I expected a lot more from this film after all the hype. For me, Bubblegum Crisis typifies everything that's wrong with Japanese animation - puerile and unoriginal, as disposable as the bubblegum of its title. The characters are completely unbelievable ('Priss' is a MOR rock superstar who moonlights as a freelance urban warrior with kit that even the military doesn't have access to - what?!), and the plot is virtually non-existent: a mindless stream of mechanoids and formulaic, wide-eyed action chicks.

At its best, anime can be superb, with engaging, open-ended narratives and subtle aesthetics of the kind you rarely find in Western animation. The only thing Bubblegum Crisis has got going for it are its visuals, which are very good, but wasted on a lame script.


What a dreadful disappointment Bubblegum Crisis turned out to be. The episode I inflicted on myself featured a lacklustre plot about a vengeful motorist in a Batmobile, and I only managed half of it before falling asleep (literally, not figuratively).

On the plus side, the animation is superb, I won't contest that. Both the beauty and action scenes are handled with genuine style and panache. And while we're praising, there was a half decent effort to convincingly portray a disturbed individual slipping into insanity.

But all that is ruined, utterly and completely by the genre silliness. The whole concept of the "gal group kicking ass" is childish, but it doesn't have to be and childishly handled. What is a simpering bimbo doing in the group? You'd evict her in a second. The essentially juvenile fantasy fulfillment grrl action jarred badly with the pretentions towards serious drama with the Batmobile driver. It was just a big old mess.

I'll mention That Film again. Akira showed that you don't have to stick to the genre plot devices or risible charicatures to produce an anime film. I fell in love with Akira (yes, I know, pronounced AHkih'rah, not Ah-KEEra) and found the subtitled version far superior, and I've been waiting ever since for something of equal maturity. Monoke Hime came close, very close, but Bubblegum Crisis is just embarrasing. Avoid, avoid, avoid.


The Ritz Bros. were ending their contract with this studio, and this film was the last in the contract. Most reviewers say this is their WORST film but, having seen most of their films, I TOTALLY disagree.

It is their BEST film!

Why? First of all, the Ritz Bros. were under the (false!) impression that they are singers & dancers. This film mercifully contains NONE of that!

A creepy old house, with a killer known as "The Gorilla" running loose, attempting to murder Lionel Atwill at the stroke of midnite.

Bela Lugosi lends some creepy (& comic!) moments, and Patsy Kelly is HILARIOUS!

Even tho the plot doesn't make too much sense, this is an extremely enjoyable "Old House" comedy.

Norm


That is indeed a fine description for this film which stars The Ritz Brothers mixing their comedic hijinks with Horror icons Lionel Atwill and Bela Lugosi. A young Patsy Kelly is also on hand. The story concerns a villain known as The Gorilla, who may be a human criminal or really an escaped ape no one seems to know for certain one way or the other, threatening the life of one Walter Stevens (Atwill), who hires three bumbling detectives (The Ritz Brothers) to protect him. Lugosi meanwhile plays Stevens' butler Peters and generally appears just at the opportune (or is that inopportune) moment to scare the willies out of and arouse suspicion in The Ritz Brothers detective characters Mulligan, Garrity and Harrigan. Who is the Gorilla? And why does he want Walter Stevens dead? The answer may not be what you expect...honestly I thought this was harmless fun and much better than most make it out to be.


When I saw this Bela Lugosi "Horror Classics" boxed DVD set at Best Buy for something like $4.99, I thought that I would be watching classic B-Horror fare (i.e. _The Devil Bat_, _The Ape Man_, and _Carnival of Souls_). The first title of the "11 hours of entertainment" was _The Gorilla_. Believe it or not, this would be the first Lugosi movie I would ever see outside of his small role in _The Wolf Man_. Yet, I was refused a good look at a non-Dracula/non-Universal Bela Lugosi. Instead I was introduced to the horrific comic stylings of the Ritz Brothers and Patsy Kelly. Upon first viewing, I said out loud, "Are these guys suppose to be funny?" (By the way, they are supposed to be a comedy TEAM, but from what I saw the one Ritz brother cracked all the jokes as the other two made faces.) Yes, I am aware that their slapstick humor would be extremely sweet with movie-goers of the 1930s ad 1940s -BUT- these guys are so very lame. And, Dear Lord, Kelly's screaming is a steak knife scratching over and over again on a plate. Regardless, out of all the movies in this set, I cannot stop watching _The Gorilla_. After a couple of screenings, I hate to admit it, but the Ritz Brothers have grown on me (sorry, Kelly hasn't). Not because they are funny, but because their performance is so ridiculously terrible, that it evolves into funny.


Enjoyable little flick that's pretty entertaining and often quite funny. the whole cast was good and were all very likable, and it's pretty well made. it had a good blend of horror and comedy and it also had a nice little twist at the end that i didn't see coming. Once again this film clearly benefits from the presence of Bela Lugosi, and The Ritz Brothers were amusing. The Direction is solid. Alan Dwan did a solid job here creating a nice atmosphere and moving it along at a pretty quick pace. There is no gore. The acting was good. Bela Lugosi does a great job here as The Butler and i wish he had more screen time!, still the film benefited a lot with his presence. Al Ritz, Harry Ritz, and Jimmy Rits have there moments and were funny at times. Anita Louise did well here with what she had to do and had decent chemistry with Edward Norris.Patsy Kelly does okay here, and all her screaming was hilarious. Lionel Atwill is great as always and did awesome here. Edward Norris did an adequate job. Overall i enjoyed this and i recommend it to you *** out of 5


I had gotten the impression from a fellow Marx Brothers fan that the Ritz Brothers also were funny, that "if like like the Marx Brothers, you'll like these guys, too."

Are you kidding? The Ritz Brothers aren't even close to the MB in humor and entertainment. These guys were not funny; just stupid. I know humor was different back in the late 1930s, but this was just plain dumb. Maybe the Ritz's are an acquired taste.

With a story that involves detectives battling sinister characters, an ape who had escaped from a carnival, secret passageways and hidden doors-in-walls in a haunted-type house environment, etc., this should have been a really funny and entertaining movie.....but these guys just aren't funny. They botched it up. The Marx Brothers, or the The Three Stooges, would have made this story hilarious.


This is a real stinker. And I say that as a fan of the Ritz Brothers.

It's the third filmed version of a play that must have already been stale back in the twenties. (The first is a silent, of interest only to the Charles Gillingwater fan club. The second is a very early talkie starring the vaudeville comic Joe Frisco. I haven't seen either of them, but they're in the IMDb.)

Before you descend to the low level of this disaster, I'd recommend "The Three Musketeers" or "Straight, Place and Show," which is in the rotation at TCM (in fact I'm watching it right now, having just suffered through "The Gorilla"), and which features a wonderful acting and singing performance from Ethel Merman.

Meanwhile, spare yourself this turkey, unless you enjoy wooden acting, incoherent narrative, and unfunny jokes, or you just LOOOOOOOVE the Ritz Brothers.

It barely earns a "2" from me, and only because of the fact that any movie with a guy in a gorilla suit gets extra points.


"This Ritz Brothers vehicle features them as detectives hired to protect lawyer Walter Stevens (Lionel Atwell) from 'The Gorilla', a killer working under the guise of an escaped circus animal. Garrity, Harrigan, and Mullivan (Jimmy, Harry, and Al Ritz) discover that is really heiress Norma Denby (Anita Louise) who may be the target of the killer. To complicate things even further, a real escaped gorilla shows up to befuddle our trio of detectives," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Another in the long line of comedy in the haunted house capers, "The Gorilla" works well if you're familiar with the Ritz Brothers, and unfamiliar with the often filmed storyline. It will also help if you like movies featuring men in gorilla suits. Director Allan Dwan and photographer Edward Cronjager make it look all right. The cast is strengthened by a high-key performance from literary maid Patsy Kelly (as Kitty), and a low-key play by butler Bela Lugosi (as Peters); their names, "Kitty" and "Peters", are certainly amusing.

**** The Gorilla (5/26/39) Allan Dwan ~ Harry Ritz, Patsy Kelly, Bela Lugosi


I have to confess that I had never until today heard of this comedy trio called "The Ritz Brothers." They seem to have been a sort of toned down version of "The Three Stooges," and - not being much of a "Stooges" fan - I actually appreciated their more toned down style of comedy. Here, they play a trio of inept detectives trying to protect a wealthy businessman (Lionel Atwill) who's been threatened by a mass murderer known as "The Gorilla." There is, in fact a "real" gorilla on the loose (played by Art Miles - the makeup, while not great, wasn't as bad as some that I've seen), who can't be the murderer (because first, gorillas can't write notes and, second, he hasn't been on the loose long enough to have committed the murders) but still he provides plenty of comic relief in his scenes with the Ritz Brothers. It's a good mystery. We're kept guessing from the beginning about who's actually committing the murders, and there's no way of really knowing. Bela Lugosi is featured as the butler, Peters, and he plays the role perfectly straight (in a sense perfectly cast, because I can't picture Lugosi doing comedy) and that straight performance adds both to the comedy and the mystery (Peters comes across as mysterious throughout.) Overall, it's not a classic, but it's quite enjoyable. It will offer some laughs and keep you guessing all at the same time. 7/10


After Sing Baby Sing, this is my favourite outing from the Ritzes. They only get the chance to be sporadically zany, but you see them and wonder why Old Hollywood couldn't find more suitable stuff for them. Theirs was the kind of snappy manic verbal patter that stands up well to repeated viewings, sub-Marx and more limited in range, but very watchable.

The kids watching this in the cinema in '39 would have been delightfully scared by the shadowy house, the hokey gorilla, creepy Bela and sinister Lionel, for most nowadays only graphic gore will suffice. The film itself suffers a bit from being adapted from a stage play - I lost count of the times those double-doors were opened or closed - but the production values were generally high enough to carry it through OK. Patsy Kelly grates a little, but she had a few good smart ass one-liners too.

All in all, if you like utterly throwaway inconsequential old comedy films for their utterly throwaway inconsequential charm and not for the completion of your University sociological thesis you should like this like me.


Though the Ritz brothers are no Three Stooges, I'll be damned if they didn't make this one fun movie. Here they play 3 inept detectives hired to solve the Gorilla murders. The plot is pretty basic fare for these "old dark house" style mysteries, but it was done better than most in the way that it didn't make it's culprit too obvious. Most of the cast is hilarious, not just the Ritz Brothers. Patsy Kelly, who plays the maid, is great fun in that "spunky 30's woman" kind of way. Bela Lugosi is also great as the ever suspicious butler. It does have some downfalls, mostly the non-comedic cast who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. All in all, this is a goofball mystery that comes recommended by me.

