Before this movie I didn't know anything about Preston Tucker or his car. Therefor I can judge this movie only by its entertainment value and not by its historical accuracy.

Ever since The Godfather and Apocalypse Now I've been a big Coppola fan. I like the fact that - like Martin Scorcese - he keeps looking for visual experiments. Remember the mirror scene in Peggy Sue Got Married? That was never done before. Or the way time was used in Rumble Fish. The staging of One from the heart. Original and daring.

In Tucker Coppola goes to visual extremes. The whole movie looks like a big commercial for Tucker himself - and it all works great. The story - an honest underdog must fight against the system - reminds us of the works of Frank Capra. The always brilliant Jeff Bridges is a very (or maybe too) likable hero. In the beginning he's maybe a little bit too unreal until you see how he reacts when he finds real trouble on his way. Then he becomes more human.

But the real drama in this movie comes from Martin Landau. His scene in which he confesses that he "caught Tucker's dreams" is a moving one. The way he gets accepted into Tucker's family is so natural. Besides Landau I liked almost all the cast. Frederic Forrest, Mako, Joan Allen, Christian Slater, Lloyd Bridges their roles aren't earthmoving, but work very well in the whole picture. Tucker's meeting with Howard Hughes (Dean Stockwell) is pure magic.

Together with The Godfather part I and II, Rumble Fish and Apocalypse Now I consider Tucker: A man and his dream to be Coppola's best work. Too bad it's not available on DVD anywhere in Europe.

9/10


On the DVD of Tucker: The Man and His Dream, George Lucas comments that Francis Ford Coppola, the director of the film, shares qualities with Preston Tucker - both men have big dreams and always admire and gravitate towards innovation, and their ideas are always springing out in some eccentric but exciting ways. This is true, more or less, depending on when looking at either man's life (right now, for example, Coppola is fine just making wine with the occasional 'student' film like Tetro). But I would like to take the comparison a step further in the Tucker company and Coppola's film company, American Zoetrope.

Looking at what happened to the two companies, at least in the scope of the story told in the movie (I can't say how true it is to real events, just how it's depicted here), there's glaring similarities, and things I am sure Coppola connected with. Both men had passion to take a dream of something- for Tucker it was a car line, for Coppola it was independent cinema and a means to break out of studio controls- and they went forward to achieve it, like outsiders but with skills and a drive to succeed. And, ultimately, both men didn't quite live up to the dream. It's somewhat ironic then that the only other guy to really get something out of American Zoetrope in its early years (not counting its peaks and valleys in the 80s), was George Lucas, who turns the tables on the usual dynamic of Coppola producing Lucas' early films to producing Coppola's own film this time around. It's a glossy and nostalgic look at dreams how they can go. At the least, Tucker and Coppola tried.

And in the film on Tucker, Coppola and his crew, primarily in credit due to DP Vittorio Storaro, make what could be said like a filmic version of a "Tucker" Car. It's bright and fast and a little off-kilter and unusual. But we like riding in it, and it has an appeal that gives something just a little different, and it's also pretty to look at, too. This may be outside of Dick Tracy Storaro's most "colorful" color film, so to speak, with the bright primary colors and advertisement of 1940's Americana springing out in the screen. Now, this said, this is not exactly a 'rebel' picture like Coppola's early work. Instead it's in debt to the period in film as well, and the primary influence would probably be Capra. This I mean as a compliment - Tucker as a film is entertaining because of how endearing Tucker is, how Jeff Bridges plays him in this context (a guy with a pioneer-spirit, with a smile even when things look bleakest), and how the villains, corporate board members, a Senator, the "Big Three" come off.

Coppola even has time to give us two really great scenes. Like they're so good that they could be put right up against some of the essential scenes in the director's films (almost up there, though not quite, with the Wagner bombing in Apocalypse Now and Vito Corleone's death scene). One is the unveiling of the prototype of the Tucker car. It's an intense scene, one that is full of a "oh no!" factor, even as in the back of our minds we know things will be alright. Mishaps keep happening as a crowd of hundreds waits impatiently for the car to come out, as the crew keeps retooling it so it can actually move (with a spy in the midst snapping embarrassing photos) and not totally break down or go up in flames. It's an amazing, uplifting scene. The other great one, not quite in tone like any other scene in the film is when Tucker meets Howard Hughes. It's a strange scene, as Hughes is in the dark aircraft carrier at night with his "Spruce Goose" and, as played by a withdrawn Dean Stockwell, is a bit frightening as an innovator who, perhaps, got too much of what he wanted. It's a brief scene, but an important one, to showcase the variance of the two men, Tucker and Hughes.


This is one of the best films that take place during that key period just after the conclusion of World War 2. It was a period of unbridled optimism about the future of the United States and a time where almost anything seemed possible.

The film tells the true story about Preston Tucker(played by Jeff Bridges) and his attempt to create the perfect car for the future, the "Tucker". This car would have everything in it from a rear engine to fuel injection. However, as he gets started building the cars, he realizes that his goal may have been an unrealistic dream as the big three automakers use their power and political influence to try and block him from creating something that would compete with them. The Tucker character is one you cant help but cheer for as he never gives up on his dream.

The 1940's feeling of the film is perfectly captured by a zippy score by Joe Jackson and Joan Allen perfectly plays Tucker's supportive wife who stands by him every step of the way.

This is a terrific film about a man who never gives up.


This movie I kick myself for having missed when it came out 20 years ago, and it was only last week on HBO that I actually got the Tucker experience with both barrels. The two main ideas for me of this all-American Horatio Alger "rags-to-riches" story are:

1) Innovation in conflict with the stale old dead way of doing things (out of collective ignorance and blind obedience to authority)call it the Pleasantville barrierand

2) Man against the state, particularly the US state and its insidious methods of coercion working in harmony with cartel business interestscall it the Kleptocon barrier.

Without question, the ebullient, imaginative, brilliant, individualistic, hard working Preston Thomas Tucker is more deserving of the quintessential "American Hero" designation than anyone Ayn Rand ever imaginedfrom the iconoclastic/artistic (humorless) Howard Roark to the ethereal/scientific (humorless) John Galt. Or anyone else ever imagined for that matter. Preston Tucker had it all: a joie de vivre that made everyone around him want to sing for joy, a similarly eccentric loving family with hearts as big as Texas, the imagination of a precocious child, and the hard driving intelligence of a man who wills himself to be the best.

...

For my complete review of this movie and for other movie and book reviews, please visit my site TheCoffeeCoaster.com.

Brian Wright Copyright 2009


More than simply the triumph of human spirit, Francis Ford Coppola's "Tucker: The Man and His Dream" specifically shows how Preston Tucker (Jeff Bridges) sought to challenge the dominance of the big automakers and they set out to destroy him. I had never heard of Preston Tucker before watching this movie, so it was fascinating to learn about his deeds. Bridges is great as the entrepreneur, with Joan Allen as his wife Vera.

I see that Coppola had weighed making this movie right after "The Godfather Part 2". While I do believe that he made the correct choice in making "Apocalypse Now" - which I consider his greatest movie - this certainly would have constituted a fine follow-up to the films about the Corleone family. Definitely worth seeing.

Also starring Martin Landau, Frederic Forrest, Mako, Christian Slater, Jay O. Sanders, Lloyd Bridges and Michael McShane (in his final role).


"Tucker: The Man and His Dream" is a bitter sweet docudrama that makes you appreciate the wonderful look at an enthusiastic and innovative man, his supportive family & friends, and his embodiment of the dream of American free enterprise. Unfortunately the dream is crushed by a huge machine designed to destroy competition. In some ways the story is something like "Rocky I" building up hopes and even demonstrating worthiness & success, but ultimately overcome by the entrenched establishment.

Innovators like the Jeep designers, Tucker, Jim Hall and his Chaparral Racing cars, Carol Shelby and his Shelby & Ford Cobras inspired me toward mechanical engineering and automotive technology. Along the way you find that the path toward true innovation not as encouraged as one would expect, or we would probably be driving cars on some form of extremely plentiful natural gas today.

The hard lesson demonstrated by this movie is that many of the American dreams are "fairy tales", that there is no true free enterprise, or not for long. Tucker tried valiantly to compete with huge companies who hate competition, who spend billions fighting it with legislation, government agencies and the media.

The Jeep designers had to share production of their design with other manufacturers to get the government contract. Fortunately, Jim Hall's innovations were in race cars where innovation was not as restricted, but he did not really reap the financial rewards he deserved for his innovations that were eventually copied. Mr. Shelby redesigned existing cars, but is less well known for his own cars.

It is bitter reality to find that people with great enthusiasm. innovation, and the ability to complete and test their superior designs are often stopped by a multitude of obstacles instead of encouraged. For Tucker to get his fifty cars built is a tremendous accomplishment under the circumstances, but the fight by him and his family was sure leave them discouraged from any similar effort.

I would like to know more about his death six years after the trial. It seems suspicious to me with all the great ideas his sharp mind came up with.


This man and his family endure, endure, endure and support, support, support through some of the most trying times a family could go through. He inspires the same sort of loyalty and hard work in his employees and friends.

It is so refreshing to see a movie about good people not compromising their values under pressure, although it nearly never goes the way they plan.

It's easy to believe that the man who pioneered all these safety features, Preston Tucker, would be a man of heart, and that is how he is portrayed here. In fact that is what this movie is; a film with heart.

Watch this but be careful! If you get too close you may catch his dreams.


Although I love this movie and the way it was filmed and the fact that finally someone told the truth about Tucker, I am still a little saddened. Being a Michigander with a fierce pride in my home state, I find it more than a little disturbing that Mr. Ford-Coppola, a Michigan native himself, would take no opportunity whatsoever to use the beautiful and rustic scenery of Michigan in this film. Almost the entire film takes place in either Michigan or Chicago, and yet it was fully filmed in California. Shame, shame, shame.

I know some would say that it doesn't matter where a film is shot. But think about how you would feel if something important happened in your neck of the woods and filmmakers couldn't even be bothered to get certain details correct. It is frustrating, because I find this happening all the time with respect to Michigan and its cities.


