Possible spoilers

Pearl was one of many lengthy mini-series made in the latter 1970s and early 1980s, and the passage of time has been good to this film. The cast is surprisingly good, the plot moves well, and the contrasts involved in the film are striking.

There are two main subplots which revolve around the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack - first is the relationships between MP Colonel Jason Forrest, his wife, and varied others under Forrest's command, notably his XO Captain Calvin Lanford (a particularly effective performance by Robert Wagner). The second is the relationship between Navy Junior Grade Lieutenant Douglas North (Gregg Henry in his most memorable performance) and his family, headed by his Navy Commander father (Richard Anderson, who plays about the only officer in the film whose head stays on straight throughout), along with a local Japanese news writer with whom Doug went to school in Oahu, Holly Nagata (Tiana Alexandra, who if I read her IMDb biography right, was all of 16 when this film was made).

The interaction between Doug and Holly is the best part of the film, as we see the less-than-enthusiastic reaction by Doug's father and mother Ellie (Marion Ross overdoing it at times) and the hostile reaction by Holly's tradition-minded mother and father to the presence of Doug in their daughter's life; Holly's plea to her father for tolerance is a strikingly effective speech showing a fact too often forgotten in PC circles - bigotry is a two-way street.

The greatest contrast in the film lies in its use of stock SFX/action footage from 1970's Tora! Tora! Tora! - the comparative decadence and ill-discipline of the American side contrasts sharply with the near-Cylon-esquire discipline of the Japanese First Air Fleet as it sails toward Hawaii. Chuichi Nagumo, commander of the First Air Fleet, is here portrayed by So Yamamura via footage from Tora! Tora! Tora!, with new dubbing in both Japanese and English; some of the English dubbing is unintentionally humorous over some post-attack scenes involving attack leader Mitsuo Fuchida and his crew chief, and officers aboard the carrier Soryu when the fleet's recall order goes out - given what these men actually say (via Tora's captions) the new dubbing mixes things up a little.

The film gets some details wrong - when Nagumo gets word that the first wave has sunk numerous US ships, he orders the launching of the second wave; in fact the second wave took off an hour before the first wave made contact with their targets. The film also gets wrong the exact time the first wave broke off its attack and also shows torpedo planes in the second wave, when only the first wave had such. Granted, this is nitpickery

The actual attack is presented in most of its entirety - some key scenes missing include early torpedo hits on Battleship Row and hits on the West Virginia before her skipper gives the order to counter-flood and stop her from capsizing. The film uses superior sound FX in presenting the attack - the sound FX used by 20th Century Fox are good, but Warner Brothers uses far better explosion, strafing, and piston airplane engine sounds here; the sound FX used here sound even better, despite being recorded in mono, than many stereo sounds used in later films.

The fate of Holly and Doug is by far the best character interplay throughout the film and is especially strong at the end; the film skips an important detail that Silliphant's novelization includes to great effect (some extra dialogue between Holly and Doug where Doug notes something missing from their date in her car), a detail that adds enormously to the relationship between Holly and the North family. The North family also gets a great scenery-chomping scene between Commander North, Ellie, and their daughter Patricia at their hotel early in the attack amid rumors that President Roosevelt has surrendered Oahu to the enemy; Patricia and Ellie are hysterical as Michael struggles to keep them calm, and when Patricia asks her mother if she's ever been raped (wanting to know whether to resist should the Japanese invade the island) the stunned silence by Ellie and Commander North is strikingly effective.

The North soap opera ultimately is what really holds this film together and makes it as good as it is.


Entertaining movie about an awful event. I Watched it again for the first time since I saw it on TV, and was impressed. It actually touched on the prejudices of the time quite well. The acting was good, and it was fun to go down memory lane with some familiar faces-most who were in the smaller parts (Brian Dennehy, Gregg Henry, Adam Arkin, Max Gail). I liked Dennis Weaver's performance better now than in the 70s when "McCloud" was fresh in my mind, because his character was not that likable. For Robert Wagner fans, I would say this is one of his better roles...Especially if you measure his performance by hotness, as well as acting and character likability.


The military as a source of soap opera-type stories had been little-mined in the 1970s, though it certainly was going to be in the future (at least on American network TV) with shows like "For Love and Honor", "Emerald Point N.A.S." (also starring Weaver), and, arguably, "Tour of Duty" (not to mention the champ of them all, "China Beach"). To take the sweeping course of events in 1941 Hawaii and use them as a source of stories more about personal lives and interactions than grand strategic plans was an interesting course of action; somehow it must have mostly succeeded or there likely never would have been the (far superior) "Winds of War" a few years later on the same network.


I remember watching this on the Family Channel (yes, the family channel) a long time ago when I was little. At the time I wasn't sure what I was watching, but I did like the movie. I had time to waste, and this wasted time while being entertaining. I've seen the miniseries at least five times since then, when it's be re-run on various cable channels.

Whichever TV channel broadcast this originally, put a lot of work into it. On location filming, many of the biggest stars of 70s, and good special effects. With all this money put into these parts of the movie, the plot is slightly thin and melodramatic, and they "borrow" many action scenes from 'Tora, Tora, Tora' (good movie, but much more boring than this miniseries).

Angie Dickinson plays the bitchy wife of a colonel (Dennis Weaver), who tries to have an affair with a southern captain (Robert Wagner), and ultimately is involved in an affair with a private. Lesley Ann Warren is a doctor who is saved from suicide by Wagner. A local journalist of Japanese origin (Tiana Alexandra) is involved with a private (Adam Arkin). There's also a load of notable B actors that you can recognize from other films. All of them find themselves under attack on their island paradise of Hawaii.

Angie Dickinson and Lesley Ann Warren are both really attractive, and contribute decent performances considering the thin plot. Wagner and Weaver are both okay too. A pre-ER Adam Arkin contributes a good performance. And Tiana Alexandra is really under-rated. Sadly she disappeared after this miniseries. The supporting cast are all good, also. The plot is thin, though. They send Angie off on a long taxi ride in the middle of the series. Most of the relationships are unrealistic. And some of the historical facts are skewed (for the most part, because we learned more about the occurrences at Pearl Harbor after this miniseries was made).

Overall, if you have six hours to waste, take a look at this. Over-dramatic, but entertaining. You want a more historically accurate movie, see 'Tora, Tora, Tora'. More interested in actors who are still making movies and computerized special effects, see the even sappier (and, in my opinion, horrible) 'Pearl Harbor'.

Rating: 7/10


An interesting saga of trials and tribulations, passions and ambitions set in Hawaii around the time of the infamous attack on Pear Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. An all star cast provides the drama of relationships growing and waning in between some decent scenes of Japanese planes dropping bombs on the ships in the harbor. Notable cast members: Angie Dickinson, Robert Wagner, Brian Dennehy, Gregg Henry, Dennis Weaver, Tiana Alexandra, Richard Anderson and Lesley Ann Warren. Well worth your time.


This was a wonderful but doomed series. I loved and saw every episode and really regret that it was canceled so quickly. Either than means I have terrible taste or America just "didn't get it". I think it was the latter, as a lot of the skits had clever writing and I still laugh about them. There were a lot of high-powered guests on the show, but people just didn't know or care who Thomas was--except for some die-hard Doug & Bob and SCTV fans. I really loved the skit about the three super-scared guys who make an air flight miserable for everyone because they are scared of EVERYTHING--the punch line about the film YENTIL was priceless.


Can anyone tell me where I might find The Dave Thomas Comedy Show (1990) in either VHS or DVD to purchase? I thought the show was excellent and particularly enjoyed the skit with "The Frightened Brothers" which I believe included Martin Short, Chevy Chase, and Dan Akroyd. I saw this show on television over 10 years ago. I thought it was one of the funniest television shows I have ever seen. Dave Thomas was undoubtedly one of the most creative comedy writers out there. I would have enjoyed watching another one of his shows. I am pleased to have found this web site for matching actors/actresses with movies and television. Two national retail chains suggested that I contact IMDb for further research. Thank you for providing such thorough research. I hope to hear back from someone soon. Thank you.


It really is a surprise to me a made-for-TV movie will be that enjoyable. If someone famous like Tom Hanks or J.Lo are in this movie. It's gonna be a huge hit. But all the actor/actress in this movie are good enough to beat anyone of them. Richard Ruccolo is one of main factor to make this movie funny. Hope he can make more good movie for us in the future. Anyway. U may find that this movie is impossible to be better than Hollywood movie. But it's free on TV man!!! Nothing beat that.


Wow, i was surprise that this is a movie for TV. I just watched it from the Hallmark channel and frankly i don't watch the channel a lot. This movie you can say is a every day romantic film that you can see from a lot of films.But it made me stuck on my TV to watch it.I think the simplicity of the movie is the magnet of this film. Richard Ruccolo's acting was really good in this film, i can really feel Michael Blake's character. The other cast, was okay, not the best, but fit perfect for the movie. The story really fits the bill with additional story linking with food in it. Nice writing. This film will make everybody think that the term true love is there. Good stuff.


This movie has its stereotype, but its small and many different injections of its own. The many scenes with its little life lessons and quotable lines and direction should make one think a little harder. Take in these little lessons and minuscule comments to heart because real life can be quoted, but in these quotes are left to bear more than consumed by a normal viewer. There are more than normal movie viewers out there that can read what I mean...if you don't maybe I just didn't make it clear that this movie has more meaning and to get you to watch it was to use a cliché love story....look and feel closely, this movie will surprise you...


The One is a wonderful movie. It is very similar to "The Wedding Planner", but is still it's own movie. Richard Ruccolo is great as Michael Blake, and it was great to see him again since his show went off the air. He is very adorable, and should have more roles! This movie was so great, I stayed up to watch the encore presentation. It really gets you think about whether or not "the One" really exists. I don't know when it will be on again, right now its not scheduled anytime soon, but definitely watch it with someone you love!


I have just seen 'If These Walls Could Talk' for the first time, and I am completely in awe. This film should be mandatory viewing material for any person who thinks that abortion is an easy choice or that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy should have their right to choose taken away from them.

