I won't go into a lengthy synopsis as have so many before me but yes, it's an old 1940s Universal vampire movie with someone other than Lugosi as the antagonist. I haven't made up my mind whether I prefer Chaney Jr. or Carradine as Dracula (literally the lesser of two evils) but the saving grace of this movie is that it has one of the best plot twists I have ever seen in this genre. I watch it again and again just for that. Forget the fact that Dracula's coffin must be airtight to keep the swamp water out but permeable enough to let him, in mist form, seep out. Go get some popcorn when that part comes on, but don't miss the last fifteen minutes.


Although Lon Chaney's "Count Alucard" is the character the movie is titled for, it's Louise Allbritton--as the Count's not-so-faithful bride--who is the real star here. In fact, I was more than a bit surprised at how little Lon seems to be in this picture or how rarely he opens his mouth, though I guess it doesn't take a lot of seeing Chaney on-screen to notice how ill-suited he is at portraying a Hungarian count; much less a count who is supposed to be from the same gene pool as Bela Lugosi.

And yet, despite the miscasting of the male vampire, "Son of Drac" still turns out to be a very good old-school horror. Certainly one of the best of Universal's second cycle, and a film that in no way deserves the bad reputation it's received over the years. Even though Chaney wasn't the world's most convincing Hungarian, his performance is not a washout. He has quite a few effective moments, particularly when it comes to displaying the supernatural strength of the undead.

Louise Allbritton, Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg all do tremendous work in this picture & I have to give props to Robert Paige for breaking from the usual "dull-as-dishwater" pattern that one normally sees from the romantic male leads in these old horrors (John Harker anyone). Imagine a guy you don't mind seeing defeat the monster instead of the opposite.

And to top it all off, the ending is not the usual formula of two photogenic people walking off into the sunset. 'Son of Dracula' is a very good vampire thriller.


Count Dracula arrives in the American Deep South at the invitation of an heiress who wants to be his bride. However, little does the Count realize that he is but a pawn in her larger game plan. This film, directed by Robert Siodmak, and written by Curt Siodmak and Eric Taylor, features an unusually sophisticated plot for the time. The heiress, an occult enthusiast, brings Dracula to America to make her a vampire. Then, she plans to destroy him so that she can make her fiancé a vampire so that they can enjoy unending life together. Not only is the plot interesting, the film is also extremely well-executed. Dracula and the Old South are an effective mix. The sets are atmospheric, and some of the visuals, like the coffin in the swamp, are quite memorable. There is only one drawback: Our Dracula, Lon Chaney, Jr. It isn't that he's bad. In fact, at moments, he gives the Count an interesting if unexpected physicality. But, once again (and this was my problem with Chaney in the original Wolfman,) he's just too. American. Come on Why couldn't they just get Bela back! It isn't like he was trying to distance himself from the character. He had himself buried in the cape for godsakes! And it isn't like Universal didn't want to use Lugosi in 1943. They used him as the monster in "Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman" that same year! This film is quite good by Universal's 1940s horror standards. However, had it starred Bela Lugosi, I honestly believe might have been an all-time classic.


This film is actually much better than you might think - much better than some of the others in this Universal series, like House of Dracula, for example, which features a whole roster of horror characters, but no plot whatsoever. Son of Dracula, on the other hand, does have a fairly reasonable plot, special effects which are excellent for the period, and a very good performance from Lon Chaney Jr. as the Count. Chaney is much better than you might expect, and although obviously not in the same vampiric league as Lugosi, is much more credible than John Caradine, who starred as Dracula in others in this series. At times, you can *almost* forget that Chaney is forever typecast as the Wolfman, and suspend disbelief in his portrayal as the Romanian - but with an American accent - Count. Apart from that, you have here all the ingredients for a psycho-billy treat - steaming Southern swamps, Gothic Southern mansions, creepy fortune tellers, raven haired Gothic beauties, and even hot roadster coupes - yep, all this in a in a Dracula movie. Just a shame that the original Meteors or the Cramps didn't get to play on the soundtrack! So, don't dismiss this as another ragbag filler - it's actually quite entertaining.


With "Son of Dracula" Lon Chaney Jr. completed the circle of having portrayed each of Universal's four main monsters (The Wolfman, Frankenstein's Monster, The Mummy, Dracula).

 Chaney, who was always in the shadow of his more famous father, gives a chilling performance as Dracula. His slicked back greying hair and sinister mustache and domineering presence only add to his character. Louise Allbritton is good as his chief victim, whom he has followed from Transylvania to the U.S. in search of new victims. Robert Paige is the rejected suitor who is almost drawn into the evil. Evelyn Ankers has little to do as Allbritton's sister. Curiously, Ankers, who was known for her blood-curdling scream in a number of other Universal features, does not so much as raise her voice in this one. As always, Universal provided eerie, dark and creepy settings for the action.

 It is puzzling, given Chaney's excellent performance, that Universal chose not to make any further Dracula pictures at that time. But then, Hollywood never learned how to fully utilize the considerable talents of Lon Chaney Jr.


I have generally found the performances of Lon Chaney Jr. a little wooden(sometimes a lot wooden),with the exception of "The Wolfman" and "Of Mice and Men".This film is no exception in that respect, but it has other redeeming features.The way Katherine Caldwell(Louise Allbritton) makes the state of being undead seem so seductively appealing is a very interesting aspect of this film. Her discussions with Frank Stanley(Robert Paine)on this topic give the film a very interesting otherworldly quality and a somber mood.And there are even some interesting special effects(e.g.,the vampires can turn into a swirling cloud of mist).We're not talking "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca" here,folks, but if you're merely looking for some nice cinematic entertainment for a rainy evening or a Halloween party, you could do a lot worse than "Son of Dracula".


This is a nice early horror movie from a really under appreciated director, Robert Siodmak. He uses some really great special effects as well as tells an interesting story. I highly recommend watching this movie and any of his film noirs. Enjoy.


Even though I consider myself a classic horror fan (and a fan of the classic Universal horror movies in particular), I readily admit that Dracula (1931) is not among my favorites. In fact, I prefer almost all of the Dracula sequels to the original. And, I consider Son of Dracula the best of the bunch. Why? I'm prepared to write about three areas in Son of Dracula that work almost perfectly for me: the atmosphere, the mix of genres/styles, and the cast.

- Atmosphere  Son of Dracula positively drips with atmosphere. The misty swamps, the expertly lit interiors, the luscious sets, the eerie music, and Robert Siodmak's direction all contribute to the richness and underlying sense of taboo and dread. One scene that perfectly demonstrates the film's atmosphere is the rise of Dracula from the swamps. The coffin rises from the swamp floor, a vaporous mist comes forth eventually changing into Dracula's solid form, he glides effortlessly across the swamp to meet his mortal love and future wife  man, you could bath in the atmosphere.

- Mix of genres/styles  Throughout its history, horror has often been combined with other genres or styles of movies. Most obvious are the great number of horror/comedies or horror/sci-fi films you can find. Sometimes, horror is mixed in more unusual ways. For example, there are horror/Westerns and even horror/romance films. Son of Dracula is one of the very few movies that I would call a horror/film noir (I know that film noir isn't necessarily a genre, but humor me here). All the film noir trappings are here. To begin with, Son of Dracula has that look generally associated with film noir. Just take a look at the use of shadows and you'll see what I mean. But a better example is Kay Caldwell as the femme fatal and Dracula, of all people, as her dupe. The way Kay uses Dracula to do what she wants would have made even Phyllis Dietrichson proud. Kay uses Dracula to kill her father so she can get the estate and then tricks him into marriage to gain immortality. Finished with Dracula, he becomes disposable. She turns to old flame Frank Stanley to help her destroy Dracula. In the end, all three  Kay, Dracula, and Frank  are either dead or damaged beyond repair. Take away the supernatural elements of the story and you've got a typical 1940s film noir.

- The cast  A lot of people tend to focus on Lon Chaney, Jr., suitability for the role of Dracula. The criticism is almost always related to Chaney's physical appearance. I'm convinced that some of these people can't get past his size long enough to take a look at his performance. And I've always thought of it as a rock solid performance. Equally mysterious is Louise Allbritton in role of the manipulative Kay. She's fantastic as she winds both Dracula and Frank around her finger. As for Robert Paige as the doomed Frank, he's perfect. He plays the tragic figure so well. Beyond these three, the film also features solid supporting performances from Evelyn Ankers, J. Edward Bromberg, and Frank Craven. All are terrific. Everyone involved in the cast really comes out of Son of Dracula looking good.

In the end, I do not hesitate to rate Son of Dracula a 9/10. Other than some minor quibbles I have with how quickly Dr. Brewster comes to believe in and accept that Dracula is in their presence, the film is near flawless to me. And it gets better with each successive viewing. Watching tonight, I realized I was enjoying it even more now than ever before. It's a great movie!


Errol Flynn is perfect as Robin of Locksley, and 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' has beautiful cinematography, excellent costume design and high tempo, directed by the master-entertainer Michael Curtiz (and William Keighley)! The battle between Robin and Sir Guy is still nasty and cool, and not to be missed. There is said that the only dated thing in 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' is the music, but I disagree. I think that the music in this Robin Hood-film is much more entertaining than most of the music from any movie before the 1960's and equal to much of what is made today. When it comes to Errol Flynn, I think he has more charm than any modern actor.

Rating: 9 of 10.


I've seen all of the Robin Hood Movies and this one is the best. The most exciting, and great actors. If ever you just watch one movie with Errol Flynn this is it. I give it ten stars.

