"Damnation Alley" is a dumb film. I can't say it any plainer then that. It takes place after a nuclear disaster. There are only a handful of survivors left. George Peppard leads the pack looking as if he can't wait for "The A Team" to come along.

The survivors make their way around in a trumped up camper. Jan-Michael Vincent plays the standard hunky hero. This was near the end of his successful run in the 70's. Movies like this did him in (though he would bounce back nicely the next year in "Hooper" with Burt Reynolds).

One scene that is well done and worth noting is when the crew is overtaken by a deadly breed of cockroaches. It was quite effective on the big screen with stereo sound but, sadly, loses much of its potence on television.

The special effects are mostly cheap looking with obvious sets in many scenes.

"Damnation Alley" is not even a good time waster. You'll be so busy laughing at its silliness or shaking your head at the effects that it is likely to make you feel as empty as the world its characters inhabit.


This movie is supposed to be about four military men trying to find life in a country wiped out by a nuclear war.

This could have been good, despite the bad science involved. It isn't the worst science, but it is hard to swallow that suddenly the radiation level falls for these certain characters when it needs to.

That would be okay if the characters were half way likable. They aren't At least the two leads, who are both sort of super extremist spoiled brat supermen. And you know the two more likable characters won't be around long. After they're gone, you don't really care. This was made in the dorky day of the Steve McQueens, when each hero had to have a vehicle fetish that only the reddest necks can identify with. The other character is more realistic, but still too military. It isn't hard to care about them. It is impossible to care about them. Sort of like "Enemy Mine" made years earlier. And this is the real reason the film fails.


A note made in a previous comment is absolutely true: "turn your brain off". I really liked George Peppard and take a little bit of associated pride in that he went to the same school system in Dearborn, MI that I did but this really is a weird movie. To call it science fiction means it should have some scientific background to substantiate the story. Killer cockroaches? And then when they needed to repair these state of the art "RV's", they happen to be on top of "what's left of Detroit" and find a replacement rear end in a junkyard. And the special effects were sad even for the time the movie was produced. With all due respect to Mr. Peppard and Mr. Vincent, you should be forewarned that this movie has a great deal of "cheesiness".


This film, coming out the same year as Star Wars, doesn't begin to approach that landmark film in any capacity. Acting is acceptable, as is the story. But the cinematography looks like a very lousy TV movie. Smoky, sepia filters are utilized to change the sky colors, bleeding over into the other areas in the frames. In as much as I am very much impressed with visual items such as cinematography, special effects, contrasts, colors, etc., when it comes to movies, this is a big letdown. Final score from Miller-Movies is a 4, that high mainly due to the acting.


Jack Smight must have been distressed at getting such cheesy directorial assignments such as "Airport 1975" and, a few years later, this weak science-fiction entry. Once a solid TV director with a few interesting feature films to his credit, Smight's resume tailed off in the 1970s with lame titles such as "Damnation Alley", a second-feature if there ever was one. Survivors of the nuclear holocaust roam the desolate wasteland in a futuristic van, searching for others. Nice to know in the future we'll still have second-rate casinos in this country, equipped with slot-machines circa 1977. One revolting sequence involving blood-sucking cockroaches might have become a classic among splatter aficionados had the special effects budget been larger (when the roaches, en masse, chase Jan-Michael Vincent on his cycle, it looks like a carpet being pulled along by a wire). The cast of actors, George Peppard and Jackie Earle Haley among them, do OK work in an obviously inferior product. *1/2 from ****


I must have seen at least 250 sci-fi movies since I was a child, ranging from old classics like Metropolis to '50s B-movies like Angry Red Planet to more modern post-2001 efforts like Star Wars, Aliens and The Fifth Element. Damnation Alley is, without a doubt, one of the absolute worst sci-fi flicks I have ever seen. From unintentionally funny dialog to wooden acting to lame special effects, this wreck misfires on all cylinders.

Planet of the Apes - another post-apocalypse flick - was filmed almost a decade earlier yet looked infinitely better. Star Wars cost half as much to make as Damnation Alley, was produced in the same year and makes this turkey look like an amateur film made by high school students. What a colossal waste of money. Literally 20 minutes of the film is devoted solely to shots of the flimsy-looking Landmaster driving thru the desert, with a dorky laser effect in the sky overhead. Boring.

I might be able to forgive the cruddy sets, costumes, props and effects if the story was any good, but this has to be the worst post-apocalypse story ever filmed. It makes Mad Max look like Citizen Kane. The whole motivation for the trip makes no sense right from the start of the film, and it's all downhill from there. Few of the events depicted in the film are remotely plausible, and those which are (such as the encounter with some deranged bad guys at a roadside cafe) are predictable, cheap and ultimately pointless.

This dud is absolutely not worth your time. As others have pointed out, the average episode of Airwolf or The A-Team blows it out of the water. It doesn't even have enough B-movie kitsch value to be enjoyable from that perspective. I'd much rather watch 90 minutes of the producers, screenwriters, director and actors being flogged  they've certainly earned some punishment for perpetrating this nuclear disaster on an unsuspecting audience. I'd drive from California to Albany in a jacked up Winnebago just to avoid another screening of this travesty.


How badly can you ruin a great story of post-apocalyptic America? Zelaney's book, though not his best, was a good read. But this film mangles everything that was good about the concept. As I said, the vehicle, which appears to be real, is totally cool, the nuclear maligned sky is great. EVERYTHING else is just pathetic. Pass this lemon by and don't look in the rear view mirror. A "2" only for the "truck" and the sky. This should be remade. It could be a huge winner with a GOOD script, decent acting, today's CG along the lines of "Twister" "Dantes Peak" or "The Day After Tomorrow". Roger Z could be made proud if somebody could come up with a decent script from his "Damnation Alley".


I decided to watch this because I like sci-fi movies, but it stunk. It was good, however, for chuckling at. George Peppard played pretty much the same character as he did on the A-Team (including the cigar/cigarette in the mouth from time to time, minus the gloves and ascot)except he tries on a lame southern accent. The special effects were abhorrent, I can't believe this and Star Wars came out in the same year! The one thing that was somewhat impressive were the dumb looking tank vehicles because I couldn't believe they actually spent the money to make what appeared to be a functioning vehicle. Not that those things are that radical but the the tri-wheel system did spin and also functioned as paddles int the water. Otherwise, what was a decent concept is let down by poor production all around. Not to mention the ending, I only kept watching after a bit to see what happened in the end, and it was lame (it could've really benefited from a twist ending, like Planet of the Apes). Also, Albany N.Y. bore a strikingly similar appearance to Southern California.


This is at my guess a good book, but translates into a bad movie. Low budget, and good acting make this film a 3. What happens with the Roaches is interesting, and thats about it. The ending is disappointing. My wife hates this film so much she makes me change the channel when ever its on.


Just an awesome movie with awesome special effects for 1977. When watching remember it was 1977, not 1997 when it was made. The effects were years ahead of its day. Worth every second to watch. Now if they'd only release it on DVD!


One night, when I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch "Damnation Alley". Let's just say that I should have found something else to do. Anything would have been better than sitting through this horrible film. The acting is bad - Jan-Michael Vincent and George Peppard simply cannot act. The storyline is decent, but the movie makes it extremely boring. I wasn't impressed by the hour-long ride in the land-rover/tank, regardless of its all-terrain capabilities. As for special effects, the sky images were interesting but didn't really do too much for the movie. If you ever have a chance to see "Damnation Alley" -- don't.


I love science fiction and Roger Zelzany was one of my favorite authors. Damnation Alley was first a short story and then expanded to a Novella (probably to make the movie from). Hell Tanner (yes, his first name is Hell) was not Jan Michael Vincent, George Parpard would have been better cast as Hell Tanner. In the book Hell Tanner was about as anti as you could get an antihero to be. I was a great story about driving from California to the East Coast to take vaccine for a plague. Hell Tanner was a motorcycle gang member and used to smuggle candy to the Mormons in Utah. I was so excited when I saw that this movie was being made because I had enjoyed the short story so much and then to see how Hollywood butchered it. I'm surprise that Roger Zelzany even allowed his name to be used in connection with this movie. Don't waste your time with this one.


How bad is it? 26 years later I STILL feel robbed for having paid to see this joke. Caught it on TV last night, and forced myself to "give it a second chance". Wrong move!! There is nothing redeeming about this movie - special effects are terrible, dialogue stinks, each turn of events is so implausible that you get mad at everyone involved.

SPOILER (not that it matters...) Final ridiculous turn - the entire world has been destroyed by nuclear war, but they find one area that wasn't targeted by a nuke and therefore is still a beautiful green sunny place, with no radiation and no nuclear winter and little children playing ball. Give me a break!


Yeah OK, I'm giving this flick a 7 because I really dug it in the day (although of course not nearly as much as Star Wars which I saw at the Lowes theater in full surround sound, now that was an all time high!). But to this day occasionally I'll hear George Peppard say witha stogy in his pie hole "We Got Us Some Killer Cockroaches Here!" Evidently I'm not the only one who loved that quote because IMDb has it as a highlighted quote. Peppard obviously the true professional that he was must have repeated that line over and over again till it came out just perfect, if I was a fly on that wall, lol. But I mean anyone who watches this flick now for the first time will give this maybe a 4 if they are a post apocalyptic flick lover type like me, and a 1 or 2 if not. It's only because when I saw this flick I was a young teen who thought Jan Michael was cool (I had a haircut like him, and later I came darn close to buying a bar by Clark AB in the PI called the Airwolf Bar because the chicks there said I looked like him, oh my was I stoned cold drunk that time). I saw Jan in "Buster and Billy" and he kicked the crap iota two dudes and than smashed their skulls in with a cue ball, plus he killed Charles Bronson in "The Mechanic" (with a chase scene that must have inspired the DeNiro flick "Ronin"), so Jan Michael was not to be trifled with at that time, no way. So all you people who are giving this flick 1 star, obviously you never saw the flick in the 70's when I did, with its very cool post apocalyptic scenes and its very cool RV that had missiles and could go over oceans in raging gales, and Jan Michael, and of course one of those lines you can't get iota your head, George Peppard screaming "We Got Us Some Killa Cockroaches Here!". I think I'll avoid watching this again because I'd hate to spoil those classic 70's memories, of growing up and wanting to be as cool as Jan Michael Vincent.


