I saw The Black Pirate during the first season(?) of Silents Please, before the Ernie Kovacs hosted episodes. Of course, it was a truncated 20 or so black and white minutes of a 90 minute color film. Still, the two scenes that stuck in my mind were the 'sword ride down the sail', and the underwater swimming sequence. I saw this episode once, and at 9 or 10 years old, didn't pay much attention to the actors. Once after that, I asked my father if that was the, 'pirate from the silent movie', while we were watching something with Gilbert Roland. My father had no idea what I was talking about. Now, sometime in the 1990s, I caught a cable documentary about silent films, (there are ****loads of docs about them), and one featured a short color sequence of The Black Pirate. OMG, I saw that 40 years ago ! Now I knew the flick, the star, the format. A quick Google and I ordered a Kino video, (pre DVD), of The Black Pirate. Everything I remembered was there, and, a LOT more. Like 70 minutes more, and, in COLOR. I don't know how big a hit this was, but, it should have been the Titanic of its day. A fast moving story, lots of action, sex(sort of), violence, revenge, and COLOR ! Also, you only had to sit still for 90 minutes instead of 4 hours. Anyway, Doug shows again why he was the King of Hollywood. Great stunts, good looking, able to do ANYTHING. BTW, the additional features show you how he was able to do anything. If you haven't seen it, this 'footnote' to the history of 'silent, color film', is a must see/have.


In this "page from the history and lives of the most bloodthirsty pirates who ever infested the southern seas," the title cards explain, "it was the custom of these pirates to subdue their prey, loot the ship, bind their captives, and blow them up." That's exactly what happens to seafarer Douglas Fairbanks and his father, as the film begins. But, you don't mess with Doug. Mr. Fairbanks survives the attack, and infiltrates the offending ship (as "The Black Pirate"), vowing revenge, particularly due to the death of his father. Fairbanks also finds romance on ship, with kidnapped princess Billie Dove (as Isobel), whom he saves from gang rape.

Colorful entertainment, from Fairbanks and company. Notable for the early feature-length color photography, by Henry Sharp; and, for Fairbanks' typically robust performance. Mrs. Fairbanks (aka Mary Pickford) stands in for the kissing long shot, near the film's end. Donald Crisp and Sam De Grasse are among the entertaining supporting players. In hindsight, the use of color probably hampered the production somewhat, as it looks more restrictive than other Fairbanks films of the 1920s. Still, it's a classic.


I saw this with live orchestral accompaniment at the local high school. We cheered and booed the dashing hero and dastardly villain and had a fantastic time. They were amazingly professional and should take this on tour at old theaters with orchestra pits. Go ArMack! If your local symphony orchestra does this as a silent movie show, the movie is good enough to enjoy even if the music isn't as great as ours was.

This is definitely the sort of thing that inspired The Princess Bride, one of my all-time favorites. Lots of swashbuckling adventure, romance, and humor. The plot worked a lot better than most movies I see (or don't bother seeing) these days, and it was very well paced. I was surprised how few dialog cards they needed to use, too.

I thought the color looked kind of washed out, but maybe that was the computer projector they were using. I'd love to see a 35-mm print on a big screen.

If you're looking for a movie to perform live accompaniment with, this is an excellent choice.


I had seen a black and white print of this film sometime back and didn't really like it. Then I saw the restored version on AMC and was stunned. It was beautiful to look at, the color looked great, and this version was longer than the one I had seen before. So, if you're going to hunt this down, get the restored print.


One of the best silent movies if you'd ask me, as The Black Pirate offers action, romance and suspense.

As the only survivor of a pirate raid, 'The Black Pirate' (Fairbanks) goes 'undercover' with that same group of pirates to avenge his fathers death. They enter a ship that has a princess on it, but the black pirate decides to help her and escape the ship. Unfortunately, they have him sorted out and things don't look well as the black pirate has to 'walk the plank'.

But all ends well when the black pirate survives and saves the day and his princess, who he asks to marry him. Well, you kinda guessed what she's going to answer...

Lovely movie looks fantastic in it's restored, colorized version as this is a one to watch for all of you old movie buffs. Go and see for yourself!

9/10.


There's a special place in my heart for old school Jackie Chan films. For some reason, when I look to my JC collection for something to watch, I tend toward the older fare.

On the surface, DRAGON FIST is pretty average. But if you're an old school fan, you can't help rooting for virutally everyone in the film. Yan Yee Kwan (sometimes Yam Sai-kun) is one of my favorite bad guys; he was also excellent in Fearless Hyena, Once Upon a Time in China, Iron Monkey, and Heroic Trio. James Tien and Nora Miao bring a lot of respectability to the cast as well.

The plot offers some nifty twists. The fights are strong. I have to agree that the film takes itself just a little too seriously. If Jackie's early work could be measured on a "stiff-o-meter," DRAGON FIST would fall squarely between TO KILL WITH INTRIGUE and FEARLESS HYENA. Not coincidentally, that's about where it falls in his chronology.

Much of the charm of these films for American viewers -- and it can't be disregarded, especially for those of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s -- is the afternoon matinee "Kung Fu Theater" nostalgia factor. It imbues them with a quality that I can't ascribe to many of Jackie's later films. I love POLICE STORY, etc. -- the production values are generally much higher, the stunts are mindblowing -- but those are a different breed altogether. They occupy a different place in film history, and in my esteem.


This is actually a well made film. because of that, I doubt very highly that it was directed by Lo Wei. My vote is that Chan, once allowed to choreograph the fight scenes, just went ahead and directed the film, much as what happened with Bruce Lee and The Chinese Connection, another film claimed by Lo Wei that he didn't actually direct. In fact that's pretty typical for Lo Wei - probably half the films he made were directed by the actors while he was off gambling, drinking, or sleeping it off.

At any rate: Although the film is heavy handed and a little slow, the story is not without interest (this is one of the few 'fu films where we see a potential villain repent and become a good guy), and the performances are all above standard for this genre in the mid-'70s. I believe this film, I believe its characters. Certaily not a masterwork, but a worthwhile dramatic 'fu film.

Oh, and the fight scenes are all pretty good.


We all gotta be careful in what 70's Jackie movies we watch, but this one certainly isn't bad. The plot has something to do with Jackie's master being killed. There actually is a mildly shocking twist (shocking for Jackie, but don't expect Usual Suspects here). Anyway, the kung-fu is very good, definitely up to snuff. Jackie is good, and there's scenes where the old men fight. Even the dubbing isn't horrible. Very good overall, but Snake and Crane Arts of Shaolin is better (even though it has an awkward title) if you're looking for something from this era. I gave it a 7.


This is another Chan period film with a "revenge for killing my master" plot. Chan has more of a central role in this film than in his previous films. There are several fights in the film involving Chan, but most of them are limited in scope until the final six or seven minutes in the showdown sequence. Then we see one of the better Chan fights amongst all his earlier films. The dubbing isn't the best and the plot is nothing new, nor is its execution. This is a good chance to see Chan in one of his earlier efforts where he has a central role, unlike many of the films where he has a smaller supporting role. There is no sense of humor here either, as Chan's later films have. Overall, typical of its kind, not up to later Chan efforts. *1/2 of 4 stars.


If longtime fans of the "Friday the 13th" saga have anything to say about it, the people behind this film will burn in the same place as its hockey-masked star. "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday" is completely preposterous, out of place and an affront to what had been a dependable horror series.

Admittedly, director and co-writer Adam Marcus deserves credit for his boldness. He seemed inexplicably convinced that the wheel of the "Friday" series needed to be drastically reinvented, even though fans had lined up for basically the same plot eight times prior. But the brainwave of having Jason possessing one body after another alters the very fabric of what made these films good. Suddenly it's like we're watching an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" rip-off. Throw in Jason's newfound grunting, a far-too-heavy plot and a magical dagger (!) and you have something completely unworthy of the "Friday" moniker.

"Jason goes to Hell" is also incredibly lazy. All "Friday" films, by their very nature, require a leap of faith, but this is really too much. Firstly, this marked the first time that no explanation was given for Mr. Voorhees' reemergence. Were we all dreaming when we watched him get melted down to goo in the sewers of New York City? And what about Jason's rebirth toward the end (the most ridiculous moment of any "Friday" film)? How can a little slimy demon be reborn into a man already wearing ripped clothing and a hockey mask? And what about bounty hunter Creighton Duke? It's never explained how he knows so much about Jason and the mythical circumstances surrounding his life. In each of these instances, there seemingly are no easy answers. So rather than be inventive, the writers just threw all of this at us and hoped we would lap it up like thirsty kittens at a milk dish. This sequel completely ignores the continuity of the Jason legend that had been meticulously built up over the years.

What's equally tragic about "Jason goes to Hell" is its insistence on mocking the series. At one point, John D. LeMay's character sarcastically asks a trio of teens headed for Camp Crystal Lake whether they plan to smoke dope, engage in premarital sex and then get slaughtered. Har har. The transformation of Jason into some kind of media star is just as unnerving. Jason is a legend, a mythical figure whispered about in wildly imaginative campfire stories. Yet this movie turns him into a serial killer so well known he makes the TV tabloids and is targeted by the FBI. This is not the Jason we know, and "Jason goes to Hell" is not the "Friday the 13th" we love. It essentially breaks the fingers of the hand that feeds it.

The failure of "Jason goes to Hell," both in terms of concept and box office revenue, inevitably draws comparisons to the much-panned "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning." That film drew plenty of boos for its Jason-less gimmick, but at least it had the feel of a "Friday" flick. "Jason goes to Hell" is substantially worse than any other entry, mainly because it is completely unrecognizable. Like "Part V," it probably would have worked better as a horror film independent of the Jason saga, rather than dragging Mr. Voorhees into a place he has no business being.

Clearly, Adam Marcus was wrong. The "Friday the 13th" wheel did not need reinventing. The failure of this film (and "Jason X" years later) shows that fans want a return to simpler times when horny teens in cabins were afraid to look out their windows. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Not actually killed in Manhattan (surprise, surprise), Jason is still at it until an undercover FBI agent (Julie Michaels, who makes time to take a shower) tricks him into an ambush where he's blown to pieces. If you think being head and limbless will stop Mr. Voorhees from returning to his murderous ways, think again. Now we learn that he can be "reborn" through a blood relative and can possess victims by sending an evil black monster into their bodies (idea stolen from THE HIDDEN).

