Cult director Umberto Lenzi is probably most famous for his shocking Cannibal films "Cannibal Ferox" (1981) and "Mangiati Vivi" (1980). These are of course memorable films and more than worth watching for every exploitation fan, but, as far as I am concerned, Lenzi's greatest films date back to the 70s. Especially his mean-spirited and ultra-violent Poliziotteschi are absolutely essential to every lover of Italian Cult-cinema. "Napoli Violenta" aka. "Violent Naples" of 1976 is another action-packed, adrenaline-driven, ultra-violent and delightfully politically incorrect cop-thriller that no fan of Italian genre cinema should consider missing. While it is, in my opinion, just not quite as brilliant as Lenzi's foregoing Poliziottesschi "Milano Odia: La Polizia Non Può Sparare" (aka. "Almost Human", 1974) and "Roma A Mano Armata" (aka. "Rome Armed To The Teeth", 1976"), which is mainly due to the lack of the great Tomas Milian, who played sadistic criminals in these two films, this is yet another great and outrageously brutal Poliziottesco from Lenzi.

Genre-star Maurizio Merli stars in the role of Comissario Betti for the third time (the first two Commissario Betti films were Marino Girolami's "Roma Violenta" of 1975 and "Italia A Mano Armata" of 1976, two priorities on my list of films that I haven't seen yet). Betti, who is known for his unorthodox methods hates criminals as much as he hates crime, and he has does not keep his beliefs a secret. When he comes to Naples, where he has worked earlier, the local criminal underworld, above all the Camorra, the Mafia of Naples, are already getting nervous, as they know that the Comissario, who has no mercy for criminals, is dedicated to clean up... Merli is once again great as the mustached and unorthodox copper Betti, who treats criminals in a way that makes Dirty Harry look like a social worker. The cast also includes the great John Saxon, and Barry Sullivan in the role of a Mafia-boss called "Comandante". The supporting cast furthermore includes many familiar faces for Italian genre fans, such as Guido Alberti as the chief of police, or the butt-ugly Luciano Rossi as a sadistic mugger. The score by Franco Micalizzi, who also delivered the score to "Roma A Mano Armata", is once again very good, and the camera work is fast-paced and great. "Napoli Violenta" is generally a violent film, and it has several moments of outrageous brutality. I will not give away more, but I am sure that most of my fellow Poliziotteschi fans will enjoy the film as much as I did. Brutal, gripping and breathtaking, "Napoli Violenta" is a film that fans of Italian Crime/Police films can not afford to miss!


1976 was a great year for the "poliziottsche" genre (Italian Crime films) and Napoli Violenta is no exeption. the late, great Maurizio Merli stars as inspector Betti, a no nonsense cop who spends his time slapping around thugs and delevering some of the best line ever heard (i.e "you crud, you make me wanna beat your ears in!")

Betti is transfered to napels where the local protection racket has the city in fear for their lives. but when the police try to help, no one seems to know anything. recieving no help from the town, Betti must bring down the racket by himself.

a highly entertaining film...fast paced, lots of action and stunts, and some surprising violence, including a bowling ball head smashing, a woman's head bashed up against a moving trolley, and a crook imapling his face on a fence while running from the cops. directed with flair by Umberto Lenzi, and set to a pulse pounding score by Franco Micalizzi. if you have yet to see an Italian crime flick, this is a good place to start


Commissioner Betti (Maurizio Merli) has been sent to Naples to help clean up the city. Armed robbery, rape, extortion, and murder are everyday occurrences in Naples. Betti soon realizes there are two crime bosses behind most of the mayhem - Capunao (John Saxon) and the Commandante (Barry Sullivan). The two are at war and Betti's caught in the middle. Betti is a no nonsense kind of cop who is perfectly comfortable using whatever tactics necessary to get the job done. But how far is Betti willing to go to get his man?

Trying to do a short summary of a movie Violent Naples is almost impossible. The movie is in reality little more than a series of action-packed set-pieces strung together with an all but invisible plot thread. Intricate plot details are hardly the point of a film like Violent Naples. Instead, it's about the action and the pacing. And Lenzi was as good at this as anyone who ever made a Poliziotteschi. Violent Naples moves from fire bombings to beatings to bank hold-ups to gunfights to rape without missing a beat. Lenzi doesn't give you time to catch your breath before your off to the next action set-piece. I was impressed and found memorable the very same moments noted in almost every other review or article written on Violent Naples  the vicious bowling scene and the amazing camera work of the motorcycle chase scene. As good a moments as I've yet run across in a Poliziotteschi.

Along the same lines as Violent Naples' paper-thin plot, if you're looking for character insight and development, look elsewhere. Merli's Betti is as two dimensional a leading character as you'll find. We know almost nothing of the man. Similarly, we know next to nothing about the baddies played by Saxon and Sullivan. In fact, sitting here writing this, I can't even remember what their disagreement was about. Like I wrote before, details like character motivation are secondary to the action. And honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way.


What can I say about The Anarchist's Cookbook? As other reviewers of this movie have noted, it is like a cross between Fight Club and SLC Punk. I also felt a familiarity with 25th Hour and this film. The acting was good, and even commendable in a few cases, but the movie in general was a let down.

I did not expect the movie to be based on the book, or even to have any references to it. I have read it myself ten years ago. However, I do not think that the Anarchist's Cookbook was the right title for the film. They should have called it something else, but I am no good at coming up with title names, so I will spare you my own lame version.

To be honest, I was expecting to see something like Fight Club, but with more indie characteristics. Instead, I got a dry witted impersonation of a few guys at my old high school that did nothing but skip class and smoke pot. It was full of stereotypes and proud arguments but held no meaning for me at all. I feel I could have used the time I spent more wisely doing something more constructive, like maybe relieving myself.

It is a funny movie though, as long as you are keeping in mind that this is only the director's second film and everyone has to start somewhere. Not everyone explodes in some prodigal genius; some have to learn the mistakes the hard way. I may recommend this movie to other indie lovers I know, but I would not watch it again. Rating: 4/10


Anarchist's Cookbook is better categorized as a coming of age teen movie then drama or comedy. In fact, this movie is exactly like "SLC Punk" mixed with "Porn and Chicken". In the end, as with the other movies, I felt like the story was force fed and the ending was classic Hollywood ride off into the sunset finish with all lose ends tied up nicely. It's watch able, maybe once... but easily forgettable.

Most of my problems with the plot of the movie revolve around the "bad guy" Johnny Black character. He is presented as a nihilist who is on a mission to save the environment with guerilla activism. So really Johnny is not a nihilist, but a radical. This point alone makes most of the philosophical discussions that take place in the movie insulting to anyone who has bothered to look up the words nihilism and anarchy in the dictionary (they even do it for you). Another thing that bothered me about the movie is the typical good guy hero Puck. This is the same guy from every teen movie ever made; you can interchange them and not notice a difference. The narration throughout the movie was another bad point, I felt like I was watching growing pains. And I love how they stole the only emotionally meaningful moment in the film from SLC Punk. I could bitch for hours, but the bottom line is that this is an average teen movie. Not as original as SLC Punk and about as provocative as moldy meat. But if you have nothing else to do, it can't hurt to rent it once as long as you know what you're getting upfront: a s****y way to kill two hours.


I brought this movie over to my friends, thinking that we would both enjoy it, seeing as SLC Punk wasn't that bad. Ha, this was nothing MORE than a rip off of SLC Punk, and to my knowledge, portrays anarchism in a very...fantastic way, if not childish way. If this movie were the real world, I'd have swung myself in the very OPPOSITE political direction from these...anarchists. Not much to it, seriously, and I would not recommend this to anyone who wants an inside to the anarchist lifestyle. SLC Punk at least made the lifestyle look a little real, whereas this movie makes it look a little ridiculous. I think the only good part of the movie was the hippie camp; Double D (I think that's his name) was pretty much the shallowest portion of the movie. I don't believe I've ever seen ANYONE fail to act like an idiot. And whoever he was...he accomplished just that. I usually don't crack down on movies like this, but this one had it coming. Please, even the first house party scene was a complete remake of SLC. This movie was bad; sorry to all those who are dearly in love with it, but my taste buds have been burnt.


First off let me just say two things. One, I thought all the actors did a good job in this film and that the rant that follows should not detract from the excellent job they did. Also the production values were excellent, nice camera work, good lighting, set design, etc. Secondly, let me say that any anarchist will find this movie an insulting sack of crap. Nor do I presume to be a card-carrying 'anarchist' myself, but I know enough of them and enough about them to say that this movie would absolutely p*** off every single one of them. Here's a few reasons why:

Every anarchist in the movie is some degenerate, idiotic, codependant, politically insignifigant drugged out sexual deviant. It did everything but show the "anarchists" feasting on live squeeling babies in terms of villification and demonization of anarchists and political activists in general.

Not that animal rights or corporate clearcutting are insignifigant political agendas, but this film portrays all anarchists as more interested in trees and minks than say, pre-emptive aggressive (resource) wars, media manipulation, rascism and classism, police brutality, government oppression, corporate / political coruption, or water rights. In fact at no point do any of the very real and very serious issues just mentioned get any attention at all. It seems to me that Jordan Susman went out of his way to pick the two most trivial items on the activists schedule today and focussed exclusively on them for the sake of portraying anarchists and activists in a negative light. Again, the people protesting for animal rights and trying to save our redwoods get all my sympathies and I hope for the best in those issues but it is my opinion that these issues got way too much attention in light of the complete absence of other political messages in the film.

I guess I should warn of '*SPOILERS*' but this film is such a piece of crap you won't care, so don't bother not reading the following lines because the 'plot' they expose is thin and contrived at best.

Some of the 'messages' in this film are disturbing.

Consider that the only 'decent' characters in this film are young republicans, police, and the fbi. Seriously, I'm not kidding.

