Kathleen Turner plays the part of Serial Mom with great gusto and presence. This black comedy is a satire on American suburbia and holds your interest throughout. "Momism" is carried to the ultimate extreme - tangle with Beverly Sutphin and your risking your life! If you don't reform, then prepare to be Terminated! If you like such movies as "Mars Attacks!" then you'll surely enjoy this one.


This is a really funny film by John Waters (Cry Baby, Polyester, Hairspray) and it's his sickest film. Kathleen Turner plays a sweet and perfect suburbia mom who suddenly decides to kill the people who don't do the right thing (just like bother her kids, not rewinding the rented videos or wearing white shoes after Labour Day). But she's not a complex serial killer: she goes and kill, in the most sordid and hilarious way. KT's performance is great and funny, and the rest of the cast is good.

Rated: 8 out of 10. Hey, don't miss it!!!


"Serial Mom" is a lovely little film about the picture perfect world known as suburbia. Whatever! "Serial Mom" is all about a crazy mother who knocks off anyone who messes with her or her family. Kathleen Turner is wonderful in the title role playing this psycho-mom with such zest that you know she is having alot of fun playing in this movie. Also notable are Ricki Lake and Matthew Lillard as the children, Misty and Chip. (It's interesting to see Mr. Lillard pre-"Scream", he wasn't always nuts). Watch this one when you want to turn off your brain for a couple of hours and just have fun. Oh yeah, Traci Lords has a cameo (this is the second movie I've seen in as many weeks with a Traci Lords cameo...). Love it. 7/10


While I really liked both plot and storyline, the satire mixed with random acts of violence makes it almost sort of dirty watching it and makes you sort of say, "actually that was sort of funny". Any which way though, I gave this movie a favorable rating. Someday we'll see in lights: George Orwell, Kurt Vonnegut, and whatever twisted writer wrote this movie, cause it was pretty good.


SERIAL MOM. Kathleen Turner plays Beverly, the seemingly perfect, cheerful housewife and Mom (who also happens to be a foul-mouthed serial killer on the side), in John Waters's consistently sharp, amusing satire "Serial Mom." As far as plot structure goes, "Serial Mom" isn't all that impressive, but Turner's sheer comic energy as she kills typical suburban people for stealing parking spaces and not rewinding their rented videos carries this one quite a ways. Rated R. ***1/2 out of ****


Serial Mom was witty funny and extremely exciting and suspenseful, along with being thoroughly entertaining. I expected to enjoy the film for many different reasons.; But after the opening 15 minutes of the film and breakfast seen. I knew this would end up being a film of high quality and laughter. The camera styles of the breakfast scenario made the scene go beyond capturing the reality millions of families experience in real time. just excellent.

I found Kathleen Turner portraying the innocent, harmless killer, perfectly. The character came to life and seemed real. One of the best scenes thought, even I have to admit, was the very end scenario and expressions given between Kathleen Turner and Susan Summers for the closing scene which included Patricia Hearst; which only goes to show that even the most elegant and ravishing can not escape from bad fashion critics. Also Looking forward to seeing Patricia Hearst in longer more involved roles. A natural getting polished and learning to fly.

I know I will receive many hours of pleasure from this film for I will see it again.

D.A.T.


This is the film where director John Waters returns to the more aggressive and violent universe of his earlier movies. After wimpy Cry Baby and feelgood Hairspray he gives us a movie about a housewife (brilliantly played by Kathleen Turner) so eager to protect her children, her marriage and the wildlife that she is forced to harass and kill neighbours, ex-boyfriends and schoolteachers. Never before has John Waters given his characters so much room in an environment so nice and cosy. I loved this movie. And don´t miss what's under the spandex pants at the concert with the group Camel Lips.


i don't understand why people just don't talk about this movie or anything...it's one of the best movies i've seen recently. i'm in love with kathleen turner cos she's such a great actress, and the other people did a pretty good job in the acting department as well. this movie is so great considering how john waters' films have kinda gone downhill recently. cry-baby & hairspray were a little too tame & lame for me. i want trash!!! i want more killing! i want more leg of lamb! and i want more cussing! that's why i love john waters, and hopefully he'll read this and create the most ugliest movie yet and i'll be in love with him more...


I`ve just seen this movie and would like to say its fantastic. It`s got humor,it`s scary moments and stuff. Kathleen Turner is perfect and funny as the mother who kills everybody that does not fit in her style. She starts killing more and more people....But what the hell! She`s The Best and I really like the ending,this is a movie everybody should see.


This is probably one of John Waters' most approachable films for the mass audience--along with CRY BABY and HAIRSPRAY. Unlike Waters' earlier films, which were meant for a niche audience (i.e., weird people--and I don't mean that derogatorily). So if you are looking for the ultra-low budget over-the-top films starring Divine, you may be disappointed that this film has a lot more polish and higher production values. However, this is NOT to say that SERIAL MOM is normal--just a lot more normal than these earlier flicks. Plus, this is one of the few Waters films you can watch with your kids--provided they are older and not terribly impressionable!

Kathleen Turner turns in her best performance as a combination between June Cleaver and Ted Bundy--complete with the pearl necklace. This movie, start to finish, is very funny and a great satiric look at life in the suburbs. In addition, like his later CECIL B. DEMENTED, it's an interesting satire that is a way over the top look at America's fascination with celebrity and how we admire and are fascinated with anyone if they are famous--even the vile and horrific.

NOTE--Like many of John Waters' later films, this one features a cameo by Patty Hearst.


SERIAL MOM, in my opinion, is an excellent comedy which will leave a big smile across your face. If you ask me, Beverly (Kathleen Turner) was very liberal about the way people should live their lives. After Carl (Lonnie Horsey) got bumped off, I was truly grossed out. If you want to know why, you'll have to see the movie. I really didn't like Dottie (Mink Stole) and Mrs. Jenson (Patsy Grady Abrams). However, when Beverly made those crank calls to Dottie, I laughed absolutely hysterically. When I saw an extreme close-up of the Sterner's (Doug Roberts and Kathy Fannon) mouths as they ate their dinner, I was absolutely disgusted. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone involved in this film did an outstanding job. Now, in conclusion, if you're a fan of Kathleen Turner, you should see this excellent comedy which will leave a big smile across your face.


This flic will be remembered as a classic for the some of the funniest dead-pan dialogue and gratuitous shots of T&A to fill one of the most absurd plots since "Gymkata". From the asteroid showers, to the extended shower scenes, to the blow-up doll decoy, to the awkward reactions to the horse race which obviously isn't taking place, this movie never stops entertaining.

It stays perfectly on the line between over-the-top farce while appearing to try to be a "real" film, in true Ed Wood fashion. It's amusing to read the comments of disappointed viewers who attempted to derive substance from this B-movie. This is one to watch late night on cable, preferably with some good friends and a keg.


The usual action flesh fantasy for male viewers, this Sidaris flick is not as good as a few others, but the girls looks great (there is my favorite Playmate, Wendy Hamilton, that doesn't show as much as I hope, but it's still a threat; there is also Julie Strain's Black Widow, with an opening scene Basic Instinct style that it's really good) and the action is good enough to let the 90 minutes of the movie pass without any boring moment. The plot is contrived, but it's part of the show: for a Sidaris movie it's a good enough one


Another film by Andy Sidaris' kid Drew, who mostly set his movies apart by only casting one ex-Playmate per project as opposed to Dad's four or five.

Here we've got a team of elite assassins (Penthouse Pets Julie Strain and Julie K. Smith and Playmate Wendy Hamilton) on a mission to eliminate scientists involved in some international peacemaking effort. Or something to that effect.

Many valuable lessons are gleaned. Such as: If you have to hire Pets instead of Playmates for your pandering Cinemax crapfest, you may as well consider a career change. These girls just don't measure up as thespians.

No, I couldn't keep a straight face writing that last sentence. But really, there's a glimmer of truth in that thought. Strain and Smith may have larger boobs than the Playmates of yore, but as performers they're cold and distant, even plastic. You don't ever desire them, let alone like them or care about what happens next.

Not an execrable film by any stretch, but something's clearly not right when it doesn't work even with all the abundant female flesh on view.


If you've seen one Sidaris flick (even those directed by his son), I think you've seen 'em all. Bullets, babes, explosions. All in a day's work and the Dallas Connection is no different. The story is downright dumb, the production values are on the low side and the budgetary restrains keep the action scenes short and terminally unexciting. The only real value (like most Sidaris flicks) are the women on display. Supplied here by Playmate Wendy Hamilton and former Penthouse Pets Julie Strain, Samantha Phillips and Julie K. Smith (one woman who seriously makes me drool). Her cowgirl grind in the club and the hot tub scene easily take top honors.

Take away the sad attempt at action and this is a glorified T&A flick for the guys. You know this, I know this. So final verdict, unless you're willing to withstand a hokey movie the likes of only the Sidaris name can make in pursuit of seeing some pretty ladies (or your a fan of Julie K. Smith), you're best to stay away. Don't say I didn't warn you otherwise.


I watched this movie last night - largely because of all the little people in the cast. Their guns were bigger than they were. Those secret radios that the good guys were given - what were they, Sony Walk abouts? Do the actors get paid when they make something like this? My favorite little guy was Bruce Penhall (from Chips), if he's 4'9" tall I'll eat my boots. Best scene was when of the little guys was at the beach with his jet ski and a babe shows up wearing a thong bathing suit and leather high heeled boots that went up to her crotch. I can't count the number of times I've seen that same outfit at the beach - it's so practical. I kept waiting for Erik Estrada to make a cameo, everything else I've seen his personal butt boy (Bruce Penhall) in has also had Erik making a grease show of it. Erik was probably booked making his land commercials for that hillbilly resort in Arkansas. All this film lacked was a mud wrestling scene.