With just enough realism and surrealism, Coppola plays this documentary the way a documentary should be played - an individual with a vision and his attempt to push the limits of the envelope in post-WWII industrial America. The period costumes and music are excellent and accurate, the bittersweet punchline at the end is well done and just understated enough. The camera work is vivid in brilliant Technicolor as opposed to the black and white sometimes reserved for this time period. Frederic Forrest, Christian Slater and Joan Allen are all adequate and the gentle acting of Martin Landau complements Bridges frenzied portrayal. But the focus is always Jeff Bridges who carries Tucker's manic, obsessive, genius with amazing ease. Definitely one of my favorites.


"Tucker, the Man and His Dream" offers the quintessential Jeff Bridges performance. While not as tricky as his skillful turn in "Starman," the role of Preston Tucker provided Bridges with a chance to use his innate optimism and unflagging energy to create an indelible character. Although nominated four times for an Oscar, Bridges was overlooked for this, arguably his finest performance. Perhaps the idealistic upbeat Tucker was too close to the real Bridges, and Academy members failed to notice that he was acting out the role of his career. The real Preston Tucker was a man of ideas that outpaced his time, which was the post-World War II era. Eager to produce a car that would embody all manner of advanced technology and safety measures from a rear engine to seat belts, Tucker's mind and spirit far outpaced the abilities of his engineers and backers to keep up with him. Unfortunately, he fell afoul of Detroit's Big Three automakers. The automotive giants felt threatened by the innovations that Tucker proposed and feared that the increased costs required to implement the new features would cut into profits. Fortunately, 46 of the Tucker automobiles that were produced are still road worthy and highly collectible.

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who is reportedly the owner of a Tucker or two, the film boasts a cast of professionals that appear to revel in their roles. Martin Landau as the financier with a criminal record, Joan Allen as the epitome of a supportive early 1950's wife, Christian Slater as the devoted son, and a crew of mechanics that includes Frederic Forrest, Mako, and Elias Koteas all provide excellent support to Bridges's central starring role. Jeff's father, Lloyd Bridges, shows up in the small, but tasty role of a corrupt senator. The film begins as a glossy promotional documentary for Tucker, a la "Citizen Kane," and the concept recurs throughout. Joe Jackson's music emphasizes the upbeat gung ho proceedings even in the face of adversity and captures the era effectively. Vittorio Storaro's superb cinematography and Dean and Alex Tavoularis's period art direction are as slick and shiny as the Tucker automobiles that come off the assembly line.

While not in the same league as Coppola's "Godfather" films or "Apocalypse Now," the film is an obvious labor of love. Like Scorsese, Hitchcock, and Ford, Coppola's second-tier works are still head and shoulders above the films of less talented directors. Engaging from beginning to end, the story of Preston Tucker could only have taken place in America, where an idealistic man with a dream can come up a winner even when he loses. Jeff Bridges also comes up a winner as Tucker even though he does not have a golden statuette to prove it.


If I were to make a film about the power of dreams, I doubt I would start with a real-life story of a dreamer who ultimately failed because he had nothing BUT dreams. But as a film, Tucker: The Man and His Dream works very well. It works neither because of nor in spite of whom Preston Tucker really was, but because he has been remade in the film to represent something larger--the postwar optimism that buoyed the nation for nearly two decades after the end of WWII. Lucas and Coppola were smart enough to realize that the factual story would resonate poorly with a late-20th-century audience if presented in a documentary style. So they skillfully crafted a tale that effectively communicates the real story, but does so behind the veil of fable.

How this was done is a triumph of film-making technique. Rather than monkey around too much with the relevant (and ultimately disheartening) facts of the Tucker Motor Company's short existence, Lucas and Coppola took all the incidentals of the filmthe characters, the subplots, the sets, the costumesand skewed, streamlined, generalized and idealized them to the point of subtly but clearly communicating the filmmakers' intent that this be viewed as a morality play, not an historical account.

The resulting film is visually and aurally gorgeous. The lush sets, rich, saturated colors and dramatic cinematography would border on hackneyed and cliché if they depicted any other era, but here they lovingly reinterpret the feel of '40s Hollywood dramas, meshing the film's message perfectly with the historical setting. A fantastic score by former-punk-rocker-turned-orchestral-arranger Joe Jackson artfully gives '40's swing a punchy, forceful modern makeover that helps keep the whole retro package accessible and enjoyable for modern viewers.

Looking back, it may seem odd that unbridled enthusiasm such as Tucker's was so pervasive as the nation reeled from the horrible reality of World War II and came to grips with its cold war legacy. Perhaps America HAD to be optimistic; the fragile ability to hope and dream was indispensable therapy. Like Tucker's, everyone else's dreams of a forever-improving world would crash by the end of the disillusioned, turbulent '60s. Tucker: The Man and His Dream is a very agreeable way to forget the past we KNOW and discover a more visceral history we can FEEL.


Though it bothers some people, I think the best part of this movie is how it occasionally looks like a stage play. Whenever two people are talking on the phone, for example, they are rather obviously standing right next to each other with a wall in between them. Also, the colors have a slightly washed out look that makes the movie look much older than it really is.


I'm not sure this has a true 'spoiler' in it, but I put the check mark in "just in case." I really wanted to like this movie because I love "period" flicks based on fact, I love older cars, and I love Jeff Bridges. Early on I wasn't sure about it, however. Jeff Bridges' eternal smile and optimism was starting to grate on me, but I stuck with it. From what I can tell, the movie was amazingly accurate. This is a film for someone who might be interested not only in old cars with futuristic ideas, but also the inner workings of big business and the government of the 1940's. This is a David vs Goliath film without a true fairy tale ending.


This is without question an overlooked masterpiece--an expose and celebration of American industry, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the flaws and strengths of the capitalist system. Jeff Bridges and Martin Landau deserved Oscars (Landau was nominated) for their portrayals of Preston Tucker and his friend/manager, Abe Karatz--they show the intelligence, drive, and unquenchable dynamism of the American businessman in their quest to build the 'perfect automobile', only 50 of which were ever built but of which 44 are still on the road today!!! It is also an indictment of oligopolistic business practices and the financial and political power of big business that keeps innovation from the American consumer in this flawed system. It is Citizen Kane with--if not a happy ending, then at least an optimistic one. Kudos to Coppola!! SEE THIS FILM!!


Tucker: The Man and His Dream is an expose on this idea of the 'American dream'. To be honest, I'd never even heard of Tucker before seeing this, but it turns out that he's a man that decided to build a new type of car that would revolutionise the car industry. Naturally, he faced much opposition from the bad guys along the way, but in the end good won out and Tucker got his cars made and revolutionised the auto industry forever. Oh say, does that star spangled banner yet wave...sing it with me now!

Jeff Bridges is apple pie personified as the title character; a patriotic American that wants to live the American dream. Francis Ford Coppola creates a lovely 40's style that is pleasing to the eye and gives the film a very upbeat attitude. The stylishness of the picture comes at the expense of substance, however, and that makes the film hard to like because there isn't a lot of character for the audience to connect with. The American dream's hold over Tucker and the way that he continually gets pulled down lend it a sort of substance, as it's a comment on how adversity always exists, but it's not very personal and doesn't make the film easy to like. The film is also rather poorly plotted, with it all going well until we get to about the hour mark and then it takes a horrible downturn, almost into the realms of boring; this is a far cry from The Godfather films for Coppola. The film gets a little too chirpy at times as well, which will annoy and not intrigue, especially for the non-patriotic Americans in the audience.

Don't get me wrong, this film isn't terrible by a long way but it isn't particularly good either and despite a lovely style, Coppola can't take the ball and deliver on the substance front as well. A shame, but there you go.


When this show came on back in the mid-'90s, it was a treat for both kids and adults alike with likable characters, good stories and a great cast. What's great about this show is that it takes it's cues from the 1960's show and puts a modern spin on it. Everything from the beautiful Florida landscape to the enchanting "new age" soundtrack makes this show stand out from its 1960's grandfather. I'm sure many teenage boys enjoyed it just for Jessica Alba (though I admit I had a crush on her myself when I was a teenager) but I still loved it. Though it dealt with teen and adult issues, there were no sexual interludes that got in the way that shows nowadays have. It was a show that the whole family could watch and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys wholesome family entertainment or good shows in general ( though I would suggest watching the original seasons).


This is a very accurate portrayal of David from teen years to his death. I could follow along in the Bible with the movie. I like how they use God's name in Hebrew Yahweh throughout. It was filmed in Israel so the setting was real.


This TV movie about King David may seem long,but it really shows in a vivid way David's transition from a mere shepherd boy to a great political figure and biblical icon.I liked the way the cast mentioned there faith in Yahweh.Keith Michell's portrayal of King David seemed realistic,especially in the scene where he was condemning Joab's murder of Abner.If we compare this film with the 1997 TV film of David by Lux Vide, both have great depictions of David's life. Anthony Quayle did a impressive performance as Saul.Too bad this film is only available on VHS. Let's hope that soon it can be restored or available on DVD.My hat goes of to Alex Segal and Lowell Rich for there project.


one of the first of the tv "bible" movies, the story of david is one of the finest of its genre.

the cast, along with the direction and story line, make it a must see.

subsequent movies like "king david" pale in comparison.

if movies of this kind suit your taste, then make this on part of your collection.


This is a Rank Company (British) medium budget production of a post war H. E. Bates novel. Well directed by Robert Parrish, the screen writing by Eric Ambler is quite good. It was shot on site in, what was then, Ceylon. (Same location as "Bridge on the River Kwai")

The young Gregory Peck plays Bill Forrester a Canadian pilot in the RAF serving in far off Burma in the closing months of WWII. He flies a Mosquito, two seat, fighter bomber. (The actual aircraft was provided through the cooperation of the RAF and repainted in accurate camouflage and markings, for once.) Forrester, it seems, has gone "round the bend" after losing his new wife in the Blitz. He's self destructive, wanting to end it all in combat. "You'd think that would be easy in a war", he explains to Anna, "but I just kept getting medals instead." Anna is a small, slim, pretty teacher, played very well by Win Min Than, a Burmese actress (how refreshing). They, of course, fall in love (It's a MOVIE, folks) and his life really seems to be turning around. But, on a routine flight, he and two others go down in a very remote desert area of Burma's central plain (hence, the title). From there on we have a rather good, believable survival saga.

