The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

Almost one of the best.

Such an expert, glittering, fast-paced, and neatly structured film this is! And that's appropriate enough, because this is a film about film-making, a fictional insider's view of four main characters: a director, an actress, a writer, and a producer. Oh, and the fifth and main character, Jonathan Shields, played by Kirk Douglas, who is all of these, and most of all, a driving inspiration to the others.

It might be fun to have seen how William Wyler (the consummate Hollywood director of this time) or Douglas Sirk (the consummate melodrama director) would have handled the same material. Or even how Joseph L. Mankiewicz, with all his witty intelligence, might have (he liked working with Douglas, it seems). I say all this because Vincente Minnelli, with a decade of growing successes behind him, directs this new one with finesse, creating an elegant masterpiece of film-making that falls short of being legendary most of all from its finesse. It's too polished, too well balanced, too considered throughout. And yet it's a really terrific movie, not to be missed.

It's odd to make a distinction between an incredible movie, like say Strangers on a Train or Sunset Blvd and a merely nearly great one, like The Bad and the Beautiful (or, to keep the parallels going, The Detective Story and the very comparable All About Eve). All these movies were made within a year of each other, and the best show a director's genius for rising above, and the others show a more communal genius, or an ability to work together within the system and create uncompromisingly excellent films, but films that somehow lack, at least a little, the edge, or the originality, or the surprise, of a timeless great.

All of which is debatable, of course, but watch this one and give it a thought. Minnelli makes no mistakes, setting us up, then leading us one by one through the three main stories. Each story works on its own, and makes a kind of three reel tale within a tale. But even within each of these the other two stories start to pop into place, and the intertwining is subtle and flawless. You might even sit up suddenly and realize, hey, that's the person from the previous section. And it all flows together, and of course needs to conjoin this way because in fact the three stories are all the same large tale built around the legendary, difficult director/producer played by Douglas. And Douglas is a continuing marvel of ease and agitation, of charm and selfishness. As an actor he's nearly always wonderful, and here he is at his best.

Will you cry? Will you fret at the hanging ending--if you think it's hanging at all? Will you be infected by the movie somehow in your head the next day, the next week? You might not, not all three. But you'll smile and laugh and really marvel at how terrific it all is as it goes. As a celebration of Hollywood's excess and greed and grinding machinations the movie takes no prisoners. But it really is a celebration of the three survivors (or four, if you include the producer who guides us through it all). And an acknowledgement that there are victims throughout, and sometimes those who lose are the ones with the most to give, and the most to lose.

In the end, like the three characters, we are disgusted and yet can't help listening in, because of the inglorious magic.


Well-done tale of totally amoral Hollywood producer Jonathan Shields (Kirk Douglas). It's all told in flashback of how he made...and destroyed...three people--actress Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner), business associate Fred Amiel (Barry Sullivan) and writer James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell).

Purportedly this was an accurate portrayal of what Hollywood was like at the time--I have my doubts. It's well-directed with beautiful black and white cinematography but I don't think this was all factual (however I did get a kick out of the obvious caricature of von Stronheim). Acting varies--Powell is terrible--I realize he didn't have much to work with but he doesn't even try. Sullivan was OK. Turner was just superb--one of her best performances. Douglas is good but lacks the charisma to put the part over. Somehow Gloria Grahame got a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this--she's barely in it. Also this goes on a bit too long.

So it's worth catching but just misses the mark of being a really great film. I give it an 8.


To some it may be a close call to make but I am certain that this is still the best Hollywood-on-Hollywood film of all time. I'm sure many will disagree but I believe this is a much underrated, under-appreciated and lesser known film than the more famous Billy Wilder-directed 1950 classic. I liked the way this film merely touched upon characters in Hollywood at the time instead of pointing them out so blatantly and giving them cameo appearances as 'Sunset Blvd' did. Overall, 'The Bad and The Beautiful' is a far more subtle film. I am sure those few others who have seen it will agree that it is quintessential Kirk Douglas and a brilliant film in its own right without being 'compared' to death. But for those out there who find comparing utterly irresistible I would say that 'Beautiful' has better acting and a better script while 'Boulevard' has superior direction and more entertainment value. And don't just dismiss me before you've actually seen the two.


This movie is actually a very high quality soap opera. The story is better, as is the acting and direction, but still down deep this is a soap. Now this isn't meant as a criticism, but this is more a description of all the plot twists and betrayals--sort of like a season of a typical soap squeezed into one movie.

Kirk Douglas does a really good job of portraying a sociopathic user--a Hollywood big-shot who stomps on all his friends and enemies alike in order to get ahead. He is the major star and focus of the film, despite it having a very strong supporting cast.

After you see this film, try to find the sequel, TWO WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN. While it isn't quite as good, it's still an excellent film and shows what happens to people like Kirk once their star has faded.


Known more for his stylish MGM musicals, director Vincente Minnelli pulled out all the stops for this classic 1952 melodrama about a ruthless film producer, Jonathan Shields, who alienates all of those around him to build his fortunes and legacy in Hollywood. But this is no derivative Jackie Collins-style potboiler with cardboard cut-outs as characters. Ignited by Kirk Douglas's terrifically brutal performance as Shields, the film is incessantly watchable - similar in structure and perspective to Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane" - as the story tracks his rise to the top and fall from grace through three primary relationships - the first with Fred Amiel, a director with whom Shields partners early in their careers, the second with Georgia Lorrison, an alcoholic bit player and daughter of a Hollywood legend whom Shields grooms to become a big star, and the third with James Lee Bartlow, a writer whom Shields tries to make a screenwriter in spite of the constant interruptions by Bartlow's southern belle wife Rosemary.

Filmed in a rich black-and-white by veteran cinematographer Robert Surtees, the film is slick and penetrating at the same time, a deep-dive character study of not only Shields but the people who come to admire his tenacity and creativity only to be betrayed by his lack of character. Composer David Raksin's music perfectly underlines the emotional pull of the movie. Minnelli has assembled a great cast to embody the story. Ever resourceful with his trademark dimpled granite chin, Douglas does not make Shields a complete villain but rather an intriguingly textured opportunist. You want to hate him but thanks to Douglas's natural charisma, you can't deny how he opened the right doors for the people around him. Ideally cast as Georgia in what is likely her career-best performance, Lana Turner is surprisingly effective in what must have been quite a stretch for her meager acting talents - from pathetic drunk to clinging starlet to haughty diva.

Longtime leading man Dick Powell and familiar character actor Barry Sullivan respectively portray Bartlow and Amiel with precision and an alternating sense of brotherly obligation and resentment toward Shields. In a manner similar to the way he portrayed Ziegfeld in William Wyler's later "Funny Girl", Walter Pigeon plays production executive Harry Pebbel with stentorian fervor. Aging matinée idol Gilbert Roland has an archetypal role as an actor who believes his own image as a Latin lover, and in a few brief scenes, Gloria Grahame fluidly captures Rosemary's purposeful flightiness and veiled frustration. You can even spot Beaver's mom Barbara Billingsley playing a frustrated costume designer scolding Georgia on the way she walks in her creation.

Minnelli has concocted some really great scenes, especially the open-ended conclusion. The best, however, has to be when Georgia finds a tawdry starlet (played acerbically by Elaine Stewart, who much later became a game show hostess) descending the stairs at Shields' mansion at which point she flees and drives with Hollywood-style abandon in her car. While it's fun to speculate on who is playing who within Hollywood lore, e.g., Shields as the doppelganger David O. Selznick, Georgia as Diana Barrymore (daughter of John), the characterizations are so rich that the guessing game is secondary. The DVD includes an interesting 90-minute TCM documentary on Turner, who apparently led a life more scandalous and lascivious than anyone in the movie.


This came on TV late at night this week, and I didn't know a thing about it. That's the way I enjoy movies the most, and this one didn't disappoint.

Although it's now more than 50 years old, it wouldn't take a lot of rewriting to remake it today.

I only saw a couple of minor glitches, but they really don't take away much of the impact of the story.

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

This was pointed out by the host on Turner Classic movies: the scene where Georgia (Lana Turner) drives away from Jonathan Shields' house at night. There hasn't been a hint of any kind of outdoor weather in the whole movie, and then in this scene all of a sudden she's in a driving rainstorm.

Next, as James Lee (Dick Powell) and Shields (Kirk Douglas) stop at a gas station at night on their way back to Hollywood, James Lee spots a newspaper with his wife's death reported on the front page. In the next scene, still at night, the two of them reach the accident scene, where he identifies her body. Now, how is it possible to publish a newspaper, for the paper to get delivered to a gas station, for somebody to see it, then to drive to the accident site, and the crash site looks like it happened minutes or hours ago???

However, for every clinker scene like this, there were many others that made you think you were watching geniuses at work.

Steven


This is one of those so-called classic movies I just don't get. Its credits are impeccable, and director Vincente Minnelli had done brilliant work elsewhere. The screenplay won an Academy Award. Actress Gloria Grahame won an Academy Award. With apologies to Miss Grahame, who did some fine work over the years, this does not seem deserved. As the story of the rise, fall and rise again of a ruthless producer widely believed to be modeled on David Selznick, it is no more than a series of cliches and in-jokes. As I am not a fan of either I was not particularly amused. Kirk Douglas is unbelievable in the leading role. He can portray torment and ambition, but not brilliance. In private life he may well be brilliant, but this doesn't come across on the screen. There's nothing of the entrepeneur or impressario about him; and no sense of the businessman. He seems at all times like an actor playing a part. Lana Turner is marginally better. Barry Sullivan is bland as a director, and the normally capable Dick Powell cannot overcome a bad case of miscasting in his performance as a pipe-puffing Southern writer (not based on Faulkner, I hope). In any case, Barton Fink this ain't. My sense is that the movie is popular for its "in" references, the thinly veiled depictions of real life Hollywood folk, the sheer fun that movie insiders and outsiders have connecting all the dots. I did this, too, while watching the movie, but in the end it just didn't add up. I didn't get it.


Kirk Douglas specialized in heartless tough-guy narcissists early in his career. The year before this, he played one of the most misanthropic characters ever to grace the silver screen in "Ace in the Hole." Eventually, he turned his image around until he became a sympathetic tough guy in classics like "Paths of Glory" and "Spartacus." But in "The Bad and the Beautiful," he is at his peak in living up, or should I say down, to his negative image.