There's nothing more exciting than seeing a slick Hollywood player like Sally Field getting down-and-dirty like she does in "Back Roads". At one point, she and her two male pals (Tommy Lee Jones and David Keith) are at a county fair and have no money. No problem! Sally fixes her hair and says to the guys, "Don't wait up." She knows how to make money (with her body) and nonchalantly sets out to do it. She's proving nothing to no one--it's second-nature to her--and when Keith calls her a 'whore' she tells him, "A whore is a sixteen-year-old with a bad reputation. I...am...a...hustler!" There are many moments to cherish in this rough jewel: Field standing outside the school where the little boy she gave up for adoption attends, running into his angry mother; Field writing a letter to the same child, telling him how sorry she is; Jones and Field getting off their bus after a fight and going their separate ways, each trudging down two dusty streets. It's a top-notch road comedy with Field and Jones overcoming the obvious sentimentality of the overall conception and making a memorable duo. *** from ****


Back Roads", a pointless movie which lacks direction and is void thematically, concerns a cross-country journey of discovery that is uninspired and uncovers little. Screenwriter Gary De Vore's would be road movie tells the story of a two people from Mobile, Alabama who head out to California to try and start their lives anew. The weak plot leaves little for Martin Ritt (director) to work with, and he is unable to swing the film into gear (it couldn't choose one) with any real force.

The pairing of Sally Field, who does reasonably well in this unusual role, and Tommy Lee Jones is never romantically moving, and the duo can make little of the sparse comedy and ineffective drama. David Keith drops by in a supporting role, but his meaningless character leaves him floundering.

De Vore made nothing of the subplot involving Miss Field's little boy.

Saturday, June 10, 1995 - Video


Hi. Long time ago I was on a Swedish ship, a general cargo ship on a trip from England to Brownsville, Texas. It was a bad ship, and it ended in a one-way ticket back to Sweden, paid by the Swedish embassy, but, however, there were some Mexican hookers visiting our ship every day during our stay, very friendly and "speakable", but one day when they came aboard one of them shouted "I'm a movie star", and she explained that she had a part in a film called "Crossroads" (later I found out that it was called Back Roads), featuring Sally Field. As the years went by I looked for this film but never found it, until today(!) 14th March 2007, when they showed it on cable television...fantastic! After all, she wasn't lying! A little story on the first day of spring here in Sweden. Yours Rune Carlsson


With this seemly arrogant but honest message showing on the screen, the film opens at a dark Edinburgh cemetery where two vicious figures lift a cadaver from its grave... "The Flesh and the Fiends" tells the true story of William Burke and William Hare, corpse-suppliers to the ambitious surgeon and university professor Dr. Robert Knox. From what I've read in factual biographies and works of reference (yes, I find this stuff so intriguing that I study it on the side), the screenplay is rather accurate and faithful when it comes to the basic re-telling of the murder cases. Burke and Hare's modus operandi as well as their negotiations with Dr. Knox really were this clumsy and unscrupulous while Knox damn well knew about the suspicious methods of the two, but he couldn't care less as long the study-objects he received were fresh and supplied regularly. I reckon that writer/director John Gilling then added some fictional elements to his film, like the characterizations of the main roles, since Hare's persona is almost blackly comical and Dr. Knox' attitude is stubborn and typically obnoxious like nearly every scientist in horror cinema. Still, the escalation of the tragedy is truthfully illustrated with Burke and Hare getting into the body-snatching business coincidentally at first, but quickly specializing in it because of the good cash money and eventually even converting to murder in order to deliver the most 'quality'.

"The Flesh and the Fiends" isn't just a great historical film, it also is a praiseworthy horror achievement with a uniquely grim atmosphere and very convincing acting performances. John Gilling terrifically revives a 19th century Edinburgh with its low-perspective inhabitants (drunks, beggars and thieves...) and ominous bars and alleys. The murders are very mean and cold-heartedly illustrated (the death of a young unintelligent boy, strangled amid squealing pigs is particularly unsettling) which probably makes this film the most disturbing of the entire 50's decade. Peter Cushing is excellent in the  for him  familiar role of brilliant doctor but it especially are Donald Pleasance (hypocrite and self-centered) and George Rose (a simple-minded killer) who impress as Hare and Burke. The supportive roles are somewhat stiff and they bring forward redundant sub plots, like the romantic interactions between Knox' daughter Martha and her doctor-lover Geoffrey. The typically Scottish accents are a joy to listen to and the eerie black and white photography emphases the already very chilling tone. This movie is still incomprehensibly underrated and unknown. Maybe because it's not a Hammer production or maybe because the substance was considered controversial for a long period of time. Fact remains that this old shocker is far better than most contemporary horror gems and everybody who has an interest in the obscure should urgently check it out!


The late '50s was one of the most important periods in the evolution of horror cinema - especially the British horror film, which was undergoing a radical new wave of gory Technicolour entries such as Dracula, The Curse of Frankenstein and The Mummy. Two men who were thrust into super-stardom thanks to these movies were Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, perhaps the finest horror actors ever to grace the genre. The Flesh And The Fiends (a.k.a Mania) is a 1959 chiller, shot in black and white, with Cushing in the main role. The black and white photography harks back to the style of the older horror films from the '30s and '40s, but the story is quite disturbing and includes some pretty grisly scenes more in line with the contemporary hunger for explicit blood and guts. And, while Christopher Lee might for once be missing as Cushing's co-star, Donald Pleasance proves himself to be a wonderfully adept replacement.

In 19th Century Edinburgh, a respected lecturer in anatomy, Dr. Knox (Peter Cushing), goes about his work and outwardly seems to be the perfect gentleman. However, he keeps a dark and disgusting secret from his niece Martha (June Laverick) and her lover Dr. Mitchell (Dermot Walsh). Knox secretly buys corpses from a pair of unscrupulous local grave-robbers named Burke (George Rose) and Hare (Donald Pleasance). With these dead bodies, Knox carries out secret anatomical studies. Burke and Hare, realising that they're onto a lucrative line of business, begin to murder victims rather than simply digging up the bodies of the already-dead so that they can keep the doctor stocked with corpses. This spate of murders doesn't seem to concern Knox too much, even though he suspects that Burke and Hare are the culprits.... so engrossed is he in his experiments that he is happy to turn a blind eye. Eventually Burke and Hare are captured for their crimes, the latter testifying against his accomplice to save his skin (though he is later pursued and blinded by a hateful mob), while - most disturbing of all - the cruel and calculating Dr. Knox is ultimately pardoned for his own part in the affair.

The Flesh And The Fiends is a very impressive horror film, in which Knox is shown to be the real monster by the way he uses his wealth and intellect to exploit the impoverished Burke and Hare. While Burke and Hare's motive is merely to make money, Knox manipulatively allows them to shoulder all the risk by carrying out the grave-robbing and murders that will get him his corpses. The scenes of squalor and filth are very powerfully captured, and the scenes showing dead bodies being dragged from their earthy graves are extremely provocative for the time. Cushing is outstanding as usual, and Rose and Pleasance make a genuinely creepy pair of resurrectionists. Though it might not be the gore-fest that modern audiences seem to demand, The Flesh And The Fiends is a gruesome treat for those who remember what old-style horror flicks were all about.


Peter Cushing plays the doctor who needs bodies in this fine adaptation of the Burke and Hare grave robbing case.Donald Pleasance and George Rose are both excellent as the infamous grave robbers.The film is truly atmospheric-full of packed bars,foggy streets and deep shadows-and the performance by Peter Cushing is simply amazing-Cushing is probably one of the most recognizable faces in the horror genre.The film has an eerie cinematic style reminiscent more of films from the 1940's than 1959.The first half of Gilling's story moves extremely slow,but the second half has some gruesome murder scenes.A must-see for fans of British horror!


Peter Cushing plays a lecturing doctor in 19th century Edinburgh who must buy fresh corpses to teach his students about the mysteries of anatomy. While the emphasis is on the doctor and the moral dilemmas he faces, Pleasance and Rose steal the show as Burke & Hare, no-goods who hit on the idea of providing their own, surprisingly fresh corpses ...

This is an unbelievably vivid horror tale, gruesome and perverse, years ahead of its time. It has some weaknesses, and a most peculiar ending, but Cushing and Pleasance give two of their best ever performances, Rose matches them, and a young Billie Whitelaw is memorable also. Despite being a film from the 50s, this is absolutely NOT for the squeamish! An overlooked minor masterpiece, every bit as important to its genre as PSYCHO or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Trivia: Although "Psycho" is widely credited with being the first film to feature the actual sound of a stabbing taking place, if memory serves me right, this one might have beaten it to the punch by a year ... I'd be grateful if anyone else could confirm this.


The Flesh and the Fiends is similar, in a lot of ways, to the Val Lewton produced Robert Wise film, The Body Snatcher, but for some reason; this one has flown further under the radar. It's odd, because despite the greatness of the other film; The Flesh and the Fiends is a lot better, and has the added malevolence of being based on a true-life story. The film takes place in Edinburgh, and director John Gilling does an excellent job of ensuring that the city looks as foreboding as possible, and the perfect home for a story as macabre as this one. The film follows the idea of having to break eggs to make an omelette, and sees Doctor Robert Knox buying corpses from a couple of murderous grave robbers in order for him to have subjects, from which new surgical procedures can be ascertained. The real stars of the show, however, are the graverobbers themselves; Burke and Hare. They begin their careers by simply taking bodies from graves; but once they realise how lucrative the business of selling cadavers is, they soon resort to making a few corpses of their own...

The biggest name in the cast is the one belonging to the great Peter Cushing. Cushing has shown throughout his career that he is capable of a number of different roles, and his role here is one of the best he's had. He gets to sink his teeth into the character of Doctor Knox. In fact, this man isn't a world away from Cushing's world-beating turn as Doctor Frankenstein in Hammer's classic series, which explains why Cushing is so good at it. George Rose and Donald Pleasance give the film its extra dimension in the roles of the graverobbers. Rose is good, but it's Pleasance who really stands out in this film. Seeing him in a role like this is actually quite heartbreaking; as here we see how great he can be, rendering his roles in films like Halloween even more of a waste of time. The plot plays out from a number of different angles, ensuring that there's always enough going on around the central plot to ensure that the film never dries up and becomes boring. It's strange that a film of this quality could fly straight under the radar; but somehow it has. However, copies of this are out there; and it definitely is well worth tracking down!


