MARTIN & LEWIS was the 2002 TV movie that traced the rise and eventual destruction of one of the greatest show business teams in Hollywood history. Even though I have always felt Martin and Lewis are worthy subjects of a theatrical biopic, I will take this over nothing. This movie starts in the 1940's and showcases the beginning of both of these show business legends and implies that both were struggling and about to go under when, according to this film, both were booked at the same club and Lewis inserted himself into Martin's act and the audience thought they were so funny together that they became an act that sold out nightclubs and eventually segued into a lucrative movie career. I don't know for sure how close it is to the truth, but this film depicts Jerry Lewis as an insecure, career-driven ego maniac who sincerely thought he was the brains of the act and that they would be nowhere without him and Martin is the guy who just sort of allowed Lewis to push and prod him through their success until Lewis' ego got to be too much for Dean to take. Whether or not this is what really happened, I guess only Dean and Jerry can say for sure, but it made for an immensely entertaining TV movie that had me riveted from start to finish. Sean Hayes received an Emmy nomination for his nearly flawless recreation of Jerry Lewis, from an insecure unknown comic begging for his dad's approval to the egomaniac whose insecurities, paranoia, and control issues drove Martin and everyone else to the edge. Jeremy Northam's powerhouse turn as Dean Martin matches Hayes note for note. Martin's singing voice is dubbed in for the musical sequences, but the rest is Northam, who brings Martin's easy and laid back persona beautifully to life here. He may not really resemble Martin physically, but Martin's personality, spirit and even his speaking voice were on the money for me here and the interaction between Northam and Hayes is kinetic here...a joy to watch. Mention should also be made of Paula Cale as Dean's first wife, Bettya and to Kate Levering as Dean's second wife, Jeanne. This TV movie was a triumph and one of the few times I wished a film could have been longer. This one definitely left me wanting more. I'm still hoping it will inspire a theatrical look at this legendary team.


I was pulled into this movie, despite a clichéd and standard TV movie type script. This was probably due to the performances and good recreation of the times.

Sean Hayes does not look like Jerry Lewis but made a good stab at recreating his manic energy and routines. Only in the dramatic scenes did I feel a lack of insight in his performance.

Jeremy Northam convinced admirably with his laid back Dean Martin, unfortunately he had little material to work with script wise but got across Dino's couldn't care less attitude which rolled along for years with Lewis until he could take no more.

I think the fault with the movie was that it was made when only one of the duo has passed on, so perhaps there were Lewis traits that had to be down graded at the expense of Martin. However to be fair they did show some of Lewis's control freakery and joke stealing that led to the final breakup.

Still for a TV movie it was definitely above average, these 2 stars were huge successes in their partnership days, and each went on to show their own brand of showbiz genius as they went their separate ways afterwards. In the end a rather sad story.


Great actor don't get me wrong, but he hardly sounds like Dean when he talks. He's pretty good a lip syncing. I saw him in NYC once...

Either way they should of gotten Joe Montegna for Dean, being that he's portrayed Dino in a movie already and Brad Garrett should of done that little appearance by Jackie Gleason, also being that he played Jackie Gleason on "Gleason" that CBS movie. Casting, with the exception of Jerry Lewis, wasn't that good.

The movie itself was good though. I especially like how they portrayed last show. The way that slowed everything down a bit and had "Oh Marie" playing, which is good song too.

And I like that song "Side by side" they sung at the end as well.


I was really looking forward to this movie as I have always liked Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. However, this movie was SO one sided it was sickening. This film shows all the good sides of Jerry Lewis and all the BAD sides of Dean Martin. I wasn't surprised to learn that Jerry Lewis was a consultant on the film and that he was quite pleased with it.....it was very biased. I will say I thought the actors did an excellent job with tough roles to play.


Okay, tell me the truth....the people who have written these glowing reviews are complete Martin & Lewis fanatics. This is one of the worst "true" stories ever made. Sean Hayes stinks as Jerry Lewis. He doesn't look like Jerry, can't move like Jerry, and sure can't mug like Jerry. And Jeremy Northam as Dean Martin? Please...Dean was cool...Northam is not. Not only doesn't he look like Dean, sound like Dean, or move like Dean, he plays him with no charm or style. His acting is worse than Sean Hayes and thats sinking pretty low. Anyone who can rate this movie above a 1 either never saw the real Martin & Lewis or is a complete fan. I like Martin & Lewis movies....but by the REAL guys, not these fakes.


this movie was an excellent bio pic about the martin and lewis duo. the movie was well planned and was so close to actual events that really happened. nothing in that movie was made up. jerry lewis was played by sean hayes. hayes delivered a wonderful performance and was very much like his character jack mcfarland from will and grace. the resemblance did not hurt his performance at all though. jeremy northam who played dean martin was an excellent choice for the role but i think a little more practice with miming the words to the songs would not hurt. all in all i highly regard this movie as it is so close to the truth unlike some movies which twist the truth so much. i rate this movie very highly because the story line was 100% true and the acting was very convincing. on a scale of 1 to 10 i rate this a 10. it was a very good movie


Actors (so runs one school of thought) are miserably malleable people who's principal talent is their ability to simply morph into their stage characters. Look no further than this movie, for a prime example of such. Martin and Lewis (ably played by Northam and Hayes), shallow folk with little real talent who through happenstance fortuitously hit the show business equivalent of the lottery, cannot handle relationships, their success, or each other. In the end, the pair's life of comedy plays out as a tragedy.


I was very excited to see this TV film that employs the talents of Jeremy Northam and Sean Hayes. What a let down! The story is told in such a connect the dots TV movie sort of way that I felt like I had seen it before. Jeremy Northam has a hammy good time playing Dean Martin. And while I never believe that he IS Dean Martin, Northam does create a character that is interesting to watch for about 45 minutes. Hayes, unfortunately, shows that, while a gifted physical comedian, does not have the chops to create a complex dramatic characterization. And, although his courage to tackle this part must be acknowledged, some of his recreations of Lewis routines are painful to watch. His need to prove to us that he is more than Jack McFarland is so clear here and he doesn't look to be having an once of fun. While watching this movie, I kept thinking about the worried conversations that must have been going on in the editing room. Best to steer clear of this one.


Blake Edwards, the man who was certainly the most visually inventive and provocative comedic filmmaker of his time, naturally has a hard time being understood by the historically myopic. This film is no exception, and it's too bad: it's rather tender and vibrant in its humor, colorful and gracefully paced in its framing and editing. However, today is the age of team MTV and nudgenudgewinkwink teencomedies, and woe to Blake. Too bad - the anger that folks seem to hold for directors as they work into their later years is rather frightening and rabid, it seems to me. This film is fresh, funny, and, actually, rather youthful. I, for one, am quite glad that Blake made it. Thanks to all of you.


The visual wit and warm wrap-up that Blake Edwards' brings to one of the finest comedic series of film history (and, apart from the couple produced in the eighties, they were consistently original and inventive - and changed with each one) is sadly misunderstood and no longer appreciated by our audiences. The manner in which Edwards' uses the entire screen instead of just cutting for quick effects requires a little more patience, and can result in quite a payoff - witness the side-splitting scene with Dreyfus and colleague in hospital beds (but, of course, you need a widescreen version to see it). This movie made me laugh, and laugh, and laugh, but, as I said before, if Edwards' "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" (probably the best in the series) were released today, it wouldn't have gotten the time of day either. It's too bad, because this film, which displays a tenderness to these characters and Edwards' creation as a whole, was never allowed a chance to really be seen without generally jaded eyes.


The "Pink Panther" franchise has spawned a number of movies. The last one in the series is "Son of the Pink Panther." It stars Roberto Benigni as the original Inspector Jacques Clouseau's son. He does a good job stumbling and bumbling his way through the story. It's easy to picture Benigni as a Clouseau-type stumblebum. And a number of characters appear that, although they did not appear in "The Pink Panther," have become familiar in other "Panther" movies. But the last in the line differs somewhat from the original. Its tone isn't quite as lighthearted as the first. It has a lot of violence that seems to taint the movie. Although there are a few good scenes, this movie reminds us all how sorely Peter Sellers is missed.


O.K. is the only possible way of analyzing this movie. It does what it set out to do. But if you have seen this movie and were disapointed, did you really think it was going to be as funny or enjoyable as earlier entries in the Pink Panther series? The movie's comedy is very lukewarm. Whether this is the fault of Blake Edwards, or maybe he intended it to be that way is unknown. Roberto Benigni is the Son. O.K, he is now an academy award winner, but in 1993 a complete unknown. If anyone on the movie wanted it to be a success then a bigger name should have been chosen, a David Jason, Dudley Moore or Rowan Atkinson. Benigni, does quite a good impersonation of Peter Sellers throughout the movie, but this aside isn't very funny or charming. The return of cast members like Herbert Lom, Graham Starke, Burt Kwouk and Liz Smith is good. But overall the movie seems forced and is something of a hit and miss. Lets hope the upcoming Mike Myers remake breathes new life into this series.


I was more than willing to accept a new actor to take over the Pink Panther franchise as Clouseau's inept son, and I feel that he would have made a decent enough Clouseau. The problem lies with the script of this movie. Many of the gags are simply re-hashed from previous Panther movies, and not very effectively at that.


My question to Blake Edwards would probably be "why?" I guess he grew old, felt a bit nostalgic, missed the series too much and realized he had to carry on with the panther-saga despite the fact that there's no sense in it. We could've managed without "Son of the Pink Panther" but unfortunately we have to live with the fact that it saw the daylight and be thankful "Son of the Pink Panther strikes again" didn't. (I hope Blake doesn't read this - I might give him an idea!)

I've watched it three times and only because it's part of the movie series I love and I wanted to find even something good in it. Actually there's one quite a wonderful thing in this flick: opening credits and especially the superb version of the pink panther theme. What about the actual movie? When I saw it for the third time I smiled patronizingly couple of times and that was like a victory to me. Roberto Benigni is clearly a funnier comedian than the idiotic Ted Wass in "Curse of the Pink Panther" but he can't save a film that's doomed to failure from the beginning. "That felt good!" Yeah right.