7.5/10


When Walter Stevens (Lionel Atwill) receives a threatening letter from a mysterious killer known as The Gorilla, he calls in a team of detectives to help protect him and his family. Unfortunately for Mr. Stevens, he's hired the Ritz Brothers.

The Gorilla does have a few things going for it  a big, old, dark house; a terrific thunderstorm; and a lunatic killer. The cast features the always entertaining Lionel Atwill and Bela Lugosi. They're both good, but I can't help feeling sad that by 1939 Lugosi was already reduced to playing butlers and servants in supporting roles. Ah well, he's still enjoyable. And when The Gorilla focuses on the mystery/horror elements of the plot, it's pretty creepy and good. The problem is that there is far too much lame comedy in the mix. First, Patsy Kelly who plays the maid, could make Una O"Connor look quiet and demure in comparison. She's loud and annoying. Second, and more annoying than Kelly ever dreamed of, are the Ritz Brothers. These guys are about as funny as fingernails on a chalkboard. I can't believe anyone ever found them entertaining. They're broad, over-reacting style of comedy plays on my nerves real fast. They completely destroy whatever atmosphere The Gorilla might have had going for it.


Slapstick comedy featuring the Ritz brothers. Who are the Ritz brothers? I don't know, I've never heard of them until now, but they seem a very cheap and shoddy imitation of the Marx brothers. They play detectives out to catch "The Gorilla", a man who kills people after sending them threats 24 hours in advance. The Ritz bros. bungle and trip their way to discovering the truth of the matter, and hilarity is supposed to ensue. It doesn't. The comedy falls flat--or maybe not enough, as sometimes it's supposed to--and the plot is completely illogical.

The movie gets some props for generally trying to have fun with the hidden passageways motif and Bela Lugosi's usual outrageousness, but the problem with camp is that when it's camp horror, it's funny, and when it's camp comedy, it's not, meaning that this movie is kind of suspended between both by boredom and disinterest.

--PolarisDiB


"And I've had vould have gotten avay vith it, too, if it veren't for you meddling Ritzes! Blah, blah!"

No, not really. Poor Bela was continuing his spiraling descent from the triumph of Dracula to working for Ed Wood. He actually has a half comedic, half heroic role in this movie, but mostly he spends the movie being a distraction from what could laughably be called a plot.

One has to wonder if the Scooby-Doo cartoons were inspired by movies like this. YOu had everything you see in your average Scooby cartoon- secret passages, some guy in a costume, ulterior motives (which, unlike a Scooby cartoon, don't actually make sense here.)

Okay, the Ritz Brothers. They were a very popular vaudeville act back in the day, but no one remembers them much today. Watching this film, you can see why. They didn't have the comic timing, distinct personalities or perfect slapstick of the Three Stooges or Marx Brothers. They were pretty much interchangeable, with Jimmy and Al mugging while Harry got most of the dialog.

There is a bit of interesting Hollywood history that the Ritzes staged a "walkout" on this film, to protest the quality of the script. 20th Century Fox should have let them walk and reworked the script. Instead, they finished the movie, and Fox kicked them to the curb.

I don't understand the plot. I guess that Atwill was supposed to be the villain, but really the guy who was pretending to be SEC agent was the actual killer, but it was never clear why he was killing people or why he would walk into the trap that Atwill and Lugosi had set for him. The ending makes absolutely no sense.

You almost get the impression that there were a lot of b-listers (The Ritzes, Lugosi, Atwill, Patsy Kelly) who were insisting that THEY get more screen time than the others. Other characters, like the "seaman" who is found in the closet, are introduced and no explanation is given as to what they were doing there.


(There are Spoilers) Wild and crazy gorilla on the loose movie that has the gorilla sending notes to his victims, by vine mail, telling them that they just got 24 hours to live. We never seem to know why the gorilla is targeting those who he eventually does in until the the very end of the movie which, the explanation, is so off-the-wall and confusing that when the movie is finally over your still not quite sure who the killer, or gorilla, is! With two different people being exposed as being either the gorilla or the gorilla's partner in crime.

The gorilla, Art Miles, himself is nothing but an innocent bystander who got caught up with all this monkey business that has to do with an Uncle Stevens, Lionel Atwill, who's been contacted by the Gorilla through his terrified maid Kitty, Patsy Kelly telling him that he'll be dead by midnight! The gorilla also is heard speaking throughout the movie ,without the slightest hint of a gorilla accent, on the radio giving instructions to those trapped, because of a violent thunderstorm, in Uncle Stevens' mansion.

With his niece Norma, Anita Louise, and her future husband Jack Marsden, Edward Norris, coming over for dinner Uncle Stevens has to cancel the engagement and call the Acme Detective Agency to send their best man, or in this case men, Garrity Harrian & Mulligan, the Ritz Brothers, to protect him form the rampaging gorilla. The gorilla seems to know his way around the house and is always a step ahead of the buffoonish as well as defective detectives, Garrity Harrigan & Mulligan, making them look and act more like monkeys then him. The three are then confronted by another gorilla, who has nothing to do with the gorilla's string of murders. This gorilla escaped from his keeper when he was bopped over the head by the other gorilla in order to have his, peaceful and law abiding, gorilla take the rap for the crimes that he committed. To make thing worse Uncle Stevens who hired Garrity Harrigan & Mulligan to protect him and keep the gorilla from getting to him ends up being kidnapped and possibly murdered by the gorilla.

There's a whole lot of sub-plots in this movie that has to do with Uncle Stevens mismanaging his clients funds, which may well have been the reason for Stevens to get himself lost, as well as both this mysterious stranger, Joseph Celleia, popping up out of nowhere claiming to be an agent of the SEC, Security & Exchange Commission, who's investigating Uncle Stevens' unethical financial practices as well. There's also this other weirdo A.P Conway, Paul Harvey, claiming to be one of Uncle Stevens clients whom he embezzled some $250,000.00 out of. And of course there's the great Bela Lugosi in what seemed like a cameo, even though he's on the screen almost as much as the star of the movie the gorilla, role as Uncle Stevens creepy butler Peter.

The Ritz Brothers get to do their thing in making total jerks of themselves and making you wonder if Uncle Stevens, who was crazy enough to hire them, was in fact in on his own kidnapping in order to get away Scot-free with all the money he stole while everyone else, including the local police and SEC, was sent on a wild goose chase. The ending is just too much to even try to explain with the truth coming out about just who the gorilla is and what he was really up to. This all made you wonder if the theory of evolution actually works in reverse with the gorilla, the real not the fake one, being about brightest and the most intelligent person in the film.


When I say Bela Lugosi was wasted, I am not talking about his being intoxicated, but how the small part given him was poorly developed and how he had very little of interest to do in the film. Why they gave him the thankless role of the bland servant and not Lionel Atwill's or Joseph Calleia's part, I don't know. Whatever the reasons, his rabid fans (and they are a VERY devoted lot) will no doubt be disappointed by his role.

Now as for the Ritz Brothers, they were a third-rate comedy team and this film is exactly what I expected from these unfunny brothers. Aside from making a few facial grimaces here and there, they were completely unfunny and irritating--sort of like less funny versions of Brown and Carney (now THAT's bad) or even Allen and Rossi (now that's REALLY bad).

The plot itself is very muddled and confusing. It's about a serial killer, Atwill's disappearance and a guy dressed up in a very unconvincing gorilla costume. Don't watch it unless you are a glutton for punishment. The score of 4 is only because Atwill and Lugosi infuse a little bit of life into this dull film. The less said about this unfunny film, the better.


A newspaper headline in an opening scene states "Police Claim Gorilla a Professional Killer". When a wealthy businessman is threatened with a note tied to a rock and thrown through his window, Walter Stevens (Lionel Atwill) hires on the Ritz Brothers to protect him. By the time the story is over, the film will have zig zagged enough times to make it senseless, so don't spend a lot of time trying to understand what's going on.

This was my first introduction to the Ritz Brothers, and unfortunately, I was not impressed. Their gimmick was a repeated one trick pony, a series of abrupt starts punctuated by hunching shoulders and a "Take that down, Garrity" that got old pretty quickly. Patsy Kelly performs as Stevens' maid Kitty; she has a few clever lines but comes across a bit harshly with unnecessary screeching at times. I was surprised to see Bela Lugosi pop up in this one as Stevens' butler Peters. His character appears and disappears at inopportune moments to the consternation of Kitty and the detectives. Lugosi's portrayal is reminiscent of another characterization, that of Murkil the butler in "One Body Too Many" in a film done five years later. In both films, Lugosi seems to be above it all, with an almost conscious recognition that there's got to be something better to do than this.

No one's mentioned it in prior postings, but in the movie's second half, as Harrigan (Harry Ritz) makes his way from room to room in the huge Stevens mansion, he's followed by the "gorilla" who quite obviously changes from a crouching walk to an upright position between rooms. Even the gorilla costume looks different in each scene. Apparently an animal trainer with a gorilla was hired to throw the investigation off track, so we have a "real" gorilla and a "fake" gorilla adding to the pandemonium.

Here's what doesn't make sense when the film is over and the "gorilla" killer is revealed. In the early part of the movie, Atwill's character gets a phone call demanding the repayment of a two hundred fifty thousand dollar loan. When A.P. Conway (Paul Harvey) makes his appearance later in the film to collect his money, it's revealed that he's actually a special investigator working in concert with the Ritz Brothers - huh?

As I stated earlier, don't spend too much time thinking about this one, it will only make your head hurt. The odd thing is that the individual actors in the film generally fared well in other ventures, but thrown together in this mish mash it only brought the resulting product down, not succeeding as either a comedy or a mystery. There must have been something about movie gorillas in the 1930's to recommend making this picture, but this is one ape too many.