Sissy Spacek did a wonderful job portraying the most overlooked unplanned pregnancy demographic: the aging career mother who must choose whether or not to make the sacrifice of raising another child. In this story I truly appreciated the message that choosing to have a child is also pro-choice. Anne Heche's role in the final story was the most 'typical' of the three: the single college student who must struggle with her own moral and personal issues when making a choice about her pregnancy. While she portrayed the most common demographic of women who face an unplanned pregnancy, her role was beautifully and honestly acted. But the most riveting and heartbreaking of the three stories featured Demi Moore as a young widow who must make the hardest decision in her life-- to risk not only her career and reputation but the relationship of her in-laws who have taken her in as one of their own by carrying to term the baby of her dead husband's brother, or to risk her life by choosing what was once a barbaric and incredibly dangerous procedure due to the illegality of abortion. Her struggle is disturbing, and any woman who remembers the dark days before Roe v. Wade will feel her character's pain, fear, and especially her desperation. This story in particular showcases why keeping abortion safe and legal is so very necessary.

What struck me most about this film was not only the realism in all three situations, but how each one of the stories showed that "Pro-Choice" is not always "Pro-Abortion"; a fact that those of us who support a woman's right to chose will be all too glad to point out while those of the stauncher anti-choice fold may be a little slow to admit. The struggle that each woman faces in this film is unique, and while another reviewer mistakenly commented that each instance was merely 'cliché', I will argue that each instance was REAL. Rape and incest are not the causes for most unplanned pregnancies, and a great number of women who choose abortion are of legal age to do so. This film would have been 'cliché' if every actor had portrayed a low-income person of color, which is clearly unrealistic. And while violence against abortion providers isn't an every day occurrence, there are people in our society who wish that were the case-- and including this scene in the film shows us, in graphic detail, the hypocrisy of that opinion.

I was surprised that this film, especially the final story, didn't tackle other reproductive choice-related issues such as birth control. However, I was extremely pleased with how the final story educated viewers on the realities of the abortion procedure (mandatory counseling and all)-- a reality which couldn't be further from the horrific depictions offered up by many in the anti-choice camp. Speaking of which: I was grateful for this film showing that not all people who oppose abortion are stereotypical, out of control lunatics, but that the most radical in this faction tend to be, ironically, male. And one comment made by a character regarding adoption truly hit home for me as I once worked in a residential facility for abandoned and abused children that was, like so many others in this country, bursting at the seams: "The last time I checked, there wasn't a shortage of little black babies".

This film needs to be aired during prime time and piped into the Bush White House, if for no other reason than to show that abortion is not a black and white issue, that the argument surrounding it cannot be settled through protest, violence or prohibition, and that restricting a woman's legal right to reproductive choice will only complicate matters further but will not be an end to abortion. Anyone who has ever been faced with an unplanned pregnancy will agree, and anyone who hasn't will learn that their opinion can be subject to change depending on their circumstances.


This film shows up as well now as I did when I first saw it in 1996 and was amazed. All those in the "demi moore can't act" camp should check out what she can do with the right material. She delivers an amazing performance in the first piece, giving those of us who dont remember a glimpse of the pre-Roe v Wade situation for women who found themselves in a less than desirable situation. Sissy Spacek is brilliant as ever in a lighter, though heartfelt and often ignored situation of a mom deciding whether one more child is what she wants. The final segment knocks me off my feet. Kudos to Cher for pulling together great actors and great stories.


"If These Walls Could Talk" is a disturbing and yet emotionally powerful film that's set in the same house on the same street over three different decades (the first segment takes place in the early 1950's, the second is set in the mid-1970's and the third in the mid-1990's...all tumultuous eras in which issues affecting females and their bodies have been brought to the forefront). It details what happens when three women of varying ages are suddenly forced to face the difficult and very personal choices that must be made concerning their unplanned pregnancies. Demi Moore, Sissy Spacek and Anne Heche are all nearly perfect in their respective roles as the three leading women at odds with family members, friends and society in general over the situations that they've found themselves in. Cher (who also co-produced this film) is wonderful as well in a small supporting role as an abortion doctor who in my humble opinion has the most clear-headed view on the troubling matter of almost any other character in the entire movie. Altogether, "If These Walls Could Talk" is a truly exceptional flick from HBO that forcefully deals with the mammoth topic of abortion which in all honesty is a very hard one to tackle especially with as much tact and delicacy as this film has! (***** out of *****)


Excellent film. Shows the realities of abortion and the trials and tribulations of the women who had to endure these situations. True to life and accurate depiction. Hopefully will help others to understand why some women choose to abort. It is not a decision made lightly or without conscious. And the film depicts how important it is for abortion to be legal. How even when it is illegal it still happens.

Very educational. A definite must see. Especially for those unsure of how they feel on this issue.

Excellent casting. Very emotional plots.


"If These Walls Could Talk" is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen in my life. It is divided into 3 segments: 1) 1950s - Demi Moore plays a woman who must either face becoming the town tramp or getting an abortion; 2) 1970s - Sissy Spacek is a woman forced to choose between losing her lifelong dream or terminating her pregnancy; and 3) 1990s - Anne Heche must come to terms with her own choices amidst a world of hate. All 3 parts are brilliant, each very special in its own way. Demi Moore gives a terrific performance in her role. Sissy Spacek is equally impressive. However, the greatest deal of my praise must go to the '90s portion. Anne Heche is absolutely incredible. Cher also appears as the abortion doctor, as well as directs this part. The ending is so shocking and disturbing that it will leave every viewer breathless. That being said, this film is not for the light of heart. But if you are seeking a well-made movie with a shining cast, "If These Walls Could Talk" is for you.


An amazing movie... Not only is the acting incredible, but the realistic plot segments help you to really feel for the characters. I believe the key to this movie may have been how disturbing it was. Each segment allowed for a very vivid portrayal of the abortion issue, without necessarily 'taking sides'. If you've got the time, check it out!


This is a heart wrenching movie that examines the paths that separate women throughout the years (1950's to present) take when faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Regardless of where on the abortion spectrum you fall this is a must see. I would not recommend this as a child appropriate movie(especially for children under about age 12) unless you and your child are going to sit down and discuss what happens in this movie.


The only thing that disturbed me in this movie is its clear bias towards pro-choice, which is obvious from the very beginning. Unfortunately, it makes the film look like a propaganda piece. However, the movie does provide a very powerful picture of what it is like when you get pregnant and don't want to. Beyond the technical-medical-moral issue of abortion itself, the movie also shows very well how, basically, the main problem of a women living an unexpected pregnancy, be it in 1952, 1974 or 1996, is often that she is downright alone and must face the indifference and despise of society at large and of most people around her - including the father of the baby.


Great movie, although it rather is a documentary... The abortion-scandal is well displayed and the director, producers and the cast can be proud of their work. The last story (with Cher) is based on real documentary-footage, so the things the anti-abortion-club does and the things these people say, were really done and said. A movie you MUST see if you are at all interested in the abortion-case.


Although this film does a good job of showing both sides of the abortion issue in positive lights, it definitely has a pro-choice bias. Despite the fact that I am pro-life, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The writing is great, and the creators do an excellent job of making the audience think about abortion from various angles. From Demi Moore's attempt to give herself an abortion with knitting needles to a pro-life crowd outside a clinic, If These Walls Could Talk provides powerful images and intriguing characters. The three sections don't flow together particularly well, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this movie is a must-see for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.


Im sorry to those who loved this film. But i thought it was sick. The scene at the end was hideous, with the way matthew lillard shot cher was horrible and very unpleasant to watch. yes it's educational at how christians react to abortion, but surely this is extremism that isn't even enjoyable. However I did think it was well acted by the leads, but I cannot get over why on earth the shooting scene was in here. It was horrific, and as a secondary school religious studies student, i found it rather distracting and haunting and something i will always think of whenever learning about abortion. truly horrible. cher has certainly dropped her standards, why on earth would she make this hammy, horrid rubbish?


I've always been fond of this film. The seemingly intentional mis-marketing as a raunchy comedy is not uncommon for the time, and is really damaging to what is essentially a look at sexual relationships and sexuality. There's a sweet naivety about the films perspective, caught up in the era in which is was released. Not much raunchiness, innuendo base titillation is more the course. As for the comedy there are a few laughs, and they do help alleviate some of the melancholy moments. For me it's in the emotional twists and turns that the film really shows interest and variety.

The Kinks wrote and performed the soundtrack. The songs are well constructed with some touchingly sentimental moments. An appreciation of The Kinks would most certainly aid ones appreciation the film, the lyrics embellishing he drama considerably.

I'm really surprised this film has been rated so low. How much of that is related to the mis-marketing and an under appreciation of the soundtrack?


In 1967, Dr.Christian Barnard made world history by carrying out the very first heart transplant operation. Much speculation was generated as to how far the new technique could be taken. Would it be possible to say, transplant a brain? Or any other organ? It sounded like the ideal subject for a movie, and in 1971, one got made. 'Percy', based on a book by Raymond Hitchcock, was adapted for the screen by Hugh Leonard, and directed and produced by Ralph Thomas and Betty E.Box, the team behind the popular 'Doctor' films, based on Richard Gordon's books.

Hywel Bennett is 'Edwin Anthony', a hippie-like antiques dealer who lives alone in London ( his wife has recently left him ). One day he is carrying a chandelier down a street when, unexpectedly, a naked man falls out of the sky and lands on him. Guy Warrington had been in bed with his lover Helga ( Elke Sommer ) when her husband came home early, and in his panic he jumped out of the window, forgetting she lived in a high-rise apartment. He is killed, but Edwin survives. However, a shard from the chandelier has cut off his penis ( ouch! ). Surgeon Emmanuel Whitbread ( Denholm Elliott ) removes Guy's pecker ( nicknamed 'Percy' ) and grafts it on to Edwin.

When Edwin wakes up, he is horrified at what has been done to him. The tabloid press regard the whole affair as one big joke and set about trying to locate Percy's new owner. On leaving hospital, Edwin is driven by a mad compulsion to find the donor's identity, and, obtaining a list of men who died in the hospital that day, tracks down their wives, and a glamorous lot they are too...

