Critics are correct: Knock on Any Door is flawed, perhaps badly flawed. However, it's also an interesting film from a number of standpoints, with several important compensations critics tend to overlook. I think it's worth examining some of each since the film does feature the legendary Bogart and perhaps the fastest rising young director of the time, Nicholas Ray. So why then are the results as mixed as I think they are. Here are a few conjectures.

A central weakness lies in the casting. Taking on the lawyer's role meant that Bogart's star power would require an expanded role for the attorney. That's unfortunate because the lawyer's part is both marginal to the plot and strictly one dimensional -- that of a "tough love" social reformer. Small wonder Bogart fans generally dislike the movie-- he gets a long emotional speech but no real chance at the darkly ambiguous character that was his specialty. The fact is that the part could have been filled by any number of lesser actors without loss to the movie as a whole

The real star part, of course, is John Derek's hard-luck Nick Romano. It's a complex role that would tax even the best young actor. Unfortunately, Derek lacks both the intensity and emotional depth central to the character's predicament. He's appropriately brash and arrogant, but lacks the the tragic dimension of sensitivity. It's too bad his career began with such a demanding role. The woeful tantrum scene at the lakeside cabin may be an extreme example, still it does illustrate the problem. The prospect of Brando doing the part is a fascinating one, but one that regrettably fell through.

Too bad also that the courtroom scenes are prolonged (probably to accommodate Bogart's starring role), since they amount to another key flaw. They're stagey, uninspired, and clash with the expressively noirish atmosphere of the slums. It's like two contrasting halves glued together in hopes that they will complement rather than clash. But conflict they do, because the slum scenes bring out the expressive artistry of director Ray, while the high-key lighting and prolonged dialog of the court resemble the boilerplate of the old Perry Mason show. I expect Ray did these scenes on auto-pilot..

And, of course, there's the final courtroom plea that should have been sent back for re- write. Critics are correct-- it's ham-handed to say the least. There have to be subtler, more effective methods of influencing the audience without hammering them in the process. The fact that the plea comes at movie's end leaves a bad last impression, which is why I believe so many of the positive elements tend to get over-looked.

But those positive elements are indeed present. Note the electrifying opening, of cops plowing wildly through crowds of seedy bystanders That's pure Nick Ray. The crowds even look fairly authentic by 40's standards. They're also atmospheric and colorful. Note some of the distinctive characters-- the shuffling cadaver named "Junior", or the slippery "Kid Fingers", or the black man acting in a rare uncaricatured fashion. Note also some of the subtler miscellaneous touches, such as the flame that flares up from the restaurant tray the moment Derek pledges to reform-- an ominous portent; or the ugly hot water tank that dominates the visuals of the young couple's cold-water flat where Emma finds a home but Nick only finds desolation.

There's also the film's central irony-- that the shrill, cruel-faced DA (George Mc Ready, with an enhanced scar) in fact wins the courtroom battle and Bogart loses. It passes by quickly, giving the DA no time to exult or the audience to react. But the fact is that attorney Morton (Bogart), who we've rooted for, has succumbed to systematic self-deception by seeing a version of his former self in the devious young Romano. This twist is jarring, because it abruptly overturns both movie convention and audience expectations.

Where the movie really works-- as one reviewer sagely points out-- is as a love story between Emma and Nick. That's not surprising since no one was better at bringing out the touching side of romantic love than Ray ("They Live by Night" {1947} or "Rebel Without a Cause" {1955}). He was especially effective with actresses. Here Allene Robert's Emma transforms poignantly from vulnerable neighborhood waif into glowing young wife. She's really the one who's tragically trapped by poverty and circumstance. (Note the poignantly cheap ribbons in her hair as she lovingly prepares a dinner for Nick that he will never eat.) Too bad that this, the most effective phase of the film, is too often overlooked.

Likely, the 90 minutes didn't help anyone's career, except maybe Roberts'. At least, Bogart and Ray were able to recover the following year with the artistically complete "In a Lonely Place" (1950), while Derek found a comfortable niche adorning a number of forgettable costume dramas.

Nonetheless, there's something haunting for me about this movie. Perhaps it's the spectacle of social conscience gone awry. More likely, it's the lingering image of Emma, alone in that ugly flat, the ribbons in her hair. Her modest little dreams now dashed beyond repair. I really wish the movie had succeeded.


While it may be argued that the picture presents an extremely liberal viewpoint on the causes of teenage crime, it is nonetheless an excellent film.

John Derek, as Nick Romano, is absolutely fabulous in the lead role. He is certainly depicted here as a victim of society. When his father dies in prison, after being sent there due to shoddy work by his attorney, Derek becomes embittered and turns to crime. The reform school is shown as a place that hardens this young man.

He meets his Juliet and for a time things are looking up until the lure of the streets, his inability to handle a job, the poor company he keeps and the crowd that he runs around with, all lead to tragedy.

Humphrey Bogart is equally impressive in the role as the attorney for Nick. His impassioned plea for mercy at the end of the film is done extremely well.

Look for Sid Melton as a young hood with a variety of marvelous supporting performances, especially that of George MacReady as a relentless prosecuting attorney.


I wasn't expecting THEY LIVE BY NIGHT. I wasn't even expecting REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. But considering (or perhaps not even considering) the fact that the subject matter (juvenile delinquents, rebels, anti-conformity) was close to Nicholas Ray's heart, this is an unfortunately stale effort by one of the best and most important American film directors of the 20th century.

Pretty Boy (a.k.a. Nick Romano, played by the perpetually puppy-dog eyed John Derek) grows up hardened and tough in a bad neighborhood on the Columbia Studios backlot. After years of jail terms and a stretch in a reform school, he returns home and falls for Pretty Girl (a.k.a. Emma, played to almost intoxicating sweetness by Allene Roberts). When he can't quit the life of crime, his pregnant wife commits suicide and Romano is put on trial for killing (or perhaps not killing) a cop. Most of his hardship is overseen by attorney Andrew Morton (Humphrey Bogart, the only lead actor who gives his role at least some intrigue and is therefore the only one who doesn't get the nickname treatment from yours truly), also from the wrong side of the tracks. He doesn't always quite believe that Romano is telling the truth and doesn't approve of his self-pitying ways (neither do I), but nonetheless he takes Romano's case and the battle is fought in the courtroom.

I believe that films should stand on their own two feet and not be compared to previous works, but since Nicholas Ray was so clearly trying to recapture the magic of his astonishing debut THEY LIVE BY NIGHT, it's hard not to compare the two; after all the love story between Pretty Boy and Pretty Girl directly parallels Bowie and Keechie's relationship. Both stories involve two young adults from the wrong side of the tracks, a criminal hardened by his tough life and the angelic girl who he marries and briefly finds inner peace with. I never thought that anyone could give a bad performance under Ray's direction, but while Farley Granger was no Montgomery Clift, John Derek is a dime-store version of Granger; at least Granger was able to give a sensitive and genuinely compelling performance under Ray's fatherly direction. Derek goes through the motions but not the emotions that Granger did so effortlessly. And even the ethereal Cathy O'Donnell was smart enough to allude to the toughness earned from years of living in the wrong place; Allenne Roberts captures none of that, only the unbelievable angelic nature. These characters don't echo the complexity of Ray's debut; they are whiny caricatures of people we're supposed to feel sorry for.

It's admirable that Humphrey Bogart would want to make a film about social injustice for his first project as a producer (this film was financed by his independent production company Santana), and he even lets most of the light shine on Pretty Boy. However, given Derek's poor performance and Bogart's coy cynicism, his golden integrity just hidden beneath the surface, and his brooding on-screen presence (as preachy as his closing argument is, it is well acted by Bogart), I wished the movie had been more about him, I wished the script not been as black-and-white as Burnett Guffey's cinematography. In trying to cry out for justice, the film just annoyed me with its condescending attitude and simplified message my six-year-old cousin could've caught.

I recommend two Nicholas Ray films that are a much more stimulating and thought- provoking experience: the first is THEY LIVE BY NIGHT for reasons already stated. The second is his masterful IN A LONELY PLACE, his second film with Humphrey Bogart--and in this one he *is* in the center stage, featuring probably the most complex and darkest role of his career. I guess one good thing came out of KNOCK ON ANY DOOR: Bogart and Ray, who came from different ways of approaching their jobs, needed one film to get to know each other, how the other one worked. Ray once said that during this film he "took the gun away from Bogart's hands," and by the time they re-teamed for the second and last time, their professional relationship had ripened to friendship. Bogart trusted Ray enough to give a nakedly vulnerable performance in a film which you *SHOULD* look into.


Nicholas Ray is a director whose oeuvre is somewhat erratic, and 1949's "Knock on Any Door" shows just how erratic it is. It stars Humphrey Bogart in his first film after leaving Warner Brothers, though it comes off like a Warner Brothers film made in the 1930s - it has a real "Dead End Kids" feel to it, particularly in the beginning. It concerns Andrew Morton (Bogart) defending a young man, Nick Romano (John Derek) whom he has helped in the past. Morton was too busy to defend Nick's immigrant dad on a charge for which he was not guilty, and Nick's father died in prison after some bad lawyering. Guilt for what happened to the boy's father keeps him in touch with the hoodlum and attempting to help him. Nick's family in reduced circumstances has to move to a bad neighborhood. Nick falls in with the wrong crowd and becomes a delinquent, his crimes growing larger and larger, culminating in the murder of a policeman.

Nick's story is told in a series of flashbacks during his trial as Bogart attempts to show that society is guilty for the boy's fate. Of course one can only blame society so far. His family was in a better situation out west; he could have joined them at any time. He had jobs and a loving wife, but he couldn't stay employed. He had the support of Morton, and he stole money from him. Sooner or later, a person has to take the help offered and decide to change, or nothing is going to do any good.

There were scenes of reform school abuse, which perhaps could have been a film in itself and had more impact, as it was brutal and not at all rehabilitative.