Also, note that the lead character very rarely gets any sex until he gets in bed with a hot young republican, who happens to live in a household full of hot and horny young female republicans. At no point do any of them ever say anything ignorant or insulting about activists or anarchists, and they never show a single young male republican (my guess would be that this is because even this blatant propaganda film would have a hard time displaying well off young white republicans in a positive fashion). The message here is that when decent people become anarchists, they do not get laid. Apparently, only evil anarchists get any sex.

For example, the old hippy. After a brief period of 'developing' this character into a fullblown cliche of someone with an ineptly designed political agenda, poorly chosen social issues, and a wide array of tiedied t-shirts, the film reveals that he is a pedophile. And he is considered one of the "good" guys (by the end of the flick anyways). The only restraint that the producer showed in weakly portraying this character was that he did not have him 'ohmming'. I kept expecting it but never saw it in the film, thankfully.

The many ways the 'johnny black' character is villified is disgraceful. First he is shown as the only activist present with a plan and/or any motivation towards actual change at all... And then he leads the rest of the characters in a wildly rebelious spurt of ... slapping bumper stickers on stop signs... Ohhhhh. Then he is portrayed as this hacker-come-stalker as he regroups his 'troops' for a wild romp of... spiking redwoods. Apparently spiking redwoods was not quite villianous enough so they had him recruiting a bunch of whitepower nazi @$$holes to help him *BLOW UP THE CAMPUS MALCOMN X STUDENT BUILDING*. I'm sorry but that is the *last* place any anarchist I know is going to blow up. After numerous demonstrations of his sociopathic insecurity, he eventually succeeds in hooking all his troops on various hard drugs as he sets up a heroin (or cocaine, couldn't tell) distribution ring as he and his newly acquired whitepower chums make a bunch of bombs that wouldn't be as powerful as the Simtex this guy apparently has tons of anyways. Disgraceful, utterly disgraceful how poorly this character was portrayed.

Or the female anarchist, i forget her name. Message with her is, all female anarchists are home-wrecking whores who hold up their self esteem by manipulating men sexually.

Or "Double-D"... Codependant raver/skater boy. Has absolutely nothing in common with anything to do with anarchism. Was shown at one point skateboarding inside, in a crowded room, as he and his anarchist buddies played with turntables and bongs. Hard to see past all the cliches in that one scene.

Or consider the 'happy ending' of this film... Puck sells out his cohorts to the FBI for fun and profit, 200k in profit actually. Wow, who knew being a narc could be so fun and rewarding.

I could go on but thinking about this POS but it just p****s me off. This movie plays like it was funded by the GOP and filmed by COINTELPRO government spooks on location at an army base. If you watch this, and believe me, you shouldnt, I think anyone who has ever seen Reefer Madness and thought it was the most absurd piece of crap ever filmed will find there is a new film to fill those shoes.

To put in perspective how crappy and insulting this movie is, consider that I have been a frequent user of IMDB for years now, frequently visiting this site several times a day. I have never disliked a movie so strongly that I felt compelled to sign up for a user account and bitch about it online but I was willing to do that to set the record straight on this piece of crap. Jordan Susman I will never, ever force myself to sit through another of your "films" ever again under any circumstances.


This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. I had pretty high expectations of this film, but they were quickly crushed.

First of all, there is almost no plot to this movie until the end. I sat through it twice to try to figure out what was going on. In the beginning, it shows a bunch of whinny brats crying about how the government controls everything and that we need Anarchy.

When the movie starts to develop a plot, it is pretty horrid. Johnny Black is the main villain. I know what most people are thinking, "Wow, they got real creative with character names!" Anyways, the lead character hooks up with Johnny Black in order to spread Anarchism, but Puck (the lead character) quickly realizes how "bad" Johnny Black really is and kills him and all of his terrorist buddies.

The only good part of this movie, was at one point the "anarchists" were questioning people some religious people at a seminar.

Watching paint dry is more interesting than this piece of garbage. Don't buy the DVD or VHS, it will decrease the value of the dust that it collects. Don't download it, there are better things for you can use hard drive space for such as viruses. If someone gives you a copy of this movie, immediately destroy it. This movie has scarred me for life!


This movie is a great representation of how nihilism is often confused with anarchism. People like to confuse the two of them and consider them to be the same. The Anarchist Cookbook demonstrates the differences between the two of them and manifests the ideals between two of the main characters: Puck and Johnny Black. Puck represents anarchy which can be nihilistic but does not have to be as it is often unstable. Puck is a fantastic representation of anarchist ideals used in good and bad ways from when he works with johnny to when he is working sixty hours a week and throwing surprise birthday parties for his co-workers. One of the biggest things he does is when he kills johnny black and all the skinheads that were working with him. The reason that this was so significant was that he was showing the distinction between governmental law abiding and vigilante good deeds. While murder is not a typical good deed he showed that there is clearly a grey area to kill a few to save many. In the end he was no better off than he had been but had learned and incredible amount from his experiences.


I've been reading trough the comments on this movie, and i don't think that many people really got it... it was showing that anarchy and nihilism are not the same thing, they may have slightly similar goals, but they are definitely not the same thing! Johnny Black is a nihilist, and he turns the anarchists into his toys, he uses them and destroys something beautiful (SAM) when doing it. I'm not saying that johnny Red was right in all the things he did, but he had a better view of how to take down the man than Johnny black. but the one who really knows what he stands for is Puck, he is the hero in this story, in a certain way... he knows that Johnny black is leading them all a-stray. If you think after watching this that anarchy is about violence you are wrong, please re watch the movie up until Johnny black shows up. thats what its all about


I think this movie was totally worth seeing. It's shaped around one character who's entire life is centered around fitting in. Then the filmmakers take this concept of anarchy and throw this guy into the middle of it. He wants to just fit in but "how far will he go?". The story twists around his wanting to fit in and his conscience of what is actually right and wrong. The characters are by no means Abercrombie and Fitch, but more normal everyday looking people.

This movie has depth that some people might not be able to see...and even though sometimes it might get slow maybe they did it on purpose for you to reflect or so you can say yeah I'm not just watching another mindless movie.

Also this movie points at social issues like the 60's hippie movement. And how it's shaped us now, instead of hippies were anarchist. Or how were always trying to rebel against something. It's very interesting to see the "new age hippie" mixed in with the radical 60's hippies (who are now adults).

So if you don't want to see another mindless Hollywood carbon copy this is definitely an interesting movie to see.


The "Anarchists Cookbook"? I downloaded the real Anarchist Cookbook from a BBS, bulletin board system (Pre-internet "websites") when I was in my teens; and let me tell you one thing - there is nothing anarchistic in this script, he rips off a "Chic-filet" style joint in the beginning - like that takes a lack of authoritarian fear. Okay, so I only watched the first nine minutes while making something to eat - but it did the trick; I turned it off.

I don't even have the words. I don't claim to be an anarchist in any sense of the word. I just implore anyone out there looking into the "modern" anarchist lifestyle to fore go this piece of trash and pick up a little book known as "Days Of War, Nights Of Love" - it's the closest thing to a "cookbook" on the lifestyle anyone will ever need.

Essentially, it's like saying that "Empire Records" was an accurate representation of mid-90's sub-culture - though in its defense it had decent acting and a fairly believable script.

P.S. To all those who relate this to SLC punk - PLEASE!!! At least that was a period piece with relative social constructs.


First things first: I know the anarchist cookbook. I grew up with the anarchist cookbook. And this film is definitely NOT based on the anarchist cookbook. I must admit, that threw me. But then again, any movie that begins w/ a quote from GW Bush throws me for a loop. Unlike the original cookbook that starts with a bang, this one is a slow burn. A good simmer. The story took a little while to start cooking (to continue with a lame metaphor), but when it did, I couldn't stop watching. Or laughing. Or scratching my head and thinking. But somehow it all makes sense in the end. Little details that appeared random at the time popped out of the woodwork towards the end to make it a cohesive whole. I see alot of indy movies (in fact, that's about all I see nowadays.) And this movie beat the pants off everything else I've seen so far this year. Having IMDB'ed the crew, I was surprised to see that they were on a movie like this. But judging by the talent on the screen, I wasn't surprised at all. A note on the movie's politix: No one comes away clean. Not anarchists, nihilists, realists, dreamers, repos or dems. And that's something I haven't seen in a long time.


not bad. entertaining but utterly useless in the means of converting anyone to any political view. kinda like the feeling of watching a scary movie, when a stranger is knocking on your door, don't let him in. it also tells a unlikely story of how a peaceful group turned rouge. things like that mostly starts from people inside getting desperate, not from a stranger. still it is quite entertaining. i am the sort of person who try to watch a movie and see what information is right and which is fictional, which is wrong by error and which is wrong by purpose and this movie is great in that matter. I've enjoyed it but it wont satisfy if you want to learn something. in that sense its rubbish.


I worry about movies that use narration over the film once it's started, and The Anarchist Cookbook did just that. However, once it established the setting and helped the audience come up to speed, the film flowed along nicely (meandering at points but puntucated in the "right spots" with flurries of activity) all the while making good use of real-sounding dialog (in parts it echoed actual conversations I've had). I'm not convinced this film is that impressively written, but it presents situations which challenge the characters and the audience to weigh their feelings on some pretty difficult issues in life: not just Anarchy and Nihilism, but friendship, responsiblity and developing as a person.

While most characters as archetypes are joyfully over the top, Johnny Red: the hippie throw-back, Karla: the earnest slut, and Double D: the loveable doofus, you can identify with them because of the situations they find themselves in. In many of the scenes you end up wondering, "Oh crap, what would I do then?"

