Almodovar has done it again. He writes for all of us. The political statement about the changes in Spain over the 26 years of the movie, the full circle of birth, and the triumph of innocence over evil, were beautifully displayed in this movie.

The European filmakers have always done it better and now with the growth of the independents, maybe the Americans are catching on that in this director's medium called film, the actors are really secondary or even tertiary to the script and the director. Hooray for Almodovar!


Something akin to a soap opera, but with much steamier scenes, Carne Trémula is an entertaining look at love, lust, and revenge. I enjoyed the way Almodovar served the story, one bit at a time, allowing for all the events to culminate in a very satisfying ending. Liberto Rabal gives a fine performance and Javier Bardem (of Jamon, Jamon and Boca a Boca), delivers yet another great acting achievement.

I saw this film both in the theater and on video. I found the movie much more effective in the theater. It's a great film to share with a large adult audience.


Once again, Almodovar doesn not fail to demonstrate his masterful skills in casting intricate webs of human relationships of lust and love and his superb cinematic story-telling.

In the very limited timeframe of slightly longer than one and a half hour, the audience is treated to a fast-paced and mysterious love pentagon which stems from one person to another person and which eventually cast a web tangling the five main characters inexplicably. The conflicts between love and lust, guilt and innocence, love and sympathy, trust and control, an old, dark and cynical police state of Spain and a brave, outspoken and contemporary Spainall fused into a melting pot of a heart-throbbing and colourful romance thriller.

One of the less flamboyant but more accessible piece from Almodovar.


I enjoyed this more than most Almodovar films and was especially impressed by the power and deftness of the plot. It was not a surprise at the end to see that it was based on a book by Ruth Rendell. Can anyone tell me which?


Victor, the son of a prostitute, tries to hook up with Elena, a druggie with whom he'd had a previous tryst (his first). She resists, the cops are called, and there's a standoff between Victor and policemen David and Sancho. There's a struggle, and a gun is fired, leaving David paralyzed and sending Victor to jail.

When Victor gets out of jail, his mind is on bitter revenge, especially after he discovers that Elena, now clean and sober, has married the invalid David, who's now a paralympic basketball star. Victor gets a job working at the orphanage funded and operated by Elena (but he's not stalking her, no) and begins to romance Clara, the battered wife of Sancho.

Each of the five characters, unavoidably intertwined, is complex and morally ambiguous. What are Victor's true intentions? What, even more importantly, are his capabilities? Is Sancho properly haunted by his treatment of Clara and of that fateful night that brought him, David, and Victor together? If Clara does leave Sancho, where will she turn - or is she simply another turn-the-cheek spouse? Does David have a sense of moral superiority because he no longer has use of his lower limbs and therefore has suffered more than most people? And which is stronger, Elena's lust or her loyalty? The quintet, whose lives were forever changed that one night, find themselves drawn back together in a web of intrigue of their own design. All of the actors are fantastic, particularly Francesca Neri, as Elena, and Liberto Rabal, as Victor. The on screen chemistry among all five leads is palpable; no one feels they were just dropped into the movie indiscriminately. Pedro Almodovar's complicated tale is never preachy, and none of the characters are stereotypical. Not all cops are noble, not all drug addicts are irredeemable, not all orphanage operators are perfect, and not all criminals are despicable. Pretty obvious stuff in the real world, but in the land of movies characters are typically painted with as broad a brush as possible in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The movie is tense without veering toward melodrama, and although it begins rather slowly, the final twenty minutes or so are unsettling, nerve-wracking suspense. I defy you to sit complacently while Elena approaches Victor's barrio apartment.


I don't know what it is about Almodovar's movies that is so arresting, so captivating. Maybe it's the colour - his leading ladies always seem to wear red. So many visually stunning scenes, particularly the one where Elena is in bed with Victor. No salacious treatment here, just beautiful classy cinematography.

The storyline is good, but it's the camerawork that is so beautiful. Almodovar sees beauty and captures it like no-one else. His use of colour, black, red and yellow... coincidentally, the colours of the Spanish flag - or maybe it's no conincidence.

The opening scenes with Penelope Cruz are superb. I've never seen childbirth depicted so realistically. Being used to a diet of English and American movies, it is so refreshing to see movies that are exciting and visually stimulating. Minimal violence, but so much humanity and sensuality. This movie was a joy to watch.


After watching Entre tinieblas (1983), I did not have high expectation s for this film. However, this film is much better than I expected. The story is solid, reasonable and well constructed. The characters are likable and convincing. They also put a lot of thoughts in the various shooting locations, such as the decorations of the various homes etc. I am impressed by this movie.


Almodovar is the best women director of the actual movie scene. Why? Look at the characters: Helena, Carmen...they are really women in a screen. And the movie talks about society. How things can be misunderstood, how love modifies people. How insane the mankind is sometimes. It is a great movie to see with your mate.


As a new wheelchair user I learned more about driving a chair from this movie than from any other source. I've never seen any movie which shows as much detail of a guy in a chair and how he deals with everyday situations -- stairs, transfers, rough terrain, getting in and out of a car. Unfortunate translation of the title however.


OK, some of the acting is bad and the plot is totally unbelievable...but I consider it one of Almodovar's best films. Somehow he makes the characters and situations realistic...every time I see it I totally forget how silly the basic plot is and get caught up in the story. It's to Almodovar's credit that he gets this to work. The only weak point is the acting by the leading man--he plays Victor. He is handsome, has a good body and does a nice full frontal nude shot--but he's a lousy actor. Still, it doesn't hurt the film too much.

Beautiful direction, some really good performances and a plot full of twists and turns and absurdity. It all leads up to a happy ending. Never a dull moment! Well worth seeing. IMO, Almodovar's best movie.


Thought not as high on the "sleaze-scale" as notorious CATIII "classics" THE UNTOLD STORY, RED TO KILL, or THE EBOLA SYNDROME - ESCAPE FROM BROTHEL sure tries hard to wallow in it's rating, and does a damn good job...

Two parallel story lines collide when a guy living on the Chinese mainland is called over to Hong Kong to pull a job with a few buddies to rob a jewelry store for the store-owner's boss to get the insurance money. His girlfriend lives in HK, but turns out she doesn't work at the factory that she claims to, and is actually a prostitute. The jewelry store job goes wrong when one of the robbers shoots an interfering tourist - and are then double-crossed by the jewelry store owner. Our hapless mainlander is the only one to survive the set-up, and goes looking to his girlfriend for help. He finds her, and realizes that her career-path is not quite what she had led him to believe. Of course he's upset, but he has bigger koi to fry - like getting out of HK alive - so the couple enlist the help of her ex-husband to smuggle the fugitive back to China. This also turns out to be a set-up - and the ending is not happy for the two luckless lovers...

ESCAPE FROM BROTHEL, and most CATIII films in general, are not to most "casual" or "mainstream" film viewers tastes. Tons of sexy full-frontal and soft-core sex, some good violent scenes (including a kung-fu battle with a nekkid chick that is off-the-hook...) and an extremely downbeat ending don't make this one the feel good film of the summer - unless you're like me and live for this sort of trash. Again - it's not the best of the genre - but it's definitely one of the better ones. Essential for CATIII fans...8.5/10


"Escape from (the) Brothel" is one of those Hongkong films that mix drama with action, nudity and pure terror to make a notorious "Category-III-classic". In a way, it's also a love story, but don't expect to get a Hollywood-standard happy end here.

A man falls in love with a prostitute who works in a brothel. He wants to get her out but there is no way to do that. The more he tries to help her, the more violence he witnesses and he has to fight against it. In one scene, he is attacked by a kick boxing nude amazon blonde (sic!).

The second half of the film is a violent "tour de force", and as bodies are piling up during the action-packed climax, this film also becomes one of the goriest Hongkong films aside the great "The Untold Story" and the viciously funny "The Ebola Syndrome".

I recommend this film to everyone who likes "Category-III"-movies from Hongkong. However, people who are easily offended by the blending of sex and violence surely should let this one be.


Hung and Ann(Pauline Chan and Rena Murakami)are down-on-their luck prostitutes trapped in Hong Kong.Pauline's boyfriend,Sam back in China,who is under the impression that she is away working at a factory,is double-crossed by Billy Chow,and while looking to escape;flees for Hong Kong and winds up at the brothel where Pauline is employed.He is crushed when he finds out the truth..."Escape from the Brothel" combines plenty of gory fighting,romance,sleaze including several violent and unpleasant rape scenes and comedy,all into one.There is plenty of full-frontal female nudity and I'm not complaining about that.The violence is rather brief until the full-blooded finale,although one scene where a woman is strung up and has her nipples wired to a portable electric generator is strong stuff even for Cat III sleaze.A must-see for die-hard fans of smut!


Yet another Cat III rapesploitation comedy drama shot on the cheap by some wacky Asians.

A mother pimps out her two daughters. One of the daughters has a nice guy boyfriend that doesn't know she's a ho. He gets involved with a jewelry store robbery because of his boss's gambling debt and an innocent guy ends up dead during the getaway. He has to hideout at his girl's house for a while while she tries to hide her profession from him. This is where the drama starts unfolding Part Porky's, part Red To Kill--this sucker is pretty sleazy and was surprisingly enjoyable despite its ultra-cheapness and some lagging parts. Includes a money fight sequence with a fully nude woman high-kicking. The finale, however, switches gears and drops the mean-yet-lighthearted vibe. Recommended for HK enthusiasts--7.5/10.


What a delightful movie! I don't think its aged one bit. Sure the clothes are different, the latest self-help fads are different, the priorities are different--but SO much still resonates today. The relationship between love and sex and spouses and friends. Human desire, and commitment are timeless topics, and they are explored with great wit and panache in this thoroughly entertaining movie. And the dialogue! Many scenes purely consist of the twists and turns of intelligent people in verbal games--some of the scenes feel like being in a verbal

amusement park, going up and down roller-coasters of clever and surprising

dialogue. The funny moments are priceless: the tennis instructor asking for a glass of Pernod, Dyan Cannon in the therepist's office--probably the funniest and most perceptive take on the "therepy experience" ever shown on film-- (along with Kirstie Alley's therapist melt-down scene in Woody Allen's

"Deconstructing Harry"), the opening group therapy session in the beautiful

California countryside, that first dinner in the restaurant with Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice all declaring their love for each other in front of the table of bemused gay diners--it is a film filled with endless, perceptive and highly

amusing details. Its a terrific entertainment. (One last comment--Dyan Cannon lights up the screen everytime she appears, with her sexy persona, her high

spirits, her warmth and generosity, and that truly infectious laugh!)