Spoiler: Robin Hood is a knight which becomes a bandit to protect the poor people of England. He is doing this because the real king of England is captured in a distant land during a crusade. Robin tells John (the kings brother which is taking over England) that he will fight him with every means in his power. From that moment forth, he is for ever an out law. He robs the rich to help the poor and saves the money to send to the men holding the king. Robin meets Maid Marian when he and his men ambush a party (prince John tax collectors) with the taxes they have gathered from the people. Robin falls in love with Maid Marian , right then and there. He tells her of why he is an out law, and she understands why he's doing it. Prince John thinks of an Ideal, to capture Robin using Maid Marian as Bate. A prize of a golden arrow. ( for the best archer in all of England). Robin knows it's a trick but he can't resist not to see Marian. He disguises him self, but is still captured. He is going to be hanged. Maid Marian discovers this and helps his men get robin free with a very clever plan. Robin thanks Marian in one of my favorite parts. Where he climbs the tower to speak with her. She admits she loves him. She tells Robin she will stay in the castle to warn him of any other treason which might occur.

Next, the king is returning, and the Bishop discovers this and he tells Prince John and they hire a knight to kill the king. Marian over hears this and she tells her maid which tells Robin. John discovers that she was going to tell Robin Hood and will kill her, when he becomes king, in the morning. Her only hope is Robin to find the king and over power Princess John. Will Robin Find the king in time to save Marian and destroy the evil Princes John and his followers? I know I explained what happened in the movie, but you must understand that you will not know how great it is, unless you go see it for your self. My short sum up is nothing compared to the great movie, which is just begging to be seen again. I wish Holly Wood would make more movies like these ones.


The Adventures of Robin Hood (ARH) was so ahead of its time in 1938 that despite wildly swinging experimentation in the wake of silent movies it still got its emoting just right. Everything, incl the pacing, is conspicuously contemporary. It never underestimated its audiences. Consequently ARH established filmmaking conventions forever more.

Alan Hale, Eugene Pallette (Friar Tuck) and Basil Rathbone, along with Flynn and deHavilland, all strike us as supremely comfortable within their Medieval characters. Unfortunately, the elderly-but-naive/socially impaired characters, Much (Herbert Mundin) and Bess (Una O'Connor), look awkward. Much&Bess' romance isn't believable. Mundin's acting never seems to flow, while O'Connor is embarrassingly overripe. Claude Rains, too, is just so stiff that he LOOKS like a mere vehicle for delivering lines-watch him as he swivels his head and pours the wine. I wonder if he ever `thought of working carnivals'! (Sorry, that's a nod to the hilarious Dr Poole from Oscar (1991)). After 64 yrs I'm not making excuses for Claude Rains!

Otherwise, ARH is full of terrific peripheral performances which substantiate the story. Some, eg Hale's spontaneous reactions as Little John, nearly went uncaptured due to the fadeouts. The editor very nearly pared back too far! This became Hale's career-making role, and he's terrific.

The rich, lush colour, the rousing music, and the astonishingly contemporary crane-and-dolly shot of the castle dinner, as well as the shadow-swashbuckling, all contribute to our fondness for the Medieval legend. That establishing dolly shot, with its attention to detail (eg the feasting dog), is JUST breathtaking. Ralph Dawson (Editing, won), Carl Jules Weyl (Art Director, won); Tony Gaudio & Sol Polito (Photography); and Erich Korngold (Music, won) all deserved Oscars.

ARH (screenplay by Norman Raine & Seton Miller) is the dramatic and credible story of an attempted coup stemming from a siblings' squabble. The King's treacherous brother, Prince John (Claude Rains), felt his ego belittled when denied the Regency of England during the King's absence. He became `bitterly resentful', so he summarily `kicked Longchamps (the appointed Regent) out'-an announcement heard by Robin Hood, cementing his resolve to oppose the traitor.

Errol Flynn smoulders in green tights (the whole point of tights was to accentuate men's...erm...virility). Mel Brooks was right; those Merry Men were probably just good `sports' (swingers). But effeminate? -Aw, no, baby.

Errol and Olivia had such obvious chemistry that their romance is completely believable to this day....but Robin is reckless: during the Gisborne dinner he gatecrashes, he ends up proselytising about the ransom being used NOT to reclaim the King, but as bribe-money for Prince John to buy himself the throne. Inside the lion's den, Robin first provokes the lion and then makes his escape relying on nothing but his instincts! I'm afraid I found that too reckless to be heroic. (Reckless Robin will strike again.)

In the meantime, the speed with which he and Marian decide they're on the same side is perfect, and the pacing of their affair has made this a classic of romance as well as high adventure. Olivia played Maid Marian as demure, but smart enough to figure out the truth about her own kind. In her disdain for the arrogant-and-obnoxious Sir Guy (Rathbone), we discern her personal ethics, for soon afterwards she is first provoked by then falls for the arrogant-yet-charismatic Robin, who `loves a man who can best (him)'-the antithesis of Sir Guy. `It's injustice I hate, not the Normans', confesses the very Saxon Robin of Loxley to the skeptical and still very Norman Marian.

King Richard had wanted to unite the Normans and the Saxons into a nation. In his absence, his bad-seed brother instead stirs up hatred between those `classes', just to put himself at the top (of the wealthier group, of course). This is frequently the self-serving means by which a megalomaniac scrabbles to the top. And check out the Bishop (Montagu Love)'s spin-doctored counteraccusation of Robin of the very same thing!

The ringleaders of the coup appear to be Sir Guy (the handler) and Prince John (basically a cheap opportunist/"junkyard dog"). The famous Sheriff of Nottingham, surprisingly, is played by Melville Cooper as a simple coward! His manner as he nuts out his idea of holding the archery contest to trap Robin is Cooper's best, most realistic scene (although it's hard to believe that Reckless Robin walks into such an obvious trap).

Imitation being the highest form of flattery, ARH was spoofed in 1956 as The Court Jester, inspired by the scene in which Robin jokes with Marian up in her tower about King Richard making Robin his court jester. When Errol is recruiting Merry Men, he exclaims, `We need good swordsmen. Good archers. Good fighters!': in CJ, this became `Good stock. Good battle. Good-bye!' Many elements were reworked for CJ-none more obviously than the re-casting of Rathbone 18yrs later, again as the bad guy. Both versions are classics-and stylistically there is nothing between them.

My `secret' fav. scene here is the flying arrow which snuffs out a candleflame(!) as the guard is shot in the back, at 24:40mins.

Beyond that, the whole 1938 movie completely satisfies our need for drama. Ian Hunter's sensitive depiction of the returning King Richard, for instance, brings a tear to the eye when he assures Robin Hood,

`You don't need to search for Richard; he's in good hands, the best in England.' `-Whaddyou mean? Where is he?' demands Robin. `HERE!' cries the King, disrobing, and gobsmacking his protector-and us too (but with emotion instead of surprise).

Sadly, the crucial scene of Marian overhearing the plot to assassinate Richard lacks credibility. She's in Prince John's line of sight, moving(!) in that silver dress, so as to draw the eye. If we can see her, so can he-which makes all the fuss about her secretly rounding the corner quite ridiculous. Curtiz&Keighley should've storyboarded (better)!!

Despite such quibbles, I can't NOT rate The Adventures of Robin Hood 10/10. These quibbles just aren't important enough to downgrade such a classic.


I was 10 when I fell in love with Errol Flynn watching this film on TV; more than 30 years later, he's still a hottie [grin]. Sorry, Kevin Costner & all the other pretenders--this is the only & only Robin Hood, & Olivia DeHavilland, the only & most ladylike Maid Marian. Flynn manages to look "all-man" in tights, & in every athletic move he makes. Basil Rathbone, later to play Sherlock Holmes in films of the 1940's, resplendent in a red and gold surcoat, plays Robin Hood's worthy adversary, & he was also adept at fencing in RL. Claude Rains as a subtle & conniving Prince John, a performance appreciated more & more on each viewing.


A visual feast, and a glorious tale, The Adventures of Robin Hood has it all - a noble hero, a beautiful heroine, several hateful villians, great swordplay, lovable comic sidekicks, gorgeous sets, and exciting action. Since restoration, the colors are perfection itself, and aptly reminiscent of a comic book. The characters are strongly drawn, and wonderfully brought to life by the stars, and many of the era's finest character actors. Everything just rings right with this film. It's the best swashbuckler ever.


Unlike other early adult movies such as DEEP THROAT and BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR, this fine combination of explicit sex and shoot 'em up thrills gets little respect even from genre fans. This is largely due to the brutal nature of the film's numerous rape sequences, commendably NOT of the 'they may protest at first' variety. The story's well detailed in the other comment you'll find here, so I won't go into that.

Most of the performers here made very few films (save for Levi Richards who made tons) and even beautiful blonde Barbara Bourbon, who turns in some effective acting as well as the proud, resilient farmer's wife fighting to protect her daughters from 'a fate worse than death', only made a handful of X-rated appearances, most memorably of course in Radley Metzger's timeless PRIVATE AFTERNOONS OF PAMELA MANN. Director "David Fleetwood" is actually sixties schlock producer Joe Robertson (THE CRAWLING HAND, THE SLIME PEOPLE, THE AGENT FOR H.A.R.M.), so the flick's inconspicuous professionalism in just about every aspect of production as well as narrative drive should come as no surprise. He went on to carve a niche for himself as 'female' (for the face value crowd) porn director "Adele Robbins" with movies like SWEET ALICE and INNOCENT SEDUCTION.

You may think that this early rape 'n' revenge movie stands diametrically opposed to his later couples friendly numbers. Anyone taking the effort to sit down and watch the film in its entirety will come to realize however that the female characters (Bourbon's in particular) are well drawn, not whining victims at all, perfectly capable of righting the wrongs inflicted upon them. So give this classic its due and allow it to take its rightful place in the pantheon alongside its more renowned genre brethren.


