Eddie Quillan was an odd choice to play the lead in this detective film because he was essentially a small smart-allecky little pip-squeak--not the brilliant or studly hero you'd expect to see in this type of film. Because of this, the film certainly IS unusual. The problem is that even with this novel portrayal, the film isn't all that interesting or well-done. At best it's a mediocre time-passer and not the equal of other series detective B-films from the period. For my time, I would much rather watch a Charlie Chan, Saint or Sherlock Holmes film--they seemed to have better production values and writing as well as a leading man that was more likable. Sorry,...I just didn't particularly care for this film.

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as the Chinese Mandarin stamp that is worth a fortune--this was made up for the film.


Eddie Quillan gives one of his worst performances as Ellery Queen.

The plot involves the theft of a rare stamp and the murders that occur in its wake. Quillan, as Queen gets involved with the mystery after he meets the owner when she arrives in New York by boat.

The mystery itself is fine. I can even live with the cheapness of the production (nothing looks real). What I can't stand are the performances, no one in this cast with the exception of Frank Pangborn gives anything remotely like a performance. Can't anyone on screen act? I guess not. The worst offender is Quillan who turns Ellery Queen into an insufferable twit. I wanted to smack him. Charming or disarming he's not. He ruins what could have been an okay bad movie.

I hate this movie, I hate it a great deal.


Not so much a picturisation of Ellery Queen's 1934 The Chinese Orange Mystery, this flick is a take on Paramount's 1933 Alice in Wonderland, with Miss Henry snugly and smugly repeating her part as the innocent abroad, while Eddie Quillan makes impotent if cheeky woo as the bungling knight. Alas, although the knight's role is little more than a cameo in Alice, the writers here have mercilessly expanded the part, even though it meant treading on the lines of more capable players like break-your-heart Rita La Roy (a most engaging and super-attractively regal young duchess) and Kay Hughes' pleasing Cheshire Cat who, as we might expect, disappears from the action, alas, for long spells. We are left too often with Wade Boteler's far too bellicose Mad Hatter, and are also forced to suffer far too much tiresome comic relief from Tweedledum's Franklin Pangborn, although admittedly William Newell's occasional input as Tweedledee is just about right.

Worse still, Ralph Staub (who squeezed maybe a dozen feature assignments in between his excruciating "Screen Snapshots" series) has handled TMM in a mercilessly heavy-handed and thoroughly routine style that totally smothers every latent spark of wit in a screenplay that was none too promising to begin with.

Miserable production values don't help either. Even the sound recording was way below par in the DVD I viewed recently. It was so muffled, I missed half the dialogue. But after all, maybe that was an asset!


As a reader of EQ mysteries, and a collector of his films, I have to say that this is the absolute WORST in the entire series!

EQ, far from being a "master detective", is portrayed as a bumbling fool who continually gets in his father's way.

Not only that, but the background music in this film is totally UNRELATED to the action....it's as if someone off-screen turned on a radio and let it play while the movie was being shot.

Pass on this one!


1st watched 4/5/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Andrea Bianchi): Godfather-like Italian movie without good acting, directing or writing. The title will fool you(at least the U.S. released video title-Cry of a Prostitute) because this movie has very little to do about a prostitute except that she is a minor character that pretends to be the wife of one of the many `Don's' in this movie. This is just a way to get people in the U.S. to rent the video. The story is actually about a man who plays the game with many mafia-type gangs and ends up being the top honcho in the end. It's very obvious where this movie is going, but there was some interesting things like seeing the actual reason for the family feuds(centering around the mis-treatment of a handicapped boy in one family) that became mafia's and seeing the reality of their real business's that become crooked by entering drugs into the business. The emotionless Henry Silva does an ok job in his part but most of the acting was not memorable. Watching this makes me want to see the Godfather, to see how much better it is in it's storytelling and acting. Not a good reason to give this a thumbs up, though.


In this movie, the national airline in Zingaro has a great airplane, a two-engined Convair from the 1950s. They don't make 'em anymore. I mean the airplane, not the movie. They make movies like this all the time.

A mega corporation wants the mineral rights in an African country ruled by a ruthless dictator. So the corporation organizes a private army to invade the nation, kill the dictator, and install a business-friendly dictator in his place. (Is that far fetched, or what?) Christopher Walken is hired to organize the mercenary army. They do their job, except that, at the end, in an ironic coda, they substitute a more independent president who will now rule his country with compassion.

The film could have been written by a committee of MBAs who have figured out what the bottom line is. Whatever the bottom line turned out to be it was surely preceded by a dollar sign. The plot goes kind of in this order: intrigue, a little teaser of violence, more intrigue, a little completely irrelevant sex, more intrigue, the introduction to a couple of particularly lethal and ugly guns, and a violent shoot out full of explosions. The climactic violence assumes the familiar form of a handful of courageous and supremely skilled military types attacking a garrison of disorganized native troops. (Cf., "Predator," inter alia.) One of the mercenaries is killed through an excess of pity. The number of dead garrison troops is uncountable. Walken himself cold-bloodedly and deliberately shoots two unarmed men. It's a happy ending though because the guy who finally sits on the throne is a doctor and an idealist, and we are compelled to hope he remains that way instead of discovering that, hey, it's good to be the king.

I haven't read Frederick Forsyth's novel on which this movie is based but I can't believe it's the sloppy lash up job that the movie is. Forsyth's details are usually exquisite. When you finish one of his novels you're likely to know how to rig up a bomb that will explode only when the car hits a bump.

That was the beauty of Fred Zinneman's "The Day of the Jackal." How to commit identity theft, for instance. Here, all of that tedious business is skipped over. Walken is able to board a freighter posing as a seaman. Where did he get his credentials? Who knows. The producers don't care and we're not supposed to care either. We never heard of forged passports.

Just before the invasion, the mercenaries are together going over the attack plan one last time and when they are done, Walkin raises his fist and shouts the name of the dictator they are about to murder and the other soldiers echo his gesture. And, mind you, these are supposed to be heroes, and we are expected to identify with them. Why don't they raise their fists and cry, "Money!"

Not that pelf is the primary motive. What kind of person is willing to kill strangers and risk his own life for money? How do you murder someone whom you don't know and against whom you have nothing? And how do you think of yourself as a better man for having done it? Are there many of them around? I mean in the private sector? There must be some. There is Executive Outcomes, and there is at least enough of an audience of fantasists to support a magazine designed for mercenaries, "Soldier of Fortune." Of course we all seek self satisfaction through doing something that we know we can do well. The Germans called it Funktionslust. It may be innate in higher organisms. But this goes way past self satisfaction. Dignity elevated beyond pride into grandiosity.


...this movie no doubt severely disappointed most Forsyth fans. It had very little to do with the book. It seems that (as usual) some Hollywood wonk, noting that the novel was a best-seller, gave some hack the basic premise from the back-cover blurb and got him to make something up that would appeal to Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. The result? A cliché-ridden B-movie. Forsyth must have been livid.

It's competently handled (for such an old film it holds up amazingly well), but what presumption! The original story was just fine. What made them think that their version would be better?

Pity they didn't have the sense to hire Kenneth Ross to do the screenplay. He'd already done two of Forsyth's other books (Day of the Jackal and Odessa File), and at least made the effort to be faithful to the originals.


What a disappointment! Forsyth's book is one of his more varied, in terms of characters as well as in visual terms. Unhappily, the scriptwriters pretended that they knew better than Forsyth how to tell a story, and they got rid of the mining guy's story, of old Manson's greed and of young Manson's lust, and of the tribal question story, in exchange for a meaningless story about Shannon's wife, and the one of the pain-in-the-ass journalist who gets killed, which distracts the spectator's attention. As a result, the special effects/explosion specialist is given a free hand in a pitiful attempt to fill the holes in the story with smoke and fire... Walken is great, as always,locations are good, but they are no reason to avoid films scripted by Gary DeVore and/or George Malko in the future.Yiiiik! Don't see the film, read the book.


Every scene of this movie hit you over the head with the fact that it was - indeed - a movie. I could never believe that Walken was a hardbitten mercenary anymore than I could believe that a tinhat dictator would be so easily overthrown, or so given to fits of cowardice.

And the battle scenes all seemed to be exactly what a movie version of war would look like. Lots of carefully placed explosives, lots of propane torches to simulate fire, and lots of schmaltzy acting in all the death and dying.

And then the film just sorta ends with little or no real conclusion. The fight was over and the credits rolled up. Ho hum. Why did they bother?


Recap: Jamie Shannon, a mercenary, is hired by a company to go on a information gathering mission to Zangora, an African country ruled by a unstable dictator. The company is uneasy to invest in country where the situation is not under control. So, posing as a bird photographer, he goes to Zangora to collect as much information as he can. But it soon end with him being arrested, beaten to pieces and deported. The company is unhappy about the whole Zangora situation though and hires Shannon to make a coup. Shannon puts his team together. but it is not easy to plan a military operation without alerting the authorities, especially when your employer don't trust you.

Comments: First of all, I have not read the novel, I just rented the movie expecting a good action filled war movie, as suggested by the poster for example. I was disappointed. The movie contains precious little war and almost less action. I can believe that the whole part when Shannon assembles his team works well in a book, when you can elaborate and create some suspense. In a movie, like this, when you have to cut it down to a few loosely connected scenes, all suspense is lost and all we have is a long dull waiting before the action finally begins. And when the coup starts it is a quick and easy one. Some of the potential personal vendettas that were established during his first visit is cut to a minimum, and the entire coup is without any trace of suspense. And the action was rather bad too.

3/10


There was nothing that great about this movie, and a few things that were rather annoying. It just kind of rolled along with a lot of little peaks of excitement but nothing that incredible. By the time the end sequence came around I was rather bored, and the ending, although good, couldn't make up for the earlier scenes.


"Say, Jeff," says Frankie (Frankie Darro), a student at Rawley University who is doing some biology homework, "do you know how the head is formed?" "Well," says Jeff (Mantan Moreland, bugging his eyes and rolling his head), "I'd say it starts at the base of the spine and works its way up to a lump."