This is quite possibly the finest British horror-film ever made--except that it is entirely-true. The Flesh and the Fiends is nothing-less than a fairly truthful accounting of the original 'bodysnatchers,' Burke and Hare who resorted-to-murder after running-out of 'fresh' corpses for a Dr. Thomas Knox, of Edinburgh, Scotland. It is a scandalous-story that would never have been possible were it not for antiquated religious-notions that it was unholy to disinter the dead--even if approved by the deceased and their survivors--for the purposes of medical-inquiry. Shot in an shadowy-expressionist black, there are few films that top this in the horror-canon. Hammer had some great films, but this is really the capper. Burke and Hare just wanted money to drink and whore. In the squalor of early-industrial Britain, there were precursors to Jack the Ripper, and Burke and Hare could have taught Jack a few-lessons.

Britain's early-industrial poverty spawned rampant-licentiousness, disease and violence. When human-life is considered worthless, you get a tendency for crime and murder of this type. Groan all-you-want, but these were the fruits of a form of gross economic-inequality that prevails today. And for those who don't know, Great Britain in the 1820s was the time of Charles Dickens. Dr. Knox was one of numerous aristocratic-doctors of his day who had to resort to the employ of bodysnatchers to obtain fresh-cadavers for his anatomical-research. Because of this, Flesh and the Fiends is also a tale of scientific-ethics--with a wrongheaded-ending! Dr. Knox was definitely aware at some point that Burke and Hare were murdering human-beings for money (this all paid-handsomely at the time), to provide him bodies. It doesn't get much darker than this. Would we even bat-an-eye today? In Houston (circa 1960s-1970s), the coroner's office was selling the cadavers of homeless Black men to the Department of Energy for radiation-experiments. Today, there are organized-crime groups who snatch-organs from the living and the dead for the highest-bidders! Egads, bodysnatching never-ended.The film: it was produced by a tiny independent English studio called 'Independents-International', and is regarded as their best-film.

Directed by Hammer-director John Gilling, it was also a minor-hit, and is easily one of Peter Cushing's best-performances. Also noteworthy, is Donald Pleascence's performance of the deadly Hare, which is very nuanced. Cushing's performance is also nuanced, illustrating the moral-dilemma that Knox must have felt utilizing the kind-of cadavers Burke and Hare provided him. How can you lose with a movie that has him and Peter Cushing?! Everything about The Flesh and the Fiends is convincing, even for such a low-budget thriller. The original-negatives of the film were located in the 1990s, so most of the editions on DVD are superb, and contain the 'Continental version' that has plenty of flesh (and fiends) on-display. What a wild-romp, and yet what a chilling-parable of the abuses-of-power in a rotten-era of human-history. It's sad how things aren't very different. You could do worse than to watch this on those cold, Autumn-nights. This is a movie for true horror-lovers who realize horror is of human-origin. Be-sure to check the Brooksfilm (Mel's old-company) version of this story, 'The Doctor and the Devils' (1985). It's pretty good, too, though not-as-good as this. When I saw it as a kid, I thought it was about Jack the Ripper!


THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS followed in the wake of the success of Hammer Films' early successes. Although not actually a Hammer Film Production, it shares many stylistic points with Hammer. However, the script is a largely accurate version of the history of the body snatchers, Burke and Hare, and their main customer, Dr. Robert Knox.

Although there are memorable performances in this film, it is Peter Cushing's work as Dr. Knox that ultimately stands out. During the 1820's in Edinburgh, Scotland, Dr. Knox illegally bought cadavers from Burke and Hare. In spite of every reason to be suspicious of Burke and Hare, Dr. Know persisted in obtaining cadavers from them for medical lectures. To Dr. Knox, the training of competent doctors took precedent over ethical considerations.

In a remarkable scene in the denouement, a little girl in the street begs alms from Dr. Knox. Cushing tells her that he doesn't have any money with him, but if she will step over to his house he will give her some. The little girl politely declines the offer, saying, "Oh, no, you might be Dr. Knox." Cushing's unspoken response is truly unforgettable. It makes you realize that Peter Cushing was really a fine actor. What a pity his talent was too often wasted in pictures that were beneath him.


"The Flesh And The Fiends" of 1960 (other sources say 1959) is a grim, creepy, terrifying and often sad masterpiece of British Horror cinema, that no lover of the genre could possibly afford to miss. John Gilling's film is based on the true case of William Burke and William Hare who supplied the surgeon Dr. Robert Knox with fresh corpses in Edinburgh of the 1820s. The film has a very creepy, chilling Gothic atmosphere, and yet it accomplishes to seem frighteningly real. The story is incredibly macabre, and what makes it even more frightening is the fact that the morbid events in this film actually took place. In Edinburgh of the 1820s, the Medical University is supplied with too little corpses to properly instruct its students. Determined to provide the best possible conditions for research, the ambitious and brilliant Dr. Knox (Peter Cushing) engages corpse-snatchers to supply his University with fresh bodies. Two of the grave robbers, William Hare (Donald Pleasence) and William Burke (George Rose), however, have their very particular methods to bring in corpses that are especially fresh...

Aditionally to the terrifying and fascinating story and the gloomy atmosphere, "The Flesh And The Fiends" also profits from a brilliant cast. The great Peter Cushing, was doubtlessly one of the most remarkable and brilliant actors the World of Horror has ever seen (and ever will see), and he is once again excellent in the role of the dedicated scientist - a role that is familiar to Cushing, who is probably most famous for his portrayal of Baron Victor Frankenstein in the Hammer films. Dr. Knox is not a bad man as such, but his obsession for the good cause makes him forget most of his scruples. The arguably greatest performance in this film, however, comes from Donald Pleasence (another favorite actor of mine), who delivers an ingenious portrayal of evil as the unscrupulous Willaim Hare. Equally great is George Rose in the role of the more simple-minded part of the murderous duo, William Burke. The great black and white cinematography provides a gloomy general mood. The cinematographic style of the film is often compared to earlier Horror classics of the 1940s rather than to those of the late 50s and early 60s, and one can see why. The film's theme, however, and the uncompromising manner it is brought to screen, is unspeakably macabre for its time. The film provides terrifying Horror as well as tragic Drama and a very realistic insight in early 19th century society. I guess I am not standing alone when i declare Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasence two of my favorite actors. "The Flesh And The Fiends" is arguably the most brilliant film in either man's career, which is saying quite something regarding the variety of ingenious films Cushing ("Dracula", "The Curse Of Frankenstein", "Horror Express" etc.) and Pleasence ("Phenomena", "Prince Of Darkness") have been part of. Along with another Historical Horror masterpiece, Michael Reeves' "Witchfinder General" (starring Vincent Price), "The Flesh And The Fiends" is probably the most mature, serious and sophisticated British Horror film ever brought to screen, and an absolute priority for every Horror lover to see. 10/10


Solid, well-crafted but rather patchy cinematic treatment of the saga of notorious 19th Century "Resurrectionists" Burke and Hare and their unorthodox employer Dr. Robert Knox; in the vein of Hammer horror (featuring two of their most notable participants in Cushing and Gilling) though the lack of color makes it seem a half-hearted attempt (even if, with an eye on the low-budget, it was probably a conscious choice by the film-makers as the intentions were clearly of a serious undertaking)!

Anyway, the best thing about the film - apart from the vivid recreation of the era - are the performances of Peter Cushing (as the cold Dr. Knox, not unlike Baron Frankenstein), Donald Pleasance (an impressive early performance as the oily but quick-thinking Hare - his come-uppance is especially eerie) and Billie Whitelaw (as the proverbial "tart with a heart of gold" who ends up as one of the victims); Burke is played as a scurrilous but jovial brute (but who murders with the apparent complicity of his own wife) by character actor George Rose. Dr. Knox's condescending attitude towards his fellow colleagues also provides a number of entertaining confrontation scenes (my favorite line is during their face-off at his house, when he brusquely terminates the discussion by instructing them to "incline their heads slightly to the left...{in order to} observe the door...{and could they} please use it!"); Cushing, of course, is equally commanding while addressing his lectures or when scrutinizing the newest corpse.

The film makes a fine, though essentially unpleasant, companion piece to the more literate and subtle THE BODY SNATCHER (1945); the theme was again handled (by another horror veteran, Freddie Francis) a quarter of a century later in THE DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS (1985) - while Gilling himself had contributed to the script of an earlier variation, THE GREED OF WILLIAM HART (1948), starring Tod Slaughter! By the way, the producing team of Robert S. Baker and Monty Berman (who doubled as cinematographer) also brought to the screen the nefarious deeds of other historical figures such as JACK THE RIPPER (1959) and THE HELLFIRE CLUB (1961; upcoming on DVD from Dark Sky Films).

Image's DVD also includes the "Continental Version" which contains about a minute of more explicit violence and nudity (in the many tavern sequences) - though this only helps render it even more unsavory than it already is! The prints are distractingly soft throughout, and the severe widescreen ratio (2.35:1) hampers somewhat the viewer's complete involvement (at least on a normal T.V. screen); the "Continental Version" fares even worse, showing more damage and having rather scratched audio to boot! Unfortunately, the liner notes by Jonathan Sothcott were not available with my copy: it's probable that the disc was initially released as a snapper-case (with the essay on the inner sleeve) but was then dropped when re-issued in the more manageable keep-case!


Sterling casts highlights one of the better versions of the Burke and Hare story of the grave robbers who turn to murder to keep the flow of bodies flowing for the anatomy professor. Here the cast includes Donald Pleasance as one of the grave robbers, Peter Cushing as the doctor buying their wares and the always wonderful Billie Whitelaw as a tavern girl caught up in the ghoulish proceedings. More thriller than straight on horror movie the film has more than enough atmosphere for five or six of these films and it really helps to keep things interesting in the oft told tale. I really like this version a great deal and place near the top of the heap. Very much worth a look.


John Gilling's (The Mummy's Shroud) film is listed as a horror film, but it is really an exciting thriller about an anatomy teacher (Peter Cushing) and grave-robbers (Donald Pleasence - Halloween, Dracula, & George Rose).

Billie Whitelaw (Hott Fuzz, The Omen), with two BAFTA wins and four more nominations, plays a prostitute that falls for one of the medical students (John Cairney).

The grave-robbers find that it is easier just to kill someone and sell them, than to dig them up. It wasn't long before Mary (Whitelaw) had a spat with Chris (Cairney) and fell into the clutches of the murderers.

Imagine Chris' surprise when she shows up on the slab in class the next day.

Soon, the grave-robbers were committing murders to cover up their murders.

Excellent performances by Pleasence, who got what he deserved in a weird sense, Cushing, and Dermot Walsh, as Cushing's assistant. A fascinating story that is supposedly based upon a true event.


