Secrets of a Call Girl is a rather odd Italian crime film as instead of focusing on the usual areas - shootings, car chases, fist fights etc, we focus on the hard done to girlfriend of a mobster; Anna, played by Edwige Fenech. The film is, therefore, is something like a cross between a crime drama and a romantic drama and in my opinion, it doesn't quite gel together - but that's not to say that this isn't a good film. The title implies that this will be a 'confessional' drama and implies that the central character is a prostitute, though that is somewhat misleading. As mentioned, the plot focuses on Anna; a young girl who works in a café. She goes from rags to riches when she catches the eye of Guido; an Italian mobster who takes her out of the café and into the gangster life. She soon realises that all that glitters is not gold when she witnesses a mob hit and the boss wants her silenced. Guido then decides to push her into prostitution, but when he is caught by the law; she decides to escape him and makes a new life with her son and a doctor.

Edwige Fenech takes the lead role and does brilliantly with it. Her role here requires her to a little more than just take her clothes off, and she rises to the occasion well. It's easy to forget that she can act considering her roles in many of her films, so Secrets of a Call Girl serves as a nice reminder! The film also features performances from Corrado Pani, Richard Conte and John Richardson, who all do a good job in supporting roles. Giuliano Carnimeo takes the directors chair and does a good of directing Fenech for the second time, after The Case of the Bloody Iris. It has to be said that this film is more than a little slow at times, especially compared to other similar genre films owing to the fact that the focus is more on Fenech's character rather than the mob activities. However, this is not always a bad thing. I can't say that I'm a big fan of Romance films, but Fenech does enough to light up the screen every time she's on it and the film never becomes boring. It all boils down to a powerful ending that actually does have an impact. Overall, I'm not crazy about this film; but it's a good entry into Fenech's resume and it gets my recommendation.


Many classic scenes, Bombs Away, TV in the aquarium, Barbra's hands and heart placed just .....hovever, when the DVD company from hell released it on DVD, they censored a word that renders an entire scene meaningless.

It was an historic word also, the first time a star had ever

said it in a major film. F***!! The only time anyone has

ever censored Barbra to this day! Still a great comedy!

Sexy, funny and way ahead of its time! One of Bab's best! George's too!


One of the most hilarious films ever made, THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT has more laughs than ten of today's so-called "comedies" combined. Even though a few set changes and a couple of new supporting characters are added to "open up" the storyline, director Herbert Ross and writer Buck Henry manage to keep the same spirit of the original one-act, two-character play intact. There's a lot of verbal warfare in Henry's screenplay, and he seems to have a gift for penning wickedly funny dialogue. Some viewers could argue that THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT is little more than two characters insulting each other for 95 minutes, but - when those insults are so rigorously funny - who cares?

In the female lead, Barbra Streisand gives a refreshingly unsentimental performance as Doris, the semi-illiterate hooker who (for once) does not have a heart of gold. George Segal was primarily known as a dramatic actor before he was cast as Felix, the snotty book clerk/writer-wannabe. His performance is so convincing that he has been known as an expert comic ever since. The chemistry between Streisand and Segal ignites from the beginning, and it stays aflame throughout their relationship's many ups and downs. Robert Klien has a funny supporting role - and plays it expertly - but THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT remains a showcase for the chemistry between Streisand and Segal. I think well-respected film critic Pauline Kael said it best when she wrote, "Were Tracy and Hepburn ever this good. . . maybe, but they were never better." High praise indeed!


George Segal plays an uptight New York City book-clerk who hopes to be a writer but can't get anything published; after calling the landlord one night on prostitute-neighbor Barbra Streisand, he finds her on his doorstep. She tells him she's a model and an actress--her third time on TV is in front of the elevator security camera! The two lovable losers banter back and forth before falling into uncertain love, and you could say the film is either nicely devoid of major plot devices or is an exceptionally thin romantic comedy. Streisand, her Brooklynese so thick she sometimes lapses into Cockney, wears tacky, hilarious hooker-outfits, but her shrillness isn't modulated (at least not in the first act) and she can sometimes be grating. The sex-talk is dated now, and the picture looks like a relic from the late-'60s, yet it's a funny film about opposites. Although far too soft in its final scenes, this debut movie for director Herbert Ross changes speeds enough to keep things bubbling, even though his bumpy rhythm may put some viewers off. *** from ****


I'm shocked! The American film-goer loves a good romantic comedy and this one's perfect. George Segal and Barbara Streisand shine together in this "Odd Couple" meets "Bringing Up Baby" production. Belly-laugh funny throughout, this film succeeds in convincing the viewer to root for this couple to find love, instead of the fame and fortune they think they want. I give it a ten in spite of the lame soundtrack provided by Blood, Sweat and Tears. Fortunately, the music plays a completely insignificant role. If you like romantic comedy, you'll love this sleeper. Enjoy.


Barbra Streisand and George Segal combine there comedic talents to make one of the finest comedies of all time. This film is a combination of good acting, good directing, and is an all-around good movie. It is very much Simonesque (to invent a term) in its aptitude and subtle comedy. The way to tell a superb comedy, is if after the the film, you are left with a feeling of nostalgia. This is definitely one of those films.


Comedy/drama taking place in NYC about meek, mild Felix (George Segal) ending up stuck with loud, obnoxious prostitute Doris (Barbra Streisand). Naturally they hate each other and naturally fall in love.

This movie is VERY loud (basically because Streisand yells nonstop), the humor is pretty caustic (Streisand thinks Segal is gay and throws quite a few homophobic jokes at him) and is pretty risqué--it was edited from an R rating but there's still plenty of swearing and sexual sequences. Still it is fun. Segal and Streisand work well together--the script is full of one liners that they throw at each other full tilt. And it might seem strange that Streisand could convincingly play a prostitute--but she actually looks very attractive here and pulls it off (she played another one in "Nuts" in 1987).

This isn't perfect however. It seems a little bit too long and some of their arguing gets repetitive. Also there is annoying edit when Streisand says the word "f***". I'm guessing it was cut to get a PG rating but it renders one scene incomprehensible and I DID hear it in the video version released in the 1980s. What's the story? Also there's a very ugly scene at the end where Segal humiliates Streisand in Central Park. Segal also shot some nude scenes which never made it into the final print.

Still this is worth catching. I wouldn't let the kids see it though. This is pretty strong for a PG film.


Not much actually happens in this romantic comedy. George Segal is a self-styled intellectual author who doesn't write well. He ekes out a living as a clerk in Doubleday's Book Store in New York. When he espies neighbor Barbra Streisand making love and accepting some cash in exchange, he calls the building superintendent. The super throws Streisand out and she invades -- that's the word -- invades Segal's shabby digs. She's a vulgar, would-be actress, model, and occasional girl for hire.

She raises such a fuss in Segal's apartment that the super throws both of them out. Segal takes her to the apartment of a friend, Robert Klein, but their loud arguments and queer garb (don't ask) arouse and disturb Klein and he leaves the apartment. Segal winds up in the lethal embrace of the raptorous Streisand.

They separate unamicably for a few weeks but the encounter has taught each of them something and they have another date at the apartment of Segal's rich fiancée, a pianist. She and her family happen to be in Boston, where the fiancée is giving a performance with the Boston Symphony. In the sybaritic apartment, Streisand produces some marijuana which the bookish Segal smokes on a dare and they end up in the bath tub together. The apartment doesn't remain empty of others for long.

It's really a familiar story of two nutty, idiosyncratic, mismatched New Yorkers, each of whom teaches the other to overcome pretensions. But it's so slickly done, adapted by Buck Henry from somebody's play, that it succeeds in a wild and uneven fashion.

I think it might help a viewer to be at least a little familiar with the geographic and chronological milieu. I mean -- this is New York City in the late 1960s. Times Square is filled with porno shops and sleazy clothing outlets and beggars. And there is the conflict of subcultures -- the bourgeois on the one hand (Segal) and the iconoclastic on the other (Streisand). The use of grass was a daring enterprise for the middle class.

But you don't really need to have been there to enjoy the gags. They come thick and fast, both verbal and physical. I'll give an example. During their separation, Segal is passing a dirty movie theater in Times Square (this was pre-video tape) and notices that the movie playing -- the pornographic "Cycle Sluts" -- stars Streisand. Writhing with disgust and curiosity, Segal buys a ticket and as he's passing through the lobby, an attendant asks, "Raincoat?" Segal: "I don't have a raincoat." Attendant: "You want to RENT one?" I don't particularly like Barbra Streisand's personality. She has an ego the size of Greenland. But she's phenomenal in this comic role and looks utterly pinchable too, despite that prominent proboscis. Segal is even better as the put-upon author who's work has been turned down by every publisher in New York. His role is the more difficult because he's basically the straight man, but he does wonders with it. Watch his expression when he's stoned and naked in the tub with Streisand and they hear the doors open and close as his fiancée and her family arrive unexpectedly. His face turns crimson. "You're about to meet Miss Weyderhaus," he says with a mischievous smile, as if they were two kids about to be discovered playing hookey from the third grade.

The movie collapses on itself in the last ten minutes or so, trying to turn "serious," but only managing to achieve "off-putting." They may wind up married but I wouldn't bet on its lasting.


This is another film I had missed out on a number of times on Cable TV in the past. It's considered something of a censorship milestone with the treatment of taboo subjects such as prostitution, homosexuality and pornography  not to mention the proliferation of bad language throughout (unfortunately, the DVD is said to contain the slightly edited PG-rated version, which cuts some brief nudity involving female lead Barbra Streisand and her use of the f-word in one scene)!

With this in mind, one has to consider the development which the comedy genre underwent during this time: from the mildly risqué sophisticated antics of the Doris Day/Rock Hudson films of the early 1960s to the cynical anxiety-ridden variety that started emanating towards the tail-end of the decade  with which the likes of Jack Lemmon, George Segal (the male lead of this film) and, in particular, Woody Allen (since he was his own writer and mostly directed himself as well) are forever associated.

THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT is also notable for giving the current female singing sensation  Barbra Streisand  her first non-musical role; in fact, it led to other wacky comedy vehicles: foremost among them WHAT'S UP, DOC? (1972; Peter Bogdanovich's updating of the Howard Hawks classic BRINGING UP BABY [1938]) and FOR PETE'S SAKE (1974; whose trailer, included on the Columbia R2 DVD of the film under review, makes it seem like a good deal of fun). Thanks largely to his role in the film, Segal went on to do his fair share of sex comedies up till the early 1980s  with the most successful among them being A TOUCH OF CLASS (1973), which I should be acquiring shortly.

Anyway, to get to the main item: the film can be seen as a modern variation on the perennial "Pygmalion" theme  with Segal as intellectual but, at the same time, neurotic and Streisand the uncouth yet liberated woman. There's no plot to speak of  instead, we follow the two stars on a logical pattern of location-hopping around New York throughout which their relationship blossoms: from his apartment when she's evicted because of his snitching (which leads to both of them being given the gate by the landlord), to them shacking up at the flat of Segal's pal (who drives them out because of their constant bickering), then going their separate ways till they meet again (after he has learned about her movie experience  a hilarious scene  and a 'colleague' of hers has gone to see him at his workplace) and go out together (where they're harassed by a band of thrill-seekers), after which they find themselves at the house of Segal's fiancée (a scene with an unexpectedly ironic punchline), to finally deciding to be completely honest with one another (beginning with their real names).

In this respect, the film emerges to be overly talky (betraying its stage origins) but there is a reasonable amount of invention and wit in the undeniable comedy highlights: Segal dressing up as Death to scare the hiccupping Streisand; Segal using an aquarium as a TV set  with him delivering an impromptu news flash  to humor the insomniac Streisand (her addiction to TV is illustrated by a surprising reference to the Lionel Atwill/Lon Chaney Jr. horror pic MAN MADE MONSTER [1941]); the couple's argument over "the sun spat morning" line in the opening paragraph of a book by aspiring novelist Segal; Streisand's account of the sordid activities her clients invariably came up with (prompting Segal to describe her as "a sexual Disneyland"), etc. The film's soundtrack is highlighted by several songs from jazz/rock band Blood, Sweat & Tears.


A lot of people criticize this film for not being funnier. If it was, I probably would have suffered cardiac arrest. Barbra Streisand and George Segal are hilarious.

Seldome have I seen two great actors paired in a funny movie that really clicks.

Barbra is doing this film soon after winning an Academy Award for Best Actress in her first film (Funny Girl). She is a riot as a prostitute that absolutely drives Felix (Segal) nuts! It has to be added that this is the first major film in which a major actress says f*ck. (I hear this has been cut from all but the VHS version.) Segal chose to go the comedy route, rather than drama, for which he is equally qualified (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). He starred with Jane Fonda in the original Fun With Dick and Jane. Here he is a perfect match for Doris (Streisand) as an uptight writer.

I am not stretching the truth even the slightest bit to say that these two will crack you up.


After three big-budget Broadway-based period musicals in a row, Barbra Streisand obviously made a conscious career decision to convey a more contemporary image on screen. She succeeds in spades in this often hilarious 1970 comedy adapted by Buck Henry from a hit Bill Manhoff play and directed by Herbert Ross. Streisand plays Doris, a loud-mouthed fetish hooker who claims to be a model and an actress. She gets thrown out of her apartment when her neighbor, a nebbish bookstore clerk and aspiring writer named Felix Sherman, reports her clandestine activities to the landlord. This causes a confrontation in which she is convinced he's gay and seduces him. Another fight ensues causing them to get kicked out of his apartment. The rest of the film is mostly their bickering as they travel from one apartment to the next and carry out their improbable, Pygmalion-like opposites-attract romance.

In the same year he made two greatly underrated films, the mature "Loving" and the manic "Where's Poppa?", George Segal makes Felix a lovably insecure schlub and provides great chemistry with Streisand in her first non-singing role. They have a great scene in the bathtub where both are completely stoned as his fiancée and her parents walk in, and he has a funny scene where he pretends to be the TV to help Doris get to sleep. For Streisand's part, she wears a hysterically tacky negligee, dances in a go-go cage, appears in a soft-porn flick called "Cycle Sluts" (we only hear the riotous audio - "Where are you putting THAT?") and says the "F" word (unfortunately cut out of the DVD version though it's obvious when she says it). It's not her best screen performance, but it's one of her funniest. Henry's sharp dialogue and Ross' quick pacing help considerably in making this an enjoyably vulgar romantic comedy. The 2001 DVD had no extras other than three trailers, none for this movie.


I saw this movie years ago and then watched it again the other evening. I really enjoyed it. A fun comedy with Streisand and Seagal a great team. She actually looked pretty for once in her life. Her figure was lovely and the one reviewer on this board who said she was fleshy should rethink his or her terminology. She looked fine. They are a mismatched pair who become a match by the film's end. She plays a hooker with theatrical ambitions and he wants to be a writer. They both have facades and veneers that melt by the movie's end. Very enjoyable and I also liked the character of Eleanor, her look was right out of the 1970's. Audiences will enjoy the wardrobe Barbra wears and she displays a marvelous talent for comedy. I was amazed at how pretty and sweet she appeared in some scenes. A fun movie. I recommend it.


This is a fantastic movie.

I used to think it was too loud, abrasive and most certainly claustrophobic....and at that time it really turned me off. Well, it is all those things...but, it is brilliantly acted by both Segal and Streisand. I don't think I have seen Streisand more natural or convincing than in this role....and in my opinion she's extremely sexy.

Originally I faulted George Segal for being so annoying (as Felix)...now, I applaud him for acting the part.

There are some hysterically funny lines and situations in this movie.

Enjoy


Barbara Streisand plays a prostitute named Doris, who moves in with George Segal's character, Felix (but he claims his name is Fred by the end of the movie.) This movie is an interesting mix of 60's romance, comedy, and psychological study. The dialog is witty and I found the characters believable. The chemistry between Streisand and Segal is what makes this movie, and I liked the way the sex scenes were shot, almost as if we were watching reality TV instead of a film. Nevertheless, the characters develop as the film progresses, until one has the feeling at the end that Streisand's character has softened, and Segal's has matured. I found Streisand's character to be irritating at first, and more and more likable as the movie progresses. This movie illustrates how opposites attract, and then how in a love relationship each partner becomes more like the other as they become a couple. Although the pace of scenes may be a little slow for a modern audience, the quality of the dialog definitely makes up for it. I still felt the film was relevant even watching the video 35 years after I first saw the movie in a theater.


This movie was one of the best I have seen in a long time. The performance by the cast was great. Debra Winger gives the performance of her life and tells all to keep trying when things don't work out. This movie had me crying by the end. Liftime has choose a winner on this one. I hope that they can set the bar for movies that help change peoples point of view and make us all be thankful for what we have. thank you to the writers directors and producers of this fantastic movie. Also i hope that i see Debra Winger in more movies she is one of the best actresses i have ever seen on the screen. She has a way of making me feel exactly what she is feeling. Thanks again!!!!!!!!


This heroic story is about a single mother with four kids that is threatened with a brain tumor and survives a dangerous operation and side effects only to lose her youngest child in the Columbine High School Massacre.

Any normal person faced with such incredible odds would just crumble under its weight or give up. But Dawn Anna isn't just any normal person. She is an extraordinary person. Debra Winger (Dawn Anna) delivers a performance so amazing you feel as if you were right there with her while she was going through all these trying and horrible times. This mother took her daughters murder and turned it into a fight for gun control. She didn't just hide away and let this unthinkable crime leave her hopeless. On the contrary, she is one of the most formidable pioneers for any cause of our time.

If this movie teaches anything, that is that even when the fates deal a cruel blow (or two), the nature of a woman, a mother, a fighter, is to never give up. To continue to live, so that the legacy her daughter left behind lives on forever.

My Rating for this film: 10 (EXCELLENT)


Enjoyed viewing this film and the great unity of a family with their mother and each other. There was a bonding between this family no matter what situations they seemed to face and with all the odds against them. All the members in this film showed they all had a purpose driven life and a great will to live. One sister enjoyed watching nature in all forms of life, hawk, young baby chic and dreamed of flying through the air in her dreams. This film was well directed and very down to earth about what life is really all about. Debra Winger,(Dawn Anna Townsend),"An Officer & Gentlemen",'82, put her heart and soul into her acting as she always has in her film career. There was very joyous scenes in this film and also very bitter and heart breaking ones. Great film, with all great actors.


As my husband and I watched the movie, the story was eerily similar. I'm also a secondary ed teacher, have had two brain surgeries (for Chiari Malformation not an AVM though), followed by re-hospitalization for severe infection, and had extensive rehabilitation to learn to speak and walk again. Debra Winger's performance was incredible and like looking in a mirror. She accurately portrayed the unending frustration and difficulty involved in the rehab process, and how it takes its toll on the family as well as the patient. The end was completely unexpected and I can't remember the last time I have felt so strongly for a family. To know this is real just breaks my heart, but Dawn Anna's strength keeps me going, as I'm facing a third brain surgery in the next couple weeks.


Debra Winger proves her mettle once again as she did 26 years ago in the memorable "Terms of Endearment."

As always, this is a successful film because it deals with a family that comes together to aid their mother, played fantastically by Winger, who is in the grips of a major illness. The cohesiveness of the family structure was never better than depicted in this film. In addition to the warm, caring relationships, Winger finds happiness with a school associate and marriage pursues.

How terrible that one of her children was a victim of the Columbine Massacre. The picture shows how Winger comes to grips with her loss and becomes a crusader against gun violence. A true triumph of the human spirit, this film should not be missed. Endearing as films can be.


