"Bambi 2" is one of those rare cases which one can possibly say that at least they tried to create a sequel as good as the original. Despite the fact that the original is a far superior film, this one at least tried to be at the same level in many ways, even if this aim wasn't fully achieved.

Unlike most Disney sequels, this one has great artwork. In fact, the artwork of this one is very similar to the artwork of the original "Bambi". The difference is that in the original the artwork is more refined, while this one combines the fabulous artwork of the original with computer/digital techniques and technologies.

Patrick Stewart deserves recognition for his work as the Great Prince of the Forest's voice. He does a very good voice by replacing the original voice actor of this character.

This sequel focus mostly on Bambi and the relationship with his father, something clearly missing on the original. Bambi's father takes care of him now, after the death of Bambi's mother. Not only we get to know the relationship between Bambi and his father, but also to know his father better. We also get to know Ronno when he was little.

However, although "Bambi 2" is quite better and more "logical" than most Disney sequels, it suffers from the same "syndrome" of the rest of Disney sequels: it doesn't fit well on the first one's story. The time when this takes place makes one wonder and to make this question even more difficult, there are things that do not make sense when we look at the way how things happen in the original.


This is another case of the sequel not being quite as good as the original. But don't take that as meaning that this film is bad because it was actually a pleasant surprise. For a sequel, from Disney, this actually hit the spot quite nicely.

This sequel returns all the original characters from the first one and they all play off each other nicely. I am partial to these movies because I live in Wisconsin where deer hunting is part of our culture but this one is still a cute movie(I really wish we'd get a look at the hunters in these movies though!). It has everything that successful Disney movies have with the smooth animation, decent storytelling and the occasional tug at your heart strings. I can think of many worse ways to spend 70 minutes of your time. I, as an adult, enjoyed this film but if you have kids this is a great one for them too. If animation doesn't bother you, give this one a shot!


I had no expectations whatsoever of this movie when my family and I sat down to watch it.

I was blown away. We thought it was brilliant, from start to finish. I also felt the animation was of a very high standard and it evoked memories of the original film.

Everyone at Disney who were involved in creating this film should be very, very proud of themselves. They did a fine job. I could be wrong, of course, but I just felt that this was a labour of love for the creators and their care and artistry just oozes out of every frame of this movie.

Easily the best of the direct-to-video sequels.


I know many find that the sequels are disappointing and a real let down for the original film however i found this sequel fantastic! The animation is superb, and you can tell there was a huge amount of effort into making the scenery as great as the first one. It's a great in between story about from when Bambi's mother dies and he is reunited with his father the Great Prince. Bambi and his friends Thumper, Flower and Faline are all there and are wonderfully voiced. It was very funny yet it was also a strong story showing Bambi getting to know his father, very emotional at some points! I really really enjoyed it!! I hope that you give Bambi 2 the chance to prove its quality before discarding it as another disappointing sequel.


One of Disney's masterpieces, a true work of art was brought back to life. I loved the loyalty of this sequel, to the original drawings and voices. The characters are endearing and there is added humor in this movie. Thumper's personality has been rounded up more and the beauty and dignity of the forest and the deer in the forest is unspoiled. In my opinion, it is a keeper. The music, though, leaves much to be desired. It would have been more respectful regarding the artistic value of the movie, to have richer music written for it. It was mediocre music and it didn't take away from the movie itself because the animation was so true to the majestic original. I believe that Disney had a keen pedagogic sense. Through his media resources he taught his young audiences (even the young at heart) to appreciate cultural manifestations: Music, a very notorious one. So this is how Disney's aim fails in Bambi II. It doesn't really teach the ear, so to speak, to appreciate the sonic expressions in its music.


Maybe the animation is computerized now and maybe the DTV Sequels are not going to hold a candle to the original art from the hearts of incredibly talented artists under Walts guidance, But Bambi II is much better than many of Disney's other Classic sequel attempts to make money on nostalgic baby boomers.

It may be blasphemy to say this but Bambi felt incomplete to me. Once I got over the misery of his mother being shot and watched it as an adult, I figured out why. The sequel answered the questions I didn't know to ask as a kid about the first movie. What happened after Bambi met his father in that heavy snowfall and before the spring he shook owls tree scratching his antlers? Why was the dancing on clouds moment after meeting Faline ruined by some buck challenging Bambi. Why did Thumper ask if Bambi remembered him, where had Bambi been, and for how long? He was teaching his dad how to loosen up. He was dealing with a big mouth bragger and unintentionally creating a rival that would later challenge him for Faline. Rondo, as far as I could tell was never named in Bambi, but the fight between him and Bambi makes more sense after the sequel.

If you stop the DVD of Bambi just as Bambi goes looking for his mother and you start Bambi II the story picks itself up almost seamlessly. I am still a little confused by how many springs go by before the birth of the twin fawns.

My only negative is a very minor one. Two new characters: The porcupine and the ground hog are funny and slapstick but I am not sure how essential they are to the plot and how much was an attempt to get a better running time.


I have seen all of Disneys films; with Bambi as one of the tops of my list. Anyways, when I heared that Bambi 2 was coming out I rolled my eyes and thought that here goes another classic. I wont lie to you Disney, in the past has done some terrible second takes on films, ruining the reputation of the original. I love Disney animation (I also enjoy drawing drawing it to), but usually second takes to the films animation is terrible. But I looked at Bambi 2 in a whole new light when I heard that Andreas Deja (one of Disney's best animators) was on board for the project.

Andreas Deja did not disappoint. He supervised the animation and they did a fascinating job, almost at par with the original. It does need some tweeking here and there, but over all it is a great movie. The animation, as I said, was well done, the voices were perfectly casted and the story line was fairly well written.

All in all this was a one of a kind in Disney second movie films!


Saying Bambi 2 is better than the original is a complete understatement. The film is perfect on every level of film making. It's an intoxicating feeling when a movie excites and enlivens us like this -- and there's a particular giddiness to be had in thinking about what movies can (but don't often) do for one's soul after imbibing such a fine vintage! Honestly, it is amazing. A must see film. Disturbing, brilliant, FANTASTIC! The film's screenplay is amazing, fantastic writing. Unpredictable. Seriously, didn't know what to expect next. The voice work, I consider, to be Oscar worthy acting! A complete masterpiece. 10/10.


I, like most, worried that it would degrade "Bambi"...WELL IT DIDN"T!!! I was impressed with Disney in what it put out in content as well as quality!!! Great Job Disney! I recommend this for all our children & grandchildren, and of course, those of us who are children at heart... This movie contained good lessons in morals, honesty, and integrity. Most of all, it was a lot of fun! The movie is so enjoyable for everyone...I wish I could write about the contents of the DVD, however, this would make it a spoiler. I recommend that you purchase this delightful DVD for hours of replay enjoyment!!!!!!! Share this with your friends and family for wholesome enjoyment and family bonding.... :)


Since The Walt Disney Company started to started to make direct-to-video sequels to their feature length theatrical releases in 1994 (with the release of "The Return of Jafar", sequel to "Aladdin"), it has earned an infamous bad reputation due to the often low quality of these sequels that seem to be made to capitalize on the original's name only, without really caring for delivering a good story, or good animation; almost as if there was not a real concern about making a good film. To my surprise, "Bambi II", the direct-to-video "sequel" (as it's more like an addendum) to the 1942 classic, is a considerable improvement over the previous series of sequels and it even surpasses most of the current Disney theatrical releases in terms of quality, art, and most importantly, entertainment.

"Bambi II" is about the long unexplored gap of the first "Bambi", covering the events between his mother's death and his growing up to adulthood. Under the care of his reluctant father, the Great Prince (Patrick Stewart), the young saddened deer (voiced by Alexander Gould) must learn to overcome his grief, his fears and to assume his place as heir of the position of Great Prince. However, his father is not too fond of caring for young children, so Bambi's tutelage will prove to be a difficult experience for both. Fortunately, Bambi will find some support from his friends, Thumper (Brendon Baerg) and Flower (Nicky Jones), but he'll also have to meet his soon-to-be rival, the mean deer Ronno (Anthony Ghannam), for the first time.

Making a follow-up for a classic like "Bambi" is not easy, but the fact that the writers (Director Brian Pimental and newcomer Alicia Kirk) decided to explore an entirely "missing chapter" in the life of the young deer instead of making a proper sequel, gave them enough freedom to create a story that not only is fresh and original on its own, it also gives continuity to the original without disrespecting it or blatantly copying it. Using the original film and Felix Salten's novel as inspiration, Pimental and Kirk craft a story about learning to be a father, and overcoming the loss of a dear relative, as well as about growing up and facing the vicissitudes of life.

Brian Pimental (one of the writers of the 90s classics "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin") takes his first chance as director giving life to this story and he doesn't disappoint. With a respectful, almost humble approach to the original film, he manages to capture the essence of "Bambi" and setting up the events that lead to the original's conclusion. Most of the current direct-to-video sequels by Disney have distinguish themselves for a considerably lower quality in the art department, but "Bambi II" is truly an exception, as it seems that the animators really tried to stay true to the first film's style (although of course, there were some modernizations), as even some backgrounds were reused to keep the same art direction.

The young Alexander Gould (Nemo in "Finding Nemo") once again proves that he has an enormous future as an actor (at least for voices) and gives life to Bambi with a natural freshness. Patrick Stewart, who voices the Great Prince, truly gives the feeling of stoicism and coldness the Prince must have, as well as his hidden heart of gold, forced to be hidden by the Prince's duties. Overall, the rest of the cast make a very good work, considering they had to try to emulate the work done almost more than 60 years before. Without modern slang or self-referential phrases, the cast gives an effective (and welcomed) sense of continuity between this film and the first "Bambi".

"Bambi II" will surely please most fans of the original, but while it's an honest attempt to make a respectful and original addition to the main storyline, it becomes a bit too clichéd for moments. The use of a couple of pop ballads may prove damaging on the long road, as while the songs are really good, they take away that atemporal characteristic the first film had and will definitely make the movie outdated a lot sooner than expected. Anyways, when compared to the other sequels Disnaye has been releasing, this flaws are really minor, as "Bambi II" makes a nice addition that at times surpasses the current theatrical released Disney films.

