I find many of the old horror movie titles as part of packaged releases from Brentwood and other companies, twelve titles for $5.99, fifty titles for $20.00, etc. Therefore, many of these films have not been remastered and have lousy sound or picture quality. This is very true for the version I saw of "Drive-in Movie Massacre". I couldn't understand most of what was being said in the opening sequence, and I had to increase the brightness of my television to figure out exactly whom was being shown at the end, and I think I know who it was -- due to the context -- but it wasn't clear.

However, despite its sound and picture problems, this film couldn't have been any better in crisp shape 30 years ago. I was only 4 and 5 in 1976 and recall only one time being sneaked into a drive-in; my understanding of drive-ins, however, is that when things on the screen got boring, people honked their horns. I read that that was why Sam Raimi kept up the pace of "Evil Dead", to prevent horn-honking. I imagine that there was much honking during screenings of this film. The ending is laughably absurd; it MIGHT have worked in 1940, or 1876, and it might scare little four year olds who are still afraid of the bogeyman and have parents who try to keep them well-behaved by using his appearance as a threat, but for teenagers or adults, it's "Oh, Jesus" lame.

This is on top of the film being highly padded, with a minutes-long scene of one character's carnival-gazing and another set in a warehouse that doesn't make a lick of sense. However, I found this film mildly amusing, in a movie-night-with-your-drinking-buddies sort of way. It has touches of camp, sometimes intentional. The manager of the drive-in, filled with angrily-told stories of self-pity, amused me, and I thought that the actor playing "Germy" often hit some spot-on moments, his pathetic 'am-I-a-good-boy?' eagerness to help with the investigation and wounded reaction when finally being pushed too far helping to ground the film.

This is not the worst film of its genre, and I'd watch it again with friends who want to make fun of something while we get drunk.


A restless crowd and a cheesy double feature lead to two brutal killings at a drive-in! Detective Koch and O Leary assemble a mixed cast of suspects that would make even Charlie Chan cringe. Is it the deranged knife-thrower the foul-mouthed bigot the projectionist the janitor or the pathetic voyeur? Cold razor-sharp steel slices through warm flesh and hot blood squirts over the screen as patrons are splattered across the hoods of cars and even dismembered at the concession stand! Starring BRUCE KIMBALL ADAM LAWRENCE DOUGLAS GUDBYE and VERKINA FLOWER. Executive Producer ROCHELLE WEISBERG. Story By STU SEGALL Written By GEORGE 'BUCK.


"What a turkey!" This is a simple line spoken by one of the characters as he's watching a random movie in the drive-in theater, but the phrase is actually much more applicable to the production he's starring in himself! This is a truly abysmal low-budget horror flick, put together by a bunch of amateurs that know nothing about cinema but simply wanted to cash-in on the success of such contemporary classics like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Two very UN-heroic police detectives investigate a series of murders that all took place in a Californian drive-in movie theater. It looks like some nutbag is practicing his sword-swashbuckling techniques on the horny customers there. The suspects include the theater's owner (who used to be a carny), the simple-minded janitor and the local pervert that spies upon young couples. Apart from some filthy gore (the best bits occurring in the opening minutes already), there's nothing to see here, unless if you're an admirer of bad acting, bad directing, bad editing, bad photography and even worse music. I couldn't understand half of the dialogs because all the moronic characters were mumbling, and the other half just didn't make any sense. The "red herring" climax is overlong and, despite its short running time, there are still way too many boring moments in the script. The concept and set pieces easily could have resulted in a much better (pre-slasher?) horror movie, if only some talent was involved. Incredibly bad film, avoid like the plague.


A psychopath is slicing the heads off of victims in cars with a sword at a local drive-in and it's up to Detectives Larry and Mike(Bruce Kimball and Steve Vincent)to find out who it is. The drive-in theater was once a carnival and many of those who worked in it are employed. It could very well be the incredibly cranky, ornery, and all-around rude theater manager, Austin Johnson(Newton Naushaus)whose foul attitude stinks something rotten;once the barker, he has been left to take care of the entire business while his former employer sold the farm and ran off to Hawaii or some place. Another suspect is the "half-wit" janitor, Germy(Douglas Gudbye)who is an admitted former sword swallower, but seems too mild-mannered and simple-minded to be a killer. The main suspect is Orville(Norman Sherlock), a creepy peeping tom, spotted by Germy hanging around cars, spying on certain couples making out. The detectives attempt woefully to solve the case but their methods are a bit suspect(..why would you associate yourself with Germy, a possible suspect, no matter how nice and hospitable he might be?)..I mean two victims are killed in cars not feet from where they were staking out! The major problem established by a host of other users is the languid pace of the entire film. Some interrogation sequences are stretched too long and we witness the uncomfortable cast languishing with rather dire material. I did find the foul character of Johnson rather amusing in how he describes everyone he comes in contact with..never a kind word for anyone, he's quite the misanthrope. Johnson is the kind of character you yearn to see get stabbed in the throat with a sword. I also enjoyed the opening beheading..but director Seagall doesn't quite match this with the subsequent killings(..one victim's head falls off and a couple is skewered by the dreaded sword while hugging). There's a bizarre red herring set-up featuring the great Buck Flower chasing after a female victim(..actually played by his real daughter Verkina!) inside a warehouse with a machete(..he's considered a suspect, but anyone in their right mind knows that the film will ultimately end at the drive-in). The truly horrible climax at the end punctuates a rather ineptly made film..attempting to leave open the killer's identity, it only has you scratching your head. A plausible climax determining who between two obvious suspects might in fact be the real killer would've at least provided a satisfying conclusion to a rather poorly conceived horror film. The really oddball sequence where Larry and Mike are questioning Orville in his home(..with nude posters of models pinned all over his living room walls)really has to be seen to be believed..seeing Orville squirming and wallowing in misery over his sexual appetites(..he even admits out loud to "beating his meat" while at the drive-in, completely overwhelmed in embarrassment!)while the detectives appear quite appalled. A film like Drive-in Massacre only proved that in the 70's almost anyone could make a movie.


The first and most important thing to say about DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is that it is, in fact, a very poorly done movie. People who are looking for quality cinema of any kind should avoid this, although I dare say it is hardly "the worst movie ever made," unless hyperbole is the only means by which you can communicate. The real question of this movie isn't whether it's bad or good; it is whether it's so bad, it's good. For those who like competent camera work, plot progression, and performance, this movie is not for you--make no mistake, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is the bottom of the barrel (keeping in mind this is coming from someone who believes there is a level below the bottom).

The other most important thing to say about this movie is that it is public domain. It can probably be found online for free, and it is available in a number of multi-movie boxed sets (including at least one of the sets with fifty movies). If you really, REALLY want to see it, it is available. As for whether or not you should see it, well...

As the title suggests, this is a standard slasher film, originally made for screenings at drive-in theatres during the 1970's. And really, the goal for the drive-in audience wasn't really to be entertained by what was on the screen, but rather, to have what was shown on the screen assist patrons in getting into the pants of other patrons. For those gore hounds, there are some good bloody shots in this movie, and there's one bare-breast shot barely worth noting, but the shocks are cheap and will probably only coax the most squeamish of special ladies into the laps of their horny gentlemen.

The plot revolves around, predictably, a series of slasher-style murders taking place at a local drive-in in Anytown, USA. The killer, in this case, is using a sword as his murder weapon, and there are, coincidentally, at least two characters in this movie who were, at one time, experts on sword use. At first, it seems like the killer only targets young couples who are prematurely pregnant. Our red herring, a standard in slasher flicks, is an amusing case as well--another killer, played by horror veteran George "Buck" Flower (he plays the mumbling old man in just about every horror flick out there) is found and shot down, only for the police to discover he's the wrong killer.

So, for what its worth, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE does have an audience, just not a wide one. I found it amusing, and others will as well, but don't get your expectations too high for this one. I'd call it "So Bad, It's Kind of Good." Some of the dialogue, what can be heard, is rather amusing. The owner of the drive-in theatre, Austin Johnson (played by a man known only as Newton Naushaus), has some snide but humorous one-liners, especially while chiding the police.


Do you like movies about questioning two losers? How about a couple of fatass cops sleepwalking their way through a film? What about endings that confirm the last 74 minutes of your life were totally wasted? Well then you'll love "Drive-In Massacre". Someone is murdering patrons of a Los Angeles drive-in with a sword. That's it. Yet this movie treats you to the minutiae of police work including extended questioning scenes of functional retard Germy and creep Orville who just wants to "beat his meat". Sound like a blast so far? Well hang on to your hats as Det. Mike and Det. John also talk to the world's biggest azzhole drive-in manager Austin Johnson who hates, and I mean HATES, everyone. The plot stumbles in circles like a drunk on a tilt-a-whirl with one meaningless scene after the other. This movie becomes fixated on the most mundane nonsense like a stupid argument between a philanderer and his girlfriend that wears a curly wig or questioning (again?) Germy at the "police station" with both the detectives desks next to each other like a couple of grade schoolers. Stu Segall hyper-focuses on these scenes like he's filming the return of Christ. Another major complaint is the various evening shots are so dark you might as well close your eyes and imagine whatever you want. I pretended that I was watching a better movie. Partially written by George "Buck" Flower who appears late in the movie as a machete wielding nut that bears no connection to the plot. He just sorta pops in to fill up running time like a carnival scene with Germy recollecting what the detectives have said to him. Woo hoo! Buck and John Goff (billed as Jake Barnes because he was probably embarrassed) worked together in Bill Rebane's "The Alpha Incident" which looks like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" compared to this crap. Mr. Flower even manages to cast his daughter Verkina in the crucial role of girl in warehouse somehow getting billing over Newton Naushaus who has far more screen time as the prick drive-in manager. This is the fiftieth and last movie in the "Chilling Classics" collection and boy did this thing end like it began. Appallingly awful waste of time.