In a touching tribute to the good ol' days of simplicity, overage-looking "teens" make time for skinny-dipping and tent sex before Jason splits the girl in half with a tent stake. This ninth installment in the endless Friday THE 13TH series features a good cast, but is derivative, annoying, unpleasant and not likely to be the final word in the Jason saga, despite ANOTHER cheat title (remember "The Final Chapter" way back in 1984?).

It played theaters in a cut R version (where it flopped), but the unrated "Director's Cut" video and DVD version restores most of the excellent KNB Group gore effects and some nudity, redeeming factors in a low-grade production like this. Kane Hodder (in his third appearance as Jason) also gets a credit for stunts.


how can this film get a higher rating than parts 5 and 8, this is incredible, i mean it's gone beyond being funny cos it's crap, and delved into just plain crap crap. Unbelievable. only gave it a 2 because it has Jason and i was able to watch the whole thing with out switching off. The plot of this film is so diabolical, it's not even got anything to do with Jason, it's over the top cheesy Hollywood, but is so bad u can't even laugh at it. They even used Kane Hodder (Jason) to play the part of a security guard, perhaps cos they couldn't be bothered to cast someone else. IF they used him twice to be funny or give the Friday fans something extra, this is equally as bad. There was big gap between part 8 and 9 so you would have expected them to have come up with something better than this. If this is the only Friday you have seen, this film has no reflection on the others in the series. This film should not have been made. But if u want a good example of a poo movie, this is perfect as it is easy to get hold of.


I was so excited when the beginning of this film was before my eyes. The music, the darkness, the atmosphere. The beginning of this movie starts off just like the first four. It was tense and it had the exact feel of what we all loved about the early Fridays. The chase, the unnecessary nudity, the false scares, the mirror, and finally Jason in all of his gory splendor coming back one more time to wreak havoc on Crystal Lake. But then suddenly, he is blown up. He is dead, for real this time. I mean he is not like the T-1000 from Terminator that can put himself back together. So how does the movie go on from here? Well to be honest, if the film would have ended after the first ten minutes, I would have been more satisfied than I was at the end of this film. Simply put, I was cheated. I was enticed with what seemed to be a perfect Friday the 13th feel and then they went back to what made the last few suck so bad. What the hell were they thinking? Why the blatant disregard for us as horror fans? And why did they start off so well and then just kill us when Jason dies? By having his spirit enter into the body of some other people, it is a theme that has been done before. And to have the talent to make the Friday feel, and then deviate from that feel, well that is just despicable.

For those of us that really like the films from the early 80's, we were teased. We were lied to and for that I am still mad to this day. And to be honest, when I found out that New Line had decided to produce the films instead of Paramount, I knew that some how, some way, there would be some Freddy reference in it. And besides the beginning, that was actually the best part. Now if they only find a way to make the next film somewhat entertaining, then it could be fun again. But judging by how bad they butchered this one, don't hold your breath.

Steve and Sean should be ashamed of themselves.


SPOILERS !!!SPOILERS !!!SPOILERS !!!SPOILERS !!!SPOILERS !!!SPOILERS !!!

I don't share this opinion, but I can see why many fans of the series say that this ninth film is the worst in the series. The Jason Vorhees saga started in the early 80's. Spread over 8 films, Jason ( and his mother) have killed almost 100 people in very horrible ways. Jason goes to hell starts with a complete new theory...wich is pretty dumb, I'll give it that. But still, there's as much blood and terror represented in this film as there is in all the other ( to say the least, in fact ) According to a bountyhunter ( who is a pretty good maniac himself ), Jason can be killed for good if a relative of his destroys his heart. If they don't, Jason comes to life again and shall go on killing till eternity. Until Jason finds a family member of his, he keeps on changing bodies. This twist given to his personality kills the magic that is Friday the 13th a bit, that much is true. I never was a giant fan of the series. I've seen them all and liked them but I never agreed with the statement that Friday the 13th is THE best series in horror. Now, I do know a lot of people who think that Jason is as important to horror as Christopher Columbus was to geography, so they think this ninth installment in the series never should have been made. If you're a horror lover in general, you can still enjoy the huge amount of bloody slaughters without paying much attention to the storyline. If you're a diehard Jason Vorhees fan ( or want to become one) ...watch the whole series in a row and judge for yourself if this movie can be considered as blasphemy or not. One other thing is very obvious about this movie : it tries to be more funny than its predecessors and makes several attempt to spoof the genre and the most famous slasher collegues of Jason. For example, when a cop asks where Steven is, the girls answers "He's in front of the MYERS' house!" Funny, huh ? Also, the Necronomicon lies in Jason's basement and when he finally dies, his hockey-mask is grabbed away by the hand of Freddy Krueger himself. So, if you like a good amount of trivia to come with your horror...The Final Friday won't let you down!


It is this movie was awsome I mean it's like i'de even watch all the others if it weren't for Jason and the gore. I dont care if it's WAY WAY to unrealistick that he comes back too life after being blown into billions of peaces. The only thing I find stupid ( and it's not even that big a deal) is that you can only see Jason in front of a mirror that kinda bugged me but then at the end when he is reborn it gets much better. And the whole (new line) insider was kinda stupid too. I think the Jason films are much better than the Freddy's anyway. 9/10


WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

Can a sequel be watched in isolation? When I saw the Halloween and Nightmare series I watched each entry in order. Yet other than the original several years ago I've never before seen a Jason movie.

Maybe if I had then I'd be privy to lots of nuances and depth lost on me while watching Goes To Hell. Maybe if I had seen parts 2-8 then I wouldn't have thought this film was an insufferable piece of tripe.

The movie opens with Jason shot by over a hundred bullets and blown apart by high explosives. Unperturbed by this, his brain lives on, telepathically urging the autopsy Doctor to eat it. Yes, really. The Doc does so in a full-gore depiction, while energy lights from Jason's remains fly out and possess him. This leap from body to body continues, so that even the dubious merits of seeing a murderer in a hockey mask are discarded in favour of secondary actors with mascara hamming a "possessed", zombie-like pallor. There is some Freudian perspective to be had from the Jason hosts' retractable black tongue, though this is surely unintentional. Jason is finally reborn after a red creature grows out of a man's slit throat and rapes a dead mother's corpse. Classy. The high fantasy element takes any level of reality, and therefore fear, away from the movie, but I guess no one bothered to tell the makers.

Scares are non-existent. When a shot Jason (in the form of a police officer) "unexpectedly" comes to life and grabs a woman's leg, we see his eyes open several moments before the "shock" grab, thus negating any suspense. Most of the film works along the same principles, with all scares either signposted or pushed aside to make way for blood and guts violence that fails to compel. The flatness of the direction, coupled with possibly the world's most irritating incidental music, make the whole thing distinctly dirge-like.

Charismatic Steven Williams is leagues ahead of his ultra-forgettable co-stars and is wasted in stuff like this. The fair majority of horror films are lacking in value, but Goes To Hell makes no attempt at artistic worth. The performances, dialogue and plot possess not an iota of inspiration. Didn't the first one have a low-key, independent feel? This one is the brightly-light product of a studio, while a series of gore-riddled set pieces vie for attention.

You sense that parts are actually supposed to be funny, but as the "humour" is so lame and overstated a post-modern satire this isn't. Jason Goes To Hell is everything you associate with bad horror movies, threaded half-heartedly together in semblance of a narrative. The only scene that rises above tedious is the final shot where a claw glove grabs Jason's mask... a clever play on the much-touted Freddy vs. Jason flick. Maybe if Freddy had made an appearance it would've livened things up, for this is a thoroughly dull affair.

Final marks then:

Irrelevant macho fights that drag on and do nothing to further the plot: just the one.

Gratuitous topless shots: 3

Gratuitous and witless uses of the word "f***": I lost count, sorry.

Film's score: 2/10.


Let's understand two things about slasher horror from the 1980's: first of all, they had a legacy of saturating their own market, and secondly, they were simple stories born out of the twilight of an ever changing world.

With this in mind, it would be easy to point out what is wrong with Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday- however for the sake of time, it might just as well be easier to point to what's right about it. The answer to that is: NOTHING! All you ever wanted to know about Jason is revealed, and once you know the dark secret, it will haunt you- except for a small matter of cosmetics, the "dark secret" is the same as the lemon revealed a short time earlier in New Line's bad "finale" to the Nightmare movies. Of course, the only nightmare about that film was having to admit that you paid to watch it- it is much the same with this piece of total garbage.

Jason, it would seem, is not merely a specter capable of regeneration with a great rage at those who he feels are responsible for both his own and his mother's demise. Oh no, the dark secret is that if you can find someone who shares his father's blood line (cause lets face it, his mother was not born a Voorhees), then you can see Jason finally put to death, or you can see him re-born. Guess what happens here.

Except the rebirth is anti-climatic because he is nothing more than the same twisted mass of flesh that he was before he was blown apart by bombs and bullets at the beginning of the movie. And apparently genetics has a preference for certain types of clothing, and a certain mask because he is reborn with both.

In one laughable sequence, you would be forgiven for thinking "Jason" (or as I'd like to refer to him as...the Imposter) being reborn meant the world would end, however a mere 10 minutes or so after he was "reborn," he is also summarily killed again with an ancient dagger (who were the camp counselors who ignored Jason as he died...some ancient Sumarian or Egyptian people or something? What's with the dagger that must be used? Why does it look like an artifact) supplied to his niece (oh, this is a long story, and is too tedious and boring to go through right now) who finds the Linda Hamilton in her to terminate the 'terminator.' You'll be in for your just desserts if you think this repulsive piece of junk is worth even five minutes of your time. Of course, there is plenty of blood and gore (as the Friday films always seem to have), and there is also plenty to gross you out- but if you think or feel anything towards the horror icon that made these films successful, you ought to take a pass on this one.

Even the soundtrack is awful!


I think its a travesty how this movie has taken so much heat compared to the rest of the series. While I love this kind of camp, every character, plot and film in this series has largely been interchangeable with the others.