This film is just too cheesy for words. It makes a great laugh at the silliness movie, and everything in it is silly, so you'll be laughing a lot.

Firstly there's Jan Michael Vincent, He's so wooden an actor and with George Peppard along too you have the makings of a whole forest.

Then there's the ludicrous vehicles they travel in. What's with the flipping wheels?

The special effects are weak. The scorpions look exactly like what they are - real scorpions superimposed onto the film.

Very silly and very funny. Watch whilst getting drunk.


A very bad adaptation of a wonderful short story by master fantasy and sci-fi writer Roger Zelazny. None of Zelazny's many other novels or shorts were made into features in his lifetime, and this film is probably why. The Sci Fi Channel is currently threatening a TV version of Zelazny's Amber series (Nine Princes in Amber, etc.) Let's pray it is light years away from this turkey.

If Stephen Spielberg is reading this, check out Zelazny's Jack of Shadows or Doorways in the Sand.


hell tanner was a great anti-hero the last of the hells angels, greatest mailman of all time a sociopath who saved the east coast for the hell of it.

the characters, plot, and style of the book were completely ignored for a much lamer movie plot and massively more boringly paced. instead of attempting to escape from the pigs on his bike, the scene with the guv, his brother and the other drivers would be a great opening instead we get a boring ass bit that introduces hell as a soldier instead of an outlaw so now he's just a slacker jarhead an insult to the book i hope someday someone makes a new version that's actually true to the story cuz that would be a great movie


Emissary was Deep Space Nine's pilot episode. And not a bad one either. A fitting beginning to a 7 year story.

I don't think it was perfect, like The Next Generation's Encounter at Farpoint, but it did introduce all the characters and settings of this incredible show. Emissary reminds me of Babylon 5's Pilot Episode: The Gathering, which was aired a month after Emissary.

Deep Space Nine's first couple of years weren't THAT great, but then the show started to rise with a great storyline and great situations, such as the Klingons' separation from the Federation, Sisko's destiny and the Federation's war against the Dominion and Cardassian alliance. And Emissary was the 2 hour series premiere that gave birth to all this. Emissary has a good storyline. Sisko's encounter with the prophets beat any alien encounters ever seen before in Star Trek history. Sisko's background related to the Battle of Wolf 359 as well as his meeting with Picard make the series an excellent sci-fi drama. Kira started out as the angry vengeful Bajoran and grew intensively over the past 7 years, becoming an incredible leader and fighter. I was astonished to see Miles and Keiko O'Brien becoming part of the show, which affected deeply their personal lives as they moved from the excessive perfection of the USS Enterprise to the station that resembles our gritty reality rather than Roddenberry's perfect future.

Rick Berman and Michael Piller did a great job creating this show and keeping it alive and healthy after Roddenberry's death, while giving a fitting end to The Next Generation.

Paramount Pictures did a great job, creating both the pilot and the show. I give Emissary a 9 out of 10.


Deep Space Nine was the most complex, broad and innovative offering to come out of the Star Trek Franchise. Based on a space station near a stable wormhole leading through an inhabited inter-dimensional gateway into a different quadrant of the galaxy millions of light years away, DS9's aliens were REALLY alien, it's stories ranged from near-universal to personal in scope, and its characters and their relationships to one another were more intimately explored than before or since. Sci Fi TV has rarely, if ever dived so deep into the wellsprings of intellect and drama (moreso than the new BSG, TNG and Firefly - which is saying a lot) Central to the show's grand (7 year) story arc is Benjamin Sisko, the space station's brilliant but somewhat reluctant and disgruntled new commander. Sisko is also - possibly - a prophesied messiah of the people of Bejor: The Emissary. This story begins in the hour and a half long opening episode. Almost all of the main characters are also introduced, and at least hints to the most important relationships (Sisko-Kira; Sisko-Odo; Sisko-Kira; Sisko-Quark; Sisko-Jake; Kira-Odo; Odo-Quark and Sisko-Dax) are dropped.

Among the many plots and subplots established and developed in the Emissary, the most important are Sisko's back-story. Our commander is a widower who to an extent blames the federation for the loss of his beloved wife, dedicated single father, and an ingenious officer. Unlike all of his predecessors, Sisko also has a goofy and even downright awkward side, which is very refreshing after years of the stodgily military Picard and the space cowboy man-ho Kirk.

Sisko arrives at his newly transferred Cardassian space station and finds it in a state of chaos and disrepair. The "Cardies" apparently wrecked the place as they departed the station and the formerly occupied planet of Bejor, and all of the merchants are preparing their departure . Battling his own career demons, Sisko must find a way to put the place and its people back together while dealing with more than one race which distrusts Star Fleet's intentions, and - perhaps - along the way he will find some inspiration for staying with Star Fleet despite his numerous and profound misgivings.

And I am leaving about 80% of Emissary's storyline out of this review intentionally.

The special effects, script and directing of Emissary established the very high standard that DS9 would maintain almost perfectly in its seven year run. Although the acting in this first episode was occasionally a little stiff, given the scope and convoluted plot, and the newness of the complex characters which would evolve later in the series, I think this is understandable. The major exception regarding acting is Kira (Nana Visitor) - for whom this is one among many show-stealing performances ranging through the entire series.

Recommended for alert and attentive TV watching.


From its opening moments, this entry in the Star Trek universe was compelling. The characters are terrific and the setting is filled with possibilities. There's a sort of "Old West" feel to Deep Space Nine. Sure, the Law (StarFleet) reigns supreme, but when you're on the frontier, things aren't always black and white.

Over the length of the series, the characters realized such distinct personalities, preferences, hobbies and motivations. Even meeting them for the first time in "The Emissary", it was obvious that these were people with unique pasts limitless futures. The 3D characters in Deep Space Nine are far more interesting than their hollow counterparts in The Next Generation.

If you like the original Star Trek, skip TNG and cozy on up to Deep Space Nine. The spirit of Captain Kirk is alive and well in DS9 and "The Emissary" is a great way to meet the crew.

Personal note: I just love Marc Alaimo as Gul Dukat. I've never seen him in anything else, but the episodes with Dukat are wonderful.


ST:DS9:01 - "Emissary" (Stardate: 46379.1) - this is part 1 of the 2-part pilot episode of "Deep Space Nine", the 3rd new series in the world of Star Trek. We begin with in Stardate 43997 during the first Borg attack on Earth in the TNG episode "The Best Of Both Worlds", where we see the soon-to-be Commander Sisko (played by Avery Brooks) as an officer on one of the Federation ships trying to attack the Borg cube (under the command of the newly assimilated Picard - now known as the Borg Locutus). In the process the Saratoga is destroyed, along with his wife (however his son Jake does survive).

Now, forward 3 years to the present - Sisko is offered the command of the remote station Deep Space Nine, which is situated on the edge of Federation space, a station that only until recently belonged to the Cardassians. The station also orbits planet Bajor, a planet that has just gained independence from the aforementioned Cardassians. The Bajorans, as a Federation protectorate, allows the Federation to control the station, though they have their officers there (including the hot-tempered Major Kira Nerys). Also along for the ride are Dr. Bashir, the shape-shifting Constable Odo, the sneaky Ferengi Quark (who owns a bar on the station), the Trill Jadzia Dax (who knows Sisko from a previous body the Trill inhabited), and the newly promoted Chief O'Brien (from the TNG Enterprise) and his family.

While Sikso and crew must bring the station up to speck, they start investigating an anomaly - one that will have far repercussions for this sector of the galaxy. At the same time, Sisko must deal with his own nemesis, that of Picard (whom he associates with the death of his wife) who comes to the station. Sisko must also decide whether to stay as Commander of Deep Space Nine.

A worthy introduction to a new (and darker) Star Trek world.


This double episode provided a great introduction to the new series, unlike other Star Trek series it isn't set on board a shiny new space ship but on a battered former Cardassian space station belonging to the recently liberated planet of Bajor. On arrival the station's new commander, Benjamin Sisko, isn't too keen on his new assignment which is first since he lost his ship and his wife in a battle with the Borg three years previously. When he arrives he is met by Chief Miles O'Brien who shows him round the station and introduces him to the Bajoran liaison officer Major Kira Nerys who is distrusting of Star Fleet's motives. While talking to her there is a security alert due to a break-in in one of the station's shops. The two thieves are arrested by the station's police officer; a shape-shifter by the name of Odo. Quark, the uncle of one of the thieves tries to get his nephew released and Sisko says he will release him on one condition: he reopens his bar rather then leaving the station. This might seem a strange deal but Sisko knows he must re-establish confidence in the station's population if he is to be successful.

He is soon summoned to the surface of Bajor by spiritual leader Kai Opaka who tells him that he is The Emissary of the Prophets and that it is his destiny to find the Celestial Temple, to help with this she gives him a strange orb which causes those who look at it to have visions. Back on the station he meets new Star Fleet arrivals Dr. Julian Bashir and science officer and old friend Jadzia Dax, who Sisko calls Old Man despite her being a young woman, this is because she is a joined Trill and Sisko knew the symbiont's previous host. He soon sets Dax to work studying the orb and this leads them to the sight of an anomaly which turns out to be a stable worm hole to the Gamma Quadrant. As the two of them return they find themselves on a strange planet in the worm hole; could this be the Celestial Temple? When the people on DS9 learn of the worm hole the race is on to lay claim to it. The Crew struggle to move the station to location of the worn hole before the Cardassians can get there as whoever can control that space will be in charge of a staging post for exploration and trade with the Gamma Quadrant.

Being a fan of DS9 I'd seen the series a couple of times before I recently re-watched this episode; I think it did a very good job of introducing a cast of characters who with the exception of Chief O'Brien are new to the Star Trek world. These introductions are done in a way that doesn't seem forced yet shows us what each character's role will be. With the introductions out of the way we are quickly into the action which is fairly exciting. The cast all did a great job and it was nice to see a cameo by Patrick Stewart as Capt. Jean-Luc Picard.


