With a dream cast of Franco Nero (as Swedish mercenary Yod Peterson aka "penguin") and Tomas Milian (Mexican rebel Vasco), a soundtrack by Ennio Morricone and Sergio Corbucci at the Directors helm, this film was always likely to deliver. And it delivers 100%.

The story centres around the town of San Bernardino, and a fight for power between General Mongo (Bodalo) and Professor Xantos (Fernando Rey). Xantos, a pacifist with a young and dedicated following, has been imprisoned at Fort Yuma by the Americans. His absence has left the town, and its safe, at the mercy of Mongo. However, without the combination for the lock, he is unable to access the wealth of the town.

Mongo enlists the help of Peterson to rescue Xantos, for both the combination code and probable execution. Vascos is sent to accompany him, having already suffered much humiliation as a result of an earlier confrontation with the Swede. This makes for a very uneasy relationship.

A brief fracas with Xantos' followers at a hold-up on a train enables Peterson to escape from Vacos' close watch. However, he is soon relying on his companion to rescue him, after he is captured by a former partner John (Jack Palance) - who he had previously betrayed some years ago to save his own skin. This betrayal had resulted in John being nailed to a tree, and relying on his faithful pet falcon, Marsha, to rescue him by biting off his hand. Not surprisingly, John holds a grudge (as well as a wooden hand!).

On escaping John's grasp, the two make an assault on Fort Yuma in an attempt to free Xantos from the Americans. As the adventure really heats up, they're paths will soon cross with the American army, General Mongo, Xantos' followers and, of course, John and Marsha.

The first third of the film is perhaps a little slow and episodic, but does successfully reveal the characters of Peterson and Vasco to the viewer (with fantastic character play by Nero and Milian respectively). Once the background is established, the film soon explodes into action with a series of exciting and highly effective chases and battle sequences. Corbucci at his best.

Probably the strongest element of this movie however is its subtle use of humour. Much of this is provided by the chemistry between the two leading roles, but the laughs really reach a crescendo with Peterson and Vasco's final liaison with Jack's falcon Marsha. Just one great scene in a film full of them.

It is no doubt a crime to have got so far into my review without mentioning Jack Palance's performance in much detail, because his performance as the unhinged, marijuana smoking John is scene stealing. Quite possibly one of the greatest villains of all the Spaghetti Westerns I have seen.

Music is provided by Morricone, and as always the score is a perfect accompaniment to the action - both memorable and rousing. In fact it always amazes me how the man could be so consistent! In summary, this is a must view film from the ever reliable Corbucci. And my mouth waters at the prospect of watching his other Mexican revolutionary movies ('A Professional Gun' and 'What Am I Doing in the Middle of a Revolution')..... very shortly, hopefully!


Vamos a Matar Companeros! is an authentic, made in Italy, Spaghetti Western film classic and is a must see movie for anyone who wants to discover the very best of the Spaghetti Western film genre. This Western-Comedy film was directed by Sergio Corbucci, the number #2 Italian director of all time for Spaghetti Westerns, after of course Sergio Leone, for the entire Spaghetti Western genre, which is saying a lot because there were hundreds of films in that genre alone! This film is just plain fun and entertaining to watch! All the actors are charismatic, comical and professional. The all star cast in the film are Jack Palance, Franco Nero and Thomas Milian. The story is basically about the Mexican Revolution of 1910 where a mercenary (Nero) and rebels, lead by rebel leader (Milian), must rescue a idealist professor to lead the revolution who is held hostage in Texas. This film was made during the height of student protests to the Vietnam War in the late 1960's and early 1970's which may explain the political theme. There are many good scenes, too many to list here, but the best scenes and most surreal, in my opinion, are the ones with the pet falcon and the strange one wooden-handed and marijuana smoking villain (Palance).

The cinematography is beautifully filmed by cinematographer Alejandro Ulloa who also filmed other excellent Spaghetti Westerns. The music in the film is by the maestro of Spaghetti Western music and film music in general, Italian composer Ennio Morricone. Companeros includes a theme song and the beautiful classic acoustic and twangy electric guitar riffs invented by Morricone.


I believe that every film should be judged according to it's nature. For what this film is, it's almost excellent. I can still remember the first time I saw it as a child in a summer time cinema in my town and not only it left a mark in my subconsciousness about the kind of films I was watching at that time, but the music never left my memory and easily comes back without me ask for it. And I don't mind at all. But enough about me!!! Like so many other Italian western films, it actually is... a political film. Yes! And a very obvious one. The Mexican revolution as pictured here, has little in common with the real stuff. Also the basis of the Mexican food is corn! But that's not important. What matters is the hope that so many Europeans had in that time for some kind of revolution here also. So, Mexico is just an excuse.

The movie plays with the sentiments of the viewer, who slowly finds that he wants to be a part of it, even if he is a money loving European like Yolaf Peterson. In the (incredible) end, when everything about this wonderful, crazy song you hear all the time makes sense, you are so captivated that you would never forgive Yolaf for making any other choice than the one that you also would have made given the chance. When can I see this film again?


A year or so ago, i bought a large plasma TV and soon discovered Westerns look fantastic on these screens. I rediscovered spaghetti westerns and didn't realise there were so many. I have scoured the earth to find rarities and have seen most of them over the past year. In my opinion this is one of the best. It is beautifully shot, well acted and very pacy, and of course the music is the icing on the cake. The ending is brilliant. It is unusual to find a film with such inspired comedy and action having such a moving and stirring finale.

After the Leone westerns this is the best. The thing that struck me was that whether a film is well known is due to a product of marketing rather than quality, as I had never heard of this film. I presume it was never widely distributed in the states as it was looked down on as another 'eurowestern' as the dollars films were.


Oh, wow, this is simply amazing cinema...Energetic...Playful...Rousing...Engaging...There are not enough superlatives to throw at Corbucci's masterwork. I like it a little more than "The Great Silence" because of its eccentric style and storyline. It is never less than enthralling and manages to be extremely moving.

Morricone's score? Just brilliant. What a genius he is! May he live to compose forever... and always assisted by the great Bruno Nicolai, an accomplished composer in his own right.

Franco Nero is wonderful, as always, as The Swede, Jack Palance is charisma-plus as John, Tomas Milian is rough-edged and likable despite his total lack of morals as El Vasco. Too many great thespian turns to single out, but you get the point.

Terrific location work, stupendously good shoot-outs, stunts, explosions, poetic action... all lathered in baked, painfully evocative cinematography.

And that final image to red freeze frame...Bella! Corbucci was as worthy a Western director as Leone, but he never got the same recognition. One day he will.


Get ready for a run-on... A Spaghetti Western set in the Mexican Revolution about a foreign mercenary played by Franco Nero who makes an uneasy alliance with a Mexican bandito who unwittingly becomes a revolutionary while simultaneously falling in love with a freedom-fighter chick who is really hot, all while being tracked by an eccentric villain played by Jack Palance...directed by Sergio Corbucci, with a score by Ennio Morricone and a few machine gun massacres and at least one scene where someone is buried up to his neck while horses are about to trample on his head. Ummm...haven't I seen this before? Oh yeah, it was called "The Mercenary" and stands as one of the best Spaghetti Westerns of all time. "Companeros", on the other hand, is an entertaining piece chock full of humor and action (although, like the two protagonists, the alliance between humor and action is not always a smooth one). The pacing could use some work and there wasn't enough nudity (ok, I'm joking on the last one...could have used more nudity though)

Where was I? Oh yeah, "Companeros" is bad-ass fun with one of the greatest shootouts of all time (Nero + Machine Gun = Bad-assery at its best). Wow, what a terrible review.


Wonderfully extravagant political western with a lovely Morricone score. A classic of this particular sub-genre, and perhaps Corbucci's finest with Il Grande Silenzio.


Not really a comedy western per-se, but it doesn't take itself too seriously, either.

Takes place in revolutionary Mexico during WWI. The Swede (Franco Nero) agrees to sell guns to guerrilla general Gen. Mongo but first they have to break into a safe in order for him to get paid and only the professor (Fernando Rey) knows the combination. Or so we are led to believe.

The professor also leads a rival rag-tag army of students who are fighting both the Mexican Army as well as Mongo's men with Lola (Iris Berben) as the professor's second in command.

It turns out the professor is being held by the Americans in Texas and the Swede and El Vasco (Tomas Milian), Mongo's right hand man, has to accompany him north to free him. However an ex-partner of the Swede's, John (Jack Palance) show up and has other plans for the Swede. The psychotic John like to smoke a lot of dope and has a pet falcon named Marsha (?) who lands on John's prosthetic hand after every scouting mission.

This is one of Corbucci's better westerns in spite of the ridiculous political overtones he gives it. The story is entertaining and moves swiftly along for 2hrs. without me getting bored by any of it. I don't rate it as highly as the Leone's similarly themed DUCK YOU SUCKER (1971), but it's well worth watching all the same.

The standout here for me is Jack Palance and I wish his part was bigger. He really does chew up the scenery and the part where he tortures Milian with a rat in a basket tied around his stomach, is a hoot. Ever notice how one of Palance's sidekick, the little oriental guy, has an old telephone receiver strapped onto his ear as a hearing aid? Nice touch. And the ending where Nero throws a large cross under the boxcar filled with explosives and a detonator, blowing up Palance in the process, is a welcome end to one of the main baddies of the film.

The lighthearted Morricone score fits this film very well and I like the musical cues that are sprinkled throughout that alternate between that familiar fuzz guitar and whistling banjo playing that happens while the action has quieted down.

Anchor Bay is up to it's usual standards using an excellent widescreen anamorphic print with nary a hair or scratch through it. It looks like it was made yesterday. Some of the dialog is in Italian with subtitles because it was taken from a Euro print and was never dubbed into English. However the transitions between Euro and American versions are seamless. There's also a fairly interesting 15 minute interview with Franco Nero, Tomas Milian and Ennio Morricone where they recount their experiences while they were involved in this film.

7 out of 10

-


Just finished watching this movie and was very satisfied. I've been watching as many Spaghetti westerns as I can get my hands on and so far I've loved every one that I've seen. This film is no exception.