2 out of 10


I believe that Blake Edwards' monumental comedic accomplishment were with the very talented Peter Sellers. I believe that his most enjoyable role was in the film titled "The Return of the Pink Panther" in which former Chief Inspector Dreyfuss escapes from a Mental Institution to kill Clusoe and to build a Doomsday Machine. Even the latest production of the "Son of the Pink Panther" does not come close to the original series, and certainly the acting is not up to par with new Italian comedian, nor by the aged Herbert Lohm.

I give the "Son of the Pink Panther" a thumbs down for its lack of originality and overt repetition of the same routines from Peter Seller's performances, God rest his Soul! Regards, Steve Horvath, Chicago, IL


i had very low hopes for this eight and final installment in the original Pink Panther series of films.i just didn't believe Roberto Benigni would be a good fit.i'm happy to say i was wrong.Benigni was the best part of the film.he was brilliant,exceptionally funny.the man is a natural born comedian,with great comedic timing or at least it looks that way in this movie.beyond that,though,the slapstick sequences actually work much better here than in the previous movies.i laughed out loud a lot during this film.i don't agree at all with the the undeserved(in my opinion)current rating on this site of 3.5/10.for me,Son of the Pink Panther is an 8.5 1/0


This is the worst Pink Panther Movie. The slapstick is just terrible, and Roberto Benigni, as Clouseau Jr., just does not fill Peter Sellers' shoes. But let's look at it thoughtfully: If Sellers were in this movie, it is true it would still not be that funny, altho it would be somewhat better. However, altho I blame the problem in "Son" more on Blake Edwards, it is also true that if Benigni were in a Pink Panther movie with good scenes, the movie would be only mediocre. Altho Clouseau is such a fool, Sellers plays him with such great presence, so artfully and skillfully, and, yes, suavely, the audience is actually, paradoxically, laughing with rather than at the bumbling Clouseau. And if the scenes are great, everything is great. Benigni does not measure up, but he does not have much from Edwards. The scenes are just not funny, they are dumb, silly, stupid. Look at me I'm a boob. Does not work. Pale shadows of the excellent fun long gone.

Some redemption is provided by subplots, as Herbert Lom and yes, Claudia Cardinale return. Dreyfus (still) is involved in the investigation at hand, of the kidnapping of Princess Yasmin of Lugash, played by Debrah Farentino. Lo and behold, we have a revelation about Jacques Jr.'s origins. The martial arts square-offs between the princess and her female captor Yussa (Jennifer Edwards) remind me of the Stefanie Powers mud spa scene in "The Girl from Uncle," altho the forum(s) are different. It is good to see Cato (Burt Kwouk) still around.

 All in all, thumbs down. The best reason to see it is just to see Claudia again. Otherwise, there is not much, and much bad.


Now i am a 15 year old and i just bought this movie a few days ago for a trip. I was think "Son of the Pink Panther," can't be all that good. But i was wrong! WAY WRONG! A BIG FAT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! This film is great i am not a fan of the first few films (The Pink Panther - Shot In The Dark) they arnt bad just not as funny. But the mid 70s ones are fantastic and now this! It was so funny i am still thinking of that line, "Hurry or they cut off my nipples!' it makes my laugh every time! Yes, Sellers is not in it. Yes it takes place ten years after the last one and yes it has a new guy. But it is good and worthy of a rental and even a buy! Not for the 40 year olds and up but for the teens and into the 20s.


After the success, or rather lack thereof, of "Curse of the Pink Panther", Blake Edwards realized he had to accept that Peter Sellers was no more and that he still needed to bring the name Clouseau back into the franchise, even if it meant giving Sellers' classic character an illegitimate son.

Enter future Oscar winner Roberto Benigni, who would actually receive the exact opposite of an Oscar for this role. He's clean-shaven, part Italian Jacques Gumbrelli Clouseau Jr., not mustached Jacques Clouseau, making this a new character and leaving Benigni to the type of humor that works for him.

Unfortunately, the humor doesn't work for the entire movie. The movie moves almost completely away from the overdone routines of the rest of the series, but there are only a few laugh out loud scenes, with some small chuckles in between. The biggest problem with the film, though, would have to be the plot. Pink Panther plots have been mangled messes before, but never to this extent. There's so much political intrigue and scandal involved that it's hard to figure out what anyone's motivation in, even during the climax.

Herbert Lom is back for his final performance as Chief Inspector Dreyfus, now more sane and subdued. Burt Kwouk is also back reprising his reoccurring role as Kato, the late Clouseau's humble servant. Disguise master Professor Balls, played in the most recent films by Harvey Korman, is now played by Graham Stark, a friend of Sellers who appeared in different roles in many of the films. These performances almost make the movie feel like a valid part of the series.

Henry Mancini's score, as in all of the films, is the highlight, and Bobby McFerrin's performance of the theme music is perfect. Especially when it provides the background for a battle between an animated Benigni and the famous Pink Panther cartoon character, racing around a live action concert hall.

But the bottom line, sadly, is that the plot's a mess and the film isn't as funny as the Peter Sellers classics, or even the previous entry sans-Sellers, "Curse of the Pink Panther." Maybe if the movie had been a buddy movie involving Benigni's character and Sgt. Clifton Sleigh, the protagonist of "Curse", the actors' combined talents would be enough to create a comedy that could shine in Sellers' shadow. Unfortunately, that wasn't to be.


This movie spelled the end for the Pink Panther series. Not only would most never wish to see another one, most would wish that they had not wasted time on this one. It proved that Peter Sellers is and always will be the one and ONLY ... Inspector Jacques Clouseau. It's hard to believe that Blake Edwards would allow this travesty to be seen. It goes beyond disappointment. This film should be burned and all those who had anything to do with it should deny association to it. I know that I do not wish to admit to viewing it. It's got to finish in the 10 worst comedy motion pictures of all time. The sooner that I can forget it, the better. Roberto Benigni is worse than Alan Arkin at acting or comedy. I don't normally cast such a final judgement, but this movie is TERRIBLE. I can't see how anyone could say that they enjoyed any of it. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, like in the the Peter Sellers installments. It never did.


Since Peter Sellers´ death in 1980, Blake Edwards seems to be the only person on the planet who hasn´t gotten over it yet. Since then we have seen the tasteless mess that was "Trail of the Pink Panther", the feeble attempt "Curse of the Pink Panther" and now this...apparently Edwards saw a tv-performance by Roberto Benigni, and felt that he had the talent to revive the Clouseau character, but sadly the result is a painfully unfunny chaos. There´s Herbert Lom as Dreyfuss, but he seems fatigued and too mellow by now, there´s Claudia Cardinale who played the princess in the first Pink Panther movie, but here she´s supposed to be Maria Gambrelli (from A Shot in the Dark). There´s Burt Kwouk as Cato and Graham Stark as Auguste Balls but that´s just not enough. Robert Davi seems to be doing his Sanchez routine from Licence to Kill all over again. Roberto Benigni, despite all his efforts, is left to aping Sellers in what is basically weak imitations of the well known gags from earlier films, and quite frankly, it just doesn´t work. The title sequence and Bobby McFerrin´s rendition of Henry Mancini´s classic theme is worth one star, though.


I have not seen the latest Pink Panther movie starring Steve Martin, but from what I gather, it at least has redeeming qualities. Its most popular credit is the song Beyonce provided for it (I'm not a fan - "Check on Me" is it called?), and most had no idea the song and movie were connected (I also read that Martin's comedic timing slightly saves the family film). Clearly, it can't be as bad as Son of the Pink Panther... can it? I mean Son is really bad; I've heard Peter Sellers (the original Inspector Clouseau) roll in his grave a time or two, but I thought there was thunder outside when I saw this. A then-unknown Roberto Benigni (yup, that wacky Italian who, five years later, would beat Tom Hanks AND Edward Norton for the Best Actor Oscar and declare he wants to "kidnap you and make love to you") plays what many suspect to be Clouseau's offspring. Of course, it's up to him to solve the case, which I won't even bother going into detail with. My favorite scene, uhhh... some physical comedy with a bicycle toward the beginning. Can't we all, as a whole, agree to never make or support another Pink Panther movie ever again? The Bobby McFerrin (?!?) musical intro to this gunk should have served as enough indication that the genius work of Blake Edwards and Sellers should not be outweighed by a steaming pile of pink whatsit.


If anyone else other than Roberto Benigni were in this film, I probably would not have enjoyed it as much. Benigni, to me, is the best cinematic physical comedian of our time. Benigni was what made this film sparkle!!!


Roberto is superb once more! Roberto did a fabulous job as The Son Of The Pink Panther adding not only humor, but giving it an wonderfully amusing and unique touch deliverable only by him. I recommend this movie not only to Mr. Benigni's fans, but to all who are seeking a laugh with a pink panther twist.


The film begins with the head of a girl in close-up... She is very blonde, and her curling hair fills the screen... She is screaming... Cut to a theater sign, announcing a show called "Tonight, Golden Curls." The lights of the sign are reflected in water... From that water the golden-haired girl is drawn out to land... She is no longer screaming... She is dead... Assassinated!

That scene was more than the start of a film... It was also the real start of suspense films in England...

"The Lodger," based on a novel by Mrs. Belloc Lowndes, was set in a Jack the Ripper-style murder wave in a foggy London... The victims were always blonde girls, always killed on the same day of the week...

While the whole capital speculates in contagious fear, a new lodger turned up at a peaceful boarding house... He wears a black cloak and carries a black bag...

There are other details which make us mistrust the mysterious tenant without, obviously, conclusive proof So is he or isn't he the serial killer? Well, you have to see the film, and to follow a plot that was to dominate and control several of Hitchcock's later films: the concept of suspicion, the essential point for suspense


A story loosely based on Jack the Ripper. In London a killer called the Avenger goes around killing blond-haired girls. Around this time Mr. and Mrs. Bunting take in a lodger (Ivor Novello). He's quiet but very odd. He takes a liking to their blond-haired daughter Daisy (June Tripp). But then the Buntings begin to suspect that he may be the Avenger and want Daisy as his next victim...