I loved this movie, it was so cool having a horror star like Bela Lugosi in a comedy like this. It's a little confusing, so i'll some it up. a rich dude is threatened by a serial killer called The Gorilla, so he hires three bumbling detectives (the Ritz Brothers) to serve as body gourds, but all hell breaks loose when the serial killer lets a real Gorilla loose in the house. This movie is sensational, you see a bad rating i say yeah right, a gem like this comes along once in a lifetime. The Ritz Brothers hilarious performances are show stoppers, and Bela Lugosi, couldn't be better. everyone in the world should see this movie. it's in the Horror Classics 50 movie pack, and that give you a horror library of movies for only twenty bucks. I loved this movie, it's the kind of movie i'd watch again and again. Even Lionel Atwell (Inspecter Kroppe in Son Of Frankenstein) is great. One of the best movies of the 30's


I had never seen the Ritz brothers before. If I don't see them again, it will be too soon. Unlike other comedy trios (whom they rob constantly), these guys just don't do anything for me. The problem with this film (and there are many problems, believe me) is that it is set up as a serious film. There are people threatened and people murdered. Throughout the entire thing, one keeps thinking, "Why would anyone hire these guys if their life was at stake." We find out later, but if one took the film seriously, it still would make no sense. There's the usual running in and out of secret passages. "The Gorilla" is not a gorilla, but there is a gorilla. What was the fascination with gorillas in this time period. Maybe there was a closeout on fur coats at Macy's. Anyway, there's hysteria (or historia as one character pronounces it) everywhere. There's the housekeeper who runs through the house howling at everything she sees. Then there is poor Bela Lugosi. He just keeps popping up. The poor man was so badly typecast that he ended up being a comic figure over and over. How sad. The movie ends with this multi-layer conclusion that would take a program to figure out. I have seen this movie listed in film guides my whole life--now I have finally seen it. Good for me.


Personally, I'm not a very big fan of the comical style of the Ritz' brothers and I never looked at them as being much more than a poor man's Three Stooges or Abott & Costello. They never really achieved much in cinema and if you know that 'The Gorilla' is by far their greatest movie, you wonder why on earth they ever enjoyed the popularity status. In this low-budgeted comedy/thriller they play a trio of clumsy (on the verge of idiotic) private detectives hired by the wealthy Walter Stevens because he received a warning note that a murderer at large will kill him within 24 hours. The three are in Stevens' house when the time arrives, along with the niece, her fiancée and two servants, but still they can't prevent that the killer  known as "the Gorilla" strikes at midnight. The basic plot has quite some potential as a murder-mystery, but naturally everything revolves on the grimaces and unfunny lines of the Ritz' brothers. This regretfully results in a total lack of tension and credibility while it COULD have been a compelling thriller story. There's way too much talking going on and the hectic performances game me a severe headache. I personally thought that the maid was a lot funnier than the 3 brothers all together and it really hurt to see how a true horror-icon like Bela Lugosi is shamelessly downgraded to the insignificant supportive cast. The actual revelation of the killer's identity is almost too silly for words.


There is a pecking order about comedians and comedy teams. It goes like this for most of us (you can alter the figures on top):

Best Comics and comic teams: Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Harry Langdon, Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy, W.C. Fields, The Marx Brothers, Burns and Allan, The Three Stooges, Danny Kaye, Ernst Lubitsch, Preston Sturgis, Ernie Kovaks, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis.

Worst ones: The Ritz Brothers, Wheeler and Woolsey

There is no way that taste can be universal. Some people can't stand Martin and Lewis, and like Wheeler and Woolsey. Yet I think that most people would agree to the split of comedy teams and comics as I've drawn them up.

I have tried, repeatedly, to enjoy the Ritz Brothers. However I have yet to find what is there to enjoy about them. Brooks and Kaye both thought Harry Ritz was one of the funniest men in the world. To me he mugs too much (a tendency his brothers shared). In one film clip of them that I saw there was an actual moment of fun - one of them is doing an energetic dance step while the other two are waiting for him to conclude (it is a nightclub act). When he finishes, he slaps his hand downward towards them as though a signal for them to follow up with their energetic dance steps. They smile, look at each other, and slap arms toward him, as though inviting him to repeat the whole mad dance number he has just completed.

THE GORILLA was a Broadway "Murder Mystery" from the 1920s that had been made into a film once or twice before. It's traditions are from Edgar Allan Poe's "THE MYSTERY OF THE RUE MORGUE", where a pair of murders turn out to be committed by an escaped orangutan. Here there is a variation as the criminal is human but calls himself "the Gorilla" and a real "Gorilla" shows up to confuse the investigation. The Ritz Brothers, three inept detectives, are hired by a wealthy man (Lionel Atwill) who has been threatened by the "Gorilla". They, naturally, fumble their assignment, but Atwill's niece's boyfriend does solve it in time.

It is dreary - there is no better term for it. When the villain does show up one quickly realizes who is the killer. There is no excitement in the solution to this mystery.

The best line in the film goes to Patsy Kelly, as a maid in the household, who is being attacked by the real gorilla, an animal named Poe. When told by his keeper that Poe dislikes women, a frightened Kelly says, "So does Kipling." That one bit was the only piece of humor that was worth recalling. For that bit (with Patsy Kelly) I'll give it a 2.


This is a great takeoff on Al Jolson and "The Jazz Singer." It's also a nice tribute to the famous entertaining of yesteryear.

In this version of the famous film, we have owls playing the parts. Papa Owl, a strict sort, is pleased when his wife has four eggs. When they hatch, it's immediately discovered one is a "Caruso," the next is a violinist like Fritz Kreisler, the third is a Mendelsohnn. Daddy is thrilled until the fourth one hatches and the chick is - horrors! - "a jazz singer, a crooner." Mama Owl faints, but Papa reassures her "we will teach him to sing like we want him, too.

You can guess the rest. If you're familiar with the story of The Jazz Singer, you should get a real "hoot" out of this animated short which has a very sweet ending to it as young "Owl Jolson" wins 'em over on the "Jack Bunny" radio broadcast.


This was and is one of the hippest cartoons I've ever seen. My dad, brother and I would laugh and sing along with Owl Jolson, mimicking the body moves. I think I was about 6 or 7 when I first saw this amazing takeoff on the Jazz Singer. It got me asking questions of my old man and resulted in my being hip on Jolson and his impact on show biz. Pretty heady stuff for a first grader. Thanx Tex Avery for getting a little kid to love jazz and get a little smarter in the process. This isn't just any cartoon. This is a little piece of heaven on earth. Anyone doubting Avery's genius (a word I use very sparingly) should check out this gem and show it to your kids. They can never be too young.


I saw this cartoon for the first time when I was under the age of ten, didn't know it was a "movie spoof" (which is mentioned in other sources)until I became an adult. It is one of my favorite cartoon shorts of all time (and I'm over 50, though not as old as this 'toon!) The "tune" sung by "Owl Jolson" gets stuck in your head once your mind wanders that way! I haven't seen the cartoon in several years, but I find myself remembering it fondly! Love it! Love it! Love it! I was also surprised to find that one of the voices is done by a former child star who was part of the "Our Gang/Li'l Rascals" films. If you are a "baby boomer" like me and haven't seen this classic cartoon, you are truly missing a gem...another "obscure" music-related cartoon favorite: "Russian Rhapsody" (with "Gremlins from the Kremlin")


At first glance "I Love to Singa" looks like it will be just another cute and fuzzy animal cartoon. However, it develops into a wonderful parody of Al Jolson. The story centers on a young, jazz-singing owl who was born into a family who is less than thrilled with jazz music. The scene in which the little owl butchers the song his parents want him to sing is hilarious. Whenever his mother isn't listening, he injects part of his song, 'I Love to Singa.' This short is loads of fun, but be warned...you'll have the theme song ringing in your head for days.


I am an unreserved, unabashed fan of Mr. Avery and do not even try to hide it in the least. While I have other favorites, this is one of the top three or four he did, objectively speaking, and in my opinion, the best, for all that it's not one of my top five favorites. It is a true parody, full of warmth and fondness for its subject, Al Jolson. Splendidly done from the first frame on. Five encores and twenty-seven curtan calls. Most highly Recommended!!!


I discovered this cartoon rather late in life, like at about 50. I had looked for it unsuccessfully based on a description a neighbor girl gave me when I was 23. She said it was the best cartoon in the universe and then did the "I Love to Singa" dance.

Thank God for the internet! It was one of my first real search efforts and I found it! At the time, it was viewable on the Warners Brothers site but I am not sure that's still the case. I now have it on a video taped from a Tex Avery marathon years ago.

There is nothing so sad in life that Owl Jolson can't make it a little better. Tex, if they have issued you a laptop in heaven, THANKS PAL! I love you!


"I Love to Singa" is probably the funniest cartoon I've ever seen. It's a spoof of The Jazz Singer, and although seeing that film helps make the cartoon even funnier, you can still appreciate the cartoon without seeing it. There is a priceless scene in the cartoon that I'm sure will leave you in stitches. When Owl Jolson, our misfit hero, goes to sing at an audition, the viewer sees a bunch of other participants. One of them, a blue bird that looks like it was stoned, starts to show off his "talent". What ensues is the funniest piece of animation I have ever seen. I don't want to spoil the moment, but if you don't think that scene is funny, you don't have a sense of humor. It's one of Tex Avery's best cartoons, and is recommended to all ages. It's on the Looney Toons Golden Collection 2, so buy that if you want to experience this classic cartoon.


This is, quite possibly, my all time favorite cartoon. My friend Camille and I have been quoting it for years, just from memories of childhood. Not long ago, I ran across it on VEOH(much like you tube). It was great to see it again after 25 plus years. The title song RULES!! If you like the old cartoons, as I do, you will love this one. Also, I just learned that the voice of Owl Jolson was provided by Tommy Bond at the age of nine. Most would know him as Butch, the bully from the "Our Gang" series. The just of the episode is an owl born to sing jazz music, which drives his dad crazy, and his path to acceptance from his entire family. Do yourself a favor and give it a watch. You won't be disappointed.