Basically it's about a Swedish arms dealer (Franco Nero) who comes to negotiate the sale of some guns to a revolutionary. Turns out that his payment is in a safe that only a Professor Xantos has the combination too. The problem is that the professor is in jail in America so The Arms Dealer and a Bandit (Tomas Milian) set out to break him loose but one of the Swedes former partners (Palance) has got other plans.

This movie doesn't quite reach the level of greatness achieved by Once Upon a Time in the West, The Great Silence or The Good the Bad and The Ugly but it's still a great western. I'd rate it along side The Big Gundown and higher than the likes of Django, Death Rides a horse or If you Live Shoot.

The movie uses humor to great effect and sometimes comes off as an early example of a buddy comedy; the two leads have great Chemistry. Milian whom you can't help but like in any movie he's in. This movie also has the best action scenes of any Spagstern I've seen so far. The final shootout ranks as one of my all times favorites (I just wish Tomas Milian had gotten more to do).

The performances are all fantastic. Franco Nero, who failed to impress me in Django, is great as the smug, badass Swede. Milian is wonderful as usual and Jack Palance plays a drugged up off his rocker bird loving lunatic with a wooden hand as only he could.

Of course you can't go without mentioning Morricones score which is, of course, Fantastic. Not as great as his work with Leone but even an average score by Morricone is better than 90% of the other stuff out there.

Check this flick out. It's funny, entertaining and you get to see Nero go nuts with a big ass machine gun.


By 1970 the initial gold rush of the spaghetti western was over and directors were seeking new ways to push the genre forward. Trinita opted for a satirical approach while Sabata brought James Bond sensibilities to the classic anti-hero. Others chose to use the Mexican revolution as the backdrop for the escapades of their heroes. That is the case for Sergio Corbucci's Companeros.

It is essentially a remake or a reimagining of Corbucci's The Mercenary, using much of the same cast, and swapping Tony Musante as the Mexican revolutionary for the great Thomas Milian. Franco Nero plays once again the European (this time a Swede) and Jack Palance returns to the fold as the ruthless if not semi-insane baddie. All of them hit all the right notes and Nero and Milian's interactions are a joy to behold. The story opens with a duel between the two in a dusty Mexican village and the whole movie is a flashback that leads us to the events at the start of the movie, again as in The Mercenary two years earlier. Nero and Milian are employed by corrupt Mexican General Mongo to travel to the US and free the Mexican professor Xantos that is held captive in Fort Yuma. Xantos is the leader of another small group of student revolutionaries, but General Mongo wants him for more practical reasons. Xantos knows the code to a safe that is impossible to open and with the gold General Mongo hopes to finance the revolution against Porfirio Diaz. Or does he? Each one has his own personal agenda of course. As they make their way back to Mexico, a semi-insane Jack Palance with a wooden hand (do I sense a small Son of Frankenstein tribute here?) and a hawk will hunt them down and the two companeros will slowly begin to take to the more noble attitude of the professor.

Here Corbucci goes for a more Leone-esquire approach, leaving the dark and brooding nature of his previous westerns (like Django and The Great Silence) behind. As Leone used to say, this is a "fairytale for grown ups". The story takes us from the Mexican revolution to the Fort Yuma prison to the Rio Grande to a spectacular showdown in the end, with comedic touches, wild shootouts, explosions, a typically great Morricone score and excellent performances and cinematography. This is more of an adventure spaghetti western in the Leone tradition. It's considerably light-hearted but fused with the same political undertones one could find in Sergio Sollima's work and brilliant pacing. Above all, this is A grade entertainment like only the Italians can deliver.

Sergio Corbucci is not considered only second to Leone in the spaghetti western realm for no reason. His attention to detail, from the sets, camera angles, props, costumes and cinematography is impeccable and he manages to convey that iconic aspect of the west only the Europeans were able to capture. Don't miss it.


Man, this is everything I want while watching a Spaghetti Western, great characters, a solid story, superb action sequences, and best of all a fantastic score that is the just the icing on the cake. Corbucci basically redid "The Mercenary" (which itself was a good film, IMO one of the finer Italian westerns out there) which is all fine and dandy with me, back with Franco Nero as a Swede and Jack Palance as a one-handed pot smoking maniac with a falcon. Can't get much better than that. Palance chews and spits out the scenery, watchable throughout and always entertaining. I was sad he wasn't in the majority of the film. Nero/Milian have great chemistry and just look natural up on the screen, going back and forth with one another. The film never lags either, it goes by quickly and probably could have been three hours and I wouldn't have noticed. Franco Nero looks so natural killing various Mexican-Italian (Iexican?) soldiers with a chaingun. The score just puts a smile on my face anytime I hear it, catchy stuff. Morricone is always reliable. I think Corbucci was vastly underrated because he happened to make movies in the same vicinity as Leone who seemed more likely to pick and choose from various American westerns (even though he's been orally serviced by too many people, I still do like his stuff) whereas Sergio Deuce pounded out some westerns that I think truly compete with the best of Mr. Leone. All and all, I was satisfied at the end and had a cheesy smile on my face throughout the running time which cannot be achieved easily as my facade is rarely penetrated by anything that isn't of the highest quality. This is the full package as far as the Italian westerns go.


A whimsically breezy surface makes way for a bang-up, ball-breaking and noisy spaghetti western by the talented Sergio Corbucci (the man also behind "The Great Silence" and "The Mercenary"). Actually I might still put those two films ahead of this one. Hell, there was an explosion of excitement ringing from this this highly competent and vivid outing. The cheeky style dripping from the fascinating material was well placed and delivered. Even from the action, the grand state of it feels like something out of a comic strip and how can't you love the flat-out, bloodthirsty machine gun activity towards the finale. What a sensational climax it builds up to!

The trio of Franco Nero, Tomas Milian and Jack Palance were nothing but marvellous, and the chemistry between the former two was a blast. But Palance's sophisticatedly leering menace was the real draw-card. Fernando Rey makes for a solid turn too. Ennio Morricone plucks in with a gleefully passionate and killer music score, which is one of his best and the rugged location was captured by Alejandro Ulloa's free-flowing and expressive cinematography that had plenty of poignant scope and detail. Corbucci stews up some inventive directorial flushes amongst the grit, chaos and exuberance. The atmospheric setting hit's the spot and sets up many potboiler and comedic scenes. It can lull at times, and might feel somewhat overlong.

The hard-boiled story sticks to something rather stable and less than flashy, but can be thoughtful in its wide arrange of antics and tactics. It's gusty political sub-text (on the treatment of the poor and use of violence to get your point across) can get a bit wishy-washy and preachy, however it definitely makes up for it in other areas like the chewy script with its constant wit and surprises.

Over-the-top entertainment equals a totally baroque and enjoyable Corbucci spaghetti western.


COMPANEROS (4 outta 5 stars) Terrific spaghetti western/buddy movie co-starring Franco Nero and Tomas Milian at their best! Franco Nero plays a Swedish opportunist looking to cash in on a fermenting Mexican revolution. Tomas Milian plays a young hotheaded rebel who suddenly finds himself becoming one of the leaders of the resistance. Starting out on opposite sides of the conflict and butting heads at every turn, they soon develop a mutual respect and team up to save the day... or die trying. It's the same old plot, yeah (really, what is the difference between this film's story and, say, Duck You Sucker or A Bullet For The General?)... but the story is well-constructed, the direction assured and the performances are fantastic. Milian is in especially fine form... apparently he felt a bit threatened by his co-star's screen presence and sought to steal scenes from him at every opportunity. Nero, trying to hide his youthful good looks with some prosthetic wrinkles, may be stuck playing the straight man but he still gets his share of screen "moments". Another great score by Ennio Morricone... the reprise of the title track at key moments always fills me with delight. Director Sergio Corbucci's work may not match the visual poetry of Sergio Leone but he created a fine body of work as well, and this is one of his best!


"Vamos A Matar, Compañeros" is another terrific and indescribably entertaining Spaghetti-western from the talented hands and brains of Sergio Corbucci ("Django", "The Great Silence"). Damn, what a fun movie this was! This film amazingly pairs two of the coolest and most brilliant contemporary Italian acting icons in the genre (Franco Nero & Tomas Milian); it has the catchiest Ennio Morricone score imaginable, a sublime albeit unobtrusive "Viva the Revolution" atmosphere, delightfully insane villains and a pleasing amount of exhilarating & violent shootouts. Franco Nero plays a smooth-talking Swedish weapon salesman, dealing with the corrupt & greedy army General Mongo. Tomas Milian is an ennobled street bandit also fighting for Mongo. They team up  reluctantly  to kidnap a certain professor Xantos, who teaches his youthful students to fight a bloodless revolution, but once they found and freed him from his prison cell, the way back to San Bernardino is still very long and full of obstacles, like defeating a marijuana-addicted criminal (the always-amazing Jack Palance!) with an artificial hand and a loyal pet-falcon. "Compañeros" is just pure fun! It's definitely not as sophisticated as Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Western efforts and not even as politically engaged as most revolutionary westerns, but its entertainment value is enormous! The on screen chemistry between Franco & Milian is irresistible, mostly because they constantly argue and try to abandon each other, and whenever the action sequences are about to kick in the splendid title song begins to play. Jack Palance is deliciously OTT as loathsome gangster, while Iris Berben (as Lola the cherubic freedom-fighter) and Karin Schubert (as Zaïra the helpful prostitute) provide the film with some welcome eye-candy and even nudity. The script demonstrates a great and almost unique sense of humor, the filming locations are often extremely enchanting and the action sequences are rough and ingeniously filmed. "Compañeros" is a total winner and highly recommended to fans of the genre.


Django writer-director Sergio Corbucci returns with this off the wall violent and quirky comedic R-rated Western that revives an all star eccentric cast of Franco Nero, Tomas Milian, Jack Palance and Fernando Rey in a typically political spaghetti gun-fest. Ennio Morricone's score is on a whole other level as usual, and is too epic to be confined to this tale of mere mortal drunken bandidos and a cracker ass gringo.