This classic X-movie purports to recount the escape of three convicts from the NW territorial prision in 1891. The film starts off Nate (Richard O'Neal) and Sarah (Barbara Bourbon) discussing their 18-year old daughters upcoming marriage and the rancher's need to ride off on errant for a number of days. With 30 minutes before he has to leave, he and Sarah tumble back into bed for a lovely lovemaking scene. Barbara Bourbon is breathtaking in this rare X appearance.

Soon after Nate rides off, the 3 convicts crest the hill to find Sarah's three daughters bathing nude in the creek. These lovely girls are reason enough for them to stop their flight from the pursuing posse long enough to scout the ranch.

The meanest of the three hombres is sacking the ranchhouse when Sarah enters and is immediately taken. Finding out that the 'menfolk' are gone, Ned the convict rips off Sarah's clothes and rapes her on kitchen table. Seven years without sex makes this a rough scene.

When they are done, Ned drags Sarah to the barn, collecting the three still naked girls and the two other convicts on the way. Giving herself to the second and third convicts to protect her girls, Sarah is raped and sodomized in the barn.

However, her noble act goes unrecognized. After they are done with her, she is taken outside and hung (by her arms) from the barn's lifting beam for our visual pleasure and some more abuse.

The convicts ride off with the three daughters, just ahead of the posse who save the strung-up Sarah. She insists on riding out with them in pursuit.

The film winds down with naked bathing scene with the convicts and girls, and a vicious rape of the Maria, the youngest daughter by Ned. As the thugs sleep in a cave hideaway, the girls plan in whispers to save themselves by wearing them out, and you might they employ their newly taught sex skills to this means. When the time is ripe they club and shoot the bad guys just as the posse arrives, and Sarah gets to dispatch Ned. These convicts wouldn't be returning to the territorial prison.


Nate (Richard O'Neal) goes off on a cattle drive, not before having sex with his wife,Sarah (Barbara Bourbon), of course. After 3 escaped convicts rape her, steal her three nubile daughters and then flee, leaving her strung up by her hands, she of course wants revenge. So when a rag-tag posse chasing the convicts rescue her, she insists on traveling with them. This is a curious film, as a porno/western hybrid, it's the first of it's kind that I've seen. Some may be put off by the highly exploitative showing of rape and incest. But I found myself actually drawn into and interested in what would happen next. The film is a further example of how porn films now shot on video, just don't seem to cut it (barring, of course, the way above average output of Directors Micheal Zen, Brad Armstrong, and few others) My Porn Grade: B-


This is probably the most boring, predictable, cliché-ridden action pic of all time. Let's tick off the familiar details:

* Smart-ass hero who has a quip for every occasion, unfortunately coming across as a total jerk to the audience.

* Blonde babe who starts off being a strong independent woman not needing a bloke, but finally is saved and falls in love with The Jerk.

* A loving brother of The Jerk who teams up with him for a mission, but is sadly killed (usually accompanied by a shrill NNNNNOOOOO!!).

* A huge weapon owned by the bad guys (say, a laser) which looks like it was assembled on Blue Peter with sellotape and used toilet rolls. This is A THREAT TO THE FREE WORLD AND MUST BE STOPPED.

* You'd think with THE FREE WORLD on offer, the bad guys would hire people who could shoot straight. Sadly, even at point blank range, they fail to even scratch The Jerk and The Blonde. Are we surprised?

* Explosions which resemble the aftermath of a particularly spicy vindaloo than huge bombs being detonated. They usually set a couple of stuntmen alight, who put themselves out by jumping into a convenient lake. DO YOU SEE?!

* So-called 'hilarious' buddy talk between The Jerk and his mates that reads like it was written by a 18 year old college dropout while sitting on the toilet (example: after the above stuntman emerges from the lake, The Jerk comments "Well, guess his ass is toast!!" Ho ho).

* A lead villain who spends more time in bed with his collection of exotic ladies and styling his hair than getting involved in the dirty work of stopping our heroes. With such casual laziness. It's amazing that he's in the position he is.

* A compulsory nude scene with one of the above exotic ladies showing off her butt and boobies when getting out of bed. What about The Blonde? Don't be silly.. she's FAR too refined to exploit herself like that. Might have helped her acting career though..

* A MASSIVE final action climax with guns a-blazing, bullets a-flying and fists a-swinging.. is not in this film. A suffocation, a kiss, and that's yer lot. Yep, the best cliché of this genre is the one this movie strenuously avoids. Shame that..

Basically, its not very good. Now pass me the award for 'understatement of the year'. While I practise my acceptance speech, I'll inform you that I give it 2/10. That's it. Now, get lost.


Should have been called PLENTY OF TIME TO TALK. Ted Barner (John Phillip Law) is hired by a company to transport a freaking' laser cannon across Indonesia to a mine. Accompanying him are old pal Ratno (Barry Prima), company exec Martin Forster (Horst Janson of CAPTAIN KRONOS) and nosy reporter Judy (Grazyna Dylong). On the chase is Barner's angry former partner Von Clef (Winfried Glatzeder), who has been hired by Mr. Gull (Christopher Mitchum) to steal the device. Things get even more convoluted when our team receives word the mine needs the cannon, like, now because some miners are trapped and - cue ominous trumpets - Forster's brother is among them.

Law, Prima, Janson, Mitchum! This should have been killer, right? Sadly, that is not the case. A German-Indonesian co-production, you can see they are trying to do THE WAGES OF FEAR (or SORCERER, for that matter) but it is neither intense or thrilling. The first 40 minutes are spent setting up that relatively simple plot and absolutely nothing happens. It is also the kind of movie where characters talk about how important the item they are transporting is, yet they haul it around on an open flatbed. Mitchum gets in his contractually obligated Lanky White Guy Fu towards the end. Law is actually likable and shows a personality here, which is strange to me. Freakin' not giving Barry Prima a single kick to throw? Sacrilegious! Seriously, if I ever sent this to someone, I would type up a small plot paragraph so they know who everyone is and tell them to start at 40 minutes in. Nicht gut, Herr Director.


I was travelling in Indonesia in 1984 and got picked up as an extra for a day, filming some of the chases between the two jeeps near Bogor. I've only seen a rough copied version of the film from German TV, but I don't think my scenes made it. I was 19, got paid US$15 plus lunch, and it was great fun! I had to wear a checked shirt and had my hair blackened and plastered down. I had thought I would be one of many extras, but when I turned up outside the backpackers that morning I was the only one. They then checked I could drive, and I was told to drive the jeep at about 70kph up a hill outside Bogor. That turned out to be very fast, so we had to do it again. I often wondered what happened to the film, and then one day found it accidentally browsing this site.


The story, the acting, the stunts are deserving a 10 with a very fat "-" in front of.

The laser gun could be better created by LEGO, the stunts and car chases ( the amateurish without sense and tension )are helping to find minutes in the movie without any dialog, which are absolutely silly... The cast itself with the most unknown ( and untalented ) actors of Germany ( Horst Jansson, known as German anchorman in the German Sesame Street-series of late 70th and early 80th )! Exception is Winfried Glatzeder, but why the actor, who played main character in "The Legend of Paul and Paula", make his signature under a contract for a movie like this could just be explained that he was maybe bankrupt and had to pay his rent, or could not afford a holiday in Indonesia and find his chance with a role in this crap.

At least, the sets of Jakarta ( but a lots of them in the ANCOL holiday park ) and country side of Indonesia are nice, and wasted for a shameful movie like this.


Awful dialog, a plot that makes no sense, speeded-up car chases, gratuitous explosions, paper-cutout characters (not substantial enough to be cardboard). A German-Indonesian co-production in which the actors speak whatever language suited them, and then all the voices were badly dubbed at the end.

Nothing about this film appears credible; you may find it unintentionally hilarious, or you may just wonder why they (and you) bothered.


This action film concerning the transport of a laser gun talks itself to death. Crew and cast both show signs that they were caught in the Indonesian heat: the stunts and special effects are bad; whether a good guy or a bad guy, everybody's acting is bad ; there is no decent story; Ashley's directing is hopeless. The film is beaming something conceited like "what you can do in Hollywood, we can do at least as good", but of course the makers were wrong, they simply lacked the talent. They should have used the laser beam to obliterate this film.


This 3-part production is the most perfect thing I've ever seen on television - the writing, acting, direction, locations, costumes, etc are faultless. Episode two, where Lady Slane learns that Mr Fitzgeorge fell in love with her when they were young, but never revealed his love, is a triumph, and reduces me to tears every time I watch it. Why this series isn't available on commercial release is a mystery, because they just don't get any better than this.