Hitchcock's first thriller and a very good one. Very few title cards are used--he uses images to carry the film. Sometimes it works but, more than once, I was confused. It was one of his first films though so this can be forgiven. It also moves a bit too slow. But it's still worth seeing.

You can see the beginnings of his later work peeking through and there are some sequences so well directed that they're stunning (the one where Novello and Tripp kiss is just SO beautiful). Also the acting is actually quite good by everybody--especially Novello. He was a box office draw in the 1920s and it's easy to see why. The man is not only a good actor he was undeniably beautiful. It's easy to see why he was once called one of the most beautiful men alive.

Novello was gay--I wonder if Hitch knew that. There are two lines in this film where people talk about his character--"Good thing he doesn't like girls" and "Even if he is a bit queer". These lines are quite interesting now--I wonder if they were put in on purpose or just happened to be written without anyone knowing. Interesting to think about...


With a savage murderer stalking the night, dark suspicion swirls about THE LODGER living in a London home.

Sir Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980) became a director of note with this silent film, his first thriller and only his third directorial effort, which shows the young Master's talents being developed in embryo. Based on the novel by Mrs. Belloc Lowndes and the tales of Jack the Ripper, Hitchcock was able to embroider upon the theme of mistaken identities and incorporate an intense chase sequence, both of which would become important elements in his later suspense films. He also made the first of his famous cameo appearances, twice actually, which would also become part of his trademark.

The film is well plotted and moody, told in an almost expressionistic style, relying mainly on visuals and a somewhat frugal use of title cards. The staging in the narrow, multi-level home is especially well managed, with characters on different stories interacting in the plot simultaneously.

Fans of the 1944 American remake with Laird Cregar may be surprised at its very different ending from this film. This is probably largely due to the fact that the earlier movie (including some very incongruous and never explained plot elements) was planned as a showcase for its star, matinée idol Ivor Novello, who plays the title role. Born David Ivor Davies in Wales, Novello (1893-1951) was the son of famed singing teacher Dame Clara Novello Davies. He found success on the stage at an early age and became a very popular actor-manager, playwright & composer, his most lauded song being the World War One patriotic tune 'Keep The Home Fires Burning.' Although he appeared occasionally in films, Novello's greatest renown came from his acting in the lavishly romantic stage plays he authored, his handsome good looks being especially appreciated by the ladies in the audience. A hint of his melodramatic stage persona, especially the use of his mesmeric eyes, can be seen in Hitchcock's film, projecting the actor into a virtual Epiphany during the most exciting sequence. Novello would also star in THE LODGER's 1932 British talkie remake.

The rest of the cast does well in support of Novello, especially Marie Ault & Arthur Chesney as his increasingly frightened landlords. Monosyllabic actress June flounces prettily as their flirtatious daughter; Malcolm Keen, whose character is done rather dirty by the script, plays the suspicious cop who loves her.


A stranger (Ivor Novello) in fog-bound London seeks accommodation from a family and they provide him with a small apartment upstairs. Their blond daughter is drawn towards this fascinating and somewhat mysterious gentleman. Her parents become suspicious of the intentions of the lodger and they live in fear of her safety. There is a serial killer abroad in the foggy streets and who knows? this stranger could be that maniac.

It is interesting to view an early Hitchcock film as far back as the silent era. I am surprised at the quality (despite a few scratches here and there). The addition of music is rather overdone in my opinion but it does fill in the empty silence and does add a dramatic effect. No doubt in the early days a capable pianist (below the screen) bashed out some impromptu music to fit the mood of each scene.

It is an uncomplicated story but that does not mean the guilty person is easily recognized (if at all!) Hitchcock likes to tease with a lodger who has shifty eyes, who paces the floor (what an original idea to photograph through a transparent floor), who has the wall pictures removed and who creeps out silently at night.

I feel that the atmosphere created is exceptional. Certainly a bit theatrical with exaggerated eye expressions but compelling nevertheless.

When you see a film of this vintage you realise how much film production had already advanced in the 20's and without the aid of all our recent technological contrivances.


The Lodger was the feature which Hitchcock himself described as his first true film (it was actually his third complete one), and film historians, particularly auteurists tend to focus upon it because it is it introduces themes of murder and suspense that Hitch's name would later be synonymous with.

To be honest, the first thing that strikes me upon watching The Lodger is its sense of rhythm. Hitchcock's earliest films were always very rhythmic and the opening moments of The Lodger are a great example, with a dynamic and attention grabbing sequence of shots and title cards. Much of this however may be down to the style of the seldom referenced screenwriter Eliot Stannard, who has a credit on all but one of Hitchcock's silents. Stannard was a master at telling stories in purely visual terms, and his screenplays often go as far as to map out series of interlocking images.

The next very obvious thing about The Lodger is that right from the start Hitchcock was more interested in cinematic technique than he was in performances or artistry. The Lodger is crammed with Expressionist effects, in particular double exposures. Hitch clearly hadn't learnt the art of subtlety yet and these are massively overused. We can also tell early on that Hitchcock was interested in using his camera to involve the audience in the film, throwing in point-of-view shots or drawing our attention to specific items. In this regard his technique was not yet refined. He was develop it in his later silents.

Of course what generally interests followers of Hitchcock's career is the fact that The Lodger is the first time he deals with the grisly subject of murder. It's true that there are many Hitchcockian elements here  murder, blondes, a love triangle and even a MacGuffin in the form of the Avenger whom all the characters are concerned about but isn't the focus of the story. There is a kind of morbid sensationalism concerning the killings, something we'd see right through to the other end of Hitch's career with the comment about "ripped whores" in 1972's Frenzy. There's also of course a "wrong man", although here he appears more as the subject of a whodunit. The later Hitchcock would have focused upon the plight of the wrongly accused, and made a more suspenseful film in the process.

All in all, The Lodger isn't really as significant an early Hitchcock as some would believe. For one thing there is the influence of screenwriter Stannard and the fact that Hitchcock, although he may have relished the material, was still very young and inexperienced. The fact is The Lodger may contain more of Stannard's influence than it does Hitchcock's. It's not as if Hitchcock immediately began making more murder thrillers. The majority of his British thrillers are of the espionage/adventure variety, and it would take up until the early 40s for Hitchcock to really begin making masterpieces in the domestic murder genre. It's also nowhere near being Hitch's best silent film, even though it tends to be remembered over more polished works like The Ring and The Manxman. Taken out of context though, it is a fairly decent late silent thriller, with only a few minor flaws in plot and direction.


In a quiet British town, a serial killer known as The Avenger is on the loose. Noted for his partiality for blondes, The Avenger has killed seven women-and shows no signs of stopping.

Ivor Novello, as the title character, is a quiet and mysterious man who appears at a boarding house soon after the seventh murder is committed. The landlady reluctantly allows him to stay in an upstairs room, but becomes suspicious when she notices the young man turning over all the portraits of blonde-haired women in his room. It doesn't help the landlady's suspicions when the man begins showing an interest in her daughter, Daisy (naturally, a blonde). Daisy's boyfriend, a detective, is assigned to The Avenger's case, and (almost immediately) becomes suspicious of the lodger as well.

Although The Lodger isn't Hitchcock's first feature, it most certainly is the film that launched his career as the "Master of Suspense." Noticeable Hitchcock trademarks are apparent here-namely the lodger's arrival and the ceiling/mirror scene.

Loosely based on the infamous serial killer Jack the Ripper, this silent thriller is fast-paced with exceptional performances. The score, at times, seems out of place, but Hitchcock fans will nonetheless enjoy this film.


This movie is fantastic and fascinating mostly because of its director, but it would be fun either way. I'd say that it's better than many films of the same period, but not to the same extreme degree that Hitchcock's movies eventually achieved.

You can see it's his work, though. Hitchcock knew that what made a suspenseful movie good had nothing to do with gore or loud noises, and this shows even in his early work. The Lodger has a distinctly Hitchcock feel to it--fun and scary--and it's interesting to see how he gets around the lack of sound, considering the fact that most (all?) of his other films were talkies.


I wonder if this would be identifiable as a Hitchcock movie if it weren't identified as such. Maybe. It as a few innovative touches anyway although it's often a little primitive.

For one thing it's a theme -- a serial murderer in a comfortably bourgeois setting -- that Hitchcock would return to from time to time. "Frenzy," for instance, and "Shadow of a Doubt." But this isn't really typical in that the later Hitchcock would have complicated the story, or juiced it up, by having the innocent eponymous "lodger" guilty of something or other -- maybe just having a closet full of ladies' garments. As it is, he's made Ivor Novello a bit odd looking, given him effete gestures, more makeup than the other men, suggesting that he's gay. Other characters refer to him as "queer" (in the old-fashioned sense of quirky) and say of him that "he's not keen on the ladies." (Ivor Novello was himself gay.)

There's also a scene in which a sexy young girl is happily taking a bath while the lodger tries to sneak into the bathroom. Shades of "Psycho."

And when the lodger is pacing back and forth in his upstairs room, the family look up at the ceiling at the jiggling chandelier and the ceiling becomes transparent so we can see the shoes of the suspect. Oh, it's not "elegant," but it IS "original." Hitchcock was trying something new even then.

Then too, there is a scene in a kind of -- boutique? Is that the right word? A fancy dress shop where the heroin models. The prissy looking lodger is seated between two dolls in cloche hats -- I'm afraid I'm guessing again -- and one of them puts an unlit cigarette in her mouth, waiting for the smooth gentleman to light it for her, and maybe buy her that smashing dress too. But the lodger has noticed that -- well, to be frank -- the woman's bare KNEE is on display, the flapper! So, get this, staring straight ahead, he takes out his lighter, flicks it lit, and moves it to the side so she can reach it. Then he disengages himself, stands up, and walks off, to her irritation. It was not necessary to do the scene in that particular fashion but it's the kind of thing Hitchcock would dream up, a small but telling detail.

Hitchcock makes his cameo in the crowd of people trying to clobber the lodger, who is hung up on a fence by his handcuffs. (Christian symbolism? I doubt it.) Hitchcock's presence is clear enough in still shots but the print I saw was so old and scratchy half the scene was obscured.