That's as good as Let's Go Collegiate gets, folks...except for two things, and one of these depends on how old you are. The movie is a dispensable programmer, one of thousands churned out quickly by studios (Monogram, in this case), which had minimal budgets and shooting schedules and, often, minimal plots. With Let's Go Collegiate, Frankie Darro plays the coxswain on what might be Rawley University's first champion rowing team in 15 years. When Bob Terry, the new star stroke for the team, who hasn't arrived at Rawley yet, gets drafted, Frankie and his pal, Tad, spot a big guy, Herc Bevans, hefting a safe on the street. They immediately decide to recruit him for the team and substitute him for Terry. That way their girls will continue to think they'll be heroes when the team wins the big race. Of course, the big guy is prone to sea sickness, Frankie and Tad may get booted off the team because they're spending so much time coaching Herc that their grades have slipped, their girl friends have fallen for Herc, their coach loses his glasses, and Herc has a secret that's discovered only after the team wins.

As one of several popular movies Frankie Darro starred in with Mantan Moreland as his pal, always named Jeff, this one isn't much. Moreland gets stuck with all the stereotypical mugging and dialect that passed for racial humor back then. The acting is self-conscious. Collegiate movies about the big game were a cliché even in 1940. So what are the two exceptions? First is one excellent song sung at a fraternity/sorority dance by Gale Storm. She plays Midge, seventh billed, and is one of the girlfriends. The song is "Look What You have Done to Me," music by Edward Kay and lyrics by Harry Tobias. It's a bright, swinging song with a smooth melodic line that takes a couple of unexpected turns. It's a quality song and you'll never hear it unless you slog through Let's Go Collegiate.

The second exception depends on how old you are. Barton Yarborough, a journeyman film actor who made 17 movies in the Forties, plays the role of Coach Walsh. For those of us old enough to recall sitting around the radio in the evening, Yarborough was Doc Long, one of the three major characters in perhaps the greatest adventure series on radio...drum roll, please..."I Love a Mystery." It went on the air in 1939, became hugely popular and then sputtered out in 1952 as television took over. Jack Packard was the tough, smart leader of the three, Doc Long was the ebullient one, always ready for a fight or a laugh. Reggie York was big and strong, and fancied himself as much a ladies man as Doc did. They were old friends who started a detective agency in San Francisco. Most of the installments ran 15 minutes and Carlton Morse, the man who also created and wrote "One Man's Family", wrote all. Jack, Doc and Reggie were always getting involved in dangerous adventures and mysteries, with lots of action and vivid situations. If you were sitting around your radio, you didn't need CGI to visualize the worst that was happening. All this was delivered in your home every weeknight. One of the memorable things about I Love a Mystery was the opening theme, Valse Triste, a brooding, foreboding dark melody if there ever was one.

Yarborough was born in 1900 and died in 1951. He played Doc Long until the last year of the show. He also was a key character in Morse's "One Man's Family," playing Cliff Barbour when the series started in 1932 until he died. Yarborough had a distinctive voice that doesn't seem like much when you see him in Let's Go Collegiate. And he doesn't look like how I imagined the young Doc Long. He used his voice memorably as Doc (and as Cliff Barbour). That was the point of radio.

The impression of great adventures brought distinctively to life in "I Love a Mystery" is still vivid in my memory. Another radio highlight for a little kid listening alone one afternoon to, I think, Jack Armstrong, was when a beautiful and evil woman dispatched a victim by taking a hat pin from her hair and driving it into the guy's ear. That sent me out running into the yard, where I stayed until someone came home. I was not about to take the chance that this woman and her hat pin might emerge from a closet and rush toward me. Those are the delights of a person's imagination, free of the can-you-top-this curse of too much CGI. Give me a hat pin in the hand of a beautiful woman any day instead of an enhanced comic book hero flying through mile-high explosions.


Any old time college movie has one plot: the big game, the big race, or the big dance, and the only way to bring it off is to sneak in a ringer from outside the school. This time it is the big race - a rowing race. (The rowing practice all takes place in front of a bizarre and inexplicable rear-projected vista of OIL WELLS.) Not even Mantan can pep up these proceedings - it doesn't make you suffer, nor is it anything to write home about. A pretty harmless way to kill an hour or so. If there is one memorable thing in the movie, and there is exactly one memorable thing, it is Gale Storm's first musical number - she is incredibly vivacious and sexy, in a dress which emphasizes her charms in a remarkable yet very chaste way. I may watch it again just for that. I don't think it's a spoiler to warn you that EVERYTHING TURNS OUT ALL RIGHT IN THE END. You already knew that.


I still love this movie. More because of the music than the film itself. I think it's interesting to follow actors' careers over the years. Victor Garber (Jesus) has been a very prolific actor over the years. His most recent is that of Jack Bristow on TV's Alias.

One of the other actors is Lynne Thigpen who later went on to play the police captain on "Where in the World is Carmen SanDiego?" and most recently as Ellie Mae Farmer in "The District" before her untimely death. She had a beautiful singing voice.

In one of the scenes notice that they are dancing on top of the World Trade Center as it is still being built. There are several scenes when you can see it in the background about 3/4 finished.

This is an important film for its historical content. The Jesus Movement was big around 1973-74. At the time, many of the hippie set were trying to make Jesus out to be nothing more than a guru. This film was a solid attempt to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus while still portraying him as the Messiah rather than just a spiritual leader.


Frankly, this movie is silly.

Like others have mentioned, I too was confused at how "John the Baptist" morphed into Judas. It is dated, however that part can be fun. Also, seeing the Twin Towers...well, that is another subject (possibly the most powerful part of the film for today).

Outside of that...it is a guilty pleasure. Kinda like the Godzilla (hmmm...God..zilla/God...spell) movies that your afraid to admit you watch despite their silliness.

If you watch this movie, do it for the camp and the music, not the "message".


I hated this movie. War movies are difficult to pull off as it is, at least historical ones, but this one fails more miserably than any I've seen. There are some okay moments. There's a few good moments between actors, and occasionally you can get the tension of the cat-and-mouse game of the two snipers. However, the rest is terrible. It's all war scenes, with one drinking scene and one sex scene. There's no chemistry between Jude Law and Rachel Weisz, and this is the probably the main reason why the sex scene is so weak and distasteful. It seems a little like a last-ditch attempt to say both "Look! These characters really do have a relationship! They're having sex!" as well as "Look! It really is hard for these characters! They're having sex on a tiny cot!" Not to mention an excuse to show Rachel Weisz' ass.

This is two hours of my life that I want back.


Enemy at the Gates completely misrepresents the history of the battle and slanders the brave sacrifice of the Soviet people to defeat Nazism. I strongly recommend reading the book 'Enemy at the Gates' to see how little of the movie is true.

The story of the sniper is one small story in the book that was complied from hundreds of interviews with veterans from both sides. The story of the sniper was significantly changed for the film from the true story which is much more compelling.

All the Generals who actually led the battle are ignored in the film except Kruschev. Kruschev was Political Commissar at the Front level and was involved in the overall planning of the defensive battle and the encirclement of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. He did not command the 62th army in Stalingrad, this was General Chuikov, a true hero. The entire battle was commanded by Marshal Zhukov ( the general who never lost a battle ) in close collaboration with Stalin. After the death of Stalin, Kruschev had his role inflated and Zhukov, Stalin and Chuikov ignored.

There is no sense of the battle in the film either at the unit level or overall. The Red Army used firegroups of 25 men armed with bags of grenades and sub machine guns to fight the Germans house to house in the rubble. There was little of the human wave tactics portrayed in the film. Building were fought over room by room and floor by floor. No one went in the open as this was certain death to either side.

The battle consisted of the Red army holding on to a tiny corner of the city while the German forces were ground down. When the Germans were weakened, Soviet reserves north and south of the city broke through the weakened flanks off the Nazi forces and surrounded the entire 6th Army and part of the 4th Panzer Army.

The 6th Army was Germany's greatest strike force, the same one that conquered France so quickly. At least 330,000 German soldiers from its elite force were killed or captured. Only about 10,000 survived to return to German after the war.

Germany never recovered from this loss and it marked to start of their defeat.

Please read the book Enemy at the Gates and forget this terrible film


Being a russian I want to say that many russians are offended by this movie. Though it has some real stuff in it, many things are stupid and even abusive. Like russian soldiers being brought to the front line in the sealed cars with barred windows like criminals or some sort of cattle. Or soviet officers only drinking vodka and shouting around. How did they win the war only doing that?

A Hollywood director sitting in his cozy chair can't even imagine what was that war like. And I think he doesn't want to. In Russia, we've been taught a little about the war. Stalingrad had a long battle in the middle of a coldest winter of the century. People were starving and freezing to death. And a red-cheeked boy walking around in shorts (at -40!!!) looks like a stupid joke. So does a soldier woman with long painted nails putting on her make-up before the attack. So does the slogan in Russian on the wall "Long live the socialism". Does the director really think the Russians were such maniacs to write on the walls how they loved the socialism? "We will win!" That's a real slogan from that time.

This movie has a lot more inaccuracies but I can't and don't want to enumerate them all. Just... the director should be embarrassed of his work.


This movie totally failed to engage me. The director (Jean Jacques Annaud) got himself into a confused mess when trying to make this good versus evil movie - he's comfortable depicting all Nazis as bad but he can't depict all Soviets as good and tries instead to portray a complex grey area. Unfortunately, he fails. The two characters who are battling it out (Jude Law and Ed Harris) raised no empathy with me and about halfway through the movie I realised I actually didn't care which one won provided one of them did and I could leave. The movie is also full of cliches (a love triangle, a young boy, a cold-eyed enemy, supporting characters early deaths - some of which you'll be grateful for!) and this does nothing to increase the enjoyment. Men might want to see this for Rachel Weisz as the beautiful young soldier girl and women will inevitably want to see Jude Law but find them in other films and maybe you'll be treated to a plot which you can enjoy. The only good thing about the movie is Bob Hoskins - and if that isn't a sentence to scare the living daylights out of you then you deserve this movie!