B&C&T&A is still entertaining and has a number of funny scenes. Two of my favorites are the opening scene at the Esalen Institute, and Alice's session with her psychiatrist. The cast,particularly Dyan Cannon (Best Supporting Actress- NY Film Critics)and Elliot Gould, is perfect. B&C&T&A really do seem like couples and friends. It's Natalie Wood's best adult film role, and arguably her best film performance:she's never been more natural or at ease in front of the camera. Robert Culp never had a better role or vehicle. The film marked Mazursky's directorial debut, and it's probably his best film. The final scene in front of the Riviera Hotel in Vegas, recalls the "looking" exercise at the Institute, and was influenced by the parade at end of Felini's "81/2". Therefore, I give the film an 81/2 out of 10. Rent(or buy) the DVD and listen to the commentary with Cannon,Culp,Gould and Mazursky. Did you know that Leif Garrett plays Bob and Carol's son, and that Culp's "I Spy" costar, Bill Cosby, appears briefly(don't blink) in a scene at a club? The film has aged better than Midnight Cowboy, Z, Butch Cassidy, Hello Dolly and Anne of the Thousand Days,the films nominated for Best Picture of 1969. B&C&T&A feels more representative of the 60's than The Graduate, and is definitely worth seeing.


I love this movie. Although some people may classify it as "dated," the concepts that it deals with are worth exploring today. How honest are we to one another? How often do we actually look at people? And what is love?

From its opening shots (tooling up PCH in a cool car) to its closing ones (people really looking at each other), it's a true work of art. The beginning truly captures the free and concept-expanding atmosphere that is the Esalen Institute, which itself has not changed much since then. Screen goddess Natalie Wood, in one of her best roles, inhabits the honesty and sexual freedom that is Carol. Robert Culp is a strong counterpart to her as Bob. The more repressed couple, Eliott Gould and Dyan Cannon, are perfect.

Along the way, they explore the boundaries of sexuality, monogamy and friendship, and realize that some lines are better left uncrossed. To me, it puts a very fine point on what was going on in the 60s, and where exactly we went wrong.

SEE THIS FILM. It'll give you insight. Promise.


I rented this movie because I remembered one scene from 35 years ago. I was astounded to see that the whole movie holds up very well. The 4 leads are terrific (Natalie Wood and Dyan Canon are beautiful, by the way, and Robert Culp hits just the right note with his "sensitive-new- age-guy" hip/naive performance) and you can see director Paul Mazursky's touch with what seems to be stretches of impromptu dialog I found true.

The movie also does a great job of balancing drama with farce, superficiality with intimacy.

The scenes at the Esalen-type retreat start at as spoof but evolve into real empathy. Parenthetically, check out the fashions in this film. There is one scene in a discotheque that Mazursky must have known even then would be a source of laughter and certainly, today, it's a hoot.


One of the best of 1969 with Natalie Wood and Dyan Cannon at their sexiest. Perfect casting, great story, and Mazursky's best film. I know the critics were split on this one, but it came out at the right time and it holds up today. What's not to like about this? Elliott Gould was never more befuddled, Dyan Cannon's best acting when she was gorgeous, Robert Culp's only decent movie, and Natalie Wood was born to play Carol.

Certainly a 9 out 10! Mazursky would never again be so in touch with the times and the ending is NOT a cop-out! Check this out. Great stuff! Even the encounter session scenes have the ring of truth for that sort of thing. This movie is great!


Writer-director Paul Mazursky must be a manic-depressive. He enjoys setting up farcial situations and then underlining the laughs with either seriousness or a sense of melancholy. When Bob (Robert Culp) returns home to find wife Carol (Natalie Wood) entertaining a gentlemen in their bedroom, he's outraged--forgetting that he himself just disclosed having an affair not too long back. His juvenile outburst is hilarious, but when the two men meet and share a drink, it's Mazursky who brings the viewer back to Earth with a bit of poignancy. I like this combination, although it's likely to throw some viewers off track. There's a lot going in this film: improvisation, long takes, a surrealistic ending. But I thought it really worked, and Dyan Cannon is just amazing as square friend Alice who can't escape her repressed background. Natalie Wood is less interesting: she's at her most beautiful here, but there's a plastic quality about her work that she can't seem to shake (perhaps she was still stuck in her star-vehicle mode, being overtly 'nutty', and this clashes with the more subtle work of her co-stars). Overall, though, a near-gem. *** from ****


keeping in mind how long this movie has survived and to find that its continuing popularity seemingly intact. it was (and remains) a brisk paced "fun, and funny" movie that still holds up in this somewhat jaded time we now live in - most viewers today would not have a clue how racy this movie was thought to be at its first showing way back in 1969. I can still remember my wife and I discussing the movie for weeks after first viewing it - with a little bit of embarrassment but over-all just plain laughter!! In fact, sometimes at parties we would "do some of the lines" which were hysterical and generally referred to by our friends as raunchy. thinking back it really fun to elicit the red faces from our friends - still makes me chuckle even after all these years - thanks for the opportunity of sharing this information with those who haven't seen it - its worth much more than the price of admission.


The pay-off, it seems to me, is in the fact that at the moment when the enthusiastic couple and the reluctant couple submit to the full and unfettered concept of free love, they finally realize the truth that no matter how much love and social freedom they feel towards their dearest friends, there are still some areas of human experience that are best kept private and intimate.

So, rather charmingly, they decide that however hip they seem and wish to appear, deep down they are as old fashioned as you and me !

Malcolm McDougall - ( child of the sixties )


Underrated director Paul Mazursky's satiric hit film deals with two couples facing the let-it-all-hang-out, '60's counterculture attitude. The title seems part of today's culture but not the film itself; that being the case, it's too bad because there's buried treasure here. Dyan Cannon creates some magic with her bitchy, uptight Alice: memorable, seemingly improvised therapy scenes where the character's awkward communication skills are highlighted ring very true-as does her frustration near the end when she tries to initiate the orgy. A bedroom scene between Alice and Ted (Elliot Gould) is played with pitch-perfect comedic timing and showcases both actor's ability to balance seriousness and lunacy. Ms. Cannon won the NY Film Critics Best Supporting Actress Award and both she and Mr. Gould were nominated for Academy Awards; a feat almost unheard of for work done in a comedy.

 Robert Culp's Bob and Natalie Wood's Carol balance quite nicely; Mr. Culp is square-jawed sexy with a slight deadpan delivery while Miss Wood was at the height of her looks and popularity. Displaying a knock-out figure and wide bedroom eyes, she's obviously game for the comedy as well as the sexual undercurrent. Their deluded characters set the ball rolling and score in their own setpieces: the bedroom confession that's played out on the bathroom floor, the discovery of Carol's mid-afternoon romp with a stammering tennis pro. When all four lead unite in the Las Vegas hotel room, a sequence begins that exudes hilarity, sexuality, uncomfortability, and ultimately, a bittersweet melancolia topped by a Fellini-esque finale. It's a great movie.


Touching and sad, this "comedy" is (intentionally, I think) more depressing than funny. It's one of those films that manages to make a serious statement about human nature purely by presenting believable (although zany) characters and behavior, never getting preachy. It manages to come across with a sort of anti-promiscuity message, while tittilating the (male) viewer with lots of footage of natalie wood prancing around in her underwear. And I have no problem with that.


This is a grainy, sun-drenched, hippy farce. An examination of whether married relationships can withstand/be improved by free love - it seems almost a parody of itself, showing how a bunch of rich LA types have jumped on the peace and love bandwagon and are riding it out of existence. Like all revolutions though, it had become (main)streamlined by movies like this, and as such was about to burn out. It's 1969 and the end of the line for the hippy ideal. So this movie accurately depicts where the movement had gotten to (but is this intentional?). The film itself is a dreamy, bizarre, occasionally amusing, often boring, sex farce.


Bob is married to Carol. Carol's best friends with Alice whose husband Ted is best friends with Bob. Things begin to heat up (in a good way), when Bob has an affair with a woman, and Carol becomes OK with it, and hence the 2 of them openly accept that having having sex with another person is OK, as there are no emotions involved.

For a movie made in 1969, this movie is brilliant. People tend to skip these lost gems, because they consider it to be rather 'ancient' - however it is so good, that if the same script and direction were used without any amendments, but with a different cast offcourse today, this movie would stll be a hit, and would even score at the Oscars. The performances are BRILLIANT, and are still Oscar worthy. Dyan Cannon was the most impressive - I certainly do not know how the 60's revolved, but at that time you would expect for a blonde actress, to play a quirky role. Dyan was everything BUT quirky. Natalie Wood, who i believe had a vivid resemblance to Catherine Zeta Jones, gave a good performance as well. What made their performance so good was that is seemed so real.

A must see for everyone. Take my word - WATCH IT!


With the sexual revolution of the '60s, there of course would have to be a movie about sex. "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice" was it. Having visited a therapy group, Bob and Carol Sanders (Robert Culp and Natalie Wood) have become more open about their sexuality, and are identifying more with the counterculture in general. Their repressed friends, Ted and Alice Henderson (Elliott Gould and Dyan Cannon) can't seem to get into it. But while in a hotel room in Las Vegas, after they've all revealed some secrets, they decide to have an orgy. You've probably seen the picture of the four of them in bed together.

When this movie came out, many critics thought that it had a cop-out ending. In an interview, director Paul Mazursky explained that he felt that they only could go as far as they eventually went. Anyway, you can't judge an entire movie by one individual scene; it's what the movie's saying overall that matters. As for the characters, Bob seems sort of wooden, Carol is hot (as Natalie Wood always was), Ted is a dork, and Alice is a little eccentric. Overall, it's a pretty good movie.