There was a strange plot device which seemed solely for the purpose of adding to the boy's troubles - his wife, (Allene Roberts) makes a decision at one point which comes out of nowhere and is very abrupt and probably went against her character.

Bogart looks fantastic - tanned, healthy, and immaculately dressed in expensive suits. His down-to-earth delivery and excellent timing is always great to watch. He plays the part of a compassionate man/passionate lawyer beautifully.

This film marked John Derek's debut. He was a true '50s hunk, with thick dark hair and smoldering eyes. His acting is adequate for the role, but not of the deeper quality of, say, James Dean. He really had no interest in stardom and turned his attention to wives and photography later on. Nevertheless, you couldn't ask for a more auspicious beginning. The character doesn't come off as very sympathetic - if that was the goal, it failed. I'm not sure it was Derek's fault, but more the fault of the script.

All in all, watchable for Bogie, who is always a master and certainly a story that will hold your interest.


Columbia Pictures borrows a page from the Warner Brothers play book with this 1949 film, but where the WB would present a social commentary and let the viewer decide his own opinion, this film hits you over the head repeatedly with the notion that social ills are the cause of every youth gone wrong. Even Bogart's character, attorney Andrew Morton seems ready and willing to accept a major share of the blame for his client's behavior. Sorry folks, not buying it.

Said client, the rebellious Nick Romano, is shown in a number of situations where instead of making the right decision, his choices end up getting him in trouble with the law. Or worse. Having found a good woman (Allene Roberts as Emma) to offer encouragement and support, Nick continues to spiral out of control with a hot head and hot fists. That she commits suicide is only one of the more melodramatic moments in a film that won't concede that just maybe "Pretty Boy" Romano is a career hoodlum by choice and not by chance.

Bogart's character may not have added much in the way of role model either. When Nick steals a hundred dollars from Morton while away on a fishing trip, the attorney's response is to 'jackroll' the kid in an alley back in the city, while both are on dates with their gals. I wonder what the attorney/client privilege has to say about that one.

Meant to be a breakout movie for John Derek, "Knock on Any Door" is sometimes noted to be his debut film, though he had a couple of credits to his name by this time. Instead, the film further enhanced the directorial career of Nicholas Ray, who went on to create one of the defining films of the mid 1950's - "Rebel Without a Cause". He and Bogey teamed up once more for "In A Lonely Place".

For Bogart, this one doesn't seem to be one of his better performances, he seems a bit unaccustomed to being on the right side of the law. With limited screen time in the second half of the picture, George Macready as the prosecuting attorney, and Barry Kelley as Judge Drake offer solid support to the courtroom drama, particularly Kelley who's called upon to rein in the opposing lawyers who viciously snipe each other. John Derek plays out the 'pretty boy' angle right out to the closing frame, a bit unnerving to see him prepare for the electric chair by slicking back his hair one last time.


I disagree with other commenters. Though not the best movie, the movie had a point similar to that of "To Kill A Mockingbird." An attorney took on a case and a client he really didn't want. If he loses, his client could die. The stakes are high. In "Knock On Any Door," the attorney had abandoned the father, believing that it was no big deal. His associate didn't take the consequences seriously either. In the long run, not only did the family's father and breadwinner die in prison for a crime he didn't do, but the son felt abandoned and became a hood, eventually dying in the electric chair. If the lawyer had treated this innocent and poor family just as he treated his rich clients, and had given them his best as he did his rich clients, the father and the son may have been saved. The moral is, all people have value, whether poor or old, and when one is entrusted with the care or safety of another, one should treat that life as if it were his own in all cases. Not the best movie, but, when looked at from more than an entertainment perspective, it does its job well.

Believe it or not, situation as happened in this movie happen in real life all the time.


Great closing shot but little else. Good luck sticking with it that long. Going in I expected that this early Nicholas Ray effort would probe the themes of youth anguish and alienation present in his classic "REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE" and I suppose it does, but in such an episodic, dramatically stillborn way, it's hard to believe it's even from the same director. The movie keeps backpedaling, flashing back, robbing itself of any momentum. In his opening courtroom remarks, Bogart instructs the jury that the criminal past of the young man on trial for murdering a cop doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant. Then he proceeds to spend the next hour recounting the youth's cliched life story in long-winded detail, playing up his hard knocks upbringing in gooey, unbelievable fashion. Congratulations to the jury members for staying awake; I sure couldn't.

The movie is really just a showcase for the good-looking, young up and comer John Derek, as the heartthrob hoodlum. The camera likes him and he's an ok actor (he would later go on to be more effective in some B level westerns and crime stories) but he lacks depth and often comes across as plastic, doll-like. He's certainly no James Dean. Bogart is really the only other actor here of any note, and he mostly goes through the motions, realizing he can only do so much with a routine script.

One of those socially conscious pictures that is just too polite and well intentioned for its own good. Very minor and forgettable. Quite a disappointment from the great Nicholas Ray who made such an impression with movies like "THEY LIVE BY NIGHT", "IN A LONELY PLACE", and "PARTY GIRL".


This is the first movie which is Rayesque to the core.One of his most obvious permanent feature really appears for the first time: the search for a father.The relationship Bogart/Derek is intense (after the death of the biological one)and predates those of "Run for cover" (John Derek again playing opposite Cagney) and "Rebel without a cause " (Remember Plato to Jim and Judy: "I wish you could be my parents" )But I could also mention the Mitchum/Kennedy relationship in " lusty men" or even Heston and the Chinese girl in "55 days at Peking" .Or James Mason and his (biological this time) in "bigger than life".Emma's character predates The Rayesque young girl ,the one you meet again in "they live by night" (note how Allene Roberts resembles Cathy O'Donnell).Allene Roberts' beaming face and her hope against hope are the only ray of light in a dark tragical story.

Like Fritz Lang,Nicholas Ray put the blame on the society.Nick was born under a bad sign ,like many of the director's heroes.John Derek gives an intense performance climaxing in the scene in the court when his wife's suicide is revealed.Bogart shines as his lawyer (he's more convincing in this kind of part than he was in "marked woman").

Excellent screenplay with a superb editing ;many contemporary movies (such as the brilliant "Usual suspects" ) might have been influenced by the first scenes.Note that the story begins during the cast and credits ,which shows that Ray ,when he was on top of his game,did not know filler.


This is indeed an odd flick and I assume Bogart agreed to star in it because it more closely represented his real-life political and social beliefs. Because of this, it appears to be a sincere effort--unfortunately, it just doesn't grab the viewers. I assume that MANY who saw it in 1949 were VERY disappointed because instead of the tough guy Bogart, he is a lawyer who decries the evils of slums and how it produces career criminals. This social crusader Bogart must have REALLY gone over well with those who wanted the tough guy! My problem is that blaming society is too easy an answer and that really turned me off as I watched. Plus the rhetoric was just too ridiculous and over-the-top. Secondly, it just didn't convince me--if Derek's character or the events leading up to the crime were better written, I might have gone along with the premise. As it was, Derek WAS a punk and deserved to be severely punished. The film would have been MUCH better if the attempts to gain sympathy for the criminal had been deserved. Sure, he had a tough life, but ultimately, he executed a cop and was a menace. This connection and empathy just isn't there--as the writers did a lousy job of creating a flawed character worth saving--Derek was not worth the crusade. So overall, a slightly worse than average flick, though for Bogart a sincere effort but a miss nevertheless.


Well, it actually presaged by one year the tendency of 50s movies to enlighten us as to the innocence of "juvenile delinquents", and the guilt of "society". Bogart gives an okay performance, but everyone else is at best TV-quality. Skip it.


I know John Derek made some awful movies, but how the heck did they get Humphrey Bogart to make this thing? This makes my top 25 worst movies of all times. If it weren't for Bogart's appearance it would have been a total loss. The writing is corny and the actors don't even do that justice.


Jackie Chan directed this fairly typical parodic plagiarism of several of his own films (and a few from before his time). A few Chan's regulars show up, including the master from the masterpiece Drunken Master playing essentially the same role, but Jackie himself is nowhere to be found. I got the feeling that this film was tossed together as a vehicle for one or two of the younger actors in it. The plot is not very clever, and though some of the characters are interesting (particularly the male lead and his two masters), they all dissolve into not very clever and not-as-funny-as-they-could-have-been stereotypes once the central plot comes into focus. Thankfully, there is very little pseudo-philosophical pretentiousness here.

The plot is a story of family revenge - where a hopelessly sensitive tiny young man (smaller than Bruce Lee, even) wants to exact revenge on s band of thugs who have terrorized his village, leaving him and his sister orphaned. So he seeks a master at a Kung Fu gym and is treated ruelly for a while, until he meets another master (a drunken old vagabond in the woods), and suddenly starts to show some promise. Plenty of poorly realized comedic opportunities arise and there is some good fighting (and some miserably acted fighting as well). ho hum. Bottom line is - it took me three nights to get through this and I only laughed a couple of times.

For fans only.


Even though Jackie Chan is not in the movie, it is quite enjoyable. It is a very traditional chop sokey film. It's a treat for people who enjoy the broad humor and lack of special effects used in old school kung fu films. In other words, "Their Kung Fu is very good!" Many of the characters (especially the two old male lead fighters) are frequently seen in better known films. This is just a notch below "Twin Dragons" and "The Legend". The dubbing is in Cockney English, a sure sign this is old style and not a new film. There is some gratuitous nudity, which comes across and gratuitous silliness. I recommend it strongly for people who like good fighting, enjoy the cultural traditions of China and enjoy the robust humor typical of this genre. Thumbs up!


Good movie! Bad DVD source. :) Jackie Chan yet again. Seems like this guy couldn't have anything more to do with the Kung Fu Movie scene and then i find about 10 more DVDs. If you like Jackie Chan then this is a must see movie. Not one of his best but definitely an original work of Kung Fu Art!