This film has about as much relationship to the actual history of the Battle of Stalingrad as the "Sound of Music" has to the real von Trapp family. About the only accurate portrayal is that yes, there really was a Vasilii Zaitsev who really was one of the hero snipers of Stalingrad.

Of all the errors the one I find most egregious is the complete omission of one of the true heroes of Stalingrad: Vasilii Ivanovich Chuikov, the general who took command of Stalingrad in Sept 1942. The man who declared "We will hold the city or die here; there is no land beyond the Volga!" Gen. Chuikov, whose tactics and use of "storm groups" and snipers held the desperately beleaguered city through not only house to house battles but floor to floor in the same building. To omit Chuikov from a film on Stalingrad is like omitting Patton from a film on the Allied advance across France.

This is not simply Hollywood license; this is a distortion of history. It speaks to the contempt that the film's producers hold for the American viewing public that they had to use Khruschev because his name might be recognized rather than present historical fact.


What most fascinates me here is the different tastes people have; I simply can't believe it when people praise this film. It must be a joke! It has to be...

This movie had nothing good in it except the WWII setting, which I hope would be exploited more. The characters were shallow and acted idiotic, emotional outbursts just came out of clear blue sky and ended in a few cheering words like 'it'll be OK..' It was like watching a cheap soap opera.

Acting was terrible (apart from Ed Harris, who, BTW. didn't come across as a character who'd hang a little boy. Why did they have to put that there, wasn't there any other way of getting people interested in the outcome of the duel??? Why doesn't hollywood let us take our own sides instead of pushing us to a situation where there are no longer any options?). Jude Law, who I used to think as a good actor, landed on his butt in this one. He's SOOOO British, that it's kind of hard to accept him as a shepherd from the Urals!

All in all, if you liked this movie then a) you're hot for either one of the lead actors and can not think clearly b) have a limited capability of understanding quality or c) you must be joking, which is probably the case.


GETTING RIGHT TO IT. If you're going to take the time to make an epic war movie, don't throw a love story into it. Scenes were completely drawn out, particularly a sex scene that had my friends and I looking at each other thinking "when is this going to end." The whole love story slowed the movie down and took a lot out of it. First 30 minutes were GREAT, comparable to Saving Private Ryan, then it goes to hell...

view it at your own risk


I got to see the widely publicized in the West movie "Enemy at the Gates", directed by Jean Jaques Annaud. After "Saving Private Ryan", which had left an overall good impression, I hoped that this Hollywood product would turn out to be on the same level. But contrary to my expectations... Well, let's start from the beginning.

From the first moments I was struck by the rosy, well-fed faces of the Russian soldiers going to the front. Of course, I understand that life in the West is nice and sweet, but where were the makeup artists? All Soviet soldiers wore brand new greatcoats. Throughout the entire movie I only saw well-fed, not to say fat, faces, and even Danilov's three day stubble (incidentally, why does he walk around unshaven in the army?) badly masks his well-groomed face. I think the director never even considered the fact that life on the Soviet home front in 1942 wasn't sweet, McDonalds restaurants just weren't there, and sausages didn't get buttered. I was also amused about how people riding inside the freight rail cars were standing. I think the director has never even tried to imagine how it felt to ride in such a car, how it shakes you from side to side, and far from anyone would manage to stay on his feet.

Meanwhile, the train arrives at some station, all the civilians are unloaded, soldiers are herded inside, and... some men started locking the cars! That's right! It turns out that Soviet soldiers had to be padlocked. Why? I don't know. Probably, the director believes that our grandfathers fought only from fear, that if it was up to them, they would've ran away, and nobody would've been left to fight the valiant German army.

Meantime, the train arrives at the Stalingrad station, the padlocks are unlocked, and evil officers start dragging the soldiers out of the cars! And another political officer stands nearby (probably, the chief one, and a big boss above the other political officers), waves a red flag, and yells into a tin megaphone. I don't know how our Western comrades see this picture, but it sent me into a spasm of laughter. I haven't seen such a silly scene even in the comedy series "Fitil'" (Fuse). But speaking seriously, this is already an insult, and it's more serious than it could seem in the beginning. Russian soldiers are shown as dumb cattle, led by the evil devils-political officers. And incidentally, political officers were different. Sh*t can occur anywhere, not just among the political officers, that's why depicting them in such perverted manner looks extremely insulting. And that is exactly how they are depicted! I specifically made several screen shots so that you could see that people with the most disgusting faces were selected for the roles of political officers. I don't know, why Jaques Annaud feels personally slighted by the political officers, maybe they stole his money or a cow, but his bitter hatred for our grandfathers literally oozes from the screen!

The scene where the soldiers were unloaded from the train reminded me of a mass escape from a psychiatric hospital, but not the Red Army. I don't know, perhaps the US Army troops unload in just such a manner?

The scene of an attack. I was simply shocked by the fact that the attack began at the whistle of a mad officer! Who proposed this nonsense to the director? Or did he think really hard, and then couldn't come up with anything better? Probably it's what they call "artistic license". The attack itself follows the best traditions of the Western idea of how could the Russians attack. In other words - complete rubbish. Soldiers simply run as fast as they can at the machine guns, like a herd of cattle! Machine guns fire long bursts at them. This insulting stupidity, under the name of "Human Waves", was invented in the West during the times of the Cold War, and Jaques Annaud simply faithfully portrayed that fairy tale on the big screen.


Rarely have I seen a film start out slower than MONDO TRASHO. It is so amateurishly made and acted that it seems that calling it a movie is a misnomer. Instead, it's like a very, very, very long and ponderous home movie made by escaped inmates of a mental asylum--and desperately needed editing and direction. What little dialog the film has is added (very, very, very poorly) after the fact.

The film begins with a hooded guy torturing and killing chickens with an ax. Why?! I dunno. It seems pretty cruel to use animals like this and I assume that Waters was just trying to shock the viewers. I hope they at least ate the chickens, otherwise this is even more tragic (at least for the chickens).

Mary Vivian Pearce goes for a walk, catches a bus, sits on a bench reading a book and walks through Johns Hopkins University for twelve minutes--with no laughs or weirdness. I can't believe that most audiences sat through this portion to see the rest of the film! Especially since it was obviously shot with a home movie camera and the sound track consisted of mostly choppy clips of random tunes strung together--some exceptional (such as the jazzy or early rock pieces) and some banal (such as "Pomp and Circumstance") and some oddly ironic (such as "See Ya Later Alligator") that dominated the images.

Eventually, a pervert with a foot fetish sneaks up and begins fondling her feet. Apparently, she's into that and they sneak off into the woods for some toe sucking (whatever floats your boat). Some loud moaning ensues--so far the only sounds other than music in the film. During the loud moaning, the scene becomes a flashback or dream or fantasy where Pearce is a modern Cinderella being abused by her step-sisters. They beat her up and strip her partially naked--then the Prince enters with the slipper and the story continues. Abruptly, however, the toe sucker is done and just walks away--leaving Pearce unsatisfied and lonely.

Divine then is shown driving along in an amazingly cool old Cadillac. She sees a naked man and backs up--right into Pearce. So, Divine picks up Pearce and puts her in the car and drives home. Then, we are treated to Divine shopping and you assume Pearce is still lying in the car bleeding. This shopping scene, like the rest of the film, went on way too long with no payoff.

For some excitement, Divine shoplifts and then quickly leaves the store. On the way out, she sees a homeless lady sleeping (or maybe she's just an unconscious lady)--and she steals her shoes! Only after this does she go back to the car to get Pearce. You think she is going to help, but actually drags her into a laundromat and strips her--stealing Pearce's clothes and putting the shoplifted clothes and the shoes on Pearce?! The Virgin Mary then appears (naturally) and you hear a voice over of Divine repenting in spasms and asking Mary for help and forgiveness. Subtle it ain't.

Using a wheelchair, Divine wheels Pearce away and they meet up with a mental patient who is accosted by guys dressed as attendants carrying a big net (wow, what an image). After capturing the nutty lady, they chase Divine and Pearce and take them to a "hospital" that is really just some house. There, lots of John Waters' friends roam doing rather random stuff as Pearce lays there looking comatose. Then a flat-chested lady dances (for a very long time) as the patients cheer. Eventually, she's molested and once again, Mary appears! Apparently everyone there can see her and Divine once again spasms and overacts like she did earlier. Mary's friend or a demon (who can tell?) then appears and gives Divine a switchblade and everyone escapes--with Divine pushing Pearce away in the wheelchair.

Now, finally, Divine calls a doctor for Pearce (Dr. Coathanger). Once at the office, they just sit there waiting with the other patients (never mind that Pearce was run over) until one of them takes off her clothes and some long-haired guy grabs her. Is he the doctor? No, that would be David Lochary (who is shown shooting up some drug) who proceeds to pull out giant saws and operates--as the nurse vomits. In the end, Pearce awakens and her feet are now horrific looking.

Reporters then come to interview Divine about the accident. A cop then arrives and begins beating Divine. A gun and knife battle then ensues involving lots of extras. Divine is stabbed and the cop is killed. Then, Lochary, Divine and Pearce escape in a car. Pearce and Divine are later dropped off in the middle of no where. Finding their way to a farm, they climb into a pig enclosure and roll around in the mud--until, once again, Mary shows up with Jesus. Divine is dead and Pearce wanders off--finding her way back to town.

In a way, way too long final scene, two ladies stare at her and seem to talk about Pearce--calling her lots of slutty names. The dialog is pretty funny, but is just slapped on the scene with no regard to synchronizing it to the actors lips or expression.

Overall, this nearly 90 minute film, like my review, could use a severe editing. It is amateurish and bad--with only a few funny scenes spread thinly through the film. Unless you are a die-hard Waters fan or absolutely need to see one of his earliest films, this is one you can skip. The only positive thing I can say about it is that it helped John Waters and the actors(?) to hone their craft--eventually leading to such brilliant non-conformist films as FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER.

