Guys, the next time you look in the mirror and don't like what you see, try telling yourself that at least you're not Rondo Hatton. Hatton suffered with the congenital disease acromegaly, which, as Webster's puts it, is "chronic hyperpituitarism marked by progressive enlargement of hands, feet and face." He lived to the age of 52, being felled by a heart attack shortly after making his last film, "The Brute Man," in 1946. This is an extremely well-made little B picture, featuring fine acting by all, a compact story and some real suspense. In it, Hatton plays a former college BMOC who became disfigured after a lab accident and who, years later, begins a murder spree against all his former pals and teachers that he blames for his current condition. He also befriends a pretty, blind piano teacher, who naturally doesn't recoil automatically from the big lug's unique physiognomy. These scenes, with big Rondo and the blind woman, will likely cause most viewers to recall Frankenstein and the blind hermit in "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), just as his later sacrifices on her behalf are reminiscent of Chaplin's for his blind flower girl in "City Lights" (1931). No, "The Brute Man" is not nearly in the same league as those two immortal classics, but still remains a fine entertainment nevertheless. "Frankenstein" makeup man Jack Pierce contributed his great talents to this film, too, making Hatton (I would imagine) even more of a sight than he was ordinarily. It's hard to feel much sympathy for Rondo's "Creeper" character, cold-blooded psycho that he has become, but somehow, we DO still feel some, to the actor's great credit. Oh, by the way, this DVD looks just terrific; an absolutely first-rate transfer from the fine folks at Image Entertainment.


Rondo Hatton was a former reporter who began acting in films in 1930 when he was covering a film being made in Florida. During the 30s and 40s he was mainly seen in small roles, often as hulks, due to his large body size and the fact the he had contracted acromegaly after being gassed during the first world war. In 1944 he was cast as The Hoxton Creeper in a Sherlock Holmes film, The Pearl of Death, and achieved brief stardom-or at least cult stardom-until his early death from a heart attack at age 52 in 1946 (he had suffered a milder heart attack the previous year as a direct result of his condition).

In this, one of his last films, not only does Hatton get the starring role, he has a great deal of dialogue and proves that he could be a good actor when given the chance. It is unusual for audiences to feel as much sympathy for a killer-especially one who has killed several times-but we do for Hatton. His scenes with Jane Adams, playing Helen, the blind piano teacher, are especially moving. Helen sees the inner man without being able to see the physical one, and although as I said he's a killer he gives the impression of a very human, tragic figure. Helen wants to touch his face, but he won't let her; this gives one a strong impression of a mirroring of the life of the actor himself. Just like the character he plays, Rondo Hatton was an athlete when younger, and excelled at football.

All of the cast play their parts well. Donald MacBride, frequently cast as the dumb cop, plays a very canny and intelligent one here, and he's ably supported by Peter Whitney-looking handsome and slim!-as Police Lieutenant Gates. The photography is well-done-especially considering the budget (or lack thereof) and there are some nice angles and lighting, especially when Hatton is prowling around the city.

Note: This film was actually made at Universal, who sold the rights to it to PRC shortly after it was completed (and Rondo Hatton died).


The distinctively featured character star Rondo Hatton - his face disfigured by the disease acromegaly - gets a starring role as a revenge-crazed murderer dubbed "The Creeper" by the press. Once a handsome if hot-tempered football star by the name of Hal Moffat, a lab accident happened to mar his appearance. Now he's out to strike back at those he blames for his situation, while forming a tender friendship with a blind girl, Helen Paige (the wonderfully beautiful Jane Adams), who is therefore not bound by any fear of his appearance.

Were it not for Hattons' presence (sadly, this was his last picture), this would still be watchable but pretty forgettable. The plot is pretty standard. Supporting performances are acceptable, and the music has a familiar ring to it. There are also points, such as the gin rummy sequence, where the picture ought not to be taken too seriously. It's well paced (running just under an hour long) and reasonably entertaining, but Hattons' poignant presence makes it something different. This is no one-dimensionally evil boogeyman, but a man blinded by the same temper that afflicted him in better days. One can get the sense of the kind and sensitive person that Hatton was.

While it may have been unfortunate that the movie business was too quick to exploit Hattons' appearance, there's no doubt that he made his mark in cinema. People continue to remember him today, right down to the naming of an award - marking achievement in horror research - after him.

Rest in peace, Rondo Hatton.

7/10


Earlier on during this Halloween Horror challenge, I had watched HOUSE OF HORRORS (1946) which was basically a precursor to this one  similarly dealing with a hulking criminal with a penchant for back-breaking dubbed "The Creeper" (actually first seen in the Sherlock Holmes mystery THE PEARL OF DEATH [1944]!). In this case, we are given the character's tragic back-story  though it actually does a disservice to actor Rondo Hatton (deformed in real life by acromegaly) by making his condition self-inflicted and rendering him homicidal into the bargain! Anyway, though it shares many a credit with the subsequent film, this one (which proved to be Hatton's last) was actually made by the Poverty Row company PRC. Running a brief 59 minutes, it is simply a succession of incidents showing The Creeper either taking revenge on his former colleagues at college (including an ex-girlfriend and a romantic rival  played by DETOUR [1945]'s Tom Neal) or else killing others who happen to get in his way. To give some measure of sympathy to the titular figure, we also get a subplot in which he is sheltered by a blind pianist (shades of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935] and THE FACE BEHIND THE MASK [1941]): eventually, though, she allows herself to be used as bait in a trap set for him by the Police (with flustered Donald MacBride at their head!). In itself, then, the film is watchable as an example of low-budget horror from this vintage but in no way a classic.


Horribly disfigured in a lab accident, Hal Moffat (Rondo Hatton) seeks revenge against all those he blames for his condition. The police seem to be unable to put a stop to the killer they've dubbed the "Creeper". During one of his escapes from the police, the Creeper hides out in an apartment occupied by a blind woman. The pair strike up an unlikely relationship that lasts until the woman discovers her new friend's true identity. Now her life is in danger!

It's difficult to discuss The Brute Man without discussing Rondo Hatton, but that's exactly what I want to do for a moment. The biggest problem with the movie is that it's pretty much a bore. Scene after scene of watching the Creeper . . . uhh . . . creep (for the lack of a better word) does not make for the most exciting of movie experiences. He's too slow  too slow to hold my interest. And it doesn't help matters that the Creeper's relationship with the blind woman is so predictable. From the moment the pair met, I was waiting for the woman to say that there was a surgery that might cure her, but it cost too much. And I just knew the Creeper was going to try to help her out by killing someone to get the money she needed. No surprises here.

As for Rondo, I wish I knew more about him. He seems to have been a tragic, yet interesting fellow. In the few movies I've seen him in, he was never asked to do much. His acromegaly seems to be all that the studios were interested in. I doubt it, but I sincerely hope that he was able to exploit the movie studios just as they were exploiting him. And even though Rondo wasn't the world's greatest actor, there's something oddly compelling about his performance and The Brute Man in general. The Creeper is such a tragic character that it's difficult to fear him when you have such compassion for him and his predicament. While I cannot condone his actions, I certainly understand what drove him to commit his crimes. I've just got to give the movie an extra point based on Rondo.

The Brute Man was featured in Episode #702 of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Overall, it's not particularly good. Too often, the guys resort to making fun of Rondo's medical condition  not a very humorous topic. There are a few moments that do work, but overall, I'm disappointed. This episode of MST3K gets a 2/5 on my rating scale.


Rondo Hatton's final film has him once more playing a character called the Creeper. Hatton plays a disfigured man (surprise) who skulks around killing the people he feels disfigured him. He also kills anyone who gets in his way. On the run from the police the creeper meets a blind piano teacher who isn't afraid of him because she can't see him. Needing an operation to restore her sight the Creeper begins to steal things to get the money for the operation.

Filmed at Universal, the story goes that the company balked when Hatton's disfiguring disease killed him before the film could be released and they sold it to PRC. I'd like to think that they sold it because the film wasn't good and the disease story makes them sound more "caring". Lets face it this film is a turkey. Its mostly Hatton stalking through the night for the first half while the police, played with less than all seriousness try to catch him. Its dull and makes you wonder if they removed ten minutes at the start. The second half with the blind girl is so incredibly soapy as to be laughable. Its a really dumb movie that is notable only for it being Hatton's final role.

A side note: contrary to whats been posted on numerous web sites, the British H for horror certificate was not created for this film. The classification was in place for well over a decade before this film was released.


AH, B movies from yesteryear. It's just fun to see the lingo, fashion, mores and values of society's past. The Brute Man lies there along with zirconias like Attack from the Giant Leeches, Giant Gila Monster, Monster A Go-Go, and The Killer Shrews.

Rondo's called the Creeper for a reason...maybe he should've been called the Staller. Slower and slower, the Creeper (YAWN) induces terror. Plus, did the fire escape scene have to be shown EVERY time??? SHEESH! Also learned that blind women are capable of looking beautiful. The scenes with the inept policemen are deplorable and watch the slipup when the Lt. flubs a line at the station. So bad is this movie, they couldn't afford a second take. Hell, let's just include the error, his career's going nowhere! MAN, all this pain because of chemistry class!

By the way, I don't know why I watched this.


This cheap poverty-row movie would be forgotten today if not for the pathetic performance of Rondo Hatton, suffering from the bone-deforming disease of acromegaly. The producers of this movie were basically too cheap to create a monster so they decided to use a real one, except that it could not act. It's amazing that not only this film but also HOUSE OF HORRORS tried to make a horror star out of this stiff. Strictly for freak-film aficionados only.


I have no idea whose brilliant idea it was to make this movie. There's almost no action, no plot, and no point to it. As others have stated, even the MST3K-enhanced version of this movie is terrible. I heard Universal actually sold this movie to another company. It's not hard to see why.

The Creepers' acting is horrible in the movie and so is everyone else for that matter. Pass the movie up if you see it somewhere, you will be bored to death if you don't!