Fast forward to 1993 and we have a film that attempts to add innovations like pop horror references to the films Evil Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street without resorting to half-baked comedy (I'm looking at you Freddy). We have a film that updates Jason's by-now clichéd features to a more sublime grotesque, looking like a serial killer would look if he ignored hygiene for 20 years during his hacking and slashing hayday.

The plot makes a marked improvement from "I know they're all gonna die, but how?" to "What the hell could possibly kill Jason? What does the Necronomicon have to do with it (merely a mystery in the mythology)? Jason has family? and We're finally going to get some friggin' resolution here?" Come on people: Jason X should have been shunned by any self-respecting fan after all the promos claimed this to be "The Final Friday". Plus finished it in what I considered to be a climactic finale. Instead you crawled back on your knees like the creatures of habit that you are, always willing to settle for another broken promise and failed expectation from a marketable franchise. Note: Let's be fair though, none of us could have helped wanting to see Freddy Vs. Jason.

To the creators of this movie, I give you props. Besides most of the people on IMDb who hated this movie either don't like the slasher genre or can't friggin' spell "slasher genre".


Seemingly unstoppable and indestructible killer Jason Voorhees (hulking behemoth Kane Hodder in peak menacing form) finally gets blown to bits by the feds in an ambush, but he ain't down for the count just yet. Jason this time takes over the bodies of other folks so he can continue butchering people. Moreover, he can either be reborn or destroyed by a blood relative. Director Adam Marcus, working from a clever script by Dean Lorey and Jay Huguely, relates the compelling story at a constant snappy pace, maintains a mean, brutal tone throughout, delivers plenty of nasty gore (a young lady getting impaled on a tent spike while doing just what you think with her boyfriend rates as the definite splatter highlight), further tarts things up with a welcome sense of self-mocking black humor, offers a generous sprinkling of tasty female nudity, stages the murder set pieces with rip-roaring brio (the delightfully outrageous diner massacre sequence in particular seriously smokes), and really goes for broke with a gloriously wild ending which comes complete with one doozy of a sequel set-up punchline. The solid cast contribute admirably sincere performances: John D. LeMay makes for a refreshingly unlikely hero as the nerdy Steven Freeman, Kari Keegan likewise impresses as the sweet Jessica Kimble, Steven Williams almost steals the whole show with his colorful portrayal of flamboyant bounty hunter Creighton Duke, plus there are neat turns by Erin Gray as the spunky Diana Kimble, Allison Smith as Jessica's cheery gal pal Vicki, Steven Culp as opportunistic TV newscaster Robert Campbell, Billy Green Bush as the hard-nosed Sheriff Ed Landis, and Rusty Schwimmer as feisty, foul-mouthed diner owner Joey B. William Dill's slick cinematography gives the picture a properly moody look. Harry Manfredini's amped-up version of his familiar shivery score hits the shuddery spot. The make-up effects by KNB are first-rate. Unjustly ridiculed by most fans of the series, this outing sizes up as one of the more creative and entertaining entries in the long-running slasher horror series.


"Jason Goes to Hell" is the ninth and so-called final "Friday" which finally has Sean Cunningham back as producer. This sequel is known for it's less than traditional take on the admirably repetitive series in which Jason is ambushed and blown to pieces in the first five minutes. That's sure a devastating kick in the nuts for us Voorhees fans, but no need to fret - his psychotic soul ends up possessing the coroner who uncontrollably devours the throbbing heart and roars like freaking Godzilla. Now in his new form, the J-man sets out after his only remaining family members who are the only ones capable of killing him for good. Though Jason himself only appears throughout a very small portion of the movie, this is a very decent sequel and a nice change of pace for the franchise, giving it a good ending (before "Jason X" came along, that is). The death scenes are memorably nasty, especially that naked chick getting slit from the torso - up in the tent! I guess that was more rod than she could handle! That's what you get for sexing it up in a F13 flick! tsk tsk! Also dug Jason's method for body swapping - the ol' slug down the throat. That sorry bastard melting all over everything is a kick ass scene as well. Even if you weren't enough of a fan to sit through all of the previous sequels give this one a chance for it's wonderfully bloody demises and the different, almost supernatural way Jason gets his dirty deeds done. He may be in hell, but you just can't keep a good machete wielding man-child undead carcass with a hockey mask down!


I just wanna say this was an excellent movie to finish the series of the hockey mask killer, i can tell it was excellent because i am the greatest fan of Friday the 13th!!!. I was really anxious when i was going to watch is buy the first time, it really surprised me with things the others movie didn't have like Jason going body by body.

The part i really enjoyed was when Jason got into the police station and defeated all the cops, then when he got into the restaurant and everybody was shooting him. Ja JA JA!! But no bullet can stop him.

I really liked it, now i can wait for the new movie of Friday the 13th: "I hope it to come this year". I also i am the biggest fun of nightmare on elm street and if this new movie is a sequel between Jason and Freddy much better!!!!


i don't know how somebody got this film funded. this is by far one of the worst films ever made, and i like the other 9. if you do watch this, get the unrated version; it is significantly better for gore fans. i do still watch it for the blood and laughs. the premise is that only a vorhees can kill jason and she has to use a specific knife. so, jason has a living relative somehow...but that's not the complicated part of the story. jason is ambushed by the s.w.a.t. team (i'll never understand why a s.w.a.t. team member would pause for a shower when trying to draw a serial killer into a trap) and blown to bits. then, naturally, a mortician eats jason's heart (out)! now, the mortician has the power and mind of jason, but it wears on him, like in stephen king's "desperation" and "the regulators" (as richard bachman), so he has to pass on the heart when the body starts to wear, and then somebody else is jason. then the ending. i hate to give it away, so stop reading if it will bother you to find out this travesty of an ending. he gets stabbed, but isn't dying, so massive hands from hell burst through the ground and start to drag him into hell! you think it's over, but no! then the wind starts to blow the dust, and you see that his mask is still there...and freddy kruger's claw bursts through the ground and pulls away the mask while laughing. what an appropriate ending to that one. the good news is, i use this for an example in my class as a deaux ex machima each semester.


Jason Goes to Hell is a sequel that brings something new to the franchise by having Jason destroyed at the beginning but he still lives through his heart and after making a coroner eat it he posses him and continues killing people until he finds a new host to put his heart in.

But these bodies cannot work for long, if something happens to them he needs a new host but the only way he can have his original body is if he finds a blood relative a transfer his heart into her.

The blood relative also has the power to stop Jason with a dagger that once impaled in his immortal heart will send him to hell and the bounty hunter knows that.

So Steve and Jessica confront Jason and after cutting the bodies head open Jason's heart that has sprouted a head, arms and tail crawls out and is thrown into the basement where he finds the body of his sister that he killed earlier on. After going into her the Bounty hunter tells them that he doesn't have to be reborn through a living Vorhees woman.

And so Jason is in his same body again and while fighting Steve Jessica impales the dagger into Jason sending him into hell.

And has Jessica and Steve and their little daughter walk off Freddy Kruger's hand comes out the ground and pulls Jason's mask into the ground, this inspired the Freddy Vs Jason idea.

Although Jason is not in it much the idea of telling us what makes Jason immortal and how to kill him was quite good. 10/10


To wrap your head around Jason Goes to Hell, would be like trying to wrap your head around Paris Hilton actually releasing a CD. It doesn't make sense to you and it probably never will. If it came down to it, go with Jason Goes to Hell, because Paris Hilton, sucks, big time. But back to Jason. Jason Goes to Hell basically is the directors attempt to try and make Jason more than just a brute, slashing, zombie.

However in the end it just goes even more so. Adding fuel to the fire for people who hate the Friday series. And with this installment, who can blame them? The premise itself is very ridiculous, Jason is blown into a million pieces, then comes back through the bodies of others. Wow, great plot right? Well maybe if you like trying to think about what the hell is going on.

You start with a coroner, he eats Jason's heart. That makes sense... moving on. Jason goes around killing teens and adults again. And then eventually (For the last few minutes of the film.) Becomes himself again. Add in the mix of a Bounty Hunter who has a grudge (For an unexplained reason.) A family dagger which can somehow kill Jason, and Freddy Kreuger. And you have yourself a movie filled with more plot holes than teens murdered. This film does make up for it with more 'inventive' kills, but not even that can make this film great. It's OK for Friday Fans, if not, then steer clear.


Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday opens with Jason being blown to bits by a S.W.A.T. team at Camp Crystal Lake. That's right...He's done. Oh, but wait! His soul begins to pass from body to body, and he continues his violent killing spree in this manner. Oh, I know it sounds stupid but in reality its...No, you're right. It's stupid.

This movie tries to give Jason so much back story that it can't even handle it. We've got the inclusion of Jason's half sister (I'm guessing a rip off of Halloween), and the fact that Jason is immortal because of some device from the Evil Dead series. It turns out that the only way to really kill Jason is to stab him with a magical dagger that only works in the hands of another Voorhees. Apparently that doesn't even work due to Jason X and Freddy Vs. Jason as well as the upcoming sequel. Oh, and the only way he can take back his original body is through a Voorhees. This causes some problems.

The characters in this movie are all retarded. They all seem like they're there for comic relief. There's not one serious role in the whole film. The addition of all the mythical b.s. takes all the accountability out of the series...Or whatever accountability was left. There were two parts of this movie I liked. One was the opening. This film opens like a classic Friday the 13th and gives you some hope that it will be okay. Then of course, Jason is blown to bits, just like the movie's plot. The other scene I liked was the end where Jason's mask is lying in the sand after he's been sent to hell, so Freddy Krueger reaches up to grab it. This of course led to 2003's Freddy Vs. Jason. This is a terrible movie, and should only be viewed by true Jason lovers.

2/10


Reasons Jason Goes to Hell is the worst in a pretty good series of slasher films:

1) Jason is not scary when he's on "American Casefiles" (I think that's what the "America's Most Wanted"-like TV show was called. The whole reason he was scary was because he was this backwoods, crazy type of character that was based soley in legend and newspaper writings. Putting him on TV sucks. So does having the FBI go after him.