By the way, seeing Lochary shooting up is pretty sad, as he later died due to his drug use.


If you are strong willed and can force yourself into an open state of mind, than you are sure to appreciate anything John Waters has done. "Mondo Trasho" is a very early and amateur looking movie, shot on a 16mm camera with a 'silent film' - exploit-type of style. It is basically dialogue free. Not nearly as shocking as, say "Pink Flamingos" or "Female Trouble", though it is strange enough to hold your attention. Mary Vivian Pearce plays a woman who is accosted by a foot fetishist in a park and undergoes a bizarre sexual encounter while envisioning herself in a possible flashback of a Cinderella-like scenario. This is all normal looking in comparison to Divine's role when he accidentally hits Pearce with his car and attempts to take her to the hospital. They end up locked in a mental asylum with a topless tap dancer where Divine repents to the Virgin Mary before they escape and make their way to the hospital where a whacked out surgeon butchers his patients. "Mondo Trasho" is definitely an unusual cult film with some irreverent symbolism and flat out disjointed insanity such as the opening scene depicting chicken execution. I'd recommend it to die hard John Waters fans but otherwise it's a bit dull.


OK, I'm a big John Waters fan and like any 'Waters fan, I managed to obtain one of his early films.

Even though slightly long and very boring at times, It has a JW signature written all over it and is a must for any of his fans.

Next point - My main problem with this movie - The pointless animal deaths at the start...Several Chickens are beheaded by a masked man and is obviously to shock the audience by stating that this movie is gross and very 'Trash like'. I don't buy it, and I found this extremely offensive and cruel. And since I am a Vegetarian and completely against (and opposed to) animal cruelty in real life, I find it even more disturbing that someone would want to do it for their art...its completely inexcusable and literally boils my anger.

John Waters has gone right down in my estimation as I didn't think he would be like this...If the chicken decapitations were used from stock footage of a slaughterhouse than this would be slightly acceptable (I emphasise on the word 'slightly' as I am against any activity of such sort).

As soon as I watched the opening of 'Mondo Trasho', my complete admiration for 'JW and his anti-Hollywood statements' had vanished because he can shock and gross out audiences without resorting to animal deaths/cruelty.

I cant seem to find an official site for JOHN WATERS but I would like to email him personally and give him my thoughts on this matter.

So, if your aim is to shock and offend...then you have done it John...but at the cost of losing respect from your film fans.

And remember John, You are a filmmaker and an artist.... not a barbaric low-life who tortures animals for exploitation.

What has this world come to.....I sincerely do ask ?


I saw this at a film festival in 1988. There were 3 movies being shown. If you sat through all 3, you would get a tee-shirt.

This was the last movie. When the projector stopped, everyone cheered and applauded. Then we learned there was another reel. 40 more minutes.

Half the audience walked out after 5 hours of bad movies. They just couldn't take it anymore.

I have my Tee, but had to go through years of therapy to recover from that movie. OK. the therapy comment is a joke, but it was horrid nonetheless. Mondo Trasho is a perfect name for this movie. It definitely falls in line with the trade description act.


After seeing this crap I just could not hold myself from vomiting. My mind couldn't continue to accept and defy reason. A bunch of soccer moms, a crack head, a gardener, a tight jeans cameraman and a few nerdy scientists battle against the intergalactic equivalent of the US navy seals or the German waffen SS and win every time? Suddenly regular people know how to shoot rocket launchers and machine guns with hawk eye precision? And that blondie Sylvia Saint look alike ( she's very hot btw ) is the most unlikely leader I've ever seen. How the hell did Barbie got chosen to be the resistance leader? The resistance seems to pick their camps with gorgeous views behind, sometimes it gets so cheesy it seems you are watching an afternoon soap opera.

C'on Now, on to the invaders. How can they be so stupid? They are far too technologically advanced and superior to us and apparently they haven't discovered recycling nor farming nor animal domestication to feed their starving people on their home planet? Oh and here's the SUPER secret formula for water invaders: H 20! Plus they are the wimpiest fascists since the Italians in WW 2, they can't seem to plan or execute anything right. Everything they plan goes wrong all the time. And let's not talk about security, one pass apparently opens every door in the mother ship.... or perhaps they don't even bother to lock the doors or update their security codes up there.

V: the final battle gets more unbelievably stupid as it goes on. By the time this crap is about to end you'd expect the Ewoks or ALF to show up anytime soon. Diana continues to be super hot even with those terrible 80's hair styles and I guess there was no teeth whitening in the 80's. Many in that cast really needed one.

Very disappointing. You can see why creator Kenneth Johnson wants to scrap the whole thing. Great television turned into sappy sentiment. The Visitors come across as imbeciles rather than ruthless villains. The resistance as a gang of klutzes, I really hated the part where they resorted to germ warfare. Nobody raised a moral objection to it. Really sad. And the Visitors can't cure the red dust, stupid. Really lame. Maybe next time they'll get V right.


I will start this by saying that, Not Another Teen Movie was an intelligent and generally funny parody movie, Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th is completely and utterly devoid of anything resembling an effective joke (or anything of any worthwhile value, really). There's not much to say about this one; every single gag falls completely flat - even though it's parodying a lot of the same flicks that Not Another Teen Movie went after. The actors seem to be trying, but with a script this horrible, Marlon Brando himself (and I'm talking old school Brando, not The Island of Dr. Moreau Brando here) would've come off amateurish. Imagine the lamest joke you've ever heard and then stretch it out to around an hour and fifteen minutes, and you'll have a vague conception of how excruciating it was to sit through this miserable flick.


I caught this one on cable on a slow night. Sure, it was cheesy and moronic, but you knew that. The flick never took itself seriously and that's what made it OK with me. There are far worse movies out there that pretend to be funny while trying to pose as comedies.


Whoever came up with the idea or script for this movie shouldn't have. This was basically garbage. Like we need more spoofing movies, but this was made terribly. It seemed as though the creators were trying way too hard to make this just like "Scary Movie", but it wasn't even close. I wasn't too fond of the acting, either. Most of the actors in this movie aren't known too well, and I don't think it would even matter if they got better known actors, because this movie would still be horrible. They spoofs such movies as I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream, and many others. All the characters were stereotyped, like always. The cruel beauty queen, the loner type, and basically any other type of person. It wasn't put together well at all, like it was just all jumbled together, and they tried to pull it off as a funny, well scripted, laughable movie, but it didn't work. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, and there is probably only 2 scenes in the whole movie that are funny. If every movie is sold out in the movie store and that was the only one left, then that's when I would get it.


This movie was by far the stupidest comedy I've ever seen in my life. First of all, most of the movies being imitated were NOT horror films, but teen movies like American Pie and Grease. Second, the the entire movie overall seemed to be going nowhere. There really isn't much of a plot--it's as if they thought certain things would be funny to make fun of, but there was really no way to make a story out of them, so they filmed a bunch of random scenes and stuck them together to make a movie. As if that weren't bad enough, it looks like the creators were just trying too hard to make a successful spoof--they overexaggerate certain aspects of high school (they have to show at least 10 doors in the high school labeled "Debate Club," "German Club," etc.) and they tend to make fun of things like teen pregnancy and teen sex, which really has NOTHING to do with making fun of horror films. To say the least, I probably laughed once or twice through the entire 90 minutes, and that was only because I was shocked that a movie could possibly suck so bad.


The fact that they make a reference to the movie 'Airplane' (one of the best spoof movies ever) is mockery. Avoid this movie.

Plot: A serial murder tries to kill some local small town teens before they ruin any respect we may still have for comedy. Then Tom Arnold happens.

Avoid this movie, the title has twice the amount of humor that the entire film has. The best part was the ending credits, I doubt many people have gotten that far. Avoid this movie, I was filled with more joy the dya I was diagnosed with cancer.

Bottom Line: Tom Arnold came from under a stone in some remote swamp and continues to plague our media systems. He should be boycotted or thrown in jail for his attempts at acting, especially acting funny.


This has got to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen.

Thank heavens there was Scary Movie to boost my confidence in spoofs, this movie is so dire it goes beyond belief.

Every single one-liner and visual gag falls flat on it's feet, there is absolutely nothing in this movie to make you laugh - avoid at all costs.


I originaly hired this film in the belief that it would be funny.It turned out to be like a poor take off of Scary Movie , only much worse.It was unbelievabaly terrible!!The only good thing about it was that the bloke who played Jonathan in Buffy (Danny Strong) was in it!


This film is fairly enjoyable, but not special, and there are much better parodies out there. There are a few particularly funny moments, but many of the jokes fall flat, due to either poor delivery or them just not being funny.

There are a few important flaws in this. One is that quite a few of the funny moments seem to be copies of better parodies. Another is he choice of target. Scream is one of the worst choices to parody, because it displays fewer of the cliches of horror, and highlighting absurdities is the whole point of parody.

This is basically worth a watch, but there are a number of parodies that are a lot better than this.


I can't believe the Director of this film came from such groundbreaking projects as SCTV and Kids in the Hall. He should be ashamed of himself. The screenplay sounds as if it were written on the back of a Denny's napkin and the actors play it off like a high school melodrama. It's obvious that during its filming, everyone was aware how awful this movie was, as no one really shows any pride in their performances (with the exception of Tom Arnold - I'm convinced he thought this movie would put him on top). Tom delivers his lines with such confidence, he's never been more in his element. . . this is not a compliment.

We can all feel a bit reassured that this film placed an iron nail in the coffins of each participant's career and no one was able to buy a boat or pay for college with their checks.

After watching this film, you may reconsider how harshly you've criticized other films. By comparison, Ghostbusters II was a marvel in screen writing, Yahoo Serious is a comic genius, and Pauly Shore belongs in the Director's chair.