I selected this movie having no idea what it was truly about. The ending was a surprise and of course drove me to the internet to do some research to learn more about the details that led to the shootings. It's made it a bit more personal and humanized the strangers and the victims. It's always sad when one's life is cut short. It's sadder when you are brought into that person's life and given a glimpse of how they lived. It's a shame. So young! To die so young! To be cheated of ones future especially when you did everything right, raised your child properly. Our society needs a major makeover. And if this tragedy doesn't teach us a lesson, then Lord knows what will.


This movie was shown on Lifetime, and is well worth it; the family is very realistic, the story is, as we know, tragic, but the message is hopeful as it is seen from Dawn Anna's perspective. Debra Winger is excellent, and understated, as well as the ensemble cast.

We learn of Dawn Anna's medical illness, and struggle to support her children as a single mom. There is, however no trite and superficial dialog; (think Desperate Housewives melodrama). This is normally hard to find on Lifetime, which primarily portrays women as victims,and one-dimensional characters.

The story is well acted, and portrays the family very well, but the ending is somewhat of a surprise, and we do not see any foreshadowing of problems at the high school.

I would have liked more depth, (i.e. The cable movie "Bang, bang! You're Dead") since this topic is so important, and relevant to problems in American society, the audience is entitled to some theory or detail from the writer, as to events which led up to the Columbine killings.

This is a very human story, and it was helpful to portray the life of Dawn Anna's family; but I think there is also a bigger picture which we need to know about, and this could have been written into the story without concentrating solely on the perpetrators, or victims.


I was very disappointed with Dawn Anna. I have been an avid Columbine researcher for nearly a year or so now and was highly looking forward to this movie. I almost feel horrible saying the movie was bad simply because it was all true events and tragic nonetheless. So, before I begin, I think the story itself is fascinating and inspiring, but it came across weak in this movie.

The story is Dawn Anna is a single mother of four terrific kids who is in desperate need of a job. So, in less than ten minutes, she gets one as a teacher. And five minutes from that, she decides to be the volleyball coach after meeting nice guy Bink, who wants to take her out to dinner and in no time, they're an official couple. The kids seem to warm up to him quickly except one, but a sudden turn of events puts that on hold. Dawn Anna discovers (after tumbling around in school and forgetting things easily) that she has some sort of brain tumor and it needs to be removed via opening the skull. So, in the span of fifteen minutes, Dawn is checked by a doctor, a diagnosis is made, she attempts to have it removed one way (which fails), then she has to official surgery and gets it removed.

From there, we see that after the surgery, Dawn is unable to speak or walk. So, the kids and Bink (they all like him now) take it as their responsibility to help her. She learns to speak and walk in roughly fifteen more minutes after going through physical therapy and reading flashcards. She's finally allowed to go home and Bink finally proposes to her. Some evening a few days after (or seconds, depending on who's time your on), Dawn is tucking in her daughter Lauren, who up until now wasn't the main focus whatsoever, and we zip up to five years later (1999). Lauren is now the only child still living at home. All of a sudden, Lauren becomes a more interesting character and a larger focal point. We're now about an hour an fifteen minutes into the movie.

After a brief subplot of Lauren's sister getting engaged and Lauren having an extremely weird discussion with her mother (which is thrown in there simply to show the relationship between them, I believe), we get to the Columbine story. After Lauren is dropped off at her school, a young man is wearing a Columbine jacket, which is the first we hear about what school officially she attends. A commercial break occurs with police sirens in the fade out. Once we understand what is going on, Dawn rushes home to watch the news stories in bewilderment (these are real news casts from the event as well). The family gathers around and victims advocates come to the house to get information on her daughter. They announce her daughter is a victim on TV the next day and make it official. This all happens in ten minutes. We spend no time worrying for her daughter or seeing the growing panic in the household because we're running out of time. The film ends with the family trying to get back on their feet and Dawn becoming a public speaker on gun control. She ends by going to visit Lauren's grave (which also looks exactly like the real Lauren Townsend's grave up close, so I think it probably is, but the crane shot doesn't look like the real cemetery). The film is dedicated to the lives lost at Columbine even though we barely spend any time thinking about it and we don't even seem to care about Lauren until the film is more than half over.

I thought the story was just a jumble of events. They didn't follow any distinct direction except the "Let's just throw in one bad thing after another to show how this woman can overcome it all." The character development just wasn't there. I've studied the real Dawn Anna and her daughter, Lauren Townsend, for some time now, and I can say that both were and are remarkable women. Debra Winger is also a terrific actress who is often underrated. I was just disappointed with how both the acting and the story didn't compliment each other. It seems like the movie was under such pressure to stuff everything into just two hours that we didn't have time to even discuss where the real father was, the marriage between Bink and Dawn, or Lauren being an extremely scholarly student (she was named Valedictorian posthumously at her graduation). If this film had been made into a two part series or even a mini series, I think it would have been much more effective and we could have gotten a lot more story-line. Unfortunately, I don't believe Debra Winger's talents were used to their fullest potential and I don't believe the story of Dawn Anna and her daughter was of remote interest the way it was told.


Debra Winger is seen in a Vital Role after a long time. She appeared little rusty and camera conscious and shown little signs of attention awareness. Except that, she did a fabulous job.

It would have been nice if the movie is little lengthy that might have allowed the director to show the togetherness of the family by infusing some lighter moments. 2 hour movie format and having pressure of showing all the real life events, took little toll on movie and as a result movie appeared heavy.

Except above drawbacks, Debra Winger has put up a very honest performance, which richly deserves all the kudos. Without doubt she is a great artist.


I thought I would give this a go, after spotting an advert for it in a well-known UK film magazine. I knew Hollow Man 2 was in production, and as a fan of the first movie I was a little non-plussed to find the sequel getting a Direct-to-DVD release.

So I wasn't really expecting much...

I was pleasantly surprised therefore to find an engaging little movie - very much in the spirit of the first (no brain, no logic, full speed ahead with cardboard characters and a plot straight from the back of a 40-year-old comic). It has many faults - Christian Slater just ain't up to the job any more (but seems to be enjoying himself), a long and overly-talky middle act, some extremely ropey visual effects (though it has to be said that there are many good ones despite the obviously low budget), a blatant re-use of a scene from the original Hollow Man not-very-well-disguised, and a conclusion that felt very rushed - dare I suggest the budget ran out?

On the plus side however the 2-dimensional characters are engaging, there are one or two great jump-out-of-seat moments, tips of the hat to not only the original movie but also HG Wells' novel "The Invisible Man", effective use of music (which is all new - not a rehash of Goldsmiths original) and an overall sense of fun (That's Executive Producer Paul Verhoeven shining through, I think) - despite the nasty moments!

To the people that are slating this saying "It's not as good as the first, really disappointed" etc etc, I simply have to wonder exactly what they were expecting! Shakespeare this ain't...

But to the people who are open-minded enough to give this an honest go, you will get out exactly what you put into it. It's not Shakespeare, but it certainly is Hollow Man.

If this is the future for the Hollow Man franchise (there is the obligatory - but well executed - set-up for a Hollow Man 3), it could be an awful, awful lot worse.

Bring 'em on!!


Hollow Man was a very interesting movie, and well shot. The story and plot of this sequel is so bad that it shouldn't have been made. I like Christian Slater, but I don't like this waste-of-time-movie. The story is so banal and the plot is so thin, that it seems like an insult. I can't get it through my brain why they would make this movie, without a good plot?! It must have cost millions of dollars, because it's well shot, and there's nice acting, but the end result is so lame. Shame on you producers, you could have made a great sequel! My message to the audience is: watch it if you like, no harm there, but don't expect the same experience as in Hollow Man 1


My advice is..Don't spend your time and money on this movie if you have any another way to do this. First part was good and i enjoyed it. It was typical "better than average" Hollywood movie for me, someway interesting and entertaining . Unfortunately can't say this for the second one. Boring and unconvincing acting,"Made in toilet" storyline.. and so on. It looks like the only mission of this film is a "continuation of financially successful idea". Well as I said don't try this at home until you have one of those "nothing to do" evenings or you are hungry for any hollowman-based action...and sorry for my English if it too bad :)


Keep in mind that it is the sequel to a movie just as "hollow". So it couldn't have been very good. The thing is that I like Christian Slater, I think he can be a damn good actor when motivated, so what happened to him? How can he play a character that is not on the screen? He appears in a flashback and once in the end. He used to play in good indie-like movies. It's a pity.

Anyway, the movie is as straight forward as it can get. Hollow man = bad; cop = good; gorgeous, rich and smart scientist = trophy. Now, of course the government is behind it.

As a parenthesis, it's the second US movie I'm seeing tonight and in which the idea of the government covertly doing bad things is tacitly accepted in both of them. I mean, OK, it is plausible that a great deal of power will corrupt a great deal, but to accept it as normal, let it slide? What do these people get in their water?

Well, in the end, can you guess what happens? It's not rocket science, you know. In conclusion it is a completely average recipe movie.

I would have loved an invisible man movie that takes into account not just the physics involved, but also character development, the possibility that the man is not bad and not good, just as normal people, true invisible fantasy scenes, I mean, naked women, violent acts, etc. After all, the original Invisible Man story was about power that corrupts, not a power struggle.


Just watched this film last night, a waste of time really. The film was highly predictable, not too much action in the middle and poorly acted and directed. It felt like a rushed cash in on the original, yet came out six years later ! Peter Facinelli is not a movie star and should remain on TV, none of the other actors made an impression either and Christian Slater was there just for the paycheck.

It had some reasonable moments but they were few and far between. I would have thought they would have put more effort into coming up with a better script and cast. Unless you are a really die hard fan of the original and feel it is your duty to sit though this, then I recommend you choose something else to watch as this will be a waste of your time.


This heading was a joke. Slater is invisible in most of the film, and I doubt it is he who performs the invisible stunts where people are ridiculously thrown about and killed all through the movie. It is a shame that sequels only follow up the horror and the violence, the first movie was quite interesting at least during the first half, with impressive special effects on Kevin Bacon and the gorilla. The same fate befell "Final Destination" where the first movie raised lot of interesting philosophical questions, and the sequels were crap.