This Anarchist Cookbook is a well thought out film. All too often you'll find films which leave something hanging, resolve it, then find something new to leave hanging only to resolve later and repeat the process. Then there's films which leave everything hanging and tie (or attempt to tie) it all together at the end. Watching the Anarchist's Cookbook I saw things left hanging all the time, I had to wonder if something mattered at all, and the movie tied up loose ends at it's own pace all throughout. It started out simple (with narration is about as simple as you can start - they even employ the dictionary a couple times) and braided itself together, occasionally ripping itself apart a bit, only to weave back together later. Throughout the whole film, things are being resolved, left open, and brought back up. There are revelations of varying degrees in every scene that left me wondering, where are they going to go after this - like life, this film is quite willing to keep moving, with or without you coming along. Not that you can't catch up later.

There's an incredibly fun scene in a coffee shop: the pacing of this particular scene is one of the flurry moments I mentioned. It's a well filmed scene (you didn't think the mess on a coffee bar could make for some interesting footage?), it's well timed, and the actors really show their chemistry. At that point the main character, Puck, his best friend Double D, and the audience could use a jovial moment - what's more jovial then running amuck behind the espresso bar?

The movie can't really be called a comedy (though it is very funny) and it can't really be called a drama (but there is plenty of that). Even in the serious moments, as the characters make choices that would, in many other films be the "one big choice" of the film. The Anarchist's Cookbook seems doesn't seem terribly concerned about making one big statement, instead, after establishing the characters, pushes them into a situation and tests their reaction. Sometimes it's their lack of reaction that makes the point

Go see this film. You'll leave wondering why it can be so easy to follow, so hard to lead, so easy to lose sight of what you believe in, and so worth it to find it again.


i went to see this the other day at the deep ellum film festival in dallas with a friend who was an extra in it. i didn't know anything about it except that johnny whitworth (who i love from 'empire records') and brian krakow from my so-called are in it. so i didn't know what to expect. it was definitely different than most movies i rent or see. as martha sez, that's a good thing. it had a lotta funny things and the story was kind of twisted. it all took place here in dallas, and it did a good job of showing what a strange-weird-absurd place it can be. i thought the movie did a good job of getting inside the head of a guy who questions everything around him. a lot of the things he said and did definitely rang true for me. 2 thumbs up.


I caught this movie at its premiere at the Seattle Film Festival and it totally ROCKED MY WORLD.

Great story. Funny jokes. Cool techniques. But what really impressed me was its INTELLIGENCE.

Here was a movie that was actually about something. Actually it was about a lot of things: anarchy, freedom, group-think, sexual politics, and what it means to just be yourself and do your own thang.

Alot of the scenes were LAUGHOUTLOUD FUNNY. Good old fashioned sharp dialogue and hilarious situations. Just when you thought you knew where it was going, it took a bizarre twist that totally shook up your expectations. And while the movie gets progressively darker and darker, it takes a while for you to realize it because the journey is so fun.

Obviously this movie didn't have a budget, but it always looked really good -- without looking polished. You could tell they thought alot about the editing and the sound, because both stood out above 99.99% of other indie flicks.

HUNT THIS MOVIE DOWN at a film festival or wherever and see it.

It will rock your world.


So, you are tempted by anarchists? Be aware that "Johnny Black" is just waiting to spoil everything. Suddenly Nazis will be your best friends and you will loose your real friends, because those "anarchists" use drugs to control their followers. On "archive.orgy" funny clips from long ago can be downloaded, like the one that warns you not to get aroused by your boyfriend, because you will be pregnant at once and loose every hope. This movie is the 1990s version of such educational propaganda. Funny that these things persist in times of post-modernity, might be related to who's got the means to make movies? Difficult to imagine, for whom this movie is made.


There is a trend in American movies of late to try to make the audience feel superior to the people on the screen, or to just make them feel superior to everyone in society in general. It's a Nietzsche thing, and you're either on the bus or not.

The brilliance of this film (and I do mean brilliant), is that it dares to ridicule the very people that should be its core audience. Unsuspecting viewers who think they are oh-so-cool because they're watching the Anarchist Cookbook (oooh...scary...hide it from the parents), must be aghast to find out that the film is an indictment of their childish mischief.

Fight Club was all about making the viewer feel cool. This film deconstructs that feeling of cool. And it paid the price for it (judging by the ratings it has received.) This is a movie for thinking people. Not people who just think they're cool. In fact, that's what the movie is about: the difference between wanting to be cool and wanting to think for oneself. Brilliant.


This is a film that caught me totally by surprise in so many ways. It was easily the finest film I've seen in a long time -- and therefore I'm not surprised by the polarized opinions regarding it.

First: I never expected to find a movie called "The Anarchist Cookbook" at my local video store.

Second: It is not what I expected from a movie of that title.

Third: After defying my expectations, it then turned out to be something better than I imagined it could / would be.

What is NOT surprising is the stupidity of the people who have written about it. I guess my missive is directed at the other people who have seen it and at the other people who DARE TO WATCH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND (a cardinal sin in this day and age.)

What made Anarchist stand out for me is its unrelenting intelligence. It doesn't just quote Wittgenstein -- it MISQUOTES Wittgenstein! When I first heard that, I was shocked and I wondered, "What does this film think it is?" But as I started to absorb the rhythms of Puck, I started to understand what a poseur he is. That him (mis)quoting Wittgenstein was perfectly in character. That is something I have never seen in a film. (Yes, I've seen dumb characters. And I've seen characters who were dumb who thought they were smart. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN it done in a way that does not draw attention to itself!)

That whole Wittgenstein-thing made me reexamine the enitre film and made me worry that Mr. Susman is not just smart -- but he might be too smart for today's dumb audiences.(more about this later.)

As Puck goes down the rabbit-hole, and the film turned from comedy to drama, I got a sneaking suspicion that I had seen something like this before. And then I realized: IT'S HAMLET!!!

Puck is the Danish Prince who needs to get off his existentially lazy ass and do something. Like Hamlet, he blows every opportunity. It would be too much of a stretch to call Double D his Ophelia, but you get the point. And unlike Hamlet, Puck ends up doing the right thing, and we the audience root for him -- and laugh as well at sweet fortune that comes his way.

In an era of irony upon irony, Susman has created an uber-irony: the subject of its wrath (and there is wrath amongst the mirth)is not just ideology, but platitudes. Of course the film is going to tick off anarchists -- because, please, there are no real anarchists. Anyone who says they're a genuine anarchist is either a liar, an idiot or both. What there does seem to be alot of though, are ignorant movie-watchers who cannot bear that their little PC shibboleths would be the object of scorn and satire. Yes this film makes fun of anarchists and hippies. But it also makes fun of Republicans and cops and everyone else who comes onto the screem. It uses humor, wit and dramatic narrative to kick every ideology in the nuts.

Now as for the boneheads who think Fight Club is art...

This movie is not Fight Club pt2. Fight Club is (sorry to say) a frightfully stupid film. What was it even about? Brad Pitt's abs? Yes, this film has voiceover and a bad apple character who takes over the life of a ennui-plagued young man -- yeah so? Unlike Fight Club, this film had the cajones to be about something. To make you actually think. And the twist at the end of this film was genuine, real, and funny as hell. The twist in Fight Club was probably the dumbest twist on celluloid -- ever. (Brad Pitt IS Ed Norton...Give me a break!)

And as for those who compare it to SLC Punk...I see some similarities there as well. But that film was so poorly executed, so solipsistic and narrow in its focus, and so one-dimensional in its story that it left you wondering, "Who cares?"

That said. Rent this movie. While not a shocking piece of cinema, it is a brilliant piece of filmmaking. It's the type of movie that studios don't make (because of the title), that film festivals don't like (because it's not PC enough to be at Sundance).

This movie is for people with hearts, brains and balls. If you got that, then you should give this movie a try. But if you're a weak-willed PC automaton who thinks that independnet film must always laud all things PC, then you will be sorely disappointed.

As En Vogue said years ago: Free your mind and the rest will follow.


I Think this is a great movie and ill tell you the reasons why. it shows a story of self struggle and change of times. Also the mutiny that puck has to go through once johnny black showed up and created in sense a total hell for him. i think that this movie should be shown at schools but of course an edited version this movie showed me that you must help out friends and that you should be careful on who you let in to your life also you should also keep your eyes open on problems to stop them before they become worse. spoiler coming up ill have 5 slashes to tell you when I'm done spoiling. when double d starts to become crazy puck only thinks about himself he should of realized the problem before he passed and i was so happy when puck put all the bad neo-nazi's to sleep because he was standing up for himself. this movie also gave a good idea for and hitchhikers./////. this movie is definitely worth checking out whether you like it or not it shows a great message. thanks for reading bye


i liked the movie and think it was well done. it was not so much about anarchy as it was about the rite of passage into adulthood of one kid. the anarchy and nihilism were just backdrops. the film did a nice job of depicting the journey, the coming of age process, that the main character goes through. puck had a history of being a part of one group or another, and he was very comfortable as part of this anarchist collective. the movie depicts his personal growth, how he begins to reflect and think for himself and become discontent with the collective. he takes a few tentative steps away from the group, and returns - after coming up against challenges when he strikes out on his own or gets pulled back in by other members. finally when it comes down to the line, a crisis situation that is going to affect the rest of his life, he grows into his own skin and decisively chooses his own path.


If anyones ever compared this film to SLC punk, Id have to agree.

If I ignored the manipulative horrible ending, Id recommend it for Kids under 20 yrs old.

Through the first half I found myself droning along with a bunch of perfect skin, conditioned hair Sh*ts fresh out of a teen hunk magazine, supposedly living in a punk squat. (though I enjoyed seeing John Savage from 'Hair' ...ect)

The second half I guess there were a couple giggles.

Do show it to your 14 Yr old Kid who's getting into politics.

If Your Kid is getting into punk, show him 'Dogs In Space' instead. (this is coming from a 26 yr old)

I wont give away the ending, but it could make you sick in the way that makes you wish you hadn't wasted your time.


I was lucky enough to catch the Anarchist Cookbook at the Deep Ellum Film festival. I think it was one of the best independent movies I've ever seen! The writing was superb, the acting amazing and the story was truly original. I was so happy to finally see an independent movie that wasn't prententious, but still smart enought to take the audience on a journey without talking down to it. Besides being really funny, it also has its sobering and touching moments. I really think this movie has the makings of a cult classic.