The English love eccentric characters and this story has several, all well depicted by some of those fine performers who bounce back and forth between the British "legitimate" stage and cinema. Watch for Brenda De Banzie, who plays Miss McNab, an elderly missionary. (Ya couldn't miss her!)

The Purple Plain is a good movie, a fine movie really. Not too heavy, it's historically accurate with good production values. Forrester's growth curve coming out of his personal hell is quite interesting. I found the depiction of the native Burmese was respectful without being condescending. For instance, the love between Bill and Anna is portrayed in a very reserved manner, as it would be between a Westerner and an Asian woman in real life, All in all, the story line and performances are very believable and enjoyable. I can recommended The Purple plain, if YOU can find it.


I suppose the reason why I loved the film so much was that I was actually watching the film being made in Sigaria in Ceylon (Now Sri Lanka). I was part of an RAF Police team from RAF Columbo called to investigate the theft of some property from the set of the film. The visit also gave me the opportunity to actually have breakfast with Grgory Peck before the days shooting. I was astounded by the amount of detail that went into the making of the film, and the amount of responsibility put upon Jean, the continuity girl. Gregory Peck was a perfect gentleman, and I was so proud to actually be introduced to him by Brummie Benson, an RAF extra on the film set. To me, the film depicted courage at it's best, and as said by a previous critic , a simple story, with no over blown heroics,a good and believable cast, and a most enjoyable though somewhat predictable conclusion. But, NO bad language..... It's a pity more films of today cannot follow the same pattern. In all a very good example of the Royal Air Force at it's humble best, and a credit to the J.Arthur Rank Studios for its production


I've had this movie on my 10 Best List for many, many years.

This story of healing from loss through love is immensely powerful. It's exquisitely photographed; it looks much more art film than Hollywood. The direction is solid, and the pacing near perfect. Peck holds his own among a field of scene-stealing character actors. His performance gives us a clue as to what he was like on the stage. His good looks don't distract you; he's utterly convincing as a pilot who's lost the love of his life and no longer cares whether he lives or dies. In the first part of the movie his character is not a good guy, and it's believable. Hard to do when you look like Gregory Peck.

Love conquers all, of course. The story turns on his love for a woman. But, as the movie progresses, we find that he loves his crew too, even "old Blore." The young navigator worships him, and the admiration is returned full force. Their relationship is a key element of the story, as important as the romance between Peck and the Burmese girl.

This is one of those rare movies where men openly love each other--not in a gay sense--in a human sense. It's a love based on respect. This is something missing from almost all heterosexual movies. Probably because most men don't seem to be able to easily distinguish between sex, attraction, affection, and love. It all gets mixed up together, and homophobia damps down any positive emotions between men that isn't associated with some sport. Wartime seems to provoke these feelings too, evidently, but it's rare for a picture to show manly affection, except as a joke. It's just one aspect of this film, but one that shouldn't be overlooked.

I can only hope this movie gets rediscovered and recognized for the fine, fine film that it is.


A pot-boiler of a Film that is intelligently crafted by Director Robert Parrish. To some it may seem intolerably slow & lacking pace, but to others like myself the Film does something that nearly all Films in the Fifties and indeed many now do not even attempt to achieve, and that is take the time to investigate the main characters in depth and in detail. This is done not via long tracts of dialogue, but via the un-said. In particular Peck and the astonishingly beautiful and talented Win Man Than as 'Anna' develop their relationship in the Film in the subtlest and most delicate of manners. I can find no further information on Win Man Tan, but her performance in this period piece, is one part enchanting, one part mesmerising. We understand fully how Peck's psychiatric problems eventually dissolve as hie begins to find perspective courtesy of love for 'Anna'. This Film is not staggering nor the best piece of Cinema you will ever see, but it is superbly acted, wonderfully cast, sparingly written, adroitly directed, and deserves to be watched by anyone who has a love of Cinema. Recommended, because what we see at our Cinemas today has MUCH to learn from Movie making such as this.


The Purple Plain is a winner, a handsomely mounted WW2 drama set in Burma where the Japanese are never seen: the enemy is the hostile landscape and the memories that cripple its hero. Gregory Peck's damaged pilot is still suffering from a bad case of 12 O'Clock High after the death of his wife in an air raid on their wedding night until he falls for Burmese girl Win Min Tan. (This being 1954, they may share an inter-racial romance, but they never actually kiss.) Naturally, as soon as he rediscovers a reason for living he's shot down behind enemy lines and has to make it back with not one but two crippled comrades. It's not much of a plot, true, but it's handled extremely well thanks to Robert Parrish's direction, which is surprisingly strong, direct and imaginative when called for, but still knows when to be unobtrusive as well. Great last shot too.


THE PURPLE PLAIN is a British war film which means it`s rather understated when compared to its American counterparts . There`s not a massive budget involved which means little in the way of spectacle and if truth be told the special effects involving a RAF fighter-bomber coming under attack from Japanese flak is somewhat unconvincing . It also contains a few too many stiff upper lipped chaps

I do give credit to the movie for bringing some type of psycological thought to the story though . The movie revolves around Canadian RAF pilot Squadron Leader Bill Forrester who is a suprisingly complex character for this type of movie . Forrester is a man who knows what grief is and it threatens to tear him apart . However the complexities and characteristics of Forrester soon become pushed into the background as the story concentrates on the adventure antics of the hero trying to escape from behind enemy lines

THE PURPLE PLAIN isn`t a movie that`s dated well . No doubt when it was released in the mid 1950s audiences ( Especially those who crewed an aircraft or fought in the Far East ) could relate to it more but it seems slightly cliched now . But like I said it does try to be a character study instead of a straight forward war movie and it does contain some effective moments


Peck's third best movie. The supporting actors did flesh out the tension and struggle. The story line can be easily followed. The decisions made during the movie are predictable, but the realization that it is life and death struggle overwhelms the predictability.


This is an odd film and I don't mean this in a negative way. All too often, films seem derivative and predictable, though this film excels in being different and placing Gregory Peck in a very unusual role--that of a fighter-bomber pilot fighting for the British Empire during WWII. While I loved the film because it featured nice aerial shots of the De Havilland Mosquito (the plane), it was not really a film about dogfights and bombing missions but was instead a character study of Peck as he tries to survive and keep his injured comrade alive. At times the film uses some flashbacks, but generally it is a straight drama about how the crash of his plane impacts him and gets him to reassess his life.

Different and a film that allows this wonderful actor to exert his acting muscles.


I hadn't even heard of this movie until recently. I'm an aviation/WW2 fan, and I've always enjoyed Gregory Peck's films, so I figured what the heck.

Peck plays an emotionally scarred Canadian pilot flying with Commonwealth pilots in Burma in WW2. It looks like the planes they fly are done in Australian Air Force Markings, but I'm not certain on that count.

As other reviewers have stated, he meets a nice Burmese girl, and begins to come back emotionally. Unfortunately, he's downed in the wilderness with and injured man and a third uncooperative officer.

The story is somewhat predictable, and by the numbers for sure. I feel that it has aged relatively well though due to the largely excellent characterizations created by the actors and author. Of course, the special effects in this 52 year old film aren't up to today's standards, but I found them passable.

The film is beautifully shot and the location photography often breathtaking.

My only gripes are minor, the kind of thing that prevented the film from being a 10 in my books.: The officer who is burned in the crash lies there like an idiot, screaming until his companions throw sand on him to put out the flames. He had the stop and drop, but neither will do any good without the roll. Plus, the gore/makeup standards of the day prevented the filmmakers from showing anything truly horrific, so his injuries seemed pretty minor. The script required one of the three to be incapacitated, and the could have/should have come up with something better, like 2 broken legs.

The character of Bloor is a little too one dimensional, and the conflict between him and Forrester is much too on the nose. Surely a more subtle rising disagreement could have been created.

Minor mistakes that no person in his right mind would have made if it were real: After Bloor dies, Forrester leaves his hat there. As I watched it, I was saying to myself: "Grab that hat".

When Forrester leaves the navigator to march on by himself, he doesn't move him under shelter so that he'll have shade when the sun comes up. Plus he takes only one empty canteen with him on his quest for water.

On the plus side, there were some nice touches that I found very good. I really enjoyed the interaction between Forrester and Ana. I thought it was well acted, written and filmed.

I also found the picture of Bloor's wife and family very touching. Before dying, the last thing he did was look at this picture of his wife, whom we are previously informed is the love of his life. When we the audience finally see the picture, she's an average to homely looking woman. For me that greatly enhanced the realism of Bloor's character and the finality of his death.

And finally, the movie had excellent production values, good plane footage and dirt under the nails location photography.

Check it out!


In The Purple Plain Gregory Peck became the latest in a long list of American stars playing Canadians in order to appear natural in a British production. At least Peck did not attempt an English accent as he did in The Paradine Case where he drifted in and out of one during the course of the film.

The Purple Plain is set in the China-Burma-India Theater of World War II and Peck is a pilot with the RAF. He's a man who takes reckless chances on missions because he's got nothing to live for, his wife having been killed in the blitz in wartime London.

But a doctor friend, Bernard Lee, decides what Peck needs is a new woman and a new purpose in life. He introduces him to missionary Brenda DaBanzie and also to a lovely Eurasian played by Win Min Than in her one and only film. If The Purple Plain has a glaring weakness it's her, she's beautiful, but can't act.

Peck may have a new outlook on life and a reason to live, but that fact is lost on Maurice Denham his bunkmate and copilot. On a routine mission, Peck, Denham, with new navigator Lyndon Brook crash in the Burmese jungle. Will they all survive as Peck's leadership is put to the test?