This is the best pilot for ST out there! Let's just say that this is just the pilot, and it seems a little time passed before the shot the second episode because it has a completely different feel that will become the norm for the rest of the series. Avery Brooks will tend to over-act but this becomes more balanced as the series progresses. Finally we get a child character you can like too, in Jake Sisko (way less annoying than Wesley IMO).

I think this is the greatest Star Trek nay sci-fi series ever made, and when it ended, I was left with an overwhelming sense of loss. I felt like I had lost some really great friends and I would never see them again. So I ask why? Why did they end it and never look back? This series was rich with spin-offs, potential movies - a never-ending cash cow, and yet it ended abruptly after wasting an entire season devoping Ezri instead of tying up the loose ends. Why? Now that you know how I feel about the show, I will point out some major plot holes in this and all episodes of the series DS9.

Chief O'Brien was a Lieutenant Transporter Chief on the Enterprise, a commissioned officer. On DS9 he suddenly becomes a non-commissioned officer Chief rank and loses the ability to give orders to anyone but the engineers- and later submits to Ensign Nog who was but a child a year before to him. As I understand the only way to rid yourself of a commission is to lose it via insubordination or to resign it. Neither of these were likely to occur when they were sending him to the MOST important place in the quadrant at that time - DS9. So I ask again. Why? Second of all, I don't know if there are branches of service in ST since they never mention it as far as I know, but a star base is basically territory. And territory is held by an Army, so why send a commander in the Starfleet Navy to do that job? Isn't that the job of a StarArmy or perhaps an elected official?

If people of the future don't need money, yet ferengi still value the non-replicatable gold-encased liquid latinum(the gold is a worthless container for up to a few drops of latinum) for it's rarity, then how does the cast ever afford to go to Quark's, or the holo-suites, or anywhere on the promenade, including tailoring by Garak? If Starfleet gave them some sort of pay, the rest of Starfleet would want pay too and that would unsettle the entire concept of the entire ST universe. They kind of address this a tiny bit later on by Sisko threatening Quark to do his bidding because they let him operate for free, but he never says "free services for the crew" and there are times when they make payments on quark's thumbpad so money is being exchanged. Oh by the way, in the first season of TNG they mention gold as being valuable still - so that's weird. Plus, no one complained about replicated food on the Enterprise they thought it was great, so why now on DS9? Why pay for food when you can get it for free in your room?

Lastly, why dock on the station at all? They have transporters that can beam them anywhere aboard the station (they could only beam you to a few set locations on the enterprise mind you) and their cargo. So why not park outside at full stop in a "parking lot", unattached, and transport in? You would think quarantining thru bioscrubbers in the transporter to maintain station welfare would be a major concern. They never address this issue, people just hop right on the station and exchange hugs and handshakes and air as it decompresses onto the station.

And now I will answer a Why for you. The reason why you rarely see Bajoran ships (Season 7 Episode 2 "Shadows and Symbols") is because they basically have none of their own. The ones they do have are decades old and from "The Occupation" or before. They are sub-warp, and have vastly inferior weaponry and shields. Because they are in the process of joining the Federation they are under Federation protection and (we assume) will soon acquire new non-Bajoran Federation ships as part of that induction.


Was still coming down off the high of the series finale of TNG as it was extraordinary. This show was a brand new concept. I was a little unnerved by it's premise, 'To Boldly Stay Where No One Has Stayed Before'. O boy was I wrong! Commander Ben Sisko was played with depth, emotion and so much integrity by Avery Brooks from minute one. The opener of this series was superb. Revisiting the battle of Wolf 359 was genius. The tension between Sisko and Picard was so well done. Patrick Stewart there to show all how to do it I'm sure! The Station is in the Bajoran System. The episode rolled on and the Wormhole is discovered. It is stable, a first for the Federation The Cardassians and Bajor were both relatively young races for Star Trek, but both were interesting and had so much room for development. The crew, Dax, a Trill with lots of oomph and wonderful character. Doctor Julian Bashir, an annoying at first character but who blossomed into one of the show's best. Major Kira Nerys, the Bajoran Liason and First Officer of the Station. Odo, Chief of Security and affectionately named 'Constable', a Shape shifter with an unexplored background. Miles Edward O'Brien, Chief Of Operations who has transferred over from the USS Enterprise and finally Jake Sisko, the latter Sisko's son. Ben having lost his wife, Jennifer at the battle of Wolf 359, explaining Sisko's earlier angst with Picard. This was one of Trek's better pilots and set it up for a very very interesting seven year run


ST:DS9:01-02 - "Emissary" (Stardate: 46379.1) - this is the pilot episode of "Deep Space Nine", the 3rd new series in the world of Star Trek. We begin with in Stardate 43997 during the first Borg attack on Earth in the TNG episode "The Best Of Both Worlds", where we see the soon-to-be Commander Sisko (played by Avery Brooks) as an officer on one of the Federation ships trying to attack the Borg cube (under the command of the newly assimilated Picard - now known as the Borg Locutus). In the process the Saratoga is destroyed, along with his wife (however his son Jake does survive).

Now, forward 3 years to the present - Sisko is offered the command of the remote station Deep Space Nine, which is situated on the edge of Federation space, a station that only until recently belonged to the Cardassians. The station also orbits planet Bajor, a planet that has just gained independence from the aforementioned Cardassians. The Bajorans, as a Federation protectorate, allows the Federation to control the station, though they have their officers there (including the hot-tempered Major Kira Nerys). Also along for the ride are Dr. Bashir, the shape-shifting Constable Odo, the sneaky Ferengi Quark (who owns a bar on the station), the Trill Jadzia Dax (who knows Sisko from a previous body the Trill inhabited), and the newly promoted Chief O'Brien (from the TNG Enterprise) and his family.

While Sikso and crew must bring the station up to speck, they start investigating an anomaly - one that will have far repercussions for this sector of the galaxy. At the same time, Sisko must deal with his own nemesis, that of Picard (whom he associates with the death of his wife) who comes to the station. Sisko must also decide whether to stay as Commander of Deep Space Nine.

A worthy introduction to a new (and darker) Star Trek world.


In my humble opinion, "Deep Space Nine" is the best of all Star Trek shows produced to date! It had it all! space based science fiction, elements of fantasy (The Prophets and Sisko as The Emmissary), political intrigue and of course, lots of action. It's unfortunate that no feature length movies have been made because I, for one, would love to know what Sisko learned while moving among the prophets after falling into the fire cave (Final Episode). Adding Michael Dorn was sheer brilliance on the part of the producers but the loss of Terry Ferral was just brutal (killed off final episode, season before the final season) Marc Alaimo , as Gul Dukat made it east to dislike the Cardassians while Aron Eisenberg made it easy to appreciate the Ferengi! I know there are those of you that believe ST: TNG was better and I wont even argue with the Original Trekkies but for my viewing currency, Deep Sapce Nine is without equal!


ST:DS9:02 - "Emissary, Part II" (Stardate: 46392.7) - this is part 2 of the 2-part pilot episode of "Deep Space Nine", the 3rd new series in the world of Star Trek.

Commander Sisko is offered the command of the remote station Deep Space Nine, which is situated on the edge of Federation space, a station that only until recently belonged to the Cardassians. The station also orbits planet Bajor, a planet that has just gained independence from the aforementioned Cardassians. The Bajorans, as a Federation protectorate, allows the Federation to control the station, though they have their officers there (including the hot-tempered Major Kira Nerys). Also along for the ride are Dr. Bashir, the shape-shifting Constable Odo, the sneaky Ferengi Quark (who owns a bar on the station), the Trill Jadzia Dax (who knows Sisko from a previous body the Trill inhabited), and the newly promoted Chief O'Brien (from the TNG Enterprise) and his family.

While Sikso and crew must bring the station up to speck, they start investigating an anomaly - one that will have far repercussions for this sector of the galaxy (including with the Cardassians - in the form of Gul Dukat). At the same time, Sisko must deal with his own nemesis, that of Picard (whom he associates with the death of his wife in the battle with the Borg 3 years before) who comes to the station. Sisko must also decide whether to stay as Commander of Deep Space Nine.

A worthy introduction to a new (and darker) Star Trek world.


This is the first documentary that is fair to Islam and the Muslims. It is strongly recommended for anyone who lives in the West, particularly in the USA, and is skeptical of the propaganda that is constantly spread by the current U.S. administration and certain special-interest think tanks and groups.

If you are curious about Islam, and one of those who listen with a critical ear, this is a movie for you to watch. It is a first rate production that describes the faith accurately and recounts history as it was. It is also well crafted, with a beautiful cinematography, an excellent narration and a stunning display of art and architecture. Yes, it is missing a few things, but I don't believe anyone could have done a better job in trying to recount 1400 years of history in two hours.


This documentary is an excellent introduction to those aspect of Islam which is covers. Unfortunately it is far too limited in scope but I understand why this is. With a fixed amount available for production costs the choice was either coverage in depth of a small part of the whole or a diluted coverage of a wider range of topics.

It covers, at about 50 minutes each, three aspects of the religion: Mohammed and the origins, the culture and the first Christian crusade, and the Ottoman empire. Each is given excellent coverage but it is very much a secular description rather than a religious one. For those people who have little knowledge of Islam except for exposure to the western propaganda and the news of Islamic terrorist (a minute minority of the whole) this is an eye-opening documentary. Everyone should know about the rich cultural heritage which kept alive intellectual pursuits during the dark ages of western Europe. The sections on the Ottoman empire and the fall of Constantinople is well covered and provided some information I was not familiar with.

The photography is also excellent, showing some of the wonderful architectural achievements of the early Muslims. I was not clear how much of the footage was of real life situations being recorded, how much was scripted for the production, or how much (if any) was extracted from other footage, but the blend results in a well-balance, instructive video.

Highly recommended for everyone, especially those whose exposure to Islam is only that which is portrayed by the USA media.


This is a very good documentary and shows the more fair image of Islam not commonly seen in the West, of a religion that was flourished in culture, science, and art. It also shows its more violent parts in history. Nevertheless, I find that it ends all too abruptly and it fails to comment on any contemporary issues about Islam, which I guess would have made this documentary too long.