This film represents what excellent movie-making is all about: the journey of a character to self-discovery. I can think of few films with so extreme of journey.

In the beginning there is Puck. He is a self-proclaimed anarchist who thinks he knows it all. And the film wittily begins as an anarchist romp. The scenes have a disjointed feel to them, as it ping-pongs around from a satire of the Freddie Prinz Jr. oevre, to examinations of characters and their ideas of freedom.

This wolrd is shaken up by the arrival of Johnny Black, the first person to arrive on the screen who actually knows what he wants. While the others talk, J Black does. And in the process, he earns the respect (no matter how begrudging) of the rest.

And Puck is caught in between. The kid who acted like he knew everything, must now confront his complete lack of knowledge: about the world, about his friends, and about himself.

Without revealing the brilliant twists at the end, allow me to say that this film explores trust, ideology, and friendship in a way that is funny and poignant. It's a shame more people did not see this minor masterpiece.


A masterpiece of work covering two totally disagreeing subcultures filled with belief. It was a long time since I saw a movie showing how it could be for real by being a member of a subculture and actually I think the last time I was really OK with it's coverage must have been "Romper stomper" from 1994.

All though the plot is a bit miss-guiding, this movie was great. The main characters are well played by it's actors and with a such unique story, this couldn't go better than this.


Turn back! Avert your eyes! You have the wrong idea! This movie is just an hour-and-a-half long after school special. They should never have given this movie this title. They only did so to lure unsuspecting youth into concerning themselves with its content, only to disappoint you into watching a hammy story with no real plot twists and pseudo-Christian morals galore. I'm almost positive this movie's production was sponsored by some right-wing-mothers-against-some-thing type of organization. Poor quality and poor story only compounds the fact that it is a total lie. Thank god I pirated it. I give this a big 10 on the Delete Factor. rm -f /The.Anarchist.Cookbook.Movie.avi or Drag and drop it directly to the trash bin of your choice.


Anarchist Cookbook is a teen friendly version of Fight Club, with a few dashes of SLC Punk for effect. The one word that seems to describe this movie best is simply, Stupid.

The plot is stupid. A bunch of new age hippies who call themselves anarchists find a new leader, Johnny Black aka Tyler Durden. Using the "Anarchist Cookbook" as their guide, they make plans to do some real gnarly stuff like saving trees along side the Arian brother hood. Anyone who knows anything about that book, knows it just a bunch of b.s. It contains almost no REAL information at all, just alotta hearsay and outrageous theories. Don't believe me? Try making LSD in your kitchen using banana peels. The characters in this movie call it "the bible" and follow it word for word.

The dialogue is stupid. It's written as if the writer watched Fight Club and said "how can I say what he said, only without people knowing where I got it from." It's almost uncomfortable at some points cuz it's so frickin' cheesy.

The characters are stupid. Especially "Johnny Black." He's basically just impersonating Brad Pitt, only without any of the Charisma. The main character, Puck, is just a knock off of Steve-O from SLC Punk. The voice over track from that movie could have been dubbed over this one and no one would have known the difference.

Bottom line, this is just a bad movie. If you feel the need to watch it, go ahead, but you'd be better off just renting Fight Club.


Every now and then a movie just plain WORKS. For me, this was one of those movies.

Although the setup was a bit clunky at first, this movie ended up grabbing me by the gonads and did not let go until the very end. And what an end! The reversals of fortune were clever and literal.

Thank god for the quote on the box about Animal House -- otherwise I never would have been able to quite categorize this film. But, yes, this is Animal House for a more lawless set of folks.

A word too about the use of music. Without ever descending into music-video-land, this film made incredible use of music to move the story forward and propel the scenes. In fact, the scenes and the music fed off one another in a completely holistic way. Kudos to the director and his composer and music supervisor (and his editor!) for what was clearly a well-though out battleplan.


Today, April 14, SCI-Fi showed Land of Far Away. Maybe they will show it again. If I had noticed the TV listing, I would have recorded it. Oh, Well. Better luck next time. It is certainly worth catching if you have kids.


I was trying to compose a list of the ten worst films ever for my school newspaper. My list was composed of the usual films (i.e. Battle Field Earth, etc.). But it was when my friend gave me this film that I was forced to rethink my existance. This film is terrible. Never in my life have I ever heard such terrible dialogue as "Who did this...no...don't tell me. I know. I have known all along." This trite and painful story is not even worthy of the boys from MST3K! Avoid this film at all costs! So to answer the question, it was at number three.


'Manhattan Melodrama' may not have the stylistic finish to it to make it a great message movie about contemporary 30s issues, but it does go a long way towards that end, and is never less than engaging.

Clark Gable is the happy-go-lucky gangster Blackie who is being tried for murder by his boyhood best friend Jim, William Powell, a D.A. who has made it to governor of New York because of a murder done by Blackie, unbeknownst to Jim. On top of it all they both love the same woman, Myrna Loy.

Despite its melodramatic but never overwrought style 'Manhattan Melodrama' has sufficient weight and substance to make itself heard 70 years after the fact. It cuts no convenient corners in the description of the governor's sad plight of having to decide whether his friend should live or die, and it paints a wonderful and believable picture of Loy's character who does what she deems best. Powell delivers a multi-layered performance that has to count amongst his best, and Gable is irrepressible and delightfully amoral as the bad guy we're all rooting for.

Recommended, but please don't judge it by the first 20 minutes which are rather slow-moving, but still entertaining.


With a cast like this, how can you go wrong? And the film is a delight from beginning to end. Although all the players were great, special kudos to William Powell, whose uncompromising morals cause him to lose almost everything he has. His is a gut-wrenching performance, and the scene in which he addresses the assembly with tears in his eyes to tell of his own "weakness"--wow. It's rare to see Powell in a role with so much complexity and it is a marvelous performance.


Two boyhood friends (one played by a very young Mickey Rooney) grow up on opposite sides of the law. Clark Gable becomes a criminal--William Powell becomes governor. Myrna Loy loves both.

This plot is now screamingly familar but, back in 1934, this was original. In fact it won the Best Original Story Oscar for its year. This could have been a real howler but a great cast, tight script and wonderful direction really put it over. Well worth catching--especially for a powerful climatic scene between Powell and Gable. A classic of its type.


Clark Gable and William Powell are boyhood friends who end up on opposite sides of the law in "Manhattan Melodrama," also starring Myrna Loy. Loy is lovely here, as usual, but she doesn't really have much of a role. The film focuses on Gable and Powell. In the first scenes of the film, we see that they are orphaned and taken in by a man who has lost his son in the same fire that killed the boys' friends and family.

When we see them in present day, Gable is running an illegal gambling joint, leaning on people for money they owe, and dating the Loy character. Powell is in politics. After Loy spends some time with Powell, she decides she'd rather be with him, and eventually they marry, and Powell moves from DA to governor. Gable becomes increasingly ruthless, though the two remain devoted friends.

There are some melodramatic sections in the film, particularly the beginning and the courtroom scene which contains a very dramatic speech delivered by Powell. The acting is marvelous. Gable is likable as a slick gangster who takes things in stride. His smile lights up the screen. He really had one of the great screen presences - looks, a great voice, and dripping with charm.

But the really interesting performance is given by Powell. He's not the witty, energetic Thin Man in this, but a very committed and serious, dignified person with a lot on his shoulders. He's totally believable, and he and Gable provide great contrast. Powell's scene at the end of the film is very touching.

Enjoy the great stars and the story, but don't look for laughs.


Excellent performances and direction combine with an exemplary script. Like all good fables, this story runs far deeper than its apparently simple premise. The same can be said of the fine acting from all players. The film explores the notion of nobility from highly contrasted perspectives and it offers plenty to discuss beyond the closing credits. Well worth catching!


This is a formulaic film that is very reminiscent of many of Clark Gable's films of the era (particularly SAN FRANCISCO) as well as the crime dramas that made Warner Brothers so popular in the 1930s--though this film IS from MGM. If the film had different stars, such as Jimmy Cagney or John Garfield, you would have just assumed it was a Warner project because they made so many similar gangster films--ones where the mobster is glib and carefree but ultimately doomed to pay for his crimes. Now to me, being formulaic isn't a bad thing at all. I love watching these type films and could do so again and again because they are so entertaining. After all, it's hard NOT to enjoy a film starring Clark Gable, William Powell and Myrna Loy--they were dynamite actors and professionals. Sure, they often tended to play the same type of character again and again, but you grew to love them and look forward to this because the films were so consistently good and exciting. Plus, as always, the writing, direction and production values were top-notch for the period. This predictability and consistency make this a very, very good film but also, unfortunately, keep it from getting a really high score because there isn't a whole lot new about the film as well.

Gable plays a professional gambler and killer named, what else, "Blackie" (big surprise, huh). His childhood pal, William Powell, is the district attorney who eventually runs for governor. In SAN FRANCISCO this similar type role was played by Spencer Tracy--but the formula remained intact. Myrna Loy is the woman who loves them both. When Blackie kills a man as a favor to Powell (who NEVER would have approved--he was just too decent in the film), Powell is faced with the dilemma of prosecuting him! Sure it's predictable and almost impossible to believe, but this doesn't matter too much due to the film's quality throughout--that is up until the end. The film SHOULD have ended with Gable's final scene but instead has an ending that immediately follows it that just seems tacked on and unsatisfying. The movie should have ended about five minutes sooner.

The film is a must see for fans of Hollywood's Golden Age or fans of Gable or fans of gangster films. All others will still probably enjoy it, but might also find the plot elements a bit hard to believe.