A melodramatic italo-story of political and personal loyalties during the Mexican revolution, counterbalanced with the comedic "odd ball" pairing of Yodlaf Peterson (Nero), a cool and clam Swedish arms dealer, and the emotional and impetuous El Vasco (Milian), a wild Mexican revolutionary. Long story short, the two need to go on a journey to find the only man who who knows how to open an impenetrable safe full of gold back down in Mexico, the Prof. Xantos (Rey); but it's not a pleasure tour, as he is being held captive in an American garrison, and all the while the two are being hunted by a 'marijuana-crazed' Jack Palance.

The movie is full of ridiculously fun machine gun fights and and a large dose of good humored violence, and each characters personality is so exaggerated there is a clashing of egos in almost every scene in the film which makes for a memorable two hours. Recommended for anybody else like me who lives for these types of free-spirited dual- crossed-bandoleers stories where the fate of the sun drenched universe is decided by those with the biggest sombrero and tequila induced machismo. viva la muerte, pinche...


Sergio Corbucci's Vamos a Matar, Compañeros is a Spaghetti Western about a Swedish weapons dealer and a shady mercenary who must smuggle an idealistic professor into Mexico in the midst of a revolution. The movie tries for the epic status of Sergio Leone's The Good, The Bad and The Ugly but falls short by a mile. Where Leone managed to create a poignant, albeit hyper-stylized image of the Old West, Corbucci comes close only in style and fails everywhere else.

Compañeros has some of the makings of a classic: a promising (though unoriginal) premise, a fantastic bad guy played by Jack Palance, a stunning supporting actress, and an excellent score by Enio Morricone. The scenery and costume design are also outstanding. But the story is underdeveloped, disjointed and at times ridiculous. Too many flaws get in the way of what could have been a great movie: the overdone moments of unfunny comic relief, the uninspired performances, and the confused political message make for an ultimately superficial caricature of the epic Western.

Given its potential, it's a shame that this movie turned out how it did. There's a reason this movie was forgotten, while Leone's films are still talked about.


For those of you not around for it's original run, Charlie's Angels was not just a hit TV show, it was a phenomenon. Every magazine and rag magazine had a picture of "The Angels" on their covers. Incredibly popular, it all came down to Farrah and her 70's fly away hair, her dazzling toothy smile, her skateboarding pose wearing Addia's, her shampoo, her toothpaste, THE bathing suit poster of the century, and then she was gone. Exiting after only one season Charlie's Angels never was the same again. Bolstered by Jill's kid sister, Kris (Cheryl Ladd) and then others, Charlie's Angels never again climbed to the heights of sheer madness of its first season. Owing its popularity to episodes such as "Angels in Chains" and "Angels on Wheels," it fulfilled many a preadolescence male's fantasy and "Jiggle TV" was born. It may be a period piece today but it was a product of the fun, wacky 1970's that gave it birth.


I have loved "Charlie's Angels" since I was a little boy. I started watching it during the third season, then Kate Jackson left. Her departure was such a loss to the show because Sabrina had so much personality and she actually had a great sense of humor and the only one who was believable as a detective. Still, this show was not about credibility - most of its fun qualities had to do with the chemistry between the three Angels. The first season was by far the best. The season's episodes had serviceable, sometimes even interesting and complex plot lines with only a modicum of filler. Some good scriptwriting, too -especially "Consenting Adults". Attention was paid to editing, the music and the action sequences. A few of the musical motifs could remain in one's head. In addition to everything else, it was certainly not sloppy. None of the episodes were less than entertaining. ("The Seance" and "Angel Trap" being the least interesting. Maybe because these were the only episodes that were focused on a single Angel, Kelly and Jill, respectively, rather than the others which were group efforts...) Kate was excellent and extremely compelling as Sabrina Duncan, Farrah was quite good (sometmes mesmerizing) as the fun-loving, athletic, charming flirt Jill Munroe (I have always thought her comedienne skills could have been tapped into more) and Jaclyn was beyond lovely and sweet as Kelly Garrett, the perfect third banana. (I actually think Kelly had better hair than Farrah.) When Farrah left the show, Cheryl Ladd stepped in and was great. She was cute, funny and did not take herself too seriously. She was not possessed with Farrah's hypnotic charisma, but she was also a bit more generous with the other actors than Farrah had been. I wonder why Kate Jackson was so unpleasant towards Cheryl??? Too bad. I always liked to think they were all buddies offscreen, too. And, if anybody cared to notice, Cheryl Ladd was probably the best all-around actor on the show, versatility-wise. So, it did not matter so much that the 2nd season's episodes were not as tightly constructed as the previous one's and were not always as interesting. These three girls were great together and the show was still a lot of fun. By the third season, the producers and everyone else involved (sans the actresses) figured that because the ratings had not slipped, then the success of the show had nothing to do with quality, because the third season's episodes were mostly not very good, sometimes pretty bad. Also, Kelly and Kris started looking a little bit dumpy and Sabrina started wearing too much makeup. And when Jill returned, she was no longer charming and bubbly, she became snotty and aloof. And her hair looked like she didn't comb it. What was up with that? Maybe it was the actress' resentment about having to come back for guest appearances? Or maybe it was 1979 chic to become disco Bo Derek with rude tan boots? Anyway, at least Kate Jackson's character actor skills were still around to carry the show. It was still watchable. When she got fired (big mistake on the producer's part!), the show went into steep decline, which nevertheless held attention because of the girls. Cheryl Ladd pretty much took over. Shelly Hack was laughably bad, perhaps because she took the show too seriously. Especially the episode where she was supposed to be a streetwalker!? She dressed and acted like a modern day Katherine Hepburn, or at least the producers' notion of it. She actually seemed to think she could make her lines sound intelligent. It could be painful to watch sometimes... Maybe if somebody had encouraged her to being more laid-back she would have been better. And Sabrina was no longer around. Sigh, weep... By the fifth season, it didn't matter. The show's plotlines and scripts were sub-juvenile. Yechhh! Tanya Roberts did a good job as Julie, though, and had a really nice sense of humor. Plus, she was a lot sexier and tougher than the imbecilic and grossly misplaced Tiffany ("peacocks aren't indigenous to this latitude") ---okay, whatever. I am enormously devoted to this show, which was inarguably a lot of fun for its first two seasons. Too bad Aaron Spelling was devoured by his own unabashed cynicism. The show could have stayed at a higher level of quality. Anyhoo... Favorite episodes: "Consenting Adults", "Dancing in the Dark", "Angels at Sea", "The Big Tap-Out", "The Blue Angels", "Angels in Paradise", "The Jade Trap", "Angel Flight" (with the most unsympathetic, annoying client the girls ever had to deal with. Sabrina, how could you? Still a whole lot of fun.), "Angels in Springtime" (with the gorgeous gorgon Nancy Parsons!) and "Angels on the Line" (with the best-worst psycho drag-queen I have ever seen.)


By far, 3 of the baddest women of the seventies. They were endlessly amazing, from their ability to perform whatever undercover occupation they were given, to staying beautiful throughout all the fights. There was amazing things about all of them, how Kelly always managed to have that tiny camera that took pictures of everything, how Jill's hair never lost it's curls, how Sabrina's voice managed to crack in a funny, cool way. Sabrina was the intellectual , charismatic angel, there was no way you could hate Sabrina Duncan, they were all smart but she was the brightest one, her brains got them out of many troubles. Like in Angels in Chains, it was her idea to pour the gasoline to confuse the dogs. Kelly was the sweet, streetwise angel, she grew up in an orphanage and knew every trick in the book, including how to get to an informant. Like in Dirty Business, she had the guy making the Little Bo Peep porn eating out of her hands. Jill was the beautiful, athletic angel, like in Angels on Wheels, and numerous other episodes like Ladykiller, and The Mexican Connection, she was pure athleticism and breathtakingly beautiful. They were smart, resourceful women who weren't just beautiful, they were smart and efficient, and they always got their man(or woman). I think my favorite part of the show was when that "de de de deeee" music would play, that would signal that you have been had by an angel. I have most of the episodes on DVD. The movie was okay, but Barrymore, Diaz, and Liu don't do these women justice.