The best indicator for this film is the small number of people who have bothered to watch it and/or give their vote. Always a pleasure to watch Facinelly, though, although he could choose better films to participate in.


Don't let Hollow Man 2 lure you in if you liked the first. This film was absolutely horrible with its one-dimensional characters, and also its boring storyline. What this film really needed was three things. It needed more gore because Hollow Man 2 was too watered down. It needed another actor to play the villain because, let's face it, Christian Slater is bad at acting. And also needed to at least try to make itself better than the average horror sequel. I mean really, the first film was pretty good because it actually tried and succeeded in being entertaining. Hollow Man 2 doesn't really try to entertain us, it's just another on of those Direct-to-Video-Cash-Ins that will try to make money off the original. So may I ask, "Has the world had enough of these re-hashed, stupidly stupefying horror sequels? Maybe so but guess what, Hollywood just keeps making them. When will they learn?" 0 out of 4.


Det. Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) and his partner Lisa Martinez (Sarah Deakins) are sent to protect pretty scientist Dr. Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan), who holds the formula for 'The Buffer', the top secret serum psychopathic special-forces assassin Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) needs to stay alive. The only problem: Griffin is invisible!

The makers of Hollow Man 2 clearly didn't have the budget of the original: bad guy Griffin (Christian Slater) is invisible from the outset, saving a bundle on 'gradually disappearing human' CGI effects. But despite being strapped for cash, there really is no excuse for such a lame sequel, which suffers from a lacklustre plot, dull performances, and most surprisingly, a lack of trashiness. If only director Claudio Fäh had taken a leaf or two out of executive producer Paul Verhoeven's book and ladled on the excess, HM2 would have been a hell of a lot more entertaining (blood, guts and boobies don't cost the earth, but are guaranteed crowd pleasers).

As it stands, HM2 is predictable straight to DVD junk that offers very little to fans of the first film: what effects there are have a distinctly cheap look; Slater phones in the majority of his performance (he only actually appears in a brief flashback); the script and direction are bland; and the film ends rather abruptly with the highly trained Griffin being defeated all too easily by Turner.

Worse still, the only scene that showed any potential for genuine sleazea pair of randy teenagers making a home made porn video discover that Griffin is in their roomis suddenly dropped without any kind of resolution. Did Griffin kill the kids? Did he join in for a kinky invisible man threesome? Who knows? One thing is for sure: Verhoeven wouldn't have let the opportunity to show us what happened slip through his fingers so readily.


Kevin Bacon and Christian Slater worked their way up in the Hollywood ranks at roughly the same time. Sort of like Jeff Daniels and Bill Pullman. Or Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. But there's no excuse for having Slater stand in for Bacon in this dull sequel to HOLLOW MAN. A government killer is on the loose, and he's invisible. A detective and a scientist are trying to deal with the situation, but end up on the run from the mad killer. That's about all she wrote. This is a Canadian-lensed quickie, and unlike the original, the "invisible man" scenes are laughable instead of scary. Slater has appeared in some real dogs in his career, but this one takes top prize. It's actually a waste to have a guy like Slater, who can act when he wants to, attached to this in-name-only sequel, but Hollywood was thinking name value. If you can't get Bacon back, why not use Slater? Dumb logic. The dialog is atrocious, too. Skip it. I hate to think of how many millions of dollars were thrown away on this puppy.


At the end of the day,i have seen worse,but also a lot better,Facinelli and Regan do well in their roles,and for Christian Slater,he yet again made this movie worthwhile for me,despite the fact you only hear his voice.It doesn't really get your immediate attention,but if you be patient i think you will agree that this movie is actually worth watching.I particularly enjoyed the scene outside of Regans house,smart effects with the flash grenades,i gave this movie a rating of 7/10,which i feel it deserves.I read a comment from another user that has the opinion that Christian Slater cant act!Which is an insult to myself,i own every Movie that Christian Slater is in except Name Of The Rose!And i can ASSURE you that this man is a Very talented actor.


(Warning; Spoiler. skip to the last paragraph) this is just my opinion, but the first movie, up until Kraine (Bacon) changed the passwords on the lab doors, the movie was all about what we'd do (or what we'd fantasize about doing, anyway) if we were invisible. After that point, however, the movie basically becomes a rip-off of Alien.

In hollow Man II, they basically skipped all the Paul Verhoven stuff and went directly into the Alien rip-off. This makes about as much sense as making a re-make of "the Wizard of Oz" and focusing on what Uncle Henry and Aunty Em are doing while Dorothy is asleep. there's only two scenes in which a female takes her clothes off, and then Christian Slater doesn't even really do anything to them.

In the first movie, Kevin Bacon is actually there all the time, and he becomes "visible" in several ways; blood splatter, water, plugs on head, infrared, manipulating objects (and body parts) etc. Even when he's wearing a latex mask you can clearly see both that he is there and that he isn't. In hollow Man II, Christian Slater is often just a voice-over and the other actors are just miming. At one point, Christian Slater is wearing a ski mask with eye holes, and the female scientist sprays him in the eyes with yellow spray paint (the SAME spray paint she already used to see his vein) and yet, for some odd reason, the spray paint only made the mask yellow around the holes, it didn't make his eyelids visible.

You don't even see the actual anatomic transformation, You do see; Slater washing some blood of his face with tap water, two invisible guys fighting in the rain, footsteps on grass and carpets, but nothing even close to the sleeping redhead in the first movie. Most of the "Effects" in Hollow Man II are no more high tech and nowhere near as clever as the scene where Elizabeth Shue's coke kept disappearing.

To summaries; if you liked hollow man for the same reason I did, don't waste your time with this one.


I was very disappointed at HM2. I saw this movie since I was impressed by the visual effects in HM1. I hope that the special effects will be better than the first one. However, after seeing this movie, I found that the quality of directing and visual effect look like a TV series that was made 20 year ago!! I would give the 1st one 7 out of 10 marks but only 3 to this one. What's yours?

Hollow Man

Storyline: 5 Directing: 7 Acting: 6 Visual Effect: 8.5 Overall : 7

Hollow Man II

Storyline: 3 Directing: 3 Acting: 5 Visual Effect: 2 Overall : 3


and people have been dogging me for even bothering to rent and watching this one before doing so. I'm guessing Part 1 was the better half then? Anyways, the film apparently picks up where the last one left off so it's no surprise that as the film kicks off, we notice that the invisible man is already invisible and he's going out revenging and wreaking havoc. Only this time, it's not Kevin Bacon but Christian Slater as the one scorned and trying to get even. Michael Griffin (Slater) crashes a private party and before he's done rummaging through, he murders one of the distinguished guests who turns out to be a military doctor. Before Michael pops the guy, he requests for something called a "buffer" to which the doctor tells him to track down a Dr. Maggie Dalton who is the only one who knows how to create and administer the buffers. So Michael begins to track her down, meanwhile the cops arrive on the scene and begin investigating. Det. Lisa Martinez (played by Sarah Deakins) and Det. Frank Turner (played by Peter Facinelli) are the first to arrive on the scene but to their utmost shock the FEDS arrive soon after and take over the bizarre murder case. Before they know it, the detectives are being assigned to go watch over doctor Dalton but little do they know that they're being set up. When Martinez is murdered in the line of duty, Turner takes it upon himself to protect their assignment as well as get to the bottom of the x-file-like case that contributed to the demise of his beloved partner. Jessica Harmon, William MacDonald and David McIlwraith co-star. When you see this film, you'll understand why it went straight to DVD.


An alright sequel that really stands on its own. This sequel makes little a note to the first one, remember the one with Kevin Bacon. But other then that this movie stands on its own. This movie begins with a crazed invisible man named Michael Griffin(Christian Slater), who is on the war path to get an antidote for him. He will stop at nothing, and kill anyone that gets in his way. His trails lead up to Dr. Maggie Dalton(Laura Reagen), she soon seeks protection with Detective Frank Turner(Peter Facinelli). But a certain government starts to hunt them both, cause they want to cover up what has happened to Griffin. Christian Slater was awesome in his performance has the mad invisible man. Peter Facinelli and Laura Reagen were also good. This movie had a great storyline, and great effects, and not to mention great suspense also.


this sequel to 2000's "Hollow Man"has nothing to do with the 1st one. the characters are all different.for me,this movie lacked the excitement of the 1st.i found it boring and drawn out for in many scenes.i just didn't find it compelling at all.it does not have any of the style of the 1st one,and,to me, no sense of urgency or distress.i didn't think the storyline was very good and the acting was good,but the actors weren't given much to work with.i thought the scope of the movie was too narrow,considering the subject matter.if you have an invisible man in a movie,you should expect some major implications and repercussions.i didn't see that here.it's true that many times,the sequel is not up to par with the original,but this one isn't even close.in my opinion,this movie is not even average.i give Hollow Man 2" 4/10


The far inferior "Hollow Man 2" begins with the brutal slaying of a molecular biologist by a new Hollow Man who is desperately searching of a serum that will keep him alive while invisible. Another biologist, previously working on a secret government project, is being protected by a detective who is forced to battle the transparent assassin while the government tries to track him down. As it turns out, he was a soldier who was meant to be "the ultimate weapon" for the military with a specific agenda but after neglecting to give him the serum, the whole project went awry. This sequel is far less gory than the original with much weaker effects and a very typical premise. Christian Slater plays the Hollow Man, who must have just shown up for a day of filming, some voice recording, and a paycheck. This is just a sucky part 2 and difficult movie to get into, unlike the first one. Lets hope the sequels end here... "Hollow Man" deserved a better follow-up than this...


This movie is so bad it could be on Mystery Science Theater 3000! In fact i've seen better acting and plot in soap operas. I absolutely do not recommend this movie to anyone, unless your a drunk retard. I believe a 5 year old child could come up with a better script than this movie. I would say that it was a stupid 24 rip-off, but that would be giving it too much credit. The cast was worthless I could act better drunk, on acid and asleep. To sum it all up this movie is right up there with the Ed Wood movie Plan 9 from Outer Space, but at least that movie was funny. This movie was irritating. I would give it a 0.1 rating if that were possible. The direction was poorly done, casting was terrible, Christian Slater was hardly in it. The special effects were not bad, but that does not make up for everything else that was wrong with the movie. Even if this was a made for TV movie it would still be one of the worst ever made. Whoever produced this movie has an IQ of about 45 and should never make another movie ever.


STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

When a man is mysteriously murdered at a party, a couple of homicide detectives are assigned to investigate. When they go to interview a colleague of the deceased man, they come attack from a mysterious enemy and, when his partner is killed, the male detective is pulled into the mysterious world of invisibility experiments that the man's colleague was involved in and the dark motives behind the killing.

Honestly, what did I expect with a straight to video sequel to 2000's Hollow Man? After Alone in the Dark, Christian Slater (who is barely on screen for half an hour) has become a name to definitely avoid. His wooden performance, along with a boring and unengaging storyline and laughable special effects, make this one a none-stop boreathon, even at under an hour and a half. *


Michael Griffin(Christian Slater)wants a serum called "The Buffer" which counteracts the ill-effects of invisibility. The only one with real knowledge on how to create this agent is Dr. Maggie Dalton(Laura Regan, the opening victim in "Dead Silence")whose being guarded by detectives Frank Turner(Peter Facinelli)and Lisa Martinez(Sarah Deakins)thanks to the division head of where the Invisibility project continued, Dr. William Reisner(David McIlwraith). When Lisa is killed by the homicidal Griffin(who is trying to find out the formula of the buffer agent or to kidnap Maggie), Frank wishes to know why his partner died. Reisner had used Maggie as a guinea pig to kill Michael but this plan fails and the doctor wants to know why Michael's superior, Colonel Gavin Bishop(William MacDonald)couldn't catch him when his men had the invisible maniac within their grasp. On the lam, Frank will try to keep Maggie from harm as Reisner has his goons out searching for them while they also try to stay one step ahead of an invisible pursuer who has the upper hand.

Okay direct-to-vid B-flick makes the mistake of casting Slater as the lead villain. Let's just be honest, it's not Slater's voice which makes him likable but his overall performance. If you cast an actor for whom you rarely see during a film's duration he needs to have a distinctive believable voice..Slater just doesn't cut the mustard. Facinelli is moderately interesting as the hero but nothing special. Regan as the female being pursued by everyone is adequate if unimpressive. The visual effects are decent..one standout scene has two invisible men duking it out in the rain. Instantly forgettable flick which really does nothing for Slater's sagging career. Definitely inferior to the original, but that's normally the case with a much cheaper sequel that hits DVD shelves pretty quickly.


It is not true that invisible men have to blind. It it true that light passes through the retina of an invisible man, but in most "invisible man" movies I've seen one way of locating an invisible man is using night-vision goggles witch show the sub-red part of electromagnetic spectrum. This fact suggests that whatever turned him invisible, it rendered him hollow only to so called visible part of electromagnetic spectrum with wavelenght between 380 and 780 nm. Shifting the range of wavelenght sight to sub-red (780nm to 1mm) during the process of making invisible could produce a proper seeing (or even better) invisible man.

And last but not least the invisibility in James Bond "Die Another Day" works only from a long distance and uniform background. Otherwise changing the point of view will uncover hidden object.


Well as the heading explains it, its another sci-fi horror-o-suspense mix-up. As if the first movie was not painful enough to watch, we have another one (yawn!). And yes, they don't get the chemo formula right this time either, and thats for the second time (Someone needs to take these scientists out of the lab and fire them.. twice!). Another bad blend of damsel in distress, ex special forces and a big bad corp out to get you, there you have a movie..... Its suffers from bad direction to bad acting and a worn down script. You can guess whats gonna happen next, so not much of a suspense either. In case your GF has dumped you and you having nothing better to do in life. Go ahead and watch this one....

Now I wished I could have disappeared after seeing such crap.

NM.


First I must say that I am a big Paul Verhoeven fan and when I heard that he was directing Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon (who I am also a big fan of) I was really excited. I do not need to remind people of how terrible Hollow Man turned out to be. But this direct-to-video sequel, Hollow Man II, directed by Claudio Faeh and executive produced by Verhoeven, is actually really good. So good in fact that I am looking forward to the third installment of the franchise. The special effects, production value, performances and storyline are just as good if not better than most high-budget theatrical studio films. Christian Slater makes a great bad guy but what I enjoyed most was Peter Facinelli as the hero. Who knew -- Peter is a great action hero. This is by far the best direct-to-video horror/thriller film that I have seen in a long time. It makes me think that maybe Paul Verhoeven should hang up his hat as a director and oversee the sequels to his better films, Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers. There is no argument that those franchises need as much help as they can get.


Question; who would be interested in seeing a movie called "Hollow Man II"? Answer; those who enjoyed Hollow Man I Question; Who is Hollow Man II aimed at? Answer; that's more of a mystery.

I suppose someone who liked Hollow Man enough to watch a sequel, but who hated the special effects, the sex, the violence, the science, the interesting subplots like the relationship between Bacon and Shue, the characterization, and who just liked the bit at the end which was basically a chase sequence through a tunnel. They made the same mistake with "Batman and robin", it just wasn't aimed at the same audience who liked the first Batman movie.

Paul Verhoven himself said, "If he is JUST invisible, okay, then forget the whole movie" If anyone at Sony is reading this I'll say it again;"If he is JUST invisible, okay, then forget the whole movie"

What he meant was that there's no point in just having Kevin Bacon be a voice over. He has to actually be visible somehow; plugs, water, blanket, plastic mask, blood splatter, smoke, etc.

In Hollow Man II you see exactly why Paul Verhoven said that.


While not the best movie ever made, I found the sequel to "Hollow Man" to be very entertaining. It kept my interest going except through one part (a chase scene) which seemed too long to me. (This is based on the original book "The Invisible Man" by H.G. Wells. You can read the entire book starting here: http://www.bartleby.com/1003/1.html .)

Solid acting was the trait throughout the whole caste which helped to keep the almost thin plot going and believable. Christian Slater as Michael Griffin, Peter Facinelli as Det. Frank Turner, and Laura Regan as Dr. Maggie Dalton all played their parts very well. 8/10

Also some very clever ... things happened ... which gave the movie a "notch up." :)

-LD

_____________________________________________

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33


Okay here's a great premise -- what would The Howling have been like if it was made by somebody without the talent or good sense of Joe Dante? Well, thanks to the fourth of the dire sequels, now we know. It would have sucked.

There are two good things I can say about this movie. First, it serves as a lesson about how not to adapt a book to the screen. Second, it shows how much of a great film The Howling is, simply by comparison. As it's another version of the same novel, you already pretty much know the plot ... a disturbed woman goes to a retreat of some kind in order to set her mind straight, and decides to investigate a mysterious howling in the woods. The only positive thing I'll say about the adaptation is that it retains the strong religious element from the book, which was neglected in the Joe Dante version. This movie is apparently a lot closer to Gary Brandner's novel, but it lacks any of the flavour, metaphor or subtext.

First off, you don't care about the characters. Secondly, it just isn't scary. Director John Hough may manage to stay faithful to the book like some kind of a literary parrot, but apparently he hasn't heard of those things we call mood or pace or style ... in no way does this feel like a horror movie (it features the most un-frightening ghosts I've ever seen in a film). It's not even a particularly well-made film, and I noticed several errors in continuity. The acting isn't great, as all of the cast seem to belong on a soap opera, but by no means is that the worst thing about the movie. Also, for some odd reason all the dialogue is dubbed. Badly. And there's no excuse for it ... it just distracts you from the rest of the scene (or perhaps that was the intention). The special effects are actually very good, but unfortunately you don't see any of them until the last ten minutes of the movie when they're all thrown together in a hectic mish-mash.

Why do we need this movie? It sure beats me. There's absolutely no reason to watch it, unless you're curious about the original novel but can't be bothered to read it. Joe Dante's The Howling is superior in every single way.


Marie, a writer is seeing strange images and is sent to a small town to get away from things. But when there the delusions continue and she gets herself muddled up in a mystery to do with werewolves and a nun.

The story in this film drags on at a terribly slow pace. Just keeping the film on was difficult. It is suppose to be a werewolf film yet we don't even see one until after an hour of Marie just walking about the town and occasionally hearing howling noises coming from the woods. Some of the directing isn't too bad with a few stylish shots here and there and the acting is ok for a B movie but nothing to shout about. The film is more of a mystery than a horror but it doesn't work well as that either. The effects in the scene where Richard melts away are pretty cool and it's a very different transformation. It doesn't really make up for anything though. The doctor as a werewolf must be seen to be believed. The ending is terrible just don't even get me started on that. Terribly boring and just plain bad. The only good thing about the film is the ok effects but there are so few of them that it doesn't really help at all.

4/10


Joe Dante's The Howling is a classic Werewolf movie with some good effects and I loved it but it wasn't close to the novel and they even said so. It's still a good film. So when Clive Turner decided to do a third Howling sequel he decided to make it closer to the novel which was fine.

Howling IV is about a writer named Marie who after having a metal breakdown goes to a town called Drago with her husband Richard. Once there Marie begins to hear howling noises from outside, her husband think's she's making it all up due to her breakdown and the townsfolk are not too concerned about the noises. Soon an ex-nun arrives and tells Marie about a friend of her's that was attacked in Drago and Marie has seen her in her mind. The two soon go off searching for info about the town's history.

Her husband soon catches an eye on the art owner who resembles a similar look to Marsha from The Howling. After meeting her again in the woods she changes into a Werewolf and bites. After telling Marie it was a wolf that attacked him the next day he tells her he fell and scratched is shoulder.

Soon her nun friend discovers that the town people are Werewolves and hurries to warn Marie, meanwhile Marie's publisher Tom also tries to warn Marie but sees Richard in the road thriving in pain. He tries to help him only to get killed by a Werewolf in the bushes. It's not long before Marie and the ex-nun hide in the bell tower where Marie must wait outside while she summons the Werewolves with the bell.