It is hard to believe that 'Percy' was made only five years after Norman Wisdom ended his run of cloth-capped comedies. Directors such as Thomas and Val Guest sensed that the audience for British film comedies had changed, and tailored their material accordingly. Hywel Bennett is the best thing about the film, portraying Edwin in a sympathetic light, as a man who wants a normal life but has become a carnival freak and does not like it ( today he would probably be invited on 'I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!' ). Denholm Elliott is wonderfully smarmy as the surgeon. We first see him on a B.B.C. talk-show - he walks out in disgust when the producer ( Angus Mackay ) keeps bleeping out the word 'penis'!

The script is peppered with what Ben Elton used to call 'knob gags' ( a nurse tells Edwin: "Let's see how it stands up in the light of the day!", while Whitbread whistles a self-composed ditty entitled 'Penis From Heaven' ), but strangely, the film is a lot tamer than you might expect. It is quite thoughtful in its depiction of adult relationships. It did not warrant its 'Wahey! Penis transplant comedy!' marketing. The only nudity comes from Antonia Ellis' stripteasing nurse. Edwin's meeting's with Percy's girlfriends brings us glorious sightings of Britt Ekland and Elke Sommer, while Julia Foster, Cyd Hayman, Adrienne Posta, Gaye Brown, Tracy Reed, and Sheila Steafel, and Sue Lloyd appear elsewhere. George Best graces a 'Billy Liar'-styled fantasy sequence, while Arthur English is seen as a seedy pub comic.

Yes, it is a one-joke film, but manages to camouflage its deficiencies rather well. It is the work of professional film makers. The same story in the hands of say, Stanley Long or Derek Ford, would have been an unwatchable mess.

When 'Percy' was in production, Mary Whitehouse thundered to the press that it was in 'poor taste'. As so often happened whenever she complained about anything, the public flocked to see it in droves. In 1974, there was a sequel ( sans Bennett ) entitled 'Percy's Progress'.

Nice songs by Ray Davies & The Kinks, with 'Lola' being put to good use during Ellis' strip.

The summary quoted above came from the trailer. It asked 'How long is Percy?' and then responded with 'About 100 minutes!'.


SMALL TOWN GIRL was a 1953 musical from the MGM stable about a rich playboy (Farley Granger) who gets arrested for driving too fast through a small town and falls for the sheriff's pretty young daughter (Jane Powell). Nothing really special here, Granger and Powell are charming enough, but this film will always standout in my mind because of two musical numbers performed by supporting players Ann Miller and Bobby Van. Both of these numbers would later be featured in different installments of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT. "You Gotta Hear that Beat" was a sizzling production number featuring Ann Miller dancing amongst a disembodied orchestra where you only see the arms/hands of the orchestra playing various instruments. The second number "Take Me To Broadway" featured Van as a human pogo stick, bouncing his way all over town, greeting people and interacting with people and places in town, but he never stops hopping. It's just an amazing number and because of these two musical highlights, SMALL TOWN GIRL is a film I will always remember.


It's just too bad more people didn't appreciate Bobby Van when he was around. I've never seen him before, but I certainly will remember his energy and incredible footwork. Where are they now? 50 years seemed to have taken away the fun of making a entertaining musical. Watching rappers and boy bands has diminished our appreciation of what dance was all about. Donald OConnor, Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Danny Kaye all had desire that is lacking in movies now. Perhaps the cycle will return and will get away from Gangsta rappers and back to a style of entertainment that celebrated life rather than threaten it. Great work Bobby... Too bad I missed you. ......Wayne


Small Town Girl is cute, fluffy and moderately entertaining. It tells the story of a handsome rich young man (Farley Granger) and the titular daughter of the small town judge who sentences him to 30 days in jail for speeding. Antics ensue.

There is much singing and dancing and Bobby Van has a long scene where he hops through town -- even with two or three cuts, it's still a whole lot of hopping!

What made me sit up and take notice, though, was Nat "King" Cole's number, set in a New York nightclub. It makes the film definitely worth watching, even worth buying.


Jane Powell plays the daughter of a judge. Farley Grainger plays the son of the higher class Billie Burke. Bobby Van plays a family friend who has some really nice dance numbers. Ann Miller plays Farley's girlfriend. Farley is caught speeding in Jane's small town. He is brought before the judge and he gives him attitude. The judge gives him 30 days to change his attitude. He calls his mom and she drops by. She agrees with the judge and tells him not to tell Farley she was there. Jane starts to fall in love with him as she sneaks him out of jail to visit his mother for her birthday. I turns out it was his girlfriend, Ann Miller's birthday. He sees her and then he has to go back to his mother's house when Jane is caught in the fur freezer vault. He takes her out and they get even closer as he tells her the truth about whose birthday it was. Her father finds out about the romance and lets Farley go. He leaves and then returns to see her sing in church and all is well. This was a real nice movie and very enjoyable.


Please pay attention film-makers, this is NOT how you should make a movie.

While "Deadbolt" is hardly the worst movie I've ever seen, I just can't exactly call it a good or effective one either. It hardly has any good ideas of its own and it uses a bad build-up, which just never pays off in the end.

It's obvious that this movie got made for TV. It has this typical look and atmosphere over it, which a movie just has never ever benefited from. It's also painfully obviously that the movie just didn't had the most talented people involved in the creation process. Both the acting and the directing is really lacking, as well as the story obviously.

Besides the fact the story is hardly anything original and is something that has been done a lot better in earlier genre movies, the movie also has some real problems with its build up and logic. The build up is simply far too slow and basically nothing good or interesting is happening in the movie its first 30 minutes. After that the thriller elements more or less start to kick in but again, it doesn't use a good enough build up for this to consider this movie a successful or effective genre piece. The movie just never becomes tense, also since you just simply couldn't care less for any of the characters, which is mostly due to the acting performances from its actors.

Justine Bateman is just not the kind of actress you should give the main lead. She is good enough for small bits in TV-series but letting her carry an entire thriller movie on her own is a very bad idea. Sometimes I like Adam Baldwin in his roles but main problem with Baldwin (no relation to the Baldwin brothers) is that ever since his "Full Metal Jacket" he thinks he can just play a psycho in every movie and that he can get away with just everything. Granted that he always gets typecast a lot though. He plays his role in this movie far to over-the-top, which just doesn't make his character really believable and therefore the movie as a whole also just doesn't quite work out as intended.

The movie also just didn't always made quite sense to me. So you turn into an obsessive and murderous psychopath when your wife commits suicide? And after you've been locked up for 5 weeks, with very little food and water, by a man who has murdered your ex-husband, your best friend and your roommate-to-be, all you worry about is what the police is going to think? Some things within this movie just didn't made much sense, which also made this movie quite ridicules in parts.

It's also of course a fairly predictable movie, also since it just isn't the most renewing or original one around. It's the kind of movie of which you just know in advance how each scene is going to end and how's going to live or die and how and when.

You're simply better off not watching this little unknown TV movie thriller.

4/10


The best movie I have seen in a long time, Deadbolt succeeds with an interesting plot, it's cleverness and the great performance of Adam Baldwin as the killer room-mate. Baldwin pulls off a performance which lets you take this stranger into your heart and your mind...bad mistake! You realize this as the story flows and gasp as you see the ease with which your life can be ended without dying. Some may say it's a rip-off of such films as Single White Female and Misery, while it is true it takes inspiration from these films, it really does stand on it's own two feet and if I may say...knocks the socks off Single White Female. This movie is ONE TO WATCH so as the tagline says... MAKE UP THE GUESTROOM, YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE HAS ARRIVED!


Marty (Justine Bateman of Family Ties) is searching for a roommate after someone breaks into her place. After her first choice is found murdered, she lets psychotic Alec (Adam Baldwin, known for NOT being one of the Baldwin brothers) move in. At first he seems too good to be true and they enjoy a romantic tryst, much to the chagrin of Marty's jealous over-protective ex-boyfriend. Then he begins to show his true colors.

This movie was an extremely generic, strictly by-the-book thriller. Woman-in-peril? check. Jealous suspicious ex-lover? Check Romantic affair with a guy whom turns out to be nuts? Double check.And as such, it's extremely predictable. You know how they're going to get from point A to point B to C. So no tension to be had, leading to boredom and apathy to why you even watched this lame film in the first place.

My Grade: D


i have read a lot of reviews slating this movie but i found this to be tense engrossing thriller. Medical student Marty(Justine Bateman)needs a roommate after her flat gets broken into so she takes in Alec(Adam Baldwin). At first he seems like a nice young man,he likes opera,cooks and seems like the perfect roommate till he decides he wants Marty for himself. He begins changing the locks,transforming the flat and finally locking Marty in a padded room.Anyone who gets in his way gets dispatched by various means which include killing someone with a tyre iron. Justine Bateman ,an actress we just haven't see enough of, is great as Marty who thinks she can look after herself till she realises things are out of her control. Sure we have seen this all before in various movies but this film is lifted by Adam Baldwin who is more creepy and evil than one can possibly imagine and he certainly scared the hell outa me. I like the way this film used violence and psychology to put it's point across and it certainly puts me off ever taking in a lodger. Deadbolt i give 7/10


How do you make a crappy made for TV movie? Simple..

Take one ounce of single woman

Make sure she is fresh from a bad divorce

Put her in a empty flat

Mix in a handsome lodger with a dodgy history

Stir until sparks fly

Add in a sprinkling of suspicious best friend, jealous ex-husband etc.

Beat the dish thoroughly until sprinkling is quickly gone

Insert just a pinch of secret evidence about lodger's past

Be sure to place evidence near to woman

Knead the dough flat into a final conclusion

Keep doing this for a rather tedious 20 minutes

Chuck it in the oven, and voilà! You have yourself a nice overcooked thriller!