This is the worst parody i've ever seen in my life and probably one of the worst movies i've ever seen in general. I really can't express how bad this is in the 1,000 word limit. Its so unfunny its just ridiculous. Avoid this compilation of idiotcy and bad jokes.


I really wanted to like this film. I love horror, and I especially love horror satire and parody. And I can usually cut writers of parodies a lot of slack when something isn't outrageously funny. I write parody humor, so I know how hard it can be to hit your mark. But nonetheless, this was pretty bad.

Of course, the urge to compare it to Scary Movie is very hard to resist. It simply boils down to the fact that the Wayans were trying to add some wit to Scary Movie in addition to making fun of horror movies. The makers of Shriek..., on the other hand, thought that simply visually copying a scene from a horror movie is inherently funny on its own, with no need to write actual gags to go along with it.

And of course, all of the overused cliches in parody humor are present...being a lesbian is supposed to be funny, being a virgin is supposed to be funny, drug use is supposed to be funny, being overweight is supposed to be funny, etc. But again, they are simply presented, and not used to incite humor. Asking a Wiccan-esque girl if she was a lesbian *may* have been funny on its own, say, a decade ago when every high school didn't have its own Wiccan chapter, but now it takes a little more insight to make that stereotype funny.

Even the one more-recent cliche, being a big-busted woman actually having implants is supposed to funny, is rolled out almost as an unfunny non-sequitur. The exact same joke is done as an actual punchline in Scary Movie. But as I said, I'm trying to avoid comparison.

You can just tell the writers and director didn't really know how to handle this style of comedy. They obviously are trying to emulate the movies of the Zuckers (you know you're in trouble when a character in a parody mentions a funnier parody), but at the same time they didn't understand what made them hilarious. It's perhaps the cinematic equivalent to listening to a Beatles cover band. You can tell they know the music and have a real love for what they're doing, but there's no magic behind it.

The writers even try to explain what they feel is the parody "formula" by having the lead girl list the "rules" to survive a parody. The rules she gives seem more fitting for a Problem Child sequel or a fourth-season episode of Ren and Stimpy. As far as I know, Airplane! didn't have Hanna-Barbera sound effects or misleading sex shots.

The movie seems to have overlooked the only real rule to survive a parody: Make it Funny!


Hey, This Is Funny, but not as funny as some of the other spoofs i've seen (Scary Movie, Student Bodies, Repossesed, Etc...) If I Ever Wanted To Do A Spoof Of Horror Movies, it'd spoof the fact that a lot of movies are out there ripping off SCREAM, like a lot of us are out there ripping off SCARY MOVIE. to sum it up, Rip-offs are Funny, But not so funny. wacth it on the SCI-FI Channel. Go Ahead, Enjoy Yourself, But Keep In Mind: Scary Movie, Scary Movie 2, and Student Bodies Were Hilarious!


This movie is not even funny. Even if I got the strange suspicion it was supposed to be "humor". I nearly had to staple myself to the floor to watch the ending. Yes, by god I made it. Why I wanted to see the end, i guess closure is the best answer :).


As bad as this movie was, it was a LOT better than Scary Movie. It didn't have as many disgusting jokes. The beginning scene is hilarious. It basically all goes down from there. If you're going to see it, please turn it off after the first ten minutes. *1/2 out of ****


this is possibly the worse film ever made. the stars of various shows that used to be on the WB teamed up to create this humourless drivel. whoever wrote this should never work again. please spare yourself the agony. dont watch this even if someone pays you...


Interesting from the viewpoint of seeing an early De Palma effort and also applauding his courage in making a film so critical of the Vietnam catastrophe, but the film lacks focus and ambles from one scene to another, lacking the incisiveness it needed to make its mark among the several really good anti-Vietnam War movies that came after.

There's a sense of improv about the whole effort but much of the intended black humor vaporizes

Worthwhile for students of film history and in particular the careers of De Palma and De Niro .One should be thankful that somehow they were encouraged to proceed with their careers.

I don't remember reading any reviews at the time, but feel it coiuld have developed a cult following.


You know those smug, interminable hippie improv routines in BILLY JACK? The ones where you sort of get the feeling they're supposed to be comedy, but you're thrown off a bit by the fact that they're not actually funny? And then you think maybe it's supposed to be satire, except for the fact that it isn't saying anything about the real world or real people?

Put together ninety minutes of those things, and you've got GREETINGS.

People might look at my screen name and think that my dislike of this movie is based on its left-wing politics, but this film is no funnier (and no more meaningful) when making fun of hippies, JFK assassination bugs, or artistic charlatans than it is when making fun of "establishment" figures and soldiers.

Boring and pretentious, GREETINGS fails equally as comedy and as commentary.


Brian De Palma, Robert De Niro in his first movie...it has to be good, right? That's what I thought. But I was hugely disappointed. "GREETINGS" is no more a comedy than SCHINDLER'S LIST. I didn't laugh a single time, nor grin or smile. It has one good gag, at the very end of the film, and if it had maintained that wit throughout I would have given it a higher rating.

However it starts off very poor and only gets worse as time goes on. Made on a shoestring budget, and it shows in every scene. Continuity errors galore. De Palma, who edited the film, clearly has no handle on editing and literally jumps around from scene to scene. So, in one segment a group of characters are talking, and it suddenly jumps to fifteen minutes later in a different room, and they're still talking, and we're left wondering what on earth is going on.

I only really wanted to see this because of Robert De Niro. I am a die-hard De Niro fan and will watch anything with him in it (I even sat through SAM'S SONG, which is even worse than this - by a long shot). However De Niro - despite top billing - is not in this film very much, and when he is, he's not very impressive. (Although he hardly does a bad job, either.) I couldn't believe De Palma was responsible for this film, it lacks all the typical Hitchcock trademarks of his. However, there are a few references - characters discuss the film BLOW-UP (1966) which he of course later loosely remade into BLOW OUT (1981) and at one point a female character subtly picks up HITCHCOCK / TRUFFAUT from a bookshelf and begins to read it.

However the rest of this film lacks his typical visionary edge and I suppose it's because he was still learning (and that's clear in every frame). De Palma, never a friend of the MPAA, seems to push the boundaries a lot in GREETINGS and for the most part it's totally unnecessary. The whole subplot about De Niro's peeping-tom habits are disturbing and make us dislike his character - which is a problem since the sequel (HI, MOM! in 1970) revolves entirely around his character. (And for the record, GREETINGS was the first film awarded an X rating, which says something about its content. It's not too explicit nowadays, but we're left wondering WHY De Palma had to cram so much unnecessary sex and nudity into his film, because it seems like it's just there for the sake of being controversial - and almost 40 years later it is not controversial anymore, which makes it all the more outdated and pretentious.)

Overall I was hugely disappointed in this movie. It's not funny. It's sophomoric, with stupid editing and direction (just watch the scene where De Niro and co. walk down a street and De Palma puts it in super-fast-motion - what the hell was he thinking?!). That, plus an unbearably outdated '60s overtone (and you thought EASY RIDER was outdated!) and truly awful theme tune (it sounds like the Beatles on drugs), make GREETINGS a truly disappointing experience.


I just finished watching this film less than a minute ago and I am not entirely sure what it was all about. I've seen other Miike films and never been this confused before.

Usually there is some sort of weirdness in Miike's work but this film just seems like a child(disturbed child) has attacked a really poor quality, boring gangster film with a crayon.

Miike is good at making weird original cinema, and I hope he sticks to that from now on, but this film was just a mess. It's an incredibly boring film, with silly moment.

I'm really struggling to comprehend why this film even exists, while at the same time trying to understand why I have given it 3/10. The only good thing about this film in my opinion was it's stylish cinematography, especially in the final fight scene. I wont say what happens at the end but it's odd!

Every other Takashi Miike film that I've watched I've enjoyed, but this was just too boring for me. However it has its moments so definitely worth watching if your a fan of extreme Japanese cinema.


Yes this is something of the grossest films I have ever seen. Already in the beginning it starts full out with blood, sperm, guts, noodles and everything else that's made Miike famous. I didn't quite get what it was all about because the whole movie just seem's like an endless montage of violence, one scene more violence than the other and of course there is also a lot of sex scenes. Know with the sex it's not elegant or anything no it's blow jobs, gay butt-f-ing, dog sex between woman and dog. There's a lot of those things and somethings that's so gross I don't even wan't to write them but I can't say that everything is bad. The music is absolutely superb but it doesn't fit in with the things happening on the screen, but there is one good thing and that is some of the actors who act really good.

If you are a hardcore Takashi Miike fan this film might suit you, if you're a psycho it might be fun for you but all other viewers will just feel sick, I sure did.


Okay, maybe the fact that I don't speak japanese and had to use subtitles plays a factor. Maybe the fact that I don't know anything about japanese culture is an even bigger factor. But, I know a good movie when I see one and this is not a very good movie. True, it's different from today's main stream cinema, but being different doesn't make a film good. First of all, the content is not as bad or twisted as reputed. If the violent content is why you're watching this movie you may be disappointed. Irreversible is much worse than this film. Aside from the first 5 or 10 minutes or so and the final 10 minutes this movie is actually pretty slow.

Secondly, the plot was more or less non-existent. Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware that many films tend to focus more on imagery than plot, but there was really nothing driving this movie, or holding those images together in a sensible way. After about 30 minutes of boredom I was tempted to just get up and fast forward to the end.

Now the end of this film is a different story. The "grand finale" is actually pretty good. There's more action in the last 10 minutes than there is in the rest of the film. Unfortunately, alhough it may be action packed, the end, in my opinion, does not make the movie worth watching.

In Miike's favor I will say I like the fact that he asserts his authority as a filmmaker. He presents the images in his head to his audience the way he wants them to be seen. He doesn't limit himself with genre or the "popcorn factor" and I can appreciate that. Believe it or not, I do think this film has some artistic value. I just don't think it's a very good film. If you're looking for violence and a good plot check out Battle Royale, and if you're looking for art with a kick (Dead or Alive has the art part down, just not the kick) check out Time and Tide.