If the jungle looks familiar, The Purple Plain was shot in Sri Lanka, Ceylon at the time which was for a brief period, a most popular place for film locations. Around the same time Elephant Walk was done here and later on the acclaimed Bridge on the River Kwai. The Purple Plain is beautifully photographed in that jungle.

The Purple Plain is not as good as The Bridge on the River Kwai, it certainly is much better than Elephant Walk. Peck delivers a stalwart performance and gets able assistance from the rest of the cast with the exception of his leading lady. It's worth a look the next time it is broadcast.


Purple Plain is an obscure film in Peck's long list of movie credits. I don't know if this British production got much publicity or release stateside, despite Peck's movie star celebrity. Unfortunately, it's never been a TV regular, which is too bad because this tale of renewal and survival is an unusual and gripping one, in spite of the obscurity.

The film opens in the Burmese jungle during WWII. Peck is a battle fatigued flyer on the ragged edge of breakdown. He's about to be relieved because of erratic behavior, all the while he's flashing back on his wife's death in a London air-raid. These are well-done scenes causing us to sympathize with his loss. Nonetheless, he's jeopardizing his comrades with reckless manuevers because the loss has undermined his will-to-live. Thus, we're torn between sympathy and concern, just like the flight station doctor (Bernard Lee).

In an interesting move, Lee overcomes Peck's agonies by reconnecting him socially, in this case with a nearby missionary community. There Peck finds the vital human relationships so importantly missing from his death-dealing combat duties. As a result, his life takes on new meaning and purpose as a result of rejoining a human community where such life-giving affirmations can emerge. On the whole these are well-done scenes, especially the chaos from the Japanese air attack. In the midst of the carnage, Peck's combat flyer finds a new role in helping to bandage up survivors. Herein lies the movie's basic message and it's an important and humane one, conveyed in fairly subtle fashion, though the turn-around occurs more quickly than I would have liked.

Nonetheless, it's interesting that the script avoids the usual officially sanctioned head-doctor therapies. Note that Peck is not sent to be counseled by an air force psychiatrist, nor to join a chest-baring therapy group, nor to have his past puzzled together Freudian style. Of course, the happy solution here remains a "movie" solution where-- as we all know-- anything can be made to magically happen. Still, for a war-movie setting, the simple affirmation that mental health lies through nurturing social relations and not through government sanctioned killing remains no less suggestive because of its movie origins.

The remainder of the film amounts to a survival trek through the wilds of southeast Asia. It's a well-filmed and harrowing struggle against a forbidding landscape where the crash survivors must decide between staying put or hiking out against great odds. But most importantly, it's Peck's chance to regain his humanity by facing up to the odds, not just for his own survival, but for his two comrades as well. The movie's final scene could not have been better conceived. Indeed, no words are necessary. On the whole, this is a subtly and well thought out anti-war film, no less effective because it concerns the fate of one man rather than thousands.Too bad that its humane message remains so generally unseen.


This is a good war film, unusual in that we never get to see the enemy. The cast is small but effective. A couple of minor points grated a little - as Marlonius has already mentioned, Peck really should have picked up Blore's hat for his heroic trek with the injured navigator; early on in the film it was made clear to us how extremely hot the climate was, with the men's tunics soaked in sweat. And after the crash Peck quickly sprouted some impressive bristles, which then all but disappeared.

SPOILER: We saw Peck realising he had found water, then there was an immediate switch back to the airfield where the CO explained what happened next.It was almost as if the makers of the film had realised they were running out of time or money and decided to omit a few scenes.

But all in all this is a convincing production that merits a highish ranking among war films (say in the second quartile).


A fine movie about a suicide-minded pilot fighting in Burma during World War II. The Gregory Peck character lost his bride during the German bombing of London, needs to find a purpose for living. He'll soon find it, as there's much need for able men not only in the hero department but also pretty girls need attention -- even in the Burma jungle.

The themes of duty, courage, purpose, tenacity and redemption ride deep, and there's enough patriotism and faith to make any godless liberals in the audience cringe like Dracula facing a Crucifix. The Burma locations add a lot, as do the high production standards. They knew how to make good movies 50 years ago -- unlike today.

This film has real heroes. Today's cocaine-soaked film industry only knows about comic book-style Super Heroes, who fight make-believe enemies using only the weapon of computer animation. They offer nothing to the younger generation save for inspiration fire up the PlayStation. Moral bankruptcy for the Bevis and Butthead audience; grown-ups (12 and older) are the forgotten audience.

Gregory Peck made lots of excellent films prior to his dreadful (but Oscar winning) role of Aticus Finch. The Purple Plain is a fine example of his acting and star quality. Sadly, Peck just went to the dogs the last years of his career.

Not only were movies better in 1954, but watching them was better. I saw The Purple Plain at Loew's Capitol Theatre -- the most deluxe theater that ever existed in Washington, DC. With its giant screen (largest ever), stereo sound and 3645 seats, you could sit in an atmosphere that would make the Emperor of China green with envy.


Well made faux-Hemingway with Gregory Peck reprising his neurotic pilot from 12 O'CLOCK HIGH, but in a mostly British production; the other American involved is Robert Parrish who smartly helmed. Brooding over his wife's death in the blitz, Peck finds something to live for in a young Burmese beauty. Then a routine flight goes awry and he lands in Japanese territory with two men to save. Geoffrey Unsworth provides riveting Technicolor images to go with the painterly action effects work, wonderfully different than the Hollywood norm at the time. And there's solid support from Bernard Lee, Maurice Denham, Lyndon Brook and a beauteous Win Min Than in her one & only film appearance. As a Scottish missionary Brenda De Banzie is over the top, but the film needs the bit of applied zest she provides.


It really is a great movie its to bad the Film Did not get a lot of publicity, I first viewed the movie on late night cable when I Could not sleep. I almost thought it was real(for a split second of course)and the fact that the year 2005 is Just around the corner, theirs still no manned space flight or a women president,But 2010 is right around the bend so maybe then. The Biographies of the Crew were excellent and Ms. Woodard As a news Network Anchor really shows her range as an Actress. The films ending to me was quite mysterious and somewhat shocking based on our politically correct TV News Cast. If you like Special Report: Journey to Mars, you might also view Special Bulletin a movie based a terrorist take over of a Tugboat during a workers strike. This film has some nice surprises to.


The year is 2005. After months in interplanetary flight, the manned spacecraft Destiny prepares for the final two hours before separation of the landing module, and its flight to the surface of the Red Planet. The news agency GNN (Global News Network) covers these last two hours before the historic touchdown, using state-of-the-art technology, and even a correspondent aboard Destiny itself. However, powers are at work that aims at stopping the historic landing, and bring utter chaos back home. All we can do, is watch the show...

Journey to Mars is a great TV-movie, even though it has quite a few scientific errors (as how they conquered the speed of light - which is necessary to send instant transmition from Earth to Mars - which takes 4 hours each way with today's radio-technology - maybe they use some kind of Tachyon-beams?), but if you are willing to forgive these errors, you may find this quite a good movie - certainly something out of the ordinary.

The film is made as GNN's live coverage of the historic landing, and like the hit-series "24", events occur in real-time. They succeeded admirably in making it look like we really were watching a special, braking-news report of CNN (or in the case of the movie, GNN), and the atmosphere really feels as such, which makes the movie even more interesting.

The plot evolves a lot over the course of the movie, and takes quite some unexpected turns, in the end you'll be sitting glued to the screen as Destiny zooms over the Martian surface - it really feels as if it's actually happening for real!

The acting is generally quite good, near perfect at times, but the atmosphere is what really makes this film something really special, as it builds up over time.

The last few minutes are arguably the best and most atmospheric moments you'll ever experience in a TV movie like this, so I wont ruin them for you, but just suffice to say they are well above excellent.

The special effects really aren't so important in this kind of movie, but they are still quite well done. Although you may loose hope after seeing the opening zoom-over of the Martian surface (which is taken from a NASA animation by the looks of it), the effects gets a whole LOT better over time.

So, as I overall liked this movie because of good plot and atmosphere, and also because of mostly good acting, I give it a final score of 8/10.


I found the movie quite interesting. It is done as a "live" tv news broadcast as they are about to be landed on Mars. Of course things go wrong and the story is about them solving the problems and landing on Mars. I quite liked the ending, but won't explain what it is.


Not only is it unrealistic, it's flat out insulting. Complete torture to watch and the ending made me want to break my TV.

Those "commercial breaks" are the dumbest movie gimmick out. I was at least hoping for some clever future ad tag lines like "the sky is no longer the limit", but no, all you get is a blank screen. What a way to bore anyone watching. Actually, I might have perfered to watch a blank screen for the entire hour and a half.

Anyone giving this movie a positive comment must have worked on it.


This film attempts a novel approach to a well-used theme. It is yet another mission to Mars film, but this time it is filmed as though it is live TV coverage of the final stages of the mission- with background interviews etc to fill the gaps.

Apart from the irritating manner of the on-board journalist, this film is well enough presented; it certainly deserved better publicity that it received. But the ending, whilst interesting, leaves the viewer with too many questions. In some ways it is good to leave something undecided- it leaves more for the imagination. Unfortunately it can also leave a sense of dissatisfaction, as it did for me. Still, it made for a memorable film.


I'll not add to the bad comments about this movie, the movie speaks badly for itself quite enough. But, I was surprised to see some people comment on how realistic the newscast was. I think they should switch back and forth between this movie and CNN. The difference is astounding. Even the stupid commercial break gimmick is wrong; how many commercials did we see on the first day of the Iraq war? All of the news people look and sound like bad actors, not journalists.


This film is a big piece of garbage. I thought I was watching cutscenes to a video game. This movie is boring and is not realistic. No suspense at all. Why would they make this thing. This looks like what they show on the video monitors when you are in line for Star Tours at Disneyland.


This film had the misfortune to be shown for the first time opposite the Academy Awards broadcast. I think my parents and I may have been the only people watching it. Too bad, because it's a beautifully-made film with some points to make about its own medium and a mind-bending surprise ending that I wouldn't dream of discussing here.