Unfortunately, this recipe is rather hard to swallow under normal circumstances. But if your tastes are extremely low, or you like high fat foods with no filling, then this is the perfect dish for you! Be warned though, if you have an allergy to bad acting, or suffer from an inability to suspend disbelief, this probably doesn't come recommended. Try a nice orange soufflé instead, or just get some sleep.

Thank you for attending today's cookery class. Next week.. how to boil an egg! See you soon.. 3/10


With all humor, you either get the "joke" or you don't. If you don't, no amount of explaining can change your mind. If you do, the details are endlessly enjoyable.

Part of the joke that's "The Trouble With Harry" is that "nothing happens." Hitchcock's "anti-Hitchcock" film defies expectations for action, shock, mayhem, suspense, spectacular climaxes on national monuments, etc. Instead, it's a New England cross-stitch of lovingly detailed writing, acting, photography, directing and editing.

Saul Steinberg's title illustration tells you exactly what you're in for. One long pan of a child's drawing of birds and trees . . . ending with a corpse stretched out on the ground as "Directed by Alfred Hitchcock" briefly appears.

So meticulously is "The Trouble With Harry" conceived, the only two images in the title art that are NOT trees, plants or birds are a house with a rocking chair on its porch and that corpse. The film literally plays in reverse of the title sequence -- from little Arnie's (Jerry Mathers, pre-Beaver. The boy who drew the titles?) discovery of the corpse, back to the home with the rocking chair, as Hitchcock's final "joke" puts the audience safely to bed. A double bed, in this case.

What's the film about? Oh, Great Big Themes like Life and Death, Youth and Age, Love and Hate, Guilt and Innocence, Truth and Lies, Art and Pragmatism -- packaged with deceptive simplicity.

The "hero," Sam Marlowe (John Forsythe), is an artist. The man the "child" who drew the titles (Arnie, or someone like him) might have become. His name is an amalgamation of two of hard-boiled fiction's greatest detectives: Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe. Indeed, Sam Marlowe functions here as a "sort of" detective. But enough of pointing out the detailed construction of this script and film: repeated viewings yield far greater pleasures.

"Introducing Shirley MacLaine" in her first screen role threw that enduring actress into an astounding mix of old pros: Edmund Gwenn, Mildred Dunnock, Mildred Natwick ("old" in more ways than one) and Forsythe. That MacLaine held the screen then, and still does 50 years later (! Name another major actor who can say that), validates Hitchcock's astute casting.

In fact, TTWH is a tribute to cinematic "acting" as much as anything else. These are among the finest performances ever captured of these terrific actors. Since there are none of the expected "spectacular" Hitchcock sequences, nor his nail-biting tension, all that's left is for the actors to fully inhabit their characters.

That they do with brilliance, efficiency and breathtaking comic timing. No pratfalls here. Just nuances.

Edmund Gwenn and Mildred Natwick are the real stars. Had Hitchcock said so, the film would never have been produced. Their scenes (they receive as much if not more screen time together than Forsythe and MacLaine) are possibly the most delightful (and yes, romantically and sexually tense) ever filmed of courtship in middle-and-old age. Perfectly realized in every intonation and gesture. Occasionally laugh-out-loud funny.

Theirs is paralleled by the courtship of the younger "stars," Forsythe and MacLaine. "Love" at both ends of life, young and old, and love's wonderful humor and mysterious redemption, even in the face of death -- that inconvenient corpse on the hill.

Perhaps the most surprising and powerful undertow in "The Trouble With Harry" (one hesitates to name it because it's handled so delicately) is Sex.

It is only barely present in the lines given the characters, but the subtext is always there. Occasionally, it boils over into an infinitely subtle burlesque, as in the exchange between Gwenn and Forsythe about crossing Miss Gravely's (get that name?) "threshold" for the first time.

The look in Gwenn's eyes and the repressed joy and romantic hope in his face -- even at his stage of life -- is bliss.

The coffee cup and saucer "for a man's fingers;" the ribbon for Miss Gravely's newly-cut hair (Wiggy cuts it in the general store -- Mildred Dunnock in another unbelievably subtle performance -- muttering, "Well, I guess it will grow back."); Arnie's dead rabbit and live frog; the constantly shifting implications of guilt in the death of "Harry" up there on the hill; the characters' struggles to regain innocence by "doing the right thing"; the closet door that swings open for no apparent reason (never explained); the characters' revelations of the truths about themselves; their wishes granted through Sam's "negotiations" with the millionaire art collector from the "city" -- ALL portrayed within the conservative but ultimately flexible confines of their New England repression and stoicism (yes, the film is also a satiric comment on '50s morality) -- these details and more finally yield a rich tapestry of our common humanity, observed at a particular time and place, through specific people caught in an absurd yet utterly plausible circumstance.

Nothing happens? Only somebody who doesn't know how to look and listen -- REALLY observe, like an artist / creator -- could reach that conclusion about "The Trouble With Harry." Only a genius, like Hitchcock, would have the audacity to pull the rug out from under his audience' expectations at the height of his career by offering a profoundly subtle morality play in the guise of a slightly macabre Hallmark Card.

When the final "revelation" arrives, in the last line that takes us home to the marital bed where love culminates and all human life begins -- yours and mine -- and draws from us a happy smile of recognition, so Hitchcock's greatest secret is revealed, more blatantly in this than any of his films.

"Life and death -- and all of it in between -- are a joke! Don't you get it?" It's there in all his pictures. Nowhere more lovingly and less showily presented than in "The Trouble With Harry." Thank you, Hitch.


I've been a big fan of Hitchcock as long as I can remember, but I only had the opportunity to see The Trouble with Harry recently. I never knew the film was a comedy before I began watching, so you can imagine my surprise when one innocent character after the next stumbled upon a brutally murdered corpse and react in the very least expected ways possible. It was almost as surpring, however, when I read the comments on IMDb and realized that a large portion of Hitchcock's audience simply didn't "get it". Of course the character's are not reacting the way real people would in these circumstances! How many of Hitch's characters actually would? The Trouble with Harry is Hitchcock's own jab at himself, at the entire suspense film genre, and a wonderfully inspired satire on the implications of desensitization. The film is not that simple though, for even in addressing these objectives Hitch tantalizingly avoids any answers or definitive statements. Its a difficult film to describe, but definitely worth seeing as it confirms Hitchcock's dual mastery of comedy and suspense. Watch it for the social commentary, the sleepy New England setting, but above all else, for the blissful irony that fills its every crevace. It is the kind of irony that makes shows like Family Guy so popular today. A wonderfully surpring film in every way!


The Trouble With Harry is a comedy film about a dead body. Alfred Hitchcock makes the macabre concept deliciously funny and entertaining in his unique style. Helping Hitchcock to turn this unlikeliest of premises into an enjoyable film are Bernard Herrmann (providing fabulous music scoring), and a cast of winning actors who judge to perfection how far to push their tongues into their cheeks.

A dead body turns up on a patch of grass near the top of a wooded New England hill. Various people have reason to believe that they're responsible for the man's death. Septugenarian ex-sea captain Albert Wiles (Edmund Gwenn) is worried that he might have accidentally shot the man while hunting for rabbits. Old spinster Miss Gravely (Mildred Natwick) fears that when she whacked the man over the head with her shoe, she may have done more damage than she intended. And single mother Jennifer (Shirley MacLaine) has even greater cause to feel responsible, for she is the dead man's wife. During an argument, she smashed a bottle over his head and is now almost sure that he died as a result. Local artist Sam Marlowe (John Forsythe) decides to help his neighbours to cover up the crime, but after burying and digging up the corpse several times, the truth behind "Harry's" death is finally revealed.

No Hitchcock film divides viewers more than this one. Some consider the film a masterpiece of understated black comedy; others deem it a plot less, pointless time-waster. The film was a fairly massive box office flop at the time (audiences obviously felt from the movie poster that they were going to see a murder mystery, and were disappointed to actually find themselves experiencing a bizarre, off-kilter black comedy). In retrospect, I'd say The Trouble With Harry is a great film that was probably a good two decades ahead of its time. The performances are wonderfully outrageous, especially the elders (Gwenn and Natwick) who give perceptive comic turns that actors nowadays just don't seem to have the range to do. Forsythe and MacLaine are delightful too (the latter in her movie debut), and Royal Dano rounds off the cast as a gullible cop who nearly finds out that the other four have been up to no good. There's no doubt that The Trouble With Harry is an acquired taste; but if this taste is to your liking then you're in for a delectable treat!


This movie is fantastic. I don't think anyone except Hitchcock could have made such humour out of a dead body. Shirley MacLaine (in her first role) is delightful and Edmond Gwenn perfect. You'll see a young Jerry Mathers pre-dating Leave it to Beaver by a few years. Don't miss this little gem, it's as funny today as it was in 1955 and I suspect for a long time to come.


Everyone who had something to do with Harry just can't figure out if he should stay buried or dig him up. From there, Hitchcock's black comedy brings about tension and giggles. Seems that everyone had a reason for wanting Harry out of the picture, only trouble is, Harry is more trouble dead than alive. A light film for Hitchcock, but it does contain the transference of guilt theme, and the guilt bounces all over our main players. A small gem of a film that often gets overlooked, watch this one and you'll be charmed by the trouble that Harry causes.


Hitchcock tries out his hand at comedy, one of his least traveled paths. The Trouble With Harry will at first glance appear to be Hitchcock kind of taking a break from "serious" films, the thrillers and suspense films that he is best known for, and relaxing a bit with a light comedy, but there is much more going on in this film than that. First of all, only Hitchcock would come out with something that could be termed a "light comedy" when the central figure in the film from beginning to end is a dead body, but a lot of Hitchcock's standard themes are very prevalent in the film, even though it differs so much from his traditional style.

First and foremost, of course, is Hitch's real life, almost crippling fear of the police, whom he portrays so often in films as bumbling, incompetent blockheads. The film is almost entirely dialogue driven, the crisp exchanges are almost nonstop from beginning to end and never get boring. Shirley MacLaine makes a brilliant film debut as Harry's new widow, displaying the perfect amount of charm and sweetness that allows us to immediately forgive her gladness at her husband's sudden death, no matter how mysterious or how many times the supposed responsibility for his death changes hands.