Kirk plays Jonathan Shields, son of a tyrannical Hollywood producer who has just passed away. Angry (why is never explained) at Hollywood in general, he vows after the funeral to become a success in order to throw the name Shields back in everyones' face. This leads to a series of vignettes involving a wannabe director (Barry Sullivan), a wannabe actress (Lana Turner) and a novelist who is a reluctant screenwriter (Dick Powell).

Shields is patterned on David O. Selznick. To make it obvious, there is a brief scene showing Shields amongst some actors dressed as Civil War soldiers, as in Selznick's "Gone With The Wind." Like Shields, Selznick had been retired for some years at the time of this film, but was lurking, maybe ready to make a comeback. Interesting to contemporary insiders, but who besides film buffs remember Selznick today?

In structure, the story resembles "Citizen Kane." Told in flashback, we even get a brief trip to a derelict castle that rather obviously resembles the one in "Kane." As in "Kane," we find out that Jonathan's path to the top of Hollywood involved viciously hurting the feelings of Turner, Sullivan and Powell. The main departure from "Kane" is that Jonathan, as is apparent from the very first scene, ends this picture very much alive and with the chance of redemption. So, consider this a "Kane" with a happier, crowd-pleasing ending.

Unfortunately, the comparisons with "Kane" end there. The script has moments of brilliance, but a whole lot more of melodrama and unexplained contrivances. The trip to the deserted mansion of a dead film star, for instance, comes out of the blue and doesn't advance the story at all. Many other moments in the film are either self-indulgent (Douglas playing a record of the dead film star for Turner, the dead star's daughter), or just plain mysterious (Douglas paying mourners to be at his father's funeral).

But the real downfall of the film is that Jonathan, set up to be this ogre, really doesn't come off that bad at all. In fact, all of his supposedly terrible actions actually seem quite logical, even inevitable, and at worst no more Machiavellian than your standard social climber. It really is how the others react to him, or should I say how they react to the reality of business necessity, that paints a negative gloss. But he doesn't intentionally go out of his way to hurt anybody. So in what way, really, is he so bad? There you have one of the problems with this film. It pulls its punches throughout. "Kane" showed an innocent corrupted by his own talent into becoming a monster, realizing only too late where he had gone wrong. This film pretentiously tries to imply that a somewhat ordinary fellow with lots of opportunities is just this wicked, wicked man because he wants to do things the right way. It just doesn't come together. Jonathan's not wicked, or at least not wicked enough, to ever work up strong feelings about him. Now, this film at best is valuable as a behind-the-scenes look at how Hollywood is actually a business and not a fairytale land, which may have been astonishing in 1952 but sure isn't today.

Gloria Graham won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actress, but it sure must have been a weak field that year. Or perhaps the Academy was rewarding her for her strong body of work that year in "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "Macao." Really, though, Hollywood was just, as usual, rewarding a woman for playing a bad girl of easy virtue. Certainly no surprise there, it happens almost every year right up to the present day.

Dick Powell is great, though his character makes no sense (how did he ever hook the vixenish Graham anyway?). The biggest mystery is how Turner got top billing over Douglas, since he dominates practically every scene in the film and she only appears here and there. She does have one marvelously comical (unintentionally so) scene where she drives like a maniac after finding out that Jonathan doesn't love her (the heel!). She's pretty, but that's about it.

"Bad" is Hollywood at its most excessive, trying to paint itself in vivid colors that are recognizably fake. It's an interesting film with pretensions of greatness that falls flat. See it for some corny performances and a glimpse of old Hollywood, but it's no "Kane."


The Bad and the Beautiful, a film about the behind-the-scenes artifice, technique and environment of the celluloid universe was based upon a short story titled Tribute to a Bad Man. The main character, a freshly dead, underhanded, exploitative Broadway producer, was adapted into a living, vainglorious Hollywood producer desperate for a return in a versatile, restless performance by eternal youth Kirk Douglas.

In Hollywood, screenwriter Dick Powell, played with an exacting self-honesty despite his old-fashioned style, movie star Lana Turner and director Barry Sullivan each decline to speak by phone to Douglas' Jonathan Shields. A movie producer played with Walter Pidgeon's unfettered naturalness urges them to help Shields out. The subsequent segmented chronicles are narrated in recollection. In each retrospective, Shields' extravagant life is seen through their eyes. Their careers have profited from working with him, but each of them also undergo an intimate expense. Jonathan estranges, cons, deceives, abandons, and almost consumes each of them in his own egocentric, legendary ascent to his peak.

This was one of the first in an extensive sequence of films, some acerbic and disparaging, that lampooned, speared or studied the making of films on the gaudy Hollywood back lot, including the same year's and studio's Singin' in the Rain, Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard, Truffaut's Day for Night, Kazan's The Last Tycoon, Robert Altman's The Player, and sundry more. This one is a melodrama, but director Vincente Minnelli separates his love of romantic fantasy from his ability to identify with the whole spectrum of human gray area, yet there is much veiled satire: Indeed, Dick Powell's novel about early Virginia provides a wealthy opportunity for it. We deliberately determine that this "serious" work is a commercial work. It promises its celebrity with a "liberal peppering with sex," and the film version is decidedly trite with a man in a gray Confederate uniform is pecking with a heroine. The Bad and the Beautiful submits that romances of the Old South merely sell the tackiest sentimental delusions. This Minnelli endeavor also sees making B-Movie Westerns as among the least notable enterprises in Hollywood. And budding star Lana Turner's first movie role associates trade novels with tasteless teasing and garish mise-en-scene.

Alternately, there are tremendous insights into the creative process, such as when Shields proposes the concept of scaring people by uncertainty and shadows when called on to make a thriller influenced by the actual film Cat People. This inspired episode is realized with various lighting transitions, including turning a switch on and off and moving a lamp. The scene's intricacy is assured by its long-take camera movement, and its visceral effect is imprinted fleetingly in other moments: Lights going on and off in the screening room cause the window from the projection booth to start or stop working as a mirror. We see the heroine's image show and vanish in the window.

There is a party at a mansion where an enthralling tracking shot furnishes an elaborate evolution through the crowd, each of the extras having their own clique of goings-on and intellectual dialogue. Candelabra are everywhere. On the set of a movie wedding scene, there is a checkerboard floor, 19th Century dress uniforms, Christian symbolism. On another film set, a huge chandelier is over a dining room table, statues present. Another film set shows a revolution, opening with special effects men adding smoke. All the studio shooting set pieces are roped off from the real world. Their style is found in movie sets, not day to day. A few extras get to wear white tie and tails, but none of the outer movie's focal male characters ever do.

Gloria Grahame won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this Hollywood melodrama, in which she plays a status-seeking wife, pressing her screenwriter husband to move to Hollywood and live a more lavish rank. But Kirk Douglas finds that she is distracting to her husband's screen writing. Despite her unmistakable sexy grandiosity and childlike enthusiasm, his award was clearly for her earlier work, as she hardly gets to do anything here but babble on in a Southern accent in the periphery of a few shots in the latter half of the film. But whatever she does, it's certainly a refreshment to see her in the interval dividing Lana Turner's screen time, because unlike Grahame, Turner does not, in her impersonal approach, appear to have any internal dynamics. But overall, this is a fascinating film.


Vincente Minnelli's "The Bad and the Beautiful" is an 'inside Hollywood' film in the vein of "Sunset Blvd.". The film recounts the story of how three Hollywood A-listers came by their success under the guidance of producer Jonathon Shields (Kirk Douglas). However, unfortunately for Shields, he now finds himself a pariah following his numerous betrayals. Can former business partner Harry Pebbel (Walter Pidgeon) convince the three to reunite for the project that Shields hopes will vault him back into the spotlight?

The cast is admirable. Kirk Douglas fit well in the role of a manipulative Hollywood producer and he found himself rewarded with an Oscar nomination for his performance. Lana Turner was the other headliner and she delivered the goods as well (while looking wonderful, I might add). Gloria Grahame somehow managed to snag an Oscar for her relatively minor role, though I must admit that she is memorably fetching. The rest of the cast is uniformly solid with no weak links.

Minnelli's direction is lively while the film's Oscar wins for cinematography, costume design & art direction show that the film is easy on the eyes. The David Raksin score admirably supports the visuals, running the gamut from bouncy to foreboding.

All in all, the film is a memorable 'inside Hollywood' yarn mixing soapy melodrama with a somewhat noirish approach. While not as satirically cutting as "Sunset Blvd." it is bolstered by an Oscar-winning script. Throw in the fine cast and technical polish and you've got a film that's definitely worth watching.


I stumbled upon this movie on TCM already in progress and only caught the last two-thirds. However, I thought it was great.

You can read about the story lines and the actors elsewhere, but I'd like to point out what I thought were two especially well set-up, lit, and with great camera direction. (There may have been more in the first third of the movie but I missed that part.) The first classic shot is when Lana Turner is doing her character's powerfully emotional final scene in the movie she's shooting. Our camera perspective pulls back from that shooting-scene-in-progress to show all the surrounding production staff and crew hands all in rapt attention.

Just check out all the perfectly positioned people in that scene, and how dramatically lit the scene is as the camera plays up and around the assembled workers! What perfectly-cast extras (or maybe they were real crew hands) who all "looked" their parts! And all the stereotypical body language poses! Just a great visual sense of knowing what it should look like. And the crowning touch is the smile that slowly and appreciatively appears on the worker sitting way up by the spotlights at the end of the scene. Great realized piece of directing. I would rank it up there with some of the revolutionary stuff boy-wonder Orson Welles did.

My other favorite "director's scene" is the very last scene at the end of the movie - note the acting, the lighting, the expressions, and the body movement and body language. Just a great piece of ensemble work, both in front of and behind the scenes. Classic! (p.s.- I also liked the way they did the end credits with clips from the movie for each of the primary characters along with their real name, so you could SEE who's who. It's a shame more modern movies don't do that...)


This movie was released in 1952 so one might reasonably expect that it would have a somewhat dated, stagy story. Not the case here however. This movie has it all - an all-star cast, great acting, compelling story, wonderful cinematography and plausibility. Yes, there are people who do use other people. It is reprehensible but oh so true and this movie fully explores that seedier side of the human psyche. Lana Turner was given top billing for this movie, and her performance is wonderful, but the main star is Kirk Douglas whose performance is nothing short of spectacular. Without Mr. Douglas, this would still be a good movie, but his performance raises this movie to the level of a classic. Honorable mention must be given to Gloria Grahame, Walter Pidgeon, Gilbert Roland, Barry Sullivan, Dick Powell and the rest of the cast whose performances help make this movie a powerful and outstanding work of art.