On a side note, my roommate who watched Dead or Alive with me says, "it's shockingly pointless and if you want to save time just watch the beginning, the end, and go out and get drunk."


In a flashback story, Roy Rogers relates how he obtained "My Pal Trigger". Mr. Rogers was, some time ago, a traveling peddler (and breeder) of horses. He rode a horse named "Lady". The Lady and the Gentleman go to George "Gabby" Hayes' ranch, where Rogers meets Bob Nolan and the "Sons of the Pioneers". Rogers next meets Gabby's lovely daughter Dale Evans (as Susan); she is atop the stallion "Golden Sovereign'. Rogers wants to breed "Lady" and "Golden Sovereign", but Mr. Hayes refuses. Jack Holt (as Brett Scoville) is an even badder dude.

It's easy to see why this film is a sentimental favorite; and, it is an interesting change-of-pace. The part with Rogers, Ms. Evans, and the two horses meeting is clever - there is a parallel attraction between the two horses AND between Rogers and Evans. Having the horses get together and mate, on their own ,was quite nice. The mating of "Golden Sovereign" and "Lady" is confirmed (in case there was any doubt) by the birth of "Trigger". Along the way, the adults, especially Rogers, help give the Horses great characterization and appeal. There are some sweet, and sad, scenes Rogers plays out with the horses.

The weaknesses in the story are going to be very obvious as you watch - you're barely able to accept the premise of the story when Rogers is suddenly accused of a crime. He's found "red-handed" by Gabby Hayes, Dale Evans and the "Sons of the Pioneers" - Evans points her gun at the accused Rogers, the man with whom she'd just been singing a happy song. The quickness to believe Rogers guilty is ridiculous. Later, Evans reverses her position. By then, the plot contrivances have multiplied faster than the horses. Though some of the scenes with the horses are nice, they are simply not adequate for what is attempted.

*** My Pal Trigger (1946) Frank McDonald ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Dale Evans


When I was a kid, I had a VHS tape that included a commerical for the Goosebumps videos. Earlier, I had no idea about Goosebumps except that it's scary and a show based on horror kids novels. I can't believe how that commerical fooled me and made me think that this actually worth watching. When I searched for it before, I took a road trip across all of my country's video stores and still didn't find it. I was going crazy because of this show; unfortunately, I turned my winter break into a disaster because I didn't find this show. I hardly found some books and read them and was totally impressed. But now and after watching various episodes, I finally discovered how stupid a show Goosebumps is. Even the books, now and after growing up, I found them to be poorly written and totally lame. The episodes I at least liked from this show were The Haunted Mask and Cry Of Cat Part One and Two; Neither than the bad acting and non-talented actors, I found these episodes to be well written. Neither then these episodes I give the show a BIG ZERO. Also about the special effects, did they buy them from a cheap store or something, they were totally unconvincing. Generally, I have nothing to say about this show except: lame, lame, and LAME.


Introduced to this show through a sibling who devoured R. L. Stine's books, I found I initially couldn't form my opinion of it since the first handful of episodes I saw happened to be based on the books I hadn't read (why is it the books you most want to read are the hardest to find?), but once I was lucky (unlucky?) enough to see ones based on the stories I'd read, my opinion was: the ones whose story counterparts I hadn't seen were decent on their own, but those based off of books I had were mediocre in comparison. All of them do seem pretty formula now in retrospect: an evil threatens but only the young protagonist realizes and has a difficult time making anyone else aware. The books are almost always formula in this point too - but Stine was phenomenal in spicing the stories up by conjuring up different humorous dialogue, explanations for the evil, or details to make it seem impressive to a kid. I found the books to be interesting but the show was never enough to scare even a 6-year-old, and I wondered why Stine was actually the host on this show rather than rejecting writers Billy Brown & Dan Angel and hunting for someone more faithful. The fact that (with a few exceptions that ran 2 episodes), each story was limited to less than 30 minutes (the commercial breaks which accounted for the "less than" were surrounded by fade-outs of some new terror arising - which, even the youngest viewer realized after a few breaks, would be a false alarm when it resumed) rushed the plots of stories I laughed and fascinated over in book form, giving no time to absorb the scares, other than the phony ones resolved in 60 seconds while the camera dimmed and returned. I appreciated significantly more those that ran 2 episodes for just under an hour, even with the fade-outs still causing boredom. The plots of these left on a cliffhanger after one episode and there was usually a better twist at the end. Also, since fewer action scenes were shown in most of the single-episode simpler stories, special effects were severely limited; I never found the antagonists as terrifying as they could be in imagination. Example: the book "Let's Get Invisible" doesn't instantly reveal who the being behind the mirror is, but the show has a dead giveaway as he wears a jersey with BACKWARD LETTERING - just plain cheesy! In the 3rd series, a large number of episodes were wasted not on books, but on short stories in his compilations Stories to Give You Goosebumps, which contained 10 boring stories (the one I tried and failed to read was the one never used to base TV scenes off of, but I'm sure the others were no better) which often provoked no fear even on the page - imagine how a screen adaption even weaker than their book basis would've been! No, the plot wasn't rushed; even worse - it was as though the while plot was shown but it was a rushed story to begin with! Ironically my favorite episode (along with a 3-part story I shouldn't mention; it wasn't based on a book) of which I've seen was one of these, "Click" - I doubt it was meant to be scary, but it did make me laugh expecting that the boy who exploited a space- and time-controlling remote could so easily be punished! I just wish I could punish the writers for such a weak adaptation, even to a kid, of a kid's favorite serial.


'Vidas privadas', by first-time director Fito Paez, is the most pretentious and boring movie I have ever seen. The movie suffers from an unconvincing plot and pseudo-intellectual banter that result in a very forced and ridiculous ending. The sex and the final revelation are only there for shock value, and nothing else.

The acting is really good, but I don't think it has anything to do with Paez's direction; he just hired some really good actors. Gael García Bernal's fake Argentinean accent is awful, but he still gives a good performance. But, why didn't they just cast an actor from Argentina for that role? Some Argentinean actors are really good. I guess Fito Paez just wanted to capitalize on the Mexican actor's increasing popularity. Cecilia Roth is always great, and the movie is not a complete fiasco only because of her performance.

Also, Fito Paez is one of Agentina's best singer/songwriters, and I was hoping that, at least, the movie score would be good. But it's not. It's awful. The movie reduces the music to lame background noise that doesn't take you anywhere. Also, (trying not to give anything away) where the hell did that gun at the end came from? Did Paez just forget to explain why would one of the characters be carrying a gun? It makes no sense. Paez should not quit his day job and stick to songwriting.


I bought the film and couldn't wait to rip open the package and watch it. I love Bernal's acting (he comes by it naturally from his family). But the plot and dialog reminded me of some of the French films of the same genre from the '60s. I kept expecting Deneuve or Tritignant to come through the door. I couldn't watch it through to the end. I admit that I was tired and had just watched, Dot the I (much superior), so maybe I'll give another go, even if only to watch Bernal who never disappoints. This was a forced film in my opinion with a dreadful script, but maybe I should give a second chance. That sounds perhaps a bit pretentious:-) Hugh Corston Quebec City


One of the worst movies I've ever seen.Fito Paez is a great musician, creator of many great songs. But his first movie, "Vidas Privadas" is a study is bad directing, bad editing, awful score, bad acting, horrible lines (out of a soap opera), novice photography and especially bad narrative.

One of those movies, that you know what is going to happen even before you enter the cinema. Cecilia Roth (his then wife) and Mexican actor Gael García Bernal are good actors, but they are unable to generate any emotions, because the elliptical unsastianl plot is a mix of genres and clichés.

If you are interested in movies with the same theme, I recommend "Kamchatcka" or "The official Story" two great movies.


I'm gonna tell the story without exaggerating anything...This movie was released and it took me a couple of weeks to go see it cause I wanted to see other things instead...Critics were not too kind but not too mean with this one, and being a Fito Paez film (who despites being a very pretentious musician could have a chance of being a good filmmaker), starring the always terrific Cecilia Roth and the hottest actor around, Gael García Bernal, I gave it a shot...

I went to see it with a couple of friends...the theatre was with most of the seats empty but the audience that were there seemed to be "movie" people. Guys who are connected to the business in some way or the kind of persons you run into on the film festivals of the summer...so, this people went to see the movie with the best intentions...

My cell phone rings, and a friend asks me where I am...I say in the movies, about to see Vidas Privadas...she inmediately tells me: "get out, that movie sucks. I've seen it...it sucks, believe me..." I trust on this women but it seems like is too much hate for a movie...and she goes on: "the movie is so bad you're gonna laugh, trust me...everyone is going to laugh"...so...I laughed...

This movie tries, very unssucesfully, to be tragic. It's the story of an argentinian woman who lived the tortures of the dictatorship, she has spent the last years in spain but returns to her country to see her dad, who is about to die...the trauma of the tortures has left her unable to mantain sexual contact with anyone, and she satisfies her needs by watching others having sex or, as in the movie, hiring a young model to read her dirty novels while she masturbates...All this, believe me, it's ok...The story is not that bad until it transforms into a semi tragedy of edipian proportions, like out of a venezuelan soap opera...the directing touches of Paez don't help at all...we have horrible music (like from a hitchcock film, completely out of place), a ridicoulus atmosphere of mistrust and thriller that has nothing to do with the theme of this movie...and a bunch of supporting characters that in their attemps to portray a heartbreaking inner pain will make you laugh...

The twist near the end is so unbelievable, (or at least so bad executed that you just don't believe it), that yes, the entire theatre started laughing and couldn't stop until the final credits rolled...It was painful...but I couldn't stop laughing either...

It was painful because two terrific actors are wasted and worst, are being put on a ridicule position here...in a movie that has no direction at all, no believability and just nothing to offer...

I used to hate the music from Fito Paez, but I beg to God that the guy stays on that s*** rather than go back and make another movie...latin american cinema is low on resources, they shouldn't be wasted on films like this.


