and fellow detective. So unless you want to watch C-Grade "thrillers" then don't actively seek out this film.


Absolutely nothing to write home about. Why on earth anyone would hire Stephen Baldwin for anything is a mystery to me. He is obnoxious and he can't even act... Movies like this should use the opportunity and their low budgets to search and try out new faces, young undiscovered talent, and not to finance and sustain a large part of the Baldwin family...

And then Kristy Swanson... How on earth do you cast an actress who is so grossly overweight for a lead role in an erotic thriller? It just doesn't make sense, Hollywood is full of young aspiring actresses who would kill to have such a role and look ten times better... So then why? Is it just ignorance, or did somebody simply owe her a part in a movie...?

In other, there is not very much to say about this movie, it is simply bad, a waste of everybody's time and money. There isn't a single thing that can be saved from this horrible wreck, the screenplay is bad, the acting is bad, the directing is bad, the soundtrack, the cinematography... you name it. Unfortunately, there are many movies out there that are even worse, hence the three stars I awarded this one, otherwise I was tempted to rate it even lower...


"Bound By Lies" wants to be an erotic thriller and a murder mystery. It fails because it is not very erotic, not very thrilling and not very mysterious. The two stars are rather over-the-hill for the genre. Kristy Swanson is still pretty, but by no means as irresistible as she's supposed to be here. She looked really great in the mid-90's - I wish she had done this kind of role then. I wish Natassia Malthe (who plays Kristy's assistant in this film) had the leading role instead. And Stephen Baldwin is no Alec, hell he's no William either. Stephen and Kristy "do it" only once, and in that scene he shows more than her! There is an irrelevant car chase in the beginning (which was mostly lifted from another film, according to IMDb trivia), and one good scene involving a handcuffed and tied Baldwin in a bathtub, but other than that you won't find many thrills here. As for the "mystery" plot, making the most obvious suspect the actual killer can only be called "unpredictably predictable". However, I still found the film watchable enough to give it *1/2 out of 4 stars.


There are two classes of people who will love this film - Stephen Baldwin fans and Gladys Jimenez fans. All others are bound to be bored.

Baldwin plays a cop (Max Garrett) who is dangerously close to being kicked out. He is assigned to watch Laura (Kristy Swanson) and protect her from a crazed killer. You'll know who the killer is in the first five minutes, so there are only two questions to be answered: will the killer get Laura, and will Baldwin get Swanson, who continues to remain nudity-free after 55 films.

Well, there is a third question that begs to be answered: why the heck would Garrett want Swanson when he has Gladys Jimenez at home? She has no problems showing us what made her famous in films like Blowback and Secrets of a Chambermaid. She gave that up to become a soap star, but we get another view in this film.

We know that Garrett is not gay like we suspect Dr. Doolittle is, but he certainly has his priorities crossed. Get home, jerk, Jimenez is waiting!


This one was so exciting that I fell asleep about half way through, and it only runs for 30 minutes. Viewed the remainder later. What a crock of s.... The film danced around so much as to be unable to see anything. Like its trying to say, I want to show you this but you can't look at it. The melodrama of the talking heads is pathetic at best. I rated it awful just because there was nothing lower. Be glad you missed it. Its not a documentary, but a contrived piece to make you believe it is. A movie you definitely will want to miss.


This is the concluding trilogy of the original "The Blair Witch Project". Quite frankly, both "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Curse of the Blair Witch Project" are better.

"Sticks and Stones: Investigating the Blair Witch" seems/seemed to just be another way to cash in on the The Blair Witch Phenomenon, a phenomenon that is being totally milked dry.

I guess the film is ok, if you absolutely loved the first one, but this continuing trend of finding lost footage and of more interviews is/was getting annoying. There essentially is nothing new here and the performances and writing are nothing special. It is a short film that will be easily forgotten and I doubt it will be redistributed when the next line of Blair Witch 2 products come out.

As a side story, and possibly showing how doomed "Sticks and Stones: Investigating the Blair Witch" was, Blockbuster originally gave this as a free rental to "The Blair With Project". Then it was a PVT and there were so many of them that eventually the local store was selling them for 1cent with any purchase. I thought 1cent, what the heck? My recommendation to you though is to save your penny.

VOTES: The Blair Witch Project-->3: Curse of the Blair Witch Project-->6: Sticks and Stones: Investigating the Blair Witch-->2

Viewed: The Blair Witch Project--> Theatre: Curse of the Blair Witch Project--> VHS: Sticks and Stones: Investigating the Blair Witch--> VHS


This movie was the most terrible thing I've seen in my entire life. But it made the funniest MST3K episode I've seen in a long time. However, if you are a big fan of mullets, pedafiles, sketchy old prospectors, hoaky action sequences, bad teeth, hicks, and annoying squirrely kids with high voices...then see this movie!


One never knows what will be a hit, until it hits. The reason for this Disney Computer Animation's demise is simple: they strayed from the Disney formula. There were enigmatic characters, a compelling story, and great animation. There were awesome visuals, a great story, and some innovative ideas. But ... it was not fun. Actually, it was neither fun, nor funny.

Most Disney fans are prepared to learn a moral lesson whenever they sit down with the popcorn and the kiddies to view the latest Disney venture, but they are also prepared to laugh, to have fun, and to enjoy the family time. Unfortunately, Valiant fails to deliver in those three key areas.

Honestly, this WWII film didn't even manage to rally patriotism!

The visuals are striking and the story is great, but there isn't enough wit in any form to make this a "good" Disney movie. As it is? It's just a Disney movie, and it's nothing special.

It rates a 4.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Valiant, voiced by Ewan McGregor, is a small pigeon hoping to join the elite Royal Homing Pigeon Service, a group of carrier pigeons serving Her Majesty during WWII. He's finally accepted into the motley "Squad F" crew who find themselves on a dangerous mission to rescue a captured pigeon, voiced by John Cleese.

Valiant tries to appeal to both adults and kids but it ends up alienating both of them. The WWII concept is a nice idea but they really didn't do anything interesting with it. The whole idea will go over the kids since they won't be familiar with it so the film relies on cheap gags for laughs. The usual burping, crashing and lame bird jokes are all present here and only a few of them actually work. Adults and teens will probably not be pleased with the humor since it's very obvious and stupid. Luckily, the film is really short and there isn't too much to sit through. The sad part is that the three credited screenwriters couldn't even come up with enough fresh and interesting material to cover 75 minutes worth of film.

I think the main reason why the film is so lackluster is because of the weak cast. None of the actors seem to be trying and most of the characters aren't very interesting. Ewan McGregor is a pretty good actor when he appears on screen. As a voice actor, he's below average and his voice was all wrong for Valiant. Ricky Gervais gives the only interesting performance as the voice of Bugsy but he can't really save the film. John Cleese was only average and he's barely in the film. Besides for the last two, there really weren't any other notable characters or performances.