This movie is just bad beyond belief. The acting is horrid, while the cast is simply reciting lines with little feeling. I do wonder where they got these people. The actors just chop up the dialog like a salad. The television idea is just that, with no real sense of development in a hopeless, lifeless plot. The lack of a music track in 1935 is not uncommon, but some sort of musical score was really needed in a suspense movie of this type. I had wanted to see his movie for years. Now I can honestly say I am sorry did. As many a horror movie philosopher has said, somewhere in the middle of an endlessly dark night, "There are some things that are best left alone." This movie, sadly, is one of them. May it rest in peace.


Bela Lugosi was always an underrated actor; capable of different types of roles. This a good Lugosi "who-done-it movie. Like Bela's "Dracula", this film lacks a musical score; however the acting is very good and Bela's performance will please his legions of fans. He doesn't wear a cape or tends to his usual "mad scientist" lab here. Instead, Mr. Lugosi dons a tuxedo for most of the movie! The plot deals with something that was only a dream for a lot of people during the thirties; television. It's interesting how much television was on the minds of many people in 1935. In fact, TV would have been a part of the American lifestyle much earlier had it not been for World War Two. "Murder By Television" shows a glimpse of what was to be as well as being a good murder mystery from the mid-thirties. Recommended viewing.


Essentially a locked-room mystery, this is about as bad as they get, even for the 1930s. Lugosi is weirder than usual as one of several businessmen interested in a new method of electronic television (which was nothing more than a novelty at the time) that allows broadcast around the world. Oddly prescient (it's even projected onto a large screen), the technology is otherwise hilarious, particularly in the explanation of the murder technique.

The acting is lame (especially the stereotyped servants), the staging hokey, the dialog boring, and the mystery ridiculous. Avoid this turkey unless you're just completing your tour of Lugosi's work or are interested in the 1930s vision of the near future.


There are only two reasons for people to rate this film higher than a five. They are either Bela Lugosi fanatics who are blinded by his star power, or they're pulling your leg.

In it's favor, this film has the following curiosities:

Bela Lugosi in a rare non-horror leading role.

Hattie McDaniel in an early screen appearance (although running around yelling "Lordy, Lordy" doesn't showcase her future greatness very well).

A curious 1935 vision of television that doesn't seem to need cameras at the point of origin and can act as a "death ray" carrier wave. I guess that makes this a science fiction story, of sorts.

And occasionally interesting story-telling by reshowing the same scene using different vantage points to add information withheld earlier in the film.

Working against this film is:

The poor print quality (both picture and sound)of existing copies. Insulting racial stereotyping. (As implied above.)

Ridiculously inaccurate scientific predictions about television. (As implied above.)

Undeveloped characters, giving the audience a "who cares" feeling when someone gets murdered.

And a general weakness of the writing, acting, and directing.

Being a Lugosi fan myself, it pains me to write negative reviews of some of his films. But the truth is, it pains me to watch some of his performances as well.

I'm giving this film three stars, based on the curiosities mentioned above. If I were to rate it any higher, I'd be pulling your leg.


Murder By Television is one of Bela Lugosi's more obscure movies but at least it is available on video and DVD. I quite liked this.

While doing a worldwide broadcast promoting that new invention called television, a man suddenly collapses and looks as if he could have had a heart attack. His death was certainly not caused by his heart, it seems he was murdered by a death ray. The police are put on the case and there are plenty of suspects...

This is a nice little horror/mystery, even though a little short at under an hour.

Watch it if you get the chance.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.


(Some Spoilers) Dull whodunit about a televised murder that wasn't planed by the person putting on the show. James Houghland, Charles Hill Mailes,is an idealist when it comes to his new invention of being able to transmit a TV signal across the world.

Approched by agents from an unnamed country about buying his new technology he tells them to get lost which makes them very mad at him. Having a demonstration that evening of his new invention Houghland puts the people assembled there to sleep with a long and boring monologue about how we can now see events all across the world on his TV gadget without any relay systems.

As Houghland gets to tell us about the continent of Africa and it's inhabitants, as were watching this all on what looks like a 32 inch black & white TV screen, Houghland suddenly looks as if he's either having an attack of indigestion or that he slipped on a banana peal and dies! This believe it or not was the most exciting scene in the whole movie. It's determined that Houghland was murdered, even though there wasn't a mark on him, and the police are called in and seal off the mansion where this TV demonstration was taking place to prevent the murderer from escaping.

Bela Lugosi plays a duel role of sorts in the film by being identical twins who are so identical that they have the same first and last names: Arthur Perry. Perry being a top engineer to Houghland in helping him create his new TV invention was on the scene at the time of his death and is suspected of murdering him.

It turns out that it was his twin brother, also named Arthur Perry, who was there impersonating him the real Arthur Perry, and trying to cash in, by selling out Houghlands secret by getting an offer he couldn't refuse $100,000.00. This from a rival communication bigwig Donald Jordan, Charles K. French, and then going to work for him. Perry is soon exonerated of the crime of murdering his boss Houghland by being murdered himself by the person who murdered Houghland.

By now the movie is going nowhere with the cast just standing around looking off screen for directions from the obviously lost in space director. Then all of a sudden as if he rose from the dead Perry, the other twin brother, appears as if nothing happened to him! He was undercover in the mansion during the entire incident. It turns out that not only is he the one who helped Houghland in his new TV invention but is also a agent for what looks like the FBI and breaks the case wide open. By Perry exposing the killer Dr. Henry Scofeld, Huntly Gordon, who was working for a foreign government who wanted to buy Houghlands invention; but were given the finger by him instead.

Using an interstellar frequency, a death ray, Dr. Scofield activated it as Houghland was giving his televised speech that interacted with the TV signal that eventually killed him. With that Dr. Scofield is arrested and casually led away by two plain clothes policemen. Who looked like their going out to dinner with him instead of taking him into custody for murder! With the movie finally over we and the movie cast can now all get back to something far more exhilarating like breathing oxygen.

Unbeliveably boring film with a very restrained Bela Lugosi who seemed to have trouble, like everyone else in the movie, staying awake. The ending of the film where Bela, Arthur Perry, slowly and methodically reacted the entire scene of Houghlands death, that was secretly filmed by him, was as complicated as a class in advanced quantum psychic at Harvard University.


I am always amazed when I find yet another ultra-low budget film starring Bela Lugosi. While I do generally enjoy his films, they certainly were not 'high art' or very deep--and so many of them had downright crappy production values. Often it looked as if Bela would appear in ANY film provided the check cleared! You don't believe me, then think back to such horrid films as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA, ZOMBIES ON Broadway, GHOSTS ON THE LOOSE (with the East Side Kids) and MURDER BY TELEVISION!!! However, often despite the terrible budgets and overall cheesiness of the films, they were still often fun to watch--or at least to laugh at due to their ineptness. Unfortunately, MURDER BY TELEVISION is that rare low-budget Lugosi film that actually is kind of boring and static. Despite being a murder mystery, the film is amazingly static and uninvolving. Plus, the roles played by Bela just seemed terribly written and bizarre--and not in a great way. The only major plus this film has that raises it to almost-mediocrity is the idea of television being a topic of a film as early as 1930. From a purely historical standpoint, it is an interesting film.


Slow moving, confusing, unsatisfying, dull. And these are the good things. A murder is caused by some unknown. It involves the premier of a television process that takes us all over the world through video. We have two Bela Lugosi's for the price of one. The plot is convoluted and hard to decipher. In the end, Lugosi two makes a long meandering speech, solving the crime. Listening to his accent laden diatribe is the highlight. When you get right down to it, the only thing of any value here is the title. There are lots of close ups of guilty looking people. The suspects stand around in a line like they are posing for a family portrait. There are also two racial stereotypes: a young Chinese man and that frantic woman from "Gone With the Wind," Hattie MacDonald. One speaks Charlie Chan English and the other runs around saying "Lordie, Lordie!" What a stretch.


I seem to recall being warned about this one in advance to count it among Bela Lugosi's worst films! Anyhow, my viewing pleasure with this film (if there was any to be had in the first place) was seriously hampered by the atrocious video/audio quality of the print I watched (which seems to come off of a TV recording), replete with missing frames (shortening its running time by about 6 minutes!) and practically looking as if it was shot in the 1900s or something! Still, I suppose with the proper script and performers this could have made for a decent Thin Man/Charlie Chan outing; as it is, it's merely dull with a capital D and fatally cliché-ridden. Lugosi fared much better in the similarly-themed INTERNATIONAL HOUSE (1933) which was a most pleasant surprise for me when I caught up with it late last year via Universal's W.C. Fields DVD set.


This movie is one of those many movies that sounds much better than it actually is. The "death-ray by television broadcast" plot device was actually quite minor in this otherwise sub-par 'whodunit' quickie from poverty row. Overall a really poor example as I have seen much better from poverty row.

Bela Lugosi's role really isn't very interesting and he is much better when playing more bizarre characters (Murder Legendre - White Zombie, Dracula, Dr. Carruthers - The Devil Bat).


My feelings toward Swedish films can not be called warm. Most of the movies produced in Sweden are crap. 90% of the available movies are made by the same people, featuring the same actors, boring and completely without merit when it comes to originality and style. That's why it makes me so happy when, once in a long while, i get to see a movie like this one. A movie that gives me hope for the future.

"Kim Nowak badade aldrig i Genesarets sjö" is based on the novel from Håkan Nesser with the same title. A quite odd book from Mr. Nesser who usually writes more or less standard crime-drama. Here though it's more a recollection from his youth, a sunny tale from an idyllic 1960's summer that turns dark before the story ends.

There is much to separate this from the mainstream Swedish movie production. First of all the production values are great. The photography is excellent, the music is equally good, the locations are wonderful and the visual style is consistent and thought-through. The directing is also done with a steady hand from director Martin Asphaug. What i appreciated most though was the acting, from both child-actors and adults. Most of the adult actors are recognizable from TV-series and movies but they are not what you would call "Swedish A-list" perhaps. Which is hugely liberating to say the least since i've seen that A-list in what feels like a hundred disappointing movies already. The most famous actor here is probably Jonas Karlsson who, as usual, is excellent.