Once upon a time, three little girls went to the police academy. and they were each assigned very hazardous duties, but I took them all away from all that and now they work for me. My name is Charlie. Those famous words started the all time greatest TV show in history Charlie's Angels. When the pilot aired in March of 1976, it starred Farrah Fawcett Majors as Jill who was the athletic angel, Jaclyn Smith as Kelly who was the streetwise angel, Kate Jackson as Sabrina who was the cool smart, multilingual leader, David Doyle as John Bosley, David Ogden Stiers as Scott Woodville and John Forsythe as the voice of Charlie. Kate Jackson was aboard from the beginning of the project, and was set to play the lead angel. Farrah Fawcett was the next to join; filling the blonde role, but then the producers dropped the hair color concept and brought in Jaclyn Smith to complete the trio. Many of the scenes used in the opening credits of the show are from this pilot episode. Then in the fall of September of 1976 ABC introduce the three stunning, sexy and young former police officers, private detectives working for the Charles Townsend Detective Agency with the entire crew back except David Ogden Stiers. In the opening sequence of the first season no one knew where the Angels went to the police academy. The wealthy Charlie Townsend, their never-seen boss, relayed assignments via a speaker telephone. The Angels worked with their trusty male counter-part, John Bosley. After only 23 episodes, Farrah left the show at the end of the first season. When Farrah Fawcett left the series, her absence was explained by having her character Jill become a professional racing driver on the NASCAR circuit. Along with a new Angel, the show received a new time slot. The Angels remained on Wednesday nights, but moved from 10pm to 9pm. This change in time opened up a whole world of new viewers who wanted to know what the big fuss was all about and kept the "Angels" right where they belong - on top of the ratings! The 1977-1978 season ended with high ratings, proved that Kris, Cheryl Ladd, was every bit as popular with the viewers as Farrah. In the 1979-1980 season, the answer came with Shelley Hack, a model who had been prominent in Revlon's "Charlie" Perfume ads and commercials. Shelley entered The Townsend Office as Tiffany Welles, an Ivy League scholar who also was a graduate from the Boston Police Academy. Spelling and Goldberg had the idea that with this new Angel/model at the helm, she could bring an elegant and classy touch to Charlie's trio! Kate Jackson's absence was explained by having Sabrina getting married and starting a family. The writers treaded lightly as they tried to figure out how to make Tiffany Welles the new "Sabrina Duncan". The 1979-1980 seasons' problem was the sudden decline in ratings. The series found itself in the top 20's instead of the top 10 were it had been for the last three years. The ratings drop was directed at the new Angel and at the end of the season, Shelley was let go of her detective duties. Thus, beginning, for another hunt for a new Angel! By 1980, Charlie's Angels was beginning to feel its age and was declining fast. Aaron Spelling and Leonard Goldberg wanted to go with a fresh new image. After careful consideration, they decided to hire virtually unknown actress, Tanya Roberts. This time around, the character would be a model-turned-detective, street-smart Julie Rogers. The new Angel showed her face in the three-hour 1980-1981 season premiere on November 30, 1980. High hopes were placed on Charlie's newest Angel to pull the series out its failing ratings. To help give it an added boost, the Angels were sent to Hawaii for the first six episodes. Hawaii wasn't only chosen to intrigue the audience but to keep the Angels scantily clad in swimsuits! Charlie's opening monologue has now undergone a complete overhaul. It begins, "Once upon a time, there were three beautiful girls. Two of them graduated from the police academy. The other graduated from a top school for models. And they each reaped the rewards of their exciting careers Bosley looks over brochures of Hawaii in anticipation of the Angels' possible assignment there. Charlie arranges for Julie to receive a probationary investigator's license and begin working with Kris and Kelly. Unfortunately, at this point, the audience was no longer keeping up with the Angels antics. In February 1981, the show went on hiatus and wasn't shown again until June of 1981. Charlie's Angels was not winning any viewers in the summer of '81 with its remaining episodes. The show that had made women crime fighters popular during the 1970's was taken off the air. Charlie's Angels was a huge success the moment it hit the airwaves in 1976. The Angels were on gum cards, doll boxes, T-shirts, board games, puzzles and posters. If you wanted to hire the Angels you had to call the office phone number was 555-0267. Kelly Garrett (Jaclyn Smith) was the only Angel to last the entire series. Kelly was an orphan. John Forsythe' was never on the set - his voice was recorded, and dubbed in later. The Angels all drove Ford automobiles. Jill (and later Kris) drove a Cobra, Kelly drove a Mustang, and Sabrina drove a Pinto. For the record, Bosley drove a Ford L.T.D. Although Charlie was never heard, he did actually appear in a couple of episodes, but his face was never shown. Kelly is the only Angel to have been shot throughout the run of the show. Sabrina was the only Angel that was previously married. She was married to a fellow officer when she was still a cop but the marriage ended in divorce.


Farrah Fawcett was a huge part of the shows initial success. Some people may not remember that and want to re-write history or not give credit where it is due. No matter what your preference that is a fact. It was Farrah that sold 12 million copies of her poster. She is an American Icon. She brought a certain sexiness and charisma to the character of Jill Munroe. I was disappointed when she did not return to the series but ecstatic when she did the guest spots. Cheryl Ladd was absolutely the best choice to play Kris and saved the show. Jaclyn is a goddess and Kate is striking in her own right. Shelley Hack was a model before the show and added a scholarly feel to her character. And Tanya was just gorgeous. A great show, that I enjoy today. Farrah is my favorite actress so I am partial to Jill but I like them all. I am so thrilled to hear that Farrah has won her fight against cancer. I can't wait to see her beautiful face on TV again. Farrah Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!


Charlie's Angels has became one of my all time favourite TV programmes since May of this year(2003). My family and friends think I'm really mad cos I'm always taping the episodes and watch them over and over again. Even as I'm typing I'm watching Charlie's Angels: "Counterfiet Angels"

The show concentrates on three women fighting crime, under dangerous circumstances and going in deep to catch the culprit. what makes the show good is that it can have you gripped to whats going to happen and also have you laughing.

Furthermore what makes it a great drama is the strong cast and the characters that they play. Each character brings something to Charlie's Angels, allowing for different aspects of their profiles to help in the capturing. Jill Munroe (Farrah Fawcet)is the sporty athletic angel, who makes the other worry sometimes with her actions. Sabrina Duncun (Kate Jackson) is the smart angel, who brings ideas to the team and can handle her own. Kelly Garret (Jaclyn Smith) is street - wise and tough angel, however she is also really sensitive. Kris Muntoe (Cheryl Ladd) is the rookie angel, given many different strange covers and whose emotions heightens when the person hurt involves friends and sibling. In addition the closeness between the characters allows for strong emotion and adds to the storyline.

Not only the girls add to the storyline, Bosley and Charlie also add unique points. Charlie's assistant John Bosley always bothered about where the money is coning from, being given the sometime not so glamorous covers and being confused adds humour to series. Charlie's character adds some wit, with the fact that he goes to lengths never seen by the angels, no matter how much they try. Although i find character somewhat less appealing with his fascination with woman, to be exact beautiful women, a different one each week. I was glad when it came to the later seasons that they played down this aspect of his character.

In my opinion the best seasons are two and three, maybe its partly because when i started watching it it was these seasons that i saw, but i do prefer Kris Munroe to Jill Munroe .

I would also like to add, that if you base watching the films on the programmes then you might be disappointed.Although the general idea is still there, the modernised version has certainly made it more male orientated with a lot of the scenes, especially the "Bay Watch" scene in film two.


I was 7 when Charlie's Angels first aired, little did I think that 30 years later, I would still be talking about the Angels. The show captured the imagination of this nation and the world. It had glamorous settings, exquisite fashions, beautiful women, and intriguing often ground breaking plots. All these things were a part of the Charlie's Angels phenomena, and yet the key for me has always been the relationship of the three main characters. This was a true team of friends who didn't resort to the stereotypical cat fights that most women on TV often get into. They were three equals who depended on one another with confidence. Yes, they were beautiful and they used their sexuality, but they did so with brains and courage. I consider myself lucky to have grown up with the Angels as my role models, a girl could do a lot worse. The plots may have been silly but the relationships were genuine.


I grew up watching "Charlie's Angels" on ABC when it was a primetime series! I watched it until the very last episode! Many people may say this show was silly but it is pure fun! I loved this show as a kid and now am taping all the episodes on TVLAND! Of coarse the best cast of angels was the original(Kate, Farrah and Jaclyn) but Cheryl Ladd was an excellent replacement for Farrah and in some ways, I consider Cheryl an "original" Angel, as she fit-in perfectly and stayed with the series until it's cancellation, along with Jaclyn Smith. I think the series went downhill when Kate Jackson left. It just wasn't the same. Kate added a great character and is a great actress and was kind of the "leader" of the bunch! WHen Shelly Hack replaced her, it was a bad choice! Shelly Hack is a horrible actress. When Tanya Roberts replaced Ms. Hack, the series picked-up again! Tanya should have been the original replacement for Kate. But by the time Tanya came on, the ratings had dropped because of Shelly Hack and it was over! Too bad as the storylines got better in it's final season and Tanya was great! One thing: WHY didn't they update the cars? I mean, THAT RED PINTO! UUUG!


I love the Charlie's Angels just like you do. When I lived in Hong Kong I recorded all the episodes on to VHS and have since placed on DVD-R. Now that Seasons 1, 2 and 3 are out, rumors are that 4 and 5 will never be released because of trouble with Spelling and Robert Wagner. If you love to chat about Angels, email me and let's talk or if you want to know about seasons 4 and 5 I can tell you about them. Are they beautiful or what!! The season opener is Love Boat Angels which is really cool, and then they have more episodes in Hawaii. Then Jill (Farrah) has three more episodes in season 4, Fallen Angel, The Prince & The Angel, An Angel's Trail. These have been lost. Let's Chat, just call me Bosley. He was the luckiest man in the world.


The '70's was a golden age for U.S. television with groundbreaking shows such as 'Roots', 'Holocaust', 'M.A.S.H.' and 'All In The Family'. Created by Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts, 'Charlie's Angels' was a huge step backwards. Even as a testosterone-fuelled teenager, I found it both mindless and demeaning to women. Very much a male creation.

The 'Angels' were three ex-policewomen recruited by a mysterious individual named 'Charlie' ( John Forsythe ) for covert missions. You can see how this idea happened. "Hey, guys!", some hot-shot executive probably yelled one day over an expensive lunch: "Why don't we do 'Mission: Impossible' with an all-girl cast?".

If the 'Angels' had been strong characters, fine. But they were bimbos. Nobody could act, the violence was cartoon-like, the marshmallow theme tune made my teeth itch, and the Identikit plots rarely rose above the tenth-rate.

Each week, the animated 'Barbie' dolls which composed three-quarters of the regular cast went undercover to trap some one-dimensional villain, which of course was nothing more than a pathetic excuse to get them into make-up and sexy clothes.

Farrah Fawcett was the first to jump ship. She later matured into a fine actress. Cheryl Ladd was her replacement. Her debut episode featured one of the most ridiculous scenes ever broadcast on television - Ms.Ladd stripping naked in the middle of a street so as to gain entry to an exclusive nudist camp, while an elderly security guard chortled with glee.

The girls came and went, but the show's entertainment value remained zero. It is amazingly now regarded in some quarters as a proto-feminist tract. 'Cagney & Lacey' it was definitely not!


Best robot film ever. This really is a great film, which shows how a machine who strangely is endowed with creativity, thought and awareness unlike other robots, strives to become more than he is. This is a great film and very much about family life, emotions, what it means to be human, and trying to better oneself through both serving others and learning with others about oneself. If you ever wanted to be more than you are then watch this film. This is not so much a film about robots or sci-fi, but a film about life and humanity and relationships, love and family. The robots and sci-fi are just a scenario which allows us to explore ourselves more as humans and wonder about our existence.