Melodramatic, yes, but this movie has some meat to it that I wasn't expecting. Clark Gable and William Powell play childhood friends who grow up to be a hood and a respected judge, respectively. Both have a thing for Myrna Loy, but the expected rivalry for which this plot would seem to be tailor made never comes. Instead, there's a refreshingly serious story about the boundaries of loyalty and friendship. When Gable is accused of murder and sentenced to the death penalty, it is Powell's duty to decide whether or not to let his personal feelings for Gable interfere with his practice of legal justice. Loy pops up throughout, but, unfortunately, she's window dressing. (Side note: My wife and I decided to have a Myrna Loy theme to our New Year's movie night, and rented this and "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer." We couldn't have picked two Myrna Loy movies that do a worse job of showing off Myrna Loy). No, this movie belongs to the men, and the whole affair is better than I expected it to be.

Grade: B+


Yes, this is a melodrama all right. Two boys of very different backgrounds are orphaned when a pleasure steamer catches fire and sinks in the Hudson River near New York in 1902. One boy (Mickey Rooney) is a rough and tumble type, while the other is bookish and thoughtful. They are both briefly adopted together by a man who lost his son in the same disaster. They grow up together and then go their separate ways. The rough one, 'Blackie', becomes a criminal and is played by Clarke Gable. The bookish one becomes a lawyer and criminal prosecutor, played by William Powell. Blackie has a girlfriend, played by Myrna Loy, who leaves him for Powell. What is so especially fascinating about this film is that Myrna Loy and Clark Gable do not 'click' at all, and glaze over when they look at one another, despite their best acting efforts to simulate at least some flickers of passion. But as soon as Powell and Loy are on screen together, the fizz begins, and they spark off one another like two cheeky little flints who just can't wait to make wonderful fire together. Powell seems to have been an irresistibly amusing man who was attractive to all the most glamorous gals, despite not being all that good-looking. After all, he was married to Carole Lombard and then was about to marry Jean Harlow when she died tragically. (He paid $30,000 for her funeral and took six weeks off filming with Myrna Loy in another picture because of his uncontrollable grief.) So Powell certainly knew how to interact with women of character. Myrna Loy just had the right kind of wry and whimsical manner to complement the dry humour of Powell. From the moment they first look at each other in this first film together, a unique screen magic was born, and lasted through 14 films. When I knew her very slightly as a youngster, she was 57 and rather uncommunicative, and she seemed depressed, so I never knew the 'lively Loy'. In those days videos and DVDs did not exist, so few people of my age had any idea at all of what she had been like in her films with William Powell, as we had not only never seen any of them but had no way of doing so. Nor was there any internet with a handy IMDb database where you just click your mouse and see the list of her credits. The fact is, Myrna Loy was someone one knew had been a big movie star earlier on, but one had never actually seen her on screen. She was just a name, and someone who had been in films which one's parents had seen before one was born. Well, now we can see them and so many of them are good that we can at last see Myrna Loy in perspective and appreciate just how unique and special she really was. There is a curious thing, namely that her real name was Myrna Williams and she came from Montana. Now who does that remind you of? Why, Michelle Williams of course, who comes from Montana (see my reviews of LAND OF PLENTY and INCENDIARY, where I note that this girl is an actress of genius). I wonder if they could possibly be Montana kith and kin. But I guess the world is full of people named Williams, even in Montana, which has a population of just a few thousand people and a few million cattle, doesn't it? It seems that everywhere you go, there are people named Wiliams. Perhaps it is because they are plural. Oh, back to the story. I always forget the story. Well, you can see it coming, can't you? Powell ends up prosecuting Gable for murder and demands the death sentence. That part of the story is heavily contrived, but it works very well regardless because after all it is a 1930s movie. Loy is distressed because she loves them both. You can see where the melodrama comes in, and they really lay it on, as this is not a film where subtlety is a leading quality. We get the whole thing, death row, the last minute requests for a reprieve (oh yes, Powell is Governor of New York by now and is the one who gets begged to save Blackie's life). Well the melodrama just keeps piling on top of the melodrama like that, so that the film is really a kind of melodramatic club sandwich. There is some cheese and then there's some ham (in fact there is no shortage of ham in this film) and then there's some chicken when certain persons lose their courage and then there's some lettuce to brighten and pretty things up a bit, and then there's the daily bread, it's all there. Take a bite, it's really delicious.


From what I can gather, two main social factors led to the popularity of the gangster genre in the 1930s. The first, and most obvious, was the prevalence of criminals like Al Capone and John Dillinger, who were glorified by the national media. The second was the Great Depression, and how it impacted the traditional notion of the "American dream." Families  regardless of character or social standing  were torn apart amid the economic collapse, and no doubt many ordinary citizens contemplated crime as the route to happiness.

Films like 'Manhattan Melodrama (1934)' and 'Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)' place great emphasis on the thin line between "good" and "bad" characters, and often the central criminals are lamented as victims of circumstance. For example, James Cagney's Rocky Sullivan and Pat O'Brien's virtuous priest were separated by a matter of metres when the former is condemned to a life of crime. Circumstance, too, drives the fates of the characters in 'Manhattan Melodrama.' As children, both Jim Wade (William Powell) and Blackie Gallagher (Clark Gable) lose their parents in the burning of the steamship SS General Slocum, a true-life disaster caused by gross negligence that cost over 1000 lives. Each child responds to this injustice in their own way: Blackie rebels against the judicial system that betrayed him, whereas Jim enters law in a bid to reform it.

Whereas Warner Bros. was responsible for most of the decade's gangster films, 'Manhattan Melodrama' was produced by M-G-M, and helmed by W.S. Van Dyke (director of the first four 'Thin Man' films), whose decidedly non-gritty aesthetic style at first seems at odds with the required mood. However, it would be misleading to compare the film with the likes of 'Little Caesar (1931)' and 'Scarface (1932).' Firstly, Hollywood was now working, for the first time, under the active supervision of the Production Code Administration. Also, the studio's intentions for the film were undoubtedly geared towards a higher-brow audience, further suggested by the unintimidating, woman-friendly title.

Gable's "Blackie" Gallagher is not a paranoid hot-head like Tony Camonte or Rocky Sullivan, and, indeed, remains oddly passive throughout the film. When he does commit murders, it seems to be merely out of an obligation to genre conventions. Even when old friend Jim Wade dramatically demands his execution, Blackie looks on with a detached, amused smirk, doodling idly from the defendant's chair; the expected outburst of emotion never arrives. Instead, the story's central conflict unfolds entirely within the righteous Wade, who must choose between his personal and professional allegiances.

'Manhattan Melodrama' has achieved some notoriety for being the film that killed John Dillinger, so to speak. The fugitive bank-robber was gunned down by FBI agents as he emerged from a screening at Chicago's Biograph Theatre on July 22, 1934 (clips from the film were recently featured in Michael Mann's 'Public Enemies (2009)'). These curious circumstances can't help but make one ponder what Dillinger had thought of 'Manhattan Melodrama.' Had he, like Blackie, accepted that his time was coming to an end? Did he welcome death over a lifetime of legal persecution? At the very least, he checked out having experienced a very fine addition to the genre.


Clark Gable plays a really sweet, caring guy who just happens to be a top mobster and cold-blooded killer. William Powell, less than month before his first appearance as wealthy gumshoe Nick Charles in "The Thin Man," is the uncorruptible Manhattan DA who saved Gable's life when they were kids. And Myrna Loy, less than a month before she first appeared as wealthy gumshoe-ette Nora Charles, is the Woman Who Loves Them Both.

Gable finds himself in a quandary: should he let old buddy Powell lose the big election over a dirty lie? Or should he risk the chair to help him?

Decisions, decisions.

How times have changed: a chiseler who's borrowed a bundle from Gable pleads, "I thought I could pay, Blackie! But I ain't got the dough! Please lemme have just a little more time! A couple more days!"

Gable snarls, "I'll give you more time! You got two months! You'll pay then...or else!"

Wow! Two months with no penalty! You can't a get a deal like that from your own bank! That's the kind of movie this is.

So how can it be as good as it is? Gable, Loy, and Powell. Like so many old-time stars, G and P learned early on how to play just one character each (let's call them Rhett and Nick) and they played them to perfection till they quit making movies. Loy was a little more flexible (check out The Best Years of Our Lives), but here she is, Nora Charles before "Nora" was even born.

Nat Pendleton plays one of his trademark goons, and in a small role the Harlowesque Muriel Evans shines, almost literally, as Tootsie.


There are already lots of comments about this one on the website but I just wanted to weigh in on it because I enjoyed it so much. I couldn't find a real flaw with the picture - Direction, acting, editing, photography, storyline all class A. Also couldn't find fault with the pacing.

I was particularly impressed by the stellar job turned in by William Powell, showing more depth and sensitivity than in most of his films, especially in the climactic scene. And could anyone but Clark Gable make you root for a bad guy the way he could? I felt this was a gripping and compelling film from start to finish.

I feel the picture is underrated and is better than the present 7 it has received. Also feel it was another 'miss' by Leonard Maltin, who misses from time to time.


Metro's answer to the gangster movies made by Warner's is exciting film fare.The film marks the beginning of the Powell-Loy partnership which made legend in their next pairing.Gable's portrayal of a sympathetic gangster is just as good as any of Cagney's at Warner's.Great comic turn by Nat Pendleton as Gable's not too bright henchmen.


Famous, as about every film buff knows, for being the movie in which infamous gangster John Dillinger and "The Lady In Red" exited from and Dillinger was gunned down shortly after leaving the theater.

The real-life occurrence is far more exciting than the movie. The story was not unlike others made during the '30s and '40s about two pals growing up together and one winds up a gangster and the other a priest or a lawman. In this case, it was a lawman played by William Powell. The gangster is played by Clark Gable. As a boy, Mickey Rooney plays him. Add Myrna Loy to the mix and you an interesting cast, but the story was really not that much.