Doing so Marie has no choice but to burn the tower with her friend, and after looking at the burnt body of her husband a Werewolf jumps out at her.

Although I haven't read the novels reading the reviews and seeing the film gives me a clue what the novel is like. Howling IV isn't a bad film, the transformation is kind of good and the Werewolf in the tower isn't that bad. The one thing is that the Werewolves don't show themselves until the final twenty minutes of the movie but I wasn't that bothered. I enjoyed the film.

I also love that theme song "Something evil, something dangerous"


She Bitch, The Marsupials, were horrible sequels, and part IV was a disaster. So producers tried to copy the winning formula of "The Howling" and use it in "The Original Nightmare". The result is a mess, a disaster.

Think about the original Howling, but with different and less likable characters, a less interesting setting, poorly done f/x, and a not so good plot.

"The Original Nightmare" is a dull version of "The Howling" disguised as a sequel. The acting is horrid except for Romy Windsor who seemed to have a bright future because of her looks and decent acting skills. The direction is dull, boring, and does not offer anything for the viewer. The f/x as I mentioned, are poorly done and have nothing to do with the original. Ugh. The gore is laughable and I won't even talk about the beasts.

Please, my advice is, avoid this horrid sequel. It's truly one of the worst sequels to any movie. Not to mention that it has one of the most horrible endings in the history of Horror! The look of Romy Windsor's face in the last scene summons the whole movie.


Howling IV starts out decent enough, but by the end of the film it degrades to something less than average. The main problem with this movie is its very slow pace. Those looking for action-packed werewolf sequences will not find it here. In fact, you don't even see a werewolf until almost the end of the movie. This could have been excusable, if there was enough suspense to make the viewer want to keep watching until the end. Unfortunately, the audience's suspense is replaced with impatience. I kept looking at the clock, wondering when a werewolf would actually show up. When the werewolves finally do make their grand entrance, it is disappointing. They consist of: A) dogs with red eyes and B) actors in cheesy masks. And the transformation sequence of a human into a werewolf - something the original Howling was famous for - is bizarre and goofy in this movie. Recommendation: see it for free on TV if nothing else is on, but don't bother renting.


Howling IV: The Original Nightmare tells the tale of Los Angeles based author Marie Adams (Romy Windsor) who has a deadline looming but has also been suffering from bad dreams & hallucinations of a mysterious nun, after a public breakdown her doctor advises her husband Richard (Michael T. Weiss) to take her on a break, a complete rest form work. Richard agrees & rents a cottage just outside a small town called Drago, once there the place seems perfect, beautiful idyllic scenery & pleasant townsfolk. However Marie's opinion soon changes as her visions continue & she is terrified by constant howling at night. One day a nun named Janice (Susanne Severeid) visits Marie & tells her about her friend sister Ruth (Megan Kruskal) who was found in the area wondering the woods rambling incoherently, sister Ruth died shortly after & Janice is determined to discover the truth. Janice then mentions that sister Ruth talked about hearing howling noises which peaks Marie's interest & she decides to help Janice in her search for answers. As Marie & Janice investigate they uncover some dark secrets that townsfolk of Drago would rather keep hidden & are prepared to kill to do so...

This English production was directed by John Hough & Howling IV: The Original Nightmare was the fourth entry in the Howling series of films which currently number seven, I can't say it's a particularly good good film but at least it's 100 times better than the dire Howling: New Moon Rising (1995) which was about as much fun as being anally raped with a large vegetable. The script by Clive Turner & Freddie Rowe is based on the Howling novels by Gary Brandner takes itself extremely seriously & for the most part is pretty slow going for about 70 minutes with virtually no indication that this film is indeed about Werewolves, one is neither seen nor the word Werewolf mentioned for over an hour. The film builds itself up as a mystery with the events that surround sister Ruth & Marie's visions dominating proceedings. Talking of Marie's visions they are never explained fully, are they hallucinations? Are they visions of past events? Are they psychic images or just her imagination? Don't expect to find out. Also why does Richard change his story at the end from being bitten by a large wolf to falling down a gully? I found the story decent, I'd have liked some proper attack scenes but the mystery elements actually kept me watching through to the end, it ain't the best film ever but I found it watchable if nothing else.

Director Hough doesn't distinguish himself, the film feels like it was made-for-TV & while Howling IV: The Original Nightmare doesn't suffer from that indignity it has the dubious honour of going straight-to-video & you can see why. Notorious producer Harry Alan Towers broke anti-apartheid sanctions to film it in South Africa on the cheap & the location makes for a poor California. Forget about any gore, a few bites, a decapitated dog's head & a really impressive special effect where a man graphically melts & from the resulting puddle of goo a Werewolf emerges, I'm not sure why but it's a cool scene anyway.

Technically Howling IV: The Original Nightmare is OK, it's a bit flat & forgettable although a few of the special effects are pretty good. The acting isn't great but it's OK.

Howling IV: The Original Nightmare isn't anything special, until the last 20 odd minutes you'd never know you were watching a Werewolf film. It tries to build an air of mystery but the problem is you know you're watching a film called Howling IV: The Original Nightmare which is a sequel in a series of film all about Werewolves so when they finally do make an appearance it's far from surprising. Too slow for most I'd have thought, probably best to give this one a miss, not the worst Howling film but by no means the best either.


I've seen many sequels of the original Howling (can't keep track how many actually) but this had my mouth drop wide open right after the first few minutes of it. The concept is almost exactly the same as in the first installment but this one sticks quite firmly to the original book. But it's pretty much like watching the first movie remade by bunch of talentless amateurs (probably even retarded ones).

The acting is worse than i've ever seen before. And to stay awake through the whole movie you should not have seen the first because it kinda gives EVERYTHING away. Bad camera work, bad screenplay with cheesy lines with every possible clichés in it. And on top of all this: Extra low budget. Low budget doesn't mean the movie automatically sucks. It's not worth making a movie with very little money unless you're clever and creative. These guys were not.

Usually this kind of super-sucking low budget b-movies make you laugh and deserve some credit as "Hilarious and good bad-b-movies". But no, this one doesn't and i cannot recommend it to anyone, not even the howling fans.

One star for cool latex-gore effects in the end.


I certainly was surprised to see Michael T. Weiss in this dirty dog of a movie! SPOILERS: I guess this must have been the low-point of his life. Weiss plays the husband of a visibly older woman who is a writer that just had a nervous breakdown. That mental health issue is pretty much useless as a plot twist in this movie, since it is pretty obvious from the get-go that the townies are hiding something. The fact that there are no children, dogs, cats, or other pets in the entire town might be a hint that something is not normal. The cranky & suspicious attitude of the townies might be another hint. One dumb plot-hole is that Weiss bought (not rented) this home in the woods, and yet neither he nor his wife had ever seen it. No doubt if they had visited the town before buying the house, this dumb movie would not have been necessary. Amazingly, there is one town tramp who is constantly dropping hints at Weiss. After a few days of Weiss hearing his wife complain about howling noises, Weiss visits the town slattern and she immediately drops her skirt and seduces Weiss. Of course, the next night when Weiss visits the townie in order to commit adultery, she bites him. Later Weiss turns into a big pile of goo and then reconstitutes himself as a Werewolf. The scene is similar something from DEAD ALIVE, including a loose eyeball dropping out of the skull. The Town Doctor rips open his visibly latex jaw and becomes the head Wolfie and a few other guys transform, and the rubber masks being pushed into place are less than amazing special effects. Meanwhile, as Marie and her Husband had drifted apart, a former Nun who is looking for information about the death of her Nun friend meets Marie, and they hit it off. The two women figure out that the town is full of Werewolves, and that the key to killing them all is by ringing the bell in the Tower of Drago (imported from Drago, Transylvania stone-by-stone). Thanks to a handy candle, Marie torches the Tower with all the Wolfies inside, and her friend too. Everyone dies except Marie. This movie is dreadfully monotonous and even the various (mild) sex scenes have absolutely nothing in the way of chemistry or titillation. Someone pointed out that the most charming character in this movie was Marie's dog, and it is true. The dog seemed to be the only one having fun, and sadly, the dog was eaten early into the movie.


Djeez.....

This movie is, without a doubt, one of the WORST I have ever seen.

After watching "gems" like House V, Hide and go Schriek or Berserker, I thought it could not get any worse, but it did.

First (and most important of all) this movie is so S-L-O-W, nothing happens in the first 60-70 minutes, except for a anxious woman hearing sounds, and her husband cheating her with the local grocery ho.

And then after a long and sleepy hour, at last some werewolves appear (hello are you still awake, it took me a lot of coffee to achieve that) and then there is some action.

This movie is such a utterly waste of time and money, that I wonder what idiot invested money in this atrocious product, that person was not sober, I'm sure.

In other words, this movie is a wothless piece of junk, and I'm surprised that it doesn't rank among the 100 worst movies on this site, allthough I cannot believe there are enough crazy people who watched this miss-product.

Howling IV sure was a nightmare, in the negative sense of the word, and I warn everyone, do not spend your time or money on this one!


This movie sucks...A LOT. This movie ranks #2 on my worst movies list (The first one of course, being Hard Rock Zombies). I'm not the biggest fan of the Howling Series, but, just because this movie was horrible doesn't mean I'm not gonna try to finish the series. I liked 1, 3, and 6 and I have yet to see 2, 5 and 7 (I hear 7 is much worse than this)

The movie is about an author named Marie (Played by Romy Windsor) who after a nervous breakdown, is sent to the town of Drago, along with her husband Richard. What they don't know is that Drago is haunted...By werewolves, which we don't see on-screen until somewhere towards the end. How droll.