As the blame is circulated among the diverse and likable group of main characters, the procession of guilt and responsibility leads to Harry being dug up and re-buried several times, until Jennifer (MacLaine) is asked what she thinks they should do, to which she replies, "I don't care what you do with his so long as you don't bring him back to life." There is a recurring set device of a closet that just won't stay closed which seems to have caused some confusion as to its meaning, and I have a feeling that, since there is never anything actually hidden in it, it is a metaphorical thing that points to one of the underlying themes of the film, that of guilt. Skeletons in the closet, that kind of thing. Purely speculation, of course, but it makes sense to me.

John Forsythe gives a brilliant, perfectly cool and laid back performance as the hugely likable Sam Marlowe, and his exchanges with Arnie, played by Jerry Mathers in his pre-Beaver days, are some of the best moments in the film, and this is also the first of a great many tremendously successful collaborations between Hitchcock and composer Bernard Herrman. Also keep your eye out for Hitch's cameo, which goes by much quicker than usual, you can miss it in a split second.


The Trouble with Harry could well be one of the funniest films I have ever seen. It's a case of Alfred Hitchcock successfully parodying himself, while in the meantime offering some memorable cinematic moments.

Perhaps the most memorable is the screen debut of Shirley MacLaine, who is extremely cute and animated and fun to watch. It's easy to see why Hollywood fell in love with the elfin elder sister of Warren Beatty. Her performance betrays her inexperience in front of the camera, but you'll be too busy watching her facial expressions to care.

The rest of the cast is also excellent, with the actor who plays the captain deserving special recognition for his calm and cool demeanor throughout.

As far as the script goes, I think David Lynch must have had Trouble with Harry in mind as one of the inspirations for Twin Peaks. The dialogue is hilarious, with non-sequitors coming out of nowhere, as well as one-liners that will have you backing up the DVD/video saying "did I really hear that?" For one thing, the film is surprisingly risque for 1955 -- there's a boob joke involving a statue that could easily fit into an Austin Powers movie, and a pre-Beaver Jerry Mathers gets some of the film's biggest laughs with some perfect comic timing.

It's a mystery to me why this film bombed in its initial release. True, it's leisurely paced in comparison to other Hitchcock films, and there are no scary moments to be found. Instead, this is a film that is fun to watch, and provides laughs at the most unexpected places. Highly recommended.


I have to chuckle when I read some of the over-the-top raves this film has gotten from supposedly American viewers.

The Trouble With Harry will only work for you if you're a fan of:

A) British drawing room humor B) French slapstick/farce C) Hitchcock's --- and a rabid one --- who vehemently believe he never failed at anything

This is one of the rare instances when the studio idiots were actually right when they told Hitchcock not to embark on this project. It's a British movie made from a British novel with a distinctly European sensibility that posits that the back and forth burying and unearthing of a corpse for nearly 100 minutes is just the most hilarious thing ever. Because he's dead, you know? And since death is such a grim concept that everyone --- everyone, right? --- feels uncomfortable with, you just *HAVE* to laugh at it --- cause it's so freaking hysterical. Did you get that? Did you?

OK, I know I'm being obnoxious here, but that's about how subtle this film is, and unfortunately unless you have the sensibilities described above (most of which I believe are akin to coming from a specific geographical area), you're in for a very tedious viewing session.

I could say the same thing about Richard Linklater's "Slacker," which is one of my favorite films of all time, and which I consider to be quite brilliant. Notice that both films have virtually no plot and rely on very specific culturally-inundated humor --- but Linklater's humor is self-referential and Hitchcock's is not.

And that --- I think --- is why most people don't get Harry. To most Americans who equate humor with Woody Allen and Seinfeld (not Jerry Lewis and Benny Hill), the Trouble With Harry is he's...boring.


This movie is in my top five favorite Hitchcock films. Maybe I committed 'blasphemy' for putting it ahead of films like North by Northwest, Shadow of a Doubt, and Notorious, but I think it was worth it. Sadly, this is a film that's overlooked when you think of his other films, like the ones I mentioned above. For fans of the film, we can only wonder why it's swept under the rug. Sure it's no 'Vertigo', but the thing is it's not meant to be.

The Trouble with Harry has the unique distinction of being only one of two comedies that Hitch made, in the U.S. anyway. The other being Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Of course Hitch is famous for little touches of black humor, but on this film he went all out. A plain, simple, black comedy that probably ends up flying under the radar of people used to watching Marx Bros. films, who I also like.

While not exactly, laugh-out-loud comedy I enjoy watching it. I think it's a relaxing film, especially when you see the great photography that captures the beauty of autumn in New England. Then again, I don't think you can ever get a bad shot of that. It's an amusing tale with good acting from John Forsythe, Shirley MacLaine, Edmund Gwenn, and Mildred Natwick occupying the main and almost only roles in the film. It also marks the first collaboration between Hitchcock and Herrmann who brings a light, airy, and playful score that helps make the concern of the story less of 'how' Harry died, but what exactly to do with him.

Basically, if you like Hitchcock, black comedy and don't mind an uncomplicated story, then I highly recommend it.


The Trouble with Harry is set in a serene, Technicolor-awe-inspiring backdrop of autumn in New England, reminiscent of the 'cheery' Americana of Shadow of a Doubt. There's also a cast of characters who are more wrapped up in their romantic entanglements than in the body of Harry, who should be the focal point of the story. Matter of fact, one of the greatest delights of The Trouble with Harry is that the so-called MacGuffin this time *is* the dead body, and not some random object. Harry could just as well be anything, but the only thing that is of concern is, of course, that he's dead.

What I loved seeing, as almost Hitchcock being a surrealist (he was a big fan of Bunuel after all) as much as being a director of dark/light comedy, was the non-chalance treated with the body from those around it throughout. The opening scenes had me floored, grinning cheek to cheek and sometimes just chuckling or laughing hysterically, at some line or moment in behavior from Edmund Gwynn and Mildred Natwicks' reactions (or lack thereof) to the dearly departed Harry on the ground. They go on and on talking about meeting later in the day, almost flirting by Gwynn's advances, and there's a DEAD BODY ON THE GROUND! On top of this there's the reactions from a little kid who loves playing with a dead rabbit, Shirley MacClaine as his mother and ex-lover of Harry, and the artist Marlowe played by John Forsythe, who seems to take a detached position almost in spite of making a detailed sketch of the dead Harry's face.

So all of this, done in a manner that should suggest reality but doesn't in the slightest, builds up to something that is like the other side of the morbid coin that one saw in Strangers on a Train. Murder is treated a few Hitchcock works almost philosophically, but with with an air of 'oh, it's just a little death, no harm really', and in the Trouble with Harry it's done to the max. A good portion of the movie has nothing to do with Harry, even if he's on the characters' minds; a lot of courtship goes on between the elder Capt. Wiles and Miss Ivy Gravely and (very rushed, which is the point) between Marlowe and Jennifer Rogers. Forsythe might not be the best cast in the part, but everyone else is, and they all bring something to putting whatever potential is in the script to the fullest. Sometimes it doesn't look like it should be funny, but then something else comes along- another strange line of dialog, another aside about Harry's body being moved here or there- that turns things on its head.

It's basically Hitchcock having fun with something that, for him, is probably more lighthearted then it might be for most. It's not a totally pitch black comedy, but then again Hithcock is deceptive, devilishly so, in in making things as simple as they seem. As with Bunuel everything seems like it should be straightforward, which adds to the absurdity, until one realizes that it means to be absurd like some yarn that you hear from a fellow you don't totally trust but listen intently anyway. It's not quite one of Hitchcock's masterpieces, but it surely is one of the best among those "experiments" that the director made from time to time, testing himself and the audience and putting energies into something that could turn his reputation on a turn.


I never thought it fair that this 1955 black comedy was labeled "lesser Hitchcock". Granted it is "atypical Hitchcock" given its light touch and lack of threatening violence (save for three gunshots heard at the beginning), but master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock has made other movies far more out of his oeuvre like the sparkling 1941 Carole Lombard-Robert Montgomery romantic comedy, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith". At least this one hews closer to his macabre sense of humor as it revolves around what to do with a persistent corpse, the body of Harry Worp. First, a freckle-faced little boy named Arnie comes upon it, and then the rabbit-hunting Captain Wiles discovers it and thinks he carelessly shot Harry. The aptly named Miss Gravely, a homely spinster, sees Wiles drag the body and simply invites him for tea with romantic aspirations on her mind. She confesses she thinks she killed Harry with the heel of a hiking boot. Arnie's mother Jennifer Rogers sees the body, and the young widow twice over also recognizes Harry and also thinks he killed him but with a bottle.

Caught in the middle is eccentric artist Sam Marlowe, who nonchalantly helps his friends dispose of the body. Just how Harry died is the MacGuffin around which Hitchcock hinges his entire plot. With a perceptive screenplay by John Michael Hayes ("Rear Window") based on a popular post-WWII British novel by Jack Trevor Story, the quaintly whimsical tone is what surprises most Hitchcock aficionados here, but the dialogue is also laced with not-so-subtle sexual innuendo. The combination proves effective on its own terms though not particularly transcendent as a memorable piece of film-making. The charming performances help considerably starting with John Forsythe, long before his Aaron Spelling years on "Charlie's Angels" and "Dynasty", as Sam. He has definite chemistry with twenty-year-old Shirley MacLaine in her film debut. As Jennifer, she emerges with her gamine screen persona almost fully formed, and it's no wonder she continues to work in front of the camera over a half-century later.

Edmund Gwenn (memorable as Kris Kringle in "Miracle on 34th Street") and Mildred Natwick play Wiles and Miss Gravely with pixilated cunning. That is indeed six-year-old Jerry Mathers as Arnie a couple of years before starting his six-year run on "Leave It to Beaver". A couple of behind-the-scenes facts are worth noting - Robert Burks' superb cinematography capturing the colorful autumnal glory of New England and Bernard Herrmann's rhythmic soundtrack, his first of several classic scores for Hitchcock. Presenting a pristine print of the film, the 2006 DVD provides one other significant extra, an original half-hour documentary, Laurent Bouzereau's "The Trouble With Harry Isn't Over", featuring interviews with Forsythe, Hayes, associate producer Herbert Coleman, and Hitchcock's daughter Pat Hitchcock O'Connell. It's an insightful piece about the production complications and idiosyncratic casting like the producers taking a chance on MacLaine. Along with the original theatrical trailer, there is also a 38-still production gallery as well as about five pages of production notes.


