It took decades to bring "Song of Norway" from Broadway to the screen and what we get is a glorious mish-mash. Now, first and foremost, the star of the film is the scenery. Norway is an exceptionally beautiful country and never has it looked better on film. It must have looked even better on the huge, Cinerama screen for which it was designed. The editing, before the era of MTV, is a forerunner of a music video to Grieg's heady music. The editing flubs here and there but the opening credit sequence and the song "Song of Norway" is astounding. Next, many of the musical numbers are the most corniest ever directed which drags the film down tremendously. While the lyrics have a hard time keeping up with the incredible beauty of Grieg's music, they can be quite beautiful. Now, "Song of Norway" shines in its dramatic moments much better than its musical moments (a bad thing for a musical). And, the second half improves over the first. The dramatic acting is very good. Toralv Maurstad was Norway's premier actor at the time and he is good in the dramatic scenes, but sadly, he could not carry a note in a bucket. But on the large screen, barely detectable on video, his eyes are rimmed with tears as Rikard Nordraak sings the glory of their homeland. It is a moving moment. Florence Henderson is very good dramatically and musically, proving that there is more to her talent than just being the mother of "The Brady Bunch." Frank Porretta, an opera star, is classically trained. He displays the unbridled enthusiasm of Rikard and is inspiring with his singing of "Song of Norway." Christina Schollin is also very good as Theresa Berg, Grieg's patron and former lover. What is very disappointing is that this film had the opportunity to reach the heights of "The Sound of Music" with exceptional music and scenery but it required more ingenuity when it came to writing and direction. The talents of an Ernest Lehman and a Robert Wise would have been a great addition. SPOILER ALERT! Although the film ends with Grieg returning to Nina in a happy ending, the real-life ending is far from happy. Grieg was so heart-broken from letting down those closest to him that upon his return, he never wrote another note of music.


SONG OF NORWAY is an unbearably dull musical pastiche of clichés heard in every musical ever made that purported to be the saga of a composer's struggles to find recognition for his music. Edvard Grieg's struggles are so dull as to be non-stop in this awful compilation of Norwegian scenery by the truckload with no story to carry it.

It is notable that the man who plays Grieg, TORALV MAURSTAD, never did make another American film, so disastrous were the reviews and box-office for this dull saga. Note also that FLORENCE HENDERSON was not able to make another film in Hollywood but went directly to television and stayed there for a very successful run on "The Brady Bunch". See the film and you will judge yourself why it was an abject failure. And don't be fooled by the presence of OSKAR HOMOLKA, EDWARD G. ROBINSON and ROBERT MORLEY in the cast. They have little or nothing to do.

Music lovers may be enchanted by Grieg's works, but not the way they are presented here. Nor is there any resemblance between the zestful SOUND OF MUSIC and its picturesque way of dealing with the Von Trapp Singers and this dull as dishwater musical that would work better as a travelogue of Norway with the plot excised.

See it at your own risk.


I saw this one when I was in high school. I had been warned ahead of time, but I liked classical music, including Grieg, and ignored the warnings. I remember several things about it that really sum the film up, in my opinion.

1. The photography was stunning. Snow, fjords, and Norwegian towns and scenery were really pretty, as were the folk costumes.

2. Grieg's music was nice to listen to, though as in all films about composers, they only give samplings.

Those are the good parts. The bad parts were what sank the boat. There wasn't much of a story. Greig's life wasn't as exciting as many other composers lives, and a lot was padded to keep the story going for 2 or 3 hours. I remember a lot of overacting as well. But the worst part of all was the directing. Forever emblazoned upon my memory is the hideously clichéd scene where Grieg, his wife, and someone else spread their arms and run across a green field, stop on a hillock, and spin around to face the audience. Then they do the same thing again - and again! If that's not enough to make you give up, then nothing is.


Although some of the acting is bland, the movie honestly tells of the struggle of a great musician to be "heard". Postcard cinematography and a good stereo sound add to the ambiance, and the music is so GOOD that one can forgive the lyrics writers for giving words to it, but these are the same people that gave words to the music of Borodin in "Kismet" and we MUST admit that "Stranger in Paradise" HAS become a staple!


A horrible biography of composer Edvard Grieg's early life. It was shot on location in Scandanavia. The scenery is just beautiful and the music is fantastic--even the songs (based on Grieg's music) aren't bad. The problem? Everything else. The story is just non-stop clichés; the movie is way too long (2 1/2 hours); the dance numbers are badly staged and hysterically lousy and the acting...let's put it this way...Florence Henderson gives the best performance! Grieg himself is played by Toralv Mausted. Ever hear of him? Didn't think so. There's a reason for this. Also there are over FORTY songs shoved into this movie. Like I said, they aren't bad, but it gets to be a bit much after a while.

I'm giving this a 3 for the scenery and music but everything else is hopeless. Easily one of the worst musicals ever made. Too bad--the scenery is truly gorgeous.


Not the most exciting movie ever made, but it's not the worst either. Granted, it does have its weak points-it seems to go on forever, it doesn't have that much to offer by way of an interesting plotline, and the acting in some spots could be better. However, it's not without its charms. The music is very appealing, and it really is gorgeous to look at. It is an adequate time filler-it's just not for every taste. You be the judge


I saw Song of Norway as a child, in all its magnificence, in 70mm with 6-track sound. I saw it every time it returned for "morning shows" (until the print's color had well and truly faded) and have never forgotten it. The last time was more than 25 years ago. I cant understand why so many people find it "awful". Or maybe I can --- it demands a certain "innocence" and a surrender to sentiment that most adults today are uncomfortable with. What's not to like? It has Grieg's soaring music, stunning cinematography, decent unpretentious acting, gorgeous locales and a certain epic "sweep" sadly lacking in today's soul-less blockbusters, which seem false and contrived in comparison. I believe it was available briefly on DVD in an edited and utterly execrable transfer that did no justice at all to the film's visual and sonic glories. But who has the rights now? Will they please PLEASE restore and release this lovely film on DVD (and perhaps even Blu-Ray) in a presentation worthy of posterity?


I seriously don't know how to describe this movie. I'll start with my obvious statement, that I'm not necessarily a big fan of musicals (quite the contrary) and while I will write that I also didn't enjoy "Sound of Music" as much, I am aware that some/many will dislike my comment here.

But it's not as much about other musicals, as it is about this particular musical, the Song of Norway. Even people who love musicals despise this film, which brings me to my theory. This film might be a comedy after all. It might be a genius thought of the director, dragging the musical down the road and showing it with so much sugar coated (music) numbers, that it really takes the wind of the drama and anything else. You could say then, that this was a master plan ... but on the other hand, it still doesn't make it an entertaining view. Far from it. Nice cinematography/landscapes though ...


When I saw this turkey in 1970, there were no rewind buttons for it was in a theater. So I could not go back and check this. . . But I am sure that in the final seconds, as Grieg is running up the street to his home and Nina, his arms swinging as one's arms do when running, he passes a young girl traveling in the opposite direction - and his hand smacks her rump sending her sprawling off camera . . . I have often wanted to see the end of this film again to see if my memory is correct. Or was it finally edited out? Did anyone else catch this best moment of the film? It rather ruined the 'return to his true love, to make up for all the wrong he'd done her' ending for me.


The reason Song of Norway is not hailed as a classic like The Sound Of Music is simple- the acting stinks. The music is wonderful, ditto the voices of Florence Henderson (Who backed up Mary Martin in the Broadway version of TSOM) and Frank Porretta. But once they stop singing, and Grieg (Toralv Maurstad(?)) stops playing, the whole thing just sits their like a cold smorgasbord- it looks very good, but it isn't really that appetizing. There is no warmth or rapport between any two of the leads. The bit parts by Mssrs. Robinson, Homolka, and Morley don't last long enough for anyone to forget how uninspiring the whole thing is. It is doubly so when the characters are talking, and there is a shot of the magnificent Norwegian landscape in the background. You'd think the dialogue could at least try to compete with the scenery. As it is, it comes in a distant third, behind the sweeping vistas and the music.

By comparison, TSOM had first-rate actors with a first-rate script, songs by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and a budget large enough to support them all. If Julie Andrews was a little too sugary, well, at least she could act. And there was nothing sugary about her escape from Austria with the family.

In the end, Song of Norway is dressed up with wonderful location shooting and memorable tunes, but the acting leaves this film with no place to go.


You will be amazed at the just how bad a film should you see this film. There is not a single fade or dissolve used for scene transitions in the entire film. It is amazing that in the middle of a scene people turn, the scene cuts and -- bang! -- we are transported in time and space. It takes a minute or two to figure out where we are. But it gets worse... you will find that Grieg, now matter what you think of his music, is hardly suitable for slapping a few words on top and pretending it's a pretty song.

I'm afraid the actors aren't all that good either. The lead, Toralv Maurstad, has a course voice and stiff acting style. When his friend George (Bernard Archard) sings about the beauty of Norway, he stares as if dead. Florence looks so very young, and she does have a very nice voice. She's the high point to the cast.

The shots of Norway, while picturesque, are just crammed into scenes that are ridiculous. Even Sound of Music motivates the exterior shots, but not this film. We just cut in the middle of a scene and show a pretty waterfall or a goat. Yes, a goat is cut between a musical number and a conversation with two actors. I think this may be a comment on the song, but it could reflect on the acting.

Overall this is one ugly film and the only compelling reason is either to torment your friends and family or to take a look at Florence Henderson as a young woman. Otherwise ... rent something else.


Muslim detainees in Guantanamo Bay were reportedly tortured by having to watch this film several times a day, many of them begging for mercy and swearing they would eat pork chops for dinner every day if only they quit showing them this film... ***WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!*** The Surgeon General has concluded that watching this movie may be hazardous to your health. ... I saw this movie on the Big Screen when it came out. I loved Grieg's music (well, still do) but this film really put my loyalty to the test. Others here have spoken quite eloquently about the movie's incredible editing and song and dance numbers, so I won't add to the comments. The reason I gave the movie two stars instead of one was: Florence Henderson's wonderful role in reprising her cameo in Weird Al Yankovic's "Amish Paradise", and the totally meaningless non-sequitur animated sequence about two thirds through the movie where you have monsters popping out of fiords.