Sure, "Bambi II" is not better than the original, and that's OK because it doesn't try to be better. This modest and humble addendum to the story succeeds in what it's set up to make and delivers good entertainment and brings back good memories of the original. Walt himself would be proud of this sequel to his favorite film. 7/10


It was as sequels usually are...

Bambi was a such a huge movie when I was a kid. I must have cried 5 liters... And it left me with such an impact that I still remember the feeling that I had.... I had my mum but was without a father so I could relate... And now I am a step-mom for two children who have lost their mom, so I can now relate in otherwise as well.....

Original is Original, this is a nice movie but no masterpiece and should have been left without the name Bambi II as it is so far from the Original, especially since the Original showed Bambi as an adult already.....


NO Spoilers. Read on, all ye who dare !

I say Bambi 2 is better than the original Bambi. YES.

This is the best Disney sequel yet, even better than enjoyable efforts like the Lion King sequels. The animation is absolutely gorgeous, brilliant, and overall the best in 2D production you've seen in a good 10 years. The portrayal of Bambi's world is beautiful and moody, making the forest its own, living character. They use light and darkness and just solid artistry to give it even more depth and color than the original film had. I'm sure CGI was used in some scenes, but it is not obvious or even noticeable. They went for beauty and surrealism rather than photo-realism, and it's glorious. The drawing itself is superb, with Bambi looking as he did (actually a little better), and the Prince is just masculine splendor in every step.

The story is a lot like the original film's, but without the very slow pace. Bambi 2 moves nicely and doesn't plod around in overly-long forest pans or minutia (a million rain drops falling). Some might say this means its "magic" is gone, but I prefer the adult pacing that gives you something new and interesting happening every few minutes. At the same time, the film pauses where you want it to, gives you a silent moment to watch Bambi's ears fall slowly when he is disappointed, or freeze with him when he's terrified. Sometimes there is silence in the forest, and a character standing still while the light falls just so, to convey wonder or loneliness.

This is a kind of beauty in storytelling that we haven't seen in a long time.

Best of all, the characters don't sing, there are very few modern, trendy references to ruin the timelessness of it, and the whole feel is a good blend of natural, serious scenes and lighthearted innocence in Bambi and Thumper's more fun escapades. The methods here in conveying emotion are excellent; you really feel it when Bambi is sad or trying to earn his father's pride, and there are moments when you feel him growing up. And not just emotional growth, as modern animation is often so limited to, but also that he is maturing in a natural/physical way, so that you can really imagine him becoming a strong and brave prince.

Dad grows, too. Patrick Stewart is wonderful as we get to see the prince struggle with his role as a leader vs. being an affectionate parent. So the film has some modern influence in the way it addresses character development and everyone *sort of* learning a lesson, but it's not bashing you over the head with it the way Nemo and similar films do. This is a natural story that manages, just, to keep to deerhood and not lose us with too many humanlike gestures or colloquialisms.

One aspect about the technique that *is* more humanized is the exaggerated facial expressions, but I did not find this too distracting or overdone. There has thus far been some kind of rule in Disney sequels that characters constantly have to be rolling their eyes, lifting one eyebrow drastically, or saying "Eeeeyew !" with way too much lip action (this seems even more important than the other modern sequel clichés like characters' pants falling down to reveal red-heart boxer shorts), but Bambi 2 largely avoids such annoyances, and it's actually really interesting to see the deer (especially the stag) rendered with facial expression.

The voice acting is excellent all around, and the film resolves itself very well without intruding on or changing the original film in the least. It's simply a very good film that is definitely worth a buy. I suspect the people scoring it a "1" have done so out of spite without having seen it. This movie does its original justice, if not surpassing it in many regards.

Oh, and one more time.... Patrick Stewart !!


Impressive. I watched this expecting to be disappointed. I've never had a movie surprise me like this, in fact, I'd say this is the only animated sequel I've seen that actually meets the standard of quality that its original set. The tears, the laughs... my kids actually were far more into this movie then they were the original.

The artwork was detailed and intriguing. Bambi's facial expressions were superb. Sidekicks Thumper and Flower stayed true to their personalities, and all the various other animals were unique and interesting characters in their own rights.

I'm amazed. And still laughing about those growling frogs!


I know a lot of you hate these sequels(Or prequels), but seriously, this one was great! It explains what happens between after Bambi's mother's death and before he grows up, and focuses on Bambi and his father, The Great Prince Of The Forest.

I found it entertaining, not wandering off the original's storyline too much, and overall really good. It's better than you expect it to be.

I don't know why people hate sequels and prequels so much. To be honest, I think most people don't give them a chance. But you should give this one a chance, it's not disappointing.

I'm really fond of the songs. And did I mention the voice-work is great? Obviously not like the original voices, but hey, that can't be helped!


I honestly wasn't expecting Bambi 2 to be as good as it was. I found it it sweet, funny and adorable. The original Bambi is not only one of my favourite Disney movies, but one of my favourite movies ever. I thought this a very worthy sequel, well it was more of a midquel really, if a tad rushed in places. I liked the fact that they focused on Bambi and his father, after his mother dies, and the story itself was very sweet and well crafted. The animation was beautiful here, not quite as splendid as its predecessor. I have seen sequels like FernGully 2 and Secret of NIMH 2 where the animation is dull, tacky and choppy. Here it was colourful, vibrant and fluid, just look at the wondrous backgrounds. And I absolutely loved the soundtrack, that alone contributed to the film's charm. Of course I do slightly prefer the original's music, but the soundtrack here was so pleasant to the ears. The characters were every bit as likable as they were in the first- Bambi if you forgive the fact his facial expressions were overdone at times, was still adorable and appealing, and Thumper is hilarious. If there is one thing I prefer over the original, it is that the sequel is funnier than the original. The original, while having some very funny moments was more of a tearjerker and a genuine one it was too. In the sequel, there are five or six funny bits in the first fifteen minutes alone. The voice acting was most impressive, special mention must go to Patrick Stewart, who was perfect as the Great Prince. My final verdict is that it isn't quite as good as the stunning original, but along with King Of Thieves and Enchanted Christmas, this is in the top 5 of my favourite sequels. A solid 8/10 Bethany Cox


But still a disappointment. Let's look back to the original film for a moment. Overall, not much dialogue. The humor was scarce but touching, the fawns a picture of innocence. Now take a look at Bambi 2. A lot of unnecessary yapping in between cheesy pop songs. Some of cute moments, some jokes reused from the original, and the movie even has its fair share of toilet humor. The fawns are now rambunctious and argumentative, at points even fighting with each other.

Now I'm not saying that Bambi 2 has to be a carbon copy of the original, but shouldn't it at least possess a similar tone? There were many things I did like about this movie- the animation was spectacular, and the movie was, overall, pretty sweet. The original movie had a style that's hard to emulate, I'll admit. And hey, toddlers will probably pay attention to this one much longer than the first.

However, in history, there are some films that just shouldn't be touched. Cinderella? Aladdin? Okay. But Bambi 2, as entertaining as it was, left me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. However, for what it's worth (a cheap, straight to DVD release), I guess I can't complain.


What exactly is the point of making a sequel when you don't actually retain anything that was good about the original? The thing about the first 'Bambi' was that there was very little dialogue, letting the drama (or humour or whatever) in the animation speak for itself. And it was frankly the better for it. Now, no one shuts up.

That said, it could have been a lot worse. This is because one of the characters that doesn't shut up is the Great Prince, and he's voiced by Patrick Stewart. Not only does Patrick Stewart have a wonderful voice, but I swear this man is actually incapable of giving a bad performance.

And on the other hand there is Alexander Gould (Bambi). He's not a bad actor per se - he hits all the inflections and emphasises the right words, but that's just it. He's a paint-by-numbers actor who manages to say everything so that, no matter what he says, it bores me to tears. He could be reading a literary masterpiece like 'The Call of the Wild' and I wouldn't be able to keep my eyes open. I'd frankly have preferred a ham.

On top of that, Bambi is suddenly a precocious little twerp. Sure, I know it's 2006 and peoples' expectations of children is radically different from what it was in 1942, but is this a sequel to 'Bambi' or not? Seriously, it would have been nice if the filmmakers had taken a few hints from the film they were supposedly honouring with this brazen cash-cow milker.

And finally, the fact that 'Bambi II' is set _during_ the first film doesn't do anything to help the drama, as we know that Bambi must survive any danger he faces, which is more than a little cheapening. Oh, sure, even in a proper sequel the chances of Bambi actually dying are 99.99% against, but at least you'd have that all-important 0.01% to add to the suspense. This is just, well, nothing.

In the end, Patrick Stewart is, as always, a joy to behear. But as Yoda once said, "Patrick Stewart alone does not a good film make." Or at least he would have if he'd seen 'Bambi II'. Because even Patrick Stewart can't save this frankly lame film.

And on top of that, Flower isn't nearly as effeminate this time around. Is Disney _trying_ to crap all over their classics?


This was one of my first "Disney Midquel" experiences, the very first being the Fox and the Hound 2. I haven't a clue why Disney has taken up this hideous trend. Their midquels spoil practically everything about their original counterparts.

I was (and I'm sure that others were too) hoping for a story about Bambi's twin fawns Geno and Gurri from the novel Bambi's Children. Instead I received this nightmare. I'll not spoil the story for those interested in this garbage, but I will say that every classic character was ruined by a chatty, modern attitude. The character that bothered me most was the redone Faline. She was not at all her adorable old self, but quiet, reserved, and having a slightly darker, more dullish-brown coat, thus erasing all of her original appeal.

Despite the lovely animation, I could not enjoy how Disney made such a lackluster and unoriginal followup to one of their most successful films of all time.


This movie is quite OK as a cyber-punk. It is not Oscar material, but I found it totally enjoyable on a quiet Sunday.

The story admittedly is a little thin, and some times too emotional but still it was nice to watch. The actors are doing an OK job, and the lead actress is a beauty.

The CGI is OK, and the sets have that dark gloomy mood to it. The action sequences was OK choreographed as well.