"Drive-In Massacre" tells the story of a serial killer who walks around a drive-in at night with a long sword killing teenagers. Sounds like a typical slasher flick, right? Wrong. The violence is not plentiful, but spread out through the movie between cheesy dialogue and horrible acting. This film is just so boring, I cannot believe I sat through the whole thing!! And it's only 74 minutes!! None of the characters in this film are likable, and you really can't wait for them to die. However, there are several entertaining scenes, such as one of the chubby male police officers dressing as a woman to disguise himself during a stake out! The script is just horrible and so is the picture and sound quality of the movie. There are also at least three scenes that last for five minutes that is nothing but a guy driving around a parking lot looking for a place to park!! Please, stay away from this one!!

R for Violence and Brief Nudity


My comprehension of the meaning of the word "massacre" may not be entirely spot-on, but I would bet my left nut that there is no damn massacre in this friggin' movie! I don't care! If I can count the deaths on one hand, that is unworthy of the term "massacre". What a shame too, since a drive-in movie theater would be prime "massacre" territory. All those unsuspecting patrons sitting in cars, gazing carelessly ahead as an armed maniac, cloaked in darkness crawls around the lot looking for that next kill... Sounds like a good idea - so why couldn't this "The Drive-in Massacre" just structure itself in an even moderately entertaining way and deliver what it promises? This thing moves along sooo slow. In fact, every aspect of this movie is slow. It follows a pair of slow-witted, overweight cops who keep questioning a slow, semi-retarded drive-in employee who slowly rambles about nonsense that seems to be complete filler until the nonsense ending finally came... There are a couple scenes of young couples in cars being killed by some unseen assailant with a sword. These scenes are equally slow and irritating. The effects are terrible and the attempt at humor doesn't pan out how it was probably intended... Except for the arrogant, bald, and highly disparaging theater manager who never utters the faintest resemblance of a kind word through the entire movie. He was kind of funny, I guess. Though ovarian cancer is funnier than anything this movie had to offer. "The Drive-in Massacre" is just an incredible mess!


Drive In Massacre opens with a juicy double murder which suggests that the film might be something of a treat for lovers of outrageous 70s gore flicks: a sabre wielding maniac graphically kills a couple at the drive in, decapitating the guy whilst he is adjusting the loudspeakers next to his car, and then skewering the screaming girlfriend through the neck.

But don't be fooled by this delightfully trashy and bloody beginning, for what follows is some of the most tedious garbage to ever grace a slasher film, as a pair of bumbling detectives (John F. Goff and Steve Vincent) struggle to uncover the identify of the killer and the body count steadily rises.

With dreadful production values, acting to match, several interminably dull scenes of inane dialogue between the law and a variety of viable suspects, some equally inane chit-chat from the stupid couples who visit the drive-in (they keep on coming, despite the presence of a maniac), a totally incongruous scene where a machete wielding loon is pursued through a warehouse by the cops, an ending that fails to resolve matters (preferring instead to rely on the old 'the killer might be amongst you' gimmick), and very little in the way of gore after the first few minutes, Drive In Massacre will test the patience of even the most avid fan of grade-Z horror.

In desperation, director Stu Segall attempts to inject a little sleaze into proceedings with the inclusion of a pervy peeping tom and a brief bit of nudity from a good looking bird with a nasty perm, but a masturbating voyeur and a nice pair of tits are not nearly enough to save this film from being a total yawn.

2.5 out of 10, rounded up to 3 for the bearded cue-ball drive-in boss's tasty line in suits.


A very weak and way below any kind of budget. Drive-in movie fare. While drive-in moviegoers are hugging, smooching and backseat bouncing, a lunatic is randomly picking victims to slash, dismember and kill. The drive-in is built on the former grounds of a circus and is being managed by former circus knife handler(Newton Naushaus)and his grounds keeper is the former sword swollower (Douglas Gudbye). Two dim-witted detectives(Jake Barnes and Adam Lawrence)are assigned to investigate and realize the weapon of choice seems to be an antique sword.

Hard to find anything redeemable. Nothing frightening or scary. Some of the situations end up being comical. Also listed as players: Verkina Flowers, Marty Gatsby, Patrica James and Norman Sherlock.


This is one of the most amateurish films I have ever seen. While films like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, SWAMP WOMEN and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN are all notoriously bad films, I really think these movies and ones like it seem so polished and well-made compared to DRIVE-IN MASSACRE! Tor Johnson and Criswell are much better actors than the folks in this turkey! Yes, folks, it's that bad!

The film begins with a couple being killed by a sword-wielding murderer at a local drive-in theater. It's pretty funny watching the guy getting his head chopped off, as the plastic head will make you chuckle. Logic isn't a problem in this film, as they just didn't bother with any at all. Think about it...three nights in a row people are butchered at the drive-in and yet they keep the place open AND people continue to fill the place every night!! Then, when the two least likely looking detectives get involved, you laugh even louder. That's because it seems as if there is no police force--just these two fat guys that look like brothers. You don't see a police station, other police or even a police car--just an old wreck of a car that barely runs! Talk about low budget! While these two guys are obviously NOT professional actors, they are better than most folks in the film. As for the manager of the drive-in, he's hilarious, as he is a completely one-note actor. All he seems to be able to do is scream and curse! And as for the rest, the loser who lives at the theater, the pervert who likes to watch couples making out, etc., a group from a small-town amateur theater group could have easily handled the acting much better. It's obvious that the film makers wanted to put anything on the screen and had no illusions about the quality of the picture.

So why if this movie is so inept, so cheap and so stupid do I even give it a 2 and not a 1? Well, there were two things I did like. First, the scene of the cops undercover at the movie theater was awfully funny. Second, while the ending was stolen from William Castle's film THE TINGLER, it still was a good ending for this exploitation film--and ending this dreck on a positive note.

FYI--There is a small amount of nudity and lots of cursing in this film. Parents should be aware of this before allowing the munchkins to watch DRIVE-IN MASSACRE--though with a title like this, I guess you aren't expecting a Disney film!


I watched this film on the belief that is was notoriously gory, what a mistake I made. I can't begin to describe how mediocre the film is, it has so many wretched traits. It starts off OK with the first killing of a couple, albeit a cheaply staged one. Then we are introduced to the two cops on the case, a portly, inept and tactless duo who couldn't catch the killer if he/she was trapped in a phone box. They start the investigation at the drive-in where the owner is a foul-mouthed and acerbic character, and also interview a janitor there named Germy, a dozy but amusing simpleton who is possibly the only slightly redeeming character involved. Needless to say there is a lot of appalling acting, some of the worst I have seen, most of the cast seem to have their minds elsewhere throughout the entire film. But just when you think it can't get any worse it does, with an utterly ridiculous and infuriating ending. Avoid this film like the plague. The video cover is good, though.


Right, what to say about the "Drive in Massacre". Well, lets start with bad acting, on which we can go to poor direction and from that we can jump right to terrible soundtrack and we can even lace the whole thing with poorly done script. And that's what I can say about the movie.

This is one of those b-films which feel like they don't go anywhere, and this certainly something that is accurate about this one. There's some murders in the drive in, yet nothing is done with them even tough the film supposedly revolves around solving the case, yet it really didn't feel like it. And the film even managed to feel too long.

So avoid, if you can. It really wasn't even funny in a purely bad way..


There is something totally lacking in this film. I think it is style. The characters are so unappealing and the whole being of the thing has a sick kind of sterility to it. It's what happens when the budget doesn't allow much editing or proper music for tension. The camera angles and close-ups are runny and imprecise. The plot is the same old same old. There's a guy with a military sword (I think) chopping body parts off people at a drive-in movie theater. He stabs and hacks. The proprietor doesn't care if this happens, even though it could cost him his business. This guy is really bad and totally unbelievable. There are two idiot police officers who are trying to solve the crime. There is no suspense. The conclusion is basically unsatisfying and stupidly manipulative. There are some that say this is a foundational film for the slasher genre. Well, they certainly had a lot to build on.


A killer is dispatching the patrons of the local drive-in with a sword.Heads are sliced off,necks are slashed and other various body parts are impaled.Two inept detectives are trying to solve the case."Drive-In Massacre" is an abysmal slasher flick directed by porn director Stu Segall.There are some bloody killings,but the gore effects are crude and amateurish.The pace is slow,the acting is painfully bad and the synthesizer score is beyond awful.Easily the best thing about this insanely rotten piece of festering cow-dung is its short running time.The only way to enjoy "Drive-In Massacre" is to drink lots of alcohol.3 out of 10 for providing me a few laughs.


This film opens with the on screen caption "on August 10th in a California Drive-In it all began..." A young couple are murdered while sitting in their car at a drive-in watching a film, by an unknown psycho with a large oriental sword. Two fat cops Mike and John (James Barnes and Micheal Alden) are put on the case, but unfortunately when it comes to solving the crime and capturing the killer these guys are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. They interrogate a few people connected with the drive-in, Germy (Douglas Gudbye) the all round dogsbody, and Atkin Johnson (Newton Naushaus) the hilariously bad tempered and foul mouthed manager. This leads to a funny conversation between the two cops and Atkins, Atkins says teenagers are dicks and one of the cops replies "well, I have two of them" referring to the two dead kids from the opening sequence, the other cop quickly buts in and says "teenagers that is!", funny stuff and it doesn't end there. The cops helpfully observe "well, she's in pretty bad shape, she was murdered with a sword" and when they want to talk with Atkins again one says "lets go get that bald headed garbage can!" Anyway, they are baffled, the only lead they have is a man named Orville (Norman Sherlock) who hangs around the drive-in and spy's on people in their cars having sex, but when questioned by the two cops he claims he had nothing to do with the killings and he says "I just wanted to beat my meat!", hey that's what the guy said. All their leads come to dead ends. Will the two cops be able to unmask the killer in time, before more innocent lives are lost?