This is quite simply the worst movie I've ever seen, barring low-budge horror flicks. For a big-budget film, this is the bottom of the barrel. The acting is atrocious; the music is lousy even though it is Grieg. The attempts to put lyrics to Grieg's music is ludicrous. As pretty as a postcard and just as interesting!


I saw this movie (with my parents) when it first came out. The whole family agreed that it was a stinker. It was boring. The acting - if you could call it that - was horrible. Do not waste your time by watching this movie. It definitely belongs on the IMDB worst 100 list. After all these years, it instantly comes to mind any time someone asks me what the worst movie I've ever seen is.


I'll admit that Girlfriends didn't look so bad for the first 5 episodes. Im not sure why I watched this junk for at least 3 seasons but I guess I was just being optimistic that this show might have gotten better as it progressed but it didn't. There are times when this show blatantly rips off elements of Sex and The City. In this review I'll state everything that made me despise this show. The characters are pretty obnoxious and as the show progresses its hard to like them because they do some pretty stupid things to jeopardize their lives. Joan Clayton(Tracee Ellis Ross) cant keep a steady relationship with a man to save her life. Maya Wilkes(Golden Brooks) doesn't know if she wants to be with Darnell or not and she drives him as well as the viewers of this show nuts with her high strung antics. Lynn Seacy(Persia White) is the most likable character in this show but she is not without her flaws. She does not know if she wants to be with men or women(and she drives them both insane), She is very scatterbrained and when people depend on her she is likely to fail them. Plus I found that very typical that the most likable character of all of them is the one of mixed heritage. Toni Childs(Jill Marie Jones) is the most reprehensible of all characters. As a matter of fact she is probably the most insufferable character in sitcom history. She is a high class gold-digger that puts poor Todd Garrett(Jason Pace) through hell. So much so that when he took her to court that I was ecstatic but unfortunately the idiot had to feel sympathy for this loathsome tramp and dropped the case. William Dent(Reginald C Hayes) would be a likable character but his moronic horn dog ways makes it virtually impossible to do like him. He ruins what could have been a decent relationship with his boss(played by Anne Marie Johnson) to be a pig and is constantly running back to that gold-digging self-centered trollop Monica, even though her love for him was only on a financial level. Darnell Wilkes(Khalil Khan) seems somewhat smart till you realize that only a fool would put up with Maya for so long. There are plenty of episodes that make me disgusted with this show but there is one episode that is stuck in my mind eternally. The episode where William forgets to pose as Santa Claus(or Satan's Claws) for Jabari and the the girls were mad at him for that made me sick to my stomach. First of all we all know that Santa Claus is an imaginary character so you're going to get angry at William because he doesn't cater fairy tales to a little boy that needs to be fed truth in order to be a mentally stable adult? How insane is that? And we wonder why these kids grow up to so destructive. If they are fed these poisonous fairy tales all their lives how can they deal with reality? Any Black parent that feeds their kids these harmful tall tales needs to be locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

In closing, Girlfriends is wildly overrated and symbolizes everything thats wrong with modern Black sitcoms. Back in the day bourgeoisie morons criticized shows like Frank's Place, Different World, Roc, The Cosby Show and Parent Hood for being unrealistic and preachy but those shows were way over their snooty heads and were leaps and bounds over the rubbish that passes for sitcoms now. As for the comparisons to Living Single, don't make me laugh. Living Single might not be deep but it had class and you don't despise the characters of that show. Sure they were pretty goofy but they were likable characters. The characters of Girlfriends are so repulsive that you just want them to get them to get trampled by a stampede consisting of the starting lineup of every team on the NFL. You cranks that want to be entertained instead of being "preached to" have found your mindless junk food. Enjoy it and savor every bite. Pretty soon there will be a Black Michael Bay to satisfy your appetite for mindless action movies with no substance. As for me I will not go near another Black sitcom. I am always anxious to see Black people on the TV screen but when all I'm getting is chittlin circuit trash like Girlfriends, Eve, Cuts, The Game and Half and Half , I begin to lose hope for quality Black shows because every show that was cool like All Of Us is countered by dreck like the shows I just mentioned.


I liked season 1 and part of season 2 a little better. Let me just give some bits and parts of the show that made it lose a lot of cool points.

Joan's behavior was completely rotten towards William when they returned from New York, and she was a bit immature, trying to play games, setting him up with both Monica and the other girl. Those that watched the show avidly saw her conduct towards him.

She was actually jealous of Toni when Toni was about to get married. What was that all about? I thought they were true friends. She took out her anger on Ellis, and later cheated on him and lied to him. She was an extremely stink girlfriend. A lying, cheating, jealous, immature fool. Ellis was never that great anyway. Their union, as many other unions on this show, should have never happened.

Maya's conduct was similar, especially when she was William's assistant, and even after she was rightly fired. The episode where Reverend Al Sharpton guest starred made me cuss. William asked her to do one thing, she did something else, and made a spectacle of herself in front of the Reverend. She failed to remember that she was the one who was rude and inefficient, and tried to make William out to be the bad guy. She was an ingrate to both William and Joan. The whole ghetto, sassy act was not cute and not cool. She always felt she could do what she wanted when she wanted where she wanted.

She also wanted to make Darnell miserable after they broke up, calling him over to pick fights with him Wasn't she the one who cheated?

Her friend also acted like a total jerk towards the father of her own children when he came to pick up the kids.

Did Lynn say she wanted to burn down Joan's house after she was kicked out? Did she also want to do the same after Toni fired her as her assistant at her new real estate office? That was supposed to be funny? Don't even get me started on Toni Chlamydia Childs and Monica the Control Freak.

There is so little respect for one another that I sometimes question the friendships. The writer of this show is another writer I wish I could talk to face to face. If there is anything that I am not understanding, then she can show me. I want to go through episode by episode and drill her.


It's unclear who led Girlfriends' formation, whether Kelsey Grammar rounded up a bunch of African-American heavyweights to build a show, or whether the heavyweights leveraged Grammar's success to get their show aired. Either way, Girlfriends operates at the peak of Hollywood production, with a VERY richly talented team of actors, writers, producers, etc.

The result seems much like Frasier, blending stereotype, caricature, and "comedy of manners" humor with delicately woven stories of challenges contemporary audiences will see as "real" and relevant. That's a tightrope walk. The humor is an established art, in accomplished hands; but the right compromise between humor and realism is far less certain, even for such a skilled group.

Though I might personally prefer to tweak the compromise a bit more toward realism, that would make it a different show. I really like Frasier -- familiar eccentricities/caricatures and all. But I find Martin Lawrence, Tyler Perry, and Eddie Murphy far too silly/campy/ghetto. I did, however, notice that they continue to make more money and garner more fame than certain others. The very-accomplished-but-not-as-famous crew behind Girlfriends surely notices that too.

Creators for HBO & Showtime craft shows to build on the networks' reputation for more weighty/intense/realistic programming. (e.g. Soul Food) Girlfriends' creators must likewise craft the show for the very different market positioning at UPN.

I expect the Girlfriends we see is a very deliberately crafted balance, adjusted to maximize ratings/earnings in a UPN context. The same could be said of Frasier; and I find both shows entertaining.

Male character construction in Girlfriends is an interesting side note. William is given more development & air time than any male on Sex & the City or L-Word, serving as a foil not just in interaction but in his parallel story lines. In making the story about the girlfriends, the writers have wonderfully shown no urge to regurgitate the standard set of negative black male stereotypes. Even more than with Sex & the City, Girlfriends mostly explores the leads' "issues" by contrasting with normality in its male actors.


Girlfriends is an EXCELLENT show which expresses how some friends can truly help to change your life in a positive way. The main characters are Joan Clayton, a 30-something year old entrepreneur, Maya Wilkes, a sassy author and mother, Lynn Searcy, a free-spirit woman who shares many passions, and Toni Childs, a single mother who has changed her wicked ways for the new baby in her life.

All four of them have different personalities but that is also what makes their bond so strong. This show expresses the love that they all share. The four of them lift each other up when they are down and are always willing to lend a hand in each others lives to make it a little bit better. This show is definitely one that will be remembered, this show shows what the true meaning of friends is!


I was resistant to the show at first because I was overwhelmed with shows like Moesha, the Parkers, and I didn't like the way they portrayed black people. But This show is different. These women and especially Reggie Hayes show strong successful Black people who worked their way up to their positions. You can see a bit of your self in all the characters, and William is non stop funny as a momma-loving, republican, success oriented lawyer.

There are other characters that you learn to enjoy, but the friendships between these women is stronger than anything thrown at them; including man troubles.


When this show first came out it was considered the Sex and the City for the black folk, and while the premises of the show is smiler (withe the four female friends looking for love career and everything else in between) it's rather different as well.

it's incredibly witty in that Frasier type way and that probably has to do with Kelsy Grammar producing the show, and while they not afraid to talk about sex or in the case of Joan the lack there for every episode is not contaminated with naked torsos all over.

this show does not give the illusion that as a writer for a weekly column you can afford to stay in the heart of Manhatton (i come from South Africa and i know that is expensive) and afford Jimmy Choo's and Blonicks please, these women work hard to look as good as they do, and in Joan's case you might even make yourself broke trying to maintain the look.

This show defiantly found a way to touch on all subjects, broken homes (with out being stereotypical because daddy doesn't always have to beat mommy or be an alcoholic for the home to break up) in the case of Maya and her husband.

you have the Nimphomaniac friend who refuses to stop studding and get a job in the case of Lynn.

the up and coming Legal Aid in the form of Maya

the definite girls girl in the form of Toni Childs so this show def has something for us all....

Defnaitly something for the ladies but Gentlemen you more then welcome to join the fun....