This movie surprised me. Having been a fan of Issac Asimov for many years I thought that this adaptation with Chris Columbus at the helm would be terrible. I was wrong. Some may complain that this movie is too long and slow, but I would wager that their attention spans are somewhat lacking. If you are looking for a high action movie with robots then you have come to the wrong place. If you are looking for a sci-fi based romantic comedy about the personal growth of one man...er robot, then this is the movie. The comedy was well written and well played, appropriately placed in each moment. AS for the character of Andrew(Robin Williams), though he is supposed to be a robot you really connect with his character and sense his growth over time. Unlike A.I. his character learns and grows and has real not fabricated emotional attachments. I give this movie an 8 or 9. Very good.


Firstly, i have not read Asimov's book and therefore cannot remark on any errors in translation from book to film.

I have read many of the comments posted here on the IMDb, but fail to see why so many people feel the need to mention that the world is perceived as perfect in the the future, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, the fact is, it's not important. This movie quite simply follows the life of a man trapped in a robots body and his quest to be accepted in the world, and be allowed to love and cherish the people close to him.

I have to say that i didn't expect much from this movie, i thought it would be a kids film, full of typical Robin Williams style laughs, i was way off in my assumption. This is probably Robin Williams's best performance and it is a very emotional journey through change and development of the human condition.

Overall the film is quite amusing, very touching and is full of realistic characters all very well cast to not overshadow 'Andrew' as he quests over 200 years for acceptance.

A great movie 9/10


Most people who have seen this movie are of the opinion that it was average at best. Indeed there is no complicated plot, no big action scenes and a predictable ending but there is a Story. It's Andrew with his Box of Chocolats, simply going through life searching for what eludes him and what we generally take for granted - humanity. The characters along the way are well acted - in particular the robot creator and his ditsy assistant. This movie is a tear jerker as Andrew's friends come and go and lifetimes pass him by without him really comprehending it all. The only real failings were the large gaps in time and how Andrew came about - but then it's difficult to compress 200 years into 1 1/2 hours. If you enjoyed Azimov's books as much as I did, then this movie is for you. Far better in my opinion than IA or I Robot who also took their cues from Azimov.


I heaven't read the book, but BICENTENNIAL MAN is a very touching and heartwarming movie about a house-robot (Robert Williams) that begins a 200-year journey to become and to be legally recognized as a human. During his journey, he has to face the fact and live with it that all loved ones around him grow older and eventually die while he is immortal.

I think that this was one of Robin Williams' best performances ever, if not the best. He proves that he can either play a 'funny wacky' character but also a serious character that will touch the hearts of the viewers. And this movie does just that.

I like the purity and the innocence of the story and I wonder why this movie has such a low rating. It's a must see for all open minded people.


BICENTENNIAL MAN (1999) ***

Starring: Robin Williams, Sam Neill, Wendy Crewson, Embeth Davidtz, and Oliver Platt Directed by Chris Columbus. Running Time: 133 minutes. Rated PG (for mild language and some sex-related material)

By Blake French:

	Chris Columbus is very good at directing tearjerkers. He has a history of constructing such movies as "Stepmom" and "Mrs. Doubtfire." "Bicentennial Man" is being misadvertised as a humble family comedy. Although it starts out unsatisfying, the film gradually becomes more and more penetrating as we discover the film is really about inner emotions, the changing of times, how people change over time, and the meaning of life from an original point of view. "Bicentennial Man" is a sweet, touching production with lots of heart and a shapely message.

	At first "Bicentennial Man" looks to be about a futuristic family who buys an android robot that is supposed to do housework and serve them. The family of four includes two children, one named Little Miss, and the parents who are called by the name of Sir and Ma'am. They adopt Andrew expecting him to be similar to all the other androids in the area. Nearly every household has one. However, Sir soon notices certain features about Andrew that make him unique, different from any other android he has ever seen. Andrew occupies creativity and emotional personality, elements that these robots are presumed not to contain.

	The film doesn't contain a good an introduction to the family who adopts Andrew, which is mainly the reason why I was never entirely concerned for the characters. But the reasoning behind the lack of focus on the family is due to the fact that "Bicentennial Man" isn't about the family who buys Andrew, but a narrative of Andrew himself.

	A running flaw in the film is our foundering curiosity that only grows more ponderous as the script progresses. The audience desires more information about why Andrew is so different from the other robots. There are obvious reasons, sure, but what I wanted was an explanation of why he is special. A lust for information that is never appropriately granted.

The film skips ahead a generation or so. Sir and Ma'am age and Little Miss grows to be a full grown woman. Many things change for Andrew. He begins to wonder what lies beyond the likes of his household. He longs for emotional reactions to take place on his face and the concept of freedom. Sir has taught Andrew about death, sex, love, humor, and time. He gradually wants more and more independence. This is where Andrew starts becoming interested in turning from a mechanical being to a biological being.

	The age advancing make-up is believable and awe-inducing. I could hardly trust my eyes that Sam Neill wasn't an old man in the movie. However, although I can see that the filmmakers had no other reliable option, I disliked the jumps in time the it takes. The time gaps force us out of massive plot pieces, some of which are important to the character development.

	There are some really funny moments in "Bicentennial Man." Most of them appear when the picture becomes a bit emotionally heavy, in order to relieve such tension in the audience. This is a wise choice in the writer's part; the viewers who do mistake this movie as a family comedy will gain some satisfaction from these insulated humorous moments.

	I wanted more information on how the robot Andrew gradually becomes ''human.'' I felt cheated out of a lot of decent, noteworthy material here. I felt this way because the scenes where we do have the privilege to see Andrew reinvented are wonderfully inventive and interesting. The film should have leaned towards that material a little more.

	The movie features super charged performances by the entire cast. Robin Williams offers an emotionally accurate acting job that brings the confusion and imagination of the android Andrew to life. The supporting cast is also filled with fine performances with Sam Neill, Wendy Crewson, Embeth Davidtz, and Oliver Platt.

	Even though I can admit that "Bicentennial Man" contains several flawed motives, I still was a little surprised that the film opened to many negative reviews. This isn't a bad movie, just a differently anticipated one. The movie sets up its effective conclusion from the very beginning; it is the only logical climax for such a story. Although it leaves viewers with a sense of well-being, I thought it posed too many spiritual and biological questions. Overall, however, the movie is a well-depicted idea that deserves more appreciation from audiences than its receiving.

Brought to you by Touchstone Pictures and Columbia Pictures.


For Ray Bradbury the masterwork of perfect poignance is Drink Entire: Against the Madness of Crowds. For Isaac Asimov it is Bicentennial Man. Only Asimov could remake Pinocchio as compelling science fiction. So many have tried to create a sweet and funny story of the machine that would be man, but this is it's perfect telling.

Only Robin Williams could play the unlikely hero of this story with perfect comedic timing and perfect emotional pitch. Embeth Davidtz as his leading lady matches his skills at every turn, and Sam Neill turns in one his best performances as the man who first recognized the irreplaceable uniqueness of his mistuned android.

Bicentennial Man is first rate science fiction  without physical conflict, without wars, without new ways to incinerate each other. In the end, it makes you glad to be a messy human. Watching this truly beautiful film is a wonderful way to spend an evening, and a guarantor of better dreams than you've had in many years.


Isaac Asimov, scientist, anthropologist, and philosopher all in one, thought of this Robotic subject beyond the mere joy of fantastic possibilities of computer technology -- it's a more encompassing inquiry to what if a Robot thinks, feels, loves, and yes, wants to be accepted as a human, the imperfections and all!

This Chris Columbus directed movie, with the ever-eloquent Robin Williams, and radiant double deliveries (two character portrayals) by Embeth Davidtz, is not the usual Robin Williams comedy fare. It's not "Flubber" or "Mrs. Doubtfire"; it's a philosophical fable at best. It's the reverse of John Boorman's "Zardoz" (1973), where man wanting to be eternally youthful -- here, Robot Andrew (Robin Williams) does not want to be immortal. He wants to experience and feel life, and with a beloved human companion.

This Robotic journey spanning decades, gives us life lessons, prompts us to think reflectively on questions of life and living, growing old and resignation to death. The point filtered through Portia (Embeth Davidtz) that being human is to risk and make mistakes/wrong decisions, hearkens to a quote by John Cage: "Computers are always right, but life isn't about being right."

Film score is by James Horner ("Legends of the Fall", "Braveheart", "Titanic"). Location shots include San Francisco landmarks with added air transport images (likened to "The Fifth Element") in a futuristic sky. There are no explosive actions or flying bullets, it's an immortal tale about the acceptance of being a mortal human.


This film is absolutely outstanding. Forget the reviews of the critics who seem to love bashing films, this is a tremendous, epic film with such a great heart that explores the values and meaning of humanity and life in general. I saw it for the first time in ages today and its still as touching as the first time I saw it a few years ago. In fact I remember it being shown on a plane I was on the year it came out and I watched the first 5 minutes on a screen with poor picture and sound and remember thinking it was just cheesy family comedy which just plays for humor and nothing else. When I first saw it a few years later when there was nothing else on I was completely blown away by it. It was the complete opposite of what I was thought it was originally. This film does have its humor and that humor is often hilarious in parts, but thats because its delivered so brilliantly by Williams who plays his character to perfection. More importantly it is not supposed to be a comedy. Its a drama and features brilliant performances from an underrated cast including Williams, Sam Neill, Embeth Davditz and Oliver Platt among others.

The film is also outstanding from a technical perspective. The futuristic cities, buildings and vehicles look fabulous along with the new household appliances, but the most important thing that really steals the show is the Script and Direction from Kazan and Columbus respectively. I will certainly be watching more of Kazan's films in the future and already thought he did a great job on Matilda beforehand. I've always been an admirer of Columbus and this has to be his best film to date. His vision of the film is splendid and I applaud him for bringing such a brilliant set of actors and sets together to make such an epic and unforgettable film.

For most of my reviews for films, I don't like commenting too much on the plot, but here I feel the need to because it touched me so much and the plot helps explain why this happened. It is about a Robot that over 200 years, learns about humanity and seeks to be a part of it. At the beginning its more of a comedy as the robot (who's called Andrew) gets used to the way humans are and learns about simple well known things in life i.e Laughter, Sex, Family Life and Change.