Co-written, produced and directed by Stuart Segall this is just plain terrible. The acting is awful as is the photography and music. There are a couple of good gore scenes, a decapitation, a slit throat and an impaling, there just should have been more of them. But that's nowhere near a good enough reason to sit through this rubbish. The script by George 'Buck' Flowers and John F.Goff is slow, dull, boring and predictable. There's a scene where the two fat cops stakeout the drive-in, in disguise. One of them dresses in drag, he looks ridiculous and then they start to have a stupid conversation about where he's going to pee! There is also another scene where two victims are watching an unknown film in their car, the guy says "what a turkey!" and "this plots been done before", you will know exactly how he feels, I also wondered if his dialogue was included by the filmmakers as a little self referring joke, it sums up the film well. Half the film appears to be padding, there's a five minute sequence in which Germy walks around a funfair for absolutely no reason whatsoever, among other pointlessly drawn out scenes. The ending is also one of the worst ever, nothing is concluded. One to avoid. This does have a great tag line on the video cover though, 'You'll pay to get in...and pray to get out!!', that's true enough, you'll pray to get out alright, just way before this thing finishes.


No comments about this mistake yet this year? We can't let THAT much time go by and not say something negative about this bomb. If you're REALLY off kilter, you'll accept this film. Adequate gore, if you're into that sorta stuff. Some very strange characters, including some odd attempts at humor. Acting - uneven. Writing - quite unrealistic at times. Sound and lighting - typically low-budget inferior. Plot - uncomplicated: cops trying unsuccessfully to determine multi-night killings on carnival-grounds-turned-drive-in. Watch this movie only if you're attracted to things that are not quite right, and if you have an over-abundance of time and/or money.


This flick is the bottom of the barrel. Something about a killer stalking people at a drive in and killing them with a sword. Enough said. This flick looks terrible, sounds terrible, the acting is terrible, this flick 100% terrible. This movie may have single handedly killed the drive in.


This movie starts out that there is a maniac at a drive-in movie theatre that sneaks around and kills all these people while they are at a drive in. These detectives try to find the killer but only have one too many suspects. There are so many actors in this movie that can not act and are so terrible at acting their parts in this movie that it's hard to figure out who the killer is. So the detectives try to disquise themselves as a couple in order to catch the killer and don't do a good job at it. This movie is so stupid it wouldn't even be catagorized as a B-rated cheap budget classic. It's down right terrible!!! Avoid it!!!


I have seen a fair few slasher films and I must say this one was very boring. It starts off looking promising, with some good death scenes such as a mans head being decapitated with a samurai sword and a woman being stabbed through the neck. Later on we get another decapitation which is cool. But none of this is enough to save the film. Whoever directed Drive-In Massacre must not have been a fan of horror films because it doesn't seem like any effort whatsoever was put into it. There's no tension and the storyline is extremely thin. Too much time is spent in the police station talking. Too much time is also spent on a father chasing his daughter that isn't really connected to the main story. And the ending is simply terrible - there is no conclusion whatsoever, just a message on the screen that other people are being killed in other drive-ins in the area. The music was also very annoying - horrible clicking sounds. Give me synth any day! Avoid this film, even if you like slashers. The title makes it sound interesting, but it's just a gimmick. Anything with the word "massacre" in the title is bound to get a horror fans attention, but in cases like this, it's just a trick to make money.


After a very promising first fifteen minutes, including a very decent and gory kill scene, this movie unfortunately what follows is a laughable mess that doesn't know if it wants to be a slasher movie, a mystery, or a cops-chase-bad guy who has nothing to do with the plot- flick! A total mess, though I do give it credit for trying to dip into different genres, but when you title your film "Drive-In Massacre," that is what you need to deliver! Not a mess like this!!


This movie does not even try to capture to mood of the drive-in. It is just a place where people go to get killed. With a character actor like flowers, you would expect some attempt at characterizations, but his own talents are not reflected in the script. It is really hard to believe that people thought the "Plan 9 from outer space" was worse than this. That movie is a masterpiece compare to this one.


This is about as bad as it gets, even for mega low budget semi independently produced 1970's American made horror. How this film developed a cult following is beyond me, and I *like* stuff such as this.

THE PLOT: A maniac is running loose decapitating people with a handy sword & knife collection at a small town California Drive-In. The end.

Or rather, that IS the end of it. For some reason this film's conclusion is not present on the version I managed to buy for about thirty cents. In place of what should have been a violent, seen-it-all-before conclusion to yet another psycho killer movie, you get the coming attractions reel for the film -- An idea that has merit (if it had been planned that way) since the movie is set in a Drive-In and all. I was actually sitting there between beer five and six hoping that the trailer would suddenly snap forward in time to the end of the movie and finish what had been started. That would have been clever, and anybody plumbing for plot ideas here can go bale on it for their script, no charge.

But DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is not that kind of a film. This is a movie with Fat Cop syndrome (two of them, actually, with one in drag for a while, I kid you not), a pink shirted sex pervert who has girlie magazine centerfolds pinned to the walls of his living room (presumably to comfort audience members who may be afraid he is gay), a second murdering loon who shouts "COME HERE LITTLE GIRL" so loudly and so often that we had to turn it down lest the neighbors think we were enjoying it (turns out he's her father, how charming), and for about fifteen minutes the movie tries to develop tension by having a repeating high pitched ticking sound clatter on and on and ON to the point where you start looking around the room wondering what the heck that noise is, and how do I stop it.

Everything about this movie is wrong, except one thing: It is appropriately cheap, lurid, and sleazy lookin'. The nudity and sexual content is exploitative and unredeemed by anything that comes after it, the decapitations are actually very well handled, and I liked the polyester pant suited mid 1970's look, right down to the mod designs on the upholstery. But the film doesn't know what it wants to do with it's look and squanders whatever potential was there by being stupid, boring and not having a concluding scene that wraps it all up. The movie just sort of ends, a common trait amongst low budget 1970's American produced horror that should not have been made in the first place. And even at 78 minutes it's way too long, the pacing is wrong, and I felt silly afterward for having suggested viewing the thing. And remember, I am the guy who likes DEATH SHIP ...

Two words: SKIP IT.


This flick honestly looks as if it was made on $1.98 budget! The acting is so far sub-par it makes Keanu Reeves seem like Robert DeNero...The lighting (which is amazingly annoying once you get 5 minutes into the film) looks as if it was done with a few Bic lighters...The "special effects" look as if they may have been done in a 4th grade art class...The ending will not only leave the viewer scratching his drunken (hopefully) head, but come up with at least 10 alternate endings that would have been soooo much better! Why would One not only own (as I do) or rent this flick? It's honestly so, so bad - it borders on being good! If you're a fan of very, very, very low budget 70's horror flicks or the Drive-In Theater, this baby is for you! If not, you will find yourself losing more brain cells by the minute then Cheech & Chong did during the entire decade of the 70's! Final note: This movie was co-written by George "Buck" Flower, whom unfortunately I just found out passed away in 2004...Rest in Peace George, and please, don't let this be the movie that you'll be remembered for...


A choice cheesy chunk of wonderfully rancid and wretched two-cent 70's grind-house garbage about a putrid Califonia passion pit that's beset by a shocking series of gruesome murders perpetuated by some mystery maniac. It's up to a couple of bumbling and portly homicide detectives played by ubiquitous B-movie bit player/screenwriter John Goff and fellow perennial schlock film regular Jake Barnes to catch the crazy kook before he kills again.

Boy, does this alarmingly abominable and mind-numbingly moronic bilge strike out something stinky in every conceivable department: We've got uniformly awful acting, dire dialogue, flimsy plotting, no tension or suspense to speak of, poky pacing, ragged editing, ugly, eye-straining cinematography, wafer-thin characters, a horrendously redundant and annoying score, tacky gore, and flat-footed (non)direction by Stuart Segall, who also helmed such hard-core porn classics as "Teeny Buns" and "Insatiable" under the unlikely pseudonym of Godfrey Daniels(!). Still, there's a certain blatantly crummy, filthy and scroungy deep-seated rattiness and all-out unapologetic ineptitude to this thoroughly foul'n'fetid feature which makes it both strangely endearing and hugely enjoyable. The late, great, sorely missed George "Buck" Flower (who co-wrote the trashy script with Goff) has a hilarious cameo as a deranged machete-wielding lunatic who chases his real-life daughter Verkina around a mangy warehouse while repeatedly exclaiming, "I'm gonna cut all that poison out!" One of my all-time favorite so-horrible-it's-downright-happening sleazoid slasher flicks.


This might be the WORST movie I've ever seen. Junk like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE at least has some camp entertainment value. But this movie doesn't even have that sense of fun going for it. The acting is uniformly dreadful. The police procedure is of the most ridiculous level (let's see, kids getting slaughtered nightly at the same drive-in movie, what should we do? Close the theatre? Have dozens of cops staking it out? Nope, let's just have two cops park at one end of this huge parking lot and hope they see something. And one of them has to dress as a woman, because God knows only couples to to drive-ins). The sound is horrible, the opening song is unbearable. Oh, God, I could go on and on and on, but I've already wasted enough with this movie. If can only stop one person from seeing this movie, it'll have been worth it!


"No Barking" is a standout short for a number of reasons. For animation geeks, the fact that Ken Harris was the sole animator for the entire short is certainly notable. The only appearance of Tweety in a Jones-directed cartoon is notable. Its a Milt Franklyn score instead of Carl Stalling. But only dog owners will be able to fully appreciate its most endearing quality- the fact that it accurately captures so many goofy dog behaviors that are absolutely hilarious. Sudden barking fits. Becoming convinced that an inanimate object has attacked. Mirror terrors. Bone-burying frenzies. And its not just the gag itself, its the expressions, the raised hairs, bared teeth, and subtle behaviors that are so spot-on (bad pun intended). Someone had a dog (or dogs) that deserved a lot of the "writing" credits on this one.