2) He looks stupid in this one. That skin bubbling over the hockey mask is just dumb.

3) They try to put too much plot in it. Come on, it's a Friday the 13th movie (isn't it?)! Forget this body-hopping and "Hellbaby" garbage and get the hell back in the woods, Jason!


Even though I liked this last entry (yeah, right) in the Friday the 13th series, a part of me can understand why others don't care for it. Since Jason technically only appears (at least in the form we are used to) twice, and spends the rest of the movie jumping from body to body, this might be seen as tampering a bit too much with a comfortable formula.

Personally, I was so glad that I was seeing something new here, (although it's actually not all that new as anybody who has seen the fun cult, sci-fi/action flick "The Hidden" can attest to,) that I was willing to put aside a few minor quibbles. Like what, you say? Well, it would have been nice if the Creighton Duke character had been a little more heroic instead of being such a jerk. Also: Where in the Hell did the "magic dagger" come from.

Still, there were a few scenes here that are pure gold.

#1: The opening bit where Jason faces off with the SWAT team. I had always wondered why nobody ever tried that before. Big dude isn't so tough when faced with high powered weaponry, is he?

#2: The scene with the coroner and Jason's heart. It's just so goofy watching him chow down on it like a Big Mac, I laugh everytime.

#3: The slo-mo diner attack. The "monster attacks the good guys who are trapped in a diner" is a classic horror movie stand-by. I get a warm feeling everytime I see it.

Oh, one more point a friend brought to my attention: The hero of the movie sure can do a god job punching people after Duke breaks his fingers!


Me growing up watching the Friday the 13th series, left me loving it,but this part was the WORST, i hated it so much and it makes me feel like never ever watching any part of its series again. The cast was lame,the acting was very poor, and the script was disgusting,this makes part 5 looks soooooo good.There's a new Freddy V.S jason coming out and I'M NOT looking forward to seeing it. Out of 5 Acting-1.0 Actors-1.0 Script-0.5 Display-1.5 Performace-1.0 Suspence-1.0 Credits-1.5 End-1.5 Overall-1.1/5.0

F


The best of the entire series is here.

Jason has returned, but is shot down with a vengeance by a large police force. After he is blown to body parts, it seems that the maniacal Jason is finally dead.

But he's not. The only way that Jason can return is by gaining a new body, and he does this immediately, jumping from body to body, killing person after person, ruining life after life.

The final death of Jason is here at long, long last, and, as unexpected, requires a visit to his old childhood home.

I'll say, this is the only sequel in the entire series that is ACTUALLY scary. It's a wonderful horror film, and defeats ALL of the series, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL, by a really, REALLY long shot.

(It even sparks the beginning of Freddy VS. Jason... Hmmm...)


Like all the other Jason movies i loved it. Its a bit over natural but thats good, the director goes over the limit and i love that just like in all the other Jason movies.

The movie is brilliant too. Unenspecting scenes just keep coming. I cant believe that people actually votes 1 for this movie.

Loved it. Sexy girls and all the things a movie needs to be good. There probably a bottle of nerds here that voted 1 because OH A NAKED LADY!

I give the movie 7. Not eight but 7...

Im so locking forward to the nesxt Jason movie, how are you today? im a died man walking, how are you? Im a living man dead. .


Apparently "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday" was intended to be the last film of the series, which it is, if you don't count 2003's "Freddy Vs. Jason" as Friday film. This movie starts out with a beautiful young woman in a cabin in the middle of the woods one night (wow, original). She is chased through the woods (wrapped in a bath towel) by Jason, who is then blown up by a mob of FBI swat men into complete smithereens. After his remains are taken to a biology lab, the psycho maniac seems to live on through his heart... and he begins to take over other human's bodies. So, he begins his psychotic slaughter rampage through out the Crystal Lake area, in the body of the coroner who was in charge of his remains, slashing and hacking up teens and others who (unfortunately) happen to cross his path.

I enjoyed this film alright, but the whole concept of it was a little far-fetched for me. The whole idea of Jason's 'soul' living on in another body completely threw this out of what one would expect in a "Friday the 13th" installment. Aside from this kooky idea, the film has some neat visual effects and is loaded with a heavy amount of gore. Just rent the unrated DVD and you'll see just how bloody this thing is. Along with the gore there is the typical premarital sex between some dumb teens, who ultimately get hacked to death (quite brutally I might add) by Jason one evening. The movie is enjoyable, fun horror if you don't take it seriously. But when it comes down to it, the removal of Jason's body (I suppose that's how you'd say it), this movie is yanked out of the series and doesn't seem to fit very well with the rest (much like "Jason X"). And the weird ending featuring Freddy Krueger's hand (which is now explained by "Freddy Vs. Jason") was a little far out there.

Overall, if you're a fan of the series, you'll want to see this I'm sure. While it may not be very good, there is plenty of gore to offer and a few nice touches. But more than likely fans of this series will be disappointed with this movie. 4/10.


Just saw this total piece of dog you know what on cable. Now when it comes to the Friday the 13th movies you don't expect much especially with all the really awful sequels. This was a toss up between this complete and total atrocity on celluloid. There's movies so bad they're funny but this was a movie that was just plain godawful. This sequel apparently jason can suddenly be reincarnated over and over again and beyond that it probably will cause brain damage to try and waste any further brain cells on trying to understand the pointlessness of what was written by a sadistic 12 year old pervert. It was a toss up between this and Jason Takes Manhattan in terms of idiocy and continuity not that it really takes a lot to come up with something not as stupid and bad as this.


After Jason was killed in the last 8 entries, it seems rather stupid to try and explain that this would indeed be the last time, especially since they would go back on their word, also their Final Chapter was hardly the last. However this time the story is a little different as now Jason has been led into an ambush and is blown to pieces, however his evil heart lives on and he possesses various people to kill people who are a threat to his immortality, as a bounty hunter says that only a Voorhies can kill him, this of course leads to his sister, niece and grandniece, they are the only ones who can stop him. Jason Goes To Hell:The Final Friday is titled a little weirdly in that New Line had just bought the franchise and yet they claimed to only make one movie out of it? However the problem here is that the mumbo jumbo explaining Jason's evil isn't very well explained and although it's admirable to offer an explanation, just as many unanswered questions surface. For instance is the character of Duke(Missing In Action 2's Steven Williams) who seems to know about the rituals and such. Where did he find this out? Of course nobody expects logic in a ninth entry in a series but give us something. Also of great disappointment is that Jason is hardly in it, at the beginning and at the very end. However I give them points for trying and although it doesn't emerge as the thriller aimed for, there are some inspired moments of gore. Also the film is watchable through out.

* * out of 4-(Fair)


The film opens with this hot chick stripping down completely nude and starting to take a bath. I thought, "Oh boy, here we go." A few seconds later she hears something outside. She says, "Who's there?" and runs outside the room (scantily clad, mind you) to see who it is.

She's chased outside by a homicidal maniac and runs through the woods, her robe falling off and revealing more pointless nudity. Finally she lures the monster into a circle of gunfire from a SWAT team who finally manage to kill Jason (apparently repetitive gunshots make him implode on impact).

Then this balding man pats the half-naked girl -- who is now revealed to be a brainy cop -- on the back and says something like, "Good work, Sergeant, we'll get a promotion for you!" Meanwhile she's standing around naked with only a robe.

For a moment I thought to myself, "This is either going to be the worst movie ever made, or a clever parody of its predecessors." I mean, either the whole nudity part with the female cop was just there for the sake of nudity, or it was a parody of the fact that every "Friday the 13th" movie has at least one scene of gratuitous female flesh.

Unfortunately my first assumption was correct. This is an awful movie. It only gets worse and worse as time goes on. It's entertaining, sure, in a so-bad-it's-hilarious kind of way. The characters are all clichéd to the point of nausea and the killing scenes are so standard it's like doing a paint-by-numbers, it's already mapped out for you ahead of time.

This isn't the worst film ever but it's certainly a very bad, cheesy, poorly acted, amateurish title in the "Jason" series and the fact that it was indeed NOT the last "Friday the 13th" film is rather ironic in itself.


After the unsuccessful Friday THE 13TH PART VIII:JASON TAKES MANHATTAN, which was dumb to begin with, Paramount gave the rights to JASON to New Line. Which I think was a great idea, because they explored JASON to a different state of mind. Writers Dean Lorey & Jay Huguely and director Adam Marcus took the series in a different new look.

JASON(Kane Hodder) somehow is out of New York and is back at Camp Crystal Lake, only to tracked down and killed by the F.B.I.. This is where the fun starts, JASON heart beats an evil tone and forces a doctor to eat it, gross I know. Now JASON is transporting into people's bodies. The only way for him to be reborn is a family member, that means Jessica(Kari Keegan) or her baby. And the only person who has the weapon to stop him is the Duke(Steven Williams), with the help of her ex Steven(John D. LeMay). Will they make it in time to save the day.

This has to be one of the top 10 goriest films of all time, see the unrated version. The deaths are over the top yet fit right for this particular flick. This to me should have been called JASON goes wild, because of the harsh punishments he gives people in this. All the acting is great, especially the bodies JASON jumps into. But Steven Williams stole the whole movie with his excellent one liners and top notch deliverance for all his scenes. The only thing that hurts this movie is it's lack to explain itself for most of it's scenes. For example, "How did JASON come from New York to here?, What is the real reason for JASON evilness?", although the last one was answered, just not the way you would expect it to be and not clean it up enough. Still a good movie, but confusing.


The opening sequence is a failure. A closer contact between Jason and the victim could have drawn us into the movie much better. The old formula of sex/nudity + a slasher doesn't appeal anymore. The camera technique, editing, and sound don't work together to keep its audience at the edge of their seats. After the first sequence, you'll know that there is nothing much to expect in this film. For a horror flick to work, the opening sequence should say it all and must entice the audience that this film will scare them to death till the end).

This last installment of the Friday the 13th series simply doesn't have "it" to make you want to finish the film. It doesn't bother with the story anymore. It felt like its only goal is to be more brutal than the previous killings. It introduces new characters every after a killing which further alienates the viewers from the film. No depth; no emotional tie up with the characters; each character is simply another object awaiting their gory mutilation. Unless you have a penchant for murders and brutality then this movie isn't just worth your while. Or even if you have a thing for gore, this movie has nothing new to offer--it's a been there, done that kind of thing. So uninteresting.