Why didn't Hitchcock make an outright movie about Jack the Ripper instead of this one, with an innocent "Avenger." We never find out who or what the real murderer is avenging. Come to think of it, we never even see him. Maybe Hitch wasn't too fond of period pictures. The few that he made were anything but hits. Hitch making a movie set in 1885? What's next? Hitch remaking the shootout at the OK Corral? Hitch doing a biography of Moses? Nah. He had a pretty good sense of his talents and their limitations. When he misjudged them it was usually in the matter of technique, not subject.

Worth seeing. In fact, an interesting story.


The value in this doesn't come from the story, the acting or the intertitles. There's nothing exotic about the locales or the people; in fact, there seems to have been a deliberate use of a cast that precisely resembles the sort of audience that was expected to attend the movie.

Where the value lies is in the twisting effect that comes from the editing of the imagery that has us convinced of one thing, to the point of siding with the indignant mob within the film, only to have the rubber band harshly snapped at the precise climactic moment. Ideas that filmmakers -still try- to rearrange and perfect.

Along the way, we are treated to some uniquely cinematic ideas; partly the camera angles and the shot to shot edits that twist our perceptions. But note also the superposition of images to denote imagination and memory. What we have here is evidence of Hitchcock's early recognition of the power of the camera to tell the story in it's own unique and new language.


The lodger's first appearance, dressed like the description of a murderer named 'The Avenger' with a wrap across his face, makes it a bit too obvious that Jonathan Drew might be the killer. That's what hooks the viewer into wondering who the Avenger might actually be, and with only a handful of credited characters, the only other reasonable suspect would be police detective Joe.

Alfred Hitchcock masterfully directs his first British thriller with hallmarks of the style that in later years would make his name a household word. The steep stairways of the boarding house, a recurring black cat and Hitchcock's own understated presence were all to be repeated in later films, not to mention central characters in a tense game of identity crisis. What makes the lodger character (Ivor Novello) particularly creepy is his unusual behavior in turning women's pictures away from view and the borderline malevolent interest he takes in young Daisy Bunting, a fair haired girl who has all the prerequisites for the Avenger's next victim.

There are a couple of anomalies that bear mentioning. I found it more than a bit unusual that the lodger's murder map would have been drawn in exactly the same way as the one the police have, a set of smaller triangles within a larger one to mark locations of the stranglings. Speaking of triangles, perhaps it was unintentional, but the one between Drew, Daisy and Joe presents a lot of unresolved tension as events unfold.

The other scenario I had some problem with involves the mob chase after the lodger and Daisy leave the pub - just where did ALL those people come from? Presumably it was late evening with most people staying safe at home, but it looked like a hundred plus people were after the innocent victim.

At times excessively grainy and marked with imperfections, I was fortunate to have this rare movie turn up on a Hitchcock DVD compilation of nine British films on three discs put out by St. Clair Vision. These early Hitchcock efforts have been easy to find for a long time now except for "The Lodger", and "Blackmail" which is also part of the set. Even if you're not a Hitchcock fan per se, it's a great set to get into to see the early development of the suspense genre, with an opportunity to see how the director progressed over the course of his early career.


Regarded as a classic by most people simply because it is Alfred Hitchcock's first suspense film. Unfortunately, The Lodger is almost completely bereft of the fine craftsmanship that would come to be Hitchcock's calling card in his later films. Inspired by the Jack the Ripper murders, the story centers on a family who takes in a mysterious young man amidst a series of killings going on in the city. Unengaging and slow moving, the film drags on as the family begins to suspect the young man of being the killer. Their suspense builds, but ours does not. The film picks up nicely in the last twenty minutes with a couple of plot twists and a jealous boyfriend / detective, but it's not quite enough to save the film. There are also a couple of examples of artistic cinematography and symbolic imagery, but it never really pays off. Hitchcock's best work was still well ahead of him.


During the first decades of the last century, the city of London was well-known for its many objects of local colour; to say London was to say Big Ben and by extension, the Houses of the Parliament, Buckingham Palace, the Queen Mother, the gin-tonic, the river Thames, the fog and Jack the Ripper.

But the city's most infamous murderer did his work in the past, so the British film director Herr Alfred Hitchcock updated the celebrated story and created "The Avenger", his own mysterious assassin at large in London.

"The Lodger; A Story of the London Fog" (1927) is an excellent silent film and probably the best one made by Herr Hitchcock during his silent period. The film has all those ingredients and virtues one associates with Herr Alfred. This German count especially appreciates the masterful way the suspense is created, leading the audience down different tricky paths of mystery and intrigue. Besides the outstanding film narrative and excellent camera-work, there is also a good deal of wit: the Londoners, like any other European commoners, watch with fascination the story of this dangerous criminal who terrifies a whole population and defies the police. An added attraction are the appearances of many nice girls in negligees; what more is needed?

There are a lot of scenes in "The Lodger" wherein Herr Hitchcock's talent for creating mysterious atmosphere is well demonstrated; the influence of German cinema-with which Herr Hitchcock was very familiar-is also apparent in his technique. Some admirers of Herr Hitchcock have told this Herr Von that themes common in later Hitchcock films can be noted in this one: blondes and fetishism, the sensual kiss between the lodger ( Herr Ivor Novello ) and Daisy ( Frau June ) and the scene in which the lodger wants to enter the bathroom where June is taking a bath. These will be developed and improved later by Herr Hitchcock during his talkie career, but this is a completely different story for this German count.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must take lodgings tonight with a Teutonic rich heiress.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/


London is terrorized by a "Jack the Ripper" copycat calling himself "The Avenger". In the opening scream, he claims a seventh victim. While the "Ripper" preferred prostitutes, the "Avenger" digs blondes. Each victim has been a fair-haired lass. Naturally, the sale of British peroxide plummets... Lead policeman on the case is Malcolm Keen (as Joe Chandler). He also likes blondes, especially golden-curled heroine, and Avenger-bait, June Tripp (as Daisy Bunting). Mr. Keen gets stiff competition from tall, dark, and handsome Ivor Novello (as Jonathan Drew), who arrives on the scene as "The Lodger" at the home of Marie Ault and Arthur Chesney (as Mr. and Mrs. Bunting). Suspicion begins to fall upon Mr. Novello, who also has a thing for blondes. Could he be "The Avenger"?

"The Lodger" (subtitled "A Story of the London Fog") helped put director Alfred Hitchcock on the map, in Great Britain. It showcases Mr. Hitchcock's great visual storytelling style. The most commented-on example is the shot of "The Lodger" walking in his upstairs room, as seen from the point-of-view of the downstairs Buntings. Hitchcock had a glass ceiling constructed, for Novello to walk across. The director explained this was a way to show footsteps visually. Other filmmakers would have added the "Footsteps!" to a title card or sound effects track. The director issued some minor complaints about changing to film's ending to suit Novello's star status, but it gave him one of his most enduring film themes, the "wronged" man. "The Lodger" was a very influential film, especially on its own director.

******** The Lodger (2/14/27) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Ivor Novello, June Tripp, Malcolm Keen, Marie Ault


At Age 27 after three films (two of which are lost, the other, witch was "The Pleasure Garden") Hitchcock Culminated his first seminal quintessential film ,it was raised in the schools or Berlin and Was hailed as the Greatest British Picture Ever Made at the time, Its A theme He would Return to many years later in Frenzy made outside the golden age of his successes in Hollywood.

It was Hitchcock first major Success and one of two films in the 20's (the other was "Blackmail") that gave him an enormous reputation , It offers a possible explanation for"Jack the Ripper" and shows the beginning of many Hitchcock trademarks such as the Wrong Man on the run, fetishistic sexuality and murder, Death and Pleasure, In the Dark Thick Fog, London is awash with fear and loathing over a serial sex murder known as "The Avenger" who targets Blond Woman in particular and leaves their warm corpse lying in the street ,He always strikes on a Tuesday, his Face is covered, and Leaves his calling card always tucked away in the victims pocket, On a Tuesday night Daisy Bunting(June Tipp) a Model comes home to her little flat she shares with her family, her boyfriend(Malcolm Keen) the local chief of police is there boasting how he's going to catch the"avenger killer while flipping a coin in the air, Suddenly the Gas meter switches off and while Daisys Father (Arthur Chesney) goes to insert another coin in , The house goes dark All of A sudden their is a knock on the Door and Mrs Bunting (Played beautifully by Marie Ault) Opens the Door to a pall faced Tall man with his face Covered (Ivor Novello) inquiring about the room for let upstairs,The Pale Antisocial Asexual Unnamed man begins his association with the family and starts More trouble than they can possibility imagine, especially when we seems to take Interest in Daisy who Just Happens to be Fair Haired.Suspicion Falls upon the odd Introvert and coincidence seems to follow fact as Tuesday Night Comes Around Again and another scream is heard in the Depths of the London Fog.

Fritz Langs film work work particularly "M" (a film about a child molester and Serial Murderer) made a profound impression on the Work of Hitchcock .It would be a strange coincidence that in his Last American Film Friz Lang Would Pay Homage to him in "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" This film has all the trademarks of the latter Hitchcock s films and is greatly enhanced by the great use of film montage of German Expressionist Films to which Hitchcock learned his trade and made a point of his style This Film has been Remade four times as recently as 2009 and the second even starred Novello himself however there's is no comparison There are some who say Hitchcock was always a bit of a silent film director with his use of great lengthy scenes without dialogue, and if you watch this u can see why everything in the stories plot comes across clear as a bell its not a dodgy DW Griffith with too much montage to millions of Credit cards to Tell you whats happening, you can see exactly whats going on, you can tell when something horrible is going to happen to the sweet blond victim , and you are given that same 'suspend belief' that's in all the Great Hitchcock Films of his Golden Period .

Its a Silent film but as the voyeur you can still see everything that goes on you are looking through a crack in the floor of a second story apartment at a "Killer" Passing above your head waiting to strike,


I like more and more watching silent movies. The lack of speech was making the actors look for other ways of expressing themselves and today their facial and body language resemble the art of mimes. It also made directors search for better visuals to compensate the absence of the spoken text. Such a master of visuals as Hitchcock was not handicapped by the lack of sound, and one may argue that some of the great horror scenes in his later movies could be part of silent movies as well.