I feel that summarzing this movie is just as tough as watching it, again. I would rather eat my own feces and snot and down it with milk mixed with Kraft EZ Cheeze (I'm lactose intolerant btw) and Clorox and Drano than have to watch this stupid crap again. The song "Something Evil, Something Dangerous" performed by Justin Hayward from The Moody Blues can't even save this. Even worse, the song sounds so damn familiar to the Deadtime Stories theme by Taj (Deadtime Stories is really good 80s cheeze btw) After getting this out of the DVD player, I just smashed the disc into tiny little pieces, which is what this sewage leak of a movie deserves. Hard to believe that John Hough, the man who directed Disney Favorites like Witch Mountain and Watcher in the Woods. This "movie" could also be seen as a very boring 2-hour infomercial for Coca- Cola, as there's a good amount of product placement in there for Coke. Avoid at all costs. I wish I could give this a zero, but I'll just have to settle with a one.


The original film made in 1981, The Howling had so much going for it that it was a great film. This entry tried to repeat with almost the same plot, different names and professions and a different outcome but it had nothing that makes it worthwhile to watch again. No humor and no sense in having the lead woman playing a writer instead of a TV reporter being helped by a dead nun? The one cute character had a very small role, the family poodle that dead. This one must be real bad if I liked the dog better than the people!


The Best movie I saw in my all life Great actors Great Story just Great...


I personally, thought the "The Howling IV" was better than the original "Howling", which it is obviously a remake of. The special effects were better and more graphic, and it was more erotic. There was more of a story line and it was less confusing. Not bad.


First and foremost: how can "part 4" of anything be an "original"? This is actually closer to the book that Gary Brandner wrote that was the basis for the first movie, but being close to the book doesn't make this movie any good.

A real sleeping pill about a woman recovering from a trauma, sent to a wilderness retreat, finding that nearly everyone there is a werewolf. Nothing happens in this entire movie, just a lot of yawning from the audience ...

This looks like it could have been a TV movie ...

1/2 a star out of ****


Because I loved "The Howling", I decided to try this one. While it was a very suspenseful film, with lots of moody atmosphere, it went on forever without anything happening. I mean, I believe in character development, but this took it to extremes...actually only an inch or so away from boredom. When the werewolves finally do show up, they weren't all that bad, but they were only seen for a few minutes. In all seriousness, this film is even worse than the "American Werewolf in London/Paris" flicks. Instead of wasting your money renting this turkey, watch "Bad Moon", "The Werewolf" (the 1950's Steven Rich version) or "Dog Soldiers"...those are really outstanding werewolf movies.


I've seen a lot of campy horror films. Heck, I'm a fan. They're funny. But this... it was awful. And not in that good way, but in that very bad way. I couldn't even laugh at it. It was absolutely painful to watch. So you may be wondering why... well for starters there are a bunch of ridiculous make-up effects. These effects aren't bad at all, they're good. Just pointless. When people change into warewolves it makes you think, "what the hell is going on?" instead of "man that's creepy". Then there's the horrendous dialog and acting. It sounds like they're reading a phone book when they should be sounding scared and anxious. The plot is also bad, like it's a re-make of the original howling only oversimplified and dumbed down to an annoying degree.

I recommend you not watch this... but if you want to, try and see how far you can get before you throw the remote at the TV.


Even though I am a werewolf horror genre fan, I thought this was terrible. This has got to be the worst in the Howling series. It's not interesting, and the acting is poor. It starts out as a mystery, but it doesn't bring up very many interesting ideas. My score: 2/10


I noticed that four people (as of this review) have rated Howling IV a 10/10. I wish one of those people would write a review. The movie I saw was boring. I have never read any of the books that these movies are based on, so maybe part IV is a more faithful adaptation than the first movie. But I felt like it took out all the interesting elements from the first Howling, left the boring stretches, and then added in some new boring elements. I guess the makers of this film felt they were improving on the original, but was The Howling such a classic that it deserved a remake? If you've seen the first, you'll be familiar with the structure of part IV: A writer is stressed out, so she and her husband go to a small town to relax. She's having weird visions/nightmares and always hears howling late at night. Her husband thinks she's silly and so do the townspeople. Anyway, she meets a fan of her literary work and the two begin to investigate the town's history and residents. You can probably guess what happens. I was just horribly bored. At least the first three movies weren't this boring. Well, actually, part two was. The subtitle "The Original Nightmare" is very amusing to me. How can this, part four, be the "original" anything? It's the fourth one! I think they should have called this movie Howling IV: Part One Again.


Howling IV (1988) is simply awful. This direct to video movies makes part three a cinema classic. Although the film-makers went back to producing a sleazy film (like part two). The results are pretty bad. They followed the tone of part two too closely. The resulting product is a bore. The acting is bad, the directing is bad, the storyline is bad and the cinematography is....you guessed it! Bad!! There's nothing worth noting about this movie. The actors are not pleasant to look at. Not one slightly attractive woman. The werewolf head was badly constructed. In one scene it looks like one of the eyes in it was burned out. Somebody should do more than one take!

Like I already stated, this movie is nearly unwatchable. I can't find one thing I enjoyed about this movie. Well, I lied. The best part was the end! When I saw the credits roll I immediatly took the tape out and sent it back to the video store. I was afraid it might make my VCR sick!

Not recommended.

F

P.S. I've seen worse believe me. Like The Strangers. But at least there was a part in that film that made it entertaining and the actresses were easy on the eyes.


There is certainly nothing original or creative about this film....more than an hour passes before you even get to see a werewolf...the movie seems to consider the "existence" of werewolves a very shocking revelation but you're not likely to agree. Totally pedestrian, with low-grade special effects. (*1/2)


A friend of mine was hesitant to see this movie, because she'd heard that it pushes the agenda that divorce is never a good option for dealing with marital problems. I don't really know who told her this, and I hope this same reason isn't keeping others from seeing it. This isn't at all what I took away from the film. It certainly communicates the idea that divorce isn't easy, on either the parents or the kids, but I don't feel that it pronounces judgement on those who turn to it as an option.

"The Squid and the Whale" is a sad--though at times very funny--look at what divorce does to one family in 1986 New York. Jeff Daniels plays the dad, a pompous, arrogant writer whose feelings of commercial failure (he teaches literature at a university) cause him to act intellectually superior to everyone he meets. Daniels is almost too good in this role; he reminded me way too much of people I actually know who are like this. He's the kind of guy who would be deadly at a dinner party, because there's no such thing as a casual or flippant remark in this guy's presence. He analyzes everything to death, and isn't content until everyone's opinion matches his own.

Laura Linney plays the wayward mom, blamed for the break up of the marriage by the dad because of a string of affairs she carries on. Her guilt keeps her from being able to discipline her sons, especially the oldest, who treats her horribly. Linney's role is smaller but in some ways much more complex than Daniels'. Her character has to take responsibility for her infidelity but still make the audience sympathize with her.

Caught in the middle of this mess are their two boys. The oldest quickly allies himself with his dad, and walks around regurgitating his father's opinions on every subject, rarely pausing to form any of his own. The younger son, more sensitive and tired of being intellectually brow beaten by his father and older brother, sticks closer to the mom. No one is totally to blame, yet no one is completely innocent either in this honest and frank film.

Noah Baumbach has made no secret of the fact that it is based on his own adolescent life, and it has that confessional feeling that movies in this genre frequently do. There are awkward moments when this doesn't totally work. The ending for one is rather ham-fisted, and a scene between the oldest son and his school therapist seemed awfully pat to me. But the acting and the sharp writing make up for these weaknesses, and the movie manages to be poignant without ever becoming maudlin or overly sentimental.

See it for the performances of Linney and especially Daniels, who has been proving his versatility as an actor over the last few years.

Grade: A-


Noah Baumbach takes a loving (oh?) stab at his parents' divorce, brought on by the hilariously immature antics of his father, and my writing professor, the ever pompous Jonathan Baumbach (Jeff Daniels).

Brooklyn College was a hotbed of activism and liberal arts when I first encountered Jonathan Baumbach (rechristened "Bernard" in the film, a sly wink at Jonathan's mentor and hero, Bernard Malamud). The arrogance and complete lack of self awareness is perfectly captured by Daniels in his over-the-top performance which, amazingly, underplays the actual father.

To call the picture patricidal is to completely miss the point; Baumbach pere is so self centered, he likely sees the film as an homage. Baumbach Sr. is a great writer; he receives good reviews in the literary journals and his books sell in the hundreds. Baumbach Jr., on the other hand, is a great filmmaker, and his movies (The Life Aquatic) are seen by millions. I'm sure the father is disappointed that the son isn't pursuing tenure at a small Ohio college.

I saw this film in a cozy college theater at the Toronto Film Festival. I half expected to run into Jonathan Baumbach, in his leather patched tweed jacket, preening for the audience and eying the coeds.

Funny and poignant. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll want to choke the bastard.


Greetings again from the darkness. Writer/Director (and Wes Anderson collaborator) Noah Baumbach presents a semi-autobiographical therapy session where he unleashes the anguish and turmoil that has carried over from his childhood. The result is an amazing insight into what many people go through in a desperate attempt to try and make their family work.

The casting of Jeff Daniels forces us to view him as the grown up Flap from "Terms of Endearment". He has become a bitter, unfocused, pompous ass of a person, father, husband and professor. The inability to recapture the magic of his early writing success has caused him to look down on all other writers ... whether they be Fitzgerald or his own wife. This is Daniels' best work ever on screen and is at once, painful and a joy to behold.

Laura Linney plays his wife as a woman who loves her kids unequivocally and has a zest for life that her downbeat husband no longer shares. Her new found success as a writer sets her off on a trail of confidence and joy, all the while understanding that her family still needs her very much.

The kids really take the film to the next level. Jessie Eisenberg (brilliant in "Roger Dodger") and Owen Kline (son of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates) are both scene stealers as they struggle in their own distinct ways with their separated parents and their continuance through adolescence. Watching Eisenberg's worship his dad and subsequently realize the truth is just amazing stuff. Kline's outbursts on the tennis court and at the ping pong table are nothing compared to his discovery of alcohol and self-pleasure. The angst and pain these two experience is felt by millions of kids in divorce situations.