If you are interested in Islam, find yourself a copy of this and watch as it is entertaining and informative.

Especially at this time, it is necessary for Western audiences to learn more about Islam.


I loved every bit of this documentary, I was really eager to know the genesis and the expansion of Islam. I would recommend this movie/documentary for anyone who wants to have an insight on Islam. And i would also recommend it seeing on a big screen TV.

Also the narration by Ben Kingsley is phenomenal.Not many people know that Kingsley is a Muslim ( born to an Indian Muslim Father and British Mom).

In this present era, with everything thats been said on TV, this is a great eye-opener for the most beautiful religion of the world. For anyone and everyone to know the history and the truth , i highly recommend.


Every human with a bit of intelligence combined with objectivity will appreciate what was revealed by this documentary. Watch it and search for the rest if not satisfied. There are some things which are not mentioned in the documentary about Islamic civilization at all. For instance, it does not talk about stars named with Arabic names in the first observatory founded by Muslims. This documentary mostly only sketches the Islamic civilization and it does a very good job with that considering the existence of those ignorant people asking "Do Muslim's believe in God?". It is sad but definitely there are lots of people who will benefit a lot from even 10 minutes of this documentary. It was shocking for me to realize the pilgrims' visits which could be considered as a kind of globalization achieved peacefully so many years ago.


The photography is so good. It's too bad they didn't hire a historian to put the development of the progress of Islam in a more understanding theme. It jumps around so much that it distracts from the presentation. Nonetheless, it is a documentary one would want to see more than once.


Having heard a few good things about this film I was looking forward to viewing it. While very pleased with the cinematography qualities of the production I was disappointed with the poor writing. It's important to realize that this is not an objective view but rather a very professional production burdened with a bias in favor of Islam. Below are a few examples of that bias.

In the first half of the film, while the narrator is explaining how Islam moved through the Middle East and across North Africa, scenes of men mounted on horses or camels are shown riding through desert. And when mention of force is made it is downplayed by noting how most of those conquered saw little change in their daily routine and were happy to have new rulers. Contrast this with later discussion of the first crusade where vivid scenes of fighting and death are shown along with narration explaining how horrible it was for the unsuspecting Muslims who were attacked in their peaceful towns and villages by the evil Christian soldiers from a Europe just emerging from the dark ages.

In the Ottoman Empire section they discuss the military expansion of Islam. But unlike the first half of the film where they've downplayed the military aspects and refer to it as the Islamic expansion, now the military aspects cannot be ignored and it is referred to as the "Ottoman expansion." Again contrast this with the treatment of the Crusades where it is referred to as the Christian army (not European/French/Italian) even though the majority were mercenaries and Christian only because they were born in Europe.

Discussions of the advancements and additions made by Muslim are numerous. The narrator waxes admiringly about how the Muslims were using paper when Europe was still using parchment. And how there were book stores with hundreds of books in Baghdad while a Christian church in Europe would have been fortunate to have had five parchment books. The fact that the Muslims captured the technology of making paper in their imperialistic conquests is mentioned only in passing. This would be exactly like discussing the Soviet and American space programs of the 50's and 60's while dismissing the contribution of German scientists to both programs.

The narrator explains how the Muslims assembled the world's greatest library in Baghdad. No mention made of the great library of Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt, which pre-dates Islam by some 800 years, and was plundered and ransacked by conquering Muslims. The fact is, much of what is claimed to be of Muslim discovery or creation was merely acquisition or assimilation.

The film makes a glowing description of the Muslim Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.. No mention is made of the fact that Temple Rock, the site of the Dome, is THE most important Jewish religious site. This would be the same as building a synagogue over the Kaaba in Mecca. The point here is that this is a major event in Jewish/Islamic history yet no mention is made of its significance in history or the modern world.

There are more but I'll stop here. The preponderance of examples demands concluding that there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film. Had the writing taken a more objective position this could have been a documentary worthy of appreciation by generations to come. Watch it for the photography but don't take the "historical facts" too seriously.


Islam Empire of Faith is about the political side of the religion of Islam. Great leaders of every nation and period practiced some form of religion, but many of these pseudo documentaries tend to bring the religion to the forefront rather than the politics of the era. Case in point, Americans wouldn't call Franklin Delano Roosevelt a great Christian leader. FDR is simply a great leader that practiced Christianity. I was hoping to learn more about the religion itself. In the end, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God, but kill each other in the name of that same God. I don't think that this is really what God had intended so it must be the people who pervert the religion; it is more a sin to conquer in the name of God than it is righteous. Most religions would have you believe that their spread is bloodless, but this is rarely the case. Changing people's beliefs is the hardest thing to accomplish without exercising some kind of force. It is always good to get every side of historical events, so this definitely has some value.


i was so looking forward to this film... methought the title held much interesting promise... i was cozy to it at first, however, as the film progressed, I couldn't understand why the director chose to propagandize rather than tell a story depicting the human condition... all the material was there to tell a great story of two peoples, but instead the director prostituted himself to covert politics instead of the art of storytelling... too bad.... the content turned me off as i was never given a chance to make my own mind up, but rather I was constantly told how to 'feel and think' about the story's dilemma... the director missed a great artistic opportunity... that's why i'm giving it a score of 1(awful)...but I did like the score!


Funded mostly by Iranian state oil and mining companies, this documentary is dazzling in its presentation, but careless about the historical facts. A mixed bag of a documentary, but especially good at the "docu-drama", "edu-tainment" end of the documentary spectrum.

One of the most interesting parts of the documentary as presented on the DVD is the "making of" segment which allows one to see some of the means of production and just how much of the film was guided by the director and his Iranian translators and handlers.

Some parts are highly entertaining and others are tendentious and "propagandizing". It is in some ways a tour-de-force of the "infomercial", but this time for an entire civilization.


Granted, both the original Lonesome Dove novel and film are unique works of extremely fascinating classic story telling. Streets of Laredo obviously has a great deal to live up to and, when viewed or read in conjunction with Dove, it does suffer in the sense that our familiarity is slightly snubbed. Of course not much can measure up to the original, and so obviously this is something that cannot be helped. This sequel is far more brutal and violent that its predecessor. Violent death or at least the threat of it is an ever present character awash on Laredo's landscape much more than Dove.That said, Streets of Laredo as a film stands firmly upon its own merits which are quite impressive.Firstly, the cast is sublime. James Garner, always a vastly underrated actor, creates a stoic yet tragic Call. His final scene is at once heart breaking and resonating with strong quiet hope. His performance is all about what film acting aspires to become: he moves mountains without words.The rest of the cast is on equal footing with Garner. Playwrite Sam Shepard's Pea Eye, although losing much of Tim Scott's original Bentonesque forlorn rube, is filled with earthy heroism and and poetry. Sissy Spacek, as the whore re-incarnated as a schoolmarm Lorena produces the tough backbone needed to survive the Texas prarie. Comedian George Carlin's finely drawn panhandle scamp solidifies the theory that the border between comedy and tragedy is narrow at best. These are just a few of the excellent standouts in the sound ensemble.Secondly, there is the very narrative itself. It plays like a Sunday funeral dirge-ever aware of the passing of an era, yet peering into a glimmer future of simple optimism and hope. In McMurtry's frequently brutal world, everyone has a shot at redemption. Grace isn't free but it is availble to all willing to run the gauntlet, as long as they have a pure heart. In this film, pure of heart may not necessarily mean pure of deed, but at least evil is evil and good is good.This film bravely balances the aformentioned violence with scenes of wry humour and gentleness. In that regard, Laredo comes the closest anyone has come to honoring Peckinpah's greater works.The film, because it was produced for television is already mostly forotten by the minnions, but richly deserving of an audience. Enjoy and Savor.


This is my favorite movie. It may be long, but it's not drawn out. It doesn't have the regular ol' western theme.. you know, and older man, a widowed woman, a crazy horse... no no no, this movie is real. I watch it from time to time and enjoy it even more each time. Alexis Cruz does a fantastic job as Joey Garza. Samuel Shephard is also fabulous in his role, and fits the part perfectly. 9.5 out of 10 stars.


One of the first things I do after watching a movie I really like, is checking reviews of others...professionals and amateurs, as listed here. It's very frustrating reading some of them. Why do people compare them? Why do they look for faults? Why do they not see and praise the positive aspects and ease up on critical commentary? It's like comparing apples & oranges & bananas & strawberries, etc. Comparing a film to the book or a previous film seems overly critical to me. It always bothered me when Siskel & Ebert & Roeper, et al. rated films as bad or good...thumbs up or down...see it or don't see it. Streets of Laredo is a perfect example. A lot of superb work was put into this fascinating sequel by the director, the cinematographer, the actors, the music composer, the art directors and more. It deserves more than comparisons with the equally superb mini-series Lonesome Dove and its fabulous other sequels. James Garner's Woodrow Call was terrific, so was Tommy Lee Jones' but is it fair to compare them? Cissy Spacek's Lorena was just as good as Diane Lane's as were Sam Shephard's and Tim Scott's Pea Eye interpretations. How do you rate cake and pie? Is one better than the other? Should you condemn it to thumbs down or tell others to avoid it? Maybe to some people this is the way. One constant in all the LD sequels is Larry McMurtry's brilliant characterizations. And don't complain about character development. It takes time to develop a character's nuances and profile. E.G Archie Bunker, Mary Richards, Barney Miller and friends. How long a movie do you want to watch? To wrap it up, Streets of Laredo is a superb film with great acting, directing, cinematography, and a stirring musical score and more. So was Lonesome Dove, Return to Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, Comanche Moon and the TV series. They're all different but great!


Streets of Laredo is just as compelling as the original the only difference is that James Garner now holds the reins as Captain Woodrow Call,One of the most legendary Texas Rangers ever. Times have changed and so has Call's West. Things are changing as the 20 century looms closer and the wild west becomes Civilied. Woodrow Call is now a feared Bounty hunter and one of the greatest bounty hunters of his age. Call is now older but no wiser in the ways of the world and when he's hired to track down a Mexican Bandit named Joey Garza. Call Drags his ever loyal Corperal Pea-Eye Parker to help him track down the killer despite Pea-Eye now being married and having a family of his own. Streets of Laredo is a study of loyalties and betrayals to old ideas. Garner is simpling outstanding as Call. he is rivaled by George Carlin in a dramatic role a first for Carlin This movie shows us how the tale Ends but to me it still leaves a lot out maybe to lead to another story in the Lonesome Dove universe about the Final Years of Woodrow Call. Superb acting and a strong script make this a highly recommended movie which is official Canon unlike the sequel Return to Lonesome Dove which wasn't. Streets of Laredo can stand along side Lonesome Dove as one of the very best wild west stories ever told.