If you like CP movies, then why not. Just don't expect Bladerunner, though even that was deemed doomed in its day. This is a paced action flick, with some love and emotion in to it.


The film is not all bad, it has it's charm but the good parts are too few and far between. The acting is generally very unconvincing, still Bai Ling and Alec Newman are more or less OK most of the time. Parry Shen is awful and overacts all the time, a shame since he has a big role in the movie.

The story is weak with terrible plot holes. The emotional development is rushed and very hard to relate to. Bai Lings hard core assassin with a yearning for romance feels like two characters pushed into the same person.

The CGI is very sub-par for a movie made in 2007, I've seen Xbox 360 games with more realistic graphics.

The movie seems to rely entirely on Bai Lings push-up costumes and she is heavily exploited throughout the movie.

The worst part, however, is the pretentious artsy cuts and slow scenes that wants to make this movie into a cult classic, all of which feels embarrassing considering the apparent weaknesses of the narration, pacing, acting and CGI.

Watch it if you're a sucker for the genre, like I am. But keep your fast forward button handy.


Since we rarely have the chance to enjoy a new Cyberpunk title fans just have to watch everything that comes out to satisfy their thirst.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kind of a masterpiece, the movie is far from great. The story is a little bit more complex than that of an arcade video game and it still has plenty of plot-wholes. The CGI isn't exactly cutting edge, there are not enough action scenes, the dialog could use some polishing...

So why the hell do I like this movie?! First of all you can feel that the movie is done with dedication and enthusiasm and they've gone as far as the budget allowed them. The director Pearry Reginald Teo seems to be a fan who got his chance to do what he likes and I just can't help it but cheer for him! Way to go! "The Gene Generation" is a commendable effort.

Bay Ling is magnificent! This is her best appearance ever! I mean it, even if you just hate the rest oft he movie it's still worth watching just to enjoy her screen presence. The hairstyle, the make-up, the clothes, the guns - just WOW! Her outlook is terrific. She's like the ultimate cyberpunk chick! There is a short shower scene. And a short sex scene. Both of them hot, especially the second one. Both of them too short, especially the second one.

The atmosphere as a whole is very good. As I mentioned the CGI isn't the best you've seen, but the design of the production is really neat. I enjoyed the sets and the outlook of the Gene Generation world. There's a dark and exotic feel about it.

By the way I was expecting some race scenes after I saw some promo photos with Bay Ling on a black race bike. There are no bikes and no races. The movie gets slow at times and could use some more action sequences and faster pace. A chase through the streets of the dystopia slums would be great.

I hope that we'll get some sort of unrated, uncut, director's cut version where some of the flaws of "The Gene Generation" will be fixed. I give it 10/10 not because it deserves 10/10, but because it deserves more than 4.3 (which is the current rating as I write my review). Objectively, the movie is somewhere between 5.7 and 6.3. It's not a mile-stone, but it's stylish and enjoyable and deserves some recognition for what it is.


A device is invented know as the transcoder. It can reform human DNA in order to cure a disease or to kill them. But it has fatal results for everyone who uses if except it's creator. The story centers around Michelle an assassin who is trying to maintain a stable life in a corrupt world, and her gambling brother Jackie who is in denial of his problems and thinks they can be quickly fixed. Solemn (the villain)wants the Transcoder for himself to save his wife and will use deadly force if need be. Not knowing what it is Jackie steals the Transcoder from Christian. Yada yada yada... The Transcode changes hands a couple of times. Then the plot gets a little confusing, but stays entertaining.

this movie is gem among those low budget straight to video sci-fi flicks. The acting is good and so is the directing. Although the cgi, production and camera work is the same as other straight to video films, i.e. ten years behind. The look is awesome and heavily influenced by H.R. Giger art. Many think it's suppose to be set in the future, but it is actual set in an alternate reality since there are no advances in technology except the DNA hacking. Bai Ling's out fits are unconventional and look great. She really kicks ass in this movie.

The plot is a little confusing and has a few plot holes. This movie is not for everyone. If you like techno punk futuristic waste land sci-fi movies then you will like this.

I give this film a 7 out of 10. The movie was entertaining by need work on the plot.

Get Your Body Beats, Let Your Blood Flow


Generally speaking, films which are set in the future really have to be "futuristic" in some way, shape or form. "The Gene Generation" is offered as being precisely that, but in its emotional impact and effect it is more like a bad dream from the 1930s, except in color. Lots of color.

The first thing the viewer encounters in this bizarre tale of family loyalty and love lost, is the grim cityscape of the anonymous city where everything happens. There's nothing shiny or bright about it.

Perhaps that was an effort by the author and director to 'locate' the viewer or audience in something at least a little bit familiar. Too bad that the cityscape has approximately as much charm as East Berlin in the mid-1950s !! There's trash everywhere, stuff blows around in circles in the ( seemingly ) never-ending wind, and it's always dark.

It rains. It doesn't rain. It rains. That part of the subtext of this otherwise very ambitious movie really is doubly maddening.

People live in high rise apartment buildings where there's running water and plenty of electricity, and gadgets, but nobody to clear the trash from the hallways. Huh ? The street scenes are the same, with futuristic clutter and debris all over the place, except on the sidewalks where the heroine -- Bai Ling, ravishing at forty-two -- is either walking or running.

Transportation in this urban desolation appears to consist only of elevators and floating-on-air 'flying Dutchmen' type sailing ships.

It all looks really, really strange and inevitably that becomes a nasty impediment to the story line itself, which is actually rather good.

The heroine is an anti-hero, a paid assassin with a brother who is a gambling junkie and a self-destructive idiot. Even his best friend and comrade eventually jettisons him, literally turning his back and then walking away. So, yes, there are touching moments in this otherwise ultra-violent and ultra-cynical story of ultra-modern revenge.

It is hard to recommend this movie for the plot, which is so cynical, and so dark and twisted; but, it is hard not to admire the effort in art and in cinema design which went into creating this futuristic urban hell on earth. That part, or parts, are quite amazing. Is this city located on some other planet, one which merely resembles our earth ?

We will most certainly never know the answer to that question.

Seven out of ten mostly for the delectable and dexterous Bai Ling and also for one truly nasty, skulking-around-places gangster-type villain.


I think it sad that in this time and age there is so much homophobia.As a lesbian I can relate to the two main characters.I think lesbians and gay men should have the right to raise a child,get married and have all the equal rights as heteros do.No one should be discriminated no matter what their sexual preference should be.We are all just human beings and we should all accept each other one way or the other and stop all this hate in the world.What is so wrong in two women or two men loving each other? We are not harming anyone.It's just love no matter what sexual preference,religion,or race the person is.Is it so wrong to love one another with all the hate that goes on in the world everyday.


I've just finished seeing this movie for the first time on TV. All the way through I simply could not believe that time and again such decisions were made purely on the basis of the judge's homophobic bias. I kept waiting for someone to stand up and declare the obvious - that it was wrong to deprive a loving, caring mother of her child simply because some bigots don't approve of who she loves.

What amazed me most of all was that at the very start of the movie we were told that grandparents had no legal entitlement to visitation in Virginia. So it was appalling to me that even though there was no basis in law for granting custody to Jody Ann's appalling mother, simply because of a judge's personal bias custody was granted. It makes a mockery of the law and of the US legal system.

I came on here hoping to find that in the eight years since the movie was made commonsense and justice had prevailed and that Jody Ann had finally gotten to bring up her son in a loving, caring, nuturing home. But sadly it seems that bigots still rule in the good IL' US of A.

It also astonished me that no one thought to ask why the grandmother was insisting on the child calling her 'mamma'. This surely confuses the child and is a clear indication that the grandmother's motives aren't in the child's best interests but her own. Clearly, she wanted the child for herself from the start and her daughter's new lifestyle was just an excuse.

I was enraged by Jody Ann's brother and 'best friend'. Both of whom betrayed her and lied on the stand, simply because they were angry that she had chosen to love another woman. They should be ashamed of themselves.

All in all, a sad, depressing indictment of America, of its intolerance for those who don't fit the 'mom's apple pie' image and the grip the raving rightwing lobby has on this country.

I wish Jody Ann all the best. I am sure that when her son is grown and is able to understand the manipulations of his grandmother and the injustices done to his mother he will choose to be with her again.


This was shown on channel 5 in england on 5/9/03 and channel 5 not normally being a very good channel i was going to skip this movie, even though it sounded quite 'interesting'. But then I decided i was going to watch it and i was glad that I did. I felt so sorry for Jodi in the way that her mother is basically a Nazi German commander! And Zachary was so sweet. This movie really pulled at my heartstrings and I'm normally a hard hearted person! Made for TV movies aren't normally great, but I really quite liked this film and I'd watch it again. I'd quite like to know what happened in the end though! The character of Maggie Fergus was a good and likeable character too, I liked her fiery and funny nature.


Seeing the comments of Winston and Good.. something or other (definately forgettable as their comments) How can a gay or lesbian family be called dysfunctional in comparison to what the heterosexual society can offer.

Lets consider - with a gay or lesbian couple a child is a choice, often a sacrifice. For a man who prefers not to be with a woman must know that it is a woman who will give birth to the child. Likewise a woman who prefers to be with a woman knows that they need a man's sperm to create the child.

No simple biological accident but a decision to bring a child into this world. A child who is wanted. Not a discard of a biological act.

There will be good loving heterosexual relationships where the child is wanted, cherished, and loved. But with a same sex relationship it is more because of the difficulties and decisions needed to create the new life.

What are the bigots afraid of. Something they have tried to sweep and hide under their darkened rug covered minds. Gay people exist, have always existed, and will always exists. We are natural as they are documented cases of homosexual animals. Gay people are born they way they are. They cannot be created, nor does it mean that the children they raise will be automatically gay.

BUT.. and this is the important part.. The Children will grow up to be accepting of gay people. And will not listen or support the bigots or the narrow minded folks who just want to spread fear.

With many cultures homosexuals are accepted at part of society with their own values and experiences to offer.

We are people. We bleed when we are cut. Weep when we are hurt, and have feelings to our loved ones and to our children just as strong and just as powerful as any other humans.