I had seen this movie on television sometime in the middle '70s, when I was in my twenties and had a special fondness for Natalie Wood. I was surprised to see this movie on DVD when I was in the store a few days ago, but I didn't see anything else that I really wanted to watch, and was naturally curious about it, so I rented it.

While far from being a bad movie, "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" is certainly not what I would consider a good movie. It is a pretentious movie about self-centered, superficial people. The late sixties were a unique period in the twentieth century, when for a short period of a few years, throughout western culture, people were testing the limits of traditional sexual taboos. "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" tells the story of a middle-aged couple who were caught up in the liberated attitudes of the time, for a brief period at least. When push came to shove, they realized that they preferred the traditional lifestyle.

So what? Does this really make an interesting subject for a feature-length film? In and of itself, it does not. Possibly, a different storyline, similar to this one but not exactly the same as this one, would have been interesting. But this one happens to be dead boring. I sat through the first ten minutes without once touching the fast-forward button. Then I said to myself, "I'll zip past just this part." Next thing I knew, I was fast-forwarding past another part that had just become tiresome, then another, then another, and I had to make myself stop.

I sat through another ten or fifteen minutes thinking that if I tried harder and paid attention, the dialog would become interesting. But I was forced to accept the truth, which is that the dialog in this movie is exceedingly pretentious and boring. All that a movie of this sort has going for it is the dialog. But the dialog in this movie is boring and pretentious.

Back at the time this movie was released, it was interesting because it dealt with social issues that were then current. But that was thirty-five years ago. Persons with a strong curiosity about that period might find this movie interesting, even though this is by no means one of the better movies dealing with that subject matter. Persons with a special interest in the careers of one of the four actors might also find it somewhat interesting, although this movie was a best a footnote on any of their careers.

If you are looking for a movie that conveys a realistic sense of what suburban life was like in that period, there are lots of better choices. The movie, "The Ice Storm", made in 1997 and set in 1973, has similar themes, and it is infinitely more intelligent. Anyone who looks at these two movies side-by-side will surely agree that "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice", while moderately amusing when it was current, has no lasting value.


Robert Culp and Natalie Wood play a VERY liberated couple who basically love each other...when they cheat on the other they discuss it and talk out their feelings and end up still madly in love. They share their views with another couple played by Dyan Cannon and Elliott Gould. They try to convert them to their way of thinking...but will it work or tear them all apart?

For starters this film would NOT be made today. With HIV and AIDS out there the casual sex shown here is a stupid idea. And can anyone seriously say they would honestly tell their partners that they had cheated on them and DISCUSS it???? That aside, I still sort of like the movie. The script was well-written with some sharp observations on sex and love and I found the discussions between Culp and Wood fascinating. Also Culp and Wood give out great performances (I especially liked Wood's little smiles). Cannon is good too but, surprisingly, looks HORRIBLE. Gould is just OK. But the script carries this one. If you can accept the ideas in this it works.

However it all ends in a laughably horrible ending that (almost) destroys everything that went before. Ending aside, I think this is a pretty interesting and a (I think) accurate picture of the late 1960s. Worth a look. I give it a 7.


I admit that I was a bit puzzled by the perspective of this movie. All the way through, it seemed to be building to the logical conclusion that the four main characters were going to end up swinging together, culminating in Alice's expected suggestion to the other three that they have an orgy. All the way through it seemed to be a celebration of the sexually free-wheeling 60's, with Bob and Carol essentially enjoying an open marriage - not only having affairs but telling each other about them and sometimes even meeting each other's lovers - and basically trying to convince Ted and Alice to join them in this lifestyle of freedom. Then, in the end, it didn't happen. That didn't upset me - I was pleased by the ending of the movie, but still surprised. The lasting message that I got from the movie was that, ultimately, sex without love is an empty thing, but love without sex is a wonderful thing. Thus, the concluding scenes of the four deciding that their friendship made it impossible to begin a sexual relationship and the eye contact they make with strangers while on their way to the Tony Bennett concert, while all the way the closing song ("What The World Needs Now Is Love") plays in the background. I loved the ending and thought it perfectly appropriate. I also loved the beginning of the movie with the encounter session which was absolutely hilarious.

Robert Culp & Natalie Wood & Elliott Gould & Diane Cannon as the respective title characters were fantastic all the way through, and their performances made an interesting story even better. The only thing I never really figured out was the decision to open the movie with the "Hallelujah Chorus"? What was the relevance? I wasn't sure. Small point, though, in an overall great movie.


***SPOILER*** Today, talk of performance-related erectile dysfunction is on every woman's lips, if you'll pardon the expression. Group or open sexuality, for the uninitiated straight first-time "vanilla" male, particularly in the same room/bed with another male, can be a very stressful situation.

Simply put: Despite the appeal and willingness of Carol & Alice, neither Bob or Ted, in their situational anxiety, were able to "get it up". Watch carefully and you'll see the disappointment on the faces of the women.

As the former public relations director and spokesman for the 1970s Sandstone Retreat (imdb: "Sandstone") I often compared the psychological benefits of well-introduced group sex with the well-guided initial psychedelic experience. Both experiences often result in highly euphoric, life changing, long lasting insight.

Finally, B&C&T&A, despite the wardrobe, is by no means a quaint relic of the swinging 60s/70s. Real life realizations of their entirely rational human impulses occur every day and night in every large city and small town around the world.

The Sexual Revolution, and the realities of polyamory, polyfidelity, the swinging lifestyle and safer sex practices remain alive and well in God-fearing America in the 21st Century.


I had always kind of dismissed this movie as sensationalist 60's hipness. But seeing it today in the 21st century and knowing that there is as far as I know NO Movies today that even come close to approaching the examination of marriage/love/friendship that Bob Carol Ted and Alice does I feel like I've accidentally stumbled on a forgotten gem. From the opening frames of the commune/retreat there is not a dull moment in the film. It seems quaint to think of people discussing things like what they honestly think and feel about one another since we are much more socially advanced today (ha ha). I think every married couple should see this movie if for nothing else than the conversation that is sure to ensue afterwards. Great performances by the four main players. In fact revelatory acting especially by Natalie Wood since she probably had the most to lose by appearing in the film a la Brando in Last Tango. Not that this is a heavy movie it isn't but that doesn't mean it is not thought provoking. The actors here seem to hit no false notes. Plus the cinematography of Charles Lang is like being transported right back to 1969.


BCTA is a smart, well-written, subtle, and at the same time, emotionally engaging satire of the 60's generation.

It begins with something perfectly symbolic of its theme: an Encounter Session (though you might want to fast-forward through the annoying 2-to-3 minute sequence of a car barreling up the Southern Cal hills to the strains of a truly obnoxious version of Handel's "Halleluiah Chorus" that precedes it; it's the film's only weak point). At this hilltop therapy facility, Bob and Carol are getting to know themselves and each other, on a very deep level, through total honesty. Part of the greatness of this movie is demonstrated in the way this scene is shot: it looks a bit like Cinema Verite, but it is in fact largely scripted film-making(with a bit of improv). It's funny, and at the same time, a little touching. The whole movie is like that.

Carol is utterly converted to what she learns in therapy, and begins spreading the word to others, including friends Ted and Alice. A lot of the movie's humor is generated by the fact that Ted and Alice, while young and trying to be "with it", are really, at heart, a little uptight. And their relationship, as one very funny, and, at the same time, tense sequence demonstrates, is just a bit strained.

The new spirit of total honesty that the characters embrace eventually leads them to some very surprising places.

This is a style of gentle satire one doesn't see currently, except maybe in documentaries. It allows you to laugh at the characters' foibles and care about them at the same time.


An important movie in the 'New Hollywood' movement, 'Bob & Carol...' is an engaging comedy that still might seem daring today. The masterful opening scene (it is hard to believe that this is Mazursky's first movie) replete with nude bodies sets the mood well and tells us that what we're seeing is something different, something new. The film meanders and is full of great moments, in a way that often seems alien to contemporary movies. These are all multi-faceted characters - the humor is mined from their situations and their personalities, rather than being punchline driver.

The performances to watch out for are those particularly from Gould and Cannon. Both are energetic and fresh - Culp is fine too, but weakened by playing opposite Natalie Wood. She isn't an embarrassment by any means, but the difference in acting from her studio experience, to the more naturalistic style of the late 60s/70s is apparent. She's never quite convincingly there, not inhibiting her character as Cannon (she and Gould deservedly were both nominated) does.

The final sequence is uplifting and memorable, leaving the audience on a high.


In my consumer guide mode, I should first mention one very simple way to tell whether you might like Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice--do you like films that are almost all dialogue? If not, you should stay away from this one, because that's 90 percent of it. It's very poignant and often clever dialogue, but dialogue nonetheless.

A dialogue-laden film can't succeed without grand performances, and we get just that from the four principal actors. I was especially impressed with Elliott Gould, partially because I haven't always liked him in other films.

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice deals with normal, middle class couples in the late 1960s who are trying to deal with and adapt to cultural spillover from the then-popular hippie movement. Bob (Robert Culp) is a filmmaker who wants to do a documentary on something of a "personal exploration retreat". While initially checking the retreat out, he and wife Carol (Natalie Wood) completely forget about the film and become wrapped up in the personal exploration taking place. When they get back home, they introduce their new approach to life and interpersonal communications to best friends Ted (Gould) and Alice (Dyan Cannon), who think that Bob and Carol have gone a bit looney. They really think that when later Carol suddenly announces that Bob had a brief affair with another woman and they're both happy with it. Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice then becomes primarily an exploration of how average middle class folks deal with attempts to incorporate hippie sexual liberation beliefs into their lives.