A tautly written tale of a movie producer (Douglas) down on his luck who tries to talk three outstanding filmic talents -- director Barry Sullivan, actress Lana Turner, and screenweriter Dick Powell -- into working on his new comeback picture. The problem, as illustrated in three lengthy flashbacks, is that all the talent feel they've been hosed by Douglas in the past.

Douglas inherited his father's crummy B picture studio and made it Big in Hollywood terms -- that is, big in quality, big in gross. He lifted Sullivan out of obscurity, then dumped him unceremoniously in favor of better-known directors. Sullivan went on to a successful career of his own but still resents his rough handling.

Turner was a drunken wannabe talent, wasted on booze, mooning over the portrait of her father who was a great star of the silver screen. Douglas shakes her out of her lifelong funk by dumping her in the swimming pool and coaxing a magnificent performance out of her before dumping her for some bit-playing whore. She goes on to become a box office star.

The last story belongs to Powell as a Southern college professor whose novel has just won a Pulitzer. Douglas tricks him and his cooing Southern belle wife, Gloria Grahame, into moving to Hollywood and writing a screenplay. The giddy Grahame present difficulties. She's always interrupting Powell and he gets no work done. Douglas hauls Powell away in seclusion to finish the script and secretly arranges for the notorious womanizer, Gilbert Roland, to keep Grahame happy in Powell's absence. Grahame and Roland are accidentally killed and when Powell finds out about the sub rosa arrangement he belts Douglas and goes on to a successful career as novelist and screenwriter.

The plot is taut. There's hardly a wasted moment or an adventitious word. This relentless plot adds polish to the story but makes the film look and sound like the carefully executed Hollywood production that it is. I don't think a Pulitzer Prize winner like Powell would (or could) have written it. Faulkner couldn't do it. Compare it, if you feel like it, to "On the Waterfront", for an example of what I mean, released two years later.

A certain gloss to a production isn't necessarily bad. This is a smooth machine and if we can see things coming from a considerable distance, so what? Kirk Douglas's character is fascinating. He lives almost entirely for the movies he produces. His attitude towards everyone around him is dispassionate, almost surgical. And when he himself directs a movie that doesn't work, he shelves it, although the move means near bankruptcy. "I shouldn't have shot the movie," says Douglas, "I should have shot myself." He's no more gentle with his self esteem than he is with anyone else's.

Douglas is good in the role of the unscrupulous operator, of course. That phoniness behind the grin and the dimpled chin seems almost built into his persona. He's made a career out of being con men. Along with "The Big Heat," this is Gloria Grahame's best performance too. It's a little hard to imagine Lana Turner going on to a big career after her encounter with Douglas, just as it is hard in real life. Maybe I'm picky but aside from "The Postman Always Rings Twice," she always embarrassed me when she was on screen.

The rest of the supporting cast is made up of old reliables who cannot be critiqued. What are you going to do -- complain about the performance of Walter Pidgeon as the dignified, well-meaning, nervously fidgeting, money-managing courier between Douglas and the others? Or Paul Stewart as the publicity man with his New York drawl about to burst with Weltschmerz? Impossible.

Smooooth, man.


Based on a short story, Memorial To A Bad Man, by George Bradshaw it was originally published in February of 1951 in The Ladies Home Journal and it was reportedly about legendary Broadway producer Jed Harris.

Film producer John Houseman and director Vincent Minnelli convinced MGM production chief Dore Schary to switch the story to Hollywood partly because the film ALL ABOUT EVE had covered Broadway territory so well just two years earlier. And with the movie industry in decline (because of TV) Houseman thought it was ripe for a story about a producer from the Golden Days facing a new era. He also found a parallel between the multiple flashbacks and the most famous film he worked on, CITIZEN KANE.

Hollywood excels at revealing stories about its self, think of SUNSET BLVD. (made just two years earlier), SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (made the same year as The Bad And The Beautiful), WHAT PRICE Hollywood (1932), SHOW PEOPLE (1928), A STAR IS BORN (1937, 1954 & 1976) and mostly recently Robert Altman's THE PLAYER (1992).

Rumors speculate that (now 92 years old) Kirk Douglas' character "Jonathan Shields" is loosely based on producer David O. Selznick who's own father Lewis J. Selznick was an early giant in the film industry. After the collapse of his father's empire and bankruptcy, young David starred his career over, from the bottom as a proof reader slowly working his way up to producing and winning Oscars for both GWTW & REBECCA.

Lovely Lana Turner's character "Georgia Larisson" is supposedly based on the now nearly forgotten Diana Barrymore trying to make a name for herself away from her father, the legendary John Barrymore. Today her niece Drew Barrymore is doing a fine job of carrying on the family tradition. Lana Turner plays an actor whose career started as a movie extra. Turner started her own career as an extra in A Star Is Born (1937). TRIVIA: Lana Turner thought it would be nice if her own personal hairdresser Helen Young and make-up man Del Armstrong appear in the films as themselves and they do! Dick Powell's character "James Lee Bartlow" was said to be inspired by legendary southern writer  F. Scott Fitzgerald and University of Virginia graduate & later UV instructor -- William Faulkner. And Gloria Grahame won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress playing Powell's wife "Rosemary Bartlow" who was based on fiery Southern belle Zelda Fitzgerald.

Barry Sullivan's character of the director is inspired by Val Lewton and the low budget horror film he and Douglas make is obviously a rip off of The Cat People.

Houseman and Minnelli were considering a character actor from the studio's supporting ranks for the role of producer Harry Pebbel when Walter Pidgeon put in a bid for the role. When told he seemed too suave and debonair to play the seedy producer, he showed up in Minnelli's office wearing a crew-cut wig and a poorly fitted suit and they said that's it! And he won the role.

Leo G. Carroll's brief appearance as a "demanding" director is a thinly veiled reference to Alfred Hitchcock. When he first came to Hollywood, Hitchcock was under contract to producer David O. Selznick for years. Carroll had roles in many Hitchcock films of this era. The character played by Kathleen Freeman was based on Alfred Hitchcock's wife, Alma Reville.

THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL was the first of four films director Vincent Minnelli would make with Kirk Douglas, the others were THE STORY OF THREE LOVES, TWO WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN & LUST FOR LIFE.


If there's one thing that filmmakers know, it's Hollywood. It's the charm, magic and otherwordly emotion of a studio movie set, or  the flip-side  the seedy underbelly of greed, ambition and betrayal. 'The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)' is an excellent drama about Hollywood, but it's not quite on par with the similar show-business satires of previous years, particularly Mankiewicz's 'All About Eve (1950)' {which concerned the stage, but tread similar territory} and Wilder's 'Sunset Blvd. (1950).' Perhaps the difference lies in director Vincente Minnelli, whose work is as graceful and professional as ever, but who is quite obviously an optimist: he loves Hollywood, and can't bring himself to despise all that it represents. Whereas Billy Wilder apparently hated everyone and everything, lending 'Sunset Blvd.' its legendary bitter edge, Minnelli looks down upon his disgraced producer Jonathan Shields (Kirk Douglas) not with hatred, nor even pity, but almost admiration  as a misunderstood genius making a final hopeful bid for redemption. Unlike that Gothic grotesque Norma Desmond, it seems that Shields' "return" will be a success.

'The Bad and the Beautiful' employs a similar storytelling device to 'All About Eve (1950),' telling its story almost entirely via noirish flashbacks. Three successful artists  a director, actress and writer  arrive at the home of Jonathan Shields, the disgraced Hollywood producer to whom each of the three owes their monumental success. So why do they loathe him? Shields gave director Fred Amiel (Barry Sullivan) his big break in cinema, worked with him to great acclaim, and then shut him out of his dream project, a 'Gone with the Wind'-like epic called "The Faraway Mountain." Georgia Larisson (Lana Turner) was likewise plucked from obscurity, rescued from a lifetime of self-loathing sex and alcoholism, before being abandoned in her moment of triumph. Novelist James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell, in another great dramatic role) already had some acclaim, but also the hindrance of distracting Southern belle wife Rosemary (Gloria Grahame). Though he couldn't possibly have foreseen the consequences of his actions, Shields took care of that, as well.

Each of the three owes their livelihood to Jonathan Shields, and I think that this is the true root of their hatred: they're eternally in debt to him, and like Faust, feel as though they have traded their souls for a room at the top. Kirk Douglas portrays Shields wonderfully, and in the film's most searing moment, he explodes into a fit of rage, his short, stocky stature seeming to inflate as his antagonism grows. But Shields isn't really as inherently "bad" as the film's title would have you believe. He is presented as a flawed genius, whose personal shortcomings stem from the same artistic vein as that which fuels his cinematic intuition (a Graham Greene quote clarifies my meaning: he once described himself as having "a character profoundly antagonistic to ordinary domestic life," and that "unfortunately, the disease is also one's material"). Indeed, Shields was modelled on several filmmakers, most noticeably Val Lewton (whose 'Cat People (1942)' gets an indirect reference), Orson Welles, and David O. Selznick, whose box-office flop 'Duel in the Sun (1946)' also exhausted considerable funding and several directors.


As a true film buff, I can accept the fact that some of the greatest movies ever made can also be extremely difficult to watch -- whether from its content and/or the emotional response it generates. Most movies like this usually receive my adolation and praise, even if it may take me time to recover from the first viewing

But in my opinion, A Clockwork Orange takes the grand prize as the most disturbing movie I've ever seen, and it does not get much easier with repeat viewing. The movie's brilliance in directing and storytelling makes it impossible to dismiss critically, yet the film disturbs me to the core. I would almost hope that I am not alone in this opinion -- to truly 'enjoy' this movie you'd have to be pretty damn callous to hideous imagery, especially when it comes to rape and excessive exploitation of the female body.

If there's one very big dislike I have against Stanley Kubrick, it is way in which he treats the naked female body onscreen. It becomes impersonal, cold, devalued -- cheapened and readily exploitable. Think of these examples -- A Clockwork Orange: 5 gangsters rip the clothes off and rape a young woman to a classical waltz; the milk bar with naked women statues and dispensers; Alex's daydream of being in Roman times; the high-speed menage-a-trois; the naked, stoic 'temptress' onstage approaching Alex; and the 'humorous' winter-wonderland end-scene slow-motion daydream of public exhibitionism. That's just A Clockwork Orange. Throw in the naked woman in the tub in The Shining, along with scenes totalling a full one-third of the running time of Eyes Wide Shut and you should have a pretty good idea of the devaluation of the female body I'm referring to.