When the movie ends i sit back in the theater and think "why can't more Swedish movies be like this one?". It was probably not that expensive and the actors were not the most famous (although they were good), still it worked better than most Swedish films together. There is a feeling here for what works, both visually and story-wise. It seems to me that the scriptwriters and the director both knew what they wanted out of this movie and managed to relay that to the actors. It's not about huge budgets, which is what Swedish film-makers often complain about not having. Rather it's about solid film-making and an eye for what works and what people appreciate.

This is not spectacular film-making, but it's solid and entertaining. And in most cases that's enough. I rate it 7/10.


Splendid storytelling and dialog. Beautiful photography in this over all feel good drama/thriller. This movie describes the mentality, and the way of life in a small town in the middle of Sweden in a superb way. All the way to the thrilling end of the story.

Great acting from booth Jonas Karlsson and Helena af Sandeberg.

This is a must see movie for everybody who lived in the 50-60th and a should see movie for all the rest. It's not every day you watch a drama-thriller with this type of please tell me more I want more feeling.

To sum it up: I must say I love it. And I advise you to see it.


This was one of the runners-up for the audience award at the 30th Cleveland Int'l Film Festival. A really good story, excellent young actors and a good Indie ending leave you hanging and glad for the tension.

The story, told in a nearly complete flashback goes back to a pivotal summer in Erik's life. Many clichéd (and I don't say this to be mean) elements are brought into play, although since this is Sweden the "forbidden" pleasures are more in the perception of the American movie goer. The story holds together very well, with the various elements of the drama each contributing nicely to the plot and able to be the scrutiny of the viewer.

There's no chance taken in catching this movie. The screenplay is well-written and well-executed.

Oh, and watch out for the hammer!


I thought this movie was great.

I usually don't like Swedish movies (I'm Swedish myself, mind you) but this was great. I like how the past mixed with the future and I thought the ending was really surprising!

It's not really a thriller. It's not an action movies. But I wasn't bored. I like the feeling in this movie. It's a story about true friendship. :)

It made me somewhat nostalgic.

I would really recommend this movie to people who doesn't want gunshots every five minutes, fast cars and explosions.


Book Of Fate doesn't compete in the Major League, but it is nevertheless a Champion in it's own right. You'll have to put yourself in the right context: this is not a Hollywood production, not even a b-class movie with still decent budget. This is a very low-budget movie - we are talking about probably some few thousand dollars at most, no more. In fact the movie is a thesis for the two directors. Still they managed to get some of the finest Finnish professional actors in, and even the soundtrack is filled with internationally famous Finnish rock and heavy metal bands (like Nightwish with over 1.5 million records sold). These acts alone are noteworthy.

The main idea of the movie are the struggles of an "eternal champion", and the idea is not very far from the themes of author Michael Moorcock. Also, it takes courage to select five totally different genres (horror, western, war, action thriller and SF) and combine them in an episode movie.

This movie seems to divide opinions very much - and that's understandable. If you are a kind of person who is interested only in the technical details and finesse over the contents, you will be disappointed. But if you are able to see behind the financial and technical limits, you may appreciate the over-the-top pastiches of these genres, and the enthusiasm behind. Sure, the CGI-effects may be a little cranky - but so were the CGI-images of the excellent series Babylon 5. In my opinion, the only true limitations are in the people's imagination, not in the technical limitations.

As far as I'm concerned, the results were highly satisfactory - I had no expectations of this movie, but I found myself entertained. And that's what this movie is all about.


Okay, so it isn't the Epic Finnish Movie Spectacle of 2003. It isn't Art with capital A.

But who cares.

Judging all measurements, this movie should be a turkey. The whole idea is so patently ludicruous that This Movie Just Can't Be Good. Shameless mixing of genres, unexperienced moviemakers, and, good heavens, Tony Halme.

But surprise surpise - for some reason, this thing was watchable. *Very* watchable. Sure, it looks a bit cheesy here and there, might have needed some extra care at some times and places... but overall, the lasting impression I got was that This Isn't A Gigabuck Hollywood Movie But It Sure Looks Like One.

But then again, I like movies that knowingly play with cliches of the genre, or genres in this case. Running jokes rule. And obviously the makers have had fun, which has to count for something...

People seem to severely dislike the special effects - and I think this is unjustified, it's just amazing that they did it *this* good with *that* sort of money.

And the plot wasn't *that* bad. Honestly.

Cult classic material. Definitely.

As a movie: *** As a parody of Hollywood: *****


A couple of months ago my friends were talking about the new Finnish fantasy film Kohtalon Kirja. I have to say that I did not expect much from the movie, but I also didn't expect anything this bad.

There is absolutely nothing good to say about the film. The acting is terrible. Even the famous Finnish veteran actors sounded like amateurs. Visual look of the film is beyond description and the soundtrack had some worst heavy metal music I have ever heard.

But the real reason I hate the film so much is the action. It was obvious that many of the actors had no training in any martial art. Even the most basic training would have made a big difference. All the moves in the fight scenes were slow and painfully clumsy.

This film isn't even funny as a bad trash movie. It is just bad. Avoid it like a plaque.


If you're a masokist, do watch the movie. Other than that I would never suggest to anyone that they should watch this movie.

Bad acting, even worse story line. I was amazed how mad it really was.


Totally crap, amateur actors and terrible storyline - i was really disappointed.

If you don't have better things to do than watch this film, i feel sorry for you =)


These guys really were on fire.

What a truly great DVD this is. Truth be said, Queen weren't popular after their 'disasterous' "Hot Space" album.

But this is the tour, and they done the disco songs like "Staying Power", "Back Chat" and "Action This Day" and transformed them into traditional Queen stage classics. But this album apparently killed their success in America. But there are still loads of devoted American Queen fans as much as there are British. They are a great band with an awesome universal appeal.

This is a different sounding concert if compared to "Live at Wembley '86". Queen were going through a transitional stage.

But they still showed cynics that they still knew how to rock.


I own this on DVD. It is one of the greatest things ever. Whenever I'm alone in the house, I'll turn off all the lights and crank up the sound. It is an amazing experience, made all the more powerful when you realize how ALIVE Freddie was back then. This was truly a divine performance (and yes, Love of My Life still makes me cry every time).

The part that truly breaks my heart, though, is this: in the interview with Freddie Mercury, the interviewer asks "Do you think Queen will still be around in ten years?" Bear in mind that this was in 1982. Freddie seems so hopeful, so easygoing. He has no idea that in ten years the songbird will be silenced. It hurts me to see that. Oh, how I love him.

For any die-hard Queen fans out there, this is a must-see.


I bought the DVD of Queen on fire a few weeks ago, i may need to buy more copies, as i have just about worn this one out. It is THE best concert i have every seen, helps that i think Freddie Murcury is very hot! Its very entertaining and keeps you stuck to your chair, even after watching it about 50 times, i cant get enough Freddie. Such a shame that such an attractive,talented,smart man like Freddie isn't around today. But his music lives on, i don't think a day goes by that you don't hear a Queen song on the radio or TV. I think this DVD is priceless, knowing that Freddie didn't give may interview, i feel lucky to have a copy of it. Freddie still lives in my heart!


What is your problem Roxy? You don't know what you're talking about! Freddie is awesome! I hate when people like you who obviously know nothing about talent try to judge! I've been operatically trained for 7yrs now and am about to go to school for vocal performance and I think Freddie's got a ton of talent! I also can't believe you're comparing Queen; one of the most contributing rock bands to the Spice Girls; talentless, daddy-did-not-love-me, girl powered, children! I, on the other hand believe is one of the greatest bands of all times... I have not got to hear all of this live album, but what I heard was entertaining! Maybe not their best performance, but still good!


Queen On Fire: Live at the Bowl DVD contains one of THE best Queen concerts. Every member of the band gave excellent performances, including Freddie Mercury's vibrant, arena rock voice will make the hair at the back of your neck stand up. Too bad I was too little to witness any of Queen's concerts when Freddie Mercury was still rocking the Earth. But now, with the magic of DVD and the power of digital remastering, you can almost feel as you're there among the other Queen fans. Great DVD for anyone getting into Queen or hardcore fans who do not own this instant classic yet. One of the minor concerns I have that really has nothing to do with the way they made the DVD, but the actual concert itself. The song "Flash" was an intro and was not really a live performance, and I would have liked to have seen it get performed live. Instead, they fly in on the helicopter when the concert starts.


Oh, this is terrible. The sound quality is awful. The songs are performed without any emotion at all. Almost as bad as a Rolling Stones marathon. Please, if we wanted to see something like this, we would have invented a time machine already. I mean, Freddie Mercury has one of the worst voices I personally have ever heard. He makes Roger Daltrey sound like an angel. And please tell me what is so great about Brian May's guitar? I mean, sure he made it himself and everything, but it's so screechy, it just makes you want to hurl! Many of these songs performed are from the notorious 'Hot Space' album, which has got to be the worst album ever recorded, with exception of 'Sgt. Peppers'. Full of mindless disco beats, these songs have no meaning at all, and will most likely give you a migraine before they even start. In conclusion, if you want to be mildly amused for a couple of hours, this should do the trick. For some real entertainment, I recommend The Spice Girls movie. Now that's entertainment!


This was a show that my siblings and I grew up with in Miami where we lived at the time. And it was during that time that the arcade video game thing, was a huge deal. Remember this as really the first and only game show about video arcade games. That would set a blueprint for "Nick Arcade" among video arcade games. But Starcade is an original and really the original is the original. Also it had my favorite host, Geoff Edwards from "Jackpot" and "Treasure Hunt!" Sadly due to the video game crash and head honcho of TBS Ted Turner, wanting to develop new shows. It only lasted for two years. Should have had a longer life but thanks to the official website, Starcade.TV. It has since become a cult classic. Long Live Starcade!