A surprisingly effective retelling of the adventures and ultimate fates of the two grave robbers and murderers -- William Burke (George Rose) and William Hare (Donald Pleasance) -- and Dr. Knox, the lecturer on anatomy (Peter Cushing) who was complicit in their crimes.

At the time, the mid-1800s in Edinburgh, Scotland, it was difficult for medical schools to come by cadavers for dissection. They were forced to wait for hangings and sometimes chafed at the long intervals between executions. The raggedy and snaggletoothed Burke and Hare, among many other "ressurectionists", collected dead bodies off the streets and sold them to Knox in an excess of zeal to advance the progress of medical science. The bodies would otherwise have wound up in pauper's graves. And there WERE dead bodies found on the streets. There is no poverty like the poverty of a northern city in the grip of unfettered industrialism.

However, if a thing is worth doing well, it's worth doing in extremes. Burke and Hare made the short and simple step from collecting dead bodies, through grave robbing, to murder. Knox is portrayed as a cold-blooded scientist who believes neither in the soul nor in the guilt of his two enablers.

I don't know how closely the script follows the historical events, but it's convincingly done, even if the budget is a bit low. The sets look a little perfunctory. The cobbled, crooked night-time streets of the city are nicely on display but there was no provision for fussy extras like street lamps or street litter or intimate nooks and crannies and cheap shops. The lighting seems to come from nowhere and what we're looking at appears to be a rather stark movie set instead of an atmospheric Edinburgh street.

Burke and Hare eventually go too far -- knocking off victims that are well known and fondly thought of by some of the community -- but they don't really change. The arc of character belongs to Cushing's Dr. Knox. He's openly insulting to other figures in the medical profession. He seems not devoted to helping humanity, but holds them in contempt. Until, after the trial of Burke and Hare, he stoops down in a city square when a tattered little girl asks him for alms. He has no money but invites her to accompany him to his home where he will give her some cash. "Oh, no!," she replies, "You might sell me to Dr. Knox." That does it for Knox. He discovers his compassionate side.

It would have been more effective if we'd seen his devotion to medicine but in fact his lectures have been as cold and distant as the rest of his character. Before this epiphany he's been a pretty unlikable snot, treating his students pitilessly.

The performances are all rather good. Pleasance is a charming, unpretentious, treacherous psychopath, a little like Long John Silver. Rose is the dummy who gets hanged because he didn't know how to play "the prisoner's dilemma" to his best advantage. Billy Whitelaw is sexy, almost feral, as the hard-drinking tart being courted by one of the medical students. She overacts much of the time but, when reined in by her instincts or the director, she delivers some thoughtful lines. But then no one's performance is so bad that it's outstanding.

I said that the sets and the set dressing didn't really evoke the Edinburgh of the 1840s and maybe that's a good thing. The cities of the period really stank -- literally. Endiburgh could be smelled miles away and was known as "Auld Reekie." In the absence of any social programs, poverty, drunkenness, poor health, and quick death were rampant on the foul streets. Women in particular were disenfranchised. Without a man, many of them wound up as prostitutes. The same conditions prevailed in London, making whores easy prey for Jack the Ripper.

Well, that's reality, but this is cinema and, as such, is pretty good. More artful, in my opinion, is Val Lewton's inexpensive effort from RKO, "The Body Snatchers," its demonic overtones notwithstanding.


In 1945, Val Lewton produced a wonderfully creepy film starring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi (THE BODY SNATCHER). It was based on a Robert Louis Stevenson novel which was a fictional story based on real-life serial killers, William Burke and William Hare, who were WAAAY over-zealous in procuring corpses for the local medical school in Edinburgh. Apparently they didn't bother waiting until the people died in order to make a few pounds--often suffocating their hapless victims!!

Years later, in 1960, another variation of the William Burke and William Hare story came to the theaters, but this one (starring Peter Cushing) was not based on the Stevenson novel but the actual crimes. While the Lewton movie was marvelous and horrifying, this one seems worth seeing as well because it is more realistic and unflinching (with some very brutal murders), plus it sticks much closer to the facts and mirrors the real decisions in the courts. Although whether or not Hare was blinded is a popular account that was never confirmed, this make for a cool inclusion in the film. Plus, I was really impressed by Peter Cushing's performance as a surgeon on a crusade--his speech before the graduating class and impassioned argument with old established "surgeons" was very impressive--some great oration indeed! Very, very interesting as well as well made--this British horror film is well worth seeing--especially since it's true!!


The notorious exploits of 19th century cadaver peddlers Burke & Hare have been the inspiration for numerous films, but none perhaps as faithful to the facts as 1959's "The Flesh and the Fiends." Although other movies have depicted the pair as grave robbers, here they are correctly shown to be not so much ghouls as brutal murderers who think nothing of slaying any drunkard, trollop or easy mark they come across to make a few extra guineas, selling their "fresh as a new-cut cabbage" wares to Dr. Robert Knox at a nearby Edinburgh medical school. Though the pair's murders took place from 1827-28 in real life, here, the action is compressed to the span of a few days' time, and whereas in actuality Burke was a lodger at Hare's home, this picture reverses those roles, strangely. But the film hews closely enough to the true story, and George Rose and Donald Pleasence are top-notch as the seedy duo. Playing the real-life Dr. Knox, Peter Cushing gives one of the finest performances I have ever seen him contribute; he is truly superb here in his morally conflicted role. Kudos also to Billie Whitelaw, "The Omen"'s nanny from hell, here playing a tragic pub girl. A literate script, handsome production values, striking B&W photography, some unflinching murder scenes and a few gross-out sequences really do put this picture over. One would think, with Cushing's presence and director John Gilling at the helm, that this might be a Hammer film (Gilling later went on to give us such extraordinary Hammer fare as "The Plague of the Zombies" and "The Reptile"), but in truth it was shot at Shepperton, and its creators have done a good job at pastiching the Hammer style. The nice-looking widescreen DVD that I just watched, from the fine folks at Image, also contains the racier "Continental" version of "The Flesh and the Fiends," which adds little more than a few topless tavern floozies and a slightly more explicit hanging sequence; not much of an improvement. Whichever version the viewer chooses to watch, however, a highly entertaining and, yes, educational time is almost guaranteed. I really did enjoy this one.


Well written and directed by John Gilling, this low budget British film is a surprisingly accurate rendering of the true story of body snatchers Burke and Hare in 1820's Edinburgh. Real names are used and the gruesome events are depicted as they occurred. A fine cast makes this a memorable film. Billie Whitelaw as a seemingly hardboiled, but vulnerable, prostitute , and John Cairney as her young medical student boyfriend are moving as the doomed lovers, fated to be kept apart by class divisions. Peter Cushing is in fine form as the sarcastic and brilliant Dr. Knox, who doesn't ask questions as to where all the fresh bodies are coming from. Donald Pleasence as Hare, and George Rose as Burke are both repellently funny and genuinely frightening in their murderous pursuit of a dishonest dollar. Pleasence plays Hare with a sly, roguish charm, but a creepy undertone of mental disturbance that's quite unnerving. George Rose has a grungy, thick-witted manner and grubby appearance that conceal a cunning criminal mind. Renee Houston has a great supporting role as Mrs. Burke, uneasy about her husband's activities, but all too willing to share in the profits. Though made on a low budget, the movie convincingly portrays the squalor, alcoholism and petty crime of the lower class street life of Edinburgh, contrasted with elegant formal dress parties held by the wealthy and respectable citizens. This is a suspenseful and very dramatic film that deserves a wider audience. Real life horror stories don't come much grimmer than this.


Shocking, surprisingly potent horror feature about the possible downfall of Edinburgh anatomy professor Dr. Robert Knox(Peter Cushing with one eyelid collapsing)who illegally accepts murdered bodies from supposed graverobbers Hare & Burke(Donald Pleasence and George Rose).

Burke and Hare's scheming of killing and supplying works until they murder Knox's apprentice Chris Jackson(John Cairney), Chris' prostitute lover Mary(Billie Whitelaw), and especially well-liked young Jamie(Melvyn Hayes).

Cushing as the cold, logical doctor who abandons emotion because it just gets in the way of his work, and Pleasence as cruel scoundrel Hare are both chilling in their own way.

This film should be quite an interesting pairing with the 1987 film, "The Doctor and the Devils" because both films deal with the same themes yet change in certain ways. In "Flesh" there's a positive outlook for Knox who comes to the understanding of what he was doing wrong because he had abandoned any emotion when it came to accepting any corpse those two brought him only thinking about science and leaving away the conscience. In "Devils", Timothy Dalton's anatomy professor was always sympathetic to the plight of those around him and always had emotion present on his face. Yet, Dalton's doctor's outlook is a bit gloomy in that film.

Also Julien Sands and Twiggy(representing the characters played by Cairney and Mary in the "Devils" version)have a much better outcome in their film than the pupil and prostitute in "Flesh and the Fiends." This is quite a well made chiller, atmospheric and quite stunningly violent for the time it was a made.


What a nice surprise this movie was. Director John Gilling surely knows how to make a well build up thriller with a slow pace but never a dull moment.

The movie is extremely well written and has some at times incredibly good dialog. The fact that this movie is based on the true story of Burke and Hare-, two murderers who sold their victims to professor Knox, who uses them for his research, makes the movie even more interesting to watch.

This movie is not really an horror movie, I would prefer to describe it as a dark-thriller. The movie doesn't have any scares but it has some well build up tension and a great thriller-story. I think it is more because of the fact that Cushing and Pleasance are in this, that people consider this a horror movie. But please, when watching this movie, don't expect a movie with walking death people or Cushing in a role of a 'Frankenstein' like professor.

The movie is shot in atmospheric black & white. It was wonderful to see both Cushing and Pleasance in black & white for a change. My only complaint about the style is that it is a bit too dark at times, which makes the movie sometimes hard to follow.

Peter Cushing is most certainly good in his role as Dr. Robert Knox but it really is Donald Pleasence who uplifts the movie with his performance. This might very well be the best performance of him I have ever seen in a movie. He plays a slimy-tramp who is the lead-murderer of the movie. His character is portrayed so powerful and believable without ever going over-the-top.

It really is the way the movie is build up and the wonderful directing by John Gilling that makes this movie an absolutely great thriller that deserves to be better known.