This short, which I must confess has two characters I find very unappealing, starts out marvelously for about the first 90 seconds, but the action quickly turns almost entirely to a series of setups for a running gag which is repeated (to varying degrees of effectiveness) so often that it starts to get tedious. The fact that the dog is a one-dimensional character of limited personality and that Claude Cat is limited here by the running gag only makes things more problematic. To a degree, the cameo by another Warner Brothers character and the ending of the short, along with a wonderful beginning, salvages this short and raises its overall score. This is on Looney Tunes Golden Collection Vol. 3 and is worth watching, though the Collection as a whole is most highly recommended without reservation. Not the best short I've seen, but far from the worst I've watched. Recommended


Chuck Jones's 'No Barking' was the third in a trilogy of cartoons starring a character called Frisky Puppy. An immensely entertaining character, Frisky Puppy is a masterclass in observation, capturing the mannerisms of an irritatingly energetic puppy to a tee. Co-starring in 'No Barking' is another of Jones's best lesser-known players, Claude Cat. The cartoon opens with an exceptional sequence in which Claude wakes up in an urban junkyard with the sort of tranquil serenity that befits a far more idyllic setting. This gorgeous piece of animation sets the standard for this mini-masterpiece. Claude crosses paths with Frisky Puppy who scares the life out of him with his shrill, relentless barking, causing Claude to leap into the air in fright. Having done this once, the puppy finds it is fun and sets about terrorising Claude for the rest of the cartoon. Although it sounds like a mean concept, Frisky Puppy is so warm a character that it is immediately apparent that to him this is just a game rather than a vendetta. Jones skilfully makes the character a perfect balance between sweet and infuriating. The barking sound he makes is so grating and loud that it gets funnier the more it occurs, reducing Claude to a nervous wreck. The main action is interspersed with some beautiful animation of the puppy just being a puppy, switching from happy to confused to angry in a split second as he goes about his playful antics. This gives the cartoon a delightfully loose, plot less feel as we simply follow the two characters around until their paths cross. Although a good deal of credit for 'No Barking' must be given to Jones and writer Michael Maltese, a special mention is warranted for animator Ken Harris who animated the entire cartoon himself. The result is stunning.


Chuck Jones's "No Barking" has two factors that make it very unique: aside from being Jones's only cartoon that features Tweety (albeit in a bit part), all the animation was done by one person. Usually, they would have different people animate different scenes, but Ken Harris did it all here.

Anyway, the cartoon opens with the sun rising over what looks like an idyllic pastoral setting...and it turns out to be the city dump. From there, laconic Claude the Cat and not-so-laconic Frisky Puppy - who resembles Charlie Dog very closely - come up with every possible way to battle over turf. Specifically, FP's yapping makes Claude jump, and just when he looks safe, there's more in store. It's a little bit like the Road Runner-Wile E. Coyote cartoons in that respect, but I think that it's safe to say that nothing will ever top the latter for these kinds of plot lines.

So, I guess that this was mostly a placeholder (I've seen Claude in many cartoons with wise-guy mice Hubie and Bertie, but I've only seen Frisky Puppy in one other cartoon). Mostly, it's a hoot to see what happens to Claude here. Not Jones's best, but OK.


My husband and I saw this movie at the urging of our priest who strongly recommended it as a must see film for everyone. Our church is one of the few Catholic churches in our area that fully supports the GLBT community and is trying to change church doctrine. We were both glad we went. The filmmakers point out how the misuse of the Bible by Judeo-Christian leaders has created not only an environment that leads to shaming but also condones "sanctified violence" projected toward gays and lesbians. The film also addresses the real reasons why people are afraid to admit homosexuality is real and normal. I was so moved by this film I feel if everyone was at least willing to see it then it would open a dialog desperately needed in our country.


The sad thing about For The Bible Tells Me So is that the people who need to see this most are the ones who will be forbidden by their church to watch this very timely documentary. But for those who do get to see it they will be inspired and uplifted.

As a gay 60 year old man who has lived in the last half of the last century I saw many marvelous changes at how Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered people have been viewed in American society and in the world at large. Growing up as I did in the fifties and sixties it would never occur to me to do something as courageous as young Jacob Reinert, not only coming out in Mankato, Minnesota, but bringing his parents into the fight for equality.

For too many still gay is something where emotion kicks in and reason just flies out the door. Why is it so, religion and those few bible verses put down for an ancient tribe to make sure they multiplied and dominate, have become the touchstones to justify all kinds of hatred and bigotry.

A distinguished group of religious scholars talk about how this came to be in western monotheist religions. There not names you know associated with Christianity or Judaism because there not on the air and in your pocket to stay on the air. They present quite a contrast with the bible thumpers where we see video going back as far as Billy Sunday.

The man who comes in for the most scorn is James Dobson, pop psychologist and big kingpin on the religious right. Young Jacob Reinert attempts to confront him, but the most moving story in the film concerned Mary Ann Wallner who listened to Dobson's advice about rejecting her lesbian daughter who later kills herself.

For The Bible Tells Me So makes it abundantly clear the political nature of the anti-gay religious right. GLBT people are the 'other' the straw villains you create to justify why the populace should empower your crowd. As Hitler did to the Jews, so the religious right has done to us.

My favorite moment in the film was when one of the scholars challenges these religious leaders to obey Jesus's commandment to sell all you have and give it to the poor and then you can follow him. Talk about selective Bible reading, can you see a Pat Robertson doing that? It can never be forgotten that these folks place different emphasis on certain bible verses as opposed to others.

My working life consisted in large degree of working at NYS Crime Victims Board as an openly gay investigator. I saw the most manifest examples of anti-gay hate, culminating in violence with serious injury and death. The religious right who keep talking about how our sin is so horrible are the ones who give justification to those who would do us bodily harm. I wish they could see their handiwork from where I sat for 23 years.

For The Bible Tells Me So, is an excellent documentary that will hopefully win an Oscar in that category next year. And this review is dedicated to the young people from Soul Force I met and broke bread with in my city this past spring. As long as there are people like these confronting the hate and getting the message out, I have no worries about a movement or its ultimate success.


A documentary that was a huge hit at the Sundance Film Festival. It talks about the passage in the Bible where it says that gay lovers are an "abomination". (For the record I'm gay). It introduces us to a number of religious families who have to deal with their sons or daughters coming out. They have to deal with accepting their children who are not accepted by their religion.

Strong, powerful but gentle documentary. It talks to priests and other experts about what the Bible REALLY says and how it should be perceived. The movie isn't in your face. It quietly points out that the Bible DOES condemn gays...but it also says eating shellfish is an abomination too. Also it should be perceived as when it was written--hundreds of years ago.

The families introduced don't all come to accept their children's sexual orientation and there are some unhappy endings...but this is a strong and very truthful film. Everyone should see this one. Most of my audience was in tears by the end.

I only give it a 9 because all the families are introduced in a confusing manner and there's a REAL out of place badly animated cartoon halfway through the film. Still this is a definite must see


I didn't know what to expect at first from this movie. I was at Sundance, and some friends of ours wanted to go see it so we came along too. When I did read the quick synopsis of the movie, my expectations dropped quite a bit. Thinking, "Great, another movie where the message is Left Wingers = Good, and Christians = Bad." Not that I'm either, but I hate it when people try to get their point across in such a black & white matter.

But it ended up pleasantly surprising me. The movie focused mainly around 5 families. A few of them you may actually recognize from news coverage stories. Jake Reitan who was arrested along with his parents for starting a protest outside of Focus On The Family in Colorado Springs and for trying to read a letter that they wrote to Reverend Jim Dobson. Chrissy Gephardt, who is the openly gay daughter of Congressman Dick Gephardt. And Gene Robinson, who made international news by becoming the first openly gay bishop. The movie itself was incredibly moving. Not just due to the struggle of the homosexual person themself, but because of the struggle the entire family went through.

All the families went through it very differently, but they all had the same common preconception: that homosexuality is a sin and abomination before the eyes of god. But yet they all still overcame their own prejudices, some longer than others, and it's very beautiful to watch. They also cover a number of other subjects throughout the movie such as the literalists' view of the bible, genetics, common misconceptions, and so much more. And still the film doesn't degrade Christianity in any way, and although I'm far from a Christian myself I found that to be very refreshing. In fact, for many of the families it seemed to help reaffirm their faith as well.

It did turn out to be a very beautiful and poignant documentary. The director and two of the families, Jake's family and Chrissy's family, were at our screening and ended up giving the audience a Q&A session at the end of the movie which was very cool. And I got a chance to meet the director, Daniel Karslake, afterwards as well. Got to be one of the most genuine and down-to-earth guys I've ever met, and you could really tell how grateful he was of the audience's spirited response to it. I'm so glad I gave this film a chance.


I also saw the film at Sundance and being a Christian, I can say that Karslake left out some of the stronger Biblical passages that were in the New Testament, but I don't believe he was shooting for a theological argument. I think he wanted to show that family is important and that gays/lesbians are people just like everyone else and deserve to be treated as human beings. To hear Karslake tell the stories that inspired this film deeply touched me and I think this film could stir a lot of good emotions in people, despite the fact that some areas of the film are a little weak. I think if Christians step away from what's right/wrong long enough to remember what love is all about and if non-Christians stop ridiculing the Christian community for the same reason, our world could be a better place.


I found nothing new scientifically in this film, but that is because i love reading about science and new all the facts that were expressed.

Even though I believed I knew the Bible, I was surprised to find out that I hadn't a clue to the passages often quoted by Christian fundamentalists in their hatred of homosexuals. It turns out that they don't have a clue either.

Those passages they quote are taken out of the cultural context of the period and just knowing that there is no Aramaic, Hebrew, or Ancient Greek word for homosexual should tell you that is not what they were talking about.