I think of Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, even Barry Lyndon, and I just want to praise Kubrick forever. The man is a cinematic genius. But, because of how adversely A Clockwork Orange affects me, I must dismiss it and can't recommend it to anyone. The more sensitive you are to what you see onscreen, the more this movie will deeply, deeply disturb you. I've seen it three times now, my first time being over 12 years ago, and it's no easier to watch now than then. And sadly, because it is so disturbing, I am deprived of enjoying the greatness that the movie really does contain.

I read the book by Anthony Burgess because the story is truly brilliant. I was surprised to find out that the book's final chapter was purposely left out of the film. Also, I was surprised to find that the author disliked the film, as he alludes in the book's introduction. He feels that "A Clockwork Orange" has become to him what "The Nutcracker" was to Tchaikovsky -- what he considers as one of his least important works has become his most famous and recognized.

Ever wonder what is meant by "a clockwork orange"? Mr. Burgess explains the metaphor in the book's introduction. An orange is sweet, refreshing, and juicy -- fulfilling and delicious. But it is organic and cannot provide this sweetness forever -- it will eventually expire and rot. Man cannot make an organic object function like an inorganic object, or something man-made, or 'clockwork'. The term 'clockwork orange' is therefore an oxymoron and a paradox -- it infers that man has converted something organic into a controllable, inorganic process. The experiment Alex goes through, by robbing him of free-will, effectively creates 'clockwork oranges' out of human beings -- he is forced to be sweet, gentle, and moral all the time.

Final thoughts: I am LDS (or 'Mormon'), and it's noteworthy to mention something about the beliefs of the LDS religion as it pertains to this concept... It is believed that in pre-earth life, Lucifer proposed that everyone who comes to earth be forced to do good, so that everyone will be worthy to return to God's presence after death, therefore 'no souls will be lost' -- however, he wanted the credit for this plan. Jesus wanted each person to have complete free-agency in order to learn from their own decisions, and he voluteered himself to be the one who must live a perfect life as THE example as well as be the atoning sacrifice -- and all glory go to God, not to himself. To have mankind robbed of its free-agency is the Devil's original plan and ultimate goal. So, the movie and the book asks this supreme question: What's more evil -- a person who focusses all his thoughts and energy and actions on doing bad, or forcing this person to only think and feel and do good?

My answer: Skip the movie and read the book -- it's a far more edifying experience. And you also get to know what happens in the final chapter!


I am utterly shocked at how bad this movie was. I'm tired and don't feel like going very in depth, but here's why this movie is horrible. And there will be spoilers.

We have a main character we hate because he enjoys raping and killing innocent people.

We are then supposed to sympathize with him, which we don't, because we hate him. This goes on for a VERY long time. Horrible things happen to him, but we don't really care, because he's a bad person.

The movie is extremely long and drawn out. It climaxes so many times that it's very anti-climatic by the ending.

We are supposed to get a sense of irony out of Alex going from a sociopath to someone who is constantly being beaten and tortured while he can't use the very thing that got him in the situation, violence, to help himself. We do not get this sense of irony because the movie is CONTRIVED, some examples being: how Alex just happens to run into everyone he ever did wrong one day after getting out of jail (the bum, his droogs, the cripple), or how after Alex luckily is not recognized by the cripple, he goes on to sing the SONG HE SANG WHILE BEATING HIM AND RAPING HIS WIFE while in the cripple's house, as if he were the most idiotic person in the world, which he is obviously not.

The fight scenes are silly and anything but "ultra violent".

The atmosphere of the movie is redeeming and there is some cult/shock value. I give it a 4/10.


I have never seen this film until last night. Everyone says it's absolutely amazing and terrifying. I expected this to make my skin crawl. A Clockwork Orange has to be one of the worst films I have ever had to watch. The first twenty minutes were okay because it was not boring, then holy crap, the rest of the movie was flat out dreadful! I could not believe that this film got all great reviews. Do critics enjoy boring, non-psychological crap from the 70's? I guess so! There was honestly no point what so ever to this disgusting film. The story line was terrible, the acting was below horrid, and the fact that this movie is a cult classic makes me sick to my stomach. Terrible, terrible film.


I had looked forward to seeing 'A Clockwork Orange' for a long time before my opportunity to see it came. It's one of those films like 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Fight Club' that young men like me have been trained to look forward to. Unlike 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Fight Club' I did not find it stimulating, thought-provoking, revolutionarily groundbreaking or, for that matter, remotely enjoyable on any level. The reform scenes sickened me, as did the rape scene, the dialogue, the costumes and even some of the sets. I have never seen eye to eye with Kubrick's visions but this films is far and away my most heavily disliked film of all time. I do not pan it with a complete lack of stars as I found Malcolm McDowell's performance to be one of the most unique I have ever seen and that deserves credit, but I can say without a doubt that 'A Clockwork Orange' will be far displaced from my viewing screens for a good few years until I am up to the challenge once more.


Oh my. I watched the film about a fortnight after I read the book. Amazing? Oh I was amazed indeed. Other than some nice photography shots, the film lack intensely. I place the book on my top 5 without a doubt. The film however...I'm not one to compare a book to it's film because they are two different mediums and are not meant for comparison, however for any of you who desire to see this film I suggest you step back with your hands out and get the book instead. Enough satisfaction will be found there. Horrible cinematography, BAD ACTING...holy crap! Alex is the sociopath with no emotion...NOT EVERYONE ELSE. And excessive nudity. I have no problem with nudity, if it is done tastefully and necessarily. This film did none of the above. Loved the eye lashes though ;)


My opinion: the movie has got a very solid potential to be one of the most powerful sci-fi drama, but instead, it turns into a nasty piece of cinema. Couldn't this movie get along without that phallic statuette with which a lonely cat woman was killed? Couldn't be those disgusting human-like furniture be avoided? Couldn't the sex/rape/beat scenes be less showcasing? Sure it could. Those scenes don't make the movie better, but ruin it (at least for me). I have an impression that the director did not control himself and did not know where to stop. A real artist must have that feeling inside himself. "Mad Max" is art, while this movie is not.

I can easily guess, that my opinion is not in the general stream but I have to point it out. I bought this movie on DVD (I trusted IMDb rating too much those days) and I think I will have to throw it away, while there are too many scenes which I want to skip. I repeat: it has very strong potential. If the initial material had been professionally cut, the movie would be marvellous sci-fi drama (like "Solyaris"). But it gets into a ditch with those dirty and low elements. Camera-work doesn't save it. Besides, anyone can use classical music. It is not a "plus". Use your own beautifully composed and that will be a "boost".

To finish it all with a slash, I had the same unpleasant experience when watched "Caligula". Also a dirty movie but with great potential.

Sorry to say, but it is a raw product: 2 out of 10. Thanks for attention.


I think that this film is one of the most over-rated films of all time. I would rate it below average - extra points go to the originality and art. I feel that the film lacks coherence, and I had a difficult time actually being interested throughout the film. I am not entirely sure what Kubrick was trying to achieve here, but in my personal opinion, I think this film was over-rated. I think the reason why it is so popular is that it questions life, and it focuses on taboo topics. There's the element of "shock value" and the fact that no one else would have dared to make a film like this.

Overall, I have seen much better films and I don't know what all the hype is about.


If you who read this are one of those who hated this movie, I really feel your pain. If you are one of those who thinks this is a masterpiece, then you don't know what a good movie is. I have never seen a movie this bad ever in my entire life. The actors are really, really bad - and even though the main character plays a villain, he seems more like a sissy retarded wimp. All I can remember from this so called "movie" is pain... I suffered through it all the time. I would rather get whipped 100 times than watch this horrible piece of s**t ever again. People ONLY love it because of it's satire of society, which makes no sense. For someone who knows how you actually make a movie, this is a joke. I can actually tell you about the ONLY time I watched it - it was when I was studying the art of film making. In class, the teacher told us we should watch it. Afterwards, our teacher said she actually likes the movie (like most people unfortunately do), but still, she told us this is NOT HOW YOU MAKE A MOVIE. That says it all. And just for the record - this is the only movie that have actually managed to make me feel like a brainless weirdo who should go and bite my hands off, while I dance like a idiot.


What a waste of time! I don't know what was more frustrating, a ridiculous plot that made little sense and seemed to go nowhere tortuously slow, the difficult-to-understand cockney accents, or the retarded cinematography. Yikes! How can this movie be in the IMDB top 250? Be forewarned, this movie SUCKS! There is a scene in the movie where a woman is bludgeoned with a large ceramic statue of a penis, and at the end, I felt as if I'd been similarly beat. I would bet that Stanley Kubrick probably smoked a phallic shaped crack vile for the inspiration to make this movie...nothing else makes sense! It oughta come with sub-titles, and while they're at it, make another movie.


I can remember a time long ago when MTV actually played videos. For you kids who watch MTV now you probably think MTV never did. Well, they did but before you were born. In any case this Real World show is just one of many BS crap programs that MTV is replacing their music videos with. The kids that have been on every Real World show have no idea what the real real world is. For if they did they would not be on this program. The producers put these spoiled kids up in million dollar homes or whatever, pay for trips to other countries and give them all kinds of things to do. All they have to do is complain, fight and be offended by things that are not politically correct. The line up for the real World cast is normally this: Black guy, black girl, white feminist girl with hang-ups, macho jerk white guy, wimpy white guy and of course a homosexual. They all have to be people that get easily offended and act like total boneheads.

I can see this being called the real world if they placed these dumb kids in the projects in Chciago or some of the poorest, dirtiest places on the planet. That would be fun to watch these hand-held kids deal with that. MTV has no idea what the real world is because they are so lost in their PC world of transparent nonsense.


That's pretty much it, yuck!!!What kind of crap does MTV come up with?Sure, there's your every now and then GREAT show on MTV, but usually there's dumb excuses for entertainment like The Real World aired.

Okay, this show is "SUPPOSED" to be about a group of strangers who are brought together in a house for some period of time.(Wow, it sounds entertaining already doesn't it?)