I don't understand why the producers of this series, knowing that this is the last, would not put much thought on how to end Jason's classic plight. OR maybe, it's just that the series have exhausted all there is to exhaust of Jason and this movie hasn't got enough juice to quench the audience for an hour and a half of the worn out, dried up Jason story.


I was a bit confused. I mean, they changed the whole story. It was a bit annoying. Now Jason can take the form of other bodies? I wonder what it would be like if he took the body of Gary Colman? Hehe! I should have stuck with the comments here on IMDb. A lot people said that this is the worst sequel. They were right. I would not really recommend this, unless you are on the same journey as I am. Have I converted to the Jason side? Nope. I don't think the 10th sequel is going to change my mind either. I will still watch and hopefully enjoy "Jason X". But I will be honest, Jason is a very cool killer. He just needs better movies. And they kept up with the traditional blood, gore, sex, nudity, stupid teenagers, and a silly plot. So, I simply must be kind.

2/10


Interesting "Friday the 13th" entry has nothing connecting it to the last entry ("Jason Takes Manhattan"). Instead, the opening has Jason pursuing a nubile young woman through the woods; she turns out to be an FBI agent who lures Jason right into a trap - and his body is blown to smithereens in the ensuing ambush. HOWEVER (of course, there has to be a "however"), this still doesn't mean that Jason is dead - the evil force that has animated Jason all these years is still very much alive and free to inhabit a succession of victims.

This ninth "Friday the 13th" movie has some interesting story twists that were only then, after eight previous movies, being concocted.

This is an energetic, emphatically violent, lively (and very mean-spirited, unfortunately) horror sequel with spectacular gore (particularly in the unrated director's cut) and performances that are actually something approaching decent.

An entertaining way to spend an hour and a half.

There are a few visual in-jokes that horror fans will instantly recognize.

In addition to playing Jason, stuntman Kane Hodder also appears sans makeup as one of two FBI agents (he's the big, bearded one) guarding the morgue.

Even if you don't enjoy it, you may want to stick around for the surprise in the very last scene. It will either make you groan or clap, depending on your disposition towards these kinds of movies.

8/10


Jason Goes To Hell is part 9 of the Friday the 13th series. It is also the worst film of the series. The movie seems to have been improvised from the start to the finish, as the storyline and characters do not make any sense whatsoever. What makes this movie so terrible is that Kane Hodder's portrayal of Jason Voorhees is in the film for about 5 minutes. Did the makers of this film really think that Jason fans would care to see a Jason movie without Jason really being in it? Plus the opening credits in the film last for about 15 minutes! Irritating! Also, the soundtrack sounds like it came from a rejected Disney film. I would strongly recommend not watching this movie at all as it contains no memorable lines, scenes, or characters. Plus, since this is a horror film, horror fans will be disappointed with the uninteresting violence and lack of nudity Jason Goes To Hell has to offer. This film is a complete waste of your time and money.


Hi folks, I directed "Side Effects" and just wanted to say thanks to everyone who was a part of making the movie happen. I also wanted to welcome any comments, criticisms, and answer any questions anyone has about the film.

Thanks, best, Scott Allen Perry


SIDE EFFECTS is a film about a young man who volunteers to be a guinea pig for a drug study. The mood set for this study was great and you wondered why this guy and the others would allow themselves to be so severely abused by the researchers. That's because there are so many negative side effects of the drug--nausea, illness and weird hallucinations by some. In addition, the food appears barely edible and the subjects are kept confined--almost like in prison. However, the hero of the film manages to do well for a while thanks to the help of another participant--a very pretty and sweet young lady. They hit it off well and it's only with her help that he manages to hold on as long as he does. However, he doesn't realize that despite their blossoming love, their relationship is totally doomed.

I am a compulsive film reviewer and one of my favorite genres are independent short films. I have probably reviewed at least 500-1000 of them, so I am a pretty good judge of a quality short. Well, this one is simply terrific--with quality and intelligent writing, directing and acting throughout. I can't say enough positive about the film and sure hope you get a chance to see it.


I just wish it was longer, an hour long short would do. If that makes any sense at all. The plot drew me in like a magnetron pull. The best part though is your wonder and amazement through the adventure. Bravo I do say so myself for a well organized structure of a story. I just can't believe this isn't a big hit. I mean yes it does have some dry humor in it. That is because it fits like a skeleton key in these generic movies with extraordinary plots. I do feel a little "deja vu" in a sense. It feels like this was a in a show or was a short clip of a movie. Or maybe just a hybrid of random plots that already steam-lined through my mind. Don't take my word for it, see it. And see it anywhere you can(I just watched it on this site). Just imagine if this movie was a little stretched out. Instead of punching you in the face with an explosion of climatic cinema type. Maybe that is just me, but sometimes it feels like you need to beat around the bush to get to the bass of a situation. Still a great plot, climax, and hero.


Excellent casting. Scott Perry did a bang up job on this short. I personally recalled elements of Alan Arkin's "Simon", Lucas' "THX-1138" and the British sit-com "Asylum" (Simon Pegg). For a small production, it was well shot and appropriately lit. I especially enjoyed the fact that Perry played the character "straight", as it were, and gave that realistic push in order for the audience to appreciate the plot. I hate the point system, and cinephiles might become physically ill at my rating as compared to the history of short film, but I think it's a keeper. I mean, it ain't no "La Jetee", but as far as relevance to virtual reality and drug culture, it does have a place.


Saw it twice at Taos Fest. Better the second time. Not to ruin

things for other viewers, but the second time around you notice

subtle little things throughout that really ake the icing on the cake.

Great work all around.


Its a real shame that egyptian cinema's still produce such rubbish until now. Egypts biggest star adil imam has been responsible for producing most of the rubbish in the last 30 years, but this is probably the worst ever.

the story revolves around a newly appointed minister, and how he has to deal with a visit from a danish women and his four sons who he raised on his own. the film is filled with unfunny jokes, plenty of sexual references that are just there for shock values.

Adil Imam should probably stick to theatre plays where he has produced some great ones in his life, if he continues to do films like this one he will just embarrass himself.


The movie is absolutely funny, however, to understand the comments and the jokes you have to be raised in Arabic speaking culture and understand the Egyptian background. Each and every character played his or her perfectly. Adel Imam was great as usual. Although their might be some exaggeration in few scenes, I can only see that this might be the case in all comedy movies. One scene is particularly funny, the one of the check point when Adel Imam met Talaat Zakaria. Another scene where Adel Imam showed his real talent was when he fell on the ground in reaction to the heart attack. I enjoyed watching the movie and the same goes for my wife as well.


Hello every body........... this film is wonderful it is a fantastic film, personally when i saw this film in cinema i hardly stopped my self from laughing, and for the one who said that it is not a good film i want to tell him that the Arabic or Egyptian comedy films cannot be understood or it didn't make them laugh but for the Arabic people it is very perfect. On the other hand some people from the Arab countries don't even smile for some comedy movies like "pink panther" or some series like "seinfeld" or "fraiser". and the film is not garbage as you say so please don't say any thing you don't know and by the way all Adel imam films are perfect not like Canadian movies ..............................lol


It may be useful to explain my frame of mind when I saw this movie.... I finished setting up my home theatre about two months ago... and watched over 60 top world movies... Masterpieces such as Amores Perros, Fargo, The Pianist, The Red Violin, Mullholand Dr. etc you get the point. Then my wife says let's watch an Egyptian Comedy and we get this movie.... The difference is absolutely shocking. I did manage to complete 75% of the movie, and there were some funny parts which made me laugh, but overall it was horrible. No storyline, exaggerated acting, stereotyping of Egyptians and making fun of other cultures were just few of the points that made watching this thing unbearable... This is unfortunate, because I respect Adel Imam for some of his other cinema & theatre work. I also respect him as a person who stood firm on his political and social views.


"The Visitor" was headed for greatness. It's unfortunate that it was only allowed to grace our television screens for 13 episodes. With such a high profile production team, established writers in the genre and an excellent cast, the show couldn't fail. All of the characters were quite likable, the plot believable (in an unbelievable kind of way), and the production value ranked right up there with any great sci-fi motion picture.

The show unfolded with a mature spin on today's attitudes and mindsets. The long story arc approach was brilliant; it got better and better after each episode. It was this exemplary writing style that brought viewers back each week, not the typical "part 1", "part 2" gimmick of using a hair-raising scene at the end of an episode that some novice writers often employ.

The actors were equally brilliant and entertaining as well. Their focus and enthusiasm toward the show and its message pervaded their performance so much that the viewer could relate and connect with their characters as if they were real people. I guess that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Anyway, it would be nice to see more episodes produced someday. The fans all remain hopeful.


It is very touching psychological drama. There is no blood and gore in it, so it is not for zombie-fan at all. But for me there is a true feeling of identification with the main character. Savage plays his role brilliantly. He is pitiful and sometimes I feel like I was trapped in this horrible situation instead of him. The masterfully shot sinister landscapes also made me real nervous. Maybe it seems strange, but in my opinion the atmosphere in the movie is the same as in Weir's "Picnic at Hanging Rock". And by the way the plot has a much more interesting intrigue than "Six Sense". It was real pleasure watching the film. Sadly it is the last movie made by Fulci. Maybe he had a presentiment about his death and he somehow put it into his last work. Anyway "Door to silence" is another example of his versatile talent. Must see (not only for Fulci's fans)


This is unfortunately the last film Fulci would direct and it is a decent film but if you are expecting typical Fulci, this is not your kind of film.

John Savage plays the part of Melvin Devereux. On his way home he is stopped by a funeral and meets a very strange lady. Upon driving away from the funeral, Melvin gets behind a slow moving hearse who he tries to pass. The man driving the hearse will not let him pass and things suddenly get very strange and turn into a car chase. Melvin then notices his name on the coffin in the back of the hearse and begins to really freak out. The movie then goes on like this until the finale.