As interesting as all that was, it is not the most interesting part of the film. The impact that this hatred has on the individuals involved - whether they be gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered - and the impact on their families is what is most important in the film. The fact that some families, like the Gephardt's, can continue to love their children is a testament to their strength. The fact that other families can learn to accept their children once they learn the truth is hopeful. The fact that some families become activists for their children, even after they have committed suicide, is amazing.

The truth is there for those who want to take the time to see it. But, more importantly, the examples of families who have struggled with children of different sexual orientations is inspiring and shows that we do have some hope in the crazy world.


A documentary following five families who have been touched by the issues surrounding Homosexuality and the biblical interpretation most often publicized by the religious right.

This movie shows what happens because of this and covers both sides of this issue in an even handed manner. I would be surprised that after watching this movie, many wouldn't change their viewpoint and be more tolerant of homosexuality. It has terrific interviews with theological scholars, Desmond Tutu, and many others.

My only concern is that those who need to see this most aren't the ones who will attend this movie.


I attended the premiere of the movie, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO, at Sundance on January 21, 2007. It is a powerful movie that opens for discussion the impact of religious teaching on homosexuals in America. It gives support to those within the American public who know and deeply care for some gays in their lives and innately feel that God loves all his children and so should they. Every church congregation and Sunday School Class should see this movie as one audience and then have their own discussion. I believe the result would stimulate an acceptance not heretofore anticipated. The naturalness and obvious commitment of the films director and participants make the impact dramatically strong.


Only days following its New York premiere, "For the Bible Tells Me So" plays Cinematheque, Cleveland Ohio's superb film series.

A capacity audience sits attentively through this informative feature, responding audibly to its content and ending with loud applause. I found the work well prepared and executed, offering varying points of view on the subject of morality and religiosity.

Famed world leaders from far left to far right are given time to express their varied opinions, while the viewer is allowed to reach a personal conclusion. The presentation is comprehensive and fair minded in delineating key points of scripture that are used to judge sexual orientation and practices.

A film worthy of extensive screening, especially in churches of all denominations as well as civic organizations. Ultimately, it's a most valuable addition to any film collection.


Recently the Atlantic Film Festival was on in Halifax, Canada, and a friend and I decided to see this movie. The only information given to us was a little blurb in the itinerary for the festival and so I was unsure as to how this documentary would tackle this hot topic. A little worried that it might be a bit dry and perhaps take the stand that one way is right and everything else is wrong, I nonetheless was excited to see this film.

The film focuses on the church's view on homosexuality. It tells us the story of 5 families, all with some tie to religion and/or politics, and all with a homosexual family member. Unlike many extreme points of view, this documentary simple looks at the church's take without slandering it. Instead it use a controlled 'here are the facts - you decide' method to convey the message. With the use of music, cartoons, humor, heart-felt and heart-ache moments, a splendid film is created that truly every person should see, straight or gay, Christian or atheist, etc. etc.

As the credits began I overheard the two strangers to my left over the roll of applause saying that it should be shown in every high school in North America. I must agree with them, and may I also suggest putting it in every church too.


I have seen this movie two time thus far. I plan on seeing it a couple more times. I am bringing all of the people that I can possibly get to come. The last show we had 15 people in our group.

go to the website and see the trailer and share it with everyone you can.

It is an insightful and intelligent documentary that investigates the relation of the Bible and Homosexuality. It is well filmed and has a lot of incredibly moving stories from several Christian families with Gay children.

I promise that if you have ever wondered what the Bible Really says about Homosexuality, this movie is a must see.


This film filled the eyes of those who saw their own hurtful experiences in it as the history they try to forget. If wishes could come true, then everyone would watch this film with an open mind if only to find out if afterward, they were still willing to throw the first stone of "righteousness". What was NOT surprising was that all the viewer's ratings for this film was distributed extremely skewed, at both poles. It correlates almost exactly with a picture of the world that the film illustrated. How poetic is it that the credibility of the film's message is actually reflected in the way people rated their personal viewing experience of this documentary. The film's message is visibly demonstrated by the prejudice reflected in the film's polarized evaluations; a powerful confirmation of the actual world around us. Bravo, Film Maker, for a job well done!


Several elderly married couples, church-goers and devout Christians, discuss having gay or lesbian children, and how this has changed their perceptions of what they've been taught--and what they're still being told--by Evangelical Fundamentalists who use their interpretations of scripture to condemn homosexual love. Deeply moving documentary with very likable central subjects probably won't change firmly-set, holier-than-thou religious minds...and may not even expect to. What it does do clearly is to present a level-headed argument in favor of inclusive spirituality, rather than having one's beliefs lead to hatred and violence against others. We see how outsiders throughout history have been the scapegoats for the self-righteous, what this leads to, what the consequences are. Millions of people still don't get it, however, and these are the viewers this film needs to reach. Without them, director Daniel G. Karslake may be preaching to the already-converted. He makes a valiant attempt, a commendable and moving one, but his film needs to be seen and understood by all for it to do its ultimate job. ***1/2 from ****


I liked this documentary because it didn't take one side. It looked at both sides from both perspectives and let the viewer decide on what they wanted to believe. I think that it's pretty sad that people discriminate based on an ancient book that was written thousands of years ago. I like that the concept that gay is wrong wasn't the only thing pointed out although it was the point of the documentary. There were things such as not being able to eat shrimp or pork. It made me pretty sad to know that people are mean to gay people just because of some lines written in a book. People who take that seriously don't understand or perhaps never met a gay person. It's the twenty first century, man. I'm moving on with my life.


For the Bible Tells me So by Daniel Karslake is a very powerful documentary about five very different, though highly religious families each raised in different denominations of the Christian Church, and how these families deal with the knowledge that one of their children is a homosexual. Reactions from the parents range from accepting and loving in the case of Chrissy and her family, to utter rejection in the case of Anna and her mother. Overwhelmingly the initial reaction of the families was shock; however, in most of the cases parents were able to educate themselves about what it means to be gay or lesbian, and they became accepting of their children. The point that this film is trying to make is that many people, Christians in particular, are ignorant about the facts of homosexuality and hide behind a few, outdated lines of the Bible and declare it an "abomination." For the Bible Tells Me So strongly emphasizes the need to be accepting of gays and lesbians, and educate oneself about homosexuality. Daniel Karslake is in fact a gay man so he relates to a lot of the issues that his subjects had to deal with. Karslake says that when he first came out to his parents he said that his dad used to call his answering machine and leave Bible verses on the machine. He finally had to confront his dad and say "this is between you and me, not us and God." The music is a combination between religious songs and songs of acceptance. A lot of the time the images were not literal depictions of what was being said, but images of related things or things that could be metaphorical. Photographs were also used to depict the children and their families in the past. It is definitely a very powerful, and eye-opening movie, and I feel that everyone should see this film, no matter what what their stance on homosexuality is.


I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer who has pointed out that most of those who will watch this film are already on board with its powerful argument against discrimination. Yet that's no fault of the film itself -- and maybe, just maybe, it will stick around and change a few minds. Mr. Karslake and Ms. Mendoza have my tremendous respect.

Tomorrow, my state will vote on whether we will or will not cancel the right of two men or two women to marry, in the form of a constitutional amendment. It will be agonizingly close. After catching it at Sundance, I watched this film again last night in the comfort of my home, just to remind myself of what's at stake.

One way or another, the tide is turning. It will not be an easy win, but nothing worth fighting for ever is.


For the Bible Tells Me So is one of the most important documentaries I've ever seen, and certainly quintessential for our time. It is about homosexuality and its apparent struggle with religion, depicting a variety of analyses of what the Bible says about it. Its main thread is an interweaving of extensive interview segments with several sets of ardently religious parents, including former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and his wife, those of a young man from a long line of Lutheran pastors, and the parents of the first openly gay bishop, and the son of an endearing old church-going couple, on the subject of their personal experiences raising gay children, and we see the perspectives on those stories through interviews with those children, now grown.

It is important that everyone, especially those who need to see this film the most, understand that this is not a film about sacrificing one's religion, or condemning it, for the sake of homosexuality. It is about various older people who find themselves in a spiritual rejuvenation through their acceptance of their children's identities, and thus their grasp of their belief in God's message and their view of how faithfully they follow it is revitalized. It's also about gay people who manage to hold their religious ground in spite of all the bigotry that they refuse to believe is inherent in God's word. I will not disclose whether all or some or few or most learn to completely accept this genuinely natural element of sexuality. But what we see of their experiences and of their stories, some beautiful, some heartbreaking, some infuriating, runs the gamut of the psychology behind followers conditioned for a lifetime by the narrow interpretations of a dangerously beheld book by charismatic leaders and idols.

This stunning achievement from first-time feature filmmaker Daniel G. Karslake lets these families tell their stories, intermingling them with theologians, biblical scholars, even Desmond Tutu, by and large noting of biblical literalism, where one takes the Bible at face value and don't take into account the context, the original manuscripts, or anything else, being a 20th century trend. Before the 1900s, it was recognized that you had to study to grasp the Bible's significance. The film includes fascinating offshoots of these families' stories of acceptance and awakening, including a hilariously satirical cartoon in which a traditional Christian literalist stands between a gay man and a lesbian and challenges them with stunningly informed and persuasively concrete results. This is what is masterful about this documentary. It doesn't merely offer observations, but references to which a skeptic can go to corroborate its observations. It does this, and does not neglect the emotional effects of the socioreligious conventions wherein the filmmakers and interviewees find seams. We learn of mortifying results of lifelong self-hatred, confusion, repression and ostracision.