I like old movies but a few become outdated. So it is with Manhattan Melodrama. I didn't see it in 1934, I saw it last night; and the trouble is that almost anybody my age has seen 1938's San Francisco wherein Clark Gable once again played the semi-bad guy called Blackie, and the story was similar. The greatness of "San Francisco" now dwarfs this earlier one. The movie also suffers from having Clark Gable, Merna Loy and William Powell in a romantic triangle. Sorry, but none of the three has much magnetism -- however good their acting.

Most likely you won't (like John Dillinger) be gunned-down while renting from the video shop, but just for luck why not play it safe and order this one on Netflix.


I'd have called this: "Manhattan Crap-o-rama", "Hollywood Melodrama" or "Bulls*** In Manhattan".

A premise so insane that a great comedy could have been built around it. But a crime drama?! The story is so silly I had to laugh out loud on one occasion. Gable tries to save what can be saved, but Powell is so hopelessly uncharismatic and uninteresting - plus his role is an even more thankless one than that of the others - so he doesn't do the movie any good, which is nothing new. I'll never understand how a guy like Powell could ever have been a movie star. (Did he have someone's nude-with-hooker photos?) The film's main characters represent the height of Hollywood's preposterousness; Gable and Powell play two men who could only exist on planet Subirax 7G, provided that Subirax has a hallucinogenic atmosphere and is the sort of "unstable" planet the hippie-astronauts from "Dark Star" enjoy blowing up. Powell is an ultra-principled and morally incorruptible man. I.e.: he shouldn't be a prosecutor and a politician. Gable's sky-high principles are only slightly lesser than Powell's; Hollywood has certainly given us many crooks with-the-heart-of-gold but Gable has more morals than a Latin-soap priest. And in which America is it possible for a man to become prosecutor in spite of a highly publicized and proved close friendship with a mob guy, and even get elected governor in spite of not only still being pals with the mob guy but marrying his former girl?! Only in Subiraxian's Manhattan.

The heights of lunacy are reached in the last third when one ludicrous plot-twist trips over the next. Powell demands that Gable get a death sentence, and Gable doesn't even get that upset; he becomes relaxed when Powell apologizes for having to be so rough in the court-room! Later, Powell gets a chance to reprieve Gable but he can't bring himself to do it. And when Loy tells him that Gable killed to help Powell's career, the latter decides that that makes it even more wrong to pardon him! (This is probably where I laughed.) Gable's behaviour before his execution is so over-the-top Subiraxian that it easily matches and rivals Cagney's behaviour in the similarly-premised "Angels With Dirty Faces" where Cagney also acts as if the electric chair is just a harmless Toys'R'Us plaything! After the execution, the very predictable - and very unintentionally funny - happens: Powell resigns, displaying the most exaggerated Hollywoodesque super-high morality patheticness that one can imagine.

I found it interesting that Mickey Rooney (i.e. Mickey Mouse, for they are about the same size) plays the young Gable! I mean, the similarities are so striking! (Then again, on planet Subirax 7G adolescents change far more while they transform into adults.)

Very ironic that this is the movie Dillinger sneaked out (or in) to see before he got shot; to risk one's life for such a dumb movie...


What a truly atrocious movie! Even the 1950s shtick biblical epics (Samson with Victor Mature, Solomon with Yul Brunner) failed to observe the exact biblical accounts too, but that didn't give the producers the permission to come up with tacky, poor quality movies as a result. Samson And Delilah should be seen as an exercise in how to make the worst B-movie in human history and hope that it sells. I'd shudder to think which TV network would've aired this nonsense. Firstly, the music comes across as a soundtrack made for some low-grade 1940s movie, which was resurrected and dusted off for this film. Wide shots of the Nevada desert or Grand Canyon overlay a crummy narration about the Israelites and Phillistines living in Gaza. Since when did Gaza look like Arizona!? The camera-work is poor quality. The actors are accomplished and therefore deliver a passable performance, but are severely limited by the quality of the whole product. When Samson fights the lion, shots of a real lion and close-ups with a stuffed prop with lipstick red lips are inter cut. Give me a break! When Samson fights Sidqa's forces with the ass's jawbone, he's supposed to slaughter a thousand men, but in this version he dispatches about fifty while Von Sydow and his sidekick watch stiffly in the hammiest fight scene in movie history. If I could vote 0/10 I would. Truly appalling.


This movie heralded the "introduction" of bona fide Australian adonis Antony Hamilton, though he had done television and a low budget cult film, "Nocturna" previously. Hamilton in various stages of undress is the only reason to watch this film -- which is a good enough one -- though in the version I saw some of the body parts were vaselined out. The dialogue is 20th century American dreck; Victor Mature, the movie star Samson, gives an embarrassing performance eating a chicken leg; and Belinda Bauer is no Hedy Lamarr and let's face it, Hedy Lamarr was not the most exciting actress to hit the screen, even if she was one of the most beautiful. This movie concentrates on bodies making out in the pool, a near-naked Samson getting tossed into the lake by his buddies, love-making between nearly naked Samson and nearly naked Delilah and good looks at Samson's muscles throughout. As far as I'm concerned, this is a no miss, having nothing whatsoever to do with the story. It is depressing, however, to realize that Hamilton died at such a young age and, all kidding aside, that is a very sad loss.


I am so glad Zac was in 'The Suite life of Zack and Cody' because that is my favorite show and he is my favorite actor. It is a really funny episode and a funny show!! I love everything about the show and the characters. All of the performers are great. Keep on acting Zac, and I am so happy that nearly all of my favorite actors (including High School Musical characters) are in this show. Zac Efron is so 'hot' and I have an autographed picture of him! It is not a photo copy, and it came all the way from America to Australia and it nearly did not arrive in time for Christmas. Also, I got a High School Musical Mug with my name printed on it. (Scarlett 8)


When I first saw the ad for this, I was like 'Oh here we go. He's done High School Musical, but he can't coast along on that so now he's making appearances on other Disney shows'. Personally, I love The Suite Life and I'm a big fan of Ashely Tisdale. But for some reason, I'm not too keen on Zac Efron, although all my friends think he's the best thing since Jesse McCartney. But he really annoys me. Anyway, I watched the show (taking a break from English coursework) and was pleasantly surprised. The performances were good all round, especially from the regular characters on The Suite Life, and Zac Efron wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. All in all, a pretty good show.


This movie was so much better than I thought it would be. It had a story, good characters, it was exciting, AND it was based on a real story! I am really glad that the Disney Channel took the time, money, and effort to make this rather dazzling movie! It is not just for girls that like basketball, but for all people. Even if you hate basketball. That is another thing. It was really truthful about what happens in basketball and what the consequences can be. The people that played Heather and Heidi were excellent! They are so talented in many ways. It is weird, but in all the time that I have spent watching this movie and watching the commercials I thought that I would never ever be able to tell them apart (Heather and Heidi, that is), but after studying it, I could tell them apart just fine. Since they are not sisters in real life, they have less of a comparison to each other than say, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. They look like one person. The only thing that may agitate people that watch the Disney Channel often, is that they advertise WAY too much for their movies. I guess it is the only way to get the message out to people about when it is on. Well, I recommend this to everyone! It is certainly a 10 out of 10! Good job Disney!


Double Teamed is the true story of two twins named Heather(Poppi Monroe) and Heidi Burge(Annie McElwain) who became basketball players. I think Poppi and Annie did an excellent job portraying the twin sisters. This is one of those disney movies that actually make you think that you can achieve your dreams and become anything you want to be, regardless of the people that stand in your way. I think Double Teamed is a great movie and i've seen it every time it was on televison. I would give Double Teamed 8.5/10


I thought this movie was fun to watch while at the same time provided plenty of healthy messages for kids/teens without overloading them or taking away from the movie. If you are looking for the best acting you have ever seen and a serious drama, this may not be your movie. But, if you are looking for an entertaining film, based on a true story with plenty of sound messages and great role models for your children; then this is the movie for you. The characters are believable as well as likable and you find yourself rooting for them throughout the movie. Double Teamed shows that with hard work, a sound family support system and belief in yourself and others it is possible to accomplish your dreams whatever they may be.


My baby sister was watching this movie, because she wants to be a "baller" like me. So i sat with her, and i was watching the movie. And i liked it even more, because i had meet up with the same type of girls when i was in the basketball team, and i also got my ankle injured because of the same reason, trying so hard to be in the front, but thats what happens when you get that attitude. I love this movie, its not only for kids, i know for a fact teenagers will love it as much as i did. I think this movie is EXCELLENT! I give it a 13 out of 10! The actors were very good to. And the Ending was the best to me! I though thats was so COOL! I don't want to spoil the ending, you have to watch this movie!


As a long-time girls' basketball and track coach on the junior high and high school levels, I enjoyed the movie. Although it was not technically sound in its portrayal of the game, it did show successfully the determination and dedication of young athletes. I especially liked the opening scene which showed the power workout before breakfast. I also liked how it shows the increasing interest in girls' sports. The movie was a feel-good movie that could be used to motivate young girls to pursue their talents in competitive sports; it could also be used to teach young boys that girls too work hard and long to achieve their dreams and need recognition too. It also teaches how important it is to get over jealousy and to make sacrifices.


This movie left me with many questions, and wanting to know more. I'm so glad that it was a good, clean movie. This proves that movies CAN be interesting without resorting to bad language, violence, and sex! The Burge Twins, if they are anything like portrayed in the movie, sound like true role models!


This is a very good basketball movie, it is set up very well. Even if you dispise sports, (including me) you will love it. I watched it with my daughter one night. We both liked it, although she has seen it more than I have! It is on quite a bit because it is new, you should try it, you will be surprised how well it turned out!! :)


I thought this was a great movie. It is one of the best Disney Channel Original Movies. It's a true story, and it's not corny like some other recent Disney movies. I thought the actors were good, and the story line was great.


This story about two twin volleyball stars who discover their love for basketball. This story has a very good plot and you can tell that the director and playwright spent a long time preparing it. I definetely recomend it.