This is a very hard film to review. First off, it plays like a 90 minute Twilight Zone episode which isn't a good thing. This story could have easily have been a 40 to 45 minute short film and that would have been more appropriate. Instead, the film has a lot of random scenes that don't make much sense and even when the finale comes, still does not make any sense. It seems like Fulci was trying to take his film writing in another direction and if he had lived longer may have succeeded.

All in all, this is not a bad film, but for Fulci fans of the late 70's and early 80's, you might be disappointed. For real hardcore Fulci fans, I would say this is a must see. 7/10


As has been stated, this is Lucio's last film. I watched it last night and I happen to think it's one of his best. It has aged well.

The plot is simple enough: a guy is trying to get home to Baton Rouge from what I will guess was New Orleans, judging from the opening scene on Lake Ponchartrain bridge. The highway is shut down ahead, so he has to take backroads. He starts to see a mysterious lady who seems to be wherever he goes. Also getting on his nerves is a hearse whose driver seems to be a road hog in the most serious way. The guy starts to go mad and begins to discover that what is in the back of the hearse is a surreal nightmare. He plunges into a world of insanity and dreamlike terror that lasts the whole film.

"Door To Silence" is best viewed with no expectations. That's how I watched it and I was pleasantly surprised. It does not have gore like other Fulci greats, but it does contain some genuine suspense and nail-biting tension, something that is hardly found in other Fulci movies.

As Fulci's last, this one has not garnered the kind of attention that "Zombi 2" and "The Beyond" have...but I really liked it and I think if you're a true fan of this guy, you will appreciate it's grindhouse appeal and genuinely creepy atmosphere.

9 out of 10, kids.


Cursed be you, Burt Reynolds.

Because of "Smokey and the Bandit", the movie-going public has been forced to slog through millions of pale imitations of the same product, all to make a buck.

Which brings us to "Smokey Bites the Dust"; which, I think, DID earn at least a buck.

Meaning it broke even with its budget.

From the beginning scene where we see the Smokey of the title drinking from a baby bottle with booze in it while waiting for speeders in Backwater, USA, I knew I was in for a slow downhill ride to nowhere. I was right.

If one county, let alone backwoods town actually had this many car crashes in the course of one day, they could very well become the scrap metal center of the known world. As it turns out, this entire movie IS the scrap (minus the "s") center of the known world all by itself.

Gale Ann Hurd produced this when she was young and foolish. We all gotta start somewhere, I suppose.

One star. Plus half a star for the dumb jock football player.


Smokey Bits The Dust got inflicted on the movie going public in 1981. And after two viewings of it I can't even tell you what the plot is of this mess.

Jimmy McNichol plays the local bad boy in this neck of the Ozark woods who just likes to race cars and wreck as many as he can because it's good clean fun. He's got the hots for the sheriff's daughter, Janet Julian, and on Homecoming Day he kidnaps her.

After this the whole film is one mindless 80 minute or so car chase in which law from other jurisdictions including some Arabs get involved. To be honest I actually tried figuring out what the plot was and couldn't.

Roger Corman produced this mess and shame on him.


A few comments- First of all, I was student body president at Antelope Valley College when this movie filmed there-they got to film because they kicked $750 into the student government accounts and loaned us original prints of three films for an on-campus showing (they came back to re- shoot two scenes on a weekend, and snuck onto the football field by conning a security guard, btw)...I'm also a background extra in three different scenes in the first 10 minutes, and several of my friends are also in this movie.

This movie was made by taking out-takes of chase scenes from other Corman movies, filming segues which basically consisted of Jimmy McNichol or one of the police officers jumping out of one car and into another so the car would match the outtake, and editing them together, then tacking on 5 to 10 minutes of exposition and denouement to the front and back of the chase scenes.

The crazy jock football player was an actual Antelope Valley College football player named Francis Maikai, and the scene where he smashes the trash can over his head was not in the script, but just something he did as a joke, and the director liked it so much that he put it in the film.

this movie cost virtually nothing to make...they didn't even feed the crew and/or cast, as I recall...


This film has to be one of the worst produced in 1981. Actor Jimmy McNichol plays Roscoe, a teenage admirer of Peggy Sue. He playfully kidnaps her (is that even possible?) and many car chases ensue. Peggy's father is the local foul-mouth Sheriff who promises to get even with Roscoe. While Jimmy's sister Kristy was making the much better film "The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia" in 1981, Jimmy was making this worthless mess. The acting here leaves much to be desired. None of the characters ever fully develop. The sound effects are for children. There are minutes worth of slow motion wrecks, fast motion car chases and endless drivel here. If that is your thing, this film is for you. I would rather spend my money on quality videos. This one is going into my yard sale pile for $.50!


Made in the early 80's when the 70's car chase genre was winding down, chockablock with copious footage lifted from such previous Roger Corman-backed drive-in flicks as "Grand Theft Auto," "Moving Violation," "Eat My Dust!," and "Thunder and Lightening," coasting on the faintest sliver of a one-note story, and, just like the numerous car chases showcased herein, running around in endless circles with no particular purpose or destination in mind, this energetically stupid comedic romp was harshly panned by critics and generally dismissed as an absolute turkey. Granted, it's not exactly a good movie, but it's certainly an enjoyably brainless, pointless and senseless wallow in crash 'em and smash 'em up demolition derby cinema.

Shrewd, impishly irreverent car nut misfit Roscoe ("Night Warning" 's Jimmy McNichol) abducts stuck-up homecoming queen Peggy Sue Turner (perky, fetching blonde Janet Julian) and goes on the lam with Peggy's crusty, hot-tempered, very overbearing and overprotective sheriff dad (broadly played by the chubby Walter Barnes) and assorted oddball secondary characters in hot pursuit. That's it for the plot; the rest of the picture is nothing more than spinning tires, out-of-control car stunts, an uptight girl loosening up on the road, young love blooming on the road, idiotic slapstick gags, a "what the hell is he doing here?" guy in an apesuit cameo, peppy rock songs blaring away on the soundtrack, and plenty of pedal-glued-to-the-floor ultra-speedy car chase scenes. Longtime Corman screenwriter Charles B. ("Bucket of Blood," "The Little Shop of Horrors") Griffith displays an endearingly all-thumbs incompetence as a director, which in this case greatly adds to the infectiously dopey festivities. The ubiquitous Gary Graver comes through with his customary smooth and polished cinematography. Brent Myggen's frantically pumping'n'propulsive score rushes along to a quick snappy beat. The wildly mugging supporting cast is loaded with familiar faces: Dick Miller as a dippy dad, "Joyride to Nowhere" 's Mel Welles as a goofy sheik who speaks in fractured fragmented sentences, Bill Forsythe as a brutish caveman football player, Rance Howard as a fanatically gung-ho high school football coach, and Angelo Rossitto as an excitable midget hotel desk clerk. Overall, this baby measures up as a pretty solid and satisfying so-dumb-it's-fun good time.


OK, sure the movie pretty much sucks, but it's definitely worth it to see some cool car chases if you are a car chase fan. After realizing how many precious classic Dodge Chargers were destroyed during the "Dukes of Hazzard" TV run, it's also kinda sad to see a hot '57 Chevy banged up in chases (watch the disappearing dents, they used more than one of course) but the highlight definitely is that great crash by the '57 through the roof (where of course, McNichol simply keeps driving after the car lands). This chase, with the '57 Chevy, just may be one of the greatest car chases ever put on film actually, it's just too bad it's in a comedy and not a 'serious' film.

The comedy is definitely bad, with maybe the funniest scene probably being the truck driver who backs in McNichols' way in an alley, who says "nooo!" with a hilarious look on his face. So hey, pick this one up off ebay for the chases, and watch with the volume turned off when you can to avoid the painful dialogue.


My childhood days of THE DUKES OF HAZZARD are long gone, which means it's time to dig up what was once grand: car chase movies. This one is special because it's another rip-off of SMOKEY & THE BANDIT, and also another with the name "Smokey" in the title (how many were there???). Every so often, a movie would thrill us living around 1980 over its display of automotive carnage, but haven't we seen enough? It's no better than GRAND THEFT AUTO, another Roger Corman production about high-speed pursuits. Not sounding politically correct in these modern times, kids would've probably liked this cartoonish flick that's been easy to please, as it shows off some over-the-top goofiness and kooky characters, including a "sheik" (!!!). The car crashes are fun to watch for 8-year olds, though. And, yes, no movie is complete without Dick Miller as comedy relief. Likewise, if you've seen one movie, you've seen it all. Diehard fans won't go wrong, but the movie offers absolutely nothing that's new and improved.


By the early '80s, the car chase genre began to wind down. During his final years of being president of New World Pictures, Roger Corman produced another typical but fun car chase comedy starring Jimmy McNichol as a mischievous teenager who loves to steal cars and having the local sheriff and his bumbling deputies chase after him. The sheriff's daughter, who's planning to be in the next homecoming parade at her high school is kidnapped by McNichol, and from then on, it an all-out auto war between the two starry-eyed kids, the cops, and other hot-dogging speed freaks.

The reason this is a lesser effort from Corman is that much of the car chase sequences were lifted from other movies he produced, particularly "Moving Violation", "Eat My Dust", "Grand Theft Auto", and "Thunder And Lightning", albeit with new footage and different sound effects dubbed in. However, if people haven't seen those movies, it shouldn't be a problem for them to watch it. It was directed by long-time collaborator Charles B. Griffith, who also wrote and directed "Eat My Dust" and has an uncredited small part as one of the deputies. There's also a sub-plot involving a deranged group of sheiks out to uncover a secret recipe of moonshine...huh? Anyway check the movie out when you have the chance to.


Most of us know nothing about the Armenian Revolt, which is why it is so easy for the Armenian Diaspora to convince people that their ancestors were the victims of genocide. While they are very effective in their advocacy, their approach is also unethical because they use "selective truth" to "prove" their point. They also know that most of us will jump on the bandwagon and sympathize with their claims. As for others who beg to differ, the Armenian Diaspora in the US, Australia and Europe denouce them as "genocide deniers."