Other outstanding performances include William Baldwin (the one from "Backdraft"), Holly Feifer (as Eisenberg's first girlfriend) and Anna Paquin (underused, but still very effective). Baldwin provides some comic relief with his incessant "my brother" narrative and Feifer is extraordinary in capturing teen adoration as she lusts after Eisenberg. Thanks to her distinct similarity in looks to Linney, I laughed outloud when Daniels tells Eisenberg "she's not my type".

Listening to Daniels try to manipulate everyone he communicates with causes immense dislike among viewers, but we can't help but feel some empathy for him as he seems to believe he is doing all he can do put his family back together. His fatherly advice is not to be missed (or followed!). Watching him look for the perfect parking place is really his search for his place in a world that has deserted him.

Baumbach has created a terrific film and probably exorcised some personal demons along the way. Definitely not a film for the whole family, but it offers much insight and many messages. Also the use of the soundtrack is downright brilliant including key music from Pink Floyd and Loudon Wainright.


More acutely than I've experienced in a long time, this film captures the process of personality inheritance within families. The interaction/influence between Bernard and Walt is almost painful to watch at times, but it's completely rich. Beyond just that father/son dynamic, the story is so poignant without ever getting sappy - a true accomplishment for a family drama involving divorce. Nothing hits you over the head. Nothing seems too forced. While there's plenty of confusion, discomfort, and alienation, a sense of love shines through, and I couldn't help but get attached to all of the characters. I recommend this film unconditionally.


Almost a perfect movie. Everyone needs to see this one.

Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney are both extraordinary. Factor in the performances of Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline and this may be the most well-acted movie I've seen in a couple of years.

I've never enjoyed watching Daniels so much. Kline hits a home-run in his first major role. Eisenberg's performance is Oscar-worthy. (Yes, Daniels is great, but Eisenberg earns a Best Supporting Actor nomination in this one!)

What I enjoyed most of all is how some very, VERY delicate humor is brilliantly woven throughout this incredibly sad movie.

Cheers to Noah Baumbach for putting his life on paper and letting these terrific actors tell the tale.

That's it. Thanks for reading.


It's interesting to read all of the comments and how each reviewer has found something unique that calls to them. Some reviewers have focused on the boys or the father or the mother. Different scenes have been noted, almost none by more than one reviewer. What this tells me is that the writer/director has crafted a story in which all of the scenes contribute to the whole. This was my experience watching the movie. It was believable, well shot, great backgrounds, all in all a treat for anyone who loves movies and can handle some pretty raw dialog/situations.....and nothing gets blown up.

I would recommend this only for adults or a very mature teenager. The language and situations are tough but as I said, very believable. I identified with much of what the teens in this movie are going through and my sympathies definitely sided with them against their self-involved and self-indulgent parents. This is the best role I've ever seen Jeff Daniels in and having known men in my life like his character I think he was spot-on with his portrayal. There were no weak characterizations with any of the actors, for that matter.


MGM put together these three stories of passengers on board a ship remembering three recent romances that all ended rather differently for the protagonists. The three passengers are James Mason, Leslie Caron, and Kirk Douglas and each one had things turn out quite differently.

The first story The Jealous Lover concerns ballet impresario James Mason and his protégé Moira Shearer. The story is a bit of condensed version of her film, The Red Shoes. Shearer is the greatest ballerina of her time, greater than even her aunt and teacher Agnes Moorehead, but she has a congenitally weak heart. As for Mason who is it he really loves, the woman or the ballerina?

The second story, Mademoiselle, could have served as the inspiration for the Tom Hanks movie Big. Leslie Caron is the French governess of a rich American kid, Ricky Nelson, who's both spoiled and bored with his French lessons and eager to grow up. A visit to a neighbor Ethel Barrymore who's a witch in her spare time grants him a few hours until midnight as a grownup, in this case as Farley Granger. He's everything the love lost Caron could hope for.

The last story is Equilibrium with former circus trapeze artist Kirk Douglas saving Pier Angeli from drowning herself in the Seine. He lost a partner in a circus accident years ago and despaired of ever finding someone and returning to the circus. Angeli may just have the right stuff to be that partner, but Douglas is also looking at her in more than a professional way.

Equilibiium got the most acclaim, Kirk Douglas and Pier Angeli were given a film of their own, Act Of Love, later to do. I liked all three of the stories, they were stylishly written and performed. Vincente Minnelli did the second story, Gottfried Reinhardt directed the first and third.

All three stories end rather differently so you can expect quite a roller-coaster for your emotions. But the ride is well worth it.


(Spoiler warning: Please don't read this unless you have already seen this movie or don't care about spoilers.)

It's an anthology of three stories. In the first one, a ballet dancer is forbidden to dance because she has health problems. But when a famous ballet director (who doesn't know about her health problems) asks her to dance for him because he seeks inspiration in order to improve his latest production, she can't resist the temptation... It's the story of a love that can't be fulfilled. I liked James Mason as the ballet director, and I was impressed by Moira Shearer's dancing, although I'm not generally a great fan of ballet dancing. And I love the music they used for the soundtrack, the 'Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini' by Sergei Rachmaninoff.

Next in sequence there is the story of a teacher (played by Leslie Caron) who hasn't known love yet. It's in the style of a fairy tale. Young Tommy (played by Ricky Nelson), the boy she teaches, becomes an adult for a few hours (through witchcraft). He meets his teacher and they fall in love, but when his spell as an adult is over, their love has to end. But the teacher has changed, and when she later meets another man, she might find lasting love... So it's the story of a love that might be fulfilled. I liked both the story and the actors.

The last story makes the sequence complete. It's the story of a love that is fulfilled. I liked Kirk Douglas very, very much; I found him very convincing as Pierre Narval, a disillusioned and retired aerial acrobat. I also liked Pier Angeli; she plays Nina Burkhardt, a woman who is so disillusioned she tries to commit suicide. But she is saved by Pierre, who later asks her to become his partner for his comeback. They are both haunted by memories of their past; Nina thinks she is responsible for the death of her husband, and Pierre probably feels he is responsible for the death of his former partner, although he says it was an accident. Pierre trains Nina. They fall in love, but then there is a very dangerous stunt they have to perform without a safety net...

I liked the third story best. The others weren't as good in my opinion, but I have still given ten points because I think that somehow (forgive the worn-out phrase) the whole is more than the sum of its three parts. I think the order in which the stories are told is well chosen for a sentimental love movie.

I think if you like the genre, this movie is well worth a look.


I always seek out the work of Vincente Minnelli, a director who gave us many Hollywood classics. This was an interesting film, but not an extremely compelling one.

It was all kind of predictable since you could see the handwriting on the wall: the death of Moira, the growing up of Ricky Nelson / Farley Granger, and the ultimate success of Douglas and Angeli. For example, you knew Angeli's character would not die up on the trapeze since she had already suffered the death of her husband. Finding a new love added to her happiness, so it would have been cruel to audiences back then to have her die in the end.

I have not yet seen The Red Shoes, so I was not shocked or disappointed how much the sequence resembled the earlier film. Moira and James Mason were both fine. She was a real beauty. According to the TCM host Robert Osborne, a previous film starring Mason was also used as the basis of this sequence too.

Leslie Caron is always delightful; her best performance, for me, is in Lili. As for beauty, I have never thought she was beautiful. Cute in an odd way but never beautiful. I thought she was charming. Nelson, Barrymore, and Granger were also fine.

Kirk Douglas looked Hollywood hunky and totally like a leading man, one who was almost too handsome for his own good; Angeli's performance had the doe like look of innocence she portrayed well. The trapeze sequences did look realistic, and I suspect Douglas did most of his stunts himself. He was quite the athlete, and he looked convincing in the part. Angeli also looked quite believable as well.

The film is worth seeing, even if nothing for the great stars of classic Hollywood.

I also enjoyed hearing the Paganini theme; I had loved it in Somewhere in Time as well, so I was surprised to hear it in another earlier film as well.

It's worth checking out, but not a film I think I would have the patience to see over and over.


Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" is the gorgeous music to which Moira Shearer danced her lovely ballet in the first story. It's a perfect choice for this movie (and this scene) because it's full of passion and promise. The awed & inspired look on James Mason's face as he watches her dance expresses what we, the audience, see: how dancing makes Moira's character feel. It's a moving scene and there are 3 beautiful, emotional performances: Moira Sheara, James Mason, and the music.

This Rachmaninoff piece has been featured in several movies. These include, among others: The Story of Three Loves (1953); Rhapsody (1954); Somewhere in Time (1980); Dead Again (1991); Sabrina (1995); Ronin (1998).

It's a beautiful, moving, "timeless" piece of music. It is sometimes used in period movies whose action takes place before the piece was actually written & first performed. That was in 1934.

I enjoyed this movie, in spite of the uneven script. There are some great actors giving good performances (at times melodramatic - but that's the nature of the script more than their acting abilities), plus (suprise!) a young Ricky Nelson in the only thing I remember seeing him in as a boy besides the Ozzie & Harriet TV series - and he wasn't stilted like he was on his family's show (probably good directing!!!). Some great face shots throughout, too, showing emotion that the script couldn't (using the classic face-lighting techniques that have fallen out of favor with most of today's contemporary film directors).

In spite of some beautiful and memorable scenes in this movie, I'll probably remember the way the music made me feel longer than I'll remember the rest of the movie - and it's worth watching for that alone!


See the story of three strangers as they cruise the Atlantic and remember what it's like to fall in love.

The first stars Kirk Douglas as a circus artist. A little slow for me.

The second has James Mason as a harsh ballet choreographer. Will he choose love over his career?

The third sees a pre-Tom Hanks Big really get to the heart of the matter. It's my personal favourite. Leslie Caron is a born romantic who falters having to teach a precocious brat. This one leaves you with a warm heart.

Rent (or buy) this but skip the circus story. The other two will cheer up the hardest viewer. Don't expect Hollywood all the way. It's got enough of a European flair to keep it interesting without making it heavy or difficult to follow.

Enjoy.