This show should've been named-The we will set you up in this house and give you a certain amount of money for everything you do that we tell to World.

I mean, this show is "TOTALLY" unbelievable and complete sh*t compared to other decent "ENTERTAINMENT" shows on television.

You're probably thinking,"Oh well, it's unbelievable, but it's still great fun to watch, right?".....WRONG!!!!!!

I would rather shoot myself in the head than watch another episode of The "REAL" World, because watching this show is actually more painful than that.


The Real world is no doubt the most overrated TV show in television history, to say it's better than classics like sanford and son, all in the family, the dick van dyke show and the jeffersons is a joke, those who think of it, must be on some kind of acid trip, The Real world basicially made generation x go stale and teens bore to death, to compare this one to trauma life in the er is like comparing a alvin and the chipmunks to the smurfs trauma is about real life situations, while the real world is about stupidity eric nies is the most cheesist actor ever and the rest are terrible The real world along with many talk shows are the beginning of the downfall of TV in America. I'll be finally glad this show ends it's run for good. 1 Star.


I saw this on Lifetime sometime after it had originally aired and it dawned on me on whether or not this girl's decision would have been as difficult had this been about a girl who had been adopted and then had found her birth parents. It also could have been a much different flick if she had appeared to the Sands (her biological parents) after having been married and expecting. Kellie Martin plays an incredible role alledgedly based on a true story and gives a real performance with a lot of emotion than the usual shallow fare seen by so many teenage actors. A lot of credit has to go to the actors portraying the Sands and the Jessmons for providing Kellie a stoic and emotional base to create her role. The story of Solomon's tale of the the mothers is used as a wonderfully inspiring parallel and the dreamy flashbacks of the girl's hazy flashbacks of being kidnapped. This is a wonderful movie to make any parent pull their kids tighter, but watch the hands when you hug your teenage daughter!


The movie starts like a sort of mystery/thriller,when Janie pursues the truth about her past. Along the middle we find out what has happened to her and the movie changes into a human drama. I could really identify with Janie here, putting myself in her shoes. How she copes with the very sudden changes in her life really made me think about parents and family relations.

Kellie Martin(Janie) gave a fine performance.Very much recommended.:)


I have just finished reading the first three books and have started the final book out of this series. The Face on the Milk Carton was a movie that I remember seeing about ten years ago. I thought that it was a true story. Is it or isn't it? I am reading conflicting stories on this matter. I would also like to see the movie again? Does anyone know if they sell this on VHS or DVD? I cannot seem to locate a copy anywhere. Do they air this on TV still? For those of you who have not read the books, they are page-turners and you will not be able to put them down until finished. The first and second books were the best: The Face on the Milk Carton and Whatever Happened to Janie?.


Kellie Martin's great role in this movie is the guarantee for good entertainment. A lot of emotion and basic human questions about the parents-children relation. Did you know that Kellie Martin is a skilled soccer player? :-)


When they played The Face on the Milk Carrton on TV I was rather excited, reading the books and all. But I saw an awfully done job. First of all, all of the names were changed, from the original book version, which I hate.

Second, many key parts were cut from the book. Another thing is, they combined Book One and Two together, (Book two, being in the lat hour of the film)which I think ruins the series. The acting was fine however. The direction and visuals were fine, but still, I have never seen a more poor adaption than this. I could do better than that with two-three hours. Not to mention I wouldn't combine Books One and Two together, crammed into a two hour movie.

Read the books they are so much better


This is perhaps Lana Turner's finest vehicle. It showcases her unbelievable beauty and vitality, and it also spotlights her generally undiscovered comedic talents. The plot of this film involves a nation-wide search for a "dancing co-ed" to replace a movie-star in a big budget film. Lana's character has been planted at one of the colleges under consideration, however the student-editor of the school newspaper suspects that the company has already chosen its girl. Under the theory that Sherlock Holmes never suspected Watson, Lana becomes his assistant, and successfully evades his search...of course, the two fall in love....

This movie gave me some of the biggest laughs I've ever had. It is simple, yet wonderful, and one of the most enjoyable films. Chalk up Dancing Co-Ed as another of 1939's countless cinema classics.


I saw this movie several times, in another life (before WWII), with another title (Invitation To Dance)and in another world (Eastern Europe). Artie Shaw was already a star, but didn't fill the expectations, perhaps too bright to stay in rank with other jazzmen.I never found an opportunity to see it again, is not even available at Amazon. I caught it last week on a TCM program, although the advertised cast mentioned only the names of Lana Turner and...Thurston Hall! In my humble opinion, this movie may illustrate a duel between the two great clarinet wizards, Benny Goodman The King Of Swing and Artie Shaw the King of Clarinet.The Midwestern jazz and majorette parade imitates but hardly matches the motorcade introducing Hollywood HOTEL (S. Sylvan Simon ain't Busby Berkeley!) but the dance contest sequence is excellent, with a special mention for TRAFFIC JAM, both for the music and for the staging. That air is bathing in Count Basian atmosphere, like the LADY BE GOOD rendition of the same line-up - with Buddy Rich for added entertainment.And in his second (and last) full-length movie,SECOND CHORUS, Artie Shaw lined up his Concerto For Clarinet, a masterpiece largely shown, not for just two minutes, like SING, SING, SING, in HH. The plot was entertaining, with many good quips and dialog. Good mentions for Roscoe Kearns and Ann Rutherford.And Lana Turner is, at least this time, fresh and unsophisticated. A must for all the Artie Shaw and Swing Era fans, although the jazz sequences - except TRAFFIC JAM - are unreasonably shortened. Harry Carasso, Paris, France


A musical is about ready to be filmed for a fictional studio. The only problem is that the lady from the dance team to star in the film is pregnant and they need to find a replacement. Roscoe Karnes has an idea to stage a phony search in colleges across the country for the actress' replacement--though in reality, he has already chosen Lana Turner for the role. So, he enrolls Lana at a college and pretends to have an honest to goodness competition. Unfortunately, complications arise and the film becomes a nice little romantic farce.

This is a rather old fashioned but fun old MGM musical that oddly stars Lana Turner. While I was surprised how well she could dance, you just normally don't think of her and dancing. Apparently it was originally to have been an Eleanor Powell film and it sure feels like one. Either could have done a fine job in this film, though seeing Turner in her more natural look of 1939 was very refreshing--with much less make-up and more natural looking hair. She was quite beautiful and more natural looking--making me wish that more co-eds had looked like this when I was in college. Uh, oh,...if my wife reads this, I am toast! By the way, while not a great film, it's a very good film and one even curmudgeons can enjoy.


A year after they appeared together in "Love Finds Andy Hardy", Lana Turner and Ann Rutherford were paired up in two 1939 films: "These Glamour Girls" and "Dancing Co-Ed". Beyond having a college setting (with Turner playing an outsider) and the same Director (S. Sylvan Simon) there was little similarity between the two films. Although not as ambitious, "Dancing Co-Ed" is a much more entertaining film. It is probably Turner's best performance and is indisputably her most timeless. She gets to show off her dancing and her surprising ability to do comedy. Plus she looks great in a charming girl-next-door way, playing a character that gets to smile a lot (she has a great smile-too bad so few of her roles utilized it).

The story revolves around a nationwide hunt to find a new female dance partner for a well-known dancer, a radio program runs a contest to select this partner from aspiring college students. But it is more publicity stunt than actual contest as vaudeville dancer Patty Marlow (Turner) has been pre-selected, she has enrolled in a university just to be technically eligible. Her agent's secretary (Rutherford) enrolls with her to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Complications arise when Pug (Richard Carlson), a reporter for the Porcupine (the student newspaper), begins to investigate the legitimacy of the contest. Carlson would became the king of 3D science fiction films in the 1950's.

"Dancing Co-Ed" has a lot going for it. Turner and Rutherford have excellent chemistry, their scenes work very well and you really believe that they are friends. It is a slick and funny script. The supporting cast actually has something to add to the production, particularly Monty Woolley as pompous Professor Lang and Leon Errol as Patty's vaudeville father.

Artie Shaw and His Orchestra are featured extensively and provide some great swing music. They are even in a parade with a college marching band featuring baton-twirling majorettes (who would have thought they had that kind of stuff way back in 1939).

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Lana Turner goes back to school, but only to win a dance contest (which stipulates a college student wins) to star in a new movie starring Lee Bowman, whose wife is now pregnant and can't make the movie. There are complications galore when Richard Carlson is determined to find a "plant" if there is one at their college. But "Sherlock never suspected Watson", so Lana helps him in his investigation.

Costarring Ann Rutherford (at her radiant best at something other than Andy Hardy's Polly), Roscoe Karns (who's great as an Hollywood bigwig's assistant), and Leon Errol (who's very memorable as Lana's father,) this is yet another movie of the kind they just don't make anymore. Not that it's very important or very life-changing, but it shows early Hollywood and its naive look at life, before they made movies with language and excess of everything unnecessary to movie-making.

Monty Woolley with his usual eloquent and memorable voice makes a brief appearance as an intimidating teacher. You can also spot Mary Beth Hughes and June Preisser, who was in a couple of the Mickey/Judy films as the rich society girl.

If you want to sit back and enjoy the early unpretentious years of Hollywood, then this upbeat movie is for you, which showcases a young Lana Turner at her sweetest. Who could ask for anything more?


Lana Turner is a "Dancing Co-Ed" in this 1939 film also starring Ann Rutherford, Richard Carlson, Arte Shaw and his Orchestra and Monte Woolley. When one-half of the famous movie dancers, the Tobius', announces she's pregnant, the studio is talked into launching a Scarlett O'Hara type search in colleges to find a partner for the couple's next film. In order to make sure they cast the right person, a young actress at the studio, Patty Marlow (Turner) is sent to college with her friend from the studio, Eve Greeley (Ann Rutherford). However, the head of the college newspaper, Pug (Richard Carlson), thinks the contest is rigged. Patty quickly becomes Pug's assistant in uncovering a fix (becomes Holmes never suspected Watson of a crime). A complication arises when the two fall in love.

It's hard to understand how people can consider Lana Turner a terrible and wooden actress, though it's possible these critics haven't seen her early films. Talk about a camera loving an actress, and talk about an actress with "star" written all over her beautiful face, Lana was it. Beautiful, fresh, energetic, with a warmth and a sweetness about her, Lana walked away with these early films, including "Slightly Dangerous," "These Glamor Girls" and many others. She did lose some of these qualities as the years went on, sadly, but here, she's wonderful. Ann Rutherford is excellent too, with an expressive, pretty face and a charm all her own. What could have been a routine film is really lifted by these actresses and the supporting cast. Highly recommended as a light '30s film that will leave you with a smile on your face.