The likes of Naseeruddin Shah is a rarity in Bollywood. He is one of the very few actors in Indian cinema who has succeeded in bridging the lamentable divide that exists between 'sensible'(read realistic) and 'glamour'(songs and dances and fight sequences by the dozen peppered with rain dances/bathing beauties played out by the heroine/vamp in skimpy costumes out to titillate the viewers while walking the thin red line between the 'acceptable' and 'obscene', based on the notoriously arbitrary censorship laws in India) cinema during the 80s and early 90s. The 'parallel cinema' during the late '70s and early '80s produced several noteworthy films like 'Mirch Masala','Jaane Bhi Do Yaro', 'Masoom', 'Waisa Bhi Hota Hain', all of which were commercial successes. Although he then went on to act in movies like Tridev, which would undoubtedly fall into the 'glamour'/'mainstream' cinema, he is still considered to be one of the best actors ever in Indian cinema.

The long winding title ' Yun Hota Toh Kya Hota'( which can be translated as "What if it had happened thus?') comes with a mercifully shortened title "What if..?' in the subtitles accompanying the movie. The story is about 4 complete strangers bound by one fateful day in their lives.

The Bride There is the newly wed couple of Tilottama Das and Hemant Punj (played by Konkona Sen Sharma and Jimmy Sheirgill) who have just tied the note after an 'internet' courtship and marriage. Hemant who works in the U.S. is about to travel back to his work, the day after his wedding reception. Tilottama would stay back with her in-laws -Papaji(played by Ravi Baswani) and Mom and a dysfunctional Sis-in-law undergoing a divorce, till her American visa gets ready. Caught between a sadistic mother-in-law and a schizophrenic sis-in-law, and the visa papers that never arrive and long distance calls from her husband that she is never able to attend, she decides get to the U.S. by whatever means it takes- be it lying to the officer at the visa section or keeping her motives hidden from her overbearing mum-in-law.

The Student Rahul Bhide(Ankur Khanna) is a brilliant but impoverished medical graduate who is caught between lack of finances and a sense of duty towards his ailing father on the one hand and the prospects that awaits him in the land of opportunities on the other. Aided by a twist of fate and financed by his friend Kay Modi(Ayesha Takia) he travels to the U.S. in search of his destiny.

The Lover The stock broker son (Irrfan Khan) of an underworld Don( Saroj Khan), gets involved in the murder of a corrupt police officer and is forced to leave to the U.S., where he is to meet with a prospective employer who would take him under his wings. He is torn between his love for the much older, but passionate lover Namrata( Suhasini Mulay) and his inability to reconcile with her infidelity on the other.

The Showman Rajubhai Patel ( Paresh Rawal) is a small time organizer of 'cultural shows' in the U.S. and it costs any aspiring dancer a small fortune to join his group. He is approached by his erstwhile love interest Tara Gandhi( Ratna Pathak Shah) and asked to take her daughter Payal(Shahana Goswami) to the U.S., away from an abusive father and poverty, paying him with the money that she received by mortgaging her home. Rajubhai for the first time in his life is fathering an innocent girl on her first trip abroad.

Four startlingly different lives, yet bound by fate to come together in one unexpected journey. The fate they encounter unfurls in the climax of the film.

Exceptionally well directed, the film has a well written screenplay by Uttam Gada and some excellent photography by Hemant Chaturvedi. The transition between the characters and their environs is well reflected in the photography, which I understand was achieved by using a different lens for each protagonist and the transition from the pastel shades of India to the vibrant colors of the U.S. is captivating. Some excellent editing by Hina Salyada and a sense of conciseness in the director( which is so very often sorely lacking in Indian Cinema) makes the film an enjoyable watch. Also noteworthy is the Visual Effects by Pankaj Khandpur who tops it off with some excellent shots for the climax.

All-in-all a welcome breath of fresh air in Hindi cinema which has now shown lots of promise with the advent of a new crop of directors and script writers who believe that cinema is not only about endless strings of song and dance woven around opulent weddings and display of wealth, which would be as out of place in middle class India as anywhere else in the world.


It's legendary Indian actor Naseeruddin Shah's first try at directing and he does a pretty good job with it.

This film is different from other Bollywood ones which would be hero-heroine, hero-villain story. Here the people seen are real people.

The film has four stories running simultaneously. The timing is Mumbai, September 2001.

A bride, Tillotamma Das(Konkona Sen Sharma) got married to a S/W Enginner Hemant(Jimmy Shergill) settled in USA after an internet romance. Unfortunately Hemant has to leave for USA and Tillotamma has to live with her in-laws. Her sister-in-law and mother-in-law are nuts and they make her crazy. Only her father-in-law is OK. She has to go to America somehow to join her husband.

A stockbroker, Salim (Irfan Khan) has got green card. He and his brother Javed will go to USA. But Salim is madly in love with Namrata, a much older woman. But Namrata basically uses him as one of her young lovers. Salim finds that he is cheated. He goes to America. He tries to forget her but can't.

Talented doctor Rahul has got an admission into US University. But he has his sick father to take care of in India. How will he manage his expenses. But he has a rich friend Khusboo(Ayesha Takia) who has more than soft corner for him. He is in dilemma. Will he go to US or not.

The fourth character is Rajabhai(Paresh Rawal). He takes money from people and arranges them to send to US as part of dancing troupe. One day his old fame Tara of 19 years comes up and asks him to send her daugther to US. The soft lover in hard businessman Rajabhai risens.

The paths of all four crosses from time to time and changes forever.


The general storyline and the climax are quite interesting. Having known nothing about the film, I was a bit suspicious when they tell us the year 2001 in the first frame of the film.. and it all came to me when Irrfan Khan sat in the office with the calendar behind him. I suddenly understood everything.

The Good: Great performances by all the actors. I wasn't disappointed with anyone's performance. Good twist in the end, too.

The Bad: Screenplay. Even though the movie was short, I felt that quite a few frames were wasted and did not need to be there. We didn't need the romantic angle Irrfan's character had with the older woman. She was useless to the script. Paresh Rawal's character and Rathna Pathak's charter did not need the love angle either. It didn't add anything.

Fortunately, the film didn't have any ugly points. You can depend on a seasoned film personality like Naseeruddin Shah to direct a film, which, even as a débutant will be above the regular fare you watch in Bollywood. For the most part, you can appreciate the film and I will go on and say it is a good film, even with it's flaws. I guess it is a learning experience for the director, and I can just see his future ventures being much much better.


Interesting film having four stories running parallel with lot of emotions and twist. Mumbai at September 2001, really nicely pictured. The stories are about:

A young doctor Rahul who has got an admission into a US University, but has some personal reasons (that u can see in movie) and is in dilemma. Besides this how will he manage his expenses is a question. But he has a rich friend Khusboo(Ayesha Takia) who has more than soft corner for him. Tillotamma Das(Konkona Sen Sharma) who is married (newly wed) to a software engineer Hemant(Jimmy Shergill) settled in USA after an internet romance. Nicely pictured scenes as Hemant has to leave for USA and Tillotamma has to be in India with her in-laws(with her mother in law, father in law and sister in law, who makes her crazy except her father-in-law. She wants to be with her husband anyhow, how she does that and reaches America. A stockbroker, Salim (Irfan Khan) who has got green card and who has a very nice brother Javed. But Salim has his own personal thing (attachment with Namrata a older woman). But she do not love him as much. When this is disclosed he find him in a strange situation and thinks like cheated. He also goes to America. He tries to forget her but can't and this scene is very nicely pictured when he is America, with title song. Fourth character is Paresh Rawal, playing role of Rajabhai who takes money from people to send to America as part of dancing troupe. He met his old love Tara who asks him to send her daughter to America. Anyhow he decide to do that though he was very practical in Business, and leaves for America

How and What happens is the basic concept of story and the title song "Yun Hota.." is very melodious(to me) and is nicely presented. The scene when Irfan is standing in tower and sees airplane is also good. The acting by all is very good, the newcomer who played the role of doctor has also given a very natural acting too. Well i recommend to see this movie


I had never expected the ending! Though I was just getting the 'hints' somewhere in between.

The acting by most of the guys is simply great. The movie is quite entertaining. I just felt that the movie would go on.

Though Nasiruddin has not acted, his wife & son have filled the gap!

I had never imagined that Suhasini Muley could play such a role.

Irrfan looks cool and portrays the slightly difficult role (for him it might have been a cakewalk!) effortlessly.

Paresh Rawal doesn't need much of writing because he delivers much more than what is expected of him.

The most beautiful aspect of the movie is that all the newcomers act very credibly. And they have added freshness to the movie.

Shergill is the likable best.

On the whole, quite satisfying!


In an interview, Dr. Amitabh Bachchan in all his modesty answered that he doesn't know direction and is happy being an actor. Mr. Naseeruddin Shah, the master of realistic acting and the God of theater after a long yearning to direct, finally had an opportunity to don the director's hat with this film. First question-why this film? What is so great about the uncooked, haywire script in the first place? Just like Nagesh Kuknoor's film 'Teen Diwarein,' which was based on parallel stories meeting the same fate in the end or bound by sheer coincidence, an attempt has been made in 'Yun Hota To Kya Hota' to converge four stories to a common fate. But unlike Kuknoor's stories, these stories are weak in narration and characters (except Konkona Sen Sharma) and fail to evoke any empathy or identification. There is no justification why Irrfan Khan is obsessed with a woman who is his mother's age. The idiosyncrasies are added to the characters for a superficial effect and don't really reveal any character strength or weakness or why a person is the way he or she is. Almost all characters seem unrealistic and dwell in suspended animation. What is the message the climax is trying to give out? Fails me! 'Yun Hota To Kya Hota?' Kaisa Hota to kya hota? Did you want us to fantasize about the whole film? What if all those people loved their Swades and gave up their dreams to go to US? Would things have been different? But really are their lives so great or so curiously dramatic to ponder and waste our time over? What if they all had missed their flights? What if those Indian passengers had turned heroes and averted the tragic fate? I really wish there was any, even the remotest conclusion or a resolution at all...The 9/11 incident in the climax is just used and abused and fails to even slightly wrench the muscles of the heart. The dialogues are very lame and imagine a brother even jokingly telling his sister "You want to see my exploitation tool?" The camera-work is shoddy, even the B grade movies that manage to shoot a song or two in New York do justice to exalt its glory unlike this film. A line-up of fine actors in obliging guest roles leave much to be desired like Boman Irani, Makrand, Tinu Anand or even Rajat Kapoor who recently gave a smashing performance in the very sleek Madhur Bhandarkar's 'Corporate'. Second question to Mr. Naseeruddin Shah- How could you make such a lousy film? With a lifetime of experience, soulfulness and passion which infused life into your many characters, one would have thought directing a film is something you could even do while you are sleeping! I don't have any other question to ask you, but I really hope you are surrounded by some honest friends who would have courage to tell you the truth when and if at all you decide to make a comeback as a director.