Maybe I'm being a little too harsh on the movie but the effort here was very weak. The story was very obvious and predictable. The humor was very lame and stupid. The characters were all flat and uninteresting. The best thing about the movie was the animation and that was only average. Compared to recent films like Robots and The Incredibles, the animation just didn't look very good and it hardly saves the film. In the end, Valiant is mostly a harmless film but it's also a dull one and it isn't worth watching. Rating 4/10


This was nothing to write home about, and even worse little kids won't care about anything that is happening. Quite an embarrassment and with one of the shortest running times (a little over an hour) which is actually a good thing. This story has been done thousand times over, and just about always done better. Ewan McGregor is wasted, and he tries his best with what he's given. Just a huge mistake on not using your voice cast to their full potential. It's called a script, and even the best actors can't save it. Don't waste your time or your kids time. Stick to the Pixar or even some of the Disney movies to be actually entertained. Anyone that gives this a high score needs to have their heads examined. Even a novice knows this is how not to make a good animated film.


The idea was brilliant, almost inspired, but it turned into very much of a lame duck (no pun intended) on screen. The Dickin award was and is a sort of animals VC or George Cross. In World War II (when this film is set), homing pigeons more or less cleaned up with 32 out of 54 awarded for displaying conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty whilst serving with British Commonwealth armed forces or civil emergency services (according to Wikipedia).

Now back to the movie. The trouble is that it never really managed to run (or fly) very far with the original immaculate conception. I thought that it pretty much found its level by catering for eight year-olds (of all ages) by copious amounts of burping and farting from the birdie characters, which was more or less the high point of the action. The plot (if you can call it that) was thinner than the wafer on your interval ice-cream, with the eponymous Valiant (voiced by Ewan McGregor), wanting to be a hero in the Royal Air Force Homing Pigeon Service, which flew messages about enemy movements across the English Channel. Although it may represent a (forgotten) slice of wartime history, it fails miserably to impress at the comedic level, except unintentionally: "We have ways of making you squawk" is possibly one of the worst lines ever in movie history (and I've sat through a few, I can tell you).

There are possible compensations though. Here, I'm thinking of the richest array of vocal talents never to have shown their faces on screen, probably making it one of the most expensive British voiced-over films ever. You name them and there they are. Everyone from John Cleese and Hugh Laurie to John Hurt and Rik Mayall. But then these voices are so distinctive, the problem I had was in attempting to dissociate the cartoon from his real life comedy persona. Moreover, this wasn't helped by the writers apparently trying to recreate their sitcom characters by cunning use of dialogue(certainly with the Ricky Gervais character, who sounded more like David Brent out of "The Office" than David Brent out of "The Office"). In fact, it was so predictable at times, they may just as well have got Rory Bremner to do all the voices. (Perhaps they did - that would account for Hugh Laurie coming across more like his Blackadder character than Hugh Laurie doing his Blackadder character.)

So my advice to you is not to inflict this film on yourself unless you're with (or you are) an eight year-old (of any age) desperate to spend an hour and a half out of the rain. Of course, I could be wrong and possibly this film made a lot of money at the box office. In which case I can only think that the movie-going public were shat on by the film makers from a great height. Final verdict: Bird's Custard.


I just don't want to see this WWII settled stories and concept of enemy movies anymore. Filmed a thousand times its just outdated and basically no longer funny or inventive. Even the gags are always the same, sorry.

To be fair: in this movie the characters are nice - anyway. Surely it is worth to watch it (maybe just once). It's simple shallow entertainment with mainly war related indicated gags which kids presumably cannot understand. I've no idea whether children will enjoy it, apart from the cute little birds. Technical it is a pleasure thoroughly: well designed lively figures with rims and weakness and some fine flight scenes.


This is like Rudy for the birds. In this movie Ewan McGregor plays Valiant, a young pigeon during WWII hoping to join the Royal Homing Pigeon Service (RHPS).

Valiant is younger and smaller than his fellow recruits, but has high spirits. The RHPS has suffered great losses during the war. Squadrons A thru E have all perished to Von Talon's (Tim Curry) falcons. It is up to Valiant and the rest of squadron F to get the correspondence back to England.

This film was cute and maybe kids will like it, however, I was disappointed. There is not a lot to the story. Bird joins service, bird save the day, and that is about it. The movie is a little more than an hour long. In it's defense, the animation was good.

There are a few laughs from John Cleese who plays Mercury (a pigeon who gets captured) but not enough for the whole movie. Most of the other characters really lack personality. Unless the kids really want to see this, I would not recommend it.


Rice paper thin story and non-existent character development. Despite the fact the story took place in a potentially rich environment there was nothing rich about it. I don't even understand why some characters were even in the film. John Cleese's "Mercury" seemed to only exist to provide shlocky sight gags for Tim Curry's gang of Nazi Falcons. Yoddling is a torture technique, oh my, hilarious, my sides are just splitting.

Sorry, kids are more sophisticated than this. This is entertaining for no one. Oh, and the animation? Dull. Lots of work with a really pedestrian results. Look like a college student's first film. Lotta work and technique, but little inspiration. This is definitely a product of Disney's long trip down the hopper.


An animated lexicon of WWII clichés for toddlers who have yet to rent "Where Eagles Dare" or "Battle of Britain." In an attempt to breathe life back into England's legendary Ealing Studios, the British Film Council aligned themselves with Disney and John M. Williams, producer of "Shrek" to form Vanguard Animation. Poised to become Europe's first "full-scale digital animation studio," their inaugural CGI feature is the $40 million adventure tale of Valiant, a traditionally diminutive Disney lead whose efforts on behalf of the Royal Air Force Homing Pigeon Service make him a hero.

If you must make a film about winged creatures during the war, pigeons are the obvious choice. Not ranked high on the list of favorite animated species, pigeons did make brief (and sultry) appearances during the war in a pair of first-rate Warner Bros. propaganda cartoons, "Spies" and "Plane Daffy." Anthropomorphic superstar Heckle once told Jekyll (or was it the other way around), "We're cartoon characters. We can do whatever we want!" The same can't be said of these salt-tailed pigeons. Aside from personification, there isn't much they do that couldn't be accomplished with trained, live-action carriers. The majority of the gags are dialogue driven and the limited visuals, awash with hideous pastels, on par with Disney-TV.