Put together a charming story, a hilarious "Jazz Singer" parody as a plotline, and one of the most catchy, toe-tappin' knee-slappin' ditties ever used in an animated short, and you have "I Love to Singa", probably one of the ten best cartoons of all times. A proud owl concertmaster (who absolutely DETESTS jazz and will not allow it in his house!) anxiously awaits with his wife the hatching of their four eggs. The magical day comes and the owls give birth to an accomplished tenor in a little black tuxedo, a virtuosic violinist, a skillful fluitist, and...what's THIS?!?! The fourth egg cracks open, and a bawdy, free-spirited little scamp in a red cocktail lounge jacket and a blue zootsuit bowtie pops fourth, and this little guy comes out SWINGIN'! He's layin' down that big beat that all the hep-cats dig. He's croonin' a hot little number while doing a haughty Vaudeville strut! This angers his father beyond words, and the way-gone little owl is quickly thrown from his nest. Destitute and down-hearted, our ever-chipper little owl-pal (whose name happens to be Owl Jolson!) finds a radio talent search being held nearby and is overcome with joy. After several disappointing entries at the competition, Owl Jolson shows up and MAN, the kid blows everyone away! But when his folks show up, he thinks his fun is over, so he quickly tries to disguise his red-hot boogie woogie and starts singing some sappy ol' funeral parlor tune or somethin', which really doesn't jive with the deejay. It looks like his chance is lost, but all at once, his father repents of his ignorance, and states his pride in his son, telling him that it's perfectly okay for him to singa about a moona and a June-a and a springa! The kid takes up the number from there, wowing the deejay and the radio audiences, taking home first prize, sealing his bright future in jazz and claiming his place in the sun! This is a really cute little 'toon, even for a guy of my nineteen years who doesn't watch cartoons much. I always get a kick out of our owl hero going for the gusto and learning to always be true to himself. The title song WILL get stuck in your head, there's no avoiding that, but hey, it's a GREAT song to have stuck there! What a loving tribute to Al Jolson, and what a classic, unforgettable cartoon, even to this day! Grownups, do your children a big favor, make sure they see this one! The lesson is timeless, and your kids will love the music. Enjoy!!!


This is probably the cutest little short I have ever watched - the main star of this Tex Avery episode, a little owl called Owl Jolson (spoof on Al Jolson) is probably the cutest animated character I have seen - apart from WALL.E, perhaps. This is what makes this short so memorable. The singing from Owl Jolson and the rest of the music in this short is very good, another thing that makes this short worth watching.

This animated short starts with two owl parents, the mother sitting on eggs and the father pacing around the nest wearing the carpet out. Finally, the four eggs hatch. Out of the first one comes an beautiful opera singing owl chick, whom his parents adore. Out the second egg comes a very good violin playing owl chick, whom his parents also adore. Out of the third egg hatches a melodious flute playing owl chick. His parents adore him as well. Out of the forth egg - comes the parents' horror, an owl chick who sings jazz! His father does not understand him and ends up throwing the poor chick out...

I recommend this beautiful, entertaining, quite funny and VERY cute short to anyone who has enjoyed Looney Tunes and to anyone who likes music, including jazz. Enjoy "I Love to Singa"! :-)


This was a very creative cartoon for the early 1930s! The hateful musician father owl waits for his wife to give birth to baby musician owls. 3 of them sing or play instruments. But one owl sings "I Love To Singa." The mother owl faints. The father owl puts him out. Then he ends up on a 1930s version of the Gong Show, Showtime At The Apollo like radio show. There is a hateful bunny gonging bad talent and making them fall through the stage. There is an overweight chicken who is too fat to fall through the stage, so she gets shoved through the stage. Then the baby owl sings his song and puts a smile on the hateful bunny's face. Then his parents show up and he sings a sadder song. The hateful bunny is about to gong him off until he gets back to singing "I Love To Singa" and wins first prize. Look for clips from this movie on the movie "Looney Tunes Back In Action."


A great one from the early Chuck Jones era. Of all the Merrie Melodies of the prewar period, this is one of the best. Just hum the first few bars, everyone knows the song! How many other songs from the 30's get instant recognition? The dancing is cute and I am amazed how good the singer is. I didn't realize it was Butch from the Little Rascals before! If you are fans of old movies and early TV, the other voices were all character actors from that time.

The Chicken Lady with the Betty Boop voice is an unsung hero of early animation, usually uncredited - Cookie in the Buddy toons and the original Petunia Pig.

Anyway, this is a fave of mine - Rated A


The first time I ever saw this Warner Brothers short was @ a pizza parlor over in Irving, Texas. It always makes me laugh when the little owl heads over to radio station G-O-N-G! Jack Bunny is the host & judge of the talent show. It's kind of a spoof of the old Major Bowes Amateur Hour radio show, complete with a gong. Today, people would think of it as The Gong Show Meets American Idol with Jack Bunny as a cross between Simon Cowell & Chuck Barris! When the owl saw his family @ radio station G-O-N-G, the father had a change of heart, just before Jack Bunny's about to gong him off! I Love To Singa is a clever movie & it doesn't deserve the G-O-N-G!


Tex Avery's 'I Love to Singa' is a cartoon which confounds expectations about both Avery's work and Warner Bros. cartoons in general. At this early stage in their development, the Merrie Melodies series of cartoons were an attempt to rival the prestige colour cartoons of Walt Disney, often by emulating them. Thus 'I Love to Singa' is full of cute, wide-eyed characters and a sweet, slow-moving plot. However, it's what Avery does with these character that makes 'I Love to Singa' a mini-masterpiece. A parody of 'The Jazz Singer', 'I Love to Singa' stars a baby owl named Owl Jolson, a jazz lover born into a family of classical musicians. When an over-zealous Papa Owl throws his son out for insisting on singing jazz, Owl Jolson goes on to win a radio talent contest and, subsequently, the approval of his family. This thinnest of plots is infused with enormous appeal through Avery's mixture of strikingly handsome, warm visuals and hilarious character comedy. The cartoon is nearly stolen by a stammering hillbilly bird and his laboured rendition of Simple Simon but ultimately 'I Love to Singa' belongs to Owl Jolson, a character who manages to be cute without being cloying. Every time he opens his mouth to sing, 'I Love to Singa' positively lights up. While you won't find any of the anarchic humour associated with Warner Bros. or the 100mph pacing and exaggerated reaction shots associated with Avery here, what you will find is an exceptional example of great storytelling and charming character comedy. 'I Love to Singa', while too sweet for some viewers, is a true classic in my eyes and I adore it more ever time I see it.


Tex Avery spoof of the movie the Jazz Singer. (The main character's name is Owl Jolson). Four owls are born to a music conductor. 3 show promise of operatic/symphonic greatness, but the fourth wants to sing jazz. Dad kicks him out so he decides to go audition on the radio. Enjoyable. Rating, out of cartoons, 9 out of 10.


More than simply a cute cartoon, I interpret "I Love to Singa" as a slight allusion to the generation gap that seemed to be taking hold in the '30s (which was itself nothing compared to what happened in the '60s). What I mean is, Depression-era teenagers and young adults would go to nightclubs and hear music by African-Americans, which the older generation didn't like. In this case, Father is the stuffy older generation, and he forbids jazz in his household. Think of him as a precursor to Archie Bunker.

So that's my interpretation. But even ignoring that, the cartoon is still quite clever (as were all the cartoons released through Warner Bros. back then). I have to admit that when I was younger, I didn't get the spoofs: Owl Jolson and Jack Bunny.


This is the kind of old-fashioned entertainment that the studios used to churn out every week. Gorgeous Robert Taylor plays a prize fighter, Frank Morgan his moronic father, Edward Arnold a mob boss, and Maureen O'Sullvian is Arnold's beautiful daughter, who falls in love with Taylor. And hello, who wouldn't.

This is a piece very much of its time. Today, the relationship between the Tommy McCoy character as a young kid and the light heavyweight title holder Martin would be instantly suspect. How the world has changed.

The film manages to hold one's interest, especially with its exciting fight sequences. As an added treat, "Hart to Hart" co-star Lionel Stander, who played "Max," has a supporting role. I'd know that voice anywhere.


This sensational boxing film introduced a rougher and tougher Robert Taylor to 1938 audiences, the result of a well-publicized body building regimen under the personal supervision of Max Baer. Taylor plays Tommy McCoy, a handsome boxer who has to contend with the mob, his drunken father, and the prospect of having his perfect pan punched to a pulp.


One of the very best boxing films of the 1930's and early 1940's and very definitely much better than the 1947 remake with Mickey Roony as "Killer" McCoy. Robert Ryan looks like a light heavyweight and it looks like he can actually throw a punch. As a boxing fan I look for a sense of reality in the fights, and this film has it.

However, the best part of the film are the performances, especially Frank Morgan (the wizard in the 1939, Judy Garland version of "The Wizard of Oz"). Other notable performances are turned in by a young Lionel Stander as the killer's trainer (TV fans will remember him from Hart to Hart). Young and handsome Eddy Arnold is excellent as the gambler/manager. Maureen O'Sullivan carries off the role of the young, college girl love interest with the same innocence she displayed when she broke into films 9 years and 39 films earlier. It's quite a contrast to the more adult roles she was playing at the time.

Director Richard Thorpe captures the atmosphere of the boxing ring and the gambling world quite convincingly. His attention to detail and experience (this is his 120th film) are quite evident, though necessarily the most imaginative. While the film IS superior to the 1947 remake, the director of that film, Roy Rowland, does a much better job of showing the crowd's blood lust in the 8th round of the final fight.


This version is 10X the quality of the later (1947) Mickey Rooney version. Even though Rooney makes some "cute" comments, the lack of "feel" for the story is apparent. Watch both and you'll agree. This version is EXCELLENT. Much better fighting scenes, too. And a definitely better love angle...


**SPOILERS** Handsome, and too pretty to be a pug, Robert Taylor as boxer Tommy McCoy is quite convincing in the ring as a professional boxer as he is out of it. Where he has all the young ladies,on the screen and in the audience, going completely bananas over him including pretty Sheila Carson, Maureen O'Sullivan. The daughter of his manager Jim Cain who's really big time Wall Street honcho James W. Carson, Edward Arnold.

Matched up in a bout with his good friend and boyhood hero former light Heavyweight Champ Johnny Martin, William Gargan. Tommy tries to go easy on the over-the-hill ex-champ but catches him with a solid left-hook in the second round that not only knocks Johnny out but ends up killing him. With Johnny leaving a wife and young son behind and nobody to look after them Tommy gives her his share of the purse. Instead of paying off his irresponsible dad's Brian McCoy, Frank Morgan, debt that he owes big-time-bookie Jim Cain. Tommy outraged to find out that his father sold out his contract to Cain walks out on him and boxing.

Out on the streets for six months without any work Tommy comes back to Cain for a job and agrees, reluctantly, to fight for him, giving 10% of his purse to the later Johnny Martin's Famiy, at the same time have his dad front as his manager.