As in unbelievably bad, that is.

To a reviewer who called it superb, the director owes you big time,as he has at least one (and probably only) fan of his film.

Boring, slow and 90 minutes longer than it should've been, this movie gives nothing but painful shivers.

And, after the end credits finish, the main question persists: What on earth was it all about? Even though I haven't had a pleasure of being introduced to Mr. Paez's music, I am absolutely positive he is a great composer. But let's face the truth...Neither Mozart nor Bethoeven tried to make their living as painters....With all my respect, Mr. Paez, I hope you get my hint.


OOOOOk.

Here we go.

What do I like about this movie? Well, the photography was good. It seems It could have been in black and white to give more power to the images with the type of music Fito Paez selected to make. It was like try too hard and too much of it. That piano Psycho style. I don't know. Too strange. Unless you want to go on that direction. Then go on that direction with the movie too. May be it would have been a darker picture (with high contrast too) for a darker subject matter.

I like Cecilia and Gael. These characters are difficult to identify with unless you are going thru the same thing. I spoke with an friend from Argentina and said that Gael accent was petty good. Remember, Argentinians are picky, so I believed him.

The camera could have moved more and Fito could have play more with the close ups much better (Philadelhia movie style).You know, Jonathan Demme.

It's no doubt that music could have better to get you in tone with the movie.

This story is a little hard to believe. If this has happen before to someone, that person should tell this story.

Fito, it seems you have money. Please use it wisely in movies. There are more fascinating stories where I am sure you can make more money.

Latinamerican films need to make a change but in a uplifting way. And I don't mean happy endings. But stories that most people can identify with and enjoy more at the same time.

Also if I ever do any movie, this a good one to watch what not to do.

Over and Out. Until next time.

Thanks.


High-minded, big-budget garbage. A ludicrous story of a gutsy, out-gunned crusader taking on an evil gang and the establishment that does business with it.

Rourke (hopelessly miscast...apparently the union ran out of actors better suited to playing 50-year-olds) somehow is directed to huff and puff in order to make us believe that he's re-fighting the Viet Nam war in the streets of Chinatown. (I guess that this makes Year of the Dragon a more pretentious iteration of the theme of the Rambo movies.) Throw in a couple exotic Oriental types, John Lone, galaxies removed from the greatness of his starring role in The Last Emperor, and a non-acting actress who is tossed in merely to provide eye candy and to establish Rourke's characters bona fides as a non-racist, since he demonstrates that he is willing to sleep with some of them.

A snooze-worthy debacle. See it only to satisfy your morbid curiosity.


Aside from Prince of the City, Robert Daley's work has fared poorly in film adaptations. This dreadful, obnoxious Mickey Rourke vehicle throws out 95% of the novel (one of Daley's best) and substitutes a plodding, dull, flat storyline that only occasionally threatens to engage the viewer's interest.

Mickey Rourke is as offensive as usual, strutting and preening his way through the film as if he's deliberately trying to be as unlikeable as possible. John Lone does what he can with a poorly written role, but even the one or two good scenes in which appears can't save this train wreck.

It's not just that I loved the book and hated to see it trashed like this. I first saw the movie in a theater years before I read the book. After reading the novel I gave the movie another chance and liked it even less.

Whether you liked this movie or not, you should at least give the book a chance. Robert Daley's story is so much better than Oliver Stone's version.


Everything in YEAR OF THE DRAGON is over-the-top: direction, acting, writing, editing, score. Michael Cimino is not the master of subtlety. He's like the little kid who starts crying to get attention, not in order to get just one thing but starts crying for attention for everything. Practically every scene in this film is directed in such a way as if they were the climax: a car crash is not just a car crash, it's a spectacular ball fire explosion of a car crash; a funeral is not just a somber affair but something as revered as a funeral for the Pope; a gunshot to the head is not just to kill the bad guy but to be as gory as a Tom Savini scene in any horror film; the characters are not just people affected by the circumstances of the drama but are as extreme as those types in a Jerry Springer show; the unusual attention to details is not because the film wants to be true-to-life but because the film confuses such anal-retentive attention to details as validation for the unpleasant, over-baked story it's trying to tell, and in turn, becomes almost a parody of itself (Rourke's hair being the best example of this); the dialogue is not just dialogue if it's as loud as a Russ Meyer script; so on and so forth.

The direction is really at fault here. The director doesn't know when or where to stop with the OTT stuff and just tell a story. Because of this, the film's weight is totally lopsided. For instance, it spends more time on the wife after her death than when she was alive. Or we really do not feel the loss when she's killed and yet the direction makes it so that it's like the most important thing in the entire film. Had we known her a bit better maybe it would have worked but because the film only showed her bitching and screaming at Rourke that her death didn't seem that important to us. Hence, the OTT direction.

There are a few good things in the film. John Lone gives an amazing performance, when everyone else is screaming their dialogue at the top of their lungs. Some scenes are effective, like the chase scene between Rourke and the two Chinese girls (it's the best scene in the whole damn thing). But the film is a cleverly disguised mess. Too many pointless scenes that really add nothing to the story. Too many uninspired scenes, like the overlong moments when the Chinese mobsters talk endlessly about the virtues of being in the mob. For a film where every scene is over-directed, the resolution to is remarkably disappointing because it's so low-key. It falls flat and really doesn't work at all. We went through all that trouble for such a lame resolution? The last scene, when Rourke's presence causes a riot and then he and Arianne kiss, is so corny that it's truly embarrassing.

I've seen YEAR OF THE DRAGON on numerous occasions and will probably watch it again in the future as I'm fascinated by this mess. While watching it, I always try to understand what the director (and writer) thought they were doing. And I still can't figure it out even after seeing all these times, aside from leaving a bitter aftertaste.


My memory of this movie (which I saw on video in the late 80s) was that it was a fantastic example of 80s/Michael Cimino controlled excess - or, that it rocked, along the lines of To Live and Die in L.A. (which, to my mind, is a preeminent movie from any era, but a particularly gorgeous 80s gem). How sad to have been initially excited to find YOTD on DVD at Target, buy it, wait for the perfect moment to watch it, and then...to realize my memory was more gauze-wrapped and imperfect than I'd ever want to admit. For YOTD was a serious, unqualified letdown.

Why? Pretty simple answer: obvious, wholesale editing, undoubtedly to trim a studio- ordered "too long" length, that's why. Certain characters remain on the periphery and are never fleshed out (the portly and thoroughly unattractive - in ever way - police partner of Mickey Rourke, for example), bizarre appendages that don't help the plot at all; scenes that stretch credulity over coals and are literally impossible to believe (the takeover of Ariane's apartment by Rourke and his two pals; what the hell led to this?); the obviously important marriage/breakup of Rourke's character, with his wife acting 100% unnatural and unbelievable almost the whole time (any scene involving Rourke and his wife are the dictionary definition of "truncated'); and the lurching incoherence that simply owns the film at, oh, 45 minutes or so in. And what's utterly frustrating is this: every actor is in fine form; every scene is beautifully shot; and there's enough of a story and plot line present that it seems ludicrous to blame Oliver Stone's script - Oliver Stone, who'd direct Platoon a year later and who had the screenplay for Midnight Express already under his belt. No, there are assuredly yards and yards of film somewhere, slowly rotting puzzle pieces, that flesh YOTD out proper and render it the glorious epic Cimino wanted. But you can bet some studio exec got the bright idea people wouldn't want to sit for 3.5 or 4 hours, so...well, that's the oldest story in the world, isn't it? Or, at least, the oldest story in Hollywood.

In summation: YOTD is the saddest sort of film - a hobbling thing, a dysfunctional-but- gorgeous-at-times handicapped epic, blighted by cruel scissors, dead on arrival. And even though almost every character in this film is repugnant, it's even more repugnant to cut their legs off and ask them to walk. I hope the actors were angry about that. You just know Michael Cimino was.


In 'Kinky Boots' Joel Edgerton plays Charlie Price, a young man with big dreams outside of Northampton. Suddenly, the death of his father forces him to leave London and return home. He has to resume his father's role and take over the family business, something he has dreaded most of his life. When he discovers that the business is in turmoil, he has to come up with a radical idea that will save everyone job. With the help of a popular drag queen (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Charlie decides to switch gears and start making women's shoes. Women's shoes that are strong enough for a man.

This movie was a little disappointing; I thought it would be funnier. It does have its moments. Joel Edgerton does an amusing job as the businessman without a clue. I liked Chiwetel Ejiofor as the brave Lola/Simon drag queen. However, when he sings, I feel someone else would have been more suited for the role. Good story, but not enough comedy.


A young man whose specialty lies in marketing takes over his dead father's ailing shoe-making factory, turning the product away from mens-wear into a boot business for drag queens. Is it possible to build a feel-good comedy on the ultimate fortunes of a sad sack from Britain's Northampton district who can't tell an evil, nasty girl (his fiancée) from an honest, hard-working one with an open mind? In this slimly-plotted British film directed by Julian Jarrold, the working-class are automatic bigots, women who strive for a life outside of the factories are bitches, and the enemy is someone with a closed mind (who has to be faced down on his turf in order to become enlightened). Though based on a real account, "Kinky Boots" is a tried-and-untrue stomp down familiar avenues. Joel Edgerton, who resembles Conan O'Brien, is serviceable as the new businessman until it's discovered that he too has issues with cross-dressers; putting an entire fashion show in Milan on the line, he turns on his friend and designer (Chiwetel Ejiofor) out of embarrassment. This is the kind of movie where people stare in shocked silence at other people "they don't understand", but the rejection here seems rooted in something more personal, less abstract--it's so disheartening that whatever triumphs follow ring false (some apologies come too late to matter). The happy-endings, which are then tacked on, have no exhilaration, no juicy kick. It's all shallow Hollywood--UK style. *1/2 from ****


Spoilers (not that there was much to spoil)

Hard Men often threatened to be quite good but never was. Ross Boatman was the pick of the actors & I thought the main three were all ok.