At its best, classic Disney represents childhood primers on adult neurosis. Hey kids -- Bambi sure is cute, but guess what? Just like Bambi's mother, your mommy is going to die, although chances are it won't be from a hunter's bullet. Check out Disney's "On the Front Lines" DVD collection. "Education for Death" is as harrowing as any live-action propaganda. If only the fledgling studio held true to its name by heralding even a slight anti-war vanguard. It is bad enough that so many Depends-wearing Americans back Bush, do we really need a recruitment film for the Papmers generation? I've been obsessed with American studio animation for longer than I care to recall. Bugs, Daffy, Betty Boop and Donald Duck can all out-act Keanu, Bennifer, Antonio and Julia. On their worst days, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, Dave Fleischer and Walt Disney drew circle-upon-circles around ninety-percent of today's CGI whiz kids. Their's was cartoon storytelling at its finest: inventive, resourceful and timed to the millisecond. The question of whether they were drawn for moppets or adults with adolescent longings is moot. Kids deserve quality multiplex-fodder as much as their parental guardians. When asked his target audience, animation guru Chuck Jones replied, "we make them for ourselves and hope that if we like it, everyone else will."

Being from the old school, I experienced wet-eyes when news broke that Disney put an end to hand-drawn animation. (I can see Disney's famous "Nine Old Men" terminal at their terminals.) This is not to say that all CGI lacks imagination. Pixar's "A Bug's Life" and "Finding Nemo" do Uncle Walt justice. Nor is it a case of the incompetent craftsman laying blame on his toolbox. "Valiant" had all the right ingredients save one: imagination. That's what make Disney's Summer 2005 offering a less than valiant effort.


In the IIWW, the British Service of Pedgeons is going to broke out. They are forced to send to combat little and inexperienced pidgeons to do the job. In these missions there is Valiant, a very young and courageous one, which, maybe, can change history. The story is the typical for kids: the good ones, the bad ones (but not very bad), some adventures and a happy ending. Though the images are quite good (CG image), the movie has no astonishing moments that one could expect when computers do the job. Anyway, this is a movie for kids, and, well, they probably would be unaware of that. The characters are easy to understand and typical, the story is not complicated and it has some funny moments. It is relaxed to watch, but an adult would probably be bored easily, as the jokes are very childish. This is not Ice Age or Shrek, but parents will not be very fed up (just a little), while kids will have a good time.


A master chef, lavish preparation, fine ingredients in the choice of actors, great sets, costumes - but no imagination in the story. It's still enjoyable because upper middle class London in the 1950s, the relationships among the people, their entertainments, the beauty of the homes, the clothes, the accents, is a pretty enjoyable place to be for this movie's duration.

However, the story - an uneasy mix of an uninvolving outdated sappy soap opera story of the torn man and his nobly suffering wife, with a murder trial that has drama but no surprises at all - is pretty bad.

We're in the world of The Reluctant Debutante, Witness for the Prosecution, Dial M for Murder, Midnight Lace - upper middle class 1950s London (it's the sort of movie where, as they change from black tie and gown, they might say: "Did you enjoy the Philharmonic tonight, darling?" "Well, the oboes were a trifle off". "Don't forget we have Lord and Lady X coming for dinner tomorrow". He pulls a face; she smiles, embraces him and praises him.). You both love this atmosphere - it doesn't seem stifling at all - yet understand how the "Angry Young Men" and then the Beatles could have wanted to blow it up.

A major criticism: this movie has the kind of mindset that launched feminism. Women exist either to ensnare men to their doom with their beauty or to nobly suffer, praise and forgive their heroic, if unfaithful-in-the-heart, men. Time and again, we hear of the "unfeminine" curiosity of one woman (whose interest is entirely prurient), and we see the absolute SHOCK on Peck's face when his client says that an adulterous affair in her past was at her initiation.

A minor criticism: there is no explanation why an American (Peck) is a barrister. Rex Harrison would have been a better choice.

Another minor criticism: the dialogue is so repetitive. E.g., how often is Peck told he's tired? Sometimes four times in a single

Another minor criticism: the music is too heavy, the story just isn't enough to really grab us - so the music must tell us what we are supposed to feel.

Yet the movie is still enjoyable - the characters of Gregory Peck, Charles Laughton, Charles Coburn and Louis Jourdan are well-drawn and enjoyably relate to each other. Laughton is particularly good - loathsome yet real-seeming. Alida Valli IS beautiful and exotic. Ethel Barrymore has obviously had FAR far better roles - Ann Todd is actually quite a good actress in other things, but has absolutely nothing to work with here, so the viewer will find her tiresome (not the movie's intention).

If Hitchcock and these stars were not involved in this movie, no one would ever watch it, and it would probably still sit gathering dust somewhere, unreleased for home viewing.

So, see it - it IS enjoyable to see these stars in this atmosphere, but expect some irritation and don't expect to remember it in a year.


Alfred Hitchcock's final collaboration with producer David O. Selznick, neither of whom can get the juices flowing with this dull, somewhat pointless courtroom drama. Alida Valli is the placid widow of a wealthy, blind British Colonel who was poisoned; she's charged with his murder and is defended by barrister Gregory Peck, a married man with an impeccable courtroom track record who immediately becomes obsessed with her even though she seems to regard him with disdain. So...did she or didn't she? Hitchcock, working from a screenplay adapted from Robert Hichens' novel by wife Alma Reville (though others put in their two cents, to Hitch's displeasure), cannot seem to elicit any interesting facets from Valli as an actress--or perhaps he meant to keep her stone-cold? Either way, she's a well-coiffed void on the screen, with nothing simmering under the surface. Gregory Peck, who gets to wear the proverbial white wig in the final reels, is commanding while grilling the witnesses, but we never learn what makes this man tick, or why he should lose interest in wife Ann Todd (who has some spunk in her early scenes, but loses it fairly quickly for the sake of melodramatic pathos). Charles Laughton (as the judge) and Ethel Barrymore have some fine moments, but Charles Coburn as Sir Simon Flaquer is once again a sour old coot (he can't even toss broken glass into the fireplace without seeming disgusted). The production looks good (particularly when Valli is led down into her cell, or when Peck inspects her glamorous bedroom), but the courtroom showdown is rather rote, as is the finale. ** from ****


You would think that the combination of Alfred Hitchcock and Gregory Peck would produce some real sparks. Well, in this case it sure didn't. This courtroom drama is just amazingly dull and uninvolving. In fact, given the choice, I think I'd prefer an episode of Perry Mason or even Matlock. The story is so static! One reviewer liked it and said that the film had "less energy" than traditional Hitchcock suspense films. I disagree. I think it had absolutely no energy. I have tried watching this film several times but keep finding my attention wandering. That's saying a lot, as I am a rabid Gregory Peck fan--he's made so many wonderful and interesting films--just not this one.