Okay, I saw probably about 300 commercials on the Disney Channel for the movie DOUBLE TEAMED. I waited and waited, until I couldn't stand it anymore. I think it was the best Disney movie ever, Disney channel, or on a big screen at a theatre. This movie definetely deserved to be a real movie. The plot was great, the characterzations well developed, and everything else i forgot to mention was fabulous.

***** out of *****


No good deed based on a short story by Dashiell Hammett is kind of movies that have many elements and themes of a classic film no-ire but it is not exactly one of them. The themes include a robbery plan that goes awry though here it is more of a con rather than robbery and it is executed without resorting to violence. Second theme is domed love

which in this movie is rather short, more of this later. The elements include mastermind and ruthless gangster, a femme fatal , and rude maniac hit-man. And add to these people a

couple that had a dream of living happily ever after. The strength of the movie is in building up of its characters. They all do what they are expected to do whether they act strongly or

weakly. Their strength and weakness comes from their personalities and not from the requirement of the plot. Erin character is the main difference of this movie from classic femme fatal. As a kept girl with ten percent rebate on pedicure expense, though she is cunning in some scenes , but she is also deadly frightened. Her motives are dark at worst and suspicious at best, but in her main thrust of manipulations (getting rid of Tyrone) she deserves our sympathy. Other characters do not show something unexpected ,but the story has enough power and twist that make the movie worthwhile and interesting. Movie scenes are limited, and most of it is in closed places which intensifies a sense of claustrophobia. This kind of story which has little physical action and is mainly based on suspenses needs good acting, that fortunately this movie does not lack it. This movie shows that good noir still can be made and their time has not passed yet


Having watched this film, I became bored after about 30 minutes and as it was only just over 90 minutes long I persevered in the hope it would improve!! No chance!!!

The Gang of Six were the WORST band of thieves ever put together in the history of Film Thieves!! Santa Claus, Granny, Psycho, a Member of the Adams family and 9 Toes! All in sync with the dodgy bloke in the bank, who made it so obvious what was going on, he'd have been sussed in an instance!!!

A slow, boring plot....a slow, boring cast....totally lacked invention and motivation.....PLUS, whatever happened to the missing girl???? If her mother was that bothered, why did she never get suspicious when Jack Friar (S L J) never returned???

Dire, Drab and waste of time...If anyone else gets the chance to watch this....DON'T!


Samuel L. Jackson, Milla Jovovich and the rest display fairly good acting throughout the entirety of the movie, but it seems almost as if the story was written on the fly. The bank rip-off seems pretty well thought through but everything after that just seems like crap, plotwise. On a positive note (at least for us guys) Milla Jovovich is particularly sexy in this movie in her wardrobe and brief Stockholm-syndrome-fling with Jackson. It still burns the hell out of me that Best Buy carries this DVD while Equilibrium was no where to be found.


As Roger Ebert said in his review, brilliant, literate film noir with excellent performances...particularly Milla Jovovitch as the femme fatale. A steamy seductress tried to seduce a cop with her beauty and stunning abilities as a pianist. Samuel Jacksin is the cello play cop who wanders into a nest of thieves...some brutal the other weirdly comical. Dashiell Hammett to the core. Well worth your seeing.


This is a film that deserves to be seen. Though it is getting no publicity, WORD OF MOUTH, should serve this very special film. A solid performance by Sam

Jackson and all of the supporting cast. Bob Rafelson, a very famous director of such classics as FIVE EASY PIECES and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS

TWICE, has brought his talents to this movie. It looks fantastic too. As in most film noir movies, like the "Big Sleep", there are story holes occasionally, but the acting, tension, dark humor and fast pace, keep you interested always. There is nothing boring. If you like dark movies with tough minded actors, this will not disapoint you.

This movie reminds you of so many good films that Bogart and Bacall made. I give thumbs up and a 10 !


Talented cast, director, screenwriter update good 1920s Hammett short story into full-length film. The expanded story (100X more stolen $$ !) retains the theme that criminals are doomed by the double-cross, and the resourceful detective is a better chess player once the plan goes awry. Jovavich seems as beautifully dangerous as other relatively recent worthy contenders for the "film" fatale pantheon like Fiorentino, J-Lo, Boyle, Russell. Thoughtful plot twists as players strive to gain the upper hand (although intricacies of the embezzlement eluded me). Odd "gang" could have stepped right out of the Maltese Falcon. The filmmakers left their heart, if not their Turk St., in San Francisco.


'No Good Deed' as the DVD of the film was titled here is an average adaptation of a short story of the 'noire' classic Dashiel Hammet. It is not a coincidence that many of the clichees of the genre are repeated here - the platinate blonde, the sophisticated evil criminals, the good old lady who is not really who she seems to be, etc. The crime part of the story is not very catching, and the really interesting part if the zig-zag the main female character is doing between the different men in the story. Milla Jovovitch is very good in this film, reminding me the role Kim Bassinger got an Oscar for. Also there are quite a lot of mis-matches and not everything makes perfect sense in the plot, the result is over all an agreeable mix, and a fair entertainment. 7/10 on my personal scale.


I genuinely enjoyed this movie. A previous comment said something to the effect of an observation that cliches riddle certain parts, but I think it's important to note that this was written in the 1920s, when perhaps those cliches were not quite so pervasive. And the ending isn't nearly as cliche as I would expect from that era.

Samuel L Jackson delivers a worthy performance as Jack, adding his signature personality to the role while still maintaining the spirit of the character.

Milla is good looking as usual, and like all her other movies, gets naked for a minute. Her performance is decent.

I'd give this movie a 7 out of 10

WARNING, SPOILER FOLLOWS.

what REALLY sells me on this movie is the direction it takes. I think you sort of have to put yourself into the 1920s mindset that women are women, and the real character to watch is the hero. IF you do that, then Erin is what a woman was classically considered to be; dependant, in search of a man, hedging her bets to be with the man most apt to provide for her.

Then the story is really about Jack and the decisions he has to make; conflict between his desire for Erin and his honorable, uncompromising personality. Whereas most western movies have the hero triumph over evil, giving him the kingdom and the girl in the process as a reward, here there is a twist; the hero defeats the villain, but chooses not to take the kingdom OR the girl, choosing instead to maintain his honor.

In this regard, the story mimics many classic works of samurai fiction, for example, where the hero denies his own desires in the name of a personal moral code. Also, what is not cliche is the movie's acknowledgement that the real world rarely rewards good character, and the path of virtue and honor is usually a lonely one. The ending is surprising, sad, and lonely, yet somehow gratifying and assuring.


"No Good Deed" is a way-above-average character driven thriller. The fact that it is based on short story by Dashiell Hammett puts in a class above the rest with a story-line that is frighteningly plausible. Boasting a stellar cast including Samuel L Jackson, Stellan Skasgaard and Milla Jovovich it is highly suspenseful with a cracking script. Stellan Skasgaard delivers his lines with relish and Milla Jovovich is highly believable in her role as a woman who plays all the men against each other. Grace Zabriskie and Joss Ackland steal the show, however, with their portrayals of a thief-couple in their twilight years. All, in all, highly recommended for a nights entertainment for those who like their thrillers a little more cerebral than the norm.


Evidently this film was released overseas before it was seen locally. Bob Rafelson is an excellent screen writer who knows a lot about what is going on in the American cinema. As a director, he doesn't bring anything new to this Dashiell Hammett's short story adaptation. Perhaps he wasn't helped by the screen play of Christopher Canaan.

The Hammett story was one of his best ones. The idea of the kind policeman, Jack Friar, trying to investigate something for a neighbor, brings him into a situation that will ensnare him, as he discovers the people in the house are planning a caper and take him prisoner.

The acting is interesting in general. Samuel L. Jackson has to act tied to a chair throughout the movie. His scene with Erin, played with gusto by Milla Jovovich, brings a sensuality to the screen that adds another dimension to the story. Stellan Skargard makes a mean Tyrone. Doug Hutchison is intense as Hoop, Tyrone's partner in crime. Grace Zabriskie and Joss Ackland are seen as the Quarres, a couple that are involved in the robbery. Ms. Zabriskie, an excellent actress, has great moments as the older woman who presents a kind front, but is no good. Joss Ackland, a veteran English stage and screen actor, doesn't have much to do.

The film, while predictable, offers some good moments. Bob Rafelson knows how to motivate his actors to give above the average performances.


Rework a Dashiell Hammett short story for the screen, get Samuel L. Jackson to play Bogart and Milla Jojovich to play Bacall, and you've got one heck of an entertaining little movie. I seriously liked all the performances, but I was especially taken by Milla Jojovich. You know she's bad but she's also irresistible. She pulls that off, too, and not many actresses could. They don't make many movies like this anymore and that's a shame. Delightful!


A pretty decent drama/thriller. I watched it because of Samuel L. Jackson. In this one, as usual, he plays his role with a quiet, understated charisma. Milla Jovovich was beautiful, more so than I have seen her before. She had a brief nude scene in this film. She shows some measure of courage going topless with her quite small breasts. I say more power to her. To all the aspiring actresses out there getting advice, let this show that if you have some talent, you don't have to mutilate yourselves with implants. Just say no! But I digress. The supporting cast did well, also. Stellan Skarsgard was suitably menacing, Joss Ackland was suitably eccentric, Doug Hutchison was suitably psychotic. The plot, with a small number of characters, could as well have come from a play as a Hammett story. Bob Rafelson's direction was unobjectionable. Overall, I'd say check it out.


I just thought this movie was not that good. I had never heard of it and thought I would check it out because I love Milla Jovovich and Sam Jackson. I picked it up previously viewed and popped it in and... blah. That is the best way I can describe this movie. It was just blah. Nothing special at all and just bland. Milla is beautiful and looks great and she does her best as does Sam Jackson but I don't think anything can save this snooze fest. If you have nothing else to do and there is nothing else on TV and you don't have to clean or clip your toe nails and if there is no paint pealing off the walls you can watch, and or you are a Jovovich fan, give it a shot but its really just not that good. BLAH.