In response to planktonrules, your comment that this was one of Hitchcock's failures is wide of the mark. It was a wonderful black comedy, nearly an old fashioned French farce. To say it was a failure in the USA is one thing (it was) but internationally it didn't do too badly. As was mentioned earlier in the site, this film went fairly well in the UK, Italy and France. This could be seen that subtle humour is more appreciated outside of the USA than inside. Hitch's problem was that the humour in the film was not the "in your face" type that was typical of comedy films of this era whereas overseas movies like "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and "The Ladykillers" (the original) had that subtle, understated humour similar to TTWH.


This is a wonderful film, and beautiful film to look at. It will be a film that should make people want to visit Vermont. I however can only give it 7 out of 10, even though I would like to give it more.

The film has what I consider some flaws, which hurt its entertainment value. It starts out really well, however after John Forsythe meets with Shirley MacLaines character, the film somewhat slows down and can be at times tedious. I think that one of the problems with the film is that even at 99 minutes it is a little too long to keep the joke going. Some have suggested that the film was his precursor to his Alfred Hitchcock presents TV series, and I honestly think that it would have been better their. However, being that Color TV was not yet around, you can't beat the beautiful color of the film, and the Vista Vision images.

The film is however interesting in many different ways. First, the film could not have been made some 10 to 20 years earlier. First the feeling by Edmund Gwen and John Forsythe characters animosity to the police, and also the sexual innuendo's in the film. Forsythe telling Maclanes character how he would like to paint her in the nude, as well as Gwen saying how he wants to cross Natwicks threshold. Another writer has also mentioned how their are other references to a sexual act with Natwick's character, and I do believe that Natwick and Gwen are the real stars of the film.

The Natwick and Gwen characters have been repressed people. Natwick's character (she says she's 42, but Natwick was about 55 at the time of release of the film) appears to have never had a sexual experience before, and now with this Captain, played by Gwen, who we learn has distorted his past accomplishment, love might come to these two people. These two people who believe that they are responsible for Harry's death, actually have a life affirming event happen by the death of Harry. Even though Natwick does claim to Gwen that the only reason she has invited him over, is because of the convenience of Gwens presence at the time of Harry death. This explains why she behaves so strangely when she meets Gwen with Harry's body.

However, I do not think that Hitchock and the writers of this story are so confident that this will be a life affirming even for Forsythe and MacClaines characters. First, in the end, One of the last lines in the film regarding her son by Forsythe, and then his correction makes you wonder if he will be this good father. Maclanes behavior when seeing Harry (her 'no good husband') dead, and right in front of her son, makes you wonder about her too. They also decide to involve their son in this charade. What kind of lesson is Jerry Mather's character going to get from them. Who knows, maybe he was really adopted by the Cleaver family (Leave it to Beaver) from what could be the dysfunctional family that both Forsthe and MacLaine formed.

One could also look at Trouble With Harry as a agreement with High Noon. People who may not really want to do the right thing, for sexual reasons in this film, and distrust in the police, and fear of them. Fear of police being one of Hitchcocks themes. I couldn't imagine the Gary Cooper character in High Noon getting any help from the two male leads in this film. Also look at that doctor, first so preoccupied, stumbling over the dead body twice, and not being aware, and then confronted with the police, running away, perhaps in fear of his life if he were to divulge the truth, or not wanting to get involved, which is perhaps a comment about general society. People not wanting to get involved perhaps a comment about 1950's McCarthy era.

This is a rich comedy, though a very dark one indeed. The door that swings open at times I think representing the characters consciousness,and that only Gwen seems to be bothered by it, does not bode well for the other characters, especially the younger one. The other characters of the store owner, and Deputy are also interesting as well. While I do feel this film is tedious at times, it is a very interesting film, and perhaps much deeper than people imagine.


When I saw "The Trouble with Harry", starring Shirley MacLaine and a part of The Alfred Hitchcock Collection, I thought "You can't get much better than that." I rented it. It was a flop. It was MacLaine's first movie and it shows. It has a hint of mystery to it but I wouldn't call it Hitchcock worthy. "The Trouble with Harry" is more of a romantic movie. Shirley may be one of my favorite actresses, falling in right behind Audrey Hepburn and one ahead of Liza Minnelli and Barbra Streisand but she wasn't that glamorous or amazing in this movie, although that blue dress of hers does show off her eyes. Over all, the plot is a little complicated and unless your out for a silly movie that could've and should've been either a dead on romance or a dead on murder mystery (not a little of both), I don't highly recommend this movie. I gave it a 4. 1=Sam's handsomeness 1/2=Ivy's silliness 1/2=Captain's good nature 2= Shirley MacLaine's climb to stardom from this movie


Unutterably boring dialogue, completely silly story, but lovely scenery. I kept waiting for something to happen, but all that ever went on was a group of folks kept burying and digging up a dead guy. Two of the people thought they were responsible for the death and were trying to hide the evidence and circumstances continued to require that they keep shuffling the body around. Very tedious. I would rather watch a red oak grow that waste my time watching this drivel.


All the subtlety and detail imbued in this screenplay matters little when it is lost in tentative and banal acting. Comedy is particularly satisfying when it deals with the shortcomings of human nature, not when it denies natural emotions and intellect as this story does so inexcusably. This could have been good, had the story adhered to a few requirements for good storytelling. First, develop characters so that I care about them. Second, in all good fiction, always tell the "truth"; that is to say, the story must be believable. Third, do not appall the audience with lackluster, passionless actors who mete out stilted lines and gestures. I think this movie could have been twice as effective had Hitchcock used cardboard cutouts of the actors with stop-motion animation.


What's most surprising about this film is the date, 1955. It is a nice criminal detective comedy since all ends well that had started very grimly and so bad. If we take this film like all films by Hitchcock should be taken, that is to say as a metaphor of real life, of history, of fate, then we might be less surprised by the date. After all the worst is gone, is behind. The war is finished, the second world war and the Korean war, and even McCarthy is dead and buried, politically I mean. We can breathe. The future is clear. The complications are all behind. We are finally getting out of this dark hole in which we had been buried for a long time. The famous post war thirty glorious years and its baby boom generation are starting to bring in the fruit of our suffering, sweating and efforts if not travail. What we have produced is being bought by some millionaire. Our work is recognized and valorized. We are going to be famous, great, rich, beautiful, who knows what else. So we can bury the past. We can un-bury it, and then bury it again, and eventually un-bury it a second time, but why not re-bury that poor past in order to finally get it out once more and discover it was not so bad and it was nothing but some kind of sad heart disease, a disease of the heart, a weak heart crushed by passions, love passion, dreams that me made into nightmares, and maybe some anger. But the film is surprising because Hitchcock manages to have absolutely no staircase, no flights of steps, with or without mezzanines, and yet don't believe me that easy because it is not flat country indeed. And so up they go and down they go, the roads and the tramps, and all the other people in that village, uphill and downhill, upstage and downstage, upriver and downriver, up the strokes and down the strokes to paint and paint and paint reality till no one recognizes it or sees it. And if it were not enough to constantly go up and down lanes and paths and trails and tracks, you go up and down into and out of the ground, you dig out and fill up and dig in and refill up and dig out again and fill up a third time and dig up this time and fill down for the last time. All that vertical movement around a man who is dead and lying horizontal in the middle of the auburn and russet leaves of the fall. Hitchcock is still with us. And he is all the more with us because he explores the psyche of the human species. When they meet with death, their first reaction is to feel guilty for a crime they assume at once they have committed. Paranoid species. Then they feel relieved because someone else assumes the crime they have committed till they feel guilty again and reveal their own doing in the crime. Neurotic, psychotic and schizophrenic, all in one same species. But then they try to forget and wipe it out to go on with the present and their lives. But that is to no avail because life is stronger than illusions and death is even stronger than life. So the crime comes back because it has to be brought out and registered for the life of the living to be able to go on. And it is then that it is all revealed that human beings are as dumb as my thumb and instead of having thought and thought again and pondered, they jumped to conclusions without even thinking one second. And it is the crazy doctor who trips on cadavers all the time and beg their pardons for having disturbed them who finds out all that death was natural and the hullabaloo was nothing but a mid summer night's dream in the middle of the fall. In other words Hitchcock is questioning us on the real value of life when death is no longer a crime. There seems to be little left in life if that is the case. Crime and murder are the real spices of life which is so banal and tasteless otherwise.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


Very pretty New England scenery etcetera but that's about all this stinker has going for it. I saw this when it first came out and by the end of the first reel I expected there would be some sort of wry humor would emerge out of it but no, it just went on and on, and got sillier with every scene. I always wondered why Paramount didn't stop production when they saw the final script and I can imagine it would now be just an embarrassment for the entire cast. Like most of Hitchcock's post-Psycho movies it should have finished him in Hollywood but then he redeemed himself with the very watchable To Catch a Thief. This tiresome load of nonsense ranks high in my personal list of the ten worst movies of all time.


In Alfred Hitchock's The Trouble With Harry, the old geezer pulls our leg a bit, offering a sweet but rather cynical black comedy about how best to dispose of a dead body found by an old sea captain. Actually, none of the characters in the film give a hoot about the dead man but are only seeking to protect themselves from scandal.

The film, however, is a delightful entertainment, beautifully photographed amidst the Vermont fall foliage, and filled with indelible performances by Shirley MacLaine in her first screen role and veterans Mildred Natwick, Edmund Gwenn, Mildred Dunnock, and John Forsyth. Even though Hitch portrays people at their most loathsome, there is still something so charming about them that you can't help but smile and forgive their all too human foibles.