Finally, there is a sitcom that allows people to see that we as black females do and can have a productive lifestyles. It is funny, refreshing and the women are attractive. I think all the women on this show are beautiful and I just want to thank them and hope that they continue to be a part of my Monday evening line up, that I love to watch. I pray that they do have a new and wonderful season in the fall. We need more shows like this, I really appreciate the show, if I am not home to watch, I tape it. Maya oh hell yea, and Toni and perhaps she could give her little husband a little more time. My favorite Joan and her freeloading buddy with the "degrees" are a joy to watch. I love William too, and I want to wish you all much love and thank you for your show. You have our support and hope that you can continue to be a blessing to the black community.


I truly have been enjoying all the characters featured on Girlfriends. Their talent is so deep and rich that I have to remind myself they are actually actors and not real life characters. Having said that I know you will agree with me that it is because of their true talent which is so convincing, compelling and genuine to life that I can almost believe in the reality of the characters as true to life.

I look forward to "many" more seasons of "my" Girlfriends! Congratulations "Girlfriends" for your success of the past and the future with "CW".

Debbie


This film has a typical early-80's "crisis" TV-movie feel-the sort of TV-movie that ordinarily would deal with toxic waste dumping and a conspiracy to cover it up. Here its cattle mutilations and secret para-military biological weapons programs. Yep, that's right, a splinter group of right wing mercenaries is developing biological weapons and testing them on cows (only slight reasons are given as to why they don't just buy cows and use them on their own land). Robert Urich is the big city cop with domestic problems and a "cute" alcohol habit whom is the only one who can solve these mutilations-don't expect Jo-Beth Williams relatively competent country cop to pull it off. Its pretty by the numbers, and you can guess 90% of the plot from the opening on screen blurb about the Congress mandated end of biological and chemical weapons tests in 1969. The film has a good supporting cast-Hoyt Axton, Harrey Carrey Jr., Paul Dooley, and hey, even the leads do a good job of acting-too bad this is just a glorified tv-movie. Look for the evil trucks that have a soundtrack cue that sounds like it was stolen from Jon Carpenter.


They filmed the part of the missile silos in Longmont. Colo and I got to go there and watch them film the segment where the father (Urich( and his daughter ran down this hallway. It took them all day to do it and in the movie the segment only took a few seconds.

I was pretty disappointed but I did get to shake hands with Jobeth Williams and Robert Urich and he gave me an Oreo cookie for a snack. Of course I kept it. ha ha

I liked the movie just because of this event in my life. I especially liked the part of the effects of the toothbrush. I would like to know where to get a copy of this movie.


Though this film is ultimately forgettable, the saving grace is a savory morsel in the form of a cameo appearance by Jon Craig Liebling. In his role as the steward in a scene featuring a commuter airplane, Liebling delivers another of his subtle - yet, scintillating - tour de force performances. His understated and nuanced interpretation of this complex character contributes a level of patois to the scene that is memorable long after the credits roll. If you haven't done so already, be sure to seek out Liebling's contributions to the Jill Clayburgh film, "I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can", as well. Once heralded as one of Hollywood's premier talents, Liebling (in both his acting and writing modes) was a dynamic presence who embodied a wide spectrum and depth of expertise that transcended his young age. From Clooney to Crowe, Ben Stiller to Jude Law, today's "A list" of Hollywood talent have all taken colors from Liebling's paintbox of cinematic artistry. When Liebling chose to leave California for a quiet, yet idyllic, life in Vermont, filmdom lost one of it's most treasured - yet inexplicably under-appreciated - players. Rumor has it, however, that Liebling now crafts short films for the exclusive enjoyment of friends and family. What lucky people they are, indeed!


Robert Urich and Jobeth Williams star in this fairly competant issue. Urich plays a single dad who while on vacation with his daughter starts to investigate a series of cattle mutilations. Good beginning and middle but ending could have been better.


Many people have found that most DVD editions of "The Black Raven" to be too dark in places and of overall poor quality. I've found a nice, bright restored version of it on a triple feature DVD called Black & Blue Collection which is available through the Roan Group.com. It's compiled with "Black Dragons" and the most perfect copy of "Bluebeard" that I've ever seen (other DVD's of "Bluebeard" on the market are too grainy, edited or have bad sound). Anyway, "The Black Raven" focuses on a group of people who are trying to get over the Canadian border for different reasons but are forced by a rainstorm and washed-out bridges to spend the night at the shadowy Black Raven Inn. The film has plenty of old dark house atmosphere plus the effective relentless howling of the wind and the pounding of the rain. George Zucco and Wanda McKay give good performances in this intriguing murder mystery. Enjoy it in its most perfect DVD edition. It really makes a difference!


I got to see this film last night on my local access channel, and I had such a good time with it. It reminded me so clearly of the classic early Warner Brothers cartoons about the fiends in the old houses on stormy nights and when you watch a movie like this, you can see the influences that inspired the great Chuck Jones. Though I agree with the other reviewer that this movie is a bit muddled, I cannot watch a movie like this from the perspective of its own time. It is so much a period piece. And that is the source of delight. The quality of the sound...the pops and crackles, the staged storm sound effects, the clothes, the lighting, the bumbling sheriff, the damsel in distress - all come together to present a little gem out of time. I recommend this film as a charming visit with our history of movie making.


A motley group of people are forced to seek shelter at a remote inn run by the snooty, sarcastic, but suave Amos Bradford (a perfectly unctuous George Zucco) because of a raging thunderstorm that has flooded out the bridge and the roads alike. These eclectic individuals include a vengeful escaped convict whom Bradford put in jail, a meek geeky bank teller who's trying to embezzle $50,000 bucks, a mean, ruthless mobster who also wants to get his grubby paws on the hot loot, a young couple who are planning to get married, and the huffy, overbearing, disapproving father of the bride-to-be. Naturally, a vicious killer starts bumping folks off. Efficiently directed in a briskly straightforward and economical no-frills manner by Sam Newfield, with an endearingly hokey script by Fred Myton, plenty of sharply sardonic dialogue, stark, gritty black and white photography by Robert Cline, a booming, melodramatic score by Charles Dunworth, and game acting from a solid cast (Glenn Strange in particular contributes an amiable performance as Bradford's clumsy, cowardly, oafish assistant Andy while Charlie Middleton registers strongly as a jerky ramrod sheriff), this wittily enjoyable Grade B mystery thriller potboiler delivers a reasonable amount of cheap thrills. A fun little quickie.


If you pay careful attention to David Chudnow's music, "The Black Raven" qualifies as more comical than creepy. This atmospheric, black & white, whodunit about one stormy night near the Canadian border in a motel on the American side is a solid, entertaining triple murder tale about greed, corruption, and revenge. Prolific director Sam Newfield, who helmed "HitlerBeast of Berlin" as well as 168 other films, teams up with frequent collaborator Fred Myton. Based on Myton's original screenplay, "The Black Raven" is a formulaic but polished potboiler with clever dialogue and strong performances. Amazingly, this Producer's Releasing Corporation B-movie is a respectably done programmer that preserves the unities of time, place, and setting to a single evening.

The casting of Glenn Strange and Charles Middleton is worth mentioning. Better known as Frankenstein's monster in "House of Frankenstein" (1944), "House of Dracula" (1945), and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), Strange plays an over-sized simpleton who doesn't know his own strength and behaves like a coward when he trips over two corpses. Furthermore, this represents one of Strange's more loquacious characters. Meanwhile, Middletonbilled here as Charlieplays an incompetent but honest sheriff rather than a dastardly villain. Remember, the hatchet-faced Middleton starred as Ming the Merciless in "Flash Gordon" (1936), "Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars" (1938), and "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" (1940)." These roles provided departures from the usual ones that Strange and Middleton played.

A variety of motley characters show up one night during a thunderous downpour at Amos Bradford's Black Raven Inn. Bradford (George Zucco, who played Professor Moriarty in "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes") is a rather suspicious character himself who specializes in smuggling felons across the border into Canada. Racketeer on the run Mike Bardoni (Noel Madison of "G-Men") arrives after Whitey Cole. Cole (I. Stanford Jolley of "Ghost of Zorro") has broken out of prison and wanted to exact revenge on Bradford. "I was so anxious to get square with you that I busted out," says Cole as he holds Bradford at gunpoint, "I could've knocked you off when I just came in but I had to face the judge when he handed me my rap and I want you to do the same." When Bradford's oafish handyman, Andy (Glenn Strange of "Red River"), enters the inn, he distracts Cole long enough for Bradford to disarm him. Andy ties Cole up and stashes him in Bradford's room. Cole believes that Bradford double-crossed him. Bradford defends his behavior. "All of a sudden you got too smart to take orders," he points out to Cole, "When I saw what was coming, I protected myself." Another ambitious gangster, Tim Winfield (Robert Middlemass of "Cain and Mabel"), has forced Bardoni out of the rackets after Bardoni built them up, and the authorities want to arrest Bardoni. Bardoni wants to get across the border before the law catches up with him. The next guest at the Black Raven is a long-suffering, milquetoast bank employee, Horace Weatherby (a spectacled Bryon Foulger of "Sullivan's Travels") who has embezzled $50-thousand so that he can finally enjoy life to the hilt. There is a hilarious moment when Weatherby argues with a roadblock watchman (Jimmy Aubrey of "Swamp Woman") during the storm about when the bridge to Canada will be rebuilt. When he arrives at the motel, Weatherby clutches a satchel for dear life and arouses Bardoni's curiosity. As he is registering, Weatherby neglects the satchel for a split-second and Bardoni knocks it off the counter and presto it falls open and wads of bills can be seen. The next two guests are an unmarried couple, Allen Bentley (Robert Livingston of "The Lone Ranger Rides Again") and Tim Winfield's estranged, under-age daughter Lee (Wanda McKay of "Raiders of Ghost City"), who are trying to elope across the border into Canada so that they can get married. Lee's father has thwarted their efforts to obtain a marriage license. The last guest to show up is none other than infamous Tim Winfield, and he calls up the state police about the same time that the storm knocks out the telephone lines.