I saw it when it came out in the eighties and I have it in vivid memory as an extraordinary experience. The quiet telling of an intriguing life, and the very way the story unfolds. Wendy Hiller does excellent work here and the gallery around her is the true British tradition of character description. It is one of the very few cases, where I went out and bought the book, and the book disappointed me. It is one of my highest priorities as a DVD and it is crying shame, if this mini series is forgotten. The story begins at the funeral of her husband and her consequent decision to live out the rest of her days according to her own wishes after a long life as the wife of a very successful politician. Prime minister and viceroy of India among his accomplishments. We get retrospective insights in her perception of this life, but the very amusing part is the description of her family's reaction to her buying a house on Hampstead Heath and not wishing visits from anybody below 40! With on exception, a granddaughter, whom the family subsequently tries to bully unto spying! This story is sheer delight, and i sincerely hope to see it on DVD soon


The first time I viewed this version of the Vita Sackville West story I came away moved by the powerful performances, the careful, effective use of language, and the ever present sense of class and propriety that can both stifle a life, and open it to many things. Dame Wendy Hiller lives in her role. Her interactions with Deborah, her only grandchild welcome to visit her, are so genuine as to make the viewer feel as if they have stumbled into a private moment. The grandmotherly understanding Lady Slane shows for Deborah tell us intuitively much about herself. Fine turns by both Maurice Denham as Mr. Bucktrout and David Waller as the bowler covered Mr. Gosheron maintain credibility. Their characters allow Lady Slane the kind of social interaction she has searched for her whole life. Martyn Friend allows the characters to completely dictate the action in this film. Never did I feel the camera was conducting a scene, but quietly recording the event with intimate understanding. Notable performances that enhanced the truthfulness of Peter Buckman's adaption were turned in by Harry Andrews as the irascible, wholly independent Fitzgeorge and John Franklyn-Robbins uncomfortable in his own skin as Kay. Finally, Eileen Way's faithful portrayal of Lady Slane's caring maid/caregiver quite naturally brought the tears to my eyes moments before the end of this three part series. My feelings of empathy for her character, Genoux, in that moment of realization left me without any sense I was viewing a film. The editing is tight. Not a wasted scene, yet, there is no sense any more were needed. I would think that the epitome of what editing should be about. In testimony to this films lasting effect, it has been over 5 years since I last saw this on tape and I remember it this well. In short, All Passion Spent is an clear example of what television can be when those involved care enough to bring all their best, unselfishly, to a project. Dame Wendy Hiller is not prized for this film because she is found selfishly hogging the screen, but because she and her fellow storytellers, bring their whole beings to the roles they present. signed, Spinner


"All Passion Spent" is one of the finest dramas ever produced for television. The casting was a triumph with some of Britain's best character actors. Dame Wendy Hiller was perfect in her quiet, dignified, yet resolute portrayal of Lady Sloan. Maurice Denham's eccentric Mr. Bucktrout will always be one of my favorite supporting roles. This film was one of my all time favorites and never failed to give my spirit a lift and help me "consider the lilies of the field". We lost our copy in an accident a few years ago and I fear I will never have the opportunity to view this magnificent film again.


I agree with the others who say that All Passion Spent should be made available commercially, I vote for a DVD. It has stayed with me since I saw it on Masterpiece Theatre in the '80s. It is a perfect piece. The performances, the cinematography, the music, and the sometimes poetic script combine to provide a very affecting experience. I have an old tape that I made from TV, it isn't very good quality and each time I watch it I worry that it is going to disintegrate. While on a tour of Hampstead, I came across the house that was used in the film as the house that Lady Slane bought, it was quite exciting. I pray that somehow this moving, gentle, inspiring work of art will be re-issued, so that it can be enjoyed again by the many who love it and enrich the lives of those who have yet to see it.


My wife and I simply echo the earlier comments - this is so superbly acted and filmed that we immediately wanted to watch it all again. Dame Wendy Hiller shows acting craft at its finest, commanding the camera by her force of personality and subtleness of every facial expression and movement. All the supporting roles are also outstanding. Somehow the film seems to enfold you in the life of the woman who is given so little time to grasp at a life she wished she might have had.

Good news for all admirers: this film is now indeed out on DVD (2006 release), with an interesting lengthy text biography of the novel's author (Vita Sackville-West) among the special features.


Seventy years after the young Wendy Hiller starred as Eliza Doolittle in "Pygmalion," it is stunning to see her act the part of an old woman in "All Passion Spent," a three-episode version of a Vita Sackville-West novel. She was still beautiful, still a splendid actress. I won't attempt to summarize the story but the TV program is filled with English actors whose faces you will recognize even if you don't know their names. Particularly effective is Harry Andrews, as a wealthy elderly eccentric who fell in love with Dame Wendy's character decades earlier, though they met only fleetingly. Also noteworthy is Jane Snowden as the great-granddaughter who is inspired to follow her own path in life by her great-grandmother's example. Although she lived to be 91, Dame Wendy was only in her mid-70's when this series was made; her character is in her mid-80's.


Escape from Monkey Island, the fourth game in the Monkey Island tetralogy, is a mixed bag. One thing is for certain, the ending of the game is so ridiculously over the top that I'm pretty sure the game-series has reached some kind of conclusion (though CMI is still the pinnacle).

On elements that were done well, I must agree that the voice cast of the game was simply professional. Even though I miss Alexandra Boyd's lovely British accent, her replacement Charity James does a good job with Elaine, though truth be told I liked her performance as Grace Nakimura in Gabriel Knight 3 better. Stan is also a bit of a heckler, but decent. Musically the game does not quite deliver as all music is either similar to or borrowed from Curse. That is not to say that the soundtrack isn't high-quality, it just doesn't offer as many memorable moments as the past games.

Graphics wise the game is rather uneven. Certain animations are very fluid and lighting in the game is quite brilliant. However, over-all physics are somewhat lacking. On a positive note, the cut-scenes a really well executed. The interface has seen only minor improvements from Grim Fandango, but if you ask me LucasArts made a wise decision in adding action-lines into the game.

A few points of criticism are in order though. Jambalaya island in Act II came as a rather big shock for long time fans and still one of my least favorite sections in the game. Monkey Kombat in Act III, though fun may seem rather tedious to some gamers. Additionally, I was rather disappointed at the blatant fan-service quality of sticking Murray into the game. He is fun to talk to, but ultimately serves no purpose to the over-all plot.

However, one thing is still in the right place, that one thing that Monkey Island is really about, humour. The humour of the game is a shade different from that of previous games, but just as witty and fresh.

Escape from Monkey Island may not be a shiny package, but it is a funny game and definitely a fine ending for a classic series.


Yes, I played the first game and this one. I missed out on part two and three which is a bit sad as I apparently miss LeChuck as a zombie and demon. I also missed the amusement park and I am sure there were quite a few funny moments and puzzles to be had there. This one is rather funny too, and a rather straight forward kind of game. I really only had difficulty in one section and that is only because I was pushing the wrong button like an idiot. Speaking of idiots, Guybrush Threepwood is back and after a brief skirmish out on the high seas he and his wife return home to find out someone has taken over as governor of the island. There is an Australian making fools of the pirates when they do the insult sword duel and he seems to have an evil scheme. The local bar has become a nice little restaurant where you get your meal served to you on a conveyor belt, you get to go to a cool place and try to out cliff dive some dude, and you of course end up once again at Monkey Island! So lots of comedy bits, the game progresses rather smoothly to be sure with very little thinking needing to be done to get by most of the puzzles. A little more challenge could have helped a bit, and maybe some various endings or something but all in all an amusing game.


There are several factors I like in adventure games. I like it when you can't die too easily, and I like it when you can't ruin the game by forgetting something or doing something wrong the first time. LucasArts' "Monkey Island" series has these, and more. They're funny, they're challenging, and, for the most part, they're CLEAN. They are suitable for most ages, though I wouldn't advise letting kids who are too young play them, and you can get a good laugh without too many inappropriate or suggestive comments. I was really looking forward to playing the fourth installment of the "Monkey Island" series. I'd played all three before and thought they were all great. They were easily the most fun and interesting games I'd ever played, especially since I was used to the whole "Sierra" theme and didn't really know what to expect. There are a lot of great things about these games, namely, you can't die all too easily (although there may be some spots you might be able to) and you can't ruin the whole entire game by forgetting one thing or not following explicit directions. There's always a second chance in Monkey Island (and in most LucasArts games!) Unfortunately, I really didn't like EMI as much as I did the others. The main difference was the absence of the "point-and-click" interface. I didn't mind it too much for using inventory, but simple commands became a bit difficult since you couldn't directly click on something - you might have to turn several times to get it right - and the walking style took a lot of getting used to! Also absent was the choice of "light" and "mega" that was present in other games, because playing on lite first for a little while might have been helpful for "getting used" to the game before really going for it. Don't get me wrong - EMI is a great game and should be enjoyed by everyone. I was disappointed to hear that the creators of the game didn't include little Wally because they didn't like his character, because I (and many others, I'm sure) thought he added a nice touch to the whole game, along with helping move the plot along. (Play the second and third one to see who he is!) And it was too bad that Murray, the talking skull, was only present for a little while and didn't have as big a part as in the third one. Either way, the game was really great, and I would certainly advise it to anyone looking for a fresh new type of adventure game.


Normally, sequels are worse than their predecessors. This is generally more true for movies than computer games, but mostly holds true for computer-games too. Escape from Monkey Island is an exception to this. It is in my opinion the best of the four games, and then I think the three predecessors to this one were great too.

You will like this game the most if you have played the previous three, since there are a lot of flashbacks, and characters from the old games in this one, so you will miss out on a lot of the jokes and story if you haven't played them.

But if you did play the three other Monkey Island games, and loved them as I did, you MUST play this one. It is truly great, and everything is perfect. It's true they moved to 3D this time, but it wasn't at all disturbing as I thought it would be. The graphics is great, the story is even better, and the humor is fantastic! It's a must-play!

The monkeys are listening...


I've played a lot of game, especially the quest types (Myst, Riven etc.) and i have to say that this one is the best. When the Curse of Monkey Island came out, i found it really good, but this one's even better. I loved the graphics, the unique (in is way) lucasarts humour, and the plot + storyline. I liked the voice of Dominic Armato as Guybrush, and all of the other characters as well. There is only one thing missing: there's no soundtrack, and the music is great. If you haven't got this game, get it now, you won't regret it.