'Special Report: Journey to Mars' tells its story in the form of television coverage of the first human landing on Mars, in the year 2014. The project has caused a certain amount of dissent back home, and at one point the protesters succeed in hijacking the broadcast signal in order to announce that they have sabotaged the flight. Will our heroes land safely?

The simulation of TV news is so accurate as to be almost cruel. Do see this if you get a chance.


This is the worst pile of crap I've seen in a very long time. I like Judge Reinhold, and I couldn't even take HIM in this movie! The drama was dry, the story was predictable, the special effects were anything but special, and the continuity was horrific! You couldn't pay me to sit through this disaster again. STAY AWAY - too terrible to become a cult classic. This movie has no redeeming social value whatsoever, has no good acting, has nothing at all. My dog is more fun to watch. I had an ant farm once - it was more fun. If you have the choice between this movie and dry meat loaf, take the meat loaf. I've been to better high school plays.


A psychiatrist, Dr. Marcus Collier who is the head of the Institute of Behavioral Studies, is having an affair with one of his patients and is using extreme methods to render information from her during hypnosis sessions so that he can write a revolutionary book. When the patient's husband threatens to expose him, a fight involving the three of them ensues and Collier accidentally kills him; he quickly decides to make it look like two intruders executed the act during a burglary...

A refreshingly originally conceived Columbo adventure, which like "Death Lends a Hand" and "Dagger of the Mind" features a spontaneous act of manslaughter, which is covered up to become a murder.

Another asset to this episode is, in spite of the simplicity of the carefully-crafted "burglar" cover-up, how Columbo is able to increasingly undermine it's likelihood with elements the viewer is largely unable to telegraph. This is unusually conveyed by Columbo at a party full of guests; an engaging and sharply observed sequence, which also sees the murderer cleverly execute the murder of this lover through hypnosis over the telephone.

One must also mention the quality of Hamilton's performance in all of this; his character's womanising ways are typically exhibited, but his presence in this episode warrants respect, especially considering his unflappability and self-assuredness; traits which are powerfully upheld until the closing scenes, when he tries to undermine Columbo's perceptions of proof and the validity of an eye-witness (who comes forward rather conveniently late in proceedings) in front of his colleagues.

Like "Death Lends a Hand", "Mind Over Mayhem" and "Negative Reaction" Columbo effectively gambles on the murderer implicating himself. The methodology used here is mind-blowingingly clever and caps another very worthwhile case for Columbo aficionados.


Columbo episodes always seem to have the same formula. Especially since we know who does the crime after the first ten minutes, we love surprises in how Columbo catches his man or woman. In this episode, George Hamilton shows off his acting talents. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the man can act very well. He plays a psychiatrist who kills the husband of Lesley Ann Warren's character rather than ruin his reputation. The fun with Columbo episodes is that the crime is never too gruesome or motives are never too dark. Anyway, the doctor's patient is the prime witness and he gets her in the worst way. The crime happens at a beach-front estate secluded from neighbors and traffic. Anyway, watching Columbo catch him is particularly worth it especially sine you don't feel for Hamilton's character as a victim.


Well, this is basically an average Columbo movie in every way thinkable but since all of the Columbo movies are such of high quality and features a great and successful formula, this movie is also a perfectly good one to watch.

This is not the Columbo movie that features the best or most original story but it's even more a bigger shame that this also isn't among the fastest ones. The story is progressing quite slowly, which is also reason why this movie isn't among the most interesting or best Columbo movies to watch that are out there. On top of that, the movie also features some silly and just plain unlikely plot elements.

It features all of the usual Columbo ingredients you would expect. Thankfully this also means that it features some good relieving fun humor, of course all involving the unusual Lieutenant, who basically at times is like a child in the big world, although it of course also often is part of his act to gain the trust of his suspects by playing dumber than he really is, in order to get closer to them and getting his information from them. The killers are often underestimating the Lieutenant, which is often the reason of their downfall.

The directing is quite and average for a made for TV murder mystery. It's part of the reason why this movie never surpasses the level of average but its useful and effective directing for a type of movie such as this one, so it's not a big complaint. The director is Harvey Hart, a man who directed a total of 4 Columbo movie. I don't believe there are more directors who did so many Columbo movies. He did all of his work for the series from 1974 till 1976.

In this movie the role of the murderer is being played by George Hamilton, who is a great actor and also plays a good role in this movie. There is also a fine role from Lesley Ann Warren in the movie and of course Peter Falk is great as usual as the scruffy looking Columbo.

Average but perfectly watchable Columbo movie entry.

7/10


Let's face it, no one will rent '100 Women' with the high hope that it's going to be an unforgettable and revolutionary look at love and comedy. If you want that- go out and rent something like Love, Actually or Intolerable Cruelty.

I saw '100 Women' before I saw its predecessor '100 Girls'. I seem to be in the minority when I say that I preferred this version. Whilst the storylines are similar, we're not forced to tolerate the smarmy overacting of of Jonathon Tucker. Whilst '100 Girls' does have a far better know cast, I find that it was more enjoyable to see a movie where you didn't associate the female cast with movies they'd previously done. Erin Bartlett is a relative unknown, and incredibly beautiful. Some of her scenes with Chad Donella are just plain sweet.

The real highlights of the movie are the philosophical discussions on women and masculinity held by Sam (Donella) and his disgusting cousin Holden (Steve Monroe). Viewers of the first movie will have heard it all before, but I found Monroe's grossness far more amusing and far less disturbing than James DeBello's.

That, and some of the downright sweet and romantic stuff that goes on, makes 100 Women a different, more intellectual look at an often overdone genre. Jennifer Morrison is wonderfully sweet, Donella delightfully screwed up, and every female characterisation provides a different view on the fairer sex. Maybe not a flattering one, but a view all the same.

Worth a look if you feel like being cheered up about love and life- but don't rent or buy it expecting to be forever changed. It's just a fun movie.

My Rank: 7 out of 10 stars


This is one of the worst shows I've ever attempted to watch. I was recently traveling in Latin America and came across this English-language show on cable, so I decided to try to watch a few minutes.

While laced with mature themes (masturbation jokes, sexual urination, etc.) it contains pitiful acting, an unbelievably lame story, and the kind of plot you'd expect in a Disney Family Channel movie.

Chad "E" Donella (that E makes him so classy) and the rest of the crew/cast from this movie should step in front of a bus.

Avoid watching this movie like the plague - it is far from being even remotely entertaining.


This film was hilarious Chad Donella did a great job as Sam, a guy surrounded by beautiful woman and trying to win their hearts. I wouldn't call this film the best I have ever seen but it's a film for anyone that wants to have a laugh and to not take the film seriously. Go rent a 100 Women today.


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The story is moronic, the actors are horrible, I don't see anything rewarding in it other than Erin Bartlett's casabas.

The way the 2 leads throw around the LOVE word toward the end makes my stomach turn. Was this movie actually written by a 15 year old?

Hopefully the 18 year old girls this movie is aimed at are too busy to watch it...its PATHETIC!

I'm sorry I couldn't give it less than a 1, because that is overrating it considerably.


Michael Davis' third straight film with the same basic premise, is the worst of the three. The reason it just doesn't work is because 8 Days and 100 Girls did this earlier, better and more believably. It has it's moments (most involving the attractive Erinn Bartlett), but the problem is that it shifts from dramedy to just stupidity with Clint Howard. Also, most of the dialogue is lifted from the other two films, in some form or other.

Ignoring the existence of the first two films, Girl Fever (100 Women), trucks along in a weird state of being. The first half is not really funny and by the time you get to the heart of the story, it feels like you have wasted time getting there, BUT at the same time, the film is amazingly watchable in it's own "cuteness." This is a hard film to judge on it's own merit, which is not shocking to anyone who has seen it. I mean any film that goes from explaining how someone feels, to a nose-dual (don't ask), to a guy that gets screwed over and then forgets about it, all within such a short time-frame, is hard to really look at objectively. The entire plot is so hard to swallow and the lead's reaction to the plot-twist is so unreal, but at the same time it still is entertaining.

There are only two things that are clear: first, Eight Days a Week deserves a DVD release in the states, so I can purchase the BEST Davis movie AND more importantly, Erinn Bartlett is smoking hot and at some point will break-out in Hollywood. Her performance in this film makes you almost forget the bad parts of the movie... I said almost.


The dialogue in this movie was excellent, and the story was told exceptionally well. The director/writer is at the top of his game, to be sure. But I cannot agree with the conclusion of the story, and think that this movie is a poor example of one that will positively influence it's youthful audience.

What level of respect can either of the two girls in the movie have for this boy, both of whom developed relationships with him that were duplicitous and fictitious? Yet he jumps into each relationship with both feet and no reservations. He has no sense of betrayal, no sense of having been wronged by these two girls, even after they have the gall to implicitly expect him not to be upset by their behaviour.

This leads to the story running onto the rocks of unbelievability, which is a big disappointment at the close of the film. Had there been some acknowledgment of the way that their respective relationships had developed badly, had the girls acknowledged their poor behaviour and somehow learned from it, only then would they be worthy of his unremitting attention and friendship. Had he shown that he understood the nature of the development of his relationships with the two girls, but forgave them, that also would have indicated character growth. His character is diminished by being a loyal puppy dog, blind to the nature of the relationships he is in and at the mercy of his adoration. The girls' characters are diminished by their inability to recognize how they have mistreated him, and seek to better themselves.

One could argue, perhaps, that the moral of the story is that love is worth pursuing no matter the obstacles that are placed in the way, and that the main character did not let anything prevent his quest from reaching fruition. However, the longevity of a relationship based on deception and that has not developed trust cannot survive without an airing out of the deceit and the rebuilding of trust. There is no closure to this issue within this film.

Thus, despite the dialogue, the acting, the story telling, and everything else that makes this an intriguing and entertaining film to watch, an inspiring "coming of age" movie should have characters that learn lessons about life and come out the other side stronger and more mature. In this vein, the film fails to deliver.