'The Lodge' was the first film to be considered a complete fully feature by Hitchcock. The story retraces the Ripper case, which by the time when the film was made was still present in the living memory of many London inhabitants. In the foggy atmosphere of many of the British films of Hitchcock a couple of characters well known in the later films of the master show-up - the man whose non-normative behavior makes of him the obvious suspect and the maid who falls for the man and trusts him despite all the logic of facts presented to the viewer and adopted by the rest of the characters. First timers in Hitchcock's films are the vertically filmed staircase, the threatening shadow on the wall and the girl in the bathroom - it will take another thirty years to bring the last two together in the memorable scene in 'Psycho'.

For all the visual suspense the film lacks thrill in action and the ending is awfully conventional. It is said that Hitchcock wanted another ending for his film, maybe this was the descent-from-cross like scene where the hero is saved at the last moment from the threats of a lynching mob. This or some other ending would have made better a film which is still remarkable for its visual power.


We can see the master attempting to hone his craft here. The beginning of the film sets up everything. As a matter of fact, Hitchcock did a great job with exposition in almost every one of his films. So those first ten minutes introduces us to the terror and threat that hangs over the Embankment as a Jack the Ripper type murderer does in his victims. Ivor Novello has trouble keeping a low profile. Considering why he is there, one might think he could try to be a little less suspicious. But then we would not have a movie nor the ultimate mob mentality at work. The young heroin never doubts him, though she really should. He lurks around, runs out at night, and seems like the perfect suspect. All that aside, there is so much mood and atmosphere at work. Hitchcock uses everything that the black and white medium can do to move this picture along. The crowd scene at the end is priceless: Hitchcock's man alone. When he is hung up on the fence, too exhausted to free himself, he becomes a sort of Christ figure; the "Romans" jeering at him. This works better than the later sound version, although that is also pretty interesting. HItchcock is able to pull this off and it must have given him great confidence.


According to Hitchcock/Truffaut Interview, Hitchcock told Truffaut that he considers The Lodger as his first true film.

As for me, I thought The Lodger was a brilliant film. Hitchcock's original ending wasn't used, because Ivor Novello was a big star at that time.

So a happy ending was used instead. But Hitchcock implied throughout the film that the lodger might be Jack the Ripper.

Although there is a happy ending shown in the film, still it is an open ending. You can pick your choice. Is he the avenger or not? There isn't a single evidence to prove that the lodger's story about his past and his sister is true. So it is upto the audience to pick the choice.

Hitchcock's camera shots are brilliant especially the scene where Ivor Novello is walking and chandelier is shaking. No. 13 is common in Hitchcock films. No. 13 is house no. where Daisy lives. We see the no. 13 on the front door when Ivor Novello's character knocks on the door in the beginning.

In Shadow of A Doubt, we see Joseph Cotten's character coming out of No. 13 door.

In Psycho, we see Car No. "NFB 418." NFB stands for Norman Francis Bates. Add the numbers - 4 + 1 + 8 = 13.

As for me, I liked it. The version I saw was brilliant. It is the black and white version released by St. Clair Vision in 2005. I didn't like Video/Film Express Version. But that's just my opinion.

I recommend this film for any Hitchcock admirers.


Alfred Hitchcock's the Lodger finds the master of suspense, at 27, already with an instant knack at mounting suspense and dread, often with some startling camera movements, not to mention the moments of gallows humor. It's exhilarating to see Hitchcock, in a silent film no less, stage the implied murder of a woman by showing movement, shadow, a pause, then a seemingly over-the-top close-up of the woman screaming, then cutting to the next day or whatever. He makes a street corner look downright vicious and creepy, and I'm sure in the intended blue-tinted scenes it's something of a minor revelation on escalating the thriller of the period into art (the version available on the most recent DVD, as an 'extra' on the DVD of Sabotage, is acceptable at best and at worst is a travesty for collectors who might want the best musical score or digital treatment of a transfer).

It's the classic story of Jack the Ripper, with certain names changed and a slight twist of a jealous romantic plot common to Hitchcock films- here he's called the "Avenger- and it concerns a certain lodger who goes to stay for a bit at a house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bunting. The lodger is a funny sort of chap, hating the pictures on the wall in his room, saying ominous throwaway words during a chess game, and going out in foggy London at night. The Bunting's daughter likes him, but her fiancée, a detective, is jealous and suspects the lodger to be the deadly Avenger, out killing blonds left and right. The story, despite seeming (at least on the DVD) to jump around a little bit in mid-scene, is executed with a level of narrative fluidity I was surprised by. Sometimes in silent films one gets so attracted to just the visual aspects of certain compositions or the star power of the leads that the story loses its way. Here Hitchcock balances the elements, and makes for some good details along the way.

There are little things that stand out as interesting techniques or little notes in the storyline. I liked the editing style when we see a crowd gather around the corpse of one of the Avenger. I liked, a lot, seeing a figure walk across what seems like a staircase, but looking upward at him. And I loved seeing a little note of romance, as a character cuts out a little heart-shaped piece of dough and hands it to Daisy (played by, simply named, 'June' who is a beauty), coaxingly, but then when not accepted right away he rips it in two. A detail like that, or a line of dialog at the end cuing the audience to something "you're toothbrush - you left it behind" makes for a nice touch too. It doesn't hurt either that Ivor Novello makes for a perfectly ambiguous character- the sort you're not totally sure of, watching his every facial gesture like it's another clue, or another devilish intonation.

Compared to some of Hitchcock's more beloved classics this is sometimes a little crude in its construction, as well having to be subverted to the sound form (one wishes a little for the big personalities of Hitchcock's 1930s British films). But all things considered, it's essential viewing, and shows the kind of breakthrough work that Hitchcock needed (i.e. a hit) that could get the ball rolling on his career in England- and not as a fluke, to be sure.


The Lodger is Arthur Hitchcock's third feature-length directorial effort, and a landmark film for him. It is Hitchcock's first thriller, and establishes his tradition of placing himself in one scene for a brief cameo.

The story centers on the Buntings, a middle class London family who have a room for rent while the city is being terrorized every Tuesday by a mysterious Jack-the-Ripper-like serial killer who calls himself "The Avenger".

A mysterious, rather Gothic young man (the great Ivor Lovello) rents the room and his odd behavior almost immediately sends up red flags for the suspicious Mrs Bunting (Marie Ault). Things begin to come to a head when Young Daisy Bunting's developing friendship with the new lodger begins to attract the jealous attention of her young police detective lover (Malcolm Keen) and when Mrs Ault notices his mysterious night-time sojourn on a bloody murderous Tuesday.

I generally enjoy well-made silent films and consider them a species quite apart from films with sound. Yet even if I were to lump The Lodger in with its louder cousins and proceed to rate it purely on its relative entertainment value, this little gem of a film would still be rated as high as 8.

In a talented director's hands the lack of sound is no handicap, and as silent film directors go, Hithcock was very good. I am convinced that his early, formative history in the silent version of the medium is one of the reasons why his later films were so visually dramatic and exhaustingly and meticulously photographed.

Silent film acting is also very different from acting in a 'talkie'. not having a voice forces performers to act-out the feeling of each scene with a standard body language. Certain tilts of the head and eye-movements become words for 'please forgive me', 'I like you','leave me alone' and even 'Go away and never come back'. Silent movie actors often learned this vocabulary so well - making several films per year just to keep themselves fed and lodged - that the transition to sound and its much more visually subtle body language became very difficult.

The silent performances in the Lodger are very excellent. Lovello is phenomenally ambiguous and creepy, though somehow sympathetic as well - absolutely perfect for this role. His female counterpart is his equal, though she presents herself much more subtly. Daisy Bunting was played by a mystery woman named June whose infrequent appearance in films is hard to explain given her good looks and obvious talent. A young Malcolm Keen, who would make other films with Hitchcock later in his career, does yeoman's supporting work as the not-so-sympathetic police inspector.

Recommended for film history buffs and thriller fans with open minds and good attention spans.


(possible spoilers) In what Alfred Hitchcock considers to be his first true film, he presents the story of a man who is suspected of being Jack the Ripper. It is almost a polar opposite of what was to become one of his favorite themes, the wrong man theme, in the sense that it is the populace (and the audience) rather than the police that are on the wrong track. The film is very expressionistic and highly stylish, and often lingers on motionless shots to let individual performances illustrate the dramatic tension.

A young Hitchcock (he was my age when he made the film, about 27 or 28) allowed himself to be swayed by popular and studio pressure much more than he would later in his career, since he allowed the entire ending of this film to be altered based on the popularity of it's handsome star, stage actor Ivor Novello. Hitch's humor comes through in scenes like a showgirl dramatically giving up peroxide, since the Avenger seems to prefer blondes.

The Lodger is also credited with being the first film where Hitchcock started making his trademark cameos, one of him at a news desk early in the film and once again in the crowd near the end. I am going to remain neutral on this, because neither appearance is surely Hitchcock. The man at the desk is shown from behind and could be anyone, and try as I might, I couldn't find him anywhere in the crowd at the end. Hitchcock also has nothing nice to say in the film about media sensationalism, which is the cause of much of the widespread panic caused by the murders. Very good early Hitchcock, it's easy to see why he was gaining so much attention at this point in his career.


The first "real" Hitchcock film leaves a lasting impression from the atmosphere - a killer (rape is, of course, not mentioned) is on the loose in London. Most of the action takes place at night, and the plot is centred around a family who struggle to make ends meet, and so take in a lodger. Hitchcock once said that he liked to make films with a contemporary setting because he could understand the minutiae of the character's daily lives. This is reflected in the realism of the family's situation.

Many people comment unfavourably about the soundtracks on most DVD releases of silent films. Unless it was specifically intended to go with the film, I always turn the sound off - don't let some arbitrary piece of music spoil your enjoyment.

"The Lodger" and "Frenzy" stand at either end of the director's career, both with "Jack the Ripper" style plots, and both set in London. Both contain bravura technical shots - famously in the "Lodger" there are the glass ceiling and the staircase. We have an engaging plot, good characterisation, and innovative visual storytelling. Hitchcock really did start as he meant to go on.