I love all the monkey island games, they are all excellent. The first Monkey Island Game (the secret of monkey island) was very funny. The second game was my least favourite, but brilliant. The Curse of Monkey Island was one of the best because it was one of the funniest and better graphics than the first two. But this one was possibly my favourite. It is in CGI, it is very funny and it is also one of the hardest (maybe the hardest). It took me forever to defeat Jojo Jr. at Monkey Kombat, but it was fun. I think Guybrush is funnier than in the first three games. The hardest part of the game is Monkey Kombat. I had to use a walk-through as well as it was difficult.

Overall I would give this game: 10/10. Curse: 10/10 Secret: 10/10 Revenge: 8/10


. . .and it's not really even about Lucia! Lucia y el Sexo is actually about Lorenzo, Lucia's novelist boyfriend, and the consequences of a sexual encounter he had in the past which has led to a catastrophic event in his life. It's a languid and tempestuous poem of a movie, told in a non-linear way by the extremely ambitious Julio Medem.

 As a novelist myself, I deeply related to Lorenzo's blurring of reality and imagination. Your characters MUST be real to you in order for them to live and breathe on the page, and so much of your own life goes into the characters that the lines of course do blur. And then there's the subconscious, which cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality. Medem understands all this very well, and his depiction of it is remarkable.

 The title, I believe, refers to Lorenzo's past (The Sex and what happened as a result of it), and his present (Lucia). Paz Vega and Tristan Ulloa are stunning as the two leads - Vega with her fierce intelligence and Ulloa with his tormented vulnerability. I would have given this film a 10 if it hadn't been for the fact that the most pivotal scene is shot in an incredibly vague manner, which left me confused as to what had actually happened until much later in the movie, but it is a brilliant and heartfelt experience nonetheless.


This is one of the better structured movies ever put to screen. It's as complex as Lynch's Lost Highway, but that only adds to the experience. A non-linear structure (in time and space) is applied and Lucia y el Sexo blurs the line between reality and imagination.

Basically, it's like Mulholland Drive: Most of what we see is a dream, imagination. Only a relatively small part did really happen. But this goes one step further: What part is in the eye of the beholder here, because little clues are given so the mystery format is only used to keep us entertained at a basic level.

A writer is the center here. Some parts of his life are probably true (trouble at home, sickness), others are ambiguous, others are certainly imagined. He is in the meta-story, but also places himself in threads in the other stories that come from his imagination. His imagination is formed by applying smaller and larger events (meeting a person at a party, seeing someone in front of the house) in his personal life to his fantasies. His erotic fantasies explain the title, as sex is one of the characters of the story. One of the story lines is again about his script read on the island by one of his imagined characters. Writing the story and telling the story is done simultaneously. As he becomes sick, the characters become helpless in the story. Overall it helps a lot if you keep imagining that you're watching imagined characters being manipulated by the writer. This combines meta-story and story, real with imagination, weaving several threads in a complicated web of story lines. In the end, it is made clear that the story doesn't end but starts again halfway, giving further evidence that viewers can use their imagination at random on this and create their own story out of it.

The meta-story is interesting, but by mixing it with the story itself we see the real story as what it is, a writing trick with imagined characters. That unfortunately diminishes the emotions a movie tries to convey. We're merely watching how a movie is structured, with the imagined story not having the usual dramatic impact.

It's remarkable that so many people are offended about the sex scenes, as it's already in the title. Do they also complain about the presence of aliens in Alien? I found the sex scenes to be made with some honesty; and at least they didn't even shy away of male nudity.


I found this film absolutely terrific. Ik know there's a lot of sex in it and yes, there are a lot of suspicious coincidences, but I looked past that.

For starters, I loved the story, it wasn't boring at all, despite what some may say. It was a sort of twisty fairytale to me, just like 'Los Amantes del Circulo Polàr' was. I love good fairy tales!

The acting was very good by most actors (I love you Najwa!), and good by the others. Even the girl that played Luna was convincing.

The film has a lot of explicit scenes (sexual and non-sexual) but besides from that Médem accomplishes to put a lot of suggestion in it (sexual and non-sexual). If you watch it attentively and past merely what you see, you will notice the subtlety of the characters and story.

Last of all i would like to say that the English title (Sex and Lucia) is an abomination to the original title (Lucia y el Sexo). The word are the same, but the word order has flipped, which gives the title a whole other meaning, to my opinion. The film is about Lucia and the meaning sex has in her life and the life of others. It is not about sex and the way Lucia handles with it. The meaning of film titles is often lost in translation (no pun intended). Why can't American (and other) people keep the original title? We can in Belgium.

A la proxima


The earlier film by Julio Médem (Lovers of the Arctic Circle) is a prelude to the kind of cinematography that this Spanish film director/writer presents here. I have read most of the other comments, but they don't do justice to it, mainly because of the lack of understanding the original tongue of this film. The screenplay is excellent, full of metaphors and a rich use of very carefully chosen words. People who consider this film just an excuse for depicting sex scenes as the highlight of the movie are pretty much clueless. It is more than that, it is the complex storytelling that tangles the characters in this movie and the way that is told. Compelling and breath-taking. A must see.


(8/10) Refreshing, delightful, sexy. moving and thought-provoking movie from Spain. Not really porn (as the title might suggest) although there is some very artistic explicitness. It is movies like this one that remind us that European cinema can scale the emotional dilemmas and mountains of a story where other films look at a storyline in terms of physical developments. Lucia, a young waitress in Madrid, falls completely in love with a writer. After a period of blissful togetherness, something from his past pulls him in two directions. We are caught up in his moral dilemma, of not wanting to lose the wonderful gift he has found and yet not wanting to be untrue to himself. The semi-autobiographical novel he is writing pulls together the story and the emotions and hopes of the characters and introduces ideas that enable them to heal some of their hurt. A central idea is that of finding a hole (symbolically on the sandy beach) where, after reaching the end of the story, you can jump back into the middle. That way you can try an make things turn out better ("If you give me time", says Lorenzo, Lucia's boyfriend.) A more mature and rounded work than the Director's earlier "Lovers of the Arctic Circle", Sex and Lucia combines wonderful acting, a great story, innovative cinema and spine-tingly beautiful photography. One of my favourite films of the year.


This is really one of the better constructed movies I've seen in a while.

Both the storytelling and style of the movie can be called unique.

It starts mixing reality with fiction and its hard to tell what really happened and what didn't. It features lots of 'what-if' themes and the story is being rewritten in the characters mind, also with lots of symbolism, mainly with the moon and the water. It doesn't make this the most accessible movie but then again, you don't ever have to watch an European movie for its accessibility.

Things start off quite slow but as the story develops the story gets more and more complicated and non-linear, when the line between fiction and reality gets blurred more and more. It does make the movie hard to follow at times but it at the same time makes the movie more interesting to watch and enables everybody start to define things on their own. You of course have to be open to these sort of movies though. Also the very explicit nudity isn't just for everybody.

Sex plays a key part in the movie. It helps to tell the story and plays a significant role in the story lines and help to indicate when things are truth or fiction. Never before has sex played such a key part in the storytelling of a movie.

This movie is always presented as a Paz Vega but this movie it's main character is in my opinion played by Tristán Ulloa. He's the writer, were the entire movie involves around. The story is mostly set inside his head. The three main actors (Paz Vega, Tristán Ulloa, Najwa Nimri) of the movie are really good and carry the entire movie.

Visually the movie is really great and impresses just as much as the storytelling of the movie. The camera-work and colors are really great and create a very unique atmosphere for the movie. It helps to make "Lucía y el sexo" an even bigger and more enjoyable movie to watch, visually.

Those who are open for an unique, one of a kind, unusual movie experience, will surely be delighted with this magnificent beautiful looking and constructed movie.

9/10


Once again Julio Meden reminds us that doing movies is an art. Not just story telling, but Art. The very way of telling the story can be artful, and this flick is a nice example. Newspaper reviews in my city gave it two stars out of four, but this guys would never give good ranking to a movie without gay action or dark, 10-ton-of-sadness endings. Great movies, artistically speaking, can be done without leaving the feel-good mood, like this one. Good acting, superb job of photography, optimistic way of portraying the human being, an excellent movie!

Don´t be shocked with the sex scenes, there´s much more story around. The director was very courageous to jeopardize the movie reputation among puritan, hypocritical viewers. 10 out of 10.


Every time I watch a film by Julio Medem, the same thing happens to me, and that is that I feel weightless and it feels like time is slower and the images have a different color. With this film, it was no exception; the moment the credits appeared and I left the theater my feet felt like I was floating over the ground.

This spanish auteur, has showed us throughout time, that he is able to wake up even the most hidden feelings from us and play with them as the pieces of the puzzles that are his movies are set together like in "vacas", "la ardilla roja" and most greatly in "los amantes del circulo polar".

What call my attention the most is that, I have the feeling that Medem tried to get away from his past with this story but ended up coming back to it, which is a great thing in the sense that the poetry and melancholy that is always present in his movies, are also part of this one.

The main question regarding the film is, What does "Lucia y el sexo" mean?, what is the correlation between what happens and the actual ritual of sex? You have to see it to get a conclusion...Is it love?, lust?, loss of innocence?, or just a part of the human condition? To get an idea, you have to let yourself go along the images and surely you might find the answer at the end.

One more thing, who wouldn´t fall in love with someone like Lucia? I would also say yes, the very first moment she would come near me.


Written reality. I had the unexpected pleasure of seeing this soon after Ruiz's Proust. Both about writers creating a life.

Time folding. Narrative layers.

The three sisters from 'Alice in Wonderland,' here named Alsi/Elana, Lucia (the Alice, an anagram, in fact one that Carroll used) and Belin. The story is to Alice, for Alice, about Alice and generates the world that Alice lives in. The lighthouse and hole.