Doesn't rate even the 2 1/2 stars given by "Maltin", except that he is correct when he says "talk, talk, talk". I had never really known until this picture the true meaning of "talky" as applied to a movie - the dialogue goes on continually, unceasingly, confusingly, and often superfluously. After a while you wish everyone would just shut up. Dramatic tension is nonexistent, as is true suspense. Gregory Peck, with his feeble attempt at a British accent, is horribly miscast. The strained marital relationship between Charles Laughton and Ethel Barrymore is perplexing as portrayed. Evidently Hitchcock neglected this production as he was preoccupied with breaking away from Selznick and establishing an independent production company. Things were not helped by Selznick's daily revisions of the script. This movie must be regarded as one of Hitch's outright failures.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution contends the film before you is an indisputable dud, the weakest film ever made by the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. It would be a career low in many lesser careers, so it's more startling the career in question is that of filmdom's greatest director.

A blind war veteran, a pillar of society named Paradine, is found poisoned in his bed. The suspected murderer, his beautiful wife Maddalena (Alida Valli), faces the Crown defended by a smitten barrister named Anthony Keane, played by Gregory Peck, who feels his best chance of winning the case is to let the jury see his client's true character and expose the victim's valet as the real killer.

That whirring sound you hear is Johnnie Cochran spinning in his grave. Your head may be doing much the same before you see this turkey come home to roost. Hitchcock did make some less-then-successful films; "Jamaica Inn," was named one of the 50 worst films of all time by Michael and Harry Medved. But "Jamaica Inn" at least has some fun performances and colorful settings to make up for an undernourished plot. The turgid, static proceedings of "The Paradine Case" require patience and a willingness to overlook plot holes wider than Charles Laughton.

The acting is wooden almost across the board, with only Laughton as an ill-tempered judge scoring occasionally. That's only because he limits himself to raising an eyebrow or suppressing a grin while Peck, Valli, and the rest of the cast alternate between performing their one-dimensional roles in leaden fashion, or else overemoting whenever producer David O. Selznick's script takes one of its hairpin turns.

The script is the worst thing here, with lines that undercut the supposed intelligence of the characters. Peck is given some choice howlers, like when someone raises the likelihood the Crown might try to prove Maddalena killed her husband, having put her in jail for it and all that.

"She's not a murderess," Keane explodes. "She's too fine a woman...I only hope the Crown does try to foul her name once, just once."

There's also nonsensical exchanges like this, between Keane and another attorney played by Charles Coburn, who rivals Peck, Valli, and a young Louis Jourdan for giving the worst performance. "Have you ever thought about what you can learn from photographs?" "Ah, yes, the social footsteps of time." Huh?

The film often seems focused on selling the beauty of Valli, an actress better known for her central role in "The Third Man" but hardly a stunner on the order of Garbo despite her thick accent. When Keane first meets her, the learned counsel is moved to utter: "Mr. Paradine could never have understood the sacrifice you were making (by marrying him.) He had never seen you." Yeah, apart from the money, she was Mother Teresa.

The first half of the film is slow going, helped only by the English upper-class interiors Hitchcock always photographed well. There's some decent early scenes in the trial, but then the proceedings erupt into anarchy and more hammy acting. Revelations fly one after another, while tears and sweat pour down grimacing faces. None of it makes much sense. You really don't care how it ends, just so that it ends.

They say courtroom scenes are surefire drama highpoints in any film, but "The Paradine Case" is a clear exception. You would never think the lead actor in this film would go on to glory in the cinematic courtroom of "To Kill A Mockingbird," or that the director was in the midst of a remarkable 30-plus-year run of making some of the greatest films ever known.

Hitchcock obviously made this under contractual obligation to Selznick, and it shows. You, however, are under no such obligation to view it. The prosecution rests.


Almost all of Hitchcock's films in the 1940's were masterpieces --- except for this turgid potboiler. Peck and Jourdan are totally wrong for their roles. And Laughton and Hitch were two all-time greats who simply could not work with each other. Coburn and Barrymore are the sole reasons for watching this overwrought conundrum.


The above expression is a literal quote from the standard-work of film theory "Theorie Des Films" by Siegfried Kracauer (Frankfurt Am Main 1973, p. 12). In order to reveal its application to "The Paradine Case" (1947), I have to disclose some key points of the story. Roughly speaking, it goes like that: Mrs. Paradine is arrested for the suspect of having poisoned her husband. Soon, it becomes clear that only two persons could have done the crime: she and the valet of the killed man. Hitchcock should never have accepted this lethal restriction given by the novel on which the movie is based, because from now on the movie spins around in trivialities. For example: When the police comes to arrest her, Mrs. Paradine calls her family-attorney. When he arrives, he tells her not to loose words but to come to the core of the defense immediately, since it is clear to him that she did not kill her husband. For the audience, this means: The valet did it. When the old attorney gives the case to a young specialist, this one follows of course the line of the other, but simply because he earns his money by being a defense attorney and not a state prosecutor. For him as well as for the audience it is clear again: Since he must defend Mrs. Paradine, he must try to prove that the valet is the murderer. However, the audience asks itself: Would this not be clear to Mrs. Paradine as well? She, most of all, knows that at the time of the killing only her and the valet have been in the house and are thus suspects for the crime. So, the audience does not understand that Mrs. Paradine, after having attended the first trial day, is shocked that her attorney tried to put the whole guilt on the valet. She makes him a gigantic scene, telling him, that his business is to defend herself, but not at the cost of accusing the valet. What a nonsense! Did Hitchcock really not see that there is not even a chance for a Deus Ex Machina in the form of a third, hitherto unknown person in the story? The deplorable rest of the story goes as follows: When Mrs. Paradine sees that the valet gets more and more under suspect of being the killer, she starts slowly to make confessions, first in the form of suggestive remarks. Meanwhile, the court is informed that the valet, desperate under the burden of accusations, has committed suicide. When Mrs. Paradine hears that, she turns from hints to a full confession of having killed her husband because she was in love with the valet and wanted to start a new life with him. Unfortunately, the incredible nonsense of the plot line is not at the end, at that point. From a discussion in the private house between the judge and his wife we hear that he plans to hang Mrs. Paradine as soon as possible. But from a plea by the wife of her attorney we hear that he should do everything in order to safe her life. Well understood: the life of the same Mrs. Paradine who has by herself ruined her case, delivered false information to her attorney and, most of all, told him in the court house that he is responsible for the suicide of the valet. I cannot even imagine that there is any movie on this world whose story is more inconsistent, paradoxical and unprofessional. Why Hitchcock filmed it unchanged, this must be considered a true mystery of film history. Besides that, "The Paradine Case" is a masterpiece in order to show what Kracauer called "the illiterate effects of a Hitchcock-thriller".


This movie is so weird, it is almost comical. Better known as Godzilla vs The Smog Monster, this flick tries to take on a different format that resembles a poor man's James Bond movie. Seems to be put together kind of haphazardly, but really pretty interesting. Godzilla battles Hedrah or Hedora, a creature spawned from industrial pollution and rank waste material. Probably the strangest in the Godzilla series.