This was so awful that not even Tom Servo, Crow, or Mike could make this watchable.

What were they thinking?

1 out of 10 (should be zero)


In A Talking Picture, 96-year-old Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira takes us on a journey through history, making us acutely aware of our heritage and, in the process, conveying an acute sense of what we have lost and what we have become. Part travelogue, part comedy, and part drama, the film lulls us into a state of blissful contentment, then hits us with a wake up call that seems culled from yesterday's headlines. On the surface, Oliveira's 36th film is simple, but its greatness lies in the subtlety of its undercurrents. As we travel on a cruise ship to visit some of the most historic landmarks on the planet, bathe in the warmth of the Mediterranean sun, and meet some interesting people along the way, Oliveira brings into sharp focus the treacherous nature of the journey in which we are embarked.

Set in July 2001, an attractive history professor from the University of Lisbon, Rosa Maria (Leonor Silveira), takes her seven-year-old daughter Maria Joana (Filipa de Almeida) on a cruise of the Mediterranean from Portugal to Bombay, India where she is planning to meet her husband, an airline pilot. The ship travels from west to east, symbolically depicting the direction in which the balance of the world is shifting. Along the way, they visit the Acropolis and the Parthenon, Mt. Vesuvius and the ruins of Pompeii, the Sphinx and the Pyramids, and the Hagia Sophia, among others. Rosa Maria, who has lectured about the sites but never visited them before, explains the various sites to her attentive and inquisitive daughter who is constantly asking questions.

The little girl asks questions such as "What is a myth?", "Was there really such a Goddess?", "What is a legend?", "What did people do here?". Her mother does her best to interpret history and myth for her daughter telling her stories about Prince Henry and the legendary Portuguese King Sebastian, the mermaids who swam alongside ships to encourage the sailors to explore the unknown, and the muse that inspired poets. She tells her about the Temple of Apollo and the statue of Athena that protected the city and the stories that accompanied the destruction of Pompeii. Like Maria Joana we are mesmerized by what we see, yet each scene is tinged with such a pervasive air of sadness that it seems to suggest we are getting one last look.

The only transition from port to port is the often-repeated view of the prow of the ship slicing through the calm waters. Along the way, the two meet solitary travelers: an old fisherman in Marseilles whose wife died and whose children moved away, a celibate Orthodox priest at the Acropolis, and an older unmarried actor in Egypt. Rosa and her daughter are the only family with children seen in the film. The second part of the film consists mainly of a dinner conversation between the ship's captain John Walesa (John Malkovich), an American of Polish background and three celebrity passengers: Delphine, a French businesswoman (Catherine Deneuve), Francesca, a former Italian model (Stefania Sandrelli) and Helena, a Greek singer (Irene Papas). In "My Dinner With John", the women discuss their personal lives as well as their views on history, art, politics, and civilization and we are treated to a lovely Greek song sung by Irene Papas.

Each talk in his or her own language yet everyone seems to understand each other perfectly. Soon the suave captain invites the professor and her daughter to join the dinner group and gives the little girl a gift of a Muslim doll with a veil over her face, making us aware of who has not been invited to the table. From here, the film veers in an unpredictable direction that seems inevitable only upon repeated viewing. The camera is static throughout and since the film is driven by ideas rather than story line or character development, the journey at times can be a bit tiresome. Yet A Talking Picture is a lovely film filled with moments of beauty and grace. Like the passage of our own life, it is the totality of the experience that is important, an experience that can only be reflected upon from a distance and weighed in the context of the events that are transforming the civilization and culture we once thought would never change.


This movie isn't going to shock you. This movie is not going to "entertain" you. This movie is going to softly talk to you, while cruising around the most beautiful places of the world, and will bring you to a sudden, explosive, unexpected ending. I never saw a De Oliveira movie before this, although he is considered by Italian critics one of the most important directors alive. Well i guess i should check his previous works (and there's a lot to see). This is a film for those who want to FEEL the script and listen to interesting conversations that sometimes can enlighten and other times, well, the viewer can feel the deep depression of a reality that gives us no choice but live as we are, no hope to leave our little selves to come to something bigger. And then again, who wouldn't want to sit and have dinner talking with Stefania Sandrelli, Catherine Deneuve, Irene Papas and a charming Captain Malkovich? (And the fact that they're all speaking in their own languages makes their pout pourri of philosophy and humour really UNIVERSAL). This filmed talked to me, while i could do nothing but sit still and wait and listen and watch and then give one of the most sincere applauses i ever could give to a movie. "You'd better grab a hold of something, it's simple but is true. If you dont stop to smell the roses now they might end up on you!" (HUSKER DU)


It is clear that a Manoel De Oliveira film is not for everyone, not that he has ever tried. The cinema of this director is introspective, as it doesn't aim to please the masses. "Um Filme Falado", his 2003 satisfying movie, is perhaps one of his most accessible.

When we first meet Rosa Maria, a university professor, who is embarking on a long trip to Bombay to join her husband for a vacation, we watch her on board with her daughter, Maria Joana, a beautiful child with an inquisitive mind. As the ship goes to the open sea, Rosa Maria is heard explaining to the girl the meaning of the monuments in Lisbon they are passing by.

The next ports of call include Marseilles, Naples, Athens, Istambul, Cairo and Aden. In every place the ship stops Rosa Maria and Maria Joana take side trips to see the interesting sites that although touristy, they hold a special significance and serve to advance the story. After all, Rosa Maria being a teacher knows well what she is talking about. In each destination they encounter a kind person, like the Orthodox priest in the Parthenon, or the Portuguese actor by the Piramids.

We also see in some of the ports of call a famous woman boarding the ship, but they don't appear until the last segment of the picture, when the captain, John Walesa, invites Rosa Maria and her daughter to join him at his table where Delphine, Francesca, and Helena, are sitting. Each woman talks in her native language, and yet, they all seem to understand what each one is saying. This serene moment doesn't prepare us for the surprise we are about to receive. Since we have no idea about what is coming, we remain in a state of shock because of the suddenness in how things happen. In a way, the film parallel life, as it is difficult to understand why things happen they way they do. Also, the fragility of life itself is examined by Mr. De Oliveira in his own peculiar way.

The director has given us no inkling up to the last moment of the film that anything could be so totally wrong. The whole film has such a soothing quality and a peaceful beauty that when the unexpected happens we are caught completely unaware of it.

Leonor Silveira has worked with Manoel De Oliveira extensively. She has such a regal presence in everything she does and her beauty is the no nonsense kind. Her Rosa Maria is perfect. John Malkovich and Catherine Deneuve have also worked with the director before, but this is not their film, they just happen to be there at the end. Stefania Sandrelli and Irene Papas are also featured in the film. Ms. Papas makes a wonderful impression as she sings to the delight of all the passengers and the viewers.

"Um Filme Falado" shows a Manoel De Oliveira at his best. He has produced a gorgeous film that requires our undivided attention.


I guess everyone has a right to his/her own opinion, and so the commentator(sp?) above. This is not an action movie, not based on any real underlaying "physical" story. But i liked it because it's kind of motionless, but has a sense of meaning to it - like you'll kind of know, there's someone intelligent behind it, and it's not necessarily driving an agenda down your throat. It's like spending time with a good friend (or wife, if you have the one your supposed to have), when you don't really have to do or say anything. This movie is something like that.

(Liking or disliking this does not say anything about your intelligence; you like it or not, and that's the end of it. I enjoyed it.)


De Oliveira belongs to a shrinking number of living filmmakers identifiable from a brief sequence, a few frames, of any film. I'm not sure who the others are, though certainly Rohmer, maybe the newer Kurosawa, and probably Kiarostami if he didn't have so many imitators, his own children among them.

The precisely titled A Talking Picture begins as Rosa and her daughter, Maria Joana, stand at the rail of a Mediterranean liner about to depart. Just as wavers ashore, who for distance seem frozen in motion to this goodbye ritual, begin to slip away, Rosa and Joana's fellow passengers walk around them backwards to the ship's motion, trying to hold sight of their well-wishers for as long as possible. No one looks at the mother and daughter. Mother and daughter don't move. Like stones paired in a stream, they break yet don't halt the flow. Calmly, with a smile, continuing to preen Joana's long hair Rosa continues her dialog. We know the dialog hasn't just begun, because Joana's questions are so acute, because she's so clearly her mother's daughter. But in another sense, things do start right here. Mother and daughter have a past, yet the artifice does not: the film is circular. To De Oliveira's naysayers, I suggest watch at least these opening minutes immediately after the film's final frames. If you can bear it, re-watch every line and image of Rosa's long instruction knowing what will happen.

I'm afraid it's all too fresh in mind to trust myself to offer much more beyond random thoughts. Though I read only three of the four languages (no Greek), I caught on immediately that each at the Captain's table spoke her own language. Aside from Malkovich, who mixes French and English when speaking to Deneuve, they, if I didn't miss, don't even inject common Anglicisms. The effect was so intriguing I'm grateful De Oliveira left me time to think Babel before Malkovich cued it. The symbolism in Joana's Arab doll may seem too heavy, but at the same time it encompassed the sometime tragedy of chance. Rosa's top of the head example of a doll taken away, with which she explains war to Joana, may have been what sent Joana back. Just the mention of a doll, I mean: not that Joana ran back because of anything to do with war.

There's no such thing as an objective definition of war. Rosa's needs examination, against the rest of the film and against actuality. If hers is also De Oliveira's definition, then all the more so. But I'm not going to try to do it here. I'm not even going to try to decide whether the film or De Oliveira equate war with terrorism.

Like every De Oliveira film, A Talking Picture is quietly musical. What I mean is even with the sound turned off, or with Papas and the instrumentals removed: the edits are musical. "Listen" to the hard beat of the ship's bow punctuating the flow. Appreciate the asymmetrical rhythm that shunts Malkovich and ladies mostly to the film's final third. Who is chorus and who verse, Rosa or Joana?