But further on as he becomes close to the youngest in the family, he learns more about love and how life is. I sympathised with him as he has to witness this and we follow him as he experiences the deaths of the people closest to him. I felt for him due to him being unable to experience these things like we do. Throughout the film I felt (although the critics certainly didn't and many here probably don't) all these things and became closer and closer to him as he constantly never gives up hope on becoming a human. I found it very emotional and I actually appreciated many of my abilities that I as a human have. To love, to cry, to experience changes, to reproduce, watch my children to grow up, to get older and to eventually move onto another life. As Andrew learns about all these things and begins to want them I really did feel for him like I say because I would find it incredibly hard to live if I was like that.

SPOILER Having witnessed the ups and downs of Andrew's life throughout the film and his epic journey to finally become a human being, by the end of the film Andrew has managed to fully achieve this. He is fully human and unfortunately misses this declaration by a few seconds. But he didn't need to like his lover Porscha (His closest family member's granddaughter) says. He has done it. He has found the love he's wanted all those many years with her and he won't have to experience the sadness of watching things change ever again. He has moved onto another life like we're all destined to do and Porscha decides to join him. END OF SPOILER

Basically, after seeing this film I did learn just how lucky I am to possess all these extraordinary and unique abilities and I don't believe it is just an accident or coincidence. We each have a destiny and I believe God wants us all to experience these things in life and I'm grateful to be here today and will certainly not be taking any of them for granted.

I really think that that this film with a rating of just 6.1 and with the harsh and very unfair criticism its got from critics has to be the most underrated misunderstood film ever made. The film is not really in my opinion a family comedy although it unfortunately has been marketed that way. Its a drama about humanity with bits of comedy that should be watched by anyone of any age. I believe it can help people to become, like me, much more grateful for things we as humans perhaps take for granted in life.

I thank you for reading this review and advise you to watch this film and prepare to be moved in a way I don't think any film has done or ever could do.

10/10 Not my favourite film of all time but certainly in my Top 5. Stunning.


Chris Columbus has another hit on his hands. Robin Williams gives his usual first rate performance, along with Sam Neil and Embeth Davidtz. They highlight a well cast movie that will pull at your heart strings more than once, in a tale written by Isaac Asimov that brings a lot of human emotion to this science fiction piece.


This movie was a joyful and moving experience for me. It was so profoundly moving that by the end I wondered why it took me nine years to get around to seeing it! There wasn't much fanfare about this movie when it played in theaters, probably because of its languid pace and its romantic atmosphere. It is a movie about a robot's search for an identity, but at the same time it is about love, aging, individuality, and even greed. The movie also succeeds in creating spellbinding images of the weddings and the romantic dances. It was also exciting to watch the visions of the world in the 22nd and 23rd centuries but at the same time, the nuts and bolts aspects were deftly restrained (other movies set years in the future, such as The Fifth Element sometimes go gaudily overboard in depicting the future). Andrew's romance with Portia was also touching and believable though I did not think about this while the movie ran. Overall, this is one of the best science fiction movies I have ever seen and one of Robin William's best performances. I would love to read an interview with him about it. He would probably say that the performance was exhilarating but emotionally exhausting.


It never fails to amaze me, how some people either don't want to or simply do not get what a movie is about. This movie is not about robots, the future, or science fiction. It is about that which is most basic, and yet often, most overlooked by all of us. Life, living, our short time in the scheme of the grander scale of things. It deals with some of the most elemental, and difficult, issues we ultimately most face in our lives. We want to be happy,we want a sense of purpose, we want to feel we belong, we want to feel loved.

I have seen A.I. as well, and the it shares many of the same themes laid out in this film. I only hope, and pray, mans' vanity and blind ambition never produce a machine that truly achieves sentient thought. The profound, deep, and inconsolable sadness and grief it would suffer as it deals with seeing all whom it cares about slowly pass away and leave it lonely would surely be a torment beyond any ability to conceive.


I was in an extended stay in the hospital when this movie was released. Indeed I did not know it had been made until several years later when I saw the video of Celine Dion's "Then You Look at Me", and recognized the scenes as being from the short story by Isaac Asimov.

I immediately rented the video.

This is the finest "Robot" movie ever, touching and funny. It remains faithful, in spirit if not detail, to the original story. Excellent acting by all. I do not understand why it flopped. Screen adaptations of Asimov's stories haven't always worked (eg. Nightfall both versions), but this one does


I adore this movie and have watched it over and over again. It continues to hold my attention every single time. The storyline is lovely and very moving. How Andrew forms a very close bond to Little Miss and Sir is enchanting. I thought the clothes chosen for the film were perfect - Portia's ball gown was absolutely stunning and the music throughout was wonderful! The character of Andrew played by the brilliant fantastic Robin Williams is absolutely delightful. Robin is a superb actor and I have just finished reading his autobiography. In my eyes everything he touches turns to gold. I totally love this film and will watch it forever!!


Warning: Depending on your definition of "spoilers", there might be a spoiler here. Tread carefully.

Like most other reviewers, I could not help but notice how "perfect" the future was, yet how much it resembled the 20th century. However, all that, IMO, is irrelevant to the plot.

Now, I haven't read Asimov's book (as a matter of fact, I had no idea this movie was based on a book till I logged on to IMDb), but even if I had, I wouldn't go in with the highest expectations, knowing how Hollywood mucks things up.

My parents, who have already watched this film, praised it quite highly, but my sister trashed it as boring. I went in with mediocre expectations, particularly because I don't have much affinity for movies dealing with artificial intelligence.

I was pleasantly surprised by the plot. Perhaps it's just me, but I really felt I could actually relate to the robot. I didn't care that it was Robin Williams. I didn't care the future was totally unrealistic. In a sense, I think I related to Andrew because of my personality; I'm awkward in social situations, and am always utterly agreeable.

I probably fell for the plot like a sucker, but I liked falling for it. Whatever superficial goofs the movie made were more than made up for me by the story, which I found brilliantly beautiful. I really cannot think of adjectives that would sufficiently describe it, but.... it's just something that really appealed to me.

Besides the similarities I found between myself and Andrew, I think I was also touched by many elements of the plot; independence, freedom, recognition, a spurned love...

And the philosophical issues, most imperatively. I've always enjoyed pondering the moral issues surrounding robots, immortality, and so on. I think that's probably what drew me in. Watching the people Andrew loved die was probably the part of the film that touched me most, because I'm a very nostalgic person at heart - I love recalling past incidents, people I knew... and I felt Andrew's pain at losing the people he loved most.

A lot of reviewers criticised this movie for its unrealistic portrayal of the future, its failure to properly adapt Asimov's book (from what I've heard about it, it does sound like a great pity, as the book seems more powerful), hell, even the music played.

But none of that stuff really matters to me. The story was quite philosophical, with all the touches of sentimentality that make me melt like butter in a frying pan. This movie is probably one of the most touching and brilliant dramas I've watched, outdoing A Beautiful Mind, my previous most favourite drama. Neither films are without flaws, but the stories, which is what a movie is about, are beautiful.


This movie is severely underrated and was very badly marketed as a family comedy. This is a drama about trying to fit in, discovering reasons for living, true love and the human condition. Sure it has its funny scenes but it's incidental to the rest. The characters, the robot in particular, are profoundly likable (ok, with a few exceptions ;) and I won't mention how or why, but it had truly beautiful moments, both small and big. One of the movies where I identified the most with the hero and shed the most tears throughout and making me cry is very hard to do. I might love this movie for the emotional impact but I was fascinated by several other aspects including the robotics and the passage of time. Robin Williams was great in this role.

Rating: 9 out of 10


Personally, I thought this film was brilliant! When I first saw it a few years back I admit that I didn't like it much, it seemed rather stupid to think that a robot could 'become' human, but on viewing it again years later, I can safely say that I missed the whole point of this film.

Andrew is a robot to begin with, but one with feelings and the ability to learn. He wants to learn, wants to talk, wants to create, and through some mistake when he was being created he can. His unique ability, mixed with his owners kindness and help allow him to grow up like a real human, by learning, having memories, caring about his family etc.

This film shows Andrew's aim to become human, and follows his life from when he first became the 'machine' of the Martin family, to when he finally fell in love with their youngest daughters grand child, and becomes human to die beside her on their death beds.

It is a sad movie, with a few tear jerking parts (especailly at the end) and it asks a lot of questions which we don't often think about, like can robots have feelings, can they love, and can they become human? In the end, what does defy whether you are a human or not, is it being born with the right, or can you earn the title.

This is a definite 5 for me. true, it is a very long film and the start can drag on a bit, but it is a beautiful tale that I believe everyone should watch at least once.


The year i saw this film i was awed by the aspiring vision of what possible immortality could achieve. Seeing Robin Williams in a robotic role such as this,gave a point of view on the world even though he did not realize it in the first place. His family Being loving and caring although one daughter thought otherwise,gave the audience heart,devotion,and a push towards one doing better,or at least becoming the best a person can be. Through the ages of two hundred years,Andrew martin has seen and done it all,to be human to others as he was thriving to be recognized as such. The splendor and special effects was top rate although done not too complicated,which gave a crystal clear view of the surroundings. Streets with people dressed to accommodate the day,with flying transit cars or buildings so clean you can eat off of them. Using a clean fun environment was a beautiful sight to,rather than seeing gutters littered with derelicts,and yet in this movie no such thing exists. I have to say the thought of no villains or chase scenes or bad guys with guns was a fresh approach. I thoroughly enjoyed this film in its entirety,as for death scenes well all i can say its a part of life that everyone must endure in their lives sooner or later. Kids would understand about the meaning of life since a person named Andrew martin has shown them,that even androids come to a decision about their existence and why its important to take the love you feel for another with you. This film is meant for the entire family,its a wonderful teaching tool about life,love,feelings,friends,and family. As one becomes human,so does one become whole.


