Captain Hickock (David Beecroft) is sent to investigate a strange death resulting from experiments conducted in seclusion in the desert. The scientists in charge, Van Fleet (ever wonderful character veteran James Hong) and Erhardt (Louise Fletcher) are experimenting with advanced stages of sleep and this has caused an opening in an alternate dimension through which a violent, shape-shifting creature emerges and starts decimating the hapless crew.

"Shadowzone" is noticeably better than other movies of its ilk. It's actually fairly well done; writer / director J.S. Cardone establishes a dead serious tone, begins his movie on an ominous note, and creates some reasonable suspense throughout. Never does this intriguing tale get too cheesy or laughable at any point; it's easy to get caught up in the story and be immersed in the dingy and claustrophobic atmosphere. Calling to mind past sci-fi / horror favorites like "Alien" and "The Thing", it has great sets, superb music by Richard Band, and decent splatter by Mark Shostrom.

The cast is also better than usual for this sort of thing, with Fletcher given the best part as the too-dedicated scientist. Miguel Nunez, whom genre fans will recognize from "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning" and "The Return of the Living Dead", is good as computer technician Wiley, with the late character actress Lu Leonard stealing her scenes as the crusty cook.

Those interested can also take note that there's a dose of both female and male nudity on display here.

"Shadowzone" is an entertaining little movie worth checking out. In fact, I think it deserves to be better known.

8/10


Surprisingly effective little sci-fi horror flick produced by Charles Band's Full Moon Pictures. Experiments funded by the military has a staggering side-effect when the head scientist, Dr. Van Fleet(James Hong)discovers that an alternate universe exists when a subject is induced into a vast, deep sleep..something sinister lies on the other side and uses the subject as a portal into our world. Everyone within the underground facility are in danger as the being which has found it's way into our dimension is hostile towards those it/they consider a threat. Captain Hickock(David Beecroft)is investigating the mysterious death of a test subject in the underground facility and we can see that the scientists involved with the EDS(Extreme Dream Sleep)are hiding something. Sensing this, Hickock wishes to see the printout results on the corpse and to settle doubts that his death wasn't a result of the sleep experiment..unconvinced of the results, and unpersuaded that Van Fleet's claims of a genetic cerebral hemorrhage as the cause are correct, he wishes to see if another current subject would suffer the exact fate if the sleep levels were the same. In doing this procedure, the current subject is induced into sleep too long and the being from the other universe is able to use him as a gateway into our plain. This puts everyone in peril for the being has the amazing power to shift it's molecular structure and can imitate anything lifted from the thoughts of humans. It travels throughout the facility and must be caught and killed or else..once it attacks Van Fleet who had locked himself in the sleep lab with the being, we realize that it is not exactly friendly.

Really neat B-movie cast includes Louise Fletcher as a rather odd scientist(Dr. Erhardt)who finds the being spellbinding, and seems to have been cut off from society a bit too long, and Miguel A. Núñez Jr. as computer specialist/electronics genius Wiley. If you have seen Miguel A. Núñez Jr. in other films, you can just about expect his fate. David Beecroft is your typical hero, an outsider unaccustomed to the way things are in an underground facility isolated from the world he belongs. Through Hickock, Beecroft is a no-nonsense, take-charge kind of character who is realistic and practical when faced with a really difficult situation, which he certainly inherits when searching for the truth regarding the death of a civilian. Frederick Flynn is the tobacco-chewing, easily rattled handyman, Tommy Shivers, who could use a shave, bath, and some manners. He's also really bad at his job, and we see how poorly managed and worse-for-wear the facility is as Hickock inspects the place..pipes often spit steam, water leaks are apparent, and rats are visible in the kitchen area. Affected by earthquakes and hampered by such a small staff, the facility sure could use a make-over. The being itself is a series of monsters, not particularly as scary now due to the advancement in special effects(..or as effective as say Bottin's work in THE THING or Stan Winston's work in PUMPKINHEAD), but effectively grotesque when they pop up on characters..the monkey creature is quite a ghastly creation. I have read about SHADOWZONE's comparison to ALIEN, but the only similarity I noticed was the plot regarding characters roaming the halls and rooms of the facility as the being is somewhere in the vicinity..some attempting to put food together for the long haul with Hickock & Wiley attempting to repair the damaged transformer after the mishap regarding the being's entry into our universe. Shawn Weatherly is scientist Dr. Kidwell, who is so attached to her pet monkey(..a supposed lab animal no longer needed when Van Fleet began to test human subjects)she'll risk her life to find it when it goes missing..the twist regarding her finding a monkey is a doozy. Not as gory or violent as it could've been, probably due to lack of budget(..for a Band production, the film looks great, particularly the underground facility and it's devastated state due to natural and unnatural factors), but director JS Cardone is able to build the dread quite nicely due to the fact that the being could be anywhere and mimic certain things(..this was perhaps what many believe was ripped from THE THING, I guess, because an animal is used by the being to trick characters). Maureen Flaherty and Robbie Rives are the nude test subjects shown frequently in all their glory. Lu Leonard has a funny role as the rather grumpy cook dealing with a rat problem Shivers won't correct due to his procrastination. Hong is entertaining in an all-too-short role as a nervously cautious scientist worried that Hickock might make a discovery that halts the funding of his experiments. The film does feature some questionable decisions by characters who seem to leap before thinking things thru.


I just love these old classics,you can watch them over and over again and never tyre of them.

I recently bought this original of ebay,an ex-rental as they have the original trailers etc on them and boy was it money well spent! I have a fantastic collection of these original movies and this is one of my favourites! It has all the horror and gore and tension you could want along with a bit of nudity chucked in for good measure.

I'd say this is a must for serious collectors if you can get a copy as this has been deleted in original format since 1993!

The story is good and the special effects are above average for the budget the late 80's early 90's horror films usually had!

Go get it now and have a great slice of retro horror in your proud collection!

10/10


Wow, I'm at a loss for how bad this movie is. I love Full Moon and all of their early work, such as Puppet Master, Trancers, and Demonic Toys, and I have a great appreciation for a lot of their talent and independent films, but this?! This doesn't get any stars from me!

There is not one character to care about, the plot is full of holes, the story, or lack there of, is atrocious to begin with...I can go on, but I think I'll stop. Bottom line, if you thought full moon movies they make today like Trancers 6, Stitches, and Shrieker suck, you haven't seen anything until you watch this! At least those movies had maybe one or two redeeming moments. This one has none

Take my word for it and listen to this warning. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME! I love horror, I love B-Films, but this movie fails to meet the expectations I have for both. 1 out of 10


"So Proudly We Hail!" is an absolutely magnificent film in every way. This movie was NOT a propaganda film like so many made during that time were. There was no "rah-rah" attitude anywhere in this film. This is one of the first films that put women in the spotlight as true war heroes, and in the front lines. The movie was extremely important for women, and how women are viewed in films. This film centers around the true horrors that the courageous nurses who served in WWII at Corregidor went through. NOTHING at all was candy coated, so to speak. As you watch this film, and remember that it was made in 1943, you will be shocked at some of the content for that time period. Amazing performances by all, including the great Claudette Colbert, George Reeves (from Superman fame), Veronica Lake (In certainly her finest performance), and Paullette Goddard who was nominated for an Academy Award. The script for this film was written by using the stories from journals, and diaries of the actual nurses who served at Corregidor. Some of these nurses made it back, and some didn't. Some of the surviving nurses of Corregidor were also brought in during production as technical advisors to the film makers. A few of them were even used as extras. Issues of Life magazine, and photographers from Life magazine who were there, were brought in assure even more accuracy concerning uniforms, and surroundings. The fact that this movie was released while the war was still going on, is further testament to it's courageous stance in not candy coating the horrors of war. This is one of the few old WWII films that I would love to see remade. A remake of this film could be as huge as "Saving Private Ryan" As you watch the film, you will see what I mean. This film was well written, had outstanding acting, mature subject matter for the time period, and was an historical achievement for putting courageous women in the spotlight. All of these elements together, make for a classic film that is a MUST SEE for everyone. Why this film is not in the AFI Top 100 is a mystery to me.


Without some of the sappy romances, I would have rated this powerful movie a couple of stars higher. That's only my tastes in films. For the ladies, they might like this "war movie," a lot more because it pays tribute mainly nurses and all the romances are probably just the ticket.

But for 126 minutes, I would have liked to see a bit less courtship scenes, which included some corny dialog. I realize they needed to break up the action scenes and give something for the females to watch, but they often made no sense. For example, near the end Colbert marries George Reeves (yes, Superman) even though she admits she knows almost nothing about the man!!.

I did enjoy watching Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard and Vernoica Lake, however. All of them looked very pretty. Lake was missing her peek-a-boo long blonde hair but probably - at least facially - looked better than I've ever seen her. Her role was the most interesting.

The movie succeeds in paying tribute to unsung heroes of any war: the nurses. They were an extremely hard-worked, under-appreciated group during World War II, so this tribute is well- earned and I'm glad to have seen it. God bless those ladies who made such sacrifices.


Hollywood deserves a big hand of applause for making SO PROUDLY WE HAIL at a time when the U.S. was still involved in WW2 and our struggles to overcome the Japanese in the Pacific. It opened to popular acclaim at New York's Radio City Music Hall where it played to contented audiences who were both entertained and impressed by the war realism depicted as nurses undergo the rigors of work among the wounded.

It's still pretty impressive, although some of the flag-waving gets a little heavy and the suds flow pretty freely when the nurses discover romance. Claudette Colbert leads the pack of nurses with a nobility only Claudette could demonstrate--and sincerity. In lesser roles, Veronica Lake and Paulette Goddard acquit themselves well, with Goddard receiving a Supporting Actress nomination.

Sonny Tufts achieved instant popularity with his role as the bumbling Kansas and George Reeves had one of the best roles of his career as Colbert's love interest.

What makes the film remarkable for its time is the way it handles all of the action sequences--and there are plenty of them. The explosions don't look as if they're happening on a studio set but in the jungles and terrain of the story--and they're mighty effective in their realism, something even today's audiences can appreciate.