By the end of the movie, Chad Donella is forced to choose between an ex-model with a innocent personality, and a Once overweight girl with low self esteem, and a personality that is just as sweet the model, only not as accommodating to rejection. Your sitting there, and YOU couldn't tell him which one to choose. So he decides the low self esteem is his True Love and the Model gave him the half heartbroken, "lets be friends so I can still be around you" bit.It just didn't seem to fit the light-heartedness that prevailed through most of the movie. Other than that, your in for some LOL material that will have you saying "That ain't Right" in between roars of laughter.


I think this movie is woefully underrated! It is like a low budget, raunchy inverted-HIGH FIDELITY without the music stuff.

Speaking of which, let me emphasize -raunchy-. This is the type of movie AMERICAN PIE's advertising only presents itself to be!

To say anymore of the plot would rob the unsuspecting audience of the cultivation of a sort of geek emotion called 'this JUST might be a good movie.' Sure, it could have said a lot more with a lot less, but if your expectations are low, this gem will be a real surprise.

GIRL FEVER would play great to any audience of 15 - 20 year-old men, provided they are not *all* the sort concerned with the volume level of their televisions. Or that sort of girl, who knows these days?

In summary: GIRL FEVER is not perfect, but this movie should have its own cult following. (Albeit a very small one.)


Cheesiest, sappiest, pathetic... caught this on HBO at 3am, only timeslot it could ever fit. BUT, I'd rather watch the Girls Gone Wild infomercial I've seen on Comedy Central 20 times at this time of night rather than this. This was a poor attempt at something to the effect of "100 Girls." The acting was typical for a movie in this genre.. nothing much there to complain about, if you're going to willingly watch a movie like this in the first place. This movie needed some actual nudity to make it worthy of watching just for the girl-factor, cause there is definitely some eye-candy, but the plot/dialog is just so grating that it becomes painful at times. I think this is the first comment I've been compelled to write, and I use imdb all the time - the last scene with the girls in slow-motion jumping around for the papers just p***ed me off that much. Wish I'd fallen asleep two hours ago. Maybe I'm just grouchy. ;)


Erinn Bartlett is in this movie, the only reason for me watching it to the end. Do not compare Girl Fever with 100 Girls, no matter what. The story in this one makes no sense at all. On top of that it's vulgar & gross most of the time, without being the least bit funny. It might be good if you're about 11 years old, even though I doubt it. So if you have a choice between watching Girl Fever & a different movie, choose the other one. Even if you don't have a choice, don't waste your time watching this awful film.


I think the story was pretty awful and rather scary then funny... Chad Donella on the other hand does a great job. But the funniest person in the entire movie was Steve Monroe as Holden the guy with all the sexual problems. If it wasn't for these two guys i would have rated this film 2/10 instead of 4/10...


Girl Fever is a very funny film. It's not quite as funny as 'Eight Days A Week', but there are many great lines and hilarious scenes. One negative thing would be that it borrows from 'Eight Days A Week' a few times too many (our hero won't stop until he gets the girl, the sexoholic best friend, etc..).

If you liked 'Eight Days A Week', there's no doubt you'll like this one too.


Every other commenter has covered almost every aspect of this movie, so I'll focus on the part that cheesed me off the most.

When the male lead finds out that the woman he was chasing and the woman that was helping him had been stringing him along for *MONTHS* to see if he was worthy.

They humiliate him, get him arrested, label him as a pervert in his neighborhood and almost kill him with a flower pot among other injuries. When they are finally forced to revel their treachery and the one he has been pining for declares him worthy of her love, he says "Okie Dokie" and forgets about getting his penis crammed into a Chinese finger trap then pushed out front of an audience.

Yeah, right. A real person would have given up on both of those women since they are obviously defective.


There's definitely something a little redeemable about it, but I'm not sure what. The storyline was awful. So maybe it was the acting? Not sure, I did laugh a few times, but I think those were mostly at the movie and not with it.

I didn't find the individual characters' preachy comments on men, women, relationships very witty. The ending was way too forced.

Perhaps the silliness of it all is enough to make it worth a viewing if you catch it on HBO.


As easy as this: "Girl Fever" is NOT funny. When a movie tries too hard to be funny , then it's a bad movie. The humor is terrible because it tries to be like "American Pie" but in such a not so funny manner.

The sex related jokes just don't work and the rest of the humor is really dumb. The acting...oh the acting. The actors are really bad and look very uncomfortable.

I agree with many other reviewers who say that this is a very boring movie. To be honest, I couldn't watch it until the end. I fell asleep but I'm sure that even if it was a good ending, it isn't worth the watch.

Stay away from this not so mainstream teen comedy that tries too hard to be funny. Avoid it!


It's not a good movie, that's for sure and I watched it at 2 am on hbo but there's something i really liked about it... i think it was the cartoons. the way they used the cartoons reminded me of 80s comedies, u know how they do the cartooning at the beginning credits in a lot of them? that just reminded me of, like, one crazy summer or something and it gave the film an overall atmosphere that i liked. its a pretty bad movie, story wise but theres something kinda cute about it. i think the cartooning redeemed it in my eyes, reminded of better times in teen romance comedy.


Even though "Girl Fever" (other title "100 women") is a fantasy piece at best, the way it's done is so idiotic beyond even the most cliché rubbish ever done in cinema. In one aspect of the movie we see the politically correct, totally unrealistic fantasy set-up: an American art student has some hot looking trophy chyck fall out of the sky and be all over him. We are supposed to believe this could ever happen? Unless you're an art student who happens to be a rich and famous rock star or movie industry mogul, or coke dealer I suppose. Also, we see the main character treated like crap by a bunch of women to see if he is *worthy*. The kind of men-are-not-worthy-of-women for some reason goes unnoticed in America. With the exception of the various nemesis in the story, everyone is so nice and so genuine it's just too sickening. So unrealistic. This flick is for those who really want like to see men played for suckers by skanks.


Let's face it, 100 Girls was a bad movie! And we all know that a follow up to a bad movie is usually an even worse one. That's what I had on my mind when I first slipped in the DVD of this movie.

Now remember the most annoying things about 100 Girls? The non-stop voice over, the unappealing imagination sequences, the annoying childish background music. Those are the things which ruined 100 girls, and yes, they are once again in this movie, but luckily they are kept to a minimum.

The premise to this movie may not be too original and appealing, but I assure you, it's pulled off well. I even laughed a few times (which is something I didn't do once during 100 Girls). The cast do a great job here, and are a real treat compared to the highly annoying characters of 100 Girls. Okay, so this movie has it's flaws. There's a certain revelation which is one of the dumbest ideas ever. But doesn't every movie have it's bad moments!?!

For some reason they seem to have changed the title of "100 Women" to "Girl Fever" in the USA. God only know why! It's still called "100 Women" here in Australia, and I don't think I would have bothered to see this if I was unaware of it's connection to 100 Girls.

I know I keep referring to 100 Girls, but the truth is, you really have to watch this movie in comparison to it. 100 Girls was a piece of garbage. 100 Women is basically the same movie, but done better this time around (although still not perfect). I didn't completely hate 100 Girls, there was something about it which I try to hold on to, but after seeing 100 Women, I've grown a little faith in Michael Davis.

So if you want to see 100 Girls done better, go see this movie. I'm sure you'll enjoy it at least a little.


100 Women (as it is called here in New Zealand) is touted as "the sexy follow up to 100 Girls". Well, while both movies have no relation directly to each other, 100 Women is practically the same story... but with 'Women' that are only a couple of years older than the 'Girls'! 100 Girls is the better of the two movies, and is not essential prior viewing , but it does give you an indication of what to expect from 100 Women.

The story basically resolves around a loser (Donella) who meets the perfect girl (Bartlet, who is very easy on the eyes), but then loses her number, so does everything he can to find her. An interesting premise, but very similar to that in 100 Girls.

The main character is very unlikeable and there are some terrible gross out gags (pulling out nose-hairs anyone?) and it even has Clint Howard in a cameo. But the dialogue seems forced and coming straight from the screen-writers pen, rather than from a real life character.

Overall, an average 'teen comedy', but to enjoy do not take it seriously, or else you will feel as though your life has been wasted.

4/10


His movies may not be the most original but they are the best. He has amazing whitty dialogue and always pics the perfect actors for the characters. This movie is essentially the same as 100 girls (hence the name 100 women) but hey when you're on a winning formula stick with it. The script and acting are second to none and the laughs are plentyful... don't be fooled by the fact it was straight to video because this movie is cinema at it's best!


I loved the first Michael Davis movie, Eight Days a Week. It was charming and cute. The second one was mostly a rehash of the first but pretty good. This one though is truly awful.

The movie tries really hard, all Michael Davis movies do, but the level of humor for the most part is really crass and hackneyed. What was cute and clever in the first two is now bland and bitter.

I wanted to at least like this movie, but there is so much here that is truly awful and/or stupid. I could go on, but I won't.

Check out Eight Days a Week and 100 Girls. Avoid this clunker.


I first saw this when I was 10 years old and it baffled me. As it's never been repeated or made commercially available I've been waiting ages for a DVD release to see if I can make sense of it. It's a film that deserves a second look, without a doubt - and thankfully the audio commentary with the director and writer explains so much, because without it you'll still be scratching your head and muttering "what the hell was that all about..." In particular, that strange, terrifying Eastern-block country Gideon finds himself in. Fepiz! was the title of DC Thompson's Dandy comic that is seen next to a copy of his own book, and for some reason it's that image that has always stayed with me since '81. Listen to the audio commentary for an explanation of that strange language and the city as a whole. A fine and Fepiz work? Not a masterpiece by any means, verging on the pretentious at times but brave, ambitious and with some disturbing imagery that will remain with you for a long time.