It's a great idea, handled with aplomb by writer-director Paul Mazursky and co-writer Larry Tucker. Interestingly, Mazursky revisited the same basic ideas in Scenes from a Mall (1991), which enabled him to show how much popular cultural attitudes had changed between the late 1960s and the early 1990s. Here, the cultural clash between hippies and the middle class allows him to adeptly explore a number of themes, ranging from hippie ideals as a trend to be followed rather than ideals that are believed in for their own sake, to the psychological conflicts of intrinsic desires either against other intrinsic desires or against cultural conditioning and expectations. Mazursky employs an artful restraint so that these themes are only implicit, but they're definitely present.

The ending of the film is highly unusual but effective, although especially for me--as someone who champions extremely liberal sexuality and thinks monogamy isn't really a great idea--there was a contradictory one-two punch of being disheartening, then shortly after uplifting. The effect of the final scene was a bit enigmatically ambiguous. But I don't think that's a bad thing at all.


It's tempting to call this archetypical 1969 comedy severely dated, but that would be too superficial a judgment. Taken as a period piece when the sexual revolution was completely redefining the country's moral code, the film is a shrewdly observed, sharply comic character study among the Southern California bourgeoisie. It also marks the auspicious directorial debut of Paul Mazursky, a former actor who ended up making two decades' worth of insightful films focused on personal foibles and sympathetic satire ("An Unmarried Woman", "Down and Out in Beverly Hills"). He cleverly uses the "Hallelujah" chorus of Handel's "Messiah" to open the film as documentary filmmaker Bob Sanders and his wife Carol drive through the canyons outside LA to an Esalen-like couples' retreat where narcissism runs rampant with participants encouraged to express how they "feel" through group hugs, crying, mutual staring, even pillow punching.

The experience transforms Bob and Carol into a touchy-feely couple so intent on being completely honest with each other that they accept each other's acts of adultery. This level of supposed enlightenment initially appalls their best friends, Ted and Alice Henderson, who hold on tenuously to their more traditional values. However, a weekend in Vegas becomes a cathartic showdown among the two couples, and the outrageous brashness of their liberated behavior comes to a crescendo that manages to be unexpected and predictable at the same time. Mazursky ends things on a surreal note with Jackie DeShannon's classic rendition of Burt Bacharach and Hal David's "What the World Needs Now Is Love". Through it all, the four principal actors give sharp performances that wisely leave the motivations for their characters ambiguous enough for the audience to draw their own conclusions.

Coming off his hit TV series "I Spy", Robert Culp effectively plays Bob as a hippie-wannabe closing in on middle age and recognizing an innate need to give in to the new moral order to belong. As Carol, Natalie Wood at thirty never looked so sexy nor come across so relaxed on screen. She brings such an alluring knowingness to the role that it becomes difficult to believe why Bob would want to cheat on her in the first place. In his first major role, Elliott Gould keeps Ted as an amusing, sympathetic figure who keeps dancing between disgust and envy with increasing alacrity. Dyan Cannon comes closest to stealing the picture since she carries the biggest character arc as Alice. It is her character who does the abrupt about-face that spurs the climax (you should pardon the expression). The 2004 DVD contains a sometimes entertaining, sometimes too self-conscious commentary track featuring Mazursky, Culp, Gould, and Cannon, as well as a twenty-minute interview with Mazursky from 2003.


Capturing the sexual revolution of the late sixties, this comedy presents two married couples, free-thinking and ready (or so they think) for an open marriage Bob (Robert Culp) and Carol (Natalie Wood) and their best friends, a more traditional couple, Ted (Elliot Gould) and Alice (Dyan Cannon). I love the film and I believe that it has aged very well. Its theme and the way it was presented are definitely not dated. Many scenes are hilarious and superbly acted by all four main characters, Gould and Cannon being outstanding. I also believe that 60s was the best dressed decade for women (don't like pirate shirts for men, though :)) and I enjoyed the beauty of the film. It's got real class that is timeless.


I didn't like this movie because it was populated with a bunch of mindless losers. Bob and Carol represent everything wrong with Hollywood and America today, amoral "feeling" versus thinking rationally. My wife and I couldn't decide if this was a satire, a comedy, or a drama. Mostly it just seemed to be a lampoon of 60's Hollywood hedonistic, leftist, thinking, and represents today's moral relativism where everything is OK if it feels good. There ARE moral absolutes, regardless of what "modern" thinking proclaims. Sanctity of marriage is good and infidelity is bad, it's that simple. Bob and Carol are so lacking in any moral foundation, let alone common sense, that they are misled by the morons at the Institute (Esalen, for those of you who are unaware of it; it's a real place sad to say) into almost destroying their marriage and that of their friends. At least in the end reality hits them in the nose and after a stint in bed together they realize the moral bankruptcy of their "new thinking". I assume they went home and their marriages were better for the experience. But one should not need such an experience to remain faithful to one's spouse. Why do people marry anyway if not to remain faithful to each other? Single days are for catting around, not marriage.


Chamber of Horrors is an entertaining British horror/mystery from 1940. I have the VCI edition of this on video which I had ordered from the US.

A series of murders at a creepy mansion are connected to the secret of a door which has seven keys to it and nobody has opened for a while. A young woman tries to solve this mystery and all is revealed towards the end when the door is opened... Includes a mute butler and a mad doctor who collects items used for torture. Also a thunderstorm.

Though not a lot of action in this movie, it is quite creepy and atmospheric at times.

The cast includes Leslie Banks (The Most Dangerous Game, The Tunnel) and Lilli Palmer.

Chamber of Horrors is worth a look if you get the chance. A good old mystery.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.


This classic Edgar Wallace Murder Mystery/Conspiracy film is surprising fun. Leslie Banks, as the clever, devious, torture device collecting Dr. Mannetta (the owner of the chamber of horrors), frequently steals the scenes he's in even if his character is some what a cliche. The very lovely Lilli Palmer as Judy Lansdowne here plays the lady in distress. A woman in need of help and rescue as many others plot against her and try and steal her key to the "door with the seven locks", the seven keys to which when combined will open Lord Selford's tomb containing his family jewels. Banks as Mannetta, along with a creepy atmosphere, a good pace and an exciting climax make this better than you might expect.


Ignore the way this old clunker is marketed on DVD and disregard the American title, "Chamber of Horrors." There's nothing supernatural here and there are no Poe-like thrills. The "horrors" are a collection of old torture devices owned by the main villain, and they don't get much play. The English title gives you a better sense of the movie. You see, there's a door with seven locks which requires seven different keys. An heiress possesses the seventh key, and several unsavory characters will stop at nothing to get it from her.

The trappings of this mystery "thriller" are familiar nowadays mainly from comedies, parodies and cartoons. I especially liked that portrait with the real eyes peering out. I've seen that countless times on "Scooby Doo." Then there's the spooky tomb, secret panels in the wall, sinister servants and so on. Leslie Banks (probably best known for the original "The Man Who Knew Too Much") plays a flamboyant villain, sophisticated yet evil, complete with goatee, cape, a foreign accent of some kind and a pet monkey. This is one of the rare times I've seen this stuff played straight  more or less.

Fortunately, this movie is no more self-serious than "The Lady Vanishes." But don't expect any Hitchcockian suspense here. We have an excellent cast, headed by the beautiful Lilli Palmer and the amusing Banks. Lots of droll dialogue. ("I love frolicking in morgues.") Lots of the aforementioned mystery trappings. But no suspense. The writers haven't the slightest idea how to grab our interest, much less keep it. The director betrays absolutely no flair for this kind of thing. It's all a leaden bore. Go watch "Scooby Doo."


The movie opens with a shot of an old mansion being surrounded by a lightning storm. Could anything be more unoriginal? Opening like that, you know that there isn't going to be much to write home about. All the standard stuff you would expect to find in this kind of a movie is here.

An old and wealthy man (Aubrey Mallalieu) dies, leaving his estate naturally enough to his son, but the inheritance is locked away in the old guy's tomb and seven keys are needed to open it. The man's servants, of course (including a butler, played by Robert Montgomery, who looks vaguely like something that would have fit in nicely with the Addams Family) are convinced that they deserve the inheritance far more than the boy, and they set out to get it.

Basically the story revolves around the search for the missing key, as a woman named June from Canada (Lilli Palmer) turns out to be the heir to the fortune after the son disappears and isn't heard from for several years. She's in a contest with Dr. Mannetta (Leslie Banks) - your typical evil doctor type complete with a monkey who rides around on his shoulders, and who is a collector of torture equipment. Anyway, I found it all rather silly and not really all that interesting, although a bit funny in places. I love the character of Dick Martin (Romilly Lunge) for example. As the movie starts he's handing in his resignation from Scotland Yard when June walks in to the office to report a murder. June's cute, and Martin uses the murder as an opportunity to get a girlfriend. Then, smitten with her as he is - and suspicious of Mannetta as he is - he nevertheless leaves June alone all night in the mansion with Mannetta. It doesn't make much sense, but in a way that fit with the rest of the movie. 3/10


A muddled plot, directed in an extremely middling manner by Norman Lee, yet distinguished by the vibrant Lilli Palmer in the lead role. Mr Lunge's somewhat erratic hero seems as far at sea as the rest of us, but Leslie Banks has himself a grand old time as the villain. He receives some wonderful assistance too from his assistants, particularly Cathleen Nesbitt as a spooky maid of all work and Robert Montgomery as a vampire-visaged servant.

There are some occasions when Messrs Norman Lee, Ernest Palmer and Charles Gilbert manage to overcome an obviously limited budget to produce a few genuine thrills and atmospheric effects. All the same, they manage to work up very little suspense or even a passing interest in the plot. Pedestrian direction is the chief hindrance, but soporifically unfunny comic relief from Gina Malo, Richard Bird and even Mr Lunge himself doesn't help either. In short, this movie amounts to second-rate Edgar Wallace. If you're neither a Palmer or a Banks fan, give it a miss!


this is possibly the most beautiful of the early Lumiere shorts. A boat rows from the front of the screen away from the audience to the back, while to the right, women wait on the port. The camera, as usual, does not move, but the play of sunlight on the waves are gorgeous, and the rippling movement is so vibrant, especially within such a static frame, that it looks like one is watching an actual scene behind glass.