It is also interesting that one of the weapons of the bigots is to reduce someone they do not like from a person to a symbol. Symbols are easy to hate. To use as a scapegoat. To bring under the one label.

So next time you wish to discriminate against someone for their race, greed, religion, or sexuality.. Just think you would you feel in their shoes.. to be the recipient of that hate.

I am sure that so many injustice would be overturned overnight.

Just the thoughts from an older.. and hopefully wiser person.

Dave


Even if you don't already know the outcome of this, you are bound to get fired up! And you should. It is more relevant than ever today, with Congress trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not only stating that some relationships are more valid than others, but making it so that no one can even be allowed to think otherwise! Maybe it's just the script, but this movie makes it look as of the mother is not so much against her daughter's relationship, as she is using the state courts' bigotry to get back at her daughter for not letting her be as much a part of raising the child as she'd like. As bad as it seems, the real case is worse. But this is a great movie to watch if you need a reminder of why we have separation of church and state, and why we're in danger of losing it.


I saw this comment here - quote "looking at it from the moral point of view, the Bible, which is the ultimate moral authority, teaches us that homosexuality is wrong, so wrong it is and the matter cannot be up for discussion" this is the worst comment I ever read on this site. Narrow minded zealotry from the arrogant believers in the book who cannot think their own thoughts outside the straight jacket of fundamentalism. This was a good depiction of a true horror story of bigotry (a view of a straight male). How was what happened the best outcome for the child, or natural justice? This was on TV here in the UK today. It is hard to accept society has not advanced to accept things without reference to religious considerations.


Can anybody tell me what happened with Jody Ann Shaffell's case (or the true life story that this was based on anyway)?

I think that the US should just grow up!!

(No offense meant to the sane people living there).

Children are raised in worse situations than that poor boy and the courts do nothing!! How about some compassion?!?!

I'd like to know, for my own peace of mind, that the boy has found his way to his mother.

Any feedback would be nice.

I would like to think that these people came to their senses.


Throughout the movie, and then reading about the woman afterwards, I felt complete and utter anger at the legal system for allowing something like this to happen. How dare they be able to decide what is best for a child, on the basis of his mother being a lesbian? This movie literally made me want to throw things, and by the end, I was crying in desperation at how sad Zachary sounded, and shaking my head when the verdict was said. I don't think I could have hated Nancy anymore than I did.

Valerie Bertinelli was amazing in this, though.

I think people...mainly lawyers and homo-phobics should take a long, hard look at this movie, and see how things like this can affect people. By the end, what Nancy saw as the best thing for Zachary, was the worst thing she could have ever have done, and it's a shame that in the end, the real Jody Ann Shaffell had no fight left, and gave up.


This is, for the first half, a great relationship movie if you can ever catch it on cable or some other medium. I gave it an 8 out of 10 because, as a TV movie, it wasn't quite as high quality as a theatrical movie on the same subject would be. For that matter, it's not quite as deep or well-written as the somewhat similar "A Question of Love"--a TV drama starring Gena Rowlands and Jane Alexander on the subject of a lesbian couple fighting to keep custody of their kids. But it's still a great little movie. Unlike the other film, this one shares more of the relationship between the two women. Valerie Bertinelli is surprisingly good as a woman who falls in love with another woman, for the first time, and doesn't have the usual stereotypical reaction to it--freaking out. Her slow realization is believable and well-acted. The romance is handled with understanding, sensitivity, and warmth. Colleen Flynn, Bertinelli's co-star, is likable and authentic. I will leave the courtroom side of the film for the viewer to judge.


I just saw the picture on television, and I was very angry. How can a mother do such thing to her own daughter only because she loves another woman? Thank God I live in the Netherlands where gay people can marry, have children and even adopt children. Because the only thing that matters is that the child is raised in a loving family with parents who take good care of them, and it doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexuals or homosexuals. Like any other child the most important thing in it's life is to know that it is wanted, loved, taken care of and safe. So I think it's really time that people change their way of thinking and see what is the most important. And that is love.


This film is by far one of the best made-for-TV movies ever made. Scribe Linda Voorhees is a UCLA screen writing professor and former student/current colleague of Lew Hunter, who wrote "Screenwriting 434" (one of THE best books on screen writing). Her script delivers a powerful plot as well as characters who are so well-developed, the viewer can't help but sympathize with both the mother and grandmother in the end.

Valerie Bertinelli offers a sensitive, gutsy portrayal of Jody Shaffell, the mother struggling to keep custody of her young son. Vanessa Redgrave plays her mother, Zachary's grandmother, who fights for what she believes in. Voorhees balances the characters' arguments and emotions so well on both sides, the audience can feel the pain of these "two mothers." A real scene-stealer is Colleen Flynn who plays Jody's girlfriend, Maggie Fergus. Lesser-known (and under-appreciated) Flynn shines as her character offers first romance, then rock-solid strength to Jody as well as light touches of humor throughout the film.

Any reader of Hunter's text would be wise to view this film as well as Voorhees' "Crazy From The Heart," or Hunter's "Fallen Angel" and "If Tomorrow Comes." The scenes flow smoothly into each other, taking the audience on an intense, thought-provoking journey to the final destination. Every line of dialogue comes straight from the character and plays right into the development of the story. No boring dinner table scenes here. No need to wonder, "What was the point of that line?" It's all good.

One key point -- if possible, try to see a copy of the original ABC broadcast version, not the reruns on cable. The cable broadcasts deleted a few scenes (not because of content, but because of time) and it makes the transition from one scene to the next a bit bumpy unless you know what's missing.


Caught this one by accident on the TV here ; although the ending was about as satisfying as could be, it was difficult to feel any real emotion. Looking at it from the moral point of view, the Bible, which is the ultimate moral authority, teaches us that homosexuality is wrong, so wrong it is and the matter cannot be up for discussion. That said, the question is " how far should the punishment go " or "should it go as far as depriving a mother of her child if she is homosexual". This will obviously depend on each family involved so there is no hard and fast rule but what absolutely blew me was ... if she was a homosexual, how on earth could she have had a child ??? (Assuming the birth was not due to rape ). As I missed the first few minutes of the film, I have no way of knowing this - but if no rape is involved, this would be a major plot flaw. Jody's mother is acting in what she perceives to be the best interests of the child - what is worrying is that the child would appear to have been referring to it's mother's partner as "daddy" - very dangerous as a child needs to be brought up in a family unit of male father and female mother. Children brought up with a mother and no father, a father and no mother or worse,two fathers or two mothers are bound to suffer a disadvantage in their perception of the family unit and it is up to the adults to act in a responsible matter once they have decided to procreate. Homosexuals will obviously view the film in a different light as they will put the emphasis on the love the mother has for the child, and suggest that the sexual relationship of the "parents" is secondary if not irrelevant. They will be able to feel the emotions of the mother and will be indignant at the attitude of the grandmother - and that is quite understandeable. The character of the little boy is not that well developed and unfortunately we don't really know what he thinks - he is more an innocent victim of the bickering. But, to return to my title, it is difficult to feel real emotion, given the immoral context and one can only regret the plight of the child to have been caught up in this through no fault of his own. As I feel that society is becoming more and more immoral, not only through homosexuality but also through corruption, violence, paedophilia, lies, greed ....it is necessary to take stock of and protest against this every time it occurs - albeit in the course of a film. The bible tells us not to judge others on a personal level but nevertheless to make known one's views on different moral issues with vehemence...and that's where the fine line has to be drawn !!


The story here shows one of America's weaknesses. Vanessa Redgrave plays a woman fighting against immorality, fighting for her grandson to be raised, sadly, without a mom and a dad but morally. A lot of this movie made me completely sick but in the end, thankfully, there's victory! Overall, it wasn't very well made... just too short of a time to really give each side of the story and show exactly what's wrong with what's happening. One thing that needed explanation was Vanessa Redgrave's British accent, at times, slipping through clear as day... maybe her character was born in England then moved to America at an early age and the two accents merged? Uh... i doubt it. Anyway, i give this movie a 0 out of 10. It's really a shame we live in a world that gave us a true story for this to be based upon.


I love this movie! It is funny, full of inside jokes, and Richard Moll is GREAT of course. Most people hate it, but I love it. You could say it's a guilty pleasure of mine, but I wouldn't say that because I don't feel guilty at all for loving it!


Sadly this film has been trashed over and over. But Bette Davis actually saves this movie from being totally forgotten. It was our last opportunity to see her act before her passing in Oct 1989. She doesn't look anywhere near as bad as she thought she did; in the scene where she meets her new step-grandson, she looks very effective in her white ensemble.

It has it's funny moments, Bette is both dry and witty in her principal scenes and I'd love to see it out on DVD. I gave it 8 out of 10. No problems with the production design nor direction. Cohen made a courageous attempt to put together a quick fix storyline after Bette Davis walked out after one week's filming and I salute him for giving Bette a final opportunity to appear on screen. She's wonderful in her too few scenes. A complete riot. If only it could have been completed, this would have been quite a comedy.

Thanks to the cast and crew for working on this film after the difficulties. If they hadn't, we'd never have seen the scene's Bette did film.

I liked it!


Just the fact that it's Bette's last film is worth releasing it to DVD, maybe there is some extra's that the director has of Bette. I admit it's not the best movie but it is a little campy and fun to watch. And I respect Bette for acting up until she died. also Colleen Camp is awesome and did a lot of cool movies in the 80's...'Valley Girl' & 'Clue' anyways...I'd buy it if came out on DVD...of course I'm a Bette Davis fan and to all the the negative people making comment's "She'll take a tumble on you, role you like you were dice until you come up Blue...She's Got Bette Davis Eyes" ....well the movie is worth seeing for her alone and I to wish she was in it more but at least they kept her scenes and it's funny with some of the cracks like the Joan Crawford picture & when she's on the phone and there's a huge picture of Bette from the 1940's on the side of the wall. those are timely stuff knowing this was her last film.