Two silly De Oliveira anecdotes:

A screening at my local film festival of another misunderstood De Oliveira film -- I think it may have been The Letter -- set what may be a festival record for loud running battles in the audience: "Stop kicking my seat back!" "I'm not!" "You are so!" At least four separate disputes ran on and on in different corners of the medium-sized screening room. Why that film? Why De Oliveira? I've no idea. But as I was on my way out, one of the ever-present festival matrons revealed to me that she hadn't gotten the film at all. The quietly inane dialog, from one character, though I'd known it immediately for hilarious dead-on satire, she'd attributed to the nearly ninety-year-old De Oliveira's finally losing touch. She actually used the word "senile."

Don't know if it was the same year, but the one in which the same festival gave De Oliveira a lifetime achievement award, unlike most visiting directors he attended as many other directors' films as he could manage in his few days at the festival. Seemed like every film I attended, there he was. Once I looked round and discovered him right behind me. Instead of sitting up rigid as many people that age seem to for fear of displacing a vertebra, he slouched down like a teenager, legs sprawled into the aisle, clearly absorbed by whatever was showing.


Great movie. It was absolutely delightful to see some of the most important places in our history and to listen to such great explanations. I specially liked when the little girl asked her mother for the meaning of some words that, even though we use a lot in every day conversation, almost no one knows its precise meaning. I understand the ending is a clear political (or civil) message to the audience, and i give de oliveira credit for being so brave, but i think he might have over-simplified the issue of terrorism. A word to the argentine film student who wrote that this movie was worthless: please drop out of school.


This is another Great film of 97year old Portuguese director Manoel De Oliveira (a legend!). It's incredible how this director still creative is... His stories are simple and deep. He demonstrates that with a low budget you can always do strong films, with good lines.

A mother takes her daughter to a cruise trip through Mediterranean Sea. She teaches her story and gets in touch with three European women and the ship's captain. Everyone speaks his own language... That's why it's a "Talking picture", a meeting among people of several cultures. The dialogue follow the everyday life. The film seems to be very calm and seems to tell simply a friendship story, until the final scene... Where we remain totally surprised.

A small, cultivated and poetic picture, from an European big director.


I highly recommend this movie for anyone with an open mind and patience. My own enjoyment of it was further enhanced by my love of languages, zeal for seeking subtext, and boredom with conventional film clichés. If you're like me in this respect, I think you'll enjoy this film. If you're looking for a thrill ride or expect one of the standard narrative forms, you will not.

The film behaves like the sea it frequently depicts. Lilting, undulating, splashing, and crashing randomly on its poetically simple story line: a Portuguese woman and her daughter set out on a cruise to meet their husband/father in Bombay. Along the way, they stop in various cities and have conversations about the history of the places they're visiting.

At first viewing, the films seems like a mixture of luxuriously long shots of ships and waves, stilted conversations between wooden actors, random scenes with strange editing, and almost no musical score. But the more I think about the film, the more the subtle meanings haunt me. The film was not an "upper", but I can't help smiling when I think about it.

I think the point was this: Through its academic recitation of history, a mother's explanations to her child, and an unsettling dose of present day reality, this movie contextualizes life in a way no other film I know of does. Good and Evil brought full circle? The grand flaw of humanity laid bare? An excercise in audience-manipulation? Whichever: Very rewarding.


contrary to many of the reviews. I especially agree with the reviewer from Hong Kong, who stated that this is indeed, similar to real life, and he is in a multi-cultural city, where many languages are spoken.

Although I am from the U.S., I have traveled, and have experienced similar situations wherein people are acquainted. I guess one of the problems is that in the U.S., unless you are in one of the coastal cities, you are not familiar with multi-culturalism. This is sad, because I feel that Hollywood caters to the lowest common denominator in America (In Paris, for example, I do not think they would market "The Dukes of Hazzard"). I for one am tired of films which cater to the 12-17 year old demographic, or just the generally ignorant masses.

John Malkovich is interesting, and Leonor Silveira portrays a professor, traveling with her daughter. The cruise departs from Lisbon and is to arrive in Bombay, sometime later. We see some exquisitely filmed scenery, Apollo, Pompeii, Cairo.

Malkovich is the ship's captain, and has guests of honor at his table including the lovely Catherine Deneuve, Stefania Sandrelli, and Irene Pappas. Each woman represents a different culture, and they exchange ideas and ideologies with Malkovich. This is a very interesting and realistic portrayal of people's varying impressions. They discuss Greece, the origins of language, and religious ideology.

At one point Malkovich invites the professor, Silveira, and her daughter(Filipa de Almeida) to join his group at the table. He also purchases a doll at one of the ports of call, in Morocco, I believe, and there is a parallel story of countries, politics, and possessions, for which the doll is a metaphor.

You will see at the end of the film the significance of the doll, and the allegory it represents. Quite a good story, and a relief from the usual American movies we are bombarded with.


**** Potential spoiler alert - My comments may provide a tangential hint of inflection points in the movie ****

Being a native of India and living in the US, this movie hit so close to home on so many counts. Incredible movie!

* Feels refreshingly unscripted, which is very liberating because it lets the viewer become a part of the unfolding story without being led by the nose thru it.

* The conversation at the captains table made perfect sense for me, given the babel that is India - 1000s of languages, yet holding together as a perfectly functioning anarcho-democracy!!!

* The deliberate decision by the mother to go by ship from Europe to India, discovering the world at a deliberate laid back pace, taking several weeks when she could just fly there in 10 hrs. By coincidence, I've been researching for several months just such a journey, principally for my daughter.

* We've directly experienced that effects of history that's discussed in the movie - chiefly the influences of Portuguese, English, French, Turkish, Arab, and lately, American ...

* The devastating effects of mass-scale violence by "remote control." Again, the story of real peoples' lives both in India and in the US, and of course of late it seems, world wide ...


I enjoyed this movie a lot at its screening at the Venice Film Festival! It is a fun thing to remember, that the little girl main actress in this film was really crying in the lap of her real mother after the movie was over and while there was a standing ovation. It must have been the first time she'd have seen the finished film.

* spoilers maybe ahead *

Absolutely extraordinary guiding through some Historical places by the mediteranean sea. It's in portuguese.

They speak several languages on a boat. John Malkovich is the awesome captain on that boat. And there you see him talk for hours with Catherine Deneuve and some other actresses. They talk about civilisation, history, languages, society... lots of interesting stuff!

As some I heard the opinion from they though this film was badly boring in its talking and in its trying to teach us a lesson in all from the history of Europe, good manners, communication and so forth.

But I enjoy a lot when a movie obviously tries to teach me a lesson in such things. Be it supposed to be common knowledge, seeing that orthodox priest talk at the Parthenon, see the two main characters talk and learn through the historical places is very interesting.

Most importantly I find the cinematography in this movie very beautiful, specially when they talk on the boat and do stuff on the boat.

I rate this movie 8/10, at least..


I spent what seemed like hours (really only 60 minutes) waiting for something to happen in this movie. Although I liked seeing the excellent photos of interesting places that I'd like to visit someday, it seemed this was more a travelogue than a drama. I also thought it was nice to witness a healthy, positive relationship between the mother and daughter. But John Malkowitz seemed a bit affected in both his manner and his role. And what was the reason for the three famous/rich women sitting at the table with him? I kept thinking something was going to happen that involved the three of them but it never did. Then comes the ending -- oh my gosh! Where did that come from? It was totally shocking and not in a good way.


What a horrible, irredeemable waste of celluloid. We found ourselves wishing for the boat to sink, Malkovich, Deneuve et al to be devoured by sharks. It's a shame, because the concept had potential. Unfortunately, there is no character development, no plot, and the dialogue is as hackneyed as something between a group of pompous 18-year old students with an affectation for existentialism.

To add insult to viewer injury, de Oliveira assumes the viewer has zero knowledge of the most pedestrian tourist destinations in the Mediterranean. The film is little more than a Lonely Planet guidebook for schoolchildren, with an eye-rollingly vapid dinner conversation between actors who should have known better.

Before someone sets up a Rambo strawman, the two of us who viewed this are admittedly pretentious cinema buffs. Nothing can redeem this tour de merde though. The only way I'd recommend this film would be for a group of second-year Portuguese language students, if the professor doesn't have time for a lesson plan one week.

This horrible piece of dreck belongs on Andorran Public Broadcasting on Sunday night, just after the documentary on the making of Roquefort cheese. I'd rather be hogtied in a room with the roadcrew from Queen and a jar of KY jelly mixed with sand before ever being exposed to something this wicked and satanic again.

Puke.


It is arguably the most boring film I've ever seen in my life. Boring and pretentious. European cinema at its worst: no plot, no nothing. I wonder how the director started filming having such an empty script. The stilted monologue of the Portuguese woman who explains things to her daughter makes you feel uncomfortable, simply because you know most of the things, and don't really want to know the rest. The whole first part of the film sounds like a bad documentary from an educational channel: we could have read a guide-book, instead. If you want to watch a good film with an educational background, find a copy of Sophie's World: this is a great film. In the second half, Catherine Deneuve, Irene Papas and Stefania Sandrelly excel in a small talk, and so does John Malkovitch; they wouldn't stop for ages. You begin to anticipate some kind of deus ex machina, and here it duly comes in the form of a bomb. The Talking Picture isn't even bad, it is awful. Avoid!


I struggle to understand how anyone can give this film more than (at most) two stars. The texts the actors have to speak are amongst the most stilted I have ever heard in a film (and I've seen a few shockers). Not only that, very little happens. There is no real story, none of the characters attract our sympathy in the slightest. And, as another reviewer has pointed out, stilted passages (which appear to be copied from slightly out-of-date guide books) are spoken by characters who appear here and there to give us some predigested geographical and historical information while the Acropolis, the Sphinx, Hagia Sophia etc. flit by.

You may a better idea of what I mean if I mention (spoiler!) that the dramatic high point of the film occurs when we wonder if a small dog attached to a boat by its lead will get dragged into the water as the boat sways to and fro.