As with 'Demolition d'un mur', the real frisson of the film comes from the unexpected. The scene proceeds as expected, the boat moving steadily along. But, just as it turns, a stronger wave lunges, and almost capsizes the boat. Before we discover what will happen, the reel, and the film, ends. These early films made no precautions for the necessity of extra reels.

But the effect is quite shocking. The unexpected violence is unsettling enough, but with the film over, and loose ends nowhere near being tied up - indeed, just initiated a narrative, in the dying seconds - the audience is left agonising in the dark. What happened next? Inadvertently, the audience is required to imagine for itself, imagine what's not capable of being represented by the cinema, something the Hollywood generic system to come will stamp out. With its daring use of ellipsis, is this the first art-film, the first 'Cat People'?


I'm a huge fan of romantic comedies and when I saw this movie on family channel I instantly loved it.This is not your average romance story but it's filled with humor , love and revenge. Brian Austin Green from Beverly Hills 90210 and Carly Pope made an adorable couple and Sara Rue was funny and brilliant.Once in our lives we dream of going back and changing the past for Melissa Rochester (Pope) that time is now. Back in junior high Mel (Margel)& her best friend Gabby Castellani (MacIssac) were the biggest nerds, she had a huge crush on Drew Hesler (Knox) the school hunk and total jock. When word gets out of her secret crush he plays a cruel and hurtful joke by pretending to be interested only to turn her down and humiliate her in front of the entire school. 11 years later the two girls have transformed into beautiful women, Mel is a PR executive and Gabby (Rue) is a department store clerk. When she's given the task of handling the publicity for a new restaurant she's shocked to discover that the owner is Drew Hesler (Green) her former bully. Gabby comes up with a plan to have him fall in love with Mel and then break his heart just like he did to her. The situation is further complicated when Mel actually falls in love with him.This film totally rocks and in my book it's an adorable romantic comedy 8/10


It's Christmas Eve and everything here in Finland has been closed at midday. So we all have to stay indoors and watch, for example, this movie. Since I was not at my own home when this started, I didn't change the channel. I might not have changed it even at my own home since pretty much every channel was airing some sort of "family" movies in the afternoon.

So, I watched this and then came to IMDb, only to be surprised how many comments (18 before me) it had. I read them all. Half of the seemed to be written by members of the Brian Austin Green Fan Club and not surprisingly those comments had a rating way above the 6.1/10 average this movie has at the time of writing. Also, many comments used the words "adorable" and "cute", somehow mistaking their meaning with "great". Sorry but this is not a great movie.

I won't bother with spoilers since there are none in this movie. This is one of those "13 fits in a dozen" rom-coms where, as one user put it simply: "you know exactly what will happen". This isn't the first time this exact plot has been used. And by "exact plot" I mean the *plot*, not the script. Sure, the setting, dialog and some scenes may be different than in the previous or following iterations of this plot, but the *core* has been used before. Calling this movie "innovative" is an insult to the viewer's intelligence.

The actors (other than the feverishly worshiped B.A. Green) aren't given anything challenging. The fact that two of them used to be in "Popular" (a good series) does not make this movie special. There is only one performance that rises above the average and that is, not surprisingly, that of Sara Rue. Since the rest of the cast are nobodies, I'll comment on the three leads.

Carly Pope: She got me in "Popular". After that show ended, I was sad when she seemed to vanish. Looking at her CV, she actually kinda did. I have seen none of her work between "Popular" and "This Time Around". Past this, I've seen her guest star in "Tru Calling" (1 episode), "Dirt" (6 episodes), "The 4400" (1 ep), "Californication" (2 eps) and "24" (5 eps + the TV movie). It seems she just can't land a regular cast-member status and that surprises me not. Ten years ago her looks were enough for me, but by now I (and probably the casting people) have seen that she really has very little talent.

B.A.G.: His character actually grew in "Beverly Hills, 90210" and he was talented enough (he's not exactly Daniel Day Lewis, is he?) to make the most of it, meaning that when that show was *finally* put out of its misery, he still had good chances at finding a new job. And look at his CV: he already had done ten roles before his first BH2010 episode aired on 4 October 1990. And at the time of writing, he's done just over 40 roles during or after BH90210. That includes a regular cast-member status in four series. Even the end of "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" hasn't left him out of work. That's because he's talented.

Sarah Rue: Back in 1999, you'd have thought that Lesley Bibb, Carly Pope, Tamara Mello and Christopher Gorham would have a great career in front of them. Well, it turns out Bibb too had only her looks (which I did not find appealing) to fall upon, while (the extremely cute) Mello mysteriously vanished and only Gorham made a career for himself. And then there was this kinda plump girl, who surely was destined to be restricted to side roles for the rest of her career. But... Rue (who is really beautiful when her face lightens up the screen) surprised us with her talent. During or after "Popular", she's been in twenty projects, including hit movies like Pearl Harbor, The Ring and a regular cast-member status in two series, while also guest starring in others. That's because she is talented.

Two talented actors can't save a movie with recycled script, bland cinematography, annoying editing - pointless "flashy" speed-ups and crash zooms, childish time-lapse photography and most grating of all, totally superfluous (except for one scene) use of split-screen. And don't even get me started on how generic and uninspired the use of music was.

Bottom line: this is something that you can safely watch while doing something else, since should you miss something, the chances are, you've seen it in some other similar movie and therefore know what you missed. Or rather, was spared from.


Loved it! Could watch it time and again! Great production value...fast editing, music, etc. Loved the cast. Want to buy the DVD if it's available! Carly Pope and her best friend are both good actors. I haven't seen her in anything else, but would like to. I see that Brian Austin Greens new sitcom is sort of a take off on this movie. But Brian plays the opposite role - the bad role - in his sitcom. I think he plays a better nice guy. The producers and directors did a great job with this one! I think many girls and women can relate to this story. Not being noticed when we are young, and then blossoming and getting the guys attention later on.


I'm not normally one for made-for-TV movies, but this one I actually hold close to my heart. It's odd.

The movie is very cute, and very enjoyable. It's a little bit closer to reality (though, the chances of it happening the way it did is a bit far-fetched). Definitely had its funny moments and emotional ones.

The movie suffered a little bit from the script, but then again I tend to be picky when it comes to delivery, so this might just be personal bias. There were also some parts of the movie that weren't explained clearly enough (such as Gabby's admirer and apparently hard-to-get reputation).

I was very fond of the characters, though. Carly Pope, Sara Rue, and Brian Green did a great job. Acted very well--not over the top, yet not apathetic. Very human. I watched the movie three times in a row and I did not get sick of it. There was definitely a lot of "clever" put into the writing as well, such as when Gabby and Mel's plot from preparation to fruition. The romance was definitely very cute and enjoyable, while not being sickening.

All in all, while it should remain as a made-for-TV movie, it's definitely a fun one to watch--a great date movie, if anything else.


This is an awesome TV movie. It contained the return of Brian Austin Green. The music featured in the film was great. It also brought out old bad memories from middle school. That one crush that had a girl-friend that went out of her way to make my life hell. But then they broke up. I ended up being stalked by him and now we rarely speak. Back to the movie. It just shows that you should not judge people by who they were when they were younger but who they are now. You never know who you will fall for. He/she could be someone from your past that you over-looked. Or the evil person that made your life miserable for many years. p.s. Name calling in school is rude, i.e. Pissy Missy


My cousin and I watch this movie all the time! I even recorded it so we could watch it when its not on TV! We think it is so cute and makes you smile! This movie will really cheer you up and takes the side of the girls labeled "uncool" or awkward. The fact that Brian A. Green is totally gorgeous helps, too! he-he. The characters are people you can relate to yourself as you were growing up. The main character Mel goes through complete humiliation, but keeps on going! And her best friend Gabby along the way is totally awesome! This movie also shows that the truth is always better and friendship is really important! I just am in love with this movie! Very adorable!


This was a cute film. By far, the closest to a "film" score soundtrack that I have heard in a television movie. The songs , the score were a perfect blend. Great job and kudos to Eric Allaman.

If the film had a fault, it would have been nice to see a film actor in the role played well by Brian A. Green. It would have kicked the film up another notch. A well done job by all. Something nice on the resume.


I strongly advise anyone who enjoys a nice romantic movie every once in awhile to check this movie out! It was such a cute movie and i don't know why anyone who's into this type of film wouldn't like it. The casting was perfect- and that doesn't always happen with made for TV movies. And as for Brian Green..wow..he was amazing! Any fans of the former Beverly Hills 90210 star is sure to enjoy this flick! It will probably be playing on and off a lot in the next few weeks on ABC Family, so don't miss it. You will definitely not be disappointed!


I'll admit that when I first turned on ABC family at 8 I was a bit skeptical about this movie. It looked like a cute romantic comedy though and there was nothing much on other than an "Alias" repeat and a repeat of the Lifetime show "The Division" so I settled down on my bed to watch it and I was quite surprised at how good it was. The characters worked well, Sarah Rue(I don't know how she spells her name)and Carley Pope both amazed me with their talent. Brian A. Green was somewhat of a new face to me. I had never seen him before in a movie or anything so I was suprised with his performance as well. Overall a good expiernce for a "TV" movie, I think had it been released at the box office it would have been medicore, but TV movies are never as good at box office hits.


This movie, by far, is my favorite romance movie! I watched it with my best friend over the telephone, who is like 1,000 miles away, but we still both cried at the sweetness.

This was a typical "loser girl from middle school gets scorn by the school hottie, then gets her revenge" type movie. Not only teens would enjoy it, adults, too!

This movie seems likely to happen in reality, in such a big city as Chicago. I just must say, the leading man was dead sexy in it, and if the cute plot and great acting isn't enough to make you go out and rent it, ladies, the guys sure is!

This movie made me laugh, cry, and realize that romance needs to be re-introduced to todays men, so boys, take notes, and rent this movie.

There are many reasons for every person to see This Time Around. I myself gave it 10 stars. The acting is great, and the characters are so realistic. You have your (brunette) leading lady, accompanied by her best (brunette) friend, and the evil evil (blonde) woman! You see, all parts to a great movie are there!