On the debit side, the story is a little overlong and the flashback technique might not appeal to everyone. Still, it has holding power and is an example of one of the finer films of the period to deal with the role of women during World War II.


Like "Cry Havoc" (also made in 1943 but with a small cast and a modest set), this is a film about American Army nurses stranded on Corregidor, Philippines during the horrific time when General MacArthur was ordered to retreat to Australia. Both films are fascinating and moving because they were made during the War, before its outcome was known.

The performances of the very large cast of "So Proudly We Hail" are uniformly good -- with the exception of Ms. Goddard, whose mannerisms are annoying. George Reeves gives the performance of his career and even the much-maligned Sonny Tufts turns in a subtle performance.

The balance of violence and romance works; and commendable also is the script's restraint coupled with unexpected plot turns and un-clichéd character studies. It's long, yes, and occasionally strives to sound like a documentary, but it is never boring and one of its set-pieces, a patriotic speech made by the chaplain (Walter Abel), still resonates today, during another war.


Another fine film from AMC's 1998 "Veterans' Day Movie Marathon."

This one details (in flashbacks) the daily ordeals of a company of Red Cross nurses serving in Bataan and Corregidor during WWII. For a change, Paulette Goddard plays the nurse with most of the male admirers (Sonny Tufts in particular), with Veronica Lake showing up late in a decidedly unsexy role (about which I can't say much more than that, lest I ruin it for you). Both offer up career performances, if that's saying much. Their leader, durable talent Claudette Colbert, holds the troop together throughout, despite numerous tragedies. Helping to prop *her* up is her persistent suitor George Reeves (later of the TV series, "Superman"). Interesting for the fact that it was shot while the war was still raging ~ so there are a lot of decidedly non-PC references to "Japs" ~ but this is a real salute to the unsung women who served in "the big one." A must-rent.

4 Stars.


It is much too easy to fall into the post-World War Two media trap that the war was a man's war, and that women were just incidental to the effort. Thank goodness there are movies like this to remind Americans that the war was a total effort by almost everyone. In a real sense, women have not yet received full honor for their contribution to the war effort, whether they were ferrying planes, tending wounded, of carrying intelligence. In this film, one finds the horrors of war go beyond the battle lines into the minds of those who faced the reality of a world weary and frightened of war. This movie is also a reminder that most Americans during the war saw the fall of Bataan and the Phillippines as the major tragedy of the time. Pearl Harbor was frightening enough, but the very magnitude of defeat in the Pacific brought home the reality that there would be more casualties--if they could get off the island. It is difficult to find a Colbert movie of this period where she did not excel as a actress. This movie is no exception, she is extraordinary. Also, the evacuation scene is spectacular. If this movie did not inspire the Homefront to greater effort, what could? World War Two was everyone's war, and the peace would be everyone's peace.


I was stunned by the sheer excellence of this movie. I've saw many World War II films and this by far is the most real to life. I've never saw war thank God, but if I were to I'd expect it'd be as this movie portrayed!

This in my opinion is a must see for all women. This movie shows the courage, leadership, and strong will of women who so often are taken for granted. Our world is kept in tune by these silent unsung heroes, not just in war but in daily living. Women are nurses, managers, business owners, mothers, and some how they manage the time to be wives.

I enjoyed this movie a great deal because of it's accurate portrayal of the power of women. How women can be strong in times of danger and be heroes in times of war, but all the while keep their femininity, compassion, and sensitivity.

Some of the things you'll see in this movie will amaze you. Things that may not or seldom do appear in movies today are in this remarkable film. For instance there's a scene where a woman chooses to sacrifice herself with a grenade for the good of her fellow nurses. Another is a short and quite violent fight between a couple of nurses.

The plot is very solid in my opinion and this movie gives no glory to war! It's a classic war time epic, done from a very modern perspective. It indeed is a gem in a plastic box.


During WW II everyone in America joined forces to fight against Japan and Germany. This film clearly portrays the great efforts of the Military Nurses who helped the wounded and even gave their lives in order to bring Victory for the USA. Claudette Colbert,(Lt. Janet Davidson),"It Happened One Night",'34, spread herself very thin trying to support the nurses and the soldiers in the hospitals. Paulette Goddard,(Lt. Joan O'Doul),"Reap the Wild Wind",'42 gave an outstanding supporting role while under constant bombing from the Japanese Zero planes. Veronica Lake,(Lt. Oliva D'Arcy)," I Married a Witch",42 surprised everyone in the Nurses Unit with her great act of love and service to her country. Veronica Lake in real life had a short lived career and was not truly appreciated for her great acting abilities. This 1943 War picture clearly shows the horror of War and the results which live forever in our hearts and souls, especially the Veterans who are wounded and living in the Veteran's hospitals even TODAY.


In 1967, there were three television stations, and at 9:30pm on Saturday nights, the weekend movies would start, and my mom and I would watch whatever was on. "So Proudly We Hail" was playing on a cold December night in New Mexico, and I was transfixed watching this black and white classic. Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard, and Veronica Lake. I didn't know any of these actresses, but they became my idols, not the actresses themselves, but the women they portrayed. I always hoped there would be a war movie playing on those Saturday nights. I ask myself now, why I wanted to see these movies. When I turned 18, I talked to a recruiter, with dreams of serving in the Army, dressing in uniform, and playing soldier. My dream was not realized in the military, but in the civilian sector, and I "served" almost 30 years in ER's across this country. I know it's corny to say a movie influenced my life, but "So Proudly We Hail," did influence mine, profoundly. When Veronica Lake realized her comrades were in danger, and she made the choice to give her life for theirs, and her country, I realize that our daughters in the military are armed, and are making those decisions on a daily basis. So much has changed in 61 years, and yet they remain the same. I'm proud of this movie, and am grateful for the influence it had on my life on a Saturday night so long ago.


I saw this film when it first came out. I liked it then and I like it now. Some argue that its a little too heavy on the patriotism. But if you remember it was made at a time when we weren't sure how the war would come out, the context keeps patriotism in perspective. Back then most everyone supported the war effort and the doubters kept their doubts to themselves. There were virtually no families without at least one member in the service and most of the non-service people worked in defense jobs. "So Proudly We Hail" was a timely film when it was made and 60+ years later its message is still relevant as an historical event.


Claudette Colbert heads up a team of army nurses caring for the wounded and dying in "So Proudly We Hail!" It's a great ensemble of fine actresses, including Paulette Goddard, Veronica Lake, Barbara Britton and others. This is the women's story, not often told, but certainly harrowing and inspiring. These nurses are in the Phillipines when MacArthur pulls out and they become stranded on Corregidor.

The film is told in flashbacks, when the women are actually on their way home by ship, and Colbert, who plays "Davy" (Janet Davidson) is catatonic. The ship's doctor is trying to figure out how to help her and asks the women to tell their story. It's a rough one, filled with bombings, filth, malaria, little food, exhaustion, and dying.

When "So Proudly We Hail!" was released, no one knew how the war would end as we do now, and the fall of the Philippines was seen as a major defeat for the U.S. I suspect that although the impact of seeing it today is very strong, it must have been a lot stronger for wartime audiences.

As mentioned, it was wartime, so Hollywood didn't have a lot of men to choose from. George Reeves - today himself the subject of a film - plays Davy's love interest, John, and he's not only hunky but excellent. I couldn't figure out if he had a good speaking voice or I was just so used to hearing it after growing up with "Superman." But he's very effective, and it's sad that after serving in the war, he couldn't get his career back on track. Unfortunately, that happened to many actors who were just getting a foothold when war broke out.

The other actor is the often maligned Sonny Tufts, a big, good looking blond who wasn't much of an actor, but he doesn't detract from the film either. He was probably more suited to this role than he was to others later on.

But this is a women's movie all the way. At 40, Colbert was probably a little old for the role. However, she does a good job as a tough but motherly woman, protective of her nurses and quite the rule-breaker herself after she meets John. Veronica Lake gives what is perhaps her best performance as the angry Olivia. The supporting Oscar nomination should have gone to her - it's a showy role, and she does a fantastic job. Paulette Goddard did receive the nomination. She's a flirty, sexy man magnet and extremely likable. I've always thought in real life, with all that charm and charisma, she must have had to beat men off with a stick.

"So Proudly We Hail!" gives as realistic a depiction of the conditions of war and the tremendous work of the nurses who served. It covers the same material as the excellent "Cry Havoc!" - also about nurses on Bataan. I highly recommend both films.

As a bit of trivia, there were nurses who did not get out of Corregidor and were captured. They worked in the prison hospitals and had to endure terrible conditions, but surprisingly, they did survive -a tribute to their incredible inner strength and devotion to the wounded.


This is a wonderful account of the events leading up to the departure of MacArthur from the Phillipines. Parts of it are told in narrative style which lends a historic credibility to it, but the main focus on the movie is the hardships that our service personnel face when placed in tough situations. The primary characters are the Army nurses, with powerful leads played by Colbert, Goddard, Lake and Britton. Two male characters, one by TV Superman George Reeves (long before his red cape days) and one by Sonny Tufts who lends a humorous, homespun aspect to the storyline, are welcome additions.

As with any US movie made during the Second World War, the Japanese are portrayed as a murderous, evil, unscrupulous enemy. These Japanese are faceless, however, showing up only as shadows in one scene. One of the frustrating parts of this behind the lines type of war is that you never see the enemy, only the mechanism with which he delivers death.

Veronica Lake, in what seems to be an early "goth girl" performance, shows us what it is like when women get too close to the front lines.

Want to see what war is like, not on the front lines, but behind the lines at bomber targets? Watch this movie.


Way ahead of its time. Intelligently written, movingly acted, extremely compelling battle scenes for a film of its era. Excellent, realistic performances by Veronica Lake, Paulette Goddard, Sonny Tufts, Walter Abel, Hugh Ho Chang, even George Reeves. I don't understand why this film isn't mentioned among the best of American-made war movies.