Could it be that the bomb (sorry, another spoiler) at the end of the film is a cinematic metaphor for "bored to death"?


On a small cruise ship, Leonor Silveira, playing a young attractive school teacher traveling with her daughter, points out and comments on sites as they retrace Vasco da Gama's year-long voyage from Lisbon to India some five hundred years earlier -- this time sailing through the Mediterranean Sea and Suez. The obsequious captain, played by John Malkovitch, at the same time he is entertaining three successful European business woman, played by Catherine Deneuve, Stefania Sandrelli and Irene Pappas, who recount their life experiences in their own languages, intrudes unwantedly on the teacher and daughter... and won't be deterred. Turning to the daughter after the mother rejects him, the story veers into tragedy. Pappas sings beautifully and Sandrelli is the Ava Gardner of Italian cinema.


A movie that really speaks for our generation. The director's attention to detail was unparalleled in all the movies that I have ever seen in my entire life. My ENTIRE life! The performances were stellar and moved me to tears. The artistic cinematography had me glued to my seat and the tight plot is reason enough to watch this eye-popping spectacle. This movie transcends genres in every possible way. I just could not get enough of the movie. I'm watching out for the sequel and will donate half my life's savings to the production of the director's next venture - as long as the little girl is cast in it. I'm sorry I would like to write more coherently and longer but my emotional body is still quivering from the impact of this fantastic movie - a jarring metaphor of what has become of our history, effortlessly gliding with unstoppable eloquence. Please excuse me while i go watch this AGAIN! Please please please go and watch this masterpiece and make your life complete. Oliviera has done the human race proud!


What we have here is not a failure to communicate. And what we have here, more to the point - is not a movie.

Therefore, there is no point to hiring names to spout fact and opinion in this thing, "movie". I don't believe I've ever seen such a terrible waste of talent (the poor neglected actors). This "thing" is a history lesson, with an after dinner philosophy mint (stale at that) and a dramatic ending pasted on the last four minutes. But it ain't a movie. It wasn't a drama, as suggested in category, but the last freeze frame qualified it as a comedy for me - John Malchovich's frozen face of shock, credits roll...I couldn't stop laughing, went out on the back deck, and told my husband "I just saw the worst movie I think I've ever seen".


Never mind the historical documentary or political education we are offered along the ride, this is an example of the craziest film-making in history. If this had been a one-man show of a 96-year old I would not criticise it however, hundreds of people (of supposed quality) worked on this production and it seems no-one dared speak to the man to question his view. I'm sorry but having made 16 movies since 1990 at his age, you cannot expect much to come out if no-one is prepared to be honest. There are some worthy things but on the whole this really is the worst movie I have ever seen (and I was not alone - my wife, three Portuguese friends including one fan, and one film critic totally agree) and my only 86 year old musician grandmother would too and believe me we are all open to all kinds of films. If the 7-8 ratings gets justified just because it is a script showing "reality" then it must be by people who have never seen any other films about reality, try Iranian cinema to start with, you will not see anything as bad as this and if you're lucky even some really good stuff. Every person was fake and corny except the girl and the priest (who still ended up speaking as if he was rehearsing for a Guide du Routard film. The famous actor's all behaved as if they were about to die, the dialogue about languages in Europe was childish and there was no conviction in the texts. The mother seemed more to be educating a pupil not talking to her daughter. There were some more subtle parts, the importance of the husband (don't touch me I'm married and I have Portuguese pride)was very original. The french subtitles translated the reason for not diffusing the bomb being that no-one could read the instruction manual (think the translator knew he had to do something to help this film) The gossip of whether the famous actors we're talking about their own lives. If this had been on TV no-one would watch. Unfortunately he has never again done something as good as Aniki Bobo, his first real film, and now that he's at the "reverting back to a child" age he probably never will, still he deserves respect. There is one other person who has never recovered from a good start - Luc Besson, who has a good chance of turning into the world's worst famous film-maker.


I hate to be a spoilsport, and would not wish to hurt the feelings of the Portuguese director, aged 100 this year (assuming he is still alive), but this is really a terrible film. It is so badly made, so badly directed, so badly edited, that it can only be described as appallingly amateur. People make better films than that now with their mobile phones. I suppose that the dinner table discussion in the film between Catherine Deneuve, John Malkovich, Stefania Sandrelli and Irene Papas (bizarrely taking place in four languages, and everyone pretends to understand Papas's Greek!), must have been arranged as a tribute to the man who persisted in writing and directing this film despite being in his nineties. It was a touching gesture on their part to honour him and help him out, but the result is not something to boast about. The general idea of having a woman and her little girl visiting all those interesting places like Istanbul, and constituting a rather more intellectual travelogue than is usual in TV documentaries, was a sound one. But the execution of this idea was a total failure. I think it best if we were to draw a polite and discreet veil over this project, which may have been worthy but was not worthwhile.


This movie lacks in every aspect. It is neither entertaining nor educating nor funny nor scenic nor factual. Don't waste your time. It has no plot line other than subliminal smear on the Arabs. Acting was stiff and transparent. The leading actress truly embodied snobism and lacked realism. It was boring, badly shot, uninspiring and totally flat. If there was any less than a rating of 1 it would have deservedly earned it. Nothing good can be uttered about that movie other than thank goodness it ended. The scene at the dinner table, with the 3 ladies, in the ship was so lame and meaningless and a cheap emotional commercialism nonsense was added to it with the little girl being there among childless women.


I sat through the first 45 minutes of this film thinking "my goodness, if the pacing were any slower I might lapse into a coma". Even though the scenes were sweet and beautifully shot, it was a complete mystery where the story was headed. I was intrigued by the main character's travelogue- the stories she told were of interest to someone like me who has not been to that part of the world. Similarly, the discussions at the Captain's table among he and the three women were interesting, but no more so than rambling chatter one hears at the average dinner party. I am in amazement that Mr. Malkovich agreed to play the role he did- his lines were stilted and somewhat hackneyed. At the end, when I finally did see where the plot ended up, I was sorry I stuck with it as long as I did. I don't remember the last time I felt so disappointed by a film!


Thankfully , the terrorist attacks ended the boring , multi-lingual dialog , when I could not stand it any more. The ancient director managed to bring together some of the finest actors in moviedom , each speaking his own language, having the most boring , pseudo intellectual conversations the screen has ever seen, in a cacophony of English , French, Greek and Portuguese and in between some elementary school level guided tours to famous cities along the Mediterranean. Some of the photography is indeed captivating , if you have never been to Pompeii or to Athens , then you might as well visit them on the screen. This is really a Horrible movie, shown at festivals around the world.

The emperor's new clothes.


The cult of celebrity and beauty is exposed in the blackest humor by Denys Arcand with the hysterical Stardom. Jessica Pare as Tina Menzel is a vacuous beauty who is never allowed to be more than a pretty face and sexy body. A cast of mostly Canadian actors, Dan Ackroyd (SNL), Thomas Gibson (Dahrma and Greg), and newcomer Pare are cast to perfection in a scathing parody of entertainment television, expose documentaries, fashion television, and talk shows. Frank Langella (HBO Unscripted) portrays stuffy Blaine De Castillion, an aging minor diplomat who marries a trophy wife only to be thrown over by her for yet another monosyllabic athletic type.

Tina is the young victim of her own beauty and presented as an uneducated, unsophisticated, and naive girl swept into the heights of celebrity solely by the manipulation of her stunning face and figure. She is the victim of both men and women of the fashion trade that cash in. The modeling world which Tina inhabits is exposed with stunning cinematography as Arcand strips away the layers of commercialism that relies on selling the notions of youth and physical perfection like Tina Menzel.

No pc topic is overlooked by Arcand who takes a swipe at Canada's First Nation's eco-hype and indigenous spirituality, PETA animal rights fanaticism, heavily accented Canuk celebrity reporters, ice hockey, and feminist-lesbian-politics all with hilarious results.

Thomas Gibson as the steely agent for the multinational public relation agency that represents Tina never permits his client to be anything but the innocent yet desirable money-making product. Gibson's brief b/w screen time reflects a high production cosmetic ad and both Pare and Gibson are beautifully photographed to highlight their physical attractiveness, yet theirs is the only on screen relationship never consumated. Gibson's performance is both subtle, ambiguous, and dead on, esp. teaching a 400-level Yale course in "Sports and Celebrity Entertainment" and warning students of Millie-Vanilli versus Celine Dion talent spotting.

With little exposure beyond HBO screenings, Stardom continues to be true to the reality TV trend, yet, while it was ahead of its time, particularly in comments about full frontal nudity and Meg Ryan that unfortunately have come true, Arcand's film is often so subtle its droll satire flies over the heads of an unreflective public failing to grasp the humor and truth of the informed filmmaker.


Fame. According to Andy Worhol, everybody gets his or her fifteen minutes. How you react when plunged into the spotlight, or whether you even get a choice is something all together different. Tina Menzhal goes from being just another small town girl playing hockey to international superstar when her picture finds its way into the right hands. She suddenly finds herself, starring as fruit in TV commercials, walking the runways in New York and Paris and dating the rich and other famous. Thanks to the invasive camera of a documentary filmmaker, we get an inside view of the madness.

The famous people project an image - they go to all the right parties, drive the snazziest cars, date the shiny people and attract a legion of hangers on. Money, a need to be seen and on occasion pheromones, drive their life and relationships, and they lack any real substance. They are usually found in the company of the most vacuous species of all - the supermodels. Although these flawless walking trademarks are literally placed on a pedestal, with people constantly fawning over them, they are secretly reviled, derided as phonies and thought to be incapable of forming a coherent thought on any subject beyond make-up. Even more bizarre is the fact that most women will go to ridiculous lengths to look like them.