Its less than intelligent in the level of the story: lust drives meaning, but that's because the written novel is at that vulgar level. This film starts slow and ordinary, just as the novel within. But we soon weave all sorts of ambiguous narrative threads, each creating the other. The last half of the film is a bedtime story, a novel, a suicide note, a coma-induced dream, a recipe, an internet communication, a climax-induced hallucination, a blindfolded taste.

A man loves three women. Another man mirrors him. Lots of coupling, ethereal angst,

Two of the sisters plus the author (and his double), all possibly dead (all possibly fictional), on the island of conception. And the story starts again halfway.

Some lightly nuanced direction here. Endearment without cloying. The only thing in this film that is not sensually romantic is that the computer is a PeeCee and not a Mac. You'd think they'd know.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.


For a north American who usually watches N.A. candy like movies, which are usually visually pleasing but hollow in the script, this one is a very nice surprise.

I'll give a 10/10 for the movie - script, director's performance, cinematic effects, castings (kudos to Elena Anya - she should shoot more serious movies like this one than Hollywood movies like Van Helsing), editing. The sex scenes are explicit but necessary to tell the story honestly, so it's sex scenes in good tastes.

p.s. Vicky Cristina Barcelona seemed to be a N.A. version of this one but like suggested earlier before, this movie got more complexity, originality & layers - thus more enjoyable.


Movies like this that tread heavily into the surreal are fascinating to me. The moon (positive), the hole (negative or inverse of the moon), the man suddenly arising from the still mud (creation). I think that we can consider the movie as "real" or plausible if we consider that the characters arise from the writer's consciousness. "I'm going to kill them now (babysitter and her porn-star mother)" Lorenzo says as he arises from bed, then over to his computer where he starts writing. Why does the dog kill the little girl? Does the dog symbolize lust (note Lucia keeps saying, "I'm dying!" as she has sex with Lorenzo)? This is all in his head, I think, or in the computer, and finally in the manuscript displayed at the end.


With Lucia y el sexo Julio Medem draws on a lot of his familiar themes. Destiny,coincidence and fate alternating courses during people's lives. He also handled love and memories as important drives of people. Children tend to portray people's consciousness, with their fresh and honest innocence. As Luna's fate in this movie both infects and cleanses Salvador, taking him through his past and present.

Medem also likes to use nature to symbolize stages and feelings in his character's lives. The moon, soil, water and fish all come back repeatedly, each with a different meaning. This gives the movie a beautiful dreamy atmosphere, strongly backed up by the camera work.

Now to the sex in the movie. It's very strong from the beginning, but besides it's explicitness Medem also deals with it very sensitively. The sex is arousing but meaningful too. Anyone who's been in a passionate relationship must be touched by Salvador and Lucia's sex life, leading toward an almost dangerous addiction. I wondered if the rest of their relationship was strong enough to pass the test of time though, sex seemed to be at the core of their love. Some of the sex scenes were very aesthetically directed and filmed. The cunnilingus scene on this symphony-like music was classic! It's definitely the best oral sex scene I've ever seen on film. Arousing with a smile. I was also happy to see that the UK-version of the video was uncut, showing the male organs. Very refreshing that men are also portrayed vulnerably in a movie. The sex is much stronger and important in the first part of the film. That was functionable in the story as the characters saturate themselves in it, leading to problems, but somehow to me it also felt unbalanced.

Julio Medem has really made a beautiful film with Lucia y el sexo. I found it profoundly moving and captivating. You have to let yourself be carried away though or you might become saturated yourself, with the abundance of symbolism and sex.


This is the kind of movie you'll like and you'll have to see again. So smart, so amazingly entertaining, full of details you begin to realize as the end is approaching. As opposed to what some people may think, I believe that all the sex scenes, although they are pretty explicit, are totally necessary in order to tell the story and to show the characters just as they are. It's a movie to really think about and it goes from what it seems a twisted story full of rather weird elements to a (if you wanna see it in that way) sweet and simple love story. The acting was good, but mostly because there was a great book and a great direction behind it: Médem's work was remarkable. If you don't mind seeing some, you may say, awkward sex scenes, and you're looking for a really great plot, with great dialogs full of symbolisms, and also excellent photography, then you're just gonna love this one.


My friends and I were debating about what movie to go see the other night. I suggested a foreign art film because I was getting sick of all the Hollywood story lines that were starting to look alike. Anyway, we saw a film that was moving, wild, unpredictable, emotional, seductive, and dramatic. I fell in love with the characters so much I didn't know what to do. You are definitely moved and excited. Yes, you get excited...admit it. I have never seen such an explicit film that was so raw, yet romantic and pure. It was so forbidden but adventurous. I have seen a lot of foreign film that have raw sex, but this one...took the show. The colors in the film are also unique in that I'm sure they were chosen so that your eyes would not wear out because of so much life you see.

Incredible film from Spain. I'm going to marry my next woman from that beautiful country.


Ok... Maybe I enjoyed this film because I clearly went to see it with a bunch of misconceptions... I thought (a) it was an Italian film (its Spanish), (b) I blanked on the ending of Lucia and for some reason thought it was about a guy... (and of course, Lucia is a girl...) (c) I thought it was about said 'guy' having a romping good time shooting through 3 girls. Clearly the movie review I heard was also a little confused!

Instead, I was really pleasantly surprised to find out that this was actually a really good, if somewhat unacategoriseable film! I mean there was humour, there was drama, there was defintely some plot twists, obviously some sex scenes and it was thoroughly engaging all the way through! I had to laugh though, although many complain about the gratuitous female nudity, this film did slip with the editing of the male nudity, making that seem gratuitous - but in an era where all the Hollywood actress spend half a movie naked and having sex with fully clothed men, it was nice just to see some male nudity (when was the last time you saw a post-80s Hollywood movie with as much male bare chest as in Ben Hur?!)!

Its very hard to write about this movie in depth - the plot does twist a lot - clearly evident by some of the reviews indicating the reviewer was defintely confused. I suspect this is because the premise of the film was to write a story where if you didn't like the ending, there was an escape hatch to return to the middle - which it did. However, the actors in this movie are so good, and the character development is excellent so that its hard not to get swept up in the gorgeous filming and unfolding plot. I really enjoyed this film, but if you like your adult films to be mindless fluff, this film isn't for you. But if you want to be entertained for 2 solid hours - this film is defintely right up your alley!


The story is circonvoluted, with many loopholes and inconsistencies. The prose -including the writings of Lorenzo, the main character- is rather corny. But we are told to forget those loopholes, and rather penetrate one of the holes in everyman's fantasy island, and end up somewhere else, where women declare to us unrequitted love, remember the one-night stand they had with us as a glorious moment in their lives or choose us as their wild sex partner, in a world of limited pain and certain forgiveness.

We are sent by Menem into a different place. A place where feelings, and not the story, counts. The place one will remember for a long time: where the tidal flow made by full moons is also the flow of our soul, where we can see happiness as an island -or rather, a raft- in the midst of a sea of indiference, where we can find Lucía's loving and admiring eyes and smile, and live in them forever.


This is probably the hottest film I have ever seen. It is the story of an author and three of his lovers, focusing on the great love of his life, Lucia. All of these women make permanent impressions on Lorenzo, although he only intends make make anything lasting with Lucia. He has a one-night stand with a woman at the beach, who bears a daughter. He has a one-night stand years later with his daughter's baby sitter, and simultaneously his daughter is killed.

What's the symbolism? I don't know. What I do know is that this is a thougtful, beautiful film full of naked sizzling Spaniards getting it on. This is well worth a couple of hours of viewing time.


I liked Julio Medem's "Vacas" and "Los amantes del círculo polar" very much (I have not seen "La ardilla roja" but I've been told it's good), but this time I found his movie so ridiculously pretentious and boring that I could not believe my ears (because my eyes were more or less fascinated by the vistas.) Maybe if I were a foreign language spectator, I would not notice the actors' mumbling as I read the subtitles, but this film even needs subtitles for a Spanish-speaking person like me. The actors murmur, undress, suffer (and how!) and try to add coherence and credibility to the silly dialogues to no avail.


This movie is one of the worst I've seen in the past year. The writing was absolutely horrific. If you believe this movie was even remotely entertaining than you may have been tricked by a talent less writer. The movie twisted and turned so much that I found myself carefully paying attention to every little detail only to realize that when the film ended absolutely nothing was accomplished. The writer twisted the order and events of the movie because he can't write. I imagine most viewers will be so overwhelmed by the ever changing events and they won't actually sit back to realize this film was a complete and total waste of time. This movie was so bad that even after watching XXX immediately before Sex and Lucia; it was still painful to witness.

At least the porno bits in Sex and Lucia were entertaining.


There is nothing to like about this movie. Even the much talked about sex scenes start to get boring, since they are so gratuitous and repetitive. The film is poorly scripted and none of the psychological reactions of the characters ring true. No one could take seriously the character of Lorenzo the novelist who writes such juvenile autobiographical stories. And what about the plot holes and loose ends? Why the hell does the family dog suddenly attack the young girl, with whom it had lived for years? What purpose does it serve to leave open the fate of the babysitter, her mother and Carlos (who literally disappears down a hole)? The movie tries to be deep, but fails embarrassingly.