Some reviewers here have called it "propaganda," but it is hardly that in the context of the time. I was actually quite surprised by its even-handedness. (Yes, there are non-PC references to "Japs," as with every other American war movie of the era.) Disregard any disparaging critiques posted here and SEE THIS FILM.


you wont believe this...i was 16 when i saw so proudly we hail....thirty years later i resaw it and remembered everything about it...even the theme music of claudette and george. what a flawless film...the acting...paulette goddard sublime...lake..her first real good effort and colbert gracious and sonny tufts...really credible. the story so true so heartbreaking...the special effects...truly pure Spielberg and lukas. i spent 200hundred dollars.of my vacation money to buy an uniform worn by goddard in spwh and i have a whole living room wall filled with lobby cards and posters of so proudly....im that nutty. proud of paulette goddard...tag just a pretty pretty but...praised in the film. just sad to know that the whole cast has deceased...maybe lorna gray is still with us. anyways it feels good to give you my view...and thanks for understanding a spwh freak.


Very well acted war drama. Excellent cast, with Paulette Goddard particularly effective. Viewing the film gives one an insight into the mood of the country at the time. While revisionists have tried to make atrocities forgotten in their quest for political correctness, this film doesn't soften the ruthlessness of the Japanese forces.


Thus movie is based on a true story taken from the book, "I Served On Bataan," written by nurse Juanita Hipps, a WWII nurse. She served in Bataan and Corrigedor during the time when McArthur withdrew to Australia. This unprecedented American withdrawal was a huge temporary defeat for our forces and ultimately led to the surrender of US and Philippine troops to Japan. Those prisoners of that surrender were the ones subjected to the infamous Bataan Death March.

The action and pathos of this film feel real because they are based on real human beings faced with critical issues of life, death, hatred, love and courage in the face of fire.

So worth your viewing time!


Another great performance by Paulette Goddard. Along with Veronica Lake, and Claudette Colbert as the lead.

All were very good, however, it was Paulette that got the Academy Award nomination as "Best Supporting Actress" for this film. And she deserved it. Yet in all the TV hype and movie club ads, it's always Colbert and Lake that get billed. Paulette went on to make another film with Sonny Tufts, "I Love A Soldier", because of their charisma in this film together.


Not a single nurse in 1942-1945 who served in the Philippines died during the Japanese invasion or later in Japanese prison camps.

In contrast, the death rate among males in both situations, which included the Bataan Death March (in which the nurses did not participate), was absolutely horrific, and included slave labor in Japan by being transported there by unmarked Japanese hell ships routinely sunk by unknowing U.S. submarines where starved, sick, suffocating men locked in holds drowned by the thousands.

There were endless aspects of the movie that tried the viewer, even in 1943: maudlin speeches by the chaplain, nurses, and others (including a speech in a love letter at the end of the movie) every 15 minutes or so; front line soldiers and a Marine (who for some reason wanders around all alone in an Army unit, on the voyage over and in the Philippines when he should have been with his fellow Marines in the 4th Marine Regiment) who nonchalantly stroll back and forth at will from the front lines to the rear to schmooze with their girl friends; fraternization (absolutely forbidden) between a nurse and the (apparently) lost enlisted Marine (who is a PFC in his blouse and a Pvt. in his shirtsleeves); absolute confusion as whether these nurses were Red Cross (civilians) or U.S. Army and Navy; the usual tiresome 1940's litany of wisecracks; not a single, solitary mention of the U.S. Army medics and Navy Hospital Corpsmen who, unlike the nurses, indeed WERE in the front lines, decimated, and left behind with their patients (no Australia for them); Claudette Colbert and Paulette Goddard obviously too old for their roles; Veronica Lake with hair shoulder length; endless, childish cat fights; and a scene with Veronica Lake, Japanese soldiers (who don't fire but obligingly gather around), and a hand grenade which has no competition for the 20th Century's Prize for the Hands Down Stupidest Scene Ever Filmed in a War Movie. The production values were good, but that and its patriotism are the only positive things you can say about this movie.


You pretty much know you're getting an heroic picture about Americans in battle when watching a war movie from 1943, so that helps set the stage up-front. The characters are idealized and thin, though certainly not as much as they could have been, and the pacing and narration don't quite hang together.

This picture is best seen as a collection of stories, some of which are so disturbingly human that they must be true. Veronica Lake does an outstanding job in her role, which consists of little dialogue but tremendous meaning. Claudette Colbert is perfect in her role, as are many of the other actors.

The two main male lead characters were almost painful to watch, with rotten dialogue and not much acting ability to pull it off.

The overall messages of the film are a real eye-opener compared to the propaganda we hear today (2008) regarding America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Themes of compassion, tolerance, and "sentimental virtues" make one realize just how far we've fallen in the last 60 years. As others have commented, it was surprising and at times shocking to see how far the filmmakers went to expose the horrors of war and the many ways people respond to it.

It was wonderful to see women of the same rank as men, and being portrayed as competent leaders and essential contributors. Courage and ingenuity shine through in memorable vignettes, reminding us that everyone near a war zone is affected by that war -- whether officially military or not.

My only wish is that the overall picture held together better as a whole. It's definitely essential viewing for its historical value, but isn't a classic film on its own.


The strengths of SO PROUDLY WE HAIL (1943) are found more in its form rather than the content of its characters. The main area where it differs from John Wayne-style WWII lip service is its predominantly female cast. All the American flag waving of the Forties is still here in full force, but the patriotic propaganda of the Office of War Information (OWI) is interestingly mingled with a Hollywood "love your man" plot.

Our girls can stick it to the enemy while still standing by their men! Goddard flirts with several officers while Colbert carries on a romance with George Reeves (Superman!) and Lake fosters a blind hatred for the Japanese due to her husband's death at Pearl Harbor, which prompts her to tuck a grenade in her bustier and march into a group of Japanese soldiers with a *BANG* early on in the film. Even with all the romance our girls still occasionally find time to do some nursing, which usually consists of them sitting (and sometimes standing) around sighing and telling us and each other about how hard it is to be a nurse. And just in case we don't understand what it means to be a patriot we are given several speeches on the topic, all delivered by our girls in perfect makeup and hair, with nary a lock out of place (ironic for Lake). Now, I do believe that it is hard to be a nurse, but the film would be greatly improved by showing us more of their hard work. Film, after all, is a visual medium.

That said, the Oscar® nominations for Best Black and White Cinematography and Best Special Effects were definitely deserved. Unlike most WWII propaganda pieces this one hardly ever looks as if it was shot on some cheap Hollywood back lot. Pay particular attention to the scenery; there is an ever-present atmosphere of smoke and shadow that makes this film worth watching. And the explosions are often genuinely powerful and impressive, if you're into that sort of thing.

I personally enjoyed the many montage sequences and the scene where all the girls are sitting around a table in Corregidor and an American food advertisement (for fresh pineapples or something like that) comes on the radio, effectively putting the battle conditions of daily bombings in sharp contrast with the more domestic concerns "back home".

SO PROUDLY WE HAIL offers precious little criticism of war and presents the Japanese as a faceless enemy worthy only of death and American hatred. The Hollywood love plot is sufficiently cheesy enough to be almost unintentionally satirical, but if you want to view a film with more substance then check out THE STORY OF G.I. JOE (1943).

War shouldn't ever evoke pride or be hailed. 2/5.

"Superman says YOU can slap a Jap . . . with war bonds and stamps!"


Colbert is well out of her element here, and cannot carry this tribute to WW II fighting nurses. The sentiment is commendable. The film is disappointing. It goes on and on, practically forever. It pulls no punches about the toughness of the action, which is laudable. But, it also gives us nothing to hold on to.

George Reeves and Sonny Tufts are unbearably stiff and feckless in the two leading male roles. Walter Abel is good as the tough commander.

I was disappointed when I first saw this, and recently wanted to see if it had improved with time. It hasn't.


Harrison Muller and Woody Strode are reunited after their triumphant 1982 classic "The Final Executioner" for this completely idiotic Italo action non-epic from certified hack Fernando di Leo.

The film begins in Vietnam, with Muller, Strode (who must be the oldest grunt in cinema history), and platoon leader Henry Silva rescuing some children. Silva is shot and Strode digs the bullet out of his chest with a knife in a scene that must be seen to be disbelieved. Then, out of nowhere, Strode (playing a character named "Polo") sends Muller and Silva on their way, while he stays behind.

Turns out Polo is running some kind of drug and prostitution ring based in Thailand that has ties to the Mafia, the KGB, and the CIA. Silva, now a CIA agent, sends top man and chronic Wrangler-wearer Muller to Thailand to stop Polo's reign of nonsensical terror.

Nothing makes sense: Silva recites his lines like he's talking to a 3-year-old, Muller is glib at all the wrong times (he's strung up and about to be killed by Strode, and he keeps asking for a beer), weeks seem to go by, yet Silva (who, despite his top billing, has hardly any screen time after the opening sequence) and the people at the CIA always seem to be wearing the same wardrobe, and Muller & Silva even kiss at one point.

The most jawdropping aspect of the film has to be the extended climactic siege, where Muller and a prostitute take refuge in a brothel while Strode's army attacks. This portion of the film is more drawn out than the live version of "Stairway to Heaven." The action takes place in a small, enclosed camp, with Muller and the girl running from building to building, yet Strode and the most poorly-trained, inefficient platoon this side of "Gomer Pyle USMC" can't seem to see them, and even when they do, they all run after them one at a time, enabling Muller to easily dispose of them.

Add to that a "surprise" ending without a semblance of coherence or sensibility and you've got something that even bad movie purists won't be able to handle.


I caught up with this movie in the late eighties when I rented it on a local video store. It was a bad recorded VHS tape transfered directly from a bad 35mm copy. The main reason I rented it is because Carol André, the beautiful actress from the SANDOKAN TV series was on the cast. The movie is incredibly awful, beyond the worst I have seen so far. Bad actors, terrible acting, horrible script, unintelligible plot and some sequences that really made me feel guilty for having rented it. Unforgettable is the character Polo, one of the most naff villains to appear ever on an action movie. Also the scenes with the silly and clumsy main character jumping in and out of windows really made me laugh out loud. No doubt I expect the day to watch it again to laugh again at it. But this time I expect not to pay a single cent.