Randy Quaid is about as unlikely a candidate to play John Wesley Hardin, that stone killer, as you could possibly imagine. Quaid presumably lives in an old trailer waiting for the next National Lampoon "Vacation" movie -- but he brings it off brilliantly.

Same thing with George Carlin as anything but a shriveled prune of an aging comedian doing conceptual humor ("Why do they call bread a staple? It doesn't have little sharp points. Weird.")But he, too, is perfectly cast.

As sequels go, this one is a welcome surprise. I've attempted to watch some of the other "Lonesome Dove" sequels, but had to give up after a few minutes. I assumed the problem was the absence of most or all of the original actors -- but maybe the presence of McMurtry himself as screenwriter made all the difference.

Yes, it would have been great to have Tommy Lee Jones back as Woodrow Call, but James Garner does a fine job. Sissy Spacek is also perfect as Lorena some years on.


Is this better than Lonesome Dove? Depends on who you ask. I think that viewed objectively it is indeed a better mini-series. Two things complicate this in many people's minds. First, when it comes to the books I think most people think Lonesome Dove is a better book. Second, the first mini-series was so one of a kind that it really left an impression with people. Really got in their heads. By the time this came out people didn't find a western mini-series as groundbreaking. But if you watch them back to back now I think this one comes out on top. It features some great performances and, as others have commented, is a bit darker in tone and feel than the previous mini-series. If you liked Lonesome Dove this is a slam dunk for you to like.


Shown in two parts, "Streets of Laredo" is the best of the "Lonesome Dove" series. The casting is excellent, especially Sonia Braga and George Carlin, who by the way, is excellent at dramatic acting. The story line never lags, as it is played out. I highly recommend watching.


First of all, the vast majority of those giving "Streets of Laredo" bad reviews have no legitimate complaints whatsoever. People whine about the dark tone, the killings, the acting, et cetera. Rather, this film has much more in common with the real old west, to a greater degree even than series like "Deadwood". Of course, many of the immature, misguided western fans seem to want happy horse-riding hippies who talk hard and rough but don't live it. How stupid to expect such from the real killers of the west.

Woodrow F. Call (James Garner) is not a nice man. And he should not be pigeonholed as one, either. Garner plays him the way he should be, and is even more impressive than Tommy Lee Jones in "Lonesome Dove", the series which preceded this one. Indeed, despite the rabid fanbase of "Lonesome Dove" (of which I very nearly belong), this series is undoubtedly superior. First of all, the direction is a vast improvement. Joseph Sargent handles the scenery and actors with far more intelligence and grace than Simon Wincer, who proved his woeful inadequacies when he returned for the prequel "Comanche Moon" last year. That series was pure trash, horribly acted and directed despite the great actors involved.

There are many great performances beside Garner. Charles Martin Smith, Sam Shepard, and Sissy Spacek are pure class. Smith, especially, has always been an excellent unnoticed actor. This is perhaps his best performance since "Never Cry Wolf" (1983). He is sympathetic and identifiable as the nervous railman. Shepard and Spacek play husband and wife quite intuitively. Their character development is well-performed to the highest degree. This is also one of Spacek's best performances.

Larry McMurtry has a very intuitive writing style, and the film carries over much of his subtlety. There's no overblown dialogue or direction to be found in "Streets of Laredo", something that the original "Lonesome Dove" series sometimes slipped into. I would say, without reservation, that this is one of the very best and most realistic depictions of the true west. A great film, with stunning acting and direction. A must see for any true film fan - narrow-minded western fans looking for a 'Hollywood' west need not apply.

RATING: 8.5 out of 10


James Garner (to me) is the king of flippancy. He always has a cute answer or some nonchalant way of handling things.

I saw this after Dead Man's Walk and before Lonesome Dove. I had not read the books, so I feel my take on the acting is not jaded by expectations.

On first glance I felt the part was weak. Then, after seeing Lonesome Dove and Return to Lonesome Dove, I realized that Garner did right by the part of Woodruff Call. I have never seen him so serious or non-contrived. Even his voice had that slight whine that Tommy Lee Jones had. John Voight had it to an extreme.

On second watching I could see the loose ends that were tied, so I was pretty happy overall. I am not sure why such an inaccuracy as Judge Bean dying "not according to history" was allowed.

For the record, this movie is second to Dead Man's Walk and a tad above Lonesome Dove. I hate to stomp on those that think LD was the greatest mini-series ever made. I did enjoy it, but had to have some extra coffee to stay awake. That was not the case with Laredo or Dead Man's Walk.


Sorry, this movie abandoned the viewers. Loose ends? How many were there? Too many to count. I watched Lonesome Dove, too, and didn't really have any expectations for this movie, but I'd have to say it wasn't about the thread between movies or characters; how much Garner was like Jones, etc. It was, for me, about the lack of point of view. There are so many threads that do not get drawn together in a good way. Who really is the narrator? Why was Hardin's character in the movie? Why don't we see or learn more about Pea Eye whose close relationship with Call is given to us at the beginning? Why the guy who burns people down? So much time was spent on extraneous characters who perhaps in the book are interesting to the story but in a screen play become burdensome to the main story. I wished for more clarity, more development of the main characters. And, the movie did not really take place on The Street of Laredo.


Well,i didnt have high expectations for this one.It turned out to be better than i expected.It includes a fine cast led by James Garner and supported by Sissy Spacek,Sam Shepard and Sonia Braga,among others.

Garner did a fine performance,same with the three others.But who i didnt like much here was Charles Martin Smith and Alexis Cruz who played Joey Garza,the main villain of the show.Smith was unconvincing and way too hillarious to be taken seriously.And Cruz is just ridiculous.I dont know why anybody would hire him.He just cant play.

This show features some beautiful landscape and the story will keep you in your seat until the end.Too bad they couldnt get DiCaprio to play Joey Garza(ridiculous name by the way). 7 out of 10


In this movie joey Garza was very sexy. i watched the movie over and over to see him. thats how hot he is. I especially liked his role in the movie even though he was a train robber and killed nearly everyone he met. i loved his horse. It was a shame he did not like any woman on the movie. I loved his cheesy grin whenever he shot someone or teased his sister. I thought it was cruel how he tried to kill his brother and sister though. But he was the hottest guy on the movie and i loved him and his accent. I know nearly all his lines on the movie cause i have seen it nearly 50 times. He is the best train robber i have ever seen on a movie.


By Far The WORST Lonesome Dove Movie Ever .....Young Mexican Is Killing People. Mcall Is Hired TO Go To Mexico To Kill Him. The Boy Shoots Mcall In The Leg And It Has To Be Cut Off.

The People In The Village Kill The Boy . THE END.

My Copy Is Going Straight In The Bin I Could Not Watch That Load Of Rubbish Again.....Top Myself First....BORING BORING BORING YAWN ZZZzzzzzzzz. There Are 2 Episodes On The First Disc ,The Second Episode Is A Bit Hard To Find Bet There Are People Out There Who Have Not Seen Episode 2 ,LUCKY THEM. Don't Bother Watching This........ Cant Believe That Anybody Rates This Movie Trust Me Its Rubbish..


A boy with telekinetic powers, and perhaps other psychic abilities as well as bowl-cut hair lives with his divorced father, a psychic researcher or something. The boy plays in his closet with a He-Man-like action figure, and a odd statuette he calls "Deceptor." His father hears a strange moan, makes an odd phone call to his research partner, and goes upstairs to the boy's room with a machete. He goes into the closet, vandalizes some things, and is in search of something. The machete moves by itself, and the father falls on it, decapitating himself.

The boy goes to live with his mother and her boyfriend. Meanwhile, a police detective who has sleeping problems has a reoccurring nightmare that is bothering him on the job, and is forced to see a shrink. More closet-related bizarre deaths occur. The detective befriends the boy, and the shrink helps him on the case.

The special effects are pretty uneven. The death scenes are fairly good. A pale grinning figure in the closet is pretty spooky. Dead people who reappear as zombies or as a demon appearing like them are pretty well done. The demon exerts its power by psychically dragging someone up a wall, and across a ceiling towards an out-of-control ceiling fan. The demon itself is pretty darn lame, however.


I enjoyed the plot of this movie. Certainly, monster in the closet is not an original idea, but they put their own spin on it. Sometimes, old plots are the best plots. I don't want this to be a spoiler, so I won't reveal too much.

This movie is about a boy with telekinetic powers. From early in the movie, we know there is something evil in his closet. The plot builds up throughout the movie and comes together nice and tight at the end. This is not some movie with a bunch of weird supernatural stuff that have nothing to do with each other, like Friday 13th part 7. This one all comes together.

My favourite scene is the one with the ceiling fan. Very exciting, though I don't see how a mere ceiling fan is cause for that much alarm. Well, thats what I love about B-movies. Some people just don't get it. I gave this 7 out of 10. It is a good horror B-movie. Not a movie for harsh critics though. Its good fun, very imaginative, but some would think its pretty stupid. If you're one of those people who hate everything, don't watch this. If you like B-movies and have a good imagination, than this, like so many films I recommend, is for you.


Here, all I saw was a morphed array of self-indulgent derivation from past movies involving kids and telekinetic subject matter. This is basically "Scanners", "Firestarter", and "Poltergeist" all ripped off for one overly long "Tales From the Darkside" episode... A kid with psychic powers is hording some kind of demonic beast in his closet which ends up killing people. The plot is confusing and poorly constructed in it's detail of exactly HOW this creature was conjured and why it's living in a ten year-old's closet. It's really just another snore-fest about kids with mind-control abilities that tried to build an "edge" by adding a monster... The effects are terrible, the acting is worse, and the story is so terribly written that I was almost compelled to turn it off during several occasions... "Cameron's Closet" is a very weak and boringly familiar thriller.