9/10


Now that this film has been restored for DVD by Image Entertainment, it is a joy to watch -- nice but not flashy photography and directing, and masterful but not overbearing acting make this a good find. But it's not quite as satisfying as "The Body Snatcher" on the same Burke/Hare theme because it doesn't engage the dark undertones of the human psyche through its sadistic "graverobbers" as much as the Karloff film, but instead dwells more on the scientific ethics issues. Still, some sick, slightly scary scenes with Pleasence. Cushing is excellent as always. If you saw this on video or TV, you might want to give it a second look (like I did) on DVD because it looks a whole lot better.


From what I've read, this movie comes as close as any to featuring a reasonably realistic and true-to-life presentation of the Burke and Hare story. For those unfamiliar with the story, Burke and Hare were grave robbers in 19th Century Scotland. The bodies they stole were sold to a doctor to be used in anatomy classes. Burke and Hare discovered that murder was a much easier and a more profitable way of filling the doctor's demand for fresher bodies. The movie features two horror icons  Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasence  in performances that I consider to be among the best of their careers. The movie may be a little slow and "talky" for audiences used to the MTV style editing, but this only added to the atmosphere as far as I'm concerned. Burke and Hare's total disregard for human life effectively adds a "nastiness" to the movie that I often find missing from British movies from this period.


The Flesh and the Fiends, also known as Mania, is one of those pleasant surprises. It is a very good film with excellent acting, a thorough, thought-provoking script, suspenseful direction, and quite a jarring, almost twisted/perverted mood. I was genuinely surprised just how good this film was, because I had heard so little about it. But I can honestly say that I found it a highly enjoyable, disturbing, horrific film. Where to begin? Let's start first with the story. The story covers old ground here(The Body Snatcher with Boris Karloff for instance precurses this)about those two infamous body snatchers of Scotland Burke and Hare and the doctor who needs dead bodies to help find cures for the sick - Dr. Knox. This film is pretty faithful to those stories. What really helps this come alive is three characterizations done by three highly gifted actors: Peter Cushing, Donald Pleasance, and George Rose. Rose plays Burke and Pleasance plays Hare and I do not think I have seen two men play such vile, degenerate men as well as these two do. They both ooze oil and shed scales with their portrayals of heartless, cold, ignorant men who don't want to work and find that there is easy money in grave robbing. Soon they find it is even easier to just kill then dig up bodies(in fact they do not dig up ONE body in this film). Rose is snaggle-toothed and has a real weird twitching laugh. He is just plain repulsive and this is one of his finest characterizations in film. The same can be said for Pleasance who also plays a bad man with such conviction. Both he and Rose fit like gloves together. But as good as these two are, the real star of the film is that wonderful, under-appreciated British screen stalwart Peter Cushing, who makes cold stoicism seem so easy. Cushing plays Dr. Knox as a heartless man only concerned with science and who never really wants to think about where these bodies that he pays for come from. Cushing plays the role to the hilt in several scenes. My favorite is where he argues with "colleagues" about their medical shortcomings, saying, "incline your heads to the right Gentlemen. There you will find the door. I suggest you use it." I love his ability to be so arrogant and yet so witty and convincing. Cushing even goes through some kind of a catharsis in this film which he does as only he can. Director John Gilling, a great Hammer film director, shows us why he was to make such good films as Plague of the Zombies. He is very sure behind the lens and knows how to pace and create suspenseful scenes. Mania is a very good film that, despite its above-average acting and directing, should make you think a bit about several philosophical/moral/ethical questions. Questions that may have changed shape today but still exist in some form.


In 1820 Edinburgh, two man Hare and Burke are looking for a quick buck by turning to body snatching and suppling their corpses to an anatomist Dr. Knox. Though, soon there obsession turns to murder and the Doctor don't seem to worry how they are getting their cadavers. But things change when they go one step to far and get caught in the act.

'The Flesh and the Fiends' is a historically realistic account of the true story about the murders that were committed by Burke and Hare in Edinburgh of the early 19th century. This portrait of these two corpse robbers turned serial killers covers disturbing subject matter and the piercing Dr Knox's emotionless state of mind makes one shiver. The film also has some similarities to the brilliant 'The Body Snatcher (1945)', which also followed in the same vein and starred the ever-reliable Boris Karloff. The difference is this one is about the horror and morality about an issue of a scientific level, while 'The Body Snatcher' was more a character driven film that looked how guilt, greed and pride can personally destroy someone by becoming an unwanted ordeal. Even this was more graphic in its depiction of the continuous violence that it becomes a real unsettling mix, especially on how we see these two men act with joy and lightness after and sometimes during their actions. The first and last death showcases that perfectly. The sexual context too, didn't go by unnoticed with undertones it was the real deal and director John Gilling brought to the screen with such penetrated attention a provocative period piece that grips you with its unpleasantness. Which by no means makes it a bad thing.

For sure this flick would have been shocking for its time, but that makes it more the reason to seek it out. Maybe it was made before its time? Because the context of it doesn't seem to fit the era, but hey there's a first for everything, right? Also contributed to the story is that of the accomplished satire of class status and treatment, between the wealthy upper-class and working class who live in a slum. This was moulded into the plot with one of Knox's students seeing a working class girl, showing how they live in two totally different worlds, but no matter their lifestyles, they shared a unique bond that meets a tragic end. Also through aspects of the plot you can tell its having a scathing attack on the upper class (Dr. Knox) by taking advantage of the certain situations by getting the poor to do their dirty work for them, while keeping their hands basically clean. Though, it might have some biting topics covered, but there's still a sub-plot involving Knox's niece that seems more or less irrelevant to the overall proceedings. But overall the film's momentum never slows up and I was kept in awe by the simply amazing performances of the cast and the exceptional direction in constructing the period.

There are shades of dirtiness amongst this blunt atmosphere of lurking horror. The forbidding streets that are covered with such eerie buildings, stark lighting and dark shadowy pathways breaths an uneasy grittiness and that alluding essence of it creep up in certain scenes. The camera-work also evokes some attention too; by holding together the films steady structure and menace by getting deep into the terrifying hysteria that this mess eventuates into. What stands out more so in the spotlights are the superbly portrayed characters that there isn't a minor hiccup in the performances.

Peter Cushing's determined Dr. Knox whose all too blinded by his work to see the wrong in his ways, but this honour takes a huge bump when it takes a child to knock him off his perch. Cushing plays out that moment brilliantly by providing us that even though he's an honourable man that can take it on the chin, but that moment he gives us a small glimpse of remorse and to question his own actions, which makes you feel for him a bit. While, Cushing's stern performance is transfixing, Donald Pleasence and George Rose were incredibly persuasive as the colourfully upbeat body snatchers Hare and Burke that held such a cold-hearted and malevolent nature, with the carelessness of their greed causing their own downfall. The way they would go to any lengths to provide the good doctor with a corpse really did have shattering effect on the compulsiveness of their acts. It was hard to see how immune they have become to it that now it was second nature and how the black humour of it flowed between the two. Pleasence, though who did play Rose's character like a puppet, really gets your skin crawling, especially with his sly nature, body movement and reactions to when performing these callous acts. While, Rose's performance is remarkably sufficient as the controlled brute. These two surefooted characters that bounce off each other are what makes the film and all that credits goes to Pleasence and Rose to achieving this. The other cast members too were downright splendid Dermot Walsh as Knox's fellow doctor/friend, Renee Houston as Burke's wife, John Cairney as one of Knox's medical students Chris Jackson and then you another equally good performance by Billie Whitelaw as the strong-minded Mary Patterson.

The script too, is fleshed out rather well, by upping the suspense and surprises but also questioning that of morality and the backlash of this touchy subject. And not forgetting the melodramatic spurts too, which added a down to earth approach. Where the honour of Knox's work eventually comes through and the ending does kinda play the whole thing down. Though honestly, the way it plays out amongst the accuse, it shows how class can have an easy influence on certain outcomes. So there's no poetic justice here, which makes it more believable in the finish product.

Unrestingly gritty and hard-boiled thriller that holds miraculous performances all round.


As soon as I started to view this film, I knew I was going to enjoy every minute of the entire story. It reminded me of "The Bodysnatcher", 1945, starring Boris Karloff & Bela Lugosi, where Karloff tells the story of Burke & Hare and sings a song to Bela Lugosi and asks him if he would like to be BURKED??. In this film, Peter Cushing,(Doctor Robert Knox), Monster Island",'81 plays the surgeon who teaches and desires fresh bodies to experiment with and Donald Pleasence (William Hare),"Safe Haven",'95, does everything he can to help Dr. Knox with his experiments and at the same time earn schillings and pounds for his assistance. George Rose, (William Burke),"The Tree",'69, works hand in hand with his buddy Bill Hare, and even goes to a great deal of trouble arranging for these many experiments to become possible. This is a great Classic from the late 1950's, just sit back and have Burke & Hare do a number on YOU ! !


What a disappointment. "The Flesh and the Fiends" has a lot going for it, including a cast of familiar genre faces (Peter Cushing, Donald Pleasence, and Billie Whitelaw), decent production values, and a distinctly eerie atmosphere. Unfortunately, the story of an anatomy professor (Cushing) who uses fresh corpses brought in (and often killed) by two bums (including a pre-bald Pleasence) plays more as a straight drama than a horror film; there would be nothing wrong with this if the story had a hint of interest, but it doesn't. Stripping away the credentials of the cast, the film itself is slow, talky, and generally uninteresting. Sort of like an AIP film without the cheese, and a Hammer film without the fine polish.


976-EVIL 2: The Astral Factor starts at Slate River college where the dean Mr. Grubeck (Rene Assa) has just murdered pretty blonde teenager Lori Glazier (Karen-Mayo Chandler) which brings his murder count to five girls, this time however a drunk bum named Turrell (George 'Buck' Flower) is witness to his crime & Grubeck is arrested. Grubeck is given his statutory one phone call which he uses to phone 976-EVIL a direct line to hell, Grubeck is given powers which enable him to astrally project himself while asleep & is also given the name of the drunk who meets a very sticky end that night. Meanwhile pretty blonde teenager (notice a pattern here?) Robin (Debbie James) is contacted by 976-EVIL survivor Spike (Patrick O'Bryan reprising his role from the original) who knows that Grubeck is using the Satanic hot-line to murder & generally be antisocial, by a strange coincidence Robin used to work for Grubeck who developed a crush on her & he still has it...