Winfield recognizes Weatherby and appropriates the $50-thousand from the unwilling bank employee. Not long afterward, Andy discovers Winfield's body, but they cannot find the loot. When the sheriff (Charlie Middleton) shows up about 34 minutes into this 65 minute opus, the lawman arrests Allen Bentley because Lee's father had slapped Bentley in the presence of both Bradford and Andy. Bradford steadfastly refuses to believe that Bentley killed Tim Winfield. "I'm not going to have that boy take a rap," Bradford vows to Bardoni, "for a murder he didn't commit." Nevertheless, Bentley escapes from the sheriff's custody with the help of Lee and Bradford. In no time at all, the sheriff finds Bentley locked up in the basement with Weatherby and Andy where Bardoni had put them while he searched for the $50-thousand. As the triumphant sheriff returns with Bentley in custody, Andy discovers another corpsethis time Bardoni. Clearly, Bentley couldn't have killed Bardoni.

George Zucco plays a sinister character, but he spends most of his time defending young Bentley. This is one of Zucco's more sympathetic villains and the actor anchors this melodrama with his commanding presence. Sam Newfield handles the complicated Myton plot with aplomb. Rarely does a moment go by without some important bit of business being inserted into the action. Despite its low-budget origins, "The Black Raven" ranks as a well-written yarn. Just about everybody is implicated in Winfield's murder. The revelation of Winfield's killer comes as something of a shock because of all the red herrings and the meticulous characterization. Newfield likes to let one character speak and show another character's reaction so that he can throw you off the scent of the guilty party. Poetic justice is served in the long run. Altogether, this underrated romp is pretty good considering its meager budget.


Almost an Old Dark House movie. On the qualifying side, it's a mystery, it has four murders, comic elements, a very serious thunderstorm, stranded motorists, people hiding in the shadows, & a big old dark boarding house. Close enough, I would say, but I didn't see any secret passageways & the film was made a bit late (1945) to qualify. Good dialog, intelligently written for its type, & most (but not all) of the acting is competent. George Zucco is especially good as the owner of the boarding house. 1940s Frankenstein fans, & Gunsmoke (TV) fans will greatly enjoy Glenn Strange's comic role as Zucco's assistant; he's funny & gets to do a little slapstick! Overall, quite an enjoyable film if you like this sort of thing (I do). It's hard to find this one, but it's worth looking for. I rate it 8/10.


A menagerie of persons converge at the Black Raven hotel, run by a man who makes a second living helping criminals escape over the US/Canadian border. When one of the guests is killed, and $50,000 is stolen from his posession, who did it? This done to death premise should have worked, even by PRC standards, but the second half of the film just consists of the characters running all over the hotel and basically by the film's end, the audience has to feel disinterested. However, with all the rain, it does make for a average movie, and Byron Foulger as usual, is fun to watch as the meekish bank teller on the run from the law. Strange & Middleton seem to be miscast, respectively, as the comic relief & sheriff, and Zucco just seems to be wooden as the hotel owner. Rating- 4.


It's always "hit or miss" with old public domain cheapies from studios like Monogram and PRC. This miss had my name on it because madman George Zucco and Last Universal Frankenstein Monster Glenn Strange were featured in its cast.

Zucco is the proprietor of a creaky little inn (both he and the Inn are called THE BLACK RAVEN) and during the course of an hour's viewing time he plays host to an assorted group of unusual guests. It's a stormy night in town with thunder crashing and rain flooding the roads, and on top of that the bridge is out. Among the waterlogged patrons seeking shelter are: a formerly wronged business partner of Zucco's who'd like to kill him, a geeky embezzler looking to get away with $50,000 stolen loot, a gangster who's also interested in said loot, a young couple looking to get married behind the back of the girl's objecting old father, and dad himself - who's also hot on their trail.

The unfortunate thing is that nothing terribly exciting happens despite the effort to make this some sort of mystery. Aside from a little mood, the only things going on here of passing interest are some slapstick (Glenn Strange plays an imbecile who falls down the stairs; the young girl's angry father slaps her would-be bridegroom across his face) and some humorous dialogue (a favorite is Zucco's scolding of Strange: "With your imagination, you could see the Statue of Liberty do the conga!").

In case you couldn't tell by now, this is not a horror film. So you're best going elsewhere if that's what you're looking for. I already knew this going in but it still didn't help.


Parents, don't subject your kids to this cheaply made, poorly written crap!

This movie is just a commercial for Mystic, Connecticut in the guise of a GOONIES-type kids adventure movie. It will fail to entertain them. Why? How could a kids movie fail to entertain kids? By throwing in endless long shots of the town which try to make it appear beautiful (and fail).

One of the major characters is a kid who works on a fishing boat with his dad and befriends a new kid (named Jonah of all things) whose father works for the Navy. They discover a German water-mine and wind up hot on the trail to buried treasure. There's an evil archaeologist who wants the treasure too.

Kids have fun/adventure. Jonah must overcome a bully. There are light-weight family problems. It's all really lame and slow. Filmed in a Connecticut studio with obviously limited resources. The color quality is very poor (green is almost never shown). The story they tried to tell wasn't worth the pathetic effort put up to make it. I mean, the production quality is passable, but I've seen better stuff from bad TV-movies.

My vacation video from my trip to Mystic was more entertaining than this, so just don't bother. Show the kids WIZARD OF OZ, or any other kids movie made by professionals. This attempt belongs in the scrap heap.


This film is not a bad movie, but for some reason on here its being attacked. I watched this as a child and thought it was brilliant and watched it when ever it was on. It's got villains, treasure hunt and what shocked some good drama. If you want to make your kids happy pop them down in front of this movie and I guarantee they will enjoy it. Great family film. This film is not the Goonies but the film is based on a similar thing. A 300 year old map, pirates a treasure map and a competition on who can find the treasure first. This film is not yet out on VHS or DVD so if you get a chance to watch in on TV then I recommend you tape it to watch at a later date. Great family fun to have in you're collection, but like I said its no Goonies but it's a good film in its own right.


This film was one of the most ill-concieved pieces of garbage ever made. Completely empty in terms of content and entertainment value, it's one long, painful slog. The film seems to have been made on a lark, or a bet. And as the results confirm, the director/writer lost the bet. This is even worse than "Glen or Glenda." I hated every simpering, stupid, vacant, idiotic, vapid moment of wasted celluloid. Overall, the script was poor, as was the acting, especially that of a character known only as "Schooner." Not only did he look out of place, but he had a funny voice, and was just not entertaining in the least. When he says, "Mayonnaise, O NAYS MAY!" I was only left wondering "What?" My advice is that the cast and crew should not quit their day jobs. And if these are their day jobs, may they all be shot like the leads at the end of the film. They should also not be allowed to reproduce, as it would be hazardous to society. There are worse ways to spend your evening, but I can't think of any. Wait, nevermind, this film is wretched. The cinematography is inept, and the shots of New London are unconvincing to say the least. I hope with this directors next film, he will not hire a piece of particle board to play the lead. He shows promise, and hopefully with his next film, he will rectify this egregious mishap. Overall, I give it a 1 out of 100, and say never, ever, EVER, hire the guy who plays schooner, ever again. Not even a fun B-movie, but an execrable one. The mystery is easily solved, and the jokes don't work as well as they should. To quote Roger Ebert: "This film should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor." >


I can't believe people - married/single/in significant relationships could not relate to this show!! This is the real deal with a couple sparklers in hand to make it shine. As much as us 'women' would hate to think we had a 'Jake' as our spouse, but realize we may have a 'Mickey', but really want to kid ourselves to think we could always roll over in the AM to see our 'Doug' - wake up and smell the 'monkey coffee'. I am married, with kids, a woman who had a career and gave it up for family and can still relate to the 'Mickey' character. I think people trash this show because it really does make them look at themselves in the mirror and ask yourself 'am I really happy with the choices I've made?' You then realize you are happy with what you have...you just have to remind yourself a couple times out of the day. I was totally disappointed when this show was cancelled - and hope somewhere down the line it will come around again. People may not want a 'Everyone loves Raymond' life - who can relate to that image of marriage, anyway? - Yikes.....


I watched this show when I was 19. I enjoyed it since it seemed to grasp how every marriage that I knew from friends and family. Granted not all marriages are carbon copies of the ones on the show, but at least it hits on ones that are familiar. I found that the awkward moments with Mickey (Mike Binder) and his wife (Sonya Walger) looked like bad acting seemed to emphasize that awkward feelings they were having. Little nuances like this made it a little better for me. And the support characters are real to me. Especially since I have been on both sides (being the single guy and the married guy *sort of) The complaints seem real and the responses genuine as far as I could tell. I have since watched it and still find the humor. I was more curious about how long the show would last since they covered the main question of infidelity? The second season I am sure covered another topic, but I don't really remember. I do hope they put out the second season just so I can complete my thoughts on the show. All in all I did enjoy it when I was single and when I got into a serious relationship.


This show is the most truthful portrayal of what men think about. I know men won't admit it to their significant others and women will never believe it, but this series very accurately portrays a man in a relationship. No matter how well a guy has it, the grass is always greener on the other side. That is the basis for this whole series. The internal everyday battle of men to stay faithful to the one they love when their natural animal instincts and testosterone are telling them to try and sleep with every fine piece of arse they see. I know it doesn't sound beautiful or poetic but its truth.

Anyways, the show is hilarious, especially if you are more into darker, drier humour. Wish HBO never cancelled it.


I stumbled in to "The Mind of the Married Man" after HBO had the unmitigated audacity to cancel it, so critiquing the show is pointless post-mortum. Nonetheless, I absolutely love the TMOTMM, and it cuts deeper than practically anything I've seen of late on television, despite the fact that it's a comedy, black as it may be. Tell me, does anyone know where I can get a list of the songs that play in the background during the closing credits? I've heard about five songs that I really like, but I don't know the name of the songs or the artists. (I recognize the Marc Cohn sings the terrific title tune) I think "U2" sings one of them, and, I must confess, I have never jumped on the U2 bandwagon.

I think the reason that the TMOTMM didn't make it is because wives wouldn't let their husbands watch it, which is perplexing since husbands don't mind if their wives watch the predictable pretentious, "Sex in the City." Since married Johns didn't watch it, who's left to tune in? I guess I'll have to listen to someone other than Jake to get advice on my marriage.