The movie could have been executed better even though a novel idea. The movie was a bit of a drag for me because as an Indian I already know the stark contrast between the kind of people who travel to the US. So it maybe an eye-opener for a foreigner but nothing new for me. The ending was the worst. They should have just probably ended with the WTC coming down. Konkana Sen traveling from Boston to LA???? Wow!!! its like 8 hrs by flight!!!! By bus it will be forever!!!! And she never bothers to contact her hubby for the days she was traveling??? WT????? Also direction wise it looked sloppy and un-professional as if I was watching it as part of an amateur film festival. Not expected out of a man of the stature of Mr. Shah.


The movie is made up of different stories, and at the end the characters from each story are involved in the same incidence. Till that incidence, you wonder whats happening, why is it happening. There is no clue in the entire movie about what is going to happen at the end. And then at the end when you find out that the movie is actually based on one real incidence, your reaction is just WHAAATTTT? Are all these stories made just to show how people suffer in this? Its really sad even after having some good actors like Paresh Rawal, Irfan Khan, the movie failed to make an impact. You will not like to discuss it after you watch it.


A movie from Naseeruddin Shah was expected to be "THE BEST". I sat for watching something best, but I guess I expected too much. The movie seems to be pure nonsense. Hope, Naseer comes out with something better in the future. As someone has already pointed out, do you really expect a brother talking to sister about his "Exploitation tool"? Similarly, a sister talks to his mother about the brother being naked. This is not Indian movie. The title made me think, this might be a light comedy movie like "Jane be do yaaron". But, I must admit that it totally failed my expectations. The star cast is OK (expect Paresh Rawal, who is best in any role). I could not really see any value in showing Konkona Sen Sharma bathing and talking to Jimmy Shergill for so long. Jimmy Shergill seemed to be uncomfortable in his role. Overall, the movie is nonsense. Please do not waste your time in watching it.


This is a story of a man's search for forgiveness. A young man gives up his plans for the future in order to raise his orphaned nieces and nephew. Mary-Louise Parker is wonderful(as usual). She is the reason to watch this movie. Blythe Danner and Edward Herrman are also two of my favorite actors. I ran across this one evening and decided to watch based on the cast. I was hooked right away but I felt there was too much missing from the story. I had to read the book. I read the book the following weekend and found that the movie was actually quite faithful to the book just lacking the detail that you only get from a book. All in all, I would recommend this movie (and also the book).


Saint Maybe (1998) (TV) was directed by Michael Pressman and based on the novel by Anne Tyler. Thomas McCarthy plays Ian Bedloe, a teenager who has a fine home, loving family, and lovely girlfriend. For reasons that are complex, and not clear to Ian or to us, Ian initiates a chain of action that leads to tragedy. Naturally, he feels tremendous guilt. The movie is about what you do when you're a good person who has made an irrevocable mistake.

Anne Tyler is an excellent author, and the film is faithful to the basic plot of her novel. The acting is uniformly good, and the production has the usual solid strength we expect from the Hallmark Hall of Fame.

This film probably won't make your all-time best 100 films list, but it's still worth seeing. Also, Anne Tyler's novel is definitely worth reading. I had read the novel years ago, and just saw the film, so I can't make specific comments about the degree to which the script reflects the novel. Still, my impression is that this is a solid and careful adaptation.


This is a decent romantic comedy that touches on several differences between American (lack of) culture and Indian culture (the correct term is actually offshored- outsourcing was historically an American stealing your job by undercutting the fee) a newly offshored manager flies to India to train his replacements and discovers Indian culture and living conditions, their insight on marriage and family and of course some blunders with customary practices in India. This stars one of the most sexy actresses around and that makes this very easy to watch even if our central character is bit light in the loafers to make convincing chemistry with such an Asian fox.

What is unfortunate about this movie is that it is, in the end, irresponsible propaganda to make light of the most disastrous thing happening to Americans today- they are losing their jobs because politicians have been bribed to look the other way or worse create new legislation that makes it easier for scumbag corporations to live in America, manufacture outside of it, and still charge similar prices as if it was produced by American labor, and they destroy local economies in the process by removing all wealth from the community via offshoring their jobs to India or china. I think after watching this movie it is required viewing to go watch "Walmart- the high cost of low prices" and the documentary "Corporation" to help balance the viewpoints. Offshoring is no laughing matter and it's looking like only bloody revolution is going to stop it. Remember- Americans have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Corporations intentionally removing their jobs to create a higher profit margins for themselves(robber barons) and reap the benefits of American citizenship need to be stamped out- they are a direct threat to the guarantees of the constitution and a disgrace to their fellow Americans.


I didn't have great expectations for this movie as the cover is cheesy and the back cover summary was uninspiring. However a friend talked me into seeing it and I haven't taken reccomendations from her since. The movie was terrible. The acting was bad - especially the lead role(Todd). The character was without personality. The Indian characters were much to stereotypical and exaggerated, which made the setting completely unbelievable. You never had the feeling of being in India, but just of being in a bad Hollywood cliché. The plot was thin and all the problems were enormously unoriginal (man is sceptical towards new developments in his life (moving to India), but changes his opinion). The love story is without emotion or nerve, the crises in the story are few and uninteresting and the jokes are corny and unfunny. So; if you wanna see a really bad movie - this is a great choice.


There is a certain way of making movies about India  a tradition that has descended from great directors like Louis Malle and Richard Attenborough that helps us appreciate movies like Born-into-brothels, city of joy. Most of these movies present us the abject poverty of India, the absolute penury of its people. Yet, there seems a way out of this dejected existence  one that leads to happiness despite poverty, disease and untimely death.

Words may not be enough to express the genius of Louis Malle or Attenborough, but somehow too much water has flown down Thames since the time that image of India was believed in. India, the deep wilderness in East that we always knew of has experienced some fundamental changes post World War II. With latest changes after globalization, it is transforming into something else  for better or worse.

For me, Outsourced is not so much a movie about outsourcing. I would remember this movie because of its somewhat accurate representation of India. There are things despicable about India, to any Westerner. But the way this movie approached the subject was not through the insulting humor that American comedies usually do, but instead with an entertaining exploration into this land of mystery. It is indeed a mild comedy, but the script was somewhat more educated about how India really is. That it never mixed up Arab stereotype with the Indian is both surprising and commendable for an American movie to achieve.

The first half of the movie that takes time to build up the image of India perceived by a foreigner is actually quite accurate. There are things unbearable and overwhelming about India, but like the protagonist of the movie discovered, it becomes much easier when you lose yourself into the wilderness that India is. Holi is seen as a a metaphor to that - an act of curiosity met with a deeper involvement.

Of course, it is the wilderness itself that forms the appeal of India. There is this whole set of rituals, mythologies, beliefs and practices that evolved with complete disconnection from the West and offer an alternate reality to the foreigner. This dualism of disgust and curiosity flows parallel in the movie and achieve a sort of resolution in the end. There are very few movies that have chosen to explore this interest in India, without getting into yoga, kamasutra and henna.

This movie does not aspire to do in cinema what the book world-is-flat did in popular literature. It is not trying to tell you that the world is changing to the advantage of the Third world or argue on whether capitalism is the only hope for the poor. It mildly makes fun of this whole world that corporate culture has given us when it pokes fun at imitation of American accents and at how that becomes a career skill for some. It looks at outsourcing as the outcome of this commoditization of human experiences altogether. I was made to feel that outsourcing is a by-product of uneven growth that our current economic systems result in. The resolution is probably through not letting oneself become a product of one's circumstances  be it corporate policies or greed for money.

That resolution could've been expressed much better way- but unfortunately the movie fumbled in the second half. If I weren't really impressed with the first half, I might not have finished watching it. Sometimes it even appeared whether the movie was meant to be a comedy or something else. Still, overall this makes for an interesting experiment with India.


I have been an Indian for 28 years now, and have not seen my culture or country being made portrayed more awfully than this.

1. Shiv-lingam : Is not a phallic emblem. None of you would like an Indian movie which calls Jesus a bastard. How do you expect Hindus to digest this. Being the third largest religion in this world we deserve some respect for our beliefs, we aren't as aggressive as Muslims to blow bombs on this topic, but at least one could have researched on thi topic before making a movie.

2. The Indian BPO Industry : Is booming, doesn't mean that there are call centers even at places where there cannot be an internet connection, You ought to see few of our really nice call centers, due to economy of construction costs, they look much better than a lot of American companies. Location selected for this movie was pathetic.

3. Hindu Girls : Your Hero character did nothing to impress the girl, I mean come on, I have dated so many girls but I know it takes time man!, Its not like you go together book a room and "Asha can do anything"...its your exaggerated fantasy of getting a decent girl in a cheap and easy way. Try it yourself!, You can't even date an Indian hooker that easily, girls really do have a class here unlike anyone in US.

Please do some research before you make another freaked out Indian movie.


I really liked it. I was sure it was going to turn into a moralistic, heavy 'corporations driven by financial policy' examination... and yes, that was there, but just enough to urge reflection. The romance and examination of cultures from many sides was unexpected, and what made this worth seeing. A fine movie, light and fun... despite the title.