I don't care what anyone says, Al Adamson's "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" is loads of fun to watch and is very entertaining! Adamson is one of those directors that you either love or hate and I happen to love him!

"Dracula vs. Frankenstein" is a throwback to the Universal age of horror films, with some biker movie/musical/drug movie ingredients thrown in. J. Carrol Naish and Lon Chaney, Jr. are the classic actors thrown in as a tribute to the golden days of horror. Chaney isn't half-bad as murderous Grotto, given that he's a mute the entire movie, but Naish as Dr. Duray/Dr. Frankenstein is inexcusably wooden. This would be the last role for both of them. Adamson regulars Russ Tamblyn, Regina Carrol, Greydon Clark, and Gary Kent are along for the ride as well! Tamblyn is not used very much, but does strike a presence as Rico, a mean biker who attempts to rape a girl on the boardwalk! I love Regina Carrol dearly and she is fabulous in what could be her best role (that I've seen) as Judith Fontaine, a Vegas showgirl (who sings a great song!) who travels to Venice, California to find her missing sister. Anthony Eisley is her love interest, an aging hipster who is anything BUT hip (check out his tooth necklace!). Clark is Weird, a hippie who spends his time going to protests and venturing into Dr. Duray's Creature Emporium with his girlfriend Samantha. Gary Kent is seen briefly as the boyfriend who gets axed by Grotto on the beach! Now for the monsters: Dracula is played by Zandor Vorkov, an accountant with a white-boy afro, and Frankenstein is played by B-movie big boy John Bloom, whose makeup is...original, to say the least.

The plot is sort of weak, the acting is a bit above average, the scares minimal, if not invisible, and production values are cheap. Lots of people say that this movie should have played on MST3K. But who says this movie can't be entertaining? In my opinion, a bad movie is one that can't entertain you in any possible way (see my review of "Demented"!). "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" is striking in its ineptitude and unforgettable in its cheap presentation.


Dracula verses Frankenstein is one of those so bad its good movies, a drive in movie.with a great cast;Lon Chaney Jr as a puppy loving murderer,j Carroll Nash as Dr Frankenstein.and Regina Carroll as the busty blonde heroine.and then there's a great extended cameo by Forrest j Ackerman(Dr. acula and to us horror fans uncle forry)OK i know a lot of critics hated this but its really an entertaining tribute to the universal Frankenstein movies,the monster looks like a brute with a face that resembles a raw steak,and Dracula looks like a hippie with fangs.also starring the great Russ tamblyn and Anthony eisley.with music from the universal monster films.troma picked up the DVD rights to this.it really is a scream.notably this was Lon Chaney Jr's last film as well as j Carroll Nash(both were in house of Frankenstein 1945) also in the cast is Jim Davis who later played jock Ewing on TVs Dallas. i remember first hearing about this in the great magazine famous monsters of filmland.8 out of 10,check it out.


This movie is awful, but it's SUPPOSED to be! Without wonderful cheesyness like this life (and movies) would be a far duller experience. Naish and Chaney, obviously short of cash but always the professionals, give this movie the class Adamson knew it would. That's why he hired them. Chaney's character is sort of "Lenny with an axe", right down to the puppy dog he carries around, and Naish couldn't give a bad performance if he were unconscious. This is a wonderful movie for lovers of the "so bad it's good" school.


Dracula Vs. Frankenstein starts in 'Oakmoor Cemetery' on a dark cold & stormy night as Count Dracula (Zandor Vorkov) digs the remains of the Frankenstein (John Bloom) creature up. The film then switches to a beach near an amusement park in Las Vegas. Jodie Fontaine (Maria Lease) is wandering around on her own when a big ugly guy called Groton (Lon Chaney Jr. as Lon Chaney) chops her head off with an axe. The film then switches to the Vegas strip where Jodies sister Judith Fontaine (the director's wife Regina Carrol) is a headlining act, we see her performance for a few minutes as the film becomes a low rent MGM musical. Afterwards she discusses Jodie with Sargeant Martin (Jim Davis) from the missing persons bureau, Judith doesn't receive much encouragement & decides to investigate Jodies disappearance herself. Meanwhile Jodies decapitated head has been reattached to her body by Dr. Duryea (J. Carrol Naish) who just happens to be the last living member of the Frankenstein family & now conducts his experiments from an amusement park attraction called 'Dr. Duryea's creature emporium' which exhibits various freaks. One night Count Dracula turns up & convinces Frankenstein to reanimate the monster. Judith teams up with a guy named Mike Howard (Anthony Eisley), a guy known as Strange (Greydon Clark) & his girlfriend Samantha (Anne Morrell) & they eventually stumble across the truth, which be honest I don't really understand, & have to fight for their very lives against Count Dracula & his silly looking laser beam shooting ring, both Frankenstein's monster & mad scientist, Groton, a dwarf named Grazbo (Angelo Rossitto) & a rapist biker named Rico (Russ Tamblyn), whew what a crazy film & I've barely touched the surface of what happens!

Produced & directed by the infamous Al Adamson I loved this crazy, almost unbelievable film! You can't really judge Dracula Vs. Frankenstein by standard film criteria, instead you just need to sit back & enjoy the ride because I personally think this film is great fun to watch. Dracula Vs. Frankenstein quite literary has everything, it has a Frankenstein monster that looks like a speeding train has hit it's face head on, Count Dracula with a silly looking beard & an afro hairstyle, who talks with a bizarre echo throughout & has plastic teeth that bulge out of his mouth, a drug addicted mute hunchback assistant, a wheelchair bound Dr. Frankenstein with a gay looking goatee beard, ancient comets, lab equipment that would look dated during 20's, we do indeed see (well almost as it's filmed in the horrible day-for-night process) a Dracula Vs. Frankenstein fight at the end, a biker gang & a weird guy named Strange who gets excited about playing with an old tyre in an alleyway with his girlfriend! The script is all over the place, the dialogue is insane as Dracula says things like "your fear will fully energise the molecular structure of your blood", or a cop that says "if you've got a fireplace burn some wood in it, it'll be a lot better than running around on the streets" to a bemused Judith, Mike & the hippies also provide plenty of choice dialogue & lets not forget Dr. Frankenstein's mumbo jumbo "we are not butchers... we are scientists", almost every line is an absolute classic laugh-out-loud moment & I loved all of it! Dracula & Dr. Frankenstein only meet once in the film & generally speaking Dracula & Frankenstein's monster are relegated to bit-part characters as the film focuses on Dr. Frankenstein's experiments & Judith's investigations, which is a shame. Also, the plot is hardly logical, it makes virtually no sense whatsoever as Dracula says Dr. Frankenstein's serum will help him create an army of undead Vampires & some nonsense about the human body being reanimated with a natural substance made when someone is decapitated but what does that matter when a film is this consistently entertaining? The special optical effects are terrible, check out the laser beam from Dracula's ring. I thought the make-up on the Frankenstein monster was OK & it looked quite freaky. There is some gore, a couple of ripped off arms, some neck biting & a few chopped off heads. There is also one brief shot of female nudity. Technically Dracula Vs. Frankenstein is a bit of a mess, there are some awful day-for-night shots, the performances have to be seen to be believed, the music gets on the nerves after a while, the props & sets are cheap & the photography is point & hope for the best stuff. But having said all this what it basically boils down to is that I found Dracula Vs. Frankenstein just so entertaining & loads of fun, & surely that's what watching films is all about? Impossible to recommend as most sane people will hate every demented second of it, but I'm not most people am I? I'll sign off by saying I loved this film, so bad it's utterly brilliant!!!


This has been and continues to be one of my favorite cult films of all time, i first saw Dracula vs Frankenstein as a very young teenager, about 13, at the only theater in the town of Riverhead where they showed horror and cult films to pot smoking teenagers. That night, i fell in love with miss Regina Carrol and have been a fan of hers ever since as well as a fan of her husband, director, Al Adamson. I'm watching Dr Dracula right now and wonder why this had to be her last movie, she looked as beautiful as ever.Other favorates of the Regina and Al movies would have to be Satan's Sadists and Brain of blood. Still wating for Viva las Vegas to come out on DVD, haven't seen it yet in stores, but with Regina, Beverly Hills and Ann Margret together with Elvis, this is one movie that must be in any DVD collection.


BLOOD SEEKERS was Adamson's unfinished gore epic that was filmed in the late 60s. He decided to shoot framing scenes adding the whole Dracula-Frankenstein angle later on, and the whole package goes as follows...

Mad Dr. Frankenstein (J. Carroll Naish) is busy at work reconstructing dead bodies while retarded manservant Groton (Lon Chaney, Jr.) spends most of the time whimpering and petting a puppy. When the doctor injects Groton with a special serum it transforms him into a lurking, laughing, sweating, beach-bunny-decapitating, axe murderer. The cops are already after them, but even more troubles arise when the echo-voiced Count Dracula (Zandor Vorkov) arrives and blackmails the mad doc into resurrecting the Frankenstein monster and giving him the blood of his victims!

Meanwhile, in Las Vegas, a lounge singer (Regina Carroll) performs a lounge act called "She Travels Light." They try to make it look like it's a big production number by filming it in a large auditorium, but we only see an audience of about four people. Miss Carrol gets news of her sister's disappearance and heads off to Venice Beach looking for answers. She goes to a club, is slipped LSD in her coffee, has a substandard 70s trip out scene, then teams up with three hippies (led by Anthony Eisley) to find out what's going on.

Possibly Adamson's most famous film, and even though it's cheap, silly, trashy and completely nonsensical, there's enough going on here (and an interesting enough cast) to qualify it as a must see to die-hard horror fans. The cast is just overloaded with familiar faces! Aside from those already mentioned, Russ Tamblyn, Jim Davis, Forry Ackerman, Angelo Rossitto, Gary Kent and other swell folks appear and future director Greydon Clark (of SATAN'S CHERRLEADERS fame) also has a small role. If none of those names are ringing a bell, then you may not be as amused by what you see here.

Side note--Some nudity and violence seem to have been removed so it could pass with a PG rating.