It's a bird! it's a plane! It's a flying turd! So, this is the most irritating piece of grub infested rotted flesh that I've ever seen. It was just terrible. There were no redeeming qualities other than the fact that it was hilarious every once and a while, but it gets to the point where you just don't think you can finish it. So where do I begin? There's some annoying music and we see various shots of trash. Then we are introduced to the horrible monster tadpole thing, Hedorah, which was named s hastily as the graboids in Tremors. So then Godzilla comes in and drunk music plays, for some reason. Then Hedorah can transform and shoot laser beams and he looks like a big old dookie. Then Godzilla can fly, for some reason. Then some more crazy stuff happens and there is some singing and an annoying kid and the dookie monster dies, somehow.


Godzilla vs Hedorah is one of the Godzilla films from the Showa Series that I never thought was one of the best.

Godzilla battles Hedorah in this one. Hedorah is basically made up of pollution. He goes through a metamorphosis in his life starting off as little tadpole like creatures, turns into a lizard like form with four legs, then becomes a flying saucer like form, and finally an upright walking form that is taller than Godzilla. He has the ability to change into his saucer like form and can shoot laser beams out of his head. I really just was not that impressed with Hedorah. Just a pollution monster, not my favorite type. I guess the message of this film is that if you do not watch out and not pollute, then the result could be a giant monster made of pollution.

Godzilla looks like he did in Destroy All Monsters and Godzilla's Revenge(in the non stock footage parts). I guess this costume is OK, I just think that Godzilla has too short of a tail and looks like a person kind of. Godzilla comes to save Japan, so he is a good guy. He gets help from the army, really odd. But not as odd as Godzilla flying around in this film using his radioactive breath. Yeagh, Godzilla flies in this film using his radioactive breath. That was something that they should have left out. Ridiculous.

Basically pollution is a problem. The whole film is dark because of the pollution problems. THey really send the message that Pollution is bad and you should not pollute. So this is really like a documentary on not polluting.

Monster action leaves a little to be desired. There is a lot of standing around done by Godzilla as well as Godzilla constantly rubbing his nose at Hedorah. This left me a little confused. Also the scenes with Hedorah can be disgusting. Shoots mud like sludge that makes a mess everywhere. Also Godzilla digs into Hedorah pulling out a few white balls that I guess are eggs or something. So this Godzilla film definitely has the most disgusting and disturbing scenes.

SO this film is not one of my favorites. Hedorah is not that good of a monster, Godzilla Flies, and overall this is one that I really do not recommend.


Godzilla vs Hedorah is insane even by Godzilla standards, a surreal mix of monster mash, message movie, kiddie flick, 1960s educational shorts, groovy protest songs, go-go dancers wearing fish masks, terrible special effects and basic Sesame Street style animated inserts as Friend of the Earth Godzilla takes on a giant toxic flying tadpole that craps acid on him, drowns mah-jong players in excrement and farts deadly toxic fumes over the population of Japan. Introduced with a slide trombone theme straight out of a Laurel and Hardy get drunk comedy, Godzilla has never looked camper, mincing his way through his underpowered punchups with the allegorical scheissencritter  Hedorah is basically just a vertical turd with a tail and glowing red eyes. It's tempting to believe from the number of times Mr G wipes his nose that this was during the big feller's cocaine period, but he seems all too aware of the humiliation: at one point he even turns to the camera and shakes his head to the audience in disbelief.


I'd like to make an appeal to everyone out there who has ever been involved in polluting the environment.

Godzilla returns to save the world once again, this time battling a blob with eyes. Hedora, as its known, starts off tiny but is soon growing as a result of feasting on all the toxic waste and suchlike. This entry into the seemingly never-ending Godzilla series includes an irritating little boy who says 'Papaaaaaaa' a lot, a storyline that feels as though it was put together with very little thought, occasional silly cartoon sequences showing Hedora doing nasty things, slabs of tedium and two almost identical endings, one after the other.

So please, stop polluting the environment. Because in a pollution-free environment, there'll be no need for movie-makers to come up with this kind of trash.


The special effects suck, even Destroy all monsters which was made seven years before this had better action. The creators of this film have thought up the dumbest monster for the big guy to fight. I definitely hated how they made Godzilla's fire breath look like electricity, for a minute when Hedorah (Smog Monster) is marching towards the military base, I thought the military was using some kind of high tech weapon to destroy it.

I gave this a three because the finale (once I got past the special effects) wasn't bad. When Godzilla flies after Hedorah then brings him down and begins ripping him apart was pretty cool. The dumbest thing in this film (which is not the plot or how slow the creatures walk) is when a little boy yells for Godzilla while he is walking away. I would never wave goodbye to a fifty foot lizard that had just ripped up a monster, I would instead wave goodbye to whatever it is marching towards. If you like giant monster in form of pollution fighting giant lizards and terrible special effects, this is the movie for you.


I use to think 'Godzilla's Revenge' was the worst of the worst, I've just been proven wrong. This movie is tripped out. There are four or five cartoon animations that do nothing to continue the story. They just sum up what's already happened in the previous encounters, and seem to be drawn School House Rock style. The fight scenes between Godzilla and Hedora are bizarre to say the least. Time goes by where you just see Godzilla and Hedora standing around doing nothing but funky hand movements. This movie drags on and on and on.

But it's interesting because the entire feel of this movie is very different. It's much darker and more sinister. You also see dead bodies lying around. Something not often seen in most other Godzilla movies. Symbolism is tossed around a bit, but it seems as if this director was drunk while doing some of these scenes. Another amazing feature is the typical little kid is really not all that annoying. That's a marvel to behold in and of itself.

So, although this is most likely the worst Godzilla, it's also the most creative. There's not much Godzilla action untill the very end, and features a 007 intro along with many other 60's spoofs. I suggest seeing this movie at least once or twice. You'll be pleasantly surprise and dumb founded.


There is something even more embarassing to environmentalists than "Captain Planet", Carol Browner or Bruce Babbitt. It is...Godzilla vs Hedora.

A movie about the terrors of pollution, it starts out like most any other Gojira movie, except that a James Bond film suddenly breaks out during the credit sequence. A Japanese woman starts singing something. Heck, it could be "Goldfinger" for all I know; it was in Japanese, so I couldn't tell. All that was missing were the flipping nude girls.

Anyhow, the movie stars a boy named Ken whose father is a scientist. Now, aside from the fact that every Japanese boy born in the 1960s must've been named Ken, we are forced to watch said boy parade around in air-tight shorts WITH SUSPENDERS!!! It's enough to give a non-alocoholic the DT shakes. Ken plays with Godzilla dolls, sending them down the sliding board for kicks, as well as helping his dad combat the smog monster.