WICKED STEPMOTHER is the kind of movie that happens to an actor who cannot understand that his or her time has passed, and that encroaching illness and the approximation of death should be an indicative that maybe it would be best to relax and enjoy the accolades, retrospectives, and lifetime achievement awards.

Bette Davis was coming off the mild success of THE WHALES OF AUGUST when she decided to do this movie about a witch who moves into a family's home and causes havoc there. Severely ill, barely able to remember her lines, and frail as a leaf about to fall from its branch in the middle of fall, she was forced to step out of filming only a week after production on the movie began.

Surprisingly enough, she claimed problems with the script among other things, making it clear that old age and illness had not mellowed her character one bit. What she seemed unable to understand that this sort of demands which she had been known for back in her prime was supremely out of style by now, and for an actress of her stature to assume she could throw her ego around just because, was pushing it a little.

Hence, her scenes remain in this movie and should have probably been either deleted and replaced with another actress. I can only assume that the director did not have the money to replace Davis, and decided to keep her character and have Barbara Carrera step in, adding a ludicrous set-up that would explain Davis' absence from the movie. As it is, WICKED STEPMOTHER remains as Bette Davis' last film, one that can be bypassed as an gargantuan error on her behalf.


Wow was this BAD!!! Bette Davis (in her last film role sad to say) is a witch who marries Lionel Stander (wisely walking through his role) and invades his house which he shares with his adult children (Colleen Camp and David Rasche). Things "comically" spin out of control. Then Davis disappears (she wisely left after a week of shooting) and is replaced by sexy Barbara Carrera. With Davis gone this officially became unwatchable--I turned it off after an hour.

Before this "Burnt Offerings" was Davis' worst film--this is 100 times worse! I admit she does have a fun opening line--"Call me mom!" but she looks terrible. Her speech is slurred because of one of the strokes she had and wears a terrible red wig. Davis was obviously very ill when she did this. Still, despite it all, she manages to make the most of her small screen time. All the dialogue is terrible with tons of unfunny comedy but Davis bravely makes the worst lines sound quite funny. And there is a somewhat funny visual joke revealing Camp's former mother was Joan Crawford! It's a shock seeing Davis looking this terrible and--basically--the film is just dreadful. MGM released THIS? Also when Carrara takes over it actually gets worse. She is very beautiful--but no actress.

I only saw this because it was Davis' last film. I wish I hadn't. A total bomb. AVOID at all costs!!


This film is nothing short of a criminal act! Was nobody looking out for poor, frail (almost dead) Bette Davis?? The filmmaker supposedly was trying to offer the legend what she wanted most, To work.. but I say that everyone who was involved with the making of this catastrophe that stood by and allowed an already dead Bette Davis to be shamed like this is GUILTY of a crime! A crime against everything that we classic film lovers and fans of Bette Davis hold dear. I realize that Bette walked off the film, some say because of her failing health, others say Bette (as sick as she was) knew that this steaming pile was beneath her. Whatever the reason I am glad that we can at least say that Bette walked off because this STAIN on her glorious career is as bad as I have ever seen! I almost turned it off after only 15min and then I forced myself to watch until the point that Bette walked off. If someone wants to see a Bette Davis film then I recommend they watch All About Eve or Now Voyager or The Letter... or if you want to see a "farewell" performance then watch The Whales of August which co stars Lillian Gish, Vincent Price, Ann Southern and Harry Carey Jr. In closing I just want to say that I am a film historian and preservationist at heart and I would NEVER think of making my next statement if I didn't feel it was the best solution, that being said I feel that this film should be erased from history.. All it does is tarnish the memory of one of the greatest actresses that ever graced stage or screen. Nothing whatsoever can be gained from viewing this film, if so I would not say that I feel it should be completely deleted. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I hope that all of you Bette Davis fans that haven't seen this movie yet will PLEASE SKIP this one! Then for all the Bette Davis fans and classic movie lovers/buffs that have seen some or all of this excrement, don't remember Bette this way, she was so wonderful and full of life in All About Eve, remember her that way.

If anyone involved in the making of Wicked Stepmother reads this - SHAME ON YOU!

I am adding a list of what I consider "must see" films for film lovers so if you don't want to see my list stop here. Thanks!

Here are a few of my favorite dvds that I recommend watching- -Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941) -Casablanca - MichaelCurtiz(1943) -The Third Man - Carol Reed (1949) -Seven Samurai - Akira Kurosawa(1954) -Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958) -Rules of The Game - Jean Renoir (1939) -Singing In The Rain - Stanley Donen (1952) -Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock (1958) -Charade - Stanley Donen (1963) -Double Indemnity - Billy Wilder (1944) -Gone With The Wind - Victor Flemming/George Cukor (1939) -Lawrence of Arabia - David Lean (1962) -The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972) -Wizard of Oz - Victor Flemming (1939) -400 Blows - Francois Truffaut (1959) -The Grand Illusion - Jean Renoir (1937) -8 1/2 - Federico Fellini (1963) -The Seventh Seal - Ingmar Bergman (1957) -The Magnificent Ambersons - Orson Welles (1942) -The Red Shoes - Powell & Pressburger (1948) -Treasure of the Sierra Madre - John Houston (1948) -Gaslight - George Cukor (1944) -The Black Narcissus - Powell & Pressburger (1946) -The Maltese Falcon - John Houston (1941) -Now Voyager - Irving Rapper (1942) -Sunset Blvd. - Billy Wilder (1950) -The Big Sleep - Howard Hawks (1946) -All About Eve - Joe Mankiewicz (1950) -North By Northwest - Alfred Hitchcock (1959) -The Trial - Orson Welles (1962) -Laura - Otto Preminger (1944) -The Lost Weekend - Billy Wilder (1945) -The Lady Eve - Preston Sturges (1941) -Night of The Hunter - Charles Laughton (1955) -The Searchers - John Ford (1956) -On The Waterfront - Elia Kazan (1954) -Battleship Potemkin - Sergei Eisenstein (1925) -The General - Buster Keaton (1927) -Breathless - Jean-Luc Godard (1959) -Sweet Smell Of Success - Alexander Mackendrick (1957) -L'Atalante - Jean Vigo (1934) -Metropolis - Fritz Lang (1927) -Out Of The Past - Jacques Tourneur (1947) -The Lady Vanishes - Alfred Hitchcock (1938) -Mr. Arkadin - Orson Welles (1955) -Rear Window - Alfred Hitchcock (1954) -The Killers - Robert Siodmak (1946) -The Lady From Shanghai - Orson Welles (1947) -Ace In The Hole - Billy Wilder (1951) -The Thief of Bagdad - Michael Powell (1940)

and if you are trying to discover something that you have never seen. Then do a search of any of the following directors and check out their work.

-Orson Welles -Alfred Hitchcock -Powell & Pressburger -Billy Wilder -Ingmar Bergman -John Ford -Carol Reed -John Houston -Federico Fellini -Akira Kurosawa -Stanley Donen -Michael Curtiz -George Cukor -Elia Kazan -Jean Renoir -Frank Capra -Martin Scorsese -Victor Flemming -Jean Vigo -Howard Hawks -Francois Truffaut -Preston Sturges


Inane, ridiculous, boring, stupid, hilariously bad. This movie is all these things and more. "Leonard: Part 6" was Oscar-worthy compared to this. I feel fairly confident that I could have come up with a better movie by having no script at all and just telling the actors to improvise their lines. At least Bette Davis had the sense to realize how beneath her this movie was. The thing is, this movie is beneath the acting skills of most of the people in it. Including the cat.


Sadly, this is Bette Davis's last screen appearance. The script is so bad, that Davis refused to continue filming until changes were made. When the producers refused, Davis left the production in the middle of filming and her part was re-written to explain her disappearance. Her character, by magical powers, becomes a cat!


I am a pure Hanna-Barbera fan and a pure fan in animation also! This was another great and enjoyable series! Yogi Bear was first a segment on The Huckleberry Hound Show and then Yogi got promoted to his own show and Hokey Wolf took Yogi's place on The Huckleberry Hound Show. Yogi Bear's guest stars on his show were Snagglepuss and Yakky Doodle Duck. I remember that before Snagglepuss got his own show he first guest starred on some other Hanna-Barbera cartoons like Quick Draw McGraw and Snooper and Blabber. He guest starred he was orange and then when he got his own cartoon he was pink with cuffs and collar tie which made him look like a brother to the Pink Panther almost. Yakky Doodle is a duck who has a dog friend named Chopper who would always stick up for him. I liked some of the Yakky Doodle cartoons when they have Fibber Fox in them. I remember in every Yogi Bear cartoon, Yogi Bear would always tell his sidekick, Boo-Boo that they are getting a picnic basket and Ranger Smith always catches Yogi red-handed which I thought was funny. This cartoon is smarter than the average, hey hey hey!


This short t.v. show was funny, excitement, and plain old great, it's not bad for a long time ago show that has been in the air for 27 years. That is a long time and you know why that long, because it was a great show. Yogi is a bear that wants a lot of food for hibernation, he and his partner in time Boo-Boo will not stop going past the ranger and get the picnic basket. But they always fail in one after another way in a funny way but different ways. And he has a girl name Cindy who loves him but Yogi doesn't love her back, thats so funny.I wished they never stopped making "The Yogi Bear Show", the people back then and right now will miss the show.


Think about it. Yogi Bear is a free spirit who chafes at the rules and regulations of his limited world, and yet enjoys the comforts it offers. His swiping of picnic baskets is less to satisfy hunger than to thumb his nose at the "establishment", personified by Ranger Smith. His appearance on TV in the early 60's was fortuitous, as it coincided with the start of the Beatles' career and the beginning of the hippie movement. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Yogi wearing love beads and carrying a "Make Love, Not War" sign. LOL Trouble with Hanna-Barbera, though, is once they had a good thing going, they didn't know when to stop. After the success of Yogi, they churned out numerous, inferior copies: "Wally Gator", "Magilla Gorilla", "The Hair Bear Bunch", etc. Originality was not their forte.


Uggh. It's amazing that in recent years, old shows, whether good or terrible, have attained "classic" status. A while back, I heard some folks on TV referring to Yogi Bear as a "classic" cartoon and was absolutely shocked! Imagine,...a terrible cartoon with abysmal production values is now seen by some as a classic?!?! No way,...that is, unless classic means "heaping pile of crap".