Do not pass this off simply as a children's movie. Few notice looking at the movie poster that "Bicentennial Man" was actually written by Isaac Asimov, biochemist, Columbia graduate, and noted science fiction author. The film is actually much deeper in meaning than trailers suggested, posing the question of what it truly means to be human. This notion is tied in with a heartwarming story and the perfect cast of actors, making the movie accessible to all audiences.


This comment contains nothing that may spoil any point of the movie for it is really a movie that should not be spoiled for anyone.I'm glad it wasn't spoiled for me. For even though it is not a fancy movie and may not be put on a list of the 100 best movies of all time ( even though it'll go on mine)It is a heartfelt and a heart warming movie till the end. But i will say this. It WILL make you laugh and it WILL make you cry, As any good movie should have the power to do. But.... It will also make you do 2 more very important things.

For it will make you wonder, not quite knowing is this man or machine and which should i feel for, and should i feel anything. Most importantly it will make you thank GOD for the gift of life and humanity that he has bestowed on us all, for forever nothing can be compared to human life. Enjoy :o)


I haven't seen many films that have made me laugh out loud, I haven't seen many films that have brought tears to my eyes and I can't recall one film that did both, several times during its course. Far from being 'just' another sci-fi extravaganza with robots and androids, this is a very human story.


I think this was a wonderful movie for any person who likes a good romance story and science fiction. It blends the two together very well to create a wonderful story line. Robin Williams was excellent, as usual, in his portrayal of an android. Although a little more on the serious side, his wit and humor still shown through. I would recommend this movie to my friends.


2008 update: We recently watched it again, and it was almost as fresh as the first viewing. A really fine movie.

CAUTION -- MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS --

I put this film roughly in the same category as "Pleasantville" and "The Truman Show", in that they require you to suspend disbelief to show how, ultimately, it is better to really live and love then die, rather than live a "perfect" and protected life. I rate all of these "8" of 10.

"Bicentennial Man" starts in 2005, and a new robot, an Android they name "Andrew", is delivered to an obviously well-off family. But Andrew is a "defective" robot. He is not only infinitely intelligent, being able to read and memorize everything, learn to play piano, carve beautiful figures from wood, etc., but he also develops "feelings", which none of the other robots do. Robin Williams plays the robot beautifully, and is "in costume" most of the film.

Eventually Andrew realizes that everyone he cares about leaves him - they die. But he is determined to not accept that. First he sets out and wanders all over, for years, searching for another like him. There are none. Returning "home", he meets up with who he thinks is "Little Miss" (Embeth Davidtz), but she doesn't recognize him. Because she is really Portia, a spitting image of her grandmother, "Little Miss". That's how long he has been gone.

Andrew had been in love with Little Miss when she married 50 or so years earlier, but as just an android could do nothing about it. He falls in love with young Portia and this time is determined. Somewhere in all this, I forget exactly where, he asks for his "freedom", not that he wants to leave, or quit serving, but he has learned that freedom is a basic need that all people with feeling desire. He ends up moving away and building his own house along the coast.

He finds a workshop of the son of an android pioneer. Andrew first asks to be made to look like a human, so is given a human-looking covering, which then has him looking like Robin Williams. Over the years Andrew invents various ways to make him closer and closer to being human, including a central nervous system so he can "feel", and the ability to eat and drink. (Funny scene, in bed with Portia, his stomach growls, then he farts, is surprised, says "I'll need to have him make me a muffler.") He also invents many replacement organs that become in widespread use among humans.

He goes before the "council" of SanFrancisco to be declared human. No luck. Much later, around age 200, he has had further "modifications" which now results in his aging, and wearing out, along with Portia. He goes before the "world council", and on his and Portia's deathbeds, sees via TV that he is finally "human", then he dies, and Portia asks the nurse to "pull the plug."

The whole 2-hour film is filled with funny dialog, funny scenes, and interesting insights. But this film is not, strictly speaking, a "comedy". It is definitely a serious film, with a real message, but is very entertaining - the novelty is use of a "futuristic" Android who wants to become human. Robin Williams again does a wonderful job creating a one-of-a-kind character.

If you want to look at this film as a "nit-picker" you can find many little flaws within it. But to focus on that is missing the point entirely. Why even view the film, in that case, because we know there will be no such robots, at least not by 2005? For me, the film works very well and I will remember it for a long time.


The concept of this film is one that hits on one of the secret concerns of people involved with robotic technology, will the machine take over from the human. Robin Williams portrayed the role in going from the machine to showing that there were feelings evolving, and brilliantly, I must say. Using a future time base was smart, removed, but still the possibility being there! A question is left - IS IT POSSIBLE??


I just saw this movie for the first time on cable and absolutely loved it! I don't understand how it could have bombed at the box office. This movie looks in-depth at human relationships and the impact of our decisions on others. Robin Williams as usual does an incredible job of portraying the robot who acts human and wishes to look the part. Hallie Kate Eisenberg is just as adorable as always and does a wonderful job in her first movie part. I encourage anyone who has yet to see this movie to rent it or catch it on TV. It really captures the emotions of the characters and leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy. Happy watching!


Not a perfect movie, and some of the other critical comments are valid (except for the brainless kiddies who were expecting laser guns and Wookies chasing bad guys). However, after giving it some thought I rated it pretty high.

Robin Williams was in many ways the perfect choice for the lead, and did a fine job. I am a big Asimov fan and have always rated the I, ROBOT series as top-grade SF. I haven't read the series in 20 years, but I think this is sticks close to the books, and certainly in general thought and purpose. I believe Isaac would have liked this. Some of the criticism stemmed from condensing so much into slightly over 2 hours. Would it have worked better as a miniseries? Yes, and I wished it could have been done that way; unfortunately the money just isn't there in the multi-part series films so they're seldom done, except when the "owner" (such as Stephen King) has enough clout to insist. Hollywood is a business driven strictly by cost-to-return ratio and almost NEVER by art, except in rare cases where someone with enough money or power can insist -- and the big return is in short crappy films requiring little thought and having lots of action and sex to keep the average viewer (roughly equivalent to a crow or a hamster) interested until the two-hour limit of his attention span.

This being said, BICENTENNIAL MAN is the best we can get from Hollywood on a piece like this. Is it a disservice to Asimov's writing? Yes -- but movies always are. I was grateful that it was as good as it was -- which was extremely good -- and not the usual worthless hack job.

Keep in mind the limitations of the Hollywood system (and the deteriorated intellectual state of modern filmgoers) and I think you'll agree that this was an exceptionally fine effort.

Most people will like this movie a lot. Sci Fi, and especially Asimov fans, will be very pleased at the careful attention to the Master's finest creation.


Don't be surprised if you have never heard of "Melvin and Howard" because most people haven't. But if the chance comes up to watch it then grab it. It's a true american classic involving a down on his luck man (Paul Le Mat, so great as Milner in "American Graffiti") who gives a ride to an injured hitchhiker in the desert that turns out to be none other than Howard Hughes (Jason Robards, who is brilliant in a small, understated performance). Years later after Hughes has died Melvin learns he is in Hughes' will. The only problem is that there is no will to be found.

Mary Steenburgen won as Oscar as Melvin's kooky first wife. The scene where she appears on a game show is priceless. This is a sweet and very funny slice of life movie directed by Jonathan Demme who went on to many fine films such as "Silence of the Lambs." This is a true classic. Don't miss it.


"Melvin and Howard" is one of those maybe-true-maybe-not stories. Working class Melvin Dummar (Paul LeMat) finds along the road a scraggly old man (Jason Robards) who may or may not be Howard Hughes. When Hughes leaves Melvin a sum of money, Hughes' family fights it.

Yes, it sounds like a rather plain story, but director Jonathan Demme knows how to make it interesting. Mary Steenburgen won an Oscar for her role as Melvin's wife Lynda; she adds an interesting dimension to the film, confused by her husband's unexpected fortune, but doing everything possible to keep her life together. Quirky, but something that you won't want to miss.


This movie left me feeling like I had been taken advantage of. I was expecting a movie about how a chance interaction with an eccentric millionaire, Howard Hughes, can change a persons life or at least have some small effect on a person. This was not the case. ******** SPOILER ******** The movie starts out teasing the audience by showing us a small glimpse of the sad condition of this once great man had ascended to, but then it's over, poof. Nothing profound, or earth shaking takes place in the small time Melvin spends with Howard and then the rest of the movie was all about Melvin. I would not have minded this too much had Melvin's life been at least marginally interesting, but unless average and mundane are what you are into, don't bother watching this con job. I would not recommend this movie if you are a Howard Hughes fan, or even a little bit interested in him. You will be disappointed. I do recommend this movie if you are a fan of Melvin what's his name...

Added Note: Howard Hughes left an estate estimated at $2 billion. Four hundred prospective heirs tried to inherit it but it eventually went to twenty-two cousins on both sides of his family.


Winning combination of scattershot comedy and wry, wistful drama tells the (alleged) true story of a milkman with big dreams and no money who is curiously named a recipient in the will of multi-millionaire Howard Hughes. Melvin Dummar (played by Paul LeMat, in a terrific performance) had been saying all along he once helped out an old guy in the desert near Las Vegas who claimed he was Hughes, but Dummar didn't really believe him (they had a nice chat anyway, and Melvin got Howard to sing one of his self-written novelty songs as well as "Bye Bye Blackbird"). Good-natured film directed by Jonathan Demme rarely loses its way, and features an endearing collection of screwballs who make the loopy craziness of the situations and dialogue immediate and real--their eccentricities are the roots of the story. Mary Steenburgen won a Supporting Oscar as Dummar's first wife, a dreamer like Melvin who is far less satisfied with struggling and who just wants to amount to something (but to Melvin, the struggles are the best part). Jason Robards is perfect as Hughes; the normally bombastic actor takes a small role and lets it bloom subtly and beautifully for us, giving the movie a misty hue and making all of Melvin's hopes sweetly credible. ***1/2 from ****


1980 was one of Hollywoods' true 'golden years'( the strongest was, probably 1939, and the weakest was-probably- 1956.) Everyone remembers such great films as Raging Bull, The Elephant Man, Ordinary People, and Coal Miners daughter, but there were other, overlooked or nearly overlooked films. Of these, the finest was, beyond a doubt, Melvin and Howard.Based on a twentieth century addition to American folklore( the improbable saga of Howard Hughes and Melvin Dummar), Jonathan Demmes' film tells the story of a chronically unsuccessful Everyman, Melvin Dummar, who claimed to have unknowingly picked up Howard Hughes one night in the Nevada desert, and who also claimed to have been written into Hughes' will. Demme uses these materials to fashion a parable about the American dream and human aspiration.It is funny, superbly acted ( Robards probably deserved a third Oscar, and Mary Steenburgen fully deserved hers), well written, and profoundly human. Melvin Dummar may not have actually picked up Hughes in the desert, and the will may have been a forgery, but his life story does tell some important truths about the meaning of life.