Hedora, besides being an absolutely lame monster, gives Gojira his best fight. Of course, Hedora gets his strength by taking bong hits from the local factory's smokestacks. Hedora is also a shape-shifter, which helps him fly through the air with the clumsiest of ease. In response, Gojira discovers that he too can fly (perhaps after listening to that Seal song), which allows them to take their battles all over Japan.

Overall, there were a lot of things done differently in this movie, but not many of the risks paid off in the entertainment bottom line. Next time, Toho can feel free to leave out the cartoon sequences, bad jazz music, and little boys in tight shorts.

Sterno says Gojira tai Hedora is an EPA Superfund cleanup site.


The discovery of strange tadpoles leads to the uncovering of a monster made of pollution which goes on the rampage and soon meets up with Godzilla.

Though not the worst Godzilla film, this is never-the-less a let-down. Containing the first real metaphorical monster and the first human death scenes since the first Godzilla film, this could have been a return to the glory days. But sadly it's all let down by its camp atmosphere, ridiculous psychedelic images, extended concert scenes and that rather irritating young boy. Not to mention those pointless cartoons which turn Hedorah into a figure of fun rather than the serious threat he is supposed to be. The idea behind the film has potential, what with its atmospheric scenes of people being forced to flee their city, but the producers decided it might be too frightening and stuck in a load of deliberately silly nonsense. They ought to have made up their minds whether they were making a kids' film or a more sinister movie along the lines of the first Godzilla. Instead they adopt a kind of 'half-way-house' approach. The special effects are also disappointing, the film gets pretty slow later on and the dire music is completely at odds with what's happening on-screen. A wasted opportunity.


"Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster" is one of the most uneven entries in the series.

**SPOILERS**

After a rash of boat disappearances in Suruga Bay, Dr. Tohru Yano, (Akira Yamauchi) is sent in to find what is responsible, and a giant tadpole-like monster attacks his son, Ken, (Hiroyuki Kawase) and during the conflict, a small piece of the creature comes off. Examining it, he deduces that it's an alien mineral similar to sludge and names it Hedorah. When a huge creature emerges from Suruga Bay and begins attacking the refineries spewing forth pollution to feed on, Godzilla appears and chases the monster back. When it's' noted that the creature feeds on pollution, industries throughout Japan are turned off to prevent the monsters appearance, but it appears again at a rock festival near Mt. Fuji. When Godzilla is unable to deal with the creature on it's own, the military steps in and helps him defend the Earth from the creature.

The Good News: This has a couple of positive points for it. Mainly, the enemy monster Hedorah is quite formidable. It is invulnerable to physical attacks due to it's sludge-like build, can change form at will, Godzilla's energy ray is harmlessly deflected to it's mineral make-up, and he has no defense to it's pollution-based weaponry. Only through a remarkable creative and quite plausible method is this creature capable of being dealt with. It is also responsible for several of the film's best scenes, most notably the nighttime feeding frenzy on an oil factory. Due to the huge eyes on it, the emotions expressed during it are fantastic, as it deeply inhales fumes from a smokestack like a heavily-addicted smoker, it's eyelids drift shut in satisfaction. As Godzilla approaches off-screen, it turns it's head curiously, then flies into rage when he's visible. It's quite a simple shot, but plays out brilliantly and shows the creatures humanity. Other spectacular scenes include a pyrotechnic-masterpiece as it attacks an oil refinery, flies over a crowded city spewing acidic mist, and later attempting to drown Godzilla in a pool of mud. The city scenes might be it's most gruesome aspect, quite evidently killing people in a gruesome manner and is quite shocking to see, especially as the other aspects of the movie are so child-oriented. The battle at Mt. Fuji at the end isn't that bad, and is a long, drawn-out one that is quite nice and very well-done. These factors make it decent-enough.

The Bad News: With it being on the lower end of the totem pole, there's a lot to really dislike in this one. One of the most damaging aspects is how badly Godzilla is portrayed in this one. Despite looking the same as before, he starts acting more like a human than a monster with his hand gestures, boxing and wrestling tactics, mugging whenever he can't get a good shot in on Hedorah, and a couple of odd scenes where he scratches or rubs the side of his nose with his finger. It's quite strange to see such maneuvers, and feel completely out-of-place when relating to a monster. On the technical side, he fares far worse and in some cases is quite sloppily handled. For the first time ever, it's plainly evident that the wire controlling his tail is visible on-screen, shimmering in the daylight scenes against the sky. His ray is also a mess, possessing little texture or perspective, goes off in any direction and has an odd and distinctive curve to it. It goes off in one distance then changes when it's apparent it won't hit the target and curves back to hit it. It's quite striking and doesn't really have much there for it. The back-fin animation is only done on occasion, and is off-model when it does appear, a grievous error. Worse of all, he performs one of the most embarrassing maneuvers ever, being forced to perform the infamous flying scene where it uses his atomic breath to propel himself into the air. These are quite painful for Godzilla fans to swallow, as it's quite a shock to see him treated in this level of disrespect. There's also the kiddie aspect of the film, with a child lead who shouldn't be there, lots of pop-culture references and scenes, as well as a pop song for the main title credits. The fact that there's split-screen scenes and hand-drawn animation used for other scenes makes it quite childish and distracts from the more adult-level tone that is being presented. To see images of gruesome death whenever Hedorah flies over a city, spewing sulfuric acid mist and choking the population offsets quite highly with the more pop-level scenes, such as the animation scenes. It's a little shocking to see such a widely different level presented, as it's a little gruesome for the children to see graphic death and dying, while the adults will like the more serious scenes but become bored through the childishness of everything. It's a polar opposite and a little hard to believe would be allowed into such a film.

The Final Verdict: One of the bottom-of-the-barrel entries in the series, this is wildly uneven and makes for a weird contrast. Godzilla is obviously meant for the kiddies, but everything else is for the adults, which is too mature for the younger ones, while the older fans will have a hard time accepting the kiddie stuff, making this a tough one to really recommend to.


Throughout the fifty-year career of the Godzilla saga, there have been multiple entries that can be considered schlock, even in the eyes of the G-fans. Godzilla began as a powerful, heart-shredding dramatic allegorical monster movie and has since made many turns in his career from other powerful films to campy fun movies. And even most of the campy, made-for-children films of the late 60s and 70s, (which this film is a part of) can be at least laughed at or enjoyed.

However, the series isn't without its pieces that are unbearable to watch. Even for a long-time Godzilla fan like myself. "Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster" is an extremely campy film that failed to live up to my expectations, even as a low-budget monster movie for kids. Like many Asian science-fiction cinema pieces, the film tries to bring a message to the world. This time, it's about pollution and its deadly effects on the globe and how nature could turn back against us with it.