Back in the 1950s, Hanna-Barbera productions was a good thing. They were responsible for some wonderful Tom and Jerry shorts and they were well-respected. However, after getting fired by some idiots at MGM, they couldn't afford to direct cartoons with high production values. The number of frames used per second and the backgrounds for the animations in their new non-MGM toons were strictly bargain basement. And, in addition to low production values, they simply were unfunny and meant to appeal only to very young kids. And, by the 1960s, lousy quality cartoons were now the norm, so Yogi Bear was a pretty successful cartoon--along with other totally uninteresting characters as Quickdraw McGraw and Huckleberry Hound.

So my final verdict is that they are crappy and helped usher in a 20-25 year period of horrible animation. Thanks to newer higher quality animation from Nickelodeon and others, hopefully we can forget this crap and realize that older isn't always better. Don't waste your time with these cartoons.


Sure, it's hokey, brash, and fairly simple. It's a living *cartoon*! The songs and jokes are very dated ... which is fantastic! Li'l Abner is actually a fabulous political satire from the 50's. Not only that, but thankfully Michael Kidd's original athletic choreography from Broadway has been captured for posterity. And, hey. Any film that features Valerie Harper, Beth Howland, and Julie Newmar before they were stars ... plus Leslie Parrish (author Richard Bach's wife!) as Daisy Mae ... jeesh. It's a national treasure!


This delightful musical has it all...The colorful characters from Dogpatch U.S.A.,the great songs that made the Broadway show such a hit,funny and lively dances and colorful sets and costumes!his melodic film is led to victory by the late,great Stubby Kaye as Marryin Sam. While its Abner's story Kaye's Sam steals the picture. His 3 main numbers are all showstoppers especially the famous Jubilation T. Cornpone. Peter Palmer and Leslie Parrish are charming as Abner and Daisy Mae,while Howard St. John is a perfectly pompous General Bullmoose. My only regret is that they cut his brilliant "Progress Is The Root Of All Evil" number from the stage version.Stella Stevens is also well cast as Bullmoose's mistress Appasionata Von Climax. The songs are indeed some of the strongest ever written for a traditional musical comedy including the comedic satire on politic "The Country's in The Very Best Of Hands' and Daisy's and Sam's homage to growing older "Past My Prime".

 In short 'Lil Abner' is sheer musical delight.


L'IL ABNER is a minor classic from the golden age of musicals. Dogpatch and its denizens are stylistically realized in this comic-strip of a film. Peter Palmer (Abner), Billie Hayes (Mammy Yokum) and Stubby Kaye (Marryin' Sam), among others, bring the eccentric citizens of this burg to musical life with humor and vitality. Among the best songs are "Jubilation T. Cornpone," "The Country's in the Very Best of Hands," and the "Rag Off'n the Bush" dance. Put your Sondheim sophistication aside and enjoy this wonderfully down-home parody of government and backwoods folk.


Lil Abner ran as a comic strip for over 20 years before being converted into a long running Broadway musical. The original production had Peter Palmer in the lead with Edie Adams instead of Leslie Parrish being Daisy Mae. It debuted in 1956 and ran for two years.

Our government has determined Nevada with its contribution of Las Vegas to our culture should no longer be a site of atomic testing. Dogpatch with its 100% unemployment should be. So everyone's to pack up and leave in a week.

Needless to say the residents of Dogpatch who Al Capp created are not ready to leave, but they are blindly patriotic. They have to find some thing worth salvaging in Dogpatch.

They hit on it with Mammy Yoakum's Yoakumberry tonic which she has been feeding a spoonful of to Lil Abner since his birth. He's grown up big and strong with a soloflex physique.

Let's just say that there's a problem with Yoakumberry tonic. Mammy Yoakum may have hit upon steroid abuse 30 years ahead of time. That leads to all the complications, matrimonial and political, contained in the plot.

I liked the production and the surreal sets, very much like Warren Beatty's production of Dick Tracy later on, another cartoon character. I didn't like the fact that the best song of the Gene DePaul-Johnny Mercer score was left out of the film. It's called Love in a Home and Bing Crosby did a fine record of it back in 1956.

Peter Palmer had he come along even 10 years earlier might have given folks like Howard Keel and Gordon MacRae competition for musical leads in film. As it was, musicals were slowly dying out as they became to expensive to produce.

The one who got the most attention on Broadway and Hollywood was Stubby Kaye as Marrying Sam. DePaul and Mercer wrote a wonderful satirical song called Jubilation T. Cornpone about a less than able southern general who was proud to call Dogpatch his hometown. Kaye was a great performer and fortunate are we that in Guys and Dolls and Lil Abner we have his two best known performances preserved.

By the way, the character General Bullmoose who Howard St. John played, is a spoof of Eisenhower's flannelmouth Defense Secretary Charles E. Wilson. He was the President of General Motors and during his confirmation made that comment that came out "what was good for General Motors was good for the USA." He was the perfect living caricature of a blowhard businessman and Al Capp had a field day with him. Hence the choral song What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA.

Dogpatch may have been useless, but it's sure a nice place to visit.


Having seen the Broadway musical on the New York stage as well as several touring companies and local productions, I fell in love with the music, characters, costumes and choreography. I have the 1959 film version on VHS and DVD. While I was disappointed that some of the songs from the stage version had been deleted like "Love In A Home" and "Progress Is The Root Of All Evil" with one added that was written especially for the movie, it's still one of my favorite musicals. Peter Palmer is fantastic as "Li'l Abner"! Edie Adams is replaced from the Broadway production by Leslie Parrish as "Daisy Mae" Unfortunately Charlotte Rae was not cast as "Mammy Yoakam". Paramount finally released it on DVD April 19, 2005. About time!


This fun musical is a treat to watch. It's clever and silly and exuberant. It is filled with great musical number and actually has a fairly decent plot. And of course, it has my favorite things in it: singing, dancing and a happy ending! There are a number of memorable performances. I mean, who is going to forget Billie Hayes Mammy Yokum declaring "I has spoken!", or Epassionata Von Climax's (Stella Stevens)mantra "What's in it for me?" The supporting roles were all so colorful and wonderful (I still laugh every time Evil Eye Fleagle scurries into a scene!) And we must not forget one of the best non-speaking roles ever, Stupifying Jones (Julie Newmarz).

So if you want to enjoy an almost perfect musical with a few genuine belly laughs along the way, then this is the musical for you!


I first saw this movie when it came out and thought it marvelous. The comic strip Li'l Abner was a satire of life and I thought the movie caught this spirit. The actors portraying the main characters (Little Abner, Daisy Mae, Mammy, Pappy and Marryin' Sam ) did a fine job I thought. The Dogpatch scenes were more stylized as in a play but for this movie looked ok. Thankfully the Jerry Lewis cameo was brief. Audiences of today may not appreciate this movie because of their lack of familiarity with the comic strip but I feel that `older' viewers (who enjoyed the comic strip) will like this movie a lot. Can't wait for a DVD version to appear!


This film is just the best. A pure joy.

It is a remarkably good representation of the comic strip "Lil Abner," which was incredibly popular across America for many, many years. It is very sophisticated humor disguised as a bunch of yokels with no apparent education.

The actors and actresses in this film are magical here. Peter Palmer is absolutely perfect as Abner, and may well be the most gorgeous man to ever live. Stubby Kaye makes you feel like you really have walked into Dogpatch USA in his role as Marrying Sam. There's not a weak performance in the whole lot. And one AMAZING surprise awaits you when you see the Dogpatch girls singing "Put 'Em Back the Way They Was" and notice that a very young VALERIE HARPER is one of the Dogpatch girls! Long before she gained fame on Mary Tyle Moore and her own shows, she sang and danced in "Lil Abner"! Who knew?! It is hard to imagine a more wonderful musical than this. The great Johnny Mercer wrote brilliant & memorable songs for it, which will have your heart singing for days. This movie is an absolute MUST-SEE.


I believe some of the negative comments on this film may be do to people not familiar with the comic strip. I grew up with this comic strip and enjoyed the film very much. Daisy mae was one of my first screen sweethearts. The singing voice of Daisy Mae was Imogene Lynn, a not well known singer except in the musical crowd. I thought the song about politicians in Washington is still valid today. The plot maybe a little corny but it was able to incorporate the little aspects of the comic strip that us old timers are familiar with. Russ


If you are a fan of Al Capp, then this movie is a must to see! The dialog is witty and funny as well as the music. Back in the 1960's most High School had a Sally Hawkins day, as well as a Li'l Abner party once a year. After seeing this movie, you will be smiling to yourself for days afterwards!


This musical from 1959 is a lot of fun. The music is particularly good and the dancing is first-class. Younger people, however, may not enjoy the movie, as it is not at all politically correct and reflects a time, the 1950s, that many of us who lived through it recall with great fondness. I'd give it seven stars out of ten.


I am shocked at some of the comments posted here. To me it seems like we have become so jaded as a society that a simple, funny musical that you need a drop of education about is consigned to the trash heap of history.

The 1950's was a great time in history, change was on the horizon, and the Cold War hung over everyone's head. The problem is that the change agents of the 1960's decided to destroy the past instead of improve on it. So a simple play that had good satire and music in it became not intense, or sexy, or socially relevant enough for the avant-garde tastes of modern times.

It's a funny musical, no more than that, and it aspires to nothing else. enjoy it for what it is, good wholesome fun.


All right, so Al Capp's satire is dated half a century later. It's still one of the most thoroughly enjoyable musicals ever adapted from Broadway.

Dogpatch, USA has been determined by the government to be the most useless place in the country and therefore a suitable place to conduct nuclear testing. So the bizarre inhabitants have to move unless they can find a reason to stop the bombing.

I admit to being old enough to remember the original comic strip, so I'm probably biased. But lively musical numbers like "Jubilation T. Cornpone" and "Put 'em back the Way They Wuz" elevate this above standard Broadway translations.

If you like musicals and great choreography, check this one out!