So I say, rent this movie, watch it, comment on it, and give it 10 stars, because I sure did. This movie is pure romance, and cute to boot!


This show was a wonderful show. First of all, Andy Griffith. Maybe his shows are too quaint for some...but I loved them. Andy's soft, wise and yet accessible personae is alive and well in this show. Truly he made the show.

But the premise was great too. A home made rocket ship to salvage space junk. What a great idea. The show worked too. I watched this show with my family (I was in Jr HS a the time) and it proved to be a show that we all enjoyed equally. We were, as a family, very disappointed when this show was canceled.

I imagine that it had more to do with budget or keeping main cast members in place than popularity. While the show did not pull down top rating honors...it was the show that my friends and I would always get together and talk about in school.


I can NOT understand why this Show was cancelled it was the greatest Show on TV at the time.

There had to be a good reason to cancel it.

I remember watching this Program when I was in Military Service in West Germany.

I did not like it when it was cut off.

There has to be some one out there that would know.

I've always liked Andy he can play any part they have.

Don knots would have been good in this show too.

I guess this one was for the Science types.

And Back then the science types were the called nerds.

Great Show


An old house, which has a terrible story behind it. Is taken over by an elderly couple, and the spirit of a murdered girl possesses the mistress's young companion from time to time. But it takes awhile for the occupants of the house to pick up on it, as they think that the strange happenings are caused by their staff and don't think too much of it. That's until they learn more about the tragic history of the house and come to accept that they share the estate with a depressed spirit.

RKO studios turn out a nicely made ghost story, which holds a certain amount of charm, and on show is a beautifully elegant production. Although saying that, it not terribly thick in depth. A lot of things are totally glazed over, with certain plot details being pushed aside or briskly concluded. Meaning it does lack tension in parts and the mystery of the house does get rather bogged down to be totally effective. It leans more towards drama/mystery and adds a romance story, than really showing anything horrifying or drumming up suspense. Although there's one scene that stands out from the rest towards the end it's a neat twist to end it off with. But nonetheless it's a family drama with light touches of horror, where the awkward love sub-plot seems to make the ghost story play second fiddle to it. Which is too bad, as there's a mystery around every turn with the strange occurrences building up slowly from our mysterious ghost. I just wished it shared a bit more focus on it.

Overall, it's a polished effort with the house being the centrepiece, (sometimes you could easily tell it was small model) and the disquieting nature of the building fills the atmosphere. There's no real score other than for the thriving one in the intro and ending credits. Well, you got one of your characters playing the piano in the film. But I thought it benefited from not having one run throughout the film. The photography was rather outstanding, especially the moving angles throughout the house.

Bernard Knowles directs a simple, but yet slightly engrossing picture that has a solid plot (if rather slow going), with a tight script and exceptional performances from the likes of James Mason and Barbara Mullen.


It's a little quaint by today's standards, but the writing is witty and the cinematography is excellent. More than that, it's an opportunity to see a 36 year old James Mason acting in a role where he ages 25 years. This was the one Gainsborough film he actually wanted to make, although he had hit the top of the charts with other Gainsborough Gothics such as The Wicked Lady and The Man in Grey. I was rather astonished at his ability to transform his extraordinary brooding good looks into those of a kindly, elderly gentleman with a twinkle in his eye. His gait, voice, and body movements so fitted the role of the elderly man, I believe he could have fooled me without all the makeup.


I just loved this movie. It kept my interest in a most peculiar way, and it took me nearly to the end of the picture before I figured it out. None of the key scenes were ever emphasized with dramatic music swelling up, down, or out....anywhere. In fact, it did not have any music except for the piano playing in one scene. Most unusual. This movie came across almost as "play-like", without the typical "movie" accents. Very different, very good. The only drawback, if you can really call it that, was the distraction of James Mason made up to be a man much older than his original years when he made this. The make up artist utilized a lot of "spirit-gum" that was used around his face, and unfortunately, it is noticeable in many scenes. But don't let that deter you from seeing this wonderful film!


A psychological thriller maybe, but not a "horror" movie!

An elderly couple move into a house that's been empty for years. Naturally the reason it's been empty for so long is because everyone has heard the tale about the ghost that haunts it......many years ago a young girl lived there, with just 2 servants to look after her after her parents died, and when the girl too died, the servants (a married couple) were bequeathed her fortune; as was her wish for their kindness. But when a young girl (Margaret Lockwood) comes to live with the Smedhurst couple as companion for the wife, the soul of the dead girl takes over her mind, leading her to madness and near certain death.

Quite exciting, but marred by a few dull scenes. Good ending though!


Retired British couple in 1900 Newborough purchase a large estate at a low price and hire a live-in lady companion, who quickly comes under the influence of the previous resident: a young girl who some say was murdered. Osbert Sitwell's book turned into stuffy costume drama with divergent accents. In 1945, many professional critics found themselves enraptured with the plot, but time has not been kind to it. Other, later pictures mining this territory have improved upon the ghostly basics. James Mason, too young for his role and heavily made-up, keeps shouting as if everyone else had gone deaf, while the supporting players are equally colorless. *1/2 from ****


I had always been interested in watching this well-regarded British ghost story  but was still pretty much blown away by it, being generally deemed too low-key for complete success. The film (the U.K. equivalent to THE UNINVITED [1944]) is notable for James Mason's playing of a character role much older than his 36 years; he's fine as always, but is matched by Barbara Mullen as his wife  and the whole proves a nice showcase, too, for the young Dennis Price as a doctor. The latter falls for and eventually treats Margaret Lockwood, Mullen's ingénue companion  who, on the old couple's inexpensive acquisition of a fashionable but notorious country-house, becomes possessed by the spirit of the latest female occupant (she had been ill-treated by both masters and servants and would die separated from her lover, another medic). Directed by a former cinematographer (his debut and unquestionably best effort), the period atmosphere is exceedingly well deployed throughout  thanks to Stephen Dade's probing camera-work and the elegant production design, particularly the mansion's interior. There are few genuine scares, yet the film generates some definite frissons along the way: Lockwood, a mediocre pianist at best, suddenly playing a piece faultlessly in front of guests; the girl's spontaneous quotation from a poem she readily admits to being unfamiliar with; and, especially, her close encounter with an unseen entity (woken up by the piano mysteriously playing at night, we hear its lid being violently shut when she enters the room, followed by the camera's swift panning  suggesting something had gone past her  and then hushed voices plotting murder in the hallway). Also worth mentioning in this regard, however, are the enigmatic 'orders' given to the old couple as well as the gardener (a surprising straight turn from comedian Will Hay's frequent sparring partner Moore Marriott) respectively requesting a certain doctor's presence and the unearthing of a locket (subsequently cleaned just as inexplicably). Eventually, the former lovers do get together one more time  the girl obviously in Lockwood's form and the medic now reduced to an old man (played by none other than Ernest Thesiger, whose entrance here towards the end of the film is almost as impressive as the one in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935])  but, tellingly, the camera cuts away at this precise moment, as if we what they had to say was meant for their ears only!; following this, there is a twist involving Thesiger's character  which I actually predicted, but it certainly adds to the poignancy of the reunion. All in all, a little gem of a film displaying plenty of brooding style but also surprising warmth (not a feeling one usually associates with ghost stories).


Well this movie was made in the mid 80-ies, where this glorious duo began to get older & slower. In this movie (I think the "brawling two" is still working here, but it's not that great as in the earlier years, decades.

Here they use guns many times, not something we got used to in the earlier movies. The story isn't really good, sometimes it's not really making sense. *Like the scene with the fingerprints. Why didn't Spencer and Hill take the fingerprints? The bad guy even said he will do it ?! That would've been the proof*

And some scenes are pretty trashy. But there are still good jokes, I laughed many times, it's worth a watch, but they had many better movies.(But worse as well, so this is somewhere in between)


Terence Hill and Bud Spencer star as, respectively, a New York cop (!) and an ex-FBI agent (!) who team up again after several years and go to Miami to track down the killer of an infamous robber who had just gotten released from prison. They're supposed to be working undercover, but I don't see anything "undercover" about wearing police uniforms and patroling the streets in a police car. The film is undemanding but technically shoddy (their superior only has to casually press two or three computer keys and they have any information they need to get on with the case), with some of the lamest, laziest fight scenes ever filmed (punches don't connect, opponents strike as if they want to miss, etc.). Contrary to what other people say, I don't think that any movie with Bud and Terence can be completely bad - but this one admittedly comes pretty close. (*1/2)


Hey senor! The 80's were and will be one of the best decades,if not the BEST century in the history of this pathetic planet. The movies were good, the music was good, the environment was good,life was less fast paced and more relaxed and definitely they don't make greats like Buddy and Terry anymore!! Nowadays movies are filled with gory and mindless violence and inane predictable computer graphics. Why even a 2 yr old kid can make a movie these days. There does not appear to be any creativity in todays movies. I grew up in the 80's and I must say i thoroughly enjoyed a lot. There were many good themes to choose from unlike todays vapid fare!!


this movie was the first ever i saw at the drive-in and even if i was 7 years old , it was an exceptionable film.even if it is an 80's,you have to look further than special effects to like or love this movie.the acting is simple , so is the storyline , if you saw the first one , and the fight scenes are human.it's the best of the film of the duo,and no one should destroy them before seeing the rest.you have to accept the fact of the budget they had and also the music in wave at the time.the in sync of the fight was a choreography to make ballet cheap.and do not forget that it was shot in Italian first,they had to transcript all of the scenario.i just think it was a gem.


Vote isn't for this movie, but the original team of hill and Spencer in the Trinity days, cm-on you got to admit to actually make fun of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, and still have some good gunfighting, it was great. If your looking for cinematography, sound mixing, etc... Go to your local art Indie film house, where it will look beautiful and make no sense at all. But its so avant guard, kinda like feces on a mat called art. Please don't waste your time with my attacking me personally as seen in the past on this board, its a matter of opinion, I don't like art type films, my personal opinion. If you do, and can understand them, then maybe we'll go sometime and I can learn to understand and enjoy, in fact I am always looking to broaden my horizons, in fact just ever get a chance to watch Dexter on show-time, now that will make you think.