I can't say anything bad about the film. It has so many good people that were connected in making the film. That it overshadows any bad thoughts that I could have about it. I really wish that a sequel could be made. I plan to go and visit some of the cast and crew members this summer. To the remaining cast and crew that are still around if you see this comment. I really appreciate your work.


This movie is fun for the entire family. It features one of the greatest "drug-trip-sequences" ever captured on film, it has the last performance of the classic movie star, Lon Chaney. You've gotta love any flick that somehow packs bikers, classic monsters, hippies and a blond with a body and cleavage that won't stop all in one movie. I don't know how to exlain it better than this... the acting is bad, the directing is sub standard the effects are complete crap but it's still an excellent flick. duh, go buy it:)


This is one of the best horror flicks any one in their right mind could endure. Its lower than low budget and is a masterpiece of both no budget and expliotation cinema. The actors are amazing with some coming out of retirement to act in this. Sitting in his wheelchair the amazing Dr Frankenstien outsmarts a very scary and very black Dracula! The scene is amazing, Dracula is invited into the home but that crafty Dr has placed a mirror on the roof so he can see (or not see) Draculas reflection!! When Dracula realises he has been tricked the 'oh f*uck' look on his face is pure acting genius!!! There are many scenes of joy but to list them would be to destroy a film that you have not seen.

"When a man comes into my house and casts no reflection....." What a scene!!!!!! Listen to all the Dr's lines in the film, you can hear his dentures clackin around!!!! This is an amazing decision by the director and gives the feeling of unease and terror one would expect from a production of this calibre perfectly.!!! A must see!!!!


And for that you can be glad? Oh no, this has a certain scuzzy charm to it that may be only appealing to bad movie fans like myself, but I think this is a rather fun, if messy, movie. Messy being that it's by Al Adamson so therefore you know it's quality. And what exactly is this about? Well, a mad doctor, he being of the Frankenstein clan, despite his last name (he was adopted?) is experimenting on young folks at the Freak House, which is on the pier at the amusement park. His crazed assistant (as played by Lon Chaney) goes out to collect body parts when he's not standing nearby cuddling his puppy. One of the body parts he's collected is the head of a girl whose sister is a Las Vegas Lounge Performer (with an awesome hair-do) and of course when sister is missing she has to come look for her. She inquires at the local coffee house and gets something dropped into her coffee (LSD?) because they think she's a cop, and after a bad trip she wakes up in Anthony Eisley's bed. They then of course, delve into the mystery when not hanging out on the beach doing romantic things. Dracula and Frankenstein in this are pretty interesting, Dracula has some pretty strange ability to speak in echoes, while not using any visible devices, and he's missing make-up on his eyelids. Frankenstein looks rather worse for wear, as his face looks like it's been in the water too long. And why are they fighting each other? Kind of hard to tell, but there is a final struggle between them toward the end of the film and if you're not familiar with Al Adamson films, they supply their own logic, which is generally incomprehensible to viewers, so don't really worry about it, is all I can say. Just sit back and watch and gape, because you will, and not in horror either. A masterpiece of cheesiness. 8 out of 10.


I wish that Hollywood today had more producers and directors of the caliber of Sam Sherman and Al Adamson. Frequently derided as hacks, or worse, their only sin was producing extremely entertaining drive-in exploitation movies for young people. Much fun has been made of the numerous permutations that Dracula vs. Frankenstein and other Independent International pictures went through before reaching the big screen; instead, Sherman and Adamson should be applauded for their dedication and persistence in sticking with these films and working on them until they got them right. Yeah, the budgets were tiny, the productions were unpolished, and the stories were ridiculous; nonetheless, all involved took the films very seriously, and produced something that is still being enjoyed 35 years later. I can bet you a chunk of change that no-one is going to be putting out a special edition DVD of Munich, or The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, in 2041.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein is lots of fun. It was one of my favorites 30 years ago when I caught it on the tube, and I think it still holds up. Adamson's direction is rough and harried, but he keeps up the pace and never slides into condescension, irony, or parody, which is the easy way out for a director who thinks he is "above the material". J. Carrol Naish and Lon Chaney Jr., both old, sick, and at the end of their careers, and having every reason to walk through their parts, perform like troupers, and lend Dracula vs. Frankenstein their significant talent, and their tarnished but still formidable charisma. Zandor Vorkov looks ridiculous in his afro, goatee, and white greasepaint, but he gives a unique and interesting performance as Count Dracula, and one that is not to be ashamed of. Likewise Regina Carroll, Jim Davis, Angelo Rossito, Russ Tamblyn, and the rest of the cast, do their best to give this essentially silly patchwork a credible aura. Compare any of these actors with, say, the bored, listless Brad Pitt in the abominable Troy, for which he probably took home a 10 million dollar paycheck, to see what I mean.

Producer Sam Sherman, a witty, intelligent, and erudite man, provides one of the best audio commentaries that I have ever heard on the DVD of Dracula vs. Frankenstein. He readily admits that both he and Adamson did not make the kind of movies they would have preferred to make; but, given the budgets and conditions under which they were compelled to work, tried to give their audiences the biggest possible bang for their buck. There is no shame in that.


Adamson presents: Vorkov (who?) as Dracula! Bloom as the Monster! (check out "The Dark"/'79 for a similar role); Naish as the mad scientist! Chaney as the, uh, mad axe murderer! Rossitto as...the mad dwarf! When the credits start, this resembles the old-time Universal monster pictures of the 1930's and 40's, mostly due to the old-fashioned musical score, but when I saw the whole movie as a kid, at about 12 years of age, it did creep me out. I think, because of the low budget, it had a reality factor of 'too close to home for comfort' as if it was all taking place in the next town and pretty soon all these creeps were gonna come over to my town and mess with me. There are those lengthy sequences focusing on $50 lab sets with lights flashing meant to impress us and you may laugh, but then you hear the cop (Davis, better known to "Dallas" TV fans) philosophizing about how some victims ask for bad stuff to happen to them based on his 20 years experience and you may think, hm - who wrote that? I also had to laugh when Naish describes the obvious lunatic Chaney as harmless to some guests, then sends him to chop people up in the next scene...but we knew that.

Naish, in a wheelchair, has the lion's share of dialogue in this one, much of which consists of lengthy monologues regarding his mad theories (sure, he speaks to Chaney but Chaney's character is mute and just stands there looking bestial). If I grasped this Dr.Frankenstein's thinking correctly, it involves causing sudden death, such as decapitation, then reviving the dead subject somehow, and creating a rare blood mixture as a result. See, I was paying attention. The mad doctor conducts his little experiments using a carnival horror show as a front. Regina Carrol, fresh from Adamson's "Satan's Sadists," is a Vegas showgirl searching for her sister (one of Chaney's victims). Eisley is the hip older dude who ends up helping her in-between long walks on the beach, where all the murders occur. Tamblyn pops up briefly (also from "Satan's Sadists") as another lowlife biker. As one may guess, the cops appear quite useless and all the hippies in the area are preoccupied with protests rather than some horrific murders.

This nutty pic is a product of its time, capping off the 'with-it' relevant sixties with some irrelevant goofy creatures. So what about Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster? They're here, too. Dracula actually digs up the mashed-potato-monster and then makes some pact with Naish. In this version, the vampire's voice sounds electronically enhanced and he uses a ring to burn things (and people - dig that crazy animation). Also, did you know that the Monster's life cycle was linked to the passing of a comet? Yes, it's true! - according to Dracula (where do they get this stuff?). And the two title characters do indeed fight it out at the end. Famous fan Ackerman shows up as another victim, obligingly walking into the Monster's deadly grasp. With all this going on, one might wonder why this gets only 2 stars from me. Well, getting back to, for example, those long walks on the beach: these are really...long...walks...on...the...beach. Know what I mean?


This is a very painful movie to watch if you love old horror films. That's because both J. Carrol Naish and Lon Chaney, Jr. both starred in this film shortly before their deaths. As for Naish, he was so sickly that he acted in a wheelchair. Additionally, he had lost an eye and could not remember his lines, so he read from cue cards--and you could literally watch his one good eye darting back and forth while the glass one remained still. A sad and creepy effect, I must say. As for Chaney, he was killing himself with booze and he naturally looks bloated and a shadow of his former self.

Not surprisingly, these performances reminded me of Bela Lugosi in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Like Naish and Chaney, Lugosi was dying and many rather pointless scenes were dumped into PLAN 9 by director Ed Wood, Jr.. Like Wood, Al Adamson seemed to just dump film randomly into the film, as he took scenes from a planned sequel to SATAN'S SADISTS (a biker film) and dumped them into this horror of a film. Additionally, he hired a lady who looks like a stripper to play lead.

So is there any reason to watch this film? Well, if you want a quality film, then keep looking!! However, if you enjoy laughing at incompetence, then this film has it in spades. There's a Dracula who looks nothing like the familiar Count (perhaps he looks a bit more like a gay porn Dracula--you be the judge). There's also a Frankenstein that looks more like a mushroom man from ATTACK OF THE MUSHROOM PEOPLE and his face is just,....well,...impossible to describe, though comparing it to Frankenstein is NOT possible! And, if that's not bad enough, the dialog and acting are horrid and the film just screams "crap" from start to finish! So overall, the film is horrible and it begs the question "was Al Adamson perhaps a worse director than Ed Wood, Jr."? With such great films to Adamson's credit as THE NAUGHTY STEWARDESSES, LASH OF LUST, BRAIN OF BLOOD, HELL'S BLOODY DEVILS and PSYCHO A GO-GO, if he ain't the worst director ever, he sure is a runner up!!

FYI--Angelo Rossitto is also in the film. While he's not a household name, this midget starred in a heap of old horror films in the 30s and 40s--most notably in FREAKS and some Bela Lugosi films.


Count Dracula comes to an aged Dr. Frankenstein, currently working in a carnival fun house, with a proposition. The bad doctor agrees to manufacture a serum that will satisfy the Counts' need for blood and put into motion the Counts' plan to create an army of the undead. However, trouble is stirred when Jodie, the sister of a singer, Judith Fontaine, goes missing and Judith attempts to find her with the help of some new friends.