When "bkoganbing" (of Buffalo) calls Charles E. Wilson a "flannelmouth" it is clear where he stands, but he is sustaining a lie and a slander against Charles E. Wilson. Mr. Wilson was truly one of America's finest business leaders: not only did he start on the assembly line for GM but, even when he was CEO, he kept his Union card framed and on the wall of his office. He DID NOT SAY what that other poster said he said, during his confirmation hearings. He was asked about what effect some legislation or other (or policy) would have on GM. Wilson replied that "it would be good for America. And what's good for America is good for General Motors." The small, silly, anti-capitalistic journalists of that day jumped on the chance to rewrite that testimony and slander one of America's best. Pres. Eisenhower was a great judge of character, and he knew what a great man Wilson was. Shame on the previous poster for sustaining this lie.


Li'l Abner is certainly not a great musical, but it sure is fun. The color on the new DVD is outrageous and just garish enough to bring the comic book quality of the proceedings delightfully to life. (The transfer is sharp as they come as well!) Probably the best part of the film is that from scene one you know that you are watching a filmed stage play. There is no attempt to "open it up" and make the film realistic, and, in that way, we have the closest we can come to what the Broadway edition must have looked like. Yes, some of the topicality is now flat as are some of the jokes, but with Stubby Kaye, Peter Palmer and Stella Stevens in the cast, who cares. Singin' In The Rain it ain't, but taken on its own, Li'l Abner is a delightful couple of hours.


I first knew about this (apart from Leslie Halliwell’s Film Guide) via its poster in a bulky scrapbook of my father’s containing adverts from the time such films were released in Malta. It’s never been shown in my neck of the woods and, therefore, I had to wait till I got hold of the DVD to check it out; despite not being a Musicals fan and the unappetizing backwoods milieu of the narrative, I’d always been interested in it – being based on a comic strip, it was bound to be stylized and filled with colorful characters (with equally descriptive names).

The songs are pretty good (one of the best numbers is the girls’ plea to turn their men from narcissistic bodybuilders – including future “Euro-Cult” stalwart Gordon Mitchell! – back into uncouth but amenable country-folk) – though, once again, the dance sequences (choreographed by Michael Kidd) go on too long and cause the almost two-hour film to drag. As I said in my review of the earlier and lesser straight 1940 version, the plot is much more elaborate this time around – not only do we get an attempt to evacuate the community to make way for A-Bomb tests (a nice touch of topicality) but Abner, Marryin’ Sam (Stubby Kaye) and later many of the people of Dogpatch go to Washington to present the Government with an essential homegrown product (the town had been deemed “the most useless in the U.S.A.”) and then to save the naïve Abner from the clutches of megalomaniac General Bullmoose (Howard St. John).

Sexuality is even more to the fore here – with several great-looking and scantily-clad ladies (Leslie Parrish as Daisy Mae, Carmen Alvarez as Moonbeam McSwine, Julie Newmar as Stupefyin’ Jones and, best of all, Stella Stevens as Bullmoose’s moll Appassionata von Climax!). Incidentally, the loutish Earthquake McGoon is less of a grotesque this time around; Abner’s parents, though, still look like they belong on another planet – also, Robert Strauss (very popular around this time) turns up under heavy (make that filthy) make-up as Daisy Mae’s opportunistic close relative, whereas Jerry Lewis does a very brief uncredited cameo as a dopey-looking character called Itchy McRabbit! By the way, just as RED GARTERS (1954; a viewing of which preceded this), had characters constantly referring to “The Code Of The West”, the people of Dogpatch live by “The Code Of The Hills”…


Adaptation of a hit musical based on a comic strip. It's about a tiny town called Dogpatch and its various strange inhabitants. Chief among them are strong, tall, incredibly handsome Li'l Abner (Peter Palmer) and incredibly beautiful Daisy Mae (Leslie Parrish). There are various plots flying around but basically Daisy Mae is in love with Li'l Abner and wants to marry him...but he keeps stopping short of it and doesn't know why. There's also various other characters that have names like Earthquake McGoon and Marryin' Sam.

This is one of the few movies shot in a widescreen process called VistaVision. That was a great idea because there are some huge musical numbers that completely fill the wide screen. The dances are colorful and (to put it mildly) energetic. The songs are all pretty good with some very clever lyrics. In fact all the characters introduce themselves by singing to the audience! Some people may enjoy the fact that all the young women here are in great shape and wear VERY revealing costumes. We also have a sequence with some muscular handsome men are shown only wearing shorts. Cheesecake AND beefcake! However there are drawbacks here. Palmer and Parrish are both incredibly beautiful people and can sing and dance...but not act. Palmer's acting was incredibly wooden--Parrish wasn't much better. Everybody else overacts to a large degree. The plots are pretty stupid and full of corny humor. A little corny humor goes a LONG way and, at two hours, it gets annoying.

Still this is worth seeing for the colorful sets and costumes, the songs and the incredible dance numbers. Also Jerry Lewis does a (thankfully) brief cameo. Also look for Valerie Harper and Beth Howland as two of the women who have husbands at the end.


I saw L'il Abner for the first time in over 30 years and to me it's an outstanding movie musical based on the Broadway show and Al Capp's comic strip. There were memorable performances from Peter Palmer in the title role, Leslie Parrish as Daisy Mae, Billie Hayes (who later went on to play Witcheepoo on H.R. Pufnstuf) as Mammy Yokum and Stubby Kaye, whose rendition of the song about Dogpatch's founder "Jubliation T. Cornpone" was a highlight. Also, watch for early sightings of Stella Stevens and Valerie Harper. Other songs that stood out were "Namely You," "Put 'Em Back" and "The Matrimonial Stomp."

Unfornately, the political humor in the movie seems dated, especially in the song "The Country's in the Very Best of Hands." There are also a couple of songs that were in the Broadway version that got cut from the movie. General Bullmoose's song "Progress is the Root of All Evil" and the song the doctors sung at the testing site "Oh Happy Day." Otherwise, L'il Abner is a hilarious throwback to the days of the late 50s.


Al Capp's characters translate to Broadway and then to Hollywood. Capp lost a leg in a trolley accident as a boy. His bitterness wraps itself in satire. The music is forgettable. My interest is Julie Newmar as Stupefyin' Jones. She is a secret weapon created by Available Jones and a metaphor for the atomic bomb. He unleashes her in the Sadie Hawkins Day race to stupefy men so that the women of Dogpatch can catch them. Julie is devastating in seamed nylons. She was the sexiest woman in the history of women---5'11" and 145 pounds. Li'l Abner is steeped in Cold War thinking and regarded as dated although it does turn up on the stage from time to time.


Yes, it's horribly dated. But I remember when I first viewed this really peculiar glop, at the tender age of about 10, only a year or two after it had premiered, I was unimpressed even then.

The "acting" - if you can call it that, is so over-the-top, hyper-energetic, schmaltzy, in-your-face, "I'm gonna entertain you or else" overdone, that it's just fatiguing to watch. There's basically no story, the songs are instantly forgettable, and the dance numbers resemble cheerleading routines more than anything else. I can't think of anything to recommend it.

And with it's bizarre colors, intentional (I assume)filming on a barely disguised soundstage, and incredibly plastic costumes and sets, along with the aforementioned overacting, the overall tone is one of just unbelievable creepiness. REALLY creepy.

Yes, avoid at all costs...


as read abut 200 cinemas in Australia in the 60s. Well what a great time is there to be had..and ABNER is the winner of this bonkers musical duo....... As a cold war farce it is there with ONE TWO THREE (as a bookend) and the sly sexual crudity recycled into LOLITA is flat out funny. There is about 100 "whaaah" moments here and guest appearances, berserk clothing styles and cartoon imagery make it ....well .......funny. Mad Magazine behavior and tabloid sledgehammer comedy add to allow any viewer who knows this is STOOPID but masquerading as a political farce will get most jokes..............the rest...well, read the comments from folk who can't connect the flouro colors..... Stubby Kaye is in fine GUYS AND, er, ROGER RABBIT form and it is fun to see his Schick in full flight with several showstopper musical numbers. Kids will roar with laughter and YOU will say...isn't this funny....but a bit rude and WOW atomic weapons too.....


Fifties movies are -- well -- fifties movies. You accept them for what they are. In those terms, Li'l Abner is fun, especially Stubby Kaye as Marryin' Sam. Just why the fifties are a vast movie wasteland is an interesting subject. I grew up in the fifties, and you could be marked as a non-conformist by not wearing a tie. You got laughed at if your haircut didn't show at least an inch of neck above your collar. Naturally, all this had a chilling effect on television and movies, and so we have only a handful of great movies between the glories of The Third Man and To Have and To Have Not in the forties and Lawrence of Arabia and To Kill a Mockingbird in the sixties. Look at the Oscar winners from the fifties to get an idea of just how bad things were. And so we turned to science fiction -- Destination Moon, Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth -- and to movies based on comic strips like Li'l Abner. When you watch Li'l Abner, just remember, in the fifties this passed for pungent political satire and risqué humor. ricknorwood, sfsite


Pity Mercer and de Paul didn't quit with Jubilation T. Cornpone, the only good song in the show. A couple of the others had potential, but didn't achieve it. The script itself was marvelously weak -- characters were at best illogical and at worst just flat idiotic. If the object was to badly caricaturize hillbillies, senators, and scientists, it worked all too well. The acting tended to be wooden, with only three decent performances: Julie Newmar, Stubby Kaye, and Stella Stevens. A shame they weren't enough to rescue the movie. The dancers were very good -- unfortunately the choreography was very poor.

On the up side -- it could have been longer...


I've been forced to watch this so many times that I know it inside and out, and I've hated it from the very first time I saw it! The songs are outright stupid, the acting is terrible, and the only thing that keeps me from writing hate mail to who or whatever is responsible for this movie is the brief appearances of Julie Newmar. Stubby Kaye wasn't so bad, though his character, "Marryin' Sam", became more irritating as time went on. Unless you're *really* bored and you don't have MST3K: The Movie on hand, AVOID, AVOID, AVOID!