On a mission in Vietnam Kirk, Mike and Polo are the only survivors of their platoon who rescue a bunch of children, but Polo stays behind when they get to their boat and tells them to leave. Polo happens to be in arms and drug trafficking operation with the KGB and the mafia. Kirk now working for the CIA sends out Mike to Vietnam to stop Polo's enterprise.

What an incoherent mess. The good folks of Cannon produce this very low-rent Italian b-action fodder. Well there's not a whole lot to say about this one, but it's poorly executed and the cast are all but washed up. Woody Strode and Henry Silva go through the motions with such little effort, while the leading man Harrison Muller provides the personality, but his timing seems off. Most the time his running and jumping in or out of windows. Those sneakers of his cop a real work out. Carole Andre's sly part was small, but prominent. The no frills action drags on, especially the film's final standoff where the bad guys have terrible aim and plenty of explosions are assured. The continuous gun fire also made sure that there was some bloody pulp. But boy does it go on, because if feel like its in slow motion! The tempo throughout stays mellow and lacks oomph. How about that conclusion though?! Talk about baffling. The one-man team of Fernando Di Leo who directed and wrote the screenplay and story does a clumsy job on all fronts. The whole premise is slipshod and embarrassingly one-note, and the insipid script chalks up many tacky lines. His blunt direction is quite aimless and clunky. Being shot location in the Philippines gives the film a raw touch and makes it quite ugly to look at. The hybrid sounding music score seems to actually work and fit right in, despite some junky passages.

Never boring, but there's no denying how unbelievably trite it turns out to be.


Amazingly awful! With a story as deep as a kiddie pool, we're exposed to black ops stupidity as an entourage of B-movie standards leads us through a tour in Nam'! Can't get any more badass than that huh? Wait...there's more! Vietnamese hookers that look Mediterranean! Still with me? A guy gets a spear to the nuts! Don't get up for air! I'm not finished! Jesus fights off middle aged punks in a hotel lobby, then proceeds to murder an army of dogs and highly explosive buildings! Then all of the sudden...Woody "The Man Hammuh" Strode!

See this movie or die unfulfilled! Buy it or else Italy can't make movies anymore!

Yours and mine,

The Lazy Southerner


A reasonably entertaining jungle action turkey. The plot has something to do with with the far east drugs war, CIA, young prostitutes and mercenaries. Fluffy indeed.

Lots of pyrotechnics and gunplay make this one watchable, but bad acting and tremendously bad script work in the other direction.

Released on video in Finland in the early eighties.


Solid, underrated thriller about murder and the domino effect of lies. Demi Moore stars as Cynthia Kellogg, a woman caught in the middle when her best friend (played by Glenne Headly) murders her jerk of a husband -- or so it seems. Great performances and intriguing plot twists and turns help elevate this forgotten effort from director Alan Rudolph (Breakfast of Champions, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle). Moore and Willis (who went on to marry after reportedly meeting on this film) are particularly effective. Mortal Thoughts is made all the more memorable in that it constantly asks the viewer what he or she would do in the strenuous situations in which the characters find themselves.


First of all I have no idea why this was named "Mortal Thoughts." More appropriate would be, "Fatal Lies" or "An Inadvertent Confession," or maybe "Desperate Friends." Be that as it may, this is a superior thriller mainly because the story is compelling and the acting is first rate. Demi Moore who plays Cynthia is just outstanding. She commands the screen with her beautiful and expressive features and her great natural skill. If you don't like her, I guarantee you will not like this movie because she dominates the film. She is as vivid and unforgettable as an Al Pacino or a Betty Davis.

As an aside on the career of Demi Moore, I want to say that it's a shame for her that her off-screen personality is not well liked, which in large part accounts for the fact that she is one of the most underrated, although one of the most often seen and hardest-working stars of the last fifteen years or so. This movie is an example of how she is ignored. The plain fact is her performance here is better than many who have won Oscars, and she wasn't even nominated. Another problem for her is that this movie (and others she has made) are not the sort of films that the Academy pays much attention to. Mortal Thoughts (which she co-produced, by the way) is too low-budget, too "common" one might say, for any part in it to be taken seriously in an artistic sense. Too bad.

Glenne Headly (Joyce) is also outstanding while Bruce Willis is excellent as Joyce's drug-addled, boozing, wife-beating loser of a husband. The dialogue is right on, realistically depicting the lives of New Jersey beauty shop people while the plot told in ersatz flashbacks unfolds nicely with a fine tension.

The story is that of two friends, Joyce and Cynthia who find they have to cover up a killing (NOT a murder, but at worst a manslaughter, or better yet, a case of self-defense), but fall apart as the investigation closes in on them. In a sense they are both like Lady Macbeth with blood on their hands and no effective way to wash it off. They are both appropriately naive as young working-class women, and both act foolishly, as many of us might in their predicament.

Here's a nice bit of ironic dialogue. Joyce is questioning her ability to convince people about what happened. She tells Cynthia that she isn't a very good liar. But Cynthia reassures her: "Joyce, you're a terrific liar. You just lost confidence in yourself." This is all to the good as far as film-making goes. It is the ending that is the problem.

One might ask, what happened to the ending? Maybe I need to watch this again to be sure I didn't miss anything. But better yet, YOU watch it and you be the judge. What I think happened is director Alan Rudolph truncated it. Either that or he decided to try something artistic, which I don't recommend in a commercial thriller flick. Maybe they just ran out of money and had to wrap it up. At any rate, we are left wondering what is going to happen and who actually did what to whom. Presumably, the last flashback from Cynthia tells us how Bruce Willis's character met his end, but that doesn't solve the problem of how or why (somebody else) was shot full of holes. Maybe the producers thought they would wrap it all up in a sequel. Actually, there's enough there for one, easily.

I would also like to complain about a movie that acts out a false story told by one of the characters as though the story were true. That can be done, but it must be done in such a way that there is some kind of hint or "coloring" of the story that allows the viewer to suspect that something is amiss. True, Det. John Woods (Harvey Keitel) makes some compelling arguments along the way to suggest that Cynthia is not telling the truth, but we are mislead by the actions that our eyes see and the sounds that our ears hear. In movies, since anything can be contrived, it is the usual rule to have the camera show the truth while letting the characters do the lying.

What might have saved this (and what I was expecting all the way through) is Joyce's side of the story acted out on screen so that we could compare the stories and make our choice about who was telling the truth.

Bottom line: better than one might expect with a realistic edge clearly a notch or two above the usual thriller fare.


Not being a fan of either Demi Moore or Bruce Willis, I was not prepared to be blown away by both their performances in Mortal Thoughts. The two actors give nuanced and very real performances as regular Jersey folks, and Glenne Headly steals the movie. Demi (Cythia) and Glenne (Joyce) play lifelong friends, both beauticians at Joyce's shop. Joyce is married to the insufferable Jimmy (Willis), who alternately ignores, harasses, and hits her, when he's not out partying. Joyce is constantly talking about killing Jimmy, and since the movie begins during the investigation into his death, the movie raises your suspicion from the start.

The entire movie is told as a flashback during the police questioning of Cynthia, and Demi manages to bring to life a scared, distraught, exhausted and defensive woman whose life as a simple mother of two has been turned upside down. Harvey Keitel, as the lead investigator into the case, gives an amazing performance, supplying the audience with the right level of doubt about Cynthia's story to keep the suspense flying until the end - and all while sitting in the same chair for most of the film! Glenne Headly shows just how good she is as Joyce goes from kooky and fun to paranoid and potentially dangerous. The ending manages to tie all the ends of the mystery up while grabbing at your emotions. Truly a satisfying film for a dark and stormy night.


Mortal Thoughts stars Demi Moore and her husband at that time, Bruce Willis. I was instantly intrigued by this film. The storyline is fantastic and the casting is superb (although I would say that as Bruce Willis is my favourite actor!) I was impressed by the acting, particularly Harvey Keitel, who plays police detective John Woods. Willis is also very good as evil and abusive husband Jim. He is very convincing and instantly hateable. Although the film contains some disturbing scenes, it is exciting and tense throughout, with an impressive and unexpected twist at the end. Set in New Jersey, the directing is also good, with flashing images and slow motion effects. A creepy but enjoyable film from beginning to end, and well worth the watch!


I was pleasantly surprised by this film for its guts to take a story and almost present it all through Demi Moore talking to two police detectives(Harvey Keitel and Bille Neal) in a room - everything we see is via her character's thoughts and perceptions and ideas of truth and untruth and is entirely in flashback form. The story centers around Moore and her friend Headly recently married to a brute of a guy played by Bruce Willis - and goes from there to murder, mystery, and the eventual uncovering of what is the truth behind everything. Director Alan Rudolph does a good job creating a story convincingly told throughout by flashback and from the first person whilst coming back to present time repeatedly. This is not as easy as it sounds and has been messed up in other films, but it does work here because of Rudolph's sure directorial talents and the acting of Moore, Willis, Headly and Keitel. Demi Moore gives perhaps one her best performances(looking lovely I might add as well) as a New York woman torn between several things. Headly is as strong as is Willis. All of the actors give serviceable performances and the whole movie looks and sounds like a spin off from The Sopranos or something the way all of the actors walk, talk, and act. You will have no doubts where the film takes place to be sure. The story is inventive and delivers at the end. I didn't see it coming but others could believably so - but even if that is the case the film works on other levels as well. There are some nice psychological examinations made in the film as well as challenges made to perceptions. I must agree the title is really quite horrible and has virtually nothing to do with this film, but all in all this is quite a good thriller that needs another look.


This movie starts off quite interesting. A young woman (Demi Moore) starts to confess to the police, that she was a witness to a murder, which was committed by her best friend (Glenn Headly). So far, so good. But then it takes her about 95 percent of the playing time of the movie to explain what happened. All that time you keep on thinking to yourself: 'Why the hell did she do all the things, she's telling us she did ?'. And finally, because the film had to have an ending I guess, they give us the solution to the 'mysterie'. Most of us probably knew it would end like this 90 minutes earlier, but hoped the script would be more surprising. No, also the cast isn't very believable, except maybe for the policewoman, who knew all along how it would end, and wisely didn't talk.