If the name Armand Mastroianni rings a bell, it's because he directed "He Knows You're Alone", most famous as Tom Hanks's movie debut. This is the only other movie of his with which I'm familiar. If this is any indication, he went downhill after giving Hanks a start. A number of the horror flicks that I've seen on FearNet - even if they lack a masterful plot - have some great music ("Down", "Blood Diner" and "Waxwork" are the prime examples). "Cameron's Closet" doesn't even have that. It's another "Exorcist" rip-off. How ironic that the man who directs these sorts of movies gave a debut to a back-to-back Oscar-winning actor. Life really is a box of chocolates after all...but don't bite this one.


Hmm... so Cameron is a psychic kid who accidentally brings a ferocious demon up from hell into his closet... Sounds like it might have potential. It did, but did it utilize that potential? No. Though this movie is tad creepy, it had some real major lows to it. Examples: the stomach growling noises coming from the closet, the almost 80's music video special effects (no wonder the thing died at the end, I think I would too if someone shot bad special effects at me through their finger tips). So, you should only preview this movie to see if you really like it first, but I don't recommend buying right away, especially without a preview.


No, it's not a gay coming of age film! Just a bog-standard horror B-movie that would have worked quite well as a 30 minute episode of a series like "Tales of the Darkside," or a similar type programme. But as a full length film, it soon outstays it's welcome.

The child actor is quite reasonable and not as 'cute' as they tend to be in these roles. It's the adults who are poor, their acting never rises above adequate. Not helped by the dialogue or the clichéd plot of 'the monster that lurks in the cupboard.'

All eminently predictable and forgettable, better to go watch numerous old episodes of 'Tales from the Crypt,' to get exactly the same plot done a bit better.


No, it's not a shocking expose on the deviancy of the "Growing Pains" star, that might have been watchable. No this movie is just a sorry excuse for a 80's horror film. Camoron Lansing is a introverted little tyke who has telekinetic powers. People always seem to die around him. Can the dashing police detective save the day? Will Dr. Nora Haley (Mel Harris of "K-9" 'fame') admit his secret desires? and most importantly, with all the atrocious acting, crap special effects, and groan inducing plot, will anyone give a damn?? I'll give you a hint the answer to one of those questions is a resoundingly overwhelming NO. Directed by Armand Mastroianni, who after "The Supernaturals" and "He knows you're alone" obviously just doesn't know any better.

My Grade: D-


If ever there was a movie that needed MST3K to cover, this was it. This is not a movie to see alone, as you may suffer brain hemorrhages. If you want to practice picking out continuity errors and shouting out comments, this the movie to do it with. There is so much footage taken from other movies, I'm pretty sure that the only original shots are those with the actors in the movie-and even that is doubtful. This movie is so horrible that it makes you seriously wonder how it could have been made. On average, you'll cringe about once every three minutes. There are so many holes in the plot and script, that it's full...of...well, really big holes. If you enjoy fine cinema, you'll never even be in the same section as this video. Still, Ultra Warrior has found a place near and dear to my heart. Just about everyone I know has seen it at least once at my urging. There's just something about the way that the cast and crew knew that they were making a movie that would possibly never see the light of day. No effort is made to hide the impossible jumps in the plot, the disturbingly poor special effects, the incredibly cheesy delivery of lines, or the smashingly choppy scene cuts. In fact, they revel in it. This is a movie that the people making it had fun doing. Or they were all completely insane. Completely.

But it's fun. I recommend it. A little.


Definitely in contention for first place for "Most Unashamed Use of Stock Footage in a Motion Picture", along with Jackie Chan's "Master of Cracked Fingers". We see unconnected scenes from a dozen Roger Corman epics thrown together willy-nilly - including shots of George Peppard from "Battle Beyond the Stars" and even a repeat of what must be the most re-used scene in stock footage history: David Carradine's "Fight with Mutants at the Well" from "Warrior and the Sorceress", "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom 2", et. al. Maybe five minutes worth of original footage in the whole movie.


The "stolen" material is pretty entertaining in how it is reused, and re framed by goofy narratives ("... anyway ...") - especially if you are familiar with - and a fan of - the source materials they are sampling. (Battletruck!!) And the President is none other than Godfather Roger Corman.

Maybe a spoof, or maybe a tribute. Perhaps just a comedy. Whatever it was, it was SUPPOSED to be "bad!"

Hmmm. It might be exactly made for the demographic that likes to do the Mystery Science Theater thing DIY, and sit around with friends and 'OMFG!' at how bad a movie can be. Hey wait, that's been me, too .... oh well. I reckon I'm OK with being a sucker for stuff like this. You could do a lot worse - and not much better. Even when it's not that funny, it's sure to be awesome.

"F*** their classics, these are MY classics!" - Max Wasteland


And yet, with "Ultra Warrior" and a couple dozen other movies, Roger Corman has done just that. Ever since he invested a couple million dollars in "Battle Beyond the Stars" he's been making zero budget sci-fi and action movies re-using the same footage. "Ultra Warrior" is particularly bad, though, because the plot and all the exposition exists simply to hold together bits of other movies.

It is amusing, though. The plot involves this dude working for some big brother corporation in the future investigating mining a miracle mineral in an area controlled by mutants (and of course, evil mutant hunters) who eventually becomes "the chosen one". Every time two characters talk the film cuts away to "Lords of the Deep" or "Battle Beyond the Stars" to show us this giant fantastical plot that's supposedly going on at the same time. It's ridiculous, but that's why it's entertaining.

There are also two pretty good action sequences that were actually originally filmed for this movie, so it's worth watching even if you have seen all the source material.

*quote from Welles's "The Other Side of the Wind"


I saw this movie for the first time when I was eight years old, and loved it from the start. Even though at the time I wasn't old enough to get all the jokes, It still had a magic around it that was clearly evident.

Tim Conway and Don Knotts provide the comic base, and are excellent comic partners. They are backed up with great performances by the crazy and somewhat odd "staff" of the couple who's murder they are investigating. This one will have you laughing from start to finish. The comedy is also good, clean humor that the entire family can laugh at.

Another great thing is that the movie also is very suspenseful, as you the viewer don't know everything until the private eyes find it out.


From all the Don Knotts and Tim Conway films I've seen, this is by far my favorite. The brilliant chemistry between the actors is enough to keep the movie going, but it doesn't stop there. The plot itself, while admittedly spoofed, is intriguing, and I didn't expect the ending at all the first time I saw it. The fouled-up poems are always good for a laugh, not to mention the exceptionally well played "stoff," (not staff). The time-gun gag is priceless, and was undoubtedly an idea of Conway himself. From what I recall from an interview I saw with Don Knotts, he said this, and all others with Conway are personal favorites, because they were so "hard to produce." As he put it, it took probably three or four times as long to film as it should have because he and Conway couldn't stop improvising the script, and laughing, and so on. This is one film that I would love to see outtakes from. In all, a very good film with loads of laughs...some subtle, some in your face, but all-around a really good film.


This one is a long time favorite of mine. Don Knotts and Tim Conway are utterly hilarious in this comedy whodunit. Knotts and Conway are two investigators called in from Scotland Yard to investigate the death of Lord and Lady Morely, two wealthy British aristocrats. The supporting cast (who one by one mysteriously get knocked off and disappear from the house) which consists of the hired help at the Morely's home are equally hysterical and formidable catalysts to Knotts and Conway's humor. The next time you're at the video store looking for some light, funny fare, check this one out. It's well worth the rental.


Tim Conway & Don Knots are the definitive pair of fools. Here they are called upon to solve a double-murder. They receive their instructions from one of the victims, the "Lord" of a mysterious castle. The staff consists of various "freaks", all looking as though they are characters from a "fun house".

The slap stick (which is happening every minute throughout the film) is often so silly that belly-laughs are assured. Although predictable (we know that nothing serious could happen to our stupid heroes), the entire show is rather amusing and keeps the viewer's interest.

Tim Conway is credited as one of the writers. The DVD version includes many added features. Especially noteworthy is a full length commentary track running alongside the faded out action. Much interesting trivia is revealed about the entire production. Fans of the star comedians will enjoy this film, and the added attractions on the DVD will be a welcome bonus.


I was just watching a bunch of people talking about the Andy Griffith Show ans the Don Knotts Barney Fife character and immediately, I thought about this film and one scene that still makes me laugh out loud when I think of it. I was never a big fan of the gang from Mayberry (especially Goober who makes my skin crawl, but I digress) but the Don Knotts character I will always fondly remember is the nervous guy on the man in the street interviews with Steve Allen and the one that was such a great match for the hysterically funny Tim Conway.

I also love Sherlock Holmes so this made this movie a must see for me. Don Knotts as a "brilliant detective with COnway as his befuddled partner makes it all the more "I have to see this one" kind of movie. I caught it originally on HBO in the days BEFORE cable TV and that one scene where the two send off a carrier pigeon but forget to open the glass door before throwing it in the air makes me laugh even as I'm typing this. And when that unfortunate bird walks in loopy circles, if you don't laugh until your sides hurt or tears run down your face when you see it, you must have no soul so i don't want to know you.

I love this movie and have to have that DVD now that I know it's available.


Don Knotts and Tim Conway are my favorite comedians. I liked this movie a great deal, mostly because they were in it together. They play off each other very well. The messed up poems (and Tim's apparent confusion) had me laughing so hard I was snorting. Tim's constant pigeon problems were quite funny as well. And no one can do 'scared' or 'cocky' funnier than Don. A true estimation of their talents was quoted early on in the movie when the gas station owner said, "Those are two 'idiots' what'll make their mark where ever they go.", just before the station blew up because of Don's cigar. I like the mark they've made with this movie and their other works as well.


Any movie that features Don Knotts as a brilliant detective and Tim Conway as his faithful assistant certainly has courage going for it.

But "Private Eyes" is better than you might expect; the setting (Biltmore Castle) is beautiful, the supporting cast (Fox in particular) is hilarious and a lot, if not all, of the gags are priceless.