This film does not show Bud and Terence at their best. The combination of awful acting, awful wigs and superbly irritating synthesizer music all combine to make this film an effort in endurance to stay watching.

I'm not sure where this comes in the Bud/Terence line up of movies, but, much like the early plot where the two characters team up again for one final mission, this movie has the feel of a movie made after the heyday of the pair. Perhaps even a film made to reunite the two actors in the hope of regaining the magic of the pairing.

Whatever the reason, it doesn't work. The film is a mess and the acting by the non-principals is just plain dire. You know the sort of thing - advertisement acting quality. Add in the lamentably obvious hairpieces, which might as well have had neon "WIG!" signs above each of them and dubbing which, whilst OK in the main, only serves to remind you that it is, in fact, dubbing and you have the recipe for an 80's movie disaster.

Unfortunately, the disaster becomes a calamity of epic proportions when the music is factored in. Some bad films benefit from a synthesizer soundtrack - Hawk the Slayer, for instance - but here, the repetitive and, it has to be said, mindless chord sequences only jar the nerves. Anyone who's ever played an arcade machine from the eighties will quickly recognize the type of "music" that becomes increasingly annoying the more you have to listen to it whilst trying to complete that difficult level.

As for the plot, I was too busy gaping open-mouthed at all the wrongness on display to really pay it much heed. Some hokum about the pairing teaming up again to complete a previously unfinished mission......hmmm....the arcade machine analogy again. And, much like those "difficult-to-complete" games, this movie depends for its completion on how many mental "dimes" you have left to put into it. It really is an exercise in endurance.

I expect fans of the duo will like it nonetheless, but it isn't a patch on "My Name is Nobody" and, like so many other films of the time, it really shows its age now.

Summary: Mindless "Miami Vice wannabee" music, hack acting, awful wigs and so-so dubbing. Not recommended except for the most stalwart of fans.


I have to admit, writing about this movie is kind of sad. But there is one thing I have to say upfront. Don't watch it in German, because what they speak there has nothing to do with the original.. Which I, by the way could not figure out in what language it was made, but I guess it was Italian. At the beginning you see Bud Spencer flying in a helicopter, if you switch to English his voice and the lips are in complete sync.. as for Terence Hill you have to switch to Italian to get the perfect sync, but aside from that let's begin: Well they are both pretty were getting older.. Bud was 56 at the time and Terence was 46. If you don't watch it in German, Miami Supercops is the only movie of them where there is a real big Plot and only one big fight at the end. But even without the stupid German dubbing, where every sentence has to be funny there are a few very, very funny scenes.. And this movie has, as I said a plot, pretty complex for Bud/Terence Standards... (Oh, and If you look above, you'll see that on the amazon board it says that it's not available in Germany on DVD. That's an Error. It is under the name, under which it was released in Germany back in 85: Miami Cops, available on DVD for 10,95 Euro)... Since I don't have to tell you what the movie is about.. You can read that in the details of the movie just let me say: It's by for not their worst movie. The music is appropriate to the mid-80's (kinda like Miami Vice).. Well it's an o.k. Movie and well worth the 10,95 Euro at Amazon.de .. To best describe it.. A funny Action Thriller.. And the last with both Actors in it.. And now I don't think they will act together again.. So if you wanna get only one movie of them, get that one.. (It's both of them and only 1 real big stupid fight) Or if you like the fights you can get any of the others... ANY!!! But you see that they are both tired of making their movies.. But if you check for them you will see that they both made something after their "Buddy Movies". Well, I like it. Oh and you can watch it in German if you are real drunk.. Then you will laugh like hell.. That's about it.. Can't thing about more to say about this movie Stephan


Probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Apparently Terence and Bud can make any movie bad but this is the rock bottom. Try to avoid this film.


This was the first Bud Spencer/Terence Hill movie I saw and it is probably the last.I just wanted to experience it since it is a very famous formula.The quality is inferior though.Everything that made the 80's such a terrible decade is in this movie.

First of all there is the terrible 80's synthesizer music,it really is a nightmare to hear.The repetitive sounds are so awful that at one point you're only thinking about the mute button.The 80's were not famous for their musical quality (except for Sonic Youth which is brilliant) but this is really the lowest of the low!

The acting is not much better,Spencer and Hill try but they just can't act.The supporting cast isn't any better,even worse! The story doesn't make any sense and is full of holes and dead end streets.

Not a recommendation! 3/10


The story begins in 1999, with an old gangster performed by Malcolm McDowell being advised that Freddie Mays (David Thewlis) would leave jail after thirty years in prison. His mood changes and he recalls 1968, when he was a young punk (performed by Paul Bettany), and he joined Freddie Mays' gang, his envy of his mob boss and his betrayal. The whole story of these two characters is presented slowly, alternating violent and luxury places and action. I liked this movie a lot. I would dare to say that it mixes 'Goodfellas', 'Casino', 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Reservoir Dogs'. Paul Bettany has a great performance as a psycho-killer: differently of those sadists in Hollywood movies that make grimaces, the simple look and expression of Paul Bettany is enough to terrify the viewer. The direction is great, and there is one specific scene that I appreciated very much. When Freddie Mays invites Paul Bettany's character to have a drink in a nightclub: Freddie is giving his overcoat to the attendant and the image of Paul Bettany is reflected in the glass of the door exactly over Freddie. The selection of Paul Bettany for this role is perfect, but why not ages him through make-up? Malcolm McDowell looks totally different from Paul Bettany! My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Os Gangsters" ("The Gangsters")


Its easy to see why people think this film is over violent and trying to shock, but then thats because they just don't get the finer nuances.

This film is Excellent. The direction is amazing and Bettany, Thewlis and McDowell are all superb. The film runs from the point of view of the main character, Gangster, He shows how he got to the top of his game to be Gangster No1. All of the violence in the film makes a valid point some of it is horrific, none of it is unnecessary. The film also comments on the social avarice that penetrates our society, wealth, power and fame, I think the points it makes are truly justified.

Why do some people dislike this film? They are uncomfortable with people being portrayed as being comfortable with violence, and thats because the director wants you to be, and because the Actors are so good at it. The film freaked me out in two scenes and there was no violence just excellent direction and Acting.

Well worth watching, well worth buying on DVD.


Wing Commander was one of the first real interactive movies when the third installment was released in 94, it pushed the boundaries for graphics, acting and storyline into uncharted heights for a video game. Critics argued that the game was just a movie in disguise, now 5 years later the movie is finally here.

I had fairly high expectations for this movie, since Chris Roberts the creator of the original game series, spearheaded the project. The storyline of the games could have easily been adapted to fit a full length movie, but instead they opted to change almost everything.

The acting isn't great, although it's not downright awful - it's close. The characters are very stale, making it hard for viewers to relate to them. A central character could be killed off and you wouldn't really care, the emotional flow from the screen to the viewer is virtually nonexistent.

As almost every one else has pointed out, the ships! they look like WWII fighters, and the carrier looks like a submarine - what's up with that ???

I can only think of one positive thing in this movie: the state of the ships, no chrome and gloss, they looked beat up and worn out, kind of like the millennium falcon in Star Wars... but that's it.

Wing Commander stands as one of the few epic computer games. As a movie on the other hand, it's not worth remembering.


Having just watched this movie for a second time, some years after my initial viewing, my feelings remain unchanged. This is a solid sci-fi drama that I enjoy very much. What sci-fi elements there are, are primarily of added interest rather than the main substance of the film. What this movie is really about is wartime conflict, but in a sci-fi setting. It has a solid cast, from the ever reliable David Warner to the up and coming Freddie Prinze Jr, also including many British TV regulars (that obviously add a touch of class :), not forgetting the superb Tcheky Karyo. I feel this is more of an ensemble piece than a starring vehicle. Reminiscent of WWII films based around submarine combat and air-combat (the fighters seem like adaptations of WWII Corsairs in their design, evoking a retro feel) this is one of few American films that I felt was not overwhelmed by sentiment or saccharine. The sets and special effects are all well done, never detracting form the believability of the story, although the Kilrathi themselves are rather under developed and one dimensional. This is a film more about humanity in conflict rather than a film about exploring a new and original alien race or high-brow sci-fi concepts. Forget that it's sci-fi, just watch and enjoy.


That Movie is not a great production but gives interesting lighting to some mankind old Obsessions.

1st : The Plot is a view of man's race against time.(42 hours to save Mankind)

2nd : The Relationship between the crew, underlines man's rejection of the difference. (Blair is a Half-Pilgrim, and so is Paladin) One claims it, and is rejected, the other one Behaves all the contrary but is just similar in the end (Keeping distance).

3rd : The Place chosen for the plot shows man fascination for new Frontiers. With new Frontiers, Man find new enemies, and this disguises that the Enemy is inside. Untolerance of the difference. Mankind wants a Universe for her, on her model.

Everything seems nice, but I have a regret, the Production thought it would be better to target a public of teenagers, and this cost that movie Perfect rating.

Yours sincerely.

Jan.


Wing Commander is a senseless, unfunny, yet satirical look at naval war movies and all of movie-making in general. Make no mistake though, this movie is an excellent tool for young budding directors how NOT to make a movie. Every pitfall and trap you would want to know is displayed here in its sheer and gratuitous ugliness. Everything from bad research, lousy camera work, incompetent handling of bad actors, and the worst of all crimes, HACKING successful movies to cover for your own lack of experience. By all means watch and learn.

By the way, to any of you people who keep bringing up this inane and silly argument that Wing Commander is a "popcorn" film, please take your own advice. There's about as much entertainment you can derive from Wing Commander as watching someone run their head into a wall. Call it brainless? Indeed it is.