Extremely well directed film with superb performances by the three lead women that fails miserably. The film has no dramatic tension due to a lackluster male lead that generates no interest: He is neither intellectual enough nor sexy enough. He projects no angst or even a healthy dash of true grit for the role he is required to play (young Antonio Banderas sorely missed here). It is difficult to see why three stunning women with great personalities are/were involved with him. The middle lags considerably, in particular the relationship between Lucia and Lorenzo that marches straight to a dead end, going nowhere other than circles. Towards the grand finale, a clever plot carries the day as the three stories converge. Sex is gorgeously photographed but plain, perhaps too caste in feeling, in fact most of it is boring, possibly because of the lack in dramatic tension (very far from the heat accomplished by masters like Nicholas Roeg). The ending is perhaps one of the most thoroughly disappointing ones in Spanish cinema, a complete cop-out, turning a could-be classic mood piece into cheap melodrama that can be forgotten in a few hours. Wait for the video release if you must see it.


Wow - so many comments for a foreign film! This film is not for everyone - like most foreign films - and by it's title, you can assume that there's a good chance that there's quite a bit of sexual content in it, so I'm not sure why anyone would criticize it for that.

Anyway, this is by far one of the better films I've seen recently, and it's not really about sex, but about the relationship Lucia has with her boyfriend and the crisis he is going through. The story line is totally unpredictable, which is the beauty of it. If you liked Kieslowski's trilogy (Blue - white - red), you should like this film. Highly recommended.


The movie is OK up until the last third which is just a redundant and long-winded exposition of the first 2/3 of the movie. Granted, the movie can be hard to follow because of the vast amounts of symbolism and somewhat confusing story line, but it becomes very clear by the half-way point. The ending is boring and frustrating. It was a kinda cool idea for a film, but it was so poorly executed that I can't recommend that anyone go see it.


Julio Medem had directed a few movies before this one, with his "key" movies (Vacas, Tierra, Ardilla roja, Amantes del circulo polar) being basically the same plot rehashed in a different way. The afore-mentioned movies, in my opinion reflected limited directorial skills and zero originality.

So, he "moves into the 2000s" with a movie in which you see a constant parade of genitals followed by sex. If you like naked bodies and uncensored sex, go for it by all means. However, don't try to pass it off as "transcendental" or "artistic" like Medem did.

There is no plot. None. You get more of a plot swirling a bowl of alphabet soup with your spoon. Even Najwa Nimri, usually extremely convincing and talented, phones this one in.

What it boils down to is this: if you want to see sex, see this movie. If you want to see a movie with sex and a plot, then keep looking.


This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. Despite the sex and nudity the plot is ridiculous, the actors are mediocre, and the script is so bad that it verges on the involuntarily funny.

The plot reminds of certain films by Almodovàr, but unfortunately Julio Medem is not Almodovàr.

The sex disappears after one third of the story. Paz Vega is certainly beautiful and we see a lot of her (especially naked) but she can't save this awful mess. Avoid like the plague.


I went to see this film despite awful reviews from some dutch newspapers. What a waste of time, this film is so boring I walked out after an hour. The director seems to think overlighting equals interesting filmmaking. It doesn't and to make things worse he tries to go back and forth in time, again thinking this would make for some interesting film. Again he's mistaken. He only manages to confuse and bore his viewers to death.

Better to go see Y tu mama tambien, a much better film.


Julio Medem could be to work at a doctor, if it's possible he could be better professional, because as a filmmaker is very poor. I can't understand this people who vote this film as a good movie. The actresses have had a bad job, they like amateurs players, not the professionals.

The sound is horrible, there are some dialogs, that I couldn't understand anything. I think, that this film, abuse the sex scenes to attract the spectators and there are almost always unnecessary. An other abuses are the burned photography in the scenes at the island. Why they meaning?, it is abusive at all. When I read the summary, of that film, in the DVD, it explain that this film is about Lucia discovery of her own past, and that it isn't true, in any case it would be about her boyfriend. In fact, I don't like this film, it is boring and bad make.


SPOILER ALERT Sex and Lucia is one of those movies that will grab me and won't let go. I saw it with the fascination a child has for her bedtime tale, I connect to it with my soul and viscera. The movie speaks of an island where one can change the course of one's life, an island that floats like a raft atop the sea, that is so full of caves as to be nearly hollow, so that each of the many holes you may fall into is really a tunnel that will take you somewhere else. This is the island of Lorenzo the writer, Lucia's boyfriend.

But to start at the start. Lorenzo's first book told the story of a birthday boy who had made love to a stranger on a full moon night in the ocean. He is having a writer's block while writing his second. Lucia and he become lovers after Lucia meets him at a coffeeshop and tells him she is in love with him and wants to live with him. In parallel, we see a daughter being born from Lorenzo's nameless union. In time, in his second novel, Lorenzo will have to face his child, named Luna after the full moon. His agent gives him the plot of this story, where Luna is born and he finds her in a park, and this leads to a house where a man lives with two women, and there is torment, passion, suffocation, lust. Lorenzo gets to spend a night with his child only if he succumbs to the lust of sexy au pair Belen; in an unforgettable scene he tells a bedtime story to his daughter in a bedroom furnished as if it's underwater, just as Belen dresses herself up for seduction. Luna dies before Lorenzo can tell her that he is her father, but this death has to be a secret too. Lorenzo is dragged into a relentless trajectory of secrets, depression, sleeping pills, and knows that he has to either kill Belen and her mother, and set himself free, or kill himself.

At all points of the movie, the characters of Lorenzo's fiction interact with and exist as real human beings; we see their lives change as Lorenzo types away at his computer, but they are also free agents. This means the film works at two layers. One can treat Lorenzo's passions, his infidelities, his child, the deaths, the sex, as real, and have a consistent interpretation. But true meaning comes from the layer above, where we actually live within a writer's mind, and see how events here coexist with, and are influenced by, thinks that "really" happen to the writer. Metaphor merges with reality, fiction becomes life, life finds meaning and resolves itself in fiction.

The storms and dark secrets in Lorenzo's fictional world are metaphors for his obsession, passion and conflict, the abyss that drags him deeper and deeper. He cannot share these tensions with Lucia because he thinks he is too poisoned within. He has fallen into a hole, he says, from where there is no escaping. Or not really, because he is still in touch with Luna's mother Elena through anonymous internet chat. He has been telling her a story that gives her two "advantages": one, that at the end of the story there's a hole that leads one back to the middle of the story, and two, one can change one's course any time. And we see Luna has partly changed her course, she is back on Lorenzo's island. But Lorenzo is still far away from her, and, in a way, far away from Lucia. Will he be able to change the course of his life, will the hole he has fallen into lead him back to the middle of the story? Such a story has to involve Lucia-- will Lucia get back Lorenzo? Will there be a resolution?

Yes, there will, but Lucia is, so far, only a reader, an admirer. She is perplexed by Lorenzo's self-absorbedness, this darkness, this hole, that she doesn't understand. So she leaves him though she knows she is still in love with him, and then her world shatters when she hears he is dead. In reality, Lorenzo is in a coma, and will come back to life later, as her "advantage" plays out. For the moment, however, Lucia's "loss" will make her cycle in Lorenzo's world, and when she moves to Lorenzo's island, the island Lorenzo would never take her to, she is really inside the hole he was in (she falls into a real cave in the island, as well). She has to travel this world and meet the characters of his fiction in "real life", before she will see him again. But by then the fictional and real worlds will get united, by the time Lucia and Lorenzo come together at the end, the two parallel lives of Lorenzo have become one. United and resolved, like in sex. It is this journey of Lucia to union, this tale of sex and Lucia, that the film chronicles.

There is another angle to the name, as well: sex and writing are both about creation. The world Lorenzo creates pulls him in like sex does (into a hole, in both cases?). Like sex, there is the potential for obsession, and like the man he writes about, he is tormented by the tensions between the two women, two world that he has created. Upto this this is all Lorenzo's. But as the movie progresses, Lucia finds herself in a house with a man and another women, sexual tensions building up between them. Her course changes. It's because she is on that island that Elena gets to meet Lorenzo, and she really reunites Lorenzo and the mother of his child, resolves their story. And isn't that child really Lucia's love, in a way? The book that conceived Luna also made Lucia fall in love with Lorenzo, the shot of their first union cuts into Luna's birth, they both dropped into a hole together, and at the end, when Elena tells Lucia that she is a gift to the earth, she looks as happy as she would if she got back her lost child. The child who Lorenzo didn't trust with the secret, but who would have kept it if he told her. Finally she reaches the heart of that secret, the secret of her birth and her lover, through a journey of her own, hence Sex and Lucia.

The little details matter. The dog that killed Luna also features in a shot on a television screen at the coffeeshop where Lucia picks Lorenzo up. Elena's anonymous friend uses a lighthouse as his icon; like a lighthouse, he shows her how to change her course, they meet for the second time in front of the island's lighthouse. The music, the visuals of the island and the underwater shots are magnificent. The metaphor of the caves in the island works very well. Each death punctuates the end of one phase and the beginning of another, almost like a chapter ending. And the end isn't just an end, it's a second chance, a resurrection, an "advantage". We see Carlos, Belen's mom's lover and, subsequently, Elena's guest, disappearing into a hole, we find that Belen and his mom have been declared missing. Maybe they have dropped into a hole as well, waiting to pop up somewhere else, waiting to change the courses of their lives. Those are different stories, different journeys.

The acting is very good. Paz Vega, in particular, is brilliant as Lucia. All through the movie, sex is portrayed without guilt and prissiness, but it is never affected or gratuitous. I feel extremely upset the way so many American reviewers seem to be more preoccupied with the sex depicted in the movie than the movie itself.

Oh, I adore this film.