Then again, what would you expect from Knotts' above-it-all air of pseudo-intelligence and Conway's endless pratfalls and an overcoat full of pigeons (don't ask)? They're two of the old-school comedians who know what's funny and never try to go further than the jokes will go.

"Private Eyes" works because Knotts and Conway are, more or less, just being themselves. Definitely a film worth seeking out.

You'll laugh. Trust me.

Seven stars. And don't drink the ink.


I saw this as a kid and loved it. I watch it again and again with my kids now. No bad words (one is implied, but not spoken) totally clean for the whole family. One scary part for kids younger than 6 or so, if you want to censor it, have your kids leave the room when they go outside to dig up the body. You have plenty of warning, they are in the crypt for a while before the open the coffin.

It is written by Tim Conway, and stars Tim Conway and Don Knotts. The plot isn't deep, but very light and funny. My favorite line is "for a short person, you have long sentences" so funny.

They say I have to write 10 lines of text and I have nothing else to say, so now I am just filling space. Sorry, but all I really wanted to say was that it was a good movie. I don't really know how else to say that.


In the same era of true family entertainment movies like The Apple Dumpling Gang and Cloak and Dagger, I grew up watching this movie over and over again. Since Don Knott's recent death and subsequent attention, it seemed this movie was never mentioned. For whatever reason, I think it's terrific. Classic slap-stick for those of us who miss the days of real comedic screenplay, and also zero special affects on a mediocre budget makes it all the more real. The music is perfect and the Biltmore grounds even more so. If watching Threes Company reruns aren't enough to get your Don Knotts dose, then this movie is for you. We miss you Don!


Let me set the record straight right off the top. "The Private Eyes" is no comedy classic. But it is a fun film that will amuse adults and make kids laugh and shriek with delight.

Tim Conway and Don Knotts play a couple of bumbling (what else?) Scotland Yard detectives assigned to investigate a murder at a castle in England (actually North Carolina). While in the castle they stumble across loads of creepy characters and situations.

For anyone who has enjoyed this type of film ("Hold That Ghost" with Abbott and Costello, and "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" come to mind), "The Private Eyes" delivers the goods. Of course if you sit there and try to analyze it too deeply you are apt to dislike it. Just sit back with the family and have a good laugh.


This movie was a favorite of mine as a kid as it had me laughing the entire time. It also was actually a good whodunit movie even though that was exactly what this movie was trying to spoof to a certain degree. The story has to private eyes played by Knots and Conway investigating what appears to be a murder. As they go through the case more people are murdered with a very badly done poem with each death. The house they are in is neat to as it has many secret doors and passage ways in it. Though through it all Knots and Conway shine the brightest as they try to make heads or tails of the investigation interrogating everyone in the house at the time of the death and so on. Yes, interrogating deaf people, people with no tongues and a whole lot of others that are a bit off and such. All the while Conway's character talking about the sinister wookilar monster, a creature with a pig head. There are also multiple attempts to use pigeons to send word back to the yard. Yes, this movie was funny and the best movie Conway and Knots were in together.


i really liked this spoof of Sherlock Holmes,starring Don Knotts and Tim Conway.Knotts is Inpector Winship and Conway is Dr.Tart.Winship is a variation of the Holmes character,but dumber.tart is a variation of Watson,but also dumber.the story is that Winship and Tart are dispatched by Scotland yard to investigate the death of a British aristocrat and his wife.the kicker is,both are American.it's funny seeing two Americans detectives working for Scotland Yard.Winship dresses just like Holmes and Tart dresses just like Watson.both are inept and clueless,and have caused no shortage of chaos and trouble in the states.apparently they are put on the case as punishment or to keep them from trouble,as they are an embarrassment to their superiors.as part of their investigation,they end up at the huge mansion of the aristocrat,questioning the large staff contingent (who are also very quirky),and bumbling from one false clue to the next.from the opening scene slapstick is the order of the day,and there is a lot of it.the characters are so dimwitted and the situations so absurd,it's hard not to laugh out loud frequently.i really had a blast.it's not high art,but it is entertaining. 8/10


If you haven't seen this flick, it is right up there with Young Frankenstein as the funniest of all time. Written by Tim Conway.

Please note that the DVD is indeed edited. Some of the best gags with the pigeons were cut altogether in addition to some other dialouge scenes. These scenes are still available on the old Video Treasures VHS release that is available used.

For those curious, the gag with the pigeon painted black/wings is cut, the pigeon catching fire is cut and the "Don't tell her they're canned peas!" scene was also cut. Unbelievable that Conway would let this happen to his only masterpiece....

Perhaps maybe we'll get an uncut DVD someday - yeah right - it's amazing this is out on DVD now.

Saw this in the theater when I was young and went back the very next day to see it again. After that I waited for 10 years before it came on TV and it still holds up today. RIP Don Knotts, thanks for all of the laughter...


This movie is great. Nice humor and Tim Conway and Don Knotts is always great together. The kids love this movie. We watch it daily. Even our 2 year old watches it. Our five year old laughs so much. Highly recommended. If you like violence, sex then you won't like this. But for good clean humor and entertainment this is it. The little innuendos is cute and so you laugh over and over at them. The facial expressions also keep you laughing and laughing. Our kids even got the poetry in this movie. I appreciate that they did not have to use fowl language and even though Hilda shows "some" bosom, It is not overly used. I had wondered if she would be in it a lot. I was pleased to see she wasn't therefore our whole family could enjoy the clean fun.


This is a typical Don Knotts comedy in the same caliber as "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken". I actually went to the theater to see this when it first came out and was surprised to see that it was filmed in a very familiar location, The Biltmore House in Asheville, N.C. Don Knotts is the overbearing lead detective as Tim Conway is the clumsy assistant trying to solve a homicide at the huge mansion. Don Knotts is more cast as the character of Mr.Furley in "Three's Company" than he is Barney Fife. Tim Conway is typical Tim from the Carol Burnette Show but it really is both of them together that makes this movie so funny. The movie is clean and would be very enjoyable by the whole family as these two goof-balls are hilarious.


This movie is very lighthearted and funny. It is one of, if not the best, of Don's films. If only it were available to buy. Until then, my taped TV version will have to do. Don Knotts is my favorite actor of all time. Keep them coming Don!


I gave this film a 2 only because it did have potential with Tim Conway and Don Knotts in it. The effort shown by these two was admirable, considering the lousy script(written partly by Mr. Conway) and pacing of scenes. It just doesn't move as a movie like this should. While I consider Conway a good tv comedian, only Knotts ever showed potential for the big screen after leaving the Andy Griffith show. It is sad that this film didn't work out better. Oh well, both performers have earned a place in entertainment history-let them not be judged by this turkey.

MM


This movie is rated PG which probably warranted. Today's PG films are usually pretty tame but they definitely put the "P" in this rating for a reason. Though they thoroughly enjoyed the "dumb detectives", my 2 young boys, ages 7 and 9, found many of the other characters to be scary and disturbing. Specifically, they found the Lord Morley character to be the most frightening.

My 9 year old hasn't been able to go to sleep in his own bedroom for the 2 nights in a row since seeing this movie. He says the images are stuck in his head. My 7 yr old had some issues" with it as well the first night but has since resolved them after considering the whole of the film.

Parents might want to preview this film before showing it to their younger children or at the very least watch it with them. This is rather surprising and disappointing for a PG rated film that was written by Tim Conway who was always so very funny on the Carol Burnett show.


This is a great light hearted comedy done by one of the greatest comedy teams in America, although this film was shot in England. This is a great family or saturday morning film, and an even better DVD with a full length commentary done by Tim Conway himself. Truly a comedy classic.


Compared to all street-gang movies dating back from old to new, boulevard nights is by far the only one that portrays what Hispanic gang-members were really like. So much in fact that Hispanic street gangs of today became that way by imitating the lifestyle in the movie. I am not going to compare this to prison flicks but when it comes to gang flicks it rates way higher than "Colors" or others that I cant think of by name.

A must see. As for the actor "Danny Delapaz", he was perfect playing the part of "Chuco" because he wasn't acting, he really is one.

I have seen him in person at Low Rider events and He really dresses and talks just like he did in the movie.


One of the most underrated movies of all-time. The granddaddy of all "street-gang" movies. If your a fan of Colors, Boyz in the Hood, etc. you will see that this film trumps them all. This movie is under-appreciated because of the seclusive nature of the genre it explores. But if you have ever lived, experienced or known someone who was ever lost in the world of street life then you have to see this movie. Many can't relate to the emptiness of Chuco or the inner struggle of his older brother but these stories are ones that have played out for years and are still relevant today. Don't listen to any biased review of this movie, it is a jewel.


this is the greatest movie ever made. i have seen other movies but none are as authentic to the times as boulevard nights. no stereotypes or exaggerated characters. no movie ever made on any budget with any great actors pulled off such a believable urban setting. no m-16 toting ninjas, no nortenos and surenos kicking it together. a common mistake, back in the day, vatos didn'thave gang signs it must take a low budget chicano movie made in the time to be more authentic then hollywood can buy


Sadboyone2002 get the facts straight. Oh Danny was really acting. He grew up in the whites part of Whittier California. He was a geeky looking kid with bushy curly hair. He even admitted in a Low rider Magazine interview that he had never seen the boulevard at night and knew about the low rider scene/culture. He has been type cast for so many years that of course he became that persona portrayed on film. Thought you should know. VmexUnoSadboyone2002 get the facts straight. Oh Danny was really acting. He grew up in the whites part of Whittier California. He was a geekylooking kid with bushy curly hair. He even admitted in a Low rider Magazine interview that he had never seen the boulevard at night and knew about the low rider scene/culture. He has been type cast for so many years that of course he became that persona portrayed on film. Thought you should know. VmexUno


Searching for an invaluable microfilm, SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON encounters as much danger as ever he did in old London.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved characters Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this unpretentious but enjoyable film. Although not based on any particular tale from the Canon, there is still enough mystery and intrigue to keep detective fans well satisfied. Of course, with Rathbone all cerebral intellect and Bruce ever the good-natured bumbler, the viewer knows that God's in His Heaven and all's right with the world.