The problem with the film was that the first ten minutes set up all the characters & a plot, but then that was it. Nothing new was introduced from then on, either via character or plot. Consequently, all we were left with was the group arguing amongst themselves & inevitably shooting each other until only one was left for the remaining hour & a half.

4/10


No, I am not joking, this truly is an inspiration to all aspiring screenwriters and film-makers. Frankly if someone can be pursuaded to stump up money for this sorry mess of a film then surely you can do better. The most amazing thing about this film is that somebody, presumably having read the script, actually gave it the green light. To list its weaknesses would need more than the 1000 words allowed by the IMDB. Still it did give me the opportunity to stand next to Mad Frankie Fraser at the London Film Festival and notice how small he was. Mind you I would never say that to his face.


Here's an OK film with some good scenes, but an atrocious story. Everything you need to know is established in 15 minutes and when they step back from it to create the gangsters they end up too wooden and sentimental to be believable. Pockets of imagination are squashed with regularity. Other brit gangster films are much better! Frankie Fraser, a real gangster, is included to give the film some authenticity, but he only succeeds in hamming up the scenes he appears in. The protoganist gets a call during a hold up that involves listening to his new born daughter gurgle at him. Cue a confirmed ex-gangster trying to then break free from the shackles of crime. Frankie Fraser says the son I never had; humour among thieves nonsense and his two partners after displaying strong affections for each other gladly accept to do the hit on him... only he susses and here's the only twist worth mentioning. It even ends with redemption too. Everyone dies except him and he's goes to costs del crime and becomes a free man. Phew!


I must admit that whilst I easily forgot about it straight after seeing it,it wasn't hard to class this poor man's Long Good Friday as one of the worst films of 1997. It was blissfully short,but,quite frankly,this low grade tripe is just 83 minutes too long.The whole thing is just so amateur and over zealous it winds up a self indulgent mess ,serving as a poor mistake which headed in one direction,then went one cropper the other way. Despite this,however,there was one good joke in it which I still remember after all this time,about the squirrel in the forest. No wait,that was poor too.Everything about this drivel reeks.


I always try and write encouraging comments on English films, after all, there are many things they have going against them. But this film is appallingly awful. I can't say anything positive for it. The three stooges, sorry, so-called actors, are not hard at all. Three old women would provide more menace. One of the characters is most absurd. He wears different coloured strange shaped glasses every day, hardly what you'd see a tough gangster doing. The acting is extremely amateur as well. This is just so mediocre and unacceptable. Everything about it stinks to high heaven. Don't waste any money watching this film, you will deeply regret it.


I waited hoping this would be a great show. Rarely in my life have less than thirty minutes been so lost to me as they have been tonight. I'm giving this two stars out of respect to Christina Applegate. She was great on Broadway. She made me laugh on Married With Children. She made me laugh on Jesse. I'm hoping it's not her. This show is NOT funny. Not for a second. Not a single laugh giggle chuckle titter. Nothing. I sat amazed. The writers didn't have one funny line. It's not really boring. The cast is attractive but most play basically people I would never know or like under any circumstances. I'm guessing that I'll be the very small minority on my next statement since everyone but me loves this show but the only show I can compare it to is How I Met Your Mother. Again I can sit through that one without even a mild ha ha. I know it's me but while I can't stop laughing at Two and a Half Men or Big Bang Theory these shows just left me not wanting to watch again. I know I will in hopes I'll find a laugh but after tonight I have my doubts. Sitting through six How I Mets was rough going for me but I'll sit through five more Samanthas in hopes I get to actually hear a funny line. I will check back on the reviewers for this show to see what lines they post that they found funny here. Give me a line quote. Please.


Yikes. What a mess this is; it's a lot easier now to understand why this was unreleased on video for so many years. As someone who enjoyed "Head," I was willing to give this a shot, but there is way too much Brian Auger & Julie Driscoll, short shrift given to some rock and roll legends (Little Richard, Fats Domino, and Jerry Lee Lewis) and some awful Monkees music numbers (excepting a nice "Listen to the Band" at the end). Pointless and dull, this is for Monkee completists only.


While 'Head' deconstructed the manufactured mania of The Monkees perfectly, '33 1/3' just wallows in its own self-awareness like a spoiled brat who didn't get a Playstation 2 for Christmas.

'Head' is dated, but '33 1/3' showcases the worst commercial excesses of the decade. The "story" involves a Darwinistic plot to take over the world by way of pop music. The Monkees are created test-tube style and are expected to lull the human race into submission. The members of The Monkees try to regain their individuality during thinly-produced solo spots. Padded with VERY LONG solarized, split-screen psychedelic dance numbers, it's no wonder that the entire Hippie phenomenon would be over within a year of 33 1/3. The mass media had swallowed up the original 'message' of the movement, and 33 1/3 was what was it spit out.

The worst crime perpetrated by '33 1/3' is a retro 50's number where rock legends Fats Domino, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis play second fiddle TO The Monkees. It's weird to think that when this aired, The Monkees themselves were complete has-beens.

'33 1/3 Revolutions Per Monkee' ranks with 'The Star Wars Holiday Special' as one of the worst variety efforts ever aired. If you need a reason to hate The Monkees, pick this up.


I would have given this a 1, but the most of the Monkees' performances saved it.

What they did with "33 1/3 Revolutions" was done better in "Head". While "33 1/3 Revolutions" had some great music (most notably Peter's keyboard solo and "Listen to the Band"), the story was muddled and less comprehensible. I fast-forwarded through much of this, usually whenever "the wizard" came on and started babbling about whatever. Even the 50's medley was a bit painful to watch.

I understood what they were trying to get at but it just felt like it had "contractual obligation" written all over it, nobody really putting in any effort to make it a better program. Considering the Monkees' history, however, they were probably glad when the entire ordeal was over.


All right...all you really need to know about "Untamed Youth" is that it stars Mamie Van Doren. You know, Jayne Mansfield Lite. The "Plain Label" version of Marilyn Monroe. Go see it if you like movies with her in them.

...

Still here? Well, for what it is, it isn't bad. It's an exploitation film which revels in the youth and sexuality of its cast while hypocritically preaching against the "bad guys" who would exploit them. You know the kind. There's a heavy handed screenplay which moralizes about corrupt officials, exploited teenagers who just wanna dance, and owing your soul to the company store. Mamie and the kids triumph in the end because You Just Can't Keep A Good Girl Down. Ed Wood would have been proud to have written this screenplay.

And Ed's usual ensemble cast would have fit right in here. You don't expect 'real' acting in a movie like this (any more than you would in a Republic serial like "Commando Cody"), and you don't get it. Everyone says their lines and hits their marks, and everyone is appropriate to the material and the script. Waddaya want from them? They were hacks!

Did I mention that "Untamed Youth" has staged musical numbers (apparently to showcase Mamie's "musical talents") along with the usual scenes of the Untamed Youth(s) dancing ecstatically to the juke box/sock hop? In fact they made the mistake of having Mamie sing three of the numbers (because in the script she and her sister were hitch hiking to Hollywood to make it big, donchaknow ). I'll try to be kind: my little sister could sing (and dance) rings around Mamie after 3 years of voice lessons, and my sister never made a dime singing or dancing professionally in her life. So what you get from Mamie is all showbiz gestures and tail-feather shaking and no vocal talent. But no one expects "real" singing from Mamie, so just turn up the mental audio static and watch the dance steps, and you'll keep the annoyance factor to a manageable level. And try not to think too much about who owed who a favor in Hollywood and how someone with Van Doren's musical "talent" got to sing in front of a camera.

Much of the rest of the music and some of the dancing isn't bad at all...some of it is even striking. I've learned that Eddie Cochran was involved in some of the numbers, which may explain this. Unfortunately, however, in almost every group dance number, one of the minor male actors is featured repeatedly in the background doing the dorkiest, weirdest dance...thing...ever filmed. I can't do it justice. It involves flapping his knees open and closed in a no-hands "Charleston" while staying on his tip toes, while his torso stays perfectly erect. You'll have to see it to believe it. So minus several stars for scarring me emotionally with that image. BTW,I saw that identical move (years later) in another film called "Teenage Strangler", performed by what I could have sworn was the very same actor, and it again made me want to put my eyes out with a hot poker. Where's Eddie Deezen when you need him??

I should mention that Lori Nelson (playing Van Doren's little sister) is also pretty hot in a "My Three Sons" kind of way, and she adds some nice eye candy to the scenes she appears in, kind of a "sweet" balance to Mamie's brasher, more assertive style. So that's one thing the film makers did right.

To summarize: it's a Mamie Van Doren film (with an faux Ed Wood screenplay) that pretends that Mamie can sing and dance. And act. Go see it if you like that sort of thing. Me, I don't blame any of the cast or crew for trying to make a living, but I think I'll go back and listen to my old Kay Kyser records.


Mamie Van Doren stars in this little teen-exploitation flick about two sisters (of which Ms. Van Doren is one) who are caught trespassing while swimming in a pond. The sisters are charged with hitchhiking, and their sentence is to work on a cotton farm whose owner is the secret husband of the judge who sent them there.

The cotton farm for these prisoners is a 20th century version of the company store, where the "costs" associated with their employment outpace their "wages", keeping them in continuous servitude to the farm's owner.

The filmmaker wastes few opportunities to showcase Ms. Van Doren in her underwear, or in tight fitting sweaters. Curiously, for supposedly being fed dog food, these "untamed youth" have a surprising amount of energy to pick cotton all day, and then dance the night away without a care in the world. Mix into the cast a beatnik cook who is out of place in this agricultural gulag, and you have an embarassing film that shows youth as rebels only in the sense that they do not conform to the arbitrary standards of the crooked, yet wooden authority figures.

If you want to see one of the first films condemned by the Catholic church, tune in to see why. If you want to improve your MST riffing skills, this movie is for you. If you want to see this as a double feature with The Grapes of Wrath, rent the Milagro Beanfield War instead.