I saw this silent Hitchcock after seeing about twenty other Hitchcock, all the famous ones from the forties, fifties and sixties. I expected that without sound, not even Hitchcock could create suspense, but I was wrong.

The Black Lodger's star Ivor Novello has a great appearance in this film and sure his scary way of looking adds up to the tension. The moment in which he looks out of a window, and a shadows in the form of a cross is over his face, is masterful.

The Black Lodger was Hitchcock's third movie, and his first masterpiece, as I understand. Shortly afterwards he made Downhill, also with Novello, and a good movie too, especially the ending.


yeah its fun and the best Hitchcock i think.i hate that undertake is making it this is the one and only best no 1 i mean no one can change that good suspense and fun 1 for black and white While this wasn't Hitchcock's first feature film, he refers to it as the one that set the pace for his later films, the first to show his vision, style, and bravura. The most interesting thing about this film, other than its technical virtuosity and the horribly ineffective soundtrack, is the fact that it wasn't supposed to end the way it did. Hitchcock wanted The Lodger to be the killer, which would have made a more predictable film (granted in 1926 audiences weren't spoiled by the great of the genre and everything could have been "surprising" if the right amount of suspense and tension were provided). Instead, there were pressures to let matinée idol Ivor Novello out of the killer role, probably because people didn't want to picture Novello as a killer. Ironically, the fact Novello wouldn't end up as the killer made this film even better, a lot more interesting and compelling.


Early Hitchcock, in which he is exploring all fields of technique. Spectacular special effects, overwhelming use of lighting and memorable action scenes. Novello's acting may be slightly overdone, but it only makes him seem more mysterious. Still modern, still Hitchcock and certainly very interesting!


The Lodger is as others have already said Hitchcock first suspense movie. Though I have not seen movies from him before this pictures.

THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!!!!! The plot outline is as following; 7 Girls with curly blond hair have been killed all on Tuesday nights. A suspicious looking man rents a room in an apartment from a family. The family: a mother, father and a daughter with curly blond a hair (Daisy). The lover of the daughter is a policeman. The daughter of the house is getting attracted to the Lodger. When mother notices that the lodger leaves on a Tuesday night the parents try to stop the affair. Daisy doesn't listen to the advise and leaves with the lodger on a Tuesday night. When the policeman suspects the lodger of the killings he searches his room and finds a gun, the map with the murders on it and a picture of a girl with curly blonde hair. He's arrested but manages to escape and Daisy follows him. He then tells Daisy the real story behind it. Soon the whole neighborhood is following the handcuffed Lodger. The policeman then heares the real murderer is caught red-handed and the real story comes out. Only now the lodger has to be saved from the crowd who still think that he did it.

It really is a wonderful piece of silent cinema. And already a perfect example of the cleverness of Hitchcock. He already uses so many techniques for building up the suspense. He also manages to let the images speak. There is so much to see in the mise-en-scene, the effects and the editing. The story is very easy to follow and everything is made very clear when there is no sound.

Sound is really important and makes the story a lot easier to follow. As I have seen both Hitchcock's silent and talkie version of Blackmail, you can really see the difference. The acting has to be really expressive in a silent flic. So everything becomes clear about what they think. In talkies such things can be told with sound. In an earlier comment I read that the lodger was a bit overacting. I don't think that he overacted to the standards that were used in those days. He had to act that way to make clear his mental state. Other examples can be found in the mise-en-scene. For example the fog when he first enters, the flickering light as if something is going to happen etc.

This really is a clever and intelligent movie made by the master of suspense. I didn't expect it to be that good when I was going to see it but it really blew me away that he already was so inventing in building up suspense.

A MUST SEE!!


The Lodger is universally considered the best of Hitchcock's silents. It's a story that's loosely based on the Jack the Ripper killings in London. In this movie the serial killer is known as The Avenger and is killing blondes, which has the fair-haired girls of London worried. During this time a mysterious man shows up looking for a room to rent from a family. This lodger has some quirky habits of going out on foggy nights and has them wondering who exactly this lodger that's living in their house really is. This movie definitely showcases Hitchcock's early talent for the thriller genre and he keeps you guessing throughout. I have read that Hitchcock wanted a different ending, but that it was shot down my the movie executives. I won't mention the endings to avoid spoiling the movie, but I would have liked to see it Hitch's way. Unfortunately this was long before the days of shooting alternate versions, so we just have to imagine how he would have done it. It's amazing to me to watch Hitchcock's quality movies from the 1920s-1970s. He truly deserves the title, The Master of Suspense. He dedicated his life to the art of filmmaking and we get to reap the benefits.

*** (Out of 4)


We know we're in the hands of a master director to be from the first moments of the film. Enough about its plot and content has already been said here by other commentors - it is certainly impressive. Novello is a perfect choice for the neurotic and odd lead, causing the audience as well as the cast members to suspect him of being THE AVENGER. Here the ending was changed to protect Novello's reputation as a romantic leading man (as was the first talkie sequel in which Novello also played the lead, albeit to a slightly altered script, character and motivation). Here the cinematography and editing match the direction in all being top notch and the exquisite tinting in the restored version adds a great deal to the overall atmosphere of the film. All the players are fine with no real standouts except for Novello, who had a very successful career in silents (16 films) but retired from talking films after only 6 to become one of England's most influential composers until his death in 1951. See this one - it's a classic.


I think this film is a great Hitchcock of all time. The photography, plot, and the direction are classic Hitchcock elements. It is also one of his first films. The lighting effects in the film are great. I first saw it when I was 9 (I'm now 13), and I did not find it too scary.


Will Daisy (played by the actress June), a beautiful flaxen-haired fashion model, wind up pushing up daisies if she continues to flirt with her parents' new lodger (Ivor Novello)? After all, he looks like eyewitnesses have described "The Avenger," a Jack-the-Ripper-style serial killer of young women with golden tresses. He certainly acts "queer." Police detective Joe (Malcolm Keen), Daisy's nominal boyfriend, thinks he's a wrong 'un, but Joe is quite obviously jealous.

Joe gets assigned to the Avenger case just as Daisy and the Lodger are getting amorous for real. The Avenger claims his next victim on a night the Lodger has mysteriously stolen out of Daisy's parents' house, making Daisy's mother more than suspicious her daughter is in danger. A few nights later, Daisy and the Lodger are spooning on a bench by a lamppost when Joe comes along and assails the Lodger's impudence at moving in on his girl. Daisy haughtily breaks her almost-engagement with Joe and goes off with the Lodger. Only then does the abandoned Joe put two and two together and conclude Daisy's new beau, whom he blames for everything wrong in his world, is the Avenger.

Is he? As viewers of Alfred Hitchcock's first true thriller, a silent film from 1926, we are halfway convinced, but privileged shots of the Lodger's face that we are granted in various situations have made us feel sympathetic to him, see him as some sort of victim, not a psychotic killer. Certainly, Daisy has no doubts about him, for she resists when Joe arrests him. Taking advantage of the confusion when Daisy's mother faints at the news, the Lodger, handcuffed, bolts and escapes. Daisy meets him at their lamppost. He tells her a story of how his own sister was the Avenger's first victim. He is out to capture his sister's (and indirectly his mother's, who never recovered from the shock) killer. That's the quest that took him out of Daisy's house on that most recent fateful night. She believes him. Should we?

At the level of subtext, this is a film about Joe's patriarchal right to Daisy's hand, with her father's approval. After he puts the cuffs on the Avenger, he says, he'll be in a position, career-wise, to put a ring on her finger. Does he have a right to? Do Daisy's desires or lack thereof matter? Will her attraction for the Lodger be validated as safe and fruitful, or cost her her life and plunge her world into chaos? Hitchcock has constructed a morality play around patriarchy and, not incidentally, Christian symbolism. Notice the images Hitch places on the screen after an angry mob hunts down the handcuffed Lodger.


_The Lodger_ is a competent thriller that demonstrates that the touch of the master, Alfred Hitchcock, was developing even early in his career. There are narrative and cinematographic elements present here that appear in his later works in much more refined form.

Two shots in particular demonstrate a willingness to experiment with special effects. One shows the title character pacing in his room from beneath through a transparent floor. The second shows the memories of a police detective by means of a flashback that takes place within the confines of a footprint in the dirt. Interestingly, during a kissing scene there is a breach of the 180 degree rule; it is difficult to determine if this was intended, or merely a goof.

Aside from the major narrative, which concerns the search for the serial killer, the Avenger, there is an interesting subtext that involves the romantic attachments of the daughter of the lodger's landlords, who vacillates between the "safe" but strait-laced police detective and the "dangerous" but exciting lodger.


The engineer Richard Thornton (Timothy Busfield), his wife Laura (Jennifer Dale) and his son Michael (Dan Petronijevic) come to live and test a house designed by him and fully controlled by the computer Helen. He invested all the family savings in this project, and expects to have some Japanese investors supporting it. Meanwhile, his absent daughter Jenny (Lisa Jakub), the black sheep of the family, returns home with the intention of robbing the family with her boyfriend Ray (Brennan Elliot). However, Helen finds out the truth, eliminates Ray and jeopardizes the whole family. "Dream House" is a very silly, predictable and stupid movie. I do not understand how can a producer approve a budget for such a TV movie. I lost my Sunday morning watching this crap, and of course I do not recommend it to any viewer. The users who recommended this garbage through good reviews are insane or maybe collaborators of the producers. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Casa Assassina" ("The Killer House")


i seen this film on TV yesterday an i have got to say, i never really like to put a film 'down' but this was bad everything about it. the acting was cardboard, the plot was mediocre and best of all the main actor look's like Eric Clapton! its a good job i never went the pictures to see this shoddy excuse of a film. if i had to make a comment on a positive side to this it would have to be the laughable side of it, at times i found myself cringing over the scenes. if anyone as to say this film was otherwise i think u would need your head testing :-)seens as this film was released in 1998 then maybe back then it would have been slightly better but not by much thanks for wasting my time hope this was useful to you D


Well, if your lucky in your life you get to see things that would change your life, Ghandi. Paul Berry covered in jam , hell even Jesus squatting over a candle. However Nothing and i mean NOTHING prepares you for Dream House,

The film teases, tickles, licks, makes love to you and then tells you it meant nothing. I watched this film with baited breath, small hotdog in one hand, elton johns masterpiece in the other. And i was blown away but enough about my sex life. The film starts with a man on the edge he is dirty, raw, naked without having to take his clothes off. He builds this house see, a Dream House if you will. The plot basically tells the epic tale of a house falling in love with a man. Not only is this a beautiful story it always breaks down the walls of racism and war. If a man can make love to a brick house why do we have to fight eh. Why?