We also learn that James Dobson, one of the most indisputably renowned and respected evangelical Christian leaders in America, chairman of Focus On the Family, a nonprofit Christian organization, believes that homosexuality is a preference that is inspired through a child's surroundings. In his warped point of view, any sexual activity beyond marriage including homosexuality, departs from the God-ordained male-female marriage, which he illustrates as the fundamental stabilizing foundation of this already over-populated carbon- emitting society. He states that homosexual behavior, or more in particular, "unwanted same sex attraction" has been and can be "overcome" via learning developmental models for homosexuality, and deciding to cure the multifaceted and completely fabricated developmental issues.

We learn the enormously damaging, detrimental and destructive effects of such pronouncements and declarations by such a revered and trusted man, having been quoted as saying that it is the responsibility of a father to raise his son to be a "man," and to push his son's masculinity. This respected, wealthy, well-mannered man is a big part of what promotes some of one of the family's locals to throw a brick through their windshield and write "fag" in chalk outside the house. This happened in the 21st century, in a civilized nation. Various Christians say they believe homosexuality is sinful and unnatural because the Bible clarifies it, but the reality in most cases is that they believe it because it is what their churches have taught them, churches and church leaders like Dobson. Just reading through the Bible, with no predetermined ideas and no outside instruction, you'd be pressed to harking back to it referring to homosexuality at all. Merely a handful of verses cite it, and generally in the obsolete, outdated and laughably psychotic Old Testament book of Laviticus for the reason that the Jews were too intent on procreating to allow vain sex acts, so it's barely even a thematic element in the Bible.

What is endearing and all-encompassing about this film is that it damns no one. Whether you are religious or not, and regardless of your politics, by the end, the faith emanating from the interviewed families is inspiring, as is the love demonstrated between them. Some magnified in their love for their children, seeing homosexuality is just another beautiful work of mother nature and the work of the Lord. Some have only regret that they may have run out of chances to accept or, God forbid, understand. Other variations are either just as heartfelt or they complement what the rest now see themselves has having been before they realized what being a Christian truly means.


i agree with all you've spoken of here and i will see this movie based on that. society has a long way to go, but with people crusading constantly we will make it there one day. i'm a straight man but believe that everyone has the right to be who they feel they are and not brainwashed by religion and the bible which can be interpreted to mean anything.i'm a believer of Jesus-being a man(preacher)back 2000 years or so,why not,but having beliefs based on a book that as far as we know has been doctored over the years over and over by the church to suit whatever needs they have,seems silly.anyway i have discussions about this daily at work.keep up the good work as you have been for all this time.take care


In 1975 I was still in the army.

We'd been through "Mod Squad" and similar 'groovy' attempts at television showing us that it was awkward to be a Vietnam vet - because ALL of them were either cops or robbers. What the medium at the time was NOT showing, was that things hadn't changed since the First World War: when the troops come home, they are not the same people they were when they went away.

OK. That's something best discussed on another day.

SWAT is crap because the actors make the notion of watching paint dry exciting. It might be an early Spelling production, but it's as terrible as the 'seventies Hannah Barbera cartoons. 'Wooden' is an insult to trees.

There is NO attempt to be 'real' or even occasionally-accurate when it comes to weapons per se and why people steal/use them.

Occasional 'through-the-scope' sniper views make me want to weep. Trust me, you don't want to know.

Stories/scenarios are as hackneyed as the characters. Let's face it: pneumonic plague (?!) is not got rid of as easy as "We've been inoculated, therefore you're safe". That particular episode with 'Little Billy' surviving is, indeed, a classic.

Did I offer 2/10? I must be dreaming...


I could not disagree more with CHRIS from South Adelaide who I feel really gave this film short shrift. Alec Austen is a commercial artist and Naval reservist called to active duty in WWII. Having long forsaken his Quaker upbringing he is thus completely blindsided when after reporting for duty on a destroyer he finds himself seriously conflicted regarding the taking of life. Alan Ladd, though in decline personally and professionally at this point in his life, is, nevertheless, very good as the troubled Alec. This film is further buoyed by an absolutely outstanding supporting cast including: James Whitmore, Keenan Wynn, William Bendix, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., Jeanette Nolan and Joey Bishop. Other familiar faces include Perry Lopez,(Cowhand Pete Ramirez in THE LONE RANGER movie and a crewman in MR. ROBERTS) and Ross Bagdasarian who, aided by his chipmunks Alvin, Simon & Theodore, would later gain recording and TV fame as David Seville. The storyline is also unique in that the main WWII theater of operations setting is the Northeast Pacific and the Aleutians. Director Rudolph Mate's other credits as Director or Director of Photography include GILDA, SAHARA (1943) and PRIDE OF THE YANKEES. Alas, it has not yet found it's way to DVD. THE DEEP SIX is not SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH, it is a solid production worthy of a look.


I remember this as the second of a two part feature on a Saturday afternoon in the early 60s. That was when movie tickets were .35 cents and the loges were 50 cents. Of course, after the lights went out, we'd sneak into the loges.

Since we boys were raised on the stories of our fathers and uncles war experiences, it was natural for us to watch these movies. One uncle in particular was a career Navy man and so we knew nautical terminology and such.

It was a routine story with good action sequences. One thing in particular that has always stuck with me after viewing this was when SPOILER: Alan Ladd's character finally starts to shoot the Japanese soldiers. END SPOILER.

A cheer went up throughout the theater and everyone, mostly young boys, were cheering and clapping. Having seen it since, I realize that it is nothing but a routine war picture with little in the way of exploring truly the cost of war to individuals, but it will always have a fond place in my heart from my original viewing oh so many years ago.

An interesting side note. This movie, along with others is listed on an old handbill from the old Parks AFB near Dublin California. The bill is dated 1952. The day and dates are listed of the showings. In checking IMDb, this movie shows as a 1958 release. All of the other titles also show a 1958 release, but in checking the calendar, both 1952 and 1958 the dates all fall on the same days. Weird.


THE DEEP SIX made a big impression on me as a kid. (I don't recall seeing more than bits and pieces since then.) At that time, World War II movies were big, as were afternoon matinees. After watching this we turned a friend's backyard tree into a submarine conning tower, which gave us hours and hours of play.

Two scenes I particularly remember:

One is when the Japanese, on the pretext of surrendering on a beach, have a machine gun hidden on the back of one of their soldiers. Suddenly he bends over and the guy behind him opens fire with the machine gun, mowing down the helpless and gullible Yanks.

And of course the key scene is when the conscientious objector, played by Alan Ladd, finally fires his gun in defense of his fellow soldiers.

8 out of 10 for the fond memories of youth....


The cast turned up just to collect a paycheck, which is a shame, because it is a fine collection of actors. However this movie is representative of tired scripting and even worse, tired and uninspired directing. Alan Ladd looks almost embarrassed on occasions to be associated with this turkey. This film is only worthwhile to make you appreciate when you see a quality movie of the genre.

BEVARE (sorry Bela) watch this stinker at your own risk.


Although everything about this movie (especially the title) suggests that it must be trash, surprisingly enough it isn't. The plot involves a girl who likes reading scary books and one day finds that the events of the book she is reading, called "I, Madman", start to repeat themselves in reality. It has the logic of a dream - that is, no logic at all, - but don't see this one for the sake of the plot. What lifts it out of the B-movie pit is the imaginative way the seedy world of trashy novels from the 50s is recreated on screen; the smartly executed shifts between fantasy and reality, past and present; Jenny Wright's appealing and intelligent heroine; and finally, the director's genuine feeling for the atmosphere of time and place. It is a little like a cross between Cornell Woolrich and a mad doctor horror movie. Do not try to figure out why things are happening, just enjoy the way this film is so different from anything else. A totally unexpected pleasure.


For fans of horror flicks, this movie might be a nice little surprise if you haven't yet seen it. Jenny Wright plays a woman who finds that the pair of obscure pulp novels she has been reading are beginning to cause very real events to happen in her own life, as the crazed doctor at the center of the stories begins to enter the real world with the intention of mutilating Virginia's friends in order to replenish his own missing facial features.

The gory premise allows for some great physical horror, while the actual story is interesting enough to keep you watching for more than just the shocks. There's even some interesting stop-motion animation for one of the weirder monsters in movie history, "Jackal boy".

On the downside, the film runs out of steam after the first two thirds, delivering a disappointing final act that does not live up to everything that came before it. Specifically, the character played by Jenny Wright suddenly goes flat. She starts out really interesting and seems intelligent, but toward the end of the movie she's whimpering and starts acting really dumb. For instance, why does it take her so long to figure out that the killer will target people she knows? One scene where the madman corners Virginia in an elevator is particularly laughable because of the botched delivery of the lines. Considering how strong her early scenes are, I suspect Jenny Wright was directed to act this way, and the film suffers for it.

Still, this movie has a great look. The sets are memorable, even if they're a little unrealistic (how could Virginia afford such a great apartment if she's a book clerk? Geez!). There's a great establishing aerial view of Virginia's noir-ish neighborhood, and the acting isn't that bad (except as mentioned above). The graphic violence is also memorable, reminiscent of "Dawn of the Dead" in the way that the gore comes off as cartoonish instead of realistic. Recommended, although be prepared for the film's third-act fumble.


An young woman by the name of Virginia (Jenny Wright) is a fan of horror novels. She works in a used book store. When she reads a novel titled "I,Madman", which is a non-fiction novel. The villain of the novel seems to come out of the book to stalk the young woman and killing the people she knows.

Directed by Tibor Takacs (The Gate 1 & 2) made an entertaining horror fantasy thriller with an sharp performance by the underrated actress-Wright. The film was barely released to theaters in 1989. The film went on to be a Cult Classic. Clayton Rohner (From "April's Fools Day" and the T.V. Short-Lived Series "Good Vs. Evil" fame) co-star as a Police Detective. This is one of the most rarely seen and most underrated horror films of the late 80's. See it. Written by David Chaskin (A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2:Freddy's Revenge, The Curse). (****/*****).