The best part of this movie, is Milla's backside.

The movie starts with a premise that Samuel's character is out looking for a runaway girl. That disappears. Then, the antagonist gang takes him hostage, well, sort of. No real reason to do this, other than that they think they've been discovered. But, from there, it's all lost. Samuel L. Jackson is the protagonist, but he's tied to a chair for 2/3's of the movie!

Then there's the absurd robbery by an apparently blind man (in clear glasses, so you can see his eyes move and react), and his cohort, and evil little blonde-haired troll, who's NEVER accosted, not once, while walking directly into the power room of the bank. He's able to amazingly hack into the bank's computers, and shut the power off to the whole building. Somehow, I think that ALL transactions would be off, regardless of the circumstances at that point - but maybe that's just me. Then, there's the wimpy banker that just HAS to get his rocks off BEFORE they flee the country, and the little wa***r troll that's too stupid to realize that he shouldn't kill the only man who knows the all-important "password", and the account information is stored on a 3.5 inch disk, right (dated technology there, why not on a reel tape?). They whiz through banks at a breakneck pace, withdrawing large sums of money, without so much as a batting of the eye. I'm not even going to get into Samuel and Milla's musical interlude while she has him untied. Mr. officer, I think, might have had a trick up his sleeve to elude her and get out of the house at that point.

Bad movie, bad plot, bad characters, the kind of movie that's 97 minutes long and you'd swear you've been watching it for 4 hours. Terrible.


The story it's so stupid that you can't feel that this movie can be truth... and the acting is so bad that it's makes a really bad movie.. and the end it's really worse, see it and you will see what i'm saying. 4/10 stars only for samuel l. jackson performance. Milla do a really bad acting.


viewed movie as NO GOOD DEED: I found the plot to be somewhat plausible, however, there were many errors in the movie. Samuel L. Jackson (character Jack Friar) is believable, though not one of his better movies. Milla Jovovich (character Erin) is an extremely shallow character. Jack Friar is looking for a blond-haired, blue-eyed male, and Doug Hutchison (character Hoop) thinks it is him -- however, Hoop is dyed blonde-haired with brown eyes. Poor cinematography in rain storm -- view of characters inside a car through side mirrors in a torrential downpour -- I have never seen a vehicle with clear side mirrors in a rain storm. Another very poor item is the Canadian border crossing is shown as Sudbury. This is an insult to Canadian viewers -- Sudbury is at least a 9 hour drive NORTH of the US-Canadian border. Shame on producers -- filming in Montreal Quebec and didn't know enough of Ontario's geography to be at least plausible. Sorely disappointed that Samuel L. Jackson would let his good name be associated with such a poor quality movie.


There's a reason why this film took a limited release and little fanfare despite having some solid actors in the line-up. However, it just goes to show what sloppy direction can lead when the concept of creation comes into effect. Samuel L. Jackson is too typical, Milla Jovovich is WAY too typical, and Doug Huchison is rather disappointing. I won't even talk about Stellan Skarsgaard. The acting is where the whole story went south, considering the story was pretty decent. I guess I am one of the few who got to see this film, considering I was the only one in the theater when I watched it.


One of the worst plot I have seen, absolutely non sense!!!!! The most stupid scene is the romantic one, the girl go for some insulin and brings also the cello, the score for piano and cello and also the music stand!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not imagine this girl getting down from the second floor by the stairs with all this stuff.......whahhhhhhhhhhh


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The spanish title for this movie was "sin motivo aparante" which means with no aparent motive. It should have been called with no aparent plot.


Hammett's short story "The House on Turk Street" is 23 taut pages in my 1974 paperback of his "Continental Op" stories. It's a terrific tale. It takes place all in the same San Francisco house, in one afternoon, with an uneasy band of robbers, hiding out between robberies with a bag of loot, and the fat private eye who stumbles into them by chance.

This movie shifts everything to the East Coast and expands the tale to include cyber-crime, crooked bankers, airplanes to the Bahamas, a road trip to Albany, New York, etc, etc, etc.

Why?

Not much is gained, and what's lost is all the high-powered charm and intensity of the original story. Instead of a claustrophobic battle of wits (with guns added), we have a flaccid, spread-out tale of people tapping at computers, trying to figure out passwords, and shouting at each other. And yes, Milla Jovovich taking a convenient shower.

Samuel L. Jackson's character is a perfect example of "more is less." In the original story, the detective is a pudgy, disheveled, nameless but likable PI. Jackson is a policeman, he plays the cello expertly, he has diabetes (!), and he has racial issues with everyone making wisecracks about him being black.

Why load him up with so much baggage? And why does his simply disappear for large chunks of the movie? I'm willing to accept that the original short story might be impossible to film, or might make only a 40-minute movie. But they tried and failed to make it into a full-length movie here.

Screen writing is certainly hard, and there's no point hammering these filmmakers for trying and failing. But they sure made some strange and hard-to-explain choices. It's too bad.


This movies story line is all over the map, the way the movie starts off is just goofy, i'm not going to go into details but this movie is just plain ****. The acting was crappy the only thing this movie had going for it is that Samuel Jackson was in it thats it. This movie isn't worth renting, I rented it when it first came out on DVD what a waste of 4.50 this movie is someones idea of a sick joke.

Picture starting to watch a movie have way in, because thats what it feels like when you start watching this, They don't explain a god dam thing. This movie is about as good as being kicked in the nuts, All i can do is give you a heads up by saying this movie makes battle field earth look OK.


In 1912, a stern old Greek general finds himself trapped on the ISLE OF THE DEAD after an outbreak of the dreaded plague.

When the front office at RKO Pictures informed producer Val Lewton that Boris Karloff had been procured to appear in his next suspense film, he wasn't entirely pleased. Karloff was famous for his portrayal of horrific monsters & mummies, sensationalist creations not at all in tune with the psychological thrillers for which Lewton was noted -- with very low budgets, he was able to fashion fascinating films in which the atmosphere was every bit as important as the plot.

Luckily, Karloff turned out to be an inspired choice. Determined to show that he was a skilled actor (actually, he was a very fine & talented performer) he was completely in sync with what Lewton envisaged, giving a nuanced portrayal of an essentially decent man who finds himself slowly driven to a sort of despair by the forces around him. He becomes the heart of a film which wisely saves its shocks for the last few minutes, having built up to the eerie climax slowly & inexorably.

Lewton was very pleased with Karloff's work and arranged two more collaborations. With only two weeks left in filming ISLE OF THE DEAD, Karloff had to be hospitalized for serious back problems. On his release from hospital, he found Lewton was all prepared to film THE BODY SNATCHER (1945). Karloff gave another wonderful performance, before finally finishing ISLE OF THE DEAD. The following year Karloff starred in Lewton's BEDLAM (1946), completing the trio of very tidy thrillers.

Karloff's co-stars give him good support, especially Ernst Deutsch as a military doctor; Alan Napier & Katherine Emery as a British consul and his invalid wife; Helen Thimig as a superstitious Greek peasant; and little Skelton Knaggs, who in a tiny scene with only a few words is able to make his Cockney tinker character come alive.

Ellen Drew & Marc Cramer handle the romance, which fortunately does not intrude too much on the story.

The viewer, in the course of watching ISLE OF THE DEAD, will discover much about the medical state of catatonia, as well as the monstrous vorvolaka, part vampire - part werewolf, which haunts Greek nightmares.

Lewton based his ideas for this film on a painting he had seen as a boy in Russia, Arnold Böcklin's darkly allegorical Island of the Dead (1880), which is shown behind the opening credits of the film. This somewhat sinister painting was also the inspiration for Sergey Rachmaninoff's celebrated symphonic poem, The Isle of the Dead' (1909).

Incidentally, the conflict which is the background to the film was the Balkan War of 1912, in which the Balkan League (Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria & Montenegro) attacked the Ottoman Empire and destroyed most of its hegemony on the European continent. Begun in October and ended in December, it was short & bloody. However, troubles in Constantinople started hostilities up again in January of 1913. It finally ended in May, with the Turks once more decisively defeated. Although the Empire was left very much weakened, the War solved very little else. In June, the victorious parties began fighting amongst themselves, with Greece & Serbia trouncing Bulgaria by August. Greece ended the two short Wars with Crete and parts of Macedonia & Epirus added to her territories and the new state of Albania was carved out of old Ottoman lands. But ancient animosities were aroused and the entire Peninsula lay waiting for the next international incident, which obligingly took place 10 months later at the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo.


Scary, fascinating tale set in 1912 Greece. A bunch of people are quarantined on an island (which contains a graveyard) by the plague. A general (Boris Karloff) is in charge, but people dying from the plague, the isolation and close quarters begin to eat away at him. He starts to believe a young, healthy woman among them is a vorvolaka (a vampire). And there's the woman who has an extreme fear of being buried alive...

Quick paced and very literate horror film. There's lots of dialogue about faith, wars, superstition--all of it interesting. The settings are very dark, eerie with a spooky wind always blowing. There are scary moments throughout but they really shift into high gear during the final 15 minutes.

This movie gave me nightmares when I was little! The cast is adequate (except for Jason Robards Sr.--boy, was he annoying!) but Karloff and Katherine Emery were excellent.

Truly frightening old horror film. A definite must-see.


Plague victims are dropping like flies in this somewhat sluggish, Mark Robson-directed entry in the Val Lewton horror cycle. This one isn't as well-written as the earlier films in the series, and the isolation, while nicely suggested psychologically, fails to cast the spell of hopelessness and despair it ought to. The movie is too genteel to be frightening, and lacks the fine tuning of a director like Jacques Tourneur, who surely would have made more of it. Boris Karloff is quite good in the "lead", however, and the supporting cast is competent if unexciting. By today's standards, there's not much to be scared of here, and though it works up a nice head of steam near the end, it succeeds more as a mood piece than a horror tale.