Two best friends who work together in a beauty salon are involved in the death of one's abusive husband; police investigate and question the girls, but get conflicting stories. Anytime talk gets around to the career of Demi Moore, inevitably someone else will ask, "What was the name of that movie where Bruce Willis got killed and she played the beautician?" This picture got seen, but not by many, and that's a shame because it's effectively stylish, creepy and perceptive. Moore and Glenne Headly (in her best performance yet) are amazing, and Willis is excellent too in support. Lots of quiet tension and unease that brings about a palpable feeling of menace and suspense. I found it quite impressive. *** from ****


I'm not a big fan of Demi Moore but I have to admit that her performance in this film is very good. Bruce Willis does what he does best; that is to say, he's annoying to the point where I was hoping someone would kill him and put us all out of our misery, even though I thoroughly enjoyed his character when he wasn't being mean to his wife. Glenne Headly was amazing and Harvey Keitel, one of my favorites, was once again the consummate cop.

But the best part of this movie, for me, was the realism. The New Jersey accents sounded natural and unaffected, especially Harvey Keitel's pronunciation of Joyce's name as "Jerce". The homes looked like regular folks lived there, not like designer-inspired movie sets. The clothes were real, the hairdos were real, and the way the characters behaved was real.

I've seen this film a couple of times and I haven't found any glaring plot holes; everything follows a believable and sensible course. If Demi Moore's character is lying, she's doing a damn good job of it.

The only problem I have with the story -- and it is a problem I have with many stories -- is that at some point the characters completely abandon their day-to-day lives. After Jimmy's funeral it seems that Joyce never returns to the beauty shop that she owns and Cynthia and Cookie never work another day in their lives, even though all three women depend on the income from their jobs. I would have preferred to see how Joyce's alleged descent into madness affected her business, how her customers reacted to her, and how she and the other stylists interacted during working hours.

Overall I give this film an 8 out of 10. Great performances by the main characters, solid storyline, and nothing fake to distract from the story.


Most films that rely heavily on flashbacks feel contrived, but this film is redeemed by strong pacing and a tactile sense of desperation. The 'revelations' that occur throughout, if not necessarily original or surprising, are consistently entertaining, focusing more on the character's motivations for murder and betrayal than on the actual mechanics of the crime.

This is not a perfect movie, but it is oddly striking. I would give it a 6.5 out of 10, but the IMDB doesn't allow decimals. I rounded up to 7 because the film's current score of 5.5 is more fitting of a stodgy film like 2002's Unfaithful.

7/10


"Mortal Thoughts" is well acted and keeps your attention throughout. It's a modernized "Alfred Hitchcock type" movie complete with Brooklyn accents. It makes you wonder how the judicial system can ever figure out who's telling the truth and also how many guilty people are acquitted because of their acting abilities. Mystery buffs should be very satisfied.


I watched this movie one night on cable. I am happy to say that this movie was much better than I thought and as usual, Demi Moore is just awesome. Bruce Willis is also in this film but he playes her best friends abusive, drunk husband. The plot thickens when he is found dead. There is even a crazier twist at the end. Harvey Keitel was great as the detective investigating the murder. Overall I give this 8/10.


Talk about your off-shoot movies for major actors, like these two. Demi Moore is superb in this tale of urban violence against women and family and drug use. Bruce plays a character that I haven't seen him tackle before. He does it in an outstanding manner. Glenne Headley as Demi's close friend and co-worker drops the accent and does new Jersey as it should be done. I really didn't like this story, I was very uncomfortable, but I realize, looking back that it was right on the money. The subject needs to be dissected. Moreover it needs to be taken seriously and not swept under the carpet, as it has in many cases. Stats' read out to be 1-3 women are being abused, or have been in an abusive relationship. Demi shows her mettle, she also shows what it's like to come to the end of a violent union.

Glenne, her friend was supportive and a little shaky at times. I can't figure who wouldn't be, but she was also strength for her friend. This was a dark and intense brief, look into what some are living through. I am glad that this was made, it shows the grit that it takes to just make it through the day with someone of that lifestyle. Demi is the type that is really believable in this, there aren't a lot of other actresses that have the ability to reach the emotionally burned-out look and feel that Moore does in this. Willis, was and I can't say enough about his performance as he was just a 'natural' in 'MORTAL'.

When you can be close and taste it even just a little it is hard to try and blame someone for using the extreme method to exit a relationship just that way.

Although, they have to take responsibility in it, when it's them that started the life together in the first place. There are 'signs' that any person should be aware of before abandoning them self to a relationship commitment. Seek counseling first, or talk with close friends around you and don't ever simply base your longing on an emotional state of being...for sure you'll be sorry in the end. And you will in deed be looking for the fifty ways to leave your lover.

Recommended...learn from this one too.(****)


"Mortal thoughts" is the kind of picture from which I never saw a good critic from, but God what a movie it is! The acting is superb from the beginning till the end. The story is about Cynthia (Demi Moore) and Joyce (Glenne Headly). Both are married and where as Cynthia has a workaholic as a husband, Joyce has to fill her hours with a swine, superb played by Bruce Willis who is swearing, fighting, sniffing and talking about sex during the whole movie. But the fun doesn't last long as he got killed.... But the question is : who did it? Demi Moore or Glenne Headly? And the question to that is what the film is all about, done in interogationstyle by cop Harvey Keitel. Demi Moore tells her story with flashbacks and bit by bit we know more about the history...and believe us, the plot is totally different from what is supposed to be in the beginning. Great art? Perhaps not, in fact it surely isn't but all the characters are played with tons of style (you will always remember the presence of Bruce Willis here). Sole thing which makes us wonder is who the hell was responsible for the clothes....it's made in 1991 but all we see are Duran Duran, Cyndi Lauper-haircuts...and Demi Moore looks awful in her stonewashjeans! But brilliant picture that is....


The hairdresser, wife and mother Cynthia Kellogg (Demi Moore) is in an interrogation room in a police department being questioned by the experienced detective John Woods (Harvey Keitel) and his partner. Through flashbacks, she reveals how her best friend and colleague Joyce Urbanski (Glenne Headly) married the scum and nasty James Urbanski (Bruce Willis); how hard Joyce's life with James was; and why Joyce became a criminal. The smart detective finds some questionable points in her statement and presses Cynthia, trying to disclose the truth. Yesterday I saw "Mortal Thoughts" for the second time. In the 90's, when I watched this movie for the first time, I was very impressed with such a tight screenplay and outstanding performances of the cast, and I decided to "recheck" my first impression. Indeed it is a great low budget thriller, almost theatrical and having a story with no flaws. Bruce Willis has a very different participation, in the role of a disgusting drug addicted, and proves that he is a good actor. Harvey Keitel in the role of an astute detective, finding the controversies in the testimony of Cynthia, is amazing. Demi Moore has also an inspired acting, in the role of a mother in a dilemma between telling a secret and hiding the truth. And Glenne Headly is also great, in the role of an abused and very unsecured low class woman. Even seeing this movie for the second time, it is very worthwhile and recommended. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Pensamentos Mortais" ("Mortal Thoughts")


SPOILERS THROUGH:

For some reason, although I should have liked this, my thoughts about Mortal thoughts were all negative. This was an attempt at a thriller, a psychological thriller, a genre I happen to love. Only trouble is, it wasn't very interesting. Probably my least favorite Demi Moore movie. Here are some of the reasons I didn't care for this(in no special order.):

The whole plot was way to contrived and there was nothing frightening about it, though it was slightly creepy(But still didn't manage to fascinate.) The SECOND thing is the Bruce Willis character who really annoyed me. In fact almost all the characters annoyed me come to think of it. Very few were very likable.

The movie featured amusement park scenes that could have been mysterious and intriguing-great setting-but wound up unappealing and lacked any sense of intrigue.

The movie got to gory too(played almost like a horror movie then a psychological thriller at times)-and the "twist" was nothing to write home about AT ALL. And the way it unraveled wasn't that great. Also, the combo of Moore and Willis on film together wasn't very exciting.

This was a movie I thought I'd like a lot but wound up actually disliking. This rates about a 3 out of 10.


Get this title into your mind right now: ASYLUM OF SATAN. Why? Because the 70s was known for tons of low budget movies about the worst of both worlds: crowded asylums and Satanic possession. Before watching the movie trailer, I saw the full-length feature. What you get is absolute nonsense. This, being made a couple of years before THE EXORCIST, helped bring in numerous offerings about the Devil. Here, it's same old, same old. Cheap special effects are the excuse for a rotten-apple horror chiller, with rubber snakes and toy bugs taking toll on two innocent lives. Now, I've just seen the trailer, and I would have been better off giving a donation of twenty dollars to film preservation. An interesting note: the warning label on United's copy of the film is mistakenly misleading. Movies such as ASYLUM OF SATAN are junk food for your head. Just add a television set.


A young woman finds herself held against her will in an eerie mental asylum by the sinister "Dr. Specter" and his masculine-looking assistant, Martine. She begins to suspect that the visions of horror she experiences are not nightmares and that she is due to be sacrificed to The Evil One. A laughably awful film if I've ever seen one, "Asylum of Satan" is highly enjoyable, cheesy trash. Bad acting from everyone, especially the lead actress, a terribly dated score, and the fakest-looking Satan you'll ever see make this steaming pile one worth checking out if you like bad movies. Oh, and the death scene are a stitch! (Apperantly people can die from cockroaches crawling all over them...) My rating for "Asylum of satan"--2/10.


Luciana (Carla Borelli) is sent to a mental institution so she can be treated by the mysterious Dr. Spector (Charles Kissinger.) Specter is doing more than just run the hospital though: He also likes to sacrifice his subjects to Satan.

William ("Grizzly", "The Manitou", "Three on a Meathook") Girdler's debut is something of a chore to sit through. With poor lighting (this is a low budget affair), amazingly overwrought acting, amateurish production values, a plot that's not too original-and that is dated even by the standards of the time, and a hilarious looking Satan in the film's climax (it's actually the Devil Suit from "Rosemary's Baby", only with a tacky mask added to it), there seems to be plenty for fans of camp to enjoy, but in reality it's just a bore.