Lovely scenery but you know if you get Edmund Gwenn, you're going to get whimsy and lots of it. (He did, after all, play Kris Kringle in the original "Miracle on 34th Street".) John Forsythe basically got lost among the rest of the cast who were all stronger and that includes "The Beaver" himself, Jerry Mathers.

As at least someone else mentioned, it did remind me very much of "Arsenic and Old Lace" which had a stronger story and, in the film, Cary Grant. It's interesting that, at one point, Edmund mentioned that he might have elderberry wine before he was went over to Mildred N's and this was the drink that was used for poisoning in the other story.

I found it contrived but fairly entertaining and mildly funny. Worth a view but don't go out of your way.

7 out of 10.


This seems to me to be a very odd choice for Hitchcock, and not altogether successful. The movie has a nice feel for small-town New England in the fall (at least as well as I recall it from my teens), and it is quite funny occasionally, but overall it is just pleasant. You know that the characters are quirky because the script says they are, but it often seems forced. Shirley MacLaine is quite good at what was a trademark of her "cute period", but casting John Forsythe as a painter seems very strange. Also, every print of this movie that I've ever seen is quite muddy-looking, but I have no idea if this is intentional.

If you like Hitchcock (and who doesn't), you will probably enjoy this if your expectations are low enough. It's no Rear Window, but it's not Topaz, either.


One of director Alfred Hitchcock's groaners, a COMEDY which takes place in a sleepy New England town where a Bostonian man lays dead in the woods from a gunshot wound; the thin plot revolves around a handful of kooky residents who each have a run-in with the corpse. A very fine cast (the always-excellent Edmund Gwenn, John Forsythe, Shirley MacLaine in her debut, Mildred Natwick, Jerry Mathers as MacLaine's son) can't do much with this hackneyed script, and surprisingly neither can Hitchcock. The Master's pacing is so sluggish that he seems to be not quite present, yet the autumnal scenery is beautiful and the characters would be amusing if they had peppier lines. MacLaine is a fetching gamine, but she seems intent on pushing lemonade on everybody (she's overtly 'natural'). The song "Flaggin' the Train to Tuscaloosa" is memorable, and the basic theme of the movie (the troublesome corpse) is ripe for terrific possibilities which aren't quite realized here. It's cozy but bland. ** from ****


This movie is one of the worst Hitchcock movies I've seen. It is boring and unfunny. Only good thing in this movie are the actors. Too bad this movie is so unfunny, because the plot could have made it funnier. But now "funny" scenes only include the characters burying, burying the body over and over again.

* out of *****


At least Sir Alfred Hitchcock knew early on that comedies weren't his forte, and that thrillers and mysteries were where his strengths had lied. This film was completely unfunny, and I don't think it's just 50's sensibilities not working in the 21st century. I enjoy many of Hitchcock's films, and Vertigo is probably in my All-Time Top 20. But this is probably the worst Hitchcock movie I've ever seen. John Forsythe was so bad and unfunny that he was actually annoying and irritating. The only positives I can say about this film is that it had beautiful Vermont scenery, and it was fun to see Shirley McLaine in her first movie, as well as Jerry Mathers before he made it big on "Leave it to Beaver"!


While this film has aged well, it's not especially well made. It's watchable, maybe even entertaining, but I wouldn't say that it's worthy of the mystique that Hitchcock has aquired. Having also seen Rear Window, I'm wondering if that reputation is deserved at all. This is, however, a decent film, and better than many things being released in the present day.


Iv'e seen The Trouble with Harry described as everything from a masterpiece to Hitchcock's worst film. I think the reaction depends on how you go into the movie. If you're expecting a nail-biting suspense thriller like most of Hitchcock's other movies, you'll probably come away disappointed. But if you're more open to the idea of Hitchcock's little experiment in comedy, you just might discover a wonderfully entertaining film.

The Trouble with Harry is that Harry's dead  and some of the local townsfolk aren't sure if they're to blame for Harry's death or not. They quite naturally (or at least it seems so very natural in the movie) decide the best course of action is to bury Harry and go on as if nothing ever happened. However, no sooner do they have Harry six-feet under than one or another has a change of heart and out come the shovels and up comes Harry. But wait a minute  they can't let Harry be found. Back into the hole for Harry! Bury  Unbury  Bury  Unbury  it goes on and on.

If you've read any of the other comments I've written about movies, you'll soon discover that I'm a fan of what I call the One Word Review. For The Trouble with Harry, that word is delightful. Everything about the movie is delightful. The gorgeous fall Vermont foliage, the witty and well written script, the new-found relationships, Jerry Mathers as Arnie Rogers, Miss Gravely's blueberry muffins, Hitchcock's direction, the joke about the double bed, Bernard Hermann's absolutely perfect score, the body in the bathtub, and a very young Shirley MacLaine, John Forsythe, Mildred Natwick, and Edmund Gwenn  everything is all so . . . well, delightful.

Finally, one thing I want to specifically mention is the dialogue found in The Trouble with Harry. The more I think about certain lines, the funnier they seem to get. A few of my favorites include:

 She's a well preserved womanyes, very well preserved, and preserves have to be opened someday!

 He looked exactly the same when he was alive, only he was vertical.

 Couldn't have had more people here if I'd sold tickets.

 I've never been to a home-made funeral before.

I'm glad people that people don't really talk like the characters in The Trouble with Harry. If they did, I would never get anything done because I would be laughing too much.


There is a beauty to this film that is so subtle and so brilliant that you have to be a good viewer to understand it. This is a film where Hitchcock not only makes fun of himself but he also goes directly away from every other previous movie he ever directed. While it is his second comedy, this is no Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

The setting in Smuggler's Notch Vermont is a beauty. The cast of Edmund Gwenn & John Forsyth is unique and the premiere of Shirley McClaine was totally surprising. She was discovered working as the under study for another actress on Broadway in "The Pajama Game". Originally, it was the other actress that was being thought of to be cast in this, but when Hitch's folks saw Shirley, she won the part.

The comedy is subtle, and the entire cast plays it perfectly. One extreme note of interest, this is one of the very few Hitchcock films which does not have a staircase playing a setting in the film. Staircases always central roles in the action in most of his other films.


The Trouble with Harry, is that he's dead. However this isn't the true problem because nobody seems to care for Harry in particular. What they care about is who did it and how best to deal with it so that nobody gets caught. This involves burying and digging up, re-burying and re-digging up Harry several times. The simplicity of the comedy is perfect. I have always been a Hitchcock fan, but this film is like a breath of fresh air. It shows that their is a fine line between dramatic and comedic movies. This movie is very dark in content yet because there is very little character development the viewer doesn't identify with the plight of the character and the absence of Hitchcock's signature suspense music allows a viewer to laugh at the awkward situation and the ridiculous actions of the characters rather than worry about what terrible outcome could come from them. A delight and if he had been so inclined this film is proof that Hitchcock could have gone into the comedic genre if he had so desired.


The Master of Suspense proves himself to be a pretty good craftsman of comedy in this entertaining yarn about the trouble caused by a corpse in a small New England community. There are terrific performances from Forsythe as an eccentric artist, Gwenn and Natwick as a couple of old-timers who strike up a romance on account of the corpse, and, in her film debut, MacLaine as the wife of the corpse. And Jerry Mathers as the Beaver-like son of MacLaine. Initially, as the characters are introduced, the comedy seems to be forced but it soon gets on a roll and offers plenty of laughs. The country setting is beautifully photographed and Herrmann, in his first collaboration with Hitchcock, provides a nice score.


I caught this on TV one day not knowing what it was called or who made it. The film hypnotized me with beautiful photo, unhurried pace and a charismatic main character - Sam Marlowe, played to perfection by John Forsythe.

Then I picked up a paper and found out that it was made by Hitchcock. It surprised me because TTWH is lacking in suspense but rich in humor, romance and mystique. Good performances by everyone involved. The characters seem like real people who have their lives interrupted by a small inconvenience (the corpse).

The film is completely original and I can't wait to see it again.


I watched this movie because some articles made me curious ... the film is very thrilling and full of sophisticated humor. i felt 15 years younger, it was like leafing through a diary. I was born in 1964 so the time of Karl Koch's youth was the time of my youth, too. I have, however, never been a hacker. I think it was the first scene: Karl Koch takes his key and walks to his car, "accompanied" by "Child In Time". From that beginning I was in the film and I loved it. I also love "mathematic tricks" and "mathematic obsessions", just like Karl Koch. If the Americans would have made this film there would have been a love story and maybe also a happy-end. 23 is a great European film.


In Fact, there are quiet many German movies which have brought the evidence to establish themselves as classics. In general these movies are dramas or comedies and very often they provide the viewer with historical informations of a certain time and area. However, what is often missing is suspense. Allhough German television is full of good crime stories and thrillers this Genre is hardly found in German cinema.

At least this is one reason why I like this movie so much. 23 allows to enter the mind of a burnt out, intelligent but unloved son, who tried to break out of his boring life by rebelling against his dominant father and the establishment of the mid 80th. Where as his protest uses to be more like coming out of a group behavior which is based on ideals his intention during the movie changes completely and ends up in a computer spy environment heavily connected with a continuous downward development of his mental and physical condition.

In one sentence: This movie is one of those that shouldn't end because you want to know more about everything,the whole thing, so deep you will place yourself into the plot and you don't want to leave it. 23 changed my life. Afterwards, I had another opinion about reality.

Check it out yourself, I extremely recommend this movies


I think this is a great movie. It's focus is on the *person* Karl Koch, how he became the character he was in the end, and definitely not another "Hacker"-like movie or a story about the so-called "KGB-Hack" and how his group was finally busted. What makes this movie different from e.g. X-Files is that it is realistic; everyone can easily reconstruct how Karl Koch came to believe in the conspiracy-theories based on the "Illuminatus"-books - A believe that was increasingly strengthened by his ever increasing cocaine addiction. This is also a movie about friendship, false friends, and how friendship and trust are sacrificed to money and addiction.