Denys Arcand's Stardom is merciless in its indictment of the media, fame, and the cult of beauty. The media - from "legitimate" reporters to Jerry Springer style talk show hosts - are portrayed as scheming, incompetent, sensationalist sycophants who will do whatever possible to get the story, build up the stars and then spend the rest of the time trying to tear them down. No detail of someone's life is too private to escape scrutiny, indeed the more personal it is the better the story - not a big stretch The symbiosis between the media and fame is depicted as an incestuous co-dependent relationship.

Cast in the role of Tina is relative newcomer (she had a small role in a mini-series) Jessica Pare. Although she had originally sent in a tape for a minor role, when she walked in for her audition Arcand knew immediately that he had found his Tina. Pare has the necessary combination of stunning beauty, and innocence to be believable as the young unknown catapulted to superstardom. Dan Akroyd, is brilliant as the staid, married restauranteur who becomes so enraptured with Tina's beauty that he completely loses himself and everything he holds dear pursuing her. Frank Langella is amusing as the aging diplomat caught in a late life crisis, who tries vainly to control Tina so that he may bask in her beauty, and is burned when he gets too close to the flame.

Artful direction, up close and personal cinematography and great performances sometimes make you forget you're watching a mockumentary. At times I felt like I was watching an accident - I was repulsed and intrigued at the same time. The characters, although somewhat outlandish at times, are not overly ridiculous - for anyone with any doubts, pick up a copy of "Variety" or "People" to see what fame can do to person.

The real question is whether life will imitate art for Ms. Pare.


Really an excellent little film, it reads like an update of DARLING in that it details the vacuous inner life of a young woman whose physical appearance is her only quality but one which take her around the world as a successful model and to the very pinnacle of her profession. However it is something of a cautionary tale as her inner vacuousness means she can never appreciate what she has or analyze how she got it. Because of her looks and success and fame no one ever stops to ask her. She is a moral imbecile but that too goes unremarked upon because everybody else in her world is one too and the only thing that is noticed about a human personality is material success i.e. either you're a winner or a loser.

The ending is perfect as it plays far more realistically than the comeuppance of Darling where the heroine has achieved the status of a princess but yet she is deathly bored. The heroine of STARDOM doesn't even have that ability to self reflect. While STARDOM plays less bitterly than DARLING because it is less a poison portrait of a manipulating bitch than social criticism, a presentation of an idiotic society which finds and discards superficial heroes, the more blank the better, as a matter of course. If the heroine of STARDOM actually had an intellect, or a central nervous system, she might be regarded as a victim but she seems to have less self awareness than the replicantes of BLADE RUNNER. The ending is chilling for the more sentient audience members, others will be puzzled by what the big deal is at an apparent happy ending.

These are the people who are indirectly being criticized in STARDOM.


STARDOM is a film that has been thoroughly misunderstood.

Seen as a film about the superficiality of the modeling industry and the trivia of all media commentary, it is actually a film about the absence of a fully determining, existential self. On reflection--something most viewers have not had the patience to do--STARDOM is about the loss of moral centre in a world devoted to celebrity celebration and instant gratification. Have a look at it. Think about it. There is more to STARDOM than meets the eye!


Denys Arcand's new film STARDOM is a very funny satire of the celebrity obsessed times we live in. Jessica Pare plays Tina Menzhal, a girl from Cornwall, Ontario who becomes a supermodel. Along the way we see how the media reacts to her and her relationships. The film is funny throughout with wonderful supporting work from Dan Aykroyd, Frank Langhella and Thomas Gibson. Although Arcand goes too far sometimes, the film is overall and excellent satire of modern life.


Jessica Pare' stars as the lovely small town girl, who blossoms into a Super Model, only with destructive consequences to the suitors who are drawn to her !

Ever wonder what the value of "Beauty" has to the World ?, this film "Stardom", defines it to a "T", and then some.

Canadian Indie film, Directed by Denys Arcand and co-written with Jacob Potashnik delve into the world of glamor and Super Models, with the gorgeous Tina Menzhal(Jessica Pare'), who gets lovelier and lovelier with each passing shot.

Starring at hockey, Tina is "DISCOVERED" and becomes the cause celebere', a Super Hot property modeling everything from starring TV commercials to the hottest runways in the world.

Enter Barry Levine(Dan Ackroyd) a married man with children who dumps them and invests everything he has, emotionally and materially, into the doomed relationship. Being a May-December couple has its restrictions, which soon separates them and Barry's mental status.

Blaine de Castillon(Frank Lanangella) has his desires set on her, and pounces at the first opportunity , to woo and wed his pretty prize.

He is an Ambassador,control freak, who wants his every wish fulfilled, with no questions asked. Well, you can see where this is going.

In between, we can see Tina's development, and the lack of it, as her fame increases, so does her shallowness, and naiveté'.

Cast on Jerry Springer like talk shows, she never finishes her thoughts, but seems to win every argument without trying.

Getting the Best of everything in life becomes standard fare, an expected way of life with no consequences.

The runtime is 100 minutes , except in Argentina, they get an extra 5.

So, if you feel that you have gotten the short straw in life, then you will really enjoy this film, watch for the Freud quote, it is memorable and historic. I gave this 2000 gem a 9.


I am watching this movie now and beside myself at how poor the casting was in this film, it is terribly and terrificly acted by most with maybe the exception of Tina's sister, a virtually unknown actress, maybe the actors have no comedic timing, but Pare specifically makes on camera acting mistakes I haven't seen since on camera acting 101, she is unbelievably plastic and lacks any emotive qualities whatsoever, there are no layers or dimensions in her character structure whatsoever her likability is nil, I'm watching a train wreck by a director who should've taken more care with his film instead of just collecting a paycheck which is what this film looks like


Jessica Pare is fantastic - she looks and plays the part perfectly, never overplaying it. I loved the show, especially since it zips along pretty quickly. It also has some amazingly funny moments thanks to the Blane character.


This film for me, shows how far Canadian film has come. It is unfortunate that this film does not seem to have been noticed more outside Canada. Pare is adorable and goes through the movie looking like she's not quite sure what's happening to her, or whether she should be enjoying it. Dan Akyroyd is brilliant as an increasingly neurotic businessman who falls for her. The movie unfolds in a series of photoshoots, media clips, sound bites, and interviews. As in accounts of "real life" celebs, it feels like we know Pare's character intimately. Perhaps this supermodel is as real as the celebs we see on TV and in mags every day. Beautifully and appropriately filmed - looks exactly like Fashion TV.


An entertaining look at a small town girl's rise to stardom. The film is shot documentary style & pokes great fun at the entertainment media. Canadians will get a chuckle out of the impersonation of MuchMusic (our MTV). Definitely worth checking out.


I thought Stardom was a very good comedy/drama. Jessica Pare did an excellent job and she is very beautiful in this part. The movie depicted the problems that models face in the high profile modeling world. Good cinematograpy and script.


Much of this was very funny; if the basic arc of the story is familiar, it's meant to be. Pare proves that, aside from being absolutely gorgeous in the coltish way that she all but defines, that she has the ability to balance the cartoonish and the mimetic dimensions of an occasionally tricky role. Supporting cast impressive, as well.


I was very surprised by this movie. I knew nothing about it except for Monsieur Arcand, and his oeuvre, so, needless to say, I was surprised at this "effort".

In an movie with nods to "Waiting for Guffman" (and movies of that ilk, which I love) but without the humour. The characterizations where over-the-top and annoying, the characters were mostly (including the lead, who was indeed gorgeous) cardboard, two-dimensional characters; completely unsympathetic and without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. So much of this movie felt so cliché, and I realize Arcand was probably going for a sort of over-the-top spoof of the fashion world, lampooning everyone involved in the business and that whole universe, wrought with superficiality and glossiness, but his strokes were too broad; the characters too transparent. Not to mention that we've seen it all before. Think of Altman's Ready To Wear. It just seems like an easy target. If you're not going to say anything new or enlightening about a subject, why say anything at all? For a movie to succeed, at the heart of it there needs to beat a soul, and this movie seemed to have none, whatsoever. Even a movie with a broad, exaggerated form of humour needs to have, deep in its core, a heart that beats real blood; something the audience can identify with and understand.

This is a surprising turn for Arcand, who has made a career making movies that are so full of human truths and insights. I found myself longing for "Le Declin de L'Empire Americain" or "Jesus de Montreal", in which the characters were authentic and sympathetic, and the stories fascinating.

Spoofs are fine. Broad comedies are fine. But as movies such as "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show" will attest to; you need to care about the characters on screen, even if things they do are ridiculous.

Just because the universe of fashion reeks of superficiality, doesn't mean a movie spoofing it should be just as if not more superficial than the world it's attacking.


18 year old fatherless Tina (Jessica Pare) is a Canadian female hockey player who rises to stardom as a model when a small time sports photographer snaps her pic. One would think that a mockumentary about the superficiality of the entertainment/ modeling industry would have some bite behind it. But sadly this is far from the case with this film which paints it's humor in extremely broad strokes and is often as superficial as the industry that it's supposedly parodying. The fact that the film comes from the usually quite dependable Deny Arcand only pours salt in an already gaping wound. When you get down to it, the sad fact is that we've seen this same plot done MUCH better in the past and more than likely we will again in the future.

Eye Candy: Jessica Pare gives glimpses of her ass & a VERY nice shot of her magnificent natural melons(but you have to struggle with the film for a tad more than an hour to get to this, so just skip this and watch her in "Lost and Delirious" instead)

My Grade: D

Where i saw it: @ Max


At first blush I thought "Stardom" had the appearance of a film worth watching with sufficient talent on its roster to ensure some kind of entertainment. Wrong! A pointless film which attempts to tell a tongue-in-cheek story of a model's struggle in fashion and off-target haute couture satire, "Stardom" is little more than a confused mess of vignettes, interviews, talk show appearances, etc. Pass on this uninspired loser which is too kinetic to even make good soporific.


I attended the Gala presentation of Arcand's Stardom at the Toronto Film Festival last night and was so disappointed I felt myself getting angrier and angrier for wasting my time through this cliche critique of the supermodel world.