What's really amusing is that this movie was made in 1975. I say this because at this point, movies like this were largely considered old fashioned. Sure, the fact that Satan is involved is obviously due to the influence of "The Exorcist", but the tacky Monster, below sub par production values, and PG rating were old news in the post "Exorcist" and "Texas Chainsaw" world. The whole thing ends up feeling like it belongs more in 1971 then 1975, and I don't mean that in a good way.


Lucina Martin (Carla Borelli) finds herself in Pleasant Hill. It's a sanitarium she was put in after a breakdown she was told happened to her but she can't remember. She find she can't leave--she's locked in her room and the sinister Dr. Specter (Charles Kissinger) won't let her go. Her boyfriend Chris (Nick Jolley) comes to see her but isn't let in. It turns out she's to be sacrificed to Satan...or something. I fell asleep to be honest.

Perfectly boring, stupid horror movie. It's badly acted (Jolley is the worst), directed and edited. Lousy lighting too--I couldn't make out what was going on a few times. The script is just silly too. The special effects are laughable--I got a BIG kick of the obvious fake rubber spiders used in one scene. It all ends up with some idiot in one of the most ridiculous costumes I've ever seen playing Satan! It's padded too, even at just 78 minutes, with a pointless and silly montage of Lucina and Chris to show their "love" for each other. And wait until you see actor Kissinger in drag (!!!) playing Martine! And Jolley wears some of the worst 1970s clothes I've ever seen.

Maybe I'm being a little too hard on this. It was made on no budget and, by all accounts, everybody went out of their way to do as good a job as possible with no money. Still it sadly doesn't work. Director William Girdler did go on the bigger and better things--so to speak. He later did "Grizzly" and "The Manitou". These were hardly classics but much better than this. A 1 all the way.


I don't know a whole lot about William Girdler (I've only seen one other film that he directed, "Three On a Meathook", which wasn't nearly as entertaining as this one), but it's obvious that he put a lot of heart into "Asylum of Satan". Yes, it was done on a very small budget; yes, the script was corny; yes, the acting was mostly bad. But movies don't come any more GENUINE than this. And "Asylum" is fun to watch, too, dammit! Remember the horror movie you wanted to make when you were a kid? Well, Girdler made it for you. The plot is thin; a beautiful pianist (Carla Borelli) suffers a minor breakdown and ends up at an old, scary-looking asylum in the country, where she hears sinister chanting and has a number of extremely vivid nightmares. What's going on at Dr. Spektor's sanitarium? You'll have to find out for yourself! While most of the cast fails to impress (but come on, lay off bellbottom-clad Nick Jolley already, even if he does look ridiculous!), Charles Kissinger--as Dr. Spektor--makes a pretty good bargain-basement Vincent Price. As with other films of this type, the scares are, for the most part, executed in a heavyhanded, artless way. Still, there's a couple of truly creepy scenes (this is not sarcasm or irony!), and the makeup effects are interesting if unconvincing. Watch "Asylum of Satan" and you'll develop a soft spot in your heart--or your head--for it :)


If you enjoy the 70's, bell-bottoms, fake beards, Creepy Crawlers, or shoving a red hot needle in your eye then this is your movie! I, on the other hand, simply enjoy making fun of it.

It is simply bad. If it's not women being attacked by Creepy Crawlers and rubber snakes, it's a zombie who can't keep his Halloween teeth in his mouth. The lighting, sound, and sets are horrible (you can clearly see that Lucina's doctor and Dr. Specter's offices are the same friggin' room!) And the acting... oh the acting!

Of all the "actors" in Asylum, one stands out above the rest. One man whose blandness out-shines all the others. He likes his clothes groovy, his cars mustard yellow, and his hair, side-burns and mustache big... really really big. This man is Nick Jolley. He alone is worth seeing this movie for. I'm not saying he's talented. Far from it. He's just so bad, he's funny.

I would truly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys watching really bad films and cracking-wise a la MST3K. It hurts, but with a few well-placed jokes and a few good friends to share them with, it goes down much easier.


..it would have won 10 oscars compared to this turkey! I have only one thing to say about this film. BAD!!!


I am ashamed to say I have seen this movie. And more than once. Why? I guess I'm just a sucker for pain. But really, Nick Jolly? Where did they find this guy? For that matter, where did they find any of these people? I'd say "Asylum of Satan" should be burned, but it's just too much fun to make fun of a la MST3K (who, by the way, would have a field day with this stink-burger!).


This movie...where to begin. A heavily mustached Nick Jolley runs around smoking Slim Jims,wearing plaid bell-bottoms, and telling cops how to do their job. Zombies lose their teeth, Dr. Spector has a glued on beard, the "decapitated head" blinks, there's some sort of wormhole at the end of the film taking you to the beginning for a brief moment...one could go on and on. Put bluntly, this movie is one of the most horrid pieces you could ever hope to avoid. But after a while, you kind of start liking it! One might wonder why Nick Jolley wasn't in anything else. This film puts all questions to rest


William Girdler made his directorial debut in 1972 with the surprisingly decent exploitation flick Three on a Meathook, and since then basically everything he's directed has gone on to become notorious - though mostly that's because his films are so low quality, not because of any content. That is certainly the case with Asylum of Satan; a mind numbingly bad horror film which features nothing that would shock an audience of young children. The film focuses on a woman who wakes up in asylum, despite her feeling that nothing is wrong with her. The doctor is adamant that she must stay...and it son transpires that there's more to this medical centre than meets the eye. The film is very short; running at under eighty minutes and I am really glad it wasn't longer as the majority of the duration is mind-numbingly boring. The plot basically just plods along for the entire film and the 'twists' to the story do nothing to make the film any more interesting and it gets tiresome quickly. The title does promise an appearance from the dark lord, and the film doesn't disappoint in that respect. It takes a long time to get there, but the ending is at least hilariously campy - the appearance of Satan is memorable for all the wrong reasons, however. Overall, this really is a horrible film and I would recommend it only to hardcore William Girdler fans...if there are any.


"Asylum of Satan" actually has some interesting ideas. The concept itself has been overdone many times, as horror films set in insane asylums really have nothing new to offer (the subgenre peaked with the masterpiece "Shock Corridor"). However, the female protagonist is sympathetic and there's a certain nightmarish edge to the storyline. Unfortunately, William Girdler at this point in his career has absolutely no idea how to pace a film or build tension (he slightly improved with his later work). Also, the script is pretty ridiculous with a predictable supposed twist ending.

Girdler isn't the only one to blame for the ineptness of this production. While some of these films feature wooden acting, the "performances" here are overdone. However, they're not over-the-top enough to ensure some enjoyment as camp. They're just annoying. However, horror films don't come to expect great acting from these low-budget efforts. They want some scares or at least entertainment value. "Asylum of Satan" offers neither. In addition to Girdler's poor direction, the film is so horribly lit its difficult to make out whats taking place on-screen, especially during the climax. The most amusing part of the whole film is the Satan mask at the end (its lousy but laughably so). Unfortunately, its not really worth sitting through just to get to that. The film is available from Something Weird Video as half of a double feature with "Satan's Children". Thats a bad movie as well, but at least its a lot of fun to watch. On the other hand, "Asylum of Satan" isn't really worth your time. (3/10)


It is amazing how much this film sucks... The special effects are ground-breaking and I must say, the acting is the best I've seen in 27 years! Nick Jolley stars as some lady's boyfriend and his acting is pure-genious... When you see this film, watch the big fight scene he's in, it is flabber-gasting. Dr. Spectre is by far one of the best villians I've seen since Kevin Spacey in se7en. Rent, Buy, Or Steal this movie right away before you die...


Everything you'd expect from a film with this title...nothing. I THINK I remember a woman in a weird house with a cafeteria with guys in white hooded robes staring at soft-boiled eggs on the tables... I remember the mustachioed guy and some painful-to-watch love scenes with said Village Person... I rented this years ago at a Blockbuster. I actually thought I was in for something remarkable- yes, I was duped by the box at a tender young age. I don't remember any sex, violence or nudity in this. Are there (*shudders*) multiple versions out there?? The copy I rented wasn't prerecorded, so I tacked on a little bit of a Disney animal movie on to the end there as a protest. If you have that tape, e-mail me. Look for the credit acknowledging the Church of Satan.


Mention the Care Bears and for some reason everyone starts to cringe or think of nasty things to do to them. I have to say it breaks my heart that so many people are against a cartoon that teaches kids about empathy, friendship, and conflict resolution (and all without fighting).

I recently had the pleasure of acquiring a copy of this movie, and I, for one, am going to treasure it. I'm serious. Watch it with a little kid who takes the Power Rangers too seriously. I guarantee you'll be a little misty eyed by the end, and the kid will discover the revolutionary idea that it's not against the rules to befriend the monster instead of battling it.

I know I won't have a lot of people backing me up here, but I thought I should put my two cents in. And anyhow, Grumpy Bear is too cute.


It's a great film cause it hasn't got too much violence as other new cartoons do, and it bring back memory's to grownups of there childhood days. the songs are great, especially the main song which i think is called care-a-lot which is what's it about, and it truly gets you in the heart where it's suppose to.

it proves that the 80's cartoons were better than todays cartoons made by Japanese, cause they always like killing and fighting, but this animated film show we shouldn't kill or hate each other in the world but care for each other by being friends and sharing and caring and even helping each other have a great life with happiness around us.


this is the sweetest little movie...the dialogue is a little cheesy, but you have to understand it was made in the 80s and geared for little kids. the bears are so cute, and there are some parts that will make you laugh, and if your especially sensitive, you might even tear up at some parts. the second movie is good too, but theres a little too much darkness in it, with the evil boy at camp and everything. the first movie is all fun, and very little scary-ness. its also when you first meet the care bear cousins, which are a bunch of jungle animals and at the end they all get their little tummy-pictures. its a really great movie to rent when your in a happy mood. :-)


This film, unlike it's sequel, is a masterpiece. I grew up with this movie, It was one of my first theatre-going experiences as a child, This film unfortunately has never been given the credit it deserves. This film that has such a deep meaning to society has been all but forgotten. The animation is about the quality of that that Disney was turning out in the mid-80's, but the purpose behind the movie is what is so great, this movie that was concieved to sell toys actually conveys a sense of morality to its audience.