At the Carson Estate, where Cain told Tommy that he rented out, Tommy, after meeting Carson's daughter Sheila, realized that Carson is really Wall Street Banker James W. Carson. To his credit Tommy doesn't tell Sheila that not to hurt her by exposing her fathers double life. Cain uses Tommy in a scam to trick big-time gamblers like his fellow bookie "Pug" Walsh,Nat Pendleton, to bet against him. Telling them that Tommy a left-handed one punch palooka without a right hand. After a string of "lucky punch" victories by Tommy "Pug" starts to get suspicious about Cain playing him as a sucker. One day, together with members of his gang, Cain runs into Tommy's dad at a local bar.

Drunk and talking freely about the scam being pulled by both Tommy and Cain the unaware Mr. McCoy spills the beans and ends up being kidnapped by the Walsh gang. Finding out about Cain's scheme and him having a daughter who's in love with Tommy the mobsters also kidnap Sheila. Tommy's informed through a flower-gram to throw the fight he having that night at the garden if he ever want's to see them alive again.

Told to take a dive in the eight round, Pug bet $10,000.00 for that to happen, means that Tommy has to take a vicious beating for seven rounds. Tommy just about out on his feet by the time the eight round starts finds out from Sheila, who escaped from the Walsh Mob, that his dad in the end made up for all the heartbreak that he did to him and his mom through the years. In one final and unselfish act Mr. McCoy became the father to Tommy that up until then he never was; you can just guess what happened in that faithful eight round after The battered and almost beaten Tommy McCoy heard that bit of news.


After a bunch of early films where Robert Taylor was playing both modern and costumed romantic leads, taking full advantage of his extraordinary good looks, Robert Taylor asked for some more rugged type roles. Louis B. Mayer's answer to his most cooperative of stars was to cast him first in A Yank At Oxford and then in The Crowd Roars.

In the first film, Taylor rowed crew for dear old Oxford where he was a matriculating student. But in The Crowd Roars he's even more rugged as a boxer. The role was chosen for him so he could have lots of opportunities to go bare-chested and show that in fact he's got hair on his chest. Taylor himself made that comment and back in those more innocent days it was to show he was not a powderpuff as if having follicles on your anterior was proof of that.

Overlooked in this hairy situation was the fact that Robert Taylor got a very fine role for himself as a boxer determined to make a quick buck and get out as fast as possible before becoming a punch drunk rummy. He's had poor and he's had rich and rich was better. Back when he was poor he was living hand to mouth with a near do well father, Frank Morgan, and a gentle mother who took in washing because her husband couldn't hold down a job. Taylor's mother in The Crowd Roars was played by Emma Dunn in a brief, but very telling role.

Anyway when young Gene Reynolds grows up to be Robert Taylor he's now supporting dear old dad who's still drinking and gambling. Those two habits are nearly the undoing of his son when he falls into the hands of rival gamblers Edward Arnold and Nat Pendleton. The usual bumbling oaf that Frank Morgan portrays on screen is played far more serious here. It's one of Frank Morgan's best screen roles.

Arnold has his secrets also, his daughter Maureen O'Sullivan and her ditzy friend Jane Wyman think Arnold is a stockbroker, as if that wasn't also gambling. Taylor in courting Sullivan does not disillusion her.

Look for another good performance by William Gargan as a former Light Heavyweight champion who takes an interest in young Gene Reynolds and Lionel Stander as Gargan's trainer and later Taylor's trainer.

The Crowd Roars is a fine film from MGM that went a long way in expanding Robert Taylor's range as thespian.

And we proved he had hair on his chest.


With such a wonderful story or plot, this movie overcomes the bias that one might have for the believability of Robert Taylor as a boxer. You can't help but pull for Tommy McCoy to win. If you like a myriad of emotions within a movie then I would definitely recommend this one. I laughed, choked back a tear and I was on the edge of my seat during the ending. This movie has everything that makes a great movie. It has a wonderful plot, a great lead actor with a great supporting cast, a beautiful actress (Maureen O'Sullivan), good versus evil, suspense and a surprise ending. The Crowd Roars is a gem that I plan on adding to my collection. You don't have to be a sports fan to love this one, but it does help. I can't understand how this movie has gotten lost in roar of the crowd.


This is a nifty little piece of American Cold War propaganda. Much time is spent comparing the methods of the USSR to those of the WWII Axis powers.

Deeper than that, though, is the ending, which draws a clear comparison of the "medicine-man" tactics used by all those aforementioned enemies and the McCarthyites, who at the time of this film's release were in full swing.


I caught this short film on the Turner Classic network on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 from 7:30 - 8:00 P.M.

Coming out in 1952, I was figuring out that it would be far from positive about the Soviet Union or it's policies. This turned out to be quite true, but it's attack is a fair one. The opportunism of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s into the 1950s is an open historical record. Each switch of policy (mirrored in the Communist Parties of the United States and Europe and Asia as well) is called a "round" (like in a boxing match. Round four is pro-Western, as Stalin tries (supposedly) to link up with the United States, England, and France against Nazi aggression. Round five is the Soviet about face in their aligning with the Nazis in the Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Round six is when Russia is attacked by Germany and reaches out to Britain and America again. Round seven is when the Second World War ends, and Russia becomes a threat to Western democracy. It turned out that of the first 48 vetoes of the Security Council of the U.N. from 1945 to 1953, 47 were from the Soviet Union.

No doubt someone can make a case that British and French (and to a lesser extent, American) diplomatic blundering made Stalin and Molotov swallow their bile and sign that infamous 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler and Von Ribbentrop. But the argument about safety and buying time to rearm, while plausible to an extent, does not explain the Soviet Union's willingness to grab the eastern portion of neighboring Poland while Germany grabbed the Western portion, nor using this to eventually attack the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Esthonia, and Finland.

What is curious about this is the even-handedness of the attack on enemies of democracy. The narration warns about believing "snake oil" salesmen of totalitarian ideas, of all stripes (Fascist, Nazi, Communist). But this even goes against people spreading hate towards people who are "suspect" (intellectuals, or foreign born types). This was made in 1952, the height of the McCarthy period - and yet it makes a case that might almost be aimed at the Senator himself. It never hints at the Senator, mind you, but it is an odd point of view in an age of the Hollywood blacklist.

Interestingly enough two of the narrators were Robert Taylor and George Murphy, both conservative types: Murphy eventually becoming a Republican U.S. Senator in the 1960s, and Taylor a "friendly witness" against Communist influences in the movie industry (Taylor had been in a controversial film, THE NORTH STAR, which painted Soviet Union life too positively). But neither says anything that one can actually find really far right in political position.

With narratives also by Walter Pigeon (interestingly he deals with American foreign policy - under General George Marshall (sort of anathema to McCarthyites in 1952) - and quite favorably), Barry Sullivan, Dore Schare, Howard Keel, and James Whitmore. I suspect that Schare may have been behind the project, but I really don't know. It was actually quite well worth watching


This is an interesting propaganda film from Hollywood in the early 1950s. While in the early 1940s, Hollywood had experienced a short love affair with the Russians (mostly thanks to the US becoming allies with the Russians against the Axis), this film represents a different era--one where fear of spreading Communism and Stalinism gripped much of the world. This film is a far from subtle and occasionally heavy-handed short film about the menace of international Communism and was narrated by many of the biggest Red-haters in Hollywood (such as Robert Taylor). While nowadays, many in Hollywood have a bit of nostalgia for the old Soviet Union (or at least use moral relativism to make the Western nations seem somehow comparable to it), this was a time when there was great dread of Communism spreading everywhere--thanks to statements by Stalin himself that they would do so.

From a historical point of view, this is an amazing look back into the scary days of the nuclear arms race, though as I said above it's all very heavy-handed. While the basic message is true, the silly way that Communism was passed off as comparable to a "snake oil salesman" was a bit goofy and this comparison probably caused more laughs than anything else. Still, an important little film and interesting history lesson from an era that seems so very long ago.


I first had the privilege of watching The Hoaxters in 1974. My roommate in college actually had a 16mm print of this one reeler and I was captivated by it's effectiveness in propaganda. This is an interesting historical relic that is reflective of the era that it came out of. This film was produced during the height of the McCarthy "Red Scare" years and was a fitting example of Hollywood's fear of the House on Unamerican Committee "witch hunts". 1952 was a completely different world in contrast to how we live in this country today. People were more reverent then; their moral scruples were more intact and we must remember that we just emerged victorious from the Second World War and were then fighting the Korean War, so nationalism was more prevalent; respect for the flag and country was almost an anticipated action; no flag burning then! There is so much to comment on the mentality of the early 1950's.

If we were to become suddenly sucked into some time vortex and transported back to this era, we would probably go mad because of stricter standards demanded of us not only by government, be it local, State or Federal, but by our respective religious beliefs as well as the people around us who would demand that we conform to their thinking. Morals were stronger, religion had a firmer, influential hold and most people respected the authorities. This film demonstrates this and more. It also demonstrated fear; the fear of Communism was real; people felt that World War III would break out at any moment; the fear was valid; the fear was reflective in our leaders as well as the common man. And it was in this fear-driven time that Joseph McCarthy made a name for himself by using this fear to ruin many innocent lives.

MGM did a marvelous job producing this film. The voices of Walter Pidgeon and George Murphy are easily recognized; the animation is quite entertaining, especially when it showed the Swastika turning into a map of Germany or the dragon changing into the Japanese islands. Remember, these images were stronger in the minds of those who saw this film in 1952, because it was just seven years after these totalitarian regimes were defeated. Korea further exacerbated these feelings; it was the duty of every God-fearing American to struggle against those who wanted to enslave the free world.

The Hoaxters didn't just reflect the mentality of the times, but it also permitted those in Hollywood to pledge their allegiance (to a lesser degree compared to World War II) against a foe. This was partly due to nationalism, but mainly due to the fear of blacklisting by the HUAC. All in all, a great historical chestnut.


Some commenters on the left side of the aisle call this film "propaganda;" but being propagandistic doesn't make it false. In fact, the Hoaxters' historical sketch of the rise and various phases of Communism, and its continuing danger to liberty and freedom (as we just saw in Georgia under brutal Soviet -- sorry, Russian occupation), is remarkably accurate, given the constraints of a movie short.

Definitely worth the viewing time for anybody not utterly besotted with the anti-anti-communist propaganda routinely taught in school these days, where kids are told that Joe McCarthy was a greater threat to world peace and liberty than Josef Stalin.


The Hoaxters only rates a four out of ten. The production value is very high, and it has big-name stars doing the narration, but the subject is so repugnant that it is almost nauseating to watch.