I saw this film back in 1980/81 when it was first released and liked it a lot then. Now have seen it again recently, and it still holds up. There is a certain joy of life depicted in this film that is in some ways also bittersweet (and yet refreshing). What is sad in some regards now is the realization upon seeing it again that the era of life portrayed here is now gone from the collective American psyche to some extent. That isn't to say the film is dated per se. It's just that Melvin isn't cynical at all and he doesn't seem to have a hateful bone in his body. He's neither a wimp nor a man of intellect but someone whose basic humanity emanates.

What helps the film, too, is the pairing of actors Paul LeMat as Melvin, and Mary Steenburgen as Melvin's wife, Linda -- they are an endearing couple.

I attribute the film's memorable tone and spirit to not only the actors (including Jason Robards & some of the supporting cast) -- I like to believe that director, Jonathan Demme, put his stamp on this, too. Now in retrospect am learning that the writer (Bo Goldman) probably deserves some kudos.


Starring the ever great Jason Robards as Howard Hughes, this little gem was one of Jonathon Demme's first films, and one of his best. Quirky, lovely and gentle, it is what I HOPE was what really happened, but again- who knows? Mary Steenburgen is also perfect in what must have been one of her first films. A delightful surprise. .


Demme's film has the unusual and primary quality of being satisfying and amusing and funny; we might call this quality gustoit's a movie made with gusto. It has also a first-class appetite for the story and the world it describes. As a funny description of a portion of the provincial life, it is much more amusing and intelligent and well-made than all Eastwood's comediesand than many more famous but stupid films.

The most important thing here is the delightful character of Demme's filmit is a very simple, delightful and charming film. Another important thing is Demme's maybe not really art, but certainly skill, craft: it is extremely obvious from this movie that Demme knows how to film thingssuch as the asphalt wet after the rain . Demme knew how to film a landscape, a woman, a scene. It is a felicitous and good-hearted film; it won me from the beginning.

Of course it's no more than a good movie; but the last few decades of Hollywoodian movies should of taught us the value of a good film.

One thing that has to be mentioned is the scorevery appropriate and adequate score, unobtrusive and funny. Melvin and Howard (1980) may not be a piece of art, but it surely is a piece of craft and fun.And Mary Steenburgen makes a very sexy housewife.

There are those movies which convince us that by the cinema art the greatest things can be done;and there are also the delightful unpretentious films that convince us that cinema is at least first-class fun.

Melvin and Howard (1980) belongs in that class of good compact charming movies of immediate charm--like Howard Hawks' The Big Sky (1952) or Jan Troell's Zandy's Bride (1974).


This one is worth it for the Mary Steenburgen, striptease scene. She normally plays the harried wife in various comedies, but this role is strictly Utah trailer trash, and it is delicious. Her husband, Melvin the Milk Man of the Year can't keep a job, so she goes off to make a living anyway she can, shuffling her ten year old daughter off to Melvin. Melvin divorces her, takes her back and she's off again mostly because Melvin spends like a drunken sailor. Paul LeMat had a number of likable fool roles in the late 70's and early 80's. He's chewing gum and singing cowboy songs while they repo his vehicles. A chance meeting with the legendary Howard Hughes, millionaire in the desert is the plot device that propels this cute little film.

Sure, downtrodden folks dream of hitting the lottery or inheriting money from an unknown relative, but it is possible that a desperate man in real life, Melvin Dummar, may have forged himself into Hugh's will, but I doubt it. How did he duplicate Hugh's handwriting? No matter, this slice of life is just that, a little Americana from 1980.


Melvin and Howard is one of those rare movies that are overlooked. The 80's were dominated by director John Hughes. Maybe that's why more movie fans haven't heard of Melvin and Howard. The story of Howard Hughes contains enough material to make a hundred movies. What stands out here is the story and acting.

The character of Melvin is the classic lovable loser type done to perfection. As I watched I was pulling for Melvin to make it. He was a dreamer. I loved every time the daughter bounced back and forth between parents she would yell BYE DAD or BYE MOM.

I had no clue Mary Steenburgen was that hot naked in the 80's!!!! She's working in a nude go-go bar then quits. Before she leaves she pulls her clothes off walking out in the buff. Her backside looked magnificent. I recommend this touching heartfelt story.


I don't understand why this film won so many awards. It's supposed to be a "comedy" but seeing these main characters live this hard scrabble, trailer trash lifestyle isn't really "funny" to me. Watching Mary Steenburgen's character leave her husband "Melvin" to move into some horrible motel room where she's slapped around in front of her young daughter, and then become a stripper in an equally horrible burlesque establishment, isn't something I want to spend the time or mental energy watching. It's bad enough to be stuck in one of these places when you're on a road trip and you need gas, and it's too late to find a decent place to sleep, it's disturbing to see this on film. Then the whole 70s free-sex concept, random sex with this milk man "Melvin"...the director makes the viewer wait through the entire film for the whole point of the title. While waiting for Howard Hughes to die, all these really depressing things are happening to this character "Melvin" and none of it makes sense in the grand scheme of things. This film is built like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" but it doesn't have the wonder of aliens from outer space to make it interesting. I just felt depressed after watching this entire film.


I agree with the above review. Not a bad movie, but very oddly paced and organized. The best part is an amazing opening shot. 1980 also included Ordinary People, Raging Bull, Coal Miners Daughter, Elephant Man, etc so it's odd that this one for both screenplay (Bo Goldman) and supporting actress (Mary Steenburgen), neither of which make any sense in retrospect. The screenplay is NOT good, nor is Steenburgen's silly performance. What's more odd is that she many awards from various organizations. A very inaccurate title, this has about 8 minutes of total Howard Hughes screen time, which is great Jason Robards. The rest is sometimes clever, always silly, and usually frustrating. Melvin Dummar is just not a movie unto himself. However, the Milkman song he sings to win the love of his future (and current) wife is great.


This is a film that perhaps was best seen in 1980, as it was more topical and perhaps in that context the film would seem a lot more interesting. Having seen Leonard Maltin's glowing review (and 3 1/2 stars), I was expecting some magic. Instead, I got a film that really looked like a mediocre made-for-TV movie about people I could really care less about one way or the other. As a slice of life film, it did seem pretty real--just not compelling.

The story is this--Melvin told everyone that he picked up a guy in the desert that claimed to be Howard Hughes. They sing a few songs together and then he drops him off in Vegas. Then, the next hour or more of the film is watching both Melvin and his wife, Lynda, screw up their lives again and again because they both have the wisdom and intelligence of tree shrews. Then, at the end, a mysterious stranger leaves a will--purportedly written by Hughes--leaving over $100,000,000 to Melvin. The general details are true--this guy really did claim to have met Hughes and mysteriously found the will--the rest of the story is pure conjecture. Frankly, his character seemed so dumb and short-sighted I tend to believe the will was real--someone that stupid probably couldn't even spell "Hughes"--let alone think up such a hoax! I must be pretty dumb, too, sitting through this film and ASSUMING there must be some sort of magical payoff--dream on!


There are several misunderstandings about this woefully mis-guided film floating around.

First, Liz Taylor cannot be blamed for the sound of her singing -She was dubbed! I've heard her actual vocals -be very, very glad that another singer was used. Only Len Cariou, Diana Rigg, and Laurence Guittard's singing voices are their own.

The decision to move the locale from Sweden to Austria had nothing to do with art and everything to do with finances. The picture was financed by an Austrian company... And woefully underfunded, which limited neophyte director Prince's re-shoot options (re the ever-expanding, ever-contracting Liz).

Prince has said he simply couldn't figure out a way to use the vocal quintet for the film, so they and their songs were cut. Sondheim wrote new lyrics for Liaisons, and the song was filmed (as was In Priase of Women) but for some reason they were cut from the final version of the film. Perhaps length. Perhaps to keep the focus on the Cariou-Taylor plot line. The new version of The Glamorous Life was extremely well-done, and shows the potential of the piece in surer, better-financed hands.

Casting the film proved extremely difficult. Liz Taylor's name value was crucial to the production. Many different leading men were considered, and in the end Cariou was only brought in at the very last minute because no one else had been signed. Ditto with Laurence Guittard. It's ironic that their performances are the best in the film.

Most of the blame for this shambles falls on Hal Prince. He allowed the movie to be far too dark and Taylor to be far too desperate and clutching. Stephen Sondheim is said to have encouraged the dark tone. Perhaps another director would have lightened things up a bit and allowed the film to be more romantic and fun.

A DVD transfer is extremely unlikely -The original negatives are all but destroyed, not having been preserved properly. Image Entertainment had the title on their release list for some time, but eventually gave up on it, saying the original elements were unusable and the title not likely to sell nearly enough copies to make a restoration worthwhile. The sound, in particular, is problematic -as it was terrible to begin with. There is a very good laserdisc release of the film, which is much clearer than the VHS version, but it's exceedingly hard to find.

So -What was good about this film? The new Glamorous Life song/sequence worked wonderfully, as did the expanded Everyday A Little Death sequence. Cariou, Guittard, and Rigg gave excellent performances. Jonathan Tunick's new orchestrations and underscoring were, as always, first-rate -particularly during Erik's attempted suicide. (Tunick has a cameo as the conductor at the film's opening.) Prince's transition from the theatre stage to "real life" was well done, and the movie has a very promising start. Fans of the original stage musical will forever be frustrated by this film version, which could have been wonderful.