It was unoriginal, uninspired and totally uninteresting.

I am repeatedly dismayed by my fellow Canadians who champion this sort of crap just because it is Canadian.

If you hated other films like Cronenberg's M Butterfly, Egoyan's Exotica, Whale Music, and other Canadian films that were over-hyped, well....you can add this to the list.

It is a stinker and deserves the Raspberry.

No point in outlining the plot -- it's so predictable and one-dimensional. I'm too embarrassed to introduce you to the characters which never develop, are cliche stock characters portrayed by a series of displays of incredibly bad acting.

Ouch.


"Stardom" is one of the worst films I've ever seen. With the exception of the lead, the lovely Jessica Paré, this movie is an embarrassment for everyone involved. Come to think of it, has there ever been a movie with Frank Langella in it that doesn't suck (Body of Evidence, anyone?).

It is a shame that so many talented film makers out there never get a chance to film their visions due to a lack of funding, while a piece of crap like this gets made. Speaking of crap, there is actually a scene late in this film where a disgruntled former model has an exhibit of sculptures made out of her own feces (I am completely serious). "Sh--, just like my life", she says. I said to myself, "You should be saying: sh--, just like this movie".


I love Denys Arcand he made some very good movies.Love and Human Remains,The Decline of the America Empire and more but this is BAD.This is not a movie but a documentary and a bad one at that.There is no storie for over a 100 min. you follow a beautiful girl with big breasts and a nice smile going through some stupid situations.If you want to see what the life a supermodel really is rent GIA.Gia is a little dramatic but a least is true.I cannot beleive that a Canadian director made this trash.Too much hype around a movie that did not deserve this kind of attention.Stay away from this trash.If you want to be bore then rent it.


I can't say enough about how wonderful I think this film, and the TV series is. It is just so incredibly FUNNY! All your fave characters are in it - Hedges, played by John Alderton is as gorgeous as ever (yes, I do like him!), Potter the caretaker is played by the hilarious Deryck Guyler and the hopeless headmaster Cromwell is played by Noel Howlett. Not forgetting the pupils of 5C of course! This is a must for all fans of the show, and it explains how Bernard met Penny for the first time. All teachers must watch this film! EVERYONE must watch this film!


I have never watched the TV series, so I am going in cold on this one. This is a thoroughly enjoyable early 70's British film about a teacher Mr. Hedges, played well by John Alderton, who takes his fifth form, lower middle class upbringing class to a rural center for two weeks. Part of the fun is waiting for this to happen, as you know things will go on once they're out of London. The best thing is, things do, but nothing lewd or purely criminal just fun. The movie keeps a good rhythm throughout and I felt no need to turn it off or do anything except watch and enjoy. I'm sure if you are a fan of the series you'll like this even more. For me, a novice, I still found it well worth watching. I think you will also.


This movie was on Channel 4 one day this summer. With nothing on, I tuned in and watched it. I wasn't disappointed.

In the movie of the popular ITV Sitcom Please Sir, teacher Bernard Hedges is angry that his class, 5C, the worst in the school, can't go on a school trip. He manages to get them on a trip, to the country. Trouble on the coach is just the start. Naturally there is trouble there. Problems include the fact that Dunstable's parents didn't sign, he got the signature forged, 5C being found in the pub and 5C's room vandalised, surprisingly not by 5C. But on the good side, Bernard Hedges gets a date with an attractive blonde.

Sitcom movies are never brilliant, but this was one of the better ones. I brought series 1 and 2 of Please Sir yesterday, so when I have finished watching them, I will review the TV series


Highly under-rated British comedy with many memorable characterisations, not a bad script, and a wonderful feel-good factor.

John Alderton is pretty much faultless as Hedges - this is fine comic acting.

Especially enjoyable if you grew up in the 1970s. Standout sequence for me is when Hedges (and we) think 5c have gone to bed for the night and he heads off to the pub with Price... only to bump into his pupils there. Nicely done.

Other amusing sequences also, and I can sum up the film using an expression of Dennis's (one of the characters)... "Yeah! Double NEAT!!"


It's about two percent movie making and ninety-eight percent hustling. It's no way to spend a life." Orson Welles Every review of this film will probably state this quote. Which is OK, because the film opens with it. But it's the perfect summary as director Christopher Garetano explores and investigates why we're drawn, filmmakers especially, to horror in general. It's also an examination of the spirit one tries to hold onto in a harsh business to enter, let alone prosper in.

So you wanna make movies? Why? And if so, why horror? What is it that makes us come back again and again to the genre? What would drive you to put "regular life" on hold indefinitely to create these twisted visions? Director Garetano- creator of the horror magazine Are you Going? (which he put on hiatus to make this film) and the award-winning experimental short INSIDE- decides to avoid horror's usual suspects (Stephen King, George Romero, Wes Craven etc.) and focus that question on the little guy, five or six independent up-and-comers with varying degrees of ambition and ability.

We meet such distinct iconoclasts as lone wolf David Stagnari, who spends years honing a surrealistic black-and-white nightmare called Catharsis, and wondering if there's even a place for his work in the era of glossy, soulless, empty films..Button-pusher Ron Atkins, who cranks out over-the-top tales of decadence and madness; John Brodie, a David Icke conspiracy theorist/producer who helps Ron complete a video dramatizing the alien takeover of the American Government; and John Goras, a mild-mannered animator who gets his angst out through titles like Son of God vs. Son of Godzilla. We also spend some time on the set of Zombie Honeymoon, where director Dave Gebroe aims for a more dramatic, character-based conflict amidst the body parts, courtesy of FX master Tate Steinsiek. And with Brian Singleton, who works on his own documentary of the paranormal and his own sci-fi/horror hybrid flicks with no money, time, or apartment to his credit

We also visit on set with Mark Borchardt, who indie and documentary fans will remember from 1999's American Movie. This film, however, is not a sequel; we only deal with Mark as he relates to the theme of the piece. As engaging as always, Mark actually seems to have lost his drive after this previous film Coven in the late 90's and we get to watch him regain it with his first feature Scare Me.

An excitingly visual documentary, Garetano avoids static, talking heads for the most part and peppers his film with colorful visual montages, often dramatizing the spirit of film-making a la Errol Morris; the film opens with a little kid in his bathroom applying KISS-like horror makeup and joining another kid brandishing a movie camera, recreating Night of the Living Dead on a child's level; it perfectly sets the playful tone and will make a lot of struggling indies grin and think back to their formative years. It's never distractingly stylized except for some occasional interviews, which are captured at jarring angles that make you crane your head.

Editing is tight and the timing makes some funny moments even funnier; There's some laugh out loud scenes as we follow these persistent dreamers through their highs and lows, and every personality he follows is at the least, interesting; with egos ranging from swollen to nonexistent. Yet the material never becomes condescending or a point-and-laugh affair, nor a 'Project Greenlight' chronicle of on-set mishaps and doubts. These folks, like all aspiring artists and craftsmen, were touched by films in their youth and will stop at nothing to be able to touch them back. The fact that the films that set them off were full of monsters, gore, madness and suspense is irrelevant. It's an honest yet hopeful look at the no-budget end of genre film-making.

The doc briefly turns to some low budget genre pioneers and well-known horror celebs. H.G. Lewis ('The Godfather of Gore') discusses entertainment vs. indulgence, Sid Haig(The Devil's Rejects, Spider Baby) talks commitment and "how much is too much," Tony Timpone(head of Fangoria magazine) shares his views on the genre's viability, and Joe Bob Briggs nails it when he discusses what usually sucks about low or no-budget films(stop casting your non-actor friends!).

Some of the work we see from the directors is barely above the amateur level, some more ambitious and detailed; but their resulting work isn't the point. (though there's a great ending sequence where a lot of them accomplish their immediate goals) Against all odds, they are out there shooting, getting it done, (hopefully) learning more about their craft etc. How many filmmakers start out that way and end up just talking?


I think most of us hardcore horror fans would agree that the state of most of the horror film industry latelywell, blows. Whether it's a studio film (and those are the worst offenders) or the indies, there is just not a whole lot out there that has made a huge impact on horror fans lately. The high expectations for recent films such as "The Devil's Rejects", "Land of the Dead", "The Amityville Horror" and so many others makes one wonder what is going on with horror these days? Documentarian and creator of the horror magazine "Are You Going?", Christopher P. Garetano has put together a fascinating, often irreverent, often deadly serious look at the world of the indie horror movie in his latest film, "Horror Business". And horror films fans should really take a look at this one.

Garetano spent two years following the exploits and film-making of such indie filmmakers as Ron ("Necromaniac") Atkins, Mark ("Scare Me") Borchardt, David ("Catharsis") Stagnari, John ("Dark Night of the Soul") Brodie, animator John ("Chirpy") Goras and SFX makeup artist Tate ("Zombie Honeymoon") Steinsiek and the results are hilarious, encouraging and depressing. Garetano also interviewed such horror veterans as Herschell Gordon Lewis, whose advice to filmmakers is to make a movie FOR the audience, NOT for yourself and "The Devil's Rejects" Sid Haig who gives his opinion on when a horror movie goes too far. Cult movie critic Joe Bob Briggs offers his three rules of film-making which are hilarious, Troma king Lloyd Kaufman stops by and "Fangoria" editor Tony Timpone gives his insight on the state of horror today versus when he first started at "Fangoria".

The film is not your typical documentary, filled with "talking heads". Garetano follows his subjects as they drive around their respective cities: Milwaukee in Borchardt's case and Las Vegas with Atkins. He visits in their homes, goes on-set, behind-the-scenes, meets family members. But the bottom line with everyone he speaks with is the drive and the passion it takes to make it even a little bit in the cutthroat film industry. He interviews some very young film fans and asks them what they want to be when they grow up and, naturally, they all want to make movies. He even opens his film with every young filmmaker's first experience  making a horror movie with their siblings or friends in their backyard with dad's movie camera.