I'm glad it wasn't listed as a Documentary, because it is certainly anything but. Its purpose is indoctrination, pure and simple. It is sort of the American version of a Leni Riefenstahl film, except that her films are a lot more upbeat and enjoyable to watch.

It starts out equating Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. Then, the first banner headline word zooms across the screen: "COMMUNISM" Almost immediately, Stalin is equated with the first three. "All dictators are the same," is chanted throughout the film at intervals in between segments of the narration.

The film is a classic example of what George Orwell termed "double-think." It rails against "The Big Lie" while at the same moment spouting some of the most incredible whoppers I have ever heard! Just a minor example is J. Edgar Hoover, the King of Blackmail, stating that he would never want to see anyone publicly embarrassed as a result of his investigations.

At one point, it is railing against dictators and the one-party system, and in the same breath has the nerve to show film footage of Senator Joseph McCarthy!

The thing I personally found most offensive was its presentation that all the anti-war protests at the White House were engineered and funded by the International Communist Party, and that as soon as Stalin and Hitler had a falling out, the demonstrations instantly evaporated.

The film kept my interest. In fact, it is fascinating. But rather in the same morbid way as I imagine watching a train wreck taking place would be.

At the very least, "The Hoaxters" is worth watching as a lesson in history, and also as a textbook example of propaganda techniques which are still widely used and very effective today.


This is the best animated version of the hoary old Dickens tale ever brought to the screen. This is no assembly-line cartoon; this is a Victorian lithograph brought to life. Splendid artwork, dizzying camera angles, magnificent and painstaking animation at its best. There are master craftsmen at work here; no shortcuts or sloppy work. The only criticism I could make of it is that it's too short. I sure wish that Santa had given them an unlimited budget to work with. Probably not suitable for younger children, as some of the images are a little terrifying (the children under the robe of the second spirit send chills up my spine every time I see it). I first saw it on PBS back in 1972, I think, and it has haunted me ever since. I was fortunate enough to find a copy on eBay, and it was as good as I had remembered from 30 years back. It's a rotten shame that it's been neglected by the networks ("A Christmas Story" and "Miracle on 34th Street" are great films, but they flog them to death every Christmas). If you want to get in the Christmas spirit, do yourself a favor and beg, borrow or steal a copy of this film.


This short, which won an Academy Award, is the best animated adaptation that I've yet seen and is better than a couple of the live-action versions. Everything is top-notch-animation, voice-casting (particularly Sim reprising his performance as Scrooge), production values. The adaptation is quite true to the tone and spirit of the original work, even with the necessary truncation imposed by the brief length. Good to have it in print. Most recommended.


I wish someone would release this lost gem on DVD or even video. So much garbage is shown at Christmas I just don't know what goes on in the minds of television programming staff that they won't show this masterpiece. It looks beautiful and the writing, directing and acting are superb. I last remember seeing it on regular old commercial television when I was a child back in 1977. I also remember that during a commercial break they showed a 7-UP commercial starring Jeffrey Holder. I have never forgotten it. Truthfully, this version is better than any of the live action versions that I have seen except perhaps the 1951 production entitled "Scrooge" starring Alastair Simm who reprises the role of Scrooge in this version. Simm is the best Scrooge ever. If you like "A Christmas Carol" email the programming people at Turner Classic Movies, American Movie Classics and Cartoon Network and beg them and harass them to show this wonderful film.


This is by far the best animated version of the Dickens classic. The renderings and animation are dark and mysteriously sketch-like, with none of the shiny flatness that mars most commercial animation. And the script is amazingly faithful in tone to the original.

It's sometimes difficult to find on videotape, but it is well worth the effort.


I just saw Richard Williams' Oscar-winning but made-for-TV version of A Christmas Carol on Google Video. Having seen and heard so many versions over the years, I find this the most beautifully animated version with its illustration-style renderings of London and its people in the 19th century. As compelling as the drawings are though, I find the story at 24 minutes a little too short for my tastes so the transformation of Scrooge at the end is not as complete as I would like it to be. That said, it was nice to hear Alastair Sim once again portray the lead character as he had done in the 1951 version. As the Cratchit family and Tiny Tim have said over and over again, "God bless us everyone."


How can someone buy this film. My husband and I have been trying for two years but we can't find it. Is there a copy out there available, if so what is the price? It is not at all a cartoon but an excellent piece of Victorian art. The drawings evoke the sketches used in Dickens own time. There are moments that are intense, certainly frightening for young children.

The pacing causes one to feel as though Scooge has very little time left to mend his ways. The ghost of Christmas Present is much darker than in other versions. Ignorance and Want are included in a very effective and horrific manner. Marley's ghost is not to be missed.

This is anything but Mr Magoo or Mickey Mouse Dickens. Please post info as to where it can be found.


I was not aware of this 24-minute animated version of the Charles Dickens classic/Yuletide perennial but was obviously drawn to the film given Williams' stature in the field. Its biggest coup  that is, apart from the rigorous yet effective compression of the source material (thanks to extremely fast transitions between one scene and the next, characterized by admirably mobile tracking shots!), while maintaining the essence of the tale (abetted by the narration of Sir Michael Redgrave)  is to have Alastair Sim and Michael Hordern reprise their roles of Ebenezer Scrooge and Jacob Marley respectively from the definitive screen adaptation of 20 years previously!! Indeed, the whole seems to draw upon the 1951 SCROOGE above all: from the script, which it sometimes quotes verbatim, to the style of animation, deliberately evoking the remarkable detail of Dickensian London  not forgetting the superbly-realized fantasy sequences  which was that particular production's trump card! And, herein, lies perhaps this film's ultimate dilemma: while certainly not a perfunctory or redundant effort, one is not likely to forsake the earlier cinematic rendition because of it


This is my second favorite Christmas Carol. My first being Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol. I loved Alastair Sims as Scrooge. I know it's on alot at Christmas but I only got a chance to see it once this year so I just ordered it online. I was not able to find it in any of my local stores. My sister-in-law loves the George C. Scott version better so we always argue about which one is best. Her version doesn't hold a candle to this one as far as I'm concerned! I loved the ghosts and the whole thing and especially his housekeeper!!


This animated version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" was directed by the legendary Chuck Jones, though the film doesn't at all appear like any of his typical work. This is NOT the Chuck Jones of Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry!! For this nice rendition of the classic story, the film received the Oscar for Best Animated Short.

In many ways the film seems a bit ordinary today, though for 1971 it was a rather extraordinary film. In other words, at that time, low frame rates and cheap animation was the norm and compared to the rest of the animated films it was lovely--particularly the painstakingly drawn backgrounds. While the characters lack some smoothness in animation, it isn't that bad--especially for the day.

The only real problems I see with the film aren't really the animation but the story itself and its presentation--it is a bit on the dull side. That's because much of the film is word-for-word Dickens and is like so many, many other versions. Plus, a few places where it could have been more dramatic or warm, it wasn't. But, this is a minor quibble and some of the scenes in the film were very, very good--such as the old ladies talking about the haul they got off the corpse--the voice work was excellent here. And, speaking of voice talent, some of the voices were weak--with too little energy--especially Scrooge himself. Marley and the old ladies, however, were very good.

Overall, I'd give this film a 7--though it's almost good enough to get an 8. It's well worth seeing--just don't expect anything particularly better (or worse) than most of the other 247392 versions of the tale. However, if you are looking to see perhaps the best version of the story, the George C. Scott version is terrific--and really emphasizes the social commentary aspects of the story. In other words, the film makers realized it's less a film about Christmas and more a tale of greed and concern for your fellow man.


Coeurs, the latest achievement of French master Alain Resnais, stands out as one of the finest European productions of 2006, a fact confirmed by the Silver Lion it was awarded in Venice. While the critics and audience at the festival were more anxious to see other films, like The Black Dahlia or INLAND EMPIRE, this small, intimate, bittersweet character study quietly moved towards well deserved recognition, proving that the great New Wave director had lost none of his special touch.

Like one of his best known films, Smoking/No Smoking, Coeurs is based on a play by Alan Ayckbourn. But whereas Smoking/No Smoking retained its untarnished Englishness, Resnais makes it pretty clear that he's keeping his new work as distant as possible from its literary source: the title is completely different (as the French filmmaker thought Private Fears in Public Places was misleading in regards to the subject), and the story is set in Paris, with the inevitable (and, I might add, quite brilliant) changes in the dialogue that this requires.

The film focuses on six people struggling to achieve or maintain meaningful relationships. There's the aging Thierry (André Dussollier, funny and heartbreaking at the same time) who has to fight his feelings for his younger assistant (Sabine Azéma). There's his sister Gaelle (Isabelle Carré), who goes out on blind dates every night and always comes back hugely disappointed. There's Nicole (Laura Morante), a frustrated woman who's trying to find a nice apartment whilst dealing with her unemployed and increasingly detached boyfriend, Dan (Lambert Wilson). And there's Lionel (Pierre Arditi, a laconic revelation), a lonely bartender who has to take care of his father, the rude, sex-obsessed Arthur (Claude Rich, heard but not seen). Over the course of four days, these characters will meet and affect each others'lives in unexpected, amusing, but also very touching ways.

With this masterwork, Resnais proves himself a true auteur, telling us an apparently simple tale of love and longing with a direct, honest approach, from the hilarious beginning to the moving, open conclusion. In adapting Ayckbourn's stage work, he manages the impossible, which is to make the movie look theatrical but not overly bizarre, using subtle, unpretentious tricks: the speaking parts belong solely to the six leading actors (plus Rich's priceless vocal cameo), every single scene takes place indoors (and the locations are always the same), and, most importantly, sequences are linked by a metaphorical snowfall, which gives the film a poetic, almost magical feel.

Those who thought Closer could have benefited from less swearing and more sympathy for its characters should watch Coeurs. It may not exactly end on a happy note, but at least it doesn't risk sliding into misanthropy. Beneath the apparent pessimism, there's a heart beating. The heart of an experienced director who hasn't stopped to amaze us.