As a computer guy, I'm now working with several from India, and this struck some chords. I'm not going to pass up a chance to visit. As far as corporate policy goes, you don't get far by withering your fundamentals, but that's enough of that.

Ayesha Dharker was very good.


Before any Westerner visits India for the first time, I strongly recommend them to view Outsourced prior to their arrival. The "bread and butter" of the movie is that there is so much one can learn by analyzing some of the customs and trends of Indian culture.

Outsourced is a very light-spirited venture about the life of an American sales manager who is prompted to make a business trip to India in order to train his replacements. All the characters are likable and the key situations that occur seem realistic. (Of course the majority of the cast is obviously Indian so it would make sense.) It was interesting to see the main character go through the transition from adjusting to vegetarianism, learning compassion through generosity, consciously eating with the right hand and other habits.

Being a good hearted film, the only thing outsourced lacks is some prolonged suspense. There is nothing too dramatic about the changes the main character had to go through other than his initial embrace to Indian life, a mild issue with an extra-marital affair, and the brief moment where he had to tell his trainees that they've been laid off. Everything seemed just a little too easy though I am aware it is in the culture of the supporting cast to positively adjust to change.

As said before, I would recommend this movie to any American or Western traveller to forewarn them of the culture shock that he/she would face. I've actually enjoyed this movie to my surprise.


We liked the movie because it kept you continuously engaged. But do Indian girls like Asha sleep and have one night stand so easily ??? She even says her friend did the same thing running away with a classmate to Goa to have fun just before her wedding. And the worst part is that she says Todd should not show his physical attraction in public. This is so hypocritical. We thought Indian girls don't cuddle up naked in bed so easily before wedding and those who do invariably end up marrying the guy. Or many college girls get into petting and necking. Todd comes out with a very good idea of paying incentives to increase MPI and this shows he is professional but having affair with his subordinate seems so unethical. Do Managers simply have sex with staff so easily ?!


I saw this movie on Star Movies yesterday. I liked this movie a lot. The underlying message of the movie was in spite of all odds things still work in India. Whoever is willing to take the risk of setting shop in such emerging economies like India can be assured of profits if he absorbs and shares the cultural diversities. For eg:The incident where Todd transfers the entire office to the terrace when water gushes in. Also the Holi festival & arse washing incidennts were unique

But the girl was slightly too.despo & forward for a Indian small town girl. All the actors did their part well. Can anybody suggest me more movies with this theme ?


Things that were great: # Genuine Comedy. I laughed out loud on many occasions. # No Hidden Agenda. # Amazing music. Different genres of Indian music were used. I was pleasantly surprised with the use of Indian Classical Music to accompany Todd's (read Toad's) introduction to the poverty that surrounds his unknown friend/consultant. # Portrayal of India is very real and genuine in many of the scenes. # Acting was superb. Many actors did a pretty good job. I am surprised and glad that the director did not go for a big name in Bollywood for role of Asha. # No boring slot. I did not get bored even for a minute. # Holi Scene - This was done very nicely. Journey of surprise, scare, introduction, involvement, enjoyment, accomplishment, peace - all packed in very few minutes. I loved it.

Things that were not-so-great: # Real call centers were not shown at all. Some of the campuses are state-of-the-art. Some offices may even be better than their counterparts in USA. # Holiday in Goa. Could have thrown in more caution and scare in this. This is still a rarity and a very unconventional/unacceptable thing to do in India. Most won't talk about it and would be uncomfortable to even watch it in movies let alone doing it. # How do you find so many English speaking people in a village. You would have to screen hundreds of people to get 15 that could work in a call center. # Scene about breaking the news to agents about closing Indian call center was done very lightly. # How do you run a call center on a roof with an Indian wedding in progress near by? # Did construction work at call center ever progress?


Funny and educational, this is the story of outsourcing. Todd (Josh Hamilton) has to go to India to train call center workers in how to do it the American way. It is a riot as they try to learn American customs, and he has to learn Indian ways.

Ayesha Dharker (Queen Jamilla in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones) really made this film. She was funny and pointed out Todd's errors and educated him in Indian ways. Of course, things do get heated between them.

A funny twist at the end causes Todd to reevaluate his life and focus on what is really important.


Todd says that halfway through the movie. By the end of the movie, I believed it too.

Ayesha Dharker gives a charismatic and spellbinding performer as Asha who believes inside that she is special but needs just a jolt of external validation to really take things to the next level.

One reviewer called this a ripoff of local hero. Ripoff is the wrong word. It does bring the Ugly American fish-out-of-water aspect to the table and also revels in the manner in which the locals are able to accept what is useful about the foreigner and let the rest slide. Many stories are variation on a prior story's theme. As has been said, there are no more original stories, just original variations. This is certainly one of the latter. But, only because it is Ayesha Darkher who transforms things. Just when the Ugly American thing is getting tired and the Colors sequence fails to imbue Josh Hamilton with the transforming chemistry that his character is supposed to feel, Asha steps to the fore and the entire movie turns magical.


I knew nothing about this film called OUTSOURCED. I had never heard of it. I was just channel surfing at our home in our village and happened to stumble upon the listing for this movie on the programme schedule. The synopsis sounded interesting. An American whose job has been outsourced to India coming to India to train his replacement. I thought, another culture-clash film. I was quite right, though. Plus, I was informed that the film starred one of my favourite actors, Ayesha Dharker, who is playing the lead opposite Josh Hamilton who I just faintly remember as the handsome young man from Ismail Merchant's 'The Proprietor'. I found Josh Hamilton good-looking and I've always loved to see Ayesha Dharker and, honestly, I had nothing good to do that afternoon, so, I sat down to watch OUTSOURCED and enjoyed it immensely.

OUTSOURCED shows India in all her exotic splendour  there is Ganesh, Kali, the Shiva Lingam, the ubiquitous Bollywood number, Holi celebrations, cows on the road, juicy mangoes, even a garishly decorated hotel suite called the Kama Sutra suite  but nowhere does it present India as a poor, backward or a Third World country. The film starts with the power of India. Quite flattering. We see a whole bunch of Americans losing their jobs because their jobs have been outsourced to India. Then, there is this disgruntled American, Todd (Josh Hamilton), who is being sent to India by his boss Dave so that he could train the new recruits on American society, culture and accent and tell them how much important those cheese-shaped hats are to them. "Kitschy", he calls them.

The fun begins the moment our hero lands at the Mumbai airport. He misses the driver who had been sent to pick him up because that poor fellow was holding a placard that said "Mr. Toad" instead of "Mr. Todd". And so poor "Toad" has to travel on an auto-rickshaw, then by the local train (which he was trying to board with all the western civility, brandishing his ticket, but has to come down to the Indian method of jumping randomly into any compartment when he sees that there is no space), and then over the potholed and cow-filled roads of the real India. He eats a "barf ka gola" and encounters another very Indian problem. No change. Because of this he has to pay a one-hundred-rupee note just for one ice lolly. We Indians would have somehow managed to find a few ten-rupee notes.

Then, there is this guy he has to train. The stars-and-stripes-in-his-eyes guy, Puro (Asif Basra), who thinks his fiancée is more beautiful than Aishwarya Rai. Of course, Mr. Puro, too, calls our hero "Mr. Toad". "Mr. Toad" has to teach Puro how to make "small talk". First, he has to explain to Puro the meaning of "small talk", "kitsch", and the like. Then, "Mr. Toad" puts up with aunty ji (Sudha Shivpuri, 'Ba' of 'Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi') who tells our hero that eating with the left hand is "unclean". Her errands-man then demonstrates to a shocked "Toad" why eating with the left hand is unclean in a scene which had me rolling in laughter. Aunty ji cleans, starches and irons "Mr. Toad"'s underwear because that is what all Indian mothers do.

"Mr. Toad" has a bout of diarrhoea, is shocked to see a cow walking into his office; learns of the power of Goddess Kali; comes to know the meaning of Shiva Lingam; plays Holi; has his mobile phone stolen and returned and stolen again and returned again; dances to the "Sajan ji ghar aaye" song from 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai'; befriends a man from the dhobi ghaT; dresses up in a kurta; eats a ripe mango the Indian way, by peeling it with teeth and sucking on the pulp; does a very typically Indian "jugaad" (which is the Indian art of very economically managing big things with the least resources) of electricity with his friend from the dhobi ghat when his office is flooded and lines are down; and falls in love with the stunning and smart call centre employee, Asha (Ayesha Dharker), who opens his eyes to why the Indians and our English is superior to that of the Americans. Because, our pronunciation is better  accurate, in fact  and we pronounce Internet as "Inter -Net" and not "Inner-Net" the way the Americans do. Sadly, the hero discovers that this smart Indian woman who could have been his true love is already engaged to be married, and he is shocked to learn that she was engaged when she was only four. When he tells her that he found this early engagement stuff very odd, she tells him that she found the nearly 50% divorce rate of the Americans odd. Smart.

I realise I have revealed too much about this film, but that was unavoidable. I liked every second of this film. Every second means each second. The scenes, the sets, the dialogues, there is nothing which seems exaggerated. The end of the film, too, is very positive. The film starts with a laugh and ends with a smile and I sat till the end credits ended. I liked OUTSOURCED that much. The story, the direction, the acting, the soundtrack, everything is just right. OUTSOURCED is a great film. Just watch it.

P.S. I noticed that the producer of this film is Tom Gorai. Now, Gorai is a common surname in eastern India. I was wondering if Mr. Gorai was an NRI and if this is a film with some Indian connection. I later did some Wikipedia research on Tom Gorai and learnt that Mr. Gorai is an American. OUTSOURCED is a complete American work on outsourcing and India and the US. And it is a very funny and quite sensitive film. This, I believe, is its real strength. Watch it. Watch it.


When we rented this movie, my girlfriend and I expected a basic feel-good comedy, nothing great, just easy.