And "Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster" does bring us a message, but unfortunately, its ridiculous style and poor screenplay make the film so hard to believe that we cannot see the message clearly and even if we do, we cannot get past its inferior style to get the full feeling of it. The first Godzilla film, in some regards, had some inferior special effects. But the filmmakers worked so hard together on that film and it resulted with a masterpiece so powerful we don't even realize the out-of-date effects. But "Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster" cannot do the same.

The fight scenes between Godzilla and the new monster, Hedorah, a monster made out of sludge and pollution, are extremely weak. Godzilla does a lot of childish, funny actions such as wiping his lips or even flying through the air like a superhero to the point where it's just annoying. The music score, all of which is terrible, just makes it worse. And there's no shortage of annoying songs playing throughout the film.

As Producer Tomoyuki Tanaka said to Director Yoshimitsu Banno, this film ruined Godzilla. I can agree that it is a weak point in the Godzilla series and not recommended in my book. But there are worse Godzilla films out there. And past them are even WORSE and more schlock-filled films created by American studios.


i usually hold in good esteem low-budget C Japanese monster movies, simply enjoying them with a child's eye ( as i saw them first ) and giving them credit for what they are (Eg i'm not expecting Orson Wells acting, nor Star Wars VI special effects ). This one -however- is very clumsy, messy...nearly unwatchable. The plot is not the main point: extreme pollution triggers chain reactions. A new half breed mineral-animal mutant creature is born, fed by poisonous gases etc...and Godzilla is there to fight it before humankind gets destroyed...although the new monster has 3/4 time the upper hand...in the end the idea of the child characters saves the day after many ups&downs. The problem is the clumsy salad bowl, hippie, 1970-ish mess... Hippie 70-ish Japanese teens dancing & babbling John Lennon trash take as much screen time as Godzilla. Hippie, 70-ish crappy music takes too much time, as well. There are ugly cartoons reminiscent of communist block cartoons. There is this sob little child clogging our screen running here&there...a lame attempt to cater to children. When worse comes to worse, most scenes are shot in the dark, or near dark ( presumably to fake the just ridiculous & apparent shortage of special effects: the "smog monster" is simply pathetic ), thus making it difficult to follow. The dire special effects are awful to say the least, and i'm talking about your average Japanese monster movie. As i said, i had to sit through this predicament... utter garbage. The idea of a monster created by pollution will return later in Go Nagai's (the famous Japanese cartoon/comics artist ) dragosaurus movie, where his robots (eg Mazinger, Getter, Grendizer-Goldrake ) fight a monster born out of oil pollution.


Although I know that our well-known dinosaur superstar IS campy and cheap, this particular exploit really falls flat on its face. From the unexplained stills of constellations and stars to the ultra-cheap 70s "animation moments", this movie is filled with painful scenes and appalling execution. But, perhaps the worst part of the movie is the atrocious trumpet music that plays whenever Godzilla throws a temper tantrum. It did have some unintentional amusement, however, like when the huge mirror weapon powers down and the general (using very poorly dubbed lips) spouts "Dammit, why is everything going wrong today!?" out as fast as possible. All in all, this movie was a real stinker.


This is the foulest Godzilla film in the series. It features an annoying kid. Attrocious songs and can only be watched with the buffer of the bots, Joel or Mike. Avoid at all costs.


This is the worst Godzilla movie I've seen so far. In fact, it's so bad... I've been showing friends scenes from the movie so we can laugh at it together. This movie... in all seriousness... is Godzilla vs. a s*** monster. Literally, a s*** monster. The film is supposed to give the message that we have to stop polluting the environment, or it'll kill us. The result is the s*** monster, Hedorah, which rises from human waste. The problem with this movie isn't the plot... I actually think it has a very interesting plot. The problem is the execution. The way in which the film was shot and handled was weird, goofy, and just plain ridiculous.

EXAMPLES

- Continuous repetitive use of shots of garbage. - Hedorah's magical wonder twin powers. - Long unnecessary scenes that don't go anywhere. - Drowning Godzilla in diarrhea. - The science makes no sense, even for Godzilla. - Sulfuric acid turning people funny colors, and why does Hedorah shoot out sulfuric acid? - Random animations. - Most of the fight scenes are Godzilla and Hedorah standing across from each other making hand gestures and blinking. How riveting. - The ending just goes on... and on... and ON!!! - Just when you think it's over, a TWIST!!! That makes NO SENSE!!! - And psychedelic, early 70's Bulls***.

And the ultimate WTF moment...

- Godzilla FLYING.

This movie gets a 1. It is a grueling chore to watch, unless you skip to the most goofy scenes and make fun of them. Like Godzilla flying. Or Godzilla ripping off what I can only describe as Hedorah's testicles.

I only recommend it if you want to get drunk with some buddies and play a game of MST3K home edition.


This is a cheap, lackluster Spaghetti western that never manages to develop any suspense. The director has no style, the acting is stiff, and the action scenes are poorly shot. In fact, the photography is bad overall. Some say this is an influence on "High Plains Drifter", but in fact it is yet another rip off of Leone's films and "Django".

I say skip this film and go rent "The Great Silence". That's a much more interesting Spaghetti Western from about the same time. Better yet, rent "Keoma". "Django the Bastard" has some of the right elements, but it is just too derivative.


I'm always interested in seeing a horror/western and this unofficial sequel to "Django" directed by Sergio Garrone and starring Anthony Steffen promised to offer just that. But evidently my impression wasn't positive. It's promise of combining the two genres, was overblown. "Django The Bastard" tried to create a seemingly supernatural atmosphere while at the same time keeping as close to reality as possible. And it failed.

Anthony Steffen stars as Django a loyal, honest soldier who is betrayed by his officers in the Confederate army and seemingly killed along with his whole detachment. Now he apparently has risen from the grave to exact his revenge. In the opening scene we see Django carrying a cross through town. He stops in front of a building, and pins it in the ground. The men inside suspiciously examine Django, while finally discovering that the cross bears the name of them. Further more, on it is written the day of his death, today. What follows is a traditional shootout that leads to the obvious conclusion, Django now triumphant proceeds to punish all those responsible for the death of his comrades and his in a similar fashion.

This movie has often been compared to Clint Eastwood's "High Plains Drifter", claiming that it's more or less been the inspiration. Honestly the only similarity found in both these movies is that they are presented as quasi-supernatural westerns. On the threshold between supernatural and natural, both posses characters that could or could not be spirits of vengeance. Such story is not anything new though and tales of such content have long existed in the western mythology. But "Django The Bastard" suffers from the inability to exploit it's features. The plot is shaky at best, often contradicting itself. At one point we have the titular character displaying unexplainable supernatural abilities, such as appearing from nowhere, disappearing, and even becoming transparent. While at another sequence Django gets, beaten, practically tortured, forced to run and hide from bad guy's henchmen. These plot elements did a great job at leaving me confused, but did little in creating that mystical atmosphere which was the supposed goal of the entire film. Django didn't feel supernatural because he was being beaten and didn't feel real because at one moment he became transparent. On other points of interest, namely the acting. Anthony Steffen does have the intimidating look, but his performance was lackluster and quite frankly it was flat. Nothing different can be said about the supporting cast. There was not a single character that made an impression, in fact to be honest I forgot most of them shortly after I saw the movie.