Directed by Jim Wynorski, whose very name when attached to a film sends shivers down my spine, 976-EVIL 2: The Astral Factor is a terrible sequel to a fairly decent original. The script by Erik Anjou plays the concept far more like a standard teen slasher (as if we didn't already have enough) rather than trying to develop the demonic phone-line to hell idea as in the first, instead they take the 976-EVIL premise & simply use it to give some supernatural powers to a homicidal maniac who wants to kill lots of dumb & annoying teenagers, yawn. The whole things a bit of an embarrassment really, it's predictable, the character's really are stupid & gullible, the exploitation elements are lacking & as a film it provides little in the way of entertainment. The opening scene features a naked blonde in a shower for no reason other than show off her breasts, she is chased by Grubeck & then just lies there & waits for him to kill her which he does by pulling a rope which releases a fake stalactite to impale her! It doesn't get much better either apart from a couple of decent car chase scenes & one or two nice kills, overall there is very little to recommend here I'm afraid.

Director Wynorski still had the nerve to use his real name on the credits when he made this back in '91 instead of hiding under his usual Jay Andrews pseudonym, the film is reasonably well made but it doesn't have any style or the visual look of the first film. It's pretty bland & forgettable stuff while the gore is also disappointing, someone is impaled, someone has a garden trowel stuck in them in a direct rip-off, sorry homage to Night of the Living Dead (1968), a few after the fact slit throats, & in the films best moment a guy is hit by a speeding truck & he just explodes everywhere, excellent. 976-EVIL is also one of those films where it's fun to try & spot all the continuity errors as there's plenty of them.

Technically the film is OK, although I'm sure that truck at the end changes between a tanker trailer & box trailer... Now on to the best aspect of 976-EVIL, Miss USA finalist Debbie James. Frankly she is one pretty hot looking young lady & makes the film a lot easier to sit through that's for sure, she can't act but she sure looks good & nobody's perfect are they? As for everyone else the acting sucks including original cast returnee O'Bryan.

976-EVIL: The Astral Factor is an awful film from the ever awful Jim Wynorski, it didn't do anything for me & I think the original 976-EVIL (1987) is a far superior film that tried to do something with the concept whereas this doesn't.


I have to say this movie surprised me in that it was very well produced and directed. This movie is much better than the original 976-evil movie, the acting is better, the script is better and the characters are more believeable. Now let me talk a little bit about the main character in the movie, her name is Debbie James and wow what a hottie! She is a former Miss Teen USA and a former Miss USA finalist. She is also a former Miss Colorado. Her acting isn't bad either in this movie and she is the main character. I wish Debbie james would appear in more movies (she only has had minor roles in a few subsequent movies) but at least we get to see her as the main character in this interesting movie, which is certainly worth renting and even buying. I give this movie 8 out of 10 stars!


Gracious be, what a story. A wicked teacher(Rene Assa)takes advantage of powers obtained from his phone calls to Satan. Some creative murder scenes and a fun watch with a party crowd. Debbie James is nice in the looks department, but light in acting skills. Patrick O'Bryan seems miscast as the biker hero. Also in the cast is Philip McKeon.


What starts out as a predictable film documenting the Miss World Canada pageant, quickly evolves into a dramatic and entertaining film that keeps you riveted to the screen. The final evening where the winner is crowned is one of the most beautiful and compelling moments I've scene in documentary film. Beautifully styled shots and a sparse yet rich sound design leaves you feeling emotionally drained by the end. The way the film cuts from the backstage frenzy to the silence, beauty and calm serenity of the girls on the stage is absolutely breathtaking. Attempting to do a film on a beauty pageant could very easily have been nothing more than fluff, but this is a film that doesn't try to uncover anything more than the raw emotions that happen during the pageant.


I have always loved documentary films and studied film in university.When a friend of mine told that there was a documentary on beauty pageants that was going to be on television, I tuned in. The first thing that struck me about this particular documentary was that it didn't have a lot of the traditional interviews and there was no voice over - instead the filmmakers developed the story through the characters themselves, and what ensues is a unique approach to this form of film-making. It's great to see a documentary film that utilizes the camera to not only document, but to compose visually stunning shots as well. The editing really brought out the drama of the film and the music was really really good. It was great to see a fresh approach to this form of film-making. May there be more films like this.


I didn't know quite what to expect about this film, but when i saw it on television i was hooked from the beginning. While i'm not a huge fan of beauty contests, i thought that it was a really well done film. As a teacher, it really made me think about what the purpose of beauty contests are in this day and age... and after having seen the film and the girls involved, i believe that is nothing more than just a beauty pageant. The judges in the film kept talking about how the contest was "Beauty with a purpose", but i never got that was truly what the event was about. I think that we should see it the way that it really is "A Beauty Contest". I really enjoyed the drama of the film and the ending. As a big fan of documentary films, I thought the approach to this film was very fresh and it was exceptionally well done.


One of my favorite girls was Miss London! She was one of the only girls in this film that really appeared to be their true self. Every other girl seemed to be on their best behavior, and I thought that they really weren't being themselves. Miss London seemed to be the only one who said what was on her mind. I especially liked the ending where she was complaining about her hair on the final night. Jimmy was another good character in the movie, it seemed like he was the one who had to do all the work to put on the show. And through it all he was always so nice and patient with the girls. I thought the movie was really entertaining and i really liked the way it came together in the ending. It was nice to see a documentary that was informative as well as entertaining.


I've seen a lot of documentary films on the pageant industry, but i found "Five Days To Fame" to be really entertaining and you really got a sense of the drama that happened during the competition. I certainly didn't expect that it would be this good! I thought the direction, filming, editing and music were outstanding. One of things that I liked about the way this was done, was how you really got a chance to see how the judging was done. It certainly was an eye opening insight into the judging, because I came away with sense that these judges were certainly not qualified to be in that position. It was a great insight in to the behind the scenes of the pageant. I highly recommend this film, especially if you're a fan of beauty pageants.


The traditional documentary format can be extremely boring and hard to watch if you don't like the subject matter. Every once in a while you come across a documentary film that is entertaining and dramatic, regardless of whether or not you like the subject matter. While I must say that I don't particularly like beauty pageants this is a film that I found to be engaging. The pacing was great and the use of a visual countdown to the last day really heightened the sense of drama. An incredibly well crafted, visually stunning film with a really subtle yet powerful soundtrack made for one of the better documentary films of the year. As the film progressed i found myself really emotionally connected to the characters and to the outcome.


If you're expecting 'America's Next Top Model', "Five Days to Fame The Miss World Canada Story" is definitely not it. What really struck me about this film was that at the beginning none of the girls looked like they had a chance a being Miss World Canada.... they came across as unglamorous, unsure of themselves and quite immature. as the film progresses you start to see a transition in only few of the contestants. I actually like the way the film was done, it was filled with great drama and was exciting form beginning to end. Jimmy Steele was a great character in the film, he really was there for all the contestants and pulled off the event itself single handedly. It was a really well done film that kept me entertained form beginning to end.


Okay, so as a fan of the Korean cinema look I brought Princess Aurora... and I have to say that I was VERY impressed. It is a difficult film to watch at times, and it does take a while for the film to get going.

I'm not going to put in any spoilers but if you do not want to know anything at all about the film please just accept that it is worth it and stop reading.

Im trying not to sound to geeky but imagine if David Mamet (glengarry glen ross, Ronin) wrote for chan Wook Park (old boy, lady vengeance) and you would know what I mean.

OK, so half an hour into the film I thought it was just another murder film, but it really is so much more.

It is not perfect by any means. the police seem clumsy at times and the film gel as well as it could, but this is all for a reason, and that reason is shown in the 20 minute finale which is better than anything Hollywood can do. It is the type of ending that has you literally hiding behind a cushion one minute, then jumping up and cheering the next.

If you liked lady vengeance or dark water, this is a film for you, if you like good cinema that makes you think then again this is a good movie for you.

Park may be the fashionable director at the moment, and rightly so if you have seen his films, but Eun-jin Bang who directed this film is definitely one to look out for. Also, you should watch this before Hollywood remakes it, which no doubt it will at some point.

I just liked the movie, and I hope more people give it a go.


For those of you that like the amount of cruelty and bloodshed in Lady Vengeance, this film will seem subtle.

The acting of the female lead is convincing enough to warrant the 106 minutes of it.

At first, the movie seemingly revolves around a young woman who kills mercilessly for justice. However, as the story continues, her actions became methodical and preempted. Only at the very end of the story do we actually get to know the angst, grief and pain that forced her into such a state of mind.

This movie, although Korean, also reflects on the other Asian societies where wealth, materialism and self-centredness are overshadowing the importance of kindness and virtue.


In an interview with cine21 magazine director Pang Eun-jin refers to her film Princess Aurora as "a melodrama, and a very dark one at that." Unfortunately, too many people have been fixated on comparing it (often unflatteringly) to Park Chan-wook's Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. The two films have very little in common, in fact. Pang's film is a movie about grief, and the actions of the lead character are more representations of that overwhelming grief than they are about getting even. There's none of the emphasis on careful plotting and methodical execution that we get in Lady Vengeance-- just a series of seemingly unconnected crimes. In this sense, the film is more like Hitchcock's Marnie, or Truffaut's The Bride Wore Black than it is like Park's film. Indeed, the sequence in the hospital seems to be a clear reference to Truffaut's film version of the Cornell Woolrich novel. The performances in the film are all first rate, and the single flashback sequence toward the end of the film (the flashback that explains the motivations for the lead character's actions) is both heartbreaking and horrifying. Princess Aurora is a commentary on Korean society (e.g., the position of women in Korean society, Korean society's view of children, etc.), not a simple story of revenge. Where Park's film is a overwhelming and spectacular, Pang's film is quiet and thoughtful--the type of film that will leave viewers capable of appreciating its subtle style thinking for some time. It is an underrated masterpiece.


this really shouldn't work. it's shot on video which is always a bad thing, the acting is bad - especially when the actors try speaking English. the sex scenes are laughable - the type where characters bonk away without removing their underwear apparently.

the gore is badly done too - it makes blood feast look professional! people having their insides pulled out by the villain just seem to be standing there and allowing him to do it!

despite this, it's good fun - the gore (despite it's low quality) is yucky and even funny and there's lots to see in the film - it's made with enthusiasm.

worth a watch with pre knowledge of how bad it all is.