We lived in India for a while, doing research on IT outsourcing. So we decided to rent outsourced. It actually turned out to be a good movie! It managed to capture a lot of things which were so familiar to us, a trip down memory lane, the amazement we felt at being there.

Although the plot is quite predictable, this did not matter much as the beauty is in the details. It has a lot of India, portrays traveling Americans (and we all love those) and even manages to make the entire outsourcing debate insightful without being condescending.

The film left us both with a real smile on our face, something only very few comedies manage to do.


This is kind of a movie version of an I Love Lucy episode - It's the trials & tribulations of a couple, accompanied by their sidekicks, the other married couple. The girls stick together, the guys stick together. Then Robert Young walks in to "help", but things get all mixed up. Clever script. Helen Broderick plays the same sarcastic, older but wiser friend that sticks by the young bride when things get tough that she played so many times (Father takes a bride, Smartest Girl in Town, Top Hat) Robert Young is the dashing interloper that really does want to help out, but just makes things worse. Ned Sparks is a riot, always muttering things under his breath, the poor suffering husband with a cigar hanging out the corner of his mouth. This movie makes light of some of those old fashioned sexist ideas,(domestic violence, man/wife roles) so may offend some, but then it was made for a different time. Seems to be a remake of "Ten Cents a Dance" from 1931, which also starred B. Stanwyck. I have tried to find the video for sale, have not had luck as of yet.


Although this film was made before the television era, in some ways it resembles an extended episode of a TV sitcom. The main characters are Michael and Carolyn Martin, a young newlywed couple from New York. The plot centres upon the disharmony caused in their marriage by their financial difficulties. Michael is an engineer earning $35 per week. In the Depression era of the thirties this would probably have been regarded by most Americans as a good living wage, but it is not enough to keep Carolyn in the middle-class style to which she has become accustomed. Before her marriage she worked as a model earning $50 per week, but Michael has old-fashioned views about married women working (old-fashioned by today's standards if not those of the thirties) and refuses to let her go out to work. Carolyn, however, is unable to limit her spending (she impulsively buys a dress costing over $40) and soon the couple are in financial difficulties and their furniture is repossessed. An added complication is that Carolyn has a wealthy admirer in the shape of Hugh, the foppish son of a department-store owner. (At least, he is a fop some of the time. His character seems to veer between a drunken playboy and a perfect gentlemen).

The film resembles a sitcom in that the humour arises out of the situations in which the characters find themselves rather than from any particularly witty dialogue. As another reviewer has pointed out, the main comic relief is provided by Billy Gilbert as the repo man and Ned Sparks as Michael's colleague Paul, but as Gilbert's party piece seems to be pretending to sneeze (in which he is joined in a duet by Barbara Stanwyck) and Sparks's speciality is talking out of the side of his mouth while holding a cigar firmly clamped between his jaws, I can only think that audiences of the thirties were more easily pleased than those of today would be.

The main problem with this film for a modern audience, however, is its outdated social attitudes. The jocular references to wife-beating, for example, do not seem tasteful or funny today. Although the film is fairly sympathetic to Carolyn's desire to work, a woman's job is seen not in terms of a fulfilling career but in terms of a way of providing pocket-money to keep herself in luxuries. There is also a racist joke when Carolyn's maid (about the only role open to black actresses in the thirties) remarks that black men are too idle to support themselves and prefer to live off their wives. The film as a whole seems very dated today. "Halliwell's Film Guide" describes it as "thin" but "pleasing". The first adjective may be apt; the second certainly is not. 4/10


I love this movie! Ever since I first saw it as a kid I've counted it among my favorite W.C. Fields comedies, and when I saw it again recently it was just as funny, warm, and entertaining as ever, maybe all the more so with the passage of time. While it may not be the funniest film he ever made, THE OLD FASHIONED WAY is perhaps Fields' most autobiographical work, as it recreates the life of the traveling player of the early 1900s, a life he experienced personally as a vaudeville juggler. (The exact year the story takes place is never specified, but the costumes and the reference to a "new-fangled horseless carriage" would put it around 1905 or so.) Fields' early years on the road were said to be pretty rough. He and his fellow performers were forever at the mercy of unscrupulous managers, forced to live in crummy lodgings where they ate poorly, in towns where they were generally regarded as no better than tramps and whores by the disapproving townsfolk. It was not unheard of for those unscrupulous managers to abscond with the box office receipts, stranding the actors in hostile territory without a penny. Yet somehow, with the advantage of hindsight, Fields was able to turn these unhappy memories into great comedy, comedy that also serves as something of a history lesson-- albeit a pleasant one --for viewers interested in the early days of the American stage.

Because Fields was in his mid-50s when he made this film he was able to turn the tables, in a sense: instead of reprising his real-life role as a starving young actor he'd graduated by this time to the role of the unscrupulous manager, known here simply as The Great McGonigle. McGonigle leads a ragtag troupe of players who are touring the hinterland in that ever-popular temperance warhorse, "The Drunkard." As our story begins this troupe is fleeing a town one step ahead of the sheriff, and heading for their next engagement in the village of Bellefontaine, where prospects don't look much better. In desperate need of cash, McGonigle is compelled to woo a local wealthy widow who aspires to the stage, the magnificently named Cleopatra Pepperday (played with appropriate magnificence by Jan Duggan), while in the meantime his daughter is wooed by a college boy who also dreams of performing. The boarding house where the troupe stays serves as the locale for two hilarious comic set-pieces, back-to-back: first, McGonigle's lunch is ruined by Mrs. Pepperday's rowdy toddler Albert, who flings food in his face, grabs his nose, and dunks his pocket watch in molasses. And then, as if he hadn't been punished enough already, McGonigle must listen to Mrs. Pepperday's spirited rendition of "The Sea Shell Song."

These two sequences alone are reason enough to make this movie a must-see comedy classic, and, interestingly, in each of them Fields himself plays victimized straight man: first to Baby LeRoy, then to Jan Duggan, whose rendition of the song is a show-stopping triumph. Fields' reactions to both of these characters are priceless, but it's also worth pointing out that in this instance the notoriously paranoid, cantankerous W.C. Fields, who was said to be deeply jealous of other comedians, generously shared the spotlight with not one but two fellow players and permitted each to temporarily steal the spotlight, to the ultimate benefit of the project.

The movie's finale consists of the troupe's performance of "The Drunkard" plus a couple of songs and, best of all, The Great McGonigle's juggling act. This extended sequence feels like an authentic recreation of just what an evening at a small-town theater of the period would have been like, from the cheap-looking sets and declamatory acting styles to the heavy curtain that hits the stage with a crash after each scene. The juggling bit is a special treat, as it represents the most complete filmed record of Fields' legendary feats of legerdemain. My only complaint is that there are too many cut-away shots showing audience members' reactions; I'd have been perfectly happy to watch the whole routine in a couple of uninterrupted takes with no reaction shots at all. But in any event, the juggling act is wonderful.

According to a recent biography of W.C. Fields by James Curtis THE OLD FASHIONED WAY suffered through a troubled gestation process. Just as the film was going into production Fields' original screenplay, entitled "Playing the Sticks," was found to be somewhat jumbled and too brief to sustain a feature-length movie. Apparently the savior of the project was an unheralded screenwriter named Jack Cunningham, then known primarily for his earlier work on Westerns such as THE COVERED WAGON and a couple of Douglas Fairbanks vehicles. It was Cunningham who reworked and expanded Fields' original script into the seamless story it became, and who chose to interpolate the sequences from "The Drunkard"; he also persuaded Fields to dust off his old juggling act for the finale. If this background information is correct then viewers owe a debt of thanks to Mr. Cunningham for his important contribution to this terrifically entertaining, funny, and nostalgic slice of theatrical Americana.


The Great McGonigle, ham actor extraordinaire, cares for his troupe of performers in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, thorough chicanery, larceny & skullduggery...

Here is W. C. Fields in all of his pompous, vulgar glory: evasive, duplicitous, sneaky - utterly wonderful. Delivering dialogue in his unique buzz saw rasp, he gives out so many familiar lines that at times he almost seems to be performing a self-parody. This film brilliantly shows why Fields needed the sound cinema to let him be fully appreciated, and with Paramount giving him free rein to develop his material as he wished, it is not surprising that the film is a classic. Fans need look no further to find the essential Fields.

The romance between Judith Allen & Joe Morrison is a rather dull affair, although the young man sings well. Tammany Young plays Fields' loyal amanuensis. Movie mavens will recognize comedian Billy Bletcher as the tomato thrower & sour-visaged sheriff Clarence Wilson, both uncredited. Legend has it that Hollywood's first movie star, Florence Lawrence, derelict & forgotten, made one of her last unbilled appearances here before her 1938 suicide.

Fields found it useful to populate his films with at least one she-dragon, a female of frightful aspect against whom he could bounce off some of his best humor. This film has two: rail-thin, Nora Cecil - prim & dour as the troupe's suspicious landlady; and most especially silly Jan Duggan, horridly bejeweled & curled, as Field's wealthy target. Here was an actress, now nearly forgotten, who could easily equal in hilarity even Fields himself. It is generally overlooked how important her contribution is to the celebrated supper table scene with Fields & Baby LeRoy - one of the funniest sequences ever to appear in an American film. And her rendition of `Gathering Up The Shells On The Seashore' is a wonderful spoof of such sentimental songs as `When You And I Were Young, Maggie,' which were so popular in that era. Miss Duggan would return to briefly plague Fields in three additional films, including THE BANK DICK (1940). (She died in 1977 at the age of 95.)

Fields has included the old melodrama The Drunkard into the plot and to his credit he plays it straight,' letting its honest antique sentiment speak for itself. In his own private olio, Fields makes a curtain call to show off his astonishing talent of legerdemain. It is wonderful to have his routine captured on film as he really is quite amazing - it is easy to see how at one time he was considered the world's greatest juggler. Now he is remembered as one of cinema's supreme comics.