I've just seen the movie today, and enjoyed it a lot, even if I won't range it among my Resnais favorites. The story in itself is simple but full of allusions and "non-dits". It reminds me altogether of "Smoking/No Smoking", without the narrative twist, and "On connaît la chanson", without the songs. I like the way Resnais creates a whole universe, half realistic, half dreamlike, with only six characters, limited sets and omnipresent snow. These six characters struggle with loneliness, butting against various obstacles : wrong match, bad luck, lack of will or perverse manipulation. The general atmosphere is kind of sad, but in a cool and soft way (snowy if I may say so), and with humorous touches, especially all that relates to videotapes and an invisible but perfectly audible grumpy old man played by Claude Rich (which makes seven characters actually). The acting is impeccable, with a special note for Sabine Azema, André Dussolier and Pierre Arditi. And an interesting cast for Lambert Wilson (playing against type).


There are lots of reasons to love "Coeurs" . At first, I must say, I hadn't great expectations for this French adaptation of the British play "Private Fears in Public Places", by the acclaimed Alan Ackynbourn. I was wrong: actor- director- screenwriter Jean-Michel Ribes did a clever job with the script. The stories of the six characters intersect smoothly, there are a few big laughs, but the general mood of the film is bitter-sweet and pensive. The ending is in a way very pessimistic: the very true-to-life message is love is a dream, and soon or later everybody has to wake up. The film shows remarkable acting. Italian Laura Morante was awarded with the Pasinetti award in Venice, but the rest of the cast is very strong as well. Honorable mentions go to Pierre Arditi's sensitive performance, and, with lighter tones, to André Dussollier's. Alain Resnais' direction, winner of the Silver Lion at the latest Venice film festival, left in the film a distinct theatrical feeling. The repeated image of the snowfall, used between one scene and another, is appropriate and poetic. Over all a good film - recommended. 8/10 in my book.


I think I read somewhere that Alain Resnais and Alan Ayckbourne are friends and Resnais does have an affinity with Ayckbourne's work, witness Smoking/No Smoking and now Coeurs. Severl old hands turn up yet again, indeed if Resnais can be said to have a repertory company it would certainly include his long-time wife Sabine Azema, Pierre Arditi, Lambert Wilson and Andre Dussollier, all present and correct here along with first-timer Isabelle Carre with Laura Morante completing the sextet. Alas, none of the six are really happy, hardly even content; the bible-reading Azema possibly comes closest, smiling as she cleans up after unseen invalid Claude Rich - even cleaning HERSELF up when he throws food over her; Isabelle Carre is a little young to be the sister of Andre Dussollier but given her loveliness there's no real reason for her to pursue true love in the Lonelyhearts columns. All six actors shine and Resnais has opted to mark the scene changes with falling snowflakes symbolising a permanent lack of warmth in all six lives. Verdict: Hearts are trumps.


I only discovered Resnais very recently, when I saw the masterpiece Providence. Since then, I've been keeping an eye out for his films, so when this turned out to be showing as part of the French Film Festival, I knew I had to see it.

How would I rate it? At first, I wasn't so sure. Although it had its hilarious moments right from the start, I was starting to wonder if this was a film worth watching more than once. Indeed, if it had been directed by anybody but Resnais, it may not have been.

It was in the second half, though, that the film really hit its stride. The meeting between Dan and Gaelle (who up to that point were fairly uninteresting characters) was superb, and was quite realistic and engaging. This made the conclusion so much more heart-wrenching, even though the consequences did seem a little clichéd. Also, I immediately warmed to Andre Dussollier, who is able to say so much with his facial expressions.

Possibly the drawbacks were the characters of Nicole and Charlotte. It was hard to really sympathize with the former, and I thought the latter was a little odd - it seemed like she was overacting for humorous effect, which was fine, but when it came to her making a serious point, you weren't sure how to take it exactly. The whole porn thing was a little wacky as well and, apart from creating some laughs, seemed a little contrived.

Those issues, however, did not seriously detract from the film. The dialogue was excellent, and the highlight (with the exception of the afore-mentioned meeting) was the ending. It seemed like Resnais had been waiting to get to the end of the film just so he could pull off some artiness, but there is no doubt that it worked. The scene with the snow falling in the house (partly reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Solaris) was great, as were the final moments showing every character in familiar yet distorted places, to show their loneliness and/or unhappiness. The basic final sequence has been done many times before, but the way Resnais directed it put it in a class above the rest. As anyone would tell you, endings can be crucial to a film, and this film's ending was superb.

One final comment - this was a case where I thought the English title was a lot better than the French one. 'Couers' (which I believe, from my limited knowledge of French, means 'hearts') is a little dull compared to the English title of 'Private Fears in Public Places' which, while perhaps not perfectly relevant to the film, is still an excellent title all the same.


I do not regret to have rushed to see this movie without proper documentation, because I spent 119 minutes of pure joy, spoiled by an inexplainable ending (solved since).It is of course a testament, but I am only five years younger than Alain Resnais and I prefer to spend them without too much questions asked, about death mostly. It is of course a transcription of an English stage-play, but AR did not choose it blindly, he must be on the same wave length (or shortcut) with Alan Ayckburn. Perfect script, perfect direction, perfect players, making my disappointment even bigger. Besides, the religious devotion of Sabine Azema is far from obvious, and Isabelle Carré looks more like André Dussolier's daughter than sister. The assistance laughed a lot, like I did, and came out smiling, (not me). However, and definitely, the best movie of the year, closely followed by PRADA. harry carasso, Paris


At the grand old age of 85, Alain Resnais returns with a wistful, sometimes amusing adaptation of the Ayckbourn play, transporting English dysfunction, disconnection and desolation to Paris.

Resnais compensates for the limits and staginess of the source by immersing the look of the film in a fire-side lustre and teasing out provocative visual parallels between the six main characters.

They could all be shards of the one identity, such do they share the same strain of middle-aged (class) discontent.

Favourite scene  When the snow that bookmarks each scene finally cascades onto the set as Charlotte and Lionel search souls.


Relationships. They can be funny and sad. There is the relationship of Charlotte (Sabine Azéma) with her co-worker Thierry (André Dussollier). She is very religious and lends him a video of religious music. Of course, when the TV program cuts off, he sees something I am sure she didn't mean for him to see. Or, did she? It is not clear.

Then there is Charlotte and Lionel's (Pierre Arditi) father Arthur (Claude Rich). She is working as a caregiver in the evenings and Arthur, whom we never see, is one cantankerous old bastard. he throws soup on her, speaks foully, and screams at her.

Lionel, a bartender, has to deal with his father, and with Dan (Lambert Wilson), who got kicked out of the Army six months ago and is getting hell from his fiancée, Nicole (Laura Morante) for not finding a job. He spends his time getting plastered.

Thierry and Charlotte are funny the next day discussing the tape. Charlotte has no idea what she left on the end. Thierry is looking forward to another tape. He is not disappointed. Of course, after the second tape, he moves forward with disastrous results, but Charlotte exposes her secret to Lionel and it is just the thing to shut him up. Naturally, she has to do a lot of praying afterward.

Like I said, there is a lot that is funny, and a whole lot that is sad, but isn't that the way relationships are? Alain Resnais got a lot out of some very talented actors and presented a film that was thoroughly enjoyable.


This film is shown occasionally on IFC and is worth watching,some of the performances are quaint and subtle, and the romantic comedy is understated (Though I'm from the states I don't like over the top Hollywood "romantic comedies",actually find them saccharine and intolerable.) Needless to say,the vignettes here are a breath of fresh air. Worth noting is the performance of Sabine Azema,as Charlotte,Isabelle Carre as Gaelle, and Lambert Wilson as Dan.

The sets are original and in the backdrop of snow, in the city of Paris. Romantic and ironic, never trite or cloying. Worth more than one view for audiences with taste who cannot stomach yet another Hollywood serving of trite romance. Recommended.9/10.


Another fine example of the accomplished French art of turning daily mundane situations into sheer genius entertainment. With the added bonus of being spoiled with one of Lambert Wilson's brilliant performances. Absolutely fantastic. Excellent script, splendid set, impeccable casting topped of with sublime camera work, lightening & soundtrack. A perfect mix of penchant humour, subtle drama & tantalising coincidences. Just plain top notch French cinema. An absolute masterpiece that qualifies as sin to miss out on. The best word to describe this movie is 'gezellig', a dutch word which unfortunately is notoriously renowned for it's inability to be translated into another language.


Perhaps if I had realised that "Private Fears in Public Places" (the English title for Coeurs) is the name of an Alan Ayckbourn play, I would have stayed away, but the allure of a new movie from one of the great auteurs of the twentieth century was too strong. The man who made Hiroshima mon amour and L'annee derniere a Marienbad has not lost his ability to frustrate the viewer, this time with a series of sad Parisians locked into loneliness and self-defeating behaviours. The "humour" of the film is at the expense of these pathetic characters, for whom it is hard to feel much sympathy, and their complusive and repetitive behaviours rapidly become irritating. Having seen Coeurs, I can understand why Renais' recent output has had little or no distribution in the English speaking world - the film is soulless, overlong and strictly for those who miss the days of the French New Wave.


I got this thinking that probably several of those who appreciated this film might be right about it - I was so disappointed!

Cinematography - utterly static.

Direction - flat.

Dialogue - well, it's realistic, but that doesn't make good dialog; in fact, it's dull.

Characters - not one we really care about: odd balls but not interesting weirdos, besides they're all depressed! & have every right to be, nothing worse than neurotics without sensesayuma. Would anyone like Woody Allen if he wasn't funny sometimes?

Symbolism - clumsy - snow, veils, things "in-between" - hackneyed & boring!

Usually I'll watch any movie through if I've made it past 30 mins, but not this one. I tried, but I kept falling asleep. I think I got mental frostbite from the snow.

Resnais has made some great films, but if you want to remember him fondly, skip this swan song.


It doesn't need saying that Sergei Eisenstein was one of cinema's most significant innovators, and his mastering of the montage was forever to alter how films were made and perceived by audiences. I can't confess to being Eisenstein's greatest admirer  not through any aversion to his work, but simply due to inexperience. Aside from the 'The Battleship Potemkin (1925),' a prerequisite for any budding film buff, I'd previously only seen his debut effort 'Glumov's Diary (1923),' a brief and plot-less short that is rather difficult to come by. 'Sentimental Romance (1930)' was co-directed by Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov, who worked together on several occasions. This was the pair's first venture into "talkies," and I must admit to being impressed by the film's complex mastery of this new medium. Dialogue is absent, with the exception of the lone female protagonist's melancholy opera performance, and rhythmic editing is used to synchronise the music with the accompanying images. IMDb inexplicably lists 'Sentimental Romance' as a comedy short, which is odd since there isn't a trace of humour in sight.