How sad that such organizations such as the Armenian National Committee and other radicals must unjustly accuse an entire nation in order to preserve their fragile cultural identity. After all, what does it mean to be an Armenian, other than descended from victims of "genocide"? In the meantime, Armenians steer clear of the Armenian Revolt; many of them are ignorant on the subject and do not realize that the revolutionary Dashnak and Hinchak parties began to attack and kill innocent Muslims many years before Armenians were deported in 1915.

Our Congressmen have better things to do than pass resolutions about emotional, politicized claims that have never been substantiated by the historical record. But they don't have enough spine to stand up to their Armenian constituents and say, "Enough is enough. We sympathize with you, but this is a matter between Turkey and Armenia. Let them settle it."

This program on the Armenian Revolt is apparently the only one of its kind. Small wonder! It seriously undermines the genocide claim, and should be required viewing for any politician, teacher or journalist who has been co-opted by the Armenian Diaspora's arguments.

Yes, Armenians were tortured and massacred. But so were Muslims. If we are willing to call what happened to the Armenians a genocide, then what do we call what happened to the Muslims?

I often wonder how some members of the Armenian Diaspora sleep at night, knowing that their political game is based on deceit.


This documentary traces relations between Ottomans and Armenians from the 1800s to date. It provides background information needed and a clear chronology of all events related to the clash between Ottomans and Armenian revolutionaries.

The documentary includes relevant and eye-opening discussions by the most preeminent expert Ottoman historians of our time. Contrary to one of the comments below, the documentary also contains interviews with at least two Armenian historians as well.

This documentary white washes neither sides' responsibility for the massacres perpetrated by both sides during and after WWI. It also highlights the Entente Powers culpability and their exploitation of nationalist fervor to destroy an Empire in an effort to gain control over natural resources- oil.

This documentary is especially relevant now as many of the areas that were in conflict during WWI are currently in conflict today, i.e., northern Iraq.

An excellent and impartial presentation of the historical record free of the overwhelming emotions, biases, prejudices and exaggerations that the parties involved often bring to the table.


genocide genocide is that the only word in thousands years old Armenian language... do you know what the genocide is just look to the people i turkey from Caucasus, Balkans and Crimea no need to say something else about genocide.

massacres inflicted by Armenians to hamshins, Kurds, turks and Tatars (azeris of today) why its always found out only Muslim graves in eastern Anatolia rather than so called genocided Armenians?? where are their graves if such big population were wiped out there must be a proof left where are those, under black sea as Caucasians? or inside the village wells of east Anatolia, if you are blaming someone or a society you must prove it else you are liar, turks have many proofs from late 19th century to 1991 hocalı where are Armenian proofs. Turks can prove that Armenians are terrorists just you prove that turks are genosiders. Wake up from your long tailed tale if turks wanted to genocide Armenians what made them wait 900 years who could resist against that will of 3 super powers ruled the region. and where did the Armenians reproduce so much again all over the world. if 1.5 million of less than 2 million of them are killed in the first quarter of century how come they are now 10 million across the world 1-to-20(if all beings are at a reproductive age)in only 3-4 generations and in such poverty what a fast reproduction rate...


Don't be fooled by the statement that "This in-depth documentary is based on two years of research using various Authenticated National Archives documents from: United-States, England, Russia, Germany, Romania, and Bulgaria, and with historical footage and images from national archives with the participation of an international team of experts." The "international team" is narrow and biased in its exclusion of the Armenian and Russian voices; the "in-depth" documentary makes erroneous statement (e.g., the socialist revolution could not start in March 1917 and be led by Lenin at least because he was out of the country until April 1917); the images collected are biased in minimizing the Armenian cause....

It is not clear why the film is describes as providing "a balanced view" of the struggle between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. This is a film about the conflict between the Turks and the Armenians, yet in the film all the commentators are from Turkey plus some from its geopolitical ally, the US. There is no one from the Armenian, Russian or European side to balance their biased views. The film clearly sides with the Turks accusing the Armenians and presenting the Russians as partially responsible for the crisis. The Americans in contrast are presented as peace-makers. The film reminds Soviet-style propaganda and tells more about contemporary America and its ideological brain washing propaganda machine than about the conflict.


A world-weary prima ballerina, desperate for love. A noble cat thief, desperate for money. A dying clerk, out on a last fling. His industrialist boss, passionate & brutal. A pretty young stenographer, willing to do almost anything to get ahead. A hotel bell captain, anxious to hear about his pregnant wife. And a cynical, war-scarred doctor. Destiny awaits them all in one of Europe's most renowned establishments - Berlin's GRAND HOTEL.

This is considered to be the first `all star' movie. It was certainly MGM's most opulent film up to that time. The studio loaded it with an A List of star performers: <br /><br />Greta Garbo, uttering her trademark phrase, `I want to be alone.' Radiant in love, one can only imagine the despair that awaits her after the film ends.

John Barrymore, suave, sophisticated & ultimately tragic.

Lionel Barrymore, in a performance that will stay in your memory, slowly dying.

Wallace Beery in a heavy role, all bullying bluff & bluster.

Joan Crawford, tough as nails & good as gold.

Lewis Stone, Jean Hersholt, Rafaela Ottiano & Ferdinand Gottschalk all lend sterling support.

There was concern that putting so much talent into one film, instead of spreading the stars out over 4 or 5 films, would lose the studio money. Not to worry. It was a great success, financially & critically. Watch how the plot weaves the threads of the characters' lives into a finished tapestry. One of the great movies. Tremendously satisfying.


It's interesting that the Best Picture of the year before Hitler came to power in Germany, set in Germany, made no mention of the political situation in the country at the time. There was mention of the Depression Germany and the rest of the world was in and all five of the principal players were affected by it, one way or another. John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, Greta Garbo, Wallace Beery, and Joan Crawford all check into the Grand Hotel one day and their lives are never the same.

Greta Garbo is the temperamental Russian ballerina Grusinskaya and her artistic tantrums are getting less and less tolerable in many ways because of the Depression. John Barrymore is the aristocrat now living in genteel poverty. His world ended with World War I, but the Depression reduced him to being a sneak thief. Lionel Barrymore is the terminally ill bookkeeper who now just wants to spend his last days living it up. He's just going to ignore the Depression. Wallace Beery is the Prussian industrialist who's used to high living having married the boss's daughter, but his firm as so many others is about to go under unless he can pull off a merger. Lionel Barrymore is one of hundreds who work for him and know what an extremely little man he is, that Beery is really lacking in any real ability for business. Finally there's Joan Crawford who's a working class girl, hired as a stenographer by Beery who has other things on his mind for Crawford.

Whether in Germany or America Joan Crawford is the eternal shop girl. To her credit she does not attempt any kind of a Teutonic accent and her performance rings true. This is in complete contrast to Susan and God where she was consciously trying to imitate Gertrude Lawrence from the stage. This was the Depression in America too and many could identify with her.

No one epitomized class and old world elegance like John Barrymore, he was not better on film than here in Grand Hotel. He hates the life that poverty has reduced him to. Using his old world charm as a facade for being a thief tears him inside. Meeting Greta Garbo gives him a last chance at redeeming his life.

Garbo's performance is one of her best as well. I'm not sure any other actress could have made you sympathize with the temperamental ballerina. In the hands of anyone less skilled, the audience would have sympathized with the management of her ballet company who want to can her. When John Barrymore enters her life he's like the audience she entertained over the years rolled up in one person who still cares about her the individual. It's a last chance for happiness for her as well.

Wallace Beery had a funny thing not happened to him in Grand Hotel which I won't reveal might have been quite comfortable with the regime to come in Germany. Beery is the only one in the film to attempt any kind of Germanic speech and he does succeed in his portrayal of the hateful industrialist Preysing.

My favorite in Grand Hotel has always been Lionel Barrymore. Lionel may very well have been the most talented in the Barrymore family. Playing the gentle, terminally ill Kringelein is light years different from Mr. Potter in It's A Wonderful Life or Captain Disko Troup in Captains Courageous. Three very different roles yet Lionel Barrymore imprints his personality on every one. A meek little man, he's got courage enough now, courage that comes when you have absolutely nothing to lose.

Grand Hotel is now 75 years old. The style of acting you see here is old fashioned indeed, no one could remake Grand Hotel today in the same style. It's melodramatic, but it works. It's a fascinating look into the last days of the Weimar Republic as seen from the balcony of a suite at the Grand Hotel in Berlin.


Some seventy-odd years after its release in 1932, GRAND HOTEL today holds an interesting attraction more for the presence of its two leading ladies than from its cinematic power, although there will be some purists who will state that because the images of Joan Crawford and Greta Garbo have been immortalized in their own respective canons, that in itself is cinematic power. I personally won't argue, preferring to stick to my own personal views instead of following the herd.

I've seen GRAND HOTEL twice now, and I'll grant it that despite its soap-opera like story lines, there seems to be something a little deeper going on which is only alluded to in the sidelines: the delicate tightrope which Flammchen (Joan Crawford) walks on as she is courted by Presyling (Wallace Beery) and later on decides to stay by Otto Kringelein's (Lionel Barrymore) side. This was most probably unintentional since sources state that the screenplay follows the story closely, but today's values would have Flammchen behave much differently. I find her character to be the moral opposite of Barbara Stanwyck's amoral Lily Powers in BABY FACE, another woman who uses her sexuality to advance to the top. Joan Crawford's Flammchen doesn't actively use her charms as sort of glide by while positively glowing and stealing all of the light from Garbo, and one can sense that were she of a much different nature, all of the men in GRAND HOTEL would have a dangerous young woman to deal with, and Barrymore's end would be similar to J. Howard Marshall's demise in the hands of (a much smarter, less coked-up) Anna Nicole Smith. She'd more than likely wind up owning the hotel herself in no time.

But not to digress. The plot moves along in a nice pace thanks to Goulding's direction; never does it linger on too much on one specific character, though at least for me, anytime Garbo was on screen the story came to a crashing halt. I'm going to get a lot of flack from rabid Garbo fans, but I don't get "her allure, her mystery," the essence that made her so intriguing. At twenty-seven, she already looks ten years older thanks to her severe nature. Her face is constantly in a frown, moody, full of angst reflected in her throaty voice. Her performance is so atrociously mannered I can see Jennifer Jason Leigh easily out-doing her, but better, more authentic (anyone who recalls her exacting yet eccentric portrayal of Dorothy Parker can easily see her becoming and improving Garbo). I never got to see what her character with the unpronounceable name was all about; no true trauma, just this death-wish to be "left alone." Then she capriciously takes on with the Baron von Geigern (a dashing yet shady John Barrymore) who is more interested in her jewels but tells her he could love her; he out-acts her at every turn with subtlety and genuine charm even when his part seems underwritten. In short, Garbo, for all her "mystique" is the sore thumb of GRAND HOTEL.