Bookstore employee Virginia (Jenny Wright) reads a sick if oddly poetic horror story by an author named Malcolm Brand and in so doing resurrects the demented creep, who kills off real people in the same fashion as those in his book. Virginia has a tough time convincing anybody, starting with her detective boyfriend Richard (Clayton Rohner), that she's not just some fruitcake and that her information actually has merit.

Genuinely interesting and rather imaginative terror film that could possibly satisfy both the audiences that desire creative writing and those who crave blood (even if the blood in this movie doesn't exactly look real). Well acted by Wright and Rohner, with some unfamiliar but competent players in the supporting cast, and featuring decent effects work and gore. Effects expert Randall William Cook himself plays the part of Brand and does a creditable job. Overall, "I, Madman" (named "Hardcover" in the theatrical trailer) is a reasonably impressive piece of work that I would recommend that others seek out.

For once, this is a movie that doesn't show the gore merely for shock value but incorporates it as a necessary element to show the madness of the villain.

Written by David Chaskin, whose credits also include the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequel.

8/10


I, Madman starts in a hotel during the 50's. A guest named Dr. Kessler (special make-up effects man Randall William Cook) leaves the building as the front desk clerk (Raf Nazario as Rafael Nazario) receives a phone call from the room next to Dr. Kessler's complaining about animal noises, the manager (Bob Frank) goes to investigate & is attacked by a monstrous half man, half jackal creature which Dr. Kessler had created. Virginia Clayton (Jenny Wright) stops reading her horror novel entitled 'Much of Madness, More of Sin' by Malcolm Brand at this point. Virginia works in a used bookstore & enjoys reading, recently she has discovered Much of Madness, More of Sin & has been engrossed. The next day at work Virginia tries to find the other novel by the same author called 'I, Madman'. Virginia has no luck but when she returns home she finds a copy waiting for her outside her apartment door, she starts to read as the book once again features Dr. Kessler who is madly in love with an actress named Anna Templar (Jenny Wright again) who doesn't return the sentiment saying that he is ugly. As an offering to Anna, Dr. Kessler slices off his facial features with a scalpel & starts to collect various bits 'n' pieces from unwilling donors that he grafts on his own face. Of course this is all fiction & the book goes on to describe him brutally murdering a woman & scalping her. The next day Virginia sees a report in a local newspaper which tells of the murder of an actress & one of Virginia's friends named Colette Berkowitz (Michelle Jordan), after this event & a face to face meeting with Kessler before he kills & slices the ears off a pianist (Bruce Wagner) who lives near her, Virginia is convinced that the character of Dr. Kessler is responsible & comes to life when she reads I, Madman. Virginia's boyfriend Detecitve Richard Channing (Clayton Rohner) is on the case but has a hard time believing Virginia's story about character's from a horror novel coming to life & committing murder's, as the murder's of people connected with Virginia continue in the same vein as I, Madman she realises that the novel ends with Anna, whom she think's she is in reality, having her heart cut out by the deranged Kessler...

Directed by Tibor Takacs I was pleasantly surprised by just how good I, Madman was, I'd never previously heard of it but I think I've uncovered a bit of a hidden gem. The script by David Chaskin has a lot more depth than you might expect & offers a little more originality than most. At heart I, Madman is a slasher but it tries to do something different with the premise & tries to stay away from the clichés which was both refreshing & something I wasn't expecting. It does a nice job of blurring the lines between the fantasy world of the novels & the reality in which Virginia lives. How a character from a novel can suddenly become real isn't explained that well but the story felt solid still & it didn't really matter to me that much as I, Madman just seemed work. The killer's motives are actually quite good & have at least some thought put into them, his connection with Virginia & why he focuses his attentions on her is also believable & not just coincidental like her being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there's a method to all the madness in I, Madman. It takes a while to get going but I never found it boring or felt my interest was waining, the characters are pretty strong & enough happens to satisfy & entertain. There isn't much blood or gore but what's here is effective & quite brutal looking as Kessler runs around killing people with his straight razor, there's a scalping, someone has his ears sliced off, someone's lips are cut off too & a gruesome scene where Dr. Kessler reveals his face early on minus his nose, ears & lips. There is a monster in I, Madman as well brought to life with stop-motion animation which looks impressive considering the budget, I believe the people involved in making I, Madman had enthusiasm & cared about the finished product which goes a long way. Technically the film is very good & well made, director Takacs manages to create some really good sequences especially the ominous moodily lit & shot murder set-pieces which are more effective than they have any right to be. The acting is very strong throughout which also helps give I, Madman a certain credibility that other cheap horror/slashers simply don't have. Overall I didn't think I would but I actually rather liked I, Madman, don't like that title though. A bit of a sleeper & I highly recommend I, Madman to horror fans, as for everyone else I still think it's a worthwhile film & definitely worth watching.


I think this film gets a wee bit overrated on these pages, for though it is a well made, enjoyable effort and better put together than many slashers, especially the late period ones, it is hardly some great underrated gem. The plot and general course of events are predictable but compelling, as an avid reader of pulp horror finds herself pursued by a disfigured, murderous writer. The film has a neat Fifties pulp feel to it, though updated with more scares and a bit of bloodshed. Director Tibor Takacs maintains a constant sense of reality bending intrigue and though nothing is especially surprising, the film has such a well oiled, easy flow that its near impossible not to get caught up in it. The acting helps a treat, Jenny Wright is constantly appealing as the heroine, Clayton Rohner is effective in the clichéd unbelieving boyfriend role and Randall William Cook makes for a splendidly creepy villain. The dialogue is occasionally stilted, but it all fits the sorta campy tone. I could definitely have done with more gore, for while the kills are well filmed and have the rare skill of being effective without being graphic, there aren't too many and there are only really three notable grisly moments. The first kill is a cracker and sadly the later ones aren't as good, but they still just about work in the context. It helps that the effects, designed by Randall Willaim Cook, are pretty ace when they do appear. The film is sadly a bit underwritten, I could have done with more background and more explanation for what was going on, as well as perhaps some downtime to develop the characters a bit more. Its good fun while it lasts but it does rather streak by and afterwards I did have a number of questions about various plot and character points. Still, I can't really be too harsh on this one because very simply, I enjoyed it quite a lot. Worth a watch, though best not too expect fireworks.


I first saw this movie a year after it came out, it was 1989, i was 14, and i have never been so scared in my life, I've just watched it again, and while its still scary i am now 32.

While a lot of horror films from this time focused on annoying teenagers being slashed up. this deranged killer was far more interesting and sadistic, (it seems they took ideas from jack the ripper with the killer in black with brief case and piercing eyes while walking round misty murky streets)) there is one scene near the beginning, a killing of an actress that is so bloody and gore fested that at 14 i threw up.

some of the acting is deliberately done bad, actors sometimes have to do this to make the movie look more enigmatic this seems the case with the lead actress jenny wright, I've seen her in other movies and she can most definitely act, the movie also has this 50's look about it, as the killer time travels his way out of her book.

The only thing that i found fault with, was the murder scenes were not that gory, (apart from the redhead)but still it was very atmospheric and sinister, and you won't be disappointed if you watch it.


This review is assuming you've seen the movie. In case you haven't a woman releases a murderer through reading his books. The killer becomes infatuated with the woman. This movie has a nice simple feel to it, it is graphic at times. There is a creepy atmosphere created with shadows. It's like a Grimm's fairy tale to the nth degree. There is some really good transitions to what she thinks she is seeing versus what she is really seeing. A small simple scary movie, no big name actors but, has a good story to pull it all together. Interesting idea that the killer fuses his victims facial features to his own face. The story uses the familiar police don't believe the woman scenario.


This innovative low-budget effort is about an avid reader of horror novels. Whenever she reads from the pages of a horror book entitled "I, Madman" she wanders off into a dreamland and witnesses lurid murders being committed by a grotesque figure in a black robe and scarf. Only then she discovers that the murders are occurring in real life exactly as it occurs from the novel.

Ultimately I found this film quite enjoyable, and only has a few minor flaws and the acting is above average from everyone involved. The most intense and quite chilling scene in the entire movie is the woman being drugged and scalped in a semi-conscious state. That was quite brutal to watch I admit and a well illustrated death. Most of the "shock" scenes and red herrings are predictable however (esp. the killer's appearance in the elevator). The gore factor is adroitly used and convincing, the removed lips and nose effects on the killer and victims are shockingly effective and the suspense never lets up after it's initial tedious 30 minutes. Jenny Wright is well used in this horror outing and is way above the caliber than the depressing "Near Dark" ever thought of being, in my opinion. Mind you, after reading the rave reviews from other fellow IMDb viewers, I don't find this one the "cream of the crop" of B-Horror films, it has the same standard elements of B-Horror films such as graphic gore, OK Acting, and contrived (although still fun) occurrences throughout the movie. By no means am I trashing the movie, I really enjoyed it much and the suspense held my interest throughout the film. What ruined this one from being a superior B-Horror classic was Tibor Takács's poor choosing of using his idiotic monster from "The Gate" which is not the least bit frightening as the scalpel killer was. I also wished that Wright was the heroine of the story who saves the day instead of that silly looking creature. A bad ending to an otherwise creative and intriguing horror story. "I, Madman" didn't knock me out of my socks, but it is still a gem for the horror genre fans to check out and have fun with.


Librarian book-worm(Jenny Wright), who enjoys reading horror stories which she invests all of herself into, finds that a sadistic alchemist, from a "non-fiction" book titled "I Madman" has emerged from the literary page believing she is Anna, his muse for whom he wishes to please with the "perfect face." In the novel, Malcolm Brand(Randall William Cook, who looks like Noseferatu with a scarf around his face, hiding a missing nose)removes his facial features because the one he longs for found him repulsive. Virginia(Wright)finds that Brand has somehow manifested into modern Los Angeles and is murdering people she knows, grafting a part from each victim's face after slicing them away with a razor. Following "I, Madman" as a source for where Brand will strike next, the difficult part is getting her boyfriend/detective, Richard(Clayton Rohner, with a light beard and jacket, resembling a hard-boiled PI from a noir film)and the police to believe her cockamamie story. Virginia is often visited by the maniac before and after he kills his victims.