An intriguing portrait of a young man drifting away from reality. And since that young man was a famous hacker with an unhealthy interest in conspiracies, the movie has got to be about conspiracies, right? Wrong. But that's exactly what the ads would like you to think. Very bad marketing for a very good movie. And beware: it can bring you to tears!! (Just thinking about that PDP in the rain makes me weep ... *sniff*)


"23" is one of the best german movies for a long time. It is based on the story of the life of Karl Koch (August Diehl: excellent) who was one of the best hackers of his time. 23 is the number of the Illuminators, the members of a worldwide secret society in the book "Illuminatus" by Robert Anton Wilson (who has a short guest appearance). On his high point of hacking Koch broke into the computers of US government arms control and delivered the data to the KGB. The film is a trip back to the 80's: The cold war, Olof Palme's assassination, Gadhaffi and Tschernobyl - most of the viewers will remember those things which dominated policy and influenced the all day life. The film shows the development of Karl Koch from his teenage years to his death as a person destroyed by his cocaine abuse and the extreme pressure he experienced in the wheels of eatern/western policy. This is a very good movie with very good actors-don't miss it!


What an awesome year the German movie scene has been having! And "23" was part of it... definitely one of the coolest (yet most serious) German movies in the last couple of years. While it still sacrifices some realism for the sake of suspense, it's probably one of the most realistic "hacker movies" ever made. I grew up with the same computing stuff Karl Koch uses in the movie, so I loved it. Yay!


A very entertaining suspense movie from Germany. If you love the X-Files you'll like this one too. It gives a lot to think about! I'm also sure we'll see the well playing young actors again soon in another movie.


A fascinating movie. Wonderful story, camera and directing. And one of the most excellent casts I ever saw in any kind of movie. Great work!


Hans Christian Schmid's "23" presents a not too far away time, when it was possible, that some amateurs could break into the world's most important computer systems. And on of those hackers was Karl Koch, a young idealist with big interest in theories about a world conspiracy. Why did Karl Koch become as paranoid as he did? That's the question I asked myself after watching "23". Maybe it's for the better that the question doesn't get a clear answer, because there won't be one. It could be the seed of his father, who is unwilling to try to understand him and causes rebellion. Or maybe that Karl focuses strongly on the negative sides of our society, mostly of them he feels unable to change. The movie makes an exciting journey alongside Karl, showing us his good intentions and his naivety. This all becomes possible with the great acting of August Diehl and his co-stars Fabian Busch, Jan Gregor Kremp and Dieter Landuris.


The premise of this film is that late teen hacker Karl Koch, rebelling against his conservative(step)father and concerned with the complex conspiracy theories laid out in the novel "Illuminati", gets drawn in by two dodgy dealers that convince him that, as all info should be available to everybody, it would be absolutely consequential to conduct computer-espionage for the Sowiet Union. Accompanied by his friend David, this enterprise develops into a drugged and paranoid trip. In my opinion, the film renders quite a nice picture of what must have been the atmosphere during this period in German history, at the same time allowing a look back at early hacking. Conspiracy theory, though, is given the heaviest stress, in combination with the two youths getting carried away by the sheer excitement of their 'revolutionary' activities - and noses full of coke. Admittedly, it seems hardly believable this would be based on a true story. One of the reviews featured here, though, accused the actors of being to 'theatrical'. Although they might not perform on an academy-award-winning level, I rather thought everybody was acting pretty fairly.


This is one very dragging along piece of film. It clearly reconstructs the youth of Hagbard, a young German hacker in the eighties. This film reminds me of so much of my own youth, and August Diehl's (Karl Koch) acting is perfect, that me and my wife now had to see it for the third time.

Read Clifford Stoll's book "The Cockoo's Egg. Inside the World of Computer Espionage" to see the movie from the American view. You will understand some scenes better, for example where the number salad comes from on the computer screen in the phone booth.


I really liked "Lola rennt", but I loved "23". The plot is fascinating, the music is great, the cast is gorgeous. While telling the story, the movie takes you back into the 80s. August Diehl as Karl Koch does an outstanding performance. After watching "23", you'll ask yourself if there is really an international conspiracy going on. Nearly every time you hear or see this number, you'll think "What if it was true?". A must see. 10 points.


Saw this at our local film festival. Feels very heavily influenced in terms of style and presentation by Britain's Trainspotting - the main protagonist haircut, cachetic physique, overdose scenes, etc. Still, the lead can give Ewan McGregor a run for his money in the acting department. Of course, the story is completely different from Trainspotting.

Well constructed and developed story. One can feel the main character's escalating paranoid and eventual loss of control as circumstances and events got too big for him to handle. Was there really such a character in real life? Poor chap.


For many viewers this film was spoilt by advertising, that showed a movie full of spying, hacking and big mysteries.

Yes. Big mysteries.

Left is one. How does a pretty smart guy lose contact to the "Reality", whatever that is meant? It is good, that this movie only had a low budget, that makes it possible to recognize the smallest change in acting.

Simple plot, overwhelming acting, financial flop, just a terrific film.

Thumbs up and 10 points


A typical German movie with a bunch of untalented actors that sure never studied how to play in a movie, but learned everything on theatre stages. But there is a difference between movie and theatre. I wished German actors finally learned about that. I can hardly believe this is based on a true story, but if they say so it must be true.

Rating: 2 / 10


"Sub Zero" is very entertaining. It's a silly spin on "Cliffhanger". The plot is about six climbers who have to deactivate a bomb on a mountain. The bomb looks like a rubik's cube. If it goes off it will destroy the world.

You don't watch a Jim Wynorski movie (the alias this time is Jay Andrews) and expect a masterpiece.

The acting is above-average for this type of film, the performances that stand out are Linden Ashby and Nia Peeples. The cast looks like they are having fun with the script. The special effects aren't the greatest, but who cares.

In the end: If you want to laugh and be on the edge of your seat, you can't go wrong with "Sub Zero".


Hard to imagine why a group of people would assemble to produce this. I just watched it on Pay Per View. I was in the mood for a "thriller", and the most skilled artisan involved in this production was the one who made the trailer look like it referenced a passable film. I do occasionally like to watch "rubbish" films, like the random Airline disaster... The ones where someone with the fear of flying lands the airplane with one wing, no wheels and after all the crew die after all drinking coffee spiked by a scorned lover, while callous Corporate overlords cover up the shoddy maintenance schedule of the aircraft.

But... not this...

Another commenter points out all the flaws relating to mountain climbing. The science is just as daft, the technology even worse and the political scenario's take the biscuit... So the UN sanction the creation of a doomsday satellite network, all controlled by one 4 inch remote control device thats guarded by, maybe 3 guys...

I may have seen a worse movie in my life... But I cant think of one, right now.


SPOILERS: IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE PLOT OF THIS GOD AWFUL FILM THEN DON'T READ.

After September 11; Nato sanctioned the secret launch of EMP Laser satellites designed to be used as a weapon (forgot the purpose) but they've malfunctioned and in a short (but unknown cause I'm forgotten) period of time they're all going to go off which will cause the destruction of every electrical device on the planet and sent the world back to the stone age. They can't shoot down the satellites cause they're designed to EMP anything that enters a mile of its orbit. So the only way to stop it is by turning it off at the 'Cube' on K2.

Obviously there's terrorists (Russian Terrorsits :O) dodgy Russian's, one of the climbing team has mysteriously been killed so the leader has asked his old climbing friend to join them who is now a monk after him and the leader lost a friend on a climb.

It's lame, it's crap but if its on TV beats watching some other crap with adverts every 5 minutes (if in America) or if you come home from 6th Form to find there is nothing on you haven't already seen at least 17 times and your only hope is, I kneel and pray, crap TV Movies on the Sci Fi Channel.


OK, much has already been said about the ridiculous plot; total lack of research, shopping mall props and general total ignorance exhibited within every facet of this film. Evidently it was directed with contempt for the audience's intelligence. It did occur to me early on that this whole film might be a mis-packaged spoof of all the bad films that went before, but no - they appear to have been serious in their attempt. Although how anyone could think people would not notice the continuity errors (e.g. red rope/blue rope, tarmac outside the mountain-top gun station, Nissen huts suddenly changing shape, etc etc) is beyond me.

But the crowning glory for me was:

Do the producers really think that there are pine trees at the summit of K2?


This is worth seeing, if only to provide a floor for rating all other movies. Worst of all time? Probably not. laughingly, shockingly horrible? Definitely. I was embarrassed for the actors in the movie, who must have been randomly recruited from a Greyhound terminal. I was also embarrassed for the movie Vertical Limit, which, though it is also a terrible movie in it's own right, actually made an effort, and has some entertainment value including a couple of Point Break-esquire one-liners. Sub Zero lifted almost all of it's action sequences and mountain scenes from Vertical Limit. When I say lifted, I don't mean they borrowed ideas, but rather cut-and-pasted footage. Another person wrote that one scene looked like an SNL skit, and I agree. Sub Zero is so pathetic, it is almost entertaining. But not quite.


Yes, this movie was truly pathetic. As another viewer points out, the mountain did an excellent job. Other than that, embarrassing. Terrible and inconsistent Russian accents, not to mention offensive stereotyping. A doctor who can diagnose "internal hemorrhaging" by touching the outside of an injured climber's parka. The female Russian climber actually looks like she is wearing jeans. The impossibly implausible position of the cube. The RIDICULOUS final climb with the cube--what is he holding on to? It is so clearly shot with them lying down horizontally. Flying effects that looked like a SNL skit.

Nevertheless, it was still rather fun to watch how this train wreck of a movie would get worse.


This is the main reason why writers, directors and producers need to consult professionals and the need to hire technical advisors.

Is it about pumping out crap for the almighty dollar with no realism? A 10 year old learns enough science and "know how" to shake their heads at the bad direction, realism and science.

*EMP - does not blow things up...lol go back to school *Learn military protocol - this is a joke. *The rock climbing techniques demonstrated by the actor demonstrated a willful disregard for accuracy.

I am sick and tired of "the powers that be" producing crap just for the sake of a story to put on TV.

Put more effort into it-

Learn something from Ridley Scott...