Mark


Many reviews give this movie 1 or 2 stars. Many of those label it as "not scary", "stupid" or worse... While maybe the movie does earn those adjectives, it is not because of the stupidity of it's creators, on the contrary; the cast & crew made it stupid on purpose. This is not a common slasher. It's a spoof on everything cheesy about horror films.

Director Brian Katkin and writers Dan Acre & John Huckert crafted a very funny comedy that parodies the cheesy 80's B-slashers while paying homage to the cheesy 50's sci-fi horrors. The beginning sequence sets the tone of the story: Young filmmaker Steve discovers that Slaughter Studios, the place where his favorite B-Movies were filmed, is going to be demolished; so he gets a crew and decides to make a cheap horror film like those he loves in the night before the demolition. Strange things begin to happen and they wonder if the place was cursed after the event that led to it's closure 20 years before: the death of a young star while shooting a scene.

Sure, the movie is predictable, but that's the idea. It follows every rule established by 80's slashers like "Slumber Party Massacre"(1983) or "Sorority House Massacre"(1987): silly jokes, lots of gore, and lots of nudity. There is plenty of eye-candy that undresses by every possible excuse, and the killings are unnecessarily bloody. Everything that made those 80's slashers both enjoyable & silly at the same time.

The initial sequence and the scene when Steve tells the story of the 70's murder at the Slaughter Studios is very original. It's the crew's very personal homage to producer Roger Corman(the 70's director is named "Roman") and the names of Steve's favorite films are parodies of those of the likes of Corman's classics like "Attack of the Crab Monsters"(1957), "The Wasp Woman"(1960) or "Humanoids from the Deep"(1980).

Also, the character of Steve has that Ed Wood spirit, the director that is so convinced that his movie is good that can't see the HUGE flaws in it. I'm sure that many aspiring filmmakers will find themselves identified with him.

The acting for the most part is OK, they play the slasher stereotypes to the letter. Lorissa McComas is particularly funny in it's take on the actress obsessed with the 70's murdered star; and Amy Shelton-White steals the show, she could be more than a b-movie queen.

Something worth the mention is the very good lighting and camera-work showed in the film. While the SFX are very very poor, the direction makes good use of them and makes them work in the context of the movie. Although there were scenes that look as if they had been shot with a DV while in post-production, most of the film is very well done.

Overall it is a funny spoof on everything that made lovable those cheesy 80's B-movies. Worth a rent.

7/10


If "Slaughter Studios" has anything going for it, it is that it is much more bloody than the contemporary teen slasher flicks that we have seen lately. Equally as significant is the revelation of the killer, which I have to admit was quite clever; I never, ever would have guessed and that is rare for one of these. Overall, I did enjoy the film. It looked good and the special effects were impressive.

Where the movie lost points is in the incredibly dull and dragging middle. Nothing of any importance happens for at least 45 minutes, except bad acting. Yes, the movie also looses points because nobody in can act worth a crap. Yes, we know you are in a no-name, low budget, direct-to-video horror flick, but at least TRY to act excited. The plot centers around a group of young filmmakers who go to the legendary but now abandoned Slaughter Studios, where years before a popular actor was killed in a freak accident (or was it?) to finish the film that never was finished. Of course, a killer shows up and starts mutilating the cast in very bloody ways. As I mentioned, the killings in this are pretty bloody; we get pick axing, head smashing, head-spearing, and head hooking. Most of this comes at the end-the middle of the film is basically nothing but these actors trying to make the movie. The end comes from left field too and I really, really enjoyed the simpleness and cleverness of it, though nobody will ever figure out who the killer is until he is revealed. A good effort, especially for a direct-to-video feature. A little cheesey in parts, but enjoyable nonetheless.


Slaughter Studios starts as an actor named Justin is shot & killed on the set of his latest film, was it an accident or something more sinister? Either way Slaughter Studios has remained unused & empty ever since... Jump forward 20 years & aspiring low budget horror filmmaker Steve (Peter Stanovich) is going to break into Slaughter Studios & use the unused but still intact stages for his latest project. To help him he has assembled a crew of friends, production assistant Madigan (Amy Shelton-White), Gary (Matthew J.Roseman) the cameraman, Ollie (Anand Chulani) the sound-man, & his cast of actors, Kevin (Nicolas Reed), Chad (Darren Reiher), goth babe Trisha (Eva Frajko), Rebecca (Laura Oatis), Darlene (Serra Ellison), Candace (Lorissa McComas) & Portia (Tara Killian). Together they break into the abandoned Slaugher Studios & get to work, however it appears that they are not alone as a killer stalks the corridors of the once busy studio...

Edited & directed by Brian Katkin I really liked Slaughter Studios. On paper the script by Dan Acre & John Huckert looks pretty lousy, a horror comedy about a bunch of annoying teenagers being killed by a mysterious killer but in fact Slaughter Studios turned out to be a really likable & decent film. I hated Ollie but I found the rest of the character's very likable & were quite funny with some nice witty dialogue. The whole film-within-a-film, Blair Witch Project (1999) anyone?, has been done before but Slaughter Studios incorporates it really well & the whole self referential jokes & mickey taking is done with a certain affection for the genre. There are a few good laughs here including a pretty funny farting in a tent gag! I really liked the ending as well, I definitely wasn't expecting it & was both a clever & satisfying way to round the film off. Slaughter Studios never takes itself seriously, it moves along at a fair pace & is never boring or dull & makes for good entertainment. Don't get me wrong as it's far from a masterpiece but believe me you could do a hell of a lot worse than Slaughter Studios when you compare it to the straight-to-video crap that litter video shop shelves these days.

Director Katkin does an impressive job, the lighting is excellent with bright neon greens, blues & reds along side the dark shadowy corners. The film looks great throughout & only the cheap looking digital video used to shoot it on gives it's low budget away. There is plenty of nudity, some lesbianism including a funny exchange of dialogue with the director convincing Portia that going nude & participating in acts if lesbianism would make her a better actress! The gore isn't so plentiful, a pick-axe in someones stomach, someones throat is cut with some film & someone has a pitchfork stuck through them & there's a decapitated head.

With a supposed budget of about $50,000 the filmmakers have worked absolute miracles. Slaughter Studios went straight-to-video but looks really good from start to finish & they obviously made that $50,000 go a long way. The acting varies, Chulani is absolutely awful. Frajko as the goth bird Trisha is a bit of a babe & really easy on the eyes.

Slaughter Studios surprised me, a lot. I thought it was a highly entertaining & funny spoof comedy horror slasher. As a horror film fan you have to be able to take a chance on a film you've never heard of that will in all likelihood turn out to be complete & utter crap, most low budget straight-to-video horror films fall into this category. But once in a while you are rewarded with a bit of an unexpected gem & Slaughter Studios was just such an occasion for me, definitely worth a watch.


What a delight! Finally, someone has made a send-up of 'b' horror movies that is both hysterically funny and scary at the same time. The premise is simple: A group of young film makers (think hot, scantilly clad babes) break into a dilapidated movie studio hours from the wrecking ball (the studio was closed years before after the tragic accidental death of a teen idol)to make the last movie ever there. Through the course of the night, the actors and crew are picked off one by one by a killer. Is it a ghost, or one of their own doing the horrific deeds? The fact that this was THE last film ever shot at Roger Corman's famous Venice studio is not lost, in fact the flim makers play up Corman's history with aplomb. Director Brian Katkin stylishly designs scenes to play off the no-budget elements and raises the bar. Clever, well directed, Katkin keeps his tongue firmly in cheek as he takes material that could have been pedestrian and adds both wit and silliness to make it come alive. But don't let this fool you. The film is genuinely scary, walking a tight-rope between farce and fear. Murder and mahem abound as freely as do the breasts. Again, playing off 'b' movie stereotypes, the audience is treated to an enjoyable romp. Producer Damian Akhavi (Shakedown) who had a hand in the script, show a sure hand and eye for this material. The ensemble cast of mostly unknowns create funny, memorable characters that the audience genuinely cares about and their untimely deaths are certainly felt. Kuddos also to composer Christopher Farrell (a long time Katkin collaborator) whose effective score guides the viewer from laughter to fear and back to laughter with ease.


Slaughter Studios pictured itself a horror movie--it also tried to be campy and funny--unfortunately it missed on all counts. I found it lacking on all counts--with one exception--the movie bad guy was not expected and for me was the only high point of an other wise forgettable movie. My suggestion would be to rent as a last resort


You only care as to who gets naked, so here's the long and short of it: o Goth / Raver Chick: Yes! Mostly at the end, on video.

o Old Blonde With Huge Cans: Yes! Throughout, in fact. Including a shower scene with another chick.

o Bitchy Blonde Girl: Yes, however, the least number of times and the least quality of times when it does happen. Also passed out throughout most of the thing, if you're into that.

o Brunette With Obvious Recent Boob Job: Yes! Spends most of the movie naked. It doesn't seem like it at first, but trust ole Zeke on this one.

o Flat Blonde With Nice Legs: Yeah, you'll get plenty of her in this.

o Director's Girlfriend: No, sadly! You warm up to her by the end of it, plus she ends up making some quality decisions as to who to really hang around which only increase her worth in this thing.

I give this movie a 7 as the girls are nice and spend a lot of time naked, especially for a flick made in 2002. It's otherwise complete garbage and should not be viewed by anyone for any purpose.


spoofing horror films is something people think is easy. in truth, it isn't. just being stupid doesn't make something funny. it just makes it stupid. throwing a bunch of naked chicks in the flick only makes me think of some porn i'd rather be watching.

this is a bad movie that isn't scary. it isn't funny. heck, it isn't even gory. it is boring. i guess that's something.


Ronald Colman and Basil Rathbone, two wonderful actors having the time of their careers playing wittily written opposites who are also spiritual soulmates -- Francois Villon, the poetic rebel, born into poverty with a noble soul, and Louis XI, King of France, born into privilege but with a rebel's iconoclasm. Add a witty script by that poetic comedic rebel Preston Sturges, who hits all the crowd-pleasing buttons without condescension and no-nonsense direction by Frank Lloyd, and you have a top Hollywood product -- a crowd pleaser with intelligence.