The acting is top class, at one point i stopped the tape and wept, i wept for a long time actually. I pressed play and realised why i was weeping. There not just acting, there living, i read about how the actors got into the characters head by living in the dream house for 9 years prior to filming.

There is a lovely moment when the main guy who if he doesn't not land the role of Superman will be a revolt. Anyway he has a go at the house its all done to camera just him an a cup of method acting. I felt his pain i wanted to hold him in my arms and tell him its alright, but i couldn't. This film made me want to hold a man in my arms. Powerful.

The diamond in the rough is the real star, voiced by the late Carrey Grant the house comes alive thanks to its above its time special effects and camera tricks that Lord of the rings would kill to know about.

Watch this film, live this film, then make love to a man with a beard and scream. Yes don't regret living when you wont even give it a chance.

DREAM HOUSE NO

DREAM FILM

Thank you


Great fun if you've ever felt a prisoner of your own home, except this one actually talks back, is real jealous, and has a homicidal streak. They don't show you this stuff in those "Own your piece of America" bank comercials where the idyllic young couple works out the financial details with the oh so nice bank manager.


I wanted so badly to like this because I love Emmy Rossum, but seeing her prancing around on a bed in her bra and underwear, swinging a sock with a lock in it at a man in his tightly-whities.... it just sort of ruined it for me. The song she sings is beautiful and she looks lovely as ever, but it was just too implausible a storyline and the script was fairly weak, but Ms. Rossum was a delight, even in the midst of such faults from the script and story.

I also am a fan of Mary McDonnell's work from Dances With Wolves, but her smugness her seemed rather 1 dimensional; albeit not a great role to begin with.

I watch movies on Lifetime with some regularity, and this was above-average I'd say, but I can't say I'd watch it again. It's too bad - with this cast it could've been much better.


Some of the worst dialogue clunkers in the history of cinema. Utterly unrealistic situations and characters. One must suppose that writer/director Hruska thought he was making a charming movie with aspirations to pay homage to Hollywood comedies of the 40s. Problem is, this movie does not have one funny line in its bloated length. Also, the subject matter does not easily lend itself to breezy comedy, and most certainly does not the way it's treated here. Performances are lackluster with special mention going to James Badge Dale as Ben. Mr. Dale has the charisma of a warm turd and, strangely enough, the acting ability of one.


My girlfriend and I got the video in hopes of seeing an arousing movie. We were disappointed. The movie was slow, the storyline was okay, but wouldn't make sense if you didn't already know something about Karma and the Kama Sutra to begin with. The whole story could have taken up 30 minutes of film. If it did, it would have been better.


Do not, under any conditions, rent this reeking pile of dog-doo that purports to be a movie.

My lady and I thought this disk might make for a steamy evening's diversion. After all, the box describes the movie as being all about passion, love, etc. Well, it was a big disappointment. The film can be summed up as having the rich plot of a soft-core porn film, without any of the sex. That's right. It is a scam. There are very few love scenes. Most of them are brief, and involve the main characters getting into an argument. The plot is dull, and the dialog is totally awful. The acting is about on par for a porn film, too.

The only redeeming feature of this film is the fake parrot that appears in one of the dream sequences. A stuffed parrot is lying on its belly in a cage during two scenes. The thing is so fake, we both burst into laughter when the sound track included a parrot squawking. It might have been a dead parrot, but I think it was a doll.


This movie had it's ups and downs. I enjoyed the scenery in India and the way the people of India dressed, danced and all the things that make India so colorful and different. It acts on the religon and culture of India. But what this movie could have done without is the couple that traveled there. They were so annoying I forgot who they were. I know the man was named Micheal and he was having problems in his relationship with his girlfriend for God knows why she tries to make the relationship work out with Micheal as he tells her that he's leaving her and going to India to check out some Budahs. They decide to go and while they are in India they come across a strange lady that claims to be a reincarnation of a servant girl that once lived in a paradise garden with royal subjects. The girl in the past falls in love with another man and seduces him but there is no indication of what happened to them other than the fact that they fell in love. Centuries past and in comes Micheal and the strange lady stops at nothing to get him back. Micheal soon begins to think the lady is crazy for accusing him of being a reincarnated monk and she finds herself lost.


This show is the epitome of what I avoid by watching adult swim original shows rather than more mainstream comedy; predictable pop culture laden crap. The skits often follow a dull formula, a parody of some TV show movie or toy with some kind of violent sexual or poop related joke carelessly thrown in, that plays out like a claymation family guy joke. The bits are generally a a poorly executed carbon copy of the source material, but with the aforementioned stupidly obvious joke thrown in. And when the creators are brave enough to stop suckling on pop cultures nurturing teat for a few seconds, we often are left a 5 (or less) second clip of something so creatively dull and brain dead the only plausible reaction is that of total silence. I say often because there are sparse moments of amusement, but these are too rare to make the show worth watching. The show is and exercise in poor writing and voice acting, and mediocre animation. The visual style of the show is unique, but not really smooth in any sense of the word, often seeming crude and rough. I do like claymation when its done right, and there's none of that here. What irks me above all is the show's immense popularity and the fact that it is constantly on adult swim's weekday lineup while worthy, innovative, dynamic and unique shows are forced aside. Are people really that dumb that they can only appreciate the most dull and obvious humor? Well that's to be expected, looking at the awful Family Guy's popularity.


First, i'm a fan of stop motion because I grew up on Gumby and i have also experienced using it. It is some of the most time consuming film work I have ever used. It calls for more patience than I have, so the film was short.

Second, the show is actually funny. It has it's moments of stupidity, but it is well done, has a low-budget look to it, though it is a very expensive show, and will spoof off of many shows no one under...oh, about 25 will get. I happen to get it because I grew up watching mostly re-runs of these shows. I recommend it to most people, but some won't like it. It is sort of edgy with it's humor, so you might be offended.

But it did start with a TV-14 rating, and then shocked me with it's TV-MA rating. But, at times it does deserve it. Great show. ten out of ten


Creators Seth Green (Austin Powers, Family Guy, Idle Hands) and Matt Senreich bring you priceless comedy and social commentary in the form of stop-motion animation. Green uses his extensive knowledge of all things pop culture to create spoofs of everything from Star Wars to Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. The majority of characters are shown as familiar action figures (everything from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to Transformers, and even Voltron). Fans of classic 80's shows such as G.I. Joe or He-Man will find their favourite characters once again return to life with new demented and funny attitudes. Those providing voices include: Seth MacFarline, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Matthew Lillard, Linda Cardellini, Breckin Meyer and more!


Robot Chicken is a stop-motion animated show, using action figures, made by Seth Green. Each episode consists of different skits. Some of them are only a few seconds while others can be five minutes.

This show parodies many different things. From movies to video games to celebrities to T.V shows etc. if you can think on anything Robot Chicken will make a sketch about it. Some sketches are completely random that make no sense.

I have to say that this is my favourite animated show. I rofl every episode. This show is not for the kids as it is very crude and sometimes violent. If you are a teenager or a young adult than this show is for you. Trust me it will not disappoint. 5/5.


One reason I enjoyed (and still enjoy) Robot Chicken is because it is so damn nostalgic, among other reasons. I thought it pulled both the obvious adult humor and just plain stupid humor, both which I enjoy (and relate too??!!). Anyways, its skits mimic that of MADTv, but more to the point, and more of an open ability to do what ever you want and can humanly do (IE; plastic vs people). The characters in this 'animation' are created primarily from plastic, allowing for an almost 'toy look', which especially reins in when a skit reflects that of a prior toy. Other skits don't touch on much of anything...well to do with anything, humor at that point becomes more personal then ever, as for myself, even those times where I don't quite understand the humor in that specific skit, I can understand what they are trying to relate too which further solidifies their attempt to connect to all audiences in some personal way. Cheers to Seth Green and Matthew Senreich, they know what type of humor some people enjoy and bring it to them non-stop during their brief twelve-minute segment.


Robot Chicken puts an adult twist on all the shows I loved as a kid, like GI Joe, Thundercats, Transformers, and Star Wars, but also makes fun of newer shows like That 70's Show (with the voices of the actors from the actual show), Kill Bill, and reality shows like The Real World.

Each episode is very short, lasting less than fifteen minutes. They include many scenes, some as short as two seconds and some that last for a few minutes. Because this is stop animation, you can pause the DVD and watch each frame to see how it changes, and in some scenes the creators throw in something that you can't see when it's played at normal speed.

If you're too in love with your childhood, don't watch this show as this is not for children or people who wish they were still children. The show includes dark and sexual humor, alcohol and drug use, and a lot of animated violence.

Things I would like to see the creators do is have a battle between Vultron and Power Rangers and have the Adams Family fight it out with the Munsters.


Call it sick, twisted, bizarre or what have you, but I call it brilliant. Not because it is well written or animation genius, but rather it is an exact parody of life. Like the chicken, forced to be "programmed" by a wall of televisions, we are all stuck with the billions of programs our monopolistic cable providers choose for us. Piped into our homes, our creativity sits on the shelf while we down popcorn in front of the bluish glare of the glass boob-tube. Sure, there are a billion programs to choose from, but they follow a pattern of acceptability that thinks for us so that we don't have to.

Robot Chicken breaks the mold! It isn't ashamed of anything! It makes us think! It reflects life through the animation of toys  real life that non-thinkers shrug away from. And the low-budget animation is perfect in the sense that it doesn't detract from the message. And every episode include brief animation snippets that smack you in the face and make your brain change course.

This show should be winning tons of awards, if not from Hollywood then, no doubt, from human rights groups!