This may not have been the most dignified swan song for Lon Chaney Jr. (as mute, Igor-like servant Groton) or J. Carrol Naish (as Dr. Frankenstein), but they add some class with their presence. In fact, Chaney elicits just as much sympathy as he ever did in his career. Regina Carrol is sexy as Judith, and a strong lineup of familiar faces also make appearances: Anthony Eisley as love interest Mike, future director Greydon Clark as a man named "Strange", Angelo Rossitto as the barker Grazbo, Russ Tamblyn as biker Rico, Jim Davis as police sergeant Martin, John Goff as another biker, Gary Kent as a lover on a beach, Albert Cole as an unlucky cop, and Forrest J. Ackerman as the ill-fated Dr. Beaumont. Roger Engel, billed here under the supposedly more impressive-sounding Zandor Vorkov, is an unscary, silly, and boring Count Dracula, but at least the massive John Bloom makes for a reasonably impressive Frankenstein monster.

The movie itself is mostly just plain amusing. Then again, director Al Adamson and producer Sam Sherman often liked to have their tongues in their cheeks, so it's good that they can just have fun with their material. It's not as if the horror content is particularly scary, although it's not for want of trying. Certain scenes, like the trips through the fun house and the final battle between the Count and the Monster, are quite fun. Adamson certainly liked being up to the challenge of very low budgets and delivers a movie that's pretty much a bunch of amiable nonsense. It's not particularly violent, with not much in the way of gore (it *is* rated PG). It's also certainly a film of its time, with its portrayal of the hippie culture and psychedelic sequences.

Overall, it may not exactly be a "good" movie, but Adamson gives it his all and delivers a movie that still has some assets and entertainment value.

7/10


Thanks to "Uncle Forry," I was one of those kids who had lined up to see Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN when it first saw theatrical release: the co-stars of this one had turned up on the cover of FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND (which had featured an article on the movie without advising those of us who cared about such things that it might be something less than entertaining- on any level). Mr. Ackerman acquited himself well enough, all things considered, but his appearance proved all too brief. And now he's gone. There won't be any more cameos; no more FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND. It was Forrest J. Ackerman who helped me get a script I'd written into the hands of filmmaker George A. Romero. (The letter "Uncle Forry" sent me has apparently been lost in the three-decade shuffle since, but it was one of my most prized possessions for years.) I found out that FJA was among the Missing when I happened upon the final minute or so of a year-end Farewell to the Lost on Turner Classic Movies. He Left on December 4th, and I hadn't heard word one about it until I stumbled across that TCM tribute. Ackerman's love of all things Fantastic brought us together (he as editor, myself as reader and fan) and, although I did write back to him and thank him for his help in getting my script to Romero... it just doesn't seem like thanks enough. Not now. (I dedicated THE NIGHT RIDERS, my xlibris book, in part, to FJA.) There weren't a whole lot of things a kid could count on when I was growing up, but there was- and always will be, for as long as life endures- the memories I have of a black and white magazine whose editor shared my love of the Fantastic; an editor who always seemed to me to be a kid at heart. With love, this one's for Forrest J. Ackerman.


I’d always heard the name of Al Adamson mentioned in the same breath as that of the acknowledged King Of Bad Movies, Edward D. Wood Jr.; having now watched an effort from him – and one that, by all accounts, is his own nadir (or zenith, if that’s your bag) – I can certainly appreciate the comparison!

Some might enjoy the inherent campiness of the film – belatedly turned into a nod to the classic Universal monster cycle by pairing its two most popular characters (and featuring a couple of relics from that by-gone era in J. Carroll Naish and Lon Chaney Jr.) – but it’s hard to overlook the sheer awfulness of the whole enterprise…not to mention the way it demeans two reliable actors and the legacy of Dracula and Frankenstein in the process! To be fair, Naish does try as the mad scientist – delivering the expected quota of crackpot theories throughout; but it’s painful to watch Chaney here, reduced by alcoholism and cancer to thankless parts of brutish mute assistants. You ain’t seen Chaney until you’ve watched him giddy with anticipation for his ‘fix’, or go cold turkey when he’s deprived of it; on top of that, in order to provide Naish with the body parts necessary for his experiments, Chaney’s character – named Groton (perhaps an amalgam of gross cretin?) – is turned every once in a while into a rabid axe-wielding murderer!

But, then, what of the monsters themselves?: as played by one Zandor Vorkov – obviously a pseudonym, and with a look apparently inspired by Frank Zappa – this has to be the most ineffectual Dracula on record (made even worse by his inexplicably resounding voice)!; on the other hand, the Frankenstein monster is saddled with such a (literally) squashed appearance – generally recalling Charles Ogle from the very first, i.e. 1910, adaptation of the Mary Shelley novel – that I kept expecting Naish (or someone) to inflate it to a presentable form! That said, the film contrives to dispatch its two horror stars well before the end (Naish’s is undoubtedly among the clumsiest ever devised) to make way for the ‘fireworks’ promised by the titular bout (which was too dark on the print I watched anyway!) – reportedly, this was only thought of late in the game and actually replaced the climax Adamson originally shot – but it only proved to be a dire conclusion to a pathetic film!! To add insult to injury, the recognizable tri-tonal Gill Man theme kept cropping up on the soundtrack all through this sequence.

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the characters are even less engaging and only serve to raise the yawn factor: the heroine – who sets the plot in motion by going in search of her missing sister – is introduced while doing an idiotic vaudeville number in Vegas with two dubious hunks and, apparently, was the director’s own wife in real life; the cop on the case is played by a bewildered Jim Davis; helping the girl are a trio of hippies, and harassing the lot are a gang of bikers (led by a spaced-out Russ Tamblyn sporting a huge head of hair and whose scenes were seemingly intended for another film, a sequel to Satan’S SADISTS [1969] from the same director!); last, not least but decidedly the shortest is Angelo Rossitto, Hollywood’s perennial ‘little man’ of Horror, who’s also on hand as a carnival-barker for Naish’s “Creature Emporium”.


I'm not sure how many words the IMDb allows viewers to prattle on in their reviews, but whatever that word limit is, it is not enough by 1/10th to adequately describe the awfulness that is Al Adamson's "Dracula vs. Frankenstein." It's hard to decide where to begin even; every aspect of this picture is so singularly wretched. Howzabout the acting, for starters? When Regina Carrol turns out to be the most accomplished thespian in a film, you know you're in for a rough ride! J. Carrol Naish (the other Carrol in the picture) stars as the wheelchair-bound Dr. Frankenstein, masquerading as the owner of a carnival freak show. He is involved, along with mute idiot Lon Chaney, Jr., in experiments involving the decapitation of young women in order to procure a special type of fright-induced blood. (Don't worry...it didn't make much sense to me either.) This was both Naish's and Chaney's final film; what a sad way to go out. Naish looks terrible, and performs as if he were on the edge of senility. Chaney has no lines whatsoever, and merely stands around slavering and acting like a dodo. A ridiculous-looking Dracula pops up, wearing more painted-on facial hair than Groucho, and convinces the good Dr. to dig up the old Frankenstein monster, which turns out to have a face like a mass of festering mushrooms. Russ Tamblyn gets thrown into the mix as well, playing a nasty biker. From the heights of "West Side Story" in '61 to this "West Coast Gory" in '71; he should have killed his agent! So we have, in this film, horrible, borderline embarrassing acting; a ridiculous story that makes little to no sense whatsoever; Regina getting dosed with LSD and flouncing around a biker bar; atrocious lighting; inept direction; god-awful effects; AND a horrendous musical number or two. Is it any wonder that this picture is considered a camp classic? Besides one or two good screams from Regina and an atmospheric woods walk, this picture offers little besides the camp.


Bad film seekers rejoice! Rent or buy this film on video and marvel at its sloppy tackiness and sheer badness. There have been a lot of Grade Z horror films made over the years, but few are as enjoyably awful as this one! Its one of my all time favorites! Yes, it's sad to see Lon Chaney, Jr. and J. Carrol Nash in their last roles, but what a way to go out! Director Al Adamson's wife, the busty dim witted bleach blonde Regina Carroll is used to great effect in her best role! We are treated to her incredible bad night club song and dance routine which is mind numbing! She's said to be a star in Las Vegas, but we only see one table of people in the audience, and sitting right in the middle is the director Al Adamson himself! Jim Davis, of Dallas, is a silly police detective who endlessly babbles his philosophy about the "freaks and weirdos." Great Grade Z supporting cast. Lots of tacky circa 1970 fashion, language, and situations (like Regina's acid trip). Zandar Vorkov is certainly filmdom's best-worst afro headed Dracula. His voice is processed through an echo device so cheap it makes Mexican radio sound realistic! Some of the Frankenstein effects are 40 year old original Universal props! Wonderful schlock from master crap film maker Al Adamson. Don't miss it!


"Dracula vs Frankenstein" has got to rank near the top of the all-time worst films list. A cheap independent quickie obviously meant for the drive-in circuit, its only redeeming grace are the many down on their luck veteran performers in the cast.

 J. Carroll Naish, confined to a wheelchair, plays yet another relative of the original Dr. Frankenstein called Dr. Durea. He and his mute assistant Groton (Lon Chaney Jr.) are still at it, murdering unsuspecting young girls for experimentation from their secret location in a House of Horrors located in an amusement park. Into the mix comes Count Dracula (Zandar Vorkov) who promises to revive the famous monster (John Bloom) in return for the evil doctor's help in developing a serum to make Dracula invincible. Heroine Judith Fontaine (Regina Carrol) enters the picture looking for her missing sister. She is aided in her search by hero Anthony Eisley and cop Jim Davis. Along the way she encounters evil biker Russ Tamblyn. Even famed magazine publisher Forest J. Ackerman appears proving that he should have stuck to magazines.

 Well you would think with such a cast of seasoned veterans the picture would have been better. I hate to think what it would have been without their participation. The acting other than from Naish, Chaney, Davis and Eisley is just plain dreadful. Carrol who must have been the producer's girlfriend, is just plain awful. Vorkov as Dracula is laughable and the Frankenstein monster's face looks like a roasted marshmallow. The "climatic" battle between Dracula and the monster is a hoot, when you can see it in the poorly lit setting.

 The production "values" of this film are non-existent. And it's really sad to see such veteran performers as Naish and Chaney (in the final film for both) involved in such nonsense. Tamblyn, who had once been a rising star at MGM in the 50s is embarrassingly bad. Eisley and Davis both do what they can with weak direction and material.

 "Dracula vs Frankenstein" was a sad end for two fine actors. Unfortunately, they ended up much the same way as their contemporaries Karloff and Lugosi, appearing in god-awful Grade Z movies at the end of their careers. They all deserved better.