This is a remake of the classic Joe D'amato, George Eastman film "Anthropophagus". The movie is about a man, wife and child who are shipwrecked out at sea. After days without any food the man goes crazy and eats his family. Upon return to his home town (the little boat they were on somehow brought him back) he murders and eats everyone in the town. Sometime later a group of tourists come to the town only to discover the horror of what has happened.

This was a good remake in many ways and a bad in only a few. First I should start with the gore. The original film was gory for the time but pales in comparison to a movie like "The Beyond" or "Zombi 2". The remake, however, is one of the goriest films ever. Schnaas takes the role of the beast in the movie and kills people in many innovative ways. For instance, he bashes someones face in (literally) with a rock and then disembowels him. Then a later scene he gains the power to remove a womens head with his own hands making it look pretty easy. And of course two of the most controversial scenes are in the movie taken right from the original.

Second, the acting was actually not bad for a movie filmed with what looks like a camcorder. The main stars of the movie play their roles appropriately even if the script is a bit dry.

Now my only complaint with this film was it was missing the utter dread that made the original movie so good. This movie is not creepy at all. Although, I will say it's always dreadful to see someone being chopped to pieces with an ax but I am mainly talking about the atmosphere. It was very bland but the movie more than makes up for it with the gore scenes which lets's face it, make this movie.

I would have to say I love this film and recommend it to anyone that is a shock/gore fanatic. 8/10 stars


The original Man Eater by Joe D'Amato is somewhat of a cult classic. And by now, everyone should know that cult classics HAVE to be remade! Luckily, Andreas Schnaas decided to give the George Eastman flick some very special treatment.

Do not under any circumstances watch Anthropophagous 2000 alone.

Independent film-making can result in incredibly entertaining movies. There just has to be a certain dedication and respect towards the original source and the audience.

Andreas Schnaas doesn't know diddly-squat about that...

The camera work is quite good, I have to admit, but that's about it. There are plenty of negative aspects though.

The acting is... Just horrible. Absolutely horrible. I love amateur splatter films, but an able director always manages to get marginally talented people for the butchering. If not, he'll get camp, over the top teens that are only there for our amusement.

Andreas Schnaas does not want to amuse you...

The sound is excusable. It's the original soundtrack, filmed on location, so don't expect to hear a word the cast says. Not that it matters, but some dubbing would have been appropriate.

Last but not least, the gore. It's a bloody mess, that's for sure, but herein lies Schnaas talent. If your film is as unbelievably trashy as this, you have to make up for that. The easiest way to do that is either by getting the girls naked or disposing of them in the most graphic way possible. Naked girls: Not really. Blood and guts: Definitely. Decapitations, disembowelments, tearing off faces and... THAT climax kill. You know, the one with the pregnant woman.

Anthropophagous 2000 is low budget, low quality and low everything. If you're planning on renting a trashy Friday night flick, then go for something else. Maybe a Troma film. Terror Firmer or The Toxic Avenger. Or stay in Germany and get an old Olaf Ittenbach film. Heck, you've all heard of Braindead!

BUT, if you're planning on getting wasted with some mates... Ladies and gentlemen:

ANTHROPOPHAGOUS 2000!

When watched alone: 0/10

When watched under the influence with company: 10/10


Anthropophagous 2000 (1999) is your typical Andreas Schnaas gore movie, in this one he pays homage to the classic video nasty from 1980 (Anthropophagous the beast), and makes it even more fun and A lot more gory in the process!! :o) If you don't know the story, well it's simple, it's about this cannibalistic loner who preys on a group of young people who come investigating in his area, one by one he kills off the group in a manner of revolting ways........ some of the gore is cheap looking but some is a lot more realistic, just some of the examples of the gore are: axe in the face, guts being pulled out of peoples throats, baby being pulled out of a pregnant woman's stomach, and then chewing on the baby's head, gruesome stuff!!! All in all this movie is well worth checking out, especially if your fan of GORE, i really enjoyed it, it's not Schnaas best movie tho which is Violent Sh*t 3: Infantry of Doom.


Critics and fans alike can rejoice with this, the newest feature from Germany's master of low-budget scares, Andreas Schnaas.

ANTHROPOPHAGOUS 2000 is nasty, gruesome, and just completely sickening, but certainly fun to watch. Filmed with completely professional actors and in some gorgeous locations, its really true that Andreas has taken leaps and bounds in filmmaking. This worthy remake of THE GRIM REAPER could use only one thing - a U.S. release! Maybe then, fans could see the beauty of some true German madness!!!


First of all I have to admit that I did not really like the original Maneater. But this film truly made me bite my nails.

Lots of gore and splatter, great actors and marvelous special-effects.

Andreas Schnaas has really made a step forward to professional filming.


This is no budget at its best. Hope to see more of A. Schnaas in the near future (heard he is doing an new 35 mm film called "Demonium"). This one really is great underground, and great special fx.


I thought Sweet Hideaway was a good movie. I found it to be very entertaining. I knew it was an independent film prior to my viewing it, so I did not go to see it expecting a "Feature Film" presentation. I especially liked the family scene with the Aunt and the little boy. The coach was hilarious (although he did go a little over board with the profane language). It was nice seeing all the new faces (actors) in the movie. Everyone did a great job!

Overall, I enjoyed the movie!


"Sweet Hideaway" may not succeed overall in its approach. However, several moments in the film are hilarious. The talent gathered for the effort are amazing, taking average material and making it interesting. New talent Chip Joslin, Benjamin Dane, Marco Rodriguez, Dane Hereford shine in their performances. "Sweet Hideaway" is far from a perfect comedy, but it succeeds on several levels. The added cast of Rickey Smiley, Anthony Johnson and Natalie Desselle propel the film and veteran Burton Gilliam adds an over-the-top element that actually helps ground the story. Newcomer Parisa Fakhri is also very endearing. "Hideaway" provides a start to several talented actors and is a guilty pleasure to watch. It is a film that promises to offend on every level but is not mean-spirited in its delivery.


This movie is the perfect example of why people who have no talent should ever produce again. Obviously this movie hasn't even got a distributor, even Ed Wood knew how to make a bad movie good. This one just starts bad and ends that way. I don't understand how the producer would hire such an inept director/writer.


"Vacation for a Massacre" is yet another in the long string of (mostly Italian) films that noticeably imitate the 1972 US megahit "Last House on the Left", and this film by Fernando Di Leo (director of the infamous "Slaughter Hotel")is certainly one of the best. The plot is simple and familiar: An escaped convicted murderer (Joe Dallesandro)invades the cottage of a man (Gianni Macchia), his wife (Patrizia Bhen) and the wife's sister (Lorraine de Selle), and proceeds to torment this already dysfunctional trio with rape and violence. Di Leo clearly made the most of the film's low budget by eliciting excellent performances from his cast, especially in the case of Dallesandro, who is known mostly for his constant full-frontal nudity in several Andy Warhol films, not his acting skills. While Dallesandro's work here is rather flat, Di Leo keeps Dallesandro's dialog to a minimum. This, coupled with the fact that Dallesandro has a talent for showing good expression with his eyes, and Di Leo never fails to include one of these shots when necessary to make up for other qualities lacking, makes the film succeed when, in another director's hands, it could have faltered due to a lack of directorial understanding of his actor. Macchia, who worked with Di Leo at least twice before, and de Selle, who clearly enjoys her constant nudity as well, are pros at this and their unlikeable characters are nevertheless compelling thanks to their thoughtful performances. I am not familiar with Bhen's other roles, but in the final reel she manages to deliver the necessary winning performance that is repressed in the first half of the film. Another major asset is Luis Enriquez Bacalov's eccentric, unnerving score, which ranges from classical (borrowing the theme from the superior 1971 film he scored entitled "The Designated Victim" with Tomas Milan) to near heavy-metal guitar riffs. The combination of the basic plot and Di Leo at the helm, knowing that his films are rarely pretty, ensures that the film is a gritty, sometimes necessarily unpleasant, but ultimately very satisfying exploitation film viewing experience. The English-subtitled print available on a US bootleg does not look bad at all, but I would get it on a DVD-R and not a VHS, as the disc will retain the master's tape's sharper picture quality.


Paula and Sergio are married and own the small house in the mountains where they only travel to at weekends and Lillian is Paula's sister,who just happens to be having an affair with Sergio.Sergio is going hunting,Paula is going shopping and Lillian is staying home to sunbathe naked.Lillian puts on the radio and we hear a news report a thief and murderer who has escaped from jail and is on the loose after murdering farmer with a pitchfork.The criminal named Joe Brezy has stolen the car and is hiding near the house.He has buried 300million lira in the house(from the previous robbery).Joe takes the three of them hostage whilst he digs for his loot.When he finally gets his loot he plays Paula,Lillian and Sergio against each other telling Paula about the affair her husband and sister are having."Vacanze per Uno Massacre" is a cheaply made thriller highly influenced by rape and revenge sub-genre.Lorrainde de Selle provides lots of full-frontal nudity and the climax is violent and memorable.It's a crying shame that this nasty little tale of sexual tension is so obscure.8 out of 10.


Director Fernando Di Leo is best known to us horror nuts for SLAUGHTER HOTEL (1971), a sleazy "giallo" that forgets to be thrilling or horrific and instead concentrates mainly on getting its female cast members naked during gratuitous lesbian and solo sex scenes. This one (which I saw under the title HOLIDAY MASSACRE) is his third foray into the horror/thriller genre and basically follows the same exact formula, cramming as much nudity in as possible but seemingly forgetting about everything else. Ostensibly a thriller taking it's cue from Wes Craven's THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (which influenced many concurrent Italian/Euro exploitation films), all this really is is an excuse to have lead actress Lorraine De Selle parade around nude for about 85 minutes. Naturally, if you're a Lorraine fan you'll probably enjoy this for what it is, but if you're going in expecting an actual thriller or horror film you will likely walk away pretty disappointed.