The music is wonderful, John Sebastian and Carole King did a wonderful job. Before long, you'll find yourself singing along with the songs. The comical lines in this film are far better than those in the sequel, the humour is actually funny. Whether you're six years old or twenty-five, this is a very enjoyable movie, and hopefully it will reappear on video again soon, because a virtuous film like this should be readily available to everyone.


Ahhhhhh! This is really cute, especially the cousins. Its message is subtle and not laid too thick. The evil spirit is really scary. Her voice drips with pure poison and you have to admit that the world would be terrible if nobody cared. The good characters have plenty of charm and personality. They're not cloying. You really care about what happens to them and that's what makes a good movie. 8/10


In my opinion, this movie and Care Bears Movie 2 are the best films I am ever going to watch. Care Bears were there all the way through my childhood. I am 16 and I am still watching these two cute movies. I can't help it. I think this movie could teach anyone a lesson, no matter what age.

Care Bears is a film about Morality teaching young kids to share, love and about friendship, unlike Pokemon which provokes the young population to fight and steal each others Pokemon cards.

This movie is full of beautiful and catchy songs, but I prefer the 2nd movies sound track. I will never get bored of this movie, and I will watch it till this old tape of mine screws up from old age (where I will be VERY upset). This movie will bring you songs which will never get out of your head, these songs have been in my head all my life and I have had a happy life so far.

You may think that Care Bears have no effect on your child, but I grew up with it. Now im a vegetarian, a volunteer for the RSPCA and a success at school. Im extremely bubbly and kind hearted and hate to hurt people. You decide.

Please, parents everywhere, show Care Bears to your children, not Pokemon.


Yes, I know I am an adult, but this movie just brings back good memories. I used to watch the care bears every day, and even play care bears with my friends. These cuddly little bears help teach us the important lessons of life, like how to care, share and grow up to be wonderful members of society.

The plot is that two children who are put up for adoption begin to doubt the world and humanity. The care bears sense their trouble and whisk them off to care-a-lot. Meanwhile, another little boy who works for the circus unleashes a nasty spirit that causes everyone on earth to quit caring. It is up to the care bears to teach the kids how to care, and teach the whole world how to care before time runs out. It's full of adventure and delightful characters. And meeting the care bear cousins in the forest of feelings was a great addition. Will the world ever care again? Watch and find out.


The Care Bears movie is basically about teaching children to be compassionate; to use their words to talk about their problems instead of keeping it inside. It encourages children to be empathetic and kind when it comes to other people, that good can often triumph over bad if people work together, and that there is always room for a miracle.

Personally, I grew up watching pretty much only the Care Bears, and I think it helped me a great deal. I have no interest in violent video games, movies or shows. They simply don't appeal to me. I am also a sensitive person by nature, and I attribute that to watching the Care Bears as a child. Their lessons had a deep imprint on me.

I definitely think this movie should be seen by all people at least once. I admit, compared to today's degree of shows, the movie fails, but once you actually get into watching it, you don't even notice it anymore. Someday, when I have children, they will definitely be watching this movie!


The 80's were really the decade to live in! I have to admit, for someone my age, I honestly believe that the Care Bears movie is a very well-made movie. It came out the year I was born, and I'm reasonably sure that it is also the very first movie I ever saw in my entire life.

Now, where should I begin? Ah, yes. It makes me enjoy the movie a lot more now that I know that some famous people were involved in it. The story is narrated by Mickey Rooney, someone with a very kid-friendly voice. There was also Cree Summer, who did voices in various different cartoon series', and of course, Billie Mae Richards (Rudolph).

This is a great children's movie, and some adults can enjoy it too. I don't recommend this movie to the 7 to 18 range. It's pretty enjoyable, but it also has a lot of frightening parts. I was always scared to death of the dark spirit. To help lighten the mood, there are also some catchy songs in this movie as well, which are all done by famous pop artists such as Carol King and John Sebastian. Today, the only thing I really love about this movie is the finale song, "It's Great to Be in the Care Bear Family". For some odd reason, I'm such a sucker for all those "Kids of the Kingdom"-types of songs.

This movie was followed by two sequels. The first of the three was really good and really dark and dramatic, the second one was just as good but seemed more like a comedy than a drama, and the third one was just plain weird. Right now, I just wish I could watch this movie again and see how much stuff I can remember from it. I'm sure it will bring back to me some very fond memories.


This is a film that even now I have fond memories of, and can apreciate as a classic. The animation is not superb, and neigther is the story. However, it is strangely aplicable as a social commentary about American society. The story, although almsot laughable, is quite fun to enjoy. The cast of characters seems almost a marketing sceme of the mid-80's, but what children's TV program can claim not to be such? If for no other reason sit back enjoy the silliness, and just care.


Despite many criticizing the pre-Renaissance 1980's as the worst-ever decade for the animation industry, it produced memorable films like "NIMH 1", "An American Tail", "LBT 1" (all three produced by Don Bluth), "Oliver & Company" (Disney), and this, one of the first full-length cartoons ever to be based on a toy franchise.

From the Canadian company Nelvana comes the first installment in a trilogy of big-screen movies centering on the Care Bears and the Care Bear Cousins follows the adventures of Kim and Jason, two small children who feel that people don't care for them enough. At the start of the movie, they are starting to be befriended by the Bears when Friend and Secret Bear come by them on the city streets.

This mild-mannered masterpiece (if not a real classic in the wake of "Rock & Rule", also produced by Nelvana, as well as the Disney films of the early 90's) is so sweet, you'll think the whole world needs more films than this and not slice-fests like Q & U's "Kill Bill".

ALSO RECOMMENDED: Nelvana's Care Bears show (all of season 1 and a few in season 2), the next two Care Bears films, and "My Little Pony: The Movie".

9/10


This has always been one of my favorite movies to watch. Looking at it objectively I suppose I could pick apart this movie until there was nothing left. But I'm not going to do that nor do I want to do. Yes it was a little cheesy at times but I liked all the songs and it of course had a good message. One thing I have noticed is that some people have to point out that this movie was made for commercial reasons. So what? Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have been commercialized and no one seems to think it takes away from them. Commercializing a movie and making a profit is just part of the industry. This was a cute funny movie with a positive message, I liked it and so I give it 10 stars.


The Care Bears Movie is fun for many Children. You have to look for Theatrically released motion pictures for young people to find People living in harmony with no fear. To my real Daughter God Yahweh Apophis Julia Ar Morgan thank you for saving your Daddy and original form sister Julia and North America. Try not to feel too bad, the Israelis have a saying en brera that means something like no choice. There have been many paradoxes on Earth such as Soviet Premier Stalin enjoying learning Western Cowboy movie English, A resigned President Nixon traveling to China as an American representative, the faking of the death of Chinese Canadian Doctor Bethune. The many clones that live in America, Russia and China, Soviet Chess Grandmaster Kasparov liking sports cars. When you are famous and or powerful you can pretty well do what you like. I shall always miss not travelling to Europe. Julia I will try to write you at least once every month. You are a wonderful Young Lady and a real Windsor Royal Family Princess of England. Even if there were 998 people in England I would still call the nation England. Some people say that America has a Junta. As American Shadow Vice President we Americans did have to spread the leaders around geographically to protect ourselves from attack. I do love the American Russian and Chinese Children of the world and that is why I want Humanity to remain as dignified as possible. The real Russian Tsar has taught me about dignity and Human decency. The Chinese cities look very modern and I am interested in a peaceful way in their Television Satellites since I have never seen a diagram of one living here in North America and having given a lecture on Satellite Technology in Air Cadets. Princess Julia since you and I are eternal in the Moonfleet you will always be in the thoughts and prayers of my Deoxyribo nucleic Acid selves. May God bless Humanity. Thank you to IMDb for allowing the freedom of speech that President George W Bush and I and others support. Support IMDb.


The 'Care' Bear movie. A dangerous plethora of twisted images from the American psyche are explored in this woodland repression vehicle. A dark dream of the degree to which writers in a modern society are prepared to disrupt reality in a bid to blindfold the new generation into the shooting gallery of puberty. Does the carebear have an armpit? The sanitation of children's programming has led to a generation befouled by mishap, angst and Celine Dion. The carebare is a eunuch, there is no personality, no real love or care. They simply serve as a scattered kaleidescope from which to view a one dimensional form of an emotion that short sighted writers have tried to simplify and compress to a generation of consequentially disenfranchised infants. Too much sugar leads to rot and as the Care Bears use their plateau to infect the 'savage' woodland creatures with their semi psychotic care ideology, the creatures lose all hope of developing any sense of identity. They find themselves crushed by the oppressive force of the 'care' and soon they too are carrying the Fascistic emblems, branded, on their bodies. All in all a terrifyingly shortsighted catapult into the ideological catacombs of children's broadgramming. Both chilling and powerful.


Call me a curmudgeon, but I absolutely hate the Care Bears and wish they had never been created. They are, without a doubt, the most saccharine and bland characters created in the last 30 years. So sweet, so nice that you really wish that there was a movie that paired them with Itchy and Scratchy!!! Now I am not really saying I want the really little kids out there to see ultra-violent films, but there gets to be a point when a film is so non-offensive and sweet that it nearly puts the viewers in a diabetic coma! This means, parents, that if you are suckered into watching this with your kids, you are in for a trip to Hades! I just can't see how any sane adult could stand watching these horrid creatures for more than about 20 seconds.

On top of these complaints, the animation quality is poor and the script is so mindless and insipid that ANYTHING must be better for the kids to watch. This stuff makes the Teletubbies look edgy!


Not recommended for diabetics or anybody over the age of four.