Rathbone is a particular delight. Pre-Holmes, he revels in playing an unprepossessing cynic to whom everyone must bow because he happens to be the king. Colman is doing what he does best, playing an intelligent, superior man, without losing the common touch. A delight all the way around.


I knew I was in for a treat when I saw Preston Sturges was scriptwriter for this film, which was clever and energetic, but I didn't expect such wonderful performances from both Basil Rathbone (who received an Oscar nomination) and Ronald Colman. I always felt Colman didn't pick up his lines fast enough (at least in his later years), but he's perfect playing the poet François Villon. Colman sounds like a poet whenever he speaks in all his roles! You've never seen Rathbone in any role quite like that of Louis XI. He sounds at first almost childlike, but it is a mask - he's pretty wily and knows what he is doing all the time. The script, of course, is pure hokum. You can't imagine for one moment that a king would make Grand Constable a man who was caught stealing food from the royal storehouse. As Grand Constable, he runs France! The extended scene where he, while hidden, metes out sentences to his friends who were also caught stealing, is pure delight, and very worthy of Sturges. I found fault with Villon's earlier escape, as it was too easy, and with the casting of Ellen Drew in the role of one of the wenches at the Fir Cone tavern, and who loves Villon. There was too much to enjoy in the film so those were easy to forgive. His other love is Frances Dee, playing one of the nobles at court, and she is always stunningly dressed in Edith Head's costumes. The rest of the cast was all first rate, and the Oscar-nominated sets were excellent. Curiously, the film is set in 1463, the approximate year that Villon died at the age of 32. Also, William Farnum, who plays General Barbezier in this film, played Villon in the 1920 silent of the same name as this film.


Francois Villon, born 1431 was all that If I Were King makes him out to be. Poet, satirist, duelist, and consorter with the rabble of low degree as Brian Hooker's lyric from The Vagabond King, he was all this. His satire brought him some big time trouble, a death sentence. But a last minute commutation by the monarch he satirized, brought him banishment in 1463. Villon went so far into obscurity that we do not know when he died after leaving Paris.

From these facts Justin Huntly McCarthy wrote a popular romantic play that premiered in 1901 and was later made into an operetta with score by Rudolf Friml and Brian Hooker. McCarthy took into account the politics of the time in medieval France. Louis XI was only King for two years, ascending the throne in 1461. The monarchy after leading France to an ultimate victory in the Hundred Years War against the English, was leader of a shattered land with many of the lesser lords quite a bit more powerful than the king. Chief among these in France at the time was the Duke of Burgundy. Whoever held that title ruled an area about a third of modern day France.

It's those Burgundians who have Paris surrounded and are dictating terms to Louis XI when the story opens. Villon and his sidekicks have broken into one of the King's warehouses and helped themselves to some food. Taking it back to the tavern owned by Robin Turgis, Villon makes a few choice comments about Louis XI. Unbeknownst to him, Louis himself is there on a mission to ferret out a traitor among his counselors. The traitor turns out to be the Constable of Paris. When a fight breaks out, Villon kills the constable.

This puts Louis in a dilemma as he sees it. Villon has killed a traitor, but he's insulted the person of the king. Since Villon brags about how much better a job he can do, Louis makes him Constable of Paris and gives him a noble title.

No man on the silver screen ever spoke the King's English better than Ronald Colman. I could listen to that man recite the Yellow Pages. He's a perfect Villon.

Basil Rathbone was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 1938 for Louis XI. Louis XI was known as the spider king because the man was the craftiest of schemers. He usually had about 5 or 6 options given any situation, most of us are lucky if we have one alternative. Dealing from weakness as he was, he had to be a man of cunning, guile, and deception.

Interesting talking about the King's English when dealing with a pair of figures from medieval France. But the contrast between the romantic Villon and the crafty Louis is what drives the film. That and the partnership of necessity they form and the later grudging respect they develop for each other. Colman and Rathbone have the classical training needed to make If I Were King work.

The two main female characters acquit themselves well. Frances Dee as noblewoman Katherine DeVaucelles and Ellen Drew as the tragic Huguette are just fine. And among the supporting cast, I particularly like Sidney Toler as tavern owner Turgis. It's quite a contrast from playing Charlie Chan.

For me watching If I Were King is like watching The Vagabond King without the music since I know where the songs go. It's like watching a production of Pygmalion after seeing My Fair Lady. You keep waiting for the songs to start.

Particularly I listen for Colman to break into the Song of the Vagabonds as he rouses the citizens of Paris. It's a great moment in both the play and the musical.

You will thrill when you hear Colman rouse that rabble of low degree even if he doesn't sing.


A cunning king of France allows a rapscallion poet to become Lord High Chancellor - for the space of only one week...

IF I WERE KING is a fascinating film based on the fictionalized lives of two very real personages, Louis XI and François Villon. The performances are impeccable, Preston Sturges' script is literate and Paramount Studios provided excellent production values.

As Villon, Ronald Colman makes full use of his most magnificent talent - his beautiful speaking voice. Like honey flowing over velvet, it caresses the dialogue & adds emotional heft to the lines of Villon's poetry used in the film. While perhaps a bit mature to swashbuckle altogether convincingly, he plays the lover very creditably in the romantic scenes.

Obviously determined not to acquiesce the entire film to Colman, Basil Rathbone is hilarious as King Louis. Gaunt, wizened & cackling like a crone, he effortlessly steals his every scene. Eschewing the use of his own superb speaking voice, Rathbone plays a character that will remind some viewers of the disguises the actor would use shortly as Sherlock Holmes. The sequences between Rathbone & Colman are very enjoyable, especially since in their only other joint appearance, A TALE OF TWO CITIES (1935), they had no scenes together.

The two women involved in Villon's life are portrayed by Frances Dee & Ellen Drew, one an aristocrat, the other a wench - lovely ladies both. Smaller roles are filled by fine character actors Henry Wilcoxon, Walter Kingsford, Sidney Toler, John Miljan & Montague Love. Way down the cast list is the always reliable Ralph Forbes, playing the king's toady.

Movie mavens will spot an uncredited Lionel Belmore playing the Chief Steward of the royal palace.

**********************************

Fat & ugly, Louis XI (1423-1483) was nicknamed 'the Spider' as a grudging tribute to his remarkable skills at plotting & scheming. Although he showed talent in administration from an early age, he also was quite adept at angering his father, Charles VII, and ultimately had to take refuge at the Burgundian court until the time of his succession to the throne. Almost universally unpopular, he set up an elaborate spy network which kept him informed as to nearly all that went on in his kingdom. His overriding mission was to crush the power of the great nobles, especially Burgundy - now ruled by the successor to Louis' former protector - and this he was largely able to do, thanks to his policy of encouraging the minor nobles and the middle class. The might of the French crown was significantly strengthened during his despotic reign.

François Villon (1431-1463?) was both France's greatest lyric poet and a complete scoundrel & ruffian. Raised by a chaplain, Villon absorbed none of the virtues of the Church, consorting with the basest of companions and involving himself in numerous scrapes, misdeeds & robberies. His murder of a priest during a street brawl was but one of several outrages. Imprisoned many times both in Paris and other French municipalities, Villon was almost preternaturally fortunate in being able to take advantage of various pardons & amnesties - all undeserved. After one final clemency, he was banished from Paris for life - whereupon he completely disappears from the historical record.

Although stained by a most unsavory reputation, critics have long admired Villon's poetry and have extolled both the exquisite imagery of his tender verses and the unremitting detail in the poems describing his coarser experiences.

The bulk of the tale told in IF I WERE KING is a complete fantasy. There is no indication that Louis XI & Villon ever even met.


Ronald Colman gets his wish in "If I Were King," a 1938 film also starring Basil Rathbone and Francis Dee. Colman plays the vagabond poet Francois Villon, who is overheard by the disguised King (Basil Rathbone) criticizing His Highness and talking about what he would do if given the chance. He and his entire party are arrested, and Louis makes Villon the Lord High Chancellor. Villon gets to work immediately and elevates the king's reputation among the people. He opens up the stores of food at the palace and gives it to the citizens - they have no food because the city is being held by the Burgundians. The sentences he passes out to anyone arrested are merciful and fair. It seems as if he has succeeded. But what the King has failed to inform Villon is that he is only Chancellor for a week - and he has that week to convince the French army, who are refusing to fight the Burgundian army, to do so and win.

"If I Were King" is a great deal of fun, and Ronald Colman is delightful as Villon. But first, in response to a previous post, a word about accents. The previous poster asks if there was a vocal coach available, as there were people speaking in British and American accents - no French accents. Hollywood often confuses the accent issue of films set in foreign lands by casting one or two people who have some type of accent while the rest do not. The rule in acting is that no accent is necessary when doing a film or a play set in a foreign country. Why? Because the people of that country are not speaking English. They are speaking their own language. They are NOT walking around France speaking English with a French accent. This is why when actors perform Russian plays, or Hollywood did films set in Nazi Germany, Budapest, Spain or anywhere else, the actors did not have to use an accent of that country. An accent would only be necessary if a German were in America speaking English, for instance.

To get back to the cast, led by the wonderful Colman, Basil Rathbone is excellent as the hated Louis, and Frances Dee is lovely as Katherine de Vaucelles, who falls in love with the Lord High Chancellor.

Someone complained because Errol Flynn did not play this role. Flynn would have been marvelous, as he was a very charismatic actor, but I think Colman is marvelous. His Louis is not only energetic and charming, but highly intelligent, and Colman is able to shade the role in a way that Flynn, who tended to be much more superficial in his characterizations, could not.

An enchanting film, highly recommended.


I found this movie by happy accident when looking for another title at Video Vault. What a fortunate find, an excellent Middle Ages romp made by multi-Oscar master filmmaker Frank Lloyd.

Dealing with a fictional encounter between Louis XI of France and a rouge Villain, these two roles are wonderfully played by Ronald Colman and Basil Rathbone --- possibly the best roles these two great actors ever did. With Paris surrounded by the army of the Dukes of Burgundy and slowly being starved into submission, the king's plans are falling short of success --- with battle-shy generals and no back-up plan. Into this mess comes the rogue Villain with a different approach......