You know, I would be just as content if they took the film used for the games, reditted it and added modern special effects and released it into theaters. Hell I liked Mark Hamil as Blair better than Skywalker. He was cool and support from Maniac played by Tom Wilson (Biff Back to the Future) you can't beat that. I was so thrilled to see the movie coming out, accepting that it is the original story from the first game so Blair would be young enough to be played by someone like Freddie Prinz Jr. I was horrified to the inaccuracies of the movie. First off, Admiral Tolwyn?! NO! He was only Captain at the time and only made Admiral prior to Wing Commander III. And he was played by Malcom McDowell orginally. He was perfect for the role. Not to say David Warner is a bad actor, cause he is great, but no, you can't replace McDowell in that role. Keeping on Wing Commander III, the skipper missile was an experimental weapon used by the Kilrathi at the end of the war. It wasn't even a concept yet at the time Blair was a rookie. The cloaked "phantom fighters" that made their debut in Wing Commander II would still have been in development at the time of the movie, let alone well known skipper missiles for the first movie. Additionally, the Concordia was a new Confed Dreadnaught, brand new by Wing Commander II. Perhaps in service only a short while. She was old and dirty in the movie, and so was the Tiger Claw. Another thing, Paladin was played by John-Rys Davies in the game, and they picked some guy who just didn't measure up. And what is with the whole pilgrim thing? That wasn't in the game at all!? I heard someone else speak about the relationship between Blair and the senior officers on the Tiger Claw as being inaccurate. I am more in tune with the later Wing Commander Games, so I can't testiy to that. I gave one point because the kid that played Maniac in the movie I could see turning into Tom Wilson. But Freddie Jr. No, sorry. He is no Blair. I pretend this movie never happened. I will forgive Chris Roberts if he wants to make a new game or try again with the movie this time using original cast from the game. And I mean no substitutes. Call Hamil and Wilson, McDowell, Davies and everyone else.

That's my two cents. I did like the soundtrack.


"Der Eisbar" is by far the greatest surprise in german postwar film production. Directed by the emerging Mr. Till Schweiger, who usually plays the protagonist in many european movies (like the upcoming Star Trek, Star Wars bashing satire from Bulli Herbig after Manitou´s Shoe) Imagine Brad Pitt doing a great road track movie... This work feels like "PULP FICTION" on steroids- Cramped with german TV and movie stars this movie blows a heavy punch. It has everything from satire, jokes below the belt -absolutely political incorrect, fast cut scenes, a furious and hilarious plot (the killing of the "Minister of Health" -the mafia mob boss). Anybody outside Germany will have dramatic problems understanding those jokes due to the appearance of well known german faces (like the american diner boss -the star comedian Tom Gerhardt and the country song idol Peter Maffay). Even if you are not acquainted with the star parade, the story is wonderfully told. The whole thing resembles a half breed- Altmans "Short Cuts" and Quentins "Pulp Fiction" We wish there would be a chance for a second or a third Eisbär Movie...


Til Schweiger in one of his best roles. Nearly forgotten german music gives the proper sound providing the amusing plot of the film directed by Til himself. All in all it is worth seeing it more than just one time so enjoy the atmosphere which will catch you in any case.


DER EISBAER is the first movie German mega-star Til Schweiger directed, and starred in. Seen when it premiered in Germany in November of '98, I accompanied all the avant premiere buzz surrounding the film and Schweiger's career moves, and even attended one of the premieres Schweiger hosted at the new Potsdamer Platz Cinemaxx. This action drama with a relationship story lived up to all the hype, and exceeded my inflated expectations. If you are a Schweiger fan or a an action drama lover, don't miss DER EISBAER when it comes out on video or if it opens outside Europe. Schweiger has come a long way since DER BEWEGTE MANN ("Maybe, Maybe Not"), and in the process has single-handedly brought German cinema back to the masses after a half century of domination by the high brow author directors (Herzog, Fassbinder, Wenders) who made German cinema synonymous with boredom, and inaccessibility with the masses. Since 1994, Schweiger starrers have broken German Box Office Records consistently. Here, though this film did not break the Box Office Records of the others (including MAENNERPENSION and KNOCKIN' ON HEAVEN'S DOORS), he shows us in more dimensions why he has been the phenomenon of popular German cinema this past decade, and probably beyond 2000. I give DER EISBAER 8 out 10 points.


The film is a real light one - but I found it very funny. You get to see a bunch of well - known German actors that tell a story that is foreseeable, but the good thing of the film isn't the story, it's how it's told. The quality of the actors that take part in this movie was only possible because they are friends in real life and didn't see the movie as a commercial product in the first place. They did it for fun, and so get to see an uncomplicated movie played by actors you usually wouldn't see in such a movie - and in such a concentration.

Gangsters that threaten gangsters, policeman chase all the gangsters, some want money, some want vengeance, some just want to have fun.

The acting is very convincing, and the behavior of the characters is sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. Furthermore, the type of the characters is very different and sometimes quite extreme.

I like the movie very much. It may not be perfect, but after all I always like to watch the film when it's shown in TV every few years.


I've just "Der Eisbär" and do not quite understand why so many people dislike this movie. Due to that I did not have any high expectations it is true that this movie tries a little too hard to become a cult classic and that some jokes do not really work out (as the phone ringing a couple of times when the hit-man is just about to kill some fellow) but on the other hand there are some brilliant scenes. The burger robbery for an example is one of the moments in which the movie's concept really works out. Schwaiger's performance is not over the edge but he does a good Job. Ralf Richter is brilliant as always. The story has some weaknesses but somehow one does not really care as it is not the aim of the movie to tell the backgrounds of the story. I reckon it's quite a good movie and if you don't go to see this with the expectation of watching another "Bang Boom Bang" you won't be disappointed.


Why would anyone think he can steal from Woody Allen? Every gesture in this trifle is ripped from Allen's work. This is even down to the male protagonist running along a city street to meet the female protagonist (to set all right).The male protagonist believes fresh air is harmful. The film has the characters doing little silly things togetherthings that are not charming or funny.How did the production company get actors to participate in his mess? This movie is a disgrace. It is worst than dreadful. It ought to go into a vault with the door welded shut. I wish there were a score lower than one.The cab ride to the airport is the worst part of the movie (that is spoiler alert.)There are even slurs on L.A.


When I was only six, my mother and father sent my older brother to

take me to watch the Olson and Johnson routine at a New York

City nightclub called THE CARNIVAL. I had been aware of the

antics of the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and

Costello, but now I could see first hand the live slapstick of

involved comedy.

The film "Crazy House" is a perfect example of keeping the wild art

of updated slapstick alive on film. It is an update of the pie

throwing of early silents and the progression from Charlie Chaplin

to Charlie Chase. This film even has small roles for all the lesser

known comics of that era. Their roles in this movie are much the

same as the bit inserts into "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World".

For those a little bit younger than myself, this film would be called

the progenitor of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh In", a TV series that ran

from 1968-1973.

All I can say is, "If you want to see the visualization of one liners as

presented in the 1940's try and get to see this film". In the short

while, watch "Laugh In" reruns and prep yourself for a look back

into comedy history.


I recently saw this film with Quentin Tarantino's introduction to this film on video tape from Trio. Quentin goes on about how Mel Brooks lifted a good chunk of the premise of this movie for Silent Movie. While the basic idea is the same, down on their luck film makers try to sign big stars for their up coming film, the results are decidedly different. Brooks played it pretty much as a straight film, while Olsen and Johnson used it as an excuse to do silly things with famous people. I prefer the pure insanity of Olsen and Johnson's take.

This is one of the best films that Olsen and Johnson ever made, even if it has one really big problem (which I'll get to in a minute). This is pure Olsen and Johnson insanity. Its a film where anything can happen, usually the silliest of all possible options. Its wild and wacky with Olsen and Johnson acting as steam rollers over Hollywood and the studio system. When the comedy is happening its a rapid fire collection of jokes and gags that never seem to stop.

Or rather stop a bit too often. The one really big problem I was talking about is that the comedy and the madness stops every couple of minutes for a musical interlude. These interludes pretty much stop the movie dead since any of the momentum thats been built up comes crashing to a halt. Most of the numbers are played straight so its a radical shift in tone that really annoyed the heck out of me. (Actually the numbers aren't bad they just belong in a different film) I know that the numbers are the result of this being one of those "studio" films where everyone in the studio appears partly as part of the story, but also as an advertisement for themselves and what ever movie they are currently promoting. (Hollywood turned these out every now and again often to mixed results)

Music aside I really like this movie. If you want to see Olsen and Johnson in great form this is a good choice to make.


Olsen & Johnson go to Universal Studios to film their successor to Hellzapoppin', while everyone at the studio runs for cover. Since no one at the studio will back them, O&J decide to return to Miracle Pictures to get their film started. Since O&J can get no bankable stars, they decide to do the novel approach of having a film w/ new faces including singer Marjorie Nelson (who happens to catch the eye of director Ed MacLean). When films creditors find out that O&J's backer is an eccentric sort who thinks he's a millionaire broker, they put an injunction on the film, and its up to Olsen & Johnson to prove their case in court to save the film. Probably this film was on the same page w/ the WC Fields film, Never Give a Sucker an Even Break with the plot of the comedian(s) trying to film the movie. Olsen & Johnson are up to their same antics again, but after the opening scene of the Universal lot running for cover, the film can't maintain the pace of that scene or what made Hellzapoppin a laugh riot. The musical numbers are nice, but there just seems to be so many in the film, that this is a jukebox film more than a comedy. Still the film has many funny moments and is a sure treat. Rating, 7.


This was probably one of the better "Ernest" movies in that it moves fast which means it's pretty entertaining without being too stupid, as some of Jim Varney movies were. However, even this you can except a lot of "stupid" but some of that is part of Varney's charm as the lovable "Ernest P. Worrell," a man he made famous first with TV commercials and then with a handful of inane-but- Innocent comedies.

This 100-minute film would have much better chopped to 80 or 85 because there are some legitimate laugh-out-loud scenes. Varney does a lot of impressions, some of which are very good. The two nerdy salesmen in here are also funny. As with all the "Ernest" films, there is nothing really offensive in here. Today, this could almost be rated "G."