Tibor Takács(The Gate)brings us quite a startlingly original slasher with imagination to spare, if the viewer can give over to the supernatural aspect of the story. In regards to the madman's ability to manifest from words to flesh, committing his grisly deeds on the streets of Los Angeles, I felt derived from the reader's complete belief in the printed material. He wasn't real until the fear of him become so vivid, Virginia, in essence, gave him life..his shape and form evolve from a written work into a true being. Perhaps it took both the reader and the writer himself to make this unbelievable situation come to fruition. When delving into the author's life of "I, Madman"(..and another novel, which featured a created monster by a Dr. Kessler, who actually leaps from the printed page to kill Malcolm Brand)Virginia finds that Brand himself believed wholeheartedly that what he wrote was real not fictitious...so perhaps the killer without a face, was given birth thanks to the writer and reader's complete faith in what was written.Besides all that Freudian jazz, the film has a wonderfully morbid atmosphere, and I thought Tibor Takács' film was very much in the Argento vein...a grotesque killer wielding a blade, slicing and dicing, with a baffled police force working all hours to catch him and a female character everyone believes is nuts caught in the whirlwind of a surreal nightmare helplessly finding all those she knows being killed, skillfully photographed(..while his credits aren't eye-popping, Bryan England's sophisticated camera-work and vibrant color, I felt hearken back to Argento films like "Suspiria" and "Inferno", and there are several stunning shots of the killer from afar using shadow and light)with a visual flair and intoxicating energy. Not to mention, there's some dark humor to spare, including a hilarious interrogation scene where Virginia attempts to tell the police about the one responsible for the murders and their priceless reactions to what she's saying. I think the premise might have viewers scratching their heads, it is indeed quite an outrageous story, but I ate it up. I loved the use of Los Angeles and I found the way Tibor Takács edits the novel sequences(..based in the 50s)into the modern story, strikingly integrated. It was great seeing the lovely Jenny Wright get a rare lead role, and she ably fills it nicely, projecting a frightened woman who knows that the truth about her killer is as far-fetched as they come, doggedly pursuing his capture, and often finding him one step ahead of both her and the police. The creature which makes a grand entrance at the end will remind fans of Tibor Takács' kiddie horror outing, "The Gate", for it resembles the demon minions from the hole in the backyard of that film.

The library scene(..where the police stake out the WRONG library) is a doozy which only makes life harder for Virginia, who must somehow, someway, convince her boyfriend that the psychopath is indeed from some horror book she reads. Love the book store Virginia works in..books are stacked and scattered in clusters all throughout the building and the climax works wonders in this setting.


I was hesitant to watch this movie based solely on the first ten minutes because it was so cheesy, but after a while I eased into it and found that this movie was so bad and so cheesy, it was good. It had the mood and mindset of the old fifties movies except alot more gorier. The killer in this keeps a scarf over his face like "The Shadow" and he sounds ridiculous but it's always so comical yet tense. The plot and movie are so goofy, and it never takes itself seriously. The funniest part is when they're setting the stake - out and the librarian faints. Watch this for its humor and campiness, but don't expect a masterpiece.


Jenny Wright is engaging as an offbeat young woman--a bookworm addicted to pulpy thrillers--who is stalked by a monster right out of the pages of her latest read. Nicely set in Hollywood, California, this B-flick unfortunately doesn't have the budget to cover its pulp-thriller aspirations. Director Tibor Takács attempts to build creepy-funny tension and atmosphere, but the script by David Chaskin is too thin, and lacks both the wit and panache for Takács to get the film over the top. And yet Jenny Wright is a lot of fun (she's like a kindred spirit to Joan Cusack). Comedic thriller has some memorable bits, but it needed more production finesse and substance. ** from ****


Jenny Wright is Virginia, a mousy bookstore worker/wannabe actress who gets caught up in a horror novel by an author named Malcolm Brand. The books are so vivid that Virginia often pictures herself in the books. Takacs' reworking of this familiar theme fails due to his reliance on some very old horror film conventions.

Virginia searches for Brand's second novel, "I, Madman," after finishing the first, which involved a demonic creature who takes its revenge on its creator. In the second story, the madman of the title has razored off his own facial features in order to please the woman he loves. He then tracks down better features, using the woman's friends as his own personal parts store.

In Virginia's world, a competing actress is killed and scalped. The madman shows himself to Virginia wearing the other actress' red hair, and Virginia is troubled. Luckily, she has a cop beauhunk who likes to come over without knocking and scaring the living daylights out of her (and supposedly the audience). Soon, the piano repair guy across the street has his ears removed, and Virginia goes to the police, who poo poo her story and send her packing.

Now, here is where the film lost me. Virginia reads in the book where the next victim is a swarthy Mediterranean type with one heck of a schnoz. She does a little stakeout of her own where the murder will take place, and bam, her swarthy Mediterranean type friend from acting class with one heck of a schnoz sits down next to her and they have a chat. He leaves and she still looks for, everybody now, the swarthy Mediterranean type with one heck of a schnoz. Of course, Virginia realizes her dumb mistake too late and runs after Mr. Swarthy in time to see him killed and...denosed? Now cop beauhunk and his lieutenant are all ears (so to speak), and Virginia reads in the book that the next victim will be a librarian watched over by cats. Virginia, not learning her lesson, decides the killer will strike next at a library. Now, every victim so far has had a connection to Virginia, except this one. And Virginia has completely forgotten her sassy coworker at the bookstore who recently acquired a stray cat...and is working alone that same night.

The director then gives us a convoluted scene at the library, where we know the killer IS NOT, and even a shadowy figure who turns out to be some poor janitor who finds himself looking down the barrels of some dozen and a half police issue firearms. How he snuck through the dragnet thrown up around the library by the cops is never explained. The finale, involving Virginia and the madman, is not bad, until the old "whew, the killer is dead, we can relax...look out behind you, he's alive!" ploy comes into play.

The villain, who turns out to be the author himself, is very good.

Lots of shadowy and backlit shots really make him effective, as does the bizarre facial reconstruction he decides to attempt. The gore here is very convincing, but the stop motion animation Takacs used to better effect in "The Gate" is not. No one ever explains why Malcolm Brand came back to haunt Virginia, and no one else.

I coasted along with "I, Madman" on its good intentions for long enough, but eventually the whole thing strayed into familiar territory, and then tried to convince me they were up to something completely new and different. In the end, I cannot get too manic about "I, Madman." This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, strong gore, profanity, sexual content, and adult situations.


In the early 1980s, a young actress made her first appearances in television and films with an unforgettably quirky presence -- vulnerable and seductive all at once. Her delicate features -- unusual green eyes and aching-to-be-kissed lips -- combined with her petite and shapely figure to make a true elfin beauty.

Unfortunately, Jenny Wright never had much of a chance; she was sidelined into 'tramp' roles from the word go. Her small-screen debut on the critically acclaimed sitcom, "Love, Sidney," was as a teenage runaway/prostitute. Her film debut in "Pink Floyd: The Wall" cast her as a groupie. For the remainder of 1982, the bad girl image more or less stuck: she gave Robin Williams' Garp his first sexual experience as flighty Cushie in "The World According to Garp" and she played the flirty younger sister of Tommy Lee Jones' girlfriend in the made-for-TV film "The Executioner's Song."

In 1984, Jenny Wright was cast as Eileen in "The Wild Life," a semisequel to the popular "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." She was her charming self, in a role that didn't have much to offer, but gave some bright spots to an otherwise forgettable film. The two films she made next, 1985's "St. Elmo's Fire" and 1986's "Out of Bounds," cast her with members of the Brat Pack. Although she was never an official Brat Packer, she was on its fringes.

In 1987, Jenny was offered her first star turn in Kathryn Bigelow's "Near Dark." Released at the same time as the mainstream-smash "Lost Boys," it finished decidedly second at the box office -- a shame, since Jenny's performance as vampire ingenue Mae was nothing short of brilliant. This film also marked Jenny's decided career directional change away from mainstream film and into indies.

"I, Madman" was made in 1989, and watching it is a treat. Jenny is perfect in her dual role as real-time victim Virginia and fifties-era victim Anna Templer. Pursued relentlessly by an apparition seemingly leaping from the pages of a pulp novel, Virginia desperately tries to get someone to believe her story and help her. There were some confusing plot points in this film, but Jenny's performance more than compensated for them.

Unfortunately, "I, Madman" marked the last time Jenny had a major role in a film, and in the early 1990s she reprised her early-career persona of the tramp in films like "Queens Logic," "Young Guns II" (as a memorable madam), and 1992's "The Lawnmower Man" (as Marnie Burke, a widow on the prowl). Making only one more film appearance in 1998, she has virtually disappeared. Attempts to locate her to appear with her colleagues in a documentary about "Near Dark" were unsuccessful. Ironic that this talented actress, so good in two films with sinister plots ("Near Dark" and "I, Madman") should be the subject of a mystery herself.


I have only seen this movie once, and it was some time ago so I do not remember it too clearly. From what I do remember it was good. This one has a gal reading this book about a guy who is killing people for their body parts to impress the woman he loves. The strange thing is though, people are turning up dead and they are dying just as it was written in book. If that isn't strange enough seems the guy who wrote the book was a bit crazy and he even went so far as to say the book was not a work of fiction, but rather a true story. He said this of another book he wrote as well. This one is rather good, but the ending is a bit strange as something from his other book comes true too. If I ever got the chance I would love to see it again because it was most definitely worth a look.