There isn't a dull minute in this fine production and the reproduction of French architecture, costumes, et cetera, is beyond perfect.

It isn't easy to see this movie; it's a Paramount Picture released on VHS long ago by Universal/MCA. That means you can find it eventually, either at a specialty video store or by tenacious search on eBay.


What I wanna know is - Errol Flynn was too busy to make this movie, right? This seemed like an ideal vehicle for him to shine in. He definitely woulda brought Francois Villon a lot of life. Okay, well, he wasn't in it, Ronald Colman was. And he did a fine job. An even finer job was done by Basil Rathbone as the cackling, humorous king. Eccentric indeed. Before watching this I had no idea Preston Sturges was the writer. It was great to see his name. I knew immediately that I was in for potentially something special. Oh, how this could have been just a mediocre movie or even a flop but it was enjoyable all the way through. One thing that did irk me was the accents of the characters. Was even one French? Uh, I don't think so. British and American. American! I know this is a small thing but I noticed it constantly and I didn't like it one bit. I guess back then no one invented the occupation of voice coach? What a shame. That and knowing what Errol Flynn could have given this movie brought it down for me a little bit. Still, I'd watch again and might buy the DVD one of these days... speaking of which, I know companies are slow in releasing older movies onto DVD but if you're reading this, which I highly doubt you are, do not leave this title out! My grade for this very fine movie: A-


Way back when Troma would release anything (okay...they've ALWAYS released anything), this film came out of their vault o'horror with an interesting premise: dudes renovate haunted house, some get possessed by evil spirits, end up trying to kill each other. ...as if you couldn't guess the plot from the title.

Yep, "Dead Dudes in the House" is about as low budget as possible and makes no apologies for what it is. In fact, it revels in its origins and goes for the shock, gross-out and gore from frame one to frame last. Gotta appreciate that; not all movies have that kind of conviction.

But in the end, it all is just kind of left there on the screen. Having seen multitudes of similar films in my day, I hadn't seen anything here that I hadn't before. What I did appreciate, however, was the fact that a bunch of guys with cameras, little money and an idea got something filmed, produce and distributed.

Bless 'em. And bless Troma, too.

Six stars for the "Dudes", plus a star extra for making it this far. Way to go, blood!


After a brief prologue showing Ann Leatherbee ("1940's Girl" Leighann Belair) and her mother, Abigail ("Old Lady" Douglas Gibson), nonchalantly sitting/standing over a dead body, we move 40 years into the future, when seven feisty young adults arrive at the same house to fix it up. Mark (also played by Gibson) has purchased the home at a steal because of its disturbing past, which he isn't aware of. Of course, this is the stereotypical haunted house film set-up. Dead Dudes in the House combines its supernatural haunted house horror with a slasher plot and entities that are a cross between zombies and ghosts. The story progresses as you'd expect given those elements. Yes, it's derivative, but anyone who knows me well knows I do not subtract points for that. The "Cult of Originality"--which valued the unprecedented over all else, and which really only came to the fore in the later 1800s--was a mistake in my opinion.

Still, when astute readers notice that my rating for a film like this is higher than or the same as my ratings for films like Constantine (2005), Mulholland Drive (2001), Predator (1987), Ichi the Killer (Koroshiya 1, 2001) and Donnie Darko (2001), they (maybe rightly) wonder, "What is going on? How can you say that Dead Dudes in the House is as good or better than (fill in your favorite film that you think I underrated here)?" It's important to remember that my ratings (as well as many other critics', I suspect) are not meant as comparative to other films, as if they're all on an even playing field, trying out for shortstop on the same team. My ratings are comparative, but to a number of other factors. First I consider how well the film managed to do what it set out to do, making concessions only for unavoidable limitations (these include budget constraints and historical/technological limitations); I see the film itself as defining what it wants to do. Secondly, I consider the value I got from the film--including entertainment value, other aesthetic value and so on. The last factor is importance in a historical/cultural milieu. This is given far less weight, partially because it's not so directly related to what's on the screen, and partially because this is impossible to "measure" for most newer films; this last factor also only tends to help ratings; I don't really subtract any points for cultural/historical _unimportance_. It's also helpful to remember that I begin all films at a 9 (an "A"), and then score up or down accordingly.

Understanding this, I believe that Dead Dudes in the House does a very good job accomplishing what it wants to accomplish, although there are a couple small blunders--enough to subtract a point. I also got a lot of value out of it. It's entertaining, often funny (sometimes unintentionally), there is some surprisingly good cinematography, the premise is handled (meaning directed, written, and so on) extremely competently, the death scenes are well done and creative, and the performances range from bizarrely good (in this context) to entertainingly bad (often from the same actor).

Writer/director/producer/coffee-maker James Riffel, who unfortunately only recently managed to complete another film, 2004's Black-Eyed Susan, knows exactly what he's shooting for and easily gets it. The goal was to create a slightly tongue-in-cheek 1980s-style (the film was actually made in the late 80s--the copyright date on the end credits is 1988, and the title of the film is given as The Dead Come Home) gore-comedy slasher, achieving the necessary isolation by locking the ten little Indians in the haunted house and gaining ghouls to enable variety by letting dispatched characters become zombie-like menaces.

Partially because of this set-up, the dialogue tends to be ridiculous, well written, unintentionally hilarious and scathingly satirical, often all at the same time. Most of the major characters fit that set of adjectives as well, especially Bob (Victor Verhaeghe), the carpenter, and Abigail Leatherbee, the "old lady". Bob is usually given the best lines, and Verhaeghe turns in one of the most entertaining performances. The extended scene when the "kids" first arrive at the house and try to start fixing it is a gem. The funniest aspect, perhaps, is that Bob is not that far removed from a couple carpenters and construction workers I've known in the past.

But the gore is also very well done. In a movie like this, that is extremely important. The only other important aspect that Riffel misses is gratuitous nudity, but there isn't a huge female cast, and it's not always easy to acquire gratuitous nudity for low-budget film-making like this (I'd suspect this was more akin to a "guerilla" film).

As for cinematography, Riffel actually anticipates a number of more recent genre stylistic tendencies, such as monochromaticism and chiaroscuro night scenes. There's also an extremely important and attractive shot that breaks the monochromaticism in the dénouement, right before the obligatory and welcomed doom-laden "tag". This is using cinematography as symbolism in a way akin to such well-respected films as Equilibrium (2002)--something less broad minded folks act surprised to encounter in a "clichéd little shocker" like Dead Dudes in the House.

By the way, Dead Dudes in the House was recently released on DVD through Troma's Toxie's Triple Terror series. It's interesting to note how many films in that series feature transvestite characters. Is it time we ask just what kind of undergarments Lloyd Kaufman is wearing? Does he have something in common with lumberjacks?


My brother and I saw this movie late on Cinemax one night five or so years ago. Since then they haven't replayed it. Also no one we have ever talked to has ever heard of it. It is a B-movie but it is really good. It's one of the few movies I have seen that has ever scared me. I wasn't as much scared as I was one the edge of my seat. The Evil Dead's are the only other films that I have ever felt this way before. Well I just thought I would post this and if you have seen please respond because I would love to know me and brother are not alone.


James Riffel's "Dead Dudes in the House" has to be one of Troma's best.There is plenty of gore,some scary scenes plus a lot of cheese.The plot involves a group of young people going to fix up an old secluded house and falling victim to the murderous 100 year old lady named Abigail who proceeds to slash them up and bring them back as zombie-like killers."Dead Dudes in the House" is loaded with plenty of gore and violence.The script is pretty mediocre and there are some dull spots,but overlook that and you have an enjoyable low-budget gorefest.The scene,where one guy is cut in half by window is a hoot.Check it out,if you can find it.7 out of 10.


This movie is pure horror! The plot is simple : A group of teens have to repair an old house, but when one of them hits a grave in the backyard, and old lady awakens from death, and one by one, these teens get killed by the old lady.

Well, you have to watch the movie to understand it. This movie has plenty of gore, and some scares. Any horror fan should watch it.


I found this little gem on the video rack under the title of "The House On Tombstone Hill". It sounded interesting enough - a group of people get trapped in a old house with something nasty, which is usually a sign that I might see some cool gore. However, when I read on the video box that this was a Troma movie, I almost passed on it. I was kinda burnt out on Troma's cheesy approach to horror. This movie has it's share of cheese too, but this film was acquired by Troma, not produced by Troma, so there's not as much of it. Actually, I was quite surprised by this film. It's very low-budget, but like most horror films, the low-budget adds to the creepiness of the film. Good gore effects, some decent acting, a cool location (kinda reminded me of Night of the Demons) and a warped sense of humor adds up to one bizarre little film. It's got some boring parts, but for a Troma movie, it was very enjoyable!


I'm not sure why this film has been rated so low, but I'm going to guess it's because most people go into every movie they watch expecting it to be Citizen Kane, and then rate the movie with a 1 because it wasn't a Hollywood blockbuster with 10 million dollar explosions.I'm assuming if you're checking this movie out, you are either a Troma fan or a Zombie fan. While they might not be Zombies as you would normally imagine them, this film does feature plenty of undead characters.

If you love gore, then you will enjoy this film, as the blood and guts are pretty evenly distributed throughout the film and pretty well done for a low budget film. There were a few instances that were so great that I rewound them and watched them again. If you enjoy the atmosphere that 90's cheesiness is able to offer, then again, this is the film for you.

I am rating this film 10 because I believe other people have severely underestimated the film, and I feel its poor rating might deter viewers. But then again, this is a Troma release, so maybe not.

8/10


This is one of my top ten zombies/young people trapped in a mansion movie. I own a copy under its other title : "The House On Tombstone Hill", which if you ask me, I like better than "Dead Dudes In The House".

Two gals and five guys (plus two teenagers who appear in the last 30 minutes) enter a big, old, creepy mansion where soon they find themselves trapped. Doors won't open, windows are unbreakable and soon they begin dying one by one. Some of the murders are off-screen, others you do get to watch happening as the old woman who haunts the mansion uses all sorts of sharp instruments to kill them.

Beware of the Troma DVD release, I bought it thinking it had some kind of special feature like behind the scenes or audio commentary, it doesn't and the quality is NOT good.