But then it's back to the reality  he talks with Canadian Brian Singleton who has had to return from Florida to live with his parents and try to continue his dream with no money. Mark Borchardt's mom is helping him finance his film. Some of the films being made are amateurish, others a bit more polished but at the heart of "Horror Business" is the degree of passion these artists feel about what they are doing. Some of the filmmakers are egotistical to a laugh-out-loud degree while others are quiet and more grounded and realistic about the business they have chosen to be in. One thing they all seem to have in common though, is a love for such classic horror films as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Last House on the Left", both films being mentioned by all of the filmmakers as having a huge impact on them when they were young.

These filmmakers aren't poseurs or auteurs  they are regular guys who loved being scared as kids and want to scare moviegoers today. There are some brief discussions about why we enjoy being scared, how horror movies are a catharsis from the horrors of everyday life, how they show us our own mortality but basically Garetano has made a thoroughly entertaining film that takes us inside the minds of five disparate horror filmmakers and shows us what they go through to make their and our dreams (or nightmares) come true.

By Elaine Lamkin


Horror Business (2005) Director -Christopher P. Garetano Review by " Nightmare Child" Originally posted on Horror-Fanatics.com

Our journey begins with a dream. Film makers are dreamers, and always will be. These are the first set of words that are uttered in Christopher Garetano's documentary Horror Business. As fans of the horror genre we often share the same dream. To be apart of that experience whether it's behind or in front of the camera. These movies had a strong affect on us as children and we grew up with it. We love it, we live it and we will do anything in our power to keep the genre alive. This documentary is a bold and daring look at the working world of low budget independent cinema. What drives a person to make their own movie? If you're interested in film making and the criticism behind a blood soaked genre, then Horror Business is a must watch for you. This documentary is gives in depth look at guerilla film-making. Featuring interviews with movie makers who dedicate their lives to entertaining themselves, and others.

I am pleased to say that Horror Business is a must see. I've watched this documentary about 5 times prior to writing this review. Not all at once, but it just took me so long to come up with an idea for the review. Horror Business covers just about everything horror related. Everything from entertainment, marketing and actual down and dirty movie making. The documentary features interviews with many different film makers along with actors and other movie crew. While some of the credited cast are well known individuals, the rest run under the radar. Each person interviewed in Horror business share same love. We follow these independent directors as they explain why they make these pictures and why they continue working to do so. It wasn't apparent to me from the beginning but the more I watched Horror Business the more I began to realize why the poster says "movie making is NO WAY to spend a life". Some of the film makers shown in this documentary make these movies not just because they love doing it, but because they're stuck.

They've invested so much time and money over the years that they just can't stop and take their life into another direction. This aspect of the film appealed to me most and I'm willing to bet that it's the key point to this documentary. The main drive isn't clear right away though. There are so many topics of discussion that you'll be left questioning what the reason behind this documentary is. I liked Horror Business a lot, I thought that it was a very well made picture. It took me a few tries to understand the point but I think I finally got it. The interviews are great, the music is good and the editing is fantastic. I love the horror genre very much and watching Horror Business was a huge realization as to why I'm so attached to it. It's like looking at yourself in the mirror and remembering the finer points of your childhood. Horror Business is the perfect title for this wonderful work of art.

In this documentary Tony Timpone (editor of Fangoria magazine) mentioned that horror films are like therapy sessions. When you think about it, it's very true. I've heard this before from close friends of mine and I just so happen to agree one hundred percent. These movies bring something out of us that no other genre of film ever could. Fear can be fun, to be scared is like a going through a roller coaster. You get scared, but when it's all over you have a good laugh and want to go on again. Horror movies are just that like, they're fun to watch as long as they don't cross the line. I mentioned early on in this review that Horror Business pretty much covers everything that there is to know about the genre. One of the key discussions was about how far a movie could go. Are horror films dangerous? Can they go too far? These are just some of the many interesting questions that are presented in this documentary. Horror Business is a real in depth look at the reality of movie making. With all that said it's safe to say that this documentary should go into every horror collection. If you're into the idea of film making, acting or if you just love the genre, then Horror Business is a must see for you.


Indeed, this is a good movie. In fact, it's downright refreshing. The decision by filmmaker Christopher P Garetano to focus his film on the new breed of horror movie makers was truly an inspired one. And by "new breed" I don't mean the likes of Eli Roth, Rob Zombie or Alexandre Aja. I'm talking about guys like Ron Atkins, David Stagnari and Mark Borchardt. Who? Exactly, these are the grassroots filmmakers, the guys the general movie-going faithful don't even know  save for maybe Borchardt who was the subject of the 1999 film 'American Movie'.

Director Garetano skillfully inter-cuts lively moments of a handful of these "new breed" filmmakers struggling to get their flicks made with clips and sound-bites from classic films of a sadly bygone era. Seeing newspaper one-sheets and hearing radio spots for old films like 'Torso', 'Last House On The Left' and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' brought a nice nostalgic touch to the film, and it's hard not to want to pick-up a handy-cam and join these fellas in their plight to make the next low budget masterpiece.

Most of the guys spotlighted in this doc come across as likable, everyday kids who just want to make something different  something anti-establishment, anti-Hollywoodmaybe even something a little bit dangerous; kudos to them all! The doc is also peppered with small interview clips from the likes of Sid Haig, Joe Bob Briggs and the master of no-budget spat-fests himself, Mr. Hershell Gordon Lewis who all give their take on what it takes to make it in the world of horror cinema. The general consensus seems to be this: entertain people. Hallelujah!


Writing for Rogue Cinema has been a bit of an eye opener for me. I have to admit that, in the past, I've always watched movies and either enjoyed them, or didn't, without much thought to what went into the making of the movie itself. Well, in the past year or two, I've had my eyes opened as to the time and effort it takes to make even the smallest of movies and there's a movie out now that will help everyone to understand the independent film maker and what it takes to make a movie on your own, it's called Horror Business.

Horror Business is a documentary that follows three filmmakers as they make their latest projects. The first Mark Borchardt is filming a movie called Scare Me, a horror story about an author battling evil. Horror Business follows Mark as he gets started writing and filming the movie and it's a great glimpse into the world of independent film, as Mark tells his mother that because she's given him money, she's a defacto executive producer on his film, and the behind the scenes footage of the filming is informative too, when the person who was supposed to run the camera doesn't show up, Mark calls on an extra who's run a camera before to do the filming for the night, explaining that the more experience you have in the film industry the more likely it is that you'll get to work if you find yourself on a movie set, which seems to be true!

Next is Ron Atkins, a Las Vegas filmmaker who's filming his latest movie, Sins Of Government, a story that revolves around our government really being run by alien reptiles that have taken human form. Ron is a complete commando filmmaker, taking adversity in stride. His philosophy seems to be, just keep filming! Last, but not least, is David Stagnari, a New York film maker, who's film Catharsis seems to be the most 'artsy' of the lot, if that's indeed a word.

The word of the day in all of the productions seen in Horror Business is 'work'. As an average moviegoer, you really don't get an idea of what goes into the making even a low budget movie. There are no dressing rooms, there are no divas, there's just a lot of people with a common vision who are working hard to get that vision on film, working twelve hours a day or more with little or no pay, these movies are truly labors of love and you really get to see that in Horror Business.

If you've ever wondered about a person who would spend his time and hard earned money just to make a movie, or if you're one of those people whose currently saving their money with a vision in mind, Horror Business is for you. Chris Garetano's movie is a truly honest look at the independent film making process and the people behind and in front of the cameras. After seeing this, you'll never watch another low budget movie in the same way again, and that's a good thing. Horror Business is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen and whether you love horror movies or just movies in general, this will give you an idea of how much work can go into a movie and the love that film makers feel for their projects. It's called Horror Business and it's worth the time and effort you'll spend in finding it! Head on over to Horror Business Movie.com to get it today! And so, until next time when I'll tell you about my documentary, I'm going behind the scenes of a bakery, not because I think it'll be a good movie, just because I like the donuts, remember that the best movies are bad movies.

Posted on Monday, May 01


Saw this at a festival last year, looking forward to its DVD release in '07. It's all about the struggle, really, and if you're an in-the-trenches, do it yourself indie filmmaker you'll absolutely appreciate it. But it's worth checking out even if you are NOT making films. The struggle to push through the odds and reach a goal is one every viewer can relate to, and the group of artists focused on is always entertaining to watch.

The director focuses on several people in various stages of production in their low or lower-budgeted horror films, and speaks to some key industry folk(Tony Timpone from Fangoria, Sid Haig, Joe Bob Briggs, HG Lewis and others) for perspective. What's cool about this documentary is it has its own distinct personality, it tells its story clearly but with its own visual flourish that most docs don't even attempt. It's got a central vision and a warm heart that shines through it, it never goes off on tangents. I was into it from the great opening sequence where a young boy puts on his monster makeup and joins his friends in making their first creature epic in the backyard, with their little film cameras.

American Movie fans will get to check out what Mark Borchardt has been up to since "Coven", and you'll see up and coming directors like Dave Gebroe sweat through a grueling day of shooting on "Zombie Honeymoon"(which turned out great). Very inspiring and worth checking out, looking forward to part II.


Horror Business Review by George A. Romero (director of Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead, Creepshow, and Day Of The Dead)

" Horror Business is a terrific flick. Christopher Garetano has completely succeeded in describing the passions, the adventures- and the misadventures- of crazy people like me who, somewhere along the way, decided they... needed to make movies. Anyone who wants to write or direct should see this film. Those who have never dreamed of being filmmakers should see it for its humor and its pure entertainment value. Two thumbs up- both of them mine because, like the others Garetano has portraited, I basically work alone." -George A. Romero


That play on words comes out of Megadeth's first album title. The display of top notch makeup, effects, music scores and set design (and not always top notch acting), doesn't get horror much respect in the film world at large. Horror is to cinema what so called "heavy metal" is to pop music. The weird, often by choice, relative at the family reunion who'd rather show you their tattoos or pet snake than photos of babies or a cute puppy.