I much prefer the events surrounding Crawford and the older Barrymore. Lionel Barrymore, the horrible villain from IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, plays a meek former bookkeeper who is at the end of his life and wants to enjoy his stay at the hotel. His wish is quite simple: he wants to enjoy his last days, a diametric opposite to Garbo who wants to be alone (and she says it three times). He teams up with Crawford, enjoys a dance with her and falls for her even though she's much too young. All the time I got the sensation he knew the character of Kringelein, a man who has been pushed around by Preysling and is still not quite free of his micromanaging shadow. There is not a shed of ego in his performance. One can imagine seeing Crawford reach out to the older gentleman and actually making his days happier and is a fitting ending to her own storyline as she is lecherously pursued by Wallace Beery and romanced by John Barrymore. If anything, her character is the most sympathetic of the five main characters and the symbol of the emerging modern woman of the Thirties: ambitious but girlish, efficient but not a workaholic, smart and independent despite struggling to make ends meet.

GRAND HOTEL hasn't aged well. Its values were the thing back in the Depression era, showing glossy characters who were all looking for some form of security while surrounded by the exuberance of the hotel and who were not given much depth in their characterizations. The characters are more or less archetypes and are predicted to act in a certain way, and when their fates collide, it's (now) not a surprise. Now, what it did do was set the standard for lavish productions involving a roster of well-known actors and stars in a perfect balance of talent and star-power, most notably seen today in the films of Woody Allen and Robert Altman, but closer to the less intellectually challenging type of high-profile film seen in the 50s and throughout the 70s. I enjoyed it then and now and regard it as a classic film set in a pre-Code Hollywood that has its own ancient beauty, for more reasons than Garbo's mannered face.


The idea of a multi-level story peopled by an all star cast was brand new with this feature which deservedly won an Oscar for Best Picture though it received no other nominations. Garbo is marvelous as the world-weary ballerina who finds ill-fated romance and John Barrymore is perfect as the suave Baron. The brilliant supporting performances of a young, fresh Joan Crawford as Flaemchen, the stenographer, and Lionel Barrymore as the dying Kringelein deserved Oscars but the category hadn't been invented yet. The cast works together superbly and the direction moves along at a good pace, giving us both romance and drama in equal doses. The script is excellent and MGM's production values are quite fine. Truly a film classic and a must-see.


Vicky Baum's novel "Menschen I'm Hotel" serves as the basis for this 1932 film that was a vehicle for Greta Garbo. "Grand Hotel", as directed by Edmund Golding, was a magnificent film that had a lot of first class stars of the era in prominent roles. In fact, this seems to be one of the first films to have relied in the prominent "names" it gathered to portray the different characters in the movie.

By today's standards, the film is dated, but for a discriminating film fan, "Grand Hotel" is a classic because of the star turns one witnesses. Also, today's fans have to make concessions for the style of acting that was prevalent at the time. The movies have begun "talking" not long before this film was made and the stars of those silents were still doing their acting in front of the camera as though no one was going to hear them talk. In fact, most of the complaints in comments submitted to this forum would have been different if this was 1932 and the film had just come out.

The best advice for anyone new to this film is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the trials and tribulations of the people seen at Berlin's Grand Hotel.

The biggest surprise of the film is the shortness of Greta Garbo presence in the film, in which for some unknown reason, she looms large above the rest of the players. As the Russian ballerina Grusinskaya, Ms. Garbo played one of the best characters of her career. Her way of acting is still imbued with what was expected of her.

John Barrymore as the Baron Von Geigern, the impoverished nobleman, is key to the story. The moment he meets the great Grusinskaya, he is lost forever. Lionel Barrymore is excellent as the poor Otto Kringelein, who thinks he is going to die real soon. Joan Crawford, is the stenographer Flaemmchen who seems to arise passion among all the men she meets. Ms. Crawford does excellent work in a role she discarded later on in favor of more dramatic appearances.

What makes "Grand Hotel" the timeless classic it became is the magnificent camera work by William H. Daniels, a man who knew how to get the best out of Greta Garbo in their many films together. Also the music which is from Franz Lehar's "The Merry Widow" serves as a nice distraction in the background.

The most famous phrase in the film "I want to be alone", seems prophetic in retrospect as the divine Garbo had about eight more years in the movies.


Grand Hotel remains surprisingly effective even today, and as some reviewers have suggested, is a precursor to Robert Altman's style of film-making, in which many characters interact and bounce off one another in unexpected ways. The action moves at a quick pace, as the scene constantly shifts between the characters. Director Edmund Goulding even utilized "wipes" to change the scene, which must have seemed very high-tech back in the early 1930's.

The narrative form is fluid, allowing each character to nicely develop his or her storyline in relation to the others. A story like Grand Hotel could easily become staid and set-bound, especially considering it was taken from a play, but the interesting sets, exquisite costumes, and the countless players keep the excitement level high.

The performances are certainly first-rate, as one would expect from the A-list cast. I do realize that many of today's viewers find Greta Garbo's aging Russian ballerina to be an exercise in over-indulgence, but I do enjoy her immensely! And who here today actually knows for certain how an aging Russian ballerina would act out when alone in her hotel room or with her entourage? Have today's critics spent time with Garbo's contemporary Pavlova, and found her by example to be much more subdued and controlled? It is not too much of a stretch to believe that Garbo's Grusinskaya may have existed in the actuality of 1932.

And what fun it is watching her as she goes through every emotion imaginable! Her great voice was always one of her best tools, and she certainly uses it to advantage here, throwing away lines that other actresses would have played up, and vice-versa. And the tight close ups of her beautiful face are breathtaking! I will only mention one scene specifically: when she futilely attempts to telephone her lover, the Baron, in the middle of the night. Alone on the screen she pleads for him to pick up, at times excited and joyful, quickly turning into desperation and despair and back again. She cradles the telephone receiver as if it were her lover.

Another knock-out performance comes from the young Joan Crawford, who in this huge production proved to the world she was an excellent actress who could hold the screen with any seasoned pro. As the shapely stenographer Flaemmchen, Crawford is absolutely stunning, as beautiful as Garbo, and a sexuality that certainly made guys in the audience take careful notice. And the profile of her extraordinary face was surely as "great" as John Barrymore's more famous one! She lends a distinct eroticism to her role, as she expertly delivers her character's suggestive dialogue, often with an resigned air of cynicism or jaded pessimism.

Of the male characters, Wallace Beery definitely commands attention! His portrayal of the desperate industrialist Preysing is both repellent and charismatic. As a man who exudes power and slowly begins to lose control, his performance is expertly crafted and layered. And I'd be remiss not to mention the Barrymore brothers, who round out the cast superbly. John charms both the men and women on screen with natural ease, while Lionel whimpers and whines like no other ever could. Both their characters are heartbreaking, each in his individual way. Even lesser characters, like Lewis Stone's horribly scarred doctor (in make-up that truly is disturbing) and Rafaela Ottiano's maid have their moments in the spotlight.

Minor spoiler ahead:

One scene that I found poignant was the bell boy quickly escorting the Baron's poor pet dachshund out the hotel lobby by its leash. They pass a janitor sweeping the floor with a large push broom, who without reason shoves the small dog along with the broom, causing it to stumble. The poor thing, wondering what hit it, turns around as it scoots along, only to have the janitor sweep a cloud of dust into its face. A truly sad small moment, as the viewer is left to wonder what will become of the dog now that it has lost its status as the beloved pet of a nobleman.

End of minor spoiler

Yes, Grand Hotel still remains splendid entertainment!


Edmund Goulding's 1932 film "Grand Hotel", about 48 hours in a plush German hotel has a dream cast. Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo) is a Russian prima ballerina in town for several performances, who is lonely, a drama queen, and suicidal. She meets Baron von Geigern (John Barrymore) a hotel thief who inadvertently is in her room (having been in the process of stealing some jewelry) when she is about to commit suicide, and stays the night with her, convincing her not to end things. The two fall in love, of course, much to the disappointment of Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford), a woman that von Geigern was romancing the day before. Flaemmchen is a stenographer, and her boss, German tycoon Preysing (Wallace Beery) is having a hard time with a merger he is trying to transact. One of Preysing's employees at a factory he owns is bookkeeper Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore). Otto is staying at the hotel because he only has a short time to live, so he takes his entire life savings and decides to live the rest of his life in luxury. Throughout the 48 hours that the action takes place, friendships are made, loves are found and lost, and a murder changes the lives of all of the main characters.

"Grand Hotel" won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1932, and it is easy to see why. The film is an epic without having an enormous cast or exotic locales. From the films that I have seen of this decade, this is one of the first examples of an intertwining narrative structure. We are used to seeing this now; (think Altman, in particular) where characters are all somehow connected, even though they may not even know each other. Another fine early example that I can recall was a decade later with "Tales of Manhattan". The acting is incredible, though Garbo's REALLY over-the-top performance was a bit much. Realizing that she was a drama queen as a profession, I excused a lot of it, but it got to a point where I was really snickering to myself after awhile, because she was acting just like Gloria Swanson later would in "Sunset Boulevard". One explanation could be that this was still a really early stage of the talking picture, and silent films solely relied on gestures and facial expressions to convey emotion. I was very impressed with the performances of the Barrymore brothers (I've always loved Lionel Barrymore), and was stunned by Crawford's talent as well as beauty.

"Grand Hotel" is rife with melodrama, but it was not hackneyed or maudlin. I am actually quite surprised it isn't on the IMDb top 250 list; I found it to be that good. I am a big fan of Douglas Sirk's melodramatic films of the 1940's and 1950's, and "Grand Hotel" is a great predecessor of that genre. 7/10 --Shelly