I liked this film. It's got it all, inter-dimensional(or planetary?..you decide)travel, unrequited homosexual love, heterosexual love, journeys of self awakening, the apocalypse, great music played by weird organists with a devilish pact, oh and of course Sting as the good angel(spirit) Helith. The basic gist of the story is Helith and the evil Asrael go head to heads after Asrael wakes the Earth spirit Magog from her slumber.Magog represents the destruction of the earth. Helith and Asrael are then charged with influencing man to save or destroy the planet. Gideon Harlax, a writer of the paranormal, stumbles upon a bizarre series of coincidental deaths on a ferry from Denmark and the weirdness begins from here including being transported to another planet, dimension or future Earth..(it's never explained). Dr Albrecht Von Drachenfels is in unwillingly in league with Asrael and the fate of the Earth and mankind rests with a piece of music he must play to herald the apocalypse........yee har!! I Loved the atmosphere of dread that the film portrayed in a nod to the Danish Film industry and at times you feel really uncomfortable and bewildered which is of course how you're supposed to feel as it reflects the confusion and uncertainty that the main character is feeling. It doesn't lead you by the hand like Hollywood films do, so expect to have to think a little( oh the horror!!). Overall enjoyable for sci-fi fans who like apocalyptic themes.Give it a go for the sake of mankind!


I missed this when it was on originally (BBC1, 29th December 1981): the idea of it being on a prime-time channel in the Xmas period now seems lunatic, but in the 3 TV channel UK, such things did happen (now we have 1,000 channels showing reruns of "Diagnosis Murder" and reality shows  how far we've come).

Rudkin's drama is an existential tale of a remote and emotionally frigid writer (Hywel Bennett) discovering his humanity, as part of a larger fable of good and evil. Some effects are dated, and the editing was unsupervised and is poor in terms of continuity and feel for the length of scenes. Moreover, it was originally meant to be a two-part drama, and there is such a shift after 90 minutes that this hamstrings it, when watched in one sitting. On the whole, it remains interesting: 1. Dialogue: the characters speak a sort of stylised English, which is cod-Shakespearean or verbose-Beckettian. Some of it is terrible, some wonderful, but the general effect is startling: this, warts and all, is the modern dramatic equivalent of blank verse. (It must be said that 'dialogue' is a misnomer though  'portentous and gnomic speech about life, death and weltschmerz, whilst looking in a completely different direction from the supposed interlocutor', would be a more accurate description of it).

2. Some of it looks great  the brief scenes on another planet, the uses of various different landscapes. This helps the creation of an obscure, sinister mood, and the sense of a secret, controlling force, which, even if it is nowhere as achieved or designed in terms of ideas, look, or sound, is not a million miles from the thinking of Lynch in "Twin Peaks" more or less a decade later.

3. Influences: it's been remarked elsewhere that the Hitchcock references aren't really enough to do with the erstwhile supernatural themes to earn their corn, and sometimes they are too overt; more interesting are the Bergman allusions, which include a sinister child with broken glasses who appears twice (c.f "Persona"), and the dystopian city where Bennett is sent and where everyone speaks an unknown language (apparently Estonian backwards), which is straight from "The Silences". Then, Bennett goes on to the underground silo city, walking along a train line: the whole thing shows the influence of Tarkovsky's "Stalker".

So, this is a strange English homage to such contemporary European giants of the cinema, with its own national sense of mysticism. Thirty years on, a lot of "Artemis 81" assumes a profundity is hasn't earned, and is sometimes as laughably earnest as the most naïve student drama. But, for all its follies, it does earn respect for even getting such ideas onto the major BBC channel of its day.


I'm not sure how to describe this bizarre, but beautiful movie.

First, it's long. Just one minute under three hours. And it's not exactly fast-paced either. If sci-fi for you means action, spaceships and interplanetary intrigue, give this one a miss. In fact, although the cover describes it as "The cult BBC Science Fiction film", I'd hesitate to call it science fiction; indeed, I'd hesitate to label it anything at all.

And it's definitely flawed. The dialogue is riddled with melodrama and pretentious poetry; the camera-work sophomoric, and the editing clumsy. And yet the effect shines through: the movie has an eerie, otherworldly quality, where trivial details (such as an old lady glaring at a noisy conversation in a library) seem to take on ominous significance.

And so, if you have the patience, you'll get sucked in to this movie. It's mysterious, and beautiful. But don't expect to come out satisfied. Although there is a plot, it is far from clear. The story moves from one surreal incident to another, each connected but seldom shedding any light on its predecessor; even at the end, when it appears that our protagonists have triumphed, it's far from clear what exactly they've triumphed over, and most loose ends are left firmly untied.

Hywel Bennett does a fine job as as the somewhat petulant author caught up in a situation that might have been co-written by Kafka and Philip K Dick. Dinah Stabb perhaps succumbs a little to her melodramatic script; Dan O'Herlihy brings an artistic gravitas to his role. A cameo from a very young Daniel Day-Lewis, and a supporting role by Sting, add a bit of celebrity interest.

Overall, Artemis '81 reminded me more than anything of Twin Peaks (which was made nearly a decade later, and, curiously, also featured Dan O'Herlihy) - the same sense of explanation hidden just around the corner, and another reality just half-glimpsed and poorly understood. I don't think everyone will enjoy this movie, but I certainly did.


Impossible to explain fully tale (I'll have to listen to the commentary on the DVD at some point when my brain comes back to me) of a writer who gets put on the trail of a series of coincidences involving the battle between two angels to awaken their mother.

I don't know what to say about this. The dialog tends to be discussion of ideas relating to the events, everything has multiple meanings, it references religion, myth, Hitchcock movies, notions of love, the philosophy of life, and probably about seven or eight dozen other ideas.

As a head trip food for thought film this is almost too much to take in.For the first Hour and fifteen minutes or so its also a finely crafted supernatural thriller. Then something happens and things begin to get weird. Is what we are seeing real or allegorical? On the face of it it isn't clear. Actually much in the second half isn't all that clear. The discussions remain however the plot line gets confused...then again this is a three hour movie and I was watching it late...then again its really confused.

I really like the film. I can believe that many people who saw this pillaged it for their own work, while others were confused and bored. I don't know if I love the film since its a too rich meal.

The cast is good, with Dan O'Herlihy giving a wonderful turn as an organist and key to the plot.(Daniel Day Lewis- listed high in the promotional credits for the DVD has one small scene as a library student) I have to process this. But those looking for heady discussion and fantasy that no one is doing anymore are directed to try this very unique little film.


This is the most excruciating, teeth-grindingly slow and incomprehensible piece of television I have ever sat through. It is almost unbelievable that this once received over three hours of Christmas prime-time terrestrial television programming. If anyone out there has seen this and can tell me anything about what was going on at virtually any moment of the proceedings after the author's van blows up, can they please e mail me and enlighten accordingly. I felt that this could have been at least an hour shorter but perhaps the extreme length was part of the makers intention. Certainly there are many striking images and memorable lines of dialogue but I found the pace to be impossible to bear at one sitting. Nevertheless, a very brave piece.


I woke up early, turned on the T.V. flipped to TMC just as this movie was showing opening credits. Happy Accident! I loved it! Yeah, the plot was hokey and melodramatic, but as a whole the movie was very charming. It was a "moment" filled movie. Lot's of scenes and dialogue that was original, and fun. Like a scene where Bill,Lily, and the Peg-Leg guy are planting seeds in the garden. Or Bill's Tag line "Have a chew on me". It was made in 1931, so they were able to get away with all sorts of lines that would not have been included had the movie been made a few years later, after the code was established. For instance Bill's waitress girlfriend commenting to a customer, "I'm APO, Ain't Puttin' Out". Hee! I always find those pre-code "Talking" films interesting. The films that existed before people got bent out of shape about the things you could and could not say, do, or insinuate in a movie. Definitely a fun and entertaining viewing. Even more fun when you realize a good portion of the things they were saying wouldn't be allowed in movies again until the 1960's.


Grand film, has all the elements of a greek tragedy with a socko ending. And all ends honorably. A definite 10. Story plot, character development and even the scenery. From a dance-hall to the railroad yards to a bridge under siege by flood. And Jimmy Cagney dances! How could you go wrong. Dialogue a bit 'racy' in spots.


I had never heard of this movie but the only reason i watched it was because of James Cagney. Cagney had a pretty small part but i didn't mind. This movie stars Grant Withers and Regis Toomey as best friends who work as railroad conductors and Toomey is married to Mary Astor. Withers is dating Joan Blondell but he falls in love with Mary Astor instead. Withers is staying at Toomey's house but he leaves because he doesn't want to hurt Toomey. Toomey finds out why he left and they get in a fight on the train and cause an accident. After the accident they find Toomey is blind and then this big storm comes. I don't wont to spoil the ending because you can find it out for yourself. Both Withers and Toomey are good and so is Mary Astor and Joan Blondell.


I watched this on Turner Classic Movies(TCM)and was surprised to see Grant Withers in the lead. I had always seen him in westerns in the 40's as one of the "bad guys" that has to be defeated by the "good guys". Nice to get a new perspective on his acting with his early films. It has an excellent cast and as long as you remember it was made in 1930 and respect the morals of the time you will enjoy it as much as I did. Mary Astor as the loving wife torn between husband Tomey and best friend Withers. There is plenty of guilt to go around,as there should be in a moral play with really nice people caught up in uncontrollable passion. You want this to turn out alright and in this period,they usually did. I will always remember the Withers line he would leave with,"Have a chew on me.",throwing a stick of gum to the person in question. Watch and enjoy.


Don't expect dandies donning top hats in this gritty working man's drama. This one grabs you early with good outdoor photography and develops nicely with solid characters and drama. The heavy handedness of the plot is typical, but what makes the movie is its frank, realistic dialogue. If you've seen many of these old movies, you know how stylized and fakey the acting usually is. Also, early 30's camera-work is often stiff and stagy. This film really impresses with its excellent acting and highly innovative photography. The scene with the blind man feeling his way around the rail yard in a rainstorm is especially well done. What a great surprise!


This film fascinated me for many reasons: Actors in rare starring roles, other actors who became major stars later, a setting very rare in films, and a story presented unlike anything else I've ever seen.

Regis Toomey was a prolific actor with hundreds of roles, and he was always dependable, yet he seldom was the star.