Cinematography was a mixed bag. There were some really nicely directed tracking shots and overall stable, camera work. But the shootouts were unimpressive. Gorrene could have at least tried to put some more work in creating memorable action scenes to compensate for the second-hand plot. Ultimately what we get is a series of boring, uncreative, unsynchronized shootouts. What's even worse is that the gunned-down people tend fall in a slow irritating manner, it's as if they are being careful not to get hurt. Hello ? They are a supposed to be dead. Finally, the last thing worth commenting, namely the score. It is as forgettable as everything else in "Django The Bastard" I was neither able to remember who composed or any specific tune.

"Django The Bastard" might have a cool sounding name, but it doesn't have much else to offer. It's a forgettable experience failing to tap on it's quasi-supernatural plot, with just a few minor sequences sticking out from the otherwise bellow-average presentation.


Man, I'd really be worried for Maxine Gates if she were still alive with this "desimone_ken" character on the loose (sheesh).

Moving on....

MUSCLE UP... is a somewhat curious piece for me because it's the only short from the Besser era I can think of that seems to have a decent script behind it. I can only imagine that had this story been done with a 100% Curly or Shemp that it may have been a very good entry in the stooge film library. Unfortunately, Joe Besser is third stooge in this one. Nothing personal against the guy, but his dainty personality just didn't mesh at all with the brashness of Moe and Larry.

1.5/10


Not at all a contender for being overly amusing as Stooge shorts go but when another supporting actor/actress is added that can obviously hold her own, comically, then there's hope yet. Maxine Gates was certainly far more capable of working with the Stooges than say that one with the lame psycho singer "Tiny" as Joe's sister. BLAH! I only wish that Joe had been more cooperative in taking punishment from Moe. They actually may have clicked and become the "Three Stooges" of the 1960's. Should've, would've, could've. It's all academic now. In any case, this is not overall a very bad short. Joe seems to be getting it right here especially when he has to clean up some cases of eggs that he spilled out and broke. Can you hear Curly doing his trademark "la lee, la de la" here? That's what Joe attempts and does pretty well too I might add. Also the "idea" he gets about using a blow torch to first fry up the egg residue and then sweep it up. Something I can hear Curly thinking out loud about: "Hmm!That's an idea!" The scene where Moe and Larry are going through lockers looking for the stolen ring is somewhat of a quandary to me though. First, why aren't all three looking and why isn't there any real slapstick going on about this episode? Also, in some of these "late era" shorts, why are Moe and Larry appearing without their traditional hairstyles? It's like Laurel & Hardy without their bowler hats or their personal hair styles. In any case, on the whole, not a bad short to catch sometime. Too bad not all the shorts with Joe in it are up to this one.


You would think that with the mob, the Catholic church, machine guns, hookers, hit men (and women), full-frontal nudity, screaming inside a church, the lead actress crying that "I'm a whore!", a stuttering priest and a uniformly attractive cast that there'd be a reason to get excited about this thing. Alas, you'll only be disappointed unless, like me, you want to see it because you've heard only bad.

Although it's shot in a made-for-TV style, there a couple of interesting camera shots (set in Mexico) and even a moment or two where there's promise of the story kicking in. Unfortunately, after the first ten minutes or so it's too late to recover.

Poorly written, poorly acted, poorly conceived. If it had been just a little worse, it could actually be good. Otherwise, you can find a better way to spend a couple hours of your life.


This film has a few things going for it and not much else. It does have an icy female villain well played by one Anne Twomey, who is now known only for her small part as the NBC exec who put the kibosh on Jerry's sitcom pilot on Seinfeld. It has the sexiness of Tom Berenger and Daphne Zuniga, but doesn't seem to know what to do with them. And it has brief full-frontal male nudity by an unknown actor at the beginning, worth a look alone since it happens so rarely in American films.

That's it. The rest is not good, but it may be fun to watch just to see how convoluted it gets. Plus you keep thinking the main actors are going to bare all, but they never really do. (Zuniga gets some rear shots, but is pretty skillful at arm-placement when facing the camera. If you wanna see more of Berenger, get At Play in the Fields of the Lord instead.) Sorry to keep dwelling on the nudity, but this is not a film you watch for the plot.

Roger Ebert named this as the worst film of 1988 six weeks before the year was up. I don't think it's that bad, but it tests your patience. Funny, he ran into Zuniga at Sundance about 13 years later and they exchanged pleasantries. Apparently he was kinder to her in other reviews. She has deserved better, and in fact could be having a Helen Hunt kinda career if she hadn't been cast in films like this. (Being on Melrose Place probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but not in retrospect.)

You can decide for yourself if this film is "so bad it's good" or just bad. Perhaps it might have been a great cheap Cinemax "erotic thriller" with a controversial priest angle, but at face value it's lame, with a lousy written tough-guy priest character that rings false all the way through it. If you want to see a story about a morally compromised priest, see Linus Roache in the excellent PRIEST, not this.

To sum up, I was curious about this film, and I'm glad I watched it, but I probably would not watch it again. (Did I just qualify that with a 'probably'?)


The Mandarin Mystery is what happens when you take a fairly standard locked room mystery, add a little too much romance, and season the mix with an ample supply of humor. Eddie Quillian brings a lot to the role and really makes it his own, despite the fact that his take on Queen is somewhat different from the usual character we are so used to seeing. Quillian's just as bright, not as serious, and apparently has the libido of a teenage boy.

Queen spends as much time pursuing the lovely victim of a theft which appears connected to the murder (Charlotte Temple) as he does the murderer and thieves, and a long deductive chain is compressed into a pithy film with an economical script. The acting talent is somewhat uneven. Ms Temple gives a sub-par performance, Quillian is excellent, and Wade Boteler as the senior inspector Queen does well doubling as Ellery's straight man and a gruff old no-nonsense cop.

Although made in 1936, The Mandarin Mystery's story, pace, camera work, themes, and sets have the feel of a late 1950s TV mystery show.

Because of the way the original novel was adapted, the logic of the deduction which leads to the resolution of the case is not as clearly spelled out as it could have been. Nevertheless, the film will interest mystery fans who enjoy the hardcore analytical aspects of detective work as depicted in traditional mystery novels (Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle fans for example), and, of course, Ellery Queen aficionados.