Time after time, I wonder how Robot Chicken will top itself and always it does. Its cast sometimes beggars believe with familiar Voice Actors returning to there classic roles such as Danny Goldman returning to the role of Brainy Smurf for a parody of the movie Se7en.

The show's humour while not topical does not try to be, sure there are a few bush are idiot jokes but it's not preachy nor does it expect you to laugh at its hidden meaning. The humour is over the top and not for everyone, put if you liked the scene in family guy where Peter, Brian, Chris and Stewie vomit over each other you will feel right at home with Robot Chicken.

Where else can you see Palpatine answer his phone with the phrase "Go For Papa Palpatine" then lay into Darth Vadar when he finds out the Death Star has been destroyed. Want to see what "The Office" look like if it was set in COBRA's HQ The Terrordome? What about Bevis and Butthead joining the animated Teen Titans? Then watch robot chicken it is out on DVD so no excuse!


Seth Green and Matt Senreich have invented something absolutely hilarious! This old-school stop-frame animation is a welcome departure from normal animated comedies. Totally fresh and with sick twists included everywhere, 'Robot Chicken' raises the bar for other new comedies. Action figures find new life as players in this frenetic sketch-comedy and the results are hilarious. Celebrities are satirized and pulverized, stereotypes are taken further than ever before, and TV shows/Films play the central role in creating what I think is possibly one of the best shows around (along with 'Family Guy' and 'American Dad') If anyone has any other shows that are in the same vain, please tell me.


Robot Chicken is absolutely hilarious. At first look i thaought it was stupid until my friend turned me on to it and I'm glad he did. i watch it every Sunday at 11:30.

I love Stop Motion Animation I think the whole concept is awesome. so naturally i love a show of all stop motion. this is definitely one of my favorites.

Don't let the title turn you away. it is only ten minutes long so give it a chance and if you don't like it.... whats ten minutes right

Perfect 10

Check it out


The quality of animation in some bits is inspiring, and the breadth of what they are spoofing is amazing, you know your truly geek if you can figure out most of even the most esoteric (look up word if you don't know what it means, because it actually is ) references

Season 2

There are some gems in season two, however due to the fact that the DVD is uncensored, it makes it a bit more harsh, especially because most of the time we know what they're saying the overuse of the word douche seems to be without a doubt lack of a thesaurus in scripting, yes as immature as it can be, it's still kind of a funny word , but not used as a crutch the way most of the fart jokes come across, which there seem to be more in the second season than in the first, even though I don't think there really are in season two. Most of the bits go on longer than they should and push it farther than what's funny . . . aka, the Chief skit.

Religious satire is great, I believe morel orel is a show dedicated to that ... however Jesus and the Argonots (Despite the fact that the name is funny) I think it's just over the top, and doesn't hit the nail on the head at all, especially because if you're going to satirize something you should do it in the confines of what you're doing. (Meaning if your going to spoof something, have the thing your spoofing act the way he should and write the comedy around it, don't use the name, and put a whole different spin on what it is ) I'm a Christian and out of all the religious spoofs in the show, this is the only one that actually bothers me, * that and Buddah isn't a god in the religion. (season one)

"Take care of the environment or I'll F$*(#&ing kill you" - Captain Planet

I work for an NBC news affiliate, and their are some truly sick things in this world I'm happy there's a show out their that can make fun of it.

I think it is a truly amazing show,


If you take the toys we loved from the 80's and animate them in short, stop-action pop-culture parodies of everything from Kill Bill to American Idol, throw in voices like Mark Hamill, Phyllis Diller, Christian Slater, Hulk Hogan, Ashton Kutcher, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Seth MacFarlane, and music by Les Claypool, how could it possibly go wrong? Adult Swim's Robot Chicken will show you how. They've secretly replaced the humor with a barrage of bowel movements, flatulence, and more bowel movements. Let's see if you can spot the difference. Apparently there are some who can't. There's nothing wrong with crude humor (as this show claims to have) but Seth Green and Co. just add an extra helping of 'crude' to cover up the fact that there's little to no humor. One scene opens with Skeletor, Mumm-Ra, Cobra Commander, and Lex Luthor sitting in a car together, stuck in traffic. In this scenario, anything that happened would be hilarious. Anything EXCEPT Skeletor farting and forcing the other villains to smell it. Brilliant, right? Right? So if you love super heroes but have always wanted to see them sitting on the toilet, then Robot Chicken is for you. Otherwise, stick with the Simpsons for pop-culture parodies that are actually funny. Maybe Seth Green should stick to doing voices and just play with his toys on the toilet at home to his heart's content. And possibly think about some therapy. Can anyone really be this obsessed with going to the bathroom?.


and I hated it.

My friend had raved to me about this show. I guess I liked the idea, and thought the few sketches she described to me sounded very funny. So I gave it a chance. I watched a few episodes on YouTube. I tried to like it. I made myself think I liked the show. However, I couldn't keep up this charade. And when I found out it was on EVERY night on my favourite channel, as a replacement to some of my most-liked shows - I couldn't help but be very annoyed. I thought, "They replaced the Boondocks and Bromwell High with THIS?!" Really...I found it pretty odd that people could like this show. I don't have anything against crude comedy - in fact, I love it when it's well done. Take the first, second, and third seasons of Family Guy, which are well-scripted and still very funny. I just can't take this, though. Most of the time, it's 80s references that go over the heads of their target audience, or bodily function jokes. There were only a few gags that I found truly funny...

I think my dislike of this show might be because of the lack of consistent, well-formed characters. I tend to be drawn towards character-based animated comedies. The lack of that element, combined with the "humour", contribute to a very bad show.

I think Seth Green's marvelous on Family Guy as Chris Griffin. And I can imagine how much fun this show must be to make - whenever the writers think up another "brilliant" gag, they can just insert it into their next episode.

I tried to like it, I did. But I guess I'm not a fan of someone vomiting in every episode. I wonder if it's just me?


I don't see how anyone not under the age of 10 could find this funny. Some examples of the "humor" in this show are Mr. Rogers being mean and a doll that looks like Napolean Dynamite quoting the movie Napolean Dynamite. Hilarious! I would have enjoyed this when I was in 3rd grade, but I also thought the parody of the Barney theme song was clever and funny (I hate you, you hate me, so lets go out and kill Barney...) Why do you think references to other TV shows and movies are so funny? Does it make you feel special to think you are in on the inside joke? "Wow, it's just like in that movie, only dolls are doing it instead! How clever!"


'Robot Chicken'. Hmm, that's definitely and eye-catching title, don't you think? At least, that's what I thought when I first heard of it whilst browsing through my dad's collection of strange and funny series. I thought to myself, "A robot chicken? Why would anyone want a robot chicken?" So, out of curiosity, I sat myself down and watched what turned out to be one of the craziest and mind-bogglingly f*****-up adult television shows I had ever seen.

Created by Seth Green and Matthew Senreich, 'Robot Chicken' was a bizarre twist on the term 'comedy sketch show' in which various actors and/or actresses would perform numerous scenes of comic hilarity to entertain the masses. It was along similar lines to another bizarre show titled 'Celebrity Deathmatch'. With this programme however, it went to the extreme. Firstly, it was animated using models and dolls such as a Barbie, Ken or Stacey, some even being customised to look like real people. They were made to move about with moving mouths and exaggerated eyes to create some sense of realism but with that "I'm so obviously a cartoon" style.

Each sketch was ridiculous in the extreme. They contained either violence, excessive stupidity (so much so that it was annoying), blood and guts gore or outright, sexually explicit crudeness. Personally, this is what stopped me from giving it a full 10/10. But despite the foulness of the skits, it still made me laugh out loud, which is obviously what it has done with many other people as the show has continued on for a total of 4 seasons so far.

Quite often, 'Robot Chicken' will parody a performer or well-known public-figure/group. Among such names was the late, great Michael Jackson, where he was supposedly showing up for court when an alien spaceship landed and the still coloured Michael Jackson jumped out proclaiming that he had been abducted by aliens in their mad bid to take over the world. Other mock-ups included the band N'Sync, where the last surviving member Joey Fatone must avenge his friends deaths by competing in a deadly martial-arts tournament. There are a lot more celebrities throughout, such as Britney Spears, Corey Feldman, Vanilla Ice, Harrison Ford and Aerosmith. Some of the characters are even voiced by their real-life counter-parts.

As for the whole, "Why would anyone want a robot chicken?" issue, it has absolutely nothing to do with a robotic chicken, except for in the opening title a mad scientist straps a re-animated chicken in to a chair to watch all these insane sketches, for whatever mad purpose, I can't quite gather.

But overall, it's an excellent show with no meaning or purpose to it whatsoever. But then, in todays society, who needs a show to make sense as long as it entertains the masses, which is exactly what 'Robot Chicken' does.

Favourite Episode: #1 "The Deep End" - It has a great mock of the well-known film 'Kill Bill'. But this time, it's 'Kill Bunny'.


I don't know if most know this, but in the magazine Toy Fare they have a column entitled Twisted Toy Fare theater, which is a several page comic strip of any sort of toys doing something comedic.

Now this show is obviously the real deal version of it. That is truthfully why I love this show so much. The concepts are just so off the wall and hilarious. You would never expect that guys moving around action figures to do things would be hilarious, but it really is. This is honestly one of the best shows Adult Swim has put out since they began to air shows like Space Ghost Coast to Coast and Family Guy. Creators, including Seth Green (Austin Powers trilogy, Chris Griffin on Family Guy), have managed to make us laugh at things that are incredibly original and include lots and lots of toys.

So check this show out for a well needed 15 minute laugh.

10/10


Ahhh, Robot Chicken. I remember seeing it the first time. I was on the floor laughing like crazy! With it's funny pop culture references and parodies, it just never gets old. I have season 1,2,3 on DVD, and honestly I just can't get enough of it! I think so far the funniest season is season 3, but all of them are also hilarious! Robot Chicken contains references to almost every thing! From old movies, shows, and music. To pop culture in the present. If you love pop culture, parodies, hilarious references, violence, and just plain randomness! Then I highly recommend watching Robot Chicken! It's probably the only show that can match up to another one of my favourite Adult Swim shows, Aqua Teen Hunger Force.