Instead, this is one of the saddest films I've seen in weeks, a mournful and bittersweet ode to inescapable loneliness. I don't know what the singer (played by Mara Griy) was singing about, but her solitary plight really broke my heart. There are really two sides to Eisenstein and Aleksandrov's film. The first, comprising the opening five minutes or so, is a frenetic and zany montage of trees falling down, intercut with crashing ocean waves, which are spliced so ingeniously into place that I could swear I saw a shot of water actually engulfing a forest. Then everything slows down a bit, and Eisenstein briefly steps back from the editing console. The singer is introduced as a silent silhouette against a brightly-lit window, and the camera catches her movements smoothly and gracefully. Though likely inspired by the ever-more-popular Surrealist works of the late 1920s and 1930s  namely 'Un chien andalou (1929),' 'H2O (1929)' and 'The Blood of a Poet (1930)'  I like this effort much better. It lacks the pretensions of its contemporaries, and has considerably more heart than I imagined possible for a work of surrealism.


A lot of contemporary scholarship into film history creates debates as to where the first "music video" came from. These would be considered separate from musicals in that it exists to create imagery for the music, while musicals use the music to create drama or spectacle for imagery. Possibly we could then argue that Eisenstein's and Alexandrov's "Romance Sentimentale", an attempt to create a narrative for an Opera that they call "that old Russian song", is one of the first music videos? Eisenstein in particular is good for this approach because one thing that ties music and imagery together well is rhythmic editing, something he is famous for in the first place and also something that he had previously successfully used to create sound-like impressions in completely silent films (like, for instance, quick cutting between a machine gun and its firer to represent the sound of the machine gun unloading).

This movie also ties in the similarities between music and statue (some theorists consider music "sound sculpture"), nature, domestic life, art, and emotions, which of course all all present in this film. In fact, the use of Rodin's pieces with fire-works is down right epic and I would hedge a fare money-sum was the inspiration behind some of the images in Disney's later "Fantasia," especially the animation with Mickey Mouse.

There are some experiments into the sound itself, like for instance during the beginning when the sound of the musical instruments tuning is intercut with sounds of nature to play with the idea of the potential rhythmic qualities inherent in nature.

--PolarisDiB


At 20 minutes this is short enough to be seen by everyone. It illustrates neatly that cinema by 1930 had already acquired a status as art and entertainment combined.

This is very accessible art - and very Russian - the quick cut montage of sea and trees at the opening and its themes of existential loneliness and sentimentality that run throughout are quintessential characteristics of the Russian psyche, yet remain very easily accessible.

The key feature of the film though is the excellent soundtrack - it really is outstanding. The music by Alexis Arkhangelsky, who was himself an outstanding classical composer (His most performed piece is "Praise Ye The Name Of The Lord") is obviously Chopin and Prokofiev inspired with the alto, Mara Griy (The wife of the backer, so I understand), doing a wonderful job

Both Grigori Aleksandrov and of course Sergei Eisenstein would remain the two most influential Soviet directors right up to the 1950s.

It is interesting to note that this film was made just as Eisenstein was moving to Hollywood (He never made - the Hollywood powers under Pease simply wouldn't countenance a Soviet director - the plan was that he make Shaw's Arms & The Man).

Romance Sentimentale is grouped as avent-guarde with L'Age D'or (Which is still pretty disturbing nearly a century later) and Blood of the Poet but this is really avent-guadre poetry, a move from Dadaism and it's desire to shock into surrealism and a more introverted internal viewpoint. The ending a wonderful elegiac surprise and even though the film is experimental it remains truly mainstream in its vision overall.

If you get a chance to see it it is well worth the effort.


Well, here is a first. I just watched an "art film" and I didn't totally hate it. In fact, in a very odd way, it was rather compelling--though certainly NOT the type film I'd like to see very often (if I did, I'd have to change my name to "Dieter" and move to someplace chic, like Paris or Prague). This film by Grigori Aleksandrov and Sergei M. Eisenstein was apparently commissioned by the husband of the lady featured in this film.

To describe the film would be very hard, as it has no apparent plot or dialog, but here goes. In many ways, the film is like a combination of the Cocteau film BLOOD OF A POET, the paintings of Ansel Adams and a Russian music video. I know this all sounds strange and confusing, but this is pretty accurate. Until nearly the sixth minute, the film just shows bits of scenery here and there set to music. Then, scenes of a lovely Russian lady singing are inter-spiced into the film--along with some pointless images (such as the Cocteau inspired scene where the camera is run backwards as well as some star-bursts that an animator added in grand fashion towards the end). Aside from the pointless images, the film actually worked very well--a deft blending of moody music, images and camera-work--like something you might see in a modern art gallery. Not annoying and somewhat interesting (unlike BLOOD OF A POET).


This top urban thriller was perhaps the best of the films made during the blaxploitation era. The story is grim, bleak and violent and the grit and grime of Harlem is present in every scene. The theme throughout is black vs. white with no subtle shades of gray. Three black men steal money from the Mafia, with predictable results that follow in short order. Anthony Quinn and Yaphet Kotto are police officers with quite different agendas and their relationship is one of mutual dislike. Anthony Franciosa is over-the-top as the Mafia lieutenant and Richard Ward is a gravel-voiced Harlem crime boss who stands up to the Mafia with a brash defiance. Bobby Womack's vocals accompany the film.


Disguised as cops, three black crooks steal a big amount of cash after killing five syndicate runners and two policemen The New York police and the Mafia react with immediate concern

Tough police veteran Captain Frank Mattelli (Quinn) resents the intrusion of Lieutenant Pope (Kotto), a black detective, in the case, while Mafia boss Don Gennaro (Frank Mascetta) sends his paranoid son-in-law, Nick D'Salvio (Anthony Franciosa), to reassert control over the Harlem branch and see that the money is recovered

The black syndicate, headed by Doc Johnson (Richard Ward) and his assistant Shevvy (Gilbert Lewis), rejects D'Salvio, while promising only token help, and accuses Mattelli, who has been on the take from Johnson for years

Anthony Quinn plays well the ageing detective who has long ago perceived that all his efforts are not going to do more than raise the very small part of the cover of crime, but he is not above taking a bribe from a racketeer His method of dealing with a reluctant witness is to hit hard first and ask questions laterThe rigorously legal approach to police work, as exemplified by Yaphet Kotto, is not for Quinn This is his territory, his little kingdom, and he keeps the peace as best he knows


Barry Shear directed and Luther Davis wrote (after a novel by Wally Ferrsi) Across 110th Street in 1972 and the film stars Anthony Quinn as Mattelli and Yaphet Kotto as Pope. Pope and Mattelli are two police detectives, Mattelli white and Pope black, who investigate a bloody machine gun murder that took place in Harlem, in a location in which there rarely are any white people doing something else than business. Somebody stole big amount of Italian mafia's money and it all ended up in the bloody shoot out, and only the thieves got away alive. The two lead characters try to solve this thing before it is too late, since the mafia is willing to use violent ways in order to get its money back..This is a premise for this classic film.

I really love the atmosphere in this film since it is something that totally lacks in most of today's films. The setting in Harlem is very ugly, dirty and gritty and therefore true to life. This film doesn't hide anything, it shows the true faces of life in this big city and all the diseases from prostitution to murder that live inside it. This film is pretty close to Don Siegel's masterpiece, Dirty Harry (1971) which also showed very gritty urban setting without any bit of humor or something to ease the realistic and merciless atmosphere. The photography is also very great and technically there are no worth mentioning flaws in this film. The action scenes are exciting - albeit not too plenty - and everything in this film is as powerful and effective as the director and screenwriter intended to.

The most tragic character is Quinn's Mattelli, who is 55 and not so willing to continue his life in police and with all this scum. Kotto's character is younger and still willing to keep on, but at the end of the movie, he may have another thoughts about his life, too. The end scene is very powerful and memorable mostly because it is so tragic and sad and also intelligent and thought-provoking. The whole last 10 minutes is very remarkable as the tension is in top and no one knows how this will end and, more importantly, who will be alive at the end. Bullets when fired do their jobs and never leave anyone alive in this violent and greedy world.

The performances are totally wonderful, and I personally like Quinn the most in this difficult film. He acts very convincingly and has some hard scenes and segments, which show his abilities as an actor. The violence despite being brutal in mental way, is very strong physically, too, as the mafia tortures people without remorse in order to reach its target, but also they should have finished before it became too late. Violence and crime never pays, and this is again one movie to depict and tell about it. This film may not be too "graphically violent" by today's video game and R rating standards, but compared to most of today's films, violence is far stronger and emotionally challenging in this honest film, which never glamorizes its brutality with stupid one liners and humor efforts. This is among the most realistic crime films I've ever seen. The moneybag at the end leaves some hope for tomorrow, even though the hope is for most of the protagonists themselves too late.

Across 110th Street has some pretty non-believable scenes and segments, which are not explained too carefully and seem little unconvincing, but they are very few and are easy to forgive after all the merits and positive things this film gives. This film is as classic as Dirty Harry and I give this 9/10 rating and recommend it very highly for lovers of gritty gangster and crime films, which never have any stupid efforts to amuse and entertain the audience with humor or other popcorn methods.


Richard Ward as the proud Harlem gangleader and Paul Benjamin as Jim Harris the steel of a trio of smalltime thieves who get in over their heads are the stars of this movie which has gotten lumped into the blaxploitation category. Though Anthony Quinn and Yaphet Kotto are the stars along with Tony Franciosa as a middling hood given his last chance to become somebody of respect in the New York Mob get top billing its the above mentioned actors who carry this excellent crime drama which is a far bloodier and grimmer version of The Killing. Doc Johnson isn't anybody's flunky and Jim Harris would slaughter all the cops on Law and Order and NYPD Blue combined plus pistol whip the CSI crew too. Top rate.


The real crime involved in this movie is the bare bones dvd release.Though the print is great this movie really deserves a revival and a special edition....its begging to be re-discovered!!! This film would have to be one of the greatest crime flicks ever. No one dimensional characters here...all of them struggle with good and bad inside themselves and the motivations are clear. Totally unpredictable and full of incredible exciting scenes with great thoughtful dialogue. Not a typical black cop/ white cop movie this breaks rules and has scenes Ive never seen before... you cant do better than this flick.great theme song too which was re-done and updated again by the original composer Bobby Womack for Jackie Brown.check it out!You wont be dissapointed....