In Madrid of the present days, the waitress Lucia (Paz Vega) leaves her job and goes to her apartment to meet her mate Lorenzo (Tristian Ulloa), who seems to be very depressed. When she arrives, she receives bad news about Lorenzo from the police. She moves alone to an isolated island, where she meets a stranger and lodges in a pension where he is living for the last months. The story shifts to six years ago, when Lorenzo and a woman, without knowing even the name of each other, have a magnificent sexual intercourse. The woman gets pregnant, and her daughter is raised with out a father. Meanwhile, Lorenzo is a writer that lost his creation skills and one night meets Lucia in a restaurant. She confesses to him that she is in love with him and has been stalking him for a long time. They fall in love for each other and Lucia moves to his apartment. Later, Lorenzo is informed by his friend Pepe (Javier Cámara) that he has a daughter, and he meets her in a square, with her baby sitter. From this point on, Lorenzo mixes his reveries with reality.

"Lucia y el Sexo" is a weird movie, with a style that resembles David Lynch. I am not sure whether this was the intention of the director Julio Medem, or whether his screenplay is indeed only confused. There are too much gratuitous sex scenes and exposure of genitals, inclusive of penises, and although Paz Vega is a delicious woman, I do not like this type of appellative exaggeration in a film. The story has good points, does not have clichés, and has many metaphoric scenes. I understand that the title of this movie mainly refer to periods of time, "Lucia" in the present days, sharing her life with Lorenzo, and "Sex" the consequences of his intercourse with an unknown woman six years ago. In the end, I found "Lucia y el Sexo" an excessively erotic film, with a confused screenplay, but also very intriguing. I intend to see this movie again in a near future and reevaluate it, trying to see if it becomes clearer after a second time. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Lucia e o Sexo" ("Lucia and the Sex")


This film has fallen into my hands by accident and i am so happy for that as i found it absolutely amazing!!! I loved the twist and the whole story surrounding it!!! I found it totally daring and bold, very smart and the music by the wonderful Alberto Iglesias was just so good. The performances by Paz Vega and Najwa Nimri are just breath taking and Tristan Ulloa so sweet and real. The actors and actresses altogether have managed to make me feel various feelings throughout the movie and i have to admit that i have watched it over 10 times by now!!! THe location of the movie offered great colors and excellent views even though i still don't know where it was filmed!!!

Another one time Javier Camera has proved his amazing talent. Julio Medem has made an exceptionally remarkable work. Spanish cinematography is indeed the finest!


I think the last Aussie reviewer hit the nail on the head. This movie despite being based on the experiences of an elite US naval frog team at war is surprisingly value-neutral when it comes to extolling the virtues of the US military, or even the reasons for going to war. This may have to do with the fact that the writer/director, Shimon Dotan, is an Israeli. In short, I enjoyed this movie, because it introduces some character development in a genre where it is often conspicuously absent. The casting of Rob Lowe as the career jackass was a stroke of genius! That said, there are aspects of honour and sacrifice inherent in his role, which he does bring out. However, like others I felt Gale Hansen stole the show with his role as the strong-willed and dependable leader contrasting with Lowe's as the antithesis. I like the fact that everything didn't work out at the end, and the monologue delivered at the end summed up the whole experience nicely. Go see it.


This movie was previewed before Captain America. I don't think I need to say anymore. They're both as good as each other.

And by that I mean they're totally awesome! Never before has the emotion of the Gulf War been captured on film with such accuracy! Rob Lowe is a god of the silver screen! The way he owns the screen, its perfect! This movie challenges conventional war films by being sub-conventional! Standards are reduced to bouts of hilarity! Okay, I'm lying, this movie can't be good.

Honestly.

It just can't.


Like another user I found this movie at a "dollar store" and decided to take a chance on it. I believe the stories that this was pulled from circulation simply because I had never heard of it before. Where have they been hiding this movie?

I can believe those stories for another reason. It has an eerie feel to it ... and seemed oddly prophetic: Imagine, an attempt to kill a President from a sniper position in a window above and behind, using a military-style weapon, by a former soldier. If Oswald truly watched this movie ... one would have to wonder how HE felt about the movie. I mean, I wasn't aware of that bit of trivia until I watched the movie and THEN checked out IMDb. While watching it I could not help but draw comparisons. Brrrrrrrr. It seems plausible that Sinatra might have had similar feelings.

Sure, this is not the best movie ever made but it is a good solid 1950s movie, with a good performance by Sinatra. Yes, it is corny, but given the timeframe, that is to be expected. To be honest, I am tired of special effects and enjoy movies with an actual story and actual acting. Even corny stories and corny acting. Not a single car blew up in this movie. Wow. What a relief.


When the President decides to pass through the small town of Suddenly on route to a fishing trip, the town's police and chief officials rise to meet the challenge of assuring his protection as there have been rumors of an assassination attempt.

The hired guns meanwhile make plans of their own. They cleverly trick their way into the home of the best house in town from which to try and carry out their assassination plot - the house of Pop Benson, respected citizen with an house upon an hill that overlooks the President's planned arrival destination. Now only an handful of hostages stand between the President and doom...can they in some way warn him in time?

Frank Sinatra steals the show here as the ruthless criminal mastermind behind the want-to-be assassins - a man named John Baron. He is downright brutal and nasty in the role--an utterly detestable villain who does remind us the it was the army that created him and made him into a killer or maybe deep down, it's just that he was always a killer at heart. An outstanding multi-dimensional performance from Sinatra.

Sterling Hayden meanwhile plays the idealistic police sheriff Tod Shaw, who believes in America and the American way and supports unquestioningly the system and will do whatever it takes to preserve the America he believes is right and just. He too served in the military to protect rights and freedoms and now carries on the good fight as Suddenly's sheriff. An interesting contrast of two extremes with the pacifist minded Ellen Benson (played here by Nancy Gates), her becoming a widow after her husband got killed in the war, finally forced to take a stand at the film's climax.

Daring for its time, this film deals with surprisingly intense subject matter for the early 1950s. Quite good.


When I started to watch this movie I didn't think it was going to be any good. How wrong! I've seen lots of Frank Sinatra movies and I never liked any of them, because I think he is a terrible actor in all those movies (and that goes for films like "From Here to Eternity" and "Some Came Running", which the critics always claim to be "wonderful - come on!). BUT in this one he is GREAT, just GREAT - his best performance, perfect. The movie is quite good as well. Simple, but good. And those close-ups on Sinatra's face are always right were they should be to create the dramatic effect perfect for the situation. Watch it! It's good, and doesn't bore you because it doesn't go on and on and on like most films nowadays about somebody wanting to kill the president of the USA.


I'm at a loss to explain why Frank Sinatra chose this particular project in the wake of all the acclaim he got for From Here to Eternity. Without his presence in the film, Suddenly with its length of 75 minutes on my VHS version would be a B film, even with Sterling Hayden starring in it as the sheriff. My guess is that Sinatra wanted to expand and test himself as an actor, something he did less and less of in the following decade.

The President of the United States is coming to the small town of Suddenly where he will leave the train he's traveling on and proceed by motorcade to a vacation in the Sierras. The Secret Service has come to town to do their usual thing in protecting the Chief Executive.

But three contract killers headed by Frank Sinatra are in town to kill the president. We're never told exactly who is paying for this contract, but the inference is that it is our Cold War enemies. Through a combination of circumstances the sheriff is wounded and the head of Secret Service detail, Willis Bouchey, is killed. And the killers are holed up in Nancy Gates's house with her, her father-in-law James Gleason, and child Kim Charney and the wounded Hayden.

Most of the film is taken up with the wait for the train to arrive where a lot of souls are bared open, including Sinatra's. It's the one and only time that Francis Albert ever essayed the role of an out and out villain. He does it well, but I suspect he didn't want to push it with his public too much, so he never did anyone as evil as this again.

Of course history tells us that the president named Eisenhower at the time never was an assassin's target so we know Sinatra's efforts will fail. However it's rather ingenious as to how it does fail.

I think more than fans of old Blue Eyes will like Suddenly.


"Suddenly" stands next to greatness without touching it. The script is tight and fast-moving, though the setups are a little too obvious and the payoffs a little too predictable, and the storytelling sometimes feels rushed. (The final scene, seemingly meant to "come full circle," is incredibly contrived, as well.)

Social and psychological issues are subservient to the plot, and are dealt with superfically. While the film's attitudes can seem daring today, it's worth keeping in mind that its message (that weapons are morally neutral tools, which good people can use for good purposes) was as politically correct in 1954 as liberal "guns are bad" rhetoric is now, and in that context a mother's objection to her child playing with cap guns or seeing war movies can be portrayed as a neurosis.

Enough with the social implications; what about the acting? It's mostly good. Sinatra has the perfect look for his character, an ex-soldier and sadistic killer for hire, and his performance is an unnerving combination of slow-burn and sudden snap. Nancy Gates (as the neurotic mother) gives an intelligent, emotionally plausible performance. James Gleason is a stereotypical Gruff Old Man. Kim Charney, like many child actors who find themselves in major roles, subsides on cuteness and pathos while delivering his lines with a grating sincerity. But it's Sterling Hayden who almost sinks it all. He isn't merely wooden -- he has termites. His appearance (he looks like a rough draft of James Stewart) and his ridiculously deep voice don't help, but his worst flaw is that he apparently cannot act.

Now, Maxine Cooper in the excellent "Kiss Me Deadly" was at least as bad, but "Kiss Me Deadly" is a more resilient script. Cooper said her lines badly, but they were still good lines; Hayden blunders through a part even a good actor would have trouble with. A heavy-handed flirtation is only the start; he goes on to portray toughness, well-intentioned deviousness, and official business without once changing his tone of voice.

Reading over this, I fear I have portrayed "Suddenly" too negatively. It's really a fairly enjoyable film of average quality. Sinatra's intense, nuanced performance easily counterbalances Hayden, and the plot, despite some implausibility, is pleasantly tense. A remake would be interesting; until one comes along, this one may be worth a look.