Convicted thief and murderer Joe Brezzi (Joe Dallesandro) escapes from prison, murders a man with a pitchfork, steals his car and then heads off to find 300 million lira he'd stolen and hid in a secluded vacation home right before he was arrested. Before he can get inside and get the loot (which is hidden underneath the fireplace), married couple Sergio (Gianni Macchia) and Liliana (Patrizia Behn) show up looking for a little weekend R&R. Also tagging along is Liliana's self-absorbed and bitchy younger sister Paola (Lorraine De Selle), who is secretly having an affair with Sergio. That evening there's a lengthy sex scene for the couple (and a solo effort from Ms. De Selle on the couch), as Joe patiently waits outside. The next day, Sergio goes hunting, Liliana goes into town get some groceries and Paola decides to stay behind to sunbathe (topless, of course). Joe strikes when the getting's good, knocks out Paola and starts chipping away at the fireplace with a pick axe. When Paola comes to, she's "raped" (well, it starts as a rape...) and then her sister and brother-in-law show up for more of the same.

A pretty low-budget affair, with minimal location change, minimal action and a very small cast, this one lacks suspense and tension and isn't nearly nasty or violent enough to be worth recommending. Dallesandro is the only one who manages to keep his clothes on the entire time (even during the rape scene) and basically coasts through this entire film with an annoying "angered" looking facial expression. Another constant annoyance is a huge poster of John Travolta's grinning mug hanging on a wall in the room where most of the film takes place. And despite the title there really is no "massacre" aside from a little rifle shooting at the very end.


The Earl of Dorincourt, lonely in his great castle, has grown old. Now, with the death of both of his sons, he sends for his only grandchild to be with him. This is an innocent boy living in New York City with his American mother. Sweet-tempered and beloved, the earnest young child knows nothing of the crusty, fierce old lord in England, or of the wonderful changes about to happen in his own life, now that he is LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY.

This is David O. Selznick's wonderful & lavish retelling of the classic children's story by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Much effort was put into getting the details just right. Sentimental? Yes, but honest sentiment, with emotions straight from the heart.

Freddie Bartholomew & marvelous Sir C. Aubrey Smith are picture perfect in their roles as young Fauntleroy & his grandfather. There may never be a finer male child actor than Master Bartholomew and Sir C. was the epitome of the English aristocratic tradition. Two champion scene-stealers, they work together beautifully.

The rest of the cast is both extensive & uniformly excellent: Dolores Costello Barrymore, Henry Stephenson, Guy Kibbee, Jessie Ralph, Una O'Connor, Constance Collier, E. E. Clive, Lionel Belmore, Eily Maylon & Mickey Rooney. Film mavens will spot uncredited appearances by Mary Gordon as a churchgoing villager & Leonard Kibrick as one of Fauntleroy's Brooklyn tormentors.

Sir Hugh Walpole, the celebrated English novelist, wrote the screen adaptation.


They just don't make 'em like this anymore. You can take all your Culkins and Woods and Osments and roll them into one, and they still couldn't shine the shoes of Freddie Bartholemew (as Mickey Rooney does in this film). The difference, I believe, is that these contemporary performers think of themselves as CHILD actors, where Bartholemew and his contemporary Shirley Temple thought of themselves as ACTORS -- just as Rooney's character thought of himself as a BUSINESSMAN. The effect is palpable: you just can't fake being a real person. This of course is the familiar story of an American boy in the 1880's who learns he is the heir to an English earl and must go live with the old bloke, who parenthetically hates his mother, in an old castle. Needless to say, it is the earl who is transformed by the strength and purity of the boy's character, and not the intended reverse. Every scene and every line in this film is perfect, and if it is a "period piece," then I say we'd be so much better off if we could return to that "period."


1880 Brooklyn, New York, a poor boy(Freddie Bartholomew)and fatherless is living with his mum(Dolores Costello).A messenger(Henry Stephenson)communicate them which he turns out to be the only heir state to the earl of Dorincourt(Sir C. Aubrey Smith).He leaves his friends(Mickey Rooney and Guy Kibbee) and set out for England as heir to his grandpa and a British dukedom .But the grandfather is a grumpy and and crusty nobleman and the problems are always cropping up.

Classic and better version of known novel by Frances Burnett with elitist and sincere interpretations from Bartholomew,Aubrey Smith,Rooney, enough to make the creaky ancient tale actually work. Freddie Bartholomew had starred Anna Karenina and David Copperfield but his great success is this film.Dolores Costello,married with John Barrymore,plays the lovable mummy in an affected and forced acting. Sir C. Aubrey Smith is magnificent as the bitter-grumbler and grouchy count.Una O'Connor,as always,plays a maid with her habituals gestures and grimaces.For comic relief ,as is usual,is Mickey Rooney making a hilarious and sympathetic acting. This was originally made for black and white with an excellent cinematography by Charles Rosher but there is also available in computer-colorized and the musical score is by the classic Max Steiner. Director John Cromwell worked a lot with the great and powerful producer David O.Selznick and seems largely to have been content to follow his instructions,though he was always loath to allow too much sentimentality as happen on the sometimes heavily relationship between mother-son and grandfather-grandson. The picture was remade for television in 1980 by Jack Gold with Alec Guinness and Rick Schroder and in 1976 by Paul Annett and 1995 with George Baker. The motion picture was immensely successful in America and all the world ,is actually an authentic and charming classic.


Two great 1930's child actors, Freddie Bartholomew and Mickey Rooney, play Little Lord Fauntleroy--Cedric Errol, and streetwise American friend Dick Tipton respectively. (Part British Ceddie fights the bullies--and Dick Tipton runs to help...they fight together. A preview of what a lot of Brits & Americans did in WWII a few years after this film!!!)

Also watch for Sir C. Aubrey Smith as the definitive hostile old Lord Dorincourt, who is charmed and warmed by his newly-met half American grandson's unconditional love. Character actor Guy Kibbee also seems made to play staunch anti-aristocrat American Silas Hobbs. If you read the book (free online), the movie fits it well!

Did you know the book LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY was an incredible late 19th century "hit"? Some statesmen actually credit this tale of reconciliation between an old Earl and his half American grandson with improving the then-strained 19th century British-American relationship.

Drew Barrymore's grandmother Dolores Costello Barrymore plays Cedric's charming American Mother.

While this film needs a sound and picture cleanup, it is still worth the watch!(TO YOU FILM PEOPLE--LOTS OF PEOPLE LIKE THIS OLD FILM. CAN'T SOMEONE CLEAN UP THE PICTURE & SOUND?)


A nine year old Brooklyn boy nicknamed "Ceddie" (Freddie Bartholomew), beloved by all who know him due to his kindly nature, finds himself in for a most unexpected change of lifestyle when he learns he's to be heir to the estate of his grandfather (C. Aubrey Smith), a British Earl and has to move in with him. A bigger challenge for the boy to overcome though is to bring down the barrier between his stubborn, set in his ways grandfather and Ceddie's mother "Dearest" (Dolores Costello), who the Earl resents his son marrying as she's an American.

This one really grabs you by the heartstrings and doesn't let up. Freddie Bartholomew is simply wonderful as "Ceddie", wonderfully capturing his character and winning over the viewing audience's hearts in fairly short time, no easy feat for a child star. C. Aubrey Smith too is just marvelous as the crotchety old grandfather who finds his stubborn, hard-hearted, icy exterior being worn away just by being in the presence of such a terrific young lad who loves him unconditionally. Dolores Costello too was nicely cast and delivers the goods when she's called upon to do so. It's the likable performances given by these stars that make this a real winner in that we're truly made to care about these characters and what happens to them.


John Cromwell gets a lot of credit for this Selznick Studio release. It is only the second time (at that time) the story had been filmed. The first was a poor silent version. Although Cromwell could have developed the story a bit more, it is well cast. Bartholomew is excellent as young Cedrick and Smith is fine as the crusty old Earl who learns to love his grandson, additionally Rooney as Dick the bootblack, and Kibbee as storekeeper Hobbs are also outstanding.

Although heavy with sentimentality, Cromwell has done an excellent job of cutting out all the terrible wordiness of the novel. (Burnett writes as though she is being paid by the word and puts in way to many adjectives.) The story is well told and the scenic effects are good for their time. Unfortunately the film has not aged well and some scenes have darkened with time. Perhaps an enterprising admirer will trouble to restore this film. IF they do, hopefully they will also restore the missing scenes so the film runs its full length.

A discount film hawker (Front Row Video, Canada) has the nerve to sell copies of the film (claiming a running time of 1:42) that are so butchered, that two conversations are cut right in the middle with a change of scene. Digiview Productions who states on the front cover "Sometimes the price we pay is too high" and charges only a dollar for their DVD version, has been caught with their foot in their mouth. They only charge a buck, but even that is too much for the hacked up 92 minute version of the film they sell.

For purists, I urge you to find a complete copy of this well done film. THe only way you can enjoy something is to see all of it.


This is an example of the type of film where I reckon all the characters act like they know they're in a famous novel. The style and delivery is VERY self-conscious and prosaic, with everyone declaiming their lines in a very "noble" fashion (sort of like the "traditional" delivery of Shakespeare).

C Aubrey Smith is by far the most interesting performer in this story, his irascible nature adding some much-needed bite to the movie. Mickey Rooney is also very memorable, showing once again he was a very dynamic and versatile child actor, handling comic and dramatic scenes very well - even in the same film. The mark of a true consummate performer.

I would rank him as a definite child prodigy. (You should also check him out in YOUNG TOM EDISON for another example of this)

I actually think the 80s tele-movie with Ricky Shroder and Alec Guiness worked slightly better than this version does; the characters are a lot more casual in their delivery, and the story flows better. But this is a pretty good version on its own terms any rate.


Just a brief comment for now, of all the versions that I watched of Little lord Fauntleroy filmatisations, this one in my opinion features the best fitting actors if you compare with the book. And shining gloriously at the top is Sir C. Aubrey Smith (the old Earl - Cedric's grandfather). No other actor that I have seen so far comes closer to portraying the old Earl as gruff and cantankerous as he comes across in the beginning of the book. A slight minus is the low technical quality of the film, but being made in 1936 it is not bad all things considered. I might add that this was the first filmatisation that I watched and thus my opinion might be a little biased but I think that this film is still on the top shelf in terms of overall quality, a true classic. Don't miss it if you have the opportunity to watch it.