Terrible musical. Not one song is memorable and the performances are wooden. I vote to burn the negative!


Caution: Contains spoilers

There are countless strands in what Richard Hofstadter termed the `paranoid style in American Politics.' In My Son John, Leo McCarey (the Frank-Capraesque director of Duck Soup, Ruggles of Red Gap and Going My Way), weaves several of them into the most emotionally loaded and propagandistically shameless Red Scare movie of the cold-war years. He reassembles the apparatus of the home-front tearjerker, retired after deployment during World War II, to feed fears of Soviet infiltration. Rarely resuscitated, My Son John remains a glimpse into a tribal mind-set that by no means vanished with the disgrace and death of Senator Joe McCarthy but even after the turn of a new millennium enjoys its vogue.

The Jeffersons are middle-Americans right out of Norman Rockwell cover art. Patriarch Dean Jagger is a schoolteacher, Legionnaire, pipe-smoker and beer-drinker (though when vexed switches to Bourbon). Mom is apple-cheeked, twinkly-eyed Helen Hayes, active in her church's Ladies' Solidarity and even more so in keeping tabs on her three grown sons. Two of them (beefy blonds Richard Jaeckel and James Young) present no obvious problem, as former halfbacks headed off to fight the Korean War. (Normal or no, one of them bids mom farewell by a slap on her rear end.) The third, dark-haired child, however (Robert Walker), never tossed a pigskin in his life (the first clue), but in compensation boasts `more degrees than a thermometer.' Consequently of course he's a non-believer. Also, he's a big shot in Washington - and, as it will emerge, an operative of the Communist conspiracy.

My Son John keeps the revelation of his sinister, secret life firmly within the bosom of this increasingly screwy family, augmented by a priest and a doctor. Old hostilities erupt on one of Walker's rare visits home. While Hayes labors to keep up the facade of normalcy by bustling around like Fay Bainter and mugging like a simpleton, she defaults to mournful reverie more appropriate to Mary Tyrone in Long Day's Journey into Night. Jagger stays full of bluster and received opinion, another simpleton doing duty as model citizen. Against a barrage of parental prying (`People in Washington are starting to see things as they are, aren't they?' and `Do you have a girl yet?' and `What church are you going to in Washington?'), Walker maintains a detached air of amused condescension, baffling Hayes (whom he soothingly dismisses as `dear' and `darling') and needling Jagger (hence, the whiskey).

Half a century later, Walker's irony has another register to it, that of an urban (and urbane) homosexual parrying the thrusts of parochial snoops. Even at the time it probably had this resonance, if more faintly, since sodomy, atheism and Communism made up the unholy, if unspoken, triad of the times (aka: moral turpitude). But the hint of sexual unorthodoxy may owe to Walker's reprising his Bruno Anthony in Hitchcock's Strangers On A Train of the previous year, where his interactions with dotty mother (Marion Lorne) and unseen but hated father are much like the dynamics of the Jefferson family. (This identification has an even closer source, of which more later.) And Hayes' penetration of her son John's wicked ways comes from wounded maternal pride (`When it gets to the stage that you're making fun of a mother's love...,' she accuses, breaking off in horror).

But on the surface, Walker's derelictions are not any liaisons he may pursue in Rock Creek Park after midnight but his abandonment first of his faith then of patriotism. When he urges Hayes to take the pills the doctor has prescribed for her (apparently, some menopausal nostrum), she comes back with `What about Moses and the tablets he left behind with the prescription written right on them?' Boasting that the only reading that matters to her are cookbook and Bible, she makes him swear on it (the Good Book, not Good Housekeeping) that he is `not now nor ever was' a member of the Communist Party, as if the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities had convened in the homey kitchen. Moments later, Jagger makes him repeat the same oath but won't accept it, on the grounds that the Bible means nothing to dialectical materialists. (Had Walker been a JayCee and a Taft Republican, it wouldn't have warmed Jagger's iced-up heart.)

The movie careens along an ever murkier trajectory. Van Heflin insinuates himself deviously into their lives, in a way more typical of Eastern-Bloc secret police than of J. Edgar Hoover's F.B.I. When a key left in a pair of torn pants precipitates an urgent call from Walker, Hayes dutifully retrieves them from the church charity drive and boards a plane to Washington to deliver them. Intercepted and set up by Heflin, she finds that the key unlocks the door to a convicted spy's apartment - finally, the furtive love-nest uncovered through a mother's vigilance! (Happily, the spy turns out to be female, so at least her worst suspicions are allayed.)

The plot, which had shown some measure of control, grows more hysterical as it thrashes around looking for a way out. Hayes, decompensating as battily as Gloria Swanson in the last reel of Sunset Blvd., sings snatches of the `Battle Hymn of the Republic' and spouts football metaphors. And Walker suddenly undergoes a dark night of the soul, precipitated by - what else? - his love for his mother.

To be fair, the making of My Son John suffered the worst kind of catastrophe: Before principal photography was completed, Walker died (of an adverse reaction to a shot of the sedative sodium amytal, potentiated by the level of alcohol customarily in his bloodstream). So the final cut was cobbled together from existing footage augmented with outtakes from Strangers On A Train (there are oddly-composed shots of Walker speaking silently from telephone booths). In the movie, Walker (as he would do simultaneously off screen) meets an abrupt quietus; he was on his way to `infect' the graduating class of his alma mater through a commencement speech. And the film's conclusion freezes into a long, hieratic tableau: A shaft of radiant light (suggestive either of divine grace or an interrogation chamber) floods the empty podium as Walker's tape-recorded voice delivers his anguished recantation. This sustained note of redemption rings as false to the traditions of cinema as it does to the politics of the time and to any mature grasp of human nature.


I actually owned a bootleg 16mm copy of "My Son John" about 35 years ago and showed it as part of a "Sex, Drugs and Treason" festival on college campuses, along with "Pecker Island" and "Reefer Madness." "My Son John" is a movie which is almost comically awful, with Robert Walker swearing on the Bible that he's not a Communist; Dean Jagger singing "If you don't like your Uncle Sammy;" the Communists tapping the FBI's phones rather than vice versa; Robert Walker dying from a blast of a Commie machine gun after a geographically impossible chase through downtown Washington; the taped posthumous speech to a collection of frozen-faced graduates with warnings of "stimulants" leading to "narcotics;" and finally, Dean Jagger more or less telling Helen Hayes that their late son got what he deserved.

So bad, though, that it's absolutely sublime, sort of like a "Reefer Madness" of politics, with its stereotyped, one-dimensional characters and its glorification of authority figures. I must have shown this movie several dozen times within the course of two years, but I could never once refrain from watching it again. There is no other movie which quite captures the spirit of blind conformity to the ethos of the witch-hunt as does "My Son John." Finding this site by accident makes me want to track down my copy (I lent it to a friend 15 years ago and never got it back) and see if I can get it transferred onto a DVD. Seeing this movie is better than reading almost any conventional political history of this period. Easily an 8 on a 10 scale, even acknowledging that it's one of those Bizarroworld scales.


I saw this film only once when it was broadcast on network television (ABC, I think) during the late 1960's or early 1970's. I had already read about this movie and made a point of watching it to see how "terrible/horrible" it really was. What I saw was a very slick and entertaining piece of propaganda. This was obviously Hollywood's reply to the HUAC and McCarthyism. It would be interesting to know what the artists involved really thought of this film as they were making it and how they regarded it, later. It is ridiculous for film critic bloggers to trash the individuals associated with this movie; there are thousands of miles of celluloid that stink far worse than this. What is horrible is the culture that produced the "need" for this propaganda, and that was never able to know or tell the truth because of political institutions. This film is evidence of a shameful and troubling period of history that, even today, seems to be rewritten to justify the present and future brain washers of America. This movie deserves to be preserved and should be made available for all to see.


In viewing My Son John you have to keep a few things in mind. First Leo McCarey directed and wrote the film. Second Leo McCarey was a staunch anti-Communist and part of Hollywood's right wing caucus. Third Leo McCarey was also a devout and practicing Catholic. Fourth Leo McCarey was also one of Hollywood's bigger alcoholics. Put all that together and I think you've got the answer to how My Son John was created.

It's interesting to speculate how My Son John would have turned out if Robert Walker had lived to complete the film. Putting the patchwork ending on the film that he was forced to do left a lot of plot holes. For one thing, I'm not sure exactly why the FBI in the person of Van Heflin was on to Walker. He's a government bureaucrat, a high level one, but we never really learn what he did as a job and what he might have been doing for the Communists.

What Walker is is the oldest son of Dean Jagger and Helen Hayes as a representative a group of middle Americans as you can get. He's quite a bit older than his brothers and made a good academic record and now is a big success in Washington. His two jock younger brothers, Richard Jaeckel and James Young are about to go to war in Korea and he's back home for the family sendoff. You know right away something's amiss when he shows up late, not really having the heart to wish his brothers well in fighting against the Reds in Korea.

How do you spot a Communist? Well if you're Leo McCarey you've got to dislike the Catholic Church you've been brought up in. That's what Walker does, he makes snide remarks about the church and other wholesome American institutions. Man's got to be a subversive as his parents come to realize. Remember Pius XII was Pope at the time and he was a staunch anti-Communist. This is where McCarey's Catholicism comes into play.

How incredibly naive. If Walker were really an effective spy he'd be the loudest amen shouter in church, make the most obviously big contributions in the collection plate etc. to keep his cover.

Frank McHugh reprises his role from Going My Way as Father O'Dowd who apparently has left the mean streets of Hell's Kitchen New York and Barry Fitzgerald and now is pastoring out in the red states. Since McCarey also wrote and directed Going My Way and created McHugh's character he certainly could do what he wanted with him. But for the life of me I can't figure out why McHugh adopted a brogue for this film when he had none in Going My Way.

When Leo McCarey was creating some of the best screen comedy like The Awful Truth and Once Upon A Honeymoon, there were few his peer and none better. But he was out of his league in dealing with political material. And if you're wondering about how this might have turned out if Walker had lived, take a look at McCarey's last film, Satan Never Sleeps. Also an anti-Communist film it makes My Son John look like Citizen Kane.