Yay! I can still remember watching this movie on a Friday night on USA Network. After watching the opening credits I thought this is gonna be a crappy zombie flick... I was wrong.

The plot is creative : A bunch of teens settle for a weekend in an old house where -accidentally- an old lady awakens from the dead. And that's when things start to get ugly, and I mean UGLY. One by one these dumb teens get killed by the old lady, and them become zombies... Sounds nice eh? Well you should see the ending then. I won't tell more, because you should see this movie if you are a horror fan that appreciates low budget.

This movie is something you've seen, but it has some creative scenes and a primitive direction that will make you wonder "why movies like this are so underrated?"... Recommended for the horror genre fans.


I think the title of the film about says it all. The plot is more linear than "Touch of Satan," but that's not saying much. Main villain is a decrepit old lady played by the lead (male) actor. Whatever bombproof plexiglass the windows of this house are made of, I'm sure the Secret Service is looking into acquiring some.

Long story short, this is one godawful film. That does not mean it cannot be enjoyed. It will ensure that you never undertake a home restoration project as long as you live .Watch out for falling hands.


Seven friends buy a creepy old house in hopes of fixing it up and having some cool place to hang out. But, they have no idea the history of unpleasant and messy events that occurred in the house. So, in an "out-with-the-old" method of clearing a headstone from the yard, they wake the (late) former owner and her daughter from their eternal sleep. The former owner, Abigail then proceeds to barricade them all inside with no way out and re-paint the house... in blood. And, in the grand tradition of THE EVIL DEAD, they come back (from the dead) to party. Chilling and gory low-budgeter from TROMA is a crowning cut above almost anything else the independent cinema company has to offer. But, be warned, watch at your own risk.


Nothing impressive. An OK late nighter, especially coming from Troma. Set your hopes low and your satiric spirit high and you will enjoy it, although not that much. So many things are laughable in it, yet it is not annoying, or not that much anyway...


Six friends plan to fix up an old house that one of them bought. But after one moron breaks the husband murdering previous owner's tombstone in half, she comes back to life and starts killing them. They in turn become zombies themselves. But they don't act like typical zombies in the least. Just the opposite some of them are positively chatty. Woulds like "low-budget" or "indy" or "can do spirit" does not translate into a good film. I don't care if someone spent all his money, or shed all his blood to make a film. If said film is a turd. I'll call it a turd. This isn't a total awful film, but it's damn near close to it.

My Grade: D-


This movie has some solid qualities that make it stand out far from the slew of 80's horror movies. If you like campy horror films with a sense of humor, then go find yourself a copy of this movie. I think the characters are a good mix of personalities. The action is kind of lame at first but picks up towards the end and the gore is half decent. This is a classic B movie entry that I had never heard of, nor knew anyone that has seen it. Troma bought the rights to it though they did not produce it. I hope it makes its way onto DVD.

For being a practically unknown movie, it definitely delivers entertainment. Even though I wouldn't consider it a serious horror movie, I think it does a lot of things better than the so called serious horror movies.


William Nigh directs this early 40's madcap comedy. Morey Amsterdam's screenplay is cleverly funny and somewhat witty. The 56 minute film is fast paced with hardly a scene wasted. Newlyweds Webster(James Dunn)and 'Jackie'(Florence Rice)spend their honeymoon in an old country home. Along with a nervous chauffeur(Sam McDaniel)the couple meets the town's executioner who has a fixation with nooses. Even before getting to settle in; a coffin arrives carrying the former owner and the spooked couple call the police. When the Police Chief(Jim Toney)arrives it is discovered the coffin is now empty. Before this situation can be dealt with along comes the believed "deceased's" next of kin and a gang of jewel thieves trying to find a fortune in diamonds hidden in the house. This all becomes fodder for Police Chief Bagwell's attempts at writing pulp fiction. Dunn's stupidity is somewhat funny; but McDaniel(the chauffeur)steals the show. Also in the cast are: Robert Bice, Eddy Chandler, Robert Dudley and Tony Ward.


James Dunn had been a personable leading man for Fox in the early 30s but by the 40s alcohol had taken a grip and he was almost unemployable. He still managed to make movies (his big comeback was as the heart- breaking Johnny Nolan in "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn") and he always remained likable. This was the last film for his leading lady, Florence Rice. After this film she moved on to radio and television. She was always the romantic interest - her roles were never meaty but she was pretty and wholesome and was often teamed with Robert Young.

Webster (James Dunn) and Jackie Frye (Florence Rice) are newly weds (although they don't act like it) and decide to spend their honeymoon at an old country farmhouse, which is to be their home. Webster is not too keen but Jackie has enthusiasm for both. They are accompanied by their chauffeur Harmony (Sam McDaniells) who thinks that milk comes from the milkman. The farm is giving Webster the heebie jeebies - there is a man tying a noose to a tree, bullet holes in the doors, a coffin is delivered and a group of strangers turn up. One has a nervous habit of crossing and uncrossing his fingers - add to the mix a policeman who writes detective stories for a pulp magazine and you have an interesting group of characters. Nothing is done to develop them, the group turn out to be a notorious gang of jewel thieves. Webster masquerades as Bobo Hutch from Pittsburg, to infiltrate the gang - but in the next scene that is forgotten about. The most entertaining part is the man who comes to the door at the end to tell the harassed pair they are at the wrong house!!!!


"A newlywed couple decides to spend their honeymoon at their new home, an old country cottage. The couple, along with their chauffeur, find themselves in the middle of a mystery when they are beset upon by a series of guests. A former executioner, a coffin, a gang of jewel thieves, and the police make for an interesting honeymoon for our newlyweds," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Long before he worked on "The Alan Brady Show" (as documented on "The Dick Van Dyke Show") comedy writer Morey Amsterdam aka "Buddy Sorrell" scripted a few comedy movies. "The Ghost and the Guest" is a good example, albeit done dirt cheap. The tired "spooky old house" formula provides a sampling of the writer's one-liners, which sounded better elsewhere. Watch out for colliding actors.

*** The Ghost and the Guest (4/19/43) William Nigh ~ James Dunn, Florence Rice, Sam McDaniel


A newlywed couple spend their honeymoon in their "new" house instead of going to California. They are invaded by the police, a retired hangman, an escaped prisoner, a band of crooks and several dead bodies, all looking for something, either the crook or the loot hidden somewhere in the house. a humorous mystery follows.(or not).

This is a bad movie.

Almost enjoyable it instead misses the mark and falls flat. Written by Morey Amsterdam it plays more as a series of loosely connected sketches rather than as a film as a whole. There are a good number of exchanges that have nothing to do with whats going on in the story (they are funny but belong somewhere else). There is humor but the acting by the two leads is so broad and over the top that the film becomes annoying rather than amusing. I kept wishing that someone would kill the happy couple so that I wouldn't have to do it myself. The whole film looks cheap and the sets appear to wobble as people pass by. The direction is a mess. Even allowing for a cheapness that often allowed for only one camera set up (count how many scenes are essentially done in one take) this film has been put together by someone who seems to know nothing about how people really behave. Look at the scene where the bride to be is yapping away on the phone with her friends; do people really stand around like that in real life as one of their number talks non stop on the phone? Its like the most annoying sitcom you've ever seen, only worse.

Bad. Bad. Bad. While not quite one of the worst films of all time, there are some funny bits, this is a film thats sure to induce sleep or pained screams in most people who see it. Avoid.


ODE TO BILLY JOE is a humerous and touching tale of events leading up to why "Billy Joe McAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge", as related in the Bobbie Gentry hit. Director Max Baer Jr. (who would have thought "Jethro" had this kind of talent?) skillfully re-creates an atmosphere of 1950's rural Mississippi. and breathes life into characters only hinted at in the song. Scripted by Herman Raucher, with the same feeling of nostalgia he gave SUMMER OF '42, and beautifully scored by Michel Legrand, ODE TO BILLY JOE is a sweet and touching story of the awkwardness of teenage love, and the consequences of an unfortunate event, which, in today's politically correct times, would probably be scorned or laughed at. Glynnis O'Connor and Robby Benson, are re-teamed after their excellent debut in JEREMY. Another treasured film on VHS, that I hope will someday come out on DVD.


After watching this film on CMT recently, having not seen the film since I was a young man in the '70s, I was impressed by the fact that the filmmaker had definitely captured a time and an attitude prevalent in the South. Unfortnetely, we are still struggling against anti-gay sentiment in the USA (read ex-gay ministries and conversion therapy). We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go when it pertains to normal human sexuality. And the commentators that indignantly insist that Billy Joe was raped-- I suggest that they watch the whole film in it's entirety (thanks CMT for not cutting out the scene where Robby Benson--the Billy Joe character --admits to Bobby Lee that he willingly had sex with the man). A very sad and evocative film dealing with very real issues of homophobia, denial, hypocrisy and intolerance!


I watched this movie back in 1992 when I was 14 on midnight but I can still remember the scenes and plot vividly. This is I must say, a haunting film, as it excellently portrays the courage of a young lady who has to face her whole neighborhood upon the death of her young love, Billy Joe McAllister, who jumps into the Mississippi river and meets death. A lot of speculations are spreading across the southern town, but little do they know that Billy Joe is secretly being raped by a man. Absolutely memorable. If only Malaysian Censorship Board would allow more scenes to be displayed I would have a clearer view of the film. But it truly is excellent...


Bobbie Gentry's artful haunting ballad "Ode to Billy Joe", centering on a family's dinnertable discussion of a local tragedy amid accounts of everyday happenings, is the inspiration for this film. At the time of it's release, the song inspired much speculation about the events and characters, so it was inevitable that a film version would eventually be released. The film casts Glynnis O'Conner and Robby Benson as the narrator and the subject of the song. The two talented young actors very authentically portray the intensity and passion of the modern-day Romeo and Juliet. The failing of the movie is its failure to capture the raw simplicity of the ballad, and the plot comes off as contrived or even sensationalistic. The screenwriters miss the opportunity to develop a central theme in the ballad - the irony of isolation and loneliness in a context of seeming closeness and intimacy.