Henry Daniell & George Zucco, two of the series' finest villains, appear in this entry. They both specialized in making menace delightfully subtle and sophisticated. This time they portray German agents intent on retrieving an enormously important British document.

Others in the cast include the lovely Marjorie Lord (who's quite grotesque with a cigarette dangling from her lips) as a young socialite pulled into the nefarious scheme; Holmes Herbert as a senior civil servant in London; and Thurston Hall as a blustery United Stated senator.

Movie mavens will spot several fine actors in uncredited roles: Gerald Hamer as a hapless British agent; elderly Margaret Seddon as a train traveler with mice; dear Mary Gordon as Holmes' landlady, Mrs. Hudson; Mary Forbes as a spy's loving mother; and Ian Wolfe as a slightly sinister antiques store clerk. Especially notable is the always entertaining Clarence Muse, appearing as a club car porter, who does the almost impossible by stealing a scene from Rathbone.

This film followed SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON (1942) and preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH (1943).


I can only rouse myself to comment on films I like: this is another old favourite. "Washington" is one of weaker entries in the series, but still enjoyable on its own merits as a B picture. The DVD I've just watched is of pristine quality - it really helps to see these potboilers as clean as they were meant to be seen, even if they can't be seen at cinema screen size.

Rathbone and Bruce are in Washington searching for a McGuffin - an American match folder with a chunk of important Allied microfilm wedged inside. It luckily slips by both Nazi villains, Daniell and Zucco, and eventually alls well that ends well. On the way there's some ace detecting - the wood splinter in the blanket (mentioned in a previous post) not only instantly ID'ed by Holmes but the shop and even the chair it came from instantly ID'ed too! For some reason Watson was portrayed as even more bumbling than usual, so it's much better to forget about the original in Conan Doyle while the film's on!

All these years and I'd not spotted Rathbone saying something to the American detective about "his blodgings" back at Baker Street!

It is a bit of a flag waver, but not so fervent as Voice or Weapon, and a worthwhile oldie to watch as a non-purist.


An entertaining film about Holmes going to the USA, to recover an important diplomatic document. Reflects the wartime need to stress the democratic desires that were shared by the UK and the USA. Also needed by the increasing US involvement in the war against Germany. Serves as a good example of the attitudes of the day, together with an interesting plot.


I'm a big fan of Universal's Sherlock Holmes series, and Sherlock Holmes in Washington is definitely one of the better entries. The best Sherlock Holmes films tend to be the ones with a horror element (such as The Hound of the Baskervilles and The Scarlet Claw), but even though this one offers nothing in the way of horror; it still manages to present an excellent mystery for Holmes to unravel. He has been sent to Washington on the trail of some stolen microfilm containing important government information. This mystery is set apart from the rest of the series because of the fact that it is set in Washington DC, as opposed to Holmes' native London. The film is conscious of it's surroundings as it spends a lot of time talking about the difference in convention between Britain and America, which is shown best in a sequence involving the hilarious Doctor Watson. As usual with Holmes films, this one features two great performances from the leads; Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, and it's obvious that these two have worked together on many occasions, as their chemistry is flawless. The mystery itself is well plotted and plays out in a way that is both exciting and full of tension. The film's standout moment is draped in irony, and takes place during a dinner party in which the guests take it in turns to handle the microfilm. On the whole, if you like Holmes films; you'll like this one!


I've seen Sherlock Holmes In Washington a couple of times and although not the best of the series, I found it enjoyable.

During the Second World War, Holmes and Dr Watson head to Washington to investigate a missing document on a microfilm which is hidden in a matchbox. After getting the clues, they retrieve it at the end and head back to London.

As always, Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce play Holmes and Watson brilliantly and are joined in this one by George Zucco (The Flying Serpent, House of Frankenstein), Marjorie Lord, Holmes Herbert (The Pearl of Death, Ghost of Frankenstein) and Henry Daniell.

Though not the best of the Rathbone/Bruce movies, Sherlock Holmes in Washington is certainly worth a look. Enjoyable.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.


SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON is one of the better Holmes and Watson capers. Directed by Roy William Neil, the master of deductive reasoning Sherlock Holmes(Basil Rathbone)and his often bumbling parter Dr. Watson(Nigel Bruce)make a trip to Washington, D.C. after a top-secret agent is kidnapped and murdered after passing off hidden valuable microfilm inside the cover of a matchbook. WWII Nazi spies use an antique furniture shop as a front for their misdeeds and acts of treason. Holmes is pretty hard to get the best of even on this side of the Atlantic. It is humorous that Watson is baffled by bubble gum. A young Marjorie Lord is very impressive. Also in the cast: Henry Daniell, George Zucco, John Archer and Thurston Hall.


When I was a wee lad steeped in Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories, this movie struck me as plain awful. It was painful to see Sherlock as a tourist in a wildly inappropriate DC milieu (the back-projected crazy quilt of Washington monuments on his drive around town makes it seem the chauffeur is on crack), spouting pax Americana patriotism and even paying tribute to the crime-fighting superiority of the FBI (??!!). Nigel Bruce was a particular affront as a doddering Dr. Watson, noisily sucking down ice cream sodas and struggling to read 30 pages on a 10-hour transatlantic flight.

But time has been kind to "SH in Washington." This was the first of these movies written by Bertram Millhauser, who always came up with witty dialogue for Rathbone and Bruce and snarky bits of malice for the supporting cast. Basil Rathbone gives a hopped-up performance as Holmes, barking out ludicrously improbable deductions and even reprising his Louis XI imitation as a limp-wristed "eccentric" collector. There is a small gem of a performance from Gerald Hamer (unbilled, sadly) as the master spy who sets the plot in motion -- he gives the movie a few whiffs of danger, intrigue and poignance. And it's hard to dislike a movie with two Moriartys: silky sadist Henry Daniell and glittery-eyed psycho George Zucco. By the way, the suspense hinges on the fate of a fast-dwindling book of matches, so if you're trying to quit smoking, this is not the movie for you.


First, I want to point out that the copy of this film (DVD) that you want is the re-worked UCLA film lab version that was digitized from a very pristine black-and-white 35 mm print. All other copies are inferior to this one. The aspect is full-screen.

In the story, A British courier is dispatched to Washington as a decoy for the real carrier of a secret WW II document which is imperative to the Allied offensive. The real courier is one Alfred Pettibone, traveling under the alias of John Gregson (played by Gerald Hamer, astonishingly, uncredited in this film! We also saw Hamer play the postman in "Sherlock Holmes and The Scarlet Claw"; and other characters in "Sherlock Holmes Faces Death" ; in "Pursuit to Algiers," and in; "Terror by Night").

Pettibone/Gregson manages to surreptitiously hand off the document, which he had reduced to microfilm and embedded in a matchbook, to the fiancé of an American Navy Lieutenant -- she doesn't know that she has it until she suddenly recalls that Pettibone/Gregson dropped the matchbook into her purse just after he lit her cigarette. Still, she plays dumb to Zucco's threatened tortures. Before the girl's actual abduction, Pettibone/Gregson is kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by these same Nazi agents, (one of whom is played by Daniell).

Holmes and Pettibone had worked together before on important cases so Holmes is ready to take on the task and travel with Watson to Washington when the British authorities tell him that his associate has disappeared, along with the document. Subsequent to attempts on his own life and that of Watson's, the pair travel to America where the Washington D.C. police are at their beck and call.

It's soon discovered by both Holmes and the Nazis that the young fiancé has the document, or at least a knowledge of its whereabouts, so the bad guys kidnap her just before Holmes can get to her. Then, Holmes has to dredge up some quick clues to locate the Nazi agents' (the boss of whom is played by the great and sinister George Zucco!) base of operations.

Will Holmes be in time to save the girl and recover the document?!? What do YOU think *.* Still, it's a good suspenseful film with plenty of action. Definitely worth watching.


A British secret agent is assigned the task of taking some secret documents to Washington, D.C. It's wartime in Europe and enemy agents would be only too happy to get their hands on these papers. When the British agent does make it off the train from New York, things look bleak. Enter Sherlock Holmes and his trusty, ever faithful sidekick, Dr. Watson. The British government entrusts locating the missing agent, the secret papers he carried, and, ultimately, the success of the Allied war effort to Holmes.

I've never been much of a fan of the modern day, WWII set Sherlock Holmes films. I wholeheartedly prefer the Victorian Holmes thrillers like The Scarlet Claw and The Hound of the Baskervilles to something like The Voice of Terror. Too much flag waving, blindly chasing Nazis, and gun-play for my liking. I prefer the more sedate, cerebral Holmes who analyzes clues and outsmarts the baddies. And that's probably why I found Sherlock Holmes in Washington so appealing. The movie allows Holmes to use his intellect to solve the case. Holmes analyzes a sliver of wood having to do with the case and quickly comes up with the most amazing pronouncement regarding its origin. Pure Holmes! In addition, Sherlock Holmes in Washington benefits from having some above average supporting players (George Zucco and Henry Daniell) and from having Roy William Neill in the director's chair. Altogether, it's a good show and a nice installment in the series.


This was a great Sherlock Holmes movie, which will rank as one of the best in the Basil Rathbone series.

A man using the name John Grayson is travelling to America with some secret papers which he carries in a match box. On a train, a woman takes the matchbox to light a cigarette and never gives it her back. A criminal group is on the train, who want the information to sell to the Nazi's. So Grayson is kidnapped. Holmes and Watson travel to America to try and solve the kidnapping. An attempt was made on there lives before they even entered America. Then the corpse of Grayson is sent to Holmes. Then the gang find the woman who has the matchbox. Holmes comes to her rescue and has to face the gang himself. The gang leader actually had the matchbox, but he didn't know the info was hidden in it. Holmes gets the better of him triumphantly.

It was very amusing stuff when Holmes smashed the vase and he tries to convince that it is worth nothing and he says "Now now my good man" in a really funny high pitched voice. There was a good bit of propaganda in this film, but unlike The Voice of Terror, the Propaganda isn't aimed at Nazi's, but the Propaganda is saying how great Americans are. Holmes keeps saying what great people they are. All the Basil Rathbone films were made in America, but after this movie there was talk of moving the character to America permanently. We couldn't have that, England needs you Holmes, not America.