The same can be said, almost word for word, about Grant Withers.

Together, they made a good team, a complementary team of contrasts.

Mary Astor, on the other hand, was often considered a star. She also wrote books, at least one of which made certain other Hollywood women angry at her. Another, "A Place Called Saturday," was a novel about living in the desert, and I really enjoyed it, having read it just before moving to the desert myself.

James Cagney and Joan Blondell, in supporting roles, stood out, at least as much as, if not more than, the stars -- and this was early in their careers.

The railroad setting, though, was something I have never seen dealt with in such a fashion (and makes me wish an "Atlas Shrugged" film could have been made when trains were still important). The trains themselves, and the railroad generally, with the intriguing characters attracted thereto, make "Other Men's Women" a great piece of cinema history and a good piece of entertainment.


It seems that a lot of classics fans come to this movie as fans of James Cagney. A lot of the more negative comments on IMDb are from those people, as Cagney has a very small role in this film. Of course, director Wellman would make him a star later in 1931 with Public Enemy. The stars of Other Men's Women are Grant Withers and Regis Toomey. They star as two railroad men and best friends. Unfortunately, Withers and Toomey's wife, played by Mary Astor, fall in love when Withers stays with the couple for a while. This film is highly flawed. The two leads are rather bland, and maybe it is just because he would be such a huge star, but Cagney definitely draws your eye whenever he's on screen. Ditto Mary Astor and Joan Blondell. All three of those actors you already know are very strong, while Withers and Toomey are just decent (it doesn't help that the two resemble each other, so it can be easy to mix them up). The story is also kind of weird, and, like a lot of these very short dramas of the 1930s, there are logical jumps and loose threads. However, I would say that Other Men's Women is quite a strong film cinematically. It's exciting, and beautifully shot. There is also an extremely impressive special effects-driven climax which uses models completely seamlessly. It may be a flawed film, but it's an excellent one anyway.


A few years ago I saw a documentary on James Cagney and they showed a film clip that had me intrigued - he danced over to his girl, executed a little shuffle and waltzed the girl off to the turnstile. I always wanted to see that movie and now I have. It was "Other Men's Women" and he wasn't the star, or even the co-star. Filling those roles were Grant Withers and Regis Toomey but, to me, it was a very memorable moment. It was Cagney's 3rd film and also down in the cast was Joan Blondell - they had both been plucked from the Broadway play "Penny Arcade" and given roles in the film version "Sinner's Holiday" (coincidentally, Grant Withers was also the star in the film version). In 1930 there was no reason to think that Withers wouldn't go from strength to strength but in just a couple of years he was reduced to leads in poverty rowers. He then forged a career playing character parts until the 1950s.

In "Other Men's Women" Withers displays an abrasive but likable personality as Bill, a train driver who is a "love 'em and leave 'em" charmer. He cannot be persuaded by his partner Jack (Regis Toomey) to give up one of his nights with Marie (Joan Blondell) "a lovable klutz" and spend an evening at his home. Ed (James Cagney) can, though, by inviting him to the fights. Cagney makes a great entrance by walking into view via the train tops!!! When Bill is thrown out of his lodgings for being drunk, Jack takes him home, where he is instantly smitten with Lily (the beautiful Mary Astor), Jack's wife. During the months he stays there, he and Lily fall in love (to the strains of "The Kiss Waltz". A bit of cross promotion as Grant Withers had introduced that song in another film "Dancing Sweeties".)

To keep Jack from guessing, Bill goes off - but Jack suspects and they have a fight in the engine cabin. They miss a stop, engines collide and a lad is hurt. Jack has been knocked out but Bill takes the blame, confessing he was sleeping off a hangover and Jack had to do the work for both of them. Bill is docked 6 weeks pay and goes on a serious bender, aided by Marie, although Ed tries to put him wise. When he finally gets up the courage to see Jack, it is to find that he is now blind.

This is a super movie that, after a light hearted start, develops into a highly dramatic film. The very last scene where Bill, now sure of Lily's love runs joyously over the train carriages is a nice touch. Walter Long, who played villainous roles in films like "The Birth of a Nation" and early sound comedies like "Pardon Us" plays Roundhouse Bixby.

Highly Recommended.


I really liked this film a lot. It was done in a very intimate, non-hokey style and I felt I was right there living with the characters, like maybe in the house next to Mary Astor's. The dialogue was great and the characters believable; it brought back a quieter time in American history when there was dreaming, romance and guilt in the air with plenty of space and time to feel them in. The photography was really rather beautiful. The supporting roles from Cagney and Blondell were handled with aplomb and were fun. But for me the trio of Astor, her husband, Regis Toomey, and Withers really made the movie work. Mary Astor was so sensual - as usual - like she was with Clark Gable in Red Dust. It made it easy to see why she turned Clark's head away from Jean Harlow and Wither's away from Blondell. She has such a simmering passion beneath her dignified surface. And Withers is so cute and sweet, no wonder she fell for him. The scenes dealing with both of their guilt about cheating on her husband were done with grace and subtlety and seemed very real. Not many movies really pull something like that off too well. This one did.


The comment from the person who saw this as an 8 year old certainly brought back memories for me.

I must have seen this film at least three times during the pre-TV days of Saturday morning special programs for children.

If you've ever sat in a theater packed with eight to twelve year olds all bawling their eyes out together, you know it is something you'll never forget.

I was able to find a VHS of the movie in later years and was astonished to find how charming the picture is on the adult level as well.

Kudos, hugs, and kisses to anyone still alive who helped put it together.


The tagline here on this IMDb home page makes this sound like a really sweet, nice and enjoyable movie. "A picture as human and heart-filling as the love of a boy for his dog."

Hey, I'm a sentimental guy, so that sounded good enough for me to spend a few bucks on the rental about a dozen years ago. Well, I guess I went "barking" up the wrong tree: the movie stunk. But - yes, it was still a "nice" film and I wouldn't knock it for that.

What I am knocking it for is having to listen to this (politically-correct) pair of boys (one black, one white) overact for the entire film and moan and groan and weep constantly over the fact that they can't get their dog to hunt. They are trying to make the pooch into a champion and the dog is semi-retarded, or just not into that sort of thing.

So.....the kids moan and groan, moan and groan and overact....too much to sit through.


I have seen The Biscuit Eater (1940) on television and it has been one of my favorite films. Have not seen it in a long time and would like to have a copy of this film. If you know how I can get a copy let me know (marthasjordan@aol.com) please. This is a picture for all ages to see...it has a wonderful lesson on life. What better story to tell about than a boy his good friend and their dog. I have seen the remake of this film the 1972 color version and it is just not the same as the original 1940 black and white version. The 1940 version takes you really back into the era of when the story is taking place and you can go there with the boys and their dog. This movie should really be one of the all time great CLASSIC movies.


Much more than the story of a boy and his dog but a mature look at the coming of age of two boys as experienced through the travails of Promise, their misfit hunter. Extremely engaging view of the pre-WW2 South with subtle religious undertones. I've seen it three times and have found something new with each viewing. The fact that we own six dogs helps account for our affection for The Biscuit Eater.


Not sure if it could be called a "spoiler", but the ending of this movie, even right now when I think about it, has forever kept me in tears. I have seen it maybe only 3 times in all these years (am 53 now), and it still never failed to have me so emotional at the end. And even today, when ever I go to a pet store with dogs (even cats now), or when I went to a pound twice to get a new pet, I can not stay in there for long before my voice breaks and I start shedding tears. This movie had such a profound, and ever lasting effect on me, and will till the day I pass away. I LOVE this movie more than anything I have ever seen, and wish it were available on DVD, or even VHS! Yes, even a guy can cry too.


stumbled on this one while watching amc one day. this movie is better than old yeller and thats saying somthing. i related to the relationship of the boy and his father very well and growing my dog at times was my best friend. i highly recommend watching this movie if u get a chance. make sure its the 1940 movie and not the remake with jonny whittaker.


This film is the first sound picture filmed entirely on location, with good plot, and great action by the dogs that actually DO their stuff the way they were bred to do. I saw this film over five years ago, and can't seem to find it anywhere, either playing or on tape. I Highly recommend it to all families with any breed of dog in their homes. It's "breed specific" but that is just what it's about. Hope you can find a copy and enjoy it as much as I did.


An absolute waste of time for everyone involved(or should that be implicated), disgracefully boring, terrible in terms of plot, with characters being introduced, not even given a name, and not going anywhere, chubby cops doing Kung Fu, hilarious dialog ("I'm a private dick") and the worst sin of all, uninspiring fights.

The worst of it is, Eric Lee can actually be quite amusing, see his supporting roles in the first two 'Ring of Fire' movies, but here he proves that a leading man he is not, Gerald Okamura, one of these guys who seems to be a henchman in every martial arts film ever, is wasted as the titular villain with bad makeup.

The story concerns some nonsense about a warrior fighting the master demon, being killed, but not before he cuts off the demon's hand and takes it to a temple where it is stowed away, until the box containing it is displayed at a museum, only to be stolen by Art Camacho(one of the worst directors in the history of history) and all hell breaks loose, with the warrior(possibly reincarnated, it never really says) recruiting the aforementioned chubby cop and 'Private Dick' to help him save the Earth, or space or something, the plot, if you want to call it that, isn't exactly good, or even competent.

A boring, poorly made pile of pish that nobody in their right mind wants to watch.


This was one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever witnessed. VERY bad acting, monotonous action sequences (hey 10 ninja's, hey another 10 ninja's) and the 'martial arts' looked like they came straight out of a power rangers episode. Several inconsistencies. Where did cameron come from after the master demon was defeated? Bad acting. People look like they are reading boards while speaking their lines. The weapons looked like cardboard with some paint. Who choreographed the fights? The worst fights I have ever seen in any movie EVER (even jeff trent's suckerpunch in plan 9 looked more believable) Worst lighting I have ever seen (every shot featured 10-meter shadows even while people were talking ?) The story was ok, but overall this was a pretty bad movie which I was hoping to END, END, END as long as it lasted.