And the evolution of things that make us afraid over film's history definitely includes the creepy and grotesque. Filmmakers from the most talented to the least competent have tried their hand at horror, some making a nice living remaining in the genre for their whole careers. Wes Craven, Francis Coppola, Stanley Kubrick and now, Martin Scorsese, have all made heartwarming human interest stories and f____d in the head descents into movie madness.

The great Tony Timpone, editor of "Fangoria", appears in this and is one of the foremost enthusiasts of the macabre. I've met him several times at Montreal's "Fantasia" festival over the last two years and he's a prince, one of the easiest to talk with celebrities you could ever meet from the film world. He emcees several of the Q+A sessions each summer, hosting "Pig Hunt" (in 2008) and "Dreaded" (in 2009) recently. If this normal looking gentleman is an ultimate horror guy, the clergyperson you see each week or the manager in a suit at your bank might be too.

The limits some place on themselves when deciding just what it is about horror that they like and dislike are interesting. Hardcore slasher types don't need a strong plot or wonderful production quality to enjoy that primary emphasis on the bloodletting. Those who aren't primarily fans of the genre require something more, not resting on the laurels of convention to stay involved in any provocative material. And there will always be those who hate horror with a passion, never warming up to anything that smacks of some comic or sadistic cruelty.

Horror evolves, however slowly. In an essay on so called "torture porn" in "Premiere" back in 2007, Eli Roth (director of "Cabin Fever" and "Hostel") remarked that seeing dead bodies floating down flooded streets in New Orleans during the endless news reports of Hurricane Katrina was much more horrific than anything one could find in a mere movie. And many, horror fans or not, would agree with that sobering assessment of where the true priorities of society's real horrors deserve to be placed.


I really enjoyed this documentary as an aspiring filmmaker and a big fan of horror. Some of the films didn't seem very good at all but it is definitely encouraging to see a bunch of independent filmmakers doing what they love the most and actually getting their films out there. It makes me feel like I can do the same.

I think that this movie is mostly meant for people who want to make movies because it really seems to be geared in that direction. All young horror filmmakers should see it and take to heart what is said in it. You might be surprised how much you learn from this little documentary. Now go watch it and enjoy.


HORROR BUSINESS is a series of interviews with, and an advertisement for, some guys who call themselves "independent film-makers" when they're feeling mellow, otherwise they use terms like "guerilla", or "subversive". More than anything else, this is a documentary about lost souls, about people who rarely, if ever, understand how far it is that their reach exceeds their grasp.

All of these guys are under the spell of a handful of horror classics from the '60's and 70's, and they seek to further develop these films and their concepts. But this is misguided thinking. Films like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD or DAWN OF THE DEAD make pretty complete statements all on their own. Making one or several imitative efforts, however flattering, adds nothing of value to the original, and does not make any meaningful contribution to the genre, or to film-making at all.

Secondly, it seems that these unwashed youths, for all of their angry, bitter worshipfulness of these original films, don't really understand the films to begin with. For example, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE is about far more than some maniacs and some lost teens; it is about the ability of limited, wrongheaded personalities to destroy more developed ones, and the tendency of the devouring mentality, as it appears in its many forms, to consume things of value while contributing nothing in return. For another example, it is only on the surface that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about shambling revenants; the soul of the film is far more about the how people react to widespread disaster and the destruction of their status quo by turning on each other. Both of these films ask the viewer to consider to what degree have predatory, merciless tendencies saturated human societies.

All of this is apparently lost on the hapless, vaguely aggravated personalities that are the subject of HORROR BUSINESS. They imagine themselves as subversives preaching the gospel of grindhouse horror, when there's nothing subversive about that. Such films as they honor have already been acknowledged to be fine, worthy films by the movie critic community. There are no forces massing up to denounce or attack the original Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. The fact that there ever were is simply a testament to the shocking nature of the films.

It is really only these guys' own paranoia, and their natural status as superfluous, ineffectual people that causes them to frame their perspectives in such "us vs. them" terms. While they may like to think that they have made some dramatic choice and went down some dangerous, subversive path, they haven't turned away from mainstream film-making, because mainstream film-making never wanted them to begin with. They do not see that they have nothing to offer in terms of innovation, because their perspective lacks the stipulation that someone in entertainment, or any kind of story-telling capacity, should have to have anything to offer in the first place. They hold mainstream film-making and filmgoers in contempt for not embracing some horror classics from 30 years ago, and it is lost on them that if these films had been accepted outright and loved universally, they themselves would not be obsessing over them today.

If they really wanted to be subversive, they would try to make the most intelligent films they could. They would study endlessly and mine the world for worthy material that would teach people things they didn't know. They would seek to make intellectual films about little known historical events, or scientific concepts. They wouldn't make an endless stream of bad zombie films, whose ultimate purpose is merely to fill out the empty spaces on the new release shelves at Hollywood Video.

But these are men who hold to their illusions with a death-grip; one guy still wants to have long rock star hair though he's basically bald on top, which is a metaphor for how these guys avoid facing the truth; that they are not great filmmakers waiting to be discovered, but rather mere obsessives with eroded imaginations. Balding Guy even throws a hissy-fit like a prima donna rock star, except that it is directed at at some fast food guy in a drive-thru window. It is exactly like the Tenacious D. drive-thru skit, but he is actually serious.

Warning: while Joe Bob Briggs and Sid Haig are featured in the credits, they are only in the film for a few seconds each.


...the question is how much will it interest the casual viewer or regular fan of horror movies.

As a low budget filmmaker myself, this movie is obviously skewed to my interests--so I identified with a lot of the filmmakers interviewed.

The film goes back and forth between filmmakers like Mark Borchardt, known for his "American Movie" and others I hadn't heard of like Ron Atkins. Many of them come off as bitter, but they all seem to have a genuine love of horror.

So if you've got an interest in horror and, and what drives people to create them, you may wanna check this movie out. It may bore the more casual horror fan, but all in all it's a well-crafted documentary.

(The question I want answered is how did that Ron Atkins guy get a girlfriend who's so freakin' cute, and way out of his league? )


OK, just finished watching the awful transfer of this film on a $1 DVD. I prepared myself to be shatteringly disappointed by reading the reviews here before I started. And... drum roll please... I didn't think it was nearly as bad as everyone says.

That being said, let's get the really awful aspects out into the open; the music really is pretty uninspired. Think Radio Shack electronic workshop - imagine a 9 year old plugging and unplugging wires and pushing buttons on a flimsy bit of PC board. Got it? OK, bring it down a notch. There are also some awkward transitions in the plot. Consider a story you might tell a child, the kind you make up as you go along. When the child asks why the plot of your story contradicts itself, you just wave off their questions with a shake of your hand and say, "Keep listening!" This movie does that... kind of a lot. And, alas, sometimes the murdered dead look like dummies - and that never happens in any film and it should absolutely not be forgiven under any circumstances... ;) But what about the good? How about some really excellent acting on the part of Douglas Gudbye as "Germy" and his counterpart, Newton Naushaus, "Mr Johnson." Gudbye's skill on the screen made me pause the movie to check his filmography, hoping he had matured into a great success. Saddly, his role here was his first and last. Gudbye puts Dustin Hoffman to shame in acting out the role of a mentally handicapped. Naushaus, also appearing here in his only film role, was the embodiment of the anal-retentive schmuck we all endured at our first summer job. Also good? The sets - always authentic but never in the way.

Bearing in mind that the film was intended for drive-in audiences, the plot, the ending, and the characters all make perfect sense and contribute to what would have been, if seen in the proper environment, a genuinely unnerving film.

I'm sorry for those who really think this is the worst film ever. I'm always on a quest for the Holy Grail of Hokiness, the Ark of Awful... but it won't be found here.


Dreadful film about a serial killer that repeatedly butchers his victims with a sword at a Californian drive-in. On the trail of the killer are two overweight police detectives with no acting skill whatsoever - which accommodates a cast of similar types. This film has little substance: we are given the killings with no reason at all, with no killer it seems, and with no credibility in direction, script, or acting. None of the "cast" seems like a real actor(maybe a case could be made for the guy playing Germy). The actors look like they move on cue. The script gives us nothing in terms of plot except that a couple cops are looking for a killer at a drive-in and they have three forgettable leads in solving the case. The direction is sub-par as the lighting is barely able to illuminate much of the action at night. The gore is ridiculously inept in execution, and the editing is just as flawed. The film is funny for all the wrong reasons, especially some inane dialog like the fattest police detective being warned that the ham sandwich he is eating may be his father(?) The film is framed in the same type of documentary prologue and epilogue used so much more effectively in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Here it is laughable. A truly bad film with little merit.


For the type of movie this is, given when it was made, and a total lack of big name stars ( or small name stars for that matter ) this film is very watchable. The players, none of whom are great at their craft, are worth the effort and make the movie. The special effects aren't bad given '76 standards and low budget. The plot is typical and functional. My favorite part of the whole thing? The cops. They actually come off like cops. Coupled with the premise its like Dragnet does Freddie Kruger. I liked this film. Of course I liked Dragnet and Nightmare on Elm Street too. Its certainly not great art, but thats not what this type of film is meant to be. Its meant to be cheap entertainment, and thats exactly what it is.


This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen in any genre. The acting is absolutely pathetic. Are the cops supposed to be clever? Or dim? We may never care. It's probably just bad acting. The story isn't much of a story to begin with. Guy slashes people in a drive in. And I never even understood who the killer was. The timing is completely off- so the director adds a long scene about a shoot out in a warehouse that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual case. Directing- non existent. There are one or two interesting scenes but that is about it. The whole film has an air of shabbyness and dirtyness about it. You don't really care about anyone because no one is really interesting. One or two attempts at humour fail abysmally. And the soundtrack sounds like John Carpenter on a bad day- a really bad day.