This sickly-sweet, cloying piece of tripe has all the depth and feeling of a third-rate greeting card. If your kid insists on seeing it (I presume at a friend's house, since you will have better taste than to bring this into your home), there's no harm in it. There's just nothing to gain but smarmy platitudes the kid should be learning from you anyway.


I care! I care! I care... wait a minute, I don't care, and neither should you. What's the point of brainwashing a bunch of kids to care? To sell toys? It would have been a lot better if at the sugar-coated climax of this animated kid's classic, instead of projecting all that caring, the care bears projectile vomited in the same manner as the viewers--in horror at what the kids of '85 were being spoon fed. The only redeeming value of the film is the high level of realism and social commentary that portrays an America torn apart by violence, class warfare, predjudice, and Hi-C. Share Bear, Birthday Bear... how 'bout Disgusted Bear. Please don't subject your children to this piece of un-Carefully illustrated nonsense. Take them to the park instead.


Lets face it folks, how un-original can you be? Little Bears that live up in the clouds that come down to help those who have stopped caring? Now lets send these Bears down to "South Park" and watch and see what will happen. Or to put it one way, "Look out Ned they're coming right for us."


One wonders what this movie would have become if Hitchcock had gotten his hands on it. Would he have revved up the plot, tightened up the script, recast some of the characters, put in a highway chase over the countryside interrupted by sheep, added a more appealing female interest for Mason? The climb up to the roof at the end, the strong lighting and direct closeups, the art and photographic direction(seemingly uncredited to one of the directors),as well as the music score and the general "look" of the film, not to mention James Mason's compelling presence all had the ingredients for a potential Hitchcockian thriller, but something is missing here. The plot's not that complicated (certainly not like "The Lady Vanishes") and there seems not to be enough risk or sense of danger (certainly not like "The 39 Steps")to Mason's life, although there is suspense and surprise along the way. One big weakness is the supporting cast. The young lady's character (can't even remember her name) isn't developed enough, nor does she have sufficient charm or sex appeal, as a Hitchcockian heroine would.

Still one watches it for Mason, before he has developed any overt mannerisms or been sadly type-cast as a villain. He seems to have made a number of these not-quite-up-to-snuff pictures in his career. Was he hard up? why didn't Hitchcock cast him and why didn't he ever accept a Powell & Pressburger offer? His presence on any number of these "grade-b" films, including the brief appearance in "Madame Bovary" (with Jenifer Jones), for example, or in the disappointing "Mayerling," adds a sense of gravitas to any of the proceedings in which he appeared, but the scripts and directors fail him, if not the cast.

Fortunately, he can be remembered for his appearance as Captain Nemo in "Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea," and Sir Randolph Nettleby in "Shooting Party," both of which tapped his natural dignity and aristocratic bearing and surrounded him with a worthy cast. See those for Mason at his best.

Of four stars****, two and a half.


A modest but quite competently done spy-thriller set in 1939 France. The plot-line is strongly reminiscent of 1930s British drawing room detective thrillers - you expect Hercule Poirot to reveal himself at any moment. James Mason is an Austrian refugee from the Nazis who is accused of spying and then used as a decoy by the French authorities to flush out the real spy, who turns out to be Herbert Lom playing his usual sinister baddie. Mason and Lom turn in their usual workmanlike performances and give the whole thing credibility, winding up to a rousing finale in the best Hitchcock tradition.


A young James Mason does a fine job in this film. The story is set a few years before the start of WW II. Mason is a guest at a quiet resort hotel in France. His camera is accidentally used by a German spy who has an identical one. When Mason takes a roll of film to be developed, the roll contains several pictures of top secret French aircraft and facilities. The police question Mason and are able to determine that he is innocent in the matter. But, they use the charges against him as leverage to get him to assist them in finding out which of the other hotel guests is the spy. How he succeeds makes for a most interesting and tension filled story.


Hotel Reserve is an interesting little thriller set before World War 2 and I taped this when BBC2 screened it one afternoon.

A medical student on holiday in France is arrested for spying when some photos are developed showing something to do with the Army or Navy. To clear is name, the police release him and he has to find the actual person who took these with his camera. It has to be on of his fellow guests at Hotel Reserve...

The cast includes James Mason and Herbert Lom, both of whom went on to play Captain Nemo, Mason in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Lom in Mysterious Island. With Patricia Medina.

Hotel Reserve is quite a tense movie and is worth catching.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.


James Mason is a guest at the "Hotel Reserve," and runs into some problems in this 1944 film. He plays a young man, Vadassy, whose camera is used to photograph a military installation, which is the crime of espionage. Since the camera number on his declarations form doesn't match the camera's, the officials know the camera was switched. They want Vadassay to find the spy in the hotel. The suspects are a honeymooning couple (Herbert Lom and Patricia Medina), a man using an alias (Frederick Valk), an attractive young woman (Mary Skelton), a major (Anthony Shaw), an older couple, several others.

I liked this film a little better than some others on the board, though it does not have the suspense or urgency of a Hitchcock film. It does have an overpowering score, one of the most dramatic I've ever heard by Lennox Berkeley, interesting photography by Mutz Greenbaum (who was one of the directors as Max Greene), and it's based on a story by Eric Ambler, a fine suspense writer. What it also had going for it was a very European setting and sensibility, very fitting for the plot.

James Mason is very young and handsome here, and Herbert Lom is nearly unrecognizable, he's so young. Mason is very good but the depth of his abilities was as yet untapped. The rest of the cast is good.

Yes, Hitchcock would have gone to town on this one. Still, "Hotel Reserve" has its good points in storyline and visuals. And that music - intrusive but good.


Another old goodie from RKO studios, in the era when they were churning out spy melodramas almost by the dozen.

I decide to watch this one for two main reasons: first, it has a still young-looking James Mason, appearing in his thirtieth movie (he first appeared in 1935) and there's also one of the heavies of the thirties and forties, Herbert Lom, once again showing his under-rated acting ability.

I was also surprised at the great camera work: some truly imaginative interiors, great use of shadows and lighting, and quite an interesting denouement between the two men at the top of a building, again with some brilliant camera work. The setting was supposed to be in 1938 southern France, but in wartime, one makes do with the back lot at Pinewood; unhappily, that was all too obvious. There are other technical faults and shortcomings but just pretend you're in the local Palace on a bleak afternoon in 1944 London.

The story about a young man, Peter Vadassy (Mason), being framed for espionage seemed to me a bit weak, at the outset: the local gendarmerie allow him to go free so that he can help trap the real spy, after he proves, sort of, that he is not the guilty party. Why then would the director of French Naval Intelligence rope in a stranger to help do their work? Ah, well, that's a bit of the puzzle that all comes together at the end, and very nicely done too... Of course, that's what one should expect from an Alistair Maclean novel, I reckon.

Given the times, it's a good cast and the acting is generally good, even if the characters are a bit stereotypical. Hey, it was wartime, so it was good propaganda, I guess...

At 85 minutes, it was a nice break after a busy day and the office...my PC! It won't appeal to the younger set, of course, but RKO and spy-story enthusiasts, who probably tend to be a bit older, would enjoy this one. I did.


James Mason is as pale as the script in this forties "thriller" that looks like it was performed and directed by a community theatre group. Mason is poorly miscast as a Austrian medical student accused of espionage while on vacation at a resort hotel in the south of France. The police threaten to turn him over to the Gestapo if he doesn't cooperate by uncovering the real spy among the hotel guests. With a group of arch characters, some casting sinister side glances, others acting buffoonish, a suspenseless game of Clue commences. In comparison the board game is more animated.

With the exception of Herbert Lom's fine sinister turn performances run from bad to ham to invisible. The set design is sparse, the lighting unimaginative and the photography flat. The editing is glaringly incompetent and the direction (three are given credit; talk about too many cooks) haphazard.

In an attempt to amp up the tension and showcase their matinée idol, the directors throw a trench coat on the pallid Mason and bring him along to vanquish the villain at the film's climax. It is a ridiculously contrived ending that in a way is wholly appropriate to a film that remains consistently bad from start to finish.


"Nola" is certainly not a masterpiece. On the other hand, it's not a bad movie.

I watched "Nola" because I am a HUGE Emmy Rossum fan. I think she's brilliant, beautiful and has an outstanding singing voice. In "Nola", Emmy plays an eighteen-year-old named Nola (shocker, right?). Nola moves from an abusive Kansas home to New York City in search of her father and meets some very interesting characters along the way, turning her search for her father into an "adventure".

The first 45 minutes of "Nola" are almost pure romantic comedy. After those first 45 minutes, though, a strange subplot is put into action. The subplot is fairly cheesy and not near as entertaining as I think it was meant to be. But Emmy Rossum's acting saved it. The highlights of the movie were Emmy Rossum's songs. The first was "Street of Dreams" which she sang at the very beginning, and the second was "Don't Break My Heart" which Emmy sang at the end. Her singing voice was amazing and the songs had depth.

On the whole, "Nola" is funny, sweet, and sometimes very much outlandish. I would watch again.


I am a huge fan of actress Mary McDonnell, which is the only reason I sat through the entire excruciating run of "Nola." And even an actress of McDonnell's considerable skills couldn't save this movie from itself.

To put it bluntly, the movie didn't want to admit it was a dumb "Kansas Girl Takes The Big Apple By Storm" flick, so it tossed in a few nuggets of controversy (transgenderism, age-play/BDSM, legalizing prostitution) to try to give it depth. Unfortunately, it didn't cover any of these topics with either depth or sensitivity, turning the entire script into something that more resembled a Talking-Points List for the extreme left than an actual story.

Nola herself was the only reasonably developed character, and I didn't like her. Mary McDonnell's character (the ex-hooker with a heart of gold, if you can believe it!) hinted at a background that might have been interesting, but there was no follow through. The other characters were one-dimensional and forgettable.

The plot twists, as they were, were formulaic and actually embarrassing at a couple of points, and the resolution of the film was just rushed and wrong.

As for me? I'm just going to put in a copy of "Sneakers" or "Dances with Wolves," or maybe watch a few episodes of "Battlestar Galactica," just so I can clear my mind of Mary McDonnell spitting out this dreck dialogue. Love ya, Mary. You're better than this.